FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Alex Cadena - Rio

Background Information: I have 4 years debate experience in Parli. I competed at Rio Hondo Community College in NPDA and IPDA then transferred to the University of Utah and competed in NPDA and IEs. This is my first-year coaching/judging collegiate forensics, and I am a graduate student at CSUN. If me being a first year out is a concern, feel free to strike me. How I evaluate rounds: I find clarity important, make it clear what your argument is and how your impacts are the most important in the round. I like full and completed arguments. Do you have Warrants, Links, Internal Links, and Impacts? If you are running a K, please state the Alternative Twice, it helps me get it down precisely as well as the opposing team. If your K is highly technical, please explain and articulate your argument. Some other comments: Debate is an animal that can bring out a lot of different emotions, please remember that you are competing against humans and treat each other as such. There is no need to reduce our humanity to “win a ballot.” If you don’t care how you win and are willing to treat your opponents poorly. Please strike me, I will not be a critic you want in the back of the room. POI’s are good, and remember to call out POOs in the rebuttals.

Allison Bowman - Moorpark

n/a

Ana'ly Garcia - CBU

Andrew Gonzalez - Rio

Andrew Perez - Rio

Angelica Grigsby - Concordia

April Griffin - Cerritos College

Ashley Graham - El Camino

This is probably the most important thing to know about me: I believe that debate is a game.  Therefore everything to me is viewed as a way to win.  While education can happen and critical thinking can happen, ultimately you want the ballot otherwise there’s no impact to how I judge debate rounds. Overall a clear framework and specifically a way to evaluate the round are going to be important in finding a way to evaluate the arguments in round.  That being said, impacts win rounds. Structure and signposting are also extremely important.  On Topicality: this is a voter for me; however it can also be used as a tool to secure ground or for competing interpretations.  This is up to you as whether or not going for the T in the LOR is the best choice. I don't dislike T debates just multiple poorly warranted T rounds.  On Kritiks: I will vote on the K as long as there is some type of legitimate alternative/solvency mechanism.  I have voted on the K and have no unique pre-disposition against them. On Speed: Overall speed is okay.  Usually I find that an increase in speed leads to a decrease in clarity.  Most times speed is unnecessary but again it is your strategic choice. On NFA-LD: here the rules are much more explicit and I will vote where the rules tell me to.  This does not mean I will outright intervene, but it does mean that I will have a higher propensity to vote on procedurals that are run when the rules are violated.  For example if there is a position about speed, then the chance that I will vote on it is high unless there’s some brilliant response.

Austin Miller - NAU

Brandan Whearty - Palomar

Caleb Moore - PLNU

Pronouns: He, Him, His TL;DR: You do you. I competed in four years of high school policy in KS and then 4 years of parli at Point Loma.  I believe that it is my job as a critic to adjudicate the round that the debaters want to have without bias; although, I know this is easier said than done, so here are some specific feelings I have about things:   Delivery/Partner Communication: Speed can have two functions. It can add depth to a debate in a way that positively contributes to the competitive nature of the activity, or it can be used as a tool of exclusion to cheaply win ballots. If it is the former then I am all about it. The latter will lose you a lot of speaks. For partner communication, parli is a partnered activity, as long as there isn’t parroting it isn’t a problem. I will only flow the argument that the person speaking says.   Please read all texts, interps/counter-interps, and perms slowly and twice. If you want to, it would also be helpful to just write me a copy; although, I understand if that takes you away from your flow for too long.   Case: Case debate is tragically underutilized. I am not saying you have to go 8 minutes of case out of the LOC (but hey it’s super fun to do that), but teams often don’t dedicate enough time to generating offence against the PMC. I think that is a mistake.   The K: I ran the K in about half of my rounds while debating. If this is your preferred strategy, I encourage you to go for it. All I ask is that you don’t assume that I know your literature, to be honest I probably don’t. I can’t vote for a position I don’t understand. It is very important to me that you explain exactly how the alternative functions, what a world of the alternative looks like, and how the alternative resolves the links. That means that solvency isn’t a good time to just throw out jargon and be vague/generic. On the aff, I feel like K affs are a legitimate strategy. Resolutions often only seek to reform or uphold structures that are oppressive to large populations of people. For this reason, I understand why people feel uncomfortable defending the state; however, don’t think that just because I am sympathetic to the importance of the K Aff that I will ignore a well articulate Framework argument. Justify why your framework comes first and why there is not a topical version of the aff you are running.   Performance Arguments: If you want to run a performance based position that’s fine, but I don’t love positions where the performance itself is the advocacy. If you are running a performance, please give me a concrete advocacy or statement of method to vote for. Someone sharing their narrative, poetry, or performing requires an amount of vulnerability that is not usually present in a debate round. It is important to honor that vulnerability and recognize that their narrative specifically isn’t up for debate (like, don’t be that person that impact turns a narrative). A narrative can garner some unique solvency but to vote for/against someone on the basis of their narrative and its specific ability to solve feels like a unique form of ontological violence. A concrete advocacy makes the debate about the method and not about the person and both gives the other team access to method based offense and doesn’t put the judge in a position where their ballot affirms or denies the ontological existence of a debater.   Topicality: T is fun. Don’t be afraid of T. I default to competing interpretations, but am open to other ways to frame the position. I believe that T is always A-priori (in a straight up debate) but I still want you to say it. I don’t need articulated abuse but it does make the argument a lot more persuasive.   Theory/Procedurals: I don’t have a lot of predispositions on theory. I am up for pretty much any theory you might want to run and should be relatively unbiased when evaluating it. For things like SPECS my threshold is a little bit higher. It becomes harder for me to vote for these arguments if there is no articulated abuse.   CP’s: I understand why cheater CP’s are super abusive, but I also think they are really fun. I think it is probably important that a team be able to defend the entirety of their aff, including the timeframe, actor, and each part of the bill, but I also understand how difficult it is to generate offense against these positions. PICS, delay, and consult are all fine to run in front of me, but be ready for the theory debate.

