I have been judging various events for 2 years. I always try to bury any personal knowledge or belief about topics and judge solely on what is presented in the round by the debaters.

I look for well-defined arguments that are educational and don't assume previous knowledge. I prefer hearing fewer well-defined arguments than a litany of arguments that are spoken at a rapid pace to deliver as much information as possible. I strongly prefer a debater to not use spreading as a method of debate, it sounds like jibberish to me.

I look for respect toward opponents. I like a natural flow of speech and a tone that is passionate but not shrill.

Hello! My name is Stuart Blessing, and I am the head coach for the Cary High Speech and Debate Program. Although this is my first year coaching and I am new to the NSDA circuit, I have been teaching speech and elements of debate for over a decade. My background in education, coupled with my fresh perspective on coaching, shapes my approach to judging.

Philosophy
My judging philosophy can best be described as "Pragmatic Evidentialism." At the heart of my evaluation is the effectiveness of argumentation. I prioritize debaters who can robustly defend their points. I try to employ a non-biased stance and assume the perspective of someone unfamiliar with the topic. Clarity, coherence, and the ability to argue convincingly are paramount.

Argumentation Style
I have a strong preference for evidence-based argumentation that weaves together into a compelling narrative. Arguments should not stand in isolation but should interlock to form a cohesive whole that supports or opposes the resolution convincingly.

Accessibility
Please note, I am partially deaf, which makes it challenging for me to follow rapid speech ("spreading"). I value clarity and the quality of arguments over sheer quantity. A clear, well-articulated argument will always stand out to me.

Decision Criteria
My ballot reflects who has constructed the most comprehensive and persuasive argument throughout the round. The rebuttal phase is crucial in my decision-making process. Effective rebuttals should not only counter opponents' arguments but also crystallize the debater's stance, demonstrating why their position is more valid.

Concessions and Attack Strategy
I respect debaters who can tactfully concede certain points to strengthen their overall position while adeptly highlighting the flaws in their opponent's arguments. Attacking the premise of the opponent's argument and justifying your victory is a skill I highly value.

Feedback
I believe in providing constructive oral feedback at the end of each round to explain my decision. Further detailed critiques will be available in Tabroom, focusing on observed weaknesses in argumentation rather than hypothetical alternatives.

Roadmapping
Given my hearing impairment, roadmapping your arguments is incredibly helpful for me to follow along. This practice not only aids in accessibility but also ensures that your arguments are received and understood as intended.

Conclusion
I am passionate about debates that are rooted in solid evidence and present a clear, complete picture of the issue at hand. Whether arguing in the affirmative or the negative, the key is to construct a narrative that compellingly justifies your stance.

I look forward to engaging rounds that challenge us to think critically and argue effectively. Let's make this a learning experience for us all!

Hi all! I am the Head Coach of Speech and Debate at Pinecrest High School in North Carolina. I am a former extemper with pretty deep knowledge of the happenings in the world.

LD & PF

--I am fine with speed, but remember with speed comes the risk I won't get it on the flow. If you see me stop typing/pen is no longer writing/I am staring blankly at you, consider that your cue to slow down.

--Make sure to differentiate your sourcing. Authors' last names are great, but tell me where the source comes from first. John Doe from the Council on Foreign Relations in 2022 sounds better than Doe 22. After that, you can refer to the source as CFR or Doe and I'm good on what you are referring to.

--Please weigh. Please. You have to do this in order for me to be able to determine a winner.

--Respect. Respect your opponents, partner (if in PF), self, and the host school. Competitive debate is a great activity; but you must maintain some sense of decorum throughout your time in the round.

Congress

--When you go to an in-house recess to determine splits, or inquire as to why no one is speaking, you have done yourself and your fellow competitors a disservice by not being prepared. Please avoid this as much as possible.

--I'm fine with rehashing arguments to a point, but you need to add more evidence to support this rehashed point. Something niche and unique that can catch the opposing side off guard.

--Presiding Officers: thank you for volunteering to run the chamber. Please only defer to the parli when you are unsure of certain procedure.

I'm pretty lenient when it comes to judging, but spreading, kritiks, and counter plans probably will almost never work in your favor (won't necessarily hurt you, just won't help!) - I prefer less progressive circuits/debates. Also - speak at a normal pace. I'm way more interested in being able to follow your constructive/ rebuttals than you getting in a ton of information that your opponent can't address.

