Put me on the chain with this email: chen.kent@husky.neu.edu

Did policy for 4 years in hs

I don't care if you run kritik or policy as an aff just make policy interesting if you are. I vote on the flow, Don't just read a card and don't explain why you win on an argument. Make sure you know what you're saying. Please clash and explain, it makes it easier for me to vote. Do the work for me on the flow.

I can't stress this enough, please explain why you win an argument and why you should win. It gives you so many advantages to just tell me what to do on the flow rather than assume that I'll know what your intent is.

Sign-post, makes it easier to flow.

Roadmap, makes it easier to flow.

I'm okay with whatever speed you read at, just make sure I can understand what you're saying.

Generally I give 28's. Please don't make me give anything below.

Generally you should pref me low if you a policy aff, if you do run policy make it interesting. I don't like the use of nuclear war as an impact for extinction, something like climate change as an impact is better.

Hey there!

I am affiliated with the Boston Debate league and help coach the McCormack Middle School. I debated for about 6 years and have qualified for a few national tournaments throughout my debate career. Though that is the case, I am not familiar with every case, or piece of literature that may come across openev/opencase, but am willing to vote on anything you tell me to vote on if you paint a clear story of what your aff/neg does and what it means to vote for you. I will not connect the dots for you, the flow will speak for itself... please don't make the flow so messy that I have to bridge the points together to justify my vote.

With that being said, I am familiar with K's, cps, da's and framework args but again, please paint a clear story. So, DA: give me a good link story and impact calc. FW: If you're running it, please run it through the round don't just bring it up and then drop it. CP: do it, explain how your cp works better than the aff. If i can't recognise what the cp is, I will likely not vote on it.

Why should I vote for you? How does your impact outweigh everything else happening in round? Ask yourself those questions and you might have me if answered coherently and strong enough.

I don't mind spreading but please slow down on tags and naming your authors.

Do what you want, debate how you please but I will not tolerate bigotry or bullies. I want to see a fun round!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Slide some jokes in if you're funny enough! Just please DO NOT be a bully and run like 50 offs just for a time skew, that's annoying.

In all -- HAVE FUN :DDD

For any comments, questions or concerns :

Josiecolon0@gmail.com

Last Updated: 08/19/2024

Hey folks! Super excited to judge you all this weekend. This is my paradigm if you don't feel like reading it I have bolded the important info!

My experience is I am a former policy debater and I have taught Public Forum

As someone who spent the majority of their time in Policy debate, I've grown accustomed to the steady pace and clear diction of policy debaters; while I am capable of understanding speed, I prefer arguments made that are slow with elegance over speedy deliver of cards, and firmly believe that repeated citation of an author does not an argument make. Given my recent experiences with people claiming they can spread (and being laughably bad at it), I've decided that it's best to err on the side of caution and simply say no spreading. (basically no speed reading)

Fewer arguments explained thoroughly are preferential over a multitude of shallow attacks that are just snippets of evidence with little debate connection. I weigh rounds on impact calculus unless otherwise directed to do so explicitly by debaters- if you wish for me to use another weighing mechanism, I expect to be told why your mechanism is preferential over impact calc and your opponent's. There's nothing I really have trouble following; I'm familiar with k's and the semantics of debate. I have no problem with unorthodox strategies or progressive argumentation.

More details, take head.

Flashing- not very picky with the flashing cards or whatever, but just try to not waste too much time flashing or I will start running prep.

Line by line - I do pay close attention to specific arguments being made on the flow, that being said I hate judge intervention and will not draw any lines for you. I advice that you specify which arguments you want me to weigh in particular and its importance in the round

Topicality - I think that topicality is a strategic argument and will look at it as a disad, and pay particular attention to the 'impact" of the affirmative to both the fairness and educationof the round. If you plan to go for topicality Iwant to see you prove abuse in the round without purposely opting out of potential arguments. Highly doubt that anyone will ever persuade me that it is a reverse voter or it's not a voting issue. *Love a great T debate*

Kritiks -- I think the best teams tend to look for more specific links outside of the generics read in the 1NC, if you can extract really good links from the evidence the aff presents, or the words that they use, it makes the K more powerful and decreases the chance of the affswindling their way out. Also, having a pretty SOLIDalternative really helps proves that their is a different non problematic approach, and gives negsome credibility. I think affirmative should always have a framework asking to weightheir case impacts against the Kritik, makes your case "matter" when it comes decision making.

