Please speak clearly and concisely. Even during in-person speech/debate events, there is a tendency for participants to speak much too fast and then I am not able to accurately get the point that was trying to be made.

Now with this online forum, there are technical, sound issues, network issues, which exacerbate the challenge to hear everyone clearly. So that's my number one requirement to speak slower and clearer.

Personal attacks will not be tolerated, respect one another.

I'm a lay judge. Go slow and no theory or I will drop you.

E-mail kaareanna74@gmail.com

About me:

• I am a Judge for Peninsula High School. Admittedly, I am more in my element judging IE, but I also thoroughly enjoy judging debate. I may know some basic concepts, but I’m still learning and possibly am unfamiliar with more specific terminology.

• I try really hard to be fair and objective to both sides of an argument. I do not let my biases or background knowledge taint who or how I vote each round. I vote for which team did the better debating, not which team is closer to truth.

• Style: Please speak slowly and clearly. Flow your opponents, and answer their main arguments sequentially. I prefer the debate to have an organizational clash that makes reasoned judgement possible.

• Quality: I care about argument quality, not argument quantity. I vote for the team that did the better debating. Source quality matters to me - if you read qualified sources, tell me their qualifications and read exact quotes (not debater biased paraphrasing) and it is more likely I believe it.

• Note Taking: I will take notes during each speech, to keep a record to better organize the debate to help evaluate which side wins.

• Rebuttals matter: In your last speeches - be sure to summarize the main points you want me to vote on and offer impact why that outweighs your opponents main points. I will limit my decision to solely arguments extended in the last two speeches. Completely new arguments cannot be first brought up in the rebuttals, because both sides need a chance to develop the argument in earlier speeches first. If new arguments are brought up, I will ignore them.

• Have fun, do your thing! Please treat each other with respect. 

I am a new judge but I am not new to the world of Speech and Debate. Former Competitor I competed in Speech and Debate all through High School and College. Please don't talk too fast. Overall make sure to enjoy yourself and give it your best.

I coach PF, but have personal competitive experience in Congress and Humorous Interpretation.

No spreading.

Tabula rasa.

When saying the name of a source and it's author, please slow down and speak clearly.

I may ask for cards.

Overall, I am looking for teams that are respectful and understand their arguments holistically.

I have judged Public Forum, extemporaneous speaking, interpretation, and original oratory for 3 years, associated with Dougherty Valley.

I may not flow like you but I do take copious notes. I will only vote off of arguments I can understand(so explain your warrants and link your impacts well).

You may use an appropriate number of cards in your case but be sure to explain them well in order them to count. I won't call out unsubstantiated or analytical arguments unless your opponents do.

Medium speed is ok, I won't vote off arguments that I can't follow.

I will not vote off of theory, I like clean, clear debates about the resolution.

I will only vote off of arguments that are extended through both summary and final focus.

I like impact calculus, contentions that are impacted will be voted off of.

Tech before truth, if your opponents don't call for the card, I won't call for it.

I will give speaker points based on comprehensibility and poise, so don't stutter or speak excessively fast and look somewhat presentable in round.

Good luck!

I am a lay judge, so speak clearly and at a speed that I can understand. Speaking quickly is fine so long as it's comprehensible. I like it when debaters use evidence to back up their arguments and logical analysis. Speak to me while you are talking, and be respectful during cross.

I am a parent judge with experience judging at local and national tournaments at the varsity levels. I have also judged various speech events over the last five years as well. I enjoy speech judging as I love the variety of topics that are covered. My daughter competed for West Broward FL in LD for four years. She started off in PF so I have judged both. More LD than PF. My judging philosophy is simple. I believe that an ordinary citizen should be able to listen to the reasoned arguments of debaters and come to a logical conclusion as to who's argument and evidence is more persuasive. I prefer arguments to be well structured, articulated clearly (please no spreading but I can handle a little faster then conversational) and supported by convincing evidence.

Plans- I'm ok with basic topical plan texts, but nothing non-topical
Counter-plans- I'm okay with cps.

Be careful when arguing a Perm, there needs to be a clear explanation as to whether the Aff and the Neg plans are or are not mutually exclusive.

Ks- willing to listen to a K as long as there is a clear link, not some generic link of omission.
DAs- I am perfectly fine with them just again be clear and concise

When debating please make sure to sign post and slow down on your tags. That way I can make sure to get as much of your argument on the flow.

Tricks - NO

Theory - only in the case of legitimate abuse as I really hate theory debates.

Please ask questions if more clarification is needed.

Hi Y'all

My name is Jack Daggenhurst, and I've been involved with Parliamentary debate for approximately four years now, so I've definitely had a lot of fun in this activity, and hope you do too. If anyone has ever been involved in IPPF before, I was the Captain of the team which won the 2018-2019 championship.

My entire philosophy essentially boils down to the doctrine that if you keep your arguments straightforward and to the point, then I will be more inclined with your position. Make sure that your resolution is clearly stated. Furthermore, I like to see a FW that supports your argument, while not taking an oversized amount of ground from your opposition.

On the area of POIs, please just keep it civil, and don't talk during an opponent's speech except quietly to your teammates or when you are asking a POI. On that note, I know the issue of POO's is also a bit controversial, with some judges allowing them, and some not. I do not. I consider it to be a waste of speech time.

Other than that, make sure to stay grounded in reality, and let's have a great time!

Hey, y'all!

Short Information:

Name & Pronouns:

Celine De Villa, she/her(s)/siya/ella

I go to USC. Fight on!

EMAIL ME YOUR EVIDENCE, ALWAYS!

celine.devilla01@gmail.com

Experience:

4 Years of High School Policy Debate (2016-2020)

3 Years of Varsity Policy Debate (2017-2020)

I've mainly been a 2nd Speaker, but I started as a 1st Speaker

Currently a college debater.

I've won multiple first place speaker awards and first-place team awards, so I know what a good debate is and I know who is a quality debater.

I won the first place speaker award at Cal National Debate Institution.

I've been to TOC.

I've been on a debate travel team.

Experienced Policy/LD/Parli/Speech Judge.

Expectations:

-Arguments that are obviously racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, Anti-Semitic, etc. are not OK. (Read: you will lose if you run them.)

- You should come into this debate round, prepared. Do not ask time to pre-flow, you should have done that earlier. Please respect my time, your opponent's time, and the other rounds I have to judge.

