she/her; debated for Greenhill and Team USA. shreya.agarwala1@gmail.com

Updated 2/13/2024 for TFA State (hired) below:

Attends Columbia Law School, competed in PF, LD, Worlds. Judged for 3 years.

Most recently judged WS in 2021, has judged national tournaments. Has also judged PF and LD in 2020.

I have chaired a round (continued round between speeches, released panel decision).

World Schools debate mimics the parliamentary format of government where students take turns debating a topic that is prepared either before the tournament or one hour before the round. It is judged on style, content, and strategy.

I flow on paper using a format similar to LD where I write all arguments down in a line in a column then match such arguments to the responses.

I do not prefer principle over practical (or vice versa) until the debaters frame which is more important. If no weighing is given and in order to vote I must pick one over the other, I will prefer one or the other based on the wording of the motion such as if it is policy based or a believes motion. However, I believe that is still a form of judge intervention and will avoid doing so if at all possible.

I evaluate speaker strategy based on if debaters prioritize the important arguments in the round, does not extend unimportant arguments, time allocation, taking POIs/the response, and most importantly, weighs. If they are the first speaker, I heavily evaluate time allocation.

I will deduct from style if a speaker is going too fast.

I will evaluate competing claims without evidence based on the weighing and logic provided by debaters. If no weighing is provided I will generally consider the argument a wash and look to other arguments to evaluate the debate.

I resolve model quibbles based on what the debaters tell me. If those that presented the model are able to demonstrate that the opposition's arguments are indeed quibbles, I will generally side by proposition as they are allowed to set the grounds for the debate. If there is a countermodel, I will use similar logic as opposition may bring a countermodel to the debate.

I evaluate models vs countermodels based on what the debaters tell me. However, countermodels must have a unique benefit from the model. If it is able to achieve the same thing as the model with no benefit, I will still side proposition as it is the opposition's job to prove prop is harmful, not just that there are alternatives.

Notice the common thread in my paradigm is basing my vote on what the debaters say. I will not weigh for debaters.

Worlds:

Don't be discriminatory, weigh, and give voters.

PF:

1) Judge on the flow - make sure to extend arguments or I won't vote on it.

2) Have offense. Defense won't win you a debate.

3) Don't take forever to show a card to your opponents or your speaks will take a hit.

4) Weigh please.

5) Let your opponents speak in CX. If you continuously talk over them and don't let them ask questions, your speaks will be sad.

6) I do not tolerate discrimination of any kind. You say something racist, you lose.

In terms of argumentation, I'm generally fine if you run anything. Whether or not you do it well is going to be interesting as I am not sure if PF lends well to certain kinds of arguments. But if you want to run a K go for it. Just don't run one for the sake of confusing your opponent.

LD:

Admittedly, it's been a hot minute since I've done LD. I know how the format works, I am down for every argument BUT I might struggle with very fast speed if you are not clear. However, I will list a few of the forms of argumentation I don't like. I'll still evaluate it but just in case you're worried about internal biases and stuff. I don't like underviews and frivolous theory. I will yell clear or slow if I can't understand you but once I do it 3 times, I will stop flowing.

If you're running anything with heavy amounts of complex philosophy (no this does not include util/deon and basic stuff like that), you need to explain it well so I can understand the argument enough to vote on it.

Revised April 11, 2018

Sandy Berkowitz

The Blake School (Minneapolis, MN), where I teach communication and coach Public Forum, World Schools, Policy, and Congressional Debate. I also coach the USA Development Team and Team USA in World Schools Debate.

I debated policy in high school and college and began coaching in the early 1980s. In addition to the events listed above, I have coached and judged Lincoln Douglas, Extemp, Oratory, Rhetorical Criticism/Great Speeches, Informative, Discussion, and (and to a lesser extent) Interp events, at variety of schools in IL, NY, NC, MN, MI, ME, and CA.

Public Forum

Fundamentally, I believe that PF provides debaters with opportunities to engage and debate key issues of the day before experienced debate and community judges. It is useful and important to understand and adapt to a judge’s preferences. So, for me:

General issues

--The crux of PF is good solid argumentation delivered well. Solid arguments are those that relate to the resolution, are well organized, well warranted, and supported with quality evidence that is explained.

--Good analytical arguments are useful but not normally sufficient. If you make an argument, you bear the responsibility of supporting, explaining, and weighing the argument.

--I flow. But, clarity is your responsibility and is key to a good debate.

