Name: Shifatul Ahsan Apurba

School Affiliation: BRAC University

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: <1

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: >1

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: >3

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: >3

If you are a coach, what events do you coach? - Not a coach

What is your current occupation? - Undergraduate Student

General Notes for speakers:

1. Speakers should be aware of the following information.

2. In particular, I appreciate teams that have a clear structure, can explain the implications of evidence effectively, and can correctly connect evidence to their arguments.

3. It's better if you describe the underlying trend/core problem connected with it while using proof.

4. It's critical to maintain your audience's interest. Judges' jobs are made simpler by direct comparison and weighing. In addition, you should demonstrate how your advantages exceed their drawbacks and how your advantages surpass your opponents'.

5. If you make a case for comparative advantage, be ready to back it up with evidence that connects directly to the evidence your opponent utilized.

6. You should be ready to explain why your strategy is a superior method, such as because it gets the job done faster/easier and requires fewer resources.

7. Please don't make any arguments that aren't obvious to a well-informed voter. This content will be devalued if you do this.

8. You must refrain from using any terminology that may lead to equity breaches.

9. We enjoy having a roadmap.

10. It's okay to speak quickly as long as you're clear.

11. As long as you're comprehensible, I don't mind what type of style you have. Different debaters have varying styles because of their different upbringings, and it is something I respect.

12. During presentations, I have a decent amount of energy. In the heat of battle, I jot down the most salient queries and the answers given to them.

anthonyrbrown85@gmail.com for the chain

*Please show up to the round pre-flowed and ready to go. If you get to the room before me or are second flight, flip and get the email chain started so we don't delay the rounds.*

Background

Currently the head coach at Southlake Carroll. The majority of my experience is in Public Forum but I’ve spent time either competing or judging every event.

General

You would probably classify me as a flay judge. The easiest way to win my ballot is through comparative weighing. Explain why your links are clearer and stronger and how your impacts are more important than those of your opponents.

Speed is fine but if I miss something that is crucial to your case because you can’t speak fast and clearly at the same time then that’ll be your fault. If you really want to avoid this issue then I would send a speech doc if you plan on going more than 225 wpm.

I do not flow cross so if anything important was said mention it in a speech.

I would classify myself as tech over truth but let’s not get too crazy.

Speaking

Typical speaks are between 27-30. I don’t give many 30s but it’s not impossible to get a 30 from me.

I would much rather you sacrifice your speed for clarity. If you can’t get to everything that you need to say then it would probably be best to prioritize your impacts and do a great job weighing.

Any comments that are intended (or unintended in certain circumstances) to be discriminatory in any form will immediately result in the lowest possible speaker points.

PF Specific

I’m probably not evaluating your K or theory argument at a non-bid tournament. If you’re feeling brave then you can go for it but unless the literature is solid and it is very well run, I’m going to feel like you’re trying to strat out of the debate by utilizing a style that is not yet a norm and your opponents likely did not plan for. If we're at a bid tournament or state, go for it.

Don’t just extend card names and dates without at least briefly reminding me what that card said. Occasionally I write down the content of the card but not the author so if you just extend an author it won’t do you any good.

I have a super high threshold for IVIs. If there's some sort of debate based abuse run a proper shell.

LD Specific (This is not my primary event so I would make sure I check this)

Cheatsheet (1 is most comfortable, 5 is lowest)

Policy: 1

Theory: 2

Topical Ks: 2

Phil: 4

Non-Topical Ks: 4

Tricks: 5

I’ll understand your LARP arguments. I’ll be able to follow your spreading. I can evaluate most K’s but am most comfortable with topical K’s. I will understand your theory arguments but typically don't go for RVIs. I would over-explain if you don’t fall into those categories and adjust if possible.

Hi! I'm Ricky (she/they) and I'm a third year at Cal Poly SLO majoring in Ethnic Studies. I was a Congress kid, so if I get put into another event for judging please keep that in mind :)

I am open to theory and things like Ks, the largest thing is just spreading for me. If you spread too fast I will have trouble keeping up but you don't have to talk super slow just be mindful.PLEASE GIVE ME A COPY OF YOUR CASE IF THIS IS PF/LD/CX, etc.If this is Speech/Congress PLEASEdon't use any cookie cutter speech openers like "My opponents arg is like a cone of cotton candy, it seems nice at first but when you take a closer look, it's fluff and no substance' plssss thats so corny lol.

