Yo! Okay so I'm really not sure what I'm supposed to write here, so I'm just gonna try my best.

Debate:

Just off the bat, if you're going to be telling me that not voting for your case would lead to nuclear war, you really better provide some good links, otherwise it's an immediate drop.

I am an IPDA and NPDA debater. That being said, for Parli, my threshold for the technical stuff is pretty low, I am 100% not a fan of K's, but if you want to run a T on a case be absolutely sure that the T is necessary to provide ground for you to present your case, otherwise I'll completely dismiss it. Other than that, any kind of flow or strategy just be clear and concise in all your arguments!!! SIGNPOST clearly. For IPDA, the point of it in my opinion is persuasion not technical arguments. I accept umbrella refutations as long as you make it clear which arguments you're refuting. This is debate, HAVE FUNNNNNNN. Can't stress that enough, be professional but remember not to take it too seriously, otherwise it's going to be a long debate.

The *NUMBER 1* thing that I have with any kind of debate is courtesy and speed. I understand that sometimes there is a lot of material that you have to get through, so if you need to speak fast feel comfortable to do so, but if your opponents call clear, I expect you to slow down and articulate. Spread and you will lose my ballot immediately. The same thing goes for courtesy. In my personal opinion, debate is an arena to engage in discourse about a wide variety of issues respectfully. Any form of behavior that could be taken as rude, distracting, or insulting to your opponents will immediately lose my ballot.

The round should be interesting. Run what you want but be confident and believe in your desired action. I could care less on K's, performance and even the dreaded straight affirmative. If you want some high speaks, I might be inclined to give some if you make me laugh.

1) Don't be an butthead, there's one thing to be competitive and the other is extremely aggressive.

2) Regardless of which side you are on be respectful.

3) Be organized, watch your flows and road map.

4) If you T it's all fine with me but be clear in your arguments don't just spew out a format and then drop it on later speeches. Don't be a time suck.

Remember the bird is the word.

Do people even read these?

Cheese sandwiches are great.

So you're still here huh..

Life is interesting.

Tacos are great.

Believe to succeed.

All the best,

Gabael Botello

*Update 2019

Cheese sandwiches are great but there are plenty of choices to choose from.

Be yourself and run with the arguments that really speak to you.

questions or concerns.

Gabael.b@gmail.com

Speech & Debate Experience

- High school (3 years)

- College (2 years)

Mainly debated (IPDA, Parli, etc) but dabbled in speech as well (impromptu, extemp)

Philosophy

Debate: No spreading, give me a good argumentation, try not to beat around the bush with ideas. Make sure to attempt line-by-line refutations as best as possible. I do my best to flow every argument until it confuses me, then I don't flow, because I'm confused. Please try not to do that.

Judging a debate, I consider myself under the tabula rasa philosophy. I'm a clean slate, I will not let biases interfere with my choice, just give me a good show of your speaking skill and organize your thoughts appropriately.

Speech: At the end of the day, I am looking for strong public speaking skill to the best of your ability. That said, I'm not gonna be incredibly harsh if I see the effort being put in. I would like to hear coherence and clarity of thought, and be able to follow what you're saying without getting lost in the weeds.

I was once in the spot you were in, not too long ago. I understand the adrenaline rush, the quickened heartbeat, the nervousness (or maybe excitement) you're feeling. You got this, you are awesome, don't let that inner critic convince you otherwise.

If you're reading this, you're already ahead of the game :^) best of luck!

Misc.

Saying anything exclusionary will make me very sad. Please don't do that, I will not be nice if you do.

Reference ATLA if at all possible, because why not?

Hi! My Name is Lizeth Chimal.

When judging, I want a clear reason on why I should be voting for you. (Make it easy for me) I should not have to fill in the holes. Logic in arguments is very important. The more you break down an argument the more enticed I will be to vote for you. Have fun! No spreading.

For IE: Entertain me :) I want to believe what you're saying and that you care about your topic!

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

General Philosophy

I have competed in debate for two years in Parliamentary and IPDA debate, and coached LD/PF debate for 4 years. I am very much a flow judge - don't make me do work for you. Be sure to explain what your points are, show me how you got to your point, and tell me the impacts clearly. If I do not get the relation to real-world, big picture events, I will not weigh it out for you if the other team does. I do my best to be tab, but if I don't get what I need from either team, I'll intervene to make my decision. I can follow speed, but if it's abusive to the other team and it's brought up and not addressed I will drop you - this is an educational event, treat it as such. Impact hard in final speeches, and try to not bring up new arguments (this is the only place I'll protect flow).

Do's:

Show me your critical thinking skills. Use the game of debate to your advantage if need be: kritiks, framework, whatever. I can follow it if you do it well. Cite warrants. Give roadmaps, structure.

Don't's:

Don't be offensive. If it happens once and it's called out, I'll heavily dock it in speaks. If it happens twice or more, even if it isn't called, I will weigh it heavily on team and probably have a chat with you afterwards. Don't be abusive - if a team is unable to keep up with whatever is happening and you play an advantage off of that even if asked to cool it, I'll dock speaks. Don't run debate heavy stuff if it isn't understood - know your theory, framework, arguments. If you do it wrong and are called on it that'll be an easy decision for me.

Disclaimer that these are just guidelines, not requirements - do what you want to do, it is your round. I encourage fun, learning, and active discourse. If you have questions in round or afterwards I'll always be glad to help out.

Hello all, my name is Ashlie.

I make my decision based on the speaker who best: formulated logical arguments, extended their arguments, and responded to their opponent's arguments. The language used in the round should be comprehensible. Make sure to define key terms. I prefer clarity over speed, if I don't understand what you are saying because of how fast you are speaking, that means I am not writing it down.

During cross-examination, I am aware there will be clash and I expect respect amongst each other. My decision on who wins the round is on the speaker whomade the best arguments, not the most aggressive or loudest speaker.

Please time yourselves. I will be taking time and notify you when time is up, but timing yourself is a great skill as you can determine how much time you have left.Be mindful of the time, if your time is up. I will allow you to finish your last sentence but do not continue.

All in all, I am excited to judge your round!

Remember to be clear and state uniqueness, solvency, and impact of the policy/resolution. Take a deep breathe and show me all the hard work you have put in.

A little about me:

Currently coaching: Sage Hill School 2021-Present

Past Coaching: Diamond Ranch HS 2015-2020

I also tab more tournaments, but I keep up with my team so I can follow many of the trends in all events.

-

I prefer all of my speakers to make sure that any contentions, plans or the like are clear and always link back to the topic at hand. You're free to run theory or K at your peril. I've heard great rounds on Afro-pessimism and bad rounds on it. I've loved a round full of theory and hated rounds full of theory. All depends on how it's done, and what the point of it.

I am a social studies teacher, so I can't unknow the rules of American government or economics. Don't attempt to stay something that is factually inaccurate that you would know in your classes.

Be respectful of all parties in the room - your opponent(s), your partner (if applicable) and the judge. Hurtful language is in not something I tolerate. Pronouns in your names are an added plus.

Speaking clearly, even if fast, is fine, but spreading can be difficult to understand, especially through two computers. I will say "Clear" if I need to. In an online format, please slow down for the first minute if possible. I haven't had to listen to spreading with online debate.

