When judging a competitor in speech events, here are some general things I keep in mind. In order to receive a high ranking, a competitor should understand these concepts and demonstrate them throughout the delivery of his or her speech.

EYE CONTACT

• In Original Oratory or Impromptu, I look for good eye contact with his or her audience. In an oratory, it is especially important that the competitor be convincing. Without eye contact, this effect is diminished.
• In Oral Interpretation, even when the competitor is reading, I want to see the story come to life through facial expressions and reaction. Likewise, in OI, even though the piece should not be completely memorized, I expect the competitor to generally look at the audience, not the script.
• In Dramatic Interpretation or Humorous Interpretation monologues, the competitor should generally keep solid audience eye contact.
• When rendering characters in Dramatic Interpretation, Humorous Interpretation, Duo or Oral Interpretation pieces, the competitor should employ the use of focal points for the characters.
• In Duo, other than during the introduction, offstage focus must be maintained at all times.

FOCAL POINTS

• I look for focal points that are consistent throughout the piece and help create characterizations, if applicable.
• When appropriate, switching of focal points should involve the switching of body, look, attitude and voice. Simply looking at a different point will not create the “reality” of a distinct character.

PACING

• I look for the way the competitor uses pauses and inflection to create characters or make points.
• I think of pacing much like this long dash — it made you pause for a moment — and how it makes you read this sentence a bit differently.
• I look for a variety in pacing that builds contrast; contrast builds emphasis and subordination.

THE END

• A good ending should really hammer home or end cleanly and directly.

Here are some basic notes :)

When speaking, please make sure to enunciate! I would like to hear your arguments and make sure to make the logical connection.

SPEED-

I have difficulty processing the information when you spread so please speak clearly and don't assume anything!

CX-

Leave space for your opponent to answer your questions! I don’t appreciate it when debaters are condescending, rude, or mean. Another basic rule, this should be self explanatory, please don’t be sexist, homophobic, racist etc.

Experience

I am new judge, though I competed in Speech and Debate for four years of high school, including a trip to nationals in Congress. I also competed at the national level in the Center For Civic Education's "We the People" in high school and have done College research on a few political topics.

Overall Paradigm

I prefer arguments and speeches that fully utilize all three aspects of the rhetorical triangle (unless the specific event dictates otherwise, such as with Policy or DI): Pathos, Ethos, and Logos. Over-relying on one of these to the detriment of the others is a fast way to lose out to an opponent who provided more well-rounded arguments. Using too much pathos and it will sound like a sob-story. Overusing logic will make you sound impassionate and like a robot. Relying too much on ethos risks falling into the appeal to authority Fallacy. The best way to convince me is to utilize all three in tandem.

Outside of policy, where it is perfectly acceptable, please do not spread or spew. I can't really judge if your argument is worth anything if I'm having trouble understanding it.

Signposts/Roadmaps are preferred, especially in debate events, though if its presence would clearly detract from the speech rather than help it isn't essential.

Where it is applicable, I weigh good writing and contentions about equally with strong presentation. However, having both of these skills is essential and will always win out.

In debate/congress, good research is an essential aspect of victory. Though I will not dock points if you state research that I know to be incorrect (even the most ridiculous data), if your opponent brings it up and successfully counters it that will count against you. Conversely, that means knowing more about a topic than your opponent will benefit you. If your opponent says something that is ridiculous it won't factor much into the rankings unless you notice the logical error and provide an effective counterargument, but if you do counter it I'll take notice and make sure it's praised.

Nuance Matters. Except in very, very unique cases, most issues are not solely black and white. There are both legitimate and illegitimate reasons people would support either side of any given political issue. Therefore, it is important not to label entire political groups with blanket derogatory statements, especially saying they are all evil, crazy, stupid, etc. Calling all trump supporters, all Sanders supporters, all gun rights activists, or all feminists bad people is not even slightly persuasive and is likely to alienate portions of your audience. Fairly acknowledging a potential opponent's beliefs shows them that you understand their concerns and makes them more receptive to listening to why they may be wrong. It's also just plain easier to refute a position you fully understand.

Congress

POing/Chairing: I'll attempt to weigh POing and giving speeches as equally as I can, meaning that it will do nothing to hold you back (unless you do a bad job) or boost you more than a speech will. The most important job of the Chair is to ensure the chamber remains orderly and follows Robert's rules. Doing an efficient job at running a session and enforcing the rules as best as you know them will warrant a good score. Running things slowly or consistently missing rule violations will result in a bad score. Though subtle bias is uncatchable, if bias in how the session is run becomes obvious than it will result in penalties.

