I only listen to trix debate and cx. I'm rabula tasa and if I see you argue spark I will auto vote for you, give you 30 speaks, and auto drop your opponent. However, if I see you smile in the debate you will be dropped, this is a debate it is not meant to be fun or enjoyable, if you wanted to have fun you would have done literally anything else with your day.

With lots of love

Your mothers new boyfriend

p.s the facts may not care about your feelings but I do

p.p.s I also vote on ad hominem

p.p.p.s If you go to a public school I will vote for the other team because you're poor, and if you're both from public schools you best run drop the judge theory on me cause Ima give you min speaker points

p.p.p.p.s If you start getting a little riled up I will start screaming out based and redpilled every five seconds till either you calm down or you and your opponent decide to beat me up (I'd like to see you try, I'm 5'5 of pure rage and agony)

p.p.p.p.p.s If you give your roadmap out of order I will give you more speaks

Conflicts

Dr Phillips HS

Seminole HS

Olympia HS

This has been updated since FFL VARSITY STATE 2024It's been simplified substantially.

• yes add me to the email chain: chmielewskigr@gmail.com

Short intro:

If the given argument is a wash or it requires me to intervene or do deep analysis on my own that's not on the flow I tend to look elsewhere as I think less intervention is better.

(LD)

I will take off a speaker point every time you say "they don't have a card for that" without justifying why that matters. It makes me think you couldn't find a better response on the flow so you took the easy way out.

1- LARP/Phil

LARP- yeah whatever give me your policy case I'll evaluate it.

Phil- please please please tell me how you clash with the opp don't just read me a bunch of Phil and expect me to magically grant you the magic carpet to the ballot.

Before the same person asks me about phil, yes I'll consider and can comprehend Hobbes/Kant/insert your stock phil person here. Yes, I think most of those ivis about those people are extremely lazy debate. This is put here to clarify when I get asked by people what phil I will/won't be persuaded by. If you have further questions yes I can clarify.

1- Theory/Trix

Theory- I'm cool with whatever. If you run friv theory I'm gonna have a low response threshold. If you spend your entire speech with whiny theory it will annoy me but I'll vote for it if I have to.

Trix- Yes I think they're useful, yes I like them. If you run trix like the aff can't have arguments and your tricks are especially egregious it'll have me looking elsewhere on the flow. If you have questions, ASK ME. I overheard somebody I judged at Blue Key whining about how I evaluate trix. If you don't clearly evaluate them, you risk a coin flip. More analysis on one to two trix> more trix extensions

Trix addendum- if you run a bunch of nibs etc and then don't do the work to properly extend them no I'm not voting for them. Just because I pref something a 1 doesn't mean you can do lazy analytical work or bare minimum extensions and expect me to buy them. No, a 10 second extension doesn't cut it. Don't read this at your own risk.

Trix addendum 1.2-If you read me an indexical, please explain it to me as I'm not overly familiar with them but can vote on it if explained super well

1.5- On T violations- if you give me a TVA and your opp drops it and you collapse on the T shell I'll vote on it in half a second (Update from Glenbrooks experience with a super super well done TVA)

2- K

- Please give me a functional alt. No, reject the [insert side] is NOT an alt. I'll consider just about any K but pleeeease explain the link clearly.

3- Identity stuff- I don't know the lit but will vote on it if explained well enough

4- High theory

Strike- non topical affs

• The resolution exists for a reason.

Strike- performance cases

- nope, find somebody else. I don't know how to evaluate it and you'll probably lose. Sorry.

Presumption-neg

Permissibility- aff

I heavily value contextualized extensions. I've seen far too many people punt a winnable round on crappy extensions.

- Tech> Truth

- If you're in my district and I'm judging you and we keep this virtual debate thing going and you want more clarity on a round and want coach to reach out to me via email or at a CFL/FCDI, they can either email me or find me at a tournament and I'm more than happy to go over the round. Additionally, if you're in need/want resources on specific things that you want to work on I'll see what I have in my backfiles. More education for ALL is a good thing. Debate is about learning.

[Insert default don't be transphobic/etc here]. Just don't. This is an inclusive activity, don't make this a non-inclusive space for people.

PF Prefs:

A) I refuse to vote for paraphrased evidence. Ever. Yes, really. I'll default to paraphrase theory if it's read and extended because I think paraphrasing has zero place in the activity. Your ability to misinterpret authors does not amuse me or give you access to my ballot.

