Pronouns: HE/HIM

if you want to address me call me judge or Robert I'm cool with either

I have been doing policy debate and extemp as well as congress for 3 years I am a very chill judge and there is not much you can do to make me mad or upset you can see how I feel about certain arguments under this

speed: go as fast as you want if I have the doc so send it to me BUT DO NOT SPREAD ON ANALYTICS OR EXTENSIONS

I will not extend anything for you so if you don't extend your case and the neg says this I will vote neg if it doesn't get extended and that gets called out so flow well so you can catch drops

email : rarroyo451@gmail.com

policy debate

da's: I want disads to have good links. I'm cool if it is generic but I will be more lenient to the aff on delinking from the argument. explain the link story really well and internal link as well. I want a lot of impact calc from the aff and neg and impact calc is something I use heavily when deciding which impact to go for. I don't have a preferred impact. I can be persuaded on any impact

cp's: I want them to have a very clear net benefit. I am open to the aff reading cp abusive if they want but will have a very high threshold on abuse

Topicality: If you run this as a time suck I honestly don't care but if you do I will hold you to a higher threshold on abuse I want abuse to be proved in round and I do not have a bias on reasonability vs. competing interps, it just depends on the debate. Obviously, the most important thing in these debates is the interpretations. Topicality always needs to have impacts.

Kritiks: Kritiks are fine, but I am far less familiar with the literature than you remember that. Obviously in these debates the more specific the link the better, but no matter the specificity of the link please contextualize it to the aff. The better the link the easier this is, but if you read a generic link it is going to take more contextualization, but that is your time, not mine. Your links should be to the plan and not the status sqou and aff teams should be quick to call out neg teams whose links are to the sqou. I believe that long overviews that explain the Kritik are probably okay, and for me probably important. Kicking the alternative is fine but you need to give me a good explanation on how my voting aff does anything without an alt.

Evidence: I will probably be reading evidence during the round, but I believe it is up to the debater to be doing comparative evidence analysis during the round. That being said my reading of the evidence will have not have any weight on my decision unless both teams make it a point of contention. It is not my job as a judge to vote against a team for reading bad evidence it is your job to tell me their evidence is bad and why that's important.

Speaks: I know what it is like to go 3-1 and then not break because the judge gave you 25 speaks so I won't the lowest I will go is 27 normally but I will go to the lowest I can if you say anything RACIST HOMOPHOBIC TRANSPHOIBIC XENOPHOBIC SEXIST (don't be an incel) OR IF YOU ARE JUST GROSSLY RUDE TO YOUR OPPONENT(treat them like humans)

LD:

add hbisevac0@gmail.com

niles north 23, kentucky 27

general

the core predisposition I have is that technical execution and preventing judge intervention should be at the forefront of whatever approach you take. this means that technical concessions (including cheap shots) matter and there should be lots of judge instruction.

big fan of cool strategies. I enjoy research a lot and will always appreciate and reward a well-researched and thoughtful strategy, whatever that be. (but, I am also not qualified to mediate interpersonal problems between debaters!)

evidence matters a lot. you should read all the cards. debaters have to set the metric for how evidence should be evaluated and do comparison.

organization is extremely important. you should number arguments, sign post, and slow down at times.

thoughts

topicality: predictability matters a lot more to me than other things. have good cards. this means cards that define the word, not just use it. reasonability will forever seem super arbitrary to me but can sometimes be fine against suspect interpretations. limits for the sake of limits is not persuasive and internal link debating is very important.

counterplans: solvency deficits need explainable impacts. competition debates are good. NEG flex and precision are usually very persuasive. most AFF theory violations seem pretty silly to me and standalone theory ever being the A-strategy doesn’t make a ton of sense to me.

kritiks: teams should get to weigh the AFF but excluding Ks doesn’t make sense. vagueness on the link explanation will favor the AFF. backfile Ks with no relation to the topic are icky and the links will always sound unpersuasive. there are a lot of things that teams feel compelled defend but are entirely irrelevant in the larger context of the debate. things like realism, util, etc. often end up just buzz-words used that are not contextualized to any of the larger parts of the 1AC/thesis of the K. the less you disprove the 1AC, the less compelling you are.

planless AFFs: the more you struggle to explain the advocacy (in a non-vague way), the more favorable I am toward the NEG. I'm more persuaded by arguments about skills and methods that result from the 1AC being good as opposed to debate/institutions being bad.

asserting an argument is new or dropped does not constitute an argument, you should jump up and down about it with thoughtful explanation.

