Debated PF for 4 years in highschool, have been coaching for 4.Take it easy on yourselves and remember to just have fun. Here we go:

- First things first, I don't have experience judging Ks or theory, so while I wont automatically vote you down if you run this kind of arg you should know I'll probably be confused

- If you’re running obscure arguments, make sure you don’t rely on your opponents confusion or potential lack of prep for it to win the arg. Prioritize demonstrating probability and a clear link chain that allows for clash and better flow of the round.

-It’s not sufficient to just respond to an argument with an opposite claim and leave it at that. Engage in the analysis, logic and links of the opposing team’s arg to allow for productive clash rather than just opposing ideas (this goes hand in hand with prioritizing challenging warrants over just questioning evidence)

-This might seem obvious, but you need to maintain access to your arguments to ultimately reach any weighing that I'll put on the flow. This means being consistent and clear with the args you decide to go for, and extending them throughout the round. It also means cleaning up after responses to maintain credibility (bleeding through ink gives me anxiety).

-Clear, nuanced weighing <3 Generic preprepared explanations on how big of a deal an impact is or throwing around weighing buzzwords won’t get you too far. Directly compare your impacts/links to your opponent’s with logic that ties into the context of the round and the world each team is selling.

When it comes to every other style/form technicality, I’m pretty much neutral. I don’t mind you speaking at any speed as long as it's comprehensible, and I don’t have any hard boundaries of exactly what I expect from each speech. If you feel like something is going to be problematic or probably not okay, chances are it is, and make sure you ask to avoid any unwanted situations.

Good luck :):)

I would like to be on the email chain, my email is fatoubbarrie1@gmail.com

Always impact calc

Policy

Do your best :)

High speaker points are awarded for exceptional creativity.

I am fine with spread as long as it is comprehensible.

LD/PF/Parli/etc.

Do your best :)

Hi! I'm Hassane and I've been debating for four years now in Parli, PF, Policy, Extemporaneous Speaking, and Student Congress. I'm a senior at Phillips Exeter Academy and I plan to continue debating in college.

Debate things:

I value respect and politeness in the round and will take off speaker points for being overly rude during cross-ex, when asking POIs, etc.

For prepared formats (PF, Policy, Congress) I really want some unique arguments rather than stock contentions that show a lack of effort or attention to details.

Please address all debaters by their proper names ( Prime Minister, 1st Aff speaker,etc)

For PF, do NOT give me an off time roadmap. I will take off points. Include everything in your speech.

Other things:

-Please self-time and respect the rules. You should NOT be introducing a contention in the grace period, or I will take off points.

-Do not shake my hand; Debate tournament are notorious for germs, I would like to limit spreading any of that.

Good Luck!

Hassane

Put me on the email chain csh7916@nyu.edu

(I'm only paying attention to what you read this is simply for reference at the end of the round and to make sure emails are sent somewhat promptly)

I do flow cross ex/crossfire but it must be in a speech if you want it voted on. I do believe cross is binding.

Background: I've done policy debate for years at Brooklyn Tech and I've judged Policy, PF, and Parli rounds before. I've run afropess, cap k, policy args, a decent amount of theory and have debated nearly every other mainstream arg (haven't hit death good, but I have read a bit). Having said that I'm fine with spreading just be clear, understand that virtual spreading is iffy if there's lag, and respectful of your opposition. I don't care about formal attire and don't take points for wearing sweats. My pronouns are she/her. If there are blatantly racist, ableist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic arguments or statements and the opposition points it out and tells me its bad in any way and I agree you will lose (this is rather strict for example "black people are criminals" will have you voted down "stats show that black people in the US have higher arrest rates" will not, notice the difference even if I personally believe both are bad I will only vote down the former).

Top Line:

I'll vote for wtvr. That includes T, DAs (with impacts but hopefully you know that), Kritiks, Counter Plans, and theory. I know people are iffy on theory but I personally feel they make some of the best rounds.

