"The game of chess is like a sword fight. You must think first before you move. Toad style is immensely strong and immune to nearly any weapon. When properly used it's almost invincible." - Wu-Tang Clan 93'

| William Agustin | Damien High School '24 | Varsity Policy Debater |

Email: william06agustin@gmail.com

General Things

- Don't be mean to others; I get it's a debate and things might get heated, but don't resort to being hateful or rude. Be passionate and professional. I love to see debates where people seem to actually be enjoying what they do

- I'm generally a nice guy when it comes to speaker points. If you are decent, you'll be getting anywhere from a 28.0 - 29.0.

- I like jokes only if they are funny. I'll put a list of things I like and +0.2 speaks if you make a reference to any of those.

- Tech > Truth

- Feel free to ask me questions. I've spent all this time debating and I'd love to help anyone on their own debate journey. Don't feel a question is too dumb or stupid because trust me I've been there.

- Stephen Lewis owes me $5; Omar Darwish reminds me of the BFG except hostile.

Theory

- SPREAD CLEARLY! I am not a robot. If you miss parts of your theory or all of it and you decide to go for it, I will not hesitate to vote it down. This should be rare, however, as I am very used to spreading at this stage of my experience in debate.

- Explain the Violation and Interpretation. For conditionality, please don't just say "Condo is bad. *Lists XYZ Impacts*" but actually give me an interpretation of how many off cases are allowed and why your opponent's amount is abusive. Makes the debate so much easier for both of us. I haven't been exposed to much theory violations besides the top level, so make sure you say your interpretation and violation clearly.

- Clipping, Racial/ Derogatory Slurs, and extremely offensive or hateful language won't be tolerated and will result in either losing the round or severely low speaker points. I won't be a complete police officer and punish you if you skip maybe a line or two, paragraphs and more are an issue. In terms of clipping, I won't punish you unless the other team calls you out.

Topicality

- Love this argument by the way ONLY if debated right.

- Creative and smart internal links (ie Clash, Limits and Ground, Portable Skills, etc.) are very persuading to me BUT make sure the internal link makes sense and that your interpretation actually accesses that internal link. Always extend the terminal impact: Fairness or Education. An explanation of how fairness and education makes debate better is really great and persuasive.

Disadvantages

- Make sure to include all parts (Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, Impact)

- Impact Calculus is a must especially if you are going for it alone or as a Net Benefit

- Genuinely think generic disads (Bizcon, PTX, Federalism, etc.) are underutilized so don't hesitate to use them if you enjoy those args!

Counterplans

- In terms of theory on counterplans, generally I'm going to lean neg.

- Perms: If you want to have a perm as a legitimate strat in your 2AR/1AR, I like well explained perms, not just a blip then later extrapolated. Actually tell me what the world of the perm looks like and why it is net better than the counterplan other than "They aren't mutually exclusive". If you want to make a PDCP arg since you think it's just plan plus, make sure to actually explain that to me.

- ATTENTION NOVICES! Add a Net Benefit please :D A net benefit is a disadvantage that applies to the affirmative but not your counterplan. It's the only way it's actually competitive!

Kritik

- I enjoy and understand the Kritik. I had the pleasure of debating with the reincarnation of Jacques Lacan, Prevail De Rox, which gave me a new appreciation and understanding of the K. I am very familiar with common Kritiks (ie Capitalism K, Security K, Set Col K, etc) and other more advanced Kritiks but regardless of my knowledge I want the explanation all the same: clear.

- Link Analysis: In a round I went for Baudrillard, a wise judge told me the steps to good link analysis: 1) Explanation - Explain the link and don't just extend the warrants of the card, actually apply those warrants onto their case. It makes me very happy when you pull specific instances of their plan or solvency and compare it to your link. 2) Quoting Sources - Use specific lines from your link card, especially if it matches up well with your opponent's case. 3) Impacting - On top of extending your impact card's warrants, explain why the link leads to the impact. 4) Turns Case - Show how the links or your impact completely turn or at least outweigh case.

- Extend case in the 2NR if you are going for the K unless it totally turns case.

- Say judge kick, don't expect me to just do it.

- Perms on the Counterplan portion pretty much apply here: explain your perms basically.

Things About Me

- You probably don't care but here it is anyways.

- Music - Current Favorite Artists: Kendrick Lamar, Kanye West, 88rising, Drake, Panic! at the Disco, Olivia Rodrigo, The Beatles, Michael Jackson

- TV Shows - Current Favorite: Fresh Off the Boat

- I love Basketball and the NBA - Go Clippers <3

- Video Games: I play a lot of Valorant, CS:GO, and Minecraft

Brief Intro

Hello, my name Ian and this is my first year debating. I am a freshman taking the Honors Debate course at Damien High School taught by our coach, Mr. Lewis.

Email - ipalix25@damien-hs.edu

General Judging

I judge by the overall presentation of the debate, from delivery and execution to the actual content and arguments brought up. Speaking clearly and a bit slowly will help make judging easier for me and give more accurate results for you the debaters. Please do not turn off your camera or mic so I might not take the assumption you are stealing prep time. Any suspicion that a team is cheating will be weighed in the final decision.

Case

- Aff., don't drop case

Counterplans

- If Neg. drops CP during the constructive portion, I'm voting Aff.

Disadvantages

- Include all parts of the DA (UQ, L, IL, !)

Topicality

- The highest priority off-case

- If Aff. concedes this argument, I'm voting Neg.

- Give reasons to prefer, not just a definition

Kritiks

- I need to understand what the Kritik is about

- Go in-depth on your argument (Ex: I do not want to just hear "they are racist")

baylor’26

tldr - i am a freshman at baylor university -- my senior year of high school, i had 5 bids to the tournament of champions, was consistently a top 10 speaker as well as consistent appearances in late elims of national circuit tournaments if background/success matters at all to yall.

email chain -- odarwish22@damien-hs.edu

- Tech > truth, BUT my inclination to vote on certain positions will increase/decrease depending on the level of extrapolation present i.e. arguments must be fully flushed out in order to be given any semblance of weight in my decision.

- The first 30 seconds of your rebuttal speeches should crystalize the debate and ideally mirror my potential RFD.

- My decision calculus first and foremost usually comes down to what arguments are tailored to the casting of my ballot.

- Presumption goes to the team that deviates from the squo the least.

- I am a performance debater -- I like cx sass and assertiveness but just make sure you dont confuse those things with disrespect and aggressiveness

- I default to judge kick absent being instructed no judge kick

- Link specificity is very important to me.

- Do not insert evidence.

- Speaker points rate individual performance, strategic/bold pivots, general rhetorical appeal etc. because of this I generally give out a lot of low point wins.

- My camera is usually on, if its off seek confirmation prior to starting your speech.

Arguments --- I am accustomed to and have taken exclusively left leaning critical positions throughout the second half of my career, despite this I have no biases and will strictly defer to my flow for any argumentative inconsistencies. I will not fill in holes for you and you should act as if I don't know what the literature says while showcasing a superior explanation of your arguments. 

- Theory --- Condo is generally good but I've voted otherwise in the past. Dropping utopian alts bad isnt an auto dub same goes for most theory arguments. Rejecting the arg generally remedies any harms created, you're going to have to do some work to make me vote otherwise.