During questioning, please try to keep questions and answers concise (as I'm sure fellow congressmen-women will repeatedly remind you). I will be paying attention to the Q and A and providing effective answers can boost your rankings in round. Providing bad answers (unless they are particularly poor) probably will have no effect on your overall ranking, but evasion tactics are very annoying. Even if you don't have any idea what the question is talking about, giving a poor but honest answer or simply saying 'I don't know' will irk me much less than intentionally providing an off-topic response.

After the second or third speech on a piece of legislation, I would prefer to see as few canned speeches on a question as possible. Going after previous points or providing new information to the debate will benefit you: repeating someone else's point for the fifth time will not.

Debate events

In Debate, I prefer speeches that directly respond to your opponent's points and opponent's criticisms of your points. Simply repeating your points without providing rebuttals doesn't cut it.

Questioning the credibility of an opponent's source is often a perfectly valid argument (and will get noticed if its done well). However, be careful to recognize that bias alone doesn't make a source credible. For example, while Vox and the Daily Wire are extremely left and right-wing respectively, both usually get the underlying facts right even though they always spin it in favor of their party.

In your later speeches, it isn't enough of a rebuttal to simply claim that you've proven something is the case. You have to actually review, even for just 10-20 seconds, what proves that your point is true or that your opponent's point isn't true.

Pronouns: She/her

if you do an email chain then please add me: carranzajazzlynn@gmail.com

or if you do speech drop, pls add me :) <<< prefer this method 

do whatever you want within the bounds of being respectful to each other, debate is supposed to be a safe and accessible space for everyone.

Background:

The high school I went to was v pro policy sooo I only did policy for all four years. I went to pretty progressive debate camps w/ amazing lab leaders for three years. I coach speech and debate part-time while I am a full time college student. I also do college debate as well!

Policy: read above for my thoughts on policy. I love it. That’s pretty much it (:

Pf: I know a quite a bit about pf, i competed in it only twice but, I know more about pf than the average person. Just don’t be conceded & be kind. I have a HIGH threshold for theory in PF, i get the need for theory but, if y'all are running it just bc, that's toxiiiic. I am also okay with speed & tag-teaming.

LD: I know a lot about LD. I never competed in it sadly but, I judged and coached it soooo many times that I know how to keep up.

Voting methods:

I am good with speed and tag-teaming !! I am tech over truth except if you try to impact turn oppression...

F/W: I LOVE f/w !! If you are aff, run framework! if you are neg, run framework!

Topicality: I do not mind T debate, I understand T well and will vote on it if it comes down to it. 

Theory: I love theory and understand it really well, so if you are going to run theory then make sure it is proper.

K’s: fortunately I know a lot about K’s and I LOVE K debates. Link of omissions are not something I’ll vote on. Do the actual link work and please do K proper. I am more than okay with "radical" ideas. Shout out to all my radical liberals who believe in crazy things. (if you know who said that then lmk and extra speaker pts for you:)

CP: please make your CPs mutually exclusive & make sure you have a net ben!! I hate that I have to say that but, sadly I’ve seen lots of rounds where the CP wasn’t mutually exclusive and/or did not have a net ben. I am also cool w/ PIC's and PIK's. 

Speed: I’m cool w/ it if everyone is, just don’t mumble please because I will shout “clear”. Also, make sure to signpost and slow on tags!!

DEBATE EVENTS:

I am a practicing attorney who occasionally moonlights as a debate judge. Over the past 30 years I have watched competitive debate deteriorate from a program of teaching students effective communication to a program contrived to win rounds by any strategy, including so-called "progressive" tactics that are designed to confuse and overwhelm opponents with tangential and obscure minutia rather than inform and persuade judges with impactful, well-reasoned argumentation.

This is ironic because in real life, in a real courtroom, I will only win a trial if I win the hearts and minds of the jury---presenting artfully crafted arguments that accentuate my personal ethos, while balancing appropriate appeals to logic and passion. If I tried to "spew" or "spread" my arguments to a jury, I would lose the case. If I tried it in front of a judge, I would get kicked out of the courtroom! If I tried to win every case by overwhelming the judge, jury and counsel with every "card" I ever stumbled upon (even remotely related to the case), I would lose all my cases and my clients with them.

The same goes for nearly every other professional communicator. No teacher would teach that way. No news broadcaster would report that way. As far as I can tell, the only job opportunity available to a "progressively" trained debater is to deliver the annoying legal disclaimers at the end of radio commercials.

