Im a ld legend. I have debated for 2 years. Im do ld, big questions judging, and policy.

La Costa Canyon HS 2019-Present
DEBATE:

"Oh god my tournament just released pairings and I'm supposed to be in the room right now what should I know"

1. tech>truth
2. Speech times are set, one team/person wins

Add me to the email chain, I’ll follow the doc when I’m lost and to look at stuff post-round. Email: cyberninjabear@outlook.com

1. If I’m lost, I’ll look lost and please re-orient me.
2. For extensions, warrant them and be specific of what I’m supposed to extend.
3. IMPACT CALC PLEASE. MAKE ROUNDS (and my life) EASY.
4. SLOW DOWN ON ANALYTICS/THEORY/PRE-WRITTEN BLOCKS, UNLESS IT'S IN THE DOC. These are often the things that win rounds, so if I don’t catch them your chances of winning decrease.
5. 2 years of HS experience in circuit & trad LD and a very small amount of trad policy. I don’t follow the topics or know the meta and stuff outside of LD, so please explain your stuff.
6. Run anything you want, just make sure you have the justification.

7. Don't be afraid to use analytics to take out bad arguments. Just because you need a warrant for everything, doesn't mean you always need a card for it.

GENERAL STUFF

1. Debate Experience: Debated 2 years in high school. Freshman year did mostly trad LD, Sophomore year mostly circuit LD with like a single policy tournament.
2. Topic Familiarity: If it's LD, assume I know the topic fairly well, more so if you're reading this in Jan-Feb. If it's not LD, assume I know nothing whatsoever.
3. Delivery/Speed: I can comprehend speed, but don’t go full speed from the start, edge yourself in. If you spread and I have to yell “clear” or "slow" more than 3 times, I’m going to look confused and lost trying to flow. Also, I’ve realized that changing volume helps me flow better and grasp what you’re saying. Also also, don't spread things not on a speech doc. Fast analytics are fine, but if I'm looking lost or not flowing you should probably slow down.
4. Cheap Shots/Blippy Arguments: If there’s a voter attached to it, it’s a voter. It’s up to the other team to say why they don’t count. If this is your type of strategy, be reasonable. Your arguments have to make sense and must be warranted.
5. Kritik FW: Whoever debates better under the interpretation wins.
6. K V K debates: Can't say I'm that comfortable with this, it'll be hard to convince me why aff perming isn't a good idea, especially if alts are similar.
7. Views on T: Honestly, that’s what your job as debaters are. My only default is competiting interps. The only exception is that I probably have a lower threshold on disclosure.
8. CP Threshold: Honestly, I don’t have that great of a knowledge on CP theory past condo bad, but if you want to run theory, keep it organized and I’ll be a-ok and I’ll follow.
9. Dropped Arguments: Dropped args are "true," but the implications of it can still be contested and should be.
10. How I evaluate rounds: I will evaluate rounds by first determining framing , i.e. standard, value criterion (For my LD folks), role of the ballot, etc. Second to that, I think of debate like a basketball game. Offense gives you points, defense doesn’t give you points but prevents the other team from getting points. Overviews are just you dribbling the ball, extensions with warrants and turns are offense, defense is just case answers and generic answers to case/off-case positions.
11. I'm a pretty emotive person when judging - if I look skeptical it probably means I don't buy what you're saying (not that it matters if it goes unaddressed), if I'm smiling I'm probably enjoying the argument, etc. If I look disinterested that just means that I'm probably tired from judging 2+ rounds back to back with little to no breaks, not that I'm disinterested in what you're saying.

PROCEDURAL STUFF

1. Disclosure: Disclosure is good, do it. I have a lower threshold on disclosure than other T shells.
2. Prep/Cheating: Compiling speech docs are prep, sending emails/flashing is not prep. CX is not prep, asking questions during prep is ok. Don’t steal prep and don’t clip cards.
3. CX: I will flow CX to a certain extent. If you want me to make note of what happens in CX, let me know so I’ll have it for sure. CX to me is an important part of debate, so you cannot use CX as prep. Tag-Team CX is ok.
4. Timing: I’ll time speeches, but time your own prep. Hold each other accountable.
5. Prompting/Speaking: Having your partner speak or prompt is ok. However, if it happens too often, your speaks will be affected.

