My email address is boschert@gmail.com

I am new to judging, so I don’t have deep experience on the complexities of debate theory and delivery.

I don’t subscribe to a single judging paradigm but tend to favor a fusion of many. I like stock issues for a clear and eloquent presentation of the issues. I like the appeal of Tabula Rasa, but also know human nature is fundamentally flawed; we all come to the table with biases and presuppositions. There is potency in a well-formed syllogism, but the Game Theory mindset can get too abstracted from reality.

I have a very direct communication style and treasure efficiency and density of information-rich communication, with less flowery and filler words. Your challenge is to communicate the most important and convincing ideas, in as few words as possible. I am a “quality over quantity” type - I am more impressed by the depth and density of ideas with clear enunciation versus a barrage of shallow statements read at a high rate of speed.

Other miscellaneous items:

• In LD, a clearly stated value and value criterion are absolutely critical elements of a case

• I prefer to have your author and date read before you read the evidence

• I greatly dislike ad hominem attacks - argue the issue, not the person

• I’m a huge fan of the Socratic method, and using this well during cross examination is fantastic to see

• I like theory, but not at the expense of reality. Ideas have consequences, so make sure you link the two together

Paradigm

Please email me your case at chris_buckmaster@mac.com

I am a traditional judge with a background in engineering and elected office who is entering his first year as a judge. I look towards both the contention level arguments as well as the value framework. I do favor a bullet-proof framework on which to hang the contentions and not too much emphasis put on the theoretical foundations once that framework has been articulated and defined. I am willing to consider progressive styles but I don't prefer it. As long as the speaker is clear I can handle speed, but I believe it is a test of skill to communicate more content with fewer words.

David Henning—LD Debate Judging Philosophy

2024 NCFL National Debate Tournament Edition

School Affiliation: Director of Debate at Sheboygan South

School Email: dhenning@sasd.net

LD/PF/Policy Rounds judged this season: 53/1/1

Lifetime (LD/PF/Policy): 460/76/2101

Years Judging: 40

IMPORTANT—READ FIRST. Over the course of the last few years, I have noticed several disturbing developments in LD. Stuff I never thought I’d have to discuss. I have that at the end of this philosophy, after the always relevant quotes. Given that we're at nationals, I hope that none of these comments are necessary. Please read allof my paradigm before preferencing or debating in front of me.

My experience with academic debate: I began my debate career during the Carter Administration. I was a policy debater in high school and college during the 1980s. I was an independent (mostly high school) policy debate judge for many years. This is my fourteenth year as Sheboygan South's debate coach, and I was a college policy debate coach for four years. This is my seventh year of coaching L-D debate. I've had some success both as a debater and as a coach. And I have many funny debate stories.

My Paradigm: Tabula Rasa, but please don’t insult my intelligence or agency. Don't tell me I "have to" do or vote for something. Ignore my philosophy at your own peril. Ask if you are unsure. I’m coming closer to Bill Batterman’s Critique of Argument paradigm as applied to LD, since some policy debate paradigms make little sense in LD, although hypothesis testing has some appeal. I like original, unusual or counter-intuitive arguments when done well. Do not assume that anything is inherently good or bad. Far too many debaters assume that things like wasting money, destroying the Constitution or climate change are inherently bad and fail to read impacts to them. I don’t care about “wasted money” and want you to put the bodies on the flow. Hopefully all of them. Provide impacts and analysis if you’re not doing so. And be aware that I oppose "common sense," especially in a debate round.

Technology Time: For this tournament there is 10 minutes allotted to deal with technological issues that may affect the round. If you think you might have tech issues, say something so we can get it resolved. See tournament rules for more information.

Argumentation: A well-written, structured and reasoned case is essential for both debaters. That includes substructure. Be aware that evidence matters, so does evidence quality. Provide qualifications, when possible, for the sources you use and tell me why your evidence is of high quality and/or better than the evidence used by your opponent. Clash directly with the arguments your opponent makes. That means the line-by-line rather than just an argument dump or an overview. Tell me specifically why you achieve your value as defined by your value criterion (or achieve your opponent’s) and why that means you should win the round. Do impact calculus, telling me why the impacts of your case are worse than or outweigh that of your opponent. This is probably the most important thing you can do in the round. Provide a few clearly explained voting issues near the end of your last rebuttal and make a convincing call for the ballot.

