Hi I'm Lasya, a sophomore in LD at Westwood High School.

Put me on the email chain: lasya.adivi@gmail.com

I agree with Jugal Amodwala

I am a senior and compete in Varsity LD at Westwood.

I am fine with any type of argument - K, CP, DA, T, etc. For speaks, I'll start at 28.5 and go up or down from there.

I would like to be added to the email chain - aarya1agarwal@gmail.com

If you have any additional questions, just ask me before the round.

I am an experienced ld debater.

I'm okay to any debate, but I do not like kritics. I like clear speaches, but I do understand if you are nervous. I like clash but expect a respectful round and good sportsmanship. I will dock/add speaker points depending on how the round goes.

Put me on the email chain before the round:

rishibaranga@gmail.com

I’m a sophomore LD debater at Westwood High School in Austin Texas.

He/Him

With our current online debating situation, I do not care what you wear (as long as it is appropriate)

Short Paradigm: Speed section below this + tech over truth, I'll vote off of almost anything unless it's abusive or problematic, but you have to tell me how to vote by weighing and using your framework. Be nice.

Speed: I don't care how fast you go unless your opponent asks you to go slower BUT MAKE SURE YOU ARE CLEAR (and if you disclose)

Case: I’m open to any kind of argument you have as long as it is intelligent, arguably true, and not problematic. In addition, I will not vote off things that are non topical, regardless of whether your opponent reads theory on you. Things like Cyborg aff are bad for education.

Disads: The more specific the better. I prefer 1 or 2 good cards to 10 bad cards, warrants of the cards are also very important. Analytical arguments under DAs are fine (as in if you respond to the argument analytically but don't read prepped out blocks or cards, you're good).

Topicality: It is up to the debaters to determine how I evaluate topicality. Explain to me why T matters to the debate space, and if you read T at full speed during NR/ARs, is going to be really hard for me to hear you, so please be clear. Slow down on the interpretations.

Theory: I will buy theories that are well structured and developed in a debate, again is up to the debater to prove to me why to reject the team, and I do not like cheap short theories, especially if you are “hiding” the theory shell (like if they're blippy). You shout put t/theory at the front of your speeches.

Kritik: Make sure that you explain the K really well and specifically how the opponent links into your offence. If your alt is bad, chances are I won't buy it, so it would be best to explain what it actually means when you extend it.

Layering: Tell me in round what matters the most/what should be evaluated first. Whether its case, t/theory, or k, you have to explain what and why.

Other Preferences: I’m new to judging, so it might take me a while to make a decision and give the RFD, so please understand. I also like to give a lot of nonverbal feedback after round, so remember to check your ballot and feel free to email me.

Be nice in cross, it'll earn you some speaker points. Just be nice to your opponent in general, being overly aggressive in cross and misgendering opponents is really really bad

thanks sean for the paradigm :)

I'm generally ok with most arguments (K, T, CP, plans, etc.) Speed is OK as well.

Please add me to the email chain: ayanchaudhry1@gmail.com.

Feel free to ask any other questions you may have.

Westwood CC 

joonyoungchoo@gmail.com 

Please name the email chain: "Tournament - Round X - Team (AFF) vs Team (NEG)" - "TOC - Round 1 - Westwood CC (AFF) vs Westwood BS (NEG)".

Top Level Thoughts -- Stolen from Het Desai 

-- The first 20 seconds of the 2NR and 2AR should be the words that you hope I repeat back to you at the beginning of my decision. Holding my hand will be rewarded with higher speaker points, a quicker decision time, and a more favorable RFD.

-- I will rarely instantly decide the debate on a single dropped argument alone and will only consider that dropped argument in the broader scheme of what occurred. I will follow something resembling the following structure to make my decision:

A. List the­ arguments extended into the 2NR and the 2AR

B. Ask myself what, as per the 2NR and 2AR, winning these arguments will get for either the affirmative or the negative. The answer to this question will sometimes be “absolutely nothing” at which point I will cross these arguments off my flow.

C. Trace whether these points of disagreement were present previously in the debate. This will only include substantive argumentation, but will not include framing devices introduced in the 2NR and the 2AR.

D. Compare the negative and affirmative’s central issues by asking myself if losing a certain argument for a certain team will still allow for that team to win the debate.

-- Tech > truth in most instances. Unless I’m offered an alternative framework to judge debates, I will default to assuming that dropped arguments are true arguments. That being said, technical debating does not warrant an auto-win and the assumption that certain arguments are auto round winners when dropped leads to disastrous decisions. For instance, judges seem to automatically assume that “realism good” is an impact turn to every IR critical argument come 2020. While it would certainly be nice if the negative explained which portions of realism they agree/disagree with (e.g. rational actor model, the model of the nation state, etc.), it is not the burden of the 2NR to answer “realism good” in this hypothetical situation if the 1AC, 2AC, and 1AR choose not to explain why winning realism is good/true implicates the negative’s arguments.

-- Numbering, labeling, and compartmentalization are very important for me. Whenever possible, each argument in the 2AC should be numbered / labeled and those numbers / labels should be referenced for the rest of the debate. The 2NC and the 2NR’s responses to affirmative arguments should always be numbered.

-- Sound like you want to be here.

-- Debate is incredibly difficult and time-consuming. I love this activity and hope you can as well. I have tremendous respect for the hard work you’ve done to come here and will try to reciprocate that in my decision. I will be ready to defend my decision. Thus, “If you feel unsatisfied with my RFD, I encourage you to post-round me. I will not take any offense or judge your personality because of your reaction to my decision. I was/am always quick to disagree with judges as a debater and have always considered disagreement the highest form of respect.”– Vikas Burugu.

Sreyas Rajgopal: "actual arguments > ad homs" I will not evaluate any arguments about anything that occurred outside of the round outside of disclosure etc. or render a decision about the ethicality of any person I am judging. I don’t know you and this is incredibly uncomfortable.

Framework

1. I feel very comfortable evaluating these debates. I do not think I have significant ideological preferences for either side and have spent an absurd amount of time strategizing arguments for both sides. “Don't over-adapt to me in these debates. If you are most comfortable going for procedural fairness, do that. If you like going for advocacy skills, you do you. Like any other debate, framework debates hinge on impact calculus and comparison” – Yao Yao Chen. I went for mainly procedural-based impacts centered around clash and argumentative refinement when I was negative. This strategy requires greater defense to the aff’s impact turns, but makes it less difficult for you to indict the aff counter-interp.

2. Switch side debate is massively underutilized in HS debate. Most 2NRs assert TVA and SSD with no connection to the rest of the arguments. The 2NC and 2NR should spend time applying their impact filters to specific parts of aff offense. This can be made most effective by explaining your switch side argument on the impact turn you believe it resolves the best.

3. “TVA: who cares. If the 1AC says "reduce FMS to Saudi - we must discuss the Yemen War now!" on the water topic, it is not the negative's burden to describe how the aff team could have made their 1AC topical. TVA could be useful as defense (especially if conceded) but tends to factor little in my decisions” – Shree Awsare.

4. Most Framework approaches can be filtered into one of two categories:

A) Finding a middle ground

While this approach will be significantly harder to assemble / formulate, it gives affirmative teams the ability to impact turn both the content of debates that would occur under the negative’s interpretation AND the reading of framework with significantly less drawbacks than the impact turn approach. It will, however, require affirmative’s to wade through the traditional components of a topicality debate and will be subject to good negative teams closely scrutinizing affirmative counterinterpretations. An important question that not enough negative teams ask is how the aff’s counter-interpretation solves their impact turns. “Aff odds of winning are substantially higher if you persuade me that the negative can debate the aff over the course of a season with a relatively even win-percentage. Advance impact-turns boldly, but do not forget defense” – Rafael Pierry.

