jonathanadlerismyname@gmail.com

*FOR LOCAL NOVICE TOURNAMENT*

LD - I need the negative debater to respond to aff constructive in their first speech. Failing to do this will almost definitely result in a loss.

On the aff, just be conscious of the times in your 2nd and 3rd speeches. In your 3rd speech, you probably shouldn’t be hitting on everything that was said in the debate.

PF - be good on the flow and don’t be offensive

Both- I will give you good speaker points for the following things: impactful endings, jokes, personality, efficiency. Lots of other ways to get great scores, but without one of those things, a 30 is hard to attain

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PF

Collapse as much as possible

KVIs

Strong links and warrants > ludicrous impact

Not a progressive event

LD

Minimize spreading for speaks and to maximize my ability to understand your arguments

Topic knowledge is key. Looking like a fool in cross or off the doc will injure your speaks a ton

Collapse on the turn and win it, +1 speak

Much closer to truth on the tech/truth spectrum that most circuit judges, so just be reasonable

Defense is sticky

I'm sympathetic to traditional theory shells, but I won't hack for them. I will not vote them down because they're not formatted a certain way. If there's an allegation of abuse and that abuse is implicated, I'll treat it as a viable shell.

1) T/Theory/Phil

2/3) LARP (faster you spread, lower you should pref me)

4) POMO K's, Resolutional K's

5) Identity K's

Strike me) Trix

General Debate Info: Students may speak as fast or slow as they would like, as long as the event's time limits are followed.

Debate is challenging, so I applaud all students who participate! Debaters must be respectful to their peers at all times, personal insults and discriminatory remarks of any kind are NOT to be tolerated; you are here to criticize their evidence and arguments, not the debaters themselves. Debaters must use a mature, eloquent, and patient tone of voice; yelling and shouting do not make you the better debater. There is a difference between arguing and debating, please perform the latter.

I hold clash and rebuttal at very high importance; debaters can be prepared with all the evidence they'd like, but they will never really know what questions/holes their competitors will bring up, and the way they respond to that truly displays the skill of a debater.

Finally, tech over truth.

Congressional (House/Senate) Info: As an event with shorter speeches compared to the others, clash holds a large part in the ranking decision. Solid evidence, quick thinking, and passion for the Aff/Neg are also big factors in the rankings. Also, I realize and sympathize with how challenging and important PO'ing can be, so I have no issue ranking the PO 1st for that round if they deserve it! Congress is about memorability, so the competitors that I remember for their skill, even after they've left the room, will be highly ranked.

Bears. Beets. Battle Star Galactica.

Hi! Quick introduction: I'm a varsity LD debater in Las Vegas, ranked 2nd in the state. I've being doing debate for a little over a year now and I have few things I will look for in debates:

General Background: I work full-time in tech as a software engineer. In my spare time, I have coached policy debate at Lowell in San Francisco since 2018.

Framework:

Don't forget about your value! Framework debates don't always determine who wins the round, but they do play a major role and I will always be looking for framework arguments. LD is distinctive because of its morality centric nature, so don't forget to lean into some moral arguments!

Flow:

I will be flowing the round and keeping track of dropped arguments. If you don't attack an argument in your rebuttal, you CANNOT bring it up later, that argument has already been dropped. You can't make new arguments in your final rebuttal, and no new evidence! Use your final rebuttal to convince me that you've won the round based off of what has been said in the round. Stick to proper debate rules and procedures please :)

Speaking:

Speaking is important. If I cannot understand your arguments, then I can't flow them. Having confidence and putting passion into your speeches will be factored into speaking points.

Overall, just stick to the rules, don't drop arguments, and don't be profane or immature :D

Also, here are a few quick notes!

Lay Debate: If we are in a primarily lay setting (really GDSA), I'll evaluate the debate as a lay judge unless both teams ask for a fast debate. Some degree of technical evaluation is inevitable, but please don't spread. In a split setting, please adapt to the most lay judge in your speed and explanation. I won't penalize you for making debate accessible.

(if you have made it to the end of this paradigm, please note that I was seven years old in 2018 and have not coached nor worked as a software engineer. :P)

he/him

Debated two years of Public Forum at Coral Academy

Add me to the email chain: kenbhardwaj2@gmail.com

PARADIGM

Novices: Be good on the flow and don't be offensive. I give out good speaks for the following things: impactful endings, jokes, personality, efficiency. There are other ways to get good speaks, but without one of those, a 30 is hard to attain.

TLDR: As long as you're not being racist, sexist, homophobic, Tech > Truth. I like weighing. 50/50 chance I adapt on a lay panel. I evaluate the round based on the highest layer of offense extended into FF, and who links into that best.

Pref Sheet:

1 — Tech Substance

2 — Theory

3 — Stock K's

4 — T, Identity K's

5 — Tricks

Content Warnings:

I agree with Gabe Rusk.

Prep Time:

Track your own time, I'm too lazy. I trust you won't lie to me. Flex prep is fine.

Evidence:

Make the evidence exchange quick. If there's an email chain for cards make sure to include me on it. I may take a peek at your cards, but I won't do anything about it unless the other team calls it out. If you get caught paraphrasing in an extreme manner, I'll dock speaks accordingly. Engaging with evidence is important! I encourage all debaters to ask for evidence that they think is fishy, and not to take a warrant at face value because there was a last name and publication attached to it.

Speeches:

Please signpost so I know what to write down on my flow, and make sure to speak at a comprehensible speed. If I think you're going too fast I'll let you know. You can bypass this by sending me a speech doc beforehand. I stop flowing 7 seconds over time. This does mean that you can technically have an extra 7 seconds to speak, but use it sparingly; I'll probably dock your speaks a bit.

Cross:
Nothing said in cross goes on my flow unless it's brought forward into subsequent speeches. Be assertive, but not overly aggressive. A good cross will benefit your speaks, even if you lose the round overall. If everyone is in agreement we can skip grand for a minute of extra prep. Open cross is fine if that's your preference, just make sure to ask the other team first.

Rebuttal:

I'm fine with off-time roadmaps, if you don't give one just make it clear what you're responding to and how.

1st Rebuttal:

Make sure to be clear when you're going from one argument to the next ("Next, on their internal link... Then go to their C2..." etc.)

Anything flies in first rebuttal, make sure you signpost to I know where to flow.

2nd Rebuttal:

2nd rebuttal has to frontline: If you don't frontline at all you've lost the round and the other team can call a TKO after 1st summary if they play their cards right. Generated offense in 2nd rebuttal has to be in the form of turns and not just new disads. No new framing in 2nd rebuttal. If it was that important to you it should've been in constructive.

Summary:

No new evidence. (Unless it's to frontline your case in first summary)

Defense isn't sticky. Please extend defense in every speech; you can't forget to extend a piece of defense in summary and do a ritual in final focus to summon it.

