Hello my name is Shannon Catlin. I have judged debate for the last four years, while also participating as a debater in my high school career. When I sit down to a debate I prefer to hear evidence based proof with a footprint to back your sources. I also look for if a debater understands what they are presenting, explaining in your own terms.

I like to see what your policy is and how your plan of action will work with proof and funding. I watch for confident body language and being able to make eye contact with your peers.

I will allow spectators if the participants also agree, however they will not be allowed electronic devises.

Let's have s great debate.

I debated for 4 years in high school and have judged 4-5 years as well. So I should be able to understand anything you want to do in the round.
I’ll be judging with a game maker paradigm meaning I value different arguements with different values. So for negative on case attacks generally are going to be way more effective. I generally don’t care for topicality or general disadvantages unless the topicality violation is pretty blatant or the general DA has a more specific link. I don’t prefer kritiks but they can be acceptable. Just know I would need extra convincing for you to win the round based of one.

I have experience with debate. I have been a coach for 3 years.

I assess debate rounds by mostly stock issues. To get a NEG vote, the teams needs to addresses the faults and gaps in the plan's inherency, harms, and solvency.

Topicality is fine, but not that important to me. Don't get caught up on topicality and forget about the rest of the issues. It becomes a stalemate.

Generic disadvantages are fine.

I don't mind when debaters talk fast, but please keep it cordial between partners and teams at all times :)

*please add me to your email chain: connor.r.england@gmail.com*

Debate Experience: 4 years of high school policy debate (state finalist for 3 of those years), 3 years of collegiate parliamentary debate. Significant experience in real-world legislative policy construction and political debate.

PRIMARY PARADIGM: Policy-maker/Tab Rasa. Whoever’s policy direction makes the world a better place will typically gain my vote (this is policy debate, after all). I expect some sort of impact calculus performed – but the framework and standards by which those impacts are evaluated are absolutely up for negotiation by the debating teams. Even senators regularly scrap policies due to critical/structural analyses, as opposed to purely voting on napkin-sketch utilitarianism. Act as if what you argue for will be enacted, consequences and all. Someday, due to your words, it just might.

STOCK ISSUES:

- H/I: inherency is often not of much importance. If the policy doesn't exist currently, I should be able to evaluate your policy as an alt to the Status Quo. The Neg has the opportunity to represent the status quo or provide a counter plan.

- S: This needs to be proven in order for you to have any access to your advantages.

- Advantages vs DAs: Straight-up policy debate is always a good time. Make sure that links/internal links are explained well. Generics are okay, specific links are preferred.

TOPICALITY: I’m a fan of topicality and think weighing whether or not the aff is a part of the resolution is a major part of the round. The resolution is the only apriori common ground we all have, and was written to try and create the most educational environment for debaters. If cases fall outside of the resolution, there must be a sound theoretical/framework argument as to how education can be maintained/furthered without being topical. I tend to believe that there are common T arguments which often fail to show that fair educational ground has been lost - reasonability tends to be an argument with diminishing returns, and spec debates probably need to be a gross violation in order to be a meaningful voting issue. That said, even in those instances: T’s primary purpose is to create a stable model for debate. If your argument preserves education and you can prove it, don’t be afraid to go all-in.

COUNTERPLANS: CPs are acceptable even if inconsistent with other elements of the negative. However, just like T, there are some common CPs which seem to be less constructive (Delay, Consult/Conditions without meaningfully specific solvency advocate, etc). Feel free to test the affirmative’s case however you feel is useful, but know what you’re doing if you’re going to do it, and be clear to me in your analysis.

KRITIKS: Critical perspectives are important, even in the realm of policy-making – that said, many of the thoughts critical thinkers espouse are tough to do meaningfully in a few minutes flat. If you're going to go for this type of debate, you need to be ready to do it justice, i.e. spend some time and be willing to commit to the argument. Similarly, I enjoy K debates and am open to listening to them, but please make sure that you actually understand what you’re arguing. If you don’t understand it or how it clashes with the other team’s arguments, *I* won’t understand it/your position. And If I don’t understand it, I don’t vote for it. Just make sure that you explain how the K affects the debate, be it post-plan or in-round impacts, and *please* provide a specific interpretation for me to make a decision on.

HIGH-LEVEL NOTES:

- Debate is an educational, intellectually rigorous activity. Things that deter from that education will affect you. Please refer to specific arguments for potential issues.

