Email: seijidebate[at]gmail[dot]com

Top Level:

West High School SLC '24

Harvard ‘28

Call me "Seiji" [say-G]. Pronouns: he/him/his

Title the subject of the email chains: [Tournament Name] [Round Number] AFF [School Name] vs NEG [School Name]

I am colorblind. I can't see blue highlighting.

No PDFs.

I prefer to watch a good debate I have less experience with than watch a bad debate where teams try to appeal to my preferences. "I begin evaluating almost every debate by listing out all the impacts made in the 2NR and 2AR and then determine the degree to which each team gets access to the fullest extent of those impacts by parsing out the rest of the debate. After, I'll weigh these impacts by deciding what the implications of winning each of them are (defaulting to and prioritizing the comparative metrics forwarded by the debaters in the round) and then usually have a good idea of who I believe should win." - Kenji Aoki. Good debating, line-by-line, impact calc, etc. will all minimize the intervention I have to do and help with me evaluating args I have less experience with. Dropped args still need claims and warrants extended.

KAFFs/Framework:

KAFFs usually get the perm but I hold a high threshold for how it is explained, especially when you're trying to moot/shield links. I'm open to NEG interpretations of how the perm should be theoretically evaluated beyond just "a test of competition."

Fairness can or can’t be an impact. Winning it's an "intrinsic good" requires you to win a prescriptive - not just descriptive - reason as to why debate should be a game, which is why I'm more convinced with explanations as to how fairness is a necessary internal link to the educational value of debate and why both sides require it for their impacts.

Clash needs to be explained comparatively between the two models of debate. I think the most convincing explanation of clash as an impact is how it implicates skills.

Any NEG case debating should implicate AFF solvency for their potential impact turns and/or become offense for why discourse around your interp is good.

Topicality:

I tend to give greater weight to cards that define the word in a holistic context, not just use it in a sentence or for a specific purpose, article, or court case, UNLESS that specificity matters in the debate.

I like impacts like limits and ground to be contextualized to how the topic operates, i.e. what is the core controversy of the topic and what arguments (ground) are necessary for external educational-related impacts.

Counterplans:

All CPs are fair game and competitive until proven otherwise.

I default to judge kick, but I'm open to a 2AR that pushes back on judge kick if 'perm shields'/'links to the net benefit' is a core part of the strategy, especially if the 2NR doesn't have defense of judge kick.

Sufficiency framing doesn't always apply to the AFF's impacts that are yes/no questions. I also prefer it be contextualized to the internal links at least by the 2NR AND why 'sufficiently' solving outweighs the specific AFF deficits.

The more specific the solvency advocate, the better. If you have a really good and specific card that says the 50 states can solve the specific mechanism/area of the plan, I am more likely to err NEG on substance and theory than if the AFF only dumps 3 generic topic fed key warrants.

0 solvency is possible (this applies to the AFF too).

Disadvantages:

You do you.

0 risk of an impact is possible.

Being late breaking in these debates (not reading a terminal/uniqueness in the 1NC) just makes me a lot more lenient on new 1AR and 2AR answers.

Kritiks:

Contextualized overviews are very cool. Super long overviews are not.

Links that are able to pull lines from the 1AC/2AC or rehighlight their cards are very good and help me better evaluate the link debate.

Whatever happens on the framework debate will obviously dictate how I evaluate rhetoric links but I'm more inclined to evaluate them if it's in the tag of a card/said in a highlighted portion, speech, or CX and less inclined to evaluate them when it's a rehighlighting of the 1AC's shrunken text or anything similar.

Your framework interp should probably moot the AFF and have links that interact with how case is framed in terms of impact calculus and solvency. If you're going for the alt, you should probably just scrap framework and engage the AFF on the level of materiality with the links OR have a framework interp that enables you to abusively fiat solvency. I want to know what the alt does at the end of the round.

Plan pre-round what you want your 2NR to look like based on which part of the K works best against your opponent's AFF (framework/alt).

Speaks:

I use the tournament's metric that they give me.

Here is the template I use if they don't give me one:

<27: you did something ethically wrong (clipping, discrimination, etc.)

27.5-27.8: you're probably a 0-6/1-5 bracket

27.9-28.2: you're probably in 1-5/2-4 bracket

28.3-28.6: you're probably in the 3-3 bracket

28.7-29.0: you're probably in the 4-2 bracket.

29.1-29.4: you're probably going to make it to early/mid elims

29.5-29.8: you're going to late elims

29.9-30.0: you're winning the tournament

HOW WILL SPEAKER POINTS BE ASSIGNED?

Speak more clearly and use more logical arguments = more speaker points

Speak less clearly and use less logical arguments = fewer speaker points

After all, they're called "speaker" points for a reason, right?

WHO WILL WIN?

I will judge differently in different events.

