Tab judge so run anything you’d like as long as its nothing offensive ie impact turns to oppression. I don’t default to anything so all arguments must be communicated clearly in the round including the implications of those arguments. Spreading is fine but slow down and be extra clear on tag lines and author names. If you have any specific questions just ask me before the round.

Hi I debated LD throughout high school at Westwood (2018), earned two career bids and qualified to the TOC. pls flash jugal1999@gmail.com

~ last edited 11/21 ~

2021 Longhorn classic stuff

1. I am probably going to be late to the room, PLEASE have an email doc ready to go before I get there

2. I have not done anything debate related in the past 7 months BUT I still follow politics and current events very closely and watch lectures on 4x speed so the only issues I will have are topic specific items (jargon, common link chains) and clarity

3. UT's campus can be very confusing, please feel free to ask me for directions or food recs. It has also not been particularly safe recently so I will strongly encourage you to not stray past Guadalupe street.

4. once the round is over i'll finish typing feedback on my ballot and then give an rfd. it really disrupts my thought process if you interrupt me until I'm done with my rfd, please hold off on questions until then (write them down if you have to). I promise I will provide some feedback on speeches but if u have specific questions (after I am done) fire away!

5. I think my paradigm is still mostly true but I am less patient/less willing to gloss over things that annoy me. Yes, my paradigm is too long but I think I've conveyed my thought process well enough that you will hopefully know what you're getting when you debate in front of me.

general

I coached Westwood from 2018-2021, I have not been very involved with debate in the 2021 fall season.

I was coached by Rodrigo Paramo and I think I share similar views with Bennett Eckert, Travis Fife, and Aaron Timmons.

If you're lazy some pref shortcuts:

LARP - 1

Theory/T - 1-3 (depending on the frivolity of the position)

Kritiks - 2

Phil - 2-4

Tricks - strike

My general disposition towards debate is that it's a competitive arena that has educational potential, because of that I really believe in providing feedback on the debate so please feel free to ask questions!

--- a byproduct of this is that if I believe you are doing something that excludes your opponent from learning anything i will be very annoyed. Things like reading kritiks/theory or spreading against traditional or novice opponents just to cheese a ballot irritate me deeply, please treat your opponent with respect. i would hate to judge a round where a debater did not learn a single thing.

I am NOT tabula rasa and I don't think anyone actually is.

I will ONLY say slow/clear TWICE and after that I'll stop flowing.

My favorite kind of debate was a simple plan/disad/cp debate because I think those brought about the most clash and in-depth evidence comparison at the high school level. That said, I don't want to hear you failing to go for a disad when you've never read one before.

I will not vote for anything I don't understand - I think I have a good grasp of the "generic K's" and Kant but beyond that some explanation might be necessary given I haven't read all of the literature. I think this is especially true for links and alternatives.

I am a very expressive person - I will constantly be making faces in round, think of them as you would like, but I would recommend just ignoring them.

I have become increasingly cynical with k debate in LD the longer I've been judging. It is not fun to judge debates with no clash since no one knows what their position says including the ones reading it. I urge you not to read it unless you're CONFIDENT in your ability to explain it.

I love a good case debate - challenge the aff's home turf.

I STRONGLY believe in disclosure - The only exception is if you are unaware of what the wiki is. Screenshots MUST be provided including TIME STAMPS.

I have a HIGH threshold for good evidence - I think it should be about your scenario and as specific as possible. If it's a politics disad or a time sensitive argument newer evidence from reliable sources prevails.

In the case of cheating (evidence ethics, clipping, etc) I'll vote against the debater in question but will continue the debate. Speaks will be awarded based on the round and I'll subtract 2 points for the cheating. See Rodrigo's paradigm for more specific details for things I agree with.

I largely agree with Rodrigo regarding trigger warnings.

I treat theory/T as a kind of disad/cp debate with the standards being disads to the aff's interp. Please WEIGH! I need impact calc on the net benefits or I will probably throw out the shell.

If you intend to read 5+ cards on case, tell me to get another page for them. I haven't quite learned how to copy paste while flowing on paper.

I will wait until AFTER postrounding to give speaks - if you and/or your coach is rude then your speaks will suffer.

_________________________________________

Speed

I don't recall anyone being too fast for me to understand (I watch school lectures on 4.5x speed) on evidence but for short analytics like theory standards you HAVE to go slower bc I can't write at light speed.

Clarity is a MUST, and debaters almost always think they're clearer than they actually are so maybe go slower.

Speaks

I will award speaks based on what I think your propensity to win the tournament is, based on the round I judged. If I'm confident you can win, you get a thirty, and it'll go down from there. My perception for this might be skewed and I will usually end up giving you lower than what your final record will end up being.

Efficiency and good strategy will bump u up.

Try not to 100% BS facts. If you say xyz is polling at 80% when they're actually polling at 40 you will lose speaks.

I WILL dock speaks for being rude and award speaks for being kind.

I appreciate numbering arguments (1. no link, 2. link turn, 3. perm) and labeling offs (next off - econ disad).

Reading interesting and good arguments will also bump up your speaks. I love unique and specific plans or disads but if the evidence is trash I'm not gonna like it.

Theory

I think potential abuse exists and can be an effective argument even if you have aff specific offense.

I think most theory shells that are based on CX are frivolous (ex. must list perms, must spec k over T, etc)

Counter interps and interps must be flashed before read.

I'm persuaded by disclosure, open source, and brackets - but they still need a warrant - I won't hack. Round reports is silly tho, i've never been convinced there's any real abuse

If the 2n is literally 6 mins of theory/T I think the aff implicitly gets an rvi, since the 2n has conceded substance. I see no benefit to forcing the aff extend the 1ac for ten seconds.

I really LOVE specific and in-depth interps but try and make sure it still makes sense as a universal rule and as a sentence.

Topicality

Dislike semantics first (nebel) and generally think it's a floor not a ceiling but will still vote on it. That said, I still don't know what grammar is and the argument must be coherently explained. If I don't get your violation or understand the warrant for the definition, I can't vote on it.

Developed standards and voters are important and weigh between them if you want to have a good debate

I don't think a dictionary definition is mandatory but in T debates it will go a long ways - the more specific the definition the better. However, I am compelled by arguments saying that a counter interp is incomplete without them.

Interps and counter interps need to be complete statements. I treat them like plan texts since they are an attempt at defining a norm, so things like "Counter interp: let this aff in" are not real counter interps. I think paragraph theory like "conditionality is a voter" is fine.

Plans

I strongly believe they should have solvency advocates

frameworks are a must

I'm not a fan of underviews filled with analytics but if you're going to read that 1ar theory paradigm PLEASE SLOW DOWN.

CPs

For whatever reason I'm more lenient on the existence of a solvency advocate here, that said having one could be relevant to theory debates

One condo is chill

Not a fan of judge kick and will only evaluate the arg if it's made in the 1NC

PICs

I think these are some of the most strategic arguments in debate but I am persuaded by well crafted theory shells saying they're cheating.

Phil

The way I've always thought about philosophical frameworks is the same as Kritiks. There should be a way of explaining the world, a link to the topic, and some sort of impact.

I love util but in my senior year I branched out to deontologists like Kant and Hobbes.

Miss me with your justice v morality args - I don't care

Kritiks

Not a fan of Floating PIKs - I think they're cheating but if your opponent doesn't ask it's fair game if your evidence justifies it

I was a big fan of the security, anthro, and cap K's but specific links make a world of difference.

Unwarranted evidence is far too common in kritik debates. I find it frustrating when the NC is basically just 5 minutes of glorified impact cards.

I have a high threshold for afropessimism based arguments. I think they're often read poorly in LD and commodified, therefore I'm persuaded by the argument that white people shouldn't be advocating for it.

