gene bressler (they/them) [call me "gene", not "judge"]

Calvert Hall '21

Wake Forest '25

13boxout[AT]gmail.com

Paradigms are overrated. Nobody judges the way they think they judge. That said, I think and care about debate a lot. I will pay attention to whatever you're doing, and try to think the way debaters are thinking, rather than send you on an intellectual masterclass in the RFD. Put differently, I don't care if you do things the way I would've done them. I re-wrote this, and am somewhat horrified by how long it is. Most is not all that relevant, I've put what is at the top

Here are the only things you "need to know,"

-2v2 debate, each person gives a constructive and a rebuttal (pre-scripted performance stuff is okay, giving all of every speech is not)

-Ideologically middle ground for AFF's that don't read a plan/K's on the NEG

-Be clear. Judges vote for arguments they understand. In addition, I've noticed a concerning amount of clipping in extremely high profile debates. If I can't understand you, I'll call clear. If I think you're clipping, I'll say that prior to ending the round, but, c'mon.

-Judge kick is my default, but if the AFF says no, I'll evaluate it technically.

-Most things that bother old people don't bother me (feel free to go to the bathroom, fill up your water, and be happy in the round)

-My role as an educator super-cedes my role as a judge. If a round is becoming unsafe, I'll end it. Haven't ever felt the need to invoke this, but wouldn't hesitate to.

-"defend what you say, hold people responsible for what they say. i’m not here to resolve your personal beef with someone, but i do find myself responsible for making sure this space is maximally safe" - asya taylor

Thoughts about debate

I've judged and debated a lot of different rounds, across varying styles and quality. I read about postmodernism "too much," have a generally decent knowledge of "policy relevant" disciplines, and think about debate a lot.

I flow straight down, on a laptop. I am pretty "flow centric." To me, that means I begin from the presumption that I trust debaters more than their evidence. If somethings dropped, I'm not going to scrutinize your cards and be sad when they don't quite line up perfectly. Maybe in an ideal world I'd have time to do this, but I find judges that engage in this practice do it quite unpredictably, and the burden is best left on the debaters to indict bad ev.

I only read cards as a "last resort," when it seems too difficult to resolve an argument based purely on words on the flow. In a close debate, this will usually happen on a handful of core issues.

I tend to think of debates holistically. Most things that are dropped do not quite the far reaching implications that debaters claim. The best rebuttals acknowledge the other teams ways out, and apply their best offense to the other teams. To that extent, it would help if you started the 2AR/2NR with a brief explanation of what your win conditions are. This should be done on other parts of the flow too - what does it mean for you to win an argument about uniqueness or the link?

It's hard to dissuade me from using an offense/defense paradigm to think about debate. There are two main implications to this

1) If both teams advance an interpretation, I will use one of those interpretations. Debaters are free to advance a middle ground, but I won't come up with one for you.

2) Reasonability is somewhat of an uphill battle. I think a lot of the offensive justifications for it (eg. substance crowdout) can be weighed against the negatives offense, but I'd prefer if you did that rather than implore me to adopt a different standard for evaluating debates altogether. I don't vote AFF when the DA link is "reasonably" low.

Disads:

I start by evaluating relative risk. This means that winning a big DA/advantage is often more important to me than ticky tacky on impact calculus. Of course, a big difference in magnitude or probability can change things, but I often wish teams spent more time on the line by line and less time on "3 months is faster than 6 months so gg well played."

Turns case matters, but is contingent on the risk of the DA. Given technical execution, I'm more willing than most to vote on arguments like "link turns solvency," getting the case to near (or at) presumption levels.

I'm fine for agenda politics. If your ev sucks, I'd prefer you acknowledged it, gave a lot of judge instruction, and told a good story than pretending it's good and ending up in a close debate where it kills you. I don't think its a ethos blow to say things like "they dropped the 2NC spin, so our ev is good enough even if it's not great."

Counterplans

"Sufficiency framing," means even less to me than reasonability. What does it mean to solve an internal link sufficiently? If you answer that, you have a good argument. If not, you're wasting 10 seconds of every speech.

Pretty neutral on competition questions. I think perm do the counterplan is often more strategic than the intrinsic perm, but whatever. Impact/internal link comparison should happen early - I'd prefer if both teams focused on central offense with framing devices as opposed to spamming arguments about how hard it is to be aff/neg and praying one is dropped.

Counterplan theory arguments are better used as competition standards than theory interpretations, because of how arbitrary they are. I'd rather you move "process cp bad" offense to the relevant perm debate than go for a contrived interp.

Conditionality is fine. My intuition is that in-round abuse doesn't matter as much as theoretical justifications, but I can be convinced otherwise. If condo is a winning 2AR, I won't be upset that you gave it. It's a massive uphill battle to get me to vote on any other theory argument.

K's on the negative

I decide on an interpretation for framework, none of this "it's a wash" nonsense. Debaters can (and perhaps should) advocate for a middle ground interp, but I won't do it if left to my own devices.

I might know what you're talking about, but I'd be more comfortable if you pretended I didn't. Besides that, I don't have a ton of takes. I'd prefer if the 2NR/2AR had a central strategy rather than spamming links and hoping I figure it out.

K's on the AFF

Framework/T-USFG: Pretty even voting record. Ballot solvency matters a lot more to me than groveling over what constitutes an impact. Equally fine for fairness and clash, but be careful when explaining them relative to what the ballot solves (e.g. if you say something like fairness first - nothing leaves the room, you need to think about how that reconciles with clash/skills/whatever).

Most of the below is about debates where the AFF has some form of counter-interp/counter-model. You're welcome to just impact turn the reading of framework. I think I'm worse for this, but tech trumps all else.

I'd like a counterinterpretation, or some vision of what voting AFF means for future debates. I think it's hard to beat defining words in the topic + defense to limits, but I understand that's not the preferred strategy of many teams. At the very least, I'd like to know what you think debate shouldbe about - what are the controversies? Functional limits style arguments shouldn't just be "what could you have read this round," but instead "what does the counter interp hold the aff to defending," and how can the negative predictably engage with that premise.

Internal link defense matters a lot. Most framework arguments don't make a lot of intuitive sense to me, I'd prefer if you won a small impact and had a lot of defense than if you went for "policy deliberation solves climate change," or "voting negative turns you into Karl Rove."

I'm somewhat pedantic about AFF teams linking to their own offense. If the 1AR drops that X DA links to the counter interp, it's a tough spot.

Method v method/ k v k thoughts: no perms in a method debate isn't great, but I evaluate it technically. I use an offense-defense paradigm, and care a lot about impact framing. Establish win conditions, points of competition, and what exactly you're impact turning early and often

Topicality

Don't care if you go for precision or limits. Do care about the size of the internal link. Would prefer if the 2NR/2AR was more like "large limits difference outweighs small precision difference," than "limits are the only thing that matters"

I think the best impacts concern research/topic evolution. Groveling about how hard it is to debate more than 2 AFF's or how the AFF can never win if the negative researches the 1AC in advance seem equally unpersuasive, but these premises are rarely contested so what do I know.

Above thoughts on reasonability apply.

LD:

If you read plans, go for the K, do "LARP" things, etc. the above applies.

If you read "phil" I will almost certainly not know what is happening prior to you explaining it to me, but I won’t hate you or anything.

If you read "tricks," I will flow as carefully as I can without using the doc to fill in holes. You can win on anything, but the more inane, the worse your speaks. Empirically, I miss large swaths of the underview when debaters blaze through it. No remorse.

If you say "evaluate the debate after speech" I will give you the lowest speaks the tournament permits.

(Updated 1/13/25)

Chain Email

browndarcell@gmail.com

Darcell Brown He/Him

Operations Director - Detroit Urban Debate League

Wayne State University Alum '22 (2020 NDT Qualifier)

My debate background in high school and college consisted of both policy strategies as well as Kritikal Performance & Structural K's (Antiblackness/Cap/Securitization)

-- Top Level --

I don't care how you choose to present/perform/introduce your arguments nor do I have a bias toward any particular type of argumentation. Just read your best arguments and give an impact that I can vote on. I'm like 60/40 tech over truth. I default to my flow but can be persuaded by pathos/performance in the debate to weigh my decision. I'll vote on presumption if persuaded the aff doesn't solve anything. I heavily prefer clarity over speed but can keep up with a fast pace as long as you're still coherent. I'll vote on theory args but am not the person you want for 2NR/2AR theory throwdowns.

-- Aff Stuff --

- On the policy end of the spectrum, I don't have too many comments for the aff besides the generic ones. Have an internal link to your harms and if you're gonna go util v vtl/deontology stuff then go all in or go home. On the Kritikal side, I'm down for whatever and will vote on rejections of the topic if there's an impacted reason as to why engagement in the context of the resolution is bad as well as Kritkal interps of the topic. Be clear about what your argument is early on. It serves better to be straight forward with your claims with me instead of using a ton of jargon.

-- Neg Stuff --

- I'm fine with you reading whatever on the neg however you need to engage the aff. FW has to have a TVA otherwise I default aff. THE TVA DOES NOT SERVE AS OFFENSE FOR ME BUT IS AN EXAMPLE OF WHY YOUR OFFENSE IS APPLICABE TO THE AFF! I rarely vote on fairness as an impact. There needs to be a reason why normative debate rules are good and what the off does that creates an inability for engagement with those good components of the topic/rez, not just "there are rules so vote neg". Not a fan of reading 5+ off and seeing what sticks kind of strategies especially in college debate. Any other questions you can ask me before the round.

Experience: I spent 4 years doing Policy Debate at Bronx Science and am currently a sophomore majoring in biology and sociology at Macaulay Honors College.

Email: chane7@bxscience.edu - please put me on the email chain :)

FOR POLICY - Updated for 2022:

Overall:

Please tell me how to vote. Having been out of debate for 2 years, not telling me exactly how you want a round evaluated leaves everything up to my own previous experience and former knowledge which is not as decent as it used to be.

