Email : niahdebates@gmail.com

Hi humans!

I am open to hearing just about anything as long as you know your argument well enough to explain it as if I was a child. Do not run arguments that you are not comfortable with as it will lower your speaker points and just ruin the debate.

Spreading

You can speak at a moderate speed. I will not pretend that I know what you are saying. If you are not clear I will put down my pen. I will say clear three times then stop flowing.

Affirmative

The 1AC is one of the strongest speeches! Set the tone, only run an argument that you know well. A solid affirmative can always beat a generic neg strategy.

Yes, I am fine with K affs but make sure you explain your critical theory in depth, definitely if its an uncommon K like Baudrillard

You can run anything as long as it some how relates to the topic. If you run an aff that is critical and hit T, make sure there is some justification. Explain why your certain aff needs to be ran in comparison to the average aff downloaded off of open evidence.

- I will vote on disads to topicality if you run them well and make them voting issues.

Extend your advantages

Perm Kritiks and Counterplans and tell me what the world of the perms look like if you want me to vote for it.

Negative

I am totally fine with presumption arguments. Feel free to go for case args in your 2NR if you're winning the flow.

SPLIT THE BLOCK!

- you will find you have the best and most compelling arguments when you split the block and one person focuses completely on one argument.

I am fine with DA'S, K's, T's, Cps

If you run a K it is very important that your alternative solves the link. If it does not I will not vote for the alt.

- You can kick the alternative and if you prove that the links are still disads to the aff I will vote only if it is stated that way.

If you go for topicality have some real abuse, claims. Tell me what you were not able to run because of the aff, or give a topical version of the affirmative. Make it clear why upholding the resolution is key to a fair debate,

I prefer quality over quantity so do not think running 7 offs with brief explanations will win you the debate.

- I will vote on conditionality if it is made a voting issue.

Both

Everyone should do impact calculus so I know what it is that I am evaluating. This will go for your regular arguments, T arguments, Theory.....

Slow down on any analytics or voting issues so I have them clear on my flow

THE INTERNAL LINK CHAIN IS VERY IMPORTANT

- I do not just vote because someone says "EXTINCTION". Explain step by step how you get there. This will make impact calculus easier and help with speaks

Speaker Points

- Use your evidence to answer arguments and do a line by line, you do not have to read 1000 cards that all say the same thing.

- Have structure, tell me what flow I should be putting your arguments on and what you are answering, this creates a cleaner debate.

- Help your partner but do not steal your partner's speech. I will deduct speaker points.

- Ask good questions that are conclusive and give you links in CX

If there is an email chain please add me to it and please include analytics. My email is malenab.policydebate@gmail.com

I debated at Mamaroneck High School as a 1A/2N. I also debated at Wayne state university for a semester (fall of 2018).

Debate is and should continue to be a welcoming space for all involved in the activity. I will vote on any argument, just make sure to be clear and sum up the arguments in the rebuttals.

Take the obligation to be polite seriously, because not doing so will affect your speaks.

FOR NOVICES: PLEASE FLOW!!!

Most importantly have fun!

email me if you have any questions.

I am a Lay Judge and have 0 experience with Policy debate. Please accommodate. I cannot understand spreading or arguments that require debate experience to understand.

Thank you.

I was a pretty successful high school debater and a pretty unsuccessful college debater in the 1990s, then judged probably 10-12 tournaments on the national high school circuit. Stepped away from debate for about 20 years, then started judging again in 2016 as a volunteer for the Washington UDL, judging around 5 tournaments/year since then.

I'm a big fan of debate, as an activity through which students express themselves and acquire knowledge and skills, and as a competition, and coming back as a volunteer has been rewarding for me, and hopefully helpful for the students I've judged and worked with outside of rounds.

I flow on paper, and organization and structure in speeches are important for me. I really appreciate it when teams identify their arguments when giving them. For example, a 1NC that labels their off-case arguments as "Off" before reading them makes it harder for me to flow the round than a 1NC that announces "Capitalism kritik," or "Politics disad," etc. Same for case arguments - please let me know where on case - solvency, advantage one, advantage two, framing, etc.

I have minimal experience judging kritik affs, and while I've followed their evolution in debate over the last several years, I'm not particularly current or knowledgeable on some of the theory issues around them. I'd like to change that, but if you run kritik affs, there are probably some issues that will be new to me. I do think there is, and should be, room in debate for issues that affect the broader frameworks and circumstances within which policy is created, and ones that have an educational purpose, but I'm not absolute about it and will listen to arguments on both sides.

I have and will vote on neg kritiks, and am more likely to do so if the neg demonstrates in speeches and CX that they have a thorough understanding of their position and its grounding - more than repeating taglines in the neg block & 2NR. I want to hear your understanding of the argument, and a demonstration of why it matters. I've been impressed by the evolution of kritiks in terms of how they're organized and how teams execute them, both on the aff and neg. I'm also somewhat surprised by how frequently teams seem unprepared to debate kritiks that are run against them.

I'm more current on policy and current events than I am on theory, and the water resources topic touches on a lot of issues that I've either debated before or have personal interests and curiosity about.

On issues like solvency and advantages/disads, I'm a big fan of specificity and mechanisms through which A leads to B leads to C, and how/why that happens.

I think topicality is a useful tool for negatives.

2NR/2AR summaries are probably the quickest way to get my ballot, telling me how you see the round, and identifying the key few issues and assessments I should be making and how they should be made.

Good luck.

Kendelle Durkson

Judging PF: 6 years

Competing in PF: 4 years

Current Occupation: Political Scientist

My advice to debaters is to take your time delivering nuanced and developed arguments instead of speaking at a superhuman speed to cover all of the contentions. I prefer big-picture arguments that are anchored in current data while also supported by an appreciation of the historical account/data. Specifically, highlight the historical trends + current consequences in your arguments and the data that supports said conclusions.

The role of the final focus is to recap the main arguments presented and reinforce why your evidence is the most relevant in comparison to your opponent's contentions. I prefer if debaters focus on the overall logic/fact sequence of the debate and how their own contentions are factually supported. Not spending too much time nitpicking a particular data point or opponents' card (unless particularly topical to the overall debate).

As for extensions of arguments into later speeches, I support the practice if the argument prevails due to superior evidence and presentation of that evidence. It is wise for debaters to not overload at the beginning of speeches because you can use later speeches to refine the initial contentions provided. As for topicality, the arguments definitely should be on focus and directly addressing the resolution. Additionally, I do not look favorably upon contentions that rely on hypothetical proposals to address/remedy/provide an alternative to the resolution.

Lastly, as for kritiks, I urge debaters to be cautious with overpopulating their contentions with perspectives from Critical Theory. Although I recognize the importance of systemic critique (and even encourage your arguments to be framed with systemic inequalities in mind), I do not want the arguments to become nontopical and overly lofty. As for flowing, I will hand flow all of the arguments and then follow through the debate with several bullet points of significant subpoints/counterarguments/etc.

As a judge, I prefer the argument over style. Granted, I insist that debaters respect each other while speaking, the rules, and the forum while presenting or cross-examining. However, the evidence and logical conclusions drawn in the arguments are what are most persuasive to me. I will not dash points for speaking slowly or any speech impediments-- I will dash points for incessantly interrupting opponents, being rude, or not participating.