For LD, I don't mind counterplans and theory discussions as long as they are germane to the topic and as long as they don't result in debating the rules of debate rather than the topic itself. In the last year most of my LD rounds have not been at TOC bid tournaments, but that doesn't mean I can't follow most arguments, but be patient as I adjust.

Truth > tech.

*It's work to make me vote on extinction or nuclear war as a terminal impact in any debate. That link chain needs to be solid if you're doing to expect me to believe it.*

In PF, make sure that you explain your terminal impacts and tell me why I should weight your impacts vs your opponents' impacts.

WSD - I have been around enough tournaments to know what I should hear and I will notice if you're not doing it well. Thinking global always. Models should always be well explained and match the focus on the round. Fiat is a tricky thing in the event now but use it as you see fit.

*PLEASE READ FOLLOWING NOTICE: I have specific judging philosophies for the different styles of debate (Policy, ld, pofo, parli) For a full record of my judging history, please look for my other account by searching my full name, Mariela Garcia. Any rounds that I judge after October 16, 2015, will be located on this judge's page. I apologize for the inconvenience.*

General Information About Me

My speech and debate background:

I am currently an senior director for Advantage Communications, a leading speech and debate company that in 2023, had 60% of our students in out rounds at the NSDA championship. I have dedicated the past few years developing district programs in California and Illinois for affluent and Title 1 communities of various backgrounds. I train and advise staff, students, and families, while also creating curriculum with our team of experts. My students and teams are usually in the finals, if not champions. As a coach, I want students to challenge themselves to read material that they wouldn't otherwise read if they were not in this activity. My goal is to ensure all students feel empowered enough to use the stage to say something they truly care about OR that they feel is urgent. I also encourage my students to do at least one event in each category every year if their schedule allows so they stay well-rounded. I train coaches to ensure they bring out the best in students by engaging a growth mindset that keeps them both busy with goals rather than busy work. I work with students from all backgrounds, ethnicities, economic brackets, orientations, races, genders, etc. and it is my goal to ensure all my students feel that there is someone in their corner that is rooting for their success.

My Experience in Debate:

• I debated for about 4 years at CSU-Fullerton ranging from novice to varsity. I am currently the head coach and director of the policy and public forum teams at La Quinta High School. I have been coaching them for almost a year now.
• I have judged policy, ld, pofo and parli, at all levels for 4 years now at various tournaments and have coached minimally in the past. My entire record is not on my judging history, given that many of these judging events occured when I was filling in for missing judges at our CSU-Fullerton tournaments.

My Educational Experience:

• I am graduating with majors in American Studies, Chicano Studies, and Philosophy and have had to follow our general requirements at CSU-Fullerton which provide a well-rounded background in many of the disciplines that are categorized as a-g in your curriculum. More than likely, I will know if you have made up evidence or if you took evidence out of context. I will automatically give you a 25 for your speaker points and you will lose the round.

My Debate Motto:

• EVERYTHING IS DEBATABLE BECAUSE THE WORLD IS INTERPRETED THROUGH DIFFERENT METHODOLOGIES AND PEDAGOGIES. I encourage you to be creative with your arguments, even if that means you must debate the resolution (Policy/LD). However, please note my requirements for these types of arguments to be valid in a round below.

My Speech Motto:

Practice does not make perfect, only perfect practices makes progress. This means that you have to bring 100% of yourself OR communicate to your coach if you cannot do that at a practice because without full commitment, we cannot grow and improve at a steady pace. I believe that students are keenly aware of the world around them and they have a lot that they want to say to adults, so I encourage my students to read articles that will help them better express a message, argument, or idea because it is my job to ensure they sound astute on stage. As for acting, it is one of my passions that I am constantly working on improving so I can better teach my students. Impromptu and extemp are difficult events if you don't respect formulas, but if you take it as a coding project, you can create neuropathways that will easily help you during your prep time. I love to coach and I love to teach others how to coach students.

My Judging Philosophy for Policy/LD:

All types of debate prescribe to a game with rules that are ALWAYS debatable. Having said that, I encourage debaters to establish a role of the ballot and a role for the judge as a way for me to score the round. This is separate from framing the debate through framework arguments. Framework tells me how to evaluate and prioritize certain issues within the debate while giving me net benefits to preferring it over other framings. The roles you give to the ballot or judge are additional arguments that allow me to weigh the round given the interpretations you give to those roles and clarifying the necessity to accept these roles as opposed to upholding my own predisposition.

Thus, I will do my best to keep my predispositions away from the round. We as judges merely evaluate the arguments presented to us given the strategies that are used to explain and spin the issues. I stay true to the flow and not my opinion. A debater’s job is to clearly communicate what your argument is and spin the debate by reverting back to the arguments you should have consistently presented throughout the debate to answer the opponents opposition. Thus, you have to warrant your explanations and create clear impact calculations to narrow down my vote in the last speeches.

I welcome metaframing debates and kritiks. However, kritik debate is hard work. This means that if during cross x you do not have a clear explanation of your alternative, metaframing, or links to clarify to the opposing team why your kritik exists in the debate, you have basically lost the round. You may be able to explain it in later speeches, but the cross x is your time to make sure I know what it means to vote for the k. The best k’s engage the topic or the affirmative to either turn the case or frame out the affirmatives impact. Topicality against these types of arguments are good but are not enough to win the debate. To win the debate against a k, you must set up a good framework and topicality argument and demonstrate why it is that we should preserve the norms of thinking in the direction you want us to go (lay out the harms, impacts, and voters). Net benefits for both k and fw/topicality are necessary.

LD debaters must explain how their criterion is the correct moral choice to make. LD is not about solving an issue per say, it is a morality debate. So please make sure you emphasize how your case supports your criterion and why your criterion is the best moral position to take, especially if you aren't doing TOC or CA style debating. Remember that LD started off as a debate about morality, and not so much policy. If there is a plan, I expect you to provide solvency and the neg can counter with a CP. I will respect the type of debate category you enter and I will also respect arguments about the importance of keeping a distinction between LD and Policy. After all, I do believe that while many teams that experienced cuts to their budget have moved to LD to carry on their policy habits, it is also hurting the policy debate community and their budget when we bleed the two together. This doesn't mean we can't have a K in LD, I mean the criterion/value portion of LD welcomes the K, but it does mean that people DON'T have to have a plan but if they do, then you have the burden to prove it's probability and solvency.

Specificity is key. Don't put your judge in a position where they may need to intervene with their own thoughts or emotions, just prove your point thoroughly and make sure you do it in a way that can easily be flowed and explained. This is how I know that no one else knows your argument better than you and I reward specificity with higher speaker points. You don’t need masses amount of evidence to win the debate. Quality over quantity.

Note some other specifications about formalities in debate that I judge on:

Clarity & Speed:

I value clarity over speed. I am fine with any speed. I will give you three warnings for clarity, no exceptions. After that, do not hold me accountable for missing an argument on the flow since I clearly gave you a warning about not being able to understand what you were saying.

Do not spread the following items for your own benefit: Value, Value Criterion, Contentions, Tag Lines, Authors, Date". This avoids me having to call for evidence to make my decision. I want to be as fair as possible. It is your responsibility to to help me make it a fair round.

Road Map & Sign Posts:

This helps me keep up with you on my flow. After the first constructives, I recommend the following structure:

• AFF: Overview, What you are winning on, Dispute Neg. claims by referencing evidence, Why you should win debate(calculation of impacts, magnitude, timeframe, risk of solving, etc.)
• NEG: *BLOCK SHOULD ALWAYS BE SPLIT: I will take off speaker points for teams who fail to do so* Overview, Restate arguments (should be split in block), Why Aff isn't resolving your claims with clear warrants from your evidence, and why you should win the debate (calculation of actualization of impacts, magnitude, timeframe, etc.)

