I am a third year debater.

I like to hear clear tags, authors and dates. Signposting is huge for me.

Don't drop args.

Keep Topicality short.

Competition- Salina South High School (KS): 2018-22 (immigration, arms sales, criminal justice, water), Missouri Valley College 2022-2024 (NFA-LD elections, NDT/CEDA nukes)

Coaching- Rock Bridge High School (MO): 2022-2024 (NATO, fiscal redistribution)

I use she/her pronouns, but you can just call me Sage or judge, whichever you prefer

Yes email chain: sagecarterdb8@gmail.com

The Short Version:

Judges should adapt to the debaters and to what the debaters say. I don't like intervening and love when debaters clearly explain their route to the ballot. I decide the debate on the flow, giving me good taglines and soundbites to help my flow is appreciated and will help you. I enjoy just about any style of debate, but I do have some biases and things I default to with certain arguments, these are outlined in my paradigm and can easily be changed with good argumentation. Please ask me if you have any questions regarding anything before or after the debate.

General Misc. Things-

I love theory debates, but a lot of them that I have seen have been very fast and hard to keep up. If you are going for theory or on a theory argument, I encourage you to slow down just a bit. I'll try to be clear if I am not keeping up with you, so try to be looking for my expressions.

Doing impact work is incredibly important for me. I usually start my decision at the impact level, deciding what the biggest impact is in the round and then who solves it better. Starting there and working backwards is probably the best way to get my ballot in every 2AR/NR.

T/Theory-

Default to competing interps and no RVI's

I like to see T as if I am voting for the best model of debate. This means that you need to clearly explain what your interp looks like for debate, and why that is preferable.

Small school specific standards/impacts and bright lines are some of my favorite standards when debated well. I don't have a massive preference on your standards/voters so long as you warrant and impact them out

I don't think I have any real opinions on many of the T arguments on this topic, I do think many of them are a little aff leaning but if you can debate it well go for it. I might be a secret T-Subsets lover...

I vote neg on T when they establish that the affirmative does not fit their model of debate, and allowing affirmatives like that leads to a much worse debate outcome than not allowing it. I vote aff on T when they establish a better model of debate that includes at least their affirmative, if they meet the negative interpretation, or if the negatives model harms debate more.

T-FW-

I think these debates are fun, internal links are probably the thing that ends up being the tiebreaker here more often than not, do more weighing work with internal links as well just like offense.

I'll evaluate just about any impact as long as it is clearly articulated and warranted as to why the other sides interp causes it, weighing it makes it easier to vote for it.

Make sure you answer the aff at some level so they don't just get to outweigh you the entire debate

I like good aff counter-interps, clearly outlined standards make them even better

TVA's without evidence are probably an uphill battle, be able to defend it well

C/A the voting explanation from regular T

DAs-

I love when teams use the DA strategically across multiple sheets. Link turns solvency, internal link turns solvency, timeframe impact calc, use the DA to act as multiple arguments.

Do impact calc, the earlier the better

I vote neg on the DA if they explain to me how the DA creates a worse world than the status quo or if they avoid the DA through a different action. I vote aff on the DA if they show that it should have happened, it has happened, they don't link, they turn the DA, solve the DA themselves, or just outweigh.

Counter Plans-

Counter plans can have a little logical reasoning, as a treat. I like seeing specific solvency, but don't need it, though I would like an explanation on how your mechanism specifically solves for the aff.

I need offense with a counter plan, solving better isn't reason enough for me to vote for it.

Explain your perms and your answers to the perms and we will all be happier

I enjoy counterplan theory and think it needs to be utilized more. PICs and international fiat bad are some of my favs.

Not super familiar with counterplan competition so you may want to avoid it but you do you

Love condo debates <3. I usually flow condo on the CP sheet, if you do not want me to do this make sure you tell me. I can be convinced that a team should not have any conditional advocacies, but that's pretty difficult. I don't really lean any side on condo, but if you read more than 4 conditional advocacies, the more I sympathize with the aff. I like arguments about why the certain number in the interpretation is necessary and time skew arguments.

