hello

I'm manal, a junior at mcneil in LD

If you're here, you're a novice, here are my basic rules:

• please signpost so i can flow better, which in turn will benefit you
• please treat your opponent with respect. if you don't i'll take off speaks
• please make sure you understand the arguments you're reading
• if you make funny jokes during round i'll increase speaks!!!!
• most importantly: have fun! one novice round won't determine your future

I'm most familiar with larp and know a small amount of phil so you're probably best off with that, anything else, i'll try to evaluate as best as possible. Please weigh as this can be critical to the round. If you're not doing LD, I apologize in advance lol

have fun!

hey i'm (sri) nithya (she/her)

mcneil '23, ut '27

if i'm judging anything but ld, everything down below applies but just ask me for specifics before round

add me on the email chain: nithyachalla05@gmail.com

t/l

i don't really care what you read as long as you explain it well. make sure to signpost otherwise you're going to lose me very easily.

assume i know absolutely nothing about the topic or current politics when debating because i probably won't.

i'll default to substance first unless told otherwise.

i'm fine with speed but if you're unclear i'm not gonna understand what you're saying. don't spew down on a novice or you're getting horrible speaks. if you're debating someone that doesn't spread, just match their speed in the later speeches. if you debate efficiently, you should still be able to win without spewing down.

also refer to me however you feel like i don't care enough to get mad about what you call me in round.

ill give relatively high speaks- to increase your speaks, make me laugh.

for speaks boost throw in a reference to the latest jjk chapters.

pref sheet

1- cp/disad, kritiks

2- phil, theory

3- non t affs, tricks, trad

if you're a trad debater, just debate how you're most comfortable debating.

cp/disad: the type of debate i'm most familiar with. nothing much to say here, just pls impact weigh it will make me happy and don't force me to do that work for you. explain how the cp either solves the aff and the impacts of the da, or just how the cp is just better than the aff and you'll be ahead. link and impact turns are offense on a disad- pls don't concede them.

phil: explain the syllogism of your fw. that's literally it. i'm not exactly the most adept at phil but i can somewhat follow a phil debate. though my phil knowledge is limited, if you can explain it well and explain why it should frame the round and why you're winning under that framework, you win. just err on the side of of overexplaining because otherwise you're gonna lose me. phil i'm most familiar with: butler, levinas, rawls, hobbes, kant, locke.

kritiks: i'm familiar with some of the lit (some id pol, nietzche, baudrillard, psycho, deleuze, glissant, cap, etc.). pls pls pls utilize the rob if you're debating other fws. it'll make me very happy. also explain the world of the alt otherwise idk how i'm supposed to evaluate perms and at to perms. also, utilize the fw of the k--it can win or lose you rounds. k tricks are always appreciated. k 1ars are always one of the harder ones to give so i'll try to give some leeway. also please don't concede extinction ows--i've done this far too many times than i should have and it's definitely not hard to answer.

non t affs: go for it. i barely read these but i've debated enough to understand the strategic value and implications of reading them. try to be creative in your approach in answering these tho bc those rounds are hella interesting.

theory: not my favorite style but do what you want to do. default no rvis, competing interps , dtd, fairness and education are voters. theory imo gets extremely muddled so if you're planning on going for it, just try to explain the abuse story well.

tricks: i'll evaluate them. idk what else i'm supposed to say about this but if you want, go for it i'm not entirely opposed to them. however, pls don't read 50 million paradoxes- you will lose me.

if you have any questions before round, let me know and i can hopefully answer them. also let me know if you want me to do anything to make the round more inclusive for you. don't be a jerk or do anything offensive otherwise you're getting an automatic l25. please dont postround too much i beg.

Hi! I am Aaditya Ganesan (he/him) TOC qualled my junior year but didn't go because I just got out of a hospital a month before

Westwood 2023 Put me on the chain: aadityaganesan@gmail.com. The following paradigm will be accommodated towards novices since that is who I will probably be judging. That being said if you have any questions not already answered in this paradigm, please ask me before the round!

Last Updated - Novice Inhouse 2021

Will vote on a "trick" if it has a clear warrant, an impact, and if its not randomly hidden within the doc

TLDR: have fun, be nice, and don't overinvest

Speed: should be fine with it but remember your speed doesn't matter if you are not clear. It is better to go 350 wpm clear than to go 450 wp barely comprehensible. Remember to try prioritize being efficient as well ( it doesn't matter how fast you go if you are saying the same thing in 100 different ways).

Policy Arguments:

Have good ev, do good impact comparison weighing.

When extending case, you should not just extend your tags but your warrants as well.