Extensions don't have to be perfect. As long as you extend uniqueness, link chain, and impact, you're good. If I don't hear an extension it's wraps. You should also collapse in summary.

Weighing is very important. I like seeing direct comparisons between impact scenarios and links. This means that the weighing has to be comparative. Weighing is not "we cause a nuclear war" and nothing else. I want to hear "We outweigh on timeframe because our impact triggers instantly while theirs takes x years" – that's a direct comparison. If teams present different weighing mechanisms, please meta-weigh. If neither side meta-weighs, I default to timeframe + magnitude.

Final Focus:

Everything in FF should've been in summary.

This includes weighing! If I hear weighing in final that wasn't in summary I won't evaluate it.

I just want a solid explanation as to why you won the round. You can do it line by line, or go by biggest voting issues. Just make sure you're extending what was said in summary and crystallizing everything.

Framing:

I like a good framing debate. I won't accept "Other team has to respond in their constructive" or "Other teams can't read link-ins to the framing" as underviews or general responses. You're just avoiding clash, grow up.

Theory:

I'll evaluate disclosure, trigger warning, and paraphrase. Disclosure is good, paraphrasing is bad. I won't hack for these positions though. If there's no offense from either side I err to those positions. Don't run theory on people who are obviously novices. If you're on varsity anything is fair game. I don't care if you don't know how to respond to theory, "theory is dumb" and "we don't know how to respond" are not responses at all. I'll drop you like Georgia dropped FSU.

K's:

I'm fine with them. Just make sure to send a doc so I can follow along. I will vote for things I'm ideologically opposed to (like cap good) if the warranting is sufficient. Just win the flow. Don't run Afro-pess if you're not Black, don't run Fem-Rage if you're not female-identifying. The only thing doing that will earn is a massive side-eye.

Don't run spark.

Speaks:

I generally give high speaks (28 - 29.5 range), but it's not too hard to get a 30 from me. Just have a good strategy (like going for turns, innovative weighing) and you'll be guaranteed high speaks. Each Taylor Swift reference gets a +1.

Post-round:

I'll disclose my decision upon request (if tournament rules allow for it) and give some level of feedback. I'll try to make my RFDs detailed, but I've heard that tournaments have quick turnaround times in terms of judge decisions, so this might not be the case. If you have further questions about why I voted a certain way, you can email me and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. If you have any questions not covered by this paradigm, feel free to hit up the email at the top or ask me before the round starts.

Good luck, have fun, and do your best!

Good day!!

I am a current varsity debater at NWCTA and competed in PF the previous two years! Sorry, but this paradigm is strictly PF for rn!! So let's get into it-

It is important to note I prefer traditional rounds over technical rounds!

• Please speak at a reasonable pace, do not spread. Not only is it unfair to your opponent, I cannot keep up with it and I do believe it is a cop-out
• if neither team provides a framework within their constructive cases, I will default to using cost-benefit analysis.
• This isn't LD keep the morals out of it! as much as possible- Facts, logic, and reasoning above all else in PF
• Cards are not the be-all, end-all of your debate, yes they are very important, but if you cannot make a logical argument and evaluate it, it might as well not even be there
• Eye contact with only your partner and me, please! I know it's difficult to fight the natural urge to look over, but you're convincing me, not your opponent
• Crossfire is meant to poke holes and clarify, only ask questions that have substance!
• You can dominate a debate without being disrespectful
• Overall be respectful, speak clearly, use logic and reasoning

Hi!!!

I am a varsity competitor who has experience in Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, Congress, International Extemp, Domestic Extemp, Original Oratory, and Informative, but I mainly do LD, OO, and IX.

For those doing LD:

Do not drop any arguments, have a rebuttal in your 1NC, and explain why your framework outweighs your opponent's. Please include a framework philosophy. Kids don’t do it as often now, but it really strengthens your case and prepares you for varsity.

For those doing PF:

Do not drop any arguments, and do not talk super fast (that’s what policy is for).

For those doing extemp:

Doing extemp as a novice is impressive. As long as you have at least 2 pieces of evidence memorized and have a good AGD you will have 30 speaker points.

For any other event:

I will judge you to the best of my abilities. No dropped arguments for debate, if you're doing HI you must make me laugh at least once, if you're in a platform event you better make your topic interesting, and if you're in an interp: I will not judge you based on your script I will judge you based on the way you present your scrip.

auto W if the entire first speech is you on all 4’s barking #gdsdaldnats24 but not if more than 1 of you does it

Hi! I am a current competitor in GDSDA though have become generally active in the national circuit. My experience is mostly USX, IX, PF, and a bit of Congress and LD though I generally have an idea of what any event should in theory look like. My number 1 rule for any round in any event is to treat me, and your peers with respect. I am not stupid, don't treat me like I am, your competitors are not stupid, and don't treat them like they are. I understand things get heated, and aggressiveness is not inherently bad but any personal attacks in any way shape, or form will be an auto last place. I also don't enjoy being told things like " judge my competitors are wrong." I know you think they are wrong, don't tell me what to think. Or other phrases like "My opponents lost the round when they said this." Say if you think it's true, like if they did not address a turn, but otherwise, if I have a different opinion than you, it doesn't look or sound great. Generally, treat me and your peers and talk to me and your peers in a way you would want to be talked to. For all debates and speeches, I don't mind talking to you about the round, if I am allowed to disclose I will, if I am not allowed don't try to make me.

PF/ (kinda) LD:

This is where most of my experience is so I have the most opinions here. A lot of this can also be applied to my general ideals in LD as well.

I don't enjoy tec in PF. If both teams as using tec then I will of course prefer tec>truth. Though it hurts my soul to hear impact chains that devolve down to human extension. Otherwise, I prefer truth and usually react well to comments like "This is just common sense." If you ask for a card but everyone in the round knows it's true and they don't have it I don't care. I am not big on evidence. I know you both have it (if someone doesn't and it's major, point it out), but don't get into date or evidence debates. Public forum is for a general audience, evidence debates make it difficult for the general person. Impact weighing is important, and probably my number one voter in a round. I encourage collapsing, and I don't give losses on this contention drops so they lose the round. You need to flow through, but if you tell me you kicked C1 and by using your other 2 contentions your impacts outweigh, then I will give you the win. Just tell me you are kicking something so I take it off my flow. I hate spreading, I can understand it but hate it, again does not belong in PF and is not for a general audience. I will do my best to keep up but understand I will be losing a lot. Rebuttals should frontline if possible, and if there are turns you need to address them. Just because you say turn does not mean I will believe you though. Cross is something I don't flow, this is a good time to show me you are a good speaker for speaker points. Summary should set up FF, and this is the time to tell me what you kick/collapse so I know what to care about in FF. Generally, convince me by speaking. I guess you can add me to email chain, though it makes me sad as again, not for the general audience, and I will look only if I have to. I care about what I can hear and understand. This is not policy (thank god)

For LD, I again care about all the same things and have even more of a hatred for progressive debate here. I care about morals and convince me with your speaking. I may just refuse to be a part of an email chain here, the only reason I would do it is if you tell me point blank you will spread. I am going to be sad, but I will listen to it. Don't make me open evidence to figure out what you are saying, explain it well enough I don't need to do this, I will be annoyed.