I realize that my views are hopelessly outdated. No one reading this paradigm statement will ever select me as "1" on a judge preference sheet. Nevertheless, if you have the bad luck of getting me in a round anyway, here are some tips on how to get my vote:

(1) Speak at a normal, conversational rate;

(2) Look me in the eye;

(3) Begin with a clear, real-life illustration of how the Affirmative or Negative case effects real people;

(4) Make me laugh;

(5) Make me cry;

(6) Make me care;

(7) Help me understand what the resolution means;

(8) Help me understand why your ideas are right;

(9) Help me understand why your opponent is wrong; and,

(10) Organize your ideas in a way that makes sense.

I realize that this rhetorical model is profoundly outdated (it is in fact about 2,500 years old). Nevertheless, in the spirit of learning something useful (rather than simply winning another piece of shiny plastic today for speed-reading), please give these ideas a try!

SPEECH EVENTS:

Many Debaters [and coaches] consider speech events to be "throw-away" events---something to do when debaters are not in a "real" debate round. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Speech events teach students about the power of pathos---of making human connections. They provide a wonderful balance to the logos-heavy debate events. To capture my vote [or the vote of most ordinary human beings], a student must be prepared to do the following:

(1) Begin with a clear, real-life illustration of how your topic effects real people;

(2) Make me laugh;

(3) Make me cry;

(4) Make me care;

(5) Help me understand what you mean;

(6) Help me understand why your ideas are right;

(7) Help me understand why any competing viewpoint is wrong [or "misinformed"]; and,

(8) Organize your ideas in a way that makes sense.

Don't be intimidated by all of this this [if you happen to be a hard-core, card-flipping, evidence-stacking debater]. Instead, embrace the opportunity to learn a new [and equally real] way of communicating in a way that focuses on building human connections [rather than squabbling over obscure, marginally-relevant minutia].

I am more traditional. I enjoy statistics from reputable sources that support your case. I judge based on who persuades me to their side. I prefer you not to spread. I can follow most of your case if you spread, but i have had people go to fast and they only way I understood their case was on cross ex. If i cannot understand you it will be hard for you to win. I have been judging speech and debate events for 7-8 years and have judged most events.

Background - Debated LD in highschool. Current debate coach.

Speed - 9/10 on speed, but signpost very clearly if speaking quickly.

Style - prefer traditional, but progressive is fine if run well.

Framework - I like value and criterion clash. I evaluate winner of framework first, then use the winning framework to evaluate impacts.

Impacts - Every argument should be clearly impacted. I heavily weigh imminent and highly likely impacts over potential hypothetical slippery slope scenarios (ie don't run nuke extinction unless the path to extinction is very clear and highly probable). I ask that you provide an impact analysis in your final speech. Show me clearly where your impacts outweigh.

Topicality - I rarely vote for topicality unless opponent is blatantly off-topic.

Theory - fine if you run it well.

Kritiks - fine if you run them well. Explicitly state where the links apply.

Plans - Aff is never required to have a formal plan, and no plan text is required when discussing possible pragmatic implementation. I don't vote for counterplans (instead run it as a traditional style argument).

Prep - Flashing isn't prep, but you do your best to be quick. Excessive issues will result in loss of speaker points.

Respect - I am fine with heated debate, but no blatant disrespect, ableism, homophobia, racism, sexism, transphobia etc, and no advocating in round for murder, genocide, or oppression.

Traditional, no spreading.

I am a 4th year parent judge. I have now judged policy and PF about equally and some LD. I strongly evaluate the framework debate. Please make sure your arguments are backed with evidence and clear logic. Also make sure your voters and impacts are clear during the round. If you are speaking too fast, I will let you know. I dislike performance Ks.

I come from a traditional circuit, so I evaluate on a voting issues basis. For the affirmative, try to defend your entire plan because I don’t buy into kicking out of your advantages.

For the negative, if you want to refute the affirmative case, have evidence to back up your arguments.

Make your links clear, so I can follow your train of thought. I want to understand the chain of events that would lead to big stick impacts.

Please be respectful to your opponents as it is reflected in your speaker points.

Online debate: I will unmute and let you know if I cannot clearly hear what you are saying. Feel free to use NSDA file share.

As a Public Forum judge, what I look for and vote on in each round is that your team has effectively shown or told me why you should win. You need to prove to me that the contentions or impacts that are presented by you are superior to your opponents’. When it comes to beginning your speeches, please provide a brief, off-time roadmap that includes the order and name of your contentions, as well as any framework that will be presented. Please do this before every speech.

