i'm hungry

be nice and be cool in cx

***BELLARMINE RHETORIC INVITATIONAL:

IGNORE EVERYTHING ABOUT:

- NO extra speaks

- NO spreading - this will be a slow round. If you are talking faster than you should, be warned - your grade WILL go down.

- NO Counterplans

EVERYTHING ELSE IN MY PARADIGM APPLIES!!!

Good luck!

Specifics:

Novice Policy:

I am a sophomore policy debater at Bellarmine. I will flow your arguments and pay attention to cross ex. That being said, if you want me to consider anything from cross ex, please mention it in your speech. I have debated a ton on this year's topic, so I'll be fine with abbreviations. Just keep in mind for future rounds that most parent judges might not be.

In terms of what arguments you read, treat me like a parent judge; that is what you should be practicing at this novice tournament.

Topicality: If you're going to read topicality, explain very clearly why the affirmative is not topical. Also explain why I should vote neg because of it.

Counterplans: Although you don't generally read counterplans in novice or lay in general, I'll still consider them equally. But - make sure you have a reason for reading the counterplan, and I wouldn't recommend kicking it because that's not at all intuitive to parent judges.

Speech content: In the final rebuttals, tell me very clearly why I should give you the ballot. For the 2NR, preempt the 2AR. For the 2AR, don't drop all of their arguments just because they don't have another speech - I am flowing. Essentially, do good line by line in every speech. Make sure to also practice framing throughout all your speeches.

Cross ex: Be nice, ask important questions, and no tag team cross ex please.

Speaks: Don't go fast - this is novice debate. I will most certainly dock you points. Some quick things about speaks:

1. Give a speech solely off of paper or computer - I want eye contact. I understand that when reading evidence, you should look at the evidence, but when reading tags or responding to arguments I expect some eye contact.

2. It's okay to be a little aggressive in cross ex, but DO NOT be rude, physical, or overly aggressive either.

3. I understand that this is a novice tournament, so I will be lenient on stuttering and pausing, but any gaps that aren't tiny will also be a small deduction in speaks.

4. If you are neg, I still expect you to flow the 2AR. It is always good to learn from a speech, even if it won't affect you in that specific round.

5. USE ALL YOUR SPEECH/CX TIME! Speech and cross ex time is a gift - USE IT! Using 7/8 minutes means you could've spent more time framing or convincing me of your side. I will dock your speaker points if you are short. (Quick thing - I expect both teams to time their own prep and speeches, please don't steal prep it looks very bad and is unethical.)

6. ALWAYS BE NICE! This is the most important thing. If you are very rude to your opponent that will result in an automatic 25. That means don't laugh during their speeches or after the round, just be cool.

7. +0.3 speaks for every good Minecraft joke - if it's bad I'll give you +0, if it's in between I'll give you +0.2 for effort.

8. +0.1 speaks for any and every Trump joke - I love them and don't be afraid to make more political jokes and references, I will add more speaks accordingly.

9. +0.1 speaks for puns. I might make it +0.2 if it's SUPER cringey.

10. +0.1 speaks for every time you make me laugh throughout the debate. Feel free to remind me after the round.

11. I will bump you up an entire speaker point if you can use the phrase "You can't just drop bombs and then grow wheat"(Dalmia '19) in one of your speeches. However, it has to be in the right context and relevant to the debate.

Final notes:
-I may ask to see evidence after the debate if it comes down to a specific piece of evidence. Thus, it is in your best interest to make sure the evidence makes the claim you say it does.

-I will make sure to give you extensive comments after the round - and if you have any questions please feel free to email me at dhruv.dalmia22@bcp.org. Also, if you use an email chain, add me to it.

I'm sorry for the length of the paradigm but I think it will be a better debate if you read through it.

Most importantly, have fun!

-Dhruv

---Bellarmine Rhetoric Policy Debate Tournament---

Focus on your story. Your story is more important than any individual line-by-line argument. Don't get lost in the weeds, look at the big picture.

finbarr.donovan22@bcp.org : add me onto the email chain if there is one : he/him

-----

I'm in my third year of policy at Bellarmine College Prep.

Be confident and respectful. If you take anything from this paradigm, it's that you should be sportsmanlike. I don't mean to say you aren't allowed to make fun of someone's argument, I mean to say that any kind of personal attack on another debater and/or being super aggressive in cross-ex isn't cool with me.

I'm tabula rasa. As long as you explain your arguments clearly and have a claim-warrant-impact structure I'll follow them. I'll vote purely on the arguments that were made during the debate.

For stock issue policy rounds, be sure to frame the debate for me. (i.e., write my ballot for me - what does a team need to prove to win the debate? One stock issue or plan bad idea? etc.)

Oh, and have fun! There's not much that's worse than a debate where both teams don't want to be there.

Congress, extemp and impromptu at Bellarmine College Preparatory. I did policy for over a year and did both parli and pf for a couple tournaments.

For debate

I will flow all the arguments, but I need you to tell me why I should vote for you.

Impact out your arguments; otherwise, why should I care.

If you are rude, you will not win; debate is supposed to be fun, so don't make others hate it because of you.

You can spread but send me the doc. If your spreading you better be clear otherwise I won't flow it.

I like ethos inside of debate.

Bottom line - make whatever argument you want but impact out your arguments and be kind.

