I DON'T WANT TO SHAKE YOUR HAND PLEASE DON'T ASK

Now that that friendly introduction is over:

Email: maanik.chotalla@gmail.com

I'll disclose speaks if you ask.

Background: I debated LD for four years for Brophy College Preparatory in Arizona. Graduated in 2016. Current LD coach for Brophy College Preparatory.

TOC Update: I haven’t updated my paradigm in a few years and while my attitude towards debate hasn’t fundamentally changed the activity and norms within it have very much changed so I felt a need to write an update. At its core, I do believe this activity is still about speaking and so I do still value debaters being able to articulate and deliver. Yes I will still vote tech but I have very little patience for debaters who refuse to adapt and articulate. My preference is to not be reading your rebuttal off a document, if it isn’t on my flow I can’t vote for it. All that said—my advice to you is to go slightly below your max speed with me. I believe every judge embellishes their flowing ability to a degree and while I’m not awful at flowing I am certainly not as good as I used to be and I also have no competitive incentive like you do to be perfect on the flow. I will do my best but I am certainly going to be a cut under most judges that were former TOC competitors. I am simply in a spot in where debate is no longer my whole life (just a large part of it) and I have not been able to keep up with everything. Will do my best but if you are expecting a robot judge you will be disappointed.

Crash Course version:
-Go for whatever you want, I like all forms of argumentation
-Have fun, debate is an evolving activity and I'm all for hearing creative well-warranted arguments
-The round belongs to the debaters, do what you want within reason
-Tech > truth, extend your warrants, do impact analysis, weigh
-I default to competing interps but will go for reasonability if you tell me to
-For Ks please be prepared to explain your obscure lit to me, don't assume I'll know it because I promise you I won't. It will benefit you if you give an overview simplifying the K.
-If you run a theory shell that's fine but I don't really like it when a shell is read as a strictly strategic decision, it feels dirty. I'll probably still vote for you if you win the shell unless it's against a novice or someone who clearly had no idea how to respond to it.
-Default to epistemic confidence
-Good with speed
-Don't like tricks
-Don't be rude, the key to this activity is accessibility so please don't be rude to any debaters who are still learning the norms. This activity is supposed to be enjoyable for everyone

For the LARP/Policy Debater:
-You don't necessarily have to read a framework if you read a plan but if your opponent reads a framework I'm more likely to default to it unless you do a good job with the framework debate in the 1AR.
-If you run a framework it can be either philosophically or theoretically justified, I like hearing philosophy framing but that is just a personal preference
-Utilize your underview, I'm guessing you're reading it for a reason so don't waste your time not extending it.
-Running multiple counterplans is okay, prefer that you provide solvency
-Make sure your counterplan does not link yourself back into your DA, please

For the K Debater:
-Please label each section of your K (link/framing/impact/alt) it makes it more clear to me how the argument is supposed to function
-If you aren't running a typically organized K then please just explain the argument properly as to how I should evaluate it
-If your ROTB is pre-fiat you still need to respond to post-fiat framing to completely win framework debate
-Feel free to ask more questions before the round

For the traditional debater/everyone else
-Crash course version should cover everything. I have more below for the people who really want to read it but you can always ask more questions beforehand

More details:

1. General

I like debates which are good. Debaters who are witty, personable, and I daresay good speakers usually score higher on speaker points with me. I'll vote on any argument (So long as it isn't blatantly offensive or reprehensible in some way). I'm a big believer that the round should belong to the debaters, so do with the debate space what you wish.

I like framework debate a lot. This is what I did as a debater and I believe that it makes the round very streamlined. I always like hearing new and cool philosophies and seeing how they apply, so run whatever you want but please be prepared to explain them properly.

Please slow down on impacts and pause between tags and authors!! Yeah, I know everyone has the case right in front of them nowadays but I still want you slowing down and pausing between your authors and tags. Finally, for both of our sakes, please IMPACT to a weighing mechanism. I have seen too many rounds lacking impact analysis and weighing. It's possible it will lead to a decision you don't like if you don't impact well. I don't particularly care what weighing mechanism you impact to so long as you warrant to me that it's the more important one.

