Feel free to email me at kajjarapu@gmail.com if you have any questions. Don't hold back because I know this paradigm doesn't include a ton of things.

LSD Camp - To join the video meeting, click this link: https://meet.google.com/brz-kkts-sah

TLDR -

1 - LARP

2 - Theory, T

3 - K

4/5 - Dense K's, Phil, Tricks

S - non-T affs

1) basically, just don't be a jerk. I really hate arguments that are designed to be difficult just so the opponent can't respond to it. Obviously, there's a difference between strategically prepping out your opponent and running something that's just super dense.

2) don't expect me to intervene to extend dropped arguments and highlight voter issues. In your last speech, be sure to emphasize these so that I understand that they're reasons to vote for you. If these aren't brought up, I won't vote off of them.

3) larp: I love it. Go for it. I even prefer it.

5) phil: I've never actually read any phil. I've read through cases of it and know basic phil such as polls or kant. If you're running basic phil that's easy to digest, just be sure to explain it a bit more. If you're running super dense phil that needs background knowledge, I might not be the judge for you.

6) kritiks: kritiks can be fun. I like them more than phil but my view on them is more or less the same. The only difference is that I've read K's in round so I can understand them much better.

7) trix: I don't know. I just don't like them. You can read them if you want, I'm not going to drop you for it, obviously. But they just seem tacky. Up to you though, I just don't like them.

8) theory: I really like theory debates, especially the fact that it separates the debate into substance and theory. Be sure to respond to everything in the shell. I think it's common sense that a CI isn't sufficient enough to win the theory debate. You need to respond to the theory shell itself as well.

9) Slow down on analytics or just put them on the speech doc and go as fast as you want.

10) Prep time ends when the speech doc is sent out.

Defaults: competing interps, epistemic confidence, drop the arg, no rvis

Hi! Yay! Believe! You are amazing! Smile!

Lynbrook ‘22 and Fr00t L00ps ‘22 and Sunshine ‘22 and Puffers Academy of Excellence '22

Send speech docs to the email below:

yeahsidc@gmail.com

Feel free to email me if you have any questions or want additional feedback!

I will vote on any argument, so please feel free to read anything you want!

I have done Lincoln-Douglas Debate for 4 years (both lay and circuit) and broken to numerous elimination rounds, taught LD/PF debate and impromptu speech, and have extensive experience in drama, theatre, and improv.

Quick Prefs (Based on how well I can adjudicate them. I don't give any argument preference over the other when I evaluate.)

1 - LARP, Theory, T, Theoretical Trix, Lay, Creative Stuff

2 - Phil, K, Performance, and Logic/Misc. Trix

4 - Super complex kritiks/phil when the entire debate is buzzwords

Strike - Not warranting/explaining your argument for the entire round

Weigh your arguments, please. It's good 4 u and happy and healthy for me.

I recommend you explain arguments as much as possible!

If you are going for an evidence ethics argument, please actually argue it (read it as a shell that people can respond to).

The choice to collapse your arguments is up to you—in some rounds that is the best strategy but in some rounds, it may be not.

I primarily read util policy-style arguments and theory with some theoretical tricks mixed in. I have also read phil occasionally and sometimes Ks. I have written and/or read unconventional arguments too (i.e. Unique Util Framing, Ubuntu AC, Animal Wipeout, Case outweighs theory, etc.) and find creativity inspiring. I also find performative offense fascinating and powerful. I think you can tackle any argument in any way, and am open to basically whatever you want to do.

If I'm judging you for speech events, I look for both your content and how you present the speech (emotion, speaking skills, articulation, physicality, etc.). I do flow your speeches so that I remember and can evaluate the content (63%), but at the same time, I will be analyzing your presentation (37%). I've noticed I tend to like unique speeches that spark a flutter of emotion within me. A little bit more about my background: I did drama for 7 years, held many leadership positions, and did improv theatre for 3 years. I've participated in plenty of musicals and plays as an actor, techie, organizer, and director. I've also taught impromptu speech the past three summers. Anyway, feel free to be creative—the structure you follow for your speech and the movement/emotion you portray is up to you, and the way you choose to structure a speech and move/show emotion throughout the round can affect its power. I will vote on any speech.

