I debated four years of policy in high school in Ohio in the mid-1980s and went to summer debate institutes at American and Michigan.  In college at the University of Pennsylvania in the late 1980s and early 1990s, I was president of the Penn Debate Council where I debated two-and-a-half years of NDT, qualifying for the National Debate Tournament in 1989, a semester of CEDA (like a two-person LD), and a year of parliamentary in the American Parliamentary Debate Association circuit.

Since 2002, I've been a professor of law at UCLA, where I primarily teach courses in Tax, Business law, and Sports Law.  I've also been a coach and judge for New Roads School's debate team for the past three years and I've primarily judged rounds at both the local league level and national circuit level in Parliamentary, Public Forum, and LD, with the occasional speech round thrown in where needed.

I'm an old fashioned flow-based judge, but I do think the affirmative has a prima facie burden to prove its case/the resolution and both sides have a prima facie burden with respect to their arguments.  Just because you say something that is dropped by the other side doesn't mean it necessarily wins you the round if it's logically incoherent or patently false.  I prefer if you weigh the arguments for me and explain how I should vote.  If you leave it to me to do so, you may not like how it turns out.  Speed is OK, but if you see me stop flowing, it's probably a sign that either I can no longer understand you or you are saying in 100 words what I already got from the first couple and your speed is obviously unnecessary to make your point.

I competed in policy debate and parliamentary debate (NPDA and APDA) in college. I currently teach and used to coach debate to middle school students at Brentwood school. While I can flow if you spread, for parliamentary debate I prefer a round that is clear and the analysis of arguments is stressed over just trying to go fast.
I am going to borrow from my old debate coach:
Ken Sherwood: “I am an argument critic. Do not expect me to vote for any claim that is not developed into an argument. You must develop a complete argument including warrants, not just assertions.”
If you choose to run theory, please make sure you clearly explain how your argument functions in the round. I prefer rounds that combine the technical aspects of the flow with a clear presentation, and I will always look to the flow first when determining speaker points.

Sixth year parent judge for New Roads, which is my only debate experience. I am, however, familiar with argument as an attorney for more than 30 years with lots of trials, arbitrations, administrative hearings and oral arguments in appellate courts. You could say I argue for a living.

I am most familiar with Parli and LD. I’m old, with slow ears, so don’t spread. Speak clearly and enunciate. Theory, Kritik and other more technical forms of debate are fine, but only if you really explain your position. All too often the punch of these arguments is lost without a full, complete and thorough explanation truly supporting the point being made. Don’t rely on debate jargon or buzzwords. Likewise, explain why your proposed framework for how I should decide the round makes sense.

Over all I am looking for the most compelling argument. This can be several smaller points, or one or two very strong points. Most of all, always explain how your arguments relate to the topic in question.

Update for MS TOC 2024 (the only important updates are PF-specific for MS TOC)

Updated March 2023 (note this is partially from Greg Achten's paradigm - an update for Kandi King RR 2023)

Email: huntshania@gmail.com-please put me on the email chain

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Overview [updated MS TOC 24]

I've done debate for over a decade now, and I think it's a really awesome activity when we share similar value in the activity. Please be kind and respectful to each other, and have fun debating! Feel free to ask any questions/clarifications before you debate. Some quick background, I competed the longest in LD in high school (elims of NSDA, 4th speaker / quarters at TOC, championed Greenhill, Co-championed Cal Berkeley Round Robin and Finals at Cal Berkeley Tournament my senior year). I've also competed in a lot of other events besides LD (WSDC, Impromptu, Extemp, Oratory, PF, Congress) and other notable achievements include being runner-up at NSDA 2013 in Extemp Debate and debating for the USA on the NSDA's inaugural USA Debate team my senior year in WSDC. I've coached a lot of students at this point, I was an assistant coach for Northland, Harvard-Westlake for 4 years, The Harker School for 3 years as the MS Director of Speech and Debate and currently as an assistant coach/law student, and am presently one of the head coaches for the USA Debate Team through the NSDA. Good luck, have fun, and best effort!

Paradigm[Updated March 2023]

[**Note I copied this paradigm from my colleague, Greg Achten at The Harker School when my paradigm was deleted in March 2023.]

