I'm not real...I'm a hallucination actually caused by black mold in schools.(Mass hysteria am I right?) Anyway, just make sure your arguments are reasonable and flow well, remember to have fun!

Hi! I'm Astrid, I debated for all three years of middle school! specifically public forum, modern oratory and impromptu besides debate I also did theatre including prose, poetry,and dramatic interp. I am 17 years old and in my third year of high school and this is my second year in high school debate,I've competed in Novice Lincoln Douglas, and Varsity Public Forum, finishing third place overall in both! :) I've also done Domestic Exemp (HS Impromptu).

and I'll be your judge for todays round!

what I look for in a round/speeches:

-the why: why should I care? why does this affect us so much? Why should I vote for your side?

-good impacts!

-good framework and transition words

(Ex. I will now be moving to my second contention,Moving onto my last and third contention..)

-be kind! no interrupting your opponent when they are speaking, wait for your times to speak-no insulting of any sorts, only attacking I want to see is things from their case

-be loud and clear,I want to hear you this helps me judge better and therefore benefits all of us!

-confident speakers!!

-if I make any mistake during the round its okay to point it out but be kind and please don't argue with the judge

-cross fire doesn't impact too much on your ballots but if I do see you put to good use the questions asked and answers into your other speeches I will consider adding more speaker points

I can always do things like offering time signals during the speeches and taking the time if you don't have a phone or clock available!

I don't disclose the winner but I am always happy to give grows and glows (aka comments/constructive criticism) so don't be afraid to ask about that.

have fun debating and good luck :)

General: I will dock points if you dominate DX or CX time or interrupt your opponent. If you are rude or disrespectful to your opponent, you will not win the round. I love clash, but make sure to introduce your own points in addition. Obviously, no racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. will be tolerated.

LD: Make sure you speak slowly enough so that I can understand you but fast enough to make a point. Ideally, you should track your own time but I am happy to do so. Please do not attack someone based on semantics or tell them that they're "debating wrong". Be respectful to everyone, not just me. Be sure to have a definite structure and bring evidence when you make the point.

Congress: I understand that outrageous claims are sometimes necessary but try to actually make a point. Be sure to structure your argument clearly and speak in a manner that allows people to understand. In questioning, actually ask a question. I hate it when people make a statement instead of phrasing it like a question.

If there’s an email chain, please add me: sanjanadebates@gmail.com

she/her

UPDATED: DEC 2023

Hi, My name is Sanjana. I'm a Johnson High School debater and have mostly competed in Policy (CX) though I have dabbled a bit in LD.

Name- Please don't call me Judge or Ms. I would prefer Sanjana. (Sun-ja-naa).

If you don't have time to look at this entire paradigm, don't worry, just do what you do best, and I'll adapt to you. I try to be as unbiased as possible and weigh all arguments. As long as you're clear go as fast as you want (I would prefer you go slower for analytics). I love watching debaters with personalities, make jokes (not hurtful or overtly mean ones).

NOVICES-

how to become a winner (& super duper cool)-

1. be confident, if you believe something say it like you believe. even if you don't know what you are talking about, talking about it like you fully believe it will sell it.
2. be respectful, please try to be nice
3. try your best, don't give up halfway through
4. learn, improvement is bound to happen, I love talking about debate so do not hesitate to email me with any questions. always happy to help!

may the odds be ever in your favor:))

NON- NOVICES-

DEBATE (LD, CX, PF)

PREF SHORTCUTS-

• kritiks (identity)- 1
• policy- 1-2
• kritiks (pomo)-3
• theory-4
• phil- 5
• tricks-5- know fundamentally nothing about this argument, but I'll still flow it and would need you to take time to explain it to me if you are going for it

