General Things:

In absence of a framework debate I'll default to a somewhat arbitrary combination of policy making and in-round educational value (or harms) forged by my personal experiences in debate. But that's not what anyone wants, so tell me how to vote and why.

I will call for evidence in very few cases and I do not want to be on the email chain. Take the time to actually develop your own arguments and the arguments of your authors in the rebuttals.

In the rebuttals I prefer depth to breadth. Explain and develop the arguments you're going to go for rather than saying "extend my ______ evidence" 50 different times without any further analysis about why those extensions matter.

My ears are slower than they used to be. I'm comfortable with spreading, but please make your taglines clear and clearly distinguished. I will tell you if I cannot understand you by loudly saying “clear” during your speech.

It’s critical for me that I understand the argument before I vote on it. That means you'll need to explain it to me in clear and understandable terms. Assume I know nothing about your [aff, K, CP, etc.] prior to the round.

What follows are my defaults regarding various positions in the absence of an explicit framework debate.

Specific Arguments:

T - I'm willing to vote negative on T, and genuinely enjoy a good T debate. I don't think my threshold on this argument is particularly high, but for a neg to win T there are a few things that are important to me:

1. The definition and violation. Tell me in detail why the aff isn't topical.
2. The standards debate. Tell my why your interpretation of the topic is preferable.
3. Specific abuse is not a must-have for me. If you can prove that your interpretation of the round is good for debate and that an interpretation including the aff as topical is bad for debate you can win even in the absence of abuse.

DA's - It is easier to win 100% defense in front of me than most judges. This doesn't mean you can't win on "risk of a link" arguments, but it does mean that risk has to be significant for me to give significant weight to your impact. Don't expect a .001% risk of a nuclear war to outweigh smaller but more likely impacts (unless of course your framework explains why that's the best way to evaluate risks...). Having a clear and realistic internal link story is important to me.

Case - Similar to my feelings on D/A's it is easier to win no solvency arguments in front of me then many judges. It’s important to me that there is at least some extension of the case in the 2AC if you want to get full weight of it in later speeches. Don't expect to get much weight in the 2AR on a magically resurrected advantage that no one has mentioned since the 1AC.

CP’s - Winning the net benefit is similar to winning solvency or D/As in terms of defensive arguments: strong defense on the net benefit is a potential reason to prefer the permutation, or just the plan alone. Perms are also viable round winners for me. I default to test of competition rather than advocacy, but feel free to specify (or demand that the aff specifies). Specific comparisons about the world of the counter plan versus the world of the aff plan and/or the world of the perm are important to me.

K's - I tend to buy the representations F/W arguments that what we do and say in the round matters enough to be a voting issue. That said, if the aff is winning reasons why the plan is a good policy that helps people then that could very well mean their representations while advocating for it are also good. If your alt represents an action within the world of fiat then comparisons of this action to the world of the plan are important to me. Otherwise, make sure you establish a framework so that I know how to evaluate the arguments in your K against the arguments your opponents are making.

Theory - I'm willing to vote on theory. If you genuinely believe your ability to debate is being hurt by decisions the other team has made you can probably win on theory in front of me. You should have an interpretation on theory, and explain in clear terms whats wrong with the action of the other team.

While I’ve certainly voted in opposition to my personal views many times before, both on theory and other arguments, here is a short list of things I think are generally true:

Slow WAY down when you read your theory blocks. I’m not going to read them and there’s no way I can type them as fast as the fastest debaters can say them.

Everyone should be disclosing, but without an explicit rule enforced by the tournament I don’t think failure to disclose is a voting issue. Sometimes in life you’re gonna be surprised, learning to adapt on the fly is a good skill that debaters should be developing.

Performative contradictions are bad, and might sometimes be a voting issue.

Conditional arguments are okay, maybe even necessary for effective negative strategy. But the more of them there are and the more contradictory they are with each other, the more abusive they become. For example, reading a capitalism K and an economic DA rooted in capitalistic ideology in the same round is a bad idea. Adding in a CP that solves the DA while linking to the K is a potential voting issue.

