Add me to the email chain: thenateisgreat@icloud.com

Backup email: thenateisgreat@gmail.com

Nathan Brown, Peninsula 24'

Pronouns: he/him/his

Novice stuff (applies to everyone since I'm only judging middle school/novice anyway):

If you use google docs I'd recommend watching this video before the round: https://youtu.be/OXc7-GAyYOw

If you are unfamiliar with what an email chain is/how to operate one, please watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGu6MOEDNeI'

Time your speeches, please!!! Also, time your opponents' speeches.

2nr/2ar should predict the most important things in the debate and make sure they win those, which is a prerequisite to judge instruction. 2ns should not spread themselves too thin in the 2nr or that makes it tough for me to vote on anything when I have too many options but not enough substance.

Top Level:

Call me whatever you want, Nathan, Nate, judge Nate, Nate dogg, etc. I won't vote on what you call me.

I try my best to be a fair judge, but if you don't understand the argument, please don't read it.

Your camera should be on, don't steal prep. If your camera is off, you should be letting me know what you are doing so I don't think you're stealing prep (i.e. sending out the doc). I will keep my camera on during the debate unless something unexpected comes up, so if I'm not visible on camera make sure I'm there.

Recording the debate is allowed and encouraged, it will help you get better.

Clarity over speed, but beware of the dangers of excessive speed and online debate. Relying on the power of your wifi and my wifi is risky, but if it cuts out for a significant amount of time I'll let you know and we can re-start from the timestamp.

Join rounds ASAP, disclose ASAP.

Tech over truth, dropped arguments are true, though whether or not the argument was truly "dropped" can be contested based on the previous speech. Open cross-x good, it's ok to ask a quick question of the other team during your prep, I believe the other team should answer those questions.

Policy:

Aff:

I've been a 2N basically my whole debate career; only run policy affs

I'm not more biased toward soft-left affs vs big-stick affs but know that soft-left affs usually come with the burden of winning framing. I'll vote for them if your framing is sufficient, but I will default to extinction first unless you tell me why to prioritize your impacts. I will never assign zero warrant or risk to extinction, but framing is a good way to mitigate their offense and bolster your impacts, but don't rely on solely framing to take out the neg's impacts. I'm only going to believe that there's an extremely low risk of the DA if you are actually winning some defense against it. Read whatever impact you want, especially nuanced impacts that can't be impact-turned. Also, I don't mind long internal link chains as long as they are logical and "follow-able".

No new 1ar answers unless it's to new impacts/offense in the block of course. If you manage to hide new 1ar answers disguised as extrapolations of 2ac answers, good for you.

Planless affs:

I don't think K affs in middle school/novice debate is a common thing, that's good. If you do read a planless aff, just know I do not have much experience with these but I will hold it to a high standard. I think fairness and clash are good, strong impacts so that makes your burden high. You have to prove to me why the ballot has the role you assign it in the debate, and why that role is good. I will default to the interpretation that the ballot is to communicate which team did the better debating to tabroom unless thoroughly persuaded otherwise.

Neg:

Dissads: Great, this is probably the neg strat you learned how to debate with. A dissad has to be complete, it needs uniqueness, link, impact. Just reading a single generic link card in your 1nc is not enough. Of course, aff-specific links are great, but you can defend generic links too. Make sure you're reading a dissad that still has uniqueness. (i.e. don't read senate elections if they're over)

Counterplans: CPs are good, make sure you have a net benefit. If the net benefit is internal, it's your burden to extend that along with the counterplan. If the net benefit is external (i.e. a dissad), then extend that through the 2nr. It's not a net benefit if it isn't extended into the last speech.

CP theory's a reason to reject the arg. (except condo)

PICs that pic out of a fundamental part of the aff are good. How legitimate your pic is is up for debate.  I don't like "should" competition (who does?)

Adv CPs are good, plank abuse might change my mind

Process CPs are probably bad

I think conditionality is probably good, but if you lose it, it's still a voter. For the aff, it will be a lot to convince me condo is bad, but if they're being extremely abusive with it in-round, that's reason to vote aff.  

Topicality: Affs should be T. Impacts are important. Also, make sure you extend your interp. It's easier to win T arguments that aren't super limiting and I tend to side with T interps that are specific and clearly exclude the aff's mechanism. It is the neg's burden to prove why the aff doesn't meet their interp, I am especially inclined to vote on the we meet if the neg reads a vague interp.

