"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.

- Do whatever you like, I've been through it all in terms of debate and can understand most things.

Update for the 2022-23 Season

- This topic makes me hate debate

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 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

- If you make a joke about a person named Roan Murphy I will give you +0.2

For Parliamentary:
- New to this form of debate - but I know enough to give a competent decision
- Don't drop arguments and make sure to extend your own
- Big picture explanation and answering the points will be rewarded
- Policy is just parliamentary but faster and with more jargon so I'll probably get it

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").

Email: edeng25@damien-hs.edu

he/him

Policy debater for Damien, class of 25

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

As a general note, read what you want, I don't have a strong opinion on any policy arguments.

I try to be tech over truth, but I won't vote on nonsense arguments unless completely dropped by the other team.

Time your speeches yourself, I often forget to set a timer.

I am not that good at flowing, but I will not flow off the speech doc. I am okay with speed, but I won't be able to flow is the speech is too unclear for me. Slowing down on the tags will help with my flow, but you shouldn't go light speed on the warrants in the card.

Competing interps > Reasonability - especially on affs that don't seem that topical

Rehighlights should be read instead of inserted.

Most CPs are probably good

Condo is probably good

I like it when debaters describe in round abuse, along with their usual standards for T.

I also like generic off-case arguments being made into a case specific off-case with a good link card or solvency card, it would be just as good as a case-specific off-case argument.

Even though it is very possible to win on just the perm, a net benefit to the perm would go a long way. This could be a solvency deficit to the CP in which only the perm would solve.

0% risk of a DA is possible to achieve, but it will probably be very hard to achieve it, so make sure there is some sort of offense such as aff outweighs or a turn on the DA flow.

The argument I have the least experience with is the K, so make there is a good explanation of it for me to be comfortable voting for it, especially if it has a high complexity to it instead of a simpler one like the cap K. However, don't make your overview too long.

I don't think I have the experience to judge a K-aff, so you shouldn’t read one in front of me.

For LD and PF, I don't know much about those events, so I will probably evaluate the arguments in those categories as I do with policy arguments. The only difference for LD is condo, which I will lean more towards the aff with shorter speeches in a round compared to a policy round.

Feel free to ask me anything about my paradigm before the round starts.

Hi, my name is Axel Garcia i don't use Pronouns (don't like it, don't know why we need it in society)

I'm currently attending GCU Majoring in Forensic Psychology. I debated in high school for 3 1/2 years as a debater/competitor. I am a debate coach/helper for Damien high school if they need help I debated public forums and policy debates in high school. I mostly Judge Policy. Please add both emails damiendebate47@gmail.com and aagarcia22@damien-hs.edu Please add to the email chain. Thank you

--

I am 100% honest, really don't know a lot about the topic this year, focused on school. What you can do is this, Explain... ---> https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/71257ee5-18d7-461e-b39b-3277361953dc

--

Policy

- I prefer Policy

- I allow tag team CX

-I like any type of argument you run!

- I Love and huge fan or Spreading as long as you articulate and are clear.

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

- Everything 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. I prefer PF

- 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 bonuses 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 ) <--- on only zoom

- Call me "judge" if you call me by my first name unless you know how to say it then it fine - 0.3 speaker points

-Have Fun!!!

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

Debated Policy in Highschool for 3ish years

comfortable with anything -- don't be mean to the other team....

TLDR - I am a Junior at Damien high school, please excuse any miss spellings in verdicts.

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)

-I am not really the judge for k aff's, I respect them and if you do go for one please explain clearly how you solve the issue

Overall & Other Things-

Have fun!!!