Congress

Congress has been my main event the past three years and I've reached sems at Nats, TOC, finaled at state

content: I want to see a very in-depth debate with quality sources. Don't falsify ev. Have clash don't give your speech in a vacuum.

delivery: Be respectful and have good rhetoric. I feel like using rhetoric is undervalued in congress but it's one of the most important aspects.

cross: ask good questions. Don't stall.

Treat me like I am a parent, I can follow along with any argument you want to make, just have a good explanation of your argument and why it matters because if I cant understand your argument then I cant vote for it, have some weighting as to why your argument means you should win the debate

Make sure to be kind to each other in round!

Policy Debate:

I have not participated in policy debate in a while (I do ld) so I won't be as knowledgeable about the topic and the rules of the debate (like stock issues). Thus, please make your arguments as easy to understand as possible so that I can consider it in the debate. In addition, please do not spread because if I don't understand what you are saying or don't comprehend it fast enough, I will not take note of the argument. I also would greatly appreciate sign posting so I know what arguments you are responding to, which will make it easier on both me and the opponent. Essentially, just treat me as you would a parent judge and make your speeches easy to understand and follow.

bellarmine '22

dartmouth '26

Please add this email to the chain:

ramgorthi@gmail.com

For Nationals:

Congratulations on making it to Nationals! It's a huge accomplishment and you should be very proud of it.

If I'm judging you in a debate, consider adapting your debate style (speed, argument type, speech structure, phrasing) to the other judges on the panel. You can assume I will understand most arguments you might want to read at any speed you want to read them at. However, if you choose to make the debate inaccessible for your opponents, that would be disappointing.

My approach to judging policy debate is as a policymaker considering implementing the affirmative through the United States federal government. I could be persuaded to view the debate through an alternative framework.

At the time of writing this, I don't have any experience judging debates on the 23-24 fiscal redistribution topic. I plan to gain a basic competency of the core disagreements on this topic before judging, and will update this paradigm when that happens.

My views are aligned with Adarsh Nallapa's.

I vote based on impact framing, depth of analysis, and uniqueness. Be tangible.

rhetoric:

don't call me judge, call me andrew

debate how you were taught in rhetoric

hearing clear signposting will make me a happy judge

explain your arguments - my favorite debates will have concrete and multifaceted explanations of arguments, not surface-level statements about how your affirmative plan is great for poverty or why it's horrible for the economy

tell me how to make my decision - your rebuttal should guide me through every stock issue and explain why you have won those stock issues and why that means you win the debate. i want you to explicitly tell me a reason to vote for you. i'm a lazy person so if i have to figure that reason out myself, i'll be upset.

don't do sketchy things. i don't want to see any lying about what your opponent has said or making up things that are not based in evidence. spin is fine but lying is not.

please be nice to your opponents and everyone else in the room. if you are being mean, then i will be mean when grading.

brownie points if you reference kpop

have fun!

Hi!
I'm Aakash Jain, I'm currently a senior at Bellarmine College Prep. I've participated in Policy debate at all levels, from parents to circuit tournaments, Congressional Debate, and have done a little bit of public forum debate. I've also done Original Advocacy speech.

If you are a Rhetoric freshman, please ignore this completely - just do what Mr. Langerman/Cleary has taught you and you'll be fine.

Generally, I'm fine with anything in your rounds, but make sure to be clear and courteous throughout the debate.

Telling me how I should vote through the debate is really the gold standard of being an effective debater, please do.

In the rounds I will be judging, novice rounds, I would generally recommend not reading Kritikal arguments or talking particularly quickly. Instead, you should stick to counterplans, disadvantages, or best of all stock issues. I personally have mainly read kritikal arguments, so I'm fine with them if you read them well.

If I can't understand your speaking in the round, I'll say clear once.

Dear Debaters,

To ensure a fair and productive debate, I'd like to share my judging philosophy and argumentative preferences:

1. Clarity and Organization:

   • I highly value clear communication. Please speak at a pace that allows for proper articulation and understanding.
   • Maintain a well-organized structure in your speeches. Signpost your arguments and provide clear transitions.

2. Content and Substance:

   • Strong arguments are the cornerstone of any debate. Focus on developing clear, well-researched content.
   • Provide solid evidence to support your claims. Quality trumps quantity - I'd rather hear a few well-supported arguments than a flood of weak ones.

3. Engagement with Opposing Arguments:

   • Engage with your opponent's arguments directly. Show why your case is stronger or provide effective rebuttals.
   • Don't just extend your own arguments; address the key points raised by your opponent.

4. Critical Thinking and Analysis:

   • I appreciate debaters who demonstrate critical thinking skills. Analyze the implications of your arguments and the arguments presented by your opponents.

5. Adaptability:

   • Be ready to adapt your strategy if needed. Flexibility in response to the flow of the debate is a sign of effective debating.

6. Evidence Quality:

   • Cite credible, relevant sources to bolster your arguments. I value well-researched positions supported by reputable evidence.

7. Strategic Use of Cross-Examination:

   • Cross-examination is an opportunity to clarify, challenge, and gather information. Utilize it strategically to strengthen your case or expose weaknesses in your opponent's.

8. Impact and Weighing:

   • Clearly articulate the impacts of your arguments. Explain why they are more significant or relevant than those of your opponent.
   • Weigh the most important issues in the round. Tell me why your case should take precedence.

9. Time Management:

   • Allocate your time wisely. Ensure you have sufficient opportunity to present your points, engage in rebuttal, and conclude effectively.