Read whatever type of CPs you want. The more cheaty the cp the more likely I am to be persuaded by a 1ar theory arg.

1-2 condo advocacies is chill.

Don't make new args on the case in the 2NR or new answers to the da or cp in the 2AR pls pls pls.

Don't make morally repugnant impact turns pls(oppression good, racism good) That being said I like impact turn debates like Spark or DeDev or Heg.

Also it would be great if you collapsed in the 2nr.

If a card goes conceded, the warrants that you highlighted went conceded NOT the tag of the card. What I mean by this is that if you powertag evidence saying that Nuke war kills 2 million when your evidence says it kills one million, your opponent has conceded that nuke war kills one million(sorry if this is a bad example lol).

Phil: comfortable with util, kant, virtue ethics, rawls, Levinas, Butler, Hobbes

T/Theory:

Defaults:

No RVIS > RVIs

CI>Reasonability

fairness and edu are voters

It's very easy to persuade otherwise on any of these issues, so odds are you prob shouldn't worry about them.

Do standards weighing pls!!!

Don't read disclosure at a local or in the novice division, it's not cool.

If you read meta theory you have to weigh it/

Thresholds:

1. Solid- cp theory, topicality, must spec(to a certain extent), AFC good/bad, condo good/bad, TJF good/bad, etc.

2. more frivolous stuff - sandwich theory, must disclose tabroom tournament name, must spec theory of the good etc.

3. Don't do it pls- physical appearance, physical location

Kritik: Line by Line>>>>>> Super long overviews

I am most likely going to need an over-explanation of the K in the 2NR regardless of if I am familiar with the lit base or not. Make sure your links are as specific to the aff as possible

I have decent understandings of the following: university, capitalism, security, afropessimism, black nihilism, settler colonialism.

Not really familiar with pomo

don't read an underhighlited 1nc and extrapolate new 2nr warrants that were not in the 1nc.

give overviews at 70-80% speed

If the Kritik is ontology-based, you need to clearly explain why the kritik derives some sort of ontology offense.

I don't like links of omission

If i am voting on the perm being severance, the 2NR has to implicate severance by actually giving warrants instead of just spending 2 seconds saying severance is a voter

Aprioris/Spikes

Not the biggest fan of spikes/aprioris, but I will vote on them if conceded, it has a clear warrant, and I understand it.

If you choose to read them, please slow down in the 1ac or 1nc when doing so or chances are i ll prob miss it.

don't understand burdens

indexicals + condo logic are fine

Default comparative worlds and epistemic modesty but I can easily be persuaded by Truth Testing or confidence

Hi, I'm Karthik - TAMU '28 - McNeil '24 - 4 years of LD on TFA and national circuit

speechdrop is chill, email is chill too: karthik.jay531@gmail.com

General

i flow by ear. don't spread anything you want me to understand/flow. if i miss something, i might feel bad for you but i won't vote on it

only time I'll check the doc is for ev ethics, but I'd rather you read it as a shell

only rules are speech times, rest is up for debate

tech>truth for the ballot (only exception is safety/ -isms), speaks are up to me (read: no speaks spikes)

defaults: theory > rob/framework > offense , presumption and permissibility negate

Novice

weighing is everything

pls don't read theory or K's, everything else is chill

don't worry too much about wins and losses, focus on getting better so you can move up to varsity

Pref sheet

Phil - 1/2 depending on the phil

This is what I find the most interesting in debate, I read some Rawls, Kant, Hobbes, etc. but don't assume ik your philosopher

skep, determinism, and logic tricks like paradoxes are also fine, but make sure to explain why they justify voting for you

K - 3

did a little of this (cap, setcol, security), but don't assume I know your K

not afraid to vote on presumption v a K aff if I don't know what it does

if you can't explain your thesis to a 5 year old within cross ex, then don't read the K in front of me

dislike doc botted 2nrs full of buzzwords

Theory - 1

Did a lot of this as a debater, I'll vote on friv shells if you're winning the flow

