Hi, I'm Eemaan (ee-mahn), I use she/her pronouns, and I'm a varsity debater at Lane Tech! I have experience with both policy and K debate so I am open to most arguments as long as you can do it well. That said, hate speech of any kind will not be tolerated, and if I catch your team making racism good, patriarchy good, etc. arguments or using derogatory language I will vote you down and give you both lowest speaks.

General things:

- Add me to the email chain: ebutt@cps.edu

- I should be able to hear what you're spreading! Clarity > speed.

- I will keep time, but get into the habit of timing yourselves

- Tag team is fine w me in CX

- If the round gets messy (i.e. no clash, too many dropped arguments), I will lean towards voting for whoever I want. Please dont let it come to that tho as that would make my life harder

Overall, have a good time! Debate can be stressful, especially now that it's all virtual, but allow yourself to have fun and enjoy the round. At the end of the day, this is an activity and a learning experience. Be nice to your partner, to your opponents and to me!

I will give +0.3 speaks if you manage to make a reference to stan twt without it sounding weird.

hi I'm Kendra! add me to the email chain kebyrd1@cps.edu

they/them

let me know your pronouns before the round starts, I don't want to misgender you!

if you mention Beyonce in round I'll give you +.6 speaks.

even more speaks if you can quote a song that she sings on the Homecoming album.

i'll also give you +.1 speaks for having your cameras on throughout the debate.

i'm a varsity debater at LT and I'm probably just as nervous to judge as you may be to debate :) we're in this together

i don't really have any preferred arguments but I like to see people run args that they actually believe in. i prefer clarity over speed but spread until you pass out if you want to.

most importantly, if you use any racist, homophobic, transphobic, sexist, or any other discriminatory language, you will lose the round with the lowest speaks and i will contact your coach.

be kind to everyone involved in the round but most importantly have fun :)

"Ah–nuh"

If you read a K aff your chances of winning are not good and I will give you very low speaks.

I would like to be on the email chain: aecarpen2004@gmail.com.

Don't be rude in cross ex (or at any other time during the debate).

STANFORD & BERKELEY 24: Very thin working knowledge of the topic. Proceed assuming I know almost nothing, ESPECIALLY in heavy econ debates

my name is kyujin (pronounced Q-jin) – he/him, toc elim debater & il state champion @ northside from 2017-21, coaching @ interlake since 2021. email chain: kyujinderradji@gmail.com and interlakescouting@googlegroups.com.

trying to update this once or twice a year every year that I’m active; debaters spend thousands of hours researching and preparing for tournaments, and the least i can do to maximize the benefits that come from that is to let you know how i will approach evaluating the things you prepared to say.

TLDR: no hard and fast rules except that I will not evaluate death good, and i am heavily biased against strategies that eschew line-by-line debating. if you read a planless aff i would put me lower than “k-friendly” judges but not at the bottom of your pref sheet.

LONGER:

top level –

· i have substantive preferences (of course, everyone does even if they don’t say so) BUT those should not change the way you debate. debates are best when debaters are not just Saying The Words They Were Told To Say, but rather when all the debaters have evidently been thinking about their position and making refined and clear arguments that are not intended to confuse but instead to persuade. while, of course, you will not persuade me that we should kill social security to prevent the Hat Man from haunting your dreams, my role is to evaluate the effectiveness of your communication in attempting to prove that such is true.

· additionally, i will exclude arguments prefaced off events that happened outside of what i have witnessed in the debate, ad homs, or otherwise accusatory statements. i will err towards facilitating the continuation of the debate unless it becomes clear that is no longer possible, in which case i will follow tabroom procedure and maximize opportunities to ensure the well-being of the debaters directly affected by malicious and/or harmful behavior.

· do not attempt to pander to me!! there’s obviously a level of comfortability and camaraderie that i think is good and appropriate in the setting of a debate, but ultimately i am almost out of college. many older people in debate lack boundaries when engaging with high schoolers that honestly makes me very uncomfortable. i appreciate being friendly/relaxed etc, and i encourage that, but please do not act like we are old buddies or make comments that you wouldn’t make to a teacher.

· people who have shaped the way i think about debate: john turner, shree awsare, dml, holland bald, luther snagel, addison kane, wayne tang, all of northside c/o '19

pet peeves –

· clarity. i will not clear you. it's up to you to be as clear as possible even if that means sacrificing speed. having to give an rfd where i tell you that i couldn't understand a third of what you were saying is frustrating annoying for me and embarrassing for you.

· kicking stuff. not kicking out of stuff correctly, even if it doesn’t do you any strategic harm, is a very bad look and your speaks will suffer.

· cx. barring the aff is new or you are mav, you must either do cross ex for all 3 minutes or end early. you cannot use cross ex for prep.

speaker points –

· speaker points will be rewarded by knowing what you are talking about, doing research, clarity, strategic vision, and being funny. speaker points will be docked by rudeness/undue assertiveness, lack of clarity, and lack of strategic vision.

