Premier Debate Camp Tournament
2018 — Los Angeles, CA/US
Jacob Fontana Paradigm
Homewood Flossmoor High School 2011-2015
Pomona College 2015-2019 (not debating)
The more work you do, the happier you will be with my decision. By this I don’t just mean that I reward smart strategies, research, etc. (I do), but rather that the better you explain and unpack an argument and tell me how to evaluate it, the less likely my own biases and preferences will affect the decision. With this in mind, there are a couple takeaways
- Framing is important. At a certain point, this seems redundant to say (obviously impact calc is important), but all too often debaters fail to “tie up” the debate in a way that is easy to evaluate. What impacts matter? What arguments should I look to first? How should I think about making decisions? Leaving these calls up to my gut may not work out well for you. Do not assume that I will put together the pieces of your argument in the way that is most favorable to you, or the way that you they should be viewed. Your best bet is to do this for me. As a general rule of thumb, your likelihood of picking up my ballot is directly proportional to the number of “even if” statements you make.
- truth and tech are both important and the divisions between them are far more arbitrary and vacuous than it is usually given credit for. That being said, it is up to you to give me a metric for evaluating what claims are true. What types of evidence should I look to? Should I view that evidence through a certain lens? How should I treat dropped/under covered arguments? Obviously I have some personal proclivities that may be harder to overcome than others
o I will always tend to evaluate dropped arguments far less than extended arguments. This does not mean that dropped arguments are automatically “true” or that truth claims made earlier in the debate are suddenly gone (that may well require more work on my part), but it does mean that I am less likely to give these arguments weight.
o Although they can be important parts of a speech, I am not inclined to give as much weight to solipsistic narratives as evidence. This is not a hard or fast preference, and some smart framing arguments about the way I should evaluate narratives will go a long way, but do not assume I will immediately evaluate a narrative as evidence in its own right sans an evidenced claim that I should evaluate them this way.
o Make smart analytic arguments, these can often be better than reading yet another terrible uniqueness card on the politics disad. The more I see you thinking for yourself and making creative and smart arguments in a debate, the better speaks you will get.
I appreciate creative and innovative strategies, maybe more than others. If you want to bust out that weird impact turn or super cheating counterplan or sweet ass new K, you should do that. You will always be better at doing what you do best. Please don’t feel deterred from reading a strategy in front of me because the community has generally frowned on it (spark, death good, etc.), I’m down to hear things outside of the norm. That being said, I included a few notes about how I feel/debated like in high school, you can take these preferences however you want, they are subject to change within a round.
As a caveat, Debate should be a space where everyone feels welcome. Please do not read racist/sexist/anti-queer/ableist/ or otherwise offensive arguments in front of me.
Please add me on the email chain: Jacob.email@example.com.
I debated both sides of this extensively in high school. I will not “penalize” you for reading framework; I think it is a smart and strategic argument. Similarly, do not assume that because you read framework you have my ballot, I am very middle of the road on these issues. You should treat this as any other K/CP strategy you have read. Too often teams miss nuance in these debates and read a bunch of state good/bad evidence while neglecting the smaller moving pieces, I tend to think those are important, and the more you address the internal link level of the debate, the better off you will be.
Affirmatives should find ways to leverage offense against the negatives interpretation. Playing some light defense and reading some reasonability blacks is not going to win you my ballot. I generally tend to default to competing interpretations. Furthermore, teams need to treat this debate more like disad, you should do impact calc, read impact, link, or internal link turns, explain why your interp solves a portion of their offense, etc. I greatly enjoy smart T debates and will reward you handsomely in speaker points if you execute it well.
Absolute defense (or defense to the point where I should cease to evaluate the disad outside of the noise of status quo) is a thing and far too few debaters go for. 90 percent of disads are absolute garbage and you shouldn’t be afraid to point that out. More broadly, Offense defense tends to be a heavily neg biased model of debate and contributes to a lot (in my eyes) to the denigration of the activity towards the most reality-divorced hyperbolic impact claims, and I will not default to it. Obviously this is subject to change in a given round, but you should be conscious of the weight I tend to give to defensive arguments. In general, I think link controls the direction of uniqueness, but I can easily be persuaded otherwise
Please, if you have it, read something different than politics. I don’t hate the politics disad, but it is an often overused strategy and I will reward your innovation with speaker points
Any argument is legitimate until it is not, don’t hesitate to read your cheating counterplans in front of me, but be ready to defend them. Theory debates are good and valuable, but I do not want to listen to you read your blocks at 400 words a minute. Slow down, make smart arguments, and go for what you’re ahead on. Less is often more in these situations. I actually very much enjoy good theory debates and find them quite interesting. You should treat these like any other type of debate, you should do impact calc, flesh out internal links, etc.