B) Impact turning topicality

This argument is only particularly persuasive if you win an argument aside from competing interpretations for how a debate should be evaluated. Unless your argument is debate bad, I will struggle to find a way to vote for no topic at all against a competent negative team. However, if you do win an argument that reduces the question of my ballot to an individual debate, the impact-turn only approach becomes much more viable. Aff offense here should focus on why the 1NC’s reading of framework is violent.

5. Neg teams should extend presumption and contest aff solvency throughout the debate. This will make it much more difficult for the aff to shift to more persuasive impact turns that are likely not resolved by their counter-interpretation/the ballot.

6. The 2AR should center 1-2 pieces of central offense through which to explain their strategy. “Less random DA’s that are basically the same, and more internal links to fully developed DA’s. Most of the time your DA’s to the TVA are the same offense you’ve already read elsewhere” – Joshua Michael.

7. Fairness is an "impact" vs. "internal link". Who cares?! This is a distinction without a difference. We've mutually agreed how this works in all other contexts, so why is this any different? A "nuclear war" is an impact until the other team reads nuclear war good. No one would ever continue to argue "nuclear war" is their impact. They would refer to the negative effects of that nuclear war (mass death) as their impact. Fairness is no different, so it should be debated as such.

Kritiks v Plan

1. I’m comfortable in these debates as well. I have at least a decent grasp on most of the common Ks in debate and have likely went for them a number of times.

2. How you frame your arguments will likely have a significant impact on my evaluation of them. “All debate is storytelling, but K debate especially so” – Anirudh Prabhu. Not enough preparation is spent on how you will package your arguments, cross-examination, and/or general round vision.

3. Framework means a lot more to me than it does to some judges. A vast majority of judges seem to arbitrarily intervene and decide to take a middle stance on the framework debate and generate their own justifications for why this “middle stance” is preferable. I will avoid doing this at all costs and only decide between the interpretations present in the 2NR and the 2AR. It will likely be the first argument I evaluate, unless the affirmative has decided not to prioritize it.

“How I should "weigh the aff" versus the K is rarely self evident. I don’t mind a little bit of arbitrariness in a framework interp if you are instructing me clearly on how to evaluate your offense versus their offense” – Anirudh Prabhu. Negative defense to the aff’s standards are usually insufficient and should be prioritized more, while aff teams should borrow more from their negative framework arsenal against planless affirmatives and explain why a model of debate where the affirmative gets to weigh the plan is most reflective of the resolution and why debate over that predictable stasis point is the best model.

4. High link specificity will be rewarded. Although I will still evaluate the debate as presented, demonstrating you’ve thought about how your K interacts with the affirmative will be rewarded in speaker points and in the decision. Unlike many other judges, I will certainly be willing to vote on turns case arguments when your link arguments are well-explained in the context of the affirmative.

5. The permutation is overrated as the basis for affirmative strategy because of debate’s reliance on offense/defense evaluation. Winning on the permutation often requires winning independent of the permutation as well. Instead, Affirmatives should prioritize developing their aff as offense more.

6. Extinction outweighs is a devastating argument against most neg Ks. I have a difficult time understanding neg responses as they are reliant on Framework and/or do not contest the specific scenario for extinction in the 1AC. “If you're reading a policy aff that clearly links, I'll be pretty confused if you don't go impact turns/case outweighs” – DKP.

Kritiks/Other Strategies v No Plan

If technical debating and argument comparison is not lost, I will enjoy the debate. These debates are incredibly difficult, but rewarding to engage in.

1. It will be difficult to convince me that your K aff does not have to defend something. You got to pick and choose what to defend and should be held responsible for those choices. This becomes less true as the neg's criticism becomes more trivial, but I will have a relatively lower threshold for link explanation.

2. I am not persuaded by “no perms in method debates”. Although permutations tend to get out of control in these debates, I do not believe entirely abandoning competition is the solution. The negative needs links that disprove the aff. However, the threshold for a no link argument if one is forwarded by the affirmative will be higher. The neg is best served explicitly establishing a higher threshold which I will be receptive to.

3. Go for presumption. Press the aff on its ability to solve. Vague assertions about your aff will not be rewarded with either the ballot or speaker points and I will not be lenient to new aff extrapolation.

4. Go for Topic DAs and Impact Turns if the affirmative links. Or better yet, link them to it. Usually, aff responses are woefully insufficient.

5. This might sound terrible for the aff, but if the neg does not refute aff shifts with specific link explanation, I’m likely quite a good judge for the aff. Kritikal affirmatives have easy angles to exploit vs substantive negative strategies. Neg teams are often awful at contesting the aff, so applying your theory and solvency explanation to different pages effectively should be an easy route to victory.

Topicality

1. “A decent amount of evidence with intent to define considerably improves your offense.

2. Caselists on both sides help.

3. I tend to care most about predictability” – Ruby Klein.

4. “The articulation of reasonability that will persuade me is that the substance crowdout generated by T debates outweighs the difference between the two interps” – Anirudh Prabhu.

5. In most circumstances, affs should utilize reasonability, functional limits, and arbitrariness as their 2AR strategy.

Counterplans

1. Well-researched strategies (especially PICs) will be rewarded. Topic/aff-specific advocates go a long way.

2. I will default to judge-kick unless told otherwise. Generally, I believe no judge-kick arguments should start in the 1AR at least if you want to win them.

3. I will default to the model that counterplans must compete functionally and textually, but I am willing to hear alternative models for competition.

4. Sufficiency framing is asserted without an implication in most instances. You should set a threshold for how much the CP needs to solve i.e. “1AC ev says we need to meet the 2 degree threshold – if the CP gets there it’s sufficient to solve and deficits do not matter past that”. Otherwise, this seems to be intuitive and just an assertion that serves as a poor substitute for impact calculus.

5. Presumption goes to least change.

Disads

1. “Turns the case” is important in some debates, but not others. It’s important to recognize when to prioritize it. The argument that war causes structural violence is intuitive and should not require too much explanation aside from explaining how it implicates framing. Turns case arguments at higher levels of the DA are more persuasive when applied to the aff’s internal links.

2. I generally care more about link defense than impact defense. Link framing is especially important because it can start argument resolution in your favor.

3. Smart analytic arguments are significantly under-utilized. Most politics scenarios, for example, can be logically disproven by a series of analytic arguments. But, the better the other team’s evidence is the more you’ll need of your own.

Case

1. Like everyone else, I like good case debating. 2Ns that show they know the aff better than the other team will especially be rewarded with higher speaks.

2. I will be very strict for the 2AC and 1AR on case. The 2AC needs to actually answer the 1NC case arguments not just re-explain your advantage. I will also be deeply skeptical of new 1AR/2AR arguments on the case especially if your explanation of the aff shifts.

3. Everything from the DA section apply just as much here.

Theory

1. I’m likely better for theory arguments than most because I evaluate them similarly to every other argument. But, if left to my own devices, I’m neg leaning on most questions.

2. “A creative perm debate is likely better and less life-denying, but I understand that theory is necessary to beat process CPs that steal the aff and cheat" - Ruby Klein.

3. I'm far better than the average judge for aff-specific PIKs. I think they're heavily underutilized and a personal favorite of mine. Defeating a strong aff theory argument is still difficult given significant aff pushback especially if the PIK was not explicitly one in the 1NC. However, I find these strategies are often most true to nuanced disagreements in the literature, so there is a strong pedagogical benefit to pursuing them.

