I need to be able to understand what you are saying, so if you are speaking at a rate faster than you can handle and I cannot understand you, it is just as bad as not saying anything and I cannot count those arguments. I also do not appreciate being told what I MUST do in any round. Use good arguments and logic, make sure you adequately address the points brought up by your opponent, and do your best to defend and uphold your own case. Use cross-ex to question, not to debate. Lastly, I like CIVIL debates. Know the difference between passion and unnecessary aggression.

I am a traditional Lincoln-Douglas judge. I competed for 4 years and have coached at 3 different schools. I started observing debate in 1987. I am also a licensed attorney.

I don't have a problem with speed, so long as your diction allows it. I understand philosophy and complex ideas. Delivery is important but I judge based on content first. Sometimes delivery can get in the way of your delivery of ideas. I will write my reasons for decision, of which one in L-D is always who showed me their side of the resolution and that their value is superior. I will use the criterion as the lenses with which to view the round/the measure by which we determine who wins the round.

In public forum, I look for argumentation and coverage of issues. Again that content is most important but delivery will have an impact too.

In both types of debate, I expect all to be professional and not rude to their opponents. I do not like snarky attitude. I expect some amount of evidence to support more than just your claims, but your ideas are the most important. Evidence gives support and credence to your ideas.

I am a former LD Debater, State Champion and National Competitor many moons ago.

I have coached and judged Public Forum and LD for the past 8 years. The last seven as Head Coach.

I am a flow judge. Speed is fine but know if it doesn’t hit my flow it didn’t happen. I will be pretty clear in my face and writing if you are losing me.

Overview: I will not do the work for you.

I require extending arguments and vetting sources. IE remember the XX card (I won’t) with out a paraphrase and impact is meaningless and a throw away.

Signpost. If you must jump around the flow, lead me there. I require more than cross apply the arguments. Why?

Narrative: This is an absolute requirement for me. Why do I prefer your offering on the resolution? I do not vote on net zero arguments. IE my evidence is better, more recent, yada yada without context. Making an argument neutral is not winning an argument. Basically, impact the TURN. I am not a technicality judge as I do not feel that is in the true spirit of Debate.

Public Forum:

I do not believe there is a paradigm in this area of debate. I expect logical links and impacts. I am open to where a debater will take the argument. That said, public forum is not Policy light. Use solvency, plans, counter plans, K’s and DisAds at your own risk. There is a reason Policy rounds are 90 minutes and PF only 45. If you can solve for poverty in 4 minutes from a few sentences of some evidence, I will personally take you to the U.N.

I do embrace/expect scope and link chains as it is logical and necessary to weigh any debate.

LD:

I will look to Framework. If you can not access impacts in the V/C clash I cannot vote for you. End of story. You cannot win an LD round with out winning the V/C clash. It is the bedrock of why we are even talking about the subject in LD and not PF or Policy. You have a unique obligation of ought or should while upholding a link to the real world.

I've been around the debate world for about 20 years, competing, coaching and judging, middle school, high school, and college tournaments. I have seen everything and can accommodate your style accordingly. My paradigm is pretty simple: have proper decorum to be respectful of everyone in the room.

Debate should be an educational and communicative activity. I look for debaters that can discuss the topic with intelligence and honesty. Any attempts to play games with my emotions or my sentiments will get very low marks on the ballot. Debate the topic and do so with integrity, this is my expectation.

Brian Geffre

Shanley High School

Fargo ND

This is my 13th year coaching competitive debate. I like to hear good debate. I want kids to improve and succeed in this activity. When everyone competes better, the whole activity gets better. You having a good round is my goal. If you are a new debater, this is all you need to know. For the more experienced students, read on.

Updates for 2023 season.

Ask me if you do not understand or want clarity on the below.

I won't vote for positions that are overtly harmful or advocate harm.

I am typically a tech judge, as I would like to not intervene in the round. However...

I will not accept claims that are not warranted. It is not my job to blindly accept your arguments when they are incomplete.