It feels weird to list my debate experience here, but I did LD, PF, and Oratory in high school, went to GMU, Blue Key, Bronx, NCFLs (over and over), etc. etc. you get this gist - pretty non-progressive circuits, but I'm pretty acquainted with everything.

Also - you never need to tell me what to do. I've gotten some pretty forward directives when judging before. I'm flowing the round, so just weigh, extend, etc. Also don't personally attack your opponent!! Be kind.

Please speak clearly and you can speak fast as long as its comprehensible. Signpost and off-time roadmaps would be helpful.

1) For all debates, original oratory and advocacy speeches - basically events that require your to generate original work with preparation:

- No theory please. Use evidence, logical, clear and concise reasoning. Quantify when possible, and know that you are always entitled to your opinion, but not facts. Also, realize things are rarely black or white, so make sure to weigh weigh weigh.

- It is about informing and persuading me. You can use any tool in your script and speech to make that happen.

2) For interpretation speech events, "I will look for your ability to keep the audience engaged" while meeting the general requirements of the event.

- For DEC, the speaker should develop the ability to convey the message in a sincere, honest, and realistic style. The speaker must be able to interpret the meaning of the speech and be able to carry the interpretation over to the minds of the listeners.

- For DUO, it really is about beginning, middle, end, message, climax, scenes, acting. The topic can be light, heavy, sad, fun, anything. But these are meant to be engaging by nature IMHO, like watching a Netflix series, so make it so.

Don't be rude or obnoxious, and have fun. In debate and in life.

I value strong logic and comprehensibility above all else. Fancy words and complicated arguments are great but if I cannot understand you, then... ya I cannot understand you. If you can accomplish all four of these things at the same time, then I'll love you.

Stay present in the round (e.g. questioning, motions) and keep it interesting. I appreciate good rhetoric and strong, probing questions.

For POs: if you do your job, keep mistakes to a minimum, and truly run a fair, fast, and efficient chamber, then you'll rank well on my ballot.

Best of luck!

Crawford Leavoy, Director of Speech & Debate at Durham Academy - Durham, NC

Email Chain: cleavoy@me.com

BACKGROUND
I am a former LD debater from Vestavia Hills HS. I coached LD all through college and have been coaching since graduation. I have coached programs at New Orleans Jesuit (LA) and Christ Episcopal School (LA). I am currently teaching and coaching at Durham Academy in Durham, NC. I have been judging since I graduated high school (2003).

CLIFF NOTES

- Speed is relatively fine. I'll say clear, and look at you like I'm very lost. Send me a doc, and I'll feel better about all of this.

- Run whatever you want, but the burden is on you to explain how the argument works in the round. You still have to weigh and have a ballot story. Arguments for the sake of arguments without implications don't exist.

- Theory - proceed with caution; I have a high threshold, and gut-check a lot

- Spikes that try to become 2N or 2A extensions for triggering the ballot is a poor strategy in front of me

- I don't care where you sit, or if you sit or stand; I do care that you are respectful to me and your opponent.

- If you cannot explain it in a 45 minute round, how am I supposed to understand it enough to vote on it.

- My tolerance for just reading prep in a round that you didn't write, and you don't know how it works is really low. I get cranky easily and if it isn't shown with my ballot, it will be shown with my speaker points.

SOME THOUGHTS ON PF

- The world of warranting in PF is pretty horrific. You must read warrants. There should be tags. I should be able to flow them. They must be part of extensions. If there are no warrants, they aren't tagged or they aren't extended - then that isn't an argument anymore. It's a floating claim.

- You can paraphrase. You can read cards. If there is a concern about paraphrasing, then there is an entire evidence procedure that you can use to resolve it. But arguments that "paraphrasing is bad" seems a bit of a perf con when most of what you are reading in cut cards is...paraphrasing.

- Notes on disclosure: Sure. Disclosure can be good. It can also be bad. However, telling someone else that they should disclose means that your disclosure practices should bevery good. There is definitely a world where I am open to counter arguments about the cases you've deleted from the wiki, your terrible round reports, and your disclosure of first and last only.

- Everyone should be participating in round. Nothing makes me more concerned than the partner that just sits there and converts oxygen to carbon dioxide during prep and grand cross. You can avert that moment of mental crisis for me by being participatory.

- Tech or Truth? This is a false dichotomy. You can still be a technical debater, but lose because you are running arguments that are in no way true. You can still be reading true arguments that aren't executed well on the flow and still win. It's a question of implication and narrative. Is an argument not true? Tell me that. Want to overwhelm the flow? Signpost and actually do the work to link responses to arguments.