Evidence:

As long as I can follow a clear, reasonable, and logical line of thought, I will always value that as evidence. This means that if you use your experience, poems, performance, or anything that can be seemingly categorized as "unorthodox" evidence, I will still count it as a warranted claim in the debate. I am graduating with majors in American Studies, Chicano Studies, and Philosophy and have had to follow our general requirements at CSU-Fullerton which provide a well-rounded background in many of the disciplines that are categorized as a-g in your curriculm. EVERYTHING IS DEBATABLE BECAUSE THE WORLD IS INTERPRETED THROUGH DIFFERENT METHODOLOGIES AND PEDAGOGIES.

Diplomacy:

• SPEECHES: If you need to yell, scream, or perform your speech in any way that is necessary to make emphasis to your claims or give it performative interpretations(say that you are running an identity K or performance K), I will NOT deduct speaker points. Make sure that any claims you are making can be backed up reasonable, logical lines of thoughts. Try to be as respectful to the other team as you can.
• CROSS X: Debate, in essence, should be the diplomatic exchange of ideas. We practice how to exchange ideas in this form so that we avoid yelling at one another. I will deduct speaker points if you are rude or disrespectful to your opponent in cross x, no questions asked. There is an exception to this rule: if I see that another team is yelling, and the opposing team needs to speak up, I will allow the team being yelled at to get louder so that they can carve out space to talk. I will not take off speaker points to teams who merely decided to stand up for themselves.

*My normal range for speaker points is 26-29, but I have given rare 30s to truly deserving debaters. 25's are distributed only in special circumstances.*

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My Judging Philosophy for POFO and Parlimentary:

As A Team

I only judge on what you actually said in the round. I will stick to my flow and nothing else. So you have to make sure you are clearly defining terms and positions on issues that are raised in the round. Evidence is key in pofo and parli and the rules must be followed thoroughly as to set up fairness for every student in the tournament. Contention of the rules is reserved, in my opinion, only to policy and LD debaters. In making the decision, judges are expected to ask the following questions:

1. Which team was more persuasive?

2. If yes to number 1, did the debaters back up their claimswith evidence?

3. Based on my flow, were the ideas understandable enough that I can repeat (almost word for word) the argument that they made?

4. Were the debaters polite and professional throughout the entire round? (speaker points)

As Individuals

Debate, in essence, should be the diplomatic exchange of ideas. We practice how to exchange ideas in this form so that we avoid yelling at one another.I will deduct speaker points if you are rude or disrespectful to your opponent in crossfires, no questions asked. There is an exception to this rule: if I see that another team is yelling, and the opposing team needs to speak up, I will allow the team being yelled at to get louder so that they can carve out space to talk. I will not take off speaker points to teams who merely decided to stand up for themselves.

*My normal range for speaker points is 26-29, but I have given rare 30s to truly deserving debaters. 25's are distributed only in special circumstances.*

General Notes about my judging preferences:

I mimicked my judging philosophy from many of my past coaches and through my experience in debate, but I found a great breakdown of what most judges will judge like by looking at Mike Maier's judging philosophy. He has great tips on what you should be doing in almost every form of debate and recommendations for you as well. I highly recommend that you read it. I do hold different positions on some of his ideas, so please make sure to note those distinctions by reading my paradigm thoroughly. Do not expect me to give you a thorough breakdown of my judging philosophy before the round!

Mike Maier's judging philosophy link: https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Maier,+Mike

-All claims should have a clear link to evidence or precedent. If you’re going to tell me that UBI leads to nuclear war, you need to have some incredibly strong evidence.
-Don’t be rude to your opponent. We debate because we enjoy it, don’t ruin that for someone.
-I do not like spreading. I believe it makes debate incredibly inaccessible for many people who are not neurotypical. I understand that some forms of debate require it, so if you spread, make sure you are still saying words. If I have your case and can not even track your arguments while reading them, that is too fast. I will say clear if that is the case.

I judge off who makes the better argument. This does not mean I think all arguments are created equal, they aren't. Say for example you were to argue the sky is purple, you and I both know the sky is not purple, thus I am not inclined to vote on that argument. However, if you can make a compelling case that the sky is purple, and your opponent does not sufficiently refute, or refute at all the point you made, then I will vote on it. Don't make hyperbolic impact calculus, like how not giving some country foreign aid or cutting minimum wage leads to nuclear war. In fact, outside of a direct resolutional link to the nuclear war, it's best not to even mention nuclear war as an impact. It's hyper unrealistic, it's never happened before, and I highly doubt you will be the one to convince me that it's gonna happen as one of your impacts. Same goes with human extinction, just don't. You don't gotta promise me the sky or tell me we'll be at world's end for you to have a compelling case. Be realistic, make good arguments, and just be reasonable. Nuanced debaters with nuanced arguments tend to get my ballot more often than not.

Hello! I primarily do LD but am familiar with other forms of debate.

You can call me Cookie or Judge, whatever you feel more comfortable with.

Here's a list of my preferences on stuff.

TL;DR: I'm tech > truth. You can read whatever you want as long as you argue it well.

Aff

- make sure to have solvency

- im fine with K affs

Theory

I LOVE THEORY. I believe that theory is absolutely critical to debate. If you think that your opponent is doing something abusive, please don't hesitate to run theory. If you wanna run friv theory, im fine with that too. I will vote on any theory args as long as they make sense/your opponent doesn't defend against them properly.

Ks

I'm not that familiar with a lot of the literature, but I do enjoy a good round with a K. That being said, please be clear on links and ROB, for my sake and yours. Although, I hate limiting the options of debaters, if you read some hyper specific and you have any dependence on my knowledge of the lit, don't count on me

General

Be respectful to your opponent. That being said, I love an oppressive and aggressive CX. Just have some boundaries.

Racism, homophobia, etc. are all absolutely not tolerated

Have fun

I

Do not exhibit racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/ableist/discriminatory attitudes or behavior. You will be immediately dropped.

Be aggressive but do not be rude. If you are a toxic debater you will be dropped.

If you start lagging during your speaking time, I will try my best to judge you based on your performance given when your internet connection was stable.

Congress:

I value content over performance. Clearly structure your arguments so that they are understandable. Provide strong links and warrants to back up your contentions. Expand your impacts. I really do value the technicality of a bill, such as the bureaucracy behind it and the constitutionality of it. I try to be a blank-slate judge, but if you state something completely incorrect or extremely misleading, I will mark you down. If you are not the first speaker of the round, you should mention or respond to the other debaters in the round. Answer your questions clearly and ask good ones. Refrain from asking yes or no questions. Cut your competitors off if they are dodging the question. I really appreciate good cross-ex.

For performance, speak at a normal speed. Make your pronunciation and enunciation as clear and accurate as possible. Your body language should aid your performance, not distract from it. Be passionate. Try using different tones to create a better performance instead of just altering between aggressive and informative. I do value content over performance, but Congress still leans pretty heavily on the latter. If you present amazing arguments but stumble every two words and sound exactly like the rest of the chamber, I am not gonna give you a high rank.