If you're uncomfortable at any time for whatever reason, please let me know so we can address it as per your wishes.

Junior Year Wikis (this was when I was most active): AFF = https://hsld20.debatecoaches.org/Lynbrook/Chattoraj%20Aff and NEG = https://hsld20.debatecoaches.org/Lynbrook/Chattoraj%20Neg though some arguments are not on there due to shady disclosure practices (but like I found the wiki really helpful as a debater lol so I kinda disclosed heavily to compensate). Disclosure norms for your round, like any other argument, are up to y'all. Explore! Have fun!

Speed: Probably 8.5-9/10. I'll follow along with your speech doc, but please still be clear. Analytics are appreciated. If you are extempting, articulate.

Speaks: Primarily based on both strategy and how well you spoke (could I understand you easily as you spread for example). Doing something new/inspiring/teaching me something gives you higher speaks. If your speaking/debating ability gives me goosebumps and chills, I will give you a 30 (so far I have had 3 opponents do this me while debating).

Have fun! You'll do amazing! Don't be scared. Whether you win or lose, you will learn! Now go shine like the shooting star you are!

Hi Lynbrook Speech and Debate Camp students!

Here is the link to the google meet: meet.google.com/ssq-htob-eap

For the debate itself:

Make sure to clearly explain your arguments and impacts. In your last speech, try to spend at least a couple seconds summarizing the points that you have won in the round and why those are the most significant ones. Most importantly, be nice to each other and have fun!

Lynbrook '21, UIUC '25

**I HAVENT JUDGED IN A LONG TIME PLEASE START A LITTLE SLOW**

Send docs to keshavdandu@gmail.com, whether or not you're spreading!

I think the most fundamental forms of disclosure are good, for example, the first three last three. Anything else is up to debate.

Conflicts: All of Lynbrook, West Ranch SV, Mission San Jose SR, Leland MN

Theory defaults: Reasonability with "gut check", No Rvi, DTA

I'm not a great judge for trad rounds. If you are hitting a novice just don't try hard.

I think I'll try to average 28.8 speaks, if you are at the level of a bidder I will probably give you a 29.2 or higher.

I mainly read K, Theory, and Phil and was pretty decent in terms of like results, Elim finishes, speaker awards, bid that kinda stuff.

I think I'm best for Phil v util and theory rounds, and worst for pure k v k (there are some exceptions) and dense larping.

Nearly everything about how I view debate is from Chris Wang (refer to his paradigm about tech issues and whatnot), with influence on specific things from Perry Beckett, Michael Harris, and Holden Bukowsky. (if you would pref any of them you can probably pref me). My favorite argument I read was my queer fabulation aff. The majority of my 1AR/2ARs as a senior were AFC or indexicals or a trick that did something similar, and most 2NR's were some shell or skep.

Read and go for whatever argument you want in front of me. I've tried nearly everything in terms of types of arguments from performance affs to tricks to util. Don't assume I have background knowledge in every argument but I will do my best to judge. I find k rounds with little explanation of the theory of power difficult to follow.

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

General guidelines:

- Debate's not about the judge, my preferences should not make you decide what you read.

- I will stop rounds if someone is uncomfortable.

- Prep ends after the doc is sent (I will be lenient).

- Tech>truth unless categorically false.

- No new responses to dropped arguments, dropped arguments need to be extended, impacted, and weighed to win. Not just repeated.

- Clipping, and evidence ethics are L 20s, clipping I will intervene if I catch it, evidence ethics should be called out or in most cases resolved in a shell or a reason to drop the card.

- I don't care if cx is treated as prep.

- Marked docs should be sent right after the speech, if it takes an excessive amount of time it'll come out of prep.

- Asking about what was read or said comes out of your prep.

- I'll disclose speaks if asked

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

Specifics:

Larp

Pretty straightforward, read some framework or I'll default to not util. *FOR CAL: this will probably be a more larpy tournament, I should not be preffed very high if every round you have is larp v larp*

Phil

I have a decent grasp of Phil in the context of LD and outside. I would like actual Phil, not logcon and condo logic. I think other tricky stuff like skep that is a bit less trolly are actually quite interesting and enjoy these rounds. I feel like arguments like relativism are underutilized. I think modesty is silly and usually would hurt util more than it helps. I think well-structured Phil affs with offense that clearly affirms is one of the strongest positions.

