Peninsula Invitational
2021 — Rolling Hills Estates, CA/US
Novice Policy Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideI want to be on the email chain, my email is awavrakh@gmail.com. If you have any questions, feel free to email me.
I debated high school policy debate for 4 years with Goldstein HS, I've judged and taught parli and I've judged PF.
I don't like:
Existential impacts, don't give me a million ways nuclear war will happen, high magnitude impacts are almost always unconvincing and non-unique, if you're gonna run that kinda arg, make sure the impact story makes sense
Generic t arguments, I'll vote on it if it's carried well but if you can run off case and on case, then t really has no place in your 1nc. Time skews are just boring for everyone involved, throwing things at the wall and seeing what sticks isn't an effective strategy
Spreading tags and analytics, as that's the stuff I'll need to flow. If I don't get down something important because your spreading through it, don't be surprised if I have to make my own conclusions to write an rfd
That aside, I'm fine with anything so long as it's thoroughly explained. I also like if you're funny, snarky, or bring up the mood somehow... it makes for good debate, brightens everyone's day, and usually gets you higher speaks
Anyway, have a good time, have fun, and good luck
Freshman at lmu
did debate for Damien hs
email for chain -> josephblmu@gmail.com
you can read whatever you want just be clear
make me laugh and ur speaks will be nice
Please refer to everyone involved in the round gender-neutrally unless otherwise stated by a participant or judge.
CX TEAMS: START THE EMAIL CHAIN AS SOON AS ALL DEBATERS ARE IN THE ROOM.
Yes, include me. My email is: amber@lamdl.org
high school debate: crenshaw high school ( policy )
college debate: st. john's university ( BP )
currently: i'm usually in someone's tab. as such, i'm not keeping up with current arguments, authors, strats etc. assume i'm used to your evidence at your own risk.
--
hi i'm amber (they/them) and i want you to have fun and learn new things. debates are for learning, not for whoever gets to nuclear war fastest. tech issues aren't considered prep, but do not abuse this.
on flowing:
I HAVE TINNITUS AND CANNOT HEAR MONOTONE READERS.
I HAVE TINNITUS AND CANNOT HEAR MONOTONE READERS.
I HAVE TINNITUS AND CANNOT HEAR MONOTONE READERS.
I HAVE TINNITUS AND CANNOT HEAR MONOTONE READERS.
I HAVE TINNITUS AND CANNOT HEAR MONOTONE READERS.
you have GOT to put inflections, emphasis etc in your speeches otherwise i WILL NOT be able to hear, understand, and flow you. if you pick up nothing else from this paradigm, absorb this and invest in practices that will allow you to be a clear and impactful reader.
you have one instance of me saying "Clear" in round before i stop flowing.
i flow args not authors most of the time. EXTEND YOUR ARGS. TELL ME WHAT THEY'RE REPLYING TO. "judge, extend our brooks '03" tells me nothing. where am i putting that? what is it answering? how is it relevant? if i have to answer those questions myself, there's an issue. you want me to do as little intervention in the back as possible-- tell me exactly where you want something flowed, that way at the end of the round we can be assured that my decision is based off of what you all debated for me, not my own opinions or biases.
POLICY basics:
1. I DO NOT FLOW FROM SPEECH DOCS. i flow what i hear, which means speak up, speak clearly, and if you're tempted to double breathe, don't. it's distracting and doesn't actually help you debate better or faster. if you go silent while you spread, don't. i have tinnitus in BOTH ears, i will stop flowing if you become unintelligible. you have one instance of me saying "Clear" in round before i stop flowing.
2. do not read theory at me. your speaks will reflect you reading theory at me poorly
3. keep your flows organized-- the easiest way to do that is by sign posting ("next", "and", "now onto" are perfect phrases for keeping the pace of a speech while still allowing the judge time to switch flows).
4. for neg teams in particular: do not prioritize reading a thousand args in the 1NC over 1-2 actual strategies. i will not reward you for wasting aff and MY time. do not play with me on this.
5. Do Not Read Theory At Me.
6. If you're nonblack and running Black args, 1) your reasoning had better be solid 2) i'm giving 24s and below to whoever does it poorly. using antiblackness, afropess and other Black args as "gotchas!" against teams in rounds IS in itself antiblack, and i'm not going to listen to the commodification of Blackness for a ballot. if your strategy needs to change because of this, you also need to be evaluating why you had those args in your arsenal in the first place.
tldr:
- read clearly and loudly, or i will not flow your speech. don't read theory at me. don't read bad Ks at me. your speaks will reflect you reading things poorly at me. don't read Black args if you're not Black, as 'gotchas' against your opponents; i will break tabroom giving you the lowest possible speaks.
--
LD BASICS:
if you want to have an in depth, hardcore theory or k debate, i am not the judge for you. don't do it to yourself or to me. generally i'll evaluate most arguments fairly; if a team can explain and convince me to vote for them, and the flow matches, that's all i really need to give a ballot. that being said, i don't regularly judge LD so my ear is NOT trained to y'all's jargon and whatnot. in case you didn't read above, i have tinnitus in both ears and need you to SLOW DOWN THE BEGINNING OF YOUR SPEECH. enunciate anything of importance; no, that doesn't mean your whole speech lmao (unless you're going for high speaks, bc yes i will award higher speaks to whoever enunciates and emphasizes arguments in their speeches).
T: i don't like T debates, but i'll give them a fair evaluation!
larp v larp: sure, go for it
larp v k: i'll be honest, i'll probably lean larp here if the k team doesn't properly explain or defend themselves
k v k: please god do not do this to us. i mean it. it will be an unpleasant round for everyone involved.
disclosure: fairness is an impact but don't take this to an extreme.
no RVIs: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
friv. theory: if it's truly frivolous, no i'm not voting on it. i'll evaluate every argument given in the debate, but it NEEDS to have a basis in truth, or be proven not an absolute waste of debate time.
add me to your email chain:snehchachra@gmail.com
Pronouns: She/hers They/Theirs
Experience: I did policy debate at Downtown Magnets High School for 4 years. I was captain of my team, broke to octos in the 2019 Urban Debate National Championship. I went to college on a debate scholarship, did parli and judged policy, parli and ld. I now work as a community organizer
What to run?: Literally anything. I ran kaffs my sophomore and senior year of high school and policy affs my entire junior year and now. I've run and gone for DAs, CPs, theory, T, and Ks.