Hi! I am Aaditya Ganesan (he/him) TOC qualled my junior year but didn't go because I just got out of a hospital a month before

Westwood 2023 Put me on the chain: aadityaganesan@gmail.com. The following paradigm will be accommodated towards novices since that is who I will probably be judging. That being said if you have any questions not already answered in this paradigm, please ask me before the round!

Last Updated - Novice Inhouse 2021

Will vote on a "trick" if it has a clear warrant, an impact, and if its not randomly hidden within the doc

TLDR: have fun, be nice, and don't overinvest

Speed: should be fine with it but remember your speed doesn't matter if you are not clear. It is better to go 350 wpm clear than to go 450 wp barely comprehensible. Remember to try prioritize being efficient as well ( it doesn't matter how fast you go if you are saying the same thing in 100 different ways).

Policy Arguments:

Have good ev, do good impact comparison weighing.

When extending case, you should not just extend your tags but your warrants as well.

Read whatever type of CPs you want. The more cheaty the cp the more likely I am to be persuaded by a 1ar theory arg.

1-2 condo advocacies is chill.

Don't make new args on the case in the 2NR or new answers to the da or cp in the 2AR pls pls pls.

Don't make morally repugnant impact turns pls(oppression good, racism good) That being said I like impact turn debates like Spark or DeDev or Heg.

Also it would be great if you collapsed in the 2nr.

If a card goes conceded, the warrants that you highlighted went conceded NOT the tag of the card. What I mean by this is that if you powertag evidence saying that Nuke war kills 2 million when your evidence says it kills one million, your opponent has conceded that nuke war kills one million(sorry if this is a bad example lol).

Phil: comfortable with util, kant, virtue ethics, rawls, Levinas, Butler, Hobbes

T/Theory:

Defaults:

No RVIS > RVIs

CI>Reasonability

fairness and edu are voters

It's very easy to persuade otherwise on any of these issues, so odds are you prob shouldn't worry about them.

Do standards weighing pls!!!

Don't read disclosure at a local or in the novice division, it's not cool.

If you read meta theory you have to weigh it/

Thresholds:

1. Solid- cp theory, topicality, must spec(to a certain extent), AFC good/bad, condo good/bad, TJF good/bad, etc.

2. more frivolous stuff - sandwich theory, must disclose tabroom tournament name, must spec theory of the good etc.

3. Don't do it pls- physical appearance, physical location

Kritik: Line by Line>>>>>> Super long overviews

I am most likely going to need an over-explanation of the K in the 2NR regardless of if I am familiar with the lit base or not. Make sure your links are as specific to the aff as possible

I have decent understandings of the following: university, capitalism, security, afropessimism, black nihilism, settler colonialism.

Not really familiar with pomo

don't read an underhighlited 1nc and extrapolate new 2nr warrants that were not in the 1nc.

give overviews at 70-80% speed

If the Kritik is ontology-based, you need to clearly explain why the kritik derives some sort of ontology offense.

I don't like links of omission

If i am voting on the perm being severance, the 2NR has to implicate severance by actually giving warrants instead of just spending 2 seconds saying severance is a voter

Aprioris/Spikes

Not the biggest fan of spikes/aprioris, but I will vote on them if conceded, it has a clear warrant, and I understand it.

If you choose to read them, please slow down in the 1ac or 1nc when doing so or chances are i ll prob miss it.

don't understand burdens

indexicals + condo logic are fine

Default comparative worlds and epistemic modesty but I can easily be persuaded by Truth Testing or confidence

he/him

ONLINE DEBATE: start off at 70-80% top speed and go from there. I'll speak up for you to slow down if needed.

BERKELEY UPDATE: I realized I'm dogshit at flowing so please please please slow down if you like to blitz non-sent analytics and signpost if u extemp anything

CHURCHILL UPDATE:I don't really know anything about the topic lol extend a lil more

add me to the email chain: ericgao123@gmail.com

Hi, my name is Eric! I am a parent judge so please adapt well to me. Speaking persuasively and professional dress are very important to me in round. I believe that these LD debates should be similar to the debates between the OGs Abraham Lincoln and Michael Douglas (I got a 4 in my APUSH AP tests so I know what I'm talking about). All debates should have a clear value/criterion and good weighing under that said framework!

Here is a quote that sums up how I feel about this Lincoln-Douglas activity:

"They conceded the sand paradox which triggers skep" - Abraham Lincoln

---

have fun ill vote off literally anything (except if it's oppressive IE racism good, sexism good, etc)

---

LD:

quick prefs:

LARP: 1

Tricks: 1

Phil: 1-2

Theory/T/Friv: 1

Ks: 2-3

---

general:

tech > truth, truth > tech when it's idpol Ks and stuff that's about violence

FUN CASE > SERIOUS CASE

epistemic confidence > epistemic modesty

debate is a game that has educational value

novices should learn by fire. read whatever against them

don't read stuff just cause you think I'd like it - a clean LARP debate is a lot better than a tricks debate that I have to intervene in

don't be a fascist

Kritiks:

Explain the K thesis well - I don't know the thesis level claims of most kritiks past cap, set col, baudy, security and identity Ks.

Friv/Spikes:

I have a lower threshold for responses for these and I'll buy RVIs good more easily for these args - funny if done right tho - the more frivolous it is, the more i'll enjoy judging it

LARP:

ngl, i really used to like LARP vs LARP debates, but now they get stale. I think they are good if you are creative with it.

Framework:
Go for it. I am more inclined to believe that FW is a procedural issue that has an issue on how the 1AC debatability, so "T is policing" args usually can be beat back super quickly.

nonT aff:

Go for it. I assume you have FW blocked out so respond to it properly not just "iTs gOoD tO dEbAtE aBoUt _____ IsSuE"

Phil:

I'm reasonably versed in Kant, Hobbes, and Butler with some Deluezean understanding so I'm alright on that. Skep triggers for phil takeouts are super underutilized (IE the Moen devolves to skep bc of pleasure/pain robots arg)

Speed:

slow down for analytics that aren't pre-sent

---

what to do to get good speaks:

collapsing to my favorite arguments and win: spark, evaluate after 1ac/nc/ar, a prioris, paradoxes, friv theory = + whatever I feel like at the time - 99% of the time super high

crack some jokes don't be so stiff

give me food (preferably like soda) = +1

sit down really early and still win = +2

---

what to do to get bad speaks:

be racist, invalidate someone's identity, not following a trigger warning request = L25 :)

clipping/lying about evidence - if me or ur opponent catches u thats an L25 :(

---

at the end of the day, debate is a game. we should all be vibing w each other yk? I think we should all strive for new ways to understand the world around us and find solutions for stuff we need solutions to. just try to have some fun in debate while ur at it.

