Hey! My name is Sneha Bhale (she/her) and I did 4 years of Speech and Debate at Westwood High School. I competed in extemp as my main event both locally and nationally and I did some congress. I currently attend UT Austin.

debate events- please add me to the email chain- snehabhale21@gmail.com

Extemp- I prioritize content over fluency. I give the 1 to whoever answers the question adequately and addresses every actor mentioned. The substructure needs to be easy to follow and your impacts need to be realistic and topical. For fluency, fluency errors should not impede my ability to understand you and humor can go a long way. As for sources, please do not make them up and try to diversify your sources (use think tanks and academic journals). As for time, I don't care a whole lot but make sure it's evenly spaced out for every point. Overall, your content should make sense and should have sources, and having humor incorporated and a conversational tone will go a long way with ranks.

PF- Treat me as a flay (maybe a little more flow) judge. I will flow the round and have some exposure to PF. I'm not too fond of spreading but if you speak fast, I would like a speech doc. My flow shouldn't be all over the place and easy to follow. I think weighing is extremely important as well as the continuation of arguments in the summary and final focus. I also would prefer to be added to the email chain and will call for evidence so make sure there is no paraphrasing or twisting of information. During cross-ex, please be patient and polite. Speaks will be assigned based on clarity and overall demeanor within a round. I'm not too familiar with progressive arguments but I will evaluate them. Overall, I like a clean flow, slow speaking, weighing, roadmaps, warrants, and proper evidence protocols.

Cong- The PO should know proper procedures and keep track of precedence and recency well. The PO should also ensure voting happens fairly and keep track of everything efficiently. I will keep my precedence and recency sharts and will double-check. As for the competitors, congress is a matter of participation so make sure you pay attention. Try to pay attention the whole round and ask questions. I'm not too fond of pre-prepared speeches. Speeches that follow the debate and clash go a long way. Rehash is also a no go and I will dock points for it- please bring in new evidence and new points. If you are speaking later in the round, please bring in new evidence and use Clash rather than rephrasing previous speeches. The questioning period should be respectful to all competitors. As a personal preference, I prefer precedence and recency to be tracked online. It gets very messy when it is on paper. Overall, I like clashes in speeches, effective questioning, proper use of sources, and clear speaking.

And most importantly, have fun with it! Please let me know if I can do anything to make the round a safe place or a better experience for you. Also, feel free to ask questions/clarification on my paradigm or for any feedback after the round.

Hi my name is Sarayu and I am a junior at McNeil Highschool. I'm good with anything, just make sure to explain your links properly and weigh. I'm good with speed too, just make sure your opponent is also okay with spreading. Be nice and don't say anything offensive.

Include me on the email chain: sarayub2005@gmail.com

live

laugh

love

lose

hey i'm (sri) nithya (she/her)

mcneil '23, ut '27

if i'm judging anything but ld, everything down below applies but just ask me for specifics before round

add me on the email chain: nithyachalla05@gmail.com

t/l

i don't really care what you read as long as you explain it well. make sure to signpost otherwise you're going to lose me very easily.

assume i know absolutely nothing about the topic or current politics when debating because i probably won't.

i'll default to substance first unless told otherwise.

i'm fine with speed but if you're unclear i'm not gonna understand what you're saying. don't spew down on a novice or you're getting horrible speaks. if you're debating someone that doesn't spread, just match their speed in the later speeches. if you debate efficiently, you should still be able to win without spewing down.

also refer to me however you feel like i don't care enough to get mad about what you call me in round.

ill give relatively high speaks- to increase your speaks, make me laugh.

for speaks boost throw in a reference to the latest jjk chapters.

pref sheet

1- cp/disad, kritiks

2- phil, theory

3- non t affs, tricks, trad

if you're a trad debater, just debate how you're most comfortable debating.

cp/disad: the type of debate i'm most familiar with. nothing much to say here, just pls impact weigh it will make me happy and don't force me to do that work for you. explain how the cp either solves the aff and the impacts of the da, or just how the cp is just better than the aff and you'll be ahead. link and impact turns are offense on a disad- pls don't concede them.

phil: explain the syllogism of your fw. that's literally it. i'm not exactly the most adept at phil but i can somewhat follow a phil debate. though my phil knowledge is limited, if you can explain it well and explain why it should frame the round and why you're winning under that framework, you win. just err on the side of of overexplaining because otherwise you're gonna lose me. phil i'm most familiar with: butler, levinas, rawls, hobbes, kant, locke.