In my opinion, if a team plans to win a debate on an argument, then that argument has to be extended in the summary speeches. I prefer if teams use the cross-examination/rebuttal to highlight fallacies and inaccuracies in the opposing team's arguments while using the summary to reinforce the evidence + logic of the supposed winning argument.

If a team is second speaking, I do not require that the team cover the opponents' case or answer to its opponents' rebuttal in the rebuttal speech. I think debaters should have flexibility in how they want to frame their speeches. However, I urge debaters to know I will remember significant arguments presented by the opposing team. So if something needs to be critically addressed or answered in either the summaries or rebuttals, I urge that team to use the time to adequately address the issues.

I vote for arguments that are raised during the grand crossfire because I believe each team should have adequate time to decide if they want to address those arguments. New arguments raised during the final focus is given much less weight because they are not addressed with as much scrutiny.

Add me to the email chain: ferrisi2002@gmail.com

Graduated from Mamaroneck, Debated in High School for 3 years.

I'm basically good with anything as long as its explained well.

Dropped arguments are true arguments

Tech > Truth

Just be respectful and have fun.

Put me on the email chain please: ishan.kinikar@gmail.com

Open CX is fine

I judge novice rounds a lot and I am up to date on the novice topic.

Some quick thoughts:

Tech > Truth (as long as what you are saying isn't racist/misogynistic/homophobic/transphobic/ableist/etc)

I find myself evaluating debates using an offense-defense paradigm many times - I tend to categorize arguments as being one or the other and consider the implications on the debate from there.

Unless your CP is extremely abusive, I have a reasonably high bar for voting solely on theory - just because it's not a voter doesn’t mean it's a competitive CP (with exceptions of private actor fiat, consultations, and other similar constructs where I generally think that proving abuse is not too difficult). I enjoy creative CPs that generate competition in interesting ways and K-related CPs as well.

I’m biased towards anything under 4 condo being quite reasonable and I’m unlikely to vote on it unless it’s absolutely mishandled in that situation.

T 2NRs vs Policy Affs - These have been some of my favorite rounds while debating - I like clear execution of a strategy with one terminal impact and well fleshed out internal links down the flow. Quality > Quantity when it comes to T for me so collapsing down the flow as the debate goes on is key with me in the back.

As long as you properly explain the theory of the K, I can follow along. I am familiar with a number of K-literature bases - most familiar with identity K literature bases, but I am also comfortable with capitalism, cybernetics, academia Ks, and opacity-related ideas. The ideal 2NR in front of me against policy affs will likely be a FW heavy strategy with well-explained links but if going for the alt solves the links/aff’s impacts is your thing then don’t let me stop you. Against K affs, make sure that if you are reading a non-identity K against an identity K aff that you have solid answers to positionality and give high importance to the alt/competing strategies portion of the debate.

T vs K Aff rounds - I enjoy unorthodox K aff strategies against T (but I still won’t vote on them if they aren’t good strategies) - please do it in front of me (whether it is that your aff functions in a separate world or you have found a new framing question/theory of how debate functions in relation to the outside world). I tend to think that while fairness has an impact, I am more likely to vote on education impacts with well done internal link debating. Please engage with case as well - if you don’t go for case in the 2NR that is fine but know that as long as the K-aff’s theory of power is a major internal link to their impacts, basically unmitigated aff impacts outweighs a chance of fairness.

Things that will add speaker points: Good line-by-line, smart use of CX, top-level framing in rebuttals, 1ARs that recover after a really good block, and good strategic choices throughout the round. I also tend to reward neg blocks that make good use of analytics as opposed to reading a million nonsense cards.

Started coaching in 2016 for a small team in Washington D.C. As a high schooler, I was not on a debate team; however, since coaching, I have dived in to this as a way to support my team.

What I look for when I judge is that both teams address stock issues as well as ensuring that all arguments are addressed. Debaters should be knowledgeable on the topic. It should be evident that you understand the evidence and analysis that you are making. One of my pet peeves is if a debater reads evidence, but doesn't explain how it addresses the resolution.

PFD: The most important thing to do prior to actually participating in PFD is preparation. One should know not only the current facts of the issue but also the continuity of the issue of time and its possibly complex history. This way, you can weave this history into your arguments by using EXAMPLES related to the historical ramification of the issue to strengthen your own argument while at the same time refuting the opponent.

LD: What I look for in LD is the hard drive of facts fueled by the passion of the debater. Passion does not equal emotion and while debaters tend to conflate the two LD is based in facts and most times statistical data.

Policy: What I look for in an effective Policy debate is fluidity of facts and a clear concise argument that does not get lost in spreading.

Congress: Parliamentarian: I look for proper etiquette when introducing motions. KNOW YOUR MOTIONS!!!! THERE ARE A PLETHORA OF MOTIONS THAT ARE NOT USED!!! I also look for the passion behind one's speeches. If someone is telling the story of George Floyd for example, the story should be told with pathos and passion rather than reading from a script. Know your speeches like the back of your hand in order to present yourself as a powerhouse on the congress floor.

The Presiding Officer: KNOW YOUR MOTIONS!!!! THERE ARE A PLETHORA OF MOTIONS THAT ARE NOT USED!!! The PO should have an in depth understanding of the common and uncommon types of motions in order to guide the session through both turbulence and lulls to preferably keep neither from happening. If one does not know this, refer here: https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Congressional-Debate-Frequently-Used-Motions.pdf

Important Note: If you find yourself tripping over words when spreading, try slowing down. When faced with these obstacles, slowing down will equate to the same amount of facts in the same amount of time had you continued with speed but stumbling.

I have been involved with Policy Debate since 1999. I attended my first debate camp that year. I returned to camp in 2000 and 2001. I competed in high school from 2000-2002. My sister was my debate partner. I am a proud graduate of Baltimore City College, class of 2002. I have participated in both the Baltimore Catholic Forensics League (BCFL) and the Baltimore Urban Debate League (BUDL). I also competed in many national invitational tournaments throughout the years. I competed in an array of other events in high school. I was successful as a competitor, as I received numerous awards, praise, and accolades. I won the majority of my debate rounds. I also taught at a debate camp for BUDL in 2006. I have judged since 2002 at local tournaments for both leagues and national tournaments.

I have been described as a liberal judge. I try to let the students dictate the round based on their argumentation and preferences. I like all of the arguments. I encourage every student to run their arguments well and structured. I can handle speed, spreading, and all argument types. I like off-case arguments, such as Kritiks, disads, counter plans, topicality, etc. I am very open-minded. My rounds are usually fun and they can be a bit unpredictable, as my motto is "it is all good." I really like it when the competitors are able to demonstrate an understanding of the arguments they are running.

I do provide my email address on every ballot. It is listed below for your convenience. My ballots are usually detailed based on the flow of the round. I flow (take notes) the entire round. I believe that we can all stand to learn from one another. I am also an advocate of research. Analytical arguments are good too. I encourage students to be as organized as possible for each round as well as prepared.

These are some of the key things that I notice at each tournament: students do not flow (take notes) as well as they could, which leads to lots of dropped arguments. There is not a lot of clash and refutation within the rounds. People don’t always number their arguments or present their positions in an organized manner. As a result, as a judge, I have to figure it out to the best of my ability. Since the use of laptops are prevalent, students are unprepared should there be a technological issue (for example no WiFi). My advice is to always have a backup plan (hotspots, USB flash drives, paper copies, Ethernet cable, broadband devices, etc). Anticipate everything prior to the round (yes, this might be my OCD talking).