Ks

K's are like cool, I know some literature not all. I'll be better for Deleuze, Baudrillard, warren, Hartman, genealogy, black nihilism, and puar than other stuff. I will still vote on arguments if they make some sense. Concrete examples and clearly knowing the lit will do wonders. When there is a ROB/ROJ please show why it's preclusive or why it doesn't need to be normative. K v K is incoherent a lot of times so if something makes more sense it'll probably win. I haven't touched anything related to K lit for a decent amount of time so I will be rusty on quite a bit of stuff here.

K affs v T

40/60 on K aff/fwk. I've read non t, topical k affs, and performance affs so I think a lot of T is easy to beat. I think I err on the side of fwk because I don't buy a lot of the claims from K affs either and generally, affs fall into this problem where it might come off as telling the judge to affirm their identity. You're probably reading this and thinking this isn't your aff, but if the round really gets like this I'm most likely negating. I think for the aff to win they should have a solid topic link and leverage that in the T debate along with impact turns, I meets, etc. The neg wins by proving the opposite. I think 2NRs need to still deal with case 90% of the time. Affs get away with a lot of nonsense if you don't deal with the 2-minute overview with 16 independent voters and 20 turns to T. I also would be willing to vote on a 2NR that is primarily on case instead of T.

Theory

I will vote on literally every shell, bad debating will hurt speaks not necessarily bad arguments. Set voters cuz my defaults are bad. Paragraph theory is fine, might need clearer signposting since I mainly did the big shell stuff. Weighing makes these rounds really easy, not weighing makes them a pain. In general, I enjoy well-done theory rounds with 1 shell more than rounds with 3 shallow shells that were 15 seconds of the 1NC and became 5 minutes of the 2NR.

Tricks

I personally like Phil tricks more than theory tricks, but a lot of Phil tricks are also poor logic so be careful, I will vote on these if they are won, impacted, extended, and weighed. If I don't get the trick I won't vote on it. "Eval after" tricks are bad cuz there are too many questions about how to evaluate them, so I will only use them for tiebreakers absent adequate judge instruction.

Feel free to contact me on Facebook before rounds, prefs were always tough for me.

Lynbrook HS 22'

Hey I'm Arnav. Reach me at dixitarnav2@gmail.com for disclosure or if you have any questions about my paradigm.

TLDR:

1 - LARP

2 - T, Theory

3 - Stock Ks, Tricks

4 - Phil, Dense Ks

5 - Non-T Affs

Strike - Performance Affs

Long:

1) Don't go in round acting a jerk. Please don't make arguments that make the round inaccessible to your opponent or are just flat out offensive. Speaks will tank if you do this and I probably won't vote for you.

2) Tech over truth. However, I'm not going to vote on an argument that is outright offensive to your opponent. If you want to read death good in front of me, I'm fine with it.

3) Extend arguments properly. It's not good enough to just say "extend x disad" and move on. Warrant out your extensions and explain the implications it has. Otherwise, your extensions are useless and I don't know what to do with them.

4) PLEASE I ASK THAT YOU COLLAPSE IN THE 2N. It makes my life so much easier and the round becomes way more organized if I know which arguments to evaluate.

5) I'm fine with swearing in round. Just don't be offensive with it. Auto lose with 20 speaks if you are.

6) LARP: Love it. I've mostly run these types of arguments in my debate career.

7) Theory: I've grown to like theory over time. I'll vote off of any theory argument, even if it's friv. I'm pretty chill with theory. I default fairness>K if no weighing is done and if the framing debate's just bad.

8) Ks: I'm familiar with stock Ks and general lit. But if you're reading dense K lit, please explain it well. I'll be a pretty bad judge to have for K v K debates. Long overviews are bad. Spend more time responding to arguments.

9) Tricks: I used to hate these but I've grown to develop a small liking for these types of arguments. If these arguments have clear extensions, I'll buy them. They're pretty entertaining in my opinion. But don't use it to exclude other debaters.