- Framework --- I have no biases here. Procedural fairness is both an internal link and an impact just depends on how you deploy it in round. Things you should do that should seem obvious but dont happen: Go for only one impact in the 2nr, do impact calculus/comparison, articulate solvency deficits to their model of debate, explain how your model solves and interacts with said deficits visa vie tva/ssd, link analysis (most of their offense probably just assumes debate or the state), actually answering the 2ac and getting off your blocks, predict/preempt 2ar shifts and compensate by doing judge instruction, ballot framing, and model comparison, answering the affirmative in the 2nr. I think that debate is a game but I also think it has the potential to influence different material outcomes. I view Tvas as impact filters that don't need to solve the affirmative but should include aff literature. SSD becomes very convincing to me if the affirmative answers to T devolve into state/state education bad. I am a sucker for smart presumption arguments and have a higher threshold for aff solvency explanation. Although I do not go for framework in college, as a 2a, I am constantly responding to the argument as well as coaching my debaters to go for it. I really enjoy good framework debates but the opposite is true as well. If the level of framework debating described above seems synonymous with your style of debating you should probs prefer me highly.

- The K --- Try not to go for a k that you are unfamiliar with; not to say I wont vote for you if you win, but rounds where you constantly evade questions during cx and provide me with shoddy explanations that dont do your literature base justice are agonizing. I strongly prefer substantive critical debating and am not a fan of spamming contradictory critical positions derived from different schools of thought. I don't care about how you go for the k or what you read just make sure you are telling me a story that I can retell to the affirmative in the rfd. I dont like implicit clash, you should be doing the line by line on the k proper. Link contextualization and drawing aff/topic specific historical examples separate good and great k debaters. I think framework is the most important part of the K but it can become ultimately irrelevant if the rest of the critique is winning that either the plan exacerbates the harms you've impacted out or the critique is winning an impact turn to the aff. I will default to judge kicking the alt if it was conditional but you need a reason why I should if the other team makes a judge kick argument. I am most comfortable with language/post-structuralist criticisms but am still somewhat knowledgeable when it comes to identity critiques.

- K Affs --- I have experience defending and debating these types of affs and I think that the closer you are to answering the resolutional question, the better. I think that uniqueness is extremely underutilized in these debates and usually helps me weigh a lot of these ballot and impact comparison questions in your favor. When answering topicality YOU WILL LOSE if you dont have a competing interpretation of debate that you can solve your impact turns through because then they're just non-unique. Thats why I stress the importance of ballot and impact uniqueness in these debates. You should probably have some sort of advocacy text/statement or at least make the solvency portion of the 1ac clear. If I am left without understanding what the role of the negative is under your model thats probably a disad to it. When debating framework leverage your case as much as possible - I see a lot of teams struggling to decide on whether to defend a middle ground or the impact turn, just make sure you pick one so that the story of the affirmative remains constant, inconsistency in the different affirmative speeches both argumentatively and strategically warrant my neg ballot a lot of the time. I think explaining how the affirmative solves the individual pieces of offense you are going for not only clarifies the messy portions of the round but also just makes it easier for you to cross apply/group arguments in the rebuttals. I also won’t vote on an impact turn your model can't resolve so you need to explain how you solve the offense you consolidated down to. The best 2a's pick and choose a few things to go for in the final speech and talk about how these arguments interact with both what the 2nr is going for and most importantly how that influences the casting of my ballot. I default to giving the affirmative the permutation but I can be convinced otherwise.

If you have any questions about anything that was/wasn’t mentioned above you can email me.

@dylan barsoumian -- my guy

Peninsula Debate 2019-2021

Damien Debate 2021-2022

Top Level Stuff

Tech>Truth but truth doesn't hurt.

Offense/defense - zero risk only exists for theory.

An argument without warrants isn't an argument.

Dropped warrants are true - you still need some explanation to extend them though.

Neg on theory - infinite condo's good, judge kick, etc. Sole exception here is that while perf con obviously isn't a voter, I become very skeptical of certain "epistemology first/reps first" K framework arguments.

Inserts are fine.

Fairness is an impact.

Bias/Ideological Leanings

I'm a lot better for Ks v policy affs than I was a year ago, as they have become my most common 2NR. I especially have a soft spot for psychoanalysis as a security K. I don't have a predisposed opinion on framework (on the aff or neg) that can't be reversed with good debating (if you win that I shouldn't weigh the aff then I shouldn't weigh the aff, and vice versa).

Nevertheless, I always love and am familiar with classic policy arguments.

I'm probably not great for you if you read a K Aff, even simply on a level of familiarity, although I will do my best to adjudicate without bias.

Novice Notes

Try to only use word documents.

Don't say a count down before speeches.

Give an order of what FLOWS you'll be going to (ie "Case in the order of advantage one, then two. The X CP. The X DA").

Hello Everyone,

I am Edward Deng, I have debated policy for almost 1 year at Damien High School. I have experience for both 2N and 2A. Here is my email edeng25@damien-hs.edu

I judge based on the arguments read in the debate. I also try to be tech over truth, but I won't weigh nonsense theory arguments.

Please don't be rude to your opponents before, during, or after the debate. Being rude will affect your speaker points and may even result in a ballot for the other team for serious offenses.

T:

I have quite a bit of experience with T debate, and I don't think it's a bad debate if it comes down to whether the aff is topical or not. This is because I feel T is one needed neg arguments with the water topic having strong case.

I am split between competing interps and reasonability, so I can be persuaded either way.

Case:

I like it when neg teams know the aff better than the aff team, so if that happens, there will be an increase in speaker points.

I have been in debates where the neg team was given the ballot because the judge misunderstood the aff plan. So, if I feel I know the aff well enough to be able to run that will be a +0.5 speaker points. This doesn't mean to have overviews more than 1 minute, because that will cause the other arguments to be under-covered.

DAs:

DAs are good, I do believe in 0% link, but it will still be in your best interest to have some impact D also. Make sure to do good framing if your 2NR strategy is to have DA + Case. If I feel there is good framing, there will be a 0.5 addition to the speaker points.

CPs:

I like aff specific counterplans, but the generic counterplans are also good. Under 3 condo is ok, Over 4 condo is bad, 3 condo will be up to the debate of the theory argument. 50 state fiat is good, but I can be persuaded.

Ks:

I don't really know how to weigh these debates, so try not to go for a K 2NR. Going for a K 2NR might result in a weird decision from me. The Ks I do have experience with are environmental managerialism, set col, security, and cap. Any other K will need a good explanation for me to be able to vote for it.

Other Things:

I don't know much about other types of debate such as LD or PF, so treat me as a lay judge if I am judging those types of debates.

I am ok with spreading, but if you are going to spread, try to be clear or I might miss an argument.

For speaker points, 27.5 is average for me.

There should be disclosure before the round starts, if they don't disclose after asking, feel free to run disclosure theory.

I will try to remember to time every speech, but you should still have a timer for yourself in case I forget, and so you can check how much time you have during the speech.

Framing arguments will make my decision easier, so do it.

For online, try to have your camera on so I can see you aren't stealing prep or having another person help you during the round.

Feel free to ask me anything about my paradigm before the round starts. Including what words such as framing mean.

Hi, my name is Axel Garcia, I'm currently a 3 years debater/competitor, I debated public forums and policy debates in high school. I mostly Judge Policy. My Email is aagarcia22@damien-hs.edu Thank you

Policy

- I allow tag team CX

-I like any type of argument you run! Just make sure there are links between your arguments and you clearly explain. Do

- Spreading is okay as long as you articulate and are clear.

