I debated for Dougherty Valley High School in LD in California. I now debate APDA for Penn. My views on debate and paradigm were influenced by Arjun Tambe (from who I took parts of this paradigm) and Kavin Kumaravel, so you should check out their paradigms. This paradigm is a work in progress, so please ask questions.

Add me on the email chain: vikramb03@gmail.com

General

• I want the debate space to be safe for all participants– if there’s anything I can do as a judge to help with that, please let me know, either before the round or by emailing me.

• On that note, I think that content warnings are important and should be used

• Good with speed (I will yell slow or clear if I can’t understand)

• offense/defense default, usually unconvinced by truth testing

• Not a fan of the presumption and permissibility debate, and paradoxes

• Not a fan of skep or extinction/death good

Defaults - not preferences you can change them if you make the argument

• Comp worlds

• Judge kick good

• Argument quality matters, not just the extent to which an argument is answered. Bad arguments are less likely to be true, and dropped arguments aren’t 100% true. Similarly, framework is impact calculus – it makes certain impacts more or less important, not the only impacts that matter.

• I love smart cross-apps and you don't need to do much work to justify why you get to c/a things from one flow to another

• I think Terminal defense exists

• Card clipping will result in a loss 20

DISCLOSURE

• If you open-source with highlighting, and have correct cites in the cite box, and show me before the RFD (after the 2AR), I will increase your speaks by 0.2

T/THEORY

• have good evidence with an intent to define and exclude, offensive/defensive caselists, etc.

• I won’t evaluate the debate before the 2ar even if a theory spike is dropped

• Default competing interps

• Not a fan of friv theory

• A good theory debate (i.e. going for it) justifies the risk of offense versus the risk of ‘over-punishment’ by voting on theory.

KRITIKS

• ideally my threshold for a good kritik is one that is as tailored to the aff as the aff is

• I like the security K because I dislike shoddy Affs with poor evidence quality

• I’m usually skeptical of pomo ks that aren’t tailored to the aff

• good K debate=having impacts for your links, having links to the plan (not necessary but recommended), knowing how the alt works, not being evasive in CX, not relying on framework to win you the round, doing impact calc and explaining why the K outweighs the case and not just saying util bad, and answering the case

• links of omission are rarely links and the perm resolves them

• I am very persuaded by particularity arguments (the Aff should make the debate about the Aff, not the K)

• I love when the aff/neg makes a smart double turn based on the underpinnings of the lit base

• ROB/ROJ is an empty term– you can answer the framing question without saying that exact phrase/having a counter ROB

• My threshold for voting on the K becomes substantially lower when alt solves case is explained

• I love topic-specific Ks with topic-specific links-- your speaks will be greatly rewarded for a smart strat

FRAMEWORK

• I find framework very convincing, especially movements, but also fairness. I find it hard to ever vote for something that advocates as unfairness as something good

• Have a good TVA

K AFFS

• My favorite type of K aff is one that critically examines the topic and critiques in the 1ac why the topic is insufficient, as opposed to generic K affs that critique debate as a whole and affs that aren’t a critique of any system but only a counter-methodology.

• K affs need to explain the tangible benefits of voting aff

• I have voted against framework many times, and the best responses in my opinion are ones that get to the heart of the FW debate, about which discourse is best. I dislike ‘tricky’ K answers to FW, like “limits is a prison” or having 5 CIs like “your def plus our aff”.

• K affs have a higher burden of defending everything in the aff– this includes pics of parts of their philosophy and word pics

• K affs need to prove why they get perms

PHIL/NCs

• Generally convinced by util

• NCs are very confusing to me and I rarely think they hold merit.

• NCs need a CP or sufficient case defense

TRICKS

• I dislike trixs. I think they skirt clash and are bad for debate

dv '18

arguments need warrants (so read many good cards). warrants should make sense (so good analytics > bad cards). warrants should also be extended properly (so I don't have to read your cards just to understand your argument). the threshold for adequately responding to an argument is determined by the quality of its warrants.

"[new/inexperienced debaters] - don't worry about any of the [below]. you do you, and I'll try my best to adapt" - Daniel Luo (official 5head).

general things:

default util, drop the arg/reasonability, no rvis, epistemic modesty

please do impact calculus and judge instruction. otherwise I will disappoint you (and annihilate your speaks) and then everyone is sad

stop reading terrible theory arguments.

if you split the 2nr I'm only evaluating the strat that loses

won't judge kick unless you say "the status quo is always an option" or something along those lines. unless you split your 2nr, then I'm judge kicking the counterplan that would've won the round.

no such thing as 0% risk but there is such a thing as risk low enough to be irrelevant

link turn on the DA doesn't require the aff to win uniqueness (because if that were true uniqueness would overwhelm the link), but winning uniqueness puts the link turn argument in a better place

read defense with an impact turn or like at least do impact calculus please (also I like impact turns)

durable fiat solves "trump doesn't do the aff" but not "local governments don't enforce the plan"

most schools don't fund debate so stop acting like that's the only reason education matters.

k affs get perms

if your satire aff isn't funny it doesn't solve and I'll presume neg after the 1ac

ks need links more nuanced than state bad and affs need answers more nuanced than state good

k rotb are bad and you shouldn't need one to win (doesn't mean you concede util, just don't overrely on totally excluding aff offense)

if the 2nr on framework says "tva+risk of limits da" there's a solid 95% chance I'll negate

tech over truth

here are my thoughts on things:

very true:

oppression bad

existentialism

nibs bad

plans good (also don't read plans bad)

object fiat bad (e.g. advantage is china war and cp is "china doesn't go to war")

the perm in most kvk debates with an aff that isn't just a 6 min impact turn to framework

probably true but beatable:

hege bad

cap bad

nuke war causes extinction

framework vs k affs

>2 condo bad (1 condo cp is 1 condo, 1 cp w 7 individually condo planks is way more than 7 condo)

probably untrue but winnable:

hege good

cap good

trump irreparably wrecked soft power

sketchy impact turns (dedev, co2 ag)

that politics disad you haven't updated since camp

<= 2 condo bad

very untrue:

lib (unless you are a traditional debater, any attempt must include a robust answer to Sen's paradox or it isn't a complete argument)

bad/friv theory (afc, aspec on usfg topics, font size)

any counterplan theory I haven't already mentioned read as a reason to drop the debater

anything you would want to read as a spike

"limits are a prison"

plans bad (or any T interp w a caselist only including whole res)

speaks

avg is 28.5

29.5+ if you hold a solid zizek impression the whole round [number of people who have done this is higher than expected as of 2/17/2020] (and if you're rly good ig)

29-29.4 if your speech makes arjun's astral projection watching over my shoulder cry tears of joy

28-28.9 if you make minor (but still loss-worthy) mistakes

26-27.9 if you highkey screwed up

loss 19 for clipping (claim stops round, need recording of speech, and all the other stuff everyone else says)

loss 0 for being explicitly racist/sexist/etc.

