add me to the chain! anastasi.agafonov@lmghs.org

lmghs ‘23

they/them

"I like when things are crazy. Something good comes out of exhaustion." -John Mulaney, comedian.

important: if you have triggering content in your argument, please disclose that to me/your opponents!

General

i’m a senior in high school and do policy debate/judge PF. i’m a K debater but i’m open to all styles of debate. please explain jargon related to your arguments! i am sadly not omniscient. i’m not persuaded by arguments outside of debate (the “this you?” personal callouts stay out of round). i don't vote for homophobic/racist and discriminatory arguments or debaters. don't misgender your opponents/partners/judges, or me. seriously. be passionate but not mean. yes, there's a difference. i prefer cameras to be on but if you have technical difficulties i am totally cool with that ! the last two speeches are the most important to me, frame the ballot story at the top. i lean truth > tech but that doesn't mean i wont be convinced by dropped theory shells, and i think dropped arguments are fairly true. i'm just very suspicious of your 50 word DA shell. i'm a firm believer that every off read in the 1NC should be a potential 2NR strat. also i flow cx, i live for a good cx

Case

I LIVE FOR GOOD CASE DEBATE. i will respect you ten times more if you line by line stuff from the case flow, it's such a power move. case debate has gone extinct and i would love to see some engaging case debate. 2a's should keep their case o/v's SHORT

Ks

i adore kritiks with my entire being. keep o'vs short, i can't stand seven minute o/v's. also kinda obvious: reasons to prefer fw, internal links to standards (this is more on k affs) are all amazing.

some k lit i am very familiar with: cap/neolib, set col, queer/fem abolition, queer rage, queerpess, queer ungov, queerpess. i've read many antiblack arguments too but never ran them. oh, and if your team is completely non-black please dont run afropess. read this: https://thedrinkinggourd.home.blog/2019/12/29/on-non-black-afropessimism/

if you're a pomo fan, im probably best for baudrillard, bataille, deleuze. please nuance these arguments however -- k debate is great if its in context to the aff. im suspicious of voting on links of omission. also 2nc link walls must be intense!!! have multiple levels of links

note: i hate edelman. a lot. i can hate on them for hours.

K Affs

yes. pref me k aff people. i like K affs obviously, as long as they’re somewhat relevant. have a strong topic link, is what i'm saying. my biggest pet peeve is neg teams who cry about k aff's skewing ground when 99% of the time they really dont. i feel like most teams forgot how to go for t/fw this year so yeah. K affs DO get perms, period.

Theory/T

i hate disclosure theory for lots of reasons. i’m not the biggest fan of theory in general--but it’s fine if you read it to me. going for condo bad in a 2ar is not my favorite. i'm not a fan of theory/t 2ars but if you're winning on it go for it. i lean towards condo good-- "get good scrubs." -Nick Lepp, DDI, 2020. i also lean pics good

CPs

really not my style but it's fine. if you're an eight off and case debater and half those cps are not competitive i'm going to lose my mind. cps with conditional planks kinda get on my nerves. i usually think cp theory is poorly executed but if you win it on the flow i'll vote for it.

Speaks

i can flow pretty fast but if you're gargling mouthwash or "running a marathon" in your speech please go a little slower. it wont hurt to have me hear your arguments. lord almighty please go slow on your tags. it bothers me SO MUCH if you spread your tags and i can't differentiate. say next before you move start the next tag! i need to flow!

PF

most of my general preferences apply here, but i love crossfires that seem well thought out and can point out holes in the other team's arguments. if you write my ballot in the final focus, i'll be able to evaluate the debate a lot better. try not to talk over your partner during grand crossfire, it's a pet peeve.

Misc.

+0.3 if you tell me a rick n morty reference

+0.2 if you give me a song rec

yes chain: sheima.ben-abdallah.27@dartmouth.edu

4 years HS policy, currently debating @ dartmouth. I am good for what you're good at.

.

If it's policy, I have topic knowledge. LD or PF, not so much.

.

I primarily read kritiks––– good for k affs

I'm mostly in the back of clash debates--- good for framework

I think conditionality is probably good

.

preferences:

(edit: 11/29/2023-- pls do not read LD tricks or PF off-time roadmaps in front of me i will be bored )

please time yourself, ev ethics challenges r not case negs, "concede the ballot and lets have a discussion" = L 24

.

speaks usually stay within the range of (28.4––29.4)

I reserve the right to end the round if I think it's reached an uneducational and unsafe point.

