ingridkalg@gmail.com

I am experienced in PF. I will judge the flow first, unless your argument obviously isn't true or ethical.

Disclosure good, friv theory bad, might vote for a good Kritik

• Please collapse and use signposting

• One good, warranted analytic is more valuable than 2 mid cards

• Use weighing mechanisms and metaweighing. Make my job easier

• I can flow decent speed. However, if I can't understand you, I can't flow you. Always send speech docs before every speech.

• Don't respond to an argument by invalidating real experiences. Don't say "gentrification isn't real because black people don't make 8x less than white people" (this has happened). You will get a 25

• Speaker points will be lowered for rude, loud, or passive-aggressive crossx.

• If you give the person next to me a bag of chips, you get a thumbs up

For speech: I have basic knowledge, I will judge you based on performance and content.

be "good people who happen to be good speakers"!

experience debating national circuit policy and public forum.

arguments are not arguments without warrants.

if all debaters in the round express a reasonable preference they would like me to adopt prior to judging the debate, let me know and I will adopt it; judge adaptation can go both ways.

speaker points are entirely subjective and arbitrary, and are likely mostly based on what side of the bed I woke up on (anybody who says otherwise is likely kidding themselves, or taking their jobs a little too seriously).

I am very expressive, it is really obvious when i'm vibing with an argument or when i'm frustrated with an argument. I think this is a positive in a judge, but apparently some find it frustrating, if you're sensitive about getting mild, general, mid-round feedback about your arguments in the form of facial expressions or nods, you should probably strike me.

I don't really understand why debaters demand analytics in the speech doc. The speech doc is for evidence, you are still supposed to flow your opponents speech. So if they ask for analytics you can just say no.

flowing:

Debate is a communicative activity and if you cannot adequately communicate to me why you win a round i'm not going to mine through the flow to justify voting for you. you have to win the round, not rely on me to win it for you in my RFD.

Take it down a couple notches speedwise, I've started to have difficulty keeping up in tech rounds. Remember to pause, differentiate pace between tags/card-text, and slow down on analytics.

In terms of rate of delivery (spreading), I will yell "clear" once if I do not understand you. If you do not become clear after that, I stop flowing your speech.

progressive argumentation:

the only rule that isn't up for debate is speech times, and that's just because I don't want to be here longer than I have to.

i'd characterize myself as a progressive judge. I was pretty deep into postmodern Ks when I debated and have grown to become highly appreciative of good theory debates. Doesn't matter how big your school is or how much resources your program has, you should be prepared to defend the rules if you want to enforce them in round. If you think a rule is good and is something we should stick to, you should be prepared to defend it. You should also be prepared to defend your representations and ideology that underlies your arguments.

literate enough about most K-literature to know when you are bastardizing your evidence, but non-interventionist enough to not care.

i find the insularity with regards to particular jargon in theory debates to be pretty exhausting, just because a team does not say the magic words "counter-interpretation" does not mean they do not have one. I judge the arguments by how they are argued, not how they are labeled.

evidence:

put simply: i don't care.

I judge based on what I hear. This means: I won't call for evidence, I don't care if your evidence is in "card" form, I don't want to be on the email chain, and generally care more about what your argument is than what your evidence says. Debate (especially PF) is about communication, and if your communicative strategy is dependent on me flowing your speech doc, strike me or adapt.

I don't care about evidence ethics, but am willing to begrudgingly vote on a well-explained argument as to why I should care.

Contact info: avejacksond@gmail.com

Background: I competed for Okoboji (IA) and was at the TOC '13 in LD. I also debated policy in college the following year. I coached from 2014-2019 for Poly Prep (NY). I rejoined the activity again in 2023 as an assistant debate coach at Johnston (IA) & adjunct LD coach at Lake Highland Prep (FL).

LD

General: Debate rounds are about students so intervention should be minimized. I believe that my role in rounds is to be an educator, however, students should contextualize what that my obligation as a judge is. I default comparative worlds unless told otherwise. Slow down for interps and plan texts. I will say clear as many times as needed. Signpost and add me to your email chain, please.

