I've debated for 3 years at Aragon High School.

Shortcut:

1- literally everything(phil, theory, tricks, K)

Top Level:

Go for whatever you want just make sure to explain it. I have debated in every way you can think of I have had pretty much any debate out there. People that have influenced my views in debate a lot are Jarvis Xie, Abhinav Sinha, Yesh Rao, and Jane Lichtman which means paradigmatically my views are pretty similar.

Stuff that will get you higher speaks:

• AUTO 30:if you spend 30 seconds of the 1AC playing the homelander sample on "on time" from the metro album into the transition to "superhero" and begin spreading when future starts rapping
• AUTO 30: getting sturdy preround
• +1.0 spit bars preround like if freestyle and you spit bars +1
• +1.0 talking bout how rap lyrics influenced your life.
• +1.0: GETTING ME FOOD +1.0: Call your parents (or guardian or any significant role model in your life) before the round starts and tell them you love them
• +0.5: Showing me screenshot evidence that you have followed LaMelo Ball on Instagram, reshared his most recent post on your story, and changed your ig bio to "1 of 1"
• +0.5: Winning while ending speeches early and using less prep (let me know)
• +0.3: Making fun of your opponent in a non-obnoxious manner
• +0.3: Making references to goated shows in your speeches (Suits, the Office, etc.)
• +0.3: Being funny
• +0.3: if you add a producer tag before you start spreading or you got a creative card signature
• +0.2: Drip (extra speaks if you didn't have to drop a rack on your fit)
• +0.5/0.1:I will have my switch with me before the round:if you and your opponent both want to, y'all can play a 1-stock game - winner gets +0.1, loser gets -0.1ORyou can play individually play me - winning gets you +0.5, losing gets you -0.1
• +0.2/-0.2:Feel free to play music pre-round:if I like the songs you play, I'll boost your speaks, but if I don't like them, I'll take away speaks (I won't deduct more than 0.2). For refernce, some of my favorite artists are Fivio Foreign, Pop Smoke, Drake, J. Cole, and lil Tjay, but I do enjoy my fair share of indie/alt, pop, k/c/jpop and disney music
• Note that most speaks additions/substractions is subject to change based on the quality of your execution of the task

Pooja Agarwal

add me to the email chain (if there is one) : 23agarwalp17@stu.smuhsd.org

TL;DR: Have fun, explain your args clearly, and weigh weigh weigh!

DO NOT:

1. Say anything that may be offensive to someone, ex. racist, homophobic, etc. if you have to ask yourself if what you're about to say is offensive, don't say it.

2. Please do not read circuit arguments with lay opponents- if you're both circuit i'm fine with it but please do not read circuit args and spread against trad/lay debaters

Lay

I'm pretty fine with all lay debates, but here's what I like/will give you a better chance of winning:

1. all args need a link, warrant, impact clearly articulated

2. signpost please, tell me exactly what argument you're talking about

3. speak clearly and loudly, especially online

4. fw should not be your only response, i like fw + case responses

5. turn turn turn!

6. i love analytics

7. i protect the 2nr, no new args in the 2ar

8. WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH

Circuit

i'm not the best judge for it, so i'd run your lay args with me. if you really need a circuit round, i'm most comfy with larp, theory, light phil, then everything else. and slow down please especially for analytics

Feel free to email me if you have any questions.

2022

Similar preferences to those below. I still value clarity and clash. For Congress, I value presentation, delivery, and style as well. Most of all, be your authentic self. Make passionate arguments you care about. Discuss the real-world impacts. Be respectful of your opponents and have fun!

Stanford 2020 and 2021

Here are some preferences:

I prefer traditional NSDA LD debate. If you spread, run theory, and/or kritiks, I will do my best to keep track but I do not yet have the experience to judge it yet. I'm getting better at it, though, so if you have more "circuit-type" argumentation, be sure to signpost and explain.

It is also my belief that skilled circuit debaters can be just as skilled at traditional debate (take a look at NSDA Nationals 2011 and 2018). And this year's NSDA National Champion competed at this same tournament a couple years ago. So there is lots of crossover.

Signpost. I will flow, but you can help by keeping the debate organized.

Crystallize. Break down the debate. Tell me what you think are the most important voting issues. Weigh arguments and impacts.

Have fun debating the big ideas of this resolution. It matters and your opinions matter, so challenge everyone in the room to consider this topic both philosophically and practically.

Stanford 2019

Please put me on the email chain: hcorkery@eduhsd.k12.ca.us

English teacher. Long time baseball coach; first year debate coach!

Here are some preferences:

Stay with traditional NSDA LD debate. If you are on the circuit, I respect your skill set; I’m just not ready for it yet. If you spread, run theory, and/or kritiks, I will do my best to keep track but I do not yet have the experience to judge it yet. And it is my belief that skilled circuit debaters can be just as skilled at traditional debate (take a look at NSDA Nationals 2011 and 2018).

Signpost. I will flow, but you can help by keeping the debate organized.

Crystallize. Break down the debate. Tell me what you think are the most important voting issues. Weigh arguments and impacts.

Have fun debating the big ideas of this very important resolution. I am a Marine Corps veteran and I understand the real-world impacts of foreign policy decisions. Your opinions matter so challenge everyone in the room to consider this topic both philosophically and practically.

Stanford 2018

Public Forum debate was designed with both the public and the lay judge in mind. For this reason, I'll judge your round based on the side that presents the clearest, best-supported, most logical argument that convinces the public and the public's policy makers to vote one way or another on a resolution.

I appreciate it when you explicitly state when you are establishing a "framework," making a "contention" or claim, providing a "warrant" or "evidence" and analyzing an "impact."

For speaker points, I value poise, eye contact, gestures, and pacing (changing your voice and speed to make effective points).

Finally, since this is JV Public Forum, we need to have a "growth mindset" and understand that this level of debating is developmental. JV Public Forum debaters are trying to improve and ultimately become varsity debaters. Winning is obviously important (I've coached sports for 20 years), but in my mind there is a clear distinction between JV and Varsity levels in any activity. JV is developmental competition. Varsity is the highest level competition.

Northview '21

University of Illinois - Urbana Champaign '25

Debated LD in high school for 3 years and coached for 1 year, 10 career bids, cleared at TOC in 2020 and 2021

I've competed in Policy and PF as well - the below paradigm should be flexible enough across all debate divisions

Doc sharing is good for evidence ethics and accessibility, spreading or no spreading.