What not to do?: Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, or any of the other isms.
What I'm not the biggest fan of: I also have a bias against inaccess. running like 6+ off, running an unnecessary amount of theory, leveraging your own identity in a way that pushes your opponents to bring their own identity into the round, spreading to the point of incoherency past the 1ac/1nc
this is unfinished if you have more specific questions ask before round but the TL;DR is I’ve debated a lot so run whatever and don’t be a jerk
Newbie Coach for ADL
I flow.
I give pretty high speaks if you're nice.
Email Chain: Brandonchen.135@gmail.com
Ask in round if you want to know more about me
Hello, my name is Lesly De Anda She/Her - Add me to the email chain: leslydeanda8@gmail.com
Some things about me: I Graduated from Steam Legacy High School class of 2019’ debated for 4 years for Los Angeles Urban Debate League (LAMDL for short) as a Policy Debater! I attended Fullerton College where I debated for 2 years in JV-Open Policy Debate transferring to UC Riverside. I no longer debate competitively, but I am active in judging and coaching if you ever need any help please go ahead and email me any questions after round I would love to help! I am a Policy Coach - @ STEAM LEGACY HS and affiliated with LAMDL. I judge Policy Debate, LD Debate, and Public Forum. So I am becoming more versatile, I am still a little new to the lingo so please be patient with me.
Receiving High Speaks: I love strong speakers and debaters who asks great CX questions, I love to feel the clash in the room. I tend not to pay attention to CX but when it leads to clash I will take it into consideration. Please address me by my name and talk to me before round, I hate going into round feeling like I don't know anyone lol. Debate is a show, do your BEST and be CHARISMATIC this is your show and we are all just watching.
Receiving Low Speaks: if u create a hostile environment for the other debaters in the room or people in the room i will end the round and vote up the other team immediately.
- If say something racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, any ism's etc. I WILL DROP YOUR SPEAKER POINTS. i get it, debate is a competitive sport that can get very heated, but to me, this is an educational space and should also make you feel safe. be a good person to the people you share this space with and contribute to the great things that this activity contributes in the best way you can do such.
- If you have spectators in your round, please be respectful I will LOWER your speaks and and VOTE YOU DOWN if you are TEXTING and even INTERACTING with them IRKS me and is super DISRESPECTFUL.
Spreading - Is okay with me as long as everyone in the room can fully understand you - remember you can read 8 off but if I didn’t understand you who does it benefit in round ? If you ask me if I can understand spreading then I will tell you no ._. Read my paradigm.
CX - I will NOT vote on anything during CX UNLESS brought up in the constructive or debater asks me too, if you are going to create a strategy ask me to flow, if not I will not pay attention to CX.
Prep - take the time you need before a round, the internet sometimes sucks and computers act up it happens, do not steal prep time while flashing or emailing files. I am very understanding so please do not take advantage or else I will be force to stop the round. If you need to cut a card while you are reading pls send a revise version before the next speech, I find it unjust and unfair.
Flowing - I do flow everything ( not CX unless stated to), but I will not flow if your spreading is illegible, if you know your spreading is not as good as it needs to be do not make me work harder to understand.
Policy/K’ Affs - I ran both myself, but have no biasness towards either both are awesome to run! Just make sure you know how to defend yourself against Topicality. Love the uniqueness of K aff's show me what you created !!!!
Topicality - T is work and you have to put in the work in order to win my vote on T, if you are going for topicality or any theory argument in the 2ar/2nr you need to extend interpretations, violations, and standards. Standards must have impacts fairness and education is not super persuasive and will probably lean to reasonability. Good interps of what a "topical" plan should be --- that being said i will default to the better interp/definition and vote accordingly.
K’s - I LOVE A GOOD K debate and usually do vote on the K if the links/impacts are made clear. Link contextualization is key no matter the kritik. Alternative contextualization is key too if at the end of the round I do not understand what your alternative then I will drop the K and vote on the AFF on this one. PLEASE do your research, and explain what the alternative does, and how the aff links into such.
(Policy debates)Tag team CX- Once you are in Varsity , I don't believe you should be tag teaming.
Peninsula Debate 2019-2021
Damien Debate 2021-2022
Top Level Stuff
Tech>Truth but truth doesn't hurt.
Offense/defense - zero risk only exists for theory.
An argument without warrants isn't an argument.
Dropped warrants are true - you still need some explanation to extend them though.
Neg on theory - infinite condo's good, judge kick, etc. Sole exception here is that while perf con obviously isn't a voter, I become very skeptical of certain "epistemology first/reps first" K framework arguments.
Inserts are fine.
Fairness is an impact.
Bias/Ideological Leanings
I'm a lot better for Ks v policy affs than I was a year ago, as they have become my most common 2NR. I especially have a soft spot for psychoanalysis as a security K. I don't have a predisposed opinion on framework (on the aff or neg) that can't be reversed with good debating (if you win that I shouldn't weigh the aff then I shouldn't weigh the aff, and vice versa).
Nevertheless, I always love and am familiar with classic policy arguments.
I'm probably not great for you if you read a K Aff, even simply on a level of familiarity, although I will do my best to adjudicate without bias.
Novice Notes
Try to only use word documents.
Don't say a count down before speeches.
Give an order of what FLOWS you'll be going to (ie "Case in the order of advantage one, then two. The X CP. The X DA").
Peninsula '22 | UCLA '26
Add me to the chain:
I haven't been active in the debate community for a little bit so clarity and a clean flow would be appreciated. If you're exploding down your block I will not be able to follow most of your args.
Arguments must include a claim, warrant, and impact.
T/CP/DA: I find that evidence quality is quintessential - I slightly lean towards a legally precise definition that reflects consensus rather than a debateability push. But, can be easily swayed for either side. If you're aff and its soft left with a framing advantage, actually debate the DA. Riders are probably not legitimate. Neg on CP theory, unless it's an instance of extreme abuse. I will default to kicking the CP for the neg if there's nothing said. Solvency advocates aren't necessary, but coherent explanations of solvency are.
K: Good if they disprove why I should vote affirmative, but if they're something like the fiat makes me sad K, I will almost certainly vote against you. Will usually let the aff weigh the material consequences of the aff if framework is debated out equally by both teams.
Non-traditional affs: Fairness is an impact, you can also go for others. Probably not the best judge for the aff teams. A lot of the time, I find it difficult to see how the ballot resolves aff impacts.