I vote neg on the counterplan when the neg effectively shows me that the counterplan is mutually exclusive and they can solve for most of the affirmatives impacts and one of their own that the aff cannot solve. I vote aff on the counter plan when they show me the aff and CP can exist together, it has major solvency deficits, a DA of its own, or if you win the theory debate.

Ks-

I love the K and have gone for it in many 2NR's and judged that, I prefer line by line work to overviews but if you combine them be clear about the argument you are referencing. I love framework debates but they can often get muddy, clear framework debating goes a long way on my ballot. For literature bases I have read a lot and argued with, I am familiar with capitalism, biopolitics (Agamben specifically), queer/trans theory, settler colonialism, security/racial IR, militarism, and university/academy Ks. Not a huge Fem IR or psychoanalysis fan, I'll still vote on it, but I find arguments about how those fields of thought are transphobic or problematic in other ways very persuasive.

I'd like to think if I am not super familiar with a lit base I can catch on quick in a debate, but if your K is like super complex and hard to understand, you may want to put it up. Feel free to ask how I feel about your K lit base and how much I know.

Being clear about why the K comes first helps a lot

I think the aff needs to do more than throw their blocks of state good, policy making good, and extinction outweighs. Doesn't mean you can't read those arguments, I just like when teams make smart analysis on how you don't link or in line with the alternative.

Explaining what your alt does, looks like, and how that solves for the impacts throughout the debate will put you very far ahead.

I vote neg on the K when they win it's mutually exclusive their framework and a link (a note for this, just because you are the only side that presents a framework and they don't read a we meet doesn't mean an auto win. If they can win an impact turn on the K that makes it not fit the framework then I won't vote for it.), or when they show how the aff makes a bad thing much worse and they win a way to avoid that. I vote aff on the K when they win their model of debate, they show they don't link or link turn, they win an impact turn (that is not morally egregious), the alt is bad, or a permutation that makes sense and is explained well.

K Affs-

I'd prefer it if the aff defends something, it makes your life much easier, but if you are not going to then you better be ready to defend that.

It is probably a good thing if your aff is connected to the topic, and especially your mechanism, but if you want to not even mention the topic then go for it.

I like argument's related to the education of the topic and good impact work with those

Clear solvency is essential here, be ready to answer the what happens when the judge votes aff questions

Performance is cool, make sure to relate it to the topic and please attempt to garner offense off of it or include it in the rest of the debate in some capacity

I vote neg when they win an alternative model of debate is better and potentially includes the affirmative, the affirmative advocacy does not actually solve for their impacts, the aff advocacy creates more impacts than solvency, or if the neg wins a counter advocacy. I vote aff when they win their model of debate is preferable, the advocacy is able to create some solvency and not create impacts, or they win that they can exist with a counteradvocacy or that advocacy is not preferable.

LD-

I did some LD in high school, it was mostly trad value/criterion though so I am pretty inexperienced with circuit LD.

I am probably better for policy (y'all call it LARP?) and K arguments since that is my background. Phil seems interesting, but I have no experience with it or many of the arguments. I know some Rawls and Kant, but if your phil args are not super easy to understand you may want to read something else.

I don't entirely know what tricks are, if its just theory then great! I love theory debates. But, if it is more cheap shot, one line theory args or just silly args, I am not your judge and more than willing to hold the line on arguments I think are not pedagogically valuable.

I think the rest of my paradigm should answer most questions you may have, but if it does not, ask me anything! I don't really know what a good LD paradigm looks like so I def missed something. I am still super excited to judge your round!

