Hello Debaters,

I approach the debate with a focus on substance and argumentation, emphasizing the importance of clear communication and effective case development. Here are key aspects of my judging philosophy:

Flow-Centric Evaluation:
I prioritize the flow & time limits as the primary tool for decision-making.
Debaters should clearly articulate and extend arguments throughout the round.
I appreciate the organization and signposting that enhance the flow

Impacts Matter:
I give weight to well-developed impacts that are linked to the resolution.
Impact calculus is crucial. Clearly explain why your impacts outweigh those presented by your opponent.

Clarity and Signposting:
Clear, concise, and organized speeches are key. Clarity in communication helps me understand your arguments better.
Try to use simple words during the debates, remember, the PF should be the debate everyone can understand.
Signpost consistently to help me follow your line of argumentation.

Adaptability:
I appreciate debaters who can adapt their strategy based on the flow of the round.
Flexibility in argumentation and the ability to adjust to your opponent's arguments will be recognized.

Framework and Weighing:
Framework is essential for framing the round, but it should be applied in a way that enhances substantive clash.
Effective weighing of impacts is crucial. Explain why your impacts are more significant in the context of the round.

Evidence-based arguments:
I like debaters who use accurate and meaningful data & resources during the round, they are more persuasive to me during the round; In another way, I am not a fan of theory arguments.
Quality over quantity. Well-analyzed and relevant evidence will carry more weight than a flood of less meaningful sources.
Reference your evidence appropriately and be prepared to defend its relevance.

Respect and Sportsmanship:
Maintain a respectful and professional demeanor throughout the round.
I don't tolerate any form of discrimination or offensive behavior & language. Such behavior will have a negative impact on your final result.

Remember, this paradigm is a guide (besides the last part), and I am open to various debating styles and arguments. Adapt your approach to these guidelines, and feel free to ask for clarification on any specific preferences before the round begins.

Good luck & Have fun during the debate!

Hi! :)

I did speech and debate for four years in high school for Aberdeen Central and briefly in college at UNI. I did Public Forum for one year and LD for three plus a little bit of policy in college. I am familiar with both LD and Public Forum formats, but am more comfortable with LD. I also did Domestic Extemp for four years so I like to think that I am pretty familiar with it. I am pretty good with speed in any event, but don't speak so fast that you are incomprehensible.

Oratory!:

Speak well and follow the oratory format. If you do both of those, I will give you speaks!! I like topics that are interesting and not common, but even a common topic can be really interesting if the speaker is good. Don't be too monotone as well.

Extemp (Foreign and Domestic)!:

Answer your question within your speech. I don't like when speakers dance around their topics without actually giving a solid answer. I also like silly or funny intros, but don't be too silly throughout your actual speech.

Inform!:

Informs are so interesting and I love seeing them. Speak well and make sure your boards connect to what you are saying. Interactive boards are always super cool to see and it's great to get creative with them. Don't be too monotone! I like to see that you think your topic is interesting.

LD:

I think LD is the best form of debate (though I may be biased). Don't drop value and criterion!! Make sure to signpost so I know where you are. I think LD should be a blend of framework and contentions.

As an LD judge, my focus is on whether you prove the resolution true (if you're affirmative) or false (if you're negative) and whether there is value in voting for that position. The resolution doesn't outline the general subject we are debating but the actual question I will vote on at the end of the debate.

I am very pragmatic. Philosophy impacts the way I may view certain issues but to me, your position must be able to live and breathe in the real world. Don't get too bogged down in debating philosophy at the expense of resolving the substantive resolutional issues.

I believe your value must be upheld by your issue contentions/supporting arguments, and not just 'tacked on' to have a value. As LD/value debaters, it is important to integrate support of a value into your case position.

To me, your criteria is part of 'your' analysis. It doesn't have to evaluate both sides but it should help me evaluate and understand your case. I'm not opposed to subsuming a criteria (or value) and using it to your advantage but it is not required. Also, criteria usually doesn't factor much in my decision.

Finally, to me, this is a communication activity so too much speed is not appreciated. While I'll do my best with speed, you jeopardize your persuasion and my ability to flow you. Signposting to help with flowing is also appreciated. My flow very much guides me when I make a decision. I try to take good notes but I don't flow sources (so don't shorthand with an author's name...use the argument label.)

I debated 20+ years ago when Policy Debate was in it's glory and we carried totes of paper evidence vs. laptops into rounds. A Deuel High School graduate I take pride in how Debate doesn't separate small from large schools when competing. I learned volumes from the people I debated and wasn't limited by school size. I am comfortable judging all events and levels.

Prima Facie - traditional judge - Sign post and be reasonable. Speak loud and proud. Remember this is a game - play the game, but don't play dirty. Sell me on the "why" behind the "what" of any side you are taking. Each issue stands on it's own.

I am a former Democrat turned Republican by life experience - 4 kids, Catholic and married to a small business owner. Work full time and dabble with ranching/farming. Rural America has my heart. We all add value in different ways and different times in life. The lens which we see our value will shift depending on our calling and phase of life we are in.

Hello, and thank you for competing!

A Little About Me

I competed in Lincoln-Douglas debate for four years at Sioux Falls Washington High School. I also did speech and interp events for all four years, specifically Info, Non-O, and Impromptu. I'm currently on Arizona State University's Oxford debate team for the 2024 Regent's Cup Tournament. I like dogs more than cats and enjoy a good gyro.

If I'm Judging PF...

I started my debate career in PF in the fall of 2019. I transitioned to LD in January of 2020, and I haven't done any PF since. If I'm your PF judge, bear my lack of recent experience in mind. Go slower, and err towards sound logical arguments rather than torrents of lesser arguments (quality over quantity) and voters hinging solely on dropped cards. In short, cut my poor LD brain some slack.

If I'm Judging LD...

I consider myself a traditional Lincoln-Douglas judge. The value and criterion debate are of paramount importance, and should be treated as such. The debater who wins my ballot will not always be who wins the flow, but rather who convinces me the arguments they are making are achieving the value that is winning the round. This being said, I recognize the importance of strong contention level arguments in fulfilling the framework, so be thorough in all speeches.

Strong voters are incredibly important, especially to the aff. In the final aff speech, the entire time should be spent on voters, and I generally recommend a first voter on the value/criterion debate before going into the contentions.

On speed, I will not flow anything I cannot understand. I tap out at around a rapid conversational pace, so spread at your own risk. The purpose of debate is to instill public speaking and argumentation skills in students, and this purpose is negated if debaters are encouraged to argue in a manner indecipherable to the public at large.