Kritik: I can't stress this enough, you're probably in middle school if you're reading this, so please only read Ks that you can understand and defend. Reading blocks and never responding to the neg arguments on the K is not a good debate. I believe you should also defend the theoretical/framework reasons to vote for the K, though I am generally reluctant to vote on "you link you lose" unless the neg is clearly and thoroughly ahead on framework. That being said, root cause claims or "our impact makes theirs inevitable" are arguments I believe help mitigate case well. Long overviews are overrated - get to substance.

FW v K affs:

The aff has the burden of convincing me why their interp of what debate should be outweighs any neg offense, and that means responding to neg arguments thoroughly and explaining why your view of debate is better, because I will assume debate is a competitive game going into a round. I love clever neg add-ons or dissads on the FW or T flow. Fairness is an intrinsic good and probably the best impact to go for. Try to explain why you access more offense with FW than they do with a ballot. It's not hard to convince me that my ballot can only remedy procedural unfairess.

=Assorted Theory

ASPEC: prefer not, I'll vote on it if it's clearly warranted in the 1NC and (functionally) dropped by the aff

Disclosure Theory: I think disclosure is really important in a debate. That being said, it's a hard ballot to write unless there is proof that the aff purposefully evaded disclosing their aff before the round. Provide proof they refused disclosure and I'll hear you out, but for it to be a ballot it's gotta be extended heavily in block/2nr.

Condo: above, under "counterplans"

LD:

I do not have much experience with LD, but please refer to the "Top Level" section of my paradigm. If I am judging you for LD, you probably are just starting so don't stress out in round and have fun.

Please add both emails to the email chain:

PeninsulaDebateKD@gmail.com

PennDebateDY@gmail.com

Please disclose before round

Tech>Truth

Won't vote on AdHoms

If you hit a Suiiiiii after each speech, it will bolster your ethos and make me more likely to vote for you.

Telling me who your favorite player is, and I'll either dock or add points depending on how valid I think it is.

seva.gaskov@gmail.com - please add me to the email chain!!
she/they

Mamaroneck High School '20, Palos Verdes Peninsula High School '23, Arizona State University 27', 5th year debater

Spreading
Go ahead, I am fine with high speed as long as you are clear. I will try my best to flow everything but if you're unintelligible, I can't guarantee that I will be able to hear everything.

Tech vs. Truth
I am a tabula rasa and tech judge and I will vote on whatever is on the flow as long as it's not offensive.

Policy vs. K
I am fine with most kritiks. If I don't understand what your K says, I won't vote on it, so if you run Baudrillard, explain it well.

In K aff debates, I will usually prefer neg on framework unless it's debated poorly. Also, I want you to make it clear how an aff ballot solves.

Impacts
I am fine with either big stick or soft left impacts, just make sure to prove why your impact outweighs.

T
I am fine with T debates but unless the aff is clearly abusive, I will prefer reasonability. Either way, make sure to have a lot of good evidence and comparison.

DAs
Make sure to have all parts of your DA - uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact. I will treat the takeout of any single part of the DA as the takeout of the entire disad. So if the aff proves you don't link or that your DA is non-unique, I will vote aff on the DA. Give a clear story and do impact calc to explain why your DA outweighs.

CPs
I am fine with any CPs as long as there is a net benefit. I will disallow a type of CP only if the aff proves it's bad on theory.

Theory
I will vote on any theory but explain your standards and impacts well.

Speaks
30: You did something that really impressed me and I really enjoyed listening to your speeches. I have no doubt that you will win the tournament.

29 - 29.9: You did really well and your speeches were very interesting. You will most likely win the tournament or at least get to semifinals.

28.5 - 28.9: You did well and you had good speeches that made you win. You will likely break.

28 - 28.5: You did average and there are a lot of improvements to be made. Perhaps you were not clear or your speeches were messy. You could break.

27-28: You did badly and you need a lot of improvement. I will usually not give those speaks unless I really think that you messed up really badly in your speech. You would also get those speaks if you were unintelligible or if your speech didn't make sense.

27 and less: You probably said something that was offensive and made the debate really unpleasant for either me or your opponents.

nanruili2025@gmail.com

Peninsula 2025.

Conditionality is good.