Carlos Ampuero - Saddleback

n/a

Chris Zarceno - El Camino

Claire Crossman - CSULA

n/a

Daniel Noriega - CSULA

n/a

Danny Cantrell - Mt SAC

n/a

David Hale - ELAC

n/a

Dewi Hokett - Palomar

Elisha Henry - CBU

n/a

Emily Shaffer - NAU

Emily Shaffer NPDA Judging Philosophy   Whatever Caitlyn Burford said. But also:   I believe the debate space belongs to the competitors and shouldn’t be dictated by what I used to run as a debater. You should run what you’re best at and/or what you care most about. I don’t believe in rules, which means you’re going to have to justify your procedural arguments (probably applies more to LD than parli). I am comfortable with whatever position you want to run. Speed is fine, as long as it isn’t used as a tool of exclusion. Give me a clear weighing mechanism, and I will vote where you tell me to vote. Most of my judging philosophy is contextual to the round being run. You should be kind to your opponents and conscious of the language you’re using in round. Unless otherwise told I will prioritize animal life over human life.

Emily Crosby - Concordia

Eric Garcia - IVC

Frank Masi - El Camino

Ged Valenzuela - PLNU

I am open to whatever you want to do, the round is yours as long as you can justify why I should prefer viewing the round in your way.     I do not like doing work for competitors, so please extend your arguments in your rebuttals.  Otherwise I will just go off who dropped the most arguments, and that is never fun.   With regards to topicality and procedurals, I don't need proven in-round abuse, but it definitely works in your favor.   I enjoy hearing kritikal arguments, but I especially like when teams emphasize their links and articulate how their opponent's arguments specifically interact with yours.    Be kind to your opponents.

