School affiliations: (Past) - Nevada Union HS, CKM, (Current) - Northwood HS, Harker

Updated for: Tournament of Champions 2022

Add me to the email chain: devinanderson@ucsb.edu

Round starts in 5 minutes:

-- Policy debate, 4 years for Nevada Union HS. Qualified to the TOC my junior and senior year, coached 2 TOC qualified teams

-- Judge instruction + framing is very important

-- Familiar with some arguments on this topic, but don't assume

-- More K background, love policy debates, do whatever

-- Tech > truth. Except for any argument that is racist/xenophobic/homophobic/etc.

-- I’ve abandoned a lot of my predispositions. Organized, well-warranted debates >>>

T/Theory

I enjoy these debates if debaters take the time to develop terminal impacts (i.e how norm violations undermine skills that would otherwise spill out and solve 'x'). The interpretation and violation should be very clear. Offense will win you these debates, too much defense and spreading through theory blocks will lose you them

Case

Very important. I am a big big fan of impact turn debates and heavy block case work.

CPs

Sufficiency framing is persuasive. The more specific and strategic the cp, the better. 2nc CPs are legitimate and strategic (most of the time). Solvency evidence is preferable but can be substituted with intuitive argumentation and CPs grounded in aff ev. Show me a centralized strategy around your CP and get to the nitty-gritty of its mechanism. Fiat does not make a CP the death star--answer the deficits thoroughly

DAs

Better for deterrence, appeasement, etc DA scenarios. Enjoy immensely, but less familiar with, intricate political capital DAs. I'll resolve the biggest question framed at the end of the debate, judge instruction is important here--you should tell me where the nexus of my decision should be. Strong evidence is key here, I will re-read cards in most debates I judge

FW

I've debated for and against this argument most of my debate career--it has efficacy and value in debate. Overall: you do you in these debates. I enjoy skills and/or fairness offense and any combination of them. Debate is probably a game but there are args that are persuasive for why it is more or not so. I will evaluate this debate largely on the internal link and impact level, and how that implicates both teams' models of debate. ***Answer aff specific impact turns***

Kritiks

Make your links clear (name them!). Do not rely on overviews and buzzwords--rely on the argumentative power of your authors and explain how it relates to politics/debate/etc. The best debates are the ones that use an in-depth link debate to structure the rest of the flow. Links are DAs to the perm and the alt should resolve them. Framework is important in front of me--I default to letting the aff weigh their advantages. Chances are, I know your argument or a variation of it, but don't assume

K Affs

These debates are valuable, I will evaluate them as objectively as any other--whether it's structural, performative, or theory-based. Topic ties and smart c/i's on framework are ideal. These debate will be much easier for you if you're winning central offense about the topic/debate and their investments in them. Combine it with terminal defense/offense on the skills/fairness debate. To keep it simple: prove your model is good and that your advocacy generates more persuasive/warranted offense

Speaker Points

I reward smart cross-x questions, strategic pivots, and most certainly unpredictable (but logical) 2NR/2AR decisions. If 10 seconds in, I'm already psyched about your speech, good boost for you. I think speaker points are arbitrary and should give me the ability to help you get to where you want to be in a tournament. It's your job to prove to me why you deserve it. Don't be rude. ***Make me laugh, whether or on purpose or accidentally***

I am the Program Director for the Bay Area Urban Debate League. I debated for 4 years at Oakland Technical School in Oakland, CA and I am a graduate of UC Berkeley. I ran both policy and K's throughout my debate career.

That being said I am pretty much open to any arguments (even the really dumb ones). If you can run it well, I'll vote on it. Make sure that there is clash, impact calc, and clear voters in your round.

I don't want to do the work for you. At the end of the round if I am still confused about what you were saying you will most likely lose. Just make sure that your arguments are clear and have a place within the round.

Also, I would like to be on email chain - sbardell@baudl.org

College Prep (2015-2019), Wake Forest (2019-2023)

Coach at George Mason & Harker

anadebate07 at gmail

I make decisions based on complete arguments, which require claims, warrants, and impacts/implications.

My favorite debates to judge are the ones in which teams do what they do best. I appreciate in-depth preparation and high-quality clash more than anything.

I prefer to judge debates in which the Affirmative is about the topic, and the Negative disagrees with the Affirmative's proposed change from the status quo.

I prefer not to judge a debate about an issue that would best be resolved outside the constraints of a competitive debate.

I auto judge-kick.

Theory debates aren't fun to judge, but I understand the strategic utility on both sides. 1 reason condo is good & impact calc >> spending a certain amount of time

If util and/or consequentialism are bad, you have to say how I should evaluate impacts otherwise. I won't fill in the blanks for either side.

Don't need to read a plan for me to vote AFF.

Fairness is an impact, but you gotta do impact calc & can't skip out on warrants. I struggle to see how clash is an external impact but am open to hearing otherwise.

Will vote on presumption

T debates aren't my favorite to judge but Limits ---X--------------- AFF Ground

Gotta take prep for flow checks

Will let you know if I need a card doc - probably won't.

You must read the re-highlighting aloud if the other team did not read those same words in the card.

I try to flow every word said in speeches & cross-ex unless instructed otherwise.

Speaker Points? I try to default to this table's scale

[Speaker point scale link broke:

30 = nearly impossible to get/seniors at last tournament

29.9-29.7 = fabulous & expect to be in deep elims

29.6-29.4 = excellent & elim worthy performance

29.3-29.1 = good & expect to break

29-28.7 = median

28.6-28.4 = room for improvement

28.3-28 = some hiccups & things to work on

27.9-27.6 = room to improve and there is some debate stuff to learn

27.5 -27 = there is a lot of room to grow

26.9 and below = something went pretty wrong]

Not great for LD nonsense unless you want to explain things to me with an emphasis on impact calc & judge instruction. I'm not a great judge for Phil because I just don't understand the implications of a lot of arguments so you have to fill in the blanks for me. Especially re explaining how to evaluate arguments without being a consequentialist. In LD, I do not believe the 1NC has the burden to rejoin frivolous, ridiculous theory arguments placed in the 1AC to avoid clash over the content of the 1AC.

I think disclosure is, in nearly every case, good. I have zero tolerance for misdisclosure, lying, and shady practices designed to evade clashing with your opponent. If your approach to competing is to debate without integrity, you should strike me.