The negative should disprove the desirability of the affirmative. Case specific strategies will result in higher speaker points and a greater chance at victory. Process counterplans and generic framework critiques are not ideal and will be an uphill battle.

In particular, critiques should make sense in a world where the plan happens. Framework should not be employed as a procedural violation to invalidate the entirety of the 1AC.

The affirmative should prove the desirability of the resolution. In other words, not a big fan of critical affirmatives.

Peninsula '25 (hopefully) Yale, Harvard, or Stanford '29 (definitely)

Put me on the email chain: neptunicrager@gmail.com

Do impact calc or I will obviously and visibly flip a coin while staring at you, immediately submitting my ballot following that. You cannot prove a connection between these two things.

Not voting on something I didn't see happen in-round. This includes not disclosing past 2NRs.

+0.5 speaker points for a well-maintained wiki. Let me know if you think you meet that criteria.

CX open + binding, spreading good--this isn't a midwest local (hopefully)

Clipping is an auto-win--just not for you.

Truth > Tech insofar as I will probably try to subconsciously rationalize a ballot for arguments I think are better.

CONDO. It's good, have never gone for condo in 4 years as a 2A, but you can win it's bad--some stuff if you're getting curbstomped on substance and want a cop-out:

If the aff can prove the neg constructed the 1nc in such a way that it was impossible to respond to, i.e. contradictory condo, I'll eagerly vote on it.

2NC counterplanning out of straight turns is annoying and cowardly but you can probably justify it. Aff should straight turn in the 1AR, not 2AC to prevent this. Also, usually it often screws with their offense so be on the lookout.

Number of off doesn't really change how chill I am with conditional advocacies unless your interps make it such--doesn't meet the counterinterp, or the debate comes down to like 1 CP, 1 K vs 3 condo or some numerical comparison where the debate comes down to the merits of that one extra advocacy.

I can tell if you're going for it because you're losing everywhere else and want to turn the debate into a coinflip- I get it, but is substance really that unwinnable for you? Will probably lower your speaks if you go for it as a cop-out but doesn't consciously affect the decision itself.

Have a real interp in the 2AC. Once saw a shell that was "Condo strat skew research dispo solves" and I reconsidered my involvement in this activity. Please, make it well thought-out and intricate in the constructive if you want to have a shot at winning with a blown up 2ar.

K Affs:

I really wanna see a topical K aff debated well. I'm talking Atticus Glen style arguments. High skill floor, but I'll be impressed and give you high speaks if you can pull it off effectively.

Reconsider reading a planless aff in middle school/novice year, but for these debates:

Fairness is an impact and will be unless "just an internal link" is literally dropped

Aff should impact turn neg standards. Your C/I almost never solves their offense and the Limits DA is fire

Very sympathetic to the argument that the only thing my ballot can do is decide who won on a technical level, and convincing me otherwise in the face of competent debating is an uphill battle

Counterplans:

Significantly less convinced of neg's pleas for absurd counterplans on Fiscal Redistribution. Go for the Econ DA! Debate the case!

The Aff should go for theory more. Probably like 70/30 aff in most instances with a well-crafted interp (multi-level fiat, international, multi-actor, honey) (Side Note: Interp's really important. "Process CPs are bad" probably isn't one, "consult CPs bad" probably is.

Send permtexts. It's time-consuming and hard to think under the pressure of a huge 1nc, but competition is a great way out of a debate where you may have zilch against a new process counterplan, and I just enjoy these debates if done well (or competently given it's middle school)

Functional + Textual competition is weird to me. Why not just go for theory instead of making up a new way counterplans compete? Smart perms are fun to see, but seem intuitively bad for neg offense and debate in general.

Offsets is obviously not competitive if they don't have "increase fiscal redistribution" in the plantext. Counterplans compete with the Aff, not the topic--if they're not the topic, go for T!

Taxes PIC competition is 50/50. Aff should have a deficit or be prepared for the Perm do the CP debate.

Universality PICs are... hard. It feels bad to give the Aff subsets, but also probably unbeatable if the neg goes for a PIC? Maybe the solution is just to read social security, idk.

I have a higher standard for advantage CP planks than most. The Aff obviously gets new 1AR answers to planks not substantiated with a piece of evidence if not written out in excruciating detail. If Eagan LS would have read your CP, reconsider.

DA:

DAs are pretty good on this topic, for the first time in forever. You could probably beat every universal BI or JG aff on Econ DA + case--and high speaks if you do.

