I competed for Solorio (policy) for 4 years and am back to debating for Illinois State University (LD+IPDA).

Add me to the email chain: flowerfranco444@gmail.com

Arguments and preferences-

I love k debate. Was I a K debater? No, Conor Cameron wouldn't let me be one. Live out my dreams for me.

Cap- Is probably the root cause to every issue. That doesn't mean I'm always going to vote for it. If you read this you need to have a very specfic alt. Movements and revolutions is way to vague and gets you no where in the round.

Also, I am a product of Conor so I believe that cap is sustainable. Do what you will with this information.

CPs- Love them, they should be in every 1nc. Consult and process CPs aren't the most persuasive but I'm not against them. I prefer agent CPs and advantage CPs. In terms of answering- don't read a billion perms, perm do both is fine unless you explain the other perms in detail.

T- Hate it<3. Kidding, I only hate it if you use it as a time skew. Only read T if you intend on going for it OR are literally put at a disadvantage in the round/aff is untopical. Education> fairness. Debate is an educational activity, if you're not learning, wyd?

Theory-I don't love it<3but its fine if it makes sense. I will not give you a cheap win for it.

K-I was a K debater in my past life. I like K's but explain them!!! Don't just use old blocks and random K lingo that doesn't actually say anything. If you believe in your K, chances are I will too. With that being said, be intentional with what's in your 1nc.

Performance- If you have music playing in the background, explain why it's there. The more I see performance rounds the more I love it. It is so different from traditional debate and I think it is refreshing.

DAs-Should be in every 1nc. Disad turns case>>>>>>

K affs-Not totally experienced in them, willing to listen and learn. If it makes sense to the topic- go for it! If its a K aff that is around every year, try to connect it to the topic as much as possible because I'm less likely to vote for it.

If ur rude in round, ew+u lose+ur automatically ugly.

Hello!

I have been involved in policy debate for several years and I am a huge fan of it! I enjoy both competing in debate tournaments as well as judging. When judging, I am pretty open-minded to most types of arguments, as long as you can do a good job defending them. Personal opinions on various topics will never affect my decision. Usually, my decision will ultimately come down to one or more of the following: Adherence to the rules of policy debate, arguments dropped/conceded, arguments introduced/extended, and overall articulation/persuasion. Speaker points are largely based on the following: organizational skills, proficiency/overall understanding of the topic, ability to persuade/articulate, and adherence to the rules of debate.

yo :)

cornell - he/she - cfranklin-s@cps.edu - ily.cornell on insta if you actually wanna talk/ask me about something

~

generally:

you can call me cornell or you can call me judge, i dont mind either way

no discriminatory actions or being a rude person, i will give you an L for that

camera doesn’t really matter to me

enunciate your tags if you’re gonna spread like eminem

~

in round stuff:

tech > truth

aff - you have to prove aff is better, if plan is passed at all W

neg - if you prove plan shouldn’t be passed at all W, i default to neg on tight rounds for presumption

t - probably not gonna vote on unless aff doesn’t respond

(i say probably cause if you’re reading a basic fracking plan then that’s obviously topical)

k - you gotta explain your k bro, don’t assume i know anything

~

if you make a fgc reference or make the phrase “quarter circle forward” work into your argument i’ll laugh

Solorio Academy HS ‘23 --> UIUC '27

She/Her - Prefer if you didn't address me as "judge"

Put me on the email chain: nicholegarcia2023@gmail.com

Tech > Truth

More policy-oriented than anything. That doesn’t mean I’m not willing to vote on anything else. Feel free to run whatever is your style.

Top Level Tingz

• I have glanced over the high school topic very briefly so assume I know nothing about the specifics of your aff/other arguments
• I'm not doing the work for you. Write my ballot, explain dropped arguments and what that means for the round, explain the warrants for your arguments
• I’m a bit more generous with speaks. Most teams get 28-29. This is decided by how you sound (Confidence!!), quality of arguments, and overall behavior in the round
• Trust that I am competent enough to understand what went on in the round overall – Don’t post round me
• I prefer if you time yourself (if you can’t, let me know), stand up during speeches, face the judge(s), FLOW!
• Not very expressive – my resting face looks a little angry (don’t let it make you nervous)
• Absolutely will not tolerate any sort of racism, sexism, ableism, etc
• This includes putting the other team down and attacking them as people rather than their arguments

Brief Background: I debated 4 years at Solorio, competing in both UDL and nat circuit tournaments. I mostly stuck to a strict policy strategy as the 2N but hit a lot of K teams so I have a decent amount of exposure to both traditional policy and K. I went to debate camp at Dartmouth and was taught to debate by the Conor Cameron and Victoria Yonter (<3). Not currently debating for UIUC.

Case Turns – LOVE. Pretty much down with any case turn. Keep consistent and extend it throughout the debate along with your warrants.

DA’s – DA ground has looked a bit iffy :( --> I have a pretty good understanding of the more common DA's but don't expect me to fill in the argument for you. Tell me the story of the DA, explain how the Aff specifically links, and make your impact clear. Impact calc and Impact comparison are super important!

CP’s – The more sketchy the CP the more I’ll dislike (also not a huge fan of multi-plank CP's) but if you’re winning the CP I’ll vote on it. Make it clear how the CP solves the NB, and what the CP does. The CP has to be a reason to reject the Aff. Answer the Perm.

K’s – I don’t love K’s but I am willing to vote on it. I have a decent understanding of K’s but I hold the neg to a high expectation in terms of explanation of the K. If you plan to go for the K explain all of it. I expect explanations for how the K functions, what the role of the ballot is, and what the alternative and the impacts are. If I don’t know what it does you can’t reasonably expect that I’ll be able to justify my ballot for the K.

K literature that I am more familiar with: Cap, Imperialism, Set Col, Security, Fem. Anything else that isn’t a more traditional K you should assume I know nothing about. (good rule is to assume I don't know anything about the K though)

K Affs - Not a big fan --> probably not the judge you want for a K aff. Doesn't mean I refuse to vote on the aff tho it just means I expect a lot of explanation of the aff + interaction/clash with the neg.

K Aff v T --> Love T personally (I ran it very consistently), I expect K teams to be able to answer T thoroughly and properly. I lean more towards the neg. Fairness impacts are good but harder to win especially when the aff is oftentimes a turn to fairness. Other impacts I am a fan of: education (super important to me), limits, predictable clash. In order to win T it should be a large component of the block and the 2NR (but make sure you watch out for arguments on case that need to be answered). K teams can win in front of me but it is important that T is sufficiently answered.

Theory - Don't have any strong opinions on theory (but I do love a good condo round ;) ). Its a bit harder to win less traditional theory in front of me but I'll do my best to put my bias aside and weigh the impacts. DO NOT SPREAD YOUR THEORY BLOCKS. I understand its strategic if your opponents can't flow all of it but neither can I --> if you're going to ignore this and spread it at least send the block.

Topicality (policy) - Also don't have a strong opinion on topicality. I am less persuaded by a generic T block that doesn't specify the aff's violation and I am less persuaded if it's against a core file (huge aff with lots of literature/ground). I think topicality is good for keeping teams in check and preventing neg abuse but keep in mind that you should be able to clearly define what is and isn't topical (having a case list would help). Get creative but make sure your sources/definitions are credible and relevant. In order to win T it should be more than a minute of your block and all of the 2NR ( all or nothing basically).

