Bellarmine ‘21

Last Updated: December 5, 2020

Email: andrew.almeida21@bcp.org – put me on the chain, and format the subject line with the tournament name, round number, aff team, and neg team.

Experience: I have debated policy at Bellarmine College Preparatory as a 2A for two years, seeing appearances at both slow and fast tournaments. In general I go for policy strategies (heg aff, politics DA, FW, etc.)

For Everyone Debating in the Rhetoric Tournament today, don't bother reading most of my paradigm you won't have to worry about it. The less prep you use, the more heg you look and I will probably reward your speaks. (Doesn't mean you shouldn't use prep if you need to, just don't use it if you don't need to). If you want to see arguments I like, feel free to read the slow section. Most of that stuff is just my thought process when I evaluate a debate and you don't need to feel obligated to read it. Just be nice and you'll get good speaks

Slow:

T: In general, I'm pretty lenient on T, definitely more so than I have any right to be. Just don't read really bad T-args and you'll probably be fine.

Harms: In general, I think this stock issue shouldn't ever directly be a voter. Not to say that this stock issue isn't important, but I think the word "substantial" in the resolution basically makes the same argument (albeit worse).

I think this stock issue is most important for the affirmative, as this is their offense. A good tactic, especially if the negative team hasn't read any offensive arguments, is to weigh your harms with absolutely no risk. IE, there is absolutely no reason to not pass the plan.

On neg, I think if their harms are not "intrinsic", or are clearly not directly going to be solved by the plan, it opens up some very good arguments on solvency for later in the round. If the aff has harms that are very clearly true, it is honestly not even worth contesting them as it wastes time.

Inherency: This stock issue is definitely the most underrated and it can win a lot of rounds if utilized correctly.

For starters, the question of this stock issue is effectively the answer to the question "If the plan is so good, why hasn't it been passed yet?" I think any team who frames this question as a burden for the aff to meet can definitely win on this stock issue.

Teams who read affs that are clearly not inherent, or do not have a clear barrier preventing their plan from being passed, beware. I definitely find this sort of framing convincing, and I will vote on it if push comes to shove.

Solvency: On Solvency I'm pretty receptive to framing args, however I think as a general rule, you should read some offense (DAs) alongside it. Some specific args and my opinions on them

Framing: I'm fine with the framing that the aff must "solve for all of their harms" in order to win the debate. In general, I would try to avoid making the burden you set under solvency ridiculously high because you will look pretty unreasonable to the judge and the aff will have an easier time responding to it. That said, I would still set a high burden on the aff to solve for all their harms. Unless orchestrated really well, I don't think this replaces offense.

Circumvention: In general, I think these args are pretty bad. Main reason is because the resolution asks the question of "should" not "would". Due to affirmatives needing to be structurally inherent, IE never passed, there has to be some barrier preventing it from being passed. Literally every aff that is inherent would lose to this argument. Overall just stating what I said above is enough for me on these args.

Disadvantage: For the negative, in my opinion, this is probably the most important stock issue.

This is the only way for the neg to directly garner offense against the plan. I think the most important thing on the DA is adding a risk if the plan fails under any other stock issue. Specifically, the only real consequence to the plan under solvency without a DA is "maybe it won't be as good as we thought". A DA means that the world is worse off if the plan is passed.

Things I don't like to see as DAs

1. Solvency arguments in disguise

2. Dropped arguments (Yes I've seen people actually say this)

Circuit:

Tech over truth: Overall, I'll try to be accommodating with how you want to debate. Obviously I am not immune from biases, but I'll try to put them aside when evaluating rounds.

One thing to clarify here: one dropped argument doesn't equal an automatic win for either team. I need to see expansion on those dropped arguments in later speeches and a clear explanation as to why that dropped argument wins you the debate. Don't just get up and state the other team dropped arguments. Most debates only break down into a few key issues.

Framework and K Affs: I'll be quite honest here and say I'm not really that well-versed in critical literature, especially for more vague authors. My main strategies were mainly framework and maybe something like Cap. Overall, I generally assume debates are better when the affirmative team reads and defends a topical plan text, however, I can be persuaded by aff args on FW as well. If you are wondering where to pref me, I obviously don't just vote down Ks, but I may carry some intrinsic bias towards neg args. Judges who are well versed in the lit and lack any ideological biases will probably be better choices.

"'Clash of civilizations' debates, annoyingly, always seem to invite the most amount of judge intervention. I always appreciated it when judges were upfront with their thoughts on framework, so the below section is rather lengthy.

Procedural fairness is not a particularly compelling terminal impact to framework in front of me. While debate is certainly a game, it also certainly has other pedagogical benefits beyond providing entertainment value for two hours, and it’s unclear to me why maintaining fairness in the abstract comes before the various benefits and drawbacks associated with resolutional debate. Defenses of fairness tend to collapse down into sophistry like “fairness is an intrinsic good” and rely upon the judge to fill in the blanks with their own beliefs regarding the value of debate. While it’s true that fairness is intrinsic to a fundamentally competitive activity, I don’t know why that means it’s “good” or why I should automatically privilege it over other impacts advanced by the aff or neg. In other words, while I agree with DHeidt’s assertion that “saying fairness is an internal link to other values is like saying nuclear war is an internal link to death,” unlike my implicit assumption that death is bad, I won’t enter the room with the presumption that fair debate is worth preserving. You still need an external impact attached to that. At that point, you’re better off bypassing the attempt to bestow upon fairness some mystical “procedural” value and instead forwarding external defenses of the educational value associated with resolutional stasis, which (hopefully) shouldn’t be difficult to accomplish.

Winning fairness as a terminal impact in and of itself, to me, requires two things: a) a lack of additional standards to framework beyond fairness and b) substantial mitigation to aff claims that debate affects our subjectivities, pedagogical experience, or education in some manner. Introducing external standards to framework beyond procedural fairness necessitates conceding the implicit claim that debate possesses educational implications as well, at which point it becomes fairly simple for the aff to impact turn whatever education the neg’s model of debate produces. Confining the debate to purely a question of fairness enables the neg to potentially “no link” large swaths of aff offense by arguing that debate doesn’t have any singular or predictable impact on our subjectivities, but rather has intrinsic value as a game that we’ve all chosen to partake in and in which we’ve subscribed to particular norms – like the expectation that the judge fairly and technically adjudicate arguments. Pursuing this route obviously limits the scope of your external offense, but it also substantially undercuts most aff offense." (T. Vergho's paradigm)

K v K debates: I don’t expect I’ll be judging many of these. Judge instruction is paramount. I can go either way on whether planless affs get a permutation.

Ks- I think the best strat against Ks is to go full offense mode on them. Specifically, if you can, impact turning all their offense. You should try and leverage your impacts and explain why their theory (mindset) is bad. Link turns are good too, but be careful with those as they are harder to get away with.

I am familiar with the basics: Security, Neolib, Agamben, legalism, foucalt, etc. however for any hyper specific Ks, I will definitely need a clear thesis as soon as possible. If it means sacrificing nuance, you might as well do it.

In general, unless the aff concedes some huge technical arg, the aff will get to weigh it's impacts against the K. Most Fw on the neg just sorta asserts the judge should evaluate the round as some sort of "critical intellectual" without explaining how the judge should evaluate the round other than through cost-benefit analysis.

Advice for teams running Ks - Read links contextualized to the 1AC. Specifically, links based in presumptions made by the 1AC. As long as you have a reasonable/competitive alt, you should be fine.

Alts: A LOT of alts are either super vague or just don't do anything. I think the aff definitely should not just let the neg get away with fiating away entire structures/systems out of existence. If the aff doesn't say anything though, who am I to judge?

Overall, large metaphysical/ontological claims about how the whole world operates have a high burden of proof for that team to meet, especially if contested.

Also, detailed roadmaps are especially helpful, especially if you are reading a long OV.

Topicality (against policy affs): Between two interpretations of relatively equal quality, I’m a fairly good judge for the neg in topicality debates. I am definitely more willing to vote on T, as I've run some garbage T args before. I think there are two things you'd need to show to win T on the neg.

1. Good evidence quality and good contextualization in-round as to why I should prefer your interpretation/why their interp is bad. To do this, I think you should not only find some way to indict their evidence, but should also provide a thorough case list that fits under their interp.

2. An explanation of the impacts in-round. Just stating "vote neg for limits and ground" is not enough, you need to list specific args you lose access to/examples of how it has affected round . This will obviously be harder to do the worse your interp is. In general, the only real impacts to T, in my opinion, are limits and ground. I am willing to hear out new impacts, but it will be hard to sway me on them.

Overall, I'm pretty generous to the neg on T if there is a reasonable case to be made the aff isn't topical.

Oh yeah....reasonability.

Reasonability: I think there is honestly not that large of a distinction between competing interps and reasonabilty, it just shifts the burden of meeting the "best interpretation" to a "good interpretation". I don't think this is a bad argument, and I can vote either way on this. In general, the arguments I find most convincing for reasonability (other than the generic "goalposting") are explanations as to how competing interps leads to substance crowd out + an explanation as to how it weakens predictability.

DAs: Pretty good on these. Specific links and the right spin are all I really need to see on these.

"Zero-risk"- In general I assume there is always some possibility of the DA (unless there are thumpers/the DA literally makes no sense), despite this arg probably being true

"UQ controls the direction of the link"- This is a meaningless argument that doesn't bolster link defense effectively. A non-UQ claim and a no-link claim equally undercut the probability that a DA will happen, so in general this arg is redundant.