If you run phil arguments, I will accept your interpretation of the phil... to an extent. However, if the phil you are arguing is something way of base or you have a gross misunderstanding, I will not accept it. You should have a basic understanding of what the difference principle or categorical imperative or whatever means that actually resembles it. It's not exactly fair to your opponent that you don't know what you are actually running. It leads to too much confusion for your opponent, and I will simply default to your opponents weighing mechanism, or a standard debate weighing mechanism.

Basically, on a truth to tech scale, put me as a 2 for your phil and a 7 for everything else.

If you are going to run a K and do not have all the elements of a K, do not waste your time. I will exercise my roll of the ballot by voting for the trad debater. (If you do not understand the joke I put in the last sentence, that is your sign a K is a bad idea).

General notes

I vote on my flow, and dictate my decision based on the arguments that I am told to vote on in the round.

Asking what your opponent's evidence is does not win you any favors with me. Unless you have a good reason, something you haven't heard before, questioning the source, evidence violations, I find it detracts from the real value of this activity. Please don't do this unless it is integral to advancing your arguments. To be clear, I totally respect and endorse asking to see your opponent's evidence IF necessary. I do not favor or ever vote for arguments based on "my opponent doesn't have evidence" when my flow shows otherwise.

I like impacts. I like links.

You should articulate your arguments clearly because even if I know the content and literature, I will not do the work of filling in the gaps for you.

I prefer students advance arguments. Arguments can and should evolve.

Please tell me what I should write on my ballot. Good chance if you do, I will write it.

Don't yell at me please. I am a person. Ask yourself, would like me to yell at you for 45 minutes? No, you do not. Make a different choice. I will verbally tell you to knock it off.

I call evidence. Please have evidence in round according to the rules. There is a good chance, especially in D1, I am calling it. It doesn't mean you did something wrong, it most likely means there is something I want to confirm. This specifically comes up when you are paraphrasing your evidence, and your paraphrasing changes to the point it doesn't reflect the initial read. I am just trying to be a good judge for you.

PF debate

I am pretty traditional in my sense of what PF should be and look like. I believe in the concept a lay judge should be able to judge the round.

Just because the summary is 3 minutes, doesn't mean it is a 2nd rebuttal. A summary during that time would be cool.

I vote on offense.

LD debate

I strongly advise carrying your framework with you through the round. It weighs heavily for me in voting. Framework is one of the strongest voting areas for me in LD. If you lose it, I am not sure how you win the ballot. I literally vote on values.

Criterion clash isn't a "thing". Stop trying to make criterion clash happen. You clash values, you argue criterions.

I am well read on popular philosophies used in more traditional circuits of LD debate. I prefer phil. heavy rounds.

General:

Hi I’m Sami, I did debate for all four years of high school. I did Public Forum, DX, inform, and oratory. I stay fairly up to date on the topics and general global events. I’m a sophomore in college so I’m not super far out in terms of remembering how debate works. I’ll keep a good flow and base my decision off of that. Please just be courteous to your opponents, me and most importantly your partner (if you have one).

PF:

Off the clock road maps are fine, if anything I prefer them if your circuits allows them.

Speed: I can handle speed fairly well, however if I’m not flowing slow down. Just because I can handle the speed doesn’t mean you should act like you're in a policy round and go light speed, if you do it will be reflected in speaker points. If you're trying to spread your opponents, trust me I can tell and again will be reflected in lower speaker points. Don’t be abusive with speed, it's not fun for anyone involved.

Flowing: I am a flow judge, if you can win the flow you can win my ballet. Please sign post, I can’t weigh arguments if I don’t know where on the flow they belong. If you or your partner doesn’t extend arguments don’t bring it up again. If your opponent tries this, call them out, if they dropped something that they’re making a huge voting issue off of it, say it was a drop. If your in second summary, don't bring up new evidence or new arguments, this is abusive to your opponents and honestly just really messes up the flow. I won't flow it and won't hold your opponents to respond to it, so don't do it. Similar I expect second rebuttal to cover both the pro and con sides of the flow, a sign of a good debate (and second speaker in general) is being able to time manage both cases and cover necessary arguments. If you drop it in second rebuttal it's going to be very hard to have your summary speaker recover the point or argument on the flow.