If theory arguments (arguments about the way debate should be) are used, and they are allowed, both you and your opponents can challenge literally everything I say below. Remember, if it's a bad theory argument, you can tear it down easily, but if you don't tear it down, I will say that they won that part of the debate.

Please try and time yourselves. I know I'm a hypocrite, as I forget to time myself during rounds too, but that's exactly why you want to time your self. Don't trust me. Or maybe just remind me.

Summaries:

POLICY DEBATE:

- You can speed read

- You can send me emails with your documents

- My email address is deanhijjawi@rowlandhall.org

- You can use low-probability, high-impact arguments

- I will use the winning Framework to decide who has the winning impacts to decide who wins

LINCOLN DOUGLAS:

- Pretty much the same as Policy debate, but:

- No speed reading (unless it's hard to notice)

- No document-sending (to me)

- No low-probability, high-impact arguments

EVERYTHING ELSE:

- No idea what I'm doing or what I'm judging.

- Please tell me about the format, probably using this to your advantage

Expansions:

POLICY DEBATE:

I will only consider that which I am able to flow. I have a tendency in life to be exceedingly thorough, so don't speak too quickly, but I will probably be able to understand spreading (speed reading). Although not a useful life skill, I will condone speed reading, hence giving speed readers an advantage due to the ability to fit more arguments in. Think about speed reading like memorizing point values of different pieces in chess; it might not be valuable to you in the real world, but it's essential to make a game (chess) that does teach good skills (logic) better.

For speed reading, the game is Policy Debate and the skills are research and knowledge about the world. Even though they make the debate itself much worse, I will condone and even encourage speed reading, document sharing, because this encourages students to cram in as many cards and arguments into their speeches as possible and hence encourages them to do as much research as possible. For the same reason, I will consider high-impact, low probability arguments to encourage students to learn more about topics such as nuclear war and climate change. These varied, strange, and far-reaching arguments, I believe, are what allows a Policy Debate topic to remain fresh for an entire year.

Here is my email, so you can share documents with me: deanhijjawi@rowlandhall.org

Whichever Framework argument seems to have been logically defended the best, considering arguments made in evidence, I will go with. This may involve some subjective assessment on my part if not all arguments were answered, or is some arguments were not answered well.

Using the framework, I will evaluate every argument made. I will pull zero weight for you, even if the weight is miniscule. For example, if your opponent has an argument based off the premise that 2+2=5 which out-impacts all of your points with the framework that wins the debate, and you do not challenge the idea that 2+2=5, then despite the fact that any sane person could see that you would have won the debate in real life, this is a game and I will give your opponents the ballot.

If it's a bad argument, it should be easy to tear down. For example, you could tear down the premise that "2+2=5" by saying that "2+2=4 by intuition," or "2+2=4, as this is common knowledge," or "2+2=4 by the definitions of 2, +, =, and 4."

However, remember that it is best to use evidence; after all, research is one of the big benefits of Policy Debate. This is especially true if your opponent has evidence. For example, if your opponent has a card for the idea that climate change is fake, even though this idea seems rather foolish, because it does not breach the MOST basic laws of logic, I will consider it to be true unless you bring up evidence saying otherwise, or use the "common knowledge" argument (which I will weigh differently depending on the strength of their evidence).

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE:

Unlike Policy Debate, which focuses on incentivizing research in as many diverse areas as possible, Lincoln-Douglas debate is meant to spur serious philosophical thought, sane debating, and good speaking. As a result, unlike with Policy Debate:

I will not consider low-probability, high impact arguments.

I will not condone excessive speed reading (although you might get away with it if you read slowly to the point that I cannot notice the spreading).

I will not read any documents you attempt to share with me.

Otherwise, everything's the same with me (except speech times and order, obviously).

LITERALLY ANYTHING OTHER THAN POLICY DEBATE AND LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE:

I will have no idea whatsoever what is going on. I will be gullible. An explanation of the debate format will be necessary. You may want to use this to your advantage, although make sure that you don't say things about the format that are entirely false. I will try to veer more in the direction of logic because I like logic and I will have no idea what I'm doing.

The only Exception is Public Forum Debate, which I understand as Lincoln-Douglas Debate but with two people. See above for my paradigm on Lincoln-Douglas Debate.

Layla Hijjawi

Rowland Hall '23

laylahijjawidebate@gmail.com

- tech > truth

- prioritize clarity over speed

- DA and K debates consistently need more investment in the link debate-- if you spend time here to make specific links to the aff you will benefit immensely!

- i value case debate and wish it was more present in rounds

- don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc.

- you do you and have fun!

My pronouns are He/Him. I am a Junior at Rowland Hall. Have fun!

My email is zacharyklein@rowlandhall.org

My paradigm is similar to those of Micah Sheinberg and Daniel Luo

Strike me if you read Baudrillard.