If you can't tell by now, I don't like progressive debate in anything but policy, don't make me work harder than I should have to for 2 debate styles that are meant to be about morals, speaking, and appealing to the regular person. Impact chains should be very secure in both styles and be explained the best. Otherwise, do your best and honestly even though I have been a hater of tec thus far, I understand if that is the only thing you know, or both teams do it. I don't give losses just because you use tec, I give losses because you used tec badly. Or you tried to tec yourself out of a common sense argument that human extension or nuclear destruction won't happen. I also tend to not belive the timeframe argument, as it is difficult to find evidence. This is not saying don't do it, I am saying do it with other arguments.

For novices: Honestly ignore everything above, just do your best and we will have a good time

Congress:

While I don't have a bunch of experience here, I did get 7th in the nation in Congress at one point in my life, so in theory, I have an idea of what it looks like. I like well-spoken well well-explained arguments that refute what others have said in rounds. I try my best to not knock you on how many speeches you gave if recency was bad, I understand it is out of your control. The cross should be not super aggressive, but I understand things get heated. Decorum should be upheld always, and I will score you low if you are mean. I don't like personal attacks at all, no matter what. Speeches should have some evidence, but generally, appeal to me as a general person. For the PO, the highest I will give you is 2nd (sorry). Don't make me confused with recency, I should be able to see your organization, if it's done well I will happily give you 2nd. If it is done badly expect last, if you choose to be PO you should know how. I don't give more points to people who do a bunch of motions. If you know what you are doing it will be clear through speeches, if you don't motion at all I don't care.

For novices: Again, do your best and we will have a good time.

USX/IX/Com:

I have gone to nationals in this event multiple times and have been in a final round for it. This is my favorite event and the one I know the most about. With this in mind, I don't have a lot to say about it, because the speech is whatever you want it to be. I like creativity, world impacts, connections to my daily life, and jokes. Make me want to listen and feel entertained. I prefer good evidence over more evidence. I understand it is a standard to have dates, but honestly, I can deal with just a year. I don't look up evidence unless it sounds insane, don't make me do this, please. While I love to be entertained listening to you, I do prefer better content> over performance but barely, and if you blow me away I could make an exception. I won't talk to you when you walk in, confirm your speaker code, and start, I know you are trying to remember everything. If you stay till end I can give personal feedback.

Email for email chain (sad face):

tyler.360899@nv.ccsd.net

*Paradigm in development*

Hello! My name is Kevin Cisneros (He/Him/His)

I mainly compete in Public Forum Debate (PF) and Informative speaking (INFO), Along with International Extemp (IX)

If you have an email chain please include me (kcred325@gmail.com)

Debate:

For all debate make sure you prove why your side is better, more moral, faster, etc then the other side as well as communicate that clearly to me and show impact and show how you counter your opponents' arguments and be respectful throughout the entire round to everybody.

I will not buy any argument that promotes hate or discrimination along with any argument that is just obviously false, an example would be that the sun is going to explode tomorrow. I will also not evaluate any claims as unwarranted.

Everything for PF, CX, and LD that you want me to evaluate in terms of offense from case must come from constructive and end up in the final speech

Tech> Truth

PF: in public forum, I really like well-explained arguments and clashes, so make sure you have good warranting. Along with that, I will default to cost-benefit analysis/ util, unless you give me a different framework. I really hate being interventionist so please make my ballot easy, do weighing, do frontlining, and crystalize the entire round and why you should win. That is the easiest way to my ballot. Also don't constantly interrupt in crossfire, it doesn't help anybody. I don't flow crossfire but I do pay attention closely. Most important thing of PF is the final focus, make sure you extend what you want me to vote for in the final focus. That means that your offense (or reasons I should vote for you) should be extended through every speech and warranted. Clear warranting is really useful, it makes your path to the ballot very much easier.

Spreading is fine, but send speech docs and have good enunciation.

I am fine with evaluating theory just explain it in detail and well

As for kritiks both topical and non-topical I really want to learn more about these, so please if that's your style, go for it! Just explain it really well to me.

Policy: I will vote for whichever side can provide the best plan and argue their points and rebuttal points better. It same thing as PF, please don't rely on just asking "what source is that?" Asking for sources is fine but please do not make it the main focus of the round. Along with that I will keep track of arguments that have been dropped and extended. I will vote for negative by default, the affirmative has the burden of proving why I should vote for them.

I like counterplans, but I also like simple DA's, go for what you think is the best

I auto vote neg, aff must prove inherency

I don't mind progressive arguments just explain them well.

I really don't like death good, but I mean I will evaluate it I guess

Spreading is fine, but always give a speech doc if you are going fast, whether or not its "policy fast", still send a doc.

LD: Value and Value Criterion should be the focus of your case. Please make sure to explain how your case upholds your value. Along with that I will keep track of arguments that have been dropped and extended. Weighing will be a major factor in my decision. And speak at a good pace with confidence.

Same thing I like counterplans, and DA's

I like trad the most

I don't mind progressive arguments just explain them well.

Spreading is fine, but always give a speech doc if you are going fast, whether or not its "policy fast", still send a doc.

Congress: Be respectful of your opponents and try to follow Congress procedures. Stay within time. Be unique and try to provide a new or nuanced perspective. Your behavior and creativity will be major factors in my decision. I value clash HIGHLY in rounds. Also if you PO you will be treated equally as any other competitor depending on your performance and how smoothly the round runs with you giving everybody an equal chance.

*If yall want to have a joke debate or a weird theory debate like shoe theory that's great, but I HIGHLY encourage you to talk to your opponents and confirm it's okay with them.

*Use humor in debate and you might get a speaker point boost, but that doesn't mean making fun of your opponents or making a harmful or offensive "joke". That will result in a massive hit to your speaker points, and even an auto L.

*also if both sides want to have a lay debate that fine, I think I make an excellent lay judge (in my humble opinion).

Hi I'm Sabdy Cordon, I am a varsity PF competitor and have competed in WSD at the National Level.

I have experience in every event except for Policy and Congress,

I am pretty chill when it comes to anything, ask as many questions as you want I won't be annoyed.