Policy Debate or “National-Style” Arguments: I debated and coached both high school and college policy debate, and judged policy debate for 30 plus years. I like policy debate. I am open to pretty much anything you can throw at me. That said, I don’t think LD is a particularly good forum or format for many of the policy arguments. Kritiks, counterplans and disadvantages are necessary, but in LD they are nebulous since there isn’t an agent of change in the resolution, affirmatives usually do not offer a specific plan, and whether there is fiat in LD is another issue altogether. How can the K, CP or DA link if there isn’t a plan? Those running such arguments will want to keep that in mind and explain very clearly how their arguments are linked to the aff or the resolution. Likewise, an affirmative claiming solvency or advantages must meet that same burden. The same holds for kritiks, at least those based on policy action.

The format issue may be even more important. In policy debate, you have more speeches with which to refute and extend arguments. Ks, CPs and DAs introduced in the policy 1NC mean that both aff and neg can get to third line arguments. Fewer speeches means less developed arguments. You physically cannot get past first and sometimes second line argumentation in LD. Speeches are shorter than in policy, which means less time to develop such arguments and read cards. The end result is that debaters just read their argument, the opponent reads their first line answers, and that’s it. For complex (or really cool) arguments, this is unsatisfying and shallow. I really don’t have a solution to any of these issues, and I don’t reject policy arguments in LD, but this is something to keep in mind.

Topicality: Don’t, unless it is particularly egregious. I dislike topicality. Unless you can show me actual, in-round abuse I’m not interested. Don’t tell me that the aff reduces education when you’re doing just that by running lousy topicality arguments.

Framework: Framework is usually so poorly argued I rarely see the point. A framework is an integral part of Lincoln-Douglas debate. By this I am referring to the value and value criterion for the round and/or the role of the ballot. You must specifically define and explain your value, hopefully something better than an ill-defined “morality.” That’s subjective and pretty much every social or cultural group has their own morality. The Nazis had their own “morality”--horrible, but defined. The word "ought" does not imply morality. Define and explain your value criterion. Tell me how your case will best achieve your value as defined by your value criterion. You may attack the framework and case of your opponent or demonstrate how your case better achieves your opponent’s value as defined by their value criterion. Argue the superiority of your value/value criterion to that of your opponent. Be clear with your analysis. If there is a Role of the Ballot you must explain that also. If there are policy arguments, you must say why you outweigh your opponent’s arguments.

Debate Theory: Theory has its place, somewhere, but it is never argued well in LD rounds. Don’t read cards from some debate coach at me. Why is that coach more qualified than you, me or someone judging in the next room? OK, why are they more qualified than me? Explain your theory positions and tell me why they matter in this round. What are the in-round impacts to your theory argument? Are there impacts on the activity itself? Does my ballot have a role in your theory argument? If you are claiming some kind of “abuse” of theory, show me the actual in-round abuse—potential abuse is not enough—and tell me why it should be voted against. I can’t remember the last time I voted on an abuse argument.

Quotes Related to my Judging Philosophy (ask if you have questions)

“It’s a basic truth of life that we tend to give more credence to the opinions of people who know what they are talking about.”---Kel McClanahan.

“Add it up, it all spells duh.”---Buffy Summers

“Yankee detective are always on the TV, ‘cause killers in America work seven days a week.”—Joe Strummer (The Clash)

“They tell lots of lies about me. They say I killed six or seven men for snoring. Well, it ain’t true. I only killed one man for snoring.”---John Wesley Hardin

"Twenty years of schoolin' and they put you on the day shift."---Bob Dylan

“Facts are stupid things.”---Ronald Reagan

"Sometimes I think this job is too much for me."---Warren Harding, on the Presidency

“People say Bob, what do you do with the money we send you? We spend it.”--- Pastor Robert Tilton

“The most popular songs are always the worst.”---Natalie Maines

“Without freedom of speech I might be in the swamp.”---Bob Dylan

"The numbers don't lie. . . I got a hundred forty-three and a thirds percents of winning."---Big Poppa Pump Scott Steiner, and reprised by Maxwell Jacob Friedman

"That was the equation! Existence! Survival must cancel out programming."---Ruk, planet Exo III

"You talk about your Olympic gold medal--big whup. I was all-county in the triple jump."---AJ Styles, to Kurt Angle

"The judge's jokes are always funny."---Dan Hansen

"She's a monster of staggering charmlessness and monumental lack of humor."---Richard Burton on Lucille Ball

