"The broken pillar of the wing jags from the clotted shoulder,
The wing trails like a banner in defeat, 

No more to use the sky forever but live with famine
And pain a few days: cat nor coyote
Will shorten the week of waiting for death, there is game without talons.

He stands under the oak-bush and waits 
The lame feet of salvation; at night he remembers freedom
And flies in a dream, the dawns ruin it. 

He is strong and pain is worse to the strong, incapacity is worse.
The curs of the day come and torment him
At distance, no one but death the redeemer will humble that head, 

The intrepid readiness, the terrible eyes. 
The wild God of the world is sometimes merciful to those
That ask mercy, not often to the arrogant. 

You do not know him, you communal people, or you have forgotten him; 
Intemperate and savage, the hawk remembers him;
Beautiful and wild, the hawks, and men that are dying, remember him.

I'd sooner, except the penalties, kill a man than a hawk; 
but the great redtail
Had nothing left but unable misery
From the bone too shattered for mending, the wing that trailed under his talons when he moved. 

We had fed him six weeks, I gave him freedom,
He wandered over the foreland hill and returned in the evening, asking for death,
Not like a beggar, still eyed with the old
Implacable arrogance. 

I gave him the lead gift in the twilight.
What fell was relaxed, Owl-downy, soft feminine feathers; but what
Soared: the fierce rush: the night-herons by the flooded river cried fear at its rising
Before it was quite unsheathed from reality."  - Robinson Jeffers

That's an example of what I never want to see in debate. Anyways my name is Philo Biane, I'm a sophomore Policy debater at Damien High School. If there's an email chain I'd love to be apart of it, spreading is perfectly fine just make sure you speak clearly. For the affirmative my choice in the round is going to be based off of if you clash with your opponents and as an affirmative the main goal for you is to defend your plan but more importantly the resolution.

On to Neg Arguments

CP - Counter plan is a great way to make clash and attempt to do something better than the neg, if you want to overall dominate this argument you should go in depth on why your CP is just as effective and/or even more effective than the affirmative plan.

DA - Disadvantages, I don't necessarily enjoy these arguments due to my lack of understanding them, but they are totally necessary for debate. If you do a Disad I'll probably ask for your scenario and links, a Disad will help you more if you explain why it links to the aff's plan if it happens and what not.

T - Topicality arguments I think are a great element towards debate, they easily develop clash and aren't a super complex argument. Overall Topicality will benefit a neg

Theory - Theory is generally ok, I don't have much of an opinion for it or an understanding but theory is generally good.

Ks and K Affs -  Don't even, these arguments generally suck. They take away from the debate to worry about irrelevant ethnics or philosophies, overall Kritik arguments are terrible and take away from the education of debate, they're pretty much going to hurt you with this. 

Framework - Thank goodness this exists, just prove to me the aff should lose because they don't defend anything of a policy debate such as the resolution and you'll do fine

Performance Debate - STOP, I'm not going to interpret your poems as an argument because they describe how you feel, this is stupid. DONT PERFORM A SONG POEM OR DANCE OR YOU WILL YOU HAVE ALREADY MADE A DECISION FOR MY BALLOT

If you have any questions feel free to ask

I have 5 years of debate experience. I did two years of policy and two years of public forum, and I now do British parliamentary at the University of Laverne. If you make me laugh or smile, I'll be more willing to give you better speaks, but don't fish for votes, make it natural.

I'm good with speed

If you're debating policy try to have some original thoughts, I think the activity becomes boring when all you do is read other people's stuff.

If you have any questions, my email is: colin.coppock@laverne.edu

email (yes, include both): lpgarcia19@damien-hs.edu; damiendebate47@gmail.com

LD: policy pls (below should still be applicable)

If you have any questions feel free to ask me before the round starts.

TL;DR Go for what you're most prepared for and can execute the best because that's what really makes debate fun and productive. I'm not very familiar with the topic.

