Pls say "and" or something of the sort in between cards !!!!

About Me:

Email: pranav.chillappagari@gmail.com

Computer Science major @ SJSU

Debated for Dougherty Valley High School for 4 years, now debate for SJSU (mainly do speech now tho).

Call me whatever pronouns you want, I default to using they/them unless specified.

Have done Congress, LD, Policy, Parli, and a bunch of speech events, this paradigm is geared mainly for LD/Policy.

Preferred K debate in high school, read many performance affs, now I prefer plan-based debate (policy).

Plan Affs:

I mean pretty straight forward, make sure impacts are relatively recent, I appreciate an overview of the aff in the 2AC or 1AR and this is where I would like impact calculus to happen (IMPACT CALCULUS SHOULD BE HAPPENING).

CP:

I LOVE advantage counterplans, every chance I had to read them, I would. Specify how the cp solves the case’s impacts and specify how its competitive (if it is). Don’t spread through every plank of a counterplan, go a little slower so I can write what’s important of them. Run however many you want in however way (not literally, but I don’t mind cheaty CPs).

DA:

I don’t really like ptx DA’s, Ill still evaluate them obviously, but they can be called out so easily and all it takes are generic cards with no real warrant to beat some of them. But if they drop your terrible uq, go for it :). Impact calc, case turns, and case analysis are all important. The more specific the links, the better.

I like process counterplans, I feel like the impact debate becomes a little more nuanced depending on whoever passes, and even though meticulous, it is fun for me to watch.

T:

These are fun regardless of what you read them against. Legal precision and reciprocity are super influential to me. I default to Competing Interps on T. LINE BY LINE THE STANDARDS, why are y’all not putting offense on the actual standards. Remember to externalize voters and give a good interpretation as to why your definition isn't just better for the round but debate (not necessary, but added layer of defense).

Framework:

One off fwk is strategic, must have a TVA: and use it as offense against the aff.

ALSO EXTERNALIZE YOUR TOPICALITY IMPACTS OUTSIDE OF THE DEBATE ROUND.

Kritik/K-affs:

All of what I ran my last two years in hs debate, I am going to be critical when judging, but don’t be scared I still want the round to be educational so I will give good feed back.

How come half of y’all can’t spread clearly, I understand the words are long and annoying but is it THAT BAD. Overall, I am pretty well versed in a lot of generic K literature and have an extensive knowledge in identity based arguments. I would like if framing explained how I am supposed to evaluate impacts rather then just saying a ROJ/ROB. Like if your opponent gives a counter performance or is able to materialize their impacts according to your framework, I need to know what goes into the argument that “best solves [ROB].” Because that’s super arbitrary. IF YOUR OVERVIEW IS LONG, IT BETTER BE THE ONLY THING ON THE K SHEET OF THE 2NR. Otherwise, short overview explaining the story (and further explaining the alt) and an efficient line by line is good. If you are going to read a K, don’t just arbitrarily question the framework / case of the AC during cx. GO IN on the links you want to generate from them, this can save you a lot of time with your link walls since you can just say “refer to cx” rather than some long explanation. Other than that, impact turn and collapse. AND ENGAGE WITH CASE IF THE K IS SUPER SHORT OR GENERIC.

Piks / Word Pics -- honestly I don't hate word pics if the discourse needs to be called out, but I have never voted for a PIK (and probably never plan to).

K-aff specific: Explain why your model of debate matters against framework / t-usfg, this will probably be what I am going to be voting for in the round, so it matters. Other than that explain what the advocacy and ballot does. And yes answer the “what does the aff do?” Question.

Theory:

Default reasonability, I use a brightline of evaluating potential and actual abuse, putting more of an emphasis on actual abuse > potential abuse. I like condo bad, pics bad, and disclosure. But am easily swayed with these arguments as long as you impact out your standards properly.

I love new affs bad (I will never explain further).

Phil:

just explain well, go slow on analytics. Not your best judge for these, but I am more tolerant than most.

Tricks

cruel optimism, I go into debate rounds hoping that each debater will get something substantive from the round, and by the time the round is over I have effectively left the community.

But in all seriousness, go for it, I will evaluate it how you tell me too, and maybe you will be the one who helps me change my mind about these arguments.

I was a varsity LD debater in high school. Keep your own time. Speak clearly. Explain how I should weigh your arguments. Be polite to your opponents, a little sassy is different from rude.

I want to be on your email chains: ilanacohentms@gmail.com

Updated Aug 25, 2022

History:

I coached and competed for Dougherty Valley. Graduated in 2018.

General:

The greatest question debate ever asked me: how can a judge be tabula rasa?

Everything in this paradigm is a default so argue on them if you don't agree:

Impact calculus is your job, preventing judge intervention is mine. Use a point of order anyway though.

Do whatever overview and road maps you want off time, regulate each other on this.

Topicality:

The topic is owned by the debaters.

Follow it or don't but I will prefer enforcement of the rules of the debate form.

Breaking those rules means I need to hear some theory first.

Theory:

Theory only works if you follow the structure.

A priori - prioritization of the largest issue is the entire point of theory.

That doesn't mean I throw away B, C, or D because anyone can turn them back into A.

Default competing interpretations.

Default no RVI - you should only waste as much time on theory as you want to.

The whole point of debate is that you've read and thought about the rules.

Speed:

We all type and write at different speeds throughout the debate.

Slow down when people ask you to and it'll be quite difficult to turn this into a voting issue with me.

Prefer yelling clear over slow. Use this power sparingly.

Kritiks:

Focus on the philosophy and structure, that's the whole point.

The only problem I've ever had with these arguments is when someone uses them so fast their opponent can't even understand.

Our mutual understanding of what is going on is the most important thing to me in the debate.

Plans & Counter-plans:

Plans and counter-plans are a useful stucture in any debate form.

Run perms to test the competition.

Severance is fine, but be careful if you're hit with theory.

Speaker Points:

I'll set this based on how respectful the debate ended up being.

I'm happy to answer questions - humzamuhammadkhan@gmail.com

Pandemic update: Please send all speech docs including pre-written analytics. My email is sl1578@georgetown.edu

Hello! I'm Serena, did LD in high school for 4 years, now a senior at Georgetown. Most familiar with util/policy-style debate (for a better idea, this was my wiki).

Please go at about 75% your top speed and don't rely on jargon to replace warrants. I will call clear 3 times before I start deducting speaker points.