In this vein, I will not consider Kritiks, Counter-Plans, or other policy refugee-esque arguments in LD debate. Just as a baseball player does not have to worry about their opponent pulling out a cricket bat, a debater should not have to worry that their opponent might attempt to play by an entirely different set of rules. This being said, I'm a sucker for a good topicality debate, and I enjoy RA and observation arguments. A general rule of thumb is "does this argument interpret the intent of the resolution, or does it attempt to circumvent or nullify the resolution?" If an argument falls under the former, go right ahead. If it falls under the latter, I'd advise saving it for a different judge.

Generally, I'm a Tech over Truth judge, but if a truly outlandish argument is made in round (an argument that the KKK helped race relations in the south after reconstruction is a particularly salient example I recall from my debate years), a brief statement pointing it out as such will be sufficient.

I flow all arguments given in a round. I do not flow cards. If you wish to make an argument, you will have to actually make that argument (claim, evidence, warrant, etc). You can't just say "O'Connor 11 says climate change will kill us all." In this vein, when pulling through arguments, you have to reiterate the thrust of the argument itself, you can't just say "Pull through O'Connor 11 which proves my opponent can't access...whatever." If you try this, odds are I have no recollection of what O'Connor 11 is, as I only write down "climate change will kill us all." In this vein, I don't believe all arguments have to be derived from cards. A well-reasoned analytic argument will beat a poorly reasoned card every time. So debate with arguments, not by volume of cards, and pull the arguments, not the card through to win my flow.

Don't try bringing up new arguments in the 2NR or in the 2AR. It won't work. I won't flow it. Please save your time through crystallizations and voters.

A minor final point: I enjoy historical allusions. If you have a command for history, and can give a historical comparison (or, even better, if you can poke holes in an opponent's historical comparison), do so. It will both give you extra speaker points, and make my heart glad.

If I'm Judging Speech/Interp...

I did just about every speech event over my years in high school, and understand the requirements of each. I especially enjoy info, and particularly like speeches about oddball topics nobody cares about (my senior year info was about early South Dakota political scandals). I also reject the infusion of OO formats into info. Thus, I ding infos for including overtly persuasive language or calls to action. The requirement of the event is to INFORM me about something, not to PERSUADE me to do something.

All things considered, I would prefer to not give time signals during speech and interp events (except extemp/impromptu). I want to give you every chance to suck me into your story/argument, and that is inhibited if I'm constantly worrying about looking at the clock and putting up the right hand gesture and the right time. Also, your writing, cutting, and performances in these events are set before a tournament begins. While I understand that at the beginning of a season pieces are often in flux, by the middle and end of a season, you should know that your piece runs under ten minutes. It shouldn't be on the judge to do that for you. Therefore, I will still give whatever signals you ask for, but know that I'll be more distracted during your piece if I'm thinking about signals and if I'm judging a close round at the end of a season, and the only thing distinguishing two pieces is that one competitor asked for time signals every other minute, I'm going to give the round to the competitor who didn't ask for time signals on the grounds that they know their piece better than their opponent knows theirs.

A Word on Common Courtesy...

In debate, be respectful to your opponent. I will not tolerate belittling, rudeness, or offensive language. Recently, I have noticed a troubling trend in Nat Circuit debates of overt rudeness and disrespect in round. Such actions are counterintuitive to growing the activity of debate; after all, who wants to join an activity where they just get yelled at and insulted every weekend. If you engage in such behaviors in round, it will be reflected in your speaker points, and (if particularly egregious), in the result of the round.

In speech events, I will rank you lower if you are disrespectful, loud, distracting, or obviously not paying attention. Speaking to an obviously disinterested audience just plain sucks. As competitors, we can have the basic decency to at least appear like we care about what the other person is saying. If I notice someone being overtly disrespectful or disinterested (eg: falling asleep, talking with another person during a piece), it will be reflected in the result of the round. So, pay attention. And for heaven's sake, DON'T LOOK AT YOUR PHONE!

In short, to quote Bill and Ted, "be excellent to one another."

If you have questions/comments/concerns/funny dog videos/information about Jimmy Hoffa, please email me at jarhinrichs@gmail.com. Alternatively, you can ask me anything you need to know before a round starts. Or after a round ends. Really, any time that isn't the middle of a speech works.

Thank you for reading, and have an excellent round!

TL;DR - Tech>Truth. I love philosophy. Offense and clash win my ballot. Weigh and extend impacts. Have good argumentation and convey it well.

Email: pandaXrider2415@gmail.com

---->BACKGROUND<----

Brookings High School '24

3 years of Lincoln-Douglas Debate and International Extemp

1 year of Public Forum

3 Time National Qualifier

Bounced around in Student Congress and Extemp Debate too... even have World Schools Experience

| 2024 SD State Semifinalist in Lincoln-Douglas Debate

---->TECH VS. TRUTH<----

Tech>>>

I am very much a tech judge and don't believe in being a truth judge

I am a big believer in evaluating the round based on what is on the flow. Often when writing ballots I find myself writing that even if something isn’t true I will evaluate it based on the context of the round

As a judge, I cannot be bothered to try to think about my own opinion on the argument when my job is to evaluate the round based on arguments the debaters make

---->TIMING & SPEED<----

I will time all speeches and prep time. But I ask you time yourself as well to make everything smoother

I'm okay with speed as long as it's understandable... if I can't understand you then I can't vote for you

---->LINCOLN-DOUGLAS<----

Philosophy>>>

I'm pretty traditional when it comes to LD but that's not to say I don't like certain Circuit LD techniques

| Trad |

Clash on the framework. Explain why your value is most important and how your criterion best upholds it

Use contentions and the impacts to link back to your framework to show me how you uphold it

Weigh and extend your impacts!! This is incredibly crucial in a moral debate

Always warrant your cards

Uncontested turns are huge

Use voters. They do a great job of making what I should vote on clear

| Circuit |

Make sure your links and argumentations actually make sense

Disclosure Theory - 1/10. Hate it. Don't like it. Just strike me if you like doing this.

Theory Shell - 8/10. Just make sure the interpretation, violations, standards, and voters make sense.

Kritik's - 1/10. Also hate it. Don't waste time in our debate rounds complaining about NSDA rules or anything like that.

Counterplans' - 8/10. Again, if it's a solid counterplan that's carried through the entire round and holds its own merits, I'll vote on it

Disad -7/10. I do like disadvantages. Just make sure you use the consequentialist link chain and really show me how voting for the other side is a bad idea.

Role of the Ballot - 8/10. Establish good conditions and extend them.

Spreading - 2/10. Just don't. It never sounds good. If you decide to spread, then let's do an email chain or speech drop.