LD

everything above applies. I do not like tricks, I do not like phil, and I do not like RVIs. (and whatever else elizabeth elliott thinks)

other

please format email chains properly with the tournament, round, and teams.

if you are interested in debating in college and want to know more about kentucky, feel free to reach out!!

LD:

1. Speak at a normal rate of speed; no spreading/speed talking

2. Attack & rebuttal "down-the-line" - val, crit, conts, sub point tag lines

3. Be aggressive in CX, but not belligerent

4. rebutt. Specifically why your val Trump's your opp's val.

CX:

1. Speak at a NORMAL RATE OF SPEED. If I can't understand you, I can't give you credit for args, refs, or rebutt.

2. Keep the esoteric jargon/terms/abbreviations to a minimum. ("K's" "disads", etc)

2. Hit the H.I.T.S. (Harms, inherency, topicality, solvency, )

2. I'm looking for cogent, well-exposited arguments supported w/ pertinent/rez relevant documentation.

3. Don't spend too much time on topicality unless your opp's off-topic args are egregious.

4. Neg doesn't need a c/p unless it is vital

PFD

See above

I was involved with debate in high school for two years where I completed in Public Forum debate and several speech events. I have spent the last 8 years working with various high schools with their programs, and judging at multitude of tournaments during those years. I have also been a tournament director for over 30 tournaments, and am currently an assistant coach at the school I teach at. I am a more traditional judge overall, but I have no issues with progressive and spreading as long as it is meaningful to the debate. I want clash between sides, and I want good coherent arguments with evidence and reason. Make sure you are directing your claims to the judge and that I understand what you are talking about. Organization is key for me and you should have and order to what you are saying. Impact calculus is the key thing for me overall though, tell me why your argument works, the probability, and the impact. Good luck to both sides.

Isidore Newman '23 and Wake Forest '27

Debating for Wake + Coaching/Cutting Cards for Greenhill LD

send docs - speech drop/file share/elizabethelliottdebate@gmail.com

Please format the subject of the email with relevant information.

I have Wake Debate stickers on me so feel free to ask for one / ask any questions you have about Wake/college debate in general !!

---

Be a decent human being.

To vote on an argument, I must understand it and it must be on my flow. I flow and evaluate every speech. I flow straight down and do not flow author names.

Tech >>> truth, but your speaks are mine. I will do my best to decide the debate to minimize intervention. Judge instruction helps a lot with deciding in your favor.

Post-rounding is good. If I make a decision you disagree with, please ask questions. It makes the activity better and forces judges to pay attention. Feel free to email me with questions (just make sure someone else is cc'ed).

You can insert rehighlightings of cards and perm texts.

I think zero risk is possible. I evaluate things probabilistically except for debates about models which are yes/no questions.

I protect the 2NR more than the average judge, AFF teams should make sure to either justify new arguments they are making or make sure they can vaguely be traced to earlier speeches (minus impact calc/ev comparison).

Unless the affirmative is new*, the chain should be sent before the round starts. Please start speaking at the start time and minimize dead time.

Evidence quality matters a lot. If I need to read the evidence in a debate - I read the evidence in 'invisibility mode' - this means evidence you have entered into the debate is part of the evidence that you have read.

Saying the phrase 'independent voting issue' does not make it an 'independent voting issue.'

---

DA/Plan AFFs: Turns the DA/Case is better with carded evidence. Impact calculus/comparison matters a lot. Explain how arguments interact / what it means to win broad theoretical claims.

CP: Have perm texts for anything other than 'do both' or 'do the cp.' I will not judge kick unless instructed to by the negative. 1AR deficits should be tied to impacts. Counterplan theory as the 'A Strat' never makes much sense to me. I would much rather see theory debates as competition debates.

K: Middle of the road in these debates. Framework debates are a question of models. I will decide the framework debate as a yes/no question and not a middle ground---this makes the framework page (regardless of which side you are on) very important in front of me. I am good for K tricks as long as they are made clear in earlier speeches (LD).

T/Theory: Caselists matter a lot to me. Make sure you extend your interpretation/counter-interpretation. Weighing between standards usually decides these debates in front of me. I am pretty bad for 'reasonability' absent judge instruction, implicating thresholds for what offense matters, etc. I lean negative on most forms of CP theory but given the state of LD will happily vote on condo if well-executed/well developed.

