Greenhill '26, Policy.

iliyandebates+judging@gmail.com

Speed? Fine. I will clear you twice before I stop flowing, but I'd much rather you go slower if you think clarity might be an issue (uniquely so for online debate). I flow on computer, with the doc closed. The only time I open the doc is when I read evidence is after the debate, or if I’m curious about an argument.

Please disclose to your opponents (and set up an email chain) at least 30 minutes before the round. Preferably send the 1AC too, but sending it before the speech is fine as well.

Making the debate easy to resolve, and consolidating the arguments you go for in the 2NR/2AR will drastically boost your speaker points.

LD Addendum: I have a rudimentary understanding of how Lincoln Douglas works, but the majority of my background is in Policy. But, don’t let that dissuade you from going for "LD arguments." I will try to evaluate the debate exclusively off the flow, but phil/tricks/theory debates probably won't go well for you since I don't understand the norms behind a lot of these arguments. I prefer engagement with your opponents arguments, instead of cheap theory shots, and I really think the only argument to reject the team for is conditionality/dropped CP/K theory. Also, I'm probably better for the K than most judges, since that's exclusively what I read.

i'm Meilyn [may-lynn] and i mostly do HS varsity policy

she/they

pembroke hill 28’

add me to the email chain: maubuchondebate@gmail.com (i hate speechdrop)

PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD HAVE A FLOW ROUND---I HAVE JUDGE 3 LAY ROUNDS TODAY AND IM LOSING MY SANITY

tech > truth in every scenario 100%

i dont care what you read and i dont care what speed its at

down for everything

hi im kaden
down for anything
go prep

yay debate!

add me to the email chain:chatgptdetector444@gmail.com

tech>truth

I will vote on any argument with a claim, warrant, and impact(except for anything racist, sexist, homophobic, etc)

I have a high threshold for kaffs to actually prove you can achieve what you say, and why the ballot is key.

Pref Sheet

1--Larp

2--Theory

3--Phil

4--Kritiks

5--Friv theory( DO NOT RUN PLZ)

6--performance stuff :(

Actually explain perms, cross applys, voting issues, etc.

Counterplans should actually be competitive :D

Slow down on analytics or just send them.

Disclose.

That's basically it ngl.

Email: Nolan.freyer@lhsla.org please add me to email chain.

Prefs:

Basic and simple Ks - 1

TOPICAL Kaffs - also 1

Interesting Ks - 2

Lay - 3

Theory - 4

Non-topical Kaff - 5 (I will lean towards T-FWK but will vote on anything if ran well, at least try to be topical though, even if the K normally isn’t)

Phil - 6 (I’m not a Phil guy)

Trix - 7 (I will vote on it though if the opponent respond poorly)

I am fine with almost any form of argument, but some I will vote on more than others. If dropped or poorly responded to, anything can win. Please disclose all documents if you are spreading, as I do have auditory processing disorders and will lean towards anti-spreading arguments if you have an actual reason or if you don’t disclose. If you are reading this rn email me saying you saw this and I’ll give plus half a point of speaks. I am generally fine with spreading though if you are clear. Now for the usual “please don’t be racist, sexist, or homophobic.” Please don’t be racist, sexist, or homophobic. Also if I made a bad decision (trust me I'm not a perfect judge and I've competed in rounds where both sides disagree with the RFD) please let me know after the round. It won't change what I have already submitted as the decision but it will help me in future rounds. I might even raise your speaks if you help me improve. Please disclose the aff 30 minutes before the round.

Speaks start at 28.5

extra speaks if you make me laugh though that might be hard

extra speaks if you reference Evangelion

for online tournaments I require cameras on unless you have a valid excuse

I tank speaks if you don't read my paradigm.

tilak.debate@gmail.com or speechdrop

run wtv u want probably besides isms/anything unsafe, but best for LARP or clash

impact turns are fun

ask abt anything pre round

Speechwire heavily preferred but here's my email: cyrislimdebates@gmail.com

AT THE TOP, this paradigm is outdated in some parts. I've become less caring in what exactly you run and have become largely more comfortable in all debate topics. FEEL FREE TO READ ANYTHING! I'm better at everything than I was when I originally wrote this. Would change it but I'm too lazy rn, will change when I start judging for real. Rankings in what I WANT to hear at the bottom of the LD section is still largely true though.

