Don't give me an off-time roadmap if you're not doing something radical/unique in your speech. Don't be mean in cross. Former PF debater but will hold you to a lay standard––aka cool it with the jargon and make your extensions clean/obvious.

For Middle School Debates

I have been involved in competitive debate activities for 40+ years. I have coached debate for many years and have judged and observed a lot of debate rounds in multiple formats.

Most important to me is for debaters to be respectful to each other. Rude or socially unacceptable behavior will not be tolerated.

I will listen to nearly any argument without qualification. It is the job of the other side to point out the fallacies, incompleteness or absurdity of the argument.

I will listen to and vote on theory arguments to the extent they are explained and applicable.

I appreciate the technical nature of a debate, and that this is a competitive activity.

Clash is important, so do your best to address the points raised by the other side. Telling me an intelligent story with good analysis is helpful. Coherent arguments are preferred. Comparative analysis that takes into account an opponent’s opposing argument would be appreciated. Summarizing the debate to help guide any decision calculus that you believe is critical will be viewed favorably.

I try hard not to intervene (interject myself) in debates but it is often necessary to resolve points that may be left unaddressed.

Feel free to ask any questions before the start of the round.

I did high school pf and middle school parli.

Have fun and don't be a jerk

logic>evidence. I buy logical warrants rather than "this will happen because my evidence says so." Evidence, especially when I'm judging ms parli where you can't call cards, is less important to me. The most important thing is that you have a logical link chain that I can buy into and that makes sense.

Please weigh: take the other team at their best and explain why you are still winning. If there is no comparison between arguments in the debate and both teams have some offense, it becomes infinitely harder to make a good decision, so please make it easy for me!

No theory unless the other team is being actively offensive. I don't really care if the other team didn't disclose.

here's my email for post rounding: brynn.martin24@trinityschoolnyc.org

UC Lab 16

Michigan 20

1. Debaters have a debilitating tendency to fail to see the forest for the trees. Most debates can be resolved by 1 central issue, define that issue and tell me why you are winning on that question.

2. I am tabula rasa- I have a read a drilling aff, a Moby Dick aff, an Asian Identity aff, an encryption aff, went for Baudrillard ALOT, etc. In other words, do what you want!

3. The best way to win a K in front of me is to spend a lot ton of time on the link debate and give each link an impact and/or turns case args. Pull lines from the 1AC, go into their internal links or the structuring logic of the aff- don't just read your generic heg links to the K blocks.

4. Your final speech should always begin and end with the exact reason you think I should vote for you.

5. Nuance is always strategic and appreciated.

6. Im not the best for techy T and theory debates but I can most def handle it.

7. CrossX is a speech and it is super important.

8. After some personal experiences I have come to believe that death good arguments pose a serious real life threat to the mental health of high school debaters. If you read these arguments and the other team makes the argument that death good is detrimental to the community, I am very likely to vote on the argument. However, that does not mean that you shouldn't read arguments like fear of death bad in front of me.

I listen carefully and try not to bring my own opinions on a topic to judging. The way you present your arguments should be structured and clear–for example, enumerating contentions and directly addressing the other side in rebuttal. I look for arguments are about the most direct and significant points related to your side,, the largest or most vulnerable groups, or have the most significant and relevant impacts. It would be better if you could respond/rebut your opponents' arguments. When both sides reach similar levels in argumentation, I expect you to compare and weigh your arguments for me.