Tricks/Frivolity/Phil/Theory debates that do not exist in policy: I would rather not. I will vote on it, but you will not like your speaks. I am horrible at evaluating this debate and I will openly say the quality of my RFDs in these debates is bad. I need a higher level of explanation than most judges. Examples>>> You need to go slower than you think you do...I will vote on presumption if your 1AC is unflowable.

---

Speaks: I am unpersuaded by a 30-speak spike. Ways to boost your speaks: doc organization, judge instruction, clarity, numbering, line by line, and argument innovation.

Debating Novices/People with Less Experience: You should do what you need to do to win the debate, but make the debate as accessible as possible ie. slow down, explain things, be nice, etc. If you are clearly ahead either go for the winning argument and sit down or have a debate your opponent could engage with. I am uninterested in hearing 6 minutes of a K that was dropped.

Online Debate: I have no preference between camera on vs. off. You should locally record speeches in the event you cut out. The less I think you are stealing prep the better.

*"New AFFs" are affirmatives that have not been read by you, a teammate, your prep group, or another school. To be read as 'new,' none of the evidence in the AFF should have been read before. If evidence has been read before, the evidence should be disclosed to your opponent. Changing tags/how a card is cut does not make an affirmative new. If you break 'New' and your affirmative is not new - your speaks are capped at a 25 in prelims and I will have a very low bar for voting against you on disclosure in elims.

POLICY DEBATE IS AN EDUCATIONAL GAME AND I AM A GAMES-MAKER JUDGE. I REALLY DON’T CARE WHAT YOU RUN AS LONG AS YOU RUN IT INTELLIGENTLY AND EFFECTIVELY. I WILL VOTE FOR YOU AS LONG AS YOU “PLAY” THE GAME OF DEBATE BETTER WHEN IT COMES TO ARGUMENTATION, CLASH, AND ANALYSIS. BELOW IS A LINE BY LINE OF IMPORTANT NOTES AND TIPS ABOUT MY JUDGING STYLE.

EXPERIENCE:

• 4-year high school debater

• Adept hired judge

• Multiple tournaments judged this season and previous seasons

• Mild knowledge of world politics

• Medium knowledge of world history, though the older I get the more I forget

• Spicy knowledge on debate terms and argumentation

SPEED:

• Okay with speed, but if you’re gonna spread make sure I get the WHOLE of your evidence. Not a master doc, not a half filled doc, the doc with ALL the evidence you plan on reading during that speech

• Make sure to slow down when transitioning between arguments or reading taglines, I need to at least understand some of your speech

• Unless you’re the 1AR there is no reason to spread through the rebuttals. Slow down, choose the important arguments, and convince me you should win

• If you don’t finish reading a card make sure to note that verbally before CX so everyone is clear on where you stopped

CROSS-EX:

• Don’t be mean/snobby, it makes me want to vote against you

• Always, whether you have good questions or not, use all of your CX time. It’s just a wise strategic decision to give your partner more time for speech building

• While I think CX is important I don’t believe it is binding, however if it is obvious that someone doesn’t understand their argumentation rather than making a simple mistake I will consider that in my vote

• Make sure you are actually ASKING questions and not just making statements

HARMS:

• Harms are important, but make sure they are up to date and properly demonstrate the SQUO

• I’d prefer if harms were labeled separately but I’m okay with them being flowed under justification or advantages. However, if asked in CX where your harms are, make sure to explain where they technically flow, whether that be justification, advantages, etc.

• Harms should form your framework because they are the components that you label as the most important. So if you get into the framework debate make sure to reference your harms as part of that framework.

INHERENCY:

• Inherency is also important, so make sure that your evidence is up to date and accurately displays the SQUO

• Once again, I’m okay with inherency flowing under justification just make sure to make that entirely clear

• If you’re on NEG try not to run inherency with DAs that contradict each other. For example if you say that the plan causes “x” impact and also that the plan is currently happening in the SQUO that puts you in a double bind and good teams will definitely catch you on that

• Make sure you actually understand what inherency is, if you don’t believe it’s valid that’s one thing but at least understand what it is

SOLVENCY:

• Make sure you actually have solvency cards that prove you solve for all the harms and impacts you label

• Make sure you know who your solvency advocates are just in case you are asked during CX

• DON’T powertag your solvency cards, they have to directly mention the subject of the plan and how it provides benefits for the SQUO. Good teams will tear apart a powertagged solvency card

ADVANTAGES:

• I prefer impacts that are more realistic than terminal impacts, stuff like climate change, food scarcity, proxy wars, etc.