Pref Shortcut

K: 1

High theory: 1

T/Theory: 2

LARP: 1/2

Tricks: 2/3

K: I really like K debate. I have trouble pulling the trigger on links of omission. Performative offensive should be linked to a method that you can defend. The alt is an advocacy and the neg should defend it as such. Knowing lit beyond tags = higher speaks. Please challenge my view of debate. I like learning in rounds.

Framework: 2013 LD was tricks, theory, and framework debate. I dislike blippy, unwarranted 'offense'. However, I really believe that good, deep phil debate is persuasive and underutilized on most topics. Most framework/phil heavy affs don't dig into literature deep enough to substantively respond to general K links and turns.

LARP: Big fan but don't assume I've read all hyper-specific topic knowledge.

Theory/T: Great, please warrant extensions and signpost. "Converse of their interp" is not a counter-interp.

Disclosure: Not really going to vote on disclosure theory unless you specifically warrant why their specific position should have been disclosed. If they are running a position relatively predictable, it is unlikely I will pull the trigger on disclosure theory.

Speaks: Make some jokes and be chill with your opponent. In-round strategy dictates range. I average 28.3-28.8.

Other thoughts: Plans/CPs should have solvency advocates. Talking over your opponent will harm speaks. Write down interps before extemping theory. When you extend offense, you need to weigh. Card clipping is an auto L25.

PF

I am a flow judge. Offense should be extended in summary and the second rebuttal doesn't necessarily need to frontline what was said in first rebuttal (but in some cases, it definitely helps). Weighing in Summary and FF is key. I'll steal this line from my favorite judge, Thomas Mayes, "My ballot is like a piece of electricity, it takes the path of least resistance." I have a hard time voting on disclosure theory in PF. Have fun and be nice.

Hello! My name is Advik. I have done PF before, and I’m a “flay” judge. I flow the entire round, and would typically prioritize flow over truth(there are exceptions). Theory isn’t a priority to me, but I’ll try to listen to every argument.

• Be clear when speaking, and don’t go overboard on spreading
• Impacts should be weighed throughout the round
• Signpost whenever the opportunity comes up
• I don’t like exaggerated facts(like don’t tell me that some emissions from a sector of the skydiving industry is going to ruin the world through climate change).
• EXTEND your arguments and you’ll be in my good books
• Remember, this is HS Debate. Don’t hold anything against each other and be civil about it(otherwise points will be deducted)
• Speaker Points are typically going to be from 25-30, with the lowest score meaning you weren’t really good, and the highest would mean you’re on of the best speakers in this tournament. I might give you a score lower than 25 if you were simply rude or unethical.

If you have any questions, talk to me before the round. Don’t be shy, I’m not that intimidating.

Bonus: You’ll get 1 extra point if you hand me a pen.

3rd year of PF at Theodore Roosevelt High School. Competed on the national circuit a lot of times so I hopefully know what I’m talking about lol

Email chain plssss sree.baruri@gmail.com - or if you have any questions before/after the round too

TLDR: way to my ballot is to collapse, warrant, and weighhhhh plsss!!

I'm a tech > truth judge - unless the argument is racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. then I’ll give you 20s and drop the debaters (and will report it to tab)

HOW TO WIN MY BALLOT:

1. Collapsing - if it's strategically going to be an advantage for you, collapse!! It makes the debate much easier to follow (and I won’t secretly hate you)
2. Warranting/Frontlining- interacting and directly responding to your opponent’s arguments go a looooooooong way (less judge intervention - which I will never intentionally do)
3. Signposting - highkey if you don’t tell me where to flow it then i’m not gonna know and it’s not gonna be on the flow and I wont evaluate it (your choice lol)
4. WEIGH!! - pls weigh your impacts WITH WARRANTING (not listing off 10 mechanisms) and respond to your opponents weighing too and make it comparative so I know why I should vote for you!!!

