clarity = speed of delivery. pleaseslow down on tags, texts, interpretations, advocacies, analytical arguments, authors, or any argument you want me to get in detail verbatim on my flow. please keep in mind that your speed will always be faster than my keyboarding skills/flowcabulary. i do not flow off the document and will not backflow arguments from the document

i am a great judge for technical, mechanical line-by-line debate

judge instruction is axiomatic. most judging philosophies say "judge instructions please" because debaters rarely do enough of it and judges are left to decide debates on their own devices which leads to inevitable intervention and at least one unhappy debater. please - judge instructions! yes, go for your arguments, say how they outweigh, sure, magnitude timeframe sure, but tell me what to do with them/everything else at the end of the debate

what you debate is up to you - i do not have a preference for how you stylistically debate or which arguments you choose to read. this is my 20th year in debate and i have been around long enough that i have probably heard, debated, coached, and/or judged almost any/every argument you could say or do within reason. all arguments are fair game within reason - do not be violent, racist, et cetera. i consider myself an incredibly flexible coach that believes debaters get the most out of the activity through a student-centered model of debate where the debater is in the argumentative captain's seat and my job as a debate coach is to coach debaters at what they want to do to the best of my ability

i obviously have preferences - every debate judge does - but i try to keep those out of the decision calculus for deciding who wins the debate. given that, the following might help you out while either filling out your pref sheet or in the pre-round prep:

i am an awesome to great to okay judge for almost all arguments that come from policy debate - disads, counterplans, plans, not plans, performance, kritiks, k affs, theory, topicality, the politics da, conditionality bad, et cetera

i am an okay-ish judge for kant/phil - did a lot of academic research in uni on kant, but often struggle with how ld does kant. if you are going to read a bunch of dense cards about the categorical imperative, you are a-okay. if you are spamming a bunch of paradoxes, i would probably take another judge

i'm getting increasingly better for "tricks". a couple years ago this would have said no tricks, but i find myself increasingly voting on arguments like "role of the ballot spec", random ivis, and such when explained/impacted properly. i will only evaluate the debate after the 2ar

my voting record is historically bad for the neg on "t-usfg/framework/must larp/instrumentally defend the topic" and would advise engaging the affirmative

the aff is 29-0 in front of me over the past 5 years when the nr goes for "t-nebel/whole resolution/cannot specify/no plans"

some judge intricacies:

i will not judge kick unless you explicitly make judge kick an option in your speech

team no risk - there is zero risk that i will win the gold medal in the 100m dash at the 2024 paris olympic games

debaters must speaketh the rehighlighting - you can only re-insert text that has already been read

speaker point floor typically 29.0

i do not have a "poker face" and am unabashedly human

I have watched several debates as a spectator; however I am a minimally experienced lay, parent judge.

Some important things to keep in mind:

• Please do not spread. I really do not like fast-paced speaking. Please speak clearly and slowly so that I can take note of what is important. Emphasize key points during your speeches. Enunciate. Although I am told I can use “clear” during the rounds, I probably will never do so as I really do not want to interrupt. With that said, speed and clarity is key to this lay judge!

• If possible, I would appreciate a copy of your constructive speech emailed at diazvmichelle@gmail.com.

• Please stay away from debate jargon. I will most likely not understand it.

• Please time yourself as it makes more sense in a virtual setting.

• Please be polite. Refrain from any racist, sexist, homophobic or other types of harassment. It will sway my decision and will probably lower your speaker score.

• I will not be verbally disclosing results so after the debate is done, feel free to leave.

Have fun and good luck!

I'm a relatively lay judge that values truth over tech. I have experience in judging parli, and am pretty much new to PF and LD.

I majored in philosophy at UC Davis and am a autodidact with a love for languages, music, and knowledge in general.

I value well-reasoned arguments and logic over emotional appeal. I have a dislike of sophistry, but understand the value of being rhetorically competent, viz. how well you present your points, etc.

A little about me:

Currently coaching: Sage Hill School 2021-Present

Past Coaching: Diamond Ranch HS 2015-2020

I also tab more tournaments, but I keep up with my team so I can follow many of the trends in all events.

-

I prefer all of my speakers to make sure that any contentions, plans or the like are clear and always link back to the topic at hand. You're free to run theory or K at your peril. I've heard great rounds on Afro-pessimism and bad rounds on it. I've loved a round full of theory and hated rounds full of theory. All depends on how it's done, and what the point of it.

