Mitty ‘21

UPenn ‘25

Email: mohulaggarwal21@mittymonarch.com – put me on the chain & format the subject as the following "Tournament Name - Event Name - Round X - Team 1 [A] vs Team 2 [N]"

Experience: I debated Policy at Archbishop Mitty for the last 4 years. I've also dabbled in LD and other individual events if that interests you. I've read all forms of arguments from politics to high theory. I'm not as experienced in LD-esque phil and frivolous theory, but I'm good with voting on any argument as long as it is explained cogently!

Policy---------------X-----------------------------K

Read a plan-------------X------------------------Do whatever

Tech------X----------------------------------------Truth

Read no cards----------------x-------------------Read all the cards

Conditionality good--------X----------------------Conditionality bad

PIC's good---x-----------------------------------PIC's bad

States CP good--X---------------------------------States CP bad

Go for T---X--------------------------------------Don't go for T

Politics DA is a thing-x-------------------------------Politics DA not a thing

Always VTL-x--------------------------------------Sometimes NVTL

UQ matters most--------------------x-------------Link matters most

Not our Baudrillard------------------------------x- Yes your Baudrillard

Clarity-x--------------------------------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity

Presumption------x--------------------------------Never votes on presumption

Resting grumpy face--x---------------------------Grumpy face is your fault

Longer ev--------------------x--------------------More ev

"Insert this rehighlighting"--X----------------------I only read what you read

Fiat solves circumvention-----x---------------------LOL trump messes w/ ur aff

2017 speaker points---X-----------------------------2007 speaker points

CX about impacts---------------------x-----------CX about links and solvency

Friv Theory----------------------------------------X---literally any other arg

Philosophy-----------------------------X---------------literally any other arg

debated for archbishop mitty 3 years, did LD

email is alexali000[@]gmail[.]com

important:

- no in-round discrimination.

general:

- arguments need a claim, warrant, and impact to be considered complete

- different arguments begin at different risks. some arguments are just less probable than others so you need to do more work to convince me of them

- tell me how i should evaluate the round and weigh

- signpost, number, explain, and slow down during rebuttals

email: aaathreya2@gmail.com

Email Chain: anishbhadani22@mittymonarch.com

Affiliations: Archbishop Mitty High School, University of Southern California '26 (debating)

I generally don't have many strong argumentative predispositions, and any preferences I do have will not be the reason I vote a certain way. I will solely render a decision based on what's been said in the debate and the flow using an offense-defense paradigm, regardless of the objective 'truth' behind an argument. The exception is I generally view theoretical arguments as a reason to reject the argument and am a tough sell on condo. Will default to no judge kick unless told otherwise as well.

Generally, that means that you can read what you want, and I will adapt. This is especially the case since I have experience with the critical and policy sides of debate. So long as your arguments have some level of depth, evolve over the course of the debate, and are clearly communicated---we’re good.

That applies to clash rounds as well. I've started to value these debates a lot more as I've personally started to think about what the role of debate ought to be. I will say that one preference I do have is that I've found that I find critical AFFs that recognize the unique value that debate has and question whether centering around a resolutional stasis point is the best way to use this space to be generally more persuasive to me than AFFs that are centered around debate itself being bad in some way. Meaning that with how I currently view framework, I'm more persuaded by the strategy of having some defense to the NEG offense and a reason why your form of debate is preferable, rather than wholly impact turning framework itself. But as stated, this is a preference and not a strong predisposition, so I'll still vote on strategies that mirror the latter.

In terms of how I'll evaluate the debate, I'll always vote in a way that requires the least intervention possible on my end. Because of this, I value judge instruction and framing of the debate extremely highly. The 2NR/2AR should always write my ballot at the top and on the line-by-line package certain parts of the debate and how I should view them. The debates that are most frustrating to decide are those where neither side does this and just shotguns arguments without contextualizing them to the other side’s responses, and I’m forced to try to parse through it all without any guidance for how to do so.

Another note is that I will read cards after the round—but if you want me to do that, I need to have heard the name of the author you want me to read in the 2NR/2AR and a fleshed-out extension of it. I may have a higher threshold for this than other judges—I will not read a card if I don’t hear the name of the author or at least a reference to which card it is, and I will also not extend it for you if you just quickly reference it. For example, saying “extend the link debate—the plan is unpopular” is not sufficient for me to consider the NEG link wall on politics extended or go back and read it for you after.

