Hey! I’m Simon (I also go by Amber) - sblloe@utexas.edu

Add me on speech docs & email chains :/

---

A little about me:

I did Public Forum in High school from 2018-2022 for strake, qualifying to TOC, State, and Nationals three times each and clearing at all three sometime or another while winning a few national tournaments along the way.

Before we continue: I recommend you read through the bolded stuff or there is an immensely high likelihood that neither of us will enjoy the outcome of this round :/

---

General:

I’m very tech, but I’m also not afraid of debaters who are willing to experiment with the flow.

Go literally as fast as you want. I can only handle about 350 wpm without faltering or missing stuff tho without a speech doc (which you should send).

A few misc things that people always get confused about in front of me: Quality > Quantity (Don’t make me get out more than 5 sheets pls), I LOVE TURNS + I’ll boost your speaks if you go for them, Counterinterps > RVIs, I have a low bar for perm acceptance but a high bar in extending them, Sticky defense is fake, and DA dumping is lame + loses speaks.

I won’t do any work for you – and I refuse to intervene with a few exceptions listed below. This also means I will not change my standards for extensions and frontlines in the case that the round gets flooded by a 10 sheet dam break.

I’m very pessimistic about the way PF is going – which is straight into a dumpster fire for norms. Thus, those of you who read progressive arguments will have a speaks floor of 28.5 (unless its bigoted in nature). Keep in mind I give a 26-ish on average.

I will evaluate literally anything progressive that occurs in front of me.

I pref first unless told otherwise.

---

Prefs/Strikes Info: [Scaled 1-Best -> 5-Worst]

Ask questions if you need to, but for PF I’m confident I can eval just about anything.

Always send speech docs.

Non-T Ks : 1 – This is what I read in high-school. I’m pretty up to date abt most non-T lit and I’m good at evaluating it. Be clear and you’ll be fine. On a side note do not read an Identity K if you don’t identify with the group - If you do that I bump this down to a 4. For interesting Non-T Ks, i.e., not basic identity Lit, go for it I love these but send speech docs. Also, pls don’t invalidate people’s identities when responding to or reading these – I’ll obliterate your speaks and won't eval. When responding please also tailor your basic identity K responses to the K itself or my bar for responses can literally be "they read off backfiles - kick the responses bc they generalize and marginalize identity".

Reps Ks: 1 - If it’s warranted this may be above a one. Even if it’s like a reps K against debating economics I’m chilling with it though. Keep it simple and don’t try to overcomplicate it. Please make sure not just to win the rep itself but why reps are a voting issue.

Topical Ks: 2 - Most topical links are pretty boring to me but so long as you have a coherent alt and rotb you’ll be fine. If it’s a weird alt explain it and you’ll be okay - I feel like most topical Ks end up being really badly warranted – especially in terms of how the alt solves – so just make sure the alt is well warranted.

Theory: 2 - If its warranted you’re chilling and I’ll probably have a low bar for frontlines and extensions. If its friv this is more of a 3. (I consider anything related to dates or other stuff like that friv). I read both warranted and friv theory in high school and I def have biases towards or against certain kinds of theory. If something related to personal violence occurs – you do not have to read a shell and an IVI will be just fine (Trust me I won’t slight you for it being an IVI). BTW I DEFAULT K>Theory - so weigh in the opposite direction if you need to.

IVIs: 2 - If its warranted you’re chilling, and I’ll have a low bar for frontlines and extensions. If its friv this is more of a 4. If its abt personal violence, it’s above a 1. If someone reads an IVI pertaining to plagiarism or something of the sort, I’d really prefer it to be a shell and it gets bumped down to a 4.

Phil: 3 (Better be coherent and clear) - Please explain it correctly. PLEASE. Just bc you win the phil side doesn’t mean you win the application side. These debates get very muddled so explain your author right. Know that I’ve probably read at least some of their lit unless you’re reading someone obscure.

Soft-Left (Specialized Frameworks for Substance Debate [i.e. fem framing or neolib etc…]): 3 - These annoy me. Why not read a K? If you drop the framing then I default that the arg is strictly substantive. Also, most soft-left args get convoluted bc people can’t properly explain the warrants behind advocating for their framework – please explain it properly.