TLDR-

• Please be able to explain your arguments to me and your opponent, reading and dumping cards will just make me cringe.
• Don't read dozens of offs and rely on your opponent to drop one to win. It's not a good model for debate. I would rather see fully fleshed-out debates.
• Do what you are best at rather than over-adapting to my paradigm. If you present a clear narrative and warrant your impact(s), I'll vote for you.
• My favorite debates to watch are ones where both debaters look like they wanna be there.
• Tech > truth in most instances. An argument must have sufficient explanation for it to matter to me, even if it’s dropped. You need a warrant and impact, not just a claim.
• love love love judge instruction- write my ballot for me, explain to me why you're winning, do some impact calc
• One of my favorite things to see is the re-highlighting of your opponent's evidence, it shows me you are paying attention to their arguments and is my favorite on case stuff to evaluate. Go a step further and make it link to your offensive arguments. That being said try to re-highlight in a completely different color, I tend to enjoy seeing re-highlighting in red.
• frame your arguments!!: "If I win this that means... I win this.. and that causes this".
• signpost!
• Do not steal prep. Make it obvious that you are not prepping if there's not a timer running.
• Do not lie during CX. For example, If you read Condo Bad and your opponent asks if you read it and you say no I will ask you if I should cross it off my flow. I also flow CX, I think it's critical in debate and helps me better understand how to view your arguments.
• I believe that condo is good but you can challenge that

AFFIRMATIVES-

your choice, read what you want! I have read both Kaffs and policy affs so you can go crazy just please know what your aff says. for example, if you are reading a K- aff and can't explain your theory of power I'll cry.

--policy affs- great! love good case debates.

--k- affs- assume I don't know your lit base and take your time to explain it to me. I do tend to prefer when they link, refer, or connect to the topic somehow, but if you win a persuasive reason why that's not true I will vote on it. -important to win solvency, your burden of proof is higher than just winning FW on the aff, explain to me how your advocacy works. truly speech-of-art mechanisms kinda fall apart in front of good framework teams so try to complicate beyond that. I love historical examples like the black panther party. Use them to explain your solvency mechanisms or in your framework debates about the history of the activity, I find them very persuasive.

--k- affs v TFW- please if you are running a k-aff know how to answer these. I don't care what strategy you will go for. I do like when you bring up topic flaws but simply saying "debate bad" will not persuade me. The more offense you bring in about the topic the more compelling. I enjoy debates about debate because I do think this activity has an impact on our personal lives and outlook on the world. I like to weigh arguments about education, capacity building, etc. above pure procedural fairness arguments. But I like it most when teams entangle them together and say we can't have one without the other.

DISADS-

I love a good disad especially when the link debate is specific, internal links matter don't forget: When you are reading a DA you are telling a story of cause and effect. Tell me that story and make it convincing.-- please also do impact calc.

COUNTERPLANS-

• smart permutations are persuasive and win cp debates
• to beat out perms- show how the plan is competitive
• explain the net benefit-(cp and disad combos are solid arguments)

KRITIK V PLAN-

• As a 2N, this is my party trick
• the key to k debating is fully fleshing out this argument. Anytime I go for a K, I spend my entire 8-minute speech selling the Kritik. This means you have to sit there and give me a Tana Mongaeu-level storytime.
• To become a storyteller you need to fully know your story, ie, you need to understand your literature.
• I am familiar with some lit bases such as set col, cap, fem, Asian orientation, CRT, etc. But I am also not familiar with a ton such as of pomo tbh.. take your time breaking it down for me. This being said I will not fill in any holes for you.
• Link debates on the K make or break how I weigh it against the case. (I weigh the aff against the K)-- This means specific links, re-highlight cards, and the words in CX. The more quality links the better though only pick the strongest ones to fully extrapolate in the 2NR.
• if you do end up using a generic link get ready to defend it. I will vote for any link as long as it's properly explained, i.e. lay out your story with the link a part of it.
• If you're 2N your 2NC is what I look forward to in the debate. (short overviews pls, love a line by line)
• framework matters here make sure to introduce a new lens I should view the debate.
• I don't necessarily care for ROB because most times it feels self-serving.
• I've always been a big fan of reps' work. Pull quotes that make the aff terrified.
• don't pretend to be an identity group so you can read an argument (I know it sounds ridiculous but I have seen it play out)
• If you go for the alt defend it but if you do not want to go for the alt or don't have time, I am fine with you kicking it as long as you go beast on the Link debate. You now would have to prove to me that the aff would cause more harm than good (make references to your impacts)
• I also have a strong dislike for the fiat K and I do believe that being able to fiat an alt means that you ruin affs ground. With Ks, there's nothing to fiat. The actor is the judge. Vote for neg to embrace X or reject Y or send the message that Z. You should still win solvency arguments saying that the judge's action will resolve the impacts in your K, but there's nothing to fiat. That means "neg fiat bad" arguments aren't relevant. If you frame your K right you don't need fiat, trust.

