Please add me in your email chains: caseywilliam16@gmail.com

I debated for Green Valley High School for two years doing policy debate, you can call me Will. I have debated in policy for two years and i understand most arguments, if you read a K you will need to explain it pretty well because i'm not that well versed in it but i will vote on it. i really enjoy heated cross ex but that doesn't mean to be rude. i love arguments that make me laugh, if you can both make the other team's argument look incoherent as well as do it in a funny way i will give you more speaker points. I'm pretty good with speed just be clear and change your speaking style when you read taglines so i can catch them. if you aren't clear i will just say clear. i will stop flowing if i have no idea what you're saying. I'm a big fan of creative arguments and analytics that point out the logical flaws. i value good analytics over OK cards so if its a bad argument with tons of cards just answer it with a good analytic. i will vote on anything if you argue it well enough. Also don't say anything offensive in round or i will dock your speaker points, just try to be a nice individual.

email: alisafieddine.22@gmail.com (please make sure to email your speech out by the time you end your prep)

debate history: dartmouth college 2018-21, green valley high school 2015-18

big picture

Don't sacrifice clarity for speed because I can't vote for an argument if I can't hear it.

I care more about the quality of your evidence and debating than I do about the type of arguments you read.

I try to adjudicate the debate in whatever ways the final rebuttals tell me to.

Judge instruction and persuasive story-telling matter just as much to me, if not more, than the evidence you introduce into the debate.

Compare evidence without relying on value judgements ("their evidence is bad").

Please send me a document of the cards you extend into the 2NR/2AR after the debate is over.

My flow dictates my ballot, but these are my opinions about debate:

theory

• Conditionality is good.
• If no one says anything about it, I shouldn't judge kick.

topicality

• Topicality should be evaluated based on competing interpretations and models of debate, not "reasonability".
• Framing your impacts against affs that have a non-traditional interpretation of the topic usually makes most sense in terms of limits, not ground...there's probably something to say against the aff they read, it's just probably not fair to expect you to prepare for it if it's not under the scope of the resolution.
• Fairness is an impact.

impacts

• Frankly, I don't think any of these affs cause or prevent extinction, not because all impact defense is true, but because the internal links for these arguments are shady.

kritiks

• Ks on the NEG only make sense if the link is to the plan or its advantages, not the resolution.
• The best answer to the permutation is the link to the affirmative.
• Alternatives should do something. It helps a lot when you explain how the world would be different if I endorsed the alt instead of the aff. Otherwise, it makes sense for me to default to evaluating the plan vs. the status quo. "Reject the aff because we have a link" is rarely persuasive because in most of these debates the link is non-unique.

cx

• In cross-ex, it makes more sense to ask questions that sets you up to use your opponents' answers in your future speeches than it does to ask questions like "You said this argument, but we have this argument, what's your answer?".
• Dodgy cross-ex answers are frustrating. Your opponent might not know what to answer, but your judge also won't know what your argument is...?

I am a parent.

Please don’t spread or speak too fast. Clarity is key and I want to be able to properly understand your points. If I can’t hear it then I can’t judge it.

I would prefer if you aren’t too aggressive. A little bit is okay during CrossX but overall I would prefer if you kept it civil.

I’m not a big fan of counterplans in LD. If your opponent asks to see a card please show it promptly.

During CrossX please only ask questions and fully answer all of the questions asked. I think an effective CrossX is very important.

Travis Smith, He, Him, His

University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Policy Debater at UNLV

1st year participating in college debate; 49 official rounds this season as of 03/9/2019

1st place ranking at Las Vegas Classic; JV Division

2nd place ranking and 2nd speaker at 2019 Kathryn Klassic at Cal State Fullerton; JV Division.

Semis at 2019 USC Alan Nichols; Jv Division

1st year judging high school debate

4 rounds judged on the high school topic so far, as of 01/28/2019

Please include me on the email chain, it should be set up before the indicated start time, it’s the Aff’s job to have the chain set up and 1ac ready to go.

Email: travissmith6697@gmail.com

*strongly prefer email over pocketbox(or speech drop)

TLDR Version:
I am willing to evaluate any arguments that you make, as long as you explain and execute it well. There is no need to change your arguments to something you think I like or will vote on, just give me the best debate you can, using your best arguments, and you will be fine. I try very hard to be a tabula rasa or "blank slate" judge and keep my personal opinions out of my decision as much as possible. I default to Debate is a game, unless told otherwise. I default to "It is the negatives burden to prove why the aff, execution of the aff, or content of the aff is bad," for framework unless told otherwise.