Turns case arguments should be executed as high up the internal link chain as possible. Even if the aff doesn’t explicitly answer “famine turns the case because it produces international instability that prompts proliferation,” it doesn’t really matter because all the other uniqueness/link/internal defense on the DA mitigates the neg’s access to this argument.

Soft left affs with long framing contentions are unpersuasive largely because they fail to present a coherent alternative model for risk assessment. There are many valid criticisms of debate’s traditional utilitarian framework, which prioritizes reaching extinction above all else; however, generic appeals to “probability first” or “long internal link chains are evil” as a substitute for technical debating present just as many flaws. Probability matters, magnitude matters, and if you’re doing your job on the DA you’ve probably reduced its risk enough that the framing debate becomes a moot point.

Impact turn debates are great, but often become messy due to the nature of these debates. Keep the flow organized by the relevant sections of the debate. Teams that win impact turn debates often do so by controlling one or two big-picture issues and using those to frame large parts of the flow.

CP’s: I tend to err aff on competition questions. If the counterplan could theoretically fiat a possible manifestation of the plan, I view the counterplan as questionably competitive at best. In practice, this excludes most agent CP’s if the aff doesn’t specify an actor in CX, but alternative sources of competition predicated on normal means or solvency advocates seem overly regressive. ASPEC can be used to generate competition, but unless dropped I doubt I’d ever vote on it as an independent voting issue.

Offense-defense applies to the link to the net benefit. If the counterplan links less than either the aff or the perm, in the absence of a solvency deficit that outweighs the residual link differential I’m likely to vote neg because the counterplan is the least risky option.

Smart perms other than “perm do both” and “perm do the counterplan” can often derail most complex counterplan strategies.

I will default to kicking the CP if neither side brings it up. If equally debated, I’ll likely err affirmative on judge kick. Don’t wait until the last speeches to make judge kick arguments.

Presumption flips aff in the presence of a CP.

Counterplans don’t necessarily need solvency advocates if it’s obvious how they solve an advantage or internal link.

Theory: I’m somewhat easily persuaded that counterplans which could result in fiating the plan’s action are theoretically illegitimate. As such, I’m aff-leaning on consult, conditions, delay, and other generic counterplans that compete off immediacy and certainty. I also think multi-actor (not multi-branch) counterplans are illegitimate. Anything other than conditionality is a reason to reject the argument, not the team.

Neg-leaning on PIC’s, multi-plank CP’s, international fiat, self-restraint/non-enforcement, states, and generic “topic” counterplans like parole. 2NC CP’s are good in response to new 2AC offense. Agent CP’s are theoretically legitimate but questionably competitive. Most theory objections suffer from some degree of arbitrariness; aff teams should compensate by writing their violations to be as clear and elegant as possible (e.g. “counterplans must be policies” or “counterplans should never be able to fiat the plan”).

Conditionality is good. 2 is safe, 3 is probably okay, and any more than that is pushing it. Perhaps that’s an arbitrary brightline, but it seems reasonable based on community standards. That being said, aff teams should pick a stable interpretation like dispositionality for the purposes of theory debates to avoid neg arguments about the minimal differential between both sides’ offense.

On all theory args there is at least a reasonable threshold for proving in round abuse.

i'm hungry

be nice and be cool in cx

Just dont drop any args and you should be fine. Also, overview, under view and framing.

for LD -

all cards must carded on the card (or off the card)

voter vote, winners win, losers sometimes sneak out the back door (or front)

every triple turn makes your offence buff (or not)

any questions feel free to ask

do tell me what to vote on because i have no clue

---Bellarmine Rhetoric Policy Debate Tournament---

Focus on your story. Your story is more important than any individual line-by-line argument. Don't get lost in the weeds, look at the big picture.

finbarr.donovan22@bcp.org : add me onto the email chain if there is one : he/him

-----

I'm in my third year of policy at Bellarmine College Prep.

Be confident and respectful. If you take anything from this paradigm, it's that you should be sportsmanlike. I don't mean to say you aren't allowed to make fun of someone's argument, I mean to say that any kind of personal attack on another debater and/or being super aggressive in cross-ex isn't cool with me.

I'm tabula rasa. As long as you explain your arguments clearly and have a claim-warrant-impact structure I'll follow them. I'll vote purely on the arguments that were made during the debate.

For stock issue policy rounds, be sure to frame the debate for me. (i.e., write my ballot for me - what does a team need to prove to win the debate? One stock issue or plan bad idea? etc.)

Oh, and have fun! There's not much that's worse than a debate where both teams don't want to be there.

Treat me like I am a parent, I can follow along with any argument you want to make, just have a good explanation of your argument and why it matters because if I cant understand your argument then I cant vote for it, have some weighting as to why your argument means you should win the debate

Make sure to be kind to each other in round!

I was in elims of the TOC, but don't mistake that for any kind of expertise. I'm as good at flowing as a fish is at climbing trees. I also don't read.

Here's my deal:

1. Great case debate - Who needs evidence when you've got a mind? As long as you engage and make good, logical arguments on case, you're golden. In fact, you could even nullify an extinction impact if you make it work. The dinosaurs are waiting.

2. Clash - Let's just talk, okay? I don't need a generic block of words thrown at me. Engage with your opponent's arguments. I mean, really, who needs evidence when you're logical? It's like having a receipt for a donut.

3. Slow debate - We're not in a rap battle. I don't need speed. I need substance. I don't care if you're the Usain Bolt of debate; just slow down and let's have a rigorous conversation about the aff plan.

Now, here are some circuit debate norms that make as much sense to me as a fish on a bicycle:

1. Dropped arguments aren't true - I've defeated teams who crushed us on content because they missed the hidden topicality shell between DA links. I mean, who agreed that debates should be judged like this?

2. Kritiks are wack - I could list my reasons, but I'll keep it brief. For one, crazy alt fiat is just that - crazy. Debate should be about possible solutions, not fantasy. Also, uniqueness - if I'm skeptical of alts, the K seems like a non-unique DA. And lastly, links - they're like those puzzles with missing pieces.

3. Judge intervention is good - Yes, I said it. If I don't like your argument, it's probably not going to get my vote. This is because I want you pursuing good arguments, not just the ones the other team undercovers. You're not going to persuade me with a stale argument any more than a stale donut.

So, there you have it. My approach to debate is like my approach to cooking - I don't do it by the book. So, let's get this show on the road!

Bellarmine College Preparatory - Class of 2022

Pronouns: he/him

Please include me on the email chain: andre.gaviola22@bcp.org

I currently participate in expository/informative speaking as well as policy debate. I have competed in both lay and circuit settings, and I am comfortable with any style(s) of argumentation so long as they are explained clearly.

bellarmine '22

dartmouth '26

Please add this email to the chain:

ramgorthi@gmail.com

For Nationals:

Congratulations on making it to Nationals! It's a huge accomplishment and you should be very proud of it.

If I'm judging you in a debate, consider adapting your debate style (speed, argument type, speech structure, phrasing) to the other judges on the panel. You can assume I will understand most arguments you might want to read at any speed you want to read them at. However, if you choose to make the debate inaccessible for your opponents, that would be disappointing.

My approach to judging policy debate is as a policymaker considering implementing the affirmative through the United States federal government. I could be persuaded to view the debate through an alternative framework.

At the time of writing this, I don't have any experience judging debates on the 23-24 fiscal redistribution topic. I plan to gain a basic competency of the core disagreements on this topic before judging, and will update this paradigm when that happens.

My views are aligned with Adarsh Nallapa's.

Bellarmine '21

Harvard '25

Assistant coach for Bellarmine.

Email for the chain: ahiremath35@gmail.com. It would be great if you could make the subject "Year -- Tournament -- Round # -- Aff Team vs Neg Team."

Some people who have heavily influenced my views on debate: Surya Midha, Tyler Vergho, Debnil Sur, Dhruv Sudesh, Rafael Pierry, and Anirudh Prabhu. Feel free to check out any of their paradigms too.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Berkeley Tournament '24 Update
- I haven't judged any rounds on the topic. Don't assume I know any topic specific jargon or accept any community consensus.

- Beliefs about AI: AGI is inevitable, actors like OpenAI are most likely to achieve AGI, it is possible to regulate AI, most open source AI is good, and misaligned AGI can pose an existential risk.

- I despise the trend of ad hominem attacks in debates.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

General thoughts

- I don't care what you read. While my partner Surya and I mostly read policy arguments, we occasionally read K affs and even went for the Baudrillard K in our TOC bubble round.

- Rebuttals should acknowledge and address the weakest parts of your own arguments. Reduce the debate to 2-3 core issues and clearly explain why winning those issues mean you have already won the debate.

- Hard numbering arguments is beautiful and makes it very easy to flow the debate. "One, two, three" > "first, second, third."

- Answer arguments in the order presented.

- Don't waste time calling arguments "terrible" or "stupid" or anything like that. Just directly explain the reason why the argument is poor.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

FW

- Clash, fairness, and movements can all be great impacts. If you go for fairness, lean into the "debate is a game" framing. If you go for movements / skills, explain why that solves their offense better.

- Please don't just read blocks straight down. Contextualize as much as possible, wherever possible. The first lines of your 2NC/2NR overview should point out a central problem in the aff construction or strategy.

- Impact comparison is crucial, especially in final rebuttals.

- I generally vote for the team that is more offensive in these debates.

- Counter-interpretations need to have a somewhat clear caselist. Negative teams should make fun of counter-interpretations that don't.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

CP

- Send all perm texts in the 2AC.