Hii!! Hope you're doing well. My one main rule is be nice; no discrimination, racism, homophobia, etc, i'll immediately vote you down if that is displayed. thank you:))

If you want (I'll ask if you want it), I can give end of round feedback but check your ballots after the tournament for suggestions and very detailed feedback

Policy debaters: If you can please add me to the chain for the speeches and documents (this isn't necessary because I flow everything but it's nice) my email is robertachin13@gmail.com thank you :D I've done policy debate for 2 years and I'd vote for anything that's well developed, but my preferences for the 2nr are well fleshed out Ks. T is alright but I hardly run it unless it's a seriously topical aff sooo... For case, aff, extending your case till the end is important. any affirmative is fine, just extend your case and try not to drop any of neg's args. neg, make sure to try to respond to all of aff's advantages/impacts. I'll notice dropped arguments but will only vote on it if it's major like if you drop a whole CP and neg goes for it in the 2nr, then ofc i have to vote for neg , so try not to drop anything:D otherwise, it comes down to is your policy effective, can neg prove its not with off cases etc. Clarity over speed but I don't mind speed, you can spread :D anyways good luckk:D

PF: make sure to refute each points the opponents bring up and then extend on yours. I flow everything you say :D so try not to drop any of the arguments b/c I'll notice and that can cost rounds:( but don't forget to extend on why your points are good, why you should win etc. Good luck :D

Good luckk everyone!!!<3

Hi - I've judged several tournaments over the last year and I love hearing different points of view.

First -- make sure I can understand you. If you go fast and mumble, I won't hear your points and will have a hard time following your arguments. Ideally, enumerate your points so I can follow them and keep track of them throughout the argument. If you go fast, make sure I can get your points! Otherwise, focus on what's most important and share that with me.

Second -- use your time! If you have 4 minutes, make the most of it.

Third -- Cite your sources. It is important that you do this so I can compare evidence. Then tell me why those points are important.

Fourth -- (but probably most important) Be respectful. Good sportsmanship and being kind is important to me. If you insult or talk down to the other team, I will not be impressed.

Lastly, listen to the other team.

Good luck!

Hi my name is Edalene. I am a student judge. I did MS Public Forum for 2.

Some Other Notes:

I will be keeping time, but feel free to do so too.

Don’t bring up new information in the summary/ final focus

Weigh your argument. Why is what you said important? Why should I vote for you?

I will not judge based of crossfire, so if any important points were brought up mention them in your speech.

I appreciate signposting

Be respectful to one another

Bring through your argument to your final focus, otherwise I will consider it dropped and will not consider it towards your overall argument, even if th opponent never addresses it.

I am not going to judge based of speaking but please speak clearly and not too quickly so that I can understand.

Good luck and have fun!!

*TOC coaching affiliation: I am a coach for Break Debate. Conflict List---Barrington AC, Carnegie Vanguard LH, Durham SA, Flower Mound AM, Garland LA, L C Anderson LS, L C Anderson NW, Lexington MS, Lynbrook BZ, Lynbrook OM, Monta Vista EY, Oak Ridge AA, Sage Oak Charter AK, Scripps Ranch AS, Southlake Carroll AS, St Agnes EH, Seven Lakes VS.

*Please start the email chain without me - I flow without the doc.

Debate is a game that requires dropped arguments to be evaluated as true in order to function. That means I will vote on anything sans racism, sexism, etc.

—CX—

One of the most important parts of the round. I will shake my head if you ask about a card that wasn’t read.

—Ks—

2NR must explain why either the plan or plan focus is bad. Quotes from evidence, cx, and references to their performance are persuasive.

An offensive reason for why they shouldn’t be able to weigh case + a link to the affs reps is sufficient. You do not need an alternative because framework provides uniqueness.

If the link is to the plan, you do not need to win framework as long as you treat the K as a critical DA and CP. Link turns case prior to solvency, the impact to the link outweighs case, the alt solves enough of the aff for the link to outweigh the solvency deficit, etc.

Perm cards and generic DAs are unpersuasive. Spend that time doing contextual analysis, using the link to explain why the perm fails.

