If this is an ACS practice round, the first person to say "Abracadabra" will get 0.1 speaks.

Tech>truth in all circumstances.

I will try to keep my intervention to a minimum and judge the round based solely on the arguments presented by the debaters. My personal opinion on the arguments should not matter and should not affect my decision.

Please speak clearly so that I can follow your arguments. Please use verbal indicators at the end of a card and before the following tag. It would be helpful if you could use numbers or letters in early constructives to make signposting easier.

Please include me on the email chain and ensure your speech is clear and well-paced. Avoid using excessive jargon and short-hand as it may appear confusing. If I cannot understand anything about your argument, I will not include it in the final decision. This is especially important for Kritiks. Please explain your philosophy as though you are explaining it to someone with no philosophical experience.

Hi, my name is Elana Atlas (pronouns she/her).

Here are a few things I will be looking for in the round (for Novices):

• Novices- please read plan!
• clear and slower on the tags and authors
• If you email me one fun thing about your Thanksgiving break this year, I will give you 1 extra speaker point

UPDATE FOR GBX 2024

We should be using share.tabroom.com-- if that doesn't work ask for my email before the round and make sure to throw a coach on the chain as well.

Aasiyah (ah-see-yuh) Bhaiji (by-jee)

she/they

Conflicts: GBS, The Avery Coonley School

I am going to try and flow on paper this tournament to prove a point to my debaters, so if you have legal paper available, that would be much appreciated.

SHORT VERSION

"Do your thing, so long as you enjoy the thing you do. My favorite debates to watch are between debaters who demonstrate a nuanced understanding of their literature bases and seem to enjoy the scholarship they choose to engage in...I think judging is a privilege."-Maddie Pieropan.

I flow as much as my fingers will allow me. Slow down on the important parts and always remember clarity should be prioritized over speed.

LONG VERSION--Policy

Debate as an activity loses all value when debaters do not consider that there has to be a reason why a team deserves the ballot. I try my hardest to stick to my flow and rely heavily on judge instruction as to how I will write my ballot. YOU DO NOT WANT ME TO CONNECT THE DOTS FOR YOU.

I appreciate debaters who are passionate, excited, and well-prepared. The best debaters I’ve witnessed throughout the years have been the ones who show kindness and respect towards their partners and opponents. I am not a fan of teams that openly mock, belittle, and disrespect the people they are debating.

I'd prefer you talk about the topic and that your affirmative be in the direction of the topic. I could not possibly care less if that is via policy debate or K debate.

Planless Affirmatives

I like planless affirmatives, but you absolutely need to defend the choices and explanations you give in early cross-exes. I need to know what your version of debate looks like, and I am finding that most teams aren’t willing to defend a solid interpretation, which makes it hard for me to vote for them.

Please stick to an interpretation once you’ve read it. Clash debates with affs that are centered around the resolution are fun, and I find myself in the back of those debates most of the time.

I am not comfortable judging rounds with affs that rely on "survival strategies" or rounds that force debaters to out themselves/explain their identity for an argument.

I have less thoughts on policy rounds, not because I don't enjoy them, but because they are a lot more clear cut for me.

CPs

I do not default to judge kick; you have to give me instructions. What does it mean to sufficiently frame something? I am so serious. I have been asking this question for what seems like forever now.

I miss advantage counterplans, and I am a less-than-ideal judge for Process CPs (I'm not saying I won’t vote for them, it might do you well to spend a couple more seconds on process cps good in the block).

Solvency advocates are good but not necessary for me as a judge.

DAs

DAs as case turns will inevitably end up on the same flow, so please just tell me where to flow things earlier on in the debate.

Please don't read any terror disads/impacts in front of me, I will not be a happy camper. If you have to read them, fine. But I do hope that you have an in-depth explanation of your impact scenarios and understand the nuances of WHY terrorism occurs.

Ks

“Kritiks that rely entirely on winning through framework tricks are miserable. If I am not skeptical of the aff's ability to solve their internal links or the alt's ability to solve them, then I am unlikely to vote negative.”-AJ Byrne

If you cannot explain your alternative using a vocabulary a 7th grader can understand, you are likely using language and debate jargon that I find counterintuitive and, quite frankly, boring.