Credits to William Cheung for the rest of the this

1) Have a claim, warrant, and impact to every argument. It isn’t an argument absent these three elements, and I will have trouble/not be able to/want to adjudicate what you’ve said.
2) Make sure, on that note to properly explain your positions, don’t make an assumption that I know your DA scenario (perhaps fill me in on the internal work), or K jargon. Maybe i haven't judged that many rounds this topic and don't understand abbreviations right away - help me out.
3) Have comparative analysis of evidence, arguments, and preformative styles as it compares to your own and how I ought to prioritize impacts as it relates to your framing of the round.
4) Be Persuasive, it will go a long way to making me to sign my ballot your way if you can make the round enjoyable, touching, funny, etc – it will also help your speaks.
5) Write the ballot for me in your last speech , tell me how you win. Take risks, and don’t go for everything. Make me think, “woah, cool, gonna vote on that” “What they said in the last rebuttal was exactly how I prioritized stuff too, judging is soooo easy [it's often not :(]"

Also, some other things:

1) I will default to competing interpretations on T and extinction unless alternative mechanisms of evaluating the round or alternative impacts are introduced and analyzed.
2) I will avoid looking at evidence, unless there is a dispute over evidence in a round or a debater spins it as part of being persuasive

3) Extend arguments if you want them to be voted on and no new args in the final speeches
4) I am an open minded judge, and respect all “realms” of debate, though of course, I will always already have some bias (I fully admit I am a K debater, although I do usually take FW and T on both sides), I will do my best to mitigate it.

Parliamentary debate is an interesting and wonderful activity.

I think that the side which has thought more deeply about the topic should generally win the round - I appreciate a great creative argument but that argument needs to be true. My favorite kinds of arguments are absolutely true things that are often a blind spot to debaters.

I like feeling my opinion being actually changed by a certain argument, and I'm interventionist in that I think that if a rebuttal doesn't actually address a given point I will ignore it. Quality > quantity. I'm sure you've been taught (because I had been taught) that you should rebut every argument, even if you don't really have a great point to say. I disagree, and I appreciate when you have the 'round vision', and further, the respect for the truth, to know when a point is going to make it through and simply begin weighing earlier in the round. Strive towards your side of the truth, not just a win.

I will understand what you mean by nearly any theory or kritik. This does not mean I will be convinced by it. If you're making an argument about non-topical issues that are life-and-death and doing so carelessly, i.e. instrumentalizing them to win a debate round, I will give you very low speaks, and you will probably not win that round. This is not to say that such arguments are bad; I think they're important and good. You just have to treat them seriously and sincerely.

I will understand your points well if you have clear, linear warranting (x means y, y means z, and so on and so forth). If you don't have warrants or have insufficient warrants, it won't affect the outcome of the round unless the opposing side points out particular instances, which I think is a perfectly good rebuttal. I will still give you fewer speaks. If you're disorganized I will have a hard time flowing you, which will also lead to fewer speaks, and possibly you losing a round you think you ought to have won, because I have missed something important you've said.

If you do not weigh I will weigh for you.

Pet peeve: Don't talk about 'utilitarianism' as an alternative to 'morality.' Utilitarianism is a form of morality.

Pick motions that you know will be interesting to debate, not ones that you think you're the most likely to win or least likely to lose. You'll regret doing the inverse at some point.

If you are bigoted by accident I will drop speaks and, because bigotry is false, I'll ignore the point. I'll also talk to you after the round, and maybe to equity. If you're bigoted either out of unapologetic sincerity or because you think it was giving you some kind of competitive advantage I will drop you. I might still drop you if it's unintentional; it does detract, significantly.

Morgan K. Jones

she/her

Debate Experience:

-3 years NYCUDL debate experience

Stance on Heckles & POIS:

-POIs:

• Highly Recommended

• Always a Question

• Cannot be Abusive

-Heckles:

• Should be Advancing an Argumentative Point

• 1-5 words at most

• Cannot be Abusive

she/her

- Currently a Parliamentary debater at Stuyvesant High School

- 2 years experience in middle school parliamentary within the NYCUDL for Q300 Middle School

- I am familiar with the mechanics and rhetoric of parliamentary debate. I am will judge the round purely on what is said in the round and logic/evidence provided within the round.

- POIs:

- Very highly recommended

- Should add value to the debate as a whole

- Always a question, cannot be in the form of a statement

- Never abusive (can't be too long and waste the speaker's time, can't say give an entire argument within your POI, can't bombard the speaker with POIs, etc.)

- The more POIs, generally the higher speaker score I will give you, depending on the quality of your POIs and what they add to the round

- Heckles:

- Should be substantive in some manner

- Range of 1-5 words

- Should not be abusive (do not abuse your ability to heckle, there is such thing as over heckling)

- Speed:

- Any speed of speaking is fine, but if you are talking very fast and intend to, a roadmap and signposting within your speech is best for me as the judge to flow your arguments in the most accurate way possible

Finally, all debaters should be respectful towards each other, this is an environment where we want to learn from each other and expand our knowledge from interacting with others. Please don't be disrespectful to your opponents or me as the judge.