· doing my best to accommodate new trends in speaker points even if i might disagree with them. i understand how frustrating it is to have stingy judges give low speaks and jeopardize seeding/breaking.

decision calc –

· tech over truth. BUT! that requires you extend a claim, warrant, and impact. a 2nr should extend an impact and do impact comparison, not something like “they dropped impact #3 in the 1nr, extinction, don’t make me reinvent the wheel” – bad bad bad. setting yourself up for failure at the hands of a smart 2a.

· i need your arguments to make sense – that’s really really crucial. seems like a truism but unfortunately it is not.

evidence –

· i care a lot about evidence quality – i'd say more than the average judge. research is the largest/most valuable portable skill from debate and i will look for ways to reward teams who have clearly conducted original, innovative, and/or high-quality research and can demonstrate the knowledge that research has imparted them with.

· i do read evidence (not every time, but if I feel so compelled) but i will not include that into my decision unless evidence is a subject of disagreement.

· I will read more than the highlighting, but I will only evaluate the un-highlighted portion if I think that you have misrepresented it in a way that makes the evidence read better than it is i.e. you selectively highlight words or ignore paragraphs to make your evidence look more conclusive. I will not include warrants from ev in my decision that you have not read obviously.

· rehighlightings are obvi great, you can insert them, as long as it’s not egregious. You can’t insert cards from other articles that an author has written in order to indict them – you have to read that. the point of inserting recuttings is just to point to the other team’s own evidence and provide direction as to what specifically is at issue with it. introducing other articles obviously requires you read them, because that is not evidence read by the other team.

· caveat to the above – please! make sure you are not mis-recutting evidence. It will look like you didn’t actually read the evidence and assumed it was miscut. Your speaks will suffer.

the rest of this paradigm are my opinions on various positions, but matter much less than what was just said above.

planless affs/framework –

· 70-30 neg. one of the two hardest things for the aff in these debates are when the aff does not have a meaningful reason why debates over the resolution are bad, as opposed to the resolution itself. this usually requires some kind of exclusionary critique of the idea of debating the topic entirely, which is a pretty high bar to clear imo. the other barrier to an aff ballot in my mind is the role of debate. what is the ballot’s function? what does it mean if i vote aff or neg? why is debating the 1ac valuable fro the neg? all of these are questions I think the aff must be able to answer, and often they cannot to a satisfactory degree. given the aff is choosing to forego a traditional defense of the resolution, i think the burden of proof is set significantly higher because the aff must then establish a new set of criteria by which to evaluate the debate – which also often lends to the neg’s predictability offense on framework.

· i heavily prefer impacts pertinent to the process of debate rather than its substance (paraphrased from holland <3). topic education and the like tend to ignore the way that competition/resolutional wording distorts how we approach the topic – and lend themselves to internal link turns absent substantive defense to the 1ac’s thesis claims.

· all good for a da/pic against a planless aff – my favorite debates v k affs senior year were going for tech good against a “zoom bad” aff and heg good against a mao aff.

· NOT good for k v k debates. i will likely be confused and you will likely be unhappy with my decision.

counterplans –

· :thumbs-up:

· fine for intricate competition debates BUT i will need arguments to be warranted – saying “their interp justifies x” is sometimes not immediately intuitive for me, so just err on the side of explaining things more.

· agree with like everyone else that counterplans can’t simply identify an aff internal link and write a plank to the effect of “solve x impact”. it’s like making an alt cause argument that explains no alt causes.

· i won’t automatically judge kick a counterplan.

· i am neg leaning on basically all theory. most theory is better articulated as a competition argument. i am not a good judge for teams who shotgun 1ar extensions of conditionality and make it 5 minutes of the 2ar – obviously can be a legitimate strategy but it feels like it has recently become a safety net for teams who are afraid of debating substance. also, please slow down in heavy theory debates.

disads –

· :thumbs-up:

· comparison and narrative-telling are the most important. telling me why I should care about your thing and using examples/common threads from evidence is very helpful and demonstrates a lot of skill.

t v plans –

· :thumbs-up:

· there should only really be two kinds of t debates to me: one that gets to the core of a topic disagreement (i.e. t-enact on CJR or t-AOS on immigration) and one that points out an egregious instance of a violation. outside of these two instances, i’ll tend to err aff.

· i prefer t debates with lots of evidence, warrants, and little repetition. limits is the best neg impact and (usually) precision or aff ground are the best aff impacts.

k’s vs. plans –

· yes for most. i think these are best executed when they function as an impact turn to core ideological assumptions of the plan. the more the k is [insert theory – no perm because footnote DA] or reps k of [one of your 9 impacts], the less I will be a fan.

· ideally, the function of your framework argument should be to ratchet down the importance of having a coherent alternative.