Hi! My name’s Tanaya, and I competed in PF for 4 years on the nat circuit for Dougherty Valley.

I’ll look to flow first (tech over truth). If however you’re rude/do something offensive, I will tank speaks and likely drop you. Please make the round a safe space!

A few quick things:

1. Defense doesn’t have to be in the first summary unless the second rebuttal frontlines.
2. Second rebuttal doesn’t have to necessarily frontline, but I definitely think it’s strategic to do so.
3. I have minimal experience (at best) with arguments not run in traditional PF (theory, Ks, etc.) That being said, if you want to run such arguments in round, make sure you explain them well and I’ll try my absolute best to evaluate them fairly.
4. Please weigh! Don’t blip extensions! Otherwise I’ll have to weigh for y’all and that may not work out the way y’all want it to.
5. I’ll only call for cards if it’s significant to the round, if I’m asked to call for it, or if I think it may be power-tagged or misconstrued. If it does happen to be the last one, however, I will strike it from my flow.
6. I value good presentation and strategy, and will be starting speaks at 28.5.
7. If you have any additional questions, feel free to find me after round or shoot me a message on messenger!

Have fun! :)

Hi! I'm a first year at UChicago and did PF for 4 years at Dougherty Valley High School. My pronouns are she/her/hers. Pls add me to the email chain at rbindlish.29@gmail.com Super quick run down for you: I’m a flow judge (that being said, I don’t really have experience with theory and Ks, so it is probably in your best interest not to run them) who highly prioritizes inclusivity- if you say anything/make arguments that are racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc I will vote you down even if you are winning the debate. Debate should be fun and it only is when it is educational and safe for everyone participating! More specifics are below. Feel free to message me on facebook/email me if you have any questions!

Big things

1. Collapse!! This makes it easier for both of us when you don’t go for every argument in the round:)
2. Weigh- this can even start in rebuttal, but makes it easier for me as a judge to vote. If you don’t tell me which arguments I have to prioritize, I have to make that choice myself.
3. Clear extensions (only extending your impact is not an extension). Warrant out the most important arguments you’re going for in every speech
4. Second rebuttal should frontline 1st rebuttal +respond to their opponents case. 1st summary doesn’t have to repeat defense that hasn’t been responded to

Evidence:

• Please read cut cards in constructive, not paraphrased evidence
• I will probably call for important/contested pieces of evidence at the end of the round —> if your evidence doesn’t say what you said it did, I will intervene
• Don’t do weird debater math/blow things out of proportion —> if x increases by 1 to 2, don’t say there was a 100% increase in x without saying the sample size

Crossfire:

• Please be civil in grand cross! It’s very useless but majority of the time that’s just because there are 4 debaters screaming at each other
• Don’t exclude people because you want to appear dominant —> try and make it as educational /clarifying for you as possible!
• Besides that, I don’t evaluate crossfire so if you made an important point, bring it up in a speech

Speaker points:

• These are based on what you say more than how you say it
• Being unnecessarily rude and toxic in round will tank your speaks
• Being funny, good weighing and warranting, being respectful are all ways to boost your speaks

I am experienced with speech events, but I do not have experience with policy debate. Regardless, I will prioritize the substance and development of the debate in order to be an impartial judge.

Made some edits for novice nats lol. I've competed on this topic and probably know the args ur reading. I've competed for about 2 years on nat circ, no real creds tho.

IMPORTANT: Win and weigh the links before the impact scenarios. Take time to break down warrant level clash. Second rebuttal at the very least needs to address turns. Collapse the debate in summary.

Extensions: links + impacts must be in both final focus and summary. Signpost and gimme an off-time roadmap.

Speed: I can handle speed to a certain extent, but it runs the risk of me missing something on the flow. If the round gets too fast for me, I'll clear.

Speaks: Everyone starts at a 28 and then goes up or down. Depends on the concision and strat decisions made in summary and ff.

Homophobic/racist/sexist= tanked speaks and auto dropped ballot

Rude=tanked speaks

Wear what u want, I hate heels too.

Crossfire: idrc put it in a speech

Evidence: The time cap on searching for evidence is 2 minutes. If it isn't found by then I'm striking the card on my flow. If I call for a card, a couple things could have happened

1) Someone in Summary/ff directly asked me to call for it, and it was crucial to the ballot. If I read the evidence and decide it's bad, (misconstrued but not doctored) I won't evaluate it or the argument it made on the flow

2) I'm stealing the card

3) The card is sketch, I'm calling to see if it's doctored. If there's no violation look at 2). If there is a violation (the card's clipped) I'm dropping you and your speaks. PF already has terrible evidence ethics, please don't be a part of that problem.

Dougherty Valley '19 | UC Davis '23 | keshavharanath@gmail.com

I competed for 4 years in mainly Circuit Congress and Extemporaneous Speaking but I have also dabbled in Impromptu.

CONGRESS PARADIGM:

For Speakers:

In a Nutshell: The more memorable (for better) that you are, the higher you will rank.

Congress is a debate event. Unless you are presenting an authorship or sponsorship speech, clash/refutation is a must. I believe that the later you speak in round, the more important refutation becomes. This doesn't mean that you have to refute all minor and major arguments. Rather, the later you present in round, the more I think you have the burden of selectively and strategically refuting. I am a big fan of speakers who crystallize near the end of the round so if you are speaking last or near last, a good crystallization speech is a solid path to getting a higher rank.

When presenting evidence/analysis, a good rule of thumb is to explain relationships as articulately as you can. It is your job, not mine to ensure that your speech makes sense. If I can't understand the logic in your arguments, I won't spend time to try and figure them out. Hard evidence (statistics etc.) from reliable sources is always preferred to anecdotal evidence.

Good one-liners and rhetoric are always appreciated :)

Be as aggressive as you want. I will never judge your speaking style as being too "emotional" or sappy - I care far more about what you are saying than how you are saying it. Just remember that being aggressive does not entail insulting people straight up to their faces.

TL;DR - If you make it easy for me to give you the 1, I will give you the 1.