Things for Higher Speaks/Misc

—Strongly prefer high-quality evidence and good extensions of cards. Much bigger fan of reading 2 high-quality cards highlighted well over 6 word salad cards. Will especially reward teams with high speaks that capture all the warrants in their cards and spin them in a novel manner. Am partial to speeches staking the debate on 1-2 major issues rather than the 'death by a thousand cuts' strategy.

—Biggest inspiration for debate: Kevin Sun. In line with that, biggest fan of truly flexible debaters who can go for either policy or critical arguments depending on opponents' missteps.

—Inserting rehighlightings is fine, but if it's super important either read it or at least reference it again.

—Send card doc unless I say otherwise.

—Start 1AC chain before the round starts. Ideally, send 1NC and 1NR before 1AC and 2NC CX end as well.

—Strongly prefer tight 1NCs with clear block splits without frivolous off.

—Reading Ks that make sense in a world where the AFF happens. Still will evaluate other Ks but prefer the former.

—Find myself voting AFF in framework rounds a lot. NEG teams need to stop reading blocks and contextualize their offense to the AFF. The more specific things like the TVA are to the AFF, the better.

—In AFF v K rounds whoever says more about framework usually wins.

—Generally prefer TVAs over switchside and fairness as an external impact with clash as a way to solve the other side's offense.

—Strong cross-xes where you remain polite. Asking what was read is perfectly fine but constitutes cross-x time. Asking what was marked does not.

—Will not evaluate arguments about individual people or their actions outside the activity. Ad hominems lack warrants.

—Being clear (forgot how unclear highschool is). Would prefer you go slower and be more clear than otherwise. Haven't said 'clear' in the past but will if forced to. Am a pretty mid flower.

—If you have any questions about college debate or USC specifically would be happy to answer them.

—Minimize dead time.

—Feel free to postround.

generics:

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=123223

credentials:

jv pf w/ ali aslam

hi sorry writing this super last minute so it’s really short but if you have any questions please feel free to ask before round starts!!!

i'm a freshman at pitzer college in socal. i did high school speech and debate for four years and competed in about 10 different events. in debate i mainly did parli and congress, but i do have experience with lay policy.

PARLI: i want to see a debate with a lot of CLASH!! i don’t want to just hear you restate the same points in every speech, and i’ll probably dock you speaker points if that’s all you do. i protect the flow. i vote completely off the flow unless there are blatant lies that are harmful to the educational aspect of parliamentary debate. use your pois!! be clear and articulate, interact with your opponents, and don’t drop arguments. also remember that you are doing SPEECH and debate so make sure to use some speech skills to convince me that your side is the right one!! i expect you guys to time yourselves and keep each other in check. i won't listen to anything past the agreed upon grace period. being overly rude to your opponents will dock you speaker points.

CONGRESS: be memorable--in your speaking style, intro+conclusion, arguments, rhetoric, etc. want speeches with clash and actual acknowledgement of what other people have said even if it's just to agree with them/build on their point. i flow general ideas/points from your speeches

i think i hit all the main points but definitely ask for clarifications if you need them

good luck :)

CIRCUIT STUFF (LAY ON THE BOTTOM) (for chssa ms state read the bottom, it's a lay tournament so just chill out and run ur lay cases)

Im an LD dude, run mostly plan affs and da-cp negs. Also run T and theory usually. PLEASE DONT READ GRAPHIC CONTENT i might vote for you if you debate well, but youll get terrible speaks because i am not rly mentally comfortable with that stuff.

Mostly ill give high speaks because unless you do something like extremely bad they're pretty arbitrary in the 27.5-29 range. So if i think you're good but not god tier ill just give you a high 28 because i think speaks are dumb.

If you debate poorly ill give you a high 27.

if ur mean or do anything thats just like morally questionable ill give you a 25.

LARP - DAs and CPs are very good. Perm is a test of competition. MAKE SURE TO WEIGH. if either side forgets to weigh, the other team will win because its pretty clear then (unless its like egregiously bad).

Ks - Regular Ks like cap, militarism, fem, etc. are pretty cool, just explain everything clearly. ROTB is kind of a dumb argument because its essentially "role of the ballot is to vote for me" so find a real moral fw. Most alts are not well written and/or don't have solvency(eg anything that calls for endorsing a paradigm or utopia or anything like that) so call that out and neg teams, just make a well prepped alt. Me voting for you will not have any real world impacts outside of debate, so make sure your K impact/alt is something that is actually measurable in some way or else case outweighs becomes very convincing.

