Polytechnic School 2010-2014

Stanford University 2014-2018

Overview: I'm happy to listen to whatever you want to read (barring arguments that are actually morally repugnant). Do debate however you want to do it, and do it well. I'm fine with speed, just make sure to slow down on plan texts and dense T/theory shells. Tech over truth in most instances. 

General Stuff: Tag team CX is fine. Prep ends when the flashdrive is out of your computer/the email is sent. I'd like to be included on email chains when possible. I'm sympathetic to most tech issues, but please don't abuse this system. I'll be timing the debate, but it's always good to time yourselves/your oponents as a backup. If the content of a particular card becomes controversial during the round, I'll probably read it after the round. That being said, good evidence spin/explanation and application during the round can go a long way. Evidence quality is super important, and one good card with extremely clear warrants that are well-defended can usually beat a lot of mediocre cards. If you want to record the debate, ask the other team before recording their speeches. 

If you have any questions, feel free to ask before the debate. 

Cheating: Don't do it. If you notice the other team clipping cards, take an audio recording from the point that you've noticed it so that I can compare what's being read to what's in the document. Cheating accusations will stop the debate, so make sure you are absolutely certain before making such a claim. Marking cards is fine, just make it clear where in the card you've stopped, and offer to give the other team a copy of your speech document with marks. In most cases, cheating will result in a loss and 0 speaker points for both speakers. I will resolve these issues based on the tournament's policy. 

Topic: I haven't judged many rounds on the surveillance topic, so make sure you're clear with jargon/abbreviations. 

DAs: The more aff-specific the better, but I'm happy to hear a generic done well. "Zero risk" arguments exist. Smart turns case arguments can win most case v. DA rounds. Impact defense is a solid idea for both teams. If the impact scenario is so obscure that you have no defense for it, it can probably be defeated by smart analytics. 

CPs: Theory-wise, most CPs with aff-specific solvency advocates are probably fair game. Well researched and aff-specific PICs and agent CPs are great. Well run generics are fine, but I can definitely be persuaded by Aff theory arguments on consult/conditions CPs. If you're reading a word PIC, be sure to defend why textual competition alone is sufficient. 

Ks: I read a lot of Ks in high school, and I'm mostly focused on the K in college, so I really like watching a good K debate. That being said, please don't change your strategy to appeal to what you think I want to hear. I'd be much happier with a good politics round than an uncomfortable K round. I won't kick the alternative unless you tell me to. I don't necessarily think Ks need an alt, but you ought to justify why yours doesn't before you wish away the perm. When deciding these debates, I start with evaluating the frameworks both teams have advanced, and I'll adjudacate the rest of the debate under that framework. 

T: As I said above, make sure to slow down if you want me to get all of your standards down. I default to competing interpretations if nobody makes a reasonability argument, but I can be persuaded by both. Topical version of the aff arguments can win these debates, so affs should take care not to drop them. I evaluate interpretations and standards like a CP/DA debate, so impact calculus about what voting for either interpretation of the topic means in the context of this/later deabtes is important to me.

Framework v. Non-traditional Affs: I think Affs ought to be connected to the topic in some way, but I'm not convinced that they need to advocate instrumental action by the USFG. Both of these preferences are up for debate, and I'll vote for the team I feel has made better arguments on framework. Advocacy statements and role of the ballot claims can be good in a lot of instances, but they definitely aren't necessary for my ballot. Spend your speech time how you want to, and just make sure to explain at some point what I'm voting for if I vote for you. 

I did high school policy debate for three years debating as a performance and kritik debater. I have 4 years experience judging a range of debate styles and arguments. I prefer performance and kritik but i am open to judging anything.

I prefer you that you spend time on framing the arguments in the debate at the top of your speech. I'm not a line by line heavy judge and judge based on Big issues. First, I evaluate the framework for the debate to determine which impacts I should prioritize. Second, I evaluate Impacts and determine which are more important based on the Framework. Third, I evaluate the Status Quo, Plan, Counter-plan, Kritik Alternative, based on which best solves for in round impacts.

If you want my ballot, check all those boxes and I will most likely vote for you over your opponent if they are missing those parts.

Please put me on the email chain: applebymikaela@gmail.com

About me:

· - I debated at Notre Dame High School in Sherman Oaks, California and am currently a sophomore at George Washington University in Washington, D.C.