1) PLEASE SIGNPOST

2) Do not spread, that will actually annoy me.

3) Please weigh, literally so important.

4) If you sing and dance your constructive, I will give you full speaker points maybe.

5) Don't be racist that's not cool. Or sexist. I will not give you the win if you are being discriminatory

SPEECH

Do a flip and ill give you first place.

*Always Updating*

Background

Hello my name is Jean Corvo (He/Him/His) and I'm a Varsity member who competes regularly in PF, USX, IX, Imp. I've also competed in Congress and Pro-Con. Generally speaking I'm also familiar with all of the debate and speech events.I'm also a NIETOC Qualifier for Extemp and a TSA Nat's Qualifier in Extemp. In regards to debate I've regular competed in the Nat Circuit for Public Forum and Congress.

Debate

Gen Notes: The point of debate is to prove to a Judge why you have the best stance or side in a round (IMO). Also please include me in all email chains, jeancarloscorvo@gmail.com

Public Forum: Below you'll find some bullet points regarding my Judging Rubric for PF

• Please warrant, impact weigh, and clash arguments as often as possible. Warranting is arguably one of the most important things for me when Judging and as a competitor. If you can't tell me in your speech why your argument is warranted I will not consider it as heavily when deciding a winner. Additionally please weigh your impacts during every speech, I want to know why you want me to vote on your impact. That said I wouldn't consider myself a spoon-fed Judge, if you mention an argument that has an obvious impact or obvious warrant I won't need you to spoon-fed me it's relevance or impact. I'm always going to be familiar with the Resolve and potential arguments so just keep that in mind during the debate.

• I will always dislike the implementation of policy into pf. I won't do framework unless it's absolutely necessary for the resolve or if both teams insist on it. That said I'm comfortable with spreading, kritiks, and theory. That said do it with moderation and keep it within reason; lastly if you plan to do any of the three make it clear to your opponent and send speech docs and all other necessary docs.

• In regards to “Truth () Tech'' I don't particularly weigh one over the other. It depends on the resolve and I can go either way depending on the debaters and how they argue their points.

• I will always accept new arguments, claims, etc during rebuttal. After that unless I find it extremely well warranted for an argument to have had been brought up later in the round will be dropped, although I won't discourage you guys from attempting to introduce a new argument as sometimes I do feel it necessary.

• While I know we are in a district that doesn't like collapsing or kicking I will personally say that I don't care for it. If your opponents collapse an argument and you spend your speech time pointing it out I won't value it. Collapsing/Kicking is OK.

• I really value cross, I believe cross is just as important as the other speeches. That said I’m not asking you to flow your arguments in cross I will listen to new info/new arguments that seem relevant based on cross, if I do allow for evidence or new arguments to be brought up it’s typically because I found it relevant during cross. Please be engaged in cross-fire!

• Flow through the contentions you want me to weigh on all the way to FF.

• PLEASE Frontline in rebuttal & make sure to flow your case through in rebuttal.

• Lastly while it shouldn’t have to be said please signpost, if you don’t sign post I will drop speaks.

Lincoln Douglas: Won’t be as in depth as PF but I am familiar with LD

• Please have a clear framework. If your framework isn’t clear, concise, and understandable I will default.

• As a non LD debater I am a bit more lax on values and their uniqueness. I believe to an extent any value can be made strong, so as long as the strength of your values is present I am happy.

• Make sure to strongly connect your values to your arguments.

• Like framework please have a clear and we'll warranted value criterion.

• LINK YOUR CLAIMS AND VALUES PLEASE!

• Very rarely will I like new things brought up later in the debate, I won't say always as I'm sure there will be exceptions but please try not to do this as it's unfair to your opponents.

• I'm more okay with progressive debate and tech debate in LD.

Congress: Scroll to the bottom of my congress section for PO related information

• Above all else good decorum is a MUST. If you can find a way to never break ‘character’ I will be incredibly impressed.

• I don't mind notes, if you want to use your computer, iPad, notepad, or whatever else the tournament rules allow feel free to use them. While I do believe congress is like a speech event, I look at it more as a roleplaying event. And our congressmen and senators more often than not have notes, so unless I have to tie-break I won't consider notes unless absolutely necessary.

• Speak SLOW. Congress is essentially a speech event if you are talking quickly I will be very sad.

• I love well articulated and concise arguments. This isn't a heavy debate event. I don't need to hear another statistic every other line, you are meant to be a congressman or congresswoman so what you ARE an expert. That side please mention SOME sources.

• PO STUFF: It is YOUR room. Do not let other congressmen or congresswoman tell you that you're PO’ing wrong. Unless you actually are but act with confidence. If you aren't experienced just try your best but if you think you know what you're doing as PO act like it, you control the room. Although that said if it gets out of hand someone will step in. Also I generally rank PO’s high.

Hope for a good round!

Here are some things that I like in a round:

• Good signposting (Contentions, Sub-Points, Taglines, Authors) especially in rebuttal, I want to be able to follow your line of logic.

• Using block cards well, not just stating them but explaining how that takes down your opponent’s argument.

• Weighing in Summary and final focus. I really want to see that in both speeches.

• Passionate speaking, it's more fun for everyone in the debate when both parties are excited for the topic!

• Good organization in rebuttal speeches, going line by line on cases is really helpful for me. Once in summary I don’t really care about the order as long as there is good signposting and preferably an off-time roadmap.

• A little bit of aggression in cross, not too much to where you are yelling at your opponent but just enough to make it a little more fun. Though, remember to let your opponents have questions. !! If you are asking a question you can interrupt, but if you are answering a question please do not, and let your opponent interrupt you if they try !!

• Clear enough speaking in constructive, to where I can get your arguments, if you stutter or trip on words that’s okay, as long as you get your case out it’s alright!

• Good eye contact in speeches, it really builds onto speaking and helps with overall persuasion.

Things I don’t really want to see:

• Cross questions that ask your opponent about your own case. When this happens, you give your opponents more time to refute your arguments. You are trying to poke holes in their case, not give your opponent an open stage to attack yours.

• Rebuttals that restate your case in response to your opponent’s, without telling me why I should like your card more. You don’t necessarily have to even talk about your opponent’s authors, you can use logic to explain why your card makes the most sense. If that isn’t really possible and there isn’t another avenue to attack their argument, you can try out the source argument, just be careful and explain the bias, or untrustworthiness. Although, I generally prefer arguments that expose logical errors in your opponents case or detaching links.

• When your opponents ask you a question that would obviously help their case and you concede to their question. If an opponent asks you a question like this, just say “no”, it is a very powerful weapon. Even if you personally agree with your opponent, don’t concede!!!