A PO should be fast, fair, and efficient. You should make procedures understandable and maintain control of the chamber. If a debate becomes very repetitive, try to move the chamber onto the next piece of legislation. Make sure to know the procedures. If I notice that you continuously give speeches and questions to the competitors from your school, I will drop you.

Policy, LD, Public Forum, Parli:

Run whatever arguments you want. Theory, K, or anything that makes a compelling case for your side. I do not care about what kind of arguments you are running, because I judge based on flow. Provide solid warrants, tight links, and strong impacts and you will win. If you spread, you have to be extremely good at it. I expect clear enunciation and good fluency, or else just go at the normal talking pace, cause if I do not catch what you say, it will not be on my flow.

Speech:

Performances should match what is expected from the event. Be passionate about the issues you are talking about OO, and make me laugh if you are in DI. But in general, make sure you are varying between tones; do not just stay at one for 10 minutes, it will get boring and the lines you need to highlight will be lost. In your speech is argumentative/informative, then the content will be just as important. Make compelling arguments, use respectable sources and link them together well, and sprinkle in good rhetoric.

PS:

Just a pet peeve of mine, but if you are debating foreign policy, for the love of god do not cite examples from other regions as evidence that something will succeed/fail in this particular area. Respect the massive geopolitical and economic differences between each country and region, even if they are close together. Do not point to Libya and tell me a similar program is gonna succeed in West Africa, no no no, just no.

Updated for Economic Inequality Topic

Overview

E-Mail Chain: Yes, add me (chris.paredes@gmail.com) & my school mail (damiendebate47@gmail.com). I do not distribute docs to third party requests unless a team has failed to update their wiki.

Experience: Damien 05, Amherst College 09, Emory Law 13L. This will be my seventh year as the Assistant Director at Damien (part-time), and my second year as Director at St. Lucy's Priory (full-time). I consider myself fluent in debate, but my debate preferences (both ideology and mechanics) are influenced by debating in the 00s.

This Year's Topic: I believe that the point of the resolution is to force debaters to learn about a different topic each year. So I think that debaters who develop good topic knowledge -- i.e., debaters who understand economics as a complex field of academic study and can analyze how different policies would affect the economy at different levels -- will have a massive advantage on internal link debating and are better equipped to win my ballot.

Debate: I am open to voting for almost any argument or style so long as I have an idea of how it functions within the round and it is appropriately impacted. Debate is a game. Rules of the game (the length of speeches, the order of the speeches, which side the teams are on, clipping, etc.) are set by the tournament and left to me (and other judges) to enforce. Comparatively, standards of the game (condo, competition, limits of fiat) are determined in round by the debaters. Framework is a debate about whether the resolution should be a rule and/or what that rule looks like. Persuading me to favor your view/interpretation of debate is accomplished by convincing me that it is the method that promotes better debate, either more fair or more pedagogically valuable, compared to your opponent's. My ballot always is awarded to whoever debated better; I will not adjudicate a round based on any issues external to the round, whether that was at camp or a previous round.

I run a planess aff; should I strike you?: As a matter of truth I am predisposed to the neg, but I try to leave bias at the door. I do end up voting aff about half the time. I will hold a planless aff to the same standard as a K alt; I absolutely must have an idea of what the aff (and my ballot) does and how/why that solves for an impact. If you do not explain this to me, I will "hack" out on presumption. Performances (music, poetry, narratives) are non-factors until you contextualize and justify why they are solvency mechanisms for the aff in the debate space.

Evidence and Argumentative Weight: Tech over truth, but it is easier to debate well when using true arguments and better cards. In-speech analysis goes a long way with me; I am much more likely to side with a team that develops and compares warrants vs. a team that extends by tagline/author only. I will read cards as necessary, including explicit prompting, however I read critically. Cards are meaningless without highlighted warrants; you are better off fewer painted cards than multiple under-highlighted cards. Well-explained logical analytics, especially if developed in CX, can beat bad/under-highlighted cards.

Debate Ideologies: I think that judges should reward good debating over ideology, so almost all of my personal preferences can be overcome if you debate better than your opponents. You can limit the chance that I intervene by 1) providing clear judge instruction and 2) justifications for those judge instructions; the 2NR and 2AR are competing pitches trying to sell me a ballot.

Accommodations: Please email me ahead of time if you believe you will need an accommodation that cannot be facilitated in round so that I can work with tab on your issue. Any accommodation that has any potential competitive implications (limiting content or speed, etc.) should be requested either with me CC'd or in my presence so that tournament ombuds mediation can be requested if necessary.

Argument by argument breakdown below.

Topicality

Debating T well is a question of engaging in responsive impact debate. You win my ballot when you are the team that proves their interpretation is best for debate -- usually by proving that you have the best internal links (ground, predictability, legal precision, research burden, etc.) to a terminal impact (fairness and/or education). I love judging a good T round and I will reward teams with the ballot and with good speaker points for well thought-out interpretations (or counter-interps) with nuanced defenses. I would much rather hear a well-articulated 2NR on why I need to enforce a limited vision of the topic than a K with state/omission links or a Frankenstein process CP that results in the aff.

I default to competing interpretations, but reasonability can be compelling to me if properly contextualized. I am more receptive when affs can articulate why their specific counter-interp is reasonable (e.g., "The aff interp only imposes a reasonable additional research burden of two more cases") versus vague generalities ("Good is good enough").

I believe that many resolutions (especially domestic topics) are sufficiently aff-biased or poorly worded that preserving topicality as a viable generic negative strategy is important. I have no problem voting for the neg if I believe that they have done the better debating, even if I think that the aff is/should be topical in a truth sense. I am also a judge who will actually vote on T-Substantial (substantial as in size, not subsets) because I think there should be a mechanism to check small affs.

Fx/Xtra Topicality: I will vote on them independently if they are impacted as independent voters. However, I believe they are internal links to the original violation and standards (i.e. you don't meet if you only meet effectually). The neg is best off introducing Fx/Xtra early with me in the back; I give the 1ARs more leeway to answer new Fx/Xtra extrapolations than I will give the 2AC for undercovering Fx/Xtra.

Framework / T-USFG

For an aff to win framework they must articulate and defend specific reasons why they cannot and do not embed their advocacy into a topical policy as well as reasons why resolutional debate is a bad model. Procedural fairness starts as an impact by default and the aff must prove why it should not be. I can and will vote on education outweighs fairness, or that substantive fairness outweighs procedural fairness, but the aff must win these arguments. The TVA is an education argument and not a fairness argument; affs are not entitled to the best version of the case (policy affs do not get extra-topical solvency mechanisms), so I don't care if the TVA is worse than the planless version from a competitive standpoint.

For the neg, you have the burden of proving either that fairness outweighs the aff's education or that policy-centric debate has better access to education (or a better type of education). I am neutral regarding which impact to go for -- I firmly believe the negative is on the truth side on both -- it will be your execution of these arguments that decides the round. Contextualization and specificity are your friends. If you go with fairness, you should not only articulate specific ground loss in the round, but why neg ground loss under the aff's model is inevitable and uniquely worse. When going for education, deploy arguments for why plan-based debate is a better internal link to positive real world change: debate provides valuable portable skills, debate is training for advocacy outside of debate, etc. Empirical examples of how reform ameliorates harm for the most vulnerable, or how policy-focused debate scales up better than planless debate, are extremely persuasive in front of me.