At recent tournaments, I have judged in other events as needed, such as Student Congress, Lincoln-Douglas, and Public Forum. I have also judged the various speech events at some of the tournaments as a fill-in judge. I am pretty flexible as I love speech and debate.

I try to give back to the program that did so much for me during my youth. As an extremely introverted and quiet student who was a troubled child, speech and debate has helped me to come out of my shell. It is where I found my voice. Speech and debate have molded me to be the studious and detail-oriented person I am today. I utilize the skills that I acquired on a regular basis. I am a firm advocate of the speech and debate program.

I can be reached via email at Lisadebate02@gmail.com. I hope this helps as well as provides you with some insight into my background, experience, and philosophy. Thank you for your time. Enjoy your day. Best wishes and good luck. I do save my flows for a period of time in case I receive an email. You can also email me about my college experience/advice as many students have. I am very responsive and I try to respond as soon as possible, which is usually the same day.

I am new at judging. In general, speak at a moderate speed, and be considerate of your teammates, opponents, and judges. Refrain from hyperbole. Please be clear, concise, and organized -- connect the dots for me.

In judging policy I will keep the best flow I can. All debaters should speak clearly in order for me to hear all the points and should watch their rate of delivery. There is no need to speed read. Please do things to make your speech easier to follow. Slow down/emphasize for taglines. Signpost, and Roadmap off-time for clarity.

Debate and arguments must be persuasive. If I am not persuaded by the argument, I have no reason to vote for it. I do not intervene so debaters must tell me what is important and why I should vote for them. Be clear about what I am weighing and what I should value most highly. I appreciate a clear analysis of why you should win in the final rebuttals.

It is important to show respect to your competitor and approach every speech as an opportunity to teach and learn.

Mamaroneck HS ‘19

Debate well and do not change what you read just because I am judging. Below is just my thoughts on debate, but I try to leave all my opinions at the door and vote off the flow.

I debated for Mamaroneck for three years and started coaching on the Criminal Justice Reform topic. My good debate opinions come from Ken Karas.

My water topic knowledge is probably above average. I judge and coach most weekends at local and national tournaments, but I have done less research compared to last year as I am a senior in college and gradually leaving the activity.

Put me on the email chain - eaorfanos1[at]gmail[dot]com - email title should be "Tournament - Round # - Aff Team v. Neg Team"

(!!) PLEASE open source all your evidence after the debate. If you tell me before I submit my ballot, you get +0.3 speaks.

Call me Eleni, not judge.

Be respectful.

Have fun.

general

Tech > Truth. Dropped arguments are true if they have a claim, warrant, and impact, you extend the argument, and you tell me why I should vote on it. It is not enough to say dropping the argument means you automatically win without extending and explaining. That being said, the threshold for explanation is low if the other team drops the argument.

Please tell me how to write my ballot in the rebuttals.

Speed is fine as long as you are clear. I will say "clear" three times before I stop flowing. Use your best judgement for online debate. Send analytics if possible because audio issues in online debate can cause me to miss important arguments otherwise. Cowards delete analytics. I flow on paper, so keep that in mind too.

Keep my flow clean. Give the order when you finish prep/when you are sending the docs. Give an order to case.

Cross examination is so important. You can gain key offense here, so do not waste your time or mine.

I am a pretty expressive judge. I tend to nod along if I think you are making a good argument. I also will look confused if I cannot find the argument on my flow or if I do not think the argument is good for you. I will look annoyed if you aren't making fully fleshed out arguments or if you are making my flow messy. I will laugh if you are funny. See my next point for ways to be make me smile for the rest of the debate.

Being funny will give you good speaks. Jokes about any current or former Mamaroneck debater or coach will give you +0.2 or +0.3 speaks depending on how good the joke is.

Do not ask for a 30 or high speaks.

I adjust speaker points based on the division and quality of competition. I generally start at a 28.5 and move up or down from there. I reward debaters who are strategic and creative.

Clipping or cross-reading will give you the lowest possible speaks and a loss. Please take this seriously. Please remember to mark cards. I try to follow along, but it can be hard if you mark or skip a lot of cards.

specific

I love a good case debate. Show me that you did your research and prepared well. Evidence comparison and quality is very important. Do not just say their evidence is bad and yours is better without comparing warrants.

Re-highlighting evidence :) [Read the re-highlighting. Do not just insert it because I will not flow it]

I prefer that you have a plan text. If you don't, at least be somewhat related to the topic and have an explicit advocacy statement.

Protecting the 2NR >

Aff gets to weigh the case unless they take a big L on framework. I am a good judge for extinction outweighs.

Impact turns are great when done well. However, I do not like wipeout or warming good (most scenarios).

Heg good is a vibe.

5+ off vs K affs is also a vibe.

Big politics disadvantage fan.

I love well-researched advantage counterplans. My favorite strategies this year involve advantage counterplans and impact turns. I am also good for process counterplans, but it is always better if there is truth based on the topic lit that supports why the specific process is competitive with and applicable to the aff. Counterplans need a net benefit and a good explanation of solvency and competition. I like smart perm texts and expect good explanations of how the perm functions. Intrinsic perms are fun, and negative teams should do more than just theory to answer them. I will not judge kick unless the 2NR tells me to. Honestly, I kind of hate the idea of judge kick and would rather not have to do it, but will if the neg justifies it.

I like topicality debates, but they often become unnecessarily difficult to evaluate when neither side does proper comparative work on the interpretation or impact level. Abuse must be substantiated, and the negative must have an offensive reason why the aff's model of debate is bad. You should have an alternative to plan text in a vacuum. Legal precision, predictable limits, clash, and topic education are persuasive. I think that I am persuaded by reasonability more than most, but I think this is dependent on the violation and the topic. Please provide a case list.

I will vote/have voted on conceded aspec. BUT, aspec (or other procedurals) hidden on non-topicality flows or unformatted in the speech doc will cause you to lose speaker points.

Condo is good, but I can be persuaded otherwise if abuse is proved and there is an absurd amount of condo. That being said, I haven't voted for condo bad yet and doubt I will unless it is dropped, the 2nr is only defense on condo, or the aff is winning the argument on the flow and it's 4 condo or so.

For other theory, I am probably neg leaning. Theory debates are the least fun to resolve, so please do not make me have to evaluate a theory debate. A note for disclosure theory: I firmly believe that disclosure is good, and the bar is lowest on this theory argument for me to vote for it, BUT you must still extend the argument fully and answer your opponent's responses. Even if you opponent violates, you must make a complete argument and answer their arguments.

Great for T-USFG. Procedural fairness and clash are the most persuasive impacts. I am also a good judge for education.

More negative teams should go for presumption against K Affs. Affirmative teams reading K Affs should provide a thorough explanation of aff solvency or at least tell me why the ballot is key if your aff does not necessarily need to win specific solvency and instead relies on an endorsement of its method or thesis.