Also if this is Congress, PLEASE CLASH! Clash is what makes the event fun and exciting to watch.If you PO more then likely you will be getting a 3-5.

Feel free to ask me any questions before the round!

Contact Info: Pramit De on FB Messenger or pramitde@utexas.edu

Debate Basics

1. Send speech docs for constructive to my email. Makes it easier for me to flow and makes sure I don't miss anything you're saying.
2. Debate should be an educational and safe space - No violence of any kind towards anyone in the round will be tolerated and the round will be stopped if deemed unsafe for an individual in it.
3. Do your best to win on the flow while maintaining clarity for the general public.

Online Debate

1. Cameras on at all times.
2. Establish a method of evidence sharing before the round starts.
3. If you get called out for stealing prep and you clearly are, speaks will be low. To avoid this - stay unmuted when a team is sending evidence over.

Public Forum Basics

1. I'll vote off of the least mitigated link chain with an impact at the end of the round
2. Extend the arguments themselves - the names of each author aren't required. If extending an argument requires nuance or repeating something from case to frontline, it needs to be said explicitly.
3. To make an argument into a voting issue, it should be extended in the latter half of the round, warranted throughout the round, and weighed against other arguments
4. Have tangible impacts (extinction works) - statistics about the economy growing don't count, and reading "x increases trade and a 1% increase in trade saves 2 million lives" doesn't make the impact of your individual argument 2 million lives either

PF Rebuttal

1. Frontlining is required in second rebuttal - if you drop offense it's conceded, and defense on an argument you collapsed on should be frontlined or it'll be an uphill battle. The only exception to this is if the first speaking team reads some massive 4 contention 12 link case and dumps in rebuttal. If you are unsure on if your opponents are doing this in my eyes, please just ask and I'll tell you whether you have to frontline or not. In the scenario where they are:
1. First speaking team needs to extend which responses they want to pull through in summary.
2. Second speaking team will just frontline which argument they want to go for in summary. Please don't respond to the entire dump, just frontline what you need. This is not to say you should ignore that part of the rebuttal. Be wary of overarching case responses that respond to multiple contentions placed on a specific contention.
2. Link turns need uniqueness responses to make them into a link turn and access the impact of the contention, otherwise it's just another contention with no impact
3. Each response should have a warrant - you can read as many as you'd like, but no warrant means it doesn't matter
4. Dumping DA's in second rebuttal is can be made into a voting issue, but I don't have a predisposition on this issue

PF Summary/Final Focus

1. Any argument (defense or offense) that wants to be a voting issue needs to be in both speeches - sticky defense doesn't exist
2. Extend and weigh any argument you go for
3. Arguments not responded to in the previous speech are conceded - just call it that and extend it and move on
4. Metaweighing is good but hard - try your best to do it when needed and you'll be rewarded

Theory

1. Any shell in a Varsity division is fair game - that being said, the more frivolous the argument, the lower the threshold for responses. I don't have much experience with theory and am sympathetic to those in that position, so please attempt to respond to it even if you don't know the technical details, I won't punish you for that. Below are my preferences on common shells ran in PF.
2. Theory about non-evidentiary ethics - things such as misgendering, violence, content warnings, etc. are good to read with a higher chance I vote off of the first 2 if there is clear abuse. I'm truth over tech for these. If the theory-reading team forgets to extend part of their shell in summary and the only response from the other team I hear is that they forgot to read "x part" of the shell, I'm still going to up the theory.
3. Theory about evidence-related practices - paraphrasing, disclosure, etc. are fair game - I believe disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad, but will not hack for these arguments in any way. My caveat about forgetting to extend parts of shells above does not apply here. Tech over truth.
4. Theory that has nothing to do with content in the round - take a guess

Other Progressive Arguments

1. Don't know how to evaluate them, run at your own risk.

Evidence

1. Every piece of evidence needs to be cut - you can choose to paraphrase but must still have cut evidence for it
2. If you take more than 2 minutes to find a piece of evidence, speaks will be low.
3. Make evidence issues part of the debate rather than out-of-round issues - each team should be given a chance to justify the abuse or explain why it warrants a loss
4. Explicitly tell me to call for evidence if you want me to look at it - if you want me to read evidence don't just call it bad and tell me to read it, take the time to explain why you believe it's bad if it's a critical part of the debate
5. If a team can win by reading cut cards only, you're guaranteed a 29 minimum

Speaker Points

1. To get a 29.5 baseline, you must email both constructive and rebuttal speeches on the email chain prior to the speech - this MUST include cards. Points will go up and down from there based on speaking style.
2. Otherwise, my baseline is 28.5.