TOPICALITY-

• im not the best judge for t, so if that your a strat you have to spend time explaining what your argument is to me.
• if you plan on going for it example your standards.
• Go slower than you would with a DA/K/CP. I find it harder to flow T than other off-cases at high speed.

if you make a Drake reference at any point I will increase your speaks by +.1. (I love random pop culture references so have fun with it ill probably laugh)

Hello I am Parker.

Run literally anything you want and I will evaluate as long as it has a warrant, that being said be nice and don't cheat. i do LD and know nothing abt pf(don't try to gaslight me bc i know) but i will make you time your own speeches.

also weigh your impacts, I don't know who to vote for if you don't tell me.

Speaks:

nobody is perfect, but somebody can get perfect speaker points

30: what a great debater! I think I will put this ballot on my wall!

29: you made a strategic decision and collapsed

28: you were decently good and didn't drop anything

27: you participated and you weren't mean

26:said something offensive(doesn't include yelling)

if you tell Brett Maccay that he stole my paradigm he will give you an extra speaker point.

if you show me that you reposted LaMelo Ball on Instagram I will give you +.3 speaks

Hey everyone,

I'm Angela and I do LD at Reagan HS. Please do framework debate and impact weighing. Engage with your opponents arguments. Tell me why I'm voting for you in the last speech. Also PLEASE signpost. Time yourself.

I also competed in PF in middle school and had so much fun. If you have any questions feel free to ask me.

Have fun and be confident!

Angela

Winston Churchill '25 -- 3 years of mostly PF

Put me on the email chain, my email is cameroningramdebate@gmail.com

Feel free to reach out with any questions you may have

most of this is taken from Vivek Yarlagedda, Ishan Dubey, and Ilan Benavi

TDLR: Tech PF Judge

---PREFS---

LARP -- 1

Theory -- 2

Plans/Counterplans -- 2

Topical Kritiks -- 3

Non-T Kritiks -- 4

High Theory/Phil, Performance, etc -- 5 (Strike)

---GENERAL---

Tech > Truth

Truth is largely determined by the technical debating in round. Debate is a game about persuasion. I am most persuaded by arguments. Treating me like a stereotypical policy-leaning flow/circuit judge is usually a safe bet, though not a lock. Conceded arguments are "true" per se, but only the conceded parts. "Even if" arguments and cross-applications are fair game. This should go with out saying but I will not vote on an argument that I cannot make sense of or explain back to you, even if dropped.

Prep Time

Don't steal it. Flex prep is fine. Clarification questions are flex prep.

Signposting

Signposting is crucial, especially for messier rounds. Judge instruction is also super helpful and highly valued (how to evaluate the round, when/whether I should grant new arguments, if I should gut-check or err one way or another, etc).

Cross

Cross ex is binding but you need bring up relevant concessions in a speech (it can be brief, don't waste time re-inventing the wheel). I'll likely listen to cross ex but will not flow it. Open cross and skipping GCX are good.

Weighing

Resolve clashing link-ins/pre-reqs/short circuits -- otherwise I'll most likely have to intervene to resolve it.I'll be sad and you'll be mad.

Weighing is important but totally optional, I'm perfectly happy to vote against a team that read 12 conceded pre-reqs but dropped 12 pieces of link defense on the arg they weighed

Probability weighing exists but shouldn't be an excuse to read new defense to case. It should be limited to general reasons why your link/impact is more probable ie. historical precedent

Link weighing is generally more important than impact weighing (links have to happen for impacts to even matter).

Defense

Frontline in second rebuttal -- everything you want to go for needs to be in this speech

Defense isn't sticky. That said, I am very lenient towards blippy defense extensions in first summary if second rebuttal doesn't frontline something at all, just make sure it's there

I think defending case is the most difficult/impressive part of debate, so if half your frontlines are two word blips like "no warrant," "no context," and "we postdate," I'll be a little disappointed.

Evidence Ethics/Exchange/Thoughts

Send speech docs before you speak. This is non-negotiable for national circuit tournaments and entails, at a minimum, sending all evidence you plan on introducing. If you choose to send "specific pieces of evidence", I will not stop your opponents from stealing prep in the meantime.

Use an email chain, preferably, speechdrop, or tab for exchange. Don't send google docs, especially if you intend on disabling the option to copy and/or download. Long evidence exchanges are a huge pet peeve. The quicker and smoother the round, the better.