Grant Tovmasian - Rio

The most important criteria for me is impartiality. I will avoid interceding on any one's behalf up to a point.  Please remember that although I approach the round as impartial as I can, that does not negate the truth, I still am aware which country I live in and who is the president and killing puppies is wrong (also kicking them, and just violence in general, I frown upon)      I expect all debaters to remain cordial and professional throughout the round. The decorum is important so as not to isolate or offend any student. Debate albeit adversarial in nature should be based on arguments and not a personal attack and as such, each student should perceive this as a safe place to express ideas and arguments. I prefer good on case argumentation over near useless procedural that are simply run in order to avoid on case thorough analysis. As such I am a believer that presentation and sound argumentation is critical towards establishing one's position.  DA vs Advantages. CP vs Plan are all sound strategies and I hope students will use them.           I firmly believe that speed kills, as such the first team that uses it as an offensive or defensive tactic will get a loss in that round. Critics, i.e. K are to be run only when one or the other side believes that it is more important than whatever else is happening and is directly connected to either the actions of the other team or resolution in it of itself. As such, they should be willing to commit to it wholeheartedly and most important at the top of everything. For example, if you truly believe that the other team is promoting cultural genocide, seriously do not speak to me about agricultural benefits or disadvantages of the plan first, because then I think you cheapen both the critique and your whole line of argumentation.  If permutation can happen in the real world it can happen in a debate round. If you are running a CP please make sure to explain its status, especially if you are to claim dispositional (EXPLAIN) Please call Points of Order and 95% of the time I will respond with (point well taken, point not well taken) That aside, I am open to any line of argumentation as long as it is complete. Example: I will not do your work for you, no link no argument, no impact no argument, no warrant NO ARGUMENT PERIOD. I want to hear fun, constructive and polite debates. Have fun and let the best team win. (I always prefer cordial and educational rounds with elements of quick wit and persuasive argumentation over Nuclear Holocaust, which I really do not care for, especially when it results because of US not buying used car parts from Uruguay.)

Gray Levine - SMC

n/a

Haley Courtney - PLNU

I competed for Point Loma Nazarene University for 3 years and have been judging and coaching at Point Loma for 3 years.  First and foremost, this is your debate round and I will listen to anything if you can show me why it is relevant to the round. I love learning, so even if it is a position I am not familiar with, I will always do my very best to engage your arguments.   I like procedurals and have no problem voting on them if they are run well. I’m down with rules of the game. If you’re breaking them, tell me why it’s okay to do so. If the other team is breaking the rules in a way that makes it impossible for you to engage in the round, please tell me about it.   I do like Kritiks. I will listen to them and engage them, but I will not fill in the blanks for you while you run them.  I really appreciate knowing that teams genuinely care about the positions they are running, and this especially comes out in criticisms. It bothers me when critical discussions are devalued or dismissed in rounds because teams refuse to try to engage. That being said, I understand that debate is a game, but I also would really love that if you’re running something, it matters to you. That’s just a personal preference.  Just like in a straight up round, if I don’t understand how your criticism works or why it links, or most importantly, how you are actually gaining any solvency (in round or otherwise, just depends what you’re going for), I won’t vote on it. If there is no obvious link, you’ll probably have to work a little harder to convince me of your ability to have that particular discussion in that particular round, but don’t let that stop you from going for it.   That being said, I really value creativity and strategy. Have fun with debate. No matter what you run, critical or straight up, impact weigh. If you’re going to run an out of the ordinary position, just explain why it matters and how to vote on it. Show me why you’re winning in a tangible way. Impact calculus is super important. Tell me exactly where and why I should be voting for you.     Speed: I’m cool with speed. I have no problem keeping up with speed, but you need to be clear. If I can’t physically hear/understand you, I’ll let you know, but if I or the other team has to clear you and you make no change, it’s irritating. At that point, I can’t get all your arguments because I literally don’t know what you’re saying. Don’t use speed to exclude your opponents.   That being said, pay attention to my nonverbals; I’m expressive, I can’t help it. Mostly, I really want to know and understand what you’re talking about! If I don’t understand your argument initially, I will probably look at you while processing it and trying to understand it. Use that to your advantage, just clarify briefly.   Finally, please read me your plan text, counterplan text, or alt text at least twice so that I can get it down. It is extremely hard for me to weigh arguments being made for or against a particular text if I don’t know what you are doing. If you want to write me a copy, that would be cool, too.