Other important info:

- Slow down on tags, phil-heavy positions, theory/T, and analytics

- Well executed weighing, collapsing, overviews, etc. will make evaluating the debate a lot clearer for me - please do this!

- Theory defaults: reasonability, no RVIs, drop the argument

- If you plan on reading a dense or uncommon position, please explain it well

- I think affs should be in the direction of the topic but can be persuaded otherwise. I ran framework often as a debater and have voted on non-topical affs as a judge. On that note, I will vote on pretty much anything if it's explained well and not blatantly offensive

- If you are an experienced debater and are debating someone who is clearly a novice, I expect you to adjust accordingly (ie. don't go top speed, don't read 10 off-case positions, etc.) - you will not get higher than a 28 if you do this.

- I will reward slower but more efficient debaters with lots of speaker points

- Please be nice and respectful to each other! Don't be sexist / homophobic / racist / etc.

Hi! I'm Emmiee (they/them) - emmiee@berkeley.edu is the email

I did 4 years of debate in HS (3 policy, 1 LD) and 3 years of college policy for UC Berkeley. In both I started off reading very LARP/policy arguments and then branched out into more soft left and K territory. The arguments I've spent most of my time reading are queer pessimism, psychoanalysis, and Russian set-col. I've been coaching Harker LD for 6 years now and have taught at ~10 LD/policy camp sessions.

TL;DR/For Prefs:

I try to stay as tab and non-interventionist as possible. There is literally not a single argument I have not voted for. All of my decisions are purely based off of how the flow lines up and I don't care if you're going for an RVI on Nebel, a PoMo FrankenK, indexicals, a heg DA, "surrender to ____", the Hobbes NC, etc. If I stopped voting for downright horrible arguments that were won on the flow, I would quickly end up having to give out double losses.

It's not my job to "preserve the sanctity of the activity" or whatever, especially given all of the things I pulled in my own debate career; it's my job to vote for whoever won and then roast any arguments I didn't personally like in the RFD. There are only three arguments I don't want to see: those that are blatantly oppressive (___icm good, etc), those that are unethically read (clipped, text of article altered, etc), or those that lack a claim/impact/warrant.

Other Important Info:

• In general, I judge a lot of clash debates, bubbles, bid rounds, etc and I get that stress is high, different schools/regions/circuits have different norms and habits, everyone's tired, etc but please do your part to make the round as un-painful as possible. Assume good intent, don't be purposefully sketchy or mean, etc.

• I am 100% cool with post-rounding - if you think I forgot to flow something important, gave a nonsense RFD, didn't address something you think should have decided the debate, etc by all means grill me over it, as long as you're not actively rude to me or your opponent.

• Some rounds I take a super long time to decide and have a lot of comments - it's usually because I'm typing all the comments out on my flow for a while. If I take forever or dump feedback on you, it's not a bad thing - I probably just have a lot of random thoughts, especially if it's a K debate. If it's too fast, too much, it's the end of the day and you want to go to bed, you need to run to another round or prep, etc just let me know I 100% get it.

• Incoherently rapid-spread a million blippy analytics and lose - if you want me to flow your giant analytic wall via online debate without missing anything important, you are going to need at least 3 of the following: [1] doc was sent out with the analytics in it, [2] you are at least somewhat clear and aren't going the same speed you go reading a random line in a card, [3] there's intonation/volume changes when you go from arg to arg and/or on the important terms, or [4] the arguments are numbered/labelled/separated somehow and you more-or-less stick to the flow when you extend them instead of dropping them in a bunch of random places.

• Don't over-accommodate but don't be mean to traditional/novice debaters - if you're in the top 50% of the pool I will boost speaks if you slow down somewhat (especially on tags), are polite and don't clown on your opponent for not understanding something basic, generally try to be helpful and CX and try to help them understand your arguments if they're confused, etc. Likewise, will drop speaks if your strategy for the W is very blatantly just to spread out a newer kid with a bunch of arguments they've never heard of while being rude to them the whole time.

• I also tend to get progressively stupider as the tournament goes on and I'm sorry if you catch me on the end of day 2 and I'm a little spacey. Tournaments tend to aggravate disability-related things and I burn out especially fast. I can still make coherent decisions, but will just take a little longer and give less concise RFDs. If you're going to break a DA with a super convoluted and nuanced I/L chain or get into a super ticky-tacky phil throw down in R6, please adjust your degree of hand-holding accordingly.

Specific Arguments:

• LARP: This is the style of debate that I mainly coach and am most comfortable with (along with Ks). I'll vote for your totally contrived politics DA and for "heg good outweighs the K/soft left AFF" if you win it on the flow.

Various other things of use:

• I default to presuming NEG, unless the NEG reads a counter-advocacy.
• I also tend to rely on how people explain their arguments and don't do a lot of card reading unless I'm forced to or someone asks me to do it.
• If you're AFF and the NR dropped the AFF so the 2AR is clearly going to be impact v. offcase weighing and then all about the DA or CP or whatever please give me at least 1 sentence about the 1AC scenario somewhere so I know how we got to a certain impact outweighing something else or what the PERM on the CP would look like. If the NC totally drops the AFF and you go for 100% SOL we O/W whatever whatever in the 2AR please give me a sentence in the 1AR about the AFF because it's weird to have it disappear and then reappear and very confusing. 
• I'm agnostic on a lot of things that the LARP community seems to be split on and will let it slide or let debaters debate it out in round. If you insert rehighlightings and say in your NC something to the extent of "their ____ scenario is horribly cut - we've inserted the rehighlightings" so I know it's something you meant to insert and not something you didn't read due to time constraints and the other team says nothing, I'll evaluate it. If they read theory, I guess we're having a theory debate now. Same with judge kick - I'll do it if I'm asked to, won't do it if you don't or you do and your opponent wins that I shouldn't for some reason. Multiplank CPs where you kick out of planks, "haha PERM do the CP this is normal means" reveals in the 1AR, etc are all very much in the same camp - I'll roll with it if it's not contested, will evaluate contestation and potentially roll with it anyways otherwise.

• K: I'm generally very down for weird/memey arguments but on god if you choose to pull a bunch of conflicting pomo ev into a doc just so you can spend the round yelling vague buzzwords without making any attempt to say anything specific about the AFF I will tank your speaks. If you're not familiar with whatever you're reading so your arguments or cards you end up cutting aren't phenomenal that's fine. If your K is about the need to sideline the AFF/topic and instead center your performance, community, something else, etc that's that's fine. If you have a genuine defense of why you need to sound like the PoMo generator or remain very nebulous and vague that's fine. I truly don't care what it is you do, but please don't just try to win by being too incoherent/confusing for your opponent. 

