Hey I’m Zaina.

I’m an LD debater from Dulles High School, and will be flowing. I’m mostly a traditional debater, so make sure that your arguments are comprehensible.

If you plan on spreading, you should email your speech document beforehand. If there are specific things that you want me to hear or flow, you should slow down and make it clear.

Speaks: I will be judging off of the 25-30 scale. If you spread without consent, you will receive a 25. I will be pretty lenient as long as the language and tone are appropriate. If you are consistently talking over your opponent and being overly aggressive in cx, I will be inclined to deduct points. Overall, just be confident and clear with everything you are trying to say.

My email is: zainaali205@gmail.com

Voters: When you are giving your voters, weighing impacts is significant. I don’t want to hear that I should vote for you because your opponent dropped something, or that you won an argument. You should explain how you won it instead. Extensions are also crucial. Don’t try to pull your entire case through till the end of the round. Try to focus on a few of the most important and impactful arguments.

Keep all of these things in mind, and try to have fun. Good Luck!

Hi, Im Diego, Qualled to TOC once, my email is dsarcos23@mail.strakejesuit.org

K's/ K affs- 3

Kv larp-2

phil-4 if obscure, 2 for kant

T/theory-1

tricks-1

LARP-1

Theory defaults: competing interps, DTD, no rvis, fairness and education are voters
Phil Default: epistemic confidence

additionally default to comparative worlds

things I will not vote on: adhoms in any form, anything else is fine

+ .5 speaks if you do 10 pushups before the round

Updated 5/8/24 for Post-Season

Hi everyone, I'm Holden (They/He)!

University of North Texas '23, and '25 (Go Mean Green!)

If you are a senior graduating this year, UNT has debate scholarships and a program with resources! If you are interested in looking into the team please contact me via my email listed below and we can talk about the program and what it can offer you! If you are committed to UNT, please conflict me!

I would appreciate it if you put me on the email chain: bukowskyhd@yahoo.com

For high school LD rounds, please also add jhsdebatedocs@gmail.com

Most of this can be applied to any debate event, but if there are event specific things then I will flag them, but they are mostly at the bottom.

The TLDR:

Debate is about you, not me. I think intervention is bad (until a certain point, those exceptions will be made obvious), and that letting the debaters handle my adjudication of the round as much as possible is best. I've been described as "grumpy," and described as an individual "that would vote on anything," I think both of these things are true in a vacuum and often translate in the way that I perceive arguments. However, my adherence to the flow often overrides my desire to frown and drop my head whilst hearing a terrible argument. In that train of thought, I try to be as close to a "no feelings flow bot" when adjudicating debates, which means go for whatever you want as long as it has a warrant and isn't something I flat out refuse to vote on (see rest of paradigm). I enjoy debates over substance surrounding the topic, it's simulated effects, it's adherence to philosophical principles, and it's critical assumptions, much more than hypertechnical theory debates that aren't based on things that the plan does. Bad arguments most certainly exist, and I greatly dislike them, but the onus is on debaters for disproving those bad arguments. I have voted for every type of argument under the sun at this point, and nothing you do will likely surprise me, but let me be clear when I encourage you to do what you interpret as necessary to win you the debate in terms of argumentive strategy.

I take the safety of the debaters in round very seriously. If there is ever an issue, and it seems like I am not noticing, please let me know in some manner (whether that be through a private email, a sign of some kind, etc.). I try to be as cognizant as possible of the things happening in round, but I am a human being and a terrible reader of facial expressions at that so there might be moments where I am not picking up on something. Misgendering is included in this, I take misgendering very seriously and have developed the following procedure for adjudicating cases where this does happen: you get one chance with your speaks being docked that one time, more than once and you have lost my ballot even if an argument has not been made related to this. I am extremely persuaded by misgendering bad shells. Respect people's pronouns and personhood.

Tech > Truth

Yes speed, yes clarity, yes spreading, will likely keep up but will clear you twice and then give up after that.

Debate influences/important coaches who I value immensely: Louie Petit and Colin Quinn.

Trigger warnings - they're good broadly, you should probably give individuals time to prepare themselves if you delve into discussions of graphic violence. For me, that includes in depth discussion of anxiety, depression, self-harm, and suicide.

I flow on my laptop, and consider myself a pretty good flow when people are clear, probably a 8-8.5/10. Just be clear, number your arguments, and slow down on analytics please.

Cheating, including evidence ethics and clipping, is bad. I have seen clipping become much more common and I will vote you down if I feel you have done so even without "recorded" evidence or a challenge from another debater.

For your pref sheets (policy):

Clash debates - 1

K v K debates - 1

Policy throwdowns - 1/2 (I can judge and am fairly confident in these debates but have less experience in this compared to others)

For your pref sheets (LD):

Clash debates of any kind (Policy v K, K aff v framework, phil v k, etc.) - 1

K - 1

Policy - 1

Phil - 1

T/Theoy - 1/2

Tricks - 4

Trad - 5/Strike

I'm serious about these rankings, I value execution over content and am comfortable judging any type of debate done well.

The Long Version:

Who the hell is this person, why did my coach/I pref them?

Hello! My name is Holden, I've been involved with debate for 8 years now. I am currently a communication studies graduate student at the University of North Texas, where I also got my bachelors in psychology and philosophy. During my time as a competitor, I did policy, LD, and NFA-LD. My exposure to the circuit really began my sophomore year of high school, but nothing of true note really occurred during my high school career. College had me qualify for the NFA-LD national tournament twice, I got to octas twice, broke at majors, got gavels, round robin invites. I now coach and judge exclusively, where I have coached teams that have qualified to the NDT, qualified to outrounds of just about every bid tournament, gotten several speaker awards, have accrued 30+ bids, and made it to elimination rounds and have been the top speaker of the TOC.

I judge a lot, and by that I mean a lot. Currently at 600+ debates judged since I graduated high school in 2020. I think this is because judging is a skill, and one that gets better the more you do it, and you get worse when you haven't done it in a while. I genuinely enjoy judging debates because of several reasons, whether that be my enjoyment of debate, the money, or because I enjoy the opportunity to help aid in the growth of debaters through feedback.

I do a lot of research, academically, debate wise, and for fun. Most of my research is in the kritikal side of things, mostly because I coach a bunch of K debaters. However, I often engage in policy research, and enjoy cutting those cards immensely. In addition, I have coached students who have gone for every argument type under the sun.

Please call me Holden, or judge (Holden is preferable, but if you vibe with judge then go for it). I hate anything more formal than that because it makes me uncomfortable (Mr. Bukowsky, sir, etc.)

Conflicts: Jack C. Hays High School (my alma mater), and the University of North Texas. I currently consult for Westlake (TX), and Jordan (TX). Independently, I coach American Heritage Palm Beach CW, Barrington AC, Bellevue WL, Clear Springs EG, and McNeil AS.

Previously, I have been affiliated with Cypress Woods MM, and Eat Chapel Hill AX.

What does Holden think of debate?

It's a competitive game with pedagogical implications. I love debate immensely, and I take my role in it seriously. It is my job to evaluate arguments as presented, and intervene as little as possible. I'm not ideological on how I evaluate debates because I don't think it's my place to determine the validity of including arguments in debate (barring some exceptions). I think the previous sentence means that you should please do what you are most comfortable with to the best of your ability. There are only two concrete rules in debate - 1. there must be a winner and a loser, and those are deicded by me, and 2. speech times are set in stone. Any preference that I have should not matter if you are doing your job, if I have to default to something then you did something incorrect.

To summarize the way that I think about judging, I think Yao Yao Chen does it best, "I believe judging debates is a privilege, not a paycheck. I strive to judge in the most open-minded, faor, and diligent way I can, and I aim to be as thorough and transparent as possible in my decisions. If you worked hard on debate, you deserve judging that matches the effort you put into this activity. Anything short of that is anti-educational and a disappointment."