Email: rgu6@illinois.edu and gurachael@gmail.com (in case one doesn't work)

wy '21 (policy)

uiuc '25 (parli)

I am not familiar with the emerging technologies topic this year so please contextualize whenever you can.

I’m not really good with K debates. However, if you do run a K, make sure it is well explained. Be very clear when explaining the link, impact, and alt to the k. I don’t like super wild K’s, so be careful with those.

For the rebuttals, tell me what I should be voting for and why you should win. During novice year, I think it is especially important to do impact calc and evidence comparison.

Please signpost and tell me which argument you are answering and do line-by-line. This would make it easier for me to flow your speech.

Also, have fun and try your best.

hey! i'm tia, a former debater. i participated in policy debate for 5 years throughout middle and high school in Chicago (Skinner West and Lane Tech Alum).

name: tia (tee-uh)

EMAIL CHAIN: tiashawthorne@gmail.com

always add me to email chain!

pronouns: she/her

first, let's get this stuff out of the way:

online debate: please turn your camera on! let's try to simulate a real debate as much as possible (also no one really cares what you look like...we're all here for the same thing)

"techy" debate stuff-

overall, i will vote for arguments that are debated well. i don't have any preference on what is really ran, but make sure it is done well (try your best)! i

if you don't say it, i won't assume it. make the debate as clear as possible for me

T - impact out why the aff is untopical and why the aff should lose. explain why t is a voter and how it is a clear win

DAs - impact work is so important (your impact > aff harms, or why the aff triggers the impact of the DA). same goes for the aff (why the harms of the aff outweigh the impact of the DA(s)) impact calc often!

K - clear alt story (what does the world of the alt look like, how is it implemented, etc.) aff: please read framework on the K (explain why fw matters and how you win the debate under your own framework). as long as the world of the k is explained and it's clearly linked to the aff in question (and this can be explained) we are good to go.

tech>truth

spreading is good and being fast is good but don't sacrifice clarity (we all want to know what is being said) (i will stop you to say clear if it's unintelligible)

all aspects of the debate need good explanations. impact everything out. make it clear why i should vote for you

ANY racism, sexism, homophobia, or any discrimination/discriminatory language will not be tolerated. I will give you the lowest speaks possible, speak to your coach and tab, and you will lose the round.

(Do not be afraid to let me know if something made you feel uncomfortable either during round privately or after the round is over!)

debate is such a great way to learn new things and make new friends, so make sure to try your best to have fun throughout the tournament!

show me your flows after the round and i'll give you 0.1 speaks!

make me laugh (with a non-debate joke, like genuinely be funny) and i'll give you 0.1 speaks (this is totally subjective and based on my humor but have fun with it!)

Of course I want to be on the email chain -- chwangdebate@gmail.com

HS Debate: 19-23 (4 years) -- Walter Payton

College Debate: 23-Present -- University of Michigan

Debate Coach: 23-Present -- Walter Payton

Top Level:

I think that judging records are more informative than whatever I type in my paradigm. Judging Record

Tech > Truth. I always decide the round off the flow first and foremost. Truth will have no bearing on the round unless the debate absolutely requires it because both teams failed to do literally anything which requires significant judge intervention. As an extension of this, I will not immediately strike arguments off my flow because they are too stupid or offensive to answer. The stupider and more offensive the argument is, the easier it should be to answer.

Throughout high school, I have done both policy and kritik strategies as both a 2A and a 2N. I have read big-stick policy affs, soft left affs, k-affs, 9-off 1NCs, and 1-off K 1NCs. My current style of debate is much more rooted in policy than K.

While I coach both policy and K teams, I spend the vast majority of my time doing policy research. I am very involved in argument coaching, and am usually well-versed in whatever the topic presents.

I do not care if you post-round; I am a firm believer that you have a right to express why you think you should've won the round. Debaters invest a lot of their time to win the round so they should have the ability to express why they believe that time should have resulted in a win. If you think part of my decision is wrong feel free to argue as it leads to better conceptualization of the decision.

If I need cards after the round I'll ask for them.

Online Debate:

Slow down regardless, but if you are unclear in person you should doubly slow down. No one wants part of my decision to be "I didn't hear that argument being made in x speech because you were very unclear."

I will type in chat if I am gone and my camera will be on showing that I am not there. If you start without me being there I will incredibly confused.

Things I like:

Clear framing of my ballot and why you win.

Really smart technical tricks or concessions.

When debaters time their own speeches.

Being funny and creative in your speeches.

Things I don’t like:

Saying the words “oops” or something along those lines at the top of your speech.

Calling me anything other than my name. “Judge” is the main one. You all are like a year or two younger than me calling me that makes me feel older than I am.

Unnecessarily saying my name in a speech just to prove you read the above line.

Being a jerk to your partner and/or the other team.

When the 1AC has not been sent out by the time the debate is supposed to start.

Trying to be funny and failing miserably.

When both people leave after the round. Too many times have I made a decision and have to run into the hallway looking for the debaters.

Kritikal affs:

I have read kritikal affs in the past, but I am still sympathetic to negative framework arguments.

Framework v. K-affs are some of my favorites debates to watch and judge. In my experience the aff wins these debates by winning their offense on the counter-interp and/or turning the neg's offense, while the neg tends to win these debates with smart framing of their interpretation and standards to mitigate aff offense.

If the 1AR makes vague, nebulous assertions about their aff with zero application to any negative offense, I am very reluctant to weighing any new 2AR spin.

I believe that fairness is the best impact, but that it can be either an impact or an internal link depending on how the teams contextualize it in-round.

Teams are not willing enough to go for presumption even when it is the correct 2NR. I am more than willing to pull the trigger on presumption should the negative arguments for it be strong enough. Varying inconsistencies between the 2AC and 1AR on case make pulling the presumption trigger that much easier.

I have little experience with KvK debates. I generally think that the aff gets perms, but I am very flexible on that.

Policy affs:

Do whatever.

A lot of affirmative teams are getting away with way too much and negative teams are allowing them to get away with it. Strong analytics are sometimes enough to take out shoddy internal link chains.

I am better for soft-left affs than most judges are.

Counterplans:

I enjoy counterplan competition debates but I fear that the majority of teams have literally zero clue what functional and textual competition actually mean and just use them as buzz words.

I think that people are either underutilizing immediacy and/or certainty key against process CPs, or they are giving terrible reasons for immediacy and certainty. Generic reasoning behind certainty and immediacy won't win you the round, but actually winning the deficit specific to the CP might.

Counterplan theory is a lost art of debate, which is a real shame because I love these debates. Affirmative teams are allowing negative teams to get away with murder. In a perfectly even debate I generally lean defense, but I am will decide the round purely off the flow. Should you invest the time and effort into effective and high quality theory debating, I am very receptive to such. The words “condo is a voting issue - time skew strat skew” do not constitute a complete argument. If you are just regurgitating your backfile theory blocks against each other I will disgruntledly vote for whoever backfiles are better and give both teams bad speaker points. Conversely, teams that utilize topic specification to describe the division of ground and how the theoretical objection changes will make me happy and be awarded high speaker points.