· -I read a heg aff and consider myself very policy-oriented, but I will to listen to whatever you are prepared to read

· - I will reward debaters who explain their arguments well, engage their opponents’ arguments, and resolve my ballot in the 2ar/2nr with high speaker points

· - Clarity and line by line > pure speed

· -I was a 2A throughout high school I lean aff on most theory questions (specifics are explained below)

Specific preferences-

Topicality: T debates are either the best or worst types of debates, it is up to you in the round to determine which side of this you will fall on. To have a good T debate you must explain what the topic looks like under your interpretation. On the aff generic counter-interps are usually fine, but it is best if you have a counter-interp that is contextual to your aff. I will evaluate T debates similarly to disad debates. Your violation is the link and you must explain an internal link and impact. Simply saying “prefer our interpretation because we limit the topic”, will not win my ballot. Instead, you should tell me how your counter-interp accesses limits/ground and why that outweighs the aff’s offense. I think of reasonability as a question of aff predictability and I will vote on it, but this requires the aff to explain why they are reasonable in the context of the specific debate instead of reading generic blocks through rebuttals.

T vs. K affs: Fairness is an impact. I fundamentally believe that debate is a game and that attaching survival strategies to the ballot is problematic. As a judge, it is not within my jurisdiction to affirm or reject your personal experience. This does not mean that I will always vote against k affs, but if you do read one in front of me you must explain your form of education and know your lit base. Do not assume that I am deep in the lit on your Vampiric Capitalist Princess affirmative, I am not.

Disads: If you do not know why the disad outweighs and/or turns the case then you should not read it. The 2nr/2ar should generally spend the majority of their time on this part of the debate. Additionally, if the 1nc is 7 off and one of those off is a one or two card disad that you then develop in the block then the aff will always get new answers in the 1ar. Neg strategies focused on tricking the other team are silly and show me that you are not confident in your ability to win the debate. The link to the aff should be clear and the 2ac should flag generic/uncontextualized links.

Counterplans/Counterplan theory: Specific counterplans with strategic net benefits show that you have thought about the aff and spent time prepping. These are my favorite types of debates to judge. If theory is your only 2ar choice, then go for it. Word PICs, Commissions CPs, and Consult CPs are probably abusive, but that does not mean I will automatically vote aff if you go for theory. You must explain why the neg has made it impossible for you to debate by reading their abusive CP. I think that specific PIC’s are a good way to test the aff and lead to more in-depth topic education.

Kritiks: To win the K in front of me you should have a robust explanation of the importance of your form of education on the framework debate and/or provide a clear vision of an alternative. The K should also be specifically applied to the affirmative. The K’s I am most familiar with/give 1nr’s on often are security, neolib, and university. Read whatever you want in front of me, just explain it well.

Theory: 2 conditional worlds are probably fine. If they are contradictory and you can point to in-round abuse, then I may be convinced to vote aff. 3 or more conditional worlds are probably abusive. To win on condo it must be the entire 2ar. Simply getting to the condo debate with 20 seconds left and saying “also you could vote aff on condo because they made it impossible for us to debate”, will not win my ballot. Vague alts and utopian alts are reasons to reject the argument, not the team. This section is pretty brief, if you have any specific questions feel free to ask me before the round :)

Impact turns: Go for it. Impact turn debates are great if you understand the lit base and can explain it well. I will vote on even the most absurd impact turns if you win the rest of the debate. That being said, I will not vote on racism good or patriarchy good.

4 years of policy

skyline '18 - baudl

she/her/they/them

email chain rachelchau01@gmail.com

18-19: i know the topic is about immigration but i dont know the acronyms or specific jargon of the topic

I'm a K debater revolving around identity, but if that's not you, don't do it. My decision will always come down to the explanation of each argument. Feel free to ask me anything before round and let me know if there's anything I can do to make the space more accessible.

TL;DR: Stick to args you are most comfortable with. I evaluate each argument on how well it was explained and impacted. I will vote on anything as long as it's not problematic. I love a good k debate, if you read one because you think it'll win you the round just because i'm your judge, it won't. I'm not the best judge for high theory, super policy v policy rounds, but if y'all explain and impact out your arguments, it should be fine.

Don’t be racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, etc. I will vote you down either by speaks and/or L. If someone asks for accommodations, try to meet them.

Performance/K Affs: I debate identity & have ran K aff's with narratives, music, poetry, and raps. I do think the aff should connected to the topic or have an advocacy, but as long as you win why your mode of debate is better, I'll vote on it no matter how untopical it is. High theory is meh, explain it well. Just know what you're talking about and do it well.

FW vs. K Affs: I tend to lean aff towards FW USFG, because there are other ways to engage a K aff without reading FW, unless the aff is absurdly unpredictable and there was actual ground loss. I'm down to vote on FW if you win why that's a better model.

