for the chain- zaarah.azad@gmail.com

reagan '21, duke '24

pronouns: she/her

qualified to the TOC twice

for prefs:

if you're a hardcore policy team, i would not pref me high. i did k debate of 3 of the 4 years i debated so that should probably tell you how well versed i am with policy things. if you do end up having me in the back and only read these arguments, don't worry. you just have to simplify and connect the dots for me more than you would for other judges. for k teams i am probably in the range of a 1-3 and policy teams from a 4-6.

background:

my sophomore year i read settler colonialism and linguistic criticisms like anzuldua. my junior year i read a baudrillard aff and a bunch of k's on the negative like semiocap, wilderson, settler colonialism, and baudrillard. my senior year i only read warren on the aff and neg.

notes:

- clarity > speed

-tech > truth in most instances

- don't be problematic. i am unafraid to vote on microaggressions. (racism, sexism, death good)

- clipping is bad but needs proof (L and 0 speaks for the team who does it)

- try entertaining me! judging can get boring sometimes so enjoyable rounds are always good

- zoom debate can be miserable if you aren't careful. please have a good mic, try and have your camera on, and don't speak over others during cx because nothing can be heard

kritiks:

- these debates can either be really good or really bad - please don't make them bad

- im familiar with antiblackness, set col, cap, and baudrillard. even if i may know what you are reading, you still need to do nuanced analysis on the thesis of your k.

- i never understood long overviews cause you re-explain all of what you said on the line-by-line. if you do have a long overview, try and make it the least redundant as possible.

- i have a deep deep deep hatred for links of omission. please make them specific.

- framework determines the rest of the debate. you need a model of debate that is preferable and probably should have offense on why the other side's model is bad for debate.

- if you read a kritik against a K aff, i will reward specific engagement by holding affirmative teams to a higher standard for permutation explanation.

- you can kick the alt

- just cause you won your theory of power doesn't mean you won the round :P

t-usfg:

- i read k affs a lot but that doesn't mean i wont vote for t usfg. it just means i know a lot about how it should be ran

- clash as an impact>>>>

- fairness and limits > education and ground

- often negative teams forget to do impact comparison when going for t-usfg - this is the easiest way to win my ballot

- subjectivity debates matter and can implicate a lot of the flow

- i think switch side is very persuasive and solves a lot of offense

topicality:

- i lean towards competing interpertations but will still vote on reasonability

- case lists are nice

- i appreaciate intent to define arguments

- impact comparison is pretty important

- good counter interp ev is really cool.

- like t-usfg i am more persuaded by limits fairness and clash than education and ground

counterplans:

- smart, creative counterplans are appreciated if executed well

- i like counterplans that are textually and functionally competitive, but your counterplan by no means has to be. i mostly just think you should have a solvency advocate.

- i lean neg for most counterplan theory except for consult, condo, solvency advocate. theory debates get wack so do a lot of work here to make it make sense

- i need instruction for judge kick.

disadvantages:

- impact comparison is especially important for these debates

- evidence comparison is also pretty important

- turns case arguments when executed correctly are strategic and beneficial for negative teams

- 1ar gets new arguments to new uniqueness, links, or impacts in the blocks

theory:

- apart from things like condo and judge kicks i am not nuanced in theory arguments. slow down and overexplain things if you plan on doing this in front of my

case debate:

- you should probably do this besties

miscellaneous:

- i hate aspec. if you hide this in a t shell i hate you.

-be nice. being sassy can be fun but there is a limit

- respect your opponents. respect their pronouns. don't cut each other off. just be respectful

- put a trigger warning on your stuff!!!!!

- i am heavily influenced by Philip Dipiazza, Gavin Loyd, Sean Kennedy, Rafael Sanchez, and David Gutierrez. if you have any questions, their paradigms could probably answer it.