I have a reasonable familiarity with most mainstream critiques and greatly enjoy these debates. In high school, I would most often read the security or the cap K, but this should not be interpreted as an exclusionary list. You do you and I’ll likely jive with it. I will reward innovation, reading a tailored critique is far more interesting to me than rereading the same Spanos block your team has had for the last 8 years. The one caveat here is that my familiarity with certain “high theory” authors (Bataille, Deleuze, etc.) is rather passing. I am more than certainly open to hearing these arguments and don’t have any prejudices against them (I debated on the same team as Carter Levinson for 3 years), but this does mean that you may need to take extra time to unpack arguments and contextualize them in terms of the debate.
I have not worked on the China Topic, for you this means you probably want to slow down on, and possibly explain, acronyms the first couple times.
Ethic violations are deliberate, not accidental. Missing a few words or accidentally skipping a line isn’t a big deal, but repeatedly doing that or doing it in a way that is clearly intentional is. If you believe that someone has committed an ethics violation, please start recording the round, I also reserve the right to do this. If I think you are clipping, I may start a recording of my own, I will also try read along in the speech docs whenever possible. If I do determine you’ve committed a violation, you will lose the debate and receive 0 speaks, I will also speak to your coaches. Clipping is a serious offense and I will treat it with the attention it deserves.
Danny Frank-Siegel Paradigm
UPDATE AS OF OCTOBER 2018
I enjoy a good K debate but I don't hack for the K. I don't love tricks as an argument style but a well explained trick can be fun to judge. When its frivolous I have a hard time buying theory, but will evaluate the debate nonetheless. Over the course of one tournament (Valley) I voted for the indexes a priori, Baudrillard, Kant, a LARP aff, and theory. If any of those things sound like arguments you read and you HAVE CONFIDENCE THAT YOU CAN EXPLAIN WELL ENOUGH TO ME TO WARRANT MY BALLOT then pref me. If you do not believe you can have a good and nuanced debate where you explain the intricacies of your position to me, do not pref me highly, because when you don't explain things and your opponent does you will lose me quickly. The only exception to this is explicitly violent language, which I will not take kindly to/intervene against in extreme instances. This is the only scenario in which I will intervene. You can read the rest of my paradigm if you want to (if you are a theory debater trying to make a judgement call on whether to put me at a 1,2, or 3, you may want to read the TJFs/ Sliding Scale section below), because I do go more in depth on some things. But this should be the size of it.
Extra note: if you are debating a novice/debater without a lot of circuit experience, I won't force you to adapt to them, but an attempt to make the debate more accessible (this can look like slowing down, intentionally being forthcoming in cross, reading a position that is engagable, editing your case so that it can be read in an accessible way) I will bump speaks a bit.
YOUR ROUND IS ABOUT TO BEGIN AND YOU NEED TO KNOW WHO THIS GUY IS:
Plant ontology is a true arg. But so is T. Here we go...
tl;dr: do you.
I really don't care what you do. I'm good for all of it. As long as you are not actively offensive in the round. If you are/if someone asks you to stop doing something they perceive as violent and you blow it off/do not make an effort to change your behavior I will take your speaks I would've given, subtract 4, assign your speaks that number, and then wait that many seconds to talk to your coach after the round.
My Preferences/Things you should know about me:
-My pronouns are he/him. I will ask for your pronouns before the round (if I forget please remind me!). That is the most I will ask you to disclose about your personal identity unless you choose to do so later in the round. You do not have to tell me anything about yourself you don't want to.
-I'm kind of a point fairy in LD and more of a stickler in policy. I try to match my speaks to the average I perceive on the circuit.
-I judge a lot of theory debates but I don't love them. I'd much prefer to watch a K vs. K aff round. But since I keep getting preffed by theory kids I guess I'm ok for the theory debate tho. I'm even starting to enjoy watching good debaters go for theory...? But only when its done very well and not frivolous.