For Presiding Officers:

If you are fast, fair, efficient and don't make any major errors, you are guaranteed a top 5 rank. If you are exceptional, you are guaranteed a top 3 rank.

PUBLIC FORUM PARADIGM:

I'm not super experienced with PuFo but have judged a few rounds before. Here is my take:

Make sure your arguments are clear and have strong links and properly cited evidence. I do value presentation heavily when evaluating speaks, but will also factor strength and creativity of arguments.

"People have become educated, but have not yet become human.” - Abdul Sattar Edhi.

TLDR;

Do whatever you want, but do impact calculus.

A Little About Me:

I competed for Dougherty Valley High School between 2015 to 2019 in Public Forum and Extemp. It's been a number of years since I was involved in the debate space and I'm sure PF has changed since I left. I am generally okay with any type of argument, but I have limited experience with K's and Theory. You will benefit if you slow down while presenting these types of arguments.

Specific To Stanford 2024:

I am fine with spreading but I would highly prefer you email speech docs to your judge beforehand.

On The Juicy Stuff.

I am a Tabula Rasa (Clean Slate) judge so I will believe anything you tell me, but it needs to be warranted. I try to limit my judge intervention as much as I can, however, I won't be afraid to intervene is if there is no impact calculus in the round. Other than that, I'm fine with any type of argument you throw at me, and you can speak as fast as you want.

I will try to be a visible judge so if I start shaking my head maybe don't go for that argument, but if I am nodding that's probably a good sign. I use my computer to flow. I will yell clear if it is too fast, but my threshold is pretty good, but if you want to full-on spread please flash me the speech doc so I know whats going on.

Tech > Truth.

Time Yourselves.

I evaluate framework and overviews right on top. I love it when I know what impacts are going to be the most important, and which impacts I should prefer. This helps you organize and helps me understand what the narrative of your team is. I love, love, love overviews/underviews and think they make Public Forum Debate interesting.

Please sign post, especially in Summary and Final Focus.

Whatever is in Final Focus must be in Summary, however I am totally ok with you extending defense from rebuttal to final focus if you are the first speaking team. This is because I believe that Public Forum Debate is structurally disadvantaged for the first speaking team. That means first summary obviously needs to have all your offense. I will literally stop flowing if the argument in Final Focus is not in Summary.

I love it so much when teams collapse into two to three issues in Final Focus. I love it when teams blow up impacts in Summary and Final Focus and use the ends of their speeches to do Impact Calculus. This is really important, I NEED good impact calculus to evaluate who I vote for. I need to know why you win on things like Probability, Magnitude, or Time-Frame and I need to know why those are more important than what your opponents are going for. If you don't know what impact calc is do some reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_calculus

I award speaks based on how you speak, and how you conduct yourself in cross. If you are blatantly rude, offensive, racist, sexist, etc. I will not be afraid to vote you down and nuke your speaks.

I will always call for evidence if you tell me to call for it. I am bad at remembering tags, but I definitely call for cards.

PLEASE FOLLOW NSDA/CHSSA (Depending on the tourney) EVIDENCE RULES AND HAVE EVIDENCE ETHICS. I need to hear author last name and date in the speech, otherwise its just rhetoric.

On other arguments. I'm totally ok with things like K's, Theory, whatever else but do know that I personally have minimal experience with K's or theory shells so I will need these types of args to be well warranted and explained.

If you have ANY questions about my paradigm or my decisions please do not be afraid to ask.

If you are funny and not offensive, I'll probably up your speaks.

Good Luck!

Also I think the way that I view debate is very similar to Shreyas Kiran, so check out his paradigm if you are bored.

Email me at TheSaadJamal@gmail.com if you have any questions.

Dougherty Valley '20

Email: shravan.konduru4@gmail.com

Debated in LD for 3 years. I have also been to a few policy tournaments.

Hard and Fast Rules

-You must disclose or give cites to me upon request.
-You must make your speech doc during prep time.
-You must be willing to email or flash cases. If your opponent does not have a laptop you must have a viewing computer, pass pages, or lend your opponent your laptop.
-Card clipping or evidence ethics violations result in a loss-20. If you think your opponent has done either of these things, stop the round for an ethics challenge.
-You must have proper cites for your cards (including author name, publication date if available, and source at the least). I will disregard evidence that lacks proper citations.
-Please avoid adding brackets to your evidence. I would prefer if you remove them or at least restrict them to tense, punctuation, and offensive language.

General Beliefs
-I won't vote on arguments I didn't flow, and args I didn't understand will take a very minimal explanation to beat back

-CX is important

-Not a fan of tricks

-Theory: I have a high threshold for voting on theory. There needs to be a substantial violation of fairness and education. My defaults are no RVI, competing interp, and drop the debater. 1 Conditional advocacy is okay, but more than that would make it easier for me to vote for a condo theory shell if read. I think T can be a strategic argument and are sometimes fun debates to watch. There should be a lot if evidence comparison and should be thoroughly impacted out in terms of how the world of your opponent's interp operates and why thats bad.

-Counterplans and disads: My favorite form of debate. Make sure the disad link chain is clear and is impacted out well. Impact calc is very important in the NR. For counterplans, make sure you articulate well why it's competitive and preferable to the affirmative. I don't judge kick, unless I am told to do so.

Kritiks: Not my favorite type of argument to read or debate. If you are comfortable with it, go ahead and read it, but make sure you explain each part of the kritik without trying to flood your opponent with complex jargon. I am not too familiar with different k lit, so it might be in your best interest to limit the k's you read to common ones.

hello! i did pf and currently coach at dougherty valley high school. the tldr is that i'm a flow judge and i really prioritize rounds being educational, inclusive, and fun, but the specifics are below. if you have questions or need anything, let me know or reach out through facebook/email!

- first and foremost, be a nice person! racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, elitism, and exclusion in general suck and i have zero tolerance for it. please also include content warnings for arguments when necessary

- the keys to my ballot are collapsing, proper extensions, and weighing/comparative analysis — i love love love when when weighing is prioritized and treated like any other argument that needs warranting and clash

- second rebuttal should at least respond to all offensive arguments from first rebuttal; first summary doesn't have to repeat defense that wasn’t previously frontlined

- i care a lot about properly representing evidence and will intervene here if necessary — i also like when people read cut cards instead of paraphrasing

- progressive arguments are fine/welcomed as long as you don’t debate them in an exclusionary way, but i have limited experience debating them so please explain things

- i start speaks at a baseline of 28.5 and predominantly base them on technical skill, but they will be higher if you don't paraphrase or if you make the round more interesting and fun!

