Tabroom.com

Nano Nagle Classic and Nano Nagle RR

2021 — NSDA Campus, CA/US

LD Judges Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Maxine Adams Mission San Jose High School 6 rounds

Carlos Astacio Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 29, 2014 at 2:37 AM EDT

I competed in LD at University High School in Newark New Jersey, I was nationally competitive for three years.. I also compete in policy debate for Rutgers University.

Presumption: I think it highly unfair for me to presume to any side when debaters have NO control over which side they are going to be debating. So I don't have any bias toward Aff or Neg.

Speed: I don't generally have an issue with speed, however I do have a problem with monotone speed, unclear speed. I will yell clear if I can't understand you, but it will only be maybe once or twice, if you don't become clear by then, my ability to properly evaluate the arguments may possibly become impaired. Also, your speaks probably won't be awesome if I have to keep yelling clear.

-I would like you to significantly slow down when reading tags/card names so I can have a properly structured flow, but while reading the card you are welcome to go at top CLEAR speed(a few caveats to be explained later)

-When making analytical arguments, please be clear, because it's difficult for me to follow analytics when they are weirdly phrased and also being spread.

-I don't like speed for the sake of being fast, I prefer when speed is used as a catalyst for an awesome case or a multilayered rebuttal with really nuanced responses on case.

Evidence: Despite what happened in the round, I may call for the cites for cards read in round, I'll specify which specific cites I would like to see. I do this for two reasons: to ensure that there was no miscutting of evidence, and because I believe in disclosure and am from the school of thought that everybody in the round should have access to all evidence read in the round. I don't appreciate a denial to share citations, if citations are not readily available, I may choose to disregard all evidence with missing citations(especially evidence which was contested in the debate).

Cross Examination: I don't know how much I can stress it...CROSS EX IS BINDING! I don't care if you present arguments for why it shouldn't be binding or why lying in CX is ok, or any arguments with the implication which allows dishonesty in CX, there is NO theory to be ran to change my mind. Nevertheless, I don't flow CX, so its up to the debaters to refresh my memory of any inconsistencies between speeches and CX answers. On the other hand, CX can be the BEST or the WORST part of a debate, depending on how it plays out. A funny yet not disrespectful CX will score big when I'm deciding on how to assign speaks, while a rude and boring CX will negatively influence how I assign speaks. Clarification questions during prep is fine, but I'm not cool with trying to tear down an argument during prep, if it was that important, it should have been in the formal CX, rather than during prep. Don't be afraid to refuse to answer a non-clarification question during your opponents prep time.

Critical/Weird Arguments: I love well explained critical positions. With the caveat that these critical arguments are logically explained and aren't insanely convoluted. I have no issue voting for the argument. But if I can't understand it, I won't vote on it. Also, I am a fan of interesting debate, so if you have a neat performance to run in front of me, I would love to hear it!

Theory: I don't presume to competing interpretations or reasonability. The justification for either one needs to be made in round. I don't like greedy theory debates, which means that I generally view theory as a reason to reject the argument rather than the debater. YES, this means you must provide reasons in or after the implications section of your shell, for why this specific violation is a reason for me to use my ballot against the other debater. I'm not persuaded by generic 12 point blocks for why fairness isn't a voter, I prefer nuanced argumentation for why fairness may not be a voter. RVIs have to be justified but I'm willing to vote on them if the situation presents itself, but its up to you to prove why you defensively beating theory is enough for me to vote for you.

Prestandard: I don't like having preconceived beliefs before judging a round, but this is just one of those things that I need to reinforce. I WILL NOT vote on multiple apriori blips, and winning a single apriori is an uphill battle, a serious commitment to advocacy is necessary(you devote a serious amount of time to the apriori position.)

Speaks: I average about a 27, I doubt I'll go lower than 25(unless you do something which merits lower than a 25) because I personally know how disappointing the 4-2/5-2 screw can be, nevertheless I am more than willing to go up or down, depending on the performance in that particular round. The reason I average around a 27 is not because I generally don't give nice speaks, its because the majority of tournaments, I'll judge only a few rounds that deserve more than a 28. It's not difficult at all to get good speaks from me. I reserve 30's for debaters who successfully execute the following: speak really well, good word economy, good coverage/time allocation, takes risks when it comes to strategy, weighs really well, provides AWESOME evidence comparison, and adapts well to the things happening in the round. I really enjoy seeing new strategies, or risky strategies, I.E. I am a fan of the straight refutation 1N, attempting something risky like this and pulling it off, gives you a higher chance of getting a 30. Another way to get high speaks is to be a smart debater as well as funny without being mean or making any kind of jokes at the expense of your opponent(this will lose you speaks)

Delivery: I need evidence comparison! It makes me really happy when debaters do great evidence comparison. Also, I would appreciate for you to give status updates as the rebuttals progress, as well as giving me implications for each extension. When extending arguments which rely on cards, in order for it to be a fully structured extension it must contain: The claim/tag of the card, author/card name, warrant from the card, and the implications of that extension (what does it do for you in the round).

Miscellaneous: You are more than welcome to sit or stand, I don't mind people reading from laptops or being paperless as long as it doesn't delay the round. Also, I don't care if you are formally dressed, jeans and a tshirt will get you the same speaks that a shirt and a tie will. :) I also believe its impossible for me to divorce my judging from my beliefs, but I'll do my best to attempt to fairly adjudicate the debate.

P.S. I don't like performative contradictions...(just felt like I should throw that out there)

Vishvak Bandi Kennedy 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon December 6, 2021 at 11:54 PM CDT

Coppell '19. UT Dallas '23.

Pronouns - he/him or they/them. I don't care.

Add me to the email chain - debate@vishvak.io - make sure you use this email.

I like music so pls play something cool (if we're online recommend me a cool EDM song). +0.1 if you have good music.

If you generate at least 1/8th of a speech using OpenAI and win the debate I will give you at minimum a 29. I will request proof of this as well. https://openai.com/api/

Short Version

"Do what you do and do it well and you will be fine." – Bernie <3

e-debate - 70% speed, clear when I call clear, don't require cameras, let me know if you have tech issues.

If you're ever uncomfortable in a debate or feel that the space is unsafe, please let me know in some way (private chat, email, saying it in the round, etc) and I will do what needs to be done.

My favorite judges were the ones who listened to all arguments and evaluated them equally without intervention. I try to be that judge. I am here to evaluate the arguments you present to me and provide useful criticism. For me to do that, a team should read good quality evidence, make complete arguments, and answer arguments from the flow. You should tell me how to evaluate the debate in your speeches.

Do your thing and do it well. I will adapt to you.

What I wrote below are my thoughts on debate - I will vote for who wins the debate, even if arguments go against my beliefs.

Also - post-round me. It makes me a better judge and you get more out of the RFD. I've made a couple of terrible decisions before, so please call me out if you disagree with the decision.

Hot Takes/Meta Level Things. These are my only hard rules.

-no vaping. L 20 the second I see it.

-I don't vote on false arguments - If you're just objectively wrong about something (a T violation they didn't violate, saying racism good, etc) I won't vote on it.

-I don't vote on evidence cut from private, unverifiable sources (emailing authors, cutting lectures from camp, etc). I'm fine with ev from things like podcasts, but every piece of evidence needs to be published in some form, by qualified authors.

-Stop cutting twitter threads. This also goes for medium articles from random unqualified people.

-Not a super big fan of debate coach evidence but it is what it is. You should not read evidence from a current or former coach of yours. You also should not read cards that were specifically published to be read in debate rounds.

-Inserting re-highlights of cards is good. If you think you have an indict you can do so, and give me an explanation of what the re-highlight means. If the explanation does not make an argument it does not get flowed. If any part of the article is different, read the new version out loud.

-Tell me what to do - I don't like to intervene so giving me impact framing or telling me how to evaluate a debate will get you far. My ideal RFD would be "I voted aff/neg in this debate because *2 to 3 lines from the 2nr/2ar*"

-Read complete 1NC arguments. 6 well-researched and highlighted off-case will get you much further than 12 off-case missing internal links or terminal impacts. If you sandbag to the block the 1AR will get quite a bit of leeway.

-Ev quality matters - Read 1 or 2 good cards, not 10 bad 1 line UQ cards.

-Sass/shade is funny. Don't be rude.

-I will protect the 1AR and 2NR like they are 2 newborn puppies.

-Never say the word RVI in a policy round.

-There's a difference between new 2AR spin and new 2AR arguments.

Policy v Policy Debates

-Evidence comparison and quality are very very important in these debates. Doing that will get you much further than spamming cards with little to no warrants and accompanying explanation.

-30 speaks if you read 8 minutes of impact turns and defense without repeating yourself and win the round.

-There should be at least 6 cards that talk about the aff/plan in the 1AC.

-I am increasingly finding theory arguments (outside of condo or aspec) to be a reason to reject the argument and not the team. Please tell me why it is a reason to reject the team if you go for it.

Topicality

-Very technical and well carded T debates are my favorite kind of T debates. The best definition cards are contextual to the resolution and are exclusive, not inclusive into a group.

-Interpretations must have an intent to define the phrases being debated. Bad cards here will hurt you quite a bit.

-Impact this out the same way you'd impact out disads or FW against a K aff.

-Reasonability is about how reasonable the counter interp is.

Disads

-I hate bad politics DAs. For the love of god please make complete arguments.

-Specific impact calculus and evidence comparison will get much further than 4 1-line uniqueness cards.

-Don't call midterms "mids" or politics "tix," -1 speaks.

Counterplans

-Conditionality is good. I have voted on conditionality bad before. No evidence, combining, amending, or adding to CPs will make me more likely to vote aff on conditionality. Zidao gives the best condo 2ARs.

-If there is no evidence for a CP smart 2AC analytics can beat it. The 1AR will get leeway to answer 2NC sandbagging.

-Judge kick is good because of conditionality. I will do it if the 2NR asks me to. If the 2AR has any objection I might change my mind.

-Counterplan text amendments or changes of the actor in the 2NC are probably not legitimate - especially if it's because you messed up and used the wrong actor.

K debates

-Argument development and engagement on the line-by-line will get you very far.

-The best K debaters give very well-organized and easy-to-flow speeches, do good line by line, and tell me what arguments matter the most. To do this, limit the overview and do as much quality line by line as possible.

-Examples are great for these debates.

-If you want to win I need to know the method and what the aff/K does by the end of the debate. This doesn't mean I need a 3-minute explanation, but I need to know what I vote for and why what I vote for is a good thing.

-I need to understand both competing "ideas of debate," ie what both teams think debate should be like.

-In these debates, you must tell me how to vote. Judge instruction is very important and will make you much happier with the way I decide the round.

-Affs/Ks should be in some way related to the topic/the aff.

-I reward a well-thought-out and executed performance.

K affs

-Make sure you know what you are talking about. If you read a poem/play music, it should be relevant after the 1AC.

-If your strategy is impact turns to the 2NR, go for it, but there needs to be analysis contextual to the negative disads.

-I prefer you to have a relation to the topic and that you answer questions in CX.

-Also, fairness is probably an internal link (or is it? you tell me), and Antonio 95 is bad.

-I said this earlier but I will say it again. Tell me what the aff does. I need to know what I am voting for and why that is good. Presumption arguments are a much easier sell if you cannot do this properly.

Framework

-I think that Framework is about competing models of debate between what the aff justifies and what the negative thinks is best. This means that if you go for framework as a way to limit out content from debate you will not win (ex. "vote us up because we remove K affs from the debate space").

-The negative's model of debate should be able to access similar education and subject formation that the aff is able to access ie. you need to tell me why policy education is able to create good subject formation and education, or how clash is key to education about "x" scholarship.

-I've found myself voting on framework impacts that aren't fairness more recently.

-A lot of the time I vote negative in these debates because the aff doesn't answer the TVA properly, doesn't engage limits offense, or isn't doing enough analysis on the impact level.

-Make a TVA with a solvency advocate. TVA's need substantive answers outside of "doesn't solve the aff." You need to explain to me how the TVA resolves the impact turns to framework and what affs under your model would look like.

Kritiks

-These can be some of the best and worst arguments in a debate round. Good K debaters know the argument they are reading well and come prepared with robust defenses of the arguments they make. In these debates, I am able to look at my flow and understand the thesis of the argument after the round.

-The more specific the link and the more time is devoted to a comprehensive alternative explanation = the more likely I am to vote for you.

-Saying this for the third time. I need to know what I am voting for and why that is good. If you have a different vision for debate I need to know what it is and why it is better.

-K Framework is very important and should probably have a card if it's more complicated than "Endorse the best subject formations."

-Affs need to develop more substantive arguments about fairness/state engagement. Framework makes or breaks 70% of K debates - a 20 second generic 2AC isn't enough. Prioritize it and be responsive to arguments from both sides.

-If you're reading high theory/pomo arguments contextualization, evidence comparison, and explanations matter a lot more to me.

-1ARs spend too much time on fairness when it's either a wash or obviously being won by one side. Explain what happens if you get to weigh your aff and stop spending 3 minutes on 1 line arguments from the 2NC about fairness because it won't ever be in the 2NR. TLDR - answer arguments but don't spend 30 seconds on each fairness subpoint when 5 will do.

-Examples can win you the round so give them to me - they're underutilized by a lot of K teams and it shows me you all don't research your arguments or know how your structural claims actually impact people's lives.

-Your 2NR needs to have an explanation of how the alt resolves all of the links and impacts you go for. That means a 2NR with little explanation of the alt needs to be winning links and impact framing claims decisively to win the round.

Misc

Make me laugh. I'm on the discord and use Reddit and stuff so I know memes. If you make a meme reference or something I'll be happy. If you make a really good joke or meme reference from the discord maybe +.1 speaks.

I'll give you a smiley face on the ballot for making fun of any current or former Coppell debaters (specifically Rohin Balkundi, Het Desai, or Shreyas Rajagopal), or anyone from the discord. If it makes me laugh, +.1 speaks.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-Email me if you have questions about my philosophy - TLDR is that I'd prefer a more "progressive" round, but the LD-specific things I've written are short/vague and I'd be happy to elaborate.

-If I'm judging LD, read my policy paradigm. That should sum up most things.

-Bad arguments make me unhappy. Your speaks will reflect that. That said, if you can't beat bad theory arguments it's not my problem (seriously why does nobody go for reasonability). You can answer most of these arguments with 5 words.

-Ask yourself "Can I read this argument in a policy round?" The answer will tell you how seriously I will take the argument.

-I'm not here to police you or your arguments, but some LD shenanigans are too much.

-Trix are for kids. I will not vote for tricks I can't understand or explain back to you. ps - condo logic is a terrible argument.

-If you have me in the back the best way to do things is to debate like it's a policy round or explaining the random LD things like phil very well.

-no RVI.

Random Thoughts -

1) I feel like I have a higher expectation of argument development from the negative due to my policy background. It's something I'm trying to be more mindful of. I would appreciate it if both debaters "went for" fewer arguments and focused on developing the arguments they are winning.

2) Whoever decided that "must read conditional advocacies in the 1N" is a real argument should be banned from debate.

3) I get that it's online, but asking "what was the response to x?" during 1AR/2NR/2AR prep is really annoying and I don't expect answers from either side.

4) If you have disclosed "race war spec" or something like that at any point I'm docking speaks. It's an incredibly anti-black and reductionist way to answer an otherwise bad argument. Just answer the spec argument normally instead of going out of your way and putting it on the wiki.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read Shabbir Bohri's Paradigm.

Joseph Barquin South Eugene High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu October 14, 2021 at 12:49 PM PDT

Affiliations:

LAMDL 2017 to present (cx) (Stern 2017-19, Bravo 2020-present)

Northwood HS 2017 to 2018 (cx)

Southwestern College 2014 to 2019 (CX)

San Marino HS 2018 to 2020 (CX/LD)

Mission Vista HS 2019 to 2020 (CX/LD/PF/Parli/whatever else)

Torrey Pines HS 2020 to 2021 (LD)

YBHS 2020 to present (LD)

Boise Senior High School (LD)

I do have a hearing problem in my right ear. If I've never heard you b4 or it's the first round of the day. PLEASE go about 80% of your normal spread for about 20 seconds so I can get acclimated to your voice. If you don't, I'm going to miss a good chunk of your first minute or so. I know people pref partly through speaker points. My default starts at 28.5 and goes up from there. If i think you get to an elim round, you'll prob get 29.0+

Email chain: cyjake240@gmail.com

for lders scroll down to the ld section

Performances and K Affs: I like em. I'd prefer you have a topic link but I've voted for teams before that were blatantly not topical. Adhering to the thesis of your k aff and/or performance is important. Please don't run a Fem aff and then proceed to misgender someone in the round. It can get infuriating at times. I'd like an explanation of the theory of power of the aff coming into the 2ac that has sufficient contextualizing to whatever k the neg is reading. Just extending your aff can be okay but more contextualization so the turns/alt debate can be cleaner is always preferred. Just because you run a K aff doesn't mean I'll vote for you though. I find pomo k affs to be harder to evaluate compared to others but if fleshed out during the round, I'll vote for it. Run your poem. Run your narrative. Run your music. Run your 15 card k aff dump. Whatever. just make sure it makes sense and I'll try my best to evaluate it as I would other positions

Framework T: Def run it. My personal preference runs more on the line that the aff must be able to defend their model of debate. If they decide excluding portions of the resolution within their position is a good thing, but can't defend that, they probably don't deserve the ballot. I lean more on epis impx and see procedural fairness as an internal link to something else but I'll default to whatever the debaters tell me and only intervene in that regard if no one wins the argument.

Having a case list of negs you can run and cannot run and why they're good or bad is convincing. Having a story around aff limits and why they matter in the context of the debate and your impacts matter. buzz words and blocks won't be enough. really explain it to me so I have a clear area I can circle on my flow (well put ** on my excel sheet) that I can pull the trigger on. FYI. TVA without a clear plantext with advantages and a solvency story is not sufficient to win that argument. Referencing other schools' affs also prob won't help you since I could care less about what most affs are and i'm not going to do extra research during rfd time to look up at the wiki. If it's important enough to reference, you can tell me how the tva functions to solve/allow for good ground for both sides of the debate. shrug.

Topicality: Go for it. I err on competing interps and have voted for wonky T's and aff's answers to t. Reasonability with really good warrants can also convince but i'd rather not vote on if it I can help it. Your interps need to be carded. I'm done with aff debaters who have counter interps that are not backed up by data. If you read that and the neg doesn't concede the we meet, you'll prob never get the ballot. As a side not for ld, please slow a bit down when ur on this flow as most debates centered on T are very light on cards and heavy on spreading and flowing analytics for minutes on end can be difficult. I'm not looking at the doc so if I miss a blippy arg that you go for? ooops.

Kritiks: I think K's are a good thing. I think running kritiques as a way to educate not only yourself but those around you is a good thing. Spend time during cx or the block (2nr in ld) to really develop a well articulated link story. Too many times the 1nc will just read generic link cards and never really give me portions of the aff that fit into those links and why they bite the theory of power. That's bad. If I can't see how the aff links, 0 chance will I vote on a K. If you're going 1 off K, please add framework. I'm okay with not evaluating the aff if they lead to a bad for debating. In that regard I think affs underutilized the potential spin they can use in order to have access to all portions of the aff.

Floating piks are probably bad. vague alts that shift between one speech and the next are probably bad. call it out please.

Perms are good. Running the K conditionally with a ROB is probably bad esp if you kick out of the K and there's a random link turn or perm argument coming out of the aff...

CP: I like counterplans. I err neg on condo theory to a degree unless the amount of conditional advocacies gets to the point the aff is forced to double turn themselves in order to answer all those off cases. I can be convinced to vote aff easily once the abuse occurs. But if the advocacies are fine with each other, then you're gtg. If no abuse and debate comes down to condo, I can pull the trigger for the aff, they just need to win the tech. I dislike multiplank cps but ld has been heavily leaning towards billions of planks so whatever. Run your abusive counterplans. adv cps are good. pics are generally good. private actor cps and the like are probably bad.

If you drop the perm. You'll probably lose. There's no excuse. don't drop it.

Prefer the Disad/NB be on another flow as it keeps my flows a little cleaner and allows the neg to be able to pivot out of the cp and go for the disad vs the case.

DA: Use it. the more the merrier. can't be conditional if you run 6 disads, right? keep your story on how the disad turns and out weighs case and you're good. problem for me on voting for disads has usually been the impact calc debate. some debates just get messy and I don't know how the impacts of the disad vs the aff work. At that point I'm sorta lost and will have to spend time being grumpy to try to clear the picture up as much as I can. I love good UQ debates. links and internal link debates, impact turns (to a degree). This is an election year so I know everyone will be running the presidential elections disad as well as some senate elections disads. That's fine. Just please keep your internal link chain concise. If the internal links are dubious at best to get to a terminal impact, my threshold for the aff answering it will likely be low.

Case debate: Go for a dropped case turn. So many debates could be resolved very quickly if the Neg would only look at the conceded case turns and solvency deficits and just go for it. In that same sense. Defend your case. If the neg undercovers case, what does that mean as a whole for the debate? If you solve the impx coming out of the 1nc... it should do so some interesting things in relation to other positions, right? ?

Online Debate: I have amazing hardware now for online debate. That doesn't mean everyone does though. If possible please don't go as fast as humanly possible because debate platforms are still limited on how clear communications can be. Coupled that with being in a panel with observers, it's even more important to think about access for the community and competitors/judges.

If the speech cuts out due to internet issues, depending on the length, I will either have you restart from that spot you cut off or will ask what you said (if less than 5-10 seconds). I trust that the people I'm judging will not do ethically questionable actions because of the online format. My tech is good enough that unless you're internet suddenly cuts off, I will be able to keep track through most of it and if I find out you're lying to me or the competitor about what you said, a 25/L will be in the future. I put my trust in the debaters I judge. Don't abuse it.

For LD debaters:

Trad:

I coach a trad lder as well so I get how it works. Just do you and lets have a fun round.

Prog LD:

tldr:

On a mutual pref sheet this is how I would pref me.

