I like clear, concise points based on logic before evidence to prove it.

for the chain- zaarah.azad@gmail.com

reagan '21, duke '24

pronouns: she/her

qualified to the TOC twice

for prefs:

if you're a hardcore policy team, i would not pref me high. i did k debate of 3 of the 4 years i debated so that should probably tell you how well versed i am with policy things. if you do end up having me in the back and only read these arguments, don't worry. you just have to simplify and connect the dots for me more than you would for other judges. for k teams i am probably in the range of a 1-3 and policy teams from a 4-6.

background:

my sophomore year i read settler colonialism and linguistic criticisms like anzuldua. my junior year i read a baudrillard aff and a bunch of k's on the negative like semiocap, wilderson, settler colonialism, and baudrillard. my senior year i only read warren on the aff and neg.

notes:

- clarity > speed

-tech > truth in most instances

- don't be problematic. i am unafraid to vote on microaggressions. (racism, sexism, death good)

- clipping is bad but needs proof (L and 0 speaks for the team who does it)

- try entertaining me! judging can get boring sometimes so enjoyable rounds are always good

- zoom debate can be miserable if you aren't careful. please have a good mic, try and have your camera on, and don't speak over others during cx because nothing can be heard

kritiks:

- these debates can either be really good or really bad - please don't make them bad

- im familiar with antiblackness, set col, cap, and baudrillard. even if i may know what you are reading, you still need to do nuanced analysis on the thesis of your k.

- i never understood long overviews cause you re-explain all of what you said on the line-by-line. if you do have a long overview, try and make it the least redundant as possible.

- i have a deep deep deep hatred for links of omission. please make them specific.

- framework determines the rest of the debate. you need a model of debate that is preferable and probably should have offense on why the other side's model is bad for debate.

- if you read a kritik against a K aff, i will reward specific engagement by holding affirmative teams to a higher standard for permutation explanation.

- you can kick the alt

- just cause you won your theory of power doesn't mean you won the round :P

t-usfg:

- i read k affs a lot but that doesn't mean i wont vote for t usfg. it just means i know a lot about how it should be ran

- clash as an impact>>>>

- fairness and limits > education and ground

- often negative teams forget to do impact comparison when going for t-usfg - this is the easiest way to win my ballot

- subjectivity debates matter and can implicate a lot of the flow

- i think switch side is very persuasive and solves a lot of offense

topicality:

- i lean towards competing interpertations but will still vote on reasonability

- case lists are nice

- i appreaciate intent to define arguments

- impact comparison is pretty important

- good counter interp ev is really cool.

- like t-usfg i am more persuaded by limits fairness and clash than education and ground

counterplans:

- smart, creative counterplans are appreciated if executed well

- i like counterplans that are textually and functionally competitive, but your counterplan by no means has to be. i mostly just think you should have a solvency advocate.

- i lean neg for most counterplan theory except for consult, condo, solvency advocate. theory debates get wack so do a lot of work here to make it make sense

- i need instruction for judge kick.

disadvantages:

- impact comparison is especially important for these debates

- evidence comparison is also pretty important

- turns case arguments when executed correctly are strategic and beneficial for negative teams

- 1ar gets new arguments to new uniqueness, links, or impacts in the blocks

theory:

- apart from things like condo and judge kicks i am not nuanced in theory arguments. slow down and overexplain things if you plan on doing this in front of my

case debate:

- you should probably do this besties

miscellaneous:

- i hate aspec. if you hide this in a t shell i hate you.

-be nice. being sassy can be fun but there is a limit

- respect your opponents. respect their pronouns. don't cut each other off. just be respectful

- put a trigger warning on your stuff!!!!!

- i am heavily influenced by Philip Dipiazza, Gavin Loyd, Sean Kennedy, Rafael Sanchez, and David Gutierrez. if you have any questions, their paradigms could probably answer it.

- taylor swift references gives you +0.2 speaker points

Winston Churchill ‘22

UT ‘26

Email chain: canaalblanton@gmail.com

Cana is pronounced kay-nuh. You can call me Cana, higher chance it will get my attention.

If we don’t know each other personally, you don’t have to make small talk with me. This will save us both time.

Don’t say death good. Don’t be racist, homophobic, sexist etc. I don’t care about things that happened outside of the debate and have no interest in adjudicating those issues.

LD Stuff for St Marks:

I haven't judged LD this year but all of the policy stuff should apply just as much. If my paradigm doesn't cover something, feel free to ask me.

TLDR:

Do what you do best- if you present a clear narrative and impact it out well, I should have no problem voting for you.

Tech>>Truth. Dropped arguments are only as important as you make them to be. You still have to impact them out and explain how they implicate the debate if you want them to matter.

Content stuff-

T:

I usually default competing interpretations.

Evidence quality matters- cards should have an intent to define and be contextual to the topic.

Reasonability is a debate about the aff’s counter-interpretation, not the aff. The size of the link to the limits da is important if you are going for this- if the link is small there is a higher chance I conclude the counter-interp is reasonable.

DAs:

Love them.

Comparative impact calculus is often underutilized here- good impact calc is far more persuasive than just asserting that nuclear war is bad.

Turns case analysis and case solves the DA analysis are important, especially if the 2NR goes for a DA without a CP.