- It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable and the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it.

- Provide me a road-map. I will not take the time to scramble through my paper because you can't organize your arguments. To be a good debater is to be an organized person.

- I'm fine with spreading, but since we are online, I highly do not recommend it because we can get cut off from connection issues and I might miss an entire card. If you still decide to spread, then I expect you to speak clearly. If I can’t understand you, I will not tell you. I will simply assume that you are abusing your rights to spread to keep your opponent from understanding your case. I do not appreciate speakers who use their mannerisms of spreading without actually spreading.

- Your petty remarks will not earn your speaker points, nor does it make you a better debater. You can scream, you can do whatever facial expressions you want, but stay respectful and stay professional.

- Please signpost. Don’t just use an author’s name to extend a card. I need more than that.

- Tag-Team is fine with me.

- Please time yourselves. I will keep time too, maybe. Don’t ask me for a time sign, but I will call you out if I feel like you are surpassing the given time.

- Narratives: I do not like poems or whatever storytelling Aff. Cases. If you do use poems, I expect to also see ACTUAL evidence (ex. News article, Research Papers, etc.) This is a policy debate, I want to listen to your case and plans for the given resolution. Your narrative should have some sort of impact on your argument.

- Weigh your arguments. I love that.
- Yes, I know theory. No, I will not vote on a theory argument.

- I’m fine with counter plans

- I like Kritiks, but only if you really know how to argue Kritiks. Otherwise, don’t try.

- Framework debate is good, but only if you know how to explain it well.

All in all, have fun! I look forward to our rounds.

Congressional Debate: Show a good understanding of the bills presented and make a clear argument of your stance. Engage in the debate with good questions that challenge opposing sides, and be prepared to answer questions form the opposing side that challenges your stance. Be confident in the arguments that you present, but also respectful to your opponents.

Brief Intro about myself:

I am Programmer/Tech Enthusiast. I love learning about new technology coming every day. I have been judging for more than one year. In last one year i have all the forms of debate format.

Debaters i will prefer that participants don't do spreading. Its very important that i am able to understand what you want to present. There is no point of you providing information that i am not able to get to it. I understand you have lot to say but you need to make sure the judge is also following along. I am big believer of "Keep it Short and Simple"

As a judge, i will try to keep myself open-minded and not to impose any personal opinion what so ever.

Most important, please be respectful to your opponents and team mates. At end of day this is all going to be an constructive effort.

Good Luck!!!

I am a lay judge, so I don't know all the technical aspects of debate, but I am quite capable of following an argument and seeing holes in logic. In a close debate/tossup, I will give the win to the team that demonstrates a deeper understanding of the topic, not to the team that throws in super tangential arguments. It is helpful if you give verbal "signposts" so I know you are countering a point, or offering a new one, etc. I can follow quick speaking, but not insanely quick speaking. I'd prefer you don't spread. I try to give you public speaking feedback in my judging notes, but that doesn't mean I am basing the decision on speaking skills.

Here are the things that matter:

I did not debate as a student.

I have judged PF and LD for 8 years.

I don’t lean towards any style of debate, just convince me why I should vote for you and you can win.

My favorite philosophy is Utilitarianism... just sayin’

Hey! I am a dad judge with no experience. I judge lay and my daughter taught me so please adapt. There are a few things I need to see from you to win the round.

1. WEIGH: Weighing is the most important thing. If you do not tell me what to vote for, I will have to decide. You don't want that, so please make it easy for me to prioritize your arguments.

2. EXPLAIN: Explain clearly the narrative of your argument. I care about reasoning and articulation backed by evidence.

3. SUMMARY: Anything you want me to evaluate has to be in summary, otherwise I won't vote for it. I'm pretty sure that's a rule.

4. K, OKAY: If you want to read a progressive argument (framework or a K), I will evaluate it like you tell me to in the round. Just explain it clearly and why I should vote for it.

5. FUN: Have some!!

Last, I do not tolerate, racism, sexism, or misgendering. You are debating a resolution not individuals. If you act in such a way that disrespects your opponents identity, I will drop you. No exceptions.

I am a reasonably experienced parent judge, having judged LD, Parli, and PF at local, regional, and national level tournaments. I have also judged all types of speech events. I am an attorney and a former law school professor. I am looking for clearly articulated contentions, well-structured arguments, coherency, and strong analytical and rhetorical skills.

Racist, sexist, and other discriminatory comments and conduct will not be tolerated. Be polite and respectful both to your opponents and to me as judge. Ad hominem attacks are not acceptable. If your opponents have identified pronouns to be used in addressing them, be respectful and use them.

I tend to prefer fairly traditional arguments. No spreading please. I am reasonably well-versed in theory, but I find that debaters often don't have the background knowledge to pull it off. If I cannot follow the argument, it won't help you. At the end of the round, I should know why you used it.

On a standard 30-point scale, 30 means I think you should win the tournament. 25 means you might want to rethink some basic aspects of your debate.

My Experience: I teach English and have been coaching and judging speech and debate since September of 2014. My PF experience has mostly been confined to the beginning level. I was never a debater so most of what I know comes from coaching. I am definitely a lay judge.

I am a huge fan of specificity. The more detailed you can be in your args and evidence the easier it will be for me to flow and to vote on.

I lean tech over truth so make sure you refute your opponents’ args with the same specificity you construct your own.

I will flow the round but only at a reasonable speed. I believe spreading takes most of the educational value out of debate and, as such, I have a very difficult time judging it. That said, I will judge whatever you run, including Ks, theory, whatever you want. Just know, there is no substitute for a well-warranted, clash-heavy debate done at a reasonable speed.

I do not generally call for evidence and will only do so if my decision depends on it.

Be respectful to your opponents and demonstrate what you know.

I've been judging tournaments since 2017 - mostly debate (LD/PF/Parli) but some speech events as well.

Things I like in debate:

- Debating on the resolution

- Running traditional framework and making it clear with clash and weighing mechanisms

- Good, explicit speech structure and signposting

- Strong clash

Things I do not like in debate:

- Spreading (if I don't hear it, I can't flow it)

- Kritiks / theory

- Falsified evidence

Things I am probably OK with in debate:

- CPs, where permitted by tournament rules

Things I am probably not OK with in debate:

- Highly implausible impacts

Good luck... and good skill!