- taylor swift references gives you +0.2 speaker points

I will take whatever is thrown at me. I lean to more to critical forms of debate, but that's not what I will only vote on. I believe that policy debate and role playing have an important place in debate. Saying that do what you are best at if you are better at traditional policy debate do that instead of critical debate and vis versa, I will try my best to comprehend what you are saying.

Debate has evolved into fast reading and card over load, while this has its place I prefer less card dumping and more in depth analysis as the round goes on. Please do not just scream 483729 cards at me in the span of 8 minutes it hurts me ears and my hand cause i gotta flow all that.

The resolution is pretty important and I think teams should find creative ways to work under it, but you do not have to defend the usfg or read a PT. You just better be ready to read some framework as in why you (the aff team) have to take this position.

I prefer to see good internal link analysis if I have no idea what is going on then I will probably not vote on it, tell me a story with good impact calc at the end. Threshold for voting neg is that they have to prove why we have to reject the aff, rather than just a counter methodology or alternative. When it comes down to evaluating arguments I vote for the team that has some sort of framing that tells me the judge what to value in the round.

It is very hard for me to vote on theory, but better have a good violation with even better voters.

some side notes: I prefer email chain but flashing is fine, I do not count flashing as prep (as long as you don't take long to do so) Don't be mean in round it makes you look like a ass-hat have respect for your opponent and act professional in round. My name is Aaron I also go by AJ (he/him)

If you have any other questions about my paradigms here is my email: aaronjgarcia22@gmail.com

Email – chrisgearing333@gmail.com – chain me up

i will vote on pretty much anything as long as you justify it in the context of the round.

I default to reasonability on procedurals and theory.

Non-CX events: I’ll vote on whatever, cool with speed, you do you.

23-24 update: It's your job to persuade me. Keep that in mind. I vote for what wins but what wins is what persuades me to vote. If I am not making a decision based on persuasion - both team messed up.

2022-23 update: you can easily out tech me if you're going a mile a minute speaking. Adjust or you'll lose trying to out tech the other team. The gamesmanship is cool but persuasion and actual communication with the judge you want to vote for you is in fact necessary. Being technically right isn't gonna sway a ballot for me.

2019-2020 update: I want debate to go back to being persuasive... I think that top level speed reading is not persuasive. One of the points of the "game" of debate is to be persuasive... to persuade the judge to vote for you. I am not persuaded by a swarm of gnats sound. I'm not saying you can't talk fast or even speed read - but if there's no inflection in your voice - if you drone on and on and on - if you haven't tried to persuade me but just talked at me - you will not get good speaks from me. You may win the debate because you are strategically ahead and better - but your speaks will suffer. I'm not saying conversational pace - I talk fast in general - I argue fast - I don't sound like a gnat.

I am a Black woman who is also disabled. I debated 4 years for KState mostly running different forms of Black feminism. I enjoy listening to the ways people interpret debates and deploy their arguments strategically. If you're not bored I won't be either.

*******If you are not Black (white and non black poc) do not read anti-blackness/Afrofuturism/pessimism/optimism arguments in front of me (aff/neg) if the other team calls you out at ALL you will lose the debate.... same for other PoC arguments that the authors say are for PoC. If it is not your position you don't get to use other peoples bodies to get a ballot. ***note to PoC your existence is not negated because you have a white partner - I won't vote on "the white person spoke/is here"

DA/CP: I will vote for them. I have a high threshold for internal links. You have to be able to explain how the aff gets to the DA impact. I'm unwilling to give you the benefit of doubt, prove it.

Kritiks: I’ll vote for it. In order for you to get the ballot, the K, like any other argument has to be well explained for me to vote for it. I also believe that in any good K debate their needs to be an obvious link to the case and the alternative of the K must be well explained. The biggest thing I was complimented on from judges was the "big picture" debate. Tell me the story of your K you will not get away with big holes in explanation.