- add me to the email chain: vivikuang8052@gmail.com

good luck and have fun!

Dougherty Valley '19

The Ohio State University '23

Add me to the email Chain: lee.8871@osu.edu

he/they

If you are comfortable, please email me a speech doc before each speech. It makes judging so much easier especially on zoom :)

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

FOR yale,

haven't judged in lowkey a minute, be kind. Haven't judged on the topic either so i'm not too familiar with the literature, cards, etc. If there is a problem, make it clear, if an argument doesn't make sense, tell me why.

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

I competed nationally in PF and Extemp in HS, did a bit of Congress and LD as well.

I am tabula Rasa, and I'll vote on anything.
I try really hard to be non-interventional, but with more and more debaters reading scripts instead of cards, etc. I've grown the habit of calling for cards to confirm statements made by debaters.

In general:

I like warranted arguments. In fact, I would buy a strong Warranted and logical argument over an argument backed my evidence any day. Although I'll vote on anything, this is just how I evaluate it. I really enjoy impact calculus and would like to see that starting to be set up in Summary and maybe even in rebuttal. Just be really clear and extend your links cleanly.

I believe that 2nd Rebuttal should frontline, at least that's what I always did. I think it is a better competitive choice for 2nd Speaking team. At least touch the major offensive points of the case.

I am open to any critical argument and theory; however, I HATE frivolous theory. While I Think debate is a game, I do believe that public forum was an event made to be accessible to all as LD and policy became more progressive. That being said, go for it but proceed at your own caution.

Go as fast as you want, I'll tell you if you're going too fast. but for zoom, go slower.

Speaks depends on my mood. I won't ever go lower than a 27 for national rounds unless you give me a reason to tho.

Wear what you want, I just care about what you say (although I will include feedback for future lay rounds)

MY PARADIGM is also very similar to Saad Jamals:)

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=70840

Don't be afraid to ask Questions before the round because I know this Paradigm is short, but don't overcomplicate it!

Varsity LD debater at Dougherty Valley High School

Yes, I want to be on the email chain: s.mundres12@gmail.com

Top Level:

-Don't shake my hand

-you must add me and your opponent to the email chain

-I only evaluate arguments on my flow which are sufficiently warranted.

-I will be sad if you go for a blip in the 2nr/2ar

-Card clipping = auto loss and 20 speaks. If you feel your opponent is clipping stop the round and notify me immediately. NOTE: You will take the L with 20 speaks if you falsely accuse your opponent of clipping

-All cards must be properly cited.

-Tech > Truth

-Voting on presumption is stupid

-I am open to hearing nontopical affs, but lean more towards T-Framework.

-2ar/2nr impact calc is not a new arg

-2ar cards are legitimate only if responding to new 2nr args

-I am okay with speed. I will call clear 3 times, after that I will start decreasing speaks

-I start at 28 and go up/down. I will boost your speaks .3 if you roast Harvard Westlake. I will also boost speaks if you make me laugh. 30 speaks if you bring me food.

Theory:

-I definitely have a lower threshold compared to other judges

-Interp/Violation must be very clear.

-I default CI, Yes RVI, and drop the debater. I can be easily persuaded otherwise.

-I will vote on 1 condo bad

-I will vote on blips if properly ran but speaks may suffer

-I love Topicality debates

Kritiks:

-not the most ideal judge for this

-I am not familiar with dense K lit

-K's I understand well enough to vote for them comfortably: cap, security, anthro

-I hate generic links to K's with vague alts

-I will almost always vote against the K if someone can effectively go for the Perm + Alt Fails

-K tricks make me sad

NC/Phil:

-don't read em. I'm not good with it.

DA/CP

-my strongest point and your best bet infront of me

-Try or die is not very persuasive because the probability of the aff's extinction impacts are, most likely, relatively low.

-I like politics disads. Generic links make me cry.

-I like well thought-out "plan flaw" arguments when the aff's plan is poorly or strangely written. However the impact has to be an actual impact. I find these blippy fairness voters to be insufficient. Try to contextualize the plan flaw as to a reason why the policy will fail. For ex. you read a plan flaw, and the impact is like vagueness which also functions as a solvency deficit.

-I enjoy process counterplans and think they should be read more often. Delay CPs and Consult CPs are kinda abusive imo but I'll vote for it.

-Going for a link turn or straight turn to a disad in the 2ar is a p fire strat. If it's executed well your speaks will reflect that. But there's a chance that this strat will backfire on you so you should really think of it as a last resort unless they rlly screwed up or like conceded it.

-PICs are very strategic. I will vote on PICs bad but it should not be hard to answer in front of me.

-I'll judge kick if you ask me to.

Dougherty '20, LD and Policy

Cal '24

Please put me on the email chain: aayushpatel27@gmail.com

Update: I say go slower than normal later, but like y'all really got to try bc I have debaters spreading unsent phil indicts at top speed. I would suggest attempting to go like 80% percent speed so even if you undershoot you'll be ok.

I will yell slow twice. Slow down or I'll miss arguments.

Haven't much topic research, please explain acronyms. Please make an effort to go slower because we're online. It has also been a little bit since I've listened to spreading, go slightly slower than you would go otherwise.

Feel free to message me on Facebook if you have any questions

Shortcuts:

Policy 1-2

K 2-3

Phil 2-4 (The more trix you plan to read, the lower I should be preffed)

Theory 3-4

General:

I think Arjun Tambe is pretty smart and so is his paradigm.

-Compiling is prep/flashing is not.

-Spreading is fine but heed the bolded warnings above, especially in an online format

-I will read cards (especially if its a factual question) but I appreciate creative spin more than some on theoretical (in the philosophical sense) questions. I will still gut check args if they're blatantly misconstrued. Good author quals are great here.

-I won't vote on arguments that force me to consider activity outside of the rd. Disclosure is the only real exception

-I will also not vote on the appearance or attire of a student

- I'll vote for nebel but I really won't like it.

-Signpost for your life, my flows get messy sometimes

-People need to utilize cx more. It is my favorite part of the debate. Good cx will be rewarded with higher speaks. Good cx entails: Purposeful questions; Minimal clarifying qs, with those asked having some strategic purpose-this will be clear to me immediately during cx or you will make it clear by referencing cx in a later speech; Poise and a lil bit of (respectful) sass.