I am not very familiar with the HS topic this year, don’t throw out acronyms like ICE, INA, IRB etc, without indicating what they mean, that will hurt you.
Long Version:
I will attempt to be as neutral as possible and evaluate the arguments presented in the debate independent of my own opinions. Keep in mind that debate is facilitated by fiat, the mutual agreement that we will discuss whether or not the plan should be done. Fiat is concerned with the merits of the affirmative plan. Playing this game is an ideal forum for us to educate ourselves, have fun, and train the opinion leaders and policy makers of the future.

Negative strategy – I believe in preserving maximum strategic and theoretical flexibility for negative teams. Contradicting arguments early on in the debate are fine as long as it is narrowed down in the negative block and the 2NR is consistent. Though too many contradicting arguments (3+) will make me more sympathetic to the affirmative. That does not mean I will not vote on conditionality or perf con if only 2 conditional or contradicting arguments are made, just that I am less sympathetic.

Affirmative strategy - A good 1AR should attempt to make the 2NR's job difficult by reading plenty of evidence, covering, and always using offense. For the 1AR and 2AR I think it is important to EXTEND WARRANTS inside your evidence. You should explain the importance/relevance/ implications of the evidence as well. Just saying “extend our Johnson ’12 card,” does not count as extending the evidence!

Aff- I am open to critical affirmatives that have a relationship to the topic. I have a difficult time voting on an affirmative without a relationship to the topic(as articulated in the round). I will not vote on T/FW just because it was read, it is the burden of the negative to prove to me why that affirmative is not topical or why it shouldn't be run in debate.

Negative critical arguments: I am willing to vote on critical arguments, as long as it is well explained and has specific links to the aff. Your Kritik should have an alt and impact that is explained by the negative, I am highly unlikely to vote negative if you do not extend the alt. I am not familiar with all critical arguments, but I have encountered a decent amount. Anti-blackness, capitalism, Neolib, Lacann, DNG, Securitization, and Settler Colonialism are the arguments I am most familiar with. Good alt explanation can resolve any lack of knowledge I have. The affirmative should always permutate critical arguments, and explain how the permutation functions.

*** I am not a fan of how most high-theory, post-modernist critiques (Psychoanalysis, DNG, Etc.) are argued in round (lack of depth, assertions of truth without warrants), so I request a slightly higher threshold for explanation, if you are going for these arguments, make me believe that embracing the death drive, traversing the fantasy,ending the world, thinking different ways etc, are the true way to investigate our world.***

***I am not very convinced by links of omission, It’s impossible for the aff team to represent the voice of every possible intersectionality without homogenizing or papering over the voices and identities of other groups. I’m sympathetic with affs answering links of omission through util, if explained well***


CPs— I am fine with counterplans, but prefer they have some sort of solvency advocate as well as a net benefit. The text of the CP (and all perms) should be written out, and I hold them to as high a standard as I do the affirmative plan.

***I want all CP texts and Perms texts sent out in the email chain (this can be in the doc, or in the body of the email)***

***I am neutral to judge-kicking the counterplan, if the negative just says that I can kick it, I probably won't, I could spend all my money on some supreme headbands, but why would I? What incentive do I have to kick the counterplan for you? Making some sort of fairness or education arg will help, Aff should clash back with some theory args about judge kicks bad, or judge intervention bad.***

Disadvantages- Needs to be as specific as possible to the aff and the link story should make sense. Make sure to explain how the aff links to the disad and how it triggers the impact.

Topicality- Finding myself in constant clash debates against critical affs, I’m all for it, I feel that it is a very strategic argument to be made in debate. Needs to be well articulated with both sides submitting competing interpretations. T arguments should be extremely structured and organized to make it easier for me to see why this is a voting issue. If going for T, you need to explain to me why the education or fairness lost in this round is more important than the education warranted by the aff's performance, methodology, analysis of the 1ac scenario or the creation of a forum for them to discuss things they usually can't elsewhere, etc.

***Since I’m not familiar with the topic, reasonability should not be the affs A strat, Also “It’s on the wiki,” is not a sufficient answer to T.***

Speaker Points- You should be clear and able to explain your arguments well. I enjoy jokes and clever analogies that are relevant to the round and arguments being made. Being

Order of importance for Speaks

1) Making good arguments

-Pulling warrants from your cards and proving you have a good understanding of the 1ac scenario and neg strat content respectively

-Comparing the credentials of authors, saying why certain cards don't assume the squo, explaining problems with the rhetoric of a card, etc

-Making really thoughtful analytic args will go along way, showing you dont rely on cards shows off your critical thinking skills.