I prefer using Speech Drop for docs, its easier.

Email: sreyaash.das@gmail.com

Some quick notes and preferences:

1) I'll call clear/slow 3 times, so do be clear.

2) I like fast and efficient debates, so feel free to uplayer and spit out blippy analytics but make sure they're warranted arguments

3) Tech> Truth. Crazy args are fine, but the threshold for answers get lower. Higher level debates should always incorporate some level of truth behind arguments.

4) Non negotiable: speech times/rules, prep can be CX but CX can't be prep, compiling a doc is prep but flashing/emailing isn't, there's no "clarification time" before CX, clipping and ev ethics.

5) I'll disclose speaks. I think its a good norm to follow.

6) Don't let the type of debater you are facing affect your arguments. Exposure to different forms of argumentation on both sides is what spreads education within debate, regardless of experience; I wouldn’t have joined circuit LD if I hadn’t faced different progressive arguments at locals. Only condition is that you should be nice and reasonable: spread but send docs, be nice in cx, and your speaks will be boosted. Be sketchy and tricky just to get an easy ballot, and I'll nuke your speaks.

7) "If you are clearly better than your opponent and it is obvious that you are winning the round, please, dear lord, do not use all of your speech time just because you have the time- win the round and sit down so we can have a discussion and make it more educational than just you repeating conceded arguments for 13 minutes." ~ Stephen Scopa

8) I disclosed with good practices - open source with round reports and first/last 3. If your wiki is a model of what I believe to be good disclosure norms, show/tell me before the round and I'll bump up speaks.

9) Arguments and their truth level start at 0 and work their way up based on effective warranting. Conceded claims don't mean I automatically vote for them if they were originally unwarranted.

Prefs Overview

Note: Just because certain things are ranked low, DOESNT mean I won't vote off it, nor does it mean I don't enjoy it. I pride myself on trying to be as flex as possible, so feel free to run virtually anything. 1 = Most familiar/Best at judging this. 4 = Least Familiar/Worst at judging this

Policy/Larp -2

Kritiks - 2

Theory - 1

Phil -3

Tricks -2

I'm serious with these pref ranks - I'm comfortable with judging any form of argumentation

Policy/Larp:

Defaults: Judge Kick, ev > analytics

Be smart and do link analysis

Politics and process args are fine, higher bar for explanation tho

Zero risk is a thing

Explain cards - these debates are won with good analysis AND evidence

Ev comparison is key - don't make me spend 20 minutes reading through all the cards

1ARs - read theory vs CPs, low bar for case extensions if its simple

2NRs - answer theory vs CPs, please structure the collapse

Don't forget to kick out of things

Theory

Defaults: F/E are voters, drop the debater, competing interps, rvis

Standard weighing is dead - plz do it

Paragraph theory is fine

Be clear on standards so I at least have the standard name flowed

Terminal D on a shell is a thing even under competing interps, there has to be offense isolated at the end of the round.

Send interps/counter interps plz

Combo shells are cool, reasonability is persuasive versus them

Kritiks:

Dont be a doc bot the entire time

Link analysis contextualized to the aff is cool, it isn't enough to win your theory of power

Framework (weigh/cant weigh case) determines the result most of the time - win it

Buzzwords don't mean anything - just because the 1ar didn't explicitly say the words "Role of the ballot" doesnt mean there isn't defense on the kritik's theory of power

K Affs/T:

These Affs should have isolated a problem and proposed a method or model

Personal narratives hold little weight to me since the ballot isn't a referendum on one's identity

Reading a K aff isn't an excuse to not be technical, same for the 2NR on T

Fairness/Clash/Research is cool, do weighing if going for T

No preference in a K aff v. framework debate - I've been on both sides

Nuanced framework interps and warrants are cool (sabotage, passive voice, etc.)

Philosophy:

Defaults: epistemic confidence, comparative worlds

I'm cool with anything - the denser the phil the more explanation required

I think this type of debate still requires some level of interaction with actual offense

Spec phil affs are cool and I wish I saw more

Tricks:

Defaults: presumption negates unless the neg defends an advocacy, permissibility affirms

If it's gonna be a tricks round, delineate all arguments and dont be sketch in cx

Rebuttal extensions have to point me to what I am extending on the flow

Slow down on blips - flowability is key

Otherwise, I'll vote on anything explained.

Traditional:

I was a trad lad for a year, so you can have a traditional round, though I'd prefer otherwise.

Substance > V/VC debate

Frameworks are so arbitrary in lay debate, half the time theres no distinction between 2

I vote off the flow, ethos/pathos boosts speaks but won't just get you the ballot. Contrary to most beliefs, even traditional debate is based off of some level of technicality.

Speaker Points:

I think speaker points are based off of arguments made, and the strategies taken to attempt to win the round. As long as I understood you throughout the round, and you made sound strategic decisions in the round based off my paradigm, you'll get high speaks.

Hey everyone!

LD Paradigm

Yes to email chain - rohitdayanand8@gmail.com

My name is Rohit (he/him) and I debated for Monta Vista High School from 2019-2023 in LD, gaining 5 career bids to the TOC and qualling my junior and senior year. My preferred debating style in high school was more towards policy debate, as I mainly competed on the west coast, but I believe I’d be pretty fair in evaluating most styles of debate. As I judge more, the prefs below should become less and less relevant.

Quick pref guide for LD

1. LARP-style args - cps, das, plan

1: Good topic specific t debates

2: kritiks - IR, Setcol, Afropess,

1-2: Topical Phil Debates

3-4: Pomo, High theory

3-4: Tricks, blippy incoherent theory,

Speaks are at my discretion so don’t ask for higher speaks in round- ill try to average at a 28.5

PF Paradigm

Do what you do / look at the LD paradigm. If I’m judging at a traditional tournament and you’re running a K against a novice team - you might win but your speaks will not.

Yes roadmaps keep it brief

I'm cofortable with kritiks, theory, and speed - please send docs

do contextual analysis -

Weighing is important - and I don't just mean magnitude, timeframe, or scope what I mean is actual analysis to why if you win your argument it's more important/turns your opponents internal links

*last updated April 12, 2021*

Hey all, I’m Ben (they/them), I go to Los Altos High School

Add me to the email chain benfe024@gmail.com

tech≥truth, I’ll avoid intervention as much as possible while still ensuring accessibility to the round.

