Don't be mean to your opponents. I will DQ you if you show bad sportsmanship. Please keep cross pleasant and talk clearly. Have fun.

please don't read a kritik, theory, or spread. i'm tired

Howdy

My name is Aakash.

If you do these three things I will probably vote for you

1) Explain your argument well

2) Weigh it clearly against the other arguments that pertinent in the round

3) Defend your argument well and win it relatively clearly

If you do these three things I will not vote for you

1) Read theory

2) Spread

3) Be racist/homophobic/ honestly anything that ends in an ic if you do it I probably won't vote for you

I will give you +0.25 speaker points if you tell me a fun fact about uganda. (this can be anything from a fact about its terrain to a fact about its political landscape)

Try your best and be kind!

About Me:

I'm Manank. Lynbrook '24. Some University '28. Did LD for 4 years, trad for 1, circuit for 3 but comfortable evaluating any type of debate except CX.

Email chain: manank.awesome@gmail.com

I do have biases and that's basically don't read phil and tricks and disclosure theory and don't assume I understand kritiks.

Trad LD/PF

I've got experience, tech > truth. do your thing, don't spread there's a reason why pf is different than policy and trad ld is different than circuit ld. ngl most of these rounds come down to who does better weighing so weigh!!!

Progressive/Circuit LD

Quick pref sheet:

Theory/T - 1

LARP/Policy - 2

Wacky/Different but understandable arguments: (friv theory, wipeout, soft left affs) - 2

Kritiks - 3

Phil - 5

Tricks (like eval, tt, that stuff) - Strike

General Debate Thoughts: Genuinely don't know why 2nr needs to collapse cuz its job is to make the 2ar impossible. However, I believe that collapsing can be strategic so you do you. Be nice. Don't be offensive. I'm not the best flower but if you're clear and not incredibly fast you'll be fine. Clipping is an L only if your opponent stakes the round on it and there is evidence. Weigh + good evidence comparison is a must. Have fun!

LARP/Policy: I can evaluate larp just fine. CP competition needs to be explained very well. Comparative weighing is highly appreciated. There is a thing called 0% risk, soft left affs and Ks should use this more vs extinction

Theory/T: What's friv theory? if theory is so bad answer it and use reasonability. Reasonability is legit underused. Most of my theory knowledge comes from Michael Harris

Default to DTD, CI, no RVI's, except dta on cp theory except condo.

I'm cool with RVI's (i still don't understand why people hate rvi's so much)

Went for this a ton in every year so pretty comfortable

Do standard weighing and voter weighing

Probably not gonna vote on disclosure/wiki theory

Kritiks/K Affs: Lol not great for these but if you can explain why extinction doesn't o/w and hijack the aff, then should be fine. I need a ton of explanation though because most K's just sound like a bunch of jargon ngl. Probably bad for identity K's, probably fine for cap, security, ir k's. I'm pretty bad for K affs because I believe there is a resolution for a reason. If you're able to answer T-FW well, then go for it but I am persuaded by T-fw a lot.

Phil: Most phil debates tend to just be blippy analytics, don't do that if you want to read phil in front of me. I'm still probably bad for substantive phil debates.

Tricks: No pls. Blippy args with terrible warrants are bad.

How to get good speaks:

make science puns

make debate ez to eval pls

be funny! I primarily did debate just to have fun and learned a ton along the way.

be smart + strategic

good impact calc + evidence comparison

No docbotted 2nr/2ar pls

From Soohyuk Yoon's paradigm: Give 2nr or 2ar off paper = +1 speak boost, Handshake after round = +0.3

-Debated 4 years LD, graduating in 2013; qualified to TOC twice and reached Quarterfinals my senior year.

-Have coached for 10 years; am currently the Head Debate Coach at Lynbrook High School.

PF paradigm for Last Chance Qualifier:

1. Keep in mind that I don't know the topic at all -- you'll have to walk me through the links/the story of your argument.
2. Weigh your arguments and also respond to your opponents' weighing. A lot of the PF that I judge gets decided on the basis of drops -- you should be interacting in the last few speeches with any arguments that respond to what you're going for.
3. Please don't take too long sending evidence/don't excessively ask for evidence unless you really need to see it. I judge many rounds in which one side asks to see a ton of evidence and then barely references it later in the speech, yet the effect is still a considerable delaying of the round. If this becomes a problem I will be reducing speaker points.

