This version of my paradigm is a total rewrite of my previous paradigm, an archived version can be found here. This does not represent a change in opinions but updating for clarity and structure.

i. Affiliations

Iowa City West High School (2011-2017, 2023-present): Coach/Judge. I also debated for 3 years for ICW in high school

Hawken School, OH (2021-2022): Judge

ii. About

I have been doing policy debate since 2011 and that is the format I am most familiar with and actually coach. However, I also have judged just about every other debate/speech format*. I would like to be added to the email chain: lang901@gmail.com and iowacitywestdebatedocs@gmail.com. I have both a BA in political science and a J.D. as well as a license to practice law in 2 states (Iowa and Ohio [Inactive]).** I am fairly tabula rasa and have voted in the past on the entire range of arguments. I have hopefully organized this in a readable manner. Let me know if you have any questions if not.

I. OVERVIEW

Do what you want to do. Do it well and I will probably vote for you. Esoteric Ks will require a bit more explanation but I will do my best to meet you in the middle. Tech over Truth but the truth is pretty persuasive. Generally, unless instructed otherwise, I will vote on based on the path of least resistance. This means the less I have to resolve in your favor, the more likely I am to vote for you. I will judge the debate you had in front of me. I will not intervene/insert my own opinions/knowledge unless absolutely necessary as tab will get mad at me if I take an hour to make a decision. I may comment on things in the RFD/oral critique after the round but generally unless noted, it didn't affect the outcome.

This is technically a nitpick but I'm going to put it here anyway.Citations to legal texts/court opinions have a very specific format. It's not hard to learn. Please use it in your cites when relevant, especially this year as the topic is incredibly legal-technicalities oriented. I will give you bonus points if I notice that your cites are in the correct format.

II. Line by Line(With very few caveats, this section is mostly advisory. Do not overadapt. If it's not clear to you what's advisory and what isn't, feel free to ask before the round)

a. Disadvantages- They exist. You should read them if you want. Subject to the caveat in supra note 2, I don't really have any ideological hang ups about disadvantages. I would like them to be specific but I recognize that that's not always possible. Try to have real links to an actual affirmative, not just the entire concept of the year's topic.

b. Counterplans- I will vote off the counterplan text said out loud during the debate. You should have an actual solvency advocate for your counterplan. Counterplans without a solvency advocate are just a sentence and I will judge them accordingly. If the aff doesn't point this out, I won't vote you down but that means this is something aff's should be on the lookout for.

c. Kritiks- I am familiar with core kritiks (e.g. Cap, Security, SetCol, etc.). I am also familiar with ableism kritiks and a lot of the literature in that area. You shouldn't run into any problems running those in front of me. Virilio notwithstanding, if your K is named after a specific person, I am more than likely unfamiliar with it. I will try to meet you where you are but there are definitely ways you can make that easier. In those instances, err on the side of over-explanation.

d. T- I don't particularly love the tactical deployment of T arguments. I'm not advocating RVIs or anything but keep that in mind while crafting your 1NC. I will evaluate the T debate on the basis you tell me to (i.e. Competing Interp vs. Reasonability). The interp and violation debates are just as important as the standards/impact debate on T***.

e. FW- I separate FW from T only really because I learned them separately as a debater. While I generally think having a stable locus for the debate is good and that locus should be the resolution, I am sympathetic to many anti-FW arguments. If you are an anti-FW team, please try to have an interpretation of the debate round that is more than just "vote for us". I roll my eyes a bit when I see "The Role of the Ballot/Judge is to vote for the team that does [object of the k]" in a speech doc. At that point just come out and say the ROB/J is to vote for you. That is at least a bit more honest.

f. Theory-

(1). 3+ is where condo gets bad and you have to ask for judge kick.

(2.)Judge kick is also probably bad, I'm not interested in doing historical revisionism to your 2NR. If you go for a counterplan, I'm judging the counterplan.

(3). If debatevision had not met an untimely end (RIP), I would link a decade-old GDI(?) lecture here about why international fiat is bad. But you'll just have to take my word for it.

(4). I have a high-ish bar for reject the team theory. If you want me to do so, it better be 3+ minutes of the 2xR. I am much more lenient on RtA framing and if used tactically, could have the same effect as RtT (i.e. rejecting the counterplan the 2NR went for).

g. Cross-Ex- This gets its own section because it's a critical part of the debate. Avoid clarification questions about cards read. These should be eliminated by flowing the actual speech rather than just writing down everything in the speech doc. Cross-ex is about establishing links and forwarding your arguments. Do that instead of asking questions you should already know the answer to. Also, if you're not going maverick, CX time is time for questions. If you don't have questions, then either prep time or the next speech starts.

