Lovejoy 2021 2A/1N for 4 years

Purdue 2025 in Aerospace Engineering

jackwczyz@gmail.com

SHORT:

Tab. Haven't read too much on the topic but know the basics, warrant your stuff well, don't go too fast bc I'm a little out of practice. Ask me specific questions if you have them, I am more than happy to answer! Call me Jack, you don't need to call me judge unless you're into that.

If you do you, you will be fine. Don't try to adapt to me, I will flow with the round and chill. I did it all, so just do what you do best.

For More Info

LONG:

Apr '22

Tech >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Truth

Don't be racist, sexist, etc., it's poor taste and I will give you lower speaks. However, these are bad args, and I still expect some warrant for why I shouldn't vote on an arg- look at my opinion on tech vs truth. I will vote on stuff I think is morally wrong, even if it is messed up. If you lose to someone defending something that is that messed up, idk what to say tbh.

Since this stuff is online and I am old(er), I might miss some stuff. If you want to make sure I get it down, put it on the doc. Cards, analytics, etc. will help me better keep track of everything. If I don't get it, that sucks.

L + Ratio + Not on Flow + Slow Down on Analytics + I am Old

Feel free to ask about my RFD and thoughts, I am more than happy to explain why I did (or did not) vote on an argument. If you want feedback from me for some reason, hit me up and I can answer stuff.

Case: I am good with plan text, performative, or just advocacy statements, but you need to be able to defend/debate your choice adequately. Like if you are reading performative stuff, there better be a reason why it is that with no plan text than "felt like it." That being said, I think case is underutilized in debates and love hearing a 2A extend case and answer off case with it and all that. #Protect the 2AR

K Affs/Whatever you want to call your no plan thing: Cool, go for it. You know what you are doing, I don't think I read a plan text at all my senior year and for most of my debating career.

Framing: Model justification and model disads to neg model win debates. Impact them out, 90% of the time no one puts enough time into this but utilizing it is insane. Give me framing and examples for how the WOTA provides a better space in the future for whatever you are saying and how this round is important.

DAs- YASSSS SLAYYYYYY! Make sure to do everything that needs to be done. Aff, please do sick I/L turns and stuff, those are way more convincing than anything else I usually find.

CPs- Make sure net benefits are competitive, otherwise have fun. If you are reading an abusive CP, have blocks for theory ready.

Just a side note on the two above, I read a bunch of topicality-K strats when I debated (>90%), so take that into account before you read 53 off and on-case. This is my biggest gripe in debate is neg teams that read a bunch off and just collapse to whatever is undercovered, I am super sympathetic to aff abuse claims and theory. That being said, I have voted for flows that have 8-9 off before and will remain as unbiased as I can. Just be prepped for me to be mildly annoyed during the RFD bc these rounds make me .

T/Theory- as a 1N I did this a lot in the 1NR/wrote blocks, just say why stuff matters and all the framing/model debates. Theory and framing flows usually just become the same by the end, so if you want them distinct try to make them different. I am pretty neutral on CI and reasonability, usually based on abusiveness of definition/aff and DAs to models. If you do this, please make sure to explain why your model is better and how it impacts out- if you just say "my model is the best bc it solves racism" explain how yours does and the other side doesn't. A lot of theory/framework/framing flows just become washes bc no one explains how I should evaluate the entire round. If you have questions on this bc this is vague, I will answer them before round.

Ks- Read a bunch of BioP, NecroP, Set Col, Cap, Deleuze, Psychoanalysis, and a bunch of other random junk. Personally, If you read the best psycho debate I have ever heard and are able to win on it, you get double 30s and a dub. But don't feel pressured to do that, if you read a K and read it well and do everything you need to the K is a good choice. If you make it a PIK, you better be ready for AR theory and I am pretty sympathetic to that. NOTE: just bc I read something does not mean I will do the work for you. I may be able to make a few leaps, but I won't let you say "Set Col is oppressing natives and we need to burn down the government" as if that explains the whole K.

Roadmap + time in the chat kinda nice tho, online debate made me a lazy timer so imma prob rely on y'all to do it.

Speed: Go for it, if I can't understand I will just stare at the screen or say clear. After that, have fun I guess. It should be p obvious when I can't get what you say, but hey.

Points: Start at a 28.5, work up or down. Usually will go something like (30 29.5 29 28.5) unless something happens that makes me reconsider.

TKO- if you know you know (and it's not T + K + On Case)

If I laugh audibly, +.5 SPEAKS

Be nice to your opponents. If you are winning, don't drag it out, I hate it when a team spends 3 minutes just roasting the other team bc they have time. If you end your speech early bc the round is legit over and get us out early, both of y'all will have a minimum of 29.5.

I already sold my soul to the MIC/DIB, so do your worst. Also if you want to hear about sick planes, lmk.

I am a parent/lay judge.

I have judged slightly on the TFA circuit as well as at the Stanford Invitational. Slow down and articulate your points clearly. Explain to me why you have won the debate, and why you deserve my ballot. Please time yourselves.

I will generally give good speaks (starting at 28.5) and will go up from there depending on how far I think you'll make it in the tournament. However, I have zero tolerance for racism, homophobia, etc in round, and doing so will result in an L-25 or lower. I won't be disclosing my decision so feel free to leave after the 2ar.

