Call me Akhil. Westwood '22

Important

1) If you plan on going fast, start at like 70% speed and ramp up from there. Slow down on tags and pls pls pls number your responses.

2) Don't assume I'm caught up on the meta of topics, explain acronyms and do the necessary work.

3) I care about rounds starting on time. Please come to rounds already preflowed and ready to begin. Flight 2s should ideally already have email chains set up with the Aff/Neg ready to be sent out.

4) I want to be on the email chain- akhilbhale@gmail.com

Send a compiled doc of cut cards that you will be reading BEFORE your speech. This means you should create an email chain and send your docs as attachments in the email, preferably not in the body. Sending a link to a Google Doc is a no-go; download the Google Doc as a Word document and attach it to the email instead.

Miscellaneous

I'm somewhat stubborn with speaks and will probably average around 28.5-29 . Receiving anything above necessitates a combination of good strategy, reading from cut cards (whenever evidence is first introduced), and disclosing broken positions.

Considering this is an evidence-based activity, good evidence, and its surrounding ethics matter to me. Cut and read good evidence.

Flex prep and tag-team crossfires are fine. Skip grand cross if everyone agrees too. Please don't steal prep, I will notice. Your pens should be down and your fingers off your computer if you're not prepping.

Every claim needs to be warranted the first time it's introduced for you to go for it later. I keep a pretty clean flow and will notice if there are incomplete or missing warrants.

The second rebuttal should frontline everything on the argument they go for and start the collapse debate. I care about good frontlining in 2nd rebuttal. There's a fine line between lazy frontlining and efficient frontlining. Defense IS NOT sticky but my threshold for first summary defense extensions is a lot lower if the 2nd rebuttal goes for everything on case.

Weighing [ :( ]. In the wise words of Evan Burkeen- "I care slightly less about impact weighing than the average pf judge, weighing is just an issue of sequencing for me so you might want to spend more time winning the link in front of me." If you're going for a "link-in", I need a reason why your "link-in" outweighs their impact standalone.

I have a decent threshold for extensions. This encompasses everything- any offense, defense, or argument you want to be evaluated must have a coherent extension of it. This doesn't mean that it has to be super long or sophisticated, just present.

Link turns need to have uniqueness attached to it. For example, if the aff says HSR makes Democrats win the midterms, to link turn this the neg has to win that HSR makes Democrats lose AND that Democrats are winning the midterms now.

Read impact turns, they're fun. I don't need an extension of the link scenario.

Kicking turns by conceding no-links requires an explanation of why the no-link kicks out of the turn. Absent an explanation, the team reading the turn can go for it in the next speech.

I'm fine with some levels of sarcasm/pettiness/trolling- it's funny but don't be mean to novices.

I vote neg absent offense.

Theory

Most open to hearing disclosure and paraphrase theory but curious to see what other violations you can extrapolate. Personally think disclosure (open source) is good and paraphrasing is bad but obviously won't hack for these arguments.

Not voting on TW/CW/Opt-out theory.

Uninterested in hearing arguments about new or novice debaters not having to disclose/cut cards, don't compete in Varsity if that's the case. I default to competing interpretations, exact text of the interp and (no?) RVIs. The no RVIs debate has always been confusing to me and it really depends on the CI being read. I.e if the interp is "must read from cut cards" and the CI is "must read paraphrased cards", the CI team should obviously get to win if they win their interp. For other CIs that are not competitive, probably default to no RVIs.

Shells must be read after the first instance of the violation. There are no limits on this- you can read paraphrase theory in 1st summary if 2nd rebuttal is the first instance of paraphrased cards.

I will be very happy if you read Topicality with a good definition card and can articulate a context-specific violation.

Not a stickler for theory extensions, just allocate the time elsewhere and do the necessary work on the standard/weighing,

Kritiks

Probably not the best for Kritiks but have decent exposure to them. Pretty familiar with generics like Cap and Security but will do my best to understand/judge other literature. Please clearly delineate links to the Aff and explain the alt/rotb/rotj.

I'd rather you not spread through your prewritten extensions and instead engage with the line by line.

