Kerav Agarwal

Pembroke Hill '26

Add me to the email chain: Kagarwal26@pembrokehill.org(Speechdrop is preferred)

Second Year of Policy Debate

TL;DR

Please read at a conversational speed so that you are articulate, don't spread

Truth<Tech

Be Organized!

I decide my vote based on Stock Issues

I don't prefer T's or K's, but I will try my best to vote for whoever is the best

Please be respectful of everyone and make sure to enjoy yourselves

General

I prefer Policy Debate compared to Kritiks, I would highly discourage it but if you do it I will flow it

Truth<Tech

I really appreciate teams that give a proper Impact Calculus

Go at a conversational speed, I like when debaters are able to clearly articulate their argument so that anyone can understand

I love anyone who is passionate about debate and their knowledge about Policy terms, however, any form of bigotry or hate speech is an immediate loss

I also do international Extemp, so I enjoy geopolitics, and I will appreciate any debate arguments based anywhere around geopolitics.

Policy Debate

T's

I do not like it when a NEG argument is primarily based on their T arguments, and most of the time I will not vote for a NEG if their argument has a T

However, if the AFF is clearly violating the Resolution and the NEG is able to provide a proper argument as to why an AFF is untopical, then I will consider it.

I believe in reasonability arguments for the AFF, but the NEG also has to be practical

If a NEG side gives a T argument and the AFF completely drops it, then I will have to consider the NEG's argument

K's K AFF's Debate Theory, FW

I consider myself a policy debater and I really don't like the concept of K's, I think it ruins the spirit of debate overall, and it shows that a team can't give proper reasons to refute an argument, I don't think that Kritiks are applicable

For Debate Theory and FW, these arguments can get pretty complicated, once again I prefer a debate based on how good the primary arguments are, although debate theory seems interesting. I won't be able to understand what you're saying if you go more too in-depth. Debate theory and FW has to have clear points, but overall if it is a good argument I will consider it in my ballot.

DA's

I will always prefer a good Impact, however, it has to have a proper link to the argument.

If a DA has a strong impact but a weak link chain, then I won't be able to vote in favor of that DA because impacts need a proper connection with the DA.

Overall, DAs are amazing, and I support them, however, they have to have a proper UQ- Link- Internal Link- Impact

CP's

CP's are a great way to show an alternative for the NEG against the AFF

That being said, I do believe that Cps such as PICs, Agents, and Advantage Cps are great arguments but once again, the team has to give a reasonable and articulate argument for what they are proposing.

Stock Issues

I do believe in the six stock issues, and that the AFF has to prove all six stock issues in order to win, and for the NEG they only have to prove one stock issue correct, mainly if it is an inherency or Solvency argument.

Other

For PFD and LD debate, I am quite inexperienced in these areas, so I will be judged just like any other lay judge and will be just looking for who are the best speakers, but policy debaters should stick to their arguments and present the best case possible

I believe being articulate, having an organized speech, and showing respectful behavior are all things that will boost speaker points, and have a more engaging round.

In Cross-Examination I don't worry too much about the questions in relation to the outcome of the round, but if a team cannot properly answer a question that is repeated multiple times, then I may consider it in my ballot.

Overall, I believe that debate is a fun extracurricular for everyone and should be taken as a learning opportunity, so if a team does have any problem or something is not right, then I would be open to the round being paused. However, I think that debate should be a great activity to grow and learn to turn losses into wins in the future.

About Me

Hello, I am a student in the Pembroke Hill School, Class of '26. This is my second year doing Policy Debate (and OO). I have debated UBI in PFD as a Middle Schooler and NATO as a CX Novice

Add me to the email chain: mamin26@pembrokehill.org (Speechdrop is preferred). Always disclose evidence.

TL;DR

• Read at a conversational speed, and please don't spread

• Tech > Truth, but I still really like truth args

• Show me why your impacts are more probable and more existential, and how you solve it (Impact Calc!!)