“A stitch in time gets the worm.”---Buffy Summers

“History doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes.”---Mark Twain

“The Good Earth—we could have saved it, but we were too damn cheap and lazy.”—Kurt Vonnegut

"Wrong thinking is punishable; right thinking is as quickly rewarded."—The Keeper, planet Talos IV

". . . there are no truths outside the gates of Eden.”—Bob Dylan

"What is truth, if you know what I mean?”—Lionel Hutz

"When Stalin says dance, a wise man dances."—Nikita Khrushchev

"Nothing really matters much, it’s doom alone that counts."—Bob Dylan

and

“You know, it actually can happen. I mean, the chances of it happening are very rare, but it can happen actually. Which is crazy. Not that it—the chances of it are, like, you know, it's like probably “pigs could fly.” Like, I don't think pigs could fly, but actually sharks could be stuck in tornados. There could be a sharknado."---Tara Reid

LD General Issues

This is not English class or forensics. Do not write your case as if it were an assignment that you are going to turn in to your teacher. It’s not an essay. Nor is it an oratory or persuasive speech. Do not “preview” the names of all of your contentions, and then go back and read them. Start with the first contention. Then go to the second contention (if you have one). Provide me with some substructure. I don’t want a preview like you would do in a school paper or presentation or a forensics speech. Previewing messes up my flow. And note that you must use evidence in your case.

Put the citation first, before you read your card, not after. Many judges try to get the tag and the cite. I won’t know it’s a card if you read the cite after your evidence, and then where should I put the cite? You’re already on to the next argument or card. Read the tag line, name and date, then the body of the card. Provide the complete citation in a small font size (8)—that means qualifications, source, the link if it’s an on-line source, date of evidence, date you accessed the evidence and your initials. If you fail to provide a complete cite, or even a partial one, then all I have is some writing by someone with a last name and a date. I can’t treat that as evidence if I can’t see the full cite should it be necessary for me to do so. This does not mean a list of internet links at the end of your speech. That’s useless for debate (and academic) purposes.

Provide the Correct Date. This is the date the article or book was published, not the day you accessed it online. Virtually every online article lists the date the article was first published. Use that date. If the article was updated, and you are accessing the updated article, use that date.

Do Not Use Ellipses ( . . . ). In academic writing it is acceptable to cut out chunks of text you do not want to use. That is not OK in debate. You must keep all the text of the card. If you do not, judges and debaters don’t know if you cut out something important, like “not” or “never.” That’s taking a card out of context. Shrink the text you are not reading to a small font size (8). Both Paperless Debate and the Google Debate Add-on have a shrink feature. Use it. If your opponent notices ellipses in the body of your card and points it out in the round, then it is no longer a card. If ellipses are in the original, indicate that.

Do Use Brackets [ ] sparingly. Brackets are appropriate for brief explanatory or clarifying text. A few words, maybe a sentence. Use sparingly and only when essential. If you’re adding multiple sentences to your card, you are altering the card itself, and that is inappropriate. Adding a lot of text is akin to taking a card out of context or fabricating it altogether.

Delivery Style: Speak loudly and be clear. That is the most important thing. I work hard to try to get down as much of each speech as possible on my flow. Speak toward me, not your opponent. If it is especially noisy then speak louder. Your points may suffer and I may miss arguments if I can’t hear you clearly. I don't care if you sit or stand. Don't walk around. I don’t care about eye contact or gestures or a forensics-style polished or memorized speech. That stuff is meaningless in a debate round.

Do not expect 30 speaker points. The magical speaker point pixies have been very active the last few years. I have never seen so many 30s given out by judges. No one I have seen this year has warranted a 30. I have not given a 30 in fifteen years. 29s are relatively rare, but I do give them. I gave a 29.5 and seven 29s this season. And remember (coaches and judges take note of this) that there are tenths (or halves) of a point, and I use them regularly. The strangest thing is that I have not changed the way I award speaker points. I was once one of the highest speaker point judges, and now I am one of the lowest. But don't worry, I haven't given less than a 25 in seventeen years.

