I am a policy debater at GBN, class of 2020. I have judged a good amount of novice and JV debates.

My advice: Flow. Tech over truth (this doesn't mean I like dumb arguments). Be respectful and confident. Usually, the team that better understands and explains their argument wins.

I will vote on any argument, but here are my preferences:

DA or case turn plus case or advantage CP is my favorite.

I like creative arguments and focus on internal link stories rather than impact calculus.

I like topic generics and agenda politics. I'm not a fan of agent, elections, or base das.

I also like T debates.

I err against Ks, condo, process CPs (every CP that interacts with or results in the resolution), soft left framing, and aspec.

Ask me any questions. I give a ton of feedback after rounds or through email.

Have fun!

ephraimbennett330@gmail.com

Niles West '21

Michigan State '25

Top level

idk anything about the hs topic

Evidence quality is important in actual close debates. Won't evaluate the card unless you extend the warrants.

Dropped arguments only true to the extent of the argument actually made. Dropping "states cps are a voter" with no warrant doesn't mean anything.

Won't evaluate any arguments based on out of round issues.

Other stuff

FW/K aff - lean neg. I don't think it's violent or policing. Fairness is an impact. Unconvinced much by other fw impacts.

DA -

politics is great. Most soft left framing arguments almost never make any sense the way they're deployed in debate. Don't rant about conjunctive fallacy that's just basic risk assesment. Not persuaded at all by any epistemic k's of disads. Creative turns case is important, make those args at every level possible, not just the terminal impact.

CP -

CP's that compete of off immediacy / certainty are probably are not competitive. If your theory argument is "this CP bad" it's much less persuasive than an interp that actually specifies some manner of action that makes it illegitimate.

Overall lean neg on most CP theory stuff. Any amount of condo is fine.

Judge kick when instructed.

T - default to competing interps but can be persuaded. Predictability is the biggest internal link and precision is probably the best determination of such. Smaller topics are better generally but somewhat impossible.

K - will vote for it. Framework is really important. "Middle ground" interpretations don't make much sense to me honestly, but I'll go along with it.

she/her

please add kaitlyndebate@gmail.com to the email chain

water topic:

I have judged very few rounds on the water topic. please be thorough in your explanations of arguments/concepts, especially more technical ones like topicality

top level

I debated at gbn for four years as a 2a/1n

don't call me "judge," kaitlyn is just fine

please be respectful to your opponents - racism/sexism/homophobia/ableism/etc will obviously not be tolerated

the most enjoyable debates to watch are ones in which both teams have a good grasp of the bigger picture, especially in the final rebuttals. tell me what is most important to my decision and win that, otherwise I will have to make decisions on my own that might not always go in your favor. impact calc is essential to any good 2nr/2ar

I will try to have my camera on during online debates, and I prefer that all debaters do as well. if there are outstanding tech issues, exceptions can be made

all of my notes below are lists of my general biases, but I think everything is up for debate in a round. I will attempt to be as open as possible when deciding

disads

I love them, there's not much that can go wrong here. case-specific disads are the best, obviously. turns case, when carded and used well, is very strategic

politics debates can be very fun when done well, and the most important part is often the overall "story" of the disad. make sure your story is present throughout the debate

aff teams should have a "counter-story" of the disad - how does your aff interact with the disad? also, straight turning politics is really fun

counterplans

I have gone for my fair share of "cheaty" counterplans, and thus will probably understand your consult cp. however, the more complex/cheaty your cp gets, the easier it is for an aff team to come up with a good perm that resolves all of the internal links

solvency deficits must have an impact that outweighs the impact to the disad - the more impact calculus, the better

theory

most theory arguments are reasons to reject the argument, not the team - condo is the one exception. Don't be afraid to go for condo, but if there's a way you can win on substance I will be much happier as theory debates are often difficult to resolve

judge kick is an extension of conditionality that is not always justified. debate it

re: theory that's in the 1nc but isn't in the doc/is hidden in some way - it's probably stupid, and the aff probably gets new answers

topicality

I read what most people consider to be untopical policy affs, so I appreciate an aff that is able to stretch the topic in an interesting way. that said, you need to have a good defense of legal precision/predictability to hedge back on the neg's (most likely very persuasive) limits impacts. these debates, if well-researched, can be very fun

legal precision > contextual precision > limits > ground > education

impact turns

they're a fun time. go wild

kritiks

ks I am familiar with - security, set col, neolib (all the basic policy ks). anything else and I will need much more explanation. however, if a neg team is thorough in their explanation of their theory and how it impacts the round, I could see myself voting for them

on the aff - affs that either have an extinction outweighs and framework push or can interact with the k in an interesting way are the most persuasive to me