• When someone says that their opponent dropped their arguments, even when they did not. Please look at your flow, simply saying “My opponent drops this so drop that contention,” and it not being true doesn’t look good. TAKE GOOD NOTES PLEASE!!!!!

• Really written out summaries, they make more sense when they are organic and it doesn’t look like you are following a script.

Extra Note:

In every tournament, in every round, whenever you are waiting somewhere for your judge sitting in a hallway with your opponent, say hi, ask them how their day is. Just generally try to be as friendly as possible outside of the debate, you might make friends! It also will make the debate more fun when you know your opponent at least a little.

HAVE FUN!!!!!

LD is in my opinion the best, most academically challenging, and overall awesome form of debate. My evaluations of rounds are based on the following:

• spreading is NOT inherent to LD and if you would like to spread I suggest CX. I strongly detest spreading for a few reasons: spreading detracts from the academic conversation that is taking place, and at the most foundational level (in any debate) if your judge/audience cannot hear you then how would you ever expect to be judged adequately. Spreading greatly impacts your ability as a debater to present a clear, concise, and organized argument to your judge. Delivery is essential when effectively communicating with others and in my opinion spreading is the antithesis of that.

• FW is very important for me. The V and V/C are my guide as a judge on the lens in which I am evaluating the round and without those things it makes it harder for me to accurately judge the arguments that you present. Linking contentions back to your FW demonstrates to me that you’ve thought this through meticulously. I have no real preference for “ought’ implying a V of morality or “just” implying a V of justice. I am totally open to your interpretation of the V that you think best suits the debate it really just comes down to the presentation of the V and V/C and the “call back” to that into your contentions. I am down for a FW debate as long as it is relevant.

• Flow of case is important. You shouldn’t make arguments for arguments sake. By this I mean: did you use logic, supported by evidence with clear links and impacts to justify your contentions? Do you weigh impacts effectively and clearly? It is not enough to say “we outweigh on X impact” you need to tell me why your case outweighs.

Hey! I'm Isabelle Hatch (she/her), please include me in email chains if you have them: izzmck1@gmail.com

I'm currently a varsity debater, and have competed in Congress, Public Forum, Domestic and International Extemp, DI, POI, and Impromptu.

In Congress, practically anything goes! I appreciate lively cross, but I also judge on decorum. Keep it respectful, but engaging. Please don't pace back and forth, it's very distracting, and I will comment on it. Instead, look into the speaker's triangle! I will be flowing, but be sure to restate your name and code consistently.

When it comes to LD and Policy, I expect well-thought-out and developed cases, respectful but lively cross, and NO SPREADING. I can follow fast speaking, but if I can't understand your constructive, then your points don't get across. Please take that into account during the round. I appreciate signposts and off-time roadmaps before rebuttals.

In PF, no spreading. Please. I'm pretty much fine with anything, but be sure to weigh from summary onward. Anything dropped in final focus won't be evaluated. Please give signposts / an off-time roadmap before rebuttal, summary, and ff. I generally judge tech > truth, but not strictly. No identity Ks, it's regressive.

I usually won't ask for cards unless it's incredibly strange, but please show the cut card and the source / article.

Good luck!

Hi everyone!

I've competed in LD for the past three years. I have competed both locally and at circuit tournaments, and I competed at Nationals my freshman year.

When judging, I will follow the flow of the debate. I will not weigh an argument or an impact if you bring it up at the beginning of the debate and then never mention it again.

How well you do in cross can have a positive impact on the speaker points I give you, but I will not consider any arguments made in cross if they are not brought up in your next speech.

When judging LD, I make my decisions based primarily on your framework and your impacts. The strength of your V and VC as well as how strongly you connect them to your arguments will be a major consideration.

Definitions and cards are important, but try to avoid making a specific card or definition the focus of the debate. If you can prove that your opponent's card or definition is outdated or weak it is something I will take into consideration, but please try to avoid focusing on one card to the detriment of the rest of your case.

If you can speak quickly and clearly, feel free to do so. However, keep in mind that if the speed you are talking at is too fast for your opponent, or if you are talking quickly but not clearly (failing to enunciate or signpost), it may affect the quality of the debate, and, in turn, your speaker points.

Please be respectful. I understand that tensions can run high during a debate, but there is no excuse for being unkind or excessively aggressive towards your opponent. Avoid making arguments that attack your opponents rather than their points.

Overall, just do your best. The best competitors are the ones who are passionate and knowledgeable!

Hi, I'm from Meadows and currently a varsity debater.

Tone and clarity are important. Spreading is okay. I judge mainly on technicality.

Good luck!

hi everyone !! im gwen :) add me to the chain obungene@gmail.com

TLDR: im like a lay judge with circuit values (ask me abt this if you dont understand!). cool w anything, please be kind and respectful!! read wtv youre best at! my approach to policy is more of a game theorist approach.

tech > truth, but logic over cards.

im good w judging sparks, tricks, all of it — doesnt mean its my fav but if you win on it then ill judge it

i’d always prefer to evaluate the round in front of me rather than intervene. i’ll do my best to evaluate debates based on the flow i have, unless explicitly told to read certain cards. i also barely look at the doc unless speakers have zero clarity so if you hear me scrolling then it means to be clear.

I don't judge cx as enough to win a round--i'll listen to major points and such but I don't judge cx unless you tell me to

SPEAKS:

things that lower speaks:

• general disrespect. i dont care if its cross and i dont care if they were disrespectful, prove youre the better person.
• if i ever have to intervene (ex: if cx gets SUPER messy (which should be basically never) or if someone says a slur or something)
• dont scream while spreading. i can hear you fine and ill tell you if i cant.
• dont look at each other, youre talking to me
• bad body language/no passion. if you dont care then why debate
• clarity is something thats really important to me—dont sacrifice it for speed. if you can speak fast and clear, then im good w speed. im good with speed, but its not as though its needed—policy is not about being fast, but providing quality arguments for the current topic.
• dont act like your partner/opponents are dumb. everyone is equally qualified to be here and to debate.

things that raise speaks:

• using smart analytics DEFINITELY puts you in favour of my ballot.

• smart analytics and/or internal link defense >>>> generic impact defense card

• fully explaining/developing args and good line-by-line skills are very important to me and will lead to higher speaker points than reading excessive overviews.

• please do clear, strong impact calc, especially in policy 2rs. dont read paragraph after paragraph to me repeating the same thing that your case stated, because ill be very bored (and sad without good ic). impact calc and good analysis, explaining how your interp best resolves every impact (and how theirs cant access it), and how it interacts with the other team’s impacts. prove to me not only why you win, but how.

Aff Teams: i know many judges do, but i dont default to aff. you have the burden of explaining why the plan wins. i love obscure affs in comparison to well known ones, so feel free to use that to your advantage. you have the first and last speech, use this the best you can to take control of the debate. do NOT act like your aff is the mother mary and can solve for everything when you know it cant, but dont give in.