Affirmatives should be topical. Switch sides debate and the existence of other educational programs and activities solves pretty much all the offense I’ve ever heard on this point.

Email: Bethanychristiansen@gmail.com

I am a former policy debater, but have judged other events before as well. The most important thing for me is that your arguments are clear. For policy, Ks and theory args are okay, but pls explore the world of the alt, especially in the block. I vote on impact calc so do work on your links.

Hello,

I'm an attorney and I was admitted to the Utah Bar in 1997. I work in the medical device and pharmaceutical industries.

Please present your issues clearly, concisely, respectfully and debate zealously. However, I am not a fan of Ks, spreading and/or spewing (unless spreading is expected or allowed) or asking for disqualifications for minor infractions and doing so will lead me to believe you are not well prepared and reaching for any object or argument just to keep your head above water.

Good luck and have fun!

Chris

As a judge I am looking for three things.

1. I want to see that you care about the round. Show up on time (as much as you are able and is possible given how tournaments run). Be kind and respectful to your opponents and the host school.

2. I want to be able to understand you. I do not like spreading, and you will get likely get low speaker points if you do this. The most common feedback I give is, "slow down when you speak."

3. I am also looking for precision. I want to see that you know what you're talking about and make it very clear what your arguments are.

I don't mind critiques (or "Kritiks" as I believe you debate kids call them) but I want to see that you have good evidence.

The most important thing for me is that you are able to do your best. Please take the time you need to set up your notes, laptop (as permitted), table, water bottle, etc. I know you have put a lot of work into speech and debate and I want you to be able to improve after every round. If there is anything specific I can do to help you be at your best, please let me know.

I have a lot of experience judging LD and PF. This is my first time at nationals. While I have not judged World Schools before, I did use to work at the Houses of Parliament in London, so I am familiar with the general format.

I mainly did policy for my three years in high school debate both on the local circuit and the national one. I dabbled in congress and had a very brief stint in PF, so I feel pretty comfortable judging any debate event. I graduated from Bingham High in 2020 and the U of U in 2023 and I coach policy for Skyline. I love debate and care about you all having the best possible experience, don't take any of my paradigm as me being mean. Please include me on any email chain: natisjudgingunicely@gmail.com

I am a very spacey person who doesn't make eye contact super well, but I promise I'm listening even if it doesn't look like I am. If I'm not nodding along, flowing or making facial expressions, then you can probably worry that you don't have my attention.

CX

Brief rundown to get the gist:

Please make any topic specific acronyms/terms clear - I haven't been very exposed to things on this one yet

My first impression of this topic is that almost all debates are gonna be poverty vs. econ collapse and that makes me grumpy. If you argue other impacts, I won't be grumpy and will give you higher speaker points for doing so.

Speed is fine, lack of clarity is not

I will listen to any argument that isn't demeaning to a group of people

Tech>Truth but don't say dumb stuff (e.g. if you say aliens built the pyramids and the other team doesn't answer, I will give you the argument but probably not high speaks or the benefit of the doubt)

You shouldn't neglect persuasive speaking just because you're in policy

Impact calc is huge

I am most persuaded by tangible change when it comes to Ks

You won't earn lower than 26 pts unless you engage in misconduct

I will try my best to meet you at your level and judge you accordingly. I will be just as involved in a local tournament between small schools as I will in a national circuit tournament with powerhouses. Every debater deserves a judge who will try to make each debate worthwhile and educational.

No debate is unwinnable, when I disclose I will try to explain what needed to happen for me to have voted differently.