2. Theory/T

Run whatever shells you would like but nothing frivolous, please. I wouldn't recommend reading theory as strictly a strategic play in front of me but I will still evaluate it and vote on it if you prove there is actual abuse in round. I default to competing interps but will go with whatever you tell me. In general, I think you should layer theory as the most important issue in the round if you read it, otherwise what was the point in reading it?

Shells I will likely not vote on:
-Dress Code theory
-Font size theory
-Double-win theory (I'll probably just drop whoever initiated it)
-Frivolous shells unrelated to debate (i.e. lets play mario kart instead)
-Comic Sans theory
-This list will grow with time

3. Tricks

I don't like them. Don't run them. They make for bad debate.

4. Ks

I myself was never a K debater but I've now found myself really enjoying hearing them as an argument. I'd appreciate if you could label your K or section it off. I wasn't a K debater so I don't automatically know when the framing begins or when the impacts are etc. The biggest problem I usually see with Ks is that I don't understand the framing of the argument or how to use it as a weighing mechanism, so please help me so I can understand your argument as best as I can. I have dropped Ks because I just didn't understand the argument, err on the side of me not knowing if it is a complex/unconventional K.

5. Miscellaneous

I don't time flashing/making docs during the round but I expect it to take no longer than 30 seconds. Try to have a speech doc ready to go before each round. I'm good with flex prep. I don't care if you sit or stand. I'll hop on your email chain. Don't be rude, that should go without saying. Lastly, and I mean this seriously, please have fun with it. I really prefer voting for debaters who look like they're having a good time debating.

If you have any questions feel free to ask before the round or contact me via email

Speech/LD coach 4 years; Policy debated in HS for 2 years at Brophy. Currently on the ASDCA subcommittee for Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, & Justice.

I will hear any arguments, I enjoy creative/outside-the-box cases when supported well. I can handle spreading, but it must be clear, and tech can often ruin that clarity.

My hope for the round is that it does not become a card-war, but a thoughtful analysis of ideas in said cards. Please offer key voter analysis to conclude your speeches.

I am a parent judge or lay judge

Pretend I don't know anything about the topic and explain it to me like that

Please don't spread or falsify evidence doing so will result in an immediate loss of my ballot

Please do not run progressive arguments, I am unlikely to understand them

Please do not run any race or gender identity based arguments, I am not familiar with them and do not know how to vote on them

Please speak slowly and clearly

Background

I have no personal speech and debate competition experience. I began judging in early 2014; I have been involved in the community ever since and have attended/judged/run tournaments at a rate of 30 tournaments per year give or take. The onset of online in early 2020 has only pushed that number higher. I began coaching in 2016 starting in Congressional Debate and currently act as my program's Public Forum Coach.

General Expectations of Me (Things for You to Consider)

Consider me "flay" on average, "flow" on a good day. Here is a list of things NOT to expect from me:

1. Don't make assumptions about my knowledge. Do not expect me to know the things you know. Always make the choice to explain things fully.
2. Post-round me if you want, I don't care. If you want to post-round me, I'll sit there and take it. Don't think I'll change my mind though. All things that should influence my decision need to occur in the debate and if I didn’t catch it, that’s too bad.
3. Regarding Disclosures/Decisions. Do not expect me to disclose in prelims unless the tournament explicitly tells me to. I will disclose all elim rounds unless explicitly told not to.
4. Clarity > Speed. I flow on paper, meaning I most likely won't be looking at either competitor/team too often during the round. Please don't take that as a discouraging signal, I'm simply trying to keep up. This also means I flow more slowly than my digital counterparts, so there may be occasions that I miss something if you speak too quickly.
5. Defense is not sticky in PF. Coverage is important in debate; it allows for a sensible narrative to be established over the course of the round. Summary, not Rebuttal, is the setup for Final Focus.

Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.

General Debate Philosophy

I am tech > truth by the slimmest of margins. I am here to identify a winner of a debate, not choose one. Will I fail at this? At times yes. But I believe that the participants in the round should be the sole factors in determining who wins and loses a debate. At its most extreme, I will vote (and have voted) for a competitor/team who lies IF AND ONLY IF those lies are not called out/identified by the opposing competitor/team. If I am to practice tabula rasa, then I must adopt this line of reasoning. Will I identify in my ballot that a lie was told? Absolutely.