- Textual and functional competition are great standards to hold CP's to. 2A's should also be prepared to go for textually non-intrinsic but functionally intrinsic perms.

- Counterplans can solve for an advantage's internal links or an advantage's impacts. The best CP's do both.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

K

- The negative only gets to weigh the impacts of their links. How large the impacts are is up for debate.

- I don't have great background knowledge on the majority of these literature bases, so please be clear when explaining dense concepts. If I can't understand your arguments then I won't vote for you.

- 2A's should be mindful of what they need to win given 2NR pivots. They kick the alt? Winning framework basically means you auto-win the debate. They go for the alt? Winning a substantial DA to the alt can help you in multiple areas of the debate.

- Pick 1-2 pieces of offense on the framework debate and explain them well in the final rebuttals. These debates get muddled when either side tries to do too much.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

T

- Predictable limits are more important than limits for the sake of limits.

- Interpretations need to have a clear intent to exclude, otherwise the affirmative will have a much easier time winning "we meet." Surya's paradigm has a great explanation of this.

- Plan text in a vacuum is a better standard than most people give it credit for. If the alternative to plan text in a vacuum justifies the negative procuring violations from non-underlined portions of cards, then the aff should make fun of that.

- The 2AR/2NR should isolate 1-2 pieces of offense, explain why they outweigh, and explain why they solve/precede the other team's offense.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Theory

- Please be as slow as possible.

- Things that are good: conditionality, 2NC CP's, kicking planks, CP's without a solvency advocate.

- Things that are bad: international fiat, multi-level / multi-actor fiat.

- Theoretical objections other than conditionality can be made into better substantive arguments. A CP doesn't have a solvency advocate? Probably means your deficit is more credible. A CP uses an archaic process to establish a precedent? Probably means the perm shields.

Hi!
I'm Aakash Jain, I'm currently a senior at Bellarmine College Prep. I've participated in Policy debate at all levels, from parents to circuit tournaments, Congressional Debate, and have done a little bit of public forum debate. I've also done Original Advocacy speech.

If you are a Rhetoric freshman, please ignore this completely - just do what Mr. Langerman/Cleary has taught you and you'll be fine.

Generally, I'm fine with anything in your rounds, but make sure to be clear and courteous throughout the debate.

Telling me how I should vote through the debate is really the gold standard of being an effective debater, please do.

In the rounds I will be judging, novice rounds, I would generally recommend not reading Kritikal arguments or talking particularly quickly. Instead, you should stick to counterplans, disadvantages, or best of all stock issues. I personally have mainly read kritikal arguments, so I'm fine with them if you read them well.

If I can't understand your speaking in the round, I'll say clear once.

CSU LONG BEACH JACK HOWE 2022 UPDATE: I haven't judged circuit debate since 2017 so I'm out of practice. If you have me in the back of the room, please go slower - ESPECIALLY ON ANALYTICS. I won't be able to understand you if you fully spread your pre-written analytic blocks, so please slow down. I'm the head director for Bellarmine's program so I spend most of my time these days coaching speech and slow debate. 

FOR STATE & NATIONALS: If I am judging you in debate at the CHSSA State tournament or NSDA Nationals, please do not treat me as a purely circuit judge, especially if I'm on a panel with other judges who are clearly not circuit-oriented. I believe that those tournaments are excellent forums for a type of debate that prioritizes judge adaptation and a slower, more lay style of debate. So, do not feel you have to go fast to try to cater to me. At these tournaments, I'll hold you to much higher standards in terms of the evidence quality, the specificity of the link, and the logical coherence of your positions. I will love you if you successfully criticize contrived internal link scenarios, the squirelly/shady arguments, and blippy line-by-line analysis in your CXs and speeches.

How to get high speaker points and win my ballot:

My greatest frustrations with the vast majority of debate rounds are two-fold: 1) a lack of comparative engagement with the other team's arguments and 2) a lack of well-impacted analysis of why your arguments are reasons I should vote for you. Speech docs seem to exacerbate both of these problems, as teams rely on reading pre-written blocks. More and more, I feel a sense of impending existential dread as I realize that nothing meaningful in the debate round is going to happen until the 2NR and 2AR and that everything else is a game of seeing which issues get undercovered. Let me break down my two biggest frustrations:

1) comparative analysis - I understand that you have beautifully constructed blocks to certain arguments but often times, those blocks are not directly responsive to the other team's argument, and so I'm left with back-and-forth disputes with no clear framework of how to resolve them. The quickest way to get good speaker points with me is to listen critically to the warrants of the other team's arguments and give comparative analysis that explains why your warrants are superior.

2) impacting important arguments - Though debaters implicitly understand the importance of impact calc, they often think about it incorrectly. Meaningful impact calc isn't exclusively about magnitude, timeframe, and probability. That's rarely how rounds are resolved. That type of impact calc presupposes that you're ahead on the other parts of the flow. The best impact calc explains why the arguments that you're ahead on in the round are reasons to vote for you and why those arguments are more important than the other teams arguments. Often times, teams get frustrated that a dropped argument didn't warrant an immediate vote for their team. If a dropped argument is not adequately impacted and framed, and the other team has more compelling offense, then most rational judges will still not vote for you. I see this most often in framework debates against identity politics affirmatives. The framework debaters are often confused how they lost the round, despite being "ahead" on some line-by-line issues. However, in those debates, the identity politics team is often far ahead in terms of impacts and framing why those impacts outweigh any of the line-by-line framework arguments. So, to put it simply, explain why your arguments matter.

Finally, please go slower on theory than you would with other judges - I debated in high school and coach policy debate now, but I also direct a program that coaches students in speech (IE) and lay debate, so I don't watch 20+ fast rounds a year, like many judges on the circuit.

My experience: I debated in high school for Bellarmine College Prep (San Jose, CA) from 2007-2011 and went to Michigan 7-week during that time but did not debate in college -- so I was out of the circuit for a couple of years when identity politics K and planless affs became popular. Now, I'm a coach at Bellarmine. I don't judge much on the circuit now that I direct Bellarmine's S&D program. I would recommend going a bit slower, especially on theory arguments, if you want to make sure that I'm able to flow everything. That also means that you should explain your warrants and arguments more than you might for other judges.

Policy
The more case-specific you are, the better. Far too many teams do not engage with case in a substantive way. Also, don't be afraid to make analytics – smart, true analytics hold a lot of sway with me, and it’s very strategic to have them in the 1NC and 2AC. If I see that you’re actually engaging the debate and critically thinking instead of just reading blocks and ignoring what the other team said I will be much more willing to give you higher speaks. That said:

Topicality – you must do a good job of explaining your interpretation and why it’s good for debate (or why allowing the aff to be included in the topic is bad for the topic), as well as the terminal impacts to your claims about predictability and fairness and education, etc. I generally err towards interpretations that are the best for the literature base of a topic -- for substantive, deep debates at the core of the resolution -- rather than arbitrary lines which found their entire argument on generic disad link distinctions. Good topicality debates should be grounded in excellent evidence (T- subs. w/o material qualifications is a good example of a violation that does not fulfill this criteria).

DA – I love strategies that are either CP/DA or even DA/case. As a 1N/2A, I took the DA a lot in the 1NR and loved doing 2ARs against the DA. Generic DAs are okay, but I’m going to like you a lot more if you’re reading a tight case-specific DA that has good, specific links and internal links.

CP – don't be abusive or shady, otherwise I'll have sympathy for the aff on theory args.

Case – I LOVE case and I think it’s totally viable to win a debate with a simple strategy like case-DA. Case is what these sorts of debate SHOULD be about. Don’t let the 2A get away with the entirety of case and you have to defend on a CP to win! Make them defend the plan. I could even be persuaded to vote on presumption.

K debates
I'm down with Ks. I'm familiar with much of the K lit - but take time to explain the core thesis of the K in the neg block (or 2ac) and especially the link story. Contrived and jargon-filled tags that lack substance but just try to sound smart / catch the other team off guard is a huge pet peeve of mine. For the aff, definitely poke fun of the link, as well as the alt - if the K cannot explain an articulate non-generic formulation of these parts of the debate, it'll be hard for me to vote for the kritik. I'm fairly knowledgeable with regards to the K literature base, particularly Foucault, Nietzsche, Bataille, Marx, critical IR, but that means I hold kritiks to a high standard of explanation. If you are reading some variation on Lacan, for instance, you'd better understand exactly what kind of argument you're making. There are many points in fast debate rounds when I feel an impending sense of existential dread but one of the more egregious examples of such moments occurs when teams completely and utterly bastardize a brilliant philosopher with a kritik and have no idea what that author's argument actually is.

Also, please do not read framework at the same pace that you would read a card. Especially when you are talking about the role of the ballot, slow down a little.

Identity debates
I'm open to debates on identity politics. Again, I didn't debate when these types of arguments were gaining currency so I don't have as much familiarity but I'm open-minded about them. I do believe they force debaters to grapple with ideas that are ultimately good for the community to confront. The most important thing for FW debaters in these situations is to not just focus on the line-by-line. In these sorts of debates, the identity politics teams typically win through in-depth overviews that impact turn essentially everything on the line-by-line. You HAVE to respond to their top-level impact claims - it's hard to pull the trigger in this type of round on dropped argument on the line-by-line if you haven't been addressing the framing of the debate itself.

If you have more specific questions, please ask me before the round.

Email - benmanens@gmail.com - put me on the chain

General thoughts:

1) Tech over truth - I like certain arguments and dislike others. This does not change how I evaluate them in the context of a debate and my ideological predispositions are easily overcome by outdebating the other team. That being said, while adapting to my argumentative preferences will not affect my likelihood to vote for you, it may improve the quality of my judging for both sides absent clear explanation and judge instruction.