10) Phil: The only phil I've read is kant and skep. I'm familiar with some other phil args too. I tend find phil arguments unpersuasive since I feel util is pretty responsive to bad phil frameworks.

11) Non-T Affs: I won't going to buy these. I'm not persuaded by these types of args and they just tend to make the round more disorganized for me. Don't run them.

12) Performance affs: Hate these. Don't run them in front of me.

13) Put all analytics you have pre-typed on the doc. If you start exempting in the 1AC, 1NC, and 1AR, I'll stop flowing.

14) I love line-by-lines. But don't think this lets you get away with not collapsing in later speeches.

15) I'll buy evidence ethics as a voter. However, if you're going for this and there is actually no evidence ethics violation, I'll have to drop you. Power-tagging is DTA and mistagging/miscutting is DTD.

16) Don't have a monotonous tone in round, or I'll get bored. I'll enjoy the round if you do too.

17) Prep ends when the doc is compiled - I'm lenient. However, if you're taking a long time sending the doc and can't prove to me that you're experiencing technical difficulties, I'll take prep from you and dock your speaks.

18) Yash Mishra, Krishna Ajjarapu, and Shreeram Modi snippets on the doc will give you +0.1 speaks.

Defaults: Comparative Worlds, Competing Interps, Epistemic Confidence, Drop the Debater, No RVIs

30: You're going to finals

29.9-29.5: Late elims

29.5-29.0: You're probably going to elims.

28.0-29.0: Average. You're alright.

27.0-28.0: There are issues with the strat you went with.

<26.9: You've done something that has annoyed me.

My pet peeves:

Saying "time starts now" at the beginning of your speech. Your speaks may tank if you do this - depending on my mood.

Saying "extend this across the flow." Speaks may also tank for this.

Addressing me as "judge," unless it's a lay round. If it's a lay round I'll be a little more lenient.

Interrupting your opponent in CX and just being a jerk in round.

Shaking my hand before round. Trust me, I don't want corona.

"Shit talking" your opponent or judge (me) behind my back. Auto-lose with 20 speaks if I see this. It's outright bad sportsmanship and you should know better.

Lynrbook 22

Debated circuit LD for 3 years at Lynbrook. Also did a good amount of traditional debate.

Add me on the email chain: gupta.aakash@gmail.com

---Circuit LD---

1 - LARP

2 - T, Theory, Phil, Trix

3 - Stock K's (Cap K, security, etc.)

4-5 - Other K's

LARP --

This was mostly what I did on aff and a decent amount on neg for most of my debate years. As a debater, I thought case debate was overrated since I would rather just moot all my opponent's offense with NC's and CP's, but they can make debates more interesting.

Intrinsic disad perms are really cool imo (though you probably shouldn't lose to theory). Intrinsic perms in general are really cool I guess.

T/Theory --

People should probably spend more time on paradigm issues. Reasonability + DTA is underrated, but I don't lean one way or another.

I default competing interps, DTD, no RVI's.

Phil --

I probably don't know the lit, so you should be able to explain it and how offense operates under it. Please have an impact calc section that explains how offense operates underneath your fw. Your opponent shouldn't need cx to understand your NC (even if it is a common one).

You guys do realize there are more arguments you can make against consequentialism other than sketchy calc indicts, right?

Trix --

I like logic trix (trivialism triggers, etc.) and phil trix. Fine with burden tricks. Dislike theory tricks since they often lack actual developed warrants.

Don't hide tricks within arguments. Every new argument should start on a new line in the 1AC and 1NC or your speaks won't be good.

All arguments need a clear claim, warrant, and implication.

K's --

I read a few kritiks but almost never went for them.

Aff-leaning on framework. I am more inclined to believe that debates should center around the resolution instead of traversing random fantasies.

Most kritik cards just assert a theory of power but lack any warrants for why the theory of power is accurate.

Stop using buzzwords and explain your theory of power coherently in the speech it is given. I'm not going to vote for arguments I don't understand in the speech it was given.

-Debated 4 years LD, graduating in 2013; qualified to TOC twice and reached Quarterfinals my senior year.

-Have coached for 10 years; am currently the Head Debate Coach at Lynbrook High School.