T - Usually fine, TVA is good, so is limits. But if you're core of lit you can win, like running Russia on the nukes topic, etc is definitely topical. T is a stock issue no rvis, CI and DTD but i will vote on reasonability because most affs are T.

Theory - don't read friv theory. Condo good, but you can win off condo bad. Pics good, same thing. Reasonability, no rvis (unless super friv), DTA on most things, but i can be convinced otherwise for this stuff. Fairness > education

Non-t affs - Fairness is probably an impact and something you say in a debate round is very unlikely to affect anything out of it. I'm not well versed in this, but just try ur best to defend why this is fair and why I should vote on some impact. Please find some framing to tell me why the impacts ur k-aff talks about matter.

T-FW- I like this argument, but you have to run it well and collapse well to win. Find TVAs, theyre very powerful arguments

Phil - Explain it well, don't just throw out buzzwords. No moral philosopher would think extinction is good (or at least most of them, I understand some do and that is okay). Im cool with phil though, it's a fun way to debate, just PLEASE dont have impact justified frameworks (ie "the standard is minimizing terrorism instead of util).

Tricks - They're kinda annoying, yes, but if you impact everything out and frame it well, I'll vote for it. Just dont be annoying about it or ill dock ur speaks

Be cool. Don't be a meanie-bo-beanie.

Email : aaravbillore22@mittymonarch.com

TL;DR and Prefs

LARP - 1

T/Theory - 1

Normal Ks - 2

Phil - 3

Not normal Ks - 4

K affs - 4

Tricks - 5

LAY

Treat me like you would any other judge.

I do flow, and I am tech>truth (unless you make an absurd claim with no warrant, in circuit that is okay, in lay it is not)

I won't really consider speaking (unless you're being rude) but it will probably unconsciously affect me a little so keep note of that

Also please weigh and do voters or else I'll have to intervene and probably will make a decision a least partly based on subjectivity, so just tell me what should be considered and how heavy it weighs and I will do that

About Me

I have three years of experience in Public Forum, and one year of experience in Congress, Impromptu, and International Extemp (IX). I currently attend Archbishop Mitty. In Middle School, some of my achievements were getting to Octos at State and winning the Peter Burnett Tournament. In High School, I broke at MLK Invitational and got 3rd place at Congress in CFL.

What I Look For Overall:

To clarify, I am okay with kritiks, but I highly doubt that will be run by any team in PF, and I highly doubt you will run it either.

Weighing:

Weighing is an extremely important part of any debate, especially PF, and both the summary and rebuttal speakers should weigh the impacts of both sides and explain clearly why their side is better to vote for. Summary should mainly be focused on frontlining, and the final focus should be extending your own points, rebuttals, and frontlines as to why I should vote for you.

Framework:

Framework should be laid out by the Aff Team and the Neg Team, so I know what I should be voting for and on. Both teams should strive to solve better for the particular framework based on their case, points, rebuttals, and frontlines.

Speaking and Presenting Style:

NO SPREADING! You can talk fast, but I should not be hearing you gasping for breaths like you are dying. You should ideally have a constant or fixed pattern of tone, not too fast or slow. But, as a fellow PFer, I understand there is a lot of information to cover, so you can talk fast if you really need to.

Now, in terms of presenting, I would like a good amount of eye contact, and I should clearly be able to hear you when you are talking. You should not be too quiet, but on the other hand, you should not be too loud.

Etiquette:

During cross-ex, I prefer no snarky comments, sarcasm, or attitude, and I do not want to see people talking over each other or interrupting. It is okay to say things like, "I understand your point" or "That is good enough" if one person is taking to long to respond or the question is not really a question or valid, but outright interruption for no reason is not acceptable. Also, when someone is giving a speech, communication between opponents should not be too loud, and there should not be unnecessary face expressions or hand gestures. Overall, a respectful, open-minded debate with well thought out points is what I like to see.

Time:

It is okay to go 15 second under or over time, but anything above or below that will be marked down by me. If asked for cards, it should not take more than 45 seconds to find the card and 60 seconds if they ask you for the website. This seems sketchy.

Strategy:

My main advice is to use your prep time wisely. For Aff, i would suggest using most of it for your summary and final focus. For Neg, I would suggest using a good amount in the rebuttal as the Neg rebuttal should ideally refute the Aff's case and frontline their own case in response to the AFF rebuttal and the points brought up in it. Also, for prep time, be honest. I am fine with teams timing themselves, but do not go over on prep time as that is just unfair.