NOT a fan of generic links like the state is anti-black - the more specific the better

Kritik's must have SOME form of framing and I believe that the ROTB might precede case but this must be clearly justified. No, a card listing all the reasons why capitalism is bad and therefore should be stopped is not a ROTB, it needs to talk about education or activism or something related to debate.

Big fan of framework against kritiks done similarly to how Policy does it.

Performance

go for it as long as it isn't something that could potentially endanger someone

I do think all of your actions must be justified

I'm strongly compelled by T-Framework, and think plans are good for debate

Skep/permissability/tricks

no. A burden will result in an almost instant loss. I'm more than happy to discuss this with you outside of round but I think practices that focus on winning from blippy analytics are bad for debate.

I define a "trick" as a preempt that prohibits an action, like the neg can't read counter plans. Things like aff gets rvis or allow 1ar theory are ok, but annoying.

I am open to all arguments and will do my best to adapt to you. I am very focused on my flow so be mindful when moving from one card/argument to the next to leave a gap or say "and" to clearly indicate motion. Slow down on authors and dates please.

CX: I'm a policy maker but am always open to other arguments. My main concern is whether or not you've proven the resolution is true or false.
Topicality/theory: I default competing interp. If there aren't good extensions or if it's a wash I probably won't vote here.
K: If the lit is obscure you'll need to explain it to me a little more than popular Ks. Feel free to ask.
Case: I want the aff to extend in every speech. I will likely not vote exclusively on case defense, so negs please have another voter.

LD: I'm very line-by-line driven, and focus on the flow. Be very specific with voters.
Value/criterion: Not a must-have, and in many rounds I judge I find debaters will spend time on this without ever impacting it as a voter. If you go for this, that is totally fine, but give a clear reason why it matters in determining the resolution's truth.
Pre-standards/observations: Fine with these, but I feel the more outlandish ones need a little more work to actually matter. In any case, it is important that these are answered and not dropped.
Off-case: totally fine and love to see it, so long as whoever runs any off has an understanding of how to run that argument.
NC: I tend to be less persuaded by strats that try to spread the aff thin and just go for whatever they drop/undercover, and while I won't stop you from doing that, I begin to err heavily in the aff's favor when they have four minutes to answer 4 off, respond to your case, and defend their own. In my opinion, it's better for debate for you to demonstrate your skills by thoroughly arguing a really good voter rather than throwing half-hearted args at your opponent to see what sticks.
Aff: The most frustrating part of judging LD is watching 1ARs that try to do line-by-lines on everything and drop part of the flow. I want to see a 1AR identify the reason the 1AC theoretically wins, extend that and respond to attacks against that premise, identify why the neg would theoretically win, and respond to that. The aff does not have to win every single argument in round to prove the resolution true, so show your skill by covering what you absolutely must in this small period of time. Too often I see 2ARs make good arguments that are too little too late, so do whatever it takes to give a 1AR that doesn't drop anything important (only drops stuff that isn't important) be it taking extra prep, going with opposing framework, etc.

General Things -

Put me on the email chain, arvindb02+debate@gmail.com

I'm fine with anything - do what you're comfortable with and do it well. I'll do my best to adapt to you.

Write my ballot for me in the 2NR and 2AR. Identify the central issues in the debate and piece together a cohesive narrative as to why you have won.

In general, just try to be specific - that applies to pretty much every type of argument. Well-warranted, specific analysis is always better than broad sweeping claims. Give me examples.

Speed is fine, just be clear. If you're spreading through analytics at the same speed as cards, I'm probably going to miss something.

K - I like good K debates. If your lit is obscure, you're gonna have to do more work to explain it to me. Try to keep your overviews short, I really think it's better if you just make the args on the flow.

K Affs - K affs are cool, I think it's better if they're in the direction of the topic and defend something.

T - Well-researched, specific T debates are good. I default to competing interps. Not a fan of generic T args read as a time suck.

FW - FW is a question of models, not the aff specifically. I'll happily vote for a smart TVA.

CP/DA - Again, specific DA links and well-researched CPs are going to be better than generic ones.

Put me on the email chain before the round:

rishibaranga@gmail.com

I’m a sophomore LD debater at Westwood High School in Austin Texas.

He/Him

With our current online debating situation, I do not care what you wear (as long as it is appropriate)

Short Paradigm: Speed section below this + tech over truth, I'll vote off of almost anything unless it's abusive or problematic, but you have to tell me how to vote by weighing and using your framework. Be nice.

Speed: I don't care how fast you go unless your opponent asks you to go slower BUT MAKE SURE YOU ARE CLEAR (and if you disclose)

Case: I’m open to any kind of argument you have as long as it is intelligent, arguably true, and not problematic. In addition, I will not vote off things that are non topical, regardless of whether your opponent reads theory on you. Things like Cyborg aff are bad for education.

Disads: The more specific the better. I prefer 1 or 2 good cards to 10 bad cards, warrants of the cards are also very important. Analytical arguments under DAs are fine (as in if you respond to the argument analytically but don't read prepped out blocks or cards, you're good).

Topicality: It is up to the debaters to determine how I evaluate topicality. Explain to me why T matters to the debate space, and if you read T at full speed during NR/ARs, is going to be really hard for me to hear you, so please be clear. Slow down on the interpretations.

Theory: I will buy theories that are well structured and developed in a debate, again is up to the debater to prove to me why to reject the team, and I do not like cheap short theories, especially if you are “hiding” the theory shell (like if they're blippy). You shout put t/theory at the front of your speeches.

Kritik: Make sure that you explain the K really well and specifically how the opponent links into your offence. If your alt is bad, chances are I won't buy it, so it would be best to explain what it actually means when you extend it.

Layering: Tell me in round what matters the most/what should be evaluated first. Whether its case, t/theory, or k, you have to explain what and why.

Other Preferences: I’m new to judging, so it might take me a while to make a decision and give the RFD, so please understand. I also like to give a lot of nonverbal feedback after round, so remember to check your ballot and feel free to email me.

Be nice in cross, it'll earn you some speaker points. Just be nice to your opponent in general, being overly aggressive in cross and misgendering opponents is really really bad

thanks sean for the paradigm :)

Hi my name is Sarayu and I am a junior at McNeil Highschool. I'm good with anything, just make sure to explain your links properly and weigh. I'm good with speed too, just make sure your opponent is also okay with spreading. Be nice and don't say anything offensive.

Include me on the email chain: sarayub2005@gmail.com

live

laugh

love

lose

hey i'm (sri) nithya (she/her)

mcneil '23, ut '27

if i'm judging anything but ld, everything down below applies but just ask me for specifics before round

add me on the email chain: nithyachalla05@gmail.com

t/l

i don't really care what you read as long as you explain it well. make sure to signpost otherwise you're going to lose me very easily.

assume i know absolutely nothing about the topic or current politics when debating because i probably won't.

i'll default to substance first unless told otherwise.

i'm fine with speed but if you're unclear i'm not gonna understand what you're saying. don't spew down on a novice or you're getting horrible speaks. if you're debating someone that doesn't spread, just match their speed in the later speeches. if you debate efficiently, you should still be able to win without spewing down.

also refer to me however you feel like i don't care enough to get mad about what you call me in round.

ill give relatively high speaks- to increase your speaks, make me laugh.

for speaks boost throw in a reference to the latest jjk chapters.

pref sheet

1- cp/disad, kritiks

2- phil, theory

3- non t affs, tricks, trad

if you're a trad debater, just debate how you're most comfortable debating.

cp/disad: the type of debate i'm most familiar with. nothing much to say here, just pls impact weigh it will make me happy and don't force me to do that work for you. explain how the cp either solves the aff and the impacts of the da, or just how the cp is just better than the aff and you'll be ahead. link and impact turns are offense on a disad- pls don't concede them.