CPs:

Neg teams try to get away with murder here and aff teams usually let them- smart arguments on both sides about enforcement, implementation, and evidence comparison matter.

I think aff solvency deficits need impacts to them, i.e., they need to be attached to some portion of the 1AC that is meaningful.

Ks:

Neg– I am not super familiar with many lit bases besides Cap and Set col, so just assume you will have to over explain in these debates. The aff probably gets to weigh the plan and you should read specific links to it. Aff teams should pick the best strategy for their 1AC, whether that is a big case OW push or a link turn/perm approach.

Aff–These should have some sort of connection to the topic. I am usually on the FW side of these debates and will have a hard time voting for you if you haven’t proved why your model is good for debate. That being said, do impact comparison and the debate can go either way. K v K debates can be really interesting, but if you make them messy and complicated I won't be happy to be in the back. Love Cap vs K affs.

Theory:

These debates are best when each team is actually engaging the other- don’t just read blocks back and forth. They don’t have to be boring unless you make them that way.

If you go for condo because you are afraid to go for substance you are my least favorite person, don't be a coward.

Hello, I'm Nathan, and I'm a debater at LEE Highschool in San Antonio. I know you don't get much time to look at the paradigm before the debate, but the points are important so please read them! Don't worry, I'll make it concise.

Basic Guidelines:

- Please put me on the email chain per round: nathantcopeland@gmail.com. If you do not know how to do this on Google Docs, I can show you how - It's not that hard!

- Don't speed read like there's no tomorrow, especially online and with a case that has little organization. If you do and there's lag we will have to backtrack and at the end, you will lose both me and the opponent from what points you are making completely.

- I MAY disclose if allowed depending on how the round went and if there is a definitive winner.

- Being on time will get you a higher speaker score.

Basic Preferences:

- Moral/theory cases are interesting, but you must effectively tie your contentions to your topic if you want me to sway. Defending your case against a statistical/logical standpoint won't work as well as attacking the theory they frame their case with. Please tell me if your case is based on moral/theoretical grounds so I can flow differently.

- Counterplans are interesting to me and am open to see if/how the opposition responds to them. If they don't respond well or not at all, that will make a difference.

- Please keep track of your own time, but I will track the time to make sure everything's fair.

- I don't judge on the cross-examination, but I will provide some feedback on that on Tabroom.

- Don't be hateful, AKA basically anything with an "ism" at the end. While I can see through traps you set for your opponent, blunt racism/sexism/ableism isn't going to get the win.

With that, good luck! I hope to judge a great debate with you!

Sports references auto 30

j.cole reference auto 30

I don’t mind if your rude just no call outs

I like weighing and impact calculus

literally do not care what you run; just make it a compelling reason to vote for you.

very familiar with FW debate, less familiar with progressive. Familiar with everything on this list: k's, T, CP & Plans, dissads, fiat. If you run stuff besides this (that's not trad) please make sure to explain it.

Okay with speed, but won't flow anything that was not said or intelligible.

General: I debated policy for 4 years on the national circuit and TFA. I was a flex debater so I'm comfortable with Ks and Kaffs but frankly, I'm used to the more traditional K strategies like Cap and AB. So, if you decide to run a more nuanced K, please be sure to explain the K multiple times and how it links to the Aff. That being said, most of my knowledge and experience comes from more traditional arguments like DAs, CPs, T, FW, etc. So, I admittedly have a very slight bias towards FW and more traditional policy arguments.

Topic specific: I'm not to familiar with the econ inequality topic so if there are any topic specific DAs, CPs, etc. Please be sure to include some OVs throughout the debate.

Speed: I'm good with speed but please don't read fast over Tag lines and please be sure to speak loudly and clearly. If I can't understand you without the speech doc, I won't write the argument down.

If you have any questions, please ask them before the round and I look forward to meeting y'all!

Email:Sakinagoderya@gmail.com

she/her

Yes, I would like to be added to the email chain

History: I've done debate at Reagan HS for 3 years. Most of my debate experience is in LD. I've done Ks, progressive LD cases, and traditional LD as well.

Spreading: I'm fine with spreading, just be sure to slow down on tags if you can. Also please make sure your opponent is fine with it before you start spreading. Be sure you have clarity in your spreading.

Ks: I'm cool with these. While I've gone against some Ks and run some Ks in my debate career, I'm not familiar with all K literature, so please don't just assume I know a K without an explanation. Don't do long overviews of your K links, and try and contextualize the links. I won't vote for you just because you run a K

DAs: these are also fine, be sure to explain impacts, and your evidence well. If you ae going to do a case turn, be sure to explain how it turns the aff

Theory: I am not too familiar with theory arguments, so please slow down and explain your theory shell if you plan to read one

CPs: I'm fine with these. Just explain how your solvency solves the aff, normal cp stuff. If you run an "aff can't perm", you have to have a good explanation for it, or I won't vote on it.

Traditional: these are okay. Value and criterion comparison is important, and so is evidence comparison.

K affs: I'm fine with these, refer to Ks

I'm fine with anything else you run that I might not new, it's fun to hear new arguments and learn about them! I've probably never heard it before so please explain it well.

zoom: I understand that tech issues can be awful and get in the way of things but please do your best to speak loud and clear in round. Try your best to get all your tech set up prior to the round so we have less problems in round.