Stuyvesant '21 | Georgetown '25

__

shorter version:

did 4 years of policy + did the whole qual to the toc thing but i have no topic knowledge 

i don't debate in college so its been a while

did primarily ks and then primarily policy, shd be familiar w most stuff

spreading is cool

___

short version:

Hi! I’m fine with anything you want to run and I’ll try to evaluate the round with no predispositions. If you are efficient and don't use all your speech/prep time when you don't need to, I will boost your speaks. If you feel like you have nothing else to say at the end of your speech, please don't repeat what you said above unless you're recontextualizing it to an argument or framing the debate.

If you’re a curious novice here are some general thoughts:

- Please time your own speeches. I won't.

- Talking to your partner is prep

- Don't just read your blocks. Understand them.

- Speed is fine

- Tech > truth. A dropped argument is a true argument but how much I weigh it depends on how well it’s warranted and impacted out. I am a very, very, very technical judge.

- Protecting the 2NR is important to me. New 2AR spins are fine but not new arguments

- Add me to the email chain: aidancng@gmail.com

- Debate is stressful. Have fun!

Put me on the email chain: matthewqiu42@gmail.com

Top Level Stuff:

I ran a diversity of arguments throughout my debate career from DAs to soft left affs to baudrillard, etc. I am comfortable with whatever y'all want to run. Do what you do best!

General:

Tech > Truth - How much I evaluate a dropped argument depends on how well it’s warranted and impacted out.

Conditionality is probably good up to 3 conditional worlds, past that it's a debate to be had.

Speed is fine but don't sacrifice it for clarity. If it's obvious that I'm not able to keep up, please slow down a little. I will say "clear" up to three times.

Evidence quality is important to me but I won’t do work for any team that isn’t done in the speeches. Evidence spin is good but its effect is limited by the quality of the evidence itself.

Yes, you can insert a rehighlighting. No, you do not need to read it.

I'm not familiar with this year's water topic, so take that into account when using topic-specific acronyms.

Time your own speeches/prep and time your opponent's speeches/prep!

Overall:

Disclosure is good X--------------------------------------- No disclosure

Longer ev --------------X-------------------------- More ev

Condo good --------------X-------------------------- Condo bad

Clash of Civs:

Fairness is an impact ----------------------X------------------- Not an impact

Weigh the aff vs the K ---------------------X------------------ Moot the 1AC

Links of omissions --------------------------------------X- Links to the plan/reps

Links to the plan ---------------------X------------------ Reps links

Policy:

Politics DA is a thing ---X------------------------------------ Not a thing

Cheaty CPs ---------------------X------------------- Theory hack

Dropped ASpec in the 2NR -------------------------X--------------- Not voting on it

0 risk --------------------------------X-------- Always some risk

Judge kick -------------X---------------------------- No

Competing Interps -----------X---------------------------- Reasonability

Rev v Rev:

No plan no perm --------------------X------------------- Yes perm

More In-depth Thoughts:

K affs vs FW:

I’ve been on both sides of this debate and I am just as willing to vote on a pomo aff as I am to vote on framework.

For the aff: A lot of counter-interpretations are written sloppily so either think extensively about your model of debate or go for impact turns. Creative "we meet" arguments will also impress me a lot so if you can do it, go for it. I find that in most of these debates, there is a lack of clash and I'm left to do a lot of work for both teams in order to figure out who won. That means you must make it very evident why your affirmative is important and articulate its solvency in a clear way. Presumption is a stronger argument against K affs than people give credit for. The more contextualized your impact turns and DAs to framework are to your specific affirmative, the better. Making cross-applications between the framework and case flows is a very powerful way to generate offense especially if your theory of power directly implicates the framework debate.

For the neg: To me, fairness, education, clash, and most other standards are all viable impacts. Frame the debate around competing models of debate. I find that depending on the affirmative you are negating, some impacts are more viable than others so choose carefully. Responding to the specific warrants of the DAs and impact turns of the affirmative will be very helpful. TVAs with specific solvency advocates are also very persuasive. Try to make your framework arguments seem as specific as possible to the specific aff. The less generic/universally applicable your blocks sound, the better! Lots of cross applications between the FW flow and the case flow will also probably be very helpful in creating layers to your argumentation against the aff.

K affs vs Ks:

I don't have anything specific to input here, so do what you do best!