Big Things:

a. Speeches

• Rebuttal: 1st - plz dont like extend ur own case and elaborate - I know abt it alr
  2nd - plsfrontline!!
• Summary: 1st - ik its a lot (experience) but make sure to get to ur opponent's side and weigh too
  2nd - weigh!!
• Final Focus: nooooo new infooo! extend info from summary tell me why you won (weigh, make it comparative)

b. Round Semantics

• Speed: I don't really care - but send a speech doc if you're spreading
• Time: Had a lot of problems with this - but pleeeeasseee make sure you dont go too much over time! I will give you a 10-15 second grace period to wrap up your speech but will not flow anything after that.
• Cross: be nice pls no yelling
• Turns: if you want to win off them implicate and weigh them
• Theory: <3
• K's: dont really know, but tis ok
• Post-Rounding: (idrc lol - unless you start insulting/being a sore loser) it can be very educational and I submitted my ballot sooooooooo gl

Other/Misc:

• if you have a "sand" contention - speaks will go up by 1
• defense isn't sticky

Speeeaaaakkssss:
29-30: Phenomenal like omg
28-29: great job!!
27-28: pretty good ngl
26-27: you’re getting there! keep up the effort
25-26: you grinded my gears
below 25: you offended me/opponents

thanks for taking the time to read it’s only gonna help you

My name is Colin Coulter and the 23-24 school year is my first year judging and coaching debate. I have no prior experience with debate but have a broad background in public speaking, having delivered speeches to dozens of formal panels, boards, councils, subcommittees, and other bodies over the past 20 years.

I try to follow the NSDA's judging guidelines found here: Judge Training | National Speech & Debate Association (speechanddebate.org). Please take particular note of the videos on how to judge.

Notes on specific events:

Public Forum: I believe that the foundation of debate is reasonable arguments supported by evidence. I appreciate when debaters show me that they have actually read their own original citations. I enjoy debates where I catch myself thinking "they really know what they are talking about." in response to a cross-ex question. Show me that you understand the citations! Please do not gish-gallop me with a long list of poorly-cited sources. Please absolutely avoid giving me the impression that you failed to read the original citation before you clipped the card from the Champion Brief.

I need to be able to track your arguments if I'm going to give you credit for them. Signposting is essential in verbal speech, and I do not keep a rigorous flow. As it says in the video, an argument is not established without at least a warrant and impact, and arguments are given more weight when opponents fail to respond to them. Effective rebuttals are as important as strong arguments.

Dramatic Interpretation: While interpretive events are judged to the best of my ability on their cutting, blocking, and characterization, I believe that depictions of violence against children are inappropriate in much that same manner that scatological or pornographic depictions would be inappropriate.

Using mental illness in your piece is likely problematic. Mental illness is a disability and to constantly portray mentally ill people as violent for points at NSDA events is essentially Mental Illness Minstrel Show. Ask yourself this question: "If I my character's behavior was attributed to race or sexual orientation instead of a disability like mental illness, would I still perform the speech?"

Good luck at Nationals!

Hello, my name is Calvin. I'm a senior at Roosevelt and have been debating in Public Forum since middle school. Add me on the email chain: calvinj.goldsberry@gmail.com AND trhspf@googlegroups.com

When I am judging, you will have my full attention. I will not be on social media or other websites.

Feel free to email me with any questions/concerns etc.

TLDR: I am a tech judge.

Judging Philosophy

I am tabula rasa/tech>truth. I will evaluate anything I can understand.

I don't care about speed as long as you can produce a speech doc that I can follow.

Defense is not sticky.

Extensions must include all parts of an argument, including the uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact.

Good weighing will probably win you the debate.

Evidence ethics are VERY important to me. fabricating/being unable to produce evidence will result in a TKO and Tabroom contact.

Teams should have evidence readily available in a cut card format as per NSDA guidelines.

Kritiks

I love K debates. I think these debates are extremely important for the debate space when they are run well. I'm familiar with a lot of K lit (Afropess, Cap, Imperialism, Setcol, Fem IR), but please explain things in simple terms so I can understand the warrant-level debate.

Theory

Generally speaking, I believe that open-source disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad. That said, I am still tech>truth in theory debates.

I struggle to evaluate RVIs, they do not make much sense to me. Why should you win for being fair?

Theory debates can be hard to evaluate; if you want to win, make it simple for me.

Tricks

These are uneducational and impossible to evaluate, please don't read them.

Speaker Points

I assign speaker points based on strategy and speaking ability. Smart arguments usually get high speaks.

25 or less: You intentionally did something abusive/offensive. I have probably contacted Tab.