Other things:

-Base speaks at are around 27, 28 is for good points are arguments, and 29 is really good.

Be sure you can explain why your fw , impact, and solvency are all bigger than your opponent’s. I weigh out all three in deciding the ballot

- Be respectful to your opponent: don't be rude and toxic to them in round, don't interrupt when they are speaking,etc. If you do, I will deduct speaker points. Do not be problematic (racist, sexist homophobic, etc.) to your opponent or in your arguments, you won't be doing yourself any favors for my vote.

-Have fun! Even if you don't win the round, or qual to finals, do your best to enjoy the experience. In my experience, the most I got out of debate was my experience with the judges, the people, the coaches etc. It's what's stuck with me more than any win or qualification I've made.

Feel free to email me before or after the round for questions! have a good day, and good luck on your future rounds :)

For the chain- davidbgutierrez9@gmail.com

Reagan '21, Dartmouth '25

General:
You can pref me high if you do k debate, and you can also pref me high if you do policy stuff. I have experience with both—you can go for anything you want in front of me as long as it’s not garbage. Examples of said garbage: hidden a-spec shell at the bottom of a T arg, (can’t really think of anything else—will update if I do).

Tech>truth almost always, be as fast as you want, be reasonable and not super annoying in round. Also don’t disrespect opponents in round—speaks will drop for sure if you’re laughing at your opponent for example.

Judge instruction/spin is important. You can win all your args on the flow and most likely pick up my ballot, but an exceptional 2ar or 2nr will synthesize the important parts of the debate, explain why you have won them, and then explain what that means for my ballot. You should be warrant-heavy, but your speech should incorporate judge instruction into those warrants.

Also, saying “The disad outweighs the aff on magnitude, timeframe, and probability……” is cringe. Just tell me why the DA outweighs in your own words—your overview shouldn’t necessarily use those words.

Also, debate is probably a game, but that doesn’t mean you cannot win that it is not. That’s the whole point of the game—I vote on things based on technical argumentation, not based on whether I personally believe in your args.

Kritiks:

Make your links specific. You’ll obviously have generic link blocks for your 2ncs, but those shouldn’t be copy pasted into your speech doc every round you read the k; they should be contextualized to the specific affirmative you’re debating.

In many cases you don’t have to go for an alternative assuming you’re making arguments about epistemology, scholarship, and education. The exception is Capitalism; you prob need an alt.

Don’t drop the case. At the very least make turns case arguments, tell me why the aff itself doesn’t matter considering that you have won x, y, z argument which structures how I should think about the aff. If you drop the aff you let the 2ar lie quite effectively and talk about how the aff outweighs—that’s not good for you.

Theory of power pretty important—if you win it you’re in a good spot because you’ve dictated how I should understand the world, the aff, etc. But just winning it is not enough—you have to tell me why winning it matters for the rest of the debate.

I’m a 2a at heart, so keep that in mind. Here’s an example of what this means: I hate when neg reads a standard k, describes it completely standardly, and then pivots in the 2nr and says “aha—it was a floating pic all along. We tricked you, GGs”. This strategy is not convincing and unfair. If you’re good at debate, you don’t have to lie to your opponents about what your argument is. I am unlikely to grant you the pic if you do this. This logic applies to other stuff too—be reasonable.

Also, winning framework is definitely important, but I lean towards weighing the aff against the K. It makes sense to weigh the adv against the K impacts.

CPs/DAs:

Read them if you want—the best strategies are the most specific, with recent uniqueness evidence and high-quality link evidence, supplemented with more ev in the block to overwhelm the 1ar, and then making fun of the 1ar’s mistakes in the 2nr while extrapolating all the warrants from your ev.

Not gonna evaluate these by “yes/no” standards. For example, you can win like 60% of your DA and I’ll weigh that against the amount of the aff they won. (I’m obviously not going to think about it numerically while judging)

Sufficiency framing is good for counterplans—solvency deficits to counterplans need actual impacts—if they don’t have a legit impact, who cares? CP is good enough.

The disad can be bad if you’re winning the counterplan. If you solve the case, then any small DA is enough of a net benefit—you should say this in your 2nr. This means that a 2ar shouldn’t devote a ton of time to things like impact defense on a net benefit. Even if you nearly zero the impact of the net benefit, the existence of a net benefit still means I vote for the counterplan.

I’m probably not judge kicking—kick it yourself. Judge kick is strategically bad—why would you spend like 2 or 3 minutes of your 2nr on a position that you’re comfortable kicking during the rfd? Do you really wanna give a 2 and a half minute 2nr when you could be giving a 5 minute one? If you’re in a position where you need to ask for judge kick, you’re probably already losing. Just go for the DA then.

Probably won’t vote you down on anti-counterplan theory unless you did something super uncalled for. Perhaps I’ll vote on condo bad if you have 6 condo positions and leveraged 2ac answers on each position against each other making it impossible for aff to say things, but otherwise, probably not.

Topicality against policy affs

Eh. Nothing to really say here. I prefer competing interpretations slightly, but that’s not super important bc I’m just gonna vote based on your args. Like, win your T shell and you’ll get my ballot, idk.