I will never vote for an argument I could never justify ethically explaining back to you.

RVI's & tricks are nonstarters.

college prep '18, georgetown '22 (although i'm not debating)

put me on the chain: allisonecho@gmail.com

top level:

have fun & respect your opponents. truth is contingently determined by tech. dropped arguments are true IF they’re clearly extended and warranted in the debate. i haven't judged many rounds on this topic yet, so don't assume i'll immediately know all the jargon/acronyms.

specifics

T: my own opinions on which affs are t aren’t important—especially since i'm not as familiar with the topic as you. i evaluate this like a da--impact out your offense and explain how it interacts with theirs beyond saying the buzzwords.

DA/CP's: obviously specific links and overviews that are contextualized to the aff are preferable (do more turns case than just at the impact level if you can). cheaty counterplans are fine if theory is executed well

K: they're good when they're contextualized to the aff. a link is an argument that disproves the desirability of the plan, and links of omission/state links aren't persuasive. the neg should defend the alt, explain why it solves the link(s) and have a good explanation of it, too. i'm good with generic k's (i.e. cap and security) and dislike high theory. identity debating is interesting to me, but it's not my wheelhouse so please explain your thesis claims.

i have a high threshold for framing the aff out of the debate—this is their main piece of offense, and they likely get to weigh the 1ac unless you're really ahead on the tech.

Framework v K Affs: i’ll try to be objective, but i can’t pretend i don’t have predispositions—my personal belief is that debate is a game, and that procedural fairness is something valuable that should be preserved. if you choose not to read a plan, you should try to at least be in the direction of the resolution, have a stable advocacy and a solid explanation of why presenting your arguments in the debate space is important. "debate is a site for survival strategies" arguments aren't persuasive to me—i don't think that a model of debate where judges reject/affirm individuals is a good one, nor one the neg should have to refute.

Theory: i'm not a fan of theory cheap-shots, but if the other team mishandles them i'll vote on them. generally, i think conditionality is good, and that most condo interps are arbitrary. however, egregious conditional offcase (5+) or contradictory ones will make me more sympathetic to a condo 2ar.

Lowell High School '18

Email: beckycarechoi@gmail.com

Background:

I debated 4 years of policy at Lowell High School and do a little coaching for our teams.

If there's anything y'all have qualms on that isn't covered in my paradigm, feel free to email me; I'm more than happy to answer questions.

tl;dr:

1. Tech>Truth: I don't care what you run as long as its not offensive - just win the LBL and you'll get my ballot.

2. Flashing=/=Prep but don’t abuse it. Yes, I want to be on the email chain or in the speech doc room or whatever kids are using nowadays.

3. I default to a policymaking framework unless I am presented with a different framework in the round. Then, it is the other team's job to prove why the opposing team's framework is bad.

4. One thing that I find lacking in high school debate nowadays is the lack of substantial explanation behind specific arguments - I am guilty of not doing enough analysis myself during my debate career which is why I want to stress the importance of this to y'all. I'd rather y'all choose a few of the most important arguments to explain to me in depth rather than spew as many lines as you can at me. I want to be able to fully comprehend your arguments and know why you think you should win the debate by the end of the rebuttals.

5. If there is no clash, I will be extremely bored and my facial expressions will reflect that. I am very expressive; anyone who knows me will tell you so. Exploit my expressive personality and know when you or the other team is saying something that's complete BS.

6. I will vote on presumption, but explain to me why I should. Simply saying "vote neg on presumption" without any explanation of why will not convince me.

7. I'd prefer not to call for cards after the round - I will be doing my best to keep up with reading the cards in speech docs during prep and whatnot. If you think the opposing team's cards are sketchy for one reason or another, say so during your speech. I will not point it out for you.

8. Be nice. If you are a shitty person your speaks will reflect that, even if you win the ballot.

9. Speed is fine. I'd prefer if you don't go your full speed, but as long as you are clear and are organized I will be able to flow you. If I can't, I'll say clear three times max and then stop flowing and do my own homework.

10. You do you. Do your best and go for what you think you're ahead on and what will win the round, not what you think I like.

Complete paradigm:

Nontraditional: I strongly believe that the affirmative must defend the hypothetical implementation of a an action done by the United States federal government. It is difficult but not impossible to convince me otherwise. I will try my best not to let my personal biases interfere with what's happening in the round. That being said, it is the neg's burden to prove why reading a nontraditional aff is bad. A competent extension of framework all throughout the debate usually does this for me, but I think having a TVA and education/fairness impacts are key. Prove why their interpretation is bad for debate and you'll win my ballot.

Topicality: T is great. Run T. Personally I think limits is the most persuasive and easiest standard to win on, but do whatever floats your boat. I default to reasonability and competing interpretations. 2A/2Ns should really focus on explaining to me the impact debate and why you should win your education/limits claims in the rebuttals.

Theory: As the 1N who usually took theory for 5 minutes in the block I usually lean neg on theory, unless it's condo. 2 condo is fine, read more at your own risk. That’s just a default though and can be easily reversed. Usually "reject the argument, not the team" is pretty convincing.

Kritiks: PLEASE EXPLAIN. Unless your K is security, neolib/cap, or Orientalism, I probably will not have read much literature on it. Don't let that discourage you from running high theory Ks, I'll still vote on them if those debates are done well. I have a high threshold for K's; if you run one, you gotta explain how it links to the aff, how the alt solves/is a priori issue, and for the love of coffee please explain the jargon. Using big fancy words does not win you the debate. I know what epistemology and reps are, but you need to show me that you do. The more specific the K is the to aff, the better. Reading framework against K's is always a good idea - especially if you have no idea what the K is and feel that you can't win the K proper debate. However, I will not simply vote on "if we win FW then we don't have to win that the alt fails/solves". If the other team drops this, I will probably vote for you but I will not be happy about it. It is usually pretty easy to win that extinction is a prior issue than eliminating cap from society (Bostrom) in front of me, but I will not assume this if you don't read a card on it.