My Beliefs:

Debate is good

Tech > Truth

Clarity above all else

Clipping is bad

My leanings:

Util good

I, as the judge, am a policymaker

Fiat is a good thing

A couple Great cards + explanation always beats 10 pieces of mediocre ev

There's not an excuse to avoid line by line

Topicality

I don't think fairness isn't an intrinsic impact, same as education. It can be an internal link to other things but simply ending your impact calculus with "They KILLED FAIRNESS" won't do it for me. Just treat your extensions and impact work like you would any DA. (I WON'T EVALUATE T AS A DA. TOPICALITY IS A YES OR NO QUESTION. RISK ANALYSIS FOR T IS ABSURD). I also lean heavily towards competing interpretations; the quality of your ev does matter.

Kritiks

If your entire strategy solely centers around the K, I'm not a great judge for you. I can certainly understand your generic Cap and Security K but any high theory requires a whole lot of explanation for me. Just because I might understand what you're saying doesn't mean you can weasel your way around with generic links if it's even somewhat contested. If you're aff I'd down to see an impact turn (obvious exceptions, of course, are: racism good, sexism good, homophobia good, etc.) I really do not want to hear Death Good, please do not do that in front of me.

K-Affs (Includes Framework)

I have written my disdain for K-Affs before. I am not going to just dismiss it; even as I maintain a reluctance to vote on them, I am not one you should just breeze through your blocks and force me to do work for you. I will be the first to admit that I need a lot of explanation as noted above in "Kritiks". Given all this said, framework is an uphill battle for the aff. I am not very sympathetic to generic "fairness bad/your education bad" impact turns; I think policy education is generally a good thing.

Theory

The only theory I feel even remotely comfortable voting aff (TO REJECT THE ARGUMENT) on are utopian fiat bad, object fiat bad, riders DA bad, delay cps bad, and floating piks bad. Condo is generally a good thing and I personally think you're better off not reading that 30 second shell if the neg is running just a single conditional advocacy but I understand time skew. Also, in principle, I judge-kick. I think that as I default to Condo being a good thing, and the status quo always being a logical option, it would be illogical for me to choose a plan of action when doing nothing would be better.

Also, I doubt I'll ever vote for Word Piks. This certainly doesn't excuse excessively disrespectful behavior.

Disads

I like politics a lot and I like engagement and clash at the link level even more so. Turns case analysis (vice versa for the aff) is always a good thing and should be a must have. Straight turns are fun.

Impacts

I love impact turns and my personal favorites are: Heg Good, Warming Good, Cap Good, Dedev, and CWG. It will take a lot for me to evaluate 0 risk of an impact. It can happen but your cards need to be far better.

Email for email chains: atuljalan17@gmail.com

Debated for Peninsula 2014-2018. I was a 2A in high school and ran pretty much exclusively policy arguments.

My judging will probably be very similar to Scott Wheeler. https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=6854

General -

1. I resolve argument probabilistically. There is no such things as "zero risk," except for theoretical questions such as whether a counterplan is conditional or whether a perm is severance.

2. Smart analytics can beat bad cards. Good cards make for great arguments.

3. I'm more lenient about new spin and explanations of arguments in the later rebuttals, though you should at least hint at it before.

4. I prefer 1ACs and 1NCs with less impacts and more in-depth, supported arguments.

5. Conditionality is good. Ideologically contradictory positions are not.

6. Extinction is a great impact but a smart team can beat it with a much smaller impact and some decent weighing. If you do have structural impacts, you don't need to read a ton of cards as part of a big framing advantage. Just make the arguments.

Counterplans -

I feel like I'd be aff leaning in most CP theory debates. Both aff and neg teams should think about their theory standards' larger implication for debate, why the CP (or voting against the CP) would make debate worse and/or unfair.

DA -

I don't think I evaluate DAs very differently from others.

Dropping DA turns the case does not result in an auto neg ballot. If your turns case is just a series of one liners against each aff impact, I probably won't consider it very much.

