I am a parent judge. Please be clear, concise and respectful of your opponent in the debate.

I want to be able to hear and write down your arguments, so please speak clearly and at a reasonable pace. If I can't hear or understand you, I won't be able to take note of it.

I'm looking for a good clash or arguments and weighing from both sides. Please explain why your argument is more important than your opponents in a logical and quantifiable way. The more I understand your argument, the more likely I will be persuaded by it. Rebuttals are my favorite, but be respectful to each other. I will take note of snarky comments and excessive cutting off.

Bonus Points:
I love subtle jokes and puns in speeches and will be definitely noted in speaker points. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask before the round.

I am a parent/lay judge, I am not familiar with all the debate jargon and rules.

I will judge based on a few factors:

Constructive:

1. Evidence and logic is important, you must have both. Please also bring up your impact(s) with a clear link. I will not evaluate the impact if I do not understand how it connects to the topic.
2. Please control your speed, speak clearly, and emphasize the impact parts to me. Some definitions and background information would be largely appreciated, as I have limited understanding of this topic.
3. You are welcome to disclose, but are not required to.

Rebuttal:

1. Please outline what you are going to say in your speech, and signpost as well. Use signal words like "First, second, etc." so I can easily follow along
2. You must attack your opponents arguments thoroughly to gain my vote, if your opponents point out that you dropped something, and you did, I will give them that argument.
3. Second rebuttal: Please address your opponent's response during first rebuttal.

Summary:

1. Collapsing is fine, but please make it clear.
2. Extend you arguments, but limit new evidence.
3. Do not bring up new arguments past summary, unless mentioned in constructive/rebuttal.
4. Defending your arguments is fine, adding new ones is not.
5. If your opponents bring up new arguments, please mention that in your speech. You can respond if you want, that doesn't really make a difference to me.
6. I would like weighing, but please explain well, again, I am not familiar with debate jargon.

Final Focus:

1. Extend and defend your arguments.
2. Weigh, explain well
3. Summarize you responses against your opponent's case
4. Your speech does not have to follow this exact format, just please be clear

Note: Really make it extremely clear to me, what is most important in this round. I may not be able to flow every single thing you say, but if you continue to repeat the most important things, I will note it down

Tech Judge - I currently do Public Forum debate, Elims at TOC.

Add me to the email chain or evidence sharing doc - aryan.bavera@gmail.com

GENERAL STUFF:

I don't like Spreading.

Truth = Tech, meaning if you have a garbage case, a garbage response is all that's needed to destroy it.

Time yourselves and your opponents.

I'll presume Con if every argument on both sides is dead.

CROSSFIRE:

Crossfire is seriously undervalued. You should use cross to explain arguments or to understand opponents arguments better as well as to find logical flaws between the opponents. I don't really want a massive "who's evidence is better debate" in cross, but I understand that sometimes it is necessary because you have more interaction with the opponents.

FRONTLINING, WEIGHING, AND NEW STUFF:

You don't need to say flashy words like "magnitude, link-turn, meta-weighing". However, an explanation of the word's meaning is necessary (explain your weighing, implicate your responses).

If you say for example, "we outweigh on magnitude", but don't explain how, your weighing was useless.

Frontline in 2nd rebuttal.

Frontline in First Summary.

CARDS:

If you can't pull up a card in a 1min 30, the card is dropped and you get lower speaks.

PREPTIME:

Flex prep is fine, don't overdo it.

Solo's get extra prep time (1 minute)

SPEAKER POINTS:

When I evaluate speaker points, I'm basically a lay judge. That means eye contact, meaningful hand gestures, clear tone of voice and emphasis on certain points when needed. Efficiency is also a key point here as well as how good your collapse is.

Don't go too fast. Be clear and concise.

Be respectful to your opponents. It goes a long way! I do not tolerate homophobic, racist, or sexist comments.

Email Chain: traviscornett16@gmail.com

Remember to have fun!

Hi guys!!! I am a Junior at Lakeland, but this is my 1st year debating! I vote based on the impact you make and how convincing your points are. Being competitive is great, but please don't be disrespectful to one another! Speak up and be sure to enunciate your points! I look forward to listening to your arguments!!!!!! :)

Hello,

I am an executive in a global investment bank with 20 years of experience. I am adept to evaluating debates in commercial world by being the dumbest person in the room with a neutral view on the topic. I judge based on content, delivery of the content, clarity of speech and words so a fast speech where words are being mumbled in mouth is not preferred. I am open to being persuaded by a well-constructed argument. Good luck to everyone!