In depth discussion to better understand my philosophy and biases:

REMEMBER THESE ARE JUST MY VIEWS AND THINGS THAT WILL MAKE YOU MORE PERSUASIVE TO ME. I WILL STILL DEFER TO TECH>TRUTH AND LISTEN TO ANY NON-BIGOTTED ARG

Case

A good 1AC should be able to support most of your arguments throughout the debate and you should know it well. Aff debaters who can make smart cross-applications, consistently call back to the 1AC on any flow, kick advantages where they feel it is necessary and read 2AC/1AR ev that expands upon the 1AC instead of rehashing it will likely get high speaks and are more likely to earn my ballot in a close debate, not to mention that it helps you win a debate in front of anyone. An ideal 1NC should be at least 2 mins of case that is as specific as possible to the aff. I understand that specificity can be hard this early in the year and especially hard if you're a small school, but you should still strive to meet it. I LOVE case turns, be they impact or link turns and having offense on case is always good to keep your options open.

CPs

Not much for me to say. Cheaty counterplans are bad and I'm very unlikely to vote on one. Internal net benefits are cool. A CP without a net benefit is almost impossible to win. Perms are just a test of competition. Otherwise, have at it.

DAs

The two things I care about the most here are 1. Impact calc and 2. Details/evidence. Impact calc from the 2nc onward can go a long way toward getting my ballot. This doesn't just mean "We outweigh on x" and moving on. You need to pick a metric you are going for (timeframe, probability and magnitude) and explain why I should care most about that one if the other team is claiming to win on a different metric. Also explain how your impact and the other team's impact interact. In a world where I vote neg/aff, what will the prevention of your impact do to the other team's impact? Will it make it less likely or less damaging? Does your impact control the internal link to theirs? When it comes to details and evidence, I'm a lot more likely to vote on a DA with a convincing link chain that you have fleshed out that may have a smaller impact than a 2-3 card DA that takes 45s and ends in nuke war. This doesn't mean I'm less likely to vote for you if you go for an impact that is less probable than the other team's, just that I want the cliché of wild DAs to slowly start to die. As much as I like impact calc, I need to be fairly convinced of the link chain that leads to that impact for me to vote.

Ks

I am happy to listen to them and some of my favorite debates I've been in and watched had a K in the 2NR. I lean pretty far to left politically outside of debate so don't be afraid of offending me or anything like that. My biggest gripe with Ks is that they often lack substantial change. Criticism of the current state of the world is important, but your solution probably matters more. What happens next needs to be articulated to be truly persuasive to everyone you need on board with your movement. It will be hard to get me to vote for a K with questionable solvency. I don't care if you try to solve for an impact in round or post fiat, but I do really really care that you do something. I think the philosophy Ks bring to debate is very valuable, but it loses that value if it can't compete with other solutions that are enacted by the government. In a similar vain, I think overreliance on jargon with Ks also harms their value. If you can't explain those concepts and your evidence in a way that is comprehensible to most non-academics, it won't do much good for that advocacy and it shows me that you don't know your k well. In short, a good K is one with clear solvency that is articulated accessibly.

K Affs and Neg FW

Everything I said about Ks also applies to K affs, although I probably have a slight bias against them. I generally think switch side solves for any education, K affs can be prone to in-round abuse, and they genuinely do set a precedent for a massive explosion of limits, even if your particular k aff is fairly reasonable. Especially on negative state action topics or where the resolution supports USFG action that can be backed by critical theory, I don't think that K affs are necessary. Reading a plan on the aff with advantages similar to a K is the best way to get around my biases regarding debate being a game. While I will always try to be as impartial as possible, neg FW teams should take notes of everything I just said. Also, cede the political is one of my favorite impacts.

T

I've grown to appreciate T more the longer I've been in debate, but I didn't go for it much as a 2N. All I can say is that you shouldn't go full speed on your T shell since the individual words matter so much.