Stolen Paradigm Lines I Agree With

"I want my opinion to come into play as little as possible during the round. I would like to be told how to vote and why, by the end of the rebuttals I will almost always pick the easiest simplest route to ballot possible. You can do this through Impact Calc, Framing debates, link directionality claims, etc. I don’t particularly care what the debate ends up being about, topical or in total rejection of the resolution I’ll be fine either way."- Nadya Steck (Her entire paradigm could just be mine)

"Impact framing is essential for all arguments, regardless of content/form. I almost always vote for the team who better frames "what is important" and explains how it interacts with other arguments. The magic words are "even if..." and "they say ... but". Winning 2NRs and 2ARs use these phrases to 'frame' the big picture of the debate."- Eric Lanning

"I think that I probably will hold the line on cheap shot arguments more often than not, typically one line arguments on a theory shell/solvency flow will not get my ballot. Generally the team that does the better link/impact analysis/comparison will win my ballot."- David Bowers

As long as I am a judge, the rounds I judge will be a safe space. If there is any exclusionary language, evidence, or actions I will not hesitate to stop the round, vote you down, and talk to your coach. Hate has no space in debate.

Experience:

I am a student as Wichita State University, and I am a Political Science major; I love good discussions about Politics so doing so = good speaks.

I did policy debate all 4 years of high school, and I have competed at NCFL and NSDA (in pfd, so clown on me)

General Information:

-Roadmaps are off time

-Spreading is fine but make it clear when tags are being read and analysis/analytics need to be done while not spreading (I might not catch it = not weighing/flowing it)

-Please for the love of God, signpost or else I won't flow it or weigh it in the round

-You need to extend warrants as well as the credentials

---> Example: "Extend Roberts 19 which says that pineapple does not belong on pizza"

-I prefer Speechdrop.net to send evidence, but if that does not work, use this email for email chains:

---> ayleenescobedonats@gmail.com

-If a team asks for evidence, don't refuse to send it. If you case is that good you don't need to withhold it from the other team

-I will not keep track of your prep, but please announce when you cease prep and announce how much time you have left

-Sending evidence is off time unless it's obvious you're stealing prep then I will take time off your prep

-I would prefer if teams refer to each other as "the negative team", "the affirmative team", 1AC, etc. It prevents misgendering from happening

---> With this being said, I would prefer if teams don't ask for pronouns because I do not want someone to feel as if they have to come out in order to be included in this space.

-Read trigger warnings for triggering content. A failure to do so will make you on my bad side, and I will probably vote you down.

---> This can be done off time

---> If the other team is not okay with triggering content, I expect you to be able to accommodate

TELL ME HOW TO VOTE. DO THE WORK. THIS ALSO MEANS YOU NEED TO EXPLAIN ARGUMENTS

Framework:

-Framework is really important. I hope to see framework outlined in the 1AC, but if there is none, I hope the 1NC will read some

-I will vote on Framework debates

Topicality:

-Don't read T unless the other team is clearly untopical

-If it comes down to competing definitions, I will probably just consider the T debate a wash and not vote on it

Counterplans:

-Counterplans need to be mutually exclusive and have net bens

-I don't like delay CPs or CPs that are pretty much the same thing as the aff [this includes different actor CPs]

DAs:

-Please extend the WHOLE DA and not just link cards or impact cards

-I usually don't like Politics DAs or Economy DAs, but if that's all you have (because resolutions can be dumb sometimes) feel free to read them

Kritiks:

-Dawg, I love Ks, so don't shy away from them but explain them THOROUGHLY

-Make sure the alt actually has solvency

---> Reject the aff is not an alt

-If you cannot explain the theory in your K or how your alt solves better than the aff, don't read it

-I don't appreciate when white individuals read anti-blackness or settler colonialism for obvious reasons

Theory:

-I won't vote on Condo bad theory unless you can show me clear abuse

-Any SPEC argument I generally won't vote on

-Trigger warning theory is valid

-I will not vote for "Generic DAs are bad" theory (generally)