UNDER CONSTRUCTION

send ALL EV to BOTH blsdebate@gmail.com & samrparsi@gmail.com

gtoc & ncfl qualled

everythings cool

won't do any work for u

assume ill be bored make the round fun plz

Prefs

1 - Non-T K's

2 - Theory, LARP

3 - Topical K's

4 - Trix

5 - Trad

TL;DR: I'm trad, and I understand trad things. When I've competed in my home state (WV), I've never heard anything prog--besides counter plans--ran. Non-trad things don't make as much sense to me, so they should be explained and well-warranted. Please speak clearly and concisely. I'd describe myself as a trad flow judge -- I flow everything and understand most arguments, but my understanding of prog debate is limited. I will NOT be reading the case doc though sending doesn't hurt -- read further/paragraph 4 for specifics.

Hi! My name is Dani Scantlin (she/they), and I'm a junior and speech and debate captain at Ripley High School in WV. I've competed in LD for 3 years and informative speaking for 2 years. I'm more familiar with speech events (info, OO, impromptu) at this point, but I was first an LD debater (embarrassing, I know).

In terms of debate, my state is very trad. I'm a self-taught debater (I've never had any initial coaching besides what I've learned in rounds and on YT), and, due to my circuit and its tradness, I lean trad as well. That being said, I will judge anything and everything, but if your case includes prog arguments or jargon I might not understand, please explain it clearly! The only moderately prog thing I understand is counter plans.Another probably odd thing about me being trad is that I will avoid judging case sharing. As a judge, my job is not to judge how well you write -- it is to judge how well you can debate/speak. That being said, if you’re talking so fast to the point where I can’t understand a word you’re saying, regardless of if there was case sharing or not, I won’t be able to flow anything for you.

I have experience judging: LD, Info, OO, Duo Interp, HI/DI, Extemp, Dec, Prose, Poetry, Impromptu, and Storytelling.

Paragraph 4) Email address (for questions/case):daniellescantlin@gmail.com. Feel free to send me cases, just know I'm trad and I'm not likely to flow off of it. I'll only check cases if 1) Evidence is questioned/I'm told to look at evidence or 2) I can understand you for the most part (meaning you are NOT spreading), but I missed a line/phrase you'd said. If you're casesharing for the purpose of spreading, expect me not to judge based off of that -- it's called speech AND debate, and there's a reason we have speaks. Good speaker points aren't everything, but speech is extremely important to what you say. If you are an inarticulate speaker, I would suggest slowing down if you have me as a judge.

I prioritize framework arguments over impacts, though both are important. Impacts should clearly tie into your framework and show how they support your side. When presenting a framework, I value a well-explained structure that guides how I should weigh the round. Impacts must be contextualized within this.

Be sure to guide me in understanding why your arguments outweigh your opponent's.

I'm not the HUGEST fan of kritiks, but that won't stop me from fairly judging them. If theory is used, I prefer them to be well-explained within the context of the round/resolution (i.e. just saying, “my opponent used a quote that should’ve had a TW, so you need to drop her because she presented potentially triggering evidence” isn’t enough to really warrant me giving that argument to you). I also don’t buy the Truth v. Tech narrative. I am trad.

I'm extremely unlikely to vote on theory, especially disclosure theory. For theory to work with me, it has to be well-warranted. Same with Ks and anything prog. T. Only time I'm likely to vote on theory if something truly unfair happened that would make competing for one side impossible. IF your opponent genuinely said something discriminatory (racist, homophobic, etc.). I'm automatically dropping them, so no worries about having to bring it up there.