phil: explain the syllogism of your fw. that's literally it. i'm not exactly the most adept at phil but i can somewhat follow a phil debate. though my phil knowledge is limited, if you can explain it well and explain why it should frame the round and why you're winning under that framework, you win. just err on the side of of overexplaining because otherwise you're gonna lose me. phil i'm most familiar with: butler, levinas, rawls, hobbes, kant, locke.

kritiks: i'm familiar with some of the lit (some id pol, nietzche, baudrillard, psycho, deleuze, glissant, cap, etc.). pls pls pls utilize the rob if you're debating other fws. it'll make me very happy. also explain the world of the alt otherwise idk how i'm supposed to evaluate perms and at to perms. also, utilize the fw of the k--it can win or lose you rounds. k tricks are always appreciated. k 1ars are always one of the harder ones to give so i'll try to give some leeway. also please don't concede extinction ows--i've done this far too many times than i should have and it's definitely not hard to answer.

non t affs: go for it. i barely read these but i've debated enough to understand the strategic value and implications of reading them. try to be creative in your approach in answering these tho bc those rounds are hella interesting.

theory: not my favorite style but do what you want to do. default no rvis, competing interps , dtd, fairness and education are voters. theory imo gets extremely muddled so if you're planning on going for it, just try to explain the abuse story well.

tricks: i'll evaluate them. idk what else i'm supposed to say about this but if you want, go for it i'm not entirely opposed to them. however, pls don't read 50 million paradoxes- you will lose me.

if you have any questions before round, let me know and i can hopefully answer them. also let me know if you want me to do anything to make the round more inclusive for you. don't be a jerk or do anything offensive otherwise you're getting an automatic l25. please dont postround too much i beg.

Hi y'all, I'm Anshul (un - shhul)!

TL:DR -- Read whatever if it's not horribly offensive. I'll evaluate any argument with a warrant. For good speaks, being nice is cool. I also like to see new arguments I haven't heard before that often. If you're going to be fast, be clear. If you want me to slow/clear you during the round, tell me to do so before the round starts (I won't do it if you don't ask)

General Information

I debated for McNeil HS in Austin, Texas, for four years in LD (TOC and TFA circuits) with a little bit of CX and Extemp too. I was coached primarily by Dominic Henderson, and a lot of my thoughts about debate thus align with his. The other people I've been influenced by in debate are Cameron McConway, Josh Porter, Angela Zhong, Nevin Gera, Pranav Vijayan, Ishan Rereddy, and Phoenix Pittman. I wouldn't read too much into that list of people.

4x TOC Bids, 2x TOC Qual, 3x TFA Qual

With a few exceptions (see: Non Negotiables) I agree with the following: "Above all, tech substantially outweighs truth. The below are preferences, not rules, and will easily be overturned by good debating. But, since nobody's a blank slate, treat the below as heuristics I use in thinking about debate. Incorporating some can explain my decision and help render one in your favor." --Debnil Sur

I have 0 idea why people do that thing during CX where they never let their opponent finish an answer. There's certainly a point whereby an answer is getting repetitive and the next question needs to be asked, but I don't understand why you'd just interrupt your opponent three words into their answer....?

I'm not particularly the best at flowing, and I'm not going to flow off the doc unless I do something wrong such that I wasn't able to hear you (ie: I got distracted by something and missed something. I'll check the doc to see what I missed, as that's entirely my fault). At the very least, slow down on taglines, author names, and evidence dates. It's also probably good to slow down on key warrants in your cards that you need me to catch

Please feel free to ask me any questions before the round should you need any clarifications or specific thoughts about how I view debate!

If you disagree with my RFD, please post-round me as much as you want but please also don't be mean about it. I think that judges more often need to be held accountable for bad decisions to improve their decisionmaking in the future. Your postrounding won't change my decision, as decisions are final, but I hope that it can lead to a more productive conversation for future debates and RFDs.

I'd prefer ev ethics to be debated out in the form of a shell. If you'd like to stake the round on it, I'll follow the rules/guidelines that the tournament has for ev ethics challenges.

Non Negotiables

Don't say bigoted/offensive things! I think that that exists independently of impact turns that aren't inherently targeted towards one group of people. This means that I won't vote on something like "x-ism" good, but I will vote on death good, wipeout, SPARK, etc

CX is binding. I think that there's some leeway though when there was an ambiguous response to something in CX or if the answer was interrupted before it was complete and I'll try to err on the side of leniency unless it's something egregious (ie kicking an unconditional advocacy)

I won't vote on positions that dictate how debaters should dress

I won't vote on positions that endorse self-harm

Quick Pref Sheet

These preferences are not what I'm willing to judge, as I'm willing to judge whatever debate the debaters want to have. These are reflective of how comfortable I feel delivering a coherent RFD in the context of said rounds. I'd rather you debate how you'd like to debate instead of over-adapt to me though. The debate is yours to do with it as you wish - I'm just a guy in the back of the room who's happy to judge what you're passionate about and want to debate

LARP - 1

Topicality/Theory - 1

Structural Kritiks (Cap, Militarism, International Relations, SetCol, etc) - 1

Topical K Affs - 1

ID Pol Kritiks - 3

Phil - 2

Non Topical K Affs - 3

Tricks - 2

Brief Lists of Likes and Dislikes - these lists will grow over time

Likes: Really fun and innovative new strategies (no matter how whacky they may sound - I like new strategies that evidently took a lot of work to come up with), a good case debate, a good methods debate, highly technical theory debates that both debaters can engage in, a well explained K v K debate, good IR debates, a cohesive 1NC where all the flows work together in a novel way

Dislikes: Outspreading novices/trad debaters, buffet 2NRs that cannot afford to split the 2NR (if you are able to split the 2NR properly given something the 1AR did wrong though, go for it), Judge kick

LARP

Policy is great. Disads are cool. Advantages are cool. Counterplans are cool. Some miscellaneous thoughts

• Case debate needs to come back with a vengeance. Neg debaters oftentimes let aff debaters get away with murder on the internal warranting of the affirmative. Bad plans and bad aff internal link scenarios should be punished by the 1NC.
• Agnostic on most forms of counterplan theory. The exception is Consult CPs, where I'm aff leaning on questions of theoretical legitimacy
• Fine for the competition debate on permutations
• I am 100% willing to vote on all your whacky impact turns barring bigoted and oppressive impact turns. That means that I'm willing to vote on Wipeout, SPARK, and arguments substantive impact turns, not "Racism Good". Please don't try to impact turn oppression, neither of us will be happy during that RFD

Kritiks (on the NEG)

Kritiks are great. I like good links, but a solid framework debate is cool too. Doing both effectively might net you some nifty speaks (doing both poorly will not). Some miscellaneous thoughts

• I need to know what the alt does. This does not have to be material - it can be epistemological, pedagogical, etc, but if I don't understand what the alt does I'll be hesitant to vote for it. For a specific thing of what I'd like to know about the alt, please make it clear what the alt does, who does it, where they do it, and how it is done. Saying "vote neg to endorse dialectical materialism" means nothing to me. Saying "you should vote neg to endorse a better pedagogical model for engaging in debate and here's what that looks like" means a lot more to me.
• I think that smart "the links from the kritik turns case" arguments are really really awesome
• Explanation > Buzzwords
• I think the framework debate and the link debate operate on an inverted sliding scale. That's to say - I think the higher a risk that the neg wins framework, the less of a link that the neg has to win. The lower a risk that the neg wins framework, the more of a link the neg needs to win
• For the framework debate, I think that most 1AR warrants on framework and why they get to weigh case are atrociously bad. I think 2NRs should punish this more often
• I'm most familiar with structural kritiks like cap, setcol, IR theory, etc
• I'm less familiar with various identity oriented kritiks. Most of my familiarity with these positions came as a result of debating against them rather than debating them

Kritiks (on the AFF)

K Affs are great. I like topic specific ones. Good framing pages are good.

