hi hi, i'm luna. i did policy for 2 years @ peninsula, graduated 2021.

add me to the email chain: lunakim626@gmail.com

i believe in my ability to flow well, but i haven't been in round for a while. if you're spreading and you're not clear, i'll have a harder time obviously.

tech > truth: debate is a simulation of the world and you will have to prove that i should favor tech over truth, but i do lean towards tech as debate is also a game.

Policy Affs: i like them. i read soft-left affs during my time in policy, but any type of policy aff will be good.
K-Affs: i'm less familiar with K-affs as i personally never read them, but they can lead to compelling rounds so read them if you want to.

CPs / DAs: make it clear why the CP uniquely avoids your DAs and why i should care; or why perm doesn't work.
K's: i like K's, but you need to make it abundantly clear how the K links to the aff. you can read normal or high theory K's, but generally i will find it harder to connect high theory K's to the aff unless the neg does work.
T: go for it if you believe there's some form of in round abuse but generally I think T is read as an easy way out. that said, i'll vote on it if Aff doesn't do good work on conflicting interps.

i like interesting and unique cases and strats. it's part of the reason why debate is a fun game.

speaks:
don't say problematic things. that's a surefire way to upset me and get me to dock your points substantially.
we're all in round for 2 hours. be nice to each other, be clear, and try to have some fun.

Newbie Coach for ADL

I flow.

I give pretty high speaks if you're nice.

Email Chain: Brandonchen.135@gmail.com

Ask in round if you want to know more about me

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

I'm good with speed

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

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

For Lay Debate --

I will try to evaluate arguments as if I had never done debate. Please treat me as a parent judge.

Otherwise:
Jackson Frankwick

Email chain --- jacksonrpv@gmail.com

Please be nice.

Don’t pref me if you don’t read a plan and care about winning.

If I judge a fairness bad arguement I will immediately vote for the opponents in the spirit of unfairness.

If I can't flow you I will stop paying attention.

I try to make my speaks normally distributed(u = 28.4, sd = 0.5).

Prep ends when email is sent.

Topicality is primarily a question of truth.

Everything is probablistic unless dropped (existential inherency is true).

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

Email: seanlipps01@gmail.com

I was a 2N in high school. I have little topic knowledge, so please explain stuff. Don't go for everything in the 2NR.

Aff:

If the Aff doesn't read a plan I will most likely vote Neg. Fairness is an impact, but still needs to be weighed against their impacts.

If you're reading a soft left Aff don't rely on your framing to get out of responding to DAs.

Topicality:

Evidence quality is a good link to your impacts and usually what I base my decision upon, so have a good definition.

Fairness is an impact.

Counterplans:

I'm fine for any counterplan, except ones that compete off certainty or immediacy, as long as you win the theory debate (if the theory debate devolves into both sides just repeating their arguments I will usually not vote for the theory).

Disadvantages:

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

tech>truth, although if you skimp out on your coverage of some things (like a one line turns case argument) I probably won't evaluate it very much.

Kritiks:

I'm fine for Ks as long as there is a link to the assumptions of the aff.

Most of my attention will be on the link and alt debate because most of the K doesn't matter without first winning those parts. The aff can weigh their plan against the K.

Don't kick the alt and go for the K.

Reject the aff is not an alt.

University High School 2016-2020, NYU Class of 2024, Majoring in Economics

Was a 2N for 9-10th grade and a 2A for 11-12th, went to the TOC for Policy senior year

Pronouns: he/him

Add me to the chain, ericludebate@gmail.com

"2As are a bunch of liars, cheats, and narcissists, and 2Ns are just cold, calculating a--holes" - Lee Thach

Top Level

I have zero topic knowledge - be clear with your aff, send docs, and don't assume I know whatever acronyms exist for this topic specifically

Cool with spreading, and any kind of argument (specific preferences below)

The Rest

I've mostly run kritikal arguments and k affs when debating in high school, living that small school K team life

That being said, please don't change your strat and run Ks in front of me just because I'll probably be more familiar with them, stick with the 1AC/1NC you're good with and I'll be sure to adapt. This is also a function of me being someone who hates seeing badly done K aff/K debates (they remind me too much of myself)

Things I like - Good Case debating (Especially Case turns), Creative CPs, Specific DA links, Ks that are actually about the aff, T debates that aren't just 2AC time sucks, Impact Calc and Evidence comparison, Short overviews, Line by line

Cross-ex is where I get a lot of the missing context from speeches, if you're good at controlling that conversation then that context will be you-favored. It is my firm belief that this is the most criminally underrated part of the debate.