Contextualizing the link will do wonders. Super hard to justify a neg ballot when your explanation and spin doesn't go beyond the generic 1NC card. If you don't have any specific links, then spin like it's goddamn ballet and go for gold

Rider DAs one of the only probably illegit ones. The best interp of fiat is one where the consequences of the Aff are focused on, not any extraneous BS.

Horsetrading is arguable- it's based on the consequences of passing the plan and the plan alone absent some sort of weird attatchment to it but nobody writes these DAs anymore so who really cares

K:

As the meta moves away from substantively engaging the Aff, I get less and less amendable to neg framework pushes. You don't even have a link to the Aff--you've gone for FW as offense. These often contradict the links, as well--if the aff makes it less likely, but it's also antiblack, isn't it good to prevent antiblack violence?

FW: Aff probably gets the plan but that doesn't mean it's all that matters--best interp is probably that aff has to defend reps but gets to use the consequences of the plan as a justification for them. Neg gets reps links but has to explain why it outweighs the plan's consequences. Both sides agree you can't sever representations from justifications so it comes down to case debate. K debate is case debate!

Perm seems very hard to beat on this topic. When the Aff boxes you into "giving poor people money bad" you're in the wrong parts of the library for debating in front of me.

Alt's super important and people don't put much thought in anymore--go for the perm if it solves the impacts to the K, not the links because double bind becomes real. Alt bad must be a part of the 2ar--"case outweighs" gets you nowhere against competent teams.

Author indicts are gonna need to be impacted out because 20 "deleuze is a pedophile" cards or whatever doesn't really amount to much substantive offense.

Psycho's probably bs. Will be easier to prove I should reject it for unfalsifiability than not.

T:

Very hard to convince me debatability is all that matters with competent precision/predictability explanation by the aff. Predictable limits, precision prerequisite to ground, etc. are all pretty damn convincing and predictability outweighs is generally the aff's best bet.

Not very many reasonable T violations on this topic.

Lean neg on T courts for debatability reasons given there's 0 lit on either side.

Reasonability is just the argument your c/i solves enough of their limits DA that the predictability DA outweighs--explain it more like that instead of "1% risk we solve any of their offense is AUTO AFF BALLOT BECAUSE SUBSTANCE CROWD OUT!"

Non-resolutional procedurals should lose to infinite regress.

Feel free to ask about the decision- I encourage it. It's really helpful for growth to understand how you could have improved your speech and even more so to actually do it (redos!).

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

OLD:

I will never vote for the quid pro quo counterplan. Under any circumstances.

I will drop you for using mac. Non-negotiable.

Firm believer in all disciplines being equal- besides mental evaluation it must also be physical- post-round you will physically combat the other team (or because of online debate challenge them to a clash royale match) to determine speaker points and I will give the winner a piece of chocolate- this also means I am persuaded by a challenge of a physical confrontation in the 1ac in order to determine the ballot.

My memory isn't great so please recite every piece of evidence you would like to extend word-for-word

If I see a plantext, auto L and 25 speaks

Condo is bad. Negation theory ONLY justifies the squo

Vagueness is almost always good- if I can't understand what the aff or alt does by the end of the round that motivates a ballot not to mention the strategic benefits

Ground and Grounds is the same word

Truth > Tech- I do not flow and will be evaluating the debate purely based on cards

RVIs are very persuasive- requires significant negative investment to convince me not to vote on it and that time investment just proves skew further

I will not disclose personal moral beliefs- however if you violate any it will make it almost impossible to vote for you

Trump won the election. Take from that what you will. "Biden solves" will result in a 25 and auto-loss.

Do not look me in the eyes during cross-ex- I will view it as a challenge of my authority and any maggots who dare gaze into the void will be consumed

Argue with the other team after the round to determine my decision- look to pf grand cross for an example

Feeding into the previous vagueness point- this applies to speaking too- I will believe you if you say you finished a card unconditionally and accusations of clipping will be punished

My _ key is broken- please do not say any word with an _ in it or I will not be able to flow it and be irritated

Make an obscure reference to (insert unknown debater) for 0.1 extra speaks!

Please warn me when you're about to start the speech with a 10 second countdown and get verbal confirmation by everyone in the room individually that they're ready for you to start- it's important everyone is ready.