As a Lincoln-Douglas judge, I want to be shown how you win the round. You should show me this by effectively upholding your own value/criterion AND either by upholding your opponent’s value/criterion through your own contentions/case OR disproving the effectiveness of your opponent’s value/criterion. And most importantly, I want you to tell me HOW or WHY your argument is more important that your opponent’s; do not just simply state that it is more important. Prove it to me. And as per above, please provide a brief, off-time roadmap that includes the order and name of your contentions, as well as any value/criterion that will be presented. please do this before every speech.

Salutations, I am Zeque (pronounced: Zeek) Murillo. I am so stoked for the exposure to the topics you are all bringing to the table and using this platform to bring attention to the passion of the future.

-----------------

BACKGROUND:

Competitive Experience: I competed on the high school level from 2010-2014. My main events of the competition level were Duo Interpretation, Dramatic Interpretation, Humorous Interpretation, Original Oration, Impromptu Speaking. I definitely understand what it's like to Double/Triple/Quadruple/Penta/Hexa - Enter, so I'm always understanding of individuals who do multiple events.

Judging/Coaching: I've been part of the judging circuit from local, state, and national level since the fall of 2014 season - Current. I've judged all speech categories and even up to a few quarter final rounds at varying national years. I was an Alumni volunteer assisting with the NSDA program for 2-3 years. I then started Assistant coaching specifically for speech from 2017- Current. My main expertise is in the Interpretation events, but I am also well versed in assisting with the Public Address Events.

JUDGING:

Interpretation:

Content: An introduction in the piece that states the title and author is weighed heavily into account. I also really enjoy the details in the piece and if it's from a play/book/media content that is typically longer than 10 minutes, how is it cut? I enjoy material that has a nice flow and reflects the message that you are trying to get across whether that is humorous or serious in nature. Your piece should still make sense and leave an impact.

Blocking: I do love seeing the choices that students make to elevate the piece and create an environment. I notice the details in pantomime and the consistency of items that you have created out of thin air. For example, if you are holding a cup and then all of a sudden it disappears because you never put it down, I'ma notice :) Blocking is such a beautiful technique to help transport me to the environment of the scene. I think it's super cool when you can play with the dimensions of your speech.

Characterization: I take into account the emotion that you flesh out in your characters and utilizing voice, attitude, posture, and mannerisms to create an easily recognizable character. If you have multiple characters in a piece, I also will evaluate the technique in how you are transitioning from character to character. Lastly, I also consider facial expression and emotional invocation that allows us to better understand the character.

Public Address Events:

Content: Originality of the topic or stance on topic is an item I will take into consideration pretty heavily. I also am dissecting how you structure your speech and how the information is flowing into each other to develop one systematic idea. If you are providing sources, are you citing the original source, & dates.

Delivery: How are you using your movement, tonality, & gestures to engage with the audience? I look for effective speaking tools through using your natural instruments as a speaking tool to elevate the information and bring us in. I also listen to the words you are emphasizing to show how you are highlighting the information and playing with pace.

Impact: I need to know your take/stance on the presentation. Why do you feel passionate about this topic or how do you truly believe this will be resolved. Why should we be listening to this speech and what will be the major take aways?

Lincoln Douglas:

As I flow your round, I’ll be looking to see how your value and criterion work in tandem to prove the moral rationale that LD rests; furthermore, I don’t like when crossfires engage in obnoxious back-and-forths with questions that don’t add any substantive value to the round. Lastly, it's imperative that you underscore the credibility of your cards, especially when making claims including stats, data, points, and political and historical claims that attack your opponent’s arguments.

Public Forum:

I enjoy PF and like to flow the rounds I judge to provide you with the best feedback I can. I love to see link chains and impacts that are substantial to the case; rather than just reading the cards, I’d appreciate you explaining and further reinforcing your points, data, and stats, to let me know that you know your case all around. If you speak too fast, I’ll try to keep up as I flow but once you’ve lost me, I’ll stop flowing. I am not a fan of voters that are reliant on ethos; I prefer you use logic in voters that explain to me what you’ve argued in round. Don’t forget that I’m also flowing the round so if your claim is that they’ve dropped certain points, I’ll refer to my flow to assess that claim.

I prefer "conservative" cases (straightforward, followable arguments) and I am looking for a clear link-chain that is supported by quality evidence. Please state your arguments and conclusions very clearly.