1: Larp V K, K v T/fw +

2: larp v larp. K v K

3: phil, heavy theory debaters and heavy T debates

4: Pomo K's that look like gibberish to me

5: spark, overpop, death good, nebel, trix

update for the sept/oct topic: my threshold on theory vs cheaty counterplans is pretty low. keep that in mind.

Enunciate your claims and slow down a bit so I can actually flow it. When half the constructive is literally just analytics and you're 300+ wpm... that's lit unflowable and I'm not going to the docs to resolve that. If you lose because it's not on my flow? Shrug. Don't care.

Jasmine Stidham "You have the power to stop Nebel t in this activity" Mission accepted.

NO NEBEL. THE 1AR JUST HAS TO SAY "NO" AND WE ARE DONE ON THAT FLOW.

yes 1ar theory. no rvis.

Aff's are capped at 29.2 if they include underview theory about why they get rvis and 1ar stuff.

I prefer a substantive debate with 3-4 off to something like 13 off. I'll flow you regardless but I reserve the right roast you.

Tricks are not a viable strat in front of me. Not voting for it.

Theory is good if it isn't a blippy mess. Just saying a team is "condo" and they should lose without an interp, and why condo is problematic will not get you a ballot.

Lastly, please be nice to each other. LD is such a short event that to there's really no point to get toxic from 2 cx's. If the round gets toxic. Whoever initiated the toxicity will not be able to receive anything higher than a 27.5.

Joseph Barquin Sage 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu October 14, 2021 at 12:49 PM PDT

Affiliations:

LAMDL 2017 to present (cx) (Stern 2017-19, Bravo 2020-present)

Northwood HS 2017 to 2018 (cx)

Southwestern College 2014 to 2019 (CX)

San Marino HS 2018 to 2020 (CX/LD)

Mission Vista HS 2019 to 2020 (CX/LD/PF/Parli/whatever else)

Torrey Pines HS 2020 to 2021 (LD)

YBHS 2020 to present (LD)

Boise Senior High School (LD)

Email chain: cyjake240@gmail.com

for lders scroll down to the ld section

Floating piks are probably bad. vague alts that shift between one speech and the next are probably bad. call it out please.

Perms are good. Running the K conditionally with a ROB is probably bad esp if you kick out of the K and there's a random link turn or perm argument coming out of the aff...

If you drop the perm. You'll probably lose. There's no excuse. don't drop it.

Prefer the Disad/NB be on another flow as it keeps my flows a little cleaner and allows the neg to be able to pivot out of the cp and go for the disad vs the case.

For LD debaters:

Trad:

I coach a trad lder as well so I get how it works. Just do you and lets have a fun round.

Prog LD:

tldr:

On a mutual pref sheet this is how I would pref me.

1: Larp V K, K v T/fw +

2: larp v larp. K v K

3: phil, heavy theory debaters and heavy T debates

4: Pomo K's that look like gibberish to me

5: spark, overpop, death good, nebel, trix

update for the sept/oct topic: my threshold on theory vs cheaty counterplans is pretty low. keep that in mind.

Jasmine Stidham "You have the power to stop Nebel t in this activity" Mission accepted.

NO NEBEL. THE 1AR JUST HAS TO SAY "NO" AND WE ARE DONE ON THAT FLOW.

yes 1ar theory. no rvis.

Aff's are capped at 29.2 if they include underview theory about why they get rvis and 1ar stuff.

I prefer a substantive debate with 3-4 off to something like 13 off. I'll flow you regardless but I reserve the right roast you.

Tricks are not a viable strat in front of me. Not voting for it.

Theory is good if it isn't a blippy mess. Just saying a team is "condo" and they should lose without an interp, and why condo is problematic will not get you a ballot.

Scott Brown OA Independent 2 rounds

Scott Brown Troy Independent 6 rounds

Vishan Chaudhary The Harker School 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 26, 2022 at 5:33 AM PDT

Updates for Emory 2022

-At risk of sounding like a broken record, slow down. Microphone weirdness amplifies clarity issues which already plague LD, and when people go too fast/blippy I am just not catching full arguments. This is especially true in the 1ar/on analytics. I get it's short/crunched, but 1ars which remain clear, efficient, and effective will be rewarded with astronomical points

-I still don't like resolving 1ar theory debates

Email for chain – vishanc4@gmail.com

Conflicts: Harker, Harvard-Westlake

Hi! I’m Vishan. I graduated from Harvard-Westlake in 2019 and am now an assistant coach at Harker. I generally read policy style arguments (CPs, DAs, etc) and some kritiks, but I feel comfortable evaluating any style of debate except for maybe a dense phil or tricks debate, but I don’t see myself/don’t want to be judging those anyway.

1. Record a local copy of your speech. I will under no circumstance have someone re-give a speech if they drop out of the call/there are major audio glitches during the speech. Before your speech begins, start recording on your phone/laptop so you can send me a copy in case something goes wrong. This was rarely an issue last year, but when it was it made everyone's lives easier when there was a recording.

2. Speed - this is also an online debate related, but it warrants its own section. You should not go your top speed, 80-90% is probably fine most of the time, maybe err on the slow side on (especially short) analytics.

***Theory is an entirely different ballgame - I don't know if theory arguments are just getting shorter or if I'm not catching as much because people go too fast, but people need to slow down a substantial amount. This is one of the most important parts of this paradigm, it is also the most ignored.

3. General argument preferences – I prefer quality arguments related to the topic. All things equal, I prefer to hear a core topic DA instead of politics, a K with a strong link to the aff over a consult CP, etc. Of course, if you execute a niche argument really well, go for it, just be aware that the less familiar I am with it, the less likely I am to fully understand it, and the more likely it is that you get a decision that you may not like.

A. Policy arguments (CPs, DAs, etc.)

–I am best for these types of arguments.

-Impact calc + turns case are underutilized/usually a game winner if you do them well.

-The Politics DA is the worst argument that I vote on routinely. Dunking on politics during CX (while still being respectful of course)/dismantling it in the 1ar will likely result in higher points. Unfortunately, affs rarely do this and instead just read 4 impact defense cards :(

-I do not default judge kick, but I am open to it.

-I am open to most CP theory (conditionality, PICs, agent CPs, etc.) but am a hard sell on LD nonsense (must spec status in speech, no neg fiat, etc.). One condo is generally ok, two is pushing it, three or more is just you being a chazzer.

B. Topicality/Theory

-I’m a big fan of well-done T debates.

-But I'm usually not thrilled to be judging Nebel over and over again. Nebel/can't spec should be viewed as a last resort (cases where the aff is very very small)

-I find myself usually unpersuaded by “only semantics matter” claims on T. A well thought out limits claim is definitely the way to go in front of me.

-On T I’m probably 50-50 on the competing interps/reasonability debate.

-In theory debates (that are not CP theory), I am generally persuaded by reasonability + drop the argument. I do not like judging theory debates a whole lot.

-I am a (very, very) hard press on the RVI and would not recommend going for it in front of me. It will be absurdly difficult, if not impossible, for me to vote on an RVI on T.

-I prefer not to judge debates with out of round violations (disclosure etc.) The exception is if your opponent does not disclose first 3 last 3 - include screenshots/evidence and this is a near slam dunk. Other disclosure violations (round reports, open source, etc.) can be easily beaten by reasonability in front of me. Things like "misdisclosure/opponent lied" are uncomfortable to judge/you must include screenshots/definitive evidence in your speech docs.

C. Ks

-Yes - Neolib, Afropessimism, Set Col, other "structural" identity Ks, Security

-No - pomo. It’s not that am not ideologically against these Ks, I am just very unfamiliar with them which will make it hard for you to win them in front of me. It's unlikely you get higher than a 28.5 unless you are very good at explaining your argument.

-I probably lean neg in FW/K aff debates. Negs should articulate an impact outside of "limits because limits" and affs should have counterinterpretations that solve most of neg offense

-When going for a K on the neg, if your only link is some fancy packaging of "fiat bad" I am not the judge for you.

-Links should be contextualized/turn the case. This does not mean that all your links need to be to the plan; rather, if you explain why your links turn the case under the aff FW, you are in a good spot.

-Ideally the 2NR does most if not all of their work on the line-by-line – I’m fine with a short overview to explain thesis/impact but I’m not a fan of the 4-minute overviews followed by the neg saying “this was in the overview” to answer every 1AR argument.

- Neg teams should frame their link not only against the plan alone but through the lens of the permutation. Likewise, affs should frame their link turns not through the lens of the status quo, but through the alternative.

D. Philosophy

- I’m most well-versed in consequentialism but I think I understand Kant and some political theory a decent amount. I’m at ELI5 level for almost every other type, so tread carefully. You do not need an explicit standard text.

E. Tricks

-“Silly rabbit, Trix are for kids!” – Trix kids

4. Evidence ethics – if a debater claims their opponent committed an evidence ethics violation, such as clipping, they will stake the debate on that claim. If there’s proof that the accused the debater clipped, they get an L and the lowest points I can give. If the opposing debater did not clip, the accusing party gets an L and the lowest points I can give.

I don’t read along in the speech doc…usually. Usually if you’re talking, I’m flowing. Sometimes, however, I look if I suspect clipping is occurring. If I catch you clipping, I will let the debate finish, but you will lose. I won’t catch everyone who clips, I don’t think it’s my job to constantly check everyone, so when I check/when I don’t may be somewhat arbitrary, but the easy way to do that is to not cheat.

If I call clear (multiple times) and you don't clear up/I cannot understand the words you are saying, it is clipping.

Things like bracketing, cutting an author who concludes the other way (as long as it’s not egregious), etc. aren’t round-stopping issues to me. However, I am extremely receptive to theory arguments about them, and doing those things will tank your speaks.

I unfortunately have to add this, but I'm starting to sometimes see evidence which is very, very questionable. This is how I think I will evaluate these debates, even if no ethics challenge is raised.

If I notice...

-Card from an article which concludes the other way - your speaks get tanked (25) if you don't go for the flow/it is not egregious; you lose if it is integral to your strategy/you would lose the debate without it

-Card with paragraphs missing - you lose

-Clipping - you lose

-Cards that are miscited - you lose

5. Ways to get good speaker points

-Demonstrating topic/content knowledge

-Debating about author quals

-High quality/not scarcely under-highlighted evidence

-Going for an impact turn well

6. Last housekeeping things

-You must share your speech docs with your opponent - email is preferable

- Each debate will have 1 winner and 1 loser. The speech times are set as is prep time. You can’t use CX as prep time. Asking for me to give you a 30 will result in you getting no higher than a 26.

-I will only vote on arguments that I understand and can explain back to the other debater. I will never vote on arguments that are racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, etc.

-I like evidence a lot, but good analytics >>> bad cards. Even if your card is A+, you only get credit for how good you explain it in later speeches/when you extend it.

- Debate is a communicative activity, so I don't make my decision by reading through all the cards in the speech doc after the debate. I think I'm a pretty good flow, so I don't backflow unless I think it was my fault. If it's not on my flow, you don't get credit for it - emphasizing/slowing down on certain arguments will greatly enhance my ability to understand them. People need to slow wayyyyy down on theory.

-Please be nice to your opponent

Quentin Clark The Harker School 3 rounds

Last changed on Mon April 11, 2022 at 12:52 AM PDT

put me on the chain - qtcc+debate@gmail.bu.edu

Harker 20' | BU 24'

I did LD at Harker and was ok, went for a lot of policy arguments with a little bit of K stuff. Now I study computers and philosophy at Boston University. I wouldn't read too much into either of those things other than to recognize I hate mischaracterizations of technology and moral philosophy.

Here are the guidelines that are set in stone

- I won't adjust speaks based on in-round arguments for adjusting them

- Arguments that are blatantly sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. and clearly made in bad faith means an instant loss, 0 speaks, and an uncomfortable conversation with your coach. My threshold for this is probably higher than you think (for example, I won't stop the debate if an edgy impact turn like African Instability Good or whatever is read) but if it's clear the debate is being made violent the debate ends

- If your opponent is speaking too quickly or unclearly for you to flow, you have a right to call clear

- I won't flow arguments made after the timer ends

- Cross-ex is used to ask questions, not prep, you can ask questions in prep but your opponent doesn't have to answer (although it would be kinda rude if they didn't). This still applies against new affs

- I also flow CX

- if you feel uncomfortable participating in the debate (your opp. triggered you, accidentally misgendered you, etc) feel free to discretely email or talk to me if you're uncomfortable making it an issue in the debate and we'll all work to make the debate a more productive space

- I won't vote on callout arguments

-I'll evaluate evidence ethics and other cheating challenges per tournament rules, which usually means the accuser ends the debate by staking it on the issue, whoever is correct in the challenge gets a W 30 and loser L 16.

Online Debate Preferences

- I would prefer if cameras are on. If you have to have it off for tech or personal reasons, that's fine, but after judging a couple no cam debates I can confidently say it hurt my vtl and probably didn't help their speaks either.

General

- I care about good evidence. If you want that to become relevant to how I adjudicate a decision, do smart evidence comparison.

- please weigh arguments, always, as soon and as much as possible.

- Not a fan of cheap shots (short bad arguments made with the hope that they'll drop it). These take a lot of forms (5 second condo, ASPEC, "T is Policing" w/K Affs, analytic circumvention on case, etc.) and I equally hate all of them.

Things I enjoy

- Smart strategic decision making, both micro and macro, at all points in a round

- A willingness to be bold and make/go for innovative or exciting arguments, as long as said arguments are not at a detriment to quality (although I fancied politics and impact turns so I understand quality is relative)

Things I do not enjoy

- Kritiks that say the world as opposed to the plan is bad. If I cannot tell what Aff the 2NR is answering, that is a bad sign. This doesn't mean I don't like Ks, it means I don't like bad K debating which there is far too much of.

- very fast/blippy topicality debates. If you want to go for this I'm ok with it, but be explanation and example heavy. Explain T like a disad. Don't loose sight of the bigger picture in the lbl. Et cetera. Larger fan of T about particular words in the res as opposed to genericity.

- Tricks. Do anything close to them and you will automatically lose

Kritiks

- Well done Kritik debate is very good, but bad Kritik debate is very bad. 95% of Kritik debating is bad. Please only say the Kritik with me in the back if you think you're in the 5%

- The more contextual your K is to the plan, topic, Aff in specific, etc. the better off you are then with generic totalizing arguments. Having link walls derived from 1AC evidence would be especially cool.

- I also care a lot about what the alternative can practically accomplish and why doing it with the Affirmative is bad.

- I am sick of structuralist Ks. I usually think they are dumb and far less strategic than the debate community has decided they are. The world of academia is vast and large and the fact that we have decided to return to the same book in the library for decades makes me upset.

- Conversely, my academic background has heavily biased me in favor of arguments that say structuralism bad (Buddhism, Queer Theory, Postmodernism, Kritiks of IR). I try not to let that influence my decisions but it probably will

- I Prefer "K Affs" that creatively reinterpret the resolution via predictable and robust counter-interpretation of words in the resolutions as opposed to ones that just impact turn limits

- I want to see more high-quality K v K debate: if that's something you're up for and if you have a good specific position against their Aff, go for it!

Philosophy

- Generally a fan as long as it's less tricksy and more substantive. Good brightline for determining if your NC is tricksy or not is if it's mostly cards from qualified experts in the context of the topic [not tricks] or if it's a single SEP article combined with 50 analytics [probably tricks]

- Especially receptive when the Aff barely/doesn't defend a coherent framework in the 1AC which happens a lot especially on the West Coast these days. If the Neg does judge instruction about why 1AR framework restarts are bad this could be a devastating strategy for me.

- It would be cool if you didn't butcher what philosophers actually said but I know that's a pipe dream

Theory

- I find that I let my thoughts on how debate should work influence these debates very heavily. Argue against these preferences at your own risk.

- T is always drop the debater, but never an RVI, theory is always drop the argument, and never an RVI. Exception is maybe condo but I will only vote on that if the Aff spends like 30 seconds developing it in the 1AR and the neg completely drops it.

- C/I vs Reasonability: I understand reasonability to mean that unless there is sufficient offense on the theory page I shouldn't abandon substance to vote on it. I have an intuitive level for this that is it probably impossible to make me entirely abandon in favor of competing interpretations. Spend more time winning the substance of the shell and contextualizing the abuse story and less time talking about this

- Arguments that are good: international actor fiat/private actor fiat (other than on topics where the agent is heavily ambiguous like the space one, then it's sort of middle ground), disclosure unless there has clearly been no good faith attempt to get it

- Arguments that are up for debate: textual and/or functional competition, good particular topicality arguments, judge kick

- Arguments I will virtually never vote for: "object fiat", solvency advocates, PICS bad, conditionality, ASPEC, OSPEC, RSPEC, RVIS, AFC or NFC, no neg fiat, new affs bad, any form of spec argument, must spec in speech

Miscellaneous

- Regarding re-highlighting - to point out flaws in evidence inserting is fine, to make an offensive argument read it.

- Regarding T-Genericity - not the largest fan on the planet but man the Aff is usually so bad at debating the pragmatics of this - I've given more ballots on "limits outweighs everything on the planet" to Genericity NRs than I would like to admit. If you're Aff and don't want to lose, have some offense for why reading small affs is good and respond to their usually dumb "limits explosion" kinds of arguments, please and thank you.

Ben Cortez Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon February 7, 2022 at 7:27 AM PDT

For Stanford '21: I don't think the resolution imposes a limit on the agent of the affirmative, but could be persuaded otherwise.

bencortez92@gmail.com

Full judging record available here (Speaks + RFD)

Bio: Coaching Mission San Jose. 4 years Varsity LD (Loyola '21). TOC (x2)

Top level: Tech > Truth. Strategic decision making > Pandering to me. Good tech will override any preference I have below. I'll only intervene if there are arguments of equal strength without weighing claims to resolve them. In these situations, I look to evidence first, then truth.

Misc: Sometimes emotive; always flowing (but not off the doc). Not a fan of one-line cheap shots. You have my consent to record, but ask others. I don't keep time. 100% fine with post-rounding (time permitting).

Banned arguments: Death good, oppression good, and out of round things (besides disclosure)

Argument history: Affs defended a plan and mostly big impacts. Negs were almost strictly policy: sometimes 6+ off, sometimes 6 minutes of impact turns, but usually something in between. K when policy ground was scarce. Sometimes read wacky things like Trump good, consult UN, and riders.

DA: Terminal impact calc >> strength of link barring instruction. Topic disads are good. Politics and riders are fine, but I understand intrinsicness (Read This). Uniqueness puts the straight turn in a much better place. Zero risk on ridiculousness like 2014 midterms. I like it better when turns case is earlier. New 2AR and 2NR weighing always.

CP: Fine for anything with a net benefit. Competition and solvency are neg burdens. Lean neg on most theory. Lean aff on most competition (Read This). Judge kick requires instruction.

Case: Case debate, impact turns, presumption, analytics, and/or re-highlighting are appreciated. Read re-highlight for offense. Insert for defense. No preference between soft left and big stick.

T: Slightly lean against bare plural arguments for clash/predictability reasons. One aff a topic is a terrible model. Model/vision of the topic is more persuasive than "9 factorial affs" in a vacuum. A staunch believer that the neg needs definitions otherwise we get infinite T debates.

Theory: Save for literal double turns or technical drops from 1AR shells, not good for the condo 2AR. Easier to convince me the abuse is unreasonable rather than to use competing interpretations.

K: Better for teams that utilize K tricks than those that wax poetically about society. Read cap, security, complexity, abolition, and anti/post-humanism during my career. Roughly familiar with other meta lit and their answers. Imo neg needs either solves/turns case, framework, unsustainability/inevitability, or a robust external extinction impact to win. I'll probably vote aff on case o/w otherwise.

K affs: Skeptical about framework's ability to cause either genocide or grassroots movements. Affirmatives need a counter interpretation/model of debate. Negatives need to answer case. Affs gets perms.

Phil: Will evaluate fairly, but more experienced with the util side. Epistemic modesty makes sense.

Other Things: Will only evaluate warrants highlighted. K Framework needs to be in the 1NC. Paragraph theory with education and fairness assumed is fine. Unqualified to judge (but will begrudgingly evaluate) tricks and frivolous theory.

Policy Things: Broke at CNDI (1N/2A) and watched quite a few rounds on YT and in-person. 1AR gets new cards to answer new block arguments.

Speaker points: Will not punish for humor, sarcasm, or minor cursing. Will disclose points if you ask. 28.8-7 breaking. Current [28.75] average.

Mariel Cruz Notre Dame San Jose 2 rounds

Last changed on Mon November 8, 2021 at 6:35 AM PDT

Mariel Cruz - Updated 10/2/2018

Schools I've coached/judged for: Santa Clara Univerisity, Cal Lutheran University, Gunn High School, Polytechnic School, Saratoga High School, and Notre Dame High School

I judge mostly Parliamentary debate, but occasionally PF and LD. I used to judge policy pretty regularly when I was a policy debater in college. I judge all events pretty similarly, but I do have a few specific notes about Parli debate listed below.

Background: I was a policy debater for Santa Clara University for 5 years. I also helped run/coach the SCU parliamentary team, so I know a lot about both styles of debate. I've been coaching and judging on the high school and college circuit since 2012, so I have seen a lot of rounds. I teach/coach pretty much every event, including LD and PF, but I have primarily coached parli the last few years.

Policy topic: I haven’t done much research on either the college or high school policy topic, so be sure to explain everything pretty clearly.

Speed: I’m good with speed, but be clear. I don't love speed, but I tolerate it. As I've started coaching events that don't utilize speed, I've come to appreciate rounds that are a bit slower. I used to judge and debate in fast rounds in policy, but fast rounds in other debate events are very different, so fast debaters should be careful, especially when running theory and reading plan/cp texts. If you’re running theory, try to slow down a bit so I can flow everything really well. Or give me a copy of your alt text/Cp text. Also, be sure to sign-post, especially if you're going fast, otherwise it gets too hard to flow. I actually think parli (and all events other than policy) is better when it's not super fast. Without the evidence and length of speeches of policy, speed is not always useful or productive for other debate formats. If I'm judging you, it's ok be fast, but I'd prefer if you took it down a notch, and just didn't go at your highest or fastest speed.