I am a parent judge. I have debated in LD when I was in High School over 25 years ago. 2 years ago I have reacquainted myself with debate when my son started competing. So with this being said, I am comfortable with all types of debate however I am not super familiar with all the arguments that currently popular. Assume my understanding at your own risk. What you will get from me is an independent judge that is flow-based. I will base my decision on how articulate your arguments are and if you adequately addressed your opponents key arguments.

I can handle moderate spread, but NOT if you're incomprehensible...and most of you are NOT understandable.

In terms of decisions, I try to make my decisions based on the flow, but will reward debaters for being smart and articulate. Additionally, although I will base my decision on the flow of arguments, I do NOT appreciate any show of disrespect to other competitors, spectators, and judges. I cannot guarantee that it doesn't affect my decision or assignment of speaker points.

School affiliations: Redlands High School,Los Gatos High School, Leigh High School

I am looking for competitors who have good composure and are good at analyzing their points thoughtfully.

I am a judge/parent.

Good luck students! In your debates please make your points clear and articulate. I will appreciate how the speaker walks through the points/arguments and ties it up all in the end.

Please be respectful and courteous of your fellow opponents and the judges time. Clarity in the speech, a pace which everyone can comprehend is greatly appreciated.

Do your best! stay positive and have fun! Best wishes.

With IEs, I rank according to performance (speaking ability, emotion, body language, etc.) and the creativity you can show (as in, how can you make this piece your own?). My like or dislike of the piece/topic will not be a factor in my decision. In PF, please make sure to explain terminal impacts and why I should weigh your impacts over your opponents'. Arguments should also have a clear connection to the resolution throughout the debate. With World Schools Debate, models should always be well explained and match the focus of the round.

I unfortunately have no experience with other debate events. As a lay judge in these events, I ask that you please be patient and avoid the use of jargon I would be unaware of. Also, I don't flow.

I love balanced, logical, and clear arguments. Please speak clearly and always be respectful to your opponents.

Thank you for your participation and best of luck!

I have judged several years for speech events and believe speech and debate is a great platform for students of all level to participate and benefit from it. Since our competitors have worked hard to share their performance with us, I try to also share something useful for them to takeaway with them when I write my ballot.

I am a parent judge who has been judging for about 4 years. I am looking for a traditional debate with value / value criteria. I appreciate a clear explanation of your case and being able to defend against your opponent's arguments. Please signpost, speak clearly and be respectful towards your opponents. Looking forward to watching your debates!

This is my 10th year coaching, and I have judged debate every year of my career thus far. I am a flow judge and prefer if you do not spread. If you do, please at least enunciate on your taglines and share your case with us. I am a firm believer that debate is still a communication event, so if every person in the room cannot understand your every word, you're not really debating. I've spent most of my coaching world in Speech, so if you use heavy jargon, please explain it occasionally. i.e. I know what Theory is, but if you get into "Wag the Dog" or "ROTB" I will be totally lost without a little bit of explanation.

I'm fine with K's and Topicality, as long as they are well linked. I understand the allure of treating debate as a game, but I am a classicist in that I believe it should be about competing evidence, exchanging ideas, and above all, clash. You cannot win my ballot unless you clash.

That being said, this is your debate! Clearly tell me why you win in your voters and frameworks, and I will follow your lead. Enjoy yourself and I'm sure you'll do fine! Feel free to ask any other questions you may have before round.

I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Alief Elsik High School in Houston, TX. As such, I currently coach and/or oversee students competing in a wide variety of events including all speech/interp events as well as Congress and World Schools debate. My debate paradigm is better explained if you know my history in competitive debate. I was an LD debater in high school in the early 90's. I then competed in CEDA/policy debate just before the CEDA/NDT merger. I started coaching speech and debate in 2004. In terms of debate, I have coached more LD than anything else but have also had a good deal of experience with Public Forum debate. Now that I am at Elsik, we really only have WSD and Congressional Debate in terms of debate events.

When adjudicating rounds, I do my very best to intervene as little as possible. I try to base decisions solely off of the flow and want to do as little work as possible for debaters. I hate when LD debaters, in particular, attempt to run policy positions in a round and don't have a clue about how the positions function. If you run policy stuff, then you should know policy stuff. I am open to the use of policy type arguments/positions in an LD round but I want debaters to do so knowing that I expect them to know how to debate such positions. I am also open to critical arguments as long as there is a clear story being told which offers the rationale for running such arguments and how the argument is to be evaluated in round. I am not a huge fan of a microdebate on theory and I strongly encourage you to only run theoretical arguments if there is clearly some in round abuse taking place. I will obviously listen to it and even vote there if the flow dictates it but know that I will not be happy about it. In terms of speed/jargon/etc, I do have a mixed debate background and I can flow speed when it's clear. I don't judge a ton of rounds any more as I find myself usually trapped in tab rooms at tournaments so I cannot keep up the way I used to. With that said, my body language is a clear indicator of whether or not I am flowing and keeping up. I do see debate as a game in many ways, however I also take language very seriously and will never vote in favor of a position I find to be morally repugnant. Please understand that to run genocide good type arguments in front of me will almost certainly cost you the round. Other than those things, I feel that I am pretty open to allowing debaters to determine the path the rounds take. Be clear, know your stuff and justify your arguments.

The last thing I think debaters should know about me is that I deplore rude debate. There is just no room in debate for nasty, condescending behavior. I loathe snarky cross ex. There is a way to disagree, get your point across and win debate rounds without being a jerk so figure that out before you get in front of me. Perceptual dominance does not mean you have to be completely obnoxious. I will seriously dock speaker points for behavior I find rude. As a former coach of an all women's debate team, I find sexist, misogynist behavior both unacceptable and reason enough to drop a team/debater.

I feel compelled to add a section for speech/interp since I am judging way more of these events lately. I HATE HATE HATE the use of gratuitous, vulgar language in high school speech/debate rounds. In speech events in particular, I find that it is almost NEVER NECESSARY to use foul language. I am also not a huge fan of silly tech and sound fx in interp events. Not every door needs WD40...lose the squeaky doors please. I think the intro is the space where you should be in your authentic voice telling us about your piece and/or your argument - STOP OVER-INTERPING intro's. Sometimes folks think loud volume = more drama. It doesn't. Learn to play to your space. Also recognize that sometimes silence and subtlety can be your best friends. With regard to OO and INFO...I think these are public speaking events. Interpatories generally don't sit well with me. I don't mind personality and some energy but I am finding that there are some folks out here doing full on DI's in these events and that doesn't work for me very often. I am not one that requires content/trigger warnings but do understand the value of them for some folks. I am really VERY DISTURBED by able-bodied interpers playing differently-abled characters in ways that only serve as caricatures of these human beings and it's just offensive to me so be careful if you choose to do this kind of piece in front of me. Also know that although I have very strong feelings about things, I understand that there are always exceptions to the rule. Brilliant performances can certainly overcome any shortcomings I see in piece selection or interpretation choices. So best of luck.