Also, don't just repeat yourselves and read your points over and over again in the rebuttal, summary, and final focus. Have clear links and turn your opponents' arguments in rebuttal. Otherwise, it will seem to me as the judge that you are not prepared at all.

And Most Importantly, have fun!

Hi, I'm Jessica (she/they)

Archbishop Mitty '21

University of Michigan '25

LD for 4 years, circuit LD for 3, currently debate as 1A for University of Michigan

email: db8jess@gmail.com

Let me know before the round if you have any questions.

Miscellaneous

If any competitor in the room ever feel unsafe, just shoot me a private email (and/or you can simply leave the room) and I’ll immediately stop the round + drop the other debater.

Slow down in overviews, key analytics, blippy theory shells, and don't just spread at your 400+ wpm right in the beginning of your speech.

tl;dr

Order of preference: larp/stock k's/theory, other k's/high theory, (probably strike) dense phil/tricks

Won't backflow.

Probably won't vote on the independent voter unless it actively makes the debate space unsafe.

policy

I'm find with decently abusive cps (consult cps, process cps, etc, aff theory on these types of args is also legitimate though).

Don't just say no risk/terminal defense and expect me to believe it, unless there is a 100% conceded position.

Please understand the evidence you read and have a coherent ballot story by the last speech - stop skipping like 3 internal links in a disad and assume I'll buy your 1% risk of extinction.

kritiks

Have nuanced k's, I am most familiar with common k lit (cap, security, set col), but I'll probably understand other k lit if you explain them well enough.

I usually think the alt is the weakest part of most kritiks, so be able to bring up concrete examples of how the alt solves. Don't just keep repeating the same jargon or tagline in the card over and over again because I'll either fall asleep or get really annoyed.

If there is even any sort of answer to it, the floating pik is nonsensical but if they don't ask, feel free to go for it.

Have a solid link wall. Pointing out lines from their case will boost your speaks.

Oh, also, if you're going to read baudrillard/bifo in front of me, I have a pretty high threshold for voting on them and if you're actually winning I'll still give you the win, but #sorrynotsorry I'll probably give you pretty bad speaks.

non-T affs/framework

I do feel more comfortable adjudicating topical debates but just explain why your model of debate is better. For K affs that are very dense - please explain well, and don't make my brain hurt.

I think the TVA is pretty persuasive. I'm inclined to buy impact turns on fairness, so I am probably going to be more convinced by a 2NR on clash. This, of course, will vary based on the quality of the speeches.

I know it's tempting to just read one off framework, but engaging with the aff substance and reading other offs will get you better speaks. And generally, I just think it's a better strategy and lead to more enjoyable debates.

T/theory

I have a very low threshold for answers on friv theory and RVIs.

Weigh between your standards and their standards.

Run your condo/dispo bad (I'm pretty ambivalent for >2 but anything less is probably condo good). Also condo = dispo (I can be persuaded otherwise, but

Make well-warranted standards. A one-line blip in the 1ar on condo bad probably isn't going to work quite well if you full intend to go for a condo 2ar. I'm probably going to be bad at adjudicating theory debates with 203948234 blips.

phil

Not good for judging dense phil vs phil debates, besides kant (which I have a greater level of familiarity with).

That being sad, I have debated against a fair share of philosophical arguments as a debater, so I'm not going to be absolutely clueless. If you do read phil in front of me: slow down on analytics, have a coherent syllogism, explain the literature well, and do weighing between justifications.

Go for the turn

tricks

strike me if you're entire strat is tricks.

speaks

speaks are based off of strategy/efficiency.

Your speaks will go up if:

stop doc-botting, cut your own evidence, have really nicely formatted docs, make me laugh, etc etc

Your speaks will go down A LOT if:

you're rude, postround, take a long time sending out prep

fyi: i will give you extra speaks if you make (good) references to brandon sanderson (mistborn or stormlight archive) (+0.3), aot (+0.1), or fmab (+0.2)

Extra

people I talk about debate the most with/probably share similar debate ideology with: Arnav Simha

consult joe

1. ‘Albums’ are documents of recorded sound and should be held separate from the idea of ‘Music’ in so much as neither requires the other in order to exist. The art of capturing and manipulating sound, musical or otherwise is what makes an album. There is much more to it than the music itself just as there is much more to a painting than the subject depicted.