Marking docs doesn't require prep. Using accessible formatting on verbatim or sending rhetoric is fine so long as the cards are included as well, though I think that sending rhetoric may be a violation of some shells.

Evidence matters a lot to me. Debate is a researched-based activity. Evidence/warrant comparison plays a huge part in most of my decisions. Do it so I don't have to.

None of this is to say don't make make analytics.Sound analytics can be very convincing, especially when used to exploit inevitable gaps in logic. Smart arguments and strategic decision-making can absolutely beat quality evidence. That said, I may not catch nor vote on incredibly blippy analytics.

I encourage you to stop the round and conduct an evidence challenge if you believe someone is violating NSDA and/or tournament evidence rules (generally clipping, fabrication, straw-manning, ellipses). If there is a rule against something and you are not willing to stake the round, it will be difficult to convince me that the practice merits a loss. That said, rules are a still a floor, not a ceiling.

Other

I'll probably always have done some research on the topic, but still explain jargon.

Absent warrants, I'll presume first due on non-fiated topics, and status quo on fiated topics. No new presumption warrants in final focus though, make sure they're in summary.

Winning zero-risk is not impossible but will usually require solid explanation and/or evidence.

Speak at whatever rate you want so long as you are comprehensible, most people think they are clearer than they are. I was a fast-ish debater but appreciate the slow-and-steady approach. Fast or slow, pen time is nice.Do not sacrifice clarity. Slowing down on analytics and for emphasis, especially in back-half speeches, tends to be helpful. If you spread, please read real taglines (thus, additionally, etc. don't count) and actual cards otherwise flowing will be difficult and your speaker points will decrease.

I stop flowing when the timer hits 0. Time yourselves and call each other out.

I think long case extensions are bad for clash, so I have a very low threshold for extensions, BUT, they must be very clear. Ex. "We're going for our argument on X". Answering turns on arguments you're not going for is a must, however you chose to do that. I do think that extensions of things that are not case do require slightly more in depth extensions -- think turns, defense, etc, but not to the same extent as other judges. Things like impact turns and Ks do not need explicit extensions unless you want to clarify the link story for me.

If you want to read a complex/wacky argument, just be read to defend and explain it (especially the latter). You'd be surprised at how often you can win rounds on "untrue" arguments, so it's disappointing to hear such arguments read solely for comedic effect.Being strategic and having fun are not mutually exclusive.

Well-warranted impact turns are often strategic: democracy, growth, food prices, climate change, disease, etc. Please supplement these with impact defense and interact with your opponent's impact evidence/explanation if you go this route. Arguments like spark are fine, arguments like wipeout are questionable.

Please label email chains clearly. Ex. "Grapevine R1 -- Winston Churchill IM (Aff 1st) vs Southlake Carroll RY (Neg 2nd)".

---PROGRESSIVE---

Theory

I prefer binary theory debates over semantical ones. I will probably ask myself: "Is X practice enough for Y team to lose the round?" Avoid theory as a crutch. I am not a good judge for frivolous theory. In elimination rounds especially, you have to win substantial offense to convince me that it is more important than substance. Substance crowd-out is absolutely an impact and one that I will implicitly consider. Lack of a CI is not always round-ending, especially if you plan on impact turning the shell; I will simply assume that you are defending the violation/status quo. Shoe and Team Sweater theory is friv, hyper-specific disclosure shells and must not send Google docs are not.

Defaults: Text > Spirit, CI > Reasonability, yes OCIs (non-negotiable), no RVIs (a turn or anything of the sort is not an RVI), DTA, DTD doesn't need to be explicitly said or extended -- a warrant for why something is a voter/reject the team/debater is sufficient.

Paraphrasing is bad. It will be hard to convince me otherwise. I will not directly penalize you for paraphrasing if it is not an issue in the round or unless evidence is egregiously misrepresented, in which case speaker points will suffer and you may lose. Bracketing can be just as bad as paraphrasing. If you bracket, do so in good faith. If there is a theory debate, intent matters. The only difference with paraphrasing in terms of penalization is if there is clearly excessive bracketing then I will decrease speaker points and call you out.

Disclosure is probably good and open-sourcing is probably the best way to do so. I do not think OS qualifies as semantical. If you read disclosure without open-sourcing, it will be a harder sell. More broadly, reading disclosure with bad disclosure practices is a colossal risk.

You only need a Content Warning if discussing something something graphic, but I do not personally think that the absence of a CW should be an in-round voting issue and opt-outs definitely aren't.