- Don't like K's, I will try my best to flow it.

- Everything is else I'm good with.

LD

- I rarely do LD debate, Spend a lot of time contextualizing your card/s if you're relying on it to win the round. Even if it was already constructive, it's a good habit to cover it thoroughly a 2nd time just in case I missed something.

PF

- Sometimes I would do PF but not always.

- Remember to Spread as long as you articulate and are clear.

- I rebuttal speeches show me the most important issues and why they favor your side, we already had rebuttal speeches and 2 crossfires (PF).

- I appreciate puns in rounds.

- Tag team cx is allowed

Big Question

Big questions once during high school don't know much about it. Except to do your best and I value one overarching argument that's successfully upheld throughout the round over winning on the flow. Big picture analysis

Random bonus like things that would boost your points

- Using your time wisely. ( not just sit there and do nothing. Think about what you are going to do next )

- Try to act confident, even if you're not, by making eye contact with your opponent and standing up straight, which can make your argument appear more believable.

- Remain calm at all times, and never shout or get angry since it will only make your argument seem weak.

- Always have your camera on when speaking and stand up when speaking

What not to do:

- If you intentionally make any racist, sexist, or otherwise discriminatory comments, I will give you extremely low-speak and notify your coach.

- Try not to clip, if you do and other teams catch it. you lost the ballot, if you are wrong another team loses. But the debate will keep on going.

- Don't play games when you are done speaking or when your opponent is speaking

- Don't go on your phone, to call, chat, or play games, ( you can use your phone to be in call your partner and or if you are using prep time

- Call me to judge if you call me by my first name - 0.3 speaker points

Other:

- If your name is William Agustin and you got to Damien'24. You lose the Debate - 29.0 speaks.

-Have Fun!!!

Here is my email: Rghibaudo23@damien-hs.edu

Debated Policy in Highschool for roughly 2 years - Debated Freshman first year, Varsity sophomore

I judge debates based on the arguments made, but please be clear and maintain an academic tone.

I don't mind spreading as long as you sign-post and are clear enough for me to follow.

I am comfortable with any arguments made as long as its clearly articulated and there is good analytics to follow, don't just card dump. Debate is a research game so its better to be familiar with the arguments and win based on clash then it is to read arguments you know that the other team has no chance at answering because they don't have evidence for it.

TLDR - I am a sophomore at Damien high school, I am fairly new to debate but I have been surrounded around varsity level debaters.

Add me to the chain please -- email -- kagrabowski24@damien-hs.edu

What I like:

-Debate is a learning environment and a fun game so please keep it that way

-I am cool with tag-team/open cross

-tech over truth

What I don't like:

-Non-disclosure (unless breaking new aff)

-Toxic behavior

-People being late (There are some exceptions)

Overall have fun

If you have any questions about the debate please contact me I am happy to help, we are all learning here, and don't be afraid to ask questions

Also, please email Omar Darwish he is an outstanding debater and friend if you have in-depth questions about debate as a whole, he would love to help any new debaters:

Omar Darwish -- odarwish22@damien-hs.edu

Hello, I'm John (Jack) Hannan and I've been a Novice/JV Debater for Damien High School for one year now as a 1n/2a. In the debate, just call me Jack, no need for judge or anything formal like that.

I'm a he/him and I would prefer it if i was on the email chain under jwhannan25@damien-hs.edu, and please when creating email chains use specific titles (like name of teams, aff and neg, round #) just so that when looking back it is easy to find.

I'm not exactly a perfect debater or judge (no one is...), so there will be chances where I miss something or make a mistake. I hope you understand that I might mess up, and if you were unsatisfied with my judging, you can talk to tlewis@damien-hs.edu, my current coach.

In online debate, I know how easy it is to get away with extending prep time by blaming due to technical difficulties and other problems, so everyone, just be accountable and if actual problems are happening, I'll be very patient and understanding.

While what is on my flow will be a major part of my decision-making, your overall presentation and persuasiveness will have a big factor in my decision. I believe someone's information is only as good as the way they present it. Attitude will also have a role, for if one of you is just being a jerk and disrespectful towards your opponents and teammate, then I will make note of that. Is my policy a bit odd, probably, but I want to ensure that the future generations of debate are taught to respect one another and the game. In the end, being persuasive, having a good attitude, being a good sport, and not acting like a jerk will likely help you.

Ethos and pathos are important skills to have in my book. Someone who just reads off information like a robot is not very persuasive, and if the reader doesn't have a certain passion towards what they are advocating for, then why should I back it? These little points mean a lot to me, so take note of that.

With that said, don't be too crazy about this stuff. I've seen debaters exaggerate way too much to the point where they look kinda silly and unjustified in their claims. It's a balancing act, and those who can find the balance are the ones that are the strongest debaters.

The 2NR and 2AR's are very important speeches in my book, probably the most important, for they are ones I see the most people screw up on. So many people go for a very bland and lifeless speech that feels pre-written, and I'm always left super unsatisfied in the end of the debate. So make those last speeches special and from the bottom of your heart, for it is a time where you can let your speech writing and creative voices shine. They're a big deal, at least to me, so treat them like they are.

My thoughts on speed? Go nuts, although I will warn you I do not have the trained ear of some varsity debaters, so my skills at listening to very fast speeches may not be up to par. My preference is just clear enough to understand, that's all.

Ok, here are my opinions on a few things (they are subject to change depending on how well or poorly you present them...)

Planless Affs: I'm not very comfortable advocating for these, for I haven't seen too many preformed that well, but hey, if you can convince me, I'll vote on it.

Theory: Don't go too crazy with the theory violations, for I find it's a cheap win to bombard the other team with them and cause them to miss some. If not answered by the opposite team or answered poorly, I will vote on it however.

Topicality: If you can explain it and advocate it all the way better than the opposing team, I'll vote on it.

DAs: The Disad can be a powerful tool in debate, if used correctly. So many people brush it aside as just a contributing factor to another argument, but they mean so much more. Treat your DAs carefully, and use them to your advantage. The Uniqueness in these is huge, don't mess them up! I also love the Impact arguments that come from these, so keep that in mind.

CPs: If you can explain how they are different, how they solve more of and all of the plan, and some reasons the plan is worst, I'll vote for it. Would prefer an external net benefit, for that is more interesting, but internal net benefits aren't the end of the world.

Ks: Oh dear, I'm not an expert of Ks, and I wouldn't expect the best answers to come from me when asked about them. I know the basics (like framework, etc.) but in a complicated Kritik debate, I'm not your man for the job. I will do my best to judge fairly in a K debate, but I will not be perfect, see paragraph 3 for more info.

Impact Calc: I love Impact debates, the drama, the stakes, all of it! These are the most fun in my eyes, for it discusses what a plan or CP prevents, what's at risk if I vote one way or the other, and it just creates really interesting debates. There is a lot of creativity shown in these, so I encourage you to go for them (as long as you'll back it up right).

Other than this stuff, that's pretty much all you need to know about me. Once again, if you have any questions, need any life advice, or you want a commission for pixel art, contact my work email jwhannan25@damien-hs.edu, or my discord for a quicker and less formal response ProtoBroFroYo#8380. Thank you so much and good luck!