1b) Dropped arguments are true, but only so long as they are attached to a claim, warrant, and impact. My threshold for what constitutes those three components is low if left unanswered.

2) I have near zero experience with the topic. Err on the side of overexplaining rather than underexplaining.

3) I flow on paper, and have never been very neat. I will reward good signposting* and clear judge instruction that frontloads the most important arguments in the debate.

*From Surya Midha's paradigm: "Number everything. 'One, two, three' is preferable to 'first, second, third.' If your gripe with numbering is that it 'interrupts the flow of your speech,' you have incidentally just articulated the most compelling justification for the practice."

4) Final rebuttals should identify the most important issues in the debate and coherently flesh them out. 2NRs and 2ARs too often get lost in the weeds of line by line and forget to extend complete arguments and/or instruct the judge on why the debate so far should lead them to a decision one way or the other.

5) I flow CX. It's a lost art. You can go ahead and waffle or use it as prep time, but smart, well-thought out CX strategies that impact the course of the debate will be rewarded.

Topicality:

1) I default to competing interps, but have recently been more and more open to reasonability if the aff invests time in fleshing it out and making it a part of their strategy. I'm most compelled by aff explanations that use reasonability to weigh substance crowdout as offense against whatever the negative goes for.

2) Reading a piece of evidence that defines a word in the resolution is a very basic threshold for a T interp, but one that less and less T interps are meeting. If you have to spin what the words in your interp card say, you're probably stretching it. Not only does it make it a nightmare to watch, it should, if executed properly, make it very easy for the aff to win on predictability.

3) I've gone back and forth on plan text in a vacuum - I lean neg but oftentimes teams are underprepared for a 2A bold enough to go all-in on the argument.

4) It is the negative burden to establish a violation. Please don't make your 1NC shell say "Interp: [x must do y], Violation: they don't."

Theory and Competition:

1) Condo can (or can not) be a voting issue, everything else is a reason to reject the argument. I dislike that a 15 second argument in the 1AR can be blown up to a 5-minute 2AR, and will hold the line on egregious overextrapolation.

2) I'll vote for dropped ASPEC (and other arguments of the sort), but I will not be happy doing so. Don't drop it.

3) Slightly neg-leaning on condo and process CPs, solidly neg-leaning on PICs, multiplank, agent, solvency advocate, and concon theory, solidly aff-leaning on delay and international fiat. Still, dropped arguments are true, and I will happily vote on conceded or undercovered pieces of offense.

4) The 2NC is a constructive, 1NR is not.

5) You will be best served by ditching whichever blocks you stole from a college round to spread at top speed and instead collapsing down to your best one or two pieces of offense, fleshing that out, and comparing it to your opponent's main piece of offense.

6) I'll default to judgekick unless debated out.

7) I generally prefer competition over theory, but theory bolsters whatever arguments you make about competition. Positional competition is a hard sell, limited intrinsicness, PDCP, and all the other typical process CP perms can go either way. It is the neg burden to establish competition.

Counterplans:

1) Sufficiency framing is both underrated and overutilized. It is extremely helpful in establishing burdens and thresholds in regards to judge instruction, but is only valuable insofar as you apply it to specific internal links rather than a 5-second buzzword-filled explanation at the top.

2) I will reward long, creative advantage counterplans that throw a curveball at 2As. I will also reward 2As that respond with deficits that demonstrate they've thought through the strategic value of their advantages and can creatively apply them. On that same note, solvency deficits are underrated vs process CPs if you've written your aff correctly.

Disadvantages:

1) Try-or-die, impact turns case, and other impact framing arguments of the sort are rhetorically compelling, but not very helpful in terms of evaluating relative risk. The question I ask myself in these debates is which side I vote for will prevent the greatest impact. This also means that saying "timeframe - intervening actors/live to fight another day" absent a specific warrant behind that is not super helpful.

2) Specific link analysis and contextualization is indispensable. Carded evidence is the gold standard, but cleverly spinning generic evidence can suffice in a pinch. Storytelling is key.

3) I don't believe in zero risk unless something damning is dropped, but that doesn't tend to matter much. Quantifying the risk of disadvantages only matters insofar as it is necessary to make a comparative claim, and oftentimes the arbitrary difference between zero and near-zero risk does little to change that comparison.

4) Always down for an impact turn - am not a huge fan of spark/wipeout, but will still evaluate it. Organization of these debates is key, and especially in later speeches collapsing down to a couple of core claims and clearly explaining how they implicate the debate.

5) I have a soft spot for politics and the rider DA. Doesn't mean I'll vote for it (the rider DA goes away if the aff says the right things), but I'll be happy to see it well executed.

Kritiks:

1) The quickest way to my ballot on the aff is winning that your case outweighs. The quickest way to my ballot on the neg is winning a framework interp that mitigates that. I find that oftentimes they are poorly answered and implicate the other, so taking advantage of that will do you a lot of good.

2) I don't mind long overviews in the right circumstances if flagged beforehand. They're helpful to explain necessary thesis-level components of your argument, but counterproductive when they begin replacing line-by-line.

3) I'm somewhat familiar with most common kritiks - afropess, setcol, security, cap, etc. Err on the side of overexplaining if unsure.

4) From Anirudh Prabhu's paradigm, "All debate is storytelling, but K debate especially so." Specific link analysis is not only satisfying to watch, it will make it more likely that you win.

5) The Cap K is my pet peeve. I find it ridiculous that someone labeled capitalism bad a kritik and then could basically read that as an impact turn versus almost any aff. At the same time, aff teams tend to do a poor job at exploiting the tensions between the impact and framework, link magnitude and the perm, etc. I say this not to stop you from reading it, but be aware when it's strategically valuable to extend.

K Affs/Framework:

1) Ideologically, probably not great for the aff. I've never read a K aff nor gone for anything other than FW against K affs, and I believe affirmative teams should affirm the resolution. However, I will do my best to evaluate these debates independent of my own beliefs. Good framework vs K aff debates are my favorite to watch, and many of the judges I look up to are quite middle-of-the-road in these debates so I strive to reach that standard myself.

2) Packaging and framing in framework debates is just as important as the arguments themselves. The team that is more offensive in final rebuttals gains a massive advantage.

3) I find impacts grounded in debate's form more compelling than those related to the content of the debates themselves, not out of personal belief, but in terms of strategic utility. Fairness is probably good, but whether it is an impact is left up for debate - I've gone back and forth, can be persuaded either way.

4) I have a slight preference for the aff to forward one or two impact turns rather than a counter-interp with numerous shoddily extended disads, but oftentimes negative teams do far too little to exploit the offense they could generate from the counter-interp. Regardless of which route you take, the best way to persuade me and excise any of my implicit skepticism is to phrase your offense as if you were answering the question, "why not read it on the neg?" It is not necessary, but it will go a long way to help me vote for you.

5) Specificity, specificity, specificity - on both sides, please explain in concrete detail what debates would look like under each team's model: what affs and off-case positions get read, what those debates come down to, etc.

6) I have never been in a K v K debate, nor have I ever judged one. Please overexplain, and then explain a bit more just for good measure.

Hey, my name is Anirudh (Ani) and I'm a sophomore at Bellarmine College Preparatory. I've been doing speech and debate for around one and a half years now, so I'm somewhat experienced.

At the top, there are a couple of things I look for.

- One, all your evidence should be highlighted in pink.

- Two, winners win.

Now on to the more specific stuff.

Speech:

- I've been doing extemp for a while now, so I might know a little more about the topics than your average judge. That said, I also know at least the basics of other events such as Expos, OA, and OO.

- I'd like you to have a clear structure in your speech that makes it easy for me, the judge, to understand. I want to know what I'm writing down before I write it down.

- Make sure to project yourself with confidence. One, two, even ten mistakes is fine as long as you recover with confidence.

- Content matters; if doing extemp, make sure points are distinct from each other and that each point has at least 2 cites.

- Make sure to seem like you're enjoying yourself so it's engaging to the judge.

Policy:

I do policy debate, so I'm definitely most comfortable with that.

I will flow the debate to make sure that I have all the arguments; if I miss anything, I'm sorry, but please don't ask me to change my mind after I submitted the ballot.

I stress the affirmative team hitting all of the stock issues: topicality, harms, inherency, solvency, and the disadvantage. That said, I won't just vote neg if the neg wins one stock issue. I want the neg to win the stock issue and show why it matters more than the aff's harms. This means that framing the debate is extremely important to tell me how I should evaluate it. I will automatically vote neg if the neg wins on topicality since it is a fundamental rule of debate.

I'm not going to vote on how I perceive an argument, but rather how you argue it. For example, even if I believe that the Deterrence DA for the Death Penalty aff is false, I will still vote neg if the neg argues it better than the aff and why it matters more than the aff's harms.

Set up concessions in cross-ex. This is extremely important for me because CX is a great time for me to look on the debate and understand the main points of contention. Once you get the opponent to concede something in CX, bring it up in the next speech to show why it matters. This is a great way to gain credibility, but a lot of debaters forget CX even if they decimated the opponent. On the topic of CX, please be polite to the opponents. Do not insult them whatsoever, or speaker points will be docked. Please do not scoff like you're better than the opponent; that seems like ultimate arrogance. That said, I am all right with you bringing a little bit of passion into the CX if the opponent is deliberately avoiding your questions.