Thank you for visiting the paradigm.

Best,

Deep

I'm a first-time tournament judge this year who is debating this year in high school. I'm okay with relatively quick speech but not so fast so that I can't make out the important points. Emphasize your weighings and explain them in detail so that I can understand why your case matters more. Please be respectful of everyone involved in the debate.

I am a veteran teacher that loves vigorous debate and discussions. I prefer students to engage the topic with insightful and meaningful arguments. Be kind in the debate to the other students and make sure to respond to arguments made by your opponents.

Don't spread - I prefer conversation speed. If you go faster than that then you do so at your own risks.

Be firm and aggressive but not rude - I enjoy a heated debate but not mean and rude comments or disrespectfulness during speeches.

I wouldn't consider myself to be a specialized debate judge so if you use a bunch of debate jargon that may not work out well for you.

If you have questions feel free to ask. Good luck!

I am an observant judge who prioritizes strategic and smart attacks and speeches rather than rushed and flawed ones.

Confidence is key.

Make sure to stand strong during crossfires.

Best team takes the victory.

I'm a first-year debater in high school, and I have debated this topic previously.

In terms of judging, I vote based on impact and how persuasive you are throughout the debate.

Please be respectful to your fellow opponents.

In terms of speaking, I don't mind if you speak fast but please make sure to thoroughly articulate your points.

Good luck everyon3

I am a lay judge, I work at the intersection of big tech and Wall Street. Argument precision and clear speech is very important to me. NO SPREADING WILL BE TOLERATED. Having a civil discourse with your opponent is critical .

I am a tabula rasa judge. 

hi! i'm a freshman and a first year debater.

it's okay to speak quickly, but please make sure to speak clearly and emphasize your main points and IMPACTS so i can write them down

have fun!

Hi, I'm a freshman in highschool and I'm in my first year of debate and I'm excited to judge!

Please remember to speak clearly so I can take effective notes and be a good sport to your opponents.

Good luck!

PF Paradigm: I did policy debate in high school and college, which has definitely shaped how I view debate. That being said, I have judged a lot of PF debates the past few years. I am familiar with the norms of PF and will judge accordingly. I will vote for the team that best accesses an impact under the framing I am told to vote for. If your “impact” is economic decline and nothing more, why should I care? Be sure to tell me what will result from voting for your side (stopping structural violence, preventing war, saving how many lives, etc.) I will default to consequentialist framing unless given something else. You need to extend an argument in the summary in order to extend it in the final focus. Unless it is against the norms/rules of the tournament, speak as fast as you want as long as you are clear!

I think that debates are better when more evidence is sent out. Obviously it is up to the debaters, but clash is better when both sides have access to as much evidence as possible. When you send out a card please make sure it is cut, and please do not send a link to an article and ask the judges/other team to "control F" to find your quote. Also, if you mention/extend a card in the summary/final focus, please make sure it is sent out.

If an advocacy like a K with an alternative is read in PF, I will not automatically reject it. However, I am open to "framework" type arguments that tell me to vote down the team for reading an advocacy in PF. If you think it is unfair for advocacies to be in PF, tell me how it harms you as a debater to have to debate it (say you are unprepared which harms the quality of debates, education, etc). I will treat this like any other argument, meaning that the pros and cons of allowing advocacies in PF should be debated and weighed.

Note: A lot of teams in PF have been taking time after the start time of the round to pre-flow or prep. Please don't do this when I am judging—prep ends at start time

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

Note: For events other than policy, scroll to the bottom

Email: Please put me on the email chain — jramrocks17@gmail.com

About me:

· 2 years of NDT-CEDA debate at Liberty University (2020 and 2021 seasons)

· 2x NDT participant and 2x CEDA Double-Octa finalist

· 1 year of coaching policy at Liberty

· 4 years of policy and 3 years of extemp at Prosper High School in Texas

· I was a K debater most of my career but switched to policy for my last year of college debate. I've been on both the K and policy sides of the library and want to see you do what you do best

TLDR: You do you. Tab/flex judges don’t exist as we all have our biases, but I’ll try my best to be “Tab”. I have run and seen all types of debate and am fine in any type of round. Please don't change your strategy based off of my paradigm or what you've heard I prefer. I am tech over truth

