Hello there,

My name is Hassana I am a regular debater and public speaker currently employing my vast speaking and judging experience to judge speech and debate. I have gathered ample experience judging different speech and debate formats including British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), World Schools Debate Championship (WSDC), Canadian National Debate Format (CNDF), Public Forum (PF), Congress, CX, LD, Extemp, Impromptu.

Email address: rahmatmaimako09@gmail.com

Conflicts: I do not have any.

PERSONAL NOTE:

When you encounter me in a room, please note that I hold in high regard, positive, fair, equitable and proper engagements during discussions and cross engagements. I appreciate debaters who check out all the boxes of expectations including role fulfillment, efficient engagements of debate burdens, contentions and clashes and equitable and effective engagements to confrontations

Speed: I do a fast format. I'm okay with spreading in formats where it is standard practice (Policy and prog LD). I'll call "clear" or "slow" if you are being unclear or I can't keep up, which doesn't happen too often. If you spread, I appreciate it if you make it clear when one card ends and a new one begins (eg saying NEXT or AND between each card, going slower on tags, etc).

In formats were spreading isn't standard practice, I don't have a problem people who talk faster than they would in a normal conversation, as long as a lay person could understand your rate of delivery.

Impact stuff: Like most judges, I love it when the debaters in all formats do impact calculus and explain why their impacts matter more under their framework. When this doesn't happen, I default to weighing probability over magnitude and scoop and using reversibility and timeframe as tiebreakers. I’m open to voting on impact turns.

• I admire it when competitors respect, value, and have a deep sense of mutual understanding for each other during rounds. This means I totally detest irritable attitudes such as rudeness, hostility, and intolerance. Kindly be on your best behaviour and be very conscious of how you interact with your co - competitors.

Best of luck.

Hey, Wayne here!

Alaskan debater, 2024 NSDA Qualifier in IX; 2024-2025 Events: CX, DX, OO, BP.

Add me to the email chain: wabarnum@alaska.edu

~Speechwire email: di3g0ak12@gmail.com

Judging:

Preferred Lay/Flay, viable for Tech.

Theory✓

Kritik✓

Tricks X

Offense>Defense

Spreading ? (share docs and clarify, especially for analytics, its easier for me to follow)

I will always ask that you push for what you want the round to be judged on, preferably that you do everything in your power to prevent a wash. Your framework will be my metrics!

Please be professional in round! I am willing to give loses and lower speaks if there are statements that are targeted to the other team or are _____phobic.

I prefer giving oral feedback but you'll see some extra analysis on tab!

Good Luck in Round!

Background:

4 year HS debater in LD, CX, Congress, and a lot of speech events.

LD/CX

I spent the most time in LD in high school. I try to be as non-interventionist as possible, however I do have some defaults and preferences. You should pref me if you debate technically no matter what arguments you read. I will vote on anything as long is has a claim, warrant, and impact. I won't vote you down for reading arguments I don't like, however a dumb argument is easier to beat than a strong one. Anything is on the table bar racism good and arguments like it. I actively enjoy listening to well-executed spark, wipeout, and other impact turn debates.

Specifics:

I'm best for DA/Counterplan/Case debate with lots of weighing and are the debates I enjoy the most.

Condo is obviously good, but neg teams often don't take it seriously enough. Reasonability/drop the argument on its own is not enough. You need to have offense.

I'm better for theory debates than most. Frivolous theory is fine, but I would prefer you read more real interps. Paragraph theory is fine and is my preferred method for counterplan theory. I default to competing interps and no RVIs. RVIs are usually bad arguments, but in a debate with a lot of theory are VERY strategic. If your opponents drop aspec (and it had a warrant) and your 2NR is anything else, I'll be unhappy.

I like process counterplan debates. I'd like to listen to new/weird process counterplans if they're explained well.

I read some K affs, but I think T-USFG is a true argument. Despite this, I vote aff in a lot/most of framework debates because neg teams don't implicate their arguments/drop disads. I think going for the impact turn on framework is the most strategic. TVAs are phenomenal and should be a part of most 2NRs. Fairness is an impact and internal link. I like clash 2NRs.

I default to plan focus, but reps links are viable.

My favorite K is the cap K. I am familiar with other literature bases in this order: Baudrillard, other semiocap, Deleuze, afropess, set col. Explain any other Ks with greater depth.