Policy Affs: Explain your aff, tell me why your case outweighs. If I don’t know how it functions, I might vote neg on presumption. I might not know the all nuances of specific policy scenarios. I can count on one hand how many policy affs I've read (4) as a novice/for camp tournaments

CPs/DAs: I'll evaluate them but they aren't my area of expertise. I might not know your specific policy scenario so tell me the story and explain your cp like you would any aff plan. States CP is what im most comfortable with. Some DA's are fine, not a fan of politics, but whatever.

Ks: Be able to tell the story of the k and know your lit. Same as K aff's. Make it easy for me to vote for you. Contextualization is important. Explain the link story, why your impacts matter, why I should reject the aff, and what the world of the alt looks like if there is one.

Not the biggest fan of high theory, but if you can explain it well enough then go for it i guess

T: Sure. I'll default to competing interps. Tell me why I should prefer your interp or counter interp. If you plan on going for it, prove actual ground loss

Theory: Indifferent. i'll be able to follow but chill with jargon

Others: I'm okay with speed as long as you're clear. If I don’t understand it, I'm not flowing. I'll say clear twice before i stop flowing

i have a resting mean face, it's probably not you

tag time is fine

flashing and emailing doesn't count as prep but hurry up

keep track of your own time

dont steal prep

dont shake my hand

I debated for four years of college NPDA/NPTE style parli, which, if
you're not familiar with it, is sort of like HS circuit policy without
cards. I was generally a policy making debater, but in my final year I
ran the K quite a lot, so I'm comfortable with it.

I HAVE NOT COMPETED SINCE 2013. While I have been judging on and off, I am somewhat rusty. Just an FYI. The years have made me both modestly less competent (sorry) but also modestly kinder. While I can handle most speed in Parli, LD and Policy probably have to slow down a bit for me. I'll yell clear and will do my best, but please be aware of my limitations. 

Here's the tl;dr if you're reading this right before a round:

1. Speed, theory, k's, procedurals are totally fine.

2.  Especially important: slow down on tags so I have pen time, indicate clearly to me when you've switched from one
argument to another (numbering is great, but can be confusing because
many arguments have internal numbering, so "next" works well.)

3. Economics and politics probably need less explanation. Philosophy
(framework, especially) needs more.

4. I love a good theory debate, but I find that it's the most perishable skill in debate, so please please please be
clear, be organized, and tell me how theory arguments interact. The easiest way to win my ballot on questions of theory is to prove some theory argument is the internal link to all other theory arguments, for example.

5. I have some competence in debate and I'm reasonably intelligent, but, like most circuit judges, I am not as smart as you think I am and not nearly as smart as I think I am. Keep that in mind.

Here's the long form:

Speed/Communication:


1) If you are clear I will be able to flow you. You will find it very difficult in Parli or PuFo to spread me out, but Policy or LD might need to slow down a bit. Please allow for pen time. Make sure your tags are clear. It's the debater's job to communicate arguments clearly. I know that sucks---I've been on the receiving end of enough "judge told me to make the argument I actually did make" decisions for three debate careers, but it's the only way we can play the game.

2) I will yell clear for clarity, loud for loudness. I will yell these many times if need be, because I do really want to understand you, but
if you persist, I won't keep yelling all round.

3) Please ignore my nonverbals. During debate rounds, I'm very focused on being as fair as I can to you, so my facial control goes out the window. My happy face doesn't mean you're winning, and my sad face doesn't mean you're losing. My lack of flowing may mean I'm confused, or it may mean I've already written enough of the argument to satisfy me.

Theory:

 Please be clear where your answers to theory are (on the counterinterp, on
the violation, etc.) and what their function is. The easiest way to
win my ballot here is to weigh your various theory arguments against
each other, and explain to me why this means you win. (I've judged
rounds where the debater explained to me afterwards why a five second
theory argument should've won them the round. The debater was right,
but the explanation in round to communicate that argument was
insufficient. )

I accept whatever arguments are presented to me. If those arguments
are not made, here is how I default:

1) I have a high, but not impossible, threshold for RVIs...in Parli. In LD, I defer to community norms.

2) Theory comes before pre-fiat comes before post-fiat

3) I default to a framework of competing interpretations. 

What arguments you should run in front of me:

Kritiks:
I really, really, really like the K, because I think it is an
incredibly valuable way to confront our most basic assumptions about
society. But I have also not debated for quite some time and my comprehension may not where it used to be.