-If you read bad theory in front of me (I know this is arbitrary, but I tend to believe that most debaters know what this means and choose to ignore it.) and the other debater tells me to gut check it in any way shape or form, hold this L real quick.
-I will not vote on permissibility skep or any argument akin to "moral decisions are irrelevant," that is explained as "the holocaust/slavery could be good bc everything is true!!1!"
-If you are reading a strategy that doesn't make its arguments until the 1AR (ie you are spamming a speech doc with incoherent cards knowing the only one that matters starts with an R and ends with an odl) you and I will not get along. I'll vote for it if you're winning it, but I'll be unhappy. Caveat: if you're debating a novice/someone without much debate experience and your 1AR is all tricks, yes I'm giving the NR leeway.
-I cuss. A lot. Sorry in advance (and if you are legitimately uncomfortable let me know and I will control my language).
-Albums I'm listening to a lot of right now include but are not limited to: Astral Weeks by Van Morrison, Live in Amsterdam by Phish, Teenage Dreaming by Stranded Civilians (relatively short EP, very worth the listen!!), Bundles by Soft Machine, 10 Day by Chance the Rapper, Blue by Joni Mitchell. If you arrive early to a round and have music recommendations for me I will massively appreciate it :)
I did policy. I'll listen to your LARP args. Specificity on Politics links is usually where I end up pulling the trigger one direction or the other because most of the time they are either the best card in the DA or the worst card in the DA.
Consult/Process/Delay CPs are cheating, but strategic cheating that you have every right to run. But the more unfair your CP the less likely I am to vote against an equally unfair perm.
Idk how I feel about judge kick. I don't love it in theory, but I also don't know how it would interact with flipping the direction of presumption, so just if you want me to do it make the argument in round.
Not super familiar with a lot of super dense philosophy. That said, if you tell me what your offense is and why I care clearly in the last speech you've got my ballot. If my lack of philosophical knowledge is a hindrance to you winning, hinder that hindrance by being clear, making sense, impacting, and explaining (see Kant joke I'm doing my best to accommodate you phil hacks). I'm slowly but surely taking more phil classes in college so my knowledge base has broadened somewhat, but still, explain it to me and we'll all be happy.
It makes the game work. That said, I HATE listening to bad framework debates. If I can tell you're reading someone else's prewritten backfiles and you aren't doing it well speaks won't be great. If I can identify the person who wrote your prewritten backfile I will rate how much I like that person on a scale from 1-10 and give you that many speaks. I hate listening to prescripted crappy framework debates.
Watching LASA MS go for framework honestly was one of my favorite things to do, even though I usually ran things on the other side of it. Seriously framework can be an art form.
T is a procedural and gets evaluated first, but if there is no analysis done beyond your generic blocks I'm gonna be sad and you will too when you see your speaks. Competing interps is my default, but I can be swayed otherwise easily. I try to only evaluate what's in the round. If the aff isn't topical read T. But after the 3rd or so T interp I/We meets become reasonable to me quickly... take that as you will.
Frivolous theory makes me sad but some theory is a necessary evil. That is about as straightforward as I can say. I will listen to your theory shell. But a counter interp explaining why your interp is absurd and your abuse scenario is contrived is gonna make you sad if you are reading a frivolous shell. That said, watching a good theory debater go to work is a thing of beauty and I guess I'll watch and evaluate as such. Side note: I don't understand the obsession with the counter interp "I defend the converse of the interp." It makes it harder for me as a judge to decide these debates because sometimes I have a tough time figuring out what the world of the counterinterp looks like. It also generally lets the person making the counterinterp shift a lot, which seems pretty unfair. I'll listen to the argument, but if your opponent calls you on it, it seems pretty tough to theoretically defend.
I actually find these very convincing when deployed alongside a traditional util framework, and I think that these are a good way for LARP debaters to have a leg to stand on against unfamiliar phil positions full of tricks or Ks that you aren't familiar with. Do I think there's a theory debate to be had over them? Sure. Is it a debate I'm willing to listen to because I think these are a good practice, but there is plenty of theoretical reasons as to why they aren't? Totally. This is also how I approach most theory issues. I will do my best to do due diligence to both positions and hear them out, and legitimately want to hear the theoretical debate about practices that may be a gray area.
