Email Chain

Kekeli6504@gmail.com

Quick notes (Credit to Chelsea Hodgeson for this)

I’m only going to flow what you read, not what is sent on the email chain. The purpose of this is to provide an avenue in the event of contested evidence.

I do not flow cross ex/crossfire, it must be in a speech if you want it voted on. I do believe cross is binding but the only way to execute this is to include it in a speech.

Background:

Hi, my name is Kekeli (She/Her) and I am currently studying Environmental Science and International Studies at Emory University. I've done policy debate for three years at Brooklyn Tech and I've judged Policy, PF, and Congressional rounds before. I've run antiblackness, cap k, policy args, and a decent amount of theory. I’m fine with spreading but it is to your benefit that you are clear and slow down on tags and analytical arguments.

If there are blatantly racist, ableist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic arguments or statements and the opposition points it out and tells me it's bad in any way and I agree you will lose (this is rather strict for example "black people are criminals" will have you voted down "stats show that black people in the US have higher arrest rates" will not, notice the difference even if I personally believe both are bad I will only vote down the former).

TLDR:

I will vote for most things. This includes T, DAs (with impacts but hopefully you know that), Kritiks, Counter Plans, and theory.

I generally believe that you should do what you do best, just make sure that you guide the judge through your strategy.

(However, for PF do not run disclosure that requires more than the constructives.)

Credits to William Cheung for the rest of the this

1) Have a claim, warrant, and impact to every argument. It isn’t an argument absent these three elements, and I will have trouble/not be able to/want to adjudicate what you’ve said.
2) Make sure, on that note to properly explain your positions, don’t make an assumption that I know your DA scenario (perhaps fill me in on the internal work), or K jargon. Maybe I haven't judged that many rounds on this topic and don't understand abbreviations right away - help me out.
3) Have comparative analysis of evidence, arguments, and performative styles as it compares to your own and how I ought to prioritize impacts as it relates to your framing of the round.
4) Be Persuasive, it will go a long way to making me sign my ballot your way if you can make the round enjoyable, touching, funny, etc – it will also help your speaks.
5) Write the ballot for me in your last speech , tell me how you win. Take risks, and don’t go for everything. Make me think, “woah, cool, gonna vote on that” “What they said in the last rebuttal was exactly how I prioritized stuff too, judging is soooo easy [it's often not :(]"

Also, some other things:

1) I will default to competing interpretations on T and extinction unless alternative mechanisms of evaluating the round or alternative impacts are introduced and analyzed.

2) I will default to rejecting the argument not the team unless you tell me otherwise (see above)
3) I will avoid looking at evidence, unless there is a dispute over evidence in a round or a debater spins it as part of being persuasive

4) Extend arguments if you want them to be voted on and no new args in the final speeches
5) I am an open minded judge, and respect all “realms” of debate, though my own experience was as a K debater (I do usually take FW and T on both sides), I will do my best to mitigate my biases.

debated in policy in high school

email - safib2026@gmail.com

(I'm only paying attention to what you read this is simply for reference at the end of the round and to make sure emails are sent somewhat promptly)

I do flow cross ex/crossfire but it must be in a speech if you want it voted on. I do believe cross is binding.

Background: I've done policy debate @Brooklyn Tech and I've judged Policy and PF rounds before. I've run afropess, cap k, policy args, a decent amount of theory and have debated nearly every other mainstream arg (haven't hit death good, but I have read a bit). Having said that I'm fine with spreading just be clear, understand that virtual spreading is iffy if there's lag, and respectful of your opposition. I don't care about formal attire and don't take points for wearing sweats. I go by any/all pronouns. If there are blatantly racist, ableist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic arguments or statements you will lose. also don't try to tell me climate change is real

I'll vote for wtvr. That includes T, DAs (with impacts but hopefully you know that), Ks, Counter Plans, and theory.

Credits to William Cheung for the rest of the this

1) Have a claim, warrant, and impact to every argument. It isn’t an argument absent these three elements, and I will have trouble/not be able to/want to adjudicate what you’ve said.
2) Make sure, on that note to properly explain your positions, don’t make an assumption that I know your DA scenario (perhaps fill me in on the internal work), or K jargon. Maybe i haven't judged that many rounds this topic and don't understand abbreviations right away - help me out.
3) Have comparative analysis of evidence, arguments, and preformative styles as it compares to your own and how I ought to prioritize impacts as it relates to your framing of the round.
4) Be Persuasive, it will go a long way to making me to sign my ballot your way if you can make the round enjoyable, touching, funny, etc – it will also help your speaks.
5) Write the ballot for me in your last speech , tell me how you win. Take risks, and don’t go for everything.

Also, some other things:

1) I will default to competing interpretations on T and extinction unless alternative mechanisms of evaluating the round or alternative impacts are introduced and analyzed.
2) I will avoid looking at evidence, unless there is a dispute over evidence in a round or a debater spins it as part of being persuasive

3) Extend arguments if you want them to be voted on and no new args in the final speeches
4) I am an open minded judge, and respect all “realms” of debate, though of course, I will always already have some bias (I fully admit I am a K debater, although I do usually take FW and T on both sides), I will do my best to mitigate it.

email chain: barrya@bxscience.edu

TL;DR

Anika Basu (she/her)

2A/1N

I'm a senior at Lexington High School.

Yes, I want to be on the email chain: anikabasudebate@gmail.com

Title of the chain should be: Tournament - Round X: Team Code (Aff) v. Team Code (Neg)

I won't vote for anything sexist/racist/homophobic/etc. Other than that, I'll vote on anything as long as it's explained well. I won't judge kick the CP unless instructed to do so.

**Note for online debate: Please be clear! If you have tech issues, make sure to let me know before the round.

If you're reading my paradigm, you're probably a novice, so here's what I look for:

Do

- LBL ("They said... but...")

- Evidence comparison

- Impact calc (don't just tell me what the time frame, probability, and magnitude are-- explain which one is most important and why that means your impact outweighs theirs)

- Splitting the block (don't repeat the same arguments in the 2nc and 1nr, you can split them up!)

- Argument resolution

- Flow

- Be clear and flowable

- Be confident!