I enjoy engaging debates where debaters actively respond to their opponent's arguments, use cross-examination effectively, and strategically adapt throughout the debate. I typically will reward well-explained, intellectually stimulating arguments, ones that are rooted in well-grounded reasoning, and result in creativity and strategic arguments. The best debates for me to judge will either do a stand up job explaining their arguments or read something policy-based. I love a new argument, but I just caution all debaters in general from reading arguments your judge may not have a background in that requires some level of understanding how it functions (that often debaters assume judges know, then are shocked when they get the L because the judge didn't know that thing).

I haven't judged consistently in awhile, and what that practically means it'd be wise to:

(1) ask questions about anything you may be concerned about

(2) avoid topic-specific acronyms that are not household acronyms (e.g., ASEAN, NATO, WHO, etc.)

(3) explain each argument with a claim/warrant/impact - if you explain the function of your evidence, I'll know what you want me to do with that evidence. Without that explanation, I may overlook something important (e.g., offense, defense, perm, or "X card controls the link to..", etc)

Argument Preferences:

The execution of the argument is as important as the quality of the evidence supporting the argument. A really good disad with good cards that is poorly explained and poorly extended is not compelling to me. Conversely a well explained argument with evidence of poor quality is also unlikely to impress me.

Critiques: Overall, not what I read often in debates, but you'll likely do fine if you err on the side of extra explanation, extending and explaining your arguments, directly responding to your opponents arguments, etc. I try my best to flow, understand more nuanced arguments, etc. But, I don't have a background in critical studies so that will need extra explanation (especially links, framing arguments, alternatives).

Topicality/Theory: I am slightly less prone than other judges to vote on topicality. Often the arguments are quickly skimmed over, the impact of these arguments is lost, and are generally underdeveloped. I need clear arguments on how to evaluate theory - how do I evaluate the standards? What impacts matter? What do I do if you win theory? How does your opponent engage?

The likelihood of me voting on a 1ac spike or tricks in general are exceptionally low. There is a zero percent chance I will vote on an argument that I should evaluate the debate after X speech. Everyone gets to give all of their speeches and have them count. Likewise any argument that makes the claim "give me 30 speaker points for X reason" will result in a substantial reduction in your speaker points. If this style of theory argument is your strategy I am not the judge for you.

Philosophy/Framework: dense phil debates are very hard for me to adjudicate having very little background in them. I default to utilitarianism and am most comfortable judging those debates. Any framework that involves skep triggers is very unlikely to find favor with me.

Evidence: Quality is extremely important and seems to be declining. I have noticed a disturbing trend towards people reading short cards with little or no explanation in them or that are underlined such that they are barely sentence fragments. I will not give you credit for unread portions of evidence. Also I take claims of evidence ethics violations very seriously and have a pretty high standard for ethics. I have a strong distaste for the insertion of bracketed words into cards in all instances.

Cross examination: is very important. Cross-ex should be more than I need this card and what is your third answer to X. A good cross-ex will dramatically increase your points, a bad one will hurt them. Everyone in the debate should be courteous.

Disads/CP's: these are the debates I am most familiar with and have spent nearly all of my adult life judging and coaching. DA turns the case is a powerful and underutilized argument. But this is all pretty straightforward and I do not think I have a lot of ideas about these that are not mainstream with the exceptions in the theory section above.Speaker points: for me are based on the following factors - clarity of delivery, quality of evidence, quality of cross examination, strategic choices made in the debate and also, to a degree, on demeanor. Debaters who are friendly and treat their opponents with respect are likely to get higher points.

Also a note on flowing: I will periodically spot check the speech doc for clipping but do not flow from it. I will not vote on an argument I was unable to flow. I will say clear once or twice but beyond that you risk me missing many arguments.

Public Forum

Pretty much everything in the above paradigm is applicable here but there are two key additions. First, I strongly oppose the practice of paraphrasing evidence. If I am your judge I would strongly suggest reading only direct quotations in your speeches. My above stated opposition to the insertion of brackets is also relevant here. Words should never be inserted into or deleted from evidence.

Second, there is far too much untimed evidence exchange happening in debates. I will want all teams to set up an email chain to exchange cases in their entirety to forego the lost time of asking for specific pieces of evidence. You can add me to the email chain as well and that way after the debate I will not need to ask for evidence. This is not negotiable if I'm your judge - you should not fear your opponents having your evidence. Under no circumstances will there be untimed exchange of evidence during the debate. Any exchange of evidence that is not part of the email chain will come out of the prep time of the team asking for the evidence.

Other than that I am excited to hear your debate! If you have any specific questions please feel free to ask me.