Sliding Scale (the shells listed in each section are examples of the stuff I'd put in each category):
Theory I like/would not mind hearing a debate about:
-Disclosure (with MATERIAL evidence proving a violation- I won't vote on something I can't confirm)
-The neg may not read a preclusive theory shell and read multiple counterplans that include the aff (this is an example of how a 1AR theory interp against an abusive neg strategy that would fare well in front of me would look).
Theory I don't like/Will begrudgingly listen to:
-ROB spec (this serves the purpose of policy framework on topics without an agent in my mind)
-Ridiculous spec args (Reporter Spec was not quite in this category in my mind, but it was close. That should tell you what you need to know about this)
Theory I will gut check as soon as one side tells me to:
-must say "bracketed" when reading bracketed card ie just noting it isn't enough (bracket theory can be in any one of these three categories depending on the context, but this version will almost always be here)
-must spec status in the speech
-all neg theory are counterinterps so they must win an RVI to be offensive
One final theory note: I'll vote on any theory, this is just a scale detailing the level of work you will have to do to make me want to consider pulling the trigger for you. Feel free to facebook message me/ask me at a tournament any questions about this scale.
This is my bread and butter, but if its not yours, DON'T DO IT!!! If you know DnG like the back of your hand I'll listen to whatever you have to say about God being a lobster and Rhizomes (but the mitochondria is still the powerhouse of the cell). Even just a well executed cap K or security K is dope. But if you get up there and say "his paradigm said read Ks Imma do the thing now" and have no idea whats going on all of us will be sad. So I'll reiterate. Do you. Not what you think I want to see. Performance is also really fun to judge, but make sure you're explaining and implicating well.
Arguments I like
- Delay CP
- Ship of Theseus procedural
- time cube
- thyme cube
- aspec/ospec double bind
- fiat double bind
- Antonio 95
Arguments I don't like
- true ones
- sarcasm bad
If you're still speaking after your timer goes off just know that I'm already listening to the trap remix of the Mii theme song (thanks Katya)
Alan George Paradigm
I want to be on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Conflicts: Klein Oak, Montgomery Blair, McMillen NG, Garland KP, Lovejoy CM, Hayes PF, Cambridge AG
I did LD for four years (2014-2018) in Houston, and qualled to TOC my senior year. If you need something before/after (pls not during) the round, I’m most active on Facebook. I was fairly flexible as a debater—I mostly LARPed, but also read some Kant, Levinas, Marx, Mestiza Consciousness, Deleuze, and Weheliye.
Five min before round:
HOW you go about articulating your arguments is way more important than WHAT you chose to read. I could care less what you go for (as long as it's not overtly repugnant), as long as it's explained and implicated well.
· WARRANT TO WARRANT COMPARISON WINS ROUNDS. If their DA says X and your link turn says Y, explain to me why I should prefer your link turn. Make clash explicit and do the work on the flow for yourself. Otherwise, be prepared to receive a decision with which you’re unhappy
· I’m willing to vote on anything, as long as it has a claim, warrant, and an impact. Just explain the argument to me and why it should be in my RFD. This means you need to be doing clear layering and weighing
· Tech > Truth
· Please pop tags and author names
· Your extensions need to have warrants—even in the 1AR/2AR. That being said, all it needs to be is an overview of the advantage—just tell me what the aff does, what it solves, and how it does so. The more a warrant in your aff is contested, the more thorough your extension of that part of the aff should be.
· I’d prefer not to have to call for cards as that forces intervention. However, if you think your opponent’s ev is sketch and you point it out, I’ll look at the card.
· This should go without saying, but….you need to win uniqueness for a link turn to be offense
· Good theory debates are fun. Bad theory debates are sad.
· Defaults (theory): drop the arg, competing interps, no RVIs. DTD on T is the default. These are all very soft defaults—PLEASE present actual paradigm issues
· If you read brackets theory and the bracketing is not egregious, the highest you can expect your speaks to be is 28.
· Slow down for interps. Having them prewritten would be very nice.
· If you blitz through blips I won’t catch everything, so slow down where it counts.
· The more you number/label, the easier it is to flow you
· PLEASE do weighing between theory standards. Tell me why ground outweighs limits or whatever other arguments are in play
· Please do clear framework weighing. Tell me why one framework justification matters more than another and so forth...if both sides have “my framework precludes”-type claims, tell me why yours matters more than your opponent’s!