Saying "we get x condo" or "x condo is good/bad" is really arbitrary and I think is super hard to win, especially when the debate is "1 condo vs 2 condo" or something similar.

The reasoning for why new affs justify infinite condo is strange but I lean either way.

I generally find that word PICs are weak and unpersuasive. If you think that your word PIC is an exception you are welcome to try.

Kritiks:

I have found myself in the back of multiple rounds where the 2NR has been the K and am more than capable of evaluating it.

There has been a fundamental issue with how some teams are extending the K, and it has nothing to do with my predispositions on kritiks. Either:

1. 2NRs are not going for framework or the alt at all and are losing on extinction outweighs a non-causal link, or
2. 2NRs are not extending an impact (to framework, the links, or the K in general).

If you properly extend the K I am very receptive to it; I have found myself voting neg on the K when the 2NR does not have these issues and when the 2NR extends clearly articulated and nuanced arguments. I have no intention of voting up the K on vague, nebulous assertions made in the 2NR that are not applied to other parts of the flow.

I understand the basic premise of identity K's, but I have very limited experience reading them. I read an Orientalism K for a little which was more closely akin to an IR K than an Identity K. I think that saying that there's a link to the plan because of a historical event is a defensive argument for why progress is not possible but without further analysis will most likely not constitute a link to the aff.

I have next to zero experience with postmodernist/poststructuralist literature. I am not someone that easily understands that type of literature, thought or arguments. I will try and evaluate these debates as well as I can, but these types of arguments are far outside my realm of knowledge. You repeatedly saying the word “ressentiment” will definitely not help me. If you really want to win my ballot err on the side of over-explanation.

Topicality:

I am a better judge for evaluating T than most judges. There’s a strange paradox with judges that say that they are “tech over truth” but then have strong preconceptions of T debate that all but signal it is unwinnable for the neg. I have no such preconceptions. I have no preference for one standard compared to another.

I go either way on plan text in a vacuum.

I think that reasonability is very winnable, but only if you properly debate the negative’s debatability/limits push. I think debates are a lot easier to win on T if you frame it as a game of inches rather than a game of extremes. Rather than winning "our interp is good, their interp is bad", it is much easier to win that both models can be good and that either there is a small comparative advantage to one interpretation or conversely that because both are good it's a reason why competing interpretations in this instance is bad. I haven't seen any debates like this, but I definitely think teams should.

Disads:

I think that zero risk is real, and I have not heard a convincing reason why it is not real that is not interventionalist.

Other than that, I don’t think there’s a whole lot that can be said, or honestly should be said. There’s this strange dilemma surrounding politics and “generic” DAs which I don’t really get. A disadvantage is just a negative implication to the plan, there realistically shouldn’t be this much hemming and hawing to what that means. Read the disads you think will win.

Impact Turns

Impact turns are a unique opportunity to research and deploy arguments that challenge conventional wisdom, and are very fun and creative debates. I don't have any strong feelings for one side or another on any impact turn. I do not think that genocide good is an answer to war good.

If the 1AC has read an extinction impact and has said "the plan prevents extinction" the AFF has committed to extinction being undesirable and we should prevent it. If the 1NC stands up and says that the best way to prevent extinction is to go to war with a country, I think that the AFF saying "genocide bad" is not a responsive answer.

Speaks:

Theoretically the mean speaks should be 28.5, and I try will give speaks around there. The chance that (unless something went terribly astray) you get a 27 or a 30 is basically 0. I have and will give substantially different speaker points between partners if it is fitting, and I think low point wins are more common than is documented.

I think that giving speaker points for things like "make me laugh" or "mention x debater" is really dumb. I also think that taking away speaker points for doing thinks like calling me judge is also really dumb. If you are a funny debater that probably already affected the speaks I am giving you positively, so adding more just artificially inflates speaks.

Hotter Takes/Misc.

If you go for a new argument in the 2AR based on the 2NR, you must tell me how to evaluate it or I assign 50% weight to everything which opens the debate up to way more intervention that I am sure anyone wants.

Breaking new on paper, or sending one card at a time, or something in those regards is a little silly, but I guess I see where you are coming from.

There are individual instances of debate or state action that could be contextualized as good or bad, but I think it's hard to say that debate or the state as a whole is inherently either because of those examples. I think that using said specific examples in order to determine that debate and/or the state wholistically is either good or bad is really dumb.

About Me

Whitney Young 23 → UIUC 27

She/They

julia.h.kulinowski@gmail.com and wydebatedoc@gmail.com

My name is pronounced "you-li-ya" and please call me that instead of judge. Being called judge inflates my ego too much.

I've been debating since 2019 and have done a decent amount of judging. I mainly do CDL with a couple nats tournaments sprinkled in. For the past two years, I've been captain of the debate team at Whitney Young. I am going to UIUC and majoring in philosophy. I've gone to the Umich debate camp twice, so feel free to ask me about that or anything in general.

General

Yes, I want to be on the email chain. Please add both emails.

I like kritikal debates more than policy ones. If judges can say that they hate judging K-affs and rarely vote for them, I feel comfortable saying that I hate policy and find the debates boring and one note. Most of them are just an argumentative game of checkers that very rarely amounts to good education. "If the plan passes then extinction from Russia war!!" No. That won't happen and everyone knows that. But, somehow every single policy round ends up sounding like that quote. Read whatever you want in round, however, since you were forced to read my paradigm because you are good, little debaters, I decided to give my little rant.

Time yourselves. I forget to press start on my timer more often than I remember.

Debate is never that deep. Have fun. I hate having to be a round where everyone is taking this way too seriously because it is just so awkward. Go for that meme off case, make jokes, and enjoy yourself.

Please subject the email chain "Tournament - Round# - Aff Team v. Neg Team." I am tired of having a million chains labeled "Email Chain" making a mess in my inbox.

Tag team is fine. But if one partner keeps taking over cx, it will reflect poorly on your speaks.

You can spread in front of me, but I have bad hearing. If I missed your arguments, oops. A good way to make sure I get it down is to send analytics on the doc.

Fast spreading doesn't equal good speaker points. I look at other things like organization, strategy, how you interact with the other team way more than how you actually speak. Personally, I view speaks based on clarity and speed as pretty ableist. That being said, I try to keep my evaluation pretty consistent, but I don't have a solid basis for awarding point. I just go off the vibe.

I am technically tech > truth, but I'm not the best tech judge.

Ethos will take you very far in front of me. I think debate is a communicative activity and it is important be able to persuade the person you are in front of.

Since I wanna encourage flowing as much as possible, if you show me your flows after the round (even if they are really bad), you will get +0.1 speaks.

If you are mean, I will be less likely to vote for you because I hate rewarding rudeness. Sexism, racism, homophobia, etc. will not be tolerated. You will get voted down and get the lowest speaker points possible.

Summary

If you don't wanna read my whole paradigm, here is a synopsis of what I like and don't like.

Love: Case Turns, T, Kritiks, K-Affs, K v K, Theory

Hate: PTX DAs, RVI, CPs but specifically process CPs

Case

Understand your aff. There is nothing more embarrassing than an aff that barely knows what the 1AC says.

Extend the whole story of the aff.

Case turns are funky little arguments that people should read more.