K affs- I probably err neg on T/Fw but I think an Aff strategy of impact turns against impacts like fairness, and a durable CI makes voting Aff substantially easier.

This is still kinda incomplete and I'll add more things as I remember but if you have any questions please don't hesitate to reach out to me via email (it should be hyperlinked above).

hattieb@gmail.com <3

Assistant PF Coach at Delbarton

she/her

im a flow judge. Tech > truth

Northeastern '26 + apda

Duchesne Academy of the Sacred Heart '22

Email Chains:
Teams should start an email chain as soon as they get into the round (virtual and in-person) and send full case cards by the end of constructive. If your case is paraphrased, also send the case rhetoric. I cannot accept locked google docs; please send all text in the email chain.
Additionally, it would be ideal to send all new evidence read in rebuttal, but up to debaters.
The subject of the email should have the following: Tournament Name - Rd # - Team Code (side/order) v Team Code (side/order)
.
Please add 1) greenwavedebate@delbarton.org 2) brookekb1@gmail.comto the email chain.

pls strike me if u dont cut cards

i dont flow cross, it doesnt rly play a role in my decision

Arguments I would not feel comfortable judging: do not mention SA in round, any explicit gendered violence, explicit mental health depictions

Some general things:

Trigger Warnings MUST be read for any argument that could be triggering to anyone in the round- how to do so:

- if you believe an argument could be triggering, default to reading a warning before the speech begins

- if this the content within the speech is explicit, anonymous opt-outs should be sent to everyone in the room via an anonymous google form that can be as simple as an "opt in" vs "opt out" question. this can be easily sent via the google chain

- i am extremely receptive to trigger warning theory ie why a team should have read a trigger warning with a specific argument they are reading in the round

Extensions are VERY VERY important to me. The summary and final focus speeches should both have the extension of the links, warrants, and impacts of all offense you are going for. THIS INCLUDES TURNS.

Summary and Final Focus should mirror each other aka extending same args, no new ink on the flow after summary, all that

If someone does not extend every part of their argument (link, warrant, or impact) CALL THEM OUT and I will not vote on the argument

prog args

i like prog (ks + theory)... dont read on novs pls

I ran cut card/paraphrasing and disclosure theory in high school so I am definitely willing to vote on these arguments

Every part of theory shells must be extended in each speech to win the shell

My pronouns are she/her.

Email: olivia.hardage3@gmail.com

I did PF at Westlake and I currently coach there.

You only need to extend defense in first summary if it has been frontlined otherwise, it sticks.

I think 2nd rebuttal needs to at least frontline offense and preferably defense as well. I won't automatically down you if you don't do this but I prefer it and I think it's more strategic.

If you want to concede a de-link to kick out of a turn you can't just say that phrase, you need to explain why the particular arguments allow you to do that. If you only say "we concede the de-link so we kick out of the turn" and move on and your opponent extends the turn, I will grant them the turn.

I will vote on the least mitigated link chain leading to the most weighed impact. I will vote for a team with a fleshed-out link chain and a poorly extended impact over a team that does the opposite.

I give speaks mainly based on presentation or if I think a team should be in out rounds. However, if you want a 30 from me focus on speaking clearly and having good round etiquette.

I'll evaluate any arguments like theory/Ks but I don't have pervasive knowledge of how they traditionally function in rounds so make sure everything is explained thoroughly.

I'm good with speed to an extent, anything getting close to spreading I probably can't follow.

The most important thing in debate is weighing! If you don't weigh, I am forced to decide what I think is the most important argument.

If you want more specifics, feel free to ask me questions!

rubyshea.m@gmail.com

cale@victorybriefs.com or SpeechDrop work

hi! i'm Cale. i've been coaching and judging pf & ld for 8 years. i debated in Texas before that.

general:

- read whatever you like: judging debaters who enjoy what they read is fun. however, keep in mind the coherence of my rfd will scale with your clarity- slow for analytics and tags, send well-organized docs, signpost, and number answers when you can. you'll be much happier with my decision.

- speaks reflect how strategic i found your debating to be. i'll evaluate any style, but admittedly prefer quick, clear debaters that read interesting arguments. (no 30 speaks spike or tko, please)

- i will not 'gut check' or strike an argument just because you've deemed it unwarranted or silly. instead, i encourage you to make an active response- it should be quick to do so if the argument is as underdeveloped as you say.