kritiks: i'm familiar with some of the lit (some id pol, nietzche, baudrillard, psycho, deleuze, glissant, cap, etc.). pls pls pls utilize the rob if you're debating other fws. it'll make me very happy. also explain the world of the alt otherwise idk how i'm supposed to evaluate perms and at to perms. also, utilize the fw of the k--it can win or lose you rounds. k tricks are always appreciated. k 1ars are always one of the harder ones to give so i'll try to give some leeway. also please don't concede extinction ows--i've done this far too many times than i should have and it's definitely not hard to answer.

non t affs: go for it. i barely read these but i've debated enough to understand the strategic value and implications of reading them. try to be creative in your approach in answering these tho bc those rounds are hella interesting.

theory: not my favorite style but do what you want to do. default no rvis, competing interps , dtd, fairness and education are voters. theory imo gets extremely muddled so if you're planning on going for it, just try to explain the abuse story well.

tricks: i'll evaluate them. idk what else i'm supposed to say about this but if you want, go for it i'm not entirely opposed to them. however, pls don't read 50 million paradoxes- you will lose me.

if you have any questions before round, let me know and i can hopefully answer them. also let me know if you want me to do anything to make the round more inclusive for you. don't be a jerk or do anything offensive otherwise you're getting an automatic l25. please dont postround too much i beg.

I competed in Congressional Debate for four years at McNeil High School. I now attend Texas A&M University and use she/her pronouns.

I believe respectful clash is necessary to Congress. Key word being respectful.

Show the impact of you argument and why your side wins the debate.

I really like it when people flip speeches to the needs of the round because I think it means that you have a full hand on the debate.

I love interesting intros/Taylor Swift intros/respectful humor in speeches. Congress speeches should be dynamic and interesting.

Please don't give constructive speeches late in round. I want to see clash/crystals/adaptation. I am also pretty against rehash. Every speech should add something new to the round.

I consider POs for all ranks (including first). However, I am also pretty harsh on POs, especially in finals rounds. Please don't use POing as an easy break/easy way to get top 5. That being said, if you are a good PO I am willing to rank you accordingly.

EMAIL CHAIN: mavsdebate@gmail.com

Name

Please do not call me judge - Henderson - no Mr/Ms just Henderson. This is what I am most comfortable with.

Doc Sharing

Please share speech docs with me, your opponent in a timely manner. If it get long, your speaks drop. I've been saying for a couple years now that I cannot physical handle the top debaters speed any longer. I will not backflow or flow from doc. This is an oral activity so adjust. I am very expressive in round and you should have no issue discerning if I am with you or not. For me it is definitely that my pen times needs more time, so look periodically and you should be fine.

Speed

The older I get the more triggered I find I am when someone spreads unnecessarily. If you using speed to increase clash - awesome! If you are using it outspread your opponent then I am not your ideal judge. I can understand for the AC but I think a pre-round conversation with your opponent is both helpful and something as a community we should attempt to do at all time.

If you do not adjust or adapt accordingly I will give you the lowest speech possible. If this is a local, I am likely to vote against you - TOC/State - you will likely get the ballot but again lowest speaks possible.

General Principle

I am an educator first. This means that I am concerned about the what happens in the debate more than I do about what the debate claims to achieve. This does not lessen my focus on argumentation, rather it is to say that I am sensitive to the issues that concern the debaters as individuals before I am my concern about various claimed link stories. Be honest, fair and considerate to each other. This manifests itself in my judging when I pay particular attention to the division of prep time. Debater who try to steal prep or are not considerate of their opponents prep will irritate me quickly (read: very bad speaks).

Speaker Points

This is a common question given I tend to be critical on points. Basically, If you deserve to break then you should be getting no less than a 28.5. Speaker points are about speaking up to the point that I can understand your spread/read. Do not docbot. If you do not intonate you are not debating you are reading and that is just frustrating to me. Beyond that there are mostly about argumentation. Argumentation includes strategy, crystallization, and structuring of speeches. If you have a creative strat you will do well. If you are reading generics you will do less well. If you tell a full story on the implication of your strat you will do well. If I have to read cards to figure out what you are advocating you will not. If you collapse well and convene the method and meaning of your approach you will do well. If you go for everything (neg) or a small trick you will not. Finally, if you ask specific questions about how I might feel about your strat you will do well. If you ask, "What's your paradigm?" because you did not take the time to look you will not. Previously, I had a no speaker point disclosure rule. I have changed. So ask, if you care to talk about why; not if you do not want to discuss the reasoning, but only want the number.

