Hello, my name is Max Bubb, I am a newer judge, but I've been debating for several years. I dislike tricks and theory and really enjoy it when people make simple, logical arguments. I will vote you down for spreading.

My name is Ava Doss and I'm a varsity debater at NHS.

My Preferences:

-Signpost

-I'll be keeping your time but also keep your own

-Keep track of your prep time

-Be polite

-Be clear and concise

My Icks:

-Interrupting opponents

-Yelling/Raised Voice

-Laughing at opponents

-Stalling

I'm really looking forward to being able to judge all of you!

Junior at Valley, 3 years of policy, 1 year of LD.

Include me on the email chain: grant.engelbert@gmail.com

Novice specific:

First off you can do it, I know how terrifying tournaments can be but you will be ok.

moving on to business

I am not super familiar with this year's topic so just keep that in mind.

I am tech>truth normally in the round. Except when there is an accusation of racism, ableism, sexism, being homophobic, transphobic, or anything else that is in this category in the round, then I judge on truth.

I will vote on any argument in the round if it is not sufficiently answered even if it makes me hate myself.

I am not that experienced in Ks so if you want to read one in front of me I won't know a lot of the literature.

I am not a huge fan of spreading especially when it is so fast you can't make it out. I will not hold it against you in my decision but your speaks might suffer.

One final thing WEIGH THE IMPACTS

email chain/email for comments: drewgartner1@gmail.com

Debate background:

Iowa City High: '11-'15
University of Iowa: '15

Coaching: Iowa City High '15-'18. '21- present

Important disclaimer: I have done nearly 0 research on this topic, and will likely not understand your acronyms without explanation. Please do not assume that I have a shared knowledge of the topic, and take time to explain things.

Important Disclaimer Addendum: My comfortability with full mega-speed has lowered, especially in the realm of analytics. I would like your analytics to be slower, so I can really get it all down. Taking a few year break from debate really impacted my full spread comprehension.

I debated Policy all through high school and did some college policy as well. I mainly work with novices, now. Topic specific acronyms, let me know what they mean I won't know. Don't start your speeches full speed, start at 80% and work up to full speed.

I think most debates can/should be decided without reading evidence. This means it is the debaters' burden to tell me what the evidence says, and the implication of the evidence. This also means that I reward story telling/writing my ballot. I have no sympathy for debaters who ask about "well, what about this evidence that says x" after I give a decision. I will not be embarrassed to vote against an argument that I feel i do not understand. It is your job to tell me about that evidence and why it matters, not my job to read it and implicate it on the debate.

General Philosophy: I come from a team where our primary focus was "traditional policy debate" meaning we liked to read heg, environment affs, et.c. Our main neg strat was the DA and a CP, and that is the type of debate I prefer. I did do a lot of cap debating, and a fair amount of security debating, too. My knowledge of critical theory is very limited and I probably require a huge amount of work on the more "out there" ks to vote for you. That being said, I do believe a dropped argument is a true argument. I will vote on dropped arguments if they are dropped and explained. As a caveat, debaters tend to have bad flows and claim everything was dropped, when the reality is that they probably did not. Please do not use the term "functionally conceded" in front of me, that term makes no sense. Either they have dropped something or they have not.

Specifics:

Disadvantages- Probably my favorite part of debate is the top level interactions with case and good DA O/Ws and Case O/Ws and turns debates. These are probably where the majority of my decision calculus comes from. Obviously, you need to win risk/chance of your disadvantage being true, but good impact calc and turns debates are very convincing.

Counter Plans- there tend to be a lot of cheating counter plans, and as a 2a I am probably sympathetic to reasonable theory arguments and perm do the counterplan. That being said, most counter plan theory should be a reason to reject the argument, it will be extremely difficult to win that it should be a reason to reject the team

Ks- like I said above, i am mostly versed in cap and security. If you want to read too much beyond basic Ks, I am most likely not your type of judge. Floating PIKs are probably bad, don't let the negative get away with them.