Keep this in mind. K's are fantastic and cool and wonderful. BUT DO NOT RUN THEM
IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THEM. The K works well when you understand not
only what the argument says but also why the argument explains why you
win the round. Yelling "they use biopower" is not enough; you need to
give me reasons why their use of biopower means I should vote against
them. Talk about role of the ballot, tell me why your alt solves, and
tell me why I should vote for you.

Extensions:
1) Extensions. I am not okay with shadow extensions. It's fine to say
"extend the Domalewski card" (I live for the day someone says that, by
the way), but do not use the next speech to explain how that card
interacts with an argument your opponent made. I will not allow
"extend x" in one speech to become magically explained in a later speech.

Speaks:
My range is from 27-30. 28 is average, 27 is below average, 26 and
below is probably racist. 28.5 is above average, 29 is "you will
probably clear", and 29.5-29.8 is "you are likely to win this
tournament." Anything above and I will be actively recruiting you to
join my future Presidential campaign, both because I am in awe of your
talents and terrified that if you do not join me you will destroy me.

I reward, in this order:
1. Good strategic choices. Do you have a crafty, strategic case? Do
you collapse to the right places throughout the round? Do you use your
opponent's mistakes against him/her? Do you see the outs your opponent
has, and shut them down?
2. Clarity. To quote my good friend Om Alladi, "structure is KEY. I
really like structured arguments. this does not mean subpoints etc.
but labelling of arguments. if you tag every argument with the
appropriate function, ie '1) not true- 2) alt causality 3) solvency
takeout' i will appreciate it immensely."
3. Innovation/cleverness. Running a weird interpretation or unique
contentions will earn you points. I like creativity.
4. These things will TANK your speaker points: rudeness, being mean to
novices, spreading out people who ask you to slow down, intentionally
being unclear, racist/sexist/homophobic language. Read the room: being
aggressive and dominant is fine against a debater that is equal to
you in skill, but comes off as bullying to someone who is less
experienced.

February 2018 Update: Nothing's really changed. I've been out of the activity for more than half a year now so I probably don't flow as well (clarity over speed please). Also, I have no topic knowledge so please avoid using acronyms when possible.

tl;dr

I will vote on any argument as long as it's well impacted and explained (claim+warrant+impact is a good standard). I will try to evaluate it as objectively as I can.

Background

I did policy for 4 years and a bit of LD at Dougherty Valley High School. I was mostly a 2A/1N but also spent a bit of time as a 2N/1A. On aff, I read mostly K affs and soft left affs; on neg, we went for a lot of 1 off K's. However, I don't think this should influence what you read in front of me; I'd much rather you read what you feel most comfortable with.

Misc. Issues

• Don't be mean.
• Put me on the email chain. Just ask me before round starts.
• Outlining how I should evaluate the round through framing and ROB arguments is important.
• Clarity>speed, I wasn't the fastest flow so please slow down or emphasize important analytics you want me to catch. Also, please signpost.
• I won’t judge kick even if you tell me to.
• I’ll read a card after round only if it either becomes contentious or if the debate is muddled and I have to resolve it myself.
• Terminal defense/zero risk is legitimate.
• A blip is just a blip, not an argument.
• Truth matters the most. Tech is just how well you can prove what you’re saying is the truth.
• Things I like: comparative analysis (especially on evidence), clear line by line,
• Things I dislike: long overviews, clashless debates

K Aff's vs FW:

I've debated both sides, and both are cool. However, I'd heavily prefer it if the affirmative was in the direction of the resolution. Aff should have a reason why the debate space is uniquely key to the affirmative.

If the aff doesn't have a counterinterpretation or if the counterinterpretation is just neg interp+our aff, I'll probably vote neg immediately.

I think the neg should go for both substantive educational claims as well as theoretical arguments (fairness, education, etc.). Impact these out fully.

K Aff's vs K's:

Link impact alternative still important. Don't let this debate get too messy.

Perm is probably the most important part of the debate. I don't think the aff automatically gets one, it should be justified.

Topicality:

I don't think I've ever went for topicality in my career, so honestly, I'm probably not the best judge for this argument. However, I have debated against topicality on a few occasions so don't be afraid to go for it.

Make interpretation, standard, and violation clear. I default to competing interpretations but can be persuaded otherwise. I will evaluate it like I do other arguments through offense/defense. Prove which one of your views of debate is better and why.

Slowing down so I can catch everything is good; go fast at your own risk.

Disads:

Love disadvantages. The more specific the link, the better. Internal link story should be coherent and well warranted. I'd prefer it if you explained the warrants in each card and why they matter over just dumping cards. Generics are fine if they're contextualized.