PF paradigm for Last Chance Qualifier:

1. Keep in mind that I don't know the topic at all -- you'll have to walk me through the links/the story of your argument.
2. Weigh your arguments and also respond to your opponents' weighing. A lot of the PF that I judge gets decided on the basis of drops -- you should be interacting in the last few speeches with any arguments that respond to what you're going for.
3. Please don't take too long sending evidence/don't excessively ask for evidence unless you really need to see it. I judge many rounds in which one side asks to see a ton of evidence and then barely references it later in the speech, yet the effect is still a considerable delaying of the round. If this becomes a problem I will be reducing speaker points.

LD paradigm from TOC (will probably update soon):

There was a misunderstanding about my paradigm, so am rewriting to be especially explicit:

The one argument I won't ever vote for is disclosure theory. I don't think anyone has to say anything to their opponent before the competition begins -- the concept of having to tell your opponent what your strategy is in advance is prima facie absurd in my opinion. I recognize that disclosure is a norm now, but it wasn't when I competed, and I think it's a bad addition.

I am truly horrible at adjudicating policy style debate. You should really only pref me for Phil and sometimes for theory.

Heyo! I'd like a lay round when I'm judging as I'm not particularly good at circuit things like Theory, Kritiks, etc in LD. However, if you really want to, you can bring those things up. Overall, I look at the flow to decide the winner and who impacts out and weighs better. Good Luck!

**Notes for Cal 2024

Please set up + include me on the email chain pre-round! allisonhsu@berkeley.edu

I haven't touched the circuit in a while and I'm not familiar with the Jan/Feb '24 topics, so please be light on topic-specific jargon and err on the side of over-explaining. Spreading is fine, but please slow down for analytics + if you see me stop flowing there's a good chance you're going too fast.

Judge instruction and weighing are very much appreciated and will be rewarded! Ideally, your last speech should be my RFD.

--

Hi, I'm Allison! I'm a former HSLD debater and current student at Cal.

When I was competing I mostly split my time between standard LARP cases and K's/Phil (mostly some variation of the Cap K). I haven't touched the circuit since ~2021, so my understanding of debate terminology will be from around that time.

I'd recommend you pref me if Cal is one of your first circuit tournaments, and you want to experiment with basic K's/Theory/Phil! I'd also love to judge a well-performed lay debate, if that's your jam.

+2 speaks for pictures of your pet in the constructive with a small bio about them

He/Him

Tech over truth.

Plans, Counterplans, Theory - go right ahead. PICs - I'd prefer not, but if you can win the theory debate then go for it.

Definition debate - go for it, but prove why I should prefer yours.

FW based debate - as long as it's not intent based, go for it. Intent based isn't a coherent argument imo. Unless you do a REALLY REALLY REALLY good job explaining why intent based is better, you lose that framing the moment you read it.

Phil - I don't really understand most of it, I haven't read much - I'm probably more likely to err towards morality/util. Don't run shit like death or racism good.

Defaults: No RVI, Util (again, go for fw debate), Fairness over K, text over spirit, CI over reasonability

sid.kannan11@gmail.com

TLDR: Run whatever you want. Creative arguments are always appreciated and significantly more fun to listen to than hearing your stock aff for the fifteenth time. I'll listen to whatever you say and vote off anything you read, no matter how progressive or stupid or out there it is. I have experience on reading LARP, K, Theory, Tricks, and Phil.

Any "generally think" thing in the paradigm is up for debate, just there so you understand where I stand as a debater/judge.

1. LARP: yes go for it, I read it, I like it

Generally think that under 3 condo is fine. I will listen to and evaluate more than that and will not drop speaks for reading 17 condo, but the more condo args there are, the more I believe the shell and the lower my threshold for responses will tend to be.

PICs: yea ok, but the more ground you steal the more I tend to think its abusive.

Plans are good! Obviously they aren't necessary, especially not for phil or K affs but if you're neg strat is plans bad, my threshold for responses will be pretty low.

otherwise, I enjoy a well formed Politics DA, I enjoy your creative CP's and I enjoy specific plans.

2. Theory:

a bad theory debate is INSANELY boring to watch and listen to and your speaks will reflect that.

