Hello, I'm MJ!

(they/them/theirs)

I think that the majority of paradigms out there are not a true reflection on how judges are going to vote for you. A paradigm tells you a lot about how judges want to fit in, their anxieties and how they want to be perceived in the debate community. Saying that you don’t have biases is false, especially when we take into account our subconscious. Being transparent with you is more important to me because I know how frustrating it is to have a lying judge. Meaning, the purpose of my paradigm is to be transparent and acknowledge how imma truly view this debate round.

I think it’s really fucking performative for non-Black debaters to run Black centered arguments when you have not taken action towards dismantling anti-Blackness. This topic is very complex and personal to some of us, take that into account when making arguments. Signal me 612-655-6531 if you are interested in getting involved.

I am dedicating my senior year to combat the structural inequalities within the debate space. If you would like to get involved please email me!

Yes, add me to the email chain: freeburgdebate@gmail.com

• Please feel free to email me with questions, concerns or if you need anything else! :)

PSA: Your mental health and well-being will always be more important than a debate round. If you are feeling overwhelmed, please let me know before the round and we will take it from there. If you are feeling anxious during the round to an extreme extent, please let me know. If you are unable to verbalize that, knock 3 times on the desk. However, please keep in mind the integrity in finishing the debate round as well.

Before the round starts, help me out by telling me your name, pronouns and speaker position!

Do not be a dick: not to me, your partner, in CX. I will stop the round if you are patronizing and call your bs out [If you are a cishet white male, please read that again]

• I have zero tolerance to arguments like homophobia good/racism good etc and will not hesitate to give you zero speaks and default the win to the other team

• Tag team CX is fine just don’t speak over your partner

You’ll start at 29+ Speaks, extra if you bring me snacks or send memes in your speech docs :)

Speed is fine just make sure you are comprehensible

Disclosure: Super important and good for small and large schools alike. Clash makes the debate better.

Read This For Prefs

Top Level: Please debate in the style that is the best for you. However, this past season I solely ran kritikal arguments and prefer kritikal debate rounds. I will still listen to a ‘traditional’ policy round, I just think that it produces a bad form of knowledge production and I’m persuaded by those arguments.

When judging, I believe Tech > Truth so…

• My opinion will not be a factor in my decision calculus whatsoever unless you are making blatantly harmful arguments ie: oppression good, etc

• Truth is technical when expressed properly--there is nothing wrong with establishing good ethos and pathos by weaving grand narratives within isolated framing questions of the debate.

• Small arguments that you can easily forget might just be the winning arguments when impacted out properly in opposition to the team’s large/structural claims. Most of the best arguments do not have cards. Trust yourself and that big brain of yours.

• Win the flow by evaluating competing claims in a meaningful way. Line by line > contextual overviews > your 5-minute pre-written overview Further, the flow allows me to sustain the best understanding of how the round went. I want as little judge intervention as possible so don’t rely on me reading the evidence alongside you without telling me to do so. I am guided by the round itself and will do what y’all tell me to do and only if you tell me.

• You should also definitely flash your analytics to your opponents, ESPECIALLY if you spread through them. Accessible clash debate is good!

• In the final speeches, do some nice impact calculus, collapse down on your winning arguments, and write my ballot out for me. Contextualize the round and tell me why I need to vote for you.

Other predispositions:

