Hey everyone,

I'm an experienced debater with four years on the Varsity PF Circuit.

The way I judge is simple: I vote for whoever gives me the clearest and easiest path to the ballot (make it easy for me to know why you won the round).

Some advice for how to do this:

1. Signpost; tell me where you are on the flow. This means tell me what arguments you are making, what they are responding to, and how many there are (Example: I have two responses to my opponent's impact of their first contention. The first response is...). By signposting you show me that you understand the different arguments in the round and you make it easier for me to keep track of everything.

2. Weigh;give me clear weighing mechanisms (magnitude, timeframe, scope, probability, etc...) as to why your side's impacts significantly outweigh those of your opponents. This makes my life easier as a judge because you compare the two sides and don't have to make me think about which outweighs the other.

3. Weigh again; (be extremely sure to tell me why your side is better/worse/outwieghs your opponents side please!)

4. Offtime roadmaps; before each speech (after the constructive speech so starting with rebuttal) it's helpful as a judge to know the rough outline of the structure that your speech will take, that way I can anticipate what you are going to say and it's easier to keep track of. That said, if you give me an offtime roadmap before your speechplease follow itbecause otherwise there was no point to giving me one in the first place.

Be respectful to each other but you can still be aggressive. There is a difference and as a debater, I can tell between the two.

I'm comfortable with any arguments (tech over truth) and so if you tell me something and it goes uncontested by your opponents I buy it. I'm comfortable with any speed but make sure you are comfortable with that speed.

Most importantly, debate is a fun educational activity so just make sure to enjoy the round!

I do PF debate at Newton South.

key thing to win my ballot: if the word nuclear isn’t in the resolution, it shouldn’t be in your speech, my vote and your speaks will further clarify that if need be!

Onto the other stuff… I flow the round. I am nicer than my paradigm makes me seem (just don't run nuclear war).

If you want feedback, I'd be more than happy to give you some after round!

Truth ---------------------------------------------*--------------------------------- Tech

stuff (tl;dr - just be reasonable, it's called public forum for a reason)

• Be nice, do not be the person that makes the debate space an unpleasant place to be. That is not appealing.

• Don't bring up new evidence when you're not supposed too. Likewise, don't burden yourself by making your entire speech about the new responses. A simple "it's new evidence so drop it" is enough; I flow after all, let me evaluate if it's new evidence.
• 10 second grace period, then I stop flowing.
• Try to have substantive, direct responses, and stray away from responses like 'this response just doesn't make sense'

• Please time your own prep!
• Tournaments are long, so please make the round interesting/funny and ill give everyone 30's. (don't run nuclear war though)
• You're given a few minutes per speech, use all of it, it exists for a reason.
• At the end of the day, it's your round, have fun, I am just your judge! (but don't run nuclear war)

Pop quiz, should you run nuclear war?

LD:

1. Speak at a normal rate of speed; no spreading/speed talking

2. Attack & rebuttal "down-the-line" - val, crit, conts, sub point tag lines

3. Be aggressive in CX, but not belligerent

4. rebutt. Specifically why your val Trump's your opp's val.

CX:

1. Speak at a NORMAL RATE OF SPEED. If I can't understand you, I can't give you credit for args, refs, or rebutt.

2. Keep the esoteric jargon/terms/abbreviations to a minimum. ("K's" "disads", etc)

2. Hit the H.I.T.S. (Harms, inherency, topicality, solvency, )

2. I'm looking for cogent, well-exposited arguments supported w/ pertinent/rez relevant documentation.

3. Don't spend too much time on topicality unless your opp's off-topic args are egregious.

4. Neg doesn't need a c/p unless it is vital

PFD

See above

IMPORTANT: IF YOUR ROUND ENDS WITHIN 45 MINUTES OF THE STARTING TIME AUTO30S TO EVERYONE free me

For Novice/Middle SchoolPF

Hi, I'm Ryon and im a junior at Acton-boxborough and I've debated for AB for the last three years in PF.

some things to keep in mind:

• be chill in cross
• make sure you are extending the same narrative/contention/main idea in ur summary and final focus, try to mirror the speeches as closely as possible

• weighing is great. doesn't have to be too complicated just make it comparative, explain why its the arguments you are talking about are more important

have fun

p.s: make a joke in speech or cross that makes me laugh for +1 speaks, bring me snacks for 30s I give opp speaks so this is in ur best interest

p.s.2: I'll try to disclose

For VPF

Tab ras debate is a game play to win

1) Extend well

2) I eval best weighed impact and then look for best link into that impact. if none exists I do my own weighing and eval from there or presume depends on my mood

3) Will evaluate prog cool with all that stuff just go slower

4) Have fun

p.s: if both teams agree you can stake the round on something other than debate

type shi

p.s. ill always disclose

Hi!