25-26: You did something pretty wrong/You are a novice.

26-27: You made some mistakes.

27-28: Average.

28-29: Pretty good!

29-30: One of the best teams at this tournament.

If you have any questions please send me an email or talk to me before round. also, feel free to postround me; it makes me a better judge and I do not find it offensive.

Please send all speech docs to icwestdebate@googlegroups.com. Please also send the speech doc to cooper.john@iowacityschools.org. Please label each email with the round number, the partnership code, and the side. Example: "R1 Duchesne BB AFF v. Iowa City West KE."

Resources

I have compiled some resources to get better at debate here!

TLDR

Always tell me "Prefer my evidence/argument because." Meaningful and intentional extensions of uniqueness + link + internal link + impact (don't forget warrants) in combination with weighing will win you the round. NOTE: I am a PF traditionalist. Spreading will not get you far in rounds with me.

Experience

I attended Theodore Roosevelt High School in Des Moines, Iowa and debated with Ellie Konfrst (Roosevelt GK). I was a two time state champion when competing. I broke at the TOC and placed ninth at NSDA nationals my senior year (2018). I have also coached at NDF the following years: 2018, 2019, 2020. I am currently a 3L law student at the University of Iowa. I am the current varsity PF coach at Iowa City West. I have coached two teams (Duchesne Academy of the Sacred Heart BB and Iowa City West KE) to qualifying to the gold TOC.

What you should expect of me

It is my obligation to be familiar with the topic. I am also a very emotive judge, if I look confused please break down your argument. It is my obligation to provide for you a clear reason why my ballot was cast and to ensure that you and your coach are able to understand my decision. However, it is not my job to weigh impacts against each other / evaluate competing frameworks. I am always open to discuss the round afterwards.

Flowing

I love off time road maps and they help me flow, please give them! What is on my flow at the end of the round will make my decision for me and I will do my best to make my reasoning clear either on my ballot or orally at the end of the round. If you are organized, clean, clear and extending good argumentation well, you will do well. One thing that I find particularly valuable is having a strong and clear advocacy and a narrative on the flow. This narrative will help you shape responses and create a comparative world that will let you break down and weigh the round in the Final Focus. I also appreciate language that directly relates to the flow (tell me where to put your overview, tell me what to circle, tell me what to cross out).

Extensions

It’s important to note that to get an argument through to the final focus the team must extend the uniqueness+links+impacts. If a single piece is missing, then it significantly weakens the point’s weight in the round. If an argument is dropped at any time, it will not be extended and you’d be better off spending your time elsewhere. Extensions are the backbones of debate, a high-level debater should be able to allocate time and extend their offense and defense effectively.

Framework / Overviews

Framework

If a framework is essential for you to win the round / to your case it should be in constructive. I want to see your intention and round visions early on, squirrel-y argumentation through frameworks muddles the whole round. Only drop the framework if everyone agrees on it. If there is no agreement by summary, win under both.

Overviews

There are two types of overviews in my mind.

1: An overall response to their case.

Good idea.

2: Weighing overviews.

GREAT IDEA

I prefer overviews to be in rebuttal.

The Rebuttal

Extend framework if you want me to use it in order to weigh in the summary and final focus. I also have a soft spot for weighing overviews and usually find them incredibly valuable if done and extended correctly.

If extended and weighed properly, turns are enough to win a round, but if you double turn yourself and muddle the debate you wasted critical time that could have been spent on mitigation/de-linking/non-uniques.

My preference is that the entire first rebuttal is spent on the opponent’s side of the flow. For both teams, I like to see layered responses and very clear road-mapping and sign-posting. The refutations should cover both the entire contention and also examine specific warrants and impacts. The second rebuttal should engage both the opponent’s case as well as the opponent’s responses. Ideally, the time split should be between 3:1 and 2:2.

Summary

I believe the job of the summary speaker (especially for first speaking teams) is the hardest in the round and can easily lose a debate. Extending framework/overviews (if applicable), front lining, and weighing are the three necessary components of any narrative in summary.

Structure:

1. Case extensions (uniqueness, link, internal link, impact)
2. Frontlining
3. Defense/Turn extensions
4. Weighing (this can be put anywhere among the other three above).