I am a tech over truth judge. Unless something is contested in round, I'll generally take it for truth. The only exception to this rule is if something blatantly offensive is said in round (this includes but is not limited to anything racist, sexist, homophobic, and ableist). In this case, I wouldn't give the offending team the win or high speaker points even if the argument goes cold conceded.

Usually I don't mind speed, but especially in online, I've noticed that it gets a little more difficult to hear so you can still be fast, just make sure you are still slowing down for tags and analytics.

Run whatever you want and know the best. I also usually prefer it when debates are kept small (so I'd prefer 1-3 off vs. 8 off) but if you're more comfortable with a bigger strategy, go ahead.

Explain everything (things like acronyms) - please don't assume I have prior topic knowledge.

FOR LD:

All of the above from the Policy section applies wherever applicable.

I like performance and kritikal debate although traditional is fine too.

Assuming I don't know anything about the topic beforehand is a good idea.

I've never debated LD so I don't have a strong opinion about LD specific theory (for ex: RVIs) and I might not know what LD specific arguments/theory is or what the conventional way to evaluate such arguments are - if you explain what it is, I won't have a problem with it though!

Highlights

Email: eric.clarke2019@gmail.com + swwpolicy@gmail.com

The 1AC needs to be in my inbox at the start time.

Good for Ks and policy. I prefer policy, but I'm fine with whatever.

I don't love evaluating theory debates to resolve the round, but I will. More below.

Love framework v K AFFs+ T v policy AFFs. Love = like hearing them, not that I'll automatically vote for it. Most good K AFFs have offense to framework embedded in the 1AC, so chances are if you hide behind framework without engaging case you'll lose terribly.

Good with speed. If you're unclear and I don't catch something, it is what it is.

Don't steal prep. If a timer isn't running, you shouldn't be typing, writing, or going over speech docs. I'm not usually pressed about watching debaters, but some people are so egregious about stealing prep that I can't help but notice.

Please track your time.

Experience:

Debated policy throughout high school and college (Georgetown). The strategy was usually policy, but I have some experience going for the K at both levels. I also have some experience judging PF and LD at the high school and middle school levels.

General:

If there are any unanswered questions, definitely feel free to ask me before the round starts, and I'm always happy to give follow-up comments after rounds if you shoot me an email.

Make sure acronyms are full written out somewhere in the card.

I'll usually be paying attention during cross to help wrap my head around arguments. Cross usually helps me contextualize the arguments being made (especially true for kritiks). Cross is binding. Cross is also where you can get a decent bump to speaks - go in with a strategy.

I won't read your evidence at the end of the round unless I'm instructed to. Debate is a communicative activity, therefore you need to be able to verbally convey the key warrants in a piece of evidence to me. If I have to read the evidence myself to find the warrants, you haven't done your job. I will also read evidence if there's an evidence indict. Please make evidence idnicts. A lot of people try to get away with reading terrible evidence, and you shouldn't allow it.

Kritiks:

I typically enjoy judging k debates. I can be on board with the concept and ideas of most kritiks, but you need to be able to explain it in a way where I understand all of the mechanisms and nuances tying it to the aff. At the end of the round, I want to be able to put the thesis of the kritik into my own words.

I'm not the biggest fan of kritiks that are gimmicky, BUT I will vote on it if you execute and do everything you need to on the flow. If you have to ask if your K is gimmicky, chances are it is.

Framework:

Absolutely love hearing framework speeches. Easily my favorite position in debate to talk about and listen to speeches on.

While I enjoy framework, know that neg teams won't have a leg up on the affirmative. They still need to debate it well. My personal feelings are irrelevant during the round. What ultimately matters is what both teams do on the flow.

Theory

I have miscellaneous thoughts about various issues. If a particular issue isn't listed, it's because I don't have strong feelings about it. None of these are set in stone (except condo). These are just starting points I have when thinking about these theory arguments, but I can always be convinced to change my mind. Just keep these predispositions in mind if you decide to go for the position.

a.) PICs bad - lean neg but can be convinced otherwise depending on the PIC.

b.) Process CPs bad - lean AFF but can be convinced otherwise.

c.) Condo - three conditional positions is where I become open to voting on condo.

d.) Perf con - neg gets multiple worlds + contradictory advocacies are fine as long as it's resolved by the block.

e.) Disclosure - I think it's silly unless the other team is genuinely being really shady with their disclosure practices.

Misc:

When thinking about your big-picture strategy in rounds, think about what would be the easiest thing for me to pull the trigger on. I love it when teams make my life easier by going for the most strategically sound combination of arguments at the end of the round.

Does fed follow-on mean states links to politics? Talk to me about it depending on the DA.

Tend to lean tech over truth

I prefer teams go for substance rather than spraying each flow with theory arguments and hoping one of them gets dropped.

Please be ready to put together and send a card doc that only includes the cards you think are relevant at the end of the round. I'll usually ask after the 2AR if I need one, but more often than not, I'm fine.

Speaker points:

Hopefully, nobody needs this reminder, but don't be rude. If you're blatantly disrespectful to the opponents and/or your partner, I will tank your speaks. I get that ethos is big for some teams, but that doesn't excuse being a terrible person.

Let your partner speak for themselves. Jumping in on occasion is understandable and expected. However, don't jump in to the point that you make me think your partner doesn't know what they're doing or talking about. More of a pet peeve than anything else.

Mamaroneck High School 2020

Boston University 2024

anna26844@gmail.com - feel free to email me with any questions you have pre-round or post-round.

I am okay with almost anything in debate: Ks, DAs, CPs, Theory, K affs, T, Policy affs etc, go for it. Just don't be rude or condescending to your opponents, I will dock your speaker points.

My own experience has been predominantly running policy affirmatives and mixed k + policy neg strategies. That being said, my opinions DON'T MATTER. I will vote for the debaters who best support their arguments and prove why they should win.

Spreading is cool, but not if you're unclear. Do line-by-line and be clear about evidence comparison.

not today fascist

Hello Debate Scholars,

I love to see well developed and researched contentions. The more concise and endepth evidence the better. I enjoy when scholars are aware and show compassion for communities and for topics that focus on tough social and political issues. It is important for debaters to have a solid understanding of the various stories, narratives and experiences of the stakeholders involved within each issue. I appreciate culturally relevant stances that embrace and tackle deep rooted issues surrounding race, racism, discrimination, identity and equity. I most enjoy when debate scholars try their very best to present clear, concise and solution based speeches that uphold the dignity and respect for every person involved in their speech. I have been coaching middle school and high school debate for 7 years. My teams have won League, State and National Championships. It is with great honor that I am fortunate to see debate scholars who debate with love, respect and a great spirit of competitiveness for their craft.

Sincerely,

Chiara D. Fuller

She/they. Past 2A/1N for Stuyvesant High School. Add me to the email chain please: stuyhomemadechicken@gmail.com

Background: On aff, I mostly ran performance Ks (poetry/poetic language) on techno-orientalism, race theory, Baudrillard/the University, and globalization/cap. On neg, I have some experience with full DA/CP rounds, but I mainly ran framework, Afropessimism K, cap K, and research procedurals.

Important

- Run anything you'd like with me. My opinions about what debate is and what it should look like do not affect me when judging a round. That being said, however, I advocate for a safe debate space, so microaggressions will not be tolerated.

- Tell me how to vote! Framing the debate is important to me, esp since I will not fill in the blanks for you or assume how you'd like me to weigh the round.

- I think case debates are heavily underrated, esp since most affs are really stretching it. I also find myself voting neg on presumption a lot in rounds where the aff fails to implicate that the ballot is key to any part of their aff, so being prepared to defend larger solvency issues is important to me.

- Organized flows and line by line make me happy

- I'm good with speed, but online debate will require extra enunciation.

Framework

The only thing you should know is that fairness is less of an impact to me as it is an i/l to education, but I'm willing to vote on it, you'll just have to do a little extra work. Otherwise, I love in-depth framework rounds, especially creative cross-applications across flows in developing a coherent aff/neg thesis.

Ks

I love Ks. If I haven't debated it, I've most likely read it. This still means you should explain your arguments as if I have no background knowledge on them as there are certainly many Ks I've never encountered before. I encourage the neg to cross apply the K onto the case page in creating a solid thesis, use aff-specific links, and try not to run too many offs, including Ks, that contradict or prevent you from giving me an in-depth understanding of the neg's framing— although, if you do run 5 Ks in the 1NC, I encourage the aff to capitalize on these contradictions. I think the best way for the aff to answer a K is a well-extrapolated link-turn. Also, framing can win you the round! Don't let it just be an after thought— it's essential to your K thesis, esp if the alt is pretty whack.

K-affs

Every k-aff I've ran was an identity-based performance/poetry aff. That was my preference, but, regardless of what methodology y'all endorse, I encourage y'all to have 1. have a clear advocacy, even if the advocacy is being incoherent and 2. explain the material implications, even with something as seemingly abstract as speaking to the dead.

**With methods like witchcraft, I have mixed opinions on the way many teams carry it out. Mainstream culture's witchcraft appropriates from several ethnic traditions and religions and becomes ignorant and disrespectful without proper research. If you're interacting with the other team, I ask that you get consent beforehand.

T

Same goes for T as does FW. Not hyper-speeding through your standards, though, and actually impacting them out would be appreciated.

DAs

The link story is important to me. This means thorough explanation and specificity to the aff (either through warrants or your own contextualization), so try not to resort to shady links. A lot of teams tend to forget the internal link chain, but any impact defense and framing you do won't really matter to me unless the i/l is clear. I'm not the best judge for super technical DA rounds, which is why it's important to tell me how to vote. One thing I think neg teams should do more often is run DAs against K-affs— they're not only exciting to judge on my part, but also strategic on yours.

CPs

Just like DAs, I'm not insanely technical with CPs, but I can appreciate CPs with solid net benefits. Creative, even borderline abusive, CPs are a plus.