Counter-Plans/[Technically Plans]: 3 - Go for it. I love counter-plans but I’ve seen so many fail. Please debate these correctly and extend the whole structure & implicate how it interacts with the whole flow. This technically extends to plans too but be careful in how you break PF Plan rules bc I’m highly unlikely to vote on it unless you warrant it super well.

Perms: 3 - Please explain the perm vs. alt debate & please explain why I should eval the perm in the rotb. If you can’t or don’t, then don’t read the perm. I also have a super-high bar for extensions on Perms – i.e. don’t just read the tag. Generally, not an amazing idea - I’d much prefer a line-by-line or Counter rotb/K than your reading 3 or 4 perms and hoping the debate gets muddled.

RVIs: 3 - Please don’t just dump these. I’ll be annoyed but I’ll evaluate it. Also, my bar for responses is very very low and you have to weigh RVI > Shell.

Trix: 4 - Same as RVIs. Also, if they're funny and you go for them, I'll give you a 30. Multiple layers that are unrelated also make my head hurt so please don’t.

Word PICs: 4 - I feel like most word PICs are unwarranted and friv, which is why this is down here. For words that most definitely deserve to have the other team drop - this is a 1 – I’m not going to give any examples but yk which words. That being said please omit the word itself when you read the word PIC unless you are permitted to say it, If I have speech docs, I’ll know what you’re referring to.

New Forms of Debate: 4 - If it's good, I will give you 30s. If it’s bad, I’ll be confused. Explain it well, Explain the structure well, and gl.

Topicality: 4 - I really (REALLY) hate T, but you can read it. Just don't be forcing on debating substance itself and instead explain the implications of the shell for norms instead of being all gung-ho about defending "the public in PF".

Pure Substance: 5 (I mean its normal debate - not that fun but I can judge it just fine)

A specific note on Fem Ks - Don’t read Terf lit. I’ll give you bottom speaks and if your opponents point out how its Terf lit my ballot writes itself. If I catch you reading statistics that specify debaters who are only of "the female sex" I will straight up drop the whole K on a perf-con - Ik this is intervention I do not care:) I DARE YOU TO READ STATS THAT ASSIGN GENDERS BASED ON NAMES.

---

Here are the cases I’ll intervene in the round:

You must read content warnings – for my and your opponent’s sakes. [I won’t down you for not doing it (unless the ops. read a shell) but I promise that I won’t pay attention to the technicalities of the argument and I’ll drop your speaks]

You must use the pronouns your opponent’s specify.

You must use the name your opponent’s specify.

(If you don't know - just ask. I'm not going to care abt responses like "I didn't know" if they read an IVI or a shell)

Don’t be a bigot.

Don’t put someone else’s safety in jeopardy.

If any of these occur, I won’t hesitate to vote on them.

---

Post-round me if you want.

Email: vail.c.7777@gmail.com

Hey, I'm Vail. I debated for Strake Jesuit and graduated in 2022. I qualified to the TOC twice. I primarily read Kantian philosophy and theory. 

I will vote on anything that has a claim warrant and impact. I'm bad at flowing.

1 - Theory/T

1/2 - Phil/Tricks

3/4 - Larp/K

Theory: Probably what I'm best at judging. I default competing interps, drop the debater, and no RVI. I don't care how frivolous your shell is. 

Phil: I only really read Kant and its variations and GCB. I think I'm familiar with pragmatism, hobbes, contracts, and kind of Levinas. Over explaining always helps. TJFs are strategic. So is permissibility and presumption. I think religious philosophy is really cool. 

Larp: I only did it when I had to. Weighing is good. Assume I know nothing about the topic or any current events though. 

Kritiks: I only read semiocap and queer pessimism. I think I have an okay understanding of afro pessimism, psychoanalysis, disability pessimism, settler colonialism, and deleuze. I think K tricks are strategic. 

Tricks: I'm bad at flowing. Too many can be a hassle. When done correctly they are strategic.