I am a social studies teacher, so I can't unknow the rules of American government or economics. Don't attempt to stay something that is factually inaccurate that you would know in your classes.

Be respectful of all parties in the room - your opponent(s), your partner (if applicable) and the judge. Hurtful language is in not something I tolerate. Pronouns in your names are an added plus.

Speaking clearly, even if fast, is fine, but spreading can be difficult to understand, especially through two computers. I will say "Clear" if I need to. In an online format, please slow down for the first minute if possible. I haven't had to listen to spreading with online debate.

For LD, I don't mind counterplans and theory discussions as long as they are germane to the topic and as long as they don't result in debating the rules of debate rather than the topic itself. In the last year most of my LD rounds have not been at TOC bid tournaments, but that doesn't mean I can't follow most arguments, but be patient as I adjust.

Truth > tech.

*It's work to make me vote on extinction or nuclear war as a terminal impact in any debate. That link chain needs to be solid if you're doing to expect me to believe it.*

In PF, make sure that you explain your terminal impacts and tell me why I should weight your impacts vs your opponents' impacts.

WSD - I have been around enough tournaments to know what I should hear and I will notice if you're not doing it well. Thinking global always. Models should always be well explained and match the focus on the round. Fiat is a tricky thing in the event now but use it as you see fit.

I dont like spreading because I am a parent judge, please be clear in your speaking and make sure to signpost. I like impact calc and I will vote based on the greatest impacts. I won't disclose. Make sure you are respectful to the other team. Thanks!

Email chain: eric.boxuan.gao@gmail.com

Stanford '25

Debated 3 years of Policy at Kudos, 4 years at Northwood. Have done all speaker roles at some point, mainly was a 2N/1A.

I've gone for both policy and kritikal arguments.

K affs should be at least related to the topic.

You should be timing yourself. I will stop flowing if your time goes too over.

CP/DA

Have ev comparison - this is usually the fastest way to win debates.

Explain why your cards being true means their theory is wrong.

A DA by itself can win a debate, as long as there's sufficient turns/solves case analysis.

T/Theory

Treat it like a disad - compare standards and weigh them against one another.

I'm not against voting for theory, as long as it's debated well. I personally kicked the aff to go for theory a bit more times than I should have.

Kritiks

K's I've gone for: Lacan, Cap, Security, Berlant, Puar (in that order of familiarity)

When going for the K, the most important thing is to have specific analysis regarding the aff. In a k debate, the team that talks about the AFF more wins.

Tie your story together, instead of just "aff is like [x concept] and [y concept] is bad".

PLEASE EXTEND YOUR IMPACTS.

I've seen too many debates that are much closer than they should be because of a lack of extended impacts. The best link story without impacting it out is ultimately still not a reason to vote for your side.

I appreciate strategic argumentation instead of reading blocks - if they drop a turn, go for it instead of some other piece of defense.

********************************************************************************************

I will give teams 1 extra speaker point per speaker if they properly use an email chain during the round. This means:

-Case writeup with the cards used in case below should be sent in a word/google document (like this) BEFORE your first constructive speech

-Any cards being planned on read after that should be sent in a word/google document (like this) right BEFORE it is read in speech.

This likely means you'll have to cut your cards BEFORE ROUND (I know, shocker!). Don't be spending 5 minutes cutting cards during the round to earn this point, you'll each lose half a point as a result if you do. Case docs should be ready to send the second you enter the call too

Email is adnan.m.ismail@berkeley.edu.

***********************************************************************************************

I'm a 4th year bioengineering student at UC Berkeley, and I've competed in PF for about 5 years in middle and high school.

Lets start with the obvious: DON'T BE RACIST TRANSPHOBIC HOMOPHOBIC SEXIST ABLEIST ELITIST OR EXCLUSIVE IN ANY WAY OR I WILL DROP YOU, GIVE YOU 0 SPEAKS, AND MAYBE MORE.

-Warrants in everything are especially important to me, and it's really important your warrants are clear. Lack of clarity will make me confused, drop your speaks and most likely drop you the round.

-Additionally, I look for the path of least resistance to the ballot. In other words, if you have an argument that's been clean dropped and you weigh that argument very well, 8/10 times I'm voting on that argument.