I’ve been told I take a while to come to a decision. This is true, but not for the reason you might think. Normally, I know how I’m voting approximately 30 seconds to 1 minute after the debate. However, I like to be thorough and make sure that I give the debate the time and effort that it deserves, and as such try to have all of my thoughts together. Believe me, I consider myself somewhat comprehensible most times, I find it reassuring to myself to make sure that all my thoughts about the arguments in debate are in order. This is also why I tend to give longer decisions, because I think there are often questions about argument X on Y sheet which are easily resolved by having those addressed in the rfd. As such, I try to approach each decision from a technical standpoint and how each argument a. interacts with the rest of the debate, b. how large of an impact that argument has, c. think through any defense to that argument, and d. if that argument is the round winner or outweighs the offense of the opposing side.

What does Holden like?

I like good debates. If you execute your arguments in a technically impressive manner, I will be impressed.

I like debates that require little intervention, please make my job easier for me via judge instruction, I hate thinking.

I like well researched arguments with clear connections to the topic/the affirmative.

I like when email chains are sent out before the start time so that 1AC's can begin at start time, don't delay the round any more than it has to be please.

I like good case debating, this includes a deep love for impact turns.

I like it when people make themselves easy to flow, this includes labeling your arguments (whether giving your arguments names, or doing organizational strategies like "1, 2, 3" or "a point, b point, c point, etc."), I find it harder to vote for teams that make it difficult for me to know who is responding to what and what those responses are so making sure I can flow you is key.

I like debaters that collapse in final speeches, it gives room for analysis, explanation, and weighing which all make me very happy.

I like it when I am given a framing mechanism to help filter offense. This can take place via a framing mechanism to help filter offense. This can takes place via a standard, role of the ballot/judge, framework, fairness v education, a meta-ethic, or anything, I don't care. I just need an evaluative lens to determine how to parse through impact calculus.

What does Holden dislike?

I dislike everything that is the opposite of the above.

I dislike when people make problematic arguments.

I dislike when debaters engage in exclusionary practices.

I dislike unclear spreading.

I dislike messy debates with no work done to resolve them.

I dislike when people say "my time will start in 3, 2, 1."

I dislike when people ask if they can take prep, it's your prep time, I don't care just tell me you're taking it.

I dislike when debaters are exclusionary to novice debaters. I define this as running completely overcomplicated strategies that are then deployed with little to no explanation. I am fine with "trial by fire" but think that you shouldn't throw them in the volcano. You know what this means. Not abiding by this will get your speaks tanked.

I dislike when evidence exchange takes too long, this includes when it takes forever for someone to press send on an email, when someone forgets to hit reply all (it's 2024 and y'all have been using technology for how long????). If you think email chains aren't vibe then please use a speechdrop to save all of us the headache.

I dislike topicality where the interpretation card is written by someone in debate, and not about the specific term of art in the topic.

I dislike 1AR restarts.

How has Holden voted?

Since I started judging in 2020, I have judged exactly 620 debate rounds. Of those, I have voted aff approximately 52.23% of the time.

My speaks for the 2023-2024 season have averaged to be around 28.588, and across all of the seasons I have judged they are at 28.525.

I have been a part of 197 panels, where I have sat approximately 12.69% of the time.

What will Holden never vote on?

Arguments that involve the appearance of a debater (shoes theory, formal clothing theory, etc.).

Arguments that say that oppression (in any form) is good.

Arguments that contradict what was said in CX.

Claims without warrants, these are not arguments.

Specific Arguments:

Policy Arguments

"Well, for starters, they kick ass." - Louie Petit

Contrary to my reputation, I love CP/DA debates and have an immense amount of experience on the policy side of the argumentative spectrum. I do good amounts of research on the policy side of topics often, and coach teams that go for these arguments predominantly. I love a good DA + case 2NR, and will reward well done executions of these strategies because I think they're great. One of my favorite 2NR's to give while I was debating was DA + circumvention, and I think that these debates are great and really reward good research quality.

Counterplans should be functionally and textually competitive with germane net benefits, I think that most counterplans probably lose to permutations that make arguments about these issues and I greatly enjoy competition debates. Limited intrinsic permutations are probably justified against counterplans that don't say a word about the topic.

I am amenable to all counterplans, and think they're theoretically legitimate (for the most part). I think that half the counterplans people read are not competitive though.

Impact turn debates are amazing, give me more of them please and thank you.

I reward well cut evidence, if you cite a card as part of your warrant for your argument and it's not very good/unwarranted then that minimizes your strength of link/size of impact to that argument. I do read evidence a lot in these debates because I think that often acts as a tie breaker between the spin of two debaters.

Judge instruction is essential to my ballot. Explain how I should frame a piece of evidence, what comes first and why, I think that telling me what to do and how to decipher the dozens of arguments in rounds makes your life and my job much easier and positively correlates to how much you will like my decision.

I enjoy well researched and topic specific process counterplans. They're great, especially when the evidence for them is topic specific and has a good solvency advocate.

I default no judge kick unless you make an argument for it.

Explain what the permutation looks like in the first responsive speech, just saying perm do both is a meaningless argument and I am not filling in the gaps for you.

For affs, I think that I prefer well developed and robust internal links into 2-3 impacts much more than the shot gun 7 impact strategy.

Explanation of how the DA turns case matters a lot to me, adjust your block/2NR accordingly.

K's

Say it with me everyone, Holden does not hack for the kritik. In fact, I've become much more grouchy about K debate lately. Aff's aren't defending anything, neg teams are shotgunning 2NR's without developing offense in comparison to the 1AR and the 2AR, and everyone is making me feel more and more tired. Call me old, but I think that K teams get too lost in the sauce, don't do enough argumentative interaction, and lose debates because they can't keep up technically. I think this is all magnified when the 2NR does not say a word about the aff at all.

This is where most of my research and judging is nowadays. I will be probably know what you're reading, have cut cards for whatever literature you are reading, and have a good amount of rounds judging and going for the K. I've been in debate for 8 years now, and have coached teams with a litany of literature interests, so feel free to read anything you want, just eb able to explain it.

Aff teams against the K should go for framework, extinction outweighs, and the alt fails more.

My ideal K 1NC will have 2-3 links to the aff (one of which is a link to the action of the aff), an alternative, and some kind of framing mechanism.

I have found that most 2NR's have trouble articulating what the alternative does, and how it interacts with the alts and the links. If you are unable to explain to me what the alternative does, your chance of getting my ballot goes down. Example from both sides of the debate help contextualize the offense y'all are going for in relation to the alternative, the links, and the permutation. Please explain the permutation in the first responsive speech.

I've found that most K teams are bad at debating the impact turn (heg/cap good), this is to say that I think that if you are against the K, I am very much willing to vote on the impact turn given that it is not morally repugnant (see above).

I appreciate innovation of K debate, if you introduce an interesting new argument instead of recyclying the same 1NC you've been running for several seasons. At least update your cards every one in a while.

Please do not run a K just because you think I'll like it, bad K debates have seen some of the worst speaks I've ever given (for example, if you're reading an argument related to Settler Colonialism yet can't answer the 6 moves to innocence).

K tricks are cool if they have a warrant, floating piks need to be hinted at in the 1NC so they can be floating.

For the nerds that wanna know, the literature bases that I know pretty well are: Marxism, Security, Reps K's, Afro-pessimism, Baudrillard, Beller, Deleuze and Guattari, Halberstam, Hardt and Negri, Weheliye, Grove, Psychoanalysis, Scranton/Eco-Pessimism, and Settler Colonialism.

The literature bases that I know somewhat/am reading up on are: Accelerationism (Fisher, CCRU people, etc.), Agamben, Abolition, Bataille, Cybernetics, Queer pessimism, Disability Literature, Moten and Harney, and Puar.

A note on non-black engagement with afro-pessimism: I will watch your execution of this argument like a hawk if you decide to go for it. Particular authors make particular claims about the adoption of afro-pessimist advocacy by non-black individuals, while other authors make different claims, be mindful of this when you are cutting your evidence/constructing your 1NC. While my thoughts on this are more neutral than they once were, that does not mean you can do whatever. If you are reading this K as a non-black person, this becomes the round. If you are disingenious to the literature at all, your speaks are tanked and the ballot may be given away as well depending on how annoyed I am. This is your first and last warning.

K-Aff's

These are fine, cool even. They should defend something, and that something should provide a solvency mechanism for their impact claims. Having your aff discuss the resolution makes your framework answers become much more persuasive, and makes me happier to vote for you, especially since I am becoming increasingly convinced that there should be some stasis for debate.