Evidence Ethics

--Evidence is critical to building good arguments and that includes warrants. Use academically rigorous and journalistic sources to support your arguments. Offering a laundry list of 5-10 names with few warrants or methodology is not persuasive.

--Proper citation is essential. That does not mean “University X” says. A university did not do the study or write the article. Someone did. Source name and date is required for oral source citation. Providing qualifications orally can definitely enhance the clarity and persuasiveness of your argument. The complete written citation (including source name, date, source, title, access date, url, quals, and page numbers) must be provided when asked in the round.

--Exchange of evidence is mandatory when requested. There is not infinite prep time to find evidence. If it takes you more than a minute to find a card when asked, or all you can provide is a 50 page pdf, then I will disregard it.

--Paraphrasing is not as persuasive as reading cards and using the evidence appropriately to develop and deepen your arguments.

--If you have misconstrued evidence, your entire argument can be disregarded.

--Evaluate your own and your opponents’ evidence as part of your comparative analysis.

Strategic issues

--Extending arguments goes beyond authors and tag lines. Extend and develop the arguments.

--Narrative is key. Debate is inherently persuasive. Connect the arguments and tell a story.

--It is in the best interest of the second speaking team for the rebuttalist to rebuild their case. If the 2nd speaking team does not do that, they likely yield the strategic advantage to the 1st speaking team.

--Avoid Grand becoming yelling match, which is not useful to anyone.

--Clash is critical. It is vital to weigh your arguments, which is best to begin before the final focus. Write the ballot in the final focus.

Delivery and Decorum

--PF, and all debate, is inherently a communication activity. Speed is fine, but clarity is absolutely necessary. If you unclear or blippy, you do so at your own peril.

--Be smart. Be assertive. Be engaging. But, do not be a bully.

--Racist, xenophobic, sexist, classist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, and other oppressive discourses or examples have no place in debate.

Finally, have fun and enjoy the opportunity for engagement on important questions of the day.

World Schools

Worlds is an exciting debate format that is different from other US debate and speech formats. It is important for you to understand and adapt to the different assumptions and styles of Worlds. Content (the interpretation of the motion [definitions, model, stance], arguments, analysis, and examples), Style (verbal and nonverbal presentation elements), and Strategy (organization, decision making, engagement, and time allocation) all factor in to the decision and should be seen as critical and interrelated areas. Some things to consider:

--As Aristotle noted, we are influenced by both logos and pathos appeals, which you should develop through both examples and analysis. Thus, narratives are critical. Not just a story to “put a face on the motion,” but an overall narrative for your side of the debate.

--Motions are, in most cases, internationally, globally focused and your examples and analysis should reflect that.

--Have multiple, varied, and international examples that are used not only in the first speeches, but are also developed further and added in the second and third speeches to be more persuasive.

--Racist, xenophobic, sexist, classist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, and other oppressive discourses or examples have no place in debate.

--POIs can be statements or questions and are a key element of engagement during the debate. Questioners should be strategic in what to pose and when. Speakers should purposefully choose to take POIs and smartly respond to them. Typically, speakers will take 1-2 questions per constructive speech, but that is the speaker’s strategic choice.

--Importantly, carry things down the bench. Answer the arguments of the other side. Rebuild and develop your arguments. Engage in comparative analysis.

--Third speeches should focus the debate around clash points or key questions or key issues. Narrow the debate and offer comparative analysis.

--Reply speeches should not include new arguments. But, the speech should build on the third speech (especially in the opp block), identify key voting issues, and explain why your side has won the debate.

Be smart. Be articulate. Be persuasive. Take the opportunity to get to know other teams and debaters.

Policy and LD

I judge mostly PF and World Schools. But, I have continued to judge a smattering of Policy and LD rounds over the last few years. Now that you may be concerned, let me be specific.

Overall, I believe that rounds should be judged based upon the arguments presented.

--Clarity is paramount. Obviously, my pen time is slower than it was, but I do flow well. Roadmaps are good. Sign posting and differentiating arguments is necessary. Watch me. Listen. You will be able to tell if you are going too fast or are unclear. Reasonably clear speed is ok, but clarity is key. For most of my career, I was a college professor of communication; now I teach communication in high school. I strongly believe that debaters should be able to communicate well.

--Do what you do best: policy based or critical affs are fine. But, remember, I do not hear a lot of policy or LD rounds, so explain and be clear. Having said that, my area of research as a comm professor was primarily from a feminist critical rhetorical perspective. In any case, you bear the responsibility to explain and weigh arguments, assumptions, methodology, etc. without a lot of unexplained theory/jargon.

