Last updated: March 10th, 2021.

Alpharetta 20.

Harvard 24.

Email chain: bokildebate@gmail.com

General:

1. I have no topic knowledge.

2. Good debating requires quality evidence; strong, logical explanation; and contextualization.

3. Online debate: please slow down and enunciate more than you normally would.

Specifics:

1. If you read a planless aff or rely on the critique as your primary negative strategy, you should strike me.

a. K Affs: It is near impossible to get me to vote against framework/T-USfg (yes, fairness is an impact).

b. Ks: I don't have anything against Ks themselves, but I do have a substantial preferential bias in favor of policy arguments that will be exceedingly difficult to overcome regardless of good debating. There are much, much better judges for adjudicating K rounds than me.

2. CPs/DAs:

a. CPs: Not a great judge for process CPs, but mostly anything else is fine. If left undebated, I won't judge kick the CP.

b. DAs: Anything works. Politics DAs are too often incoherent.

3. Theory:

a. Conditionality: Good until egregious. Worth noting that I think aff teams rarely capitalize on neg teams' poor defense of condo.

b. States CP, International CP, and Ctrl + f word PICs are all bad assuming even debating. Neg leaning on most other theory.

c. ASPEC is stupid and unwinnable.

4. Not a big fan of T vs. affs with plans. Assuming even debating, reasonability > competing interpretations. Precise, contextual evidence is key to winning these debates, for both the aff and the neg.

5. Case: Not a fan of framing pages. Good case debating will be rewarded.

Yes, I want to be on the email chain: elizemelisa@gmail.com

Be clear: I prefer quality over speed.

Do not clip.

Tag teaming in cross-x is fine, but your speaks will not be as high. If you do tag team, please do not overpower your partner: I will lower your speaks.

If you say anything offsenive, I will automatically vote you down.

On the other hand, if you make me laugh, I will give you extra speaker points.

2N for 4 years at Alpharetta High School

put me on the email chain: sakshideshpande@icloud.com

do not clip

racism, sexism, and death are all bad

do whatever you're good at

time your own speeches and prep

don't reread tag lines, focus on actually explaining the argument

clarity > speed

Email: manu.suresh.john@gmail.com

Tech v. Truth - you really need to explain the arguments though

Condo: Condo is fine in the block but don't go for it in the 2nr, i have a high threshold for voting for this

T: I like a good T debate

CP/DA: this is always good

K: don't forget the different parts of the K: framework, perm, alt, impact

Don't get clip, steal prep and be nice

Don't be racist or sexist - and be nice

2N for 2 years at Alpharetta High School

Alpharetta '21

Put me on the email chain: aratrika.kar32300@gmail.com.

-I won't vote on anything unethical. Don't be racist or sexist. Don't clip or steal prep. Most importantly, just be polite.

-Speed is fine, but if you're unclear, I'll probably lower your speaks.

I will usually vote tech over truth, but for other cases, you really have to explain your arguments. If you make me laugh, I'll boost your speaks :).

Be nice to me and the other team, and everything will go smoothly.

2020-2021 Criminal Justice Topic: I haven't debated on this topic, so fully explain any technical terms/acronyms during the debate for me to understand. You should keep on your cameras on during the entire debate. At least, keep them on while you are talking.

Other Things:

Condo: I probably won't ever vote aff for condo. I think it's fair for the neg to both challenge and defend the status quo, especially if not a lot of conditional arguments are read.

Topicality: I'm not a fan of T debates and I probably won't vote on T unless it's dropped. If you go for T, give me a thorough explanation as to what your plan would look like under your interpretation. T substantial is something I see myself voting for.

DA: The more specific, the better. Fully explain each component of the DA. If you can turn case using the DA, do it. Turns can usually be answered by smart analytics by the aff team, so the aff team shouldn't try to answer every single part of the turn & instead should point out the turn's weak points.

CP: Love them. Go for CPs. Make sure you have good defense since I think many CPs can easily be pushed to the side by the aff's solvency deficits.

Case: If you can turn case, do it. I find debates where the neg is arguing whether the solvency was explicitly extended/dropped boring, so don't do it. I probably won't vote for "presumption" unless you clearly explain why. I also love impact turns- they're probably my favorite type of debate.

K: They're great. For me to vote on the K, explain the purpose of the alt. If the alt is vague or doesn't have a proper way of mobilization, I won't vote on it. If you're going for high theory Ks that are not usually read (i.e. Antiblackness, Security, etc.), you must explain the literature base, especially the link-level. Things I see myself voting for include whether or not the alt actually solves the case or if the link turns case.

If you have any comments or questions about my RFD or my paradigm, please email me.

I hate voting on T, and clarity should be your priority even if you have to slow down. If you make me laugh (with you, not at you) you'll get higher speaks.

Use common sense; don't be offensive or rude, or else your speaker points will go down. This includes being snippy in cross ex.

Put me on the email chain!

Email: Senadzi.kpeg@gmail.com

4th-year debater at Alpharetta (2A)

add me to the email chain: 20vikkumar@gmail.com

1. Do what you are most comfortable with, I will vote on anything that has enough warrants and is extended sufficiently throughout the debate.

2. Be respectful to the other teams and the rooms provided by the school. Bigotry will not be accepted.

3. Do not clip cards.

4. Time your speeches and prep.

5. Clarity over speed.

6. Explain your arguments don't just read the tags

7. Have fun!

Information:

Shivan Moodley

Alpharetta '20, Emory '24

J.W. Patterson Foundation Fellow 2019-2020

shivanmoodley@gmail.com

Currently debating for Emory.