"non traditional debate/ performance"- also not very versed in it. I am more than likely not the type of judge for this, but i will not reject any arguments out right. I am pretty sympathetic to FW arguments. However, if you are a "non traditional team" and you get stuck with me as a judge, don't lose faith, I can be persuaded. I enjoy critical affirmatives that actually engage the topic, not just reject debate outright, and plan texts are preferable.

T- I don't know much about this topic, so all the topic specifics should be slower and well explained. I think that most debaters try to go too fast in their final rebuttals on T, which leads to a lot of judgement calls. To remedy this, go slower in your final rebuttal, and you will be rewarded.

Theory- Most things are reasons to reject the argument not the team. I will probably not vote on dropped perm theory, even if you claimed it was a reason to reject the team.

Speech Docs/ Email chains

I would prefer if all debates were done with email chain. Please add me to the email chain at drewgartner1@gmail.com
I can tell when you are wasting time and/or stealing prep. DON'T. it's annoying, wastes everybody's time, and will undoubtedly lose you speaker points. technical issues do happen, yes, but they should be resolved quickly and efficiently. I would prefer every speech to start as nearly as immediately after prep or CX as possible. We don't want to be the last round done.

Speaker Points

It's very easy to impress me, using technical skill and clarity.
I am okay with speed, but will yell clear once or twice before the speaks begin to get docked. Nobody likes kids who are fast but incoherent, going slower is in your best interest.
Being nice/reducing all hostility is very preferable. If you have made it this far and are still reading, I will likely increase speaker points if you work "jambalaya of awesomeness" into one of your speeches, especially if you are original and make me laugh rather than just saying it to say it. I have a relatively low threshold for docking speaks due to hostility. Being assertive and being aggressive are much different, know the difference. I probably will not say anything if you are being overly rude/rude at all, but it will significantly hurt your speaker points, but will not affect the decision calculus.

Hey y'all! I'm Shreya and I did L.D for five years from Valley High School. I qualified to the TOC and NSDA nationals multiple times and am able to judge both circuit and traditional debate. As a debater, I primarily went for phil or K's, but also went for theory and T a decent amount too.

As a heads up, I don't flow off the doc. For the initial speeches, I'll give you a bit more leeway but if in the rebuttal speeches, you're flying through blips, don't send the analytics, and I don't catch an argument on my flow I won't vote on it. If for example, the 1AR makes a new eval after the 1AR claim and the 2AR collapses on it, even if was conceded, I won't vote there if I didn't hear it.

Add me on the email chain shreya.ananya5@gmail.com

This is a quick paradigm for Blake

I like to think that I am a pretty tab judge. I can evaluate phil, K's, theory, T, tricks (not all tricks but most), and LARP to a lesser degree.

If you have me for a performance v performance debate or a LARP v LARP debate, I'm probably not your best bet. If by the end of the debate, I have to read the evidence and intervene, something went wrong.

If an argument is conceded, but I can't articulate what it means, what the warrant is, or how it affirms/negates, I will not vote on it.

Other miscellaneous notes

Please be comprehensible

I will say slow and clear

I won't vote on eval after the 1AC or 1N

I pay attention to CX

Things that will make me sad and potentially you sad as well

1. Being mean/sketchy in CX to novices or inexperienced debaters
2. Choosing to read only off the doc for rebuttal speeches (I think inventing new arguments on your feet is a good skill to cultivate)
3. Reading an unreasonable amount of offs instead of engaging with the AC
4. Headache inducing underviews
5. Not weighing or going for new arguments in the rebuttal speeches

Please collapse in rebuttal speeches and tell me how to vote. Judge instruction makes life easier for everyone. Your rebuttals should sound a lot like my ballot. Collapse and isolate a layer, explain why you're winning that layer, and why you outweigh your opponent.

This paradigm is for lay debate but applies to circuit debate too

I'm willing to vote on any argument insofar as it is warranted and not offensive. Here's the best explanation of how I'll judge lay debate.