Disadvantages

I HATE PTX DAs! Do not read them. I do not care. They are literally all the same, the evidence is all bad, there is no uniqueness, and the links are generic. There is no "good" PTX DAs. If you read one, I will vote for it, but I will throw tomatoes at you. Do you really wanna spread while dodging rotten tomatoes?

Other than that, DAs are arguments. I'll vote on them.

Topicality

I love topicality.

I don't care if it is a core-files aff, it can still be untopical.

RVI IS STUPID, BRAINLESS, FOOLISH, VAPID, DUMB, LUDICROUS, NUTTY AND CUCKOO! I DON'T CARE IF YOUR WHOLE 2AC, 1AR, AND 2AR ARE ONLY ON RVI AND THE OTHER TEAM DROPS IT, I WILL NOT VOTE ON IT!!!!

Counterplans

Give me an example of a good counterplan. See how you couldn't. That's because counterplans are mid. There is nothing I dislike more than having to evaluate a counterplan debate.

If you read one, they have to solve the ENTIRE aff and have a good net benefit.

Forfeiting the round >>>>>>>>> process counterplans

You can try to convince me that process counterplans aren't cheating, but it won't work.

PIC are abusive, but it is up to the debaters to convince me. I won't just reject a PIC, I have to be told to do so.

However, if you have a funny counterplan........ I could be convinced.

Kritiks

Love, love, love kritiks. They are my favorite arguments in debate.

Explain your kritik as if I've never heard of *insert philosopher of your choosing.*

Please explain how the aff links! Generic links are pretty meh and I much prefer specific links to the aff. Rehighlighted 1AC cards for a language/discourse k links is chef's kiss.

Do you have some kritik in a meme arguments folder that you don't think could ever win a round? Run it in front of me. I can't promise you will win, but you will be high speaks for making me laugh.

I will vote on death good, HOWEVER, if you do the gross death good (you know which one I am talking about) I won't. But a debate about how we view death and how that affects policy-making/debate is very interesting.

I think identity arguments are valid and aren't cheating. Truism arguments are stupid. Always go for inround impacts.

Personal Favs: Security, Baudrillard, Techno-Orientalism, Bataille, Any nontraditional cap tbh

K-Affs

DO IT! DO IT! DO IT!

There is this tradition in debate that novices shouldn't read K-affs. I don't know why. You should read it. I will give you good feedback and enjoy it more than a policy round, even if you sucked.

K v K

DO IT! DO IT! DO IT!

The best debates and no one can change my mind.

Framework

Rules in debate are fake. I don't default to anything as a judge. If you don't read role of the judge and/or role of the ballot, I will flip a coin to decide who wins (I'm kidding....... or am I?).

My favorite framework is epistemology because I think it is true. I don't know why people default to policy-maker as the judge. Until I have access to the nuclear codes, I am just a person deciding who did the better debating.

Really impact out your framework. I need to know why your form of debate is the best.

Hard debate is good debate is literally the best framework argument and no one can change my mind.

I think I tend to lean aff on most framework args. It is very unpersuasive in front of me to say that all k-affs should be excluded from debate. I need clear articulation on why k-affs don't allow for clash, iterative testing, etc.

Theory

I'm one of the only judges who thinks they are kinda fun, especially if they are really dumb.

Don't spread theory blocks. If I don't write down one of your points, too bad so sad.

I don't have set in stone opinions on theory. If you have reasons for why debate should be done a certain way, persuade me.

Condo is the worst theory violation. It isn't your fault, but I've seen a million condo debate, so I don't care anymore.

I will vote on disclosure theory, but don't read it if they have a really nice, updated wiki.

Hi, my name is Katelyn, and I am former policy debater for Skinner West and Whitney Young. I now currently judge/mentor both teams, and have been in debate for around 6-7 years. I judge both PF and policy.

My email: kjluu@cps.edu

Here are some general rules/things I like to see:

- Time yourself please, this should be a debater's responsibility

- Spreading is always nice but give roadmaps + signpost (clarity>speed)

- Always include impact calculus in the rebuttal speeches

- I prefer overviews in speeches rather than giving me an underview with remaining time (overviews are always good to hear)

- Organized line by line in the rebuttal speeches is always good

- tag teaming is ok but don't take over CX

- please overexplain rather than underexplain to get through more arguments

- I tend to prefer substance of the debate over generalized arguments or evidence, so make sure you are not just extending cards and evidence but also providing analytics and building clash

- I tend to not take questions/arguments made in the CX into account in my ballot, you must bring whatever it was that occurred up in a speech for me to weigh it and flow it

- tech over truth

AFF:

- always always always extend your impacts- I tend to weigh presumption so please give me impact extensions through your rebuttals

- evidence/source debate is good clash in my opinion, updated evidence is always good

- I don't vote too heavy on perm- I want to see why you expand on refuting net benefits, solvency advocates, etc

- I vote on T, so please take your time to refute it - I really REALLY like well thought out and run T arguments

- I typically go for extinction rather than moral/human rights arguments

NEG:

- I vote on NEG presumption, so please expand squo solves arguments and turns- there are a lot of good case turns that can be abused that typically are not extended in debate rounds- I would love to see clash on case

- I weigh all offcase arguments, but I tend to see DAs as net benefits or loopholes rather than physical arguments on their own (please do run DAs though)

- I don't weigh K too heavily, but I do appreciate framing and theory arguments

- I really like T arguments and clash - please go all in or drop T in the rebuttals- I really hate to see poorly run Topicality

- Be clear when kicking out of offcase arguments and please don't commit a forfeit offense :)

- I am familiar with a few K args, majority of the CPs, DAs and more, but I love to hear new arguments every now and then

That's all I've got, I love to see respectful and educational debates filled with clash. Thanks for reading my paradigm, and good luck debating!

please add to the email chain:

gbsdebatelovesdocs@gmail.com

djmcdermott2@gmail.com

HS Debate: 18-22 (4 years) -- Walter Payton WM

College Debate: 23 (1 year) -- Michigan MS

Top

Judging record is more informative than judging opinions.

How I Decide Rounds

I go through parts of the debate in this order, and stop at one if it is sufficient for me to not need to go further.

1. The flow.

This aspect is all tech, no truth. As far as I can tell, I am easily among the most tech-oriented debaters/judges in debate right now. I imagine I'd pull the trigger on a small technical concession much more readily than many other judges. Similarly, I think there are probably far more low point wins than are actually given out. The flow is where my analysis will end for almost all crushes and many debates that are semi-close but not that that close. I have switched to flowing on computer because back-to-back analytics were unflowable for me on paper. I still have no qualms voting you down on an argument I didn't flow in a speech because you were spreading through blocks even if it truly had been there, but hopefully flowing on computer will make this less of an issue.

2. Evidence

Mixture of tech and truth (truer args have better ev, but better card cutters/researchers will put out better ev). I get to this level of analysis in two circumstances: either a) I'm told to read cards or evidence quality is centered in the debate or b) despite not being told to read ev, the flow is too close to vote on alone. This is where most good, close debates will end.

3. Minor Intervention

Tech guided by truth. If I still can't comfortably decide a round based on ev and flow, I'll do things like give more weight to evidence quality despite not being told to by the debaters, look for potential cross-apps, or try to find something like that to decide a round without having to fully insert my opinion. This is where most bad debates without enough judge instruction will end.