I dislike theory spikes without good warranting, but if they have warrants I'll vote on it i guess

judge instruction is key when collapsing to theory, esp when you have to up layer over ROB

defaults: ci>reasonability, drop the debater, no RVI

LARP - 3/4 depending on complexity

I did very little of this, but it seems straightforward enough

assume I don't know anything about current events

I like overviews in 2nr/2ar explaining what the collapse/win condition will be esp in complex debates (multiple condo cp's, impact turns, etc)

other info

speaks

speaks are somewhat arbitrary but influenced by being nice and good judge instruction

shout outs

influenced by: Henderson, Anshul Gulati, Yara Mustafa, Ben Duong, Vishnu Nataraja

shout outs: Rohan Sthanu, Manu Yenikapati, Aditya Patwardhan, Nithya Challa

"live laugh love lose"

email: brianjeon@college.harvard.edu

full disclosure i haven't been in debate for a semester so my ears are not as fast as they used to be meaning clarity is key and do your best to include analytics (especially if they're pre-written) into the 1AC/1NC (bonus speaks if in the 1AR/2NR)

general

hey y'all! i'm brian (he/him), and i debated for westwood hs for 4 years (circuit + toc), x1 bid, x1 toc qual, x3 tfa qual

i will evaluate all arguments (except bigotry) and do my best to understand what you read in front of me

i will disclose speaks if you ask

i do not feel comfortable adjudicating out-of-round actions besides disclosure

flex prep is good

what's below (besides non-negotiables) are my preferences but at the end of the day do what you love, judging debaters who know and care about what they're saying is much more fun than seeing half-baked strategies that over adapt

non-negotiables

cross-ex is binding

i will evaluate all speeches in the round

no 30 speaks theory

no theory that polices what people wear

no floating pik 2nr pivot unless it was very clear in the 1nc

ev ethics

all evidence should follow nsda rules

i do not think accusations of evidence ethics should be risk-less for any team: if the violation is true, L25 BUT if the violation is false, L25 for the other team

if you mark a card, mark it on your end; if you take time to go back and mark it, take prep

policy

i love impact turns! spark, ddev, warming good, even extinction good BUT absolutely no death good/harm good/suffering good

strong case press with fewer offs makes me happy

good research/specific links to the plan will be rewarded with good speaks

t/theory

nebel t/whole res t is totally fine by me, just explain the upward entailment tests and stuff

my defaults are (and please don't let me decide on defaults): no rvis, dtd, ci

i think disclosure is good but i dislike more marginal shells about round robins, cites, judges, etc

• as long as a good faith reasonable attempt was made to disclose the aff and neg positions, i generally think disclosure is less persuasive

the more plan-inclusive the pic is (process, actor, consult) the more cheaty it feels but this is all debatable

kritik

first question on my mind is: what does my ballot do? top of 2nr/2ar should answer this

the kritiks i have read/though about the most are cap, techno-orientalism, and settler colonialism on the affirmative and negative (context: i read storytelling/scifi affs)

regardless of how familiar i am with the literature, good explanation and judge instruction are important

HEAVILY dense literature (some branches of psychoanalysis and post-modern theory) will retire much more slowing down, good explanation, and a solid 2nr overview

quotes in the 1nc/2nr make me very happy

a sole presumption 2nr is an out but my offense/defense brain prefers either separate offense + presumption or offensively-spun presumption

kaffs should be SOMEWHAT related to the resolution (creativity encouraged!)

phil

i'm familiar with and have read kant, hobbes, and butler before

reading a card or two that justifies part of the framework rather than an entire analytic one will be rewarded with speaks - i think debaters have started to plagiarise from theorists with half baked analytics

for your sanity and mine and to reduce the chances of a judge screw, please include all pre-written case framework indicts in the doc

no outright skep please: skep triggers and skep to justify other normative theories are fine

no value debate please

tricks

i guess? the later in the day this is read, the more confused and annoyed i'll get so read at your own risk

please do not be deliberately avoidant of clash like extemping shells or blippy a prioris or being dodgy in cross

lmk if you have any questions!

David Li
WWHS, 24
tidaldolphin10@gmail.com - yes email chain

Spark                                                                                                 No Spark

X---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quick prefs:

1 - Policy
2 - Phil
3 - K
4 - T/Theory
5 - Tricks

Hi guys my name is Yara Mustafa and I'm an LDer from McNeil!

I would prefer to be on the email chain yaram.debate@gmail.com

Shortcuts:

Phil/K: 1

Larp: 2-3

theory : 3-4

Tricks: 4

Theory

Theory is not my strongest area of practice, but I understand and grasp all the steps and complexities of how theory works as a concept. Blippy and “sneaky” arguments blow over my head. Speed in theory is a big deal especially if it’s not in the doc, and I would appreciate it if you send your interp/counterinterp if it isn’t in the doc. Reasonability is defense and counter interps are offense. Friv theory is so yucky please don’t read it. I love 1ar shells

Phil/ Framework

This is my favorite style of debate, and I think there are so many ways to utilize phil in front of a wide array of judges. Many people hate phil debate, I genuinely have so much fun during a good phil round. Personally, I really like Deleuze, Rawls, Butler, Hobbes, and Realism. I also have experience answering different consequential frameworks, so by default I understand the intricacies of fw indicts on util and vice versa. In a framework debate it is very important to have a clear clash between how the different worlds function. For example if you read Util, justifying comparative worlds against a normative fw might be really useful in the end. I default epistemic confidence and truth testing unless directed otherwise. It's also important to have contextual responses as to why your opponents framing fails, and reasons to prefer yours. I think that hijacks and smart cross applications are really fun. TJFs are amazing and love them yayyy.