For those negating these affs, the case debate is the weakest part of the debate from both sides. I think if the negative develops a really good piece of offense by the end of the debate then everything else just becomes so much easier for you to win. I will, in fact, vote for heg good, cap good, and other impact turns, and quite enjoy judging these debates.

Presumption is underrated if people understand how to go for it, unfortunately most people just don't know how. Most aff's don't do anything or have a cogent explanation of what their aff does to solve things and their ballot key warrant is bad, you should probably utilize that.

Marxism will be forever underrated versus K affs, aff's whose only responses are "doesn't explain the aff" and "X explains capitalism" will almost always lose to a decent 2NR on the cap k. This is your suggestion to update your answers to challenge the alternative on some level.

Innovation is immensely appreciated by both sides of this debate. I swear I've judged the exact same 2-4 affs about twenty times each and the 1NC's just never change. If your take on a literature base or negative strategy is interesting, innovative, and is something I haven't heard this year you will most definitely get higher speaks.

Performance based arguments are good/acceptable, I have experience coaching and running these arguments myself. However, I find that most times when ran that the performance is not really extended into the speeches after this, obviously there are some limitations but I think that it does give me leeway for leveraging your inevitable application of the performance to other areas of the debate.

T-Framework/T-USFG

It may be my old age getting to me, but I am becoming increasingly convinced that fairness is a viable impact option for the 2NR to go for. I think it probably has important implications for the ballot in terms of framing the resolution of affirmative and negative impact arguments, and those framing questions are often mishandled by the affirmative. However, I think that to make me deploy this in debates negative teams need to avoid vacuous and cyclical lines of argumentation that often plague fairness 2NR's.

In my heart of hearts, I probably am aff leaning on this question, but my voting record has increasingly become negative leaning. I think this is because affirmatives have become quite bad at answering the negative arguments in a convincing, warranted, and strategic manner.

Framework isn't capital T true, but also isn't an automatic act of violence. I think I'm somewhat neutral on the question of how one should debate about the resolution, but I am of the belief that the resolution should at least center the debate in some way. What that means to you, though, is up to you.

Often, framework debates take place mostly at the impact level, with the internal link level to those impacts never being questioned. This is where I think both teams should take advantage of, and produces better debates about what debate should look like.

I have voted on straight up impact turns before, I've voted on counter-interps, and I've also voted on fairness as an impact. The onus is on the debaters to explain and flesh out their arguments in a manner that answers the 1AR/2NR. Reading off your blocks and not engaging specific warrants of DA's to your model often lead to me questioning what I'm voting for because there is no engagement in either side in the debate.

Counter-interpretations seem to be more persuasive to me, and are often underutilized. Counter-interpretations that have a decent explanation of what their model of debate looks like, and what debates under that model feature. Doing all of the above does wonder.

In terms of my thoughts about impacts to framework, my normal takes are clash > fairness > advocacy skills.

"Fairness is good because debate is a game and and we all have intrinsic motivation to compete" >>>> "fairness is an impact because it constrains your ability to evaluate your arguments so hack against them," if the latter is more in line with what your expalantion of fairness is then 9 times out of 10 you are going to lose.

Topicality (Theory is it's Own Monster)

I love T debates, they're absolutely some of my favorite rounds to adjudicate. They've certainly gotten stales and have devolved to some model of T subsets one way or another. However, I will still evaluate and vote on any topicality violation. Interps based on words/phrases of the resolution make me much happier than a lot of the LD "let's read this one card from a debate coach over and over and see where it gets us" approach.

Semantics and precision matter, this is not in a "bare plurals/grammar means it is read this" way but a "this is what this word means in the context of the topic" way.

My normal defaults:

- Competing interps

- Drop the debater

- No RVI's

Reasonability is about your counter-interp, not your aff. People need to relearn how to go for this because it's a lost art in the age of endless theory debates.

Arbitrary counter-interpretations that are not carded or based on evidence are given significantly less weight than counter-interps that define words in the. "Your interp plus my aff" is a bad argument, nad you are better served going for a more substantive argument.

Slow down a bit in these debates, I consider myself a decent flow but T is a monster in terms of the constant short arguments that arise in these debates so please give me typing time.

You should probably make a larger impact argument about why topicality matters "voters" if you will. Some standards are impacts on their own (precision mainly) but outside of that I have trouble understanding why limits explosion is bad sans some external argument about why making debate harder is bad.

Weigh internal links to similar pieces of offense, please and thank you.

Theory

I have judged numerous theory debates, more than the average judge for sure, and certainly more than I would care to admit. You'll most likely be fine in these debates in front of me, I ask that you don't blitz through analytics and would prefer you make good in-depth weighing arguments regarding your internal links to your offense. I find that a well-explained abuse story (whether that be potential or in-round) makes me conceptually more persuaded by your impact arguments.

Conditionality is good if you win that it is. i think conditionality is good as a general ideology, but your defense of it should be robust if you plan on abusing the usage of conditionality vehemently. I've noticed a trend among judges recently just blatantly refusing to vote on conditionality through some arbitrary threshold that they think is egrigious, or because they think conditionality is universally good. I am not one of those judges.If you wanna read 6 different counterplans, go ahead, but just dismissing theoretical arguments about conditionality like it's an afterthought will not garner you any sympathy from me. I evaluate conditionality the same no matter the type of event, but my threshold of annoyance for it being introduced varies by number of off and the event you are in. For example, I will be much less annoyed if condo is read in an LD round with 3+ conditional advocacies than I will be if condo is read in a college policy round with 1 conditional advocacy.

Sure, go for whatever shell you want, I'll flow it barring these exceptions:

- Shells abiut the appearance and clothing of anoher debater.

- Disclosure in the case in which a debater has said they can't disclose certain positions for safety reasons, please don't do this

- Reading "no i meets"

- Arguments that a debater may not be able to answer a new argument in the next speech (for example, if the 1AR concedes no new 2AR arguments, and the 2NR reads a new shell, I will always give the 2AR the ability to answer that new shell)

Independent Voters

These seem to be transforming into tricks honestly. I am unconvinced why these are reasons to reject the team most of the time. Words like "accessibility," "safety," and "violence" all have very precise definitions of what they mean in an academic and legal context and I think that they should not be thrown around with little to no care. Make them arguments/offense for you on the flow that they were on, not reasons to reject the team.

I will, however, abandon the flow and vote down that do engage in actively violent practices. I explained this above, but just be a decent human being. Don't be racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.

Evidence Ethics

I would much prefer these debates not occur. Nor would I really prefer to adjudicate a evidence rules issue as a theory shell. If you stake the round I will use the rules of the tournament or whatever organization it associates itself with. Debater that loses the challenge gets a 25, winner gets a 28.5.

For HS-LD:

Tricks

I have realized that I need more explanation when people are going for arguments based on getting into the weeds of logic (think the philosophy logic, IE if p, then q). I took logic but did not pay near enough attention nor care enough to have a deep understanding or desire to understand what you're talking about. This means slow down just a tiny bit and tone down the jargon so my head doesn't hurt as much.

My thoughts about tricks can be summarized as "God please do not if you don't have to, but if you aren't the one to initiate it you can go ham."

I can judge these debates, have judged numerous amounts of them in the past, and have coached/do coach debaters that have gone for these arguments, I would really just rather not deal with them. There's little to no innovation, and I am tired of the same arguments being recycled over and over again. If you throw random a prioris in the 1A/1N do not expect me to be very happy about the debate or your strategy. If I had to choose, carded and well developed tricks > "resolved means firmly determined and you know I am."

Slow down on the underviews, overviews, and impact calc sections of your framework (you know what I'm talking about), Yes I am flowing them but it doesn't help when you're blitzing through independent theory argumetns like they're card text. Going at like 70% of your normal speed in these situation is greatly appreciated.

Be straight up about the implication and warrant for tricks, if you're shifty about them in cross then I will be shifty about whether I feel like evaluating them or whether I'm tanking your speaks. This extends to disclosure practices, you know what this means.

Tricks versus identity-based kritikal affirmatives are bad and violent. Stop it.