Some minor preferences, all of these are 60-40 at most and can easily be overcome with good debating

- Condo Good > Condo Bad

- Durable Fiat > No Durable Fiat

- Reasonability > Competing interps (this is like 51-49, I will default to this only if neither side does anything to explain)

- 0% risk exists > 0% risk doesn't exist (come on make some better disads PLEASE)

Some major preferences, these are more like 80-20, run them if you must but understand you're debating an uphill battle

- Death Bad > Death Good

- T is a voting issue > T is not a voting issue (Yes I debated with a ton of K affs. Yes bad anti-framework blocks piss me off. You should know what you're doing against it if you expect to debate it every round.)

That being what it is, debate what you want, I try to be as tabula rasa but we all know that's never fully possible.

Peninsula '20

Add me to the chain: kristenl778@gmail.com

General:

I was a 2A during high school. I think tech > truth, but truth gets increasingly important the closer the debate becomes. Weigh and do line by line. I am very easily persuaded by smart analytic arguments in response to bad evidence/argument quality. I will look to evidence if I'm given two opposing claims without a way to reconcile them.

Please compile a card doc at the end of the debate and send it to me.

Be nice :)

Affirmatives:

I think they should be topical and defend a plan.

If you read a soft left affirmative, I won't be convinced by going for just the framing advantage in the 2AR and not adequately debating the disad.

Counterplans:

I think I'm good for most stuff (e.g. 2NC counterplans/not having a solvency advocate in the 1NC etc.). The exception to this is if your counterplan competes off certainty/immediacy, which I don't particularly enjoy.

I lean neg in most counterplan theory debates.

Disadvantages:

The more specific to the aff these are the better.

Well explained link story > uniqueness.

Topicality:

Fairness is an independent impact.

Kritiks:

I'm familiar with the prevailing ones. Please explain a lot more than you typically would if you're reading Bataille/Deleuze etc.

Please have a clearly articulated, specific link to the aff that isn't just "state bad" and an alternative that actually does something. Recutting of aff evidence and using cx to prove links is super appreciated/important.

Do your best to stay organized; try not to have stream-of-consciousness speeches in which you allude to the long overview instead of doing line by line.

In K v. K debates (I am probably not optimal for you in these), I think the aff gets the perm but can be persuaded otherwise.

Debated at Peninsula in Policy 2017-2021

I'm not super familiar with this year's topic so make sure not to take topic-specific terms and warrants in camp arguments for granted.

Be nice.

I prefer that you read a plan.

Infinite condo is better than no condo.

If it's not condo, you have to do a good job explaining why X theory argument justifies voting against the other team rather than just rejecting the argument.

I will default to judge kick the counterplan unless told otherwise.

I'm not great for high theory.

Impact turn the K.

email: dylanmichalak2003@gmail.com

darinparkdebate@gmail.com

please call me darin and not judge!

i really don't care what you do. mostly everything is grounds for debate barring blatantly problematic positions. the more your strategy rejoins the 1ac, the higher your speaks will be.

if the top of your final rebuttal does not tell me what i should repeat back to you in my rfd, do not pref me. offense-defense shapes how i render most decisions.

convincing me you should not have to read a plan will be an uphill battle and will require significant concessions from the negative team.

i vote on the k for the neg somewhat frequently. i prefer when things are said about the plan.

conditionality is nearly always good, but there is an alarming trend with how poorly 2n's handle aff extensions of theory.

limited functional intrinsicness is probably good. i can be persuaded otherwise.

if you say the phrase "fiat double bind" in your speech, your speaks are capped at 27.0.

you can't insert re-highlights.

do not talk about things that happened outside the round.

-The following is written by my good friend Natasha Tieu. Although it is not inaccurate, do not take everything written down seriously-

Junior debater at Peninsula(yes peninsula) for 3 years and still going.

Add me to the email chain: melissa.w.qin@gmail.com

Signpost well. if i don't know where you are on the flow, I'll be sad and I'll probably look at you passive aggressively until you tell me where you actually are.

DAs: I've literally never met someone who doesn't like them. I evaluate these like Scott Wheeler- check out his paradigm for a more in-depth explanation of my views on debate and lyfe.

CPs: I like them. Read specific counterplans over generic ones obviously. If you drop the perm you drop my ballot. good luck.

Theory/Ts/condo: like them but not as much as policy debates. Remember that I'm not as familiar with the aff as you are. please don't make me confused with all the legal jargon. It'll make me unhappy and I'll definitely take it out on your speaks (I promise I'm not mean). Theory is almost never a reason to reject the team, but hey, if that's your "thing" then go for it. Tech>Truth.

Ks: the CRITIQUE!!!!! yes. yes. yes. War is bad, but capitalism is sooooo much worse(know your sarcasm). Go for the K at your own risk.

K Affs: what are thooooooseee? read a plantext or you lose.

- bribes- this is how the world works and debate is a simulation of the world. I particularly enjoy sour candy

If you make a joke about Ashley Yoon's life or show me cute dog pics that make me smile, I'll bump your speaks by 0.2(works once)

Peninsula 22, UCLA 26 (not debating)

Email chain: lukasrhoades11@gmail.com

No rounds on topic, don't immediately jump into 3rd and 4th levels in cross-ex because I will need complete context to follow.