Limits, fairness> education and ground

Framework/K Affs:

Will obviously vote for both—I don’t have any particular preference or predisposition.

Limits and fairness are better than the other impacts, but I’ll still vote for whatever. Framework teams generally need to be ready to defend their model of debate critically—the 2nr should not just brush off aff’s DAs to their interpretation—it should use them to gain offense. Debate them like disadvantages, read turns and defense and do ev comparison, etc.

K teams answer framework every round so they’ll likely have more experience and practice with it. That means that good K affs will likely have good built-in offense against framework. This means framework teams need to answer the aff. Reading specific answers to their theory will always put you in a better spot.

Obviously, read your K aff in front of me if you want to. I need to know what the aff does pretty early in the round—it’s fine for the aff’s method to be something obscure from your lit base, but it needs explanation. For example, if you read some Deleuze stuff I will most likely be unfamiliar with it. Just tell me in a concise way what it does. I’m unlikely to be the judge that says “Idk what the aff does, I vote neg on presumption”, but my ballot will become a lot easier if you do that work. Also, leverage the aff against whatever the 2nr goes for. I’m quite persuaded by structuring your speeches with “framing issues” that I’m instructed to funnel all the information through—your goal should be to control that framing issue by the end of the round. This also applies to policy rounds.

Theory:

Feel free to make the debate a theory debate in front of me. I won’t be super excited about it but do what you need to do to win.

T debates are not about what you did—they are about what you justified doing. But that’s not the case with theory debates, in my opinion. If you tell me that neg justifies infinite condo positions by reading 2 condo positions in the 1nc, that’s not persuasive at all. I don’t really think it makes sense to understand many theory debates in terms of “models of debate”—it should be about what they did in this round that was unfair.

Case debate:

Feel free to go for the unanswered piece of offense on case in the 2nr—you don’t always need to go for a DA or CP. 2nrs that are really hard to answer give the aff no outs—so going for 5 minutes of a lightly touched impact turn from the 2nc is all good.

My name is pronounced Leeee - uhh Where - ta

I did policy in high school at Winston Churchill, 2019-2023

Currently at UT ’27

Add me to the email chain: huertadebate@gmail.com

TFA UPDATE!!

if you are a K debater don't pref me. I do not know the topic well enough to adjudicate a tough K debate. If you are forced to pref me for some reason PLEASE read the K section below. (I'm begging you) Please just do your best.

Top Level things:

Do what you do best.

Disclose to your opponents (good teams aren't scared of clash)

Do not be racist, homophobic, misogynistic, transphobic, etc. I have absolutely zero tolerance for this behavior. Be cordial with your opponents. “If I think you're being rude or condescending to me or your opponents, I will enthusiastically knock you back down to Earth.” - Yao Yao Chen

Do not say death is good in any context.

Please flow. It's a dying art. If you flow "on your computer"...stop. "A fairy dies every time you ask “Did you read x card”." - Natalie Stone

Tech> truth every time.

LD thoughts:

I'm fine with basically anything. The only things I do not like are tricks; RVIs and other fake arguments are annoying and bad for debate. Engage with your opponent and you'll be fine.

If you read more than 4 off (this is highly variable depending on the arguments you read) I will give you bad speaks. I believe to my core that you do not have enough time to develop these arguments and if you purely read them to throw off your opponent that is not a good strategy. Please engage with your opponent.

Please talk about the aff and not just the framing page. I need to know what I'm voting on rather than what lens to view nothing through.

If you have any specific questions it's probably answered in the policy section below.

Policy thoughts:

Case: I LOVE the case debate. Make it big if you can. Case turns, author indites, recuts/rehighlightings, responsive articles, any specific research makes the debate really fun and educational. I feel like everyone always forgets about the case page when it is supposed to be the “focus” of the debate.

Make it clean. Make it epic!!!!

Topicality: Really tough to sell sometimes but I applaud y’all who do it well. If it’s the 2nr you better have the goods. Please have real and contextual definitions from people in the field. I will default to that rather than a dictionary.

I default to competing interpretations rather than reasonability as there is no “reasonable” threshold or metric in deciding what is/isn’t “reasonable enough”.

Definitions that exclude specific actions rather than provide a caselist are more persuasive but obviously, both are great.

Disads: Severely under-utilized. Love em <3. I appreciate the in-depth research required for a good disad. Please have recent uniqueness.

Please have a specific link.

If you have an ultra-specific disad, I applaud you. Tiny debate is well-researched debate is good debate.

Counterplans: Love a really good creative counterplan. All are good with me, adv cp, actor cp, process cp, pics, etc. If you read a really generic one, I need you to have a really niche net benefit.

If you read a cp with a silly “internal” net benefit it better be real. Ie. “Do it this way because it will make x-thing better” is not persuasive. Please say something similar to “the aff causes x-bad-thing, and the cp avoids it.”

Kritiks: Preface: I am a K bro's worst nightmare. I have a VERY high standard for Ks. I was not a K debater and did not read much Kritikal literature. If you read a unique K I will need you to explain it to me very thoroughly or else I will have no idea what I am voting for. If you read something more mainstream ( Cap, Set Col, Fem adjacent args) I will have some prior knowledge but if you do not explain it well I will not spot you my understanding.