• I'd prefer that K Aff's be topically inclined. I do not think that that has to look like an implemented policy action. Evenly debated, I'm likely to conclude on the side of T FWK (meaning I think that the aff should defend the topic) and against the side of T Must Implement (meaning I think the aff does not have to implement a policy by whatever actor, probably the USfg). Again though, tech over truth - if you win the other side of the debate I'll vote for you
• I'm not very well acquainted with T FWK debates. As such, it'd be in the best interest of both the neg and aff to do a lot of explanation and implication work to fully explain what your position and model for debate is
• I need to know what the aff actually does. I think that "aff is a good idea" or "the aff proves the res is a good idea" is sufficient to meet this burden

Theory/Topicality

Theory and T debates are great too. Please slow down on all those analytics. I cannot flow them at the speed that most debaters spread through them. Neither of us are going to be too happy if the RFD is "yeah I just didn't hear that and it wasn't on my flow".

• Defaults: Fairness = Education, Drop the argument on Theory, Drop the debater on Topicality, Yes RVIs, Competing Interps. These can be changed with any degree of warranted argumentation
• A sidenote to the above - if paradigm issues are cold conceded, I don't think they really need to be extended all that much. For instance, if the 1NC reads a shell with drop the debater and the 1AR never goes for drop the argument, I don't think the 2NR needs to say "they conceded drop the debater, here's why", rather can just say "drop the debater because they violate the shell" or something else to that end
• The worse an interpretation is, the lower the threshold is for responding to it. What classifies a bad interpretation, you may ask? There isn't a brightline, but if you have to ask that question, the answer is probably "it's not great". To be clear, I will still vote on bad shells. Some examples include: must spec status of CP in the doc, must not take neg prep time, any shell about having to concede some argument (ie AFC). I just think my bar for answering them is not as low
• Yes, I will vote on Nebel. I would prefer you read the Leslie evidence over Nebel, but you do you. Yes, I will vote on Debate Coach Ev bad. Yes, I will vote on Debate Coach Ev not bad. I think that 1NC Nebel Shells that don't explain the grammar tests and how the aff violates the grammar tests are lacking an internal warrant on the violation. 1ARs should point that out.
• Not the biggest fan of disclosure debates over tiny violations. I don't know what the brightline is for tiny violations, but I think that at some point, I'd just sigh and say "alright, I guess" instead of "yay, debate!". What I personally think is good is disclosing broken positions on the wiki, disclosing the aff (if not new) 30 minutes before round, and round reports.

Phil

This is probably not my wheelhouse, at least as philosophy is read in LD currently. I don't think I have the ability to flow those gazillion Kant analytics at 800 wpm. I'll inevitably miss something and that's not going to be great. I think I'm a lot better for carded and substantive phil debates as opposed to blippy analytics, and should the former be your strategy in phil debates, I think I could be a 2 instead of a 3 for phil

• I know of and a little bit about most philosophers that come up in LD. Most familiar with Young, Rawls, Butler, and Kant
• I guess I'll vote on TJFs but I don't think they're particularly great. I don't think proving something might be good for debate proves that it's true. Absent someone bringing that up though, TJFs are fair game. This is debateable and I'm willing to vote for TJFs though should they be won
• I default to presumption and permissibility negating. This can be changed with literally any warrant from the affirmative

Tricks

I will vote on any argument outside of the non-negotiables if won. My bar for an argument is that it contains a claim, warrant, and implication. If an "argument" lacks any of those three components, I don't view it as a complete argument and would thus be hesitant to vote on it.

I would love evaluate a tricks showdown between two highly technical debaters where it's clear that tricks is a stylistic choice which is not designed to exclude. Those debates would arguably be one of my favorites to judge. I would be a lot less happy if a debater reads tricks against a novice or someone who cannot engage in it.

• With that in mind, I think that not all tricks are made equal. I'll vote on almost anything if it has good warranting and implications, meaning that positions that are considered tricky like Skep, Determinism, LogCon, etc are better arguments in my mind than "eval after the 1AC cuz I said so"
• The worse a warrant is for an argument, the lower my threshold is for responding to it
• Please slow down on all those analytics. I cannot flow them at the speed that most debaters spread through them. Neither of us are going to be too happy if the RFD is "yeah I just didn't hear that and it wasn't on my flow"
• I think that a lot of tricks should be punished by the other debater. For instance, going for an RVI on theory tricks, independent voting issues on exclusionary tricks, ev ethics claims, etc

Speaks

No, I won't evaluate 30 Speaks Theory. Asking if I'll evaluate it/making the argument will make your speaks worse.

Yes, I'll disclose speaks if you ask. I'll do my best to explain why I gave those speaks too

Good speaks --> being kind, being funny (I love really harmless silly and bad jokes like bad puns and dad jokes), going for a truly innovative and cool strategy, doing really clear and concise big picture/ballot framing work (it makes my life easier)

Bad speaks --> doing the opposite of whatever gets you good speaks. Alternatively, reading a bunch of arguments that I really just don't enjoy evaluating

UPDATE FOR ‘23-‘24: I have not done any topic research so any arguments that rely on a deep understanding of the topic would most likely not work in front of me. That being said, if you explain the logical syllogism and properly articulate your arguments, I should be able to flow them as you would like. Please slow down as well, I have been out of debate for a couple of years - would go at 70-80% of your full speed. I’ll say clear or slow if those become an issue in round.

Hi my name is Kartik and I debated for McNeil high school in Austin and competed in LD regularly on the TOC circuit from 2016-2020. I have coached individual debaters and taught at TDC.

I would like to be on the email chain: kotamrajukartikeya@gmail.com

I have been coached by Dominic Henderson and Cameron McConway so my opinions will be most similar to theirs.

Conflicted for McNeil HS

Don’t want to use too much space to write something down that should already be obvious but don’t say anything in front of me that would make me immediately think of you as a terrible person because that will not help you in the round. Don’t be racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist/etc. Have fun in the debate and enjoy the round, make it a pleasant space to be in.

Short Version for Prefs:

K: 2

LARP: 1

Theory/T: 2

Performance: 3

Phil: 3

Tricks: 4

Speed:

Spreading is a strategy and I understand that, do not use it as a weapon against somone who clearly is new to the activity or not experienced enough to listen to you spew 300 WPM. Use it when you need but tone it done when you know your opponent obviously will not be able to keep up. Keep the debate educational and take something away from it.

K:

K debates are great in my opinion, I know there are large pools of peope that would not agree with that statement but those debates are fun to judge. If you’re going for a K aff, I would really appreciate it if there is an actual affirmation of the resolution as opposed to doing the negative’s job for them. If the Aff you’re running is more performance in nature, that is completely fine but I would like to see you relate that performance back to the resolution from the Aff’s lens. If you’re Neg and reading a K, I don’t have anything in specific to say other than make sure that there you’re doing the work of weighing between the ROTB and the framing of the Aff because I promise you I will not do that work for you on the flow. If I cant discern a specific reason as to why the framing of the K is more important than the Aff’s then you will most likely not win unless you have more offense under the dominating framing than your opponent does. I would imagine the debate round I just described would be incredibly messy and would really prefer not being in the back of the room for that debate - please do my job for me and don’t leave it up to me to identify the true meaning of your arguments.

IIf there is a T-debate, I think having an expectation of theoretically justifying your practice is not too high of a bar and I should see you doing that but that does not mean that things like impact turning theory are not going to be evaluated but I think coupled with a proper counter interp, it leads to a more fun debate.

