I expect a clear and organized debate. Make sure to speak clearly and loud enough so that that everyone in the round can hear you. Make sure that you are respectful and courteous to your opponents, especially during Crossfire. Cutting off your opponent when they are speaking is not useful or necessary.

I highly suggest you keep an organized flow and go line by line down your opponent's case whenever possible to ensure you address all their attacks on your case and can defend your key points. The win will go to the team that flows through the most points from case to final focus, effectively delinking their opponent's case and defending their own.

Hello! My name is Harris Dorgan. I'm judging for University High School, where I did PF debate for 4 years. I've technically judged debate for 3 years, but this year is my first judging more than a couple of tournaments.

For my overall philosophy on debate, I tend to let teams debate how they are prepared to debate,so things such as your decision to frontline is up to you. Also, I judge on my flow, so flow your responses through rebuttal, summary, and final focus.

Below, I have some points on other elements of debate.

Speed of delivery: As mentioned before, I did PF for 4 years so I can handle speed but I prefer clarity over quantity of arguments.

Format of summary speeches: I don't have any specific preferences other than that I like to see a clear structure. I don't necessarily care what that structure is, as long as I can see and understand the structure you choose.

Extension of arguments into later speeches: If a brand new argument is brought up in 2nd summary or later, I will not weigh it.

Argument vs style: I value argument and style equally.

Loreto Galvan-Alva

As a flow judge, my primary focus in determining who wins the round is on the technical aspects of the debate/arguments rather than the truthfulness of the arguments presented (I also do not flow through the crossfire, I simply listen so make sure points made in crossfires are brought up in a speech). However, in close rounds I recognize the importance of both tech and truth and I will consider both aspects in determining the rounds winner. Above all, I simply want every debater to remain respectful, and to have fun throughout this process!

1. Tech Over Truth

• Organization, Clarity, and Coherence (e.g., it's okay to speak quickly, so long as clarity isn't affected)
• Strength of evidence presented (e.g., stats, studies, data)
• Structured Speeches (i.e., organized, clash with opponents- speeches change depending on the debate itself/argumetns being presented)

2. Flexibility in Close Rounds

• While I prefer technical arguments, during close rounds I will consider arguments that challenge my initial beliefs or opinions.
• Strength of arguments and connection to why I should vote for either PRO or CON world is what I refer to when making a decision in close rounds (i.e., what are the main voting issues you want me to vote on)

3. Fairness and Behavior

• I encourage respectful discourse, I expect all debaters to engage with their opponents in a respectful manner (remember that you are clashing with the arguments, not the debaters themselves)
• Refrain from any potentially distracting behaviors while opponents are speaking (e.g, talking, giggling, expressive facial expressions)
• Plan ahead for any potential wifi/tech issues (e.g., not depending solely on computers), the wifi of other school's will be unknown until the day of the tournament (being prepared for any potential issues allows us to be respectful of other teams/judges times)

So simply put remember to be respectful, have strong arguments, and have fun!

*My personal preference is to not disclose at the end of a round, I will leave all feedback on the ballot*

Be polite and respectful to your opponents at all times. When it comes to your speech delivery, I value clarity over speed. Make sure that you properly cite your evidence and statistics to keep the debate fair and honest. However, if you make a reference during your speeches to historical events, basic information, or economic theory, I will accept that as a form of "background knowledge" and a citation to a particular source is not necessarily required. I would highly encourage you all to make your responses easier to follow by signposting (AKA signaling which contention and subpoint you are responding to) and structuring your speeches, specifically your rebuttal, as a line-by-line refutation of the points made by your opponent. I would recommend that your summary speech consolidates the reasons why you won the round by grouping your points into voter issue(s), and that these voter issues are extended into the final focus. Make sure you present compelling impacts and use weighing mechanisms to explain how your impacts are more important than your opponents'.

