I am a parent judge and thus a lay judge. My child has been debating LD Varsity for the last year and before that she debated Novice LD and Middle School PF.

I will struggle to follow you if you speak very quickly and will ask you to slow down. I will look for well-warranted arguments and you should make sure to explain to me why you should win the debate.

I expect debaters to treat each other with courtesy and respect.

For disclosure, I prefer email at pcalamia@gmail.com

Debate good, me vote

I will vote off of anything as long as it makes sense

Please bear in mind that event records are public, events are geared to an educational audience, and have your name attached. Discriminatory, hateful, harmful and/or profane language is forbidden, and its use will result in you being removed. Tabroom might also lock or delete your Tabroom account.

In other words, be mature, and good people.

feel free to ask for more feedback later

I prefer speech pacing that is easily understood, as opposed to talking too fast, in an effort to get out as many arguments as possible. To that point, I value quality over quantity. Above all, I expect everyone to be respectful to each other.

I typically don't tell who won a debate during the qualification rounds, but happy to provide feedback upon request.

I'm a sophomore who has been doing LD for 2 years.

Main things that will be judged in this round will be based off argumentation and rhetoric

Rhetoric

-Stay respectful, but still make it clear that your side is the one that I should vote and show confidence that you are winning this debate

-Don't exactly make the other side look bad, per say, but make sure it's clear to me that it would be kind of ridiculous for me to vote for the other side (your arguments greatly trump and defeat theirs)

-Cross Examination: Instead of just clarifying questions, try to put some in that "poke holes" in your opponent's contention

Argumentation

-Clear and concise argumentation is greatly appreciated

-Clash: Show how your argumentation directly defeats theirs

-Dropped: Show what they didn't respond to and how that affects the debate as a whole

-Framework/Value: Point out how yours works better as a framework or whatever flaws theirs has

I generally will value tech. If something is unresponded to or doesn't fit the standards of LD, I will generally give that point to the person who made the argument. Truth still matters, obviously. Don't say anything obviously false, and you're good.

Im currently a Sophmore and have been been competing in LD for two years in high school and also competed in some middle school LD. I’m likely debating the same topic you are, so I should understand all your arguments. I also do DI and POI for speech.

Im a flow judge, but that doesnt mean you should run a million things and hope one sticks, ill give more weight to clear, well developed arguments

Phil debate is my favorite ever. LD is supposed to be about philosophy so good value criterion debate is important to me. I myself am guilty of collapsing util, so im not going to hold that against you but even under util i expect clear weighing under that framework.

I will vote for most things, but it’s novice so don’t run anything that weird. I’m fine with speed, but once again, it’s novice, don’t spread (even though i can flow it, its not fair to your opponents).

David "Will" Davis

This is my first year of coaching at Mercer Island. 42 years ago I debated at Nationals (they called it NFL back then) and Extemp. Now I am a retired trial attorney with more than 50 civil jury trials under my belt.

1) I am not yet totally familiar with Washington debate. So, let me know if you think I am doing something wrong.

2) Don't talk fast. I don't like spread debate. I don't like watching someone gasping for breath every ten seconds just so he can cram in one more argument. Slow down. Speak clearly and persuasively. If I put down my pen and fold my arms--- take that as a hint that you should slow down. Of course, you have to be looking up to see me. Eye contact!

2) REPEAT. Don't talk fast. If your affirmative is set for spread, then slow down and cut out a contention or two, and go at a reasonable speed. Your outcome and speaker points will suffer if you start off fast. If you spread, and the other side does not, I will not reward you for "dropped" points.

3) I am not a big fan of outrageous arguments such as nuke war or world hunger as a result of school prayer. Keep it real. We are not going extinct because of social security payments to Puerto Rico. Argue something a reasonable person would believe.

4) Imagine that you are chosen by your school to present a plan to the state legislators for additional funding for debate. In your speech in front of the senators would you spread? Would you claim that the economy would collapse if we don't fund debate. KEEP it real.