First, I'll look to who's winning the value/criterion debate. If one debater is winning an entire contention and its impact (ex; nuclear war) but isn't winning that consequences matter than I won't look to that offense.

Second, I'll look to who's extending their contentions or arguments throughout the round. If the 1AR drops a really good argument and then brings it back up in the 2AR I won't vote on it.

Third, I won't evaluate new arguments made in the 2AR or completely new arguments in the 2NR because that isn't fair to your opponent, they don't have a full opportunity to respond.

Fourth, I know that persuasiveness and rhetorical choices are given great importance in lay debate and while those will definitely help if you have me as a judge, know that I ultimately vote based off the flow.

Finally, be nice! Debate can already be an exclusionary space and its important that as opponents (and judges) we work to actively make it better and that starts with being kind to your opponents.

I look forward to your debate, feel free to ask me any questions!

I did public forum debate for four years in high school, and am currently debating APDA in college. I do not mind fast talking, but spread at your own risk, as you do yourself no favors if I cannot understand you. Please always be kind and courteous to others, I will heavily penalize speaker points for ad hominem attacks(attack your opponents instead of their arguments), as debate should be a safe space for everyone. Please include trigger warnings if your case contains explicit or possibly disturbing content. I prefer quality of arguments to quantity of arguments, one strong contention can override three weak ones, unless framing changes how I should weigh. Speaking slowly and confidently will make it easier for me to organize your arguments, and make sure to narrow the debate down to a few big points in summary and final focus. Lastly, just have fun. Debate can get very competitive, so take a few breaths before the round to calm your nerves and mind, and try to enjoy it, because most of us spend far too much time debating to regret it.

Debate experience: Iowa City High, Michigan

Please add me to the email chain: kajespen06@gmail.com

Warning: Making arguments that are clearly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. will result in a loss (ie: X group does not deserve rights)

TLDR: If you like Drew Gartner but also enjoy winning on neg, you may like me. I'm generally a policy judge but will vote on almost anything with clear explanation and reasoning. Critical affs should at least engage with the topic.

Quick Preferences:

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

Speed ----X--------------- Slow

Critical --------------X----- Policy

Condo Good ---------X----------- Condo Bad

Fairness -------X------------ Education

PICs Good -----X-------------- PICs Bad

States CP Good --------------X----- States CP Bad

Politics DA is a thing ---X---------------- Politics DA is not a thing

Longer Ev ------X------------- More Ev

Link matters most ------X------------- Uniqueness matters most

Detailed Notes:

Overall I'm a relatively standard policy judge though I'm maybe more susceptible to voting on theory or critical strategies. I will vote on almost anything if you provide a clear ballot for me, though some ballots are certainly uphill battles. I'm more familiar with traditional policy arguments like topical plans, DAs, CPs, T, and relatively standard Ks ie: Cap, Security, SetCol, and Death, which means it'll take a little less work for me to understand them. Always tech over truth though truthful arguments can make tech a bit easier (of course). Generally, debate is a game: a lot of what makes debate great is the educational value but it is still a game and games should be fair.

Case: Very normal here - make sure to weigh impacts consistently and engage in detailed evidence comparison. This is your aff, you know it well!

DAs: My favorite debates usually focus on in-depth DA vs. case debating. I typically think link shapes uniqueness makes little sense if there is no risk of uniqueness, but otherwise, it's a pretty good argument to make. I would like to hear clear reasoning as to why the DA links and thorough impact calc in every speech. Oftentimes on DAs uniqueness debating gets a bit messy or just ends after the 2AC. Please explain why yours is better beyond "Newer date, prefer it."

CPs: These are a lot of fun but don't assume I instantly understand your 18-plank process counterplan, please be clear with your explanations. I think textual competition usually doesn't matter if there's no functional competition unless given a good reason. Perms are great of course but even a two-second explanation of each perm would be wonderful.

T: I really enjoy detailed T debates with good impact comparisons. I will default to competing interpretations but will vote on reasonability given some impact weighing. Plan text in a vacuum doesn't make sense if you don't do what the plan text says.