My email is chasiaj@gmail.com Please include me in any email chains

If your go-to strategy before even seeing who you're paired against is T/Theory please don't pref me. I do understand theory args, but look first to reasonability. If I feel no in round abuse occurred, I will most probably ignore the shell. If abuse did occur, I will consider competing interps if args are made for them. You won't like me as a theory-heavy judge, and I won't enjoy judging your theory-heavy round.

-,.-,.-,-,.-,.-,-,.-,.-,-,.-,.-,ABOUT ME/GENERAL NON ARG BASED NOTES-,.-,.-,-,.-,.-,-,.-,.-,-,.-,.-,-,.-,.-,-,.-,

Hi y’all! My name is Chasia (she/they) and I’m currently a PhD student in Culture and Theory at UC Irvine. I received my BA in Law, History & Culture with a minor in Gender & Social Justice from the University of Southern California in May 2021 and attended Harvard Westlake for High School where I competed in Lincoln Douglas Debate for four years. I also competed in Parli debate in middle school and coached and judged middle school parli during my high school career. My graduate research utilizes Black feminist theory, critical race theory, affect theory, poetic theory, legal theory, disability theory to study the narratives and experiences of Black women, resistance, community, and ideas of irrationality.

It would be a lie to say my life experiences as a low-income, chronically, and mentally ill, Black woman don’t affect my judging. However, I will do my best to evaluate the debate round based solely on the arguments made in the room. That being said, tell me how you want me to evaluate your arguments and why. I generally look to a comparative worlds standard and don't vote on presumption.

Before I get into specifics of arguments, please don’t be a jerk. I don’t care how many bids you have, you can and should still be a kind person. While I won’t necessarily vote against you for being a jerk, I will dock speaker points and won’t feel bad about it. If you are obviously more advanced than your opponent, please don’t make my round the place where you crush someone’s debate dreams. Be kind and hopefully it can be a positive (maybe even fun!) learning experience for everyone. Please respect one another.

That being said after the round if you have questions about your arguments or performance, I would be happy to discuss (given tournament rules allow). However, this kindness rule extends to me. I’m a sensitive human. As soon as I feel disrespected, I will not engage with you anymore. There are respectful and kind ways to disagree.

While I do understand “spreading” and did spread when competing. I am hard of hearing so please, speak up. I will say clear, slow, or louder, but if I miss something, and it isn’t on my flow, I won’t consider it when evaluating the debate. The issue is usually the volume rather than the speed as many debaters mumble or whisper when spreading.

I'm fine with flex prep. I don't care if you sit or stand. I don't care where you sit. You can time on your phone. You can read a poem as your case, etc.. Just debate how you are comfortable debating. Do what you think you can do best.

-,.-,.-,-,.-,.-,-,.-,.-,-,.-,.-,-,.-,.-,GENERAL NOTES FOR ARGUMENTS-,.-,.-,-,.-,.-,-,.-,.-,-,.-,.-,-,.-,.-,-,.-,.-,-,.-

I will evaluate nearly any argument granted that it is not completely illogical and doesn’t dehumanize anyone inside or outside of the debate space. Don't be sexist, ableist, racist, transphobic, homophobic, etc. Otherwise, If it makes sense in the round, and you tell me how I should evaluate the argument, I will most probably evaluate and accept the argument. It’s your opponent’s job to convince me not to accept the argument. I will do my best not to intervene/use my own outside knowledge to evaluate the round. The sky is green until your opponent tells me it’s not. Your opponent dropping an argument is not sufficient for you to win the debate. Tell me why that dropped argument is so important that you have won.

Run whatever you want as long as you defend it well under whatever framework/ROB is determined in the round, unless it is morally repulsive (racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.) or you're a jerk in round. However, if your arguments are dehumanizing and offensive to marginalized folks I will not accept them. Don’t waste your time making them. In this case, I will vote for the other debater, make up an "educational" RFD for why you lost, and not think anything of it. You can be passionate and aggressive without being mean. Otherwise, as long as you’re being a decent human being, read whatever you want. Read what you can argue best, not what I like best.

I will vote off of what you tell me to, even if I know something is factually wrong, etc. If both debaters agree to a FW/ROB I will evaluate the round off of that, not who has more turns or more unanswered arguments. If no one agrees on a FW/ROB, I'll just pick one that holistically encompasses the round. I actually do care about what you are saying and will flow, but I'm ill and usually hungry and sleepy, and hate hurting people's feelings unless I already have a vendetta against you (in which case I would just conflict you), so please tell me exactly how to vote. Write my RFD for me, paint a picture in the 2AR/NR, wrap the debate like a pretty present, whatever metaphor floats your boat. Please tell me where to vote and what to look to.