- Kindness and respect are prerequisites for accessing the educational value of a debate. A mean spirit will cost you (both in our rounds, and out in the real world). So be nice, m’kay.

- Tech > Truth, but your arguments *need* to be warranted.

- Clash matters, almost above all else (with the rare exception of well-demonstrated theoretical/K abuse). Without it, it is [literally] not a debate. Make sure that your arguments are connecting to what the other team says.

- Don’t waste time by running arguments just for the sake of argument (e.g. 3 quick T’s which you use to sandbag, then kick); make sure it applies. This is a corollary to the above point above.

- Speed is acceptable, but please remember that technology affects the ability for everyone to hear. If I cannot understand you, I will say “clear”. If you don’t clear up your speech, I will wait a few more seconds, and will then stop flowing.

- CP's and K's are perfectly okay to run, but PLEASE specify if you are taking a multiple-world approach, and be sure to analyze the 1AC within the merits of the CP/K.

- Do not drop the flow, particularly in the rebuttals, or the argument will go to the last response.

GENERAL PHILOSOPHY RE: DEBATE

It is important to know why we're here/why debate matters. If you've ever wondered... please consider this possible explanation, and let it inform your future debates.

- DEBATE: To use language and logical argumentation as tools to mutually inform a group's understanding of a subject/object of interest.

- POLICY DEBATE: To use debate to construct and test potential legal solutions (both the good and the bad that can from them, under various frameworks) to problems that affect people within a jurisdictional bound.

- This activity is modeled off of how politicians and lawmakers in the real world work together to better understand the issues we face, and come to build solutions to those issues (i.e. make laws) that affect all people inside the borders that those laws apply to. It's a serious, often life-or-death, activity, and should be treated with respect. Many high school debaters go onto be lawyers, politicians, and activist leaders - the habits you build in round may very well determine how good of a world we can create in the future. If a politician was arguing about a policy on CSPAN the way you do in-round, would you approve of them?

- Ideally, policy debate should be approached as if what the problems you're arguing about can really, truly be solved by your policy choices in-round; if this were true, you would want to seek as much education on potential solutions as possible. If your solution is better, your policy position should win - but above all else, we should try to cultivate maximally educating environments in-round so that we can work together to discuss the best possible policy position for our fellow human beings. THAT is why we're here, and is infinitely more important than any trophy or medal you'll ever win. Learn how to approach debates this way, and you'll shape the world around you for the better.

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

FINAL NOTE:

Have fun, learn something, and be kind. Good luck!

I do not have any experience competing in debate, however, I do have experience observing and judging debate competitions.

I am looking for an organized, clear, concise debate, as well as speakers who are knowledgeable about the information they are presenting.

There is a difference between being assertive and being rude. Stand your ground but DO NOT belittle each other. That will not win points with me

I am looking for a fast pace that is still able to be understood. Make sure to annunciate!

If using kritques, explain thoroughly.

Go into your rebuttals explaining why you should win.

Be confident! Look up from your laptops/papers!

-Cate Gutteridge

Howdy!

I'm currently a sophomore in College, with debate experience going back all the way to my Freshman year of High School. I went to state and took third in high school, so I would like to think I'm rather knowledgeable when it comes to debate.

TL/DR:I'm more of a Policymaker judge, but obviously I hold stock issues to a high level of importance. I really enjoy arguments that are tackled from a policymaker's perspective, but please don't ignore the importance of stock issues (or how to handle them, I suppose).

In terms of more specifics:

AFF Cases - You must defend an advocacy, and prove that action must be done. Otherwise, your plan does nothing. I strongly prefer policy cases, and I am not a fan of K AFFs, but if it's run well, I'll consider it like any other.

On-Case and Impacts - I love on-case arguments and weigh them highly. Impact calc. is always appreciated. My favorite stock issue is inherency.

T - Topicality is a stock issue I'm not a huge fan of; I see it as a time suck in most cases. However, if you can convince me that the AFFs plan is irrefutably non-topical, and you support it well, that'll be real good. (AFF, I don't mind effect plans, so long as you explain the abuse story well).

CPs - CPs are also something I'm not a huge fan of, because they're often not run correctly. Make sure you have every part of it down, and make sure to convince me of the net benefits of the CP over the AFF. (basically, just run it right, and I'm fine with it!)

