Peninsula Invitational
2025 — Rolling Hills Estates, CA/US
Novice Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideI hate when debaters purposely prep loudly and smirk :) when facing opponents who are obviously less experienced or more novice, and I will happily dock speaks for your arrogance and lack of grace
Please add me to email chain: cedricbonsol(at)gmail(dot)com.
Bravo High School 2015 (Shoutout LAMDL and sending my love to other NAUDL folks <3)
University of Rochester 2019 (on and off)
I can keep up with speed faster than non-debate laypeople , but cannot keep up as well as others at TOC- and NDT-level debates.A few of my college partners and I used to ask opponents to slow down and ran ableism. I won't consider it my fault if I say "CLEAR" or “SLOW” and still can't catch your arguments (but even then, don’t put this onus on me). At the point where debaters/judges, who are neurotypical or don’t have hearing/auditory processing issues, are still asking in CX and RFD what cards/arguments were read, imagine the struggle for others.
Please speak CLEARLY and SLOW DOWN on tags or lists of subpoints if you want me to flow and evaluate it well. Honestly, this is a consistent problem I still overall don't see getting resolved by my paradigm or verbally saying "clear" or "slow" except by a couple of top-level teams. (You don't need to be fast to be good at debate. The winners of the 2024 TOC slowed down more than any other team (besides novice-JV) I've ever judged). At this point, please DO NOT spread taglines OR subpoints OR pre-written blocks. If you want to be on the safe side of me catching all of your arguments, maybe just don't spread. My brain benefits from CONVERSATIONAL-SOUNDING, VARYING INTONATION (please don’t monotone spread), and clearly pronounced speech (to your fullest capability). I struggle with memory, concentration, organization, and auditory processing in normal conversation already, and debate speed is even more demanding. Please make sure, when you want something to be flown, I have time to process what you're saying, time to mentally figure out a way to word it on my flow, AND pen/type time, before you move to the next "thing" you want me to flow.
I (and judges in general) should NOT have to rely on the speech doc to understand and flow your speeches (but in the same way I always prefer subtitles in movies/shows/videos/games, I always prefer subtitles in debate ).
If any debater in a round requests, in good-faith, accommodations (e.g. no spreading in the round), I WILL be very accommodating and lenient towards that team on arguments vs the spreading or lack of cooperation, and I will punish any bad-faith efforts to accommodate.
NOVICES:
Please don't feel too nervous. There is very little pressure on you to perform, as good judges will understand that you are new to the activity and learning. The stakes are low for your division; it's the division of learning. Mistakes are expected. And it's completely expected and NORMAL to feel like you have no idea what you're doing. Just try your best and don't be rude to the other team. :) This is just a weird activity a bunch of weird nerds like to do, and how you perform won't impact the rest of your life. :)
MAIN:
A2 “can we do x” / “are you ok with x” / "is it ok if we x": I believe that how debate works, the meaning of debate, the way I should evaluate arguments should be under the control of the debaters. It is up to you to argue and defend why you should be allowed to do certain things, how to understand the debate space/round, my role, and your roles. For me, the only rules to enforce are speech/prep times and that my ballot must go to one winner team. Other than that, what you do with those speech/prep times is what you make it.
(See bottom of paradigm for how I’ll default if neither team takes a stance on certain debate rules.)
While I’m tech over truth, I stylistically tend to enjoy debates that play with normative debate rules (e.g. nontraditional argumentation and "performance").
[Insert obligatory "still do the work / I'll still weigh traditional args, FW, T equally"]. I’m probably going to need first and foremost a direct answer to this framework if you want me to evaluate the rest of the round through some other method of evaluation (without line-by-line or other traditional “tech”) before you address the rest of the debate.
OTHER DETAILS:
If you integrate my direct interaction/participation into your performative argumentation, I'm going to enjoy that a lot.
In college one of the worst feedbacks I ever heard from a judge was "nice debaters don't win speaker awards" and that is a terrible toxic approach to debate and human interaction that I will punish. :) Sass, flair, and attitude can be warranted or argument-related, but being a jerk for no reason is bad.
Most of high school, I ran traditional policy args. Most of college, I ran non-topical kritikal/nontraditional args, especially those without plan/advocacy texts or traditional cards.