B) Please signpost. If I have to guess where it is on the flow I'm not flowing and that only hurts you

C) If you don't weigh I'm gonna go for the bigger number absent a separate compelling reason to interpret the evidence a different way.

D) If you can't produce the evidence your opponent asks for within about 45 seconds I'm treating it as an analytic, not evidence. Be organized and prepared for debate.

E) Do NOT be that person that asks me to pre-flow before the round. If you ask me, I'm starting your prep time should you chose to ignore me and pre-flow anyways or letting your opponent speak if they're first speaker. It will also hurt your speaks. Be prepared.. you had plenty of time to do this either before round or before the tournament.

F) If you don't mention it in the summary don't mention it in the final focus because I won't evaluate it.

H) Defense sticks once applied unless rebutted BUT I think it's helpful to reinforce in summ/ff where the opp fails to garner offense if you think it's a round decider. If I think it's too messy, I'm ultimately going to punt on it as I don't want to potentially intervene.

I agree with fast pf and theory thoughts in PF of Charles Karcher. No, I don't think paraphrasing and/or spreading a bajillion cards or reading some irrelevant abuse story makes it more likely to get my ballot.

• Congress

• I largely agree with Quentin Scruggs/Grace Wigginton on Congress. If you want to know what that means, use the paradigm button :)
• • Stray bullet

Adrian Duran Rey

1 Year out from Central Florida (Dr. Phillips High School), Currently '27 at Swarthmore College (Pennsylvania)

Mostly competed local/trad circuit plus trad nats (nsda + ncfl) cause of finances, but learned prog through other people, free camps, and some competing

Overall stuff:

To me LD is two parts, 1. how do I evaluate the round? 2. Who is best reaching that evaluation? This is how I'm going to look at everything, trad, phil, theory, Ks, etc

Layering is really important when there's a lot at play and I need to figure out how I evaluate the round, so if you're reading theory, you need to do some work on this.

I don't use speech doc, if it's not cohesive/understandable in speech i'm not flowing it. i can understand spreading well, but if you're getting to the point were it's non-stop double breaths or falling over every word, please slow down

please use running prep instead of a specific amount

For Novice or Trad LD:

If you don't know what all the stuff below means, don't worry, it's not for you.

Whatever you read in front of me I should be able to understand as long as you make it make sense.

I'm fine with spreading (talking very quickly) as long as both competitors are fine with it (if it's in a novice division or overwhelmingly trad/local circuit).

yes email chain:

adrianaaron0119@gmail.com

prefs

1. Phil (kant and hobbes personal favorites) + topical trix (unique to topic) + tech trad debate

2. theory + funny tricks (a-z theory etc)

3. utill/larp + generic trix (resolved a prior, etc.)

4. k stuff (be very clear on thesis, theory of power, etc.)

5. non-tech trad debate (incoherent frameworks, no organization)

Strike: non-T stuff

Important Misc Notes

- Extend warrants!

I don't want to hear "we have evidence proving x" or "our evidence proves y claim and they don't have carded ev" Extend WHY your evidence proves x or y point and weigh it against your opponent's args

-Analytics

I love analytics, not everything needs or should be carded, just get into the warrant debate.

I'm doing parli (kinda) in college which is straight-up no evidence all analytics. Obviously, that's not how I'm judging LD, but well-warranted and explained analytics, especially for rebuttals, are great imo

-Organization

PLS NUMBER RESPONSES. Overview arguments are great, do them.

Phil

absolutely love it, my personal favorite and what I love running. ask me before round if u want to read me something more fringe and I'll tell u how much I know it so u can explain in round accordingly. Love metaethics debate and I have experience with it so go crazy, just show how ur metaethic model includes ur standard and excludes ur opp's.

Trix

Honestly they can be really fun, I like them more topical (i.e. actually being in-depth on the topic). I'll vote on abusive tricks if they're definitely winning but doesn't make round very interesting imo

Trad

Love trad debate so much when it's done well. Have a framework debate or concede opp's framework and win better offense under theirs. I will drop a speak if u tell me ur framework is a voter, tell me offense as a voter and why that offense outweighs under the framework.

Theory

I'm chill with it. Equity within the debate community is very important to me, so if you're from an established program and/or private school and read disclosure theory or something of the sort on a student who isn't, I'm not going to give any leeway at all whatsoever and your speaks will not make you happy.