Phil

I love phil debates. I coach plenty of debaters who go for phil arguments, and find that their interactions are really great. However, I find that debate has trended towards a shotgun approach to justifying X argument about how our mind works in favor of analytical syllogisms that are often spammy, underwarranted, and make little to no sense. I prefer carded syllogisms that identify a problem with ethics/metaphysics and explain how their framework resolves that via pieces of evidence.

The implication/impact of the parts of your syllogism should be clear from the speech they are introduced in, I dislike late breaking debates because you decided to hide what X argument meant in relation to the debate.

In phil v phil debates, there needs to be a larger emphasis on explanation between competing ethics. These debates are often extremely dense and messy, or extremely informational and engaging, and I would prefer that they be the latter rather than the formr. Explanation, clear engagement, and delineated weighing is how to get my ballot in these debates.

Hijacks are cool, but once again please explain because they're often just 10 seconds long with no actual warrants.

Slow down a bit as well, especially in rebuttals, these debates are often fast and blippy and I can only flow so fast

For those that are wondering, I'm pretty well read in most continental philosophy, social contract theorists, and most of the common names in debate. This includes the usual Kant, Hobbes, Pragmatism, Spinoza, and Deleuze as well as some pretty out of left field characters like Leibniz and Berkeley.

I have read some of the work regarding Rawls, Plato, Aquinas, Virtue Ethics, ILaw, Particularism, and Constitutitionality as well.

I know I have it listed as a phil literature base, but I conceptually have trouble with people reading Deleuze as an ethical framework, especially since the literature doesn't prescribe moral claims but is a question of metaphysics/politics, proceed with caution.

Defaults:

- Comparative worlds > truth testing

- Permissibility negates > affirms

- Presumption negates > affirms

- Epistemic confidence > modesty

Trad/Lay Debate

I mean, sure, why not. I can judge this, and debated on a rather traditional LD circuit in high school. However, I often find these debates to be boring, and most definitely not my cup of tea. If you think that you can change my mind, please go ahead, but I think that given the people that pref me most of the time I think it's in your best interest to pref me low or strike me, for your sake and mine.

NFA-LD:

Everything above applies.

Don't think I'm a K hack. I know my background may suggest otherwise but ideologically I have a high threshold for execution and will punish you for it if you fail to meet it. Seriously, I've voted against kritikal arguments more than I've voted for them. If you are not comfortable going for the K then please do not unless you absolutely want to, please do not adapt to me. I promise I'll be so down for a good disad and case 2NR or something similar.

"It's against NFA-LD rules" is not an argument or impact claim and if it is then it's an internal link to fairness. Only rules violation I will not roll my eyes at are ethics challenges.

Yes non-T affs, yes t - framework, yes cap good.heg good, no to terrible theory arguments like "must delineate stock issues."

Why are we obsessed with bad T arguments that do not have an intent to define words in the topic in the context of the topic? Come on y'all, act like we've been here.

Speaks:

An addendum to how I dish out speaks , any additional speaker points you get via challenges cannot get you above a 29.7, the other .3 is something you have to work for.

For speaker points challenges, those that know them can utilize them, this will be edited after TFA.

I don't consider myself super stingey or a speaks fairy, though I think I've gotten stingier compared to the rest of the pool.

I don't evaluate "give me X amount of speaks" arguments, if you want it so bad then perform well or use the methods I have outlined to boost your speaks.

Here's a general scale I use, it's adjusted to the tournament as best as possible -

29.5+ - Great round, you should be in late elims or win the tournament

29.1-29.4 - Great round, you should be in mid to late elims

28.6-29 - Good round, you should break or make the bubble at least

28.1-28.5 - About the middle of the pool

27.6-28 - You got some stuff to work on

27-27.5 - You got a lot of stuff to work on

Anything below a 27: You did something really horrible and I will be having a word with tab and your coach about it

add to chain/speech drop:

backslash309@gmail.com

top level:

TLDR: I will vote on anything. except arguments about things that didn't happen inside the round, although disclosure is fine.

Policy and K debates are my favorite, but reading what you want and giving a good speech is much more likely to get higher speaks than trying to tailor what you read to what you think my ideological preferences are.

Tech > truth, but truth determines the extent tech matters. A blatantly false claim like "the sky is red" requires more warranting than a commonly accepted claim ie "the sky is blue". Unwarranted arguments in the constructive that receive warrants later on justify "new" responses to those warrants. This doesn't mean I won't vote on tricks or theory, but the ability to say "X is conceded" relies on "X" having a full Claim/Warrant/Impact - the absence of crucial elements of an argument such as warrants will mean that adding them in later speeches will justify new responses. If an argument is introduced in a speech where no such response is valid, it carries little weight, for example: I am not going to think fairness categorically outweighs education if fairness outweighs is introduced in the 2AR.

Not voting on call outs. Not my business.

random thoughts:

--- Qualified authors & solid warrants in your ev are important. Evidence comparison and weighing are also important. In the absence of evidence comparison and weighing, I may make a decision that upsets you. That is fundamentally your fault.

--- In the absence of paradigm issues on my flow, I'm going to evaluate theory contextually. This means I will only grant you the logical implication of the words you say, and will not automatically grant you assumptions like drop the debater. For example, if a 1AR tells me "PICs are a voter cuz they steal the aff", this logically means that PICs are a bad argument, but doesn't explain why the neg should lose for reading it. Functionally, this means I'd default drop the argument absent any explanation. This headache can be easily avoided through warranted, extended arguments.

--- Most Ks that people get away with in LD have horrible warranting in the 1NC. Blowing up blippy Ks with elaborate turns case analysis, framework arguments, thesis explanations, etc that is not present in the 1NC obviously merits 2AR responses that I will give full credence to.

--- K affs being vague and shifty hurts you more than it helps. I'm very unsympathetic to 2AR pivots that change the way the aff has been explained. Take care to have a coherent story/explanation of your K aff that starts in the 1AC and remains consistent throughout the debate.

--- I default to judgekick.

--- I have heard a concerning amount of people saying "you cannot win a perm without a deficit" lately. This is absurd. The neg has the burden of competition. In the circumstances in a counterplan debate where neither the aff nor the neg has offense due to a perm, I vote aff. For example, if the neg goes for a consult NATO counterplan and the 2AR goes for "do the plan + consult NATO on other issues", the aff wins even without a deficit insofar as the 2NR does not clearly delineate offense vs the perm. There is no risk of offense for either side, but that means the plan is the logically safest option, as it is less of a deviation from the status quo than the counterplan.

I'm Aidan Hubert, and I'm an incoming senior with two years of LD debate experience. I've only judged casual classroom debates and have very little actual judging debate, but I'll do the best I can. As for actual paradigms, it'll be a bit convoluted as I try to explain

first of all, I believe it's important to get the basic stuff out of the way. Racism, sexism, any obvious and intentional intolerance will not be tolerated. The same goes for obviously abusing your opponent. I'd be more than happy to mark down your opponent as the winner and give you minimum speak points. This sorta stuff should be obvious, and I hope I'd never need to do anything like that, but you can never be too sure.

Disclosure: having personally struggled with the LD Wiki I don't want to really see a lot of disclosure theories. If there's a genuine attempt ahead of time and nobody is purposefully trying to hide their case then I'm probably not going to like disclosure theory. Long story short, if you think that it's a major problem hindering the debate round, then run it, but there should be a pretty good reason.

Theory stuff: Honestly, I'm not the most knowledgeable about more advanced theory and the like. I won't stop you if you want to run it and I'll do my best to follow, but be aware I might not be the most knowledgeable on it.

Flowing: please make it easy for me to flow the round please. I'll do my best to flow everything but it's not impossible for me to miss something, especially if you spread or don't talk especially clear

Speed: be courteous. If your opponent asks you to slow down, please do that. If I ask you to slow down, please please do.

I started judging my two kids' speech and debate tournaments in high school. I judge IE's, LD, and Policy. And have continued judging these tournaments after my kids moved on to college.

I prefer that you speak loud and clearly. However I do not have a preference on speed. You may flow as fast or slow as you see fit.

Simply, debate is a very fun game that I used to play and enjoy watching. Do what you do best. I will vote for you if I think you win. And please be nice to your opponents.