-,.-,.-,-,.-,.-,-,.-,.-,-,.-,.-,-,.-,.-,-,.-,.-,-,ARGUMENT SPECIFIC NOTES-,.-,.-,-,.-,.-,-,.-,.-,-,.-,.-,-,.-,.-,-,.-,.-,-,

Traditional Arguments: Sure.

Plans/CP/DAs: Go for it.

Ks & K Affs: I LOVE THESE! I ran these all the time! Please make me an anti-ethical decision maker if you want, I'm pretty good at it. I understand a lot of critical literature/positions fairly well. Don't run a K unless the other case actually links and unless you know what you are doing. Don't run it just because I'm your judge. Please don't just add a police brutality tag to your case because I'm your judge. If you are going to run these types of arguments, you should have been running them anyways and know what you're talking about. They should be important to you. You should be passionate about it. The only thing worse than a bad K is theory. However, if you don’t understand/like K debate, please don’t run a K just because I’m judging you. I understand other arguments well. Also, you can definitely win on other layers of the debate even if a K is run.

T/Theory: I understand these arguments but I really don’t like them. Usually, they are jerk moves to not engage in the issue of the topic/debate at hand. If the argument applies, run it. If it’s frivolous, I would prefer you didn’t but go ahead and run it. That being said your speaker points might suffer. I will vote off of reasonability and then competing interps. So, basically, if I deem that there is actual in round abuse, then I will look to competing interps, but most theory nowadays is frivolous and annoying. That is how I am going to evaluate the theory debate should I have to. If they are actually being a buttface, then go for it, I will probably think they are a buttface too and vote off of it. Also, please don't make the entire round theory. If you run theory please tell me how it relates to the arguments being made and how I should evaluate it in the debate. Please don’t leave me alone with a T/Theory case. Spikes in the underview about how you want the round to function are fine.

Dense Philosophy: While I understand most philosophical positions, please take the time to explain these positions well. Tell me how your FW affects how I can evaluate the round.

Skepticism/Tricks: No.

Hi my name is Patrick Kim. I am a debate parent, and fairly new to debate. I do appreciate listening to good arguments and would prefer that debaters speak at a reasonable pace so I can capture all the points from each speaker.

Carlos P. Salas

I debated Parliamentary and other formats in East Coast private middle- and boarding-school leagues. I studied philosophy at NYU and am accustomed to complex argumentation. I competed successfully in, and later governed, the moot court program at the University of Chicago Law School. My professional career has been in corporate law, investment banking and executive management where clear and persuasive communication is the cost of entry and rhetorical gamesmanship has no value. I’ve coached middle-school debaters at New Roads and judged several years of middle- and high-school tournaments in all formats.

I value arguments grounded in fact and reason, informed by a sound understanding of history, culture or science, and that squarely address the resolution. I do not value procedural tactics, arguments that evade the clear intent of the debate topic, or off-point themes. It’s more fun and informative to debate the topic directly. If you intend to argue kritiks, be sure these are relevant and convincing to someone lacking post-modern sensibilities. I don’t generally find Critical Theory or its derivatives persuasive; other philosophical frameworks are encouraged where relevant and can add a welcome depth to your arguments.

I find speaking styles most persuasive when they emphasize clarity, organization and logic. Emotional arguments can be persuasive as well but must be perceived as sincere and must likewise be organized and on point. Debate jargon, calling out procedural faults and rudeness are crutches for a weak speaker. Likewise, an overly-quick speaking style is not how you would choose to persuade someone in the real world—even a sophisticated counterparty.

I respect and admire all the debaters I have the privilege to judge and expect that you will respect your competitors to the same degree. Assume I know the rules and will score any faults appropriately, but that I most want to hear a lively clash of ideas. I am looking forward to seeing your best!

UPDATED: 4/11/2024

1998-2003: Competed at Fargo South HS (ND)

2003-2004: Assistant Debate Coach, Hopkins High School (MN)

2004-2010: Director of Debate, Hopkins High School (MN)

2010-2012: Assistant Debate Coach, Harvard-Westlake Upper School (CA)

2012-Present: Debate Program Head, Marlborough School (CA)

Email: adam.torson@marlborough.org

Pronouns: he/him/his

General Preferences and Decision Calculus

I no longer handle top speed very well, so it would be better if you went at about 75% of your fastest.