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

Argumentative Preferences:

K: K’s are cool on the Aff and Neg. Don’t assume I understand your literature base—I’m most familiar with literature surrounding capitalism, militarism, international relations, sexuality, and to a lesser extent post modernism, blackness, and colonialism, but you should always explain your arguments in depth. I think that in order to win on a K you usually must resolve the links and impacts either through a material alternative or through framing/education/methodology. I will vote on epistemology framing, but there is some truth to "tie links to the plan" so this needs to be debated out

Framework:

· I have experience on both sides and will try my best to remove any bias

· I want to be convinced that I am voting for the best model of debate. At the end of the round, I will weigh how much each side solves for the other's offense and how each side frames their offense

· I strongly dislike stale framework debates where teams read generic blocks and arguments, and where there is no contextualization to the other team’s arguments. If you win a round just because the other team dropped some of your generic blocks, you gained almost no education out of that round and your speaks won’t be great

· I think that it is better for the Neg when they focus on TVAs/switch sides as opposed to focusing on their impacts alone

· I love it when the Neg uses clash/fairness/any impact to turn the Aff and answer their offense

· I will weigh Aff offense and want to hear it contextualized to the Neg's explanation of FW; "USFG bad" is probably not enough. I want to hear how the Aff’s counter interp solves the Neg's offense, and the Neg is better off proving that their model solves a good portion of the Aff

· I lean towards the belief that fairness is an internal link to education or whatever else the Neg is explaining, but if you explain and win why fairness is an impact, I am willing to vote on it

Theory: I think that theory can be good in certain instances, but it can also be unnecessary. Just have a clear interp and violation with voters and don’t go for a ridiculous shell that was obviously meant as a time suck unless it’s dropped or very under-covered. If you go for condo against a team with one conditional advocacy or something ridiculous like that, I will vote for you if you're winning, but you won't be happy with your speaks

Policy Affs: Do what you want, but I think that teams benefit from extending entire advantages in each speech. I like it when the Aff uses its 1AC to debate each off case and uses its advantages to frame the whole debate on each flow

Counter Plans: I can enjoy a good CP debate. I have no problem with multiple CP’s but will vote off of condo if you’re losing it (more than 3 condo is maybe a little sus, but that's up for debate). Answer perms and solvency deficits and explain your net benefit. I've gone for sus process CPs a lot, and I think I have no Aff or Neg bias on theory. I personally believe that judge kick is a good thing, as it upholds the Aff's burden to prove that it is better than the CP and the status quo. Judge kick will be my default, but I will disallow it if the Aff wins that it is bad

Disadvantages: I think strong policy teams use DA’s to turn case (although this is not required) and engage in in-depth impact analysis and framing. The truth level of the DA and quality of your cards is relevant. Be sure to extend your whole link chain in each speech

Impact Turns: I’m cool with them and think that they can be strategic—just don’t double turn yourself (ie don’t read “China war good” on case and a China war impact on a DA). I think the level of truth does matter (ie dedev is better than spark but still questionable), but at the end of the day I will vote on tech and card quality

Topicality: I'm cool with voting off of any interp that you’re winning, as I view T like I view any other argument and won't reject any interp just because I think it is false. I want a clear interp debate. The winning side will win that their model of debate is best, although proving in round abuse (like the Aff no-linking core DA's) will greatly help the Neg. Have a clear interp, violation, and standards that you extend in every speech

Competing Interpretations vs. Reasonability: I default to Competing Interpretations because nowhere else in debate is “we kinda don’t link to this argument” a good answer. Debate is about competing methods and worlds, and I believe that Affs use the reasonability argument to win ballots from judges who don't like T debates. I’ll vote on reasonability if you’re winning tho for sure

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

Random things:

· Speak as fast as you want, just slow down on tags and make sure I can tell when you're reading a tag vs evidence text. Whatever speed you are at be clear as long as you are able :)

· Flashing/emailing probably isn't prep but if you are talking to your partner, typing excessively, writing on your flows, or taking over a minute or two I will count prep

· Please feel free to time yourselves. I can time as well in case you need it for speeches/prep, but please ask

· Open CX is fine unless tournament rules say otherwise

· Please don’t be rude or mean, and don’t discriminate against others or read arguments that discriminate against others

· I refuse to judge any "death good" arguments, mostly because the burden shouldn't be on the other team to ask me to end the round

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

Scale Thing I see judges do:

Policy----------X--------------K

Condo good----X--------------------Condo Bad

Tech--X----------------------Truth

Death good is valid------------------------X No!