• For Policy: Win on the stock issues

• Give me lots of judge instruction

• Provide me with multiple reasons/alleyways that show why you deserve my ballot

• Be nice to your partner and opponents in round, especially in cross-examination

• I will try my best to make the vote for the deserved team and give comments for everyone in the ballot

General

• I will listen to any arg, but I prefer Policy args over K args.

• Go at a conversational speed, or if you want to speak fast, please don't spread- especially if your opponents would not be able to understand you. You will be risking my ballot if you read too fast.

• Provide some judge instruction and tell me why you deserve my vote.

• I really like impact debates, but I must be convinced that there are strong links.

• I love passionate rounds, but if someone is clearly being rude to another debater, I may consider voting against that person.

AFF/PRO

• Show me that you know your case

• Demonstrate why the squo is bad and how you can solve.

• Make sure your case/advantages outweigh.

• Policy specific: Make sure you win all of the stock issues.

NEG/CON

• Demonstrate to me why the squo is fine, or (specifically for Policy) show me how your CP or K solves AFF harms.

• Explain to me how you have won at least one major argument (or stock issue for Policy) in the round.

I will Dock Speaker Points if a debater is:

• Stealing prep time. I may be more lenient if it's for obvious difficulties.

• Sliming during final speeches (I have been flowing the round, I'll know when someone's lying).

• Interrupting or not letting your opponent speak during cross-examination.

• Being rude or mean, as well as laughing at an opponent.

• Saying inappropriate things that would be hurtful to groups of people. Like being an -ist or -phobic.

Speaker Point Boosters:

• Know your speech- Make sure you can adequately answer questions during cross-examination, and don't speak just to waste time.

• Organize your speech docs and give me a roadmap before time starts

• Mentioning specific warrants in your evidence

• Using evidence from earlier speeches to respond

• Using cross-examination to show a contradiction in their case.

• Providing judge instructions

• Making eye contact with the judge

• Being nice.

• Smile! This is your time to shine.

Policy

T Debate

• I will not vote for a T, but I might if an AFF is clearly outside of the resolution.

• Reasonability args will be heavily considered in a T debate. However, the NEG can probably argue against that adequately and convince me otherwise.

• If the NEG runs a T and the AFF drops it, then I may vote NEG just on the T.

K's, K AFFs, FW, and Theory

• Policy debate over K args.

• If you want to run K, I would like lots of judge instruction. Otherwise, I will lose you.

• I will weigh the K to the AFF, unless I am convinced otherwise.

• I don't prefer K AFFs, but I'll tolerate them.

• FW args are fine, but don't be outrageous about it.

• Theory args are good. If you can prove to me that your opponents' args are ruining the spirit of debate (education, fairness, etc.), I'm all for it. However, it's not something that I will vote for exclusively.

DA

• Good Link > Good Impact. If there is a weak link, then I can't even consider the impact.

• Prove to me that the DA truly links to the plan, then we can talk impact.

• UQ is important to prove, but I do ultimately believe that the DA must prove that the plan leads to a serious impact

• I don't mind terminal impacts. Again, it heavily depends on strong links.

• Ultimately, if you can win on impact calc on the case (with a HEAVY emphasis on Probability and Magnitude), I will vote for you.

CP

• PICs are fair game, but I do feel like the AFF can provide solid theory args to attack them, so that's an exciting back-and-forth for me.

• I am fine with condo, but AFF generic args can easily convince me not to vote for it. Again, I don't mind it too much. Whoever wins on fairness & education will win the condo good/bad debate. If you do condo, go for at least or 3 args.

• I agree that CPs are subject to fiat, but the AFF can convince me otherwise, especially if they're up against a multi-actor fiat.

• For NEG to win CP, they MUST win on Solvency Deficit and that the CP doesn't link to the net-benefit.

Case

• I go under the philosophy that 1AC cards are some of the best cards that are used in a debate round. I would love it if some of those cards could be used here and there in later speeches.

• I am cool with re-highlightings, and I will read them.