Performance is cool in policy, I tend to think there's not enough time in LD.

I like Kant vs. util debates. I'm out of my element if its a debate other than Kant vs util and the other frameworks aren't explained coherently. weird phil debate is great if you can explain it.

Phil tricks are fine. Theory tricks are worse.

Congress

I'll evaluate the round as a combination of speaking style, content, and the impact/role you play in the round. I value content more than some, but I don't drop arguments I don't like. Great ref is the main source of content points. I place a lot of importance on playing your part in the round i.e. clashing and giving appropriate types of speeches. I will probably drop you if you give a constructive at the end of the debate.

I probably rank POs lower than most. If you are a solid PO, you will be ranked. You will only get the 1 if you are a very strong PO in a somewhat weaker chamber. 2-3 is achievable if you are a great PO

PF

Technical debating still applies from above sections. I will listen to policy arguments in this format if I'm at a tournament where that's the norm.

Speech

I don't enjoy trauma dump speeches. If your speech is packed with trauma for the sake of trauma...my rank won't be awesome. This doesn't mean sad pieces are bad, but ones that are filled with 10 minutes of yelling about horrid things are the worst.

nchs '27

(she/they)

i apologize for the length of my paradigm, but not really.

LD:

do whatever, i'm basically the most tech heavy judge ever due to primarily being a cx debater. do with that what you will. i've judged ld a grand total of, like, once.

policy:

as far as how i judge, the following can almost always be consulted :

i always will go in tabula rasa. like, fr. judge bias does not exist for me.

speed/clarity:spreading is fine and dandy- but make sure to be clear. if i can't understand you then i can't flow it.

flowing: i typically flow online and expect debaters to flow throughout the round. dropped arguments are a big deal to me- but if you don't point out a drop, there's nothing i can really do.

topicality:if you're in the mmsdl, it's really not a voter for me. otherwise, i'm a really good judge on T- i really like more "trad" arguments, or traditional ones, so i tend to weigh T a bit heavier than other judges.

i've been doing policy for way too long (started the '20-21 school year)

i expect debaters to keep their own clock and be aware of their prep time. i'll run my own timer as well, but running your own timer is good practice.

speaker points/extras:

i will remove speaker points for false claimed drops. this was a HUGE issue on the ms circuit when i was active on it, and it just makes me cringe a bit.

i'll likely add a bit of a boost to your score if you have emotion (up to 0.4ish). pathos is important!!

dude, please don't call me "judge." it makes me feel geriatric.

tech>truth, always.

happy debating , and if you've read this far down pre-round, you're MILES ahead of the competition :)

specifics for the high school circuit:

k-affs: please don't read these on me. it won't go over well. you're brave, but please don't run one.

k's in general: in general, i'm not a super huge fan of kritiks purely because i learned to debate on the middle school circuit. that being said, if you can convince me, i'll vote on it. but if you're going for a k, you need to kind of fully commit to it. with heavier arguments, you can't just "sprinkle in" some lacan, for example- fully flesh out your k arguments! i feel like with k's, especially in recent years, they've been a bit of an afterthought- you need to KNOW your k's in and out, because everyone in the room can tell when you don't really know what you're reading. however, i love ethics/philosophy related k's when argued to their full potential.

k v k debates: in the wise words of kavin bendre, "i have little idea what's happening in these debates, but if you win you win."

counterplans:i've seen A LOT of low-key abusive cps. i'll be annoyed at you for running an abusive one. advantage cp's are fine on their own, but adding arduous amounts of planks and kicking them when they're no longer convenient for you is not lol.

t:i'm a big fan of T. there's not much more to say.

theory:i understand theory to an extent. i'm still not the largest fan, and would MUCH rather prefer fw.

etiquette: be civil. be nice. please. sass is fine (and lowkey encouraged), but there's 100% a line between sarcasm/snark and being a jerk.

again, please don't run everything stated in your 1nc in your 2nr. it will make me violently sob and you'll also likely have an equally miserable time. nobody likes to flow 300 arguments by the last rebuttals. seriously. if you're going for T in the 2nr- it better be the ONLY thing you're arguing.

go for the dumb arguments. debate is a game, and while there IS value in serious rounds, everyone has more fun if you go for a more laid-back approach. make jokes, go for a funny impact, do whatever.

i want to be on the chain!!! cegorman@stu.naperville203.org! please!

general stuff (all events):

the line between passionate and hysterical is a thin one, watch that line. (probably the greatest feedback on a ballot i've ever gotten)

loud doesn't equal right.

know your timing- have a good idea of how much time you have left in a constructive, speech, or rebuttal.

flow- no matter what event you're in, flowing is super important.

my main events are policy and congress, so i consider myself more of a "flay" judge in ld/pf. again, tech> truth.