--Please do not get mired in debate theory. Topicality, for example, was around when I debated. But, for other, new or unique theory arguments, do not assume that I have current knowledge of the assumptions or standards of the theory positions. It is your responsibility to explain, apply, and weigh in theory debates. On Framework, please engage the substance of the aff. I strongly prefer you engage the methodology and arguments of the aff, rather than default to framework arguments to avoid that discussion.

--Racist, xenophobic, sexist, classist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, and other oppressive discourses or examples have no place in debate.

--Last, and importantly, weigh your arguments. It is your job to put the round together for me. Tell a good story, which means incorporating the evidence and arguments into a narrative. And, weigh the issues. If you do not, at least one team will be unhappy with the results if I must intervene.

Finally, I believe that Policy and LD debate is significantly about critical thinking and engagement. Better debaters are those who engage arguments, partners, opponents, and judges critically and civilly. Be polite, smart, and even assertive, but don’t be impolite or a bully. And, have fun since debate should be fun.

For my general paradigm, I consider myself tab. There are no arguments I do and don’t like. I will judge the arguments presented in the round and I don’t want to impose my own beliefs or arguments into the round. You have to tell my why the arguments made in the round matter. If you fail to give me a way in which to evaluate the round, I will default to a policy maker. Being a policy maker, I am looking for the negative team to run disadvantages, counter plans, kritiks, and anything else. As a policy maker, I am looking for you to terminalize your impacts. Why specifically is nuclear war bad? Does it kill millions of people? Just saying dehumanization or nuclear war is bad isn’t an impact. I will gladly listen to counter plans, theory arguments and Kritiks. My only advice on the k is to tell me what the role of the ballot is. Why is my ballot key to your alt?

Topicality/Theory

I will vote on T when there is proven abuse. I need to see in-round abuse for me to pull the trigger. I think T is a legitimate tool for a negative team, but I strongly urge the team that goes all in for T to make sure they can prove in-round abuse. If the aff is just failing to make arguments on the T, I will vote for it, but my preference is for in-round abuse to be occurring.

Spikes
I am not a fan of LD 1AC spikes. I honestly don't think that the Aff gets to remove ground from the negative. I don't think these arguments are legitimate. Let the neg make claims and then argue against them. I will tell you now, that I WILL NOT vote on them. I see them as a waste of time for you to run and they are highly abusive. I also rarely vote on RVIs. If you plan on trying to run spikes in the 1AC, I am not the judge for you. I will give the Neg a lot of access to simple arguments to knock down your spikes.

Ethos

I think it is important that you are an ethical and nice person in the debate. It is ok for the round to get heated, but I don't see the need to be rude to your opponent. This will result in a hit to your speaker points.

Speed
I don't have a problem with speed, but make sure that you are clearly telling me your tags. Slow down on the tag if you can. Be clear in your transitions. I like next or and to let me know you are moving from the end of a card to another tagline. The same thing applies to your plan text or alt. Slow down for the plan text/alt or repeat it for me.

email for evidence chains: benkoch99@gmail.com

I did PF for four years, but I've done APDA for the last three. UChicago '21, Bronx Science '17.

How to win

Assume I know everything about debate, but nothing about the topic. That means using words like "magnitude" and "timeframe" is very helpful for me in weighing your arguments, but using topic-specific jargon and acronyms is not. Obviously I know what NATO is, but since I don't coach and my majors are irrelevant to debate, I'm unlikely to know a lot of the terminology in the academic papers you cite.

Please weigh. That's literally it. If you want me to consider offense, it needs to be in one of case or rebuttal, as well as both summary and final focus. Rebuttal-to-final-focus extensions are fine as long as they're defensive (if you do this with a turn, I won't give you credit for the offense, but I will give you the defense). You should weigh this offense explicitly against your opponents' offense. Please do not trust me to weigh your offense for you.

Also, I don't think it's fair to expect second rebuttal to answer every one of first rebuttal's arguments, but you do need to answer the turns. If first rebuttal makes a turn, and second rebuttal drops it, first summary has the right to act as though the argument is conceded because they don't have another fair chance to respond to it.

Extensions through ink do not make me happy. Second speakers who make terminal defense only for your opponent's summary to pretend it didn't happen: I feel your pain and you are seen.