Other fun things:

• If someone's reading a K vs. you and you're confused, at least 50% of the time in my experience the argument is just incoherent and you should make the common sense "the alt obviously doesn't solve because ___"/"nothing about their K vaguely makes sense"/"___ isn't a link and the card isn't even about the topic or the tag it's something else entirely" argument that's in your head. I keep having to vote for Ks that I know are poorly executed because the other side psychs itself out. 

• I vote for K AFFs and I vote for FWK all the time - it usually comes down to which side actually engages the other as opposed to reading generic prewritten overviewy dumps because that's the side that doesn't drop a bunch of things in the 1AR/NR/2AR. I'm down to vote for the "debate is a game and only a game ergo procedural fairness" flavor of FWK as well if you win it, but I very quickly start getting turned off if part of that strategy involves being a jerk to the other side. 

• White debaters doing the Race War disclosure stuff confuses me. I'm not opposed to voting on it at all but I simply have no idea what this does so if it's going to be part of your strategy I need you to articulate the I/L link between that and whatever you claim it solves or allows you to do. Strategy-wise, "I'm not ____ but I get to read arguments about ____ group because ____" is a lot more intuitive to me than whatever is going on here.

• If you're going to go for "____ thing that wasn't on-face morally abhorrent is a V/I" I need to hear: [1] a warrant in both speeches and [2] some articulation of why this comes before whatever other framing arguments/layers exist in every speech this argument is made in - you can obviously have a lot more extrapolation on #2 when you go for it, but I find it hard to be persuaded by a 5 word argument that only really gets explained at the end of the debate

• Phil: I'm pretty familiar with the literature at this point even though this really wasn't my corner as a debater. A lot of the stuff immediately below applies - phil debates tend to devolve into each side proliferating a bunch of one-liners and then going for three of them without much weighing/etc and that makes it very hard to parse through. When one side says "nuclear bomb kills everyone so we can't enjoy life or discuss values ergo util" and the other side says "adding a circle to a circle doesn't make it more circular ergo kant" it is two ships passing in the night that hurt my brain. Please for the love of God tell me what the implication of you winning something on your end is for the phil debate writ large, why your stuff comes first, how it interacts with what's going on on the other side, etc. If you extend your 3 hot takes on the NC and do 0 actual interaction with the AC FWK or vice-versa you will either lose or have to sit for an hour while I stare at the flow and try to make it make sense. 

• T/Theory: I will vote for it; I'll vote for the RVI on it. I don't think my personal opinions on how many condo is ok or semantics matter because it shouldn't factor into how I judge. In the absence of clear warranting from either side, I will obviously be more swayed by nebulous abuse or reasonability claims depending on the context of that specific round. The bullet point about incoherent rapid-spreading analytics definitely applies here - I can't vote for what I can't flow and a few good arguments go so much farther than proliferating random impacts and links that'll just get everyone confused all over the place. It's hard to yell "clear" over Zoom because it cuts out the other person's audio for a second so if you're blitzing through huge walls of text I'm probably going to miss arguments.

If you write the RFD for me in the debate that explains how impacts and layers stack up and weigh, you are overwhelmingly likely to have that be the actual RFD. If you end up neck deep in a super messy and dense theory/T debate and manage to stay organized, clear, and pretty line by line, you will get a 29.5 minimum. My biggest issue with these debates by far is the messiness and lack of weighing on both sides. It is really hard for me to evaluate debates when no one explains why they have the stronger I/L to education, why phil education outweighs topic education, why their NC theory should come before 1AR theory, whether T or theory comes first, etc.

Only other relevant things is that I presume T/Theory > K unless told otherwise and am not the best with grammar so I can flow your upward entailment test argument and vote for you off it, but I don't have more than a surface level understanding of it outside of its strategic value in debate.

• Trix: I've voted for lots of tricks debaters, but think that tricks objectively are all silly and false and have adjusted my threshold for responding to them to a comparable level. My bar for responding is "this is nonsense and you shouldn't vote on it because ___". If there's three hidden words in an analytic wall that are dropped, the threshold changes to the above along with "you should allow this response even though it's new because ____" in the next speech. I'm very sympathetic to newer LDers or policy cross overs losing over mishandling some silly spike they didn't know about and personally took a lot of Ls that way, but if you decide to sit the entire round without making a single argument about why "evaluate the round after the 1AC" is a horrible idea, you will lose to it.

All of the stuff in the T/Theory section about spreading through analytics, the fact that no one weighs or implicates anything, etc all applies.

Affiliations/Judging conflicts: Harvard-Westlake, Marlborough
I debated for four years at Harvard-Westlake School in Los Angeles, qualifying to TOC thrice. I now coach for Marlborough.
If you have questions, email me at mdokrent@gmail.com

Short version:
I like hearing well-developed, supported, smart arguments. This can include philosophy, t or theory, Ks, plans, CPs, DAs, etc. Form doesn't matter a huge amount to me. Just steer clear of my landmines and make good arguments: your speaks and win record will show it.

Flashing/emailing is on prep time.

Traditional Policy stuff: yes
Theory: yes if there’s real abuse.
Philosophy (almost all sorts): yes
K: yes
Shenanigans: no
Performance: yes

Do I say clear? Yes.
How many times? Until you get clear or it becomes clear that you're ignoring me.

Mandatory scary stuff:

Landmines: The following things are not ok in debate. I WILL INSTANTLY DROP YOU FOR:
-Religious/theistic arguments *I don't think very many (if any) other judges hold this prohibition, so I want to emphasize that I do hold it, and I will hold you to it.*
-moral skepticism (unless the topic specifically mandates it, like the Nov-Dec 2011. I'll specifically note it at the top of my paradigm if one of these comes up.)
-presumption (if you tell me I should ignore substance to vote on presumption. I might presume if there is legitimately no offense but I will do everything in my power not to.)
-any argument that is “triggered” in a later speech. If you defend it, you must say so in your first speech
-biting the bullet on something atrocious like genocide, rape, mass murder, etc. (That is, openly acknowledging that your framework would not condemn something like this. Simply arguing that your opponent’s framework can’t condemn genocide will not be a reason to drop them.)
-an a priori (these are arguments that say that the resolution is true or false for linguistic/semantic reasons and don't link to a framework. Despite debaters' best efforts to hide them, a prioris are pretty easily visible.)
-blatantly lying in cx
In general, be honest. I won’t instantly drop you for anything not on this list, but if you pull tricks or are generally sketchy I will be pissed. My stance on this is pretty similar to Chris Theis’.



