DEBATES:

I do not judge very frequently. I do keep some notes.

I prefer debaters speakat a conversational rate. Spread or a fast rateof delivery has made it difficult for me tounderstand arguments in the past.

Info:

He/They

North Kansas City HS, Policy (2018-2022)--Immigration, Arms Sales, CJR, Water

William Jewell College, NPDA/NPTE (2022- )

Call me Trent, please

put me on the email chain -- trentd434@gmail.com

Email title should be Tournament -- Round # -- Aff (School Code) v. Neg (School Code)

TL;DR

I'll flow what you say--do with that what you will.

***None of the preferences written below are strong enough to change the outcome of a debate, but adjusting to these preferences will increase your chances of winning, and most likely raise your speaks.***

tech + truth > tech > truth

Being rude/condescending will most likely lead to docked speaks.

I'll listen to almost any argument as long as it's not racist, homophobic, sexist, ableist, transphobic, etc.

I am cool with speed, but you need to be clear. I'll say "clear" twice and then stop flowing until I can understand you.

Life (probably) has value. Extinction is most likely bad, but I'll hear what you have to say

I'll start at 28/28.5 and go up or down.

Post-round if you want. I don't really care. I should have to defend my decision just as much as you should have to defend your case.

Cool charts

Teams should adapt------------------------------X-Judge should adapt

Policy-------------------------X------K

Tech----------X---------------------Truth

X Counterplans aren't fair---------------------------X----Counterplans are fun

Nothing competes-----------------------X--------Summers 94

Conditionality good--X-----------------------------Conditionality bad

Reasonability----------------------------X---Competing interpretations

Death good is acceptable-----------------X-------------You might just be a bad person

DA

Yes. Da's are good and cool. Not much to say here.

Generic links can be okay as long as you contextualize them.

Turns case args need to be carded.

I have a high threshold for new 1ar arguments and must be able to draw a line.

Evidence comparison matters. It'll make me a lot happier, give you higher speaks, and make my decision cleaner if I don't have to sift through your card doc looking for warrants that you failed to make in the 2nr.

Normal DAs: L > I/L > U > Impact

PTX DAs: U = L > I/L > Impact

CP

Condo debate should be condo is good/bad - not sure there's a "good" number of condo

PICs are generally good.

I'll judge kick if you tell me to.

Read all of the perms but also put them in the speech doc.

Perms aren't advocacies; they are tests of competition, impact out perm theory.

I will listen and vote on all types of CP theory. Just win your arg.

K

I'm probably gonna understand your K--with that said, please don't expect me to know all of the lit of your K--explain it.

You should take the time in CX or a block overview to explain the story of the K. Performance style debate is interesting to me but you will have to explain your framework from the beginning.

Fiating your cap alts is funny and people should do it more.

If you go for pomo/deeper theory, I'll most likely need some explanation.

I default to weigh the aff vs the alt, but I can be easily convinced otherwise "Justify your epistemology and THEN weigh the aff" is my favorite counter-interp.

Reject the aff is not an alt. I'm not interested in voting for a K that has no coherent alternative worldview/path to action.

If you read a K you don't understand I probably wont vote for it

T/Theory

Be topical. Or don't. Just win why your approach is good.

I default to competing interps, unless told otherwise.

I truly believe that conditionality is good.

Trying to sneak in a 5-second ASPEC shell will result in a major speaker point decrease and going for it will warrant new 1AR answers because even if the 2AC drops your theory shell, convincing me to vote on ASPEC will require much more block elaboration that "Interp: spec your actor, ASPEC is a voter for clash and fairness"

Extra-resolutional procedurals are often frivolous and silly and should most likely lose to a predictability/I'm sorry I'll do it next round argument.

Disclosure is infinitely good. Please do it.

Case debate

Teams underestimate the importance of case debate. The neg should put lots on the flow on case.

Impact turns are one of my favorite arguments.

K Affs

The best K-Aff teams beat framework on a) a counter-interp with a strong defense of the resolution under their model or b) a convincing impact turn to neg standards.

I've noticed an increase of K affs without a real "ballots key" argument that should definitely lose to the ballot PIK. That trend is probably not good for y'all without a plan.

Please read the ballot PIK instead of frame subtraction.

You do you. Do what you like, and tell me why I care about it.