· i generally quite dislike "you link, you lose", and i have a pretty low threshold for voting aff on framework in these debates. giving the aff some kind of access to their consequences (at least as a defense of their epistemology) will make me much more receptive to a research or epistemology k.

Lily - she/they - not "judge" :)

Walter Payton ‘22

Michigan ‘26

Please include me on the email chain - lily.g.debate@gmail.com
Please send word docs, not google docs :)

First and foremost, BE NICE TO EACH OTHER, and do not be arrogant. Debate is (supposed to be) fun!

I love debate. It was one of the best parts of my high school career and is something I actively enjoy doing in college. Debate is for the debaters. I will work as hard as possible while judging and will give the same care and commitment to the debate that I would like if I was debating.

I have done both kinds of argumentation: policy and kritikal. I feel comfortable evaluating either. That said, I am unfamiliar with the HS topic, so please be deliberate in explaining key concepts.

I will not vote on things that happened out of round.

If you read an ethics violation, I will ask if you want me to stop the round and go to Tab. If you do not want me to do that, I will ignore said violation.

That being said, I’m good to vote on pretty much any argument that is likely to be introduced, as long as there are warrants to do so. I would vote on wipeout, afropessimism, Russia war good, libertarianism, structural violence is a d-rule that outweighs extinction, spark, the reverse security K, framework is a micro-aggression that outweighs the impacts to their model, T 3-tier, etc. Harassment in round becomes a Tabroom issue, but I am extremely confident that any argument introduced by debaters trying to win will be okay, and the only limiting factor will be my ability to keep up with the flow.

I don't like judges who pretend to be tech over truth but then vote on the perceived quality of an argument. Whether or not a judge "buys" an argument is irrelevant to whether or not a debater won that argument. I read arguments I don't believe and will try to win on them, I expect you all to do the same. I will reward the strategic deployment and technical execution of bad arguments; I will not punish the better debaters for being scrappy.

In person:

- Make sure you're facing me during CX and speeches.

Online:

- Please turn your cameras ON for CX and during speeches, it'll be better for your speaks! Plus looking at an actual person talk is so much more interesting that staring at a black box for 8 minutes.

- My camera will always be on, if it isn't that usually means there is a problem with my wifi/tech so wait until you can see me before you start your speech.

- When sending speech docs PLEASE do not just share one big 2AC/2NC/1NR doc that has every arg your team prepped and then make me scroll through it while you skip the args that were not read in the round. You should send a doc that only has cards you are going to read that are relevant to the round.

Email: rgu6@illinois.edu and gurachael@gmail.com (in case one doesn't work)

wy '21 (policy)

uiuc '25 (parli)

I am not familiar with the emerging technologies topic this year so please contextualize whenever you can.

I’m not really good with K debates. However, if you do run a K, make sure it is well explained. Be very clear when explaining the link, impact, and alt to the k. I don’t like super wild K’s, so be careful with those.

For the rebuttals, tell me what I should be voting for and why you should win. During novice year, I think it is especially important to do impact calc and evidence comparison.

Please signpost and tell me which argument you are answering and do line-by-line. This would make it easier for me to flow your speech.

Also, have fun and try your best.

College of William and Mary

Walter Payton College Prep '21

Put bhemingwaydebate@gmail.com and sweetnessdebatedocs@gmail.com on the email chain.

I debated for four years at Payton and am not debating in college. If you are a team that reads k affs, you should not pref me. My only 2NR strategy was framework, and I really don't buy the common arguments about debate space being bad or debaters having the ability to change it through individual rounds.

A compete argument consists of a claim and warrants. Simply saying that an argument was dropped means nothing if it's not contextualized to how that implicates the round.

Case

Case debate is underutilized by many of the teams that I judge. Neg teams should use smart case turns or recut the 1ac evidence instead of just using impact defense.

Bad framing debates are the worst. If you don't use warrants and just parrot taglines at each other, I will just default to util.

Disadvantages

2NRs that are the DA v case are fantastic. I judge disadvantages v case primarily through the quality of warranted rebuttal analysis, quality of evidence, and impact calc. I think 0 risk is possible, but it would require a lot of evidence analysis by the aff.

Explain why uniqueness matters with politics DAs.

Counterplans

Process counterplans need to have a clear solvency advocate and articulated reasons why its better then the plan because I'm not a fan of sneaky CPs.

Kritiks

I am qualified to judge a Security/Biopolitics/Cap K round. Identity and high theory Ks will be very unpersuasive to me. Links must be specific to the 1ac -- reciting generic blocks will not be voted on. I have a high threshold for voting neg on the K-- the neg should win specific links and framework. It's not necessary to win an alternative.

Topicality

I default to competing interpretations. I don't have a lot of preferences other than both teams need to describe what the topic looks like underneath both interpretations. 2NRs and 2ARs should clearly explain what their view of the topic looks like and what their opponents view looks like.

I'll vote on extra-T or effects-T only if there is a clear violation.

Theory

Theory should be 5 minutes of the 2AR if you're going for it.