K: I like all types of arguments, disads, kritiks, theory, whatever you like. I like Ks but I’m not an avid reader of literature, so you’ll have to make clear explanations, especially when it comes to the alt. Even though the politics DA was my favorite, I did run quite a few Ks when I was a debater. However, I don't work with Ks as much as I used to (I coach many students who debate at local tournaments only where Ks are not as common), so I'm not super familiar with every K, but I've seen enough Ks that I have probably seen something similar to what you're running. Just make sure everything is explained well enough. If you run a K I haven't seen before, I'll compare it to something I have seen. I am not a huge fan of Ks like Nietzche, and I'm skeptical of alternatives that only reject the aff. I don't like voting for Ks that have shakey alt solvency or unclear frameworks or roles of the ballot.

Framework and Theory: I tend to think that the aff should defend a plan and the resolution and affirm something (since they are called the affirmative team), but if you think otherwise, be sure to explain why you it’s necessary not to. I’ll side with you if necessary. I usually side with reasonability for T, and condo good, but there are many exceptions to this (especially for parli - see below). I'll vote on theory and T if I have to. However, I'm very skeptical of theory arguments that seem frivolous and unhelpful (ie Funding spec, aspec, etc)

Parli specific: Since the structure for parli is a little different, I don't have as a high of a threshold for theory and T as I do when I judge policy or LD, which means I am more likely to vote on theory and T in parli rounds than in policy rounds. This doesn't mean I'll vote on it every time, but I think these types of arguments are a little more important in parli, especially for topics that are kinda vague and open to interpretation. I also think Condo is more abusive in parli than other events, so I'm more sympathetic to Condo bad args in parli than in other events I judge.

Policy/LD/PF prep:I don’t time exchanging evidence, but don’t abuse that time. Please be courteous and as timely as possible.

General debate stuff: I was a bigger fan of CPs and disads, but my debate partner loved theory and Ks, so I'm familiar with pretty much everything. I like looking at the big picture as much as the line by line. Frankly, I think the big picture is more important, so things like impact analysis and comparative analysis are important.

Henry Deeth Saratoga HS 2 rounds

David Dosch Immaculate Heart High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 3, 2021 at 9:11 AM PDT

I am the Director of Debate at Immaculate Heart High School and the Co-Director of The Debate Intensive. I am a conflict for any competitors on this list.

I decided to update my paradigm upon realizing that my old one referenced cards and strategies that have not been popular for at least five years.

General:

1. I will vote on nearly any argument that is well explained and compared to the arguments your opponent has made.

2. Accusing your opponent of an evidence ethics or clipping violation requires you to stake the debate on said allegation. If such an allegation is made, I will stop the debate, determine who I think is in the wrong, and vote against that person and give them the lowest speaker points allowed by the tournament.

3. I won’t vote on arguments that I don’t understand or that I don’t have flowed. I have been involved in circuit LD for almost ten years now and consider myself very good at flowing, so if I missed an argument it is likely because you were incomprehensible.

4. I am a strong proponent of disclosure, and I consider failing to disclose/incorrect disclosure a voting issue, though I am growing weary of nit-picky disclosure arguments that I don’t think are being read in good faith.

5. For online debate, please keep a local recording of your speech so that you can continue your speech and share it with your opponent and me in the event of a disconnect.

6. Weighing arguments are not new even if introduced in the final rebuttal speech. The Affirmative should not be expected to weigh their advantage against five DAs before the Negative has collapsed.

7. To quote a judge who shares my last name:

“There is no "flow clarification" time slot in a debate. If you want to ask your opponent what was read/not read, you must do it in CX or prep -- better yet, flow!”

Some thoughts of mine:

1. I dislike arguments about individual debaters' personal identities. Though I have voted for these arguments plenty of times, I think I would vote against them the majority of the time in an evenly matched debate.

2. I am increasingly disinterested in voting for topicality arguments about bare plurals or theory arguments suggesting that either debater should take a stance on some random thing. No topic is infinitely large and voting for these arguments discourages topic research. I do however enjoy substantive topicality debates about meaningful interpretive disagreements regarding terms of art used in the resolution.

3. “Jurisdiction” and “resolvability” standards for theory arguments make little sense to me. Unless you can point out a debate from 2013 that is still in progress because somebody read a case that lacked an explicit weighing mechanism, I will have a very low threshold for responses to these arguments.

4. I dislike critiques that rely exclusively on framework arguments to make the Aff irrelevant. The critique alternative is one of the debate arguments I'm most skeptical of. I think it is best understood as a “counter-idea” that avoids the problematic assumptions identified by the link arguments, but this also means that “alt solves” the case arguments are misguided because the alternative is not something that the Negative typically claims is fiated. If the Negative does claim that the alternative is fiated, then I think they should lose to a theory argument. With that said, I still vote on critiques plenty and will evaluate these debates as per your instructions.

5. Despite what you may have heard, I enjoy philosophy arguments quite a bit and have grown nostalgic for them as LD increasingly becomes indistinct from policy. What I dislike is when debaters try to fashion non-normative philosophy arguments about epistemology, metaphysics, or aesthetics into NCs that purport to justify a prescriptive standard. I find philosophy heavy strategies that concede the entirety of the opposing side’s contention or advantage to be unpersuasive. I promise you that Kant would think extinction is worse than telling a lie.

6. “Negate” is not a word that has been used in any resolution to date so frameworks that rely on a definition of this word will have close to no impact on my assessment of the debate.

Nick Fleming The Harker School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 23, 2022 at 3:00 AM PDT

Graduated from CK McClatchy High School in 2020. Currently debate for UC Berkeley. Conflicts: CK McClatchy, West Campus, Harker.

he/him

yes email chain please -- nick.fleming39@gmail.com

I flow straight down on my laptop.

These things suck. Everybody lies and says they are agnostic but in my experience nobody but maybe 10 people really mean it. I am not going to pretend like I don't have preferences and won't internally eye-roll and react negatively to certain arguments, but I will try my absolute hardest to stick to my flow (with the exception of the arguments clearly identified in this paradigm as non-starters).

That in mind, here is my general approach to judging and some preferences:

I was largely a k debater in high school but I am exclusively a policy debater in college. I feel comfortable judging both sides of the spectrum. Regardless of the issue at hand, evidence quality matters a lot to me, and I will read every card mentioned by name in the final rebuttals before making my decision.

I think I care more than other judges about judge instruction. Telling me how to read/understand cards, how to frame warrants, etc. will be taken very seriously when the debate comes to an end. Smart, strategic judge instruction and framing will quickly earn speaker points (addendum: this does not mean I want you to give a 5 minute overview to "frame out" their offense - under no circumstances should judge instruction come before line by line.)

Most of my paradigm is about k debate because I have far less feelings about policy rounds. That is not to say I am not a good judge for them. My favorite debates to judge are big, in-depth policy rounds that are vertically oriented and have lots of good evidence. That being said, I have far less instruction to offer you because those rounds are more straight-forward to evaluate. I will reward smart turns case arguments and clever analytics above a wall of cards in these debates.

Non-resolutional debate -

I generally think that debates are better, more interesting, and more educational when the aff defends a topical plan based on the resolution.

I have been in many of these debates, mostly on the aff and always impact turning some part of T. I think that raises my threshold for the aff a bit because I have first hand experience with how easy it can be to beat framework with args that suck. If you are going for an impact turn to T without a counter-interpretation, you should probably win offense against model v model debates. If you do have a counter-interpretation, tell me why your offense doesn't link to that model and it resolves some predictability/limits/whatever.

- I like impact turns a lot. I am a good judge for heg/cap good, and a bad judge for affs that don't want to defend anything. In my opinion, if you have taken a radically leftist position and forwarded a structural kritik but are unwilling to debate the most surface level right-wing propaganda, you are both bastardizing the literature and being cowards. As someone that genuinely subscribes to a lot of leftist political ideals, I find this sort of revolting. Inversely, if you are a k team that is ready to throw down on these questions, I will consider you strong-willed, brave, and smart.

- Skills/clash solve the case with a big external, a TVA, and a robust presumption push on case is the quickest way to my heart.

- Procedural fairness is not a silver bullet for aff offense. If this is your impact, a vague sentence about not weighing the aff is not sufficient for me to zero all of their stuff, especially if they have impact turns to your model. I have never heard the sentence "procedural fairness is the only impact your ballot can remedy," nor do I know what it means, please don't say it at me.

- Similarly, presumption pushes against affs that are just built to impact turn T are very persuasive.

- I don't like offense that hinges on the subject position of your opponent or me as a judge. I also very strongly prefer not to be in charge of your mental health, livelihood, or identity. EDIT 11/21: have received questions about this and would like to clarify -- args about value to life, ressentiment, etc. are totally fine. I don't want be in charge of you as an individual -- meaning your role in the community, your mental health, or your identity. I continue to feel quite strongly anything else is a fundamentally unethical approach to the activity (from the judge's perspective -- I get you all are just trying to win).

Kritiks -

Neg - I consider myself fairly sufficient in most kritik literature and have researched extensively, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't explain your theory. I don't think its fair of me to just fill in gaps for you (for example, deciding in my own head what it means if you "win the ontology debate.") The best way to win in front of me is to have a unique link that turns the case and beats the aff without framework.

Aff - Impact turn things. Weigh the aff against the alt for more than just fairness -- see my framework thoughts for the neg above. If you are going soft left against the k that is also fine, but sounding nice and in the direction of whatever your opponents say doesn't tell me why the alt doesn't solve the aff.

Theory -

Usually these debates are pretty bad to judge because people just spread through their blocks and don't do line by line. I tend to be lenient with all neg shenanigans. I will totally kick positions for you if you tell me to, but please remind me to do so -- I have no theoretical qualms with judge kick, but I sometimes forget to do it unless you tell me to in the 2NR.

I largely think if cps compete, they are legit. I can sometimes be convinced otherwise, but if your theory argument is just "this counterplan is bad," I am going to be convinced by neg arbitrariness arguments (with the exception of ConCon -- I think there is a case to be made that we should just arbitrarily exclude that counterplan because it is so clearly bad for debate.)

All of that being said, I also think most cheat-ey cps don't compete! So if you're aff, you're not tanked -- you are just better off going for the perm than, say, theory.

Please do not go for condo in front of me. I have no idea why the neg thinking they can kick a counterplan or an alternative is a voting issue. I have never participated in or seen a debate between competent opponents in which even the most egregious abuses of conditionality effected the decision. If the neg drops it twice, I guess you have to go for it. I can think of very few circumstances where it is a good idea otherwise. Slightly more sympathetic for LD because of 1AR time pressures, but still will lean heavily neg and will cap speaks at 29 for the aff.

Online Debate

If my camera is not on, please assume I am not ready for you to begin speaking.

I would very much appreciate if you could record your speeches in case there are internet issues while you are talking.

I am not comfortable evaluating arguments about debaters being in the same room together, "the COVID procedural," or anything else that has to do with out of round conduct. If you make the debate about this, I will be angry with you and likely vote you down.

If you are debating with your camera on, I would prefer if you didn't turn it off while you go to the bathroom/leave the room -- as if its not already easy enough to steal prep during online debate. Smh.

Even the clearest debaters tend to be tougher to flow in an online format. I understand that this comes with some strategic cost, but I will reward you with speaks if you go a little slower than usual and make sure to be extra clear.

LD:

EDIT 4/10/22: adding this after judging ~120 LD debates:

1. There seem to be issues with clarity plaguing this activity. I will be implementing the following measures to mitigate this: a.) I will never open your documents during the debate. I will read cards after if you tell me too. b.) I will say clear 5 times, after that, I'm not flowing c.) If, on the other hand, you are clear, I will give way too high of speaks. Some of the best teams in this activity sound great -- its clearly possible to win without being unflowable.

As my record indicates, I overwhelmingly vote neg in LD debates. Usually, this is because the 1AR runs out of time and drops something important, and I feel like my hands are tied on new 2AR args. That in mind -- 1ARs that set up big framing issues, start doing impact calc, and cut out superfluous arguments in favor of barebones substance will be rewarded with speaker points and usually the ballot. Aff teams, the entire activity seems to be stacked against you -- so debate accordingly, and don't waste time on useless stuff like condo.

Not a fan of T arguments written by debate coaches

I am gettable on Nebel/whole rez, but don't usually find it particularly persuasive. Seems counter-intuitive.

Please go easy on the theory -- I get that its a big part of the activity, but if your plan going into the debate is to go for a theory arg, you shouldn't pref me. I am usually going to vote neg.

I am not 100% familiar with all of the LD nomenclature so I may need a little explanation of things like "upward entailment test" and other LD-specific vocab

No RVI's ever under any circumstances

Misc.

- Consider me dead inside -- moralizing and tugging on my heart strings will only earn you negative speaks - debate is not about individual feelings, and I will not consider yours when deciding your round.

- I strongly believe that you should be allowed to insert rehighlightings of evidence that has already been read in the debate if you think it goes the other way/want to add context to an argument. Please do not abuse this by inserting a million rehighlightings, but I will be hard to convince that it is not okay to do so in moderation (especially in the 1AR.)

- There is nothing more off-putting to me than debaters who take themselves too seriously. Please stop acting like this is anything other than a silly game we all want to win at.

- In that same vein, being rude does not make you cool or interesting. Snarky CX comments, saying mean stuff in speeches, etc. will make me dislike you and actively hope that you lose the debate. If I think you are too rude, I will say something after the round and take pleasure in giving you bad speaks. If it gets to the point where I am saying something to you, you should assume I bombed your speaks. If you are a team that can't make your arguments without being mean to other debaters, strike me.

running list of arguments that are simply too bad to be evaluated:

new affs bad

no neg fiat

plan focus allows you to say the n word in debates

my opponent did something outside the round that they should lose for

RVI's

- Misc

Please do not ask me for high speaks -- you lose half a point every time you bring it up

I will only flow the person who's speech it is (edit: Feel less strongly about this during the 1AC/1NC)

email me if you have questions -- I kind of suck at responding to email sometimes but I will get around to answering your questions.

Patrick Fox Los Altos High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue July 5, 2022 at 10:55 AM EDT

Last Updated - Mich camp '22 (I have a new judging email!)

Tl;dr

Tech---X-------Truth

Voting for policy-----X-----Voting for the K (yes, seriously)

Researching/coaching policy-------X---Researching/coaching the K

Will read ev without being told---------X-Tell me what to read

Asking "did you read X card"----------XLearn to flow or run prep/CX

CondoX----------No condo

Yes RVIs----------XNo RVIs

Overviews--------X--LBL

Fairness is definitely an impact-----X-----Fairness is definitely not an impact

"Neg on presumption - the aff doesn't solve"X----------"Epistemological shifts prefigure a new ontology of blah blah blah"

"It's pre-fiat"----------XActual arguments

Debate good---X-------Debate bad (the activity)

Debate good-------X---Debate bad (the community)

Counterinterp + offense---X-------Impact turn everything

Yes ur Baudrillard/KantX----------Not ur Baudrillard/Kant

Feelings and jokes--X--------Debate robots

Mime-like expressiveness--X--------Statue-like deadpan

ClashX----------Cowardice

Speaker point fairy--------X--Speaker point goblin

LD should be like policy-------X---(Some) LD stuff is cool

"Judge/Mr. Fox"----------X"Patrick/Pat"

Capitalism----------X( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

long version

who the hell is patrick

Jack C Hays '19, UH Debate '24(?) - I debated with Gabby and was part of the first Houston team to qualify to the NDT in a while ('21 and '22). I was a quarterfinalist at the 2022 CEDA National Championship with Brett, my current 2A. I've gotten some gavels and elim appearances at both big and small college tournaments. I have always been a 2N, but I think about affs a lot and enjoy writing weird ones.

He/him/his

email chains: pleaselearntoflow@gmail.com

Please have the subject of email chains be "Tournament Round - Aff Entry vs Neg Entry" (e.g: "CEDA Quarters - Liberty CR vs Houston CF")

I have hearing damage in my left ear. Try and position yourself to my right.

Conflicts of Interest

Consultant for Westside High School's policy team from 2020-22. Beginning in Fall 2022, consultant for Dulles High School's policy team. Currently coach Westlake AK, Perry JA, Los Altos BF, Sidwell SW, and Northern Valley JS in LD. Graduated from Jack C Hays HS in 2019.

non-negotiables

Debate is a competitive activity centered around research and persuasion. My job is to adjudicate the competitive aspect of the activity and enable progression of students. Two teams are the only entities taking part in the debate. I will decide the debate based on arguments made within tournament set speech and prep times, and will submit a decision with one winner and loser or possibly a double-loss. If you try and tell me that anything outside of this is "binding" on my "jurisdiction" as a judge, you are incorrect and I will resent you telling me how to do my job.

Prior to all of this, as an educator (in both the subjective and legal sense), the safety of students is my utmost concern above the content of any debate. I have been told I get rather angry when these sort of issues arise - I absolutely do. This is the only way you, as a debater, can genuinely piss me off. Avoid it for both our sakes. Racism, sexism, etc. will not be tolerated under any circumstances, and will be penalized with speaker points, the ballot, and possibly a visit to tabroom and/or your coach. Which of these it is is entirely up to my discretion based on the severity of the offense, but I am likely to be much harsher than you are used to, as I find most judges are spineless in this area - I have quite literally stopped flowing and submitted my ballot in the middle of a 1AR before because I couldn't in good faith let the debate play out "impartially", and I will lose no sleep over doing the same to you if you make me.

You are high school students. I do not want to see or perceive anything NSFW. Keep it PG-13.

overall, do what you want if you're good at it, don't over-adapt. I enjoy T throwdowns, impact turns and a CP/DA, framework vs K aff, policy vs K and rev v rev rounds equally, but I probably have more practice judging the last three.

I'm very expressive. Read my non-verbals.

I worked with JD Sanford and Aimun Khan in high school, and work with Richard Garner, James Allan, Rob Glass, and Michael Wimsatt in college. I like debating in front of Scott Harris, Alex McVey, Devane Murphy, Reed van Schenck, Jesse Smith, Doug Husic, and Jason Regnier. This is a wide swath of people who think a lot of things. I may judge a lot like them, and may judge nothing like them at all.

This paradigm used to be even longer, with many more specific thoughts on specific args - you can find those longer and specific thoughts here (I don't update this very often at all because my opinions on these don't change much)

here's what I think is most important to know about me as a judge -

- I judge a good amount, my schedule allowing, usually 60-80 debates a season (rounds judged 2021-22 in policy: 27, LD: 46). This is because of three things:

1. I think judging is a skill, and one I think is valuable for the community to have a surplus of. Much like how you can't give a good 2NR if you haven't given a speech in three months, I probably can't judge a debate as well as I want to if I haven't done it since the previous semester. I think many judges are horrendous, and this is mostly because they have not thought about judging as something to be practiced and refined, and have never tried to improve. I try to think about this a lot.

2. I think judging is interesting, both because I coach and because I like debate. I like to stay aware of the current meta and know what the best teams are going for both to help my own debaters as well as because I think the part of debate that keeps me awake is the way the activity iterates and (mostly) improves over time, both in content and form.

3. Rent isn't free. Interpret all this as you will, but for me it means I think you can be confident I am reasonably abreast of the current community norms and have a decent amount of experience with the techne of judging, and that I am most enjoying this job when I get to judge debates at the bleeding edge of the meta.

- Some judges will often admit they are not the best flower here. I consider myself to be a VERY good flower. It deeply frames how I think about the debate, and I do not think there is any reasonable alternative to judge, so I take it seriously. This means my primary reference for the decision I make is what YOU tell me it is, not what your doc said or how good your cards are. If you want me to pay attention to those things, put it on my flow. This also means, regardless of content or style, I value debaters who are organized and easy to follow. The crux of my decision is entirely determined by who I think won - I don't think my ballot really signals anything other than that (barring cases where I intervene due to something beyond the content of the debate). What I should value in terms of how I think about who wins and why, however, is entirely up to debate.

- "Tech over truth," but I exceedingly find that in technically close debates, truth tiebreaks my decision - I'd rather hear one good argument than five terrible ones. I will happily say "didn't understand this, sucks to suck" in my RFD. I try to be reasonably diligent about setting my own biases aside when judging (as evidenced by my current six-round streak of voting for cap good). Relatedly, the burden of proof precedes the burden of rejoinder - if you have not warranted an argument to justify it's truth, I do not care if it is "dropped", as there was never a full argument to answer in the first place. Good debaters are not just technical, but comparative - pointing out an argument is terrible is good, pointing out how it is terrible and why yours is better in relation is great, and telling me how that implicates the core parts of the debate is fantastic.

- Many judges give atrocious RFDs. I have been called long-winded, but I think that being thorough and going through every moving part of the debate is better than a 2 sentence non-decision that just kinda hand-waves the details. I ask myself what I would be most frustrated or confused by losing about if I was the 2A/2N, and I make a point to think through that in my decision and answer that question in advance. I think that the best way to make my RFD sound like the one in your head is to give me that RFD in the last speech - I coach many of my debaters to start the 2N/AR off with "your RFD is...", and I think that judge instruction is an essential skill that is nonetheless deeply lacking from many of the debates I judge.

- I am deeply unsympathetic to strategies that actively attempt to avoid clash/engagement, and my threshold for answering patent nonsense is low. You know who you are and you know what this means if it applies to you. I find that debate is valuable because it encourages content mastery, and I am most impressed by debaters who can show me they've done their homework, so to speak. That means that I find arguments that attempt to circumvent this pretty clearly less valuable from a pedagogical standpoint, and as such I will be loathe to reward such strategies with the ballot - the stupider/more in bad faith your argument is, the harder I will look for an excuse to not vote for it, and therefore the lower my threshold for answering it will be.

Miscellaneous thoughts (updated regularly)

For the love of God, learn to flow. If you're spending 30 seconds asking "did u read X" after a speech, you're running either CX or prep for it. This has easily become my biggest pet peeve. If you do this after a speech, I will quite ask you if you're running a timer, and if you aren't, you better start.