Disclaimer: These are just my general thoughts about debate; anything in here can be changed by the quality of debating done in the round. Tech > Truth, unless you're argument is morally repugnant, racist, or incoherent. I am not as familiar with the specific topic language and/or acronyms so explain them.

K Affs and Framework:

Good K Affs should be related to the topic in some way and have central offense/defense centered around the mechanism defended in the 1AC. I like Framework debates on both sides. My gut reaction is that fairness is an impact but 2Ns are getting worse and worse at explaining why so I can be persuaded otherwise. Teams that impact turn procedural fairness have a better shot at winning my ballot. Larger overviews are acceptable in these debates but do not lose the line by line. I am probably better at judging KAffs vs T over KAffs vs Ks.

K's:

Do not assume I will know your literature base if you are going for high theory or K's that are not commonly read (Capitalism, Security, Settler Colonialism, Antiblackness etc,) then the K will require an extra level of analysis/thesis explanation because I will not vote for arguments I cannot explain back in the RFD. Teams that go the extra step to explain the link-level will be rewarded. This means pulling direct quotes from opponents' evidence, highlighting cards, and pointing out lapses in tags. It truly filters the threshold for the impact and framework debate. In a close debate, I am likely to let the Aff weigh their impacts, but the technicalities of the K can mitigate how relevant the case is - Does the Alt solve the case? Does the K access a specific root cause claim? Does the link turn the case? These are central.

Theory Leanings: Conditionality is good unless it's egregious. 2NC CPs are usually good, especially to get out of add-ons. Creative PICs will be rewarded, but the more generic it gets, the more abusive. Most Process CPs can be beaten by a well-articulated Perm or a heavy theory push.

CPs/DAs/Impact Turns/Case Debate/T:

- CPs - Read them, go for them. Smart, analytical CPs are fun but make sure you have a good defense of them or the threshold for solvency deficits will be low.

- DAs - Turns Case can change the game, but can also easily be answered by smart analytics. Neg teams that have carded turns case need to be handled properly by the Aff. Aff teams should identify the weak spots and exploit them, instead of trying to cover every single portion.

- Impact Turns - Good stuff, can be a game changer for both the Aff and the Neg. Impact Comparison and Evidence Comparison will win these debates so do that.

- Case - Has quickly become my favorite type of debate. Asserting "Presumption" without a clear reason means nothing, explain the reasoning. Neg teams that go the extra step to indict authors, answer specific I/Ls, and read multilayered defense to Aff impacts will make me happy. Aff teams that do not fold, are efficient, and smart on case questions also impress me equally.

- T - I like it a lot when it is done well. Both teams NEED to give me a clear picture of what the topic looks like under their interpretation, I will almost always default to competing interpretations because teams are just bad at going for reasonability these days. Limits are the controlling I/L for the Neg. Aff teams that choose one central piece of offense and explain how that implicates the Limits DA are doing something right.

Speaker Points: I reward clarity, speed, and efficiency. I also reward smart, strategic decisions. I will likely adjust speaker points relative to the tournament and entries. I find myself giving higher speaker points to people who are confident but not cocky, mean, or rude (That will drop your speaks). Also if you are funny, be funny, I like to laugh. If you are not funny, please don't try and make jokes it'll be awkward.

If you disagree or have problems with any decisions I have made or my paradigm, please feel free to ask questions.

Other Things:

- Clipping is maximum penalty.

- Anything unethical is maximum penalty.

- Speed is good, but make sure you are clear or it will be reflected in your speaks.

- Final rebuttals need to answer the key questions of the round - tell me why you win.

- Don't waste time - show up to the round on time, send the chain on time, finish on time.

alexapanati1121@gmail.com !!

Time your own prep and speeches please! And use prep time wisely.

Make my ballot for me - by the end of the debate, I should know exactly what I'm voting for and why, instead of going back through and picking it apart.

Format the email chains correctly.

Brownie points if you make me laugh

Clarity>>speed

2N for 3 years at Alpharetta HS 

 put me on the email chain: shreyamsachdeva@gmail.com

TLDR: We're all here to have fun so be respectful towards the other team and me. I won't vote on anything unethical (death is bad, racism is bad, and sexism is bad). I'm pretty policy and not well versed in K lit, but I'll vote on anything as long as it is explained well. 

Case: I love a good case debate. Aff explain your impacts and the internal link chain especially if it's complicated. The neg should not undercover case and read a bunch of offcase. The neg should still go on case even if they go for a CP in the 2NR. 

DAs: I love DAs, especially PTX. Neg, be sure to impact things out (especially in novice) and make turns case arguments. Also, explain the link story in the block especially on DAs like PTX. 

T: I don't really like T debates especially on this topic but if you are gonna go for it you have to explain it really well. Neg, don't just spit out a bunch of buzzwords but actually explain your arguments. The limits portion of the debate is really important so spend a lot of time on it. 

K: I love K debates, but I am only familiar with generics like fem, cap, neolib, and security. In order to win the debate, the neg must contextualize the K to the aff. I will not vote on anything unethical.  

CP: CPs are great especially specific ones. The aff can win on CP theory if they impact it out well. If the aff goes for a perm they have to explain how it functions. Neg, answer each perm individually and do some actual analysis on them. 

K affs: I am not very familiar with K literature but am willing to vote on anything that is not unethical. 

2a for 4 years at alpharetta

add me on the email chain saanya.saurabh@gmail.com

do whatever you want

no clipping

don’t be rude

time your own prep and speeches

clarity > speed

yes, you can tag team

most importantly, have fun