10. Ethical Conduct:

    • Maintain a high level of ethical conduct throughout the round. Respect your opponents, the rules of the tournament, and the judging process.
    • Be mindful of the language and content you use. Avoid any form of discrimination, hate speech, or offensive remarks.

Remember, I'm here to evaluate your arguments based on their merits. I don't have any preconceived biases, and I'm open to being persuaded by well-reasoned and well-supported arguments.

Good luck, and let's have a great round!

CSU LONG BEACH JACK HOWE 2022 UPDATE: I haven't judged circuit debate since 2017 so I'm out of practice. If you have me in the back of the room, please go slower - ESPECIALLY ON ANALYTICS. I won't be able to understand you if you fully spread your pre-written analytic blocks, so please slow down. I'm the head director for Bellarmine's program so I spend most of my time these days coaching speech and slow debate. 

FOR STATE & NATIONALS: If I am judging you in debate at the CHSSA State tournament or NSDA Nationals, please do not treat me as a purely circuit judge, especially if I'm on a panel with other judges who are clearly not circuit-oriented. I believe that those tournaments are excellent forums for a type of debate that prioritizes judge adaptation and a slower, more lay style of debate. So, do not feel you have to go fast to try to cater to me. At these tournaments, I'll hold you to much higher standards in terms of the evidence quality, the specificity of the link, and the logical coherence of your positions. I will love you if you successfully criticize contrived internal link scenarios, the squirelly/shady arguments, and blippy line-by-line analysis in your CXs and speeches.

How to get high speaker points and win my ballot:

My greatest frustrations with the vast majority of debate rounds are two-fold: 1) a lack of comparative engagement with the other team's arguments and 2) a lack of well-impacted analysis of why your arguments are reasons I should vote for you. Speech docs seem to exacerbate both of these problems, as teams rely on reading pre-written blocks. More and more, I feel a sense of impending existential dread as I realize that nothing meaningful in the debate round is going to happen until the 2NR and 2AR and that everything else is a game of seeing which issues get undercovered. Let me break down my two biggest frustrations:

1) comparative analysis - I understand that you have beautifully constructed blocks to certain arguments but often times, those blocks are not directly responsive to the other team's argument, and so I'm left with back-and-forth disputes with no clear framework of how to resolve them. The quickest way to get good speaker points with me is to listen critically to the warrants of the other team's arguments and give comparative analysis that explains why your warrants are superior.

2) impacting important arguments - Though debaters implicitly understand the importance of impact calc, they often think about it incorrectly. Meaningful impact calc isn't exclusively about magnitude, timeframe, and probability. That's rarely how rounds are resolved. That type of impact calc presupposes that you're ahead on the other parts of the flow. The best impact calc explains why the arguments that you're ahead on in the round are reasons to vote for you and why those arguments are more important than the other teams arguments. Often times, teams get frustrated that a dropped argument didn't warrant an immediate vote for their team. If a dropped argument is not adequately impacted and framed, and the other team has more compelling offense, then most rational judges will still not vote for you. I see this most often in framework debates against identity politics affirmatives. The framework debaters are often confused how they lost the round, despite being "ahead" on some line-by-line issues. However, in those debates, the identity politics team is often far ahead in terms of impacts and framing why those impacts outweigh any of the line-by-line framework arguments. So, to put it simply, explain why your arguments matter.

Finally, please go slower on theory than you would with other judges - I debated in high school and coach policy debate now, but I also direct a program that coaches students in speech (IE) and lay debate, so I don't watch 20+ fast rounds a year, like many judges on the circuit.

My experience: I debated in high school for Bellarmine College Prep (San Jose, CA) from 2007-2011 and went to Michigan 7-week during that time but did not debate in college -- so I was out of the circuit for a couple of years when identity politics K and planless affs became popular. Now, I'm a coach at Bellarmine. I don't judge much on the circuit now that I direct Bellarmine's S&D program. I would recommend going a bit slower, especially on theory arguments, if you want to make sure that I'm able to flow everything. That also means that you should explain your warrants and arguments more than you might for other judges.

Policy
The more case-specific you are, the better. Far too many teams do not engage with case in a substantive way. Also, don't be afraid to make analytics – smart, true analytics hold a lot of sway with me, and it’s very strategic to have them in the 1NC and 2AC. If I see that you’re actually engaging the debate and critically thinking instead of just reading blocks and ignoring what the other team said I will be much more willing to give you higher speaks. That said:

Topicality – you must do a good job of explaining your interpretation and why it’s good for debate (or why allowing the aff to be included in the topic is bad for the topic), as well as the terminal impacts to your claims about predictability and fairness and education, etc. I generally err towards interpretations that are the best for the literature base of a topic -- for substantive, deep debates at the core of the resolution -- rather than arbitrary lines which found their entire argument on generic disad link distinctions. Good topicality debates should be grounded in excellent evidence (T- subs. w/o material qualifications is a good example of a violation that does not fulfill this criteria).

DA – I love strategies that are either CP/DA or even DA/case. As a 1N/2A, I took the DA a lot in the 1NR and loved doing 2ARs against the DA. Generic DAs are okay, but I’m going to like you a lot more if you’re reading a tight case-specific DA that has good, specific links and internal links.

CP – don't be abusive or shady, otherwise I'll have sympathy for the aff on theory args.