Procedurals/Theory

I think that debate's largest educational impact is training students in real world advocacy, therefore I believe that the best iteration of debate is one that teaches people in the room something about the topic, including minutiae about process. I have MUCH less aversion to voting on procedurals and theory than most judges. I think the aff has a burden as advocates to defend a specific and coherent implementation strategy of their case and the negative is entitled to test that implementation strategy. I will absolutely pull the trigger on vagueness, plan flaws, or spec arguments as long as there is a coherent story about why the aff is bad for debate and a good answer to why cross doesn't check. Conversely, I will hold negatives to equally high standards to defend why their counterplans make sense and why they should be considered competitive with the aff.

That said, you should treat theory like topicality; there is a bare amount of time and development necessary to make it a viable choice in your last speech. Outside of cold concessions, you are probably not going to persuade me to vote for you absent actual line-by-line refutation that includes a coherent abuse story which would be solved by your interpretation.

Also, if you go for theory... SLOW. DOWN. You have to account for pen/keyboard time; you cannot spread a block of analytics at me like they were a card and expect me to catch everything. I will be very unapologetic in saying I didn't catch parts of the theory debate on my flow because you were spreading too fast.

My defaults that CAN be changed by better debating:

- Condo is good (but should have limitations, esp. to check perf cons and skew).

- PICs, Actor, and Process CPs are all legitimate if they prove competition; a specific solvency advocate proves competitiveness but the lack of specific solvency evidence indicates high risk of a solvency deficit and/or no competition.

- The aff gets normal means or whatever they specify; they are not entitled to all theoretical implementations of the plan (i.e. perm do the CP) due to the lack of specificity.

- The neg is not entitled to intrinsic processes that result in the aff (i.e. ConCon, NGA, League of Democracies).

- Consult CPs and Floating PIKs are bad.

My defaults that are UNLIKELY to change or CANNOT be changed:

- CX is binding.

- Lit checks/justifies (debate is primarily a research and strategic activity).

- OSPEC is never a voter (except fiating something contradictory to ev or a contradiction between different authors).

- "Cheating" is reciprocal (utopian alts justify utopian perms, intrinsic CPs justify intrinsic perms, and so forth).

- Real instances of abuse justify rejecting the team and not just the arg.

- Teams should disclose previously run arguments; breaking new doesn't require disclosure.

- Real world impacts exist (i.e. setting precedents/norms), but specific instances of behavior outside the room/round that are not verifiable are not relevant in this round.

- Condo is not the same thing as severance of the discourse/rhetoric. You can win severance of your reps, but it is not a default entitlement from condo.

- ASPEC is checked by cross. The neg should ask and if the aff answers and doesn't spike, I will not vote on ASPEC. If the aff does not answer, the neg can win by proving abuse. Potential ground loss is abuse.

Kritiks

TL;DR: I would much rather hear a good K than a bad politics disad, so if you have a coherent and contextualized argument for why critical academic scholarship is relevant to the aff, I am fine for you. If you run Ks to avoid doing specific case research and brute force ballots with links of omission or reusing generic criticisms about the state/fiat, I am a bad judge for you. If I'm in the back for a planless aff vs. a K, reconsider your prefs/strategy.

A kritik must be presented as a comprehensible argument in round. To me, that means that a K must not only explain the scholarship and its relevance (links and impacts), but it must function as a coherent call for the ballot (through the alt). A link alone is insufficient without a reason to reject the aff and/or prefer the alt. I do not have any biases or predispositions about what my ballot does or should do, but if you cannot explain your alt and/or how my ballot interacts with the alt then I will have an extremely low threshold for treating the K as a non-unique disad. Alts like "Reject the aff" and "Vote neg" are fine so long as there is a coherent explanation for why I should do that beyond the mere fact the aff links (for example, if the K turns case). If the alt solves back for the implications of the K, whether it is a material alt or a debate space alt, the solvency process should be explained and contrasted with the plan/perm. Links of omission are very uncompelling. Links are not disads to the perm unless you have a (re-)contextualization to why the link implicates perm solvency. Ks can solve the aff, but the mechanism shouldn't be that the world of the alt results in the plan (i.e. floating PIK).

Affs should not be afraid of going for straight impact turns behind a robust framework press to evaluate the aff. I'm more willing than most judges to weigh the impacts vs. labeling your discourse as a link. Being extremely good at historical analysis is the best way to win a link turn or impact turn. I am also particularly receptive to arguments about pragmatism on the perm, especially if you have empirical examples of progress through state reform that relates directly to the impacts.

Against K affs, you should leverage fairness and education offensive as a way to shape the process by which I should evaluate the kritik. I'm more likely to give you "No perms without a plan text" because cheating should be mutual than I am to give it to you because epistemology and pedagogy is important.

Counterplans

I think that research is a core part of debate as an activity, and good counterplan strategy goes hand-in-hand with that. The risk of your net benefit is evaluated inversely proportional to the quality of the counterplan is. Generic PICs are more vulnerable to perms and solvency deficits and carry much higher threshold burden on the net benefit. PICs with specific solvency advocates or highly specific net benefits are devastating and one of the ways that debate rewards research and how debate equalizes aff side bias by rewarding negs who who diligent in research. Agent and process counterplans are similarly better when the neg has a nuanced argument for why one agent/process is better than the aff's for a specific plan.

- Process CPs: I am extremely unfriendly to process counterplans where the process is entirely intrinsic; I have a very low threshold for rejecting them theoretically or granting the aff an intrinsic perm to test opportunity cost. I am extremely friendly to process counterplans that test a distinct implementation method compared to the aff. Intentionally vague plan texts do not give the aff access to all theoretical implementations of the plan (Perm Do the CP). The neg can define normal means for the aff if the aff refuses to, but the neg has an equally high burden to defend the competitiveness of the CP process vs. normal means. There are differences in form and content between legislative statutes, administrative regulations, executive orders, and court cases; I will vote aff on CP flaws if the neg's attempt to hot-swap between these processes produces a structural defect.

I do not judge kick by default, but 2NRs can easily convince me to do so as an extension of condo. Superior solvency for the aff case alone is sufficient reason to vote for the CP in a debate that is purely between hypothetical policies (i.e. the aff has no competition arguments in the 2AR).

I am very likely to err neg on sufficiency framing; the aff absolutely needs either a solvency deficit or arguments about why an appeal to sufficiency framing itself means that the neg cannot capture the ethic of the affirmative (and why that outweighs).

Disadvantages

I value defense more than most judges and am willing to assign minimal ("virtually zero") risk based on defense, especially when quality difference in evidence is high or the disad scenario is painfully artificial. Nuclear war probably outweighs the soft left impact in a vacuum, but not when you are relying on "infinite impact times small risk is still infinity" to mathematically brute force past near zero risk. I can be convinced by good analysis that there is always a risk of a DA in spite of defense.

Misc.

Speaker Point Scale: I feel speaker points are arbitrary and the only way to fix this is standardization. Consequently I will try to follow any provided tournament scale very closely. In the event that there is no tournament scale, I grade speaks on bell curve with 30 being the 99th percentile, 27.5 being as the median 50th percentile, and 25 being the 1st percentile. I'm aggressive at BOTH addition and subtraction from this baseline since bell curves are distributed around the average. Elim teams should be scoring above average by definition. The scale is standardized; national circuit tournaments will have higher averages than local tournaments. Points are rewarded for both style (entertaining, organized, strong ethos) and substance (strategic decisions, quality analysis, obvious mastery of nuance/details). I listen closely to CX and include CX performance in my assessment. Well contextualized humor is the quickest way to get higher speaks in front of me, e.g. make a Thanos snap joke on the Malthus flow.