4. Major Intervention

All truth. This is where bad debates with no clash and no judge instruction will end.

Biases

I hope to use the above steps consistently irregardless of what args are in front of me, and I think judges who are ideologically predisposed for or against a certain argument or style are annoying. I hope these biases won't affect my decisions, but the way someone has debated/coached will inevitably affect their judging in some way, so following is a list of biases based on how I've debated:

1. Policy bias. I'm almost certainly better for the K than you think (especially Ks on the NEG), and certainly better for it than my debating record would suggest; cross-apply all the tech first stuff here -- more than happy to vote on some small conceded disad to a NEG framework model if competently extended. This bias is mainly limited to thinking about these debates differently from how primarily K debaters would since I've almost always been on the policy side of policy v K debates.

2. 2N bias. This is small and to be honest could help the AFF more than it helps the NEG because I'm somewhat lenient for 1ARs in terms of if I count an extension to be an argument. I think structural AFF side bias (first and last speech) is probably true in theory but tech determines if I think that's true when judging. Overall I don't expect this to affect my judging very much. Probably one of the most 50/50 judges on condo. Default to judge kick.

3. "Small School" bias. For the most part I think people complaining about being from a "small school" would be better off spending the time they spend talking about it cutting cards, and if you do that you'll be just as competitive as your peer from a big school. However, the one area where I think there is truly a difference in schools is that I think a sizeable majority of judges are likely to (obviously subconsciously) factor school's/team's rep into their decision in close debates. I hate this and have a bit of a chip on my shoulder because of it. If debate rounds could be judged blindly I'd be all for it. I obviously won't hack for "small schools" or against "big schools," but when I was doing prefs late in my career I frequently wondered if a judge who would be good for me in most debates might be bad for me in those few key debates where I was hitting a team with more rep. I am not one of those judges.

4. Good argument bias. This is maybe too obvious to warrant saying. I'll vote on tricks and dropped ASPEC or whatever (all the flow first stuff applies for annoying args as well) but obviously in a close debate find it easier to vote for an argument with good ev, deep defenses, well-explained warrants, etc., and will likely award higher speaks in those kinds of debates.

Stuff I Frequently Wondered About Judges

-- What framework impact? --

I almost always went for fairness and consider it the most strategic, however I know I was considerably worse going for non-fairness impacts when I tried to adapt to judges, so I would just do whatever you like best.

.

-- Can I go for the K/K AFF? --

Yes.

.

-- How many condo? --

Don't care. If you lose condo you'll lose and if you win condo you'll win, the amount you read probably won't end up mattering past a good 2A contextualizing their interp to the round.

.

-- Do advantage counterplans need solvency advocates? --

Don't care.

.

-- 1NC construction/do they care about a ton of off? --

Don't care. Do whatever.

.

-- Insert rehighlightings? --

Fine.

.

-- Plan text in a vacuum? --

Fine.

.

-- Is going for theory hopeless? --

No.

.

-- If they drop condo or aspec or it's a crush etc do I have to fill the whole 2NR/2AR? --

No.

.

Speaks

Mean speaks is 28.5, standard deviation is .4, so two-thirds of debaters will be from 28.1-28.9, 95% will be from 27.7 to 29.3, and essentially all will be from 27.3 to 29.7.

i used to be skeptical of judges that said they have no experience on the topic but now i am one and now i understand. it will be soooooooooo chill, just please explain acronyms and topic controversies. especially in t debates.

moment of vulnerability: because i haven't judged much this season, my spreading ear may be rusty. the 1ac and 1nc should be fine because i can always reread them, but if you spread 10-pointed theory blocks at me at warpspeed without putting them in the doc, you're accepting the risk that i'll miss something. to shake off the rust, i'll listen to some practice speeches before the tournament. you can aid this effort by speaking clearly, giving organized speeches, and signposting.

okay now here is my old paradigm

above all else: you do you and i'll adapt! if you win the thing you are running, i will vote for it.

wwd! warrants win debates! i really appreciate debaters who explain their arguments and how they implicate the rest of the debate rather than just assert that the tag line is true. similarly, i dislike debates that come down to arguments that were blips in the constructives but were blown up in the rebuttals. those debates are just spreading competitions and aren't productive for anyone involved.

cps: condo seems fine but i can be convinced either way. don't really see the difference between like 5 and 6 condo though. i'll judge kick if the neg tells me to but can be convinced either way there too. higher bar for winning something like 50 state fiat is a voter than something like condo.

ks: i'm more familiar with things like cap, security, set col, and identity-based arguments than i am with baudrillard and friends. no matter what you're reading, it's probably best to assume i don't understand your arguments and to over-explain them to me like i'm 5 years old. i've gone for both k affs and fw so i'm open-minded there. lots of line-by-line >>>>>>>>> 4 minute overview. novices: just don't read a k you don't understand lol.

t: some judges seem to be super dogmatic about when and where they'll vote for t. i've watched neg teams lose debates they clearly should've won because "i'll never vote for t against a packet aff" or "i didn't buy the small schools da because i think your school is big." this makes me sad. i don't know why these judges won't at least listen to the argument that potential abuse is a voter. i, for one, am totally down for a good t debate.

big big fan of big-picture framing moments, judge instruction, even-if arguments, strategic concessions + cross applications, and writing my ballot in the 2xr.

haaaavvvvvvvvveeeeeeeeee fun!

Amber Paramore (she/her)

Background: policy debate going on 6 years

Add me to the email chain: aparamore@cps.edu and wydebatetm@gmail.com

tl;dr I like Ks, T, CPs, DAs (in that order), go for whatever (nothing discriminatory), frame your arguments.

Any blatant racism, sexism, etc. and I will vote you down and give the lowest speaks possible.

Kritiks

<333

I have always been a K debater (ignore freshman year). If you want to run one, go for it. Make sure you actually understand the K you're running; using philosophical jargon that you don't understand won't make it more likely for me to vote for it, but make it funny if you do. Explain the K so I can clearly see why the world of the K is better, why it's a prereq to the aff, etc. etc. If you're losing that the alt can't solve, then just sufficiently prove why any link to the aff would make the squo worse. Keep up with your framework and respond to the other team's standards.

K-affs, questioning the resolution, questioning debate itself--whatever it is, those are all super fun and incredibly necessary--go for it. K v K debates are also fun, just stay organized.

(this only applies LATER in the season--it's now later) +0.2 speaks to aff if they run a K-aff, and +0.2 speaks to neg if they go for a K.

Topicality

I generally like T, and have gone for it quite a few (too many) times, but the neg has to be able to prove aff is not topical. Spend time on T, extend your interp, violation, standards, and voters. Affs need to sufficiently prove we meet arguments--everything else is moot if affs meet the interp. Voters are pretty important for neg if you want me to, y'know, vote on it.

CPs

CPs are good, but it has to be able to compete with the aff. Explain why the CP is mutually exclusive; aff needs to sufficiently argue that it isn't for me to vote on it. CPs need a net benefit, external or internal idc but it needs to have one. I won't judge kick unless you ask me to.

Disadvantages

For neg, have clear links and explain them clearly. If you can’t explain how the aff links to the DA then idk how to weigh it or why to vote on it. Impact calc is important; tell me why your impact should be weighed over other impacts. Not the biggest fan of teams going for DAs, but that doesn't mean I won't vote on it.