Case – I LOVE case and I think it’s totally viable to win a debate with a simple strategy like case-DA. Case is what these sorts of debate SHOULD be about. Don’t let the 2A get away with the entirety of case and you have to defend on a CP to win! Make them defend the plan. I could even be persuaded to vote on presumption.

K debates
I'm down with Ks. I'm familiar with much of the K lit - but take time to explain the core thesis of the K in the neg block (or 2ac) and especially the link story. Contrived and jargon-filled tags that lack substance but just try to sound smart / catch the other team off guard is a huge pet peeve of mine. For the aff, definitely poke fun of the link, as well as the alt - if the K cannot explain an articulate non-generic formulation of these parts of the debate, it'll be hard for me to vote for the kritik. I'm fairly knowledgeable with regards to the K literature base, particularly Foucault, Nietzsche, Bataille, Marx, critical IR, but that means I hold kritiks to a high standard of explanation. If you are reading some variation on Lacan, for instance, you'd better understand exactly what kind of argument you're making. There are many points in fast debate rounds when I feel an impending sense of existential dread but one of the more egregious examples of such moments occurs when teams completely and utterly bastardize a brilliant philosopher with a kritik and have no idea what that author's argument actually is.

Also, please do not read framework at the same pace that you would read a card. Especially when you are talking about the role of the ballot, slow down a little.

Identity debates
I'm open to debates on identity politics. Again, I didn't debate when these types of arguments were gaining currency so I don't have as much familiarity but I'm open-minded about them. I do believe they force debaters to grapple with ideas that are ultimately good for the community to confront. The most important thing for FW debaters in these situations is to not just focus on the line-by-line. In these sorts of debates, the identity politics teams typically win through in-depth overviews that impact turn essentially everything on the line-by-line. You HAVE to respond to their top-level impact claims - it's hard to pull the trigger in this type of round on dropped argument on the line-by-line if you haven't been addressing the framing of the debate itself.

If you have more specific questions, please ask me before the round.

Bellarmine '24, he/him

I'll flow. Add me to the email chain: rohanlingam2015@gmail.com.

Speed is fine.

I have a deep level of respect for the preparation that goes into debate tournaments. I will do my best to reciprocate that dedication with a firm commitment to judging rounds strictly on technical execution, not my personal opinions. Ideologically, I'm not a blank slate, so always err on the side of explanation, story-telling, and persuasion.

I don't care how well you can read blocks straight down. Line-by-line arguments, and respond to them in the order presented.

Tech > Truth. No argument is off limits, but don't be racist, homophobic, sexist, transphobic, etc.

CX is underutilized. Exploit concessions.

Judge instruction is paramount. Debates without comparative analysis explaining what arguments I should prioritize over others are difficult to resolve. Technical concessions matter, but explain why they implicate my ballot. Be concrete and comparative.

Case debate is a dying art. Doing it well - on either side - will be rewarded.

Email - benmanens@gmail.com - put me on the chain

General thoughts:

1) Tech over truth - I like certain arguments and dislike others. This does not change how I evaluate them in the context of a debate and my ideological predispositions are easily overcome by outdebating the other team. That being said, while adapting to my argumentative preferences will not affect my likelihood to vote for you, it may improve the quality of my judging for both sides absent clear explanation and judge instruction.

1b) Dropped arguments are true, but only so long as they are attached to a claim, warrant, and impact. My threshold for what constitutes those three components is low if left unanswered.

2) I have near zero experience with the topic. Err on the side of overexplaining rather than underexplaining.

3) I flow on paper, and have never been very neat. I will reward good signposting* and clear judge instruction that frontloads the most important arguments in the debate.

*From Surya Midha's paradigm: "Number everything. 'One, two, three' is preferable to 'first, second, third.' If your gripe with numbering is that it 'interrupts the flow of your speech,' you have incidentally just articulated the most compelling justification for the practice."

4) Final rebuttals should identify the most important issues in the debate and coherently flesh them out. 2NRs and 2ARs too often get lost in the weeds of line by line and forget to extend complete arguments and/or instruct the judge on why the debate so far should lead them to a decision one way or the other.

5) I flow CX. It's a lost art. You can go ahead and waffle or use it as prep time, but smart, well-thought out CX strategies that impact the course of the debate will be rewarded.

Topicality:

1) I default to competing interps, but have recently been more and more open to reasonability if the aff invests time in fleshing it out and making it a part of their strategy. I'm most compelled by aff explanations that use reasonability to weigh substance crowdout as offense against whatever the negative goes for.

2) Reading a piece of evidence that defines a word in the resolution is a very basic threshold for a T interp, but one that less and less T interps are meeting. If you have to spin what the words in your interp card say, you're probably stretching it. Not only does it make it a nightmare to watch, it should, if executed properly, make it very easy for the aff to win on predictability.

3) I've gone back and forth on plan text in a vacuum - I lean neg but oftentimes teams are underprepared for a 2A bold enough to go all-in on the argument.

4) It is the negative burden to establish a violation. Please don't make your 1NC shell say "Interp: [x must do y], Violation: they don't."

Theory and Competition:

1) Condo can (or can not) be a voting issue, everything else is a reason to reject the argument. I dislike that a 15 second argument in the 1AR can be blown up to a 5-minute 2AR, and will hold the line on egregious overextrapolation.

2) I'll vote for dropped ASPEC (and other arguments of the sort), but I will not be happy doing so. Don't drop it.