Literature that I am familiar with: Deleuze, Saldanha, Warren, Wilderson, Set Col, Butler, Ableism, Yancy (a bit)

Literature that I am not familiar with: Foucault, Weheliye, Anthro, Bataille, Glissant

Literature that I will have a very hard time evaluating: Baudrillard, Psychoanalysis literature (my former teammate convinced me that psychoanalysis debates get very convoluted in LD debate and has interactions on the top-level rather than creating nuanced debate like it would in policy debate so trying to explain psychoanalysis to me during round will be an uphill battle but I will be open to it)

If what you plan on reading isn't here, then just ask me before round

Even though I am familiar with certain literature bases, err on the side of overexplaining to make sure I get your argument

Theory/T:

I went for 1ar theory a lot as a sophomore and junior and probably collapsed to T in 75% of my 2nrs in those 2 years and went for T/FW quite a few times my senior year. There is a very clear and distinct line between frivolous theory and actual theory, I will obviously be as TAB as possible but I will be more lenient towards minimal responses and will probably err on the side of reasonability if the justifications for it are won.

I am a firm believer in disclosure theory and will vote on it if it is read. There are a multitude of reasons for why disclosure is good. I do expect that the person who is reading disclosure theory discloses to the level that they want the other debater to do as well i.e. if you're reading open-source disclosure then you should be open-sourcing all your docs. If the debater answering disclosure brings up the fact that you don't disclose but has no screenshots, I will look on the wiki.

LARP:

This is the style of debate that I was taught by my policy-oriented coach so things like CPs, DAs, and Plan Affs are things that I am very familiar with and went for in most of my rounds so please feel free and don't hold back with these types of arguments.

Performance:

Please explain the offense that the performance generates for you in round, i.e. why does playing a song matter in the round, is something that should be extrapolated if you are going to go for them as offensive reasons to vote for you. If you are reading a performative aff and I do not vote for you, please don't take it as me not caring about your experiences but rather that in the game of debate, your opponent did the better debating and that's just the reality of the activity.

Phil/Tricks:

Phil is fine, Rawls and Kant are the phil arguments that I'm the most familiar with and will have a better time evaluating. Regardless of what phil argument you go for, always err on the side of overexplaining just so you make the debate more clear and so I can properly understand what your intended articulation of the argument is.

Tricks are a different story completely, I don't think they're the worst but please make sure you're not just speeding through 15 different spikes with absolutely no warrants.

Evidence Ethics:

Things like clipping cards and misrepresenting evidence are things that are problematic and raise questions but these claims would not be a reason for me to stop the round but rather a reason for me to look at them after the round has finished to see if the way in which the cards were structured have a large implication on the round.

Speed is fine, please be clear and slow down on tags and cites

I default to competing interps, no RVIs, drop the debater, and comparative worlds

Hi. I did LD at Westwood High School for four years. Put me on the email chain - trumantle@gmail.com

Affiliations: Westwood ('19-'22), DebateDrills Club Team ('21-'22)

I've shortened this paradigm because it was very lengthy, but the full one from the 2021-2022 season can be found here.

TFA 2024 Update: I know nothing about the topic and nothing of the current debate meta. If you think there's a chance I don't know an acronym or I'm unfamiliar with a certain strategy, I strongly advise you to slow down for your sake.

Main things:

1] I am comfortable judging policy-style debates and T/theory debates, though the worse the shell gets, the more unhappy I am. I am comfortable judging phil and kritik debates if they don't get too advanced for my brain (pomo, Baudrillard, existentialism, etc.). I am not comfortable judging tricks debates, and though I will still evaluate those debates, I have great distaste in that debate and my threshold for answering those arguments is much lower than other arguments.

2] I agree with Rodrigo Paramo on evidence ethics and trigger warnings. Detailed specifics for ev ethics is below as well.

3] I think tricks args operate on a sliding scale; I think some tricks are worse than others. For example, calc indicts are fine whereas "evaluate the debate after the 1AC" is horrendous. Likewise I also think indexicals and tacit ballot conditional are horrendous arguments for debate. If you're not sure whether an argument is too tricky to read in front of me, err on the side of caution, or just email me pre-round.

4] I believe in open-source disclosure. I think most disclosure arguments that go beyond this are bad (contact info, round reports, actual tournament name, etc.).

5] I give speaks based on how far I believe your performance would get you at the tournament I'm judging at. I tend to average around a 28.5. Yes I will disclose speaks if requested.

6] I require much more explanation for arguments than you think I do. Many 2AR's that I've judged go for a 3-second argument in the 1AR that I did not catch/have an understanding for, and many 2NR's that I've judged blitz through overviews of the theory of power/philosophical position that I cannot keep up with. Either slow down or be clearer in explanations.

7] Slow down please, especially in online debates. You will not be happy with my RFD if I don't catch something because you're blitzing too fast.

8] I am extremely visually expressive. I know it's hard during online debate to see my face when you're reading through a doc, but you should almost always be able to tell if I like something/find something confusing.

9] I don't know anything about this topic. Err towards overexplaining and try not to use too many acronyms.

[Evidence Ethics]

I perceive the following to be cheating (or check Rodrigo's paradigm):

- Clipping

- Cards starting or ending in the middle of a paragraph, or leaving paragraphs out (yes this includes the "they continue" stuff

- Miscutting evidence

- Misrepresenting the date of evidence

I would much prefer debaters stake the round on evidence ethics claims. I will notice clipping without debaters pointing it out, though you should still do so to make it easier for me. If there is an evidence ethics violation, it will result in the offending debater getting an L 25. If there is not a violation, the accusing debater will get an L 25.

i did ld for two years at westlake high school

she/her pronouns; abide by your opponent's pronouns

add me to the email chain: shampurnam@gmail.com

i'm more of a flow judge and i don't like doing work so i prob won't evaluate an argument unless it's clearly extended

probably most familiar with larp and theory debate but any args are fine as long as you flush them out properly (i hate phil debates tho and am really bad at evaluating them)

layer ur args and warrant why you're winning in the top layer. give me a big picture analysis at the end and explain to me why you're winning; essentially write my ballot for me

fine w/ speed but if i say clear twice and u don't slow down or speak clearly then i will stop flowing; im usually pretty generous with speaks but i have a really low threshold for debaters being rude and/or aggressive to me or their opponent and i WILL give u low speaks if you say anything problematic

please give trigger warnings; also i don't do well with any extremely graphic depictions of rape and sexual violence

larp:

- DAs: pretty much fine with anything as long as you have a proper link story and clear impact calculus

- plans/cps/pics: pls do comparative worlds weighing; i think these are strategic and mainly what i ran in hs so i'm fine with really anything

Ks:

- fine with anything as long as they are well warranted; explain why voting for the k actually matters

- PIKs: open to PIKs good/bad debate, i don't have a default on this

- pls do work with the alt and explain the methodology; i have a low threshold when alt isn't warranted

- k affs are cool just explain to me why it's relevant to vote aff and why your topic or method is better

performance:

- i think performances are really cool and meaningful in the debate space; just explain why i should endorse the performance and also pls have good warrants

theory:

- really low threshold for friv theory

- don't spread your interps and have a strong warrant on your abuse story

t/framework:

- i think t debate is valid but i definitely will buy an abuse story off the neg if it is warranted

- pls pls pls explain why your fw matters more and what my role is as the judge; i think framework debates get really messy and i don't like doing work so please weigh

phil:

- sorry i don't like phil debate and i'm pretty bad at evaluating these types of rounds

- if you're reading dense phil please slow down and explain to me the argument like im 5 lol

tricks:

- i don't like them and idk how to evaluate them

good luck everyone! i know debate can be a toxic and negative space sometimes so if you ever need to leave the round please just let me know; mental health comes first

Hi guys my name is Yara Mustafa and I'm an LDer from McNeil!