Theory - not a huge fan, but I am against using this as a strategy for whatever... using theory alone to get the ballot is ill advised. I mostly likely will vote down the argument, unless you can prove that somehow they skewed your education or ability to debate failrly.

Case - self explanatory. for the affteam - Take good care of your affthroughout the round. Weigh it against everything, its your best defense mechanism.

Counter Plan - try to make it topic specific, and have a counter plan text

Framework - totally open to new ways of thinking/voting in rounds, I think its important that we question how we debate. I will go with whatever framework is presented and warranted the best in the round. If no framework is established in the round I will traditionally go with aff having to meet the burden of proof, and neg defending the status quo or a competitive policy action. Tips for running Framework - prove why your framework is best not only for you, but for the opposing team and for any other potential debate. The more inclusive and fair your framework to higher the chance I go with it.

Any further questions, ask away when you see me.

1/17/25

Please add me to the thread: tylerbrandonkirk@gmail.com

My name is mr kirk, he/him/his.

Personal - I was a high school cx debater/extemp speaker in Oklahoma 2001-2004, back in the day when the NSDA was the NFL. I moved to Boston for graduate studies in religion/philosophy at Boston University in 2012. For the past 2 years I've taught at at Boston Latin Academy as a inclusion special education math and science teacher. I enjoy reading classic novels, philosophy, and poetry.

tl;dr- I'm new to judging in the past year through the Boston Debate League and NAUDL. After many years of not being involved in policy debate, and having some experience with K/K-Aff in 2004, I look forward to an engaging debate while I continue to learn how these arguments function. I flow on paper

spred OK

Run anything (best argumentation/performance wins)

I will vote on theory but there's a high burden of proof/clear explanation.

explanation > jargon

I perceive the debate space as a high school activity. I expect behaviors and language to model what I would see in a classroom. Mature language in tags or cards (read or used with a purpose) is not a problem.

***********************

I am willing to listen to and am familiar with most argumentation leaning toward policy based arguments. I want debaters to evaluate and frame arguments as the round progresses with emphasis on comparative analysis between those competing arguments.

On conditionality, and as stated previously, I want to judge a round that has clash and substance. This being said I also believe that part of the value in debate is starting with a variety of arguments and positions, and then being able to choose which arguments to move forward with strategically. I don't have a problem with spreading as a negative strategy. At the same time at 7+ off arguments I would be more prone to seriously evaluate condo.

K-Aff's: I don't have personal experience running a k-aff. I understand the topicality/framework issues that the neg might use against a K-Aff. In general both teams should be clear about these arguments and where I'm going to flow them. I appreciate hearing a good k-aff and the performance aspect of the debate that often comes along with that.

K's: I love a good alternative. If you're going for the K and the alternative is reading Marxist literature...I expect that you have some favorite Marx literature that you'd like to share.

T: Topicality is an a priori voter. For this reason I also have a high bar for neg to win on topicality. I'm happy to vote on T, however I don't want to vote on T just because the aff was spread out and missed one of the 7 brightline(s) in the 1NC.

Clash: Really appreciate good clash on the flow. Nothing better than when I can follow the story on the flow and everything lines up.

Theory: I'm not that well versed in theory tbh. If you're going for theory argument(s) just be clear in explanations.

thanks!

For my debate it is fun and that the students have fun is the most important thing, so I think there are several ways to make the debate fun as a judge I don't like when students only read the evidence without giving me an explanation I want them to give me real-life examples and opinions I don't care how strong your evidence is, you have to explain. you have to show a level of knowledge. You should make me think you can win.

The team that wins the rounds of questions also has a better chance of winning

They/Them/Theirs

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

(Also, I feel like I need to add this at the top....I flow with my eyes closed a lot of the time. It helps me focus on what you are saying)

TLDR:

I'm a queer, nonbinary, disabled lawyer. Don't change your debate style too much for me - debate what you know and I'll vote what's on the flow. If you read a K alternative that doesn't involve me (specifically antiblackness Ks), that will not harm your chances of winning. I've seen young debaters stumble and try to make me feel included because they worry I won't like their K because I'm white and not included. You have all the right in the world to look at me and say "judge, this isn't for you it's ours."