Outside of that I'm down for most/all theory. I've read T a lot and it's good imo so just read it well. Also if ur justifying something that is def anti-small school/underprivileged debaters (util) by saying it helps small school debaters, I'm going to be critical on it (I'll still evaluate it fairly but my threshold on it will be low).

Util/Larp

I can evaluate it fairly and properly and will to the best of my abilities. Not my ideal round cause I don't really read or like reading util. Just make sure to do weighing and be direct on how ur winning access to impacts and it's totally fine. If it goes util v phil, I except the work done on it in terms of quality to be equal to any other phil debate so be ready to justify it well.

Note: I actually love heavy phil debates with util on one side but when they're done well. (Agency is defined by natural senses, the two brain stuff util ppl read against kant, etc)

K stuff

I've never read it in tournament round, I can evaluate it but honestly would not suggest it. Just do a lot of work on explanation. Also, I get irritated by K debaters ignoring everything on the flow by saying they're "higher layer".

Non-tech trad

I'll evaluate it as much as I can but expect it to be a coinflip cause these rounds are messy, try to work on making what ur framework is clear and how it weighs offense. Also work on weighing your impact as well as giving me a clear link chain as to how you win them.

Last updated for the Liberty Bell Classic.

Email for the chain: omar.elsakhawy25@gmail.com

Feel free to email me if you have any questions before/after the round.

Tech>Truth

Debate is a game

Olympia High School '22

UPenn '26

Pronouns: He/Him/His

Conflicts: Olympia, Doctor Phillips, Seminole, and Lake Buena Vista.

___

Quick Prefs

I try to be as tab as humanly possible. This is not necessarily based on how much I like these arguments, but how comfortable I feel judging them.

1 - LARP/Trad

2 - T/Theory

3 - K/Light Tricks

4 - Phil

5 - Heavy Tricks/Performance

Go slower than you normally would with a circuit judge, especially on analytics. I'm bad at flowing speedy debaters.

___

About Me

Hi, I'm Omar! I've been doing debate since my freshman year of high school and absolutely love the activity. I was the LD captain of my team since my sophomore year and intend to continue competing at the University of Pennsylvania in policy and APDA. As someone who hails from a small school, I mostly competed locally and specialized in traditional debate, qualifying for NCFL Nationals four years in a row and reaching quarterfinals at FFL Varsity State. However, as national tournaments went online and became more accessible, I took an interest in circuit debate. I reached quarterfinals at Duke and runoffs at Princeton.

As your judge, you can expect me to put in just as much effort analyzing the round and offering in-depth feedback as you do in competing. I view judging as a responsibility, not a privilege. That being said, I think my judging philosophy can be summarized in one phrase: be yourself. Although I may be more skilled at judging certain styles, I certainly prefer you do what makes you comfortable. I enjoy chill, humorous rounds and believe that debate should be an accessible space for all. Any "phobias" or "isms" will not be tolerated and I will take sufficient action if someone is being antagonized. Good luck, try your best, and have fun!

___

LARP:

- My favorite style on the high school circuit.

- I like complex scenarios way more than generic plans/DAs.

- I hate the new trend of just assuming the framework is util/reading 30 secs of "extinction outweighs" at the end of the AC.

- Please tell me when you're kicking something, don't assume. I'm chill with judge kick as long as its warranted.

- Going for the scenario with the most clash will give you brownie points.

- There's no such thing as a bad impact-turn (unless you're turning something like racism of course).

- My threshold for extensions are low since I know the aff has a ton to cover, a short overview will probably suffice.

- Please do a ton of weighing or the round becomes really hard to decide :)

- Please make a clear distinction between each card by saying "AND" or something of the sort.

Unless told otherwise, I default to:

- Unconditional = must go for the CP unless there's a higher layer.

- Conditional = can kick out of the CP it unless it's been turned.

- Perms are a test of competition.

- PICs/severance perms are cheating.

T/Theory:

- There's no such thing as frivolous theory. That being said, please don't run disclosure on trad debaters or novices, it's such a low blow (unless we're in break rounds or the context makes it reasonable).

- I don't know why voters still exist. We get it, fairness and education. Feel free to give unique ones though.

- I like fleshed-out standards and dislike blippy warrants.