POLICY (if i'm forced to judge it):

I'm gonna be fully honest - I'm not too well versed in K lit or whatever so if ur reading some wack stuff please err on the side of over-explaining on extensions

I'll also evaluate tricks, phil, and friv theory because I think that it would be funny in policy if u wanna fw ur opponents

I'll give you a 20-30% chance that I WILLjudge screw you - I get tired quickly so I'll boost yall's speaks if you sit down early :)

IEs

I don't care what you wear. Be comfortable in round that would probably make you speak better too tbh

email: brianjeon@college.harvard.edu

full disclosure i haven't been in debate for a semester so my ears are not as fast as they used to be meaning clarity is key and do your best to include analytics (especially if they're pre-written) into the 1AC/1NC (bonus speaks if in the 1AR/2NR)

general

hey y'all! i'm brian (he/him), and i debated for westwood hs for 4 years (circuit + toc), x1 bid, x1 toc qual, x3 tfa qual

i will evaluate all arguments (except bigotry) and do my best to understand what you read in front of me

i will disclose speaks if you ask

i do not feel comfortable adjudicating out-of-round actions besides disclosure

flex prep is good

what's below (besides non-negotiables) are my preferences but at the end of the day do what you love, judging debaters who know and care about what they're saying is much more fun than seeing half-baked strategies that over adapt

non-negotiables

cross-ex is binding

i will evaluate all speeches in the round

no 30 speaks theory

no theory that polices what people wear

no floating pik 2nr pivot unless it was very clear in the 1nc

ev ethics

all evidence should follow nsda rules

i do not think accusations of evidence ethics should be risk-less for any team: if the violation is true, L25 BUT if the violation is false, L25 for the other team

if you mark a card, mark it on your end; if you take time to go back and mark it, take prep

policy

i love impact turns! spark, ddev, warming good, even extinction good BUT absolutely no death good/harm good/suffering good

strong case press with fewer offs makes me happy

good research/specific links to the plan will be rewarded with good speaks

t/theory

nebel t/whole res t is totally fine by me, just explain the upward entailment tests and stuff

my defaults are (and please don't let me decide on defaults): no rvis, dtd, ci

i think disclosure is good but i dislike more marginal shells about round robins, cites, judges, etc

• as long as a good faith reasonable attempt was made to disclose the aff and neg positions, i generally think disclosure is less persuasive

the more plan-inclusive the pic is (process, actor, consult) the more cheaty it feels but this is all debatable

kritik

first question on my mind is: what does my ballot do? top of 2nr/2ar should answer this

the kritiks i have read/though about the most are cap, techno-orientalism, and settler colonialism on the affirmative and negative (context: i read storytelling/scifi affs)

regardless of how familiar i am with the literature, good explanation and judge instruction are important

HEAVILY dense literature (some branches of psychoanalysis and post-modern theory) will retire much more slowing down, good explanation, and a solid 2nr overview

quotes in the 1nc/2nr make me very happy

a sole presumption 2nr is an out but my offense/defense brain prefers either separate offense + presumption or offensively-spun presumption

kaffs should be SOMEWHAT related to the resolution (creativity encouraged!)

phil

i'm familiar with and have read kant, hobbes, and butler before

reading a card or two that justifies part of the framework rather than an entire analytic one will be rewarded with speaks - i think debaters have started to plagiarise from theorists with half baked analytics

for your sanity and mine and to reduce the chances of a judge screw, please include all pre-written case framework indicts in the doc

no outright skep please: skep triggers and skep to justify other normative theories are fine

no value debate please

tricks

i guess? the later in the day this is read, the more confused and annoyed i'll get so read at your own risk

please do not be deliberately avoidant of clash like extemping shells or blippy a prioris or being dodgy in cross

lmk if you have any questions!

Yes, email chain: sohailjouyaATgmailDOTcom

PUBLIC FORUM JUDGING PHILOSOPHY IS HERE

Update:

- Probably not the best judge for the "Give us a 30!" approach unless it becomes an argument/point of contestation in the round. Chances are I'll just default to whatever I'd typically give. To me, these kind of things aren't arguments, but judge instructions that are external to making a decision regarding the debate occurring.

BIG PICTURE

- I appreciate adaptation to my preferences but don’t do anything that would make you uncomfortable. Never feel obligated to compete in a manner that inhibits your ability to be effective. My promise to you will be that I will keep an open mind and assess whatever you chose. In short: do you.

- Truth > Tech, but RELAX: All this means is that I recognize that debate is not merely a game, but rather a competition that models the world in which we live. This doesn’t mean I believe judges should intervene on the basis of argumentative preference - what it does mean is that embedded clash band the “nexus question” of the round is of more importance than blippy technical oversights between certain sheets of paper - especially in K v K debates.
Don't fret: a dropped argument is still a concession. I likely have a higher threshold for the development of arguments that are more intrinsically dubious and lack warrants.

- As a former coach of a UDL school where many of my debaters make arguments centred on their identity, diversity is a genuine concern. It may play a factor in how I evaluate a round, particularly in debates regarding what’s “best” for the community/activity.

Do you and I’ll do my best to evaluate it but I’m not a tabula rasa and the dogma of debate has me to believe the following. I have put a lot of time and thought into this while attempting to be parsimonious - if you are serious about winning my ballot a careful read would prove to serve you well:

FORM

- All speech acts are performances, consequently, debaters should defend their performances including the advocacy, evidence, arguments/positions, interpretations, and representations of said speech acts.

- One of the most annoying questions a judged can be asked: “Are you cool with speed?”
In short: yes. But smart and slow always beats fast and dumb.
I have absolutely no preference on rate of delivery, though I will say it might be smart to slow down a bit on really long tags, advocacy texts, your totally sweet theory/double-bind argument or on overviews that have really nuanced descriptions of the round. My belief is that speed is typically good for debate but please remember that spreading’s true measure is contingent on the number of arguments that are required to be answered by the other team not your WPM.

- Pathos: I used to never really think this mattered at all. To a large degree, it still doesn’t considering I’m unabashedly very flowcentric but I tend to give high speaker points to debaters who performatively express mastery knowledge of the subjects discussed, ability to exercise round vision, assertiveness, and that swank.

- Holistic Approaches: the 2AR/2NR should be largely concerned with two things:
1) provide framing of the round so I can make an evaluation of impacts and the like
2) descriptively instruct me on how to make my decision

Overviews have the potential for great explanatory power, use that time and tactic wisely.

While I put form first, I am of the maxim that “form follows function” – I contend that the reverse would merely produce an aesthetic, a poor formula for argument testing in an intellectually rigorous and competitive activity. In summation: you need to make an argument and defend it.

FUNCTION

- The Affirmative ought to be responsive to the topic. This is a pinnacle of my paradigm that is quite broad and includes teams who seek to engage in resistance to the proximate structures that frame the topic. Conversely, this also implicates teams that prioritize social justice - debaters utilizing methodological strategies for best resistance ought to consider their relationship to the topic.
Policy-oriented teams may read that last sentence with glee and K folks may think this is strike-worthy…chill. I do not prescribe to the notion that to be topical is synonymous with being resolutional.

- The Negative’s ground is rooted in the performance of the Affirmative as well as anything based in the resolution. It’s that simple; engage the 1AC if at all possible.

- I view rounds in an offense/defense lens. Many colleagues are contesting the utility of this approach in certain kinds of debate and I’m ruminating about this (see: “Thoughts on Competition”) but I don’t believe this to be a “plan focus” theory and I default to the notion that my decisions require a forced choice between competing performances.

- I will vote on Framework. (*This means different things in different debate formats - I don't mean impact framing or LD-centric "value/value criterion" but rather a "You must read a plan" interpretation that's typically in response to K Affs)That means I will vote for the team running the position based on their interpretation, but it also means I’ll vote on offensive responses to the argument. Vindicating an alternative framework is a necessary skill and one that should be possessed by kritikal teams - justifying your form of knowledge production as beneficial in these settings matter.
Framework appeals effectively consist of a normative claim of how debate ought to function. The interpretation should be prescriptive; if you are not comfortable with what the world of debate would look like if your interpretation were universally applied, then you have a bad interpretation. The impact to your argument ought to be derived from your interpretation (yes, I’ve given RFDs where this needed to be said). Furthermore, a Topical Version of the Affirmative must specifically explain how the impacts of the 1AC can be achieved, it might be in your best interest to provide a text or point to a few cases that achieve that end. This is especially true if you want to go for external impacts that the 1AC can’t access – but all of this is contingent on a cogent explanation as to why order precedes/is the internal link to justice.