I find myself in a minority of judges who actually enjoy (secondarily to deep, developed clash) watching frivolous, trolly, or cheesy gimmicks/tricks. If you run such an argument, I'm assuming you're acknowledging any competitive compromise. Just be sensitive and don’t run death good vs a Settler Colonialism AFF in front of me. We'll see how long I keep this on my paradigm.
Explicitly kicking off-case positions you are not going for in the 2NR is the safest option to avoid my confusion.
I try to adjust speaker points according to the tournament’s level of competition.
How I’ll default until a team instructs me otherwise:
Unless told otherwise, I won't assume evidence is limited to traditional "cards."
Unless told otherwise, NEG gets the status quo as a default (and presumption) even if they don't win their other off cases; it is the AFF’s burden to defend something preferable to the status quo or explain some plan/advocacy/reason why they deserve a ballot.
Unless told otherwise, cross-ex is binding. I almost always flow it.
Unless told otherwise, tag-team CX is okay, ins and outs (instead of 1s and 2s) are okay, and prep time can be used for clarification questions.
Hi,
I am a first time judge. Add me to any email chain. My email is sree_chilukuri@yahoo.com.
Please don't spread and have clear voters and warranting on why I should vote for you.
I am a Speech coach at Loyola High School.
Speakers' points are assessed based upon:
1. How well the speakers spoke to the room including vocal intonation, eye contact, and posture.
2. Creativity of the argument and strategy
About Me: UPDATED FEB - 2025
I currently do College policy Debate as a Freshman at Cal State Fullerton and Debated Policy in high school at Elizabeth Learning Center for Three Years. I've debated 2021-2022 HS CX Water Topic, 2022-2023 HS CX NATO Topic, Last year's 2023-2024 HS CX Economic Inequality Topic, Judged this year's IP Topic, and currently debate the CX College Decarbonization Topic.
I also love CSULB DB8, and their best debater Aless!
Bottom Line - I am okay with most arguments (K-affs and such) as long as they are intelligible and that you can adequately explain them to me. ESPECIALLY WITH PERFORMANCE because more often than not I will lean toward a more practical and policy-oriented approach. *THIS DOESN'T MEAN I DONT LIKE K's* I love K's I run one myself Please just give me an in-depth explanation and plenty of judging instruction. Thank you!
* FOR LD EVERYTHING IS APPLICABLE ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO MY EMAIL*
Judge Cheat-Sheet
Any other questions can be forwarded to my email: domisraeldebate11@gmail.com
-
I highly cater my judging style towards a technical approach. I will evaluate any arguments as long as they hold warrants behind them.
-
Line-by-line debates KEY. Not only does it help organize the flow which makes better decision-making, but it also helps YOU manage the order of your constructives/rebuttals.
-
USE ALL prep/speech time to its best effort. If you have remaining time don't concede it, find a way to use that time. There is always an argument to make. If you concede any time you have and are dropping any arguments, it will drop your speaker Points.
-
REBUTTALS WITH AN OVERVIEW. At the top of your rebuttals, it is key to outline to your judge why you are winning this round, or why specifically your opponents are losing. In most cases, you can't extend every argument you have made throughout this round,(especially that 1AR) so you must isolate what arguments are most important and evaluate what arguments you are winning and which you are losing. Especially in the 2NR/2AR, you must shut every door that can lead to a potential loss. Do yourself a favor and keep it organized with an Overview.
-
SPREADING. As someone who spreads in all speeches, I have no problem with it. But it will always be clarity over speed. When reading your evidence slow down for your tags, and then speed up on the rest of the evidence. Especially for rebuttals, these are the last speeches you get. But they don't matter if I can't understand them. If you're spreading so intelligibly without regard for what you read, I don't care if you know the evidence like the back of your hand I won't evaluate the evidence at all. I will warn you no more than two times to clear, after a third time I will just stop flowing altogether. Never sacrifice clarity for speed
-
Cross Ex. USE Cross-ex to open the doors to new arguments that will win you the round. Ask questions and build them into arguments. AVOID Ad Hominem type of questions. Remember you should be targeting your opponent's arguments, not the opponents themselves. Insulting or outright criticizing the ability of another debater gives you no competitive edge and more often than not just comes off as snarky, and rude. TLDR, if your cross-ex consists of demeaning others, Stop. Thx.