Theory

I have ran theory a total of two times in my debate career, but I have judged plenty. I'm not a big fan of theory debates, but if you do have to run it, make sure you have a clear and stable interpretation.

lexpjdebate@gmail.com - add me to the chain (also, have a subject line with the tournament and round, thanks!)

lexington '21 johns hopkins '25

she/her

my name is pia - call me pia (pee-ah), please and thanks :)

about me

2n--X----------------------------------------------2a

policy-----X------------------------------------------k (i understand cap and some identity stuff, high theory is a no)

10 off policy stuff----X-----------------------------------------1 off k

for lil lex

i've never judged pf before but i did policy debate at lexington high school for four years. i'll definitely be looking at the flow (which i will be flowing in the policy way, vertically).

i don't know anything about the topic so keep acronym use to a minimum and make sure to explain all your arguments clearly. for more information, please refer to the ld/pf section below. i look forward to judging you!

debating

disclosure-------X------------------------------------------------nah (not if it's new, but definitely if in the packet division!)

do lbl------X-----------------------------------------------idrc

signposting-----------X-------------------------------------switching b/w flows w/o saying so

clarity>speed---------X--------------------------------------speed>clarity

"extend ___"----------------------------------------------X---“actual warrants - that’s ___”

block split--------X--------------------------------------block repetition

impact calc----------X-----------------------------------------nah

frame my ballot-------X------------------------------------------just talk

new args in the 2ar----------------------------------------X--no.

case debate----X----------------------------------------------drop it

1nr prep---------------------------------------------X--no (you have 13 minutes...)

conditionality good----------X----------------------------conditionality

death bad-X--------------------------------death good (PLEASE do not do this to me)

read the rehighlighting----------X--------------------------------send in speech doc

tech stuff

cameras on-------X---------------------------------------cameras off

i hate tech problems-----------------------------------X-------------im lenient w tech issues

slow down----------X-------------------------------------------same speed as normal debate

google docs--------------------------X-------------------------word (idc, our novies also use google docs)

talk to me---------X----------------------------------------------silently stare at me (i'm over talking to myself)

random things

dee-ay or see-pee------------------------------------X---”dis-ad” or “counterplan”

flow----------x---------------------------------------whatever

be a nice person-X------------------------------------------intimidate the other team

time your speeches-------X----------------------------make me do it

lincoln douglass, pf, etc.

time your speeches---X--------------------------------------------------meh (PLS)

how you present yourself---------------------------------------------------------X------the flow (i am a policy debater :))

speed----X----------------------------------------------------talking

paraphrasing ev--------------------------------------------------X--read the ev (PLS again)

speech docs---X----------------------------------------------nah

speaker points

mostly between 27.5-28.5 unless i feel the need to give you lower or higher speaks

+0.1---make a good joke about ppl ik (angelique pham, zoey lin, mahima ramesh, amanda flashner, will yang, larry lin)

+0.1--show me your flows after the round (send / show me before i make my decision so i can boost your speaks)

+0.1---make a joke about lucifer/the office/parks and rec/other tv shows i like

+0.2---be partnership goals like lexington pj (we're the coolest :), hi angelique <3)

please email me if you have any questions

I am a tech over truth judge.

T: Not my favorite argument, but if you are winning on it, I will vote on it.

Ks: Most familiar with Cap Ks but have read other Ks as well. If you run a good K and can prove to me why the alt is better, I will vote on it.

DAs: Will vote on it, just like any other argument, if it is winning. Needs to have a clear link and impact that outweighs.

CP: Will vote on it if I believe that the CP is better than the plan, but the neg would need to prove that to me.

FW: Very important to have framework.

Email: erickovarsky@gmail.com

Updated for states '23:

I'm Anna, she/her, freshman @ uchicago

Add me to the chain: annakozlova@uchicago.edu

Respect your opponents' pronouns (ask)

Let me know if you are having some kind of tech issues (wifi, microphone) before the round.

Background:

I debated policy for 4 years at LHS (in mass), alternating 2n/2a. Tech>truth***, I will put aside personal biases to evaluate your arguments fairly. Especially after judging a lot of LD/PF in the last year, as well as teaching PF over the summer, i've gotten more experienced with evaluating specific arguments, although I still think there is a fairly universal way to judge them, which are all outlined below.

The main TL/DR for me is the core of debate -- say what you will about tricks and silly arguments, what matters is being able to win on substance, and although I'd prefer that substance be legitimate, I just want to be able to weigh either side at the end of the round. If there is a genuine ethics issue, we can pause the round, but I don't like watching tricks debate all too much. I'm familiar with the topic for this session, and you can assume I have a good amount of background -- I'm also a history and polisci major, so make it interesting. I like K's, good case debate, interesting DAs (if you can spin them in any way as plausible), etc -- not a fan of nitpicky T or tricks debate. Clarity in your argument is critical -- you can be fast, just be clear in both speech and logic. GFW. (Also I'm a big fan of impact calc, that should be in your speech, c'mon).

No racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc -- your speaks will plummet.

*********

novpol:

tl;dr - i'm good with any argument you want to run as long as you explain it fully (especially this year, seeing as i have less experience with the topic than in previous years), i have no pref for aff or neg, i've been both a 2n and 2a at this point so i respect the hustle on both sides.

impact calc is also super important to me!

please please PLEASE tell me why your impact should be prioritized, or why your aff is more important.

use analytics - don't just rely on cards.

extend your arguments throughout the round. line by line - respond to your opponents specific arguments.

extend your arguments - keep them, your cards, etc, in the round after you read them once!

stay organized. use your time efficiently, split the block well (ask if you're not sure what this means), be polite in CX, and don't trash-talk.

i'm a more policy-leaning person in general, but i'm down for a good K or theory debate, again if you explain it fully.

GFW!

jvpol:

tl;dr - a lot of the things in this paradigm about how i evaluate arguments will still apply to you, even if you've been debating for a little while. however, if it your second or third year debating, i have higher expectations about the way you explain your off case or your aff, the way you behave during CX and before/after/during the round, and the nuance you give to all of your (and your opponents) arguments.

long:

general: be organized! since it's your first year, all that matters is for you to have fun in the round and learn a lot! good and well-setup flows not only make it easier for me as a judge to evaluate your arguments, but it also makes it easier for you to extend these arguments or respond to your opponent's arguments. also, i'm down for open CX when both partners can respond to and ask questions, but if i can clearly see one of you is talking over and controlling the other, i will not like that and will dock the more aggressive person's speaks. speaking of which, i will not tolerate partners interrupting one another during their respective speeches; i find it rude and toxic for the environment, so please be kind to one another!!! that is one of the most important things!

one of the biggest issues i see novices struggling with, especially during the packet debates, is the lack of analytics until the 2N/ARs. i think it's normal to be worried that the arguments you make off the top of your head aren't going to work, but honestly, if you're just reading cards in all of your speeches that have nothing to do with your opponents' arguments, it doesn't help you during the round. make analytics, point out if your opponent dropped an argument, tell me why you win in your own words, and explain your arguments also in your own words. super duper important for everyone, but specifically addressed to the novpol packet debates.

speaking: i'm fine with spreading, as long as you're clear. be as fast as you want, but if i stop understanding you, i will say clear, and if you don't acknowledge that through slowing down or emphasizing your words more, i will take off speaker points.

CX: i always pay attention to cross ex - you can poke a lot of holes in your opponents' arguments here, and it's just as important to stay persuasive.

case: i enjoy a good case debate; as long as the arguments all interact with one another and you're not just reading random blocks that have nothing to do with the 1AC, we'll be all good! weigh your impacts, defend your 1AC, and extend your authors from the 1AC! they do not disappear when you go into your 2AC and 1AR, so use them!!!

especially with the packet, i find that novices avoid analytics, any arguments that don't have cards, and extending their cards into the 2AC and the rest of their speeches. it feels like a waste of reading cards, for one thing, it's less persuasive, it makes your life harder, it's less educational... overall just extend your cards and arguments! make analytics! take risks! i cannot emphasize this enough (and yes, it's in my paradigm twice, that's how important i find this).

also, your arguments need to be there throughout the round if you genuinely want me to evaluate them - if you say something in your 1AC/2AC but do not bring it up back up until the 2AR (or 1NC and 2NR), i can't vote on it.

do impact calculus! it's great practice and it's super helpful to me to evaluating your case.

disads - i like disads as an argument, although i might not be able to buy politics DAs like elections or senate after the election, but other than that, i'm down for a good story. make sure that the link chain to the affirmative is clearly outlined in the 1NC, and that the impact calculus is there. weigh! your! impacts! explain to me why your impact is larger, more probable, or more imminent, and why it's more important! this is crucial in winning the DA - otherwise, i can't evaluate why your disad should be prioritized.

counterplans - i'm a big fan of counterplans (if they're competitive, but that's up for debate :)). speaking of competition, i come in with no bias about any types of counterplans. aff, if you want to convince me the counterplan text isn't competitive, convince me. neg, if you want to win the counterplan, give me a clear story of how it works, why it solves better than the affirmative, the internal/external net benefits, otherwise i can't vote on it. i don't have much to say about the more policy-leaning arguments, mostly because i'm more experienced with them, and want to let you have free rein with them!

kritiks - i've been mainly policy for my high school years, meaning i'm not well versed in most k literature (except for more policy ones, like the capitalism kritik). however, like i mentioned above, i'm down for any argument, as long as you're able to explain it well. i want to make sure you can clearly articulate links and your alternative, as well as your framework, etc. if i can tell you're just reading blocked out k's from varsity members, i'm less inclined to vote for you. as well as that, interact! with! the! 1AC! even though you're running a k that basically just says "aff bad for x complicated reason", you need to do case debate! running an argument parallel to the aff doesn't produce anything within the round. LINK DEBATE: i also really prefer specific links over generic links, although if you can spin the generic link nicely, i will like that as well. ON THE ALT DEBATE: pleeeease explain your alt to me very clearly. alts are often extremely questionable (to put it nicely), so if you're advocating for it and you go for it, make sure we all understand it. thank you!