My Name is Leif and I am a sophomore at Bronx Science.

Some things to note:

• Give me a clear place to vote
• Weigh!!
• Clearly respond to your opponents' link chain
• Extend your main points throughout all of your speeches
• Speak clearly and give emphasis
• I will vote off the flow
• Cross won’t factor into my decision, so if you want me to to vote off something from there make sure it’s in your speeches
• Lastly, have fun! At the end of the day debate is just a game :)
• Let me know if you have any questions before the round

make Eminem reference in your speech=+0.5 speaks

general stuff (tl;dr) :

• I'm annie. I do debate. LHS '24//UChicago '28 (btw I know nothing about sports. this doesn't make me more likely to vote one way or another but if you're debating the student athlete topic just know I'm about as well-educated on that as your average hermit)

• My job is to adapt to you! This paradigm gives you a guide to my default style but if you have any preferences feel free to ask me to adapt to them. This is just here so I seem like a serious person :)

• Don’t be a jerk! I understand rounds can be heated, but there’s no need to get mad over the US sending things to alaska. Also, if your actions end in -ist, I’ll be the destructionist of your speaks

• No need to speed! The best rounds are tech rounds that are still at a conversational pace, now I can flow faster rounds but if you choose to go fast make sure you are clear (NOTE: Spread at your own risk. Stay 250 wpm or below, lest you want me to not flow something)

• Tech>truth: This means that I will be okay with voting on any arguments as long as they aren’t problematic or exclusionary, if the argument wins on the flow I will sign my ballot for it

• Ask Questions! There might be a bit of jargon in my paradigm that might not be easy to understand so if you aren’t sure how to do something, need clarification on certain parts of my paradigm, or want feedback after the round I’ll be more than happy to help!

• I like raccoons: and if you make a joke about one that would be nice, but no speaker points boost im afraid :(

Substance round:

• I evaluate rounds level by level: I start with the weighing - whose impacts are more important? Then, I ask who wins the best link into that argument? That’s where I’ll sign my ballot

• Please extend and collapse: Choose your best piece of offense (contention or turn) to go for in the backhalf, and when extending the case (giving a quick narrative summary of your argument) in summary or final, please please please actually extend the argument instead of just reading the card name ie “extend smith ‘22” is not a full extension, explain it from uniqueness to impact

• We could be weighin but you playin (in other words, please weigh!): I know this comes up a lot on paradigms, and it’s because weighing helps judges determine which impacts are more important. If both teams win links into different impacts, it’s up to weighing to determine which impact is to be prioritized

• Evidence Ethics/Calling for Evidence: I generally won’t call for evidence unless I think it’s important or if someone in the debate tells me to. I prefer evidence shared on docs because then teams won’t spend too much time sending evidence over the sub-par wifi, but it won’t affect my decision. Miscut evidence would hurt your speaks and, if miscut enough, might lose you a few arguments

• Defense is NOT sticky: sticky defense means that if a team reads defensive arguments or responses in rebuttal, second rebuttal or first summary doesn’t need to respond to it. This rule was made back when summary was only 2 minutes long but now that it’s been extended to 3 minutes there is no reason for defense to be sticky

• I presume First: If nobody wins any arguments at the end, I will presume (vote automatically) for the first speaking team. would prefer rounds not to end this way

THE REST OF THIS PARADIGM IS FOR PROGRESSIVE DEBATE! IF YOU ARE A NOVICE DON’T SWEAT IT BUT SINCE CERTAIN ASPECTS OF PROGRESSIVE DEBATE ARE SEEPING INTO NOVICE ROUNDS THIS WILL STILL BE HERE FOR REFERENCE!