—Policy vs K—

2AR must explain why either their reps are good, or why plan focus is good.

Good affs have smart tricks vs the K: aff is anti-militarist, withdrawal inevitable, plan affirms sovereignty, etc. Use them.

Perm double bind.

Debate the links, don’t just assert the opposite - explain why their characterization of the aff is wrong. Links have three levels: link, internal link, impact. Answering any one of these is usually sufficient.

—K affs—

DAs to the negs model must be intrinsic - your offense should be about something their interp mandates, not arguments that can potentially be made under it.

Alternatively, you can read a DA that establishes why their performance in this round is a reason they should lose.

Most aff framework angles rely on winning debate shapes subjectivity - this is probably the most important argument in any debate where the impact is clash.

If the impact is fairness, affs should have reason for why debate is more than a game, alternatives to competition are possible, etc.

Ballot key?

—Framework—

The impact to fairness is fairness. However, it is your job to prove that.

2NRs should probably win that debate is a game and content is neutral.

Explain why their DAs don’t apply to your model. Explain why their C/I links harder to their offense.

Line by line their arguments with offense and defense. If clash is good, do it.

—Policy Vs Policy—

I should not be in the back of this. I understand substantive interactions but am not well versed in competition. However, I will do my best to evaluate these rounds as technically as possible.

—Phil—

I vote on it. Decent understanding of skep, intent-based vs consequentialist frameworks, etc.

—Theory/Tricks—

A dropped argument is a dropped argument no matter how silly. However, silly arguments are by virtue east to answer.

Hi everyone, I am Michelle. My pronouns are she/her and I'm a junior at Ridgewood High School and a public forum debater myself.

I am lay, prove yourself the best you can. I don't care about stuttering or speaking rhetoric, the actual argument is more important. I judge based off my flow and the points that you get to and refute.

I am for aggression in crossfire but don't get mean.

I will time your round, feel free to have your own timer but otherwise don't worry about it.

Please don't take flex prep.

I only disclose if I'm allowed to but I'll provide general feedback in the round. You'll get a very detailed RFD.

Hello, I'm Sophia (any pronouns) - I'm a former middle school/high school Public Forum debater with some Parli experience.

A few things to keep in mind during the round:

1. If you say something in crossfire that you would like me to weigh, make sure to bring it up in speeches.

2. In that vein, please try to extend your arguments through summary and FF.

3. Please signpost and give a roadmap of your speech.

4. Please be respectful of each other and the opposing team.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask me before the round. If you have questions about my feedback, feel free to email me atsophia.a.freitas@gmail.com.

:)

Stuy 2023

Please add me to the email chain: alei30@stuy.edu

If I forgot to put something on here just ask me before the round 

Open Cross is cool (i will pay attention, also I like when debaters bring up stuff from cx in their speeches)

Tech > Truth + I default to Util good 

Fine with speed but slow down on tags and don't sacrifice clarity,  I will say "clear" if I can't understand you (max of 3 times). 

Time your own speeches, prep and cx (i might forget to do it)

Do roadmaps and signpost (it helps a lot), stuff like judge instructions and warrants make my life a lot easier (makes it easier to vote for you)

Args: I have run a large variety of stuff so I'm cool with anything, basically run what you want to run and if you do it well I'll vote for it. 

 Policy: who doesn't like policy, I was raised on that stuff. I also really like creative das and cps, 

 K: ks are nice, I should note that I usually have a higher burden of proof for solvency, alts and such but if you explain it well then you'll be fine

Theory: If you debate it well I'll vote for it 

Finally be nice and have fun, I will definitely doc points if you are rude and might add points if you are funny

Specifically for online debate: 

tech pauses are a thing so don't panic

try to slow down and be more clear cause online debate is silly

My name is Sameeha Saleem. I’m a student judge. I’ve been doing debates in many different formats but specifically, I did public forum debates for two years during middle school.

Important things to consider:

• get to the round as soon as you can

• Be respectful and considerate of your fellow debaters (no discriminatory remarks)

• Before starting, please tell me your name, what speaker you are, and your pronouns

• try to be as clear as possible

• Everyone has their own speeds of speaking and understanding so try to speak at a reasonable speed

•  Will always keep time, but just as a recommendation debaters should also keep time.

• Cards might be called if felt that they are necessary. 

