Email: seijidebate[at]gmail[dot]com

Top Level:

West High School SLC '24

Harvard ‘28

Call me "Seiji" [say-G]. Pronouns: he/him/his

Title the subject of the email chains: [Tournament Name] [Round Number] AFF [School Name] vs NEG [School Name]

I am colorblind. I can't see blue highlighting.

No PDFs.

I prefer to watch a good debate I have less experience with than watch a bad debate where teams try to appeal to my preferences. "I begin evaluating almost every debate by listing out all the impacts made in the 2NR and 2AR and then determine the degree to which each team gets access to the fullest extent of those impacts by parsing out the rest of the debate. After, I'll weigh these impacts by deciding what the implications of winning each of them are (defaulting to and prioritizing the comparative metrics forwarded by the debaters in the round) and then usually have a good idea of who I believe should win." - Kenji Aoki. Good debating, line-by-line, impact calc, etc. will all minimize the intervention I have to do and help with me evaluating args I have less experience with. Dropped args still need claims and warrants extended.

KAFFs/Framework:

KAFFs usually get the perm but I hold a high threshold for how it is explained, especially when you're trying to moot/shield links. I'm open to NEG interpretations of how the perm should be theoretically evaluated beyond just "a test of competition."

Fairness can or can’t be an impact. Winning it's an "intrinsic good" requires you to win a prescriptive - not just descriptive - reason as to why debate should be a game, which is why I'm more convinced with explanations as to how fairness is a necessary internal link to the educational value of debate and why both sides require it for their impacts.

Clash needs to be explained comparatively between the two models of debate. I think the most convincing explanation of clash as an impact is how it implicates skills.

Any NEG case debating should implicate AFF solvency for their potential impact turns and/or become offense for why discourse around your interp is good.

Topicality:

I tend to give greater weight to cards that define the word in a holistic context, not just use it in a sentence or for a specific purpose, article, or court case, UNLESS that specificity matters in the debate.

I like impacts like limits and ground to be contextualized to how the topic operates, i.e. what is the core controversy of the topic and what arguments (ground) are necessary for external educational-related impacts.

Counterplans:

All CPs are fair game and competitive until proven otherwise.

I default to judge kick, but I'm open to a 2AR that pushes back on judge kick if 'perm shields'/'links to the net benefit' is a core part of the strategy, especially if the 2NR doesn't have defense of judge kick.

Sufficiency framing doesn't always apply to the AFF's impacts that are yes/no questions. I also prefer it be contextualized to the internal links at least by the 2NR AND why 'sufficiently' solving outweighs the specific AFF deficits.

The more specific the solvency advocate, the better. If you have a really good and specific card that says the 50 states can solve the specific mechanism/area of the plan, I am more likely to err NEG on substance and theory than if the AFF only dumps 3 generic topic fed key warrants.

0 solvency is possible (this applies to the AFF too).

Disadvantages:

You do you.

0 risk of an impact is possible.

Being late breaking in these debates (not reading a terminal/uniqueness in the 1NC) just makes me a lot more lenient on new 1AR and 2AR answers.

Kritiks:

Contextualized overviews are very cool. Super long overviews are not.

Links that are able to pull lines from the 1AC/2AC or rehighlight their cards are very good and help me better evaluate the link debate.

Whatever happens on the framework debate will obviously dictate how I evaluate rhetoric links but I'm more inclined to evaluate them if it's in the tag of a card/said in a highlighted portion, speech, or CX and less inclined to evaluate them when it's a rehighlighting of the 1AC's shrunken text or anything similar.

Your framework interp should probably moot the AFF and have links that interact with how case is framed in terms of impact calculus and solvency. If you're going for the alt, you should probably just scrap framework and engage the AFF on the level of materiality with the links OR have a framework interp that enables you to abusively fiat solvency. I want to know what the alt does at the end of the round.

Plan pre-round what you want your 2NR to look like based on which part of the K works best against your opponent's AFF (framework/alt).