Theory (if you must):

• I have no theory biases except trigger warnings are good and disclosure is good, I won’t hack for either of these but if you run theory otherwise you might want to keep that in mind

• If you make a trigger warning you should use a trigger warning form that is anonymous for respondents, I generally think that war/poverty impacts don't need trigger warnings (but you can argue otherwise and I will consider it like any other argument) but you do need trigger warnings for anything else that could be potentially triggering (feel free to ask me if you want me to clarify) eg trafficking, genocide, mental health issues, etc

• I default to competing interps and no RVIs unless told otherwise but I have no biases on this and which way I end up evaluating the round depends on what yall say

• Extend the full shell through every speech otherwise it’s considered dropped, I have very tiny threshold for “spirit of the shell” especially if it’s frivolous theory

Ks, Prefiat Framework, IVIs

• I will treat evidence challenge IVIs as round ending issues, but if I vote on an IVI I need it to be developed and warranted instead of a 3 second blip about why they should be voted down for doing X

• I am alright with prefiat frameworks but it’s better for them to be warranted in addition to the cards so the reasons why your framework means you should be voted up make sense even to debaters who aren’t familiar with prefiat arguments

• I am suspicious of “link ins are not allowed” arguments, not that I automatically vote against them but reading these arguments need a lot of good warranting for me to be open to it

• If Kritiks are read, they need to be slow and warranted, the same applies to T and perm do boths if you choose to read them in response

• If neither side wins or weighs between K and theory, I default to evaluating theory first but that changes depending on how you debate the round

• I’m not entirely comfortable voting on identity Ks against debaters of that identity, I won’t vote you down for this but it could potentially affect speaker points

Speaker Points Guide (I tend to be SUPER lenient about speaker points my coach yelled at me for giving too high speaker points so take that how you will)

29.5-30: debating was excellent, very well articulated, no big flaws in debating or strategy!

29-29.5:I thought your debating was good, maybe a few minor mistakes but nothing particularly bad

28-29: average, good debating overall but some mistakes, but not too bad (this is a pretty big range so the extent of a mistake or speaking style is going to impact where you fall on this scale)

27-28:made some pretty big strategic mistakes in this round

sub 27: There were a lot of large mistakes in this debate, or you were very unclear

I won't go below 26.5 but if you say something problematic. Then, I'm dropping your speaks to the lowest possible in the tournament .... just please don't UwU. We want to keep this a welcome space for everyone! If you feel unsafe please please please let me know ASAP - your safety is more important than a random high school debate round!

Most importantly, HAVE FUN!!!!!!!

Hi, I’m Amit! I’m a PF debater at Brooklyn Tech. I’m not too picky, but there are a few things I prefer!

email: amitkakumanu2009@gmail.com

(credit to Emma Smith for parts of this!)

How I make decisions-

I tend to vote on the path of least resistance. I feel like explicitly identifying your cleanest piece of offense in the round, winning that clean piece of offense, completely extending that clean piece of offense (uniqueness, links AND impacts in BOTH summary and final focus), and then telling me why your cleanest piece of offense is more important than your opponents' cleanest piece of offense is usually an easy way to win my ballot.

General Stuff-

- Do all the good debate things! Do comparative weighing, warrant your weighing, collapse, frontline, etc.

-- Warrants and full link chains are important! I can only vote on arguments I understand by the end of the round and won't do the work for you on warrants/links. Please do not assume I know everything just because I've probably judged some rounds on the topic.

- I won't read speech docs, so please don't sacrifice speed for clarity.

- I have a really low threshold and 0 tolerance for being rude, dismissive, condescending, etc. to your opponents. I'm not afraid to drop you for this reason.

Evidence-

- I personally feel that calling for evidence as a judge is interventionist. I will only do it if 1- someone in the round explicitly tells me to in a speech or 2- reading evidence is literally the only way that I can make a decision (if this happens, it means both teams did a terrible job of clarifying the round and there is no clear offense for me to vote on. Please don't let this happen).

Progressive Stuff-

- I'll vote on Kritiks if they are clearly warranted, well explained, and made accessible to your opponents. (I am admittedly not a fan of K's but will vote on them if I absolutely must.)

- I will also vote on theory that is clearly explained, fleshed out, and well warranted. I believe that theory should ONLY be used to check egregious instances of in-round abuse and reserve the right to drop you for frivolous theory. I won't buy paraphrase or disclosure theory.

- If you plan on reading arguments about sensitive topics, please provide a content warning before the round.

Hi, my name is Austin Kelachukwu. I am a debater, public speaker, adjudicator and a seasoned coach.

Within a large time frame, i have gathered eclectic experience in different styles and formats of debating, which includes; British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), Australs, Canadian National Debate Format (CNDF), World School Debate Championship(WSDC), Public Forum(PF), amongst others.

