I have been a middle school coach for speech and debate for the last 8 years. I do NOT judge PFD/LD/CX/WSD on a weekly or even monthly basis. I follow the original idea that PFD is supposed to be kept to a conversational pace, where we could grab anyone off the street to be able to judge your round.

Things you should be aware of if I am judging you:

1. Do not speed through your case/speeches. If you do, I will miss multiple things and if I cannot understand what you are saying I will give the win to your opponents. If speeding is required to get through your case, this is where you learn how to change it up (adapt to your judge).
2. Do not be rude to your opponents OR to your teammate. Making rude comments/gestures/body movements is not acceptable. Your speaks will go down if you are rude.
3. I have my own way of flowing and will do my best to make sure I get everything, including dropped/unanswered contentions. Please, please, please do not lie about what your opponents did/did not say.
4. I like evidence being used to be from reputable sources.
5. Do not run a case that has NOTHING to do with the topic (those of you trying to bring LD into PFD, no "K"s)!

Read till the end all my lovely competitors

Hello! I am Chelsea Briggs the mascot of my school's debate team, due to my many wins! My good luck charm is the color purple, all my suits that I wore in my day as a competitor were all lilac or lavender hues.

Judging rules:

1. No traditional rounds, you will get dropped
2. Tech> truth
3. You can only receive 30 speaker points if you speak at a pace I can't understand
4. Nothing topical, the topic is just for decoration
5. don't sneeze, cough, or breathe heavily. I have a severe phobia of all of these things and will break out in hives if my ears hear these noises.
6. Purple hair color = 30 speaks

( jk I'm a high school coach, stay trad, please do not "spread" too fast during rounds. I would like to hear your arguments clearly and precisely.)

Hey I’m Sofia! (I prefer Sofi)

I competed for Cypress Bay from 2017-2021, I mostly competed in POI, but I also dabbled in impromptu, OO, and Congress.

I currently attend school at Florida International University :)


Blue Key 2023

In round, I hope that competitors will be respectful when someone is performing. I’d appreciate it if everyone silenced their phones before the round so you guys won’t be distracted while you’re giving your speech. I know some of you guys are double flighted so if I forget to let you go first, I’d really appreciate it if you could give me a heads up! Also, feel free to clap at the end of each other’s speech, it’s great to see you guys supporting each other!

Honestly, I’m happy as long as i can feel the passion you have for your event and see that you’re having fun!

If you have any questions, feel free to email me at sofi728@gmail.com

I am a lay judge and have been judging speech and debate for about 6 years. I believe that debate should include a clear presentation of your arguments and evidence. I also believe your speeches should be well organized. In the end, I will value argument over style, but the way you present your arguments is important to my understanding of those arguments. If you call for evidence, please have a legitimate reason for it. I don't like spending a lot of prep time on it. I expect you to time yourselves, but I will be timing too. I like clear, organized flows with clear voters at the end. I weigh heavily on impacts so compare your impacts and convince me that yours are stronger. Please be civil and respectful to your partner and competitors.

My background is in theatre and speech. I love judging speech events and will typically vote for the presenter who has the strongest emotional connection to their piece and the audience. There must be an effective balance of design, style, and presentation. The pieces that showcase who you are as a performer as well as communicating something new and fresh are welcome.

I am a former participant in speech & debate. I am currently in my last year of undergrad and have read up on the current topic for the Varsity State Tournament. These are some of the things you should do if I am judging you.

1. Speak clearly, do not speed. If you are used to speeding then learn judge adaptation. If I can't get your arguments down and understand what you are saying then you have lost the round. I mostly did speech events in high school so I will be taking A LOT of notes during the round, speak clearly so I can follow your arguments even when I'm not looking.

2. You will not win the round by trying to win an emotional argument - please make clear connections//links

3. I like a well-thought-out/planned case that makes sense logically - I like to be able to connect the dots.

4. I do not flow so please make your arguments clear and organized.

5. Do not be rude. I can deal with assertive, but screaming, belittling opponents, eye-rolling, head shaking, and showing general contempt is not acceptable. You may win the round but it will be with 20 speaks.

I am a community judge who has judged rounds in several local and state tournaments. Most importantly, I'm looking for a well researched and articulated argument.

As this is a speaking event where your goal is to persuade me to side, good pacing is key and I am not a big fan of spreading.