Current debater and president at Dr Phillips High School in Lincoln-Douglas but have debated in most of the other debate events as well. Honestly, I'm cool to evaluate anything that is explained to me and that I can hear so feel free to run anything but make sure that the more complicated the argument gets, the better you explain it. With that being said, I do have my preferences, opinions, and pet peeves. (Note: I am a pretty grumpy person who is basically socially inept so don't take anything I end up saying or acting like too personally, I suck at emotions and social stuff)

Y'all, my paradigm is long and probably poorly written cause English is hard, ask questions prior to round start. I'd rather start round a little late than have you confused about what I like.

Postrounding is probably good... especially if you think I'm the dumbest person who has ever judged you. Just don't be rude and concise, I am NOT convinced by you yelling at me, even if I'm wrong.

I prefer using Speechdrop but email chains are fine. Email: cyrislimdebates@gmail.com

(LD)

PANIC!!! WHAT DOES THIS JUDGE LIKE:

1 - Phil, Trix (phil), Trad

2 - Theory, T, Ks you can explain

3 - LARP, Identity Ks

4 - Friv Theory, Ks you can't explain, Trixs (26 off, opp can't have offense, etc.)

S - Performance Debates

Paradigm proper:

General mumblings from a grumpy person - I'm going to be honest with all of you, I WILL evaluate any argument. The prefs are just there for you to understand my background knowledge and how comfortable with the argumentation type I am. I don't mind if you run phil, LARP, or even a performance debate, I'll still evaluate it, but the rankings are just there for you to know how much you have to explain to me or how well you gotta perform. Things lower on the list are things where you just have to naturally perform better. That doesn't mean you don't have to do well with those I rank higher, it just means that you are naturally going to get me faster. I won't hack for anything and will do the best I can with anything given to me. (Note on performance: I just don't think you'll have time to explain to me why performance is good, why YOUR performance is uniquely good, and put on the performance. I just think it's a super high burden on you and you might not have enough time but if you're confident in your skills and explaining, go ahead. I would love to see/hear it.)

Phil - Personally love this form of debate and find that it is underutilized on the circuit and especially locally, people tend to opt for Policy, Util, or some other basic framework which is fine but Lincoln Douglas is the PHILOSOPHICAL debate event, it gets infinitely more interesting when framework is more than just a reused Morality Util one. Frameworks I particularly like are Kant, Hobbes, and Pettit (I know, I'm basic) but will appreciate anything new like Rand or Levinas. I don't particularly like Util, I'll weigh it but don't expect super high speaks (Usually will give +.1 for just having a non-Util/MSV fw). With this in mind, DO NOT run a framework your coach gave you just because I like phil, make sure you truly understand what it's talking about and how it interacts within the round; if I have reasonable grounds to doubt that you have any idea what your fw is saying, -1.0 speaks.

Trad - As a kid in central Florida who primarily (and sadly) mostly competes locally, I'm super comfortable with trad (to be honest, how are you NOT comfortable in trad) and most of my debate year is lay trad debates. That means feel free to pref me highly if you want to ask for a trad round (I'll likely be happy to grant a trad round) but I would prefer rounds that transcend the boundaries of trad. More phil or tricky rounds are gonna make me infinitely more interested in the round but don't feel like you're being forced to not do trad. For trad, just treat me like you would a lay judge but just cut out the fluff that is associated with it.

Theory - Honestly, I'll evaluate it as long as real abuse can be proved. Usually default DTD, Competing interps, no RVIs, yes to 1AR theory but can be convinced otherwise. I can be swayed to buy 2NR theory. Legit theory comes first on my ballot so it's usually key to respond to it. It'll be difficult to get me to vote on friv theory; my threshold on responses is SUPER low and the only way to win with friv theory is basically to have your opponent drop it or completely mishandle it.

Note on evidence ethic theories: I will always ask you after your speech whether you want to stake the round on it. If the answer is no, don't run the shell.