Calling for Evidence: I won’t run prep time for either team when calling for cards, but please don’t steal prep time, if I see this I will start to run your prep. Also please be quick about this, don't spend 5 minutes finding a card, this should be ready to go. Cards should also be cut (if not it will be reflected in speaker points)!

Framework: If you have it you better pull it through if you want me to use it as a weighting mechanism! Don't mention it in constructive then again in FF. If no framework is provided I'll default to Cost Ben Analysis. If there is clash in framework give me reason in rebuttal and summary as to why I should prefer your FW.

General: Don’t be abusive with anything in the round, please remember that this is just a high school debate round. Also remember your opponents are people too and they have feelings. Be careful with what you say when leaving the room or in the general area, keep ranting on the bus.

LD:

I’m so sorry you have me as your judge. I’ve judged LD once but have seen a good handful of rounds. I know kinda what's going on but I’m by no means an expert. Stuff from PF will loosely translate for the more transferable skills.

Extemp:

Please don’t lie about sources, I’ll know. I’ll try to give you time signals. Do what you do. Like I mentioned before I stay up-to-date with the majority of topics, though I'm more knowledgeable on domestic issues. I won't hold any of my political beliefs against you, I want to hear your answer to the question. As long as you give me warrants, connect your sources to the question, give me good analysis and don't lie about your source, that's a perfect speech to me. So please don't stress about giving me a speech you think I'll like, give me your thoughts and answer to the question!

Speech:

Do you, take a breath and be confident. Have fun!

Theories/Ks:

I’ll listen to them but I probably won’t vote you up if you're using one, especially in PF. It’s my job to vote based on whoever affirms or negates the resolution better. Debate is educational, please come ready to debate a fair and educational round. Your topic may be super important but this is not the time or place and doesn’t allow for your opentent to learn or debate.

If you have any question about anything feel free to email me heggesamantha384@gmail.com. Good luck and have fun!

LD-

I have coached Public Forum and LD for the past 11 years. I am a "traditional" judge that makes my decision off of the value and criterion. For the value you need to show me why it matters. Simply stating "I value morality" and that is all- is not enough. You need to show how your criterion upholds/weighs that value.

Contentions- need to be won as well. Dropping an entire contention and hoping I forget about it is not a good strat. I like to hear contention level debate as well, but I default to framework debate more often.

Voting Issues- I need these. Make it easy for me to vote for you. Give places to vote and provide the reasoning why. As a judge I should not have to do any type of mental lifting to get myself where you want me to be.

I do not listen to K's, performance cases, counter plans, or DA's. Keep policy in policy. I want to hear a debate about what is "right". For Ks and performance cases- I have very limited exposure to them so I have no idea how to weigh them or how they work in a round. If you run that type of argument you will probably lose that argument on the flow because I do not have enough experience or knowledge of how they work in a debate round.

Flow- I like to think I keep an ok flow. I don't get authors- but I get signposts and warrants.

Speed- I can handle a quick pace. I do not like spreading- especially when you struggle with it. If you are clear and sign post as you go so I know exactly where you are on the flow. I can keep up. When it comes to value debate and criterion- slow down. Kant and Locke are not meant to be speed read. This may be the first time I am hearing this argument.

Flashing- Make it quick.

Oral Comments- I have been verbally attacked by assistant coaches in the room who did not agree with my decision. This has really turned me off from giving oral comments. However, I will address the debaters and only the debaters in the round. will describe how I interpreted the round and what it would have taken to win my ballot. I am not there to re-debate the round with you but I want to offer clarity to what i heard and what I felt was made important in the round.

Public Forum-

I have coached Public Forum for the past 11 years and believe anyone should be able to listen to the round and decide the winner.