Policy

Theory

I truly like a good theory debate. I went for T often as a debater and typically ran quasi topical cases so that I could engage in theory debates. This being said, what you read should be related to the topic. If the words of the topic do not occur in what you read you are in an uphill battle, unless you have a true justification as to why. I am very persuaded that we should learn about certain topics outside of the debate topic, but that just means you should create a forum or propose a topic to the NSDA, or create a book club. Typical theory questions: Reasonability is defense, competing interps are offense. Some spec is generally encouraged to increase clash and more nuance, too much should be debated. Disclosure theory is not very persuasive too me, unless debated very well and should only be used after you sought to have an actual conversation with your opponent prior to the debate. I am very persuaded by contact info at national tournaments - put up contact info and any accomodations you need - it makes for a safer space.

Kritiks

A kritik is a disad with a counterplan, typically to me. This means I should understand the link, the impact and the alternative as much as I would if you read a disad and counterplan. I vote against kritik most often because I have no idea what the alt does. This happens when the aff fails to engage and you think that you now just need to extend tags on the alt and assume that is enough. I need a clear picture of the link and the alt most importantly regardless of how much the aff has engaged or not. Gut check is a real thing. If your kritik is death good you are working uphill. If you are reading "high theory" know that I have not read the literature, but I will do my best. In the 1890s, when I debated, I was really into Cap and Gender based positions. My debaters like Deleuze and Cap (probably my influence, if I possession such).

Performance/Pre-Fiat

If you are trying to convince me that what you are doing matters and can change people in some way I really need to know how. If your claim is simply that this method is more approachable, well that is generally not true to me and given there is only audiences beyond me in elim.s you are really working up hill. Access trumps all! If you do not make the method clear you are not doing well. If your method somehow interrogates something, what does it interrogate? how does that change things for us and why is that meaningful? And most important you should be initiating this interrogation in round. Tell me that people outside the debate space should do this is not an interrogation. That is just a plan with a specific mechanism. Pre-fiat claims are fine, but again I need to understand the implication. Telling me that I read gender discrimination arguments and thus that is a pre-fiat voter is not only not persuasive it is not an argument at all. Please know that I truly love a good method debate, I do not enjoy people who present methods that are not explicit and full of nothing but buzzwords.

Competition

Arguments should be competitive otherwise they are just FYI. This means kritikal argument should likely be doing more than simply reading a topic link and moving on. All forms are perms are testable - I do not default to a view on severance/intrinsic - it's all debatable. I do default on perms do a test of competition. If you want to advocate the perm this should be clear from the get. A perm should have a text, and a net benefit in the opening delivery otherwise it is a warrantless argument.

Condo

In policy, (LD its all debatable) a few layers are fine - 4+ you are testing the limits and a persuasive condo bad argument is something I would listen to for sure. What I am absolute about is the default. All advocacy are unconditional unless you state in your speech otherwise. No this is not a CX question. You should be saying, I present the following conditional CP or the like, explicitly. Not doing this and then attempting to kick it means an advocacy shift and is thus debatable on theory.

Lincoln Douglas

See above

Disads/CPs/NCs

I was a policy debater, so disads and counterplans are perfectly acceptable and generally denote good strat (read: better speaks). This does not means a solid NC is not just as acceptable, but an NC that you read every debate for every case that does not offer real clash or nuance will make me want to take a nap. PIC are debatable, but I default to say they are acceptable. Utopian fiat is generally not without a clear method story. Politics disad seem mostly silly in LD without an explicit agent announcement by the AC. If you do not read a perm against a counterplan I will be very confused (read: bad speaks). If you do not read uniqueness then your link turns are just defense.

Philosophy/Framework Debate

I really enjoy good framework debate, but I really despise bad framework debate. If you know what a normative ethic is and how to explain it and how to explain your philosophical basis, awesome. If that is uncomfortable language default to larp. Please, avoid cliche descriptors. I like good framework debate but I am not as versed on every philosophy that you might be and there is inevitable coded language within those scholarship fields that might be unfamiliar to me. Most importantly, if you are into phil debating do it well. Bad phil debates are painful to me (read: bad speaks). Finally, a traditional framework should have a value (something awesome) and a value criteria/standard (something to weigh or test the achievement of the value). Values do not have much function, whereas standards/criterion have a significant function and place. These should be far more than a single word or phrase that come with justification.