3) Slightly neg-leaning on condo and process CPs, solidly neg-leaning on PICs, multiplank, agent, solvency advocate, and concon theory, solidly aff-leaning on delay and international fiat. Still, dropped arguments are true, and I will happily vote on conceded or undercovered pieces of offense.

4) The 2NC is a constructive, 1NR is not.

5) You will be best served by ditching whichever blocks you stole from a college round to spread at top speed and instead collapsing down to your best one or two pieces of offense, fleshing that out, and comparing it to your opponent's main piece of offense.

6) I'll default to judgekick unless debated out.

7) I generally prefer competition over theory, but theory bolsters whatever arguments you make about competition. Positional competition is a hard sell, limited intrinsicness, PDCP, and all the other typical process CP perms can go either way. It is the neg burden to establish competition.

Counterplans:

1) Sufficiency framing is both underrated and overutilized. It is extremely helpful in establishing burdens and thresholds in regards to judge instruction, but is only valuable insofar as you apply it to specific internal links rather than a 5-second buzzword-filled explanation at the top.

2) I will reward long, creative advantage counterplans that throw a curveball at 2As. I will also reward 2As that respond with deficits that demonstrate they've thought through the strategic value of their advantages and can creatively apply them. On that same note, solvency deficits are underrated vs process CPs if you've written your aff correctly.

Disadvantages:

1) Try-or-die, impact turns case, and other impact framing arguments of the sort are rhetorically compelling, but not very helpful in terms of evaluating relative risk. The question I ask myself in these debates is which side I vote for will prevent the greatest impact. This also means that saying "timeframe - intervening actors/live to fight another day" absent a specific warrant behind that is not super helpful.

2) Specific link analysis and contextualization is indispensable. Carded evidence is the gold standard, but cleverly spinning generic evidence can suffice in a pinch. Storytelling is key.

3) I don't believe in zero risk unless something damning is dropped, but that doesn't tend to matter much. Quantifying the risk of disadvantages only matters insofar as it is necessary to make a comparative claim, and oftentimes the arbitrary difference between zero and near-zero risk does little to change that comparison.

4) Always down for an impact turn - am not a huge fan of spark/wipeout, but will still evaluate it. Organization of these debates is key, and especially in later speeches collapsing down to a couple of core claims and clearly explaining how they implicate the debate.

5) I have a soft spot for politics and the rider DA. Doesn't mean I'll vote for it (the rider DA goes away if the aff says the right things), but I'll be happy to see it well executed.

Kritiks:

1) The quickest way to my ballot on the aff is winning that your case outweighs. The quickest way to my ballot on the neg is winning a framework interp that mitigates that. I find that oftentimes they are poorly answered and implicate the other, so taking advantage of that will do you a lot of good.

2) I don't mind long overviews in the right circumstances if flagged beforehand. They're helpful to explain necessary thesis-level components of your argument, but counterproductive when they begin replacing line-by-line.

3) I'm somewhat familiar with most common kritiks - afropess, setcol, security, cap, etc. Err on the side of overexplaining if unsure.

4) From Anirudh Prabhu's paradigm, "All debate is storytelling, but K debate especially so." Specific link analysis is not only satisfying to watch, it will make it more likely that you win.

5) The Cap K is my pet peeve. I find it ridiculous that someone labeled capitalism bad a kritik and then could basically read that as an impact turn versus almost any aff. At the same time, aff teams tend to do a poor job at exploiting the tensions between the impact and framework, link magnitude and the perm, etc. I say this not to stop you from reading it, but be aware when it's strategically valuable to extend.

K Affs/Framework:

1) Ideologically, probably not great for the aff. I've never read a K aff nor gone for anything other than FW against K affs, and I believe affirmative teams should affirm the resolution. However, I will do my best to evaluate these debates independent of my own beliefs. Good framework vs K aff debates are my favorite to watch, and many of the judges I look up to are quite middle-of-the-road in these debates so I strive to reach that standard myself.

2) Packaging and framing in framework debates is just as important as the arguments themselves. The team that is more offensive in final rebuttals gains a massive advantage.

3) I find impacts grounded in debate's form more compelling than those related to the content of the debates themselves, not out of personal belief, but in terms of strategic utility. Fairness is probably good, but whether it is an impact is left up for debate - I've gone back and forth, can be persuaded either way.

4) I have a slight preference for the aff to forward one or two impact turns rather than a counter-interp with numerous shoddily extended disads, but oftentimes negative teams do far too little to exploit the offense they could generate from the counter-interp. Regardless of which route you take, the best way to persuade me and excise any of my implicit skepticism is to phrase your offense as if you were answering the question, "why not read it on the neg?" It is not necessary, but it will go a long way to help me vote for you.

5) Specificity, specificity, specificity - on both sides, please explain in concrete detail what debates would look like under each team's model: what affs and off-case positions get read, what those debates come down to, etc.

6) I have never been in a K v K debate, nor have I ever judged one. Please overexplain, and then explain a bit more just for good measure.

Hey, my name is Anirudh (Ani) and I'm a sophomore at Bellarmine College Preparatory. I've been doing speech and debate for around one and a half years now, so I'm somewhat experienced.

At the top, there are a couple of things I look for.

- One, all your evidence should be highlighted in pink.

- Two, winners win.

Now on to the more specific stuff.

Speech:

- I've been doing extemp for a while now, so I might know a little more about the topics than your average judge. That said, I also know at least the basics of other events such as Expos, OA, and OO.