Framework: I'll be honest - I run framework a lot, way more than I would like to. The biggest problem with traditional framework v. a K aff is that it falls prey to the exclusion DA. K affs should be closer to the topic than not, but it is up to you to explain to me how your aff relates to the topic. I will vote neg on framework debates if the neg convinces me that K aff is just unrelated to the topic. We have a resolution for a reason. There are great K affs that engage with the topic, and even if your aff doesn't convince me that it does. Neg teams need to explain how their model of debate interacts with the aff.

Disadvantages: Love them. Disad/Case debates are my favorite types of debates to watch. Prioritize your impact work!! Make your links specific, especially if you are reading something generic like politics. The more specific the DA the better. Even though I love these debates, it's pretty easy for the aff to convince me that most DA's are stupid by using author indicts/smart analytics. Be smart and it'll save you loads of time.

Counter plans: I love watching good CP+DA/Case debates. Please have a net benefit/solvency advocate, or else you're probably going to lose the CP. I don't have a favorite type of counterplan, but I ran a lot of really specific PICs in high school and think they're cool.

Case: Too many teams disregard case as the debates go on. I like to see clash between the off case and the aff both from the aff and neg teams. I do believe in zero risk even within an offense defense paradigm. If the aff team doesn't extend any impacts through the end of the debate, there is very little chance that I will be voting for you. Also, simply saying "extend the nuclear meltdown impact/Kagan card, that's our impact" is not an extension. Explanations are key.

Cross-X is underrated. It is binding and it’s a speech. I like aggressive cross-xers and I doubt I’ll think you’re mean unless you cuss them out or if you are blatantly rude. The only caveat to this rule is if you are conclusively winning/debating novices who should not be in varsity you should be as nice as possible.

Speaker Points: I usually give between a 27-29 depending on the general skill and choices made in the round. < 25 is reserved for people who are blatantly racist, sexist, or mean. Or if you read wipeout. If you catch the other team clipping, record it and show me. Clippers get a 0.

How to get better speaker points in front of me:

Make me laugh! Jokes/puns are appreciated as long as they are not offensive. Snarkiness and sass are welcome, but never at the expense of the opposing team.

DO NOT:
-be racist

-be sexist

-be homophobic

-read wipeout (willing to give leeway on this if it's justified, but it rarely is)

CPS 2019

email: wguo@college-prep.org Please add me :)

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

General Stuff:

Tell me what to do. Tell me what to care about. Tell me what matters in this debate. Be present in the room both with body language and word choice. Don't yell over each other. Talk confidently. Be smart. Have a game plan. Know what you want to do to make things work in a way you want that is beneficial for yourself.

Stay True to yourself.

NEVER MAKE ME SAY "TWO SHIPS PASSING IN THE NIGHT" it makes me very annoyed and I don't like having to intervene in those rounds but I have to because debate is an activity where there are winners and losers.

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

Specific Stuff Details

Background:

I have debate for College Prep for the past 3 years in varsity policy.

My Experience is more so in the K and K-aff sector, but go for what you like. If you do a good job I will vote for you!

K-Aff / FW:

I do think K-Aff's are probably not topical and do detract from more politically technical clash debates and that FW is probably true in most situations. This is not to say that I default to FW, but I am more than happy to vote on it. That said, I do not think fairness is an impact. At best it is an internal link to external impacts, so please don't just say people leave the game if it isn't procedurally fair.

K:

If you don't know what the theory is, you probably shouldn't be reading it in front of me. I will not do any work for you in terms of filling the blank.

Other Arguments:

If you do them well and use warrants and good line by line and clash. I'll probably vote on them.
----------------------------

I think I am more leaning towards truth over tech, but if you are winning on tech and draw my attention to it and I do see it as such on my flow, I will certainly vote that way. But the key is to make sure it's on my flow.

I AM A FLOW JUDGE

Please signpost :)

I like to listen to practical, case-based arguments. Not a fan of K or K affs, but given the years topic, I can support a K aff that actually has an impact.

General suggestions:

First off, BE POLITE AND KNOW WHETHER YOU CAN ASK QUESTIONS IN CX

Don't use incomplete taglines i.e "causes nuclear war" or "extinction". You guys are in High School now, you can use complete sentences (I hope)

Talk clearly. I'm fine if you want to spread, but A) Annunciate and B) Don't do the gasping for air technique, you sound like you're dying and I will most likely make fun of you on the instabooks, snaptweets, and MySpace.

Cross Examination: it’s a speech, I grade it like a speech. Be funny if you can. Base the cross x on core issues in the debate, try to avoid clarifying questions, make arguments and lay foundations for your next speech.

Theory/topicality: Conditionality is good, it would take a very decisive aff victory with a very tangible impact. Whatever your arbitrary counterinterpretation is that limits the neg to X number of conditional positions

Negative suggestions:
Clash with as much as you can in the 1AC. Don't contradict yourself with a strong-link DA then a consult CP, you're just shooting yourself in the foot.
Try not to go for K's, especially if its a Varsity kid giving you it saying how well it works. Stick to your guns, and be comfortable with what you're saying. Sounding confident goes a long way in not only good speaks, but also making good arguments.

Affirmative suggestions:
THE CASE OUTWEIGHS EVERY OTHER ONE OF YOUR ARGUMENTS. Don't drop your case in the rebuttals. I will immediately vote against you if you drop your case or topicality.
When the Neg drops something, make it VERY clear that they did.
I'm fine with a severance perm, don't abuse it.

I don't believe there are rules in debate regarding which arguments you may or may not read. I'm more acquainted with policy arguments, so I probably have a high threshold on the K.

I'll listen to everything and adjudicate the round based on the arguments presented in the round. Please be kind and courteous to your opponents.

bzzzzzz

Have fun!

Experience:

I am a first year parent Policy judge. I make attempts to understand how Policy debates should be evaluated and judged. I have judged Public Forum in the past, but am a novice at Policy.

Delivery and Structure:

I require the debaters to talk slowly and make their points clear. I like to understand the framework and strategy. K-Affs may be a debate strategy, but in my opinion, a debate topic is given to debate on it to figure out if the resolution should pass or not.

Cross-Ex:

Be respectful. Do not talk over others. It is not only confusing, but very unfruitful for the judge if I cannot evaluate your arguments.

Please add me to the email chain at rajeshkamat@hotmail.com .