- extend your arguments. it doesn't have to be exhaustive, but something more than the tag is necessary, even if you think it's conceded.

- keep the round a safe and pleasant place for everyone. i will work hard to give you a thorough decision so long as we can all access the debate and speak about it afterwards without hostility.

- i am not going to use my ballot to make an out-of-round character judgement. if you are concerned your opponent is engaging in genuinely unsafe or violent behavior, a debate decision is not the appropriate means of redress- i will bring it to tab or the relevant party.

ld:

overall- i am best for policy debates, good for theory, worse for phil, and alright for Ks and tricks with some caveats (see below). ultimately, i'd like to judge your preferred strategy, but you will need to be more clear if it's something i'm typically not preffed into the back of. i am only human.

policy- i'll judge kick the counterplan. i lean neg on cp theory claims, and wish the aff would engage in a competition debate rather than read a blippy theory argument, particularly when the 1n is only like 3 off. i am good for your process/consult/intl fiat/etc cp, and, again, wish 1ars would just engage- if you are convinced there is not a discernable net benefit, the argument should be easier to answer. 3 word perms aren't arguments- explain the world of the perm. zero risk exists, and while it is difficult to achieve, it is entirely possible to make an argument's implication so marginal that its functional weight in the round is zero. i really appreciate well-executed impact turn debates, some of my favorite rounds to judge.

theory- no defaults, read w/e you want. always send interps and slow for anything you extemp. far too often in these debates there's no weighing or line by line done on paradigm issues: the 1n reads their theory hedge and vaguely crossapplies it to the 1ac underview, and then all of these arguments just float around in the 1ar and 2n without resolution- please lbl to make judging this tolerable. when going for T, keep in mind i do not actively cut LD prep or mine the wiki, so i don't have a reference point for your caselist or prep-based limits standard- add some explanation.

K- i frequently judge cap arguments, and often judge setcol. external to that, i'm much less experienced- happy to judge it, but i need instruction. please lbl clearly: i find myself most lost in k 2n/2ars when the overview is jargon-heavy and crossapplied everywhere. it is probably useful to know i can count on one hand the number of K v K debates i've been in the back of.

tricks- i often judge truth testing and skep and their associated tricks, but i don't have a deep enough understanding of the argument form to say i'm 10/10 comfortable if you read a nailbomb aff or a bunch of indexicals. in general, delineate in the doc and cross, be super clear abt the collapse strat, and i can vote for these.

phil- i have next to no experience with phil argumentation save for Kant tricks and some pomo (mostly just Baudrillard). need you to slow down and give me extra judge instruction if you're reading anything dense, but happy to learn.

pf:

extend defense the speech after it's answered and be comparative when you're weighing or going for a fw argument. otherwise, read what you think is fun- this includes theory, critical arguments, and other forms less common to PF. two things to add here: 1. don't read an argument just for the sake of it, read it well and 2. i am not amenable to the PF-style 'this argument form is holistically bad' response if we are in the varsity division- engage with substantive responses.

come to round ready to debate (pre-flowed, have docs ready if you're sending them, etc). the only way to frustrate me beyond being rude is to drag out the round by individually calling for a lot of evidence and taking forever to send it.

many PFers spend copious amounts of time impact weighing with multiple mechanisms. more often than not, you are better served reading one simple piece of weighing and investing that time elsewhere- either in more clearly frontlining and extending your case argument, or better implicating a piece of defense or turn on your opponents' case.

Email chain: andrew.ryan.stubbs@gmail.com

Policy:

I did policy debate in high school and coach policy debate in the Houston Urban Debate League.

Debate how and what you want to debate. With that being said, you have to defend your type of debate if it ends up competing with a different model of debate. It's easier for me to resolve those types of debate if there's nuance or deeper warranting than just "policy debate is entirely bad and turns us into elitist bots" or "K debate is useless... just go to the library and read the philosophy section".

Explicit judge direction is very helpful. I do my best to use what's told to me in the round as the lens to resolve the end of the round.