Policy affs v Ks:

For the aff: Utilize your aff and don't let it get lost on the K flow. Make cross applications and use your case to answer links and push back against the kritik's theory of power. 1ARs against the K should make strategic decisions about what to answer and set up the 2AR well to close out the debate. When you debate the framework debate, contextualizing your specific aff to your standards will be very strong when combined with case outweighs arguments.

For the neg: Framework is important. Absent that, some sort of mitigation against the aff (case defense, turns case, alt solves case, etc) is probably necessary. I'm cool for both reps and implementation links. Specific link analysis by pulling lines from aff evidence, setting up strategic cross ex questions, and not overusing jargon to obscure your arguments are all very good. Even if a link is generic, it can still be very strong! Just show that you understand your theory of power well and explain why it implicates the aff. When the alt is extended, please articulate clearly how it resolves the links and how it operates under your framework.

DAs:

Substantive impact calc is essential. Don't just tell me your impact has high magnitude. Articulate a frame of reference for how I should weigh and compare the different parts of impact calc. Explain why timeframe filters magnitude, etc. Creatively researched DAs and good evidence will be rewarded.

CPs:

Not great for CPs without specific solvency advocates for the aff but willing to vote for them. Advantage CPs are great. Strategic PICs are good but word PICs are not great. Explain the net benefit. Will judge kick if 2NR tells me to and there’s no pushback.

Ts:

I lean competing interps unless the interp is really silly and reasonability is debated well. The best T debates compare caselists and why debating specific affs are good or bad.

Theory:

Inclined to think condo is the only voting issue. I can be persuaded otherwise but it'll be an uphill battle. Most other theory arguments are likely only reasons to reject the argument.

Some Ending Notes:

As I said before, just do what you do best!

Good Morning or Afternoon! My name is Belmin Rama and if you are looking at this paradigm this means you are interested in seeing what is my experience or prefernces

I have been doing Public Forum debate for more than 10 years and 1 year learning about policy debate. I prefer students if they are able to time themselves, demonstrate great frontlining/rebuttals, provide an analysis between both your side and you opponents, use of weighing and impacts is much preferred. Im not crazy about crossfire since its not a speech, but an opportunity to poke weaknesses at your opponents arguments through questions. Just don't contradict yourselves

Timing yourselves is also key in my judging. This skill allows you to keep track of your time and you don't have to look at the judge to give time signals.

For my experience in speech, I have none what's so ever, but I am interested on the subject and would love to learn this style of debate.

Hi. I debated policy for years at Brooklyn Tech, mostly running soft left policy affs & the cap K, and now I'm debating policy at NYU. I have experience judging policy, PF, and parliamentary debate.

I always want to be on the email chain. My email is jzs9739@nyu.edu

Policy- general thoughts

-I don't flow or evaluate cx.

-I want to see every card that is read. Be prepared to send evidence quickly and efficiently, please.

-I love analytic args, and I don't believe a card is necessary to make an argument, but PLEASE change tone, slow down, or verbally indicate important analytics.

-The 2nr/2ar should write my ballot very clearly. The top of the speech should include fw, framing, impact calc. Role of judge/role of ballot args are a prior question to anything else in the round in my opinion so be sure to win that debate throughout, and emphasize in the 2nr/2ar.

-Don't be mean or rude to other debaters. Don't be unnecessarily aggressive. This is probably the only reason I will dock speaks. Be kind to everyone in the room. Debate is a lot. Let's make the experience nicer for each other.

Policy - Aff

-I'm very likely to vote neg on presumption because most affs don't do anything. You have to win some sort of solvency, and I've noticed most aff teams just don't do enough convincing me their plan does anything.

-I don't believe that in-round activism spills out to the real world, so you'll have to do a lot to convince me if that's your solvency mechanism if you're running some sort of K aff.

-There needs to be a strong internal link chain for me to want to vote aff, so make sure that is present and extended throughout speeches.

Policy - Neg

-I like voting neg on presumption. Most aff teams can't prove their aff does anything, so take advantage of this and make the round easier for everyone.

-fairness itself isn't a convincing impact for me most of the time. However, fairness could be an internal link to education (which is my preferred impact for theory/t/fw args)

-don't drop case in the block or the 2nr. this makes it extremely hard for me to vote neg.

PF -

I don't care what you wear/how you look. Not really any specific notes; I'll vote on the team that did the better debating.

rajendra10031@gmail.com

Hi! My name is Raj and if you’re reading this, I’m probably judging you. I debated for 4 years, went to the TOC my junior and senior years. I am now a senior at City College.