- I'd like you to have a clear structure in your speech that makes it easy for me, the judge, to understand. I want to know what I'm writing down before I write it down.

- Make sure to project yourself with confidence. One, two, even ten mistakes is fine as long as you recover with confidence.

- Content matters; if doing extemp, make sure points are distinct from each other and that each point has at least 2 cites.

- Make sure to seem like you're enjoying yourself so it's engaging to the judge.

Policy:

I do policy debate, so I'm definitely most comfortable with that.

I will flow the debate to make sure that I have all the arguments; if I miss anything, I'm sorry, but please don't ask me to change my mind after I submitted the ballot.

I stress the affirmative team hitting all of the stock issues: topicality, harms, inherency, solvency, and the disadvantage. That said, I won't just vote neg if the neg wins one stock issue. I want the neg to win the stock issue and show why it matters more than the aff's harms. This means that framing the debate is extremely important to tell me how I should evaluate it. I will automatically vote neg if the neg wins on topicality since it is a fundamental rule of debate.

I'm not going to vote on how I perceive an argument, but rather how you argue it. For example, even if I believe that the Deterrence DA for the Death Penalty aff is false, I will still vote neg if the neg argues it better than the aff and why it matters more than the aff's harms.

Set up concessions in cross-ex. This is extremely important for me because CX is a great time for me to look on the debate and understand the main points of contention. Once you get the opponent to concede something in CX, bring it up in the next speech to show why it matters. This is a great way to gain credibility, but a lot of debaters forget CX even if they decimated the opponent. On the topic of CX, please be polite to the opponents. Do not insult them whatsoever, or speaker points will be docked. Please do not scoff like you're better than the opponent; that seems like ultimate arrogance. That said, I am all right with you bringing a little bit of passion into the CX if the opponent is deliberately avoiding your questions.

I think that the block should be split into different stock issues per speech. For example, if solvency is in the 2NC, DA should be in the 1NR, not solvency again.

Please define stock issues: I want to understand what they are and why they matter. It may seem repetitive, but every time you transition from one stock issue to the other, explain what each of them is.

During the rebuttals, especially the 2NR and 2AR, I think you should explain how you already won the debate in all of your previous speeches. These rebuttals should be a lot about looking back on the round, and explaining how you won and how your arguments matter more than the other teams.

Do not spread; I can flow it but I won't because it's not good practice for League tournaments. Also, please do not keep using jargon. Once again, I will probably understand it but I do not want you guys to say things like "impact outweighs" or "we win the framing contention" because that's a) not good practice for league and b) it's going to keep you guys in bad habits.

Please add me to the email chain. My email is ani.mani23@bcp.org I would prefer if the debate goes in a timely fashion, where the evidence blocks are ready to be sent on time. I will check the evidence if the debate comes down to the quality of evidence (which it probably won't) or if the evidence highlighting seems sus.

I will NOT tolerate any improper behavior, such as racist or gender-insensitive statements. This will be reported and your speaker points will not be fun to see.

Direct any further questions to the aforementioned email address.

At the end of the day, have fun. Whether you lose or win isn't the big thing; it's the experience you got out of debating.

LD:

I have tons of experience in LD (judged precisely one debate).

At the top of each of your speeches, specify what your value contention is, and list your main arguments as to why you have won on the value contentions.

In later speeches (e.g. the 1AR, please refer back to evidence read in previous speeches to support your argument). Please point out potential concessions the other team made and why they're so important.

CX is super important, so reference concessions gained from there into future speeches.

The last few speeches shouldn't be about making new arguments (which I won't count anyway), but rather explaining why you have won the debate by weighing your impacts on the value contention to theirs.

Extend your main arguments into the last speeches; don't extend everything you had in your first speech if you're clearly losing on the line-by-line. Pick your most important arguments and stick with them.

Don't do dumb stuff like demeaning your opponent or shouting in cross-ex.

The more prepared you seem, the better your speaks. You can appear more prepared by talking fluently and (maybe) taking less prep.

Enjoy!

My views are aligned with Neal Dwivedula - just ask whatever questions you have in the round, I've debated policy for a few years and have some experience judging novice policy and LD.

- email: shivenpandey21@gmail.com (include me in all email chains)

For Bellarmine Rhetoric Frosh Tournament:

- I believe debate is a game. Every argument is true until proven false (unless the argument is blatantly false). For example, if you tell me that the United States only contains 30 states, I will not count that argument. However, if you tell me that Congress can withdraw money and give it to a certain private institution even if in reality they can't, I will believe you unless the other team is able to disprove that argument.

- Make the debate organized. A debate is always more fun to watch if it is organized. Flow properly, signpost arguments, don't flipflop between stock issues, and make it clear as to what you are responding to.

- After your first speeches, you need to frame. Tell me why the aff world is preferable to the neg world, and vice versa. I want to see this incorporated in most of the speeches, and especially the 2NR/2AR.

- Write my ballot for me. The first few lines of your 2NR/2AR should clearly explain to me exactly as to why you have won this debate. If you tell me how and why to vote, I am more likely to vote in a way you prefer.

- Utilize CX. Don't ask questions for the sake of asking questions. Set up stories and arguments, poke holes in your opponents' arguments, and always, always remember to reference CX. I will not consider anything from CX if you do not reference them at least once in your speeches. Also, Inherency should be in every 1AC CX. And, most importantly, be respectful in CX. Do not be aggressive.