I try to keep a solid flow, but I will not get warrant, authors, dates, if you go a lot of points. I want you to boil the debate down to 2-3 major voting issues that are supported in the round with evidence. Closing speeches need to be weighed and if you run framework, you better be utilizing it throughout the debate and not just in the final focus to why you win the round.

I will not listen to speed, (faster than you describing a great weekend debate round to your coach) k's, counter plans, or disadvantages. If you want to run those- policy is available.

Educational Background:

North Dakota State University (2014-16)- English Education

University of Jamestown (2020-2021) - Masters in Education- Curriculum and Instruction

Relevant Career Experience:

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2017-present)- West Fargo Sheyenne High School

Etiquette:

Make sure to be respectful in your round with your opponents and be polite.

Public Forum:

Within a PF debate, I am looking at main claims, evidence, and logic being used to help a side win in PF. Use your evidence to advance your point and clearly show how that advances your side of the resolution. I take a lot into account in rebuttals. Crossfire is important in my eyes, and I want your questions in crossfire to carry over to the connection and clash you make in your rebuttals. That is the time to really show why your side wins the debate based on your use of evidence and clash. Please do not run K's.

Policy:

I look for clear argumentation between the evidence being used and how effectively you are able to attack the opponent's points and strengthen your own. I am much more content with a slower speed. I am used to argumentation and the typical debate style and format of claim/warrant/impact. At the end of the day, I will be picking the side that wins based on their better use of evidence, clash, and argumentation style.

Lincoln-Douglas:

The value/criterion framework is especially important in this debate format. Evidence of course is important in this debate format but really make sure that you are clear about how your value and criterion fit with your contentions (claims) and evidence. It is a moral debate, and I am looking to see how you can make a more reasonable moral argument based on your chosen value/criterion that advance your side of the resolution.

Speed and Delivery:

Make sure not to spread and not to speak quickly. Make sure you are understandable and clear in what you say. Your delivery matters, and if you talk too quickly, I will not understand your logic and position. Your taglines and signposting are especially important because I need to be able to follow your points and your case to help me know why your side should win the round. Make sure your links and voters are clear in the round.

Disclosure:

I am not used to disclosing when the debate is finished as it is not standard practice in North Dakota. At the national tournament, if it is expected or required, I will do it. If it is not required, I will not disclose or answer questions. I will have my thoughts and feedback written in the ballot.

Cross Examination/Crossfire:

Make sure to answer questions and ask for points of clarification politely. Make sure to use this time to help you build your rebuttals. In addition to your cross examination and/or crossfire, the rebuttals are when I really start to look at who is making the better clash and arguments.

Contact: nkurtti@west-fargo.k12.nd.us

*** I may be wearing headphones or earplugs. I promise I am listening to you. Sometimes, I need to block out environmental sounds so I can focus on your words and arguments. If you speak normally, I will have no problem hearing you.

Big Questions - Hi there, I've been coaching and judging BQ for three years and I keep a decent flow. Definitions are SO important. In Big Question, the topic is very vague and broad; you need to clearly define your terms and the context in which you build your arguments. If you debate against your opponent's definition, give me a good reason to believe your definition instead. If the definitions are similar enough or don't impact the round, you do not have to debate them, focus on wherever the important clash is. For voting, I first look to framing (observations, definitions), then evaluate contention level based on framing. I look for logical consistency. I like examples. I like to know the credentials for your sources. I can handle a bit of speed, but I'd rather you stay conversational for a BQ debate - this isn't policy or circuit; you shouldn't be speed-reading evidence at me.

LD - The first thing I look at is value/criterion/framework. Framework is how you craft your moral world; your job is to establish your moral world and convince me we must affirm/negate on the basis of your world's moral system. The winning framework is how I judge the round. Example: If the winning framework tells me that absolute freedom is to be valued over human life, then an argument that Neg contributes to a high death toll holds little weight, because human life is not what we're trying to achieve. SO DON'T DROP THE FRAMEWORK DEBATE; pull it through, and explain to me how the contention level matches with and upholds your framework.