Hi! yall can contact me anytime for whatever you may need at xanthialam@gmail.com (Yes I would like to be on the email chain)

bit abt me

- UC Berkeley Undergrad

- debated policy and k for all 4 years of hs

feel free to ask me anything abt args or if u need help

and I assume you are here bc I am your judge in which case...

(SHORT VERSION: you do you - I will vote on anything as long as you convince me and put in the work.)

*random things to note

- do not be scared to run anything in front of me

- for speaks: generally the more entertaining or captivating your speeches are the higher the points I give

(honestly I love a good performance whether it be yall doing something hella abstract or just being yall self ) - sad but true statement; if i am bored most likely things be droned out and my attention span will wane)

- I try to remain neutral as possible but understand everyone has their bias' but I do not let my personal feelings alter my decisions

- Be loud and clear when you speak; if you aint I cannot flow what you want me to

- use your time the way you want to

- outline what my ballot should come down too bc if yall do not tell me how to evaluate it imma just do it how I want to which isn't necessarily bad but I wanna give yall a say on how I write my ballot

- be confident not cocky, sas is fine just don't be a jerk, and remember HAVE FUN (well as much as possible at a tournament)

- if you find a way to integrate me into the convo so i feel relevant that props to you

PLEASE BE RESPECTFUL- this should be a safe space where yall can debate freely bc everything is debatable

(LONG VERSION BELOW)

Policy-

For aff run anything you want I don't mind as long as it is coherent - by coherent I mean that I can follow the set up and basis of the arg

On policy straight up: just DO NOT USE JARGON without explanation of the terms

K's- this is my strong suit but you need a clear link, alt, and impacts. Make the K unique aka run it in a way that it is specific enough where I wont think its generic.

Theory- this is something I can understand if reasonable, I have a relatively high threshold for theory but please try to limit buzz words

FW- i mean its fw, run it the way you want to...open for interpretation yo... often/majority of times I will resolve/evaluate this flow prior to other arguments but if you do not win this flow does not mean you cannot win other args or the round

Da's- inherency is a killer, be careful and if yall run a da as an off I expect another off to structure it but it is not necessary.

CP's- Its fine just make sure I hear a stable plan text and clear explanation of why.

T- honestly one of my least favorite arguments just bc ppl don't usually go for it and it then becomes a waste of paper (please do not make me kill more trees than I have to)

PERFORMANCE- as a whole make sure you can own up to what ever you are presenting, don't let yourself crumble. Give me a reason to vote on it.

Public Forum-

I do not keep up on pf topics but just upfront tell me to avoid confusion

Anything policy related I can catch on but just make everything clear for me when you outline reasons why I should vote for yall in the summaries

Last two speeches are crucial- make it count as the majority of my ballot will be centered on the final focus'

- the arguments made in the last speeches will be the ones I evaluate the most or possibly the only ones I do evaluate at all

even tho I will evaluate the round as a whole - make sure there are things in each speech that yall make clear yall are winning

Technical stuff

- tag team is fine

- sending email or flash is not prep but do not purposely try to extend your time; DO NOT PURPOSELY STEAL PREP

- speed is fine just refer back to the top of the paradigm

I am an old school policy debater.  The kind that used tape, scissors and highlighters to cut evidence.  I debated for Jeff Jarman at Wichita State University, went to the NDT twice and broke at CEDA Nationals at some point.  I debated with Jeremy Hathaway who I met at the World Debate Institute at the University of Vermont, debate nerds.  I coached at Chico State for two years when I was in grad school.  I am from Sacramento, California and debated in high school for 4 years for Kennedy High School.  I am currently a healthcare attorney and I have a daughter who is debating for West Campus High School, Hi Abby!

I don't judge a ton of debates every year.  I think I am a decent judge because I try really hard.  I was a 1A and 2N.  I expect a clean flow and lots of sign posting.  I dont like prep time stealing, be considerate of when you are prepping.  I am probably started running your clock already.  I flow on paper with two different colored pens, I am that old.  I try to keep up with what you are saying when you speak fast, thats fine with me.  I will tell you when to slow down or if I cant understand you, but I am not your mom, you need to listen and adapt.  I will make faces and give you some signs that I understand or I am listening or I have no idea where you are on the flow.  When I put my hands up like, where are you, i really mean, where are you, and at some point i will just start flowing on a new piece of paper, so i have your arguments, but that means that they are not getting applied correctly, and that is your fault, so if you dont like the decision that is your bad.

I like impact calculations.  I like topicality.  I like rules, I try and follow them in life and i think you should too.  I am one of the most liberal people you will ever meet, although I dont think you would ever know it.  I dont let that interfere with my judging but c'mon how can that not play into your decision calculus, its like saying that we are all colorblind, ridiculous.  I call it like i see it.  I dont understand framework arguments, but I am open to hearing them, if you tell me what to do with my ballot, I will do it.  I will entertain arguments that my ballot means something outside of the round, but honestly after seeing thousands of debates I understand that it is the totality of the experience and not the individual round that really matters.  I will never say that I wont listen to an argument, I will listen to anything that you have to share and you have researched.  And I will vote for things that I dont agree with because that is how the game is played.

I have been participating in debate for over 25 years and that gives me some perspective.  I love this activity, I love what it teaches and the hope that it inspires.  I have met my best friends in this activity and people who i think have changed the world for the better.  I believe in the goodness of people within this activity and I hope that you do to.  Treat each other kindly and dont be a jerk.  Life is a series of awkward moments strung together by eating and sleeping, embrace it, admit when you are wrong, and figure out how to get yourself out a jam in a debate round, you cant win everything, pick and choose what you can win and have the tenacity to go for it.  Good luck and dont be afraid to ask me any questions.  

_

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!

Wassup, I'm currently a student at UCSD and I have 3 years of high school debate experience at Wallenberg High School but haven't debated since graduating. Paradigm is updated btw.

Anyways, my name is Willie Qiu, and you can call me Willie. I identify as he/him and would like to be addressed using those pronouns. Please also be mindful of the other team's pronouns as well.

Basically? I was a traditional policy debater my first year then I was turned into a soft left then k debater for my last two years of debating. Since leaving the active debate community I've turned more into a centrist, yah I know whatever, so I think I can judge both traditional heg util whatever debates and radical k debates fairly (please explain like i'm 5 tho). Spreading is cool but don't go too fast as I haven't done much judging or debating for a while, I think I can still flow decently? My handwriting doesn't support that tho. Anyways most of the stuff below is probably still relevant but the last sentences are the updates so probably the most important parts.