I think that the block should be split into different stock issues per speech. For example, if solvency is in the 2NC, DA should be in the 1NR, not solvency again.

Please define stock issues: I want to understand what they are and why they matter. It may seem repetitive, but every time you transition from one stock issue to the other, explain what each of them is.

During the rebuttals, especially the 2NR and 2AR, I think you should explain how you already won the debate in all of your previous speeches. These rebuttals should be a lot about looking back on the round, and explaining how you won and how your arguments matter more than the other teams.

Do not spread; I can flow it but I won't because it's not good practice for League tournaments. Also, please do not keep using jargon. Once again, I will probably understand it but I do not want you guys to say things like "impact outweighs" or "we win the framing contention" because that's a) not good practice for league and b) it's going to keep you guys in bad habits.

Please add me to the email chain. My email is ani.mani23@bcp.org I would prefer if the debate goes in a timely fashion, where the evidence blocks are ready to be sent on time. I will check the evidence if the debate comes down to the quality of evidence (which it probably won't) or if the evidence highlighting seems sus.

I will NOT tolerate any improper behavior, such as racist or gender-insensitive statements. This will be reported and your speaker points will not be fun to see.

Direct any further questions to the aforementioned email address.

At the end of the day, have fun. Whether you lose or win isn't the big thing; it's the experience you got out of debating.

LD:

I have tons of experience in LD (judged precisely one debate).

At the top of each of your speeches, specify what your value contention is, and list your main arguments as to why you have won on the value contentions.

In later speeches (e.g. the 1AR, please refer back to evidence read in previous speeches to support your argument). Please point out potential concessions the other team made and why they're so important.

CX is super important, so reference concessions gained from there into future speeches.

The last few speeches shouldn't be about making new arguments (which I won't count anyway), but rather explaining why you have won the debate by weighing your impacts on the value contention to theirs.

Extend your main arguments into the last speeches; don't extend everything you had in your first speech if you're clearly losing on the line-by-line. Pick your most important arguments and stick with them.

Don't do dumb stuff like demeaning your opponent or shouting in cross-ex.

The more prepared you seem, the better your speaks. You can appear more prepared by talking fluently and (maybe) taking less prep.

Enjoy!

Cal '24 Update:

I have been out of competing and coaching debate for two years now. I do not have any familiarity with the current topic. So many people have just become so mean in debate. This is part of why I left and makes me sad. I wish people were nicer and had a basic level of respect for others.

Background

1. Bellarmine '21.

2. Georgetown '21 - '23 (on leave).

3. Assistant Debate Coach at Bellarmine '21 - '22.

The Basics

1. I have no preferences about the arguments you read. My senior year, my partner Adarsh and I defended affirmatives that administered the death penalty to super-intelligent AI, established criminal justice for future space colonies, and endorsed “viral tactics of resistance through hacking digital infrastructure” which destroyed “data that furthers the state’s necropolitical functions.” We spun the most contrived link for the elections DA against affirmatives that modified obscure cyber statutes but also went for the Baudrillard K in our TOC bubble round. Despite that, my heart lies with well-researched positions. My favorite memories in debate are getting into the mechanics of the China appeasement debate and combing through IR journals to cut updates. In short, read the arguments you wish to read and I’ll accommodate you.

2. At the end of the debate, I ask myself what the two or three nexus questions are and use whatever frameworks the final rebuttals have left me with to answer them. It would behoove you to begin your rebuttals with what you think these important issues are and why I’ll resolve them in your favor. This includes impact calculus, but also goes beyond it. Did the 1AR drop case arguments that were applicable to both advantages? Did the 2NR get to the revisionism debate with 15 seconds remaining? The best rebuttals are reflexive; don’t tell me why you’re winning, tell me why you have already won.

3. Add suryamidha [at] gmail [dot] com to the email chain, format the subject as “Year -- Tournament -- Round # -- Aff Team vs Neg Team,” send every card in a Word document (not in the body of the email), and always compile a card document (unless the 2AR is just a theoretical objection).

Stylistic Concerns

1. Number everything. "One, two, three" is preferable to "first, second, third." If your gripe with numbering is that it "interrupts the flow of your speech," you have incidentally just articulated the most compelling justification for the practice.

2. Speed should never come at the expense of clarity.

FW

1. I’ve mostly been on the negative side of this debate.

2. Fairness being/not being an impact begs the question of what an impact is. Fairness, skills, self-questioning and the gamut of negative framework impacts all seem important, but so are other values. The way to my ballot is impact comparison. Choose your 1NC standards wisely and explain why they outweigh the Aff’s framework offense through discussions of their relative importance and the ability of framework to access them.

3. I have no preference for either the skills-based or fairness-based framework strategies. Be cautious that defending standards like movement-building opens you up to Aff impact turns since you’ve granted them debate has value outside of the ballot.

4. Hyperbolic claims about limits can be easily overcome by a well-developed explanation of functional limits.

CP’s

1. Perm texts must be sent in the 2AC.

2. Textual and functional competition seem like good standards to hold CP’s too. Defending positional competition will require a robust definition of what an Aff “position” is.

3. Speak to the normative implications of definitions in addition to reading cards. Forcing Affs to be immediate would justify “do the Aff after our politics scenario” while certainty would allow for “end arms sales to Taiwan, but only if China gives us a dollar.”

4. The “mandates vs effects” articulation of competition has made more sense to me than “yes for DA’s, but not for CP’s.” Mandates are what the plan text defends. Effects are how they would likely be implemented. The mandate of the plan can be ambiguous about immediacy, but the effects could likely be immediate. All of this defends on the Aff winning how the plan would be interpreted (and, more importantly, who gets to interpret it). Negs are best served by complaining about plan shape-shifting and explaining why immediacy and certainty are necessary for DA links.

5. Recognize when it’s strategic to couple/separate the competition and theory debate. That being said, I don’t know about “competition justifies theory.” The CP “China should not go to war with the US” is competitive, but seems theoretically suspect in every direction.

6. Creative permutations have a special place in my heart.

7. For process CP’s, the unprecedented nature of the CP is often what grants the Neg an internal net benefit, but Affs should be ready to generate smart solvency deficits based on those same claims.

8. No one goes for perm shields anymore. It breaks my heart. Think about the political implications if every one of the 50 states (including conservative ones) for the first time in US history unanimously affirmed a certain policy option. There are both sides to this debate but 2N’s seem terrible at answering intuitive presses.

Theory

1. I would love to watch a well-developed theory debate, but block-reliance has ruined everything. If you plan to read your standards straight down and not explain anything comparatively, you’re better off going for a substantive strategy in front of me.

2. Arguments about conditionality are most persuasive when couched in a descriptive claim about the current topic. Is the neg so hosed that they need to throw CP’s at the wall to catch up? Or, is there sufficient literature for in-depth debates? The ability to read DA’s to CP planks is meaningful to me. If the negative can introduce dozens of policy options (some of which would definitively cause a civil war) and choose to go for any combination of them at whim, the affirmative policy literally needs be the 11th commandment to generate a substantive deficit.

3. Other than conditionality and a few other theoretical objections, I’d rather you turn your poor standards into good substantive arguments. For example, the lack of a solvency advocate seems like less of a reason they shouldn’t get the CP and more of a reason why your uncarded solvency deficits should be given an enormous amount of weight. Plan vagueness begs the question of what is “vague.” A much better strategy is reading solvency cards that interpret the plan differently or punishing them for including words in the plan they aren’t ready to defend.

4. Theoretical objections are rarely “dropped.” Either the block made new arguments extending it or you had cross-applicable offense from other flows.

T

1. This is probably the position where I diverge the most from other judges. I suspect I have a higher threshold for what constitutes a negative interpretation and does not immediately lose to “we meet” given some Aff pushback. For example, take the T-Criminal Justice is not Criminal Law piece of evidence that won dozens of debates (including a TOC elim). It reads “Criminal justice, interdisciplinary academic study of the police, criminal courts, correctional institutions (e.g., prisons), and juvenile justice agencies, as well as of the agents who operate within these institutions. Criminal justice is distinct from criminal law…” What? How is this an interp? Just because something is NOT something else does not mean that it cannot be a part of that thing. Texas is NOT the US, but it is part of the US. In fact, this interpretation of the card belies all logic because it defines criminal justice as an “interdisciplinary academic study.” That limits out NOTHING. To be clear, if you have well-researched negative evidence with an intent to exclude, go for it. But, I’m very willing to vote on we meet against poorly written interpretations that do not definitively establish a violation.

2. Affs lose these debates when they’re too defensive. Isolate one or two core pieces of offense (Aff ground, predictability, etc.) and develop them at the top of the 1AR and 2AR.

3. Reasonability is always about the interps and never about the Aff.

4. If the affirmative advances an argument about reading the "plan text in a vacuum," the negative should propose an alternate model of either understanding the plan text or the affirmative's policy.

K’s

1. Technical framework debating will matter more to me than most judges. What it means to “weigh the aff versus the K” is far from a settled controversy and interesting to think about. I’d appreciate guidance on how to resolve offense from both sides.

2. That being said, I’m continually confused by how the Neg’s links interact with their own framework interpretation. For example, if you have said scholarship is the only thing that matters, but then have read links to the effects of the plan, it feels like you’re asking me to evaluate all the bad parts of the Aff and none of the good parts. There are many ways to overcome this: make your framework a sequencing question, narrow the scope of the links, or (my preference) significantly reduce the risk of the case.

3. I think Affs lose these debates most often when they don’t recognize Neg pivots (kicking the alternative, going all in on framework, etc.).

