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.

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

kunal.goel678@gmail.com add me to the email chain

lynbrook '23, 7 yrs of pf

2019 mstoc double octafinalist and 15th overall speaker

TLDR -- i evaluate weighing first then look for which team has the best link into the weighing. go fast, be clear, be confident. read strategic offense in case, read lots of smart responses in rebuttal. read weighed turns. my favorite debates have fast backhalf speeches off flows with lots of analysis at the warrant level and lots of weighing. link comparison/weighing makes my soul happy. extend arguments in backhalf speeches.

weighing -- weigh. it's the first thing i look at on my flow. if you win weighing its very likely you will win the round. weighing is comparative. weighing is not you telling me "my impact outweighs on magnitude because 100 million people die."

regular impact calculus (scope, magnitude, timeframe, probability) is just ok weighing, it's appreciated, but if you want to put yourself in the best position to win: prereqs, link-ins, short-circuits. Making specific analysis as to how your link OR your scenario interacts w theirs PLUS additional analysis on why to prefer your link on timeframe/scope of solvency/historical precedent etc, etc is a surefire way to win the weighing debate, and the round.

respond to the other team's weighing, line by line-ing your oppenents weighing efficiently and effectively can essentially take them out of the round

signposting -- signpost clearly. number your responses in rebuttal and tell me which responses you're responding to in summary. don't over signpost, i dont need a reexplanation of their case or response

off time roadmaps don't need to be more than 10 words, tell me which side of the flow you're starting on, if it's a weird order then tell me that. otherwise, don't tell me "im going to be extending, then frontlining, then weighing."

tech>truth -- i will vote for any argument, but i will not vote for arguments without warrants or arguments that are blatantly _ist

extensions -- you need to extend offense in both backhalf speeches in order for me to vote for you in the debate round

i do care about extensions, they don't need to be perfect, but they need to do at least the bare minimum for me to vote for you (which may seem like a lot). extensions need to have the topical link, internal link, and impact scenario. a 5 second one sentence blip is NOT an extension. I will presume if neither team extends their arguments in final. I presume 1st unless warrants to presume someway else are made in round.

rebuttals -- frontline everything in 2nd rebuttal, defense is not sticky, ill eval DA's in 2nd rebuttal but maybe don't go overboard w them. weigh your turns, historicity, uniqueness, short circuit analysis is always great

theory/k/tricks -- i default no rvi's and CI's > reasonability

i will evaluate k's, i am worse at evaluating K debate than substance but i can do it

tricks: i'd rather you read substance. i'll evaluate tricks but likely the worst of all arguments unless i get clear implications and extensions of them in the backhalf speeches

BE KIND AND HAVE FUN, debate is a game and an educational activity, don't take yourself too seriously and don't be mean, please

I'm currently the G in Saratoga GJ and I've been doing PF for the past 6 years, but I only started debating on the national circuit 3 years ago. I've been to TOC and I love rounds that are highly technical and fast with good clash and in depth analysis.

For evidence exchange: add ashish.keebab@gmail.com to the chain. If you plan on reading any new evidence in a speech I expect it to be sent in a doc before the speech on the email chain.

Debate is a game and you should play to win, but remember it's just a game.

TL;DR

tech>truth. Run whatever you want, if you're racist, sexist (any type of -ist) I won't hesitate to drop you with the lowest speaks possible. I'll look to the weighing first when voting. I need warrants for everything, and the better the warrant, the better the argument. I have a pretty high threshold for extensions i.e. I need uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact extensions in the backhalf. No, I don't care about author names, but I do care about what your author says.

If anything in my paradigm is confusing: feel free to ask me before round, email me, or reach out to me on Facebook messenger. If you are still confused after reading this paradigm, I view the round pretty similarly to: Leonardo Jia, Aarush Kaboo, Ananth Menon, & Sully Mrkva.

Pls pls look at this it'll be the easiest round of ur life if you can follow the steps below(yes, this is straight from Ananth's paradigm)

How I evaluate:

-I look to who's winning the weighing debate

-If team x is winning the weighing I look to their case first

-if team x winning their case, the round is over

-if team x is losing case, I look at team y case

-if team y is winning case the round is over

-if team y is also losing case I presume neg

Speeches:

Signpost to let me know where you on the flow, otherwise you risk me not being able to understand your speech. Speed is totally fine as long as it's coherent, but remember I'm flowing off your speech, not the doc. I'll only look at evidence if you explicitly tell me to or if it seems that the entirety of the round is staked on a single card.