Framing/FW

Always, always, always frame your arguments. Tell me what I should weigh the most and why. I’ll only weigh what the teams tell me to.

Speaks/Cross

- Signpost; say “and” or “next” between cards.

- I like speed, but not if clarity is sacrificed.

- I prefer cameras on when you’re speaking for online debate.

- Tag team is fine, just be respectful.

- You can be aggressive during cross, but there's a line between being aggressive and rude.

Miscellaneous

- I prefer interesting K debates over policy.

- Be respectful.

- Tech >>> Truth (in policy debates)

- If you make a comment about the other team yapping during a speech or cross will get you +0.1 speaks and I'll know you read my paradigm :D

Kevin Ramirez

Solorio Alumni 22'

UIUC 26'

They/Them

Email {kramirez6904(at)gmail(dot)com.}

General Stuff:

- Tech>Truth

- Write the ballot for me

- Will dock points if you speak over others/ your partner in cx repeatedly

- Explain why it matters that they dropped stuff, don't just say " They dropped it, we win. Moving on"

- Slow down on/ be clear on Analytics, Tags, and Authors.

- Not familiar with the topic this year, doesn't mean I am completely lay however its gonna take me a bit to understand the arguments

Arguments:

DA: Most DA's blend in together, just explain your link and impacts well and you'll be fine

K: I have a lot of experience running a variety of critiques like Nitzche, Anthro, Security, Cap, etc. Although I do get lost at times during high theory k rounds. Just contextualize your link to the aff and explain your alt.

K Aff's: Quoting my glorious leader

" Good luck to you " - Conor Cameron

T: Im not the biggest fan of T debates, however its not like I wont vote for it. If you explain your impacts and topicality violations well and win then I will vote for you. I am not persuaded by reasonability though which is something to keep in mind.

CP: I give a lot of leeway to the aff when it comes to cp theory since I think a lot of cp's being used now-a-days is just cheaty, I also dont do judge kick unless you tell me to. Otherwise im fine with CP's.

Theory: I used to be very into theory, but not that much anymore. Just like topicality just explain your violation and impacts and you'll be good. However a lot of theory is just not viable, so unless its blatantly conceded or under-covered I wont base my ballot of it. Just stick to the basics like Condo and you'll be fine.

Solorio 23'

I prefer policy have leaned into the big stick impacts and low probability impact calculus more than I would like to admit. (much to the dismay of judges whos rounds devolve to solvency in order to determine probability in counterplan debates) 

This should indicate to you that often I am tech over truth. No matter how little explanation an advantage or DA scenario gets, if its dropped by the other team, 15 seconds of yelling its been dropped thus it is true typically is sufficient to allow me to weigh marginal risk of an impact which for close debate may be all you needed to win.

DA's 

I feel generally positive about voting for non-sensible Bizcon or Politics DA's but its in the execution. Please have updated evidence and a proper link no matter how strong the link is any specificity to the aff is much better than generic links (topic links are a strange grey area but need some "2NC Spin" or new evidence to better justify the link.)

grios11@cps.edu

Calling me a judge makes me feel old but I’m fine with it if that's what you prefer, you can also call me Chris.

He/Him

Add me to the chain: rchristopher1570@gmail.com

Solorio ‘23 —> UIUC ‘27

Background:

I debated at Solorio for 4 years, competing in both nat circuit and UDL. I mostly stuck to policy but did run some of the wacky counterplans (thanks Gio! :) ). I have a good exposure to traditional policy and some on Ks. I went to debate camp at Dartmouth and got taught to debate by Conor B(if you know what the B is please tell me) Cameron and Victoria Yonter. Currently not debating.

Top Level:

• I’m not too familiar with the current high school topic so assume I don’t know any of the specifics for your aff/arguments.

• I’m better for Policy than the K, but like any other argument I’m willing to vote on it if it’s explained thoroughly

• Tech > Truth — If something is dropped don’t just say, “they dropped___” and move on. Explain the argument and make it clear how you want me to evaluate the argument.

• I’ll read evidence but it won’t weigh my decision unless you specifically tell me to look at a certain piece or if there’s a lot of evidence comparison.

• I won’t do the work for you, if you don’t contextualize an argument to the debate then I’m less likely to vote on it.

• I assign higher speaks based on how confident you are and the depth of your arguments. I doc speaks if you are rude to your opponents or partner. Being assertive is good but there’s a difference between assertiveness and rudeness.

• My ballot is submitted before I give feedback. I'm happy to walk through my ballot in a constructive manner, but aggressive post rounding is cringe.

• Should go without saying but I won't tolerate Racism, Sexism, Homophobia, Ableism, etc.

Specifics

DAs:

I think Disads are great and should be in every 1NC. Disads should tell a story of the negative consequences of passing the plan. Every part of the disad is important but I think more time should be spent on the Link and Impact.

• For the neg: If the DA is being run by itself tell me how it turns case and do impact comparison. If it's being run as a net benefit, the previous sentence applies + tell me how the CP avoids the DA. I’d be more convinced by your DA if the link is more specific to the Aff

• For the aff: I’m a fan of both offense and defense arguments when answering a DA. If you want to take the offense route you’ll need to read more cards and have a better explanation in order to execute the straight turn effectively. On the defense route make sure to focus on why case outweighs.

CTs:

I love case turns. I don’t have much to say other than more often than not, these debates get messy. Just make sure to keep everything consistent. LBL will be your best friend in these debates.

CPs:

I’m probably more open to wacky CPs than other judges, keep in mind wacky =/= abusive. Multi-plank counterplans are iffy for me, it all depends how you run them: If you go for all the planks you present then that's alright with me. If you kick out 4 of the 9 planks you presented, it’s more likely I’ll vote aff on theory. Other counterplans such as agent/process cps are fine with me.

• On the neg: Remember, the counterplan is a reason to reject the aff. ALWAYS have a net benefit; either external or internal. Make sure to explain how the CP avoids the net benefit, and how the CP access the plan and solves. Answer the perms.

• On the aff: I’m not too efficient in perm theory so if your strategy revolves around outlandish perms then I’m probably not your judge for it, but like any other argument if explained well, I’m willing to vote on them. Other than that POSTAL should be your rubric on answering CPs

Ks:

I find Ks very interesting but they’re not my strong point, far from it. You’ll have to do more work in order to get me to vote for them i.e. explaining all of it: role of the ballot, alt and impact. If you can’t tell me what any of those are, I can’t justify giving you my ballot.

I’m familiar with literature for Cap, Security, Imperialism, Set Col, etc. For high theory Ks, all of the above applies + higher expectations. Throwing buzz words will not only make your opponents confused, it’ll confuse me too.

K Affs:

Not much to say other than I’m probably not your judge for this, but if you’re willing to put in the effort and do the work, then I’m willing to do my best to judge.

I do expect you to interact and clash more with the neg.

T:

Also not much to say other that I’m less likely to vote on it if it’s super generic as in not specifying how the aff violates, also if it's against a core aff. Having a case list helps.

Theory:

I’m pretty neutral when it comes to condo and evaluate based on the round I’m judging. I’m less likely to vote on other theory arguments, unless explained well. Don’t spread through your blocks and if you do send them in the doc.