- Speaks? I'm a fundamental believer that this activity is about education, translatable skills, and public speaking. I'm fine with you doing what you do best and being you. However, I don't do well at tolerating attitude, disrespect, grandiosity, "swag," intimidation, general ridiculousness, games, etc. A thing I would tell my own debaters before walking into the room if I were judging them is: "Go. Do your job. Be nice about it. Win convincingly. " That's all you have to do.

OTHER THINGS

- I'll give comments after every round, and if the tournament allows it, I'll disclose the decision. I don't disclose points.

- My expectation is that you keep your items out prior to the critique, and you take notes. Debaters who pack up, and refuse to use critiques as a learning experience of something they can grow from risk their speaker points. I'm happy to change points after a round based on a students willingness to listen, or unwillingness to take constructive feedback.

- Sure. Let's post round. Couple of things to remember 1) the decision is made, and 2) it won't/can't/shan't change. This activity is dead the moment we allow the 3AR/3NR or the Final Final Focus to occur. Let's talk. Let's understand. Let's educate. But let's not try to have a throwdown after round where we think a result is going to change.

I am a Coach, and I have been judging for close to a decade now. I am a teacher certified in English & Theatre, so my notes can get a bit technical, and come specifically from those perspectives. I tend to make notes and comments as I view, so they follow my flow of thought, and how I understand your developing argument, as your piece/debate progresses.

I have judged almost every event, including judging both speech and debate events at Nationals.

In true teacher and coach fashion, I WANT you to do well. So prove me right!

Paradigm for Congress

How I Rank: While the ballot on Tabroom only has a place to score speeches, it is not unlikely that room is full of great speakers. To fairly rank the room, I have a personal spreadsheet where I score individual speeches, as well as the categories below, to help separate the "great speakers" from the "great congresspersons". Think of it like a rubric for your English class project. Speeches are the biggest category, but not the only one.

Speeches: Do you provide a unique perspective on the bill, and not simply rehashing what has been said in the round already? Do you back up your reasoning with logos, ethos, AND pathos? Is your speech deep, instead of wide (more detail on one specific aspect of the bill, rather than trying to cover all angles of the bill)? Do you write with a clarity of style and purpose, with a good turn of phrase? Do you engage your listeners? Do you respond well to questions?

Questioning: Are your questions thoughtful and based on listening closely to the speaker, and what they actually said? Are your questions brief and to the point? Do you avoid simple yes or no, gotcha style questions? Does your questioning have a clear line of thinking? Do you connect questioning to previous speeches? Do you avoid prefacing?

Decorum: Do you follow the rules of the chamber? Do you follow speaking times? Do you speak calmly and collectedly? Do you ask or answer questions assertively, without being aggressive? Do you respect your fellow speakers?

Roleplay: Do your speeches reflect that you are a congressperson, and not a high school teenager? Do you think of your constituents? Do you consider yourself a representative of your state or District? Do you allow your RP perspective to make your speeches better, and not become a distraction? Do you participate in motions, seconding, etc?

Knowledge of Rules: Do you have an obvious and clear understanding of the rules? Do you follow them closely? Are there any egregious breaking of the rules?

Special Consideration for the Presiding Officer: The Presiding Officer is marked for one "speech" per hour. This score is a reflection of how well they perform the specific duties of PO. It concerns knowledge of the rules (at a higher expectation than the average congress competitor), the efficiency of the room, the fairness of the PO, and the demeanor of the PO (should be calming and welcoming). I also look at them for decorum and RP.

Paradigm for PFD

Construction of Message: Is your argument sound? Does your evidence support your claims? Are you claims tied together and supporting each other? Does your argument flow in a logically sound way, that makes it easy to follow by only listening, and not reading? Are you avoiding logical fallacies?

Delivery of Message: Are you speaking slowly and clearly enough that the judge can actually process what you are saying? (this is a speech and debate competition, not a race). Do you command the room when you speak, without being overbearing?

Evidence of Engagement: Are you actually listening to you fellow competitors? Do you make points in questioning and rebuttal that are based on what your opponents said, and not just what you thought they said? Are you adapting to the way the round is flowing? Are you cooperating with your teammate?

Construction of Rebuttal: Are your counterclaims based in evidence? Are you pointing out any logical fallacies? If you raise a concern about something in your opponents case (ex: you accuse them of cherry-picking), is your case safe from similar scrutiny?