Theory: Condo is generally good.
For Lay Debate --
I will try to evaluate arguments as if I had never done debate. Please treat me as a parent judge.
Otherwise:
Jackson Frankwick
Email chain --- jacksonrpv@gmail.com
Please be nice.
Don’t pref me if you don’t read a plan and care about winning.
If I judge a fairness bad arguement I will immediately vote for the opponents in the spirit of unfairness.
If I can't flow you I will stop paying attention.
I try to make my speaks normally distributed(u = 28.4, sd = 0.5).
Prep ends when email is sent.
Topicality is primarily a question of truth.
Everything is probablistic unless dropped (existential inherency is true).
Hello my name is Axel Garcia
I'm currently attending GCU (Phoenix, Arizona) and Majoring in Forensic Psychology. I debated in high school for 3 1/2 years as a debater/competitor. I am a debate Coach/Judge (3 years now) for Damien High School if they need help. I debated in public forums and policy debates in high school. I mostly Judge Policy.
Please add both emails
and
Please add to the email chain. Thank you
--
I am 100% honest, really don't know a lot about the topic this year, focused on school. What you can do is this, Explain... ---> https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/71257ee5-18d7-461e-b39b-3277361953dc
-- I am a policy judge
Policy
- I prefer Policy
- I allow tag team CX
-I like any type of argument you run!
- I Love and huge fan of Spreading as long as you articulate and are clear.
- Don't like K's, I will try my best to flow it.
- Everything else I'm good with.
LD
- I rarely do LD debate, Spend a lot of time contextualizing your card/s if you're relying on it to win the round. Even if it was already constructive, it's a good habit to cover it thoroughly a 2nd time just in case I missed something.
PF
- Sometimes I would do PF but not always. I prefer PF
- Remember to Spread as long as you articulate and are clear.
- I rebuttal speeches show me the most important issues and why they favor your side, we already had rebuttal speeches and 2 crossfires (PF).
- I appreciate puns in rounds.
- Tag team cx is allowed
Big Question
Big questions once during high school don't know much about it. Except to do your best and I value one overarching argument that's successfully upheld throughout the round over winning on the flow. Big picture analysis
Random bonuses like things that would boost your points
- Using your time wisely. ( not just sit there and do nothing. Think about what you are going to do next )
- Try to act confident, even if you're not, by making eye contact with your opponent and standing up straight, which can make your argument appear more believable.
- Remain calm at all times, and never shout or get angry since it will only make your argument seem weak.
- Always have your camera on when speaking and stand up when speaking
What not to do:
- If you intentionally make any racist, sexist, or otherwise discriminatory comments, I will give you extremely low-speak and notify your coach.
- Try not to clip, if you do and other teams catch it. you lost the ballot, if you are wrong another team loses. But the debate will keep on going.
- Don't play games when you are done speaking or when your opponent is speaking
- Don't go on your phone, to call, chat, or play games, ( you can use your phone to be in call your partner and or if you are using prep time ) <--- on only zoom
-Have Fun!!!
https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=171692 Other Profile can see my record and past judging if needed
email (yes, include both): lpgarcia19@damien-hs.edu; damiendebate47@gmail.com
LD: policy pls (below should still be applicable)
If you have any questions feel free to ask me before the round starts.
TL;DR Go for what you're most prepared for and can execute the best because that's what really makes debate fun and productive. I'm not very familiar with the topic.
My Beliefs:
Debate is good
Tech > Truth
Clarity above all else
Clipping is bad
My leanings:
Util good
I, as the judge, am a policymaker
Fiat is a good thing
A couple Great cards + explanation always beats 10 pieces of mediocre ev
There's not an excuse to avoid line by line
Topicality
I don't think fairness isn't an intrinsic impact, same as education. It can be an internal link to other things but simply ending your impact calculus with "They KILLED FAIRNESS" won't do it for me. Just treat your extensions and impact work like you would any DA. (I WON'T EVALUATE T AS A DA. TOPICALITY IS A YES OR NO QUESTION. RISK ANALYSIS FOR T IS ABSURD). I also lean heavily towards competing interpretations; the quality of your ev does matter.
Kritiks
If your entire strategy solely centers around the K, I'm not a great judge for you. I can certainly understand your generic Cap and Security K but any high theory requires a whole lot of explanation for me. Just because I might understand what you're saying doesn't mean you can weasel your way around with generic links if it's even somewhat contested. If you're aff I'd down to see an impact turn (obvious exceptions, of course, are: racism good, sexism good, homophobia good, etc.) I really do not want to hear Death Good, please do not do that in front of me.
K-Affs (Includes Framework)
I have written my disdain for K-Affs before. I am not going to just dismiss it; even as I maintain a reluctance to vote on them, I am not one you should just breeze through your blocks and force me to do work for you. I will be the first to admit that I need a lot of explanation as noted above in "Kritiks". Given all this said, framework is an uphill battle for the aff. I am not very sympathetic to generic "fairness bad/your education bad" impact turns; I think policy education is generally a good thing.
Theory
The only theory I feel even remotely comfortable voting aff (TO REJECT THE ARGUMENT) on are utopian fiat bad, object fiat bad, riders DA bad, delay cps bad, and floating piks bad. Condo is generally a good thing and I personally think you're better off not reading that 30 second shell if the neg is running just a single conditional advocacy but I understand time skew. Also, in principle, I judge-kick. I think that as I default to Condo being a good thing, and the status quo always being a logical option, it would be illogical for me to choose a plan of action when doing nothing would be better.
Also, I doubt I'll ever vote for Word Piks. This certainly doesn't excuse excessively disrespectful behavior.
Disads
I like politics a lot and I like engagement and clash at the link level even more so. Turns case analysis (vice versa for the aff) is always a good thing and should be a must have. Straight turns are fun.
Impacts
I love impact turns and my personal favorites are: Heg Good, Warming Good, Cap Good, Dedev, and CWG. It will take a lot for me to evaluate 0 risk of an impact. It can happen but your cards need to be far better.
guno/sean/judge. do with that as you will
flow.