k-affs: like i mentioned, i'm not super educated in k literature, and especially k-affs. i absolutely will not pretend that i fully understand your aff from just the 1AC, so please! explain it to me like i'm a parent judge or someone who has never interacted with a k aff, even though i have. i'm also not the biggest fan of them, but if you can somehow convince me my ballot can do something outside of the round, then i may vote on it. i personally do not believe that my ballot has any role other than determining who wins/loses the round simply because of the nature of debate (and how many times you've read the k aff before my round - what makes me unique?). if there is a performance/song/whatever in your 1AC, use that throughout the round if you can, although i'm not exactly sure how it works (again - k aff dumdum, so if your aff is a k-aff, i will be reasonably lenient in your arguments). if you run a tva/fw, explain it to me, be very clear, etc. same as with all arguments, make sure you understand it beforehand, and aren't reading straight down whatever file the varsity folks gave you.

framework - framework! i enjoy framework on the neg, i think it's an important part of debate, and i love a good framework debate with interacting arguments on both sides. explain your interp to me, standards, etc. for the neg - when you're running a K, make sure you explain to me why your framework ISN'T self serving, because often times, i find that it is. other than that, go crazy, i'll happily judge whatever you put in front of me! again, this is super important: understand your arguments! as first years, you gotta know what you're doing so you can learn from the round.

theory/t - this is another argument i'm not the most familiar with, but just like the K, explain it very well. i think fairness is an internal link to education, not that it's an impact, but try to convince me otherwise. i like a good t debate, give me your interp and a case list (underrated!), or a counterinterp, reasons to prefer, etc. i don't really hold a bias about precision vs specificity, so feel free to convince me. i will buy any argument as long as you explain and understand it!

overall, i just want you guys to have fun and learn a lot. as first/second year debaters, all that really matters is that you get educational experience in a respectful and fun way, especially in debate, which is such a challenging yet rewarding activity. i was one of you once, so i will be extremely nice within the round, whether that be if you have a question for me, or are having technical difficulties. no prep time will be taken from you if your wifi glitches out, or your document crashes, because i completely understand! GFW!

nLD/nPF:

i don't debate in these events, but i'm very familiar with the topic for this month as well as general arguments so i can still judge well. i have plenty of experience with judging and teaching PF, but LD is where i lack a little bit (so if you have any arguments that aren't linear, like some forms of tricks, flesh out really well). since i debate in policy, please make sure to lay out the story of your aff/neg or pro/con position very clearly - i value impact weighing a LOT, especially in PF and LD. explain to me why your impacts are more important, whether that be due to your framing, your "solvency", or otherwise. you also need to be able to flesh out, or really thoroughly explain, the chain of events that you're defending. however, i may not understand all of the nuances of a debate like LD if you read tricky arguments, which is something to take into account. i will be able to give an educational rfd (my style is speech-by-speech), because i've seen a lot of these rounds and i've been involved in debate for years, so the round will be productive for you. and good luck have fun! p.s. if any of the policy args apply to you, and i'm assuming they do, take that info!

so...you've read to the end of my paradigm. very impressive!! here's my speak increase/decrease chart:

note: i will not significantly change your speaker points from what i think you deserve - if i think you got a 28 (including some of these things, because some of these you do implicitly and i think they ought to contribute to your final speaker points), i cannot boost you up to a 28.5 or 28.7, but i can give you up to a 28.2 of additional points when you make purposeful changes to how you debate based on my boosters.

28.5 is what i am adjusting from throughout the round.

+0.1 if you post my email without asking me on the email chain - this lets me know you read my paradigm, or at least am aware that i have one, which is a good practice to encourage.

+0.1 if you make a funny new england joke

+0.1-0.3 if you talk to me about any of the things i listed i enjoy - it's nice to know you're human and not just a face on NSDA campus :) (this depends on how entertaining i find your comments)

+0.1 if you show me your neat flows after the round! like i said, organization during a round is super important, and i think encouraging organized flows is crucial in furthering your debate career.

+0.2 if you're nice to your opponents before, during, and after the round - good sportsmanship is so crucial, especially in these crazy times, so be respectful people! don't interrupt a lot in cross ex, don't talk over one another, no personal attacks, no post rounding, no angry facial expressions, etc.

+0.2-4 if you ask me thoughtful questions about the round, ask about how you could have run an argument better, ask about the details about my decision, etc. it's important that you improve, and getting detailed feedback other than just the RFD is incredibly useful! i'll love you taking initiative.

-0.7 at least if you're racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, before, during, or after your round - i will tolerate absolutely none of this, and while this might not influence my decision by a lot, it will drastically affect your speaker points.

-0.2 if you bash your previous opponents in the round, are rude within the round, scream at your opponents, etc - show proper etiquette and sportsmanship in debate, this is just as important as any arguments you make.

-0.3 if you read arguments such as "trigger warnings bad" or are insensitive to your opponents' triggers - i have been in a similar situation where i had a panic attack due to an aff not putting any tw at the top and could barely debate for the rest of the round. it's a personal issue for me, so please, be understanding.

-0.1 for each time you purposefully misgender your opponents - it's plain rude.

***tech>truth: this is a difficult call to make, because making horrible arguments and banking on them just because your opponent didn't answer it doesn't win you a round. however, regardless of whether or not your opponent makes those kinds of arguments, you still need to respond to them - even though i value the truth of an argument (like space lasers or aliens? no thank you), i'm still going to weigh it even if it's really out there, and if the other team manages to convince me that there is a unique and important reason that they should win the round because you didn't sufficiently answer their albeit obscure argument, it'll be even more important. this is specifically true in policy debate, and occasionally in LD, but in all kinds of debate, i honestly believe that using racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc within a round should cost you the ballot, even if your opponents didn't say more than "this is racist and that's bad, here's why". so all in all, i value tech and truth very similarly, but depending on the round, one will take priority over the other. so just answer all your opponent's arguments, don't be racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/etc, and be thorough with your arguments!

I was/am a 2A K debater for Hunter College High School. While I do prefer running critical arguments, I still like straight policy debates. That being said, if you are running critical arguments, please explain everything clearly and assume I have never read the literature, especially if you are running high theory.

I would like to be added to the email chain: leungfrances03@gmail.com

If you’re running performance debates or a K aff, that’s beautiful. Just make sure it’s at least somewhat related to the topic. On the negative, I enjoy Ks. Just make sure the link and alternative are both clear, and try not to get too jargon-y when you’re explaining the K to me. I enjoy T debates and am willing to vote equally for either aff or neg in performance rounds, especially if you have a well-thought out TVA.

Give me an impact calc!! And stress the net benefit for CPs. Show me why I should vote on certain arguments. I am fine with any argument, but when you spread, make sure to over the tag-lines slowly so I can mark that down on the flow. But in general, listen to your opponents and make sure your arguments are responding to them and not just reiterating your own positions. I stop prep before you send out the email. If you make me laugh, that might boost your speaks. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask me before the round.

Cathedral Prep: 2013-2017, Naval Academy: 2017-2021

Email chain: william.a.lewiscp17@gmail.com

I’m a big fan of this activity we have here in policy debate. Do what you do best, forget the rest.

Disadvantages: Link will always be evaluated first before uniqueness. Solid link evidence and analysis can break the tie in sketchy uniqueness situations like we have with politics currently. That being said, internal link chains still matter, and a causal explanation of how exactly x leads to y is valuable. Link turns are underutilized as are impact turns.

Counterplans: I lean negative on questions of conditionality. Specificity of negative solvency evidence should be an important place of contention. Not going to judge kick until authorized.

K's: Links will be evaluated first, followed by the impact. Links of omission are weak, but I still think well-researched k links can be found against almost any affirmative implementing a plan. Winning the alternative debate isn’t a deal breaker, though the negative must prove we are better off by not doing the plan. Perms need to be more fleshed-out than just “do both.” K’s of representations aren’t great. After the link, which the negative probably will get, this debate comes down to framing, (consequentialism vs. deontology/epistemology). In Cap and Security debates impact turns can and should be used by the affirmative, but in identity debates it really comes down to the question of ontology and the permutation.

Topicality: Clash is the ultimate impact to limits. It’s just like debating a disadvantage. Win the link, win the impact.

Clash debates: Being tangential to the topic is preferable. When going against a critical affirmative the negative should have something more than T/FW in the 1NC. Diversify strategy, research the literature. Specificity of links is important. With that being said, the negative should use the TVA like a counter plan, with fairness/education as the net benefit followed by substantive answers on case that also act as a net benefit to the TVA.

Will flow cross-ex.

Emory ’26. Calvert Hall ’22. Yes, email chain: lcsrlobo@gmail.com. Chain should be named “Tournament -- Round # -- AFF Team vs Neg Team.”

Must read: Do line-by-line, judge instruction, warrant arguments, and narrow the debate as it progresses. Any ideological preference can be overcome by good debating. Do not overadapt; going for an argument that your judge goes/went for can often hurt you more than it helps. Led a lab at the DDI but haven’t done any research since then, so do not assume I know seemingly obvious terms or acronyms that evolved throughout the year. Inserting rehighlights is fine. I really don’t want to vote for dropped, arbitrary theory arguments. If you introduce an ethics violation you must stake the debate on it. Tech > truth on most everything that isn’t death good or clearly problematic.

Update 1/27: I have judged way too many debates that involve both teams spewing economic concepts with no explanation of what they mean, why they are true, etc. Please do not do this!

T: persuaded by reasonability when impact/internal link differentials are tiny, less receptive when big. “Good is good enough” alone doesn’t make much sense. Include caselists, do impact comparison, and answer defensive arguments contextual to your interp.

CPs: No judge kick unless told to. Evidence quality and impacted deficits matter lots. Links less is usually unpersuasive, sufficiency framing usually is. Condo- numerical interps are arbitrary, logic + risk aversion make sense to me, and fairness by default outweighs education. Substance > theory, but if you do go for theory slow down and answer arguments.

DAs: Relative risk precedes and determines turns case. Cards aren’t necessary if logical defense beats a DA, but I’d prefer ev if you have it. Love the politics DA.