I need you to be ORGANIZED. Large stretches of text are boring and difficult to follow. Tell me where we are on the flow. Name links so everyone is on the same page. I am not a fan of big overviews with hidden arguments – I will not flow them. Put those arguments on the flow where appropriate.

For K affs - I need you to have a tie to the resolution and a thorough reason why the resolution requires the team to endorse/uphold/advocate for/etc what you are kritiking. I find really generic K affs quite boring but if you have something nuanced and in the direction of the topic, you’ve got my attention.

Framework – More often than not I will default to the negative in k aff debates. I need real explanations of your standards and actual responses. If your blocks don’t match up, I don’t care. Answer what is in the debate, do not rely on your preconceived answers. You actually have to think about what matters in the debate and most importantly WHY it matters to a “fair” model. Do not go for every standard in your final rebuttals. It only matters as much as you tell me it does.

ROJ/ROB: These arguments mean almost nothing at the end of the debate. I tend to default to the Role of the Judge is to decide who wins/loses and the Role of the Ballot is to indicate who won or lost. If you have a real reason why those should be different, you really need to sell it well.

For Ks on the negative – I need you to have specific links to the aff ie. Why does the aff action make your -ism worse or create a bad thing(s) for the world post-aff? It is far too easy for the aff to just say no link or win an easy perm if your link is just to the squo or a link of omission.

Floating PIKS – Do not lie to your opponents. If it’s a floating PIK tell them.

Theory: Generally, I need you to prove why the thing they did was actually bad or creates a really bad model of debate in the future. I’ll evaluate any theory arguments with some level of skepticism because you have to do an immense amount of work 90% of the time to prove violence.

Conditionality: I tend to lean on the side of "condo is good" with the caveat that all arguments need to be real and viable arguments. If you are an older team debating younger kids do not dump on them “for fun”. There is no real bright line for “how many condo is too many condo” because I think it is highly subjective to the debate itself, where it is, who’s debating, etc.

Random details:

I do not follow docs while you speak. I will open them after your speech to read ev. Please do not wait for me to receive a doc to start your speech.

Please do not send card docs at the end of the debate. I will ask if I want one.

I will say “clear” but if I can’t understand you, I will not flow you.

You will be able to tell what I think of your arguments as I am a very expressive person. Please do not take it personally.

“I won't flow things being said by anyone besides the person giving the speech.” – Ian Dill

Number or say “and” in between arguments ESPECIALLY analytics – walls of text are boring and hard to flow. If you want me to flow your arguments, be organized.

If you “insert” a case list or rehighlighting I will not evaluate it. Read it.

• Be respectful to one another
• No outlandish arguments
• Style of speaking plays a role in how persuasive your arguments are

Reagan High School – 2021

ale35093@gmail.com

Top Level- was a k debater but open to anything non problematic

-only judged a handful of tournament on this topic so if your going to have a super techy policy debate help me out a little more to understand the arguments and dont just assume that I already know things specific to the topic and aff or neg specific terms

-if you any questions feel free to email me

Speaks- spreading is fine with me as long as it is coherent and able to be understood

K's-read alot of diverse k's so I should be familiar with most arguments but that doesnt mean I will do any work for you it just means I will understand the arguments as you are reading them

Framing-I value framing alot in debates and it will definately go a long way with me in winning my ballot

Topicality- atleast be related to the topic don't bring that foolishness around here and althought I would preffer for you to engage in k affs on a content level topicality is still a good strat in front of me

Disad's- again not super familiar with the DA's on this topic so work with me and make sure they are fleshed out enough for me to understand or it will be much harder for me to vote on it in any capacity

CP's- must have a cp exclusive net benefit in order for me to vote on it i know this is kind of a given but none the less

my bio

-was a 2N

-making me laugh equals +.1 speaks

-i enjoy debates alot more whenever both teams are respectful towards eaech other

I go by Mitch

Reagan '22

UNC '26

for the chain: mitchlurtz@gmail.com

I adore a good gambit.

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

Read policy affs for the first 2 years on the arm sales and CJR topics and spent the next 2 reading K affs including Warren, Logistics, Set Col.

Like every judge I look for smart, well-reasoned arguments. I’ll admit a certain proclivity for critical argumentation, but it isn’t an exclusive preference (I think there’s something valuable to be said about “policy as performance”). Most of what I have to say can be applied to whatever approach debaters choose to take in the round. Do what you’re good at, and I will do my best to render a careful, well thought-out decision.

I view every speech in the debate as a rhetorical artifact. Teams can generate clash over questions of an argument’s substance, its theoretical legitimacy, or its intrinsic philosophical or ideological commitments.

I think spin control is extremely important in debate rounds and compelling explanations will certainly be rewarded. And while quantity and quality are also not exclusive I would definitely prefer less cards and more story in any given debate as the round progresses. I also like seeing the major issues in the debate compartmentalized and key arguments flagged.

As for the standard array of arguments, there's nothing I can really say that you shouldn't already know. I like strong internal link stories and nuanced impact comparisons. I really don't care for "risk of link means you vote Aff/Neg" arguments on sketchy positions; if I don't get it I'm not voting for it. My standard for competition is that it’s the Negative’s job to prove why rejecting the Aff is necessary which means more than just presenting an alternative or methodology that solves better – I think this is the best way to preserve clash in these kinds of debates. Please be sure to explain your position and its relation to the other arguments in the round.