Delivery and Organization: Your speed should be limited by clarity. I reference the speech doc during the debate to check clipping, not to flow. You should be clear enough that I can flow without needing your speech doc. Additionally, even if I can hear and understand you, I am not going to flow your twenty point theory block perfectly if you spit it out in ten seconds. Proper sign-posted line by line is the bare minimum to get over a 28.5 in speaks. I will only flow straight down as a last resort, so it is important to sign-post the line-by-line, otherwise I will lose some of your arguments while I jump around on my flow and I will dock your speaks. If online please keep in mind that you will, by default, be less clear through Zoom than in person.

Cross-X, Prep, and Tech: Tag-team CX is fine but it's part of your speaker point rating to give and answer most of your own cross. I think that finishing the answer to a final question during prep is fine and simple clarification and non-substantive questions during prep is fine, but prep should not be used as an eight minute time bank of extra cross-ex. I don't charge prep for tech time, but tech is limited to just the emailing or flashing of docs. When you end prep, you should be ready to distribute.

Strategy Points: I will reward good practices in research and preparation. On the aff, plan texts that have specific mandates backed by solvency authors get bonus speaks. I will also reward affs for running disads to negative advocacies (real disads, not solvency deficits masquerading as disads -- Hollow Hope or Court Capital on a courts counterplan is a disad but CP gets circumvented is not). Negative teams with case negs (i.e. hyper-specific counterplans or a nuanced T or procedural objection to the specific aff plan text) will get bonus speaks.

Experienced Parli and PoFo debater. Seven years coaching and judging parli/pofo/LD at high school level. Flow judge.

Tabula Rasa judge, I will make a conscious effort not to bring preconceived notions about evidence/analysis into the round. Source credibility matters. Not a fan of spreading, please don't gish galIop your opponents and try to act like it's credible. I'll allow some spreading, especially in LD, but if I can't understand you that only counts against you. I dislike complicated theory arguments, I don't necessarily believe they are appropriate for the high school level 90% of the time, but I will judge them if I have to (but know that I will not like it). I appreciate clear voters in final speeches, tell me why I should vote for you.

PoFo:

I weigh style and argumentation equally. Arguments should be valid and presented clearly. Extend arguments across the flow. If you drop an argument and your opponent notes it, I will consider it dropped by you. I prefer analytics to evidence, but any good analysis has to be based off something. If you raise new arguments in crossfire, please reaffirm them in your speech. Make sure you adhere to your framework, if you set a value I want to see you support it.

LD:

I expect to see value/value criterion that your evidence/analysis can support. Framework debate is important but I will favor the case over it unless the framework is an absolute dealbreaker. While I think theoretical arguments are interesting, I would prefer that the debate remain in the realm of evidence/analysis as much as possible. Plans and counterplans are acceptable, but I'll be harsh if you run a kritik. If you're going to pull something like that at a high school level you better make it immaculate and understandable.

Parli:

I judge heavily on weighing mechanism in Parli rounds when applicable. I do not expect WM in fact-based rounds. I appreciate definitional creativity but I dislike debates that get bogged down at the top of the flow in theoretical worlds. I prefer analysis over evidence, but I understand that some variations of Parli require an emphasis on evidence. Do not spread, I do not believe it belongs in Parli. Try to maintain decorum during POIs, do not abuse the mechanic.


Policy:

I am not an experienced Policy judge. Analysis matters over evidence and I'll try my best.

I am a fourth year philosophy and American studies major at CSUF. I competed in LD debate in high school for two years and competeted in policy debate at CSUF for two years. Most of my college debate experience has been that of critical/performance argumentation, however I’ve also had experience running traditional CP’s, DA’s, T and framework arguments. Because I am more used to making critical/performance arguments my feedback for those types of arguments will be stronger, however that doesn’t mean that I will prefer those arguments over traditional arguments. I judge based on how well each team executes their particular type of argument, and will hold them to their own standards.

I don’t mind any kind of debating (whether this be spreading, a performance, or some other creative way of presenting your case), as long as whatever is done within the round doesn’t cause either physical or emotional harm to anyone. I understand that at times particular arguments can personally resonate with someone and cause emotional harm, however as long as what is said within the round isn’t said with ill-intent I will be okay with it.

I appreciate clarity and in-depth analysis. The less work I have to do as a judge the better it will be for the teams I am judging. Also, I like to be able to easily flow the debate, so sticking to the organization of the the way in which the arguments are being presented is important. Because of my experience as a critical/performance debater, I think that framework is a very good way to test the practicality of any argument being made, especially that of a critical aff. So when seeing traditional teams against critical teams or even k’s against k’s I like to see how the teams justify their framework for the debate, since in essence it’s justifying a particular way of approaching a certain issue, which is essentially what debate does as a community.  

email:

Isaiahsalgado24@gmail.com

About Me: I am a former Open Debater at Cal State Fullerton. I had 3 years ~ debating in college and experience as a coach at CSUF. I have vast judging and coaching experience at the High School level. I spent a lot of my Career running mostly critiques including Settler Colonial K's, Afropessimism K's, Baudrillard K's, performance K's, as well as experience running Framework.

Aside from that my cases usually involved futurisms and storytelling.

Coaches: Toya Green, Romin Rajan, Lee Thach.

Me as a judge real talk: I can understand spreading, and I'm as good as anyone at getting this down. But Imma be honest, it is hard for me to stay organized. I joined debate in college, no high school experience.

In other words, framing is super important for me. Clarity is important to me, because I want to understand how you think we/you/ I should think, view and participate in the community, in this round, at this tournament, etc. Is debate a game? is the game good? why or why not? I'd like these question answered either implicitly or explicitly. I don't inherently work with the perception that debate is (just) a "game", but if given a good argument as to why I should take on that perspective (in this round, all the time, etc) I'll take on that perspective. I prefer not to feel like a worker in the debate factory who needs to take notes and produce a ballot, but idk maybe I should function in that way-just tell me why that's true.

Evidence Reading: I will read your cards if you urge me to look at them, or if they are contested during the round. Otherwise, I am assuming they say what you tell me they say. IF you don't mention the evidence outside of the 1ac/1nc, they most likely wont stay in the forefront of my mind during the debate. This means reading the evidence will a clear voice will give you an advantage with me, because I will most likely understand the evidence better.

Impact: Proximity and likelihood> magnitude and time frame

MISC:

Clipping Cards is an auto DQ.

I really don't care what you do as far as tag teaming, changing format, playing music, using stands, seating placement, etc. Do you, just don't make the debate go longer than it needs to. Also feel free to talk to me before, after and during prep in rounds. I generally enjoy talking about debate and like helping young peeps. Just chit chat and such.

Policy- I think that a straight up policy plan is dope. MY biggest concern is the debaters ability to explain numbers to me. ITs hard for me to do the calculations and understand why specific stats are important and win you the debate. I am pretty line by line when it comes to a policy debate. Id say with me, focus on some impact calc because thats usually where my attention is mostly at. Liklihood and proximity are more important than severity, magnitude. Time-Frame is iffy but doable.