1 - ks, phil

1.5 - policy

2 - t

3 - theory

4 - tricks and bad theory

idrc what you read and I like to think im flex - read wtv and win it.

don't be a pos tho

for reference here's my wiki - this is what I read, not necessarily what you should

aff

neg

for online debate

- record speeches locally and send after speech or round if theres a connection issue mid speech

- flash analytics

- send me music please I need smth to listen to

- get verbal confirmation from me before speeches that im ready

- don't worry about your camera - having it off is fine no questions asked

t/l

trad debater =/= don't read "prog" args or args u wanna read but does mean that you should try to be as accessible as you can while also staying within boundaries of what you want to do - however I trust your judgement as to what is accessible. Debate is your space, and what you read is up to you. Nobody, not even your opp, can change that.

on "death good" args: no <3. just no. benatar is fine *only* if read as a criticism of hedonic util, NOT as an advocacy - thats really what he's saying and is also just uh not repugnant

more to be added

Defaults:

truth testing (see the phil part for my thoughts on this), epistemic confidence, neg presumption, no RVIs, CIs > reasonability, fairness > education. that being said, my threshold for how heavily ill stick to these is incredibly low; say otherwise, and I'll follow.

If I cannot understand what you're saying I will yell "clear". If you haven't made any notable change in clarity after three times yelling clear, your speaks will die. Slow down for the last bit of the 2n/2ar, write my rfd for me.

judge instruction is really fuckin great.

cp/da:

tbh im a lot better for this than my wiki or what you know about me suggests

high level ev comparison is very cool. very.

the 2n collapse needs interaction w case or some level of clash w the 1ar direction of offense

Plans: have a solvency advocate lmao

Disads: clear uniqueness, links, and impacts. the more internal links necessary to complete the link chain, I'll have a higher threshold for the quality of each link. If it takes you that many steps to explain an internal link it's probably just not that true, or at least not as true as the aff.

Counterplans: have a net benefit - if ur cp only solves the aff but not a nb you need a disad or a really good offensive case push or just like,,, will lose. SA's are good, but if you can analytically prove that the cp is a good thing, impressive and acceptable. Infinite condo is a good thing. Process cp's probably true, but they should have some nuanced nb as to why this process of the aff is better.

analytic cps - are a thing.

perms are a test of competition omfl.

T:

this is a work in progress!

Theory:

I'll let you know when I hear a good rvi warrant, hasn't happened yet :/

If you win yes RVIs, you still need to win the shell.

weigh standards

funny frivolous shell done well = +0.1 speaks

the 1ar should answer the 1nc standards not just read a ci

Phil:

some of my favorite rounds to evaluate. understand your syllogism, and probably more importantly, make me understand it too. "bindingness", "freedom", "lexical prereq" means nothing to me unless you actually explain it and why it concludes your framing. not sorry. idk about you but Kant's getting kinda boring. way too many affs spend most of their time developing the syllogism and straight up just don't have robust offense. thats sad. don't be like that. good 1ar pivots against the k = high speaks. if you can give a straight ref 1nc and win, 29 speaks minimum.

Does induction fail? dunno. im quite sure I knew last week but thats a past event so idt I can induce from that ://

read an "obscure" Phil author (not Kant, Hobbes, Rawls, Sartre etc you get the point) you get a .5 speaks boost

you should engage the util and da 1nc - actually answering things >>> consequences fail

truth testing doesn't filter out util and you should stop pretending it does

Ks:

yay. I’d like to think that I know a lot of the K lit, so I’ll most likely understand it, but no matter what you gotta explain it. Go for specific links.

stolen from Patrick Fox's paradigm bc I agree w this

- Neg blocks/2NRs vs policy affs should be highly organized, overviews kept to a minumum, and most explanation done on the lbl. Organizing your 2NC/1NRs to mirror the 2AC order is good. Link debate on the permutation, framework on framework, etc. Framework should be a model of debate, so "reps first" isn't really an argument. Links should be contextualized to disprove why I should vote for the aff (whether the aff is a policy or a research object - tell me which!), and should be impacted out to some sort of turns case or external piece of offense. Examples - lines from aff ev, references to CX, etc - do them. If I don't know what the alt does by the end of the 2NR my threshold for the 2AR goes way down. Impact framing and comparison is often forgotten in these debates, and should be present in the block/2NR. Floating PIKs should be set up explicitly in the block (LD: if it's not set up in the 1NC, the 2AR gets new responses - you don't have a block! When does it "float?"), and if I miss it, that's your fault for trying to cheat. 2NRs that go for the PIK that don't robustly explain what the PIK actually looks like tend to lose to the perm, so explicitly re-contextualizing the alternative is probably in your interest - the one policy panel I've sat on was because of this.

- K v K debates - stuff gets muddled very fast in these debates, so examples + organization + clear impacting out of arguments is the winning move. I could be convinced "no perms in a method debate" may be a good argument in the abstract, but it certainly doesn't rise to the level of one in most debates. Read Marxism at your own risk - perversions of the immortal and revolutionary science and revisionist nonsense like "socialism is when healthcare" or "talking about racism is neoliberal" will make me more annoyed and I'd rather you just go for framework than be an annoying socdem.

k-affs: should defend something. your jumping off point should probably be the topic but im open to stuff if not. 2ns should go for presumption more often

more from pat:

- K affs should defend a shift from the status quo to solve an impact - if I do not think this is the case by the end of the 2AR, I will err super heavily negative because, shockingly, affs should defend things. Presumption is underexploited by the negative, but most presumption args should be less about the ballot and more about solvency (or lack thereof). Explaining why debating your aff is valuable is crucial. Overviews are fine but as time goes on, returns diminish. Case debate is essential, and I'm pretty good for the impact turn - I think the aff should be able to explain to me what it does and why it's good, which means saying those things are actually bad is obvious fair game. Wanna restate - the less 2As defend the more annoyed I get.

K v fwk

I don't have a preference in these debates but I do believe in k specific impact turns to T. If you can prove that your model of debate is preferable to T then you win the fwk debate. I think 2ar's are more convincing on the impact turn than the counterinterp, but there are strategic 2ars which go for both or j counterinterp which are good.