III. Debate Senior Citizen Yells at Clouds (you can largely skip this section if you have limited pre-round prep time)

(I've been in and out of the community over the past 14 years so these are my extraneous thoughts about norms that have developed in the past decade.)

a. Why are cards highlighted so badly now? If you're card consists of 5 sentences, composed a word at a time, across 25 paragraphs, not only is that bordering on academic dishonesty, your points may suffer. If you're doing it for time reasons, I would suggest either getting faster or reading less.

b. Speaking of reading less, I do not like neg strategies that involve 5+ off in the 1NC. If you stand up for the 1NC and a number greater than 10 is in your order, I will be mad. I will still vote for you but regardless of my feelings on the strategy, these strategies place you well behind the starting line in a debate. These strats lead to 1 or more of the following situations: your cards are dangerously under-highlighted, your arguments are dangerously blippy, or you have to reach the upper thresholds of speed and human comprehension but unfortunately I don't type that fast. The first two create a scenario where the debate is incredibly anti-educational. The third creates a situation where you are incredibly unhappy with me at the end of the debate as I only caught, generously, 40% of your arguments. Policy debate should be education first, competition second. But neither of those goals are accomplished in 5+ off strats. Additionally, spending a minute kicking positions at the top of the 2NC is not compelling on a base ethos level.

c. I don't have many hangups on the presentation level of debating. Dress however you want, speak how you want, sit or stand. However one presentation thing I think is good is facing the judge during CX. Facing your opponent during CX is bad on an ethos level, especially if you end up facing entirely away from the judge. I will try to take a central spot in the room to facilitate this as easily as possible.

d. Impact/evidence comparison should happen early and often. Necessary judge intervention happens almost exclusively in scenarios where evidence and especially impact comparison starts in the 2xR. Late breaking debates result in neither you, your points, nor me being happy with the result of that round.

IV. Endnotes

*Note 1: I also coached World Schools but that probably isn't super relevant to this document.

**Note 2: With this in mind, if you're going to go for a really technical argument in either of those areas be sure you really, really know what you're doing. If you don't, and it will be clear if you don't, I will likely be incredibly annoyed for the entirety of the debate. The place this will be the biggest issue is evidence. I read cards and I have noticed an uptick in egregious Tag/Card mismatch. This goes beyond powertagging and borders on straight up dishonesty. In these cases, I have no issue basing my decision on what the card actually says rather than a debater's misrepresentation. For the sake of your speaker points and an efficient RFD after the round, heed this warning.

***Note 3: This year's topic is worded terribly and thus lot of the interp cards I've seen coming out of camp files this year (2024-2025) are downright bad. A random out of context paragraph from the Supreme Court of Montana in a case not about IPR, interpreting part of a statute unrelated to IPR, is not where definitions should come from. There is no intent to define and also not even how courts look to defining things. Affs can and should use this to their advantage.

This is my first year as an Assistant Speech and Debate coach for Bettendorf High School. My background in debate comes from my time as a student at Muscatine High School where I competed in both Policy and LD debate with a preference towards Policy.

1. Speed is just fine with me so long as you read clearly and at an appropriate volume. I prefer speakers don’t sacrifice expression for the sake of speed- please add emphasis to your arguments by slowing down during your contentions, sources, and key points. If your opponent is struggling to understand your speed I expect you to be a good sport and slow down.
2. Debate is meant to be FUN as well as challenging. I enjoy hearing creative interpretations and arguments so long as you show me you understand the argument you are making inside and out and that they are presented in a well supported manner. K’s are welcome.
3. I expect speakers to treat their competitors and judges with respect. While expressing passion during the debate is appreciated, I expect participants to interact with each other calmly and kindly before, during, and after the round.

Email: connorhbrown2017@gmail.com

I've been a policy debater all of my high school career. I would like to be on the email chain in rounds. I can keep up with spreading, however I will be flowing on paper so make sure to signpost. Flowing in mind, I ideally want a good line by line debate. It's great to have evidence and lots of cards, but they aren't that helpful if you can't articulate them in the context of this debate.

If you're the affirmative don't drop your case, if it is dropped it will be very hard for the affirmative to win the debate. Same goes for the negative. I love disadvantage debates, but as the negative I want good impact calculus on the DA. I will not do that work for you. With Counterplan's I want the negative to be able to tell me how they solve and articulate the net benefit.

