upenn '24, reagan '20

email: remadebate@gmail.com

she/her

i debated for 4 yrs at reagan hs, qual to the toc, attended ddi and mich k lab.

for prefs:

1 - k debaters 2 - flex debaters 3 - "soft left" policy debaters 4 - policy throwdowns

tldr: ik everyone says this, but really u do u. i think debate is one of the best spaces to express urself in the way that u want and with the args u want to. most of my experience is with k's so i prolly wouldn't be the best for policy throwdowns but i can adjudicate pretty much all debates. what i will say abt some debate "rules": disclosure is good and should be reciprocated. don't clip cards, and don't cheat. if you clip, i'll let u know after ur speech ends to be more careful and clear, and if u continue, it's an L. spreading is cool but also if ur opponents require speed accommodation bc they're hard of hearing, u should slow down. be aware of how ur identity affects others in this space and check ur privilege. respect pronouns. i will call out microaggressions and i am comfy voting down teams that don't apologize or clearly don't respect who they're debating.

fw vs. k affs:

this was the majority of my debates and i'm pretty experienced with both sides. procedural fairness isn't an impact unless you explain why it is. for fw debaters, what can the ballot resolve and for the aff what does the aff resolve that o/w the impacts of fw?

i am sympathetic to fw when the aff team is unable to explain what their aff does or if the aff explanation changes significantly throughout the debate

i do not auto vote k affs and don't auto vote against fw. u gotta explain ur stuff w nuance.

pls don't copy paste fw blocks from old topics

clash debates are good and i enjoy them but do NOT say that k's don't belong in the debate space bc that won't end well for u lmao

t vs. policy affs:

i love t against policy affs. default to competing interps

went for T in p much every 2nr my junior year

topical and untopical caselists <3

k's:

most of my experience is with k's. i'm familiar with afropessimism, settler colonialism, baudrillard, and some others

love em and read em well

no links of omission

invest time in the fw part of these debates pls

major props to going for k's vs k affs <3

policy things:

wasn't in many of these debates, but i can evaluate tech and the flow

i will auto judge kick but if the aff is like don't do that, i'll need yall to debate it out

theory has to be not wild, condo is good, i'm not that good at cp theory doe like if u go for textual v functional competition pls slow down and really explain why the cp doesn't meet ur interp

post-round:

debate is a learning space for judges and debaters so post-rounding is valuable imo but just don't post up and then get wilded out after i post up back

other thoughts:

do not graphically describe violence or suffering of any kind

be aware of ur identity when reading structural k's like afropessimism and settler colonialism if you are not black or not indigenous

do not pornotrope black suffering if u are a nonblack debater

don't speak over ur opponents and be wary of gendered interactions (i will call those out and lower speaker points)

sassy debaters r hilarious and i love u

debate is competitive but be kind to your opponents. this doesn't mean don't bring the heat, but instead do not personally attack ur opponents or insult them bc 0 for speaks ok

for online debate, pls keep ur camera on when u speak bc like i wanna see ur face and also debate is communicative ya know

have fun, kill it, byeeeeeeeeee :)

* 30 year high school English and theatre teacher

* Looking for clear explanations of contentions, and rebuttals.

* Articulation and enunciation is essential.

* Cruel and profane language is NEVER acceptable.

* Be kind above all else

Final update - April 2024

Docs: speechdrop.net

Directing the DebateDrills Club Team for 2023-25 - here are incident reporting forms, roster, and MPJ/ conflict info.

Enloe HS '20 + UPenn '24. 2x LD TOC qual (cleared junior year/ skipped senior year) + 13 bids. I primarily read policy args + T/theory. I am fairly familiar with but do not particularly care for philosophy, tricks, or the K; however, I will not insert my preferences absent a poorly resolved debate - read what you feel comfortable with.

Debating

Debate is a competitive game that imparts useful life skills, flow clarification is CX, CX isn't prep, speaks are my choice and not yours

Speaks boost for taking less prep and sitting down early if you've clearly won

You should disclose properly, and it doesn't take 30 minutes to "make changes" to the aff

Not voting on:

---Args that deny the badness of racism/ sexism/ homophobia/ etc (potential auto-loss given severity)

---Death/ suffering good (spark/ wipeout type stuff is fine)

---Ad-homs or args based on out of round actions or a debater's appearance/ location/ etc (except disclosure screenshots)

---Arguments that are "vote for me because I’m x" or "I get [to do] y because I'm x"

---Independent voters that are not labeled as such in the speech they are introduced with a reason why they are

Defaults: fairness and education are voters, drop the debater, competing interps, no RVIs, comparative worlds, util, epistemic confidence, policy presumption, OCIs incoherent, perm theory is drop the arg

Tell me to read ev if you want me to

Judge kick requires winning an argument for it

Read rehighlightings if they make a new/ different argument - insert them if they show x thing is in y context, and explain any insertions

1ARs should probably read theory and 2NRs should probably answer it

Consequences probably matter but perhaps you can convince me otherwise

Tricks tend not to have warrants in the speech they're introduced or in the speech they're extended in

Ks need to prove that the aff is a bad idea, affs probably get to weigh case and extinction probably outweighs

I seem to vote for Ks far more vs phil affs than vs policy affs

K affs need to do something but usually do not

I do not want to adjudicate personal survival strategies or callouts

T framework - fairness and clash/ research > skills/ movements

Things I shouldn’t have to say

---All arguments need to be both originally made with and extended with a coherent warrant

---Won’t vote on arguments that I don’t understand the warrant for in the first speech they're introduced

---Delineate and explain arguments and their implications throughout the debate

Cheating

Clipping: Ending the debate if I catch it. If you have a recording, you can stake the round. Skipping 3+ words multiple times probably constitutes clipping.