Ks -

I'm decently acquainted with the more mainstream Ks. My favorite debates often end up being very specific, well-prepped k debates.

Please try to stay organized and refrain from going full stream-of-consciousness.

Ks need to have a well explained, specific link to the aff. State bad is probably not going to be enough. I won't be very technical on the perm debate (i.e. perm is severance). Usually, the perm debate is just the link/link turn debate.

Unless the neg goes all in on FW, it usually doesn't end up mattering much. The aff can weigh their plan against the K.

K alts suck and I think aff teams should spend more time exposing them.

T (against topical affs) -

I don't think reasonability matters much in these debates. What it does mean is that the aff is more likely to win in cases where they have really good defense against the neg standards but don't have great offense.

Non-topical affirmatives -

I pretty strongly believe that affirmatives should be topical.

I think fairness is an impact.

I don't think negative teams need a TVA to win. And, if the negative does have one, I don't think the TVA needs to solve the aff -- this isn't a plan vs. CP debate.

against Ks (if you're reading a non-t aff), I think that aff teams do usually get the perm.

nathan.paguio@gmail.com - yes put me on the chain

Graduated after 4 years of policy debate at Notre Dame High School in 2019

For most of my career I have been a 2N, but I have also been a 2A a good amount. By far my favorite argument is the Security K (that being said, if you butcher it I will be sad). Most of my 2NR's consist of CP's DA's and Solvency arguments.

In the end I do not want my paradigm to change how you debate, you do what you do best and you will do great in front of me. GLHF

Kritical arguments -

K Affs

You are probably looking to see if you can read your K aff in front of me so yes, yes you can.

K's in General

Just know I am not particularly well versed in High theory, but I will still vote for it.

For K's that are just DA's with alts attached to them, look above, I am a Sec K debater, you should be fine.

Etc.

I hold a different standard to varsity debaters than to novices, and will give speaker points accordingly - I am fine with speed and my Speaks tend to vary like this -

Probably shouldn't break - 27.0-28.6

Probably should break - 28.7-29.3

Probably one of the best teams - 29.4-30.0

+0.5 speaks for anyone that can make me laugh in the round

Easy ways to do this is by... making fun of Ye Jun Kwon, calling Security "Ryan Powell DA", LoL references, ending the 2AR/2NR with "GG"

Also while dropped arguments are assumed true, you have to actually extend warrants and impacts to that claim - "they dropped it they lose" will not give you a ballot if u dont explain anything.

Please feel free to ask me anything before the round!

Junior at Notre Dame - debated for 3 years (since surveillance)

read a plan

more in depth -

case: i think smart analytics are more convincing than generic impact defense.

t/fw - I enjoy T debates and am very framework leaning v k affs.

cp - I err neg on cp theory and think sufficiency framing is a good method to evaluate cp debates. i especially like aff specific cp's and pics.

da - turns case goes a long way.

k - i've ran the generic ks (security/neolib etc) and feel comfortable voting on those. If you run more intense criticisms, then please explain the thesis level and link debate very clearly. By default the role of the judge is to be a policymaker, but if you want me to be otherwise please tell me why to prefer your role.

extra points for making jokes about mason peeples in your speech.

Hey y'all hope you're having a good time in debating so far. My name is Javi Romero, a sophomore in High School and I will judging you for this round. I have you read my paradigm because I always tell different debaters different things so I hope this make it easier on you. 

A little About me: I'll keep this short and sweet for all you. I'm a music lover, will attend a music school for sure, started debate in Freshman year of High School and I regretted it at first but now I really appreciate my coach for overwriting my schedule. I'm just about always mad or depressed so do not be surprised by any bitter remarks.

Ok Now Let's Get to Debating

Stick to Case as much as you possibly can, I don't want to make a decision based off of poorly written and responding offs. 

