John Andreou

GBN 2022

Please add me to the chain:

johnadebate@gmail.com

Overall:

- Debate should be fun

-I refuse to listen to any sexism, racism, homophobia, or any personal insults in the debate space

-Tech over truth

-Please don't read new evidence (or any at all) in the late rebuttals

-Please don't cheat

Case:

-I LOVE case debates

-Make sure to thoroughly explain your case to your opponents because this is where the best debating happens!

DA:

-Yes please!

-I like almost all DAs

-Make sure you explain the link

-If you want to win on a DA you MUST do impact calc

CP:

-I'm a fan of counterplans in most cases

-Theory (condo) needs to be really well explained for me to vote on it

-I will vote on process and agent counterplans but having good theory arguments makes or breaks the counterplan

-Overall, don't be afraid to read them

K:

-I'm not the biggest fan of the K but could still see myself voting for one on occasion

-DEATH IS NEVER GOOD

-I am probably not the judge you would want to read high theory K args in front of (Baudrillard, Bataille, etc.)

-Also not a big fan of identity K's (Queer Theory, Afro Pessimism, etc.)

-I WILL NOT VOTE ON THE K IF THE LINK IS NOT WELL EXPLAINED

-Framework makes or breaks the K

K affs:

-No

Speaker Points:

-If you aren't rude you should be just fine

-Please signpost

-Clarity over speed

-Throwing in a few jokes may increase your speaks

-Flow

-Please give roadmaps (I'll ask at first but would really like them to be said without asking)

-Something that really irritates me is time between the end of prep and sending the doc. I will be more lenient to account for tech problems but will get a bit frustrated if you or a teammate are clearly prepping when you should be sending a doc.

-I would also appreciate being added to the email chain without asking

-If you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask me before the round

Evan Baines (he/they) 1/2022

please include me in email chains bainesevan1227@gmail.com

about me:

-judged high school policy debate at central high school from 2017-2021 on the topics of education, immigration reform, arms sales, and criminal justice reform.

-ran soft-left affs and k affs throughout most of hs. i am familiar with most k lit, but that doesn't mean you get to be lazy. please thoroughly explain your arguments on each flow.

general:

i am not picky about specific arguments. run what you're comfortable with and what you can win a debate with.

truth > tech. you will not win arguments such as "climate change isn't real" no matter how badly the other team drops that ball. i cannot in good faith endorse a such arguments, and i believe they are harmful to debate. that being said, you can still win that climate change doesn't cause extinction, etc.

i tend to default to the framing that debate is primarily an educational activity if no other framing arguments are read.

i like to see lots of clash on the flow! your evidence and warrants are vert important particularly on the solvency flow and disads

t:

i am not a huge fan of t arguments, but will certainly still vote for them. because i view debate as primarily an educational activity, the aff should tell me why even if their plan is untopical they should still be able to read it because of how it accesses education. the neg should be able to tell me why everything else in the round is moot because of the untopicality. if you would rather defer to a different framing on t by all means go ahead! i am not a fan of arguments like "the aff is untopical which is unfair because we weren't able to prep" particularly when y'all go on to read blocked out answers to their 2AC on the case.

k:

alt explanation and solvency is key to winning the k flow for me. if you don't have adequate solvency or explanation, i am left to a non-unique da to the case which makes it hard for me to vote on the k flow. i would still vote on presumption if the k impact and links are adequately explained.

in-round decorum:

please refrain from personal attacks on the other team, talking over each other, or other rude behavior. please remember that the people you are debating against are human beings and treat them with kindness and respect :)

kbarnstein@alumni.depaul.edu

My background: I'm currently serving as the head coach at Maine East, after many years of serving as an assistant. For much of the past 7 years, I judge an average of 15-20 rounds on the topic. I debated at Maine East HS back in the late 90s & early 00s for four seasons under the tutelage of Wayne Tang. As such, I tend to lean towards a policy making approach that seeks the best policy option. I tend to view topicaliy/theory through a prism of fairness and education. I don't mind listening to debates about what debate should be. I default to viewing the plan as the focus of the debate.

If you are running a K, I like the links to be as specific to the affirmative's advocacy as possible. If your alternative doesn't make sense, that means that the affirmative must be worse than the status quo for you to win your K.

I strongly dislike reading your evidence after the round- I expect the debaters to do that work in the round. If I call for a card, it will typically be to verify that it says what you say it says. I will not give you the benefit of warrants you did not explain, however I may give the other team the benefit of the card not saying what you said it did.

sohan.bellam@emory.edu

I won't adjudicate issues that happened outside of the debate. I do not like planless affirmatives. Do what you like.

Viraj Bodiwala

University of Chicago '26

Maine East '22

1A/2N

email: mehsdebatevb@gmail.com

IF YOU READ A K IN FRONT OF ME, I WILL HOLD YOU TO A HIGHER STANDARD.

tech over truth.

I'm a second year at UChicago studying quantum engineering, physics, and computer science. I debated at Maine East High School in Park Ridge, IL, for four years, doing moderately well and breaking to semifinals at many national circuit tournaments. I attended camp at Wake Forest University and the Michigan K Lab. Apart from my freshman year, I read primarily critical arguments, but have also have dabbled in topicality and counterplans. My arsenal consisted of afropessimism, baudrillard, settler colonialism, and some performative arguments. I also read a fair bit of memes.

The following is from Parth Shah's paradigm, someone who I more or less completely agree with it when it comes to debate:

I think that debate is a game with pedagogical and political implications. As such, I see my role as a judge as primarily to determine who won the debate but also to facilitate the debaters' learning. Everything can be an impact if you find a way to weigh it against other impacts, this includes procedural fairness. When my ballot is decided on the impact debate, I tend to vote for whoever better explains the material consequence of their impact. Use examples. Examples can help to elucidate (the lack of) solvency, establish link stories, make comparative arguments, and so many more useful things. They are also helpful for establishing your expertise on the topic. All thing said, at the end of the day I will adapt to your argument style.

I dislike judges who exclude debaters because of what they decide to read in a debate round, I will NOT do that as long as you don't say anything racist, sexist, etc.

Speaker points are arbitrary. I tend to give higher speaker points to debaters who show a thorough understanding of the arguments they present. I am especially impressed by debaters who efficiently collapse in the final rebuttals.

Lastly:

Be nice.

Feel free to mmail me with questions about kritiks, philosophy, UChicago, etc.

Background:

• I debated for Niles West in high school and West Georgia in college.
• BA in Philosophy.
• Currently coaching at Niles West.

Email:

• gershom000@gmail.com

Top level things:

• If you engage in offensive acts (think racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.), you will lose automatically and will be awarded whatever the minimum speaker points offered at that particular tournament is.
• If you make it so that the tags in your document maps are not navigable by taking the "tag" format off of them, I will actively dock your speaker points.
• Quality of argument means a lot to me. I am willing to hold my nose and vote for bad arguments if they're better debated but my threshold for answering those bad arguments is pretty low.
• I’m extremely hesitant to vote on arguments about things that have happened outside of a debate or in previous debates. I can only be sure of what has happened in this particular debate and anything else is non-falsifiable.
• Absolutely no ties and the first team that asks for one will lose my ballot.
• Soliciting any outside assistance during a round will lose my ballot.

Pet peeves:

• Lack of clarity. Clarity > speed 100% of the time.
• The 1AC not being sent out by the time the debate is supposed to start.
• Email-sending related failures.
• Dead time.
• Stealing prep.
• Answering arguments in an order other than the one presented by the other team.
• Asserting things are dropped when they aren't.
• Asking the other team to send you a marked doc when they marked 1-3 cards.
• Marking almost every card in the doc.
• Disappearing after the round.
• Quoting my paradigm in your speeches.
• Sending PDFs instead of Word Docs.

Ethics:

• If you are caught clipping you will receive a loss and the lowest possible points.
• If you make an ethics challenge in a debate in front of me, you must stake the debate on it. If you make that challenge and are incorrect or cannot prove your claim, you will lose and be granted the lowest possible points. If you are proven to have committed an ethics violation, you will lose and be granted the lowest possible points.
• If you use sexually explicit language or engage in sexually explicit performances in high school debates, you should strike me.

Cross-x:

• Yes, I’m fine with tag-team cx. But dominating your partner’s cx will result in lower points for both of you.
• Questions like "what cards did you read?" are cross-x questions, and I will run the timer accordingly.
• If you fail to ask the status of the off, I will be less inclined to vote for condo.
• If the 1NC responds that "every DA is a NB to every CP" when asked about net benefits in the 1NC even if it makes no sense, I think the 1AR gets a lot of leeway to explain a 2AC "links to the net benefit argument" on any CP as it relates to the DAs.

Inserting evidence or rehighlightings into the debate:

• I won't evaluate it unless you actually read the parts that you are inserting into the debate. If it's like a chart or a map or something like that, that's fine, I don't expect you to literally read that, but if you're rehighlighting some of the other team's evidence, you need to actually read the rehighlighting.

Affirmatives:

• I’m fine with plan or planless affirmatives. However, I believe all affirmatives should advocate for/defend something. What that something entails is up for debate, but I’m hesitant to vote for affirmatives that defend absolutely nothing.

Topicality:

• I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise.
• The most important thing for me in T debates is an in-depth explanation of the types of affs your interp would include/exclude and the impact that the inclusion/exclusion would have on debate.
• 5 second ASPEC shells/the like have become nonstarters for me. If I reasonably think the other team could have missed the argument because I didn't think it was a clear argument, I think they probably get new answers. If you drop it twice, that's on you.