Ks of fiat-------------------X-----Fiat always good

Process CPs good-------X-----------------Salty 2A

Non-resolutional procedurals are bad----X--------------------Veganism/Christianity type procedurals

Perms are legitimate X------------------------The 2NR I gave in my first novice round

The above is set in stone--------------------X----I will flow the debate and vote on tech

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

Speaks:

· Speaker points are low key an arbitrary vibe check, but I try to give speaks based off of your speeches, overall strategy, and cross ex

· A 28 to 28.5 is average, and it’ll and go up/down based on your performance throughout the round

· I will adjust how I give speaks based on the tournament. I’ll probably give you higher speaks for your performance at a local than if the exact same round took place at a bid tournament

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

Other Events:

LD: LD is cool! I have some minor experience. I’ll probably judge it like a short policy round. Anything from framework debate to K debate to stock debate is cool and I’ve ran all of that in LD. I’ve heard that alts aren’t that important in LD K debates, but I value them so please explain it. I’ll probably vote based on which side better accesses the winning framework in the round. I hear that LD likes RVIs for some reason, so I'll vote on those if I'm told why

Congress: I did congress a few times in HS and was first alt to Nats my senior year. I want good content but will also value your speaking skills

Speech: I competed in extemp in high school and broke at NSDA in FX, and I enjoy good speeches. I will weigh the content of your speech vs your performance/tone differently based on the specific event

Greetings, my name is Sagar. I have had the pleasure of judging debates for quite some time now, and this marks my second year doing so. While I don't have any particular preferences, I kindly request that you keep track of your own preparation time. Unless there is a valid reason why you cannot do so, please ensure that you time yourself. Additionally, I expect all participants to display respect at all times. While I do not mind if you collapse your arguments, I will primarily consider the impact of each argument. For example, an argument that states "10 million lives will be lost" holds greater significance than one that claims "many people will be harmed." Lastly, I prefer that you provide an Off-time roadmap to introduce your cases. This will assist me in focusing on specific details. Also, I will cut you off if you go over time by more than 10 seconds. If you go over time you're allowed to finish your sentence but you're not allowed to add on. In addition during Crossfire when time runs out, Cross ends. I will announce when the crossfire ends if there is a lot of back and forth. Please state your name before speaking.

I believe that debate provides a valuable platform for developing critical thinking, research, and communication skills.

As a judge, I value clear, concise, and well-structured arguments supported by strong evidence. I also appreciate your ability to critically analyze and interpret the evidence. Show me how you have evaluated sources and identified their strengths and weaknesses.

Treat your opponents and the judge with respect throughout the round. This includes avoiding personal attacks, inflammatory language, and disruptive behavior. Even in disagreement, maintain a respectful and professional demeanor throughout the rebuttal. Additionally, I appreciate respectful engagement and insightful rebuttals that address the core issues raised by the opposing side. Do not just attack, offer alternative interpretations or counter-evidence to strengthen your own case.

Speak confidently, clearly, and at an appropriate pace.

Hi! My name is Saanvi Sinha. I have debated Public Forum for 6 years. I know what I'm talking about when it comes to debate, so don't question me on my decision after round.

Non-negotiable, you being rude(sexism, racism. bullying, homophobia, etc.) in round or before, results in a dent in your speaker points and a loss. Debate should be a safe community, and if it's not, my view of you is never going to be good.

Some general stuff, I will be keeping a timer, but I would recommend keeping your own timer. Please notify me of the amount of prep time just so that we can make sure we have no problems ("running prep", "30 seconds"). Just so you know, I don't flow crossfire, but if you address me, I will write it down. If you're going to spread, send me a speech doc before, otherwise rules below apply. Also, this is just me, but don't eat with your camera on. I get nats are long and not fun sometimes, but just turn your camera off if you are going to eat.