-K's are ok but be clear why you solve or they link

-If you have read this far and if you tell me before round your favorite rock, metal, punk, or even folk band and why I will give you .5 extra speaker point

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!

my role model is Stephen Lewis

this is a joke^ (nah hes a good debater and judge tho)

okay but actually:

Damien High School - class of 24

Currently a Junior

he/they

DamiendebateHP@gmail.com

ngl js run what u want

im qualled to the TOC if u care about that

i currently run a K-aff but im p new to it

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.

add me to the chain - stephenlewisdebate@gmail.com

debated at damien for 4 years

have been both a 2A and 2N -- 2N for longer which means I probably lean a lot more neg on some questions like theory

if you cannot figure out how to send an email in less than 5 minutes, then do not expect me how to figure out how to give you decent points

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.

read rehighlightings - i won't evaluate inserts. if its a panel and im overruled, then so be it.

tag team cx is fine for answer but not for asking -- more geared towards novices, if you're varsity do what you want

tech > truth

I feel comfortable evaluating every kind of debate. If you want to go for cap against an aff that says the world is structured by a clever set of 1's and 0's, go for it. If you want to go for a textually intrinsic perm against a counterplan that results in the AFF, go for it. In my opinion, the purpose and real benefit of debate is being exposed to less commonplace political ideas and thinking about the efficacy and potentialities of those ideas. I care much less about what your political idea is, and more about your ability to articulate that idea in a way that both makes sense and is persuasive.

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, whatever. people get oddly ideological about some of these but i am of the camp that thinks if an argument is so bad/morally apprehensible, it should be relatively easy to defeat. obviously there are some limits to this like racism, sexism, etc. but beyond the extremes there are no limits.

-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 -- im probably better for procedural impacts just cus im inclined to think that education/skills impacts surrender too much offense to aff impact turns

-Deleuze - love this guy and if you can pull it off in front of me i will be happy -- if you read it just cus its in this paradigm and have no idea what you're saying your max points are 27

-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 outside of their academic profession

- 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

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

poems are a distraction tactic from breaking away from the capitalist system - ∞

Notes for IVDL CHAMPIONSHIP:

My paradigm is written for HS Policy debate, The speaker point and format sections pobably do not apply to y'all. Just make sure you do proper judge instructions, impact framing/calculus and have fun!

About me:

Hello! My name is Yueshuya but you can call me Josh.

Damien'25

TOC'23, 2A/1N

Please include both on the email chain: yli25@damien-hs.edu damiendebate47@gmail.com

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

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

Everything is up for debate. There are some technical defaults I fall back to, only if you do not specify in round. Proper argument developemtn and judge 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.

It's much easier to punish the worse mistake in the round with my ballot than it is to evaluate every strategic move.

DO NOT insert cards, either send card doc post-round and extend analytic inround, or re-highlight and read it

In terms of K/fw, idea testing is key to education and a key part of the debate activity. Procedural fairness is different from structural fairness.

Alt dont have to be material or fiated (unless ofc aff make the argument it have to be)

You don't have to read a plan but if you want to cheat you better know to to justify it.

Technical Defaults

Tech > truth

Condo good

perm is just a test of competition

dropped arg are tru

utill good

risk of impact = (probability * Magnitude)/timeframe

Reasonability good

Faienss is a impact

Method v Method get perms

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(PLS PLS PLS PRACTICE GOOD DISCLOSURE, I understand maybe sometimes you do not controll your wiki's but at least disclose via email when you got your pairings.),

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.

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.

若汝知此句，吾祈尔吉运。

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 jámaxakia

- Email chain -- mam.damiendebate@gmail.com

TL;DR:

- Affiliation: Damien (Debater) - 2020 - Present

- I am a proud Indingoeus Person/Latino to countries all around the Americas.

- Call me: Mark/Markos

- I've debated the Criminal Justice Reform topic; the Water topic; and the Emerging Tech/NATO topic (I also rank them in that order)

- I've taken took part in/coached/judged in about 20 (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 for about 2 years, and I was a 2a for the TOC on the water topic, 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 - except if it's an impact turn to structural violence (i.e. racism good; colonization good; etc) -- I will not flow it, I will not evaluate it, I will doc ur points, and I will alert tab and ur coaches about it.

Preferences:

- I enjoy K v K debate (or K debate writ large)

- I'm a performance debater - so claims about specific identities are always good.

- If you run set col with me and don't know what the lit is saying just for my ballot we are going to have a problem

- For more ideas of what I enjoy in settler colonialism debates see the following people's paradigms: Maddie Pieropan and Joshua Michael.