LARP

I have a lot of experience debating LARP but it is definitely not my area of expertise or my favorite. CPs and disads are very fun but they have to be heavily weighed and implicated out. I do think that in order to access your larp offense you have to win Util though. Counterplan theory is one thing that I normally need an over explanation of (textual and functional competition). I think that PICs are smart when read in round, but I do give more leeway to the aff when pics are bad is read. Perms and different types of perms against counterplans in general are needed.

Kritiks

I enjoy K framing debates alot and the utilization of the theory of power and the thesis of the kritik as responses to your opponents case. In general the Link and the alt of the kritik should be articulated well. The alt should be well explained and weighing should be done in general. A world of what the alt looks like should be articulated in a good manner. When talking about the ROB, make a clear indication of why your offense ow’s and why your opponent does not have access to that role of the ballot in the first place. Kaffs don't have to be topical, I think its a fun debate tbh. I also really think how you interpret the literature in the first place needs to be well fleshed out, so there's an explanation of the complexities of the K (ex if its ideal/non-ideal, ontology, violence). I really do like different literature but I am not familiar with the jargon of them. I have experience with Deleuze, Cap, Baudrillard (kinda), Psychoanalysis, set col, afro-pess, security, glissant, etc.

Tricks

I think tricks are fun when I am not the one debating against them!! It’s kinda awful to drown in a bunch of tricks so I do feel that tricks are gross. I never really read tricks very often, but I do think that articulation of the arguments and implications of how that argument truly functions is very important. I genuinely don’t understand some tricks though so I don’t really like hearing them round I think they are kinda bs.

Non-topical affs

I think Non-topical affs are super cool and I genuinely like hearing them, but I don’t read them at all. I’m familiar with normal kritik literature but over explanations are necessary for any specific nuance. I enjoy a good T/fw debate, and I love method debates!! I Appreciate a strategic and contextualized TVA. Having specific tvas rather than generalized tvas are key to having a good clash. Standards should be well articulated and the abuse story needs to be clear. As a response to Non-t affs, i have been learning about counter kritiks. I like optimism ks such as glissant which are cool responses to non-t affs.

Hi, I'm Adrita! McNeil '22 UT Austin '26

email: raychaudhuriadrita04@gmail.com

I did LD for 4 years, competing on the tfa circuit mostly and some on the nat circuit before online debate burnout lol. I qualified to TFA state my sophomore junior and senior yearsm breaking my senior year, as well as NSDA nats as a junior.

I will vote off of anything that isn't morally repugnant (sexism/homophobia/racism/etc. good) as long as you are doing the work to tell me why you're winning. That being said, I was a policy debater for the most part so I understand the CP/DA debate the best but this did become boring at times so I occasionally ran T/theory, Ks (cap/set col), and low level phil (kant/rawls/hobbes type stuff).

please don't read tricks. or an underview with 76 blips where 1 becomes 3 min of the 2ar. also friv theory is a pretty hard ballot to win in front of me, my threshold for a response is very low. also eval after 1nc/1ar will make me upset

prefs -

1 - larp

2 - T/theory, K(cap/set col), phil (basic kant/hobbes/rawls)

3 - dense pomo/id pol Ks, anything beyond basic phil, K affs

4 - friv thoery/tricks (i will be sad if i have to judge tricks)

random things: time yourself, i'm good with flex prep, idc if u sit or stand during speeches

speaks go down if your mean

speaks go up if you make good strategic choices, or make me laugh

good luck, have fun, and make sure you're learning! ask me any questions you want

Hello my name is Anjaly and I'm a junior at McNeil.

You're probably a novice so read whatever you're allowed to read. Weigh and explain your link chain thoroughly. I'm better at judging larp compared to phil but you can still read phil just once again be really thorough. If you say something funny I will up your speaks. That being said, you cannot be cringe or else I will lower your speaks. So really think the jokes through. Actually no, i'll genuinely laugh at anything so just say something please I really don't want to be bored. Be nice to your opponent and don't be offensive or else you'll lose.