_____

The meaning and purpose of debate holds a special place in my heart as I founded my school’s first team in decades. As someone who is still in high school, joining debate has been one of the best decisions of my HS career. This is not necessarily from the debate rounds themselves but because of what I have learned about myself through debate’s molding. The benefits of debate don’t come just from reading at the speed of light and screaming about whether or not a nuke war will happen if we stop selling arms to Saudi Arabia, but from your overall experiences. Further, The value of debate does not come from how many bids you have, your team’s heg, your zip code, what camp you went to etc. I think the value of debate comes not just from its incredible ability to shape a person’s perceptions of the world around them, but also to teach someone about themselves and allow for growth and learning. Debate is so much more than what happens in the debate round, it’s all of the work that go into that affirmative, K file, and a debater’s overall competitive performance. However, debate is also all of the things that go on outside of the round. Debate is privilege. It’s all of the attendant things that surround the debate space: ethnic & racial & sexual identity, socioeconomic status, coaching, stress of school, family life, personal relationships, partnerships, the school you go to and the list goes on and on and on. As debaters, we throw around big stick impacts and utilitarian modes of thinking without questioning it whatsoever. Whether or not you think debate is a game, I think we can all agree that it is an unfair ‘game’--one that does not come with a set of rules or guidelines to make things equal for everyone enabling a headstart for somet. The establishment of your team, it’s funding, coaches, members, location, etc--matters, a lot. I bring this to your attention because debate is an awesome activity that all people deserve to be apart of, but lacks all forms of accessibility. This awareness is because I empathize with you as a debater. I want to refashion the way the debate space functions and allow for an equal playing field.

And, as a debater, this is why I lean towards kritikal arguments. I believe that the impacts that come out of K debate allow for better examination of the world around us and create a better form of knowledge production rather than pretending the importance of debate comes from something that will never actually happen. The benefits of debate have always reaped off of wealth, race, heteronormative gender elitism. It’s the reason why we always see the same teams at the top and why the rest of us have to work that much harder to get to the same place. I want you to ask yourself who the winners and losers actually are when debating a traditional policy round--whether or not a hypothetical plan “passing” actually equals success. Unless we begin to question larger structural implications of the debate space, debate will never really change.

I will still listen to your bs ptx DA so chillax

______

Position by Position Breakdown

K affs: Love them! I think that they should be related to the topic/debate space that is more than just one sentence or tag of a card. But I will listen to affs that aren’t. If you run a dope ass performance aff u da best <333

FW: Always being on the affirmative side of a FW debate I definitely lean aff, but it’s all in the flow. However, for me, this is an argument about the models of debate. Instead of hella “abuse” you should debate the competing interpretations and what that would look like in practice.

On that note, I think the best impact to go for on the FW flow is education. Fairness in debate is not attainable. If you go heavy on fairness make sure you talk about how it’s an internal link to education and I will buy it more. I think that “thinking like a policymaker” arguments are harmful and will be more inclined to vote for the aff if they contest that.

Don’t take advantage of arguments that you have not experienced ie: if you’re from a big debate school I don’t want to hear you say the word “small school.”

If your FW is why resolutional debate is better than K debate for education, you have to really go hard on this one because I do not believe this for a second. If you are winning the flow I will still vote you up, I just won’t like it.

SSD is good

FW v. K on the neg: Don’t appreciate these arguments. Force yourself to contest the method of the K instead of not engaging. Do your research. I’m getting really sick of policy teams not listening to what K teams are saying and bulldozing them with their non-contextualized FW blocks. The neg should have ground about being able to run Ks on the neg. Arguments along the lines of how the neg deserves to be heard are persuasive. I really dislike aff arguments that are like “neg must fiat a plan” and will be heavily persuaded by abuse arguments from the neg.

Ks:

I consider myself to have a decent amount of knowledge on K literature, but that does not mean that you don’t need to explain your K in depth. if you do not know what your K is I’m not going to be happy voting for you.

I like more material alternatives as opposed to more conceptual/theoretical. I want an explanation of the alternative that goes beyond what the tag says: what does voting for you does in the world of the alt? How does it absolve the impacts and links? Appreciate depth in the alt debate which will also help you on the perm.

Don’t let the aff get away with the perm

Don’t rely on jargon and you need to be able to explain your literature without it

Pls K proper or tell me how ur going to be organizing the K in your speeches by signposting

V. Policy Aff :

I think that the link level is extremely important and needs in-depth explanations of why that link is a bad thing (whether it is intrinsically bad or if it proves that the affirmative is less desirable than the status quo). I’m more inclined to case-specific links, but state bad links are fine if they are warranted out.

Depending on your strat, Ks don’t necessarily need an alternative but make sure you weigh if kicking it is worth it

V. K aff

I am heavily persuaded by arguments that go beyond the hypothetical nature of debate. Tell me why your K produces a better form of knowledge production which has better educational impacts which makes us better people in the real world. Arguments like this might be implied, but they definitely hold a lot of value.