Public Forum

Name: Sarah Greenswag

School Affiliation: Libertyville High School

Number of years judging the event you are registered in: 10

some tips for success in-round:

-assume i have no previous knowledge of topic, tabula rasa but please no bigoted arguments

- keep time

- comparative weighing: tell me why I should prefer your args over theirs. use weighing mechanisms (magnitude, timeframe, etc)

- rhetoric/truth can be impactful when used to strengthen existing cards and impacts, just make sure you thoroughly explain why it's substantial

- signposting: mention which contention or argument you're on when talking about it

- i don't flow cx but i will be listening: if you have a point, make sure you bring up in your next speech

- identify clash points and address them

- have links and impacts: explain how you get to your impacts, strength of link >>> big impacts, but if you have both go for it

Hello debaters! My name is Ms. Hafner, I am from Hinsdale Central, and I have two years of public forum debate experience.

My biggest request from all of you is that you speak clearly--for me, this entire activity is about communication. You have all worked so hard preparing your cases that I would hate to miss something.

In the summary and final focus speeches, I would prefer you to cover the most important points that I should be voting off of, no need to include every point mentioned throughout the round. Make it very clear to me which arguments I am casting my ballot for and what those impacts are.

Any argument you want weighed should be extended through both of the final speeches. I will not vote off an argument first introduced in grand cross or final focus.

I flow all speeches except cross fire. If you do make a good point in cross fire, be sure to emphasize it in later speeches.

I also believe that the presentation of the arguments are just as important as the arguments themselves. Having a convincing and compelling tone is in your best interest.

If you are speaking second, the second speaker must frontline (addressing the opponent's attacks on their case in rebuttal).

Be respectful of each other at all times, be organized, and have fun!

I value logical reasoning over evidence, although compelling evidence cannot be ignored. I strive for impartiality and open-mindedness when evaluating arguments. Effective rebuttal strategies should encompass both offense and defense (not just defense), and I appreciate when debaters engage with each point individually rather than skirting around them. I have experience in college parli and have judged LD and public forum so I understand the importance of clear communication, although I prioritize the substance of arguments over delivery style. Fairness and equal opportunity for both sides are crucial to me. I value the ability of debaters to effectively establish and defend their chosen framework, though I also recognize the importance of flexibility and willingness to engage in a constructive exchange of ideas. While I appreciate debaters' commitment to their framework, I understand that finding common ground can be valuable in fostering meaningful discourse. While defending your framework is important, I don't necessarily expect you to outright win on it. If a framework is not provided by either side, I default to util. Professional conduct and adherence to debate etiquette are expected, and I rely on clear links to impacts to understand how arguments lead to their intended outcomes.

I believe that debate is an educational thing. Do not just read cards; analyze them and show me how they connect. I like to see a lot of impact weighing. I am also good with speed. For Lincoln Douglas, make sure you carry your value and vc through the round and show me how your case upholds them.

Name: Max Herod

School Affiliation: Palatine High School

Number of years judging the event you are registered in: 2

Speed of delivery- Speed is good, too much speed is bad. If your argument is more technical, consider slowing it down or you risk me not understanding and therefore not weighing.

Format of Summary Speeches- Your summary speech can be structured however you want, as long as you extend existing arguments, front-line attacks on your case that went unaddressed in your team's rebuttal, and give voter's issues.

Extension of arguments into later speeches- This is essential to win the round.

Flowing/note-taking- I flow every speech, but not crossfires. I don't care how (or if) you flow.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? Argument wins you the round, style wins you speaker points. Both are important.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Of course it does, that's how PF debate works.

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech?Front-lining the first speaking team's attacks in your rebuttal is appreciated, but it's not the end of the world if you don't get to it until your summary speech.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? No, that's not how PF debate works.

I am a current PF debater (second speaker) at my College. However, I know nothing about the current topic. I expect respectful rounds, but encourage thorough questioning in cross. I vote on my flow -- in terms of who flowed arguments through the best while attacking their opponents' arguments line by line (collapsing is always an option for a cleaner ballot on my end). Weighing is crucial in debate -- make sure you weigh. I want to emphasize what summary is as well -- it is for voters, you're not giving a second rebuttal. I will give 1/2 speaker point for "riddle me this"

Look at the judge during all crosses

contentions should have impacts -- it helps with overall weighing and understanding of the contention

I have worked with debate teams for sixteen years and enjoy a healthy argument. I look for a debate with solid evidence that flows through to the end. Framework and voting issues are also appreciated as well. Be respectful to each other and mindful that a healthy clash of ideas often brings forth a refinement of your side. I appreciate the side that weighs their impact.