Ks: I find myself voting for the team that best compartmentalizes the moving parts of the debate. I want framework to be as much of a wash as possible- “no Ks” and “you link you lose” are equally unpersuasive, so winning alt solves, impact outweighs, or links turn case claims are the path of least resistance in front of me. That's not to say I won't vote on framework, especially if large swaths of offense are dropped/mis-answered. Links should be somewhat unique and include rehighlights/pull lines. Am more persuaded by “aff outweighs” than the perm/link turn unless the alt is fiated. I am fundamentally unpersuaded to one-sentence 'role of the judge' and 'role of the ballot' arguments other than deciding who did the better debating and submitting it to tabroom, respectively. These arguments are often better explained as pieces of framework offense.

Planless: Anything can be an impact (aff or neg) contingent on comparison and turns case. Extremely persuaded by SSD and TVA when contextualized to AFF offense. It’s hard to toe the line between C/I + link turn and impact turn, so picking one or the other is best. KvK debates almost always come down to the perm, so win a theoretical objection (meh) or material DA (better) to it.

I love a team that can make a great argument. I love Ks, CPs, DAs. Don't really like Ts. I am not a fan of speed reading, but you can try it. Tell me a good story, and why I should vote for you, and don't forget to weigh your impacts. (Virtual debate) If I didn't hear the argument, you did not make it even if you sent the drive. I am the Judge so do not debate me on my decision, this is a sport of persuasion, so if you did not persuade me, that is why you lost.

Add me to the chain: speechdrop[at]gmail.com

tldr: My name is Jonathan Meza and I believe that at the end of the day the debate space is yours and you should debate however you want this paradigm is just for you to get an insight on how I view debate. One thing is I won't allow any defense of offensive -isms, if you have to ask yourself "is this okay to run in front of them ?" the answer is probably no. I reserve the right to end the debate where I see fit, also don't call me judge I feel weird about it, feel free to call me Meza or Jonathan.

debate style tier list:

S Tier - Policy v k, Policy v Policy, Debates about Debate
A tier - K aff v Policy, K aff v Framework, Performance debate (either side)
B tier - K v K, Theory,
C tier - Phil
D tier - Trix
F tier - Meme/troll

about me: Assistant debate coach for Harvard Westlake (2022-). Debated policy since 2018 that is my main background even tho I almost only judge/coach LD now. Always reppin LAMDL. I don't like calling myself a "K debater" but I stopped reading plan affs since 2019 I still coach them tho and low key (policy v k > K v K). went 7 off with Qi bin my senior year of high school but not gonna lie 1-5 quality off case positions better than 7+ random shells.

inspirations: DSRB, LaToya,Travis, CSUF debate, Jared, Vontrez, Curtis, Diego, lamdl homies, Scott Philips.

theory: Theory page is the highest layer unless explained otherwise. Aff probably gets 1ar theory. Rvis are "real" arguments I guess. Warrant out reasonability. I am a good judge for theory, I am a bad judge for silly theory. Explain norm setting how it happens, why your norms create a net better model of debate. explain impacts, don't just be like "they didn't do XYZ voter for fairness because not doing XYZ is unfair." Why is it unfair, why does fairness matter I view theory a lot like framework, each theory shell is a model of debate you are defending why is not orientating towards your model a bad thing. Oh and if you go for theory, actually go for it do not just be like "they dropped xyz gg lol" and go on substance extend warrants and the story of abuse.

Topicality: The vibes are the same as above in the theory section. I think T is a good strategy, especially if the aff is blatantly not topical. If the aff seems topical, I will probably err aff on reasonability. Both sides should explain and compare interpretations and standards. Standards should be impacted out, basically explain why it's important that they aren't topical. The Aff needs a counter interpretation, without one I vote neg on T (unless it's kicked).

Larp: I appreciate creative internal link chains but prefer solid ones. Default util, I usually don't buy zero risk. For plan affirmative some of you are not reading a different affs against K teams and I think you should, it puts you in a good place to beat the K. as per disads specific disads are better than generics ones but poltics disads are lowkey broken if you can provide a good analysis of the scenario within the context of the affirmative. Uniqueness controls the link but I also believe that uniqueness can overwhelm the link. straight turning disads are a vibe especially when they read multiple offs.

K affirmatives: I appreciate affirmatives that are in the direction of the topic but feel free to do what you want with your 1ac speech, This does mean that their should be defense and/or offense on why you chose to engage in debate the way that you did. I think that at a minimum affirmatives must do something, "move from the status quo" (unless warranted for otherwise). Affirmatives must be written with purpose if you have music, pictures, poem, etc. in your 1ac use them as offense, what do they get you ? why are they there ? if not you are just opening yourself to a bunch of random piks. If you do have an audio performance I would appreciate captions/subtitles/transcript but it is at your discretion (won't frame my ballot unless warranted for otherwise). In Kvk debates I need clear judge instruction and link explanation perm debate I lean aff.

Framework: I lean framework in K aff v framework debates. These debate become about debate and models defend your models accordingly. I think that the aff in these debates always needs to have a role of the negative, because a lot of you K affs out their solve all of these things and its written really well but you say something most times that is non-controversal and that gets you in trouble which means its tough for you to win a fw debate when there is no role for the negative. In terms of like counter interp vs impact turn style of 2AC vs fw I dont really have a preference but i think you at some point need to have a decent counter interp to solve your impact turns to fw. If you go for the like w/m kind of business i think you can def win this but i think fw teams are prepared for this debate more than the impact turn debate. I think fairness is not an impact but you can go for it as one. Fairness is an internal link to bigger impacts to debate.

Kritiks: I am a big fan of one off K especially in a format such as LD that does not give you much time to explain things already reading other off case positions with the kritik is a disservice to yourself. I like seeing reps kritiks but you need to go hard on framing and explain why reps come first or else the match up becomes borderline unwinnable when policy teams can go for extinction outweighs reps in the late game speeches. Generic links are fine but you need to contextualize in the NR/block. Lowkey in LD it is a waste of time to go for State links, the ontology debate is already making state bad claims and the affirmative is already ahead on a reason why their specific use of the state is good. Link contextualization is not just about explaining how the affirmatives use of the state is bad but how the underlining assumptions of the affirmative uniquely make the world worst this paired up with case take outs make for a real good NR Strategy.

speaker points: some judges have really weird standards of giving them out. if I you are clear enough for me to understand and show that you care you will get high speaks from me. I do reward strategic spins tho. I will do my best to be equitable with my speak distribution. at the end of the day im a speaker point fairy.

quotes from GOATs:
- " you miss 100% of the links you dont make" --- Wayne Gretzky -- Michael Scott - Barlos
- "debate is a game" - Vontrez
- "ew Debate" - Isaak
- "voted for heg good" - Jared

Stuyvesant '21 | Georgetown '25

__

shorter version:

did 4 years of policy + did the whole qual to the toc thing but i have no topic knowledge 

i don't debate in college so its been a while

did primarily ks and then primarily policy, shd be familiar w most stuff

spreading is cool

___

short version:

Hi! I’m fine with anything you want to run and I’ll try to evaluate the round with no predispositions. If you are efficient and don't use all your speech/prep time when you don't need to, I will boost your speaks. If you feel like you have nothing else to say at the end of your speech, please don't repeat what you said above unless you're recontextualizing it to an argument or framing the debate.

If you’re a curious novice here are some general thoughts:

- Please time your own speeches. I won't.

- Talking to your partner is prep

- Don't just read your blocks. Understand them.

- Speed is fine

- Tech > truth. A dropped argument is a true argument but how much I weigh it depends on how well it’s warranted and impacted out. I am a very, very, very technical judge.

- Protecting the 2NR is important to me. New 2AR spins are fine but not new arguments

- Add me to the email chain: aidancng@gmail.com

- Debate is stressful. Have fun!

My debate email is sean.odom1821@gmail.com

If you want me to flow what you say then be clear

Debate is a performance so watch what you say/ do in rounds

I love k debate and have been debating for 4 years at North Star Academy

Pronouns are He/They

Don't be rude, anti-black, homophobic, sexist, transphobic, ableist, etc

Read anything you want as long as it makes sense and is not antiblack, homophobic, anything from above etc then I will likely vote on it.

K affs that go full resolution confuse me a lot because their solvency never aligns with the plan text. Explain to me how do we get from passing the plan to doing all this other stuff... if you are unable to do that I am likely to vote on presumption (as long as the negative gives me a good justification).

Although I do K debate I love a good T round. Education should not be your only impact, make fairness an internal link to education. Also make real world scenario impacts of how this debate translates to the real world and our ability to advocate for things in the world etc. Going for topic specific education isn't persuasive enough to me because anyone can win that their education is better and how we can have topic education in any other round, make it clear why this round is key if you are going to go for it.

Going FW and Cap against a K aff is pretty boring to me but if that's what you like then go for it.

I have a pet peeve when people say they get to weigh the aff because of fiat. Explain to me why fiat is good and how that gives you some form on offense on the flow.

My paradigm may seem like policy really isn't my thing and it kind of isn't but im willing to listen to a policy round or two. Extinction impacts need to make sense to me ie TimeFrame ( no one ever really has one).

I don't think presumption always flows neg, if the aff can explain how presumption flips aff then extra speaks to you.

Also please extend the aff REPEAT EXTEND THE AFF (give me an overview or something) and what the aff is because that makes presumption a lot more persuasive.

Speaker points: I think i give good speaks. I try to be nice but also be realistic with you. My speaks will start at 28.5 and the better you are as a speaker ( meaning ethos and argumentation) i will adjust speaks accordingly.I am willing to give out a 30 or two but will probably really give out the highest of a 29.8.

Have fun in rounds

Debate well and do not change what you read just because I am judging. These are just my thoughts on debate, but I try to leave all my opinions at the door and vote off the flow. I do not coach often anymore, so assume that I have no topic knowledge.