Hannah Haghighat - OCC

Harrison Shieh - El Camino

Isaiah Washington - CBU

n/a

Jabeen Haque - El Camino

Jackson Spencer - CSULA

n/a

Jasmine McLeod - Mt SAC

n/a

Jim Wyman - Moorpark

n/a

Jimmy Gomez - OCC

Joe Faina - LAVC

n/a

Jonathan Veal - PLNU

Basics   -- Take at least one question during constructive speeches. -- I prefer unconditional arguments and I will listen to conditionality bad arguments. -- Have a copy of the text for advocacies and perms and repeat them at least once. -- I recommend your advocacy engage the topic in some fashion. If you do not, you need justification for why the issue you are discussing comes prior to the resolution and prove there is not a topical version of the aff.   -- Avoid delay, time travel and any other artificially competitive counterplans. -- Points of information check back against most spec arguments. -- I enjoy seeing K arguments and policy based arguments alike. Just treat me as if I am not steeped in the lit of whatever argument you’re making. (I am probably not)     I am a second year Graduate Student at SDSU studying communication and rhetoric. I was a competitor for four years in parliamentary debate on the national circuit at Concordia University. I spent a year coaching debate at the high school before rejoining the college circuit.   I should be fine with the speed your comfortable speaking at, but I value clarity first. I will be sympathetic to teams sitting across from an incredibly unclear or disorganized debater even if I am familiar with the argument. On theory I default to competing interpretations. Debate is a game but games are not fun or useful without clear limits. Competing interpretations allows me to determine those limits. With criticisms, please be clear on what the alternative does. Additionally be clear on the links of the K so I can evaluate a debate with clash. K’s without links will likely lose to the perm. For affirmative K’s use your advocacy to affirm the topic in some way or explain how your K is prior question to the resolution. Debate is inherently performative and I will not discriminate on the nature of that performance. If you have something unique to bring to the table I am willing to listen. If anything I am partial to critical arguments.     Disadvantages are great. I want to see disads with strong uniqueness claims and reasonable impacts. Don’t say, “…the economy collapses and nuc war kills us all.” Explain your scenarios thoroughly. Also I have a high threshold on tix scenarios. Make sure there is a specific election or bill that is actually on the docket and explain it thoroughly. Counterplans are cool as long as they are competitive and the timeframe is now. I enjoy the perm debate. Also, perms are a test of competition and a bad perm is a reason to reject the argument, not the team. Have fun and ask any questions you may have.

Joseph Evans - El Camino

~~About me: I have been involved in forensics for 10 years. I debated HS LD for 2 years, and then 4 years of college parli debate at UCLA. I coached at CSULB while in graduate school, and I am now currently the assistant coach at El Camino College. I view debate as a game of intellect, and therefore I believe that any method of debate is viable when used as a strategic ploy to win. I will try to list my views on the major themes within debate. The way I evaluate the round: I tend to fall back to evaluating the round through the eyes of a policy maker. Unless I am told otherwise, I tend to fall back on Net Benefits. This means that I will evaluate the arguments based on how clear the impacts are weighed for me (probability, timeframe, and magnitude). I will however evaluate the round based on how you construct your framework. If (for example) you tell me to ignore the framework of Net Benefits for an ethics based framework... I will do so. On the flip side, I will also listen to arguments against framework from the Neg. You win the framework if you provide me clear warranted arguments for your position, and weigh out why your framework is best. Speed: I am usually a fast debater and thus I believe that speed is a viable way of presenting as much evidence as possible within the time alloted. I can flow just about anything and I'm confident that you can not out flow me from the round. That being said, I value the use of speed combined with clarity. If you are just mumbling your way through your speech, I won't be able to flow you. While I won't drop you for the act of being unclear... I will not be able to get everything on the flow (which I am confident is probably just as bad). Counter Plans: I will listen to any CP that is presented as long as it is warranted. In terms of CP theory arguments... I understand most theory and have been known to vote on it. All I ask is for the theory argument to be justified and warranted out (this also goes for perm theory on the aff). Topicality: I have a medium threshold for T. I will evaluate the position the same as others. I will look at the T the way the debaters in the round tell me. I don’t have any preference in regards reasonability vs. competing interps. You run T the way your see fit based on the round.  Additionally, I have an extremely high threshold for "RVIs". If the neg decides to kick out of the position, I usually don't hold it against them. I will vote on T if the Aff makes a strategic mistake (it is an easy place for me to vote). Kritical Arguments: I believe that any augment that is present is a viable way to win. Kritical arguments fall into that category. I am well versed in many of the theories that most critical arguments are based in. Therefore if you run them i will listen to and vote on them as long as they are well justified. I will not vote on blips as kritical arguments. Framework: I will listen to any alt framework that is presented ( narrative, performance, kritical Etc.) If you decide to run a different framework that falls outside the norm of debate... you MUST justify the framework. Evidence: Have it (warranted arguments for parli)! Rudeness: don't be rude!