PF - I vote for the team that can best uphold their case through analysis and evidence. If you don't tell me WHY something matters, I don't care - give me impacts! Example: I don't care about terrorism unless you tell me why I should care about terrorism, otherwise you're just throwing out a buzz-word. If you provide framework, the arguments for your case AND arguments against your opponent's case should work in the world of your framework - don't contradict yourself.

First, thank you for choosing to participate in debate! It is a great activity to be involved in during your high school experience and I believe it sets everyone up for success post-graduation, whether it be through learning logic, critique, public speaking, or self-confidence.

A couple of things to note:

Please do not spread in rounds I judge. I find it difficult to understand. I will always prefer a slower, more coherent argument over an onslaught of information mumbled at light speed.

I place high value on respect in rounds I debate. I understand some topics can get emotionally charged for individuals, and I respect that. However, debate should remain professional at all times. I promise you it is not worth getting that upset over a debate topic. Speak to and treat your opponents the way you want to be spoken to and treated.

I definitely appreciate signposting, so if you would be so kind, please tell me how you are organizing your speech. It makes it easier for me to flow and track the arguments. In doing so, you also help one another so the debate (especially cross examination) can remain a debate and not just asking for clarification.

I do NOT flow during cross examination. I am (of course) listening but I am not writing down or considering arguments during this portion of the round. Make sure to bring arguments from cross examination into your summary and rebuttal speeches to impact the round. (This includes everything from clarification to legitimate discussion to 'gotcha' questions.)

LD:

My main voter in LD rounds as a default will tend to be the value clash. Show me why your value is more important, cannot exist without one another, why your case upholds the opponent's value, etc. It may not be the principal voter in a round, but 99.9% of the time it will be a factor in my RFD.

PF:

I allow (from the guidelines) generalized solutions but avoid policy jargon. Specific plans do not belong in Public Forum. That is policy debate.

Pronouns: He, Him

Experience: 11-year coach and 4-year competitor in both debate and speech. Significant experience in LD, PF, BQ, and WSD, but minimal experience in CX.

Style Preferences: Speed is usually fine as long as your enunciation can keep up. I will never vote on delivery, but strong delivery and clarity will only help your judge's understanding of your arguments. If I didn't hear it, it can't end up on my flow. You may also want to speak up a tiny bit (especially if masked), as I'm slightly hard-of-hearing.

Judging: Debate is about the clash of ideas. Tabula rasa is impossible, but I strive for coming into a round with absolutely zero preconceptions regarding what arguments hold water and what arguments do not. It's the role of the opponent to discredit the speaker's arguments (not my role); so, as long as the argument has a reasonable claim, data, and warrant, I'll accept the impacts of that claim until the opponent tells me not to.

The only time my preconceptions will come into play is with topicality/resolution analysis in instances where neither side gives me a reason to buy their interpretation of the topic. I need to vote on the resolution by the end of the round, which means that I need to have an interpretation of what the resolution means and the burdens of each side. If neither side makes an argument for what those burdens are and what interpretations are fair/unfair, then I have to use the burdens and interpretations that make most sense to me.

Because you don't know what my perceived burdens and interpretations for any given resolution are, this means that you would be wise to spend time on topicality/burdens in your speeches if it seems like you and your opponent aren't seeing eye to eye. If you're not clashing on interpretation, don't worry about it. Also, I love burden/topicality debates; if you want to make my life more fun, argue burdens.

Cross: For me, the CX or crossfire is for the benefit of the debaters, rather than the benefit of the judge. This means a few things: First, coming out "on top" or "looking better than the opponent" doesn't mean much to me. Second, I will add to my flow from cross if something comes up that clarifies something from the speeches, but I don't actively flow cross. Finally, any holes that you expose in cross should also be covered in your subsequent speeches if you really want it to be considered.

Things I like:

- Clear and consistent signposting

- Topicality/Rules/Burden Debate

- Clear impacts that stem from Claim-Data-Warrant structures.