- Have good, offensive CX questions

- Signpost/give roadmaps before your speech and be organized in general

- Time your speech and prep

- Extend arguments by explaining the claim, warrant, and impact

- Point out dropped arguments and explain why that argument is important

- Explain why you won the debate at the top of your final speech

- Make your arguments contextualized to round and the 1ac-- reading a bunch of blocks some varsity debater gives you just tells me that you know how to read blocks:)

- Ask me questions after the round! Remember to have fun and learn as much as you can.

Don't

- Be mean to your partner or the opposing team

- Read arguments you don't understand

- Read arguments the opposing team doesn't understand without trying to explain it to them during cx (this is directed at k affs)

- Make tagline extensions (see above)

- Steal prep!!! I see this a lot.

- Make new arguments in rebuttals (1ar, 2nr, 2ar)

- Just point out dropped arguments-- explain what it means and how it helps you

- Lie

**If you don't know what any of this means, ask me before the round!

Miscellaneous

- I love the politics da

- When it comes to T debates, I look for good evidence! Also, don't read your generic blocks, make it contextualized to the round and what your view of the topic is.

- I like good case debates! (case turns, rehighlighting 1ac ev, etc.)

- Impact turn debates are fun:)

- <3 condo is usually fine unless there's any in-round abuse. more than 3 is pushing it if you're a novice.

- I'd prefer it if you'd call me "Anika" (AHH-nih-kah) and not "Judge"

- Open CX is fine but excessively talking over your partner/being rude is not!

- Feel free to email me if you have any questions about my decision or anything else!

Speaks Scale

I'll start at 28.5 and move up or down.

Under 27: you probably did something really horrible/racist/etc.

27-28.4: Needs improvement.

28.5-29: Good.

29+: Impressive!

+0.2 if you make me laugh

+0.2 if you show me your flows after the round/email them to me if we're online (let me know after the 2ar)

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

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

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

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

FOR NOVICES: PLEASE FLOW!!!

Most importantly have fun!

email me if you have any questions.

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Please add me to the email chain! My email is tbossman1539@bths.edu

Couple of things...

1. Please speak clearly. If I can't understand you, I will let you know. If nothing changes after the fact, just know it's going to reflect on my flow.

2. Speed is okay, clarity is important. If there is something you want on my flow, you need to slow down and/or change the tone of your voice.

3. Please don't steal prep. Sending evidence should not take more than 2-3 minutes and if it does, it's coming out of your prep time. If it's a matter of experiencing internet issues, then it's a different story.

4. Don't assume I know what you're talking about. Explain your arguments and outline what I should prioritize in the round.

5. Quality over quantity. I'd rather vote on a well developed argument than a flimsy one that was barely supported the entire round.

6. Be nice and respectful!

Email: gbrown23@gds.org add me to email chains!!

POLICY

Debate at Georgetown Day School, coached by Jon Sharp (his paradigm is pretty similar to my thoughts about debate)

DONT BE RACIST, SEXIST, TRANSPHOBIC, HOMOPHOBIC, ETC

tldr: i like k's and k aff's but honestly run whatever and explain why you win

K's and K Affs

Love the K definitely run it in front of me. I've ran K's almost the entire time I've debated. Specifically race stuff (ie Warren, Wilderson, Sharpe, Hartman) so I'm pretty versed in feminist and blackness lit. I'm also really versed in the Cap K. I really enjoy other K's but you just need to explain your lit, terms, and theories of power to me because I probably wont know em. But run K's in front of me they're my favorite type of debates to watch. I'm slightly skeptical of old french guys (Baudrillard, Bataille, etc) but I think you can also kind of have the most fun debates with them so if you run em feel free to pref me.

I love a good K Aff. I also really really love a good performance. I'd like it to be at least slightly related to the topic. I also like some sort of action of the aff but that could be anything ie mindset shifts, survival strats, to stopping structural violence also long as the aff does something I don't really care what it is. Also build in answers to FW. Also for teams debate against K Affs be very careful about how you run FW against identity affs cuz if I perceive it as violent or the aff calls it out as so thats a very convincing ballot and you have a pretty substantial burden of proving why it isn't being run violently or in an excluding manner.

Also don't drop ontology stuff you will lose. I also really want judge instruction explain why impacts should be weighed or what your FW means compared to theirs just tell me why you should win the round and why I should vote on that.

Policy Stuff (Da's, CPs, Topical Plans, etc)

I never really debated on the super governmental policy side of the debate. I've done my fair share but I just wouldn't consider it my forte. That doesn't mean I'm biased against it I just didn't do it all that often. This means you have to explain some of the more weird topic terms and topic specifics. But just do good debate don't drop stuff do impact calc etc. Basically just convince me why the plan is good if your aff and that the plan is bad/cp is better if you're neg. Again judge instruction is really big especially in policy debates I need to know why i vote for you.

PUBLIC FORUM

If you want to run a K in PF i'm your guy. Just do it well please.

Please try to have actual clash. My main problem with PF debates is that it feels like most of the time people are debating past each other. If the other teams provides an argument I want specific answers to that argument rather than just saying another prewritten rebuttal or contention. Also just be creative PF leaves a lot of room to maneuver because it's generally more about convincing the judge than argument proliferation so use that extra time and less stress to think about some really good arguments. Also be super articulate. You aren't spreading so I'm going to hold you to a highish standard for being very convincing in your tone and speech. Also I want judge instruction, tell me why I vote for you and on what metrics or viewpoints i should be judging from.

Add me to the chain-- mayaelsharif@gmail.com

Pine Crest '21

UPENN '24 - debating hybrid with Dartmouth

YOU DO YOU! I love this activity (clearly), I want you to as well!

If you are someone who is mean about post-rounding - strike me. I am happy to answer genuine questions, but will not tolerate malignant comments:)

Alright, now for the specifics:

Theory/T-

T: I hate judging T debates unless an aff is actually NOT remotely topical OR you are clearing winning on your interp. I LOVE T-USFG - fairness or clash style impacts are great in front of me, done both.

Other: I do not take a firm stance on theory. Condo is good, I can be persuaded it's bad, but it is good. "Cheating" counterplans are less and less cheaty in front of me.