I would prefer to be on the email chain yaram.debate@gmail.com

Shortcuts:

Phil/K: 1

Larp: 2-3

theory : 3-4

Tricks: 4

Theory

Theory is not my strongest area of practice, but I understand and grasp all the steps and complexities of how theory works as a concept. Blippy and “sneaky” arguments blow over my head. Speed in theory is a big deal especially if it’s not in the doc, and I would appreciate it if you send your interp/counterinterp if it isn’t in the doc. Reasonability is defense and counter interps are offense. Friv theory is so yucky please don’t read it. I love 1ar shells

Phil/ Framework

This is my favorite style of debate, and I think there are so many ways to utilize phil in front of a wide array of judges. Many people hate phil debate, I genuinely have so much fun during a good phil round. Personally, I really like Deleuze, Rawls, Butler, Hobbes, and Realism. I also have experience answering different consequential frameworks, so by default I understand the intricacies of fw indicts on util and vice versa. In a framework debate it is very important to have a clear clash between how the different worlds function. For example if you read Util, justifying comparative worlds against a normative fw might be really useful in the end. I default epistemic confidence and truth testing unless directed otherwise. It's also important to have contextual responses as to why your opponents framing fails, and reasons to prefer yours. I think that hijacks and smart cross applications are really fun. TJFs are amazing and love them yayyy.

LARP

I have a lot of experience debating LARP but it is definitely not my area of expertise or my favorite. CPs and disads are very fun but they have to be heavily weighed and implicated out. I do think that in order to access your larp offense you have to win Util though. Counterplan theory is one thing that I normally need an over explanation of (textual and functional competition). I think that PICs are smart when read in round, but I do give more leeway to the aff when pics are bad is read. Perms and different types of perms against counterplans in general are needed.

Kritiks

I enjoy K framing debates alot and the utilization of the theory of power and the thesis of the kritik as responses to your opponents case. In general the Link and the alt of the kritik should be articulated well. The alt should be well explained and weighing should be done in general. A world of what the alt looks like should be articulated in a good manner. When talking about the ROB, make a clear indication of why your offense ow’s and why your opponent does not have access to that role of the ballot in the first place. Kaffs don't have to be topical, I think its a fun debate tbh. I also really think how you interpret the literature in the first place needs to be well fleshed out, so there's an explanation of the complexities of the K (ex if its ideal/non-ideal, ontology, violence). I really do like different literature but I am not familiar with the jargon of them. I have experience with Deleuze, Cap, Baudrillard (kinda), Psychoanalysis, set col, afro-pess, security, glissant, etc.

Tricks

I think tricks are fun when I am not the one debating against them!! It’s kinda awful to drown in a bunch of tricks so I do feel that tricks are gross. I never really read tricks very often, but I do think that articulation of the arguments and implications of how that argument truly functions is very important. I genuinely don’t understand some tricks though so I don’t really like hearing them round I think they are kinda bs.

Non-topical affs

I think Non-topical affs are super cool and I genuinely like hearing them, but I don’t read them at all. I’m familiar with normal kritik literature but over explanations are necessary for any specific nuance. I enjoy a good T/fw debate, and I love method debates!! I Appreciate a strategic and contextualized TVA. Having specific tvas rather than generalized tvas are key to having a good clash. Standards should be well articulated and the abuse story needs to be clear. As a response to Non-t affs, i have been learning about counter kritiks. I like optimism ks such as glissant which are cool responses to non-t affs.

I debated at Lake Travis High School for 4 years (2015-2019). I did mostly LD, but have some experience in PF, Policy, and even Congress. I debated TFA, UIL, NSDA, and TOC circuits. I ran a lot of queer theory, ableism, and LatCrit.

Put me on the email chain blake.a.ochoa@gmail.com

For PF

You can run whatever you want but don't think that because I'm an LD judge I will hack for theory or other progressive arguments. If anything it is a strong uphill battle because you will have so little time to flesh out a shell. If you think genuine abuse occurred you are better off just saying that on case than trying to read a full shell.
I need the summary and final focus to write my ballot for me. Tell me what you are winning and why it outweighs. If you don't do these things then I will have to try to figure it out myself and you are less likely to like my conclusion than if you just tell me how stuff breaks down.
You can go moderately fast but if you are just trying to go fast to scare/keep your opponent from engaging you won't get good speaks.
Refer to the speaker point scale and procedural things below, most of it still applies to PF.

Be nice and have fun!

Short Version

I will vote on anything as long as I get a clear explanation of it, but frivolous theory/tricks will be a steep uphill battle for you. I did mostly K debate, but I am well experienced in LARP, Theory, and traditional stuff as well. I won’t hack for you just because you read a K. Impact everything to a framing mechanism. I like to have a very clear explanation of what argument operates on what layer of the debate. If you go over 350 wpm you run the risk of me missing arguments. I’ll say slow/clear/fast/loud twice before it affects your speaks. I give speaks based on strategy, but being polite is a side constraint. Be nice and have fun!

Speed

I did circuit debate, so I have a decent understanding of speed, that being said slow down on important texts, analytics, and dense T/Theory analysis. If you flash me evidence I don’t care how fast you read the evidence as long as you aren’t clipping. I probably cap out around 350-400 wpm, so I might miss things over that. If you make a winning argument at that speed and I miss it, that’s your fault, not mine.

K

Note: I’m ok with 1AR K’s, but for convenience I will use neg speech titles

This was my favorite kind of argument to read in high school, but for that reason it is wise to ensure you are familiar with any K lit before you read it in front of me. I will judge based on how you articulate the argument, but I might look frustrated when you say incorrect things. I have a MUCH better understanding of identity K’s than high theory stuff, but both need to be clearly explained by the end of the 2N. I feel iffy about PIKs in general, if you want to read a PIK in front of me make it clear why perm doesn’t solve in the NC. To vote on K’s I need a clear link, impact to a framing mechanism, and a thorough explanation of the alt. If you wind up kicking the alt and going for the K as a linear DA, I will hold the link explanation to a higher standard.

T/Theory

Note: I’m ok with 1AR theory, but for convenience I will use neg speech titles

I have a strong understanding of how T/Theory functions, but I didn’t read it much, so if you are going for nuanced/ specific offense make your analysis twice as clear as you normally would. I will definitely vote if I see clear abuse, but frivolous theory will likely get an eye roll and higher expectations of what your analysis has to accomplish. I think in-round abuse outweighs potential abuse. If you go for norm-setting arguments it will be harder or you to win the theory flow (You need to win why you winning this particular round will set a norm). I will always look to paradigm issues before I analyze what happened on the T/Theory flow proper, so don’t waste your time going for a shell if you are gonna concede drop the argument. I DO NOT like a 1AR collapse to RVIs. If this is your best option in a round, go for it but I will be bored and sad.

Tricks

I have a complicated relationship with tricks. I guess I would vote for them if they are conceded, but you won’t get very high speaks because I don’t think that there is much educational value to debates that come down to “They conceded the B subpoint of the second justification of the 5th presumption spike.” That’s gross.

Basically if you want me to vote for tricks that are piffy and serve no purpose other than to confuse your opponent, I’m not down. If you supplement tricks with something more in depth go for it.

The only scenario in which I will drop you for tricks is if your opponent has a disability that is explained and you STILL go for tricks after that explanation is made.

DA

If I am going to vote on a DA with no advocacy associated I need a strong explanation of a solid link and an impact to a framing mechanism with reasons why it outweighs. I don’t think there is much else to say here.