The following arguments I will not listen to, but will not drop you for the sole reason that you ran one of them (you can still win elsewhere on the flow). I will not vote on:
-any argument that is not normative, like ought implies can or ought means logical consequence.
-theory arguments against an interp in the AC are counterinterpretations/defense only


Things I dislike but will vote on if you win them by a wide margin (either they're conceded or you crush):
-Competing interps requires a counterinterpretation.
-Affirmative “ethics” choice (When the aff gets to pick the standard/value criterion – distinct from AFC as run in policy, which I am ok with)
-Meta-theory comes before “regular” theory. OK to run a “meta-theory” shell and weigh impacts, but I don’t believe that meta-theory exists differently than theory. One sentence in a theory voter will not convince me otherwise.
-Anything that would have me take an actual action other than judging. (It takes a really good reason to make me not be lazy. I might vote for the position and ignore the action anyway.)

And a bunch of theory shells fall into this category too. If you run one of these shells, I will be skeptical and probably find the most stock responses persuasive. I'll vote on it, but you'll have to do lots of work and win it by a lot:
-Must run/not run framework
-Must run/not run plan/counterplan (inc. plans bad)
-Must run/not run kritik (noticing a theme?)
-Must run/not run DAs, etc.
-Can't have both pre- and post-fiat impacts
-Can't make link/impact turns (yes, people actually run this shell)
-Negatively worded interps bad ("Must have positively worded interp" for the formalists)
-Neg must defend the converse

My Name is Taylor Parker. I am currently a senior. I have over 3 years of debate experience from the meadows school. Two years of LD debate and a year of Policy.

Flash me your evidence/ include me in an email chain before the debate round starts.

Give roadmaps before you start your speeches.

I don’t mind speed just make sure you are clear and coherent in your arguments. I will say clear if I cannot understand you.

Flow the debate. Organization is key to any debate.

Know your times and time yourself.

Have fun and do your best, good luck!!

Dougherty Valley '19, WashU St. Louis '23

Email: qin.andrew123@gmail.com

TL;DR, very straight up debater in highschool mostly went for CP/DA so I am most comfortable judging these rounds and rarely if ever went for K's if you are a K debater probably don't pref me. Also if you have wacky zany pictures of Kavin Kumaravel I'll boost your speaks

General

Judge instruction and clear weighing is how you will win my ballot.

Any defaults that I have can be changed throughout the debate.

I don't believe in 0% risk of an impact (unless an argument is dropped)

Impact calc in the final speeches are not new arguments

I lean towards trix bad not a fan

I find it hard to flow down T/Theory analytics so please try to slow down a little bit or send it in the speech doc

Default to extinction sucks the most.

Affs

Plans are fine, whole res is also fine as well

I mainly went for soft left affs in high school so I think that really in depth framing work and weighing makes it very easy to sign my ballot for the aff.

DA

DA's are epic and a core part of negative offense please read them.

CP

Counterplans are fine and also a core part of neg offense so reading them is fine

I will not judge kick unless instructed to do so

K

I'm not the most well read in kritikal arguments, the most i've ever read is cap so if you are a K team, then probably don't pref me. If you do want to read a K in front of me and go for it, the less work I have to do the easier it will be for you to win.

T

Default to counter interps, drop the debater

I find that T is a very useful tool for the neg to check back Aff abuses

Theory

Default to counter interps, Drop the arg, No RVI

I think that theory should not be read unless there is a egregious error in the round. But here are my general stances on several common theory arguments

- Speed

Generally, I think that speed is good, but there are arguments that can persuade me of the other side.

- Disclosure

Disclosure in general is probably really good for debate events like Policy and LD

For PF, I know it's not necessarily a norm yet so I'm up in the air and will be persuaded by either side who reads this.

- Paraphrasing/Brackets

Don't paraphrase or bracket cards are good it's also lowkey like an evidence ethics violation so like that's a whole other issue.

- Friv

Contrived theory arguments are the worst please don't read these in front of my I'll evaluate them if I have to but I don't want to judge a debate about this.

- PICs bad

I generally tend to think that PIC's are very smart and I encourage people to read them. I think I lean neg for PICs bad but I can be persuaded for the other side as well.

- Condo

Condo is good I tend to find it difficult to vote for condo bad unless it is a major issue.

LD:

Put me on the email chain: armansawhney@gmail.com

I prefer knock knock jokes to hand shakes.

General:

I have significant debate experience in LD and Parliamentary Debate, both in traditional and progressive styles. I judge the round based off of your argumentation, and I keep my own biases out unless judge intervention is absolutely necessary. I do have a higher threshold for buying certain arguments over others, but that being said, as long as you do enough work in terms of context and impacting, I won't have a problem with evaluating anything you run. I enjoy a good voters speech in which you tell me what on the flow to vote on and why, especially with direct comparisons between Aff and Neg because it allows me to intervene as little as possible in my decision. This isn't generally as much of a problem in LD, but I don't like shadow extensions. If you want me to vote on something, make sure you bring it up consistently in all of your speeches. Also, make sure you extend content and not just taglines. Also tell me where to flow overviews and underviews.

Speed:

I'm generally okay with speed, just include me on the email chain and if I have to say clear more than twice, it's going to show on your speaks.

Straight Up Debate:

Like I said, I did Parli, so I'm a huge fan of straight up debate. I find these debates interesting, and generally educational not only to participate in, but also to watch. Just make sure you're doing enough work on the background/context of arguments when you read them, because if I don't buy your uniquenesses I'm not going to buy your argument. Read whatever you want, I'm fine with plans in LD, but make sure counterplans are competitive. I generally prefer evidence based on recency up to a 3 month discrepancy, then I go based off of quality of source or data collection. Give clear link scenarios and terminalize impacts on Disads. Perms are okay, just remember they're a test of competition, not a change of advocacy. If you want to properly run a perm in front of me, show me why the CP can happen with the aff and still keep most of its net benefit.