Prove why your alternative is better than their advocacy ig lol

At the end of most K v. K debates it comes down to why your method solves better

Weighing the Ontology/Epistemology is <3

Case:

At heart, I think that your policy plan does absolutely nothing. I will vote on presumption very easily. But If the neg has little to no offense I will probably default aff

I think the art of case debate is definitely being lost (I am apart of that problem lmaoo). I enjoy the negative attacking the case more than a bs DA but yes to a combo of both. If the neg is winning a solvency deficit, I'll have a much harder time voting aff vs an off-case position.

CPs

I love PIC/Ks out of methods the most and I think they can be strategic. Word PICs are fine.

I will judge kick something if you tell me to in the debate, but otherwise, I don’t default

I will vote for your CP if it has a net benefit. If it doesn't solve the aff entirely, explain why the net benefit is more important and why the perm doesn't function.

I’m indifferent to CP theory

DAs

As a predominant K debater, I find DAs more appealing when there is a well explained and contextual link argument. Generic topic links as the main link story in the 2nr is not the move, unless ur winning that lol.

I really love critical DAs

If you’re reading a K, make sure to put some independent DAs on the flow as well

I’m a sucker for impact framing and love in-depth and contextualized impact calc

Turns case args are good but make sure you explain them otherwise they are a waste of time

Theory

Slow down or send out your long theory blocks

I am pretty neutral with condo and can be convinced it’s bad if there is abuse happening in the round. You should definitely have a limit in your interp with the number of conditional advocacies.

Feel free to read some stupid shit in front of me, idc

T

It’s whatever. This topics T arguments are good

5 mins on T in the 2nr please, but if not thats chill

Last Updated 11-21-20

Yes, put me on the email chain: hathawaydebate@gmail.com

I use He/Him pronouns

You can call me Logan/ judge, no preference

Currently a sophomore at UMN studying environmental science and sustainability

TLDR For Novices:

1. Clarity > speed (ESPECIALLY WITH ONLINE ROUNDS)

2. I won't flow a tag if I don't pick up on it, so please say "next" or something similar so I know what to flow

3. I won't flow new positions brought up in the block unless you give me a solid reason to do so. If you read a new position in any rebuttal your speaker points will be significantly harmed

4. Neg needs to explain what their advocacy does for me to give it any weight. Don't just say "extend the [CP/K/DA]." Explanation is everything

5. Yes tag team is fine, just don't abuse it

6. I really like the K but run it well

7. It'd be helpful if you could tell me your names/ pronouns/ speaker positions before round (online rounds: put these in your on-screen name)

8. Please time yourselves. It gets old when I have to interject you and say "that's time" every speech. Get into this habit early

9. Extra speaks for starting early (if I'm the reason we start late I'll still give this to you)

TLDR for JV/V:

FOR STATE: put analytics in the speech doc

1. I like theory/ T, but if you spread it I'll stop flowing

2. Clarity > speed (ESPECIALLY WITH ONLINE ROUNDS), both if possible

3. I won't flow a tag if I don't pick up on it

4. Neg gets 4 offcase max. Anything past that is abusive to the aff

5. I will not flow new positions brought up in the block unless you give me a good reason to do so

6. Neg needs to explain what their advocacy does for me to give it any weight

7. This should be the standard for every judge imo, but I'm not gonna extrapolate anything for you. I evaluate the round based on what was said in the round, not on me completing the argument for you

8. It'd be helpful if you could tell me your names/ pronouns/ speaker positions before round (online rounds: put these in your on-screen name)

9. Extra speaks for starting early (if I'm the reason we start late I'll still give this to you)

Experience: Debated four years for Rosemount High School. Currently a 2nd year novice coach for Rosemount. The main thing I've spent my time on in debate is T/ Policy, main strat was TKO, but I know how to follow other positions

Framing: Here's how I currently view debate:

At its core, I think debate is a game, but broader than that it's a space to learn and educate others about issues you care about. As much as debate is a game, it's an educational activity as well.