I am a relatively new parent judge but am in a profession where I evaluate the quality of arguments every day. I am comfortable with both traditional and progressive arguments as long as they are clearly connected to evidence.

I insist upon professional and courteous decorum toward one's opponent(s) and all judges present.

I would like to be added to email chains, but I do not want to have to rely on written evidence or arguments to keep up your argument. If you speak too fast, I will say "clear."

I was a head coach for 11 years (6 in OR; 5 in UT).

Overall, I want to see true clash and I usually judge on the flow. Strong, crystallized voters can win me over though. I am fine with progressive cases (and sometimes prefer them if they are creative while maintaining logical appeal), as long as you are able to defend them aptly and you still truly attack your opponent's case and contentions. And don't lose enunciation.

LD:

I have judged LD at Nationals and have coached National competitors. I prefer traditional, but can roll with progressive.

I will judge on true clash, the least dropped arguments, and strong voters. I like civil sass and speaking styles that engage and entertain as long as it's not at the expense of argumentation and substance. I try to be tabula rasa. Don't just tell me you uphold your value criterion or that your opponent does not; explain why (links).

I prefer to not have card battles. If I want to see a card, I'll ask for it at the end. Don't waste too much of your time on it. Yes, specific and credible evidence is needed but I look more holistically at the logic.

PF:

I like true clash, but don't want a debate that turns into hyper-focus on a definition or card battle. Note the disagreement, concisely state why your side is better then move on.

My vote goes to whoever has the most sound logic holistically, with strong voters and impacts. I also like strong links between each contention and framework and being able to point out flaws in your opponent's logic. Consideration of and insight into your and your opponents' warrants will go far. Being respectful will go far. Being disrespectful will lose you speaker points and will make me less forgiving of smaller flaws in your case.

Congress:

I have judged Congress at Nationals and have coached National competitors. Do not deliver a pre-written Oratory (unless you are giving the author/sponsorship speech). Synthesize previous points made and refer to them. If you are not bringing anything new to the discourse, do not try to get a speech just for the sake of giving a speech. Vote to PQ and move on. I like an engaging speaker who can balance pathos, ethos, and logos. Volunteering for chair and presiding adequately or better will go far for my ballot.

Policy:

I am least experienced in this event but enjoy it. I will stick to traditional stock issues and true clash. Can roll with speed as long as you keep enunciation.

Former coach at Copper Hills High School in West Jordan, Utah.

I want to do as little work for your argument as I have to. If you're going to go fast, I want to be on the email chain. Mac.walker24@gmail.com. There is no argument that I won't vote for as long as you explain it well. If you have any specific questions before the round about my preferences, please don't be afraid to reach out to me and ask.

Competitors should hold themselves to a high standard of etiquette.

Reasonable arguments are the best kind of arguments.

Social justice is favored.

Your judge does not shake hands.

About me:

I come from a very traditional circuit. Luckily, our school allows it's students to travel and learn about the progressive debate format. Full disclosure, one of my students helped me write this paradigm. I would prefer to watch a traditional round but I am open to viewing a BASIC progressive round.

Speed:

I will not understand what you are talking about if you are spreading. It is your responsibility to make sure that I understand your case.

CX:

I enjoy cross examination. I do not appreciate snarky remarks. I prefer for you to conduct yourselves in a polite manner. I will not flow CX and I will not connect your arguments, you need to make the connection for me.

K's:

I would really appreciate if you would not read any Kritiks, only because I will not understand what you are talking about. If you do choose to read a K, you need to explain everything so that I can understand.

Other notes:

*Off time road maps are a necessity and greatly appreciated

*I am willing to give you a 10 second grace period after the timer has gone off to wrap up your final thoughts. Any continuation beyond the grace period will not be flowed.

MOST OF ALL: Make sure you are having fun! I am looking forward to judging your rounds. <3