- I don't like when big-school debaters tell small-school debaters what's best for them.

- Not sure if "contact me before the round if you need me to meet any interps" is the best norm.

Unless told otherwise, I default to:

- Drop the debater.

- Reasonability.

- Yes RVIs.

- Yes 1AR Theory.

- Theory is the highest layer.

Ks:

- I'm probably not familiar with your author unless it's cap K lit, so go slow and don't assume anything.

- I don't care if you're topical.

- PIKs and K-tricks are sus, but I will still vote for them.

- I will vote off links of omission but just like any other pre-fiat link it's really easy to beat back.

- Going for the linear disad and kicking out of the alt is a strategic move.

- PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD MAKE THE ALT COMPREHENSIBLE.

Performance:

- I have no idea how to judge these rounds. If you're going to run this in front of me, please try to make it mirror a traditional K format so I have some sort of reference point.

Phil:

- I'm kind of a noob when it comes to evaluating these arguments.

- I'm familiar with Rawls, Kant, libertarianism, and communitarianism (plus generic FWs like MSV, util, etc.). Explain your framework to me like I don't know anything.

- Syllogisms are preferred over blip storms of independent warrants.

- Unless told otherwise, I default to epistemic confidence.

Tricks:

- I think tricks are fun but I'm bad at evaluating them if they're spammed.

- Please don't be shifty, stuff like "whats an a priori?" will get you docked speaks.

- If you collapse to a tricky argument against a novice or a trad debater, I will be sad.

- As I said before, I flow mostly off the doc. Therefore, I probably won't flow stuff that's hidden/not on the nav pane.

- Brownie points for running unique paradoxes instead of the generic laundry list.

- Unless told otherwise, I default to presumption affirms, permissibility negates.

Trad:

- Check the LARP section above.

- Please give off-time roadmaps and signpost.

- Offense (i.e., reasons why you should win the round) takes precedent over defense (i.e., reasons why your opponent shouldn't win the round).

- Framework is key. If neither side's V/VC is extended, I default to util. Winning on the framework isn't a voting issue unless it's connected to case offense.

- I don't flow cross. If you want me to evaluate something from cross, please bring it up in your next speech.

___

PF

- Check the trad section above.

- Spreading is fine as long as you send the doc and everyone is okay with it.

- Counterplans are fine, I would rather not hear theory though. I'm fine with ev ethics IVIs.

- I don't think the framework debate really matters in PF, but probably have one.

- Everything should be extended by summary. No new evidence after rebuttal please.

- Paraphrasing is fine as long as you have the cut card on hand. I might call for it post-round.

___

Policy

- I'm not very good at judging actual policy, although I am apt at LARP (check the LD section above).

- Open cross is fine.

- Prompting is fine as long as it isn't excessive.

___

Speaks

I consistently float around the 28-28.5 range.

Ways to boost your speaks:

+.1 for memes/pictures of cute animals in the doc.

+.2 for Playboi Carti references.

I appreciate chill, friendly rounds. Any harassment is an auto-drop with minimum possible speaks. Hateful behavior will result in tab being contacted as well as your coach. Have fun and be nice!

___

Misc.

- I disclose whenever I'm allowed to but I don't disclose speaks.

- You can take off your mask when speaking just put it back on afterward. Keep masks on during cross.

- I don't care whether you stand or sit.

- Evidence ethics matter. I default to NSDA rules. I don't think useless indicts like "they bracketed one word in the card" are a big deal though.

- Flex prep is fine.

- I don't count the time it takes to flash the doc as prep time unless it's excessive.

___

Online Concerns

- I would recommend recording yourself in case there is a network issue. If I don't catch a part of your speech and you don't have a recording, I'll just give you some time to redo what was missed.

- I recognize that online debate sucks so don't worry about internet connectivity issues, background noise, etc.

- I don't care about cameras being off. I'll probably keep mine off unless tab tells me otherwise.

- Please put prep time taken in the chat.

I am a second year in high school and I have been doing debate for 2 years. I’m varsity and I’ve placed first at FFL Quals before. I’ve qualified for nationals once before.

I’m just the ideal type of judge for people who understand the fundamentals of debate. I vote based on what’s said in the actual round. What this means is that even if I don’t buy your argument I would still vote for you if you defended it better than the opponent attacked it. I believe this is the most fair and unbiased way to judge a round.