I don't love "IVIs" (short procedural arguments are different) but will vote on them if they are presented as a complete argument and won. If the abuse is clear and obvious, an "IVI" will suffice, though I strongly dislike the term.

I will never vote for call-outs, ad-homs, or arguments based on things outside of the round that are non-verifiable (I think disclosure is different but not all circumstances surrounding it). If there is an in-round issue, that's a different story.

The K

I'm interested by these arguments but do not have an amazing understanding of most of them.

Err on the side of over-explanation. Be very clear on what voting for you does and what the links are, especially if fully non-T.

"Conceding" the text of a ROB does not mean the round is over: creative weighing under a conceded ROB is welcome.

Reject alts and discourse alts are probably fake, but I will vote on them if won. I'm pretty flexible with extra-topical alternative/method strategies, which I think is needed for a well-executed K in PF. (pls do that; ontological revisionism > reject capitalism)

I will never vote for arguments precluding your opponents from linking in or "we said it first".

Framework and T-FW are pretty persuasive to me. Theory uplayers the K but I can be convinced otherwise.

Framing/ROTB

I default to util and will evaluate basic framing (think Fem, SV, etc). Anything more complex is out of my realm, but I'll listen to anything.

Plans/Counterplans

I've run them before, I think they're good, but I'm probably pretty lenient in terms of responses. If it's a natcirc, I don't care about the rule that bans them, if it's NSDA districts or nats, you might be able to sneak it in but I probably won't eval it.

Won't work on "on balance" resolutions, but if it's a fiated policy topic, go for it I guess.

Tricks

I won't evaluate anything I don't understand and my knowledge on these falls off a cliff once you go past "predictions fail" to "dogmatism paradox", but in general, probably just don't.

---EXTRA---

After Round

I will disclose who I voted for unless there is a rule against it. There will always be some explanation on the ballot.

Speaker points are my decision (I will not give everyone 30s because you asked) but I will try to standardize them as much as possible. I will base speaker points off of the event norms, strategy, coherence, argument quality, increments, and tournament (local, national).

Post-round/ask questions. Doing so is educational, holds judges accountable, and makes debate more transparent. Being upset is fine, just don't make it personal.

Speaks

I usually give pretty good speaks, and assign them based on clarity and in-round strategy, with bonus points for word efficiency and humor.

---NON PF EVENTS---

The PF paradigm applies, I do almost exclusively PF, but I'm not super unfamiliar with a lot of policy arguments, LD is the event I'm least familiar with.

Main difference to note is counterplans, read them, go for them, but be sure to explain them. Theory is a valid response to a lot of things, i.e. process CPs, mostly.

PF/LD:

read whatever - tech> truth - weigh arguments - tell me specifically in the last speech why you win - open space, don't be afraid to say what you want - don't be rude or offensive - I give high speaks - good luck + have fun

email: shealandry101@gmail.com

middle school pf paradigm: I have not competed a pf round before, but i have watched many debate rounds and I can pretty easily understand the arguments you are trying to make. -> I am not familiar with this topic but ^

˗ˏˋ ★ ˎˊ˗

background: I am currently a sophomore at Churchill High school and compete in the policy division of debate (2 years) .

˗ˏˋ ★ ˎˊ˗

general:I encourage post rounding/ asking questions after debate- please ask me questions :) and i will try to clarify my decision/ give possible room for improvement

there is a BIG difference between being aggressive and competitive vs being rude (im not clueless i will know when you are being rude and there will be consequences) for reference look at speaker points :)

flowing good- do it

˗ˏˋ ★ ˎˊ˗

speaker points: I'd say i give pretty good speaking points on average 28.0 especially since this is only a middle school tournament, BUT if you are mean, sexist, racist, homophobic etc. by any amount (even a joking one-liner) speaker points will be as low as possible, if it continues then i will notify tab (aka. your coach) :(

other than that 28.0 is your starting point- it will fluctuate depending on how well you do :)

˗ˏˋ ★ ˎˊ˗

misc:

-tech>>>>truth- i will be reading over evidence, but if an argument is not explicitly made then I won't be voting on it (womp womp)

-making jokes can always be fun in debate, but I find that most jokes made in rounds are bad, unless it is the funniest thing to ever grace planet earth i wouldn't try to make a joke (itll be awkward for most people in the room)

-remember that debate is supposed to be fun, you should not come out of the debate hating your opponent or holding a grudge if you lose (most people in debate are cool theres no reason to be rude)

-any violation of ethics will result in an auto L ( do i really need to further explain??)