Theory and kritik are not generally things that will impact my decisions, as I have yet to see them done successfully.

I want to hear you demonstrate through your debate the work that you have put into your prep and am looking for quality over quantity. More than you "scoring" more "offensive points" I'm more concerned that you are able to defend your contentions with clear links and prove how your impacts outweigh those of your opponents. At the end of the debate I want to feel you are more right than wrong.

As a learning professional with a master’s degree in learning psychology, I value the pursuit of truth, knowledge, and the research that supports these ideals. When judging speech and debate, I look for the following key elements:

Research and evidence: I highly value speeches backed by credible research. Facts, statistics, and evidence should support your arguments and demonstrate a clear understanding of the issue at hand. Depth of research shows your commitment to seeking truth and ensures you’re contributing meaningfully to the debate.

Clarity and structure: Organized, well-structured speeches are essential. Clearly state your position, support it with evidence, and conclude with a clear impact. Logical flow is key to helping both me and your peers follow along and understand your points.

Critical thinking and knowledge:I appreciate debaters who engage in a meaningful pursuit of knowledge. Demonstrating awareness of counterarguments, questioning assumptions, and exploring different perspectives will strengthen your position. Those who can respectfully challenge opposing views while supporting their stance with strong reasoning will stand out.

Passion and delivery:Your delivery should reflect genuine passion for the topic. Speaking with energy, conviction, and a clear voice enhances your persuasiveness. However, passion should not overshadow respect for decorum. Strike a balance between enthusiasm and professionalism.

Collaboration and engagement:For events that require collaboration and cross examination,I’m looking for those who engage with their peers by asking thoughtful questions, building on the debate, and actively contributing to the collective pursuit of truth. Debaters who enhance the discussion and add value to the session will be rewarded.

Humor:As someone who studies the use of humor in motivation, I appreciate speakers who use humor effectively and appropriately. While not essential, well-placed humor can lighten the atmosphere and enhance engagement—so long as it remains respectful and supports the argument.

In sum, I prioritize well-researched, clear, and respectful contributions to the competition. Show me that you are committed to seeking knowledge and truth, and that you can communicate that effectively with passion and professionalism.

I'm by all means a mommy judge, i've been in around 7-10 tournaments in the past, including Nat Quals last year so I do have a certain grasp of how I judge my rounds.

I primarily judge on 3 aspects: Content, Presentation, and Time management

Content:

• I value structure highly in your speech, I want to be able to mentally follow through your content and not feel lost on what you are talking about
• Include sources! If you have interesting statistics tell me where you got them from, whether that be an Organization, a Study, or University I want to know.

Presentation:

• Walk with purpose! I can't stress this enoughI get hysteric watching competitors walk around aimlessly and it distracts me which has cost competitors the round. Yes movement is essential but do it with purpose, so 3 point walk techniques and things like that I like but if you're moving unnecessarily I will dock points
• Eye contact. It's not as essential as purposeful movements, but it's nice to see and it's those little things that take you to the next level
• Be engaging! Good speeches need to be engaging for me, if theres no voice inflection or you're too monotone, you're going to lose me in the first 2 minutes and it's going to be very hard to get me back

Time Management:

• I have no issue with giving time signals I don't see it as unprofessional at all, just let me know before your piece and i'll be happy to help
• Time management is essential. The saddest thing is seeing competitors have incredible pieces and do amazing for 90% of it, and then ruin it at the end because they're speeding up to make up for time

For Interpretation Events:

My biggest thing for Interpretation events like Duo, HI, or DI, is that I need to understand who's doing what.

If you have 3 different characters, I need something that tells me who's who. If everyone sounds the same, talks the same, and even moves the same, it will going to cost you the round.

Fun stuff:

- I like knowing my competitors read my paradigms, so if before beginning your piece you tell me your House or favorite Harry Potter Character i'll judge you in a better mood and more optimistically! (don't just say Harry Potter is your favorite thats lame)

Experience: High school AICE ELA teacher and assistant debate coach (3rd year) - LD/PF

Education: B.A. History, English Minor. You may generally assume that I have prior knowledge on topic content. I enjoy connections you make to your learning in history/gov/econ classes.

- If you are reading this, tell me! I appreciate when students take time to read judge paradigms.