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

Debate background:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specifics:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speech Docs/ Email chains

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

Speaker Points

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

Speechdrop.net is strictly superior to email chains for in-round file sharing, but feel free to contact me via Kalen.pop@gmail.com

I've been involved in policy debate since 2012 and a coach since 2018, currently Head Coach at Iowa City Liberty High School. By day, I'm employed as a sentient Politics DA. (Journalist with a major in political science.)

TLDR: I'll vote on anything you can make me understand. I love DA/CP/Case debates, I'm not a bad judge for the Kritik, but I've been told I'm not a great judge for it either. Speed reading is fine in the abstract, but I do hold debaters to a higher standard of clarity than I think many other judges to. Speed-reading through your analytics will guarantee I miss something.

Detailed Paradigm: everything below this line is background on my opinions, NOT a hard and fast rule about how you should debate in front of me. I do everything in my power to be cool about it, check bias at the door, etc.

Speed Reading: is fine. But don't spread analytics, please. 250 WPM on analytical arguments is really pushing it. I know that some judges can flow that fast, but I am not one of them: my handwriting sucks and is capped at like, normal tagline pace. Otherwise, you're free to go as fast as I can comprehend. I'll yell "CLEAR!" if I can't.

Policy stuff: Yeah of course I'll vote on disads and counterplans and case arguments and topicality. Are there people who don't?

CP theory: Listen, I'll vote on it, but I won't like it. I strongly advise that theory-loving 2As give warranted voters in the speech, and that 1ARs do actual line-by-line rather than pre-written monologues.

Kritiks: are pretty rad, whether they're read as part of a 12-off 1NC or a 1-off, no case strat. I want to be clear, though: I REALLY NEED to understand what you're saying to vote for you with confidence. I find a lot of very talented K debaters just assume that I know what "biopolitical assemblages of ontological Being" or whatever means. I do not.

K affs: are fine. I myself usually stuck to policy stuff when I debated, but I'll hear it out. You should probably have a good reason not to be topical, though. Some people have told me I'm a bad judge for K affs, others have told me I was the most insightful judge at the tournament. (More have told me I was a bad judge for it though, for what it's worth.)

Other debate formats:

PF: PF is traditionally about being persuasive, whereas policy is about being right. If you can do both I'll be impressed and probably give you a 30. Otherwise, I feel like I have a more or less firm grasp on your activity, but I certainly don't have all of its norms memorized.

LD: I have no idea how your activity works and at this point I'm too afraid to ask. Whoever successfully teaches me LD debate will get an automatic 30. Please dumb your Ks down for me, I'm a policy hack.

Congress: Listen, I did one congress round in high school and left it with 0 understanding of how it's supposed to work. If I'm in the back of your room, it means tabroom made a mistake. Because of my background in policy debate, I imagine I'll be biased in favor of better arguments rather than better decorum.

yes please include me on email chain- warrensprouse@gmail.com

Please turn on your cameras when you are speaking if at all possible.

Remember to weigh claims and warrants within your evidence; I am much more likely to vote on well-explained arguments than taglines, even if those arguments do not necessarily have evidence to back them up. If you can do both- awesome.

Do not be rude or disrespectful to your opponents or your partner.

Tell me in the last rebuttals how to weigh your arguments and how to compare your impacts with the other team’s.

If you read cards that are not in the novice packet and were given to you by your varsity debaters, that is cheating and I will yell at you.

Add me to the email chain:
vwoolums@gmail.com

Background:
I debated for Iowa City High 1989-1993 on the prisons, space, and homelessness topics then graduated early. I won lots of rounds and speaker awards. I didn't debate in college because life happened otherwise. I hold BA degrees in English and Political Science with a lot of incomplete Master's level work. I work a full time project management job in the aerospace industry, enjoy bicycling and spending time with my seven year old son. Since 2009 I've been the Director of Debate at Iowa City High and enjoy coaching both casual and highly competitive teams. I am very familiar with the criminal justice topic.

New:
Not using the President's* given name in any form will slightly increase your speaks.

Tl;dr

Policymaker by default. I vote on well constructed, true arguments presented in a technically proficient manner. I'm not the best judge for you if you're an advocacy, narrative, performance, or project team.

Before the Round - VCX:
I'm primarily a policymaker, but I also think stock issues are important. It's my deeply held belief that policy debate requires a plan text and that Affirmative teams should employ the USFG through its subsidiary agencies as actors, as directed by the resolution. My preferences are case debate, counterplan/disad debate, solvency mechanism debate, core K debates.

There is a place for every argument and story, but I'm not convinced that the following belong in policy debate: narratives, performance, personal advocacy, and/or projects. I'm open minded, and don't disinclude the aforementioned out of hand, but if it helps assist in your selection of judge strikes then I don't think I'm very well qualified to judge these debates.