Neg Teams: i dont default to neg either---you have insane amounts of freedom with what you do or dont do, so do everything and anything you can!! the point of to debate is to learn and have fun, so please take advantage of that and itll make me really happy to see your efforts ^^

Counterplans: im gonna be real i love counterplans with my whole heart, but many people do not know how to run them effectively in lay debate. i love all types of cps, so please feel free to run anything you have ^^

neg teams:

• im the biggest pic lover in the world and again, i love obscure cases -- run whatever you're truly interested in, not what you feel the topic limits you to!!
• i dont care for timewasting cps, just dont do it
• im not against any cps, open to anything and everything --- keep me interested throughout the debate!! prove to me why you work better than the aff and write my ballot!

aff teams:

• the permutation and links to the nb are your friend. if perm do both is the 2ar strat, then explanations abt how it shields the link starting in the 2ac is best if not necessary
• think strategically. dont just answer cps with generic cards—treat every arg as if it is a quality argument (if you severance perm....)
• solvency deficits are best when theyre clear and explained!!!

disadvantages: im open to generally like any da ever, happy to hear anything :) i dont have many thoughts on das because i enjoy da/case debates often. neg can win on da alone, but its also not hard to shoot down general disads. for aff, i find the best way to answer a da is through your plan itself (ask me abt this before round if you dont understand)

theory: i can vote for any theory arg if you win it, but your speaks will reflect if you go for (tbh introduce as well) a silly shell or even just a shell that doesn’t hurt the debate at all when you had so many other ways to win the debate. If you extending a blippy or friv theory shell, do more work than you had done when you read the shell. If you dont, youre telling me your arg doesnt matter.

topicality: i do have preexisting thoughts about what is “topical” — make sure to err on the side of explaining! don’t run it unless they’re not actually topical because its just a timewaster and i dont like timewasters. every single off should be viable and competitive. but i do love a good t debate… i generally default to competing interps. i like hearing lists for the pros/con. please please write everything out and compare impacts. why does your interp being good for ground outweigh their definition being more predictable, etc etc.

general k stuff: dont run a k unless you know how. I dont like when novices run k’s without having any idea and then they get demolished by someone who has a good idea (not even a clear definition) of how to run a k. i get secondhand embarrassment so dont put me in that position. but if you do know how to run a k, then go for it. im really into crazy crazy k’s, so if you have any then have fun ^^ i havent studied in depth on many, but im comfy w security, neoliberalism, fem ir, baudrillard, and some other lit bases. ive read some args about zizek cap args, heidigger, orientalism, edelman, and deleuze, and probably some others ive forgotten, but im not well versed. i dont recommend k affs at locals, im okay with neg kritiks at locals but its not like i endorse it—if you really like your k and thats your strat, then i have no bias against it ^

side notes:

• i flow on a doc/paper (maybe even both) depending on the round, try to keep things fresh and interesting. i hate when debates become yes/no questions and theres no fun to it :(
• i dont care for new arguments (NOT CARDS) in the first rebuttals. im good with cards that extend/answer points and arguments made previously, but i dont want to hear any new claims past the rebuttal point and theyre not going on my flow.
• if a team drops something (like clearly drops), then no it is not "conceded". it is dropped, unbeneficial to the round, not violating (unless they drop in like 2nr which is still not violating but leaves a funky taste in my mouth), and dont reply to it anymore---if you do then it will reflect in your speaks (again, unless they drop in 2nr and you wanna theory)
• idc if the aff has to drop an advantage or anything, just make the 2ar super cool and youll be fine
• PLEASEEEE give me a great second rebuttal. write the ballot for me!!!
• please be nice!!! many rude people use debate as a way to be mean without repercussions, but it will show in parts of your rfd + speaks
• im not only your judge, but im a person too --- i like tea, coffee, crochet, watching teen movies and romcoms, reading (im reading one of us is next by karen m. mcmanus and crime and punishment by dostoevsky), and matcha lattes --- please dont be afraid to try to get to know me!! im a high school student like all of you too and i think debate is a great way to make new friends!!
• this is just as much of a learning experience that it is for you as it is for me :3 lets all have fun and debate!!

Hi debaters,

I would like a conversational pace. If you go to fast, I can't guarantee I will hear and take in everything you say.

Please tell me how much prep time you will be using so I can warn you if you go over.

Try not to miss others' arguments as it usually is hard to come back from.

It doesn't matter if your in a suit or casual clothes you will all be judged the same so don't worry.

If you wanna win with me as a judge I like a lot of clash so try and disprove arguments rather than just ignore their's and extend yours.

Cross-ex is very important as it can help with arguments later so try your best to set up traps.

I hope we have a great round and remember to try your best.

Add me to any Email chains: jasonlindo.321233@nv.ccsd.net

Hello I'm Jason, I'm currently a senior at Palo Verde High school and this is my first year judging. I appreciate off time road maps.

My primary event and the one I'm a varsity member in is LD debate.

I generally dislike spreading, I would prefer you avoid doing it however you should debate in whatever style you’re comfortable with. I value clear and articulate speaking but the substance of your arguments will come before anything else.

I'm willing to vote on counter-plans, Kritiks, and theory, but they have to be argued very well and hold up to your opponents rebuttals.

Framework is very important, if you can convince me your framework holds up better or that you fulfill it best you’ll have an easier time wining.

I tend to be more technical but if you say something extremely outlandish It may negatively affect my decision. Large claims need large amounts of evidence to back them up.

I take respect very seriously, I like clash but any unnecessary rudeness will severely impact your speaker points. I’ll keep track of time and prep but I encourage you to do the same, I may cut you off if you go too far over time which will effect your speaks.

Have fun!! if you don't win at least its not Congress

hi hi! i'm Cevan! (sa-vahn) (she/her/hers) - cevanlouie7@gmail.com

everyone: I find paradigms so funny honestly just compete in whatever way YOU feel most authentic to you! Don't conform to me, judges are here to listen to YOU. You can be incredible at speech and debate and also kind. Speech and debate is welcoming and inclusive, i will easily drop speaker scores/my ballot if you are blatantly rude ;D

interp/platform: Your story is unique! Show me how you connect with your piece, how it connects to the world, and why it matters. Authentic advocacy/intros >> I look at all the standard blocking, facials, character differentiation etc but advocacy is why you have a platform I pref that.

debate: Pretty flay to be transparent but please debate in whatever form makes YOU comfortable, whether that be prog or trad or spreading or whatever. I am willing to listen to everything.