DAs : I highly encourage you to read Disadvantages because they are some of the most effective negative arguments you can read.

CPs : I can't say I really enjoy Counterplans but being that it is a legitimate argument, it will definitely make an impression on my ballot.

Kritiks : I'm not exactly a fan of Kritiks due to my lack of understanding towards them, they don't exactly make a big impact on my ballot but I'll try my best to understand the K.

Theory and Philosophy: I adore a good theory or philosophical off case because it brings a new runner into the club but try to keep it reasonable please.

Topicality - Not a large fan of this due to the fact that when this is brought up, the entire debate focus becomes shifted to this but I will pay attention to it because it sometimes makes the difference.

Speaks will be affected by:
1. If you say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, trans-phobic, or  really anything that would offend a major group, (this will include cursing in round) you wouldn't be happy with your speaks, a max cap would be a 26.5.

2. Be Smart, if you know more about the topic than the others present, it would be reflected in the points because it takes a lot to know everything about what's going on in the debate. 

3. Please don't let your personal opinion make it's way into the debate because when this happens, you tend to become to blind to the debate.

4. Be Aggressive in CX, just do not take it too far to the point where all you're doing is yelling intelligibly.

OK now let us have a good round, please try to stay within the bounds of my Paradigm.

 I'm always here to help people out in Debate or in life in general, if there any questions

contact me at

(909) 660 - 1452

 javi.a.romero17@gmail.com

or jaromero20@damien-hs.edu  

AFA NIET All American 2008.

8 years coaching I.E. and Congress at the high school level.

Competed 4 years collegiate forensics for Northern Illinois University in the events: DI, DUO, PROSE, POETRY, IMPROMPTU, ADS, INFORMATIVE AND POI.

1 year High School Forensics in HI and RADIO speaking for Prospect High School at Sectionals level.

3 year AFA National qualifier(12 qualifications over 3 years in DI, Prose, Poetry, Duo, Info, POI, Impromptu.)

2 year NFA qualifier.

Graduate Second City comedy school. Groundlings Advanced Program.

Professional Actress/Voice Artist/Stand Up Comic.

Debate: 3+ years experience judging POFO, LD, and PARLI. Values: organization, unique arguments, intelligence(specificity), balance.

*Fine with spread in LD/Pofo. Not comfortable judging policy, so not good with spread in policy.

A note: I've been out of policy for two years so please take the time to clearly articulate your arguments, as I have little prior topic knowledge.

It is somewhat difficult for me to flow due to hand/wrist problems, so if you speed through your arguments with no inflection or change in speed, I might not catch them. That doesn't mean that you can't spread - just please take a second to pause between analytics or cards. 

tl;dr - Run what you want, don't be rude.

Add me to the chain: frogvillages@gmail.com. I go by Georgie.

General

 I've run planless affs, hard right policy strats, and a range of off on the neg, so most arguments that aren't "racism good" are fine; I prioritize offense.

I give out good speaks and judge based on how well you debated, but am also not willing to reward anyone for toxicity. Be kind to each other. 

If you need a particular accommodation for a disability, sickness, etc., let me know and I will try my best to ensure the debate is more accessible.

Case

Tie case args to the bigger picture - the more specific your arguments are to the aff/how your plan interacts with the neg off-case, the better. Case arguments shouldn't exist independent of your off-case - how you apply them is important. Case turns are under-utilized, as is extending case all the way to the 2nr.

Counterplans

Most CPs are legit unless the aff does a good job of debating why they aren’t. The more specific your ev is to the aff and the higher the quality of your cards, the better the debate will go for you. While I don't require a solvency advocate, having one can only help you, especially if the CP is questionably legitimate.

Disadvantages

I like these debates, but “extinction outweighs” means nothing if you don’t explain why. I appreciate solid impact comparison and framing.

Neg - If the aff is mostly winning the DA debate, having a few "DA turns case" arguments can be very convincing. Links about the plan are great, read them.