• Always state where you got your evidence for.

• Try to weigh in your summaries and definitely in your final focuses.

• I won't count anything that happens during crossfires unless someone brings it up in their speech. 

• No new points should be brought up during the summary or final focus. 

• Verbal feedback will be given if asked, as well as written feedback on tabroom

Hello, my name is Ayrah and I am a sophomore student in high school. I have debated public forum for three and a half years, and this is my second year of judging debates. That being said, here are a few of my preferences/tips for when it comes to a round:

1) I don't take crossfire into consideration unless you bring up what was said in your speeches. So, if you managed to get your opponent to slip up during a crossfire or perhaps you answered/rebutted their questions/points cleverly and really want to showcase that to me, you should include it in your summaries, final focuses or rebuttals. Be weary not to drop any arguments.

2) I don't mind if you talk fast, just don't spread. I will time you but I also recommend you time yourself to be able to know when and how to pace yourself.

3) Weighing is very important to me, because your weighing is pretty much selling your arguments to me. I would like to see weighing in the summary and especially final focus, and I wouldn't mind seeing it in rebuttal speeches as well. But don't make your weighing just one sentence such as "We win on scope because we affect more people because [insert basic response]" etc. I'd like to see you elaborate on your weighing because again, that is a big part of what sells your arguments to me. In addition, when you state your contentions during your first speech, I need to know why your reason for or against an argument matters because again, you want to emphasize that your contentions matter (impact) and aren't just a list of pros or cons. Also, make sure you don't have any defensive arguments or else you have little to no impact.

4) I prefer the use of a framework but make sure it isn't anything like "If we prove to you that the pros outweigh the cons we win" because that's rather obvious and so it ends up being a waste of a few crucial seconds.

5) I recommend you use your prep time wisely and not let it go to waste because it is given to you for a reason. Writing on the spot can be very stressful (trust me, I'd know), but if you learn to maximize your prep time, it will gradually make things easier for you.

I hope this doesn't come off as intimidating! I am no perfect debater and I've definitely had my moments both in the spotlight and in moments I wish I could forget when it comes to debate. Just because I might be older or have debated longer doesn't necessarily mean that I am much better than you. I am just using my debate experience over the course of the past few years to try and provide any insight I can to help you improve, and of course, to try to be a fair judge. With all that said, I wish you good luck!

Hey, I'm Aesha, a senior at Northview High School!

I'm pretty experienced debater in both Policy and Public Forum, as I've been debating for about 3 years in Policy and 4 years in Public Forum.

This is a generic outline of the bare minimum I'm looking for in a round; you can ask me to elaborate on topic-specific preferences before the round starts.

Evidence: Paraphrasing is perfectly fine, but make sure you have cut cards and evidence for each point that you state. If call for a card, you should be able to show it to me in a timely manner.

Warranting: Explain your arguments thoroughly and make sure I can clearly depict what your team is conveying. Give logic for all of your cards, and explain why they matter to your claim.

Weighing: I will most likely be judging the round based on how well both teams weigh the debate, tell me what should matter and why it should matter, and you must compare, simply weighing will not suffice.

Frontlining: Although, not doing this isn’t technically against the rules, I highly encourage it and will reward teams that do it effectively with better speaker points. I expect teams to cover everything you plan on extending.

Collapsing: Having multiple points is completely fine, but better warranting with fewer points will most likely increase your chances of winning the round.

Prep: Make sure that you time your own prep. I'm fine with the teams prepping during the other side's prep.

Speaks: I’ve done policy so I can handle some speed, but speak clearly and don't spread too much. If your speaking is way too fast, I will stop flowing, so I suggest that you speak slowly from the start. During cross, look at me, you are trying to convince me not the other team. And if you can do everything that I just said above, I will most likely give you higher than a 27. I tend to give most speakers above 28s, so just make sure that you articulate and emphasize, and it should be fine!

Specifics:

PF: Everything that you want me to consider from the summary when evaluating the winner, should be restated in the final focus. I won't flow it for your team unless I hear it in the final focus. Don't bring up any new evidence in the 2nd summary.

- Summary: Condensing down to a few key voting issues is important to me. If you haven’t weighed in rebuttal, then it should most definitely start here. Everything, including defense, must be in the summary if you want me to evaluate it.