Counterplans:

• For me counterplans are more about competition than theory. While I tend to lean more neg on questions of CP theory, I lean aff on a lot of questions of competition, especially in the cases of CPs that compete on the certainty of the plan, normal means cps, and agent cps.

Disads:

• If you're reading a DA that isn't just a case turn, it should go on its own sheet. Failure to do so is super annoying because people end up extending/answering arguments on flows in different orders.

Kritiks:

• The more specific the link the better. Even if your cards aren’t that specific, applying your evidence to the specifics of the affirmative through nuanced analysis is always preferable to a generic link extension.
• ‘You link you lose’ strategies are not my favorite. I’m willing to vote on them if the other team fails to respond properly, but I’m very sympathetic to aff arguments about it being a bad model for debate.
• I find many framework debates end up being two ships passing in the night. Line by line answers to the other team's framework standards goes a long way in helping win framework in front of me.

Theory:

• Almost all theory arguments are reasons to reject the argument, condo is usually the only exception.
• Conditionality is often good. It can be not. I have found myself to be increasingly aff leaning on extreme conditionality (think many plank cps where all of the planks are conditional + 4-5 more conditional options).
• Tell me what my role is on the theory debate - am I determining in-round abuse or am I setting a precedent for the community?

Framework/T-USfg:

• I find impacts about debatability, clash, and iterative testing to be very persuasive.
• I am not really persuaded by fairness impacts, but will vote on it if mishandled.
• I am not really persuaded by impacts about skills/the ability for debate to change the world if we read plans - I think these are not very strategic and easily impact turned by the aff.
• I am pretty sympathetic to negative presumption arguments because I often think the aff has not forwarded an explanation for what the aff does to resolve the impacts they've described.
• I don't think debate is role-playing.

• If the aff drops SSD or the TVA and the 2NR extends it, I will most likely vote neg.

Name: Santiago (Diego) Duarte. Refer to me however you want, I really don't care.

Pronouns: He/him. Remember to ask your opponents.

Cancer sun, Scorpio Moon, Cancer rising

School: Glenbrook North (formerly), University of Oregon (not active debater)

Email: 224029@glenbrook225.org Please put me on the email chain without asking

If you read this paradigm, integrate the word "lasagna" into any speech once and I will give you +0.3 speaks

Experience: Debated for GBN on the Immigration topic and the Arms Sales topic. Judged debates on the Criminal Justice topic and the Water topic.

Former speaker position: 2N

Don't over-adapt to my paradigm. I'm willing to adjust to your styles. Debate how you want to debate and I'll try to keep up.

IMPORTANT NOTE: The long version of this paradigm is, as advertised, LONG. It is also quite boring to anyone who is not me, and was written more as a self-indulgent essay than a helpful guide. You won't miss much if you only read the short version, and if you need more detailed information on my views on specific topics, make use of the command+F function.

Paradigm (Short version) :

As a judge of novices, my goal is to educate and provide an enjoyable debate experience. Your first year is meant to be a learning experience, not a stress-filled environment. I am willing to make reasonable accommodations within debates to fit this - please ask before the round if there's anything that would make the debate more comfortable for you.

Don't be rude to your competitors, don't read racist arguments, if you have tech issues let me know and I probably won't take off speaker points.

Read any kind of argument that's allowed by the tournament rules, check with me and your competitors if it's potentially a triggering argument. K affs suck for novice debate but if the tournament lets you do it then I'll judge them fairly.

Be nice in cross-ex, don't speak over each other, don't dominate your partner's cx time.

I consider myself centrist on the Tech vs. Truth question, but I'm probably leaning more towards truth being important than the average judge.

I'm fine with any speed personally, but be careful over zoom. If i tell you to slow down, I expect you to actually slow down.

0% risk exists and is actually fairly common

Ask me if you have any questions, at any time.

Paradigm (long version):

As a judge of novices, my goal is to educate and provide an enjoyable debate experience. Your first year is meant to be a learning experience, not a stress-filled environment. I am willing to make reasonable accommodations within debates to fit this - please ask before the round if there's anything that would make the debate more comfortable for you.

With regards to digital debate: I will not take speaker points off for technical issues, with the exception of problems which you could reasonably be expected to prepare for, or egregious and unverifiable ones. I will be lenient with prep time when it comes to tech issues - as novices, you can't be expected to be able to instantly format and send files and such.

Cross examination: I am okay with open cross examination - HOWEVER - if one partner is clearly dominating another and abusing the concept of open cross-ex, I will stop that immediately and deduct speaker points. You will not earn brownie points with me by being an "aggressive cross examiner." I would prefer polite and low-volume cross-ex. Things said in cross examination are binding, however of course you and your partner can ask me to strike something you just said from my record of the debate, as long as it's within the same CX or speech.

Tech vs. Truth: I think that the inherent believability of arguments does matter in debate. While it is a game, you should be bringing arguments that make at least a modicum of sense, and not rely on overwhelming speed or speaking ability to swamp your opponent. That being said - ultimately, I am judging a competition and the better debaters should almost always win.

Speaker points: I will likely award slightly higher than average speaker points. I believe that there's no real reason to hurt new debaters by assigning a low numerical value to their speaking skill, barring extreme circumstances.

Situations in which I will stop a debate: Any accusation of cheating of any kind is the end of the debate, with the winner depending on the truth of the accusation. Any accusation of harassment or bullying will also cause me to end the debate - in any of these scenarios I will notify tournament staff and we'll go from there. Extreme rudeness to your competitors will cause me to at least pause the debate, and maybe award you a loss depending on the situation.

ARGUMENT SECTION

I am generally okay with any kind of argument, as long as it fits within basic standards of human decency. Arguments which are truly inherently racist and read with bad intent will at the very least not be counted, and may result in me automatically submitting my ballot against the offending team. I think that arguments which have a significant chance of triggering debaters should be mentioned before you read them - things like Death Good for example, I will allow if it isn't a significant trigger for the other team. (this is a general point - novices really shouldn't be reading these arguments)

Topicality:

I don't understand topicality. You, novices, definitely don't understand topicality. The people who wrote your T blocks probably do, but that doesn't make hearing them any more interesting. I will not be happy if I have to judge a novice debate that comes down to the nuances of topicality. This is even more true at the start of the year.

If this does end up being important - I find negative ground to be an unpersuasive standard, although I'll vote on it if it's argued well. Legal and contextual precision is my personal preference for evaluating T in policy rounds.

Kritikal arguments: Go ahead and read K's, I'm relatively friendly to them. If it's a convoluted and unintuitive Kritik, I do expect you to slow down for the benefit of both me and your opponents. My personal political biases lean towards a lot of kritikal arguments. I will do my best not to let this affect my judging of these arguments, but I'll probably be happy to hear them.

Performative contradictions are real and I will vote on them. The threshold is high, but if it's blatant then don't be afraid to call it out. If you're reading Cap and an Econ DA, that's pretty weird and will make a lot of philosophical arguments much less compelling.

Counterplans: Go ahead, any kind. Counterplans are probably my favorite kind of argument, don't be afraid to go all in on the CP in the 2nr.

Theory:

I like theory. I think it's the most unique part of debate, that the rules are only norms unless you prove that they should be rules in the round. I am willing to vote on theoretical questions, and open to all kinds of arguments in this area.

My counterplan theory stance is pretty neutral. I am happy to vote on good aff theory against cheating counterplans - I view theory as a totally legitimate and skill-based form of debate. If the neg abuses conditionality, go for condo and if you're better at arguing it I'll vote for you. Conditionality can be a voting issue for me, if you make it one.

Disads: Most basic kind of neg argument. Read as many as you want. Can't think of any unusual takes I have for this section. Please don't read DAs that have racist premises, I won't like you.

Go ahead and read all the politics disads you can think of - they're a lot of the neg ground on this topic. Don't bother running one in front of me unless you understand the uniqueness inside and out though - these disads are won or lost in the uniqueness section most of the time.

Kritikal affirmatives: These are almost certainly bad for novice debate. If the tournament allows them and you genuinely out-debate your competitors with one, I'll vote for you, but it's a high bar to clear in front of me. Even though I'm personally sympathetic to the ideas behind them, they're not cool for novices.

Case: Case debates are my favorite kinds of debates. Offcase are fun, but the core of debate is meant to be around the plan. Negative teams: don't be afraid to spend huge amounts of time attacking the case. If their affirmative doesn't make sense, go all in on that. I'm perfectly happy to vote on presumption if their case doesn't exist by the final rebuttals. If their affirmative is really strong and does make sense, then trying to frame the debate towards focusing on offcase is a good idea. Affirmative teams: don't let them do that last part. Keep the debate focused on whether your aff is good or bad. Convince me that that's all that matters. You get a huge advantage in picking the focus of the debate, use it wisely.

HOT TAKES: I mentioned earlier that I'm happy to vote on presumption - this is a sort of complicated issue for me. On a debate mechanics level, I think the presumption argument is cool and not used enough by negative teams. On a personal/political level, I've never agreed with the fundamental idea that "if the aff doesn't prove that they're good, then assume change is bad because it's risky." I think this is a reactionary and conservative way to view argumentation and debate. I am open to affirmatives making this argument if they feel that presumption is a likely strategy. Despite all that, if the affirmative doesn't make this argument in the 1AR, I will go with the debate community standard and say presumption goes neg.

Again, don't over-adapt to what is written above. I am happy to do what you tell me to do on this issue unless the other team contests it.