PFD

• I have a year of experience in middle school, so I'm not the most experienced.

• No counterplans for CON, even if it sounds like PRO is making a plan.

• Whoever wins on the FW debate and fits within that FW should have no problem winning.

• Explain your voting issues in the final speeches, and why you have access to those voting issues.

• Besides that, I will likely judge the round like I would for Policy, so please bear with me.

LD

• I have no experience in this event.

• I will judge the round like I would for Policy, as well (that includes my stance on K's, CP's, and case args).

• Show me why your opponent's case leads to worse impacts and why your case solves, and you'll likely win.

Overall

If you can demonstrate proper debate technique and display why your side will make or is making the world a better place, I will vote for you. Looking forward to a fun round!

Pembroke Hill '26

Add me to the email chain: hboyle26@pembrokehill.org

he/him

Second year of Policy Debate

NATO, Fiscal Redistribution

My way of evaluating debates has been largely influenced by Parker Hopkins, Justin Smith, Alicia Stout, and Jimmy O'Connell

I really love debate and love to judge people who feel the same!

General

Tech > Truth

I feel like the impact debate has become a lost art

I love the link debate

Whatever speed is fine

Please put analytics in the Speechdoc

Clarity > Speed, I will call out "Clear" three times per speech before I stop flowing

My usual 2NR is case turn + DA + CP

Make sure you do a lot of judge instruction if you want me to vote for you

My starting speaks are 28.5

I enjoy passionate debates/debaters, and will add speaker points if you are aggressive

No homophobia, racism, sexism, any hate in general

Policy

T's

Don't just throw a T out there to get a T out there

I honestly like reasonability arguments from the AFF, but I think it is fairly easy for the NEG to convince me otherwise

Framer's Intent (only if your evidence is very, very good) > Precision = Ground = Limits > Predictability (explain to me in round which I should prefer)

K's, K AFFs, FW, and Theory

I used to consider myself a policy debater, but have started to shift my debating

If you go for real world arguments, you will have to prove to me that there will be an impact

Im still on the side that the Aff should be allowed to weigh their plan, but can be convinced otherwise

If theres not a clear or good link, its gonna be a lot harder to get my ballot

My usual 1AR was FW, Extinction o/w, Cap Good (if applicable)

Saying fairness is an I/L and not an impact is like saying nuke war is an I/L and not an impact

K Affs are cool, but really try to relate to the resolution

T is the way to go

I think theory in any facet is important to debate

Condo is probably good

DA

If you do good job explaining how the DA o/w + turns case, I WILL BE VERY HAPPY

But the impact debate is usually stale on DA's, so I tend to evaluate the link debate the most

CP

The Aff lets the Neg get away with too much stuff with CP's

I have developed a love for good PICs and Advantage CP's

Don't read a cheaty or basic CP and your speaks will reflect that

Case

I really like Inherency arguments

I am a big fan of rehighlights

A 2NR with lots of case will always make me happy

Please do impact calc in the 2NR/2AR

Anything Else

I am happy to discuss my thoughts further before rounds if you ask

I flow CX

PFD

I competed in PFD for one year during Middle School

Just weigh your impacts and have good links, and whoever does that better will win

Most likely I won't know too much about the topic, so explain it well in round

LD

I have never competed in LD, but I know the basics of the style of debate

Thank you for reading and good luck!!!

I'm Ria I am a first year cx debater for Pembroke

add me to the email chain rkumar27@pembrokehill.org

cx

Do whatever arguments you want, I'll flow it. I'm not the most experienced policy debater so if your gonna run a K please explain it well, explain fw to me too, and have a good impact. I really enjoy a good fem k and love a good cp If you're gonna run a DA you need to explain clearly how it turns/outweighs case. PLEASE PLEASE SIGNPOST it makes life so much easier when I flow. I like a good T debate and I'm most likely gonna vote based on who explains it better. Speaker points wise I'm not too harsh I really love watching a good debate. Please obviously don't go over time in speeches I will allow a ten second grace period, but after that I will start deducting speaker points

PFD

I debated public forum at one tournament and in middle school, so pretty lay. With time don’t go over I will allow a ten second grace period before deducting speaker points. I know the basics of PFD and know how it works, I know cx can get really heated but please be civil and kind otherwise I will start deducting speaker points. I also love some impact calc so throw some of that in.