In my 25th year as the head debate coach at Strake Jesuit. Prior to that I worked as a public defender.Persuasion, clarity, and presentation matter to me. I have a workable knowledge on many progressive arguments, but my preference is traditional, topical debate. Because I don't judge much, it is important to speak clearly and articulate the things that you want me to pay close attention to. If you go too fast and don't follow this advice you will lose me. I will not vote off of something that I don't understand. You need to make my path to your ballot clear. I like certain types of theory arguments and will vote off of them if there is a demonstrated abuse (topicality, disclosure, etc.). My firm belief is that you should debate the topic assigned. I also am a big fan of disclosure. I think that it levels the playing field for all involved. Drops matter. Impacting is important. Giving clear reasons why you are winning offense is the easiest way to pick up my ballot.

*For all email chains - email to jcrist1965@gmai.comand strakejesuitpf@mail.strakejesuit.org - include both*

For evidence exchange, questions, etc., use: ishan.debate@gmail.com.

Add (for email chains): strakejesuitpf@mail.strakejesuit.org

I competed in PF at Strake Jesuit from 2019-2023 and now coach. Most results are viewable here.

I view debate as a communicative, research-centric game. Winning requires you to persuade me. The following should give you enough information to do so:

General

I dislike dogma and judge debates more from a "tech" perspective than "truth", although the two often go hand-in-hand.

Quality evidence matters. Arguments require a warrant. Impacts are not assumed. Sounds analytics can be convincing, but usually not blips.

I will not vote for arguments I cannot make sense of.

Speak clearly. Slow down on taglines and for emphasis. I flow by ear.

Cross-ex is binding otherwise it's useless. Bring up relevant concessions in a speech.

By default, I presume for the side that defends the status quo.

Evidence practices

Send speech docs before you speak. This should include all the cards you plan on introducing. Marking afterwards does not require prep.

Stop the round and conducting an evidence challenge if you believe someone is violating the rules.

Avoid paraphrasing.

PF

Defense is not sticky.

Second rebuttal should frontline.

Extensions are relevant not for the purpose of ticking a box but for clarity and breaking clash.

Cards should have descriptive taglines.

I like to reward creativity.

My threshold for non-utilitarian framing is higher than most.

1FF weighing is fine, but earlier is better.

I dislike the pre-fiat and IVI trend.

Theory

These debates may have more intervention than you'd like.

I dislike heavily semantical and frivolous theory debates.I believe that paraphrasing is bad and disclosure (OS in particular) is good. That said, I am not a hack.

Defaults are no RVIs (a turn is not an RVI), reasonability > CI, spirit > text, DTA, and respond in next speech.

Ks

Be familiar with your stuff and err on the side of over explanation.

Very hesitant to vote on discourse-based arguments or links not specific to your opponents actions and/or reps in the debate.

Any response strategy is fine. Good for Fwk and T.

Non-starters

Ad-homs/call-outs/any unverifiable mud-slinging.

Tricks.

Misc

Avoid dawdling. Questions, pre-flowing, etc. should all happen before start time.

Post-rounding is educational and holds judges accountable. Just don't make it personal.

Have fun but treat the activity and your opponents seriously and with respect.

My name is Abbey Estrella

Never judged debate

Go slower, but not like old people slow

I like hearing arguments multiple times to reinforce them

If you don't respond to what your opponent says I'll think you're losing unless what they said is dumb

Truth > Tech but like low-key can be convinced of crazy stuff

Persuasion is important

TL;DR/General

-Debate's a game. I'm a tech> truth judge; if an argument is conceded, it becomes 100% true in the round.

*Note: The only time I will ever intervene is if you are blatantly homophobic, antisemetic, transphobic, racist, sexist, etc. Making arguments that impact turn any type of oppression will get you an L20.

-Speed: You can go pretty fast in front of me just be clear. If I don't know what you're saying, I'll say "clear" 3 times before I stop flowing and drop your speaks. Slow down on author names, CP texts, and interps.

-I judge debates without intervening, and I keep a pretty clean flow. If you want me to vote on something, you have to extend it. Rounds with no offense are horrible to judge. ** Your extension should include author last name and content or I won't give it to you. Extend the UQ, link, internal link, and impact or you don't get access to the argument.