- I am pretty comfortable judging Clash of Civilization debates.

- Framework is the job of the debaters. Epistemology first? Ontology? Sure, but why? Where does performance come into play – should I prioritize a performative disad above the “substance” of a position? Over all of the sheets of paper in the round? These are questions debaters must grapple with and preferably the earlier in the round the better.

- "Framework is how we frame our work" >>>>> "FrAmEwOrK mAkEs ThE gAmE wOrK"

-Presumption can be an option. In my estimation, the 2NR may go for Counterplan/Kritik while also giving the judge the option of the status quo. Call it “hypo-testing” or whatever but I believe a rational decision-making paradigm doesn’t doom me to make a single decision between two advocacies, especially when the current status of things is preferable to both (the net-benefit for a CP/linear DA and impact for a K). I don't know if I really “judge kick” for you, instead, the 2NR should explain an “even if” route to victory via presumption to allow the 2AR to respond.
“But what about when presumption flips Affirmative?” This is a claim that I wish would be established prior to the 2NR, but I know that's not gonna happen. I've definitely voted in favour of plenty of 2ARs that haven't said that in the 1AR. The only times I can envision this is when the 2NR is going all-in on a CP.

- Role of the Ballots ought to invariably allow the 1AC/1NC to be contestable and provide substantial ground to each team. Many teams will make their ROBs self-serving at best, or at worse, tautological. That's because there's a large contingency of teams that think the ROB is an advocacy statement. They are not. Even more teams conflate a ROB with a Role of the Judge instruction and I'm just now making my peace with dealing with that reality.
If the ROB fails to equally distribute ground, they are merely impact framing. A good ROB can effectively answer a lot of framework gripes regarding the Affirmative’s pronouncement of an unfalsifiable truth claim.

- Analytics that are logically consistent, well warranted, and answer the heart of any argument are weighed in high-esteem. This is especially true if it’s responsive to any combinations of bad argument/evidence.

- My threshold for theory is not particularly high. It’s what you justify, not necessarily what you do. I typically default to competing interpretations, this can be complicated by a team that is able to articulate what reasonability means in the context of the round, otherwise I feel like it's interventionist of me to decode what “reasonable” represents. The same is true to a lesser extent with the impacts as well. Rattling off “fairness and education” as loaded concepts that I should just know has a low threshold if the other team can explain the significance of a different voter or a standard that controls the internal link into your impact (also, if you do this: prepared to get impact turned).

I think theory should be strategic and I very much enjoy a good theory debate. Copious amounts of topicality and specification arguments are not strategic, it is desperate.

- I like conditionality probably more so than other judges. As a young’n I got away with a lot of, probably, abusive Negative strategies that relied on conditionality to the maximum (think “multiple worlds and presumption in the 2NR”) mostly because many teams were never particularly good at explaining why this was a problem. If you’re able to do so, great – just don’t expect me to do much of that work for you. I don’t find it particularly difficult for a 2AR to make an objection about how that is bad for debate, thus be warned 2NRs - it's a downhill effort for a 2AR.
Furthermore, I tend to believe the 1NC has the right to test the 1AC from multiple positions.
Thus, Framework along with Cap K or some other kritik is not a functional double turn. The 1NC doesn’t need to be ideologically consistent. However, I have been persuaded in several method debates that there is a performative disadvantage that can be levied against speech acts that are incongruent and self-defeating.

- Probability is the most crucial component of impact calculus with disadvantages. Tradeoffs ought to have a high risk of happening and that question often controls the direction of uniqueness while also accessing the severity of the impact (magnitude).

- Counterplan debates can often get tricky, particularly if they’re PICs. Maybe I’m too simplistic here, but I don’t understand why Affirmatives don’t sit on their solvency deficit claims more. Compartmentalizing why portions of the Affirmative are key can win rounds against CPs. I think this is especially true because I view the Counterplan’s ability to solve the Affirmative to be an opportunity cost with its competitiveness. Take advantage of this “double bind.”

- Case arguments are incredibly underutilized and the dirty little secret here is that I kind of like them. I’m not particularly sentimental for the “good ol’ days” where case debate was the only real option for Negatives (mostly because I was never alive in that era), but I have to admit that debates centred on case are kind of cute and make my chest feel all fuzzy with a nostalgia that I never experienced– kind of like when a frat boy wears a "Reagan/Bush '84" shirt...

KRITIKAL DEBATE

I know enough to know that kritiks are not monolithic. I am partial to topic-grounded kritiks and in all reality I find them to be part of a typical decision-making calculus. I tend to be more of a constructivist than a rationalist. Few things frustrate me more than teams who utilise a kritik/answer a kritik in a homogenizing fashion. Not every K requires the ballot as a tool, not every K looks to have an external impact either in the debate community or the world writ larger, not every K criticizes in the same fashion. I suggest teams find out what they are and stick to it, I also think teams should listen and be specifically responsive to the argument they hear rather than rely on a base notion of what the genre of argument implies. The best way to conceptualize these arguments is to think of “kritik” as a verb (to criticize) rather than a noun (a static demonstrative position).
It is no secret that I love many kritiks but deep in every K hack’s heart is a revered space that admires teams that cut through the noise and simply wave a big stick and impact turn things, unabashedly defending conventional thought. If you do this well there’s a good chance you can win my ballot. If pure agonism is not your preferred tactic, that’s fine but make sure your post-modern offense onto kritiks can be easily extrapolated into a 1AR in a fashion that makes sense.
In many ways, I believe there’s more tension between Identity and Post-Modernism teams than there are with either of them and Policy debaters. That being said, I think the Eurotrash K positions ought to proceed with caution against arguments centred on Identity – it may not be smart to contend that they ought to embrace their suffering or claim that they are responsible for a polemical construction of identity that replicates the violence they experience (don’t victim blame).

THOUGHTS ON COMPETITION

There’s a lot of talk about what is or isn’t competition and what competition ought to look like in specific types of debate – thus far I am not of the belief that different methods of debate require a different rubric for evaluation. While much discussion has been given to “Competition by Comparison” I very much subscribe to Competing Methodologies. What I’ve learned in having these conversations is that this convention means different things to different people and can change in different settings in front of different arguments. For me, I try to keep it consistent and compatible with an offense/defense heuristic: competing methodologies require an Affirmative focus where the Negative requires an independent reason to reject the Affirmative. In this sense, competition necessitates a link. This keeps artificial competition at bay via permutations, an affirmative right regardless of the presence of a plan text.