TLDR; Treat me like a flow judge. Do whatever you feel comfortable doing. When it comes to evaluating theory's K's, disclosure theory, I didn't do a lot of that in High School so I am unfamiliar with it. However, if you feel that it is needed and you can justify it in the rounds, then by all means go for it but be specific with it. If you’re spreading, then I won’t understand you and will put my pen down. *PLEASE DON’T SPREAD ABOVE 350wpm* I WILL VOTE 100% OFF THE FLOW and I will disclose and give my RFD. PLEASE FRONTLINE RESPONSES and have actual terminal impacts that I can vote on. Weigh and throw buzzwords like scope & magnitude at me. Remember if you do not extend these responses, impacts, and weighing I cannot vote on that. Tabula Rasa

FOR RIDGE:I haven't judged since the end of last season. This is my first tournament on the federal debt topic, but I have looked up topic analyses' on it so do with that information as you well.

If you make a comment that I deem racist, homophobic, sexist, or ableist at any point in the round it completely eradicates the integrity of the event and creates a space in which individuals can’t compete fairly and I won’t think twice about dropping you and giving you 20 speaks.

Last thing; please remember to have fun. I remember doing debate at this tournament and it was so much fun so please cherish this time at this tournament and enjoy yourselves.

Hello! I competed for four years at Klein High School (2016-2020) mainly in PF and Extemp, typically on the local circuit with a few national circuit tournaments here and there (#smallschool). I now study International Political Economy at Georgetown University. Paradigm is in order of events that I'm most likely to end up judging.

======================================================================
PF - for less experienced teams:

In your constructives/cases, try to craft arguments that clearly explain how you access your impact; generally, I prefer impacts that can be measured and linked well to what you're saying.

For rebuttal, respond to each argument in the order they're presented (line-by-line). Second speaking team's rebuttal should provide some defense of their case (responding to your opponents' args in first rebuttal). Also, please provide a roadmap (the order of which sides you'll be addressing) at the beginning of your speech, starting after second rebuttal!. Finally, while giving the speech, please tell me which arguments you're addressing/defending (ie: to respond to my opponent's Contention 1....).

For summary, I think collapsing is important in addition to covering both sides. Explain to me the most important arguments in the round (re-mentioning the claims, warrants, and impacts) and why you're winning them. Moreover, you should give reasons why your opponents are not winning their arguments by repeating/extending the responses your partner made in rebuttal (aka defense). I advise against bringing up new arguments in the second summary speech.

For final focus, you should only bring up arguments that were mentioned previously in the debate round (so no new evidence/arguments). Give me reasons to vote for you and help write my ballot for me. A big picture final focus that incorporates elements from your partner's summary will help win you my ballot.

A few other things: I won't vote off of crossfire arguments, please time yourself and your opponents, and pre-flow before round! If you have questions about my decision and your coach is cool with it, feel free to reach out via email at brandonw2002@gmail.com or message me on Facebook.

======================================================================
PF - for more experienced teams:

TL;DR: Tech > truth, roadmap/signpost, extend offense at the link/impact level in summary & FF (2nd rebuttal encouraged), weighing & collapsing are must-haves, no new args in the second summary and beyond, I default 1st speaking team with no offense, don't be rude or run arguments that are uninclusive, & ask me any questions before/after round.

1) Tech > truth unless it's offensive, homophobic, sexist, ableist, or racist (which will result in an L20). Framing/weighing mechanisms are great – the earlier they're introduced, the better. Roadmaps & signposting are a must.

2) Second rebuttal should frontline at least turns (otherwise up to you strategy wise). For both rebuttals, don't read new contentions as an "overview," disads are fine.

3) Arguments should be extended at the link and impact level - extensions should include card names with a summary of the evidence (Hapner '19 says xyz). This includes turns - so if you extend a turn, explain how it links into an impact! Both teams should extend args in summary & FF, and I encourage extensions in second rebuttal.

4) Speedwise, I'm a 7/10 in-person, 5 for cases & 6 for rebuttal-onward online. Speaks will be evaluated based on word economy, fluency, and strategic choices you make in the round (starting at a 28). Collapsing and strong weighing = high speaks! Incorporating some persuasive rhetoric is great in FF, as opposed to just giving a sped up summary.

5) Both teams should be able to extend defense in summary. Please don't read "new in the two" (second summary onward) - reading new evidence or analysis is a disadvantage to the first speaking team, and your speaker points will be docked.