Ks / Theory - These are probably my least favorite, but I'll weigh it the same if you can convince me to accept the world of the alt, and not the squo.

DAs - Make sure you provide a link for your DA, otherwise it's not really a DA and more a generic argument. If you provide a link and a harm with it though, you're golden.

Delivery - I'm fine with any speed level you're comfortable with, but please make sure you're understandable while talking. (I'm fine with you talking really fast, so long as you're not tripping over your words)

Ultimately, provide good public speaking with clash, understand I tend to judge like a Policymaker, and we'll all have a good time!

Common Questions About My Judging Criteria:

I. Which best describes your priorities in judging debates?

At its core, debate is a communications event. What I look for in a round is the ability of all speakers to 1) identify the key issues in the round, 2) develop them throughout the round rationally and understanding/ respecting the nuance and real-world implications, and 3) expressing those issues appropriately and effectively.

B. Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills.

There must be a balance here. Good public speaking skills are a must—good public speaking form is critical to success. At the end of the round, though, if the team that is least polished offers the most substantive arguments on the round’s issues, that team will win the round. This is true even when their opponents have a better understanding of theory, structure of arguments, and the like.

II. Which best describes your paradigm or approach to judging debate?

B. Stock issues emphasis

Road maps will be on-time, please, unless there is a specific rule requiring they be off-time. Off-time road maps will be limited to sequence--I do not flow them and will not consider an argument offered here. Word economy, please--if you will follow the prior speaker's order, simply say "Same order."

III. What speed or rate of presentation do you prefer?

E. No preferences regarding speed

I can flow what you can enunciate. If you stop enunciating, I stop flowing. I do not yell "Clear" or give other signals that you are not enunciating.

IV. Counterplans are:

C. Acceptable if justified and if consistent with other elements of the negative approach

Counterplans, if run, should be plan exclusive. I’m looking for functional competitiveness in a cp. When neg offers a cp, they necessarily indict the status quo and therefore forfeit presumption, IMO. I don’t accept that cps can be conditional, as this presents a “moving target” to aff. (“Ban the plan” is not functionally competitive, and only weakly textually competitive, BTW.)

V. Topicality is:

B. Fairly important, roughly on par with other major issues in the round.

What can I say? I’m a stock issues judge. T is a priori, so if neg is going to run it they really ought to run it at the top of 1NC. The end-of-round test for T, to me, is reasonability: if the plan is a reasonable interpretation of the resolution, I’m going to allow it. I’m not all that interested in how neg structures a T arg, or how aff responds to it—has aff convinced me that their interpretation of the resolution is reasonable? If so, they’re topical and I consider the rest of the round.

VI. I find generic disadvantages:

B. Acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

The links make the DA relevant to the plan. If the plan doesn’t incur the DA there’s not much point, now, is there?

VII. I find kritiks:

B. Acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

Other things I like and you will do if you want my ballot:

· Direct Clash: I really like on-case args, BTW. I like DAs and Solvency attacks a lot, too, but clash is key to a good round.

· Signposting: When clashing with your opponents, tell me which arg you’re answering. (Road mapping is not a substitute for signposting, BTW.) I know where I would put your arg on my flow, but I need to know where YOU want me to put it.

· Extension in rebuttals: There’s more to a good rebuttal than repeating what was said in constructives. When you repeat constructives, you’re having a “is not/is so” argument. This is neither clash nor a debate. Extending args involves further developing your position and supporting it with extension evidence. Read new evidence that supports your position.

· Closed cross-examination: I strongly dislike open cross-ex. Also, please ask for cards from the speaker during cross-ex, not between speeches. On the topic of cards, please do not hover near the speaker and take cards as they read them.

I did debate all through high school and college, and have coached it as well. So I can keep up with most arguments and ideas.

Things I like in a debate are clash, good theory, stock issues, and impact calc. The more straightforward the better. The more squirrely your argument the less likely I am to vote for it.

PLEASE DO ROADMAPS

I like good Topicality arguments, and can't stand ones that are just there for time sucks or because you have nothing better to run. Please don't do this.

I really don't care for K's. If you run a good one, and it explain it very well, I'm good with it.

Some speed is fine, but if you can't say the whole word, you're going too fast.

Be polite. There is a line between being assertive and a jerk. Know that line, because I don't like voting for jerks, even if they were the better debater.