CP

I like interesting counterplan debates, meaning that the more nuanced/fleshed out your CP the better. I think it is important that the CP text itself makes sense and isn’t a paragraph long. PICs are ok but please make them distinct enough from the affirmative to keep the debate interesting (like actor changes are fine but delay/consult Cps make me sad). I need a net benefit, solvency advocate, and an extended CP text to vote on it. A conceded perm is damning so don’t concede perms please.

Phil

My understanding of philosophical frameworks is pretty average. I have a good grasp on Kant, Hobbes, Butler, and other common stuff, but if you are going beyond the normal stuff, that’s fine but PLEASE explain it clearly. Regurgitating buzzwords will make me go “>:( .” As long as I can use your framework as an impact filter, you’re good. I do, however have an ethical problem with tricky framework for the sake of being tricky for the same reason I think Tricks debates aren’t educational. To clarify, if you can’t explain the framework to a fifth grader in the time of cx, it’s too tricky. Also, if your framework justifies morally reprehensible things and you defend those things, I won’t vote for you and your speaks will suffer.

Value/Criterion

Although I did a lot of circuit debate, I still really appreciate a good value/criterion traditional debate. Framework analysis is much more important in traditional debates, but I don’t think reading a counter framework is necessary. However, I want every impact to be contextualized in terms of some criterion/standard. If you don’t articulate why your impact outweighs your opponent, I will have to intervene and then no one will be happy.

Speaks

30-29 Seriously impressed

29-28 Pretty good, you should break

27-28 Some glaring strategy issues

27-25 Your strat was DOA or you said something overtly problematic or mean

25-0 You were so rude/ problematic that it made the debate feel unsafe

• If you make me think about the debate space/society in a different/enlightening way I will slightly inflate your speaks

Procedural Things

Here are my defaults, the lower on the list they are the less time it needs to change my mind

• Role of the ballot is the highest layer of framework
• Case can be cross applied to T/Theory
• No RVIs
• Reasonability
• Drop the argument

I do NOT have a default for layering offs (K before T, etc) so you NEED to do this analysis in front of me

I am generally tech/truth unless you are just lying (like saying that global warming isn’t real)

I will be disappointed/drop speaks if you do this

• Not clearly answering cx questions (especially status of advocacies and what layer comes first)
• Are occasionally rude (sass is ok, but teasing is not)
• Not giving content warnings before possibly triggering arguments are made

I will drop you if you do this

• Say or do anything explicitly exclusionary
• Act egregiously rude or blatantly mean towards your opponent (if you don’t know if what you do is ‘egregious’ or not it probably is)

Hi there, my name is Kevin and I debated for McNeil High school from 2016-2019 and I have experience in LD, PF, and extemp. I primarily debated LD.

I prefer to be on the email chain: kevsipa@gmail.com

As far as judging for LD, I will judge anything as long as it's not abusive. I have experience with most arguments as far as K, Theory, etc. but make sure you explain your positions/arguments well as there may be arguments that are unfamiliar to me

Email: williamsleepark@gmail.com

Hello, my name is William Park and I competed in LD for 3 years at McNeil. I competed regularly locally and more on the national level in my senior year.

Policy:

This is the style of debate that I mostly ran so I will be most comfortable with these types of arguments. Be sure to weigh impacts, compare evidence, and give me reasons to vote for you.

Performance:

I ran a performance aff in my senior year, so I am relatively familiar with the arguments, although please be sure to thoroughly explain them anyway. Be clear on what kind of offense your performance generates and how it falls under your framing, and why you're framing is better for the round.

K:

I read kritiks during my senior year and am mostly familiar with structural kritiks such as setcol and cap. I am least familiar with high theory kritiks, and there is probably more literature I am unfamiliar with so for any k debate, be clear on what your advocacy solves, and what offense you gain from it. If you have a framing, extend and emphasize why I should care. I like to see links not only made on the k proper, but also those made on the aff and an explanation of why it matters.

Theory:

I will generally vote for the better debater with these types of arguments. I favor clear impact analysis. This means weigh and frame your impacts as it makes the round a lot easier to evaluate. Other than that, I am open to listening to most types of theory.

Topicality:

Similar to theory. Make sure to explain what your model of debate looks like.

Phil:

I am familiar with util, kant, rawls, social contract stuff, butler, and less familiar with any literature outside of that. There should still be work done in explaining to me how your argument functions for any type of phil debate you're planning to have.

Tricks:

I am generally open as long as the claim warrant impact are clear. It's more difficult for me to flow many of these types of arguments if your spreading fast so please tone your speed down to 70-80%.

Speaks:

I award speaks based on clarity and good strategic vision of the round. Make sure to slow down on tags and analytics.

Avoid being rude in round.

Evidence Ethics:

If you are making a challenge, clarify that you are doing so and what the challenge is about. I will adjudicate to the best of my abilities or follow the rules of the tournament. Otherwise, if I find something obvious, such as clipping cards, I will not stop the round but it will factor into my decision after the round.

Hi, I'm Adrita! McNeil '22 UT Austin '26

email: raychaudhuriadrita04@gmail.com

I did LD for 4 years, competing on the tfa circuit mostly and some on the nat circuit before online debate burnout lol. I qualified to TFA state my sophomore junior and senior yearsm breaking my senior year, as well as NSDA nats as a junior.

I will vote off of anything that isn't morally repugnant (sexism/homophobia/racism/etc. good) as long as you are doing the work to tell me why you're winning. That being said, I was a policy debater for the most part so I understand the CP/DA debate the best but this did become boring at times so I occasionally ran T/theory, Ks (cap/set col), and low level phil (kant/rawls/hobbes type stuff).

please don't read tricks. or an underview with 76 blips where 1 becomes 3 min of the 2ar. also friv theory is a pretty hard ballot to win in front of me, my threshold for a response is very low. also eval after 1nc/1ar will make me upset

prefs -

1 - larp

2 - T/theory, K(cap/set col), phil (basic kant/hobbes/rawls)

3 - dense pomo/id pol Ks, anything beyond basic phil, K affs

4 - friv thoery/tricks (i will be sad if i have to judge tricks)

random things: time yourself, i'm good with flex prep, idc if u sit or stand during speeches

speaks go down if your mean

speaks go up if you make good strategic choices, or make me laugh

good luck, have fun, and make sure you're learning! ask me any questions you want

Hello my name is Anjaly and I'm a junior at McNeil.

You're probably a novice so read whatever you're allowed to read. Weigh and explain your link chain thoroughly. I'm better at judging larp compared to phil but you can still read phil just once again be really thorough. If you say something funny I will up your speaks. That being said, you cannot be cringe or else I will lower your speaks. So really think the jokes through. Actually no, i'll genuinely laugh at anything so just say something please I really don't want to be bored. Be nice to your opponent and don't be offensive or else you'll lose.

Let me know before round if your parents are expecting you to become toc champion one day because I know how you feel. My parents never put that pressure on me but i still know how you feel. Ill sympathize with you because we must stick together. I understand you, I empathize with you, and I stand with you. Together we will make the world a better place. Together we will rise.

live laugh love lose

email chain: anjalyroy16@gmail.com

Hi! Add me to the email chain: anushkarsaini@gmail.com

he/him/his

danielshi1204@gmail.com

I debated four years of policy debate at Westwood High School.

Debate is fundamentally a communicative activity. Do what you do best but be mindful of your opponents and judge. Arguments require a claim, warrant, and impact and need to be delivered with clarity.

General thoughts:

The first 20 seconds of the 2NR and 2AR should write my ballot for me. Debaters who are able to accurately identify the "central question of the debate" and provide coherent answer will almost always win the debate in front of me. Guiding me through the debate will always be rewarded. Debaters who tell me what winning x argument means for the rest of the debate are the most persuasive and leave less work for me to do. Being able to demonstrate this understanding through your speech organization and prioritization of certain arguments will be rewarded with higher speaker points and a favorable RFD.