Why take this hard line? Because debate is a space where we can practice an open exchange of information. This means it is also a space where we can practice calling out nonsense in a respectful manner. The conversations of the world beyond debate will not be limited by time constraints or speaker order nor will there be an authority or ombudsman to determine what is truth. We must do that on our own. If you hear something false, investigate it. Bring it to my attention. Explain the falsehood. Take the time to set the record straight.

Public Forum / Lincoln Douglas Paradigm

Regarding speaker points:

I judge on the standard tabroom scale. 27.5 is average; 30 is the second coming manifested in speech form; and 20 and under is if you stabbed someone in the round. Everyone starts at a 27.5 and depending on how the round goes, that score will fluctuate. I expect clarity, fluidity, confidence and decorum in all speeches. Being able to convey those facets to me in your speech will boost your score; a lack in any will negatively affect speaker points. I judge harshly: 29+ scores are rare and 30 is a unicorn. DO NOT think you can eschew etiquette and good speaking ability simply due to the rationale that "this is debate and W's and L's are what matter."

Do not yell at your opponent(s) in cross. Avoid eye contact with them during cross as much as possible to keep the debate as civil as it can be. If it helps, look at me; at the very least, I won’t be antagonistic. I understand that debate can get heated and emotional; please utilize the appropriate coping mechanisms to ensure that proper decorum is upheld. Do not leave in the middle of round to go to the bathroom or any other reason outside of emergency, at which point alert me to that emergency.

Structure/Organization:

Please signpost. I cannot stress this enough without using caps and larger font. If you do not signpost or provide some way for me to follow along your case/refutations, I will be lost and you will be in trouble. Not actual trouble, but debate trouble. You know what I mean.

Framework (FW):

In Public Forum, I default to Cost-Benefit Analysis unless a different FW is given. Net-Benefit and Risk-Benefit are also common FWs that I do not require explanation for. Broader FWs, like Lives and Econ, also do not require explanation. Anything else, give me some warranting.

In Lincoln Douglas, I need a Value and Value Criterion (or something equivalent to those two) in order to know how to weigh the round. Without them, I am unable to judge effectively because I have not been told what should be valued as most important. Please engage in Value Debates: FWs are the rules under which you win the debate, so make sure your rules and not your opponent's get used in order to swing the debate in your favor. Otherwise, find methods to win under your opponent's FW.

Do not take this to mean that if you win the FW debate, you win the round. That's the beauty of LD: there is no dominant value or value criterion, but there is persuasive interpretation and application of them.

Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.

Regarding the decision (RFD):

I judge tabula rasa, or as close to it as possible. I walk in with no knowledge of the topic, just the basic learning I have gained through my public school education. I have a wide breadth of common knowledge, so I will not be requiring cards/evidence for things such as the strength of the US military or the percentage of volcanos that exist underwater. For matters that are strictly factual, I will rarely ask for evidence unless it is something I don’t know, in which case it may be presented in round regardless. What this means is that I am pledging to judge ONLY on what I hear in round. As difficult as this is, and as horrible as it feels to give W’s to teams whom I know didn’t deserve it based on my actual knowledge, that is the burden I uphold. This is the way I reduce my involvement in the round and is to me the best way for each team to have the greatest impact over their debate.

A few exceptions to this rule:

• Regarding dropped points and extensions across flow: I flow ONLY what I hear; if points don’t get brought up, I don’t write them. A clear example would be a contention read in Constructive, having it dropped in Summary, and being revived in Final Focus. I will personally drop it should that occur; I will not need to be prompted to do so, although notification will give me a clearer picture on how well each team is paying attention. Therefore, it does not hurt to alert me. The reason why I do this is simple: if a point is important, it should be brought up consistently. If it is not discussed, I can only assume that it simply does not matter.
• Regarding extensions through ink: This phrase means that arguments were flowed through refutations without addressing the refutations or the full scope of the refutations. I imagine it being like words slamming into a brick wall, but one side thinks it's a fence with gaping holes and moves on with life. I will notice if this happens, especially if both sides are signposting. I will be more likely to drop the arguments if this is brought to my attention by your opponents. Never pretend an attack/defense didn't happen. It will not go your way.
• Regarding links/internal links: I need things to just make sense. Make sure things are decently connected. If I’m listening to an argument and all I can think is “What is happening?” then you have lost me. I will just not buy arguments at that point and this position will be further reinforced should an opposing team point out the lack of or poor quality of the link.