Theory

Where I lean on most common theory args-

Debate is probably a game

Condo is probably good

Conditional planks are probably bad

Perf con I'm pretty neutral on

Speaking and CX

SLOW DOWN ON TAGS AND AUTHORS. DON'T SPREAD ANALYTICS. Use as many persuasive speaking skills as you can while still being fast. Debate is supposed to be persuasive and practicing talking somewhat like a human will take you far in life. I understand that parroting has to happen or you need to communicate to your partner during their speech. However, I will not consider anything you say when it is not your speech unless it is clearly a performance. Tag team cross is fine, but if you let your partner do most of the talking when it should be your cx, your speaks will suffer. CX is important for setting up arguments and establishing ethos - I will be paying attention even though I won't flow it. Speaker points will be rewarded relative to others in the round and at the tournament, meaning you could get a 29.5 from me at a local tournament and get a 26 with the exact same performance at the ToC. Points will go up if you speak well, have good cross, make bold choices, show character, make the round more fun, and show you care about debate.

Thank your for coming to my TED talk, I look forward to judging you :D

Congress

Pretty speeches are nice, but I won't give many points to speeches that rehash what has already been brought up. Every speech needs to advance the debate as much as possible. I generally prefer quality over quantity when it comes to speeches and questions within reason. If you give 3 great speeches and someone else gives 5 meh ones, I'll probably rank you higher. Participation is still encouraged, though. A good chair is one who is impartial, efficient, assertive, knowledgeable in basic procedures, and maintains decorum while still allowing for some fun interactions.

PF

Most of the PF rounds I was in had great speakers, but the evidence and arguments were lacking. While I do love the pretty speeches and good cross exes, I also want a good reason to vote for you in addition to a reason to give you 30 speaks.

LD

Progressive LDers can refer to my CX ramblings above, traditional LDers can gather what they can from my Congress and PF paradigms, I don't have much to say for LD.

Everyone

I look forward to judging you and want to help you make the most of your debate experience. Email me at the address above with questions about my paradigm or any rounds. Good luck and have fun!

He/Him

Add me to the chain: carlito913@gmail.com

General Info:

I don't count flashing or emailing as prep.

I try to go off the flow as much as I can. But in the case of not given how to evaluate the round, I'll start at impact calc/comparison in the 2ar/2nr and then work back from there.

TLDR: I don't have a preference for policy versus a k. Either way, just know your evidence well, do specific impact comparisons, and follow the 2ac order. If the 2nr is likely to be K do more line-by-line than an overview. If it's policy then don't just ignore the case debate. I would prefer a more in-depth case debate over that one extra off. Overall do what you do best rather than adapting to me. If you know your evidence well, I will vote on a plethora of things despite personal beliefs.

Evidence comparison is underutilized and can vastly help you even if your warrants aren't the best.

Speed:I'm good with any speed just be clear, if you're unclear I will say "clear"

K affs:

Some of my favorite debates have been with k affs if the aff knows their lit well.

I don't have a great grasp on the larger k lit base but if you explain your arg/why the resolution is bad I am willing to vote on it.

Please don't read high theory in front of me, I think the debate is great and though whether the resolution should be debated is contestable, debate as a game probably isn't.

You should probably have a more specific advocacy or at the very least develop one as the debate goes on. In cx if the neg is asking you questions about the advocacy, which should be the weakest part, try to answer them without being circular. I would like to know how your advocacy gets to what you claim it does, not just that the end goal is a good idea.

Framework:

Don't over-adapt to me despite preferences, they're not super strong. They are privy to adapt depending on the round.

I don't have a preference for impacts but I do think fairness can be an impact. But it's not a very good one and aff teams are most prepped for this debate usually. Most of the time when the neg wins these debates it's because the aff mishandles the TVA or doesn't answer the negs limits well/make inroads to it. Or winning some da to the model of debate but not explaining that in comparison to the negs impacts. The neg has an easier time winning if they have some access to the affs education, ethical subject formation etc. claim(s).

The aff usually wins when the 2nr goes for too many impacts/doesn't compare enough to the affs disads of the model. Or the neg doesn't have a way to access the affs model or education.