I am a lay judge but I have judged before. I appreciate slow, logical debating with good warrant comparison. Please do not run theory or Ks and explain your arguments clearly in your summary and final focus and signpost clearly. Please define important acronyms that the average person would not know. And please be polite to each other and have fun!

My background: I'm primarily a Speech Coach and have been since 2003. I coached Public Forum a long time ago and judged Public Forum and Lincoln/Douglas at the high school level since our school was heavily invested in those forms of debate.

I am "old school" and prefer debaters speak to me as if I were a lay judge. Please don't make the mistake of thinking I know nothing about debate. It's just that I really don't like to hear a lot of debate slang. If you speak too fast for me to understand you, I will stop typing or writing. I don't like abusive arguments, but if you are on the receiving end, you should mention your opponents’ argument is abusive and why it's abusive. And if anyone runs an "everybody dies" or "nuclear war and the world ends" kind of argument, it better tie VERY logically to the topic or I will drop you.

I like rounds where there’s clear framework set in place. Give me a way to weigh the impacts in a round.

Please respect your opponents and all people in the room. I will dock speaker points if debaters are rude or don't let opponents get a word in during crossfires or cross-examinations. On the other hand, I will hand higher speaker points to those who use soaring rhetoric and appropriate humor - did I mention I'm a Speech coach?

Prefer that spreading is avoided in debate round, have a clear topic analysis and structured arguments. Speak clearly.

Parent Judge

Lay NOT flow

No spreading

I am a lay, parent judge.

Please talk clearly and slowly (no spreading). Please debate a PF round (no kritiks or theory or counter plan). Please be polite, especially in crossfire. I like signposting and please make each response clear.

Looking forward to the debate.

Hi! My name is Michelle (she/her/hers) and I am a first year student at UCI. I competed in congressional debate for all four years at Presentation High School in San Jose. I also have some experience in Extemp, OI, Expos, and PF.

**I will drop your ranks if you are rude or condescending to others in round or intentionally make arguments that are racist/sexist/blatantly discriminatory/etc**

(just, please, be nice to each other. there's a difference between refuting someone's arguments and personally attacking them.)

I'm a firm believer that Congress is as much of a speech event as it is a debate event, so let your personality shine in your speeches and use your speaking style to your advantage to stand out in round (I LOVE good rhetoric and one-liners). Far too often, students in congress will start copying each other using the homogenous "debate voice" (you know what I'm talking about)--try to avoid it.

In terms of argumentation, make sure you are contextualizing every claim you make (you did the research, I did not, so don't assume I understand everything you are saying). If you are giving the authorship, please don't jump straight into arguments--give background to the issue and why this piece of legislation was written in the first place. For crystallization speeches near the end of the debate, don't just summarize the debate but provide additional analysis to the arguments already made and please weigh the impacts!

Please care about the arguments you are making..there's nothing worse than capitalizing off of a group or community suffering from congressional policymaking (or lack thereof) for meaningless ranks if you don't truly care about the real-world implications. These are REAL people and not just numbers & statistics for you to throw around.

Lastly, remember to have fun!!! :-)

I've assistant coached for 13 years mainly as an IE coach.

Debate:

In terms of debate the school I have judged many rounds of Public Forum, Parli, and LD.

I know how to flow, but depending on the round I may not vote solely on flow. As in: An opponent dropping an argument that makes no sense... is still an argument that makes no sense.

I understand most debate jargon, but if you are going to run something really off the wall you may want to take some extra time to explain it.

If you aren't saying anything important I won't flow. If I am lost, I won't flow. If you aren't clear in speaking, I won't flow. I hate spreading with the passion of 1000 burning fiery suns.

I did IEs in high school, so to me the essential part of speech and debate is learning the ability to communicate. So make sure you explain things clearly and concisely. I feel that louder/faster doesn't always equal smarter.

I really like strong (but respectful) clash in crossfire and cross-ex. Really dig into the arguments and show me you know what is going on!

Voters and voting issues in your final speech are key to me inside of whatever framework you have set up. For LD this includes your value and criterion as well as your opponent's.

IEs:

These events are my jam. :)

I’m a co-owner of a speech and debate academy and head speech coach with kids who’ve done well nationally. I’m a professional actor and a member of SAG-AFTRA. I am also a licensed attorney in CA with a background in civil litigation. I enjoy traditional LD, especially helping students learn about different philosophies, effective research and writing and developing great analytical and persuasive skills.

What I Value: I value organized, clear and coherent debate with clash. I value traditional debate and especially appreciate creative but applicable values and value criteria. A thoughtful framework and clear organization is very important, both in the framework and argument. I really enjoy hearing well-structured cases with thoughtful framework and value/Value Criterion setups. I have seen cases decided on framework and I think it is very educational for students to learn philosophy and understand more of the philosophical underpinnings of resolutions and even democratic society. Don't forget to show me how you achieved your value better than your opponent, or even how your value and VC achieve your opponent's value better. Don't forget to show your organization of claim-warrants-impact in your arguments. I don't think solvency is necessary in LD, but if you have a persuasive way to bring it in, I am okay with it.

Speed: A proper pace and rhythm of speech is important. I am fine with coherent, articulate fast talking that has a purpose, but I really do not liked spreading. I find it and double-breathing very off-putting and contrary to the fundamentals of public speaking and good communication and the notion that debate should be accessible to all. Normal people sit bewildered watching progressive, circuit-level debaters, unable to comprehend them. Furthermore, it appears that progressive debaters typically give their cases via flash drive to judges and opponents who then read them on their computers during the round and during decision-making. This then becomes an exercise in SPEED READING and battle of the written cases.

Theory: I don’t know much about theory and all the tricks that have trickled down from policy into progressive LD. However, I am open-minded and if done intelligently, such as a valid and applicable spreading K, I believe it can be an interesting way to stop abusive practices in a round.