-The best way to create a clear-cut path to the ballot and follow the first two bullet points is by collapsing well on good arguments, especially in the second half of the round. Collapsing creates a much more narrowed/focused round that is easier to judge and follow, and it allows you to nuance and explain your arguments more fully. The more in-depth analysis you do when collapsing/as a result of collapsing, the more likely I'll vote for you.

-For the most part, anything that you say in final focus should be in summary. On the note of the second half of the round/frontlining in 2nd rebuttal or whatever,...I don't care. Just be consistent. Specifically:

----If you frontline in 2nd rebuttal, it's gonna be hard for me to accept new frontlines in 2nd summary. I'll give more leeway for defense that's not frontlined in 2nd rebuttal but almost impossible for turns.

----So long as the defense is untouched, first speaking teams can extend defense from first rebuttal to first final focus. But if the first speaking team extends defense in first summary, that defense is the only defense that can be extended into final focus.

-You can start your weighing whenever, even in final focus. But BIG weighing mechanisms (like those overviews that outline a certain argument/impact as the most important in the round for example) should arrive before second rebuttal. On that note, weigh! It's good to get the ballot. Not just buzz words. But like, actual weighing. Answer questions like these in your weighing: "How does your impact outweigh on magnitude?"

-Lastly on the note of the second half of the round, and I cannot stress this enough: YOU HAVE TO EXTEND EVERY PART OF THE ARGUMENT YOU WANT ME TO EVALUATE. THIS INCLUDES THE LINK, THE INTERNAL LINK(S), AND THE TERMINAL IMPACT OF YOUR ARGUMENT WITH THE WARRANTS FOR EACH PART OF THE ARGUMENT. NOTHING BLIPPY!!

-Don't spread please. I'm good with a brisk pace of talking (If you're confused, err on the side of slightly slower instead of slightly faster).

-I'm not extremely familiar with more technical argumentation (K's, theory, etc.). My philosophy is that while they look more "spooky" or "cool", all arguments share the same structure, where they require some sort of link, an explanation for why it matters (an impact) and warrants all throughout and in between. So just make sure to make the warranting for these arguments crystal clear.

-On that note for theory, the bar for whether or not a team is abusive is quite high. So run at your own risk. If you do think that your theory shell is very warranted and the abuse is substantial and you want to win off of it, I should expect it to dominate your speech time in the second half of the round. As in your entire FF should be dedicated to the shell that you read. Also if you read theory, I'm more inclined to listen to a well hashed shell compared to "paragraph theory." It's easier to flow and simply more clear for me. But I won't get angry at you if you read paragraph theory.

-And lastly don't know much, if anything, about the topic, and definitely not familiar with the topic lit at all. So clarity in warrant/impact analysis and extension of arguments and whatnot is esp key to pick up my ballot this tournament.

Good luck and have fun! Any questions email me at adnan.m.ismail@berkeley.edu

Berkeley elims update: elim rounds are open to the public, if you try to ask people to not watch the round I will be incredibly displeased.

About Me

Kyle (he/they), did circuit PF (and some policy and extemp on the state level) and coached for Fairmont. Studied math education at Cal, and didn't debate in college. Please use my first name and don't call me "judge", I promise I'm not much older than you.

I've judged rather infrequently over the past three years - I still keep a very good flow by PF standards (can still get cites for every card), but keep in mind my rust and don't speak too quickly. I can deal with cards being spread IF you are slow on tags and cites AND your cards are long enough that you're not spreading 12 words and going back to slow. I won't flow off a speech doc.

Email me at kylek@berkeley.edu if you have any questions or to add me to email chains.

You can make warrants in round about why I should change any the beliefs listed below unless you are advocating for exclusionary behavior or academic dishonesty.

General

Tabula rasa is a myth; the best a judge can do is explain the ways in which they are not tab before the round. So read this.

The best way to win in front of me is to win one piece of offense, properly extend it in each speech, and convince me it's the most important thing through weighing. I strongly prefer you going very in depth on one argument than trying to win every argument and undercovering everything.

Every claim you make should be warranted, and the team who does better comparative warrant analysis will almost always win. Empirics/evidence without warrants mean almost nothing to me.

Tech > truth but you'll find true arguments are very easy to warrant. Read above. You can (and maybe should) warrant to me why I should be truth > tech on theory or structural violence arguments.