Some Ks that I've read and/or I'm comfortable with them:

Baudrillard, cybernetics, security, poetry, D&G, gift, Foucalt, Lacan, ableism, Agamben, Bataille, grove

^explain it^

yo tf is up w the 5 line long k tags ?! stop it.

non-indigenous setcol, nonblack afropess, etc are dtd issues - this is not something I will fill in the gaps on myself, but my opinion and I am very open to 2ns/2ars that go for procedurals like these.

Tricks:

trix are still args and still need warrants. I'll probably be just as confused as your opponent if you collapse to one half a sentence in the middle of your underview. I guess I’m impartial to tricks.

I find that the good ol fwk rob spec tt analytic brain rot 1nc isnt the most compelling but is strategic.

hiding "evaluate after the ac" in a cite of a card isnt a good thing :)

Ev ethics: should be read as a shell - allows for deliberation over it as well as opportunities to actually set norms. much better than a procedural which leaves me w a half explained ev violation and no idea how to decide anything. go read Holden Bukowsky's paradigm for more on this.

RFDs

please post round me talking about debate is fun

don't do it w the intent to be angry tho lol

Some things to get higher speaks:

-Signposting is always good.

-give content warnings!!!!!!! (but not when you don't need one obvs)

-Taking proper prep-time. That’ll make me happy.

-keeping the theory debate clear

-if you have some time left in the 2n (or 2ar) I appreciate if you either go back and keep extending offense, as long as it isnt just a repeat of the first half of the 2n, or slow down, give a lbl and tell me how I should be voting on this round. Slowing down and sequencing should be done more.

-pictures of pets in speech docs

-good 2ns on marxism

-music references

-from pat: Before the debate, both teams/debaters can give me recommendations for a song/s to listen to during prep time, which I will do, and if I vibe with it I may bump speaks.

Some things to get lower speaks:

-making arguments in cx. If you spend 20 seconds making an argument and then you say "what do you have to say to that?", I'll roll my eyes and yawn.

-obviously, evidence ethics are important, so maintain them please. heavy evidence ethics (if proven) is an L20

-be nice to people. cmon.

some other stuff, and pet peeves:

Call me whatever you want, but be consistent I guess. I don't really mind, but if you'd like you can call me my name (Ben!), "judge" "dude", whatever you want.

Explain your cards- "extinction" isn't a good tag. "this causes extinction by..." is a good tag.

Make all the references you'd like, you do you.

You may not concede your remaining cx time to prep time. if you have 20 seconds left of cx, either ask a question, or stop the timer and start your prep.

Anyhoo, just have fun.

obligatory:

Policy--------------------------------X-------------K

K/Policy----------X-----------------------------------Theory/Phil

States CP good----------X------------------------States CP bad

Politics DA is a thing-X----------------------------Politics DA not a thing

UQ matters most---------------X-----------------Link matters most

Fairness is a thing------X-------------------------Delgado 92

Fairness is an Impact-------------------------X------Fairness is an Internal Link

Try or die---------X--------------------------------What's the opposite of try or die

Clarity--X-------------------------------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity

Limits-------------------------X---------------------Aff ground

Presumption----X----------------------------------Never votes on presumption

Resting grumpy face---------------------------X-Grumpy face is your fault

Longer ev--------X---------------------------------More ev

Fiat solves circumvention-----------------------X-Can't fiat enforcement if not in the res

CX about impacts-----------------------------X---CX about links and solvency

Fiat double-bind--------------------------X----------------literally any other arg

1AR should be a card wall-------X--------------------------------------No 1AR cards

(LD) 2NR should be a card wall---------------X-------------------------------No 2NR cards

Memes in speech doc--X-------------------------------------------I'm a boomer and wouldn't appreciate these

CEDA--------------------------------X--------------------------------NDT

Harvard------------------------------------------------------X--Berkeley

good transparent a prioris and clear tricks -x------------------------- what's an a priori?

Rawls------------------------------X-Literally anything else in existence

Sending Analytics in 1ar/2nr-X------------------------------"I don't want to send"

Five 1AR shells-------------------X------------huh,,, just,,, don't do that.

nathan.gong@utexas.edu / I prefer tabroom fileshare though

I qualified to the TOC three times for LD, debated twice, and cleared once (as Plano East and Plano Independent)

Read good quality evidence, be clear, compare arguments, and ballot paint!

Stop talking early when possible - I don't want to hear a 6 minute speech when a theory shell was conceded.

I can tell you speaker points after round if you want

Don't read evaluate after X

Email chain: kaving1226@gmail.com

For JV: I'm just here to chill and help y'all get better! Lay is about word efficiency for me, so I will only consider the flow. I love cases with lots of philosophy, so going above and beyond there will really please me as a judge. Please check the notes for my takes on relevant debate norms.

Heyo! I’m starting my junior year at American High (Fremont) - which marks my 2nd year of circuit LD experience. ;)
Pronouns: he/him/his

Notes:

- look, speaker points really aren't great when it comes to racial, gendered, and ableist biases. I'll give all debaters 29.3 minimum (so it's not too sus) unless they do some things that are really problematic, gotta exploit the system you know

- that being said, i'll give instant 30 speaks if y'all can make me laugh

- be nice in cross x pls

- bigotry is a straight drop. don't question the bright line here, i really hope i never have to do this, so if i do this I mean it.

- I understand if debaters get really anxious - I will stop time (or the round if needed) so you can take a breather.

- if your opponent reads a Ben Shapiro Identity Politics K, you will win the round ONLY if you blast WAP (imarkeyyz) Ben Shapiro remix at full volume in your rebuttal speech (For Sam Harris, say "Well I read actual philosophy" and for Jordan Peterson, say "My opponent simultaneously wants to save glaciers and abolish ICE. Ooga booga". With passion pls).