LARP - It's whatever, as long as it makes sense then I'll evaluate it. I default on a morality Util framing without any speaker deductions and will assume you will be weighing as such. Weighing is a MUST to properly secure my ballot in more policy-centric rounds. I always assume DAs turn case and Plans and CPS need a text telling me exactly what the plan is to properly evaluate it. (i.e. Resolved: The United States will slowly phase out fossil fuels by increasing renewable energy production from solar) Solvency is a MUST.

Ks- I think they're useful when done well and explained well. Ks that you cannot explain easily in the time provided to you should not be run as all it does is clutter the round. Ks HAVE TO HAVE an alt that can be acted upon; not just reject the aff. The alt can be a CP. Linking the K to the resolution, something your opponent is running, or to debate in general, clearly is key to making a coherent K and one I feel comfortable voting off of. I'm fine with K affs but no alt here, it should be the resolution text in place of the alt (unless it's radical, then pop off) and the K should function as your offense and not just a part of your offense, it's either go all in or not at all. If you've read my paradigm before, this is where I had identity Ks being a low pref but I'm going to be honest, they've kind of grown on me since I first made this. I still don't think I'm the best judge out there for judging identity Ks but I will definitely evaluate them a lot easier and more willingingly now. Key stipulation is that I will likely not know the lit very well (unless you are running Set Col, Model Minority, or Orientalism) so try to slow down and spend more time explaining the position.

As a general principle, I believe that: radicals alts >> normals alts >>>> reject the aff. Will eval any of them though, I just think some are def stronger than others with rejection being the weakest by far.

Quick side note, I've been loving the Academy K lately. Take that information as you will :)

Trixs- Honestly, as I become more active with using prog tactics, phil trixs have really grown on me. I kinda want you to try and run these if you can cause I feel like they create a fun debate but of course, won't get you the auto-win. Personally been running Kant 1AR indexicals and skep NC a lot and I find them fun to see and do. I don't like judging a billion Trixs so I won't be happy about it but you can run a full Trix case if you want to and I'll try my best to keep up. Key thing to keep in mind, if one of the Trix gets turned or a theory is read against you, you will most likely lose.

Performance - Just don't. Thank you :)

Other prefs:

• Deontological arguments >>>>
• Not a huge fan of PICs, will evaluate but pretty begrudgingly.
• Tech>Truth unless the arg is very obviously just untrue (1+1=2, it's non-negotiable)
• I will try not to interfere within the round, my ballot is written by the debaters
• Instant L and the lowest speakers possible for any xenophobic argument/comment (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc)
• I will NOT pay too much attention during CX, this is your time, so I'll just passively listen
• Don't just say "My opponent doesn't have a card for this" without explaining why it matters in the context of the round; this will not be treated as a response and will garner -0.2 speaks every time you say it
• Speed is fine, if you spread, send doc
• Signpost
• I am a judge where if you want to test run a new case position/debating style/argument, you should. (Assuming you just want to figure out the viability of an argument and are not trying to guarantee a win)
• I will give a verbal RFD/comments if the tournament allows and both debaters want it
• I don't flow card names anymore because it forces you to properly extend arguments instead of just having your 1AR be "judge, extend x card, they clean conceded it". I care more about arguments than cards, extend the actual warranting and arguments instead of just a card
• While there is a ranking above, here's the ranking of how much I want to HEAR arguments: Phil/phil trixs >>> theory > trixs >> Ks >>>>>>>>>>> trad = LARP

Common arguments I run: (Decided to add this here so you can see what kind of debater I am and what I'm most comfortable with)

• Frameworks: Kant, Hobbes, Pettit, Rawls, Wu Wei
• Ks: Model Minority/Orientalism, Security, Capitalism, Academy, Absurdism
• Misc: Indexicals, Skep, Determinism, Theories (Disclosure, Condo, ESPEC, etc etc)

PF Stuff:

I'm putting this here just in case I do have to judge PF one day. I am an LDer at heart so I may judge things differently from more technical judges in PF, thus I would personally treat myself like a Lay -> lower Flay judge. (I will still understand and be able to keep up with technical arguments and speed though)