At the end of the debate it will come down to impact calculus (framing) and warrants. Please have fun - debate is only worthwhile if we are having fun and learning. Don't take it too seriously, we are all still learning and growing.

Top of the 2AR/2NR should be: "this is why you vote aff/neg" and then give me a list

Long Version:

Heyo!

I was a queer disabled debater at Liberty University. I've run and won on everything from extinction from Trump civil war to rhetoric being a pre-fiat voter. I'll vote on any argument regardless of my personal beliefs BUT YOU MUST GIVE ME WARRANTS. Do not pref me if you are going to be rude or say offensive things. I will dock your speaks. I will call you out on it during the RFD. Do pref me if you read Ks and want to use performative/rhetoric links. Also pref me if you want a ballot on the flow.

Don't just tell me something was conceded - tell me why that is important to the debate.

IMPACT CALC IMPACT CALC IMPACT CALC

Aff Stuff:

Read your NTAs, your soft-left affs, and your hard-right affs. Tell me why your framing is important. Be creative.

Case - stick to your case, don't let the negative make you forget your aff

CP/K - perms and solvency deficits are good

Neg Stuff:

I do love Ks but I also like a good DA. As long as you can explain to me how it functions and interacts with case, I will consider it.

DA - you need a clear articulation of the link to the plan (and for econ, please explain using not just the fancy words and acronyms)

CP - please be competitive, you need to solve at least parts of the aff and you need a clear net benefit

K - you need to link to the plan (or else you become a non-unique DA) and be able to explain the alt in your own words.

Generic Theory Stuff:

T - I have a high threshold for T. you MUST prove abuse IN ROUND to win this argument. you must have all the parts of the T violation.

Other Theory args - just because an arg is dropped doesn't mean I will vote on it, you still must do the work and explain to me why it is a voter. I will not vote on "they dropped 50 state fiat so vote aff" you MUST have warrants.

I WILL VOTE ON REVERSE THEORY VOTERS If you feel their T argument is exclusionary, tell me and prove it. If you feel them reading 5 theory args is a time skew, tell me and prove it.

CX: remember you are convincing me, not your opponent, look at me. These make great ethos moments. Use this strategically, get links for your DA or K, show the abuse for T violations, prove they are perf-con, you get the idea

Speaker Points: give me warrants and ethos and it will be reflected here.

27: You did something really wrong - whether racist/sexist/ableist/homophobic - and we will be talking about it during the RFD

28: You are basically making my expectations, you are doing well but could be doing better.

29: You are killing it. Good ethos is granted to get you here and so will fleshed out warrants

30: Wow. Just wow. There was a moment during a speech or CX where you blew me away.

The most important things to know about my judging style and experience are as follows: - I'm in my third of year coaching in the Boston Debate League, so I'm most familiar with their cases on this topic (Patents, Copyright and Fair Use) and not as familiar with cases outside the BDL packet on this topic. - The most important arguments to me are the arguments that carry through to the end of the debate round - if something comes up in Constructives or CX, it needs to show up in the rebuttals for me to consider it in my decision. - I haven't done much varsity judging before in my three years of coaching. - I am most familiar with the structure of policy arguments.

Tell me what you advocate.

tell me why it is not being done

tell me why it needs to be done

tell me why it is the best thing we should do

Yes I want to be on the email chain: maeveknowlton@gmail.com

Slow down during your blocks.

Please :) better yet send them if you want.

General

Background: currently a college debater at Suffolk

5 years of judging experience

3 years middle school urban debate
3 years high school national circuit

Cross is open unless its a maverick or someone requests that it be closed.

She/Her please

PLEASE sign post(say which argument you talk to when changing topics) during your speeches. If I look confused I probably am.

please give roadmaps. Roadmap for 1nc = how many offs then case. Roadmaps for any other speech is the order of arguments being addressed.

Assume that I know nothing going into the round. I won't debate for you in the RFD, you need to explain to me why you win on certain arguments in the round.

You can run any arguments in front of me, including Ks.