Uncomfortable voting on "this person did a bad" unless I literally see it. Dislike evaluating the character of minors who I don't know outside of these very limited interactions. If something happened between the debaters that is morally reprehensible and genuinely serious enough to merit my concern as a judge and coach, it probably merits getting the bureaucracy involved. Do not consider this me saying I am unwilling to do that. If you have safety concerns about being around your opponent, please and absolutely discreetly tell me via email or Facebook Messenger and I will get you the hell out and in a room with someone who can better handle it.

Stolen from my boss - "Jargon can enable precision, but it usually functions to make bad debaters think they are making good arguments when they are barely saying anything."

Mr. Fox is my dad. If you call me "Mr. Fox", I will assume you would rather be judged by him and adjust my flowing and speaker points accordingly. Pat/Patrick is good, Fox is fine, "judge" is okay, any true honorific is a non-starter.

The 1AR is a constructive.

In the event of a forfeit/concession, I am going to tell tab as opposed to submitting a ballot. The reason for this is entirely because I think its arbitrary for me to assign speaks for a debate that didn't happen or finish, and the only fair/consistent standard is to let tab average out speaks for other debates.

Inserting re-highlightings of their cards = go for it. Inserting cards from different parts of their article = gotta read it.

Not flowing cards about debate written by active debaters. Sorry.

If I'm not flowing, you're either too unclear to flow or you're being so redundant I don't need to flow you. Interpret accordingly if you notice.

I love (love, love) straight up case debates, and I consider it a dying art. A 2NR that just impact turns or straight turns the aff will receive nothing less than unreasonably high speaker points. This applies to both K and policy rounds.

You get two free "clears" and then after that it's -0.1 speaks for every time I say it (I will not apply this if I think it's due to audio issues with your mic, only if you suck at speaking).

"Role of the Ballot/Judge" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pql0__Ii67A

A casual approach to the debate is welcome and appreciated. I am a rather silly and wacky fellow, and will probably make lots of jokes and small talk. Mess around a bit. Have some fun. Its the weekend.

I decide most debates very fast. Even in close rounds. Don't take it personally.

If I've judged you before, and you make it patently obvious you actually took any or all advice I gave you in my previous RFD, I will absolutely notice (and so will your speaks).

Condo is good. This is my strongest bias.

eDebate stuff

God, this kinda sucks. I will try to make sure that, barring connection issues, I have my camera on at all times during speeches and CX. I will turn my camera off after the 2AR while making my decision and turn it back on once I'm in. You don't have to have your camera on and don't have to ask me to turn it on/off. I'm okay with being recorded if (and only if) everyone else in the room is also okay with it.

Closing thoughts

Speaks start at 28.5 for a team I'd expect to go 3-3. I try and keep it relative to the pool - a 30 at TFA State is easier to get than a 30 at GBX (although I don't give out many 30s).

Debate should be a safe space for everyone. Respect pronouns, respect people's personhood, etc.

Yao-Yao: "I believe judging debates is a privilege, not a paycheck." You work hard to debate, and I promise I will work hard to judge you and give a decision that respects the worth of that.

Before the debate, all teams/debaters can give me recommendations for a song/s to listen to during prep time, which I will do, and if I vibe with it I may bump speaks for everyone in the room (+0.1). Surprise me. For reference, my favorite album is a tie between The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill and Appetite for Destruction, with The Shape of Jazz to Come close behind.

Finally, a wager - if the 2AR/2NR sits down early, +0.2 speaks for every 30s saved if you win, but -0.2 speaks for every 30s if you lose - this caps out at +/-0.6 speaks and/or a 29.8/27.8, whichever comes first. Tell me if you do this, because I'm not timing you. Your move.

Good luck, and see you in round!

- pat

Gerard Grigsby Marlborough School 3 rounds

Michael Harris Lynbrook HS 4 rounds

Dylan Jones Aragon High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed May 4, 2022 at 10:49 AM CDT

[[ ]] LAST UPDATED: post-toc 2022. mostly changes for clarity no real significant content changes.

[[ ]] i realized that there are a lot of words on this paradigm. you can email me with questions or use ctrl + f because i mention a lot of specifics and you can probably find what you're looking for somewhere here.

[[ ]] About Me:

- i've heard pretty commonly that people cant find this so im putting it closer to the top and bolding it so people that dont read my paradigm (which is annoying and you should finish reading it so the round can be more enjoyable for the both of us) can find it: yes i want to be on the chain, my email is dylanj724@yahoo.com

- 2 years of circuit debate at plano west, have been involved in debate in some capacity since 2015. graduated hs in 2021, now "debating" (we went to one regional last season lol) for UTD as a 2n. mostly read kritiks relating to poststructuralism and capitalism in high school, reading policymaking arguments more now.

- i judged a total of 125 debates in the 2022 season and all of them were LD but i really want to judge policy more and most of this paradigm is applicable there as well.

--- if you care: toc qualled 1x, bid 1x and at-larged. multiple bid rounds, rr invites, all of that stuff.

- big influences in debate are patrick fox and alexis antonakakis. read their paradigms, i agree with them both broadly. they coached me in high school. i think the paradigm i vibe the most with is zac's (who i dont know super well but we're twitter mutuals so we're basically besties).

- conflicts (22-23): westlake ak, los altos bf

- i really dont like being called judge. call me dylan. judge is better than being misgendered tho.

[[ ]] For E-Debate:

- dont record others unless they consent. preferably keep a local copy if you are comfortable, in case your speech cuts out.

- keep your camera on if you are comfortable. i understand there are a lot of reasons people wouldn't want to have it on, you wont be penalized if you dont. this is extra important for the toc - people are ending their careers and it's morbidly depressing to end it online and it's even worse when all the screens are blank.

- more pen time would be nice. i need you to add a little bit of space between cards either with a breath or a .5 second pause. my flow will get very messy otherwise, which isnt something you want.

[[ ]] For NON E-Debate:

- wear a mask when not speaking or its a 25. i will have a box to give you one if you dont have one. i will warn you once and politely ask you to put it on, after which i will give you the 25.

- you still should not be recording without both debaters consent. i will always be okay with you recording a debate that i'm involved in unless you're asked not to.

[[ ]] Top level:

- the tl;dr of the rest of this paradigm is that i want you to do you. i would much rather judge a good debate with arguments im unfamiliar with than a bad k v k debate. being blippy and trying to avoid clash is a good way to lose rounds in front of me. running away from debate, contestation, and clash makes me angry. nuanced and well-thought-out debate makes me happy and will be rewarded with higher speaks. i generally like debate in most forms, and will be happy to judge any debate you want to have.

- for quick prefs: best for k v k, clash, and policy v policy rounds (in that order). okay-ish for phil and theory. bad for tricks, meanness, and frivolous nonsense.

- zero tolerance for bigotry or violence. its an L0 as well as a conversation with your coach. if it affects you in round i err on the side of giving you the agency to decide what happens with the round unless its super egregious.

--- if something has happened to you outside of round that makes you uncomfortable debating it for whatever reason, email me and i will do my best to make sure you feel safe and comfortable. the only argument about out of round practices that i am comfortable voting on is that abusers should take Ls, and i will end the round early if it's made, HOWEVER i think that you should tell me about it beforehand so i can try to do something in tabroom as opposed to adjudicating the debate in this way because i think it's much easier to justify, more productive, and means that you dont have to interact with the person you're supposed to debate.

--- re: misgendering. 0 tolerance for it. if you misgender me i will be very mad at you and you will lose speaks. if its egregious i will hand you the L. if you misgender ur opponent and they mention it you will lose with 0 speaks. you probably wont do it again. email me or tell me verbally and preferably tell me what you want me to do if ur misgendered.

[[ ]] K:

- big fan of the k. i will vote on it. i know most about this kind of debate and its where i feel most comfortable. i like most forms of the kritik and do not understand why people draw a distinction between high theory and other literature since most if not all literature is interconnected and authors build upon each other frequently. i do think though that i have read the most post-structuralist literature compared to anything else because that's what im personally interested in the most.

- explain arguments. if i dont understand an argument, i cant really see myself voting for it. what i know about an author before the round should mostly be irrelevant because you should be doing the necessary legwork so that i know what im voting for. making actual arguments >>>> rambling about pre-fiat offense and saying nothing.

- specificity is good. this applies to links, contextualization, and explanation. pretty much every part of the debate should in some way be responsive and contextualized to the aff.

- non-black afropess/nihlism teams should strike me. i do not want to hear these arguments from non-black people. i will give you an L25 if the argument is made that you should not be reading this. i will give you no higher than a 27 independent of arguments being made.

- one thing that i will note is that i am deeply unsettled by the meta in K debate which seems to be recycling antiblackness arguments and changing them to fit other identity categories. "surrender to X" is what first comes to my mind here but there are tons of other examples. this makes me uncomfortable and unhappy. exploring ur identity in the debate space is a great thing, but i'll ask that you do it in a way that is unique to you and doesnt steal from antiblackness scholarship. it's parasitic and weird.

- re: performance: i really like performance and non-traditional weird strats in debate but i also often feel that performance is leveraged in a weird way by many teams. i think that, in order to access some sort of offense via performance, it needs to be a larger part of your speech than just a brief portion of speech time dedicated to a poem or something and then going back to spreading through cards in the way a traditional policy team would.

[[ ]] K (aff specific things):

- i like critical affirmatives and it's the type of aff i'm most familiar with. i will vote on them.

- these affs should do something and be able to articulate what they do. if 1ac cross ends and i do not know what your aff does, im gonna assume its nothing and have a low threshold for presumption.

- becoming increasingly convinced that these affs don't get perms in methods debates. defend something and this will change.

- you should read cards to respond to impact turns, doing otherwise is almost certainly a guaranteed L.

[[ ]] Policymaking:

- i like these debates. yes you should still explain your arguments, poorly explained scenarios are still hard for me to justify voting for and i feel like policy people have become convinced that their arguments are somehow less deserving of explanation as opposed to something like a kritik. this is, in my opinion, wrong and makes debates significantly worse.

--- the best debate i have judged so far this season was a policy throwdown. i enjoy these debate a lot.

- ghoulish impact turns teetering on violent will make me upset (high food prices good, disease/pandemics good, etc.) and your speaks are capped at a 26.

- i think that conditionality is good and i think that all forms of counterplans are probably good. i am hard-pressed to vote on condo or x type of cp bad. i have voted on both before, its not impossible to win in front of me, but it requires a near concession.

--- i do not think that condo has a limit but this can change based on the context. material in round abuse makes condo more compelling although i tend to think abuse is the result of a skill issue

- i've found that my decisions will often take 15+ minutes in these debates because i am reading evidence. this goes to show how much i think evidence quality matters and i truly think that the quality of your evidence will win/lose you debates in front of me.

- counterplans with manufactured exclusivity are bad [read] and i'll be much better for CPs that actually compete with the aff and are grounded in the topic lit as opposed to silly "kill the president" or "nuke russia if plan" counterplans.

- i've found that i really really like good case debate. like actually good case debating that is specific and nuanced. do with that what you will.

[[ ]] framework:

- yes i vote on framework. this means, i expect, i will sit in a lot of these debates which i'm fine with. on a capital T truth level i disagree with framework but i dont think this should discourage you from reading it because paradoxically i think my voting record is somewhere around 60-40 on the side of framework because K teams arent wonderful at responding. conversely i think framework teams lose often when they literally never talk about the aff which is super common in these debates and makes me really upset.

- for the negative: pick one argument and go for it instead of going for a smattering of impacts that never get robustly explained or contextualized to the aff. i tend to think the easiest way to get my ballot is to talk about the aff (fairness people take notes) and the people that lose it never do this.

- for the aff: i think that affs that discuss the topic are far better off in these debates than affs that never mention the topic. i think the reason k teams often lose these debates is because of lazy aff construction that avoids any sort of engagement with the substance of the topic. i do not care what you say about the topic but you should at least say something if you want my ballot. you should also probably tell me what the role of debate is in the world of the aff and what debates look like but i have voted on straight impact turns before and can see myself doing it again.

[[ ]] T:

- i am not a huge fan of T debates when they are vacuous (see: T whole res)

- having counter-definitions for words in the resolution and being able to compare different competing definitions is good. having a caselist is also pretty important - you should be able to articulate which arguments are/arent included in competing interpretations of the topic and why thats good/bad.

- any model of debate that only allows one or two affs to exist on a topic is a bad one. im most compelled by topic literature, and semantics is generally uncompelling to me. jurisdictional claims dont make any sense - i can do what i want with my ballot. i dont flow them.

--- (LD) re: nebel: i do not understand the upward entailment test and also greatly dislike cards written by debate coaches. if nebel is your a-strat you should strike me because i will almost always vote for the interpretation that allows for more than one aff to be read on a topic.

- will not vote on an rvi to topicality literally ever. dont bother.

[[ ]] Theory:

- once again vacuousness makes me frustrated. interpretations with no justifiable abuse story will make me frustrated which is definitely bad for you. if there is no provable in-round abuse my threshold will go way down.

- i often find that these debates get too technical and a lot of the abuse story ends up getting lost in the debate. i think having a top level explanation of the abuse story will help to clarify a lot of these issues that come up.

- i will evaluate every part of the debate. i do not flow evaluate after x speech for any layer of the debate. both sides get to make arguments in every speech.

- i flow rvis but i will not vote on an rvi unless it's straight conceded.

- re: disclosure. you should disclose. if i have to judge a disclosure debate i will be sad. new affs are definitely good. being from a small school is not a reason to not disclose on the wiki, but not knowing the wiki exists probably is.

--- interpretations like round reports, cites, etc. fall into the category of vacuousness and i am sympathetic to reasonability in these debates.

[[ ]] Phil (ld):

- i like phil (they're a nice person) when it does not include blippy arguments that are leveraged to avoid clash.

- im dumber than i thought. explain phil to me like im a 5 year old. im not hostile to phil i'm just stupid. when your arguments arent explained my decision gets worse and someone is unsatisfied.

- to restate the top of the paradigm: i like clash and i like robust and nuanced debate. thusly, i think these debates are better when there is good comparison between syllogisms and both sides give good explanations for what their framework entails and what is and isnt permissible under their framework. conversely, these debates are way worse when they spam independent justifications and extend concessions with 0 explanation as to what the argument means and why its capable to justify an entire moral theory on its own.

- theres a lot of arguments in these debates that i think do not make sense (emod, induction fails, tjfs, etc.) and the threshold to respond to these will almost always be low.

- extinction outweighs is compelling to me because i dont think there is a single framework that is read in debate that cares 0 about extinction. i think all of them say it's bad with different justifications.

[[ ]] Tricks:

- recycled arguments are bad. generic arguments that get read on every topic are bad. tricks, generally, involve both of these things with little to no innovation. consider this when preffing me.

- i do not have a hardline stance on these arguments, but i do think you should pref other people instead of me if this is your a-strat. for some reason people think tricky arguments are an acceptable response to affs about oppression. they arent. i will give you an L0 if you try to go for gsp, zenos, skep, or any of these arguments against affs that discuss oppression in a meaningful way.

- i figured out a while ago that indexicals means that i can decide under my index that you lost the debate and should get 25 speaks. i will consider this when evaluating your 2ar.

- no ethos no ballot. if i dont verbally laugh, i can and will vote you down just because you're boring to me.

[[ ]] Cheating (in the officially written rules sense):

- i used to have a bit here about evidence ethics being annoying but there was a round with actual tangible abuse where a violation occurred and someone was deterred from mentioning it when it mattered. i think evidence ethics are bad when there is no competitive advantage gained from the violation (ie a broken link to evidence that does actually exist) and you're staking the round on it because you want a free win/it's a round you think you wont win otherwise. i still prefer rehighlighting and debating the round out to staking rounds on ev ethics, but i am still happy to vote on a violation when its egregious and obvious that an advantage was gained from the violation.

- clipping loses you the debate with 0 speaks. no arguments have to be made for me to vote you down for it, if i catch you its sufficient.

[[ ]] Random Musings (these are still important imo):

- (ld) independent voters are usually not independent and i will usually just evaluate them as a turn to whatever they're read on. maybe if you spend 30 seconds-a minute on it in the speech it's introduced in and read a card i can be convinced, but otherwise dont bother.

- inserted rehighlightings are fine if its from a portion that was actually read. different parts of the same article (paragraphs later) should be read.

- speaks info is here: they are determined by strategy, clarity, ethos, and organization. i think speaks are stupid. i think preffing judges based on how they give speaks is even more stupid. and i think its even MORE stupid that minority debaters get less speaks on average. to compensate, gender minorities and debaters of color will have speaks adjusted upwards. this is a) to check any internal bias i may unknowingly have and b) because it would make me sad for you to get screwed by someone else in the pool. i try my hardest not to inflate speaks so if ur speaks from me are lower than from others its nothing personal.

--- i used to disclose speaks. i dont anymore unless theyre very good (think 29.5+ for both debaters)

--- (stolen from patrick) up to +.3 speaks if u show me music and i like it. this is 2 easy when i link my spotify, so for reference my favorite albums of all time r the lonesome crowded west by modest mouse and 1000 gecs by 100 gecs

--- bringing me a sugar-free monster = +.5 speaks.

--- sending docs on anything other than a word doc is -.1 speak

- i listen to cross. i dont flow it because im lazy but if you're blatantly lying ill probably pick up on it.

- i usually will read evidence for fun, but most of the time this wont really affect my decision unless someone calls for me to read it. if you’re blatantly lying, wrong about what your evidence says, or making grandiose claims your evidence never makes, the threshold for responses will go down. calling out bad evidence when you see it and asking me to read it is good, and will get you better speaks if its done meaningfully.

- i vote neg a lot because i often find that 2ar spin is too new to have possibly been predictable for a reasonable 2n. 2ars that explain and implicate out arguments that were already somewhat explained in the 1ar are the best imo..

- i will be annoyed if ur coach comes to post-round me based on your interpretation of what happened in the round. im all for post-rounding and i think it makes ppl better at judging, but if they dont know the content of the round, and only your interpretation of what happened, it will probably just get frustrating and wont be very productive. feel free to ask me whatever questions you have after the round though.

- i am annoyed by strategies that consist of 7+ offs since i find they are often poorly developed. i would prefer to hear a few nuanced and well developed positions as opposed to spammy arguments that arent developed and dont say anything. policymaking strats can maybe make it happen since disads and counterplans are usually pretty short, but other than that maybe dont try it.

- please learn to flow. there is no clarification time - if u want to ask what is and isnt read use cross for it but it gets annoying when i have to listen to 2 minutes of "was x read" and you will probably lose speaks.

Lisa Kahler Ayala High School 2 rounds

Ramana Kapavarapu BASIS Independent Silicon Valley Independent 2 rounds

Saianurag Karavadi Sequoia High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 9, 2022 at 2:22 PM EDT

(I go by Sai)

NYU 23

UPDATE FOR PF (NDCA 2022):

I know a small amount about the topic due to similar topics in the past in other events, but I can keep up so don't worry and feel free to read whatever you want. I am open to all styles of debate, but I think strong internal link work, comparative weighing, and strategic collapsing are the best routes to my ballot. You can get high speaks through clear enunciation (speed is welcome + spreading is fine, but not at the expense of clarity), strategic choices, and anything unique -- humor, smart research, innovative arguments or questions, etc. (just don't be problematic or rude). Creativity is welcome and encouraged, but I've also always admired the ability of debaters/teams to add nuance to stock arguments and/or just defend them really well -- don't avoid prepouts or arguments, just devise an effective way to confront them and generate clash that benefits you.

UPDATE:

I will try to be more generous with speaks, but ways to get higher speaks include --

1. Having the fileshare/email chain ready before the start time

2. Organizing your speeches clearly

3. Impressive technical coverage and/or impressive explanation and understanding of the literature

4. Anything that really moves me or impresses me independently

5. If you end the round as fast as possible against traditional debate

Look below for more specific info and clarification on any of that

TLDR;

Use fileshare when possible, or put me on the email chain — skaravadi.2001@gmail.com — set this up before round pls, and I will boost speaks for both debaters.

I don't know how much this matters, but I've done debate for 6 years now, had 9 career TOC bids in LD in high school, championed a college policy tournament, and coached multiple LD debaters who earned bids. I've also judged quite a bit of (mostly) LD and policy rounds at bid tournament across the country.

Don't read tricks or friv theory -- read them at your own risk (putting these here even though it's below because I'm still judging things like TJF's, AFC, brackets theory, and burden aff's -- you will not get my ballot with these strats and your speaks will not be great if they are read)

You do you and I'll do my best — I don't care what you read as long as you win it and you're not actively violent. I'll aim to be as tab as I can -- I appreciate judge instruction, clarity > speed, and clear framing -- but regardless, tech > truth and I will vote for whoever has the cleanest route to the ballot/whoever I have to do less work for.

Please give me trigger/content warnings

I like policy/plan debate, K's, topicality, and clash of civs. I have a pretty good amount of experience with every style and form of debate in LD and policy, so feel free to read whatever you're most comfortable with.

I do not like lay debate. If you're the more experienced debater in the round against a lay or inexperienced debater, do as you will -- I will not lower speaks, but I will give higher speaks if you win the round clean and fast.

Go to the bottom for stuff about speaks and some random shtuff I care about (also influences speaks tho)

Pref Shortcuts:

K, Performance, Planless, etc.: 1

Normative Phil/Framework: 2-3

Plans, CP's, DA's, etc.: 1-2

Topicality, Kritikal Theory, etc.: 1

Tricks, Friv Theory, etc.: Strike

General:

My approach to rounds has always been who do I need to do the least work for. That means you’re always better off with more judge instruction, clear weighing, impact comparison, and strong line by line as well as overview analysis. That’s obviously a lot and LD rounds are short af, so prioritize issues and collapse in later speeches. I am more than willing to vote on impact turns, independent voting issues, etc. — just make them clear, warrant them, and don’t leave me with a ton of questions at the end of the round. I default comparative worlds, but tech > truth. I think I probably have a relatively high threshold for warrants, which means quality > quantity. I don’t see myself really reading through evidence or revisiting your docs to find args — it’s your job to do that work for me.

Don't read tricks/friv theory and treat me like a techy policy judge. I am tired and I'm really only tryna listen to policy args, kritikal args, and/or topicality args. This does not apply to kritikal theory arguments, or kritikal "topicality"/framework shells (I'm only trying to differentiate between substantive and theoretical frameworks by using "topicality" sry) -- I am very open to hearing those, but this does apply to everything from indexicals to shoes theory. I can still evaluate everything, but you will not be happy with your speaks and neither will I.