Final words: I think all of you should be very proud of yourselves for getting up there and doing this activity. Please remember that being courteous, honest and having values you follow are going to take you much further in life than unethical practices such as misrepresenting your evidence cards or being rude to your opponent. Good luck!

I prefer a slower rate of speech so no spreading will be tolerated. If you do I will give you no higher than a 27 in speaks. If your opponents say clear or slow make sure you listen to them so everyone can hear. Remember, it doesn’t matter what you say if nobody in the round can hear.

Puns and jokes are allowed and encouraged as long as they have pertinence to the round.

I will only flow through your argument as long as you can reason it well. Ex. I can’t flow through an impact of 10 million jobs unless you tell me why so many jobs are being lost. But even if it is a really far fetched argument I have to flow it through unless the opposition can rebut it well.

As to summary and final focus for pf I cannot extend your arguments unless I hear the argument in your summary and final focus.

For a counterplan in policy and Lincoln Douglas you have to be able to tell me what your counterplan is with evidence and reasoning, why the opponents’ plan cannot be used, and why yours is preferable.

I will Side with the weighing mechanism that proves that theirs is more preferable in the context of the round.

Do not read fast from your cards (meaning spreading is discouraged and disfavored). If I can't follow your speed read, it does not help your side.

Be articulate.

Make arguments easy to follow.

Speech:

Extensive experience competing in HI and DI, and judging in all forms of IE.

Extemp/IMP: Please have a thesis statement. Don't simply answer your question "Yes/No", and then jump to your points. I need to hear WHY you are answering Yes/No in a well-crafted thesis statement.

Oratory/Advocacy/INFO: You're here to teach! Teach me!

Interp: There is a difference between true interpretation and simply making somebody laugh (HI) or cry (DI). Good "Interpers" know the difference.

Debate:

***** PROFESSIONALISM AND COURTESY ARE OF THE UTMOST IMPORTANCE TO ME *****

***** IF YOU TREAT YOUR OPPONENTS WITH DISRESPECT, SPEAKER POINTS (AND PERHAPS RFD) WILL BE IMPACTED SEVERELY *****

***** YOU ARE HERE TO ATTACK ARGUMENTS, NOT PEOPLE *****

I am experienced as a competitor in Policy and Lincoln-Douglas. I am experienced as a judge in Policy, Lincoln-Douglas, Public Forum, and Parliamentary. See below for more info.

General: Debate is about your ability to understand, analyze, weigh, educate, and persuade in a contest of oral communication. Show me that you have developed these skills and abilities. I want to hear well-constructed arguments & reasoning, supported by relevant evidence and analysis. Depth means much more to me than breadth. During refutations, I want to hear true clash and expansion, not simple repetition of previously stated arguments. During final rebuttals, I want to hear a thoughtful bottom line -- the ability to sum up an entire debate is a very important skill. I can still make a decision without any of that, but good debaters will always demonstrate that they have learned the above skills.

PF/Policy/Parli: IF YOU SPREAD, I WILL PUT MY PEN DOWN, AND I WILL NOT RECORD YOUR ARGUMENTS OR EVIDENCE. Your speaker points will also reflect poorly. "Spread debate" teaches you (and me) nothing more than how fast you can speak and how fast I can write. The "spread" dynamic exists nowhere in the real world, except at debate tournaments. As such, I find spreading to be artificial and unproductive. If you never spoke at all, and simply pasted your cards onto a communal flow sheet with a series of arrows, you would reach the same endpoint as spread debate. So, please don't spread. Give me an outstanding LAY debate.

Lincoln-Douglas: I understand that these are values debates. But I see no utility in "stating your values" at the top of the speech (i.e. "My values for this debate are quality of life and egalitarianism.... now on to my arguments"). These opening statements mean very little, and I never write them down. I want to hear your case first. I want to hear solid background, arguments, and evidence, all of which SHOULD organically convince me of the values you support. You wouldn't make such empty opening statements about values in the real world, so I don't need to hear them in your speech. Show me how your arguments support your values, not the other way around.

I care about argumentation and analysis more than most all else. I emphasize the flow, and care about the credibility of evidence. I'm not the biggest fan of theory debate for the sake of theory debate. I prefer topic centric debate.

I have about 10 years of experience in the speech and debate world. I primarily exist in speech land, but I have judged a lot of debate and love a strong argument and good links. That being said, I enjoy when a speaker can clearly articulate their arguments, and use delivery based methods of persuasion to help sway the ballot.

I am always hopeful for a debate where there is a lot of clash, and a clear path to the ballot.

I love when debaters give me voters and a clear articulation of why they believe that they have won the ballot.

I am Parent Judge and I have experience in judging LD and PF for about 3 years. I like crisp and clear speaking during debate. Fast or slow does not matter as long as I can understand. I prefer to listen to actual facts rather than just theory. Please be respectful of your opponents. Off-time roadmaps helps me while judging and I believe will help the candidates also from speaker point of view.

Please introduce yourself and introduce topic in 1-2 sentence .

Arguments- Back them up with good evidence, data , analysis.

Cross fire- Be respectful and stick to the points

Speaker points - Clear concise with moderate pace speaking , good performance in crossfire will get highest speaker points.

Enjoy debate and have fun.

Please reach out to me if you have any questions.

Speech TL;DR

- in Impromptu: be original and interesting! I love unusual takes on the various prompts. Be sure to have an interpretation of the prompt!

- in Extemp: prioritize content (i.e. decent number of sources and one or two well thought out arguments) and clarity (i.e. don't cram in a bunch of sources to support one point and neglect a point explaining the background of a complicated topic)

- in platforms (OA, OO, Inform, Expository): y'all know what you're doing I trust :) I love platforms! I mainly compete in these in college.

- in Interp: TBH, I only ever did OI while in high school, but I love judging these events! My one request: be careful to have a trigger warning if your speech has heavy like a graphic suicide scene. I think that it's just the courteous thing to do for your competitors as we can't ever know where others are coming from. That being said, I'm not asking for a TW for something like a person being killed when part of your piece relies on that shock value that comes from that. Just be sure you're saying something important via your performance and making some kind of significant point, not just including graphic or violent content since those things are dramatic.

Public Forum TL;DR

-treat me like I'm lay [truth > tech]. I did PF for three years and I have always thought that the expectation for all PF rounds should be to treat your judge like any ordinary citizen off the street that you called in to listen to you talk.