Ks: As I said above, I'm pretty well versed in the standard cannon of Ks including cap, security, setcol, death, and fem. Beyond that, a little extra explanation in the rebuttals will go a long way. When it comes to framework, I am sympathetic to claims that the aff can weigh the plan, but can definitely be persuaded otherwise. I'd be happy to vote on just about any K.

Theory: I will vote on anything provided a legitimate and convincing story of in-round abuse. Usually "reject the argument" resolves issues, but if you can describe why the round was impossible to win or rid of all its educational value, I may write you a ballot. Conditionality is often good, but I grow more sympathetic towards the aff as soon as we get in the realm of 3-4 advantage or cheaty process CPs.

Critical Affs/"Non-Traditional Debate": I'd be glad to judge a round including these! I think there is a lot of value that can come from them and often times are pretty fun to watch. I do think you should engage in the topic instead of reading the same K shell as last year. The point of having a topic each year is to educate ourselves in a wide field, so some interaction on that level would be appreciated ie: "Fiscal redistribution is inherently x bad thing" or "The USFG is bad which means it could never handle fiscal redistribution" or "The USFG corrupts genuine movements like fiscal redistribution" - you get the idea and can probably be far more creative with it

Speaker points: Always be respectful and friendly! A good combination of speed and clarity is preferred, but when one must be prioritized, please go for clarity. I will say "clear" three times before speaker points start getting hit. Unique and creative arguments as well as giving speeches off your flows will serve you well. The more detailed and clash-heavy your debate gets, the better. Of course, make analytics off your flows, but put pre-written blocks like framework in your doc. You're not cool or sneaky, you're just trying to eek out a free win. Please also read analytics and blocks slightly below card speed. I think engagement with judge paradigms is important, so if you're reading this far and work the phrase "Jambalaya of Awesomeness" into your speech in an interesting and exciting way, I may bump up your speaker points.

doop doop doop

Put me on the email chain if you're gonna do it. Email: js46497@wdmcs.org

I'm a senior at Valley. I do LD.

Novice specific:

I prefer novices to read lay/traditional cases. I get that winning rounds based on varsity arguments your teammates gave you looks good to your parents, but if you don't understand what you read, then you don't gain anything from it. Instead, I think novices should focus on the basics of debate: good argumentation, being able to think on your feet, doing your own research. If you can actually understand your really technical Berardi case and it's something you actually want to read, then go for it. Otherwise, maybe don't.

If you're going to spread, try to spread well. Don't garble your words, speak clearly. If you can't do that, don't spread. Only spread if your opponent is cool with it.

All novices get 29+ unless they do something bad and by bad i mean defend racism or smth

PF specific:

I don't do pf so I will not know the topic literature. I have judged it a few times but I'm gonna judge it like an LD round because that's easier for me

You can call me a progressive judge, do theory and have an opposing framework and stuff (why do y'all not do framework debate? it's weird).

I'll vote on analytics, not everything needs to be carded.

This only happened once but if there's no impact weighing I will default to lives saved and look for who saves the most lives. *NOTE: I WILL NOT DO THIS IN LD*

General:

I don't care if you dress up or not, it won't affect my decision

Tech > truth. exception is if it's a racist/sexist/homophobic/etc argument.

Run what you want, but understand your cases before you read them, else i will be annoyed.

I won't flow cross-x unless you ask me to.

I'll say clear thrice. After that, I will stop flowing and just stare at you and let the judgment flow. if I say slow, it's not because you were unclear but rather that I am bad at flowing.

Things I like:

clear extensions with weighing. Specifically, I like hearing "extend this argument, here's the warrant"

tricks

phil

k's that my small brain can understand without learning

memey theory

Things I like less:

larp

k's with really big words that I won't understand without reading 13 doctoral theses in the subject unless you can explain SUCCINCTLY and CLEARLY

disclosure theory if it's not contact info

Time yourself, please, I'm lazy. I'm fine with you going a little over time to finish your sentence, but don't make it insane.