· Phil can be very hard to flow—make it easy for me. Flashing analytic dumps would be cool, but if you don't want to do that, then please make sure you're being clear and are delineating one arg from the next
· Make sure I understand the framework—my facial expression should be indicative enough
· I’ll probably have a basic understanding of whatever K you read, but I will not vote for you unless YOU explain your theory to me.
· Your 2NR better be easy to flow. I don’t want to sit through a ridiculously long overview that then requires me to sift through my flow after the round to determine what responds to what. Your speaks WILL not be amazing
· Shorter tags are easier to flow
· The most important thing for you to do is to explain the interaction between the K and the aff. Explain why it outweighs/turns the case/why the perm fails/why the K is a prior question
Emmiee Malyugina Paradigm
For Email Chain: email@example.com
Background: Did some high school policy, some LD at Harker -- now doing policy @ Berkeley. I've done both Policy and K debate in both. For LD -- I don't have a whole lot of experience with tricks/phil/theory, but I do have a base level understanding. I got a few bids & taught at a few camps after graduating.
Arguments To Read/Not Read: I personally read LARP and K stuff (identity and pomo), but I'm not ideologically opposed to any other style. However, my understanding of Phil positions and tricks arguments are lower so you'll probably have to do more explaining. The only arguments I won't vote for are those that are blatantly abhorrent, unethically read (i.e.: clipped, misdisclosed, etc), or that lack a claim/impact/warrant.
Other Potentially Relevant Things: I tend to lean more towards how people explain/execute arguments and less towards what the original evidence says unless the other debater makes are argument about it or both teams are equally unclear because if you can't explain your evidence, I'm not going to do the work for you. Also, I presume NEG unless told otherwise and assume impacts are filtered by magnitude*probability if no one makes any framing arguments.
Gloria Mi Paradigm
I debated LD for 4 years for Edina High School, and am currently a sophmore at Emory University, and am no longer competing in debate. I competed mostly on the local circuit, but went to a couple national circuit tournaments over the course of my time in debate. I also currently work as an admin for Premier Debate.
I don’t have too many preferences and will vote on anything (except impact turning oppression), but since I am less experienced than an average circuit judge, you should err on the side of over-explaining your argument.
It’s probably my preferred style of debate to hear. I like to hear a lot of evidence comparison and weighing.
I have a bit of experience with K debate, but I am by no means well versed in them. Go slow(er) and explain your arguments, especially if you’re running pomo.
If you’re not topical, you need to be able to defend that. I will vote on whatever your performance is, but if you get into a framework debate you need to tell me what your model of debate looks like and why it’s better than your opponent's.
Not super knowledgeable with this. Explain your arguments well and make framework linking clear. I'm not a huge fan of skep, but will listen to it. But I honestly prefer to not hear it.
I’ll vote on it. Not a huge fan of blatantly frivolous theory. Slow down on analytic dumps and spike underviews.
I'll award more for clarity and good strategy. I'll dock you if you are offensive or rude. That being said, be nice to your opponent :)
Amy Santos Paradigm
I debated for 3 years at Presentation High School in LD and policy and now coach for Premier Debate. I mostly ran Ks and policy args but you should read whatever you feel most comfortable with in front of me (except phil, I'm probably not the best for that)!
Ks: I really love K debate! However, if your K is really poorly explained/executed, I won't vote on it just because I like the lit. I also love K affs (I read a lot of fem performance stuff in high school) but make sure you are clearly articulating a reason to vote aff. I watch a lot of rounds where debaters will talk about how great their method is without explaining what it actually means to do their method, how they do it, and why it means I should vote for them, which is disappointing.
Policy: I also really like policy debate! I appreciate good evidence comparison, impact weighing, and overviews.
Framework/T: I love a good framework debate, but it's also in your best interest to engage the substance of the aff! In my opinion, it's best to be specific about why this particular aff is bad/unfair/anti-educational for this particular topic/round/etc and couple that with some good case turns.
Theory: I like theory debates but I wouldn't say they're my favorite, just because lots of them are frivolous and they can be messy. However, I am very sympathetic to disclosure theory and when there is clearly abuse going on in the round.
Phil: In general I think phil debates are confusing and boring so probably don't pref me if you're a theory/tricks debater sorry :(
The easiest way to win in front of me is to clearly explain your position and why you're winning. Collapsing to a few main arguments and explaining them well is always better than having too many blippy arguments that aren't impacted very well and no one understands.