K's:

I'm fine evaluating K's, but I want a comprehensive argument. This means a contextual analysis of links, show why they're clear and unique, and show me specifically how my ballot impacts the issue at hand. Also if it becomes abundantly apparent that you don't understand the basic thesis behind your Kritik especially during cross examination, I'm not going to vote on it, so make sure you understand what you're running before you run it. I don't like alts that are just "Reject the Aff" because generally they don't solve. Give me an alternative to the S-Quo that is specific.

K-Affs:

I like topical affs, but run whatever you think is most strategic. Same as regular Kritiks, as long as you contextualize it properly and show why my ballot matters it's fair game for me to vote on. I have a relatively high threshold for buying most K-Affs.

Theory:

I enjoy theory debates. I think theory is strategic, and as long as you are able to properly run it, nothing is really off limits. Run theory when there is abuse, or when there isn't. I generally default to competing interpretations, because I think reasonability by nature invites judge intervention. That being said, if you give a (very) good argument as to why reasonability is beneficial, and you win that debate, I am open to judging based off of reasonability. If you don't ask for an RVI I'm not going to give you one.

Framework:

I always enjoy a good framework deabte, but please make sure to do enough work on it. If you're contesting a framework, I need detailed evidence and/or analysis as to why your framework will be more beneficial for the fairness and education of the debate or I'll presume Aff framework. Aff same goes for defending framework from contest.

Speaker Points:

Just be professional, and be respectful. I don't mind a little bit of sassiness, comedy, or passion during the speeches or cross ex, but just don't be mean. I start off both debaters at 29's, then go down or up depending.

Tricks/Blips:

I don't like them, I feel like they're underhanded and don't promote clash, which as the term debate implies, is one of the main reasons for you all being here.

ASK ME ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE ABOUT MY PARADIGM BEFORE ROUND.

Also, I'm fine with answering any questions you have about my decision post-round. These are supposed to be educational experiences, the only way to get that full education is by finding answers to any confusion you might have.

Note for online debate: Use the file share if there is one. Also, please record your speeches, and don't go your top speed (70-80% is fine).

Bio: I debated in LD for Harker for 7 years and qualled to the TOC twice, cleared at a number of national tournaments, and won multiple speaker awards. I currently debate BP at Duke University.

Questions and email chain: sachin97shah@gmail.com

General Stuff:

Don't be offensive or rude. Time limits are set by the NSDA.

My argumentative preferences from high school don't completely determine the kinds of round I like judging. With that said, I'd say that I'm a good judge for LARP/policy and K debate, an ok judge for theory, and a pretty bad judge for phil and tricks.

More specific argument stuff:

DAs:

-Explain the story of your DA

-Have clear links and impacts

-Do weighing and impact calc

CPs:

-Explain why they compete

-Explain why there's a net benefit/why the CP is better than the aff

Ks:

-I expect a decent level of explanation of your theory; I'm familiar with most common Ks, but if you're reading some weird pomo K, I expect you to explain EXTRA well

-Explain the alt

-Understand what your K says

-Have specific links to the aff

T/Theory

-Impact out your standards

-Do standard comparison and weighing

-Do voter comparison and weighing

Specific Theory

-Condo-one condo is probably fine, more and I could go either way

-Spec-if the aff is whole res, this is probably not great, but I'll vote on tech

-I think that short theory arguments can be pretty strategic, and again, I'll vote for tech

If you have questions, you can ask me before the round or email me.

Please add me to the email chain - kellykellyjj@gmail.com

Hello! I did LD for 4 years at Harker and am now a sophomore at UPenn. I coach for Harker.

I am most familiar with policy-style arguments and love LARP debates. That said, I'm willing to listen to whatever argument you present so long as it's warranted and explained. If you're reading dense philosophy or a non-stock K, please explain it well.

Your 2NR/2AR should explain why you're winning the debate. Collapsing, in-depth weighing, and clear overviews are super important! Also, be sure to extend your arguments!

- tech > truth

- I'm not a huge fan of tricks or frivolous theory.

- Slow down on tags and analytics.

- I default reasonability, no RVIs, and drop the argument.

- I only read topical affs while I debated and am very persuaded by T-framework against non-topical affs. However, I will vote on pretty much anything as long as it's well-explained and not blatantly offensive.

- I assume a comparative worlds paradigm.

- Prep time ends when the email is sent or the flash drive is removed from your computer.

- Please be kind and respectful!

Dougherty Valley '19

Email: davidsidebate@gmail.com

Overview

-Debate how you normally would debate in front of me: fast, slow, critical, etc.

-My judging paradigm is similar to Scott Wheeler's

-I primarily read policy-style arguments, but have gone for K's as well. If you are reading a K I've most likely hit it before, so expect a cursory understanding.

Disadvantages

-Almost all of my 2NR's have had this. Read them as you usually would.

-Politics DA's are probably educational. I lean neg on questions of whether fiat includes PTX.

Counterplans

-Default judge kick.

-Read sufficiency framing.

-Condo is good unless there is a convincing reason why the specific advocacies force aff out of making certain arguments.

-Lean aff on cheaty counterplans theory.

Topicality

-Default reasonability. However, I'm neutral about competing interps vs reasonability.

-Weigh standards (legal precision vs limits) and also voters (fairness vs education)

-Assume I have no topic knowledge so provide case lists and warrant what constitutes "core of the topic."

Kritik

-Don't take buzzwords for granted

-Specific link work + alt solvency explanation >>> generic framing + ROTB

-I don't take a particular stance on whether the aff gets to weigh case, but when the arguments boil down to "moots the 1AC" versus "epistemology first + fiat double bind" I find myself (reluctantly) leaning neg.

-If your strategy revolves around confusing your opponent you will confuse me as well.

K Affs + Framework

-I prefer if these are in the direction of the resolution but this isn't a hard rule.

-Your counterinterp to framework should be a robust, defensible model for debate.

-You get perms as long as you convincingly explain what they look like.

-Here are some of my preferences

-Education >>> Procedural Fairness, but I understand the strategic incentives in front of certain affs.

-Policymaking bad >>> Limits are a prison.

Theory

-Drop the argument. Drop the team is reserved for condo only.

I am a parent judge and I love LD format of debate. I do flow during the round.

Framework: Please try to reinforce throughout your debate

Matt Liu

University of Wyoming

Last updated: 9-12-22

Email chain: mattliu929@gmail.com

Feb 2022 update: If your highlighting is incoherent gibberish, you will earn the speaker points of someone who said incoherent gibberish. The more of your highlighting that is incoherent, the more of your speech will be incoherent, and the less points you will earn. To earn speaker points, you must communicate coherent ideas.