Theory: I’ll vote for it. HOWEVER, I don’t like theory debates that are just blocks or are just spew downs. I like the line by line debate on theory and for the debaters to slow down. I WILL vote on dropped theory arguments- so you better answer them (even if the perm is a test you still need to answer severance). The biggest critique I got from judges was I miss the little details. I am an auditory learner I will be listening but if you speed through theory there is a good chance I won't catch it. Be Clear!

Topicality: I believe that topicality is about competing interpretations. However, I can be persuaded that topicality is not a voting issue and that normative reasons to vote do outweigh. But in order to win these issues there has to be considerable time spent on these arguments not just blips. I do not necessarily believe all affirmatives have to have a plan text, however, I do believe that you should be able to defend the lack thereof. Again, it is not what you do or do not say, it is what you justify. Affirmatives, if you don’t have a plan or don’t defend the consequences you should have reasons why you shouldn’t have to defend those issues.

1) Slow down. My ears are not calibrated to the rapid delivery of policy debaters.

2) Read less cards. I will not read cards at the end of the round unless "what it says" is questioned (as in your calling them a liar). I prefer to watch and evaluate based off of what you have clearly articulated in the debate. Debate is about more than empty words, gestures, and actions. It is not only what you say/do. It is also what you justify. That matters more to me than a bunch of random cards you read to fill time.

3) Don’t rely on being tricky or attempting to “out-tech” the other team. In doing so, you will likely out-tech me and your tricks will go unnoticed. I take notes, on every speech but I don’t flow in the conventional manner of lining up argument-for-argument in columns. There is obviously a minimum of technical skills one needs to compete in debate. If a team does not address an entire position or an important nuance emphasized by their opponents then it is unlikely that they will win.

If you make a Steven Universe reference I will bump .2 speaks

Yes I want to be on the email chain jjackson558@gmail.com

Hi my names Mish I debated at Brandeis for 4 years and am now a freshman in college!

Please put me on the email chain: mishkaathj@gmail.com

General:

- Time your own speeches

- Don't be rude, especially during CX my pet peeve is when the team asking the questions doesn't let their opponents answer

- Spreading is fine as long as I can understand it and I have what is being read so I can follow along

- Pretend I am a child that you are walking through the debate, at the start of the debate I know nothing which means I want everything explained well I prefer quality over quantity, nobody likes listening to 7 different arguments in the 1NC

- Tech over truth

- make sure to explain why you're winning each argument you are going for in the 2NR/2AR, I heavily go off of these speeches for my decision

- Have fun! debate is a game treat it as one

T args

- Do I think T args are stupid? Yes. Do I like T args? Yes (but this doesn't mean I'll vote off of it, unless the arg is insanely amazing)

CP's

-Nothing much here I like them again explained well

- Case turns I eat those up

DA's

- I love DA's I prefer facts which is why all the technical args speak to me more than k's if I'm being honest

- Case turns on DA's I love as well, keeps the debate spicy

- The link on the DA needs to be strong, if theres not a strong link theres no point in reading the arg

K's

- I like K's I was a K team

- K's are a lot of work, I will not assume anything for you make sure every part of the K is covered and explained well

- EXPLAIN THE ALT!!!!

- I need a strong link, again if the link isn't strong enough there is no reason to read the argument

AFF

- For aff anything if fine I don't prefer any specific thing on affs

- I will say for K affs just try to be a little more clear because I need everything laid out for me

hi! i debated 4 years at brandies high school and am currently a freshman at UT Austin.

put me on the email chain pls: soniaprao23@gmail.com

General thoughts –

if you don’t warrant your claims they don’t count as arguments

spreading is fine as long as you speak coherently - if i don’t understand what you’re saying, i won’t flow

hate speech will not be tolerated

extra points if you make me giggle

dropped arguments are only sufficient enough to win debates if explained by the debater

don’t interrupt your partner during their speech

i frown upon rudeness and mansplaining in CX periods

do not steal prep time

tech over truth

ASPEC bad

starting new arguments in the neg block is a bad move

2ar/ 2nr - explaining which arguments are most important and how they’re winning with persuasive evidence and clarity is key