Most teams are very bad at sticking to their framework, unfortunately for you all, I DO care about framework and will hold you accountable.

T

Why are we putting this as the first off? I will most likely miss the interpretation if you are speeding through it.

Also, can we please explain our impacts earlier on in the debate? Thank you in advance :)

FW

I am not good for “our interpretation is better for small schools"

Defend your interpretation early on and throughout the debate. I need to be able to know how to evaluate the debate by the time I start writing my ballot.

Also I do think that "roll of the judge" and "roll of the ballot" are different (roj is the mindset in which I should evaluate the debate and rob is what my ballot signifies). Define one, define both, but please try to do at least one of those things.

Other things:

1. If I could implement the no more than 5 off rule, I would. Obviously, against new affirmatives, the circumstances are different, but I firmly believe that everything in the 1NC should be a viable option for the 2NR.
2. DISCLOSURE IS GOOD!I will try my hardest to be in the room for when it happens and I am not afraid to check teams wikis to see their disclosure practices. If you post round docs and show before I give you my decision, you will be rewarded.
3. I am super expressive, and you will be able to tell if I am vibing with whatever you are saying. I do have a very prominent RBF. Don’t take it personally; it means I am trying to get everything down.
4. Fine with tag-team but have found myself becoming frustrated when one debater from a team dominates all of cx. I do think that all debaters should speak at some point during cross-ex.
5. CX as prep is only justified when there is a new aff or if you are maverick.
6. The 1AC should be sent out at the scheduled round start time, the only exception is if the tournament is behind schedule and Tab has alerted everyone of the timing change.

More things I have thought about in regards to debate but aren’t wholly necessary to pre-round prep.

1. There is a difference between speaking up and yelling, I do not do well with debaters talking over their partners.

2. Please give me time to get settled before you start your speech.

3. I LOVE good case debating, and I get sad when the block treats it as an afterthought.

4. I had no idea teams gained the ability to remember every single thing their opponent said. FLOW! PLEASE!

5. Why are we reading the tier 3 argument against planless affirmatives.... let's start using our critical thinking skills

6. Rehighlighting evidence is a lost art. Bring it back for 2024

7. Clipping is bad, don't do it. I will clear you twice, and after that, I will stop flowing. If there is a recording of you clipping, it's an auto loss and a talk with your coach

8. I flow straight down (primarily because of sloppy line-by-line); the more organized your speeches are, the happier I am.

9. DRINK WATER

10. I do not care if you put a single card in the body of the email chain.

11. I apologize for any typos or run on sentences in my published RFDs (I recommend taking notes from verbal feedback that I give after the round, it is way more detailed and I can answer any questions in real time as opposed to you trying to decipher my initial two-lined decision.

12. Let's treat the rooms we debate in with respect and care, it takes a lot for a school to host a tournament and it isn't fair that people leave garbage behind after round.
13. Have fun and let the games begin :)

Congress--

Not entirely sure if you all read these because I am supposed to explain my ethos rules at the beginning of the session. You all should be clear, concise and kind in your speeches. Have fun and good luck!

Tech>Truth but do not abuse it; no death good, no xenophobia

Treat each other with respect

spreading is fine but CLEAR

other than that, just have fun! (Will update later)

I did high school policy debate all four years in the late 90s and early 2000s and then took a very long break. I'm getting up to speed on the "new" arguments. I've judged a few middle school tournaments this year- mostly varsity or JV and a few novice. I'm pretty well versed on most disads/arguments/topicality etc. and am willing to vote on most things as long as they are argued and explained well.

SPEED: No problems with speed but you must be CLEAR. If I can't understand you, your argument may be missed and go unflowed which means I won't be able to weigh it it come decision time. If I can't understand you during your speech, as a courtesy I will say "clear" a couple of times but if you continue to be unclear, I will stop flowing. I encourage you to slow down for the tag and author but it's fine to speed up in your cards. Try to make distinctions between each arguments with either numbers or a "next". Same with line-by-line.

TOPICALITY/THEORY/K: I think there are better arguments to vote on than topicality but if you have a compelling argument and the aff is clearly in violation, I will vote on it. Same with theory. I'm not super current on the new theory debate or K's but if its run well and is accurate, I will vote on it.