I am familiar with the basic Ks. I am not the best judge if you read high-theory Ks, and my least favorite debates have been teams reading these kind of Ks and relying on blocks. Overviews and non-jargon tags are very helpful. Specific links to the plan are always better. Despite my own argument preferences, I have voted for the K fairly often. My ballot in clash rounds is usually on framework on the K or the perm. Negative teams going for the K in front of me should spend more time on framework than they normally would, unless it is an impact turn debate.

I am not the best judge for K v K, but I will try my best if I find myself in one of these debates. My ballot in these types of debates mostly focuses on aff vs alt solvency.

I have very limited knowledge of the water topic, I've been away from debate for many months.

I have four years of high school debate experience at BCC. I ran K's on aff and neg most of the time, but I enjoy a straight policy round. I will vote on anything as long as you prove that you win. The only potential bias I have towards any argument is that I do not like High Theory Baudrillard kind of stuff. I will still vote for arguments like that but you have to explain them and tell me what they actually do. I prefer K's that actually defend material advocacy to ones that just analyze, but again I vote for whatever wins.

I always allow open cross ex and I expect you to time your own prep but I will time as a backup.

I will happily vote because of a problematic statement made by an opponent (microaggressions, casual sexism, misgendering, that kind of stuff) but I do need that to be impacted out before I can vote on it.

The most important argument in the round is the framework. Tell me how I should decide who to vote for.

I always want to be on the chain.

ehwpipik@gmail.com

My name is pronounced like Siri

Add me to the email chain stuyvesantEP@gmail.com

I go by he/him/his

I've literally run everything from 9 off to a K aff I literally do not care what you read in front of me. I am comfortable with whatever y'all want to run and I have no argument predispositions in regards to what I am willing to vote on. I am a big fan of policy v policy debates with dumb DAs and tricky CPs.

Open Cross

Tech > Truth always

Speed is good but if i can't hear ill say clear 3 times max

I read ev but you still need to explain to me the warrants in your cards/do ev comparison

Bonus speaks if you end speeches early/dont use some prep time.

Random Stuff:

Disclosure good ---x----------------Disclosure optional

Longer ev ----------------x--- More ev

Condo Good ------x------------- Condo bad

Ks:

Fairness is an impact ------x------------- Not an impact

Weigh the aff vs the K --------x----------- Moot the 1AC

Links of omissions ------------x------- Links to the plan/reps

Links to the plan ----------x--------- Reps links

Policy:

Extinction First --------x----------- Soft left stuff first

Politics DA are a thing x------------------- Not a thing

Cheaty CPs ---x---------------- Theory hack

Specify in 1AC cross ----------------x--- Specify to the extent of the resolution

Dropped ASpec in the 2NR ------x------------- Not voting on it

0 risk -----------x-------- Always some risk

Judge kick ---x----------------No

Competing Interps ---x---------------- Reasonability

Rev v Rev:

No plan no perm ------------x------- Yes perm

More stuff

DAs:

Super low risk on this topic so unless it was badly mishandled it should probably be paired with a CP

Its pretty hard for me to vote on 0 risk of the DA unless neg does something egregiously wrong

CPs:

The only real theory i err aff on is PICs bad but i can be convinced otherwise for literally any of the CP theory

perm anything and everything

Topicality:

Super underrated you should probably press on what the affs terrible interps justify

RVIs are funny and i will definitely vote on it

Theory:

I think its funny but I'd rather vote on substance than theory

Ks:

Doesn't matter if links are generic if you're right that the AFF results in XYZ becoming worse

PIKs are probably bad but i can be convinced otherwise.

Revolutionary fiat is questionable but i don't mind it.

Not a fan of utopian fiat but will vote for it.

If you win FW im down to judge kick your alt.

K Affs:

I usually default to competing interps on T but if you hard win a piece of offense no model of debate > a violent model

The AFF probably gets to use their 1AC as offense on T but i definitely can be convinced otherwise

Press the aff on spillup or solvency claims and try to mitigate case in general

It is the responsibility of the debater to look at the paradigm before the start of each round and ask any clarifying questions. I will evaluate the round under the assumption it has been read regardless if you did it or not. I will not check to see if you read my paradigm, nor will I give warnings of any kind on anything related to my paradigm. If you don't abide by it you will reap what you sow I am tired of debaters ignoring it and myself in a debate round my patience has officially run out.

1. I hate spreading slow down if you want me to flow your arguments if it is not on my flow, it is not a part of the round. It doesn't matter how well it is explained or extended. At best depending on speech it will be a new argument or analytical argument and will be evaluated from then forth as such. I do want to be part of the email chain, my email is thehitman.310@gmail.com, note that just because I am part of the email chain does not mean I flow everything I read, I only flow what I hear so make sure I can hear your arguments. Beware I will be following along to make sure no one is cutting cards and I will call out teams for cutting cards so be sure to do things correctly. I will drop cards before the team and continued cutting will result in me stopping the round and contacting tab. Additoinaly I will not yell clear, and I will not give time signals except to inform you your time is up. I find doing this splits my attention in a way that is unfair to the debater, and often distracts debaters when called out. You will have my undivided attention.

2. I hate theory and have only voted on it once (current as of 4/12/22). In particular, I do not like disclosure theory and think it's a bogus argument, as I come from a time when there was no debate wiki as a result, I am highly biased against this argument and don't advise running it in my round. Also, regardless of the argument, I prefer they be related to the topic. I am just as interested in the topic as I expect debaters to be. On that note, I am willing to listen to just about anything as long as they are well articulated and explained(See 3). I have heard some pretty wild arguments so anything new will be fun to hear. Know in order for me to vote on an argument, there needs to be an impact on it and I need to know how we arrive at the impact. But I want to know more than A + B = C, I need to know the story of how we arrive at your impact and why they matter. I will not simply vote on a dropped argument unless there is no other way to vote and I need to make a decision, I consider this Judge intervention and I hate doing this. You as a debater should be telling me how to vote I will have to deduct speaker points if I have to do any work for you. Keep this in mind during your rebuttals.

3. At the beginning of each round, I am a blank slate, think of me like a 6 or 7-year-old. Explain arguments to me as such. I only evaluate things said in a round, my own personal knowledge and opinion will not affect me. For example, if someone in a round says the sky is purple reads evidence the sky is purple and it goes uncontested then the sky is purple. I believe this is important because I consider anything else judges intervention which I am highly opposed to and again will result in a speaker point deduction. That being said I default to a standard policy-making framework at the beginning of each round unless I am told otherwise.

4. Be aware I do keep track of Speech times, and Prep, and go solely by my timer. My timer counts down and will only stop when you say stop prep. Once you say "Stop prep" I expect you to be ready to send the file, I do not want to hear I need to copy arguments to a file to send as a part of an email chain. I will run prep for that. It should not take long to send a prepared file through the email chain and I will wait until all participants receive the file before allowing the next speech to start but do not think you can abuse this I will restart prep if it takes an abnormal amount of time. Also extremely important to note I will not stop my timer for any reason once speech has started for any reason outside of extreme circumstances and technical difficulties do not count. If you choose to stop your timer to resolve your issue before resuming know that my time has not stopped and your speech time is being consumed. Also, aside from using your phone as a timer, I expect all debaters to not be on their phones during the round (this includes in between speeches and during prep) I think it is disrespectful to debate as an activity and to your opponent(s) and will deduct speaker points for it. Keeping that in mind note I will not evaluate any argument read off a phone, especially if you have a laptop in the round.