-Judge instruction wins rounds; I think Parth Dhanotra was very good at this. This includes really good evidence comparison

-Most of the below is malleable and you can convince me to diverge from my opinions in any round

Policy/"LARP"

I've mostly gone for policy-type arguments during my career and am probably best at evaluating them. So feel free to read them in front of me. Italicized text in this section is unabashedly ripped from former teammates and coaches who I will cite because I agree with them on a lot of things. I will edit this as my views develop.

CP

Clever (sheisty even) CPs are welcomed (see the annoying Asteroids CP DV read a few years ago)

I default to judge kick but I usually forget--remind me if this is what you want me to do

1-2 condo is fine. I really hate voting on dropped condo against a single CP, pls don't make me

Process CPs are fun.

PICs are usually good, but I can be convinced otherwise.

A lot of CP theory is annoying, but I am more likely to vote for it if the CP in question is particularly underwarranted.

DA/Case

Impact calc/judge instruction is the name of the game

Specific disads are a judge's dream but I did go for politics DAs fairly often even though I wasn't always convinced of its terminal impact. So make turns case args that don't only stem from the terminal impact of the DA to make it easier for me to vote for you. Those that come from farther up the link chain are great. Also read a good process cp if you resort to generic DAs

Please emulate the homie Anurag "Straight Turn" Rao and don't be afraid to go for case turns in the 2NR

General K Stuff

I didn't read ks as much as I would have liked to, but I got deeper into them just before senior year was cut short and ended up reading a decent amount of K lit. Most things should be fine as long as it is well warranted and explained. Solid fwk explanations>>>jargon filled overviews.

I also really enjoy interesting Ks that are paired well with specific offense on case. In general, don't be evasive, do good link work. I will also not hand you your ontology claims, warrant them and defend them. Winning it is often an uphill battle when contested competently.

K Affs

The exemplar in my mind was Coppell DR's aff from a few years ago. Be like them and you're a lot closer to winning

Must answer the question "Why vote aff"

I will vote for affs that reject the topic but I prefer that they have even a tangential link to the topic. To clarify, I prefer criticisms of the topic, not merely of debate. There are exceptions to this for me, (some of DR's) rounds, but I think it is easier for the aff to debate this way.

More convinced by framework that can be leveraged as a link turn (think movements) rather than arguments about fairness, which I find are largely trivial and difficult to resolve. The best debates are where aff uses well-warranted evidence from its theoretical canon (as opposed to generics like Robinson) is used to implicate FWK.

I also enjoy K v K rounds where the theory of both ks are implicated and in which a lot of cards are read but dislike them when they're just a blitz of k tricks.

Ks

I love love love love good link work. It makes it easier for me to evaluate the round as well as for you to answer args on other parts of the K flow. Go for them as mini-das instead of chunking them together in an overview.

Most of the FWK stuff above applies here, although I prefer link turns to fwk even more when the neg reads the K.

I also kinda like Ks like legalism, abolition and security especially when they have a very specific link to the aff. Good security Ks have links to the specific nations or regions in question, for example, and have a lot of nuance. These often don't fit your cookie cutter understanding of the K. For example, I read a security K with deterrence on case against an indo-pak aff. These were reconciled with a very specific explanation of South Asian subalterity.

Say yes to the Floating PIK question with your chest and defend it. They are often very strategic and it is often not very hard to beat prewritten PIK theory

Other stuff I agree with:

Framework—affirmatives should get their case and negatives should get their kritik (unless convinced otherwise). "Fiat is illusory" is impact framing rather than an absolute disqualification of the 1AC.

Phil:

General: Phil is cool, I enjoy the odd NC but they work best when coupled with solid case defense (or a tricky cp). Phil overviews could do with more judge instruction. Tell me what I'm looking for. I generally don't like trix but I understand that they can be strategic, although you will have to make sure I understand. Just explain them well and warrant them early. I'll hold your opponent to a very low standard when answering lightly-warranted one-liners.

These can be my favorite rounds, but I find that they rarely are given how they are debated in the meta.

My favorite phil is the kind that still can win rds under comparative worlds e.g. arguments about side constraints on things like gov't policy that are not necessarily reduced to a totalizing "standard."

For this reason, I love love love love it when CPs are read with an NC to solve back some of the head scratch-inducing implications certain philosophical theories have in the minds of west coast judges like myself.

That being said I am easier to convince than most that util is untenable, but your understanding of my threshold for this should be informed by my preferences on other parts of the flow.

I like phil less and less the trickier it gets. The comp worlds vs truth testing debate is very similar to that of topicality, and I think that generally truth testing is justifiable. I just really really dislike the tricks that come with these debates and am bad at resolving them. So please just read a DA instead or something.

Theory/T

I didn't read much theory during my career, don't like it that much. RVIs will most likely only get voted for if dropped. Just make sure you make an effort to help me keep my flow clean. Default to competing interps but only barely. I can be easily convinced to vote for reasonability.

Do this debate like a CP/DA debate with with the cp corresponding to the Interp and the internal links/impacts of the DA being your standards. Voters are your terminal impacts.

Well researched T that has a very clear and universal vision for debate will always do better. This means its implications for CPs must also be considered.

Broadly I think T should be a pragmatic question. It is also fairly easy to convince me that bad res writing has resulted in bad debate and the res should be interpreted more loosely.

That being said, I made an effort to try and read linguistics papers in order to answer Nebel T my senior year so really a well-warranted and clear semantics smackdown is also welcome.

In the end, feel free to read whatever you want. As long as there is a warrant, I'll do my best to evaluate it.

Also, my flows get real messy so write my ballot for me in the 2nr and the 2ar.

This paradigm is always being improved; I'm still working to calibrate/remember my opinions, so please please please message or email me if you have any specific questions and chances are I will be able to provide you with a more robust answer than can be found here.

Dougherty Valley '19, WashU St. Louis '23

Email: qin.andrew123@gmail.com

TL;DR, very straight up debater in highschool mostly went for CP/DA so I am most comfortable judging these rounds and rarely if ever went for K's if you are a K debater probably don't pref me. Also if you have wacky zany pictures of Kavin Kumaravel I'll boost your speaks

General

Judge instruction and clear weighing is how you will win my ballot.

Any defaults that I have can be changed throughout the debate.

I don't believe in 0% risk of an impact (unless an argument is dropped)

Impact calc in the final speeches are not new arguments

I lean towards trix bad not a fan

I find it hard to flow down T/Theory analytics so please try to slow down a little bit or send it in the speech doc

Default to extinction sucks the most.