Add me to the email chain- mschumacher@cps.edu and wydebatetm@gmail.com

Pronouns- she/her

MISC

I only judge on what was on the flow. I'll vote on any well developed arg. Time yourself and your prep. I'm not gonna flow new args in the 2nr or 2ar and I won't do any work for you on the flow.

Ks (don't worry abt this novices)

I love K debates. (K v K debates are better than k aff v fw but do whatever you're better prepped for). Philosophy based Ks should have really good lit and you should know what you're talking about don't just read blocks someone gave you. Neg- if you lose on the K link, you lose the K (I need specific links for each case)

SPEAKS

I will take points off if you are rude during cx or attack a team (via argument) during your speech.

Email Chain: artsy2133@gmail.com

She/her

Northside College Prep '22

University of Chicago '26

Experience: 4 years of Policy Debate in high school, now American Parliamentary Debate in UChicago. Yes, Parli. Go ahead, laugh. In high school I had a history of running policy, not a master at critical philosophical arguments but can keep up.

TIPS

I like depth over breadth. If you're going to run 11 off, fine. But having a few, well-explained off-case arguments in the 1NC is better for you and your opponents if you actually want to learn something. This also applies to your second rebuttals for both sides; focus on 2 or 3 key arguments you think you are ahead on, explain your warrants, and compare your warrants to the warrants of your opponents.

Make sure to do line by line! Answer your opponents' arguments by inditing their authors or warrants, and explain how your warrants are better. Contextualize it to the round as a whole and TELL ME how it helps you win in your rebuttals.

If you are going to extend an argument from a constructive, make sure it's been explicitly extended in all of the following constructive and rebuttals for it to have weight in the round final decision. If you hear your opponent extending an argument in their second rebuttal that they didn't in the first rebuttal, make sure to call it out and explain why it's not fair. If you do, it's a good sign you are flowing carefully and I will probably increase your speaker points.

AFF

All affs are cool to read, including K Affs. If you are breaking a new aff, please be explicit in your overview to explain the mechanisms, implications, and solvency. Be careful about topicality. This topic implicates a huge scope of affs, so any limiting standards on Topicality will be convincing.

DA

Running disadvantages is good. I have a higher threshold for extinction-level impacts so make sure you explain how your impact has a better probability, timeframe, and magnitude over your opponent's. If you are going against a soft-left affirmative, framing should be a large part of your argumentation in order to tell me how I should evaluate the debate.

CP

The solvency advocate for counter plans needs to be strong for it to win. Make sure you have both internal and external net benefits to the CP so that you explain how the counterplan avoids the disadvantage and how there is an advantage to it that the Affirmative can't access. Permutations are important and will probably be the round decider if it goes insufficiently answered. Have a clear explanation of why your counterplan cannot happen at the same time as the affirmative.

KRITIK

Kritiks are all valid and appreciated. The links should be strong and a viable alternative should be proposed in order for it to be properly evaluated against the Affirmative. I understand the necessity of criticism but an answer to the "so what" question needs to be provided. Makes sure to do K framing to tell me how I should evaluate the Kritik in the round.

THEORY

I do think theory is a voter as long as it's legitimate, so make sure you have a good defense if you are challenged. I consider three or more conditional advocacies to be convincing for condo, but if you have a good explanation of why one or two is cheating, go for it. If you find yourself going for theory, you should dedicate your entire second rebuttal to it. At that point, nothing else will matter. Make sure to isolate points of real in-round abuse or a good argument for why potential abuse is harmful.

Random note: if you are looking for a good pen to use for debate flowing, I recommend Pilot G-2. I like using 0.7mm but 0.38mm is also out there if you prefer Ultra Fine.

Hey y'all my name is Eva Vasilopoulos and I'm a second year political science, public relations, and economics majors at Iowa State University. I just recently got back into the debate realm this year so I am not fully in the loop on the topic. I did policy debate in high school for Niles North.

Top-level

evavasdebate@gmail.com

Also please make jokes, debate gets boring really fast

I don't know this topic that well so keep that in mind

Just call me Eva, not judge

line by line is important

I don't care what speed you read but just be clear

(For CX)

Case

Impact calc key for affs to do if y'all want an aff ballot. All of my debate career I have only read soft left affs, but I do understand the literature from all aff types. If you have an aff and it has a structural violence impact with some framing, and another impact of war, disease, Econ collapse, etc. Go for one, not both if the 2ar extends their genocide and war impacts, a big no-no. (this happens a lot too)

K-Affs

I like these affs, breath of fresh air from the basic policy affs from the topic resolution. I would prefer teams to read a plan text and defend some action. (doesn't have to be USFG as an actor) I have judged and voted on identity affs a good amount during the arms sales topic and cjr topic.

DA's

have a clear internal link and link story, how does point A lead to point B. Don't use generic evidence for the link, there has to be a clear point that the AFF. I lean slightly aff on this so the neg needs to do some work to prove the DA. If you run a da PLEASE RUN A CP, with it cause yeah there is a risk but I don't have another way to solve that's on my flow. If you are running a relations da, Econ da, or other one make sure you have recent evidence so the impact is concrete.

T

t has been very over-limiting on a lot of topics I have debate on, majority of T arguments only make certain big affs topical. breath>depth. I'm pretty neutral on judging this, it comes down to the extensions in the 2nr and the response in the 2ar on how I should write my ballot. ASPEC I'm not a big fan of, if you go for it the 2nr should be just aspec and explain the voter in the round and why fairness and ed are key. CJR specific I have voted on t on this topic and I have voted against it.

CP

Love a good perm/theory debate. Both sides need to do work to prove whether if the cp is competitive/noncompetitive and that it does/doesn't solve the aff w/o linking to the net benefit. impact calc of the nb is key for my ballot.

K

A good amount of 1st-year rounds I judged were more critical. I'm in the loop on K literature, so you really don't have to explain terms just the world of the alt looks like and why I should pick the neg's fw over the affirmative. these rounds are either really good or really bad. Known to be very messy Only run it if you really understand it.No no generic link cards, have to be specific to the aff. By the 2nr the neg should have a clear story of what the world of the alt is, and why the k matters in this round.

Name : Lauren Velazquez

Affiliated School: Niles North

Email: Laurenida@gmail.com

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

Director of Debate at Niles North

Laurenida@gmail.com

ME

Experience:

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

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

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

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

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

TOPICALITY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Random

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

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

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

I prefer Jairo (pronounced hi-roe) over judge, but im fine with either

He/They

jairovillalobos94@gmail.com

2A/1N for Solorio 19-23

Not debating at Northwestern 23-27

Assistant Coach at Von Steuben 24-Present

Background+Top level stuff

I debated both in nat circ and udl (Chicago Debate League) tournaments during high school. Went to camp during my freshie and soph (virtual) years, so if any questions then I am more than willing to answer.