Kritiks--

K-AFFS- Did not run them in high school, way more persuaded by T when the K-AFF is not even attempting to critique the resolution. If the topic is Fiscal Redistribution do not read an aff about vacuum cleaners. I tend to lean in favor of a well-fleshed-out T argument and went for clash offense in hs, and fairness offense in college. I now read a K-AFF in certain debates, so I am familiar with both sides of clash debates!

Kritiks- I read a lot of K literature - DO NOT read a K that you do not understand. Identity Ks, High Theory, and Cap/Security Ks are all fine with me, but really explain the literature and convince me of the framing. If you can't understand the card, I won't either.

Disads--

I like them, I love when the neg goes for the status quo. They exist on this topic. Politics is more real than before, Econ DA slaps, Horsetrading and Federalism are B-tier.

A well executed straight turn is a solid place to be in front of me.

AFF write me a try-or-die ballot lol

Counterplans--

I lived for a process CP in high school. All CPs except delay are good! Go for PDCP more. I reward good competition debates.

Speaker points:

I hate giving speaker points, everyone has a different style and your score out of 30 points means nothing to me. Things I reward: jokes, humor, personality, flowing, LBL, roadmap, strategic cross-ex questions.

You must disclose!!! I hate teams that try to avoid disclosure; this will affect your speaker points dramatically. If any racial slurs, sexist comments, or degrading language is used intentionally in the round, I will give you a 0 for speaks. Being mean is fun for nobody, don't do it. I am okay with curse words, but not when they are directed at the other team.

Points:

>29.3- AMAZINGGGGGG

29.0-29.3-- great debater, needs more persuasion

28.6- 29 -- need some technical work, but was good

28.2-28.6 -- you were great, but need to work on both technique and picking the best args

28-28.2 -- Needs improvement. It will come with practice

<27 -- lots of improvement or extremely rude/offensive

Please be funny and kind in rounds. I am always tired, if the speeches are boring, everyone will be bored. Make comebacks in a smart manner, but DO NOT be mean. Sarcasm is always welcomed.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING ANYTHING ABOVE OR THE BALLOT AT THE END OF THE DEBATE, EITHER EMAIL ME OR ASK ME, I WILL ANSWER!!! I am also more than happy to send you an email with constructive comments; debate is about improvement, I am happy to help! I also like to get to know people, do not be hesitant to share your name and some fun things about you; the debate community could use more friends!!!

PF/LD

• I did not compete in these formats, but have friends who did. I will likely be a point fairy because of policy points.
• Extend arguments and do ballot instruction!
• Have fun!

Parli

• Organization and line-by-line matters to me.
• I hate that this activity does not have evidence BUT if you can explain something clearly and persuasively that will make me hate it less.

Mamaroneck High School 2020

Boston University 2024

anna26844@gmail.com - feel free to email me with any questions you have pre-round or post-round.

I am okay with almost anything in debate: Ks, DAs, CPs, Theory, K affs, T, Policy affs etc, go for it. Just don't be rude or condescending to your opponents, I will dock your speaker points.

My own experience has been predominantly running policy affirmatives and mixed k + policy neg strategies. That being said, my opinions DON'T MATTER. I will vote for the debaters who best support their arguments and prove why they should win.

Spreading is cool, but not if you're unclear. Do line-by-line and be clear about evidence comparison.

Please add me to the email chain: ferrisi2002@gmail.com

Graduated from Mamaroneck High School (Class of 2020). Currently studying Political Science at American University (Class of 2024). I have 3 years of Policy Debate experience in Highschool and have attended both George Mason and Dartmouth debate summer programs.

I will go through some basics but for the most part I’m good with any arguments as long as its explained well. The more obscure an argument is, the more it should be explained. Don’t rely on me having any background information on a topic either way.

Don’t clip cards.

Dropped arguments are true arguments.

Tech > Truth

Most importantly, just be respectful and have fun.

Tech over truth ends when you start making racism good, death good, etc type of arguments.

Everyone should be here to actually gain some education or valuable experience from debate.

I am not completely up to date on the current 2023-2024 resolution. Please make sure you are clear about topic specific acronyms and phrases.

Counter Plans

Counter plans should be fleshed out to run them effectively. I think often you need more then just a text-only CP. That said, anything is possible if the other team just drops the argument. Here you need to prove a clear net benefit and avoid the perm. Make sure they are competitive and actually better (counter plan counters the plan)

DA

Big fan, just make sure the UQà Linkà I/L à Impact, chain sticks by the end of the debate. Politics DA’s should be recent and give me actual reasons to weigh your impacts against case.

Ks

I think Ks can often be the biggest hit or miss in debate depending on the team. There is a huge difference between a team that just picked up a fun looking K out of there schools Dropbox and one that has mastered it. Bite the bullet on the absurd claims they try to catch you in cx. Give a fleshed out alternative and make sure your link is something more then just the resolutions association with the USFG. Win the link and build up the alternative for these arguments to hold weight in the last few speeches.

T

Make it clear why the counter-interpretation matters, Prefer limits > ground. At the end make sure I have an actual reason to prefer the counter-interpretation with actual impacts to the debate space besides a word technically not meeting the definition.

Case

I often find case debates either to be the most developed in a round or completely forgotten. Don’t waste your time just reading premade summaries when you can defend on specifics. I think the best-case debates happen when both sides provide specific evidence that engages with each other. Make clear your impact scenarios. Be careful about time in the 1AR.

Yifandebate@gmail.com (put me on the email chain)

Yifan Fu

He/Him pronouns

ON THE TOP: I AM OKAY WITH SPREADING, OPEN CROSS, AND WHATEVER ELSE YOU WANT. EXCEPT, I AM NOT OKAY WITH RACISM, SEXISM, ANY KIND OF DISCRIMINATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. I am currently a senior debating at Lexington High School. To be honest, run whatever you want, I'll vote on anything if you debate well and state why I should vote on you. I am familiar with both policy and ks, but obviously, still, explain the argument to me(ALSO THEORY OF POWER!!!!).

General:

Tech > Truth - I will listen to CX and CX is binding - Open cross is okay - Prep time ends when you stop compiling documents.