• Make sure your advantages have proper internal links and make good logical sense at a quick glance

• Advantages also help form your framework so at the end of the round when you’re pushing framework, use your advantages and harms to do so

PLAN:

• I’d prefer if you have plan planks that explain your funding mechanism, enforcement, etc.

• I need to be able to have a solid grasp on what your plan is doing from plan text and plan planks alone, I hate AFFs that are purposely vague

• Make sure you actually understand your case, I dislike when the AFF reads a case and then absolutely fumbles the bag knowing their case during CX

TOPICALITY:

• I don’t like extra topical or effects topical cases, so I’m more inclined to vote against an AFF if the NEG can run a solid effects or extra topicality argument

• STANDARDS and VOTERS are huge DON’T drop them

• Unless an AFF is super untopical and abusive, topicality is more like a filler argument to me, don’t be afraid to run it but also don’t expect to win on it

DISADVANTAGES:

• I think brink and uniqueness are important so try to have them in your DAs

• Make sure you have proper internal linkage to the impact, I dislike DAs that make broad assumptions without proper evidence

• Generic DAs are okay in my eyes, just don’t continue to push them if the AFF thoroughly dismantles them. Also, make sure they link to the case

• Once again, I prefer realistic impacts over terminal ones

VAGUENESS:

• Only run vagueness if they are intentionally being vague and there is proof of abuse, aka them being a moving target

• Make sure to only run vagueness when the thing they are being vague about is valuable to the debate. Don’t focus in on a component of the case that means absolutely nothing in the context of the resolution, case, and debate as a whole

COUNTERPLANS:

• PLEASE have CP plan text, even if you just copy and paste their plan text into your CP shell, at the least have something

• Before you run CPs make sure you understand what conditionality, a perm, and a net benefit is, otherwise you might get into some trouble during round

• Make sure your CP is not topical, otherwise you, as the NEG, would be affirming the resolution which is the AFFs job

KRITIKS:

• I’m not super well versed in kritik debate so don’t rely on me to know when a response is poor or not

• I understand the need for kritiks at some points but unless there is a super crazy link from something the AFF said, I’d rather just stay focused on the topic of the resolution

• Whatever you do DON’T run an ableism kritik on someone for calling themselves stupid during round. I have a bad memory from when I was in high school so I’d rather not be reminded of that

PET PEEVES:

• I hate the phrase “Is anybody not ready”

• Be quick when sharing evidence, I hate just sitting around because people can’t figure out how to download and share their evidence. Just use Speech Drop it’s the most efficient method I’ve found

• Use all of your speech time no matter the speech, there is always something more you can run or extend

• Use all of your CX time even if it’s just for clarification

• I dislike ad hominem attacks

Debators can run any (I mean ANY) argument to me as to why they should win the round from the arguments that they are making.

PLEASE give me examples, solvency, and impact analysis in the round, as well as clashing with your opponents and on their arguments.

Tech/Flow/Tabula Judge, but I get skeptical in very blippy arguments so keep that in mind.

• The issue of Tech/Truth happens when deciding clash/which impact worse since debaters didn’t do it themselves (cleaning the debate) (Ex: Ontological violence vs. nuclear war)

• I hate intervening

I will vote on topic, K, T, Theory, Performance (which I will judge the performance), Presumption, etc…

For T/Theory, explain and show the abuse. Flesh the argument out and explain why I should, don’t just say “vote fairness, the end”

For K: explain the thesis (don't just say post-modern jargon), impact, link, ROTB, Solvency...

Keep the spreading to 350 wpm. If I don't understand you, I will yell "clear!", but if you keep spreading so bad, I'll just stop saying "clear!".

SIGNPOST PLEASE; DON’T MESS WITH MY FLOW

Any questions? Ask me before round

Down Below is a list of critical Literature that I have read/Judged to give debaters an idea of the literature they can use. Always interested in hearing new arguments

Note: Some kritiks are generic due to the many types it has

Ableism, Cyber-Fem/Borg, Orientalism

Schopenhauer, Agamben Derrida, Marxism,

Security, Afro-Furturism, Ecofem, Necropolitics

Terror, Afro-Pessimism, Empire, Neo-Colonialism

Global Warming, Althusser, Hauntology, Nietzsche

Zizek, Anthropocentrism, Lacan

Neoliberal, Nuclear, Baudrillard, Latinx

Peace Theory, Spanos, Batman, Legalism

Post-Colonialism, Anarchy, Bataille

Libertarianism, Queer Theory, Vilirio

Biopower, Fem IR, Settlerism, Spectacle

Borders Gender Language, Subaltern

CRT, Buddhism, Carl Schmitt, Suffering Rep

Tuck and Yang, Capitalism, OOO, Spanos, Militarism

Background

I did 4 years of PF in high school and 4 years of parliamentary (BP) at University of Southern California. I've coached in both PF and Parli.