Rebuttal

Neither side can read new independent offense in rebuttal (theory arguments where the violation occurred in the previous speech is an exception). Weighing and turns are obviously fine, but reading a new contention as an "overview" is not cool.

If you only read one section from this paradigm, make it this one: if you are the second speaking team, you need to respond to everything from the first rebuttal related to the arguments that you intend to go for in summary and final focus. If you want to go for a contention in your case, you better cleanly frontline at least one link and impact. Anything said in the first rebuttal that isn't addressed in the second is considered dropped.

Summary/Final Focus

Go for one thing and go for it hard. I love early collapse strategies (as early as the rebuttal speeches). Go for one of the six links into your case, go for a turn, concede defense against your own case to kick out of a turn, make smart decisions and be creative.

Three minute summaries are one minute too long. There's no excuse to not cleanly extend everything you want to go for. This means frontlining, and properly extending warrants and impacts. I need a full link chain extended to grant you offense on an argument.

Do meta weighing - why is your impact that wins on magnitude more important than your opponents' impact that wins on probability? Don't just use buzzwords. And saying "we read link defense, therefore we outweigh because their impact is nonexistent" is NOT WEIGHING. Assume both arguments are true and show why yours is better.

If it's not in summary, it better not be in final focus. This applies to both offense and defense. I have no tolerance for debaters who disrespect their partners, and one of the most common ways it appears in-round is when a second speaker's final focus is nothing like their partner's summary. Your speaker points will suffer greatly if this happens.

"Progressive" Arguments

Theory should be used to set norms and check against abuse. I'm not the person to read frivolous theory in front of.

Here are some of my general beliefs on theory arguments, but keep in mind that I can be (and have been) persuaded to vote against these beliefs. You should disclose and I'll vote for disclosure theory. I'm ambivalent on specific disclosure interps (ex: round reports), but please understand the inherent differences between PF and policy before you read these arguments. I don't have any predisposed leanings on paraphrasing, but misconstruction of evidence is academic dishonesty and will be treated as such. Even if you paraphrase you should have all your cut cards in one document and evidence exchanges should take less than a minute.

On RVIs: you shouldn't win just for following the rules, but you should also be able to argue that theory trades off with topic education and therefore is a voter. I've been told some folks disagree on whether that means I default yes or no RVIs, but that is my baseline stance. Again, I will not hack for/against any of these arguments, but I want to list my general dispositions here for full transparency's sake. Ask me before round if you have any questions.

I will vote for your K or policy argument with non-utilitarian kritikal framing. If you're reading the former, keep in mind I'm not super familiar with the literature so warrant and explain well. K vs. FW debates are among my favorite to watch and evaluate. Both teams in a K round should warrant why I should prefer their model of debate (i.e. have a good ROTB argument). I generally believe K's should have some link to the topic.

Things I would be a very good judge for: LARP vs. LARP, disclosure, K vs. FW, LARP with K framing

Things I would be a pretty good judge for: LARP vs. K, other theory, K vs. K

Things I would be a very bad judge for: non-topical K, frivolous theory, tricks (really any argument that doesn't have a claim, warrant, and impact at bare minimum)

Respect your opponents and your partner. Have fun.

Pronouns: he/his

I am a lay judge. Do not spread! Speak as slow as possible.

I have only started judging this year, but I am familiar with Public Forum.

Make sure to time yourselves even though I will time you as well. Try to stick to the time.

Be civil in cross.

Hello! I am a Northwood HS Alumni, currently attending Indiana University for business. I spoke competitively for the Northwood team.

For debates: I am primarily a speech judge, so please slow down and explain everything to me as a lay judge. I also take into account speaking style when making my decisions.

Experienced Parli and PoFo debater. Seven years coaching and judging parli/pofo/LD at high school level. Flow judge.

Tabula Rasa judge, I will make a conscious effort not to bring preconceived notions about evidence/analysis into the round. Source credibility matters. Not a fan of spreading, please don't gish galIop your opponents and try to act like it's credible. I'll allow some spreading, especially in LD, but if I can't understand you that only counts against you. I dislike complicated theory arguments, I don't necessarily believe they are appropriate for the high school level 90% of the time, but I will judge them if I have to (but know that I will not like it). I appreciate clear voters in final speeches, tell me why I should vote for you.