LD paradigm from TOC (will probably update soon):

There was a misunderstanding about my paradigm, so am rewriting to be especially explicit:

The one argument I won't ever vote for is disclosure theory. I don't think anyone has to say anything to their opponent before the competition begins -- the concept of having to tell your opponent what your strategy is in advance is prima facie absurd in my opinion. I recognize that disclosure is a norm now, but it wasn't when I competed, and I think it's a bad addition.

I am truly horrible at adjudicating policy style debate. You should really only pref me for Phil and sometimes for theory.

I am a junior in high school and a flow Judge who has done public forum debate for 6 years. DO NOT make any racist, sexist, purposefully misgendering, etc. comments though, otherwise, I'll drop you for it. If you're unsure if your case violates this part of my paradigm, don't run it.

• Squirrelly Arguments are fine just make sure to have a good link with proper warrants
• tech > truth
• not super well versed in Ks, FW, or tricks debate; run at your own risk
• speed is fine (but I'll have a little trouble with spreading), send speech docs pls

Speed: A little speed is okay but best you send a speech doc for everything (but especially so if you're spreading). Keep in mind that I don't have that much experience in fast rounds, so if you plan on spreading maybe reconsider. I'll flow anything you say as long as I can understand it. I'll say "clear" if I can't catch up or can't tell what you're saying. If you're not comfortable speaking super fast, don't be pressured to! Roadmaps and signposting are nice, so please do them to make it a lot easier for me to flow. I also recommend slowing down if you're debating online.

Timing: Please time yourself and keep track of your own and the other team's time/prep. I won't punish you if you're like 5-10 seconds over time but please don't abuse this. If your opponents do go overtime just raise your timer and I'll stop flowing.

Cross: I think that cross is an important part of the debate to test the validity of your opponent's args so please make this time worthwhile. That being said though, I won't flow cross, so if you find something critical in cross make sure to bring it up and substantiate it in one of your speeches.

Weighing/Impact Calculus: Start weighing/impact calc early in the round and extend it throughout the entire debate. Makes it easier to collapse and also get an idea of how to evaluate the round early on. Please weigh in the round and do comparative weighing don't just state your impacts so I know where to vote for. Weighing is a very easy way to win my ballot.

Extensions: Please Extend the Claim, Warrant, and Impact of your arguments and extend evidence by author/publication and date. If you bring up something in ff that wasn't extended in summary I will not evaluate it. Nothing new in ff please, extend what you need in summary.

Collapsing: Please collapse on the main arguments you are going for so the round doesn't become a bunch of offense and there is an actual clash of arguments. Collapse latest by summary.

Evidence: I will not call for evidence unless there is a lot of talk about it, a team wants me to look at their opponent's evidence, or I think it's really sketchy.

Speaks: I generally give high speaks as long as you are respectful during the round.

Have fun in the round!

Lynbrook 23

Most importantly, be nice and have fun.

FOR LSD CAMP:

Make smart arguments, keep track of your opponent's arguments, and compare the two. Let's keep calm and have some fun y'all! Oh and if you're in a higher lab don't try pulling any shenanigans to overwhelm a younger student.

FOR EVERYONE ELSE:

I'm a tech over truth judge committed to nonintervention but my experience debating has taught me that tech rounds more often than not devolve into antieducational contests gauging which teams can read the most amount of underdeveloped arguments. Although I am capable of sorting through a highly technical flow, I'd like to judge debates where teams engage on the warrant level with arguments and do smart analysis, contextualizing the round and the ballot in the back half. For reference, I think 2018 Nats Finals and 2022 TOC Finals are the pinnacles of Public Forum Debate. I prefer a nuanced, understandable, and productive round about the topic above all else.

My process of evaluating rounds:

1. Who's winning the weighing debate? Weighing determines which argument/s are to be evaluated first.

2. Evaluate the most important argument (as determined by the weighing). If you are winning this argument to be true, the round ends. Any WEIGHED turns on the most important issue also end the round.

3. Evaluate other miscellaneous pieces of offense.

4. Presume. I presume for the first speaking team; given the structural advantage going second gives teams, if you debated into a tie while speaking first, you did the better debating.