Aff - I believe 0% risk of the DA can exist. Internal link chain takeouts are a great and underrated way to decrease the chances I vote on a risk of the DA- as are good analytical reasons why the DA doesn't make sense- and they usually don't. If you have a framing page, don't forget it exists.

Critiques

Engage with each other, please.

If you’re neg, link work is actually important- do it. Interact with the aff as much as you possibly can and please don't rely too heavily on buzz words. Don't assume I understand all of your terms - explain and don't be evasive in CX. In the instance that I don’t understand what your k is (which happens a lot in high theory debates), I’ll probably default aff if they win a risk of their impacts.

If you’re aff, don't get lost - remember that you  have a plan that you can get offense from. Your stuff is probably really cool - defend it. I find myself voting neg in debates where the aff's offense is not directly contextualized to the thesis level of the critique - concession of their theory, for me, lets the neg problematize most parts of the flow for the aff. Don't move  too defensively.

Make framework a thing. I generally believe that the aff gets to weigh their stuff, but that's up to y'all.

Critical Affs

I try to operate strictly on what is said in the round, so how you frame the debate is key. Debates that just complain about how critical affs are "obviously cheating, judge" are not especially persuasive. Framework is a question of competing models of debate - you need disadvantages to your opponent's model and advantages to yours to win.

After being on both sides of the framework debate, I'm  open to different interpretations of what debate/the ballot/my role as the judge is. I'll vote for you if you run framework, and I'll vote for you if you don't - just do it well.

On the neg:  Procedural fairness can be a terminal impact if you have a good reason why. I tend to like TVAs as internal link defense to the aff - especially if you have cards. Yes, the aff's DAs and case arguments mean something - don't drop them. Try to clash with the aff as much as possible, which includes how T interacts with their offense. 0 defense to the aff's theory/offense = harder debate for you.

If you prefer a k aff v k debate, the same thing I said about critiques above applies, but try to establish competition early in the debate or the perm will be very convincing.

Presumption arguments are vastly under-used and persuasive 98% of the time.

On the aff: Feel free to run whatever. If I don’t understand what your aff is, I’d be more willing to vote neg on presumption if they go for it. Have external offense on framework other than "the discussion is important" and a methodology that you can defend. Give me a reason why you need to exist outside of the topic or the resolution. I definitely need a reason why the ballot resolves your offense/what my role as the judge is. The perm is usually a good option in K v K debates. Try to clash with the neg as much as possible, which includes how T/the K interacts with your offense. A few good disads to T/the K are better than 30 oddly named and often unexplained ones.

Topicality

I  find that T debates are unfortunately a lot of block reading - engagement with the other team's arguments has to  be a thing. Make an impact about what you want me to care about - “limits” or “ground” isn’t that big of a deal if you don’t tell me why. Impact comparison is important.

As a warning: Don't expect me to fill in the gaps for you in these debates because I have 0 pre-dispositions on T. Even if an aff "obviously explodes limits, judge," a lack of actual analysis and some decent aff defense probably means that you will still lose. 

Misc about content and theory:

-Slow down. Please don't spread through your theory/analytical blocks as quickly as humanly possible. Theory debates can get techy and can be difficult to resolve when I have no idea what you said in ____ speech.

-More than 3 condo and I'll get annoyed - not enough to vote you down automatically if the aff makes a theory argument, but more sympathetic

-A well-developed 1-5 off strategy is much more effective than your 10 off 1nc shell - your primary strategy should not be predicated on you making sure the 2ac gets like 3 arguments on each flow. I won't reject you for it, but I will be very sympathetic to new 1ar spins/pivots.

-Do I enjoy theory debates? No. All judges have some biases, and this is one of mine: You'll win it if you win it, but I tend to evaluate substance first unless the other team has made some heinous mistake like forgetting to answer condo.

Assume that I have no topic knowledge.

Death is bad, suffering is bad.

Prep ends when the doc is sent.