+0.5 speaks given if you add me without asking. do with that as you will
be nice. don't do with that as you will. be nice.
don't be racist/sexist/homophobic/etc. don't do with that as you will. don't be racist/sexist/homophobic/etc.
don't read death good. don't do with that as you will. don't read death good
i've been equally a 2A and 2N, but i prefer being a 2A. do with that as you will
Topicality: I've had two T debates in my life. do with that as you will
Kritiks: order of understandability
--security---queer theory -------setcol---------------------other identity-----------------------------------------------high theory
don't drop fw
do with that as you will
K Affs: k affs have value but i don't think u shud read it as a novice. do with that as you will
fw/t-usfg are my bread and butter. went for it in every 1nr. do with that as you will
Disads: bread and butter. went for it in every 1nr. do with that as you will
Counterplans: literally never took it in the 1nr. don't drop perms. do with that as you will
Theory: don't drop it. go for it if they do. do with that as you will
30 speaks if you have a methane impact. do with that as you will
jokes abt ppl at gbn, gbs, nt, oprf, minn south, or uc lab +0.5 speaks. do with that as you will
u can read anyone from gbn's paradigm and i'll agree for the most part. sohan bellam's paradigm details thoughts about k affs that i agree wtih
2016-2018 Los Angeles Metropolitan Debate League
2018- present CSU Fullerton
email chain- javierh319@gmail.com
Frame the ballot by the 2AR/2NR and don't leave me shooting darts please.
Overviews really help me/you out unless they're longer than the debate proper-be concise.
Prep- Prep ends when doc is sent out or the equivalent of that. Let me know if there are any technical difficulties.
Spreading- speed is fine-go at it if thats ur thing. this shouldn't be exchanged for clarity/emphasis, and ultimately, persuasion. My face tends to be pretty expressive so use that to ur advantage.
Cross Ex- Humor is much appreciated so long as it doesn't offend ur opponent. Attack the argument not the debater.
I generally err on the side of tech over truth. However, too many buzzwords are kinda annoying and don't mean anything if you dont impact/flesh them out. I won't evaluate concessions for you unless you do it first.
Policy Affs- Spent most of hs reading these- read them at will. Internal link work and framing is crucial.
Performance/K Affs- Have a clear explanation of what the advocacy does and why it should precede a traditional endorsement of the resolution (vs framework). Presumption arguments are some of my favorite arguments. Being untopical for the sake of being untopical is sooooo not the move. Even if i think that ur aff is the most interesting/entertaining thing in the world, I can resolve that with speaker points. Offense. Offense. Offense.
Framework- Go for it. Slow down just a tad. Procedural fairness and education are impacts, I'm usually more persuaded by education but fairness is fine too.While I'm usually more persuaded by fairness as an internal link to something else, enough impact comparison can resolve that if ur not down with the former.
Theory/Procedurals- Go for it. I'm not one to love hearing theory debates but will vote on it if you do the work. These can get really petty. Usually not in a good way. Condo is probably good PICs probably aren't. Don't let that dissuade you from saying otherwise because I also love hearing pics and multiple advocacies. I'm a 2N if that is relevant for you.
DAs- Make sure to flesh out the internal links. Winning uniqueness wins direction of link debate. I prefer hearing isolated impact scenario(s) rather than a generic nuclear war/extinction claim although u can totally claim that as ur terminal one. The more specific the link the less spinning the aff can do, the less intervention I have to do, the higher ur chances of winning are. I find it hard to believe that there can ever be 100% risk probability but if the CP solves 100% of the aff you're in a much better spot.
CPs-Resolve questions like how does this solve the case and is this theoretically legitimate if it becomes about that. If you wanna be noncompetitive, you do you but be ready to justify that.
Ks- Tbh I would much rather judge a robust debate about the intricacies/consequences of a traditionally political action vs a less-than fleshed out k debate. Links to the status quo and not the aff are awkward. Generally speaking, im probably down for ur thing. Regardless of me being familiar with ur authors or not-do the work. Framing is super important. Does the alt solve the aff? let me know. You don't need to go for the alt to win
Random/Misc
-a claim with no warrant is a pen with no ink
-know where u are losing but make it fashion
-dont be a jerk
Debate Experience:
2011-2014: Policy Debater at Notre Dame High School
2014-2015: Policy Debater at the University of Michigan
2015-2018: Executive Director of Detroit Urban Debate Education (which included judging and coaching for Detroit Urban Debate League schools in Policy)
Overview:
I currently work at the University of Chicago Crime and Education Lab — an urban social science research organization — evaluating youth-based violence prevention and academic programs. I also studied criminology intensively as a Sociology student on a Law, Justice, and Social Change sub-track at the University of Michigan. This experience often involved going into local correctional facilities firsthand to discuss incarceration, state violence, and policing with individuals who were incarcerated. Based on what I learned there and my current work at the Crime Lab, you can assume I have a baseline understanding of the major policy issues and social theory in the criminal justice field. Still, while I have probably judged over a hundred debate rounds, I am not currently active in the debate community. Do not assume I am caught up on all topic-specific arguments. Please be clear.
Please use Speech Drop instead of emailing me speeches.
A note on virtual Debate:
Virtual debate, as is the case for all remote activities during the COVID-19 pandemic, is inherently biased towards certain people. Access to and knowledge of technology is a privilege. Unfortunately, even for those who have the technology, having a safe space to join Zoom rounds is also a privilege. I hope to recognize technological disparities and the collective trauma caused by the pandemic in my judging by being reasonable, empathetic, and flexible. If there is anything that I can do to make the virtual round more accessible to you please do not hesitate to let me know.
Generally, I will incorporate these norms during virtual debates:
- If possible, I would appreciate it if you had your video on, but I know this is not possible for everyone. My RFD and speaker point assignment will not change based on your video being off.
- Unless otherwise mandated by the tournament, I will incorporate 10 minutes of "tech time" for troubleshooting issues. Please do not abuse this time. It is NOT the same as prep time.
- Please try and show up to your round as early as possible. In the virtual world, it is harder to ensure everyone is accounted for and that the 1AC starts on time, so this is one way to help.
- If there is a tech issue that occurs during your speech for longer than 3-5 seconds, I will interrupt and try to troubleshoot with you in the moment. This time will not be taken out of your speech.
- Everyone should be on mute at all times except for the people currently speaking.
Philosophy:
I try as much as possible to evaluate based on the arguments in the round. While I obviously hold implicit biases for or against certain arguments, I try as hard as possible to not let that impact my decisions. I have experience debating, coaching, and judging critical- and policy-oriented rounds. I wouldn't call myself swayed toward one side or the other.