For the current high school topic, assume I know very little---the only experience I have with it is from the other times i've judged/helped coach teams at tourneys

Tech>Truth---Doesnt mean you dont have to contextualize/explain what them dropping something means for the round, you still have to explain and make clear what the argument is for me to evaluate it in your favor

Better for policy---didn't do K debate, but don't let that stop you from running what you want///i'll vote for anything if you are winning it

No specific way to assign speaks, just be nice, speak pretty, explain things well, and youll do alright

I feel like I can be a pretty visual person with my face, so if I approve or disapprove of something then you will be able to tell(nodding head for good, scrunching my face for not so good, you get the gist)

Anything that promotes violence, discrimination, or hate is an immediate L, lowest speaks possible, and a report to tab

Specifics

In case you are wondering about in depth thoughts on arguments:

DAs

I really like disads and I think they are a staple of what neg args should be in debate. For every disad, paint me a story of how the disad actually happens if the plan were to pass, from the UQ up to the moment of the impact(big red button is pressed, oceans rise and we get 2012 IRL, the environment collapses, etc.)

• For the neg---should always be in a 1nc. For later speeches, if running DA by itself, tell me why it turns the case and do impact calc. If running as a net benefit, tell me exactly how the cp avoids the DA. Avoid generic links as much as possible; if generic link is called out then I am much much less to weigh the DA as highly as the aff
• For the aff---the best strat to go for is straight turn imo. If done well , then you have forced the neg into an awkard position and you are fully in control of that flow. Honestly if the neg fumbles the straight turn answers too then I am all for a pure straight turn 2ar. If not possible, then the main canon of arguments work, just prove why case outweighs

CTs

I LOVE case turns. These debates can get messy tho, so for both sides make sure to 1. keep the story clean and concise 2. try to organize LBL as much as possible

• Neg---If you wanna go for a CT, then you have to make sure to tell me all throughout the debate how the aff links and how the impact outweighs. Personally, I dont mind it if you sandbag in the block, so go crazy with impacts if you have them, just make sure to answer all the aff args they present cus even once concession can take out the whole ct for me
• Aff---For most of the CTs run, theres a high likelihood you link. It might just be me, but if its clear the aff links, then I just want to see you bite the bullet and tell me why that linking is good(i.e, if you increase growth then do growth good, if heg then heg good, so on, and give me specifics as to why its good). Obviously, this doesn't mean you can just disregard their impacts, so make sure to also answer or group the impacts they had. If they sandbag in the block, then crossapplying is your friend

CPs

CPs are really interesting because theyre either really good or really mid. In general, Agent/Process cps are legit, I find consult cps boring, and if your cp has more than like 5 planks then don't even run it(even you know its abusive). Also, sufficiency framing is iffy---if your cp doesnt solve the impact of the aff, then why even run it

• Neg---THE CP HAS TO BE A REASON TO REJECT THE AFF, PLEASEEEEEEE. That means even if the cp is plan plus, I still wont vote for it. You need to prove to me in the 2nr 2 things: First, you are able to access the plan and solve for the impacts through your cp, and second, doing the plan alone is bad/doing the cp would solve for discrepancies with the plan alone. That being said, you ALWAYS need a net benefit, whether it be internal or external, and explain how the CP avoids that
• Aff---Personally, I like seeing shifty perms being run and exploited like crazy if conceded. By shifty, I dont mean different wordings of the cp text so dont do that, but shifty as in like "do plan and have agency do x instead". In general, POSTAL works great with cps so just stick to that and youll be good

T

T has sucked these past few topics cus everything is so untopical but borderline topical. That being said, don't just run T as a strat skew cus that just wastes flow and could be used for more substantive off. However, still good to always have T on both sides in case of anything

• Neg---I feel like T is really underappreciated against smaller affs. If you are able to call out a team effectively on how theyre untopical, then keep it going all throughout the round and call out if their counterinterps are generic, if they severely underlimit, and so on. T can get very messy though, so unless you have a really good feeling about T, dont run it because I know we dont wanna argue over definitions for 2 hours
• Aff---If you know you're borderline topical, you better have a damn good counterinterp. Apart from that, main canon of arguments work in front of me

Ks

Ks are really interesting but far from my specialty(I had to debate under a hard right policy coach for 4 years, dont blame me). With that tho, I am really only interested/know more of the main canon of neg ks, so stuff like cap, security, afropess, queer. fem, etc. If your k is high theory, then dont pref me(I dont wanna hear about baudrillard for 2 hours)

• Neg---In front of me, you link you lose is valid ONLY IF you win framework(run it as like a da in a way). I really dont buy many alts of the ks as realistic, so if you know your alt isnt that amazing and the aff is calling you out on it, just drop it and resort to talking about how they make matters worse and why I need to evaluate the K more than I do the aff. However, if you run some generic links against the aff, then I am much much less likely to weigh it that highly if they call out the generality
• Aff---Ima be straight and to the point in what I like to see v ks- first strat, call out why the alt fails and why its probably unrealistic/doesnt solve. Second, if they kick the alt, go for case outweighs and specifically why case outweighs, so if you need util then run it in the 2ac, or impact d then also run it in the 2ac, and hell you can even do case turns k to take out the impacts. For all of that to work though, you NEED to win and stay on top of framework, so keep framework on top of the k flow in every speech. Perms are pretty weak v ks, so still read them but dont depend on them for the 2ar

K affs

In all honesty, I am not in tune with k affs like that, so I am not the best judge to run these in front of. However, if it is your main strategy, then you should run what you are most comfortable with

• Neg---Unless you would also run Cap against them, you should just run FW. I buy FW the most against k affs, just stay on top of their answers to your arguments and you should be alright
• Aff---For a k aff to stick in front of me, I need a clear explanation why running the k aff solves for your impacts and why this round is specifically necessary. I need a role of the ballot from the get go(2ac fs, 1ac preempt maybe even) and for this to be explained in depth in the later parts of the round. In a similar fashion, I need an explanation of why running on the neg cant solve, and you need to explain to me how the alt looks like in action

Theory

Most theory is really a wash for me. The only one I will vote for is condo, but that also depends on the round and how many conditional off are run

Misc. Stuff

I like jokes---if you make me laugh then i'll give you +.1-.2 speaks---specifically, joke about Conor Cameron or Victoria Yonter(and if it flies), i'll give +.3

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

I debated for Northside for four years and graduated in 2022. I am not debating in college.

I lean policy, but I will vote on anything if you are winning it.

Clash is especially important, go a level further than the tag, tell me why you are right and they are wrong.

Please do not forget about Case. 

T and Theory - If you lose any T or theory arguments that are ran against you, I will usually vote against you. Though the standards of the argument need to be impacted out to be considered. For example "They lost T." is not enough for me to vote on, you need to go a level.

DAs and CPs - Very comfortable with them, go for it.

Policy Aff v. K - As I lean policy, if you are running a K, turns case arguments work best with me. On framework for both sides, make sure it is consistent. Please try not to change your interpretation or standards throughout the round. Unless it is an integral part of the K to ignore Case, don't concede or forget about case in the 2NR. I am decently comfortable with the standard Ks, but anything super specific or academic, you will need to make it make sense to me. I will not vote on something I do not understand by the end of the round. If you are going for it, you should be able to explain it adequately.

K Aff - I will not vote on something I do not understand by the end of the round. If you are going for it, you should be able to explain it adequately. Especially since academic K's are about learning. However, if you're framing is based on being confused, you're going to need to do some explanation there, but if you win it, I will vote accordingly. Arguments against K Affs that I like are other Ks and Cede the Political, though anything can work.