---->PUBLIC FORUM<----

Extend everything

Quantify and weigh impacts

I love voters. They do a great job of condensing the round into clear issues of what I should vote on

No new arguments in 2nd summary. This is done way too often... and also don't only start establishing the narrative by then... you should have the narrative present through the entire round

Have good warrants, uniqueness, and link chains. All of these are necessary for a good case

I am primarily an LDer so I do like a good framework in debate such as a cost benefit analysis or really anything as long as you find a way to make it work

I competed in Lincoln-Douglas and Original Oratory at Harrisburg in my final semester of high school. At state, I competed in OO and was a finalist in LD; I also competed in LD at Nationals (2024).

This is my first year judging, and I’m super excited to be here!! Speech and Debate is supposed to be fun, so have fun with it! If you have any questions about my paradigm, don’t hesitate to ask!

General:

1. Be respectful of one another. Any racism, sexism, etc is not tolerated at all. I will vote down for this; it hurts the nature of an activity that is meant to be inclusive.
2. PLEASE SIGNPOST, PLEASE!!!If I do not know where to flow, I won’t flow. It helps everyone in the room if we know what you’re saying to what.
3. I’m good with speed (as long as you enunciate); but remember, the faster you talk, the more likely something can be missed on the flow. If I’m not flowing, I probably can’t understand you.
4. DO NOT DROP; but a drop doesn’t count unless the opponent pulls it through.
5. Off-time roadmaps are all good with me. Just don’t use that as your signposting for the whole round.
6. No K’s and Theories unless they’re really, REALLY topical. To me, you’re here to debate the resolution, so do that.
7. I’m like 90% tech over truth. I won’t evaluate blatantly false statements, but I won’t insert my own world views and biases into the round; it’s not my place to do so. I tend to not prefer very far-fetched ideas; give me pretty strong link chains if you're running something in left field.
8. Any racism, sexism, etc is not tolerated at all. I will vote down for this; it hurts the nature of an activity that is meant to be inclusive.

LD:

1. Value and Criterion are very important and it is how I make my decision. You don’t have to win on your own framework; you can show me how you win on your opponents. Whichever framework wins after clash and whoever best meets it is how I will evaluate the round.
2. Don’t make new arguments in the final speech if you’re AFF
3. I do buy solvency and anti- solvency in LD.
4. Voters are really important. You tell me why to vote for you; take advantage of that and summarize the issues of the opposing side in the round.
5. Ultimately, I give a ballot based on four big things:
1. framework
2. empirics + defense (relevant, weighed, support of claims; if your responses to the arguments made against your case were accurate, and well-done); don’t just say “it’s not true.” Tell me why, give more evidence, do more analysis.
3. impacts (the application to the real world and what affirming or negating would actually do in the world)

PF:

I am very unfamiliar with PF layout and debating, but as I am becoming more familiar, this is what I look for:

1. Weighing your evidence and telling me why your evidence is more relevant/important is an easy way to get my ballot.
2. Voters are really important. You tell me why to vote for you; take advantage of that and summarize the issues of the opposing side in the round.
3. Ultimately, I give my ballot on three main things:
1. empirics (relevant, weighed, support of claims)
2. defense (if your responses to the arguments made against your case were accurate, and well-done); don’t just say “it’s not true.” Tell me why, give more evidence, do more analysis.
3. impacts (again, the application to the real world and what affirming or negating would actually do in the world)

IEs:

I am not here to judge your topic or script; I’m here to judge your speaking and your approach to the topic or piece. I love seeing unique takes, even if it’s a “basic” topic. Just move with purpose, enunciate, give eye contact, have vocal inflections, facial expressions, and you’re good to go.

Congress/Policy/etc:

I am so sorry in advanced; I have not an ounce of knowledge in these events. I will be looking for responses to attacks on claims and validity in those statements... I think.

LD: I tend to lean more to a traditional LD judge style. The framework debate is important and I will always appreciate debaters who connect their contention level arguments back to the Value & Criterion. My background is in policy, so I will keep a flow and value that in a round. Maintaining focus on the resolution is important as well. I appreciate debaters who weigh out their arguments and give me clear reasons to vote one way or another.

In general I'm fine with speed and can follow arguments as long as clarity is maintained. That being said, my vote never just goes to who has the most arguments. In LD especially, I prefer well thought out and well weighed arguments versus a flood of arguments that may or may not hold merit.

At the core, I don't see a judge as someone who should intervene in the round. This is the debaters space to utilize their own strategies and argumentation. If you can explain an argument and give me reason to believe it matters in the round I will vote for it.

PF: Rounds most frequently come down to how well arguments are weighed out/impact calc for me. If you have framework or resolutional analysis you should be connecting your arguments back to it.

I have no problem following jargon or more advanced debate discussion, but I don't feel like Public Forum debate should devolve into a policy debate round in half the time.

Evidence is important in public forum debate and I do consider that when making decisions. If you are going to criticize your opponents evidence or call out any abuse, I want to see a reason behind it and why I should consider it in my decision making. Just saying "we post date" or "their sources are faulty" won't carry much weight unless you actually show me why it matters

[Overview]

I did Lincoln Douglas debate my senior year, did public forum for 3 years, I’ve done congress, and then big question (very very poorly) for a hot second, so you don’t have to dumb down jargon.

I don’t disclose rounds, so don’t ask me to or try to persuade me into disclosing, you're just wasting time.

I know what it’s like to have to carry teammates in a debate, and just how excruciating the whole thing is so I have zero tolerance for it if I see it in round.

Also I make faces when I think about things which makes me look very angry and like I’m scowling, ignore that I just have a RBF it doesn’t relate to how you’re doing a majority of the time.

[General]

/Evidence/

PF:

If you want me to take the evidence you have into consideration in voting you have to carry it throughout all your speeches; you can’t give evidence in Rebuttal, drop it in summary, and then try and bring it up in Final Focus, I won’t flow it. If someone asks for a card, give it to them.

LD:

it’s the same as stated before just change the speech names.

/Speed and Performance/

I don’t like spreading, don’t do it (I have audio processing problems). My preferred speed is a moderate pace, aka a 6-7/10. Just make sure you speak clearly as far as performance is concerned.

/Time/

TIME YOURSELF. You need to use up your speech time, I hate it when there’s a minute or more left on the clock so try your best to get as close to the set time as possible. If you can’t think of anything else to say about your opponent's case, go over your own case and explain why it stands or your framework, something to fill your time if you have no more evidence to read. I will time your speeches, I will also time your prep but I tend to get distracted during prep so don’t tell me a set amount of time. If you want a set amount of prep then you can time yourself and then just tell me when you're done using prep and I’ll stop my timer.