-Don't even bother reading abuse theory if the neg split the block/do basic neg things, but call them out if they read new offense in the 2NC

On Case:

-Don't read "No inherency" or "No harms/significance" unless there is a clear violation

-ANSWER THE FRAMEWORK IF THERE IS FW:EITHER READ NEW FW OR DE FACTO TO THE AFF FW

-Solvency arguments have a special place in my heart

-Actually answer the 1AC, please <3

Impacts:

-I prefer structural impacts instead of existential ones, but I understand if you read them

---> If teams get into a debate over structural FW vs. existential FW I will 100% weigh the structural FW over existential

-Do impact calc please

If you have any questions, feel free to ask! :))

My name is Ale, and I am looking forward to your debates. I have experience debating so I'm able to understand just about anything you decide to run. I really enjoy nuanced K debates, and fleshed out T arguments can be very compelling if done right.

Ultimately, I am on board with whatever you choose to run as long as you can be specific and provide good evidence.

One thing to watch is your tone and choice of words. To me, above all else, debate is a space that requires respect. Do not cut off other debaters, and do not express any sort of harmful speech towards anyone (this applies to judges, opponents, partners, and spectators). If I deem your behavior rude and inappropriate, I will penalize you through points.

If you choose to use an email chain to exchange speeches, please add my email: ale.facio18@gmail.com. As you do your speeches, please use your own timer, but know that I will also be keeping time (this includes prep time).

Good luck everyone, and congrats on being a participant at this level of debate!!

Francisco Guardado [He/Him]

Email: fguardado163@gmail.com

Experience: I debated for four years at Salina South High School, mostly KDC, but I did dabble in DCI.

TL;DR: Do whatever you want, just do it well and don’t be racist/homophobic/sexist. I’ll do my best to adapt to your style. Be clean on the flow and explain things that need explaining, I.E. don’t assume I’m a cybernetics fanatic. Cool with speed if your opponents are.

Topicality/Theory

Personally, I believe that topicality is an a priori and will judge it first before examining the case. I judge topicality on whether you can prove in-round abuse. Same with other theory arguments.

Disadvantages

Yes please, I love disads. This goes for all arguments, but please do impact calc - if you don’t it’s going to make my decision frustrating.

Counterplans

Not a fan of counterplans, but you can run them if they have a net benefit. I believe counterplans are conditional, but don’t abuse that.

Kritiks

Not well versed on many K’s. I am familiar with cap, queer, set col, and feminism. Anything else, please take some time to explain. Must have a framework to tell me how to weigh the K vs. Case.

Framework / Kritik Affirmatives

If I’m your judge in a clash debate, both teams are going to be unhappy. I’ll try my best to evaluate both arguments as fairly as possible. I tend to be 50/50.

I debated for 4 years at Garden City High School. I don’t mind fast talkers and can follow along on the flow please let me know when you’re changing arguments. I hate spreading, if you spread you won’t lose the round but you will always get lowest speaker points.

Im not super familiar with this years topic to please explain your arguments :)

I will listen to any to any argument (as long as it doesn’t contain racism, homophobia, sexism etc that’s an automatic loss) I am okay with Kritiks as I ran them a lot in high school I’m also down for a K- Aff ( I ran one last year) these arguments must connect and make sense explain why it’s important. I loved Topicality as long as you prove it’s harmful and it connects I’ll vote for it. Case and disads are always good arguments make them strong and make them make sense.

Aff make sure to extend arguments and really hit on the impacts and why it’s important for me to vote for you.

I would like a copy of the documents

Here’s my email for an email chain- kileykilgore24@gmail.com

If you have any other questions feel free to ask in the round or email me after the debate.

Good luck everyone :)

Experience: I am a 4th year (senior) debater at Salina South High School. The main tournament format I have debated in is DCI/Varsity.