- 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 Some PoMo to Settler Colonialism (so Set Col, Psycho, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Cybernetics, Queer Pessimism, Orientalism, Feminism, Afro-Optimism/Pessimism, 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.

- I like K debate where there is nuance, if you are reading blocks that your coach wrote prerd and dont know what you are saying, dont read the K.

- Link Debate: IF by the 2nr you have not given me a clear explanation of the link to the aff... you're not going to like how I vote.

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

- 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.

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

CPs:

- I dont think that CPs need a Solvency Advocacte, especially if its something that just came to you prerd. DO NOT take advantage of this and start reading 20 CPs with no Solvency Advocactes (I think the limit for me is 3 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.

- CP theory is bad - don't drop it and I won't vote on it.

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 a turns case argument - 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/Random Stuff ab me:

- 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 junior 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:

-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, this years, I find education impacts the most convincing but that doesn't mean that I won't vote for other impacts against it,

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, I also enjoy creative pics

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

- If you make a joke about a person named William Agustin I will give you +0.1

• • Add me to the email chain (noahortizdebate@gmail.com)
  • Junior Varsity Debater at Damien High School
  • I have participated in 12 Debate competitions in the Novice/JV CX 2021-2022 Water Topic
  • I have participated in 10 Debate competitions in the JV/Varsity CX 2022-2023 NATO Topic
  • I make sure to maintain the ability to effectively judge the outcome of a debate round.
  • I don't mind speed/spreading - make sure it isn't absurdly sacrificing clarity for speed - make sure to indicate when you move on to a different argument.
  • Tech debates are good. Warrant, indict authors, and compare evidence
  • I judge off flows.

Info:

• I am fine with any arg type as long as you know what to do with it.
• for T I like reasonability/competing interps and interp debating
• Kritiks are cool and they're fun when you pull tricky stuff
• CP's are fine cheating ones are fun but just be careful because I do think some theory is winning on aff side
• Theory is great when it's not absurd
• DA's are fun - be creative, turn stuff, and for the aff, claim you solve/mitigate it

DO's:

• Be formal during CX
• Tell me how I should weigh/frame the debate and why the (aff/neg) should lose.
• Impact Calculus
• 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 (This is for both your and my sake)
• Do not steal prep.

• Extras:

• My average speaks are 28 points
• 28.5+ means you did a good job
• 29+ means you did really great

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.

Top Level:

lspark24@damien-hs.edu-email chain

Call me Luke, Junior at Damien High School

Tech over Truth-I'll vote for anything

I strongly prefer substance in rebuttals

I have topic knowledge and can evaluate jargon-(i.e. competition, deficits, T)

I understand the time debaters put into the activity-I'll judge accordingly

Won't auto-vote for dropped one-line ASPEC or CP/K theory on a kicked off-(repetitive, but necessary)

That shouldn't preclude going for theory-especially with the meta on this topic.

Especially sympathetic when other team doesn't flow :)

Flow off what I hear-slow down on tags (I'll look at evidence though)

FW/K-Affs:

I'm cool with K affs-I read one and understand (limited) portions of high theory through research

Internal links (limits, subject formation, switch side) should be contextualized to opponents offense in a direct manner (clashing vs block spreading), both sides should pick 1-2 key pieces of offense and explain why their vision would resolve central pieces of offense/defense

Fairness is a impact, teams should have a C/I of debate

Using 1AC cards as links for impact turns (cap good, NATO good) is good and rewarded with speaks.

Counterplans

Same as everyone else

Tell me to judge kick

Every counterplan is legitimate if debated correctly-I slightly lean aff on process theory, international fiat (less with this topic), and intrinsic planks. I lean heavily aff on conditions and consult theory.

Solvency advocates are key to my ballot-I will weigh deficits heavily if the block uses fiat or brute forces conditional advocacies. This entails a card directly endorsing/describing the process of the plan.

Intrinsic perms are justified by intrinsic counterplans

Disads

Impact framing is key-turns case, even when uncarded, is key

I'll reward a strategic case dis-ad 2NR with high speaks

Theory

Go for T, it's bad on this topic but affs are worse.