2) Clarity

-Being 100% clear at 50% speed> Being 50% clear at 100% speed.

-Indicate when you move to your next argument by saying "And," "Next," or labeling your layers of an argument with numbers or letters to separate warrants.

3) Organization

-Indicate when you are moving on to the next sheet, I.E. "Onto adv 1," or "Onto the K," AND THEN WAIT A SECOND FOR ME TO FLIP TO THE NEXT SHEET SO I CAN FLOW YOUR FIRST ARG PLEASE

-Grouping arguments in the rebuttals shows me that you understand the warrants of most arguments in round and can efficiently answer them with a set of warrants you have, or in some cases that you don't understand the warrants at all.

-On pages where there are multiple arguments being extended, "link debate, F/w, perm, alt fails, solvency advocate, solvency deficit, ! calc, etc," please signpost to help make my flows cleaners and easier to review at the end of the round.

4) Your actions/reactions/artistic choice

-I see the entirety of a debate round as a performance; The way you talk to me, the way you talk to your opponents, the small talk you attempt to create when someone runs to the restroom, how you ask questions in cross, how you are articulating arguments in the block, or how you wax poetic in the 2ar and 2nr, are all instances where you may be projecting a persona for speaks. It is all relevant. By the end of the round I will have some sort of conceptualization of what type of debater you are and how well you debated. If you follow this view point and are acting for me, I would prefer to see a debater who is cunning and sharp, respectful, one who cares about the activity, and is willing to have fun, compared to a smug, jerk, who assumes that the space is just for them. Do what you want with this information.

-Projecting confidence in your arguments is dope. At the very least fake it till you make it. You can speak quietly and/or timidly but still be confident. On the other side of that BEING LOUD does not = confidence. Just be yourself, and don't let your opponents bully you! We are all part of an academic activity where everyone has a chance to speak, so don't be afraid to speak up and defend your what you want to say!

-Cross is your time to shine, be respectful, but push back on your opponents when they are asking silly questions, or follow up with more skepticism when they aren't adequately answering yours.

-Annihilating your opponents' arguments with warrants and logos/ethos/pathos is super cool. Being condescending or a jerk while doing so is not cool at all.

-I like Kanye's music, referencing his lyrics and contexualizing them to the debate round would be entertaining and could earn you some speaks.

-Referencing memes and contextualizing them to the debate round would also be entertaining, don't overdue it.

-You only get one nickname for Trump throughout the entire round, anything more than that will get annoying and take away some ethos from your arguements. (I personally recommend "Cheeto Man" or "Baby Hands".

Few other things-

1. Do not steal prep!!!! I do not take time for sending out the document, but when the team that took prep calls time, everyone else should pause until the speech is handed over and begins.

2. Only one person should be speaking per speech, unless it is a performative necessity or an accessibility issue in which case that should be made clear during the debate.

3. Flow! If you are not flowing I notice and it probably reflects in the quality of your speeches, in particular the line by line debate.

4. Debate should be fun; it is a game so be nice and courteous to everyone involved.

5. If I am not buying an argument or believe it is problematic you will probably see it on my face, another reason to keep eye contact.

6. I will not yell clear if I don’t understand you. It should be your goal to be an effective speaker, not a muddled robot. (If I can’t understand you, your argument can’t be inked correctly on my flow.)

7. You can call me Travis, Trav, Travito, T, ect., just please don’t refer to me as judge.

8. It is not okay to weaponize your opponent's identity. Also don't just assume someone's identity, tread carefully about asking such questions as well, some people may not be comfortable disclosing that information, especially during cross where they are put on the spot. Debate is a meant to be a safe forum accessible to all people regardless of their intersectionalities.

9. Some impacts I find interesting to debate and watch are, "Space Col/Get off the rock, Disease, Global Warming." This is mainly because I feel that there are lots of sneaky and impressive analytic arguments to make, and there are many avenues for impact defense, as well as turns case/da args to be had. This doesn't mean I won't vote on a trusty structural violence, or nuclear war impact. If you extend and win your impact framing, I'll vote on almost anything.

If you would like something explained further, please feel free to ask me questions before the round or send me an email.