I'm sympathetic to framework. Procedural fairness is (probably) an impact.

LD

The closer to policy, the better.

PF

Please. No.

Things not to do

don't. steal. prep.

Don't say anything sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic-90% of the time auto loss, 100% of the time you will get as low speaks as possible

Don't use problematic language--Trigger warnings and alternate cases should be available in applicable cases.

Don't be rude to your opponents/teammate/me/other judges-Everyone has worked unbelievably hard, so you should treat them like it.

Don't refuse disclosure.

Don't be mean -- being an aggressive debater is amazing -- don't step over the line.

Don't shake my hand. Please.

If you have any questions email me :)

Below are my paradigms sorted by event.

Best of luck!

General:

• Spreading is okay as long as your opponents and I can understand you.

• If possible, I’d like a copy of your case(s), but it is not required by any means. This will just be for my own reference to follow along in the round, and I will return it/delete it at the end of the round if requested (this will not impact my decision at all. If you are unable to provide a copy, that is perfectly fine!).

• For debate, please state an outline before your speech, so that I can know how many pages I need for flow.

• I will keep time, as should the competitors. I can give time signals if requested.

Policy:

Anything not listed here is pretty much free game. Do as you please, but back it up with evidence and be respectful.

• I'm okay with Kritiks, but make the connection to the resolution extremely clear using evidence. If it is not clear, or if the connection is weak, I will disregard it.

Example: Using this year's resolution, "The United States federal government should substantially increase its protection of water resources in the United States,” you can run a feminism Kritik, but if you have no cards with information on how feminism impacts water resources in the US, I will disregard it. The evidence needs to directly establish a correlation. Implications make a weak case. It needs to be clearly stated.

• No game theory. I won’t dock points for it, but it won't be considered in my deciding the ballot.

• I will hear out Topicality, but again, it needs to be boldly stated, with your points crystal clear. You need to provide evidence. I will not weigh topicality heavier than other voters, nor will it be the sole reason for a vote.

• Disadvantages hold the same weight as Advantages in regards to voters.

Public Forum:

Anything not listed here is pretty much free game. Do as you please, but back it up with evidence and be respectful.

• I prefer arguments over style. I do not mind the way you debate the topic, but I will weigh the arguments made more than style in my vote.

• Any argument that you would like considered as a voter needs to be extended to the rebuttal/ summary speech(es).

• I will vote on arguments raised in crossfire only if they are extended to the rebuttal/summary speech(es).

• I weigh analytics and evidence equally, but you cannot have one without the other. If you have analytics, but weak evidence, I will not vote on it, vice versa.

Lincoln- Douglas:

Anything not listed here is pretty much free game. Do as you please, but back it up with evidence and be respectful.

• You can read Kritiks, or Counterplans, but make sure you stick to the general structure of LD otherwise.

Hey guys,

LD

I’m a parent judge, but I have some familiarity with more progressive argumentation. I’m going to do everything I can to make it a productive round for you, but please make sure you do everything you can to make sure that I’m able to do that.If you get put in front of me for a round, please make sure you do the following:

-Send a speech doc WITH basic analytics. I don’t need your speech word for word, but make sure it’s organized, in the right order, and make sure I can follow along.

-Send me a speech doc of the 1ac before the round. I will flow it and read it to understand.

-Don’t spread outside of contentions. If you go anything faster than conversational in the rebuttal, I will be unable to flow you. I will call clear if you’re unclear.

-I strongly recommend that you stick to utilitarian arguments, as those are the most logically true and easy for me to adjudicate. Make sure that you do a ton of impact calculus, as that’s what determines the round. Tell me why your side is more likely to cause extinction/is going to cause it faster, etc.

-If you HAVE to read another type of argument, do so at your own risk - it is entirely possible that I misunderstand an argument and can’t vote off of it. But here’s my thoughts:

-K - From my understanding, a kritik can function like a normal contention, but with different framework and impact. If you run something really bizarre and weird, I may not be able to understand it - something critiquing capitalism or racism might be easier to understand.

-Theory/Topicality - Don’t unnecessarily use this. I find it very difficult to judge this type of debate. If something actually happened, go ahead, but try your very best to avoid it as I don't know much about these arguments.