My second hot take is with regards to permutations: I absolutely hate the way permutations are usually done. If you stand up for the 2AC against 3 or less conditional alternatives and say "perm do the cp perm do both" a few times, I will flow them, but these are not real arguments and if the negative says so I will agree with them. Explain your permutations. What do they mean, what does doing both look like? Do not force whichever neg debater is taking the counterplan to respond to all the possible variations of a 3 word permutation because you couldn't be bothered to make a real argument. I will however be more sympathetic to rapid-fire permutations against 4+ conditional worlds - the 2AC is already a time-intensive speech and I will extend some understanding because of that.

My third and final hot take is that the 1AR will get a ton of leeway in front of me when it comes to making new arguments. I think that the block usually overdevelops one-offs from the 1NC to the point of making effectively new arguments, and when that happens I'm totally cool with letting the 1AR shoot a half dozen new offensive arguments in their faces in return.

Jargon: I am not an active debater on this topic. I have a passable knowledge of the main arguments and ideas underlying them, but some jargon might be outside of my understanding. Please don't abbreviate words that you think there's a good chance I wouldn't know the shortened version of. Use your best judgment.

If there's anything you want to know that's not on this paradigm, just ask before the round. Have fun!

Last Updated: November, 2023. Please put me on the chain: nathanglancy124@gmail.com

***Background***

Debated at:

Niles West High School (2014-2018)

Trinity University (2018-2020)

Michigan State University (2020-2023)

Coached for:

Winston Churchill (2018-19)

Niles West High School (2020-2023)

Niles North HS (2023-now)

University of Wyoming (2023-now)

I debated for 9 years, all the way from Oceans to Personhood. I've been a 2n for longer than I've been a 2a, but at heart I am a 2a. I currently coach at Niles North High School in northwest Chicagoland and do remote coaching for the University of Wyoming. I went for policy-style arguments throughout my debate career and relied on debate to help realize/finance my college education. Debate's done a lot for me and I'd like to think I'm doing what I can for debate. If you already know me, say hi!! If you don't know me yet, don't mind the fact that I have a grumpy resting face! I'm not shy and would love to show you pictures of my dog.

***TL;DR***

I really want to ensure you all have a satisfying judging experience. I think this means it is my role as a judge to try my best to render a decision based on the arguments made in the debate. I care about debate's existence and success. I hope that is reflected in my feedback and my efforts as a judge.

High school debaters will do well in front of me if they keep the round organized and moving, show their motivation to improve/learn/win, and maintain a positive approach to the round despite the competitive nature of debate. They'll do even better if this is coupled with good, SPECIFIC arguments :)

College Debaters should consider me capable of judging whatever you need me to. I don't have any large predispositions and therefore I would consider myself quite impressionable if faced with good judge instruction and application of arguments at the end of the debate.

I have comparatively lower amounts of college topic knowledge - fair word of warning for acronyms

*Non-argument Things*

CLIPPING: I am soooooo done with people getting away with murder clipping everywhere. In that light, I will now start dropping non-novice teams that meet my minimum standard for clipping. Triggering any one of these conditions will result in an immediate loss after the speech, with minimum speaks to the individual who does it...

1. Speaker skips a paragraph of a card in a speech

2. Speaker skips a sentence that is 10 or more words in a speech

3. Speakers skips 3-5 words 5 times within a speech

4. Speaker systematically skips 1-2 words throughout a speech

Speaks: I will reward speaks mostly on the following criteria...

1. How did you impact your team's ability to win?

2. How did you impact my judging? Did something impress me?

3. Mastery of Material - "knowing what's going on" at the highest level

4. Mastery of Tech/Organization - did you cause/fix any unnecessary/avoidable decision time hurdles?

Clarity: I'm starting to care way way more about the clarity of argument communicated earlier for how I assess risk later in the debate. I really feel like rewarding good packaging of arguments, labeling, and organization that guides the judge through what you're saying AND why that matters. I will try and highly prioritize this analysis over reading every card and seeing who did the better research project. However, instructing me to read a portion of a card obviously constitutes a form of argument that I will take into account.

Conduct: The more we have good vibes in the round, the better the experience will be for everyone. Feel free to have competitive spirit, but don't let that turn you into an unlikeable person!! That's not a winning recipe. Also I am a fan of corny humor, often to a fault. I have given one 30 in my lifetime, and it was to someone who's joke made me uncontrollably laugh during the 2ar (they lost). Don't reach for a bad joke though that's never funny.

Online Debate: Before EVERY speech and EVERY CX, please confirm that everyone is here AND that the sound is clear! Feel free to do camera on or off, I understand everyone has their reasons. Please be understanding of the different complications of online debate and let's do everything we can to keep online accessible and effective. Oh and I HATE prep stealing and doing it while online doesn't excuse it.

***Argument Things***

Case:

I should understand a consistent explanation of the 1ac and its advantages throughout the debate. Changing this narrative or being dodgy/vague is easily subject to punishment by a good neg team. AFF teams should punish teams that are light on case using clear 2ac articulations of dropped arguments instead of being equally as vague. 2NRs on case should focus on identifying what AFF impacts your case defense is responding to.

I am starting to get really tired of bad highlighting here and teams that point this out can mitigate offense here.

DAs:

They're cool, but oh my gosh do teams double, triple, quadruple turn themselves with these so often! I don't care about spamming DAs, but I wish more AFF teams would exploit contradictions in "neg flex". Neg teams can best win their DAs by getting impact framing out early and being clear about 1ar concessions to establish a high risk of your offense.

I am starting to get really tired of bad highlighting here and teams that point this out can mitigate offense here.

T:

I think explaining your vision of the topic is one of the most underrated and underutilized ways to win a T debate. Please just explain to me why in your squad room you decided that T made sense? What's the "core thing" that the AFF did that is the controversy being debated?

Things that help a lot: TVA, case-list of good AFFs under your interpretation, case-list of bad AFFs under their interpretation, definition comparison, explanation of neg ground under your interpretation AND the other teams'.

Theory:

I HATE bad theory arguments and don't want to vote on them, but I hate teams that don't flow slightly more so I will vote on that stuff (and if I miss one line ASPEC that's on you, debate's a communication activity!). Bad theory debating is a one way ticket to low speaks, but good theory debating can drastically alter how rounds go down.

I'm pretty good for theory all things considered. I went for states CP theory a lot on the education topic and am a 2a at heart, but as someone who was a 2n I understand the deep, deep love we share for condo. I feel like the best theory debaters are FLOWABLE while doing their theory debating, SPECIFIC in their impact articulation beyond just talking about clashing and doing some fair education, and INSTRUCTIVE to the judge on questions of impact comparison and justifying new arguments.

CPs:

CPs are defense and should be explained in the context of what it is defending against (the 1ac's mandate, evidence, and how the advantages are explained). This is how I often think about deficits and how a CP implicates my ballot. Re-cutting the 1ac/AFF evidence is usually the gold standard for proving a CP sufficiently solves. I feel like fore-fronting how you explain a CP early and not deviating from that is the best way to ensure you don't bring in new explanations so I don't let the AFF get new answers. I lowkey hate process CPs but sometimes it must be done.

Ks:

I'm better for the K than you think, but likely need more judge instruction about how to apply X argument. Better for evidence-heavy OR depth-focused debate. Any amount of generic evidence is best addressed through specific analysis.

"Exceeds expectations"/I've gone for: Cap, Security, Biopolitics/Agamben

"Meeting expectations"/I feel fine judging: Set Col, Anti-blackness (Nihilism, Pessimism, to name a few), Orientalism/Colonialism, Imperialism, Queer pessimism, Trans pessimism, Ableism

"Needs improvement"/err towards over-explaining: Psychoanalysis, Bataille, Heideggerian stuff, Baudrillard, Deleuze

I have not judged a KvK debate yet.

Framework:

I almost exclusively went for t-usfg/framework in HS and college, but that doesn't make me care about dropping a policy team. Impact articulation matters for me but far too often I find teams blending concepts such as fairness and clash in incoherent ways. I don't care about the label, but rather the underling explanation and how it is being applied in the debate. If you have any other questions look at Josh Harrington's philosophy on K AFFs, that'll reflect roughly how I feel.

Nate's sliding scales about debate:

Tech/Truth----------------------------X-Facts are Facts & Dropped args are as true as the warrants conceded

Condo-------X----------------------Respect the Aff Peasant (have and will vote on it, clear args in the 1ar key)

Process CP/Normal Means Competition----------------------------X- 100 plank case-specific advantage CP

Super Big CP-----------------X------------Deep Case Debating

Simply saying "Sufficiency Framing"-----------------------------X-Explain why CP solves sufficiently

Zero Risk Framing----------X-------------------Any Risk Framing

Perm Double Bind--------------X---------------Haha Silly Policy Hacks

Deb8=Karl Rove----------------------------X-That was one dude

Salad K----------------------------X-Single K Thesis

Economic Growth----------------------------X-( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

***Miscellaneous***

Email chain is always preferable to anything else barring tech issues

I don't like cards in the body of the email... but nobody seems to care... oh well...

I am fine with open cx. All people should be.

The Prep Rule: I will increase speaks from what I would have given by .1 for every minute of prep not used - speaks can be earned by specifically telling me the balance of prep your team had remaining before their last rebuttal. Capped at .5 boosted speaks.