Frontlining =/= narrative extension.

Defense in the first summary. Make smart strategic decisions. If the defense is being blown up - or mentioned - in final focus it needs to be in summary.

Final Focus

This should be the exact same as your summary with more weighing and less frontlining. It is okay to extend less arguments if you make up for it with weighing.

Speed

Clarity is critical when speaking quickly. My wpm is about 200, going faster than this is risking an incomplete flow on my ballot. If I miss something because of speed, there was an error in judge adaptation.

Organization through all speeches is essential and especially paramount in summary. Make sure I know exactly where you are so that I can help you get as much ink on the flow as possible. Tell me where to flow overviews otherwise I'll just make a judgement call on where to put it on the flow.

Progressive Arguments

I'm fine with Theory / Ks / role of the ballot though you always should "dumb them down" to language used in PF and you must clearly articulate why there is value in rejecting a traditional approach to the topic. Theory / Ks / role of the ballot will also need to be slowed down in terms of speed. Also, you need to read theory right after the violation happens. If you read it as a spike to throw the other team off, I will not evaluate the argument.

I value teams taking daring strategic decisions (EX: drop case and go fully for turns EX2: non-uniquing / severing contentions to avoid opponents turns) and will reward you smart and effective risk-taking with speaker points. That being said, if you do it poorly I will still drop you.

Cross

I like to see strong engagement of the issues in CX and appreciate a deeper analysis than simple clarifying questions. Please be polite and civil and it is everyone’s responsibility to de-escalate the situation as much as possible when it grows too extreme (some jokes are always preferred). Issues in CX will not be weighed in the round unless brought up in a following speech. Making jokes in grand cross to liven up the debate is always good for your speaker points (but don't be that person who tries too hard please).

Speaking

30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

PF:

I have competition experience and am familiar with a lot of the terms and jargon of PF. However, please refrain from using unnecessarily complicated jargon, especially in the novice categories.

I am a tech>truth judge, meaning if your argument is false and your opponents do not call you out on it in any way, you can still win my ballot with this argument even though it is false.

On the other hand, obviously don't provide an argument that has no evidence/reasoning and warranting and assume your opponents won't say anything about it. Also, you need to link and provide impacts; don't assume that means I will make connections for you.

Speed is ok with me, but just don't spread.

Please weigh the round and tell me how your arguments match your weighing mechanism. If you don't give me one, I will default to a cost-benefit analysis.

Please tell me my ballot: tell me what contentions I should vote for and why -- tell me why you won instead of just restating what has happened in the round.

My preferences for judging a debate are: 1) That debaters not speed spread, if I can't follow your arguments it's hard to persuade me. It also makes for a better Public Forum debate if everyone can follow the main arguments. 2) That crossfire be cordial, being rude and/or cutting a speaker off will lose you points. 3) I prefer that your evidence support your argument, not that it tangentially might apply. I also an extensive background in speech and debate as a high school student and as a high school Speech & Debate Coach and a speech Judge.

I am a lay judge with no debate experience of my own. Therefore, the scant knowledge of the technical issues and jargon that I have has been picked up through judging.

I approach judging as if I am gathering information to take to the street and be able to present to a random person in a clear, understandable manner. While I know that technical issues sometimes need to be addressed and challenged, a round that bogs down in debating debate will not impress me. You have done the research, you have the information, use that to persuade me.

Challenge the other team when needed, but a case that is focused on tearing apart the other team on grammatical and/or technical points will not impress me. What will impress me is your ability to fend off your opponent with the facts of your case.

I do not want to listen to a debate round delivered at a verbal speed I cannot comprehend while taking notes. I also do not at all enjoy being yelled at.

As a debate judge, I am committed to upholding the principles of respectful and constructive discourse. I will not tolerate abusive debating practices, including spreading, in any form. Abusive debating practices, such as personal attacks, harassment, misinformation, or excessive spreading, are not conducive to productive discourse and will create a hostile environment. Civility and respect for one another's ideas and perspectives is necessary for productive debate.

I am a relatively new judge to PF. I understand that you have a limited time to present your case so I am fine with speaking fast, so long as you are still understandable.