K: I understand most works and literature, but still explain it well. The K should prove that something is wrong with the plan, and the more specific links to the plan the better. The stronger the link, the weaker permutations become and the easier it is for me to put a ballot on your K.

DA: explain why DA outweighs the Aff

T: Run T, it's so useful and if you explain well it might win you the round

CP: explain why it solves better than the Aff

Please do impact calc, it is so important and helpful to any judge. It could be a straight-round winner.

Policy Aff: I enjoy them, they always seem a bit absurd but it is also really fun to listen to. It is super super important for you to explain your impacts, and why you can actually solve them. You should maintain that debate is a game and your Aff is hypothetical but it is very educational.

K Aff: I run them, I enjoy them, I think they're fun. But if you do run them, it doesn't make me want to vote for you more. While I love K affs, I also hate them. Please just make sure to explain everything well and your entire theory. If you do not seem educated on the topic I will not vote for you. I am not a fan of overly long overviews.

I will disclose speaks if someone asks and both teams are okay with it. I will be generous with speaks as we're all having a hard time here.

Things to do to earn good speaks

"Yee haw" before the round for +0.5

Technical efficency(sign posting, road maps are also good)

WEll executed and/or originially researched strategies

making funny jokes within rounds.

Overall, have fun in debate, experiment with whatever you want, explain the arguments well, GO CRAZY. GFW

Debated for Nashua HS South and DebateDrills, graduated 2022 (fyo). Did policy my freshman year and LD the subsequent 3 years. 2x bid to the TOC my senior year. I ran primarily policy arguments when I debated.

Warning: I have been out of debate for a while. I haven't touched debate since I graduated, and I went to 2 tournaments total my senior year. I know nothing about this topic. I also forget a lot of the specific jargon specific to LD so you're gonna have to explain that to me if you're going for some esoteric Nebel standard.

General

Put me on the email chain: enyagu8@gmail.com

Pleaaaase slow down. If you're unclear or blippy it's gonna make it really hard for me to judge. Honestly you should probably go at 60% speed, 70% max. If I miss something it's only gonna hurt you! I will say clear and slow to try and help you gauge this, but try and be a little aware.

Important: Do NOT be mean in cross. You should know what this means. I will tank your speaks with 0 hesitation.

The following are things I haven't thought about in a while but probably still agree with:

Debate is probably a game

Arguments start at 0% truth, not 100%

If the 2NR is just T, the 2AR does not need to extend case (why does this happen in LD? why do judges want you to extend case? mindboggling)

Default Comparative Worlds >>>>> Truth Testing

Default fairness and education are voters

Time yourselves

Please weigh

Yes I am okay with open cross

If a question was asked before cross ended you can still answer it

My thoughts on disclosure? It's good, it's very good. You should be disclosing with best practices. Does it warrant reading a theory shell on? Depends on what kind. I'll be much more lenient for novices (and this obviously doesn't apply if you're reading from the novice policy packet)

+0.1 speaks if you say "the jig is up" in your last speech

Policy Arguments

I enjoy these debates the most! I love thorough policy debates. Weighing saves rounds, as does specific evidence comparison. Love IR debates, politics can be pretty funny

Theory

I seriously haven't thought about debate for a while so I think I'm average at best when evaluating these debates. I did go for theory a few times as a debater though, so I should be able to adjudicate a standard condo good/bad debate fairly well. I think condo 1 is very most likely good though. For frivolous theory, check the tricks section.

T

I'm okay with Nebel but I swear there is a winnable 2AR vs it every time. Standard T debates are fine

Ks

Act like I don't know your lit (which will probably be likely). Make sure I understand the thesis of your K, or else I can't vote on it.

Floating PIKs are probably bad.

I have very very little tolerance for bad K debate. If you can't explain your literature to a 5 year old (me), then don't run Ks in front of me. Long, incoherent overviews that just sound like you're reading the tags of your cards again are not gonna cut it. If this is in novice/JV, this doubly applies: don't run a K just because you think your opponents won't know how to answer it.

K affs (without a plan)

Defend something. I will negate on presumption if I don't know what your offense is.

T-FW

I'm probably better at resolving T-FW debates than K v K ones. I like fairness as an impact (probably more than education or research or something similar in these debates). These were some of my favorite debates to watch when executed well.

Phil

I don't like phil, sorry! I really like util...I'm gonna lean probably pretty hard towards it. Run phil at your own risk...

Tricks

No. I won't flow them. If you run them in front of me (???) and are sketchy about it in cross, L and really low speaks, like 26 or below.

Trad

I'm gonna be honest with you I don't know what a value/value criterion even is, so...

Novices

Signpost please, it'll make my life (and yours!) so much easier!

PF

The evidence standards in this event are very poor...I would be happy if there's an email chain. Please weigh.

Run whatever arguments you want, just don’t be offensive/rude towards the other team.

Prioritize clarity to speed - if your spreading is incomprehensible, it won’t do you any favors.

Try to articulate your arguments well - usually it’s quality over quantity, unless something’s mishandled.

Lexington '23

I went to the TOC my junior year if that matters to you

I was primarily a K debater in high school but I read policy affs a lot of the time

Put me on the email chain: vinit1.iyer@gmail.com

Top Level

Tech>Truth, litmus test for judge intervention is very high

Don't say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, abelist etc in round - depending on the offense I will drop you

Give me the easiest way to way to vote, that means 30 sec at the top to frame the debate are key

Debate is a game at its core, but it can be other things too

Debates are often a question of impact calc, especially clash debates.

Please post round me - it is a good practice and may help clear up any issues you have with my RFD

Throwing shade is fine but crosses the line when it becomes mean - this is especially true for novices

Be respectful towards both your opponents AND your partner

CX is a powerful weapon, take that as you will

Please read arguments that you are comfortable with, my preferences are very easily overturned by good debating

Reading tricks and stupid arguments is perfectly fine and I will vote on them. If the argument is that stupid the other team should be able to answer it efficiently and if they fail to do so, I don't see how voting for them would make any sense.

LD

I have little to no topic knowledge

Most of the policy biases apply but the most important thing is that you do you. As long as your arguments are executed in the most technical manner possible I don't care what arguments you read.