Ultimately, I want to reward competitors who present arguments with clarity, respect, and intentionality. If you have any questions about my judging preferences, feel free to ask before the round! Also, in case I didn't make it clear enough, I am TRAD. I will try to evaluate any and all arguments to the best of my abilities, but please be patient with me. I'm a huge believer in the idea that debate should be accessible to all, so make sure to explain anything that might not be considered the norm within debate (especially trad styles). In the case where I'm not able to evaluate the round due to terminology not being contextualized/spreading to the point where I can't hear arguments, I default to framework --> whose case had more impacts under that framework. I try not to auto drop competitors if they spread, but if I can't hear/understand you, there's really nothing for me to judge on.

hi hi!!

im meera, im a junior at ridge (if u wanna stalk my wiki im ridge ms), and this is my third year doing LD! ive done both trad and prog styles (qualled to nsda x2, ncfl x2, toc). my email is meerashah@bernardsboe[.]com if u wanna send docs.

tldr can eval anything, but prob not complex phil v phil debates, and not the best for phil in general. if you give good judge instruction and weigh i can prob vote on anything though. the only thing i won't vote on is eval, substantive tricks are fine.

don't spread out novices or people who can't spread. you can circuit them out, but i think a good debater shouldn't have to rely on circuit arguments to win.

i vote on the flow but prob have a high threshold for friv theory

this is debate, but its also a communication activity -- dont forget judge instruction, weighing, and explanations!!

prefs (cool for a good trad round anytime) (this is in order of how confident i am in my ability to eval -- i'll eval anything you read tho, and good judge instruction and explanation can solve almost any problem)

1 - K's (k v k, k v policy, etc)

2 - LARP (WEIGH), T, phil v util/k

3 - theory (real stuff, creative shells)

4 - friv theory, phil v phil, trix

hi hi!!

im meera, im a junior at ridge (if u wanna stalk my wiki im ridge ms), and this is my third year doing LD! ive done both trad and prog styles (qualled to nsda x2, ncfl x2, toc). my email is meerashah@bernardsboe[.]com if u wanna send docs.

tldr can eval anything, but prob not complex phil v phil debates, and not the best for phil in general. if you give good judge instruction and weigh i can prob vote on anything though. the only thing i won't vote on is eval, substantive tricks are fine.

don't spread out novices or people who can't spread. you can circuit them out, but i think a good debater shouldn't have to rely on circuit arguments to win.

i vote on the flow but prob have a high threshold for friv theory

this is debate, but its also a communication activity -- dont forget judge instruction, weighing, and explanations!!

prefs (cool for a good trad round anytime) (this is in order of how confident i am in my ability to eval -- i'll eval anything you read tho, and good judge instruction and explanation can solve almost any problem)

1 - K's (k v k, k v policy, etc)

2 - LARP (WEIGH), T, phil v util/k

3 - theory (real stuff, creative shells)

4 - friv theory, phil v phil, trix

hello! my name is navid (nuh-veed), you can call me that or nav. i debate lincoln-douglas at plano west senior high school (go wolves!).

he/him — don't misgender people.

fine for any form of doc-sharing, but for all email chains, please add planowestnavid@gmail.com

walking-to-round tl;dr

debate is a game, judge instruction is most important, EQUALLY fine for just about anything, make sure to weigh your impact and point me to the ballot. i don't do that work for you.

general stuff as of EIF spring break special '25:

tech > truth, but all arguments need a claim and a warrant in order for me to evaluate said technicality. that being said, i will vote on anything of that nature insofar as i do not have an ethical predisposition against it (racism good, etc.) or tabroom has instructed me not to otherwise. problematic arguments, in terms of racism, homophobia, etc., will most likely get you reported to tab.

i have run and will evaluate anything from "bifo", to camus, to politics + concon, to warming good and democracy bad, to lacan, to subsets T, etc. i primarily run the kritik, but in the words of holden bukowsky, i will not hack for it. more on some argument specifics later, however i will evaluate tricks if i have to BUT i might not be the best judge for it. run them at your own risk; otherwise, good for everything else. i will not vote on eval and it is incredibly hard to convince me on a "30-speaks" spike, so just stay away from those.

judge instruction, especially coupled with clash, is a lost art, and that is what will win you rounds. my role as adjudicator is to do as minimal if not zero work for you as possible because "debate is defined by the debaters" (thanks skanda), and will solely evaluate what is on my flow and am extremely hesitant to "fill in blanks" that were not said in your speech or are brought up after being conceded in a previous speech.