Post-Round Info

1. I will always disclose as long as the tournament allows it and I feel like I'll be able to reach a decision in a reasonable time - if they don't, shoot me a message on messenger and I will.

Novices (Any Event)

1. Collapse. Most rounds are lost by going for too much and not explaining the most important arguments enough. Choose only a few (one is fine of course) arguments to have in your last speech and explain it/do impact calculus and compare it to your opponent’s argument.
2. Clarity. Go at a pace you feel comfortable at, there isn’t always a need to match your opponent’s speed and make sure that speed doesn’t sacrifice the clarity of your arguments. This also relates to the order of your speeches: Be clear when responding to different arguments and label them as such (i.e. “Moving on to their argument about Military Spending”). This makes it much easier to follow along and catch everything.
3. Comparison. A bit repetitive but important to understand: comparing (doing impact calculus) is the most important way to win a round. Usually both teams are winning some argument on their side, and the way to ensure your argument comes above theirs is to give reason as to why it does.
4. Critical Thinking. This is good for speaker points and even winning the round. You won’t have responses to every argument and so using outside knowledge or analytical arguments that rely on logic are more likely to be stronger in rounds. Don’t be afraid to use what you know.
5. Other than this - I’m open to any arguments being read as long as you explain them and follow some of the suggestions I’ve outlined. I understand that being new to the event can be difficult at first so I want to make sure you are getting as much out of the round as possible. If you have any questions about an argument, my decision, or the event in general, feel free to ask me after the round or shoot me an email. Good luck!

Hi hi

I did WSDC and whatnot in high school, so I'm familiar with the norms of worlds judging and round expectations. A couple of specific things: (1) Make sure your arguments are properly mechanized. The term fiat is thrown around in world worlds too often without proper explanation or justification. I like interesting models, just explain them well and make sure they're reasonable. (2) Please impact things. This is straightforward, but if you have an argument, tell me why it matters relative to the debate. (3) Weigh! Be incredibly explicit about why one argument is more important than another in the back half. You don't have to win all/ the majority of arguments in world schools, just the most important ones!!

For WSD I like clear argument engagement that includes thoughtful weighing and impact analysis. I prefer debates that have colonial and imperial powers reckon with their history (if its germane to the topic). When it comes down to relevancy and impacts/harms, I prefer debates that show how their resolution (whether we're going for opp or prop) will benefit or improve black and brown communities, or the global south.

Interp overall: I pay real close attention to the introduction of each piece, I look for the lens of analysis and the central thesis that will be advanced during the interpretation of literature. When the performance is happening, I'm checking to see if they have dug down deep enough into an understanding of their literature through that intro and have given me a way to contextualize the events that are happening during the performance

POI: I look for clean transitions and characterization (if doing multiple voices)

DI: I look for the small human elements that come from acting. Big and loud gestures are not always the way to convey the point, sometimes something smaller gets the point more powerfully.

HI: I'm not a good HI judge, please do not let me judge you in HI. I don't like the event and I do my best to avoid judging it. If that fails, I look for clean character transitions, distinct voices, and strong energy in the movements. Please don't be racist/homophobic in your humor.

INFO: I'm looking for a well research speech that has a strong message to deliver. Regardless of the genre of info you're presenting, I think that showing you've been exhaustive with your understanding is a good way to win my ballot. I'm not wow'd by flashy visuals that add little substance, and I'm put off by speeches that misrepresent intellectual concepts, even unintentionally. I like speeches that have a conclusion, and if the end of your speech is "and we still don't know" then I think you might want to reassess the overall direction you are taking, with obvious exceptions being that we might literally not know something, because its still being researched (but that is a different we don't know than say, "and we don't know why people act this way :( ")

FX/DX: When I'm evaluating an extemp speech, I'm continually thinking "did they answer the question? or did they answer something that sounded similar?" So keep that in your mind. Are you directly answering the question? When you present information that could be removed without affecting the overall quality of the speech, that is a sign that there wasn't enough research done by the speaker. What I vote up in terms of content are speeches that show a depth of understanding of the topic by evaluating the wider implications that a topic has for the area/region/politics/etc.