/Speaks/

High: you did your best and you tried and gave good speeches, I will only give you a 30 if you are absolutely perfect on everything you do and have a good amount of debate etiquette but you are also assertive and don't let your opponents walk all over you.

Low: You went silent for a majority of the speech, you had an abusive argument, you showed disrespect/lack of care. If you are abusive to your opponents you will get as close to 0 speaks from me as possible without getting a full 0, and if you make your partner carry you the entire round and do nothing you will instantly get the lowest possible speaks from me.

/Framework/

PF:

If you're going to use a framework and want me to vote under it then you need to bring it up in all your speeches so you don’t drop it. If your framework outweighs your opponents explain to me why, same goes with why it completely goes against your opponent's case and why you win under it. Although I don’t like it if you only drop your framework in rebuttal but carry it through your summary and final focus I’ll vote under it, but only if you use all your time up in rebuttal.

LD:

I AM BIG ON FRAMEWORKS!!! PLEASE tie this into what you’re saying in round and have it actually make sense, this is the thing that really differentiates ld from pf. If you’re running a framework it should never be both deontological and consequential, that’s not how frameworks work. Just carry frameworks through the round as its a main thing that I use to vote in the round.

/Case/

With cases just make sure it’s understandable and set up in an organized manner. When I say this I mean state your contentions and subpoints so it’s easier to flow and judge the round. I prefer off-the-clock roadmaps so I know which case you're going down and so it’s easier to flow and judge on what you’re saying. If you’re using an off-the-clock roadmap then actually follow it.

/Variation/

For novices, I completely understand that you are new to debate so I’m more lenient on things that I wouldn’t allow, from Judging a practice round for Varsity for example. I tried to make my paradigm all-level friendly so it doesn’t matter what level you are.

Policy Debate: I am more of a games player. To clarify, I see debate as an educational game that is being played. There are basic rules that are established (sides are set, time limits are set, a resolution has been established). I do reject moves that seek to create a completely unfair environment for either side (I can talk about what ever I want because resolutions don't matter attitude). I am good with almost any argument that is grounded in sound theory.

Specific Issues:

Kritiks- I like a good kritik that actually explores what the affirmative/negative is doing in a round, but the team running the kritik must understand what the kritik is actually doing. I do expect every K that is run to have a clear link to the K, implications for me to weigh and an alternative that goes beyond vote for us (in 99% of the K's). If it is an extremely complex concept, don't assume I already know what you are talking about. You will probably need to slow it down a step or two to make sure I am following the logic you are discussing.

Performance Debate: I am not a fan of these concepts. The reason is simple. You showed up for a debate round. You should debate the resolution. What performance debates do in my opinion is come to a Monopoly tournament and dance in the hallway and expect to win the Monopoly tournament. You can't not do the event and expect to win the event.

I am not a fan of the politics DA. The leap in logic of plan causes people to vote in a completely different way just has no theory behind it. I will listen to it, but the threshold for beating the argument is very low.

Concepts like topical counterplans and such are fine, if you can present a clear defense connected to theory that explains why they should be okay.

In the end, I look at the offense that is left on the flow. I prefer teams that go after more offensive style arguments then those playing defense on everything.

On speed, my expectations are that you must be clear enough for me to understand you and the evidence that you read (not just tags). If you are not, then I will not flow it and I will not yell "clear." It is your job to communicate.

Lincoln-Douglas: I am more of a traditionalist. I prefer more focus on the framework in the debate and connecting your observations back to the framework and the resolution. I am not a fan of disads/counterplans/and other traditional policy arguments being run in LD since it ignores the unique distinctions between the two events.

Running of K's- A recommend that you read what I said about it in the policy level and know that this can be a bigger problem because of a lack of time in presenting and defending the K.

Speed is fine, but you must be clear. I need to understand what you are saying. I am more forgiving on the line by line in LD than I am in policy, but you do need to address the main issues and just not ignore them.

Public Forum: Good debate that uses strong evidence throughout to prove your positions. I do not weigh the cross-fires heavily, but I do listen to them and will allow for answers to be used in the debate. You don't have to win every point on the flow, but you need to provide me with clear reasoning why you should win and less about why your opponent should not win. Weigh the round. When citing evidence, make sure that you are not relying on paraphrasing.

World School: Coaching it for the second year. Do not try to define people out of the round. Focus on the stated judging requirements of style (delivery) and content (logical reasoning and appropriate backing). The logical reasoning presented is not the same as strategy. The logical reasoning is content.

catherinxliu@gmail.com

Sioux Falls Washington ‘21, Harvard ‘25

Experience: I did LD for 4 years. I now do a lot of APDA/BP. I mostly did traditional debate but am generally familiar with/did some circuit. I was a 2021 NSDA finalist in LD.

for South Dakotans:

If people in the room want disclosure/feedback immediately after round I will do it.

In general I think debaters should be more creative and more willing to make strategic calls. More specifically:

• PLEASE use me as a judge to test interesting frameworks/non-stock arguments.
• You should concede framework if it's obvious you should concede framework. You should always ask: Do these frameworks prioritize meaningfully different things? If no, framework probably doesn't matter. Similarly, the NC does not have to read framework. You can just say "I concede the aff framework."
• I will HEAVILY reward these things in the 2nr/2ar:
  1) Choosing one or two arguments and weighing them very well (both links and impacts). I do not like split voters that try to win everything in the round.
  2) Weighing against the best version of your opponent's case. If you start your voters with the phrase, "even if you believe all of my opponent's arguments," and then you convince me that you would still win, I will give you a 30.
  3) Clearly implicating arguments in terms of the mechanics of the round (e.g., "if I win my deontological framework, then neg can't weigh any consequential offense, which means their contentions 1 and 2 don't matter").
• Empirics need warrants. If you cannot explain your evidence I straight up might not vote on it. If neg reads “trickle down economics works and wealth taxes decrease investment” (with mediocre warranting) and aff reads evidence that says this isn’t true, aff also needs to explain why this isn’t true, otherwise I will be very hesitant to vote for them.
• It's your burden to have a warrant, not your opponent's to point it out. If you extend an impact that I believe to be unwarranted I will not vote on it. This also means you get the implication of your warrant, not your tag. You can't be like "a wealth tax causes economic collapse" if your warrant just says that investment will decrease. I will listen to your cards and will be sad if you over-claim impacts.
• Huge fan of strategically dropping arguments.

—

Here are my general thoughts about debate. Feel free to ask me other questions before the round starts.