Topicality:

Explain your impacts well and compare your model with the other teams. I do default to competing interpretations. That being said I will still vote on reasonability if the size of the link to limits or grounds is mitigated.

Even if the aff is 'core of the topic' if you explain your definition and a violation well, it being 'big' doesn't matter.

Quality of definition is important and underutilized, as well as if the definition has the intent to define/ intent to exclude.

Impacting out T is very important, you must go past limits and grounds and explain what impact that has. For me, focus not on that there's not enough literature for that topic model but that there is too much and it's unfair for the neg to prepare for all of what the aff justifies.

I have a much lower threshold for T with small affs, but if the aff has a better explanation of their model I'm willing to vote for that. It will just take more work than is probably worth it.

K:

Having highly organized and structured speeches is very important. If you do the line by line and make it clear where you are that's perfect. Don't have long overviews, over 30sec and I'll be less inclined to flow it. However I would prefer no overview unless there's an issue that covers the entire flow.

Having case-specific links is important, carded is better but even if it's not, analytically making specific links is much better.

Framework: often they're hard to decide because they get messy. I will default to weighing the aff, but I have no problem voting otherwise if you win that that is bad.

Giving models of each interp regarding debate or the outside world is important. So is how each time accesses their interp, this is more for aff teams but applies to both.

Perms need to have an explanation in the 2ac, I think the aff has a right to the perm and they can be important to check against k tricks, but the legitimacy of the perm is up for debate.

Roll of the ballot/judge arguments are usually self-serving and I'm not the best judge for them.

A conceded root cause explanation, value to life impact, or “alt solves the aff” claim is effective if it’s sufficiently explained. That being said I'm not the best judge for K tricks I'd prefer you just win strong a link. A floating pic should probably be made clear by the 2nc.

DA:

Specific impact calc/comparison is fantastic as well as specific turns case arguments rather than generic nuclear war makes structural violence worse.

I'm not a big fan of sketchy internal links for a bad politics da, but I understand their need in cases. As long as you know your evidence and can explain it, I probably won't have a problem.

The link is the most important part if you have a strong link, then impact work becomes easier but vice versa as well.

CP:

Solvency advocates are good but not necessary.

I will not judge kick the CP unless told to by the 2NR. The 2ar can make that not the case with a few well-analyzed arguments.

Theory:

I would prefer not to listen to a 2ar on theory, that being said I realize the necessity of it being there. So plan on going for substance but if theory is necessary: be specific in answering their args, don't reread blocks, and explicitly compare your model of debate to the other teams.

I can be persuaded to reject the team rather than the argument but make sure you either compare models of debate or make in-round abuse obvious.

Most theory args are up for debate for me, and I think 2ar's on condo are underutilized. You should punish the neg for having bad condo answers. That being said condo being good is usually my default.

I competed for 8 years in high school + college and am the head coach at West High School. I've done pretty much every IE event as well as Congress, NFA LD, British Parliamentary (kinda like worlds), IPDA and NPDA (parli) debates. My paradigm explains the default biases I have when judging, but I'm more than prepared to drop those assumptions if you make an argument that I should.

Also, if my ballot feedback seems rude, I'm sorry! I try to give concrete, actionable suggestions using as few words as possible so as to fit more good info into your ballot. I try to be maximally clear with my feedback, which can sometimes result in sounding short or rude. Please be aware that is not my intention!

On Accessibility

Accessibility is an a priori voting issue for me 100% of the time. Don't let the debate get toxic. Racism, sexism, queerphobia, etc. is not acceptable in this space. And for those of you identifying as dudes; don't be a debate bro.

I prefer progressive style LD just because that's the form I'm most familiar with, but I do ask that debaters adapt to the style your opponent is comfortable with. This doesn't mean you need to take it easy on less tech-experienced opponents, but it does mean you need to make the round a space where they can understand your arguments and articulate responses to them. Essentially, I'm tech > truth, as long as both sides understand the tech at hand. If the status of your opponent's counterplan is "what's a conditionality?", then there is absolutely no way I am flowing your condo shell.