Counterplans:

Once again, these are cool. The more specific the better. I also really like it if your CP uses some 1AC evidence to prove why the CP is necessary. Your CP should have a specific solvency advocate and a net benefit.

Case Debate:

Love a good case debate. Heavily underutilized, especially impact turns.

Kritiks:

I'm more familiar with low theory (cap, security) and race kritiks. Gender, queerness, and high theory I don't understand as well. Specific links are important and should prove why the aff makes things worse.

Tricks are cool if they're explained. Don't just throw buzzwords at me.

No matter what kritik it is, I expect a high level of explanation and contextualization.

Theory:

Same as topicality on most issues, including slowing down. Only difference is in-round abuse is absolutely necessary. I default to drop the argument on most issues and it'll be tough to convince me otherwise. Most notable exception is condo.

Condo: 2 or less is fine, 3 or more there's probably more abuse.

Speaks:

I'll start at a 28 and go up or down from there. I'll only go below 26 if you did or said something offensive.

Stanford 2021

Former college policy debater at UC Berkeley

I mostly did K debate that's definitely my area of expertise but argument flex is fine I can flow and understand just about anything

I would slow down for more complicated theory args and if you don't make them a significant portion of the final speeches I am not likely to vote for them

don't be offensive

ask me specific questions if you have them

don't have a lot of rounds on the topic

2020 update

mggreenbury@gmail.com

Not much experience on this topic

Been away from the scene for the past semester. Don't worry, I can still listen to speed, but you might want to assume I'm not fully aware of all the topic details.

I like K debate. Prefer poststructuralism or whatever you call it - would probably be what I have the most experience in. Performance debate is cool. Policy debate is good too, just not what I did for the most part. Good plans with solid solvency mechanisms vs intriguing CP/DAs are always engaging to judge for me but politics debates are boring so if you come with generics you better do it right. I consider myself open minded but I do find myself unpersuaded by the same generics FW args that teams have been reading since 2015. Try explaining things in new ways, using new words and examples. I will reward that.

almost all ideas are fair game, except those which offend or harm other people. please use common sense in this regard or I'll dock speaks.

2019 update

very few rounds on the policy topic, please explain any acronyms or details that one might assume a judge with experience on the topic would understand

speed is fine

argument flexibility is fine and good

focus on explaining things; less is more

”debate does not necessarily take the form of a disagreement; it can yield a more complex disimplication or displacement”

i don’t vote on things not In the final speeches

2017 for Stanford

Very few (<20) rounds on the topic. Mostly policy, weirdly, but it's been three months. Please explain any terms (locations, documents, events, concepts, etc.) that may require more experience.

Aside: the term high theory now for me demonstrates the general implosion of meaning.

Out of competition since last season. Everything below still true, with the caveat that my appreciation for the the decorum and the ethos of debate has diminished. I think you can interpret that how you want. Creativity and clarity are awarded with speaker points.

Lastly the authors of flavor for the rhetoric department are Schmitt, Heidegger, and Hegel. Please do not read a critique of Bildung.

2016 Update

About two dozen total rounds on the 2015-2016 HS topic. Mostly on the non-topic but plenty of K affs with plans and a few policy debates.

I do and prefer K debate for the most part, but I am still interested in hearing policy arguments. I understand and like them, at times.

I vote on T/FW, but I think most teams would be helped by substantive and explicated impact calc vs the aff, articulating a strong T version solves arg, etc. You can't just extend T like you would in front of a judge who ideologically prefers your args.

If you're too fast I might ask you to slow down. You should do you. Within reason, try to offend me.

Most familiar in high theory arguments: afropessimist, feminist, queer theory, and Marxist-derivative literatures. I sort of major in critical theory at Berkeley so sometimes I just happen to know a lot about Ranciere or Edward Said depending on the semester.

Feel free to ask any other questions.

About me

Harker ’19

Debated for Harker for 4 years as a 2N, primarily went for policy arguments

Georgetown ’23 (no longer debating)

Coaching for Harker

Add me to the email chain – anusha.kuppahally@gmail.com

Please add info about the round in the subject of the email chain!

TL;DR
You do you, clear judge instruction makes me happy, don’t be rude, tech>truth, and have fun!

I flow on paper, and if you want me to catch more of your arguments, don’t sacrifice clarity for speed and slow down a little.

I fail to see the strategic utility of proliferating bad, generic offcase instead of having a clear, specific strategy. If you would never go for an argument, don’t put it in your 1NC. Quality>quantity.