I’m the head coach of the Mount Vernon HS Debate Team (WA).

I did policy debate in HS very, very long ago - but I’m not a traditionalist. (Bring on the progressive LD arguments-- I will listen to them, unlike my daughter, Peri, who is such a traditional LD'er.)

Add me to the email chain: kkirkpatrick@mvsd320.org

Please don’t be racist, homophobic, etc. I like sassy, aggressive debaters who enjoy what they do but dislike sullen, mean students who don't really care-- an unpleasant attitude will damage your speaker points.

Generally,

Speed: Speed hasn't been a problem but I don't tell you if I need you to be more clear-- I feel it's your job to adapt. If you don't see me typing, you probably want to slow down. I work in tabroom in WA state an awful lot, so my flowing has slowed. Please take that into consideration.

Tech = Truth: I’ll probably end up leaning more tech, but I won’t vote for weak arguments that are just blatantly untrue in the round whether or not your opponents call it out.

Arguments:

I prefer a strong, developed NEG strategy instead of running a myriad of random positions.

I love it when debaters run unique arguments that they truly believe and offer really high speaker points for this. (I'm not inclined to give high speaks, though.)

Any arguments that aren’t on here, assume neutrality.

Do like and will vote on:

T - I love a well-developed T battle but rarely hear one. I don't like reasonability as a standard-- it's lazy, do the work.

Ks - I like debaters who truly believe in the positions they’re running. I like critical argumentation but if you choose to run an alt of "embrace poetry" or "reject all written text", you had better fully embrace it. I’m in touch with most literature, but I need a lot of explanation from either side as to why you should win it in the final rebuttals.

Don’t like but will vote on if won:

“Debate Bad” - I DO NOT LIKE "Debate is Futile" arguments. Please don't tell me what we are doing has no point. I will listen to your analysis. I may even have to vote for it once in a while. But, it is not my preference. Want a happy judge? Don't tell me that how we are spending another weekend of our lives is wasting our time.

Very, very, very... VERY traditional LD - if you are reading an essay case, I am not the judge for you.

Not a huge fan of disclosure theory-- best to skip this.

Don’t like and won’t vote on:

Tricks.

About Me:

I competed in Congressional Debate and World School’s Debate for Loyola High School. Currently, I am an undergraduate student at Pomona College.

For Congress:

Placement will be determined by your contribution to the dialogue. I value engagement with other senators and not just reading a pre-written speech. Do not read a constructive when someone has already established those same arguments. Unique additions to the dialogue that go unrecognized by other senators will still be respected in evaluation.

Stylistically, I am tolerant of a faster pace than most other Congress judges. Speak in a compelling manner that does not distract from your argumentation.

For WSD:

All arguments should function within the perspective of the world unless otherwise specified by the motion. Speakers should sign-post throughout the speech to help me have a clean evaluation of the round. New arguments in the third speech and beyond will not be evaluated.

WSD is the combination of both speaking style and argumentation. Winning on the flow should but does not always guarantee a vote in that side’s favor.

Please accept POIs throughout all applicable speeches and clearly establish a method through which you will acknowledge or deny points throughout your speech. POIs should not distract from the flow of the speech.

**Avoid snapping or nodding during your partner’s speech. It is unnecessary/distracting and will affect your speaks.

For Other Events:

Treat me like a lay judge.

Hey!

The most important thing to know if you're going to be debating in my room is how much I value fair and thorough engagements! This looks like making concessions where necessary (when the cases have been properly analyzed and are logical) and engaging in fair and charitable comparisons.

Next up, don't be rude or disrespectful! Avoid racist and discriminatory slurs. I am more than willing to penalize debaters on this basis.

Thirdly, I am fully cognizant of the fact that speakers have a lot of material to cover in such a small time, but please make sure you don't excessively speed through those arguments! DO NOT SPREAD. If I can't hear it in your speech, I will not flow. Please speak clearly so your opponents and I understand you.

Finally, always be conscious of your burdens in the debate and do justice to them. Do not merely assert, justify those claims.

Good luck!

I keep a rigorous flow, but I'd still consider myself a traditional judge. I reject speed for its own sake, but I can follow it somewhat. I would only vote for theory on topicality grounds or for actual abuse. Theory breaks debate, so you will need to convince me that the debate is impossible because of a real violation. Just because your opponent drops or mishandles your thin T shell does not mean a concession has occurred: tread carefully. A K will need to be explained very well. Your opponent dropping a poorly linked K is not an auto-victory.