If you are reading this, hello.

My debate philosophy is based on the versatility of debate itself. The fun part about debate is the fact that there are thousands of ways to debate along with unique arguments that may seem unconventional but can be used in a very practical way.

Opinions on counterplans: Although I enjoy the versatility of debate, counterplans lie in a bit of a grey area. I will only vote on a CP if the CP in question is able to thoroughly defend itself against any perm and is intrinsically unique when compared to the AFF.

Kritiques: I vote looser when it comes to Ks. In order for me to vote on a K, it has to have either a clear path of solvency or it the alt is completely unorthodox but has been debated thoroughly and seriously. I will not vote on joke Kritiques. If you are running a K, it is ideal that you debate with both passion and extensive knowledge of the Kritique you are running.

Topicality: I will rarely ever vote on T. Unless there are outright violations outlined thoroughly in the T flow, I most likely will not vote on it unless of course the AFF has dropped it.

Spreading/Speed: When giving a speech, it is important to get through all cards. It is equally important to speak clearly. I am not stingy when it comes to speed, but if it gets to a point where the debater is rambling jibberish, I will begin to consider the better speaker in my decision.

Extra: If you run the Surrealism K, 9 times out of 10 I WILL vote on it. The only time I won't is if the debater just downloaded the file from Open Evidence just to take a quick W. I will know if you did this.

Hey, Im Mason Hubbard I use he/him pronouns and am part of the Lane Tech Varsity debate team. I have knowledge and understanding of both policy and K debate so I am definitely open to most arguments. My main rule is that rounds will be conducted with respect for everyone inside and outside of the room meaning any arguments that are promoting any sort of hate speech (pro racism, sexism, etc) will be voted down and the partnership will receive the lowest speaks. Besides that though I anticipate clashes and really enjoy good cross examination and closing speeches so make sure to to be as engaging as possible.

Further things to take note of:

Add me to email chains: mhubbard2@cps.edu

I prefer clear speaking over speed reading, make sure to pronounce tags loud and clear.

Time your speeches and cross ex always.

I will give additional speaks for any good NBA or marvel movie references during speeches

Overall I look forward to competitive rounds with both teams learning more than they left the round knowing and both sides being respectful to everyone in the room.

bnkatz1@gmail.com

Northside '21

Northwestern '25

0 time TOC qualifier, 4 years of debate for Northside College Prep

He/Him

--

If I am judging a virtual debate and you send documents with analytics omitted, you will be docked speaker points. Your mic quality is not nearly as good as you think it is, so why would you voluntarily make it harder for the person who's deciding which team wins (me) to understand what you're saying by omitting a useful visual supplement? Act like I'm half-deaf.

--

Pay attention to where you use jargon and explain or contextualize where you can. This topic has lots of acronyms so it would help to say full phrases and what they actually mean at least once in-round.

If you can't explain an argument you plan to read in front of me at a conversational speed, there are very good odds that you won't win me over when trying to spread it. Debate what you're comfortable with, not what you think I'll like the most.

I avoid reading speech docs where possible. I will read a card if it is referenced during cross-ex, as well as if specific warrants are called to my attention during speeches. However, I will not give the full robustness of a card's argument to you if all you are doing is repeating the author's name and the claim.

Primarily debated soft left affs in high school, but have also read traditional policy. I have read every kind of argument on the neg. Increasingly sympathetic to traditional big stick affs as a judge, just because soft left debaters have a structurally harder time winning the debate.

Thoughts on arguments:

• Both aff and neg teams severely underfocus on case. This is almost universal. For the neg, aff evidence is never as good as it's made out to be and should be called out in the 1NC. If you're an aff team and truly believe your case is good, then actually spend time talking about why your warrants respond to the neg's on- and off-case arguments (which it should if it's good) beyond just saying that you are extending X card.
• Disads reach zero risk very easily. Although framing debates tend to be ineffective and misfocused, my general perspective is that low probability likely negates high magnitude at the point that a layman would consider your DA contrived. I like politics DAs but they tend to be really bad, and case-specific DAs are often the most interesting but always harder to develop. In general, if you think your DA is good, I'll probably think it's okay; if you think your DA is bad, I'll probably think it's terrible. A good internal link makes everything I said above moot.
• Counterplans have been massacred without forgiveness and it makes me sad. I strongly dislike the current norm of going for the most abusive counterplan that can still be voted for, but a won argument is a won argument. Still, I tend to bias aff theory against CPs even if it's not a reason to reject the team. (advantage cps > pics/agent cps > process cps > cps that compete off of a single word). As far as complicated mechanisms go, go nuts, I'll be able to grasp it.
• Not sure what this topic holds, but I imagine lots of the research will be focused on security and reps-based kritiks. One characteristic of Ks which somehow appears all the time in K Aff debates but never gets drawn own on the neg side is the role of Ks in shaping how the round is argued. If you treat your K like a counterplan, you're fighting a losing battle. I'm not necessarily pro "framework K," but ultimately the alternative is just a digestible manifestation of the epistemology/pedagogy/whatever that you claim the aff is undermining.
• Topicality debates tend to be dependent on a lot of factors external to the resolution - mainly how late into the year it is and how many affs have already been generated on the topic. A small topic tends to lean aff on allowing innovative (to an extent) plans, but large topics justify limiting what affs are acceptable more stringently. In a given round, this is largely irrelevant, but good debaters draw these characteristics in as warrants on the standards debate. These claims provide rhetorical strength and can help the persuasiveness of the line-by-line on interpretations/standards substantially.
• K Affs are interesting and I'll happily vote on them, but I am, personally, reasonably persuaded by aff arguments favoring predictability and the benefits of switch-side debate. A good kritikal aff is not one which critiques the resolution, but critiques the way that we debate the resolution. If your aff does the latter, most framework arguments go out the window. I will deduct speaker points for 2ACs that have a massive overview but doesn't include it in the doc.
• K v K debates are the debates I have debated and certainly judged the least. I think it's the burden of the aff to prove that perms are allowed in a method debate since the aff has already gone so far as to reject the resolution to justify reading their advocacy, but it is up for discussion. Cap links to just about everything but that doesn't always means it's good. The Parenti and Emanuele card is not nearly good enough for the amount it gets read by neg teams. Most of what I said in my thoughts on Ks extends here too.

