Hi! I’m Nathaniel Ashley (he/him)

Please put me on the email chain :) nathanielashley58@gmail.com

Drop a funny subject line on the email chain and I'll give you extra speaks.

I have about 4 years of policy debate experience, and a lil over 4 years now of judging/coaching experience

Run what you’re most comfortable with - I’m open to vote on anything as long as it’s proven in round why I should be voting on it (which of course comes with a bit of bias which is outlined down there)

• However, this does mean that you need to stay organized while debating, disorganization will make it a lot harder for me to judge your round

• ALSO disclaimer: I have a full-on hearing loss in my left ear and I’m slightly deaf in my good ear - my hearing is fine and I’m fine with spreading, but disorganization/unclear speaking will make it a lot harder for me to get everything you say down on the flow

Here’s some things I usually look for in rounds:

1. Outline your voters - tell me everything I need to know to vote for you in a round - why you get the vote, why the other team doesn’t, etc. Write the ballot for me in the round as much as you possibly can :)

1. This means develop your arguments - explicitly explain why all your arguments are better

2. Don’t make me connect all the dots post round

2. Fully formed arguments are a big one - With vague alts/advocacies/plans/if I don’t know what I’m voting for, I probably can't justify a vote on it (be specific!!!)

1. Jargon - It’s great but know how to explain what you actually mean, don't expect the funny debate words to win the round for you - value the substance of your arg as well as the technical aspects/surface level

2. Impact calc is GREAT, why do you outweigh and why is it necessary that I vote for you?

3. Also, this should be a given, but be kind to one another

1. Don’t be unnecessarily rude

2. NO homophobia, racism, sexism, ableism, or just generally being discriminatory, since that’s a pretty good way to get me to potentially write a ballot against you or at least lower your speaker points as much as I can possibly justify, especially if the other team calls you out (know I will definitely call you out in RFDs post round, regardless of whether or not your opponents do)

My specific feelings on arguments:

Kritiks:

These are great, I love them, I understand a majority, but don’t assume I, or your opponents, will fully understand yours. Make sure it’s well explained and if your alt is incredibly vague, changes, or is not extended throughout the round, understand that that will make it a lot harder to write a ballot in your favor. Don't make me connect the dots for you.

For K Affs, I've judged/coached a good amount now, but haven't run a lot myself. I'm always happy to see them in round, and will always give y'all a fair chance to explain your advocacy and will absolutely always hear you out (being super clear on that, since some judges are weird about it).

My personal biases: K Affs that don't have warrants for spillover/irl impact don't hold much weight to me. Prove that your solvency can be legitimately actualized inside or outside the debate round, your advocacy simply just being "reject the topic" often won't be enough for me unless you do a whole lot of work on case. Which to be clear, when I say "actualized" I mean anything from meaningful proof of having started a movement to bolstering in round education in some way shape or form. I don't mean y'all have to singlehandedly start Marx's revolution out there to get me to vote for you.

Questions I usually like answered: Why does your solvency necessitate that you get the ballot? How do we see your solvency actualized inside/outside the round? How do you practice what you preach within the round (perfcons/avoidance thereof)?

I'm pretty receptive to T/FWK args against K's. That was my primary strategy when I debated (along with KvK debate), so it's an argument that I'm super familiar with, and I always love to see teams run it well. More on that in the T and Fwk section below :)

Lastly, I feel like a lot of K Affs seem to rest on extremely jargon heavy word fog, and doing that yourself will absolutely not make me write a ballot against you, however, it will make it significantly harder for me to vote for you if you keep it at that level of vagueness/uncomprehension for the entire round without actively breaking it down and explaining its mechanisms. I want to know what it MEANS and how it WORKS.

T and Framework:

Good Fwk/T arguments are great. However, bad/unreasonable T and FWK usage/abuse is bad for debate - don’t do that. This means don't run like 5 T blocks for no reason - remember to value the education of the actual round as well as just the ballot. Quality over quantity y'all!

Please put the whole T shell in the email chain. ESPECIALLY VOTERS. I've been seeing a lot of people not putting voters in their T blocks or their email chains, and that often leads to rounds where the main discourse is on whether or not the voter was READ rather than on the content of the voter itself. That not only detracts from what we all learn from the round, but also makes it less fun to judge and debate. It also takes away from the value and significance of your interp, and makes it harder for me to prefer it.