Strats (Specific Thing's):

Aff: Please debate about something you actually care about. I hate it when people are disingenuous in their arguments and will do anything to win (not that I don't like people who try to win but be sure to use your moral compass when you choose your arguments please). Policy affs are fine and I will vote for them if your advantages and impact calc are outlined well throughout the debate. Still relevant, just don't throw away your morals for the W.

DAs: This is one of the more favorable arguments for me because the first off cases I ran were DAs and I have a soft spot in my heart for them. Please update them according to current news and make them relevant to the aff/neg, I won't vote for it if it is a generic DA to the squo or something like that. Still like DAs.

CPs: I don't like counterplans. If you do run them, please make sure you address how the counterplan specifically solves for the affirmative. And please don't run a counterplan without a DA or something like that because that defeats the purpose of a counterplan and I will not vote you up. Still don't like these.

FW: I actually like framework debates as long as you don't say messed up stuff if you are going for framework. But if you do, elaborate on your voters and why I should actually vote for you, same for the aff or whoever the framework is being read against. (I like education arguments). Yay please tell me how FW actually impacts the round.

Theory: Theory varies round to round. I vote on theory if it makes sense to me. PICS/PIKS are absurd, please have some originality. Yup explain like I'm 5 please idk how theory has changed since I debated sooooo yeah.

T: I don't like T. Period. (Except for the 2018-2019 topic - run T if you want). UHHHH well this one is whatever for me rn I haven't debated so I don't hate it as much.

K: I love performance ks. Use your own experience or link your social location to what you are talking about. You are worth everything you argue about. If you are white, convince me how you doing this performance = you using your privilege to combat discrimination of minorities. For high theory: I can understand your arguments if you explain it. Don't assume I know Illich, Nietzsche, Baudrillard, or any other old white men/philosophers. I will vote you up only if you are able to explain it. Essentially "know your lit and handle it". Wow high school me wrote this kinda yikes but yeah explain like I'm 5 and show me why performance K changes something

Please be early and on time: You should know where your round is, even if I don't. I hate disclosure theory so please share your aff/2nrs 10 minutes before round starts or on the wiki. Disclosure theory makes me want to smash my computer on my head. Don't waste my time. <--- extra on this, time is super valuable

Spreading: I dislike spreading. Please don't foam at the mouth and it is literally impossible to flow 300 words a minute. You can go fast, but be coherent. One way to tell if you are going too fast is if you are out of breath at the end of a speech or your face is like a tomato. Go fast if you have to, not if you have 12 cards to go through. You probably don't need that many if any. If I can't flow your speech, I won't and you will be able to see me stop. Eh if I can't hear you I will tell you, if you keep going, I'll just only flow what I can hear, speaker points will reflect

I like memes: +0.1 speaker points if you put a relevant meme to the top of your doc regarding your argument. I will (dis)agree with whatever speaks you want me to give you. Don't be outrageous. Extra like for memes

CX: Both the people asking the questions and answering should not be rude. You can cut the other person off if you feel like your question has been answered but don't do this too often.

Stealing Prep: Unacceptable, try not to, and if I catch you I will call you out. yah i'll prolly be timing too.

Wow! You've made it this far (assuming you've read the whole thing). If you scrolled to the bottom, well there's nothing here for you. Be nice and have a good debate!

TL;DR: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=31187 This is my former partner's paradigm, and it's shorter so if you wanna read this one go ahead, it's almost the same?

Hi my name is Sydney Ramenofsky and I have 3 years of debate experience from the Meadows School.

I would like to be flashed all evidence before the debate starts.

I don't mind speed and spreading as long as both your opponent and I can understand you. If I don't hear or don't understand an argument I will not flow it so it will not be considered in my decision. I will say clear if I cannot understand you.

I personally prefer it when you flow but I will not take off speaker points if you don't.

Please time yourselves, you are not children and I am not your mother. 

Be respectful to your opponent in cross ex and ask good questions to make the round more interesting. 

PLEASE make eye contact with your opponent, you are not debating me so don't act like it.

Remember to have fun and do your best, GOOD LUCK!!! 

Philosophy: I approach debate as an educational activity that values clarity, argumentation, and strategic thinking. Debaters should engage in well-researched and informed discussions, prioritizing depth over breadth. I appreciate creativity and unique arguments but expect them to be grounded in evidence and logic.

Framework: I default to a policymaker perspective, meaning I will evaluate the round based on which team provides the most compelling reasons to adopt or reject the proposed policy. However, I am open to alternative frameworks if both teams agree on an alternative way to evaluate the round. Without a clear framework, I will default to a policy-focused approach.

Flowing: I flow the round and prioritize arguments made in constructive speeches and extended in later speeches. Clear signposting and road mapping help me follow your arguments better. If an argument is dropped, it is the responsibility of the opposing team to point it out.

Evidence: Quality evidence is crucial. I prefer well-cited and recent evidence that directly supports your claims. I am skeptical of evidence taken out of context, so provide a nuanced and accurate representation of your sources.

Clash: I appreciate substantive clashes between teams. Rebuttals should not solely focus on defense but should engage with the core arguments presented by the opposing team. The more direct clash and engagement with your opponent's case, the better.

Speaker Points: I award speaker points based on clarity, organization, strategic thinking, and effective cross-examination. Being respectful and professional is also essential. High speaker points are earned through strong argumentation and effective communication.

Speed: I am comfortable with speed but prioritize clarity over speed. If I cannot understand your arguments, I cannot evaluate them. Be mindful of your pacing and make sure to signpost clearly.

Flexibility: While I default to a policymaker framework, I am open to evaluating the round through different lenses if both teams provide reasons. Adaptability and responsiveness to the arguments made in the round are key.

ADD ME ON THE EMAIL CHAIN

meilirubio7@gmail.com

Please add me to the email chain: tsxbcdebate@gmail.com

Top-level Debate Opinions:

1. I'll evaluate almost any argument presented to me in round.
2. If an argument is conceded and adequately, I'll consider it in my decision.
3. I love, love, love seeing smart analytics against bad arguments.
4. The best way to get my vote is by having a clear view of where you want to spend your time and telling me a coherent story as to why the arguments you are going for mean you have won the round.