- I err Tech>truth, just note that tricky strats will not get more than 29 speaks and I also have a soft spot for ROB weighing against tricks/blip theory

- I default - Permissibility flows neg, presumption flows aff

Var Prefs:

1 - Performance / Ks / K affs

My favorite :) I love the K aff v K debates, I’ve read stuff from Cixous to Spivak to Foucault to Marx (went back in time i guess lol) and I've recently had experience with Baudrillard & Barthes Poetry Ks and Hip Hop Pedagogy K affs, so I’ll prolly have some context when I see your Ks. Now lemme clarify for a sec - cap Ks with trutil are not Ks. They are cap CPs lol. And util links into cap btw, i hope your opponent reads this paradigm and uses this turn against you. Gimme that ROB debate pls. And I want clear explanations of the alt, because it is also, in a way, a critical CP text, the link and impact are net benefits. If you run a biopower K and the alt is whatever-being without any solvency add-ons, you better be Agamben himself or that rebuttal speech is gonna be tuff fr. Generally when you extend that K, you need to explain the advocacy in English (or not, depends on the K i guess) without omitting those critical complexities.

2 - T/ Theory

Yep, K + T and Theory shells have been my go-to neg strat. You don't always need cards (tho it will help significantly with weighing against C/Is) some abuses are just obviously true and can be extemp-ed. Aight for the aff: It's pretty hard to win RVIs on topicality (but if they run like 5+ T shells that seems problematic but you also could just warrant your own meta-theory). 1ar theory/independent voters cool with me. For the neg: I'm fine with theory as a time suck - but if its very apparently blippy then you better be ready to properly defend against the RVI in the 2nr. don't concede the 1ar shells, you have 6 minutes to cover. Otherwise, make sure you extend the right standards, do some good weighing on the voters, and you're gucci.

3 - Phil

While I love phil cases, I have not spent much time in the lit - the most I know is a lil Kant, Hegel, Virtue Ethics, and some democratic theories (Republicanism, Deliberative Democracy, a lil Rawls). The syllogism has to make sense in the rebuttal speeches if you're running really dense shells in the constructive - don't treat it like tricks blips pls.

4 - Policy/CPs/DAs

I have spent years at this point dumping on policy cases. Trutil hurts my soul. In the scenario where I end up judging policy debaters: don't worry - you'll make me unhappy but the flow will be evaluated all the same. I do appreciate good weighing on magnitude, timeframe, probability, all that jazz.

5 - Tricks

No. Full-on tricks debates are always weird and un-fun for me to evaluate. Don't do this to me. Please. If the day comes tho, I will still flow fairly. However, if you drop a single piece of offense on a trick, that entire trick layer will be - at best - a wash.

GOOD LUCK IN ROUND :)

Hello!

I am a parent judge. I prefer well-articulated arguments with clear impacts delivered at a moderate speed.

Please do not spread, or run kritiks, counterplans/plans, theory or topicality.

I have not done independent research on this topic, so make sure to impact your arguments and have clear tags and voting issues. I prefer a thoughtful, analytical rebuttal to a rapid evidence dump.

The biggest thing is to be respectful to your opponent. Yelling does not win you arguments, nor does it gain you many speaker points. Other than that, debate to the best of your ability! I look forward to judging your round!

pranav.kalkunte@gmail.com

The Greatest Conceivable Pranav Kalkunte exists and determines morality!

1] Ontology - there are 2 conditions for existence, existence in mind, and in reality. A being that exists, in reality, is definitionally greater than something that doesn’t exist. Thus, if the GCPK exists only in the mind but does not in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than the GCPK. But we can’t conceive of something greater than the GCPK by definition. Thus, if the GCPK exists in the mind, then the GCPK exists in reality.

2] Motion- Objects are in motion. Everything in motion was put in motion by something else that is moving. There must be a first mover, and that is the GCPK. The alternative is an infinite regress, something relies on the further back and there is no starting point.

3] Contingency- there are 2 forms of being, a necessary and a contingent being. An existence is contingent if it is based on the existence of something else. Not everything is contingent, because then, by definition, it all could have never existed. Thus, the necessary being exists, a being that can’t not exist. The necessary being is GCPK.

4] Degrees - Properties come in degrees. In order for there to be degrees of morality, there must be something perfect against which everything else is measured. The GCPK is the pinnacle of perfection against which everything else is measured.

5] Teleology- essence precedes existence- everything has a purpose. A cup exists to hold water and is made so by purposeful design. To be purposeful, there needs to be a creator of purpose, which is the GCPK.

6] Pascal’s wager – default to a belief in the GCPK since disobeying the GCPK’s will would be infinite badness, but irrationally following a nonexistent GCPK is only instrumentally bad.

7] Performativity – you couldn’t contest the arguments of the 1AC without being here because of the first mover which means every argument you make concedes the authority of the GCPK and collapses to me.

Thus, we ought to remain in consistency with the GCPK’s will and the GCPK’s will is infinitely good.

tldr do what you do best; i'll only vote for complete arguments that make sense; weighing & judge instruction tip the scales in your favor; disclosure is good; i care about argument engagement and i value flexibility; stay hydrated & be a good person.

--

About me:

she/her

policy coach @ damien: spring 2022 - present

ld coach @ loyola: fall 2023 - present

--

My strongest belief about argumentation is that argument engagement is good - I don't have a strong preference as to what styles of arguments teams read in front of me, but I'd prefer if both teams engaged with their opponents' arguments; I don't enjoy teams who avoid clash (regardless of the style of argument they are reading). I value ideological flexibility in judges and actively try not to be someone who will exclusively vote on only "policy" or only "k" arguments.

I am comfortable evaluating arguments that are commonplace in policy (cx) debate; less comfortable evaluating nonsense trick-blip-phil-paradox-skep-word-soup quirks of lincoln douglas. This means that any CX team that debates in a coherent and well-researched manner (whether policy or k) should be fine in front of me. LD teams that read real arguments should be fine in front of me. LD teams that read "eval after 1ar" should strike me before they strike a parent judge.

General note about reading my paradigm - most things are phrased in terms of policy debate structure & norms (2nr/2ar being 5 minutes, "team" instead of "debater," "planless aff" = "non-t k aff," etc). If I'm judging you in LD and you have questions about how something translates to LD, feel free to ask!

--

email chains:

ld email chains: loyoladebate47@gmail.com and nethmindebate@gmail.com

policy email chains: damiendebate47@gmail.com and nethmindebate@gmail.com

if you need to contact me directly about rfd questions, accessibility requests, or anything else, please email nethmindebate@gmail.com (please don't email the teamail for these types of requests)!