As per new LD arguments that I have less familiarity with like some theory, some tricks and phil, you are going to have to explain more in depth. This doesn't mean you shouldn't read these arguments but it does mean that I will need a little longer to process them.

PF

I have little to no topic knowledge

Treat me like the most technical judge you have ever had. I don't care what arguments you read, everything is on the table (even the most squirelly arguments) as long as you technically execute them. Given that there is very little time given in PF final speeches I find collapsing down to a few arguments to be the most beneficial. Spreading is ok as long as your opponents are ok with it.

Policy

I have some topic knowledge but some intricacies might need to be explained more in depth for me

Here is my list of debates that I am most comfortable judging to least comfortable judging:

Policy v K

K v K

Policy v Policy

Preferences relating to each set of arguments:

Policy Affs vs Ks -

Neg

- Open to almost any k (including the death k if that matters)

- FW is the biggest part for me, losing FW probably means you lose

- Explanation of your theory is extremely important without too much jargon, I am not going to do the work for you

- Link articulation is VERY important, specific links are preferred but generic is also chill

- Alt needs to resolve the links if ur going for it

Aff

- Affs should prioritize extinction O/W and FW over the perm

- Affs should try their best to clash with the negs theory of power

- Affs win when they win a defense to extinction O/W, FW and some level of disproving the negs theory

FW vs Kaffs -

Neg

- Clear impact explanation and calculus is necessary

- I like education and skills more than fairness but fairness is an impact

- Use your offense to turn theirs, I don't just want you to reiterate debate is a game a billion times and hope you win

- TVA > SSD but affs don't have great defenses against SSD so take that how you will

- Very hard to win if you don't disprove their theory especially with ontology based K affs

Aff

- C/I > Straight impact turn

- I want some relation to the topic so you can provide reasons as to why your C/I is a better model for debate

- Make sure to do a lot on the impact level and try to best mitigate their impacts

- Topical Kaffs have a special place in my heart, if you are able to have a W/M and win on it I will boost your speaks

CPs

- No judge kick

- Textual competition is an asinine standard

- I don't know that much about intrinsicness so keep that in mind

- Presumption flips aff if the CP solves more than the Aff

- Theory is underutilized against this type of argument so please consider it as a valid option

DAs

- Turns case matters for me more than most - this doesn't mean turns case is an auto-win, it just means that I think you may want to spend more time on it

- Card dump > other things

Policy T

- The topic is quite big, try to have a precise definition of what you are limiting under your interpretation to exclude all ambiguity

- Make sure to actually articulate impacts, "we maintain limits" is not an impact articulation

- I need a clear story of the violation

- Competing interps vs Reasonability is debateable

K V K

- K affs getting a perm is a debate to be had

- You probably need a robust link to the aff, "we control rc" is NOT a link

- Role of the ballot = rolling my eyes

- Alternatives should probably be as robust and as concrete as possible. This means "insert jargon" is not an alternative

- Please don't drop the floating PIK

Theory

No specific thoughts except that neg teams are getting away with murder and you should capitalize on it

Perf Con can be a reason to reject certain reps arguments

Hi! Please put me on the email chain: zahrak031905@gmail.com

I use she/her pronouns and I am a freshman at the University of Rochester. I debated policy for 4 years at Lexington high school.

I’m open to all arguments, and if you are a novice it might be better to run something that you understand well so that it is easier to explain and support. The most important thing is to learn, try your best, and have fun!!

DO:

• Line by Line - make sure you are responding to all of your opponents’ arguments and extending your own, and keep track to see if your opponents’ didn’t answer one or more of your arguments, so that you can use that to explain why that makes your argument stronger

• Explain the warrants of your arguments

• Impact calc, explain why your argument is more significant by comparing your magnitude, timeframe, and probability to your opponents’

• Prioritize your arguments in your rebuttal speech

• Tell me the lens that I should vote through, and why I should vote for you

DON'T

• Be sexist/racist/homophobic/etc.

• Be rude

• Interrupt your partner or your opponents

Also

• Let me know if you have tech issues!

• With online debating, clarity > speed

Remember, try your best, learn some new things, and have fun!!

Pronouns she/her.

Updates for 2023

I have not judged during the 2022-23 season so may be out of practice and unaware of new arguments.

Please be thoughtful about class, race and gender dynamics happening during the debate. My threshhold for abusive behavior in the debate space lowers every year and I become more and more willing to vote on theory in all formats. If I see abuse against an inexperiened team that doesn't know how to run theory, I will drop you all the same and spend my rfd time teaching them how to run theory.

For PF:

My flowing will only be as good as your sign-posting, tagging and articulation. I am not a fan of the pf cases that read like an oratory and are impossible to flow. I expect teams to extend tags, evidence and warrants. Offense is not sticky. I won't flow dropped arguments in later speeches so you don't need to tell me. I also expect teams to follow NSDA evidence rules.

I am open to theory arguments in PF as I see it as one of the only effective mechanisms for addressing some of the ills of pf. You should have a proper theory shell though.

Let's all be nice and generous and kind. I believe good PF debate should be a relaxed exchange of ideas as opposed to suppressed (or not) rage.

Don't give speeches during crossfire. I like a crossfire that is clarifying and illuminates areas of dispute. To that end, I prefer that everybody be super chill. Yelling, berating, and asking obviously abusive questions are all good ways to tank your speaks. You will never impress me by out-aggressing your opponent during CX.

I'm not a fan of blippy debate and tend to vote on the arguments that are fleshed out, well evidenced and that provide a clear path to the ballot. I personally think the emphasis on weighing overlooks the need to have a clear link with good warranting and strong evidence. I'm not entirely tech > truth because I can't always bring myself to vote on technical arguments that are not fleshed out enough to be plausible.

I think the second rebuttal should respond to turns but I'm okay with other responses coming in summary. I see defense as sticky. I like to see teams collapse and don't love the style of debate where final focus is an exact rerun of summary --would rather see that the debate has progressed or that your weighing and warranting has advanced b/c of clash.