Juan Victorio - El Camino

Juan Guerrero - Rio

Kelly Christerson - PLNU

n/a

Kevin Briancesco - LAVC

n/a

Kristina Ewing - Moorpark

n/a

Liberty Fuchs - SMC

n/a

Maia Gaboian - LAVC

n/a

Matt Grisat - CBU

n/a

Matt Doty - El Camino

Michael Kalustian - LACC

n/a

Monica Roldan - Concordia

Nate Brown - SMC

As a professor of communication studies, I approach all competitive events as communication events. Speak well. Speak clearly. Be organized, and control your vocal fillers. Focus on manner as well as matter if you want to win. For parli, I often find Topicality arguments to be a waste of time. They should not be run unless there is a very good reason, and too often I find the reasons for T to be poor. I want the round to be on topic as much as possible. I was not a competitive debater myself, so I likely have less expeirence with the terminology, strategies, and expectations than other judges. Given that, don't be afraid to dumb it down for me. Use the debate to teach me how to be a debate judge. I can't flow when a speaker talks unreasonably fast. Spreading doesn't work on me. Make good arguments, not many arguments. <a href="http://homepage.smc.edu/brown_nate/">http://homepage.smc.edu/brown_nate/</a>

Neal Stewart - Moorpark

n/a

Nelson Schwartz - SMC

n/a

Nicholas Thomas - Palomar

Nick Matthews - Cerritos College

Hello! I am a full-time coach at Cerritos College. I debated in both high school and college for eight years, and I have been coaching at the college level for the past five years. Here are a few important things to know when I am judging you: 1) I am partly deaf and wear hearing aids, so I will probably sit towards the front of the room. Please speak up a bit and speak at a conversational pace of speed. Otherwise, I may not be able to flow all of your arguments. 2) I am fine with all types of arguments—DAs, CPs, Ks, procedurals, etc.—as long as they are well-executed and well-explained. The caveat: if your argument is particularly novel or if I have never heard it before, I will be less confident in my understanding and evaluation of it. This goes for both kritiks and obscure politics disads. "You haven't explained _______ well enough" is a line that frequently appears in my RFDs.  3) I like to read about what's happening in the world. Since knowledge is subjective, I try to minimize the influence of my reading on my evaluation of your arguments, but I definitely have a bias against arguments which rely on faulty factual premises. 4) An argument consists of three parts: a claim, support, and an implication. The last of these is very important. Why does your argument matter? What is the impact? How does it relate to other arguments? How should it influence my evaluation of the debate? Debaters who directly answer these questions are far more likely to win. Don't leave them up to me to resolve.  5) Similarly, you should focus on comparative evaluations of arguments in your rebuttals. It is insufficient to win that an argument is valid; you also have to prove that it is preferable in some way to what your opponent argued. Focus on argumentative depth over breadth. Narrowing the debate down to a few key issues and kicking out of less important arguments is always a smart play. 6) I am nonverbally expressive as a judge, so pay attention to me. If you see me nodding, you're probably saying something smart and you should emphasize it. If I look skeptical about your argument, I probably am. Use this information appropriately.  If you have more specific questions, I am always happy to answer them before the round. Good luck, and don't forget to have fun!

Nick Matthews - El Camino

Patricia Hughes - Rio

I have 3 years of experience in CC Parli and IPDA debate. I also have minimal experience in impromptu and extempt. I am a graduate student at CSUF and an assistant coach in debate. I am preferential to well warranted, and impacted arguments. When weighing a round, I look first at stock issues, then weigh the clash on the advantage vs disadvantage, using the judging criteria. I like clear analysis of the functionality of each position (plan/counter plan/advantage/disadvantage). Simply put, explain how your warrants lead to your impacts on the advantage/disadvantage. Also explain how your impacts happen, and what your impacts mean. Terminalize, but only use nuclear war or mass extinction if it is actually warranted. On plan/counter plan, explain each plank, how the plan functions (works), and how it is going to solve the issue at hand. Fiat is not clear analysis. Counter plans should have a clear explanation of mutual exclusivity. Permutations should have a new plan text with both plan and counter plan, with an explanation of how they work together. I also have a soft spot for clearly articulated significance arguments. Also, make sure to call out points of order.             When it comes to theory arguments, use them sparingly. Procedurals are useful tools when stock issues are not met by Aff. Call topicalities and trichotomies when the Aff is not upholding their prima facia burdens. Do not run procedurals as a time skew tactic, or as an argument used in every round. I take the rules of debate seriously. Abusing these arguments will not end well for you. When running a procedural, I am looking for clear articulation of the violation, standards, and impacted voters; as well as counter definitions. I do consider RVI arguments; however, they should include counter standards and voters. I am not a fan of K’s; however, this is your round. If you choose to run a K, make sure you are able to clearly explain the theory, the roll of the ballot/alt, and clearly define what ground the other team has within the round. If I find the K to be exclusionary of the other team, I will vote against it. There should also be a clear link to the K and the resolution. Also, make sure not to bite into your own K. I judge K’s harshly due to their nature of calling precedence in a round. For K’s that are completely off topic from the resolution, I will highly consider arguments of disclosure; however, you do still need to interact with the K to the best of your ability.              I have a moderate tolerance for speed; however, I am not a fan of it. I like clear and articulate arguments. I believe speed is a useless tool that is irrelevant to everyday life. Again, this is your round. Before the round begins, I will ask if both teams agree to spread. If there is not an agreement, I will drop the first team to spread. If there is an agreement, be forewarned, if I put my pen down, I can no longer understand your arguments. I pay close attention to calls of slow/clear/speed. If any of the above are called, and the teams it is called against does not slow or improve articulation, they will be dropped.             I prefer fun, topical rounds; with articulated, well warranted and impacted case arguments. While I understand the beast of competition, there is no need to be rude. I will vote down a team if they are exceptionally rude or condescending. There is no need to belittle the other team; it does not prove your intelligence. Bullying is unacceptable and poor sportsmanlike.