From my experience with debate so far this is how I judge (Preface: I am still constantly learning new things about debate, so how I judge has the possibility of changing at any time):

Criminal Justice Reform specifics- I will never vote on a no racial bias argument. Even if the other team drops it, I do not consider it in the debate. If you don't spend significant time explaining what the world of the alternative looks like on abolition, I won't vote on the alt (I'll consider other aspects of the K). Affirmatives on this topic are sometimes touchy so please be respectful and read arguments that are well thought out.

Case: I am comfortable with policy affs, as those are what I have had the most experience with. I believe that an aff must have advantages that have clear Internal Link scenarios and Framing (mainly telling me what to prioritize in the round- Extinction, dehumanization, etc).

Disadvantages- I will listen to every generic disadvantage you throw at me, but there needs to be a clear explanation of the Internal Link scenario, plus a specific link. I am willing to vote on a disad that does not have a specific link as long as it is explained well.

CP- Condo is good unless you give me a reason to believe otherwise (Another preface: If you are going for Conditionality it will be very hard for me to vote on it, unless you spend enough time explaining it in the 2AR). I never think that specific counterplans (Agent, Conditions, etc) are reasons to vote down the team, only to reject the argument. In summation, I'll listen to every CP you read.

Kritiks- I am not familiar with most Kritikal literature, but I am able to pick up on most pretty quick, as long as there are full explanations of Links and the Alt. My main knowledge is abolition, biopower, anti-blackness, security, and capitalism. Any other K will require you to give me some explanation.

Topicality- I enjoy topicality a lot. If you go for this argument it has to be all of the 2NR. T is not a reverse voting issue (however there is a chance I can be convinced otherwise). I default to competing interpretations. Neg- Flesh out the Standards in the block to help me evaluate it. I buy reasonability if fleshed out by the aff.

Email: tianamarion7@gmail.com

Hi! My name is Lily Perrin. I'm a current college student and former 4-year debater, as well as a 3-2-1-A state champion. Basically, I'm saying that I know my way around debate pretty well. Don't be afraid to use the jargon. I get it. In simplest terms, I'm equal parts policy maker and flow judge.

AFF-

Just a couple random things:

• Make sure you respond to all the arguments of the negative

• (I will take note of dropped arguments and judge accordingly)

• I like a realistic and do-able plan. Show why your case is relevant in the status quo.

• Proving your stock issues is very important

• Proving your topicality is very important. If NEG runs T on you, you must respond to it

• If you can, do some weighing of your plan vs. the status quo. It helps put it all in focus.

NEG-

ON CASE-

• I really like good on case attacks!

• Arguing harms, solvency, and inherency well can help you a lot in my eyes

• Solvency attacks are very convincing for me

TOPICALITY

• The AFF must be topical. If you can prove that they are not topical, you will get my ballot.

• This is a crucial issue to get my ballot

• Please present standards and voters too.

DISADVANTAGES

• DAs are acceptable, but I won’t be moved by generic DAs very often.

• Case specific links are much appreciated

• DAs as a time suck are a no-go for me.

KRITIKS

• If you are a novice, DO NOT, I repeat DO NOT run K in a novice debate round

• I will never vote because of a kritik

COUNTER-PLANS

• CPs are good as long as they do all of the following:

1. Make sense

2. Are not topical

3. Present a clear link between the harms of the plan and the harms of the CP

4. Show why the CP is better

• Don’t just run a CP as a time-killer; I probably won't vote for it.

BOTH-

• Use roadmaps

• Don’t bring up new arguments in the rebuttals

• I am a four year debater. I have experience debating and judging. You don’t have to waste time explaining debate concepts to me.

• Don’t only read rapid-fire cards, take time to explain them

• Thoughtful arguments will always have my preference over number of arguments

• Cards are great, but logic can be just as powerful

Hi!

I have 5 years of debate experience. I have done PF, Policy, and Parli.

Do not spread.