I like substantive and interesting debate. I like to see good strategic choices as long as they do not undermine the substantive component of the debate. I strongly dislike the intentional use of bad arguments to secure a strategic advantage; for example making an incomplete argument just to get it on the flow. I tend to be most impressed by debaters who adopt strategies that are positional, advancing a coherent advocacy rather than a scatter-shot of disconnected arguments, and those debaters are rewarded with higher speaker points.

I view debate resolutions as normative. I default to the assumption that the Affirmative has a burden to advocate a topical change in the status quo, and that the Negative has a burden to defend either the status quo or a competitive counter-plan or kritik alternative. I will vote for the debater with the greatest net risk of offense. Offense is a reason to adopt your advocacy; defense is a reason to doubt your opponent's argument. I virtually never vote on presumption or permissibility, because there is virtually always a risk of offense.

Moral Skepticism is not normative (it does not recommend a course of action), and so I will not vote for an entirely skeptical position. I rarely find that such positions amount to more than weak, skeptical defense that a reasonable decision maker would not find a sufficient reason to continue the status quo rather than enact the plan. Morally skeptical arguments may be relevant in determining the relative weight or significance of an offensive argument compared to other offense in the debate.

Framework

I am skeptical of impact exclusion. Debaters have a high bar to prove that I should categorically disregard an impact which an ordinary decision-maker would regard as relevant. I think that normative ethics are more helpfully and authentically deployed as a mode of argument comparison rather than argument exclusion. I will default to the assumption of a wide framework and epistemic modesty. I do not require a debater to provide or prove a comprehensive moral theory to regard impacts as relevant, though such theories may be a powerful form of impact comparison.

Arguments that deny the wrongness of atrocities like rape, genocide, and slavery, or that deny the badness of suffering or oppression more generally, are a steeply uphill climb in front of me. If a moral theory says that something we all agree is bad is not bad, that is evidence against the plausibility of the theory, not evidence that the bad thing is in fact good.

Theory

I default to evaluating theory as a matter of competing interpretations.

I am skeptical of RVIs in general and on topicality in particular.

I will apply a higher threshold to theory interpretations that do not reflect existing community norms and am particularly unlikely to drop the debater on them. Because your opponent could always have been marginally more fair and because debating irrelevant theory questions is not a good model of debate, I am likely to intervene against theoretical arguments which I deem to be frivolous.

Tricks and Triggers

Your goal should be to win by advancing substantive arguments that would decisively persuade a reasonable decision-maker, rather than on surprises or contrived manipulations of debate conventions. I am unlikely to vote on tricks, triggers, or other hidden arguments, and will apply a low threshold for answering them. You will score more highly and earn more sympathy the more your arguments resemble genuine academic work product.

Counterplan Status, Judge Kick, and Floating PIKs

The affirmative has the obligation to ask about the status of a counterplan or kritik alternative in cross-examination. If they do not, the advocacy may be conditional in the NR.

I default to the view that the Negative has to pick an advocacy to go for in the NR. If you do not explicitly kick a conditional counterplan or kritik alternative, then that is your advocacy. If you lose a permutation read against that advocacy, you lose the debate. I will not kick the advocacy for you and default to the status quo unless you win an argument for judge kick in the debate.

I am open to the argument that a kritik alternative can be a floating PIK, and that it may be explained as such in the NR. However, I will hold any ambiguity about the advocacy of the alternative against the negative. If the articulation of the position in the NC or in CX obfuscates what it does, or if the plain face meaning of the alternative would not allow enacting the Affirmative plan, I am unlikely to grant the alternative the solvency that would come from directly enacting the plan.

Non-Intervention

To the extent possible I will resolve the debate as though I were a reasonable decision-maker considering only the arguments advanced by the debaters in making my decision. On any issues not adequately resolved in this way, I will make reasonable assumptions about the relative persuasiveness of the arguments presented.

Speed

The speed at which you choose to speak will not affect my evaluation of your arguments, save for if that speed impairs your clarity and I cannot understand the argument. I prefer debate at a faster than conversational pace, provided that it is used to develop arguments well and not as a tactic to prevent your opponent from engaging your arguments. There is some speed at which I have a hard time following arguments, but I don't know how to describe it, so I will say "clear," though I prefer not to because the threshold for adequate clarity is very difficult to identify in the middle of a speech and it is hard to apply a standard consistently. For reasons surpassing understanding, most debaters don't respond when I say clear, but I strongly recommend that you do so. Also, when I say clear it means that I didn't understand the last thing you said, so if you want that argument to be evaluated I suggest repeating it. A good benchmark is to feel like you are going at 75% of your top speed; I am likely a significantly better judge at that pace.