I will yell clear once but after that, if I can’t understand you, I will stop flowing.

Planless Affs

Strongly neg leaning on T against these types of affs. If you read a planless aff, it will be an uphill battle for me to vote on it. That being said, the aff needs to win that engaging the resolution or being forced to do so is intrinsically bad, and the neg has to win that aff offense isn’t intrinsic to the resolution, and neg offense is. I believe fairness can be an impact, and I find impacts based on the value of clash/engagement with the resolution more compelling than standards based on arbitrary decision making/topic education impacts.

Ks

I’m familiar with generic K’s like security or cap, but less familiar with high theory/identity debates. If I can’t explain it, I can’t vote for it, so make sure to clearly explain your arguments. Links should be based on the action of the plan, have a clear impact, and have a reason why the alt resolves the link. Line by line > long overviews. Death is bad, don’t try to say otherwise.

DAs

Absolutely love specific DAs that interact directly with the aff, and politics is fine too. Make sure to do impact calc and explain how the impact implicates the case debate. Turns case is underutilized so please do it! Framing pages aren’t my favorite, and are often generic/waste of time.

CPs

I default to judge kick. I’m also neg leaning on theory, especially conditionality. I haven’t found a clear and identifiable impact based on conditionality and I find numerical limitations to be arbitrary. Conditionality is a reason to reject the team, anything else is a reason to reject the argument. I love smart PICs and using aff evidence as solvency advocates for counterplans. If you have to read a bunch of definitions to prove that your counterplan is competitive, it will be an uphill battle to convince me to vote for it. However, if you want to read these counterplans or go for theory against these types of counterplans, standards on theory should be effectively compared and impacted out. Please slow down on standards, I flow on paper and will miss what you say if you speed through them.

T

I don’t have much topic knowledge, so be sure to explain acronyms and affs that they would justify. Whoever has the best vision of what the topic should look like will win the debate. Be sure to impact out standards and why your interpretation of the resolution is better for debate. Evidence matters, and if you read more cards about why the aff doesn’t meet your interpretation and why that’s bad, you’re more likely to win.

Misc.

I default to tournament rules for clipping. Please don’t do this, it makes me sad.

If you make the debate unsafe by being racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. you automatically lose and get a 0. No exceptions.

LD

My debate experience is mostly in policy, so while I understand the differences in LD, most of what I said above still applies.

Conditionality bad is more winnable in LD to me, and my other opinions on theory still apply.

If your strategy relies on tricks, phil, or frivolous theory, please don’t pref me. I don’t enjoy these debates, don’t know what these things are, and don’t know how to adjudicate them, so both of us will be very unhappy at the end of the debate.

Public Forum:

I am a former policy debater and have a year of experience judging public forum. I stick to the flow and will not evaluate new arguments in the final focus that I cannot trace back to earlier speeches. Do your thing and I will evaluate the debate accordingly. Feel free to ask questions

If you think it matters, my poliicy paradigm is below

7/31/2017

email - marguliesmorgan@gmail.com

tl;dr - Two important things:

1. Tech over truth

2. An argument is a claim+warrant+impact, do your thing and I'll evaluate the debate accordingly

Who?

I debated for four years at Nevada Union High School in California and qualified to the TOC with two bids my senior year. I liked to think that I was fairly flexible but I went for the kritik pretty often. With that being said, I will vote on any argument, as long as you do the better debating.

Args

T – I will default to competing interpretations unless I am told otherwise. The violation must be clearly explained , if it is not very clear by the end of the debate I will default aff. The most important part of the standards debate is the impact (duh). Limits and ground are NOT impacts, you must tell me why they are important.

Kritiks – This is the argument I read the most often. You do you. You must explain the link in the context of the aff and I really don’t like links of omissions. Make sure the alternative solves the impacts of the kritik. Don’t assume that anyone in the round knows what you are talking about until you have explained your arguments.

Disads – Okay lets be real, the disads are garbage on this topic, but!! if you do it well, you will win the debate. I think evidence comparison and evidence quality is very important in these debates so make sure your ev says what you are saying it says(?). The 2nr/2ar must do impact calculus please please.

Counterplans – I go for the states counter plan a lot and I think it is one of the most over powered arguments in debate. Write your cp text smart so you don't link to solvency deficits and cheat as much as you can. Make sure there is an explanation of how the net benefit works / how it spikes out of the disad and you will be all good. (Also 2NC counterplans are always justified and you should make as many as you can to solve 2ac offense sorry not sorry)

Theory – You gotta do what you gotta do, make sure you impact out the standards. I will evaluate the debate neutrally but with that being said: "No neg fiat" is the worst argument in debate and I think the neg gets as many conditional advocacies as they want.