As far as preconceived notions of debate go, here are a few of mine:

(1) I think the topic should be debated.

(2) I enjoy case debates and plan specific counterplans.

(3) I usually don't have speech docs open during the debate so your clarity is important to me.

For Stanford:

Everything in LD paradigm applies to PF. You can spread and I don’t care what you read. Send all speech docs beforre your speech with the cards your reading to my email below, if we have to do some weird calling card stuff I’m prolly gonna doc points bc it just takes way too long. Ideally you don’t paraphrase, won’t hack straight against if you do, but may lower speaks, so just read cut cards.

Email:sunayhegde2017@gmail.com

Hey, I'm sunay (he/him). I did LD at Montville Highschool for 4 years. Got a bid in LD my senior year and a few bid rounds.

It's been like 6 months since I have actively thought about debate. This means that you should probably go like 60-70% of your max speed in rebuttals (I have always been a bad at flowing either way) and always err on the side of over-explanation, especially for more dense debates. There are probably things I have forgot and need time to think about.

Shorter version:

Pref Sheet for all Events (1 is highest, 5 is lowest):

1 - Policy/theory

2 - K (security, cap, grove)

3 - tricks

4- phil

5 - pomo, performance

Defaults:

Theory - Dtd, C/I, no rvis

Presumption/Permissibility flows neg

yes 1ar theory

extinction ows

Will probably better fairly generous with speaks but generally my metric will be to start at a 29 and go up or down depending on strategy etc..

*As a general note, I don't care what you read and will vote on literally anything as long as its not racist, sexist, etc.., but things on the lower side of my pref list mean that I have less experience with them/will have a harder time evaluating more higher levels of those debates and will probably need you to go slower/over explain.

Long Version:

tech > truth

Policy- favorite style of debate and debated this the most. I really like smaller affs and specific case debate as opposed to generic impacts. Impact calc in the back half of the round is super important, 2nr/2ar needs the comparison otherwise my ballot becomes much harder to make. Also don't forget ev comparision since i'm unlikely to do the work there if you do not do it for me.

Theory - Dont care if its friv. Go a little slower through analytics and on the interp text/counterinterp text, esp if its analytic, since if u go full speed through like 3 shells good chance im gonna miss stuff. Disclosure good, but if you use it to abuse novices speaks will probably be lower. Good standard comparison and clear abuse stories make these rounds easier to judge.

Tricks - Will vote on anything as long as it has some type of warrant. Won't be too happy with ev after x speech args but like if its conceded and extended with a warrant I'll vote on it. Generally, if you want to read em - delineate them, err on the side of overexplaining the arguments (like don't be blippy) and be up front in CX. Also, reading them on a novice or trad debater will cap your speaks at 28. *Fair note here that just because I will vote for them does not mean I am gonna be the best at evaluating a Nailbomb AC or something of that sort.

Phil - Im not well read on a lot of type of phil. My knowledge on most lit bases is fairly rudimentary, which means for more niche arguments I'm unlikely to know it. I also was on the util side most of the time in these debates, meaning that however hard I try to be tab those biases will probably sway me in close debates. With all that being said, if u wanna read it go ahead, although im probably not the best to evaluate these debates. If you do go for it j make sure to explain it coherently and not just use a bunch of buzz words. This means that you probably shouldn't go max speed when explaining your syllogism and be blippy when extending random blips at the top of fw. I also really find permis/presumption debates to be pretty tedious, so if your nc/ac is just a bunch of permis/presumption triggers im probably also not the guy for you. This also means if skep is your strat im probably not the person to pref.

K - I've only really read cap and security as a debater so assume I don't know your lit and err on the side of overexplaining the theory of power in the 2NR. I really like well done K debates, so please don't forget the line-by-line for overarching overview answers and shallow explanations of the arguments that regurgitate buzzwords,. Including examples to explain the theory of power and/or alternative are also good. I also like specific links to the 1AC, generic links are fine but specificity will always better your chances of winning and/or getting good speaks. Make sure to have turn cases or alt solves stuff in there too. Also pomo makes me confused, so just be sure to explain it, im not gonna be able to vote off weird buzzwords i dont understand no matter how tab i try to be.

K affs/performance - I like K affs that have a clear advocacy that actually does something (non t/performance affs are fine but the threshold for either explanation of what the aff does/justifying the impact turn to T will be much higher). If you have some vague advocacy that is basically non T and super shifty, but act like its T in 1ac cx, I am going to be much more receptive to T args compared to if the aff was just non-T and went hard for the impact turn. This also means the overview to the 1ar should slow down and give a explanation of the affs theory of power, what the aff does, and why I should vote aff. If im left confused as to what the aff actually does by the end of the round, the presumption push the neg is going to make will be much more persuasive. Basically, make sure your ci is not super vague and ridiculously blippy, be ready for the impact turn debate, and give a clear explain as to what the aff does.

There is probably a bunch of stuff im missing just because i dont want this paradigm to be too long, so if you have a specific question just ask it before the round.

Hi my name is Zoe Jones. I will be a senior at Austin High in the fall, 2020 permitting. I've done LD for two years now, before that i did a semester of congress followed by a semester of PF and i've done a few different individual events mainly exempt and OO.

For Judging LD:

I think debate is a space to argue the direct effects of a topic being implemented against the consequences of not having it.

Disclosure:

I understand the struggle that is the LD wiki, if you haven't disclosed there then so be it but make sure you get your speech doc to your opponent thirty minutes or more before the round starts or they can run disclosure theory on you. While i'd prefer the round to come down to effects of the resolution I will vote off of disclosure theory. When the aff shares the doc please send them back all the things you might possibly respond with (not the docs just the names of DAs and K and theories you might potentially run) This is just so they can be a little bit prepared and ready for the round. Please don't run something that is not on this list.

Trigger Warning:

Provide trigger warning for anything that might be triggering before round, please use common sense in this aspect. Debate is meant to be a safe space for all, if you fail to make it such the round will end early and I will report you to tab with an automatic loss. Also if you feel unsafe or uncomfortable in a round please let me know either privately messaging me or some other signal. Depending on the level of concern the round will either be terminated with an automatic win for the person who felt unsafe or both of you will receive a bye. If you take advantage of this and try to use it to win I guarantee you will regret it. This is for extreme cases only.

Speed:

Speed is fine with me again I prefer to follow along with the docs. If your opponent asks for a slower speed and you do not speak at a slower speed your speaks will most be lowered. In any speech but especially your rebuttals if you want something to get flowed slow down and say it in a very clear voice. I will flow off the doc as well but if you make a point that you really want to be flowed emphasis on it will definitely help.

Flowing:

I like to see the flow condense down to the major points of the round rather then contesting the things that hold no real grounds in the round. If there is an obviously conceded point hammer that in, but don't forget to bring it up in every speech you make. If you want something from Cross-X to be flowed make sure you say it in a speech because I will pay attention to Cross-X but I won't flow it. Sometimes flows get messy but proper signposting in and before your speeches will make it easier for me to make a concise and accurate ballot. Also a line by line in later speeches is very appreciated as it throughly attacks your opponents points and sets up the foundation of what you see as the major arguments of the round.

Preferences:

While I prefer morality arguments to theory and Kritiks debate is a space for debaters and not for judges and as such the debate should operate on a debaters terms. And as your judge I will accommodate to whatever style of debate you choose. While judge modification is a thing it should honestly be judges modifying to debaters because your job is already hard enough.

Theory:

Again I'm okay with any arguments you want to read. My theory is admittedly not the best but if I have to look stuff up after the round I will. But you should make everything you read understandable for everyone your opponent included. Please do not take advantage of something your opponent doesn't understand if they ask a question don't steamroll them or make it unnecessarily complicated. If your opponent doesn't understand something chances are your judge doesn't either. Because we aren't supposed to bring outside knowledge into the round making stuff understandable is crucial.

Kritiks:

Similar to theory, run them if you want but make it understandable and clear. Don't steamroll your opponent and clarify if they ask.