I generally feel that the aff should be able to weigh the impacts of the plan

perfcon is a viable argument that the aff gets to sever their reps

framing contentions

Not the biggest fan. if you do read one, you need to debate down the disad or I will be very hesitant to do that work for you just because you mentioned the conjunctive fallacy. counterplans are a very good way to obviate the framing contention

k affs

I'm probably not the judge for you. I tend to think t-usfg is true and there is usually a topical version of the aff. however, if you have an impact turn or disad you can read on the neg, that's a much more fun debate

aff teams probably need a good (read: predictable and limiting) counter-interp and a persuasive disad to the neg's model to win

clipping

L & 25 if caught clipping, but the other team should have recorded evidence (as I will not be listening for it) and be willing to stake the round on it. if you get caught clipping, you get an L and 25s. if you stake the round on it and no clipping took place/you have no evidence, you get an L and 25s

I'm a teacher and debate coach at Montgomery Bell Academy.

Put me on the email chain: abrown123564@gmail.com

Here is how you can make me want to give you a ballot + good speaks:

1. Make the debate comfortable and fun. I am not a good judge for you if you get super aggressive, snarky, or rude in round. I am a teacher - treat your partner and opponents the way you'd treat your classmates.

2. Please do not "cut corners" in your prep - I get very sad when I see incomplete DAs, incoherent T arguments, meaningless Adv CP texts, or evidence so un-highlighted it doesn't say anything, etc, deployed for the purpose of winning through out-spreading instead of out-debating. I generally don't think teams should be reading more than 6 off.

3. Do not forget you are in a public speaking activity. I am not evaluating the debate based off your speech doc. You should be clear, and you should flow. Please stop offering or asking for marked docs unless it is absolutely necessary.

4. Please do not abuse tag-team CX in either asking or answering questions.

4a. If you're not debating a new aff/debating as a maverick, and you decide to take CX as prep instead of asking questions, then I will allow the other team to keep reading cards for the remainder of CX.

Sorry if that all came across as grumpy. If you can do all of those things, then I'm happy and I look forward to judging you. I think that policy debate is good and that clash/fairness/etc. are all things which matter. I think debates should not exclude critical perspectives and we should seek to do what best improves the activity overall.

I am a tremendously bad judge for arguments advocating death, human extinction, or nuclear war. I probably just won't vote for them.

Have fun!

Glenbrook North '21

Quick Info

-I have debated policy for the past 2 years; this is my first time judging

-I do not have much experience judging yet. I have some experience flowing from my two years of debate, but it is always good to be CLEAR and slow down for more important stuff. Include impact calculus. If a team can prove their impact is more significant than the other team's impact, then they have a huge advantage.

- I'm almost always tech > truth. (I will accept what a team says as true unless it is disputed)

-Because I am tech > truth, dropped arguments are considered conceded.

- I do not have much K experience, this doesn't mean that I won't listen to and consider your K.

- Disclose before round! it's just good etiquette and is generally expected.

- Avoid personal attacks against teams, attack the arguments, not the teams.

Disadvantages

- DA vs case is my favorite type of debate to judge.

- I love "turns the case" and wish that more teams would explicitly use it in their impact calculus.

- I like politics, but the link chain needs to be coherent (e.g. why does ____ backlash over the plan mean that ___ won't pass?).

Topicality

-This shouldn't be read against every plan but if you believe that the aff is untopical and it's making the debate unfair then don't be afraid to read topicality.

-Have evidence, dive into the meanings of the specific words in their plan text and the resolution.

- Have an impact. tell me WHY should teams be topical?