- Kritiks/Theory - I like kritiks and off-the-wall arguments as long as their relevance to the ballot is made exceedingly clear. However, I come from and coach in a very traditional district, so I don't have much experience with judging these types of arguments. Give your best "...for Dummies" version of your kritik if you do go for one.

-Volume. I'm alitttttlehard of hearing, so I appreciate projection.

Things I DO NOT like:

• "I/my partner can bring that up in their next speech" -> Then never brings it up. If this happens, I don't hesitate to drop the contention that the question was related to (because part of the defense being used is to hide evidence that they have/don't have by being dishonest to the opposition/judge).
• Evidence battles over arbitrary things ("my card is 2020 when theirs is 2017!"). There's a time/place for calling evidence into question, but I need a clear reason why something like a year matters for a particular stat (like, a recently implemented policyshould probably have the most up-to-date info, but I don't need anup-to-the-secondarticle on something John Locke believed back in the primordial ooze).

-------------

Debate is incredibly fun. I'm having the most fun when the debaters in front of me are having fun too.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask before round as long as we're not running behind.

-Christian Novak

Background:

I did Public Forum debate for 3 years and Extemporaneous Speaking and Impromptu Speaking for 2 years at Mandan High School. I have qualified for World Schools Debate 2 years in a row at the National Competition. This will be my third year judging so I make sure I am fair and honest regarding my decisions in the round.

Public Forum:

As someone who loves PF-style debating, I am looking for good, solid connections between your points and the evidence you presented to me during the round. I also want to see rebuttals made about any arguments against your case. DON'T LET THE CONTENTIONS FALL!!! Use cross-examination for questions not to debate, and also answer the questions coherently and meaningfully. Don't just ask or answer a question to waste time.

Lincoln Douglas:

I am not very familiar with LD debate however, as long as you are concise with your arguments as well as with your value and criterion with solid coherent flows throughout the debate, then everything will go smoothly. I must be able to understand the flow of the debate in order for me to make an accurate judgment.

Debate Conduct:

Decorum matters to me, so be polite to your opponents. Some opponents aren't as strong as you are or aren't as skilled. I want an honest and fair debate. Make flowing easy for me; don't rush through your contentions otherwise, I won't know what you are talking about therefore, I won't know how the arguments should play out. If you speak fast, I won't be able to understand you either, and thus I might miss a valuable part of your case/argument against your opponent. I also expect a good amount of evidence to support your claims, whether that is in your main speech or in your rebuttals.

Speech:

Everything that was mentioned for debate can be applied to speech as well. I want to understand your flow of arguments in any of the categories that call for it. If you get me as a judge in one of the other categories bring the piece to life, and give it character, I want to feel as if I am in the piece itself. Facial expressions are everything in speech use them to your advantage to bring emotions to the surface.

FLOWING:

If typing, I flow the entire round in the RFD so that teams and coaches can see how the round went. I add my thoughts in italics, so that you can see my reactions to different arguments. I'll put my biggest RFD (and the value clash) at the top of my notes.

DECISION:

1 - Debaters should carefully consider how much evidence they use. Logic can only take you so far on its own. Evidence can only do so much on its own. The two need to balance.

2 - Impacts really matter. Make sure to clearly state your impacts.

PREFERENCES:

1 - Please do not spread. I understand that students do it to fit as much information in as possible, but you risk opponents and judges not being able to track everything you say. A good argument will be about argument quality, not word quantity.

2 - I recognize that I do have a bias against disrespectful debaters. It is very important to me that debaters maintain their composure and professionalism through the entire round. Competitors are future leaders and need to be able to set a good example for those around them.

3 - Meld values into your contentions and come back to that! Please balance the value clash with the contentions. I'll use the wining value to weigh both teams' contentions.

Hey there, I'm Nathan Rateau. I'm a Freshman Math Major at North Dakota State University. I debated from 7th through 12th grade and was a state runner-up PF debater. I also currently compete for NDSU's speech and debate team. I've been in Public Forum Debate for most of my debate career so I am more familiar with PF style and format than I am LD, but I have dabbled in LD before so I'm not completely clueless with it.