-I debated 4 years in high school

-Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of roughly equal importance to me in a debate

-I would say I generally judge tabula rasa

-DELIVERY: I'm good with fairly rapid delivery as long as it is accompanied by clear enunciation; I would probably prefer no spreading

-COUNTERPLANS: acceptable if justified, and if consistent with other elements of the negative approach

-TOPICALITY: rarely important; a violation of topicality must be fairly blatant and very well argued by the negative to win my ballot

-GENERIC DAs: acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed

-KRITIKS: accceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed

Put me on the chain: tianamarion7@gmail.com

Background: I debated four years at Salina South High School (2017-21). I was also the 5A 2-speak state champion in 2021 on the prison reform topic. I currently debate in college at Kansas Wesleyan University (parli + LD), and I had a brief stint at Yale. I have assistant coached at Salina South, head coached at Sacred Heart high school, and assistant coached at McPherson High School.

Judging Philosophy: Tech over truth. I think debate is a game, whoever plays it best wins my ballot. With this, I have often voted against good plans or good counterplans that I think are good ideas, because they weren't argued correctly. I try to keep my own personal biases (in any way) out of the debate round. Do not change how you debate to adapt to me; I want to see how you debate at what you believe is your best. I'm comfortable with any speed from conversational to rapid spreading. Speech drop > Email chains. ****I am of the belief that all on case and off case arguments need to be read in the 1NC. Also no new in the 2NC. I will not vote you down because of this, but I will not be happy.

Topic Specific: This year, I have been judging and coaching on the 4A and 3-2-1 A circuit. I am not a big fan of "soft left" impacts which are huge on this topic, so it will be much easier for me to vote on high magnitude impacts (yes, I am an unironic nuke war impact enjoyer).

Topicality: I believe it is an a priori and will judge it first before examining the case. I judge topicality on whether you can prove specific in-round abuse and if it sets a precedent for bad debating. I have enjoyed debating and coaching topicality, so please do not be afraid to run it!

Counterplans: I believe every counterplan has to have a net benefit, and I don’t care about whether it’s topical or not. I don't think conditionality is abusive in most cases, but I can be convinced with a really good condo bad shell.

Kritiks: I am most comfortable with Capitalism, Settler Colonialism, Security, Queerness, and Anti-blackness. Anything further will probably require some explanation. Must have Framework to tell me how to weigh the K vs Case.

Hayden '22

KU '26

Add me to the email chain:

Smcconnell.debate@gmail.com

TLDR: I've gone for a mix of policy and critical arguments. I don't have preferences about what you read. Just do what you do well.

Speed is fine---Slow down for analytics and give some pen time

Unique strategies and in-depth explanation = Increased Speaks

Tech>Truth, but truth is a tiebreaker

Impact calc is good

LD/PF Note:

I did LD a few times in high school, but don't know too much about the event.

I've never done or judged PF, but know the basic structure.

This means I don't really have any preconceived notions about these events, so you have to explain how I evaluate certain arguments in the round.

Just debate your best and I will try to adjudicate the debate my best.

If you have any questions just ask!

I was a 4-year state debater and now I am an assistant debate coach. As a policy maker judge I look at the Aff case as if it was a plan in congress. I weigh it on if it will accomplish more good than bad. I prefer realistic impacts for both advantages and disadvantages. While topicality is important, I rarely vote on it. However if the neg makes a good enough case for it, then I will vote on it. I do not care for Kriticks. Counterplans are fine.

I debated for 4 years at Bishop Miege. I am a flow judge.

I will default to policy maker unless you convince me to follow a different paradigm that is more important for the specific round. I prefer that you show me practical, real-world implications on both the affirmative and negative. I typically will not vote on topicality unless it is especially egregious. I believe counter-plans must be incompatible with the affirmative case. I will likely not vote on Kritiques.

Please do not spread.

Overall, I sway toward a Policy Making Paradigm. With a heavy emphasis on speaking ability and how well the argument is made. Additionally, I disdain off-time road maps, (if it is important enough to include, please use your time for it).

I have been judging for 4 seasons.

I have judged around the at debate tournament, league, regionals and at state.

Communication skills and resolution of substantial issues are of roughly equal importance.

The skills emphasis is what best describes my paradigm approach to judging debate.

The speed of presentation I prefer is fairly rapid, delivery acceptable so long as presentation Is clearly enunciated.

Counter plans are acceptable if justified, and if consistency with other elements of the negative approach.