I do not flow cross-examination. It is your time for clarification and identifying clash. Should something arise from it, it is your job to bring it up in your/team’s next speech.

Regarding Progressive: I'm not an expert on this. I am a content debate traditionalist who has through necessity picked up some things over time when it comes to progressive tech.

A) On Ks: As long as it's well structured and it's clear to me why I need to prioritize it over case, then I'm good. If not, then I'll judge on case.

B) On CPs: Don't run them in PF. Try not to run them in LD.

C) On theory: I have no idea how to judge this. Don't bother running it on me; I will simply ignore it.

Regarding RFD in Public Forum: I vote on well-defined and appropriately linked impacts. All impacts must be extended across the flow to be considered. If your Summary speaker drops an impact, I’m sorry but I will not consider it if brought up in Final Focus. What can influence which impacts I deem more important is Framework and weighing. I don’t vote off Framework, but it can determine key impacts which can force a decision.

Regarding RFD in Lincoln Douglas: FW is essential to help me determine which impacts weigh more heavily in the round. Once the FW is determined, the voters are how well each side fulfills the FW and various impacts extending from that. This is similar to how I vote in PF, but with greater emphasis on competing FWs.

SPEED:

I am a paper flow judge; I do not flow on computer. I’m a dinosaur that way. This means if you go through points too quickly, there is a higher likelihood that I may miss things in my haste to write them down. DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, SPREAD OR SPEED READ. I do not care for it as I see it as a disrespectful form of communication, if even a form of communication at all. Nowhere in life, outside of progressive circuit debate and ad disclaimers, have I had to endure spreading. Regardless of its practical application within meta-debate, I believe it possesses little to no value elsewhere. If you see spreading as a means to an end, that end being recognized as a top debater, then you and I have very different perspectives regarding this activity. Communication is the one facet that will be constantly utilized in your life until the day you die. I would hope that one would train their abilities in a manner that best optimizes that skill for everyday use.

Irrational Paradigm

This section is meant for things that simply anger me beyond rational thought. Do not do them.

1. No puns. No pun tagline, no pun arguments, no pun anything. No puns or I drop you.

Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.

I'm a non-interventional judge. I like debates with meaningful arguments and don't encourage too much speed or aggressive tactics. I prefer quality over quantity. I'm going to be diligent in taking notes and watching for impact, flow, link, and rebuttal in the debates. I'm not a big fan of definitions as most of the time both sides are similar. I'd expect Cross to be focused on clarifying your opponent's points/cases but not as an opportunity to humiliate. I appreciate the summary at the end to clearly point out why your case is more weighted and why I should vote for you.

I wish you all the best!

No spreading. I am a parent judge and prefer Traditional debates. If I can't understand what you are saying, I won't consider those arguments. Don't add me to email chains.

I won't time you, please time each other. You can complete your sentence once time runs out, anything new will be dropped. I will deduct 0.5 speaker points for bad time management.

I prefer evidence based facts from credible sources over individual author opinions or emotional appeals. While I do consider logic in decisioning, those arguments needs to be well supported.

While I consider cross ex in my judging, make sure you address anything significant in your subsequent case or rebuttal. Otherwise I will drop those from Judging consideration.

Speaker points: I score in increments of 0.5.

General rule of thumb: One of the best debaters: 30 points; Above average: 29 points; Average debater: 28 points; Below average: 27 points

Excessive Spreading: 25 points; Offensive or outrageous: 20 points.

I am a traditional/lay judge - most of this paradigm can be derived from that statement. I will most likely not understand progressive debate, and dislike debate jargon. When forced to judge progressive debate, I will try my best.

Dos:

• Have depth in understanding of the topic.
• Use relevant evidence. Don’t just read a random card as a warrant that, in fact, does not support your tag. Also, please point out your opponent’s misuse of evidence when it occurs.
• Maintain the ability to seek common ground even in a debate situation - your opponent is not necessarily your enemy. Be kind, no ad hominem. I will most likely not flow off the document, so please be coherent in your actual words.
• Good presentation is still quite important to me. I will try to minimize this bias, but in the face of a close round, the better speaker will win.
• Have good, logical warrants. Evidence itself is not a warrant - and evidence is not necessarily concrete. Clear link chains are a must. Explain links, warrants, and impacts very thoroughly.