You can run whatever you want in front of me but I am most comfortable evaluating policy v policy. That being said, I will have a hard time understanding weird k's or phil, but if you can explain it to me easily, go ahead. Probably don't read theory but if there's actual abuse and you can articulate it to the point where a parent judge will understand, it's up to you.

Please relax and be nice to your opponent, good luck debating!

I am a parent judge. I want a traditional debate with NO SPREADING! Please present your arguments clearly and make sure to tell me why you should win the round. If you are abusive towards your opponent or towards your judge, I will vote you down. No flex prep that's why you have cross examination time and make sure to use that time wisely. Please time yourselves. I won't consider anything you say after the allotted time.

You win me when you are able to present your case and win the cross examinations. If you use too much of technical jargon, I will be looking at you but not understand much - so it will be a flip of the coin who wins! I am very fair and base the judgement only on the performance and the perspectives so help me make the right decision.

I will ensure I give good spks if you perform well, as I see too many times people are affected by speaker points!

I did pf in high school (graduated from flower mound in 2020 & a freshman in college right now), pf wise I'm tech over truth and you can run whatever as long as it's not like something no one would be able to respond to. I vote off the flow and speed is fine, just be clear. cards are important, don't misconstrue but analytics are def also valid. preferably extend everything through every speech including summary, but up to you. if you want more detail on pf look at Nikhil Guddati's paradigm, for how I do speaks/topicality/K's/theory. also, be nice (v important)! on the off chance you're reading this for extemp, I did that in hs too and I'm content > delivery and I know everyone messes up but I'll know if you're just lying lol.

I am a parent judge---don't run progressive or Ks---(I won't flow them).

Please speak slowly and explain your args clearly

Give me reasons why your opponent has lost and why you are winning this debate (Voters are key).

Speaks: I give you speaks mostly based on clarity and how effectively you communicate your arguments.

Good luck and have fun!

-debated on the national circuit for 4 years for Southlake Carroll, graduated in 2023

-I'm a year or two older than yall-- call me eesha not judge pls :)

-go as fast as you want, send a doc if it's over 250 wpm

-yes, add me to the email chain eeshasuri@utexas.edu

-can evaluate tech, flay, or lay debate, do whatever you're most comfortable with

i presume neg 1st LMFAO

My judging philosophy: make the round as easy for me to evaluate as possible. I will vote on the path of least resistance.

Quick notes:

• I'm not flowing or listening to cross most of the time
• Keep your own time for prep, I'll time speeches. If someone goes over on prep, it's up to you to call them out
• Tech>truth
• I'm not intervening 99% of the time. If evidence is sent in the email chain, I'll only look at it if the evidence is the deciding factor.

Things I like and will result in higher speaker points:

-weighing. please link weigh if you guys have the same impact, or do weighing in general. weighing condenses the round and makes it so much easier to judge

-send docs and case before your speeches. Docs should include cut cards for every response you read, as well as the paraphrased response if you are paraphrasing. If you're paraphrasing, don't have cut cards ready, and someone says that you're misconstruing evidence, I'm going to tank your speaks.

Not only does this prevent an unecessary waste of time by calling and waiting for evidence, but it also helps for accessibility purposes if a team is going fast.

Speaks start at 27.0.

--> sending case before + cut cards= +0.5 speaks

--> sending case with cut cards and also rebuttal doc with cut cards= +1.0 speaks

-disclose on the wiki! I believe that disclosure is a good norm. Let me know if you disclosed before round and I'll bump your speaks up by +0.5

-please give warrants for things and try to break the clash between competing pieces of evidence. I don't want to intervene as a judge at all, so you have to give me reasons why your evidence is better so that I don't have to do it. In general, going slower and giving quality responses is better than being fast and blippy and it'll be reflected in your speaks.

Carded responses with a warrant= Good Analytics> Carded Responses without a warrant

-go for less in the backhalf. please don't frontline every single argument-- just collapse on one or two and do a lot of quality weighing.

-Good extensions. An extension is uniqueness + warrant + link + impact. I am not voting on an argument that isn't extended or properly explained.

-be creative :)

Things I don't like and will result in lower speaker points:

-being rude or condescending in cross

-being racist, sexist, homophobic, any of the -ists, and I will drop you immediately and report you to tab

-misconstruing evidence. PF has gotten to a place where a ton of debaters go fast, be blippy, and paraphrase/misconstrue evidence. I understand because debate is a game, but if someone calls you out on it you're recieving a severe penalty in speaks. If that evidence is key to you winning the round, I reserve the right to drop you.

-blippy debate lol. I can evaluate fast debate and I had a ton of blippy debates in high school, so I understand the strategic advantage of going fast and being blippy. However, debates where there are more clash are just so much better to evaluate and listen to.

Progressive

Theory

I ran theory a lot my senior year. Run theory to check back against abuse.

Default to:

DTD

Competing Interpretations

No RVI's

I will evaluate frivolous theory, but my threshold for responses is going to be super low.

K's

I ran Fem IR a lot throughout high school. Most familiar with Cap, Fem IR, and Security. I honestly don't know how to evaluate K's that well though so err on the side of overexplanation and run at your own risk.

I'm a first year out so I don't remember a lot abt progressive args. Run at your own risk