Style

Be civil and regardless of your speed, remain coherent in your speech. I'm fine with spreading, but do realize that there is an inherent risk of me missing something if you do so, especially if you begin slurring words together.

I appreciate signposting and well organized speeches in general; either keep it organized or explicitly signpost. Otherwise, I will not guarantee the flow I have is the same flow that you may have wanted.

If you want to offer a framework, make sure that it's a framework of substance rather than just a glorified roadmap. I'd rather you set the tone for the round by providing a weighing mechanism instead (morals in utilitarianism vs. consequentialism, short-term vs. long-term, etc.).

I will only call cards if they are the deciding factor for the round, which is basically never. However, mentions of statistics or results of studies should touch on their methodology.

Judging

Impact, impact, impact. I won't care about how great your point is unless you explicitly show why it matters. Note: if you shotgun a ton of arguments in hopes that the opposing team will inevitably drop a few of them, do not suddenly bring them up at the end of the round without having extended them at all.

I lean tech>truth, but keep it somewhat reasonable. I appreciate creative arguments and am open to anything. However, if you run a more convoluted argument that requires a certain suspension of belief, keep it relevant to the topic of the round or at least keep it loosely grounded in reality.

Speaks will be given based off of argumentation and how well you engage points. Bonus points if you fit in a clever analogy somewhere.

Weighing and/or offering a criteria for weighing is far more appreciated that dogfighting the same 2 or 3 points for 30 minutes. I highly appreciate turning arguments, but make sure it makes sense.

Contact info/email for docs: isabellagracelocicero@gmail.com

If there are any accessibility needs that you want before the round, let me or tab know so that I can ensure that your accommodations are followed.

I'm currently a CX debater for Baylor University, but used to compete for Tyler Junior College in Parliamentary, Extemporaneous, Impromptu, and IPDA debate. I placed nationally in all of them for TJC in 2023. I debated for North Lamar in high school, where I competed in CX, extemp, congress, and occasionally interp.

For CX:

I'm very much tech over truth - this means that it is important to me that you maximize the amount of offense that you're putting on the flow.

I will evaluate any argument as long as it's not racist, sexist, trans/homophobic, etc.

Putting your analytics on the flow for me would be nice, but it is not required by any means. If you're not going to do that, slow down or at least "pop" your analytics.

I debated K and policy in high school.

For LD:

No tricks, please. If it isn't an actual argument, I can't evaluate it.

I'm fine with speed, K, theory, or the traditional criterion debate. Do what you do best and I will adapt.

I would prefer to have the evidence in front of me, so use speechdrop or email if you can.

For PF:

If you're going to run theory, please let there be an actual violation. If you want to critique the norms of the debate, that is a kritikal argument, not a theory argument.

Please use speechdrop or email to show me the evidence.

I will evaluate any argument that you put on the flow, but please generate clash. I've had so many debates where I'm scratching my head because there just isn't anywhere that you're actively debating on the flow.

For Extemp/Speaking Events:

Content is just as important to me as presentation, so make sure you have your sources and evidence.

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!

Email Chain: mysoorkrish@gmail.com

Debate for Greenhill, Qualified to the TOC twice.

I will attempt to evaluate any debate as objectively as possible so you should read whatever you're comfortable with, but I'm also human and have some ideological beliefs.

Speed is fine and preferred.

DA's:

Love a good DA case debate. I will reward good case pushes and impact turns with high speaks.

CP:

I'm not the best at evaluating tough counterplan competition debates so if that's your jam I'll try my best but be wary. I tend to lean aff in terms of conditionality and most theory regarding cheaty counterplans.

T:

No RVI's please.

K's

On the negative, I find my biggest problems with K 2nrs are a lack of link and alt explanation. Rather than reading a thick overview with a ton of buzzwords craft a story that explains the link contextually to the aff and give examples of what the alternative will look like.