Don’ts:

• Make bold statements without adequate support. I will try to minimize judge intervention on arguments, but when weighing similar arguments I will go for the one that makes more logical sense. I still appreciate creativity, but they must pass the common sense test first.
• Spread. I can only flow what I can hear. Check speed/clarity with me before you start speaking if necessary.
• Link cause and effect without adequate intermediate transitions. I am not able to "jump", without your adequate help, to the conclusion that your opponent's position will lead to climate change, nuclear war, civil war, etc. I will be skeptical about these kinds of doomsday arguments in general, so if you must make them, you will have an uphill battle.

Misc:

• Truth > Tech
• Argument Quality > Quantity
• Make it easy for me to decide the winner of the round - judge instruction is a must. Signpost and present the voters of the round as clearly as possible.

Updated 10/15/24 for Jim Fountain

I am appreciative and grateful to support the Arizona Speech and Debate community. I have tremendous respect and admiration for the time and energy you, your teammates and coaches invest in preparation.

Congress

Props to students at the schools who took obvious time and care in writing deeply significant legislation worthy of congressional debate.

As a congressional debate judge I frown on former PF/LD/CX topics as legislation and that perspective is reflected in my ranking of the PO, the sponsor and the debaters from that school, so avoid at all costs! Clearly this strategy is to avoid work and research, places non debaters at a disadvantage with resulting ethical, moral and philosophical impacts and insures that debate will be rote. Excluding the bills that are former debate topics leaves adequate legislation to consider for debate today.

If I am a parli in your room, note that I will consider the caucus prior to the opening of debate as you set the order of debate on the top 10 bills and PO discussion in my ranking. I am aware that some legislation is based upon prior PF topics and would advise ordering the docket to place those bills at the end *(not to be debated) and I STRONGLY encourage you to debate 3 bills per session for a total of 6 bills. In order to do that, read the google doc below and: do not read a speech, do not repeat prior discussion *(that is do not speak if you are not adding NEW analysis), do not break cycle, do not call recess, and hold only 1 break per session. PO that achieves these goals will earn a 1 ranking. In case of a tie with PO, the afternoon PO will earn the 1 as this is a more challenging session to lead. PLEASE do not speak if you are not adding to or advancing debate, do not read a prepped speech and please read the google doc which includes the NSDA Congressional rubric for scoring. You should also be familiar with the NSDA Congressional Debate guide (review in particular pages 7 and 14).

Congress

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TBy-dcFQZeM6kUGHOZ8QPG18aVlJvQsSTG8liBX9U5k/edit?usp=sharing

Budget your time so that you have the opportunity to consider three bills in each session. The setting of docket, reference to bills, and ability to efficiently consider three bills in each session will impact my ranking. Caucus prior to opening of debate will factor into the evaluation of MOC.

PO begins the session ranked first. To move above the PO participants must present all three speeches *(authorship/sponsor, mid round and round ending speeches) that are exemplary and delivered with polish and grace. Based upon Scottsdale Prep I would repeat my hope that experienced CDers will PO. Remember never to read a speech and consider speaking throughout the session first, mid and last. Often that strategic decision will be reflected in your ranking. Never break cycle as that will also be reflected in your rankings to your detriment.

Note your ranking will impacted recess. As an example calling for a recess to for the purpose of composing a speech or if you advocate to break cycle during recess you can expect to see this impact your ranking.

This tournament uses direct questioning, from the NSDA Congressional guide: see page 8.

For more (really?) click here

Debate

I am a community/parent judge and do not understand nor do I want to understand debate theory. Moreover, you know far more about this topic than I (at least I hope so) so you need to be clear, simple and direct in analysis.

No spreading (I always ballot for the slowest speaking debater).

Warranting > evidence, truth > tech, simple > complex, less > more, no progressive or critique. NEVER run the flow, collapse and weigh. LD and PF please click through and skim the detailed paradigm you will find there as my preferences will be reflected in my rankings. Ethical use of evidence!!!