Language is fine, be nice to each other and remember that it's JUST a debate round so while your cards may all say "nuclear war" for everything, I can assure you that the world is not that dramatic :)

Policy debaters lie, K debaters cheat.

Tabula rossi, I am a clean sheet.

+0.5 speaks if you give me snacks.

Pronouns: He/Him/His/They/Them

Background:

Avery Coonley '26

Add me to the chain: shahvij@averycoonley.org

29.5 + speaker points if you run the pirate aff (Just kidding don't do it)

Greatest inspirations are: Aaron Kim, Mahi Shah, Joshua Friess, Kavin Bendre, Eric Youngquist, and Christian Kline

MMSDL:

For this year's topic intellectual properties: My favorite Aff is PERA or even Shop Safe

T: For this year it's just a time suck in the core files so either kick out of it (unless the AFF drops it) or don't read it as part of your neg strat. For the AFF I don't care if it's a case file tournament T is still a voter. If that's your only analytic on T then you will lose on it.

AI INDUSTRY DA: Great take if you read it. Best DA against AI copyrights this year not against other case files. This could be a round winner in AI copyright cases

COURT CLOG: Great argument especially because most of the ev makes sense. Climate Change impact link is kinda sketchy. The links against the affirmative are lowkey decent. Aff is hard to argue against this.

INFLATION DISAD: Decent isn't specifically that good for one aff it's more of a general aff however it doesn't mean that it is generic at all. Good take for certain Affs'.

That's all the off.

(Shotgun's are fun if you've got the speed)

Expectations:

Discriminatory, hateful, harmful, and/or profane language is forbidden, and its use will result in loss of rounds and speaks.

- Time both cx and your/opponent's speeches. Well, I or other judges keep official time it's good to keep your own.

- I'll follow along on the chain unless you start to mumble in which case your arguments aren't on my flow.

- Don't steal prep

- Roadmaps should be clear (don't kick in roadmaps)

- Judge instruction wins rounds. Tell me what issues to prioritize and why they outweigh the other team's impacts.

- Don't start off-case in the 2NC it's super annoying and is also a forfeit in some tournaments

- Don't ask me for a roadmap just give one

When doing line-by-line, go straight down the flow and clearly signpost. Don't get sucked into reading long blocks which are barely responsive and leave me to sort out what arguments they're meant to be responding to.

Post-rounding is good, as long as its done respectfully. If you disagree with part of my decision, feel free to argue with me about it, but know the decision will not be changed after the round.

ARGUMENTS:

T:

Predictability probably outweighs debateability, but I can be persuaded either way.

Put T first in neg strat and 1NC unless you have other theory arguments.

T is a voting issue so if they drop it completely it's all you should go for in the 2NR

Disads:

Turns case is important and should be at the top of most 2NRs on a DA.

Need good link explanation to feel comfortable voting on it.

Straight turns are very underutilized throughout debate. Straight link turns, especially on politics and economy disads for this topic, are some of my favorite debates.

Link turns are good so use those

Can't drop a link turn as the neg

CP:

The CP must have a net benefit of some sort. I like a DA rather than an internal net benefit but it doesn't really matter as long as it's well debated. Be careful arguing for a solvency or timeframe net benefit, especially if you're also going for case turns.

Advantage CPs are underutilized and pairing them with a good DA is a very solid strategy.

Most PICs aren't abusive. With that being said, I'll feel more comfortable voting on a PIC that is truly competitive compared to one that takes out a minimal part of the plan. For example, take a Green New Deal job guarantee. PICing out of the GND or FJG part is a competitive PIC. PICing out of people who haven't received a vaccine is not, and I'll be much more sympathetic to PIC theory in this case.

I technically lean Aff on questions of competition, but the Neg almost always wins on it because the Aff doesn't debate it correctly and/or doesn't understand what textual and functional competition are.

CPs should (probably) have a solvency claim and warrant, but don't necessarily need a card if its intuitive.

Judge kick is a logical extension of condo. 1AR and 2AR needs to make an argument as to why judge kick is bad for me to not automatically consider the status quo.