Topicality is fairly important; roughly on par with other major issues in the round.

I find generic disadvantages acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

I find kritiks reprehensible; I prefer specific real world arguments.

Hello! My name is Ruby, and I did debate for all of one year in high school, but have done debate judging a few times over the years since. I assess debate rounds over how much the arguments make sense and how compellingly they are presented. If topicality is actually applicable, I think it can be compelling, but making topicality for the sake of topicality doesn't really make sense. Generic disadvantages are acceptable (not preferred), but present them in a way that demonstrates the connection between that and what the other team is talking about. I will be honest and say I don't quite understand kritikal arguments, but if you can make a good kritikal argument that makes sense, go for it! Talk at a comprehensible please, arguments are really only good if you can understand them, and understanding needs to take into account speed. Most of all, have fun!

I debated 4 years in high school, and have judged/assistant coached at plenty of tournaments since I graduated in 2018. I am currently a high school English teacher and debate/forensics coach. I value communication skills a lot, but the arguments being made must also have substance. I'm typically a tab judge, and will value what you convince me is most important; but if no framework is given by the debaters, I will default policy maker. I have no preference in speed as long as you speak clearly. CPs are fine, and topicality is fine, Ks are okay if you break them down. Disadvantages should have clear links to the aff, and should all be impacted out.

Note: You may see another Tyler Slinkard paradigm on tabroom, use this one. The other is from an old account. There is no major difference between the two other than I have updated some info for Highschool competitors.

Background:

4 years of policy and LD in High School (Fort Scott Sr. High)

4 years of NFA-LD in College (University of Central Missouri)

1.5 years of coaching speech/debate in College (UCM)

General In-Round Info:

Keeping the flow clean is the easiest way to win my ballot. I have based the info below on my previous decisions. Note the points where I have found the analysis in round was most effective in making me vote aff/neg.

LD (Highschool):

Value/Criterion-not necessary but if you are not engaging with the traditional structure of the event then at least make it clear what you are doing and why I should (or should not) vote one way.

LD (College) CX (Highschool):

*Speed* If you keep the flow clean, you can go as fast as you want. I will say "clear" if I cannot understand your rate of delivery. Please note, I am slightly bad of hearing. The wonderful result of growing up in a rock-musician's house.

Topicality-an a priori until a counter framework is presented. The negative needs to show me how their definition directly relates to the affirmative case. If you want my ballot on T; explain the violation.

Ks and all manner of dark sorcery-My wheelhouse in college was the Cap K, but near the end I started to venture into feminist literature and I have since fallen into a wide array of different perspectives that I now generally, at least in part, embrace. That said, in the following section I have included my general view of debate's relationship to the individual and society because I think that is the best way to explain my understanding of Kritiks.

Debate is a performance like any other event. Policy presentations have their place and are not inherently contradictory to critical evaluation. However, policy debate is a social associate of power in the status quo. For me, that is true for psychic, bio, and material power within the American system. That said, debate, as a collective idea, is not a state of counter/anti-fascist praxis, but it can be a space.

Debating as a practice of evaluation by means of competitive information processing is important because debate questions (i.e. resolutions) are not only an attempt at examining competing positions and placing one over another, but also the reassertion of a primary mode of processing. A traditionalist would contend that primary mode is policy. Indeed, the most recent NFA rules for Lincoln-Douglas maintain the event should be a "policy-oriented dialogue." That places policy discussions inherently above alternative mechanisms from the outset. Thus, in my mind, the Kritik is about rejecting not only a previous position but also the recognition of the inherent bias of organized debate.

I myself am game for any rejection of status quo politics. I just like clash.

That is a very general synopsis of my view on critical debate. Please feel free to ask more specific questions before rounds.

Impact Calculus-While my background would indicate a desire for a clear, concise line-by-line, I've found the BP style of rebuttals has a greater capacity for keeping my attention. I also recommend that people collapse to as few arguments as possible. Use your time efficiently.

I find systemic (violence) implications far more compelling than existential/terminal ones. That said, I have voted for extinction many times.

Pronouns: he/his

stegman76@gmail.com

I used to coach at a 2A high school in Kansas. I'm a stock issue as well as policymaker in that I look for impacts and weigh them against the defense in the round.

Do not tell me about the rules of debate unless there is an impact to your argument. The impact could be fairness or something.

Generic DAs are fine if the links are clearly analyzed.