Order of things I believe:

1. Well-warranted card.

2. Well-warranted analytic.*

3. Intuitive card without explicit warranting.

4. Poorly-warranted card.

5. Poorly-warranted analytic.

6. Blind assertion.

*I am not tech over truth as long as the truth is actually warranted (I won't do work for the truth). A team that consistently uses excellent, intuitive warranting in their rebuttal deserves to win this tournament more than one with some random sentence-and-a-half from Joe Schmoe the grad student who was desperate for their thesis to have a meaningful conclusion. Similarly, a Gish gallop of five unwarranted blips thrown blindly in rebuttal is less convincing than a case-level argument with two or three well-warranted pieces of evidence.

TL;DR weigh, and this isn't Yu-Gi-Oh so don't just trust in the heart of the cards and expect to win without doing some thinking.

Evidence

My standard is this: you don't have to quote the card exactly, but you should be able to show a place in the text which unambiguously says what you claim it says. Please try to resolve evidence disputes in the round. This can be done by warranting your cards. If someone tells me to call for a card I will, but my tolerance for shady evidence ethics is extremely low. I'll absolutely throw out a card if I think it was blatantly misrepresented, and I'll prefer an argument that's clearly supported by a card over one that's only ambiguously supported.

Other stuff

Speed: If your case is below 900 words, I'll get your arguments down. My ability to distinguish when you're just arguing and when you're citing a card is limited by speed, so in general the faster you go, the more you should enunciate card tags. If you just go "blahblahblahJohnson2019blahblahblah" I probably won't catch it. I'll get down what Johnson said, I just won't catch that it had a card attached to it. You DEFINITELY need a date on cards.

Speaks: A 30 generally looks like this: you wrote my ballot for me (i.e. your weighing is the weighing on which i decided the round), you signposted clearly, you did not waste your words, and your warranting and evidence were both spot-on. I average around a 28.

Theory/ROTB: Unless you can persuade me otherwise, I believe that debate is a good-spirited game, and my job is to vote for the team who proves whether the resolution is more likely to be true or not true as long as that side does so in an academically honest, non-offensive way. This means that, unless you are a bigot or a cheat, I will only drop you if I think your opponents did a better job of persuading me that their side was true. I'm open to both theory and kritikal arguments saying otherwise, but a PF speech is unlikely to be able to make those arguments effectively. I recommend not making them. If you wanna run conditionality theory (which a friend of mine did four years ago and lost on), it better be good.

Crossfire: I don't flow it

Off-time roadmaps: I am happiest if you do not do this at all, with one exception: if there is a compelling reason for your speech to be in a very weird order (e.g. second rebuttal starts by frontlining one particular argument, then going to case, then going back to frontlines), you should let me know. Otherwise, don't. On-time roadmaps are fine.

I'm a recent graduate of the University of Chicago. I did high school Public Forum for four years in high school and American Parliamentary debate for four years in college. I was also the president of UChicago's debate team.

Bullet-Point Paradigms:

1. Theory is fine, but it should be your entire advocacy if you plan to run it.

2. I am comfortable with speed as long as you aren't spreading.

3. If you're going to extend offense from case that the opposition has responded to in rebuttal, you must engage with those responses in summary in order for me to vote on the argument.

4. I do not flow crossfire. Even if your opponents concede the round in cross, you need to tell me that it happened in your next speech. However, I will take into account clarifications about specific points that come up in crossfire.

5. Evidence should have a last name and a date at a minimum, first name and credentials are appreciated.

6. Don't be rude.

Feel free to email me with any questions about my paradigm

Only send speech docs to Powell.demarcus@gmail.com

ASK FOR POLICY PARADIGM - The paradigm below is designed mostly for LD. Some things change for me when evaluating the different events/styles of debate. Also when you ask please have specific questions. Saying "What's your paradigm?", will most likely result in me laughing at you and/or saying ask me a question.

About Me: I graduated from Crowley High School in 2013, where I debated LD for three years mostly on the TFA/TOC circuit. I ran everything from super stock traditional cases to plans/counterplans to skepticism, so you probably can't go wrong with whatever you want to run.I debated at The University of Texas at Dallas, in college policy debate for 3 years. I taught and coached at Greenhill School from 2018 to 2022. Running any sort of Morally repugnant argument can hurt you, if you're not sure if your argument will qualify ask me before we begin and I'll let you know.

Speed: I can flow moderately fast speeds (7-8 on a scale of 10), but obviously I'll catch more and understand more if you're clear while spreading. I'll say "clear"/"slow" twice before I stop attempting to flow. If I stop typing and look up, or I'm looking confused, please slow down!! Also just because I can flow speed does not mean I like hearing plan texts and interpretations at full speed, these things should be at conversational speed.