K:

K's can be fun as long as you know what you are arguing. While they are cool to run I discourage running Ks that either I have no idea what they are are you don't even know what you're saying. The Ks I'm most familiar with are setcol and racial cap and a bit on academia from previous round experience. (It's okay against Kaffs)

Kaff vs policy:

Neg leaning in these debates, but will obviously decide based on the flow

In order to win the round, Aff teams need to have a very clear claim to the ballot - absent this claim, and with the Neg including at least some role of the ballot argument, I'm obligated to vote Neg

Most counter-interps on framework are garbage, I’m more likely to vote on an impact turn to fairness or clash

Ballot PIKs + Presumption are underutilized

Debated equally by both sides, the Neg would always win on T, but obviously that rarely occurs

KvK debate:

I'll try and flow it but I have no idea what's happening. Be clear so I can understand your K better.

Random stuff:

Coinflips for K's are fine but if you're the AFF don't agree unless you don't care about the round.

Funny things I've seen or heard of in the past:

More people die from bathtubs than terrorism.

The pirate 1AC talking about how you wanna be pirates. Then you demonstrate and steal the judges ballot give yourself 30s and the W then give them their computer back. (DON"T READ THIS)

Bargaining: If you're a maverick at a tournament or round you're not going to do good out run the bargaining AFF. Tell the neg that you can have the W on this debate round so long as I get a 30. It's pretty funny.

Some things to do in speeches:

1AC: This should be well prepared and read at a good speed. The 1AC should be practiced. I can tell if it's not. You can lose speaker points if the 1AC is not done well. Practice Practice Practice!!!.

CX: Don't be a jerk in cross-x. No yelling but also speak up so both your opponents and I can hear you. While cx is not part of my vote it can be important if the team you're debating against doesn't answer a question. Please point this out in later speeches to give a larger reason to vote for you.

1NC: Same as the 1AC don't mumble and speak clearly. The 1NC should lay down the offcase. I love Shotgunning a.k.a reading all the offcase and oncase possible. Unless the AFF is going to drop Inherency 99% of the time don't read it. Your shotgun should always have a counterplan unless the counterplan your league allows is garbage or has no net benefit.

2AC: It's difficult to do a 2AC. That's why it's one of my favorite speeches. It's also probably one of the hardest next to the 1AR. Please don't mess it up. 2ACs are important for the round. I've personally seen 2As win and lose rounds. Line by line, Line by line, Line by line!!! It's really important. If you need prep take it before the 2AC. On your flow make sure you respond to all of the negs arguments and extend your own. Dropping args in the 2AC will lose rounds. Be careful and use good time management.

2NC: Split the block in the 2NC. If you don't know what that means ask your coaches or me in a round if you need to. For experienced debaters splitting the block is a great way to manage time and one of the best ways to win rounds. In the 2NC I like to see all oncase you may have missed in the 1NC. Line by line is greatly appreciated in the 2NC. Overall time management is not that big of an issue seeing as the 1NR can recover for you.

1NR: Offcase goes here. Read and extend disads, counter plans, t, etc. If your partner or yourself dropped anything in the 2NC read the oncase that they missed. If you want or need to kick out of a DA in the 1NR.

1AR: Arguably one of the most difficult speeches in debate. Like the 2AC 1ARs win and lose rounds which is why their so important. You need to read fast in the 1AR to cover all arguments. Not too fast. I never want your arguments to be WASTED.Like the 2ACs 1ARs win and lose rounds.

2NR: This is your last chance to convince me that you win this round. If it's not convincing you may lose the round. Kick Kick Kick!!! Kick out of disads, t, maybe cps. 2-3 off cases should be in the round by this point. At the end I like it if you "lay out the ballot" Go through my ballot and tell me what you're winning on, why it matters, and lastly why you're winning the round.

2AR: This is your last chance to convince me that you win this round. If it's not convincing you may lose the round. This is also the last say in the debate. IMPACT Calc in the 2AR is appreciated for my flow. At the end I like it if you "lay out the ballot" Go through my ballot and tell me what you're winning on, why it matters, and lastly why you're winning the round. Same as the neg you need to convince me.

Not just extension cards but line by line too for the above cards.