Hi there, it seems that you have stumbled upon my paradigm. Reading this would probably be smart, idk, maybe not

Freddy if you are seeing this... hi

pls add me to the email chain: jjhong24@damien-hs.edu

anyways, just do whatever you want lmao

Just dont be like, racist homophobic n stuff yeah? I'll autovote you down+ give bad speaks.

For K's, I'm a sophmore at Damien, so I'm learning, so all the generic stuff is cool with me

T, CP, DA, all cool with me

- read baudy and i'll love it, it's hilarious to me

Honestly though, my favorite debates are just policy, although I'll evaluate any argument to the best of my ability.

About Me/Debate Background:

My name is Sean Kassounian, I am currently a Freshman at Damien High School and I am taking an Honors Debate Course. Next year, I have enrolled in AP Debate for my Sophomore year which is taught by Mr. Lewis, the Damien Debate Coach. I have a good experience revolving around the basics of debate and how a team should perform, and I have flowed multiple high school debates.

Email: sjkassounian25@damien-hs.edu

How do you judge?

I do base a lot of my decisions on argumentation and the severity of dropping arguments and if they were poorly executed, but I also have a strong belief in how debaters present themselves. You should definitely have a good understanding of what arguments you give to the debate; don't have a DA or CP that you have no idea of what it's about.

More about my judging style:

I don't have an issue with people reading fast, but only if they are skilled enough. If you want to read fast, make sure you are able to be heard clearly and to not make many speaking mistakes. However, I do prefer if you read at a medium pace, but I won't hold anyone against how fast or slow they speak. I'm not a big fan of kritiks due to many debaters not having enough knowledge about them, so I don't prefer teams debating on it.

Affirmative Expectations:

• Make sure you get to solvency (I don't mind where you put solvency in your 1AC, as long as it is read)

• Know the speech order of a generic 2AC (ex: where case should be and what the offcase order is)

• Do NOT drop any offcase arguments in the Constructive speeches (any offcases dropped in the 2AC will affect my decision)

Negative Expectations

• Have more than 1 offcase (I prefer 3-5 if possible)

• Use CPs and DAs that are understandable for YOUR team, I won’t take off points based on how prestige your CP or DA is.

• Don’t overload on many offcase arguments when making your 1NC, it could put you at a disadvantage. However, if you are able to handle over 6 offcase arguments, I don’t have a problem with it.

Extra Expectations

• I expect both teams to be respectful of each other, any form of trash talk or rudeness will weigh into your team's overall points.

• HAVE FUN! This should be a good experience for everyone and I want debaters to have some fun and not be extremely serious.

• Be lively with your speeches and CXs. Have some confidence in your arguments and enunciate your speeches; this will make me feel that you are compassionate about the topic and you care.

• Make sure you know the majority of your arguments top to bottom, having clear and well-researched answers and evidence when debating. This will be beneficial for your team when I am making a decision.

last updated - 7/13/1980

add me to the chain - stephenlewisdebate@gmail.com

damien 

whether new arguments are allowed in the last rebuttals is for the debaters to point out and decide. unless its the 2AR. then you get no new arguments.

Things I like

-Specific pic's (the smaller the thing you pic out of, the better)

-Impact turn debates - stuff like dedev, wipeout, [x] war good (death good included with one caveat; specificity is probably not what you expect in regards to this kind of debate but if you can pull lines from ev about specific conceptions of death/suffering/etc. being bad and contextualize the link/framework debate to those lines i will be very happy)

-Test Case/Decision spec vs. Courts aff 

-Well thought out K affs that take a compelling theoretical/philosophical stance that impact/link turns most negative positions while also condemning the debate community for something we have done/failed to do

-Offense on framework contextual to what the aff's model of debate promotes that give you in-roads into aff offense e.g. a reason why their subject formation is bad (generally better for advocacy skills/state engagement good as opposed to procedural impacts despite my inability to properly execute the former lol)

-Alts that fiat global revolutions (there is a limit to this)

-Deleuze - love this guy and if you can pull it off in front of me i will be happy

-Specific neg strats that make 2As implode (i hate 2A's btw)

-Redefining words in the res and link turning the neg's standard < impact turning the neg's model and have a counter-interp that provides uniqueness for your impact turns and solves your offense

-Policy affs with less impacts and better quality internal links/ev > shotgunning 10,000 impacts and hoping one of them sticks

-Well developed theory debates (only theory that is reject the team if dropped is condo, the rest is all debatable but prob not the best judge for "they dropped theory on a counterplan that wasn't extended in the block, vote for me ;O")

-Specific DA's and CP's

-CP's with interesting competition questions (not certainty and immediacy, because those are not interesting they are boring and i hate them)

Things I don't like

-Politics DA's 

-Process counterplans - should be a last resort generally

-Framework speeches that don't mention the aff

-"No perms in a method debate" - what is a method debate??? and why does that mean you don't need a competitive alternative 

-Cap vs. K affs where the link is "you didn't talk about cap and that's mean so we need to build anti-capitalist buildings and stuff"

-Nondisclosure

-Evidence written by debate coaches/former debaters

- 2A's

- All the fake lefties in debate lol

- teams that are late

- perf con - being flex is good. you shouldn't be theoretically penalized for not playing into the strictly k/policy binary lol.

don't be annoying. that includes being overly aggressive/rude (there's a pretty clear bright line between being assertive/confident and being annoying), racist, sexist, or what have you. in the event that something of this nature occurs, i will nuke your speaks or intervene with tab if i feel it's necessary.

above all else, have fun. making me laugh will help your speaks.

+0.5 points if you make fun of omar darwish in an actually funny way

+1.0 points if you give me $13,000 before the round so I can pay off my illegal fishing fines

Please include me on the email chain: yli25@damien-hs.edu

All emails should have “Tournament name+ Round# + aff team code+ neg team code” in their title and please send a word document.

About me:

Hello! My name is Yueshuya but you can call me Josh. Pronoun he/him.

I am a freshman debater at Damien who has competed and breaked at multiple tournaments this year. My judging methodology is very much influenced by my coaches so if you have time you can check out their paradigm here, and here.

Speed is fine by me just make sure you do not sacrifice clarity. If I did not get an argument on the flow, I will not evaluate it.

General

If you are in a hurry and just want to know my argument preference, the short answer is none. I think everything is up for debate. There are some technical defaults I fall back to, only if you do not specify in round. Proper judgements and framing will get my vote on any arguments.

I favor debates that go beyond simple card reading. Evidence comparison and clash are key aspects of formulating rebuttal speeches. Debate is more than just copy paste cards, ideally every rebuttal speech should only have analytical arguments. If you are able to demonstrate to me you fully understand the structure of your 1AC and exactly which evidence argues, you will get high marks.

Technical Defaults

These are just some default I fall back to if you did not make an argument in a round that specifies a way I should view the debates. You can totally change these assumptions by articulating great arguments.

Tech > truth

Topicality and Theories

I'm a big fan of good topicality debate. I prioritize competing interpretation. However, a good debate needs to set brighline between topical case and untopical aff. Otherwise I will probably default to reasonability.

Condo is only a voter with actual in round abuse. 50 states is a legal fiat. Specs arg are usually checked by cx unless its a court aff.

Education and fairness are terminal impact and they are more important then extinction.

I am comfortable voting on theory 2NR/2ARs, but you need the standards and terminal impacts well extended through the speeches.