Will evaluate arguments either team asserts as dropped as made even if unintelligble earlier

Please pronounce all punctuation verbally- it prevents me from flowing effectively if you do not.

Peninsula '25

please put me on the email chain at andrewl778@yahoo.com

tech>truth

making fun of mike li's height: +0.2 speaks

don't start without asking if everyone's ready, get verbal confirmation

please time your prep and speeches

stop talking after it's time, I don't flow it

clarity>speed

you should have your camera on during your speeches and I will the whole time

I switched to LD a couple of months ago so try to elaborate more on the aff

T:

only run this when you think you can convince the judge that the aff's abusive

topicality is good

don't be one of those people that doesn't send out the standards

fairness is an impact

DAs:

these are nice, try avoiding generic links for ptx but you gotta do what you what you gotta do, just try doing well on the link and framing if you read it

impact calc is good

CP:

condo is good

judgekick works only if you tell me

perm spam tends to be a good strategy until you try extending it

Ks:

buzzwords are bad, if you can't explain your own k, you probably shouldn't be running it

they don't work without links

Theory:

don't think you can extend this for 10 seconds in the final rebuttal and win on it

Miscellaneous:

death good = bad

being mean = bad speaks

being mean to your partner = bad speaks

talking over partner in cross = bad speaks

witty arguments = good speaks

clipping cards = auto win for other team

sign posting = good speaks

not sign posting = bad speaks (probably will have a lot of leniency on this because I don't do it very well myself)

stealing prep = bad speaks

spicy card indicts = good speaks

LD:

basically it's the same thing

i'm not sure why teams feel obligated to read framing but this only matters if they're different so prepare accordingly

you should have a plan defending the resolution

I would prefer if you added me to the email chain: jinuleonam@gmail.com

I am a sophomore at Palos Verdes Peninsula High school who has debated starting in middle school.

Please disclose at least 20 minutes before the round if there is evidence of bad disclosure I will be more sympathetic to theory

General information for rounds: Open cross is fine just don't talk over your partner, spreading is cool but don't sacrifice clarity for speed, always tech>truth in debates I will vote on literally any argument (Death K, Spark, Impact turning Ks) this does not mean I endorse the arguments. Extending an argument is not just saying the tag but fully re-explaining all parts of it.

Please give an order at the top of a speech and signpost

I really enjoy watching you clash with your opponent's arguments and compare evidence meaningfully

Don't assume I understand all your jargon, explain arguments well

I'm fine with sass cursing etc to an extent (please don't be racist, sexist, homophobic)

Cross ex: please be respectful of everyone if you are overly aggressive you will lose speaks and credibility

T: I will only vote on T if you make a specific argument with examples of in-round abuse. Out of the impacts on T I am generally most persuaded by fairness (this applies for framework against K affs as well). Please fully extend Interp violation standards and voters don't just scream they dropped ez dubs.

CP: When reading abusive CPs (certain process cps, annoying PICs that steal offense, technical pseudo net benefits) I will become much more sympathetic to theory and intrinsic perms against that CP so be careful. I generally am not convinced by condo would not recommend going for it unless there was clear abuse or it was dropped.

DA: Nothing special here just make sure your link work is strong. Impact comparison is underutilized in the last speeches. Fully extend links impacts I link through the entire debate.

K: I will not consider Ks if you don't explain the link work well. When running your kritik please explain everything clearly if I don't hear a link specific to the aff or I have no idea what the alt does I will not vote. Avoid spamming buzz words especially when answering cross ex it shows you don't understand your own kritik.

K - Affs: I am biased against them but if you believe in your cause and show clear understanding and care you might win me over.

Speaks: Innovative or funny arguments are good and I will give you extra speaks for creativity

If you teach me a chess gambit for black side that I do not already know +0.1 speaks.

Senior at Peninsula

Pronouns: they/any

put me on the email chain thanks: derric.parker@gmail.com

Usually I decide rounds by

1) evaluating questions of the theoretical justifications for having the debate round/debates in general

2) within the lens of 1, evaluating questions of how I see debate generally/contribute towards a good model for debate in general

3) within the lens of 1 and 2, weighing the substantive/theoretical pieces of offense which each team has made and deciding who accesses the most/most important offense.