Counterplans

- I like them, I much rather prefer counterplans that are specific to the plan's mechanism than ones than that probably absorb the plan. I'm okay with the latter, but if you have something closer to the former I would go with the former.

- Please don't just say "perm ______" and move on to the next argument. You should briefly why the perm solves and why it doesn't link to the net benefit.

Kritiks

- Understand your K, if you don't understand your K, then you won't be able to explain it in a way that I/the other team can understand.

- Death is always good.

- The link needs to be as specific to the plan's action or mechanism as possible. Avoid reading generic topic links at all costs, especially in the 1NC. The impact of the K shouldn't happen without the plan.

- I think that the alternative needs to have a concrete and definitive plan for solving the kritik's impact.

- Read framework and a lot of it

K-Affs

- my default position is that policy debate is about policies. If you want to convince me otherwise you will need to read framing.

Theory

- Slow down while reading theory.

- Conditionality arguments are put in to make debate fair and should only be used when you genuinely believe the round is unfair. Usually, 1-2 conditional advocacies are fine.

Glenbrook North '21

Please put me on the e-mail chain: 210020@glenbrook225.org

Quick Info

- I haven't had much experience with the arms sales topic, so I would appreciate a bit more explanation with your arguments. Don't always assume I know what you're talking about.

- I really, really prefer policy debates over kritikal ones.

- Disclose before round!

Disadvantages

- DA vs case is my favorite type of debate to judge.

- I love "turns the case" and wish that more teams would explicitly use it in their impact calculus.

- I like politics, but the link chain needs to be coherent (e.g. why does ____ backlash over the plan mean that ___ won't pass?).

Topicality

- Not the biggest fan in all honesty, but if the plan is almost certainly abusive and/or you're fairly ahead on that flow coming into the 2NR, I'll live.

- I really appreciate evidence comparison of definitions -- it's really underutilized for some reason.

Counterplans

- I like them, I much rather prefer counterplans that are specific to the plan's mechanism than ones than that probably absorb the plan. I'm okay with the latter, but if you have something closer to the former I would go with the former.

- I think advantage counterplans are underused and I love judging them since they force really good debates over the aff's internal links.

- Please don't just say "perm ______" and move on to the next argument. You should briefly why the perm solves and why it doesn't link to the net benefit. Don't be lazy, now.

Kritiks

- All in all, this probably shouldn't be your A-strat if you have me. I'll get live if you do arguments like neolib, but you're going to lose me if you do high theory.

- The link needs to be as specific to the plan's action or mechanism as possible. Avoid reading generic topic links at all costs, especially in the 1NC.

- I think that the alternative needs to have a concrete and definitive plan for solving the kritik's impact.

- I tend to lean towards the the interpretation of framework in which the affirmative gets to weigh their impacts against the negative's.

K-Affs

- Friends, it's called policy debate. Let's debate policies.

- For real though, I lean negative when it comes to any framework or topicality debate. I

Theory

- Slow down while reading theory.

- Conditionality is generally good. For a frame of reference, my belief is that the neg is allowed about 1-2 conditional advocates. Any more than that, and I start paying a lot more attention to the aff's arguments.

- I don't like it when the 2AC has a bunch of blippy theory arguments that aren't actually substance as much as they are a half-assed attempt to overstretch the block. If you want to outspread the negative, smart analytics are always appreciated.

kastorycarter21@gmail.com<--email chain please

GBN 2021

If you're like me as a novice, you're looking at paradigms—and wasting prep time!—to see whether I'm more familiar with critical or policy arguments, have corny jokes, or give extra speaker points. The answers are: policy, no, no. Just read your best arguments, work hard, and have fun :)

I'm good with pretty much everything except high theory Ks. Racism, sexism, ableism, etc. will result in losing the ballot. Don't be rude.

GBN 2021

hi novices,

Im Grayson

If you're being all technological and using computers, please add me on the email chain, my email is 213396@glenbrook225.org.

Important to note: you will probably get better speaker points from me if you make the round fun/enjoyable, but still debate

Disadvantages

-Da vs case is my favourite type of debate to judge

-Turns case arguments are really powerful, use them in impact calc

-Politics DAs can work for me, but the link chain has to be logical and also as specific to the plan as possible

Topicality

-This isn't my favourite argument, but if you can provide clear in round abuse, I'd be willing to vote for you.