For LD and Policy

****Disclosure on the Wiki is encouraged. Please add me to the email chain: danisekimball@gmail.com ****

I can handle a fair amount of speed but haven't judged LD/Policy in a year so you may lose me if you are super fast. It helps me a lot if you make it clear when you are ending a card. I will say "clear" if I can't understand and "slow down" if I can't keep up.

For LD

I am open to different styles including LARP and K debate. Slow down for theory shells and K alts, especially if they are novel. I am much more likely to vote for an argument that has been well explained. I am less technical in the sense that arguments that do not have a clear story with warrants won't always win a round even if they got under-covered.

I am not a fan of silly theory arg's but they still need to be responded to. I will do RVI's in LD but I don't love them.

I am pretty familiar with a lot of the K literature and it is difficult for me to vote for debaters who use it so badly that it is nonsensical.

For Policy:

I like both traditional and progressive debate. I really want students to engage directly with the arguments, their underlying assumptions and areas of clash with the opponent. It is hard to be convinced by an argument you don't understand.

I'm open to role of the ballot/framing issues when weighing structural violence impacts.

Hello and thank you for reading my paradigm!

The basics:

I'm Teri, and my pronouns are They/Them. I've done policy debate for ~4 years in high school at Bronx Science.

Add me to the email chain, please! My email is LAMT1@bxscience.edu.

Tl;dr:

- For virtual debates: Make sure to be clear when you spread (I'd suggest ~80% speed)! Cameras on or off doesn't really matter to me, whatever you prefer is fine.

- Run what you want to run, read what you want to read (as long as it isn't sexist/racist/homophobic/etc.) Just make sure to explain it and signpost.

- Tech > Truth; as a judge it's my job to evaluate your skill as a debater, not of what you believe. The only exception to this is if it's sexist/racist/etc etc.

- Spreading is fine, just be clear.

- I tend to time debates alongside y'all. If you ever misclick/restart your timer you can ask me for the time I have on my timer.

- Additionally: I know some teams like to use prep time to extend CEX. I'm fine with that as long as both teams are ok with it as well.

- Disclosing is based on what the tournament wants, but I'm good with disclosing/not disclosing.

- Be polite, be chill, etc. Y'all are mature and I trust you.

- Any questions? As me before/during the round and I can answer!

former policy debater at bronx sci

sophomore at cornell

pronouns: she/her

add me to the email chain thx: leej8@bxscience.edu

tech > truth (however i won't vote on stuff like genocide good)

familiar w the common ks (ie. afropess, cap, set col, abolition, etc.)

write my ballot for me--why should you win, do impact calc, etc.

**for LD**

-chances are i won't be familiar with the topic since it changes every month, so make sure to really explain your case and warrant it out

-warrant out args

-time yourselves

**in general**

-say something racist, ableist, homophobic, etc. (problematic in general) and i will give you 26 speaks

-don't be rude or i will call you out for it

Crystal

She/Her

Add me to the email chain please: crystall1663@gmail.com

Hi! I'm Crystal. I am a 4th year high school policy debater. I am a 2N so I will be sympathetic to FW and T arguments. Besides that, I'm open to most arguments. Just try your best and be nice! Be sure to explain things during the debate for the sake of me and your opponents. If you're a novice I encourage you not to run super complicated Ks because you will trip yourself up. Overall, I will give everyone high speaks for a good and engaging debate. Some points that I will be considering when making my decisions are:

General:

Tech>Truth

In my opinion cards are not responsive— that's your job. You need to extend and apply your evidence, just reading them makes the debate stale.

Judge instruction - Tell me why you win. I can't read minds so I might interpret things differently and put together arguments in a way that disadvantages you. If you tell me why you win, then I will be able to understand how you want me to see things.

If you’re pressed for time here’s a TLDR: I am pretty much open to all arguments, if you are running an obscure one be sure to understand it yourself and explain it clearly. I like debates with a ton of clash so if you manage that in a debate your speaker points will be pretty high. Have some sort of judge instruction in your last speeches, it helps make sure that I am not misinterpreting your situation in round. Don't be harmful to other people in your round. If it was unintentional be sure to apologize, your speaker points will decrease but I will not vote against you for accidentally saying it. If you continue to be rude on purpose I will vote against you.

Now onto the long stuff. . .

Aff:

Extending Aff solvency - I think the Aff sometimes gets caught up in the Neg's arguments and forgets to extend their own solvency. Without a good reason why your case solves there is no reason for me to vote Aff. Even if you prove that the Neg doesn't have any solvency either, that just means I buy the squo is better than the world of the aff..

Answering T/FW - If your opponent makes these arguments, answer them because it could cost you the debate.

K Affs - Just know how to run a K well. Don't go for a K you have no practice in and don't understand. Generally I am open to K offs as long as the lit is explained well.

1ar - You can read cards in the 1ar. But I strongly recommend you limit it to one or two. It is better to extend cards you already read or respond to your opponents.

Neg:

Extend Case - Don't forget to answer case. Just because you have other arguments don't drop case. I will vote Aff if they have extended case and proven that they solve. If the Aff solves better than the Neg there is no reason for me to vote Neg.

New 1ar arguments - If you tell me not to consider new arguments in the 1ar I will listen to you. But that’s up to you.

Other general stuff is just being nice during CX and speeches. Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, trans phobic and ableist. I'm not a fan of death good. Talk clearly and loudly but don't interrupt others. Be sure to time yourself and don't try to steal prep. Good luck and have fun!

Hi just be cool when debating, respect your opponents and your partner - I am fine with any arguments just make them as clear as possible.

stuy '23, emory '27

2N/1A('19-'21), 2A/1N('21-'23)

the n of stuy hn

email chain please: angryasiantwins11@gmail.com

***i'm in my first year out and i've done little to no research on this topic... which means please slow down a bit for me to flow and don't expect me to know all your abbreviations

anything i say below can be easily overridden by good debating -

preferences/experience:

- policy: i'm familiar with the core policy strategies and have decent experience debating for/against them. 10 off and case is <3 but only when run well (quality>quantity). i also really care about an internal link chain as i just find that its never explained that well, but i feel like it's really important to get me to buy your impact calculus more. i actually really like t debate - specifically i love a creative interpretation and really prioritize doing work on standards.