Massive pet peeve: if you call a CP a "see-pee" I will think about it so much that it might disrupt my flowing and you might instantly lose (I am being sarcastic).

here's a photo collage about debate that I made in high school:

gbn '22 - msu '26 - 1n/2a for all 5 years - she/her

last updated: 4.21.2024

please put me on the chain:

gusisfiles@gmail.com

most importantly (in order):

1. be nice to each other, flow, have fun

2. don't be rude, sexist, racist, homophobic, etc.. i have no problem contacting tabroom or your coaches when if i feel my role as a judge needs to become subordinate to my role as an educator

3. i will not evaluate things that occurred outside of the debate. if something was truly problematic, the debate should be stopped and tab should be contacted. in a similar vein, i strongly believe you should reach out to an opponent if you find an ethics issue with their evidence. substituting a caseneg with an ethics violation that you found pre-round probably makes debate worse than the ethics issue itself.

4. tech > truth (but truth makes it easier to win tech)

5. these are my predispositions -- they can all be changed with good debating (see the line right above this)

6. arguments need a claim, warrant, and impact -- if you do not have all 3, i don't care if it's dropped. if it takes you less time to read your aspec 1nc shell than it takes me to type out "aspec = vi," it isn't an argument and i don't really care if the 2ac doesn't have an answer.

7. impact calc and framing really matter -- top of your 2nr/2ar should tell me what i'm voting on and why. my life is easier and happier if you write my ballot for me

8. tag team cx is fine but don't speak over your partner

9. you don't need a card to make an argument (see #6), but card probably beats no card

10. prep time ends whenyou say it does. if you prep after the timer ends, prep time ends when I say it has.
---things that can happen after prep ends: sending a speech, standing up, giving an order, setting a timer.
---things that cannot happen after prep ends: editing a doc (includes copy-pasting things), saving a doc, talking to your partner

11. marked doc is not removing the cards you skipped (this is flowing), its only adding "mark" for cards that you did not finish. if a team asks for a new card doc with the cards the other team skipped, you should take prep for them to put that together.

*topicality*

-i read questionably topical affs all 4 years of high school and 1 in college - do your worst but do it well

-precision > predictability > limits > ground

---specifically: grammatical precision > legal precision > contextual precision > overlimiting > neg ground > under-limiting > aff ground > topic education

-loooooove plan text in a vacuum, but affs tend to not debate it thoroughly enough

*framework / t-usfg*

-i love a good fairness debate but am not a die-hard fairness hack. probably think clash / testing and fairness are more convincing than something like movement lawyering, but it's debatable

-i think tvas and switch-side debate are pretty good ways to cut down the aff's offense

-i mostly tend to think affs should have a counter-interp because i need models of debate to compare. if your strategy is to impact-turn framework, i will assume that means your c/i is 'affs get to do what they want, how they want'

*disads*

-specific links are important, but not as important as a good story

-a thumper isn't a thumper until you tie it back to the link. for example, saying 'there are other bills on the agenda' is not a thumper until you win that those other bills will cost pc

-0 risk is a thing (maybe not aaaactually a thing, but probability can get so low that i should treat it as zero risk)

*counterplans & theory*

-anything is fair game as long as you can defend it BUT if the counterplan is cheating, the aff should be able to beat it on theory or a perm more easily

-i wont judge kick unless you tell me to (saying "the status quo is always an option" does count as telling me to)

-just saying "sufficiency framing" <<<<<<<<< explain why the counterplan solves / how i should evaluate it

-condo is probably bad (i know, hot take) but that won't matter if both sides just spread blocks at each other. you should NOT read this as 'she wants to only hear condo speeches'

-condo is probably the only theory violation worthy of rejecting the team unless there is an argument otherwise starting in the 2ac (but its a pretty high threshold)

-theory is (almost) always a question of models and (almost) never a question of in-round abuse

*kritiks*

-i've been around the block with the literature but that doesn't mean i want to hear baudrillard blocks spread directly into your computer at 400 wpm (nobody does)

-i tend to think ks need an alternative that solves the links and impacts, but high-quality framework debating can arguably substitute for this (i really do prefer k's that are more than 'you link, you lose')

-it's pretty hard to convince me that we should never do anything to meliorate a problem a team has isolated

-in a perfect world, links are causal, specific, and unique. this world is far from perfect

-i'm better for the k than you think (filter this through the fact that it came from me...obviously there's some bias there)

---

if you have any specific questions about my preferences, feel free to ask before and after the round :) im happy to help

good luck, have fun !!

Benjamin Hamburger 10/2022

Sure, you can add me to an email chain. benjamin dot hamburger at gmail. So you know, I probably will NOT follow along on your speech doc, though.
For Wisconsin legal purposes, you should consider me tabula rasa. don't make me talk about it too much though because there's no such thing as that.

Information about me:
*I have judged and coached in what would be considered "national-circuit" style Midwestern high school debate since about 1998 as a card-cutting coach, as the primary policy coach, as a head coach, and now as a head coach at Central High School in La Crosse, Wisconsin. I am also a lecturer at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse in the History Department. I am now getting old in debate terms--42 at the time of writing--which means I have old ideas and am grumpy about certain things.

*A Debate History:
1993-1998 Policy debater at Hastings High School, Hastings, NE
1998-1999 Judge/minor card cutter, Hastings Senior High School
1999-2005 Assistant Coach for Policy Debate at Fremont High School, Fremont, NE
2005-2007 Director of Forensics, Iowa City High School, Iowa City, IA
2007-2016 Assistant Varsity Coach, Cedar Rapids Washington High School, Cedar Rapids, IA
2016-Present Director of Debate, La Crosse Central High School, La Crosse, WI

*Academic Info that Might Be Relevant:
B.A. in Political Science (emphases in international relations and political theory) and History, a minor in Women’s Studies from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln
M.A. in Secondary Social Studies Education and History from the University of Iowa.

Argument choice issues:
*Choose your arguments. I try to avoid evaluating rounds based on what I like to hear. Even if I don’t like your argument, it doesn’t mean you’ve lost it, etc. My self-estimation is that I am fairly even on the K vs. Policy question. I believe that both are very interesting and useful styles of debate. Most of the time framework debates aren’t particularly productive, the aff will win that they get to weigh the case, the neg will win that they get some form of an alternative, etc. (hint: if you are serious about winning framework, don’t waste your time on the rest of the debate—prove that you’re serious about it and go for it.)

Disad thoughts:
*One of the areas I am slightly old school. Left to my own devices, I am more likely than many judges to evaluate the risk of a disad as zero if there is a step which has been substantially defeated. I do not particularly prefer offense-defense paradigms, it is my feeling that it is necessary to win your arguments to get a DA. Similarly, I think you need to win a link to generate offense, so without justification I do not default to a uniqueness-focused decision-making process. In spite of these warnings, a justified argument can change those decision-making processes. Generally, though, a good politics debate with developed turns-case analysis is a thing of beauty. Quality of evidence comparison/warrants will always beat number of cards.

*I have increasingly found myself somewhat lost in fast debates about security policy which include multiple interacting internal links--not because I am incapable of understanding them, but because I am not as familiar with these arguments as you all are. On occasion debaters need to slow down and explain some arguments.

K Thoughts:
*My favorite negative strategies are about criticisms that isolate and condemn social injustice or reveal power relations and debate epistemology smartly. I have no problem with generic criticisms like security and the cap k, but to win them or to get decent points requires specific discussion of the 1ac—isolating the links and their implications for evaluating the aff is what makes it awesome. Affs lose lots of K debates largely because they pile up cards rather than planning what the 2ar endgame looks like. Often affs are better served defending their own assumptions than reading argument-specific cards that are not part of a specific strategy. To wit, affs regularly go for permutations or no link arguments when they claim an advantage which impact turns the k while conceding a utopian alternative. Because I am a sucker for well-developed analysis about epistemology/ontology, I don't think as a rule the 2nr needs to go for external case defense, at least if you can give examples of how aff authors have specific problems or biases. Wisconsin teams have proven to think that mindless tech can win you a permutation, this is not generally true--most neg args against one permutation work against all of them.

*I consider myself generally well-read on critical arguments, but that reading maybe stopped being so robust in like 2007 or 2008, and so I'm not as up-to-date on the more recent turns in that literature. I can observe some additional relevant tendencies: I often find myself frustrated in rounds that involve a lot of psychoanalytic arguments (I get the cap bad part of Zizek. That may be about it). I dislike the Nietzsche alternative viscerally. In each of these cases, if this is your only game, I am probably not a good judge for you. I will also explicitly note some critical arguments with which I am well acquainted: I’m fairly well read in Foucault, Heidegger, lots of feminisms, critical international relations business, cap bad, etc. Lots of experience now with Afro-pessimism, Orientalism, at least some entré into queer theory args. I still need someone to convince me that Bataille and Baudrilliard are more smart than confusing.

*I’m probably a decent judge for a T debate. Most of the theoretical issues are up in the air—competing interpretations vs. abuse as a standard, etc. If you concede a competing interpretations arg, though, be aware that you’ll need offense on your interp.

*I can enjoy a good theory debate, but if you actually want to win it you probably need to convince me early on in a debate that you are going to do something other than just read your block at full speed. i have a natural dislike towards theory debates that i see as unnecessary. I'm not the ideal judge if you *plan* on going for theory a lot, but again, i try to evaluate those debates fairly. I will note that I do not have a neg side bias when it comes to counterplan debates--be it issues of conditionality, fiat, or competition issues. Some people see that fact in and of itself as an aff side bias on those theoretical issues, but what it means is that i am more than willing to vote aff because a counterplan is cheating, if you win that debate.
*I have found that I am getting older and more dinosaur-like on counterplan theory: I think I have an aff bias on these issues: multiple counterplans, consult counterplans, and conditionality.