- If I look stoic or disgruntled, it's only my poker face. I am enjoying the round and may break character if something I find funny/odd is said... : )

Debate (Judge/Coach)

General: I flow on paper and leave detailed comments on the ballot based on my flows. Anything I don't catch on the flow is on you, so slow down and ID anything you want to make sure I get. I do not disclose verbally (except on the very rare occasion that I do/must). NOTE: I am now flowing online more regularly.

• The stronger argument is the one which presents a clear framework, supports it logically through an objective criterion, and adequately addresses the opponent's position. The best arguments may use a combination of philosophy and real-world/evidential application. Contentions should always be numbered, and voters with weighing should be done at the end.
• Some rounds can get very technical. I don't love when rounds devolve into aggressive spreading and theory wars, but I understand that is part of the sport. If it's after breaks, send me your case. The most "spreading" I follow/appreciate should sound like an excited friend telling a story; you don't have to be the fastest reader in the world.

CASES: I will evaluate all cases but do prefer traditional discussion of topic and impacts. However (LD), I am comfortable with phil (if you explain slowly and clearly), "soft-left" Ks and other common Ks (such as: cap, set col, anthropocentrism), CPs, and disads. No issues if you run those. Anything beyond that you want to run that's "progressive" I will struggle to adjudicate effectively. Running theory when merited is legitimate, but do it respectfully and help me significantly on ROB/ROJ to vote in those rounds, as I have a hard time evaluating. I want to learn more, soplease adjust or ease me into any heavy progressive stuff pre- or post-round so that I can improve in the future.

Type: Policymaker, but flexible; I judge trad rounds in a techy fashion / I judge tech rounds in a lay fashion (due to my current abilities and experience). "Flay" sounds strange ~ but is probably most accurate, currently.

Likes: Unusual frameworks and contentions ("variety is the spice of life"); clear weighing; analyzing your or the opponent's evidence (i.e., that you actually know the cards beyond the tagline or stats and can explain its relevance in-round); good clash (not talking past or beyond opponent); consistent extensions; clean rounds.

Dislikes: Running cases you are clearly unfamiliar with; saying "turn X" when it is not evidently a turn; relying too much on a single "trump card" without contextualizing it in-round; not using the full allotted time or going over time (I will not count anything you attempt to say after time); "giving up" when you feel outclassed (and its inverse: steamrolling less-prepared opponents).

CONGRESS: I do not regularly judge Congressional Debate, but I spectated it throughout the 2024 NSDA Nationals, and I have some experience coaching. I highly value decorum and the role-play of the debate. Students who consistently contribute in session, through a combination of incisive questioning, strong speeches, and active participation in the chamber, will receive top ranks. POs will ALWAYS make top 6, barring some terrible calamity! Your presence should tangibly make the chamber better. I do enjoy unique speeches and angles (even on the rare occasion, abstention speeches and votes may be merited).

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

Speech (Judge if necessary)

All categories: Presentation is key. Even the best prepared speeches will not resonate with the audience if the delivery is lacking. I will be looking for PVLEGS and a confident demeanor. Follow the rhetorical triangle and incorporate ethos, pathos, and logos as necessary for your purpose. At the same time, your speech should be equally developed, with an organization, vocabulary, and evidence appropriate to your event.

Let me know prior to round if you require additional clarification on my Speech Judging preferences.

TL;DR

• Be kind in all that you do.

• I flow but not particularly well (especially the back half) and generally will not evaluate arguments that I don't understand, so please collapse and make sure you clearly extend your warranting.

• I am generally okay with spreading as long as I get a speech doc.

• I have a slight preference for truth over tech. My brightline here isn’t totally clear so you’re probably best playing it safe.

• Under no circumstances will I vote for a "death good" argument and under very few circumstances will I vote for an "oppression good" argument. Pretty much every other type of argument is fine.

• Theory should only be run for legitimate norms and legitimate violations. Running stuff like “tall people theory” or “formal clothes theory” almost guarantees a loss.

• For email chain purposes: thadhsmith13@gmail.com

Background

I’ve been a member of the debating world for about eight years now. As a competitor, I saw some success at the state and national level in Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, and World Schools, qualifying for the state championship four times and placing 10th at Nats in 2019. I also competed in BP debate at the university level in England. I am currently an assistant coach for American Heritage School - Broward.