For T-FW debates I'm neutral. I think the aff is in the best position when they explain the impact turn to T well and do impact calculus for why it both outweighs and turns clash/fairness.

please add me to the chain - gap2159@columbia.edu 

hi everyone! i'm gio (they/he), a columbia student majoring in linguistics and poli-sci. i debated for three years in high school at isidore newman (primarily cx, but also did a semester's worth of ld). can't wait to watch your rounds! 

t/l paradigmatic things ---

1) for bronx especially --- keep in mind i do not know this topic. this is relevant for both topicality definitions and general niche nato stuff -- please don't presume i have background knowledge on the ins-and-outs of the content. 

2) i'm generally tech>truth, and i am against judge intervention unless it's the last resort. still, i think arguments that are truthful (or at least have decent logical backing) are a good starting point. 

3) read what makes you happy! i read both k and policy positions in hs, and i'm perfectly fine with judging either.

4) substance debates >>>

5) if there's anything i didn't cover, there's a 95% my stance is yao yao chen's or elizabeth elliott's 

policy args --- 

policy args are great fun! with that in mind:

• i do generally ascribe a lesser probability to args that have 5 million internal links, but i won't act on that urge unless it's an explicit argument/framing of the round.
•  empirics and clear logic are definitely very helpful especially in the 2ar/2nr. 
• i value recent evidence with clear warrants, but it will only factor in my rfd if that work is brought up/ done within the speeches 
• for cp's specifically -- having specific evidence on solvency is preferable, but i'm quite comfortable voting on cp's with generic evidence if there's a decent explanation of case-specific solvency in the block + 2nr. 

k args --- 

i'm definitely sympathetic to the k, and i like to think that i'm well-read on critical theory. however, this is not an excuse to make your speeches an amalgamation of buzzwords.

• i think that the best k debates are just as deliberate in line-by-line and off the flow extrapolation as their policy counterparts. interact with the opponent's arguments instead of block-botting !
• don't rely on your fancy dead french authors to save you from extrapolating -- i'm not voting on your arg just because it sounds vaguely deep and philosophical. if you're reading something like baudrillard, you better be well-equipped to explain to me the intricacies and implications of simulacra, simulation and semio-cap. 
• i'm so down for k v k rounds -- side note: i'm really not super tied down to the theory applicable to those rounds -- it's up to you to make me care about stuff like no perms in a method v method debate 
• overviews are important, but definitely not enough to be spending more than like a minute on in the 2nc -- as someone who has written 4 minute overviews in the past for drills, i feel like it rarely gets you much 

t/fw  --- 

- i'm going to keep it real with y'all, i'd prefer not having to stake the rfd on t. i understand that sometimes it's the only viable 2nr, which...fair. if the aff is massively untopical to the point where it's intuitively abusive? probably also fair to go for t. but if you have t and another flow that you're winning? i err towards appreciating a substance 2nr. 

with that in mind --- i'm still willing to vote on t. in the case that you do decide to go for t, here are things to keep in mind:

• please be willing to do a higher level of t/l contextualization and explanation in the 2nr/2ar than you normally would 
• quality definitions, especially ones that are contextual to the topic, are obviously preferable.
• i'm fine with voting on absurd definitions as long as the evidence does in fact corroborate that definition
• 2nr/2ar's should cement the world of the interp and counter interp -- i like case lists. 

i think fw is much vibier than t in that it generally ties into a larger substance debate. my favorite fw debates are ones that directly implicate the truth or solvency of the aff. 

speaks/ meta ---

i think speaks are generally super nebulous and arbitrary but I'll try my best to be consistent, and i'll probably be quite generous with you! i feel like the ballot generally indicates quality of argumentation, so i will in fact be awarding speaks mostly based on the actually quality of speaking. 

• i'm fine with speed but i will deduct speaks if you're unclear -- also keep in mind that your unclarity impacts my ability to flow your args which potentially harms your probability of getting my ballot
• be genial in cx. rudeness =/= ethos and i will deduct speaks if you're being super mean 
• conversely, your speaks will be rewarded if you're kind to me and your opponents! 

other ---

• feel free to make harmful rhetoric into voters; i won on transphobia as a voter for psychological violence in the debate space a ton in my junior year and i stand by that. inversely, please be decent people. be respectful to opponents. don't say blatantly problematic stuff. i am not sympathetic to "devil's advocates" when what they're advocating for is bigotry.
• depending on how much of the debate comes down to specific evidence, i'm fine with "word salad" cards; generally, i need warrants, not auxiliary verbs. 
• asking questions after the round/ post-rounding is totally valid IMO and i'll do my best to answer any points of contention or inquiries! if you're uncomfortable asking questions verbally or are in a rush to get to the next round, you can also email me and i'll try to respond asap!