*Non-traditional affs: it seems that I am going to judge my share of clash-of-civs rounds, which is fine. I generally think that negative teams do not work hard enough to generate smart arguments against non-traditional affs, so I start with a slight lean against framework arguments, but a sophisticated execution of those debates are often successful. I will also say that aff teams that make efforts to meet some standard of topicality also will find me more forgiving than teams that do not; I think negs do deserve some degree of a starting point.

Decision-making Process:
*I believe my job as a critic is to evaluate a debate as it occurred, rather than retroactively applying my standards of what debate should look like to your round. I try as hard as I can to stay to this standard, but some intervention is inevitable. Read below in the “self-observed biases” section. I try to remain agnostic about the various frameworks for evaluating debates, so that means that if there is a difference in the round as to how I should evaluate it, you should propose your framework explicitly and defend it. My presumption is that debate should be an educational activity, and it would be hard to shake me of that idea, as I am an educator by trade. However, I am open to debates about what kinds of education debate should bring, and how it does so.

*My decisions are nearly always decided by a close review of the 1AR, 2NR, and 2AR, with references to the negative block as necessary. I am not, however, a perfect flow, and you should be aware of that and flag important arguments as such. I believe a part of persuasion is correct emphasis.

*It is fairly uncommon for me to read evidence after a debate--use the evidence yourself, refer to warrants, etc. If you think you have good evidence, you need to show it off. The "in" thing to say is that I reward a team for good research, but the most important part of good research is understanding why your evidence is good, and exercising your ability to explain and use the evidence. I do not plan to do evidence comparison for anyone.

*As regards "offense/defense" distinctions: I understand the importance of offense, but I do not discount the art of defensive argumentation. The fact that the other team does not have a turn does not mean you are winning. I have probably evaluated the risk of a disad or other impact as zero (or close enough to not matter) more than the average judge.

*I generally speaking will not seriously consider any independent issue that is not in your final rebuttal for at least 2 minutes--I do not reward a refusal to put all eggs in one basket. This is particularly true for theory arguments. If you feel that a theoretical issue is strong enough to justify a vote, plan to spend the better part of your final rebuttal on it, or don't expect my ballot on it.

In Round Decorum:
*Not much here--but I absolutely cannot stand when debaters talk audibly during an opponent's speech. Increasingly it is hard for me to follow what a fast speaker is saying anyhow--when you're talking too, I am liable to get angry at you.
*I think most of the time you will tend to get better speaker points if you stand up when you speak. Also, pay attention to where your opponent is and where you are when you cross-ex--it is a speech. Cross-ex's where all the debaters are sitting across the room from one another and staring at their computers is not a good persuasive strategy.
*I will also likely get grumpy at you about your paperless crap, especially when it makes a debate round last 20 minutes longer than it should. Don't worry about that too much. Unless it gets out of hand. If you don't know the difference, watch me, and you'll be able to tell.

General

Contact Information:

richardjodebate@gmail.com

I was a 2A @ New Trier for four years (Class of 2019).

Also a Northwestern grad (go Cats!), didn't debate and studied computer science.

I don't know much about the topic -- don't assume I know the in-and-outs of some topic-specific acronym, disadvantage, etc.

If you don't read a plan (or view debate as anything other than a competitive activity where the positive/negative consequences of the affirmative are the focus of your debating) I am not the best judge.

My philosophy is probably a linear combination of: Jack Altman's and Roland Kim's.

Add me to the email chain: addison.kane00@gmail.com

Pronouns They/Them or She/Her

Northside CP Class of 2018

University of Michigan Class of 2021

Currently Grad School @ University College London, doing a dissertation on queer geopolitics

Assistant Coach at Niles North (2020-2022)
-> Now a Remote Coach (2022-)

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

If I am judging you it means it is online and I am judging you from the United Kingdom. If it is past 10 P.M. where I am (I'm 5 hours ahead of EST - do the math), I'd prefer it if you debate at a slower speed.

I've judged multiple hundreds of high school debates at this point, in literally every medium, so I don't give any care about what style of debate you prefer. Just make creative, unique, and captivating arguments and defend those arguments well.

On framework:

I vote for framework quite a lot. It would be neat to do something creative with it and/or actually describe to me what your model of debate tangibly looks like outside of 'our model = fairness = inherent good'. Fairness to what end? What kind of scholarship does your model produce? What does it prioritize? What does it exclude? What community effect does it have? What skills do debaters gain that they can't gain elsewhere? Framework teams I've judged have hid behind these questions just to say "rules be rules, stop being unfair", which is only an argument if you win your ruleset has value in the first place.

It is also impossible to make me believe that debate does not shape individual subjectivity. It absolutely does. Anyone who genuinely believes otherwise needs to seriously look inwards on themselves and the rest of the community.

I also think debate is simultaneously a great activity and a very dangerous one as well - debate trains you to be a better reader/writer/researcher, it enables you to critically think about two sides of any argument, it allows students to make extremely valuable friendships, and its community can provide an insulated support system which can be an important safe haven for certain individuals. On the other side of things, I also believe and have witnessed the hypercompetitive nature of debate produce quite toxic and problematic personal characteristics in debaters as well, which has devastating mental health effects across the community. In framework debates, its both teams' job to convince me that your model of debate actively produces better/worse forms of these givens and/or other good/bad things outside of these givens. You can also try and convince me that some of these givens are more or less important than others, but you cannot convince me any of these givens are untrue.

Debate like people...please:

I think that debate is first and foremost a performative activity. I am increasingly frustrated by the ways in which online debate has produced a lot of ethos-less debate drones. Obviously I evaluate technical concessions and line by line, but the way in which I evaluate those speeches is filtered through the quality of your speech performance. What this means in a practical sense is, for example, if you're making an argument and sound like you have no idea if what you're saying is actually correct, or you are unable to hold the warrants up in cross-ex, I'm unlikely to vote for that argument, even if I could possibly justify it as a concession on the flow. Additionally, a convincing well-warranted analytic can beat pretty much any card, good and smart off-the-cuff rebuttals will usually beat out blocked out analytics.

Please read this:

Debate isn't life or death. Take breaks often, breathe, and relax. This activity can and will break you if you don't care for your mental health and wellbeing. If you're reading this doing prefs the night before the tournament or something, go do something nice for yourself that isn't debate.

Old Paradigm (use to determine your prefs at your own risk): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lL8SwemB064RuWAg6HB_aJzitSJaE8U7GDib6NxW2l0/edit?usp=sharing

Intro/Affiliations

Email: zachlim804@gmail.com

- Former student at New Trier HS (2015-2019) and the University of Pittsburgh (2019-2022).

- Experience: 6 years as a policy debater, no TOC bids, & NDT doubles (NDT '21) in college. I have been coaching for 2 years and judging for 4 years, albeit the past year and a half has been PF heavy.

**PF Stuff at the bottom

Online Debate

Cameras on preferably, slow down, and I don't know why this happens but wait until you know 100% that I am present before you give an order or start your speech. A black screen with my name means I am not there/ready unless I say otherwise.

Important/Relevant Thoughts

- For this specific topic, I am not familiar with the trends and arguments being made on the circuit, specifically the subsets, but I am knowledgeable on NATO as an organization from a previous college topic.

- My experience is policy-heavy, but in college, I strayed away from strict policy debating to more critical debating on both sides, mostly reading iterations of racial security and racial capitalism kritiks and critical affs with a plan. I am most comfortable adjudicating DA v. case, CP/DA v. case, and K v. case; it ultimately isn't my choice what I hear, but point is I think I've seen, heard, and debated a wide variety of arguments that will help aid in judging so do what you know best.

- I find debate enjoyable and I truly appreciated judges who gave a full effort in paying attention and offering an understandable RFD so I will attempt to emulate that in every round that I judge. With that, the best thing you can do for yourself is, up to you how you go about this, to orient your debating around "making my job easy". Whether you lean critical or policy, be more reliant on explanation and spin rather than being solely reliant on what your evidence says. Show me the big picture and within that picture, point out any fine details that are important for me to evaluate. Be explicit, get straight to the point, and avoid unnecessary speak/fillers. Judge instruction is key.

- A judge is never going to be unbiased when listening to different types of arguments. However, pre-conceptions are malleable and good debating (lbl, explanation, etc.) can supersede argument bias, but given my varying degrees of knowledge/expertise in different arguments, adaptation will matter in how "good debating" is performed in round.

- Continuity in argumentation and explanation will be scrutinized. Having been on both sides as a 2N and 2A, I believe many final rebuttals get away with a lot of new spin/explanation, so as I have throughout judging debates, I will hold a higher standard for extensions and such.

- Absolutely do not read morally reprehensible arguments such as death good, racism good, homophobia good, etc. There is no room for that in debates, and it is not courteous to your judge or opponents. You will be dropped and receive a zero.

- The link below will take you to a doc that I wrote many years ago, containing specific thoughts I have about specific types of arguments. I honestly do not think it's as relevant as it was when I was a first year out, but if you aren't familiar with what I think of certain arguments, then feel free to check it out to gain some more clarity. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d5pO-KRsf90F5Y-9Hfc1RlzRxsu21KCSxV9aVZFcRH0/edit?usp=sharing

- Don't hesitate to ask me any questions about my college debate experience as well as my time at Pitt. Feel free to email me or ask after the round!