• Tech > truth
• I am fine with evaluating most things.
• Reasonable speed is okay, but my ability to understand spreading is really not very high now, and I will not flow off the doc. Slow down especially on tags and analytics.
• You need to extend the whole argument (warrant + impact).
• I usually find that the 2a/n is more effective when you collapse on fewer things that are well weighed instead of many things. If you don't weigh your arguments, I will have to do it for you, and you may be upset by what I think matters most.
• Most theory is fine, but the more frivolous it is, the lower my threshold for responses. Interpret this how you will.
• I will not evaluate tricks.
• Please compare link strength, especially in util v. util debates :(. If aff reads "US presence causes terror through anti-Western sentiment" and neg reads "actually US counterterrorism efforts decrease terror" and then both of you keep extending these arguments past each other without any further comparison, I have no idea how to evaluate the clash and will not vote on it, even if the impact itself is well weighed.
• I like clear judge instruction.

If you need accommodations during the round please let me know. I am fine with you timing yourself on your phones and sitting while you deliver your speech. I am down to do doc shares if it helps you with audio-processing.

My paradigm is long but just know that I am genuinely here to make the round and debate as welcoming and accessible for you as possible. ask me before the round about anything I might have left out from this. I tried to include as much info as possible.

——> Experience <——

He/Him

I debated LD for three years and was top 20 at nats my senior year, as well as state runner-up. I've worked debate camps 2020-2023, and am Sioux Falls Washington’s assistant LD coach!

My educational background is in History, Education, and Political Science. I've done research related to queer theory, education policy, and nationalism.

If you have any questions or want advice please reach out to me at samuel.markley@coyotes.usd.edu. I try to respond at a good pace, so if I don't by the next tournament it's likely that I just simply did not see your email.

——> tl;dr <——

Quality of arguments > quantity. I don't feel like it's my place to tell you what to run unless it's discriminatory (k's and cp's are fine but theory arguments against them are also fine. Fully depends on how y'all argue it), BIG ON FRAMEWORK. I'm good if you want to workshop something new, I like to think I provide good feedback and pointers.

My personal comments to you are mix of "here is how I am evaluating the round after a speech you give" to walk you through my thought process, along with pointers and recommendations I would give that didn't necessarily factor into my evaluation of the round or how I voted. So if I mention something in there and you're thinking "This was never something my opponent brought up? Why did he vote on this?" the answer is that it wasn't something I voted on but is rather a recommendation on how to strengthen your case or a speech.

——> Topic Specific for Jan/Feb <——

PF: Absolutely out of my depth. Assume I know nothing.

LD: I personally think that the resolution explodes the amount of possible aff advocacies. I am willing to listen to a defense of the whole resolution or you simply defending one of the two, but I am skeptical on defending both LoS and Rome Statute in the 1AC and then kicking out of one in the 1AR. Essentially if you defend both in the 1AC then I think you have to defend both in the 1AR. Don't make it a moving target for the neg. I am of course down to have my mind changed on this.

——> LD <——

tech > "truth". But don't drown your opponent in blippy responses or run an argument that is exclusionary.

I like a clear thesis with a strong narrative you pull through for me. Tell me a story of why I should vote for you and make your advocacy cohesive. This is always much more compelling than throwing the entire kitchen sink at your opponent.

I keep a rigorous flow, but understand that speaking skills are still an important persuasive element to highlight key points to me. If you start emphasizing something in rebuttal as very important I'll normally circle or star it, so it's in your best interest to have inflection.

My eyes are normally glued to my flow during the round, so don't be offended if I don't look at you while speaking. In fact, If I look at you that's probably a bad sign because it means I don't feel like I have anything to flow.

Yes, "solvency isn't a burden in LD" is an unwarranted claim, and the idea that no moral theory requires you to at least somewhat decrease the issue seems silly to me. The only thing that determines for me whether solvency matters is going to be the framing. If your framework/criterion has anything to do with "reducing X", "minimizing Y", or "maximizing Z" then congrats you conceded to having the burden of solvency. NOTE: this does not mean "100% solvency", but rather I need you to show a mitigation of the harms if you're running a consequentialist framework.

On that note, if you like leveraging framework, then I'm your guy. If you like running deliberately vague/borderline abusive frameworks, then I am NOT your guy! Please don’t try and hide the ball about how things should be evaluated. It confuses your opponent and it confuses me. You can run in-depth philosophy without being asinine about it. Want to spend 3+ minutes alone on framework in the constructive? Let's do it! I'll listen to whatever you want to throw at me (so long as it doesn't create a hostile environment), just explain it clearly. On this note, I am of the opinion that Y'ALL ARE TOO SCARED TO RUN FUN FRAMEWORKS!! I am getting seriously tired of evaluating justice frameworks 24/7. If you ever want to run something but feel as if judges will reject it, use me as your guinea pig!

You don’t need to win YOUR framework to win the round, you just need to win one of the frameworks and tell me why you win under it. My first step towards evaluating the round is deciding what framework to use. The more messy the round gets the more likely I will be forced to intervene and the more likely you will be upset with my decision. That being said, if you drop framework you're basically dead in the water for me.

Warrants matter more than cards. Markley '23 does not matter if it's not warranted, and an analytic with warrants will easily refute any unwarranted card for me. If you cite a stat and when asked for an explanation, you just say "IDK that's what the study says" that's probably bad. If you're citing something you should know the reasoning behind it. Also: weigh, Weigh, WEIGH!!!

I will not immediately reject Kritiks and CPs. I have opinions on this that are too long for a paradigm that range from fairness, education, advocacy, and my role as a judge and educator.You can still argue theory against these and say they are abusive or non-topical, but you need warrants as to why beyond "this doesn't belong in LD." That being said, I'm not biased in favor of them or prejudiced against trad. Some of my favorite rounds I've ever watched have been super traditional, including when a traditional debater wipes the floor against a K.

That being said, if you're going to run a K INCLUDE ALL PARTS OF THE K!! The most ineffective K's I see in trad circuit are the ones that try to disguise it by making it wear a trench coat and sunglasses. Run a K, be clear that it's a K, and do a quick Google search for a video explaining how a K functions (The NSDA also has a free course on Kritiks that shouldn't take you too long)

WHEN EXTENDING AND CROSS-APPLYING YOU NEED TO SAY MORE THAN JUST "Extend Horowitz '21". I don't flow authors. Explain to me what Horowitz is saying and WHY it adequately refutes their point.

Please line-by-line and signpost.

My opinion on topicality debates

——> General Information <——

I'm incredibly passionate about making Debate inclusive and accessible. Be respectful to your opponent and don't use marginalized communities as props to get a W. There's a big difference between actually advocating for groups and just flippantly talking about the issues they face to get a point on the flow. Also be cognizant of the types of arguments you decide to run, and if you might end up alienating members of the community. Was not fun seeing friends get uncomfortable during the open borders topic.