Friv theory is fine, but pls do make it fun to watch. If the shell is ridiculous and funny, and your responses are ridiculous and funny I will give you both 30's cuz you probably made my day. The more frivolous the shell, the more likely I am to buy the reasonability args

Stock shells:

ok sure

Weird shells:

love to hear it

Defaults: Competing interps, No RVI's

on the RVI: I default no RVI's because I had to put something. If you make an argument for an RVI, I'm not hard to win it in front of.

3. T

look at theory for defaults

I don't like the Nebel shell against a stock aff

I'm ok with the T vs K aff

4. Phil

Read it, love it

5. K's

read them, love them

Familiar with most authors, but that doesn't mean I'll hack for you.

I will hold you to a high standard of explanation

I do like the giant 2nr overview that line by lines the aff and uplayers out of all their offense.

6. Trix

see friv theory section.

Have fun, the more fun you're having the more fun I'll have

Debated circuit LD for 3 years at Lynbrook. Also did a good amount of traditional debate. Did a bit of PF in middle school but I honestly don't remember any of it.

Add me on the email chain: mishraayush247@gmail.com

---Traditional LD---

1] Tech > truth, but I will definetly gut check really sus arguments if I hear any.

2] I won't vote on new 2AR arguments.

3] Collapse to a few arguments by the end of the debate, and give me reasons why those arguments matter more than your opponents.

4] If you are a circuit debater at a non-circuit tournament, don't start spreading on some random trad kid. If you do, your speaks will look depressing.

---Circuit LD---

1 - LARP

2 - T, Theory, Phil, Trix

3 - Stock K's (Cap K, security, etc.)

4-5 - Other K's

LARP --

This was mostly what I did on aff and a decent amount on neg for most of my debate years. As a debater, I thought case debate was overrated since I would rather just moot all my opponent's offense with NC's and CP's, but they can make debates more interesting.

Intrinsic disad perms are really cool imo (though you probably shouldn't lose to theory). Intrinsic perms in general are really cool I guess.

T/Theory --

People should probably spend more time on paradigm issues. Reasonability + DTA is underrated, but I don't lean one way or another.

I default competing interps, DTD, no RVI's.

Phil --

I probably don't know the lit, so you should be able to explain it and how offense operates under it. Please have an impact calc section that explains how offense operates underneath your fw. Your opponent shouldn't need cx to understand your NC (even if it is a common one).

You guys do realize there are more arguments you can make against consequentialism other than sketchy calc indicts, right?

Trix --

Lmao

I like logic trix (trivialism triggers, etc.) and phil trix. Fine with burden tricks. Dislike theory tricks since they often lack actual developed warrants.

Don't hide tricks within arguments. Every new argument should start on a new line in the 1AC and 1NC or your speaks won't be good.

All arguments need a clear claim, warrant, and implication.

K's --

I read a few kritiks but almost never went for them.

Aff-leaning on framework. I am more inclined to believe that debates should center around the resolution instead of traversing random fantasies.

Most kritik cards just assert a theory of power but lack any warrants for why the theory of power is accurate.

Stop using buzzwords and explain your theory of power coherently in the speech it is given. I'm not going to vote for arguments I don't understand in the speech it was given.

---Public Forum---

If it is a lay tournament, I will treat it as a trad LD round and judge accordingly.

I debated for Lynbrook High School, and I now study Computer Science and Philosophy in university.

I did PF for three years and LD for four years. I won the SVUDL Spring Invitational (SCU) in LD back in 2021. I also did a lot of circuit LD too.

I am comfortable evaluating any type of argument (I've run all sorts of things like moral skepticism, Buddhism K, commodification of suffering K, etc although I mostly tried to run somewhat unique policy-style arguments while LARPing). Even though I'm fairly liberal when it comes to accepting unique arguments, I have strong preferences for what I would like to see while judging a debate. The judge is not there to vote for the winner of the debate, the winner of the debate will be the team that best persuades the judge. So I won't shy away from stating what I like and dislike.