Affirmatives: I'm used to policy affs, and have more understanding with their utility. I've heard critical affs before, but I'm not that familiar with its function and the components that construct one, so if you're thinking of running a more critical aff in front of me, clarity and clash are key (I'm also cool with you just not running a K aff in front of me). The aff must be within the resolution, and it must defend its plan text the whole round as it sets the path for the whole round. Soft-left impacts are more believable to me than nuclear war, but weighing Timeframe/ Magnitude/ Probability is how I evaluate impacts.

(If you actually read my paradigm and want an extra .5 speaks, make a reference to your favorite Vine on one of your speech docs)

Disads: I don't have any problem with this type of neg strat. Only thing I can say here is that you better have a strong link or your position goes away real quick. Unless the aff never answers it, the work you do with the link should be consistent throughout your speeches. Running a DA as a Net Benefit to a Counterplan is always nice.

Counterplans: They don't have to be topical, but they should be competitive. I default to the perm until neg shows me how it's bad.

Topicality/ Framework/ Theory: Love it. I've got lots of experience running this kind of stuff so whether or not you know how to run it, I'd be happy to hear what you got. I believe the plan must be topical and that it is the starting point for every round. So if there's compelling evidence that your aff is not topical, chances are you're gonna lose. Extra T is kinda touchy so if you do end up using this T, just explain what part of the debate is hindered by them solving stuff outside the rez. Effects T is also viable. Basically, outline clear in round abuse and I'm likely to vote for it. If you spread any of these flows/ arguments I will stop flowing

CX is a speech

Overall conduct in round: racism, sexism, homophobia, unnecessary rudeness, etc. isn't tolerated.

Yes, put me on the email chain - koperski.debate@gmail.com

Any pronouns

Please refer to me as my name and not as "judge" in round.

University of Iowa 2025
Farmington High school 2021

Topics I've debated:
Immigration - 2018/19
Arm Sales - 2019/20
Criminal Justice Reform - 2020/21
Antitrust laws - 2021/22
Legal Personhood - 2022/23

Top level

1. Clarity over speed - this is even more important in the era of online debating, and you should always send your analytics in speech docs

2. When debating case, the first thing I look to is solvency. If I conclude that your aff doesn't do what you say it does, then I have no reason to vote for the affirmative. If solvency becomes a core issue in the debate, I will always go and read the aff's cards.

3. The neg needs to explain what their advocacy on the Kritik or Counterplan does for me to weigh it, it really boils down to "If I don't know what it is, I won't weigh it"

4. I am a good judge to go for Topicality or Theory in front of so long as you can explain things sufficiently and really impact it out - for novices, "Packet checks T" is not an argument

5. Cx is a speech, so use it well to attack your opponents while propping yourself up - tag team is fine so long as its not your partner taking up the whole cross period when you are supposed to be asking the questions

6. Do not read objectively bad procedurals in round, this means stuff like arguing USFG is faceters guild or bad links in the citations when you forgot to remove a period at the end (it shows that you don't care for debating, but rather you just want to waste your opponents time). I find these arguments to be detrimental to debate as an activity because it distracts from critical thinking and good argumentation, to being caught up in semantics that really don't matter. However, if the procedurals are based in good faith I am more sympathetic to voting on it. If your procedurals are in bad faith, I will dock speaks for it, I have no tolerance for it anymore.

7. I do not judge kick unless instructed to, if the other team argues that I should not judge kick after instructed to, then they should explain in detail the reasons why judge kicking is bad. If judge kick bad is argued, I am very sympathetic to agreeing that it's bad and end up not judge kicking the position. You read it, and now you must stick with it.

8. Tech > Truth - However, both are important in a debate round, and I can be swayed to evaluate Truth>Tech if you warrant out why viewing the round this way is inherently better

9. If you have to ask if there are any theoretical reasons to reject the team, one of two things is true, either you weren't paying attention, or the other team isn't giving enough importance to them. Reasons to reject the team should be at the forefront of the debate if you actually want me to reject the team on something.