I'm pretty tolerant of arguments brought up in round but don't bring anything homophobic, racist, xenophobic, ableist, etc. into the round. Please also provide a content warning before you read case if you are touching on sensitive subjects, and accommodate as necessary.

Verbally insulting your opponent will definitely tank speaks and is grounds for an auto-loss. Be good people.

~Insert generic statement about how while all judges have their biases, I try my best to limit it when making decisions.~

——> Evidence <——

Please be transparent with evidence. It's genuinely a pet peeve of mine if authors are cited out of context or are misrepresented. If I found out you're misrepresenting a card then it's getting thrown off of my flow, I won't consider it in the round, and your speaks are going to be at the bottom of the Mariana Trench. Too many successful debaters can attribute their success to their ability to conceal evidence violations, which is bad for this activity. That being said I won't call for a card unless explicitly told to. If you want me to read one of your opponent's cards, tell me to call it and explain why I should.

My standard on paraphrasing is basically reasonability. My ideal world is that every paraphrased source has the piece of direct text copy and pasted underneath it so I can see directly what you're pulling from.

I will start to run prep for calling a card once you can actually see the card, your opponent taking time to pull it up will not affect you.

Please don't tell me to extend a specific author. Tell me the argument/subpoint you want extended. If I write down your author it's so I can look it up later and steal it for the team I coach (Go Warriors).

——> Speed <——

I can handle speed but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm a fan of it. you won't get voted down for going fast but just know I prefer that you make 1-2 strong and well-explained refutations to one contention rather than blitzing out seven arguments with no warrant behind them. That being said if I can't hear it, I can't flow it and any extensions will not matter to me.

I did ld and extemp both my junior and senior year of high school so i have a decent amount of experience. To preface this, i am a very traditional judge.

IEs: i did extemp for 2 years so i have a good amount of experience in this. When judging rounds for extemp, i’m looking at not only how you speak, but if you can provide credible sources for the information you are providing to me.

Any other speech events, i am not super experienced in these but i do understand the basics. Interp- I am looking at how you convey your speech throughout, and your delivery of said speech.

LD: I did LD in high school. When deciding who wins the round i’m looking for

-framework: this is very important to rounds for me. tell me why your framework matters in the round and how it relates back into your case

-sign posting: please please do this. it is very easy to get lost in a debate and keeps it easier for the judge to follow what you are referring too and where you are at on the flow

-voters: THIS IS ALSO A MAJOR POINT IN THE DEBATE. without voters, i don’t know WHY i should vote for you. please give this at the end of your speech and tell me why you’re winning the round.

-flow: i will not flow anything that is dropped unless it is brought up by your opponent.

-speed: while i am not a huge fan of spreading or super fast talking, i can understand the fast pace as long as you annunciate. preferably no spreading, but if you’re going to make sure you are very clear and concise in your speaking.

PF: while i didn’t do pf, i do understand how pf works. when i’m decided who winds a pf round i look for who was able to convince me the most as to why we should or shouldn’t do this. be the most convincing, and provide good evidence as to why we should or shouldn’t do something.

I'm a traditional circuit judge who likes to see clear links between framework and contentions. I am fine with a quick pace to the debate, but that should not be a hindrance to your case or the clarity of your framework; if your speed is a pitfall, that will be reflected in my speaker point allocation. Even if both sides have unclear frameworks, I'm inclined to go with the side that has the best framework. Your arguments should be as well thought out as possible. I am more likely to vote in favor of arguments that have been fleshed out as opposed to thrown in at the end of a round. If it doesn't get fully addressed in the round, I am likely not to flow it.

It's important to maintain a respectful tone throughout the debate. I won't tolerate racism, homophobia, xenophobia etc., and it will result in lower speaker points and a likely loss.

For prep time, I'll call 30-second increments and count reading/calling cards in your prep time. Please don't bring up new arguments or cards in the 2AR - it's not fair to your opponent if they can't respond. If new arguments are proposed in the 2AR, I am unlikely to weigh them in my vote and will also reduce your speaker points as I see fit.

Background:

Debated for 2 years on the SD circuit, 1 year in PF and 1 year in LD the latter being a national qualifier. Graduated in 2023 and go to the University of Minnesota. #skiumah

Judging wise, spent most of 23-24 judging on the SD circuit in LD but this year have spent most of my time judging PF on the national circuit or MN circuit and a MN LD tournament.

Just to preface, find the sections of my paradigm that matter most to you. I know its long but I have things organized in bold that are important/section headers.

Once you get to Things I like, those are just things that you can do to win my ballot but are not at all any type of requirement. The things I do not like are ways you can indefinitely lose my ballot.

For every type of debate, I do NOT flow authors names and dates consistently. I try to if there is a email chain, but for any round w/o a email chain I don't flow authors. If you want to extend something, you need to tell me what card it is, where it comes from if you have it in your case, and tell me what it means.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before round!

SD LD circuit:

In SD, I believe that there isn't enough people educated on circuit debating to have a fair playing ground so I will vote down K's, theory, etc. Do not spread in this circuit.

LD:

I am a traditional judge. I view all impacts through framework and will weigh it as such. Now this doesn't mean you can just disregard the contention level as I love a good contention clash. My buddy has a good saying "Your framework is the car and the contentions fuel it. Without the contentions, you may have a really cool car. But it ain't going nowhere" and I think that reflects a lot about how i judge. Back to framework, If the framework says we prioritize security over life then a impact relying on human death or harm will not weigh as highly for me. So, to win my ballot you have to show me the link from your impacts to the framework in the round. I will not vote you down for conceding framework, but if you do, there better be a good solid link to the opposing framework.

I am saying this on another line because it is very important. If you run Morality as a value, I am going with the other framework, if you both run Morality, I will weigh things on a cost benefit analysis. Morality is not a proper value and I am sick of seeing it on any circuit. You can't prove what is moral by saying it is moral. It is circular. If you want a deeper explanation, happy to give it but I will not vote on Morality.

SD PF Circuit:

As in LD, I am quite traditional and won't vote on theory, especially disclo. Don't spread, just make good arguments, keep a good flow, and speak well. There isn't much else to say for general PF besides that.

Nat Circuit (Both PF and LD):

I am not opposed to voting for theory, K's, etc. I will not vote for a K that is irrelevant to the resolution or is about how bad NSDA rules are. Example, the bioweapon K on the Taiwan topic is relevant because it is about how the US treats Taiwan as weapons to China. Tbh this is closer to a Disad but I don't know how to classify it. Either way, I am open to hearing that, disad, disclosure theory, whatever you would like.

PF:

---No new args after first summary and if you didn't establish a link before first summary for an argument, I won't weigh that link you provide afterwards.