LD - this is values debate so focus your time on a clear definition of value and rational for why affirming or negating the resolution will achieve that value AND a side by side comparison of value an simple reason to prefer your value position. Collapse in 3AR and last 3 minutes of 2NR to the single argument you want me to vote on and WEIGH THE ROUND.

PF - collapse in summary and weigh in final focus.

Click on Frederick Changho paradigm for a clear set of expectations I support and share. Click on Scott Wood's paradigm for another paradigm that reflects my expectations, particularly good v bad form.

I strongly urge you to click here for more. Did I mention, no spreading?

Speech/Interp

I value a logical narrative over citation and authenticity in performance over technique.

For further detail clickhere.

More importantly, for OUTSTANDING advice that reflects my expectations for all speech, click on Mr. Jim Welty's comprehensive and on point paradigm.

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=176980

I am a parent judge with not much experience. This is the third tournament I have participated. You can talk fast but do not spread. Clarity and volume are more important. I value analysis and reasoning, especially in rebuttals. You should be able to understand and defend your case. Use logic and common sense. It is important to have relevant evidence. I do not disclose, I need time to analyze the round and determine the winner.

Hi, My name is Senthil. I am a parent judge.

Do Not Spread - I don't enjoy it, and if I can't understand you, I can't vote for you.

I like to see:

- Clear arguments with framework

- Good research and specific sources

- Conversational pace

- Fair and respectful debate

- Weigh the round using weighing mechanisms and make it explicitly clear why I should vote you by the last speech

I don't like to see:

- Ks without clear slow and logical explanation of literature and how to vote. To be safe, just don't run them with me.

- Theory/Tricks as I am more used to traditional argumentation and I may not be able to evaluate it.

- Spreading

Please be respectful to your opponent. I will be looking forward to an interesting round.

I'll send my flow in the email chain if asked after rfd!

Introduction:

Hello! My name is Aden Smith! I did policy debate for 3 years as a 1A/2N and I'm currently doing policy debate at ASU. I've also done every debate event at least once, so if I'm not judging policy I still know what's going on enough to judge. I don't have any hardened biases, so my paradigm is mostly just my views on debate, and if that affects how you execute your strategy in rounds, then more power to you!

Round Docs:

I want round docs, whether I am judging CX, LD, or PF (calling cards if prep smh)I think we should have an email chain. It means that I can keep a more accurate flow and also make competitors more accountable to have quality evidence :). My email is: adenpaulsmith06@gmail.com.

Miscellaneous:

1. Condo is probably good?

2. Spread your heart out!

3. I am a chronic speaker point inflator, so I'm not gonna list those out.

4. Please send a word doc, having to download your google doc for you makes me sad.

5. Read your rehighlights, I feel like that's obvious.

6. If I put on headphones while writing RFD it's not because I hated the round, just need to concentrate.

7. Tech>Truth, and I mean that.

8. Don't be bigoted, I have like 2 jobs: 1. Choose a winner and 2. Ensure a safe space, I've got job 1 down, please make job 2 easy for me :)

Topic Knowledge:

K's: I have either ran or read your lit base at least once, so ~go off queen~ and you do you! For more specifics I have run: Asian melancholia, model minority, Orientalism, Queer, Poesis, Sonics, Security, Baudrillard, Bataille, Deleuze, Nietzsche, Marx, Capitalism, Settler Colonialism, Coloniality, Psychoanalysis, Kroker, Sharma, and Spanos. I have read the literature for: most genres of anti- blackness, feminism, Hinduism, Indio- sonics, anarchism, Kant (although don't run it I have no idea what that man is saying), biopower, disability, necropolitics, racial capitalism, and some more I can't think of right now!

CX: I've done some minimal reading from helping teams prepare for tournaments, but I wouldn't say I'm exactly up on the literature base for this year. If you have a court jargon term that has become prevalent with the IP topic, just explain it in the overview and then I should be fine.

LD: The September/ October topic isn't that deep (another reason that the wrong topic was chosen, but that's a different rant). I have read some cases for this topic, and will be judging somewhat frequently in LD. I'll know what's going on, just overview for me and I'll be fine.