Heed my “louder” and “clear” warnings. Many debaters ask me if I am OK with speed. I answer yes. I seriously doubt if you're fast enough to give me trouble. But clarity is much more important than rate. Often it goes like this: I answer yes, the debater then proceeds to speak at a much faster than normal (conversational) rate, but is unclear. I shout “clear.” No change in delivery. A little while later I again shout “clear.” No change. In my previous philosophy I said I may deduct a speaker point after repeated “clear” warnings. I will now deduct a half speaker point if I have to give a “clear” warning after three. At some point I will give up shouting “clear” and your speaker points will suffer a little more. You have been warned, because clarity is key.

Have a way for your opponent to see your case and evidence. Use NSDA File Share in the competition room. You can also put the document in the chat. Use email chains if that fails. Include the judge in the chain. Should evidence be challenged in the round, judges and competitors must have access to this.

No New Arguments in Rebuttals. New arguments in rebuttals diminish or eliminate the opportunity for your opponent to respond. I will not vote on or consider new arguments in rebuttals, whether your opponent points this out or not.

Other issues. A roadmap is short, just the order, like aff, then neg, or the other way. Don’t tell me every argument you plan to make, or all the things you plan to refute. And you refute or rebut opponents' arguments, not "rebuttal" them. Don’t read a bunch of definitions at me—it’s usually pointless and is difficult to get down on the flow. Use all your prep time. Even if you don’t think you need it (you do), I need it to write comments. I will be unhappy if you don’t use all your prep time. I disclose and provide comments, and I encourage you to ask questions after my decision and comments.

Jovan Hernandez - LD Debate Judge

School Affiliation - Homestead High School

Email: chidori4444@gmail.com

Experience with Debate: I have competed in LD Debate for 3 years of my high school career and have gone on to compete in both State and Nationals. With that being said, I have 1 year of judging, so I hope to give out insightful and constructive ballots that'll help in the future. Also, to make sure, I am NOT a policy or PF judge, so, if I do judge that category, excuse my ignorance.

How I Judge:

Speed - I do not like speed, but as long as you're not spreading and going at a pace that Eminem would be jealous of, then we're good.

Framework - Your framework should relate to your case meaning that how your case goes has to be able to link into both your value and criterion. Frameworks should be relatively easy to understand and be easy to debate, however, if you're able to explain a hard-to-understand framework in rebuttals, then go for it.

Theory Cases - Do not do them. If you do a Theory case, do so at your own risk because I have little understanding of them and if you can't clearly define each parts of the case and how your case is better, Im not likely to pick it up.

K's - The most crucial thing for me is that the alternative has to be able to solve your opponent's harms and whatever you present as being flawed within the Status quo, if you can't do that and the opponent is able to argue that your alternative doesn't work, then it will be weighed heavily against you.

Clash - Clash should be both a battle of analysis and card attacks. Addressing the evidence within a card and the argument that surrounds the cards presented is crucial, so, being able to explain each card's faults and the faults of the case is needed, otherwise it's two debaters spewing facts(which do not care about your feelings) at each other.

Topicality - There has to be something that the debater (either NEG or AFF) has done within their cases that goes against the resolution meaning that the debater cannot use this argument because it's going against the resolution and can be disregarded.

Evidence Reading - This is absolutely HUGE. When reading your evidence, please, I mean PLEASE, read your tag, author, and date BEFORE you read the actual evidence. If you read your tag in conjunction with the evidence, it all blends together until you get to your author citation, so, it'll sound all the same and having a subheading for the evidence allows everyone to clearly define what card you are reading and make the read be a lot more structured. This is just something that helps me out with flowing your arguments better and keeping everything in a orderly fashion

My email is johnson@muhs.edu

LD

I am a debate coach who was a competitor at Nationals in World Schools and Congressional Debate, and was mainly a PF debater when competing. That being said, I have coached and judged LD extensively in the past year.

Please ensure that we are debating the LD format, not Policy-lite. That means a few things.

1. Values and Value Criterions are extremely important and are central to who will win this round. If you do not keep these well-connected to your arguments, it will be difficult for me to weigh your arguments as strongly if they do not connect back into your VC.

2. All-out spreading is not necessary or appreciated. If you are speaking so fast that it is impossible to flow your arguments, then I cannot weigh them in good faith. Win on the strength of your arguments and analysis, not by trying to overwhelm the opponent. Quality over quantity.

3. If you choose to use them, run K’s well. If they are not run in well, it ends up muddying the waters of the debate and taking time away from other approaches you could probably use more effectively. K’s are complex strategies- explain your points clearly and tie them into the larger debate.

4. LD debates involve morals, values, philosophy. Please use these things that make this format distinct.

As for more general points, here are some preferences I have as a judge.