I guess I'm a tech over truth judge but in a good round a distinction doesn't need to be made. You need to explain to me why you won in the context of the debate and not just why your argument is true, especially for Ks and framework.

Incase you're wondering, I was a K debater in high school on both aff and neg for most of my career. And I also am very critical of poorly made Ks, so be warned. I do college debate now and do more policy but still do K.

Be nice! Especially in novice. If you are varsity be clever/charming/funny. Make the environment enjoyable to be in for everyone.

Arguments

K: My biggest thing with Ks is that out of round impacts need to be argued very very well for me to vote for them, because as someone who's been in the debate scene for years, they're quite literally just not true. If you win the out of round impacts then I'll vote for it but it will be nearly impossible to convince me that out of round spill over exists unless you literally show it. I've judged these arguments for 5 years, it's not going to pull my heart strings. I heavily prefer in round impacts/fiated K impacts. You'll be more successful and the debate will be more interesting for everyone. Additionally, I've judged a lot of butchered and watered down versions of Ks that are painful to watch, so if you're going to run a K please read the literature or at least debate with someone who has. A poorly articulated K is the most boring round to judge.

• K AFFs: I can definitely be a good judge for you and I love K affs but things you should know 1) Your aff should have a specific reason to be on the aff. please do not just copy and paste your 1nc(and vice versa) 2) You should have a clear reason for the ballot. 3) If your aff is a method of political resistance you should be clear on what it is or isn't. Vagueness will hurt your chances at a ballot with me.If the debate is K v Kaff, please do not lose track of A) tech and B) the actual rundown of your aff. If the synopsis of your aff changes mid round I will notice. The worst K affs are slippery advocacy's that don't argue for anything in particular and don't know what they want to be until the 1ar.
• Performance: I love good performance debates! however, I can't listen to music over your speech because I am autistic. I love good performance debates though! Feel free to send the lyrics and if you tell me what the value of the music is in the speech. If the music has an influence over the ballot or argument I will evaluate it as if I had heard it. You should also be prepared to explain why the performance of the aff is integral to it's solvency/advocacy. Performances that stop being talked about after the 1ac are boring and defeat the purpose.

Framework: Framework arguments matter a lot to me and I will consider them heavily while voting. if you're running a K along the lines of "reject aff's thinking" or "embrace this mindset" and you don't explain what that means to me in terms of voting (role of the ballot) then I will vote you down. If you don't explain the voters of your framework then I can't evaluate it. Even if you win on framework the other team can still win under it. "Dropping framework" does not mean you win the round unless you explain to me why your framework being used frames how I judge the round in the result of a ballot for you.

T: Feel free to run topicality in front of me, but A) I buy into reasonability pretty often and B) if you claim to be unprepared for the most common aff in the year I will keep that in mind while evaluating the T.Fairness and clash are internal links,not impacts

CP: You can run CPs, but be clear on the competition to the aff and/or net benefit. More harsh on PICS than regular CPs but you can still run them.

Theory: You need to show real examples of abuse and its effect on the round. Truth vs teched is swapped here for me, though tech still matters. Unless there's a serious breach of ethics in the round I will most likely ignore it. However please do run it if there is because I love voting down unethical teams.

• Disclosure: if I witness an active refusal, or if they break new last second then I'll give it attention, but if it's A) a novice prelim round or B) a minor mistake I won't take it to seriously.
• Spreading: Will only evaluate it if you request an accommodation and the other team refuses or ignores it. If you don't request a lower speed before the round I will most likely not buy this argument, almost every round at a tournament I'm judging at, spreading should be expected.
• Condo: Show specific examples of condo making the round worse, things like contradicting arguments (especially K/theory/T), arguments being randomly picked up and dropped, etc.
• PICS bad: if your pic is literally just "AFF plus another thing" and not an actual different method testing that the aff can engage with without being extra topical or debating themself, you will be vulnerable to losing to this theory if I am your judge. Most PICs are not that bad but I've seen some pretty abusive pics.
• Perm bad: a very hard maybe. If the perm is lazy I can buy it. if the alt/cp is vague and doesn't have clear competition I won't.