The better the evidence, the better for everyone. Good evidence comparison will help me resolve disputes easier. Extensions, comparisons, and evidence interaction are only as good as what they're drawing from-- what is highlighted and read. Good cards for counterplans, specific links on disads, solvency advocates... love them.

I like K debates, but my lit base for them is probably not nearly as wide as y'all. Reading great evidence that's explanatory helps and also a deeper overview or more time explaining while extending are good bets.

For theory debates and the standards on topicality, really anything that's heavy on analytics, slow down a bit, warrant out the arguments, and flag what's interacting with what. For theory, I'll default to competing interps, but reasonability with a clear brightline/threshold is something I'm willing to vote on.

The less fully realized an argument hits the flow originally, the more leeway I'm willing to give the later speeches.

PF:

I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.

Progressive arguments and speed are fine (differentiate tags and author). I need to know which offense is prioritized and that's not work I can do; it needs to be done by the debaters. I'm receptive to arguments about debate norms and how the way we debate shapes the activity in a positive or negative way.

My three major things are: 1. Warranting is very important. I'm not going to give much weight to an unwarranted claim, especially if there's defense on it. That goes for arguments, frameworks, etc. 2. If it's not on the flow, it can't go on the ballot. I won't do the work extending or impacting your arguments for you. 3. It's not enough to win your argument. I need to know why you winning that argument matters in the bigger context of the round.

Worlds:

Worlds rounds are clash-centered debates on the most reasonable interpretation of the motion.

Style: Clearly present your arguments in an easily understandable way; try not to read cases or arguments word for word from your paper

Content: The more fully realized the argument, the better. Things like giving analysis/incentives for why the actors in your argument behave like you say they do, providing lots of warranting explaining the "why" behind your claims, and providing a diverse, global set of examples will make it much easier for me to vote on your argument.

Strategy: Things that I look for in the strategy part of the round are: is the team consistent down the bench in terms of their path to winning the round, did the team put forward a reasonable interpretation of the motion, did the team correctly identify where the most clash was happening in the round.

Remember to do the comparative. It's not enough that your world is good; it needs to be better than the other team's world.

I did pf at Westlake for 4 years

- Tech > Truth

- I will evaluate anything that is not exclusionary

- Please warrant, implicate, and extend all parts of any arg you want to be evaluated in all speeches

- I can somewhat evaluate theory, for K's or Tricks just explain it more lol

- Send docs before speech for >250wpm

- Have fun

@zainsyed78666@gmail.com

Please put me on the email chain 4ristotle.x@gmail.com.

Background - I did Policy, LD, and PF, and now coach LD and PF.

PF: I have 5 minutes before round and I need a TLDR - I'm happy to vote for a team that does good work on the line-by-line and uses creative round vision. Debaters reading fun arguments and having fun is my favorite part of this event. Grand crossfire is my least favorite part of this event and I greatly appreciate it when teams use grand cross differently/creatively (i.e. students who use grand to ask how everyone's day is; students who use grand to discuss and propose moves towards equity in the event). I believe Ks need alts in PF.

LD: I have 5 minutes before round and I need a TLDR - Ask me how I feel about (x) body of literature and I will let you know if I need you to err on the side of over-explanation. I would love to see more creative sequencing in this event.

Preferences -

1- performance, non-topical affs, K

2- LARP

3- theory

4-phil

5-tricks

General - I judge infrequently now. I judge each round with the default assumption that the role of the judge is to be a (temporary) ethical educator and that the ballot endorses your form and content. If I am nodding/shaking my head/raising my eyebrows/other weird facial expressions, please ignore me. Those are just my thinking expressions, and not a reflection on how I feel about the debate. I love performances, creative args, clash of civs, anything that experiments with the space and the activity.

Speaks- My speaks average a 29.4. They start/remain high most of the time, especially during bubble rounds. I will not vote on 30 speaks theory as a shell -- just tell me why you want 30 speaks for you and/or your opponent(s) and I will evaluate that instead if it is important for you. If there's something really egregious pointed out to me in the round, speaks will reflect that.