- if you give me food/ drink before round i will give you auto-30's (im allergic to mangos and apricots)

-yes i am your judge but dont call me "judge" either 1) dont refer to me; or 2) call me my name: Shea (pronounced Sh-ay)

if you have any questions about my paradigm feel free to ask/ email me before round :)

My email is winslowly1@gmail.com

About Me:

I invented debate. Before you had even been conceived, I had already conquered the world. My reputation is known across the lands. Cease any efforts to deceive me, for I cannot be fooled. My decision is absolute, my spirit untamed, my flowing lazy, and I like debate.

Speaker Points:

I believe speaker points is a flawed system. I will evaluate you as a speaker, and you shall not pass. Unless you participate, in which case I will give you at least a 26.A Thirty is impossible, unless you incorporate a rhyme.

Resolution:

It's there for a reason, so stick to it.

Email Chain:

My email is "brettkellymackay@gmail.com".

Crossfire:

Answer the question your opponents ask. No games of ???? and ????. Otherwise I will be very upset ????.

Public Forum:

General:

I served my tenure in a generic office building as a lie detector. That being said don't test me. I know how to defend myself from your ruthless onslaught of misinformation

First Speech (Constructive):

Read a case, not a theory or a k. You are not a philosopher so don't try to get overly intellectual in your speech.

Second Speech (Rebuttal):

Signpost, I need to know which way albuquerque is.

Third Speech (Summary):

I would prefer if you summarized, but that is just my take on the summary speech.

Fourth Speech (Final Focus):

I need to know why you big number bigger than other big number.

Lincoln-Douglas:

Don't get lost in the sauce.

LD debate at Winston Churchill High School

email: elijahccmcgill@gmail.com

Arguments: Go for anything you’re comfortable with.

Disadvantages: Good.

CP: win mutual exclusivity and net benefit.

Kritiks: There's a recent issue of debaters cutting link cards that don't really link to the aff; so simple perm could convince me.

Theory: Theory should not be used for silly reasons, but instead give a blueprint on how debate should be run ethical. i.e. disclosure and mechanisms. I'm comfortable to vote on plan affs as long as their topical. No RVIs.

Tricks: Tricks are for kids

Spikes: Anything but evaluate after the 1ac. However a winning answer to spikes can be a simple thumbs down

email: anjalimd100@gmail.com

pronouns: she/her

My name is Anjali (un-jah-lih), and I'm a debater at Johnson High School. I'm well versed in Lincoln Douglas, but I have knowledge about other forms of debate, and I also have past experience in Speech (Prose, Poetry, DO, and Extemporaneous).

In general, I'm pretty open to anything and I don't have any biases toward a particular way of going about things. Just do your best and be respectful to everyone in the round :)

How I evaluate debate

Clearly tell me why I should vote for you/ I want to see clear defense, impacts, and links. I will vote on understanding of the issue, evidence, and explanation. Make sure address everything properly and don't concede anything!

Speeches

- If you don't talk about it in summary, I'm not evaluating it in final focus.

Cross

- Please don't argue during cross. I don’t pay attention to cross. In my opinion, cross is meant to examine your opponent’s case and clarify any questions.

I'm Emma, a policy (CX) debater at Reagan.

♥️ if you have any questions: emmaadebate@gmail.com

CX "Crossfire"

I've been coaching and helping middle schoolers on this LD topic for a while now. I've noticed that y'all love to ask questions about evidence--- One or two is fine but they getreally repetitive, really fast. Also, do not keep pushing on a question that you know the other team is incapable of answering, trust me I'll know what's going on, but you really don't have to make a scene out of it.

General Information

♥️ I'm familiar with this LD topic so feel comfortable going beyond your cards and making some analytical/logical arguments

♥️Make sure you have offense--- When giving your speech it's important to affirm your side but also respond to the other team's arguments and make sure to contest their claim. Please put offense on my flows.

♥️Make smart arguments don't be a block bot.