Spread at your own risk! I'm okay with some speed, but you should only speak as fast as you can enunciate. If your words are slurring into one another, I simply won't be able to flow everything, and I'm more likely to be persuaded by arguments against your case. That said, if both teams are fine with speed, I'm fine with it too, and will do my best to keep up.

That said, I also believe that the use of excessive speed to exclude less experienced/speed capable debaters is a scourge upon technical debate and I am absolutely itching to vote on speed bad arguments. If a clearly overwhelmed debater asks you to slow down, you refuse, and they say that they were excluded from the round because of it, I might as well sign my ballot then and there. If you intend to read your case faster than average debate speaking speed, you should always ask your opponents and the judge to clear you if they need it, and actually slow down if they do.

On Critical Debate:

I love a good K, especially when it's more niche than 'capitalism bad', but I doubly don't love when people run Ks they are obviously unfamiliar with and cannot explain in lay terms. I won't automatically vote down a K aff but I think the framework explanation you would need to justify torching neg ground will probably go way over my head.

You know what I love way more than a kritik? Critical framework on a policy case! I have a degree in political science and am a total policy wonk (I listen to public policy podcasts... for fun) but I also appreciate critical theory. To me, the theoretical perfect aff combines critical framework with radical public policy wonkery to solve a very real but small-scale problem.

On Impact Weighing

I practice rolling my eyes by listening to debaters try to make everything somehow link to an existential impact. Please don't do that. I don't want to roll my eyes at you.

Let's talk about anything else! Localized environmental impacts, impacts to non-human life, non-existentially threatening global conflicts, quality of life, cultural genocide, etc. I believe anything can be an impact if you have the framework to justify it, and I LOVE talking about non-terminal impacts.

Please don't bore me with econ arguments. I've honestly never heard a good one, and that includes from actual economists.

On Evidence

Most of my experience is with limited prep debate, so I believe cards help your argument but do not make it for you. It is entirely possible to win my ballot without a shred of evidence. Basically, here's how I evaluate arguments:

Strong carded arguments > strong analytical arguments >>> weak carded arguments > weak analytical arguments >>>>>>> your only rebuttal being "they didn't have a card for that"

Extend arguments, not authors.

Take up any evidence-related issues with tab or hash it out in round.

On Theory

I am totally willing to vote for theory, but you have to collapse to it. I think it's a little cheesy to say your opponent has made the round so unfair they need to lose, but also that your disad is still in play.

I am not generally persuaded by potential abuse arguments. I like using T as a strategy (time waster, distraction, link to disads/K, etc.) but if you're arguing that the purpose of T is to check back on abuse, then voting on it without demonstrated abuse cheapens the effectiveness of it.

I'm totally down for the RVI debate!

Congress: Congress is my favorite event to judge and was my favorite to compete in. I judge Congress on the paradigm of relevancy; essentially, what did you do or say to make me remember you? That means I evaluate the entire round, not just your speeches. Did you make main motions? Did you step in to correct a PO who made a mistake? Did you push for a germane amendment to legislation? Did other people say your name a lot? How often did I hear you asking questions? There's a lot more to Congress than just giving speeches. Make sure I remember your name.

Pre-written speeches are a plague upon this event, so they receive an automatic point deduction and will almost certainly result in you ranking lower than an extemporaneous speaker. Congress is definitionally, per the NSDA handbook, an extemporaneous speaking event. Notes are highly encouraged, just not fully written speeches. I also think reading speeches off electronic devices is pretty cringe. This event is like 90% downtime, you absolutely have time to transcribe your points onto a notepad in between speeches. If you just get rid of the laptop and put a couple bullet points on paper, that is possibly the easiest single way to make it to the top of my ballot.

Another easy way to win my ballot is by having fun with it! I firmly believe there is no such thing as too many jokes. Props are fun, go nuts with it! Make the round interesting. Call people out, by name. Lean into the roleplay elements, start beef with your fellow Representatives.