That being said a couple of notes:
- Bad arguments are bad. If your argument is illogical — for example, reading a disadvantage without a link in the 1NC or your evidence not making the warrants needed to uphold your argument — then I will likely not want to vote for it. It will not be hard for the other team to convince me otherwise. While I do not want to vote for a bad argument, that does not mean the opposing team can just ignore it.
- I am willing to vote against my own beliefs and the burden to persuade me is on both teams. However, I don't tolerate obvious hateful/rude arguments or behavior. Everyone deserves to feel safe in this activity.
- I tend to end up using a cost-benefit analysis to help me make decisions: Quantifying the risk of all impacts, seeing if the logic or warrants behind the impact uphold or minimize that risk, incorporating how much the other team's defense minimizes that risk (or thumps the impact all-together), and comparing this analysis for each impact. It is not uncommon for me to literally graph out how probable I find each impact to be (plus or minus the defense from each team) before an RFD as a decision making tool. I can't begin to tell you how many debates I have judged where one team won simply because the other team forgot to extend defense. All of this being said, I will incorporate any role of the ballot arguments accordingly, even if it means not using this decision making framework. This is simply my norm, but certainly not the overarching rule.
For novice debaters, the following acts will result in an increase of speaker points: flowing every speech, communicating with your partner, not talking over your partner, not talking into your computer, using up all of your time in cross-ex asking questions, giving the evidence you read to the other team efficiently, and keeping track of your own time (I will keep track too, but it's a good behavior to start).
Feel free to ask me questions before/after the round.
Debated at Peninsula in Policy 2017-2021
I'm not super familiar with this year's topic so make sure not to take topic-specific terms and warrants in camp arguments for granted.
Be nice.
I prefer that you read a plan.
Infinite condo is better than no condo.
If it's not condo, you have to do a good job explaining why X theory argument justifies voting against the other team rather than just rejecting the argument.
I will default to judge kick the counterplan unless told otherwise.
I'm not great for high theory.
Impact turn the K.
email: dylanmichalak2003@gmail.com
please call me darin and not judge!
i really don't care what you do. mostly everything is grounds for debate barring blatantly problematic positions. the more your strategy rejoins the 1ac, the higher your speaks will be.
if the top of your final rebuttal does not tell me what i should repeat back to you in my rfd, do not pref me. offense-defense shapes how i render most decisions.
convincing me you should not have to read a plan will be an uphill battle and will require significant concessions from the negative team.
i vote on the k for the neg somewhat frequently. i prefer when things are said about the plan.
conditionality is nearly always good, but there is an alarming trend with how poorly 2n's handle aff extensions of theory.
limited functional intrinsicness is probably good. i can be persuaded otherwise.
if you say the phrase "fiat double bind" in your speech, your speaks are capped at 27.0.
you can't insert re-highlights.
do not talk about things that happened outside the round.
Senior at Peninsula
Pronouns: they/any
put me on the email chain thanks: derric.parker@gmail.com
Usually I decide rounds by
1) evaluating questions of the theoretical justifications for having the debate round/debates in general
2) within the lens of 1, evaluating questions of how I see debate generally/contribute towards a good model for debate in general
3) within the lens of 1 and 2, weighing the substantive/theoretical pieces of offense which each team has made and deciding who accesses the most/most important offense.
-Tech > truth
-Condo good
-Fiat is immediate
-Fairness is an I/L to truth testing, truth is tautologically a good thing to pursue
-Winning abuse means i reject the argument
General Stuff
- I read policy and french stuff, less well-versed in identity/cap stuff
- Affs should have a solvency advocate – I'll vote on death good or anti-debate, you just have to explain what voting aff implicates and why that’s preferable to what voting neg does
- (obviously) the less generic the disad link the better
- I see T as a disad vs. policy affs and a counterplan vs. K affs
-“Rebuttal speeches should be closing doors not opening more” -Dylan Barsoumian
For your speaker points
Auditory ethos is infinitely more important than visual ethos (I wrote this before online debate but its more true now), so please be clear, don’t hum-spread, and emphasize when saying important stuff
you don’t need to call me judge
Justin Peng (he/him)
Rowland Hall ‘20 -- Columbia '24
Add me to the email chain please: justinpeng15@gmail.com
I haven't judged any rounds on the NATO topic yet so please explain any topic-specific terminology or acronyms you use
What I say here isn't set in stone and can be subject to change depending on what happens in round.
TLDR:
Do whatever you do best. I’ll do my best to evaluate any arguments unless they’re racist/homophobic/sexist etc.
Tech > Truth
Clarity > Speed (although both at the same time is always a plus)
CX is binding
K affs/Framework:
I definitely think that K affs hold some strategical and pedagogical value in debate, but I think that debating the topic is probably a better model. That being said, if you do end up reading one it should be related to the topic somehow. Be prepared to defend your model of debate.
Framework should be well articulated and nuanced - I'm not a fan of teams who speed through blocks and dump 20 shallow DAs on framework or just impact turn everything
K v K:
I probably have the least experience with these types of debates.
I'm not a big fan of these debates in general, as a lot of the time, they get really messy. I think that there are definitely some strategic Ks to run against K affs like cap, but reading Baudrillard against Bataille gets you nowhere with me.
Theory/procedurals:
Condo is good and it’s also the only reason to reject the team. (Dropped theory is too and for me to vote on condo there has to be an egregiously unfair abuse of it)
You can go for a 2-second ASPEC blip you hid on T and didn’t flash in the 1NC, but I won't be a big fan I’ll be more lenient with new answers.
T:
Affs that are untopical should lose.
Affs that meet the neg’s interp should not lose. I think that just going for a we meet is cool.
Competing interps/reasonability - I’m 60/40 on the side of competing interps but that doesn’t mean don’t go for reasonability. Just convince me why it’s better.
CP:
No solvency advocate < generic solvency advocate < specific solvency advocate < solvency advocate from 1ac ev/author
Counterplans should be able to cheat at least a little, but the context of the round and literature determine how much they get.
I’ll judge kick a CP for you if you tell me to. The neg should start the debate in the 2nc/1nr and the aff should start it in the 1ar.
DA:
Zero risk possible but you have to prove it
I love case turns analysis when it’s nuanced and specific but don’t know what you mean when you tell me “the DA turns case because it causes nuclear war”
Impact calc/comparison is essential.
K:
Good Ks have links that are specifically contextualized to the aff.