-Philosophy - I do not know how to judge this

-Tricks - I do not know how to judge this


EXTEMP

I don’t know if paradigms for Extemp is the norm, but I have one anyway in case you wanted to take a look.

I’m going to weigh both performance and substance quite highly. A well delivered speech full of awful analysis is just as bad as a badly delivered speech with good analytics. I will say that I have the most experience with Interp events, so I do enjoy a speech which is delivered in an upbeat, confident manner over a more monotonous dump of facts.

I’ll default to the following time signals
-down from 5 every minute
-C at 30,
-Count down from 10

Please give me at least 2-3 solid pieces of evidence per argument. Please don’t make blatantly false statements or give me a speech with fabricated data/analysis. A very well delivered speech talking about Barack Obama the Republican is not going to go over well!

As we’re online, I’m going to be very lenient to those with technology issues. If you drop out or cut out, I’ll do everything I can to make sure you get to give your speech in it’s entirety, at least as much as the tournament permits.

Please do not cheat! It is VERY obvious if you’re looking at your outline during your speech. I’ll give you a LOT of leeway, given that you’ll inevitably have to look at the timer, have your eyes stray from the camera, etc, but make sure that you just look somewhere near the computer for the entirety of your speech. Cheating on that helps nobody and certainly won’t help you grow.

Overall, just do your best, good luck, and most importantly - HAVE FUN!!

Offer a good story that contains harms and a plan of action to resolve the harms indicated in the story. I think it would behove you to provide a framework for evaluating competing stories for me to determine who has done the better debating.

Role-play or don't. Either way, be persuasive.

Debate how you'd like, and I will be an active listener in the conversation.

Bias: I have a personal conviction to praxis that is grounded in theory which makes the concept of "theoretical praxis" far less persuasive to me.

As a judge, I will look for the following in the debate

a) Don't spread too much. If you want to spread, please share the case with me in advance. I may hear your speech/argument, but if you do not give me enough time to process it, I may not vote on it.

b) Don't bring any evidence if the probability of the issue happening is very low.

c) Don't bring any new arguments/evidence in the final speech.

d) I prefer Quality over Quantity.

I will try to be as neutral as possible. Having said that It is your job to make sure I know your argument without having studied it myself.

Jasmyne Le-Heritage Hall-Class of 2021

Email: JLe21@heritagehall.com

Unique for this year: debating this year is a bit hectic so I will be more lenient on tech issues in terms of emails, prep etc. That being said, I still will not stand stealing prep for it.

Summary (if you're too lazy to read all this): Everything in terms of arguments is pretty good, as long as you can explain and extend them. I like more soft left AFFs than big stick AFFs but will listen to both. I'm more policy leaning than K leaning, but Ks are fine, I can understand most identity Ks but high theory Ks (Deleuze, Baudrillard etc) I honestly won't probably understand. Speak clearly and don't steal prep or clip cards. Be nice, if you're intentionally racist homophobic, sexist, or overall being rude then you're going to probably lose and get an automatic 25. Otherwise, just relax and debate.

General (Applies to Both Teams)

Email/Flashing

Honestly, I prefer email chains because they're a lot more efficient and better in every way possible. If you decide to do an email chain, please include me (email is above). I will be more lenient with online debating, but please be mindful. If you are taking more than 5 minutes to email something, I will start taking prep. Just be mindful of everyone's time.

Also, please if you're aff disclose your aff before the round unless you're breaking a new AFF it makes it a lot smoother & easier.

Cross-Examination

Open Cross-examination is completely fine, but if it goes out of hand (Ie: people are screaming and fighting and no actual arguments are happening at all) then I'm going to shut it down. Just keep it, nice, people.

Speaking/Speeches

There's not much to say here, just general stuff that you shouldn't do not just around me but for every debate round in general. First, give a road map, regardless if you're aff or neg. The only speech this isn't necessary is the 1AC. For 1NC you should give me a general idea how many off case you're reading, though don't need to tell the specific ones. Every other speech you should tell the order. Also, it makes it a lot easier and will win you more speaker points if you organise your aff arguments to specific flows. What I mean by this is to not jump around while aff because it makes it harder to flow and easier for me to miss an argument or put it in the wrong place because I don't know specifically where to answer it.

As for also answering arguments, make sure you tell what argument you're answering (they say) and then say what you're saying. If you're extending an argument, do a quick summary and analysis.