Tech>truth for arguments (claim, warrant, impact) that I flow. I won't look at the documents during your speech. I will only vote on arguments I've flowed in the final speeches that were extended in each previous speech since their introduction.

You can insert rehighlights for the portions that they read, but must read everything else. I won't vote on things that happened outside the round. If neither side says anything, I'll judgekick.

Email: a.sinsioco1@gmail.com

-Peninsula' 21 - USC' 25

Have fun. Be nice.

I have little specific topic knowledge, so don't take for granted that I understand any topic-specific jargon/am keeping up with the debate meta.

tech>truth

Very hard pressed to vote on presumption type arguments. Absent any offense, even the smallest chance that the aff does something positive for the world is enough reason to vote affirmative

Other than that, any opinion I have about arguments can be overcome by better debating.

Thoughts

The first 30 seconds of the final rebuttal should write my RFD.

K Affs:

Probably read a plan tbh, but I will enjoy K affs with a strong explanation of what the aff actually does clear articulation of how debate operates under their framework.

I often find defensive arguments weaker and think the counter interpretation solves little of the actual neg offense. impact turn framework standards and the neg's model of debate.

Fairness > Education/Skills > whatever else. Focus on using your framework arguments to engage the substance of the aff and the da's to framework. It's very easy to vote aff in these debates when the negative spreads through framework blocks and fails to directly address the often more developed affirmative case and da's to framework

I really enjoy and prefer judging substantive offense against the K itself. Don't be afraid to go for the heg da or cap good or whatever.

K:

If your K is able to disprove thesis of the aff and the assumptions it relies upon, I will love your K.

I will default to weighing the aff versus the K.

I have an aversion to strategies that solely rely upon winning framework and arbitrarily disregarding huge swaths of the debate. I will assign less weight to these arguments unless they are dropped. K debate is case debate. The kritik should engage with the affirmative and disprove its thesis.

Your links should reference a specific line/assumption which the affirmative's scenario relies upon, explain why that line/assumption is flawed, impact out why I should care/the material implications of that flawed assumption, and how the alternative resolves the link. The more specific the better.

Ideally, you should be leveraging your answers on case to bolster your argument otherwise I'm willing to grant the aff the truth of their scenario which makes it difficult to win that their assumptions are flawed.

CP: I dislike cp's that compete off immediacy and certainty and find them a bit harder to adjudicate personally.

DA's: Enjoy most flavors of disads, but generally dislike ones whose links are predicated on silly interpretations of fiat.

T: Clearly explain what debate looks like under each interpretation and the implications of your impacts, as well as how your interpretation solves your impacts. I generally feel predictability and precision often guides the way I adjudicate these debates on a top level. What I should prioritize is certainly debatable

Case: I find well-researched, dissections of the affirmative case to be the coolest things to judge and will reward the effort.

Theory: Condo is good, and I don't see value in interps that numerically limit the number of conditional advocacies. Either all condo or no condo

Most theory arguments are reject the argument unless you specifically explain otherwise

tiongxxjadyn@gmail.com send me ur ev

disclaimer i have not debated for ~1.5 years

argument preferences

i'm fine with anything as long as clash exists (please don't just read blocks i like the line-by-line)

policy (da,cp,etc): this is good if no abuse (one-card da's, nonsensical multi-planked cp's with no nb)

k (pomo,idpol,etc): this is good but i may be less familiar with the trendy authors so i'll need sufficient explanation

procedurals (fw, theory, t, etc): i mean, i'll vote on them if i have to. this means you need to impact out voting issues.

general tingz

1. tech>truth

2. ev is important do not clip

3. flashing =/= prep but i'll get mad if you delay the tournament

4. don't be rude, duh

5. tag team's always ok

for additional information refer to the following paradigms

connie tran

ishika sachdeva

Peninsula '21, Cal '25

Email chain: nathan2web@gmail.com

For online debate: if I'm not in frame of the camera, don't start your speech.

Top level, debate is a competitive research activity where two teams compete to win. So, I will strive to be agnostic as to what strategy you choose to read, whether that's 10 off, 1 off, or hiding ASPEC (though your speaks will probably suffer for the last one). Tech > truth, although you'll have a hard time convincing me that our oceans are yellow.

Even so, these preferences are a set of ideologies that I've loosely maintained as I've judged--

T: I find that evidence quality is quintessential - I will lean towards a legally precise definition that reflects consensus.

DA: Actually debate the DA if you read a soft left aff. Riders are probably not legitimate.

CP: Solvency advocates aren't necessary, but coherent explanations of solvency are. I will default to kicking the CP for the neg if equally debated.