- I am a firm believer in the "neg only has to win 1 stock issue to win the debate" rule of policy debate and I will use this to determine my decision.

- Make sure you have clear stock issue overviews.

- Split the block effectively. I don't want to see the 2NC and 1NR cover the same arguments.

- Answer the line-by-line. Make sure you aren't dropping arguments and you respond to everything on the flow. If you do drop an argument, the other team is responsible for pointing it out AND explaining why you dropping the argument should heavily sway the debate in their favor.

- Identify the main points of clash in your 2NR/2AR. Explain the most important arguments and why you are ahead on those.

- Most importantly, BE RESPECTFUL. I don't want heated CXs. I will be more inclined to vote for respectful teams.

- Good luck guys.

About Me: My name is Anthony Reynolds, I am a Junior at Bellarmine College Preparatory, I do both slow and fast Policy Debate at the Varsity level, and I also do Extemp at the Varsity level. Pronouns: He/Him.

Email: Anthony.Reynolds22@bcp.org

If it is a fast debate I want to be on the email chain, if it is slow debate please also put me on the email chain.

Voting Issues:

The K:

This is what most people care about so I am starting with it. I am mostly a Policy only debater but I am completely open to Ks and K affs. I will not favor them, but I do not see them as dirty or bad forms of debate. Arguing that Topicality is bad is interesting and I like it. I respect K debaters and think they are equal to Policy only teams.

Framework:

Fairness is not always a voting issue. You can argue that it is, and that it isn't. I do not have a strong opinion on it. Anything can be a voting issue for me, and it all depends on how you argue it. I go for framework often but that doesn't mean I am against K affs.

Theory:

I think that theory debates are just like every other part of debate and are just as important. I am open to judging theory debates, but there are some theory arguments that I personally don't like, but that does not mean I will auto downvote them. These are:

- Disclosure theory: I just think disclosing isn't a rule or necessary.

- CP Theory: I think PICs are bad, but I will still vote for them. Even though I am against PICs I still see them as a legitimate argument.

Overall I think that there are no hard and fast rules in a debate, so anything can be said. This means I am open to a neg team reading 12 counterplans and if the aff loses on condo then they lose on condo. Similarly, if a neg team reads 1 counterplan and the aff wins on condo, they win the debate. Everything in the debate is about the arguments and theory is just another argument to me.

Topicality:

I will usually be neg leaning on Topicality, and it is all about articulating your argument. If you are running an aff that is obviously not Topical but you win the argument I will still vote for you. I still think that Topicality is another argument to be had and I can go either way.

Tech over Truth:

I think that if you win an argument, even if what you are saying is false, you still win the debate. Responding to arguments and having clash always comes first, and even if an argument is false you must respond to it. That being said, an argument being false makes it a lot harder to win simply because the other team can literally say "what they are saying is a lie and will have no impact because of it" and well if you are lying then yeah there isn't an impact at all.

You could run a counterplan that is in reference to a country that does not exist and if you definitively win the argument then you could still win the debate.

Framing vs Line-by-line:

Both are necessary to win a debate in my opinion. I can go both ways on which is more important. If an aff team loses a bunch of arguments on the flow but can prove to me through framing that they should still win because the aff impacts outweigh, then I might vote for them. I can also go the other way, and completely vote on line-by-line depending on the debate, but it is completely based on how either team articulates their arguments.

Other Issues:

Please just be respectful to your opponents. Racism, homophobia, sexism, and any other kind of hate speech will not be tolerated.

I am open to most arguments if I think they are legitimate. However, I think something like using the wrong pronoun once in a speech is not a reason to reject the team, but you can still argue that it is and I might vote for you. Also, swearing during a debate is fine by me, as long as it is not blatantly offensive to the opponent or to another group of people.

Also, if you claim the opponent is forging evidence or is violating some form of real rule of evidence, make the argument in the debate, and if you convince me I will vote on it.

I am pretty loose with prep time. Flashing is not prep, sending files is not prep, if your computer crashes during a speech just pause and figure it out, and for the most part I will be pretty flexible. Stealing prep will obviously not be accepted and will affect your speaks, and possibly the ballot in extreme cases.

Most of that section was for fast debate.

Slow Debate:

This is a lot more simple so I will be brief.

Both framing and line by line are important in a debate. Just because I have fast debate experience does not mean I only value line by line and argumentation, slow debate framing is a huge part of the debate and it should be in your speeches.

A lot of convincing parent judges in slow debate involves being convincing and believable, so I will likely take this into account during the round. Of course the argumentation is the most important part of the debate, but if I think the round is a wash with both sides having equally good argumentation, I will likely go with the side that simply persuaded me more with their delivery or phrasing or something else that isn't purely a part of argumentation. Despite this, I wil value the argumentation higher.

Speaker Points:

How good did you speak. Did you speak well? Yes? What do you know now you have high speaks. Did you speak poorly? Aw man now you have lower speaks.

Paradigm for Rhetoric Debate Tournament

Tech > truth

I want warrants for everything - don't just say x evidence says this, that's why it's true. Explain to me WHY it's true.

I love cross-examinations that are subtle but set up the other team in a double bind that they can't get out of.

I will vote on Topicality, but I don't enjoy those debates. The best and most interesting debates interact with the core of the affirmative's advocacy.