GENERAL TIP
-
Never give up. No matter what, if you dropped an argument, have nothing more to say, or are even just overwhelmed, fight your way out. Even if you know you are losing don't give your opponents the easy win, make them work for it. Regardless of speed, confidence, and experience, everyone has the capacity to win and be the best. As long as you have the grit to claw your way through you can be a phenomenal debater.
SPEAKER POINTS,
How do you get high speaks?
-
What I see from a debater who earned a 29-30, is someone who executes strategy WITH their partner equally, maintains great speed, volume, and clarity within all instances of their speech.
-
28-27, Made strategic choices in the round but failed to execute properly. Maintains adequate speed, volume, and clarity within most of their speeches, Is well on their own but needs to work with their partner more. Doesn't use or explain evidence to its maximum potential.
-
26, and under. Debater actively sacrifices the speed, volume, and clarity of their speeches for "competitiveness" sake. Fails to work competently with their partner. Fails to constantly uphold at least one solid argument within this round. OR Gives up.
You made it to the end, thanks for reading, just one last thing before you go. I'm writing this as a graduated high schooler from LAMDL and I know how hard this activity can get combined with everything you got at home and the rest of school. For the betterment of you and the betterment of those around you, don't forget that you are a person with feelings, with needs, and valid wants. Take a break and don't ever lose yourself. Enjoy this activity and remember why you are here.
BTW Give me a brisk iced tea and u get 29 ig JK not Jk????
Hi there! I'm a parent judge and have been judging LD, Parli, and PF since Fall 2024. I'm more familiar with traditional LD and won't be able to follow extremely fast speaking (spreading) unless you send me your speech documents. I prioritize framework and impact analysis in my decision-making. I value well-supported arguments with clear logical link chains and strong warrants. Please be respectful to one another - being rude, racist, or aggressive, will result in low speaker points and/or loss.
Add me to email chain-abigailimley@gmail.com
Peninsula '25
Read whatever you feel comfortable with as long as you understand your argument.
Spreading is fine, however, I won't flow/vote on an argument I don't hear.
Don't be rude or disrespectful in or out of the round.
Peninsula '25
flipped back and forth between LD and policy because I never could make up my mind. As a competitor I was...okay...I was an elim 1 debater.
Policy: Water Resources, NATO, Fiscal Redistribution, IPR
LD: Open Borders, Supreme Court, Housing, Fossil Fuels, MENA, Rehab, Treaties,
I can't evaluate trix, phil, and k affs (out of these 3 I might prefer eval k affs)...but its not impossible to get the W. again plz no trix and I will do everything in my power to try to not vote for HIDDEN aspec.
Feel free to disagree with me but be respectful
Email Chains
Please add me to the email chain - shawnlo0927@gmail.com
Speaking
Speed is fine but CLARITY>> (im def a hypocrite bcuz I was unflowable) slow down on theory if you want me to vote on it.
Making an attempt to slow down against debaters who are clearly lay or novice will +0.3 (that doesn't mean you will get high speaks if you slow down against the bid leader)
Tbh creative rebuttals like drawing a supply and demand graph to explain the reverse oil DAs will increase your speaks
I am a speak fairy (going for a rebuttal thats only theory caps speaks at 28.4
I disclose speaks if I feel like it
Overall
Tech>Truth
Preference: cp-da>common ks (cap, security, imperialism)>topicality>every other k>k affs>phil>trix
"bbu bbut but I said one sentence that multilat solves extinction"
even if something is dropped you still have to minimally explain it
default to judge kick unless condo bad
CPs: slow down on perm competition debates, less likely to vote on process cp bad, if the only NB of the cp is "we solve better" I am SO aff leaning.
DAs: judge instructions and your good, smart analytics can beat badly cut DAs.
Ks: Aff bias on FW, I generally favor middle ground.
Kaffs: Bias against them, a ballot isn't impossible,
ngl im pretty decent at flowing "policy args" and I look for hidden theory but for k fw im ASS
T: no rvi (even if you drop it)
yes on warranted theory...? condo is good.
Hi, I'm Austin (he/him), I debate for Peninsula.
Email: austinloui@gmail.com
Phone Number: (310)-421-6805
I take most of my debate philosophy from Gordon Krauss and Jared Burke.
I encourage whatever way you would like to debate!
That being said, here's arguments based on my ability to evaluate them.