80,000 offs:

Don't read 80,000 offs. I know it's a strategy to swarm your opponent with so many things that they couldn't possibly accurately respond to all of them but its not cool. Especially when in the next speech you drop all but three of them and leave your opponent struggling to condense their flows. Basically I don't like any strategy that try's to force your opponent to flounder. And if you attempt one of these and your opponent is prepared and responds accurately then they're getting very high speaks.

Accidents:

People misspeak, accidents happen, all that fun stuff. If you say something wrong please clarify that within your speech time or during your prep time. I understand that the stress of a round can get to you and you can accidentally word something wrong or slip up over a point. This cannot be used to add an argument, get rid of an argument or anything along those lines. It is simply to reword a point that you may have tripped over because I don't want anxiety to be anyones downfall in debate. Confidence is key but confidence has to be gained through success.

Prep Time:

I'm fine with prep being open prep or closed prep. As long as both parties agree. So if you both are okay with open prep then go for it. Again I will not flow it but it can be useful for someone who needs clarification. Do not use that time to trip someone up, open prep is for clarifications not lines of questions, lines of questions are for Cross-X time. Also do not steal prep time, I know that is a widely known rule but it still happens all the time, your prep time ends when you're ready to send the doc out. You do not have to send the doc during prep time but if you take more then thirty seconds to send it after ending your prep time that is stealing prep and your speaks will be lowered. After the doc has been received check everyone is ready then begin your speech. Feel free to use other peoples prep time as well as you only have your 4 minutes but working while your opponent is prepping is good use of your time.

If you have any questions email me at coronacationtourney@gmail.com, yes I would like to be part of the email chain. Let's all have fun at this tournament okay? Anyways see y'all there.

dulles classic 2023 updates:

leenajoshi [at] utexas [dot] edu

please start round ON TIME. this means emails sent by the start time

freshman at ut who did 4 years of policy at dulles, primarily ran policy/t/theory args

i have 0 topic knowledge so pls explain ur acronyms

no phil pls

run whatever ur best at

tech>truth, for the most part. unless it's egregious

concessions in cx are binding

don't be mean it won't win u rounds

am lenient with 1ar responses if the 1nc is unwarranted but blows up in the block (maybe bc i was a 1a idk)

reasonability needs to be contextualized to the counter interp

go as fast as you want but i can tell when ur actually enunciating vs slurring - speaks start at 28

higher speaks if u end prep/speeches early j lmk

feel free to ask me for specific things in round!

PF/LD in HS, former UT policy debater (2A/1N).

PSHS '20, UT '24

Conflicts: Plano Senior HS (Plano, TX), Jasper HS (Plano, TX), Clark HS (Plano, TX)

plano.speechdocs@gmail.com (Email for email chain)

Judges who I largely agree with:

Aryan Jasani

Vandan Patel

Pref Sheet for all Events (1 is highest, 5 is lowest)

1 - LARP/theory

2 - K

3 - phil

4 - tricks

5 - K aff, performance

Defaults

Theory - DtA, Reasonability, RVIs*

Presumption/Permissibility flows neg

Policymaking in the absence of a RotB and Utilitarianism in absence of an alternative framework

Note that these are just what I default to in the absence of arguments made for any of these issues, if any arguments are made on these I will obviously evaluate them.

*Check theory section if you do CX Debate

As a general note, my favorite rounds to judge are really solid LARP/theory/K rounds, but don't worry if that's not your strat because I'm fine with anything as long as you do a really good job of it. Good flow-oriented debate will always beat grandstanding and not flow-oriented debate.

TLDR if you are pressed for time: Debated LARP style and a little bit of K. Do your strat and I will do my best to evaluate it.

PF

- +0.5 speaks for disclosure on the NDCA wiki before round with proof

- just because you have a piece of evidence doesn't mean it has a warrant - make sure each card you provide in any speech has sufficient warranting

- second rebuttal should frontline offense in the first rebuttal

- defense isn't sticky in summary

- summary and final should ideally mirror each other

- weigh, weigh, weigh! good weighing will reward you in round

LD/CX

LARP - favorite style of debate. I really like smaller affs and specific case debate. Good weighing in the 2NR/2AR is a good way to get my ballot in a LARP round. Finally, please extend case in the 2AR if you want me to evaluate it at the end of the round. If case was conceded in the 2NR, a small 2AR extension at the top of the 2AR will suffice.

Theory - I prefer more fleshed out arguments rather than blips. I would also like you to go a little slower through analytics and on the interp text/counterinterp text. I will vote on disclosure theory but I think there is a difference between someone not disclosing at all and someone not adhering to every single little interp you have. I also probably won't evaluate disclosure on people who can prove in a verifiable way that their school policy prevents it. Other than that, I don't have any strong preferences on theory but I will say the bar to responding to friv theory is much lower. Good standard weighing and clear abuse stories are easy ways to get my ballot in a theory round. *CX Specific - theory/T are not RVIs, so don't try it.*

T - I only really ask that you have a TVA/caselist with any topicality argument or I will err more on the aff side of topicality. Other than that, anything is fine.

Tricks - I mean, I guess you can but I won't be too thrilled about it. Just delineate them, err on the side of overexplaining the arguments (like don't be blippy) and be up front in CX. I will not vote off condo logic - its a terrible argument (tbf all tricks are terrible but this one just is worse than the rest).

Phil - I'm familiar with Kant, Rawls, Hobbes and virtue ethics at a basic level but assume I don't know your lit and err on the side of overexplaining what the framework is and how the offense links under it.

K - I've only really read cap and security as a debater so assume I don't know your lit so err on the side of overexplaining the theory of power in the 2NR. I really like well done K debates, so please don't forgo the line-by-line for overarching overview answers and shallow explanations of the arguments that regurgitate buzzwords, that will make me sad. Including examples to explain the theory of power and/or alternative are also good. I also like specific links to the 1AC, generic links are fine but specificity will always better your chances of winning and/or getting good speaks.

K affs/performance - I don't really know the ins-and-outs of this style of debate too well because I never really debated in this style, but I will say I tend to lean on the neg side of T-framework just because I ended up on that side in a lot of debates.

kelvinmeng07@gmail.com

1 - Policy, Theory
2 - K
3 - Tricks, Phil

Bad flower. Slow down on pre-written analytics.

Overexplain unintuitive arguments. Concessions aren't a substitute for lack of explanation. Scenarios start at 0.

Bad tricks debate is difficult to sit through. Logic aprioris are fine, "no neg arguments" are not. Extempting tricks is egregious.

I reserve the right to end rounds due to ableism.

Don't call me Judge, please call me Kim. Lay but open to prog if you're willing to explain it to me. It'd be cool if you could slow down on analytics. Clear 3 times, then I'm nuking speaks.

Email me if you run into complications: 004nguyen.k@gmail.com

I am a high school CX debater so I do have some sort of experience.

If you are planning to spread, please send the speech doc and sloooow down on analytics, taglines, etc. (basically anything that you want me to hear and flow and understand that isn't in your speech doc).

Email: rainacpatel04@gmail.com

I will try my best to flow every argument that is read, but if there is something you really want me to know, point it out (I can't read people's minds and my flowing is not the best). Also, I would prefer a roadmap before your speeches, and please signpost so I know where to flow!

Don't forget to tell me why I should vote for you, and please don't just read cards for the whole debate. Cards are good as long as they have an ACTUAL ARGUMENT behind them (so please know what your cards are actually saying).

I'll probably disclose and give an RFD in round (if it's allowed).

For speaker points, I'd like to say I'm pretty lenient as long as no one is being rude (so don't curse unless there is a justifiable reason, don't rudely interrupt people during cross-x, don't be offensive, etc.). Debate is supposed to be a fun activity. Also, try to be as clear as you can. I know that might be a little hard online but just try your best! I'll let you know if I can't understand you.

Specifically for LD, I don't have experience with it so please explain your arguments. I probably won't vote for something I can't understand. I understand theory, topicality, DAs, and CPs pretty well. I don't understand kritiks that well, but I don't mind judging them as long as they make sense and are explained well (so don't read a kritik if you don't know what it is saying).

This is a pretty short paradigm so please feel free to ask me any questions you have about it before the round or you can email me if you need to! Good luck!!!

Hi, I am Divya (she/her). This is my second year debating in LD debate. I have also done speech for 1 year.