The big thing for me when it comes to T and Framework: Please remember to impact out your theory, fwk, and T blocks. I won't vote on theory if there's no impact, or no explanation as to why your theory matters outside the round on a higher level. And don't forget pref our interp arguments - explain why your method off debate is uniquely good, AND why their's is bad. Address spillout, and why your interp is uniquely important to debate as an activity.

CP:

CPs are fun, tell me why the inevitable perm doesn’t work, and why your CP solves better than the Aff and is competitive. I’m open to Condo but more than like 8 off is pushing it

• Condo note: Be sure to make it absolutely clear what you’re going for, what you're kicking, and signpost as clearly as possible since disorganized condo rounds can become messes and frankly end up being just kinda annoying to evaluate as a result

DA:

Specific links, strong internal link chains, extensions, and any DA should be fine by me. My one pet peeve with DA's is the ones where the internal links just don't make sense - like if one team basically hops on the Econ DA train and says that because we spend money, it leads right to nuclear war w pretty much nothing in between - that's not enough for me, and I need a lot more specificity on those types of arguments to explain how we actually get to nuclear war from economic decline.

Congrats on making it through the text wall! I'd like to thank all my coaches for HEAVILY inspiring this paradigm. Feel free to ask questions pre round as well if anything's unclear. And lastly if you're reading this, good luck in your rounds :)

Hey yall - You found my paradigm, congrats!

Ren Cahigas (they/them)

Add me to your email chain: zoren.cahigas@gmail.com

Oakland Tech '22 || UC Riverside '26

Background: I was previously a high school debater at a UDL (shout out access !! ) Love Debate, Debate = Life babey ! I have had experience in LD, PF, and am the most experienced in Policy Debate. If you are a UDL, special kudos to you ~

Since entering college, I have not had much time to debate myself so I am a little bit rusty.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prefs -

general

1. Be nice. If you dont want to be kind to others (opponents, your partner, me, the novice flowing the debate in the back of the room), please don't prefer me. Anything remotely racism, homophobic, abelist, etc etc will mean I will give you the lowest speaker points possible. Don't try me.

2. Be Clear. I will call "clear" if I can't understand you, but debate is primarily a communication activity. Connect on meaningful arguments. I am fine with spreading but if you arent clear I will stop listening and flowing.

3. Don't clip. Don't steal prep. Emailing isn't prep UNLESS it's unreasonable/I see you prepping (you disappoint me).

4. Have fun! I want to see yall be creative -- I'm down for any argumentation style.

Online Debating

If you are being unclear, I will ask you to repeat the unclear section. Your partner should also message you if you are kicked out of the room.

All debaters should try to have their cameras on during their speech. I'd like to know that yall are human, but totally understand if you can't due to wifi.

TD;LR -

-Really tell me your story. I want a fully formed argument goddamit! Don't just run 30 arguments and call it a day. IT'S ABOUT CONTENT YALL NOT AMOUNT. Please fully develop your arguments for both sides. That being said, it still is important for you to tell me as the judge where is the most impact this round. Tell me what is the most important thing to think about during this debate.

-Weave an argument that makes sense. Be logical in the ways that you go through this debate and argue your argument. Make sure your arguments don't contradict each other! IF I DO NOT UNDERSTAND YOUR ARGUMENT I WILL NOT VOTE FOR IT. BE EXPLICIT.

- Presentation is v important to me! Speaks will get bumped up if done strategically. Also please be as clean as possible extending all your arguments (will be v nice for me as your judge). :)

- Throwing around random debate terms w/o actually understanding what they mean will not make me vote for you. Understand what you are saying. Simply saying "YES BECAUSE IMPACT A, B, AND C.... INSERT RANDOM EVIDENCE BLAH BLAH BLAH". Buzzwords are cool but explaining what you are saying is cooler.

- Write the ballot for me. I don't want to have to do TOO much work framing or doing impact calc, that's on you. Its all part of building and telling your story. If you fail to do that, I will be less inclined to vote for you.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More Specific To Argumentation

T - T and FWK abuse is BAD FOR DEBATE. Pls don't do it. Good T debates need voters/impacts, which most people seem to have forgotten about. I'd prefer you to put the whole t shell in the doc ty <3

Kritiks -

On Neg: I understand that it could be complex BUT I think we can all recognize when the strat is to make it too confusing for the opponent to follow. I need to be able to understand your alt and what you are trying to accomplish. I say this again, PAINT YOUR WORLD AND PAINT YOUR WORLD WELL. You need to understand what you are advocating for. I prefer to weigh the K impacts against the aff plan. Also, I don't think links on K's always needs to be hyper specific but I swear links of omissions are not it.