Public Forum

I have very frustrated feeling about PF as a form of debate. Thus, I see my judging position as one of two things.

1. Debate

If this is a debate event then I will evaluate the requirements of clash and the burden of rejoinder. Arguments must have a claim and warrant as a minimum, otherwise it is just an assertion and equal to any other assertion. If it is an argument then evidence based proof where evidence is read from a qualified sources is ideal. Unqualified but published evidence would follow and a summary of someone's words without reading from them would be equal to you saying it. When any of these presentation of arguments fails to have a warrant in the final focus it would again be an assertion and equal to all other assertions.

2. Speech

If neither debate team adheres to any discernible standard of argumentation then I will evaluate the round as a speaking event similar to extemp. The content of what you say is important in the sense that it should be on face logical and follow basic rules of logic, but equally your poise, vocal variation and rhetorical skills will be considered. To be clear, sharing doc.s would allow me to obviously discern your approach. Beyond this clear discernible moment I will do my best to continue to consider the round in my manners until I reach the point where I realize that both teams are assume that their claims, summaries etc... are equally important as any substantiated evidence read. The team that distinguishes that they are taking one approach and the opponent is not is always best. I will always to default to evaluate the round as debate in these situation as that is were I have the capacity to be a better critic and could provide the best educational feedback.

If you adhering to a debate model as described above these are other notes of clarity.

Theory

I’m very resistant to theory debates in Public Forum. However, if you can prove in round abuse and you feel that going for a procedural position is your best path to the ballot I will flow it. Contrary to my paradigm for LD, I default to reasonability in PF.

Framework

I think the function of framework is to determine what sort of arguments take precedence when deciding the round. To be clear, a team won’t win the debate exclusively by winning framework, but they can pick up by winning framework and winning a piece of offense that has the best link to the established framework. Absent framework from either side, I default utilitarianism.

Finally Word for All

I am sure this is filled with error, as I am. I am sure this leaves more questions than answers, life has. I will do my best, as like you I care.

Hi guys my name is Yara Mustafa and I'm an LDer from McNeil!

I would prefer to be on the email chain yaram.debate@gmail.com

Shortcuts:

Phil/K: 1

Larp: 2-3

theory : 3-4

Tricks: 4

Theory

Theory is not my strongest area of practice, but I understand and grasp all the steps and complexities of how theory works as a concept. Blippy and “sneaky” arguments blow over my head. Speed in theory is a big deal especially if it’s not in the doc, and I would appreciate it if you send your interp/counterinterp if it isn’t in the doc. Reasonability is defense and counter interps are offense. Friv theory is so yucky please don’t read it. I love 1ar shells

Phil/ Framework

This is my favorite style of debate, and I think there are so many ways to utilize phil in front of a wide array of judges. Many people hate phil debate, I genuinely have so much fun during a good phil round. Personally, I really like Deleuze, Rawls, Butler, Hobbes, and Realism. I also have experience answering different consequential frameworks, so by default I understand the intricacies of fw indicts on util and vice versa. In a framework debate it is very important to have a clear clash between how the different worlds function. For example if you read Util, justifying comparative worlds against a normative fw might be really useful in the end. I default epistemic confidence and truth testing unless directed otherwise. It's also important to have contextual responses as to why your opponents framing fails, and reasons to prefer yours. I think that hijacks and smart cross applications are really fun. TJFs are amazing and love them yayyy.

LARP

I have a lot of experience debating LARP but it is definitely not my area of expertise or my favorite. CPs and disads are very fun but they have to be heavily weighed and implicated out. I do think that in order to access your larp offense you have to win Util though. Counterplan theory is one thing that I normally need an over explanation of (textual and functional competition). I think that PICs are smart when read in round, but I do give more leeway to the aff when pics are bad is read. Perms and different types of perms against counterplans in general are needed.