Two separate instances of clipping will result in an auto-loss and zero speaker points for both debaters. To be clear, clipping is intentionally skipping highlighted parts of a card while acting as though it was still read. To not clip, explicitly state when you stop reading a card before fully finishing ("cut the card at [x]"), keep track of where you stopped reading that card, and after your speech ask if anyone in the round wants a marked copy of your document where the highlighting you didn't read in the card is omitted.

***FOR NOVICES: HOW TO WIN***

Flowing is the most important (and underutilized) skill in debate. Write down your opponent's arguments. All of them.

Do line-by-line - Read and answer everything you just wrote down. Answer your opponent's arguments. All of them.

Novices that learn how to do both of these semi-competently will win the vast majority of their rounds.

Hi, I'm a cool bean. I don't judge too harshly and I give good speaks for good flows, you know so long as you are trying and know what your speaking about in debate.

I love k's and I understand policy but, I want you to explain whatever your talking about to me as if I have no experience in debate. That being said I know most debate terms, I understand how debate works, don't steal prep, I expect you to keep track of your own prep time and speech times but I will as well. Controversial to the points with flows, your speaks will show if I catch you stealing prep time or talking over your speech time.

I hate topicality arguments, take that as you will but I absolutely detest them. You have been warned. I pay attention in cx but it's not a voter so if something spicy happens and I expect you to bring it up and you drop it I will be really sad. Don't be mean to your partner, don't be mean to your opponents.

Treat each other with respect, and use their proper pronouns. Mine are she/her/shes. I am not a mean person but if you say some off-land shizzz i will make note of that.

I hate when teams drop an argument and try to pick it up later in the debate, unless you can effectively link it to another argument already haven been made and carried out throughout the entirety of the debate I don't care if the opponent doesn't contest it, it's not a voter for me because it was dropped.

Lastly, debate is meant to be fun and educational. Love what you read, read what you love, understand what you read, read what you understand and don't stress too much. As Mr.Fine would say "It's just chinese food". If you made it this far, props, try to get gucci bear or gingerbread in round and I will love you forever.

Oh, and I believe it is the job of the neg to get me to believe that the aff is faulted in whatever matter that is. I believe what the aff says because that's what I hear first. You've been warned.

Clash during round, on every flow, and during cx. If there is no clash then nobody wins because you learn nothing from starting points that don't interact with one another. And I'll just vote whoever I feel like.

I would like to be on the email chain it that is a thing still.

Points for saying cool bean in round also, make it fun.

PLEASE TURN YOUR CAMERA ON, I DO NOT LIKE STARING INTO A VOID OF NOTHING!!!!!!

Walter Payton ‘21

Top Level:

- Novice year is about learning how to debate, so be nice, keep calm, flow, and everything will be okay.

- Do impact calc and make sure to tell me the story of your advantage/DA in every round.

- Being rude is not cool and edgy; it's annoying. I will lower your speaks substantially if you're a jerk.

Affs

- I don't think I'm the best judge for a K aff. I find T USfg extremely persuasive in the context of novice debate

- I read a soft left aff. If you're reading one, you need to answer turns case analysis on the DA and extend specific framing arguments. Reading a bunch of framing cards and never extending warrants from them will make me sad.

DAs

- Impact calc and turns case are important.

T

- I have given a substantial number of T 1NRs in my time. I like T debates, just make sure to explain why your interpretation creates a better model of debate than your opponent's.