PoFo:

I weigh style and argumentation equally. Arguments should be valid and presented clearly. Extend arguments across the flow. If you drop an argument and your opponent notes it, I will consider it dropped by you. I prefer analytics to evidence, but any good analysis has to be based off something. If you raise new arguments in crossfire, please reaffirm them in your speech. Make sure you adhere to your framework, if you set a value I want to see you support it.

LD:

I expect to see value/value criterion that your evidence/analysis can support. Framework debate is important but I will favor the case over it unless the framework is an absolute dealbreaker. While I think theoretical arguments are interesting, I would prefer that the debate remain in the realm of evidence/analysis as much as possible. Plans and counterplans are acceptable, but I'll be harsh if you run a kritik. If you're going to pull something like that at a high school level you better make it immaculate and understandable.

Parli:

I judge heavily on weighing mechanism in Parli rounds when applicable. I do not expect WM in fact-based rounds. I appreciate definitional creativity but I dislike debates that get bogged down at the top of the flow in theoretical worlds. I prefer analysis over evidence, but I understand that some variations of Parli require an emphasis on evidence. Do not spread, I do not believe it belongs in Parli. Try to maintain decorum during POIs, do not abuse the mechanic.


Policy:

I am not an experienced Policy judge. Analysis matters over evidence and I'll try my best.

Hello! I'm Juliana, a college student from Orange County, CA. I did impromptu and extemporaneous speech throughout high school, and I have some experience with public forum and LD debate. I don't have any speaking preferences, as long as you are courteous to everyone in your round. Good luck!

Hi o/

I'm currently an undergrad at UC Berkeley and an assistant Speech and Debate coach. I'm a former debater who mainly competed in Parliamentary debate for Claremont High School. Alongside that, I've competed in and/or judged LD, PF, Worlds, BQ, Congress, and several speech events (mainly Impromptu/Extemp). I always appreciate a competitive and respectful round so I'm looking forward to hearing what you have to say!

General Debate Notes

Please focus on your links! I believe they are just as/more important than your cards/impacts. Arguments that depend on well-thought out logic are always more interesting to listen to than a random card without much analysis from the debater. I weigh magnitude and probability heavily, meaning I will not vote for your nuclear holocaust argument just because you tell me to based on a 0.0000000001% chance. Please provide a roadmap and signpost in each speech! I want to be able to flow your case/refutations as accurately as possible and it's difficult when you spew random facts at me for 7 minutes. Remember, you could have the most beautiful argument to ever be conceived of in human history, but if I don't know where/how to flow it I can't give you credit. Lastly, be respectful! Especially during POIs and cross. That also means avoid making faces or facepalming while your camera is on, I'll probably tank speaks if a debater is being disrespectful throughout the round.

Kritiks & Theory

I'm open to hearing these arguments as long as you can justify them. There are definitely rounds where these arguments are necessary and will impact my decision. I'm not the most familiar with K's so please explain each component to me! If there's one thing I hate more than spreading, it's frivolous theory/k's that you wrote at camp 5 months ago and decided to shoe into your case. Make sure the K actually makes sense for the specific round, not one that you already decided to run before the topic is even announced. (It's an exclusionary tactic against new debaters and makes me sad ). Don't feel pressured to run these arguments either, you don't need to use jargon or this structure to explain why a definition or argument is abusive!

Speaking

I'm pretty generous when it comes to speaks. If you make me laugh I'm probably going to boost your speaks too. Be respectful to your opponents, being rude is an easy way for me to dock your speaks without feeling very bad. Don't Spread, Don't Spread, Don't Spread.

If you have any other questions feel free to ask them in round! :)

glhf

2024 Vanderbilt Student

3 Years of Parliamentary debate and 1 year of Parliamentary Captain.

Spreading and theory are all acceptable as long as you do it coherently.

Please respect yourself and your opponent.

Please add me to email chain: Email: schirjeev@gmail.com

I am a lay judge. Go a little bit slower than you would usually just to make sure I get everything on the flow.

I've done speech and debate for 6 years now and I specialize in speech, but I am well versed in debate as well.

Debate-

I dislike spreading, please be clear and coherent in your speaking so make sure to signpost. I vote based on who has more clash and the highest impact calculus. I like debates that are topical and arguments/contentions that have weight to them. I won't disclose, but I will give constructive criticism. Make sure you are respectful to the other team, don't be abusive. If you are novice feel free to talk and ask questions before the debate if you have any concerns. I am happy to help.