-for the love all of debate PLEASE don't spread in PF

-evidence in PF is important, but it isn't everything. use it wisely to support your argument without making it your argument. do work with it- use it to link stuff out, but warrant independently of the card (if you don't warrant, i won't even consider the "argument" you present in the card)

-WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH IN FINAL FOCUS

-pet peeves: saying your opponents dropped something when they didn't, being overly aggressive in cross, abusing the ever living hell out of the fact that somebody's card wasn't perfect, and speaking at 100% volume for the entirety of your speech

-if you are a jerk to your opponents, your speaks will suffer. heavily. I don't care how good of a debater you are; you can be convincing without being rude

-try your hardest to have fun

_______________________________________________________________________________

Long Paradigm:

Hiya! I'm Annaclare and I love love love speech and debate! This sport gave me a place to cultivate public speaking, learn better communication, and meet some of the coolest people in the world.

That being said, please don't be the reason I leave the tournament sad at the state of debate.

I have had lots of experience with Public Forum debate, and I have some very specific beliefs about it:

#1: Spreading

If you begin to spread at any point in a PF round, or even to talk much faster than what the average human can understand, I will say "speed" or "clear" once, and that will be your only warning. At that point, your speaks will suffer very, very heavily. Public Forum is a style of debate meant to be just that: a public forum. If you are speaking at a such a speed that the average U.S. citizen could not follow what you are saying, your speaks drop below a 27 instantly. I think that there are other forms of debate that you can participate in if you want to spread, and I will give you one grace pass when it comes to speed. However, I will start docking speaks from speakers spreading in any PF round.

That being said- if the res is too broad thanks to a bad call by the folks at the NSDA in charge of the wording, check with me before the round and I will consider letting you speak faster.

#2: Counterplans:

don't.

#3: Framework:

I assume Util/Net Benefit unless you argue differently. if you choose to argue a different framework, do not make the entire round about it. spend about 30 seconds in each speech (and maybe some crossfires) but focus on the arguments

#4: K's

If you think I can understand it (I never ran Ks when I did debate), I might allow it if you argue its pertinence to the round. But you have to go all in on it.

#5: Fiat

The resolution allows the AFF to assume implementation of the resolution. I'm open to "implementation of this resolution causes this other thing 'X'" if it's argued well, but what frustrated me a lot when I did PF was when I would be AFF and the other team would get up in Rebuttal Cross and go "Well, but who's to say that Trump would allow this??" *thud* [that's my head hitting the desk in frustration] and then we waste an entire 3 minutes arguing about Fiat and whether or not the NEG was allowed to say that Trump would immediately overturn the res.

#6: Theory

Idk. I've never seen it run in PF... so probably not? I guess if you're gonna do it, persuade me

#7: THE MOST IMPORTANT THING

I believe that the true value of debate comes from its ability to educate students and build community. Competition is fun, and we all love winning, but what excites me at tournaments far more than winning is having a good round (just ask my coach).

If you're a very accomplished NatCircuit team, don't "destroy" your opponents with every fiber of your vigorous, extremely talented debater being; be kind and charitable to those less experienced than you, treating them with dignity and not disdain.

And for all: be respectful. be kind. Recognize the privilege that you have to hang out with other people who love to nerd out about politics and economics just as much as you and get psyched about delivering passionate speeches. Or, alternatively, applaud and encourage those who enter into debate as a means to improve confidence, research, etc.

Lastly,

#8: Speaks

if you're a jerk to your opponents, your speaks will be poor. I don't care how good of a debater you are if you can't show decency and respect to your opponent(s)

________________________________________________________________________________________

Now go have fun and give me a great round :DDD

tabula rasa... no spreading please. outline format preferred. roadmaps and signposting a plus.

Hi everyone! Pls add me to the chain rachelstattion@gmail.com

My name is Rachel, I don't mind being called judge or Rachel, either works I'm like 6 months older than the oldest of you so not that big of a deal. I did policy debate and the tiniest bit of speech in high school. I currently go to SCU in California. I don't debate in college for two reasons: 1. they aint got policy here which would be fine but I am lazy and don't want to learn all over again how to debate and 2. tournaments gave me ~*anxietyyyy~*.

I'm usually a nervous wreck so please note, if you try to post-round me I will shut that down real quick. I am always willing to answer questions about why I do the things I do, buttttttt I will not accept entitled children coming up demanding answers and demanding a victory. nope.

Also, if you are worried about losing to a blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, entitled team, don't be. If I catch that sh*t not only will they not receive my vote but they will get as few speaks as I am able to give. Debate is already an exclusive activity, I will not tolerate those who think its okay to keep it that way. And for that matter, if you think you are one of those teams who tries to play savior for black and brown communities you do not belong to, then you have another thing coming, be very wary about the way you posit yourself and you prolly wont find me mad-dogging you.

Also, I don't smile, and have RBF, sorry for those worried about that but usually y'all are okay. If you see blatant confusion on my face, damn broskies I'm sorry not quite following your direction rn. Cursing is allowed, but not just because it is, use it to emphasize your pt, not the other way around. CX can be competitive if y'all are giving each other the run-around, but don't condescend or be blatantly disrespectful. Confrontation is different from disrespect. Be clear, don't spread, especially now with my shoddy internet connection and I swear to goodness if you do I will not follow. If I need to read the doc to have any clue what you are saying there is a problem.

Now for the juicy:

ON T/FWK: I'm willing to vote on it if it is like a really flushed out T violation, with a clear explanation of why it violates and its implications. But if you just up and go, "T - doesn't meet" 4 times with no further explanation, I will cry. Framework is a bit more convoluted, but I essentially request the same if not more detail on why debate should be structured this way. I'm not good at weighing either of these, especially with competing interpretations, so I would not bank on them unless the other team just completely mishandles it.

ON CASE: Y'all need offense. It cannot be just 'doesn't solve', because if they run the risk of solving then I will most likely vote affirmative. If you have got offense args like a turn, it will look way better for you and increases your chances of crushing the round. Making 3 or 4 really smart args on case is way better than 8 off case that barely link. Aff, carry arguments and ev from your 1ac, it is so undervalued, use that sh*t to answer their case args.