Hi! --- (tl;dr - tech>truth>persuasion, don't be offensive)

• Email: kaikozlov@gmail.com (put me on the email chain)

• I did some PF at BNHS in high school and currently do NPDA at UIUC.

General Debate Stuff:

• As long as your arguments are made clearly (claim-warrant-impact-weighing), odds are about 9/10 that I'll understand what you're talking about. These components are required for EVERY argument you make and need to be intact for you to win offense.

• If you want me to vote on your offense (reasons to vote for you, like contentions and turns), it has to be present and adequately clean (no through-ink extension) in every one of your speeches after it is introduced to the round. Defense (reasons to not vote for your opponent, like non-uniques and delinks) can be extended straight from rebuttal to final as long as your opponent does not cover it.

• BTW, the last time to introduce new advantages/disads is the 2R (1R for prog args). The last time for new evidence is first summary.

• I'll vote on literally anything that makes sense. That includes progressive arguments (Theory/Ks) or counterintuitive substantive arguments (nuclear war good/economic development bad).

• I expect you to signpost.

• For constructive speeches, this means clearly stating the number/letter and title of your contentions, warrants, subpoints, impacts, etc., before you begin reading them.

• For all speeches after constructive, say where you're starting (flow and argument), tell me what you're doing there, then do it (rinse and repeat until the end of your speech).

• When responding to arguments, tell me the purpose of your response (ex: Nuq, DL, Turn) and use numbering if you have multiple responses.

• Unless there's a good reason to jump between flows (like front-lining an arg to link into an impact on the opposite flow), you should be finishing the job on one side before moving to the other. Ideally, I'd want a roadmap for something like this, anyway.

• Please, please, please remember that when you weigh, it should be comparative; you should tell me why your world/argument is better than the alternative proposed by your opponents.

• 

Disclosure:

• If everyone is comfortable with me doing so, I will disclose my decision at the end of the round.

• Post-rounding is one of the best ways for everyone to get better at what they're doing, so if you think I missed something or was not clear, you have my permission to question the decision and me as a judge/person. You (or your coach) can be as rude, condescending, and aggressive as you want when post-rounding, and I won't hold that against you. At the end of the day, I'm here to help.

• Feel free to find or email me if you think of anything or want my opinion on stuff after the round.

Evidence:

• I will never drop a team for misconstruing evidence, only the argument

• I will only evaluate an evidence dispute if you tell me to call for something AND explain what's wrong with the evidence

Progressive Argumentation (Theory, Ks, etc):

• Slow down for these, and ideally, I want a speech doc.

• If you have no idea what these arguments are, don't worry; you probably shouldn't be running them anyway.

• I can and will evaluate theory (Content Warning, Disclosure, Paraphrasing, etc.) even though I feel that it necessitates judge intervention.

• If you read theory or Ks in paragraph form, I will disregard your arguments.

• I will vote on a K but

• Assume that I have no familiarity with your authors

• I have minimal experience evaluating K debates (as in, I might screw you, and you'll be sad)

Prefs:

• I can comfortably flow anything up to ~300 WPM without a speech doc, assuming you're clear, but please make sure you actually need to be going fast to make the arguments you are making. Most of the time, you can just improve your word economy and go slower.

  • You can spread against anyone even if they are not ok with it, but

  • If they are novices, you have to warn them before the round. If they say "speed"/"clear" and you don't slow down, I'll stop flowing.

  • If you have factors preventing you from following speed outside of your control (i.e., a disability), then tell your opponents or me about it (I'll keep this anonymous), and I'll make sure that no one spreads.

  • I'll be receptive to theoretical arguments, assuming they are properly structured.

• I encourage teams to pursue unconventional strategies, like responding to the first constructive in the second constructive or taking out all offense on both sides and telling me to vote on presumption.

• Speaks are arbitrary, so let me know if you're in a bubble and need high speaks to break.

• If you flow in crayon, I'll give you an instant +0.5 speaker point bump.

• TKO: If you, at any point in the debate, believe that your opponent has no routes to the ballot whatsoever, i.e., a conceded theory shell, you can call TKO (Technical Knock Out). The round stops as soon as you call it. If I agree with you, I will give you a W30. However, if there are still any possible routes left, I will give you an L20.

Also, if you REALLY want more specific information about how I will evaluate your round, check out my old coach's paradigm here. She taught me everything I know.