Use all your speech time. I see people not using all their time when judging novice debates. You can't get this time back, you might as well use it all. exception is if you're dominating/hitting a novice, in which case it's fine to sit down once you've hit all the important points.

Ask me questions after round, it'll help both you to become a better debater and me to become a better judge. I'll disclose speaks if you ask

I'll try to be lenient with speaks (especially for novices). Speaks will be decided based on how i feel

If you say anything racist/sexist/homophobic etc., I will drop you and give you a L20.

If you can tell me your favorite Tech N9ne song, I will give you +0.2 speaks (no saying face off or -0.2 speaks)

if you tastefully roast the following people you get +0.3 speaks (no generics and nothing actually mean): michael meng, nate weimar, ashley seo, caedmon kline, shreya joshi, ria tomar

if you praise grant engelbert you get +0.4 speaks

call me what you want, especially if it's funny like "joe mama, third in his line, conqueror of Brennan in smash ultimate" (you are forbidden from using this specific name)

Just have fun and try to learn something.

Hi! Im Brie! Warning: I cobbled together a repaired paradigm as the last time I had edited it was TWO YEARS AGO! Apologies. Have been judging a lot of competitions mostly at our school so I didn't worry as much about paradigm. If stuff sounds dumb or out-of-date thats cause it... is. Some are updated, ex. my preference for K's

1 - K's

2 - Theory, Tricks, Phil v Util Topicality

3 - phil v phil

4 - Larp

5 - nothing, will decently evaluate most things

I have been doing debate for 6 years, consistently LD with a little bit of Policy and PF experience, but like mostly LD stuff.

In terms of general debate etiquette, please send cases to both ME and your OPPONENT before the first speech. Preferably before round start, but before speech will not annoy me either.

And I swear to gosh if u read an argument that is blatantly homophobic or transphobic I will probably still evaluate it if goes COMPLETELY dropped but ANY semblance of a mini-kritik or response and that argument is gone.

Extinction first is annoying, lightly extended security K's will flow easy

Be respectful of pronouns, please :) Mine for rounds are she/her! :D

in terms of valued extensions, make them clear for me to flow them, and if you flow a good chunk of the tagline and a part of the card it will flow the whole contention, extending every card and tag is unnecessary.

Email: bt43083@wdmcs.org

Here are some deeper paradigm bits

Theory:

Love a good theory debate. If you get a good competing interps battle I will be a happy judge. But if you read really abusive or a bajillion shells it wont be as fun. Friv theory is fine, just don't read 10 shells in the 1A or 10 shells in the 1N- flowing that kind of debate is very very unfortunate. Extensions of these- please go down the list, interp, violation, standards, voters. Dont just read the interp and hope its extended. Give me WHY this makes your opponent drop.

Tricks:

tricks r fine, will evaluate if you do a good job at them! but explain them good thanks

Phil:

Phil is ok as long as you do it well, i dont have much preference for specifics but i used to use Kant a lot

K:

i love K's im a K debater and i will vote on good K's very easily. ks on top

Topicality:

Just do it good. getting a little more lazy on these points, but really topicality is just not the most interesting thing, if you use it correctly I will vote. There.

Substance Deont:

For example just using Kant and winning on case. Happens during rounds with 2 similar phil frameworks. I love evaluating these debates but will disregard substance when any K, Topicality, Theory, Phil fwk clash or tricks come up, and are extended to the end of the round.

Larpolicy:

I dislike Larp, probably because I'm a Valley Varsity, but Larp is not my jam. If both debaters are using Larp or policy cases I will have a basically break debate, where I just flow and evaluate normally, but when its a phil case user with theory vs a larp case user, it gets messy quick. Don't try and say "debate is consequentialist has to defend an effect on squo" without reading a must defend advocacy Theory shell. cause that will not flow. cause its just not strong argument.