I will update this if I see a new theory argument (there's always something)

DA: I haven't seen a 2nr go for DA not as a net benefit to a CP in a long time. they're basically just parts of the CP shells now, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, just what I expect. keep in mind that the magnitude of the impact is usually the least important part of the DA for me. Uniqueness>>>Impact Risk and timeframe has much more weight in terms of impact framing. Extinction has no weight on the ballot unless every other part of the DA is sound, don't just keep rambling about how big of a deal it is because I don't care. Talk about links and uniqueness, FINISH THE SHELL.

Speaker Points

I tend to give pretty high speaks if you do well.

If you ask good cross-ex questions I may give you more points, and I understand cross can be intense, but being overly aggressive or rude in cross is a VERY big ick to me and can deduct major speaker points.

If you straight up lie about something in the round continuously and it isn't a mistake, then I will be annoyed and will drop speaks. I.E misinterpreting something they said in cross, lying about the flow/arguments dropped, etc.

Nathan Fulton's Policy/Parli Judging Paradigm

(Email for evidence threads: nathan@nfulton.org)

I sometimes volunteer as a high school or college debate judge. This document explains how I evaluate rounds.

2024-2025 note:I am moving my "professional background" from the bottom of my paradigm to the top, just for this year. I am a Research Scientist and Manager of the Large Language Models for Code and Structured Data Group at the MIT-IBM AI Lab; I manage a group that develops the types of generative models at the heart of this year's topic. Prior to moving into management, I did extensive work in the area of AI Safety for autonomous robotics systems and was part of the Science team for Amazon's first Generative AI product. You can read more about my professional and academic background here: https://safelearning.ai

Debate Background: I was a policy debater in high school. In college I competed with moderate success in NPTE-style parli (argumentative and delivery style are very similar to policy). I graduated a long time ago, did a bit of assistant coaching shortly thereafter, and since then I've judged a couple tournaments every year or two. Which is to say: experienced but rusty!

Argument Preferences: This is your game. Tell me how you want to be evaluated. If you do not tell me, then I will default to my own view of what debate is. By default, debate as an educational game that is good for teaching its players research skills and critical reasoning skills. I also view debate as a less than ideal game for teaching rhetoric and inter-personal communication skills. This means that I am open to evaluating all types of arguments, place a huge premium on argument quality, and place less of an emphasis on presentation. I will typically default to evaluating arguments as you would expect from a judge with substantial policy debate experience and no old-school theory commitments.

Above all, please be kind and have fun.

If you have any questions, just ask.

Speed: I have no objections and can generally follow along, but I have been out of the debate world for over a decade. I get slower at flowing every year. I will let you know if I am falling behind.

Philosophically, speed is just this weird tool we use to make debates more interesting and textured without needing 4-8 hour rounds. But, this also means that speed is self-defeating when it's used as a cudgel. Using speed in rounds where one of the teams is clearly incapable of keeping up -- and then continuing to move quickly while asking for a ballot on the basis of a dropped argument -- is both bad form and unkind. If a key drop happens in a round and it is clear that your opponents are struggling to keep up, please point out the drop but then continue with the round at a slower pace on the areas where there is contention so that everyone can still learn.

Tabla Rasa, K's are fine but they've gotta be good

Hello, I'm Julie and I've judged Policy, Congress, PF, Speech etc. at the TOC, national qualifiers and at the Massachusetts state and local level for a decade.

Policy: If you are amazing at spreading, I have a hard time understanding at the highest velocity, so try to remember to slow it down. I'm willing to have a debater persuade me of a technical violation, but it's not of default focus for me, so articulate it clearly.

Congress: I highly value mutual respect for one another in my chambers, so please be persuasive while also being respectful. Argue the issues, not the people. I immensely dislike rudeness as I think it's a malady of the times.

Thanks,

Brandon Ren--brandondebate25@gmail.com (add me to the chain duh <3)

he/him/his

BUDL/BDL/BLA'24

UMass Amherst'28

***Pref me higher for nontraditional/K teams (I'm fine with policy too)***

My background (if u even care lol)

I've debated for 6 years in the Boston Urban Debate League. So, to all my Urban debaters, YALL R A TROOPER!! Graduated and debated for Boston Latin Academy 2020-2024 locally and nationally in the Varsity CX circuit. I have ran Policy for 2 years and Ks/Kaffs for 4 years. Entering University of Massachusetts--Amherst as a freshman majoring in Legal Studies and a minor in Asian/Asian American Studies.