5. In JV and VCX Cross-X is closed, period. NCX I will only allow it if you ask. If you don't it is closed. If you decided to have open CX anyway I will deduct speaker points.

5. Last but not least be respectful to me and to each other, and I would appreciate a good show of sportsmanship at the beginning and end of each round. Any disrespect of any kind will result in a speaker point deduction on a per-incident basis. Continued disrespect will result in notifying tournament staff and lower than average speaker points. Although I do not expect it will go that far.

E-Debate:

A. Cameras must be on at all times, I will not flow teams with cameras off. Do not be surprised if you lose because I did not flow it you have been warned. I will not be lenient with this as I have in the past.

B. Prep time will be run until speeches are received in the email chain. DO NOT assume you control the time as mentioned above I am keeping time and will go by my timer. I WILL start the speech timer if you end prep AND THEN send the speech. I have zero tolerance for this as teams consistently abuse this to steal prep. You should know how to send an email it should not take long to send one. If you are having genuine technical issues let me know as the tournament has Tech Time I can run that timer instead, otherwise I will run speech time. DO NOT make light of this I am tired of being ignored as if I am not a part of a debate round.

C. Make sure I'm ready this should be common sense but for some reason, I have to mention it. If you start a speech before I am ready, I will miss some arguments on my flow and I will be highly annoyed. Your speaker points will reflect this and you may lose the round as a result if it was a key argument I did not flow.

D. Also spreading on camera is a really bad idea and I highly advise against it from a technical perspective and my general disdain with spreading. E-Debates are tricky enough with varying devices, internet speeds and audio equipment affecting the quality of the stream, spreading in my experience is extremely disadvantageous, do so at your own risk.

E. REMINDER, I Control speech and prep timers, and speeches DO NOT stop because you are reading the wrong speech or cant find where your are at on a document, once the timer has started it stays running until speech time is over. I do not know why I have to mention this but recent judging experiences has told me it must be mentioned.

BACKGROUND:

Please include the following emails in email chains: ccroberds@spsmail.org and khsemailchain@gmail.com - sometimes my spsmail account is really slow in receiving emails.

I am the debate coach at Kickapoo High School in Missouri. I have been involved in policy debate since 1994 as a student and/ or coach. The 2021-22 topic marks my 26th. I have coached in very critical circuits (one round with a plan read by any team in an entire year), very community judge oriented circuits (that don't allow CPs or Ks), TOC qualifying circuit, ELL circuits, and combinations of all circuits. If you have questions, please email ccroberds@spsmail.org

TOC 2022 Update - I severely dislocated my pinky finger on my left hand on Wednesday before the TOC. I mention this because it slightly reduces my flowing speed. I would ask that you slow down just a touch on tags and analytics to accommodate this.

Cliff's Notes Version (things to do in the 10 minutes before the round):

- As long as we are online, please make sure you are adding intentional breaks between arguments. These can be verbal or non-verbal but they are necessary to make sure flowing is happening from the oral arguments instead of just from the speech doc. As an example, clearly say the word "next" or "and" after each card/ subpoint/ etc. or slow down for the tags to where there is a noticeable difference between the card or warrants and the next tag. This is one of those things that the technology just isn't as good as being face-to-face, but it may make debate better down the line.

- Disclose on the wiki pre-round unless you are breaking a new case. I can be persuaded, relatively easily, that this is a voting issue (this is not about small details in the case, but overall picture). Once a case is broken, please put it up as soon as possible. If you read it at last tournament and haven't found time to put it up, that's a problem. Also, at a minimum, the negative should be posting their main off case positions. Before the round, the aff and neg should both know what the opponent is reading as a case and what positions they have gone for at the end of debates on the negative. Having coached at a small and economically disprivileged school most of my life, the arguments against disclosure literally make no sense to me.

- I like politics a lot more than Ks - My perfect generic 2NR is politics and an agent CP. The best way to win a K in front of me is to argue that it turns case and makes case impossible to solve.
- I don't like cheap shots - I think plan flaws are a reason to ask questions in the CX or pre-round. Make debate better.
- K Framework - I prefer to do policy making. However, you need to answer the project if they run it.
- Cheating CPs - I don't like backfile check type CPs (veto cheato) or "I wrote this for fun" CPs (consult Harry Potter/ Jesus). I do like topic agent CPs (like have China do the plan, have the private sector do the plan).

- Link vs Uniqueness - Uniqueness determines the direction of the link - if it is not gonna pass now, there is no way the link can make it pass less.

- Cross-ex is always open unless another judge objects.
- Be Nice and FLOW!

High School Policy Specifics:

- **UPDATE on Water** - I know that the water topic doesn't have core stable offense for the neg. This definitely makes the neg more intuitively persuasive to me on questions of topicality and on the threshold that I need for the negative to win some kind of a link. I don't like CPs that aren't tied to topic specific literature. This includes, but is not limited to, contrived fiat tricks designed to garner net-benefits. This includes NGA, ConCon, etc. It doesn't mean I won't vote for it, it just means my threshold for aff theory, etc. is really low. If you are choosing between a CP that I have listed above and a disad with a less than ideal link (not no link, just less than ideal), it would be more persuasive to me to read the disad.

Here is a crystalized version of this stolen from Will Katz but it explains what I think about contrived CPs - "I am over contrived process cp's. If you don't have aff/topic specific evidence for your cp, I probably won't care if the aff's perm is intrinsic. If you don't have evidence about the plan, why does the aff's perm only have to be about the plan?"

I am a high school coach who tends to be at TOC tournaments about 3/4 of the time and local tournaments (with community judges) the other 1/4. However, I do cut a lot of cards, coach at camps, and think about the topic a lot which means that I have a pretty good grip on the topic. This means I may not know the intricacies of how your particular argument may functions in the high school environment you are competing in right now.

High School LD Specifics:

My default is that I don't need a value and value crit. in order to vote for you. However, I can be persuaded that it is needed. If the affirmative reads a particular interpretation of the topic (i.e. they read a plan) then, absent theory arguments about why that's bad, that becomes the focus of the debate. If the affirmative does not read a plan then the negative can still read disadvantages and PICs against the entirety of the topic. I don't terribly love NRs and 2ARs that end with a series of voting issues. Most of the time you are better off using that time to explain why the impacts to your case outweigh your opponent's case as opposed to describing them as voting issues. If you are going to make an argument in the NC that there is a different framework for the debate than what the affirmative explains in the AC, you need to make sure you fully develop that position. Framework functions very differently in LD compared to policy so make sure your blocks are written out for that reason.

I'm not a big fan of a big theory pre-empt at the end of the 1ac. I think the aff case is the time when you should be making most of your offensive arguments and most of the time theory is set up to be defensive. This is particularly silly to me when the aff has more time in rebuttals than the neg does anyway.

NFA LD Specifics:

I am relatively new to this format of debate but I like it a lot. I think debate should be viewed through a policy framework in this style of debate, but I can be persuaded out of this belief. However, if your main strategy is to say that the rules of NFA are problematic or that you shouldn't have to weigh the case and the DA, then I think you fighting an uphill battle.