• tech > truth... if you don't weigh it'll default to mine
• speed is fine just look up at me for confirmation i am with you -> speech docs
• SIGNPOST, KEY VOTERS, and COLLAPSE COLLAPSE PLEASE
• pet peeves: long evidence exchanges, new ev in summary, definitional debates, tossing ev w/o a warrant
• speaks: STRAT, uniqueness, humor, analogies (very interp of me lmao)

learn something new, enjoy being apart of this activity, and best of luck!

Ld:

Uhhh I'm not a fan of spreading, if you plan on doing it share your case with me

I'm a trad judge, I understand progressive, just don't go overboard with it

Be respectful to your opponent if you like insult them theres a possibility its an automatic win for your opponent,

Logic>Cards will explain if needed

Gain an 30 speaker points if you sing all of runaway before round with you singing instrumentals.

Just a typical round

Congress:

Alright I've done congress a few times so I understand it, I'll be flowing and listening in another thing is the best way into probably getting placed high is notablility try making yourself standout, it's a 3 hour round and everything begins to blur listening to a bunch of speeches but also still try to debate that's still just as important too

Lowkey Starbucks would be nice, no benefit for it, but atleast it keeps me going, mocha frappuccino is what I'd like or a cold coke too

I believe in taking care of myself, in a balanced diet, in a rigorous exercise routine.
In the morning, if my face is a little puffy, I'll put on an icepack while doing my stomach crunches.
I can do a thousand now.
After I remove the icepack, I use a deep-pore cleanser lotion.
In the shower, I use a water-activated gel cleanser.
Then a honey-almond bodyscrub.
And on the face, an exfoliating gel-scrub.
Then I apply an herb mint facial masque,
which I leave on for ten minutes while I prepare the rest of my routine.
I always use an aftershave lotion with little or no alcohol,
because alcohol dries your face out and makes you look older.
Then moisturizer, then an anti-aging eye balm, followed by a final moisturizing protective lotion.

There is an idea of Yair Maldonado.
Some kind of abstraction, but there is no real me.
Only an entity-- something illusory.
And though I can hide my cold gaze...
and you can shake my hand and feel flesh gripping yours...
and maybe you can even sense our life styles are probably comparable,
I simply am not there.

Can't think of anything else to put here

I have experience in PF and Policy

I was a 2A and a 2nd speaker sooo im a sucker for good link turns and analysis

ill boost u speaks if u tell me ronaldo over messi

make jokes i think its silly, if u make me laugh ill boost ur speaks have funsies!

show me ur flow, if its good ill give u 30 speaks yes i know #speaksfairy

Add me to the chain! chelseamasanque@gmail.com

TLDR: I will be perfectly okay with however style u want to debate in. I prefer Tech>Truth, just defend ur arguments with good framing and weighing.

Prep: Flex prep is fine with me as long as its fine with both teams.

Speed: Spread or dont i dont care, spew i dont care, just make sense, clarity is important. if i cant understand u i wont flow u.

Out of round I will disclose if u ask (depending on tournament rules)

plz write the ballot for me i despise judge intervention so plz cover everything in the round, idc if u ask me to kick or collapse just weigh or ill cry

PF

-use the cards u have u have them for a reason

• ff should be entirely voter issues, its essentially u writing my ballot for me
• i think of rebuttal and summary as one big speech, weigh and make sure u take down ur opps args
• i loveeee good crosses, ill flow it if u ask me to.
• defend ur uniqueness plzzzzz
• i think pf has become progressive which i have mixed feelings abt but ill vote on k, t, theory whatever as long as u defend it.

Policy

Policy affs:irdc what u read just have good impact framing and calculus. ur aff exists for a reason, use its strategic advantages to your advantage. dropping ur 1ac cards irks me, u have them for a reason use them.

DAs: I LOVEEE da/cp but please do impact calc or i will cry. i think turns case arguments are fun and compelling.

CPs:id prefer u to tell me to judge kick. explain perms. pics are something that exist in debate i guess.

Theory:i can vote for any theory arg if you win it, but your speaks will reflect if u go for a silly shell when u had so many other ways to win the debate. If you are extending a blippy or friv theory shell, do more work than u had done when u read the shell, tell me why your arg matters.

Topicality v Policy:im a sucker for good t debates honestly. i default to competing interps unless instructed otherwise. i like hearing caselists for the good things you include/bad things you exclude. please please impact everything out and compare impacts. why does your interp being good for ground outweigh their definition being more predictable, etc etc.

General K things:i don't know some of the more obscure lit bases so please do extra explaining if you're reading something like that. i have primarily read setcol, cap, and security args in my career. please tell me what my ballot does.

Policy v K:specific links are good. impact out those links. if the framework debate exists, it probably matters. i am willing to vote on the link/impact level alone.

K v K: really fun debates. CLASH!!!!! prove why your model of debate is preferable.

• take whatever applies to u, have fun and goodluck!!!

Hello, I am a varsity debater who specializes in public forum. When I am judging a round I am judging primarily on two factors, the actual arguments presented, the meat, and the presentation, the everything else. When I'm judging the arguments I'm looking at how well each team understands their cases, what the points of the case are, how well you perform in cross (keep it respectful and balanced in time), and how you progress the debate. When it comes to presentation what matters is the ability to make me believe you know what you're talking about while also being respectful, yelling is frequent and mostly unnecessary so minimize its use. Aside from that, I like to hear novel arguments however that won't seriously impact my decision unless it's particularly close.

I competed in Policy (CX) for 3 years in high school. I am a Chinese/Arabic/Serbian linguist and have worked in military intelligence for 20 years. I am a current high school debate coach and I teach Policy, LD, PF, Congress, and World Schools debate.

Email for questions/file sharing: rasmum@nv.ccsd.net

Judging style

I believe that debate is a competitive event, and having its own specialized jargon does not necessarily hurt the event so long as using the jargon does not become the event. I do not mind the use of terms such as "drop," "extend," "turn," "flow," or "cross-apply," but they should not replace the substance and do not automatically add impacts. I am not big on technical wins, so your opponent dropping a contention or card does not automatically win you the round. I will not intervene: You must impact. You have to do the work: Impact and link back to the value structure and/or provide me with a clear weighing mechanism for the round.

I prefer well-argued and supported points to spreading. Being able to say so many points that your opponent is not able to address each one in their rebuttal is not truly a skill and does not show me that you understand your position. Don't spread!

Please time your speeches and prep time. I may not keep accurate time of this since my attention is to the content of your speeches. Flex prep is fine if all debaters in the round agree.

Signposting = GOOD! Flipping back and forth from AFF flow to NEG flow then back to AFF Flow to NEG Flow....BAD.... VERY, VERY, VERY BAD!

I will not vote for arguments that are ableist, racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, etc. This should go without saying, but for the sake of anyone who needs to see it in writing, there you go.