-If you really want me to listen, make it interesting. Sass is appreciated. I'm fine with flex prep and tag team cross in PF because it usually makes things a little more bearable to watch.

-Please do comparative weighing and meta-weighing if necessary (i.e. why scope is more important than timeframe). Rounds are so hard to adjudicate if no weighing is done because I am left to decide which impacts are more important

-CX is binding

- Warrant your arguments -- I'll prefer an analytical claim with a warrant over some random stat with none.

-Please tell me what flow and where on the flow to start on. Signposting is astronomically important and should be done throughout the speech.

-You can do anything you want -- don't care if it's sketchy (other than miscut evidence) -- and if the other team has a problem, they can read theory. Just know that I won't intervene if I think that you are being abusive unless you get called out on it. Ex: If they read a link turn, you can read an impact turn in the next speech and extend both lol

-I'm a super easy judge to read. If I am nodding, I like your argument. If I look confused, I probably am.

- If you at any point in the debate believe that your opponent has no routes to the ballot whatsoever i.e. a conceded theory shell, you can call TKO (Technical Knock Out). The round stops as soon as you call it. What this means is that if I believe that the opposing team has no routes to the ballot, I will give you a W30. However, if there are still any possible routes left, I will give you a L20.

Speaks

I average around a 28. Ways to get good speaks in front of me: be funny, go for the right things in later speeches, speak clearly, make CX interesting. Getting a 30 is not impossible in front of me but very difficult (I've only ever given out one). I give speaks more on strategy than on actual speaking skills, especially in LD.

For PF:

I much prefer line-by-line debate to big picture in summary, rebuttal, and final focus.

My thoughts on defense: The only thing that needs to be in summary and final focus (obvi besides offense) is terminal defense. Mitigatory defense and non-uniques are sticky because they matter a lot less . BUT, if you do not extend terminal defense, it doesn't just go away; it just becomes mitigatory rather than terminal ie I will still evaluate risk of offense claims.

First summary only needs to extend the defense with which 2nd rebuttal interacts. Turns and case offense need to be explicitly extended by author/source name. Extend both the link and the impact of the arguments you go for in every speech (and uniqueness if there is any).

2nd Rebuttal should frontline all turns. Any turn not frontlined in 2nd rebuttal is conceded and has 100% strength of link -- dont try to respond in a later speech (trust me, i'll notice).

Every argument must have a warrant -- I have a very low threshold to frontlining blip storm rebuttals.

Mirroring is super crucial to me: If you want me to evaluate an arg, it must be in BOTH summary and FF.

I'm fine with progressive PF- I think that policy action resolutions give fiat, and I don't have a problem w plans or CPs. PFers have a hard time understanding how to make a CP competitive- please make perms if they aren't. Theory, Kritiks, and DAs are fine too. If you wanna see how I evaluate these, see my LD paradigm below.

Please have a cut version of your cards; I will be annoyed if they are paraphrased with no cut version available because this is how teams so often get away with the misrepresentation of evidence which skews the round.

If you clear your opponent when I don't think it's necessary, I'll deduct a speak each time it happens. Especially if there's a speech doc, you don't need to slow down unless I'm the one clearing you.

Because evidence ethics have become super iffy in PF, I will give you a full extra speaker point if you have disclosed all tags, cites, and text 15 mins before the round on the NDCA PF Wiki under your proper team, name, and side and show it to me. I want an email chain too, preferably with cut cards if I am judging you.

Theory

I prefer shell formats (Interp, Violation, Standards, Voters) because they are easier to compartmentalize and flow but paragraph theory is fine as well. Please read clear implications (drop the arg vs drop the debater).

I default drop the debater, no RVIs, and Competing Interps.

PF-style Kritiks

I am pretty familiar with a more PF type of K debate, but please structure your Kritik like a real K (if you can’t remember the exact structure, remember LIAR - Link, Impact, Alternative, Role of the Ballot). Also includes stuff like generic fem or race frameworks. Role of the Ballot should be read in constructive.