If you want to read far more than necessary on my judging process: https://wyodebateroundup.weebly.com/blog/reflections-on-the-judging-process-inside-the-mind-of-a-judge

I put a pretty high premium on effective communication. Too many debaters do not do their evidence justice. You should not expect me to read your evidence after the round and realize it’s awesome. You should make sure I know it’s awesome while you read it. I find many debaters over-estimate the amount of ideas they believe they communicate to the judge. Debaters who concentrate on persuading the judge, not just entering arguments into the record, will control the narrative of the round and win my ballot far more often than those who don’t. I have tended to draw a harder line on comprehensibility than the average judge. I won’t evaluate evidence I couldn’t understand. I also don’t call clear: if you’re unclear, or not loud enough, I won’t intervene and warn you, just like I wouldn't intervene and warn you that you are spending time on a bad argument. Am I flowing? You're clear.

Potential biases on theory: I will of course attempt to evaluate only the arguments in the round, however, I'll be up front about my otherwise hidden biases. Conditionality- I rarely find that debaters are able to articulate a credible and significant impact. International actor fiat seems suspect. Uniform 50 state fiat seems illogical. Various process counterplans are most often won as legitimate when the neg presents a depth of evidence that they are germane to the topic/plan. Reject the arg not the teams seems true of nearly all objections other than conditionality. I will default to evaluating the status quo even if there is a CP in the 2NR. Non-traditional affirmatives- I'll evaluate like any other argument. If you win it, you win it. I have yet to hear an explanation of procedural fairness as an impact that makes sense to me (as an internal link, yes). None of these biases are locked in; in-round debating will be the ultimate determinant of an argument’s legitimacy.

Clock management: In practice I have let teams end prep when they begin the emailing/jumping process. Your general goal should be to be completely ready to talk when you say ‘end prep.’ No off-case counting, no flow shuffling, etc.

Cross-x is a speech. You get to try to make arguments (which I will flow) and set traps (which I will flow). Once cross-x is over I will stop listening. If you continue to try to ask questions it will annoy me- your speech time is up.

Pet-peeves: leaving the room while the other team is prepping for a final rebuttal, talking over your opponents. I get really annoyed at teams that talk loudly (I have a low threshold for what counts as loudly) during other teams speeches- especially when it’s derisive or mocking comments about the other team’s speech.

About Me:

Debated LD and Policy at Dougherty Valley. Duke 2023. Coached by Aleisha Readye and Arjun Tambe.

About Debate:

Use overviews (extension + weighing) in rebuttals

Debaters should weigh 'strength of link' between their impacts

I like good case debate on both sides

Debated most arguments, i.e. K, T, Theory, etc., in High school

Alfred Tadros:

Email Chain: al.tadros@sslmda.com

I AM A LAY PARENT JUDGE. Any speed far above average conversation is too fast and I'm sorry but I won't follow. Keep everything in simple terms. Signpost everything (and I mean everything), and don't just say "a card applies" in your second speeches, actually say what the card proves. No ghost arguments, bring up everything in every speech otherwise I'll lose it and it wont be weighed. If you don't weigh in your last speech, chances are I'll have no idea what to do and I'll just pick the better speaker. I like logic and substantiated claims. I expect you to know the speech times and to record prep for each other. No theory, no kritik, Some Framework is okay but make sure it is resolved in your last speech otherwise I'll have no idea which one to vote off of and probably just pick the one that sounds better. If you do theory or kritik, I'll likely not be able to follow.

I believe most of the value you derive from debate is just from competing. Thanks for showing up and best of luck!

Al

UPDATED: 4/11/2024

1998-2003: Competed at Fargo South HS (ND)

2003-2004: Assistant Debate Coach, Hopkins High School (MN)

2004-2010: Director of Debate, Hopkins High School (MN)

2010-2012: Assistant Debate Coach, Harvard-Westlake Upper School (CA)

2012-Present: Debate Program Head, Marlborough School (CA)

Email: adam.torson@marlborough.org

Pronouns: he/him/his

General Preferences and Decision Calculus

I no longer handle top speed very well, so it would be better if you went at about 75% of your fastest.

I like substantive and interesting debate. I like to see good strategic choices as long as they do not undermine the substantive component of the debate. I strongly dislike the intentional use of bad arguments to secure a strategic advantage; for example making an incomplete argument just to get it on the flow. I tend to be most impressed by debaters who adopt strategies that are positional, advancing a coherent advocacy rather than a scatter-shot of disconnected arguments, and those debaters are rewarded with higher speaker points.

I view debate resolutions as normative. I default to the assumption that the Affirmative has a burden to advocate a topical change in the status quo, and that the Negative has a burden to defend either the status quo or a competitive counter-plan or kritik alternative. I will vote for the debater with the greatest net risk of offense. Offense is a reason to adopt your advocacy; defense is a reason to doubt your opponent's argument. I virtually never vote on presumption or permissibility, because there is virtually always a risk of offense.

Moral Skepticism is not normative (it does not recommend a course of action), and so I will not vote for an entirely skeptical position. I rarely find that such positions amount to more than weak, skeptical defense that a reasonable decision maker would not find a sufficient reason to continue the status quo rather than enact the plan. Morally skeptical arguments may be relevant in determining the relative weight or significance of an offensive argument compared to other offense in the debate.

Framework

I am skeptical of impact exclusion. Debaters have a high bar to prove that I should categorically disregard an impact which an ordinary decision-maker would regard as relevant. I think that normative ethics are more helpfully and authentically deployed as a mode of argument comparison rather than argument exclusion. I will default to the assumption of a wide framework and epistemic modesty. I do not require a debater to provide or prove a comprehensive moral theory to regard impacts as relevant, though such theories may be a powerful form of impact comparison.

Arguments that deny the wrongness of atrocities like rape, genocide, and slavery, or that deny the badness of suffering or oppression more generally, are a steeply uphill climb in front of me. If a moral theory says that something we all agree is bad is not bad, that is evidence against the plausibility of the theory, not evidence that the bad thing is in fact good.

Theory

I default to evaluating theory as a matter of competing interpretations.

I am skeptical of RVIs in general and on topicality in particular.