- Final Focus: Clear and concise points as well as weighing should be the general structure of this speech. I will only flow points that have also been mentioned in the summary, and don’t forget to answer extended responses. Make sure to not just extend them, but explain them, answer the summary, and detail the implications.

- Crossfire: any argument established in crossfire must be brought up in the next speech for me to flow and evaluate it. Please don’t be rude or aggressive in the crossfire. That will definitely hurt your speaker points. I don’t mind if you sit during grand cross.

Policy: Everything that you want me to consider from the entire round, should be pointed out in the 2NR & 2AR, but don't spend much time on it, make sure that you leave time to weigh the round.

Ask any questions you have, after reading this, before the round starts. Good Luck!

anthony "andy" stowers forest (they/any pronouns)

anthonymstowers@gmail.com

My personal bright lines (updated for TOC PF):

#1: I will drop you if you claim that victims of human trafficking, child abuse, and childhood sexual assault are more likely to be criminals. This is unnecessary and harmful, do. not. do. it.

#2: Please omit graphic depictions of SA, child abuse, and human trafficking.

#3: My yarmulke is not an invitation for you to make hateful comments about Muslims or Palestinians, nor is it an invitation to make weird (and usually ignorant) virtue-signalling comments about Israel, Oct 7th, or the Holocaust. In rounds, these comments happen often. Please be cool, I love my Muslim friends very much and they love me very much too.

Technical debate preferences:

-SPECIFY SCOPE.

-Any speed is fine w/ me. If your opponent is spreading and you don't want to, that's also fine.

-K is fine, as long as it's genuinely well-considered and sportsmanlike (eg don't run K against a novice who clearly doesn't know what K is.).

-Speak with respect about all groups of people. I have beloved friends from China, Russia, Iran, Egypt, Syria.... It's really tough to take xenophobic arguments seriously when I've been received with unbelievable hospitality by the people you're talking about.

-Please don't waste the entire debate arguing about the rules: make verbal note of the violation and move on. I can take it from there.

-Please do not make your main impact in every round nuclear apocalypse or climate apocalypse (or claim your argument can uniquely prevent them). I think those things are high-probability no matter WHAT, and I don't think it's realistic to say that one side or the other will uniquely cause or prevent them.

-Differentiating people and government is critical. The Russian government makes extremely questionable choices. Russian PEOPLE have fed me repeatedly when I was a stranger to them, showed me cool sights in their hometowns, and made sure I was safe visiting dangerous places (both in Russia and in the US). I really do try to be tech over truth in a lot of ways, but it tends to be laughable to me when I hear broad generalizations about Russian, Chinese, or Iranian PEOPLE (etc.) being anti-American. I need you to make that people vs. government differentiation because otherwise some of the claims being made are absolutely laughable in comparison to what interactions with these groups of people are actually like.

Hi guys, My preferences are: That debaters not spread, if I cannot follow your arguments it is hard to persuade me, this does not mean you cannot speak fast, you can but do not be Eminem in rap god. That crossfire is friendly to a certain extent. Being rude and/or cutting a speaker off will lose your points. This is only my second year of debating, but I have been to many debate competitions in those years, so I will try to give you guys the best feedback I can. Good luck!

my email: nickzver52@gmail.com

Policy Stuff

-I'm fond of PICs- do with that information what you will

-I'm much more partial to copious amounts of case than I am an excessive number of off cases- but go off I guess, I'll flow it regardless.

-**RVIs are embarrassing luv, keep it to yourself xx

- "no overviews " - Nick Lepp, DDI 2k20

PF stuff:

- ***What's with this paraphrasing evidence nonsense? don't do this in front of me.

- Good for Ks. I think it's interesting how eventually it all leads back to policy.

- I'll only vote on your framing contentions if you carry them into your rebuttals

- Impact calc weighs into my ballot (bonus points if you use the policy terms)

Speaks related:

- Go as fast as you want, I know how to flow lol

- Evidence checks don't come out of your prep time unless I think you're abusing it

- Answer the arguments in the order they were made- ( hard numbering <3333 )

- I don't care what you do with your prep, but time it yourself

If you have questions about a round that isn’t linked as part of my judging record, email me. A lot of it was deleted when I switched emails

-"I stole sheima's shit"-Sheima Ben-abudllah 2021