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

Public Forum

I am a flow-centric judge on the condition your arguments are backed with evidence and are logical. My background is in policy debate, but regardless of style, and especially important in PF, I think it's necessary to craft a broad story that connects what the issue is, what your solution is, and why you think you should win the debate.

I like evidence qualification comparisons and "if this, then that" statements when tied together with logical assumptions that can be made. Demonstrating ethos, confidence, and good command of your and your opponent's arguments is also very important in getting my ballot.

I will like listening to you more if you read smart, innovative arguments. Don't be rude, cocky, and/or overly aggressive especially if your debating and arguments can't back up that "talk". Not a good look.

Give an order before your speech

Debated for Niles North and Indiana University.

Put me on the email chain, liamjlorenz@gmail.com

I am open to any arguments, as long as they are explained and extended well. I'm not one of those people that "won't vote on death/extinction good" or "will never pull the trigger on ASPEC". I approach the debate from an unbiased mindset. If you out-debate the other team, and I have you winning on a technical level on my flow, I will vote for you.

That being said, I do have some small inherent preferences as a debater, which I feel make for better debates - displayed here in a chart copied from Jeff Buntin. However, these are merely preferences - if your style of debate does not align with the opinions in this chart, that does not mean I won’t vote for you. I will likely understand all of the arguments in debate, and pay close attention to technicality.

Policy-----------O--------------------------------K

Tech-------------O--------------------------------Truth

Conditionality good---------------O---------------Conditionality bad

States CP good---------------------O------------States CP bad

Limits---------------------O------------------------Aff ground

You should flow all arguments, and doing explicit line-by-line will help everyone in the debate, including your chances of winning and getting high speaker points. Stray away from under-developed embedded clash/unnecessarily long “overviews"; the more flowable you are, the better your chances of winning are.

she/her

Former debater at New Trier

Northwestern '25 (I don't debate, so assume I know nothing about this year's topic)

Yes email chain: chelsealudebate@gmail.com

Because novice year is a time to learn and grow:

- have fun, read whatever unless it's offensive/racist/sexist/queerphobic/death good/etc.

- explain why a dropped argument is bad

- flow and do line by line(!!!)

- K affs are fine but being block dependent + having a strategy based on confusing your opponent isn't debate.

"It’s one thing to study something, but it’s an entirely different thing to actually experience it." -- Dr. Shani Tahir Mott

i value debate for its ability to teach students about issues and literature that are unlikely to come up otherwise. i hope that this activity shapes the activities and education you pursue outside of it!

-------

i debated in a small region with many outdated practices and graduated with no accomplishments. i'm currently the head policy coach at georgetown day school. outside of debate, i'm studying public health and africana studies at johns hopkins university.

if you’re an asian debater looking for community and resources, i welcome you to apply for the asian debate collective!

-------

i am exhausted and frustrated with how long rounds take, and it's usually avoidable. prep time ends when the email has been sent. document compilation and attaching the file is not free time.

the 1ac should be sent by start time, even if i am not in the room. if it is not, the aff's speaker points will suffer. if the neg has failed to be present and offer their emails in a timely manner, the neg's speaker points will suffer.

-------

quick and easy: i am mediocre to bad at straight policy, theory, and topicality debates. i will try my best though! on the other hand, i am much better at evaluating kritikal and clash rounds.

good and better debating > any of the preferences i list below.

-------

general:

georgetowndaydebate@gmail.com — add me to the email chain.

simdebates@gmail.com — for other inquiries.

go as fast as you want. i will clear each speech no more than twice and if you fail to adapt, you’ll just have to accept that my flow will have missing pieces.

if you want me to flow something, it needs to be read out loud — this includes re-highlighted evidence.

everyone needs to weigh and layer more.

clear extensions for core parts of an argument are absolutely necessary — if you jump straight into the line by line, don’t expect me to extend the rest of the argument for you.

-------

kritiks & fw:

i believe that judges use ballots for kritikal arguments to remedy racial guilt/anxiety, but that is not me. if your only response to any argument read against you is to call it racist, particularly when it relies on unwarranted or circular claims, i am not a good judge for you. for some reason, the disease of anti-intellectualism is rampant in k debate nowadays, and i am uninterested in listening to rounds where arguments would not even be defended by the authors of evidence.

being of a specific identity is not a standalone reason for anyone to get the ballot.

there needs to be far more substantive explanation in these rounds and far less jargon/made-up words.

framework always determines these rounds — at the end of the round, i need to have a clear way to evaluate between the 1ac’s impacts and criticisms of their scholarship.

specific links to the aff’s mechanisms are fantastic, and i love it when there’s evidence that shows you clearly researched and strategized against a specific aff.

you do not need an alt in the 2nr to win. if you are going for one, please give me a reasonable explanation of what it does rather than vague grandstanding.

i think debate is a game, one that have epistemological implications and consequences, but you can debate otherwise.

both teams need to provide a workable model of debate with clearly defined roles of aff/neg teams.

i have a mild preference for clash and education impacts over fairness, but i’ve voted both ways. just weigh well and explain why procedural fairness is an independent good.

a lot of k affs read DAs to fw that are functionally the same thing — labeling arguments differently does not make it a different argument. have distinct and explained warrants.

-------

policy:

this is not my forte so i definitely have a higher bar for explanations.

impact turns are very fun.

-------

theory & topicality:

i evaluate t violations using the plan text and nothing else.

explain very well and don’t be blippy — not fantastic at judging these.

hidden aspec is fine as long as it’s not hidden to me. i flow by ear and won’t go back to the speech doc to double check if it’s there.

Piper Meloche [she/her, last name rhymes with "josh" not "brioche"]

Groves + MSU

pipermeloche@gmail.com [all email chains, questions]

grovesdebatedocs@gmail.com [high school only]

What I expect from you

1. Non-negotiables - Racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, or other forms of discrimination will not be tolerated. Nor will cheating. Unless the tournament rules tell me otherwise, I will not let an ethics challenge be "debated out." If there is an instance of discrimination in a round I am judging, I will allow the impacted person to decide whether the debate continues. I cannot adjudicate what I did not directly witness.

2. Strong preferences - flow, keep your own time, and frame my ballot at the top of the late rebuttals. Whenever possible, prioritize evidence quality - good cards and smart re-highlights will be rewarded with high speaks.

3. Be nice to each other and have fun - the people we meet and the ideas we learn in debate are far more important than the result of any individual round, tournament, season, or career. I am very sensitive to condescending and rude cross-ex questions - especially when the two students have a power imbalance.

What to expect from me

1. Tech over truth - but the two are far more interwoven than many debaters think. I often grow frustrated when teams give their opponents' best arguments the same attention as their opponents' worst arguments. Truth exists and should determine how you execute tech. Arguments also must not be morally repugnant - death good, oppression good count as morally repugnant, and hot take, global warming good is pushing it. All below preferences assume equal debating.

2. Much better for policy arguments - I was a K debater in high school, but my research now exclusively focuses on the policy side of college and high school topics. The purpose of this paradigm is not to constrain what you do in front of me but to give you the most accurate understanding of my predispositions and how I try to judge debates.

Topic Things

College --

1. D4/5 will be my first time judging this semester. If some community norm about the coolest cards to read or the worst advantages has developed since then, please take the time to explain that to me.

2. Many debates on the college topic will be an assurance or deterrence disad against an aff claiming to solve these impacts. Love that for y'all, but you need to do more link comparison. Asserting that you clearly solve prolif, but your opponent clearly doesn't without warrants gives the same vibes as "I know you are, but what am I?" and almost forces me to intervene.

High School --

1. FSPEC...I don’t get it. SPEC arguments are likely only true if dropped unless you can convince me I’m missing something.

Whatever happened to strategically vague plan texts?! Funding mechanism advantages are whatever, but you are opening yourself up to annoying PICs and process counterplans that change one tiny thing about that funding mech you specified in your plan text or in cross ex! “Normal means” is the best answer to “how is the aff funded” because “Perm: do the counterplan” is the best answer to counterplans that change funding in a way that still results in a JG, BI, or social security expansion.

2. Love that people are going for T, but I think there are more convincing options than “taxes and transfers.” I am unconvinced that the word “and” can never mean “or.” Piper likes to eat chicken shawarma sandwiches with extra garlic and mint chocolate chip ice cream. Did you read that as I like to put ice cream on my chicken shawarma sandwiches with extra garlic? I sure hope not. In this instance, “and” does mean “or.”

Policy v. Policy

1. The politics disad is good, actually. It's only "bad" if you're bad at storytelling. Know the major political figures and forces involved in the disad.

2. A smartly constructed advantage counterplan can solve most affs.

3. Counterplans should compete. Creative permutations can and should check counterplans that do not compete.

4. Conditionality is good, and all other theory is a reason to reject the argument. Conditionality ends after the 2NR if there is equal debating on judge kick or everyone is silent on the issue.

Clash

I'm far more familiar with identity Ks than Baudrillard and friends.

K affs v. Topicality --

1. Neg teams should answer case.

2. K affs should have a substantial tie to the topic.

3. Creative TVAs are an underrated part of the T debate - they should be something you actively research, not an afterthought.

4. I would prefer that aff teams provide and defend a clear counter-interpretation for the topic.

5. Everyone should avoid making gross exaggerations on the topicality page. K affs, for example, will not cause everyone to quit the activity.

Policy affs v. K --

1. Aff teams are most successful in these debates when they invest time in link comparison and flesh out the perm.

2. Neg teams are usually in a better spot when they prove that the aff is worse than the status quo and invest a substantial amount of time into the alternative.