- k: love these, ran primarily ks my sophomore and junior years. some lit bases i know pretty well: cap, Asian identity, techno-orientalism, afropess, antiblackness, set-col, Agamben, biopower, and security. some lit bases i'm familiar with: Baudrillard, psychoanalysis, QT, and cybernetics.

- kvk debates: don't have experience judging these but i've been on both sides of the debate. i think that in these debates id need the most explanation on the thesis and alt level.

- kaff v framework: i've been in this type of debate a lot. i don't tend to lean one way or another on if debate is a game, i evaluate it based on what's on my flow at the end of the round. i think that education is an impact but also that procedural fairness is pretty important.

- theory: i'll vote for condo and yes judge kick. other than that, i think theory is pretty unpersuasive, but that does not mean you can't win in front of me on it.

- cx: i flow cx & really like when you can use something that the other team said in cx against them. jokes are definitely welcome in cx (and in your speeches) and i'm down for a good ethos moment. that being said, there's a clear distinction between having ethos and just being a jerk and i will dock speaks for poor cx etiquette.

notes:

- i default tech>truth and util good

- speed is fine but clarity>speed

- giving a 7-minute overview will not win you the round. i'd rather you read a 15-sec overview and get to the line by line.

- PLEASE TIME YOUR OWN SPEECHES AND PREP TIME - i won't be timing the round.

- roadmaps are really great :)

- any racism, homophobia, ableism, or any other -isms warrant a massive dock in your speaks

- if you've read this far, give me a music rec and I'll boost speaks depending on how much i like it

- if you say something funny about Nikki Chen, Talia Hsia, or August Petry, +0.2 speaks per joke/expose

Hi! Please put me on the email chain: graceodebate@gmail.com

I use she/her pronouns and am a current Junior at Lexington High School :)

**Note for online debate: please be clear, if you have tech issues please let me know before the round.

If you're reading my paradigm, you're probably a novice, so here's what I look for:

I'm fine with policy, if you run a k or a kaff make sure you explain everything. I lean more neg on theory (ie condo, 50 state fiat etc). Anything more than 3 condo is too much in the novice division. I default to competing interpretations but can be swayed the other way.

I won't judge kick the CP unless told so.

DO:

Line by line! Extend your own arguments and answer your opponents arguments. Point out if your opponents didn't answer any arguments and explain why that supports your argument. You can use the “they said…. But …” format to answer arguments.

Sign post! Tell me when you are moving onto a new offcase (ie. Next off, the states CP)

Make sure you do impact calc! Why does your impact matter more? (that includes ev comparison- why is your author better?

Make sure you prioritize your arguments in the last speech. Tell me how I should evaluate the debate/which argument I should be voting on (ie. you can vote on the DA debate because they dropped… Which means …)

CP- I’m fine with agent and process CPs. Love a good CP and DA debate.

DAs :) Explain the story of the DA. Especially in the 2nr. Make sure that you are doing good link, internal link and impact calc debate (especially in the 2nr- weigh the impacts of the DA vs the impacts of the case)

Case- LOVE a good case debate. DO Case turns, Impact turns. Get some offense on the case debate flow. Case debate is underutilized so take advantage of it.

T- I default to competing interpretations but can be swayed the other way. If you are going for T in the 2nr either the entire 1nr should be T or a majority of it should be T. I value evidence comparison (date, author qualifications etc.) but I also remember to do impact calc (ie. ground, limits etc.). Make sure you have offense and defense on the flow (ie. why their interpretation is bad and why yours is better).

K- I don’t have a lot of experience here. My experience in Ks goes to the extent of the Cap K and stops about there. If you run anything else please make sure that you explain the entire story of the k.

DON'T

-Be sexist/racist/homophobic/etc.

-Be mean to your partner or opponent

- Be mean to your partner or the opposing team

- Read arguments you don't understand

- Read arguments the opposing team doesn't understand without trying to explain it to them during cx (this is directed at k affs)

- Make tagline extensions (see above)

- Steal prep!!! I see this a lot.

- Make new arguments in rebuttals (1ar, 2nr, 2ar)

- Just point out dropped arguments-- explain what it means and how it helps you

**If you don't know what any of this means, ask me before the round!

Speaks

28.6-29- Amazing:)

28.5- You're doing great!

27-28.4- Could make some improvements

+0.2 if you show me your flows after round

+0.1 if you make me laugh

+0.1 if you win on presumption (but i don't advocate for it)

+0.1 if you mention my partner Anika Basu :)

Good Luck! Have Fun! You got this!

My name is pronounced like Siri

Add me to the email chain stuyvesantEP@gmail.com

I go by he/him/his

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

Open CrossTech > Truth always

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

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

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

Random Stuff:

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

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

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

Ks:

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

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

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

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

Policy:

Extinction O/W --------x----------- Slow Violence O/W

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rev v Rev:

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

More stuff

DAs:

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

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

CPs:

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

perm anything and everything

Topicality:

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

RVIs are funny and i will definitely vote on it

Theory:

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

Ks:

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

PIKs are probably bad but i can be convinced otherwise.

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

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

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

K Affs:

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

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

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

Strath Haven '21, UMich '25 (not debating)

she/her

aboruan[at]gmail.com

I haven't judged or researched on the water topic

*top level stuff*

tech > truth, but my threshold for answering trolly args is low - i won't punish teams for dropping one-liners hidden in a block or blowing off something clearly irrelevant

explanation > evidence, but ev quality matters when it's close

+0.3 speaks boost if you show me you're fully opensource

*policy stuff*

DAs - they're good. politics was ~90% of my high school 2NRs

CPs - also good, condo is probably good, other things aren't a reason to reject the team but can definitely be a reason to reject the arg. ask me to judgekick

Ks - answer case or have links that aren't generic. i usually default to aff teams being able to weigh the plan

K-AFFs/T-USFG - fairness is an impact. heg good/cap k also fine

T - go limits and predictability, reasonability is fine when there's a small difference between interps

*ld stuff*

bad for tricks, phil, and not-legit theory args. i was a policy debater in high school so yes LARPing. i default to util. everything in the policy section applies

Do not read blocks, read analytics that actually respond. It is obvious if you are just reading out pre-typed material and your speaks will go down.