Cross:

Don't be rude please. I'm totally fine with flex prep and open cross, but tbh I don't really listen to cross. My favorite crosses are the ones which lighten up the mood and I'll def give you a speaks boost if that's the case. If both teams are ok with this, I'm willing to skip grand cross for a minute of prep time for both teams.

Rebuttal:

I like rebuttals that generate offense, but that said, every turn you read needs to be weighed (even better if the turn has uq too) otherwise I am more likely to treat the turn as terminal defense than offense. I think weighing yourself out of turns is a pretty neat strategy too. Second Rebuttal should frontline all offense and weighing - otherwise it’s conceded. Offense YOU are going for in the back half must also be frontlined. I have no personal preference as to whether you should collapse or go for all of case in rebuttal, but whatever you do make sure you do it well.

Summary + Final Focus:

Your frontlines need to actually interact with the response, you can't just hand wave and tell me that their response isn't true, tell me why. Everything in final needs to be in summary.

Weighing:

I absolutely love good weighing. To read good weighing, make sure it's comparative(so you need to read actual warrants as to why I should prefer your mechanism). If you read a link-in I expect it to be weighed against their link too. If there are competing mechanisms in the round PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE metaweigh otherwise I am forced to intervene and here's how I will intervene if no one does any metaweighing: Magnitude>Probability>Timeframe>Any Other Mechanism. I'm not sure I even comprehend how strength of link functions, but if there is a conceded piece of offense I do think strength of link weighing is fair game (strength of link metaweighing would be even cooler).

Theory:

I typically never read theory, but I do know how to evaluate, so if that's your strat feel free to go for it. I default to no RVIs and competing interps, and I generally prefer that your shell isn't frivolous. The more frivolous the shell, the lower my threshold for responses and the more sympathetic I'll be to reasonability claims.

Kritiks:

I honestly would not trust myself to evaluate these debates especially if it's a performance kritik, so if you do read one please dumb it down for me. I'll do my best to evaluate, and if you explain it well enough we should be fine.

**Notes for Cal 2024

Please set up + include me on the email chain pre-round! allisonhsu@berkeley.edu

I haven't touched the circuit in a while and I'm not familiar with the Jan/Feb '24 topics, so please be light on topic-specific jargon and err on the side of over-explaining. Spreading is fine, but please slow down for analytics + if you see me stop flowing there's a good chance you're going too fast.

Judge instruction and weighing are very much appreciated and will be rewarded! Ideally, your last speech should be my RFD.

--

Hi, I'm Allison! I'm a former HSLD debater and current student at Cal.

When I was competing I mostly split my time between standard LARP cases and K's/Phil (mostly some variation of the Cap K). I haven't touched the circuit since ~2021, so my understanding of debate terminology will be from around that time.

I'd recommend you pref me if Cal is one of your first circuit tournaments, and you want to experiment with basic K's/Theory/Phil! I'd also love to judge a well-performed lay debate, if that's your jam.

+2 speaks for pictures of your pet in the constructive with a small bio about them

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!

Don't be bad. In the event that both teams are bad, I will vote for the debater(s) that are less bad. Ask any clarification questions in round.

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.

Use the stuff you learned from the camp

Dont use K's and Theory cuz like nah

Lynbrook '21 qualled to TOC, captain my senior year.

run crazy stuffffffff i like squirrely arguments (theory, Ks, nuke war good) - debates boring

note: if im judging u in the morning im probably extremely tired. pls adjust accordingly :))

namansinghal101@gmail.com

im not that well versed in the topic yet for palm classic: have not heard a single round on the topic

Conflicts: Potomac, Lynbrook

tech > truth

prog

go for it

ask questions in round if ur unsure

speaks

make smart, strategic choices and youll get good speaks

if u buy me coffee auto 30

note: try not to be aggro (i don't care about cross anyways)

skip gcx if u please, but im only willing to make it 1 min of prep (not 3)

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!

I've debated LD for a couple of years but mainly focus on extemp. I'm a flow judge so I like signposting and being organized with the flow. If I can't follow your flow, I'll stop flowing. Please do not go far overtime and I'll stop flowing after 5 seconds of grace period.

Please do not run theory, Ks, or topicality. Please do not spread.

I will vote on framework so make sure your impacts connect back to your framework. Please also extend your case and impact weigh heavily. Try your best not to drop cases, but I won't vote on drops if your opponent don't call it out. Lastly, be kind and respectful.