Don’t rely on buzzwords. I probably don’t know what they mean and usually, you don’t either.
If you kick the alt you must definitively win framework and that the K turns case
Framework – I think that the aff probably should be able to weigh their impacts against the K and the neg should probably be able to read their K - this is what most framework debates resolve to - but you can convince me otherwise
I think impact turns are fantastic
FIAT double bind isn’t an argument
Coach for Head-Royce HS, undergrad at UChicago
Did flex stuff in HS, tend to get preffed into clash or KvK debates but have voted pretty close to even in FW debates, good for T vs policy affs, fine for sketch impact turns, not great for CP competition debates
Peninsula 22, UCLA 26 (not debating)
Email chain: lukasrhoades11@gmail.com
No rounds on topic, don't immediately jump into 3rd and 4th levels in cross-ex because I will need complete context to follow.
Tech>truth for arguments (claim, warrant, impact) that I flow. I won't look at the documents during your speech. I will only vote on arguments I've flowed in the final speeches that were extended in each previous speech since their introduction.
You can insert rehighlights for the portions that they read, but must read everything else. I won't vote on things that happened outside the round. If neither side says anything, I'll judgekick.
gbn 2022
he/him
** I'm not super familiar with the CJR topic so please do a thorough job explaining your arguments 1) define your acronyms 2) spend more time explaining your t interp and 3) give me a dummy proof explanation of whatever you're going for.
** I do NOT tolerate racism, sexism, homophobia, etc., and will intervene and stop the debate if necessary
** add me to the email chain please! -- 224177@glenbrook225.org
** please reach out with any questions!!
general:
-- be nice!!
-- yes, tag team cx is ok, but don't take over your partner's cx
-- clarity > speed (ALWAYS)
-- flow
-- tech over truth
topicality:
literally all I ever went for novice year, so PLEASE impact out well and I will vote on it. I do not have any preconceived notions of what is topical this year so please make sure to explain your arguments.
disads:
disads good! make sure to extend into rebuttals and give specific links, lots of impact calc, and turns case analysis.
counterplans:
cps need to be competitive (preferably, textually and functionally)
kritiks:
ew
Hi! I’m an assistant coach at Southern Nazarene University and have been since 2021. Previously, I coached at Crossings Christian from 2020-2023. I started debating in the sixth grade and debated at Crossings from 2013-2020. I competed at the high school national level since the eighth grade, broke at a couple TOCQs, and won two 5A state titles in Oklahoma.
I was a flex debater, which means I debated both policy and the K and am comfortable with either. I ran many different Ks during my seven years of debate, such as Agamben, Cap, Setcol, Afropess (with a black partner), Baudrillard, and Psychoanalysis. I don’t have anything against nontopical or performance affs, and I’m generally tech over truth.
There are a few things I’ll vote a team down for, no matter what’s happening in the rest of the round:
- Being rude, laughing at, or mocking the other team.
- Death good, suicide good, or advocating for killing people, especially if these arguments are contextualized to someone in the room.
Things I like:
- A nice joke in your speech, even if it’s corny. Have fun in the round!
- Being respectful to your opponents and your partner.
- Telling me what I should write for my RFD.
Things I dislike:
- Disclosure theory, perf con good theory, and multiple worlds good theory. I especially dislike multiple worlds good theory being used as a reason why your 2AC block doesn’t contradict itself.
- The phrase “This card/argument is trash” or similar phrases. Tell me why the argument’s bad instead of just insulting it.
- Ks without alts.
- Wipeout
- Eugenics good
Peninsula '22 | USC '26
Add me to the chain:
chrislrsims@gmail.com
Did policy for three years LD for one year. Clarity > speed - if I can’t hear your argument I’m not going to flow it. Be nice!
Policy:
Ran almost exclusively policy in high school so very comfortable with these debates. Especially love counterplan competition debates and in-depth DA turns case/case turns DA.
Theory:
I don't like it unless there is in-round abuse. Reasonability and DTA are powerful, especially if explained thoroughly. My view of reasonability is that I should weigh the impact of the abuse versus the benefits a debate over the topic. Don't run ridiculous theory arguments.
Condo is good.
Kritiks:
Your critique should directly disagree with the plan or implicate the solvency of the case in someway. I do not like links of omission. Links should be clearly explained and turn/ow case. Case is critical in the debates, if you do not touch it I probably won't vote for the K.
Read a plan!
Philosophy:
Not comfortable with evaluating these debates.
Don't run any calc indicts, frivolous theory, and random independent voting issues.
Email: a.sinsioco1@gmail.com
-Peninsula' 21 - USC' 25
Have fun. Be nice.
I have little specific topic knowledge, so don't take for granted that I understand any topic-specific jargon/am keeping up with the debate meta.
tech>truth
Very hard pressed to vote on presumption type arguments. Absent any offense, even the smallest chance that the aff does something positive for the world is enough reason to vote affirmative
Other than that, any opinion I have about arguments can be overcome by better debating.
Thoughts
The first 30 seconds of the final rebuttal should write my RFD.
K Affs:
Probably read a plan tbh, but I will enjoy K affs with a strong explanation of what the aff actually does clear articulation of how debate operates under their framework.
I often find defensive arguments weaker and think the counter interpretation solves little of the actual neg offense. impact turn framework standards and the neg's model of debate.
Fairness > Education/Skills > whatever else. Focus on using your framework arguments to engage the substance of the aff and the da's to framework. It's very easy to vote aff in these debates when the negative spreads through framework blocks and fails to directly address the often more developed affirmative case and da's to framework
I really enjoy and prefer judging substantive offense against the K itself. Don't be afraid to go for the heg da or cap good or whatever.
K:
If your K is able to disprove thesis of the aff and the assumptions it relies upon, I will love your K.
I will default to weighing the aff versus the K.
I have an aversion to strategies that solely rely upon winning framework and arbitrarily disregarding huge swaths of the debate. I will assign less weight to these arguments unless they are dropped. K debate is case debate. The kritik should engage with the affirmative and disprove its thesis.
Your links should reference a specific line/assumption which the affirmative's scenario relies upon, explain why that line/assumption is flawed, impact out why I should care/the material implications of that flawed assumption, and how the alternative resolves the link. The more specific the better.
Ideally, you should be leveraging your answers on case to bolster your argument otherwise I'm willing to grant the aff the truth of their scenario which makes it difficult to win that their assumptions are flawed.