K: Good if they disprove why I should vote affirmative. I tend to dislike Ks that have a focus on 20 subpoints of framework (but if you win you win).

Non-traditional affs: Fairness is an impact, you can also go for others. Probably not the best judge for the aff teams. A lot of the time, I find it difficult to see how the ballot resolves aff impacts.

Theory: Condo is generally good. Most CP theory is probably a reason to reject the argument.

Other things--

My ideologies have been influenced significantly by these people: Dhruv Sudesh, Kevin Sun, and Scott Wheeler. If any part of this philosophy is confusing, you should look at theirs.

Card quality matters, I will always value smart analytics over terrible evidence—although a claim has much more significance/credibility when tied to an academic work.

If I can't understand you, I won't flow.

Don't egregiously re-highlight then "re-insert" an entire card, read it.

I don't about things that happened outside the round.

Be nice.

From Kevin Sun's Evidence Ethics:

"I have judged a handful of high stakes debates this year that were decided on evidence ethics. I’ve found that these decisions are inevitably unsatisfying as they will rely on my own subjective assessment of the argument in question.

I can safely say that I am completely unqualified to judge these debates. I am not on Twitter or Facebook, and I do not interact with debate people regularly outside of tournaments. I do not know what the community consensus is on certain authors, and I will feel uncomfortable rendering a personal judgement an author’s character after hearing 10 minutes of spreading on the subject.

In hopes of giving debaters some foresight, I would like to clarify my perspective on this genre of theory argument. High stakes evidence ethics challenges (e.g. “reject the team because they included the wrong author qualifications”, “reject the team because [author] is problematic”) will require a high burden of proof and an egregious violation. I have a strong predisposition against positioning these ethics challenges as reasons to fully disregard the rest of your opponents arguments, and I would prefer to just reject the argument in question rather than to hinge my decision on it.

In these circumstances, I would suggest clearly explaining which of your opponents arguments I should throw out if I resolve this challenge in your favor.

Would rejecting this author evaporate your opponent’s framework argument? Should the negative even be allowed to substitute this author with another that makes a similar argument? You’re likely to get further with me by detailing the implications of this ethics challenge in terms of the rest of the debate rather than relying on me to assume that I should automatically make it a gateway issue.

I would suggest finding other ways outside of a competitive debate argument to navigate this ethical challenge rather than placing it in my hands as a judge."

Peninsula '21, Berkeley '25

email chain:

ashleyhawonyoon1@gmail.com

my high school dismantled the parli team so most of my debate experience is in collegiate parliamentary through my local community college, which is like in between high school parli and policy. (I've done policy, parli, IPDA, LD, and for speech I did extemp and impromptu). I received bids to the National Parliamentary Debate Tournament of Excellence and was the only cc team to advance to elim rounds. I would say that I'm pretty well versed with jargon and good with speed but that doesn't mean go as fast as possible.

the following paradigm is written by natasha tieu

DA: What's not to like? I think the strength of the link determines the direction of uniqueness, but other than that I think I evaluate these much the same as anyone else. I like turns case arguments, especially if the aff is soft left.

PICS: i love good ones

Condo/Disclosure Theory: the neg gets infinite condo. Don't bother. it'll only make me angry. disclosure theory can be good if you work it correctly, if you're just running it to waste the team's time or for one specific link for a card then frowny face.

Counterplans: I like them. Advantage counterplans are the jam; please don't read really sketchy process counterplans. I'll cry.

K: I have a high threshold for k affs so if you run them know that you’re either gonna have to be extremely good at showing me evidence and a strong link story OR you’re very familiar with the k and have run it for years. If you just whip out Cap or SetCol because it's convenient I'll be disappointed.

T: T is good. But if you read a T and the aff has proven to be topical in your definition and you STILL go for it, then T is a wash. I will vote on T if that’s what the debate comes down to, but they’re not my favorite arguments.

Perm: don't drop perm. I will audibly sigh.

Signpost well, give a good roadmap. It will hurt you if you don't specify and I'm jumping flows since there is a chance I will miss something.

Clarity>Loudness and speed

CX: There is a thick line between asking questions and being mean. If you bully the other team thats another minus on the speaks. Let them answer. If they are droning on and on then nicely cut them off. If your opponent asks you to be clear or slow down and you don’t then your speaks will suffer

misc: I like off-time roadmaps, please keep time yourself, and I'll bump your speaks if you're ready ahead of time. If you can sprinkle a little bit of humor into your speeches that would be appreciated. If I have one hand on my face, don't panic I'm just thinking, but if I have both hands on my face then that means you've lost me OR you're being redundant. I usually flow on a different device, so I'm probably not going to be facing the screen directly for most of your speech.

Have fun, be nice, and if you make a joke about Melissa Qin's height or Natasha Tieu's obsession with sheep i'll bump your speaks up by 0.2 (only applies once)