-Tech > truth

-Condo good

-Fiat is immediate

-Fairness is an I/L to truth testing, truth is tautologically a good thing to pursue

-Winning abuse means i reject the argument

General Stuff

- I read policy and french stuff, less well-versed in identity/cap stuff

- Affs should have a solvency advocate – I'll vote on death good or anti-debate, you just have to explain what voting aff implicates and why that’s preferable to what voting neg does

- (obviously) the less generic the disad link the better

- I see T as a disad vs. policy affs and a counterplan vs. K affs

-“Rebuttal speeches should be closing doors not opening more” -Dylan Barsoumian

For your speaker points

Auditory ethos is infinitely more important than visual ethos (I wrote this before online debate but its more true now), so please be clear, don’t hum-spread, and emphasize when saying important stuff

you don’t need to call me judge

Add me to the email chain: neel.redkar@gmail.com

Experience: 5 years of debate in policy, ld, and pf

Tech > Truth

Please read overviews and signpost clearly especially for online debate. Even though I've probably already seen your arguments before, please explain them and contextualize any offense, giving a good story of your impacts. Evidence will help with the story, but just a 2ac/2nc of tag extended cards and "they dropped my point" won't help you on the flow, I expect warrants to be extended and explained well, and contextualized.

I'm good with any argument, just if you're running a K, contextualize the link, and explain it well

Debate is what you want it to be, make sure to have fun!

Update for Loyola 2020

Honestly, not much has changed since this last LD update in 2018 except that I now teach at Success Academy in NYC.

Update for Voices / LD Oct 2018:

I coach Policy debate at the Polytechnic School in Pasadena, CA. It has been a while since I have judged LD. I tend to do it once a or twice a year.

You do you: I've been involved in judging debate for over 10 years, so please just do whatever you would like to do with the round. I am familiar with the literature base of most postmodern K authors, but I have not recently studied classical /enlightenment philosophers.

It's okay to read Disads: I'm very happy to judge a debate involving a plan, DAs and counter-plans with no Ks involved as well. Just because I coach at a school that runs the K a lot doesn't mean that's the only type of argument I like / respect / am interested in.

Framework: I am open to "traditional" and "non-traditional" frameworks. Whether your want the round to be whole res, plan focused, or performative is fine with me. If there's a plan, I default to being a policymaker unless told otherwise.

Theory: I get it - you don't have a 2AC so sometimes it's all or nothing. I don't like resolving these debates. You won't like me resolving these debates. If you must go for theory, please make sure you are creating the right interpretation/violation. I find many LD debaters correctly identify that cheating has occurred, but are unable to identify in what way. I tend to lean education over fairness if they're not weighed by the debaters.

LD Things I don't Understand: If the Aff doesn't read a plan, and the Neg reads a CP, you may not be satisfied with how my decision comes out - I don't have a default understanding of this situation which I hear is possible in LD.

Other thoughts: Condo is probably a bad thing in LD.

.

.

Update for Jack Howe / Policy Sep 2018: (Sep 20, 2018 at 9:28 PM)

Update Pending

Please use the link below to access my paradigm. RIP Wikispaces.

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Vepa%2C+Teja

usefordebate1@gmail.com

Spreading is fine as long as you're clear, still fairly new to judging, currently debating mostly substance, not too informed on K-style debates but I'll try to follow it, just explain the links very clearly and articulate the neg story. Theory and T are fine, just don't be frivolous and I generally buy drop the arg for anything except Condo. The base for speaks will be 28, +0.1 for being funny. -0.2 if you fail to be funny. I don't vote on tricks and do impact calc on the 2nr and 2ar. Tech > Truth but I don't buy fake or racist arguments, and if you run racist args you're getting the lowest speaks.

Give an order before your speeches.

Do impact calc at the top of the 2nr and 2ar- explain your args.

Don't read random blocks, contextualize your arguments for what your opponents are reading

Cameras on if tech permits.

Peninsula '23 | Emory '27 | Peninsula, OCSA

coralynnchiang@gmail.com

Pre-Round: Do whatever you need to do to win, my argumentative preferences marginally affect your chances at winning relative to dramatic strategic adjustments.

Top Level:

1. Tech > Truth. Flow (straight down) > evidence (preference for comprehensiveness & conclusiveness over other metrics, but amenable to judge instruction) > intervention (unmade cross-applications, etc.). Intervention is a result of interpretive ambiguity - judge instruction, warrant comparison & argument implication minimize this.