On aff (planless affs): WOWOW LOVE K DEBATE, LOVE WATCHING IT, LOVED RUNNING THEM. Legit do whatever you want, be creative! I am not the best at judging k affs though, so just make it make sense (esp if you are doing some high lvl pommo stuff... i am but a newbie to some of that and will need you to make it palatable for both my and your opponent's sake). Please keep your aff alive and central in t/framing debates, extend your performance, explain why your FORM matters and why that warrants a ballot, etc. Please explain the world of the perm if you want me to vote for it. As for neg - i may be a more k leaning judge, but that also means i’m just as happy to reward well explained and framed arguments against them. Innovative strategies + warranted responses usually results in a win or at the very least much higher speaks! If they are unpredictable then you have a lil flexibility to be unpredictable too.
** just bc you run a k aff doesn't mean i will automatically vote for you and just bc i am more of a k leaning debater doesn't mean that i don't vote policy

CPs - Justify your perm, don’t just say it. I tend to be fine with Condo unless there’s clear abuse, but I do think spreading 8 off CPs is that (which damn ouch). I am open to fiat theory arguments more so than condo.

DA - DA with specific link evidence is great. DA with mostly just spin are cool. DA with evidence AND spin are *chefs kiss* amazing. Turns case and solves the case are really important on DAs, ESPECIALLY if they are dropped (straight up if you don't take advantage of this you are disappointing me and your coach - love myself a good turn). Impact comparison W I N S debates. Like what I said before, don't just say "magnitude - extinction, timeframe - now, probability likely"... explain PLEASE.

Last Updated - 03/06/2022

if you made it all the way to the end, wow congrats. heavily inspired by my coaches and other judges that i would have loved when i was debating.

Just saying ahead of time - proud of y'all and continue debating.
- Ren Cahigas <3

Hi!

My name in Matheno. I have been a participant of this activity for about over 20 years. I started to debate in High School out of the DKC Urban Debate League. I emerged onto the national circuit my novice year in 2004. I have attended debate camps at University of Iowa, University of Missouri Kansas City as well as the University of Louisville. "Performance" debate is mostly how I approached debate as a framework. Do not call it Performance debate. Debate itself is a performance. I do understand what many call "traditional debate." It's how I got introduce to this activity. I just felt better equipped as a debater dozing into what felt more authentic for me. I judge my debates on what is on the flow sheets. If its not on the flow then I cannot evaluate it. Speed does not mean to forfeit persuasion. I will listen to mostly everything. I like new and different arguments. I was a big fan of K arguments and of course ran many Kritiks. I am now a staff member at the Bay Area Urban Debate League as a Program Manager. I have been a judge every single year since I left debate as a competitor. I love this activity! I have assisted BUDL, DKC and also Atlanta Urban Debate League. Write the ballot for me. If I have to do a lot of framing and impact calculus myself then I don't think you did much coverage of handling the flow. Write the RFD for the judge. Who knows what may happen if you leave it in my hands. I have a very queer mind.

Email thread: bfandbo@gmail.com

I debated high school debate in Virginia / Washington DC for Potomac Falls '03 to '07 and college for USF '07 to '11. I am currently the debate coach for Oakland Technical High School.

add me to email chain please: aegorell@gmail.com

I am generally pretty open to vote on anything if you tell me to, I do my best to minimize judge intervention and base my decisions heavily on the flow. I love judge instruction. I err tech over truth.

However, everyone has biases so here are mine.