I love it when debaters passionate about what they defend and read positions they care about. Please don't be blatantly sexist, racist, ableist, trans/homophobic, or other things like that.
Spreading is fine, just be clear!
Please put me on the email chain - firstname.lastname@example.org
Nigel Taylor-Ward Paradigm
[Conflicts: Heritage, Oak Hall, Kamiak and Futures/Halstrom
Paradigmatic additions: FWK/T and Ks are arguments that have been in debate for a while now...get over it and win teh debate. If you expect a judge to stop the round after a debater reads a Shapiro or Patterson card...I'm not the judge for you and will probably laugh at you.
I go in to rounds as a blank slate, you should tell me how you want arguments treated/used("filter the debate through permutation etc.) This makes framing HUGE
I love a good T vs policy aff debate
I'm capitalist but think the Cap K is one of the most underrated and strategic positions.]
About me: Existentialist and Capitalist majoring in Finance, Intl Business and Arabic.
Don't be lay. Don't be boring. Don't be anti-semitic. Facts>Feelings. Tech>Truth (default).
"The infants in the graveyard smile widely without teeth, Carefully sewn in columns and rows, rotting little seeds...Raking tears from upturned eyes"
Jong Hak Won Paradigm
Updated for TOC 2018
Yes, put me on the email chain: email@example.com
Georgetown University '21
West Ranch High School '17
Assistant coach for Debatedrills, conflict policy: https://www.debatedrills.com/debate-drills-dropbox/#why-dropbox
All the stuff after this is negotiable, here are the two things that aren't:
1. No cheating: that means no card clipping, stealing prep, disclosing the wrong aff, lying about your disclosure, etc. Prep ends when doc is compiled.
2. Debate is a safe space: I will not tolerate any blatantly offensive arguments. That means no racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.
Violations of either are grounds for auto-loss and the lowest speaks I can possibly give you
Policy ---------X------------------------------ K
tech ------------------------X--------------- truth
lots of mediocore cards --------------------------------X------- a few quality cards
link first --------------------X------------------- uniqueness first
terminal defense exists --X------------------------------------- 0.000001% = EXTINCTION!!!
good ev comparison ---------------------------------------X lots of good ev comparison
conditionality good -------X-------------------------------- conditionality bad
50 states cp good -------X-------------------------------- 50 states cp bad
limits -------------------------------X-------- aff ground
fairness is an impact ---------X------------------------------ fairness is an internal link
always value-to-life ----------X----------------------------- never value-to-life
your k backfile answers ---------------------------------X------ nuanced, specific k answer cards
"post-dialectic sociogenesis of rhizomatic subjects"--------------------------X--- explain your K
"insert this rehighlighting" -----------------------------------X---- I read what you read
read no cards during rfd -------------------------------X-------- read all the cards during rfd
clarity ----X---------------------------------- who doesn't like clarity?
politeness -X-------------------------------------- hs students screaming at each other
contrived theory debates -------------------------------X-------- substantive topic debates
competing interps -------------------------X-------------- reasonability (default)
no RVI's (default) --------------X------------------------- yes RVI's
drop the debater (default) --------------------X------------------- drop the argument
tricks -------------------------------------X-- substantive clash
slow on dense analytics ------------X--------------------------- have me not flow
Marshall Thompson phil knowledge --------------------X------ Jonas Le Barillec phil knowledge
epistemic modesty ------------X--------------------------- epistemic confidence
"neg abuse outweighs aff abuse" -----------------------------X---------- actual theory args
putting a prioris in the middle of an analytic paragraph -------------------------X seriously wtf
point fairy ------------------------------X--------- hates LD speaker point inflation
1. Disclosure: I will use a carrot and stick with speaker points to incentivize good disclosure practices/start gently nudging the community toward more standard/thorough disclosure standards:
cite entries for all relevant affs and offcase positions: +0 (this is the bare minimum)
round reports with details of relevant speeches for all rounds (1ac, 1nc, 2nr, 1ar if necessary; you don't have to do a cite entry for every single one): +0.1
have info entered for all rounds you've had (round reports, opponent + judge + tournament info) with open source docs: +0.2
full open source docs attached with all cards from rebuttals and constructives clearly marked: +0.2
absolutely zero disclosure: -1 (yes, that's minus one whole speaker point)
poorly formatted disclosure -> not clearly demarcating which entries are for which topic, misleading information, poorly formatted cites, etc: -0.2