LD

no idea what you do in LD i am very lay. I know there are value criterions ? and other stuff but yeah.

Have fun, be civil, and treat everyone with respect. Any homophobia, racism, or sexism will result in an automatic loss.

pembroke hill '24

add me to the chain: joconnell24@pembrokehill.org

fourth year of policy debate

tl;dr

1. you do you -- read what you want and I'll flow it -- "I think have a higher bar for a complete argument that the average judge and some may say I care more about the "truth" side of "tech over truth." This is not necessarily about content, but about argument development/evidence/persuasion." -- Jimin Park

2. impact weighing and judge instruction is important

3. i ran exclusively policy positions on the aff and a mix of policy and k on the neg (CJR, Water, NATO, FR)

4. this topic seems to have an issue with plan vagueness and i don't really want to vote for a team who doesn't know what their plan really does or how it is funded

5. i like debate a lot. i watch a lot of debates, read a lot of paradigms, look at a lot of research outside of debate, etc. i'll do my best to come to a good decision, but always err on the side of over explanation

6. disclosure is good.

policy specific:

t:

1. love a good t debate

2. limits > ground

3. "The articulation of reasonability that will persuade me is that the substance crowdout generated by T debates outweighs the difference between the two interps” – Anirudh Prabhu

4. people don't do enough impact comparison and explanation of how their interp solves the other side's offense

5. i don't think T is automatically offense/defense but obviously can be persuaded otherwise

6. i really like emory gk vs minnesota pr ndt '22

k aff / fw:

1. do not try to resolve things you can't reasonably impact

2. i don't think i have a preference on clash, fairness, etc.

3. go for the impact turn sure, but id still prefer you make responses to das.

4. "The threshold to win an impact turn vs framework when reading an AFF about research practices tends to be difficult because it requires winning a threshold of contingent solvency that I don't think is usually achievable, or at the very least are typically poorly explained." -- maddie pieropan

5. "The 2NC and 2NR should spend time applying their impact filters to specific parts of aff offense. This can be made most effective by explaining your switch side argument on the impact turn you believe it resolves the best" -- Arnav Kashyap

6. turns case are good. clash is a prereq to actualizing the aff >>>>>>>>> assume the aff is false because we couldn't test it

7. not experienced in k v k debates; will need a lot of explanation and judge instruction if the neg k is not cap; i have no huge preferences on perm/no perm but the aff will need to do more than just saying "no perms in a method v method debate"

a. i also think alt distinction is important, no matter how big your link is

k v policy:

1. this is where i spend the most time thinking about debate outside of rounds

2. not super comfortable with pomo or stuff like that

3. i care about framework more than most i think, but general default is affirmatives get to weigh the aff but have to defend their epistemologies; recently a lot of judges are strongly against a middle ground-interpretation but i think i'm more amenable to that

4. please debate the case, unless you're way ahead on why you don't have to

5. make smart choices and go for the right stuff; f/w + link, link is a da + try or die for the alt. you get the idea

6. From Kenji Aoki: "I'm most persuaded by framework strategies that do one of three things:

1. attempt to just exclude the aff and win substantial impact turns to their model of plan focus/consequentialism,
2. limit the scope of aff solvency while enhancing the scope of alt solvency, or
3. are ditched in favor of more particular engagements on the link/impact/alt level of the kritik"

7. tricks are cool

da:

1. link specificity and contextualization is key

2. i generally like a good ptx da, but i'm not comfortable adjudicating debates around certain ptx theory

3. i don't really believe in "any risk of the link"

4. i typically thing impact turning is unhelpful here -- i'd prefer you spend your time on the link/uq level, particularly making arguments about which controls the other