Also, given the limited number of speeches, I tend to err on the side of starting aff framework as early as possible (probably the AC). This is mostly to protect the aff since if it's not brought up until the 2ac/ 1ar it is possible for the NR to straight turn it and leave the 2ar in an unwinnable position.

In Depth Stuff:

GENERAL-
I tend to prefer policy oriented discussions over kritikal debates but I will be happy to evaluate whatever you want to run. My favorite debates come down to a clash between specific arguments on the flow of the advantages and disadvantages. On theory you should number or slow down your tags so that I get the clash. I can flow your speed if it is clear, but if you want me to get the 19 reasons why conditionality is a bad practice you should slow down to a speed I can flow the blips. That said, I tend to prefer fast debate to slow debates that ultimately don't point to the resolution of the topic.
Read warrants in your evidence. Full sentences are how people speak. They have things like nouns, verbs, and prepositions. Please make sure that your evidence would make sense if you were reading it slowly.
If the round is close, I tend to read a decent amount of evidence after the round if there is a reason to do so. If you want me to call for a specific card please remind me in the 2nr/ 2ar.
Also please give reasons why your offense turns their offense besides "war causes x."

SPECIFICS-

Disclosure theory note:

I have a VERY low threshold on this argument. Having schools disclose their arguments pre-round is important if the activity is going to grow / sustain itself. Having coached almost exclusively at small, underfunded, new, or international schools, I can say that disclosure (specifically disclosure on the wiki if you are a paperless debater) is a game changer. It allows small schools to compete and makes the activity more inclusive. There are three specific ways that this influences how ballots will be given from me:

1) I will err negative on the impact level of "disclosure theory" arguments in the debate. If you're reading an aff that was broken at a previous tournament or on a previous day and is not on the wiki (assuming you have access to a laptop and the tournament provides wifi), you will likely lose if this theory is read. There are two ways for the aff to "we meet" this in the 2ac - either disclose on the wiki ahead of time or post the full copy of the 1ac in the wiki as a part of your speech. Obviously, some grace will be extended when wifi isn't available or due to other extenuating circumstances. However, arguments like "it's just too much work," "I don't like disclosure," etc. won't get you a ballot.

2) The neg still needs to engage in the rest of the debate. Read other off case positions and use their "no link" argument as a reason that disclosure is important. Read case cards and when they say they don't apply or they aren't specific enough, use that as a reason for me to see in round problems. This is not a "cheap shot" win. You are not going to "out-tech" your opponent on disclosure theory. To me, this is a question of truth. Along that line, I probably won't vote on this argument in novice, especially if the aff is reading something that a varsity debater also reads.

3) If you realize your opponent's aff is not on the wiki, you should make every possible attempt before the round to ask them about the aff, see if they will put it on the wiki, etc. I understand that, sometimes, one teammate puts all the cases for a squad on the wiki and they may have just put it under a different name. To me, that's a sufficient example of transparency (at least the first time it happens). If the aff says it's a new aff, that means (to me) that the plan text and/ or advantages are different enough that a previous strategy cut against the aff would be irrelevant. This would mean that if you completely change the agent of the plan text or have them do a different action it is new; adding a word like "substantially" or "enforcement through normal means" is not. Likewise, adding a new "econ collapse causes war" card is not different enough; changing from a Russia advantage to a China, kritikal, climate change, etc. type of advantage is. Even if it is new, if you are still reading some of the same solvency cards, I think it is better to disclose your previous versions of the aff at a minimum.

4) At tournaments that don't have wifi, this should be handled by the affirmative handing over a copy of their plan text before the round.

5) If you or your opponent honestly comes from a circuit that does not use the wiki (e.g. some UDLs, some local circuits, etc.), I will likely give some leeway. However, a great use of post-round time while I am making a decision is to talk to the opponent about how to upload on the wiki. If the argument is in the round due to a lack of disclosure and the teams make honest efforts to get things on the wiki while I'm finishing up my decision, I'm likely to bump speaks for all 4 speakers by .2 or .5 depending on how the tournament speaks go.

Topicality- I believe the affirmative should affirm the topic and the negative should negate the plan. It is fairly difficult to convince me that this is not the appropriate paradigm for the affirmative to operate under. The best way to think about topicality in front of me is to think about it as drawing lines or a fence. What does debate look like for a season when the negative wins the topicality argument vs. what does it look like when the affirmative wins. Affirmatives that push the bounds of the topic tend to be run more as the season progresses so the negative should be thinking through what the affirmative justifies if their interpretation because the standard for the community. This also means that there is no real need to prove real or potential *problems in the debate.

If the affirmative wants to win reasonability then they should be articulating how I determine what is reasonable. Is it that they meet at least one of the standards of the neg's T shell? Is it that there is a qualified source with an intent to define that thinks they are reasonable? Is it that there is a key part of the topic literature that won't get talked about for the season unless they are a topical affirmative?

If you want me to vote on Topicality the 2nr (or NR in LD) should be that. Spending less than the entire 2nr on a theoretical issue and expecting me to vote on it is absurd. I would only vote neg in that world if the affirmative is also badly handling it.

Counterplans- I love counterplans. I typically believe the negative should be able to have conditional, non-contradicting advocacies but I can be persuaded as to why this is bad. Typically this will need to be proven through some type of specific in round problem besides time skew. I think that the permutations should be more than "perm: do both, perm: do the plan, perm: do the CP."

Kritiks- I am not as deep on some of this literature as you are. You should take the time in CX or a block overview to explain the story of the K. Performance style debate is interesting to me but you will have to explain your framework from the beginning. I probably tend to be more easily swayed by the framework arguments about clash compared to exclusion. I will tend to default to preferring traditional types of debate.

Politics- I like good politics debates better than probably any other argument. I like interesting stories about specific senators, specific demographics for elections d/as, etc. With this being said, I would rather see a fully developed debate about the issue. I tend to evaluate this debate as a debate about uniqueness. Teams that do the work tend to get rewarded.

My perfect debate- Without a doubt the perfect round is a 2nr that goes for a pic (or advantage cp with case neg) and a politics d/a as a net benefit.

*Questions of "abuse" - This is a soapbox issue for me. In a world of significant actual abuse (domestic abuse, child abuse, elder abuse, bullying, etc.), the use of the word to describe something as trivial as reading a topical counterplan, going over cross-x time by 3 seconds, or even not disclosing seems incredibly problematic. There are alternative words like problematic, anti-educational, etc. that can adequately describe what you perceive to be the issue with the argument. Part of this frustration is also due to the number of times I have heard debaters frustrate community judges by saying they were abused when the other team read an argument they didn't like. Please don't use this phrase. You can help make debate better.

Paperless and speaker point stuff-
I used to debate in a world where most people had their evidence on paper and the one thing that I believe has been lost through that is that people tend to look more at the speech doc than listening to the debate. I love paperless debate, just make sure that you are focusing on the speech itself and not relying exclusively on the document that the other team has sent you. Flowing well will often result in improved speaker points.

If you are using an online format to share evidence (e.g. speechdrop or an email chain), please include me in the loop. If you are using a flashdrive, I don't need to see it.

I don't expect teams to have analytics on the speech document (but if you are asked by your opponent for equity or accessibility reasons to have them there, please do so). I do expect teams to have every card, in order, on the speech document. If you need to add an additional card (because you've been doing speed drills), that's fine - just do it at the end of the speech.