FW- Honestly, framework is pretty cool. I think its become kind of a meme at this point about my annoyance with whiney FW debaters, so make sure you are being real with your critique. Framework says that there is a structure which needs to be followed for this activity to run efficiently. This assumes that the game of debate is good, so explain why the game is good, or why your specific version of the game is good. When you run framework you are saying that the other team is debating in a way that lessens/nullifies the benefits of debate. That is a big claim, so treat it as such. If you are just using it strategically- more power to you buuuuuuut, it makes you hella less persuasive if thats how you are coming off. Also, Fairness is not inherently a terminal impact, lol. At least mention debate is a game and tell me why the games good.

K- I love k's, but they get hella sloppy. With k's, i need to know that you are solving your impacts. seems basic but im shocked at how often debaters dont explain how their "self abolishment" solves antiblackness. Acknowledging that there is a problem isn't a solution, or plan or anything. It's just a diagnosis. I need a prescription. HAving said that, Im pretty open minded when it comes to different strats. The more weird the more fun for me.

I'm way more truth than tech.

Always include me in the email chain'

Email: israel.debate.email@gmail.com

Affiliations: LAMDL - CSUN

Speaker Points:

I do not disclose speaker points. Overall your speaks will be determined on the quality of speech.

Spreading:

I am okay with spreading, clarity/speed.

Basics rundown for Policy

Every argument/off case will be flowed the same way. What I mean by that the way that you will win a flow is the consistency of your argument and the persuasion of your speech. I have no "bias" or preference of arguments or type of Affs. For the record CP's and Theory arguments are going to be evaluated the same way. I separated them for the sake of alphabetization.

Case: Traditional Affs; I am very familiar with many kinds of Affs (i.e. Hard right and soft left Affs.) You should know the content of your Aff. I have no preference on the type of Aff or content itself. If you persuade me enough to vote for you through out the round then the ballot will ultimately go to the Aff. I run "traditional affs" in LD and have been a USFG centered in high school - still need why youre net better.

CP- Remember that not all Cp's are plan-inclusive and to me at least all you have to prove is that your method solves better than the aff. Its more credible with Net-benefits and show me solvency deficit.

DA- Uniqueness... Link.... Internal Links.... Impacts. Best way and easier for me to flow as a judge. If you don't use the DA as a net-benefit for the CP then I will always think the sqou. is being advocated as well besides the CP.

Kritiks: In this flow I really need to see how your alt and how the Aff links. I'm fine with performance, narrative, etc. If the K is ultimately not ran properly as in the explanation of Links, Impacts, Alt, Alt solves, etc. I will not vote for the K.

Topicality For Traditional Affs: On this flow there should be the most clash on. I need to know why and how the aff is not topical and why it matters to me as a judge.

You decide your fate of the ballot. Tell me why I should vote your way and I feel that you did a good job on executing that then I'll sign the ballot to you.

Theory/Ks/spreading all cool

Hello! I am a high school debater from Beckman. I mainly compete in LD, but have some experience in Parli and WSD.

tldr: I will vote on anything if it is explained well enough. Don't be afraid to run republican arguments, and if you need to get my attention, your best bet is to call me Vincent, not judge. Add me to the email chain vincent.smith13531@gmail.com. Slow down on tags and authors as it is important to the flow. I listen to cx cuz there can be large concessions and important points to build on. I don't necessarily flow it unless I feel something big happened. Tell me why you won. I will try to upload my flow to the RFD.

Theory > K > substance

T:

Important to most topics. Go for it

Theory:

I think I am decently well versed and should understand most theory, with the exception of tricks. Else, if you want to run friv theory, make sure its either funny or well flushed out, or I won't vote on it. I've ran robot theory before in round, if that helps you better understand my willingness to vote on friv theory. DO NOT RUN FRIV THEORY ON A NOVICE. And, just because they've never heard of the wiki doesn't mean they should lose, and because they were never told they have to write "bracketed for clarity" doesn't mean you auto win either. Just be reasonable with novices because I want debate to thrive.

Ks:

I don't know the literature yet, so proceed with caution. I am fine with afropess because it is pretty common. Make sure your K is well written, and like theory, please don't run something complicated on a novice. Nontopical aff K has to be very well spoken.

Other:

Slow down for taglines and authors

Please be reasonable with novices.

Aff needs solvency.

Signpost where you can. Be organized.

I can flow your top speed, but put me on the email chain. Start around 75% of your top speed before speeding up.

If you blatantly misrepresent what your opponent said, I will know. Debate shouldn't be about falsifying claims.

I like DAs, CPs, PICs, turns, etc. There can be really good arguments for PICs.

Tell me WHY you should win. If I wanted to piece together arguments, I would be competing.

Make your warrants clear, explain how your impact actually works, not just "i solve because I say I solve"

Speaks:

If I have to clear you 4 times, I stop flowing. Nobody should ever reach this point. If I clear you, either fix your enunciation or slow down.

If you run some stupid stuff on a novice, you will probably receive less speaks

I should be generous, with mostly 28 and above.

Please actually argue with your cases, don't be two ships passing in the dark. Have fun and good luck!

I debated 4 years in high school parli and PF and I’m a year into college British parli so I have a lot of experience!

Here’s a list of things that I do and do not want to see in a round!

1. Introduce yourselves and make sure that you are following proper etiquette when entering the room.

2. Don’t stall the round I’m here to judge and you are here to debate.

3. It’s extremely important that you show a good understanding of your case and the topic and you are not simply throwing out arguments that you think fit.

4. Theory debate is something that I know can be imperative for a round but please avoid at all cost and if not use it properly and not to pigeon hole a debate via some specific definition

5. Make sure you properly tag and flag rebuttal I will pick it up but I shouldn’t have to do that for you.

6. Speed is something I don’t mind when it is because you have a natural habit but if you are purposely spreading I will most likely drop my pen.

7. Rude debaters aren’t fun to watch at all so really try to not.

i weigh rounds based off of 1. Impacted out arguenents with proper explanation and linking 2. Understanding and context 3. Etiquette

GENERAL

1. Clarity > Loudness > Speed.

2. Framing > Impact > Solvency. Framing is a prior question. Don’t let me interpret the debate, interpret the debate for me.

3. Truth IS Tech. Warranting, comparative analysis, and clash structure the debate.

4. Offense vs Defense: Defense supports offense, though it's possible to win on pure defense.

5. Try or Die vs Neg on Presumption: I vote on case turns & solvency takeouts. AFF needs sufficient offense and defense for me to vote on Try or Die.

6. Theory: Inround abuse > potential abuse.

7. Debate is a simulation inside a bigger simulation.

NEGATIVE

TOPICALITY: As far as I am concerned, there is no resolution until the negative teams reads Topicality. The negative must win that their interpretation resolves their voters, while also proving abuse. The affirmative either has to win a no link we meet, a counterinterp followed up with a we meet, or just straight offense against the negative interpretation. I am more likely to vote on inround abuse over potential abuse. If you go for inround abuse, list out the lost potential for neg ground and why that resolves the voters. If you go for potential abuse, explain what precedents they set.

FRAMEWORK: When the negative runs framework, specify how you orient Fairness & Education. If your FW is about education, then explain why the affirmative is unable to access their own pedagogy, and why your framework resolves their pedagogy better and/or presents a better alternative pedagogy. If your FW is about fairness, explain why the affirmative method is unable to solve their own impacts absent a fair debate, and why your framework precedes Aff impacts and/or is an external impact.