K affs – Non-traditional affirmatives I think can be very creative and educational. Be passionate and if you understand what you are talking about, you should be good. Make sure you have warrants for your structural claims and do your thaang. These affs should be at least tangentially related to the topic.

Framework - K affs are really cool and all but so is framework. I go for framework in a more limits/skills/procedural fairness way go for whatever. This position when combined with nuanced case arguments is definitely the move. Defend the house.

Be kind, respect your opponent, and have fun!

If you have any questions you can ask me before the round or email me!

I'm two years out of high school debate and do not have in-depth knowledge of the topic. I debated for Notre Dame for 4 years and went to the NDCA and TOC.

I do not have a bias between traditional policy arguments and newer critical ones

Tech determines truth but truer arguments are easier to win so the importance of technical skill doesn't mean all arguments are equally strategic

Feel free to ask any me any questions before the round

---

Bottom line I know debate but not the topic and you should just do what you do best instead of worrying about adapting

Debated at Purdue for 4 years in college. Debated at College Prep for 4 years in high school.

email chain: imaansidhu3@gmail.com

subject line: "Tournament - Round # - Aff Team vs Neg Team"

Short:

Fine with K affs + whatever, just do what you do well. I’m not a blank slate, but truth won’t come before tech/ I'm going to vote off the flow so there will be as little intervention as possible. My own debating was more kritical but I don't have a preference on what you do. Speed should never come at the expense of clarity. Don't be a jerk, have fun.

Long:
Overall - The last rebuttals should write my RFD for me, tell me what I'm voting on and why. The team that has explained what it means to win will most likely be the team that wins. I don't make a big deal about speaks unless you're rude. On the aff, whether plan or K, know what you're talking about and have a clear mechanism that you maintain. On the neg make strategic decisions. Don't insult your opponents and don't speak over them aggressively. I like debate; don’t make me not like it.

DA - Impact calc is important on both sides. Aff has a good chance of outweighing the impact if they win a high risk of case and I like a good straight turn. Saying the words "turns case" in the your speech means nothing to me without an explanation.

CP - Run whatever cheaty counterplan you want, just be ready to defend the model of debate you justify. Solvency advocates are a good way to legitimize your counterplan in my eyes. Assume that I've never heard whatever agency you're talking about. Perm do the aff is not an argument.

K - Framework is an important part on both sides, it's where we all start the decision in these rounds. I know a little about a lot of Ks but that doesn't mean I'll do work for you. Keep the overviews reasonable and know your lit.

K affs - don't be super shifty and don't get too wild with contradicting yourself or your lit base. Slow down in your overviews and explain to me how my ballot helps solve or is needed for your aff.

T- I need a thorough explanation of why your interpretation leads to a better model of debate and good impact work. Explain how the aff leads to 'tangible' impacts within debate like in-round abuse.

Framework – The aff should explain what solvency they lose under the neg interp and should at least be related to the topic. Whatever the strategy on the aff is, impact turns or a w/m, they're all viable when well executed.

The neg has to prove the aff is bad by some metric and a good case debate and TVA are helpful. Impact work should be thorough, not just 'fairness good because it's fair'. I don’t think procedural fairness is always an intrinsic good, even if debate is a game. But that doesn’t mean that procedural fairness doesn’t matter.

People don’t get into the internal link debate enough in F/W rounds. If the aff solves an impact and the neg model excludes them (fully or to whatever threshold is explained) I’ll vote aff. If the neg proves that their model of debate is better and can resolve or outweigh the aff, I vote neg.

Theory - I think theory is strategic and a good way to check back against abuse, I just find these debates shallow and late-breaking. Usually the 1AR will spend 10 seconds on it and then the 2AR will make up things for 5 mins that I can't evaluate because it's all new. So either write better blocks or deal with all cheaty counterplans. My threshold for voting on theory is scale, i.e., voting on 1 condo bad is requires more than voting on PICs bad.

Misc -

I probably don't hate you, I'm just not very expressive.

If you're uncomfortable with what is happening during a round, let me know and I'll do what I can.

Here's a list of people that have taught/coached me and shaped the way I look at debate: James Mollison, John Hines, Elliot Kovnick, Sara Beth Brooks, Michael Wimsatt, Ian Beier, and Lexy Green.

Add me to your email chain: Graysen.stille@gmail.com

I have kept event-agnostic notes at the top and event-specific notes will have their own section.