Kritiks

I enjoy K framing debates alot and the utilization of the theory of power and the thesis of the kritik as responses to your opponents case. In general the Link and the alt of the kritik should be articulated well. The alt should be well explained and weighing should be done in general. A world of what the alt looks like should be articulated in a good manner. When talking about the ROB, make a clear indication of why your offense ow’s and why your opponent does not have access to that role of the ballot in the first place. Kaffs don't have to be topical, I think its a fun debate tbh. I also really think how you interpret the literature in the first place needs to be well fleshed out, so there's an explanation of the complexities of the K (ex if its ideal/non-ideal, ontology, violence). I really do like different literature but I am not familiar with the jargon of them. I have experience with Deleuze, Cap, Baudrillard (kinda), Psychoanalysis, set col, afro-pess, security, glissant, etc.

Tricks

I think tricks are fun when I am not the one debating against them!! It’s kinda awful to drown in a bunch of tricks so I do feel that tricks are gross. I never really read tricks very often, but I do think that articulation of the arguments and implications of how that argument truly functions is very important. I genuinely don’t understand some tricks though so I don’t really like hearing them round I think they are kinda bs.

Non-topical affs

I think Non-topical affs are super cool and I genuinely like hearing them, but I don’t read them at all. I’m familiar with normal kritik literature but over explanations are necessary for any specific nuance. I enjoy a good T/fw debate, and I love method debates!! I Appreciate a strategic and contextualized TVA. Having specific tvas rather than generalized tvas are key to having a good clash. Standards should be well articulated and the abuse story needs to be clear. As a response to Non-t affs, i have been learning about counter kritiks. I like optimism ks such as glissant which are cool responses to non-t affs.

Congress:

Speakers:

Overall, I really appreciate charisma and creativity. I like when people fully get into the politician act! Feel free to take creative liberties with AGDS as long as they make some sense. I'd rather you lack a bit in substance and structure but really get into the round than to read straight off the page even with technically perfect content and organization. The roleplay aspect of Congress is what differentiates it from other debate events so it's really fun to see people play with it!!!

I like grounded, people focused impacts. If you can tie back to how individual people will be help/hurt by a bill and why, I'll probably rank you high. Also, use whatever structure you want. I usually like when it's easier to follow, but I'm fine with anything and won't drop you for being creative.

Authors:

I value fluency and delivery the most in authors and sponsors. Also, make sure to contextualize the legislation.

Sponsors:

If you genuinely try to help the round progress by writing a sponsor in round, I'll definitely keep that in mind and be more forgiving of any fluency breaks (but I can probably tell when you already have a speech written and pretend like you don't).

Constructives:

If you're speaking after the author/sponsor, I'd like to see some clash with other speakers/questioners. If it's impact related, that's definitely a bonus. Try not to just name drop every other representative in the chamber and focus on 2-3 specific speeches (or maybe 1 if you're going earlier).

Try not to rehash other people's arguments. If yours get taken, you can try to change the impact, find a new point, or switch your speech to a half-ref/crystal. I usually drop for rehash but I understand that sometimes you end up in a tough spot with bad precedence and no points, so I'll take that into consideration.

Half-refs:

Try to avoid rehashing previous points and make sure to have a pretty unique argument for your constructive point. I don't care if you have your ref point at the beginning or end of your speech, if it's there, you're good. I'd prefer for these to be pretty late in the round, at least the 4th cycle, maybe 3rd in a smaller room.

Crystals:

I like seeing people learning how to crystal through trial and error so especially at locals, I'll give you some credit for trying because learning is good. Try to weigh the impacts of both sides to show who wins, avoid rehash, and have some evidence. These should be the last 2 speeches in the round.

POs:

I consider POs for all ranks including first! I'll let you run the chamber, but if you have any questions, feel free to ask me and we can work things out! I won't drop you if you make some small mistakes then correct yourself! It happens! I don't have a preference for any type of time signals as long as they're consistent and work for the chamber! I'd also appreciate if you could state the name/topic of each piece of legislation before we debate it, not just the number.

I appreciate POs who listen to the chamber and go out of their ways to create a "fast, fair, and efficient chamber" like they promise to in the speeches. I'll give points to POs who try to connect with the chamber!

General Things:

Please be supportive and polite to each other in the chamber!!! I won't drop you for being passive aggressive or intense in speeches or questions (unless you go way overboard), but I'll have a problem if you act that way outside of your time on the floor. Also, I'll probably drop you for steamrolling novices.

I rank based on quality of speeches rather than quantity, but appreciate active participation in round and friendliness/willingness to help others also plays into my rankings.

I usually tend to favor passion and enthusiasm!

I'm totally fine if you turn your cameras off when you're not speaking or questioning so zoom doesn't lag if the tournament is fine with it!