Specific Preferences

1. I am not a good flower so do not go too fast and BE CLEAR. I do not flow off docs since I intrinsically believe, along with many other debaters who have shaped my opinions, that debate is fundamentally a communication activity.

2. Do not read arguments that are nontopical. While I don't believe all nontopical arguments are antieducational writ large, I am unable to evaluate such rounds and believe I'd be doing you a disservice attempting to do so.

3. I won't call for evidence -- I believe that calling for evidence is the easiest way for a judge to intervene and it's functionally impossible to read evidence as a judge without introducing your own biases. As such, it is integral for debaters to do evidence comparison "Prefer our evidence/warrant because ____." Absent such comparison, that clash on the flow will simply be unresolved and I'll look elsewhere.

4. Warrants are infinitely more important than evidence. It is more important to understand your argument, even if you don't have an author explicitly spelling your argument out for you. Debate is not a game of internet rabbit-holes, but rather of logical persuasion. This also means I could care less whether you paraphrase or disclose.

5. Persuasive does not mean you can say "judge, we outweigh on probability because you know our argument is true in the real world" and call it a day.

Lynbrook'23

First ever Lynbrook NPDL TOC qualifier (2022)/ Captain my senior year

--------

FOR LYNBROOK SPEECH/DEBATE CAMP (Debate Week) PURPOSES:

I don't want to hear any spreading, theory, kritiks, phil, or techy jargon of the sort. (unless we have a top lab VS top lab round)

Run relatively lay/flay cases; stick to a basic CWI format, emphasize weighing, and highlight impacts/turns. 

Offering me a financial bribe prior to the round may OR may not influence victory.

Background: Have debated PF (and only PF) for multiple years on national circuit. In other words, I know PF well, and also judge based on PF conventions.

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

PF: 

Spreading: No

Kritiks: No

Theory: No

I really do not like theory (partially because of PTSD of losing to paraphrase theory) but also because I think it fundamentally goes against what PF is about. If you are going to read theory because your opponents are genuinely racist/homophobic and/or actually doing something that hurts debate, then I will keep an open mind. If you say you should win because paraphrasing will lead to the end of civilized discussion or because your opponents didn't respond in the exact 5 step process that is required, I really don't want to hear it.

Frontlining in Second Rebuttal: Yes

Summary to Final Focus Cohesion: Yes

Anything in final should be closely related to what was said in summary. If you bring up a new argument in summary or final, I will not consider it. Alternatively, if you expand on weighing you started in summary, that is alright. (FYI: I will generally give more leeway to first final)

Weighing: Required.

Extensions: Claim & Warrant (& impact if it is offense)

I need to know what your turn/defense/contention claims and the logical warranting/card behind it. If it is a contention, the impact should be extended as well for weighing purposes. 

I do not need you to extend specific evidence unless that is what you are arguing about. Even then, if you are referring to a piece of evidence I actually prefer you saying "the Baltic Sea card" instead of "Jefferson15", because it is likely i will not remember what Jefferson15 so crucially said (unless you repeat it enough). Rest assured however: If I do not know what card you were talking about at the end of the round then I will ask for it. 

Speaker Points: 25-30

If you get lower than a 25, you messed up big time

Email Chain: Don't add me.

If I need evidence, I will let you know at the end of the round. If there is an issue with evidence credibility/misuse, I will read the card myself. Tell me to call the card.

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

Any event that isn't PF: I'm sorry. This is going to be a tough round. Debate as if it is a lay round.

Lynbrook 2023, LD & Policy, 4 bids senior year. Email: lynbrooklddisclosure@gmail.com

The type of debate I've researched and thought most about were Ks. I think I am best at evaling these debates. However, that being said I do not care what arguments you read, I've read policy and theory all throughout my career, despite the K side of me and enjoy all positions greatly.

Things you should do to win a debate:

- Michael Harris's paradigm is basically how I will judge the round. He was my coach

-A complete arg has a claim, warrant, and impact/implication

-Good impact calculus and evidence comparison

Like and don't like:

-Giving 2nr 2ar off paper is auto 1.0+ in speaks

-Shaking each other's hands after the round! It's a sign of respect and everyone should do it, no one does it anymore ;....0. If you shake hands afterward both get +0.3!!!

-Don't stall time to start a speech & spread clearly!