Spreading is fine BUT YOU MUST BE CLEAR. I can spread pretty quickly so I can understand a lot, but especially be clear in online debating. I will say clear 3 times in a speech and after that I will stop flowing and lose speaker points. Also, please tell me when you're moving onto a different paper and slow down on the tag lines. As for clipping, just don't do it. If you clip your cards you're taking an L.

Finally, I will be timing your prep so you don't need to and be writing it down, though I recommend you should just for habit. If you have any personal questions for me in round you can also ask them.

AFF

K/Planless AFFs

I'm not a huge fan but I think they actually have good usage on this topic and I think they're useful. If you do run, here's what I'm looking for:

1) why we shouldn't use the USFG (needs to be clear)

2) why your impacts outweigh (education, advocacy etc)

3) if they have a TVA answer it

Plan Text AFFs

I love soft left AFFs (AFFs about racism, structural violence etc) and think they should be used more, particularly with this topic. Honestly soft left AFFs are the best for this topic. What I'm looking for mostly is an explanation of your impact, and why it outweighs (particularly if you're going against util DA arguments and why I should prefer your ethics over extinction) and how your AFF solves this.

That being said, I will vote on big stick AFFs (AFFs about extinction on a large scale). I don't think they're great on the topic honestly, but they're fine. I am more open to solvency deficits or being sceptical of the internal link chain, and if the team points it out, you will have to address how your internal link chain will trigger this. Also be sure to explain why your impact outweighs or matters (timeframe, magnitude probability etc) and how your AFF solves this.

In terms of T I'm not too picky because y'all are novices and you're on the packet. For this year I think most things are T unless A--they literally have nothing to do with CJR like even educationally or B they increase criminality, just don't read that in front of me because if they read a T bidirectional and go for it I will probably agree with it.

NEG

DAs

I don't think DAs are super strong so I will be more lenient on them. DAs are good, just make sure to explain your impacts and why they outweigh if you end up going for it in your 2NR and how they link to that specific AFF. The more specific the better. Politics DAs are good as long as you know your evidence and how it interacts with the AFF.

Also, for this topic, be very careful with your wording and how you explain AFFs to not to sound racist. This applies especially to this topic since it can be sensitive for people. There are some bad DAs that can be really misconstrued to sound really bad, and I'm not blaming you if you read it, but if you do say like African Americans are more likely to be arrested by police, or that racism is solved, just don't.

CPs

CPs are again good, I think in particular State CPs and other agency CPs are really good on this topic and solve super well. I'm mainly looking for this:

1) how it solves specific to the AFF, not necessarily better, but enough to solve the AFF's impacts and avoid the DA/cause the Net Benefit.

2) why it outweighs and is better than the AFF

Also if they read theory, do answer it as an FYI.

T

I already talked about it in my AFF thing above that I'm pretty lenient on it, but I am still open to it, especially if done well.

In general, here are my opinions about some generic Ts

-Court AFFs are questionably topical but more likely topical than not.

-Substantial is pretty much moot, unless the AFF is literally tiny (like affects under 100 ppl) and they can't explain why that matters for that tiny subset, then I'll give it to the team to be sufficient

-I think AFFs need to be under one of the 3 subsets (policing, sentencing & forensics) I'm not super into overarching CJR policies that aren't specific to one

-bidirectional (AFF that increase crime) ARE NOT T

In terms of what I look for in T here's what I look for:

1) how the AFF violates the definition

2) why your definition is better (not only better than the AFF's definition, but also why it's good for debate)

3) why I should vote on this (fairness education, ground etc)

K

I'm pretty open to Ks, but mostly common Ks and identity Ks. I'm not super into author-specific or high-theory Ks as I'm not familiar with the lit but am open to them if explained well. Here are the things I'll be looking for regardless of what the K is.

1) Framework--what the ballot does and the role of me, in this debate

2) how it links to the AFF, the more specific the better

3) what the impact is, and why it matters over the impacts of the AFF

4) how the alternative resolves the impacts of the K and the impacts of the AFF. This means no vague alts arguments or just vote neg, where I don't have any clue how it's supposed to resolve. Also not a huge fan of nihilistic/pessimistic alternatives where we just accept it.