Speaker Points

Being aggressive is fine, just make sure you don't say or do anything that is offensive

I judge on a 5-point scale, from 25-30.

25 is a terrible round, with massive flaws in speeches, huge amounts of time left unused, blatantly offensive things said, or other glaring rhetorical issues.

26 is a bad round. The debater had consistent issues with clarity, time management, or fluency which make understanding or believing the case more difficult.

27 is average. The speaker made no large, consistent mistakes, but had persistent smaller errors in fluency, clarity, or other areas of rhetoric.

28 is above average. The speaker made very few mistakes, which largely weren't consistent or repeated. The speaker was compelling and used rhetorical devices well.

30 is perfect. No breaks in fluency, no issues with clarity regardless of speed, and very strong use of rhetorical devices and strategies.

Argumentation does not impact how I give speaker points. You could have an innovative, well-developed case with strong evidence that is totally unresponded to, but still get a 26 if your speaking is bad.

While I do not take points off for speed, I do take points off for a lack of fluency or clarity, which speed often creates.

Please please please cut cards with complete, grammatically correct sentences. If I have to try to assemble a bunch of disconnected sentence fragments into a coherent idea, your speaker points will not be good.

Hello,

I am a Varsity Compeitor i do PF, LD, DUO, INFO

For People doing Lincoln Douglas, I like your constructive to be Professional and simple and i like good speaking abilities and eye contact

DONT drop any of your opponents' arguments

If your opponent drops an argument make sure to mention it and make sure you say "And judge they dropped this point and don't allow them to address it in their next rebuttal" If you do you will most likely Win.

On Value make sure you tell me why your framework is the best and you must apply it to every framework

For people who do Public forum I'm still new to this but make sure never to drop significant evidence

Also during cross, I prefer an equal amount of questions being asked by both teams and competitors I DO NOT like yelling

yelling will cost you some speaker points

Overall, just make sure this is a fun and respectable round and I wish you the best of luck :)

Hello my name is Zayan

I prefer not spreading. If I can't understand what you're saying I will not listen to it.

Speak clearly.

Be respectful to your opponents. If you call your opponent racist and he isn't good luck to you buddy.

Make good questions in your cross ex don't waste your time. I will also be voting on your questions and if you expand on them.

Make sure to answer all arguments and if arguments are not answered extend them.

Make sure your cases follow your value and answer the topic

Always make sure to peep game and lock in

Please add me to the email chain: aryan_singh@themeadowsschool.org

I am a high school debater who has debated lincoln-douglas. I like to listen to any type of debates but I prefer framework debate and I like to listen to kritiks. Please don't run any theory unless it is relevant to the debate. I evaluate debates based on framework, links, and impact calc. If everything else is strong in your argument I will judge the round heavily on impacts. Feel free to go as fast as you want as long as you are clear.

ATTENTION: I am hard of hearing, please speak very loudly when you are presenting. I am currently a varsity member of debate and will only be judging at select competitions such as ShadowAngel and the novice championships

For informative - I will be judging based on three main things! Number one for me is how much I actually learned during your speech and how well written it is overall. Number two is the way you present yourself as a speaker, this includes connection with the WHOLE audience, projection, enunciation, inflection, etc. Lastly, I believe to do well in the other two qualities I mentioned, you must also be entertaining; you could have the most informational speech in the district, but if your audience can't pay attention to you, it will all be for nothing. These all tie into each other, and I hope everyone does great!

For interp - My main focuses for interp are how well your cutting is, how skilled your blocking is or if you are able to pop well, the actual portrayal of characters, and last - but CERTAINLY not least - is your actual interpretation of the piece: what do you think should be taken away from your performance?

For congress: Congress is easy to understand but hard to stand out in. For that reason, you need to make sure you speak often. If you give one really good speech, but another person gives five decent speeches, most judges will pick the five speeches. For any speeches after the first and second set of speeches, I will be looking for clash in your speech. For this reason, and for the sake of good cross, I urge you to always pay attention to what your competitors are saying!

Hi there, I'm Olivia! I'm a current Class of 2024 high school student at Amplus Academy in Las Vegas Nevada

Debate Experience

4 years of Public Forum Experience

3 years of Lincoln Douglas Experience

1 year of Congressional Debate Experience

Speech Experience

5 years of Humorous Interpretation Experience

3 years of Program Oral Interpretation Experience

1 year of Original Oratory/Informative Speaking Experience

1 year of Domestic Extemporaneous Speaking

Judging Experience

Speech: Middle School Asynch 2020

Congress: Middle School TOC 2020

Debate: Clash at Cannon III 2023 (Lincoln Douglas) ShadowAngel 2023 (Public Forum)

I will always look over and weigh content and evidence over delivery (though it is just as important) when it comes to Debate, since I understand everyone can prepare as much as they can, and still be nervous to deliver speeches.

Varsity Debater at Coronado High School (prez too ;D)

For y'all's reference, I've competed in Public Forum, Congressional Debate, World Schools Debate, and Original Oratory (if you knock on a desk for me to notice at the beginning of your speech/cross, I will give you extra speaks).

The most important thing is respect! I really don't want a messy round, and it's important for the debate space that you are kind and considerate to each other (no yelling matches during cross). Sassiness is perfectly fine (feel free to have a personality!) as long as you're not too scathing lol.

Make sure you signpost and tell me why you're right and their wrong. Please be clear!

PF -

1. Above all else I vote on the flow. I'm not a fan of tech but I understand the basics, probably won't evaluate well tho.

2. Be nice in round. Istg I will tank speaks for disrespectful cross; let your female partners and opponents speak…

3. Have a clear structure in speeches and signpost it makes it easier for everyone.

4. I don't evaluate crosses so if you make a point in cross you think I should know, state it in the next speech.

5. Weighing is what I vote off of but if none is introduced then I'll default to who won the major voters.

LD/CX -

1. I will have a very pf focused view when judging these rounds unfortunately.
2. Keep it simple, I'm very lay.
3. Ill likely vote for the clearer argument.

Hello everyone,

I do both speech and debate events. Primarily Dramatic Interpretation (DI), Extemp (DX), and Lincoln Douglas (LD). I also did Impromptu in Middle School as well as at a few Highschool Tournaments and Nationals.

For debate events

• I prefer if you speak clearly rather than to get more information in (spread)
• Be respectful to your opponents
• I make my decisions on impacts, flow, and framework, but if I don't understand it I can't vote on it
• If you want to run complex arguments like Theory you need to be able to explain it, if I don't understand I can't vote on it!!!
• Please use your prep time, and try to use as much of your time in your speeches and rebuttals as you can

For speech events

• I love to see how creative and expressive you can be!
• Use the space around you! Blocking and movement are your greatest tool
• For Platforms and Extemp: Please be explicite with your evidence and speak clearly!