10. My general philosophy on evidence is that you should read less evidence that is of higher quality rather than reading more evidence. Debate is a game of arguments, not one of speed. I am also very sympathetic to teams that rehighlight the other teams evidence because I believe that it's the evidence that should be making the arguments in a debate, and if the evidence you choose to read contradicts itself (even if it's part of the same source that you do not read), then you shouldn't be reading that card, and the teams that point this out and argue it well, will see an increase in speaker points and an easier path to the ballot.

Ethics Violations

I, as a judge will not intervene on something that can be considered an ethics violation without the opposing team raising the issue in round as well as clearly stating that they are making an ethics challenge. If/When that occurs, the round will stop, and I will assess the alleged violation. If I find that a violation has occurred, the challengers will win the round, and the team that committed the ethics violation will receive at most 25 speaker points. In the event that I find that no ethics violation has occurred, the challengers will lose the round and receive at most 25 speaker points.

Specifics to off case positions

Theory - I believe that theory is under utilized in debate, a theory debate should end up being about in round harms and methods and models of debate. I enjoy a good theory debate, this does not mean you should read theory in front of me, especially if you don't know how to impact it out. I typically lean aff on condo and disclosure theory, but will easily vote neg on condo if they argue arbitrariness of interps well. I do believe that theory is a reason to reject the argument, not the team, but, there are a few exceptions to this, especially if the other team does not make the argument that it's not a reason to reject the team.

K - Going for the K can be a bit of a daunting task, however if you can use the affs evidence to point out a link and can explain how the alt functions and solves then you will be in a pretty good position. The aff should always perm the K. I'm familiar with most kritiks that you'll probably run, but it's always a good idea to explain things especially if you are running a more obscure or high theory K. I also find that a lot of K teams get trapped in an echo chamber of their alt and assume that they don't need to explain the alt on a more general level. Being able to clearly explain your alt in a way that everyone can understand will greatly increase your chances of winning the alt debate (assume you're explaining it to someone who has never done debate). Yes your Baudrillard

T - Topicality comes down to competing interpretations and methods of debate, your aff simply being topical isn't enough to win on T, you need to prove why the resolution should include your aff. As stated above, "Novice packet checks T" is not an argument and I won't consider it, instead, as the aff, you should challenge T head on instead of trying to skirt the question of Topicality. I believe that a more limited topic is always better than a broad topic, it allows for more depth and conversation about the topic, and it encourages innovation and better research for both the aff and the neg instead of finding some obscure topic that's impossible to research. I also do not believe that "plan text in a vacuum" is a good "We meet" argument, it encourages bad and vague plan writing. A good limits argument should include a case list with explanation on why what their topic includes that yours doesn't is bad.

CP - Every CP needs to have a net benefit for me to weigh it. You need to have warranted analysis on the net benefit and how the CP solves. Solvency deficits, when argued well can easily take down a CP. As the aff, you always need to perm the CP and extend the perm throughout the whole debate, If there is no perm on the CP you need to win a large solvency deficit.

DA - Weigh the impacts of the DA to the impacts of the aff, I personally like link debates and find them to be the best way to challenge or defend a DA, that being said, this does not absolve you from doing impact work, if the link isn't clearly contested the impact is the next thing I look at, so focus more on the impacts, because if the DA doesn't link, the impacts of the DA are moot.

Case - See top level point 2 for aff stuff. For the neg, impact turn everything, if they say "x" is good, then say "x" is bad, if you have the cards for it, then I will listen (unless it's so untrue that it becomes harmful). I will listen to even the most absurd impact turns and vote on them, but only if you can actually convince me that they are true.

K affs - I am not the best judge to read these in front of, that being said, I have ran K affs before. My general philosophy is that in order to win while running a K aff, you must do the following

1. Prove why the K aff is better than following the resolution (unless you are reading a topical K aff, in which case, you'll just need to explain what makes it topical if it's not obvious)

2. Win on FW and on how your model of debate is better, the easier it is to understand your framework and the model of debate it proposes, the more likely you are to win it in front of me.