ON DAs/CPs: NGL a lot of the DA's I've seen have been dry as all hell, so you may see me bored out of my skull during the round if you are running another damn politics DA. Also, extremely weak connections between the DA and the case or running 4 DAs and hoping one sticks or the other team will drop it, it can work but I will still be big sad and disappointed in u. This is especially true with random CPs that make no logical sense or like 3 different CPs that are full of crap. Aff, literally I love turns on DAs, they make me smile again in this dark and dreary world. But, again cross apply args from the 1ac to answer, it makes your args stronger and I think of you better.

ON Ks: I love K's, I think they can be an awesome addition to a teams strat. But again, if you are using a K just to use a K, I will really look down on you for that. Especially if you run like a SetCol or Afropess K that has basis in identity to a certain degree and use it just as a one off, I will definitely dock speaks bc that is not cool at all. I don't know all Ks, and I think some are dumb, but if you can thoroughly explain to me why I should vote on it, it'll look better for you. Also, please make your advocacy clear. Aff, call them on their bs if their advocacy/alt is trash, sometimes I will agree with you.

ON K AFFs: Love them. But I also am really bad with the nuance of them. I really enjoy watching and hearing these rounds, but I get lost a lot easier, so as long as everything is explained thoroughly I'll definitely feel okay voting on it.

ON THEORY: Literally I have 1 round of experience with theory, and that was a blur. If you explain to me what it is you are arguing, why its important, or just what it is you want me to vote on it should be okay. But take this one realllll slow.

TLDR: Take it slow, explain it thoroughly, and you'll be good. I am not the most knowledgeable human being, so I need your help in giving me reasons to vote for you. TBH, I would rather not vote for anyone so as to avoid confrontation, so convince me por favor. Don't steal prep time, imma be mad. ALSO, if I am giving an RFD and you aren't paying attention, like at all, you can forget about me giving you a reason for your loss, you lost because you are buttfaces and dumb. Thanks yall, and good luck!

PS: brownie points for those who talk wit me about manga or got7. <3 y'all!

Hello! I'm a mom of a competitor who has done PF, LD, Worlds, Congress, OO, OI, and IMP.

I have judged both speech and debate before but I am by no means a tech judge. I won't be able to understand spreading or very tech terms/techniques (critiques, etc). For debate try and make it as clear and clean as possible throughout the flow and arguing that becomes mean or personal in any way will not be tolerated.

If you have any questions please let me know and please feel free to take a second and explain before or after the round (not during) anything that might occur that I as a lay judge may not understand.

I’ve been Involved with Speech and Debate since 2015, although I’ve been judging almost nonstop since 2019. Available as a judge-for-hire via HiredJudge per request.

9.9/10 if you did not receive commentary on your ballot after the tournament, you (hopefully) would get my judge email on there instead.

I don’t currently operate from a laptop so my ballot speed is not ideal atm; I’m usually typing out paragraphs from a doc until the last allowable minute, but my timing is not the most perfect. You won’t always get a pageful but its my personal policy to give a minimum of 5 sentences. If you send over an email asking about your round; it might take up to 24 hours post tournament but I -will- reply back.

_____

Ballot Style:

Where possible I add timestamps to help students pinpoint exact moments in their speech that address the issue as noted by comment.it is a personal philosophy of mine to try never have less than 5 sentences on any ballot.

Debate Philosophy: I can comfortably judge parli, LD, PF, SPAR & Congress due to judging almost nonstop since the start of the pandemic. I don't have a lot of experience with policy debate as of this writing, I’m working on understanding spread speak as I do more tournaments. [current speed: 2 notches down from the fast verse in Rap God ]

I LOVE it when students are able to be fully themselves and have fun in a round
Debate Judging: I’m not the biggest fan of utilitarian as a value metric, but otherwise I try to approach the round as a blank slate. I like hearing both Ks & Traditional Argumentation however my rfd really depends on how you use them (or inverse thereof) in the debate.

Sportsmanship (like, dont lower your performance/ be rude on purpose, please) > Argumentative Cohesion & Organization > CX utilization & Clash > Framework Discourse > Delivery > Structural Presence, but I am a little stricter on citation~ doesn’t need to be the full date but it needs gotta be there

Congress: (also see above) but I like those who can flip arguments in their favor;You dont need to be extroverted to be PO, but POs should be attentive with overall energy in the chamber and facilitating ethical and intentional inclusion beforesilence becomes a huge issue in round, in addition to strict yet -visible- timekeeping.

RFD FLOW - I try to have at least a paragraph summary explaining my flow (sometimes it’ll be copy/pasted)

Speech Judging: I can judge any speech event across all levels!

I would sincerely appreciate if students could self time so I can focus on ballots.

(For those who have read all the way through, some free interp gems that will be erased in a month, besides the basics: storyboarding, stop animation, pixar’s “inside out,” samurai jack, sound track your pieces.)

Hi, my name is Victoria and I am an assistant coach at my HS alma mater, where I competed in dec, OI, and OO.

That said, I have experience judging some debate at the local level, but I am more often judging speech. I am a flow judge to the best of my ability, but spreading is not in your best interest. At over 250 words-per-minute, I will not longer be able to flow the round. It is likely better that you don’t run any high level theory in front of me: straightforward, well-warranted arguments with clear impacts, good clash in rebuttals, and ample weighing are your best path to victory, not convoluted theory and technicalities. Tech over truth won’t win me over. In PF, write my ballot for me in summary and final focus, clear voting issues and framing of the round are a must. In LD, clear brightlines in the value criterion are a must, and clear weighing in the rebuttals and delineating the lines of clash will be helpful in writing my ballot. If you go over your allotted time, I will stop writing and raise my pen. If I didn't write it down, it wont be judged.

Lastly, good luck to everyone! You guys are incredible for choosing such a difficult categories and I have nothing but the utmost respect for all of you. I look foreword to hearing some great debates!

Some background: I did four years of high school debate- both lay debate and nat circuit focusing on mostly LD.

Include me on your email chain please: helenawehr@outlook.com

Speed:

I’m okay with spreading, but please make sure you speak clearly, if I can’t understand what you’re saying I won’t flow it. Better slow than sorry.

Kritiks:

Kritiks are fine, just don’t assume I have any comprehensive understanding of the philosophy- especially if it’s more obscure, and make sure you actually know what you’re talking about. Also, make sure your kritik has solid impacts, when it comes down to a wash between policy versus in round impacts, I’m more likely to favor policy.

In general: I mostly liked policy debate, that's definitely what I prefer. I'm fine with theory. Mainly, just be organized and don't be rude.