Signposting and roadmaps, both in the introduction and throughout the speeches, are greatly appreciated. Keep your points clear and well-organized. Just because something is clear in your head does not automatically mean you are communicating it effectively.

I am not a fan of T-Shells in general. I would prefer to see a debate about the topic at hand, not a debate about the format in a general sense. This does not mean it is impossible to win with one, but please engage with the topic and with your opponent.

Ask good questions, and build off of them in your speeches. In the same sense, try not to waste time on rambling, disorganized answers. Keep CX dynamic and fast, and make it valuable. If something is conceded in CX, don’t just ignore that it happened. I certainly won’t.

Be ethical. No racism, homophobia, ad hominem attacks, or anything of that sort will be tolerated. You are all capable of good decorum, so show it! Approach the round with good faith, and debate as such.

Please use weighing and voters in your later speeches. Analyze the round and show me why you win.

Background:I did 4 years of high school PF debate, but I haven't judged in a few years. I judge on the flow.

He/him/his

LD:

I have no experience with LD, and little knowledge of the rules or conventional arguments. I'm receptive to progressive arguments, but just be sure you explain it so I can understand it, and don't assume I know too much.

Policy:

Hi! If you're in policy and you have been informed that I am your judge there has been a grave mistake, which, if not corrected, we will regret.

THE ROUND:

Your Performance:

I'm okay with speed. I like speed. I love speed. It's not a requirement by any means, but it makes judging a round much more interesting and can allow for better debate.

First and foremost your opponent is a human being. If you can't beat them while treating them with respect, you don't deserve to win.

Signpost.

Arguments:

If you don't flow an argument through summary, I cannot weigh it in final focus.

You don't need to flow all defense through summary, but you might want to flow through defense on significant turns and arguments. Ultimately your choice.

I'm fine with theory in some cases. If an argument is abusive or people are making the debate space unwelcome feel free to call that out and tell me it's a reason to drop an argument or team.

Outside of that ^ it'll be difficult to persuade me theory is appropriate.

If you have a non-default framework (ie, if you're not running a simple util cost-benefit analysis) say it at the top of your constructive.

Plans and counterplans are against the rules in PF. Don't run them. And don't disguise a counterplan as an "alternative" or your "advocacy". You must show probability in order to access an argument.

Link chains are paramount. Demonstrate their robust probability and you'll do well. Strong link chains are far better and more impressive than finding a link into nuclear war or some other catastrophic impact.

For gods sake weigh the round well. It's more stressful for me and more frustrating for you if I have to figure it out on my own.

In summary and final focus Line-by-line and grouping into voters are both acceptable options.

Recency doesn't matter unless you explain why it matters.

Meta-analyses and systematic literature reviews > 1 or 2 studies.

Cross:

I'm paying attention in cross, but not that much. It doesn't go on my flow. If your opponent makes a concession you want me to make note of please mention it in the following speech.

Evidence:

If you cite a card, you should be able to produce the card with context within 15-20 seconds. I don't run prep while people find evidence, but it just looks bad.

I only call cards if I'm asked by either team, and only if the card actually matters

Cite the author, year, and their qualifications if you can. It's much more compelling than citing an outlet (ie "according to CNN")

Speaker Points:

My mind is a mystery machine. It is a black box which even I do not pretend to understand. Your performance goes in, your speaker points come out. Is it consistent? No. Is it fair? I dunno. Speaker points are iffy to begin with.

if you have any questions come find me or email me at kannen32@uwm.edu

do it, you won't

This is my 9th year judging LD and PF. I was a Policy 4-person debater throughout high school before switch side took over. With that being said, speed generally isn't an issue for me. However, if you plan on reading so fast that you can't seem to catch your breath we may have an issue. I will say clear and if I still can't understand you I will close my laptop and stop flowing. It isn't fair to your opponent if you are reading so fast they cannot keep up and frankly, it's bad debating.

I enjoy listening to debates that interact with the real world. I like hearing about the big picture, I tend to pay more attention to big picture items in round versus minute details. Tell me why I should vote for you and what will happen if I don't. I like hearing impact calculation, cost benefit analyses and the more 'policy like' arguments (the only exception to the policy like arguments is nuclear war. We get it, we’re all going to die of nuclear fallout, there are far better impacts than this.) While I prefer real world ideas and how my decision will impact people, I enjoy listening to theory debates. When running theory I want you to explain to me what it is you're running, I want you to teach it to me like I'm a kid. I need to know that you understand what you are talking about. Theory is not only difficult to run but exceptionally difficult to run well. A bad theory argument is a time suck to the debate round and a missed chance of learning for you and your opponent.