--

flowing: it is good and teams should do it

stolen from alderete - if you show me a decent flow, you can get up to 1 extra speaker point. this can only help you - i won't deduct points for an atrocious flow. this is to encourage teams to actually flow. i recently witnessed a 2ac that answered a whole k that was not read in the 1nc. it nuked my value to life. this is my attempt at remedying it:)

--

All of my deal-breakers/hard and fast rules/moments of "I won't vote on this" are dependent on four things:

1 - protecting the safety of the participants in the round (no harrassment, no physical violence, etc).

2 - voting for things that meet the minimum standard to be considered an argument (it needs to have warrants & make some amount of logical sense).

3 - rules set forth by the tournament (speech times, one team wins and one team loses, I have to enter my own ballot, etc).

4 - i will only evaluate the debate after the end of the 2ar. this is 0% negotiable. i did not think i would have to say this, but i guess i do.

--

My voting record is roughly 50-50 on most major debate controversies (yes, even planless affs vs framework). As long as your argument doesn't violate the above four criteria, go for it!

I think that warrants are hard to come by in many debate rounds these days, even ones with “good” teams. Err on the side of a little too much explanation, because if your arg is warrantless, you will be ballotless. Extensions need to include warrants, not just taglines.

Independent voters need warrants and an articulation of why they should be evaluated before everything else. These debates could generally benefit from more judge instruction and weighing. Simply calling something an independent voter doesn’t mean I vote for you if you extend it.

Disclose or lose. Non-new affs should be on the wiki & should be disclosed to the neg team a minimum of 30 min before round. Neg offcase positions that have been read before should be on the wiki. Past 2nrs should be disclosed to the aff team a minimum of 30 min before round. New affs don't need to be disclosed pre-round. I am 1000000% done with teams that don't disclose. I have zero belief that there is any good reason for non-disclosure. If your opponent engages in any disclosure nonsense, read theory and there's a 95+% chance I vote for you, regardless of how good they are at the theory debate. Don't like disclosing? Pref someone who is willing to tolerate your nonsense (not me).

note: i am far more lenient on disclosure with novices/debaters who haven't debated at national-circuit tournaments before. the grumpiness of the above section is directed at people who know how to disclose and purposefully avoid it. you know who you are:)

--

Some general notes

Accessibility & content warnings: Email me if there is an accessibility request that I can help facilitate - I always want to do my part to make debates more accessible. I prefer not to judge debates that involve procedurals about accessibility and/or content warnings. I think it is more productive to have a pre-round discussion where both teams request any accommodation(s) necessary for them to engage in an equitable debate. I feel increasingly uncomfortable evaluating debates that come down to accessibility/cw procedurals, especially when the issue could have easily been resolved pre-round.

Speed/clarity – I will say clear up to two times per speech before just doing my best to flow you. I can handle a decent amount of speed. Going slower on analytics is a good idea. You should account for pen time/scroll time.

Online debate -- 1] please record your speeches, if there are tech issues, I'll listen to a recording of the speech, but not a re-do. 2] debate's still about communication - please watch for nonverbals, listen for people saying "clear," etc.

I am not comfortable evaluating out-of-round events. The only exception to this is disclosure. I will vote on reasonable and good faith disclosure theory (yeah you should probably disclose on opencaselist, no you probably shouldn't lose for forgetting one round report). I will not vote on arguments about random out-of-round events, things that happened in another round, things that happened on a team's pref sheet, or any other arguments of this nature.

--

Speaker points:

Speaker points are dependent on strategy, execution, clarity, and overall engagement in the round and are scaled to adapt to the quality/difficulty/prestige of the tournament.

I try to give points as follows:

30: you're a strong contender to win the tournament & this round was genuinely impressive

29.5+: late elims, many moments of good decisionmaking & argumentative understanding, adapted well to in-round pivots

29+: you'll clear for sure, generally good strat & round vision, a few things could've been more refined

28.5+: likely to clear but not guaranteed, there are some key errors that you should fix

28+: even record, probably losing in the 3-2 round

27.5+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, key technical/strategic errors

27+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, multiple notable technical/strategic errors

26+: errors that indicated a fundamental lack of preparation for the rigor/style of this tournament

25-: you did something really bad/offensive/unsafe.

Extra speaks for flowing, being clear, kindness, adaptation, and good disclosure practices.

Minus speaks for discrimination of any sort, bad-faith disclosure practices, rudeness/unkindness, and attempts to avoid engagement/clash.

--

Opinions on Specific Positions (ctrl+f section):

Case:

I think that negatives that don't engage with the 1ac are putting themselves in a bad position. This is true for both K debates and policy debates.

Extensions should involve warrants, not just tagline extensions - I'm willing to give some amount of leeway for the 1ar/2ar extrapolating a warrant that wasn't the focal point of the 2ac, but I should be able to tell from your extensions what the scenario is, what the internal links are, and why you solve.

Planless affs:

I've been on both sides of the planless aff debate, and my strongest opinion about planless affs is that you need to be able to explain what your aff does/why it's good.

I tend to dislike planless affs where the strategy is to make the aff seem like a word salad until after 2ac cx and then give the aff a bunch of new (and not super well-warranted) implications in the 1ar. I tend to be better for planless aff teams when they have a meaningful relationship to the topic, they are straight-up about what they do/don't defend, they use their aff strategically, engage with neg arguments, and make smart 1ar & 2ar decisions with good ballot analysis.

T/framework vs planless affs:

I'm roughly 50-50 in these debates. I don't have a strong preference for how framework teams engage in these debates other than that you should be respectful when discussing sensitive material.

I think that TVAs can be more helpful than teams realize. While having a TVA isn't always necessary, winning a TVA provides substantial defense on many of the aff's exclusion arguments.

I don't have a preference on whether your chosen 2nr is skills or fairness (or something else). I think that both options have strategic value based on the round you're in. Framework teams almost always get better points in front of me when they are able to contextualize their arguments to their opponents' strategy.

I also don't have a preference between the aff going for impact turns or going for a counterinterp. The strategic value of this is dependent on how topical/non-topical your aff is, in my opinion.

Theory:

The less frivolous your theory argument, the better I am for it.