I have a Bachelor’s degree in Political Science and Gender, Sexuality, & Race Studies. I have a Master’s degree in Theory and Practice of Human Rights. You can expect me to have more than the average level of knowledge in those areas. I like to think that I know about as much as the average person on most other things, but for economic arguments (or anything involving math) I get lost easily. Do with that what you will!

Evidence ethics

I have voted on evidence ethics violations in the past, both with and without competitors calling them out in round. Straw arguments, aggressive ellipses, and brackets could all be round-enders.

Don't paraphrase! I will be very open to cut cards theory, direct quotes theory, or anything else like that. If you do paraphrase, you need to be able to provide a cut card or the exact quote you're referencing if evidence is called. It's not a reasonable expectation for your opponents or I to have to scrub through a webpage or a long document searching for your evidence.

Public Forum

I find myself leaning more and more truth > tech, especially with the state of evidence ethics these days. It's really important for you to explain the link chain and somewhat important for you to explain things like author credibility/study methodology, especially for big impact contentions.

Line-by-line rebuttal is really important in the front half of the round. That means you should be frontlining in second rebuttal, respond to arguments in an order that makes logical sense, and actively extend your own arguments. For an extension to be effective you need to tell me what the argument is, how it works, and why it's important. You can almost always do this in three sentences or less. These pieces are important - I don't flow evidence names, so saying something like "Hendrickson solves" without an explanation does nothing for you.

Fiat is pretty much always a thing - There's a reason Public Forum topics usually ask "is this policy a good idea" and not "will this thing happen." My view of fiat is that it lets the debate take place on a principles level and creates a "comparative" between a world with a policy and a world without a policy. That said, politics arguments can work, but only if they relate to a political consequence of a policy being enacted and not if they try and say a policy will never happen in the first place.

Kritiks and theory are fine in PF. Be mindful of your time constraints. For kritiks, focus on explaining how your cards work and what the alternative is. For theory, make sure there's a legitimate violation and that it's something you're willing to bet the round on. Theory exists to create norms. I won’t vote on frivolous theory and I won’t vote on your shell if you aren’t actively embodying the norm you’re proposing.

Flex prep does not exist. “Open” crossfires don’t exist. As a whole, crossfire doesn’t matter that much but you still shouldn’t contradict yourself between cross and speech.

Lincoln-Douglas

I really enjoy a good framework debate and it’s something that I find is missing from a lot of modern LD rounds. One of the best parts of LD is getting to see how different philosophies engage with each other, and we’re gonna see that thru framing. I do my best to evaluate the framework debate at the very top and use it as my primary decision-making mechanism. Framing doesn't have to be done with a value/criterion if you'd rather run a K or Theory or something else, but you need to five me a role of the ballot if you don't use a value/criterion.

Please don’t spread philosophy or theory if you want me to flow it - I read and write it all the time and I still barely understand it, so I’m not going to understand what you’re saying if you’re going 500 words per minute. If you must spread your framework or K, send me the case or be prepared to explain it again next speech.

I’m fine with condo, fiat, and counterplans. Please don’t paraphrase and don't rehighlight.

"Debate bad" arguments are pretty weird. I probably won't vote on them because, at the most fundamental level, you're still participating in a debate round and perpetuating whatever core "harm" of debate that you're talking about. If your alternative is a reasonable alternative or reform instead of just "don't do debate", I could be persuaded, but you've got an uphill battle.

Congress

If you have me as your parli, there are two things you need to know about me: I love Robert's Rules of Order and I hate one-sided debate. Ignore these things at your own risk. Other important things, in no particular order:

• Cut out all the preamble before you speak - NONE of you are as funny as you think you are.
• Display courtesy to your fellow competitors and do your best to ensure that everyone in the chamber is heard. I pay attention to pre-round, in-round, and post-round politics.
• Engagement with the other speakers is important, both through questions and through in-speech references. Every speech past the author/sponsor needs to have rebuttal or extension of some kind.
• Congress is a debate event - After two speeches on the same side of a bill I will start docking points for not flipping.
• Authorships/sponsorships (there's no such thing as a "first affirmative") need to explain exactly what the bill does. Don't assume I'll read the packet.
• Good Congress rounds have a narrative arc - The first few speeches should present core arguments and frame the round, the next few speeches should be heavy on refutation and extension, and the final few speeches should crystallize the debate.
• Many things that people do in-round have no basis in either the rules or parliamentary procedure. Many motions don't exist - There are no motions to "address the chamber," "open the floor for debate," "amend the agenda," or "impeach the presiding officer." You can't rescind a seconded motion (or a second), there's no such thing as a "docket nomination," you can't object to a motion to move the previous question, most tournaments don't have a requirement to track question recency, elections should really be handled by the parli, etc.
• At this point, I've heard every canned intro under the sun. If I hear you use the same exact intro on multiple different bills/rounds, or the same intro as a dozen other people, or the same unfunny meta-references with random names subbed in, you are getting docked speech points. It takes barely any effort to come up with an intro that's relevant to your content.