2023-2024 Policy Topic: New to the topic. Don't assume deep knowledge.

Case: Contest the affirmative. Most AFFs are not well constructed and their impact scenarios are embarrassingly fake. So, if you are deciding between adding a T shell --- that you and I know you won't go for --- and having more case arguments, do the latter.

Counter-plans: I'll listen to any CP, doesn't mean every CP is fair --- tell me if the NEG is cheating. Using CX to isolate how the AFF solves, then explaining how the CP solves those mechanisms, is how to win the CP debate.

Disadvantages: These are my favorite debates to judge. Do impact calculus and sprinkle in some turns case analysis, and you have a winning recipe. Prioritize DAs that link to the AFF.

Kritiks: I enjoy well thought out Ks that have specific links and reasons why the 1AC is a bad idea. As the links become more general, I give increasing leeway to the specificity of the AFF outweighing generic indicts of topic or whatever the K is problematizing. You would also being do yourself a great disservice if you don't answer the AFF. Also, going for the K doesn't mean you can skip impact calculus.

K-AFFs: These are fine (even ran one for a season), but I think that framework is a powerful tool that is very persuasive if articulated well. If you are reading a K-AFF, thorough explanations of what voting AFF means and why that solves your impact is the path to victory.

Speed: I am fine with spreading, but always choose clarity over speed. I'll call out clear and slow as appropriate. Using a more conversational speed during the rebuttals is an excellent way to create contrast and emphasize your winning arguments.

Theory: I don't particularly enjoy judging these rounds. I'll still listen to your theory shells and definitely include it in your 2AC, but, if you are going to go for theory, have a compelling reason.

Topicality: T debates are fun to judge. What I enjoy are NEG teams reading T for the sake of reading T shells; why not just use that time to do something that will actually help you in the 2NR?

Thank you for opening my paradigm.

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.

About me: She/Her, I debated for Sonoma Academy 4 years in policy, 1 in parli. I was a 2A/1N for most of my debate career. GGSA 1 is my first tournament judging this topic, and I didn't work at a camp, so keep that in mind during the round (I won't know your acronyms or topic specific jargon)

please let me know if there is anything I can do to make the debate more accessible for you.

ask me as many questions before/after the round as you want.

I want to be on the email chain: clairestep23@gmail.com

At the end of the day I think debate has tremendous value and is not just a game (however you choose to interpret that value is debatable.) I want you to read what you like to read and have fun in the round. Don't waste time adapting to me as a judge if it means sacrificing your performance in the round or fun.

This format is whacky! Be patient with me and I'll be patient with you. Because all of this is over zoom, if you decide to spread, please go 80% your regular speed. Getting good speaks is also about being adaptive!

Etiquette: Please be nice to the other team. I know debate is a competitive activity but that doesn’t mean you can be a jerk. Don’t clip. Don’t steal prep. If flashing takes more than 2 mins it will start coming out of prep. Tag team is okay.

Speaks: I base your speaks on attitude, CX, clarity, how well you know your arguments, and rebuttals. I think that ethos is super important and I like voting for teams that really CONVINCE me they won the round. I would prefer a nuanced explanation in your own words over a bad piece of evidence.

I’m fine with speed but only if it’s clear. BE WARNED! Do NOT attempt to spread if you are unable to do so with clarity! If you see that I’m not flowing and staring blankly at you, you need to be clearer. Any arguments I miss are on you. Especially over zoom, there is a high risk that I will miss some of what you say if you are going max speed.

Tech > truth but truth is easier to win. Even if the argument is morally repugnant I think the other team should answer it. That being said I hold the answers to those arguments to an EXTREMELY low threshold so if you make a sexist/homophobic/racist/transphobic/etc. argument there is a 99.9% chance you are losing the round.

CX: I think CX is underrated and it’s one of the best places to earn speaks. Please don’t speak over each other in CX excessively. If someone is being rude in CX my face will show it. I think CX is binding.

Affirmatives: Please know your affirmative. You should shine in CX of the 1AC. If you don’t know your aff, your speaks will reflect it. I’m down for performance affs/K affs. Do what you do best!

Case: Case! Debate! Matters! I get super excited about a good case debate.

Kritiks: I'm studying literary theory in college, so I will most likely be familiar with your lit, but if you're misinterpreting the lit you will make me sad. During my debate career I was fairly policy oriented so keep that in mind if you decide to read your high theory debate-specific K in front of me though. I believe that debate is a unique space that allows for broader discussion of social issues and justice and I believe that in round/community solvency exists. The perm debate is very important, and you should treat it as such. Grouping all of the perms puts you in a vulnerable spot if the other team calls you on it. You need to be able to articulate what the alt does in order for me to vote for it. The role of the ballot should be one of the most important aspects of the round in these debates. Only read kritiks that you know. Bad K debate is worse than bad policy debate.

CP: I’m a fan of specific DA/CP combos and I will reward you for specific links. I know this is league and it tends to be full of generics and it’s fine if you read those, but I’d rather not have every 2nr be a generic DA/CP combo. I err aff slightly on CP theory. I think that CPs that result in the whole aff incentivize bad debate so if the aff makes the argument you’re going to have to do some work on the theory front (but if you have actually have a solvency advocate for your consult/delay/agent CP this doesn't apply nearly as much). I have an intense appreciation for a good specific politics DA and an intense hatred for bad ones.

Topicality: Debate it well. I think too often T is used as a time suck but I also think these debates are fun to judge when done well so do with that what you will. If the team is genuinely untopical I will definitely lean towards you. Good T debaters don’t rely on blocks and can contextualize the standards/violation to the specific aff/round. That said, I don't really think that fairness is an impact but that shouldn't preclude you from trying to persuade me that it is. Otherwise I am pretty neutral on topicality and will evaluate it based on however the debaters present it.

Framework: pretty much the same as T but I think this is less of a time suck. Really sell me on the standards and why your interpretation of debate is better for the activity and you will win. Coming from a small school I recognize that a lot of the time straight up policy affs are more accessible to teams with limited resources and I think it’s a legit argument against kritikal teams. At the end of the day make sure you're still being respectful though, it gets dicey when read against AFFs focused on identity and in round/community solvency.