Speed - Number your responses. Please. More things on doc (even if it is just '12 responses' and the rest is on your flow) is good for me to follow along. If your opponent asks you to not spread, please don't be that person who does so anyways. Just cut down the case. Cut an off if you can. I am totally down to vote on speed bad in these rounds.

Here's how I evaluate the round:

1- I look at my flow for arguments that are warranted as coming before any explicit framing in the round or arguments that tell me to intervene. Especially for arguments labeled as independent voter issues, there needs to be a warrant why I don't evaluate any of the framing prior. If I'm told to throw out the flow for a compelling reason, I will do so and close my laptop/fold up my flow.

2- I evaluate the framing. I then vote however the winning framing mechanism tells me to.

3- I look for the path of least resistance to the impact I am told is most important. An argument has a warrant. I look at the remaining offense in the round and then evaluate the comparative under the framing.

Let me know if you need me to speak to tab or an ombudsperson after the round with you.

Defaults - Competing interpretations, no reverse voting issues, and drop the argument. I don't err one way or another on if debate is good/bad but I think it's an important discussion to have. I will not vote on any argument that frames a structure of violence as good (i.e. racism good). I presume the negative when there is no offense/when all offense is violent (i.e. racism good vs. sexism good).

Online Debate - In case of any wifi drops/disconnects, please have a local recording of your own speeches. If there's a disconnect and you have a local recording of your speech prepared, I will bump your speaks by 0.5. If you need to turn off your camera to debate, that’s fine. The Association of Black Argumentation Professionals (ABAP) has a "Digital Debate Bill of Rights" (you can find it online by googling "ABAP Digital Debate Bill of Rights") that informs my philosophy on safety and inclusion in online debate.

Community Clause - For 30 speaks, go above and beyond in-round to advocate for material action or to create affirming spaces for yourself/your community. Some past examples include but aren't limited to -- proposing and testing community projects through debate, mutual aid, passing out educational zines, listing action items to support local circuits (volunteer judging, helping tab or teach, pledging mutual aid).

Note on Post-rounding - I'm happy to answer your questions. Please be respectful of my time. Ask me for lit recs! (Critical literature, poetry, prose...)

Last thoughts- For every student I judge, but especially students of color, queer/trans students, misogyny-affected students, students with disabilities, and first generation/low-income students: I know firsthand that debate can sometimes be hard, cruel, and exhausting, and I hope you all find/have some sense of community and joy here. I hope you all have wonderful support systems of educators, trusted adults, and peers. We are all here to learn, in one way or another, and I find myself leaving every round having learned something new. Thank you for trusting me to be in the back of the room for your round. Y'all are going to change the world -- be proud of yourself. From Audre Lorde's The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle The Master's House: "Without community, there is no liberation."

-

Lengthier version here: Ask me for questions/preferences/opinions. I am comfortable evaluating most things. Otherwise, please just do a good job on the line-by-line.

Note on scholarship: I am a good judge for you if you are new to the K and you are doing your best to engage, and a good judge for you if this is your millionth time reading your favorite K author. I have the same expectations for your engagement with the scholarship in both cases; this is to say, I hope you provide a rigorous and original synthesis of the author(s) that you read with the topic that you choose to think through/with/against/beyond. What does this look like: you are identifying specific parts of the topic that you are critiquing, articulating how the impact interacts with the affirmative, and explaining why I need to frame the round in a certain way.

K aff: Do what pleases you (or do nothing if that is the aff). I appreciate when kritikal affirmatives include a ballot story. Later in the round -- leverage the 1AC! Effective sequencing is how I find myself voting for the aff, and I appreciate well-warranted sequencing that tells me how an opponents' strategic decisions (i.e. their collapse) can reflect or influence the sequence of evaluating arguments in each debate. The theorization in the affirmative should be used to indict the theory/topicality page -- how you debate is intertwined/produced from what you debate, and vice versa.

Against the K aff: I am excited to see new strategies that rely on scholarship/strategies that you love. I think this sets up the round for great debates around competing methods. I am not excited to see multiple blips as offs and a 2NR strategy that relies on going for the most undercovered off. I appreciate it when teams identify framing deficits and propose creative CROTBS. I appreciate it even more when the framing debate is specific, prioritized, and applied to the space that we take up in this round.