K v. K

I have not judged enough of these rounds to give insight into how I evaluate them. Please prefer and provide judge instruction accordingly.

Random Hot Takes

1. The state of the high school and college wikis is disheartening. If you are scared that your entire strategy will collapse if others have your evidence, your evidence is probably not that good to begin with.

I think posting cites instead of Open Source is perfectly fine. BUT you have to check that you’re uploading complete cites! That includes the full tag, author, date, qualifications, a link to where we can access the text if available, and the first and last 3 words of your card.

2. Inserting rehighlights is *usually* good practice - read better evidence if this makes you sad. Rehighligted evidence will only be considered to the extent that it is explained. "Meloche goes neg" is not an explanation. At some point, introducing excessive rehighlights makes the level of explanation I need impossible.

3. A phenomenal 2AR cannot make up for a 2AC with sloppy mistakes - taking a few seconds of 2AC prep to make sure everything is in order is more valuable than saving those 15 seconds for the 2AR.

4. Your breath control sucks - easiest way to fix it is to try and take breaths at the end of sentences like we do in normal conversations. You'll sound and feel better.

5. After each tournament, I check how the points I gave compared to those received by the teams I judge throughout the weekend. This is my attempt to keep up with point inflation, but it doesn't always work.

6. Death by a Thousand Cuts is a fantastic Taylor Swift song - it is a mediocre neg strategy.

7. I am judging how easy to read, quickly sent, and aesthetically pleasing your judge doc is. Not in a win/loss way, but in a "I'm keeping a mental tier-list" way.

8. https://twitter.com/mcfuhrmann/status/1362452482165768193/photo/1

----

1. I've been trying to delete this numbered list for like 20 mins and gave up :(

Carmine Miklovis (he/him)

American University '26

cmiklovisdebate@gmail.com

Who Are You?

I did policy debate for Glenbrook North for 3 years, and stopped debating at the start of my senior year. I had a little success, but am probably unsuited to judge in the late elimination rounds of the larger tournaments of the year.

Top Level (Non-Negotiables)

Any behavior that is actively violent or otherwise harmful to anyone in the debate will not be tolerated. Default to gender-neutral pronouns (they/them) if you don't know your opponent's specific pronouns.

My ballot will not (and cannot) be a referendum on out-of-round behavior.

Debate is a game.

Tech > Truth, but the original argument has to be complete and not incoherent.

Cross-applications are never new.

Evidence should be highlighted to make actual arguments and shouldn't look like haikus. Teams should call out other teams for extending warrants that weren't originally highlighted in their cards.

If I'm unable to draw a line between an argument made in a final rebuttal and an earlier speech, I won't evaluate it.

Pen time is important. Don't expect me to flow 4 perms in a row. If you're spreading analytics at full speed, don't be mad if I miss the 11th 10-word subpoint you made about why weighing the aff is bad.

Clarity > Speed (you should spread, so long as you're clear)

Clipping is an auto-loss. Accusations of it must stake the debate on it and would benefit from audio proof.

If your primary strategy relies on attempting to win the debate by confusing your opponents, you should strike me. I'll probably end up being confused too.

The age of your blocks is inversely proportional to your chances of winning.

The more judge instruction you do, the less I will have to intervene.

What follows is a list of predispositions that I have about certain arguments. All of the following can be overcome by good debating, but are important to note when preffing me or debating in front of me. Given equal, or unclear, debating, the following predispositions will guide how I resolve the debate.

Topicality

--T v Policy Affs

I have no predispositions about which standards are good, and which ones are bad, or whether to prefer competing interps or reasonability. Don't assume I know the "community consensus" about which affs are and aren't topical, or about what "egregiously untopical" aff MBA reads.

I dislike plan text in a vacuum, but will still vote on it.

--T v K AFFs

I'm not the best for K affs, but if you have me in the back, there are a few things to note.

Your 2ar should have a lot of judge instruction. Given that I ran almost exclusively policy arguments, in the absence of robust judge-instruction from the aff team, I might resolve the debate in a way that favors the team whose arguments make more sense to me.

Aff teams should impact turn the neg's standards on T (and definitely shouldn't read a counter-interp that links just as much to their own offense).

Don't expect me to vote on buzzwords unless you actually explain them.

Additionally, I think any K aff that is not explicitly critiquing debate should always lose to a combination of switch-side debate and a topical version of the aff. K affs that aren't explicitly critiquing debate tend to instead have a reason why defending the USFG is bad, in conjunction with a reason why advocating for their scholarship is key. However, the reasons why the USFG is bad can easily be read on the neg, as a K, and the "advocacy key" warrant is not an "affirmation key" warrant, so the neg only needs to win a small risk of any of their offense on T in order for me to vote neg. That being said, this predisposition can be easily overcome by good debating, and will not substitute for insufficient negative topicality debating.

Kritiks

I'm not terrible for these, but I'm not amazing. You should err on the side of over-explaining your arguments, especially if they're more complicated. I'm good for certain Ks, such as cap, security, settler colonialism, and kritiks of IR, and you shouldn't substantially alter your level of explanation or strategy if you have me in the back for those, but anything else will require a lot of judge instruction.

A simple way to know whether or not you've met the threshold for explanation that will allow me to vote for your argument is to not only explain the concept, but explain the implication of it for the debate, and try to do so using as few buzzwords as possible. For example, "Dropping that antiblackness is ontological zeros all of their state good offense because it proves the state will never actually change, which means engagement is futile and means any risk of a link is sufficient to vote neg."

If you really think an argument is so important that winning it means you should win the debate, it should be more than a one-liner. Otherwise, don't expect me to vote on it, and don't post-round.

Links should be more specific than "any action by the United States federal government is bad."

If you have a new style of K, with completely never-before-seen elements, that you think will revolutionize debate, I'm probably not the best judge for it.

Perm: double bind should just be a way of explaining perm: do both, not a separate argument.

Counterplans

Counterplans that compete off of words that are always in the resolution (resolved, "United States federal government," "should," "substantial" or "substantially," et cetera) are unpersuasive to me, and should lose to theory or the intrinsic perm.

Counterplans that compete off of normal means (also known as "process counterplans") shouldn't be prolific on the NATO/emerging tech topic. Instead, I think plan-inclusive counterplans and advantage counterplans should fill that deficit in the negative's strategic arsenal.

Intuitive solvency claims don't need advocates, but you should have an advocate for why, for example, building a space elevator would prevent the collapse of U.S. hegemony.

Disads

Not much to say, they're great, especially specific disads. While I would prefer specific links, I'm fine with generic links if you can contextualize the link story to the aff.

Aff teams should take advantage of dropped straight turns, and neg teams should stop dropping straight turns (usually in the 1nr).

Evidence should tell a coherent story. If the uniqueness evidence says the bill passes because of bipartisanship, the link shouldn't be about political capital.

Theory

Like most other theory arguments, whether conditionality is good or not is a debate to be had.

"No neg fiat" is a joke.

Most theory arguments against kritiks are nothing more than a time skew for the 2nc, as opposed to a viable 2ar option.

Case

Impact defense is fine. I'm persuaded by the aff explaining why the specificity of their internal links means the impact defense isn't responsive.

Aff internal link chains and solvency mechanisms are suspicious, and should be poked at in cross-ex and in neg speeches.

Comparative impact calculus goes a long way in helping me resolve the debate, and, in conjunction with turns case arguments, can make close debates significantly easier to resolve.

Turns case arguments would benefit from (but don't necessarily need) cards. The level of explanation of your turns case argument is proportional to the likelihood I will vote on it if it is dropped and properly extended.

Closing Thoughts

Email me if you have any questions/would like additional feedback. I will listen to any redos you send me and give you feedback.

Otherwise, good luck and have fun.

If you are a novice, none of these things apply to you. please just do your best. Your speaks are solely dependent on you being kind and nice to everyone in the room.- I don't need to be on the email chain! You all amaze me every day!

(Policy, Public Forum, then LD)

POLICY

I'm Subbi and I do Policy debate at the University of Iowa. GO HAWKS I debated for 3 years at Niles West.

First things first, make arguments you are comfortable and happy with. This is an activity that is inherently for the students participating in it. Read what you want to read and tell me why it matters and why I should vote on it. That being said please don't say racist/sexist/ableist language during a round. I'm just not gonna vote on racism good.

@Both Aff and Neg- Making fewer arguments that are extremely warranted is better than making more arguments that are not as warranted. I love common sense arguments and analytics. I don't think you need a card for every argument you make. If you make a persuasive analytic I'm all for that. I think debaters should be able and be encouraged to make arguments outside of cards. I prefer structural impacts over extinction-level impacts if you do make an extinction impact, have a really good internal link chain analysis.

@Policy Aff- Policy affs are really precise and garner GOOD SKILLS and I love them. I LOVE theory and I have a very low threshold for voting on it. I don't like really long case overviews. I will always weigh the affirmative unless told otherwise by the Neg. Winning against a one-off K in front of me requires you to at least win the Perm and a no link argument. I am very biased towards structural and ontological impacts like I don't think extinction outweighs everyday mundane violence, that being said have impact defense.

@Non-Traditional Affirmatives- Non-traditional affirmatives are really fun and give good EDUCATION and I love them. Non-Traditional Affs don't have to win that the Ballot is key in front of me, I will hold them to the same standard I hold the policy affs to, which is "you have to prove that the aff is a good idea. I need the aff to at least be reasonably within the bounds of the resolution.

@Policy Neg- Please don't read spark, death good, or PIC/KS.