DA’s

1. Often contrived (more a fault of the topic than debaters), but I have very little remorse for new 1AR’s when the 2AC fails to make substantive arguments.

2. Turns case arguments need to be carded if not immediately intuitive.

3. I’d rather you just explain why the parts of the DA you’re winning matter contextually rather than throwing out “link controls the direction of uniqueness” or vice-versa.

4. Evidence comparison is important to me. I will not sift through the card document after the debate digging for a warrant. I expect the final rebuttals to provide the author name and the warrant for most of the cards they are citing in their analysis.

Impact Turns

1. No argument is too presumptively incoherent to answer. If you are correct about how inane an argument is, you are better served by completely obliterating it rather than complaining about its pedagogical value.

2. Risk calculus matters a lot to me. For example, the reason why SPARK seems inane outside the context of debate is because we’re gambling with the survival of the human race. We would have to be incredibly confident that future technologies would actually end civilization for us to roll the die. In debate, a card citing 20 scientists published in a peer-reviewed journal might exceed this threshold. But should it? It almost certainly wouldn’t be enough for us to endorse human extinction in a more legitimate policymaking setting. How confident must we be? Arguments along the lines of “the risk that we are right outweighs the risk that we are wrong” and explaining them contextually is persuasive to me.

3. If a team is going for an impact turn, Aff teams should recognize that they now have the full weight of their internal link. If the Neg is going for DeDev but the internal link to Econ was tech development, Affs should be strategic about explaining how rapid technological progress might be helpful in staving off climate change.

Miscellaneous

1. I learned everything I know from Anirudh Prabhu and Tyler Vergho. Ideologically, I align completely with Adarsh Hiremath. If there’s an issue that’s ambiguous on my paradigm, I would suggest looking through theirs for additional clarity.

2. Rehighlightings can be inserted to demonstrate the other team’s reading of the article was incorrect. They need to be read if they’re introducing new claims.

3. My email response time is always a fault of me and never an annoyance with you.

My views are aligned with Neal Dwivedula - just ask whatever questions you have in the round, I've debated policy for a few years and have some experience judging novice policy and LD.

tl;dr treat me as a lay judge

Competition history

2019-2023 at Bellarmine College Prep; partner debate events (CX, PF, Parli) from 2019-2021, IX 2019-2023

2022-2023 Bellarmine Extemp Co-Captain

Primary circuit: CFL

Highlights: NSDA Nationals Octafinalist, TOC Octafinalist, Two-time CHSSA State Finalist

Speech

1. Extemp

I did mostly IX during my career, but have also done NX and Open extemp. I try to weigh content and delivery equally, but will place particular emphasis on the clarity of your answer and how well it is supported by your evidence. I do not expect a hyper-technical speech with 12 citations and 4 points or anything like that--you should treat me as a lay judge and speak as you would in any other round.

2. All others

I don't have enough exposure to the specifics of the other speech events to provide much useful specific content feedback (at least, in my opinion), but I'll try to point out areas where I think improvements could be made. As such, I will focus mostly on delivery in my evaluation.

If you have any lingering questions about my feedback, you can email me at oliver.owen.pers@gmail.com. Please include in the subject line of your email the tournament in which you are inquiring about, so I don't miss your email (I will not respond to any of these emails during the tournament). I may not answer emails for a while, but I will try my best to do so within a week. Ya boy is an engineering student, cut me some slack.

Debate

I only have about a year and a half's worth experience competing in Policy, and about 2 months or so in both PF and Parli. It has been almost three years since I've even watched a full round, so my grasp of the minute details of debate is not what it once was. Point being, regardless of the event, you should make it clear how I should cast my ballot (i.e. frame, weigh arguments in terms of their effects on the entire debate, etc.)--I don't want to have to comb through my flow at the end of the debate to see which team had the most strong arguments remaining (nor do I think I can flow well enough anymore to make that a fair evaluation of the round...). Think of me like a slow judge.

Do not spread, and don't run K's. While I have been exposed to fast, I am not capable of effectively understanding/flowing once you up the WPM's. You can use a little bit of jargon (ex. I know what the stock issues are, I know what a counterplan is, I know how to evaluate T, etc.), but I would discourage it because: 1. That's not the kind of experience you're going to have most of the time, and 2. You don't know where my limit of understanding is--you could have me one moment and lose me the next depending on how complicated your use of jargon/argumentation is.

*If I'm on a panel with a majority fast judges and you think it's in your best interest to have a fast debate, clear it with the other team and all judges first. I'll try my best to stay with the round, but no promises.

Please add me to email chains! Use oliver.owen.pers@gmail.com. I probably won't check most of the evidence unless there is clash about the credibility specifically/what claim the evidence is making (ie. sketchy highlighting/sources).

Above all, keep it clean. I will not tolerate any questionable behavior in either speech or debate. At the end of the day, this activity is something that we all choose to do because we enjoy it; it stops being fun if you or your opponents take advantage of it.

Direct any further questions to the above email address.

Best of luck!

- email: shivenpandey21@gmail.com (include me in all email chains)

For Bellarmine Rhetoric Frosh Tournament:

- I believe debate is a game. Every argument is true until proven false (unless the argument is blatantly false). For example, if you tell me that the United States only contains 30 states, I will not count that argument. However, if you tell me that Congress can withdraw money and give it to a certain private institution even if in reality they can't, I will believe you unless the other team is able to disprove that argument.

- Make the debate organized. A debate is always more fun to watch if it is organized. Flow properly, signpost arguments, don't flipflop between stock issues, and make it clear as to what you are responding to.

- After your first speeches, you need to frame. Tell me why the aff world is preferable to the neg world, and vice versa. I want to see this incorporated in most of the speeches, and especially the 2NR/2AR.

- Write my ballot for me. The first few lines of your 2NR/2AR should clearly explain to me exactly as to why you have won this debate. If you tell me how and why to vote, I am more likely to vote in a way you prefer.

- Utilize CX. Don't ask questions for the sake of asking questions. Set up stories and arguments, poke holes in your opponents' arguments, and always, always remember to reference CX. I will not consider anything from CX if you do not reference them at least once in your speeches. Also, Inherency should be in every 1AC CX. And, most importantly, be respectful in CX. Do not be aggressive.

- I am a firm believer in the "neg only has to win 1 stock issue to win the debate" rule of policy debate and I will use this to determine my decision.

- Make sure you have clear stock issue overviews.

- Split the block effectively. I don't want to see the 2NC and 1NR cover the same arguments.

- Answer the line-by-line. Make sure you aren't dropping arguments and you respond to everything on the flow. If you do drop an argument, the other team is responsible for pointing it out AND explaining why you dropping the argument should heavily sway the debate in their favor.

- Identify the main points of clash in your 2NR/2AR. Explain the most important arguments and why you are ahead on those.

- Most importantly, BE RESPECTFUL. I don't want heated CXs. I will be more inclined to vote for respectful teams.

- Good luck guys.

***April 2023 TOC—I haven’t judged in 2 years and don’t know much about the topic.

***April 2021 rewrite—there’s a pretty good chance something I say in my RFD is going to be on here somewhere.

Bellarmine ‘16

Stanford ‘20

I have had many circuit debate influences, including folks who lab led or otherwise taught me, my debate teammates, students I’ve coached, judges I’ve had, debaters I watched a lot, and many others. Some of the strongest include Debnil Sur (who taught me circuit debate), Vinay Ayyappan, Albert Li, Rafael Pierry, Dhruv Sudesh, Tyler Vergho, Abhishek Rengarajan, Taylor Brough, Amber Kelsie, Ken Strange, Rishab Yeddula, Devansh Taori, Joshua Joseph, and Michael Koo.

General Experience: I debated at Bellarmine in San Jose, CA. I traveled on the national circuit my junior and senior year debating with Vinay Ayyappan. I read K arguments on the circuit, went for policy strategies at tournaments like state/nationals, and debated stock issues in front of parents at local tournaments. I went far at the NSDA tournament and qualled to the TOC. In college, I briefly debated with Tony Hackett reading K arguments and qualled to the NDT my frosh year. This is my fifth year coaching at Bellarmine (where I’ve been the main coach for circuit debate) and I have primarily coached teams reading policy arguments. I have been both a 2A and a 2N.

Topic Experience: I have a good amount of experience with both the policy and K lit on the CJR topic.

Deciding Rounds:

1. Tech over truth. But...

2. Debate is subjective and arbitrary. I consider “dropped arguments are true” to be not particularly helpful. Every judge has a different threshold for what a sufficient warrant is and a different understanding of the implication of every argument. The response will be, “Limiting subjectivity/arbitrariness is still good.” I partially agree. There are different kinds of subjectivity/arbitrariness. Using my knowledge of a particular subject area to navigate a complicated debate seems good. Using my personal opinion on a particular subject area as the sole grounds to make my decision seems bad. In some cases, there is a clear consensus on how judges will evaluate an argument (e.g. dropped Topicality). If there’s a gray area you fear may not go in your favor, you’re best served being as specific as possible in explaining the argument and its implication. All of this being said, my threshold for what constitutes an argument is probably lower than the average judge.

3. I try to line up arguments on my flow despite flowing on a laptop. Please keep that in mind. Specificity in roadmaps is appreciated when needed (e.g. if you’re about to spend 3 minutes on the perm in the 2NC, let me know beforehand so I can add more cells).