I appreciate when students are clear and concise in rounds. I need to be able to understand what is being said in the round in order to flow and subsequently judge. Outline your voters issues and impacts in your case. Be kind to one another, this is an educational and learning opportunity for everyone.

Name: Jay Mehta

School Affiliation: Stevenson HS

Number of years judging the event you are registered in: 10

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of delivery- Should be able to understand your argument; avoid mush mouth syndrome

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?)- Line by line

Extension of arguments into later speeches- Please do so

Flowing/note-taking- Not during crossfire

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? Equally

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Yes, needs to be extended in both rebuttal and summary

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? Yes

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? No

• Be kind to your opponent
• I do not flow speed reading
• You can win the round and still not get high speaking points. Ensure you are speaking, not just reading a speech.

Elise Meintanis (Harmening)

About me:

I have over 20 (yikes!) years of experience with debate and was the IHSA State Champion in Public Forum my senior year. Now I own my own law firm and work as an Adjunct Professor at UIC Law. I also work with Homewood-Flossmoor and attended Carl Sandburg.

About the round:

I am strict about timing in the round - if the timer goes off I do not want you to finish your sentence. I know it seems harsh but it helps me keep everything fair throughout the round! If I cut you off, I'm not mad, just keeping everything consistent :)

Tell me who wins at the end--I care about voting issues. Understand what the round comes down to and tell me why you won. I really mean it when I say I care about voting issues too - number them, line them up for me, make it super easy!

I also care about civility. That really hasn't been a big issue lately (which is amazing) but just keep that in mind too.

Hi all, I'm a 4 year high school PFer turned college parli debater. My pronouns are he/him. Email is yaseenmozaffar@gmail.com if you have any questions at any point.

I'm a pretty straightforward tech-over-truth flow judge. For Public Forum, I judge off the flow by directly comparing whatever impacts each team has extended through summary and final focus. If you tell me how to weigh one of your arguments against one of your opponents', I'll weigh it that way. If you don't tell me how to weigh, I'll end up just having to make a judgment call and/or draw inferences based on the rest of the arguments on the flow. I don't want to have to do that, and you definitely don't want me to have to do that, so put a lot of care into your weighing analysis in the back half of the debate. I don't flow crossfire, but I pay attention to it, and I'll flow arguments that reference cross IF they're brought up in later speeches. Past that, I'm supremely flexible with just about everything, as long as it's okay with the others in the round. At the end of the day this is your round, not mine. **no spreading in PF**

On speaker points: I don't have a formula for speaker points because there's no one way to be a "good" speaker. I award speaks based on both presentation and strategic effectiveness in speeches, as well as presence in cross.

Finally, do your best to avoid acting like a bad person. I understand that this is a high-tension activity, especially when stakes are high, but be sure to keep yourself in check before being disrespectful, hateful, or otherwise mean-spirited. We're all human beings before we're debaters, and it's important to me that we all remember that everyone has a place in this activity.

My overall philosophy is to be kind, have fun, and avoid rude commentary (Especially during crossfire) I know that's corny, but if we're spending our Saturdays here together, we should be making friends and enjoying ourselves. Below are some other features that I tend to value in a round because I heard y'all wanted a bigger paradigm. Here we go $$$

Fairness, Clarity, and Case Development: All arguments must be structured logically from A-->B. Every argument should be weighed on its merits and building strawman arguments is mad annoying and will not be considered. High value is placed on the use of credible evidence and sound reasoning. Arguments should primarily be supported by facts and studies that have been developed within the realm of relevance. Unless used as a historical example, a card should be published no later than seven years ago (2017)

More on Cases: Arguments should have direct links. Overextending an idea to meet the needs of your case will damage your argument and your ballot overall. This creates a slippery slope and will most likely not flow through. This feels similar to what I said above, but I'm going to keep it there anyway.

Impact Analysis: Try to place an emphasis on the significance and implications of arguments. Scope is most important to me as a judge.

I don’t need solvency, I just need you to show me how your argument does LESS harm.

Preciate it, GOATS!

Maria Raza

Belleville West Highschool

I've been a debater and judge for both LD and PF throughout high school, so I am familiar with both events.