General comments:

I like respectful debates. Be kind to your opponents, don't talk over them or yell at them. In my opinion, kindness says a lot about your credibility as a debater, so being kind will be helpful to all of us (especially myself, because quite frankly I don't like shouting matches).

I also like fair and honest debates. Don't falsify evidence, take anything out of context, gaslight your opponents, or just straight up lie. Debate is an activity about finding the truth and lies just get in the way.

I try my best to go into a round with as a blank slate, I will not let my preconceived opinions on a topic get in the way of my judging. That being said, I will buy arguments that are more impactful, so please stress how and why the impact of your argument matters.

Finally, have fun. Debate is a great experience and I'm happy to help you enjoy it as much as you can.

PF Specific:

Not much here really, I will say that I am a numbers guy so I like impacts that I can wrap my head around mathematically. However, if you throw numbers at me with no context associated, they mean nothing to me.

LD:

Debate should be focused on value and criterion and how your contentions achieve this value. If the contention debate strays from the value/criterion debate, I'll have a hard time weighing it in the round.

About me: I debated at Aberdeen Central for 2 years the first being my freshman year where I competed in Public Forum and the latter being my senior year debating in Lincoln-Douglas where I was a national qualifier. With that being said, I have a good amount of knowledge in LD and not as much in PF so if you have me in PF I can try and keep up but just be concise on where you want things on the flow and where cards are being used

Speed/Signposting: If I had to put myself on a scale of speed I would say a 6.5/10. I can handle a bit of speed but if you go too fast I will get lost and lose a bunch of things on the flow. In terms of signposting, I am not great at writing down the names of cards but try as hard as I can so please just tell me a little bit about what your card says and make sure you're clear on where it is supposed to be on the flow.

Evidence: I am all for analytical arguments so you do not need a card for every single thing you're saying as long as your argument has rationality behind it. Thus, I am all for chain arguments, as long as the effects you are saying will happen, make sense, and you maintain the warrant behind the cause of the impacts. However, there is a fine line between analytics and nonsense. Make sure that if you are chaining arguments and impacts together, that you have some evidence backing up the impacts in the first place and then you can make your argument.

Prep Time: In general I am all for being lenient with prep time. Meaning that if you want to look at a card as long as it does not take over 10 seconds I will not start running prep time but if it starts taking too long, then yes I will start to run it. So just do not take forever looking at the card and you will be fine!

Voting: I want voters! Please tell me why you won the round and limit it to just a few issues anywhere from 2-4 is okay with me. When you explain your voters do not just say what your voter is and move on, explain what it is, where it has been impactful in the round, and explain why you are winning this issue!

Picky Things: In general I like to just go with the flow of the round but I do think that when you are pulling through evidence please tell me exactly what you are pulling through and why it matters do not just say "Extend Blahblah '23" try to explain what the card says and why it matters. You also do not need to spend forever on this. Just spend a few seconds refreshing me with what it means and why it matters.

LD: I am more of a traditionalist in how I view the round. I do not want Kritiks, this is South Dakota, not the national circuit so please use the traditional value/criterion framework with case impacts. In terms of framework, I am familiar with the basics and a few outliers just from my own experience debating LD as well as the fact that I am a History major with a Philosophy minor so I am familiar with philosophers who are a little out of the box. In general though, if you are running an abstract framework please make sure to explain what this framework is saying, how it is credible, and why I should even care about what this person is saying.

PF: As I said in the first section, I am not well-versed in PF so please take it slow. Do not just throw cards at me and expect me to know where you want me to put them. Just try and be organized in your speech by organizing your arguments and noting where you want me to write them down on the flow.

I was an Extemper for Aberdeen Central and I did Public Forum for 3 years. I have a very good understanding of a broad amount topics and can flow rather quickly but I do not do speed reading very well at all. I don't like straying too far away from the topic at hand but I am willing to hear you out if your topic and case are strong enough to sway me. Every round is a good round and make sure you are confident in everything you do because that's what this whole thing is about.