Decorum: Are you behaving in a way that reflects well on your team-mate, your coach, your school, and the District?

Paradigm for LD

Construction of Message: Is your argument sound? Is your value interesting? Is your value criterion an adequate measure of your value? Does your evidence support your claims? Are you claims tied together and supporting each other? Does your argument flow in a logically sound way, that makes it easy to follow by only listening, and not reading? Are you avoiding logical fallacies?

Delivery of Message: Are you speaking slowly and clearly enough that the judge can actually process what you are saying? (this is a speech and debate competition, not a race). Do you command the room when you speak, without being overbearing?

Evidence of Engagement: Are you actually listening to you fellow competitor? Do you make points in questioning and rebuttal that are based on what your opponents said, and not just what you thought they said? Are you adapting to the way the round is flowing?

Construction of Rebuttal: Are you able to use their Value and/or Value Criterion to support your own argument? Are your counterclaims based in evidence? Are you pointing out any logical fallacies? If you raise a concern about something in your opponents case (ex: you accuse them of cherry-picking), is your case safe from similar scrutiny?

Decorum: Are you behaving in a way that reflects well on yourself, your coach, your school, and the District?

Rachel Mauchline

Durham Academy, Assistant Director of Speech and Debate

Previously the Director of Forensics and Debate for Cabot

she/her pronouns

TL;DR

Put me on the email chain @ rachelmauchline@gmail.com

speed is fine (but online lag is a thing)

tech over truth

Policy

I typically get preferred for more policy-oriented debate. I gravitated to more plan focused affirmatives and t/cp/da debate. I would consider myself overall to be a more technically driven and line by line organized debater. My ideal round would be a policy affirmative with a plan text and three-seven off. Take that as you wish though.

Lincoln Douglas

I've judged a variety of traditional and progressive debates. I prefer more progressive debate. But you do you... I am happy to judge anything as long as you defend the position well. Refer to my specific preferences below about progressive arguments. In regards to traditional debates, it's important to clearly articulate framework.

Public Forum

weighing.... weighing.... weighing.

I like rebuttals to have clear line by line with numbered responses. 2nd rebuttal should frontline responses in rebuttal. Summary should extend terminal defense and offense OR really anything that you want in final focus. Final focus should have substantial weighing and a clear way for me to write my ballot. It's important to have legitimate evidence... don't completely skew the evidence.

Here are my specific preferences on specific arguments if you have more than 5 mins to read this paradigm...

Topicality

I enjoy a well-articulated t debate. In fact, a good t debate is my favorite type of debate to judge. Both sides need to have a clear interpretation. Make sure it’s clearly impacted out. Be clear to how you want me to evaluate and consider arguments like the tva, switch side debate, procedural fairness, limits, etc.

Disadvantages/Counterplans

This was my fav strat in high school. I’m a big fan of case-specific disadvantages but also absolutely love judging politics debates- be sure to have up to date uniqueness evidence in these debates though. It’s critical that the disad have some form of weighing by either the affirmative or negative in the context of the affirmative. Counterplans need to be functionally or textually competitive and also should have a net benefit. Slow down for CP texts and permutations- y’all be racing thru six technical perms in 10 seconds. Affirmative teams need to utilize the permutation more in order to test the competition of the counterplan. I don’t have any bias against any specific type of counterplans like consult or delay, but also I’m just waiting for that theory debate to happen.

Case

I believe that case debate is under-covered in many debates by both teams. I love watching a case debate with turns and defense instead of the aff being untouched for the entire debate until last ditch move by the 2AR. The affirmative needs to continue to weigh the aff against the negative strat. Don't assume the 1AC will be carried across for you throughout the round. You need to be doing that work on the o/v and the line by line. It confuses me when the negative strat is a CP and then there are no arguments on the case; that guarantees aff 100% chance of solvency which makes the negative take the path of most resistance to prove the CP solves best.