- Legal precision is the most persuasive standard to me, but you should go for whatever standard works best with your interpretation. Make sure to spend time in each of your speeches telling me which standard should frame my decision and why it should do so.

- Both teams should spend the rebuttals explicitly comparing the models of debate set by the interpretation and the counter interpretation. If the debate is clean and well impacted out, I'll give everyone good speaks.

CPs

- Not a huge fan of the process CP, especially in novice debate. I'll vote on it if you win but I won't be happy about it.

Ks

- Most familiar with your generic cap/security/biopower stuff and a little bit of set col.

- Explain your thesis clearly and spend a lot of time on the link debate. Links should be specific to the aff (a USfg link alone is not enough)

Hey whats up guys, as you can see my name is Jace, don't be afraid to call me by my first name !!

I prefer policy debate but k debate is great too. Don't let my preference scare you from running the arguments you want to run. I'm pretty open to most arguments.

The only thing I would note is that I'm not really gonna vote T unless it isn't answered correctly or it's dropped.

samir.i.rahaman@gmail.com

Northside '21 (debated)

KU '25 (debated freshman year)

1. I probably care more about clarity than others. I won't flow off the speech doc and I will try to avoid reading cards after the debate. If I can't understand the words you are saying when you are reading a card I will give that card minimal weight even if the tag is comprehensible.
2. I am bad for Ks and K affs.

Kevin Ramirez

Solorio Alumni 22'

UIUC 26'

They/Them

Email {kramirez6904(at)gmail(dot)com.}

General Stuff:

- Tech>Truth

- Write the ballot for me

- Will dock points if you speak over others/ your partner in cx repeatedly

- Explain why it matters that they dropped stuff, don't just say " They dropped it, we win. Moving on"

- Slow down on/ be clear on Analytics, Tags, and Authors.

- Not familiar with the topic this year, doesn't mean I am completely lay however its gonna take me a bit to understand the arguments

Arguments:

DA: Most DA's blend in together, just explain your link and impacts well and you'll be fine

K: I have a lot of experience running a variety of critiques like Nitzche, Anthro, Security, Cap, etc. Although I do get lost at times during high theory k rounds. Just contextualize your link to the aff and explain your alt.

K Aff's: Quoting my glorious leader

" Good luck to you " - Conor Cameron

T: Im not the biggest fan of T debates, however its not like I wont vote for it. If you explain your impacts and topicality violations well and win then I will vote for you. I am not persuaded by reasonability though which is something to keep in mind.

CP: I give a lot of leeway to the aff when it comes to cp theory since I think a lot of cp's being used now-a-days is just cheaty, I also dont do judge kick unless you tell me to. Otherwise im fine with CP's.

Theory: I used to be very into theory, but not that much anymore. Just like topicality just explain your violation and impacts and you'll be good. However a lot of theory is just not viable, so unless its blatantly conceded or under-covered I wont base my ballot of it. Just stick to the basics like Condo and you'll be fine.

Add me To Email Chain: Jeremyrrsolorio@gmail.com

Note this is the first round I judged so be considerable with terms

debated at solorio

Tech > Truth

Policy> K

DA + CP> Everything

Jokes>No Jokes> Jokes that are cringe

Having fun> No fun

Any other Questions= just ask me lol

Violation of a "ism" = This will result in lowest speaks possible, Automatic Loss and report to Tab

K Affs are a no go for me lol and most likely wont vote for them (85%)

BONUS POINTS

.3+ Points= Make a joke about Thano Hatzopoulos, If I don't laugh then no point

.1+ Points= Say "IU Love" in round in the beginning of the 2NR/2AR

.1+ Points= Reference Playboi Carti

.4+ Points= Reference JoJo

Hello everybody! I'm Sarah, I'm a senior, varsity debater, and co-captain (aka part of the triumvirate) of the debate team at Jones. She/her/hers pronouns please.

For the email chain: srrubinov@gmail.com

TLDR: signpost, truth > tech, don't like voting T for core file debates, weird things are good but your things are better, be kind and respectful to everyone in round, NO UKRAINE, I don't bite so talk to me. I'm here to help! P.s. I seem to be aff-biased? Do with that what you will.

LONG VERSION:

*March '22 update: DO NOT TALK TO ME ABOUT UKRAINE. Do not use it as an argument, try not to mention it, and just generally think through why you feel compelled to bring it up in round (p.s. I have personal connections to the conflict so please tread extremely carefully). The Russia DA is fine but if you want to use the Ukraine crisis to support it, please do your best to just imply or indirectly refer to the situation. If you want me to expand on why/how I feel about this, just ask.*

- SIGNPOST YOUR SPEECHES. Tell me where I should be putting your arguments. Otherwise, I will do the work for you which will 1) make me upset and 2) result in an outcome you might not be happy with. You do not get to tell me that I missed your argument if you didn't tell me where that argument should be.