3. Do enough work on the impact/advocacy level to prove that not only is the impact/advocacy necessary, but also why we should first focus on that and not the general impact scenarios in typical debates.

4. Avoid relying on K and FW tricks to win, I greatly dislike them and I find them to ruin the spirit of debate. Debate is and should continue to be focused on education, by relying on tricks, it takes away from this education and skills building.

5. On Framework, SLOW DOWN, I'd rather you make less arguments that are smart and well thought out, than make a lot of arguments just to fill the flow. Also, if you are reading pre-made arguments, send them out, going fast and not sending what you read is super problematic and I find that a ton of teams do this as a way to win, and I find this practice to be detrimental and contributes to exclusionary practices in debate.

My views on debate

1. I believe that debate is a competitive game that can have some real world implications through rhetoric and discussions of how different forms of knowledge and power shape someone's lived experiences

2. This is a reading and research activity - attack your opponents warrants and author qualifications but if you are going to do this, make it clear why I should reject that piece of evidence. If you are going to run a Kritik in front of me, the best way to win the link debate is to use the aff's 1AC evidence to prove a link.

3. I have no tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Homophobia etc. in debate. This is an educational safe space and everyone should be treated with the upmost respect. If I find that you are making the space unsafe or problematic, I will dock speaker points, and if it's bad enough, I will drop the team. I find that the debate space can be very problematic at times and that it drives people out of the activity, and I want to ensure that this does not continue.

4. Actively debating is a performance and you are the performer, the time is yours when you speak and you may use that time however you want, but you should have a justification as to why you do the things you do.

5. At the end of the day, debate should always be something you do for fun. Debate can be tiring for everyone, so maintaining civility in the debate should always be the top priority. You don't know what your opponents have been through, or how they feel about debate, and I would hate if you contributed to why people leave this activity.

Speaker Points

Speaker points are mostly based off of the vibes in round. Everyone starts at a 28.5, debating well and being nice will increase your speaks, conversely, poor debating and being mean/hostile will lower your speaks. If you get below a 27, that means you either made a massive round ending mistake that should have been easy to spot, or you said something objectionable. If you get a 25, that means you either lost on an ethics violation, repeatedly said something in round that was objectionable and unethical, or said something about your opponents or myself that is beyond any doubt meant to demean, dehumanize, ostracize, or cause mental anguish.

bmorgan.debate@gmail.com

my pronouns are she/her

*my experience is in policy, if im judging you in a different category, please have patience

run whatever seems best to you, i won't automatically vote down any position (assuming you have the decency to keep things respectful - if what you're reading are arguing is harmful, that takes precedent over any debate rules)

most (not all) of the notes below are for the neg, i will vote for pretty much any aff that can prove they solve a problem that they have also proven is more important than that of the neg. i also like creativity, and am certainly not opposed to voting for a K-aff, policy gets stale sometimes anyways.

K's

you have to explain each part of your K flow for me to consider it voteable. if your alt solvency is talking about revolution, and your alt is a mental rejection, you would need to explain how those fit together.

continuing with alts, I need to know if you mean for the alt to be a fiated action like "we go anarchist sicko mode and overthrow the state" or if it's in round and you achieve solvency by spreading that K to me and the other debaters

affs who focus entirely on the link side of a K debate are generally not on top of things, obviously it can work, but its much more convincing if you can meet the K at a critical level instead of avoiding its content with a 10 foot pole. debate the whole K.

CP's

this is my favorite type of arg, especially against affs that force the neg to defend an awful status quo. your CP needs an explicit net benefit and generics such as states or actor cps are hard to do right and generally not very convincing. if your main net benefit is a solvency deficit you need to do as much work on harms as the aff did in the 1AC. teams who bring up perm theory are goated.

DA's

big stick DA's are lame. your impact should be geared towards outweighing the aff in the same world the aff lives in. big stick can only beat soft left if the aff majorly goofs it, or if you win a tech over truth debate - possible, but a lot of extra work. similarly if the aff is about preventing mass death, then your impact should shoot for something similar.

if you make me laugh, you instantly get at least a minimum of 28 speaker points.