KRITIK LINKS ARE STILL IMPORTANT. Don’t assume you’ll always have one, and don’t over-rely on extending a “theory of power” at the top of the flow. Both of these are and should be mutually reinforcing. This is especially important for the way I evaluate permutations. Theories of power should also be explained deliberately and with an intent to persuade.

I think the topic is important and I appreciate teams that find new and creative approaches to the resolution, but that doesn’t mean you have to read a plan text or defend the USFG. Framework is debatable (my judging record on this question is probably 50/50). A lot of this depends on the skills of the debaters in the room. This should not come as a surprise, but the people who are better at debating tend to win my framework ballot. Take your arguments to the next level, and you'll be in a much stronger position.

Two other things that are worth noting: 1) I flow on paper…probably doesn’t mean anything, but it might mean something to you. 2) There's a fine line between intensity and rudeness, so please be mindful of this.

Other Things

• defense. wins. games.
• make sure to flow:)
• if you go for an internal impact link turn you should prolly double check that the inherency of the aff is unique to the da because if not you might have to adopt a metaphysical orientation towards going for impact turn pedagogy or just go for the no link
• Charlotte Hornets season ticket holder.
• Things I'd love to make small talk about: Airplanes, Cars, Basketball, Legos, Monkeys, Girl Pop

Gordie O'Rorke (he/him)

- University of Texas '26 -- not debating

- Winston Churchill '22

- Put me on the email chain -- gordieororke03@gmail.com

TLDR:

- I do not know this topic. Please explain acronyms accordingly. I am willing to listen to any arguments that aren't racist, homophobic, sexist, etc.

- I am tech>truth. You still however need to extend arguments completely even if they're dropped.

Other Relevent Things:

- I prefer word docs over google docs and pdfs.

- Don't say "see-pee".

- Disclosure is good -- send your ev.

Topicality

- Ok for it. I lean towards competing interps. Have an impact.

Counterplans

- Wildly arbitrary process cp's aren't my fav but I guess if you're good at it. Not good for intricate cp theory debates.

Disads

- No unique thoughts here. Love turns case args.

Kritiks

- Not familiar with niche lit bases and args. I prefer if you have an alt, but not necessary. I default to weighing the aff.

K Affs/FW

- Be in the direction of the topic. Love SSD and TVAs. I might get lost in deeply theoretical K v K debates.

LD/PF

- I am unfamiliar with the intricacies of these events. RVIs are a non-starter. I don't know what tricks are and I am not voting on them. I will regrettably vote on disclosure theory, but if you use it as a cheap shot against debaters who obviously are unfamiliar with the argument or national circuit norms, you will not like your speaks.

Hi! My name is Simran Patel and I debated Public Forum for 6 years in San Antonio Texas, qualifying to the TFA State tournament three times. I am currently a freshman at the University of Michigan. I am a mix between flow and lay judge. I will pay attention to drops and tech on the flow, however I will also listen to logical analysis and argumentation. You must have evidence to back up what you're saying. List out your voters and weigh throughout the round! Extend major arguments if unresponded to.

A couple of things for Yale '21- Given my background as a PFer, I am not super fond of spreading. I can understand it, but it is not my favorite. If I miss something, which I might, I will not backflow for you. I am tech over truth and will keep a flow of the arguments in the round. Win the contention level debate and why it matters under a framework and you will win my ballot.

Email: simiradha26@gmail.com

Tristan Rios (they/them)

BTW looking for teams to coach, feel free to reach out via email

Email - Trisrios6955@gmail.com - plz put me on the email chain

for organizational reasons please make the subject of the email chain "Tournament - Round # - Aff team v Neg team" or something similar

who on hell is Tristan?

I am currently debating at UT Dallas (2022-Present), I have been debating for 6 years prior - 2 years at Lopez Middle school (2016-2018) , and 4 years at Ronald Reagan High school (2018-2022)

last year i was an assistant coach at Coppell as well as a coach for a few individual cx and ld teams

I have done it all, from occult horror storytelling to trans theory to baudrillard, to the all foreboding framework makes the gamework, the kids i coach also go for a very wide variety of arguments from exclusive k teams to policy fascists. Both me and the kids I coach have gotten bids and been to the toc. I state this not as a flex but more so to state that even though I may seem very k leaning (and I admit it is the literature i read the most in my freetime) but I have successfully coached and am aware of a wide variety of argumentative styles which means you will do best if you do you, dont try to adapt. if I think an argument is bad that doesn't mean i dont evaluate it, it just means i have a higher expectation for the other team to answer it well.