Thanks to Aarnav Agrawal for letting me use a bunch of stuff from his paradigm!

Feel free to DM/email me if you have any questions.

I have bolded the really important things in my paradigm so feel free to skim through if you would like!

Just a couple of things you should know about me before round:

This is my second year doing LD debate. I have also done speech for one year.

I am an eighth-grader. I will not accept cursing or racist, sexist, ableist, etc. comments in the round.

If there are any email chains or anything being sent, add me to the email chain at ponnuvfamily@gmail.com

In-Round and General Things

1. Please don't use curse words in the round to me or at your opponent. It's very disrespectful to everyone in the round and creates a bad mood/environment. Additionally, I will not tolerate racism, sexism, etc. All rounds are supposed to be safe and inclusive for all debaters, so if there is anything I can do to ensure that, let me know.

2. Please don't spread, or do circuit round things. this is my 2nd year debating so I'm not familiar with things like k's, theory, etc. I definitely won't be able to understand if you spread. If you do run theory or things like that for whatever reason, then EXPLAIN IT. If you run any of these things without explaining it, then I won't even consider it in my decision. Make sure you can explain these things properly. Debate like you would in front of a traditional judge.

3. I flow all speeches except for cross-ex. I listen in cross-ex but don't flow it. If your opponent concedes something, I will hear it, but I want it to come from you that your opponent conceded something in cross-ex.

4. Be kind in cross-ex. I get that debate is stressful, but it's never an excuse to be disrespectful during cross-ex. I will lower speak to vote you down depending on how disrespectful you are.

5. Please read trigger warnings if necessary.

6. Please let me know the order before your speech.

7. I like independent voters and voter issues. Warrant them well and explain why it's a reason to win. I don't want you to just say, "My opponent conceded this meaning this is one reason to vote for me." Explain to me why this is one reason for you to win. Warrant it well and explain it and show why it matters. It also makes my job easier to decide who to vote for.

8. Don't just solely extend cards or contentions. Extend the specific warrants in the card, the impacts, what it implicates/what it means, and why it's important for the round. Don't just say, "Extend this card," or, "Extend contention one."

9. If your opponent asks for evidence, please give it to them. If you are uncomfortable sharing it, then tell them, "No" respectfully, and then we can see what can be done. Don't be sketchy about sharing evidence. If you clip cards, misrepresent the author's intent or read fake evidence, I will vote you down automatically.

10. Along with you timing yourself in the round, I will also be timing every speech, cross-ex, and prep time, just to make sure there are no confusions in the round and to settle and disputes about time. Don't steal prep. I will not tolerate this.

11. I like to see impacts, weighing, and outweighing. I like to see large impacts that you outweigh with your opponent's. I also like to see weighing in your last speech because it makes my job easier and also could win you the round by showing clear impacts and how your side is better. If there is one way to make me vote for you, weigh!

12. Speed - I am not too familiar with spreading so don't spread. I also can't understand what you say if you spread. I am okay with a little bit of speed, but again, please don't spread. I will yell slow and expect you to slow down. If I/your opponent has to yell slow more than 3 times, I will stop flowing.

13. Winning the Ballot - I evaluate the arguments on both sides, and at the end of the round, I see which one has/would have the largest impact and which was the easiest argument for me to vote off of. I also look for clear links and warrants in the arguments. The less work you make the judge (me) do, the easier it is to vote for you.

14. Speaker Points - In most cases, I will give 28 speaker points or above, unless you say something offensive, insulting, or repugnant. I give speaker points based on how good you speak (i.e. intonation, clarity, etc.) and also things like hand gestures, persuasiveness, and if you make me laugh.

If you make me laugh: +0.5

If you read my paradigm let me know before round: + 0.5

If you flow on paper neatly and show me after the round: +0.5

15. RFD's and Disclosing - I will disclose my decision and RFD after the round, but I will take some time. I want to make sure that I vote for the right side and my decision is not unfair, so I will take some time to decide. This means that I will be able to give you a detailed RFD, and I will also be able to provide feedback to the best of my ability on my ballot and after the round. Once I make my decision, it's final. You can argue about it, but it won't get you anywhere and will only create a bad environment. Feel free to ask any questions you have about my decision after I disclose it.

Feel free to ask me any questions before the round starts such as judging preferences or if you have any questions about my paradigm. Enjoy your round, and most importantly, HAVE FUN and do your best!!!

Hi I'm a hs incoming sophomore who's been debating since ms I did mostly LD in ms and now I do policy,

Speaking:

-Spreading is fine by me but make sure you're articulate and if not then you shouldn't be spreading. I will give you a couple of warnings in the round if you're spreading and not speaking clearly however, if you don't slow down after that I will stop flowing what I can't understand.

-Be sure to signpost makes the debate a lot clearer and easier to follow for everyone in the round.

Args:

-Everything is fine by me but theory usually doesn't stand with me unless your opponents have broken a major rule

GLHF

evergreen valley '23

i qualled to toc in ld & pf my junior year

i was coached extensively by kumail and claudia. this might mean something to u, or it might not – i wouldn't look into it too much.

Update: The only argument I particularly feel comfortable evaluating nowadays is quantum monism. I do not have a desire to learn the topic, but I do have a desire to be Parmenides. Which I already am. Because monism is true.

Hi! I'm Sophia. I debate(d) for Prospect '24 and won some tournaments. I qualified to the TOC 3 times with 16 bids and was top speaker my junior year. I ran pretty much everything from phil to policy to theory to tricks. I'm less familiar with Ks, but I'm willing to vote on anything with a claim, warrant, and impact. I am probably the worst for a dense policy round or a K v K round.

Check out win-debate.org and circuitdebater.org!

For the email chain: ineedadebateemaillol [at] gmail [dot] com -- please have your subject line be "Tournament Name - Round X Aff Code vs Neg Code" and I'll +0.1 speaks

Quick prefs sheet: phil = theory = tricks > policy > K

General

I do not default unless the round is completely irresolvable. If you read theory, read your own paradigm issues or the shell has no impact. Similarly, you should be reading presumption and permissibility arguments if you plan to specifically trigger them. I will presume the side of least change and truth testing, although I'd rather not use my defaults.

CX/flex is binding

I don't vote on callout affs or ad homs

I would prefer evidence ethics to be run as a shell, not a stake. If it's a panel and the other two judges decide to evaluate it as a stake, I will use the NSDA guidelines

If your eyes don't move up from your computer your speaks aren't moving up either

If you're hitting a novice, be nice and slow down -- you don't necessarily have to change the arguments you read, just be slower. If it's your bubble or an elim, do whatever you need to win

"I may adopt the judging habits of the worst judge your school brought to this tournament. Such fun!" - Yao Yao

Policy

By the time you're reading this I definitely do not have a good understanding of whatever the topic is

0 risk is a thing

Judge kick only if you tell me to

Phil

Definitely my favorite style

I like the NC-AC strategy and skepticism

Calc indicts do not prove your theory is true, only that your opponent's is wrong

Familiar with most authors in debate, but don't assume I'm familiar with your buzzwords, examples/contextualization will be awarded with good speaks

Most of your metaethics are not actually metaethics but also please weigh your fake metaethics against the other fake metaethics

Extinction and Pascal's wager are underutilized and probably take out many frameworks/skep NCs

Epistemic schmodesty?

K

If I look confused that's because I am

Affs should get to weigh case vs the K, specific links > state bad/theory of power C/As

Non-T/pseudo topical vs T-FW -- was always on the side of T, T does not seem more violent than any other position read against the aff, presumption is good, know what your aff says and don't dodge in CX. I am not sure if fairness is an impact anymore, but this is likelier because of tricky reasons than critical ones

Explanation should be in the LBL not some 3 minute long overview that has an excess of buzzwords

I don't care for floating PIKs. Put the text in the 1NC or they're not a real argument. 2AR gets new floating PIKs bad

I know a decent amount of K lit to understand the K side of a phil v K debate -- topic links are underused and should be in the 1NC

T/Theory

Good for any friv shells

Read paradigm issues; I won't default for you

I probably err neg on 1AR theory -- I find 2ARs way too new on some issues to really feel comfortable voting on it. if you're neg, tell me why I shouldn't let the 1AR blow up shells and I will gladly oblige. If you're aff, having a non-blippy theory argument in the 1AR will probably heg against this

I am quite skeptical of identity-based arguments (e.g., must not run condo vs x identity, CI because they are ableist, etc.). I think there is a difference between saying "Comic sans is a good font since other fonts are hard to read which has a terminal of ableism" (fine) vs "You should drop them for being ableist toward me because they read a definition in their T shell and I have ADHD which means I can't understand definitions" (what?)