Be respectful at the end of the round too, I know you might be sad about losing, but I still want to see a "Thanks for debating" or "Good debate" at the very least.As a judge, I give verbal feedback at the end of the round. Going verbally allows me to give you more in-depth feedback, but if you are not okay with me doing so, please let me knowbefore the round starts so I can type it up. Also, I usually like to give detailed feedback so that after every round you can improve as much as possible. What this means is that I don't think you are a bad debater, just everyone has room for improvement, so I like to point that out, rather than what you are good at.

Before the round, you can ask me any questions that you have about my paradigm (terminology and if I didn't address anything). I know I sound like a lot, I just don't want anyone to be confused about anything.

Novice PF

1. Case-For most Novice students, they aren't allowed to create their own contentions. If you are allowed, I would ask that the contention is not too far-fetched, as you are only a novice student.

2. Rebuttal- Your rebuttal should include responses to most of their points. It would be easier to go line by line, and please number the responses. It is not required for the 2nd speaker to frontline (respond to responses), but I would definitely recommend it. If you do frontline, please frontline the turns. If you frontline, but don't frontline the turns, I might not buy your case and it would be difficult for you to win.

3. Summary- Summary must frontline on both sides if not done so in the earlier speeches. I would recommend extending responses, as I would know what I am voting on, but if you don't, I will still evaluate it. I consider a case extended if you frontline it or talk about it.

4. Final Focus- Final Focus must focus on the big picture of the debate. If you could, try to extend responses and your case. Please try to weigh. What this means is that you should compare why your impacts are more important. It isn't necessary to weigh in Novice, but I would definitely suggest it.

5. Speaking- Typically, Novices speak at a good speed, but if you don't clarity is more important. As a debater, I understand that it is difficult without speaking fast, but I must be able to understand you. If I say "Clear" 2 times or more, I will reduce speaker points.

6. Asking for cards- I don't usually call for cards, but if I do, I need you to have cards, or I will not evaluate it in the round. If your card contradicts what you are saying, I don't care about that point anymore.

If you have reached this point, tell me your favorite thing to do before the round starts for +0.3 speaker points.

JV PF

I don't like theory or K's because it muddles everything up, and actually doesn't change my decision. If you read it, I won't punish you in anyway, but I just won't evaluate it, so don't waste time doing that.

1. Case- Some of y'all have more far fetched arguments. I would say stay out of the memes and focus on a case that makes logical sense. As long as you can give me direct evidence, stating this leads to that, I will buy the contention, but I don't want any bad vision leads to nuclear war arguments.

2. Rebuttal- Your rebuttal should include responses to most of their points. It would be easier to go line by line, and please number the responses.

Try to implicate your responses, tell me why it matters. For turns, your turn should have an impact or you need to weigh the turn, otherwise I'd probably evaluate it as offense.

For JV, I would want the second rebuttal to frontline at least the turns, or I will be extending them on your case. You do not have to respond to every single point, but I would like you to respond to the majority of the arguments, and at the very least, the turns.

3. Summary-

Let's start with first summary. So there is a few things that I require for a good summary. First, is your case. So on this, I need some proper frontlining and extensions of case. Don't try to extend case but not frontline because that's bad and I'm not going to evaluate the argument. Second, the opponent's case. Here, I just need some extensions of a few responses, preferably turns WITH their impact, on the main points. You can try to respond to they're frontlines, but it isn't required, and finally weighing. I need weighing in this speech. Don't be a bad debater and not weigh until Final Focus, because I'm not gonna evaluate by then. And please specify the type of weighing you are going to use, I do not want to have to work to figure out the weighing mechanism. Please warrant how you outweigh in whatever weighing mechanism, I'm not going to evaluate "We outweigh on everything." My weighing order is

1. Advanced Weighing Mechanisms

2. Prerequisite

3. Probability

4. Magnitude

5. Timeframe

6. Any Others

As for second summary: it's pretty much like the first summary, just please frontline the responses that were extended to again.

4. Final Focus- Final Focus must focus on the big picture of the debate. If you could, try to extend responses and your case. Weighing is the most important thing in final focus, so please spend time weighing in the speech. Comparative weighing is preferred because it allows me to compare why I should weigh one type of weighing over the other.

5. Speaking- As a debater, I understand that it is difficult without speaking fast, but I must be able to understand you. If I say "Clear" 2 times or more, I will reduce speaker points.

6. Asking for cards- I'll probably not call for many cards, but if I do, I need you to have them, or I will not evaluate it in the round. Paraphrasing is okay for me, but cards would be better. If your card contradicts what you are saying, I drop the point.