Please don't read more than 3 cards in rebuttals. I hate it when teams do that. Rebuttals are for analytics not whatever garbage extensions you wan't to read. Unless it's a good card that will win you the round you can lose speaks for doing this unnecessarily.

Speaks:

+0.1 if you say "tic tac toe --- 3 in a row ---- we win" at the top of your 2nr/2ar, but it has to fit the debate

+0.2 if you open source every card you read (you must tell me)

-0.2 for every argument you claim to be dropped when it was actually responded to

<26.5 - evidence violation

26.5-27.5 - lack of clarity, speed, depth, and understanding in arguments

27.5-28 - decent clarity, below average speed, decent depth of arguments, probably going 2-4 or 3-3

28-28.5 - my standard average for points, those at the upper end are probably clearing as a low seed while those at the lower end are going 3-3.

28.5-29 - one of the better speakers at the tournament, great clarity, decent speed, well-warranted arguments, clearing as a higher seed

29+ - top 5 speakers at the tournament, one of the top seeds

If you have any questions during feedback in round don't hesitate to ask. If you have any questions later feel free to ask. Email's at the top. I may not respond as recent as you wanted but I will try to respond.

????Good luck for your round with me and future rounds at this tournament.

Make sure files are in word. Files are formatted correctly. There are good roadmaps. GOOD SIGNPOSTING. Good flows.

Show your flows and if they're good enough I'll consider adding speaks.

ACS '26, varsity mmsdl policy

Aff:

1AC, enunciate the tags or indicate that you're moving on to the next card.

2AC, use line-by-line and RESPOND TO ALL ARGUMENTS

1AR, this is one of the most important speeches as the 1AR responds to all arguments made in the neg block, explain why your arguments are better than theirs. Do not just state "They say ... we say..."

2AR, this is your last chance to prove why I should do the plan, tell me how to evaluate the round

Neg:

1NC, same as 1AC but put off first, makes it seem like your arguments are more important

2NC, same as 2AC, 2NC should have on-case and maybe a few of the off, depending on how much you are running

1NR, I'd recommend splitting the block. Also, 1NR should have most of the off-case

2NR, explain why your impacts are worse than theirs, kick arguments, and try to focus on around 1 or 2 instead of all of them

In general:

Be respectful

Try not to cede time, it makes it seem like you don't have enough to say about why your arguments are good

If you don't flow or aren't using a timer, I will dock speaker points

You shouldn't be asking me how much time is left in your speech, YOU HAVE A TIMER (hopefully) USE IT

+0.1 speaker points if you make a parallel between your arguments and a Roblox game (+0.2 if dress to impress)

+0.2 speaker points if you show me your flows after the round and they're good

Here for the middle schoolers in practice rounds. A good chunk of this might actually be some strategy advice to help y'all out. +0.1 speaker point if you say "chicken nugget soup" to prove that you read the paradigm). Feel free to e-mail me about any general question you have, any questions about the round that I judged, or if you want to send me debate memes.

Tldr: impact calc, good roadmaps, signposting, and most importantly clash land you good speaks. As for arguments, I can be convinced of almost anything IF you argue it well enough.

Good luck!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry if this is old.

Speaker points/flowing related:

1. GIVE ME IMPACT CALC

Please! Give me a reason as to why an impact with 100% probability outweighs an impact with a larger magnitude but 1% probability. Or a reason why an extinction impact outweighs another impact no matter the probability. You have to weigh the impacts and tell me why yours are larger. It makes voting for you much easier.

2. Please, good roadmaps

This includes: sticking to the roadmap you gave, no weird roadmaps like "off case 1, on case, off case 2", and not saying "impact calc" or "line by line" in your roadmaps. It isn't a voter, but I will give you much fewer speaker points if you give a bad roadmap. And it impacts my ability to flow. If I can't flow your argument, I won't evaluate it.

3. Good with spreading, but be understandable

There aren't any speech docs in middle school, so I expect all arguments to be understandable. I can understand if you talk fast, but PLEASE make sure you are enunciating everything so that I can hear it. If I don't understand what you are saying, I won't flow it. Also, slow down on tags. Makes everyone's life SO much easier.