Non-negotiables

- misgendering

- trigger warnings

- anysort of interpersonal "-isms" that is done from debater to debater

General Thoughts/Preferences

• generic links are fine as long as they are contextualized to the aff
• I want to be on the email chain, but I am not going to “read-along” during constructives. I may reference particular cards during cross-ex if they are being discussed, and I will probably read cards that are important or being contested in the final rebuttals. But it’s the job of the debaters to explain, contextualize, and impact the warrants in any piece of evidence. I will always try to frame my decision based on the explanations on the flow (or lack thereof).
• I default to viewing every speech in the debate as a rhetorical artifact IF not told otherwise. Teams can generate clash over questions of an argument’s substance, its theoretical legitimacy, or its intrinsic philosophical or ideological commitments.
• I think spin control is extremely important in debate rounds and compelling explanations will certainly be rewarded. And while quantity and quality are also not exclusive I would definitely prefer less cards and more story in any given debate as the round progresses. I also like seeing the major issues in the debate compartmentalized and key arguments flagged.

Speaks

if u send blocks during the debate +0.3 speaks

if u open source + 0.1 speaks

Note for LD:

i know alot of tech judges have a strange amount of distaste for evaluating traditional debate, but dont worry about that with me, i will happily judge the round regardless of your stylistic preferences

Add me on the email chain please: mizlaxshrestha@gmail.com (also feel free to email me with any questions :)

Hi friends, I'm a senior at Reagan and have done policy for 3 years but am doing LD this year. I have done a good amount of research on the policy topic this year though.

Run what you're best at. Do not be racist. sexist, homophobic etc. There is a difference between having ethos and being rude. Do not be rude.

I am fine with speed. Be clear and smooth, or I might not hear important arguments. Best to have a roadmap and clearly signpost throughout your speech.

Policy: Go for it.

Kritiks: Go for it. I am most familiar with Afropessimism, Cap, Settler Colonialism and Warren. Feel free to run others but make sure you can explain links/alts/framing well in cx and your rebuttals and not just spread blocks at 400 wpm. Saying a bunch of jargon/buzzwords isn't an explanation.

Framework/K Affs: You do you. Framework definitely needs to be impacted out - tell me why your model is best.

Theory: Do not run theory for the sake of theory. Not into "frivolous" theory. Condo is good but you can have that debate if you want.

Topicality: Competing interps > reasonability. Not a reverse voting issue. And explain why "it's a voter for fairness and education."

Affiliation: Winston Churchill HS

email: s.stolte33@gmail.com

*I don't look at docs during the debate, if it isn't on my flow, I'm not evaluating it*

**prep time stops when the email is sent, too many teams steal prep while 'saving the doc'**

Do what you do well: I have no preference to any sort of specific types of arguments these days. The most enjoyable rounds to judge are ones where teams are good at what they do and they strategically execute a well planned strategy. You are likely better off doing what you do and making minor tweaks to sell it to me rather than making radical changes to your argumentation/strategy to do something you think I would enjoy.

-Clash Debates: No strong ideological debate dispositions, affs should probably be topical/in the direction of the topic but I'm less convinced of the need for instrumental defense of the USFG. I think there is value in K debate and think that value comes from expanding knowledge of literature bases and how they interact with the resolution. I generally find myself unpersuaded by affs that 'negate the resolution' and find them to not have the most persuasive answers to framework.

-Evidence v Spin: Ultimately good evidence trumps good spin. I will accept a debater’s spin until it is contested by the opposing team. I often find this to be the biggest issue with with politics, internal link, and permutation evidence for kritiks.

-Speed vs Clarity: I don't flow off the speech document, I don't even open them until either after the debate or if a particular piece of evidence is called into question. If I don't hear it/can't figure out the argument from the text of your cards, it probably won't make it to my flow/decision. This is almost always an issue of clarity and not speed and has only gotten worse during/post virtual debate.

-Inserting evidence/CP text/perms:you have to say the words for me to consider it an argument

-Permutation/Link Analysis: I am becoming increasingly bored in K debates. I think this is almost entirely due to the fact that K debate has stagnated to the point where the negative neither has a specific link to the aff nor articulates/explains what the link to the aff is beyond a 3-year-old link block written by someone else. I think most K links in high school debate are more often links to the status quo/links of omission and I find affirmatives that push the kritik about lack of links/alts inability to solve set themselves up successfully to win the permutation. I find that permutations that lack any discussion of what the world of the permutation would mean to be incredibly unpersuasive and you will have trouble winning a permutation unless the negative just concedes the perm. Reading a slew of permutations with no explanation as the debate progresses is something that strategically helps the negative team when it comes to contextualizing what the aff is/does. I also see an increasingly high amount of negative kritiks that don't have a link to the aff plan/method and instead are just FYIs about XYZ thing. I think that affirmative teams are missing out by not challenging these links.

FOR LD PREFS (may be useful-ish for policy folks)

All of the below thoughts are likely still true, but it should be noted that it has been about 5 years since I've regularly judged high-level LD debates and my thoughts on some things have likely changed a bit. The hope is that this gives you some insight into how I'm feeling during the round at hand.

1) Go slow. What I really mean is be clear, but everyone thinks they are much more clear than they are so I'll just say go 75% of what you normally would.