---Spreading: I am perfectly okay with spreading on circuit BUT there must be an email chain. I am not fast enough to keep up with a spread without having the cards in front of me. With that being said, if you aren't sending an email of your speech, don't spread. In PF this would mean that I would prefer you do not spread in Summary and Final Focus to get as much information as possible. I prefer you take your time and stress what you are closing on.

Add me to the email chain: matthewgryan2005@gmail.com

This topic:

I will not vote on any political argument that DOES NOT have evidence backing. If you just say "Trump taking over office will make China angry and thus they will retaliate" I want to see some card that tells me Trump will provoke China via evidence from his 2016 administration. If you have any further questions about what I would vote on or not, feel free to ask me before the round.

In addition, I will never vote on any evidence or argument that is far left or far right. If you want to indict a source for being racist, authoritarian propaganda, or too progressive you should! I encourage the questioning and criticism of sources because I think that not all evidence is credible or reliable.

TL;DR: Tech > Truth

--- I find myself becoming more of a tech judge every round I judge, especially in PF. I have found that I really don't have time to evaluate your arguments and how truthful it is.

Congress:

--- The biggest thing I value in congress is participation. I think that for congress to be successful you need to have people who want to speak and be active. This being said, just because you have more participation than another person doesn't mean you inherently outrank them. I think quality > quantity, but quantity > nothing. Another way you can win my ballot is clash. I think that making direct arguments towards the other side of a bill is important to having a good speech past the opening speeches. Referencing other speakers in your speech is more like brownie points for me, if you do it thats great, if you don't it won't bite you in the end.

Speech Events:

As this is speech I really value presentation in every event. I think speaking at a good pace, clearly, and using pathos when you talk is the way to impress me and get higher speaks. If you have any other questions that are event specific about hand signals or whatever else, feel free to ask before you speak.

Things I like:

Collapsing earlier (PF). I think quality > quantity. I think that in LD you have enough time in speeches to cover everything so do not collapse early.

Being transparent about what your evidence says.

Out of the box arguments (Don't just say nonsense but be creative. If I have never heard that argument made before it probably will carry more weight for me in the round)

BEING NICE. If you are a nice person, treat ppl with respect, and don't get an attitude in cross you will get higher speaks from me :)

Reading why an argument is turned, why it matters, and how it weighs. I think this should be the norm but explain, impact, weigh.

Using prep time wisely

Good cross questions. I will never ever vote ON cross. BUT I will vote on things that you extend from Cross. If you make a great point in cross and then never extend it, I will not weigh it. I am totally down to vote on something you extend from cross though.

LD Specific liking- Don't drop anything. I think in PF especially on circuit it gets tough to cover and you should consolidate arguments. In LD you have so much time to cover everything that you should not drop anything on either side of the flow. The 1AR is an incredibly hard speech to do at a high level and I think that having a good 1AR that covers everything on both sides of the flow is a way to win me over on the ballot. I often times find myself voting for the AFF if they have a great 1AR because it makes Neg's job very difficult in the 2NR.

Things I Do Not Like:

Racist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc. arguments. If you make one, significantly less likely to vote for you...

Poor signposting

Going too fast for me without a doc share. (For reference, about a 900 word 4 minute speech or 225-250 wpm speech is right within my range. If you're over a 1000 in case, docshare.)

General (I was like so exhausted writing this paradigm so ask questions for clear ups)

I am Duer Tap Assistant for Vermillion High School, Did LD for 3 years, traditional and nat circuit experience, prefer speechdrop but email isduer.tap@gmail.com for questions/chain

Speed is 7-8/10, need to have a speech doc and be clear while spreading. I know most jargon

To make ur chances of winning to be higher you should write my ballot for me and consolidate and weigh so I vote you.

Warrants need to be extended no blip extensions. Tech>Truth. Don't be disrespectful, beassertive. I love when arguments clash against one another so make sure to do that! Have Fun!!!

SOUTH DAKOTA SPECS

umm I am still tech over truth and most of that stuff below works for all forms of events. In LD I also like framework (winning framework ≠ winning the debate) it views my lens in debate. I WANT MORE PROGRESSIVE ARGUMENTS IN SOUTH DAKOTA RUN THEM PLEASE.

PF: I still want offense and I don't care about special wording just offense offense offense.

LD: Framing and all the other spec stuff down there is good. No framework isn't a voter you can lose the debate but win the framework if you don't weigh.

Specs

DAs- I mean its the bedrock so like its fine overall. The link should be solid and make sense overall to get to the impact of the DA. I don't like Politics or Political Capital DAs. Make sure your evidence is legit, I will be checking but your opps should say something for me to weight the validity of ur evidence.

CPs-They are fine overall, make sure they are mutually exclusive and it should be mostly fine. Actors and PICs I am biased against but I could still vote on them tbh as long as the DAs/other args connect with the CP. Never will vote for a 50 states.

Ks-I like Ks as they are cool. Anti-black, Afropess, and Cap are ones that I am familiar with. Identity Ks should only really be read by their said identities imo but its a free country ig. Don't be basic with your alts and link to the debate as well. If you run an Identity K, you should never wave it away through condo. My threshold will be low for any theory arguments based on that. Structures of Oppression are not Pokémon to collect and use for ballots.

Aff K- I will not vote an aff k down for being an aff K so run what you want to run but be prepared for theory.

Performance- don't know how to judge this but if you can explain it and win I will vote for it

Theory/T- T is kinda of a mid and boring argument tbh. I understand its role but it be boring so much. If an Aff is being abusive plan tho like run T and I will understand it.

Condo is fine with DAs and CPs, not Ks or T. Threshold will be low for these examples.

Tricks- I will play roblox in round if you read one trick so help me god. auto lose.

I competed in LD for 3 years and was a 2x state quarter-finalist. I qualified for nationals in Congress in my senior year.

GENERAL

Be clear. This is probably one of the most important things to do in order to make sure that I am able to fairly evaluate your position in the round. Also, make sure to specify what you are responding to when you respond to arguments.

Do not spread. I consider myself to be more flow-centric, so if I can't flow the argument, it won't be evaluated.

When you refer back to evidence, don't just say the citation. If you just say "Last Name, 24" when addressing a specific piece of evidence, I won't know what that means if you don't say what the card stated as well. I don't write down source citations.

Logical arguments are better than card dumps. Make sure that everything that you are reading is connected back to the framework/the resolution in general. Reading a bunch of evidence and not impacting it out is not likely to win over a few pieces of evidence that connect really well to each other and the resolution.