This paradigm is meant to reflect various questions that I feel remain unanswered for me in debate writ large. If you don't see something that feels applicable to your style then assume there's a lack of bias.

Catch-All:

I'll admit that I've been out of the game for a few years so my ears are rusty; slow down maybe 40%. This will change as the year progresses and I won't take offense if you ask me where I'm at with speed. That being said, I have a lower threshold than most regarding speed/clarity. I will say clear 2 times and if the speech is still unclear I will stop flowing.

I am most at home with K debates. However, my threshold for explanation is higher than others. I believe that the starting point for a kritik is to attack the rhetorical assumptions of the affirmative and explain the mutual exclusivity of those assumptions and the alternative. Materialized analysis and implications are always preferable to high-level claims. Refusal/rejection alts are not persuasive to me and nor do I think they would be if explained in front of the author you're citing.

Ethos has a grip on debate that I'm not, nor have ever been, a fan of. I'm not persuaded by an author within the field making a simple claim that supports your side. Rather, I want to hear the warrants behind the argument.

Specificity will always be more persuasive than broad-stroke claims. If your evidence does not directly indict your opponents arguments this can be stymied by intricately explaining the causation between both sides. What I want to see is your understanding of the topic and how that translates in-round.

Identifying, explaining, and impacting out key questions to the debate at the beginning of your final rebuttal will influence my decision greatly. Your job in these final speeches should be to write my decision for me. I am lazy and do not want to spend a majority of my time conjuring a decision. Tell me how you've won the debate and work backwards.

Debate is an activity focused on producing individuals who can produce high-quality arguments. Pathetic (pathos-based) appeals will not persuade me.

Evidence should follow normal sentence structure. I'm annoyed and will reduce speaks, or even vote down a team given specific circumstances, if their highlighting sounds incoherent. This is, unfortunately, becoming a norm in debate that I want to see stopped. If your highlighting would make an English teacher shudder change it.

Policy:

From my cursory glances at college and high school wikis I've noticed a proliferation of conditional advocacies in the 1NC. My old standard used to be 2 is fine, 3 is pushing it, and more feels abusive. However, I'm open to changing this opinion given the right arguments. Obviously, what remains post-block will affect my interpretation.

Framework is something that I've struggled to come to terms with. I am not opposed to the argument but I do wonder about its merits as ground for the negative if considered as an alternative epistemological basis for how debate should operate. I'm not opposed to voting on a policy-centric method of debate if you are able to prove why alternative methods are harmful or unable to solve for the harms that the 1AC has outlined.

LD:

I am less familiar with the norms of this activity. I've seen some people refer to "tricks" and do not feel comfortable voting on these arguments.

Do NOT assume that I understand non-policy nomenclature. If you make a theory argument revolving around an argument you think I might not understand take the 5 seconds required to explain it and it will benefit you.

I am not convinced by RVIs and I won't vote on them.

Background

I am currently on the speech and debate team at CSU Chico. I did Policy debate for four years at St Vincent de Paul High School. I have watched all kinds of debate rounds, but have only competed in Policy and Lincoln Douglas.

Case

Please make sure that case arguments are not dropped throughout the round. It's hard to vote for the aff if they drop a lot of their case, and it's hard to vote for the neg unless they have killer off case positions.

Disadvantages

Have good link arguments as the neg because I can't vote on a disad if the aff wins no link, no matter how big the impacts are.

Counterplans

I need to see why the cp solves better than the plan to be able to vote on it. Reading a cp with a net benefit of a disad is a really good neg strategy, but the aff can easily beat it with a perm if the neg doesn't have a good response.

Kritiks

I love them. Assume that I am not familiar with the literature when you read a K. If I don't understand the K I can't vote on it. Hell, if the other team just says "We don't understand the K. It makes no sense and if you don't understand it either vote for us." then I will probably vote for them.

Theory

I am not opposed to voting on theory but I don't necessarily love doing it. However, I do like topicality if it is clear that the aff is not topical.

Speed

I will call clear twice if I can't understand you. I will say speed twice if you are going too fast. After that, I stop flowing.

Summary

Make sure I understand the arguments. I am willing to vote on anything if it makes sense, as long as it isn't outright offensive. I love crazy/unique arguments. I am the perfect judge to read wipeout in front of (but do it right). Don't be afraid to try out something new, and have fun with it!

Side Note

If you want guaranteed high speaks, sing and dance to Party in the USA by Miley Cyrus (as long as it makes sense with the rest of your speech)