Affs

Plans are fine, whole res is also fine as well

I mainly went for soft left affs in high school so I think that really in depth framing work and weighing makes it very easy to sign my ballot for the aff.

DA

DA's are epic and a core part of negative offense please read them.

CP

Counterplans are fine and also a core part of neg offense so reading them is fine

I will not judge kick unless instructed to do so

K

I'm not the most well read in kritikal arguments, the most i've ever read is cap so if you are a K team, then probably don't pref me. If you do want to read a K in front of me and go for it, the less work I have to do the easier it will be for you to win.

T

Default to counter interps, drop the debater

I find that T is a very useful tool for the neg to check back Aff abuses

Theory

Default to counter interps, Drop the arg, No RVI

I think that theory should not be read unless there is a egregious error in the round. But here are my general stances on several common theory arguments

- Speed

Generally, I think that speed is good, but there are arguments that can persuade me of the other side.

- Disclosure

Disclosure in general is probably really good for debate events like Policy and LD

For PF, I know it's not necessarily a norm yet so I'm up in the air and will be persuaded by either side who reads this.

- Paraphrasing/Brackets

Don't paraphrase or bracket cards are good it's also lowkey like an evidence ethics violation so like that's a whole other issue.

- Friv

Contrived theory arguments are the worst please don't read these in front of my I'll evaluate them if I have to but I don't want to judge a debate about this.

- PICs bad

I generally tend to think that PIC's are very smart and I encourage people to read them. I think I lean neg for PICs bad but I can be persuaded for the other side as well.

- Condo

Condo is good I tend to find it difficult to vote for condo bad unless it is a major issue.

Dougherty Valley 20'

Email: anuragrao315@gmail.com

I agree with Albert Sun:

"Refer to Arjun Tambe's judge philosophy:"

General Beliefs

-If you want me to know something about you (like pronouns or triggers or wtv) tell me before the round.

-If i call for a card you should give it to me. Flashing isn't prep unless it takes really long.

- Stop the round for card clipping, if you are right it's an L 20 for the other person.
-Brackets are fine it's its for problematic language or because you removed a graph or something. Otherwise i'm skeptical.
-I won't vote on arguments I didn't flow, and args I didn't understand will take a very minimal explanation to beat back
- Tech > Truth, however argument quality matters a lot. Even though something is dropped it needs to have a warrant and be explained. Just saying "Extend X card" and moving on is not enough.

-I prob won't get presumption if it has anything to do with tricks or phil

- If I see clever strategic moves or smart args your speaks will reflect that

-If i've had to call clear or slow like 3 times i'm not going to flow.
- I see a lot less evidence comparison in debate. If you compare cards and their sources I will heavily be persuaded. A lot of times I see people only reading evidence without any comparison and that gives me no reason to think the card you read is any better than the card I read.

- I don't want to intervene in this debate. Tell me what to do with certain arguments and what this implicates. Like I said above, I want to see you do the evidence comparison and break down the ballot.

-Tricks are not arguments. Tricks make me hate myself. This is actually why people feel like quitting debate like every two months. Stop being an ass. Do everyone a favor and cut some cards like the rest of us.

Counterplans and disads

-This is the run of what I read now, so i'll be most comfortable with this style of debate.

-Impact calc is a must. Disads can have a number of different impacts and interact with a number of different framing args. Contextualizing the disad in terms of case solvency or their framing is always a good idea.

-I like politics disads, but the threshold for explaining and winning a risk of an impact is somewhat high, given that the disad scenario is probably unlikely. Fiat theory can get very complicated, but I'm open to hearing your interpretation of what fiat includes when discussing links to certain disads. Also process counterplans are cool.

-I like well thought-out "plan flaw" arguments when the aff's plan is poorly or strangely written. However the impact has to be an actual impact. I find these blippy fairness voters to be insufficient. Try to contextualize the plan flaw as to a reason why the policy will fail. For ex. you read a plan flaw against some type of legal reform, and the impact is like vagueness which also functions as a solvency deficit.

-I like well-researched PICs. Sometimes the aff might defend something strange, finding unique and smart things to PIC out of are hot.

-Going for a link turn or straight turn to a disad in the 2ar is a p fire strat. If it's executed well your speaks will reflect that. But there's a high chance that this strat will backfire on you so you should really think of it as a last resort unless they rlly screwed up or like conceded it.

Topicality and Theory

-T/Fmwk needs to have some kind of external impacts. Procedural fairness is very unpersuasive unless it impacts out to like research or something. The best 2nrs on framework have a dense overview that's a nut

-T is a good generic strat if you want to go that route. I'll default to competing interps and drop the debater on T. There should be more evidence comparison in T debates between your interps. I don't see this frequently, and that makes me sad.

-I have a higher threshold for condo than a lot of LD judges. I think 1-2 condo is fine, 3 starts to push the limit. But at the same time, if your opponent truly messes up and concedes some massive argument off of the condo blip then i'd be persuaded otherwise. But I'm impartial to args like PICs bad/good.

Philosophy

-In general, I have no idea what NCs even mean unless its like the util/structural violence/kant NC. If this is your thing don't pref me high. I don't rlly know how to go for NCs in the 2nr, but if i look confused then you should probably have a thicc overview explaining the framing

- I will prob always find extinction first args important. Even if you read Rawls or some shit I'm going to be confused if you try to make extinction doesn't matter args. The best way to disprove extinction first is probability first or some critical reason why focusing on extinction engenders violence.

Critiques
-I assume kritiks/links to the aff’s representations should be part of the debate. However, I can be persuaded otherwise.

-Permutations solve links of omissions almost all of the time. There needs to be a good explanation of the link in order to be ahead on the K, otherwise I'll think case outweighs or the perm solves.

-Explain and contextualize the alt. What does me voting neg do to solve? What are examples of the alt being enacted? Usually people read this power tagged card about the alt but never explain what it even means.

- You need to explain your postmodern scholar's thicc literature well to me. I think I'm familiar with a lot of K lit by now, but all the nuances of specific authors I definitely don't know.

-I do not find broad, sweeping "root cause" and other arguments (e.g., "the aff evidence should be distrusted because capitalism corrupts academia") to be persuasive at all, unless they are applied well to the aff.

-I see a lot of people trying to out-left the K. Why? Stop trying. You're not going to out-left someone who reads baudrillard. Impact turns, case outweighs, the perm, and framework are your best bets against any of these arguments.