5) Have some fun.

Quality over quantity.

1. Speak clearly, do not speed. If you are used to speeding then learn judge adaptation. If I can't get your arguments down and understand what you are saying then you have lost the round. In other words, don't spread.
2. Also don't yell at me. I can hear you just fine.
3. Bonus points if you actually adjust your speed and tone appropriately to your speech.

Evidence

I like evidence, empirical is good, but logical and reasonable is also important. Don't be afraid to evaluate sources, not all sources are created equally. Don't ever have a hanging contention. Don't try to lawyer me with bizarre definitions and loopholes. Use reasonable and common definitions. Don't spend more time on the rules of debate (especially if you are trying to convince me how to vote) than on the actual arguments in the debate itself.

Human life, empathy and giving a preference to those marginalized are things I value.

Organization

I like a well thought out/planned case that makes sense logically - I like to be able to connect the dots. Circle back to your contentions. Be sure you hit your impact and magnitude. Tie everything to your value.

I appreciate civility, and reasonably paced speech rather than "speed talking" for debates.

Hey! I'm Kristen East, I debated Policy in high school, judged on-and-off while in college, and have been working as an assistant coach for Gig Harbor High School for the past 5 years. My email is eastkristen@gmail.com

I often use quiet fidgets during speeches and may color during crossfire; these are strategies that I've found help me to pay attention and keep my mind from wandering during rounds. If I'm distracting you at any point, then please politely ask and I'll switch to a different strategy.

Public Forum: I technically did public forum in middle school, so I guess that's relevant? I've also watched a lot of public forum rounds and judged it on and off over the years. I tend to be less formal than some public forum judges. I care more about competitors being considerate of others and having fun than I do about pleasantries and formalities. Please don't be "fake nice" to each other. That being said, I mean don't be offensive (i.e. making arguments based on racial or cultural stereotypes, or making personal ad hominem attacks).

-The biggest thing to know is that I am a "flow judge." I will be flowing/taking notes for each speech, will be writing down rebuttals next to the argument they are addressing, and will draw arrows for argument extensions. What this means for you is that you should be clear about which contention you are talking about, and also that I will be looking for consistency between partners' speeches. There should be continuity of arguments throughout the round. That does NOT mean your last speech needs to have the same arguments as your first speech, but all arguments in your last speech should have been introduced in one of your team's 4-minute speeches. I also will not consider brand-new arguments in any of the 2-minute speeches.

-I like rounds with clash, where each team explains how their arguments interact with the other team's arguments. If you're citing evidence, make sure to mention the warrant (the author's reasoning or statistics that support your claim). Please make it clear during your speeches when you are about to directly quote a source (i.e. saying "in 2019 Santa Claus wrote for the North Pole Times that...") and when you stop quoting them. You don't need evidence to make an argument, and well-reasoned analytics (arguments without an external source) can be just as powerful.

- I will decide the round based on impacts. Please compare your impacts to your opponent's (timeframe, probability, magnitude, etc.). If no one tells me otherwise, I'll probably default util when evaluating impacts. Be specific about how your impact is connected to the resolution, and who/what the impact will affect. Tell me the story of the impact (i.e. If we stop sanctions on Venezuela, then their economy will recover and then xyz people's lives will be saved because they won't die of starvation).

Parli: I've never judged or watched a parli round before. I've heard it has some similarities to policy, which I do have a background in, so feel free to read my policy paradigm to see if that's relevant. I'm excited to judge parli! From what I've heard, it should be fun!

Policy and LD paradigms are below.