I'm fine with core kritiks, including but not limited to cap/neolib, colonialism, gender, and security, but stray into the margins of philosophy, psychology, semiotics, sociology, etc in front of me at your peril.

I demand in-round decorum. Rudeness and ad hominem fallacy will NOT be tolerated. Debaters who militarize their identity to the point of excluding others will not do well in front of me.

I suppose I'm at odds with the community in that I favor of 'truth over tech', as you will need to win the technical side of debates with truthful arguments to gain my ballot. I can't in good faith hang a ballot on evidence that may be several years old and is no longer a factual representation of the status quo, which is particularly important on this years topic.

You should ask me for clarifications of this entire judge philosophy AND ask any other questions before the round. Absent your questions, I will assume that you have read and understood this philosophy. For example, if you have to ask me "do you take prep for flashing speeches" anytime after the start of the 1AC, well, just don't do that. If you ask me during 1AC CX "hey do you allow tag team CX" then expect your points to suffer. Always ask questions before the round begins. Always. This includes specific questions about my voting threshold etc for any particular arguments you wish to deploy that aren't discussed below.

CX:
I prefer you ask and answer your own questions. I require politeness during cross ex. Cross-ex isn't Crossfire. I flow CX and consider your answers to be binding in all forms. CX is the most important and underrated speech in policy debate.

K's and Framework:
We are participants in policy debate; hence, policy debate briefs -- similar to those that are written to assist theoretical policymakers in making critical policy decisions for the United States federal government -- provide the stasis point for our arguments, which requires scenario analyses geared toward solving real world problems and not simply rejecting or refusing to engage the topic.

That said, I'm fine with kritik debates as long as you articulate the finer points of your argument -- like alternative solvency -- in a way that makes sense without relying on debate jargon. For example, if you stand up in a 1NC and read an IR Fem shell but can't answer any questions about it in cross-ex, then I will not be impressed. If you are taking a theoretical or philosophical/critical approach to the topic, then I find it more engaging when you explain your position in clear, non-debate terms. It demonstrates a level of understanding about the criticism that extends well beyond the debate space, and I support that as an educational endeavor.

Similarly, with framework debates, highlight the advantages or disadvantages to competing methodologies in a clear concise way (no cloud/overview clash, use actual line-by-line) and it becomes a lot easier to vote on framework and/or separately evaluate aff and neg impacts. I'm better with discourse, ethical scholar, reps, and that kind of framework and less okay with meta, ontological, or psych frameworks, the latter mostly outside my studies.

Regurgitating debate jargon on complex academic topics that are (sometimes merely at best) tangential to substantive policy debates does not demonstrate to me that you grasp the underlying issues; instead, it tells me you primarily want to win debates and have selected an esoteric critical and/or theoretical position that other debaters aren't as familiar with in order to do so.

Topicality/Framework:
I've seen some fantastic, well organized T debates, and ones that make my head hurt. Go for T, I will vote on it, but keep the refutation and line-by-line clean. I don't have a clear default to competing interpretations or reasonability, so be persuasive. Explain why you meet, or why you're losing ground and exploding limits. I am not persuaded by arguments that disqualify T as a voter or attempt to impact turn T. It's a STOCK ISSUE and always a voter.

Counterplans:
Yes please!, but be invested in them. They need solvency advocates that compete with and test the Aff's solvency mechanism. Perms, likewise, test the competitive structures of the counterplan and are therefore legitimate. I'm not persuaded by severance theory because the Aff doesn't garner offense from the perm. Instead of reading severance, spend time actually addressing the competition between the plan and counterplan. Finally, I don't default to any theoretical objections either aff or neg on counterplans, but cheaty counterplans do exist. For example, is your process counterplan part of normal means? If so, then perm probably solves. Is States counterplan bad? Probably not, because devolution of powers is a thing. Have country x do the plan? Tricky ... there are a lot of countries and likely an unfair burden to the Aff to prepare for all of them. Etc, see below.

Theory:
On the one hand, I prefer not voting on theory; however, if the abuse is egregious, or the claim particularly compelling, then I will vote on it. I have a high threshold for "abusiveness" claims. On the other hand, I can easily be persuaded that Condo is bad if, for example, a 1NC reads six+ off, of which three are conditional counterplans/kritiks, and then the 2N has the audacity to whine about a 'blippy 2AC'. I have, in fact, voted Aff on Condo! Otherwise, no memorable RFD's on theory. While the Aff carries the burden of winning their case, the Neg has a similar burden to shape the discussion. It's my opinion we learn more by digging deeper into a smaller set of arguments rather than learning very little about many.