i am pretty decent at flowing just about any speed, but i will NOTflow off docs (in true trufanov fashion) — in fact, i probably won't even open them until after the debate for evidence related issues, which means that you should still send evidence. 1ar/2nr cards in the body of the email are fine. if it isn't clear already (pun intended), please be clear. clarity over speed, don't sacrifice the former for the latter. i will clear (and for cx/pf: each of) you twice and then give up flowing after that if i can't understand you. i flow on computer over paper because my handwriting is known for being pretty terrible, so do NOT assume i am looking at your docs and not flowing. i'm not doing either.

being funny in cx is yet another lost art (can you tell i'm opiniated), if you want a speaks boost. that is not an excuse to be rude, or that boost will go the other way.

my judging philosophy has been most influenced by patrick fox, holden bukowsky, and dylan jones. do what you will with that information.

K aff vs framework

these debates can go either way for me, whether it's a debate-bad baudrillard aff or good ol' marx; i try not to default anything — it's a question of models. to minimize that, make sure to really implicate how your model of debate produces the best form of education through interacting with the impacts of (probably) fairness and clash, whether that be internal links, impact turns to one or the other, etc. just implicate.

6 minutes of spreading through your hand-me-down topicality blocks with 0 impact comparison/analysis is not particularly a sound strategy, and that "meta" is one that i aim to shut down with my ballot, most likely.

K

this is where most of my debate experience lies, but, again, this goes more "either way" because neg teams tend to make it an art of who can spread through their coach's blocks the fastest. don't do this. you'll lose.

that being said, i value contextualizing your impacts over explaining them. that means a buzzword 2nr o/v won't mean anything to me if you don't contextualize it to the impacts of the aff it's critiquing. i do not have any predisposition on neg Ks from high to low theory.

to quote from kenji aoki: "My biggest thought about these arguments is that both neg teams running the K and aff teams answering the K should recognize where 1AC/NC strengths are. A heg aff is not built to perm the colonialism K and pivoting to that as your strategy in the 2AC is more detrimental than beneficial. In essence, when aff, know whether you will be going for an impact turn or a perm and work backward. When neg, know whether your links/framework/alt are strongest in relation to the aff and work backward."

links to the status quo only proves why the status quo is bad — not to the philosophical assumptions of the affirmative. block contextualization is fine, but how to make the clash much much easier to evaluate for you is hyper-specific links to the aff in the 1nc.

topicality ("not USFG")

topicality is just like any other argument (and i am not opposed to any standards), contrary to some judges' beliefs; it's not a "cheap shot" as long as both side warrant offense/defense. reasonability might be an uphill battle, but if you want to go for it and win, warrant it out heavily and frame it as offense; otherwise, competing interps with what i said before. the predictability vs. limits can go either way in terms of outweighing one another.

disadvantages

yeah. they are great, if done right. make sure to explain the scenario before going for the impact, so the story (contextualized to the aff, of course) is clear for me to vote on. comparative analysis of evidence is also under-utilized, and important. why does the link outweigh the link turn? in what ways does the terminal outweigh the aff's? those are the questions that, if effectively answered and coupled with a superb line-by-line, give you a very good shot for the ballot.

i'll probably read your evidence after round. if you think this is a problem, good. either update your blocks or give me a good, implicated reason for why the aff's link evidence or generic impact postdating, etc. doesn't matter in terms of qualification and the link story.

counterplans (and related theory)

i mean it's straightforward. i like when they are specific to the aff, especially when sufficiency framing is not just a one-liner but actually explained in the context of what the 1ac does/should do. that is good judge instruction. for aff teams, make sure to implicate solvency deficits in later speeches, and how it outweighs the internal/external net benefit to the counterplan. simply saying that they can't solve because x y and z is probably not enough to explain why the aff is uniquely key, sans just explaining your impacts and doing a good line-by-line on the case debate.

i default judge kick unless aff makes an explicit objection to my doing so.

- nav

I debate as a Senior for Greenhill. I'm fine with an email chain or speechdrop, please just get the files sent as quickly as possible so we can move on to the actual round. Please include both on the email chain: ghspsdebate@gmail.com, greenhilldocs.ld@gmail.com

I have been coached/taught primarily by Mr. Rodrigo Paramo, Dr. Allie Chase, and Mr. Aaron Timmons.