• Coinflip should always happen through tab or in front of me, personal preference
• NO PARAPHRASING, EVER, I'm not joking, just don't do it, I will not vote on paraphrased evidence
• Signposting and weighing are key. Comparative worlds is a great tool for PF because it naturally doesn't use a framework to weigh
• Evidence should be able to be provided in under 45 seconds, if you can't produce it by then it'll be treated as an analytic and you should be more organized. I understand if there are technological issues, they will be treated differently
• Everything you want to mention in your speech should have been extended in the previous speech
• Theory is more sus in PF so probably try not to run it in front of me unless an actual abuse story can be traced that affects the round at large (disclosure is the only exception where it's gonna be a solid no from me)
• Unless you give me a clear reason to do a different form of weighing, I default "bigger number wins" to put it simply. The actual nuances for how I evaluate it are longer than I can put in this paradigm to keep it readable but feel free to ask, I just think that summarizes what the weighing mechanism collapses to a lot of the time
• Honestly, I've been seeing a lot more "framework" in PF at my local circuit (Looking at one specific school in general) and I honestly find it not worth it in PF. Y'all have like no time for offense as it is already and there is absolutely NO WAY for you to properly establish a framework to the level in which I believe that frameworks should be AND be able to explain how it uniquely affirms/negates. If you think you can run it, go ahead, but it usually just ends up leaving you with not enough time

Congress Stuff:

As I primarily do debate events like LD, Congress isn't really my strong suit when it comes to judging but I have done it more than a couple of times (even accidentally making it to Congress finals at NSDA Districts once and semi-ed at Nova Titan) so I'm not completely blind and stupid. Here's just a couple of points on how I eval and rank people in a chamber.

• I usually start the PO at 3. The PO usually either stays there or move down as they make consistent mistakes. POs rarely move up in my eyes unless the other people in the chamber are actually struggling or making fatal mistakes. It's a lot easier for PO to move down than up
• The first four speeches set the tone for the round and I rank based around those four speeches. That means that if the first four speeches were killer, the round is going to be tougher and if the first four speeches were mid, the rankings are going to be more lenient. (This seems obvious but I know many judges who rank after everything which I think is dumb, rank in real-time y'all)
• Please, for the love of god, motion to move to direct questioning, it's infinitely more interesting and shows me better strategic thinking in the round than one question can
• I eval based on three things in a certain order: strategic thinking -> argumentation and incorporation of evidence -> presentation. While Congress is technically as much a speech even as a debate event, I value the more "debate" things of Congress over whether or not you stand up there and be super duper confident and outward. I care more about your choices in argumentation and why/how it's important.
• TBH, safest thing to do with me as a Congress judge, treat me like a lay judge. I may have slight opinions because I've done debate and Congress before, I'm more than happy to go along with the flow and adjust to you guys.
• (Side tangent here, y'all need to write better bills man, a lot of them either just don't do anything, are boring, or written just so so so so poorly)

Policy Stuff:

Y'all, I did policy debate for the first time at the 2024 NCFL Grand Nationals Tournament in Chicago and I personally had a blast (couldn't say the same for my partner sadly). It was fast-paced, information-heavy, and huge on strategic thinking, it's everything I love about LD, especially prog. Insofar that policy doesn't wildly change on me, a lot of my comments from the LD section can be applied here but I will be more open to most of the arguments in policy as a) you have more time to explain them and b) the same arguments get used for the whole year so they are more refined than having to change every 2 months in LD. Anyways, here's a basic chart on how much I like args in policy

1- T, K, CP

2 - Identity K, t

4 - Performance

Anyways, here's some miscellaneous ramblings from me

• Dispo > Condo
• More warranted CPS > one card benefit CPS (This might just be an LD thing but CPs tend to be longer with more net benefits, a good example is to take a look at states CP on the policy and LD wikis [States solve vs States solve plus avoid dual sovereignty])
• Planks are good insofar that we don't spend half a minute on them
• DISCLOSURE IS SUPER IMPORTANT
• Tag team CX always, don't even ask, it's a yes
• Please actually link the DAs, don't just say the aff links into the DA. (*cough cough*)
• Adv 1 -> Plan -> Adv 2/S >>> Plan -> Adv 1/2/S
• Honestly, if you can bring in phil somehow, extra brownie points to you

Introduction

Hi, I’m Lucas, I have done LD for four years and am the LD captain at Olympia High School. Most of my experience is with traditional LD but I have done and can understand most progressive arguments. I am fine with speed/spreading as long as your opponent is ok with it, and you send a speech doc.