Kritiks

I’ll vote for the k. From my observations, I think teams end up just reading their prewritten blocks instead of directly engaging with the k specific to the affirmative. Be sure you understand what you are reading and not just read a backfile or an argument that you don’t understand. The negative needs to be sure to explain what the alt actually is and more importantly how the alt engages with the affirmative. I judge more K rounds than I expect to, but if you are reading a specific author that isn’t super well known in the community, but sure to do a little more work on the analysis

Theory

I’ll vote for whatever theory; I don’t usually intervene much in theory debates but I do think it’s important to flesh out clear impacts instead of reading short blips in order to get a ballot. Saying “pics bad” and then moving on without any articulation of in round/post fiat impacts isn’t going to give you much leverage on the impact level. You can c/a a lot of the analysis above on T to this section. It’s important that you have a clear interp/counter interp- that you meet- on a theory debate.

anita.DukeDiv at gmail

My name is Anita Salazar. I competed in and have judged just about every speech and debate event. For Debate, although I only competed in PF and Congress, I have been judging LD and CX since 2009. I have seen an array of traditional and progressive arguments and I value validity and logic. I tend to be critical of dropped arguments, but I don't believe more substantiative points should be shadowed by a delineation. Regarding speed: I am fine with any speed if there are signposts and good taglines, but being virtual makes this a bit trickier. Being included in the chain helps this exponentially; but because of internet stability issues, I think it is wise to always confer with your opponent and judge(s) in the round first before spreading.

I participated in PF for 1 year and Congress for 2 years in high school, but now that I'm in college I've been out of this world for a bit.

I would appreciate clear and concise arguments, as well as demonstrations that participants have thought critically about their own arguments and their opponents'.

I am an assistant coach, this is my second year coaching, third year judging. I am a teacher certified in English Language Arts and have actively taught high school for 5 years. My notes and comments tend to follow my flow/train of thought as I type as I go, making comments as I see things.

For my first two years of judging, I have almost exclusively judged speech events with debate/congress sprinkled in, however this year I have been judging mostly LD.

I have never gone into a round and found a student I wanted to do poorly. I want you to succeed as much as you want to succeed.

Paradigm for LD

Construction of Message:Is your argument well-thought? Is your resolve interesting? Does your evidence support your claims? Are you claims tied together and supporting each other? Does your argument flow in a logical way that makes it easy to follow by only listening, and not reading?

Delivery of Message:Are you speaking slowly and clearly enough that the judge can actually process what you are saying? (this is a speech and debate competition, not a race). Do you command the room when you speak, without being overbearing? Can the judge hear what you are saying without straining?

Evidence of Engagement:Are you actually listening to you fellow competitor? Do you make points in questioning and rebuttal that are based on what your opponents said, and not just what you thought they said? Are you adapting to the way the round is flowing?

Construction of Rebuttal:Are you able to use their Value to support your own argument? Are your counterclaims based in evidence? Are you pointing out any logical fallacies? If you raise a concern about something in your opponents case (ex: you accuse them of cherry-picking), is your case safe from similar scrutiny?

Decorum: Are you behaving in a way that reflects well on yourself, your coach, your school, and the District?

Paradigm for Congress

How I Rank:While the ballot on Tabroom only has a place to score speeches, it is not unlikely that room is full of great speakers. To fairly rank the room, I have a personal spreadsheet where I score individual speeches, as well as the categories below, to help separate the "great speakers" from the "great congresspersons". Think of it like a rubric for your English class project. Speeches are the biggest category, but not the only one.

Speeches:Do you provide a unique perspective on the bill, and not simply rehashing what has been said in the round already? Do you back up your reasoning with logos, ethos, AND pathos? Is your speech deep, instead of wide (more detail on one specific aspect of the bill, rather than trying to cover all angles of the bill)? Do you write with a clarity of style and purpose, with a good turn of phrase? Do you engage your listeners? Do you respond well to questions?

Questioning:Are your questions thoughtful and based on listening closely to the speaker, and what they actually said? Are your questions brief and to the point? Do you avoid simple yes or no, gotcha style questions? Does your questioning have a clear line of thinking? Do you connect questioning to previous speeches? Do you avoid prefacing?

Decorum:Do you follow the rules of the chamber? Do you follow speaking times? Do you speak calmly and collectedly? Do you ask or answer questions assertively, without being aggressive? Do you respect your fellow speakers?

RP:Do your speeches reflect that you are a congressperson, and not a high school teenager? Do you think of your constituents? Do you consider yourself a representative of your state or District? Do you allow your RP perspective to make your speeches better, and not become a distraction? Do you participate in motions, seconding, etc?

Knowledge of Rules:Do you have an obvious and clear understanding of the rules? Do you follow them closely? Are there any egregious breaking of the rules?