For debates with cross, I won't flow the cross, but I will listen to it. So please bring up any certain things brought up on cross in the debate so I can jot them down on my flow.

SPEECH:

In your speeches, I won't immediately penalize for stumbling in your speech once or twice (everybody messes up, I get it). I like it when students have a speech triangle and are able to maintain eye contact with the audience. If someone else is speaking, do NOT talk over them or be on your phones. Be respectful, make sure to clap at the end of someone's speech.

Impromptu:

I prefer the format of intro, 3 examples, and conclusion. If you want to differ, try to make it coherent and have flow (another popular format would be the problem, cause, solution format). I'll judge based on interpretation, projection/articulation, and body language.

Interps:

Focus on conveying emotions and conveying the message of your story. Try to maintain consistency in flow (especially in duo, try to have a good flow between you and your partner.)

Original Speeches:

I'd like to state once more that it is okay to fumble in your speech once or twice. Also, make sure you are interesting and professional.

GENERAL

1. Clarity > Loudness > Speed.

2. Framing > Impact > Solvency. Framing is a prior question. Don’t let me interpret the debate, interpret the debate for me.

3. Truth IS Tech. Warranting, comparative analysis, and clash structure the debate.

4. Offense vs Defense: Defense supports offense, though it's possible to win on pure defense.

5. Try or Die vs Neg on Presumption: I vote on case turns & solvency takeouts. AFF needs sufficient offense and defense for me to vote on Try or Die.

6. Theory: Inround abuse > potential abuse.

7. Debate is a simulation inside a bigger simulation.

NEGATIVE

TOPICALITY: As far as I am concerned, there is no resolution until the negative teams reads Topicality. The negative must win that their interpretation resolves their voters, while also proving abuse. The affirmative either has to win a no link we meet, a counterinterp followed up with a we meet, or just straight offense against the negative interpretation. I am more likely to vote on inround abuse over potential abuse. If you go for inround abuse, list out the lost potential for neg ground and why that resolves the voters. If you go for potential abuse, explain what precedents they set.

FRAMEWORK: When the negative runs framework, specify how you orient Fairness & Education. If your FW is about education, then explain why the affirmative is unable to access their own pedagogy, and why your framework resolves their pedagogy better and/or presents a better alternative pedagogy. If your FW is about fairness, explain why the affirmative method is unable to solve their own impacts absent a fair debate, and why your framework precedes Aff impacts and/or is an external impact.

DISADVANTAGES: Start with impact calculation by either outweighing and/or turning the case. Uniqueness sets up the timeframe, links set up probability, and the impact sets up the magnitude.

COUNTERPLANS: Specify how the CP solves the case, a DA, an independent net benefit, or just plain theory. Any net benefit to the CP can constitute as offense against the Permutation.

CASE: Case debate works best when there is comparative analysis of the evidence and a thorough dissection of the aff evidence. Sign post whether you are making terminal defense arguments or case turns.

KRITIKS: Framing is key since a Kritik is basically a Linear Disad with an Alt. When creating links, specify whether they are links to the Aff form and/or content. Links to the form should argue why inround discourse matters more than fiat education, and how the alternative provides a competing pedagogy. Links to the content should argue how the alternative provides the necessary material solutions to resolving the neg and aff impacts. If you’re a nihilist and Neg on Presumption is your game, then like, sure.

AFFIRMATIVES

TRADITIONAL AFFIRMATIVES

PLANS WITH EXTINCTION IMPACTS: If you successfully win your internal link story for your impact, then prioritize solvency so that you can weigh your impacts against any external impacts. Against other extinction level impacts, make sure to either win your probability and timeframe, or win sufficient amount of defense against the negs extinction level offense. Against structural violence impacts, explain why proximate cause is preferable over root cause, why extinction comes before value to life, and defend the epistemological, pedagogical, and ethical foundations of your affirmative. i might be an "extinction good" hack.

PLANS WITH STRUCTURAL IMPACTS: If you are facing extinction level disadvantages, then it is key that you win your value to life framing, probability/timeframe, and no link & impact defense to help substantiate why you outweigh. If you are facing a kritik, this will likely turn into a method debate about the ethics of engaging with dominant institutions, and why your method best pedagogically and materially effectuates social change.