CP: I dislike cp's that compete off immediacy and certainty and find them a bit harder to adjudicate personally.
DA's: Enjoy most flavors of disads, but generally dislike ones whose links are predicated on silly interpretations of fiat.
T: Clearly explain what debate looks like under each interpretation and the implications of your impacts, as well as how your interpretation solves your impacts. I generally feel predictability and precision often guides the way I adjudicate these debates on a top level. What I should prioritize is certainly debatable
Case: I find well-researched, dissections of the affirmative case to be the coolest things to judge and will reward the effort.
Theory: Condo is good, and I don't see value in interps that numerically limit the number of conditional advocacies. Either all condo or no condo
Most theory arguments are reject the argument unless you specifically explain otherwise
Berkeley '26
Peninsula Graduate
Please add me to the email chain: scsridevan@gmail.com
If it's more than 2 short cards or if the card is long, put it in a doc.
You can insert rehighlightings, but explain the argument you're making.
I'm tech>truth, but complete arguments need claim(s), warrants, and impact(s). "They dropped the impact" is not an argument or something I can vote on alone.
Speed is okay but you need to be clear.
I will probably protect the 2NR from new 2AR arguments; there should be a version of the argument you are extending in the 1AR unless it is a new 2NR argument.
Cross-ex is important.
Please do impact calc/argument comparison.
Theory: I will vote on dropped theory, if explained, and I think condo is good but can be persuaded otherwise.
CPs: I will judgekick counterplans if there are no arguments about it, and the 2AR can have new judgekick bad args.
T: Fairness is a impact and fairness>skills/education. Reasonability is a question of how I evaluate the interpretation debate, not the we meet.
Disads: I don't think a disad can have zero risk (including when the aff makes framing arguments) (unless it's already happened) so you should debate as though the disad has a sizeable risk. Specific cards and arguments are best -- use evidence quality, if you have it, to your advantage.
Ks: I think the advantages of the hypothetical implementation of the plan should be weighed against the impacts to the links. I can be persuaded by framework arguments, but as with T, I think fairness>skills/education. Please do impact calc and make the links specific to the aff/case. I am very unlikely to vote for fiat is illusory type arguments or similar tricks.
K Affs: On framework, fairness>skills/education. I generally think that the aff should defend a hypothetical action of the United States federal government, but can be persuaded otherwise. Assume I do not know your theory, so you should make sure to explain your arguments clearly--I won't vote for you if I don't know what I'm voting for. For K v K, I am probably not the best, but if this debate happens, both sides should make the distinctions between the two Ks clear. I think the aff gets perms.
Definitely ask any questions you have before the round.
Be nice and good luck!
I have probably put off this long enough. I am a former debater at Iowa City West High School, I debated from 2012-2016. I have been judging since 2016 and have judged a varying extent on each topic since I stopped competing.
My argumentation style was flexible but my roots are in more policy based argumentation and that is what I keep up to date with as a result of following the news. That being said, I am versed in many styles of kritikal argumentation and have read or defended against most. With that noted, if you believe that I am not familiar or just to be safe, make sure to always explain your argumentation on a deeper level than just tag lines. Often historical examples are the best way to break down a kritik that explains to me an objective event to look at.
I am fine with whatever type of affirmative you would like to read. I am not familiar with the 2020-21 topic as I am not actively coaching so make sure to explain to me any acronyms or more specific topic information that I may be lacking. If you are reading a K aff again I believe historical examples are a compelling way to communicate your defense against framework.
I dislike voting on theory but I am willing to do so if it is impacted out to me correctly. I'd say among all types of argumentation this is the one I would like to vote on the least.
Topicality: If you choose to go for this in your 2NR I would like a well impacted and explained narrative for why the affirmative is 1. not topical 2. what this means in terms of the round/ground lost 3. why this is bad for debate. Just make sure you aren't just extending a ton of cards instead of making argumentation, those should be your groundwork in T arguments. Your 2NR should not consist of you rereading your blocks from the 1nc or from the neg block.
I feel as though I have covered the most important things relating to me as a judge. If you have any further questions feel free to reach out to me at colin-waldron at uiowa.edu
Peninsula '21, Cal '25
Email chain: nathan2web@gmail.com
For online debate: if I'm not in frame of the camera, don't start your speech.
Top level, debate is a competitive research activity where two teams compete to win. So, I will strive to be agnostic as to what strategy you choose to read, whether that's 10 off, 1 off, or hiding ASPEC (though your speaks will probably suffer for the last one). Tech > truth, although you'll have a hard time convincing me that our oceans are yellow.
Even so, these preferences are a set of ideologies that I've loosely maintained as I've judged--
T: I find that evidence quality is quintessential - I will lean towards a legally precise definition that reflects consensus.
DA: Actually debate the DA if you read a soft left aff. Riders are probably not legitimate.
CP: Solvency advocates aren't necessary, but coherent explanations of solvency are. I will default to kicking the CP for the neg if equally debated.
K: Good if they disprove why I should vote affirmative. I tend to dislike Ks that have a focus on 20 subpoints of framework (but if you win you win).
Non-traditional affs: Fairness is an impact, you can also go for others. Probably not the best judge for the aff teams. A lot of the time, I find it difficult to see how the ballot resolves aff impacts.
Theory: Condo is generally good. Most CP theory is probably a reason to reject the argument.
Other things--
My ideologies have been influenced significantly by these people: Dhruv Sudesh, Kevin Sun, and Scott Wheeler. If any part of this philosophy is confusing, you should look at theirs.
Card quality matters, I will always value smart analytics over terrible evidence—although a claim has much more significance/credibility when tied to an academic work.
If I can't understand you, I won't flow.
Don't egregiously re-highlight then "re-insert" an entire card, read it.
I don't about things that happened outside the round.
Be nice.
From Kevin Sun's Evidence Ethics:
"I have judged a handful of high stakes debates this year that were decided on evidence ethics. I’ve found that these decisions are inevitably unsatisfying as they will rely on my own subjective assessment of the argument in question.
I can safely say that I am completely unqualified to judge these debates. I am not on Twitter or Facebook, and I do not interact with debate people regularly outside of tournaments. I do not know what the community consensus is on certain authors, and I will feel uncomfortable rendering a personal judgement an author’s character after hearing 10 minutes of spreading on the subject.