TL;DR:

1 - LARP (CPs, DAs, T), Traditional, K

2 - Theory, Identity Ks, Pess

3 - Phil, Confusing Ks (Baudrillard, Nietszche, etc.), Friv Theory, Tricks

Speed is good if you are clear. Debate how you want and have fun :)

General Stuff:

I flow on paper; please give me pen time especially when switching flows. Roadmaps are good, overly detailed ones hurt you more than they help. Tech > Truth.

I think CX is a core part of debates and is always binding. Flex prep is good if both debaters agree.

Post-rounding a judge is one of the most important parts of learning and growing from debate rounds - I will never hack against a debater or a school for an intensive post-round. That being said, there is a line between questioning and insulting, and I do think it is generally bad practice to antagonize your judges. (It won't affect your decision or speaks but will affect your feedback.)

Speaks start at 29, past ~29.7 you'll need to be near perfect in your clarity, signposting, and overall argumentation but I am a speaks fairy until there. (NOTE FOR NOVICES) If you give me an easy decision by the end of the debate then the lowest you can go is a 29.3.

I tend to look upset a lot when judging - I promise you didn't do anything to make me mad. I am extremely expressive in round so you will be able to tell if you do.

DAs and CPs - Love these, typically will be more aff leaning for cheaty CP competition debates. Except for condo, 1AR theory defaults DTA. 0% risk is possible.

Ks - Good for these - I won't intervene even if the theory seems pretty ridiculous so do with that what you will. Winning 1 link cleanly and extending it slowly is a lot more convincing than 5 independent turns that the alt probably doesn't solve. I typically don't think that kicking the alt is the best idea but will buy pretty much anything warranted well.

Theory - Not the best judge for these kinds of debates. Meta-theory weighing is good, direct impact comparison is better. UVs are understandable but boring. 1AR restarts are really boring (write a better 1AC) but I'll evaluate them. Default Reasonability > Competing Interps. I lean towards Reasonability against Friv Shells.

T-Framework - Threshold for voting on framework gets lower the further away an aff is from the topic. Win your model, not just your definitions. If I can't tell what the aff is supposed to do after the 2AR good luck.

Tricks - Things I don't vote on: hidden spikes, eval after X speech. I don't evaluate the 30 speaks spike. The threshold for responses is much lower on these than other arguments, but every argument made will be evaluated to the best of my capability. IMPORTANT - a round where both debaters read tricks will end up coming down to whatever one-liners I have on my flow.

Phil - Do it if you want but I will likely be lost. One liner calc indicts are boring and unpersuasive. I feel comfortable voting against something because I didn't get it. Please directly answer a ROB/ROJ.

Anything racist/sexist/homophobic is an instant L 25. I will tank speaks if you are blatantly or overtly rude to your opponent.

If you play good music during your prep time you get +0.2 speaks.

Hey! I'm Jad. I debate at BASIS Scottsdale in LD.

Add me to the chain– jvicente.docs@gmail.com

TLDR- Read whatever you want – I will not intervene barring anything blatant e.g. racism/sexism good.

7/10 with speed, flow on computer, doc will not be open irl, doc will be open online but not backflowing. I might read cards after. I will yell 'clear' 3 times then play games on my phone.

Reading K's primarily (anti-blackness, setcol, disability, cap), occasionally dabble in phil (Kant, Skep, Virtue, Ubuntu)

Good judge instruction and good debating overdetermines everything else.

I probably don't look attentive in round, I'm still flowing and paying attention.

K/K AFF

I do this the most.

AFF should do something and have a clear enough advocacy to vote on. 2AR explanation should be pretty consistent as per 1AC/CX/1AR explanation.

Many K-AFFs are very poorly written and should lose to presumption. Some K-AFFs are very good.

Most fairness 2NRs that I hear just sound like whining to me. Skills is probably better (and truer) 2NR.

I love impact turns.

Policy – idk why i would be high up in your prefs, but I'll probably be fine in the back of this debate.

Probably going to make weird decisions if you assume I have topic knowledge. I like lots of judge instruction.