ROJ and ROB are very important and i weigh these heavily

Ks

- even if i’m familiar with the literature of your K, don’t assume. explain it to me as if i’m not

- specific links to the aff are key

- don’t just blaze through prescripted blocks in the 2nc/ 1nr that have no connection to aff responses

- k tricks are great

- not every k’s sole purpose is to get the ballot, in-round impacts are valid

K affs

- very entertaining and fun to judge! i read one myself senior year

- aff has the right to reject the resolution based on whatever reasons they explain

- performative affs are cool but make sure to specifically outline an advocacy statement clear to me and the negative team

T, CPs, DAs

- im good with all of these

- i like case turns on das and cps

condo

- i generally do not vote on this argument but if it goes unanswered or you have good offense do it

IE

I am comfortable judging any speech event, but am best when I judge extemp and oratory. I favor content and substance over style but believe that both are important in speech rounds.

Congress - I judge speech content/presentation over procedural skills. I will strongly consider a PO for advancement unless they are acting in an unfair way or significantly struggling with recency. Remember that where you are in the speech cycle impacts what your speech should be doing.

CX Debate

I try to be open minded in arguments but with this topic I have been more drawn to traditional policy case arguments and disads. With that said if you prefer to run kritikal arguments be prepared to show solvency arguments for the affirmative advantages. Too many people cannot explain what the K world looks like and I do not like it when K debaters go down the rabbit hole without a clear idea of what the world looks like.

Do not run T as a time suck only.

Framing arguments are crucial.

Some speed is ok but I have old coach ears and the virtual debate thing makes it easier to lose you if you move too quickly. If I cannot hear or understand it. I will not flow it.

LD

I try to be open minded but I hate progressive debate for the sake of progressive debate.

Some speed is ok but understand that historically LD was created as an alternative to CX Debate. In the final set of speeches you need to slow down and explain the argument that you are going for and why you should win the round. If you are spreading in the last two rebuttals it will not impact win/loss but it will impact your speaker points.

I look at arguments over presentation and believe that criterion are especially important.

Do not run generic link disads or K arguments. The evidence needs to have specific links and specific impacts to the resolution and the value/criterias used in the round.

I do not buy CPs in LD rounds since there is no presumption in LD.

Since there is no presumption in LD, negative must run a case and value/criteria not just respond.

I am mostly a policymaker judge, but I will weigh the stock issues for their impacts in my decision making.

I value a Negative approach that is logical, and simply throwing Negative arguments at the Aff, regardless of whether or not those arguments contradict each other is not good debate.

Signpost always, make the connections, give me solid analysis. I am not an interventionist, so you have to persuade me to vote for you, and tell me why.

Quality of evidence is important; just because you have a card doesn't mean it is a good one, and I do read the cards.

I'm fine with a K, so long as it is not designed to shut down debate or shift the focus of the round away from the resolution, and so long as there is a clear, logical link to the Aff. Performance Ks will get an automatic loss.

Splitting the negative block is fine.

Aggressive debate is fine; rudeness is not. I do not tolerate cursing in the round, and your speaker points will suffer heavily. Be judicious about using quotes with curse words or vulgar language.

This is a communicative, persuasive event, so I am not a fan of spreading. If I can't understand you, I will likely not vote for you. If you absolutely must spread, I must be on the email chain - margaret.toney@ecisd.net - or included on speech drop.

use this for the email chain: ronivazir@gmail.com

reagan '21, baylor '25

pronouns: he/him

for prefs:

I honestly am chill with both Ks and policy strats, since I debated both in High School. However, I will say that I find it easy to follow policy strategies better since I am a first-year out, and have not debated since High School. I was both a 2n and a 2a a lot of times so that's that. I am not too familiar with this year's techy arguments and lingo, so don't just assume I know your argument. If you connect the dots and explain everything carefully I will be able to follow you. For reference, I am a mix between both Zaarah Azad and David Gutierrez when it comes to prefs.