Cross Examination: While in front of me cx is binding anything you say pertaining to intricacies in your case do matter. I don't care about flex prep but I will say that the same rules of regular cx do apply and if you do so your opponent will have the chance to do so. Also be civil to one another, I don't want to hear about your high school drama during cx if this happens you will lose speaker points.

Prep Time: I would prefer that we don't waste prep time or steal it. If you're using technology (i.e. a laptop, tablet, or anything else) I will expect you to use it almost perfectly. These things are not indicative of my decision on the round rather they are pet peeves of mine that I hate to see happen in the round. I hate to see rounds delayed because debaters don't know how to use the tools they have correctly.UPDATE. You need to flow. The excessive asking for new speech docs to be sent has gotten out of hand. If there are only minor changes or one or two marked cards those are things you should catch while flowing. I can understand if there are major changes (3 or more cards being marked or removed) or new cards being read but outside of this you will get no sympathy from me. If you are smart and actually read this just start exempting things. I don't look at the speech doc I flow. If you opponent doesn't catch it so be it. If this happens in rounds I am judging it will impact your speaker points. If you would like a new doc and the changes are not excessive per my definition you are free to use your own prep time, this will not effect your speaker points.

Theory: I don't mind theory debates - I think theory can be used as part of a strategy rather than just as a mechanism for checking abuse. However, this leniency comes with a caveat; I have a very low threshold for RVI's (i.e. they're easier to justify) and I-meet arguments, so starting theory and then throwing it away will be harder provided your opponent makes the RVI/I-meet arguments (if they don't, no problem). While reading your shell, please slow down for the interpretation and use numbering/lettering to distinguish between parts of the shell!

Also theory debates tend to get very messy very quickly, so I prefer that each interpretation be on a different flow. This is how I will flow them unless told to the otherwise. I am not in the business of doing work for the debaters so if you want to cross apply something say it. I wont just assume that because you answered in one place that the answer will cross applied in all necessary places, THAT IS YOUR JOB.

• Meta-Theory: I think meta-thoery can be very effective in checking back abuses caused by the theory debate. With that being said though the role of the ballot should be very clear and well explained, what that means is just that I will try my hardest not to interject my thoughts into the round so long as you tell me exactly how your arguments function. Although I try not to intervene I will still use my brain in round and think about arguments especially ones like Meta-Theory. I believe there are different styles of theory debates that I may not be aware of or have previously used in the past, this does not mean I will reject them I would just like you to explain to me how these arguments function.

Speaks: I start at a 27 and go up (usually) or down depending on your strategy, clarity, selection of issues, signposting, etc. I very rarely will give a 30 in a round, however receiving a 30 from me is possible but only if 1) your reading, signposting, and roadmaps are perfect 2) if the arguments coming out of your case are fully developed and explained clearly 3) if your rebuttals are perfectly organized and use all of your time wisely 4) you do not run arguments that I believe take away from any of these 3 factors. I normally don't have a problem with "morally questionable" arguments because I think there's a difference between the advocacies debaters have or justify in-round and the ones they actually support. However, this will change if one debater wins that such positions should be rejected (micropol, etc). Lastly, I do not care if you sit or stand while you speak, if your speech is affected by your choice I will not be lenient if you struggle to stand and debate at the same time. UPDATE. If you spend a large chunk of time in your 1AC reading and under-view or spikes just know I do not like this and your speaks may be impacted. This is not a model of debate I want to endorse.

General Preferences: I need a framework for evaluating the round but it doesn't have to be a traditional value-criterion setup. You're not required to read an opposing framework (as the neg) as long as your offense links somewhere. I have no problem with severing out of cases (I think it should be done in the 1AR though). NIBs/pre standards are both fine, but both should be clearly labeled or I might not catch it. If you're going to run a laundry list of spikes please number them. My tolerance of just about any argument (e.g. extinction, NIBS, AFC) can be changed through theory.

Kritiks and Micropol: Although I do not run these arguments very often, I do know what good K debate looks like. That being said I often see Kritiks butchered in LD so run them with caution. Both should have an explicit role of the ballot argument (or link to the resolution). For K's that are using postmodern authors or confusing cards, go more slowly than you normally would if you want me to understand it and vote on it.