4. SIGNPOST

I will be SO ANGRY (not actually, but like) if you don't signpost. This can be with numbers, letters, the word "next", or a change in pitch, but just make sure I can understand when you move from the end of evidence on a card to the tag of the next. I will often not be able to flow arguments that aren't signposted well as I will rarely understand them, and your speaker points will reflect this.

5. CLASH!!!

The best debate is one where both sides directly clash with each other's arguments. I want to see the affirmative clash directly with negative DAs, and a good case clash between the affirmative and the negative. This basically just says "don't read only extension cards in your 2ac".

6. Speaks

The average is 28. You are a great speaker if you get a 29. This would involve good impact calc, clash, and convincing speeches. Exceptional gets 29.5+. This means you amazed me. If you aren't a great speaker, meaning little clash, little to no impact calc, and or unconvincing speeches, I will give you a 27.5. You have to be REALLY bad to get a 27. Anything below that and you did something seriously wrong (and we should probably talk about it).

Strategy related:

1. Reluctant to vote on T

My opinion on voting for T has changed a bit recently. I still favor aff in this debate a good amount but can be convinced by a good negative (and aff that drops some stuff) that T is a reason to reject the team.

2. Defaults to extinction outweighs

Unless said differently in the round through framing, or convinced otherwise through some form of impact calc, I WILL default to extinction impacts outweigh.

3. Put your offense first (strategy)

Most of the time neg should be putting off case and counterplans first, and aff should be putting case first. There are few exceptions to this. If you don't put offense first, that's a loss of some speaker points (and it puts you at a strategic disadvantage).

4. Negative - try to get down to 1 strategy by the 2nr (strategy, and NOT ALWAYS)

I don't want to see 3 off in the 2nr. Pick the strongest DA, or a CP with a DA as a net benefit, and go for it in the 2nr. Often if there are many off in the 2nr then they aren't well explained, and it makes it much harder for me to vote on it. A single strong DA is very convincing, 3 weak DAs are not as convincing.

5. Kick things correctly (strategy)

I won't point it out mid-round but speaks will reflect it and opponents can point it out. To kick a DA the negative should concede an argument that takes out the impact, internal link, or link. You can concede a non-unique argument, but only if there weren't turns. If there is a non-unique conceded, and aff had a link turn, the turn was dropped and a non-unique + link turn turns the DA into an aff advantage. Similarly, watch out when you choose what to concede! If the aff ran an impact turn, you cannot concede that as it will turn into an aff advantage. Counterplans can be kicked simply by stating "We are now advocating for the status quo". T is kicked by not stating it in the roadmap. Aff: you can kick an advantage in the same way - just like the negative, watch out for turns!

6. Aff on a counterplan (strategy)

You should already know this, but if arguing for a perm you should argue why it is better than the counterplan. You could also argue no net benefit, because if the aff and counterplan have the same impacts and solvency I vote aff.

8. I will NOT do work for you

You are expected to flow and point out things like dropped arguments. If it isn't pointed out by someone, then it won't be evaluated in my decision. Dropped arguments, new arguments in rebuttals, arguments not extended that are brought back, and contradictions made by either side are expected to be pointed out to me in order for me to evaluate it.

9. Tech > truth

If an argument isn't true but dropped, it's true now! However, if two arguments are presented I am more inclined to believe the more truthful argument. If you are arguing something that wouldn't immediately appear to be true, you have to do a good job explaining it to make me vote for it. An example is UBI vs the econ DA. The 1nc will say that the UBI is inflationary or would take a lot of money. I am very inclined to believe this. The 2AC should do a good job explaining why the UBI would not be inflationary or cost as much as the negative said. If the 2ac does a better job than the 1nc does, then aff wins on the econ DA. If the 2ac doesn't explain well, then the negative easily wins on the economy DA.

-Unicorn CP for life

Hi everyone who is reading my paradigm,

My email is eyoungquist@averycoonley.org for the email chains.

I’ve been coaching policy debate for seven years at the Avery Coonley School in Downers Grove, IL (it's a middle school). I’ve also judged a few rounds of high school Public Forum and am starting to judge Congressional this year. I kind of fell into the job as a debate coach- I didn’t have any debate experience in high school or college. I've taught Literacy for 16 years, and social studies for the last four.