One of the main things I will be looking for is well sourced evidence. I like data/stats that you can back up with a source. Any evidence or data presented will be accepted as true unless the opposing team can refute it with other evidence or sources. I enter every round as if I know nothing of the topic and the only information I will consider is what is presented during each round. 

I do not disclose or give oral feedback after a round and will save all comments for the Tabroom results. 

PF - I have been judging PF for around 7 years now. I am a judge that listens for Impacts on why your Impacts outweigh others. I am not a huge fan of speed. I am more concerned with the content of the speech rather than the amount of information given. I do understand the PF jargon. It is up to you to persuade me to vote for your side. I am not a huge fan of using FW and definitions as a weighing mechanism but will consider it if the other arguments are well balanced. Make sure to clearly state your Impacts and how these impacts link to the resolution.

Congress - I am looking for you to know the Robert's Rules of Order as well as seeing you participating in the debate by asking questions. In terms of your speech, I would like to hear a clear structure for your speeches. I want to hear the impacts of your points and I want you to be very familiar with your speeches as well. Make sure to bring up new arguments when a bill has been debated for awhile. If you speak later in the session, I want to hear clash with other representatives/senators. I also want to hear new information if you are representing the same point as someone who has spoken previously. I also track recency so I will note if a PO may miss a recency order. Make sure to maintain your professionalism during cross and during your speech. I will knock down a speaker if I feel they are being too aggressive during their speech or their cross.

LD - I do not have much experience judging LD currently. Please focus on argumentation and impacts rather than the jargon that goes along with LD. Tricks, theory, etc. will not work with me. Also, speed is discouraged during your speeches. Please make sure I can follow your supporting evidence and arguments. I am familiar with PF and judging PF.

Disclaimer: I am terrible at spelling and grammar. I promise that any errors in those areas on ballots are unintentional. I care deeply about debate and will give you the best verbal and written feedback I can. (My boss made me put this in its not that bad trust.)

I am a First-year out 4 years of PF

Add me on the email chain: Charlesetimm@gmail.com

Feel free to email me with any questions/concerns etc.

TLDR: I am a tech judge.

Judging Philosophy

I am tech>truth. I will evaluate anything I can understand.

I don't care about speed as long as you can produce a speech doc. I can follow.

Extensions must include all parts of an argument, including the uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact.

Good weighing will probably win you the debate.

Evidence ethics are VERY important to me. fabricating/being unable to produce evidence is bad have cut cards.

Teams should have evidence readily available in a cut card format as per NSDA guidelines.

Kritiks

I had very limited exposure to Ks when I was debating and so I do not know how I should evaluate a K round.

Theory

Generally speaking, I believe that open-source disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad. That said, I am still tech>truth in theory debates.

Theory debates can be hard to evaluate; if you want to win, make it simple for me.

Speaker Points

I assign speaker points based on strategy and speaking ability. Smart arguments usually get high speaks.

If you have any questions please send me an email or talk to me before round. also, feel free to postround me; it makes me a better judge and I do not find it offensive.

I am a former LD and PF debater for West Des Moines Valley and also a former PF coach for West Des Moines Valley.

I think that my role as judge is to be as objective as I can and to weigh the arguments presented without prejudice.

That being said I am not blind to the fact that tricks can be used in ways that are not productive to the goal of debate as an academic activity. I will not drop you solely on the use of tricks, but this may severely affect your speaker points.

Im fine with whatever argument you wish to run, however the more esoteric your argument you run the risk of me not understanding your point. Especially in the limited time of a debate round. I cannot adjudicate the quality of an argument I do not understand and therefore will not vote on it. I advise looking at my pen. If I am writing, then I understand. If I stop writing entirely, then there may be an issue.

Flow is critically important for me, to maintain fairness I will evaluate the flow closely to adjudicate the round.

Speed is fine as long as I am writing on the flow. I will stop writing and look up at you if you are going too fast.

FW, Theory, Ks are fine, have at it.

Weighing is great, tell me why I should value your approach and how it matters to the debate round as a whole.

Additional comments:

Be the same person you are in round when you are out of round. I get that debate can be a stressful activity and I will do my best to provide a fair and balanced perspective. I request that you to be respectful to your opponent, the facilities hosting the debate, and the volunteers.