Please weigh! It's not nearly as intuitive to make a decision in theory debates - I can fill in the gaps for why extinction is more impactful than localized war more easily than I can fill in the gaps for why neg flex matters more/less than research burdens.

default to no rvis <3 medium uphill to change my mind on this one

Topicality (not framework):

I like T debates that have robust and contextualized definitions of the relevant words/phrases/entities in the resolution. Have a clear explanation of what your interpretation is/isn't; examples/caselists are your friend.

Grammar-based topicality arguments: I don't find most of the grammar arguments being made these days to be very intuitive. You should explain/warrant them more than you would in front of a judge who loves those arguments.

Tricks (this is mostly an LD thing):

I used to say that I would never vote on tricks. I've decided it's bad to exclude a style of argumentation just because I don't enjoy it. Here are some things to know if you're reading tricks in front of me:

1 - I won't flow off the doc (I never flow off the doc, but I won't be checking the doc to see if I missed any of your tricks/spikes)

2 - The argument has to have a warrant in the speech it is presented

3 - The reason I've been so opposed to voting on tricks in the past is that I've never heard a trick that met the minimum threshold to be considered an argument

Kritiks (neg):

I tend to like K teams that engage with the aff and have a clear analysis of what's wrong with the aff's model/framing/epistemology/etc. I tend to be a bit annoyed when judging K teams that read word-salad or author-salad Ks, refuse to engage with arguments, expect me to fill in massive gaps for them, don't do adequate weighing/ballot analysis/judge instruction, or are actively hostile toward their opponents. The more of the aforementioned things you do, the more annoyed I'll be. The inverse is also true - the more you actively work to ensure that you don't do these things, the happier I'll be!

Disads:

Zero risk probably doesn't exist, but very-close-to-zero risk probably does. Teams that answer their opponents' warrants instead of reading generic defense tend to fare better in close rounds. Good evidence tends to matter more in these debates - I'd rather judge a round with 2 great cards + debaters explaining their cards than a round with 10 horrible cards + debaters asking me to interpret their dumpster-quality cards for them.

Counterplans:

I don't have strong ideological biases about how many condo advocacies the neg gets or what kinds of counterplans are/aren't cheating. More egregious abuse = easier to persuade me on theory; the issue I usually see in theory debates is a lack of warranting for why the neg's model was uniquely abusive - specific analysis > generic args + no explanation.

Judge kick - you've gotta tell me to do it. I'm not opposed to it, but I won't assume that you want me to unless the 2nr tells me to. No strong opinions for/against judge kick.

currently no strong opinions on things like normal means or counterplan competition on the fiscal redistribution topic. this means you can probably get away with more in front of me as long as you warrant it/read good evidence.

--

Arguments I will NEVER vote for:

-arguments that are actively discriminatory or make the round unsafe ("misgendering good," "let's make the debate about a minor's personal life," other stuff of that nature).

-any argument that attempts to police what a debater wears or how they present (this includes shoes theory/formal clothes theory).

-any argument that denies the existence/badness of oppression (i don't mean i won't vote for "extinction outweighs." i mean i won't vote for "genocide good.")

--

if there's anything i didn't mention or you have any questions, feel free to email me! if there's anything i can do to make debate more accessible for you, let me know! i really love debate and i coach because i want to make debate/the community a better place; please don't hesitate to reach out if there's anything you need.

Hi, I'm Dhruv!

I did LD debate for Proof School, cleared at most tournaments, and went to the TOC my junior year. I now study applied math and computer science at Brown University (class of 2027).

I read mostly policy and theory arguments, sometimes read tricks, and dabbled a little with Ks and phil. Read whatever you want.

Update for Harvard: I'm getting a wee bit tired of tricks debates...

Email Chain: dhruv.r.raghavan [at] gmail.com

Prefs Shortcut (based on what I think I'm good at judging)

1. policy, theory

2. tricks

3. phil, Ks

4. k v k

Top-level ideas/opinions:

-I will vote on basically anything that's warranted (no bigotry). Even though I have opinions, I will try my best to be a blank slate.

-Debate is a game. Play the game to win.

-The content of high school debates should probably be PG-13 (sporadic cursing is fine).

-Tech>truth, but to be honest, the tech/truth distinction is kind of silly; if an argument relies on a fact that's blatantly false, i.e. "WW2 ended in 1965" I am probably going to disregard it, but I won't intervene against subjective arguments like "communism good." As a rule of thumb, arguments with better quality warrants are easier to win.

-Please don't make debate the oppression olympics.

-Tell me what impacts matter. Weighing wins debates.

-I'm not gonna vote on arguments pertaining to the identities of you or your opponent (i.e I'm __ so I should win), or arguments about events that occurred out of round (other than disclosure theory).

-Compiling is prep, but sending isn't (unless you're taking a while, in which case I'll get a bit annoyed).

-"Independent voting issues" need to have a warrant, independent weighing/framing mechanism, and an explanation of why they outweigh in the first speech they are read in.

Speaks:

I will try to base speakers points off of strategy only (the exception is when you're a jerk). I've decided to not vote on arguments pertaining to speaker points because you could just say "give us both 30 speaks" and then your opponent would concede it and that defeats the purpose of speaks. Anyways, here's a rough scale:

30: You displayed an astonishingly high level of technical proficiency, argument innovation, and knowledge in the subject matter of the debate.

29.5-29.9: You did something really creative/entertaining and showed an argumentative proficiency that will likely get you to mid-late out-rounds.

29-29.4: Your strategy was great, and you'll probably clear.

28.5-28.9: Barely clearing or even record.

28-28.4: You're below average for this tournament and your strategy wasn't great.

27.5-27.9: Your strategy had significant errors, and you didn't really understand the arguments you read.

27.4 or below: You did something that pissed me off.

Speed:

I will say clear 3 times before I stop flowing. Pause a little between cards, slow down on analytics, and enunciate every word.

Here are some loose opinions I have about specific positions:

Advantages/DAs:

-Do not assume I have any topic knowledge.

-The plan text should be clear and concise.

-Evidence comparison is a must in close debates, so know your evidence well. It's of course fine to read cards that other people cut, but make sure you've read and understood the articles.

Counterplans/CP theory:

-Perms are a test of competition.

-Do impact calc and tell me how I should evaluate the CP (i.e. sufficiency framing, judge kick, etc.)

-I err aff on cheaty counterplan competition. That means I'll have a lower threshold for functionally intrinsic perms.