FRAMEWORK

• Frame the framework by telling me what type of debate you want via your interpretation and tell me why that is net good/beneficial for debate.
• “I think of FW like a cp - give me your interp of debate, how you solve it, and hit me with those nice and clear net benefits to your vision of debate.” -Matthew Graca
• Abusive Interps, ROTBs, etc. How I’ll treat them is based on what you tell me to do with them.
• morality is not a framework, this is non-negotiable. If you run morality I WILL default to the other persons equivalent v/vc.
• please don't have framework debates if you both are more or less arguing for the same thing - if both of your impacts function under each others frameworks then it's unnecessary

KRITIK

Everyone has a spicy alt like "giving back the land" or "revolutionary suicide" What i need to know is HOW YOU PERFORM YOUR ALT. Are you literally giving back the land to the natives? how are you committing revolutionary suicide? this stuff should be explained.

Even if you're not performing your alt (which is ok i guess i mean how else are we gonna spread the gospel of death good), why is your method good/better than the other team's method?

btw, if your alt is literally just "reject the aff" and that will spillover to 100% solvency with no further explanation, i may involuntarily laugh

THOUGHTS ON SPECIFIC TYPES OF Ks

(1) Cap: A staple in the policy diet, I can easily understand it as long as there is a good explanation of the alt

(2) Nietzsche: Hit it before, and promptly lost to it. Give me the impacts and explain it and I'll vote on it.

(3) Security: another staple. Understand the basics of it

(4) Race: refer to cap but replace "policy" with "circuit LD"

(5) Queer: Ran it for policy this year, understand it.

(6) French philosopher soup of the day: i hope you write good overviews

(7) Language Ks: go ahead

(8) Ableism: yeah sure go for it

TOPICALITY/THEORY:

1. I prefer theory be in this form for organizational purposes.
1. Interp: The rule
2. Violation: How they broke the interp
3. Standards: Why that’s bad
4. Voters: Why those standards matter
2. My defaults are competing interps and drop the argument.
3. RVI’s: Topicality is not an RVI. But I mean if its in the speech, you should answer it, but I’m a hard press for RVI’s.
4. I’m not fond of frivolous theory.
5. For theory, examples of in-round abuse are better and more convincing than potential abuse.
6. Sounds dumb, but attach a voter to your argument. If you don’t tell me what to do, then I don’t know what to do with it, so your opponent in the next speech can tell me to disregard it.
7. In my opinion, Topicality is a big time-suck because so many people drop it. If you read topicality, then at least try to go for it, if you do, I’ll reward you with some speaks.

THOUGHTS ON LARP/POLICY ARGS

• Counterplans
• Go for it. They must have a net benefit though. If you go for multiple CP’s in the 2NR, tell me how to evaluate them.
• Aff should probably perm and tell me how the perm functions.
• Judge kick is ok if you tell me
• Disads
• Anything is fine as long as it makes sense
• Also elections, ptx, or midterms is not persuasive. I'll still evaluate them you read it, but when it comes down to the nitty gritty, I prefer anything else.
• Impact Calc and weigh please.
• Case
• Answer case, and run impact defense.

SPEAKER POINTS

• If you want I'll disclose speaker points
• I start from a 28. It will go up or down based on strategy, mannerisms, spreading quality etc.
• I am impartial to all spreading styles except for the "booming and committing verbal genocide" style and the "spread at 0.05dB for the card text so no one can possibly tell I'm clipping xD" style.

• <20, rude, mean, racism/homophobia/etc good
• 25-27.5, couple of things to fix
• 28-29, average range, decent speaker
• 29.5, impressive
• 30, solid, perfect speeches and strategy
  - Shout out to Ethan Tan https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=ethan&search_last=tan who I more or less stole this paradigm from, as well as Matthew Graca for a couple of extra bits https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=&search_last=graca

SPEECH:

"Oh god my tournament just released pairings and I'm supposed to be in the room right now what should I know"

1. Speech is subjective, and I'm not going to pretend it isn't. I have enough experience both first-hand and through friends to know that you can go from 1st in your first round to 7th in your next.
2. Give me a good theme and I'll give you a good ranking
General:

• Experience - Did speech for a year in total, a DI for the first half and extemp for the second half, maybe one day I'll be able to put duo here as well.
• Speech to me regardless of the event is like any English essay you've ever had to write for school - it needs to have a message. What that message is depends on the subject matter of the essay, and the same applies for speeches.
• Building off the above idea - my evaluation and eventual ranking of your speech will depend on how well you convey your "thesis statement" on four points - uniqueness, conciseness, complexity, and spin.
• Basically, if you can make me hear something new, make me be able to keep track of what you're saying, make me think about what you're saying, and make me consider a new perspective on what you're saying, then you'll probably get a high rank.
• Time signals will be given if asked for, I won't offer them because truth be told 9/10 it will just turn awkward for me, for you, and for everyone watching the exchange, and nobody wants that.

I would say more but due to my limited experience with speech I can't.