Case

I am pretty familiar with most affirmatives now at the end of season. The key win conditions for affs are presumption and then competing solvency. In simple terms, I am weighing the risk of changing the status quo and then evaluate how to change the status quo.

No aff is topical untill proven other wise.

Affs please do not drop anything, especially in 2AC, I will have to judge intervention and interpret the flow myself and I hate to do that. If your opponent drop an argument please do more then just saying "they drop it", extend offense on what that dropped argument mean for this debate.

Counterplan

All CPs must be competitive alternatives, this means either net benefits or mutually exclusive. CP text determine the solvency of the CP.

CX should alwasy ask for the status and NB of the CP.

I love strategic CPs excluding portions of the plan to generate competition.

Aff should be ready to explain their permutations in 1AR, i.e. explain to me exactly how permutations function specifically in round.

Disadvantages

Specificity, impact calculus and uniqueness are the three most important factors in my evaluation.

Link and impacts should be specific, it's okay to read the generic shell in 1NC but in the block I need some form of link extension that makes DA specific to the aff. Otherwise, any turn argument from the aff can easily moot the DA.

Same applies to impacts, it's easy to get stuck in a debate mindset that econ decline automatically equates to extinction, but what is the status quo? How will we go extinct? War? How did the war spillover? Etc. These tiny details are what set the difference between a good DA and bad DA arguments.

Uniqueness controls which side is winning the risk. For packet tournaments this probably sucks since all cards are set. But Uniquess is the place you argue for the most recent evidence is what wins you debate. I will focus on the card's author and date in evaluating DA.

Impact calculus should be centered around time frame and probability. Magnitude doesn't really matter now since everyone argues for extinction. I weigh the probability before the time frame.

Kritiks

I love good K debates. I am fairly well taught in philosophy but I'm not too familiar with most of the application in policy debate, therefore you need to be able to explain to me why I should prefer an arbitrary philosophy over concrete policy options. For reference some Ks I am farmilir with are: Cap, Security, Set Col, and Envior Managerialism.

A good K debate needs to have a decent case debate for a neg ballot.

I will default to evaluating framework as an educator who votes for the best model of debate. Role of tha ballot is to award the best advocacy. I will also default to consequentialism and utilitarianism. K are powerful arguments, but you need to make sure I understand your link story and especially the alt.

Speaker Points

I give speaker points from 25 to 30 with an average point of 27.5, i.e. a 27.5 means you perform a proper debate.

I am aware I probably give low speaking points compared to other judges, it should not mean you underperformed , I simply give speaker points on a lower scale.

For scale

25-26 = need improvement

27 -28 = an proper round of debate

28 -29 = varsity level debate performance,

29 + = your ethos, performance and argument formation are perfect

29.5+ = you have out performed all expectations and surprised me

DO NOT DO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

Steal preps, Insult your opponent, Be late to disclosure, and purposely be mean when you know you are winning.

I will reflect your in round behavior in your speaker points.

Note For Online:

Please make sure your computer and wifi is working prior to the round. if you find yourself in a technical difficulty and cannot hear, or missed a speech, Please email me and let me know. I do not want anyone misperform due to tech issues.

please open your camera if possible 

Speak as clear as you can before going as fast as possible. Slow down on analyticals so I do not miss some of the flow. I will only evaluate what's on my flow.

Each team gets 1 technical error/bathroom/emergency call out. during which both teams stop prep.

If I catch you clipping you will get a 20 and probably lose my ballot.

Novice Notes

Try to only use word documents.

Don't say a countdown before speeches.

Give an order of what FLOWS you'll be going to (ie "Case in the order of advantage one, then two. The X CP. The X DA").

EMAIL: JLoza25@damien-hs.edu

Pronouns:He/Him

I love clarity, emphasis, all that. Be confident when you're speaking.

MAIN ADVICE:

Just have fun with this.

About Me:

Freshie at Damien HS and did policy for a year.

My name is Justin Loza, and just call me Justin, or Loza, I don't really care.

How I Judge:

If you get through half an argument in your opening speeches, I probably won't count it, but if you want try to persuade me otherwise. I'm always up for that. If you want to know what argument preference I have, you're in luck, I don't have one. Just explain yourself to the fullest extent and don't give half baked arguments (watch out for this in your rebuttals).

I like debate's that don't just go back and forth about cards, I like debates where the people talking actually understand what their saying and could explain it good in their own words.

ADVICE:

-Don't clip (skip around)

-No name calling, slurs, just Negative stuff like that, but if you're here you probably know better, I hope...

-Please give roadmaps/orders, and also make sure everyone is ready to go, before you go

-Be a good teammate, and overall good person in your round, if you do this you probably have bigger goals on your mind, make it easier and make a good name for yourself

SPEAKS:

I score my speaks based off of, again, how confident they are speaking, as well during Cx you gotta be on top of it to get good speaks.

My average will be a solid 27.5-28

+.5 if you just are awesome at all aspects (you'll know)

+.5 if you're funny, we need more laughter in a debate

Nárhi jámaxaki

Email chain -- mam.damiendebate@gmail.com

TL;DR:

I debate for Damien - I only debated policy, but I understand PF and LD.

Time yourselves

Call me: Mark/Markos

I've taken part in about 30-40 debates (give or take, I don't want to do the math) this year - I have a good understanding of the topic

I was a 2n most of this year and last year, I was a 2a for the TOC this year, so I am sympathetic to the 2AC, 1AR, and the 2NR - just don't drop the bag and you should be good.

I am fine voting on anything - as long as it's not some impact turn to structural violence (i.e. racism good; colonization good; etc) -- I will not flow it and not evaluate it

Preferences:

I enjoy K v K debate

HOWEVER - I read both Policy and Kritikal Affs and Positions, so I am comfortable with most of the arguments.

Yes Spreading - Just be clear - I flow what I hear - if you are unclear and I don't get it on my flow - you don't get it in the round.

Ks:

Yes! I love the K - my philosophies range from Heidegger and Settler Colonialism (so Set Col, Psycho, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Cybernetics, etc), but I am good with a majority of philosophies, as long as you can explain the links to the aff and they are developed well within the block, you should be fine.

Alts: you can kick it - but you better have a really good link story as to why your links outweigh any risk of the affirmative solvency mechanism.

Identity PTX - Go ahead - but make sure that you aren't being racist/appropriating a culture that you don't have an ontological relationship with. (If you don't know what that means you should not be reading Ks)

Theory:

I tend not to like voting on T - however, I will vote on T if you go for it.

To get my ballot on T you need to:

1. Have a good story as to why X is cheating

2. Cite in round abuse (Losing links/ CP ground, strat skew, etc)

3. tell me why I should care specifically about cheating in that rd - if your T arg is way too vague, ill will not vote for it.

T > Condo - you can change my mind

I will not vote for nonsense theory - like disclosure, PerfCon, etc. these are bad arguments and I don't care.

Condo is good - unless you read more than 10 off

CPs:

Read them as you want - explain what the mechanism of the CP is and why I should prefer it to the aff. Explain how the CP avoids the net benefit and we shouldn't have a problem.

DAs:

I'm going to quote one of my judges when I started debating "I don't know why people don't just go for the squo"

If you think that the DA is sufficient to win turns case - just go for the DA and case defense. If I don't have a clear explanation of the link story by the 2nr - you have made a mistake and will probably lose this debate (give me warrants as to why the aff doesn't solve but links to the DA.)