Tell me judge kick if you want judge kick.

Phil – I read Kant and skep on occasion. Probably will make a smart decision given smart judge instruction. I will not make implications for you. I am good for these debates. Using Phil tricks is good. Hiding eval in a block of text will give me a headache.

You can (and should) be slower if you are reading a block of text. Yes this applies to underviews. Yes this applies to framework. If you want me to flow it, go SLOW. I despise card speed analytics, and you will too when you get an rfd of "I didn't flow that".

Theory

Not dogmatic, but bad args require equally bad responses to answer. I find most tricks silly and lacking warrants, but not answering them is sillier.

Good technical theory debates probably get good speaks. Bad theory debates caps speaks at a 28.

Tricky arguments---fine, caveat that I need to have them on my flow with enough of a warrant to logically implicate the trick.

Will not vote on arguments that change fundamental rules or make the debate irresolvable (e.g. 5 minute 2ar/double win).

Feel free to extemp things, but you should still be clear enough to flow. CX should be transparent and is binding. If cx says you didn't read it, you didn't.

Not a fan of blip storm tricks A-Z.

Speaks

Probably will give above a 29 if I think you'll break. No auto-30s, but may give warranted speaker point boosts at my discretion.

Good CX makes everyone's life easier. Bad CX makes me sad. If you sound lost in CX or your opponent is lost, imagine how I feel judging.

Not a prep time goblin, but try not to steal prep. Its usually pretty obvious and egregious. Prep stolen means worse speaks and I will be slightly annoyed.

For Trad/Locals: don't really care what you do. calling me judge is weird, just call me my name. Threshold for reading circuit debate locally is set at the same standard for circuit rounds.

Be nice to novices/trad debaters. You can spread and read whatever still, but don't be unnecessarily rude/tricky.

Pref Sheet

Based on my familiarity w/ args

1 – K, K-AFF

2 – Phil, Theory

3 – POMO (just not super well read on this side of library, not dogmatically opposed), Policy (just bc i probably don't have topic knowledge)

4 – Tricks (chill if you can do this without giving me a headache)

Email for communication (feel free to say hello or ask about ballots) and email chains: edward.e.wilson.jr@gmail.com

Hello!

I have three great loves, Dolphins, Celine Dion, and Speech and Debate, and while a competitor I competed in in Lincoln-Douglas, Public-Forum, Congress, Policy, Informative Speaking, Extemporaneous Debate, Declamation, Poetry, Prose, Impromptu, Extemporaneous Speaking, Original Oratory, Program Oral Interpretation and Pro Con Challenge

I would say my abilities were most notable in Congress which If it interests you any I was a 2 time NCFL Finalist, A Tournament of Champions Semi-Finalist and a 2 Time NSDA Finalist culminating in being the 2nd Place National Winner in Congress-House at the 2023 NSDA Nationals.

I think debate, especially, is something exciting and thus I love to be excited by debates that I watch, not bored to death, or worse; made upset and angry.

General Debate Stuff:

1) Make sense! This is pretty simple just make sure you have an argument that can be LOGICALLY followed by me at the very least. You do not need to make it a case accessible to a ten year old, but do not talk about crazy out of this world stuff unless you can CLEARLY link it to something sensible.

2) Do not go over time. I stop flowing/listening when your time is done so it really does nothing for you-like at all.

3) This should be pretty basic. Don't be rude/racist/sexist/homophobic/elitist. That last one is there because while the others are ones most(but sadly not all) debaters have down pack, elitism seems to seep out of some debates. Don't treat your opponent or their arguments like they are beneath you. Even if an argument is not as well thought out, don't call it ridiculous or something similar. Say it is illogical or does not fall into the resolution or etc. I do not expect you to explain why 2+2 does not equal 3 but also do not expect nor want nor will I be pleased if you are rude about the audacity of the argument or worse if you relate said argument to ad hominem attacks on your opponent.

LD Specific:

1) Values above ALL! This is Lincoln Douglas debate and as much as you may want to make it single person policy IT IS NOT. I do not care if you outline an effective cure to cancer in your case, if it does appeal to the value debate I will place VERY LITTLE weight on it. A debater with a lacking case that upholds his value through the round will ALWAYS win over a debater with an excellent case that loses on the value front. I have to vote by value and value criterion first.