Debate specific

PF: Define everything, give me a framework and weighing mechanism. Don't drop any important arguments. Give me clear voters and compare the world of AFF and NEG so I know what you want me to vote for.

Policy/Parli: I will entertain basically any argument, but I mostly look to STOCK issues first when making my decision. T and Solvency are the most important for me. I love theory too. If you are going to run very general K's, DA's and T's you MUST have a link to the AFF. I don't have a ton of experience in K's, so I might not be the best judge for you if you plan to run a K. That being said, if the thesis is not very clear and the links/reasons to prefer don't exist, I probably won't vote for you. If you don't perm a CP I will vote for the CP if I am led to believe it solves better. ALWAYS perm a CP.

I never did Congress or LD but I have watched a few rounds.

I don't flow CX but I think CX should have clash.

Good luck to everyone!

Intro

My name is Isaiah, I am currently in college studying History, Political Science, Social work, and philosophy. In high school, I debated all 4 years and did forensics all 4 years also. I have not judged a round this year so new to the topic and arguments.

MOST IMPORTANT!!

There are three things that will decide a round:

1. Education- debate is about learning how to develop critical thinking skills, speaking skills, arguing skills, and analytical skills. You are supposed to learn from the rounds you debate in and it should be a continuous learning process.
2. Explaining- if you don't explain, then there is no case being made. After every argument you make, explain it and link it. Tell me why it matters or why I should consider it in today's debate round.
3. Impacting- impacting is one of the best ways to win me over. You should impact the significance if you do/ don't go with the affs plan. Why is it significant? What's going to happen if the aff plan doesn't/does pass? Tell me!

Ultimately, the debaters will dictate how I vote. I am open to anything, besides T, I don't like T.

Email Chain: brandons3333@outlook.com

Please add me to any email chain made in round because that will ultimately help me dissect your argumentation and relay that importance to round.

I am the South High School assistant debate coach and I did policy debate for 4 years at Salina High School South. I did KDC and DCI circuits in high school so I'm well versed in most styles of debate. In regards to round etiquette , first rule is to make a safe environment for every debater in the room. No one wants to walk into a round that is filled with hostility. Use the correct pronouns for people...point blank, please be respectful to others. When it comes to argumentation I am open to listen to anything. I flow the round and will be in tune with everyone debating so please make sure to extend and have a clear direction of where you want to take your argumentation in the round. When it comes to my judging style I tend to vote on stock issues, but again I am completely open to anyway the round goes so be critical but also make sense. When it comes to speed I can handle spreading as long as you are clear with your taglines and please make sure to signpost. On a line by line basis slow down to articulate your argumentation. I'm not a fan of time sucks, if you're reading an argument tell my why it's important in the round or I won't vote on it. I love theory and K's as long as they clearly relate to the debate. I read Fem and Queer theory in high school but am willing to listen to anything. If there are any other questions please feel free to ask before round.

Rachel Thibodeaux

Email Chain: r.thibodeaux99@gmail.com

FC 2018-2019 Parli & Policy Debater

CSU Long Beach 2020-2022 Parli & Policy Debater

CEDA & 2x NPTE Competitor (National Rank: 14th lol, as if that means anything)

MY BACKGROUND:

I am a former burnout parli and policy debater. That means that I have not read a single news article, listened to a single political podcast, or read a single scientific journal since graduating. Instead my time has mostly been spent going clubbing, raving, and traveling.

How many rounds do I have on the topic? Zero :) cite & explain the context of your evidence.

During undergrad I was barely a K debater and sort of a soft left aff debater. While a lot of my advocacies were v performative aka "embrace eroticism", I truly like hearing straight up policy debates more often than not, or at least I'm prob the judge you want in straight up v K debates. My current mode of thought tends to be more of a pragmatist. I see debate as educational sure, but I also am the type of person that now defaults to believing the state to be inevitable, etc. Rachel as a judge is a lot more grounded and lukewarm than Rachel as a debater.I am not a fan of Theory debates just bc you can. If you run like 6 off with most being theory I'm probably going to tank ur speaks, but I won't necessarily vote you down. With that being said, I don't see debate as a game, but more educational than not. Usually my impacts talked about the educational importance of the type of knowledge we produced in a debate round. I believe that to be true.