Notes:

If you feel like you still have Qs about my paradigm feel free to ask me b4 the round/email me - I have nothing better to do in that 30 minutes of prep lol.

TLDR - I am a sophomore at Damien high school, and I have been debating since freshmen year

Add me to the chain please -- email -- rrmurphy24@damien-hs.edu

What I like:

-Debate is a learning environment and a fun game so please keep it that way

-I am cool with tag-team/open cross

-tech over truth

-frame the ballot for me in the rebuttles

What I don't like:

-Non-disclosure (unless breaking new aff)

-Toxic behavior

-People being late (There are some exceptions)

Overall have fun

If you have any questions about the debate please contact me I am happy to help, we are all learning here, and don't be afraid to ask questions

Specifics-

aff- read whatever, policy or k, if you read policy I prefer plan texts that are really specific and aren't just restating the resolution

theory- to win theory you need to prove in round abuse, if you don't you won't win on this

t- I don't especially like to watch t debates, there tends to be a high threshold to vote neg on this, especially this resolution but that shouldn't deter you from going for it if its your best argument or if the aff is blatantly untopical

da- generic links arent great, the more specific the link the better the da,

cp- I enjoy adv cps or unique ways to solve the aff, piks are fine too, I also enjoy creative piks

k- I'm an ok judge for the k, I'm good with easy stuff like cap and set col, if you go for higher literature its probably safer to have a more in-depth explanation about it throughout the debate

Freshman JV Debater at Damien High School

I have participated in about 12 Debate competitions in the Novice/JV CX 2021-2022 Water Topic

I have Judged around 5 practice debates so far and I make sure to maintain the ability to effectively judge the outcome of a debate round.

Add me to the email chain (noahortizdebate@gmail.com)

I don't mind speed/spreading just please make sure it isn't absurdly sacrificing clarity for quantity (Also please make sure to indicate when you move on to a different argument + Slow down on card headers a bit)

Tech debates are good, make sure to convince me that your arguments are truth by explaining your arguments, warranting your arguments, indicting authors, and evidence comparison.

I judge off flows.

I'm completely fine with K

DO's:

Be formal during CX and keep the clarity questions to a minimum.

Slow down on Theory/Topicality arguments, and make sure to properly warrant impacts and have a proper case list

Tell me how I should weigh the debate

Impact Calculus

Role of the Ballot/Role of the Judge/Framework in every arg which the K is extended in

DONT's:

Absolutely no form of discrimination during the debate round (Racism, Sexism, etc.)

Do not make fun of your opponent/degrade them

Don't read arguments that you cannot understand

Don't go for T in the block if you can't effectively warrant their impacts, it doesn't look good

Do not steal prep

Gibber

Extras:

My average speakers are around 27.5

28.5+ means you did a good job

+0.1 If you have Pilot G2 Pens

Basic Overview:

Be clear, explain yourselves, don't discriminate, and I will vote for practically anything.

About me:

Freshman at Damien and only have done policy debate and have absolutely no clue about anything else.
My name is Giovanni Pacheco but you can call me whenever you want but most people just call me Gio.

My Thoughts:

I will vote on whatever kind of argument as long as it makes sense,however, I will not vote for the argument if it does not make logical sense. Aside from that, it's up to you, the debaters, to establish the game's rules and persuade me why they're the best. Any argument is acceptable to me as long as it is not racist, sexist, ableist, or discriminatory. I am satisfactory at flowing but only if I can hear you and am able to make out what arguments you are trying to get across.

Speaker points are given out by how you construct your arguments and present yourselves. Everyone has their own style of expressing themselves whether it be making small humorous quips or making analogies to explain your argument or something else, but being abusive during cross-ex or mean to your opponents are not one of those and will result in much lower speaks.

Specific arguments:

I am very out of the loop of critical literature, so if you go for it be ready to explain it clearly. This doesn't mean don't read it, merely just understand it yourself, have a clear thesis, and be able to explain your philosophy to both me and your opponents. As long as you do that, I can flow, understand, and vote on it. I quite enjoy both reading Ks and listening to them, but there is nothing worse than a bad K debate.

Well-thought out counterplans and PICs that actually interact with the aff are fun and interesting to listen to. Same with disadvantages, explain them, and interact with the affirmative in a way that makes me vote for you, and I will enjoy it.

Short: Read whatever. I will only evaluate arguments made in the final rebuttals, so be clear about every position you want evaluated.

Long:

Aff: Solvency advocates and a nuanced understanding of your case will get you far. Link turns are great, and impact turns are amazing. Bring my decision back to the case flow and you'll win more likely than not.

Neg:

T: Go for it! Caselists and voters and good,

DA: Impact calc and extensions matter,

CP: Extend a net benefit, contextualize.

K: Good luck. Framework is key.

1. What is your debate background?

I am Erik Patronite, I am a freshmen at Damien Highschool.

I debated in high school for 1 year.

I have done multiple debates and have a good understanding of it.

I do debate at a high level debate program.

I have flowed many debates.

2. How do you judge?

I am a flow judge and base it only on argumentation.

I deliberate on overall presentation of debaters - i.e., arguments + delivery

3. Other specifies on my judging style?

I like to go at fast but clear speed.

I am not the biggest fan of Kritiks.

I am fine with the use of counter plans.

Know how to say the order of your speech.

I expect respect with both of the teams.

Know what your reading, don't read something you dont know.

Be confident and have fun.

Hello All,

My name is Andrew Ramallo, I am a freshman at Damien High school and I have been debating for 1 year.

In my Debating Career at Damien I have participated in 4 tournaments, made it to the finals in 3 of the 4 and with my partner Teddy we won the Longhorn Classic going 6-0 in prelims and undefeated throughout elims.

Enough about me though as far as what I like in a debate I don't have a preference whether it comes to different types of arguments used. For example I won't be biased if a team uses a K or not or if a team goes for more policy focused arguments. (CP, DA). However, I do have an issue with pure procedural debates. Even though my partner and I often use this, I find these kinds of debates the most boring. These debates tend to have the least clash as well, with just restating interps.

As far as pet peeves and things I look for in giving speaks. I do appreciate giving road maps/orders before your speeches. I also look for clarity and I am fine with spreading and speaking quickly but if I feel i'm unable to comprehend and hear what your saying I will say "clearer, or speak up." I absolutely hate it when people clip. Clipping is when you are skipping highlighted portions and it drives me absolute nuts. Card cutting is fine as long as you tell your opponents as well as the judge(s) and send a marked document after the speech has concluded. Don't be offensive, no name calling, no racial slurs, limit bad language. Be a good teammate and show good sportsmanship.

(If online)

Keep cameras on, mics can be left off to limit noise when you aren't speaking. Cameras should be on unless you have a valid technical issue so I make sure you and/or your partner aren't taking extra prep time.

My outline for speaker points goes as follows:

-26 : You did something terrible I believe that you offended someone and will report it to tab.

26-27 : Needs improvement, needs to practice a lot more and cross ex lacked a lot of quality.

27-28 : Needs some improvement, didn't do anything bad or wrong just not enough to go far in the tournament.

28-28.5 : Good qualities as well as improvement needed. Decent cross ex, usually turns out for a fairly good debate.