T-FW: I think T-FW needs to have a TVA with some form of solvency advocate (doesn't need to be carded, I'm happy to evaluate warrants, please just tell me why the TVA solves). I live for creative TVAs. The TVA to "dismantle anti-queerness in the workplace" compels me less than the TVA to crash the courts because the former engages with the aff in a much shallower manner than the latter. I would like to see more forms of TFW that experiment with what it means to be topical, or why topicality is necessary to access liberatory impacts. I would like to see less forms of TFW that go for fairness as a voter, "ballot subjectivity impossible," and "debate is a game." These arguments tend to be overhashed and non-interactive. I default to fairness as an internal link to education but have been compelled to vote otherwise. Tell me why TFW forecloses aff outs (i.e. epistemic suspicion).

Performance: See K aff section. I am on board with almost whatever you choose to perform. I am super compelled by arguments that identify performative offense on any page (i.e. their collapse, reading evidence/not reading evidence, actions in cross). Don't be afraid to sit on things and just sequence it out! The flow is never my end-all-be-all in these rounds. The performative contradiction needs to be sequenced. I'm less compelled by reasons why the perfcon decks fairness than I am by reasons why the perfcon reinforces a system of domination or damages the team's pedagogical/liberatory value. If you are going to include me in the performance that is fine, please just be clear what your expectations for my participation are before the speech (i.e. the judge should play Mahjong during the 1AC). My one exception to this is that I will not physically touch a debater I am judging. Please extend the performance beyond the constructive. It is good offense and you should be able to synthesize your theorizing and your performance to articulate how it affects you, me, us. Be safe when you perform (i.e. please do not injure yourself and/or others) -- if you are reading an argument and you are worried anyone other than you/your partner will read the ballot, PLEASE LET ME KNOW and I will alter my language on my ballot to give you educational feedback while respecting your privacy and give you a longer verbal rfd.

K: Link evidence needs to be specific in both tags and analysis. Please pull quotes!! If you are reading a K with pulled links from another round, I can tell and it will make me sad. I think it is incredible and reflects how rigorous your work is as a debater when you historicize the K or provide compelling reasons as to why we shouldn't/cannot. I think it is even more incredible when you can point to your experiences in debate or in this round and say, "Here is how the theory of the K has influenced the way we act and talk and judge in this round." I am happy when the K builds links from the form of the affirmative debater and justifies why performances in collapsing, cross, docs/cites, etc. are all links to the K. I am sad when the K overview is only an extension of your theorization and not a reactive implication of how the K out-sequences or interacts with the rest of the round. Against the K, perms I am not compelled by are often a little too blippy and don't ID a net benefit or contextualize themselves through the aff. I would love fewer well-contextualized perms instead of plenty of underdeveloped perms.

A note on the K in PF: I know times are shorter. I will not fault you for not completely hashing out a theory of power so long as the extension/overview contextualizes the K to the round. Please stop reading a K and also your case. Just use the full time to sit on the K. Trust me. I will be happier with four minutes of a kritik as opposed to two minutes of the K and two minutes of why U.S. diplomacy is key to resolve oil prices.

LARP: I like creative case turns. I like impact scenarios with rigorous internal links. I like when debaters can defend or draw on increasingly-recent events and historical trends to explain situations as more than isolated events.

DA: See LARP.

CP: There comes a point where there are diminishing returns on the number of conditional advocacies you choose to read. Please include full text in your doc/please don't extemp your text. I am also not super convinced by "risk of net benefit" as a reason to instantly write a negative ballot. I am super convinced when the affirmative is able to takeout or weigh against the net benefit, because this makes it easier for me to understand how offense at the end of the round interacts with each other under different metrics. I don't think process CPs, internationally-fiated CPs, or PICs are terrible. I think creative CPs (i.e. consult tumblr) are incredible.