I am the head speech and debate coach for my school. I keep a rigorous flow, but I'd still consider myself a traditional judge. Speed for its own sake is something I disdain, but I can follow it somewhat. I would only vote for theory on topicality grounds or for actual abuse. Theory breaks debate, so you will need to convince me that the debate is impossible because of a real violation. Just because your opponent drops or mishandles your thin T shell does not mean a concession has occurred: tread carefully. I suppose I'd vote for a K but you will need to explain it very well. Your opponent dropping a poorly linked K is not an auto-victory.

In LD the Negative must refute the Affirmative case in the first speech. An unaddressed argument in this first speech is a drop/concession. I would allow Neg to cross-apply arguments from the NC in later speeches if they naturally clash with the aff case.

P.S. I have decided that most circuit-style debate is pretty embarrassing from a performance standpoint. I think it gives competitive debate a silly aspect that undermines its credibility and therefore undermines the value of the activity. I would probably say linking into this argument would get my ballot most of the time so long as one side is not also engaging in silly debate stuff. If both sides are super silly in performance and/or argumentation. I will decide based on the most outrageous dropped argument.

My name is Mekha Rousseau. I'm 26 years old, attending Pepperdine university's GSEP master's program with a major in Social Entrepreneurship and change. I started debating in 2010 during high school and throughout the university. I served as a judge and a coach for schools in Rwanda from 2016 - 17.

Some of my achievements in Debate include;

2012 9th best speaker nationally

2016/2017 National Debate Champions

2016 National Best Speaker – Interuniversity Debate Championship

2017 East African Debate Champion

2017 East African debate Championship Best Speaker

As a judge, I consider myself a moderately educated citizen, and I'll not take any facts with no evidence. I expect debaters to provide enough proof of their arguments and speak in a way that I'll understand what is presenting(Not fast).

Email chain: andrew.ryan.stubbs@gmail.com

Policy:

I did policy debate in high school and coach policy debate in the Houston Urban Debate League.

Debate how and what you want to debate. With that being said, you have to defend your type of debate if it ends up competing with a different model of debate. It's easier for me to resolve those types of debate if there's nuance or deeper warranting than just "policy debate is entirely bad and turns us into elitist bots" or "K debate is useless... just go to the library and read the philosophy section".

Explicit judge direction is very helpful. I do my best to use what's told to me in the round as the lens to resolve the end of the round.

The better the evidence, the better for everyone. Good evidence comparison will help me resolve disputes easier. Extensions, comparisons, and evidence interaction are only as good as what they're drawing from-- what is highlighted and read. Good cards for counterplans, specific links on disads, solvency advocates... love them.

I like K debates, but my lit base for them is probably not nearly as wide as y'all. Reading great evidence that's explanatory helps and also a deeper overview or more time explaining while extending are good bets.

For theory debates and the standards on topicality, really anything that's heavy on analytics, slow down a bit, warrant out the arguments, and flag what's interacting with what. For theory, I'll default to competing interps, but reasonability with a clear brightline/threshold is something I'm willing to vote on.

The less fully realized an argument hits the flow originally, the more leeway I'm willing to give the later speeches.

PF:

I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.

Progressive arguments and speed are fine (differentiate tags and author). I need to know which offense is prioritized and that's not work I can do; it needs to be done by the debaters. I'm receptive to arguments about debate norms and how the way we debate shapes the activity in a positive or negative way.

My three major things are: 1. Warranting is very important. I'm not going to give much weight to an unwarranted claim, especially if there's defense on it. That goes for arguments, frameworks, etc. 2. If it's not on the flow, it can't go on the ballot. I won't do the work extending or impacting your arguments for you. 3. It's not enough to win your argument. I need to know why you winning that argument matters in the bigger context of the round.

Worlds:

Worlds rounds are clash-centered debates on the most reasonable interpretation of the motion.

Style: Clearly present your arguments in an easily understandable way; try not to read cases or arguments word for word from your paper

Content: The more fully realized the argument, the better. Things like giving analysis/incentives for why the actors in your argument behave like you say they do, providing lots of warranting explaining the "why" behind your claims, and providing a diverse, global set of examples will make it much easier for me to vote on your argument.