4. I prefer final rebuttals that have substantial (not inefficient) overviews to frame the debate.

5. “Specific brightlines and warranted calls for protections (anytime) will be zealously adhered to”—Michael Koo. Your 2NR shouldn’t say “new 2AR analysis is bad,” it should say, “The 2AR can’t apply the uncertainty deficit to the announcement plank, the plank was introduced in the block with an explanation of why it solves certainty and the none of the 1AR uncertainty warrants assume announcement.”

6. Spin over evidence, although some issues require evidence more than others. If you really want to make evidence matter on a specific question, then tell me why. Smart analytics can save you the time it takes to read multiple mediocre cards.

7. I usually flow CX.

8. I don’t mind postrounding. I take a lot of time to decide and carefully think through my decisions, and I’m ready to defend them. Fair warning though: most of you are bad at postrounding.

Speaker Points: I’ll roughly follow this scale.

29.5+ — the top speaker at the tournament.

29.3-29.4 — one of the five or ten best speakers at the tournament.

29.1-29.2 — one of the twenty best speakers at the tournament.

28.8-29.0 — a 75th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would barely clear on points.

28.6-28.7 — a 50th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would not clear on points.

28.2-28.5 — a 25th percentile speaker at the tournament.

27.9-28.1 — a 10th percentile speaker at the tournament.

1. Slow down in online debate.

2. Cheating means you will get the lowest possible points. You need a recording to prove clipping. If you mark a card, say where you’re marking it, actually mark it, and offer a marked copy before CX.

3. In general, debaters who do good line-by-line will get higher points in front of me. It’s not the only way to debate, but I find it tougher to resolve debates where there is less direct clash, and I think only a few debaters can effectively create clash without lining up arguments. If you think you’re up to the challenge then go for it.

4. Use specific language, don’t hide behind jargon. Sufficiency framing on CPs is incredibly powerful but is useless 95% of the time. Cite 1AC evidence to define the solvency threshold: “The threshold established by their X evidence is that the US needs a significant concession on prolif to China. This means the aff winning they’re a bigger concession doesn’t matter because the CP is sufficient to get China to the negotiating table.”

Topicality

1. I like watching T debates, but they’re kinda weird on the CJR topic.

2. I will evaluate T through interpretations. However, consider Ken Strange’s refrain, “The negative must show that the affirmative interpretation is bad for debate.” This seems like a higher burden than how competing interpretations is usually understood (e.g. “their interp is slightly larger so any risk of limits means you vote neg”). The articulation of reasonability that will persuade me is that the substance crowdout generated by T debates outweighs the difference between the two interps. Note that reasonability is about the interps, not the aff. It means the aff gets their interp comparison offense plus substance crowdout as bonus offense. Quantify how much substance crowdout matters in the debate (for example, it matters more if topic education is a relevant impact in the debate). Also, the risk of substance crowdout is higher if there’s a strong aff predictability argument (because one implication of aff predictability is causing more T debates). Debate all of this out in round.

3. Relatedly, T is a negative burden which means it is the neg’s job to prove that a violation exists. In a T debate where the 2AR extends we meet, every RFD should start by stating clearly what word or phrase in the resolution the aff violated and why. If you don’t give me the language to do that in your 2NR, I will vote aff on we meet.

4. I observe a lot of grammar issues in both T and competition debates. For example, two things being distinct doesn’t mean they’re exclusive. I’m not going to go through all the common examples I’ve observed here, but if you’re the one initiating one of these debates, be especially thoughtful and precise about your language and your logic.

5. Debatability matters a lot on T, but the definition needs to meet some basic quality threshold (the criminal justice is distinct from criminal law interp probably doesn’t meet it, but that requires good debating by the aff to establish). This is best impacted by aff predictability.

6. Functional limits, aff predictability, and reasonability are under-utilized by the aff.

Theory and Competition

1. I’m probably more willing to listen to a theory debate than most judges, but...

2. Theory blocks are terrible. Theory blocks spread at top speed are even worse. Theory blocks spread at top speed over Zoom are so bad that you just shouldn’t bother.

3. I largely concur with what Rafael and Tyler say about theory and competition on their philosophies. I’ll list a few key points below.

4. Just like with T, both teams should think carefully about what the interpretation and violation actually are. The burden is on the team advancing the argument.

5. Make relevant cross applications from other theory arguments and topicality.

6. Dropped theory arguments are an easy out, I won’t evaluate the substance if I don’t need to. I’m not going to feel better or worse about my decision depending on which team was ahead on substance.

7. Positional competition is hard to justify unless the aff very clearly grants it.

8. Going for competition is generally better than going for theory.

9. Limited intrinsicness (either functional or textual) is probably best to check against any number of “artificial” CPs. But there are also convincing neg arguments about the bad practices this justifies, so it’s a debate to be had.

Counterplans

1. A lot of aff teams simply do not work hard enough to generate deficits to various counterplans. Imagine the political blowback as a result of invoking X random political process (see parole CP...). You think that would be good for the business confidence scenario in your 1AC? If you’re struggling to apply your advantages in this way, then write more strategic advantages. 2As should be thrilled in the absence of specific neg ev applying the CP’s process to the aff. You then get a ton of leeway to spin deficits and the neg will struggle to push back.

2. Presumption goes to less change. Debate what this means in round. Otherwise, it goes aff in the event of an advocacy.

3. Decide in-round whether I should kick the CP.

Disadvantages

1. There is such a thing as zero risk. I think about this like I think about significant figures or the signal-to-noise ratio.

2. Make sure that turns case arguments are actually turns case arguments.

3. I like substantial impact turn debates (heg/dem/war/etc.). Organization is obviously a concern there, try to group the debate early on.

4. Minimize overviews, put as much as you can on the line by line.

K’s vs. Policy

1. All debate is storytelling, but K debate especially so.

2. I’m fairly well versed in most common K’s.

3. One common reason affs lose is by being too defensive. Think about how your heg advantage interacts with a settlerism K.

4. Overview length needs to be well justified, I generally will tell you that it should have been smaller. If you can speak for 3 minutes and explain every issue in the debate clearly without line by line, go for it. But most of us can’t do that very effectively.

5. “Recognize when it’s a horrible idea to kick the alt”—Albert Li.

6. Framework is a critical part of many K’s. I’m not “over framework” like a lot of judges. How I should "weigh the aff" versus the K is rarely self evident. I don’t mind a little bit of arbitrariness in a framework interp if you are instructing me clearly on how to evaluate your offense versus their offense. But really think about how your arguments interact. I’ve seen neg teams make the argument “reps shape plan implementation” and then non-ironically explain that as a reason to ignore plan implementation, which makes absolutely no sense. If the neg wants me to devalue plan implementation, then your arguments should actually be reasons why prioritizing evaluating plan consequences is bad. Treat framework less like a theory argument and more like a substantive one.

7. If the neg’s link offense centers on evaluating plan consequences, then I will have to evaluate the positive consequences of the plan as well.

8. The perm is overrated as the basis for affirmative strategy, but it is almost always a no-cost option you can include somewhere in the 2AR.

9. When applicable, the perm double bind can be a powerful aff argument. There are some cases it clearly doesn’t apply (for example, if the K is a very direct impact turn to the aff, or if there’s a robust neg framework argument). However, if you are reading a Cap K alt centered entirely on workers movements against an aff that reduces police funding, you need to explain why the plan prevents those movements from being successful. Otherwise, the perm will capture the offense of the K and whatever contingent offense the plan has.

Framework vs. K Affs

1. I’ve been on all sides of this debate.

2. Framework debates, like K debates, are much more about storytelling than about technical concessions because the implications of those concessions will often not matter in the grand scheme of things. This is particularly important for 2Ns to remember.

3. An impact is an outcome that is self evidently bad enough to matter. Pick the most strategic version of framework depending on your audience and your opponent. When I’m your audience, you can convince me that many things are bad enough to matter, ranging from fairness to skills. The teams I coach usually have: 1) a more procedural clash thesis impact, 2) an impact about how clash over the content of the topic is particularly educational. But stick to what you’re good at.

4. Impact comparison. If the aff’s model makes it substantially harder for the neg to engage but the neg’s speech act was problematic, which way do I vote?

5. All this discussion of “TVA,” “switch-side debate,” and “ground versus our aff” tends to miss the point. These are merely vehicles for each team to explain what debates under their model actually look like and why they are better than debates under the other team’s model. As the neg, you should explain to me what specific debates occur under your model (i.e. give examples of affs and neg strategies against them) and why that solves your impacts and theirs. Perhaps the debates we have where we critique specific policy reforms are better for critical education than comparing structural theories. As the aff, you should explain to me why the specific debates they say occur under their model don’t solve your or their offense. Perhaps the Courts CP doesn’t prepare us to engage movements and sidesteps discussion of the substance of the aff. The aff should describe debates under their model in concrete terms, not just list off structural K’s as neg ground and make vague references to “DA’s to our method.” It is odd to me that framework debates lack discussion of the specific kinds of debates that actually happen in each world.

6. Relatedly, “TVA solves” doesn’t answer every aff argument, especially if they have a K of your performance.

7. You don’t need to counter-define every word in the resolution. The justification for this is functional limits, which is an under-utilized aff argument in framework debates. For all practical purposes, I probably don’t need to worry about insert big policy school reading a new K aff every debate. I also probably don’t need to worry about an aff arguing the state government of Alabama should enact criminal justice reform. However, I may have to worry about every journal article advocating a mindset shift in the context of criminal justice turning into a K aff (depending on what the aff interp is). Everyone is best served by being realistic about their impacts and not jumping straight to hyperbole.