World Schools

The most important thing for you to do is to remember the purpose of your speech. Your speech should not be defined by the "line-by-line," rather, you should have a clear idea or set of ideas that you are trying to get across and I should be able to understand what those ideas were at the end of your speech. I am a big believer in the "World Schools style," meaning that I like it when debaters lean into the concept of being representatives in a global governing body, when debaters deploy flowery rhetoric about grand ideals, and when debaters spend a lot of time establishing and engaging with the framework/definitions/plan for the debate.

Theory

I'm fine with theory as long as it's a legitimate norm and a legitimate violation. Don't run frivolous theory (I'm not going to vote on something like "debaters should sit during their speeches", for example) and don't run theory if it isn't a norm you're actively doing yourself (don't run disclosure theory if you didn't disclose either). I don't have a preference on DtD vs. DtA or Competing Interpretations vs. Responsibility. I lean rather heavily towards theory being a RVI, especially in PF debates where it often becomes the only argument in the round.

I'm ambivalent about trigger warnings. I'm not going to be the arbiter of somebody else's experience and there's not much evidence that they're actually harmful in any meaningful way. Be aware that simply saying "trigger warning" tells us nothing - If you have one, be specific (but not graphic) about the potentially triggering content.

Kritiks

Kritiks are an incredibly powerful education tool that let debaters bring light to important issues. That said, you do need a link, preferably a resolutional/case one. I'm not opposed to hearing kritiks that tackle the structure of debate as a whole, but I think that it's difficult for you to justify that while also participating in the structure (especially because I've seen the same debaters participate in debate rounds without talking about these structural issues). Just like theory, you should be talking about legitimate issues, not just trying to win a round.

Death Good/Oppression Good

"Death good" is a nonstarter in front of me. I get it - I was a high school debater too, and I have vivid memories of running the most asinine arguments possible because I thought it would be a path to a technical victory. As I've stepped away from competition, entered the role of an educator, and (especially) as I've become immersed in human rights issues indirectly through my research and personally through my work, I no longer hold the same view of these arguments. I've been in rounds where judges and the audience are visibly, painfully uncomfortable with one side's advocacy. I've voted on the flow and felt sick doing it. I don't anymore. Do not run "death good" in front of me unless you want a loss and 20 speaks. It's not good education, it actively creates an unsafe space, and its often incredibly callous to actual, real-world human suffering.

"Oppression good" is also generally bad but I can at least see a potential case here, kinda? Probably best to avoid anyway.

I am a coach. I vote off the flow, but I am not well versed in technical or meta-theory debate (I also just don't respect that game). Please avoid debate jargon. If I don't understand what you are saying, it is harder for me to vote on it. Don't spread or talk too fast (200 wpm is the max where I can still catch everything you say). Be respectful in cross. I will not tolerate Ad Hominem attacks (attacks against your opponent and not their argument). I do not like theory arguments that are off topic and trying to be "clever" to win on technicalities. I will likely not vote on it, especially if you are abusing it.

LD: Please make your value and value criterion clear and carry them throughout the round. I prefer more traditional LD arguments. If you are going to try to tell me that mass extinction is good, for example, it better have some hard evidence and strong logic backing it up.

PF: Make sure your arguments all make logical sense. I probably will not vote on kritiks or weird theory. I prefer you have evidence to back up your claims, but it is not always needed for logical arguments. I want you to sign my ballot for me. If I am left with a confusing round and have to infer things for myself, it will likely not go in your favor. Please present me with clear impacts and carry them throughout the round.

❧You're In A Rush -- The Most Important Thing ☙

ㅤ‎ ‎ ‎

⦿ Congress: Conversational speaking speed, eye-contact, define jargon, sources have author + year at minimum, focus on cause and effect to outline concepts, accessibility both in physical and verbal delivery (clarity/understandability), call out cheaters, and be kind!