Paradigm for Bellarmine Congress Classic:

I evaluate congress mostly on content, but good delivery and showcasing your personality through your delivery style will get you higher ranks. Confidence is always key and will get you much farther than solely relying on brilliant argumentation. I especially value strong rhetoric and persuasion, so the better rhetoric you have, the better you will do.

I'm usually tech > truth and I don't assume links in your speech, so make sure to explicitly warrant everything with relevant evidence and analysis - If there is absolutely no weighing being done in terms of relative arguments, my disappointment is immeasurable and my day is ruined.

Never fake your cites - there's always evidence you can find that backs up what you're saying. Trust me I would know.

Every time you stand up for cross-ex, you need to have a clear gameplan and intention to extract some sort of concession - even clarification questions should be strategic. Good CXes will boost your ranks

Make sure you know the role of your speech in the context of your round - e.g. don't give a constructive as a crystal or pre-empt a million different arguments in the authorship (few is fine)

I value strong logic behind refutations and really enjoy creative ways of linking to arguments that make you stand out. Also, condensing down and simplifying the debate as you get later in the round, especially in late mid-round speeches and crystals, will get you higher ranks.

The most important aspect of congress is in-round adaptability - that means never breaking cycle and always being ready to flip. If you're using canned speeches without listening to what other speakers are saying, you will do worse.

Chief Joseph, Nez Perce. 

I will judge the round however the debaters say the round should be judged (within reason), but in the absence of any debate over framing of how the round should be judged, I'll side with whether I think the aff is a good idea within a utilitarian framework, and less on stock issues.

If there's no response to an argument in the debate I'll probably believe it, unless it's truly ridiculous or just out of line with reality. On an argument level, I'll prefer the side with better evidence over better logic, but if you can prove your point well with reasoning alone I am open to believing a claim that doesn't have hard evidence.

If you and the other team are both making arguments with evidence that directly contradict each other, please explain why your evidence and logic are better than theirs.

If you're going to assert that a single argument is enough to win a stock issue, or that you should win the debate because you won a certain stock issue, give a good explanation as to why, and don't just tell me I "have to vote aff" or anything like that without an explanation.

Be nice in cross ex, ask questions (don't just make arguments at your opponent).

good luck have fun

don't worry

General: In this hallowed arena of intellectual pursuit, I stand as both witness and arbiter, enraptured by the kaleidoscope of ideas that unfold before me. My temperament is one of open-minded curiosity, eager to be captivated by the rhetorical virtuosity of debaters. As we embark on this journey, let it be known that my canvas is vast, and my appreciation for the artistry of debate knows no bounds. The tapestry of our discourse, whether woven in the classical loom of policy arguments or painted with the avant-garde strokes of non-traditional paradigms, shall find a receptive audience in the chambers of my discerning consideration.

Philosophical Orientation: In the grand tapestry of dialectic elegance, my predilections sway towards the classical dance of well-versed policy arguments, a ballet of intellectual finesse. Yet, amidst the splendor of tradition, I am not impervious to the allure of the unconventional—a delicate sonnet that, when articulated with finesse, unfurls its petals in the garden of discourse.

Argumentation Preferences: As we embark on this rhetorical voyage, I implore debaters to cultivate their arguments like the most exquisite blooms in a celestial garden, each petal a testament to meticulous research and thoughtful construction. Quality, akin to the fragrance of rare blossoms, should linger in the air, transcending the mere quantity of argumentative foliage.

Speed and Clarity: In the ethereal dance of rhetoric, let our words be imbued with the grace of balletic movement, deliberate and enchanting. A crystal-clear stream of eloquence should meander through the hallowed groves of discourse, allowing the jewels of your ideas to shimmer without being lost in the turbulent currents of undue haste.

Framework and Impact Analysis: Construct for me an intellectual coliseum, the very stones of your framework hewn with precision. The impact analysis, a symphony of logical crescendos, should resonate through the vast amphitheater of reason, leaving an indelible mark upon the tapestry of my adjudication.

Role of the Ballot: Behold the ballot as a sacred relic, entrusted to the virtuoso whose arguments, like the most intricately woven tapestries, seamlessly integrate into the established framework. Persuade me that your narrative is a magnum opus, and I shall, with the quill of discernment, inscribe your triumph in the annals of intellectual history.

Flexibility and Adaptability: As we traverse the intellectual cosmos, be attuned to the muse of adaptability guiding our celestial journey. Surprise me with constellations of arguments, each a celestial brushstroke across the canvas of resolution, ensuring they coalesce into a harmonious constellation.

Decision-Making Criteria: In the atelier of debate, I shall sculpt my judgment with the precision of a master craftsman fashioning a grand opus. Let clarity be the luminescent palette illuminating your discourse, relevance the vivacious hues infusing vitality, and impactful evidence the iridescent brushstrokes that lend your argument a shimmering brilliance.

Experience and Background: With the mantle of experience draped across my shoulders, I wander the landscapes of debate as a seasoned wanderer. Yet, consider me not an omniscient sage, but a fellow traveler eager to be enraptured by the cadence of your discourse. Illuminate the trail with clarity, and I shall navigate its convolutions with discerning wonder.

Questions and Clarifications: Before the overture of our intellectual opera unfolds, seek enlightenment through queries. I am but a custodian of the labyrinth of expectations, ready to unravel its mysteries for the intrepid seeker.

May our discourse be a symphony of ideas, each note a resplendent crescendo echoing through the vast halls of intellectual pursuit.