-Also, please compare the quality of evidence for your definitions

-Because I have less experience with T compared to some other arguments, try and explain some of the buzzwords

Counterplans

-These are fun, but best when specific to the aff. This does not mean that I'm unwilling to vote for a process CP, but you have to be very convincing on why the CP is better than the aff.

-Additionally, compare the mechanisms between the CP and plan. Advantage CPs are a good way to automatically facilitate this in a round.

-When making a perm, please be prepared to explain why it solves and how it avoids the net benefit

Kritiks

-I'm not too strong on these arguments, nor do I particularly like them. When reading a K, it's good advice to very clearly explain the K to the opposing team and me.

-Don't try to use jargon to confuse the other team, you will confuse me too. This reflects poorly on your understanding of the argument and ability to make it clash with the aff.

-Death is bad, unless if you are an fly or wasp or mosquito

-Please make links specific. A K is far more convincing when the link isn't "the aff uses the government" or "the topic is bad"

-The Alt needs to have a concrete plan to solve the K's impact. This is better than an unclear alt that ultimately says to think about the problem.

-I ten to lean towards a framework interpretation where the aff gets to weigh their impacts against the negative's

-If you are comfortable reading things other than a K, it's probably a good idea to do so in front of me

K Affs

-You're novices, please don't.

Theory

-Don't spread through this, I'll miss arguments

-1-2 conditional advocacies are generally okay, but if the aff can prove in round abuse, then the argument can be very threatening

-The 2ac should not try to read a ton of blippy theory arguments without much substance in order to overstretch the block.

-I really dislike voting on theory and probably won't unless if it is condo


General

-𝔽 𝕃 𝕆 𝕎

-Clarity > Speed. If you try to unclearly spread to make the opponents miss arguments, I will miss them too and I don't plan to vote on something that I didn't see in the debate.

-Be nice to opponents

-Have fun

-Good luck folks

I coached policy debate at Niles West High School for three years. Prior to that, I competed in Policy debate for four years at Niles West and have also competed in NPDA-Parliamentary and NFA-Lincoln/Douglass debate for four years at the University of Illinois Urbana/Champaign. I served as the Debate Captain for UIUC during my junior year, teaching and coaching new members and running our team's practices. My background is in political science and public policy as well as studying some critical theory so I like to think I am generally well versed in issues usually being discussed during competitive debates.

I highly encourage flowing, clarity, in depth analysis, and argument comparison. (like impact calculus).

I'm very flexible as I have debated very policy as well as critical positions throughout my debate career. I am a flow judge above all else, so if the right arguments are made and extended, I will vote on that. While I have some minor argument preferences, I will generally remove my biases from the round and judge each debater's arguments on its merits.

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

You can contact me at: Walter.lindwall@gmail.com

Sarosh Nagar

Glenbrook North '20 / Harvard '24

Please put me on the email chain: snagardebate@gmail.com

Top-level note: I was a pretty active debater for most of high school and did attend the TOC, so I am familiar with most debate lingo. However, for your topic-specific terminology, I may not be as familiar, so please do explain any acronyms/key terms well if you use them in the debate.

I will vote on any argument with the exception of arguments such as racism good, sexism good, etc. These args clearly don't have a place within the debate space, but you do you otherwise.

For the novices reading this paradigm: Welcome to debate! You've entered a fantastic, semi-stressful, and enjoyable community of people who share many of your interests. Feel free to ask me any questions before the round if you need assistance, or for any clarifications after the round.

Top Level;

--- Flow - for the novices I'm judging, this is particularly important.

--- Clarity first - This means both in terms of spreading and clearly explaining arguments and their implications. I will not do any work for either side.

--- Line by line is important and please do it in a coherent order so it is easy to flow you all.

--- I don't like reading ev, but I will probably end up doing it - I will only do if it is the card is flagged by a debater or the content of the card is being represented differently for both teams. If there is an insufficient amount of line by line/lack of clash on a flow, reading cards mean you've effectively put the round into my hands, which is not a place you want to be.

--- Zero risk is a thing, but it must be overwhelmingly well-debated.