Speech and Prep time:
Set up an email chain before the round.

I run a speech and prep timer.

Cross-ex starts when the speech stops, unless either team asks for prep before CX. Prep starts immediately following CX ends unless the next speaker indicates they're ready and a speech has been sent. Otherwise, I stop prep when you have sent the speech.

I'm going to get on a soapbox here. If you use Gmail, then be sure the "Undo Send" feature is off. Then, during the time we're all waiting for the speech to arrive - unless you are the speaker setting up a stand for your laptop, taking a drink of water, etc - everyone in the room should be DOING NOTHING. No looking at your flows/backflowing, no typing on the computer. No separating out your 'card doc' from speech doc. There is a terrible amount of mental prep time stolen between starting CX after getting flows together and waiting for emails, etc.

Further, I support tournaments moving forward with "decision time" because these small minutes of delay really drag a tournament. At any tournament with decision time, I will begin the round promptly at the start time regardless of whether a team is present or not.

Speed:
Generally, I'm fine with speed. I flow on a laptop and type ~80wpm. I'm okay with most things speech-related provided I can audibly differentiate your tags, cards, cites, and analytic arguments. This is particularly true of overviews and 2NR/2AR (see below), but also of any complex argument like Theory or T. The speech act, for all our outside the round research and preparations, is the purpose of debate. Organizing your speech is vitally important to its persuasiveness.

As other paradigms I've recently read point out: 'cloud clash is not a thing' and 50% or more of your speech spent on an overview is just clumsy and unrefined. Do your work on the line-by-line answering the other team's arguments.

Furthermore, I come from a time in debate when people used numbering systems and "line by line" meant answering all the opponents arguments in order. If you use numbering systems, such as on 1NC case "1. No impact: ...", and the 2AC says "off 1NC 1", then I will be mightily impressed and your speaks will increase dramatically. It's so much easier to flow because the Synergy template auto numbers, which is a beautiful thing.

If I need you to speak more clearly, enunciate, slow down, or emphasize your tags, I will call out for it verbally in-round. You get one call out and after that your partner needs to be watching me to make sure I'm capturing what you want me to capture. It's up to you to crystallize your arguments in a meaningful, rhetorical way.

Lastly, judges aren't AI bots, so don't get mad at us when we don't flow every single word of your gale-force word salad overview. Yeah, I type fast, but if your Rate of Delivery is 300 and I'm at ~80wpm, do the math. Especially true if you aren't slowing down your tags and cites.

The RFD:
Now that you've read this far, in-round experiences account for more than my preconceived notions of debate as stated above, including K's, debate theory, framework, and the topic in general provided you make your case or arguments compelling and don't make me do any of the work on the flow for you.

All things considered, I will render a decision on any well-developed argument.

If you have questions about the RFD, please ask them politely.

29+ speaks:
you should definitely break and probably blew my mind somehow;
you did NOT exaggerate, powertag, under-highlight your evidence, including its warrants;
you made cogent link, internal link, and impact calculus arguments;
you properly refuted the nexus question(s) in the round;
you were really easy to flow, with great intonation, inflection, and cadence;
you focused on speaking coherently instead of technically;
you told a compelling story using well-honed rhetorical devices and true arguments, presented persuasively;
you were polite yet assertive in CX and during your speeches and answered/asked your own questions.

27.5-28.9 speaks:
you did a pretty good job answering all the arguments, but you may have dropped some stuff;
you were too fast or too unintelligible, and didn't adapt to me flowing you;
you didn't do as good a job analyzing arguments as you could have;
you exaggerated your evidence beyond what the author intended, or beyond the warrants you read;
you didn't persuade me, you were snarky or needed your partner's help in CX, etc.

25-27.5 speaks:
you did a poor job refuting arguments, or you dropped whole arguments;
you were unintelligible;
you didn't analyze the arguments or perform a cogent impact calculus;
you used ad hominem arguments or were aggressive either in your speech or CX;
you needed a lot of help answering/asking CX questions.

0-25 speaks
you did something I found egregiously offensive (racism, sexism, other bigotries);
you used fraudulent evidence;
you clipped cards;
you forfeit, or left the debate for any of your own personal reasons.

Pet peeves:
I really don't like when a team interferes with their opponents speech or prep by requesting evidence and/or asking for your flash drive back, or by whispering to your teammate so loudly I can't hear the speaker, or by throwing backpacks, laptop cords around, etc. If these are a problem, then your speaker points will assuredly suffer.

Good luck to all!