@K Neg- If you're a one-off K team, please have a good explanation of your Links. You don't need to win an Alt in front of me to win the K, but you have to win impacts and framing, and why your theory means the aff can not solve or turns the case. Please have great answers to the permutation because I think most times the permutation is probably good, and I admit that I lean aff when it comes to permutations In one-off rounds.

@Negs Vs Non-Traditional Affs- If your ammo against non-traditional affs is two off cap and FW, lose the cap in front of me and just read external impacts that the aff can't solve but can be solved by core policy education. Case debates are really good against Non-traditional affs, Utilitarian framing is good, survival strategies are bad, No root cause. All of these are valid and good arguments to read. Don't drop the case ever. Don't let the aff weigh the entire aff against FW because they will almost always win. I like framework debates where the impact isn't fairness but education and skills. If you go for a Kritik against these Kinds of Affirmatives, I will have a high threshold for the aff being able to get a permutation, especially if they don't have an advocacy statement, but you must make this argument. Also, contextualize your Links to their theory/aff.

@cross ex- Look at me and don't laugh at your opponent's answer. Many people have done this with me in the back and it really hurts your ethos. Please be nice to each other, I have hella feelings and I don't wanna vote up a mean team.

Miscellaneous

- Please show up to rounds on time, ESP NOVICE, I will vote on disclosure theory so fast.

-Email subbi45hope@gmail.com

-Cx is a speech- Brian Rubaie 2k16

-I will never judge kick, ever.

-Don't steal prep.

-Have Fun :)

-I'm here to protect the 2NR.

-Will vote you down if you own Air Pods!!

-fam the wilder your alt, the higher the speaks lol.

- I have a low threshold for presumption if you are running a policy aff, I am not voting for presumption against a K aff.

PF

Hey, I actually love and prefer judging PF. People in PF are a lot more polite and they always acknowledge me in the round and I like that.

PRO- Strongly prefer if pro always goes first in speeches and in the crossfire. I think to me a good pro is very persuasive and organized. I would prefer if you have two well-written and well-explained advantages rather than a bunch of shallow ones. I don't need you to extend everything in every speech but you should definitely have your points in the last two speeches if you want me to consider them.

CON- I think I am CON-leaning but that doesn't mean this is an easy ballot. You should offer good counterexamples, and directly answer their points in the last 3 speeches. I prefer that you have less defensive arguments and are more focused on proving the pro harmful.

Crossfire- You get a question, they get a question, then you get a follow-up. I hate hate hate when someone dominates the crossfire and doesn't allow for the other person to question, very rude. Will drop your speaks.

NOTES- I am fine with speed, I will reward politeness. Thank you for debating for me!

LD

Hi so I have only judged a few rounds of LD, I think I have a good enough grasp on what is going on. I give a lot of leeway for the pro because they have a very short speech when answering a very long one. I prefer if this wasn't a debate about super old philosophers. That's right, I am NOT here for a Kant vs Locke debate. Most of these philosophers were super racist and if you want to talk philosophy there are philosophers today that you can reference.

nogreatpowerwar@gmail.com

When debaters walk in the room, they expect the judge to render a fair decision, not to rob them of years of hard work and dedication by substituting their personal biases for the arguments presented.

-4th year debating at Maine East

-my email is rishishah0515@gmail.com

-pronouns are he/him, after the round is over you can call me Rishi

-not super experienced with Ks so if you're running one, make it super clear

-haven't debated yet this season, so don't assume that I'll automatically know arguments you're making; explain everything

-I'm fine with pretty much any type of argument, just make sure you're being clear

-be respectful to the other team

-I prefer tech over truth. Debate is a game of strategy, so don't try to appeal to pathos the entire round. However, if you're running an outrageous argument (ie something discriminatory), I'm not gonna give that to you.

Name : Lauren Velazquez

Affiliated School: Niles North

Email: Laurenida@gmail.com

General Background:
I debated competitively in high school in the 1990s for Maine East. I participated on the national circuit where counterplans and theory were common.

Director of Debate at Niles North

Laurenida@gmail.com

ME

Experience:

I competed in the 90s, helped around for a few years, took a bit of a break, have been back for about 7 years. My teams compete on the national circuit, I help heavily with my teams’ strategies, and am a lab leader at a University of Michigan. In recent years I have helped coach teams that cleared at the TOC, won state titles and consistently debated in late elim rounds at national tournaments. TL/DR--I am familiar with national circuit debate but I do not closely follow college debate so do not assume that I am attuned to the arguments that are currently cutting edge/new.

What this means for you---I lean tech over truth when it comes to execution, but truth controls the direction of tech, and some debate meta-arguments matter a lot less to me.

I am not ideological towards most arguments, I believe debate structurally is a game, but there are benefits to debate outside of it being just a game, give it your best shot and I will try my best to adapt to you.

The only caveat is do not read any arguments that you think would be inappropriate for me to teach in my classroom, if you are worried it might be inappropriate, you should stop yourself right there.

DISADS AND ADVANTAGES
When deciding to vote on disadvantages and affirmative advantages, I look for a combination of good story telling and evidence analysis. Strong teams are teams that frame impact calculations for me in their rebuttals (e.g. how do I decide between preventing a war or promoting human rights?). I should hear from teams how their internal links work and how their evidence and analysis refute indictments from their opponents. Affirmatives should have offense against disads (and Negs have offense against case). It is rare, in my mind, for a solvency argument or "non unique" argument to do enough damage to make the case/disad go away completely, at best, relying only on defensive arguments will diminish impacts and risks, but t is up to the teams to conduct a risk analysis telling me how to weigh risk of one scenario versus another.

TOPICALITY

I will vote on topicality if it is given time (more than 15 seconds in the 2NR) in the debate and the negative team is able to articulate the value of topicality as a debate “rule” and demonstrate that the affirmative has violated a clear and reasonable framework set by the negative. If the affirmative offers a counter interpretation, I will need someone to explain to me why their standards and definitions are best. Providing cases that meet your framework is always a good idea. I find the limits debate to be the crux generally of why I would vote for or against T so if you are neg you 100% should be articulating the limits implications of your interpretation.

KRITIKS
Over the years, I have heard and voted on Kritiks, but I do offer a few honest caveats:

*Please dont read "death good"/nihilism/psychoanalysis in front of me. I mean honestly I will consider it but I know I am biased and I HATE nihilism, psychoanalysis debates. I will try to listen with an open mind but I really don't think these arguments are good for the activity or good for pedagogy--they alienate younger debaters who are learning the game and I don't think that genuine discussions of metaphysics lend themselves to speed reading and "voting" on right/wrong. If you run these I will listen and work actively to be open minded but know you are making an uphill battle for yourself running these. If these are your bread and butter args you should pref me low.

I read newspapers daily so I feel confident in my knowledge around global events. I do not regularly read philosophy or theory papers, there is a chance that I am unfamiliar with your argument or the underlying paradigms. I do believe that Kritik evidence is inherently dense and should be read a tad slower and have accompanying argument overviews in negative block. Impact analysis is vital. What is the role of the ballot? How do I evaluate things like discourse against policy implications (DAs etc)

Also, I’m going to need you to go a tad slower if you are busting out a new kritik, as it does take time to process philosophical writings.

If you are doing something that kritiks the overall debate round framework (like being an Aff who doesnt have a plan text), make sure you explain to me the purpose of your framework and why it is competitively fair and educationally valuable.

COUNTERPLANS
I am generally a fan of CPs as a neg strategy. I will vote for counterplans but I am open to theory arguments from the affirmative (PICs bad etc). Counterplans are most persuasive to me when the negative is able to clearly explain the net benifts and how (if at all) the counterplan captures affirmative solvency. For permutations to be convincing offense against CPs, Affs should explain how permutation works and what voting for perm means (does the DA go away, do I automatically vote against neg etc?)

Random

Tag team is fine as long as you don’t start taking over cross-ex and dominating. You are part of a 2 person team for a reason.

Speed is ok as long as you are clear. If you have a ton of analytics in a row or are explaining a new/dense theory, you may want to slow down a little since processing time for flowing analytics or kritkits is a little slower than me just flowing the text of your evidence.

I listen to cross ex. I think teams come up with a lot of good arguments during this time. If you come up with an argument in cross ex-add it to the flow in your speech.

Introduction-

My name is Marcus Williams and i'm a senior at the University of Kentucky.

My email is marcusvwilliams.ii@gmail.com . You can email me with any questions you have. If you do email chains you can also add me to it before the round.

General -

I really enjoy debate and I think it should be a fun activity that everyone should be comfortable doing. With that being said, I am open to all arguments that teams make. I have NOT done any debating or research on this years high school/middle school topic, but that doesn't mean I am clueless to how things work. It just means you need more explanation.

Disads -

Do impact and framing work. I prefer specificity when it comes to link arguments. Generic link arguments can get it done with nuance, but I am lenient to aff no link arguments if they press your very general evidence.

Topicality -

Topicality should be treated as a disad, meaning that you should do similar impact calc. Violations should be aff specific. T debates can be kinda confusing if you are just repeating your arguments without answering the other teams, so make sure to do comparative work.

Counterplans -

Generic counterplans are fine. Ensure you isolate all 1AC internal links early on and how you resolve them in advance.

Theory -

I am persuaded by a lot of aff theory arguments however, I find I vote neg a lot more in theory debates because of a lack of impact comparison and technical drops. going for one liner theory arguments are fine if their dropped, but they have to be clearly communicated and substantiated with an impact.

Kritiks -

let em rip