‎ ‎ ‎

❧ OVERVIEW☙

I, as a judge, aim to give the type of thorough ballots that I enjoyed getting as a competitor, so please understand that I usually give more 'grows' than 'glows' as they say. Make no mistake, I am more than proud of each and every one of you. Getting up in front of people and speaking your mind is perfect for growth in all aspects, full stop.

Speech and debate is, to me, a glowing example of practice and skill becoming one. With this in mind, there are many trade practices that better allow accessibility, enthusiasm, and knowledge to rise to the top. I abide by these best practices.

The following points will outline my paradigm for Student Congress.

‎ ‎ ‎

❧ ON DISHONESTY☙

No one person can know everything, and I believe that any person off the street ought to be able to understand and have faith in the speakers of any event. To mislead or bring forward fraudulent/ plagiarized claims and evidence is not acceptable, and I rely on you to ensure we can have a productive, respectful, and truthful round by ensuring nobody profits from dishonesty.

→ If there are instances of cheating or misinformation, then do not hesitate to call it out!

‎ ‎ ‎

❧ THE DETAILS☙

⦿ To Our Lovely PO's

Since each chamber always needs a PO, and you stepped up to take that role, we appreciate you! Thus, PO's, in my mind, start at the top and will be knocked down by how much they mess up or lose control of the chamber.

→ Assert and maintain control over the chamber at all times.

→ Demonstrate mastery of PO's duties and obligations.

→ If you won the position via vote, then expectations will be higher since you have asserted yourself as the best choice.

THIS INCLUDES BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO:

‣ Keeping track of how many questions each speaker has asked.

‣ Disallowing excessive or abusive recesses.

‣ Ensuring decorum and rule expectations are followed for all competitors.

‣ Quick and accurate recency and precedence calculations.

‣ Gavel procedure.

‎ ‎ ‎

⦿ Speeches

Delivery is one of the most important factors to me; be sure to speak at a pace and volume that may be understood by any person no matter the circumstances.

→ If I can't understand you due to your excessively high or low speed, your reliance on filler words like 'um', or your volume inconsistency then I can't follow your content. To me, delivery and content go hand in hand when it comes to audience accessibility. I will always comment on your delivery for that reason.

→ Redundancy happens to the best of us, and if you're a novice with a prepared speech that has already been covered in the chamber then by all means please still give it! That said, for experienced varsity or during high level competition/ tournaments, I expect adaptation or recontextualization to bring a fresh perspective to the table.

→ Physicality should be purposeful, and not become repetitive, distracting, or background-noise.

→ Non-invasive humor is always appreciated, but flattery will get you nowhere!

→ Content should be explained and guided by context and, preferably, real examples.

HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLES WILL BE WEIGHTED LESS IF THEY ARE:

‣ Misleading or vague.

‣ Non-applicable to the bill or argument made.

‣ Appearing like an un-cited source due to hyper-specific details.

‎ ‎ ‎

⦿ Cross-Examination and Questioning

I use cross-ex as a speaker's last chance to prove themselves in the event they are between speech scores. A tie breaker, essentially.

→ If two speakers give equally scored speeches and there must be a tie breaker then the speaker with more questions asked during cross-ex will win out due to their demonstrated confidence on and understanding of the various topics.

‣ BUT, if a question is redundant, grossly off-topic, or sets up an argument not already in play (like bringing up arguments you plan to introduce in your own upcoming speech) then it will count against the tie breaker since it is not indicative of a fruitful chamber.

IF, during cross-ex:

‣ The speaker defends their speech and demonstrates mastery: scoring will be rounded up.

‣ The speaker is disproven and they cannot adequately refute: scoring will be rounded down.

‎ ‎ ‎

⦿ Decorum

"Be good, be kind, be talented!" -Brian McAninch

→ Know and operate under the rules and expectations of the chamber.

→ Do not abuse recesses or exiting of the chamber.

→ When addressing a fellow competitor during a speech or cross-ex please refer to them by their proper title. It's all an act at the end of the day, so take the stage with pride.

→ Remember that you are debating the argument and NOT the person!

‎ ‎ ‎

❧ GOOD LUCK, COMPETITOR!☙