Tech>Truth

I will not vote on your 'dropped' 4 second aspec shell hidden within your topicality block unless your extension of ii goes conceded as well.

I should be able to understand what you are saying.

I default to judge kick including your aff plan, your perm, and your cp/alt.

I don't understand the point of disad turns the case arguments when the disad has a super low risk against a soft left aff with a high risk.

You should explain not only how to weigh impacts and why your impacts outweigh in your specific model.

Speaker points are reflective of your strength of arguments and the clarity of your voice.

+ 0.5 speaks if you make a Neville Longbottom reference.

chocolatecookieswirl@gmail.com

West High 2020'

University of Utah 2024'

B.S Economics

B.S Political Science

One of my core principles about debate is accepting a variety of arguments, so I encourage that students have in their strategy whatever they are comfortable running and won't let any of my predispositions or bias of an argument affect my views of the debate, so I default to tech > truth unless told otherwise.

BUT over the few years I have encountered two positions that seem to be an uphill battle for me.

1) Conditionality -- I have a firm belief that conditionality is vital for negative teams to have an effective strategy in any debate. Please posit a reason why

2 Ks without ANY case defense -- Unless you are making you link you lose arguments on framework. I have a hard time evaluating the K when there is a huge risk of the aff.

Debate is a game at its core but can be easily convinced otherwise. I have run primarily k affs during my junior and sophomore year and only well versed in cap and security. I typically went for policy arguments and framework as a 2N. I enjoy watching the affirmative make clever counter interpretations to eliminate or at least minimize offense on framework, coupled with link or impact turns to the negative model of debate.

Labeling of arguments has become increasingly important to me. It is the clearest way to communicate what argument you are extending for me.

I try to follow this rubric for deciding speakers.

http://collegedebateratings.weebly.com/points-scale.html

Specifically, I look for line by line clarity and organization, overall argument deliberation, and awareness in the debate, in that order. I also reward good disclosure practices on your caselist and in round, so let me know if you believe you meet those criteria, so I can reward you. :)

I have not debated in years, and judge on and off, but I try my hardest, and I am not Michael Wimsatt BUT I do take Judge instruction VERY seriously.

Hi, I'm Micah and I use any pronouns.

My email is Micah.sheinberg@gmail.com

I graduated in 2023, so I am not a very experienced judge. I will flow and pay attention, but if you are not clear enough to understand, I will not make your arguments for you. You should explain in the 2NR/2AR why you should win, make it easy for me to write my ballot. Signpost and make it clear where one argument ends and the next begins.

My topic education is approximately none, so just be understandable.

I mainly ran policy arguments in my five years at Rowland Hall so if you are going to run a K you should explain what your framework, what the impacts of not voting on that framework is and talking about the role of the ballot. Don’t be abusive in rounds.

Truth < Tech

Remember that debate is a game, so have fun. Funny, clear, and effective debaters will get high speaks. If you don't take yourself too seriously and can make fun of yourself I will respect you more.

If an argument is not extended by either team I default to judge kick.

(if you ever feel like I made a bad decision, I get it, but also if you lost a round its because you didn't explain your position in a way that I felt comfortable voting on)

Pretty much everything else is similar or the same as Mike Shackleford, Zachery Thiede and Zachary Klein.

TLDR

Hi y'all, I'm Taisei (he/him pronouns). I did policy for five years and LD for one year.

Former West High Debater, L&C 2025

Please put me on the email chain, or feel free to email me if you have questions - lc21-0970@lclark.edu

Do what ever you do best - just know I'm not familiar with a lot of K literature (I feel best prepared to judge Cap, Security, Abolition, Orientalism, and Ks like that). So, if you want to read a different K (looking at you pomo Ks), make sure you explain your arguments well.

Golden Rule - Don't be a dick. If you're racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, I'll nuke your speaks.

Tech >Truth

I'm fine with spreading, just be sure to be clear. If you're not, I'll say "clear". If you keep speaking in a way I can't understand after having been warned, I'll stop flowing. Also, slow down for blocks and taglines. If you don't, I may miss something important.

If no impact framing mechanism is provided, I default to consequentialism.

For Middle Schoolers and Novices

If you read my online paradigm and mention it when I'm judging you, I'll boost your speaks. I think that online paradigms are very useful because it's a space for judges to explain their philosophies in-depth, and I'd like to encourage debaters get into the habit of checking paradigms.

I'll listen to and vote for any kind of argument. Just make sure to explain it and do impact calculus. If you need to choose between making a bunch of shallow arguments or one really well fleshed out argument, make the fleshed out argument. If you read an argument that isn't a part of the assigned evidence packet, I'm very likely to vote against you because the packet exists so that both teams are guaranteed to be prepared to debate. If you read beyond the packet, you're ruining the learning experience for your opponents.