2) Value Criterions matter! For some reason it is the hot new thing to free style it with only a value and have your VC either non existent or irrelevant but VCs matter ALOT. Values mean different things to different people and a VC (a good and relevant one) is the only way to solve this. Jack the Ripper's value of morality did not include preserving human life. Value Criterions tell me how to evaluate your value and that is insanely important.

3) I do not care about drops that are irrelevant. What I mean by this is, if you say "My opponent drops my Contention 3 Subpoint D, therefore I win on X argument", My question will be, does it matter. If all your subpoints in your contention 3 are about the benefits to dolphins and your opponent explains why your world harms dolphins I don't care that they do not cite your specific benefit. If dolphins are going to be hurt in your world what does it matter if your Subpoint D is that Dolphins need better ocean water, it still falls without your opponent attacking it directly. That being said, at all cost do not make drops but know that I will evaluate the measure of a drop to see if flowing the drop is actually worth it or if it even matters to the overall question at hand. Speaking of that....

4) Answer the ACTUAL resolution. The NSDA gives a topic for debate and that is what the debate should be centered around. Theory and any other thing you could think of to sidestep the debate DOES NOT MATTER. If you have a problem with the way debate works, whether it be disclosures or the structure of speaking times, take it up with the NSDA, the people who make the ACTUAL rules. And even if you do not run theory, if you make the ENTIRE debate about something frivolous I will be VERY unpleasant on your ballot. Debate about the topic, and as Miranda Priestly would say, that's all!

5) Truth>tech. I'll elaborate more in round if wanted. But basically I can’t reasonably be expected to evaluate an argument simply because you explained it better even if I blatantly know it’s false I am human after all- furthermore doing that gives great advantage to those who can L.A.R.P in a debate round over those who actually are using substantive evidence and points.

Congress Specific:

Ranking the Top 3 people in congress, then milling around trying to determine the order from 4th to 8th, is fairly Hard if you have a Good round.

POs- I don't want to think about you. If I go the full 2 hour+ session without thinking about your existence, that's a good thing. It means that you kept the session running efficiently without drawing attention to yourself and I will reward you greatly.

As a person who PO'd alot including at National Finals I have GREAT respect for PO's and I know how grueling it is being on constant go mode for hours on end. As such do not be afraid to PO for fear that you won't be noticed amongst the other "talented" speakers- For the VAST majority of rounds a PO is automatically in my top 3 from the start. But don't take that as your star call to run for PO. I expect ALOT from POs.

I would highly advise against running for PO if I'm your judge and you have any one of these qualities:

A) Look at me disease. I'm not impressed by fancy charts or speech or how firm and hostile you sound keeping "order". Your Job as PO is not to show off or make it clear "who's in charge", it's to facilitate the chamber. I don't need to be reminded you're there or to rank you or the hours that have passed, Congress is a lot of people fighting for tight time slots and every second wasted by your need to speak when you don't have to is time that could better spent.

B) Non superior understanding of the rules. If you have to ask the Parli about non tournament specific info/something already included in the NSDA Manual and Congress rules, don't expect very good rankings from me. For me that's like a speaking rep in student congress not understanding speeches or questioning--a main part of your job is knowing the rules better than anyone else in the chamber so it looks very embarassing when you do not.

C) A Weak stomach for conflict. I said in the A) point I don't like PO's being a show off at being tough-which is true. But appropiate toughness is not only warranted but a part of the job. Ideally we should never be at a point where a rulling is questioned but if it is, you better be right-and calmly but firmly explain why such as: (Rep X gave the 8th speech on the prev bill while Y gave the 6th therefore I was correct in calling on them based on Recency.) If you are correct KNOW why you are.

D) Value Speed over Accuarcy. Contrary to popular belief, efficency is not doing things the fastest way possible, it's doing things the fastest way possible CORRECTLY. If you are trying to move so fast that you have to stumble over yourself 4 times in questioning because you keep realizing that someone else is actually supposed to be called on--that's a problem. Even if you end up with the correct person in the end these moments damage your legitmacy and make me think and wonder about you (remember me thinking about you is a bad thing).