28.5-29 : Good qualities showed, and cross ex was very thorough. Team usually makes elims maybe even further.

29-29.5 : Very good speaker and debating. Cross ex was impressive. But most importantly understood the arguments they were making and was able to back them in cross ex as opposed to just standing there and wasting cross ex time. Team makes late elims, maybe wins tourney.

29.5+ : Probably one of the best debates i've seen this year. Doesn't slip up and speaks quickly but clearly and knows arguments in and out. Should be winning tournament.

Plus speaks:

+.5 if you hide theory arguments in speeches. (My favorite)

+.5 If I believe you have a good sense of humor and showed good sportsmanship.

Most Importantly, make sure you have fun have a good time, be respectful to your opponents and judge(s). If you have any questions about this paradigm don't be afraid to ask before the round.

Email for Email Chain:

ajramallo25@damien-hs.edu

Hi, I’m Gavin Romero. I am a freshman at Damien High School and have attended a few debate tournaments, as well as watched many experienced debaters go head to head. I have experience as both 2A and 1N and really enjoy debate. It feels great after a long debate and appreciating the hard work you, your partner, and your opponents have put in.

Email Chain: grromero25@damien-hs.edu

-I am tech over truth, but I don't weigh nonsense arguments

-I ask that you are respectful of your opponents and have fun. Being rude will affect your speaker points and may even result in a ballot for the other team for serious offenses.

Topicality:

I don’t have too much experience with T debate, however, I do not think a debate is bad if it depends on whether the debate is topical or not. I have the same view on reasonability and competing interpretations, so it is up to you to properly persuade me.

Case:

I appreciate it when a team knows all of their arguments inside and out, doing so will result in an increase in speaker points.

Overviews are good and necessary, but ensure that you cover your other arguments

Disadvantages:

-Any standard DA is perfectly fine by me, I like to keep these relatively simple.

Counterplans:

-I like generic counterplans, these are especially interesting to me.

Kritiks:

-I don't have the best experience with Kritiks mostly because I am still learning debate. I am not completely sure how to weigh this, and by adding them, it may result in an odd decision from me.

Other:

I do not particularly know much about critical literature, so if you read it, I expect you to know it well, and explain it thoroughly. If you do read it, you must have a clear thesis and be able to elaborate upon that to me and your opponents.

I try to time each speech, but I occasionally forget. You should always have a timer for yourself to see how much time you have left for your speech.

Be sure to enunciate your speeches, I especially don’t appreciate it when someone just mumbles their entire speech. I am fine with fast speeches, just make sure you speak slow enough to be understood.

Framing arguments makes my job a lot easier, and I deeply appreciate it when debaters do so.

Update for Loyola 2020:

Honestly, not much has changed since this last LD update in 2018 except that I now teach at Success Academy in NYC.

Update for Voices / LD Oct 2018:

I coach Policy debate at the Polytechnic School in Pasadena, CA. It has been a while since I have judged LD. I tend to do it once a or twice a year.

You do you: I've been involved in judging debate for over 10 years, so please just do whatever you would like to do with the round. I am familiar with the literature base of most postmodern K authors, but I have not recently studied classical /enlightenment philosophers.

It's okay to read Disads: I'm very happy to judge a debate involving a plan, DAs and counter-plans with no Ks involved as well. Just because I coach at a school that runs the K a lot doesn't mean that's the only type of argument I like / respect / am interested in.

Framework: I am open to "traditional" and "non-traditional" frameworks. Whether your want the round to be whole res, plan focused, or performative is fine with me. If there's a plan, I default to being a policymaker unless told otherwise.

Theory: I get it - you don't have a 2AC so sometimes it's all or nothing. I don't like resolving these debates. You won't like me resolving these debates. If you must go for theory, please make sure you are creating the right interpretation/violation. I find many LD debaters correctly identify that cheating has occurred, but are unable to identify in what way. I tend to lean education over fairness if they're not weighed by the debaters.

LD Things I don't Understand: If the Aff doesn't read a plan, and the Neg reads a CP, you may not be satisfied with how my decision comes out - I don't have a default understanding of this situation which I hear is possible in LD.

Other thoughts: Condo is probably a bad thing in LD.

.

.

Update for Jack Howe / Policy Sep 2018: (Sep 20, 2018 at 9:28 PM)

Update Pending

Please use the link below to access my paradigm. RIP Wikispaces.

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Vepa%2C+Teja

1. Experience

Debated in High School and very little competition experience

2. Judging

I judge on the entire presentation of the debate, the way they highlight their files, their organization, the argumentation, and how they deliver that argumentation

3. Judging Style

Speed: Debaters can read fast, however it has to be clear and they have to annunciate

Kritiks: I don't like judging kritiks, so it will be weighed in lightly if used.

CPs, DAs, and Topicality: I am fine and comfortable judging these offcases

Add me on the chain please - thwachtler25@damien-hs.edu.
Please label the subject along the lines of: "[Tournament] R[#] - Aff [School AB] vs. Neg [School CD]"

TL;DR:

Be clear, explain yourselves, don't discriminate, and I will vote for practically anything. Debate is a game, it should be fun for everyone involved. Enjoy your time, be nice to your opponents, and you will be rewarded with good speaks.

About me:

Sophomore at Damien, he/him, only have done policy debate and have absolutely no clue about any other forms.
Call me whatever floats your boat, but if you want a first name basis please call me Teddy not Theodore.
I'm a hardcore 2N/1A but that doesn't mean I don't very much respect 2As and 1Ns.

My view:

There are a couple unchanging rules about policy debate that I follow: two sides, two versus two unless indicated otherwise, allocated speech times, one winner per round, and each debater gives only one rebuttal. Tournament rules come before that, and they should be complied with first.

I will vote on whatever kind of argument (i believe in tech/truth, though truth doesn't hurt) as long as it doesn't violate those rules, but I will not vote on it if it does not make logical sense. Other than that, it's up to you as debaters to define what the rules of the game are and convince me why those are best. All kind of arguments are acceptable to me as long as they are not queerphobic/racist/sexist/ableist or discriminatory, because then your speaks will get buried and you will get a loss.

Evidence that is directly written by a current debater or on an obviously satire website will not be flowed. Reading urban dictionary or cards by the onion isn't funny and will result in lower speaks and me completely ignoring it.

Other things:

Speak as fast as you want, as long as you are intelligible. I'm fine flowing speed, but only when I can hear it.

Speaker points are given out by how you construct your arguments and present yourselves. Everyone has their own style of expressing themselves whether it be making small humorous quips or making analogies to explain your argument or something else, but being abusive during cross-ex or rude to your opponents during your speech are not included in those and will result in much lower speaks. The scale of speaks drastically varies depending on the tournament and the division, so the amount of points isn't as accurate as how you relate to your opponents and the rest of the tournament.

Keep your cameras on all the time unless prep is running. As soon as you start prep you can disappear into the void, but as soon as you stop, your must return from it. Sending out the email does not count as prep time and therefore your camera needs to be on. Have a problem with your camera? No worries, just tell me before the round and I will accommodate you.

Time is time, I will not flow or take into account anything that is said after the timer rings, unless it is between 1-3 words. Cross-ex has a bit more leeway though, feel free to finish the answer to a question as long as it doesn't go past 15 seconds or so.