- I severely lean truth > tech. You shouldn't change your strategy or specifically tailor the round to be only about truth, but I am telling you my biases in advance so you aren't surprised in round. Conceded arguments still default to true arguments, but I will entertain reasonability claims on concessions (I'm a 1A so I get it).

- I refuse to participate in ballot commodification (but you have to explain to me why the ballot is being commodified for me to vote on it). Also, do not tell me that a vote in either direction equates to me advocating for nuclear war/human rights violations/death/etc.

- I really really really don't like voting on T at Novice tournaments, but I will if I have to. Please don't make me vote on T.

- DO NOT TELL ME THAT A VOTE EQUATES TO ME ADVOCATING FOR NUCLEAR WAR/HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS/DEATH/ETC. I will be very upset and will dock speaks.

- I like weird, quirky theory/procedural arguments; you just have to explain them and win them. If you like wipeout, space col, or any other thing that would put you on a traditional policy judge's hit list, I'm here for it. Also, I might give you +0.1 speaks just for being ballsy (but only read those args if you want to/like to, not just for the speaks!).

- ABSOLUTELY NO SEXISM, HOMOPHOBIA, RACISM, OR OTHER DISCRIMINATION IS TOLERATED (I will vote on this: if it's obvious, it's an automatic loss, I'll give you the lowest speaks possible, and I will be speaking to your coaches and tab. If it isn't obvious, and you want to debate the round K-style, explain to me why/how a team is being discriminatory in some way OR explain how the round was specifically structured in a discriminatory way in the last rebuttal)

- I am a K debater. I know the basics of policy debate, but I am not up to date on whatever is happening in Congress rn, nor do I understand all of the abbreviations your aff specifically uses. Mention what your abbreviations are! Your opponents also probably don't know what they stand for.

- RE: the aff-biased thing. I'm noticing that some judges vote neg on presumption, but I find myself doing the opposite. I have a high threshold for neg arguments to negate any and all benefits that may come from passing the plan. I tend to evaluate the neg on effective proof of the plan being undesirable and lack of aff solvency. (this may be confusing, sorry!)

- Be mindful of online debate! Speak a little slower, a little louder, and articulate more. Be understanding of tech difficulties or lags. I will never take points off for asking clarifying questions, especially if you're lagging, so ask! I give each round 10 minutes of tech time, so just let me know if you want/need to use it. That allowance is me trusting you not to steal prep. Do NOT abuse my compassion.

- Sending speech docs is not prep unless it takes a long time (and I mean, like five minutes or more) or something was forgotten before the speech started. I am very generous with time, but I will start being stricter if I find out you aren't timing your own speeches.

- I am old fashioned and still flow 100% on paper.

- Try your best and have fun!

I promise I'm not trying to scare you or harm you, I'm here to help you learn! My notes are only there to inform you of what's in my head while I'm judging. You can always ask me questions about why I voted a certain way or anything debate and I will do my best to answer. Also! Please let me know if something has made you uncomfortable, either during round or post-round. My email is always open to you! Good luck!

- email: mnsodini@cps.edu

- If you can, try to keep cameras on during the debate

- Try your best!

Hello! My name is Jordan, and I’m a senior at Okemos High School.

There are two very important things to me when judging: be kind and don’t be discriminatory. I will most certainly lower your speaks if you say something racist/sexist/homophobic etc. or are aggressively rude to your partner or the opposing team. (Being an intense debater is fine -- just don’t be disrespectful.)

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

Some other general views:

• Tag teaming during CX is okay, just make sure you both participate

• Clarity over speed, but if you speak fast AND clearly I can definitely follow along

• Try to fill your time instead of ending speeches early

• Please keep your camera on if possible

• I won’t count tech issues as prep time (but please don’t fake tech issues to gain more time)

• In your rebuttals, tell me why I should vote for you -- explain why the other team doesn’t solve or why you solve better, and mention impacts

• I will keep track of time on my end, but please either time yourselves as well or let me know if you can’t for some reason

• Personally, I think the best way to communicate with your partner during prep time and speeches is a phone call (if you don’t want the other team to hear). If you have another way of communicating, that’s fine with me

• Whatever on/off you are comfortable running I am fine with. I don’t have any disads or neg strats that I prefer or despise, so I’ll vote on how well you debate whatever strats you choose

Have fun, and good luck in all of your rounds!

Hey y'all my name is Eva Vasilopoulos and I'm a second year political science, public relations, and economics majors at Iowa State University. I just recently got back into the debate realm this year so I am not fully in the loop on the topic. I did policy debate in high school for Niles North.

Top-level

evavasdebate@gmail.com

Also please make jokes, debate gets boring really fast

I don't know this topic that well so keep that in mind

Just call me Eva, not judge

line by line is important

I don't care what speed you read but just be clear

(For CX)

Case

Impact calc key for affs to do if y'all want an aff ballot. All of my debate career I have only read soft left affs, but I do understand the literature from all aff types. If you have an aff and it has a structural violence impact with some framing, and another impact of war, disease, Econ collapse, etc. Go for one, not both if the 2ar extends their genocide and war impacts, a big no-no. (this happens a lot too)

K-Affs

I like these affs, breath of fresh air from the basic policy affs from the topic resolution. I would prefer teams to read a plan text and defend some action. (doesn't have to be USFG as an actor) I have judged and voted on identity affs a good amount during the arms sales topic and cjr topic.

