Add me to the email chain: rithvik321@gmail.com

Pre-HWL update: I read an NFU aff on the college XA topic and judged at CPS, so I'll get acronyms and know the core affs + neg generics pretty well. I really enjoyed the debates I judged at CPS and hope to be preffed by similar debaters. My points in LD have been a little low, so I'll correct for that, but I still won't be giving out 29s like candy.

Top level: Judge direction and technical sharpness should be your top priorities. I'm not very expressive unless you make a particularly bad or reprehensible argument. Please flow!

For policy debates: If judge kick isn't debated out, I'll kick CPs for the neg. I err neg on CP theory unless there's a clear abuse story. I think States and ESR are legitimate but can be compelled that planks added to get out of solvency deficits, amendments, kicking planks, etc. are theoretically suspect.

For K debates: I read the K a lot in high school (mostly Baudrillard and settler colonialism) and have made mostly policy arguments in college (save for Cap), so I am okay with judging in clash purgatory. I don't mind whether neg teams go for fairness or skills-type arguments, but both sides should do clear impact comparison. I also strongly prefer that K teams follow the line-by-line. If you say "but methods debate" in a K v K debate, I will have no idea what this means.

Cheapshots: I read Sextus Empiricus, the sorites paradox, etc. in high school, and I will vote for this genre of argument if you execute well, but I really prefer judging real arguments.

LD:

---Yes: policy or K arguments (especially topic-specific), theory like condo/PICs bad

---No thanks: "traditional" arguments

---Absolutely not: frivolous theory/tricks/"I hate clash"

Final notes: Have fun, and don't take yourself too seriously! If you have any questions, ask before the round or email me.

CCA '18
Email: jenniferxtang@gmail.com

• Do what you do best, I will evaluate all arguments equally(with the exception of patriarchy/racism/ableism/etc good).
• Tech>Truth but both are important
• TKOs - definitely a thing in front of me
• Disclosure is good in most instances.
• Flashing isn't prep. Please don't steal prep.
• Be nice and don't be an asshole to the other team or to me.

Berkeley '21

Encinitas Independent '17

School conflicts: Green Valley, San Dieguito

Put me on the chain, ericwimsatt@gmail.com

tldr; I'm a Wimsatt. I like Ks more than the others; Do your thing; Explain your thing; everything will be fine.

I was a TOC debater in high school, I stopped debating in college. I study computer science and have been doing research around misinformation for ~2 years. Do what you wish with this information.

Do what you do best, I'd rather watch a good debate than have you try to throw something together to match my paradigm. I've read big far right affs, gone for different Ks, answered Baudrillard with heg good and read weirder philosophers than anything you've heard of. All I ask is that if you do something that's not traditional policy have a good explanation for why I should vote for you.

That being said, as my name may suggest, I do have a slight preference for policy style args. But as long as you explain what's going on I can be a great judge for any kind of argument.

Ks: I've run em. I've argued against em. The links are super important. If I can't find a specific link I probably won't vote for you. I think the alt is often the weakest part of the k. I do find I'm more willing than most judges to give extra weight to the framework portion of the debate (for either team) so long as it's done well

K affs: I've run em. I've argued against em. I don't know the newest framework lingo for either team so please, for everyone's sake, explain what's going on instead of using buzzwords

Theory: I care about impacts to theory arguments a lot. Treat them like any other impact and you'll be fine. If you're A strat is condo bad I'm probably not your guy.

Politics: Love it. Not sure why everyone gives it a section in their paradigm.

Counterplans: I like em. I'll default to not judgekicking, but it won't take much to get me to kick it for you.

I don't judge very often. I want to see some good debates. Please.

UC Berkeley 2021 (go bears)

College - caldebatechain@gmail.com, debatedocs

High School - ktwimsatt at gmail

- Tech over truth. Only exception is death good arguments/spark. Do not read them; I will not vote on them.

- Inserting rehighlightings is fine as long as you explain why it matters in the speech. I usually read ev while making decisions.

- I'm more convinced by affs that commit to, and defend, an action coming out of the 1ac.

- Ks should prove the plan is a bad idea.

- I'm not convinced by CP theory arguments like condo or PICs bad. Private actor fiat, multi-actor fiat, or object fiat definitely have merit.

- I default to judge kick unless 1ar and 2ar convince me otherwise.

Have fun!