Theory: I have a high threshold for theory and will most likely default to reject the argument not the team

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.

add me to the email chain - maloneurfalian@gmail.com

Notre Dame high school - 2018

Micro: The burden of the affirmative is to interpret the resolutional question and the burden of the negative is to act as the rejoinder of the aff. This can be whatever you want it to be if it is both flowable and making a clear argument that I can evaluate.

Macro: Clear, both argumentatively and speaking wise, debates are good. Unclear and not ideologically consistent arguments are not as good. Teams that tell good stories, see how arguments interact with each other, and contextualize warrants to the round are winning more debates. Debaters that are having fun are also probably happier and gaining more from the activity.

There is an inherent risk in presenting arguments, that is a good thing. Taking these types of intellectual risks helps you grow both in what you know and how you have come to know it. Leaving your argumentative comfort zone is the only way to improve these skills, wether you are reading the new argument or a new argument is presented to you in round.

Debate is fun and also silly! Everyone is doing silly things. It is good to laugh about it.

I added this section below because as much as I think saying, 'if you think you can win on it go for it' is sufficient. I am sympathetic to the idea that it maybe unclear what that means and does nothing to explain why I see things the way I do. So here are some thoughts and examples of what informs me in the present, what has gotten me here, and my position on what makes things convincing.

Extended thoughts:

I have no ideological disposition against any argument. Debate is a free for all. If you think you can win on it, you should go for it. Particularly fond of impact turns and any arguments that challenge an assumption of the argument it is in response to. My version of the truth of an argument has little bearing on my decision, but evidence quality has a high bearing on how the argument is evaluated. Arbitrary line drawing of what I 'will or will not' vote on seems silly, but not in the good way. If had the inverse of this paragraph that said, 'the fifty states counterplan is a non starter for me' I would not be in the back of your round and you would not be reading this.

So,I do not tend to believe that arguments should be dismissed on the grounds of not being 'real', 'practical', or 'worth talking about.' I do not think that a jobs guarantee solving a wage spiral has anymore truth to it than china war good. I do not think that any argument that is not directly personally violent to another debater is a non starter. Autodrop L + ratio for offensive conduct. Judged more than one debate this year where the response to a word pic was to double down on that word. Not a winning strategy. I believe in a good faith apology as defense and some form of offense is a sufficient response. Good faith apology sounds subjective, I think there is a bright line that can demonstrate wether or not an act was intentional and malicious or a result of ignorance and a opportunity to learn. This should be established in the link debating. I would prefer the ballot not be a referendum on someones character. I believe an accusation of a clipping or evidence ethics auto ends the round and supersedes the content of the debate.

I find arguments that exist on polar ends of a bellcurve are more convincing to me because the larger the gap between what my ballot is endorsing and/or resolving the easier it is to think about i.e. heg good vs decol is easier to resolve to me then the perm of a soft left aff about the BIA's failings. I've probably voted for Wilderson and X country first strike about the same amount of times. Both many more than any 'soft left' aff vs a disad or a k. It is not as I don't find these arguments 'real', but that it is rarely debated out to the be the 'best' option to resolve the harms or framing of harms they have presented. I think these fail to capitalize on the benefits of either a critical or policy aff, but they have strategic value in theory. I think soft left aff's sweep non specific links or alts that don't access the impact. But that seems to be reflective of a skill issue on the negatives construction of the link debate more so than endorsement of middle ground strategies. Inversely, meeting on the bottom between poles makes a lot of sense to me and is under represented in negative strategies against arguments on either ideological end.

In the vein of critical affs I believe debate is a game. I find k affs interesting, strategic, engaging, and fun to think about. When the timer goes off it is still a game to me. I give my rfd, I talk to my debaters about what happened in the round, what we can learn from it, and I move on. Maybe I download some PDF's, cut responses, or pull backfiles if it is particularly compelling. It can be a good game with a code that can be modified round by round, but it is insulated to the 8 speeches. I think tying a personal endorsement to the ballot can be parasitic and result in a negative experience with the game. This can be debated and changed of course, but when I walk into the round I am under the assumption I am adjudicating a game with four players. The way to play that game is up to you. Some rules are non negotiable. Some aren't. I think the negative is best serve disproving case in the 2nr when they are going for education/clash impacts. I find it unconvincing that a critical aff is 'unfair and impossible to debate', most of them are not very good. Most of them can be dismantled by reading the book or grad thesis their solvency card comes from. Invest the time do that once and it will change your relationship to the argument. Ballot can solve fairness. Reflecting on past RFD's I have given, to win the fairness impact you need to win that stasis is good and/or their overarching impact turn to fairness is wrong. Usually when I vote against fairness it is because the negative team has not articulated what that means. If your args on case in the 2nr are consequence focus good and pragmatism good, you need to prove why the aff doesn't access these framing arguments. Also why do you? Whats the internal link between consequences and fairness? Why is fairness something that is pragmatic? Why do games nessitate equal starting points? You get to chose where you jump off the battle bus. What is the impact I am evaluating the consequence of when you are going for fairness? Where are analogies and examples that demonstrate how it would materializes in or out of debate?

Where is the global south?

I enjoy reading cards. I enjoy cutting cards. That being said you do not need more than 5 cards to win a debate. If you send me a card doc and I did not hear those author names in the 2nr/2ar something has gone wrong in your construction of that card document. Technically conceded warrantless claims unrelated to the content of the debate do not earn ballots, but this does not mean an argument should not be answered because you think it's 'stupid'. If you cannot beat bad arguments you should not win.

Wether you chose to go for a strategy that centers around material action, epistemological framing, or theoretical illegitimacy, you need to resolve the arguments you are going for. The speech you give should be responsive to the speech before you, not just what you have written on your blocks.

I value technical debate, but I think the energy of a round is inescapable. That energy, moments on the flow, is something lost with eyes locked on the screen. Instead of a folder on my computer theres a crate in my closet of every round I've been in and judged. Hundreds and hundreds of individual memories scribed onto long paper. Worlds. Moments. Captured. Even if I never look at them again. There is a reason I wrote it down and I think that is valuable. I'll believe anything. Inverse relationship between how much eye contact I make with the person giving the speech and how good my flow is. Directly correlated is eye contact to my chances of resonating with the argument and voting for it.