For my presiding officers: if you run a fast, fair, and efficient round, you'll rank in the top half of my ballot. Your job is to facilitate as many speeches as possible. Know the rules and follow them. ALWAYS DENY MOTIONS TO EXTEND CROSS EXAMINATION. Extending cross might be the only thing I hate more than pre-written speeches.

Know your role in the round. The first speakers on each side should construct the key points of the debate. Subsequent speakers should raise niche issues, build on arguments made by earlier speakers, and focus on rebuttal. Late-round speakers should try to crystallize the round, weigh impacts, etc. If you give a killer constructive as the last speech in the round, you won't be ranked very highly. If you are unable to keep the round interesting with new arguments and lots of clash, expect to lose points. If the debate is stale, I welcome any and all attempts to previous question.

Also, minor pet peeve, but you shouldn't say something is unconstitutional without saying exactly which part of the constitution it violates and why! This is congressional debate and the US constitution is a necessary paradigm to abide by, but if the Bush administration can come up with a creative argument to defend torture under the Constitution, you can figure something out.

PF:If I am judging this event it is against my will. Why can the negative speak first? Why are there so many cross examinations? How do I fill out this stupid ballot? What on earth is the point of the final focus? Ridiculous event!

All kidding aside, in the rare event I do judge PF, it's on the flow, but don't think you can get away with trying to make PF into policy. They literally made this event for the sole purpose of not being policy. My feeling on plans is that they are usually not necessary and only invite topicality issues that can't be easily resolved because this format doesn't allow for topicality arguments, so don't run them!

And please, please please please please please don't talk over each other in cross. Even though I almost never judge this event I have somehow seen more debate bro-ery in PF than every other event combined. Don't be rude. Debate is a game, don't let it get to you.

IEs: The time limit for memorized events is ten minutes, not 10:30. The grace period exists to give you a buffer in case you go over, not an extra 30 seconds of material. This is doubly true if you choose to time yourself or use time signals! It's one thing if you go over without knowing your time, but if you go over while you're looking at a timer, that's pretty clear time limit abuse and your ranking will reflect that.

I did policy for 1 year in High-school without a coach And somehow ended up Being the Head coach of East High school. I don't know how this happened and I want to go home.

I am a technique over truth judge, I will vote on theory, topicality, Condo, and all other goofy things if I believe it comes down to that. Nothing is really off limits when it comes technique and how you deal with them. I just love good technique.

That also means I will give wins over uncontested arguements.

I have given wins to teams that have claimed that climate change isn't real because their opponents didn't touch it. No matter how ridiculous it, you just have to relate it back to the case

If you are going to speak fast, it will be beneficial to my flows if you slow down and make it clear when you read a new card. Read the title of the card, date, and author of the card clearly. That greatly helps me and you if I can correct flow.

With flows in mind. Please have a good road map before you start to speak. I will struggle without one. Though it's not required, I would recommend asking for permission to start a speech so my flows are in order (after you roadmap)

1. any reference to high school musical will make you lose points. That franchise doesnt exist, yes I know I coach the High-school musical school, but it doesn't exist

With that in mind, have fun, be respectful, keep in mind that I barley know what I'm doing, and good luck.





Debate is love
Debate is life

Former Policy debater/National Qualifier (JHS 2000-2003) and parent of freshman debater at Alta High.

For email chains: lksylvia@gmail.com

Policy: I spent the majority of my time competing in policy debate. I am comfortable with any type of debate but prefer a more traditional round and preferred a policy maker framework when I debated myself. Advantages/disadvantages, solvency, and politics are all things I like to hear in a round--how does the plan work/not work in the real world?

If you are using more progressive arguments (kritikal affs/kritiks, etc) go for depth over breadth. I think a judge should adapt to the round presented to them, and I will do my best to evaluate the issues that are explained well in the rebuttals.