Permutations are merely tests of mutual exclusivity. They do not solve and they are not a shadowy third advocacy for me to evaluate. I naturally will view permutations more as a contestation of linkage – and thus, are terminal defense to a counterplan or kritik -- than a question of combining texts/advocacies into a solvency mechanism. If you characterize these as solvency mechanisms rather than a litmus test of exclusivity, you ought to anticipate offense to the permutation (and even theory objections to the permutation) to be weighed against your “net-benefits”. This is your warning to not be shocked if I'm extrapolating a much different theoretical understanding of a permutation if you go 5/6 minutes for it in the 2AR.
Even in method debates where a permutation contends both methods can work in tandem, there is no solvency – in these instances net-benefits function to shield you from links (the only true “net benefit” is the Affirmative). A possible exception to this scenario is “Perm do the Affirmative” where the 1AC subsumes the 1NC’s alternative; here there may be an offensive link turn to the K resulting in independent reasons to vote for the 1AC.

hii :)!! my email is: shawkinkabir@gmail.com so add me to email chain plz

larp - yesss!! love this for us! make sure ur uniqueness is recent esp for politix and for politix it helps if u rlly rlly know what ur talking abt I'll b v impressed and boost speaks.

plans:

def should have a solvency advocate that is v important to me and otherwise everything is cool not much to say here. if u know the intricacies of ur policy and utilize that well to answer generic case turns I'm happy.

pics:

YES I love em! but I will vote for either side (so whoever is winning the shell) on pics bad

cp:

tbh 2 condo is cool but I wont b biased on the shell if u have more than 2 condo, as long as u arent losing on multiple condo bad shell etc. ehh I'm not as big on u *must* have solvency advocate here as I do w plans but I still think it's a v useful thing to have here so I do prefer it.

phil:

umm I'm gonna b honest I read util 99.9% of the time but I understand kant too and have read butler lit, but for other things you'll have to make sure u explain:)!

theory/T:

like this IF it's not frivolous so im cool w condo bad, pics bad, brackets, disclosure *i think disclosure is very very very good and open source is great* (so don't be reading afc or acc or any of that type of stuff cuz I'll b honest I won't buy it and it will -hurt- speaks dude)

i can vote either way on nebel but make sure ur ready to explain like grammar if need b lol

send shell plz I'll b happy or at least send interp if u dont ill ask u to email me and ur opponent the exact interp. slow down.

default wise: no rvis, competing interp

trix:

please dont :(. i rlly don't wanna watch this debate and I'll b super confused sorry!

t/fw & k affs

i could go either way on this just debate and prove to me why ur norms r good!

k's:

these r cool

tbh i only read cap and fem so if u read other things (esp like high theory) plz make sure u EXPLAIN :) and explain simply in cx, be able to break down the k and b accessible especially to novices.

if u don’t identify as black u should listen and respect the voices of many black debaters in our community, and for this reason don’t read afropess in front of me (again, this applies only if you are not black) thanks.

other notes!!:

1. please please b nice i value that more than anything else! if ur nice it'll help speaks and i love when opponents r able to have some casual or nice dialogue before or after rd if we r waiting cuz making friends in debate is so nice! (note: if ur opponent is being a meanie to u and being super toxic or hyper-masculine then i don't expect u to be all smiley about it, u can call em out and be sassy lol!)

2. i will not tolerate anything -ist or -phobic (i.e. racist, transphobic, sexist, homophobic, and the like) if u do something like this i won't hesitate to give u an L and bad speaks sorry not sorry bud.

3. i won't accept misgendering, if this happens lmk and if u are comfortable we can correct the opponent, but if u then persist in misgendering with no care in the world i won't b happy and read consequence above ^

4. tw: mental health

i struggled a lot with my anxiety especially in debate and had a panic attack every tourney so i get it so if u need a bit before round to breathe or u need someone to talk u thru etc, i gotchu ok :). i care more abt ur well-being than a debate round

if u have any other questions u can ask me before the round starts or email me etc!

good luck and more importantly have fun!

Hi! I'm Jhanvi (she/her) and I currently debate for Westwood as a sophomore. Since I usually judge for novices/novice tournaments, this paradigm will mostly be catered towards them. This paradigm might still need some work - I'm still learning :)

IMPORTANT - Please take note:

1. You can call me by either judge or my first name.

2. The NSDA fileshare has not been kind towards me this competitive season. Therefore, add me to the email chain please - it's jhanvikarthik@gmail.com

3. I'll evaluate pretty much anything unless it's morally repugnant (racism good, sexism good, oppression good, etc.) Debate should be a place where everyone can communicate freely and express themselves. This also means that if you are directing bigoted speech (misgendering goes here as well) towards your opponent and making them feel unsafe in the round, I will give you an L25.

4. I know that there have been a lot of technological issues in the world of online debate. NSDA Campus audio software hasn't been great for me, but if you cut out for any reason, I expect you to record a local copy of your speech and email it to both me and your opponent as soon as you finish the speech (this must be timed for the appropriate length). I will NOT let anyone redo speeches.

5. Please disclose trigger warnings if you have them at the top of the case. For any reason, if your opponent is triggered by the topics in your case, I expect you to make accommodations accordingly. On the subject of trigger warnings, I would prefer if you do not read cases that specifically deal with extreme depictions of mental illness or suicide, since those are triggering topics for me.

6. Stolen from Shawkin (cause she's awesome and this is true): Performance anxiety and stress burnouts are real things in debate. I know that has been an issue for me so feel free to reach out if you need a moment to breathe - it's ok to take a moment.

DEBATE PORTION:

Read what you're comfortable with. I'd rather see you go for a unique framework or kritik debate in which you know you can excel rather than a weak policy debate in which you do not know what you are doing.

Quick Pref shortcut:

1 - Policy(Fiat)/T/Theory

2 - Phil(Util, Kant, Hobbes, Locke, Rawls)/Identity Ks (including cap and security)

3 - K affs/Pomo Ks/High Theory/Other Phil positions

4 - Incredibly frivolous T or theory shells

Strike (5) - Tricks

If you read anything that is considered on the prefs that is a 3 or lower (3-5), then you might need to do a bit of explaining as to what your position entails for me to vote on it. It doesn't mean I won't vote on it, but I need to understand a clear link or impact/alt story in order for me to make it a part of my RFD.

Tricks:

1. If you have a question on whether your argument is a trick, here's that answer: If you think an argument is a trick, then I will consider it as a trick. This includes stuff like aprioris, paradoxes, skep, permissibility, and other arguments in that vein. However, I will vote on tricks that do have a conceded warrant/impact.

2. For goodness sakes, please be NICE when reading tricks and don't hide them in walls of text. It both scares the other debater and confuses the heck out of me when I can't find them. Delineate them (idc how u do this) so at least I will know what I'm looking at.

3. On presumption, I presume negative unless the negative defends an advocacy that deviates further away from the status quo than the affirmative advocacy.

T/Theory:

1. I will NOT evaluate any T or theory shell that has to do with the way debaters present themselves (shoes theory, etc.) Do not abuse T this way. Furthermore, the more frivolous a theory shell happens to be, the higher threshold I will have for abuse.

2. On condo, I consider anywhere from 1-2 condo to be alright. 3+ is a bit too much and I would probably default aff on condo in that situation.

3. I default to competing interpretations, drop the debater, and no RVIs, but can be persuaded otherwise.

Policy Style (Counterplans and Disads):

1. All off case positions in this category should have the appropriate portions associated with them (especially links and impacts). If there are any parts missing for whatever reason, I will not evaluate it as highly.

2. For disads that are tied to warrants that are changing (politics DA, etc.), please ensure that you have correct information. If someone is polling at 40% and you say 20%, it discredits the evidence and I will not evaluate it.

3. Aff plans MUST have a solvency advocate (K affs, not so much)! Counterplans should have a solvency advocate, and I would prefer if they do (I'm more lenient on this for some reason)

4. I do not prefer one style of debate (traditional or progressive) over the other. If someone has a different debate style than you do, adapt.

5. Don't read claims that are obviously false - ex. Global Warming doesn't exist, etc. While I am fine with impact turns and spark, there should not be fabricated information at any point.

6. Multiplank condo counterplans are fine.

Kritiks:

1. Don't assume I know your lit base. I'm pretty comfortable with cap, security, fem, orientalism, imperialism, and set col, but not so much with other bases. Make sure you are prepared to defend your alternative and why it should be preferred over the aff.

2. I would like it if you had topic-specific links. While generics can get you to a certain point, having those specific links makes all the difference and makes it easier on you to explain why I should be voting for the K.