This is just a pet peeve, but there are a few phrases that younger debaters use that are unnecessary and drive me crazy. Instead of saying "Now time for an off-time roadmap," you can just say "the order will be..." and then give the order. That's much more succinct and it makes you sound more like a person instead of someone who's just repeating what a coach told you to say.

For Policy

Most of my debate career has been in policy, and for most of that time I was a 2N that read mainly policy arguments. For my senior year, I was a 2A that read policy affs. If you're reading a policy aff, make sure you have a good solvency mechanism that is unique to your aff. If it can really solved by adv CPs really easily, that's not a good sign. I like DAs and CPs and that's mainly what I went for as a 2N.

So while I'm definitely the most comfortable judging policy arguments, I can judge Ks as well. Just make sure you flesh it out well, as you would for any other argument and don't keep reusing the same key words and phrases as if they replace a warranted argument. Especially if you're reading a Pomo K (I will be honest, while I will vote for it, I'm not personally fond of Pomo so you gotta explain it really well)! Links of omission aren't links.

I'm fine with either team reading theory, but if you go for it make sure you explain it out completely. If you read a T violation and don't have an impact, I don't see a reason to vote for it even if you win your standards.

Don't go for everything in the 2AR/2NR. There should only be a few arguments so you don't spread yourself too thin. If you go for theory, it should be 5 minutes of theory.

For LD

Most of what I said about policy will also apply for LD. I read mostly policy arguments (policy affs, CPs, DAs), but I have also read Ks and theory in LD. I'm okay voting for any of those, just be sure to flesh out your arguments and don't just keep repeating the same phrases without any analysis.

I default to 1AR theory is okay, no RVIs, and theory means drop the team/debater. If you want me to think otherwise, explain why these shouldn't be the standards.

I have no problem with debaters reading new ev in the 1AR or 2NR, as long as it's to support an argument that was previously read (you don't get a new DA in the 2NR).

I don't like T Nebel. If you're really convincing I'll still vote for it, but do be warned, I don't like it.

I don't think you need a value and criterion, and if none is provided I will default to consequentialism unless told otherwise. I've done both progressive and traditional LD, so feel free to do either with me. That being said - if you're doing progressive LD and your opponent is used to doing traditional, I'd encourage you to make the round as accessible to them as possible. I don't think you need to then pick up a value and criterion, but try to be nice (i.e. don't spread super fast, don't barrage the aff with 7 off in the 1NR, etc). Debate should be a place for learning as well as competing

Stock issues are a must. They help judges and debaters understand cases and arguments more easily, so I will be looking for stock issues.

Theory and Kritiks are great, but keep them clean and easy to follow.

If I do not understand what is being said I will dock points. That being said, if it is because of technical issues that is completely fine.

Framework and framework debates are great. I will judge off of framework if there is framework stated in round.

I come into every round with a blank slate, meaning no biases.

Tell me why you won. It makes it easier to understand the round. Judges rely on competitor to judge communication.

I am an experienced policy debater, so arguments about rules (that are not framework or theory) are not arguments that I like to listen to.

Also give the cases to me if you are going to spread/spew (speak fast) please disclose your cases to me that helps judges.

Clear and understandable arguments are important because if I cannot understand your spreading, I will not be able to weigh the quality of the arguments. I love impacts, and I see voters as a great opportunity for the speaker to tell me why they should win.

That being said, I ask that those I judge practice respect for themselves and their opponents. Please use appropriate language, respect pronouns and do not abuse the grace periods of your speaking time.

LD SPECIFIC

LD is a value, criterion and moral based debate, so I will weigh those heavily. For this reason I am partial to traditional, but I will judge progressive fairly so long as it can uphold the standards of an LD case.

PF SPECIFIC

I like specific evidence and framework that works well with that evidence. Show me impacts and consequences.

Debate is a great activity, and I'm glad to have the opportunity to participate in judging.

I have been doing Policy debate for 3 years. Each side should attack each other points and I go off who has the most points standing. I can understand most spewing but if I can't understand I will notify the debater. Tag team, I support as this is policy and you need to work as a team. Will look to see if they understand what they are debating and the topic. I will evaluate debates on an offense/defense paradigm and will submit the ballot that is most persuasive to me. Building a compelling ballot story with a correct depiction of what actually happened in the debate and thoughtful weighing is deeply appreciated.

Hi, my name is Tony Zhang and I am a member of the West High debate team and I am in the 10th grade.

Please be very clear when speaking and speak with confidence. I am completely fine with harsh criticisms of arguments however I will not tolerate anything said that is simply said to hurt your fellow debaters.

Make sure to have fun as well!

I'm a lay judge

Policy: I'd prefer you don't spread, but if you do, add me to the email chain ehbzhu123@gmail.com

Try and make everything understandable for lay debate (traditional debate)

PF/LD: Clear concise and talk well. Good arguments