Debate Style: I'm good with speed, just start out slow so I can get used to your voice. If you aren't clear, I'll yell at you to be clear. Start out a little slower on tags, especially for Ks and theory. Please don't mumble the text. If the text is completely unintelligible, I'll yell clear, and if you don't clear it up, then I'll count it as an analytic rather than a card. It's a pet peeve of mine when people cut cards repeatedly (i.e. cut the card here, cut the card here). PLEASE, please put theory arguments as a new off (i.e. Framework on a K, Condo bad, etc.). A tag should be a complete idea with a warrant. One word ("extinction" "Solves") does not count as a tag or an argument. I don't care about tag-teaming in CX, but it might influence speaker points (i.e. if one partner is being rude, or one never answers a question). Be nice to each other. I will vote you down if you're a complete jerk (threaten physical violence, harass someone, etc.). I am somewhat sensitive to how mental health, suicide, rape and disabilities are discussed and expect such sensitive topics to be approached with appropriate respect and care to wording and research.

Arguments: There are a few arguments I just dislike (for rational and irrational reasons) so just don't run them in front of me. If you don't know what these args are, you're probably fine. Basically, don't run anything offensive. No racism good, no death good (including Spark DA or Malthus/overpopulation arguments). I also hate Nietzsche, or nihilism in general. Also, arguments that seem stupid like time cube, or the gregorian time K, or reptiles are running the earth or some crap like that is prolly not gonna fly. I'm not gonna take nitpicky plan flaw arguments like "USfg not USFG" seriously. I will not vote for disclosure theory unless someone flat out lies about disclosure. Like they tell you they will run a case and then don't run it. Arguments I'll evaluate but don't love/am probably biased against but will evaluate include: PICs, Delay CPs, ASPEC Topicality, kritical-based RVIs on T, Performance Affs.

Defaults: I'm a default policymaker but am open to other frameworks. I do consider Framework to be theory, which means 1) put it on it's own flow and 2) arguments about like, fairness and ground and other standards are legit responses. I have a strong preference for frameworks that have a clear weighing mechanism for both sides. I default competing interpretations on T. I was a little bit of a T/theory hack as a debater, so I have a lower threshold on theory than a lot of judges. What that means is that I'll vote on potential abuse, or small/wanky theory (like severance perm theory) IF it's argued well. Theory needs real voters, standards and analysis and warrants just like any other argument. If you're going for theory, go all out in your last speech. It should be 4 minutes of your 2NR, or all of your 2AR.

Note on Performance Ks: I have a high threshold on performance arguments. If you're doing a performance, you have to actually be good at performing, keep up the performance throughout the round, and have a way for the other team to compete/participate in the performance. I prefer for performance Ks to be specific to the current resolution, or in some cases, based on language or something that happened in this round.

Constructive speeches: Clash is awesome. Signposting will help me flow better. Label args by topic not by author because I'm prolly not gonna catch every author.

Rebuttals: In my opinion, the point of rebuttals is to narrow the debate down to fewer arguments and add analysis to those arguments. This applies to aff and neg. Both sides should be choosing strategic arguments and focusing on "live" arguments (Don't waste your time on args the other team dropped in their last speech, unless it's like an RVI or something). Both sides should watch being "spread out" in the 2nr and 2ar.

Note about LD: Being a policy judge doesn’t mean I love policy arguments in debate. In LD, you don’t really have the time to develop a “plan” properly and I probably lean towards the “no plans” mindset. I expect a DA to have all the requisite parts (uniqueness, link, impact). I’m okay with Ks, and theory. To help me flow, please number and/or label arguments and contentions, and signal when you are done reading a piece of evidence (either with a change of voice tone or by saying “next” or a brief pause. That being said, speed is not a problem for me. If you follow the above suggestions, and maybe slow a little on theory and framework, you can go as fast as you’re comfortable with. If I’m having trouble flowing you I’ll say “clear.” No flex prep. Sitting during CX is fine. I love a good framework debate, but make sure you explain why framework wins you the round, or else, what's the point? If framework isn't going to win you the round or change how I evaluate impacts in the round, then don't put it in rebuttals.

I like judging. This is what I do for fun. You know, do a good job. Learn, live, laugh, love.

I have debated LD for a year.