Strategy: Things that I look for in the strategy part of the round are: is the team consistent down the bench in terms of their path to winning the round, did the team put forward a reasonable interpretation of the motion, did the team correctly identify where the most clash was happening in the round.

Remember to do the comparative. It's not enough that your world is good; it needs to be better than the other team's world.

Background:

I am a former student debater with the University of Miami British Parliamentary Debate Team and continue to judge BP at college level, I have also been judging policy (among other formats) high school tournaments for 6 years now.

A Note on PF/World Schools and other lay formats:

Although I am usually a tech judge, when the format dictates a lay judge I will judge as a lay judge. That means that if you spread or run a K in a PF round, you will be dropped. LD I dont consider a lay format, so go all out if you wish.

General Notes:

I judge mostly based on what's on my flow, so good organization is key to winning with me.

Signposting is good, fully flushing out an argument before moving on is good, being all over the place is a sure way to me missing something. Tying several arguments together to a single theme is good and gives your team a strong team line upon which I can judge, but make that connection known, dont expect me to tie your loose ends for you, thats a sure way to an L.

Please make sure to flush out your arguments, if you dont give me a reason that an argument is true (whether by using facts or theory), I wont judge on it.

Misrepresenting your oppositions arguments may be good enough to win you the debate (if they dont call you out on it), but it sure wont win you any speaker points. While we are on the topic of misrepresenting, no card clipping, heavy penalties will apply.

Towards the end of your 2AR/2NR speech, make sure to close off the debate and tell me why you think you should win, tell me what you want me to vote on and why.

Although evidence is expected, dont hide solely behind it, give me reasoning as to why your position is better than your opposition. Debate is about more than just reading cards, its about applying your own critical thinking.

Specifics:

Topicality: Run topicality only if you have a case for it, remember that the burden lies with the negative to show why the affirmative definition is abusive, and it better be a good reason. Show me why the debate is worse off as a result of affirmative's definitions, dont just say that it is. Also be sure to provide your alternative interpretations, the best way to win a T argument is to show what the debate should have been vs what the affirmative made it out to be.

Counter-Plan: CP's are always fun, but remember to show that your plan is either mutually-exclusive or better than CP+ or else affirm gets it. Also make sure to show how your plan is different from the affirmative. Plan must be clear and concise. Conditionality is fine as long as you dont contradict yourself and give room to affirmative to debate it, anything else is abusive. More than 2 conditional args is abusive and will be judged down.

Kritik: Another very fun thing to judge, make sure to explain your K well. Dont just tell me that the paradigm that the affirmative accepted is bad, show me specifically how the plan worsens the outcome as a result of your kritik and its implications. Doing anything less will not win you the argument. Keep in mind that I am generally not a fan of heavy-theory rounds, any theory arguments presented must be grounded in real solvency.

2AR/2NR: NO NEW ARGUMENTATION IN THE LAST TWO SPEECHES. New argumentation wont be judged on and will heavily influence speaker points. The only exception to this is as rebuttal to new argumentation brought up in the previous speech, that said its a fine line, so tread carefully.

Cross-Ex: Open CX is fine, but will impact speaker points accordingly. When asking questions, allow the person to answer, avoid interruptions if possible.

Ethics: Dont clip cards, dont mis-represent evidence, dont use insults, be respectful to opponents/partners/judges/audience. Ethics violations will heavily influence speaker points.

Speaker Points: I will generally limit myself to 25-30 speaker points (although I reserve the right to go below that for serious ethics violations). Generally my points will fall somewhere along a standard distribution curve, so 26-28 on average. In general I will look at the following in no particular order: Technical proficiency, argumentation, clarity, engagement with opposition arguments, jokes/puns (we all like to laugh every once in a while).

I have limited experience in LD though i've competed in traditional formats of it. Throughout High School my main event was Worlds School Debate, so do with that what you will. 

I enjoy clash more than anything. Clearly outline to me the arguments you are winning and the arguments that it engages with. I don't like doing the guesswork for competitors, leave nothing up to interpretation! I am not much of an 'intervention' judge so I will judge solely based on what happens in the round and which arguments are dropped/extended UNLESS both sides don't provide a clear path to ballot, then ill intervene ;)

Be nice to each other. dont be racist, or homophobic, or transphobic. that would suck and i'll def dock you for that. also, i am not super great at flowing spreading, so maybe keep it a bit slow for me. also, i value logic and analysis over random cards. 

have fun, my pronouns are they/them :)