That being said, please treat the debate room like a classroom in terms of behavior and decorum. If the way you are acting would not fly at your school, don't do it in front of me. Debate can get heated, the cross-ex can get pointed, but outright rudeness, swearing, etc. will come with penalties.

In terns of judging-I always view debate through the lens of a solid analytical argument, just like I would in my classroom. I need a cohesive argument, solid support, analytics, and a breakdown of why your argument is superior to your opponents’ argument. An “A” debate should look like an “A” paper.

Congressional:

Outside of the sponsor speech, you are not getting a 5 or 6 unless your speech is DIRECTLY RESPONSIVE to the arguments already raised. I want to hear you call them out and directly compare your points against theirs. If you are the fifth speaker on a point and don't even mention the arguments raised before you, you are going to get a 3. And no, just mentioning their names doesn't count as being responsive...This is debate, not speech. I should hear some actual debate being done.

I'd also like to see some passion in the speeches- please work on being expressive (and loud enough I can hear you in the back of the room). Use the hands, the facial expressions, etc. Eye contact is good too.

Public Forum:

Please make sure you lay out your contentions clearly, add some emphasis on your claims, and make sure you are doing the work to analyze your sources. Much like my policy statement below, I'm evaluating you on your ability to clash with your opponents. Make sure you are matching them argument for argument in your rebuttals. I'm going to be convinced by your weighing of the evidence, not just reading the evidence to me (or just repeating your points... I took notes, I know what you said in the first speech...)

Policy

Ok, after my last tournament, I have to add this. If you don't argue or signpost the name of your off-case argument, I'm immediately lowering your speaks. I don't want to try and figure out what is the point of your argument from poorly labelled cards. Also, label your uniqueness, net benefit, alt, role of the ballot, etc. Please don't make me try and guess while you are going full varsity speed. This is my new pet peeve. It would also be nice if you tell me what they are in your off-time road map rather than just giving me "nine off, then case" and hoping i can figure it all out.

Two other things I don’t like to hear are extremely fast talking and cards that don’t support their tags. It’s great that you got through a lot of evidence and tried to put a lot of things on the flow sheet, but if you are only reading a sentence or two from each card and it doesn’t add up, it’s not a real argument. I need depth. I need CLASH.

I am really against fast reading. If you words are jumbling together and I can't make it out, it's not going on my flow. If I can't make out what you are saying, I am going to give you a "clear." If it continues, I'll give you a second one. Beyond that, I will disregard it if I can't make it out.

The round is going to go to the group that clearly lays out their argument (love signposting) and advances their ideas clearly while pointing out the flaws in their opponents’ presentation. If you are running a "K," I want an overview of the theory before you launch into it. This is especially true if I haven't seen it before. I'm not going to get what I need from your light speed reading without some background.

I’ll take T’s and K attacks that are on topic and make a valid point, but don't try to shoehorn something in just because it's what you always do. If their case is barely hanging on to being topical, go for it. Can you make a legit critique with some SOLID links? Go for it. Just don't get too esoteric on me, and MAKE SURE THE LINK IS SOLID (yes, I said it again)!!! Blocks of jargon with no real tie to the case will not work.

Please don't run a cheaty "K" Aff on me. I'm not big on the "K" Affs to begin with, so this had better be solid. If I feel like you are running a K so that you can not engage with the topic and deliver the same same thing every round (or possibly every year you have debated), I'm not going to be inclined to vote for you. You better prove that you did more than switch out a link card before the start of the match.

Hi!

My name is William Zhong (You probably already know that)

I've done almost 4 years of middle school debate, plus a few high school debate tournaments.

I DO NOT like K's (They really annoy me)

Impact Calcs are necessary

Roadmaps PLEASE

I'm more on the technical side, I like linked arguments that the debaters can clearly make and explain to me.

I'm probably tech over truth (unless the arguments are completely stupid)

I don't evaluate cross-ex as highly, so do what you will.

If you say Game Over in your last speech, +.25 speaks

My email is zhonwil@averycoonley.org

You are supposed to time yourselves, but I'll also time (But I might forget)

I'll also try to give you a 1 minute warning

Try not to argue with your partner (I'm not afraid to give low speaks)

That's it :)

(You can ask questions before the round starts.)