I prefer a medium pace, please do not spread (speed read). Please speak loudly and clearly.

I really like good strong framework and this is what I usually will vote on.

Please stay respectful and refer to your opponent in neutral pronouns (or just refer to them as 'your opponent').

I don't like and will not vote on arguments about extinction if there is no clear timeframe or if you just claim that extinction is simply "happening currently".

Overall just have fun! :)

Hi!

PF

Do whatever, Flow judge. perception probably matters more. If you want a prog round- read the LD paradigm below

LD

If I'm judging you then you are probably a novice debater,

Ethos=Logos>Pathos

For Progressive

Quick Prefs (My confidence in my ability to judge these rounds)

Larp-1

Kant-1

T/Theory-1

K (cap, setcol, baudy etc.)- 1

Pure Phil (Heidegger, Intuitions etc.) -2

Tricks (warranted) -2

There's nothing I won't listen to but if I don't understand it, it's not going to be good for you.

Send cases if you are toc/natcirc-spreading and be clear when spreading- I can flow any speed just be clear

I will NOT vote for anything that says vote for [x] debater because they are [y] marginalized/minority population e.g. vote aff because I am Chinese

Reading Skep, Determinism, or Indexicals against a novice/trad debator will result in high speaks and me being in a good mood.

From William Trinh:

"I have massive respect for all the work people do for debates. I am tired of seeing teams not put their best foot forward because of judge dogmatism. Thus, I promise you I will do the best of my ability to evaluate every argument before me. This paradigm is more so to let you know what my understanding of arguments may be or what predispositions I might have, but I promise I will do my best to check them at the door. If your best 2AR is on trivialism, do it (just highlight the Kabay 08 card more smh)."

How many times I've sat: I

For Trad/Lay:

Things I look for

1. Clash (For more info look at Taite Kirkpatricks Paradigm
2. Understanding of what you are reading (Nobody wants a first-time novice reading Setcol)
3. Strategy (If you are clearly losing on an advantage then just kick out, don't try and win a losing battle)

PLEASE SIGNPOST AND BE ORGANIZED

Feel free to ask any question about my paradigm before the round starts-if you don't know what it is: it probably doesn't apply to you

Appeals to 'think of your children' or 'do it for the/your children' = +.5 speaker points

30 speaks

-if you tell me a joke that makes me laugh-if it doesn't then your speaks are capped at 29

-find a smart way to include bears (includes pandas), penguins, or any Winnie the Pooh character

-30 spksth but only if there's a good warrant

25>

-You are morally repugnant in round (-isms, condescending, misogynistic, etc.)

-your evidence is 1] not cut correctly, 2]not cited correctly, 3] is fake, 4] miscut

I will check so don't try

-card clipping

If you have any questions feel free to ask. Post Round me all you want.

Other than that, Good Luck Have Fun.

Parent Judge

Please go slow (slightly above conversational speech is good) and articulate

Please don’t run or Ks

Be respectful to everyone

I'm a parent judge with IT background. I do not have a lot of judging experience. I wouldn't mind if you treat me as a brand new judge.

I've watched many LD debate rounds so have some level of understanding about debate but not a ton. You may assume I know nothing.

I'll flow the round. Email chain goes to kurthuang@outlook.com. Highlights on your doc will help.

Don't spread as I can't follow. When I can't follow, I won't stop you but will rely on your doc to get as much as I can (no promise).

I vote for the debater that best upholds his/her/their side of the resolution through effective analysis, evidence, delivery, reasoning and refutation.

Please respect your opponents, listen and respond accordingly.

Enjoy debating!

I am a lay/parent judge and this is my first speech tournament. Please do not spread as I may have difficulty understanding you.

2023-2024: Engage me with your thoughts, arguments, questions, and personality. I want you to leave an impression, to know you're passionate about the topic at hand. Although I'm judging, remember you have the floor, it is your space...OWN IT.