Topicality is super important; however, I hate T arguments that are just there to fill time.

CPs are fine, although I'm not crazy about topical CPs.

Kritiks are something I'm not super comfortable judging well. I've only seen them run once or twice...by novices at the beginning of their debate career. I'm not opposed to them, but don't feel I could accurately gauge if a K is run well or not.

Don't just read evidence and leave it at that - analyze, analyze, analyze!

I prefer moderate contest speed. Not a super big fan of spreading.

I flow. Please keep your speech organized.

I do not tolerate racism, homophobia, transphobia, or bullying, no matter how good you are if you are disrespectful it will be reflected in my decision. This doesn't mean you can't be sassy it just means don't cross that line otherwise I will stop the round and we will have a talk after your speech.

Do Not Spread

- No new in the 2NC is a bad argument and you will not win on it.

Topicality: Controversial opinion not every case needs to have a test on how topical they are. I have a high threshold to believe T, effects T is okay I guess same for extra T so make sure it is explained well. I see T as a DA to the Case, it is a voting issue just like a DA so if you go for this tell me why T is more important than solving the issue.

The K: Cool run it but the alt must have a good explanation in every speech it appears in. Also the argument "the k doesn't make any real change" won't fly with me, when I vote for policy affs and cps I understand there is no physical action taken there either. Prove why the alt can't solve, run a perm, no link it, and maybe even prove why you solve the issue better.

The K aff is completely fine with me but explain what the role of the ballot is, your advocacy/alt, and how the negatives arguments link to the problems the aff describes. If you are facing a performance K aff than talk about the content in the performance.

Theory: Cool and theory doesn't have to be a minute long block or anything but I don't want theory one liners that get blown up in the 2NR that had no voting issue? impact in the beginning of the round.

Speed: Fast is fine but I reserve the right to yell clear if I do not understand what you are saying or volume if you need to be louder. Also I might miss analytics if you go too fast so go at tag speed on the analytics.

Case: It exists the neg should argue on it and affs should carry through the key points of the case and its advantages. I would love to see people quoting evidence in their explanations and using the other teams ev to link to their arguments. Case turns keep me alive.

Simply put, I like civil, clean, formal debates where everyone respects the process and each other.

Tech time is prep time. Don't abuse it.

Kritiks are for people who don't actually want to debate the resolution.

I am a science educator for 28 years. While I didn't participate in debate in high school or college, my students often have to debate topics in my classroom. I have been judging debate for 3 years. Being a science educator, I need to have links between topics clearly analyzed. There needs to be a direct correlation between the evidence and your conclusion. I believe good communication is a must. Rapid delivery is needed but it cannot be at the expense of understanding. Topicality is very important but should not be the only counter argument. In most cases, it is very hard to prove something is not topical. Counterplans are acceptable, but need to show why they are better and more beneficial than the original plan. I need to be able to follow your line of thinking and have evidence to support your line.

I vote on a stock-issue paradigm, in which stock issues that carry through constructives will probably determine the ballot.

I strongly recommend off-time road maps and frequent summary/recap. These skills are so important in life, especially the ability to summarize someone else's perspective to check one's understanding.

I have warmed to off-case in the past year, so let 'em rip. It's unlikely for me to vote on off-case or style alone. Stocks still count significantly. Here's a twist: if stocks aren't your thing on neg, consider a well-conceived and well-executed K. I appreciate calculated risk-taking when the only alternative is mediocrity on the stock issues.

I have grown to love debate and love the young people who invest their Saturdays. I coach some (beloved!) students who are perpetually excited, behave badly, and need to learn ... moderation. Some of you might need to learn it also, so that you have it as an option instead of fighting/flighting/freezing throughout life. I am a judge who might try to help your coach teach moderation to you. Truculent, surly, adversarial behavior by debaters bums me out and can cost the ballot. Shouting hurts my ears.

Debate is worthy of the time we all spend. A problem with debate is that it tends to reward disagreement. In life we must find places of agreement, especially when we are competing and it is hard to agree. I award ballot credit for the team that seeks a place of agreement with an opponent, and expresses it at some point in the round. And by "agreement" I mean: sincere agreement followed by "and," not superficial agreement followed by "but."

Thanks everyone!

Experienced debater. I value ability to summarize arguments in your own words. If you don't summarize a card or tell me in your own words how it links to a case/argument, then it doesn't exist. Always include a roadmap.