Misc.

vibe check

tywilsongribble@gmail.com

I prefer traditional debate,

Tech > Truth, but warrants matter

Speaks will be high unless you are mean. then they will be low

second rebuttal respond to first, defense is not sticky

there are RVI's and if you read no RVI's I will be sad

Debate PF at Strake 2021-2025 - please add me to the doc: guodaniel3@gmail.com

For MSTOC LD:

Do what you do best - go as fast as you want and be respectful, kind, and fun!

Policy - 1

K - 2

Theory/T - 2/3

Phil - 5

Tricks - 5

I debate PF so err on the side of over-explanation. Be very clear on what voting for you does and what the links are, especially if fully non-T. Not good for high phil/extremely uncommon K.

PF:

Tech> Truth, go as fast as you want and read whatever you want.

Cleanest link into best weighed offense, but arguments must have coherent extensions - uniqueness, link, impact.

Impact Calc and Backhalf Thoughts: (Stolen from Ishan's Paradigm)

I assess probability largely based on if you are winning your argument. However, arguments don't necessarily start at 100%. You establish probability through evidence and explanation. Probability matters, especially when magnitudes are similar (e.g., extinction). If probability weighing becomes new defense, call it out.

Extensions are yes/no. Extend, definitely, but I would much rather time be spent on actual debating. A few sentences or a run-on containing a claim, warrant, and impact is sufficient to be considered "extended." However, arguments are usually harder to win on the flow with a shallow extension. If something is conceded, my threshold drops significantly. Nit-picky details become relevant if there is clash (e.g., if there is impact defense then extending a specific internal link is important). However, tactfully detailed extensions of the uniqueness, link, or impact that leverage the nuances of evidence and/or arguments more broadly can be very strategic and sometimes necessary for frontlines, weighing, and breaking clash. Basically,there should be a purpose to what you say: if it's not advancing the debating or clarifying something, it's not affecting the outcome of the round.

Link turns without uniqueness are defense. Uniqueness responses can zero a turn's offense, but remember that the "turn" then becomes defense. Even then, generally speaking,link > uniqueness.

By default,I presume neg/con.

Not good for PF K's w/o alts, poor evidence ethics, or any sort of -isms

Hi! I’m Finney a junior at Strake Jesuit, been doing pf ever since freshman year.

Add me to the email chain: FGHaire25@mail.strakejesuit.org

Tldr: tech>truth, tabula rasa. Read what you want but I can’t guarantee I will be able to understand it. The quickest way to my ballot is good weighing and defense. Fine with speed as long as you send a doc with cut cards and you must go slow on analytics. Defense isn’t sticky. Quality>quantity. The best rounds are ones where I don’t have to think about my decision. In the back half, write my ballot for me. Be very clear with signposting. I prefer a substance debate with good clash but I won't stop you from doing what you want.

Comments and opinions

It is the judge’s job to do their best to adapt to the debaters but with that being said I do feel more confident judging straight topical rounds. That’s what I feel the best at evaluating but I am willing to judge whatever including ks theory and whatever you can come up with.

Every single thing you read or go for needs warranting. The warranting doesn’t have to be true but if there is no warrant then you’re just saying nothing and I will not vote for it. Threshold for warrants goes down if something is fully dropped or the flow is supper messy.

I will always look at the weighing first to see who’s winning that and then look at who’s winning links. I love love love link weighing, meta weighing, uniqueness weighing, and any other weird weighing mechanisms.

The only thing that can be new after summary is weighing. I will evaluate new weighing in second final if it’s the first time weighing is read. If your opponents try to read new defense and call it probability weighing then call them out and I won’t vote on it.

Most probable implementation of the resolution isn’t real. It’s just excuse to read a plan in pf and I will evaluate it if your not called out for it but like…

Pf has really bad evidence ethics. Call out your opponents for terribly miss cut cards and if I think it’s bad enough I will just scratch them from my flow.

Being able to show cut cards quickly is a must. If you hold up the round for over 3 minutes trying to find a card I will doc your speaks.

I’ll flow off a doc if I really need to. I would greatly prefer not to and there’s a decent chance my flow will be a little worse. You also probably don't need to go that fast.

Theory

I have an okay amount of experience with it and know how to evaluate it.

Disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad but I can be convinced otherwise. Default yes RVIs.