I love impacting, weighing, and warranting -- don't just say "neolib" or yell "ontology" and move on because you think I will vote for you since I was a k debater -- do the work for me because I'm way more down to drop you than tell the other debater how much I intervened to fill in gaps and vote for you

Specific Stuff:

For Policy/CX Debate:

There's not a lot I think I really need to say -- I'm a college policy debater at NYU and I went to RKS 2018 -- I judged a couple tournaments through early elims last year, coached some policy debaters before, and I'm pretty familiar with criminal justice lit from both the policy and k perspective -- I also read a ton of performative args from cardless aff's about throwing a party to queer bombs, tons of K's (queer theory, gender studies, critical race theory, indigenous studies, disability studies, and pomo), but also read a ton of straight up strats from a Bahrain aff to a Xi DA -- I have been on both sides of most issues, but I don't really care about my opinions (except when it comes to accessibility and safety in rounds) -- so you do you and just make sure you know everything is debatable (within reason of course)

My approach to rounds is typically to vote for the team that I need to do less work for to determine a ballot -- I have a somewhat high threshhold for warrants regardless of what you read -- meaning, you need to make sure you warrant everything because I will feel uncomfortable voting for something I cannot adequately explain without intervening to do work for you

I think framing is important -- doesn't mean you have to win util or a ROTB, but just do weighing, impact comparison, and draw me a ballot story by telling me what matters most in the round

Everything else is pretty straight forward -- tech > truth, judge instruction, and you do you

Feel free to hit me up and ask me any questions if you have em on either FB or my email

Policy/LARP:

I don’t think there’s much of an issue here since this is my initial foundation, I defended plan aff's and DA's throughout my career, I was a west coast debater, I read policy strategies in college with my partner, coached a couple policy and LD kids who read topical plan aff's, and I love policy debate. Debate as you do and I doubt there’s gonna be a problem for me. I'm a sucker for weighing and warrant comparison.

Don't be afraid to defend a policy aff against k's or phil -- I don't mind voting aff on Zanotti 14, but I'd rather you have a coherent justification for the aff being a good idea and a developed link turn strategy. Compare between the aff and the alt. Do framework comparisons if there's an NC and don't pretend Bostrom is enough. Also, adding in an impact that applies to marginalized populations could really help in debates where you want to go for a DA against a K aff, which shouldn't be hard to find since shtuff like climate change, war, and poverty affect those groups the most and also first.

DA's and CP's are fine and I have no problem here. I really like specific links and very specific politics scenarios, from like specific bills in Congress to international relations (I love IR). I think 2 condo CP's might be starting to push it, but that just means you should be ready to defend that you get them because I don't care as long as you answer any potential theory args.

Phil:

I’m mostly familiar with Kantian Ethics, and a little with Virtue Ethics, Pragmatism, Particularism, Agonism, and Social Contract Theories. I've read and/or defended all of these, but am still not the most well read or experienced with them since I didn't have to deal with them as much in my career -- I haven't had trouble judging them and actually enjoying hearing them, so just do your best and you should be fine.

I find Phil vs. K interactions really interesting, but both sides could benefit from specific warranting when it comes to this rather than just winning your own framework or theory of power, but I am just as willing to vote on Kant as I am to vote on a k.

I am not very persuaded by author indicts of philosophers, but can be convinced if it is argued well -- BUT I have a higher threshhold for this than a turn to the framework itself. For example, I won't vote on Kant is racist, unless someone proves that his theory is and does the work of proving the aff is as well, OR is able to prove to me why I should not evaluate any of the work that someone who is a racist philosopher/writer has done -- which is a very valid argument to make, but you can't just end it at Kant is racist -- explain to me why that's a voting issue/reason to drop the debater/argument. And if you're defending a framework against these objections, stand your ground and defend your aff without being repugnant -- impact turning racism is not ok.

HOWEVER, this is a different story if they actually read cards/cite the author you are calling out -- i.e., if someone read a Kant card and you read Kant is racist, I don't see a way for the affirmative to win a no link argument or prove why their reading of Kant is uniquely necessary -- at which point, the Kant is racist voter issue becomes very very persuasive to me.

I default epistemic confidence, but am open to hearing epistemic modesty and/or other framing mechanisms for evaluating competing ethical theories -- but that's up to you to justify and win.

Tricks:

Yes I can evaluate these debates proficiently, but I implore you to avoid it in front of me -- I will not drop you for reading it or ignore the flow, so you may still win these rounds a lot in front of me, but I will not be very happy and neither will you with your speaks -- that being said, give me judge instruction, collapse, and do weighing if you want my ballot

This does not apply to what people like to call "k tricks" or substantively justified preclusionary/sequencing arguments like action theory on Kant or a bindingness claim on a framework, but definitely applies to things like permissibility and paradoxes -- if you don't know the difference, you can always reach out to me before or it's up to you to take the gamble -- not gonna lie, these are not substantive strategies and they do not require topic-specific prep in 95% of situations, so I will not empathize with the choice to pursue this style of debate because I find that even the debaters who read them seem to lack the philosophical background to understand these, let alone the other high schoolers running around reading induction fails without knowing who Hume is

Theory:

Go for it. I read everything from solvency advocate theory to disclosure to body politics, so I as long as it’s not actively violent (look at the bottom of my paradigm for more on that) and you're not being too frivolous -- it's fine with me -- the more frivolous it gets, the lower my threshhold for responses gets ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

My defaults: competing interps, drop the debater, no RVI’s — this is just how I will evaluate the theory debate if you don't give me paradigm issues, but please do and I'm more than willing to vote on reasonability or grant an RVI if it's won

Impact turns are not RVI's and I still haven't heard a single persuasive or compelling reason I shouldn't vote on an impact turn -- feel free to read your no impact turns dump, but I recommend just cleaning up the flow by answering them instead -- a lot of impact turns to both T and theory are just cross-apps of case or huge conflations of arguments -- point that out, make it a link, put offense on that too -- however you deal with it, deal with it

Topicality:

I read topicality against most k aff’s that I hit my senior year, both just defend the topic and framework itself, and I read spec bad against like every larp aff my last topic too. However, I have no biases here and can be persuaded to vote either way.

I have no issues with you going for 1-off T-FW against K aff’s and I’m more than willing to vote on it, but I do think there are ways to win my ballot easier. Having a clear TVA is always persuasive, but what I mean by this is not just like a literal plan text that mentions the identity group the aff talks about — take it further and explicitly explain to me why that TVA is a much better model for debate than the version of the aff that was the 1AC.

I think having either offense on the case page or doing clear interactions between the aff offense and the T flow is persuasive and useful when I write my ballot. I’d prefer you tell me a story in the 2NR and really sell your model of debate to me. In other words, it is not sufficient to win that debate is solely a competitive game for me, I want you to really explain the implications of that to me because that’s a pretty bold claim considering all that this activity has been for a ton of people.

When debating T — have a clear counter-interp and defend your model of debate. I am more than willing to vote on an impact turn and am down for all the drama of various T strategies. Regardless, have a strong and robust defense of whatever model you choose to defend. I have been on both sides of this issue and I love debating from both sides of the issue (to some extent -- some language y'all be using in both your topicality extensions and your topicality answers are very iffy), and I find these to be some of the best and worst rounds. However, I am here for it.

Quick side note on Nebel -- I have not read much into Nebel, but it's not very persuasive to me that I should determine the topic by conventional grammar rules in a language that has been so deeply tied to colonialism -- I don't think this means I will auto-vote on grammar/textuality is racist, but I can be very strongly persuaded to and I think negatives need to have a robust defense prepared against this -- as in, take it serious and engage the argument by explaining to me why Nebel is not racist/answering the aff arguments, but don't assume I will vote on fairness outweighs or semantics first in a scenario where you are losing on that argument. That being said, a simple spec bad shell with a limits standard gets the job done and is a very great strat in front of me.

Kritik’s:

Yes. This is what I’m most comfortable evaluating. I’m most comfortable with identity politics, especially Critical Race Theory, Postcolonial Studies, Queer Theory, Queer of Color Studies, Asian Studies, and Performance Studies. If there’s a high theory k or some other area of literature that you enjoy reading or want to try out — go for it. However, I will hold you to really knowing your lit.

Also, please be aware of your own privilege -- have a strong and robust defense of why you should be able to read the k, what your relationship is to the literature, and how I should evaluate the round given all that.

Leverage the K against other flows and put offense on different layers — if you’re winning a case turn, implicate it both through the thesis of the K and independently.

Engage the thesis claims and answer the links in the 1AR.

Perms should probably have a text, but I'm open to the 2AR having leeway to explain them. But if you just yell "perm -- do the aff and graffiti the alt" -- I'm not gonna be very inclined to vote aff if I have no explanation of why that does anything. Have a relatively clear warrant and explanation of the perm that you can develop in the 2AR if you collapse to it.

Kicking the alt is fine — win the links and warrant presumption. I’m also fine with all your k tricks, but I’m not gonna stake the round on the 2AR dropping that fiat is illusory absent some clear warranting and judge instruction with it, as well as some comparison between your claim and a 1AR/2AR arg about the value of simulating policymaking or whatnot.

Kritikal/performative/planless aff’s:

Yes. These are my favorite aff’s and I find them super interesting. I read them almost every round for 5 years now, I coached them for 2 years now, and I've debated/judged them for that whole time as well -- I got you LOL. I don’t care if you defend the topic or not, but be prepared to defend your aff and all the choices you made in it.

Presumption is fine, but I’m probably not gonna be persuaded by the classic arg that the aff does not affect how I view the world, feel, etc. This is not to say that I will not vote on a ballot presumption argument if it is argued well and won, but don't expect me to bank the round on a 5 second shadow extension that lacks clear warrants or weighing. I did read and go for presumption against a lot of these aff’s, but I prefer these to be reasons for why the performance of the aff is inconsistent with the method or other parts of the 1AC somehow, lack of solvency, vagueness, etc., and make sure the turns are impacted out effectively and weighed against affirmative's.

Be creative. Have fun. Express yourself. The best kritikal and performative aff’s that I have seen are a result of how they are presented, written, and defended — I think these can be some of the best or some of the worst rounds, but the only thing I’ll hold you to is defending something clear, whether a method, advocacy statement, praxis, or whatnot. Just be clear and tell me how to evaluate the round, considering most of these aff’s ask for a shift in how to evaluate and view debate itself.

Do NOT read these in front of me just because it’s what I did. I will definitely hold you to a higher threshold. Also, feel free to ask me any questions — I’d be more than happy to help you figure out some aspects of how you wanna explore reading this and I know I definitely benefitted from judges who did that for me, so I got u. With that being said, here's some cool things I'd love to see.

Something I loved doing was impact turning presumption args though — 1AR’s and 2AR’s that can effectively do this and collapse to it are dope and I’m here for it.

I think CX is a place to perform too -- I love performances that somehow extend beyond just the 1AC because they bring so much more of the drama of debate into question. However, I have also seen many people do this in ways that aren't very tasteful and end up either confusing me or triggering me. On the other hand, I've also found that these can be some of the most brutal CX strategies when employed well.

Regardless, don't feel shy about testing the waters in front of me, within reason. However, fire hazards are real, flashing lights are a no-no, and I would like to be warned, if possible. In other words -- sure, go off, but don't get me (or yourself) in trouble or do anything hazardous/risky. Also, I don't think it's ok for you to infringe on someone else's literal ability to debate, in terms of doing anything to their flows or picking up their computer for whatever reason -- please don't, I won't be happy and your coaches/school won't be happy.

Speaks:

I loved getting speaker awards, so just do you and I got you, but here's some incentives + random things LOL

+ speaks for everyone if you have the email chain set up before I walk into the room
Clarity and enunciation > speed please
Passion and ethos are dope — I don’t care what form this is in, but really sell whatever you read to me
I will try to average a 28.5, but to be continued

Some qualms of mine (these will affect speaks):

Non-black folx who read anti-blackness against black folx will lose in front of me
Please please slow down on tags and give me something to differentiate between args (i.e., “and”)
I will not vote on anything that polices what clothing other debaters are wearing — this is not negotiable sorry and yes, that means I will not vote on shoes theory or formal clothing theory — you can @ me if you want
If you are reading a card with more than one color highlighted in it, please remove the highlights -- it really messes with me and I personally have issues processing that, which that will make the round a lot more difficult for me to adjudicate
Evidence ethics is actually quite important to me -- just cite stuff and use EasyBib if you are unsure how -- that means I have very low tolerance for lack of citations (the minimum is the author name, name of the book/article, and the date it was published), clipping, and more
Pronouns are important — egregious misgendering is not cool w me, but try your best and I understand — I recommend defaulting to “they”
Trigger and content warnings are important to me as an educator in the activity, but also as a participant in the round — if you’re going to be talking about sensitive topics, please give me (and everyone in the room) a heads up

Lukas Krause Archbishop Mitty 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu June 9, 2022 at 9:08 AM PDT

Important Note: I've noticed the lack of high quality LD rounds uploaded to youtube since the start of the pandemic. I'm going to begin recording and uploading rounds to youtube. I'll ask before the round if I choose to record it, & feel free to say no if you don't want to be recorded and I will not record it.

What's up. I'm Lukas/Luka (either is fine, they/them). Yes, I do want to be on the email chain. Lukrau2002@gmail.com, but I prefer using the fileshare option on NSDA campus

2022 update: making this shorter. I will listen to any argument, (yes, including tricks, yes including nebel T, yes including K affs of any type, listing these as they are supposedly the most "controversial") in any event, against any opponent, with the exception of the obviously morally objectionable arguments (use common sense...). My only dogma is that dogma is bad. If you are confident in your ability to beat your opponents on the flow, pref me high. If you have certain arguments you dogmatically hate and are terrible at debating against, it is probably in your best interests to pref me low, because I will almost certainly be willing to evaluate those arguments no matter how silly you find them.

I believe that paradigms should exclusively be used to list experience with arguments, and that judges should not have "preferences" in the sense of arguments they dont want to evaluate. We're very likely being paid to be here to adjudicate the debates the debaters want to have, so the fact that some judges see fit to refuse to evaluate the fruit of some debaters' labor because they personally didn't like the args when they debated is extremely frustrating and frankly disrespectful to the time and effort of the debaters in my opinion. So below is my experience and a quick pref guide, based not on preference, but on my background knowledge of the arguments.

Experience: HSLD debate, Archbishop Mitty, 2018-2021; TOC qual 2020, 3 career bids. VBI camp instructor - Summer of 2021, Summer of 2022. Private coaching - Fall 2021-present (if interested, email me at lukrau2002@gmail.com)

Pref guide - based on experience as a debater and judge, not personal arg preference

1 - Weird/cheaty counterplans

1 - Policy Args

1 - Phil

2 - Ks (queer theory, cap)

2 - Tricks

2 - Theory

2 - Ks (other Ks, not high theory)

3 - Ks (high theory)

Again, I cannot stress enough that this is solely based on my knowledge of the lit bases, not my love for the arguments. I read and enjoyed judging many a deleuze aff as a debater and more recently judge. The amount of reading I did to read those affs was very minimal and I mostly just stole cards, so would I say I actually know the args very well? Probably not. Would I enjoy evaluating them? Absolutely.

Gordon Krauss San Mateo High 3 rounds

Last changed on Sun May 22, 2022 at 1:45 PM PDT

gordondkrauss@gmail.com

UCLA '25, Claremont '21

Head LD coach at Peninsula

Updated May 2022.

Debate is a competitive research game. It would be a waste of your time to go for a "trick" or an unwarranted theory argument. I am a much better judge for you if you read policy arguments or critiques than if you read theory, tricks or philosophy arguments.

I think that the link matters more than the uniqueness and zero risk does not exist. Re-highlighting's may be inserted. Politics is fine, process counterplans are less fine but may win debates given that teams are going for theory instead of competition. Aff teams should say that counterplans must be both textually and functionally competitive.

Conditionality is good and judge kick is default. I am not persuaded by interpretations that draw the line at [x] number of conditional advocacies. Dispo = not winning debates.

International/Multi-Actor fiat is probably illegitimate. Neg on most other theory but reversed by good debating and complete arguments. I care a lot about reasonability and arbitrariness, and I think these are good arguments. Drop the argument usually makes more sense than drop the debater.

In planless debates, the Neg should go for fairness. If you're Neg you should just go for framework, but if you go for a K win a link and don't rely on silly things like "no perms". If you're Aff, either defend an interpretation that solves limits and avoids your offense or just impact turn. Generally, I'd prefer that Aff teams read a plan.

The Neg team going for the K should win that the critique turns the case with some external impact that the alternative is able to resolve. Ideally, the Aff gets the case and the Neg gets links to the reps/research construction/whatever, but I could be persuaded that links need to be to the consequences of the plan. If the 2NR doesn't talk about the case, it is unlikely that I will vote Neg.

In philosophy debates, I will default to epistemic modesty. Winning truth testing will be near impossible.

You can't say death is good.

Rafael Li Brookfield East 2 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 20, 2022 at 5:38 AM EDT

Last Updated: 11/14/21

***TLDR***

Performance = K = Phil = Trad > LARP > Theory > Tricks = Friv Theory

I am hybrid, trad/prog.

I can't flow top circuit speed. I only flow what I hear. If you are reading that fast please slow down.

I am most familiar with performance/K and traditional (mostly queer theory for Ks). Anything else is fine as long as it is well explained. Prioritize framing issues and good coverage. Slow down 25% for prewritten analytics and theory. Warranted/explained args > blippy dumps. Surprise me! Novel strats are great if explained and weighed well.

I expect good evidence ethics and courtesy.

***NOTES ON CIRCUIT DEBATE***

I am able to and enjoy judging circuit debate.

However, I may not be the most up to date on circuit practice or norms.

I frequently judge for local lay tournaments.

For safety slow down about 20-30%.

***OTHER COMMENTS***

I am still learning right alongside y'all. Do not be afraid to ask questions!

Stay limber! Always remember to stretch - yoga's really good . Drink some water, take some deep breaths, and remember that while this is a competitive activity that is very stressful, it is something we do because we enjoy doing it.

And maybe it's not enjoyable for you, that's okay! I hope you can learn to love this activity.

Pronouns: they/them/no pronouns

Brookfield East '19, UMBC '23

01rafe0li@gmail.com

Conflicts: Brookfield East

***ABOUT ME***

I debated for Brookfield East (Brookfield, Wisconsin) in LD for 4 years, competing in traditional locals and at a couple of midwest national circuit tourneys annually (Blake, Glenbrooks). I went to VBI Swarthmore in 2016, and I did well at NCFLs and State my junior year.

In WI I usually ran traditional phil heavy cases, and on the circuit I read a lot of Queer Rage and Pess. I went for EcoPess a lot my junior year.

***GENERAL GUIDELINES***

Respect first, we should be inclusive in this activity. Violations affect speaks

a. No racism, sexism, , ableism, queerphobia, etc.

b. Don't be rude, obnoxious, and/or ad hominem.

c. Use everyone's preferred pronouns. It's not hard.

d. If reading something potentially triggering, please communicate that before the round to me and your opponent.

- Tell me what to believe, don't assume I know anything. If I am defaulting that's bad

- Don't power tag, I listen and look for actual warrants in cards, especially for high magnitude claims

- Citations are a minimum, author quals are good. Bad/nonexistent warrants granted less offense and lower threshold against defense

- I enjoy post rounding and giving advice if you remain respectful. Feel free to ask or email with any questions/concerns

- Speaks are inflated. You start at 27.5 and change from there. Points are given based on strategic choices, including coverage, prioritization, and clarity. Novelty in argumentation might bump you. For most of my career I was at about a 27.7-28.5.

30s are rare. Try for 28.5 or more.

<27 Offensive/bad evidence ethics

27-27.5 Okay. Strat/prep and execution/decisions need significant change and work. Possibly wrong strat chosen, subpar prep, or unfamiliarity with own strat/prep.

27.5-28 Average. Strat/prep and execution/decisions need improvement. Possibly should change direction in strat or decisions.

28-28.5 Good. Good strat/prep, execution/decisions are average and need better prioritization or efficiency.

28.5-29 Great. Great strat/prep, execution/decisions are good but could use some specific work.

29-29.5 Excellent. Top quality strat/prep, just have to fine tune execution/decisions.

29.5-30 Perfect. Tiny adjustments needed, if at all. Differences in strat/decision may be simply differences in preference or opinion.

***ROUND PREFERENCES***

Performance = K > Phil = Trad > LARP > Theory > Tricks = Friv Theory

- Run what you are comfortable with. These are only personal preferences - the round alone influences my decision.

General

- Debate and contest framework, and always weigh/contextualize offense with framing

- Extend explicitly, I don't assume anything about your advocacy. I prefer "Extend Li [explanation]"

- Structure well

- High-quality warrants are more convincing than anecdotes/blippy analytics

- Overviews great for establishing framing and sequencing issues

Speed

- Spreading is fine

- Spreading as a cheap shot isn't. Be inclusive otherwise speaks will suffer

- Clarity > Speed, I still listen to you. I do not write what I cannot understand.

- Slow down at least 20%, especially for analytics and tags

- Slow down for theory, includes shells, standards, underview. I have trouble flowing extremely fast theory analytics.

- Be assertive, do not be overbearing

- Not prep time, don't use it as prep. If you want to use it as prep just ask questions while you write

- Flex prep fine

Flashing

- Flash everything not extemporaneous

- Flash shells. Minimum Interp, preferably whole shell

- If your opponent asks you to flash something and you do not, I feel no qualms disregarding the warrant entirely. There is no reason why you should not be able to produce evidence you are asked for

Disclosure

- Disclosure seems good for clash/edu

- Don't run a bad disclosure shell, I already do not like the arg that much

- Small schools args are convincing, I used to be in one

Tech > Truth

- No go for anything racist, queerphobic, ableist, etc.