Extensions

My threshold for sufficient extensions will vary based on the circumstances, e.g. if an argument has been conceded a somewhat shorter extension is generally appropriate.

Evidence

It is primarily the responsibility of debaters to engage in meaningful evidence comparison and analysis and to red flag evidence ethics issues. However, I will review speech documents and evaluate detailed disputes about evidence raised in the debate. I prefer to be included on an email chain or speech drop that includes the speech documents. If I have a substantial suspicion of an ethics violation (i.e. you have badly misrepresented the author, edited the card so as to blatantly change it's meaning, etc.), I will evaluate the full text of the card (not just the portion that was read in the round) to determine whether it was cut in context, etc.

Speaker Points

I use speaker points to evaluate your performance in relation to the rest of the field in a given round. At tournaments which have a more difficult pool of debaters, the same performance which may be above average on most weekends may well be average at that tournament. I am strongly disinclined to give debaters a score that they specifically ask for in the debate round, because I utilize points to evaluate debaters in relation to the rest of the field who do not have a voice in the round. I elect not to disclose speaker points, save where cases is doing so is necessary to explain the RFD. My range is approximately as follows:

30: Your performance in the round is likely to beat any debater in the field.

29.5: Your performance is substantially better than average - likely to beat most debaters in the field and competitive with students in the top tier.

29: Your performance is above average - likely to beat the majority of debaters in the field but unlikely to beat debaters in the top tier.

28.5: Your performance is approximately average - you are likely to have an equal number of wins and losses at the end of the tournament.

28: Your performance is below average - you are likely to beat the bottom 25% of competitors but unlikely to beat the average debater.

27.5: Your performance is substantially below average - you are competitive among the bottom 25% but likely to lose to other competitors

Below 26: I tend to reserve scores below 25 for penalizing debaters as explained below.

Rude or Unethical Actions

I will severely penalize debaters who are rude, offensive, or otherwise disrespectful during a round. I will severely penalize debaters who distort, miscut, misrepresent, or otherwise utilize evidence unethically.

Card Clipping

A debater has clipped a card when she does not read portions of evidence that are highlighted or bolded in the speech document so as to indicate that they were read, and does not verbally mark the card during the speech. Clipping is an unethical practice because you have misrepresented which arguments you made to your opponent and to me. If I determine that a debater has clipped cards, then that debater will lose.

To determine that clipping has occurred, the accusation needs to be verified by my own sensory observations to a high degree of certainty, a recording that verifies the clipping, or the debaters admission that they have clipped. If you believe that your opponent has clipped, you should raise your concern immediately after the speech in which it was read, and I will proceed to investigate. False accusations of clipping is a serious ethical violation as well. *If you accuse your opponent of clipping and that accusation is disconfirmed by the evidence, you will lose the debate.* You should only make this accusation if you are willing to stake the round on it.

Sometimes debaters speak so unclearly that it constitutes a negligent disregard for the danger of clipping. I am unlikely to drop a debater on this basis alone, but will significantly penalize speaker points and disregard arguments I did not understand. In such cases, it will generally be unreasonable to penalize a debater that has made a reasonable accusation of clipping.

Questions

I am happy to answer any questions on preferences or paradigm before the round. After the round I am happy to answer respectfully posed questions to clarify my reason for decision or offer advice on how to improve (subject to the time constraints of the tournament). Within the limits of reason, you may press points you don't understand or with which you disagree (though I will of course not change the ballot after a decision has been made). I am sympathetic to the fact that debaters are emotionally invested in the outcomes of debate rounds, but this does not justify haranguing judges or otherwise being rude. For that reason, failure to maintain the same level of respectfulness after the round that is generally expected during the round will result in severe penalization of speaker points.

Hi, I'm Kevin, and I go to Harvard-Westlake school in Los Angeles.

Not sure if middle school debaters will even see this, but I did parli for 7th and 8th grade, and I do national circuit LD now.  Try to impact your arguments well. DO EVIDENCE COMPARISON (show why your cite from washingtonpost is more credible than GMOsAreTerrible.blogger.com).  I usually give good speaks, upper 70s for average.  Highest I've gone is an 86.  I'm fine with fast talking, but don't get crazy, because parli usually dooesn't have speed.  

Pref me if you want! Just kidding you don't have prefs