--- Smart analytics > bad cards/args - if the frontpage headline this morning will take out the DA but you don't have a card, the analytic might be the best way to go if debated well. I would hope to reward out-of-round prior knowledge about the world.

--- I will try to protect the 2NR from 2AR newness, but 2NR should be explicit about this.

--- Tech > truth.

--- tag team is ok, but don't dominate your partner.

Case

Affs seriously go around reading the most illogical, irrational internal links ever (I know I'm guilty of this as well).

Neg teams should exploit these weaknesses to whittle down the case substantially.

Aff teams should attempt to explain this illogical internal links clearly and tell a coherent story; it will make my life easier when I'm thinking about it at the end of the round.

Good case debates = nice speaker points

DAs

I love them. Have a specific link or link contextualization, a logical internal link also helps, and aff specific turns case arguments go a long way towards winning the debate when combined with proper case mitigation.

Politics DAs are a personal favorite as well so don't be afraid to go for them in front of me.

For the aff, the internal links are probably silly and most DAs are non-unique so I advise that you should point out the logical flaws in arguments and make them a central part of the final rebuttals.

Counterplans

My favorite CPs are PICs and intelligent multiplank advantage CPs, but I'm good with almost all types of counterplans being run.

I do generally think fiat should be certain and immediate, but I am open to a different interpretation based on how it is debated.

I'll go either way on judge kick.

I'm a 2N so I might lean a little neg on theory, but a smart aff team can flip me to vote for them easily.

If going for theory as a reason to reject the team, please explain why rejecting the arg won't solve or I'll just reject the arg.

When aff, please impact out your deficits or links to the net-benefit args. I think the 1AR is the best spot to do this.

Topicality

**READ THE NOTE ABOVE

Topicality can go either way. I won't lean aff or neg instinctively.

I feel compelled to think that legal precision outweighs limits, but limits outweigh everything else. However, if you think some other impacts is compelling for you, go for it.

FW/T-USFG

I won't reject all nontraditional affirmatives and will vote aff if they outdebate the neg.

However, I'd appreciate the aff giving me a model of debate and clearly (simplistic explanations are always better) explain DAs to FW. I do not like cheapshot args that the 2AC makes in a blip to mess with the 2N, so if I did vote for you on that args your speaks will not be pretty.

I generally think skills offense is best vs. identity affs and fairness vs. high-theory Baudrillard nonsense but you do you.

also, i'm not super nice to debate bad args. Debate is a valuable, time-intensive, and reflective activity and because hoofd said serious online video games might be bad does not mean I will.

Ks

I will vote for them. Some of these debates can be hyper-nuanced and interesting to listen to.

For a K to get my ballot, please do the following:

--- a well-explained thesis level claim about the 1AC

--- specific link work to the aff

--- explain how the alt and !s interact with all of the 1AC and how the alt solves the link

--- If you kick the alt, explain how FW/other things provide uniqueness for the link

I'd ask you refrain from using a lot of jargon; I might get it and maybe you might, but if the other team can't clearly explain and answer your args the debate will be a lot worse and your speaks will reflect that.

When aff vs. K, the 1AR should have chosen when perm/no link or case outweighs/alt-fails is the route they'll be going, though generally soft-left affs go for the perm (albeit the links on this topic are very good) and hard-right affs should go for case-outweighs/alt-fails.

Speaks

29.5-30 --- Well done. You will be a good jv/varsity debate and should be top 5 speakers.

29-29.5 --- Nice job. You've mastered the skills of novices and need a few more nuanced. Should be top ten speaker.

28.5-29 - Keep going! You've gained a sufficient grasp of fundamental debate skills, but have a little more to work on.

28-28.5 - At least you tried! You need to gain a better grasp of fundamental debate skills as a novice.

27 and lower --- you were offensive, mean, rude, and generally not fun to watch

Jokes about the following people will improve your speak points: anybody from GBN, GBS, OPRF, or other people I would know.

Jokes about me that are good will increase your speaks by +.3. Jokes about me that are bad will just make me like you less. (jk)

"The plan is the ultimate betrayal" - + .3

"It's gg for the negative" - +.2

Not wearing shoes: -.3

Just remember --- have fun, enjoy debate, and if you have any questions feel free to email me.