A - K &Larp
B - Phil
C - T & Theory
F - Tricks
K
I prefer K's that don't wholly rely on going for exclusionary frameworks and generally prefer links specific to the aff. Explain your alt thoroughly. If you explain your alt well I'd love that.
Larp
Default to sufficiency framing. Default to judge kick when condo or unsaid.
Theory
I'm fine with disclosure. No 'friv' theory would be nice. No tricks, I'd much rather not vote on that.
Other Notes
Speaks begin at 28.5 at round start, then are adjusted.
I'm fine with spreading and speed, though maintain clarity during blocks and tags.
For rehighlightings, "Insert rehighlighting if it comes from the original card text. If it comes from another part of the article, read it" - G. Krauss
"Compiling the doc" is prep time, so is flex prep.
I'm down to do email chain or speechdrop. Nowadays I sort of like speechdrop more (faster).
peninsula '26
add me to the chain: planfocusistrue@gmail.com
I think one of the most important aspects of debating is line by line (answering arguments in the order they were given), and evidence/argument comparison. Being able to respond to arguments, analyzing theirreasoning/warrants, and explaining why your argument is better gives me reasons to vote for you and will earn high speaks.
Judge instruction is also very useful. Giving a solid explanation of how I should view things means I am more likely to vote in a way that benefits you since you control the narrative.
The round should be and is yours. I want to hear you debate what you're best at, as that produces better debates than trying to overadapt to my biases.
I will not dock speaker points because you went for a certain strategy, however I do believe some strategies have an easier time earning higher speaks than others. For instance, if you try to overwhelm your opponents with a million different arguments in hopes that they drop one, that doesn't showcase a lot of your skill which means I don't have much to award speaker points for.
My most important bias for you to be aware of is that I dislike clash-avoidant strategies. What I mean by this is strategies that try to prevent your opponent from engaging. A good test to see if your strategy falls under this umbrella is to check if you can envision a full debate with deep engagement occuring around your strategy. If you can't, then it is probably 'clash-avoidant'. Same goes with if you know your arguments try to avoid opponents engaging with these arguments.
Overall, be nice, good luck and have fun!
I was a high school policy debater about 30 years ago. My partner and I qualified for the TOCs three times and we made it to the semi-finals my senior year.
After a long absence from debate, I started judging LD about a year ago when my daughter started debate. I was surprised to see that LD is much more like policy now. As a former policy debater, that is fine with me. I will do my best to take a tabula rosa approach.
I judged a good number of novice rounds last year and have judged at one varsity tournament. Speed is fine but of course be clear.
I tend to vote for the debater who tells the best story at the end of the round. If it is a close debate, the quality of evidence you read may be decisive.
It is very possible that I will miss a blippy argument spoken at high speed. If there's an argument you think is a winner, make sure it's registering with me.
The kritik was just emerging when I was in high school. I'm somewhat familiar with critical arguments but am still learning the details. I am open to them so long as they are presented clearly and persuasively. You might be safer though going for more traditional policy arguments as I'm more familiar with them (they don't seem to have changed that much over the decades).
e-mail: james.park@law.ucla.edu
hi, i'm june. i'm a varsity LD debater. abt my debate career: i was a finalist at jack howe and broke to elims at berkeley twice.
email: j40976@student.ghctk12.com
things i like:
-
well-articulated arguments
-
good clash during cross-ex
-
impact weighing: tell me WHY your impacts matter in the round, and why voting for the other side promotes certain harms/disads
-
clear warrants: HOW does your impact occur? an impact w/o a warrant is just an assumption
-
framework debate: every argument should tie back to your pv & vc
-
EVIDENCE! all rebuttals should have evidence. debate is logical, not speculative.
speaks:
28 = avg
29 = wow! one of the best performances of the day
30 = you should run for president
*pls don’t spread in a novice pool
Peninsula Debate since 2023
Class of 2026
Spreading is fine but send the doc and I want to be able to differentiate between your tags and the text so change the way you talk in some way for that.
I'm good with any arguments, Tech > Truth except
Lay Rounds -> Counterplans don't have be answered traditionally, I'll be interventionalist in extending their arguments.
Ks -> Fine with them but don't expect me to understand your literature. The 2NR Needs an overview that explains the Link and Impact.