Calling something an "independent voter/voting issue" does not make it one, and the more blippy IVIs I see, the more likely I am to independently vote for your opponent

Refer to the tricks section for what I think counts as a warrant

Tricks

P1: Tricks are for kids; P2: You are a kid; C: They're alright, I guess

Please signpost, I am not going to flow off the doc for you -- if I didn't catch it, it doesn't exist

I would heavily prefer "substantive" tricks e.g. the Boltzmann brain paradox, principle of explosion, etc. to "theoretical" tricks -- I often think the latter does not have a warrant. asserting that there is a "7-4-6-3 time skew" is just restating LD times, not why I should evaluate a debate after [X] speech, and I have no problem saying I did not vote on something because it has no warrant

I think that a good tricks debate is enjoyable in the sense that there are a lot of technical interactions but a bad tricks debate (random hidden stuff, no clash, etc.) is not going to be good for speaks

Must not punch me theory is very boring please diversify thank you

"The 2AR is after all the speeches before it" - Tej (I only evaluate after the 2AR)

"I get confused a lot when judging. Especially if you are a tricky little goblin." - Daniel

Speaks

27-30

I don't vote on the speaks spike. I will dock speaks if you ask

I coach withDebateDrills- the following URL has our roster, MJP conflict policy,code of conduct, relevant team policies, and harassment/bullying complaint form:https://www.debatedrills.com/club-team-policies/lincoln-douglas-team-policy

aaditwal@gmail.com

I did debate for 4 years and Plano East and qualified to TOC three times.

Pref shortcut

1] Policy, Theory, T

2] Ks against policy

4] Phil and KvK

5] Tricks --- fine to judge just kinda boring --- I won't drop speaks tho

TLDR: Do what you want and I'll adapt if you explain.

Policy

Good for anything here --- just weigh and make sure you explain your arguments

I like counterplans of all kinds and feel free to do whatever you want going for/answering them.

You need to ask me to judge kick if you want me to

Theory/T

Don't be mega fast through theory analytics and make sure to signpost clearly where you want me to flown your arguments.

Fan of 1ar theory but the speech needs to be structured well.

Ks v policy

I was on both sides of this debate and don't really care what you do. I would prefer you don't kick the alternative in the 2nr but I'm fine regardless.

Phil

I suck at this --- went for afc every time

I can probably evaluate this if you explain well

KvK

Please overexplain in these debates --- I will be confused

Tricks

Be nice to novices and collapse well when you go for tricks.

Strake Jesuit '25

Email chain: justindebate314@gmail.com

I like debates that feature long pieces of evidence.

Scenarios start at 0%. Concessions aren't a substitute for lack of explanation. Sweeping explanations of the world rarely exist.

Arguments that contravene basic intuition require an extreme level of warranting that is hard given a short timeframe.

Caddo Magnet 22'

Tulane 26'

email chain: ryanw9700@gmail.com

I did policy debate in high school for all four years. I did Zoom debate for a while, if possible, please have cameras on.

Tech over truth

Speak as fast as you want

More clash = better debate

Please do impact calculus

Good Line by Line will win you the round

Evidence quality matter a lot. I do read evidence after the round, and I see too often debaters power tagging entire arguments and getting a way with it. If the argument is dumb call it out. If you want me to read certain pieces of evidence after the round say it in speeches.

I read a variety of K and Policy oriented arguments in high school. I'm familiar with most critical literature bases. I do not have a strong preference towards either argument style.

What I like to see:

1) collapsing down in the 2NR/ 2AR to the best points and explain warrants in details

2) Going away from blocks and engaging with the other teams arguments fully

3) Confidence, not arrogance, control the room/round

What I do not like:

1) Teams asking if X card was read or waiting absurd times for cut copies

2) Everyone knows you're stealing prep! So be slick about it

1) collapsing down in the 2NR/ 2AR to the best points and explain warrants in details

2) Going away from blocks and engaging with the other teams arguments fully

3) Confidence, not arrogance, control the room/round

What I do not like:

1) Teams asking if X card was read or waiting absurd times for cut copies

2) Everyone knows you're stealing prep! So be slick about it

Topicality - go for it. If you are 2n, it should be all 5 minutes of the 2nr.

After hearing a lot of T debates on the NATO topic, I do not wanna hear T in the 2NR. This is not my preferred negative argument on the topic. Please feel free to read it though

Kritks: I love a good K debate. Links to the affirmative are the most persuasive to me. Other links are fine if explained properly. If you are not going for the alternative, you should win framework. If the framework page gets too messy don't expect me to do the work for you. I have a base level understanding of most literature bases. I read a K aff my senior year of HS. If you know your K then there should be no problem winning.

Framework: Debate is a game, but that is up to interpretation. Fairness is an impact. Clash is more persuasive to me. I think affirmative teams should be creative when responding to FW. I am more open to different models of debate than most judges. The 2NR shouldn't be five minutes of fairness comes before their arguments. Answer what the other team is saying.

I like K v. K debates. I can't promise I will flow perfectly in these rounds, so rebuttal speeches that clearly clarify the role of judge and ballot are crucial.

CP: I love a good CP debate. I can be convinced by any theory here. Unless it's condo its most likely a reason to reject the arg not the team.

DA: The best of the debates are with good impact calculus and resolved with good impact cal. Yes on impact turns. Link debate work is nice.

Speaker Points:

I give higher speaks than average. 28.6 is what I expect out of most rounds. If you are unclear and give bad, uncreative arguments, your speaker points will reflect that.

LD

- I end up judging lots of LD rounds. I have never done LD only judged rounds on it. I am best suited for LARP and K args. Anything outside of that I am probably not the best judge for you. I can handle a theory debate, buture.

Read my policy paradigm

1) LARP

2) Kritiks

3) Phil

4) Theory

5) Trixs

RVIs are dumb. I don't like voting on them.

just do impact cal

PF

Based on my experience, this event is a pain to judge. Please do not paraphrase. Please engage with each others arguments. Please do not send out a card doc if its just a bunch of quotes from NYT and Vox.

Hi, I'm Julia, but you can call me Jules or Jae. I use any/all pronouns so knock yourself out.

I've done debate for six going on seven years. I'm mainly an LD debater but have done PF and CX in the past. I started out as a traditional debater, so that's something I am well versed in, but Larp is what I'm the most comfortable with. With that being said, here are my preferences.

1) Larp/Theory

2) Trad.

3) Non-traditional K's/Trix/Phil

Speaks: I'm pretty laid back when it comes to speaks. I grade on the (25-30) scale. If you spread and/or run any sort of progressive content without my or your opponent's permission you will get an automatic 25, no questions asked. Same thing with any kind of sexist, racist, or homophobic slur or anything of that nature. I'm fine with cursing, as long as it's in your card. Cursing at either me or your opponent will result in an automatic 25. If you manage to make a Taylor Swift reference sometime in round, I'll give you at least 28 speaks.

Spreading: Spreading is fine, just please send me a speech doc if you plan to do so.

My email is juliayangfb@gmail.com

Other notes: Tech>Truth. Don't just tell me I should vote for you because you won a specific thing. Tell me how and why you won it. Extensions are incredibly important, but please don't try to bring up already dropped arguments for me to extend, I won't count them. In other news, I like clash. Clash is good and I will vote off of it. But please don't try to be purposefully aggressive to create clash. Don't try to defend your whole case throughout the entire round. Collapsing to only one or two arguments is perfectly fine. I will not vote off the framework debate alone. Please impact weigh!!!!! Finally, please be mindful of who your opponent is. You forfeit your right to complain about a loss the minute you spread or run progressive on a novice.

My discord is acreamcolouredteacup#5631 if you need to contact me or have any other questions.

With all of that said, good luck and may the odds forever be in your favor.