David Wells

Head Coach Bakersfield High School

dmwells101@yahoo.com

Policy Debate Experience

4 years HS policy debate 1992-1996

3 time College NDT qualifier 2000-2002  CSU, Bakersfield 

Policy and LD Judging Philosophies below

Policy Judging Philosophy

Tech vs. Truth

Truth is often determined in round by the argumetns presented so I guess I lean toward technique that has well explained arguments.  Blippy arguments are rarely persuasive and often easily grouped and defeated.

Prep Time

Please don't use the restroom right before your speech and expect it not to take your preptime.  

Prep time can be used before or after CX.

Flashing docs is not considered prep time, unless you "realize" you need something that requires prep.

Evidence vs Analysis (The lost Art of Argumentation)

Good analysis beats bad evidence most of the time.  My HS Coach was fond of saying, "Debate with your brains not with your briefs."  That being said, good evidence with good analysis is best.

AFF

I prefer Affirmatives that defend a topical policy action, preferably with a plan.  The topical case can be big impact, systemic impact or critical in nature. I can be persuaded that other ways of debating are worthwhile, but the burden of proof falls heavily on the AFF without a plan as to how they actually affirm the resolution, not just an identity or issue unrelated to the Nationally chosen topic.

I have no problem voting for performance AFFs that are well debated.  I do not care at all for Adhom. attacks.

I dislike blip theory debates.  I do like theory debates that are developed, well articulated, and impacted.  I have no problem voting on theory.  Just make it good theory.

NEG

Counterplans, DAs, Kritiks, Case Debates, and Topicality are all fine.  The more specific the evidence/links the more likely you will get weight for your arguments.

Be ready and able to defend your Neg Strategy.  2NR should make strategic decisions and no go for everything.

LD Judging Philosophy

Speed/Clarity: I debated Policy at the national level in college so speed is fine.  Let me clarify, clear speed is fine.  I determine your clarity.  So I will say clearer twice, then slower, then stop flowing if you fail to adjust.  If you do "speed" drills but not "clarity" drills, you probably should speak slower.

Strategies: I really just want to see a clash of ideas.  Arguments that avoid a directly clash can be persuasive but rarely get high speaker points.  Preferably, an actual debate about values and value criterions is preferred.  The move toward LD becoming individual policy debate is interesting...not decided if it is beneficial.  If you debate policy style, you need to be clear why that is to be preferred and how it stays germane to the Resolution.

The Topic: I like LD cases that embrace the value question of the resolution head on and develop their position.  If you run a policy it should be germane to the topic and ought to be a reasonably predictable case for competitive equity.  This can be debated out in the round.

If you have questions of me, just ask.  I'm not perfect.  I'm getting older.  You know the topic better than me.  So, teach me your position and you have a better chance of winning.  If you just read a lot without analysis, you let me be the learner with a poor teacher and who knows what I may think...?

Be Polite and enjoy the debate.

All speech events:

For virtual, please stay in the camera frame. It is best if your hands are always in the frame as well; otherwise, gestures seem extreme when your hands suddenly enter the frame. Make sure you adhere to the constitution. For recorded (asynchronous) events, you are not allowed to edit the video.

Extemp/OO/Info:

I need a clear structure. You should have at least one source for each point. The biggest thing I look for is your explanation - you need to explain things in a way that makes it easy to understand without sounding condescending. Your examples and explanation should help me understand your ideas. Movements (5-point walk and gestures) should be smooth, helpful, and make sense. The constitution states you cannot be ranked first if you go over grace.

Interp:

Rankings most often are based on who creates the most believable moments and characters. There should be different levels to your characters and pieces—not everything should be intense, not everything should be quiet, not everything should be rapid, not everything should be slow, etc. If you use an accent for a character, then you need to be consistent with it. It is not necessary for you to have multiple characters; however, if you do, you need to create distinct characters. You should add meaning behind the lines through your voice, tone, and inflection. Cussing doesn’t bother me; I do prefer for it to make sense within your piece. I do not mind if you take a serious piece and put a humorous spin on it or a humorous piece being given a dramatic spin as long as it is not creating a caricature or making fun of a group of people. Movement should also make sense. Introductions should help clarify and set the scene; many events also require the author and title to be clearly stated in the introduction as well. The constitution states you cannot be ranked first if you go over grace..

For POI specifically: there are some judges who want to be able to tell a difference between the different pieces you use and will make a comment that your program “seems more like prose or poetry than POI”; I disagree with this—If we cannot tell a difference between your pieces, I think it shows how skilled you are at weaving your pieces together to create one coherent voice.

I prefer clear and slow arguments

My email: zhaomeng.la@gmail.com

I am a parent judge who enjoys hearing innovative arguments. I have judged about 15 tournaments and more than 50 rounds of TOC/Varsity level of PF competitions. Below is a list of my criteria:

1. I prefer each team to provide a speech document for at least the cases and rebuttals with cards. It makes the evidence exchange professional, efficient, and fair, while allowing the judge to go back to check the evidence for clarification and validity if necessary.

2. Signpost is highly appreciated.

3. Collapsing in the back half is highly encouraged and appreciated. Also, the final focus is important for my decision, anything you want me to evaluate should be in the last speech.

4. I am okay with speed up to 220 words per minute. Speed is usually always fine, if it is well organized with signposts, and clearly delivered.

5. Tech over truth. It’s your burden to disprove your opponents’ absurdity. Comments such as “this is ludicrous” without a warrant will just make me laugh.

6. Theory running is appreciated in the debate. in fact, any argumentation is encouraged if there is a sound explanation/defense. However, make sure you explain what the jargon means when debating theoretical arguments.

7. Personally, I believe the practice of disclosing arguments on the wiki is in the best interest of the debate community’s well-being, and should become a norm, at least in varsity debate competitions.

8. I do not have a preference of paraphrasing, but evidence ethics is an important voting issue for me. For example, misrepresenting evidence in extremely egregious manner should be considered a fatal error and can’t be overlooked. However, minor infractions should not be zealously prosecuted.

9. If you beat your opponents in crossfire, you need to extend it into the speeches to score points in my evaluation.

I have been doing parli for 3 years.

I don't vote off Ks and theories

Treat me as a lay judge who flows

NO SPREADING.

Please make sure to ask if everybody is ready before starting your speech.

Please be respectful to your opponents during the whole round.

Overall, just relax and have fun.