6) Another important part of weighing is evidence comparison, so please tell me why I should prefer one piece of evidence over another (i.e. postdate, methodology, etc.), so that it won't be left to me to decide 5 minutes before I write my ballot. I will ignore misrepresented evidence from my decision, and it will harm your speaks.

7) Crossfire shouldn't be a shouting match. Use common sense - don't be rude, don't cut people off, etc. I won't explicitly flow crossfire, so make sure anything important you want me to consider is in a speech.

8) I will try to disclose (if allowed) if I think I'm able to make a reasonable decision within ~3 minutes after the end of second final or after I call evidence. I will likely disclose in all elim rounds unless you would like me not to (please let me know before hand).

9) If there's no offense at the end of the round, I'll default to 1st speaking team (given the structural advantage that 2nd speaking team has in terms of extending offense).

10) I may be lost if you try to read progressive arguments in front of me, but if it's explained very at a regular pace & explained well, I will attempt to evaluate it. Don't bank on it as a voter though (so if you plan on running disclosure, tricks, or 30 speaks theory, may want to strike me). If your opponent is clearly unfamiliar with theory/progressive argumentation, don't read it.

Debate is meant to serve as an activity in which you can continually improve. Feel free to message me on Facebook or email me at brandonw2002@gmail.com if you have any questions about my decision or about my paradigm; also, I'd be happy to answer your questions before round starts!

======================================================================
Extemp:

1) Organization of your speech is critical to help me understand your analysis – I like the seven part intro (or at least most of the elements: AGD, link, source, significance statement, question, answer preview) and on-tops (transitioning between points by using facts/jokes). If you have no idea what I'm talking about here, don't worry – all I ask is at least for a roadmap in the introduction.

2) Throughout the speech, make sure you're clearly linking back to the question. If it's a why question, make sure you're telling me why. Going over history/context should be reserved for the intro!

3) I appreciate slower-paced speeches, but if you're clear and understandable at a faster pace, go for it. Try to use hand gestures just to emphasize specific things, otherwise leave at your side. Vocal inflection/tonal variety is always great.

4) ~Two sources per point indicates to me strong grasp of source integration into your analysis, but try not to sound like you're just reading off evidence like in a debate round. Incorporate your own thinking into it! Also, using more credible thinktanks/institutions/research studies will strengthen your analysis.

Similar to what I said in my PF paradigm, the great thing about speech events and tournaments in general is how you can track your improvement. Feel free to message me on Facebook or email me at brandonw2002@gmail.com if you have any questions about my feedback; also, I'd be happy to answer your questions before round begins.

======================================================================
Speech & Interp: Because I was obliged to compete in platform events my freshman and sophomore year, I have some background in speech but not much in interp. For interp events, I'll be evaluating you based on the TFA/published ballot categories. Here are a few things specifically for speech (for future sake too!):

1) Have a roadmap very clearly in the introduction. I appreciate a good device :)

2) Content is what helps you stand out in platform speeches – having good source integration is always a plus in prepared speech events!

3) Organization is crucial for me to understand what you're trying to get at – having a bunch of ideas that don't really seem related will affect your ranking.

4) Make sure you don't overuse hand gestures, just use them for emphasis. Any pace you're comfortable with works as long as you're clear and understandable.

5) Try to be as close to the time limit as possible without stalling/being repetitive – the more content the better!

======================================================================
Congress: I did some Congress, mainly TFA + some NSDA Senate. See Extemp for certain pointers on how I evaluate 'extemporaneous' speech events. I appreciate solid analysis with sources in speeches, and clash is highly encouraged even starting with the First Negation speech. The PO will almost always make my ballot (esp. if they volunteer!), though I will usually rank good speakers in the room higher.

First Affirmation and First Negation speaker should break down the description & effects of a piece of legislation. Generally quality > quantity in terms of number of speeches. Make sure you're active in the chamber for questioning (esp. when no one else wants to question).

======================================================================
World Schools: I have little experience with Worlds, but please signpost so I can keep up with where you are on the flow. Remain engaged in the round through POIs. Weighing/argument comparison is appreciated in the last few speeches, and engaging with your opponent's arguments is critical. Will update this portion of the paradigm if/when I judge more.

======================================================================
Policy/LD: The only experience I've got in these two events are a few rounds of UIL Policy & LD (traditional), but I (hopefully) should be able to flow the round. I prefer traditional over progressive argumentation, and make sure you're weighing/signposting throughout the round. See my PF paradigm on other topics (e.g. speed), and feel free to ask me questions before the round on anything specific!