Is it more truly more efficient to get your 27th condo subpoint out? Maybe it is. But I do not find that style of debate as convincing as taking up the opponent on their position on any level and having it out with them over the course of the round.

/end

this was my extended section pre TOC:

judge kick -- seems scared when people ask me to judge kick.

multiplank counterplans -- each plank is conditional unless in a set. These probably also need solvency advocates if they are more than 'ban x'

I remember the rounds I have judged, rooting for you all to get smarter, stronger, and faster when I am in the back of your rounds again !

Personal notes if you want to understand my world view better:

I went to school for aesthetics and semiotics. I love the assurance disad. I wrote my college thesis on hyperstition and death. Outside of debate I work writing for gallery openings and literary critiques in LA. I love animals. Reading I enjoy that has informed my academic thoughts: CCRU 1997-2003, Glas (Clang) by Derrida, dead french guys, auto/spec fiction anon bloggers, and everyone I have ever debated, coached, coached against, been coached by, and talked to in the hallway of a tournament.

Debated at CPS and Dartmouth

Add me to the email chain: vickyvix1123@gmail.com

I've read both policy stuff and k stuff

Be nice and have fun :)

Add me to the email chain: amandayang555@gmail.com

Cal 23 (not debating)

I debated policy for three years at Dougherty Valley as a 2N, and attended the TOC in LD my senior year. I am most familiar with policy style arguments --however, tech>>truth and good debating will always outweigh my personal argumentative preferences. That being said, keep in mind that I am not particularly well versed in some LD-specific arguments like phil/trix (see below).

TLDR:

- CP/DAs/PICS/Case >> Topicality/T- USFG >> Stock Ks/Theory >> Identity/Pomo/Planless affs >> Skep/Friv Theory/Phil/Tricks, etc

- Clarity>Speed: it doesnt matter if you couldnt get to the last few cards if I understood none of it

- Slow down on analytics, especially in T and Theory debates. This is also pretty important for online debates; if you're comfortable sending analytics that would be very helpful in ensuring I flow everything properly

- I will judge kick if you tell me to

- terminal defense/zero risk of the da... maybe possible

- Just because a blippy argument is dropped does not make it an auto-win: you’re still required to explain the warrants and contextualize the concession

- Debate off your flow and not your blocks :(

K Affs: Not an auto-loss, but I would STRONGLY prefer to hear your backup policy aff, unless you don’t have other options. For me, the problem with K affs is usually that the counterinterp doesn’t actually resolve the limits disad, but tech>truth applies in obvious situations like if a) you successfully impact turn framework b) the neg doesn’t have a good external impact to framework

Framework/T USFG: This was my favorite argument to go for in high school. Depending on what type of K aff you’re hitting, fairness may or may not be better off as its own impact. I used to be most convinced by skills/movements type arguments, in which fairness instead functions as an internal link to education, but I am beginning to think that fairness can be axiomatically true depending on how the argument is articulated.

1 Off Ks against K affs: These can get a little messy for me; but while I would prefer just listening to a TvK debate, I will still do my best to evaluate the round (you may just need to be clearer on your explanations.)

CPs/DAs/Case: Not much to say here: I really like well-researched CPs/PICs, nuanced case debate, topic specific DAs, and politics disads. Go for your cheatiest counterplans! (that being said, aff theory is very viable in these instances as well). I think DAs with generic links are fine so long as you are able to derive logical analytics from a card that might be less specific.

Topicality: T was definitely one of my favorite arguments to go for. Good rebuttal speeches must compare the worlds that each interp justifies. I don’t usually think that semantics/jurisdiction arguments are particularly convincing.

Theory: I’d prefer if these debates happened in instances of legitimate abuse, or if you’re behind on substance and theory is the only viable path to the ballot. Given that, my threshold for what constitutes legitimate abuse has somewhat lowered after doing LD, so I’m fine with evaluating things like condo, pics bad, disclosure, theory against abusive counterplans, spec (in some instances), etc; as long as they are debated well technically.

- Not particularly fond of frivolous theory

Kritiks: Most of my experience has been with more "stock" Ks like security, neolib/cap, set col, etc. In general I 1) feel like I evaluate Ks in more of a policy-esque offense/defense paradigm, and 2) would prefer to not judge 1-off K debates. As a result, I'm also not the biggest fan of Ks that invariably link to every aff (which I find are usually identity and pomo); not necessarily because of the content, but because it’s easy to use them to avoid clash with the 1AC. However, I was also once an edgy Deleuze debater and understand the grind, so if you must read these, a higher degree of contextualization and explanation are needed.

[LD STUFF] Ethical Philosophy/Spikes/Tricks/Skep/Metatheory:

- As a policy debater I have very little experience evaluating these and know basically nothing about them aside from the fact that they exist

Speaks

- default 28.5

- better speaks if you’re funny/generally respectful and chill

- poor speaks for being rude/aggressive because it's honestly just annoying to watch

-0.1 speaks for “LARP,” “time starts now”

+0.2 speaks for attaching niche photos of Kavin Kumaravel

I'm currently debating as a junior at Dougherty Valley High School. My debate experience has been pretty weird; I've done mostly public forum for the last 3 years, but I've also gone to policy camp every summer, and have competed at a couple policy tournaments each year. That being said, despite coming from public forum, I will evaluate pretty much any argument that you read, so go for any weird args that you want as long as they're not straight up bad.

A few important things:

-I value good impact calc really highly. I want to know why you think you've won the debate, and I guarantee that my own decision won't be satisfying for you if I'm doing all the weighing in the round by myself.

-Debate ethically: don't steal prep, don't cut cards, etc. Even if the other team doesn't call you out, I will lower your speaker points if you are being unethical or take whatever other action is appropriate.

-If you run theory, there better be a real solid reason to, otherwise I will have a hard time voting for you on theory.

-Kritiks: I have a decent understanding of most of the popular kritiks, but I will need to have dense literature explained to me as an argument. Also, I think that most alt's need a lot more explaining than they get, so doing that helps a lot.

-I won’t count small blippy args. Explain your arguments and why you think you should win.

-Don't shake hands with me I think it's weird.