1. Threshold extremely low for voting against args with bad implications

2. Despise friv theory, don't read

- On points 1. and 2., I still expect sufficient offense/defense in response, threshold low for granting defense

Other Tech

- Justify uplayering, not automatic. Includes any type of preclusion or prior question args, willing to drop you a layer b/c of bad explanations

- 3+ condo seems illegit and shifty, threshold probably low for condo shells

- Explicit extensions, I don't assume anything about your advocacy

- I don't assume status of offs, uncondo still needs to be extended

- Would prefer explicit kicks

- Judgekick is new to me, justify why I should

- Won't vote on "Eval/Vote after x speech." Why have the rest of the round then?

- Explain perms. The more depth you give the arg the more convincing it is

- Severance perms seem bad

- Familiar with queer theory (Stanley, Edelman, Butler), generic Ks, IdPol Ks, and some critical race theory. Less familiar with Pomo and some high theory

- Be genuine, especially if running performance

- Prioritize top-level framing and sequencing: ROB and/or ROJ debate

- Develop your thesis and link story

- Know what you are running

- Err on the side of overexplaining

- Analysis/K bombs > blippy generalizations

- Independent Voters need to be implicated and contextualized. Explain how and why it is both independent and a voting issue

- UQ clash more interesting than repeating the link story

- K vs. K only interesting through clash/method comparison

Topicality

- K > T/Theory convincing if justified well

- Clear sequencing and defense will save you

LARP

Plan

- Text is explicit and specific

- Solvency advocate, otherwise I am skeptical

- Explicitly extend advantages and solvency

- No "ought", it doesn't make sense. Existence of obligation does not mean action will happen

- Full res is not a Plan. Should be a distinct implementation

- Same as first three points on Plans, although requirement for solvency advocate depends on nature of CP

- Prove competitiveness

- Lazy PICs are boring. Just don't read them

- Do not power tag, threshold low to be skeptical/disregard bad warrants

- Functional warrants throughout link chain

- Weigh

Theory

- CI, DTA, No RVI

- Dislike friv shells, threshold low for granting more defense

- Will vote for shell if you win it, even if I hate it

- Slow down for analytics

- Reasonability vague and confusing, seems like intervention

- Independent Voters: same as found in K section

- Won't vote on it if not given clear voters

Tricks

- Zero experience with this stuff

- Won't vote off of hidden text

- Implicate and justify well

Emmiee Malyugina The Harker School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun April 24, 2022 at 11:08 AM EDT

FAQ For TOC:

[1] Q: I think you made a horrible decision, can I post round?

A: Go for it! Please just don't [1] trash talk your opponent/their arguments [2] be super rude. If you're a senior and I drop you in the bubble, you could maybe be medium rude if you really think it's on me and you truly won.

[2] Q: I lost and I would now like to go on my diatribe about why I hate an entire category of debate and how I'm pissed that I'm getting judges that don't have the same specific debate opinions as me because I'm no longer at a tournament that's largely just schools within my state. Can I post round?

A: Please don't. You're not going to convert me to your cause and I'm sorry you didn't do prefs correctly.

[3] Q: I lost and tbh I know I lost but if I were to hypothetically get really angry, would that scare you into becoming more incentivized to vote for me in elims?

A: Lol no. You are literally a child.

Hey, I'm Emmiee (they/them) - my email is emmiee@berkeley.edu, please use it for the email chain and feel free to shoot me an email for any paradigm/RFD questions!

I did 4 years of debate in HS (3 policy, 1 LD) and 3 years of college policy for UC Berkeley. In both I started off reading very LARP/policy arguments and then branched out into more soft left and K territory. The arguments I've spent most of my time reading are queer pessimism, psychoanalysis, and Russian settler colonialism. I've been coaching Harker LD for 5 years now and have taught at maybe 10 LD/policy camp sessions.

TL;DR/For Prefs:

I try to stay as tab and non-interventionist as possible. There is literally not a single argument I have not voted for. All of my decisions are purely based off of how the flow lines up and I don't care if you're going for an RVI on Nebel, a PoMo FrankenK, indexicals, a heg DA, "surrender to ____", the Hobbes NC, etc. If I stopped voting for downright horrible arguments that were won on the flow, I would quickly end up having to give out double losses.

It's not my job to "preserve the sanctity of the activity" or whatever, especially given all of the things I pulled in my own debate career; it's my job to vote for whoever won and then roast any arguments I didn't personally like in the RFD. There are only three arguments I don't want to see: those that are blatantly oppressive (___icm good, etc), those that are unethically read (clipped, text of article altered, etc), or those that lack a claim/impact/warrant.

Other Important Info:

• I am 100% cool with post-rounding - if you think I forgot to flow something important, gave a nonsense RFD, didn't address something you think should have decided the debate, etc by all means grill me over it, as long as you're not actively rude to me or your opponent.

• Some rounds I take a super long time to decide and have a lot of comments - it's usually because I'm typing all the comments out on my flow for a while. If I take forever or dump feedback on you, it's not a bad thing - I probably just have a lot of random thoughts, especially if it's a K debate. If it's too fast, too much, it's the end of the day and you want to go to bed, you need to run to another round or prep, etc just let me know I 100% get it.

• Incoherently rapid-spread a million blippy analytics and lose - if you want me to flow your giant analytic wall via online debate without missing anything important, you are going to need at least 3 of the following: [1] doc was sent out with the analytics in it, [2] you are at least somewhat clear and aren't going the same speed you go reading a random line in a card, [3] there's intonation/volume changes when you go from arg to arg and/or on the important terms, or [4] the arguments are numbered/labelled/separated somehow and you more-or-less stick to the flow when you extend them instead of dropping them in a bunch of random places.

• Don't over-accommodate but don't be mean to traditional/novice debaters - if you're in the top 50% of the pool I will boost speaks if you slow down somewhat (especially on tags), are polite and don't clown on your opponent for not understanding something basic, generally try to be helpful and CX and try to help them understand your arguments if they're confused, etc. Likewise, will drop speaks if your strategy for the W is very blatantly just to spread out a newer kid with a bunch of arguments they've never heard of while being rude to them the whole time.

In general, I judge a lot of clash debates, bubbles, bid rounds, etc and I get that stress is high, different schools/regions/circuits have different norms and habits, everyone's tired, etc but please do your part to make the round as un-painful as possible. Assume good intent, don't be purposefully sketchy or mean, etc.

• I also tend to get progressively stupider as the tournament goes on and I'm sorry if you catch me on the end of day 2 and I'm a little spacey. Tournaments tend to aggravate disability-related things and I burn out especially fast. I can still make coherent decisions, but will just take a little longer and give less concise RFDs. If you're going to break a DA with a super convoluted and nuanced I/L chain or get into a super ticky-tacky phil throw down in R6, please adjust your degree of hand-holding accordingly.

Specific Arguments:

• LARP: This is the style of debate that I mainly coach and am most comfortable with (along with Ks). I'll vote for your totally contrived politics DA and for "heg good outweighs the K/soft left AFF" if you win it on the flow. I default to presuming NEG, unless the NEG reads a counter-advocacy. I also tend to rely on how people explain their arguments and don't do a lot of card reading unless I'm forced to or someone asks me to do it. If you're AFF and the NR dropped the AFF so the 2AR is clearly going to be all about the DA or CP or whatever please give me at least 1 sentence about the 1AC scenario somewhere so I know how we got to a certain impact outweighing something else or what the PERM on the CP would look like.

I'm agnostic on a lot of things that the LARP community seems to be split on and will let it slide or let debaters debate it out in round. If you insert rehighlightings and say in your NC something to the extent of "their ____ scenario is horribly cut - we've inserted the rehighlightings" so I know it's something you meant to insert and not something you didn't read due to time constraints and the other team says nothing, I'll evaluate it. If they read theory, I guess we're having a theory debate now. Same with judge kick - I'll do it if I'm asked to, won't do it if you don't or you do and your opponent wins that I shouldn't for some reason. Multiplank CPs where you kick out of planks, "haha PERM do the CP this is normal means" reveals in the 1AR, etc are all very much in the same camp - I'll roll with it if it's not contested, will evaluate contestation and potentially roll with it anyways otherwise.

• K: I'm generally very down for weird/memey arguments but on god if you choose to pull a bunch of conflicting pomo ev into a doc just so you can spend the round yelling vague buzzwords without making any attempt to say anything specific about the AFF I will tank your speaks. If you're not familiar with whatever you're reading so your arguments or cards you end up cutting aren't phenomenal that's fine. If your K is about the need to sideline the AFF/topic and instead center your performance, community, something else, etc that's that's fine. If you have a genuine defense of why you need to sound like the PoMo generator or remain very nebulous and vague that's fine. I truly don't care what it is you do, but please don't come in sounding like the PoMo generator because you think outconfusing your opponent with some lit you have made no attempt to understand is an easy ballot.

• K AFF v. T:

• Phil:

• T/Theory: I will vote for it; I'll vote for the RVI on it. I don't think my personal opinions on how many condo is ok or if semantics are good matter because it shouldn't factor into how I judge. In the absence of clear warranting from either side, I will obviously be more swayed by nebulous abuse or reasonability claims depending on the context of that specific round. The bullet point above about incoherent rapid-spreading analytics definitely applies here - I can't vote for what I can't flow and a few good arguments go so much farther than proliferating random impacts and links that'll just get everyone confused all over the place. It's hard to yell "clear" over Zoom because it cuts out the other person's audio for a second so if you're blitzing through huge walls of text I'm probably going to miss arguments.

If you write the RFD for me in the debate that explains how impacts and layers stack up and weigh, you are overwhelmingly likely to have that be the actual RFD. If you end up neck deep in a super messy and dense theory/T debate and manage to stay organized, clear, and pretty line by line, you will get a 29.5 minimum. My biggest issue with these debates by far is the messiness and lack of weighing on both sides. It is really hard for me to evaluate debates when no one explains why they have the stronger I/L to education, why phil education outweighs topic education, why their NC theory should come before 1AR theory, whether T or theory comes first, etc.

Only other relevant things is that I presume T/Theory > K unless told otherwise and am not the best with grammar so I can flow your upward entailment test argument and vote for you off it, but I but I don't have more than a surface level understanding of it outside of its strategic value in debate.

• Trix: I've voted for lots of tricks debaters, but think that tricks objectively are all silly and false and have adjusted my threshold for responding to them to a comparable level. My bar for responding is "this is nonsense and you shouldn't vote on it because ___". If there's three hidden words in an analytic wall that are dropped, the threshold changes to the above along with "you should allow this response even though it's new because ____" in the next speech. I'm very sympathetic to newer LDers or policy cross overs losing over mishandling some silly spike they didn't know about and personally took a lot of Ls that way, but if you decide to sit the entire round without making a single argument about why "evaluate the round after the 1AC" is a horrible idea, you will lose to it.

All of the stuff in the T/Theory section about spreading through analytics, the fact that no one weighs or implicates anything, etc all applies.

Samantha McLoughlin Southlake Carroll 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun April 17, 2022 at 4:42 AM PDT

**For the lovely TOC policy: I currently coach the following TOC competitors: Sequoia AS, Southlake Carroll PK, Sage Hill MP, and Mission San Jose SS

Hi! I'm Sam. Harvard Westlake '21, Vanderbilt '25. Email chain please: samanthamcloughlin13@gmail.com. LD TOC qual 4x (octos soph year, skipped etoc junior year, quarters senior year), 20 bids, won some tournaments (Valley, Yale, Stanford, etc). I mostly read policy args, some basic T/theory, and some Ks/topical K affs (settler colonialism, fem IR, etc).

Everything in this paradigm (minus the hard and fast rules) is just a preference - my strongest belief about debate is that it should be a forum for ideological flexibility, creative thinking, and argumentative experimentation. I realized this paradigm was way too long so I tried to bold stuff for pre-round skimming.

Hard and Fast Rules--

Won't vote on any arg that makes debate unsafe. This includes any arg that denies the badness of racism/sexism/etc, or says death good (args like spark/wipeout = ok, cuz it doesn't deny the value of life, it's just fancy util maths that says extinction better preserves the value of life). If your opponent wins your argument is repugnant (absent any larger framing or judge instruction), I'll drop the argument, unless you presented your argument with the agreement that it was repugnant (ie, if you admit your position is racist, but attempt to say that doesn't matter), in which case I will consider your repugnance purposeful and drop you.

Ev ethics - stake the round on it (ie W30 to the person who is right and an L with the lowest possible speaks to the other) if evidence is misrepresented (an omitted section contradicts or meaningfully alters the meaning of the card). I think a good litmus test for misrepresentation is: does the article agree with the claims presented in the card? If it's missing a sentence or two at the beginning/end of a paragraph but it doesn't change the meaning of the card, you're better off reading it as theory. To make everyone's life easier, just cut ev well (this means full citations, full paragraphs, in alignment with the author's intent).

Clipping = an L with the lowest speaks I can give.

Speaks are my choice, not yours (put away 30 speaks theory).

For online debate, I expect that you record all your speeches in case you, your opponent, or I drops out.

Argument TLDRs--

Defaults: reasonability on theory, competing interps on t, drop the debater on t/theory, no RVIs, T>theory>everything else, comparative worlds, fairness + education are voters, policy presumption, epistemic confidence

^All those can be easily changed with a sentence.

K debate - Line by line >> long overviews. Please do not abuse the term “implicit clash”. Winning overarching claims about the world is helpful, but you need to apply those claims to the specifics of your opponents arguments or else I will not do those interactions for you. Framework is important, so have a rigorous defense of what my role as a judge is and how I should evaluate the round. Links to the plan are preferred, but not necessary - the less specific your links, the more fw matters, and the more persuasive the permutation is. It’s very hard to persuade me material suffering shouldn’t matter. I also tend to think debate should be about arguments, not people, which means I'll likely be unpersuaded by personal attacks or "vote for me" arguments. I'm more persuaded by skills impacts on T Framework than fairness, and more persuaded by non topical affs that impact turn things than try to find a middle ground.

Policy - Yay! Zero risk not a thing but arguments still must be complete to be evaluated. Underdeveloping off in the 1nc = they get less weight in the 2nr. Rebuttal ev explanation > initial ev quality, but if your opponent's ev sucks and you point that out, that falls under the first category. Read your best evidence in the 1NC - I'll be persuaded by arguments that the 2NR doesn't get new evidence unless it's directly responsive to the 1AR.

Theory - PICs are probably good. Condo is maybe good. Other cheating CPs (international fiat, agent, process etc) are prob bad. All of this is up for debate. Descriptions of side bias are not standards. The more frivolous the shell = the truer reasonability and DTA are, and the lower the bar for answers. On that note, reasonability and DTA are under-utilized.

Philosophy - Not the area i'm the most comfortable in, but I'll try my best. I'd love to see a well explained phil debate, but I will not enjoy a blippy phil round that borders closer to tricks debate. I'd rather you leverage your syllogism to exclude consequences rather than relying on calc indicts. Debaters should take advantage of nonsensical contention args.

Tricks - I don't think a model of debate predicated on the avoidance of clash (ie relying on concessions) is an educational model. My test for whether an argument falls under this model of debate is: ask yourself if you would be willing to go for an argument if it was responded to competently. The same idea also extends to the formatting of your argument (ie you should delineate + thoroughly explain all your arguments with clear implications). I won't purposefully insert my personal beliefs about the value of tricks debates into the round, but it does mean that I'll probably be more receptive to arguments that indict tricks debate as a model. Some arguments are truer than others, and it's easier to win true arguments in front of me than false ones. I also default comparative worlds, and have given more than one RFD that boils down to "X trick was won but there's no truth testing ROB under which it matters." Up-layering tricky affs with Ks or strategic theory is smart, and when leveraged correctly make claims of new 2NR responses more persuasive.

Lay - I have respect for good lay debaters since I know I could never be one. That said, I will definitely evaluate the debate on a technical level regardless of the style. Good lay debaters can beat circuit debaters by strategically isolating key arguments. Circuit debaters vs lay debaters don't need to modify their style of debate, but should do everything they can to be accessible (explain stuff in CX, send docs, etc) (same applies to debates where there is a large skill gap).

Misc - My threshold for independent voters is high. Emphasizing this after a couple rounds where it's been relevant.

Rant Section--

Tech > truth, but separating the two is silly. The more counter-intuitive an argument, the higher the bar for winning it, and the lower the threshold for responses. Saying "nuclear war bad" probably requires less warranting than "nuclear war good" cuz the second one has the burden of proof to overcome the intuitive logical barrier to its truth value.

In order for me to vote on an argument, two conditions must be met:

1] It is a complete arg (ie has a claim, warrant, and implication/impact)

2] I can explain it back your opponent based off what was said in round

Conceded arguments still need warrants, although the more robustly warranted the original argument was, the more lenient I'll be on extensions (ie extending a 10 sec analytic vs a 6 min aff).

I'll deal with irresolvability using the "needs test" - the burden of proof falls on the side that "needs" to win the argument (ie the burden of proof is on the neg in the perm debate because the neg needs to beat the perm, but the aff doesn't need to win the perm).

I won't vote on arguments telling me to "evaluate the entire debate after X speech" that are introduced in X speech - it generates a contradiction. Also, as a wise man once said, the 2AR is after all the speeches before it - interpret this as you choose.

Likes/Dislikes--

Likes: plans bad 2NR on semantics if you understand the grammar behind it and are not reading someone else's blocks, impact turns (not impact turns to t/theory, I'm talking russia war good, innovation bad, co2 ag, etc), plan affs (yes I realize this contradicts with my first like), multiple shells bad, Ks with links to the plan, presumption/case presses vs non T affs, topical K affs, materialism + perm vs the K, reasonability/DTA on frivolous theory, collapsing, flashing analytics

Dislikes: the grammar DA, RVIs, plans bad 2NR on semantics when you don't understand the grammar behind it, plans bad 2NR that's just reading off someone else's doc with no topic specific analysis, standard spec, buffet 2NRs, hidden args, non T affs that are an FYI not an advocacy, combo shells that don't solve their offense, "strat skew", "this argument is bad" [then doesn't explain why the argument is bad], "that's an independent voting issue" [doesn't explain why it's a voting issue past just the label] (this also applies to 1AR arguments not labelled as voting issues that magically become voting issues in the 2AR), "what's a floating PIK" "what's an a priori", being rude or interrupting your opponent (especially if you're more experienced or in a position of power) (at best it adds nothing at worse it's unkind)

Parth Misra Bergen County Academies 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 11, 2022 at 1:37 PM EDT

Memorial '19

SMU '23

2022 Update.

Yeah I want the docs -- pmisra@smu.edu

If you have any questions about my views in debate, take a look down at my track record, I judge quite consistently and the debaters who debate in front of me should reflect my judging style if you know them.

Find a unique/funny way to ask and ill give W 29.9 and L 29.8*, let's get rid of the toxicity in debate and the world and bring some fun into it!

*(for policy rounds it'll be a W 29.9,29.8 and L 29.7,29.6)

Pref Cheat sheet

LARP -> 1-2

K / Theory -> 1-2

Phil -> 4

I tend to prefer LARP debates over traditional debates. I never liked traditional LD (however not opposed) and was never the best with PHIL, these debates can be confusing for me, in all honesty. I was never a theory debater but if the theory flow is very cleanly explained, ill vote on it. No I'm not opposed to trix, or permissibility debates. Yes, ill vote on disclosure. I'm very reluctant now to vote on condo, but.. that can change 100%. I default to competing interps, no rvi's, and drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument against all other types. Please Extend the aff in the 2ar even if the 2ar is theory. You can go for the k I don't have any issues and enjoy a good K debate, don't expect me to know your high theory (Batille, Pyshco, Baudy) beforehand though, I will listen and evaluate, but will require a higher threshold of proof and explanation.

I will not vote on arguments I don't understand. if you think it's sus, imagine how I feel.

Policy

I did policy for 3 years and had some success

Policy Affs > K affs

Soft left policy affs> Big stick generic Affs

While I have these notions, I will listen to a K aff etc and not be biased against it.

Speed is fine but will say clear once before stopping flowing.

Disad/Cp debate is the key to my heart

I think a solid case page debate is the most underutilized tool in debate

you can go for the k I don't have any issues and enjoy a good K debate, don't expect me to know your high theory beforehand though, I will listen, but will require a higher threshold of proof and explanation.

Heaven Montague Proof School 2 rounds

squid monteith Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 9, 2021 at 11:41 AM CDT

high school = Kansas 2012-2016 (Policy and LD)

undergrad = Emporia State 2016-2020 (Policy)

grad = Kansas State 2020-present (Policy Coach)

DO NOT RECORD MY VOICE OR IMAGE AND DO NOT TAKE PICTURES OF ME WITHOUT MY WRITTEN CONSENT. It's ridiculous this has to be said.

edited for the youth

Updated 2/27/21 (updates have a "---" listed before them)

---- Yes, put me on the email chain. Squiddoesdebate@gmail.com

---- Do a sound check before you start your speech. Simply ask if we can all hear you. I will not dock speaks because of audio issues, however, we will do everything we can to fix the audio issue before we proceed.

------------------- SEND YOUR ANALYTICS - if you want me to flow every word, it would behove you to send me every word you have typed. I am not the only one who uses typed analytics. Don't exclude folks from being able to fully participate just because you don't want to share your analytics.

--- the first thirty seconds of the last rebuttal for each side should be what they expect my RFD should be. I like being lazy and I love it when you not only tell me how I need to vote, but also provide deep explanation and extensive warrants for why the debate has ended in such a way to where I have no other choice to vote that way.

----My decision is most influenced by the last two rebuttals than any other speech. I actively flow the entire debate, but the majority of my attention when considering my decision comes down to a flow-based comparison of the last rebuttals. If you plan to bounce from one page to the next in the 2NR/2AR, then please do cross-applications and choose one page to stay on. That will help both of us.

I think debate should be an activity to have discussions. Sometimes these discussions are fun, sometimes they aren't. Sometimes they are obvious and clear, sometimes they are not. Sometimes that's the point. Regardless, have a discussion and I will listen to it.

I don't like to read evidence after debates. That being said, I will if I have to. If you can make the argument without the evidence, feel free to do so. If I yell "clear", don't trip, just articulate.

--- If I call for evidence or otherwise find myself needing to read evidence, it probably means you did not do a good enough job of explaining the argument and rather relied on author extensions. Please avoid this.