Ks:

-I know more about cap and set col than other Ks.

-Don't be afraid to impact turn their model of debate.

-Use concrete examples when explaining your alt. Do not assume I know what "traversing the fantasy," "embracing a cartography of refusal," "joining the party," etc. are.

-I went for vague alts bad a lot, simply because most people don't know how to respond to it. That being said, affirmatives that read this shell often violate their own interpretation by reading semi-vague plan texts. So if you're gonna go for it, add specification below your plan text or something like that.

-The fiat distinction is arbitrary.

-I don't understand why people read 1-minute-long, buzzword-filled overviews at top speed. I don't flow them. They are completely useless and are often filled with incomprehensible, heinous run-on sentences. Do actual line-by-line please.

Topicality

-The word "reasonability" without any contextualization is not enough for me to drop the shell.

-Please do weighing between semantics and pragmatics, limits and PICs, etc.

-I enjoy topic specific T debates more than ones about bare plurals.

-Slow down in the 2nr please, especially if it's docced.

Theory

-Paragraph shells are fine, but you still need paradigm issues.

-I default DTD, no RVIs, and competing interps. All of these can easily be changed.

-Weighing is as important in theory debates as it is in other debates.

-Yes, you can read your 7 frivolous shells in front of me, but don't make the debate messy.

-Slow down on analytics please.

Tricks

-Fine with these debates, just slow down so I don't miss "extemped" arguments.

-TBH, I'm getting tired of these debates just because people don't read them well. If you poorly execute a tricks strategy, your speaks will suffer.

-They need a claim, warrant, and impact, just like any other argument. Paradoxes without explicit ballot implications are hard to vote on.

-If you extend a conceded trick, extend the claim, warrant, and impact.

-If they ask for the a prioris in CX, be straight up about them (though asking "What's an a priori?" as a joke is funny).

Philosophy

-While I never really got into this style of debate, I do enjoy reading and discussing philosophy and I'm down to judge these debates, especially if you're reading something new/innovative.

-Most familiar with Kant and Pragmatism, err on the side of over-explanation for other ethical theories.

Non-T/Performance/T-Framework

-If I don't know what the aff does I'm not voting for it.

-The burden is on the aff to prove why debating the topic is undesirable.

-Presumption is an underrated tool in these debates.

-Framework 2NRs should try to be specific to the round.

-I like TVAs and am persuaded by well-written ones.

-If you're going to "perform" in some way, make it clear how I'm supposed to evaluate it. Just randomly playing a song or reading a poem and not bringing it up in the 1ar is sorta useless.

That's all I have to say for now, but if you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask (by email or before the round).

Happy Debating!

hi! im yesh

sophomore at san mateo class of 24! i qualled to the TOC in LD both years if its relevant

updated for middle school toc

yeshraofc@gmail.com for the chain although i prefer speech drop

read anything! i've gone for / debated against everything and think i won't be predisposed to any particular style of arguments

Policy Arguments: I'm good for these! impact calculus wins rounds, the 2nr should answer the aff and win either a substantial risk of cp solvency with at least some risk of a disad, or a large risk of a disad with small risk of the aff. Impact calculus should be the top of the 2nr, turns case arguments are underutilized and win rounds. Limited intrisicness is almost always arbitrary. Theoretical objections to most counterplans could better be read as perms/cp competition arguments but I'm okay listening to them as theory arguments too. I'll judge kick the counterplan if you tell me to and any 2ar reason I shouldn't might not be the best time investment but up to you

Theory: Also good for this! The 2ar/2nr on theory should spend the vast majority of your time doing internal link comparison and weigh between standards. I think weighing between voters like fairness and education is less persuasive, most standards have internals to both and are more nuanced. I'm good for 1ar shells but I do think they should have some development in the 1ar to be a complete argument. I default competing interps, drop the argument, and no rvi's. These are changed with arguments in the contrary but it's just to have a standardized way to think about rounds.

Phil: Probably the thing I've gone for least but one of the things I wish more people went for! I understand Kant, Hobbes, and Prag to an extent. I'd love to see you go for anything else but I'd suggest assuming that I don't understand it and go from there. I usually read util affs but I've also read/gone for kant and prag so I'm good for both sides of that debate in most instances!

Kritiks: I think I'm a lot better for this than my argumentative history may suggest but admittedly I don't know about most literature bases. I'd love to hear a good 2nr on any kritik or a k aff and won't be ideologically opposed to it in any way. I would like if the 1nc includes a framework block because LD makes the weigh case debate very very muddled if late breaking.

Non T Affs: I have gone for these a few times and think I'm okay for them. I'm better for impact turns to framework / reasons abdicating the resolution is valuable OVER defense to negative offense and less true I meet's. I've gone for 2NRs on both limits/fairness and skills but I think skills is more persuasive for me.

Speaks: I average a 28.5, and will go up/down from there. Speaks are based on strategic choices and persuasion. To get higher speaks, be nice in cx and make rounds easier to evaluate!

Email me if you have any other questions! 

Hello!

I'm really excited to judge your round(s). Here's a little about my debate experience and what you can expect from me as a judge.

Experience: I went to high school in Texas, and my circuit was competitive. I started with policy but mostly competed in LD (4 years). I have also competed in/learned Congress, Extemp, WS, and Info. My debate journey was incredibly messy with the pandemic, as it was for almost everyone in the world. My ISD switched through three different coaches in four years, and my school just started its debate program as a new campus opened in 2021. I'm excited to start fresh at UMich and hope to continue with speech & debate for as long as possible.

Judging:

I expect to be included in the email chain shreysr@umich.edu (including any text/email conversations you are having during the round about the round with your team/opponent—this is important to ensure that we are having a fair and SAFE round). As a judge, I want to make a safe space for debate a priority. Any kind of bullying/ableism will lead to you losing speaker points or losing the round.

This should apply to all your rounds, but please keep things organized. I'm not asking you to re-format anything for me, but I ask for you to be considerate of your opponents' formatting preferences AND accessibility needs.

I have not judged very many high school debate tournaments- Don't put me on prefs if you want a highly technical round because I wouldn't know how to judge that.

Be nice; we're here for the learning experience!

As a judge, my paradigm is constantly evolving. Should you have any questions, email me (linked above)