Speaks:

I use the tournament's metric that they give me.

Here is the template I use if they don't give me one:

<27: you did something ethically wrong (clipping, discrimination, etc.)

27.5-27.8: you're probably a 0-6/1-5 bracket

27.9-28.2: you're probably in 1-5/2-4 bracket

28.3-28.6: you're probably in the 3-3 bracket

28.7-29.0: you're probably in the 4-2 bracket.

29.1-29.4: you're probably going to make it to early/mid elims

29.5-29.8: you're going to late elims

29.9-30.0: you're winning the tournament

Debated for Rowland Hall (~1 yr on the circuit), West HS (1), and Brookfield East (1).

Add me to the chain mdagar2074@gmail.com

TL;DR debate is a game

-------

I learned from the goat Arunabh

- send evidence read in speech to the chain for a bump up in speaks, same goes for open-source disclosing and not paraphrasing

- don't delay the round so just preflow before round

------

Topical stuff

- if you read like a 4 contention case I'll be sad, sole contentions tend to have better depth of argumentation.

- DAs/Overviews in PF are very scummy so if you read a DA make sure it actually interacts with some level of the argument (preferably link).

- weighing should be started in rebuttal -- it makes for the most fun debates imo.

Speed

- Fine with speed if it is cut card spreading just send a doc if above 275 wpm and slow down on tags and author names.

- do not spread 250+ wpm if you paraphrase it just makes me wanna cry bruh cause its a 4 minute speech scattered with 50 cards and blippy warranting.

- I'll yell clear.

- slow down in final

Evidence

- even though I don't like paraphrasing I'll still evaluate paraphrased ev.

- misconstrued evidence is struck off the flow but depending on the severity it can warrant an L

Prog (Theory/K/T)

I believe that disclosing is good (here's how to) and paraphrasing is bad but I won't necessarily hack for either.

- If you read disclosure theory I expect open source disclosure with tags, highlights, and cites/creds. I'll evaluate OS v Full-text debates.

- If you read paraphrasing theory I expect you to tag, not just read the cut (the vacancy of tags just leads to more blippy args which doesn't abide by one of the common justifications of the theory)

- default to competing interps and no RVIs

- Read trigger warnings for obviously triggering subjects

- severance is bad -- explain kicks or turns are fair game

- kritiks are ok especially topical ones (please not cap k though). Make sure you have an alt that isn't "reject the aff." I don't really like judging these rounds though.

- no tricks

- theory spikes are kinda wack but I'll evaluate them

HOW WILL SPEAKER POINTS BE ASSIGNED?

Speak more clearly and use more logical arguments = more speaker points

Speak less clearly and use less logical arguments = fewer speaker points

After all, they're called "speaker" points for a reason, right?

WHO WILL WIN?

I will judge differently in different events.

If theory arguments (arguments about the way debate should be) are used, and they are allowed, both you and your opponents can challenge literally everything I say below. Remember, if it's a bad theory argument, you can tear it down easily, but if you don't tear it down, I will say that they won that part of the debate.

Please try and time yourselves. I know I'm a hypocrite, as I forget to time myself during rounds too, but that's exactly why you want to time your self. Don't trust me. Or maybe just remind me.

Summaries:

POLICY DEBATE:

- You can speed read

- You can send me emails with your documents

- My email address is deanhijjawi@rowlandhall.org

- You can use low-probability, high-impact arguments

- I will use the winning Framework to decide who has the winning impacts to decide who wins

LINCOLN DOUGLAS:

- Pretty much the same as Policy debate, but:

- No speed reading (unless it's hard to notice)

- No document-sending (to me)

- No low-probability, high-impact arguments

EVERYTHING ELSE:

- No idea what I'm doing or what I'm judging.