Public Forum:

Any speed of delivery is okay but conversational is preferred. or if you're going to go fast make sure to be clear!

I don't have a specific format I'm looking for in the Summary Speeches but I do like to see big picture arguments.

Always extend arguments throughout the debate. If you're not extending I'm going to assume the argument is dropped.

Make sure to always flow! don't just say "Extend card xyz" Explain the impacts, relevance, etc.

second speaker - Do your best to attack the opponents' case and defend yours, If not possible I'd prefer to at least hear you attack the opponents' case.

I vote for arguments and voter issues in the final focus. To me the final focus is both sides giving me a wrap-up of what to vote for, the most important arguments, etc.

and of course, Be respectful! Have Fun! :D

Lincoln-Douglas

Any speed of delivery is okay but conversational is preferred. or if you're going to go fast make sure to be clear!

I don't have a specific format expectation for the the 2nd rebuttal but I like to see big-picture arguments included.

I vote mainly on voting issues! tell me what is the most important arguments/evidence, tell me what you are winning and why, and give me impacts.

AND DON'T FORGET YOUR FRAMEWORK! This plays a big decision in who I vote for.

To win It doesn't matter if you use your framework or your opponent's. As long as you clarify what framework you're using and you show why you're winning.

Always extend arguments throughout the debate. If you're not extending I'm going to assume the argument is dropped.

Make sure to always flow! don't just say "Extend card xyz" Explain the impacts, relevance, etc.

Evidence is always important! always have evidence to back your argument.

and of course, Be respectful! Have Fun! :D

Hello (If you don't read this, just remember IMPACTS IMPACTS IMPACTS and I will give a large verbal RFD at the end)!

My name is Alex Redell, I both coach and judge for Normal, IL University High School's Debate Team.

In high school, I did 3 years of public forum debate. After high school I've judged and coached a multitude of tournaments in both PF and LD. I'm going to be a junior in university, so with all that in mind, I'd like to think that all my debate knowledge is still fresh within my mind.

Since I help coach University, I'll be pretty well up to date on all the cards, evidence, lingo, and other stuff for each topic, so if you run something that is a stretch, misinterpretation, or misrepresentation, I will most likely be aware. HOWEVER, I judge debates on the flow. If something flows through every speech and your opponent doesn't call you out on it, even if the argument itself is flawed, I will still vote it through if the opponent never calls it out and you weigh it properly. The only exception to that is if you blatantly lie about evidence and I catch it (then I won't flow it through).

Other than that, I should be a normal Illinois circuit judge. For opening constructive, I'm fine with speed up to a certain point. I won't welcome all out spreading, but reading fast but legibly has never been an issue for my flowing skill. I'm rather standoffish regarding your rebuttal, summary, and final focus style. Whatever format you are comfortable with is the format I will be comfortable with, the only necessities of these speeches are to: A. Flow through your points from speech to speech (if you don't flow an argument through, I won't weigh it). B. weigh your impacts big time in summary (this means quantify it if possible, compare/contrast your impacts with your opponents, and emphasize its importance). and C. cover the spread of information (if you slip up and forget to respond to something in a speech and your opponent flows this through all of their speeches, I have to prefer your opponent since they flowed your lack of response through). I also have no issue with collapsing onto a specific argument/point in summary, but if you do this make sure it was necessary. Too many times recently I've seen teams collapse either on the wrong argument or collapse when they didn't need to and it has hurt their chances of winning, so be wary of that. I also don't flow anything from cross, so if you wish something from cross to be flowed through, you must bring it up in your next speech.

Lastly, just please have fun. PF debate can be tons of fun, and I don't want any competitors to ever forget that. This means be nice to each other, ask questions after the round to me if you have them, and stay positive! If there is anything you take away from this paradigm it is the previous statement. After every round I will always give feedback to all four speakers and to all arguments in the round. I like to do this so I can explain to you any decision I made so you don't walk away confused, and if you need to make changes before future rounds, you will be able to. If I am allowed to disclose, I 100% will, so I can explain how in a future debate the loser can capture the ballot next time (I won't disclose for novices though).