Your speaks start at a 30. Wherever they go from there are up to you. Things that I will drop speaks for include clearly not explaining/engaging the arguments in the round (without a justification for doing so), not explaining or answering CX questions, not articulating more after I clear you. Things that will improve your speaks include being fast, being efficient with your words, being clear while reading evidence, demonstrating comprehensive knowledge of your args by being off your blocks or schooling someone in cross-x, etc. If I significantly hurt your speaks, I will let you know why. Otherwise, you start at 30 and I've only had to go below 26 a handful of times.

----- my range is roughly 28.7-29.5 if you are curious

Prep time, cross-x, in-between-speeches chats, I'll be listening. All that means- be attentive to what's happening beyond the speeches. If you are making arguments during these times, be sure to make application arguments in the speech times. That's not just a judge preference, it's often devastating.

I like kritikal/performative debate. I did traditional/policy-styled debate. I prefer the previous but won't rule out the latter.

---- ^^ this is less true as I judge more and more high school debate but it is still true for college debate.

Tips;

have fun

slow down when reading the theory / analytics / interps

don't assume I know everything, I know nothing in the grand scheme of things

don't be rude unless you're sure of it

Ask me more if you want to know. Email me. I am down to chat more about my decisions in email if you are willing.

LD--------------

- theory is wild. i don't know as much about it as you think I do

- tell me how to evaluate things, especially in the later speeches because new things are read in every speech and its wild and new to me. tell me what to do.

- I love the k's that are in this activity, keep that up.

Kwodwo Moore Yerba Buena High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 4, 2021 at 12:38 AM PDT

kmoore@svudl.org

You don't need to be overly polite, but you also do not need to be rude. I will vote for the other team if you are blatantly disrespectful and rude with no context for it within the round.

How fast can I go?

As fast as you want while remaining clear. Do not spread, speak quickly. If you must spread, make sure the tag and author/date are very clear. If I can make out the individual words you're using, I can keep up. I'm not going to tell you if I can't keep up, you should be able to tell if I can keep up by watching me. I am usually much more in favor of a smaller amount of well supported and reasoned arguments though. Technical skill alone will not win a round judged by me.

How does he award Speaker Points?

Purely based on who the best speaker is, which is a totally subjective system. If you can speak clearly yet quickly, maintain eye contact when appropriate and keep filler words to a minimum you'll get higher speaking points. If you can find a way to speak to me instead of at me, you'll get higher speaker points. Don't feel like you need to do anything special, I'm not stingy with Speaker Points.

What can I run in front of him?

Run whatever you want, I'll judge it based on the arguments presented to me by you and your opponent.

Anything else?

I'm a debate coach, and have debated for a few years in high school. I've been involved with the debate community in some way, shape or form for more than 5 years. Philosophical arguments are immensely appealing to me, so if you are running a Kritik I will be more than happy to follow along if you decide to get really technical. I enjoy technical and nuanced arguments, feel free to really dive into things because I will be able to follow your train of thought and weigh it against your opponents if you do a good enough job contextualizing it and tying it into the debate. If you read evidence to me and don't spend any time analyzing the evidence and contrasting it with your opponents/telling me why I should value your evidence over theirs I will not be happy. Don't just read evidence to me and expect me to do the work.

Don't add me to the email chain as a way to ignore speaking clearly.

Vanessa Nguyen Marlborough School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 26, 2022 at 8:29 AM CDT

If you do not want to turn your video on for whatever reason, that's completely fine with me and will not affect your speaker points or anything like that. You don't need to explain or justify your situation to me.

If my camera is off, don't start your speech. If you want to email me questions about your round, please do so with haste because I have an awful memory.

Email: okvanessan@gmail.com yes, put me on the chain.

Kapaun Mt. Carmel '19 (did policy debate for four years, also debated under Mount Carmel Independent).

University of Southern California '23. I'm majoring in both public policy and economics/mathematics and minoring in business law. I do not actively debate anymore but am still involved with the team.

General:

Be kind. I promise I'm not angry or upset, I'm just a very monotonous person with a perpetually aloof facial expression. However, I *will* be upset if you are disrespectful or rude to your opponent.

Tech > Truth. Clash is good--if you take time out of your own prep to delete analytics from constructives ... well, good luck Charlie.

I don't really have any firm and strong opinions on debate other than:

(1) be kind to your partner and opponents, and

(2) debate is a valuable activity and all argumentative styles that allow chances for contestation/clash are essential for that.

This is trivial, but it bothers me so much when debaters zealously assert something that is so blatantly wrong. I see this so often in debates that discuss economic concepts. If you are reading an argument that deals with economic theories, be sure to explain it correctly. If you're going to forward an argument, at least know what you are arguing. Obviously, I do not expect you to be an expert but I have no tolerance for misinformation. Academic validity is important and if you are spreading false, inaccurate, or deceiving evidence and arguments, expect a lecture from me at the end of the round.

I try not to intervene or impose my beliefs onto debaters, but the things mentioned below are what I think you should know about my biases and preferences which can definitely be swayed.

Feel free to email me with any further questions.

Content:

Do whatever as long as it's not repugnant. If you're unsure if your argument falls under this category, then probably don't read it.

For what it's worth, I read mainly policy arguments in high school and am not super familiar with K's. If you read the latter, you're going to have to explain your args more--I'm better if your strategy engages the impact level. Non-USFG affs should have a debate and ballot key warrant. I always went for framework, a topic disad if it linked, or an impact turn against such affs.

Fairness is an impact. And it's the best one.

Affs should get to weigh their plan and it will be an uphill battle to persuade me otherwise.

I don't know much about the topic, so please explain things a bit more, especially when going for T (I dislike theory and T debates if I'm being honest, understand sometimes it's necessary to go for it though). Online debate is bizarre--please, please slow down when you're reading analytics or theory blocks or whatever. I dislike when debaters read analytics/whatever at the same tone and speed as they would with the text of a card--you just sound super boring and it should be clear what you're reading and saying.

I like impact turns. That does not mean death good. That does not mean wipeout. Please.

There's a fine line between being funny, light-heartedly sarcastic and being distastefully snarky. The latter makes me feel so uncomfortable. You're giving up your entire weekend to spend it debating ... there is absolutely no room to be condescending or arrogant.

*Etiquette note: Please start on time. Tournaments have been scheduling more time between rounds and it peeves me when both debaters are five minutes late and then ask to use the restroom and the round doesn't start until fifteen minutes later. If I am judging you in person, this doesn't apply because I understand getting lost and having trouble finding rooms. If I am judging you online, you're already on your computer and this excuse doesn't work for you--just click the button. Please make an effort to go to the restroom before the round starts. Be punctual.

*LD Note: I've only ever done policy debate, so I will judge an LD round as if it's a policy round, just obviously shorter. I really dislike RVIs.

Good luck! Have fun! Learn lots!

Amy Nyberg Solebury School 2 rounds

Felicity Park Immaculate Heart High School 6 rounds

Christopher Perez Marlborough School 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 12, 2022 at 2:03 PM EDT

2022 update

Prob not an ideal judge for you if you will go for

a. high theory

b. theory debates

Background:

Currently a graduate student at USC

I will be able to adjudicate any type of round, as I've run all from an Ocean Energy aff/politics to a Lacan aff/anti-blackness; I know you've done the work to refine whatever argument you want to read, so I will respect that - just tell me what to do with my pen. Admittedly, I’m no longer debating. I’m still confident in my ability to make a coherent decision, but probably won’t know the topic literature. Ask me anything here before the round or if I can do anything to make the round/tournament better for you :) christopherp1322@gmail.com.

TLDR: Debate whatever arg you want, don't be mean, put me on the email chain

LD Update: Everything below applies - a few comments specific to the format

1. Do I vote for RVIS? Yes and no? Yes, as in I'm open to voting for any argument. No, as in I've never voted for the argument because

a. teams don't give me reasons why I should vote for it.

b. The only justification is that "they dropped it!"; just because they don't specifically answer the RVI doesn't mean that the rest of the speech is probably a response already

c. given the nature of the argument, its probably difficult to win. Though I'd be conducive to hear a "drop the debater because they're ableist; here's why" - though that's probably theory

d. (UPDATE) Voted a team down because the other team clearly pointed out ways the other team made fun of black female scholarship and told me why that mattered.

2. Since AC's are short in time teams often have terrible internal link chains. Negs should point this out

3. I don't think I'll vote on a completely new AR argument (unless maybe hinted before or actually super abusive?).

General comments about me:

Put me on the email chain
I often close my eyes, put my head down, etc. Many people think that this is because I'm sleeping; nah, that's just my preference to avoid having my facial expressions influence the round. If that's something you're not comfortable with, just let me know
I dislike the phrase "is anyone not ready". In the wise words of Richie Garner, "it is a linguistic abomination (see: bit.ly/yea-nay)."
Please don’t read at a million wpm at the top of your rebuttals/theory args - its not very fun to flow in this situation.
I guess I like the K? But please - read whatever argument you want to. I do my best to not let my biases affect my decision in relation to being more or less receptive to certain arguments. Rather, the only extent to which I let my kritikal background affect my process of adjudication is that I can provide more comments/feedback post-decision with kritikal arguments because of my background, rather than with arguments involving specific legal/political intricacies. In summation, the burden is on you - k or policy - to lead me through the ballot, but I'm more productive in discussions of k's after the round. Trust me, I probably won't be able to answer your super-specific resolutional question.
I read mainly psycho, anti-blackness, Marx, and ableism in college debate.

Everything else is alphabetical:

CP: The following statement is probably my default lens for judging any argument: if the counterplan is your go-to I’m all for it. I expect the CP to solve the case or at least a portion of it, and is competitive to the plan. I’ve read a lot of abusive counterplans in the past like Consultation/Agent CP’s/PICs and don’t mind them. Obviously if the aff can effectively debate theories against these CP’s that’d be great.

DA: Contextualize the link. If the link’s warrants are in the context of the travel ban and the aff is entirely different and the aff points this out, I’ll probably err aff (unless the negative can effectively articulate that the aff is similar to what the link story says). I don’t find politics arguments too interesting, but if that’s your go-to let’s do it.

K-affs: I’ve run these affirmatives before. I’ll vote on your advocacy if you can explain to me why your model is valuable. I'll flow your performance or anything you do in your speech (make sure to extend them). Although I like critical arguments, be careful about tangential relationships to the topic because it makes me more sympathetic of TVA's, as I think that k-affs should still probably be topical. It doesn't need to include a hypothetical implementation of a policy, but you should still somehow reduce restrictions on immigration/affirm the resolution. Be creative with the definitions and explain why I should value your definition of immigration vs a legal one. Just criticizing and discussing the resolution will probably make you lose vs T a lot. If you don't affirm the resolution I'm still down for that, but be ready to impact turn everything and defend your model of debate.

- PS: If you know you’re hitting a school with historically less resources and you’re running some high theory Baudrillard aff, come on. Obviously I won’t vote you down based on your argument choice, but endorse an accessible reputation for debate. You can try to flash your blocks/analytics/full 1AC, don’t sidestep in CX, or maybe run a more intellectually accessible aff. If not, I can’t stop you but it’d be a really nice gesture - might help your speaks.

Kritiks: I’ve mainly been a kritik debater throughout my four years of debating. With that being said, don’t assume I’ll be hip with your postmodern theory and/or be more sympathetic of your psychoanalysis/antiblackness k. Just follow the same advice above and explain your k, tell me what to focus on, etc. Explain how the aff entrenches x and how that leads to a bad implication, how the link turns the aff or outweighs it, the productiveness of my ballot if I vote negative, how the alternative resolves something that outweighs the aff, and how the alt overcomes the UX of the link (although if worded correctly, I’ll vote for an alternative that is a leap of faith.) A good k debate to me will help your speaks! Also if there's a long OV or FW block let me know to put it on another flow.

T - USFG/FW: You shouldn't exclude their 1AC based on the premise that its "non-traditional"; you aren't reduced to just being able to say racism is good. Likewise, you shouldn’t read the same definition requiring the same USFG action. I say this not because I hate T (which is the contrary), but because your performance/substance probably won't be great with that strat. Be creative! My favorite FW debater is radical and explains why there is intrinsic value in having discussions rooted in the legal realm/reducing restrictions on immigration within the context of the aff’s impacts. If you can contextualize your education/fairness impacts against the 2AC and/or explain how you turn the aff, I’ll be loving your debate. I will be less sympathetic to generic FW blocks that just articulate fairness and education without reference to the aff.

Theory/Topicality: This is the area where I'm the least literate on, so please keep that in mind if your strategy involves a legitimate interest in theory. Just do meaningful comparison and tell me why I should be erring towards your model of debate over theirs. Obviously if theory is dropped by the opponents and that becomes what you go for, I’ll (probably?) vote for it. However, if the theory is otherwise read for just time skew and the other team sufficiently answers the argument I’ll generally disregard it. If you can articulate a substantive impact then it probably has a purpose and I’ll be more sympathetic – I’ll be less sympathetic to 20 second blippy blocks meant to outspread the 2AC. To be transparent, I haven’t judged many non-T theory debates. I’d be extremely interested if you can perform a well-articulated theory debate.

Otherwise, please have fun! This round is for you.

Kenneth Rieger Summit HS 4 rounds

Hailey Robertson Marlborough School 2 rounds

Last changed on Mon February 28, 2022 at 12:41 PM EDT

I did policy debate at Washburn Rural High School (2013-17) and the University of Southern California (2017-21). I also previously coached LD at the Marlborough School (2018-21). I now judge infrequently on college policy / HS policy / HS LD circuits.

2/28/22 disclaimer: I have not judged any debates this season thus far and do not know the topic!

Email for docs: hailey.danielle98@gmail.com

TL;DR:

- Good for whatever, make it make sense, blah blah blah all the cliches

- I will not vote for moral blackmail -- this applies to “vote for me or else I have to quit” and similar. If you have a concern like this, talk to your opponent/coaches/me outside of the round, but please do not make my ballot the arbiter of that decision (!!!)

Online Debate Things:

Please record your speeches with voice memos on your phone (or something similar in case you or I cut out.) You don't have to turn on your video or explain why you don't have it on; it won't affect your speaker points. I'll also probably be a bit more forgiving of "they dropped x subpoint of my speech that was 3 seconds long" especially if your audio quality is lacking... but I'm also generally forgiving of tech issues, as long as it isn't apparent to me that you are using it as an excuse to steal prep.

Meta-Thoughts

Tech-------------------X---------------------------Truth

Consequences-X----------------------------------No Consequences

Read no cards----------------------X-------------Read all the cards

Longer ev--------X--------------------------------More ev

Always 1%----------------------------X-----------0% Risk a Thing

2020 speaker points-----------X-------------------2010 speaker points

Resting grumpy face-----------------------X------Grumpy face is your fault

AT: X-------------------------------------------------A2:

Insert re-highlighting------------------X-----------I read what you read

Flowing CX--------------X--------------------------On phone during CX

LD Specific

Nebel T-------------------------------------------X--Pragmatic Interps

RVI------------------------------------------------X-Real Args

Tricks/Phil----------------------------------------X--Real Args

Short Policy Debate-X------------------------------Different Type of Debate

K vs Policy

Policy-----------------X----------------------------K

Feelings----------------------------------X--------Dead inside

Truth Testing=Presumption--------------------X-Try Again

Flip Neg = No FW-----------------------------X---FW is a Strategy

Fairness is a thing-----------X-------------------Tautology

Vote to affirm me------------------------------X Vote to affirm my argument

Fiat double bind------------------------------X--Literally any other arg

Not our Baudrillard----------------------------X Yes your Baudrillard

What's an overview?-----X--------------------Grab a new page

Link of omission-------------------------X-----Omit this argument

Policy vs Policy:

Conditionality good--------X--------------------Conditionality bad

States CP good----------------------X-----------States CP bad

Politics DA is a thing------X----------------------Politics DA not a thing

Link Determines UQ----X-------------------------UQ determines direction of Link

Reasonability-------------------------------X-----Competing interps

Limits--------------X------------------------------Aff ground

Circumvention--------------X----------------------Durable Fiat

Pet Peeves:

- Reading your blocks monotone at 100% speed

- "Do you disclose speaks"

- These phrases without explanation: “method debate” “logical policymaker could do both” “fiat solves the link” "perm double bind" “1 condo = drop the debater”

- Not listening during the RFD :(

- Being mean, attempting to dunk on someone at the beginning of your speech, laughing during speeches, etc :(

- Bad/miscut/misrepresented evidence :(

- Tagging cards "extinction" and nothing else :(

- Combining speech docs and saying its not prep????

- Asking what cards were read when no cards were marked

- Google docs :(

One Last Thing

If there is something/someone that you feel unsafe around, I am more than happy to assist you in finding the resources necessary to remedy the problem, but I ask they do not become a central component in the debate. That's not to say your concerns are not welcome or invalid, but I'd rather pursue a solution rather than give you a ballot and move on with my day.

Yardley Rosas Marlborough School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 18, 2022 at 8:10 AM PDT

Please add me to the chain, my email is rosasyardley.a@gmail.com

background

debated policy at Cal State Fullerton. also at Downtown Magnets High School in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Debate League (: I started my career running traditional policy/straight up positions. Then I spent the last few years running performance-ish kritiks mostly about race, gender, and capitalism. How I approach debate is heavily influenced by my college coaches: Toya Green, Dr. Shanara Reid-Brinkley, and Lee Thach.

thoughts on how I decide

> I live for when debaters take the presentation of their arguments seriously. go ahead and spice up the round with attitude, personality, humor, drama, theatrics, etc. just don't force anything, don't go too far, and don't demean your opponents. good for speaker points: get off your blocks more, have ethos moments, dig into evidence, give your offense/args snappy names, don't spread at top speed, give an overview, be organized, speak directly to me, be emotional, etc. Speaks that I assign tend to range from mid to high 28s.

> Read what you want, however you want, I don't care. During my career as a 2A, I ran affs that range from defending hegemony to using trolling/memes as a method. That being said, I will take literally anything you throw at me into consideration for the ballot. However, I am not the best for you when it comes to theory, t, or super techy/fast debates. Don't rely on speed, quantity of arguments, or techy/blippy arguments. I'm good with speed but I am not the fastest flower so keeping up is sometimes difficult for me, please take that into consideration.

> My decisions are usually based on a combo of meeting your burdens as aff/neg and controlling the big picture of the round. Most of the time this will come down to telling me how I should frame and weigh impacts. I need clash, comparisons, and warrants for that otherwise I'll decide myself what impacts matter the most. Outside of that, I tend to think about arguments as offensive/defensive. Your offense needs to outweigh, turn, or moot your opponent's offense.

> Specific comments about arguments - General: perms, links, solvency, and impacts need to be clear about how we get from point A to point B, don't lose sight of your warrants. - FW/T v K: read a TVA. Relying on procedural fairness vs a K is ugly to me sorry, I'll vote on it but might lower your speaks. I'm not interested in you solving for the K, I’m persuaded by models that center policy/education for the purpose of doing good in the direction of the K. How can T/FW/debate be used for the intents and purposes of the K? the more you answer this question and leverage your response against inevitable impact turns, the better off you'll be.

> To make both our lives easier, have moments where you break down the debate and explain to me what is happening and straight up tell me why you win. for example, tell me what you're winning and what your opponent is losing, etc. i'm not saying write the ballot for me but thats also exactly what I'm saying. I am very receptive to this.

Remington Roy Monta Vista High School 6 rounds

DavÍd Salazar Midlothian HS 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat May 14, 2022 at 2:22 AM CDT

Howdy Friends!

:) Just some stuff to show I'm not completely lay:

I debated CX and PF for 4 years in HS and am currently a dual major in Mathematics and Biology at TAMU. I've been to 2 nats for PF and to state twice for cx. I quarter-finaled for UIL 5a CX state. I also qualified for nationals Extemporaneous twice.

TLDR; Have fun, unless your fun is bad. Fun is considered "bad" when it is one or multiple of the following; racist, sexist, homophobic, promotes self-harm, attacks people within the round, is directed at a specific religion, or ya know things that make you seem not so vibey in the public eye. If you run any of the prior it's an L0 :). Also, don't misgender your opponent, that'll also be an L0. I am open to any questions prior to the round, so just shoot me an email at a.david.salazar.ii@gmail.com and I'll answer asap as long as I'm not scrambling to get technology working before every round this year. If you have any questions at all, no matter how small or significant they may be, please ask them! I remember reading some judging paradigms that actively dissuaded questions and it made the atmosphere of the round cold and tense. I promise you I won't get mad at any question posed or if anything out of your control occurs.

Oh, yea, please add me to an email chain with the above email, thank ya!

Important Note: I do have impaired hearing. It's akin to Auditory Neuropathy, meaning I can hear sound but intermittently fail to make out words. When debaters spread, whether LD or CX, I ask that they share a copy of their speech with me if at all possible. If Debaters are not comfortable sharing their speech, I completely understand and will judge to the best of my abilities.

CX:

My views on specific types of arguments are as follows:

Framework: When arguing against an opposing framework, I ask that you explain to me why your framework is inherently better than that of your opponent. Make sure to relate all of your impacts towards your framework.....please.

Case: Case is what CX revolves around. Failing to answer or weigh the case in round is something that will drastically affect the way I view the round. As aff, if you win all of the off-case but fail to flow over your on-case then you will be at a significant disadvantage.

Da: Links should adhere specifically to the mechanisms of the opposing case. Vague links are a plague in today's format (at least from what I experienced). I will value a DA based on the argumentation you put behind it.

CP: Tell me why the CP shows a better world than the case. The net benefit is the sole reason for voting.

K: If you run a Kritik you need to bluntly state how the alternative works within the world and how it is better than that of the affirmative. When running Kritiks regarding the opposing team's propagation of harmful pedagogy out of round, I ask that you clearly link the argument to a blatant example of this through the opposing team's speeches rather than a one-off comment (unless egregious). I am familiar with a lot of kritik lit's, but to make the round accessible you should still be able to contextualize and blatantly explain the k throughout the round in case your opponent has never come across the k you are using. Not only does it provide a more fair round, but also demonstrates that you actually understand what you're talking about. If you don't know the full extent of your K, don't run it. Also, if you're running a kritk that relies on the experience and pain of a certain group of people that neither individuals in your team represent, that's kinda messed up. Agency does matter. Don't profit off the pain of others for a win in a high school competition.