Old paradigm, I will no longer give extra speaks for anything listed as extra speaks, but I think this paradigm is a classic: https://tinyurl.com/yyhknlsn

[Updated 3/3/2021] In fact, here is a list of things I dislike that I will probably not be giving good speaks for: https://tinyurl.com/55u4juwp

Email: conal.t.mcginnis@gmail.com

Tricks: 1*

Framework: 1

Theory: 1

K: 6

LARP: Strike

To clarify: I like K's and LARP the LEAST (as in, you should rate me a 6 if you like Ks and strike me if you LARP a lot) and I like Tricks, Framework, and Theory the MOST (you should rate me a 1 if you like Tricks, Framework, and Theory a lot).

Util is bad enough to be beaten by sneezing on it

Overall I am willing to vote on anything that isn't an instance of explicit isms (racism, sexism, etc.).

Other than that, here's a bunch of small things in a list. I add to this list as I encounter new stuff that warrants being added to the list based on having difficulty of decision in a particular round:

1. Part in parcel of me not being a great judge for LARP due to my low understanding of complex util scenarios is that I am not going to be doing a lot of work for y'all. I also will NOT be reading through a ton of cards for you after the round unless you specifically point out to me cards that I should be reading to evaluate the round properly.

2. I know it's nice to get to hide tricks in the walls of text but if you want to maximize the chances that I notice something extra special you should like slightly change the tone or speed of delivery on it or something.

3. If you have something extremely important for me to pay attention to in CX please say "Yo judge this is important" or something because I'm probably prepping or playing some dumbass game.

4. I will evaluate all speeches in a debate round.

"Evaluate after" arguments: If there are arguments that in order for me to evaluate after a certain speech I must intervene, I will do so. For example, if there is a 1N shell and a 1AR I-meet, I will have to intervene to see if the I-meet actually meets the shell.

Update: In order for me to evaluate "evaluate after" arguments, I will have to take the round at face value at the point that the speeches have stopped. However, as an extension of the paradigm item above, the issue is that many times in order for me to determine who has won at a particular point of speeches being over, I need to have some explanation of how the debaters thing those speeches play out. If either debater makes an argument for why, if the round were to stop at X speech, they would win the round (even if this argument is after X speech) I will treat it as a valid argument for clarifying how I make my decision. Assuming that the "evaluate after" argument is conceded/true, I won't allow debaters to insert arguments back in time but if they point out something like "judge, if you look at your flow for the round, if you only evaluate (for example) the AC and the NC, then the aff would win because X," then I will treat it as an argument.

Update P.S.: "Evaluate after" arguments are silly. I of course won't on face not vote on them, but please reconsider reading them.

Update P.S. 2: "Evaluate after" causes a grandfather paradox. Example: If "Evaluate after the 1NC" is read in the 1NC, it must be extended in the 2NR in order for me as the judge to recognize it as a won argument that changes the paradigmatic evaluation of the round. However, the moment that paradigmatic shift occurs, I no longer consider the 2NR to have happened or been evaluated for the purposes of the round, and thus the "Evaluate after the 1NC" argument was never extended and the paradigmatic evaluation shift never occurred.

5. "Independent voters" are not independent - they are dependent entirely on what is almost always a new framework that involves some impact that is presumed to be preclusive. I expect independent voter arguments to have strong warrants as to why their micro-frameworks actually come first. Just saying "this is morally repugnant so it's an independent voter" is not a sufficient warrant.

Also - independent voters that come in the form of construing a framework to an implication requires that you actually demonstrate that it is correct that that implication is true. For example, if you say "Kant justifies racism" and your opponent warrants why their reading of the Kantian ethical theory doesn't justify racism, then you can't win the independent voter just because it is independent.

6. I will no longer field arguments that attempt to increase speaker points. I think they are enjoyable and fun but they likely are not good long term for the activity, given that when taken to their logical conclusion, each debater could allocate a small amount of time to a warranted argument for giving them a 30, and then simply concede each others argument to guarantee they both get maximal speaks (and at that point speaker points no longer serve a purpose).