I'm pretty chill and up for whatever so if you want to experiment and try something new, go for it!

Good luck and if you have any questions, feel free to ask me!

Put me on the chain -- its1gonbeoff@gmail.com

Top Level

Tech > Truth.

Tech over truth.

Tech over truth.

Everything below is rambling that i'm easily convinced otherwise by, dogma is the single most harmful portion of judging that I as a debater hated. If you feel that I had made an incorrect decision please feel to post round me for an hour, because my duty as a judge is to evaluate the debate correctly.

I have no material predispositions, here's some of my understandings.

Spark is a fantastic argument, and most 2AC's are horrible to it. The best execution of spark usually is a 2NC on AI bad and negative util however go for aliens or whatever I really don't care.

Wipeout is fine, reincarnation is fine, the gregorian time pik is fine.

Please don't take me for K debate's not that i'm not interested in judging them, but rather incompetent at adjudicating them.

Here's how I debated:

take all of these things with a grain of salt. I mean it, your arguments will not effect my decision one bit and I won't hack for anything. These are just my understandings of debate, so I can adjudicate it as technically as possible. Most of these things are ADVICE not predispositions.

Kritiks, after my 4 years of debating I have concluded that the K is irrelevant and everything devolves into some random reps link, a floating pik, or the fiat K. Personally I find the fiat K to be strategic and most affirmatives struggle to answer it, K teams that go for the link struggle with two things

1. Framework, if you are going for a link that is based on the 'reps' then you need to win this
2. Permutation, if you are going for a link that is based on the 'consequence' of the plan, you need an answer to the double bind
3. Alternative, applies to subpoint two, but I find most negative teams struggle to answer the perm double bind.

Kritikal affirmatives, I have concluded your 1AC is irrelevant and all that matters is your 2AC to FWK, the best 2AC's to topicality have a plethora of DA's, and not 50 rephrased 'silencing/exclusion/conformity' DAs.

K v K debates, negative teams struggle with the permutation, you need a coherent link, affirmative teams should use their 2AC DA's to topicality vs the Cap K, negative teams should read 15 links in the block if you want to go for it.

Debate is probably a game structured by competition.

I believe fairness is a superior impact to clash, because I as a debater concluded that the ballot is only a remedy of a procedural violation of unfairness, debate is likely a game structured by competition, and the most persuasive topicality DA's in the status quo such as the K of models, or predictability is subjective struggle vs questions of this round rather than models. Clash is great vs things like the conformity DA/old school FWK DA's, I find clash more compelling on the aff v K. I also just generally don't care what you do, if you really want to debate the K of models then go for it doesn't matter to me.

Affirmatives should recognize that silly arguments that are non-sensical under a question of models, such as 'disclosure checks fairness' become more persuasive under questions of this round.

Policy debate

Process CP's are the greatest and most strategic argument ever invented in the history of debate, and I mean it. The best ways the affirmative can beat it is, through either competition, or a deficit and inb defense often does wonders.

DA's these are great, however you cannot go for the squo and drop the case. I will always try and not DIE, time frame is a nonsensical argument but if the affirmative doesn't answer it correctly/drops it ill err negative. Politics is fine, the rider DA is fine affirmative's 2AC to the rider is horrible, seriously look into it.

Adv CP's these are great but the negative cannot go backfile hunting and paste in the AT: warming planks, you could do this and win debates but at the highest level these won't cut it, however these are an excellent way for the 2A to hate you and make the debate so much more difficult for the affirmative. negative teams should 2NC CP out of Addons or if one of their planks got nuked.

Topicality affirmatives should go for PTIAV more, and I mean so much more. Predictability probably outweighs debatability but will be convinced otherwise, likewise for limits outweighs predictability etc. however, these are uphill battles not because I think these are unwinnable in front of me but rather because the truth of these arguments are incorrect, however if technically executed I will 100% not care.

Theory, arbitrariness is a fantastic argument and is the best impact in my opinion. Logic vs condo is excellent too. Here's why non-resolutional interpertations justify FURTHER amounts of unpredictable bad interpretations which means that an arbitraty ad hoc rule justifies the absolute worst form of your debatability impact. Logic vs condo is great, because it lets you get predictability vs debtability. Negative's burden is to prove both the implicit and explicit oppurtunity costs to the plan, which requires condo. Do I think debate is a logical game? probably, but up for debate.

UQ CP's are fine, watch out for overwhelms.