Theory -> Put it on the doc and disclose it if it's in the 1AC. If you're reading theory blocks in any of the constructive, they should be on the doc. You should have an abuse story in your theory argument.
Trix -> I'm fine with it but it has be a marked segment in the doc for 1AC/1NC Trix. New 1AR Trix justify new 2NR extensions and no new extrapolations in the 2AR. DO NOT try to hide it on the doc somewhere. It should be formatted the same as the rest of your off-case positions. This is somewhat subjective but if basically if I'm not going to eval a trick if every single DA and CP is in the navigation bar as a block and then the trick is just a tag under the counterplan block. This goes for ASPEC too. Also for ASPEC -> We meet + Further Spec is infinitely regressive is probably a true argument, although if ASPEC is dropped then it's obviously true.
Counterplans -> Everything on this is just Tech>Truth
Condo -> Every Counterplan is condo unless stated otherwise. Judge kick unless states otherwise. I slightly lean towards condo good, but am willing to vote on condo bad, especially if an extreme me number was read (8-10+ total planks)
K-Affs -> Same As Ks,.
T/T Subsets/Nebel T -> Fine voting for all of the above as long as you win the argument
Phil -> Somewhat familiar with Util and Kant, but I still need good explanations if you go for Phil. Also you need to explain how you win under your framework specifically.
TLDR I'm fine with anything except if you read Trix it has to be on the doc.
espendebate@outlook.com
Peninsula '26
I'd appreciate not being called "judge." Aryan is fine.
Speech drop > email chain but it can be kinda iffy at times so if you must: suiswinningtoc25@gmail.com.
Inclined to agree with Sterling Utovac on judge philosophy, Eytan Ek on my views on types of arguments, and Eli Seidner on trix debate.
Judging philosophy/preferences:
Tech > truth but I lean more truth than your average judge would.
Speed ok, but be clear. If I miss something, that's on you. I'll clear you three times and then it affects speaks.
I think disclosure is a good norm, but in novice especially I'm not voting on that.
Cross-ex is for you, not me (90% of the time).
Most times I'm gonna be voting for whoever has the most judge instruction, no matter the kind of argument it is.
Prep ends when the email is sent.
Make the debate space safe for everyone, we're here to have fun. If you feel unsafe, let me know.
Speaks:
This isn't something you need to worry about from me. I know that speaks are wack, but I try to give a 29 to a team I think will go 3-3 (or in penvitational's case, 2-2?).
29.3+ I think you'll clear. If you got below a 28.5, well, as my math teacher would say, "oh man...ohhhh man," but that's probably not happening unless you REALLY messed up.
Boosts:
Roast the following people for +0.1: Sterling Utovac, Dalton Ngo, Camron Farjami, Edward Min, Matthew Tamayo, Aaron Yi, Austin Loui, Kensho Nishio, Brian Son, Grant Liu, Shawn Lo, Eli Seidner (+0.2 for this one). If you roast Eytan Ek, though, you're getting a 25.
Reference to Thick of It by KSI +0.1
(Clever) brainrot joke +0.1
These don't stack, by the way.
Conclusion, do your best and try to have fun while you're at it, good luck!
Hi I'm Brian Son (he/him/any)
3rd year Peninsula'25 HS LD debater
Speech Drop is preferred but if not, add me for the email chain at brianson437@gmail.com
- If you want to post round/ask questions that's fine. As novices, you guys should be asking questions on why you either won/ or especially if you lost.
- For advice for novices click this paradigm
- Always eager to judge
TLDR
Tech >>>>Truth
Debate is offense-defense
The amount of highlighting on your cards determines how much weight I grant it. Less highlighting = less weight.
If your arguments don't make too much sense, I grant it less risk. If your argument makes no sense then that's not my problem to solve.
Read re-highlightings if it's unhighlighted by the other team.
Spreading is fine, but don't disregard clarity.
If the speech is unflowable, I'll clear. If still, I'll grant the arguments less risk depending on how severe.
Blocks are fine but I think they are too extensively used as a crutch instead of a tool.
Clash debates are the best debates. Therefore, things like reused process CPs, exclusionary frameworks, hidden SPEC, and "tricks" annoy me.
I’m AFF biased towards PICs, Floating PIKs, and Process CPs bad but NEG on condo.
DISCLAIMER
All of my opinions are subject to change.