Let me know before round if your parents are expecting you to become toc champion one day because I know how you feel. My parents never put that pressure on me but i still know how you feel. Ill sympathize with you because we must stick together. I understand you, I empathize with you, and I stand with you. Together we will make the world a better place. Together we will rise.

live laugh love lose

email chain: anjalyroy16@gmail.com

Hi,

I am a first year student at UT Austin. My pronouns are he/him. I did Ld debate for four years in highschool so that's what I'm most familiar with. In terms of other events like pf and extemp, I am pretty much going into it with an open mind. Feel free to ask me any questions in person in case I forgot anything in my paradigm.

LD - So I did varsity LD for four years but never really got into the high level debate. That being said, I am much more comfortable with phil and larp arguments. You can run tricks and theory but I can't promise anything. I'm fine with spreading as long as you slow down for your taglines and card names. If you have an email chain, I would like to be on it.

Overall, clarity and articulation go a long way for me. As long as you're confident and respectful you should be good!

I also give out perfect speech points if you make a reference to breaking bad, one piece, and the McRib. Good luck!

~~~

Hey I'm Rohan and I did LD at McNeil and TFA qual'ed + broke on the circuit. Policy @ UMass Amherst since Fall 2023. I was coached by Dominic Henderson & Phoenix Pittman. My views on debate were more influenced by my peers when I was debating, notably Anshul Gulati and Karthik Jayakumar.

Tech>truth but truth probably helps, tabula rasa will vote on anything that's properly warranted and extended probably except for pro s/h things. Absolutely no judge intervention except for incredibly rare special circumstances (like when whole pieces of offense are conceded on both sides). Add me to the chain rosthanu@gmail.com I'll be both listening to you and looking at the doc to make sure I don't miss anything. Don't adapt to me, adapt to the opp. pls send your docs as a .docx not pdf

pref shortcut for LD/CX + thoughts—

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[1] t/th, larp

• theory strongest area of understanding fr. I default DTD, C/I, & yes RVI. c/i = offense & reasonability = offense. pls include paradigm issues. pls pls make "X voter">K/case implications. metath is an underused hype strat. if standards/paradigm issues are cold conceded just extend one warrant for each, it's part of collapsing. I will vote on any theory shell but the worse the shell the lower the threshold I have for responding to it. friv theory doesn't exist. note perm competition isn't something i grasp too well, you can go for it but make sure to explain it really well. if you have me in the back of the room for policy i'm way way more inclined to vote on theory than most other cx judges from what i gather.
• larp anything flies with me. i love politics disads, read them a lot. knowing your evidence is key in this debate. though i love 7min impact turn spam, don't go for really bad impact turns (racism good etc). don't concede your impacts. i don't lean any which way on condo. remember to win fw so that you have offense.

[2] kritikal

• kritikal ran mostly cap/setcol/hauntology/security/reps in hs and have p good understanding of other structural k's and the more popular idpol k's. i don't care if i know what the alt does unless your opp points its incoherence out. in other words if your alt is ass but no presumption args are made i'll still vote on it if it goes extended given there's some explanation of how the alt solves even if it's really bad. don't buzzword extend.

[3] phil

• phil/fwk ran rawls/butler/young the most in hs but again i mostly read util/th. if you're reading a really dense framework case explain it well to me. permissibility/presumption usually negate. i'll vote on tjf's.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ask me if you'd like anything clarified before round!

Please signpost, weigh, order layers and give me voters.

Speaks: Go as fast as you want, I’ll 99% of the time catch everything so long as you’re not outspreading yourself and not being clear at all. Just try to adapt to your opponent ie if they're trad I don't think your strat should be to outspread them. Your speed won't effect speaks, your clarity might, and your strategy/round vision will. If you deserve to break you should be getting >28.5 from me. If you’re mean to your opponent or say smt mean I won’t vote against you unless your opponent makes it a voting issue out of it but you’ll probably get <27.

PF: i appreciate the accessibility of this event and what i'll allow will prolly be contextual to the round. if for whatever reason i'm judging elims at a circuit tournament i'll rock with th/K. if i'm judging a local and your opps are clearly not too comfy with arguments other than stock larp your speaks will probably hurt and my threshold for responses will be six feet under. most pf'ers ik are excellent speakers so while i'll vote for whoever's winning on the flow my criteria for assigning speaks might be more oriented to speaking skills.

speaking events: 60% content 40% delivery tbh since I come from a debate background. if your speech don't make sense but you're a really good speaker you'll get ranked 2 max. make sure your AGD isn't cringe.

~~~

tldr i'll pull the trigger wherever you want me to, just debate well & you should be good.

"live laugh lose lose learn" - merina joseph

"wtf is a kilometer rahhh" - nithya challa

"gotta flow" - karthik jayakumar & rohan sthanu