Even with these things know I am merciful, as I said, I have been in your shoes as PO and know how hard it is. I recognize these are HIGH expectations for a PO and that judging POs needs appropiate weighing. For example A PO in a 2 hour session is on the clock for 120 minutes, while a REP gets to show their talent for about maybe 8 minutes a piece plus some precudural and activity stuff. Therefore the percentage time of a PO doing what they need to be doing even with some errors will almost always be higher than most REPs. As such it's hard not to be in my top 6 as a PO(unless you're in a killer chamber like a break round at Nats which if that's the case you need to be on your A-game, those people are sharks and, I won't dock good speakers because of my fondness of POs).

Also- I track precedence and recency whether I'm the Parli or not, don't let me catch a slip you don't acknowledge because the chamber trusts you, I won't be happy.

Legislators should always---

1) Refer to your fellow legislators as Senator or Representative. I do not care which one, unless its a Congress Quals or the chamber type has been preset by the tournament, but you MUST use this title. And also, refer to the Presiding Officer as Mr./Madam Presiding Officer, or if neither of those Pronouns fit, Presiding Officer or the Chair is fine.

2) Question time is a time for questioning NOT AHA MOMENTS! Teeing up something for a later speech is fine SO LONG AS you are asking a legitimate question that either relates DIRECTLY to the speaker's speech or to a SPECIFIC part of the bill. For example "Why is Section 3's enforcement of the bill any different than HR.123 introduced in 2012" is an okay and quite frankly excellent question. But "How can you defend this bill when giving money to end cancer is more important" is a very bad question. Do not get me wrong, having a NEG speech about why giving money to end cancer would be a better use of funds is fine, but you are not utilizing questioning time to do it what its purpose is, to clarify issues posed SPECIFICALLY in either the bill/res or the speaker's speech. Also, being rude in Questioning is an automatic way to drop down to 8th (MAX) on my rankings. And while I prefer PO's who act like they are not even there, I expect some interference when questioning time becomes either too rowdy or ineffectual.

3) I, like most sane people, despise Rehash with a burning passion. Any speech after the first cycle of Aff and Neg that doesn't reference a previous question or speaker or at least attempt to answer questions of the debate at hand, will automatically get no higher than a 4. And a legislator who consistently makes these types of speeches in the round can look forward to a nice 8th place or lower depending on the rest of the chamber and how they debate. I don't care what stuck up, pretentious, policy/ld/pf kids say. Congress is a DEBATE EVENT. Actual debate should be taking place as such....

4) MOVE ON!! When debate is done, it is done. Congress is incredible to me because you have such an array of topics you are allowed to debate within the different legislation. If you're the 7th AFF speaker it better be for a VERY good reason. I don't mean the "i thought of something no one has said" good reason i mean the "everyone has been debating that this bill talks about giving Money to The Vatican when it very clearly talks about Togo" good reason.. RARELY do incredibly late speeches have anything new to say. I will be very impressed by Reps who choose to move to the previous questioning even over objections because they know as I do that there is NOTHING new to say. Your laundry list
"crystal" speech does not impress me in the slightest. And reps who fight the motion down for "equity" can expect not so great marks on their ballots for me. EVERYONE DOES NOT NEED TO SPEAK ON EVERY BILL. EVERYONE DOES NOT NEED TO SPEAK ON EVERY BILL. EVERYONE DOES NOT NEED TO SPEAK ON EVERY BILL. EVERYONE DOES NOT NEED TO SPEAK ON EVERY BILL. EVERYONE DOES NOT NEED TO SPEAK ON EVERY BILL. EVERYONE DOES NOT NEED TO SPEAK ON EVERY BILL. EVERYONE DOES NOT NEED TO SPEAK ON EVERY BILL. If you choose to keep the "debate" on a bill going solely so everyone can speak on it I will not be kind in your rankings ESPECIALLY if you break cycle. Breaking cycle means you have not, like is expected of Policy,LD,PF and congress DEBATE competitors researched and prepared to speak on both sides.