I’ve heard so many bad roadmaps. If you are going to give me a roadmap before your speech please just tell me whether it’s your case or your opponent’s case and, if it’s relevant whether it is on or off case. I don’t need a long detailed explanation on what you are covering in each contention during your roadmap.

Cross Ex: This is for you as a debater, I'm not flowing this or pulling through any arguments you made here. Cross Ex is for you to clarify and ask questions of your opponents.

I expect debaters to time their own speeches and cross examination. I also expect that you keep track of your own prep time, I will as well but, technology is fickle and having an additional timer is usually helpful. Please don't hesitate to ask questions if you have them.

I'm a retired attorney, and this is my 13th year of involvement with debate, congressional debate, and forensics. My undergraduate and master's work were in critical reviewing applied to artistic performance disciplines. My professional life has been devoted to framing arguments, crafting refutation arguments and determining the appropriate criteria for evaluation of virtually any type of presentation. I'm a kind and thoughtful person whose main goal is for you to hone skills and become a confident, logical and gracious person.

My life as a lawyer absolutely shapes my approach as a debate judge. I expect the Aff to define the parameters of the debate, and the Neg to attack those ideas DIRECTLY; the proverbial "clash of ideas." I long for the day when the Neg accepts the Aff's framework and beats them on those terms. A distinct v/vc should be woven into the Neg arguments, but should not be presented like a script. The debate should not look like two people giving side-by-side presentations. Aff frames/defines; Neg reacts and refutes. You can guess from this that I am not a big fan of kritiks when the Neg spends too much time on a presentation that does not actively engage. The goal is to be flexible and nimble with what is thrown at you in the moment. I expect the argument to narrow as the debate goes along which may mean you must jettison arguments that aren't getting traction. I disfavor new arguments in summation. Please remember that new arguments are disallowed in rebuttals, but new evidence is not.

I intensely dislike "spreading" because it is a dishonest approach to the debate. I do not believe debate is a card game where the person who jams more ideas/cites more cards into the time period wins, and/or wins hoping the opponent "dropped' something. Dropping an argument is not a point scored on a ledger. It is an opportunity to argue the point from your perspective.

Spreading negatively impacts your opponent’s ability and my ability to absorb your arguments. I can't evaluate arguments that I can’t properly follow. I will caution you if you are speaking too fast. Repeatedly if I have to. But at some point, if you don't adjust, it will impact your speaker points. The most important things to me are the quality and depth of your presentation. You don't have gobs of time to play with so impress me with your reasoning. Please don't cite a card that you don't discuss or are unprepared to defend. Depth and quality rule with me. Accordingly, I do not use a traditional "flow sheet" and I really don't want your written case. I reward people who are fast on their feet.

I do not permit "flex time" and view it as a sneaky way to obtain more cross-x time than permitted. And speaking of cross-x, it should not be an occasion to engage in a discussion/mini debate with your opponent. I will caution you if you step over that line. Cross-x is meant for pointed clarifying questions and allowing your opponent to respond to your queries. If he or she doesn't reply to your satisfaction, then use it in your rebuttal.

I'm okay with counterplans providing the CP does not monopolize the first Neg speech by disallowing enough time for the first negative rebuttal. Counterplans must be shaped in a way that targets the Aff framework.

I am weary of overly-used frameworks like morality/util and unsound impacts like “morality doesn’t matter if we’re dead.” I look for a fresh, creative lens to view the resolution/impacts. I appreciate creativity that addresses real world concerns. Your value and criterion should not be a means to an easy win. It should reflect how deeply you’ve thought about the resolution. We're not all going to die tomorrow. What can we do in the meantime to improve our lot? That takes more intellectual prowess to tackle and is more impressive to me.

Finally, I expect debaters to be kind and gracious. I place high priority on good sportsmanship. Debaters who are kind and gracious will find higher speaker points. I will step in to caution debaters who are rude or unkind to opponents. I expect debaters to understand that everyone is doing the best they can, and that our circumstances and resources are often very different. So, I expect you to meet your opponent “where they are” not where you expect them to be.

Best of luck and best wishes to all.