5) KNOW YOUR LITERATURE IF YOU DON'T KNOW IT I CAN TELL-YOU SHOULD KNOW MORE THAN ME

Theory

Honestly, I don't think there will be or should be much theory in novice rounds, so this is just more or less in case you do read it.

Conditionality: my limit is around 3-4. I think 3 is kind of borderline (depending on the argument), 5 is really pushing it and you're going to have me pretty legitimate reasons why you're reading that many.

State CP theory: I'm more neutral. Like yes, I think that it is utopian and there is no way 50 states would ever do it, but I also think AFFs should be expected and it is a legitimate argument against AFFs this year.

Vague Alt Theory: is legitimate but needs to impact out. Don’t be afraid to go for it. I've already said this before in the Ks part but if you're aff you should make that argument. If you don't understand it, chances are they're probably not explaining it well and I also would be willing to be open to this argument as it can lead the NEG to be shifty and abusive.

Speaker Points

Speaker points and pretty arbitrary and honestly kind of terrible but if you care about this I'll explain my general grading system

25: you did something wrong like majorly wrong (offensive, broke a rule etc)

26-27: You didn't do anything technically wrong in terms of rules, but you still did something bad (like not being clear at all, being rude in cross x, not extending any arguments, just not prepared at all), or just seem that you don't want to be here and make this painful for me to watch like watching a train wreck. Don't do this.

27-28.5: Most people in the beginning of the year will fall into this category. You're beginning in debate, but still learning a lot, which is okay. If I judge you again you will probably be higher afterwards by 2nd semester.

28.5-29.5: You're really good, just a couple minor things that need to work on.

29.5-30: I rarely give this, all your speeches have to be perfect. I will probably only give it once a year.

+1=good cross X, both answering and receiving, also this is good ethos in general

+1=rebuttals especially 2AR & 2NR will have a lot of weight on my speaker points since they're the last speeches, this where the majority of your speaks will be based on how this speech is. Same for 1NR & 1ARs.

End Notes

At the end of the day, debate can suck and is exhausting but also can be a lot of fun. Don't take it too seriously, nothing will happen if you lose a debate round in your novice year. Literally no one cares, you don't have TOC or anything so you shouldn't be too serious. In the end, it's mainly about getting better and learning from each round. Have fun, stay calm, and just relax-it'll be fine!

Hello, I have very simple expectations:

o Speak clearly without rushing. I really don't like spreading.

o If I cannot hear you either because you are too fast or too soft, no matter how brilliant your arguments are, I cannot understand you

o Be civil, no foul language, no bigotry

o Be reasonable and don't push on assumptions that are flimsy at best

I am committed to ensuring all participants have the opportunity to pursue excellence in your endeavors. This is only possible with your cooperation to assure an atmosphere of mutual respect. Debates should be free from all forms of harassment and discrimination. I ask you to check your unconscious bias against certain types of arguments or the people making them, avoiding generalizations about groups of people, or the attacking of individuals for any reason. Here are considerations that we should all keep in our mind:

o Recognize that many people you interact with during debates will be from backgrounds differing from yours. This may mean that arguments, or the way they are presented, may differ from what you are used to. This should not detract from their value and should be adjudicated or engaged with equally.

o Ensure that immutable characteristics of anyone present does not affect how they are treated. Be sure to check that how you treat someone is detached from their race, gender, sexual orientation, age, etc.

o Note that adjudications are final and should be respected. That is to say that no judge should be harassed or feel targeted for a decision they'ave made. I will do my best to provide feedback in written form after the debate is finished (usually in Tabroom).

I am a high school senior and I have been in speech and debate since middle school. My main debate event is Public Forum although I have done LD a few times throughout the years.

I am a flow judge so I will jot down anything and everything that you say as well as if something is dropped or not responded to. I am not a fan of spreading, but feel free to talk at whatever pace you want. If I can't understand you due to technical difficulties, then I will let you know. Please sign-post so I can keep track of whatever you say in my flow.

In terms of what factors into my decision, everything on the flow determines how I judge, including dropped/unresponded points. Impacts are a must and if you want me to buy your point, then warrants and impacts must be explained and expanded on. Be nice and don't be racist, homophobic, sexist, disrespectful, or rude to anyone in the round, otherwise, you will get bad speaker points.

