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

Backup email: thenateisgreat@gmail.com

Nathan Brown, Peninsula 24'

Pronouns: he/him/his

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

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

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

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

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

Top Level:

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

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

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

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

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

Join rounds ASAP, disclose ASAP.

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

Policy:

Aff:

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

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

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

Planless affs:

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

Neg:

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

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

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

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

Adv CPs are good, plank abuse might change my mind

Process CPs are probably bad

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

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

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

FW v K affs:

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

=Assorted Theory

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

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

Condo: above, under "counterplans"

LD:

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

Peninsula '24

dbeuvai0n5@gmail.com

Novices, make an email chain, do line-by-line, compare impacts, and give an order

Please turn your camera on

No zero risk and everything's probabilistic unless it really is zero or it's a yes-no question like we meet

Yes judgekick

You can insert rehighlightings

Explain how the K interacts with the AFF, which means don't read Ks that rely on FW to make the AFF irrelevant. K debates should really be case debates because they only make sense if they indict the epistemology underlying the AFF.

Fairness is an impact. It also happens to be the only impact the ballot can solve

I'm all for terrorism committed by the negative :)

Debate case!

Peninsula '24

Add me to the email chain: kevinlai2017@gmail.com

Misc.

Please give an order.

Do impact calculus and line-by-line.

Yes, you may insert re-highlightings.

Counterplans

I lean neg on most counterplan theory.

I default to judgekick.

Disadvantages

The link matters more than uniqueness.

Zero risk is almost impossible.

(don’t) add me to the chain: snockol2243@gmail.com

currently accepting bribes

not a fan of Ks

condo isn’t a real thing

truth over tech

add to email chain -- nanruili2025@gmail.com. please call me Mike, not judge.

read a plan. not to say I won't vote for planless affs, but I'm heavily erring neg in these debates (like 99.9999999% chance you will not want me in these debates)

tech > truth but truer arguments are easier to win

infinite condo, 2nc cps. "'Get better' is a sufficient answer [to condo]" - Lukas Rhoades

theory is a reason to reject the argument, not the team (and it never will be, even with condo)

I'm bad at flowing. If its something important, slow down a bit to make sure I get it.

T:

I'm usually the aff in these debates, so I really hate stupid T interps (like T-Of, where there's never a violation, or every aff violates). Otherwise, everything else is normal.

Reasonability is pretty important. winning it probably means I vote aff in these debates, unless the counterinterp really isn't reasonable

CP/DA:

Do whatever, opinions on condo were above. impact calc matters.

Ks:

The aff usually gets to weigh the plan, but the negative can get links to anything. K's rely on a strategy independent of the case are bad IMO. This is a debate about the affirmative, not a debate about debate, so debate the case please.

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

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

I will never vote for the regulatory negotiation counterplan. Under any circumstances.

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

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

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

If I see a plantext, auto L and 25 speaks

Condo is bad. Negation theory ONLY justifies the squo

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

Ground and Grounds is the same word

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you will feel triggered by anything in round please tell me and you can stand outside- however, I will evaluate it as a normal argument and will consider it dropped if not responded to- exposure theory has been proven to work.

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

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

Actual paradigm:

CX is open and binding

Spreading is fine

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

Debate what you do well- a high level, clean debate will change my preferences easily and get everyone involved high speaks

Willing to vote on most arguments- please try to keep slurs to a minimum however

Not great for a K aff- but if you're reading one in middle school, maybe reconsider in the first place

CP: Default legitimacy ranking would be Advantage > PIC > Uniqueness > Agent > Process (stuff like international fiat or word pics changes the ranking drastically)- doesn't mean I automatically vote on process cps bad- but it's reciprocal- sus counterplans will grant sussy perms or comically large aff pivots.

DA: Federalism is a bad DA but if you out tech them I'll vote on it- link is always harder for you to win than for them to disprove though. Just read states + politics, please. Contextualizing the link will do wonders, and an concrete internal link explanation is crucial. Good impact calc is swag + W. Rider DAs one of the only probably illegit ones, but win your interp of fiat.

K: Doing high level framework is not only hugely beneficial on both sides but nets you good speaks- but don't neglect the other parts of the K, which are all crucial to winning- don't read a K because you think they'll drop the fancy words, read it because you're ready to win this argument to a higher degree than you would have to a DA.

T: Topicality usually comes down to evidence quality. If you're decidedly right about the meaning of a word, then you'll probably win. If there's some ambiguity in this, then case-lists help your case better than a generic under/over-limiting block.

Theory: Condo probably good, won't vote on theory without a well-developed abuse story and conclusive impact calc- even if dropped, a one sentence blip in the 2ac doesn't constitute a full reject the team argument and I'll be very lenient with new contextualization and cross applications.

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

Arman Omidvar

Peninsula 2023

he/him

Id like to be on the email chain if there is one. My email is: armangiveaway@gmail.com

General notes: the rebuttals should be like an RFD, you need to explain a way in which I can feel comfortable voting for you while also taking into account your opponents offense. Please don't just extend arguments from your constructives, I need you to interact with your opponents claims. Debate is either a game or shapes subjectivity, either way please don't be bad people, if you say something messed up I wont hesitate reducing speaks.

AFF:

Plan-less: I'm ok with plan-less affs, I prefer if they be contextualized to the topic. If you're reading high theory, I need a solid explanation in the round that's sufficient enough for me to understand what the argument your going for is. Obviously be prepared to answer FW and have a very good reason as to why you aren't topical. The FW debate is usually the easiest neg ballot so do this well. I really like seeing contextualized and well researched Ks and PIKs against these sorts of affs. If you have one, don't be afraid to go for it.

Soft-left: You need to almost zero the DA and win the CP doesn't solve. Any risk of extinction + a cp that probably solves the aff means easy neg ballot. Framing to me is very important however, I appreciate good analysis and will err towards a certain impact style if you're convincing enough. I need good framing extensions to vote on it, shadow extending "infintarian paralysis" wont cut it.

NEG:

T: If you drop something important, don't make this your 2nr. I'm very tech over truth when evaluating T but I also would like to see legal precision in evidence where it is applicable. - I'm not the best at evaluating T debates that get to techy

K: read one if you have a clear link to the aff other than "state bad". I tend to weigh the aff.

Theory: ill vote on bad theory like ASPEC if you drop it. If that does happen you need to spend a LOT of time in the 1ar justifying why its not a voter and why you should get new answers. I personally believe the neg gets infinite condo but feel free to argue the opposite, I'm happy to vote on it. Don't read embedded ASPEC if its not on the doc.

Senior at Peninsula

Pronouns: they/any

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

Usually I decide rounds by

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

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

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

-Tech > truth

-Condo good

-Fiat is immediate

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

-Winning abuse means i reject the argument

General Stuff

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

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

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

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

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

For your speaker points

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

you don’t need to call me judge

usefordebate1@gmail.com

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

Give an order before your speeches.

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

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

Cameras on if tech permits.