As a judge, I like when speakers understand the format of the particular tournament they’re debating, as it helps speakers choose their style of speech or debating. Speakers should choose to attack only arguments, and not the opponent. I do take equity serious, so I expect the same from speakers. When speakers understand the tournament’s format, it makes things like speaker roles, creating good and solid arguments easy, so they can act accordingly, and through that understand how the judge understands the room as well.

I suppose that speakers are to understand the types of arguments that should run in the different types of motion, their burden fulfillment and other techniques used in debate.

I take note of both key arguments, and the flow at which such argument is built, so speakers shouldn’t just have the idea, but should be able to build that idea also to create easy understanding of the argument. On understanding also, i prefer when speakers speak at a conventional rate, to aid easy understanding of what the speaker says.

I appreciate when speakers keep to their roles, i.e when a summary or whip speaker knows one’s job is not to bring new arguments but to rebut, build partner’s case, and explain why they won.

I value when speakers keep to time, as arguments made after stipulated time wouldn’t be acknowledged.

Austin Kelachukwu.

email: austinkelachukwu@gmail.com

hey guys!

i'm Nain, a current debater at Newton South High School.

tech>truth!

i do flow all arguments, but I will stop flowing after a 10 second grace period. I don't flow cross :)

please don't bring in new arguments after the second summary

remember, confidence is key and take a deep breath!

(be respectful during the round and if anyone is racist/homophobic/etc, i will stop the round.)

Hi! My name is Forest Lanciloti, my pronouns are he/him/his, and I do varsity PF debate for Newton South High School. My email is flancilotiwork@gmail.com, please include me on any email chains and feel free to email me after round for more feedback.

EVERYONE

> Racism, sexism, homophobia, etc is an auto-lose + 25 speaks

> Please time yourself! But I will also time you. After the speech time ends, I will put my hand up. 10 second grace period, and then I will stop flowing.

MIDDLE SCHOOL/LUMOS:

> Your arguments should make sense and be well researched. Don't make up evidence.

> Voting

• Tech>Truth
• EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND!! The easiest way to win with me is to extend everything and WEIGH.

> Time:

• Be aware of prep time.
• Use all of your time!

> Presentation:

• Be confident, loud, and clear!
• Be nice/respectful to your opponents.
• You can speak as quickly as you want, as long as you're understandable.
• If we're in person, please stand up for your speeches.

> Content:

• No new responses after first summary. No new weighing after first final.
• Collapsing in summary is highly encouraged.

Good luck!!

P.S. Shoutout to Ariel Lin best partner

I'm a parent judge but I do have some experience as a policy (CX) debater from when I was in high school a loooooong time ago. A couple of pointers that I hope will be useful:

• I think I could handle some spreading but check with the other team first and be articulate.
• Make sure to signpost. Please list your contentions and impacts.
• When rebutting, please reference those signposts, I use a ridiculously large flow sheet but need your help to keep it organized!
• While I tend to be tech>truth, if you are unclear or disorganized it won't help you
• Please weigh - I am quantitative but you need to also take into account probability and timeframe.
• I will not tolerate any racism, sexism, harassment, or discrimination. Be courteous and professional with one another, especially during cross-x. You will be dinged if you are rude or abusive.
• Please include me in the email chain or doc share using alexlin.pf@gmail.com.

Most importantly, have fun! Debate is a great experience that provides valuable skills and wonderful memories.

I use she/her pronouns.

For some background, I'm a first year college student and I have experience in both Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas debate. Here are some of my preferences/expectations:

General Important Stuff (everyone):

Be polite! Remember that debating =/= arguing; you should not be yelling at your opponents. I'm typically generous with speaks, but if you aren't civil to your opponents, I will dock points.

If your case discusses sensitive topics, you must read a trigger warning and make sure your opponents feel comfortable. Remember that the issues you debate about more often than not affect people in the real world. This means that discussing certain topics can be more stressful and personal to certain debaters.

If you are racist, homophobic, sexist, antisemitic, islamophobic, etc. I will automatically drop you.

Don't misgender your opponents! Mistakes happen, but make sure you correct yourself and apologize. If it continues, I will drop you.

Debate is supposed to be a fun an engaging activity. Don't make unsafe spaces for people!

Public Forum Stuff (everyone in PF):

Flow ---|------ Lay

Tech ----|-----Truth

I vibe with a good narrative and consistent rhetoric.

Signpost!!