Stylistic preferences
You do not need to waste a ton of time "extending" your aff card by card if there wasn't case defense.

Act like you know what you are doing in cx.

Please don't give crappy sass, no one will think ur funny

Enunciate between your tags and your evidence.

Any picture of Albert Sun, David Si, or Kavin Kumaravel gets u extra speaks.

Did nat circuit PF and Extemp at Dougherty Valley

I evaluate tabula rasa which means you can read whatever you want and I will evaluate any argument as long as it is WELL WARRANTED. Warranted evidence > warranted analytics > unwarranted evidence. TECH > TRUTH (again only if it is warranted well). Don't speak way too fast as you risk me missing things and lowering your speaker points, particularly in the back half of the round.

I won't flow cross so if something important happens bring it up in a speech.

Make sure to have clear SIGNPOSTING of your arguments in rebuttal, summary, and final focus. When doing extensions don't just extend last name and year, actually extend the warranting behind the argument as well. I would say overall I have a high threshold for off case args.

Anything you want evaluated in final focus needs to be in SUMMARY.

Exchanges of evidence between teams are fine as long as they take less than two minutes. I may call for evidence if it ends up being critical in round or if I am asked to call for it. I am unlikely to time speeches and prep time but I expect both teams to keep each other accountable.

To minimize intervention please remember to WEIGH your impacts and/or links against those of your opponents in final focus (or even earlier speeches).

If you are too rude or aggressive to your opponents I will drop your speaks. Please don't say my opponents drop this the whole round if they clearly didn't drop something, expect low speaker points if you do that. I will only drop a team if they clip/severely powertag evidence or act sexist, racist, homophobic, etc.

I don’t like to shake hands. I don't care if you sit or stand and wear whatever you want. Try to preflow before the round.

Feel free to ask me any questions before the round or message me on facebook messenger, or email me at shaheer.sandhu@berkeley.edu

Dougherty Valley '19

Email: davidsidebate@gmail.com

Overview

-Debate how you normally would debate in front of me: fast, slow, critical, etc.

-My judging paradigm is similar to Scott Wheeler's

-I primarily read policy-style arguments, but have gone for K's as well. If you are reading a K I've most likely hit it before, so expect a cursory understanding.

Disadvantages

-Almost all of my 2NR's have had this. Read them as you usually would.

-Politics DA's are probably educational. I lean neg on questions of whether fiat includes PTX.

Counterplans

-Default judge kick.

-Read sufficiency framing.

-Condo is good unless there is a convincing reason why the specific advocacies force aff out of making certain arguments.

-Lean aff on cheaty counterplans theory.

Topicality

-Default reasonability. However, I'm neutral about competing interps vs reasonability.

-Weigh standards (legal precision vs limits) and also voters (fairness vs education)

-Assume I have no topic knowledge so provide case lists and warrant what constitutes "core of the topic."

Kritik

-Don't take buzzwords for granted

-Specific link work + alt solvency explanation >>> generic framing + ROTB

-I don't take a particular stance on whether the aff gets to weigh case, but when the arguments boil down to "moots the 1AC" versus "epistemology first + fiat double bind" I find myself (reluctantly) leaning neg.

-If your strategy revolves around confusing your opponent you will confuse me as well.

K Affs + Framework

-I prefer if these are in the direction of the resolution but this isn't a hard rule.

-Your counterinterp to framework should be a robust, defensible model for debate.

-You get perms as long as you convincingly explain what they look like.

-Here are some of my preferences

-Education >>> Procedural Fairness, but I understand the strategic incentives in front of certain affs.

-Policymaking bad >>> Limits are a prison.

Theory

-Drop the argument. Drop the team is reserved for condo only.

I did pf and extemp for Dougherty Valley and was decent at it for 4 years. I did NPDA for like a couple months in college.

My golden rules:

1. Ask Rahi Kotadia.

2. Refer to rule number 2

3. Add me on the email chain rohit.srinivas2@gmail.com. (I don't read ev (that seems legit) unless someone explicitly tells me to and extends it into FF)

4. PLEASE PREFLOW BEFORE YOU REACH ROUND. I like to get started asap.

5. READING CARDS IS ON PREP TIME. IF YOU TAKE TOO LONG TO SEND EV I WILL START YOUR PREP TIME. I believe in evidence ethics and it is your responsibility to CUT cards and have them on hand for immediate access.

6. EVIDENCE ETHICS ARE KEY. IF I SUSPECT A CARD IS MISCONSTRUED/FALSE I WILL CALL FOR IT. If I do find it sus, I will tank speaks or maybe drop you. I have changed my stance on calling for cards in recent years because the quality of ethics has been declining severely. Now I do my best to maintain a fair field. I would prefer if everyone read cut cards, but I am not going to drop someone for paraphrasing unless someone reads paraphrasing theory.

7. I do disclose if you give me like 2-3 minutes to submit a decision. I will give oral RFD so stick around after the round. I will disclose speaks if you ask. I judge on how effective I believe you are at communicating. I default 28 if yall are kinda bad at conveying your args and go up to a 30 based on how well I thought you spoke. I can give feedback on speaking if asked.

PF:

Follow rules 1 and 2

Jokes aside I can handle anything pfers got. (I will tank speaks and reserve the right to drop you if you do something icky though. This is supposed to be a safe space)

I will only vote off args in ff, I will not evaluate args not extended in summary. ANY ARGUMENT THAT YOU WANT ME TO VOTE ON NEEDS TO BE EXTENDED PROPERLY. A PROPER EXTENSION MEANS RUNNING THROUGH THE WARRANTS AND LINKS AND THE IMPACTS AGAIN (explain the whole logic behind the argument every time not just a title or name of one). If you are not sure what this means ASK me before round.

Is a blip an argument? Absolutely not. If i say the sky is green with no warrant that is not an argument. I will not vote on turns that have no impact analysis done either. You cannot win without explaining how a turn interacts with their argument and how it gives you an impact.

IMPACT CALC IS KEY TO MY BALLOT. Tell me how to vote. Tell me which type of impacts come first. Tell me why your argument matters more than their argument. If you do not tell me what is more important I will be forced to make a decision on my own and I default to (probability*magnitude) and factor in time frame where shorter timeframe boost probability and longer timeframe harms probability.

Defense is sticky if the other team does not bring up the argument again. If they do, you need to extend defense as well.