As a public forum coach and judge I enjoy seeing a lively round with lots of purposeful clash and respectful exchange. I have been coaching debate for 8 years. Any disrespectful behavior including abusive frameworks may work against your partnership. SPEED READING will not be flowed, and I will put my pen down. It is important for me to hear your contentions, links, evidence and impacts. I value accurate use of evidence and weighing in the round. Intentionally muddling a round is manipulative, please do not try to confuse the round with irrelevant information or worse misuse of evidence. I want you to tell me why you are actually winning by proving how you outweigh and pulling your arguments through the round. Line by line is preferable, but a logical narrative can win around if well supported by timely evidence and historical depth of knowledge. In the end I vote for the team that tends to understand the topic and the research, presents with calm and clarity, and crystalizes the debate in the summary while providing voter issues. Additionally, I vote for truth over tech! Happy debating!

Public Forum:

Name: Tyler Ross

School Affiliation: Normal West

Number of years judging the event you are registered in: 10+

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of delivery- No auctioneer speed. A point I can't understand is a point loat

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?)- no preference

Extension of arguments into later speeches.

Keep the winning arguments/ voting issues

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally?

Argument over style

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches?

Yes

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech?

Yes

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or

final focus?

No

Hello debaters! My name is Mrs.Ruth, I am from Hinsdale Central, and I have two years of public forum debate experience. I am still very new at this.

My biggest request from you all is that you speak slowly and clearly. You guys have all prepared so much, I would hate to miss important points due to you speeding through them!

In the summary and final focus speeches, I would prefer you to cover the most important points that I should be voting off of; no need to include every point mentioned throughout the round. Make it very clear to me which arguments I am casting my ballot because of, and what those impacts are.

Any argument you want weighed should be extended through both of the final speeches. I will not vote off an argument first introduced in grand cross or final focus.

I flow all speeches except cross fire. If you do make a good point in cross fire, be sure to emphasize it in later speeches.

I also believe that the presentation of the arguments are just as important as the arguments themselves. Employing a compelling tone is in your best interest.

If you are speaking second, the second speaker must frontline (addressing the opponent’s attacks on their case in rebuttal).

With that being said, be respectful and have fun!

School Affiliation: PALATINE

Number of years judging the event you are registered in: 7 years

Speed of delivery- As long as I can flow it I am fine with spreading.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?)- I like a big picture format for Summaries and a crystallization of the debate. Clean up attacks, let me know what you want to focus on, and introduce voter's issues

Extension of arguments into later speeches- All arguments should be extended if you want me to flow them through.

Flowing/note-taking- I flow the entire round except for crossfires and final focus.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? To win the debate I value argument. To get high speaker points I value style.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Yes, that argument should at least be mentioned in those two speeches.

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? No, I don't require front lining - I think debaters should be allowed to deal with attacks against their own case in the summary. Unless we add more time to the second speaker's rebuttal this doesn't seem fair.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? No.

I have been a debate judge for approximately a decade, but only in Illinois.

Speed is okay as long as the debater has a clear intelligible voice. I have difficulty following what I call whispery voices especially at speed because I tend to not hear everything being said properly. I have been recently been diagnosed with hearing "not at normal levels".

I value style as well as substance equally.

I flow through out the debate and I like to see teams address their opponent’s contentions point by point. Additionally, It does not matter to me if a team is stating something in their case that is knowingly false or untrue. If the opposing team does not contest these statement…then power to the other team. I also like to see teams specify impacts along with their contentions.

Also, I am all for robust intelligent debates, but keep it above boards. Being aggressive is not necessarily a no-no if done properly. Please no sniping or snickering at your opponents expense. This behavior will not be tolerated.

Director @ NDC

Director @ debate.land

did circuit debate a little while back

theory, T, and framing are fine (boring tbh) but I'm quite unfamiliar with k lit, run at your own risk

normal PF nat circuit speed, and I start at a 28 and move from there

default prob>mag, weigh to win

I won't vote on IVIs and default no RVIs

Also, talking to your partner during their speech or cross is an auto 25.

For TOC: add adithya679@gmail.com and strakejesuitpf@mail.strakejesuit.org to the chain, please!

I expect a clear delivery. This affects more than speaker points. In my opinion, it can affect my judging of that round. Articulation, speaking at a pace where words can be understood, making contentions and impacts clear are important.

Unique contentions and impacts with good, current, solid evidence will sway my vote.

Respectful conduct, always. A good well organized delivery is important.