Pauline Peterson - SMC

n/a

Raffaela Baker - OCC

Rebecca Liu - SMC

n/a

Renee Orton - MSJC

n/a

Roger Willis-Raymondo - Mt SAC

n/a

Rolland Petrello - Moorpark

n/a

Roxan Arntson - Mt SAC

n/a

Sean Connor - OCC

Shawn O'Rourke - Saddleback

n/a

Sierra Abram - El Camino

Steve Robertson - Palomar

Sung Choi - SMC

n/a

Ted Atteberry SR. - SUA

n/a

Twee Pham - OCC

Tyler Kline - Saddleback

n/a

Victor Akioyame - CBU

n/a

Vivian Amezcua - El Camino

I'm willing to listen to any type of argument you feel the need to present. I think the intellectual freedom the activity encourages is important and hard to find elsewhere. Other than that, It is in your best interest to keep the debate as clear as possible for me on the flow. I flow by hand at times, and on computer by others, in both cases I appreciate knowing where you're going so I don't waste time switching between sheets and inevitably missing an argument. As a favor, I ask that you please tell me how to judge the debate. I hate being left at the end of the round trying to decide which argument outweighs with no one to guide me. This is easily preventable by explaining to me how things should be evaluated via your framework, criteria, voters, or just plain old impact calculus. You should also probably know that I default to competing interpretations on procedurals, but as long as you're clear, you can do what you want. Avoid saying offensive things about historically disadvantaged social groups, and we should be good. Good luck, have fun.

William Neesen - IVC

<h2>Bill Neesen - California State University-Long Beach</h2> <h3>Saved Philosophy:</h3>   Bill Neesen Cal. State Long Beach & Irvine Valley College Parli Debates judged this year: 40+ Non-Parli Debates judged this year: Policy 10+ Years Judging Debate: 15 Years Competed in Debate: 7 What School Competed at: Millard South/ OCC/CSU- Fullerton Making Decisions: 'My decision is based solely on how the debaters argue I should decide; I avoid using my own decision-making philosophy as much as possible. It is your round. choose how you want it to happen and then defend it.' Decision-making Approach: 'I really don t like any of the above. It is up to you and you can do whatever you want. I decide who wins based on what you say in the round. So it is up to you. ' Assessing Arguments: 'I am addicted to my flow but drops only become important if you tell me they were droped and why that makes them important.' Presentational Aspects: 'Speed is ok I would be amazed if you went faster than I can flow but if your not clear that might happen. I hate offensive rhetoric and if it gets bad so will your speaks. That is the one place I get to imput what I think and I love that.' Strong Viewpoints: 'No I see debate as a game. I have defended some pretty scarry shit. So I would not punish you for doing it but you better be able to defend it.' Cases, DAs, CPs, Ks, T, etc.: 'I like all of what is listed. My advice is to make some arguments and then defend them. I really don t care what they are.' Other Items to Note: 'I might have a higher threshold on T and similar args. I have also been told that I am a K hack even though I never ran them and was a CP debator. '

2017 Crossman Invitational