If you let me know that your wiki is up to date including this round (both aff and neg) and send me the link, I'll also bump speaker points by .2.

Masks stuff for in person (last updated 11/20/21)

We still exist in a world of COVID. If this changes, I will update this part of my paradigm. You should plan to wear a mask when you aren't speaking - even if the tournament or your coach doesn't force you to. You are welcome to take it off while you are speaking, but please put it back on when you finish your speech. If anyone in the room (either team, a spectator, another judge, etc.) asks you to wear a mask while you are speaking then you should. I will have my mask on the entire round. This is an issue of safety. If you are asked to wear a mask, and you choose not to, it is an auto-loss with the lowest speaker points that I am allowed to give.

Along those lines, with the experiences that many have gone through in the last year, please don't make arguments like "death good," "disease good," etc. While there may be cards on those things, they very violent for many people right now. Please help make debate a safe space for people who are coming out of a very difficult time.

David Trigaux

Former Debater (HS+College)
Coached 10+ Years now (apparently getting old too)

Director of the Washington Urban Debate League (WUDL)

Summary:
I run an Urban Debate League; debate is my full-time job. I judge a lot of regional rounds, cut A LOT of cards on each topic, and am in the middle of the argumentation spectrum. I often judge clash debates.

I work with 500+ students per season, ranging from brand new MS students refining their literacy skills and speaking in front of someone else for the first time to national circuit teams looking to innovate and reach the TOC. Both debaters are equally valuable members of the community, accessibility is a big issue for me. I see the primary role of a judge as giving you thoughtful and actionable feedback on your scholarship as presented to me in round.

I have some slight preferences (see below), but do your best, be creative, and I am excited to hear whatever style/substance of argumentation you'd like to make.

5 Min Before Round Notes:

• Speed: I can handle whatever you throw at me (debate used to be faster than it is now). 90% Speed + Emotive is always better than squeezing in that last card or two.
• Policy v Kritik: I was a flex debater and generally coach the same way
• Theory: I often find these debates shallow/lacking details and trading-off with more educational, common-sense arguments. Use when needed and show me why you don't have other options.
• Performance: I have coached a few performative cases. Focus on why / what the net benefit is of the unique argument / argumentation style.
• Shadow Extending: I literally don’t flow author’s names in Varsity rounds, so if you are trying to extend your "Smith" evidence, talk to me about the warrants or I won’t know what you are talking about and won't do the work for you. Novices get a lot of latitude here, developing the fundamentals and trying to extend something is important.
• Email Chains: I don't often look at email chains during the round. This is a persuasive activity. If I don’t hear it/flow it, you didn't do enough to win the point and I’m not going to read along and do work for you. I’ll look through the cards after the round if the substance of a card will impact my decision, or if I want to appropriate your citations.
• About "the State": I was born and live in Washington D.C., have a graduate degree in Political Science, and worked in electoral politics and on public policy issues. This has shaped a pre-disposition that governance of some kind is inevitable. The US government has a poor track-record on many issues, but I find generic "state bad" links unpersuasive, historically untrue, and/or insufficiently nuanced. I think you are better than that, and I challenge you to make nuanced, well researched claims instead. Teams that do usually win and get exceedingly high speaker points, while those that don't usually lose badly. This background also makes me more interested in implementation and methodology of change (government, social movement, or otherwise) than the average judge, so specifics and beyond-the-buzzword contextualization on plan/alt, etc. solvency are great.
• Creativity + Scholarship: I reward hard work, creative thinking, and original research. I will give very high speaker points to folks who can demonstrate these criteria, even in defeat. (Read: Don't barf Open Ev Downloads you can't contextualize) Go do some research!

Don't / Pet Peeves:

1. Use the term "D Rule"--Thankfully, this seems to be an increasingly antiquated term. Stop looking for a cheap win.
2. Be a douchebag--I am very flexible with speaker points, heavily rewarding good research, wit, and humor, and am very willing to nuke your speaker points or stop the round if you are rude, demeaning, racist/sexist, etc.
3. Leave D.C. Out: Don't leave D.C. out of your States CP Text or other relevant advocacy statements. There is a racialized history of erasure and abuse of the 750,000 + majority black residents who live here and experience taxation without representation. Don't perpetuate it.
4. Make Debate Less Accessible: I run an Urban Debate League; it is my professional responsibility to make debate more accessible. If you erect a barrier to accessing this activity for someone else, I will vote you down, give you the lowest possible speaker points, report you to TAB, and complain to your coach. This includes not having an effective way to share evidence with a team debating on paper (such as a 3rd, "viewing" laptop, or being willing to share one of your own) when in person. This is a big accessibility question for the activity that gets overlooked a lot, many of our debaters still use paper files.
5. Post-Rounding (especially if it is by a coach who didn't watch the round): I will contact tab and reduce speaker points for your team after submission if you do so.
6. Multi-Minute Overviews: Enough Said
7. Run Death Good: This is an objectionable school of argumentation that usually has some nasty racial undertones. Don't be a troll, get a better strategy.

In the Weeds on Specific Argument Structures:

Do: Better Speaks, increase likelihood of winning the round

Don’t: Worse speaks, decrease likelihood of winning the round

Disadvantages:

I like DAs. Too many debates lack a DA of some kind in the 1NC.

· Do:

o Research! Cut Updates! Quote a card from this week!

o Creative/Topic/Aff specific DAs.

· Don’t:

o Read an Elections DA after the election is over, not know when an election is, or be wrong about what the bill you are talking about does (All terrible things I’ve seen lately).

· Politics DA: Given my background in professional politics, I am a big fan of a well-run/researched politics DA. I read Politico and The Hill daily, many of my best friends work for Congress -- I nerd out for this stuff. I also know that there just isn't a logical scenario some weekends. Do your research, I’ll know if you haven’t.

Counterplans:

I like a substantive counterplan debate.

· Do:

o Run a Topic/Aff specific CP, with a detailed, well written/explained CP Texts and/or Topic nuance for Generics (like Courts).

o Clearly explained net benefit stories.

o Questionably competitive counterplans (consult, PIC, condition, etc.) that are supported by strong, real world solvency advocates.

o Substantive, non-theoretical responses (even if uncarded) to CPs.

· Don’t:

o Forget to perm.

o Faking a net benefit story (getting called on it impacts round outcome)

o Default to theory in the 2AC without at least trying to make substantive responses too.

Procedurals/Topicality:

Can be a strong strategy if used appropriately/creatively. If you go into the average round hoping to win on Condo, strike me.

· Do:

o Prove abuse

o Have qualified evidence and intent to define

o Slow down. Less jargon, more examples

o Creative Violations

· Don’t:

o Use procedurals just to out-tech your opponents, especially if this isn't a Varsity round

Case Debate:

More folks should debate the case, cards or not. Do your homework pre-tournament!

· Do:

o Have specific attacks on the mechanism or advantage scenarios of the Aff, even if just smart analytics.

o Make fun, non-problematic Impact Turns

· Don’t:

o Concede the case for no reason

o Spend a lot of time reading arguments you can’t go for later

Kritiks:

I started my debate career as a 1 off K Debater, and grew to see it as part of a balanced strategy.