I debated at Mamaroneck for three years and coached the team during the criminal justice reform and water resources topics. I did grad school at Georgetown and work for the debate team.

People who have influenced how I judge and view debate: Ken Karas, Jake Lee, Rayeed Rahman, Jack Hightower, Cole Weese, Tess Lepelstat, Zach Zinober, David Trigaux, Brandon Kelley, Gabe Lewis

Put me on the email chain: eaorfanos1[at]gmail[dot]com AND mhsdebatedocs[at]googlegroups[dot]com. The email subject should be "Tournament + Year - Round # - Aff Team v. Neg Team" [Example: Mamaroneck 2023 - Round 1 - Mamaroneck RS v. Mamaroneck LS]

Please open source all your evidence after the debate.

Be respectful. Have fun.

general

Tech > Truth. Dropped arguments are true if they have a claim, warrant, and impact, you extend the argument, and you tell me why I should vote on it. It is not enough to say dropping the argument means you automatically win without extending and explaining. That being said, the threshold for explanation is low if the other team drops the argument.

I adjust speaker points based on the tournament, division, and quality of competition. I reward debaters who are strategic and creative.

Clipping will give you the lowest possible speaks and a loss. Please take this seriously as I have caught a couple debaters doing so and promptly reported the situation to tab and gave L 1 to the debater at fault.

Violence and threats of violence will also result in L 1 or lowest possible points. Don't test me on this.

specific

I love a good case debate. Show me that you did your research and prepared well. Evidence comparison and quality is very important. Do not just say their evidence is bad and your evidence is better without comparing warrants.

I am a good judge for extinction outweighs.

Impact turns are great when done well. However, I do not like wipeout (gross) or warming good (I work in environmental law). I will be annoyed if you run these arguments, but will still try to evaluate the round fairly. Obviously no racism good or similar arguments.

Heg good is a vibe.

5+ off vs K affs is also a vibe.

Big politics disadvantage fan.

I love well-researched advantage counterplans. My favorite strategies involve advantage counterplans and impact turns. I am also good for process counterplans, but it is always better if there is truth based on the topic lit that supports why the specific process is competitive with and applicable to the aff. Counterplans need a net benefit and a good explanation of solvency and competition. I like smart perm texts and expect good explanations of how the perm functions. I will not judge kick unless the 2NR tells me to. Honestly, I am uncomfortable with judge kick and would rather not have to do it, but will if the neg justifies it.

I used to like topicality debates, but I realized that they become unnecessarily difficult to evaluate when neither side does proper comparative work on the interpretation or impact level. Abuse must be substantiated, and the negative must have an offensive reason why the aff's model of debate is bad. You should have an alternative to plan text in a vacuum (this argument is kinda dumb). Legal precision, predictable limits, clash, and topic education are persuasive. I think that I am persuaded by reasonability more than most, but I think this is dependent on the violation and the topic. Please provide a case list.

Condo is probably good, but I can be persuaded otherwise if abuse is proved and there is an absurd amount of condo. I will vote for condo it is dropped, the 2nr is only defense on condo, or the aff is winning the argument on the flow.

For other theory, I am probably also neg leaning. Theory debates are not fun to resolve, so please do not make me evaluate a theory debate. A note for disclosure theory: I firmly believe that disclosure is good, and the bar is lowest on this theory argument for me to vote for it, but you must still extend the argument fully and answer your opponent's responses. Even if you opponent violates, you must make a complete argument and answer their arguments.

Great for T-USFG. Procedural fairness and clash are the most persuasive impacts. I love real and true arguments.

More negative teams should go for presumption against K Affs. Affirmative teams reading K Affs should provide a thorough explanation of aff solvency or at least tell me why the ballot is key if your aff does not necessarily need to have a specific solvency mechanism and instead relies on an endorsement of its method or thesis.

I am most familiar with the basic Ks like capitalism and security. I am not the best judge if you read high-theory Ks, and my least favorite debates have involved teams reading these kind of Ks and relying on blocks. Overviews and non-jargon tags are very helpful. Explanation is key. Specific links to the plan are always better. Despite my own argument preferences, I have voted for the K fairly often.

My ballot in clash rounds is usually based on framework or the perm. Negative teams going for the K in front of me should spend more time on framework than they normally would, unless it is an impact turn debate.

I am not the best judge for K v K, but I will try my best if I find myself in one of these debates. My ballot in these types of debates has mostly focused on aff vs alt solvency.

email is azqpeng@gmail.com, he/him/his.

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

LD stuff

I haven't judged many rounds. I've seen a decent amount of debates, but they are almost entirely "circuit"/"progressive" rounds.

I don't understand the difference between values and value criterion are, and I don't care to find out either. I find the idea of universalizable valuations and criteria to be pretty Eurocentric and worse, extraordinarily boring. I prioritize tech over truth, unless the "tech" is racist, sexist, antiqueer, or otherwise problematic

K=LARP>Theory>Phil>Tricks. I will listen to anything - that ranking is more based on my familiarity with arguments rather than any preference, I find skep and paradoxes to be interesting I just am saddened to say I'm not exactly an expert.

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

novices only need to read top level and general

top level

- I am a "flex" debater leaning heavier on the K side meaning planless is fine, framework is fine, do whatever you want and read whatever you want as long as you aren't racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/ableist/etc. and you do line-by-line. fairness is probably an impact but can be convinced otherwise, claim warrant impact, slow down online. good luck!

general

- I try to assign speaker points independently from wins/losses, don't take them too seriously. I try to average a 28.5 and most rounds I don't deviate more than 28.5+-0.5 for most speakers, inflating/deflating depending on which division you're in (novice vs JV). If you're outside that range, congratulations (or sorry)!!

- an argument is a claim warrant and an impact - "they dropped [xyz]" is a claim that requires warrants and impacts. This also means if you respond to an argument x with warrantless claim y, argument x is considered dropped.

- Probably doesn't matter for most novices but focus on your clarity and don't go over 250wpm. Online debate is tough and I base my decision off of what I've written on my flow. I'll say clear a few times then stop.

- Impact calculus/framing should be in most 2NR/2ARs even if a team is significantly farther ahead. In novice/JV debate this is especially true for topicality and framework (policy v k and kaff v policy).

- Open/Tag team cross-x is fine (but you're putting yourself at a strategic disadvantage if neither of you are prepping during 2AC/2NC CX)

- Time your own prep and speeches. I won't be overly strict about prep, but don't be mean and steal prep.

- I kind of hate when novices read stuff like ASPEC and paradoxes and go 10 off. I also kind of love it since that's what I did as a novice. Take that how you will.

- I am usually pretty expressive sometimes to a fault (but if I'm not, I'm probably just tired so don't worry)

- Cameras on unless you have a legitimate reason not to (don't need to tell me just honor code ig)

- sign post! Sign post!! SIGN POST!!!

policy v K

- I like. That being said, I've judged 5(?) novice/JV K rounds this year and voted against the K every single time, though a decent number of those rounds were won because the neg kept dropping tko arguments... so take that how you will. I probably know your K but you should explain it anyways.

- (especially for lex novices) If you go for the K, I want to see framework being written into my rfd. For lex novices, that should be obvious if you paid attention during lectures.

For woodward tournament 2nd years

- Framework is usually how these debates are decided so explain your DAs, do impact calculus, do impact defense, and whatnot - if you don't go for framework, explain a solvency mechanism for the alt and win root cause

- A K is not a uniqueness CP + nonunique DA so don't pretend it is

- Familiarity of K's ordered below. For most popular arguments in 3, i.e. Baudrillard and Deleuze, I have read a decent amount of literature but you probably know more. You need to explain everything regardless though.

1. Settlerism, antiblackness, abolition, marxism & related, psychoanalysis, security, legalism/CLS

2. Agamben/biopolitics, Homonationalism, Edelman, beef-o/Zizek/people like them (idk what their thing is called), logistics (ye im kinda contradicting 1 whatever), anthropocene/europocene/somethingpocene

3. Everything else

critical affirmation

T-USfg

- T/L: I read a critical affirmative and had many of these debates. I also went for framework in a plurality of my 2NRs v Kaffs. Personally, I went for fairness or movement-building on the neg, and I like a viable counterinterpretation + one or two DAs for the aff. Negatives should explain their impacts and optimally go on case in the 2NR, that also applies for the aff. I'm not a huge fan of 2nc's hiding a dozen tricks in their overview. I'm also not a fan of aff's reading 10 DAs that are basically the same thing. Neither of those will affect my evaluation of your arguments though they may reflect in your speaks (and I will be somewhat generous about cross-applications).

- Fairness is probably an impact but the negative has to prove it

- I find clash turns and truth-testing presumption arguments to be unpersuasive

kaff v k

- 50/50 if permutations are a thing in these debates

- do line-by-line please signpost and stay organized these can get messy quick

- I feel like ROB debating is kinda overrated

everything else

- I like presumption and it's almost always in my 2NRs v bad kaffs

- specific CAs/PICs are cool and rehighlightings are cooler

- heg da and reading random policy arguments, sure I guess?

policy v policy and also some theory

- i like topicality debates immensely

- lean neg on condo but yk tech over truth

- lean neg on most process cp theory if the cp is abusive you should win pdcp but again tech over truth

- perfcon probably isn't a voter but it's a good reason to sever links

- framing will probably decide my ballot in soft-left v hard-right da debates

- zero-risk is a thing and doing it successfully will result in much higher speaks

- durable fiat, good faith implementation, I can be persuaded these are either abusive or do not solve

- das are das idk does anyone have preferences? politics is alright but obviously topic/case specific DAs are better.

I have very limited knowledge of the water topic, I've been away from debate for many months.

I have four years of high school debate experience at BCC. I ran K's on aff and neg most of the time, but I enjoy a straight policy round. I will vote on anything as long as you prove that you win. The only potential bias I have towards any argument is that I do not like High Theory Baudrillard kind of stuff. I will still vote for arguments like that but you have to explain them and tell me what they actually do. I prefer K's that actually defend material advocacy to ones that just analyze, but again I vote for whatever wins.