8. Policy T and Framework aren’t perfectly analogous. A world without courts affs (endpoint of T-enact) is far more plausible than a world without planless affs (endpoint of T-USFG). Some aff arguments (like the Floodgates DA) take advantage of this. It’s at the very least a conversation worth having and something all teams going for framework should reflect on.

9. Collapse down in the 2NR. You are more likely to lose because you insufficiently answered aff offense and didn’t compare impacts than you are because you didn’t extend an additional impact.

10. If a team going for framework also reads 5 contradictory off in their 1NC, chances are you can concede claims on some of the other off to undermine their framework argument.

K’s vs. K Affs

1. These were my favorite as a debater.

2. Debate more about what the perm means. Affs need to be held to a higher standard for explaining the perm. In fact, you should be explaining the perm as of the 1AC. What I mean by that is that you should be setting a framework for how I think about your advocacy/performance in relation to other advocacies/performances. Residual link analysis on the perm makes a ton of sense in policy rounds but doesn’t make sense in most K v K debates. Don’t discuss the perm as an abstract theoretical question, discuss it in the context of the specific debate you are having. These thoughts are vague, debate it out on your own terms.

3. It’s not enough that disagreements exist between your literature bases. Explain to me why that means the aff is undesirable.

Soft-Left Affs vs. Policy

1. The main difficulty for many of these affs is answering CPs, not DAs.

2. For most affs, the best way to debate framing in front of me is to treat it like a well-contextualized Security K. Rather than saying war in general is unlikely and that security reps in general are bad, construct a compelling critique of the particular DA scenario(s) they’re reading. Just like with the Security K, this involves winning significant defense to the DA itself. If executed really well, the K becomes sufficiently offensive and this can help you get out of a CP that solves all or most of your aff.

3. In general both sides end up agreeing consequentialism is good. This is fine for the aff as long as you are doing the above to generate offense against the DA.

4. For the neg, it seems more strategic to weigh 7-8 billion against the aff instead of “extinction is categorically first,” but it’s your call.

Misc

1. If you correctly use the term “nchtr” in round, you will get a 0.2 speaker point boost. Don’t use it unless you’re gonna do it properly.

2. Email ani dot prabhu98 at gmail dot com if you have questions.

3. Please put me on the email chain and send cards in a Word doc (not in the body of the email).

4. Emailing isn’t prep but don’t take forever.

5. I concur with Tyler’s policy for re-highlightings. Essentially, the closer a re-highlighting comes to being a new argument that you’re advancing, the more likely it is that you should be reading it instead of inserting it.

About Me: My name is Anthony Reynolds, I am a Junior at Bellarmine College Preparatory, I do both slow and fast Policy Debate at the Varsity level, and I also do Extemp at the Varsity level. Pronouns: He/Him.

Email: Anthony.Reynolds22@bcp.org

If it is a fast debate I want to be on the email chain, if it is slow debate please also put me on the email chain.

Voting Issues:

The K:

This is what most people care about so I am starting with it. I am mostly a Policy only debater but I am completely open to Ks and K affs. I will not favor them, but I do not see them as dirty or bad forms of debate. Arguing that Topicality is bad is interesting and I like it. I respect K debaters and think they are equal to Policy only teams.

Framework:

Fairness is not always a voting issue. You can argue that it is, and that it isn't. I do not have a strong opinion on it. Anything can be a voting issue for me, and it all depends on how you argue it. I go for framework often but that doesn't mean I am against K affs.

Theory:

I think that theory debates are just like every other part of debate and are just as important. I am open to judging theory debates, but there are some theory arguments that I personally don't like, but that does not mean I will auto downvote them. These are:

- Disclosure theory: I just think disclosing isn't a rule or necessary.

- CP Theory: I think PICs are bad, but I will still vote for them. Even though I am against PICs I still see them as a legitimate argument.

Overall I think that there are no hard and fast rules in a debate, so anything can be said. This means I am open to a neg team reading 12 counterplans and if the aff loses on condo then they lose on condo. Similarly, if a neg team reads 1 counterplan and the aff wins on condo, they win the debate. Everything in the debate is about the arguments and theory is just another argument to me.

Topicality:

I will usually be neg leaning on Topicality, and it is all about articulating your argument. If you are running an aff that is obviously not Topical but you win the argument I will still vote for you. I still think that Topicality is another argument to be had and I can go either way.

Tech over Truth:

I think that if you win an argument, even if what you are saying is false, you still win the debate. Responding to arguments and having clash always comes first, and even if an argument is false you must respond to it. That being said, an argument being false makes it a lot harder to win simply because the other team can literally say "what they are saying is a lie and will have no impact because of it" and well if you are lying then yeah there isn't an impact at all.

You could run a counterplan that is in reference to a country that does not exist and if you definitively win the argument then you could still win the debate.

Framing vs Line-by-line:

Both are necessary to win a debate in my opinion. I can go both ways on which is more important. If an aff team loses a bunch of arguments on the flow but can prove to me through framing that they should still win because the aff impacts outweigh, then I might vote for them. I can also go the other way, and completely vote on line-by-line depending on the debate, but it is completely based on how either team articulates their arguments.

Other Issues:

Please just be respectful to your opponents. Racism, homophobia, sexism, and any other kind of hate speech will not be tolerated.

I am open to most arguments if I think they are legitimate. However, I think something like using the wrong pronoun once in a speech is not a reason to reject the team, but you can still argue that it is and I might vote for you. Also, swearing during a debate is fine by me, as long as it is not blatantly offensive to the opponent or to another group of people.

Also, if you claim the opponent is forging evidence or is violating some form of real rule of evidence, make the argument in the debate, and if you convince me I will vote on it.

I am pretty loose with prep time. Flashing is not prep, sending files is not prep, if your computer crashes during a speech just pause and figure it out, and for the most part I will be pretty flexible. Stealing prep will obviously not be accepted and will affect your speaks, and possibly the ballot in extreme cases.

Most of that section was for fast debate.

Slow Debate:

This is a lot more simple so I will be brief.

Both framing and line by line are important in a debate. Just because I have fast debate experience does not mean I only value line by line and argumentation, slow debate framing is a huge part of the debate and it should be in your speeches.

A lot of convincing parent judges in slow debate involves being convincing and believable, so I will likely take this into account during the round. Of course the argumentation is the most important part of the debate, but if I think the round is a wash with both sides having equally good argumentation, I will likely go with the side that simply persuaded me more with their delivery or phrasing or something else that isn't purely a part of argumentation. Despite this, I wil value the argumentation higher.

Speaker Points:

How good did you speak. Did you speak well? Yes? What do you know now you have high speaks. Did you speak poorly? Aw man now you have lower speaks.

Chief Joseph, Nez Perce. 

I will judge the round however the debaters say the round should be judged (within reason), but in the absence of any debate over framing of how the round should be judged, I'll side with whether I think the aff is a good idea within a utilitarian framework, and less on stock issues.

If there's no response to an argument in the debate I'll probably believe it, unless it's truly ridiculous or just out of line with reality. On an argument level, I'll prefer the side with better evidence over better logic, but if you can prove your point well with reasoning alone I am open to believing a claim that doesn't have hard evidence.

If you and the other team are both making arguments with evidence that directly contradict each other, please explain why your evidence and logic are better than theirs.

If you're going to assert that a single argument is enough to win a stock issue, or that you should win the debate because you won a certain stock issue, give a good explanation as to why, and don't just tell me I "have to vote aff" or anything like that without an explanation.

Be nice in cross ex, ask questions (don't just make arguments at your opponent).

Bellarmine ‘19, Dartmouth ‘23

Email: tvergho@gmail.com – put me on the chain.

Last Updated: April 2024

Topic Knowledge: I coach for Bellarmine and Dartmouth, but am not deeply involved in topic research. Explain your arguments accordingly.

I have read and voted for all types of arguments. I really don’t care what you say. I appreciate debaters who engage the line-by-line, advance smart and well-researched arguments, and generally seem like they want to be there. The best debaters answer and reference arguments in the order they were presented, crystallize the debate into a few central issues in the final rebuttals, and frame the decision they want me to give by resolving those issues.

Tech over truth, but conceded arguments only have the implications you say they do. Nothing you say will convince me to stop flowing or abandon the line-by-line. Otherwise, any of my predispositions can be easily reversed by out-debating the other team.

The one exception to this is: post-TOC, I will no longer vote on "new affs bad" or a similar theory argument if newly read in the block. The standard I will enforce is that theory arguments that could feasibly have been introduced in the 1NC must be. Hiding cheap shots is not debating; debate as if you are grown.

Debaters should presume good-faith engagement by their opponents. If your strategy primarily relies on ad hominems, references to out-of-round events, screenshots, or accusations that could have been resolved by emailing your opponents or their coaches before the round, you should strike me.

Affs should probably be topical. I don’t have a strong ideological bias against planless affs, but evenly debated I’m skeptical of most common aff responses to framework. Procedural fairness is not automatically an impact.

Conditionality is fine. Anything else is a reason to reject the argument, not the team.

I default to judge kick. If equally debated, I’ll likely err negative as the logical extension of conditionality.

Objections to counterplans are generally better expressed through competition than theory.

You can insert re-highlightings as evidence indicts, provided that the re-highlighting actually comes from the card your opponent read. If it comes three paragraphs later, you actually have to read the part where the author concludes the other way. I will treat this as the equivalent of an evidence indict with added context. Advancing some extrinsic argument always requires reading the card.

Asking for a 30 = auto 25.

For a description of my procedure on evaluating in-round ethics and conduct issues, see here. (Largely stolen from Truf's paradigm.)