⣀⣶⣀ ⠀⠀⠀⠒⣛⣭ ⠀⠀⠀⣀⠿⣿⣶ ⠀⣤⣿⠤⣭⣿⣿ ⣤⣿⣿⣿⠛⣿⣿⠀⣀ ⠀⣀⠤⣿⣿⣶⣤⣒⣛ ⠉⠀⣀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣭⠉ ⠀⠀⣭⣿⣿⠿⠿⣿ ⠀⣶⣿⣿⠛⠀⣿⣿ ⣤⣿⣿⠉⠤⣿⣿⠿ ⣿⣿⠛⠀⠿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣤⠀⣿⣿⠿ ⠀⣿⣿⣶⠀⣿⣿⣶ ⠀⠀⠛⣿⠀⠿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⣉⣿⠀⣿⣿ ⠀⠶⣶⠿⠛⠀⠉⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣶⣿⠿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣤⣿⣿⠶⠀⠀⣀⣀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣀⣤⣤⣶⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⣀⣶⣤⣤⠿⠶⠿⠿⠿⣿⣿⣿⣉⣿⣿ ⠿⣉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠛⣤⣿⣿⣿⣀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⣿⣿⣿⣿⣶⣤ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣤⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⣛⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⠛⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣶⣿⣿⠿⠀⣿⣿⣿⠛ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠿⠿⣿⠀⠀⣿⣶ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⠛⠀⠀⣿⣿⣶ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⣿⣿⠤ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣶⣿ ⠀⠀⣀ ⠀⠿⣿⣿⣀ ⠀⠉⣿⣿⣀ ⠀⠀⠛⣿⣭⣀⣀⣤ ⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠛⠿⣶⣀ ⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⣉⣶ ⠀⠀⠉⣿⣿⣿⣿⣀⠀⠀⣿⠉ ⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⣀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿ ⠀⣿⣿⣿⠿⠉⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⣿⣿⠿⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣶⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿ ⠛⣿⣿⣀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣶⣀ ⠀⣿⣿⠉⠀⠀⠀⠉⠉⠉⠛⠛⠿⣿⣶ ⠀⠀⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣿ ⠀⠀⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠉ ⣀⣶⣿⠛ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣤⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣤⣤⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⣿⣿⣿⣶⣿⣿⣿⣶⣶⣤⣶⣶⠶⠛⠉⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣤⣿⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠛⣿⣤⣤⣀⣤⠿⠉⠀⠉⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠉⠉⠉⠉⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⣿⣿⣿⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣶⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠛⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣛⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣶⣿⣿⠛⠿⣿⣿⣿⣶⣤⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⠛⠉⠀⠀⠀⠛⠿⣿⣿⣶⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠛⠿⣶⣤⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠛⠿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣿⣿⠿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠛⠉⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣤⣶⣶ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣀⣀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣶⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣤⣶⣀⠿⠶⣿⣿⣿⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠉⠿⣿⣿⠿⠛⠉⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣤⣤ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣤⣶⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣿⣿⣿⠿⠉⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⠿⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠿⣿⣿⠛ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠛⣿⣿⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠤⣿⠿⠿⠿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀ ⠀⠀⣶⣿⠿⠀⠀⠀⣀⠀⣤⣤ ⠀⣶⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⠛⠛⠿⣤⣀ ⣶⣿⣤⣤⣤⣤⣤⣿⣿⣿⣀⣤⣶⣭⣿⣶⣀ ⠉⠉⠉⠛⠛⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠛⠛⠿⠿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣭⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣤⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⣿⠛⠿⣿⣤ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣿⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣤ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⠀⠀⠀⣶⣿⠛⠉ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣤⣿⣿⠀⠀⠉ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣶⣿⣶ ⠀⠀⠀⣤⣤⣤⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⣶⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣶ ⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⣿⣉⣿⣿⣿⣿⣉⠉⣿⣶ ⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⣿ ⠀⣤⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⠀⣿⣶ ⣤⣿⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⠀⠀⣿⣿⣤ ⠉⠉⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠒⠛⠿⠿⠿ ⠀⠀⠀⠉⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉ ⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣶ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⠉⠿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣤⠀⠛⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⣶⣿⠀⠀⠀⣿⣶ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣭⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣤⣿⣿⠉ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣤⣶ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣀⠀⣶⣿⣿⠶ ⣶⣿⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣤⣤ ⠀⠉⠶⣶⣀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⣿⣤⣀ ⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⠿⠉⣿⣿⣿⣿⣭⠀⠶⠿⠿ ⠀⠀⠛⠛⠿⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣉⠿⣿⠶ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣤⣶⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠒ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⠛⣭⣭⠉ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣭⣤⣿⠛ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠛⠿⣿⣿⣿⣭ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⠉⠛⠿⣶⣤ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣿⠀⠀⣶⣶⠿⠿⠿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⠛ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣭⣶ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣤⣤ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⣶⠀⠀⣀⣤⣶⣤⣉⣿⣿⣤⣀ ⠤⣤⣿⣤⣿⠿⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣀ ⠀⠛⠿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠉⠛⠿⣿⣤ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠿⣿⣿⣿⠛⠀⠀⠀⣶⠿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣤⠀⣿⠿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣶⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⠉⠉ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⠉ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣛⣿⣭⣶⣀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⠉⠛⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⠀⠀⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣉⠀⣶⠿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣶⣿⠿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠛⠿⠛ ⠀⠀⠀⣶⣿⣶ ⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣀ ⠀⣀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣶⣿⠛⣭⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠛⠛⠛⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⣀⣭⣿⣿⣿⣿⣀ ⠀⠤⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠉ ⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠉ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣶⣿⣿ ⠉⠛⣿⣿⣶⣤ ⠀⠀⠉⠿⣿⣿⣤ ⠀⠀⣀⣤⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠒⠿⠛⠉⠿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⣶⠿⠿⠛

