NoBro 2020

Harvard 2024

Important Update: Since leaving the activity, I have come to the conclusion that spreading is detrimental to skills learned. I also haven't flowed spreading in over a year, so I would prefer debate at a conversational pace.

Please add me on the email chain: anna.farronay@gmail.com

I have a great appreciation for the preparation and effort that goes into each debate round. I understand debate has different meanings for each person but I do believe that competition is the center of the activity - we care about what we do because of a desire to win. I will do my best to understand your arguments even if they are not arguments I would normally be familiar with.

HS Topic Knowledge: none.

Non-Negotiables:

(1) I will only evaluate complete arguments: that means that every argument should have a claim and warrant. Incomplete arguments like a 10-second condo block will not be flowed and when you extend it I will allow the other team new answers.

(2) Be clear and give me pen time. If you are not, you will be dissatisfied with the decision and your speaker points.

(3) Every team consists of 2 speakers who will split their speech time equally. I will only allow one person to give every speech.

(4) The line-by-line is key. Answer arguments in the order that they are presented.

(5) I will not evaluate arguments that hinge on something that did not occur in the debate round I am adjudicating.

I believe it would be unfair to obscure any predispositions I have since a neutral judge rarely exists. That being said I have been persuaded to abandon my opinions in the past by speakers who use humor, charm, and smart, specific arguments. I also have a very expressive face so use that to your advantage. At some point, I had very different ideas about debate and I can be reminded of that.

Preferences:

(1) I believe that policy debate does encourage in-depth research practices. However, I will admit that I am a K debater who is definitely more proficient at judging k v. policy debates than a policy throwdown. This being said I do not want to judge silly positions like China Doesn't Exist so please be conscious what you run.

(2) Theory - I will do my best to understand your theory argument but I have never understood the debates (even something as simple as condo). If you choose to engage in these debates, have some caution and lean on the side of over-explanation.

(3) Framework (K v. Policy) - The aff gets to weigh their advantages (fiat) and the neg gets their K. The neg can't win fiat is an illusion but they can win it's a waste of time/bad idea to engage the state OR they can say we reject the representations of the 1AC/2AC.

(4) K affs - I will be the first to admit that former K debaters often dislike K Affs after they graduate/quit. I don't love them - I do believe there is less in-depth preparation, especially with new K affs, and I do have a high bar for how these debates end up. If you go for fairness, you'll likely win. But if you do insist on reading a K Aff, the easiest way to my ballot is going for the impact turn and cross-applying it to every standard from the negative team. I want to emphasize that I did love the K at one point but in recent years policy debaters have excelled at FW that has made it very difficult to vote for the K.

Cypress Bay '21 | UCF '25 (not debating)

Add me to the chain plz: zachlevdebate@gmail.com

Prefs

I know you are really only here to do your prefs, I'll try to make it as easy as possible. TLDR, I really couldn't care less what you do, just do you.

In HS I cut our AFFs (90% said extinction), Process CPs, and Ptx DAs so do with this what you wish.

If you are reading an AFF with a "non-extinction" impact, you need to beat the DA, framing doesn't take out the DA it just changes how I weigh one impact v. another.

If you are reading an AFF without a plan, I'm probably not the most experienced judge for you. I never read a K AFF and only ever went for T or the Cap K against them.

If you like to read Ks on the NEG, I will probably have a higher bar/need more explanation for certain kritiks (Baudrillard, Psychoanalysis, Bataille, etc.) but for the more basic kritiks (IR Ks, Cap, Settler Colonialism, etc) I will probably know what you are saying (doesn't mean you don't have to/shouldn't explain your theory/how the alt works/not give examples).

Specifics:

Theory

Condo is generally good, but a poor 2NC/2NR to "dispo solves" or "pre round condo" can be exploited.

All theory args except condo are reasons to reject the arg, not the team.

Process CPs are good with a rez-specific advocate, PICs are good, 50 State Uniform Fiat is good, Limited Con Cons are good, and so are most other args.

T v. Plans

Limits > ground

Reasonability needs to be coupled with a C/I (apparently ppl think reasonability means being "reasonably topical" and goes with a W/M arg. it doesnt <3

T v. Planless AFFs

Fairness is an impact.

2AR should ideally be a C/I with some form of offense (impact turn or some unique offense).

I am a huge fan of the planless effects-topical AFF that defends some sort of action and links to DAs.

Ks

AFF gets to be weighed most of the time (unless something goes really wrong in the 1AR/2AR).

Please no overviews over like 15 seconds or "I'll do the X debate here!".

The more specific the link/more lines picked out of ev the more compelling your arg is/the higher the burden for the AFF to answer said arg is.

CPs

CPs need to be functionally AND textually competitive (but like...still haven't heard a reason for why LIMITED intrinsic perms are bad in the 2NR).

Word PICs out of words NOT in the plan are NOT competitive.

I'll judge kick the CP by default but if the 2NR doesn't say judge kick and the 2AR says don't judge kick, I wont.

DAs

Should almost always turn the case.

Weird/out of the ordinary/reverse politics disads are pretty cool and will def be rewarded with high speaks.

Misc.

Plz don't call me judge.

Presumption flips NEG by default but AFF when a CP is in the 2NR.

If both teams MUTUALLY agree to debate on a previous topic because this one sucks, that's fine with me.