♥️Do not be a block bot. (Please don't it's boring to watch)

???? +1 speaker points if you bring me a snack or drink ????

hey I'm Ujala (ooh-jah-lah) and I go to Reagan HS. I do policy debate and I'm a sophomore. ☺️♥

cx questions-

ask open ended questions

please be polite

try not to ask them to explain their entire argument in cx thats giving them more speech time

args-

make sure to always explain your arguments in detail and walk the judge through them

make sure you flesh out your args

make sure you explain your impacts and the internal link chain (how the impact will happen/get triggered)

other important notes-

impact calc!!!!

- this is the most important part of the rebuttals-- it makes or breaks the debate sometimes

please please please PLEASE try not to JUST read cards and your blocks ☹-- try to think about what they're saying and make logical responses to them

be polite, be topical and have fun!! ????????

email me if you have any questions

ujala.debate@gmail.com

HiI am Manav and you can just refer to me as that, I have been doing debate for 6 years now and I am familiar with the arguments made. ( Manavphandi2020@gmail.com)

I have been doing LD for 3 years now so Ill be okay to flow arguments that are fairly fast and other arguments that may be based more on philosophy and traditional.

Speaker points -

• I'll award based on your clarity and audibility.
• just make sure to be respectful to your opponent

Just know thatI don'tusually fall for emotional arguments that are targeted to make me feel pity and such. AlthoughI will say thatI have no biasesagainst anyagreements ingeneral as long as they areproperly stated. Debate is supposed to be a safe place so let's keep it that way as well.

Just be a good debater and try to not attack your opponent character and such.

I will gladly keep track of time if it is needed butI would appreciate if you guys could keep time by yourselves as well.

CX-

I feel as a debater a lot of the round can be affected and opened here but CX shouldn't be a reason to win it should be a way to ask your opponent questions. However if you use questions that help your stance and maybe bring it up during your rebuttals I will make sure to take that into consideration as long as you state the fact that what ever your are bring up is from CX.

Clash -

make sure to clash with your opponent and don't just read of arguments from your computer or paper, respond and defend arguments so it shows that debate is actually happening.

Claudia Taylor Johnson High School '26 | she/her | Areddy6010@stu.neisd.net

I am currently a varsity debater, this past season was my novice year (1st year) in PF.

General

• tech > truth
• I will always disclose unless told not to
• Run what you want as long as it's warranted & has impacts
• Time yourselves
• My maximum words per minute is 250; going any faster will risk an incomplete flow

Things I want to see

• Off-time roadmaps & signposting
• Start front lining in 2nd rebuttal
• Weighing, especially in summary and final focus
• Interaction (aka actually RESPOND to what your opponents say, don't flow through ink)
• Collapse, don't extend stuff you know you can't win

I am a sophomore at Winston Churchill HS and have been debating for two years. I've competed in novice and varsity LD, Congress, and am currently in varsity Policy.

Middle school PF paradigm:

I have very few debate opinions for middle school specifically but in general I have a few...

• tech > truth - I'll read the evidence but won't vote on anything not said in the round explicitly
• Ethics violations will be taken seriously and taken to tab so don't be annoying and make stupid arguments.

• Speaks start at 28.5 anything above or below are completely dependent on the round. Bring me a soda/energy drink for extra speaker points :)

This is middle school debate. Please have fun and don't make the experience anything other than that for everyone else.

Extra:

If you have any questions after round don't hesitate to post round me! I enjoy debate, if you want to improve, ask as many questions as you want.

Any questions beyond that or after round, email me: samroma1728@gmail.com

Top-Level:

---Put me on the email chain:ryan.debate.rr@gmail.com

---Call me whatever during round, whatever is most familiar/comfortable

---Please organize the subject---"[Tournament Name] [Round #]---[Aff Team vs. Neg Team]---J: Whalen, Ryan"---close is close enough

Affiliations:

Reagan High School ['20 - '24]

University of Texas, Austin ['24 - '28]

Thoughts:

[Influenced by Philip DiPiazza and Tristan Rios]

---Treat me as a "tabula-rosa" judge - I'm fine with anything and everything as long as you give me explicit judge instructions and argument interactions [or WHY your arguments are right/matter]

---Now, that excludes racist, sexist, homophobic/transphobic, xenophobic arguments which will render the lowest speaks possible and insta-L [not the same as impact turns]

---Spread as fast you can, but do so clearly. I will only evaluate arguments that I can take down/properly hear. If you're going to spread through blocks, either send them out... or just don't.

---Don't be rude, respect your opponents/judges, have fun, and if you can, be fun [which will get you +0.5 speaker points].