background:

In my sophomore year I read a policy aff. my junior year I read a Baudrillard aff and a bunch of k's on the negative like semiocap, Wilderson, settler colonialism, and Baudrillard. my senior year I only read warren on the aff and neg.

notes:

- clarity > speed

-tech > truth in most instances

- don't be problematic. I am unafraid to vote on microaggressions. (racism, sexism, death good)

- clipping is bad but needs proof (L and 0 speaks for the team who does it)

- Making me laugh and making the entire environment less stressful for everyone in the room is a great thing to do

- zoom debate can be miserable if you aren't careful. please have a good mic, try and have your camera on, and don't speak over others during cx because nothing can be heard

kritiks:

- these debates can either be really good or really bad - please don't make them bad

- I'm familiar with antiblackness, set col, cap, and some baudrillard. even if i may know what you are reading, you still need to do nuanced analysis on the thesis of your k.

- I never understood long overviews cause you re-explain all of what you said on the line-by-line. if you do have a long overview, try and make it the least redundant as possible, but I would still recommend some sort of overview because I believe it helps organize your main arguments.

- I have a deep deep deep hatred for links of omission. please make them specific.

- framework determines the rest of the debate. you need a model of debate that is preferable and probably should have an offense on why the other side's model is bad for debate.

- if you read a Kritik against a K aff, I will reward specific engagement by holding affirmative teams to a higher standard for permutation explanation.

- you can kick the alt

- just cause you won your theory of power doesn't mean you won the round

t-usfg:

- i read k affs a lot but that doesn't mean I won't vote for t usfg. it just means I know a lot about how it should be run

- clash as an impact>>>>

- fairness and limits > education and ground

- often negative teams forget to do impact comparison when going for t-usfg - this is the easiest way to win my ballot

- subjectivity debates matter and can implicate a lot of the flow

- I think switch side is very persuasive and solves a lot of offense

topicality:

- I lean towards competing interpretations but will still vote on reasonability

- case lists are nice

- i appreciate intent to define arguments

- impact comparison is pretty important

- good counter interp ev is really cool.

- like t-usfg i am more persuaded by limits fairness and clash than education and ground

counterplans:

- smart, creative counterplans are appreciated if executed well

- I like counterplans that are textually and functionally competitive, but your counterplan by no means has to be, it just means that I will lean more heavily on your solvency advocate and weigh the perm if the neg can't explain how it connects to the aff. i mostly just think you should have a solvency advocate.

- I lean neg for most counterplan theories except for consult, condo, solvency advocate. theory debates get wack so do a lot of work here to make it make sense. Honestly, I would just not read this in front of me if this is your main strat

- i need instruction for judge kick.

disadvantages:

- impact comparison is especially important for these debates

- evidence comparison is also pretty important

- turns case arguments when executed correctly are strategic and beneficial for negative teams

- 1ar gets new arguments to new uniqueness, links, or impacts in the blocks

- Tell me if the link is another DA to the plan otherwise I won't bother

- I love a good link

theory:

- apart from things like condo and judge kicks I am not nuanced in theory arguments. slow down and overexplain things if you plan on doing this in front of me. I recommend just avoiding this if you have me.

case debate:

- you should probably do it always helps. If the negative has better arguments on the Case page its pretty easy to see who the better debaters are

miscellaneous:

- Don't do ASPEC

-be nice. being sassy can be fun but there is a limit

- respect your opponents. respect their pronouns. don't cut each other off. just be respectful

- put a trigger warning on your stuff!!!!!

- I am heavily influenced by Philip Dipiazza, Gavin Loyd, Sean Kennedy, Rafael Sanchez, Zaarah Azad, and David Gutierrez. if you have any questions, their paradigms could probably answer it.