In hopes of giving debaters some foresight, I would like to clarify my perspective on this genre of theory argument. High stakes evidence ethics challenges (e.g. “reject the team because they included the wrong author qualifications”, “reject the team because [author] is problematic”) will require a high burden of proof and an egregious violation. I have a strong predisposition against positioning these ethics challenges as reasons to fully disregard the rest of your opponents arguments, and I would prefer to just reject the argument in question rather than to hinge my decision on it.
In these circumstances, I would suggest clearly explaining which of your opponents arguments I should throw out if I resolve this challenge in your favor.
Would rejecting this author evaporate your opponent’s framework argument? Should the negative even be allowed to substitute this author with another that makes a similar argument? You’re likely to get further with me by detailing the implications of this ethics challenge in terms of the rest of the debate rather than relying on me to assume that I should automatically make it a gateway issue.
I would suggest finding other ways outside of a competitive debate argument to navigate this ethical challenge rather than placing it in my hands as a judge."
Georgetown'24
Oak Hall'20
Some new musings for TOC:
1] Folks have been incredibly unclear over the past few years. I strongly believe that debate is an oral/rhetorical game as much as it is technical. If your strategy relies on reading a slew of analytics while simultaneously slurring every other word in an attempt to make up for a grave lack of speaking drills, I will be displeased and you will be too after the decision.
3] I hate the new acronyms going around. "IVI" makes me physically contort.
Most of my philosophical views on debate are an amalgamation of (often contradictory) influences from: Marna Weston, Evan Cartagena, Nigel Ward, Carter Levinson, Josh Michael, Skyler Harris, Daryl Burch, Calum Matheson, Elijah Smith, Brandon Kelley, Tyler Thur, and Shanara Reid-Brinkley. That information may mean something to you, it may mean absolutely nothing. I wouldn't read too much into it.
My ideological predispositions have become more viscous over time as I’ve gained familiarity with a variety of different styles of debate, literature, and argumentation. What this means is that you should read whatever argument you think will provide you the highest chance of winning the debate. This is perhaps the most important takeaway from my paradigm. In some debates, that option might be T-FW vs a K aff, in another it could be process counterplan, psychoanalysis, Moten, a floating PIK, or China heg good. The point is that I don’t particularly care what flavor of argument you read. What I care about is execution and strategic choice. I cannot stress this enough, it frustrates me more than anything when debaters try to "adapt" based on assumptions about me or how you think I feel about arguments. Most of the time, those assumptions are profoundly incorrect. Do what you're good at.
Debate is ultimately a game of rhetoricians. So what you say is as important as HOW you say it. This is not a question of Tech or Truth but affect and packaging. Winning the room is how you get decisive wins, high speaker points, and perform like a top debater.
(Tasteful) Pettiness gets you speaker points. I’ve been coached and mentored by a series of incredibly petty individuals and I think it’s rubbed off on me.
Another note I think is important (from Carter's paradigm) -
"In order that you are not surprised should the following take place in your debate, I will tell you now I do not intend to vote on blippy arguments that side-step the real question of the debate. This will not apply against a category of warranted arguments that might be considered "must answer" or even "cheap shots" arguments that are, however, germane to the debate. Examples include but are not limited to floating pics, topical versions, truth testing, cp results in the aff. HOWEVER, If you like to hide a one-sentence ASPEC violation in a 2nc block or practice other forms of argumentative cowardice, I will be displeased and I expect you will feel similar displeasure as a result of my own.”
A dropped argument is a true argument. BUT, an argument requires a claim, warrant, and impact. This should clarify my threshold on cowardice.
FW vs K affs
I've been on literally every possible side of this debate as both a debater and a coach and don't particularly have a proclivity one way or another. These debates generally come down to impact framing and the ability to solve your offense best and mitigate the other side. Framework debates are fundamentally about models - I'm a little more persuaded/impressed by K affs that can articulate their own model of debate/its net benefits, doing so makes the debate much cleaner.
K affs: I'm fine with anything. You can impact turn framework, have a creative counterinterp/reinterp of the rez, or anything in between. The key to not losing this side of the debate is explaining how the aff/your model of debate can actually solve your criticisms of Framework. Otherwise all your offense will likely be non-unique. K aff strategy needs to be thought out beyond the very superficial level of “Framework is genocide!” Yes, I will be rather familiar with your K lit (brownie points if you read Negarestani and can muster a coherent explanation). But my familiarity can be a double edged sword since its rather obvious when you didn't read the books you're citing.
Framework: Don't have a preference between fairness, clash, Street-T, dogmatism, etc. You should decide what flavor of Framework you're going for based on the 1AC and what you think is the most strategic option to defeat it. I think a lot of framework teams let the aff get away with murder in terms of shallow impact turns or nonsensical counterinterps, however, framework teams rarely do a good job capitalizing on said weaknesses.
Case Debating
Impact turns in general are heavily underutilized in case debating. Death good, heg good, Interventions good, AI development bad, take your pick. If you have high quality evidence in those debates it’s a pretty simple win.
Case debating writ large is also underutilized. Neg teams let affs get away with absolute murder. Don’t just read impact D, people’s internal links are absolutely atrocious, if you can reveal that and sprinkle in some good cards you’re in a good spot.
Disads
DAs are fun - impact calculus is very important. Evidence quality is waning these days - you need to have a link to the aff... and you need to have an internal link to your impact. A lot of times neg teams just assert extinction or a link without good evidence to support it and I am highly sympathetic to an aff team that takes advantage of 1NC strategic errors.
Counterplans
Counterplans are fine - you need to be crystal clear in your 2NC/2NR what part of the aff is the counterplan specifically trying to solve. And you need to explain why the CP mechanism is distinct from the aff/solves a particular net benefit which outweighs any potential aff offense. Absent this, it will be rather easy for the aff to both poke holes in the solvency mechanism of the CP, and weigh unsolved advantage ground against the CP net benefits. Again here, evidence quality is key, please have solvency advocates that are 1) qualified and 2) actually talk about the CP text.
I'm not too well read on counterplan competition theory. I will vote on theoretical objections to cheating CPs and will likely be persuaded by them but I am comparatively worse at sifting through that debate as opposed to other styles.
Kritiks
Mostly similar to the K aff vs Framework section. I enjoy creativity in K debate and get bored by recycled arguments. You need a link to the plan that is not just a link to the status quo. K links need to be robust, preferably with quotes from the aff evidence. Please stop reading blocks straight down, its lame.