5. turns case arguments are very persuasive when applied to the i/l's of the aff

cp:

1. imo affs let the neg get away with way too much on cps

2. that being said, i think functional pics are a great way to gain offense--especially if you have a well-researched and specific solvency advocate

3. the cp doesn't need to solve all of the aff and i often find solvency threshold debates trivial

4. adv cps often seem illogical -- but i like them and think they are super fun

5. the textual/functional model seems generally good to me

6. condo is mostly good, multi-actor fiat is mostly bad

7. consult and delay cps are probably bad

8. i will always default to judge kick unless convinced otherwise -- exception is i won't judge kick in order to vote on presumption

case:

1. underutilized

2. read the rehighlights

3. i feel pretty amenable to some new 1ar arguments

4. i love impact turn debates thanks to truman connor

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

pfd:

1. not experienced

2. i know plans aren't allowed, but depending on the topic, being pro can sound like advocating for one -- doesn't mean con can go for a cp

3. teams should always be reading some sort of framework for how i should evaluate the round

4. i will probably evaluate like a policy debate

ld:

1. not experienced here either

2. i think plans and cps are allowed?

3. I'll probably evaluate v/vc, ks, cps, etc. very similar to a policy round

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

things that boosts speaks:

1. being funny -- debate is supposed to be fun

2. well-organized docs

3. smart analytic arguments

4. clever rehighlightings

5. taking strategic risks

things that lower speaks:

1. being rude

2. being racist/sexist/homophobic/etc. (probably an auto-L)

3. actively removing analytics

4. stealing prep

5. i keep seeing teams orally feed each other words in rebuttal speeches and it's getting excessive imo. it's hard to listen to two people talk at once. i'd rather the partner just tell me than say it and have their partner repeat it. write a block if you have to, but like... i think the 2xr should be able to expand on what the 1xr is trying to tell them on their own without having to be fed every single word

Hi I'm Sarina and I'm a first year policy debater at Pembroke, also compete in duo, di, poetry, and hi in ms.

JDI '23, MNDI '24

Add me to the email chain! sweinman27@pembrokehill.org

cx

Do whatever arguments you want, I'll flow it. I'm not the most experienced policy debater so if you're gonna run a K please explain it well and have a good impact, what will happen to the world if I vote for your alt. Most of the time I'm condo good but if you can articulate why not or if neg is running like 100 off and kicking them all then I'm good with both. If you're gonna run a DA you need to explain clearly how it turns/outweighs case. I'm fine w T and I'm most likely gonna vote based on who explains it better. I love link/impact turns. Please please please extensions and overviews, not only is that gonna boost ur speaks but it also just makes my life easier. OFFENSE PLEASE. I need to know why the plan solves or the squo is better or whatever because at the end of the day I'm voting to make the world a better place. T centered debates are obviously different but besides that I'm under the impression this debate roleplays policy legislators.

pf

I debated public forum at one tournament and in middle school, so just treat me like a lay judge. I'm not really a fan of impact debates, link turns are awesome. Answering ur opps case with purely impact calc is not really fun to watch, and I'm more inclined to vote for a link centered debate. 1-3 voters, how does that align with the fw? Seriously tell me how I should be evaluating the debate, and I can't stress enough that you NEED offense to win. You can't just block all of your opponents' points but not have any reasons your side wins, that's really unfun to judge. Defense only debates are impossible to judge and I hate evaluating based on whoever gets blocked more.

ld

Treat me like a lay judge. I know there's values and value criterions but besides that I'm no better than the average person. Honestly a lot of stuff from cx applies and I love offense, so I'm probably gonna be evaluating this like a cx round (plan specific).

The most important thing though is that you should be enjoying yourself and having fun. Debate is a learning environment and you should feel respected and treat your partners and opponents with respect. Any form of bigotry is at worse an automatic L and at least a significant dock of speaks. Have fun debating!

make a terrible pun in ur speech and i will give u an absurd, unfair amount of speaks