Be nice to your opponents. If they have no clue what you are talking about in cross-ex or about one of your arguments, don't just point and laugh while your camera is off. While fun might not be a traditional impact, debate is a game and games are supposed to be enjoyable, especially in novice. If someone doesn't understand then take a moment to explain it clearly, so that we all can learn and enjoy ourselves. Cross-ex is not a COD lobby, I have zero qualms about pausing the timer and interrupting people to stop their verbal wrestling match. Be nice, be chill, don't worry and be happy.

Specific arguments:

I am very out of the loop of critical literature, so if you go for it be ready to explain it clearly. This doesn't mean don't read it, merely just understand it yourself, have a clear thesis, and be able to explain your philosophy to both me and your opponents. As long as you do that, I can flow, understand, and vote on it. There are very few things more enjoyable than hearing a really interesting K debate, but there is nothing worse than a bad K debate. An easy way to think about this is: If you don't know the literature well enough to explain it to non-debaters, then don't read it. Also, you're a lot more likely to win if in addition to debating and clashing you also slow down and take some time in the 2NR to just explain what your K is, the logical story of it. Remember, debate is a persuasive game, so your speech shouldn't just be 8 or 5 minutes of fancy jargon that nobody in the real world understands. This doesn't mean to not include the jargon, it's helpful for shortening your speech, but sprinkle it through in a way that makes sense.

Well-thought out counterplans and PICs that actually interact with the aff are fun and interesting to listen to. Same with disadvantages, explain them, and interact with the affirmative in a way that makes me vote for you, and I will enjoy it. The majority of counterplan theory is fascinating and makes for a good debate, so please read it. Unless very well characterized, conditionality is not a voter if you have <2 counterplans, but may be a reason to reject the argument. You as debaters have to convince me one way or the other.

Theory is an excellent argument but just because they dropped it doesn't mean its a voter unless you tell me why it is. One-sentence theories hidden in the depths of the 1NC T shell or the 2AC ctrl+c/v'ed block are not a voter unless you actually take solid time to elaborate on your shell later. The shorter your block, the more leeway I'll give your opponents to answer them. Clearly laid out shells will get you a lot farther and could possibly make it a very good 2NR option, compared to a 5 minute extension of a 4 second violation.

On another note, don't intentionally try to hide specific analytics by taking them off the document, and especially not theory. It's one thing to make an analytic speech to challenge your opponents, and it's another to cut out one line on the large block you send, deceitfully upholding the pretense that your entire speech will just be blocked. That's a shoddy attempt to try to weasel a ballot out of a dropped arg that took 5 seconds to read and was barely flowable, and I will not hesitate to drop your speaks and give new answers to your opponents if you go for args like these. Just because your judge flows by sound and your opponents should to, your opponents probably aren't paying that much attention to your spreading through what appear to be completely blocked out arguments. "We made this sneaky hidden argument off the doc and they didn't answer it therefore they lose" is a stupid argument and I won't vote on it. If you are going to make arguments off your flow where they aren't expected, if you slow down a bit and make it clear that this arg is off your flow, then I will hold your opponents accountable to answer it and it'll be good. Remember, everyone should be flowing by sound but you shouldn't be that shifty person who tries to trick their way into a ballot.

No aff is topical until proven otherwise, but good topicality debating can easily swing that one way or another. T 2NRs are enjoyable to listen to as long as they have a clear link chain from the violation to the impact. Generally, debating what the interpretation means for debate > debating the quality of the interpretation card, but if you do a damn good job characterizing it I'll vote for it. Tell me why and contextualize what it means to vote neg in this specific scenario, and the same for the aff.

Inspiration:

I think about debate very similar to this person, this person, this person, this person, this person, and this person. They introduced me to debate and coach me, so I draw great inspiration from them. Most of my debate career is an attempt to mirror them.

Any questions about my paradigm, debate in general, or want amazing folk, metal, punk, or rockabilly music recommendations? Please email kagrabowski24@damien-hs.edu.

Good luck!

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠴⢿⣧⣤⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣴⣿⣧⣆⣘⡄⢹⣿⣷⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣾⣿⣿⣿⣷⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⢿⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠏⠀⣴⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣀⡀⣾⡿⠀⠉⠉⠛⠋⠛⠛⠚⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⢠⣍⠹⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢹⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⢿⣷⣾⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣴⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢹⣟⢻⣿⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⣰⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠻⠿⠟⠁⠑⢶⣤⣴⣿⣿⣿⣷⣶⣬⣿⣿⣿⡿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠙⠛⠛⢛⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠛⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠻⢿⡿⠟⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

Hello debaters, my name is John, and you can refer to me as John or judge, whatever you prefer. I am not that strict on what kind of style you want to debate as but do keep some things in mind while you are debating.

A little introduction about myself. I am currently a freshman at Damien High School. I am also a member of the Damien debate team, currently a novice. I have advanced through several prelims and my highest place was California Invitational JV Policy Debate Double-Octofinalist. This is my first year debating and first-year judging, so if I do make mistakes, please do tell me after the round.

Spreading is okay, but do not sacrifice your clarity, I will go by both flows and documents, thus I will weigh on both.

1. This is the most important thing that you should know when you are debating, please be respectful. Debate is supposed to be educational and also fun. If you don't respect your opponent, then I will automatically deduct speaker points from your team, not individual, because you are debating as a team. Also, using any sort of profanity/racist slurs/ethical wrongdoing will be strictly prohibited, and if doing so, will give the lowest speaker points and/or impact my final decisions.

2. During cx, you should not be insulting the other team. When you are asking a question, ask straightforward and the answering side should stick to the answers and not say something else that is not relevant to the question. Things can and will be heated sometimes during the cx, but make sure to keep it at a minimum, and do not laugh at the other team, because that is just disrespectful.

3. Always try to work as a team, teamwork is another thing that I will be looking at, because in my opinion, when you are working as a team, it will help you succeed more. Of course, individual writing the documents should happen, but when there are certain points or certain strategies that you two disagree it should be discussed within the team and work it out.

4. I am usually fine with all types of arguments, but as a personal preference, I don't like kritiks, all the other kinds of arguments, I am fine. I am not saying that you cannot do kritiks, just kritiks for me personally, is harder to follow and make decisions upon it. I will try not to deduct points from critics, so if you speak slower, that would help me understand the critics in the sense of the whole case.

5. I am looking for whether or not you answered all the arguments and your impacts. If you presented impact calc, then it would be a bonus when I do my judging. Also, try to not drop any arguments, especially like Topicality. Dropping certain arguments would result in changes in my decisions. I will be looking at how well you present your arguments and always have a source for your evidence.

6. If you also demonstrate that you fully understand the arguments that you are doing, and fully demonstrate that you know how to use certain types of arguments, that would also be a really good chance that you would win over the other team.

7. Do not give attitude, or be mad at the judge/opponents, when you lost the round. As I said above, we must know that debate is a fun and educational subject that we do by going to tournaments. We are demonstrating the skills that we learn. If you are disappointed, that is understandable, but if you are going on a rant about how you should have won, that is unacceptable. I will do my best to give you a detailed explanation of why I made this decision.

8. Finally, have fun, and most importantly, learn new things from each debate round, whether you lost or won. You could always learn how you can improve and what you should watch out for next time. I hope that you would be able to write notes down of what you should have done and what you should keep doing. If you have any further questions after the round that you are confused about, you can email me: at yzhao25@damien-hs.edu

Good luck to all debaters!