Special Consideration for the Presiding Officer:The Presiding Officer is marked for one "speech" per hour. This score is a reflection of how well they perform the specific duties of PO. It concerns knowledge of the rules (at a higher expectation than the average congress competitor), the efficiency of the room, the fairness of the PO, and the demeanor of the PO (should be calming and welcoming). I also look at them for decorum and RP.

Debate is an educational, competitive activity. It should be fun, fair, and productive. Practices which disincentivize intellectual discourse will not be tolerated. Above anything else, I’m looking for a good round that demonstrates a healthy clash of ideas. I want to leave the round with something to think about.

I debated traditional LD for six years, breaking to out-rounds at NSDA Nationals my sophomore year, but never once competed on the National Circuit. I have extensive background in Congress, competing twice in NSDA finals, as well as some experience with Extemp, Oratory, PF, BQ, and extemp debate. I’m open to most styles of argumentation, but definitely have some preferences. My paradigm serves as a general outline of my style, not a codified law.

Email: mtweden@unc.edu

GENERAL DEBATE PREFERENCES

1. I'll keep a loose flow. I write down what I think is important and what you tell me to.
2. Delivery matters. I can keep up with a fast talker but if you're going to actually spread please give me a heads up and make sure we all have case docs.
3. Signpost. Do it. The round is so much better if the clash is made clear to me.
4. Give voters. I like a good line-by-line as much as the next guy, but need to get some big picture framing from you.
5. Truth exists, reality exists. Absurd, radical, or violent critical theory won’t be entertained. In a general sense, I will view rounds in the context of liberal individualism, so it will take some work to convince me of communitarian, collectivist, or hyper-utilitarian frameworks.

LD JUDGING

1. I care a lot about burdens in LD. Aff holds an affirmative duty.
2. I want to see framework clash. I don't care who wins the value/criterion debate, I care who wins on the value/criterion which won the value/criterion debate.
3. Analysis really matters. 1) Cards don't win you an argument, you need to explain the evidence and its impact; 2) drops matter but it's tough for me to weigh if they're uncalled; 3) I'm fine with obscure link chains or extreme impacts but they need to make sense and seem coherent; 4) repetition is not refutation.
4. I'm okay with progressive debate tactics (I was a traditional LD debater primarily), but have a few thoughts I want to share in the interest of transparency.
5. I buy theory arguments because fairness does matter, but I don't want it to be a generic statement on the debate community, tailor theory arguments to the round.
6. There's no responsibility to introduce an Aff plan, but there's no rule against it; neg can engage on the level of the plan or critique this approach, either is fine.
7. Avoid K affs. I tend to think they don't meet the burden for the round. Ks need to be very clear about what they're advocating and have fully fleshed out structure. If aff gives a traditional case and neg runs a K, I will probably just weigh them as conceptual ideas and see who wins the debate on that level.

CONGRESS JUDGING

1. Play the role, you're a member of Congress.
2. Analysis matters more than anything else. I want to see your understanding of the nuance of a given issue.
3. I don't really like "we'll just pass another bill" arguments.
4. I really enjoy discussions on the effects of implementing legislation within existing political institutions.
5. Be consistent within the round - don't jump from being an isolationist to a war hawk in the span of 45 minutes. If I've seen you compete in a previous round, I will not care if you have totally changed positions or recycle speech devices/arguments.
6. The debate matters, please tailor your speech to be appropriate for its place in the round. Develop arguments and explain how they shape the debate. And if a point has been dragging on and on and on, don't feel the need to give another speech on the issue.
7. Avoid debate jargon as much as possible.
8. PO: set and enforce decorum, handle the chamber well, you set the tone. I think the best kind of PO is the one I don't even notice is in the room, running the chamber with invisible precision. I don't like over-the-top behavior as a PO.
9. Congress is particularly susceptible to equity concerns. It’s easy to feel excluded in a chamber, and even easier to unintentionally be a part of that exclusion. Please be inviting and welcoming and behave in good faith.

All of my spicy debate takes are explained more in-depth here: https://go.unc.edu/debate

I debated in the late 90's. I believe in the Value Premise and Criterion. I think there should be clash. Rounds should be in a conversational speed. If I am yelling clear, I am missing an argument. I will stop flowing. I am not a blank slate judge nor will I drop someone for dropping an unreasonable argument. The last speeches are for providing voters and writing my ballot. If there is no connection back to the VP/ your position, I feel there is no ground for me to vote. I do not vote for Kritiks. I do believe a discussion with a debater about the round is ok. I think understanding points of view helps with communicating your cases in later rounds. I will not switch my decision.