Ev Ethics: If I catch a violation, speaks will plummet and the card will be ignored. These constitute a violation such that I'd act or you can stake the round/ make a challenge:

---Card starts/ends in the middle of a sentence or paragraph

---Text has been added to or removed from the original text of the cited article within the start/end of the card

---Card has been cut/highlighted/bracketed to make a claim that the article does not warrant

You can read any of these or any other violation you want as theory. If another part of the article contradicts the argument made in the card, I'd prefer to see a recutting of the article read as an argument.

I competed in LD for 4 years in HS at duPont Manual, but am now 4 years out of debate. This means I will flow, but I can't take super fast spreading and I need everything (especially progressive argumentation) to be clearly explained. Probably can't evaluate theory properly. Feel free to ask me questions before the round.

I’m a lay parent judge.

For speaking style, speed is okay, but it’s not preferred. It’s really important to me that you’re speaking clearly enough for me to understand you.

I’ll be flowing your speeches and I do pay attention during cross.

I do not know any debate jargon so please don’t use it unless you explain what it means. Please be explicit about which arguments you’re dropping. Run progressive arguments at your own risk. It’s likely I won’t understand the argument(s) and my decision will reflect that.

Safety is important to me in round and if you make remarks that are sexist, racist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. I will drop you to 25 speaker points.

1. I can handle as much speed as you want as long as you’re speaking comprehensibly. If you’re no longer enunciating, I’ll drop my pen so you know to slow down.

2. I’ll vote off the flow. Weigh arguments clearly, use warrants, don’t just spit out cards/extensions, signpost, and give me voters.

3. I’m down for more progressive debate, but it has to be done well. Make sure if you’re running something non-traditional, it has a purpose and isn’t just there to confuse your opponents.

4. Don’t be rude to your opponents or yell in crossfire. I like humor/sass but keep it under control.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask before round!

I was a PF debater. I will flow everything but cross. Be clear, weigh, and interact with your opponents' arguments. Also, humor and unique arguments appreciated. NO new arguments/cards in FF.

For LD treat me as a lay judge, NO spreading.

Make me laugh = ^speaks

Experience:

I am a current sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania. I competed in Public Forum debate all four years of high school. My partner and I won the state competition twice and broke at NSDA.

Other Details:

1) Please speak clearly and at a reasonable pace. PF's main audience is geared towards the general public, so I should be able to understand you.

2) Please be respectful of the other team members, and please keep track of your own time.

3) I will flow; I value well-structured cases, clarity, and impact.

2 rounds of exposure to this 2022 February topic.

Time your own prep time. Signpost. Off-time roadmaps are helpful for me.

Please frontline.

I'll be able to follow most speeds. I don't intervene, but please speak clearly and don't spread.

I won't flow crossfire, but I'll listen. If you mention crossfire in your speeches, I'll pay attention.

Please be consistent. What's brought up in the final focus should be in summary. Extend your warrants and impacts please. If you read arguments that contradict each other I might not drop you, but it'll be a tough sell if its strategy.

When you weigh, try to be more specific than we outweigh on "timeframe, scope, and magnitude." I'll value one weighing mechanism that's more thought out than a bunch of smaller ones.

I'm not good with Ks, plans, or any of that. If you plan on running those in a round, I'm not the right judge for you.

I'm not really a tech over truth guy. Good logic and a good narrative beats some evidence in my eyes. They all work together.

If you make me laugh, I'll bump your speaks.

Be niceeee.

I really do like narratives.

Debated all through high school on both the local (Illinois) and national (TOC) circuits. Sophomore at Penn studying Finance and International Studies.

Looking for:

• Dynamic speeches with good vocal variation.
• Good argumentation and showcasing that you're listening and responsive to the round. I've prepped beautiful speeches but had to adjust and never use them because that wasn't where the debate was going. Be responsive. There's nothing worse than a speech that's great but you hear crickets when the PO asks for questions. If you're speaking at the start of the round/sponsoring, I won't punish you for not having rebuttals. However, you have the privilege to dictate the direction of the round! Make good, broad points that will enable other people to argue with you in future speeches. I won't forget you if others are constantly bringing your name up.
• Great rhetoric (aka the ability to link your speech under one cohesive theme, through both choosing arguments well as well as intros and conclusions).

Bonus points if you make me laugh