If you know me from debate, TDI, etc, treat me like a normal judge in round. Out of round, idc.
I am a parent judge, so please do not spread too quickly.
Hello,
My name is Cathy Ta (she/her). I’m a parent of a Loyola student and judging LD for the first time. I did policy debate and speech events when I was in high school.
Please add me to any email chain: ct.cathyta@gmail.com
Expectations
- 30-min disclosure period (aff to neg)
- In-round disclosures
- Sportsmanship
- No tolerance for bias based on race, sex, gender, religion, age, disability, sexual orientation or national origin
Approach
- Tech > truth, but arguments must be warranted and logic cannot be suspended
- Spreading is acceptable; however, I will not be able to consider an argument if I cannot hear/follow/understand it
- You control your case and strategy, along with their rewards and risks
- Looking out for:
-- Strength of argument as supported by evidence
-- Scope/coverage of arguments (if your opponent presents 100 arguments, you should address all of them, but that does not mean you need to do so one-by-one)
-- Organization/prioritization of arguments
-- Critical reasoning/analysis
-- Performance/delivery (clarity, volume, intonation, eye contact, body language, presence, persuasiveness)
-- Judge instruction
Have fun, good luck and see you in the rounds!
Debated forever (3 very long years). Did both events, a lot. TOC twice. Varied success.
Adults who influence(d) my thoughts: Gordon Krauss, Jared Burke, Rayeed Rahman (coaches) - Patrick Fox (favorite/most frequent judge)
Friends/acquaintances that impact(ed) me: Alex Borgas (for the best), Ethan Yang, Aiden Kim, Niranjan Deshpande, Tomas Gonzalez, Rishad Vaghaiwalla, Abby Merges, Leah Fischer (better), Matthew Tamayo, Thatcher Hartman, Kris Deng (worse), Edward Min (much much much much much worser)
Debate done well may as well be an art form. The amount of time and energy that goes into these things cannot go understated. But like any skill, it requires substantial investment of both of those things. For some it comes quick, for others slow, yet everybody starts somewhere and nobody starts out #1. Put your best foot forward. What that looks like should look different for different individuals and that's the beauty of an activity with so much stylistic diversity.
I believe three things:
1. There is a role for discourse analysis and critique in this activity.
2. Talking about (and learning about) moral philosophy is important.
3. You should read arguments that win without exploiting speech times or prep disparities.
If you read ‘spreading consent’, ‘disclose role of the ballot for safety’ or similar arguments (many theory shells with ableism/accessibility/novice inclusion voters) - auto loss. Wholly uninterested in reliving my debate trauma for you to put pressure on the 1AR.
Email: w267ww@gmail.com
Senior LD Debater at Peninsula
I don’t think an actual detail paradigm for novice LD is essential, I debate on the national circuit and am familiar with all the progressive arguments that novices will run. I think the most important thing is remembering the line-by-line arguments your opponent made and not dropping anything. You should always extend your offense first and weigh it against your opponent's offense (impact calc), and also do the impact clac on the internal link level.
I find that, in many cases, debater simply respond to their opponent's argument by rephrasing their own case and evidence without any interaction (or card and evidence get completely forgotten and are never mentioned later in the round). Tell me why your evidence is better and how their evidence isn't contextualize to yours and didn't address it. This is why reading and understanding the position and topic you're reading can be very helpful.
Finally please be respectful and have fun.
I am a lay judge so please articulate your points and speak clearly. Add me to the email chain at bobyang_00@yahoo.com
I will judge based on logically constructed arguments well supported by facts. I am not familiar with technical terms, so please explain them if you use them. My preference is for a straight-forward policy debate.
My background is in economics, finance, and tech, so advanced arguments there will be effective with me. Given that, it will take something really special to move me off of utilitarianism, as Spock says "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the one)."
K's, phil, off-topic is not going to work well with me as I'm just not going to be able to follow it as much as I need to in order to make a reasonable decision.
Also, please dont read anything around racism or genderism/sexism. That is auto-L20 from me to whomever brings it up first. I dont think it's fair to expect a student to argue or defend a position that they dont necessarily agree with in order to win a round. I dont want to see anyone called sexist or racist just because their opponent read a race or sexism argument.
My decision-making process is very simple and is as follows:
Heads: AFF
Tails: NEG
Do line by line, impact calc, time yourselves, and be respectful.