About me:

Hi! My name is Teddy and I am the JV/Varsity coach for Tartan Senior! I've been coaching novice thru varsity in some capacity for the last 3 years, most of which with Farmington. I debated for Farmington for 2 years (Rosemount for 1) and the University of Minnesota for 3 years.

Pronouns: He/They | Email: tmunson.debate@gmail.com

Topics debated: Arms Sales, CJR, Anti-trust, Legal Personhood & Nukes

Topics coached: Water, NATO & Fiscal Redistro

Paradigm:

I think that debate is probably a game that tests policy options designed to resolve problems outlined by the resolution/1AC--the AFF should identify an issue, propose a solution, and then prove that that solution resolves the issues identified. The burden of the NEG is only to test the AFFs proposal.

I generally default to tech over truth / whoever I think did the better debating (as opposed to policy-making), but can be persuaded to adopt a role of the judge/ballot that prioritizes truth. I think that education can potentially spill over and that discussion rounds are good.

I prefer when links are unique or specific to the 1AC/plan. I don't think you have to win the alt to win the K. I am probably not the best judge for theory debates or high theory Ks. Framework & theory arguments framed around education are particularly convincing to me. Rhetoric matters and has an immediate impact.

Additional notes:

If your position requires a trigger warning, don't read it in front of me. Send out long analytic blocks if you're going to spread them--otherwise you're relying on my ears alone to flow that (which is not to your benefit). I think ridiculous tech/AI impacts are really entertaining (3-D printed WMDs <3).

idk why but i feel weird whenever people call me judge so just call me lily lol

she/her/hers pronouns

pls put me on the email chain! lily.nothom@gmail.com

fourth year policy debater at wayzata

my experience has been with more policy oriented arguments even though i tend to prefer Ks but i will vote on any argument that is extended well and warranted well.

all that being said K rounds are my favorite. i personally think they have better education and are a lot more interesting than the fed da.

do not see my paradigm and think "yeah we need to go for the k in front of her". do whatever you are comfortable with or what feels best! that is just my personal preference but it will make no effect of how i vote in a policy round!!

specific to the K: i feel like a lot of times it seems intimidating but also if you run the K be prepared to warrant it, know exactly what your advocacy is, and overall tell me why it matters- that goes for almost any arg but please know the k if you want to go for it in front of me

specific to T: saying "packet checks T" is not enough. the whole point of T is competing interpretations, your aff simply being topical isn't enough to win on T.

specific to CP's: pls have a warranted analysis of the NB or else i won't vote on it because that's pretty crucial to the cp itself.

specific to DA's: weigh the impacts of the da to the aff and i personally like link debates so pls focus on that more than the actual impacts bc if the da doesn't link, it moots the impacts of the da

i'll be chill as long as you aren't rude to your opponents and don't try and violate rules like stealing prep etc.

no tolerance of any sexist, racist, homophobic or overall any offensive arguments..those arguments read will result in 0 speaks. if you are absolutely condescending to people especially during cx, speaks will be tanked. just dont be a dick, it's not that hard.

if you don't send blocks in the email chain, slow down when you read them.

for novice's speed is fine but from experience most tend to value speed over clarity (i did as a novice lolz) i'll say clear if i cannot understand you. if i say clear more than two times in one speech, slow down. but saying that i do have a high tolerance for speed.

debate can be very stressful so i prefer rounds that can be lighthearted. overall your novice year is the chance for you to learn and experience how fun debate can be.

speaks will start at 28.5 and will be adjusted accordingly, +0.5 if you send memes in the email chain

make sure to signpost and for the sake of flowing during online rounds before a card say "next" and in the 1NC say "next off" when you go to a new off

you will get 29+ if you actually do impact calc in rebuttal speeches. the 2ar and 2nr should be focused on telling me why you won the round, wrap things up in a bow for me, write my rfd... weigh the impacts pls.

please don't be afraid to ask questions before or after the round, like i said i always like to leave rounds having gained some education regardless whether it was a dub or L