Extensions and Signposting: Extensions should be clear, and should include the warrant of the card (you don't have to reread that part of the card, just refresh it). I not a fan of "shadow extending," or extending arguments by just talking about them in round - please say "extend"!! Signposting is vital - I'll probably just stare at you with a weird look if I'm lost.

Some of the information above may relate to paper flowing, I've now gone paperless, but many of the same things still apply. If I stop typing for long stretches then I am probably a bit lost as to where you are on the flow.

Entourage Judge

Email: lemuel30034@gmail.com

I will listen to most arguments. I have problems with most theory arguments in LD. Topicality is like the death penalty so I proceed with care. I understand policy arguments and kritiks. I flow most of the time. If you have questions about what I think about your arguments you should ask.

I believe debaters should be civil to each other. I would prefer that high school students not use foul language in debates.

I am ok with performance debates. I do believe the teams should engage the topic. If a team chooses not to engage the topic, then I will give the other team leeway to deal with the lack of engagement.

Reverse voting issues do not make sense in most instances.

I am ok with counterplans and disadvantages.

I will vote for the team that makes the most sense at the end of the debate.

I debated in public forum for the Blake School in Minneapolis, MN for four years. In that time, I traveled and competed on the national circuit where I did reasonably well. I graduated in 2018 so I'm newish to the judging game and this paradigm is largely lifted from the wonderful Ellie Singer's paradigm so feel free to ask any clarifying questions (connoryu@uchicago.edu)

The Split

I believe the second rebuttal should cover turns from the first rebuttal. It doesn't need to be a full 2-2 split but you must cover important responses (turns and disads, really, though it's generally wise to also hit terminal defense). Speaking second is incredibly advantageous, and it's a waste to not cover responses in the second rebuttal and makes the rest of the round messier.

Speed

If you're clear, I can flow speed. If you're too fast or incomprehensible, neither of us will be particularly happy. I think there's a trend of people going very fast and being blippy just to try and "outspread" their opponents, whatever that means in PF. Fewer well-done arguments that I can understand will be rewarded more than a bunch of stuff you just spew out.

Types of arguments

I tend to think things like theory and Ks aren't done well in public forum. That being said, I have/will vote on them if run correctly and thoughtfully. Run what you want to run I'm open to any good argument, but disclaimer I have little background in Ks, so if you do run them please explain your arguments and assume I don't know the jargon.

I really don't like when teams run squirrely things just to throw off their opponents. I will vote off the flow but I will probably be displeased doing it if I think you're being sketchy. Your points may suffer.

Dates

Please please give at the very least the year your cards were written.

Evidence

I am okay with paraphrasing, but I am not okay with misrepresenting evidence. If your opponent calls for a card and it doesn't say what you say it says that's very bad news for you. Also, if your opponent calls for a card you should have it readily available. It shouldn't be an odyssey for you to find something that you yourself are claiming to cite. Furthermore, paraphrasing only goes so far. Can you paraphrase a paragraph? Ya, as long as you're being honest. Can you paraphrase a chapter? Uhh, no.

Summary and Final Focus

My standards for things being in both summary and FF are very high, if I don't hear something in both I won't vote off it. PF is a team event so use dat prep time to coordinate with your partner on your arguments. If you're giving first summary, you don't have to extend the defense from rebuttal, but you should put defense on any giant turns or disads from the second rebuttal. I like clear voting issues in summary and final focus. In terms of new arguments in second summary, if it is a logical extension of your argumentation that is naturally evolving in the debate thats fine but if its a new carded piece of evidence or new argument all together I won't evaluate it. I also like when teams collapse well in these speeches, but thats not a hard and fast rule. If something important isn't in the summary, I'm not voting on it in final focus. Also, weighing is great.

Not Being a Jerk

Be funny, be witty, but don't be rude. Don't snap at your opponent, talk down to them, or attack them. Jokes and puns are welcome, but trying too hard is less so. Be smart, not demeaning. This shouldn't have to be said but of course don’t be rude, racist, sexist, homophobic, offensive, etc. If the other team is being problematic call them out :)

Prep

Keep track of it. My days of puzzling over timers and doing prep time math are over.

Misc

|‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾|

| SIGNPOST! |

|_____________|

I could not care less if you enter the room or do the flip before I get there.

If you want to take off your jacket/change your shoes/etc to be comfortable, I really don't care, and I won't dock you for it.

I will flow, but I won't catch the name of every author you read so don't just extend the author name also extend the argument itself.

While I don't have a particular agenda for speaks, I only will give out 30s if there is nothing I could possibly think of that you could change.