I always allow open cross ex and I expect you to time your own prep but I will time as a backup.

I will happily vote because of a problematic statement made by an opponent (microaggressions, casual sexism, misgendering, that kind of stuff) but I do need that to be impacted out before I can vote on it.

The most important argument in the round is the framework. Tell me how I should decide who to vote for.

I always want to be on the chain.

ehwpipik@gmail.com

Hi y’all! My name’s Jailyne (she/her). Please add me to the email chain polancojailyne@gmail.com

I debated policy at Leon Goldstein HS in NYC for 3 years. I’m a senior at NYU but I don't debate there.

I haven't judged in a while. I haven't debated in a looooong time. I know the basics of policy and can follow a round, but don't expect me to remember jargon or topic-specific concepts. My brain is soupy.

I used to be more of a truth > tech person, but since I've been away from debate, I'm going to default to tech unless I'm told otherwise (that's your cue to tell me otherwise heh).

Here's a bullet-point list of other stuff you should know:

• I'm cool with open cross (I don't flow cross but you should still use it strategically)
• I have a higher threshold for DAs that have ridiculous impacts with no concrete link story
• Multiple CPs/alts annoy me
• I’ll vote on T if I have to, but I won't enjoy it
• Policy v Policy rounds are straightforward for me to judge, but that's only if both teams make it that way
• K rounds are also good when they’re explained clearly. I'm familiar with Cap and Gender/Queer args. I'm familiar with Baudrillard, Antiblackness/Afropess, and Foucault, but in the context of my coursework. Regardless, make sure to explain everything
• Go slow on tags and analytics
• Don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, etc. Duh.

If you have any specific questions, ask me before the round :)

Policy Debate

It is the responsibility of the debater to look at the paradigm before the start of each round and ask any clarifying questions. I will evaluate the round under the assumption it has been read regardless if you did it or not. I will not check to see if you read my paradigm, nor will I give warnings of any kind on anything related to my paradigm. If you don't abide by it you will reap what you sow I am tired of debaters ignoring it, and myself in a debate round my patience has officially run out.

1. I hate spreading slow down if you want me to flow your arguments if it is not on my flow, it is not a part of the round. It doesn't matter how well it is explained or extended. At best, depending on the speech, it will be a new argument or analytical argument and will be evaluated from then forth as such. I do want to be part of the email chain, my email is thehitman.310@gmail.com, note that just because I am part of the email chain does not mean I flow everything I read. I only flow what I hear so make sure I can hear your arguments. Beware I will be following along to make sure no one is cutting cards and I will call out teams for cutting cards so be sure to do things correctly. I will drop cards before the team and continued cutting will result in me stopping the round and contacting tab. Additionally, I will not yell clear, and I will not give time signals except to inform you your time is up. I find doing this splits my attention in a way that is unfair to the debater and often distracts debaters when called out. You will have my undivided attention.

2. I hate theory and have only voted on it once (current as of 4/12/22). In particular, I do not like disclosure theory and think it's a bogus argument, as I come from a time when there was no debate wiki; as a result, I am highly biased against this argument and don't advise running it in my round. Also, regardless of the argument, I prefer they be related to the topic. I am just as interested in the topic as I expect debaters to be. On that note, I am willing to listen to just about anything as long as they are well articulated and explained(See 3). I have heard some pretty wild arguments so anything new will be fun to hear. Know in order for me to vote on an argument, there needs to be an impact on it, and I need to know how we arrive at the impact. But I want to know more than A + B = C, I need to know the story of how we arrive at your impact and why they matter. I will not simply vote on a dropped argument unless there is no other way to vote and I need to make a decision, I consider this Judge intervention, and I hate doing this. You, as a debater, should be telling me how to vote I will have to deduct speaker points if I have to do any work for you. Keep this in mind during your rebuttals.

3. At the beginning of each round, I am a blank slate; think of me like a 6 or 7-year-old. Explain arguments to me as such. I only evaluate things said in a round; my own personal knowledge and opinion will not affect me. For example, if someone in a round says the sky is purple, reads evidence the sky is purple, and it goes uncontested, then the sky is purple. I believe this is important because I consider anything else judge's intervention which I am highly opposed to and, again, will result in a speaker point deduction. That being said, I default to a standard policy-making framework at the beginning of each round unless I am told otherwise. This also applies in the context of evidence, your interpretation of the evidence is law unless challenged. Once challenged, I will read the evidence and make a decision based on my understanding of the evidence and how it was challenged, this may result in my decision on an argument flipping, the evidence being disregarded, and/or the ballot being flipped.

4. Be aware I do keep track of Speech times, and Prep, and go solely by my timer. My timer counts down and will only stop when you say stop prep. Once you say "Stop prep" I expect you to be ready to send the file. I do not want to hear I need to copy arguments to a file to send as a part of an email chain. I will run prep for that. It should not take long to send a prepared file through the email chain, and I will wait until all participants receive the file before allowing the following speech to start but do not think you can abuse this I will restart prep if it takes an abnormal amount of time. Also extremely important to note I will not stop my timer for any reason once speech has started for any reason outside of extreme circumstances, and technical difficulties do not count. If you choose to stop your timer to resolve your issue before resuming, know that my time has not stopped and your speech time is being consumed. Also, aside from using your phone as a timer, I expect all debaters to not be on their phones during the round (this includes in between speeches and during prep). I think it is disrespectful to debate as an activity and to your opponent(s), and will deduct speaker points for it. Keeping that in mind, I will not evaluate any argument read off a phone, especially if you have a laptop in the round.

5. In JV and VCX, Cross-X is closed, period. NCX, I will only allow it if you ask. If you don't, it is closed. If you decide to have an open CX anyway, I will deduct speaker points.

6. Last but not least, be respectful to me and to each other, and I would appreciate a good show of sportsmanship at the beginning and end of each round. Any disrespect will result in a speaker point deduction on a per-incident basis. Continued disrespect will result in notifying tournament staff and lower-than-average speaker points. Although I do not expect it will go that far.

E-Debate:

A. Cameras must be on at all times. I will not flow teams with cameras off. Do not be surprised if you lose because I did not flow it you have been warned. I will not be lenient with this as I have been in the past.

B. Prep time will be run until speeches are received in the email chain. DO NOT assume you control the time as mentioned above. I am keeping time and will go by my timer. I WILL start the speech timer if you end prep AND THEN send the speech. I have zero tolerance for this, as teams consistently abuse this to steal prep. You should know how to send an email; it should not take long. If you are having genuine technical issues, let me know as the tournament has Tech Time, I can run that timer instead, otherwise, I will run speech time. DO NOT make light of this I am tired of being ignored as if I am not a part of a debate round.

C. Make sure I'm ready this should be common sense, but for some reason, I have to mention it. If you start a speech before I am ready, I will miss some arguments on my flow, and I will be highly annoyed. Your speaker points will reflect this, and you may lose the round as a result if it was a key argument that I did not flow.

D. Also, spreading on camera is a terrible idea, and I highly advise against it from a technical perspective and my general disdain for spreading. E-Debates are tricky enough with varying devices, internet speeds, and audio equipment affecting the quality of the stream, spreading in my experience is exceptionally disadvantageous, do so at your own risk.

E. REMINDER, I Control speech and prep timers, and speeches DO NOT stop because you are reading the wrong speech or can't find where you are at on a document; once the timer has started, it stays running until speech time is over. I do not know why I have to mention this, but recent judging experiences have told me it must be mentioned.

Lincoln-Douglas

I am very new to judging Lincoln-Douglas Debates. As such, I am relying on the debater to frame the debate for me, particularly in the rebuttal. Arguments should always be responsive to what your opponent is saying if you wish to win them. Explain how your arguments interact, and your line of argumentation means that line of argumentation weighs in your favor. In general, I think all arguments should be filtered through the lens of your values and criterion. That work must be done by the debater, not the judge. Additionally if what you say matches what is on my flow the chances of you winning are high.

I want to be on an email change, I ike to follow along as evidence is being read. My email is thehitman.310@gmail.com

Particularly in rebuttals make sure you are filtering aregumens through Value, Criterion and FW.

Hi, I'm Jeremy. I did policy debate in high school and now in college..

Some thoughts, not necessarily in any order:

--the 2nr/2ar should write my ballot. that requires judge instruction surrounding key framing questions and how those framing questions implicate my evaluation of the rest of the debate. the best rebuttal probably wins a framing arg at the top and then goes down the flow to apply it. Recently i've been persuaded by role of the judge arguments because they provide me with a epistemic/ethical position from which to adjudicate arguments on the flow. If you want me to do work for you in my decision, this is how, you just need to implicate it.

--If ur a 2n, probably don’t drop case. if you’re a 2a, punish the 2n for dropping case.

--hypothetical/universal models of debate probably don’t exist in so far as my ballot can not fiat them into existence, there is just the specific debate under adjudication and real existing debate practices within the concrete totality of the activity - whether that is true or not is ultimately up for y’all to prove/disprove - that means that in round abuse tends to be more persuasive than potential abuse because it means ur impact exists rather than being hypothetical

--The same logic folds true for other impact analysis. I tend to think that institutions/systems/entities, etc. have historical existence (for instance, "historical capitalism") which binds their coming-into-Being (past) to their Being (present). That is to say that violence isn't just an ethical choice in a vacuum, but something that accumulates through the reproduction of its existence over time and through space. that means that hypothetical impacts are probably less important than real-existing impacts since the future existence of hypothetical impacts is not certain and/or necessary. That being said, if you win your internal link chain is true, that the hypothetical impact outweighs, and that you solve it, i probably will vote for you absent some tricky framing argument you drop.