I will apply a higher threshold to theory interpretations that do not reflect existing community norms and am particularly unlikely to drop the debater on them. Because your opponent could always have been marginally more fair and because debating irrelevant theory questions is not a good model of debate, I am likely to intervene against theoretical arguments which I deem to be frivolous.

Tricks and Triggers

Your goal should be to win by advancing substantive arguments that would decisively persuade a reasonable decision-maker, rather than on surprises or contrived manipulations of debate conventions. I am unlikely to vote on tricks, triggers, or other hidden arguments, and will apply a low threshold for answering them. You will score more highly and earn more sympathy the more your arguments resemble genuine academic work product.

Counterplan Status, Judge Kick, and Floating PIKs

The affirmative has the obligation to ask about the status of a counterplan or kritik alternative in cross-examination. If they do not, the advocacy may be conditional in the NR.

I default to the view that the Negative has to pick an advocacy to go for in the NR. If you do not explicitly kick a conditional counterplan or kritik alternative, then that is your advocacy. If you lose a permutation read against that advocacy, you lose the debate. I will not kick the advocacy for you and default to the status quo unless you win an argument for judge kick in the debate.

I am open to the argument that a kritik alternative can be a floating PIK, and that it may be explained as such in the NR. However, I will hold any ambiguity about the advocacy of the alternative against the negative. If the articulation of the position in the NC or in CX obfuscates what it does, or if the plain face meaning of the alternative would not allow enacting the Affirmative plan, I am unlikely to grant the alternative the solvency that would come from directly enacting the plan.

Non-Intervention

To the extent possible I will resolve the debate as though I were a reasonable decision-maker considering only the arguments advanced by the debaters in making my decision. On any issues not adequately resolved in this way, I will make reasonable assumptions about the relative persuasiveness of the arguments presented.

Speed

The speed at which you choose to speak will not affect my evaluation of your arguments, save for if that speed impairs your clarity and I cannot understand the argument. I prefer debate at a faster than conversational pace, provided that it is used to develop arguments well and not as a tactic to prevent your opponent from engaging your arguments. There is some speed at which I have a hard time following arguments, but I don't know how to describe it, so I will say "clear," though I prefer not to because the threshold for adequate clarity is very difficult to identify in the middle of a speech and it is hard to apply a standard consistently. For reasons surpassing understanding, most debaters don't respond when I say clear, but I strongly recommend that you do so. Also, when I say clear it means that I didn't understand the last thing you said, so if you want that argument to be evaluated I suggest repeating it. A good benchmark is to feel like you are going at 75% of your top speed; I am likely a significantly better judge at that pace.

Extensions

My threshold for sufficient extensions will vary based on the circumstances, e.g. if an argument has been conceded a somewhat shorter extension is generally appropriate.

Evidence

It is primarily the responsibility of debaters to engage in meaningful evidence comparison and analysis and to red flag evidence ethics issues. However, I will review speech documents and evaluate detailed disputes about evidence raised in the debate. I prefer to be included on an email chain or speech drop that includes the speech documents. If I have a substantial suspicion of an ethics violation (i.e. you have badly misrepresented the author, edited the card so as to blatantly change it's meaning, etc.), I will evaluate the full text of the card (not just the portion that was read in the round) to determine whether it was cut in context, etc.

Speaker Points

I use speaker points to evaluate your performance in relation to the rest of the field in a given round. At tournaments which have a more difficult pool of debaters, the same performance which may be above average on most weekends may well be average at that tournament. I am strongly disinclined to give debaters a score that they specifically ask for in the debate round, because I utilize points to evaluate debaters in relation to the rest of the field who do not have a voice in the round. I elect not to disclose speaker points, save where cases is doing so is necessary to explain the RFD. My range is approximately as follows:

30: Your performance in the round is likely to beat any debater in the field.

29.5: Your performance is substantially better than average - likely to beat most debaters in the field and competitive with students in the top tier.

29: Your performance is above average - likely to beat the majority of debaters in the field but unlikely to beat debaters in the top tier.

28.5: Your performance is approximately average - you are likely to have an equal number of wins and losses at the end of the tournament.

28: Your performance is below average - you are likely to beat the bottom 25% of competitors but unlikely to beat the average debater.

27.5: Your performance is substantially below average - you are competitive among the bottom 25% but likely to lose to other competitors

Below 26: I tend to reserve scores below 25 for penalizing debaters as explained below.

Rude or Unethical Actions

I will severely penalize debaters who are rude, offensive, or otherwise disrespectful during a round. I will severely penalize debaters who distort, miscut, misrepresent, or otherwise utilize evidence unethically.

Card Clipping

A debater has clipped a card when she does not read portions of evidence that are highlighted or bolded in the speech document so as to indicate that they were read, and does not verbally mark the card during the speech. Clipping is an unethical practice because you have misrepresented which arguments you made to your opponent and to me. If I determine that a debater has clipped cards, then that debater will lose.

To determine that clipping has occurred, the accusation needs to be verified by my own sensory observations to a high degree of certainty, a recording that verifies the clipping, or the debaters admission that they have clipped. If you believe that your opponent has clipped, you should raise your concern immediately after the speech in which it was read, and I will proceed to investigate. False accusations of clipping is a serious ethical violation as well. *If you accuse your opponent of clipping and that accusation is disconfirmed by the evidence, you will lose the debate.* You should only make this accusation if you are willing to stake the round on it.

Sometimes debaters speak so unclearly that it constitutes a negligent disregard for the danger of clipping. I am unlikely to drop a debater on this basis alone, but will significantly penalize speaker points and disregard arguments I did not understand. In such cases, it will generally be unreasonable to penalize a debater that has made a reasonable accusation of clipping.

Questions

I am happy to answer any questions on preferences or paradigm before the round. After the round I am happy to answer respectfully posed questions to clarify my reason for decision or offer advice on how to improve (subject to the time constraints of the tournament). Within the limits of reason, you may press points you don't understand or with which you disagree (though I will of course not change the ballot after a decision has been made). I am sympathetic to the fact that debaters are emotionally invested in the outcomes of debate rounds, but this does not justify haranguing judges or otherwise being rude. For that reason, failure to maintain the same level of respectfulness after the round that is generally expected during the round will result in severe penalization of speaker points.

My name is Margot (she/her) and I debated Public Forum at MSJ from 2015-2019. I haven't really been active on the circuit since, so please bear with me while I adjust to any new norms that might have sprung up in the last few years. If you have any questions, let me know at the beginning of the round or at zhaomargot@gmail.com!