Be polite to one another.

Do not steal prep.

claim - warrant - impact; a clear story is necessary to win the debate since a story has arguments. It might be a lofty burden but explanations are critical in order to win my ballot.

Tabula rasa.

My email: priya.thiri123@gmail.com

Please add me to the email chain.

General Comments:

- When spreading, please emphasize the taglines.

- Roadmaps and signposts are extremely helpful!

- I will track time for all speeches/prep, but I encourage you to keep track of your own time as well.

- To extend a card, analytics are expected.

- Impact calc is very very important. (timeframe/probability/magnitude)

- I like policy affs and am comfortable judging them.

- I like DAs, however, they should link to the aff and be explained really well.

- I like CPs but should have a clearly articulated net benefit

- I am not extremely well versed in K’s but I am willing to listen to K affs as long as they are well explained in CX and speeches.

- I enjoy judging K’s as long as the alts are clear.

- I'm fine with voting on topicality unless neg makes a very strong case.

- I really like framework against K affs and K's and spend a significant amount of time on it throughout the rebuttals.

During the rebuttals, bring everything together. Be persuasive. Don't spread in rebuttals.

Please add me onto the email chain: acy3@rice.edu

I'm fine with anything

DA - you need to win uniqueness and how the aff links

CP - explain why you solve better/solve most of the aff

K - explain your theory of power

T - explain why fairness/education outweighs

Theory - explain why it outweighs the debate

Other notes:

- Tech > Truth

- I'll be timing your speeches

- Spreading is fine, but I need to be able to understand what you're saying

- Don't cheat: no clipping cards/tags, stealing prep, lying in your speech, etc

- Don't be mean, racist, rude, sexist, homophobic, etc

- Tell me you read my paradigm and I'll give you +0.1 speaks

Please add me on the email chain 23yang30@lexingtonma.org

I will accept most arguments, except ones that are blatantly sexist, homophobic, racist, etc. I understand most DA's, CP's, and some K's like capitalism, security, and set col but don't fully understand some of the more complicated ones, such as baudrillard.

Some important things to consider when having me as a judge: I value good impact calc, line by line, and evidence comparison.

Towards the end of the debate, please make sure to make it clear why I should vote for you.

Since debates are online, when speaking, make sure to speak clearly and loudly so I can hear your arguments and flow better.

If you're going to run theory, please clearly explain the violation, impacts, and why it outweighs the debate and why I should vote for you.

Speaks:

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

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

29.3 - 29 - Probably will break

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

28.5 - 28 - Probably will have a losing record

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

I am a Senior policy debater @ Bronx Science Pronouns: He/Him

Add me to the email chain: zamptyhib@bxscience.edu

If you dont read anything below READ THIS: Assume that I have not paid any attention to the round before the last rebuttals. It may or may not be true but generally will make your rebuttals better. Thanks!!

If you say any xenophobic, homophobic, racist, misogynistic, transphobic etc. comments, I'm automatically submitting a ballot for the other team and giving you 26 speaks.

During CX, please be respectful, I understand that it can be heated but be mindful of your tone. The goal of this activity is not to intimidate people into submission.

If you don't know how to spread CLEARLY, please don't. I understand speed is the game in policy but if I can't understand you, I will not flow it.

I have no bias towards K/Policy args. I have the most experience working with K/K-affs, but it doesn't really matter to me what you run.

Framework makes the game work, so make sure that all F/W args are answered on the flow because that is how I will be evaluating the round.

If you find a way to include a Boondocks reference I will give you 30 speaks.

If you want an easy ballot from me, in the 2AR/2NR explain why you have won the round, don't just extend things from previous rounds.

Please Roadmap before each round and sign-post as you go through your speeches.

Time your own speeches pls. It makes it easier for you to keep track of your own speeches and it saves me extra stress.

I will lower speaks for having to time people, you are young adults, please be more responsible.

**Remember Debate is supposed to be a fun educational activity so don't take this too seriously. Enjoy the round!

lex 23, 3rd year policy

add me to the chain - lexdebateaz@gmail.com

‎‏‏‎ ‎

1. top

spreading is ok

open cx is ok

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

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

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

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

also, +0.1 speaks if you make me laugh

‎‏‏‎ ‎

2. musts

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

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

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

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

- be nice to your opponent and your partner ofc

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

‎‏‏‎ ‎

3. preferences

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

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

judge direction, as stated above

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

tech > truth

policy = k

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

i love theory

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

don't interrupt your partner unless absolutely necessary

‎‏‏‎ ‎

4. speaks

copying from vinit iyer's paradigm:

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

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

29.3 - 29 - Probably will break

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

28.5 - 28 - Probably will have a losing record

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

‎‏‏‎ ‎

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

4th year policy debater at Bronx Science!

pronouns: she/her

Email Chain: zouv@bxscience.edu

**For policy**

- Read what you're comfortable with, policy or K is fine (I've ran/run both)

- 7+ off -> :((

- Be clear and don't forget to signpost.

- fairness i/l to education/clash >>> fairness as an impact imo (but that doesn't mean i won't vote on fairness)

- read creative DAs

- !!!!! empirics + examples !!!!!

- Don't go for everything in the 2NR

- tech > truth

- you could also just read Anne Rhee's paradigm - everything there probably applies (except i'd rather you not run 7+ off *see above*)

- novices!!! pls stop reading answers to offcases that the neg kicked out of

- for 2Ns on this topic, as a fellow 2N I really feel for you

**LD & PF**

- make your argument clear and I will vote off of my flow

- pls time yourselves

**!!**

- don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

- I'm flowing on my laptop not staring at you

- mentions of sexual violence should have trigger warnings

- Don't be rude like eugene toth

- HAVE FUN!

*automatic 30 speaks if the neg block is 13 minutes of (substantial) case ! (novices pls stop reading 13 min of case cards)

+0.1 speaks if you recommend me a good poem (+0.2 if its Asian identity)

+0.1 speaks if you make a joke about Jenny Lee, Megan Xing, Eugene Toth, Anne Rhee, Sam Espinal, Bxsci FV, or Bxsci EC !!