-Yes, I want to be on the email chain: lniemas1@gmail.com

-I will disclose as long as the tournament allows it.

Traditional Lincoln Douglas

Framework

-Make sure you understand the philosophy you are running.

-Please read evidence and thoroughly warrant your frameworks.

-Framework is not a voter, please don't claim it is.

Contention Level

-The most important component to success is strong relevant evidence and strong warranting for your arguments.

-Most tournaments it seems like everyone runs the same stock arguments, bonus points if you come up with unique arguments for your cases.

-You must properly extend your arguments in EACH rebuttal for me to take them into account on the ballot.

-I will not evaluate new or responses to dropped arguments in the 2nr/2ar.

-Clash is good.

-Don’t just say your evidence is better WEIGH, explain to me why/how it's better.

-Voters are great, preferably given throughout your rebuttal and not just at the end.

Progressive Lincoln Douglas

-Tech>Truth

-I will vote on pretty much anything if you warrant it properly.

LARP

-Most of my progressive experience is with LARP.

-I will 100 percent vote for impact turns if you win them, Spark, warming good etc.

Philosophy

-Quite enjoyable, make sure to send a speech doc if its some obscure or dense stuff.

-Familiar with Rawls, Locke, Kant, Hobbes, Sartre, Nozick, Polls and a few others. If I am not familiar with it do not let that stop you from reading it, if you can explain and warrant it well I will 100 % still vote on it.

Theory/Tricks

-I am a fan of theory, I think it has an important role in debate, especially since norms can evolve over time.

-I do not really believe there is such a thing as frivolous theory, if you can win on it, I will vote on it.

-Go for the RVI.

-Tricks are fine, just have to have some semblance of a warrant.

K’s

-I am not very well versed in K debate.

-It isn't my favorite style of argument, I’ll still vote on it if I have to.

Misc

-Not a fan of non topical cases, the resolution is there for a reason.

Extra speaks

-If it was a genuinely good round and everyone was polite, I’ll probably give both parties higher speaks.

+0.5 speaks if you tell me your favorite country music singer.

Public Forum

-I have both competed and judged pf before; I am fine with pretty much everything, note the following.

-Not a fan of Paraphrased evidence.

-If neither side reads the framework I will assume util.

-Personally I don't believe progressive arguments have a place in pf go do LD or Policy.

-I value strong weighing and evidence comparison

Hi! My name is Dani Scantlin, and I'm a junior and varsity speech and debate captain at Ripley High School in WV. I've competed in LD for 3 years and informative speaking for a very, very long 1.5 years (sarcasm--feel free to laugh).

In terms of debate, my district is very trad. I'm a self-taught debater (I've never had any coaching besides what I've learned in rounds and on YT), and, due to my circuit and its tradness, I lean trad as well. That being said, I will judge anything and everything, but if your case includes prog arguments or jargon I might not understand, please, PLEASE explain it clearly!

Speed: In terms of speed, I can handle pretty much everything. My only preface to judging speed is that, if I can't understand what is being said because you're talking too fast, I won't evaluate whatever I can't hear, and this will reflect in speaker points. I also really, really, REALLY do not like spreading. Do with that what you will.

Speaker points: Having good speaking skills is important in debate, but if you're losing the round, regardless of how good you sound, you will lose the round. Debaters who have good speaking skills (clarity, even tempo, etc.) will earn higher speaker points. Otherwise, that's about it.

Preferences: I prioritize framework arguments over impacts, though both are important. Impacts should clearly tie into your framework and show how they support your side. When presenting a framework, I value a well-explained structure that guides how I should weigh the round. Impacts must be relevant and contextualized within this structure.
I don't particularly have a preference for frameworks or premises. Personally, I am not the hugest fan of util, but, if it gets the job done, then it gets the job done.
Furthermore, I love a good key voting issue! While I always flow the round, I like when debaters explicitly summarize why I should vote for them over their opponent. I prefer these key points to be well-organized. Be sure to guide me in understanding why your arguments outweigh your opponent's. Additionally, signposting, off-time roadmaps, etc. are VERY appreciated!
Regarding timing, feel free to time yourself during speeches. However, do not use a timer that emits a sound when timing your opponent’s speeches, as it is inconsiderate. I will deduct speaker points for this.

Ultimately, I want to reward competitors who present arguments with clarity, respect, and intentionality. If you have any questions about my judging preferences, feel free to ask before the round!