I chose to keep this paradigm pretty brief, but if you have any questions, you can ask me before we start the round.

Hey I’m Jazmine.

(Updates for clash debates will be loaded by 1.20.23, the below is still relevant)

Yes I want to be on the email chain: futurgrad@gmail.com

Had a long paradigm from 3 years ago most of it word vomit so I’ll keep it simple.

I know I’ll be in clash debates. Most will think I lean on one side of the "fight" which is probably true but anyone who claims neutrality is lying to ur face. So I’ll say that I have predispositions HOWEVER, I DO NOT AUTO vote on the K or vote against fwk since as a coach I develop arguments on both sides. Don’t believe me? Well check the wikis;). MY Rule of thumb is if your logic is circular and self referential with no application to what is happening in the debate or how these competing theories (Debate as a game, state good, etc. are theories so you’re not out of this comment) structure how I should be evaluating top level framing and the ballot then yea I’m not your judge [FOR BOTH SIDES]. Point out the tautology and implicate it with some defense to solvency or have it lower the threshold for how much you have to win your competing interpretation (or interpretation) and let’s debate it out.

K on K, I’m smart and pick up on levels of comprehension BUT make it make sense. The buzzword olympics was cool but I want to see where the LINKS or POINTS of difference where ever you are drawing them from so I know what does voting AFF mean or What does voting NEG mean.

like I said simple. I appreciate the linguistic hustle and am into the game, but play the damn game instead of stopping at intrinsic statements of "Debate is a game and that presumption is valid because that’s just the way it has to be because MY DA’s! :/" or "This theory of the world is true and since I entered it into the chat I win..." IMPLICATE THE PRESUMPTIONS with solvency thresholds, framing thresholds PLEASE!

THanks for coming over.

Email chain: rrn.debate [at] gmail [dot] com

Background: Mamaroneck High School, University of Southern California – Policy Debate

Tech over truth.

Be clear, don’t be surprised when an argument I can’t flow doesn’t make it into my decision. I am slow at typing and on average get down 60% of your speech down on my flow.

Don't clip, be rude, or lie.

I agree with Ken Karas on most everything.

I am a parent judge with 5 years of experience.

I expect the participants to speak slow but most importantly clearly

I want to understand the debate so explaining arguments help me understand why you should win more.

Respect other participants and I will respect you

add me to any email chains

ajayrawal@hotmail.com

Info: First year out attending Colorado College, debated from 8th grade to my senior year in 21', CX National Champ.

Pronouns: he/they

Add me to the chain: sring21@heritagehall.com

Top Level

Have fun, do what you want to do, don't be mean

Spreading is ok, go 70% for online

Tech over truth generally

Bio

I debated at Heritage Hall from 2016-21' and have been coached by Bryan Gaston, Joshua Michaels (<3), and Kristiana Báez. NSDA CX Champ 20' with the GOAT Saif Salim. I've run everything; mainly been a K debater for most of my career, but also have experience in high tech deterrence debates and any given basic policy strat. 

LD/Non-CX

Don't read random theory. I will not vote on a RVI. 2 condo limit seems fair with limited speeches. I am fine with any style of argument. I am fine with spreading and NatCir LD style.

Aff/Case Debate

Most 1AC's are fine, don't forget about the 1AC. Good case debate is underutilized and can help any strategy.

Ks

Please, go ahead, K's are by far my favorite argument in debate. But, don't over adapt to me, it's just my interest and I like seeing people utilize scholarship creatively and will reward a clear depth of understanding.

Compartmentalize and flag important arguments, you do not need a separate page for an OV and I will not flow it, good K debate should embed most of that OV stuff onto the line by line.

Framework ends up being a wash too often, neg teams shouldn't be so nebulous with their interps. A lot of aff teams are super generic on FW and you should exploit that with arguments that can turn any piece of potential offense they go for. Conversely, aff teams really need to do better on contextualizing FW and making specific answers, examples can help here.

Links are links, "state bad" isn't the best, the most important part of link debate is how you impact them out to create unique impacts in the imaginary world of the aff. Your link also shouldn't be when you asked a high school sophomore what the definition of death is in cx. 

I think the alt should probably resolve at least "some" of the impact in order to decidedly vote on the K unless told otherwise. Alts provide links uniqueness, and the FW debate should set the stage the alt.