LD

I love framework/philosophy debate. In my mind, whoever controls the framework debate the best is more likely to win the round, especially in cases where the frameworks contradict each other. Using the framework to base how you are going to argue your AFF/NEG case is a good way to keep me on the same page as you in the round. That being said, make sure that you know your framework well otherwise your case will be weak.

K arguments are a hard sell for me. I might buy a critical argument if it relates to the topic, but if the argument is non-topical, I am not going to vote it up.

PF

I have never done PF. I understand the structure of an argument and as long as you are logical, I will probably be fine. Again, just connect back to the resolution and avoid just dumping a large amount of evidence with no logic.

I have two semi-serious rules for when I judge:

1) If you are going to use analytics, either use evidence to back it up, or make it seem like you know what you're talking about. Don't just use analytics to attack your opponent's case.

2) Don't piss me off. If you do, I will not be inclined to favor you in the round.

Now that those are out of way, here's the rest.

Introduction

I did debate for four years: one in policy as a freshman, and the next three in Public Forum. After that, I've been judging from 2017 onward, taking a break in 2020. I'm primarily a public forum judge, but I have judged LD and policy in the past. If you have me as an LD judge, know that I won't follow anything special that you may try to run, such as a role of the ballot argument. Keep it to Value/Criterion, and the round will be a lot better as a whole.

Definitions/Framework

For definitions, only define stuff that you think is necessary. This doesn't mean define the word "harm" in an "on balance" resolution, but if there's a word that you think a lay judge might not understand, such as "urbanization," that might be one to define. On framework, keep it short and simple. Framework should be something by which I judge the round, not one of the voters. Don't spend so much time on it that you have to cut the rest of your case short. 10-20 seconds max.

Speakers

Case - use as much of your time as possible without going over. Make sure that you have enough time to get through all of your points and recount your main points. Also, if you have a one point case with multiple subpoints, just why? At that point, just have the point as framework and the subpoints as the main points.

Rebuttal - first, don't use a prewritten rebuttal speech. That just tells me that you're unprepared for other people's arguments and that you're not confident in your own attacks. Second, make sure you actually attack your opponent's arguments. If you just attack the general (insert opponent's side here) case, and you don't link your attacks to anything, that's not going to help you. Make sure you are linking your attacks to something your opponent said, otherwise it's going on the flow, but it'll have very little weight.

Crossfire - don't speak over your opponent, refer to Rule #2. Rounds usually aren't won here, and they're more for you than me, so just don't be a dick and you'll be fine.

Summary - start to condense the round here. This doesn't mean continue attacking your opponent's case if you couldn't get to it in Rebuttal, this means get your arguments together and start explaining to me why you think you've won the round. If that means just restating your point titles, go for it, but explain in your own words why you think you've won these arguments. Don't just repeat verbatim what's on the cards. I've heard that, but why does that matter in the grand scheme of the round? Tell me that, and I'll listen.

Final Focus - give me why you won the round. I don't want to hear a continuation of the round. I want to hear 2-3 convincing arguments as to why you have the arguments necessary for me to vote you up. If you don't tell me what is most important, and the other team does, I will be more inclined to vote for them because they told me why they won.

Speed

Given that I'm still relatively young, I can pick up most things, but when you start reading at Policy speeds in a Public Forum round, that's when I put my pen down/stop typing and just stare at you. If I don't flow something, that usually means you stumbled over it or sped through it, which means I don't judge it at the end of the round. If you want to speed through the card, that's fine, but if you speed right through the tag, I won't be using it in my decision, which will inevitably hurt you in the long run.

Other

Reactions - try to keep a poker face when in rounds. This is especially visible in online rounds where I can just look slightly to the side of my screen and see you making a face at whatever your opponent just said.

Timer - when the timer goes off, you can finish your sentence, and that's where my attention span ends. I will leave my timer going off until you stop speaking, however long that takes. Hopefully, it shouldn't take too long. If the timer goes off after a question has been fully asked in Crossfire, you are allowed to give a short answer to the question, but don't go off on a long winded tangent on whatever you're talking about. If you're in the middle of a question, Crossfire is unfortunately over.

Be Professional - while I have given some debaters lower speaker points due to breaking Rule #2 as seen above, I have yet to decide a round based on that alone. If that does occur, I still find an objective reason in the round to explain why they lost, not just that they pissed me off. So while it hasn't happened yet, don't let your emotions make you the first round that it happens.

Prep/Called Cards - if you call for a card during crossfire, I will not start prep time so long as no prep work is being done on either side while the card/article is being looked at.

Questions

If you have any questions on decisions, any comments that I made, feel free to contact me at wilsonbc@midco.net. Try to let me know what round I had you in and what the topic was, as I have a reputation for not having the best memory.

Hello!

I am currently LD coach at Edina, and previously competed in South Dakota for 4 years with a traditional LD background. With that in mind, here are a few of my preferences.

i do not care if you sit or stand. do whatever is more comfortable :)

add me to the doc if you are sharing it with your opponent ! email: breannawollman@gmail.com

Flashing Evidence:I won't take prep, but be quick with it.

K's Read super fast will not go well in a round with me in the back. Run it if you want to- but please act as if I haven't researched and read the material. How can I evaluate it if you read it faster than anyone can comprehend?

For LD:

You have to win the Value. It doesn't necessarily have to be your FW, but you have to win it in order to win the round. It is your obligation to show the moral obligation of the actor/actors in the resolution through the framework you present. If you drop framework entirely you will make me sad :(

POINT OUT DROPS. I AM A FLOW JUDGE AND WILL EASILY VOTE ON DROPS

If you are running a framework that isn't structural violence or Util and debate with it well- expect high speaks! I love when there is real clash and people try to run different things.

For speed- I prefer a fast conversational speed. If you are reading so quickly that you are gasping in between each sentence you are speaking too quickly for me. Even if you share your doc with me- I will use that to fill the gaps if I feel like it is appropriate, but I am not going to make the arguments for you. Part of this event is persuasion and there is nothing persuasive about speed reading/yelling into your computer.

Your roadmap should be just aff neg and or voters. If it is any longer I will start to get annoyed. On that note, please come into the round preflowed so we can get started immediately.

If you are mean, I will vote you down and doc your speaks. This is an educational activity, and being mean prohibits a fun and educational learning environment.

You need to make your link to the resolution clear. I am skeptical about nuke war/ extinction impacts. If you are running something like this you need to really convince me that it is possible.

On the same note, If your impact has nothing to do with the resolution- it won't be weighed in the round.

If you notice that I have stopped flowing in round, there is a good chance that you have lost me on the flow or you are just repeating things.

Please make sure you are sign-posting. I don't want to guess where to put an argument on the flow.

Make writing the ballot super easy for me :)

Good luck, and remember to have fun! If you have any questions- feel free to ask!