Varsity PF

I don't really like theories or K's because it muddles everything up, and actually doesn't change my decision. If you read it, I won't punish you in anyway, but I just won't evaluate it, so maybe don't waste time doing that. If you have to read theory, just don't contradict yourself (ex. para but your cards are paraphrased).

1. Case- Some of y'all have far- fetched arguments. Focus on a case that makes logical sense. As long as you can give me direct evidence, stating this leads to that, I will buy the contention, but I don't want any bad vision leads to nuclear war arguments. This however, doesn't require it to be on a generic packet, I recommend you do that, but just don't lead to any sketchy or weird arguments. One thing to highlight, and this goes for any judge, if they aren't able to understand what your contention is about, it's not likely for a win, so keep that in mind.

2. Rebuttal- Your rebuttal should include responses to most of their points. It would be easier to go line by line, but just signpost if you don't. Implicate your responses, tell me why it matters. For turns, your turn needs to have an impact or you need to weigh the turn otherwise it will not be evaluated as a turn, instead as offense. I'd prefer you respond to the impact, and not just cross-apply your responses on their link-ins. For Varsity, I require the second rebuttal to frontline (most of the responses) to the contentions you are extending, or I will be extending the responses on your case.

3. Summary-

Let's start with first summary. So there is a few things that I require for a good summary. First, is your case. So on this, I need some proper frontlining and extensions of case. Don't try to extend case but not frontline because that's bad and I'm not going to evaluate the argument. Make sure to extend impacts as well, I would recommend writing out how you are going to extend it so that's there's not a lot of "uhs" and "ums." Second, the opponent's case. Here, I just need some extensions of a few responses, preferably turns WITH their impact, on the main points. You should respond to their frontlines that they made, because otherwise that's just extending through ink. I want to see why their frontline doesn't apply, and finally weighing. I need weighing in this speech. Don't be a bad debater and not weigh until Final Focus, because I'm not gonna evaluate by then. And please specify the type of weighing you are going to use, I do not want to have to work to figure out the weighing mechanism. Please warrant how you outweigh in whatever weighing mechanism, I'm not going to evaluate "We outweigh on everything." By the way, weighing is not saying "our impacts are .... and their impacts are." My weighing order is

1. Advanced Weighing Mechanisms

2. Prerequisite

3. Probability

4. Magnitude

5. Timeframe

6. Any Others

As for second summary: it's pretty much like the first summary, just please frontline the responses that were extended on your case again.

4. Final Focus- Final Focus must focus on the most important things, so give me the voters of what you want me to vote on. Any offense and defense that you want me to focus on should me emphasized. Weighing is the most important thing in the speech, so please spend most of your time doing that. You must do comparative weighing in this speech. Please for my sanity, don't introduce new things in final focus. My ballot is pretty much already decided by summary speech, so it's not going to do anything, and just make me think of you/your partner as a bad debater/speaker.

5. Speaking- As a debater, I understand that it is difficult without speaking fast, but I must be able to understand you. If I say "Clear" 2 times or more, I will reduce speaker points.

6. Asking for cards- I'll probably not call for many cards, but if I do, I need you to have them, or I will not evaluate it in the round. Paraphrasing is okay for me, but cards would be better. If your card contradicts what you are saying, I drop the point AND speaker points. You cannot miscut evidence after this much experience. There is the evidence out there, you have to put in the effort to look for it, and if it's really not out there, don't run the argument :)

Talking speed

I can understand talking quickly, however, try to make it coherent. Don't spread. Other than that talking speed is not very important to me, just do what's comfortable.

Contention

As long as you can defend them throughout the debate I don't have any preferences with cases.

Crossfire

Crossfire doesn't really matter to me, I don't flow it, just don't concede your case or something like that.

Rebuttal

Do an off-time roadmap and try to keep your speech organized, it makes it easier to flow.

Summary

Do an off-time roadmap and also keep it organized. You don't have to collapse but extend your cases and impact weigh thoroughly.

Final focus

Explain why your case is more important for me to vote for show how your impacts have more value.

Dear Debaters,

I am a lay parent judge. Please make sure your arguments are clear, concise and delivered at an appropriate pace so that I can understand you better. I expect you to be respectful and manage your time effectively.

Good luck!