My decision process will usually resemble this process:

1. List out all arguments from the 2NR and 2AR.

2. Consider the top level framing arguments made by both teams to find a rubric by which I evaluate the rest of the arguments.

3. Ask myself if the remaining arguments are A. relevant under a given framework and B. if winning any of these arguments will get the affirmative or negative anywhere.

4. Trace the relevant arguments back through the debate.

Tech > Truth in most instances. I'm still struggling to come to a conclusion to this but I do want to reward the debaters who did the better debating. I understand that topic biases require teams to adapt and spin, however a persuasive and truthful argument will always be higher quality if executed well.

Risk is evaluated on a sliding scale. Each complete argument has some intrinsic risk. This means you should cover your bases between offense and defense when thinking about what arguments to go for.

Framing arguments started earlier in the debate will be more persuasive. It's a bit of a time trade-off but starting your framing arguments earlier in the debate seem like less of a last minute scramble that would be considered "new".

Arguments will always be considered in context. Dropped arguments alone are insufficient to win the debate. Why it would be must be explained by the debater.

Be a person before a debater. Hate speech of any form will not be tolerated. Be kind, have fun, and act like you want to be here.

Specific Thoughts:

Public Forum

Public Forum is an activity solely based in persuasion. Your ability to do so effectively, through rhetorical techniques, technical argumentation, and proper delivery, will determine the outcome of the debate.

General Thoughts

Clarity is key -- be clear and persuasive. Me understanding that you've made a coherent argument with a claim, warrant, and impact is how you will win the debate. Speeding up is fine but will become less persuasive. Clarity helps lower that threshold.

Make complete arguments -- arguments that do not contain a claim, warrant, or impact will not help you win the debate.

Prioritize arguments -- It's impossible to answer and extend every single argument in the debate. Proving that you can choose the right arguments will help you win the debate and get higher speaker points.

Weigh arguments -- Providing a rubric for me to judge the debate by and weighing the relative importance of you and your opponent's arguments will help me decide in close debates and make less close debates even less so.

Misc.

Defense is NOT sticky -- decisionmaking is an important skill to learn from debate and it's up to the debater to weigh the importance extending an argument against the time trade-off. I won't do that for you.

Theory is almost NEVER persuasive -- if you think it's the most persuasive argument, go for it. I will probably disagree.

"Progressive arguments" are fine but rarely well-executed -- there's not enough time in a PF speech to properly execute these arguments. Stick with what you know best.

Hi there. My job has me writing arguments and using varied philosophies to advance topics of research interest. When it comes to debate, I can handle a fair bit of speed (as long as you flash your cases), and if you go too fast, I'll say clear two times.

I'm not a fan of ad hominem attacks, and I don't prefer theory. If an argument is abusive, I may not vote for it. I'm a tech over truth judge, don't want to see K's, but CPs and PICs are fine. I pay attention to CX, appreciate good questions, and expect realistic responses.

Please signpost and argue clearly. I always like to hear voters, but realize that I make my own decision concerning whether I agree with your voters. To earn 30 speaker points, I expect you to make clear arguments, be reasonably respectful, handle CX well, not use prep time to finalize and send cases, and provide compelling reasons for your voters. I only give below 27 when there are serious tactical errors, ethical issues, or what appears to be deliberate delays in rounds.

Good luck! My email is kerikstephens@gmail.com to flash cases.

Westwood HS

2022-2023 Season Update:

Senior at Westwood High School this year.

Most of the things below still apply when I evaluate a round. However, I have switched to mainly judging PF, and I have more topic knowledge on PF topics than CX since I have not debated CX for quite a while now.

If I do get put in the CX judging pool, yes, I will still know how things work, but when it comes to more complicated arguments such as Kritik or Theory, It might take me a while to process these arguments. So, please be careful when you choose your strat and be clear in the round.

He/Him, you can also just call me Sean

Put me on the email chain before the round:

condobad@gmail.com

PF:

- 30% Truth, 70% Tech:I believe the nature of PF is a bit different than CX and that truth should be evaluated. However, it does not mean that you can just throw out random truths in the round and call it a day. Empirical evidence is important in any debate and should be evaluated first. It is your job to prove to me why these truths matter in the debate and how they should be evaluated.

- Disclosure (Sending Docs/Open Sourcing): I will not make you send your case docs to each other, but I do strongly encourage disclosure on both sides. The consequence of not disclosing will be reflected in your speaks. I would appreciate it if you do choose to disclose, but please DOWNLOAD your docs from whatever software you use and then send it. I do not want to see a live shared google doc in my mailbox.

- Speed: you can go as fast as you want, but again, If you do choose to not disclose your document, I would not be able to flow your speeches if you are not clear. Also please give a roadmap before every speech.

- Theory: I have a good knowledge of the different types of theories and how they work, at least in CX. Here are some thoughts on theory:

1, Topicality (I guess you can put it under "theory"...) GO FOR IT! Topicality is definitely underused in PF and should definitely be an "official" argument in the future. I will evaluate it if it's used correctly, but If I see some randomly copied CX blocks on T...it won't go well:)

2, I am biased in some ways...If you debate theories such as "disclosure bad", "paraphrasing good", or "sweater theory", I most likely won't evaluate them in the round.

3, Perf con always exists

4, Go look at AMOGH MAHAMBARE's paradigm, he's cool.

- Kritik:To put it in short, I know what a K is, I have some knowledge on specific Ks and philosophies, I have some knowledge on how it can be used in round (in CX), and I have no idea how it's used in PF.

- Speaks:same as CX, except if you choose to not send out your docs, speaks will cap at 29.

CX:

- Generic Thoughts:

P L E A S E time your own prep time and speeches.

Tech > Truth, don't rely on "common sense"

Don't be overly aggressive in c-x, if you turn c-x into an interrogation I will take away ur speaks.

For more info, James Li has a pretty good paradigm.

- Speaker Points:

Please do not do things like disabling the navigation pane by doing special formatting in your word document, I will destroy your speaks.

I take off speaks with a .25 increment.

- Topicality: It is up to the debaters to determine how I evaluate topicality. Explain to me why T matters to the debate space, and if you read T at full speed during NR/ARs, is going to be really hard for me to hear you, so please be clear.

- Counterplans: The more explanation the better, I know most of the generic CPs.

Counterplan Theory: I will buy theory if the counterplan is super sketchy. However, it’s still up to the Affirmative to prove to me why I should reject the team.

- Theory: I do think that sometimes the neg just gets too much “cheat”, but I’m not gonna just vote Neg down if they run multiple contradictory arguments if the Aff doesn’t do anything about it. However; I will buy theories that are well structured and developed in a debate, again is up to the aff to prove to me why to reject the team, and I do not like cheap short theories, especially if you are “hiding” the theory shell. Most likely I will not vote for cheap short theories even if they get dropped.

- Disads: The more specific the better. I prefer 1 or 2 good cards to 10 bad cards, warrants of the cards are also very important. Analytical arguments under DAs are fine.

- Kritik: I’m mainly a policy debater, I understand the generic Ks (set col, abolition, etc), but again, the more specific the better. When it comes to Ks like Baudrillard, I will try my best to understand them, so the more specific and explanation the better. K flows tend to get messy, so please be clear and signpost if needed while reading K. Overall is up to the debaters to prove and teach to me within the round, if you cannot explain the K and your position at the end of the debate, most likely I will not vote for it.

I think reading K Aff in novice yr is abusive.

Case: Please debate on case stuff… Good args on case and some offcases > a bunch of offcases with barely anything on case since case is pretty much the only aff offense. A good dropped case turn will likely win Neg the round. I’m open to any kind of argument you have as long as it is intelligent, arguably true, and not problematic.