⣀⣶⣀ ⠀⠀⠀⠒⣛⣭ ⠀⠀⠀⣀⠿⣿⣶ ⠀⣤⣿⠤⣭⣿⣿ ⣤⣿⣿⣿⠛⣿⣿⠀⣀ ⠀⣀⠤⣿⣿⣶⣤⣒⣛ ⠉⠀⣀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣭⠉ ⠀⠀⣭⣿⣿⠿⠿⣿ ⠀⣶⣿⣿⠛⠀⣿⣿ ⣤⣿⣿⠉⠤⣿⣿⠿ ⣿⣿⠛⠀⠿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣤⠀⣿⣿⠿ ⠀⣿⣿⣶⠀⣿⣿⣶ ⠀⠀⠛⣿⠀⠿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⣉⣿⠀⣿⣿ ⠀⠶⣶⠿⠛⠀⠉⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣶⣿⠿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣤⣿⣿⠶⠀⠀⣀⣀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣀⣤⣤⣶⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⣀⣶⣤⣤⠿⠶⠿⠿⠿⣿⣿⣿⣉⣿⣿ ⠿⣉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠛⣤⣿⣿⣿⣀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⣿⣿⣿⣿⣶⣤ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣤⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⣛⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⠛⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣶⣿⣿⠿⠀⣿⣿⣿⠛ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠿⠿⣿⠀⠀⣿⣶ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⠛⠀⠀⣿⣿⣶ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⣿⣿⠤ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣶⣿ ⠀⠀⣀ ⠀⠿⣿⣿⣀ ⠀⠉⣿⣿⣀ ⠀⠀⠛⣿⣭⣀⣀⣤ ⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠛⠿⣶⣀ ⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⣉⣶ ⠀⠀⠉⣿⣿⣿⣿⣀⠀⠀⣿⠉ ⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⣀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿ ⠀⣿⣿⣿⠿⠉⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⣿⣿⠿⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣶⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿ ⠛⣿⣿⣀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣶⣀ ⠀⣿⣿⠉⠀⠀⠀⠉⠉⠉⠛⠛⠿⣿⣶ ⠀⠀⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣿ ⠀⠀⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠉ ⣀⣶⣿⠛ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣤⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣤⣤⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⣿⣿⣿⣶⣿⣿⣿⣶⣶⣤⣶⣶⠶⠛⠉⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣤⣿⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠛⣿⣤⣤⣀⣤⠿⠉⠀⠉⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠉⠉⠉⠉⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⣿⣿⣿⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣶⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠛⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣛⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣶⣿⣿⠛⠿⣿⣿⣿⣶⣤⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⠛⠉⠀⠀⠀⠛⠿⣿⣿⣶⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠛⠿⣶⣤⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠛⠿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣿⣿⠿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠛⠉⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣤⣶⣶ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣀⣀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣶⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣤⣶⣀⠿⠶⣿⣿⣿⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠉⠿⣿⣿⠿⠛⠉⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣤⣤ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣤⣶⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣿⣿⣿⠿⠉⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⠿⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠿⣿⣿⠛ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠛⣿⣿⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠤⣿⠿⠿⠿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀ ⠀⠀⣶⣿⠿⠀⠀⠀⣀⠀⣤⣤ ⠀⣶⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⠛⠛⠿⣤⣀ ⣶⣿⣤⣤⣤⣤⣤⣿⣿⣿⣀⣤⣶⣭⣿⣶⣀ ⠉⠉⠉⠛⠛⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠛⠛⠿⠿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣭⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣤⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⣿⠛⠿⣿⣤ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣿⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣤ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⠀⠀⠀⣶⣿⠛⠉ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣤⣿⣿⠀⠀⠉ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣶⣿⣶ ⠀⠀⠀⣤⣤⣤⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⣶⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣶ ⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⣿⣉⣿⣿⣿⣿⣉⠉⣿⣶ ⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⣿ ⠀⣤⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⠀⣿⣶ ⣤⣿⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⠀⠀⣿⣿⣤ ⠉⠉⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠒⠛⠿⠿⠿ ⠀⠀⠀⠉⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉ ⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣶ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⠉⠿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣤⠀⠛⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⣶⣿⠀⠀⠀⣿⣶ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣭⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣤⣿⣿⠉ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣤⣶ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣀⠀⣶⣿⣿⠶ ⣶⣿⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣤⣤ ⠀⠉⠶⣶⣀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⣿⣤⣀ ⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⠿⠉⣿⣿⣿⣿⣭⠀⠶⠿⠿ ⠀⠀⠛⠛⠿⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣉⠿⣿⠶ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣤⣶⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠒ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⠛⣭⣭⠉ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣭⣤⣿⠛ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠛⠿⣿⣿⣿⣭ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⠉⠛⠿⣶⣤ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣿⠀⠀⣶⣶⠿⠿⠿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⠛ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣭⣶ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣤⣤ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⣶⠀⠀⣀⣤⣶⣤⣉⣿⣿⣤⣀ ⠤⣤⣿⣤⣿⠿⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣀ ⠀⠛⠿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠉⠛⠿⣿⣤ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠿⣿⣿⣿⠛⠀⠀⠀⣶⠿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣤⠀⣿⠿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣶⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⠉⠉ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⠉ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣛⣿⣭⣶⣀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⠉⠛⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⠀⠀⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣉⠀⣶⠿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣶⣿⠿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠛⠿⠛ ⠀⠀⠀⣶⣿⣶ ⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣀ ⠀⣀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣶⣿⠛⣭⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠛⠛⠛⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⣀⣭⣿⣿⣿⣿⣀ ⠀⠤⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠉ ⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠉ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣶⣿⣿ ⠉⠛⣿⣿⣶⣤ ⠀⠀⠉⠿⣿⣿⣤ ⠀⠀⣀⣤⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠒⠿⠛⠉⠿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⣶⠿⠿⠛