Be respecful to your competitor during this process. Speed doesn't bother me as long as you can articulate your points well.

A great debater is like a skilled artisan, meticulously crafting compelling arguments and presenting them with eloquence and finesse. They possess a deep understanding of the subject matter.

Great debaters are not just assertive; they are active listeners, attuned to the nuances of their opponents' arguments, ready to counter with the precision. Their words carry weight, like a seasoned poet who weaves verses that resonate with both reason and emotion.

Flexibility is their forte, adapting to the shifting tides of discourse with the agility of a seasoned dancer. They navigate the complexities of the debate floor with the strategic acumen of a grandmaster playing a chess match, always thinking several moves ahead.

What sets a great debater apart is not just their ability to argue persuasively but their commitment to intellectual integrity with confidence.

In essence, a great debater is a multifaceted performer. They elevate the debate from a mere exchange of words to a captivating performance, leaving a lasting impression on both the audience and their intellectual adversaries.

I am a parent judge and have been judging for over a year. In the past year I've judged at 6 tournaments including Berkeley, Bronx and Apple Valley

I will struggle to follow you if you speak very quickly and will ask you to slow down. I will look for well-waranted arguments and you should make sure to explain to me why you should win the debate.

I expect debaters to treat each other with courtesy and respect.

Parent lay judge. Please talk slowly.

I am a parent judge. Please go slow as english is not my first language. I value good speaking, communication, and questioning during cross examination. In arguments I like to see good evidence. I will try to be tab when weighing the majority of arguments but do keep in mind I may not be as likely to vote for certain arguments unless you explain them very very well (friv theory for instance - I'm tab when it makes sense to me).

If you are sharing documents, please only use email. Please send to: liying9371@gmail.com

Hello. I am a lay judge.

Please go slower and explain your arguments

be respectful to your opponent and judges

do not run progressive arguments (T,K,etc.)

Sophomore debater at Newport. Run whatever you want but if it's progressive please explain the argument well. You can talk at a faster than conversational pace but if you want to spread please set up a email chain(andyluoyx@gmail.com) or speechdrop. Tech>truth. Focus on the arguments that actually matter, also please weigh and/or give voters.

1-LARP/Trad

2-Theory

3-common K's like set col and cap

4-Tricks(extra speaks cuz funny but idk how ill evaluate them)

5-Phil/weird K's(please explain really well) and talk slow

If you ever get to see this paradigm it's prob going to be an out round but in prelim rounds I'll give between 27-30 speaks(extra speaks if you do something interesting/funny)

I'm proud to say I've never sat(even though I've only judged 2 rounds and they were both 2-1s lol)

Don't be sexist/racist/ableist etc. or else it'll be an auto L20

The most important thing is to remember to have fun and treat your opponent with respect. Good luck!

Parent lay judge, please speak clearly and not too fast if possible

My History: I competed in LD, Impromptu, and OO for four years at Anacortes High School (2008 - 2012) I have been an LD / IE Judge since then (11 years) and I am now the Assistant Debate Coach.

Email for chains:emcintyreroth@gmail.com

For All Events: This is paramount to me - be respectful of your opponent. I will take away speaker points if you speak down to, act rude during rounds, or mock your opponent. There is a fine line between being sassy/confident and being disrespectful - at your age you should know the difference. Speech & Debate should be accessible for everyone, and not everyone is competing at the same level yet. Treat them respectfully regardless. For some people, this may be their first time competing. It costs nothing to be kind - in fact it is the bare minimum.

Discrimination of any kind will not be tolerated in any of my rounds. I will contact your coach, I will contact TAB.

Side Note: If you have observers / are an observer in any of my rounds, and I see you making faces at your friends, whispering, laughing at someone presenting (unless HI, DUO, or intentionally humorous speeches), using your phone while someone is presenting, or being generally disruptive and rude, I will ask you to leave as soon as the speech is over.

If you are uncomfortable with observers in the round, let me know. I will always ask before a round begins.