Ks

Not very much experience tbh but do what you want. If I look confused it’s because I am. Slow down on extensions and over-explain the k if you want me to make the best decision possible.

speaks

Start at a 28.5 and go up or down based on strategy and if you seem nice or funny. If you are spreading at a completely unintelligible speed to the point where it’s almost impossible to prove if u clipped, I will prob drop your speaks. If you do really annoying stuff like read theory on freshman or counter plans in 2nd rebuttal that are just new contentions, I will vote for them sure but expect a low point win.

ask questions and post round if you want.

Good luck!

I will vote on areas of resolved clash rather than resolving clash myself, unless I have to. I am not concerned with speaking. So long as you are clear, I will give speaks based on strategy. I have some experience with progressive debate. I am comfortable with theory, having run it a decent number of times. Friv theory is fine, but if read against novices or teams that clearly don't know how to respond to theory I may drop speaks but will still evaluate it. I'm more uncertain on Ks. Read them if you want and I'll try to evaluate it, but I can't guarantee I will do so correctly.

Collapsing is good. You should not go for multiple contentions unless they are easy to frontline and quick to extend.

Rebuttals can be blippy if you implicate well in the back half. Tech over truth for all responses.

Good weighing gives you a massive advantage if you have any access to your case. Please do link weighing--it is the easiest path to the ballot. If weighing is very blippy on both sides with little comparison, I will go truth over tech to break clash if there is no other way to evaluate the round.

Speaking faster than 250 wpm is a risk if I don't have a speech doc. If you go above 300, please give clear extensions in the back half.

Email chains are good. If you are using them or speech docs, add me to them. LAHolmes25@mail.strakejesuit.org

I will only look at evidence if a team tells me to, or if there is heavy unresolved debate over it at the end of the round.

Read tricks if you want but implicate clearly in the back half. If both teams read tricks, I'll give both teams 30s. If only one team reads tricks, the team that read tricks loses speaks. I have a low threshold for responses if only one team reads tricks.

-Please go slow I can't keep up and I cant flow off docs so please go slow I need time to process and understand the complexities of the round

-I don't flow traditionally I take note of the big picture and who has presented more persuasively

*Note: this paradigm was written with PF in mind, as that’s what I have the most experience with

TL;DR - Tech, be nice :)

About Me:

Hi, I'm John (he/him)! I competed in PF for Strake Jesuit for 4 years and currently compete in policy for BC. I also have some experience coaching both PF and LD.

Main Stuff:

Add me to the email chain (my email is jsextonii@att.net)

Speed: Literally go as fast as you want, I don’t care. If you’re going to spread, though, please send a speech doc before the speech.

Please signpost your speeches. If you jump around the flow, that’s fine, but make it clear where you are.

Progressive arguments: Ks > theory > topic

2nd rebuttal must frontline.

1st summary is the last place for new evidence/arguments.

Tech > truth

Turns must be implicated (aka explain why the turn actually matters)

You can call for a TKO at any time. If your opponent truly doesn’t have any other way to win, I will give you double 30s and a win. If your opponent still has any way to win the ballot, you will lose with double 25s.

In non-progressive rounds, I default neg if arguments are a wash. The burden of proof is on the aff to explain why the change being proposed is beneficial / the neg-world (usually status quo) is bad.

I do not evaluate anything said in cross. You must implicate what actually happened during cross to make me care.

If one side provides framing and the other side doesn’t respond by 2nd summary, I will frame the round according to the proposed viewpoint.

Procedural:

If both teams agree, I’m fine with skipping grand.

I will disclose immediately after the round unless the tournament prevents me from doing so.

I'm pretty chill about speaks unless you’re blatantly being rude or offensive (racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.)

I shouldn’t have to be saying this, but be nice. At the end of the day, debate should be fun, so please try to make it enjoyable for everyone involved in the round.