2. Time does not “pass’’, rather it accumulates. Judging an album based on its constituent parts (I.E. songs) rather than as a whole deprives the album of its fullness. A couple of great/poor tracks do not necessarily make or break an album so long as they are subsumed by the cumulative overall effect of the piece.

3. All albums are conceptual whether the artists involved are conscious of it or not.

Info: Archbishop Mitty '23, UC Berkeley '27

Email: tkher@berkeley.edu

My Experience: Competed in Policy for 4 years (1A/2N) - TOC, multiple bids, went to camp 2x, coaches poll, round robins, 3rd at state and elims at nats.

I have no preference for what arguments you read. I was always known as the flex debater who went for diverse arguments. I spent an entire year reading 1-off Set Col K, read a Heg aff at the TOC, went for Fiat Ks, 10-plank advantage CPs, 4th Branch CP, politics DAs - point being, I've done things across the spectrum, so truly do whatever you want and I'll be happy & as non-interventionist as possible!

The following prefs are simply based on my experience, not my personal biases.

Shorthand prefs:

Policy v Policy: 1

Policy v K: 1

K Aff v FW: 2

K v K: 3

High Theory/Pomo: 4

Tricks: 5

Stanford Note: I haven't judged in 4 months. Be clear and go slower than usual. I don't know anything about the topic.

What's up. I'm Lukas/Luka (either is fine, they/them). Yes, I do want to be on the email chain. Lukrau2002@gmail.com, but I prefer using the fileshare option on NSDA campus, or speechdrop. If you would like, I am happy to send you my flow after the round.

Important Warning: the longer the tournament goes the worse I become at judging. If I've judged like 10+ debates be prepared for short rfds and be clear so I don't misflow you and make things obvious so I dont do illogical things.

I will listen to any argument, (yes, including tricks, nebel T, intrinsic perms, extra T, K affs of any type, listing these as they are supposedly the most "controversial") in any event, against any opponent, with the exception of the obviously morally objectionable arguments (use common sense or ask), arguments attempting to change the number of winners/losers, and arguments attempting to take speaker points out of my hands. With those exceptions, my only dogma is that dogma is bad. If you are confident in your ability to beat your opponents on the flow, pref me high. If you have certain arguments you dogmatically hate and are terrible at debating against, it is probably in your best interests to pref me low, because I will almost certainly be willing to evaluate those arguments no matter how silly you find them.

I believe that paradigms should exclusively be used to list experience with arguments, and that judges should not have "preferences" in the sense of arguments they dont want to evaluate. We're very likely being paid to be here to adjudicate the debates the debaters want to have, so the fact that some judges see fit to refuse to evaluate the fruit of some debaters' labor because they personally didn't like the args when they debated is extremely frustrating and frankly disrespectful to the time and effort of the debaters in my opinion. So below is my experience and a quick pref guide, based not on preference, but on my background knowledge of the arguments.

Experience: HSLD debate, Archbishop Mitty, 2018-2021; TOC qual 2020, 3 career bids. VBI camp instructor - Summer of 2021, Summer of 2022, Summer of 2023. Private coaching - Fall 2021-2022 (no longer actively coaching). Happy to talk about math stuff, especially topology!

Pref guide - based on experience as a debater and judge, not personal arg preference

1 - Weird/cheaty counterplans

1 - Policy Args

1 - Phil

2 - Ks (queer theory, cap)

2 - Tricks

2 - Theory

2 - Ks (other Ks, not high theory)

3 - Ks (high theory)

Again, I cannot stress enough that this is solely based on my knowledge of the lit bases, not my love for the arguments. I read and enjoyed judging many a deleuze aff as a debater and more recently judge. The amount of reading I did to read those affs was very minimal and I mostly just stole cards, so would I say I actually know the args very well? Probably not. Would I enjoy evaluating them? Absolutely.