For LD:

Come prepared. I do not want to wait 10-15 minutes for you to pre-flow, rework your case, etc. Taking a moment to share docs with those in the room is one thing, or jot down last minute notes. However, my time, your opponent's time, and the time of the competitors following you is also valuable. We all know how easily tournaments get pushed behind.

I value clarity in rounds. I can follow speed, I do not like super spreading. I am a flow-judge, If I can't understand you, I will stop flowing. Quality > Quantity.

Know your evidence and your arguments. It is clear to me when you are presenting evidence but have no understanding of the material.

I will vote on Kritiks if they are clearly warranted, well explained, and made accessible to your opponents. (I am admittedly not a fan of K's but will vote on them.) I don't particularly like the whole "debating debate thing".

I am absolutely a more traditional judge. That being said - if you can convince me to, I will vote on almost anything. Be clear on WHY I should vote for you however. Clearly show me the impacts. Why something is warranted. Clear, concise voters.

I like to see clash in a round. Strong V/C. Solid Framework and how your case ties it back to your V/VC. Clear Impacts. Links. Definitions.

All that being said - congratulations on making it to state this year. You’ve all worked so hard to be here this weekend, so bring what you got, and lay it all out on the table. You have a very strong pool of competitors here. Good luck to you all!

I value clarity of argument. Be civil. Be clear. I prefer you don't go to fast; otherwise, I may miss things in my flow. Topicality is important, although creative cases are always interesting to hear.

TLDR: Substance first. Depth over Breadth. Speed mostly fine (Yes Clarity still matters -_-). K's n stuff fine. Not the biggest fan of T. Be organized.

I don't usually count flashing as prep unless it becomes a problem. Only ever had a problem in Policy and (funnily enough) Pufo rounds.

Email: graythesun@gmail.com

Pronouns: He/Him

Prep:

All Prep is running prep. I'm not setting a timer, I'm using a stopwatch for all prep. Watch your own time.

Flex-Prep is valid. As in, asking questions during Prep time. I prefer if Flex-prep is more used for clarifying arguments rather then finding tricky questions... you had your chance in CX.

Framework:

As a judge I really like framework, it tends to make for an easier decision. I.E. some arguments that are argued don't really fit within frameworks in round, and I can just drop them. If there are competing frameworks I expect you to debate them, and end up with one superseding the other. That being said... if you have the same or similar frameworks, unless you're gonna describe what the nuanced difference is and how that changes the valuation in round, it's almost better to just agree that the Fw's are the same.

Contention level:

I definitely prefer depth of argumentation over breadth, knowing your evidence is key to educating yourself on the topic. I will always buy a warrant from your evidence that's well explained and utilized over one that isn't. A lot of responses to arguments made against a card can be found within the card itself. This doesn't mean you should just re-read the card. This does not mean that you can reread your card or tagline and be good.

**Judging Paradigm for Lincoln-Douglas Debate**

Welcome to the round! As a judge in Lincoln-Douglas Debate, I approach the evaluation of arguments with a focus on values and philosophical principles. Here are some key aspects to keep in mind:

1. **Value-Centered Debate:**
- I expect debaters to engage in a clash of values and ethical principles rather than relying heavily on plans or counter-plans.
- Clearly articulate and defend the value that underlies your case, and explain how it should be prioritized in the round.

2. **Framework:**
- Present a clear framework that guides the round. Explain how the values and criteria should be weighed and why they are most relevant in determining the winner.
- The framework should serve as a lens through which all contentions and impacts are analyzed.

3. **Contentions:**
- Develop well-reasoned contentions that directly relate to the established framework.
- Provide solid reasoning and evidence to support your contentions, and show how they contribute to the overall value clash.

4. **Clash:**
- Engage with your opponent's arguments, demonstrating a thorough understanding of their position.
- Highlight the points of clash between your case and your opponent's, and explain why your position is superior within the established framework.