Thank you to Moselle Burke, Liv Birnstad, Roger Nix, Tyler Kirk, Micky Yang (22-23 partner), Alana LaForest (23-24 partner) and many others that have guided me to become the debater/person I am today <3 Love yall from the bottom of my BIG, YELLOW, ASIAN HEART

Short version

1) Experienced in judging traditional policy, Kritiks, and Kaffs

2)Not really a theory person and def not high theory, but if u run basic theory (like condo) I'm willing to evaluate especially if teams run 6+ offs (really need you to COOK IT THOROUGHLY)

3) Don't care about speed (just make sure it ain't sounding like an un-discovered language) or else I will yell clear two times before docking speaks (0.2), just let me silently cook on my paper

4) Pretty familiar with most K lit (Racial/Regular cap, Afropess, Model Minority, Techno-orientalism, Set col, Academy, Queer theory, etc.), but don't act like I know what it is bc I need y'all to be on your game. Don't let me catch u slacking 4k

5) Tech > Truth (if both teams are ahead in the tech debate, then truth will act as a tiebreaker) + Quality > Quantity

6) Make my job easy to do, don't force me to physically and mentally go through my messy asf flows

7) Any sort of evidence violation (Card-clipping, improper citation, and evidence misrepresentation) or NSDA Guideline violation WILL result in an automatic judge intervention

Long version (I'll try my best to not yap, but I can't promise anything)

1) Generally, I love clear instruction in the rebuttals about where you want me to focus my attention and how you want me to filter offense. For policy teams I think this is more about link and impact framing, and for more critical teams I think this is about considering the judge’s relationships to your theory/performance and being specific about their role in the debate.

2) I've obviously debated for quite a while (scarred for the rest of my life), so I've debated and judged both tradition and non-traditional styles of debate. However, I do have to say is that I get way too bored at traditional policy affs because it's so "typical". Everytime whenever an aff team say that its a policy aff it's like my mind automatically maps out the general idea of what's going to happen. I'm willing to entertain your hypothetical, government, policymaker scheme tho don't get me wrong. IMO, impact calc is the best part when it comes to policy aff bc that's the only time where you're actually "alive" rather than just spreading through a bunch of cards like a machine. Impact calc allows me to better evaluate the aff and let you guys deliver your rebuttal in a organized fashion to answer the ultimate question: "why should I vote for your policy"? For DAs, give me a good and BOMBASS link story and impact calc.Paint me THE MURAL OF CATASTROPHE of all the shitshow that would happen if the AFF is passed or even considered and why that OUTWEIGHS EVERYTHING. For CPs, explain how your cp works better than the aff. If i can't recognize what the cp is or how its better than the aff, I will most likely not vote on it.(Although I haven't personally ran things like Process CP, Advantage CP, or anything along the lines of those BUT I'm willing to vote on it as long as u EXPLAIN <3)

There's not much I can say on my preference when it comes to a traditional policy bc I really don't have much preference about it :p If you do have questions you want to ask me, please do so <3

On the other hand, I WILL EAT UP YOUR Ks and Kaffs. Like I am ✨OBSESSED✨with everything that goes in it. For the majority of my debate career, I've always been a K debater (and will always be) because the educational value you get out of this is truly unquantifiable and also the amount of creative autonomy you get creating these is what makes it all a beautiful process. I'm familiar with rage politics, disruption politics, utopian/dystopian world, poetry, performance, etc. However, during these debates I need y'all to have really flushed out arguments particularly the link debate and the alt/solvency debate. Being able to have more than 1 link gives you more room to manuever around, but having clear and flush out link stories on reasons why the aff or neg is problematic will make your life so much more easier especially when doing the perm debate.Within any Ks/Kaffs, the adv/alt is the essence of it all because that is where I get to imagine your world. SO TELL ME ABOUT IT. What does it look like? How does it operate? How does it resolve the link? WHY is this better than the aff? Explain your methodology. Tell me what my role in this space is and why that should be preferred. (I really love having fun if you couldn't tell)