I'll artificially lower my threshold for voting for condo for 1st year debaters. Condo is good in most instances.

The best 2AR on condo for me will focus on in-round abuse and tie it to the negs model

Kritiks

Forgo overviews and do line-by-line

Please engage with the affirmative through a link other than "NATO is militarist", I want to understand how the aff is an expression of your said methodically through quoting evidence and authorship.

Framework needs an interp and role of the ballot

Fairness is an internal link or an impact, subject formation can occur in debate

Describing links in the context of the aff will grant a ballot and extremely high speaks. For example, rather than reading an extra carded link on an indict of Russia, I'd prefer analytical descriptions on how Russiophobia described in the 1AC was the root cause of brinksmanship, with lines of 1AC cards.

But that's difficult-a link is a link

I recommend going for an FW+links or just an alt to prevent a messy and underdeveloped flow

2NC needs to signal if the alt is a floating PIK

Speaker Points

29.5+ — the top speaker at the tournament.

29.3-29.4 — one of the five or ten best speakers at the tournament.

29.1-29.2 — one of the twenty best speakers at the tournament.

28.9-29 — a 75th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would barely clear on points.

28.7-28.8 — a 50th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would not clear on points.

28.3-28.6 — a 25th percentile speaker at the tournament.

28-28.2 — a 10th percentile speaker at the tournament.

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 sophomore at Damien High school and I this is my second-year debating.

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. I find these kinds of debates the most boring. These debates tend to have the least clash as well, with just competing interps. Also, for K debates if I feel you are just reading a k to read a k and don't understand the actual ontology and the aff brings theory into debate I will favor the aff heavily.

Debate is a game, read a plan. If the aff just abuses their affirmative and tries to make the neg look silly without making any logical arguments or they don't weigh the importance of their aff I will NOT vote for them. There must be a warrant for why the ballot matters/spills out

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 you're saying I will say "clearer or speak up." I absolutely hate it when people clip. 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 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 no prep stealing.

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. 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.

I agree with pretty much any of the following people's paradigms so if you are looking for something a little bit more substantive look at: Tim Lewis, Chris Paredes, Stephen Lewis, Yueshuya Li, and also a little bit of Teddy Wachlter's paradigm.

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]" (without the brackets, please.)

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

TL;DR:

Be clear, explain yourselves, and I will vote for anything, tech/truth. Debate is a game, it should be fun for everyone involved. Enjoy your time, be nice to your opponents, signpost well and distinguish your warrants, and you'll be just fine.

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, I don't really care as long as it is consistent and fits your ethos.
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 constructive and one rebuttal. Tournament rules come before that, and they should be complied with first.

I will vote on whatever kind of argument as long as it doesn't violate those rules, but I will not vote on it if it does not make logical sense to me by the end of the 2AR. I fully believe in tech/truth, and will accept any kind of argument. It's up to you as debaters to define what the rules of the game are and convince me why those are best.

Evidence that is directly written by a current or previous debater or on an obviously satire website will be flowed as an analytic. Reading urban dictionary or cards by the onion and trying to pass them off as "trustworthy evidence" isn't funny and will result in lower speaks and me brushing them off my flow.

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 and clearly distinguish one argument from another.

Signpost. If you want your arguments to be actually taken into consideration, you better actually make it clear it's an important argument when you say it the first time. 2N/ARs say "they didn't actually clash with the specifics of my argument," of course they didn't, your specific warrants were completely unintelligible. If I cannot hear and clearly distinguish between each warrant in your card, then those warrants don't exist and I will reject every extension of them as new arguments.

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.

For online tournaments, 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 so I don't think you're just stealing prep.

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 divisions. If someone clearly doesn't understand your argument then take a moment to explain it clearly, so that we all can learn and enjoy ourselves. Cross-ex is not a CS-GO lobby, I have zero qualms about pausing the timer and interrupting people to stop their verbal wrestling match. Be nice and be chill.

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, and 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. I am personally familiar with (and have gone for) Capitalism, Psychoanalysis, and Edelman critiques, if that's helpful for you.

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 arguments 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 arguments 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 argument 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!