IF YOU READ OFF CASE ARGS IN PF PLEASE READ THEM PROPERLY I DO NOT WANT TO EVALUATE SHELLS OR Ks WITHOUT FRAMING FOR EACH ARG. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT THIS MEANS ASK BEFORE RD BEGINS. my threshold for tossing out theory spikes is low as long as it is not dropped.

Other args/events:

I did policy camp and picked up college Parli so I can evaluate theory args (Fw, T, random shells) and most common Ks (cap, set col, mil) . (if you do read a K please read it correctly). I do not have experience w stuff like Baudrillard and Nietzche. If you think your K is weird refer to rule number 2.

Tricks idk what to do with them, explain them to me like I am stupid and I might be able to understand. No guarantee I will vote on them the way you imagined.

CI>R unless told otherwise, condo good unless told otherwise (I do not have a threshold at which condo is bad because I believe the nature of reading so many args weakens each individual one), gimme a ROB.

No RVIs unless you have a good reason and win that.

Unlike Rahi I will not intervene and I vote purely off the flow.

Its been a year since I last did parli, so If you will be spreading I reserve the right to yell clear if you are unclear. If you are not a clear speaker above 250 wpm give me a speech doc. If you are clear I will need a speech doc around 275+.

Also please give me a proper off time road map/tell me what papers to put on top of each other.

About Me:

Debated LD and Policy at Dougherty Valley. Duke 2023. Coached by Aleisha Readye and Arjun Tambe.

About Debate:

Use overviews (extension + weighing) in rebuttals

Debaters should weigh 'strength of link' between their impacts

I like good case debate on both sides

Debated most arguments, i.e. K, T, Theory, etc., in High school

Add me to the email chain: amandayang555@gmail.com

Cal 23 (not debating)

I debated policy for three years at Dougherty Valley as a 2N, and attended the TOC in LD my senior year. I am most familiar with policy style arguments --however, tech>>truth and good debating will always outweigh my personal argumentative preferences. That being said, keep in mind that I am not particularly well versed in some LD-specific arguments like phil/trix (see below).

TLDR:

- CP/DAs/PICS/Case >> Topicality/T- USFG >> Stock Ks/Theory >> Identity/Pomo/Planless affs >> Skep/Friv Theory/Phil/Tricks, etc

- Clarity>Speed: it doesnt matter if you couldnt get to the last few cards if I understood none of it

- Slow down on analytics, especially in T and Theory debates. This is also pretty important for online debates; if you're comfortable sending analytics that would be very helpful in ensuring I flow everything properly

- I will judge kick if you tell me to

- terminal defense/zero risk of the da... maybe possible

- Just because a blippy argument is dropped does not make it an auto-win: you’re still required to explain the warrants and contextualize the concession

- Debate off your flow and not your blocks :(

K Affs: Not an auto-loss, but I would STRONGLY prefer to hear your backup policy aff, unless you don’t have other options. For me, the problem with K affs is usually that the counterinterp doesn’t actually resolve the limits disad, but tech>truth applies in obvious situations like if a) you successfully impact turn framework b) the neg doesn’t have a good external impact to framework

Framework/T USFG: This was my favorite argument to go for in high school. Depending on what type of K aff you’re hitting, fairness may or may not be better off as its own impact. I used to be most convinced by skills/movements type arguments, in which fairness instead functions as an internal link to education, but I am beginning to think that fairness can be axiomatically true depending on how the argument is articulated.

1 Off Ks against K affs: These can get a little messy for me; but while I would prefer just listening to a TvK debate, I will still do my best to evaluate the round (you may just need to be clearer on your explanations.)

CPs/DAs/Case: Not much to say here: I really like well-researched CPs/PICs, nuanced case debate, topic specific DAs, and politics disads. Go for your cheatiest counterplans! (that being said, aff theory is very viable in these instances as well). I think DAs with generic links are fine so long as you are able to derive logical analytics from a card that might be less specific.

Topicality: T was definitely one of my favorite arguments to go for. Good rebuttal speeches must compare the worlds that each interp justifies. I don’t usually think that semantics/jurisdiction arguments are particularly convincing.

Theory: I’d prefer if these debates happened in instances of legitimate abuse, or if you’re behind on substance and theory is the only viable path to the ballot. Given that, my threshold for what constitutes legitimate abuse has somewhat lowered after doing LD, so I’m fine with evaluating things like condo, pics bad, disclosure, theory against abusive counterplans, spec (in some instances), etc; as long as they are debated well technically.

- Not particularly fond of frivolous theory

Kritiks: Most of my experience has been with more "stock" Ks like security, neolib/cap, set col, etc. In general I 1) feel like I evaluate Ks in more of a policy-esque offense/defense paradigm, and 2) would prefer to not judge 1-off K debates. As a result, I'm also not the biggest fan of Ks that invariably link to every aff (which I find are usually identity and pomo); not necessarily because of the content, but because it’s easy to use them to avoid clash with the 1AC. However, I was also once an edgy Deleuze debater and understand the grind, so if you must read these, a higher degree of contextualization and explanation are needed.

[LD STUFF] Ethical Philosophy/Spikes/Tricks/Skep/Metatheory:

- As a policy debater I have very little experience evaluating these and know basically nothing about them aside from the fact that they exist

Speaks

- default 28.5

- better speaks if you’re funny/generally respectful and chill

- poor speaks for being rude/aggressive because it's honestly just annoying to watch

-0.1 speaks for “LARP,” “time starts now”

+0.2 speaks for attaching niche photos of Kavin Kumaravel

I'm currently debating as a junior at Dougherty Valley High School. My debate experience has been pretty weird; I've done mostly public forum for the last 3 years, but I've also gone to policy camp every summer, and have competed at a couple policy tournaments each year. That being said, despite coming from public forum, I will evaluate pretty much any argument that you read, so go for any weird args that you want as long as they're not straight up bad.

A few important things:

-I value good impact calc really highly. I want to know why you think you've won the debate, and I guarantee that my own decision won't be satisfying for you if I'm doing all the weighing in the round by myself.

-Debate ethically: don't steal prep, don't cut cards, etc. Even if the other team doesn't call you out, I will lower your speaker points if you are being unethical or take whatever other action is appropriate.

-If you run theory, there better be a real solid reason to, otherwise I will have a hard time voting for you on theory.

-Kritiks: I have a decent understanding of most of the popular kritiks, but I will need to have dense literature explained to me as an argument. Also, I think that most alt's need a lot more explaining than they get, so doing that helps a lot.

-I won’t count small blippy args. Explain your arguments and why you think you should win.

-Don't shake hands with me I think it's weird.