Below are purely procedural things

Ev ethics note: I will evaluate ev ethics claims the way the accusing debater wants me to out of 2 options: 1] stake the round on the egregiousness of the ev ethics claim, if the violation meets my arbitrary brightline for egregiousness I will drop the debater with bad ev ethics, if not the accusing debater will lose 2] if you read it as a theory shell I will evaluate it as a theory shell. If you're unsure about my arbitrary brightline for staking the round, note that such ev ethics violation need to be reasonably egregious (to auto end the round, I would prefer to see malicious intent or effect, where the meaning of the evidence is changed) - whereas my brightline for voting on it as a theory shell is much lower, and given the truth of the shell you will likely win on the shell, regardless of effect or intent. This means if you have an edge case its better to debate out the theory because you'll probably win simply bc those theory shells are pretty true but I'm pretty adverse to auto dropping ppl so you might not if you stake. If it is obvious and egregious though feel free to stake the round I will definitely vote against egregious miscuttings.

CX is Binding. This means with respect to statuses, etc, your arguments must abide by the status you say in either the speech you read the argument, or the status you say the argument is in cross X. If you say an arg is uncondo in CX, but attempt to kick it in a later speech, & I remember you saying it was uncondo in CX, I will not kick the arg.

But I take this notion farther than just argument statuses. If your opponent asks you "what were your answers to X", you may choose to list as many arguments as you like. You may say "you should've flowed" and not answer, that's your prerogative. But if you DO choose to answer, you should either list every argument you read, or list some and explicitly say that there were other arguments. If your opponent asks something like "was that all," and you choose to say yes, even if I have other args on my flow I won't evaluate them because you explicitly told your opponent those were your only responses. DO NOT LIE/GASLIGHT IN CX, even by accident. Correct yourself before your opponent's prep ends if you've said something wrong. I will not drop you for lying but I WILL hold you to what you say in CX.

My personal beliefs can best be described via Trivialism: https://rest.neptune-prod.its.unimelb.edu.au/server/api/core/bitstreams/3e74aad4-3f61-5a49-b4e3-b20593c93983/content

Thanks for checking my paradigm if you happened to check.

Firstly and importantly disclosed, I am an immigrant (moving to US only after 30) and English is not my first language. Please consider it and set your tactic right for ESL (English as a Second Language) as a judge, if you're a debater.

Please listen carefully what opponent says and please construct your turn more relevant to what other says, rather than only speaking what you 've prepared or repeating what you've already told.

Please refrain from just insisting or repeating lots of evidences as to support your claim, as they won't mostly buy me, cause I can't verify them whether they are true or not while I am listening to your debate. Right ?

I hope you will use more common sense than sci-fi articles, researches, newspapers, which requires lots of pre-knowledge. I won't even remember what you said after the debate. Right ?

To me, the debate is not whose claim is right or wrong, but whose appeal is more compelling to vote for.

You will earn my vote by the way you speak, listen, or gestures, and how you invalidate others claim or support your points well ...etc
(balance of all) and your consideration to ESL as a judge.

Junior at Archbishop Mitty

He/Him

3 years of pf and counting

- strike me if you want to run Ks, and stray away from theory (unless its really bad)

- actual cards > paraphrasing

- speaking efficiently >> reading 300+ wpm

- weighing>>> not weighing

• being nice >>>>>>>>>>>> being rude

Demon Slayer Reference = 30 speaks

chain: pranaymacherla@gmail.com

good luck!!!

Pronouns: He/Him

General stuff:

I'm a sophomore at Archbishop Mitty, i've competed in PF for 3 years.

I'll always flow but don't rely on me having everything down so be sure to stay organized.

I'll flow cross but won't evaluate anything not brought into a speech.

Evidence:

If you're sharing evidence add me to the chain: rohan.menon4@gmail.com

I won't look at specific cards unless you ask me to or there’s major conflict over what the card says and its key to the round.

Cards must be cut, if you're paraphrasing you need to have the cut card on hand.

Decorum:

I expect the round to stay respectful. Homophobia, racism, sexism etc. will not be tolerated (expect the L).

PF:

tech > truth

As fair as speed goes I can handle speed but going too fast might screw you over if I miss anything, only speak fast if you can speak clearly.

I don't mind evaluating arguments that are controversial, they carry just as much weight as stock arguments in my opinion.

Ryan Mills - Archbishop Mitty High School, CA

Competitor: Damien HS 1980-1984, Loyola Marymount University (LMU) 1984-1987

Coach: Loyola HS (Los Angeles) 1989-1994, Pinewood 1994-1995, College Prep 1995-2000, Archbishop Mitty 2016 - Present

Please put me on the email chain: rmills1916@gmail.com

[My] Framework - Or how do we achieve our best selves by doing this thing called 'debate'?