KRITIKAL AFFIRMATIVES

As a 2A that ran K Affs, the main focus of my research was answering T/FW, and cutting answers to Ks. I have run Intersectionality, Postmodernism, Decolonization, & Afropessimism. Having fallen down that rabbit hole, I have become generally versed in (policy debate's version of) philosophy.

K AFF WITH A PLAN TEXT: Make sure to explain why the rhetoric of the plan is necessary to solve the impacts of the aff. Either the plan is fiated, leading a consequence that is philosophically consistent with the advantage, or the plan is only rhetorical, leading to an effective use of inround discourse (such as satire). The key question is, why was saying “United States Federal Government,” necessary, because it is likely that most kritikal teams will hone their energy into getting state links.

K BEING AFFS: Everything is bad. These affs incorporate structural analysis to diagnosis how oppression manifests metaphysically, materially, ideologically, and/or discursively, "We know the problem, and we have a solution." This includes Marxism, Settler Colonialism, & Afropessimism affs. Frame how the aff impact is a root cause to the negative impacts, generate offense against the alternative, and show how the perm necessitates the aff as a prior question.

K BECOMING AFFS: Truth is bad. These affs point to complex differences that destabilize the underlying metanarratives of truth and power, "We problematize the way we think about problems." This includes Postmodern, Intersectionality, & Performance affs. Adapt to turning the negative links into offense for the aff. Short story being, if you're just here to say truth is bad, then you're relying on your opponent to make truth claims before you can start generating offense.

The short but sweet version

Former Socal parliamentary debater and two time TOC qualifier. Tabula rasa. Theory is fine as long as it's not frivolous, not a fan of Kritiks. I prefer emphasis on the links rather than the sources. I weigh probability heavily, if you have an extinction impact, you need to have clear evidence or reasoning for exactly why this extinction impact is more than 1% likely. Speed is fine until it turns to spreading. I will protect the flow, but I understand if you want to POO to make sure I see the violation. Otherwise, I'm just here to watch a good debate.

More Specific Stuff Theory

I view debate as a game with the overall goal of education. The only way that education can occur is if there exists a way to have a fair debate. I'm especially responsive to topicality arguments and ground skew. Speed theory is also fine. I'm less inclined to vote on prep skew, there needs to be a legitimate grievance that isn't just "my opponents' plan isn't just the default argument to make." I'm not a fan of truth-testing. I will not vote on any argument that requires the opponents to have or have a specific buzzword(ex, didn't say link as part of their argument). I view that knowledge as exclusionary and not relevant to the debate, if they provided a link without explicitly stating it's a link, it's still a link.

Kritiks

Do not, under any circumstances, ask me if I'm familiar with the Kritik before you run it. Firstly, I don't know the Kritik, secondly I view that as an inherent attempt to violate tabula rasa, which I'm a big fan of. You're also gonna need to talk relatively slowly and clearly, I am not super experienced with Kritiks and hate flowing them quickly. Honestly, you're probably better off not running the Kritik.

Speed

Just don't spread please.

Speaks

I am pretty generous with speaks, I start at 28 and go up or down half points for if anything egregious happens. I leave myself about .5 based on my personal opinion of you. Clear, confident, and not overly fast speaking will definitely get you higher speaks. If you spread, it's gonna be hard for me to give you much above a 29, but if you're super clear I'd be willing to do it. If you have anything which you think could negatively affect your speaks(e.g. a stutter) and am worried I won't pick up on the fact that you have that condition, just mention it to me and I'll accommodate you in whatever way is necessary.

Default weighing

I am heavily invested in probability. If I had to give it a mathematical formula, I would say it's weight = probability^2 * magnitude * impact * timeframe. You absolutely need to convince me that this could happen. I prefer if the team collapses to one argument in the end, it makes my direct comparison easier. If I feel you won the round on something else, I'll obviously apply that first. I consider extinction impacts to have infinite magnitude, but at a certain point I may consider their probability to be 0.

DO's and DONT's: Do

Use logic heavy arguments with clear connections between your evidence and impacts.

Clearly state your magnitude, impact, and time frame(you don't need to use those exact words though).

Ask frequent POI's if applicable.

Don't

Bully your opponents for not knowing a specific part of a debate framework.

Go for loosely linked extinction impacts.

Spread, run Kritk's, or use frivolous theory.

Picture of My Cat

Picture of my cat.