*Won't intervene or reject arguments automatically, but amenable to argumentative clarity objections to a punitive tech > truth model. Embedded theory arguments, floating PIKs & argumentative extrapolations not clearly based in evidence justify entirely new answers.

2. Topic knowledge for fiscal redistribution is medium-high. I've judged a lot of debates and am involved with Peninsula but moreso in strategy than research.

3. Clash is good. Demonstrate topic knowledge, consolidate the debate early & read more evidence. You will 'have my heart' & be rewarded with speaker points. This is my only 'strong' opinion and frames the rest of my thoughts about who 'should' win a debate.

Content:

1. Topicality. Affs designed around clash-avoidance should lose to T, but otherwise, going for T is susceptible to reasonability.

2. Counterplans. Better for the aff on theory & competition than most. The aff should center reasons the counterplan doesn't answer the 1ac / is anti-educational & the neg should center fairness in their defense. Impact calculus & interpretive integrity (clarity regarding what counterplans are included / excluded) matter.

3. Disads. The link often matters more than uniqueness (think: a 40% chance of Biden winning in the status quo is still a 40% risk of extinction if the link is true). Narrative coherence & try or die matter.

4. Kritiks. Preference for at: case outweighs is answer the case > util k > alt solves > framework. Aff answers to framework need to center a defense of a model of debate (vs. clash) or a unique impact intrinsic to topicality (vs. fairness). Good for both debate good + clash & no link to debate bad + fairness.

5. LD. Relatively new to judging & exclusively competed in policy. No objection to substantive philosophy, but lack institutional memory. 'Tricks' are terrible for clash and unlikely to prove successful in front of me, especially given this activity's issue with clarity & argumentative incoherence (won't flow off the doc).

Coach for Peninsula

Plz put me on the email chain atStevenyu0923@gmail.com

Tech over truth dropped arguments are presumed to be true, but I do believe that true arguments are easier to defend.

Simplicity is good. The more complex an argument is, the more explanation is needed beyond it's "dropped" or tag line extensions.

Truthfully, not the best flow in the community so would like you to slow down on analytics especially if not in the doc.

Hiding theory is cowardice. You can and might win but speaks = nuked

Every argument needs a claim, warrant, impact. If it's missing any one of the 3 components, I reserve the right to not vote on it.

For every min of prep you don't use I will give 0.1 of extra speaks up to a cap of 29.5.

You should debate as if I have 0 understanding of the topic

I find myself somewhat expressive during the debate. Feel free to use that to your advantage.

Tech over truth. But below are my predispositions. They can all be changed by technical debating but I find myself being convinced easier if debaters abide by said predispositions.

Anything is game. No args are off limits. Whether it's egregious impact turns or stupid theory arguments. But arguments about personal issues or issues outside of debate is off limits.

Fairness is likely an impact.

Condo is good.

Process CPs are bad but likely hard to win absent a good answer to arbitrariness.

Reasonability is bad.

Inserting rehighlightings is NOT ok.

Predictability > debatability

Debates and characterizations of ev > ev quality itself

Timeframe matters, determines directionality of turns case.

PIKs are probably bad but likely theoretically justifiable against a K aff. (went for this a decent bit)

Plan text in a vacuum is stupid.

Familiarity with arguments

Policy stuff all fine. Not a big fan of politics.

Turns case is as probable as the rest of the DA. If DA is 1% and turns case is dropped, it net values to 1% so the aff weighs 99% of the aff vs 1% of the DA.

Not a fan of complex theory debates other than T.

Adv CPs + impact turns are my favorite 2NRs in high school.

Ks are fine. Although it's best if the FW interpretation allows your opponents to weigh the plan because it's defense not offense. If you win FW without a link to the 1AC then I still vote aff on presumption. If you are spreading analytics on FW straight down, please save pen time. Winning case is a good idea proves education about case is good.

K aff vs T --- I find myself more aff leaning then people would imagine. I believe the only real internal link for the neg is predictability. Even that internal link is arbitrary and likely can't solve. K affs that just call T or whatever the neg does microaggressions will find a hard time succeeding in front of me. K affs that undercut the neg's internal links to fairness by indicting legal precision or predictability could be very successful.

I believe PIKs, creative impact turns, or counter advocacies are also ways to negate K affs.

LD

God forbid I ever judge LD but if I do, please stay as far away as possible from Phil or Tricks.

Middleschool:

Clarity > speed

Flow

Don't steal prep