DAs

I'm more likely to vote on a logical UQ overwhelms the link than I am to vote on a carded piece of impact d that is kinda trash. Pointing out logical flaws makes you look smart an wdill be rewarded. But, obviously have carded answers and do good ev comparison, especially on politics. I think politics are a crucial DA for any topic, but when topic specific DAs exist those should be prioritized.

Good impact comparison and internal link analysis will go far, build the world of what the DA looks like while engaging with what the aff says, don't just tell a 4 point line assuming 1:1 on each step

CPs

Prove they solve the entirety of the aff, or at least as much as you need to, do the analysis on why it doesn't have to or why a chance of the NB outweighs. Your CPs should be nuanced and specific to the aff, and well contextualized if generic.

Perm debates can be weird, but I think the best way to get away with a cheating perm is good theory args. Process and agent cps are sketchy but can be ok so long as they're different enough.

Aff - point out key solvency deficits that are unique to the aff, and find a way to make them into NB's for the perm

T

Not the best judge for t debates. T outweighs condo and is never an RVI.

If you want to go for T in front of me, examples will take you far, and well impacted out standards with clear links and internal links will be rewarded. The only real impact is education.

FW

Have good reasons for why the education provided by policy debate is good. I don't have a hard-line stance on if fairness or education can ever be intrinsically good so just do good, contextual line by line on whatever you think can best engage with the aff ideas. Fairness should more than likely be an IL not an impact by itself, but that doesn't mean I won't buy it if well explained.

Do line by line that answers their theory as specifically as possible, and defend your model well.

TVAs can be extremely helpful if they're specific enough. Iterative testing and direct education impacts matter far more than ground, limits, whatever. Education is really the only impact that matters, everything else is fluff or just lowkey IL's to edu.

K Affs

Don't be too k tricky and keep the line by line clean for your own sake

Theory

Just line by line and win your model of debate is better. Condo is prob the only reason to reject the team, and I'm not the best for judging it - don't go high speed in theory rebuttals.

Misc.

Don't clip cards or steal prep

Don't be transphobic, racist, ableist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc.

Don't be too mean, I get discourse but there are limits

"insert recut" isn't a thing, read it

Answer CX questions. have fun

I'll try to be as tab as possible, but that means you need to be giving me a reason why I'm voting on any given argument or framework. If I'm not getting enough of a reason, I'll have to do some level of judge intervention, so all I ask is that you make it easy on me.

I debated in Oregon for 4 years doing policy, I've done parlimentary debate (competed at the ToC as well), and even a brief stint in Congress.

Speed is fine with me, but make sure you're very clear on your taglines because if I can't flow your argument, you might as well have not made it.

In the end, I believe the debate is your learning ground and I'm just there to decided who did a better job of playing the game and then providing feedback.

I read a good number of Ks or at least the lit for them, so I probably have some idea of what you're talking about, but please still explain it for me as if I don't know what your talking about. If I can't understand what your K is, I'm left to interpret it however I understand it, which may not be correct.

If you're going to read any politics disad(s), assume I know nothing about the current state of politics and break it down for me.

If you're going to read some sort of framework, please explain to me why the framework should be preferred (or if your opponents say nothing about it, I'll assume that's the framework we're debating).

In terms of theory arguments, I'm willing to vote any way on these, but I have a relatively low threshold for answers to straight condo bad, but I am much more inclined to hear a good logical-limited conditionality argument. If you're using theory as some sort of time skew or strat skew, I'm fine with that, but if you get called on it, I'm willing to hear an argument against it.

Finally, I've never seen an RVI read, but this is something I would probably be unlike to vote on, but given extreme levels of abuse, I suppose I could be persuaded.

E-mail : roopa.shirol@gmail.com

Please speak at a moderate pace so that I can follow along.

Be loud and clear.

Let me know where to record your arguments.

You can time yourselves.

During cross-ex, please speak one after the other and not at the same time.

I do not prefer too much spreading so much so that the participant is having hard time breathing. Please keep the talking speed such that I can follow and take some notes while you are speaking.

I have been judging for over three years and have judged, in addition to preliminary rounds, many ellimination rounds at Berkley, SCU and Stanford etc . I prefer clear and steady tone, distinct articulation of contention(s) and related sub-points.