Phil: I'm fine for most foundational authors and some of their secondary literature. This is definitely the section where you should ask if I am familiar with (x) author. If I am not, please slow down and over-explain the evidence. I recognize the overlap between phil and critical scholarship (i.e. Spinoza and Deleuze), and I'm able to follow along best when you explain things in K terms to me (sorry). Generic arguments about non/ideal theory good/bad are not super compelling to me in the backhalf -- instead, they are excellent foundations for you to enter a critical conversation about scholarship, and it helps me to evaluate phil debates better when you're able to use them as the foundation for contextualized criticisms of the aff/neg.

Theory: I am happy when I judge a shell with standards that are comparative and isolate unique benefits of your interpretation. I get more persnickety about theory the later it's introduced and I absolutely need to hear an interpretation, violation, and standards extended to vote on it. The blippier it is the less compelled I am to consider it. See notes on defaults at the top.

Tricks: I understand if this form of debate brings you joy. It usually does not for me and I am probably not the best judge for this. If you are reading this ten minutes before your round and have nothing prepared except for skep/paradoxes, please know I am more compelled by you reading/writing a poem in these ten minutes as a path to the ballot than I am by tricks. Please. Give me poetry instead of tricks.

Things debaters do to make me vote for them:

-Taking the time to compare between different warrants, or compare methodologies, or compare evidence.

-Adding me to the email chain or flashing me your speeches (Please don't do the latter unless absolutely necessary--I would prefer to social distance).

-Being kind to yourself and to others.

Things debaters do that will result in the proverbial hot L (and will likely result in a conversation with tournament administrators and/or your school):

-Any form of impact turn on racism/sexism/fascism/a turn that frames a structure of violence as good. Seriously? Debate has no space for these types of arguments. I am hard-pressed to find pedagogical value in them, and even as some form of satire/accelerationism/whatever justification you come up with, I find it difficult to justify the harm that's being done in round if I endorse violent content. I did not think I would have to include this on my paradigm, but I am sad that arguments like these are still run. I would like to believe that debaters are brilliant, kind, and caring towards each other in the community. I will drop you immediately and assign the lowest speaks possible.

-Misgendering. Language like "they," "the aff/neg," "the rebuttal," is good and should be your default. Disengaged arguments about "non-verifiability," "mutual harm," "lying for the ballot," or "new in the 2AR/NR" will not convince me and will make me unhappy. I understand that mistakes happen. However -- if you are misgendering another debater repeatedly and that debater introduces it as a reason to drop you in the round, I will vote on it and give you the lowest speaks possible. If you have 5 minutes to prepare for your next round, you have 5 minutes to practice your opponent's pronouns and avoid using gendered language that misgenders them. If your opponent has not disclosed pronouns, please use gender-neutral language. One way to practice: "They dropped the argument." "This is their flow paper." "The charger belongs to them." Using students' correct pronouns is important for them to feel safe and engage with the debate round at a level that is educational for both you and your opponent. If you wish, you can include your pronouns on Tabroom to be sent in blasts in your profile (the icon of a person) here.

-Direct outing. Financial status, disability, queerness/transness, gender, trauma -- if you force your opponent to disclose that they have a disability to avoid a theory shell, I will be unhappy. I like it even less when y'all spend half an hour before round digging up your opponent's personal information, school, neighborhood, etc. It's unsafe, violating, and makes a lot of assumptions. If your opponent argues that this should be a reason to drop you, I will be inclined to drop you and give you the lowest speaks possible. I evaluate direct outing differently from arguments that a certain model/method outs people and renders them vulnerable to structures of harm. What does this look like? "Are you queer?" "Can you afford a coach?" "Do you have a disability?" I understand debaters have good intentions and want to make rounds accessible sometimes. I also understand finding spaces of affinity is difficult. But I ask that y'all not do it under the competitive tensions of an adjudicated round. One way that has been helpful for me (and perhaps you have other suggestions) has been to ask, "What are some things I can do to make the round accessible for the both of us? For me, it would help to have 14pt or larger font for our tags."

-Theory arguments that criticize your opponents' presentation -- shoes theory, hat theory, formal/informal clothes theory are the fastest ways for me to cast a (losing) ballot before first cross. I will not evaluate these arguments under any circumstances -- not even as time-fillers or as the only offense in the round. If you have a genuine concern about something your opponent is wearing, notify the tournament administrators or a coach. I will not use my ballot to tell a student how to dress.