I approach debate as an educator so for me the primary reason we spend our nights and weekends together is our appreciation of the activity's ability to help us improve our critical thinking skills and articulate complex concepts in a logical and persuasive way. To that end

• Tell the story - the team who ends the debate with a coherent, compelling narrative is generally rewarded. Resolve, rather than merely extend, arguments in the 2nr/2ar.
• 'Debate the debate we're in.' Reading canned blocks, especially through rebuttals, means you're not clashing (or listening, or flowing) which also means I'm left to resolve the debate myself - no one's happy in that scenario.
• I'll be on the email chain, but I'm not reading along and won't fill in my flow from the speech doc what I don't hear comprehensibly. I prioritize flowing the card verbiage over the (very often overpowered) tag, so please don't do the slow tag line/incomprehensible high-speed card read routine. I flow, on paper, which is my detailed record of what transpires in the debate and is what I reference when rendering a decision. If it's not on my flow, it's not considered, so please make sure you tell me where your 2nr/2ar extension originates earlier on in the debate.
• Card clipping is cheating - loss and zeroes if caught.
• If the debate centers around whose evidence is better on a particular argument, best you do the evidence comparison work for me because...
• If you *do* ask me to read a piece of evidence, you are inviting my intervention in the debate regarding the 'quality' of the evidence (whether it actually says what you claim it says). Once you invite me (or any critic) into *your* space, you've lost control of how far that critic engages your invitation.
• Overtly racist, sexist, misogynistic, anti-LGBTQ discourse, etc. results in a loss and zero points.
• I welcome a spirited discussion during the RFD, but sometimes we simply won't agree on the outcome. Most judges make decisions on 'meta' arguments governing the overall direction of the debate, not some claim buried in the quickly-spewed third-level subpoint in a block. Even if you come away from my RFD thinking I'm a complete idiot, the best way to approach any critic is to ask probing questions about how we arrived at our conclusions. That way next time you debate in front of me you have a beat on how I think and can craft your approach accordingly (or decide my view is just so antithetical to yours that you strike me, which is fine too). If you treat these exchanges as a training ground for successful future, much higher stakes exchanges you'll have both personally and professionally, you'll have absorbed the best of what this activity has to offer.

That's my framework. Now, a few words on how I default if you leave me to my own devices.

Overview - 'You do you' as long as you warrant it

I do my best to suspend my predilections: whether I love or hate a particular argument, I'll vote for you if you win it unless it's fundamentally reprehensible (genocide good, etc.).

Primary guidance: debate the debate we're in rather than read canned blocks written months ago in a land far far away from the round we're sitting in. Clash is paramount.

Default views on argument types

Topicality

I prefer to understand what specific ground the negative is rightfully entitled to that the affirmative interpretation precludes access to. I care more about what you do than what you might allow. Conversely, I am also receptive to arguments around T as language policing resulting in the exclusion of marginalized voices, so don't be afraid to go for that either. I'm a former English teacher, so to me words matter in both directions.

Plans/Counterplans/Permutations: Words Matter!

Document the exact plan/counterplan/permutation(s) wording before engaging. If there is a real grammatical flaw in the text, don't be afraid to stake the debate on it, properly impacted (the 2003 ToC was decided on a plan flaw argument so it's a thing, at least to me).

Won't 'judge-kick.' It's up to the negative to make strategic decisions about advocacy in the 2NR.

Disads

No link means no link. Offense always helps, but I will easily vote on a well-executed no link/internal link/low risk of impact approach.

I lean toward probability over magnitude. Focus on uniqueness and the link/internal link whether on aff or neg. Debate solvency on case and do the work to weigh impact vs. aff advantage remaining in the rebuttals. Extend impacts in rebuttals and tell the comparative story (again resolve, don't just extend).

Accordingly on the neg, your time is better spent making the link bulletproof than reading impact extensions unless the aff is impact-turning the disad/k. If you want to win on framing/framework invest time there.

Critiques

• Read extensively in the literature of the criticism you're advocating and compile your own positions. CX can be devastating with these arguments, so if you've read the literature you can tease out nuances that teams who take the lazy way out won't be able to account for.
• I'm receptive to specific link and impact assessment. Better to establish how this particular affirmative triggers a unique link to this specific criticism rather than rely on a generic indictment of a particular normative framework or 'you use the USFG' - i.e. a link to the status quo. Advocate an alternative and explain how you access it. 'Refuse' isn't a great option since that just puts the resister on a pedestal divorced from efforts to materially improve the lives of the marginalized, but I'll (reluctantly) vote on it if well defended.
• If your strategy is 'high theory' I'm not the best judge for you so please pref me accordingly. I strive to read enough critical literature to be conversant, but I have a day job so will not be PhD-level familiar with any critical argument. Please debate with this level of familiarity in mind or risk disappointment with the outcome.
• Critical affs/planless affs/Performance: Fine, again just want to understand what I'm endorsing if you're asking for the ballot.