DA's

have a clear internal link and link story, how does point A lead to point B. Don't use generic evidence for the link, there has to be a clear point that the AFF. I lean slightly aff on this so the neg needs to do some work to prove the DA. If you run a da PLEASE RUN A CP, with it cause yeah there is a risk but I don't have another way to solve that's on my flow. If you are running a relations da, Econ da, or other one make sure you have recent evidence so the impact is concrete.

T

t has been very over-limiting on a lot of topics I have debate on, majority of T arguments only make certain big affs topical. breath>depth. I'm pretty neutral on judging this, it comes down to the extensions in the 2nr and the response in the 2ar on how I should write my ballot. ASPEC I'm not a big fan of, if you go for it the 2nr should be just aspec and explain the voter in the round and why fairness and ed are key. CJR specific I have voted on t on this topic and I have voted against it.

CP

Love a good perm/theory debate. Both sides need to do work to prove whether if the cp is competitive/noncompetitive and that it does/doesn't solve the aff w/o linking to the net benefit. impact calc of the nb is key for my ballot.

K

A good amount of 1st-year rounds I judged were more critical. I'm in the loop on K literature, so you really don't have to explain terms just the world of the alt looks like and why I should pick the neg's fw over the affirmative. these rounds are either really good or really bad. Known to be very messy Only run it if you really understand it.No no generic link cards, have to be specific to the aff. By the 2nr the neg should have a clear story of what the world of the alt is, and why the k matters in this round.

aw4ng@mit.edu or anniewang2003@gmail.com

ncp'21 mit'25 they/them

you can call me whatever! annie is fine, judge is fine too :-)

this is the tldr; if you want to know more about specific arguments i generally agree with kyujin derradji. (i will say -- i am unqualified to judge k v k debates! please pref me low if that is your preferred strat because i will make a decision that you may or may not be happy with.)

no particular ideological predispositions, feel free to read your wacky impact turns or k affs in front of me. (this should go without saying, but obviously this doesn't apply to hateful arguments [racism/sexism/any other ism good, etc.]) this being said, obviously every judge has biases (for instance, i have vastly more experience with policy) but i will endeavor to adjudicate these debates without bringing too much of my own background into them.

i have not judged many rounds on this topic, have little to no background knowledge, and am not very smart. please take that how you will re: explaining your aff, particularly if it's jargon-y or niche.

i follow along with the speech doc -- that means i notice you clipping. i'll stop the round and vote you down if you do (intentionally). clipping = skipping lines (not words, that happens) in cards, saying you read evidence you didn't, failing to send a marked copy if asked for or sending an incorrect marked copy.

online debate: try to have your cameras on if tech/wifi allows, it's a lot more humanizing than staring at icons all day.

everyone should be in constant contact with their partner so if any tech issues arise we can get them sorted out quickly.

coleweese1@gmail.com

4 years of high school debate (18-22), am no longer debating.

Zero topic knowledge, err on the side of maximum explanation.

Top:

Tech over truth, but truer arguments are easier to win. Any argumentative preferences I list below speak to which arguments I find more true/intuitively persuasive than others. Preferences are certainly not set in stone and I will be swayed by good debating.

My flow is the most important determinant of who I vote for. I will vote on dropped arguments, even if they are quick. At the same time, I will not vote for arguments that I don't have flowed even if you think you made them. I will read evidence, but I will only read evidence that is extended through the end of the round. I will give more weight to evidence that is explained more fully.

Speaks:

I try to keep an average of 28.5 and am not afraid to give low points.

Policy v K:

I find it easier to understand policy arguments and was policy in high school, but am definitely willing to vote for Ks on the neg and think they are strategic. I'm a little less willing to vote for K-affs, but will do it.

Framework/T-USFG:

I am most persuaded by fairness impacts, but if you feel more comfortable with others, feel free to go for those. Interpretations are important to me. I feel like judges often find a middle ground between an aff's framework interp and a neg's counterinterp, I will not do this.

T:

People don't go for reasonability enough. I also think predictability outweighs limits.

Theory:

I am more likely to vote on theory than your average judge. Default position is that condo is good, and judge kick is an extension of that, but can obviously be convinced otherwise.

Misc:

Don't spread through analytics and be clear.

I think people let vague plan writing off too easily. If the plan text could be interpreted as something other than what the aff thinks it does, that's probably a solvency deficit.

I would prefer you read rehighlightings, but don't care enough to penalize you if you insert them.

Might be a hot take, but I think the perm double bind is fire.

New affs probably don't justify neg cheating.