7. My understanding of unconditional advocacies is that once you claim to defend an advocacy unconditionally you are bound to defending any disadvantages or turns to that advocacy. It does not mean you are bound to spend time extending the advocacy in the 2NR, but if the aff goes for offense in the 2AR that links to this unconditional advocacy and the neg never went for that advocacy, the aff's offense on that flow still stands.

Update: Role of the Ballots are frameworks and do not have a conditionality.

8. Don't like new 2AR theory arguments.

9. I don't time! Please time yourselves and time each other. I highly recommend that you personally use a TIMER as opposed to a STOPWATCH. This will prevent you from accidentally going over time! If your opponent is going over time, interrupt them! If your opponent goes over time and you don't interrupt them, then there's not much I can do. If you are certain they went over time and your opponent agrees to some other way to reconcile the fact that they went over time, like giving you more time as well, then go ahead. I do not have a pre-determined solution to this possibility. I only have this blurb here because it just happened in a round so this is for all of the future rounds where this may happen again.

10. If you do something really inventive and interesting and I find it genuinely funny or enjoyable to listen to and give good speaks for it, don't run around and tell any teammate or friend who has me as a judge to make the same arguments. If I see the exact same arguments I will probably consider the joke to be stale or re-used. Particularly funny things MIGHT fly but like, if I can tell it's just a ploy for speaks I will be sadge.

11. In general, for online events, say "Is anyone not ready" instead of "Is everyone ready" solely because my speaking is gated by pressing unmute, which is annoying when I have my excel sheet pulled up. I'll stop you if I'm not ready, and you can assume I'm ready otherwise. (However, for in person events, say "Is everyone ready" because I'm right there!)

12. I will not vote for you if you read "The neg may not make arguments" and the neg so much as sneezes a theory shell at you.

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

For traditional rounds: speak and argue however you want (bar racism, sexism, homophobia, or any other ism or phobia)

*WHEN YOU READ TRICKS: I PREFER BEING UP FRONT ABOUT THEM. Pretending you don't know what an a priori is is annoying. Honestly, just highlight every a priori and tell your opponent: "here are all the a prioris"**.

**Seriously, I have yet to see anyone do this. Do it, it would be funny, I think.

I judge based on flowing, weighing, and impacts. As long as you can do those within a round you're good. Read as fast as you want, but please use good manners. If bad manners are used within a round, the win will go to the opposing team.

I don't particularly care about handshakes, standing vs sitting, or eye contact rules so those will not be considered when distributing speaker points.

I’ve been doing policy debate for the a long time.

Don’t use hateful or discriminatory language, arguments or speech because I will vote you down 100% of the time .

Run whatever arguments you want, (as long as they are not hateful or discriminatory).

I will evaluate almost everything just as long as it’s not preposterous.

Most importantly, tell me why I should vote for you, tell me how to put my ballot. Tell me what they dropped, what they did wrong, tell me why you are the winner over your opponent.

Tech>Truth (Unless morally abhorrent)

TLDR:I like fun clash based around well-thought out arguments. I love phil debate; especially less commonly read authors. Theory and Ks are great too. LARP is sometimes ok but I generally don't like it,

LARP-4/S-If u don't justify consequences and just say u outweigh I WILL DROP YOU. I find the inability of LARP debaters to understand and debate against phil and K's to be madding. Outside of that, I am fine voting on this, so long as you have clearly explained why ur framing is better, but I will have a bias against any phil arguments owing to my personal belief that util is morally abhorrent.

K's-1/2-K's can be fun if they make sense. I do tend to buy anti-K theory against K's with really abusive alts, but can obviously be convinced otherwise.

Theory-2

Phil-1-Phil is the reason LD is different from policy. PLEASE ACTUALLY READ WARRANTS, THO. Especially if u reading some obscure author.

Tricks-2-So long as you have unique, well explained and sense-making arguments, you're golden to read these. Need warrants or else I am much less likely to vote. TRICKS ARE ONE PART OF THE ROUND I WILL DO MINIMAL TRUTH>TECH IF UR ARGUMENTS ARE ILLOGICAL OR POORLY EXPLAINED.