General - I will time your prep! You are welcome to also time your prep, but I will as well and my time is the official time. Stop trying to steal prep by, for some insane reason, counting your prep time up and then doing bad math trying to "add" to 8 and giving yourself extra minutes. Count down, like a reasonable person. And be honest. Removing analytics is coward behavior. Okay, after I put this in everyone seems to think I mean I need to see all your analytics ever. I’m saying if you have prewritten analytics you should not remove those (coward behavior) especially in the early constructive speeches. Removing analytics and trying to get dropped args from spreading poorly is bad for debate and if it’s not on my flow it didn’t happen. Analytics off the dome from your flow are great and not what I’m talking about. I'm fine with tag team / open cross-x unless you're going to use it to completely dominate your partners CX time. I'll dock speaker points if you don't let your partner talk / interrupt them a bunch. Respect each other. I'm good with spreading but you need to enunciate words. If you mumble spread or stop speaking a human language I'll lower your speaker points. Please signpost theory shells. I will evaluate your evidence quality if it is challenged or competing evidence effects the decision, but generally I think if a judge is pouring through your warrants thats probably not a good sign, you should have been extending those yourself I shouldn't have to hunt them down. Don’t cheat, don’t do clipping, don’t be rude. Obviously don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, in life in general but also definitely not in front of me. This is a competitive and adversarial activity but it should also be fun. Don’t try to make others miserable on purpose.

Topicality/Theory - Hiding stuff in the T shell is bad and I'll probably disregard it if Aff tells me to. Good T and theory debates need voters/impacts, which a lot of people seem to have forgotten about. I think for theory to be compelling in round abuse is supreme. If you're complaining you had no time to prep and then have 15 hyper specific link cards....come on. Disclosure theory is basically never viable independent offense but I think it can be a strong argument to disregard theory arguments run against you since they refused disclosure norms.

Framework - I'll follow the framework I'm given but I prefer a framework that ensures equitable clash. Clash is the heart and soul of this activity.

Kritiks - You need to understand what you are advocating for. If you just keep repeating the words of your tags without contextualizing or explaining anything, you don't understand your Kritik. I prefer to weigh the K impacts against the aff plan but I can be convinced otherwise. My threshold is high and it’s easier to access if you can prove in round abuse / actually tailored links. Also, I don't think links on K's always need to be hyper specific but I do not want links of omission. I like fiat debates. I think a lot of kritiks are very vulnerable to vagueness procedurals.

K-Affs - Good K-Affs are amazing, but I almost never see them. I used to say I tend to err neg but I actually end up voting aff more often than not mostly because negs don’t seem to know how to engage. Vagueness seems to be most egregious with k affs. Don’t be vague about what you’re trying to do or what my vote does and you’ll have a much better chance with me. I like debate, which is why I am here, so if your whole argument is debate bad you'll have an uphill battle unless you have a specific positive change I can get behind. Just because I like debate doesn’t mean it can’t also be better. I can recognize its problematic elements too. Reject the topic ain't it. I need to know what my ballot will functionally do under your framework. If you can't articulate what your advocacy does I can't vote for it. I think fairness can be a terminal impact. Negs should try to engage the 1AC, not even trying is lazy. Really listen to what the K aff is saying because often you can catch them contradicting themselves in their own 1AC, or even providing offense for perf cons.

CPs - I'll judge kick unless Aff tells me not to and why. Justify your perm, don’t just say it. You need to explain it not just yell the word perm at me 5 times in a row. I tend to be fine with Condo unless there’s clear abuse. I think I start being open to condo bad around 3 or 4? But if you want me to vote on condo you better GO for it. 15 seconds is not enough. I think fiat theory arguments are good offense against many CPs. Consult, condition or delay CP's without a really good and case specific warrant are lame and I lean aff on theory there. Advantage CPs rule, but more than 5 planks is crazy. By advantage CPs I mean like...actually thought out a targeted ones that exploit weaknesses in plans.

DAs - I evaluate based on risk and impact calc. More than 3 cards in the block saying the same thing is too many. Quality over quantity.

For LD - I try to be as tab as I can but in order to do that you need to give me some kind of weighing mechanism to determine whose voting issues I prefer. If you both just list some voting issues with absolutely no clash it forces me to make arbitrary decisions and I hate that. Give me the mechanism / reason to prefer and you'll probably win if your opponent does not. So like, do I prefer for evidence quality or relevance? Probability? Give me something. I'm probably more open to prog arguments because I come from policy debate but if someone runs a Kritik and you do a decent job on kritiks bad in LD theory against it I'll vote on that.

Email: lilmisswatticle@gmail.com
Hi, if you bring me food/drink and you might get an extra speaker point. Don’t bore me to sleep I am really excited about debate and if you bore me that’s a problem. Be creative I wanna see your arguments come to life. I really like k debate, it’s fun to judge, I also think T is a voter if you run it correctly.