I currently serve as the head coach for Park City High School.

In-round Preferences:

• Weigh.
• Collapse.
• Weigh.
• Please signpost — it makes it much easier to flow
• I appreciate critical arguments, but keep them accessible to people who aren’t terribly familiar with K debate or literature
• Weigh.
• Please be consistent with your warranting.
• Offense must be in summary and final focus.
• Weigh
• Because I coach, I am very familiar with the resolution you are debating.
• Do not say racist, homophobic, xenophobic or sexist things. Pay attention to the language you use, and know that I will, too.
• A sense of humor is always appreciated. Have fun. Don't take yourselves too seriously. Please do not be condescending to your opponent during cross.
• Weigh.
• I am an experienced coach and judge. I know the rules. Win the round fairly (because your arguments/analytics are better). It's that simple.

• I have been involved in debate with Park City High School since 2017. I respect and admire students who are committed to learning about and engaging in academic conversations. Thank you for being a part of debate.

Make this your best round possible. I look forward to judging, and hope you share the same enthusiasm for competing.

Finally, should I judge something other than PF: In terms of theory, I don't like it. If you insist upon running it, I will listen/judge begrudgingly and choose truth over tech. I hate frivolous or abusive theory - only run it if it's a true violation.

My email (for questions): awilliams@pcschools.us

Experience:

Speech and Debate Coach, 8 years

Teacher: History, Language Arts, Civics, and Constitution

Judged PF, LD, Policy, Congress, BQ, and most IE events.

Style:

Cases based solely on theory are often very flimsy but are not altogether invalid. If an opponent is running theory alone, that does not promise a win. You should adequately address their arguments as well as supporting your own topicality.

Spreading anywhere outside of policy debate seems inappropriate most of the time. In policy rounds it should be tempered. If it is in your case but not in your speech, you might not be able to use it and it may be difficult for your opponent to use it against you, but they won't have to.

Novel arguments that are well tied to topicality are always enjoyed, but don't promise a win.

Flow:

Most of my flow is primary contentions and how well they are supported vs attacked. Not significant detail but I can follow cards just fine. Contradictory cards from opponents are just as valid unless you can prove otherwise.

Presentation skill:

Unless something stands out as amazing: Logos>Ethos>Pathos>eye contact

Debate events aren't memorized speeches. If you want me to look up and make eye contact so you can guess what I am thinking, you will get less notes in the process and neither of us will enjoy the round nor the results.

Speech events of any kind maintain the opposite expectation. They should be memorized and make connections. Interps don't require eye contact but you get to decide the value of the 4th wall.

Flagrant violations will always negate your efforts.

Ad Hominem attacks against an opponent will be disciplined in your scores. If they are minimal, you might be warned. If they are excessive or major, they will be addressed through your coach, the tournament director, and possibly your admin or the NSDA.

Calling your opponent stupid in round or after the round in ear shot of the judge is a great way to forfeit a well won round.

I respect your coach and the tournament director but I am not afraid to debate with them either.