@novices, congrats on knowing what a paradigm is! The first team to say 'Nick Remish is a voter for deterrence,' either during or before the round, gets an extra 0.1 speaks per person.

Onto the actual paradigm:

Tech > truth, insofar as you as a debater can tell me how I should evaluate arguments. If there's a key question in the debate that's not answered by either side, I have to then answer it myself to resolve the debate, and the only way to do this fairly is by defaulting to truth. Honestly, that's not just me; pretty much every single judge will engage in some truth over tech when debaters can't resolve every argument.

The easiest way for you to lay the debate out for me is to go down the line-by-line. That means you directly engage the other team's arguments in the order they were presented, which requires **FLOWING**. Once you have the hand of that, especially in novice rounds, you should be in control of everything.

One mini-thing:

-Tag team cross-ex is fine. But it does look bad if your partner takes your entire cross-ex.

niles west '21

3rd year debating

yes, add me to the email chain - palpat1@nilesk12.org (+.3 speaks if u add me w/out asking!!)

if you have any specific questions, feel free to ask before and after the round :) I'm happy to help and novice/JV year is all about learning and improving!!

don't be rude, sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. - I'll probably vote you down and deck your speaks.

also yes, you can tag team in cx - I'm fine with it as long as you don't interrupt your partner too much

PLZ FLOW!!!

if you follow @foreignpolicyyouthcollab on Instagram, +.3 speaks

I don’t like Ks and am not comfortable judging K debates. I find it hard to vote on links that aren’t specific to the plan.

email: picklara4@gmail.com

- she/her

Glenbrook North '20

Northwestern University '24 (not debating)

- name chain logically (pls include name round and turney)

-- Novices/JV: if you follow my labeling advice for docs I will give you +0.1 speaks

-- if you can, pls send your analytics so I can flow better - if helps me and you, I promise

- clarity > speed (especially when online), seriously go slower or I will probably miss much of what you're saying

- impact everything out!

- no hateful language, don't clip, don't steal prep, death is not good, etc

- tech>truth (within moderation)

-- if I don't understand any part of what you said, that means you did not sufficiently explain your arguments

-- if you want me to flow every word of your analytics, send them in the chain

- Novices: don't read condo if there's only one counterplan or kritik (one advocacy)

- its probably fair to assume I'm not particularly well-versed in your kritik (especially if high theory) and need more explanation to fully understand your arguments. Be mindful of

- not read up on this topic so be sure to explain arguments fully

I'm fairly old school. I will vote on stock issues - Topicality, Solvency....

I'm generally open to any issue - if you give me a reason to vote on it. Tell me why it's of voting consequence, and why you won that issue. 2NR and 2AR should not just cover each individual issue, weigh the issues (e.g. risk of Adv vs. Disad) in context of the whole debate, account for the other team's arguments.

I'm ok with spreading it if you don't outpace your own articulation and breathing. I am not a fan of super-spreading. You are better off slowing down a bit for me, making fewer arguments, clearer.

UMW '24

GBN '20

He/Him

Email: Nickremo2@gmail.com - please put me on the chain.

Given that both my high school and college lean heavily on the policy side of the spectrum, I similarly am a very policy-oriented judge.

For the water topic, I am not particularly familiar with the topic but I will try my best to understand everything.

Please flow

Don't steal prep

I place a high value on evidence but will only critique it if one side calls it out. I will not intervene after the round if neither side has emphasized the evidence quality.

Here are my general stances for different arguments:

Case

I love a good case debate, especially impact turns. I believe most affs don't solve their impacts BUT it is the burden on the negative to explain why. Internal link defense is much more convincing than impact defense.

Soft left affs are good with me. They're definitely more true, but I think 2As poorly develop the framing page. The more specific the framing evidence is to the aff, the more latitude I will give the aff. Additionally, applying framing arguments to disads (conjunction fallacy is a good example) make said arguments infinitely more appealing.

T

As someone who read very tiny and marginally topical affs at best in High School, I do lean affirmative but can be easily persuaded by the negative. Specifically, I think ground is the best internal link to education/fairness claims as I find limits for the sake of limits generally unpersuasive. If the neg can win the aff's interpretation justifies a category of affs that are impossible to answer that uniquely skirt neg ground, I can easily find myself voting neg in these instances.