Other:

I’ll give bonus speaks for stuff that makes me laugh (big fan of puns) :)

Boston university 27

been a debater at strake for 3 years I was both a first and second speaker I have 3 gold bids so I'd like to think I'm decent at debate

email for if there's an email chain.

woturley23@mail.strakejesuit.org

I'm going to be more of a tech judge

defense isn't sticky extend it if you want it to be considered

you must extend all parts of your case/contention in summary and final

need to frontline in 2nd rebbutal

pls collapse the round will get too bogged down if you don't

pls pls pls pls pls pls pls pls do comparative weighing it controls what I look to first and is most likely your best shot to the ballot

turns don't matter if you don't implicate them or give them a impact

if y'all both agree to have a lay round I'll judge that way

you'll either get 30 speaks or 25 only way you get 25 if you're some form of ism ex racism or if you're rude to your opponents it'll get docked

I don't evaluate cross unless its brought up in speech

you can curse if you want

Tech>truth and debate is a game. Defense isn’t sticky (if they collapse in 2nd rebuttal, in summary, have to read one response for every dropped piece of offense) New weighing is ok in first final focus. For the Bilo Bowl only: Rather than defaulting 1st, if there’s no complete extensions, the team with the most complete extension wins.

Strake ‘23 | The London School of Economics ‘26

Tech > Truth

Speed is fine. If you spread, send me a speech doc.

If it is not extended I will not vote off of it.

New implications in 2nd summary / FF are pretty sketch and I am probably not willing to vote off of them.

Please weigh and signpost well. Probability, strength of link, clarity of link are not real weighing mechs. Probability weighing is literally just how conceded your arg is. UQ weighing > Link weighing > Impact weighing. No new weighing after 1st summary. Second rebuttal should collapse/weigh (also just a good general thing to do).

Try to resolve clash by doing warrant comparison. Weighing pieces of evidence against each other can be really strategic and make messy case debates look very clear.

Impact turns are underutilized in PF but are highly effective.

Evidence is overrated. Good analytics beat bad evidence. I will not intervene on bad evidence unless one team calls it out and explains why it is a voting issue.

You can call a TKO if you believe your opponents don't have any path to the ballot. The round stops and if you're right you get a W30 and if you're wrong you get a L20.

Progressive:

I think progressive args are good for pf.

Framing: Framework should be read in constructive. Second constructive MUST answer framework otherwise its conceded. When responding to framework, an alternative framing must be provided or I'll just default to whichever team introduced framing when evaluating impacts. I kinda understand some phil but its probably not a good idea to read it in front of me if you don’t explain and implicate it well.

Theory: I default to competing interps and no RVIs. Reasons to grant RVIs or default to reasonability can be persuasive if done correctly. I generally think disclosure of any identity based arguments is dumb and frankly pretty problematic. Please weigh theory over K or vice versa. If not, I generally (emphasis on generally) think k comes before theory.

Kritiks: I like k debate. Lit bases I’m more familiar with are Orientalism, Security, Imperialism, Set Col, Fem, Queer Theory, Cap, Afropes, and Critical Asian Lit, and a bit of Baudrillard and bioptx. I can probably judge other stuff but just slow down a bit. For context, I read a lot of Asian stuff and queer theory. Ks need a real alt and contextualized links.

Personally, I don't really think topicality is a good response to a kritk if given by itself. Reading topicality against a k Neg is pretty dumb in pf because the Neg does not need to be topical only refuse the aff. Also, when responding to a k, please for the love of all things holy, respond to the ROTB or provide your own.

"I am a freshman" or "I have never debated theory" etc. is not a response to progressive arguments.

Tricks: Trix are for kids

K's and Theory MUST be extended in rebuttal.

This is my first time to judge. I am a lay judge with limited knowledge of the technical rules of debate. I am lawyer experienced in presenting arguments before judges and juries. I know your time is limited, but you will lose points if you rush so fast that I cannot understand your argument. I expect arguments to be logically sound and factually supported with cites to reliable evidence. I expect debaters to be respectful of their opponents and the judge.

15 Bids in LD

Won Emory, Texas, and TFA State.

2 Gold Bids in PF

nwei24@mail.strakejesuit.org

I reward innovative strategies the most.

Read mostly pseudo-topical K affs and theory.

I consider myself to be a flex debater.

0 Risk is a thing. My bar for warrants are high.

Comfortable with advanced counterplan competition.

No such thing as friv theory.