2) I do not open the speech doc during the debate. If I miss an argument/think I miss an argument then it just isn't on my flow. I won't be checking the doc to make sure I have everything, that is your job as debaters. This also means:

3) Pen time. If you're going to read 10 blippy theory arguments back-to-back or spit out 5 different perms in a row, I'm not going get them all on my flow, you have to give judges time between args to catch it all. I'll be honest, if you're going to read 10 blippy theory args/spikes, I'm already having a bad time

4) Inserting CP texts, Perm texts, evidence/re-highlighting is a no for me. If it is not read aloud, it isn't in the debate

5) If you're using your Phil/Value/Criterion as much more than a framing mechanism for impacts, I'm not the best judge for you (read phil tricks/justifications to not answer neg offense). I'll try my best, but I often find myself struggling to find a reason why the aff/neg case has offense to vote on

6) Same is true for debaters who rely on 'tricks'/bad theory arguments, but even more so. If you're asking yourself "is this a bad theory argument?" it probably is. Things such as "evaluate the debate after the 1AR" or "aff must read counter-solvency" can be answered with a vigorous thumbs down.

7) I think speaker point inflation has gotten out of control but for those who care, this is a rough guess at my speaker point range28.4-28.5average;28.6-28.7 should clear;28.8-28.9 pretty good but some strategic blunders; 29+you were very good, only minor mistakes

use this for the email chain: ronivazir@gmail.com

reagan '21, baylor '25

pronouns: he/him

for prefs:

I honestly am chill with both Ks and policy strats, since I debated both in High School. However, I will say that I find it easy to follow policy strategies better since I am a first-year out, and have not debated since High School. I was both a 2n and a 2a a lot of times so that's that. I am not too familiar with this year's techy arguments and lingo, so don't just assume I know your argument. If you connect the dots and explain everything carefully I will be able to follow you. For reference, I am a mix between both Zaarah Azad and David Gutierrez when it comes to prefs.

background:

In my sophomore year I read a policy aff. my junior year I read a Baudrillard aff and a bunch of k's on the negative like semiocap, Wilderson, settler colonialism, and Baudrillard. my senior year I only read warren on the aff and neg.

notes:

- clarity > speed

-tech > truth in most instances

- don't be problematic. I am unafraid to vote on microaggressions. (racism, sexism, death good)

- clipping is bad but needs proof (L and 0 speaks for the team who does it)

- Making me laugh and making the entire environment less stressful for everyone in the room is a great thing to do

- zoom debate can be miserable if you aren't careful. please have a good mic, try and have your camera on, and don't speak over others during cx because nothing can be heard

kritiks:

- these debates can either be really good or really bad - please don't make them bad

- I'm familiar with antiblackness, set col, cap, and some baudrillard. even if i may know what you are reading, you still need to do nuanced analysis on the thesis of your k.

- I never understood long overviews cause you re-explain all of what you said on the line-by-line. if you do have a long overview, try and make it the least redundant as possible, but I would still recommend some sort of overview because I believe it helps organize your main arguments.

- I have a deep deep deep hatred for links of omission. please make them specific.

- framework determines the rest of the debate. you need a model of debate that is preferable and probably should have an offense on why the other side's model is bad for debate.

- if you read a Kritik against a K aff, I will reward specific engagement by holding affirmative teams to a higher standard for permutation explanation.

- you can kick the alt

- just cause you won your theory of power doesn't mean you won the round

t-usfg:

- i read k affs a lot but that doesn't mean I won't vote for t usfg. it just means I know a lot about how it should be run

- clash as an impact>>>>

- fairness and limits > education and ground

- often negative teams forget to do impact comparison when going for t-usfg - this is the easiest way to win my ballot

- subjectivity debates matter and can implicate a lot of the flow

- I think switch side is very persuasive and solves a lot of offense

topicality:

- I lean towards competing interpretations but will still vote on reasonability

- case lists are nice

- i appreciate intent to define arguments

- impact comparison is pretty important

- good counter interp ev is really cool.

- like t-usfg i am more persuaded by limits fairness and clash than education and ground

counterplans:

- smart, creative counterplans are appreciated if executed well

- I like counterplans that are textually and functionally competitive, but your counterplan by no means has to be, it just means that I will lean more heavily on your solvency advocate and weigh the perm if the neg can't explain how it connects to the aff. i mostly just think you should have a solvency advocate.

- I lean neg for most counterplan theories except for consult, condo, solvency advocate. theory debates get wack so do a lot of work here to make it make sense. Honestly, I would just not read this in front of me if this is your main strat

- i need instruction for judge kick.

disadvantages:

- impact comparison is especially important for these debates

- evidence comparison is also pretty important

- turns case arguments when executed correctly are strategic and beneficial for negative teams

- 1ar gets new arguments to new uniqueness, links, or impacts in the blocks

- Tell me if the link is another DA to the plan otherwise I won't bother

- I love a good link

theory:

- apart from things like condo and judge kicks I am not nuanced in theory arguments. slow down and overexplain things if you plan on doing this in front of me. I recommend just avoiding this if you have me.

case debate:

- you should probably do it always helps. If the negative has better arguments on the Case page its pretty easy to see who the better debaters are

miscellaneous:

- Don't do ASPEC

-be nice. being sassy can be fun but there is a limit

- respect your opponents. respect their pronouns. don't cut each other off. just be respectful

- put a trigger warning on your stuff!!!!!

- I am heavily influenced by Philip Dipiazza, Gavin Loyd, Sean Kennedy, Rafael Sanchez, Zaarah Azad, and David Gutierrez. if you have any questions, their paradigms could probably answer it.