5. **Resolution Analysis:**
- Clearly connect your arguments to the resolution. Demonstrate how your position upholds or challenges the resolution, and why that matters in the context of the round.

6. **Quality of Analysis:**
- I value depth over breadth. Provide in-depth analysis and warranting for key arguments rather than presenting a wide array of superficial points.
- Logical reasoning and the ability to link evidence to the overall framework are essential.

7. **Speaker Etiquette:**
- Be respectful and professional throughout the round. Avoid personal attacks and focus on the merits of the arguments presented.

8. **Flexibility:**
- While I appreciate a well-prepared case, the ability to adapt to your opponent's arguments and effectively respond in crossfire is crucial.

Remember, the round is not just about presenting arguments but also about persuading me that your ethical framework is the most compelling. Good luck, and I look forward to a thoughtful and engaging debate!

Hello! :) My name is Sarah (she/her) and this is my second year in debate (LD).

sarahploopy67@gmail.com please send me your case! (and your opponent if they'd like it as well)

1. DON'T just dump a bunch of cards with little to no reasoning at light speed. PLEASE make sure to elaborate upon your points and make sure that your opponent and I can understand all of your arguments. (A SMIDGE of speed is fine, just don't intentionally go fast y'know?)
2. Similarly to this ^ Huge pet peeve is throwing in ten random arguments just to overwhelm your opponent (extreme example) and acting like it's a big deal that your opponent dropped a few points. Flesh out some solid points and make it easy for everybody to follow. If you make an incoherent waffle-y argument you're not gonna win lol
3. I really appreciate a basic road map (ie "I will be defending my case, going over my opponent's case, then giving voters)
4. DON'T go over time! Please time yourself and keep yourself within the given time constraints. If you need a reminder as to how long your speech is, no worries my memory sucks too lolol- just let me know.
5. LD is all about supporting your value around the topic and refuting your opponent's arguments. If I can tell you are using highly biased or made-up evidence, I will take it into consideration when I cast the RFD
6. I promise I will listen to anything, I just need you to explain it clearly and in depth if it's a more obscure topic so that everybody in the room understands what you are talking about.
7. PLEASE be respectful towards your opponent. No snarky comments or intentional weird looks.
8. This might seem obvious, but PLEASE don't look stuff up online during round. Feel free to Ctrl + F your document, but like if you don't have a source prepared...I'm sorry for your loss.
9. Another obvious one, but no homophobia, transphobia, racism, xenophobia, etc.

(tricks are really fun and might make my day)

Speakers (just for fun dw it doesn't actually matter):

+1 if you make a My Little Pony reference

+0.5 if you quote Red Rising

+1 if you make me react in some way

+0.5 if you love The Owl House

+1 if you listen to Oneheart or actively listen to any type of lofi (I'm talking a whole personal playlist, looking for other super fans)

+2 if your favorite movie is also Coraline (you have good taste!)

Please let me know if you have any questions after round, I'll be happy to answer them.

Former high school speech/debate competitor. Fifth year coaching speech/debate. It’s really important for me that you are clear, enunciate carefully and don’t speak so fast I can’t track your points. Sign posting is essential. Show me why you won your case. Focusing on impacts is also important to me.

Articulate your points clearly and do weighing. I like clash and if both sides have evidence saying opposite things, tell me why I should prefer your evidence. Do not make new arguments if you’ve already dropped a point, and if you don’t extend your own arguments I will count it as dropped.

• Speak slower.
• Explain your points clear and cite sources
• Use simpler points and explain how you are going to approach siding your points

I have been a debater that is going on my 2nd year. As a judge, I ask for you to be respectful and don't talk beyond fast so I can keep up, if I can't flow I can't judge. I am very into value and criterion (framework) debates and in fact that debate will mostly sway my choice in a winner as value and criterion are the basis of your entire argument. Regardless of that, I always go with what is the more logical argument, and/or whichever argument has more points that have no rebuttal.