Speed is fine, but warranting>card dumping with little explanation.

Please have your evidence ready so there aren't delays.

Frontline in second rebuttal! Second summary is too late.

Other than frontlining in first summary, there shouldn't be new responses or offense after rebuttals. If there are, I won't flow them (with the exception of new weighing, which is fine before second FF).

Crossfire is pretty irrelevant. If you want a concession on my flow, mention it in a speech.

I probably won't call for evidence, so if you want me to look at something, say so in a speech.

When two pieces of evidence contradict, explain why your point makes more sense, or why your evidence is better. This is always smart, even if you're completely sure their source is unreliable or misconstrued.

Make sure to weigh all the arguments you collapse on, including turns. Don't forget to tell me why your weighing is better than theirs. I'm way too lazy to do analysis for you, and it probably won't end well for you if I have to.

Progressive Argument Stuff (not for novices):

I very limited exposure to progressive debate, so if your opponent does something problematic, it's much more strategic for you to tell me in your own words than read theory or a K.

With that being said, if you do choose to read theory or a K, generally stay away from more obscure jargon if you want me to understand. Since I don't have much experience, it's in your best interest to warrant and weigh thoroughly. Explain to me exactly what decision I should make and why.

Other Stuff (everyone):

If you do a spin while saying turn, bring me food, or make high quality puns, I will give you 30 speaks.

I prefer chill and friendly rounds with lighthearted banter.

However, if someone mansplains, whitesplains, or is overall rude or condescending, feel free to sass them back. I will give you high speaks for roasting them.

Fist bumps are the move.

I'm like 19 so I will probably cringe if you call me "judge" or anything formal.

Please try to come to round with preflows so there aren't delays.

Second year

tech>truth but don’t spread

I don’t flow cross but that doesn’t mean im not listening so be nice to eachother

weighing is rlly rlly important

if u don’t extend an argument through summary then im not flowing it. (Ex: you don’t extend your impact, then you no longer have an impact).

email: 3mmalyn4@gmail.com

Hey - sophomore @ bxsci

Have fun, do ur best, be kind, I will flow

I'm a Senior at Lexington High School and have debated for four years. I have experience in LD and PF, but prefer traditional LD.

Email chain (add both): feomorozov@gmail.com, 24stu189@lexingtonma.org

Novices:

Read whatever you would like as long as you explain well.

To win the ballot: weigh and crystallize. Tell me which arguments matter and why they matter. Do not leave connections between arguments to be made by me. Explicitly link your defense to the argument it is intended against.

Speaker points:

I intend for your speaker points to reflect how well you spoke rhetorically in the round. My criteria are as follows.

• Speak passionately and persuasively. Emphasize what is important, engage me.

• Present your arguments (offense and defense) in a logical order. Do not leave it up to me to make connections between your arguments for you.

• Dominate cross. This is one of the best ways to boost your speaks. Be assertive. Your opponent's case should be in shambles after such a cross, find contradictions, use counter examples etc. That being said, do not be a prick, unnecessarily interrupt, or be cocky. These are not persuasive traits in a speaker and your points will reflect it.

• Make intuitive arguments and use historical examples to prove/disprove points.

I look forward to judging your round.

my name is olivia, i coach debate and do mock trial and love public speaking. i am a chill judge, and am very experienced, i’m fine with speed, i like when you outline your arguments specifically as you move throughout your speeches, and when you spend time weighing and outlining which arguments were left unresponded to or dropped. don’t be mean to each other during cross :)

I am a student debater that has been debating Varsity Public Forum for 4 years. I am also head of the Public Forum at my school.

What I expect:

• Respect throughout the entire round.
• Fluent talking, I can flow at all speech levels but believe smooth talking is the best way to debate.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Hello everyone!

My name is Paul (he/him) and I am a college freshman. Prior to college, I was a VPF debater at Bronx Science.
Email(for concerns, cards, etc.): petrovicicomriep@bxscience.edu

Some things to expect in a round:

- I am a flow judge but appreciate lay appeal because it usually means you are warranting more, so give me a narrative.

- Card names will not be included in my flow. You need to first explain the context of the card and then extend it.

- Cross will be listened to, but not again, not included in my flow. Anything you want me to flow will have to be said in the following speech.

- I can handle some speed in your speeches, but no spreading. You want all the evidence that you say to make my flow, so do everything you can to ensure that happens.

I want you to make it as clear as possible why I should vote for you. This means your warranting and especially your impacts should be fully extended and weighed.