• Don't run anything that someone could reasonably run theory against. For example, hyperspecific plans.
• No theory/T/disclosure. Also no spreading (but speaking slightly faster than conversational pace is perfectly fine).
• The two bullet points above work quite nicely together. If you want to know why I have these preferences, I'd be happy to discuss.
• I really like philosophy, so if you read it, read it well. Make it interesting, and make sure you understand what you're talking about.
• Do not misconstrue evidence, I will vote you down if you do
• Don't be rude, but be confident and persuasive, even if it is a circuit LD round
• Here's a cheat code to win my ballot. In your final speech, explain what the most important argument/layer of the round is, why it is the most important, and why you are winning it. Write my RFD for me.

If you need any accommodations or have any questions, let me know before the round.

My email is mishra7yash@gmail.com

Shreeram Modi (he/him)

Lynbrook '22, currently at NYU.

I'd like to be on the chain, ask for my email before the round if you don't have it.

You can find my full judging record here.

TL;DR

I am tech over truth – I find that any line a judge will draw to exclude "silly" arguments, arguments too "generic" to supposedly rejoin the aff, or burdens for a position to be "substantive" enough are all arbitrary and thus I choose to not draw them. The only exception to this is the 2AR, where I will protect the 2NR from new arguments that could not have been expected from what was in the 1AR. Truth influences tech to the extent that a profoundly untrue claim will require a higher burden of execution to win when contested, but contestation is required for me to question the validity of an argument.

Procedure

I care much less about form than most – Fully open cross-ex, flex prep, taking cross-ex as prep, etc. are almost always fine with me. Your time is your time and you can do with it whatever you feel will maximize your chances of winning. The only thing that is set in stone is the number of speeches you have and your speech time, which you may not extend.

Deciding a Round – I will list the arguments flagged in the 2NR/2AR, resolving each in favor of either side until a sufficient win condition has been met. For each argument won/lost, I will ask myself what winning this gets the aff/neg, and whether losing this can still allow them to win the debate. I have read arguments across the spectrum and only feel uncomfortable evaluating the following debates: phil vs phil, tricks vs tricks, K vs high theory K, dense CP competition.

Kritik

– Policy (Aff) vs Kritik (Neg)

2NR either needs framework and links that say plan focus/the aff's rhetoric is bad or needs the alt + links to the plan and says the plan is bad. A 2NR on framework does not need the alt the aff's performance generates uniqueness. Similarly, the 2NR with links to the plan does not need framework to generate uniqueness because the alt should function as a uniqueness cp.

Examples are key – "In-depth knowledge of your theory is not a substitute for historical examples. Tailor your offense to specific lines from your opponents' evidence instead of relying on jargon. If I cannot explain the K in your words after the round or articulate how it solves, I will likely presume for the other team." –Nick Tilmes

Don't forget about your 1AC – "Long framing contentions in the 1AC which don't get extended into later speeches and 2ACs that include every generic K answer are disappointing to watch and a blow to your credibility." –Nick Tilmes

– Kritik (Aff) vs Policy (Neg)

Don't forget about your 1AC – When the 1AC spends a lot of time justifying a broad-sweeping claim of the world and their first response to the politics DA is "Biden wins now," you have just lost all your credibility. Responses to off-case positions, including DAs/CPs, should leverage your 1AC. Otherwise, you are better suited just reading a policy aff.

Agnostic about what T impact you go for – I have only ever gone for clash, but know the fairness 2NR can be strategic and has its place. Go for whatever you want.

Recycled T blocks are boring – It's obvious when you have barely changed your T blocks in the context of the aff, and these rounds not only become incredibly boring, but incredibly winnable for the aff if they invest time into argument specificity.

1NCs vs K affs should be bigger – Frame subtraction, impact turns, DAs to test whether they'll defend the topic, etc. can be very strategic.

CP

Judge kick – It's good, but has to be on my flow by the 2NR.

Prefer competition debates over theory since the latter usually presumes that you've won the counterplan isn't competitive.

Better than most for process – see stuff at the top about tech > truth.

DA

Politics DA – It's a thing.

"No war ever" probably not the correct move to frame out DAs. Prefer indicts of util or epistemology.

T

I have not thought about the LD topic at all. Don't know what people agree "WA" or "NA" is or what counts as military presence. Explain your stuff.

T 2NRs that win usually explain to me a vision of what the topic looks like and give me things like examples of topical/non-topical affs, caselists of arguments they lose, and reasons why the aff's specific plan leads to that abuse.