- Please tell me about the format, probably using this to your advantage

Expansions:

POLICY DEBATE:

I will only consider that which I am able to flow. I have a tendency in life to be exceedingly thorough, so don't speak too quickly, but I will probably be able to understand spreading (speed reading). Although not a useful life skill, I will condone speed reading, hence giving speed readers an advantage due to the ability to fit more arguments in. Think about speed reading like memorizing point values of different pieces in chess; it might not be valuable to you in the real world, but it's essential to make a game (chess) that does teach good skills (logic) better.

For speed reading, the game is Policy Debate and the skills are research and knowledge about the world. Even though they make the debate itself much worse, I will condone and even encourage speed reading, document sharing, because this encourages students to cram in as many cards and arguments into their speeches as possible and hence encourages them to do as much research as possible. For the same reason, I will consider high-impact, low probability arguments to encourage students to learn more about topics such as nuclear war and climate change. These varied, strange, and far-reaching arguments, I believe, are what allows a Policy Debate topic to remain fresh for an entire year.

Here is my email, so you can share documents with me: deanhijjawi@rowlandhall.org

Whichever Framework argument seems to have been logically defended the best, considering arguments made in evidence, I will go with. This may involve some subjective assessment on my part if not all arguments were answered, or is some arguments were not answered well.

Using the framework, I will evaluate every argument made. I will pull zero weight for you, even if the weight is miniscule. For example, if your opponent has an argument based off the premise that 2+2=5 which out-impacts all of your points with the framework that wins the debate, and you do not challenge the idea that 2+2=5, then despite the fact that any sane person could see that you would have won the debate in real life, this is a game and I will give your opponents the ballot.

If it's a bad argument, it should be easy to tear down. For example, you could tear down the premise that "2+2=5" by saying that "2+2=4 by intuition," or "2+2=4, as this is common knowledge," or "2+2=4 by the definitions of 2, +, =, and 4."

However, remember that it is best to use evidence; after all, research is one of the big benefits of Policy Debate. This is especially true if your opponent has evidence. For example, if your opponent has a card for the idea that climate change is fake, even though this idea seems rather foolish, because it does not breach the MOST basic laws of logic, I will consider it to be true unless you bring up evidence saying otherwise, or use the "common knowledge" argument (which I will weigh differently depending on the strength of their evidence).

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE:

Unlike Policy Debate, which focuses on incentivizing research in as many diverse areas as possible, Lincoln-Douglas debate is meant to spur serious philosophical thought, sane debating, and good speaking. As a result, unlike with Policy Debate:

I will not consider low-probability, high impact arguments.

I will not condone excessive speed reading (although you might get away with it if you read slowly to the point that I cannot notice the spreading).

I will not read any documents you attempt to share with me.

Otherwise, everything's the same with me (except speech times and order, obviously).

LITERALLY ANYTHING OTHER THAN POLICY DEBATE AND LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE:

I will have no idea whatsoever what is going on. I will be gullible. An explanation of the debate format will be necessary. You may want to use this to your advantage, although make sure that you don't say things about the format that are entirely false. I will try to veer more in the direction of logic because I like logic and I will have no idea what I'm doing.

The only Exception is Public Forum Debate, which I understand as Lincoln-Douglas Debate but with two people. See above for my paradigm on Lincoln-Douglas Debate.

she/her

add me to the email chain: amritakrishn@gmail.com

She/Her

Hello, my name is Aileen Robles. If there is an email chain, please include me:

aileenrobles@rowlandhall.org

I am quite generous with my speaks; however, if you are rude/overly aggressive/mean to your opponents, I will dock your speaks.

I am ok with spreading so long as you send the document.

Please remember to give me voters; it makes my life easier.

TLDR // do whatever you want i don't really care - tech > truth // any hateful speech is unacceptable and you will lose.

For middle school/novice LD: My least favorite thing about middle school LD is that some people read an essay about the topic. Your speech should be separated into sections and separate arguments. You need to attack your opponent's case, not just defend your own. I don't care if you read arguments without evidence - that's still better than no arguments at all. PLEASE don't cry during the debate round.

Warrant out your arguments and be clear (!).

If you wear green, I will give you 0.1 more speaks!