If you have questions about something I haven't covered, please ask before the debate starts.. The activity is meant to be educational, fun, and inclusive - if it's not, we should all be doing something else.

Pronouns-He / him.

Background

3 years of policy debate at Archbishop Mitty High-school.

Big fan of Rascal Flatts, White vans, and club penguin.

Put me on the email chain pls. Chris.ngan145@gmail.com

With that being said, assume I know nothing about whatever topic is going on. I’m not going to do work for you, you have to explain your arguments clearly for me to make connections. Since I’ve only done policy, I’ll probably evaluate other rounds with a policy mindset.

Some tips for higher speaks

Be nice to your opponents.

I don’t mind swearing, just don’t say something you wouldn’t be comfortable with your coach hearing.

No racial slurs or homophobia pls

parkjoanne17@gmail.com

Archbishop Mitty '20, Columbia '24

Coached @ Peninsula, Mitty, VBI '21, VBI '20, and NSD '20

I did LD for 4 years, qualifying to NSDA/TOC and winning a quarters bid. I read a little bit of everything, but haven't touched debate in a year, so you should err on the side of over-explaining.

Unless debated out, I presume neg unless the 2NR defends or relies on the defense of an advocacy (e.g., a counterplan I'm not asked to judge kick). For individual arguments, if debated evenly, I will err against the side who has the burden of proof (e.g., I err no link, not yes link).

Being racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. is an instant L20. If you are feel uncomfortable or unsafe in round, please do not hesitate to email me (I'll be checking consistently throughout the round).

If you stake the debate on evidence ethics, I will stop the round and use that for my RFD. Otherwise, I let these debates play out as normal. If I catch clipping, it's an auto loss, but to make an accusation you need a recording. If you ask me to stop the round, the decision I am making is a. if an established rule on evidence is being broken and b. if the breaking of the rule, in all or most circumstances where it occurs, changes the meaning of the evidence.

Archbishop Mitty '23, UW-Seattle '27

Email: yshaik135@gmail.com

Background: I did 4 years of Policy debate at Mitty, competing at both lay and circuit tournaments.

General (Policy, PF, LD, Parli): Tech>truth. I will default to evaluating the debate through a framework of offense vs defense. All claims need to have clear warrants to be considered and evidence certainly matters (if the tournament rules allow me to be on the chain I will read the evidence). I value clear and concise weighing of impacts, framing, and judge instruction, specifically in the later speeches. As such, this is the best way to obtain my ballot. I will flow (and thus line by line is especially important).

**Disclaimer for Nat Quals 2024 --- I have not judged a debate of any form this year and therefore I do not have extensive knowledge on the respective topics aside from basic general knowledge.**

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round.

4 year PF debater from Archbishop Mitty, freshman at Cal

Tech over truth

Speak as fast as you want but don't spread. If you are too fast, I will CLEAR you twice before dropping you.

You need to extend the warrant and impact for each argument you're collapsing on in summary and final because that's how you generate offense. While extending, don't just blip thru the author's name and move on. You need to remind me what the card says.

Second speaking team should start frontlines in rebuttal because it is strategic.

A dropped turn in summary is conceded. The only way to get around this is by outweighing --> But this path is very difficult!

IF ITS NOT IN SUMMARY, IT CANT BE IN FINAL

My decision ultimately comes down to who has the most offense on the arguments that are weighed most heavily. If you don't do the weighing, I will have to do it unfortunately...

I will not consider theory unless there is a good reason to run it. If you use theory solely to gain an advantage over your opponent or simply to waste everyone's time, I will drop you and give you each debater 20 speaks.

If you run anything racist/homophobic/sexist/etc, I will drop you and possibly give you each lower than 20 speaks.

Also I don't pay attention to CX, so if there was an important concession or something please bring it up in a speech and say why it matters.

If you compliment Meera Bhat at some point in the round, I will boost your speaks.

Only using evidence and arguments in round.

Personal insults r allowed and appreciated