Ban the plan is incredibly strategic and great. Not sure who's right about net topicality

PIC's are great, word PICs are probably not competitive.

i'm a horrible flow, so go a little bit slower, this is not a fault of you but a fault of me and my laziness to fix it.

I will probably not ask for a card doc, as I feel these to be interventionist however, ill take a look at them in questions like this:

Jack says your author sucks says nothing and card has no warrants.

Jill says your author sucks says nothing and card has no warrants.

not sure if counterplans compete of the resolution or the plan;

offsets might or might not be competitive.

I have no idea what the new topic will be, so please over explain things.

everytime you say the "perception alone" causes something ill be sad but this argument is strategic.

Some debates are truly inadjudicable, and might require me to intervene I hope that your debates aren't bad enough that it needs to break the realm of tech over truth.

When I must intervene.

If undisputed I default to judge kick---it's the most logical extension of conditionality

questions of evidence ethics---ill stop the round accused gets a L 25 if correct, accuser gets a L 25 if incorrect.

feel free to read death good in front of me idrc.

don't say any of the isms/phobias.

Topicality > Procedurals > Theory---this is ONLY in a world like this

Affirmative drops ASPEC

Negative drops Condo

if both teams say ZERO words or does ZERO impact calculus then I will default to ASPEC outweighing condo. Why? Because the procedural controls the internal link to conditionality.

I think zero risk could be real, but in debates it never happens, here's the problem if the other team ever ASSERTS the opposite of your argument, then it's impossible for it to be zero risk. However, if the negative reads a nuclear war impact but drops MAD checks then I believe the impact is zero risk.

Presumption flips to the world of least change.

if both sides have a 100% risk of extinction, I would vote negative on presumption.

if both sides have a 100% risk of case and a 100% risk of a counterplan that solves the case but the affirmative does not extend a permutation, then I would vote affirmative on presumption.

Hello my name is Anjaly and I'm a junior at McNeil.

You're probably a novice so read whatever you're allowed to read. Weigh and explain your link chain thoroughly. I'm better at judging larp compared to phil but you can still read phil just once again be really thorough. If you say something funny I will up your speaks. That being said, you cannot be cringe or else I will lower your speaks. So really think the jokes through. Actually no, i'll genuinely laugh at anything so just say something please I really don't want to be bored. Be nice to your opponent and don't be offensive or else you'll lose.

Let me know before round if your parents are expecting you to become toc champion one day because I know how you feel. My parents never put that pressure on me but i still know how you feel. Ill sympathize with you because we must stick together. I understand you, I empathize with you, and I stand with you. Together we will make the world a better place. Together we will rise.

live laugh love lose

email chain: anjalyroy16@gmail.com

Hi,

I am a first year student at UT Austin. My pronouns are he/him. I did Ld debate for four years in highschool so that's what I'm most familiar with. In terms of other events like pf and extemp, I am pretty much going into it with an open mind. Feel free to ask me any questions in person in case I forgot anything in my paradigm.

LD - So I did varsity LD for four years but never really got into the high level debate. That being said, I am much more comfortable with phil and larp arguments. You can run tricks and theory but I can't promise anything. I'm fine with spreading as long as you slow down for your taglines and card names. If you have an email chain, I would like to be on it.

Overall, clarity and articulation go a long way for me. As long as you're confident and respectful you should be good!

I also give out perfect speech points if you make a reference to breaking bad, one piece, and the McRib. Good luck!

For extempers:

Content is very important-- your points need to be logical, easy to follow, and specific to the question. If you don't explain your content properly, even if I know what you mean, you will probably get ranked down. Treat me like a lay judge that reads dailies.

- Please back stats, info, etc. with credible SOURCES: source name, date with month/day/year

* if you use cool sources like thinktanks, books, etc. you will impress me more than random dailies.

Fluency is important. Make your speech interesting and engaging. I love humor, but anything in general that draws me in is great.

- Timing is kinda important-- if you go way under (<5:30 min) or way over (>7:30) I will likely rank you down. Between 6:50 and 7:00 is *chef's kiss*

* remember extemp triangle!

- If you have a funny AGD and good on-tops, you will impress me.

For impromptu:

Again, fluency is important. Draw me in, make the speech your own. Appropriate humor stands out.

For debate, please add me to email chain: oliviadanyang@gmail.com

- Please keep your own time

Good luck! Y'all got this :)