MY PARADIGM:

Role of the Ballot: You define what the role of the ballot is. The duality of debate is this: there are rules meant to be followed and rules meant to be broken, neither being mutually exclusive. Tell me how I should be voting, I am fine voting in nontraditional means as long as you win the argument that is how I should vote. This means evidence and reasoning. Although I try to be as impartial as possible, I still have a few methodologies that I default to when deciding a round:

Please have clear spreading before you try to pick up speed.

Extend your arguments to keep it in the debate. If it isn't extended, I won't vote off of it. That also means if it's brought up in constructive but not extended in rebuttals... well...again, won't vote off it. Especially true for the 1AR 2AR speeches.

Weigh your args. I need to see some impact calculus. A round can be changed all based on the framing of args. Explain why the arguments you're winning outweigh the arguments your opponent is winning. With that being said, try to keep framing grounded in the reality of the debate.

Evidence. Go beyond the tag and tell me the story of the debate.

Feel free to run a K or K Aff. A good link story is everything! For the K Aff just throughly explain how your Aff links to the topic, if that is your Strat. If you reject the res all together that's great! Let me know why your education is critical to the round and/or why procedural fairness shouldn't matter. I give the Aff a lot of leeway and T usually goes for Aff (I don't like you throwing out Ts just to waste time and if its clearly a topical Aff, don't do it).To win the K, you must be able to tell the story of the alt effectively. I need to be able to see what the alt tangibly does and how it would change the world, the debate space, etc. That doesn't mean I think alts are vague, that means I think debaters are vague about their alts. Key distinction.

Identity/Race Args: Love them. Will be sympathetic to them, but I have and will vote against them. Good debating comes first before the argument ran however Truth > Tech. I don't equate good debating to purely tech. I've met lots of good debaters who maybe are losing the line by line, but know how to tell the story of the round so that they still win. I love arguments that especially talk about queer theory (pls no straight-up Edelman :'( ive heard him so much), eroticism, and latine/latina identities. However I'm not a fan of identity politics. If your arg is centered around you needing to win because of your identity, that won't win me over.

Don't run identities args you don't identify with. This reproduces marginalized communities' suffering as fungible in order to win a ballot. Lame, I'm not a fan.

Cps. Run your CP. I'm not particularly convinced by condo bad theory and probably won't vote on it unless someone is running more than 3 advocacies...even then...eh. I'm a firm believer in Neg Flex, so you'll have to do some more work on condo bad for it to be a voting issue.

Theory. Please slow down, theory tends to have extremely condensed arguments and because of that it can get blippy. I'm most likely not the judge you want to run more than 3 theory sheets on. I have a high threshold for theory because I see proliferation of theory as harmful to the quality of debates. That being said, don't be afraid to run theory if it makes sense to you, just be prepared to justify it.

How to get high speaks:

-Don't give me roadmaps (I like to be surprised :^D)

-slur the tags ❤️

-Run Ks you made during pre-round prep

-read my partner's fw cards during the round

-actually just read my entire eroticism shell word for word I love it

-spend your neg block telling me the role of the neg bc i obvi have never debated

Okay actual speaks:

-any edm reference: nghtmre, illenium, zedd, mvse, subtronics, audien

-honestly if you're funny I'll give high speaks

-be smart over being aggressive (probably my biggest regret as a debater was taking things too seriously, have fun and let your arguments speak for themselves. I promise you a smart argument doesn't need an overly aggressive debater to win the ballot)

I am a third year debater with little judging experience. I prefer that no kritiks be used, but i love topicality and counterplan debates. i prefer you refer to me with They/Them pronouns.