3) I don't care if you're spreading or not just make sure it's not some other worldly language. I will shout clear twice before I start docking speaks (0.5). I'm fine with however many offs you want to run, (depending on how much you're running) but if I'm not looking at you here and there while you talk don't take it personal because I'm just trying to cook on my paper. I'm human, let's get over that fact that I don't have sonic speed handwriting. However, if your opponent (before the round) request for you to not spread, please don't spread on them. It is violent and I will dock 0.5 speaks for it. If the opponents makes it a voting issue, I am gladly to vote on it. Debate needs to be more accessible to EVERYONE, so don't be a dickhead <3

4) 2NR and 2AR should prioritize persuasiveness and condensing down your argument as much as you can. I (won't hold this against you, but I'll be annoyed) hate when the negative tries to juggle with more than 2 arguments as they approach the end. Strategically, it's overwhelming for your opponents, but obviously you would risk trading off your persuasive articulation on those few condensed arguments that you're actually winning on.

Case

1) I love myself some good case debate bc that's when your directly clashing and interacting with each others literature. Negative team should have a variety of arguments on every important case page there is. Simply saying states good isn't a "good enough" answer to a Kaff.

2) Please elaborate and extend the substance of your argument. "Dropped X means nuke war and case outweighs on magnitude" don't mean anything if you just say it like that. Like don't be dry and boring bc the juice is infront of you, just TELL ME WHYYYY(?)

3) Overview should only be present to help you accomplish something. Don't get me wrong, overviews are great. However, if they don't really serve a purpose, it rather serves as a time waster when you could be getting to more important things. If there's any long overview throughout the flows, please alert me (like I begggggg)

Framework

1) I think both sides should also clearly understand their relationship to the ballot and what the debate is supposed to resolve. At the end of the debate, I should be able to explain the model I voted for and why I thought it was better for debate. Any self-deemed prior questions should be framed as such. All of that is to say there is nothing you can do in this debate that I haven't probably seen so do whatever you think will win you the debate.

Performance + K Affirmatives

1) Love myself a good performance/Kaff. If the performance aspects is included as the aff's methodology, I will gladly evalute as if its like any other types of methodology. So please emphasize on it during or later on in the speech and make sure that I understand the importance of this methodology. At the end of the debate, I shouldn't be left feeling that the performative aspects were disconnected from debate and your chosen lit base

Kritik

Like I have said, I am a K debater deep down from the bottom of my BIG YELLOW ASIAN HEART, which means for K teams

1) I am well versed in many of the k literature used in debate. Even if I might not know your specific k literature, I will know what you're talking about when you explain and use the details of your theory.

2) Don't ever assume I'll do the work for you. At the end of the debate, there should be a clear link to the AFF, and an explanation of how your alternative solves the links

3) Please don't kick your alt (unless you really have to then ig I can't stop you :/). Links to the AFF’s performance, subject formation, and scholarship are fair games. SO this really has to be a life or death for you your mind even come across kicking the alt

**************************************************************
If you have any question, please feel free to reach out! Otherwise, good luck and have fun pookie(s)!!!!

Policy Debate wins I look for (how to impress):

1. Have fun!
2. Use of meaningful pauses and inflections during your Constructive presentation go a long way towards impressing me.
3. Ensure you Cross X as many of the arguments presented in the others team Constructive presentation as possible.
4. Try to use up most the time allotted to you. It is a shame when someone rushes through their Constructive presentation and has over half their time remaining.
5. Display of respect to your opponent and the effort they have taken to prepare and present during the debate.

Policy Debate concerns I look for (how NOT to impress):

1. Mundane and/or monotone reading of Constructive presentation from paper or laptop.
2. Not showing eye contact when presenting.
3. Use of personal slights or offensivelanguage meant to intimidate others.
4. Showing little interest in material or position being represented.

Certifications:

NFTS Speech & Debate

Course Work:

NFTS Adjudicating Speech & Debate

NFTS Coaching Speech & Debate

NFTS Speech & Debate Event Management

NFTS After School Security

NFTS Bullying, Hazing and Inappropriate Behaviors

NFTS Protecting Students from Abuse

NFTS Implicit Bias

NTFS Student Mental Health and Suicide Prevention

NTFS Cultural Competence