*note, although I will instantly vote against an advocation to kill a certain population of individuals OF ANY characteristics, I think universal death k's are okay when done properly.

T: If ground is lost, tell me why that matters and how that affects the round. If a team does not tell me why the proposed ground loss is a voting issue, then I will not vote on it.

Theory: I mean it's a thing...if left uncontested it's obviously going to be a voting issue, but please apply it throughout the round and show how the given violation actually affects your standards rather than just stating "They dropped, we win"...please. Oh and RVI :).

Speed: Regarding the note at the top, I can still flow spreading as long as it is clear. I will miss some bits and pieces, but I have and most of the time will be able to flow general args if they are analytically given. Note if the opposing team is not comfortable with spreading, or if they are hearing impaired, please make the speech accessible to them. Accessibility to education within debate is a voting issue.

LD:

I am mostly a policy/Flow judge, so please treat me as such if possible.

Pref Cheat Sheet;

1-Policy

2-K

3-Theory

4/strike-Phil

5/strike-Trix

RVI- I believe that winning a theory shell is a voting issue. I loathe theory for time sucks, it ruins the purpose of running a theory. If you introduce a theory, be prepared to carry it all the way through.

Competing interps- I believe that clash on theory is important. Even if the theory is a wash, you should still have a counter. Answering and winning washed theories would help you will the round since I value each theory won as a voter.

Drop the arg- If a theory stands by the end of the round and the violation is relegated to one specific argument, then that arg will be dropped on my flow.

Disclosure- I like disclosure. If the opponent doesn't disclose pre-round, that doesn't instantly make it a voting issue for me. Run a full theory arg so that the violation is on the flow.

kicking args in last speech: If you feel like you have one topic won, and its impact calc, when compared to the standing framework, is the largest on the flow, and you want to run the entirety of your last speech flowing it over and solidifying it, go for it. Condensing is good, desperately holding onto arguments that are lost is not good. Of course, if you kick out of the thing you're winning then it could also hurt you, but y'all have a good idea of what y'all are doing so it should be fine. I'm not doing judge kicks, so explicitly state what you're kicking

PF:

PF is chaotic. That being said, I vibe with all types of arguments within PF (unless you advocate for racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, self-harm advocacy, or moral arguments that would land you a special spot in Dante's Inferno, which is something I apparently need to add to a paradigm because people don't know how to act :\). While I understand paraphrasing is accepted, I feel that reading a carded case appears more professional and provides informational validity better. That doesn't mean it affects your speaks or anything, just a little aside.

OVERALL:

Please be nice to one another. Respect your opponents for the competitors they are. Rounds can get heated, and when they do sometimes tempers rise and people become more aggressive than needed. While this is a competition, please remember that it is an educational competition. Have fun, make friends, learn new arguments, and overcome your mistakes. At the end of the day, your rounds are simply pedagogical debates, but when competitors' egos come before their logic in rounds, debate loses all meaning.

Colton Schons Samammish HS 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 9, 2021 at 7:04 AM PDT

speech and debate should be a safe space for students to express themselves. period.

affiliations: north central high school (it's in Spokane, Washington) class of '21

university of washington '25 - b.a., history; anthropology

please start an email chain before the 1ac and include me: cfushi@uw.edu

all evidence read must be included in the email chain w/properly formatted cites (update 5/2021: excluding re-highlightings) preferably (but not required) in a Verbatim-enabled Microsoft word document and also preferably (but not required) working, accessible hyperlinks - applies to online and in-person unless you don't have access to a laptop or the internet. analytics not being on is ok - I'm not the best at typing them all out either - but don't speed through full steam if they're not in the doc.

pronouns: he/him/his

insta: @coltonschons (dm me on here to reach me quicker)

*note: I'm fine with most args except death good or death neutral, please don't read it in front of me for personal reasons if you can avoid it - especially arguments advocating suicide. Anything else, please give a content warning when reasonable (graphic violence, sexual assault, slurs, et cetera) and accommodate your opponents.

db8 experience: national circuit ld (also debated at the Washington State tournament), minimal experience w/pf, policy and parli (in descending order)

if I'm judging speech for some reason: I did impromptu and program oral interp, for both of which I went to WA State championships. I also did DI, which I sucked at but enjoyed, and extemporaneous, which I extra sucked at and loathed.

pref me in this order (top = you want me in your round, bottom = literally strike me )

k (structural + identity positions) - 4

k (pomo etc) - 4

soft left aff - 3

larp/policy - 3

phil - 1

trix: strike me. seriously. it's worth using one of your strikes.

pet peeves:

saying "they don't do enough work on the flow" -- sounds like something a coach would say -- expand on this a bit or use the word "ink" ig

telling me that x speech/cross-x was ABSOLUTELY DEVASTATING THEY HAVE CONCEDED THAt... (jk)

saying your opponent dropped something when they didn't

being overly aggressive - be confident! but there's a clear line where you're being unkind to people.

paraphrasing instead of reading a properly formatted card (i.e. Author, year: [text of cut card])

not saying "and" or not breathing in b/w cards

yay:

a s m r of keyboards typing during prep

but srsly:

process cps bad ------x--- process cps cheating a bit

condo good ---x------ condo bad

standards, rotb, literally anything else framingwise x---------- v/vc (eew)

k affs in the direction of the topic good ---x------ fascistic fw hack

debate is an advocacy space x--------- debate is a game

ld specific stuff:

I hate nebel-t and plans bad theory with a passion. Disclosure and generics probably solve and unless you can prove specific abuse, a few mediocre analytic responses from the aff are sufficient defense for me to not vote on it.

I won't vote on most tricks prima facie - a clever strategy =/= a trick, but something disingenuously spread through to exclude large swaths of offense that everyday people would find categorically absurd and that adding 10 more seconds to your opponent's rebuttal would neutralize - that's probably a trick, and you'll know it on my face (providing I'm looking up from flowing and don't have my head in my hands).

affs - I'll count an overview and brief underview extension (if you have one) as sufficient to extend; obviously extensions need a warrant but the 1ac presumably already has one so I don't expect you to spend a lot of time here esp. since time skew is a huge thing

condo is probably good if the aff can reasonably answer the 1nc in 4 minutes; if it's purposefully designed to take advantage of time skew I'll be more convinced by the aff on condo debates

slow down on your underview! I'm not the fastest flower yet also underviews still need warrants

default to nibs ok, condo good and yes rvi's unless you successfully argue otherwise

trad ld ppl - don't focus on the v/vc debate if it's not necessary - it's a waste of time (e.g. util vs. "cost-benefit analysis"). you don't have to have a dedicated voter section at the end of the 2nr/2ar! affs, collapsing in the 2ar or even 1ar can be strategic if you have multiple contentions. Trad ld can and should be more phil-based otherwise the v/vc debate is kinda pointless. Also, for the 1nc, contentions can probably just be rephrased as disads, counterplans, etc. to keep flows tidier - the 1nc should still differentiate between different off-case and on-case arguments even if it is a trad round - doing so will help your speaks. Going one off phil nc is a really good trad strat that will boost your speaks; contact me if you need help understanding - I underwent the transition from understanding only trad to circuit-style as well so I know how it feels.

"this is ld" isn't a warrant. If you're reading t or theory, read a properly formatted shell (interpretation, violation, standards, voters, drop the debater or drop the arg). p.s. topicality is negative ground because it only concerns whether the affirmative plan falls under the ground that the resolution assigns to the affirmative - I've heard 1ar's calling the negative "untopical" too many times in trad.

more experienced debaters should try to accommodate less-experienced ones, but I won't disadvantage a student based on their stylistic choice to be more "progressive" just because their opponent is not. Especially in ToC-bid and/or varsity divisions, students should be expected to engage non-"traditional" positions.

that being said, do not read arguments whose format and/or warrants you clearly do not understand. your speaks will thank you.

cx specific stuff:

I'll judge kick in the 2n only if you tell me to, don't assume I will - although to be honest, most aff arguments against judge kick are more persuasive to me. I don't think judge kick belongs in ld because the negative gets more structural advantages than in policy imho, but if you win it you win it

case debate best debate!!!

idc who speaks (ins and outs, 1a/2a etc, idc) BUT each person must give at least two speeches and two cross examinations unless extenuating circumstances arise.

let's not hide aspec or other voters clearly tangential to the flow you're on in those pages? it's academically dishonest and unaccommodating to people with processing difficulties - incl. me.

pf:

p l e a s e make your round as close as possible to a policy/circuit ld round if I'm judging you (adapted to your format ofc), I'll elaborate on what that means before hand but I think the following pf meta/norms are kinda oof:

- not disclosing

- aff speaking second sometimes???

- t/theory/k's being run in convoluted ways - make them more like ld and cx does it!!!

- paraphrasing ev

- calling me "judge" (don't)

everyone:

sit or stand, (online: camera on or off), wear whatever you want, it's not my role to police you nor is it appropriate for judges to do so.

please time yourselves and each other.

stock issues are antiquated but still matter, even if we don't specifically call some of them by their names, keep them in mind - if you give a 2nr on "significance" and it's really good, I'll think it's really funny and give you (and your partner if it's in policy or pf) a 30.

not up for debate: speech times, things that happened out of round that aren't disclosure-related, having only one winner (I literally can't award two ballots), speaker points, people's identities, authenticity testing (unless you have solid proof), other people's experiences, comparing minorities' oppression relative to one another, whether you can: say a slur belonging to, read pess args about, or blatantly misrepresent yourself as an identity group you are not (you can't and if your opponent makes even the weakest argument about this I will award them the ballot).

case debate

disclose on the wiki!!! open source, round reports, cites, do it!

mental health comes first. I personally struggle(d) a lot with this in debate; if you need some time to regroup as long as you're not prepping and we can finish the debate before the tabroom timer ends please take it. I trust that people won't abuse this - just know that taking care of yourself is a pre-req to good debating and winning a round shouldn't come at the expense of your health.

I'm more sympathetic to small schools when it comes to t and theory including disclosure

I try to be generous but not Weimar Republic inflationary with speaks. If you get below a 27 then you really need to work on your skills, but I do give out 30s as well. Middle of the road should be 28.5, before adjusting up or down based on tournament norms (e.g., an east circuit tournament like Harvard vs. a west coast local district would expect different speaker point scales, and I’ll try to fit them as best as I can).

I will give rfd's (if both debaters are comfortable). Not giving rfd's for any other reason is kind of silly.

please, no aggressive post-rounding. I hate confrontations.

If I seem cranky and it's before 10 am PST it's probably me, not you.

Zaid Umar Westridge School 3 rounds

Last changed on Sun December 12, 2021 at 5:58 AM PDT

Due to technical issues that may arise as a result of online debate, I request that you send me and your opponent your case and all other speech docs during the round. Add me to the email chain: write2zaid@gmail.com

I did PF in high school. I'd say I was decent. I'm an Economics major @ UC Berkeley now (c/o 2022).

GENERAL PREFS

1. Talking fast is fine. I'm also good with spread if I have your speech doc.

2. I am okay with you running kritiks as long as you warrant, link, and impact it very well. No K AFFs, these are not topical. I prefer you stick to case debate because I understand that better and think it's more educational, but if you're really passionate about your "alternative" argument then by all means run it. You'll just really need to explain to me what's going on or you'll lose me. Exception: I think some form of arguing for ending the world as a K is pretty OP. Interpret that as you will.

3. Don't run theory. I think it's stupid and a waste of time. I'm cool with you pointing out issues regarding T or Condo though. CONDO BAD.

4. I'm 100% tabula rasa. Act as if I'm a blank slate on the topic.

5. Tech > truth. I will accept anything you run without intervention. Two exceptions:

a. if your opponent rightfully calls out a bigoted argument (i.e., something racist, homophobic, sexist, transphobic, islamaphobic, anti semitic, etc), I will view it as such and may drop you depending on the severity and definitely tank your speaker points.

b. if there are conflicting pieces of evidence (LD or PF), and no one explains why their card should be preferred, I will call both and make my decision on which one to weigh more based on the merits of each (recency, methodology, scope, etc). Even if cards are weighed, I still might call from both teams if I have doubts.

6. I put my pen down for the most part during final speeches, so I want you to clearly and succinctly explain to me (i.e., give me numbered reasons) why I should vote for you. Weighing directly at the impact level is also super important here.

7. If you are running a plan or CP, please be specific regarding what action you are taking, who the actor is, funding source, etc

PUBLIC FORUM PREFS

1. I'd like a 50/50 split offense/defense in summary. Doesn't have to be *exact* but a general guideline to follow.

2. Always give offtime roadmaps after the 1NC.

PARLI PREFS

1. Asking/attempting AND answering POIs is a good way to get higher speaker points. Don't spam your opponents with POIs though. Just enough for me to know you are engaged in the debate.

2. Tag teaming is fine, but you need to repeat what your partner says.

3. Always give offtime roadmaps after the 1AC.

LD PREFS

1. Always give offtime roadmaps after the 1AC.

SPEAKER POINT SCALE

Was too lazy to make my own so I stole from the 2020 Yale Tournament. I will use this if the tournament does not provide me with one:

29.5 to 30.0 - WOW; You should win this tournament

29.1 to 29.4 - NICE!; You should be in Late Elims

28.8 to 29.0 - GOOD!; You should be in Elim Rounds

28.3 to 28.7 - OK!; You could or couldn't break

27.8 to 28.2 - MEH; You are struggling a little

27.3 to 27.7 - OUCH; You are struggling a lot

27.0 to 27.2 - UM; You have a lot of learning to do

below 27/lowest speaks possible - OH MY; You did something very bad or very wrong

Vishnu Vennelakanti Northern Valley HS Independent 6 rounds

Avery Wilson McNeil High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu April 14, 2022 at 9:27 PM EDT

Quick pref list

K: 1

Impact Turns: 1

Policy (DA. CP, PICs, Plans, etc.): 2

Topicality: 2

Phil: 2/3

Theory: 5 (except disclosure, condo, pic/ks bad, vague alts, and similar args)

Tricks - Strike

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE - EXTEND WARRANTS. SAYING YOUR CLAIM AGAIN IS NOT A WARRANT. TELL ME WHY YOUR THING IS TRUE. STOP JUST SAYING ITS TRUE. PLEASE.

About me:

I'm Avery, you can call me Wilson, Judge, Avery or some combination during the round. I use She/her + they/them

email: awilso10@trinity.edu Put me on the email chain

I debated for 4 years at Jack C Hays.

Trinity 2025

Creator of the best off on the March April 2022 LD topic.

My biggest influences on debate are Patrick Fox, River Cook, and J.D Sanford. I'm often in agreement with them if something is missing from my paradigm, cross-check with theirs.

Debate is a game, but it is an educational game that has a lot of impact on people's lives. What you say in round matters. Don't knowingly misgender your opponent in rounds. If it is called out I have no problem dropping you to 25 speaks and would probably be pretty easily convinced to drop you. I'd prefer if you either label your opponent by the speech number (i.e The 1AR dropped x, or the 2NR, conceded y, instead of "he conceded x". This both avoids any chance of messing up pronouns, and makes it very clear to me where on the flow things are happening)

Conflicts: Saint Mary's Hall, Albuquerque Academy AK, Jack C Hays, Unionville

DONT READ CARDS THAT ARE WRITTEN BY CURRENT DEBATERS - I will not vote on it

Things I have found out -

I hate theory debate more and more every day.

No one who has read Queer Negativity in debate has understood what the argument is saying.

Explanation of views on debate and args -

ALL ARGS- Every arg in debate is either defense or offense. At the end of the day, the team with the most winning offense usually wins any debate. I evaluate my own and others debate through this view. You need to give me a reason to vote for you, not just reasons to not vote for your opponent.

K- The K is the argument i have the most experience with and read it most of my time in highschool debate. As an overview of the type of Ks im most familiar with, I read Agamben, Puar, OOO, NecroPtx, Bataille, Cybernetics, Death Good/DeepPess and Cap. Those arguments the one I'm the most familiar with, but I can likely follow along with whatever literature you are reading in debate. Ks should have an Alt that solves the impact of the K. What that alt looks like is up to the debaters, but defending an Alt goes a long way in giving me a reason to vote on the K.

I have spent the past year and a half reading Lacan and Psychoanalysis broadly.

K-Affs are cool and chill, just be able to defend your model of debate and have a reason to vote aff.

Don't read Pessimism arguments you don't have jurisdiction on - you know what this means.

Winning framing of the K is a must - you probably don't have much of a chance if you don't win why the K outweighs/comes first

Most permutations on Ks are not explained at all - if there is no explanation you kind of just point at it and go "nah". "Perm do both" isnt an argument, you need warrants. I highly prefer if your perm/perm answers are carded.

Word PIKs MUST be out of the advocacy text of the 1AC. if they aren't, Perm do the PIK/Aff is enough along with "no"

Frame-subtractions are just PIKs

As of right before TFA state, I have a lot of opinions on the K debate. The main thing is I think it fundamentally does not work in LD and the rounds are almost always insufferable. Basically, every K debate I've judged I've voted on "you didn't explain anything or extend a warrant in the entire 2nr or 1ar/2ar so I'm just having to evaluate meaningless claims." Unless you feel like you can explain the K and not just rant for 6 minutes, go ahead. Win framework, win the case turns, just win something that beats back the extinction first button, please.

(neg teams, you don't need to get fancy with it, you can just read impact turns against a lot of K-affs and you will sound much better than trying to explain a weird PIK you don't understand)

Phil- I read a lot of Phil in my time debating. Any neg round I wasn't reading the K I was reading Moral Particularism. Any old dead phil guy you wanna pull out I can likely follow, just be sure to explain the framing and how i look at impacts. You don't need to do an in depth explanation of authors like Hobbes or Locke, but might wanna spend more time if you are reading something like Levinas or Sartre.

LARP/Policy Args- I didn't very often go for these args in HS, however ive spent basically all of my debate time thinking of them now.

DA - DisAds are always a fun time. There isn't too much to say on what I think of them since there isn't really a lot going on. Have uniqueness. link, internal link, and an impact and we should have no problem.

CP - I'm a very big fan of them and they need to be used a lot better in LD. There is always a CP in the affs solvency advocate, you can always advantage CP adv 2 and impact turn adv 1, etc. CPs should be textually and functionally competitive.

PIC - PICs are one of my favorite args to see even though I didn't read a lot of them. I find these arguments really strategic that put the aff in an awkward position to respond to it. PICs are not cheating and probably won't vote on that theory shell UNLESS the PIC is doing something egregious like "Do the 1AC through executive order after consulting Japan but not x part of the plan"

T- Topicality is an argument I really enjoy seeing and evaluating, sadly, I think most T args are read in a very annoying way.

Competing Interps > Reasonability

Tech > Truth

Fairness is an impact under the "debate is a game" type of framing, under the research approach to debate it's an internal link to education (mostly applies to T-FW)

I lean negative on T - Framework. Clash is an impact. Limits is an internal link to clash. If you actually use T-FW to interact with the affs theory in the context of the debate space these debates become a lot better and less boring. Use T-FW to turn the RoB, use clash to turn the aff, I dont care just please do something interesting to make the ballot easier to write. Otherwise these debates become two ships passing in the night where no one is really in conversation with the other.

Theory- Most theory read for "strategic" purposes in debate I find extremely annoying and won't vote on them (frivolous theory). If theory is your go to strat and is not being done to call out in round abuse I wouldn't pref me. I'm much more inclined to value truth value on the Theory shell over pure tech.

- Most theory is just a reason to DTA and not DTD. If an arg is unfair and you beat it back on theory and still lose to a case turn, you deserved to lose absent the shell. Just cause the debate was hard doesnt mean you should win.

Condo - basically never voting on condo if its 1 condo position, 2 maybe, 3 I can see it.

Disclosure - This arg is just true. Disclose your read args people! I don't think people need to disclose in a specific way and probably any form of disclosure on the Wiki is good (OS, first three last three, etc). You need to include screenshots of the wiki with the time somewhere on the page. If either opponent hasn't disclosed read positions 30 minutes before round, that opponent is going to have a rough time winning the theory shell.

Addition Stuff -

98% of Word PIKs are not true and don't solve. Unless there is an actual reason to run it, don't.

Perf Cons are rarely a voting issue - you should be able to defend the aff from every position, otherwise get a better aff. Negation theory is true.

IVIs are often not IVIs and are instead just a turn. Cross-applying your K and saying something is an IVI doesn't make it one. Unless the IVI has an actual reason why it is DTD and not DTA it isnt a voting issue.

Im not voting on Colt Peacemaker

My thoughts on old topics that no longer exist - these may be useful to you

Space Topic -

Policy Affs - I don't think you need to spec a state or a mechanism to say your type of appropriation is bad and it probably just opens up T violations, but people insist on it. I think Spec on what type of Appropriation is 100% fine as long as it is an appropriation. If it isn't but the negative doesn't read T - Appropriation then who am I stop you. Affs like PTD or the China aff are probably T on a truth level.

T - I think T debates around what is/isn't appropriation are very cool and get into the core controversy of the literature. T Outerspace is dumb unless the aff is about like, lithium mining on earth or something. A lot of spec shells are likely going to be read and my big thing on them is "does the aff have an advantage around the mechanism or is it just a solvency claim?" I don't really care about the T shell if its just a solvency mechanism, I do think you have an abuse story if the aff is like 4 minutes of PTD being good in the abstract and it should be used more. Thankfully, all the affs that use a mechanism in no way have a use for it outside of beating back CPs.

K Affs - you have ZERO excuses to not be topical on this resolution. all you have to do is say private companies doing stuff in space is bad. This means T-Fw is basically a nonstarter if you meet this very very low threshold to be topical. However, if you somehow fail to do this, the neg has the world's greatest TVA in existence. Please dont make me vote on TFW this topic.

Login to Tabroom:

Nano Nagle Classic and Nano Nagle RR

2021 — NSDA Campus, CA/US

LD Judges Paradigm List

Judges