I will not tolerate anything racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. Just don't do it. A bad round impacts everyone in the debate so let's try and have a good time. Debate is not only about winning, but having fun too. Don't shy from adding humor in your speeches, it makes the experience better for all of us.

Please do not hesitate to email me with any further questions.

Background: Junior, 3rd Year High School LD Debater at Lexington High School. I judge LD primarily but have judged PF at one tournament.

Email: 25stu474@lexingtonma.org (Add me to the email chain)

Arguments:

I'm fine with pretty much all arguments as long as it isn't obviously racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic etc. Read whatever you're comfortable with.

How to Win:

1. Weigh all your arguments: It makes it more difficult to vote for you if I do not know why your arguments deserve to win the round. How do I know that your extinction impact is worse than your opponent's if you don't tell me why?

2. Crystallize your links: If your argument is not explained well, it is difficult to evaluate. Make your links clear; don't make me guess what they are. Also, be clear on which arguments from your opponent you are responding to.

3. Extend: Make sure to extend all of the arguments you want to keep in the debate. A blippy restatement of the title of your contention is NOT an extension. Make sure you restate the general idea of each argument. If you do not extend an argument, you basically drop it. Also, if you drop your opponent's argument, you can not respond to it later on.

4. New arguments: I will not evaluate new arguments in your final speech. You can still respond to your opponent's arguments or extend your own arguments but you can't, for example, read a whole new contention or add a new impact to your case in the 2AR.

Speakers:

• Make sure I can hear and understand you. If you speak faster or spread, make sure to enunciate your words

• Emphasize important words to tell a more clear and engaging story

• Make my job easier by organizing your speeches. Give a roadmap before the speech, signpost and tell me when you are moving on to the aff or neg, and try to respond to your opponent top to bottom on the flow. If you do not go top to bottom, be very clear on which argument you are responding to

• Give a powerful cross-ex. Point out where your opponent's case falls short. Get your opponent to contradict themselves. While I do not evaluate cross-ex in my ballot, it is important for speakers

• Give clear examples to further support your reasoning

Have fun debating and feel free to ask any questions!

If you're a novice, don't worry about understanding this. Just have fun and do your best :)

Senior and PF captain @ Bronx Science.

smirnovad@bxscience.edu (put me on the email chain)

I will be very unhappy if you do not show up to the round at the check-in time and if you do not show up preflowed.

If you don't cut your cards, I'm capping your speaks at 27 (if you're in novice/JV this doesn't apply to you but please have something your opps can command f).

I don't like spreading but if you do send me a doc. Plz collapse and slow down in the back half.

General

I default to util. If there's no offense I presume 1st. I will always disclose after the round unless the tournament does not allow me to.

Tech > truth > obvious BS. I lean more towards the trad side when it comes to substance: the more obviously improbable it is, the less likely I am to buy it. I'm not opposed to improbable scenarios but if you're choosing to do that, make sure you're actually warranting it out.

Metaweighing is great, do it.

I will be timing your speeches/prep, if you go significantly over it will affect your speaks and I will be annoyed.

Framing/Ks

I'm most familiar with SV framing, identity Ks (fem, asian, afropess, queer), cap and sec. I am less familiar with other/higher literature bases so run at your own risk.

Theory

I honestly just think theory rounds are really boring and I don't enjoy them. That being said, I'm fine with theory rounds where the teams are actually debating (disclosure is good vs. disclosure is bad) rather than the CI being "the shell should apply to everyone except me".

If you're competing at a natcir tournament in varsity, you should be comfortable hitting theory/Ks (to quote Roy Tiefer, don't put your kids in varsity if they cannot handle varsity arguments).

Things I like: Disclosure, paraphrasing (my threshold for good paraphrasing is much higher if you don't disclose)

Thing I don't like: Friv shells, tricks, misrepresenting/mis-cutting/power-tagging ev

Other things

Dont be rude lol

If you are taking forever to find evidence, your opponents have the right to prep during that time. If it takes a ridiculous amount of time to find one card, it's gonna affect your speaks.

I'm fine with skipping grand if both teams agree -- y'all will get 1 min prep instead.

Don't do any of the -isms. I'll intervene

How to get high speaks:

1. Use Taylor Swift lyrics in your speeches
2. Say "bffr" during probability weighing
3. Bring me skittles
4. Every time you say a turn in rebuttal you have to physically turn