3. Please ensure that your alternative is appropriate. I will not be evaluating "Death Good" or "Suffering Good" Ks. I will also not vote for alternatives that prescribe oppression as a path of action we should take.

4. Explain to me in your rebuttal why you should win the K. This is far more than just reading a long overview - talk about how the links and alt take precedence over the perm, why the perm is bad, etc. Weigh the impact of the K against the aff if you need to. Make sure you are able to explain your K to other novices who are debating you.

5. If you do choose to read an overview in the rebuttal, please go at 70% of your normal speed. I want to ensure that I'm not missing anything.

6. If you are reading an identity kritik from a subject position in which you do not belong against someone who is of that subject position, it will be harder for you to win the debate. Please be respectful of others' experiences in this space.

K Affs vs. T-Framework:

I think that these debates can be very interesting and educational if done correctly. I believe that kritikal affirmatives with some link to the topic are good for debate and slightly lean aff on the T-FW debate, but can be persuaded otherwise. But if you are reading a kritikal affirmative, please note the following:

1. Ensure that your method is compatible with your advocacy (I DON'T want to hear things like intersectional fem is a policy-making strategy or rejecting settler colonial logic is good with fiat -- it's just not true). If your method isn't compatible, I will most likely end up voting neg via presumption.

2. Try to have some link to the topic (if possible). If not, it's easier to persuade me on T-FW. This is not universal by any means, but education is important to debate.

3. Know what you are defending. Explain why your method would be preferable to that of the negative debater regardless of what they read.

4. Get creative! The debate against T-FW can be one of the most interesting if you know how to create specific standards. In this case, don't hesitate to answer the TVA, standards, and voters with specific counters of your own. +1 speaks for someone who can really impress me while doing this.

5. BONUS: +0.5 speaks to anyone who can make a theory shell in the 1AR regarding your kritikal method/discourse and how we need to consider it first in the round. These are very entertaining and educational to hear.

If you're on the negative and reading T-framework, try to note the following:

1. When reading your standards/voters, don't just say "x is a voter because fairness and education." That is in no way persuasive. Instead, attempt to focus on why specifically their method or discourse is bad for debate and how it can harm other debaters.

2. BONUS: +0.5 speaks if you attempt to read a TVA that the aff can actually follow. This is not always possible, but will go a long way in winning you the ballot, especially if the aff method could be done under your TVA.

3. Get creative here! I don't want to keep hearing "the standards are limits and ground, so vote neg." The more creative you are with your standards, the more likely you'll win my ballot.

4. Don't be afraid to cross-apply this position to the case debate and vice versa. Specific examples will get you a long way.

Things that you should be doing ALWAYS:

1. Disclose. You should always be disclosing to each other. If for some reason you decide not to disclose, then I will subtract 0.5 speaks. The only exception to this is if you have zero clue of what disclosure is.

2. Sending your full speech document. Do not hide any cards in different files because all members need to see the evidence to evaluate it. Furthermore, please cut and cite your evidence properly, especially if it consists of pages from a larger book. Evidence ethics is an actual issue that will be penalized if called for a challenge/called out on it.

3. Be respectful of your opponents. This is a basic courtesy that must be followed. Any rude/intolerant behavior will not be acceptable.

4. Weigh in round! This is more than just giving an overview of the position in your rebuttals - tell me why your impact matters and why I should vote for you!

5. Know your case. It's imperative to debate.

SPEAKER POINTS:

I will start at a 28 and go up or down from there depending on how the round goes and your ability to communicate/leverage offense.

Ways to Boost Speaks (+0.1 for each thing you do here):

1. Knowing your case extremely well

2. Using cross well (asking smart/offensive questions)

3. Weighing and proper explanations (more than just an overview in rebuttal)

4. Signposting without deviation from the order you gave before the speech

5. Creative arguments - especially analytic ones

6. Strategic collapsing

How Speaks will be Dropped (-0.1 for each thing that happens):

1. Drop case in the 1AR/2AR

2. Going for a billion arguments in rebuttal (mainly 2NR/2AR)

3. Being disrespectful towards anyone

4. Speaking faster than you are able to

5. Stealing prep

6. Not having warrants for specific arguments

Good luck and have dun debating!

Top Level Stuff:

Hi. I'm Pranav.

I debated at Westwood High School in Austin, Texas (Class of '22). 2x qualifier to the toc

Use pmedikon11@gmail.com for the email chain and record your speeches.

An ideal debate probably has an affirmative that defends a meaningful change from the status quo and a negative that proves an opportunity cost to that change.

Thoughts:

TLDR -- agree w Jane Lichtman

Policy -

- policy debates are fun. good quality ev is really nice + spin and not just docbotting is cool.

- i love the politics disad. if the 1nc is 1 off politics + a substantive case press, you'll get good speaks.

- impact turns are also really fun.

- most affs have terrible internal links and a good case debate will make voting neg very easy.

Theory/T -

- i think theory debates are very technical, fast-paced, and generally blippy/under warranted. this means that while i enjoy them, you should probably slow down a little on the theory debate and make sure to fully warrant stuff in the final speeches. ill hold the line on new arguments/spin in the 2nr/2ar though

- defaults: dta, ci, no rvi, education and fairness are voters. pls read paradigm issues tho. also probably unlikely to vote on an rvi to T, theory is probably fair game, but go for whatever is strategic.

- nebel is annoying, but a good generic so go for it. explain the grammar stuff well in the 2nr bc it is confusing. these debates generally turn into scripts, so getting off the blocks will probably be rewarded with speaks

- open-source disclosure is best, at the very least you should full-text disclose. the more frivolous disclosure shells are kinda annoying but go for it.

K -

- You should probably have topic-specific links and a diverse variety of links.

- The nature of LD K debate means that most of it is inherently late-breaking, so you should probably start things like the framework debate in the 1NC. The 2NR should be able to pull lines from the 1ac to prove the links and a good 2nr should make it impossible for the aff to win.

- the aff gets to weigh the case - arguments that are predicated on excluding the aff to win are silly - my favorite 2ars were framework + case o/w

- topical k affs can be interesting, but you should have a good framing argument and be prepared for the extinction outweighs stuff bc it's usually pretty compelling.

- Note on T-FW: I err neg on this debate, but I do think that the affirmative should be able to prove why their model of debate is superior. impact turns to T are not very compelling, so just win a counterinterp and offense.

phil -

- i did this the least

- You should be able to explain your syllogism coherently throughout the debate and should explain the implications of dropped justifications clearly. If you're reading a non-consequentialist framework you should have more answers to the disad/pic than "consequences don't matter" because that presumes your framework is true.

- I default epistemic confidence, comparative worlds, presumption negates unless the 2nr goes for an alternative advocacy that is larger than the plan, and permissibility negates.

- ks against Phil affs are underrated

- tricks are usually silly, but if they have a claim, warrant, and an impact go for it. make sure to explain it well in the 2ar/2nr.

- the 2ar is after every speech

ev ethics -

- stake the debate if you wanna make a challenge - ev ethics is important

- for things like brackets just read it as a shell - i think brackets is compelling

Hey, I'm Aria. I am a sophomore LD debater at Westwood Highschool.

Please put me on the email chain: ariafmerchant@gmail.com

I agree with Jugal Amodwala.

Email: prithiv2047@gmail.com please disclose I will buy disclosure theory except on new affs.

I am fine with any speed except on analytics slow a teensy bit please and I will judge off the flow and only the flow. No racism sexism etc. or auto loss with negative speaks.