DA

They're awesome, but I discourage the 1NC shell being a one or two card atrocity. I am sympathetic to 2As that don't feel the need to answer parts of a DA that weren't read in the 1NC (This is one of the few areas I agree with Scotty P on).

CP

Process counterplans are generally fine. I prefer process counterplans with a net benefit that is more a disad to the plan that the counterplan provides uniqueness for instead of a net benefit the aff doesn't really link to. For example, if an aff goes through congress and the counterplan uses the courts, I prefer a net benefit that says congress is bad rather than courts are good. I find counterplans with net benefits that actually link to the aff are better at testing the aff because there are infinite contrived processes that theoretically could be beneficial if used but there is only one process the aff uses.

Advantage counterplans are great. I think affs underutilize the efficacy of a perm in these instances, especially if the counterplan is a multiplank monstrosity.

K

Extreme Ks such as death bad are not impossible to win me over, but extremely difficult and likely not worth your time. I am fine with nearly any k, but it needs to do a few things. 1. The link MUST be contextualized to the aff. This doesn't have to be evidence, but some type of analysis of how the K's theory can account for the aff's scenarios. 2. The alt needs to be clearly articulated. Regurgitating the word salad from the 1NC tag is not going to do it for me and I'll be strongly persuaded by aff arguments on the alt failing and perms. 3. Answer case! Similar to the first requirement, some explanation of how the K means the aff doesn't solve is extremely persuasive to me.

Theory

1-2 condo I significantly lean neg on. 3 condo can go either way. More than 3 and I lean aff. Aff arguments about in round abuse are very persuasive for me (perf con basically).

All other theoretical violations are probably reasons to reject the argument and not the team.

K affs

I lean neg on framework, especially on the fairness debate but I can be persuaded otherwise. If the aff wins large swaths of the case page, I can easily vote aff on the aff outweighing fairness. I think switch side is generally a true argument and a nuanced aff explanation of how it doesn't solve their offense is likely required.

Ashna Rimal

Assistant Coach for Maine East

Add me on the email chain - ashnarimal.debate@gmail.com

Please make sure the tournament name, round number, and both team codes are in the subject of the email chain.

TLDR - You can run any non-offensive arg in front of me, if you run it well I'll probably vote you up. I like judging more technical debates (Theory/T/K) over the same old ptx scenario because I find it more interesting. You will probably get higher speaker points from me if your arguments are original, trust me judges do not want to see the exact same debate happen for 5 rounds in a row. Also, send analytics. if you're good, you don't have to win because they drop things.

K Affs

I like K Affs when they are well explained.

A few things I should not be wondering about when writing my ballot:

Why is the ballot key?

Why is this round specifically key for your offense?

Do you solve for anything and how (spill up, fiat, etc.)

Neg Stuff

Counterplans

I enjoy CPs, but you have to have all the key parts (Net Benefit, Perm Answers, Solvency, etc.)

Disads

Disads are fine - I'm not particularly opinionated about them.

I think DA and Case debates are good as long as the DA scenario makes sense and the line by line is properly executed.

Please don't go for a bad ptx scenario that has no internal link.

Kritiks

If you run a K make sure you really explain it to me.

If you wanna go for the K in the 2NR you must have a strong link to the specific aff, or an alt that solves for the K and/or the impacts of the Plan.

Focus on the link debate - winning the link helps you win FW, prove why the perm won't solve, as well as support the impact.

If I don't understand your K I won't vote for it, especially if it's less commonly run. I'm familiar with most of the more generic Ks, but if you pull out a more complex K, you need to understand it and explain it well. I will hold those types of Ks to a higher standard when writing my ballot.

Topicality

To win on T you have to prove that the Aff is not topical and explain why being topical matters.

Don't only say "Fairness and Education" those are just words, you need to explain what that means and why it's important to debate.

TOPICALITY IS A VOTER!

Theory

I'm from Maine East, I like Theory debates and I'll vote on them - but I probably have higher standards for 'good theory debating'.

PICs are probably fine.