DISADVANTAGES: Start with impact calculation by either outweighing and/or turning the case. Uniqueness sets up the timeframe, links set up probability, and the impact sets up the magnitude.

COUNTERPLANS: Specify how the CP solves the case, a DA, an independent net benefit, or just plain theory. Any net benefit to the CP can constitute as offense against the Permutation.

CASE: Case debate works best when there is comparative analysis of the evidence and a thorough dissection of the aff evidence. Sign post whether you are making terminal defense arguments or case turns.

KRITIKS: Framing is key since a Kritik is basically a Linear Disad with an Alt. When creating links, specify whether they are links to the Aff form and/or content. Links to the form should argue why inround discourse matters more than fiat education, and how the alternative provides a competing pedagogy. Links to the content should argue how the alternative provides the necessary material solutions to resolving the neg and aff impacts. If you’re a nihilist and Neg on Presumption is your game, then like, sure.

AFFIRMATIVES

TRADITIONAL AFFIRMATIVES

PLANS WITH EXTINCTION IMPACTS: If you successfully win your internal link story for your impact, then prioritize solvency so that you can weigh your impacts against any external impacts. Against other extinction level impacts, make sure to either win your probability and timeframe, or win sufficient amount of defense against the negs extinction level offense. Against structural violence impacts, explain why proximate cause is preferable over root cause, why extinction comes before value to life, and defend the epistemological, pedagogical, and ethical foundations of your affirmative. i might be an "extinction good" hack.

PLANS WITH STRUCTURAL IMPACTS: If you are facing extinction level disadvantages, then it is key that you win your value to life framing, probability/timeframe, and no link & impact defense to help substantiate why you outweigh. If you are facing a kritik, this will likely turn into a method debate about the ethics of engaging with dominant institutions, and why your method best pedagogically and materially effectuates social change.

KRITIKAL AFFIRMATIVES

As a 2A that ran K Affs, the main focus of my research was answering T/FW, and cutting answers to Ks. I have run Intersectionality, Postmodernism, Decolonization, & Afropessimism. Having fallen down that rabbit hole, I have become generally versed in (policy debate's version of) philosophy.

K AFF WITH A PLAN TEXT: Make sure to explain why the rhetoric of the plan is necessary to solve the impacts of the aff. Either the plan is fiated, leading a consequence that is philosophically consistent with the advantage, or the plan is only rhetorical, leading to an effective use of inround discourse (such as satire). The key question is, why was saying “United States Federal Government,” necessary, because it is likely that most kritikal teams will hone their energy into getting state links.

K BEING AFFS: Everything is bad. These affs incorporate structural analysis to diagnosis how oppression manifests metaphysically, materially, ideologically, and/or discursively, "We know the problem, and we have a solution." This includes Marxism, Settler Colonialism, & Afropessimism affs. Frame how the aff impact is a root cause to the negative impacts, generate offense against the alternative, and show how the perm necessitates the aff as a prior question.

K BECOMING AFFS: Truth is bad. These affs point to complex differences that destabilize the underlying metanarratives of truth and power, "We problematize the way we think about problems." This includes Postmodern, Intersectionality, & Performance affs. Adapt to turning the negative links into offense for the aff. Short story being, if you're just here to say truth is bad, then you're relying on your opponent to make truth claims before you can start generating offense.

he/him/they/them

wvontrez@gmail.com

For college debate, use this email: debatecsuf@gmail.com

CSUF 22

Coach @ Harvard Westlake

--------------------------------------

S Tier - LARP, Plan v K
A tier - Clash of Civs
B tier - K v K, Phil
C tier - Theory debates, Trix

D/F tier - memes

I did policy debate for 4 years at Downtown Magnets (shout out LAMDL) and 4 years at Cal State Fullerton. I debated mostly truthy performance debates and one-off K strats in high school and debated the K in a very technical way in college. Currently coach flex teams in LD.

I would say my debate influences are Jared Burke, Shanara Reid-Brinkley, Jonathan Meza, Anthony Joseph, Travis Cochran, Toya Green, and Scotty P.

TLDR: I will vote for anything, as long as it's impacted out. The list of preferences is based on my comfort with the argument. Fine with speech drop or email chain.

--------------------------------------

General

I think debate is a game that can have heavy implications on life and influence a lot of things

Tech > Truth, unless the Tech is violent (racism good, sexism good, etc.)

Good for all speeds, but clarity is a must

I default my prioritization to theory, T, and then substance. This can be changed if argued

--------------------------------------

Theory

Disclosure is probably good, can vote on the impact turn though

Yes competing interps, lean no RVIs, DTD

Shells need an interp, violation, standards, voter

Reasonability OK but explain why you are reasonable

Need a good abuse story/how does my ballot set norms? Why does my ballot matter? How does this implicate future debates?

I think condo is good

--------------------------------------

LARP

Absurd internal link chains should be questioned

Default util

No zero-risk

Uniqueness controls the link

Impact turns are good

Perms are tests of competition, not new advocacies

Yes judge kick

New evidence in NR as long as it's a logical extension of the NC. I'm okay with the 2AR doing this as well to check back, but it may not be strategic.

Will read evidence if told to do so

Quality ev > Card dump of bad ev

CPs need to compete on a functional and textual level

--------------------------------------

K

I have a reading background in several critical literature bases. I am most read in anti-capitalist theory, afro pessimism, fugitive black studies, settler colonialism, and Baudrillard. For the sake of the debate, assume I know nothing and explain your K.

Winning theory of power important

Perm solves the link of omission

Specific link > state bad link

Contextualized link > state bad link

Affs should weigh the aff vs. the K, negs should tell me why this isn't possible OR deal with affs impacts.

Extinction outweighs debate probably good here

--------------------------------------

K Affs

I appreciate affirmatives that are in the direction of the topic. Affs that don't defend any portion of the resolution need a heavy defense of doing so

I try not to have a leaning into T-FW debates, but I find myself often voting negative. Similar to Theory/T, I would love to hear about the affirmative's model of debate compared to the negative's. Impact turns to their model are awesome but there is a higher bar if I don't know what your model is.

Read a TVA -- Answer the TVA

Fairness is an impact. Clash is important. Education matters

KvK debates are super interesting, but I hate when they become the Oppression Olympics. Perms are encouraged. Links of omission are not. Contextualize links to the affirmative and clearly tell me how to evaluate the round.

Presumption isn't gone for enough in these debates

Lean yes on perms in KvK/method debates

Performances should be used offensively. I will flow your poems/videos/whatever, just have a defense of it and utilize it to win

--------------------------------------

Phil

I think phil AC/NCs are interesting

Explain it well and you will be fine

Default epistemic confidence if the AC is phil

--------------------------------------

Tricks

Do not hide tricks

Answer them

Preferably not extempted

--------------------------------------

Speaker Points

Pretty much summed up here

If you make a joke about Jared Burke, +.1 speaker point

My judging paradigm is fairly simple, keep the debate educational and fair. I understand we all have our own debate styles which is 100% okay, but I don't want things like spreading, or overuse of lingo that make the debate seem more so "who's a better debater" than the actual topic. I don't flow every argument as I want to be able to put my full attention into analyzing your arguments, but will make notes of the significant arguments and your ability to break down your arguments. Lastly, be respectful and have fun! You can get so much out of debate when you actually just debate rather than focusing on winning, so really take this opportunity to absorb everything you can.