Prefs:

Larp/Fiat: 1

Phil(non tricks): 1

K:2

T/theory:3

Tricks: strike

I am fine with any larp position but I really like impact turns and will give extra speaks. But no morally repugnant impact turns.

I am fine with most common phil args such as Hobbes, Locke, Kant, Butler, Existentialism, Deleuze(honestly I think its prob false though) and Rawls. I like skep triggers like consequences fail but am persuaded by empirics solve answers to those.

I am familiar with the most common Ks such as Set col, Afro pess, Security and Cap but anything crazy just slow down. I am fine with K debate and think affs should prob just weigh case and win off of that.

You know what tricks are and I won't vote for them. Only thing that should be in 1AC underview is 1AR theory stuff, RVI stuff and maybe presumption and permiss affirms. If you are reading a phil aff I a fine with a util underview. Tricks kind of make the debate really hard and annoying to judge and I am lazy and they prob are educational so no tricks. Also you can read paradoxes but I can also choose to ignore them especially stuff like Zenos. Please don't read solipsism and definitions and stuff most of the time its morally repugnant and skirts substantive debate. I am willing to listen to a constitutionality NC on this topic though.

For extra speaks be nice add memes and be funny in CX and speech. I give speaks only on strategy not speaking ability so the more strategic you are the higher speaks you will get.

anooprac@utexas.edu

I debated for Westwood for 4 years and debated on the national circuit for 2 years. I haven't done anything debate-related in 2 years so please go slower AND BE CLEAR, especially on tags, and keep in mind I have 0 topic knowledge. If you're going too fast or are unclear, I'll say slow and clear like 3 times and then stop flowing if it happens again.

Read what you want in front of me (granted it's not racist, homophobic, sexist, transphobic, etc) and I'll do my best to understand it. But based on my experience, I am most comfortable with policy, theory, some philosophy, some Ks (cap, antiblackness, set col, psychoanalysis). Regardless, I still want a good explanation of your argument in speeches and lots of impacting and judge instruction.

Tricks and friv theory are fine, but don't be super blippy and please please please weigh so debates are resolvable. I'll try my best to evaluate it but I was never a tricks debater.

Things I like (good speaks):

• impact turns
• weighing
• collapsing
• good overviews
• being funny
• efficiency
• good line by lines

Things I don't like (bad speaks):

• being mean
• stealing prep
• if you're debating a novice please don't blitz through everything and make the debate un-educational for them
• not signposting and jumping around the flow
• clipping cards
• being dodgy and sketchy in cross ex

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me before round.

Also make sure to have fun :3

Hi! Add me to the email chain: anushkarsaini@gmail.com

Hi, I'm Shreya. I'm a sophomore LD debater at Westwood High School.

Please put me on the email chain: shreyatiwari2504@gmail.com

I agree with Jugal Amodwala.

Hi, I'm Anya. I'm a sophomore LD debater at Westwood High School.
Please put me on the email chain: ayaksh742@gmail.com

I agree with Jugal Amodwala.

Hey! My name is Wesley Yeung (he/him) and I am currently an LD sophomore at Westwood High School. This paradigm will be accommodated mostly for novices since I imagine that's who I'll be judging most for the time being.

Calling me "Judge" or Wesley is fine; no preference

Email: wesleton888@gmail.com

(Speechdrop is also cool too if you have difficulties with internet)

TL;DR - As for arguments, I'd prefer novices just run policy stuff not because I can't judge T/Theory or Kritikal debates, but because I don't see it as productive in the novice pool and probably because you can't run it quite well YET. However, you can try to change my mind - would love to see it :). My favorite 2nrs are ones that destroy the aff with the K or solid extensions of Disads, case turns or Counterplans that tear the aff solvency to shreds. Aside from all that, always be someone that is inclusive and fun in the debate space. I don't want to judge an asshat. Please be considerate of others and enjoy this game that we all appreciate.

LD Paradigm(1 - I can judge decently well; 5 - pls don't read lmao):

1 - Policy(fiat, larp, util, same thing to me)

1/2 - T/Theory

2 - Kritiks (identity, security, cap)

3 - Kant and other generic fwks

3/4 - Pomo/High Theory(if you know what this is pls no)

4 - K affs/Non-T(You're not a very fun person, are you?)

5 - trix are for kids!

Speed - I'm fine with speed as long as u send the doc; however, clarity >>>>> speed. Please don't just go kerchoo and make your speech incomprehensible. I'd much rather you read at a quick tempo than 400 wpm with word spaghetti. I'll say clear 2 times per speech and if you still sound incoherent, I'll stop flowing.

General Tips:

Direct me to why you win this round at the end of the debate. These should be saved for when you do your 2nrs/2ars. This isn't so much as for me as it is for the next parent judge you have who has no clue what Lincoln-Douglas debate is.

In your rebuttals, make it clear where you have ample defense and offense on each argument that matters

If you do have a heavy framework debate, please make it explicitly clear WHY your framework either internal link hijacks your opponent's or why theirs is morally repugnant and all that jazz.

Policy:

Weigh, weigh, weigh

CP's are cool; answer perms and solvency deficits and I'll be happy.

Give overviews on DA's please - good practice to have in rebuttals

Kritiks:

Please treat me like a five-year old who knows nothing about society and explain your worldview of the K WELL- still learning, so even a proper and clean explanation on a basic K like Cap or Security will reward you solid speaks.

Link should be very well fleshed out, impact and ROTB should be done in a smart and efficient manner to take out the aff offense

I'd rather you read a materialistic-based kritik rather than an ontological one because I am more confident in judging those(Cap, security, etc.). However, if you think that you can change my mind then go ahead.

Reps Ks are okay, but I am very persuaded by impact calc here especially.

Theory:

Please have an actual violation

I love smart counter-interpretations

Make your voters link to standards and know how to weigh these properly in the 2nr or else not fun

Don't have a stance on 1ar theory, but I typically don't buy RVIs unless straight conceded

Prove why your interp leads to a better world for the debate space - whether it be through content or something else.

Phil:

Only really know Kant and Util, but open to really any framework as long as you have offense under that framework

Something that is under-utilized is conceding to an opponent's framework and winning under that; take that statement as you will

Speaks:

29-30: Definitely impressed me - you're going places

28-29: Very organized speech and maybe a couple of hiccups in the rebuttals - Very good potential

27-28: You were probably a little too inefficient and/or made some decently huge concessions somewhere - practice makes perfect!

26-27: You probably did something that ticked me off quite a bit, but the round was still watchable. 9/10 times you probably lost the round

25-26: You done goofed, my guy.

Things that will cuck your speaks(potential drop):

Hostility and toxicity to another debater.

Reading racism good and other morally repugnant(like unanimously agreed upon) arguments that exclude others/make your opponent or me uncomfortable

Evidence Ethics(YOU are responsible for the call)

Things that will lower your speaks and make me sad:(

Buffet 2nrs where you go for everything

Double turns - double the yikes(very cash money if you point them out though)

Asking for speaks - I'll only disclose who won alright chill

Now for the fun stuff:

Things that will boost your speaks:

Collapsing in rebuttals

Weighing out impacts and clash with your opponent's case

Smart intuition

Signposting :D

Being a respectful and gracious person(esp in RFD and CX)

Being actually funny(People like Grace Zhu don't apply)

Sidequests:

Tell me your favorite Kanye album before round and give me a top three off of that album (and depending on how correct it is I'll give 1 whole speaker point - extra .1 if u say a bonus track/leak)

Push Baby or Tiny Meat Gang references(+.5)

Chess Pun(Depending how good or bad it is I might drop you)

Jojo's Reference(+.25; everything is a Jojo's reference nowadays)