PF: My first question is who put me in the PF pool? After that question I'll assess my life choices. Finally, I'd like to say that it's PF, it was made for a lay judge, so if they can understand it I sure hope that I can wrap my brain around it to a standard degree. There's also only so much that can go on in the following 40 minutes for me to understand, so I more than likely will be ok, and if not then I'll take some extra care in making my ballot to make sure a good decision is rendered.

Case:

1. Neg needs to be applying some pressure on case to where I at least have some suspicion about the Aff's impacts, or 2AR will have the easiest time of their life saying case outweighs.

2. I really like a good impact turn, just make sure that you are doing some good weighing on it and not just using it a mute button to one impact.

3. Solvency is an underrated argument, if it was good enough I'd totally vote on a terminal solvency deficit 2NR.

Trix:

1. I said tech over truth didn't I?

2. Give me a good speech doc though please, because there's gonna be a lot of random warrants going around and I need to keep track of them.

Theory:

1. Especially in LD, I'm probably more likely than most judges to vote on a theory shell. Like if PIC's are bad, and dropping the debater is good, then why not vote Aff?

2. Please put your theory shell in the doc, you aren't cool because the other team missed you 2 condo bad standards.

3. I'm pretty neutral on new Aff's bad and disclosure, just win the argument.

Phil:

1. I think phil is pretty cool... I'm just really bad at judging it... sorry.... you can run it if you want... there's just a 75% chance you get judge screwed.

Kritik's:

1. This is probably the type of round I feel most comfortable judging to the point where there is a noticeable skill gap between me in a K round versus me in a Policy round.

2. K Aff's aren't fair, its a bad idea to try to win that they are, Either win structural fairness, violence, or education and you are chilling on the T-USFG page.

3. T-USFG is a good strategy if you are able to win that fairness outweighs, but also that's literally the one argument that the Aff had to prep, so I've never really understood why Neg's go for it, I'd honestly prefer a KvK round even if it's just cap.

4. Both teams need to overview well, there's alot going on in these rounds so I need y'all to synthesize the story you are going for.

5. I think that K Neg's can win without winning pre-fiat framework if they play their cards right and weigh post-fiat.

6. I need a clear explanation of the Alt before the 2nr or its new.

7. Aff's against K neg's should feel free to defend their representations, I think heg good, security good, china good, and cap good are valid strategies.

Topicality:

1. I'm very willing to vote on a well executed T debate.

2. A good neg T-interp needs to give me a caselist if they are going for limits, and probably a TVA to moot Aff education claims.

3. Reasonability if probably a valid argument?

Disadvantages:

1. I really love a good Politics round and it would make me happy if you gave me one :)

2. The two most important things in a DA to me are a coherent story (which means a good overview) and weighing, because its really sad when I buy 100% of the DA, but the Aff outweighs, so weigh for me please.

3. Intrinsicness is probably a valid argument and you can maybe perm a DA if you try hard enough.

4. Risk assessment is an important factor when I'm viewing the weighing debate.

Counterplans:

1. I like generic process counterplans, like alot.

2. I think the Aff should focus less on competitiveness and more on if the counterplan actually solves and any deficits to the counterplan.

3. I think the really long counterplans with a ton of planks are funny.

4. Counterplans should probably be either textually or functionally competitive, its the aff's job to tell me if they need to be both.

Hello, I am Naveen Thogati. This is my second-year judging novice LD. I prefer quality over quantity in your argument. I would request that you do not spread so it is easier for me to understand your arguments. Thank you.

Hi, I am a lay judge. If I were you, I would refrain from spreading or reading something that's non - topical. DA's and CP's are fine but, if you want to run a K, please spend extra time explaining the warrants really clearly. Also, I prefer that you not read any T or Theory arguments unless the abuse is so great that it's your only win condition. In any case, if you do go for any T or Theory arguments make sure to explain it really well.

Also, this goes without saying but, please be sure to be extremely polite in round. Any racist, sexist, etc. argument will get you dropped.

My name is John, and I am a first time judge for LD Debate at the NSDA.

I see debate as an opportunity to discuss a topic for all that it is and to prove your arguments using sound reasoning and evidence.

I ask that you please speak clearly and at a reasonable pace. Please make sure to emphasize your arguments. Make it clear why your arguments and points won and your opponent's did not.

Always be respectful during your rounds and act kindly. It's most important to have fun.

Thank you. Good luck