Pretty simple, but a couple things I'm looking for when judging PF:

(1) All arguments (and important cards) used in FF must be in Summary. Collapse on important arguments & frame the round well, don't go for everything on the flow!

(2) Beyond line-by-line defense, I'm looking for clear and insightful weighing that explains how your arguments directly interact with your opponents', ideally starting from rebuttal, but especially in the latter half of the round. From summary onward, tell me how the round should be evaluated and give a concise explanation of your path to the ballot.

(3) I'll judge tabula rasa ("tech over truth") for the most part, meaning that I will vote off the evidence presented in round rather than what I believe to be true. If one team says something inaccurate, it's up to the other to dispute it.

This line of reasoning does not apply to clearly racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, or otherwise harmful rhetoric or remarks.

(4) If you'd like me to call for your opponent's evidence, please clearly explain your issue with the evidence so I know what I'm looking for!

(5) Please signpost as clearly as you can throughout every speech. If my flow gets messy, it will not be of help to you!

(6) I don't flow cross! If something important happens, bring it up in speech.

I want to give high speaks generally (especially in JV) but will absolutely dock for bad etiquette (ex. how you conduct yourself in cross...)

Any other event:

As a PF debater, my knowledge of LD or CX is limited.

I would prefer to have cards / cases emailed, clear signposting throughout speeches, and please try to thoroughly explain any kind of K / T that you run as I will not be familiar with most. I'll try my best to keep up with speed and let you know if you're going too fast for me to flow. Feel free to email with any clarifications you may need before round.

Good luck to all competitors!

I am currently a policy and PF coach at Taipei American School. My previous affiliations include Fulbright Taiwan, the University of Wyoming, Apple Valley High School, The Harker School, the University of Oklahoma, and Bartlesville High School. I have debated or coached policy, LD, PF, WSD, BP, Congress, and Ethics Bowl.

Email for the chain: lwzhou10 at gmail.com

---

TOC Public Forum

Put the Public back in Public Forum.

For the TOC, follow all of the evidence rules and guidelines listed in the tournament policies. I care a lot about proper citations, good evidence norms, clipping, and misrepresentation.

I won't vote for arguments spread, theory, kritiks, or anything unrelated to the truth or falsity of the resolution. I find it extremely difficult to vote for arguments that lack resolutional basis (e.g., most theory or procedural arguments, some kritikal arguments, etc.). I find trends to evade debate over the topic to be anathema to my beliefs about what Public Forum debate ought to look like.

I care that you debate the topic in a way that reflects serious engagement with the relevant scholarly literature. I would also prefer to judge debates that do not contain references to arcane debate norms or jargon.

Additionally, I expect that your evidence abides by NSDA rules as outlined in the NSDA Evidence Guide. If I find evidence that does not conform to these guidelines, I will minimally disregard that piece of evidence and maximally vote against you.

tl;dr won't blink twice about voting against teams that violate evidence rules or try to make PF sound like policy-lite.

Other Things

Exchanging evidence in a manner consistent with the NSDA's rules on evidence exchange has become a painfully slow process. Please simply set up an email chain or use an online file sharing service in order to quickly facilitate the exchange of relevant evidence. Calling for individual pieces of evidence appears to me as nothing more than prep stealing.

If the Final Focus is all read from the computer, just send me the speech docs before the debate starts to save us some time. I'll also cap your speaks at 28.5.

I do not believe that either team has any obligation to "frontline" in second rebuttal, but my preferences on this are malleable. If "frontlining" is the agreed upon norm, I expect that the second speaking team also devote time to rebuttals in the constructive speeches.

The idea of defense being "sticky" seems illogical to me.

There is also a strong trend towards under-developing arguments in an activity that already operates with compressed speech times. I also strongly dislike the practice of spamming one-line quotes with no context (or warrant) from a dozen sources in a single speech. I will reward teams generously if they invest in a few well-warranted arguments which they spend time meaningfully weighing compared to if they continue to shotgun arguments with little regard for their plausibility or quality.

---

Policy

Stolen from Matt Liu: "Feb 2022 update: If your highlighting is incoherent gibberish, you will earn the speaker points of someone who said incoherent gibberish. The more of your highlighting that is incoherent, the more of your speech will be incoherent, and the less points you will earn. To earn speaker points, you must communicate coherent ideas."

I debated for OU back in the day but you shouldn't read too much into that—I wasn't ever particularly good or invested when I was competing. I lean more towards the policy side than the K side and I'm probably going to be unfamiliar with a lot of the ins-and-outs of most kritiks, although I will do my best to fairly evaluate the debate as it happens.

1. I tend to think the role of the aff is to demonstrate that the benefits of a topical plan outweigh its costs and that the role of the neg is to demonstrate that the costs and/or opportunity costs of the aff's plan outweigh its benefits.
2. I find variations of "fairness bad" or "logic/reasoning bad," to be incredibly difficult to win given that I think those are fundamental presuppositions of debate itself. Similarly, I find procedural fairness impacts to be the best 2NRs on T/Framework.
3. Conditionality seems obviously good, but I'm not opposed to a 2AR on condo. Most other theory arguments seem like reasons to reject the argument, not the team. I lean towards reasonability. Most counterplan issues seem best resolved at the level of competition, not theory.
4. Warrant depth is good. Argument comparison is good. Both together—even better.
5. Give judge instruction—tell me how to evaluate the debate.

None of these biases are locked in—in-round debating will be the ultimate determinant of an argument’s legitimacy.

---

WSD

My debate experience is primarily in LD, policy, and PF. I do not consider myself well-versed in all the intricacies or nuances of WSD strategy and norms. My only strong preference is that want to see well-developed and warranted arguments. I would prefer fewer, better developed arguments over more, less-developed arguments.

---

Online Procedural Concerns

1. Follow tournament procedure regarding online competition best practices.
2. Record your speeches locally. If you cut out and don't have a local backup, that's a you problem.
3. Keep your camera on when you speak, I don't care if it's on otherwise. Only exception is if there are tech or internet issues---keeping the camera off for the entirety of the debate otherwise is a good way to lose speaker points.
4. I'll keep my camera off for prep time, but I'll verbally indicate I'm ready before each speech and turn on the camera for your speeches. If you don't hear me say I'm ready and see my camera on, don't start.
5. Yes, I'll say clear and stuff for online rounds.