The more cards the better.

Phil & Tricks

Prefer logic tricks with actual warrants to the same recycled theory spikes.

I am very comfortable giving an RFD of "I did not catch that argument" which means you should slow down in these debates or have your warrants be longer than 3 words.

LD judges are too trigger-happy to vote for tricks – Yes, tech over truth, but if you are going for Curry's Paradox ("Condo Logic" is NOT the name of the argument) and can not explain to me what exactly I'm voting for, but just assert a bunch of formal logic in my face, you will lose and the RFD will be "I don't have a coherent warrant flowed."

Misc

Debaters should be flowing – You don't need to flash analytics, doing so is a courtesy but not necessary. Similarly, there is no flow clarification slot in debate; cards should be marked orally but you do not need to specify which cards/arguments you did or did not read. Ask for a version of the doc without the cards not read and I will ask that you start cross-ex or prep.

Speaker Points – they are mine, not yours; I will not evaluate speaker point theory. The logical conclusion of evaluating this genre of arguments is that everyone reads and agrees to speaks theory at which point they serve no purpose.

I do not feel comfortable adjudicating call outs, events that occurred outside the debate that I did not witness, arguments related to prefs (or in that genre). Y'all are high schoolers and it is not my business.

Public Forum:

NOTE: I don't know what compels PF debaters to immediately start speeches without verbal confirmation that everyone in the room is ready. If you don't ask me whether I am ready for your speech and just immediately begin talking, I will miss arguments you make and you will not have the opportunity to restart your speech.

Although the majority of my experience in debate has been on the national circuit, once upon a time I did trad debate too so if that's your jam feel free. I don't care about the content of your argument so long as you can present it coherently. What this means is that given PF's speech times, it's maybe not the best idea to pull your varsity policy team's backfile Baudrillard K but rather to read arguments you're comfortable with, while upping your tech.

That being said, I find some of the norms in the PF community either unproductive or exhausting. I would very strongly prefer that all the cards you read are sent out in a word doc to an email chain before your speech rather than wasting time "calling for" cards during prep. I strongly believe that paraphrasing is a terrible norm for any academic activity and as such will treat any paraphrased evidence with the same weight as an analytic.

It seems logical to me that arguments must be referenced in next speeches for them to count, and must be responded to in your next speech to not be considered dropped. I.e. the second rebuttal must frontline case, summary speeches must extend frontlines and rebuttals, etc.

Any other norms I am either unaware of or agnostic about, feel free to ask before the round but chances are I will defer to the consensus between you and your opponents. This also means that PF vocab (e.g. "defense is sticky") means nothing to me.

Lay judge no spreading. No ks. No tricks. None of that nonsense. Some theory is okay.

1-Larp, T

2-Theory/K's

3-High theory, Tricks

4-Non-T Affs, Phil

5- Stuff I don't understand

More Details:

1)Don't run friv theory

2) If you run complicated phil or K's explain them well, I don't vote on things I cant understand

3) I have a PF background so I really like watching good LARP rounds

4)Auto L 20 if you're racist, advocate for slavery, run a suicide alt, insult cats

5) +.5 speaks if you give me food, +.2 speaks for having the speech doc sent out on time

6) Spreading is fine, I will clear you 2x before dropping speaks

7) I don't care if you collapse, just be strategic

Lynbrook 2023, LD & Policy, 4 bids senior year. Email: lynbrooklddisclosure@gmail.com

The type of debate I've researched and thought most about were Ks. I think I am best at evaling these debates. However, that being said I do not care what arguments you read, I've read policy and theory all throughout my career, despite the K side of me and enjoy all positions greatly.

Things you should do to win a debate:

- Michael Harris's paradigm is basically how I will judge the round. He was my coach

-A complete arg has a claim, warrant, and impact/implication

-Good impact calculus and evidence comparison

Like and don't like:

-Giving 2nr 2ar off paper is auto 1.0+ in speaks

-Shaking each other's hands after the round! It's a sign of respect and everyone should do it, no one does it anymore ;....0. If you shake hands afterward both get +0.3!!!

-Don't stall time to start a speech & spread clearly!