Topicality

• I like these debates. i don't judge a ton of them though, especially not on this topic.
• Fairness is probably the best impact if you're reading T, but you should have inroads/internal link turns on clash/edu because i'm willing to be persuaded that the inclusion of debatably (un)topical aff into the activity is good because it provides a unique type of education not accessed by existing affirmatives
• the current college topic has made me believe in subsets (do with that what you will)

Framework vs K affs

• hypothetical/universal models of debate probably don’t exist in so far as my ballot can not fiat them into existence, there is just the specific debate under adjudication and real existing debate practices within the concrete totality of the activity - whether that is true or not is ultimately up for y’all to prove/disprove - that means that in round abuse tends to be more persuasive than potential abuse because it means ur impact exists rather than being hypothetical
• I tend to think that FW is chosen ground vs many k affs unless its a new aff because many teams get by fine without reading fw
• Fairness is probably an impact, but its not necessarily the most important impact and is often just an internal link to other things (clash/education/etc.)
• The biggest issues that i have with 2nrs that go for fw is a) the lack of an external impact (people quit, debate dies - participation has decreased over the years, explain that impact flows ur way and how you solve it) and b) not explaining why debate is a valuable activity that should be preserved (this is where things like education, skills, and fun often become terminal impacts to the internal link of education) c) lack of defense (SSD or TVA) that absorbs the educational net benefits of the aff
• The biggest issue that i have with 2ars responding to fw is insufficient impact calculus - i will probably let you weigh ur aff's theory of power/understanding of the world vs fw, but you have to explain you impacts on the level of the activity and contextualize that as offense vs their reading of fw - does FW, particularly the invocation of procedural norms, insulate debate from a critique of its ideology? Are the content-neutral education/skills produced by their content agnostic model good?
• I don't really care whether you go for a C/I or an impact turn, but a mix of the two can be good i.e. a straight impact turn might leave you without defense, whereas a C/I means your vulnerable to the normative impacts of theory debates. I think that if you isolate a critique of the outcomes of their model, then provide an alternative model, you're probably in a good place.

K v K Debates

• Affs probably get a perm, theoretically (if the 1nr is 5 min of perm theory that would be pretty devastating) but whether the perm solves the links is up for debate.
• A good 2ar either goes for the perm with case, link turns, and alt DAs as Net benefits OR goes for case outweighs with a disad to the alternative
• A good 2nr has an impact which outweighs the aff with either an alt that resolves the aff impacts OR presumption
• you can probably win presumption with me in the back. I used to go for baudrillard a lot

DA/CP

I don't judge these debates very often and thus don't have any specific thoughts that aren't captured by stuff i said above. just win the flow.

Hi! My name is Tanisha Saxena (she/her) and I'm a 4th-year 2N varsity policy debater and a senior at Lexington High School.

Add me on the email chain: tanisha.saxena@gmail.com

(If you are really pressed for time, read the bold parts)

General:

- I'm okay with any reasonable argument (nothing oppressive, hurtful, etc.)

- My evaluation is based solely on what is said in the round, I will believe any claim (even ones that seem incorrect) unless someone says otherwise, I don't impose my own knowledge into the round decision

- Speaker points are based on how well you formulate arguments, and how courteous you are in round

- Tech issues are bound to happen in the virtual world. I won’t dock your speaks or prep for it unless the tournament forces me to

Preferences:

- Please be clear about your arguments, I will follow along with evidence but if you aren't clear when formulating the meaning and link chain of your arguments in cross ex and for extensions, I won't evaluate it as much

- If you read a K be very concise with the explanation of definitions, using buzzwords to confuse your opponent just makes for a weaker round and makes it harder for me to figure out what exactly I would be voting on

- Avoid new evidence in the 1AR, if possible. I can allow new evidence to be read but make it minimal. Try not to bring in new arguments, just strengthen your past ones.

- Write your ballot in the 2NR/2AR, make a laundry list of arguments I should vote for your team on and why. For anyone who hasn't done this before: look at all the off case and on case arguments made and say which flows you are winning on and why. Then, explain why I should value you over the other team. This usually takes like 30 secs at the end of the speech and gives you much more ethos

- Value clarity over speed when speaking. If nothing else then slow down on tags and make sure the tags explain the card well. The most important thing for a debate is that both parties actually understand what the other is saying. I won't stop you if you aren't clear but be aware that it forces me to either miss arguments or rely on what I /can/ hear in the meat of the card to figure out what you are trying to say, meaning your arguments won't be as solid in my mind

- Say which arguments you are answering in line-by-line. This makes it easier to flow and way easier for me to directly compare the clashing arguments

- If you're a novice, I get that you won't have much evidence of a lot of new arguments. In that case, I value reasonability and examples. If you are making a claim, use historical facts you know as proof or explain the possible warrants to best show that I should believe you.

I am a parent judge with several years of judging experience, who did policy debate in high school. I prefer slow to medium speeches, but faster is okay too, as long as you speak clearly.

Good luck!

'22 Finalist/top speaker, '23 sems. '24 NDT Doubles.

BPS' 23

Northwestern '27

email- souchetantonio@gmail.com.

tldr:

do whatever. I'm here for it. debate and have fun. i don't know this topic, like, at all, i.e spamming technical topic-specific terms will not get my ballot. do not pref me for policy vs policy, if i am in the back of that debate i will vote on vibes. policy vs k, k vs k, lets go.

Specifics:

getting my ballot:

tech vs truth...?

i of course, evaluate the flow first and foremost, BUT, i can be made to not care about the flow if given a specific reason otherwise. However, if your going to make me not care about large portions of the flow, your speech must approach this question with absolute precision. the formula for me is this, and you can write this pre-round: we are winning (X) (structural claim or something else), that shapes the way you antonio as a judge must evaluate the flow-- i/e , technical drops are no longer a consideration because (X) shapes the way you evaluate (Y), and then move on into what specific arguments/portions of the flow i should be ignoring. this is a lot of detailed work, however, if done well, is a cheat code to get me to care more about how big-picture things affect the smaller portions of the flow/make them irrelevant, instead of the vice-versa occuring.

Policy affs vs the kritik:

I get less persuased by a 2AR that spreads framework blocks pre-written by coaches at 400wpm, then I do by policy teams that try to specifically engage the K on its merits. I'm not saying framework is zero importance, but im saying you don't need this to win the debate like, at all. For example, Link you lose arguments are intuitively answered and beat by winning extinction outweighs, because, if extinction outweighs why should u lose for the link? Of course this is just preference, and I will flow the debate as it happens, BUT, you have a much higher chance of winning going for the aff is a good idea, indicting their theory/killing the alternative, destroying the links on its claims with both defensive/offensive arguments, and extinction outweighs.

Policy neg vs the K aff:

Framework makes more sense on the neg than the aff. Don't think that just cause i read k's i won't vote for framework, that's not true. Fairness,clash, etc. These are important functions vital to the preservation of the game. Make THEM MATTER. don't brush off the impact turns, actually answer them on their merits and show how your model can be better for them, and explain to me the intricacies of why your model is good not just for the topic, but for long-term skill development and contextualize those skills to the method of the 1AC. even if you aren't exactly on top of it, the fact that your encountering those impact turns with that level of care and detail is intuitive defense to aff arguments about your performance in-round being bad, because you striving to include the aff and show how your model can be beneficial for it shows me you care. idk im lowkey ranting but the problem with policy teams that lose going for framework is that they are winning on the tech, but then don't make 2NR choices and the 2NR sounds like the 2NC which lets the 2AR get away with murder. For example, if the aff drops identity negation, essentialization, and limits explosion, hone in on ONE of them and contextualize it to turning the aff, o/wing their impacts, and proving your model only can solve it. These are lowkey just random thoughts though so do what you want.

K affs vs Policy Neg:

Don't make life harder for yourself. In front of me, you don't necessarily have to go for a counter-interp to win, if you get me in a panel though, and the other two are like you need a C/I, just go for the 2-1 and get the win. For me though, an aff ballot that's like, hey, there's no such things as a model of debate, it's about each individual round and how the neg has intimiately produced (X) form of violence right here right now that is a proximate impact to your ballot that outweighs fairness coupled with arguments about why the aff is good is a winning 2AR. the way to think about framework in front of me is that, because T is not a rule but a norm, you don't have to win a model of debate. The reason why this is true is that the question Framework poses in my mind is not whether the aff is topical, but whether the aff should have been topical in the way the neg mandated it. To me, if the aff gives me a sufficient reason why the answer to that is no, i don't understand why the aff needs to win a counter-model. This is all to say that the main thing you need to focus in front of me is honing in on offense/defense paradigm, going for one impact turn, making it outweigh fairness/clash and proving the link to that impact turn + the aff is good to debate about as defense to their clash/limits offense, and you'll be in GREAT shape.

K neg vs Policy Aff:

Please do not read a k on the negative if you refuse to pick up a book. What i mean is that it's a bad look for you to be like "these conversations matter" and then when the aff asks basic question about your theory like "why is anti-blackness ontological", you fumble, cause then i'm like ok why should this matter when you literally don't even think it does so you lowkey gamify the kritik in the same way you criticize the aff for doing. Idk that's just ranty advice that doesn't really affect my decision but I'm just encouraging a specific style of engaging with the K. That being said, i think winning the theory of power only becomes important when you tell me what it exactly it mean for how i evaluate things like extinction, the link debate, and framework. BUT, it's super persuasive when you do those things. IDK what to say about the kritik. I love it, i enjoy it, it's what's kept me in debate. Honor the legacy of great k debaters in the past, and engage the aff with what you know about your theory. The k isn't a game, especially when it has something to do with identity. We are talking about real issues here, so make sure to have a certain level of care when you think, write, and speak on these things.

EKSUEN@GMAIL.COM

School affiliation: Leon M. Goldstein HS

1) Hard work pays off and debate is about hard work. Debate well and be nice.

2)

T: Show violation and standards; will for topicality against non topical apps

DA: Show uniqueness(UQ), link(L), and impact

CP: show net benefit and prove how they solve the aff. Type of CP.

K: Show link, impact and alt.

FW: any kind is fine to me.

3) If you have extra prep time left, I will award you higher speaker points.

4) Do not be blatantly racist, homophobic, sexist or are in any other way discriminatory in the debate space.

Good luck to all.