Severance Perms are probably bad, but usually not bad enough for me to write my ballot on it.

Condo is good to an extent. I probably won't vote on Condo if they run like 1-2 off, but if they run 3 or more conditional advocacies I will lean Aff.

Perf Con is bad if you can prove specific instances of in-round abuse.

Don't expect me to vote on the arg that 1-2 CPs/Ks will Time Skew the 2AC, time skew is inevitable.

Don't expect me to vote on the "Err Neg" arg, yes Aff speaks 1st and last but y'all have the 13 min block.

Potential Abuse is not a voter. (Unless you prove to me otherwise)

In Round Abuse is a voter - If you can prove that they were somehow totally abusive I will vote them down.

THEORY IS A VOTER!

In the end what really matters is how you extend and frame the theory debate. I will most likely vote for the team that better contextualizes their theory arg.

I'll vote on a dropped theory arg as long as it's properly extended.

Speaker Points

Under 26: you did something offensive/cheaty

26-26.9: Below Avg

27-27.5: Avg

27.6-28.5: Above Avg

28.5-29.5: Very Good

Above 29.5: Excellent - I was impressed

If you do something interesting, funny, or out of the box in the round, and I enjoy it, I'll boost your speaks.

General Comments

• I will not vote on an argument I don't understand - It's your job in the round to explain your arguments to me.

• Don't be a jerk in round - Respect your partner, your opponents, and the judge(s).
• Do not clip cards or cheat in any way
• I am fine with tag team CX, but don't take over you partners CX, I will dock speaks for that.
• Clarity is more important than speed - If you are spreading a huge analytics-heavy block at full speed I will not catch more than 60% of what you are saying
• Send analytics. if you're good, you don't have to win because they drop things. Plus I will be able to make sure I get al your args when you decide to spread through that 8 min K block
• Time your own Prep/CX/Speeches.

• If the other team doesn't make an argument for why I should not Judge Kick, I will most likely roll with it.
• I do not like judge intervention, I will try to avoid, or at least minimize judge intervention as much as possible. I'd much rather vote based on what you all say in the round.
• I am willing to vote for any argument as long as it is not offensive - but you have to win the argument.

niles west '20

4th year debating

1a/2n

yes, add me to the email chain - freskida.debate@gmail.com (+.3 speaks if u add me w/out asking!!)

preferences:

i know most novices don’t actually read paradigms—so if you have any specific questions about my preferences, feel free to ask before and after the round :) im happy to help and novice/jv year is all about learning and improving!!

don't be rude, sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. - i'll probably vote you down and deck your speaks.

Please put me on the e-mail chain: yehjuneseo@gmail.com

- I am not familiar with this year's topic. With that in mind, if you are going for case/topic specific arguments, please don't spread at full speed so I can process what you're saying.

- In-depth analytics/analysis over evidence

- Tech > truth

- Never steal prep

- Disclose before round

- During CX, don't be rude and look at the judge rather than the opposing team

- I prefer policy debates over kritik debates.

- Kritiks: I can follow capitalism/neoliberalism or security, but anything else (especially high theory) will need to be adequately explained.

- Offensive arguments (i.e. death) are always bad

- K-Affs: Please avoid them. I'm not familiar with literature, so explain arguments if you choose to read one.

University of Southern California '25

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

Policy debate (2N) at Niles West High School for four years (2017-2021).

Tech > Truth

I went for only policy arguments during my high school career.

T: I am pretty 50/50 on this and I love good T debates. CI>Reasonability unless there's very very little neg offense. Plan text in a vacuum = no.

DA: The more specific the better. Politics is fun.

CP's: Read them. Debate them. Lean AFF on consult/process CP's. PIC's out of the actions of plan are probably good.

K's: Links should be specific to the actions of the plan.

Neg vs K Affs: The role of the affirmative is to defend hypothetical government action. Debate is a game.

Impact Turns: Love them.

Theory: Everything but condo is a reason to reject the argument.

Other stuff:

If you opensource everything, let me know before the RFD and I'll add .2 to your speaks.

Read rehighlights

"Did you read X card?" is cross ex

Shotty highlighting = new 1ar answers.

Compile a relevant card doc at the end of the round