· Do:

o Read a K that fits the Aff. Reading the same K against every aff on a topic isn't often the most strategic thing to do.

o Read Aff specific links. Identifying evidence, actions, rhetoric, representations, etc. in the 1AC that are links.

o Have coherent Alt solvency with real world examples that a non-debater can understand without having read your solvency author.

o Tell a non-jargony story in your overview and tags

· Don’t:

o Read hybrid Ks whose authors wouldn't agree with one another.

o Read a K you can’t explain in your own words.

o Generic Links. See note about "The State" above

· Literature: I have read a lot of K literature (Security, Cap, Fem, Anti-Blackness, etc.) but nobody is well versed in all literature bases.

· Role of the Ballot: I default to serving as a policymaker but will embrace alternative roles if you are clear what I should do instead in your first speech

David.trigaux@urbandebate.org

he/him pronouns

I would like to be on the email chain please: samwerns@terpmail.umd.edu

Overall--please tell me how to evaluate the round; I don't want to have to think too hard.

I am comfortable with some speed, but please don't sacrifice clarity for it--I cannot flow or evaluate an argument that I cannot hear.

I'm not a huge fan of topicality, but I'll vote on it if impacted out effectively.

I'm also not a huge fan of conditionality and arguing condo good might be a pretty tough sell. Sorry.

I really like to see when teams go through the opponents' evidence and find things that contradict their claims/don't say what they're tagged to say.

Ks on the aff are great, but please tell me what the aff actually does or at least what I should be voting on.

Ks on the neg are probably some of my favorite arguments, but please don't just run generic solvency deficits as your "links". The more concrete and specific you can make the K, the better (usually).

Please actually explain any high theory arguments you make--I probably won't understand them otherwise.

I will vote against an aff or a DA if the other team argues persuasively that their internal link has a 0% chance of actually happening--please actually defend your internal links at least a little.

Good luck, have fun, don't lose!

hi! my name is michelle, i go by she/her pronouns, and if you're reading this i'm probably judging you soon whoot whoot! novice year is all about learning so if there's anything you wanna work on specifically, feel free to tell me before the round. add these emails to the chain pls and thx: michellewu7154@gmail.com and lexnovies@gmail.com

if you have any questions/concerns during the round, speak up! if you want to talk about anything after the round, email me!

tldr:

- be clear, organized, and explain your arguments

- PLEASE WEIGH AND COMPARE ARGS AND BE OBVIOUS ABOUT IT (impact calc is ur best friend)

- time yourself and keep track of your own prep

- be nice, make the round a safe and fun learning environment

- you do you, but i'm not the most experienced in high theory ks or other strange theory

abt me:

- currently a senior at lexington high school

- i've done policy debate since freshman year

- i'm part of 2a gang (second affirmative speaker)

- if u talk to me abt bts or kpop in general, ur amazing

about the debate:

- a complete argument has a claim, warrants, and impact (all are important but most people will forget warrants and not use impacts)

- i shall say this many times, please weigh your arguments and do comparisons with your opponent's arguments (it helps me make a decision and it'll make ur debates much more in depth and fun). don't just say we have a higher probability, magnitude, or timeframe, explain why and how they interact with each other on both sides

- tech > truth (this means i will look at the arguments on the flow and what has been said, not what is my or your personal opinion. you should point dropped args and explain why they're important for you. that being said, i will not value "tech" if it is racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or in any way disrespectful because that wouldn't be very cash money of you please use ur best judgement)

- clarity > speed (no one should be trying for speed right now, pls no)

- organization!! tell me which arguments you're responding to/extending and when you switch flows. please roadmap before you start your speech, which is telling me the order of flows in your speech, and sign post during your speech, which is labeling the points you're talking about

- write my ballot for me! this takes lots of practice but make your last speeches big picture, tell me what are the most important points from the round, and what i should care about. before you start the 2NR or 2AR, ask yourself "why are we winning this debate" and your answer should be the first sentence of the speech

- did someone say impact calc? did someone say evidence comparison? did someone say weighing across multiple flows? :0 yes indeed i said it (key word: outweighs)

for ld

i've judge a couple ld rounds, but i'm still unfamiliar with some jargons or ld-specific theory. i can flow your arguments, but i might need a little more explanation.

good luck and have fun!!

Simple Paradigm, I am a traditionalist when it comes to PFD or LD so I know, when judging on the circuit I will be blocked, but this is not Policy.

Debate the resolution, not something you bought from a college student or topic you find enlightening - the resolutions are chosen, voted on, for a reason.

So, with that in mind, life is simple, right? If LD your Value should simply win out and your VC better convince me that all those contentions and sub-points make sense, especially since you slow down so I can actually hear them. =) Yes I like smiley faces, life is fun, take a step back and enjoy it!

If PFD, well your contentions and impact better win out too! Good cards everyone, good cards, and roadmap, please.

Oh wait, almost forgot, remember this is not policy! If I am judging policy, well that is a whole other matter.

lex 23, 3rd year policy

add me to the chain - lexdebateaz@gmail.com

‎‏‏‎ ‎

1. top

spreading is ok

open cx is ok

i will vote on anything (as long as it's not racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc)

you should prioritize learning over winning - don't be discouraged by losses, the goal of your novice year is to understand and be able to run/defend a variety of arguments - going 5-1 in prelims isn't as important as you think it might be vs going 1-5 and understanding what you did wrong, and how to fix what problems you might have via drills, redos, etc.

its ok to not know things! feel free to ask whatever questions you have post-round, and any clarifying questions ("what's a roadmap?" etc.) during the round. i'm completely down to help you w/ redos, just email me

don't worry about my expression/tone of voice - i'm probably tired af

also, +0.1 speaks if you make me laugh

‎‏‏‎ ‎

2. musts

- signpost! make it clear you're onto a new card with an over-enunciated "and", "next", etc, and say when you're going onto a new contention

- give a roadmap. tell me how many sheets of paper i'll need in the 1ac/1nc and what order you're going with in later speeches (you don't need to be too specific - just say "first will be case, then T, then the DA...")

- be clear. i'd rather you read less cards, but with clarity, than unintelligibly blowing through a ton

- line by line, lots of it pls - i don't want to hear you just spread down blocks w/o any sort of clash present

- be nice to your opponent and your partner ofc

‎‏‏- flow - keeping track of everything that's going on in a debate is absolutely necessary

‎‏‏‎ ‎

3. preferences

as the great aden barton said: "None of the biases listed below are so strong as to override who did the better debating, but adjusting to my priors could maximize your chances of winning"

let me be lazy - you should write my ballot for me in the 2nr/2ar - "you vote aff/neg because..."

judge direction, as stated above

impact calc!!!!! especially in your later speeches

tech > truth

policy = k

i love good case debate and i'll def vote on presumption

i love theory

i will default to fairness is an i/l unless told otherwise

don't interrupt your partner unless absolutely necessary

‎‏‏‎ ‎

4. speaks

copying from vinit iyer's paradigm:

30 - Probably won't give this out unless you are a god

29.9-29.4 - Probably will get to late elims or even win

29.3 - 29 - Probably will break

28.9 - 28.6 - Probably with an even or slightly winning record

28.5 - 28 - Probably will have a losing record

27 - 0 - You are doing something egregiously bad and should completely rethink your strategy

‎‏‏‎ ‎

tell me you read my paradigm and i'll give you +0.1 speaks :)