I only judge LD debate and in round I value framework above all else. Also if you are running morality as a value I will auto prefer the opponents value unless they are not running a value at all, Morality is way to broad to actually achieve anything. On the contrary I actually want a real value and not an impact calculus like utility. If I don’t think your running an actual value I will auto prefer your opponents framework. Framework is important because once you win the framework I have to judge the round through your lens. Which means I have to see which side achieves your framework the best based on what I’ve heard in the round

I can understand spreading but I don’t hate myself enough to listen to spreading so if that’s your plan then send me and your opponent your case

I’m fine with progressive if the tourney allows it though if your opponent is running a trad case and you purposely run a prog case I’ll see you in a worse light since it’s a little unfair

If you don’t say a point in your first speech don’t bother bringing it up since that’s considered a new argument and against the rules of LD. If you don’t extend cards in all speeches I can’t flow them and therefore they can’t be counted in the RFD

if the opponent doesn’t know something and you attempt to call them stupid or make the fact that they didn’t know the name of something a voting issue I’ll give you 24 speaks for being unprofessional though if you outdebate you’ll still be given the win

I'm a proud rabula tasa judge so i expect outright harassment of each other

I am willing to overturn my ballot if you can individually best me in hand to hand combat.

the quicker the round the better so please just like spread your normal case so it's only 2 minutes long

I accept cash, check, zelle, and if my banker is with me we can work with card

idc if you're worried about disclosure cause you're a nerd

squirrels and friv theory/K's are an instant 30 speaks

I am okay with any type of case and am willing to vote for K-affs and very progressive arguments

I'll track time and I won't flow past you finishing your last sentence when time is up but i expect you to manage your own time.

please don't explain basic stuff to me i know impact calc and i promise i've ran much dumber args than whatever you are trying.

in round just give me a way to vote, prove it's best, and then prove why you fit within that framework and please just throw out one basic warrant for your framework

TAYLOR SWIFT HAS 12

less grammies than kanye

bryce.q.ownby@gmail.com

Debate is a game. Tech > truth. I dislike intervention and will avoid it whenever possible. Speed is fine, but I’m not the best at flowing so send docs and slow down on analytics.

I default Truth Testing, Epistemic Confidence, Presumption Affirms, Permissibility Negates, Competing Interps, No RVI, DTA. Don’t make me default, all of these change with a sentence.

Read the argument that gives you the best chance of winning the debate. I don’t care what you read, I will vote on anything with a claim, warrant, and impact, but obviously not arguments that don't warrant their conclusion ("the sky is blue so vote aff"). Do what you're good at.

Phil: I'm most familiar with Kant, Hobbes, Virtue Ethics, Polls, and Levinas. Don’t avoid reading a framework because it’s not listed, or assume that I will do explanation for you because I happen to be familiar with it. Speaks bump for well-executed AC/NC debates.

Theory: Probably went for this the most. No such thing as friv theory, obviously varying strengths of abuse stories. Read paradigm issues!

Tricks: Make these debates clean and not a nightmare to evaluate. Might not catch something if you “extemp” it mid-constructive.

Ks: Err towards overexplanation. K Tricks/ Floating PiKs should be hinted at in the 1NC. Do lbl, I don’t want to listen to a 6-minute overview that has no interaction with the aff.

K affs v T: Pretty much only been on the T side of this debate, but agnostic on whether the aff should defend the resolution.

Policy: Read whatever, just know I’m not good for in-depth policy rounds as it’s the style I've done the least. Impact turns are cool - fine with spark, warming good, wipeout, death/extinction good, etc.

This is Shou Takanohashi. Please call me "judge" during the debate round.

As a judge, I would like both students and myself to time for each speech.

Please do not use the value premise "Morality." I would have to unconditionally decide the winner who uses a value other than "Morality."

Please do not use the value criterion "Maximizing general welfare," since the core of the LD debate asks debaters more specific ways to achieve the value premise.

Please do not speed-reading, known as "spreading." A speed limit is about fast speaking in the normal conversation. Debaters would need to make sure that they are comfortable with each other's speaking speed. I would unconditionally decide the winner who does not "spread" during the round.

Please be mindful of the opponent. An aggressive attitude towards the opponent would result in 3 speaker points off.

Debaters may use the restroom, drink water. or eat snacks, but the prep time continues while doing so.

Most importantly, please enjoy debating!