Some background on my debate career, I did public forum debate in high school, and this is my second year doing policy at UNLV. As for speed, I can keep, but please be clear and emphasize things that you particularly want me to flow.

For LD Debaters, please scroll down to the bottom for more LD specific information.

Please include me in an email chain: kthymianos@gmail.com

Policy vs. KritikGiven all that, I have a disposition towards policy arguments as that is what I am most familiar with. I can keep up with critical literature, just be a little wary throwing out the vocabulary willy-nilly. You can read a kritik, just be sure to explain it decently. At the end of the debate if I am not sure how the alt functions/solves the impacts of the kritik then I will probably default to voting affirmative. The same is true for critical affirmatives, if I am unsure how the aff resolves their impacts and the other team does a reasonably good job at extending topicality I am more inclined to vote negative. AGAIN don't let my preference scare you from running one, because I love to hear them, but as I said earlier you need to make sure you do a good job of explaining it to me.

*** I am especially not versed postmodernist critical theory, so I request a slightly higher threshold for explanation.***

***I am not very convinced by links of omission, It’s impossible for the aff team to represent the voice of every possible intersectionality without homogenizing or papering over the voices and identities of other groups. I’m sympathetic with affs answering links of omission through util, if explained well***

CPs— I am fine with counterplans, but prefer they have some sort of solvency advocate as well as a net benefit. The text of the CP (and all perms) should be written out, and I hold them to as high a standard as I do the affirmative plan.

***I want all CP texts and Perms texts sent out in the email chain***

Disadvantages- Needs to be as specific as possible to the aff and the link story should make sense. Make sure to explain how the aff links to the disad and how it triggers the impact.

***This should be noted after both CPs/DAs, I can vote on DA+Squo, but that is no where near as strong as a CP+DA. DA+Squo requires a lot more work and defense to purely outweigh the Aff.

FW/T: I'll vote on FW or T if I haven't made that clear. Fairness is an internal link to education (an impact) for me, but if you do a good job explaining it fairness could be an impact. Also “It’s on the wiki,” is not a sufficient answer to T.

Impact calculus: Impact calculus is important to me, I need to have a clear reason as to why you win the debate and why I should prefer your impacts over the other team. This applies to debates with a kritik in them, there is still a form of comparison that should be in the round between k vs. policy or k vs. k debates.

CX: In CX, keep it civil, BUT I do love a little sass in it. Just don't be absurdly rude to each other. It keeps the rounds interesting/fun.

Prep Time: Keep track of your own prep time and DO NOT STEAL Prep, even if I don't say anything in round, it will reflect in your speaker points.

Any references to My Hero Academia, Brooklyn 99, Game of Thrones, Trebuchetmemes, will all boost your speaker points (only if I catch them, they have to be clear). You may ask about any other possible fandoms and I will clarify if I am aware of them and if I will boost speaker points off of references to them. Also if you can pronounce my last name correctly within one try that is an automatic .1 boost to your speaker points.

Misc: Lastly, if you have any questions about decisions, my paradigm, or anything like that, please don't hesitate to shoot me an email with a question. Just say what you are emailing about and I'll try to respond.

LD

Hello LD Debaters. If you could not tell already, LD is not my primary area of expertise but I am all the same excited to judge it. That being said I still have some framing issues for those rounds.

Value/Value Criterions: I will weigh my debates first on value and value criterion unless I am told otherwise. I do think that these should come first in LD debates and that your arguments should be contextualized to those frameworks that you are standing by for you to get the ballot.

Moral/Philisophical debates: In terms of the more moral/philosophical debates that happen in these progressive circuits, I do not have too much exposure to them. So the same explanations that I gave for kritiks up above apply here. Please be thorough in your explanations and how the round should be viewed/weighed and what I should be voting on. The more you leave up to me the worse it will be for you. Do not let my paradigm dissuade you from running these arguments, I am very open to hearing new scholarship but just be patient.

Spreading: I do understand that spreading is becoming more apparent on the national circuit for LD, however, I want that spreading to be clean. If you can't spread well, don't spread. I will place more value on the content and depth of your analyses and how those should be weighed above all else in the round than the quantity of arguments that are being made in the round. Lastly, if you haven't spread before, please do not feel pressured to spread. You do need to try your best to respond to all arguments made, but again, focus on the quality of arguments over anything else.

Lastly, if you haven't, go ahead and read my general paradigm up above because there are still some things that are important up above.