Dominic Chacko

Jesuit College Prep '23

2N as a novice and sophomore/ 2A junior and now (Senior)

Please add me to the email chain: jesuitmako@gmail.com

TLDR:

• clash > reading unresponsive blocks at each other
• clarity > speed
• tech > truth
• be nice
• have fun

Top level: Debates tend to have many moving parts, winning is about packaging them together in a way that is coherent and prioritizing the parts that will win you the debate.

• I will do my best to evaluate the debate without making up args or logical leaps for either team.
• That said I don't think any judge is tabula rasa and you should still try to garner ethos by speaking clearly, being nice, and especially by using CX to your advantage
• In depth explanation on a few key issues will get you further than a bunch of tagline extensions in attempt to overspread the other team.
• lay out the logic chain you are going for. Using phrases like "if... then...", and "even if, ..." can really get you ahead here.
• Tech 90%, Truth 10%
• I will reject teams for discriminatory, racist, and sexist args

Theory:

• You need to go for an external impact to win your theory arg. Fairness is not an external impact.
• clarity is key- especially if you want me to flow all subpoints a-f

Disads:

• recent events can make strong evidence, this goes for both teams

CPs:

• I love counterplan theory and can be convinced to vote on it, see the theory section

Ks

- im familiar with the cap and security lit bases, you can run high-theory ks but they are going to need more explaining

About me:

Notre Dame HS '23

CSUS '27

Please call me Mari, don't use my full name. Thanks

pls add me to the email chain: marianagarcia.debate@gmail.com

Pronouns: They/He/She

TLDR;

Have fun. Make strategic arguments and work hard. Debate is a game and if you are dedicated enough, you will succeed. A dropped argument is true if you explain why.

It's your responsibility to explain the arguments being made to me. The cards support your argument. If you have any questions after the debate don't be afraid to email me or ask questions.

I have no topic knowledge so don't overuse jargon I won't understand. Explain in-depth and how each arguments connect.

Christina Phillips and Joshua Michael taught me all I know

I enjoy CP+DA debates.

Slow down on Taglines/analytics/theory. I am extremely nit-picky when it comes to spreading analytics/ overviews/taglines/ theory/ whatever you did not flash. Don't spread it.

Online db8:

My wifi is sometimes bad so I might have to ask you to repeat certain things. If you have wifi issues I understand, just let me know and we can pause the debate and wait for you to get it fixed. Please do not say you have tech issues just to steal prep time.

I'm ok with spreading but please speak clearly. Clarity>speed

I will only say clear twice.

DAs

TL: DA o/w Case

Im ok with DAs, just explain the story of the DA to me. What is your uq claim, how do you link to the plan, IL, and why does that lead to your impact. I want to see the links explained and not a shallow explanation of the tagline. I won't buy it.

"Any risk of the DA means you vote neg" ok why? what are you winning on?

Specific links > generic -- its ok if you don't have specific links tho, you're just gonna have to do extra work to convince me. Sure read more links in the block as long you choose one in the 2NR and explain.

CPs

I have no problem voting for a counterplan. I do think the CP should have a net benefit or INB and it should be explained in-round.

Do not be afraid to run a CP. Specify what the net-benefit is in CX and explain their relation with each other.

• Process and Consult CPs are pretty abusive
• artificially cps are ok but its gonna be hard to convince me

Conditionality: Sure, don't have a problem. You can run as many arguments as you want, as long by the 2nc/2nr its been kicked out. If not then I think the aff can go for condo -- its more on my theory explanation.

T

T is good- tho it's the neg's job to tell me why the aff is untopical and why that is bad for debate.

W/M , C/I , and your standards

The aff should explain why that's not true, etc.

It's your job to clash with competing interps

I don't like T when its clear that the Aff is topical or when theres no standards. If I think your aff is untopical it's probably untopical.

Ks

I prefer K v policy debates than K v K debates. I usually always went for FW v K debate but that doesn't mean I enjoy them.

I love Ks. I know most common Ks, like Settler colonialism, Cap K, and Security. When explaining your K, explain to me why the alt solves the links, impacts and plan. Just because i know these Ks dont assume I know what your cards are talking about. You gotta explain your thesis/ theory of power to me and why its important in the debate. Your explanation of the alt is so important. It's the weakest part of the K so when someone doesn't explain it well, it hurts. Extend your FW then pick and choose which is your strongest i/l impact to extend in the 2NR. Running a poorly explained K is not fun to watch.

Don't just say you link without explaining to me why the aff causes ur impacts or why it continues x, y , z. You should def go down the lbl in the 2nc. Specific link > generic

Just because I'm queer doesn't mean you should run queer theory in front of me. I'm not well versed with the lit. When it comes to High theory, I know a bit but not enough to understand what you're saying. If you do plan to run Baudrillard, Fanon, Hegel, Deleuze, etc or any high theory, you're going to have to explain to me in depth.

- Joshua Michael taught me all I know

Theory

theory debates are fun when you have a reason to run it

Condo when there are more than 5 off>>

I have a lower threshold for the aff on Condo. I think that answering 13min of the block when the neg has read more than 5 off is unfair. Although I think it's answerable if you prioritize the right arguments and understand what's happening in the round.

pls dont hide Aspec within T

Just because I love theory does not mean I'll vote on a 5min condo with little to no explanation. If you think you're losing the theory debate, don't go for it. I don't believe in discloser theory when someone changes to a common aff or its the first tournament of the season. I do believe that if the neg or aff refuses to tell the other or disclose then yes discloser. I won't vote on it alone tho.Prove in-round abuse.

Case

Case is so important! please please extend your evidence and do evidence comparison. Tell me why i should prioritize your plan over what the neg is suggesting. Explain how doing the plan is good for us and why it outweighs. This should follow the lbl and you should have a short o/v on top by the rebuttal. Please don't forget about Solvency

MISC.

-SIGN POST PLEASE. If you start jumping flow from flow i will get lost and miss arguments

-Don't forget about roadmaps

-Pls respect each other, if you dont i will dock points

-don't support anything that ends with "ism"

-please make your CX useful!! Thats your time to ask smart questions to help you

-Do not clip cards- if you do i will stop the debate.

- If you ask me to drop an arg or cross apply to a diff arg i will

-dont read new evidence in ur rebuttals

-judge instruction! it will make my job so much easier!

• don't forget to smile and have fun :)
• Please make jokes

Hi all!

About Me:

Always add me to the email chain: matsumotodebate@gmail.com

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Currently a senior at Notre Dame High School in Sherman Oaks -- this is my 4th year doing policy debate

I am a 2a/1n

I'm pretty familiar with this year's topic and understand most of the arguments that will be made. However, if there is uncommon jargon or strange arguments that you decide to read, please explain it as if I don't know anything. (this will also help me evaluate)

Online Debating:

I prefer that your cameras are on during the debate but I completely understand wifi issues. My wifi gets pretty crusty sometimes so please bear with me, and your opponents if any trouble occurs. If anything, turn your camera on during your speech at least.

I feel strongly for this... Please, please, please do not take advantage of online debate to steal prep. It is disrespectful to your opponents, me, and also won't help you as debaters in the long run.

CLARITY > SPEED -- especially for rebuttal speeches with no sent doc, I need you to speak clearly so I can make sure I get the right arguments down on the flow.

Miscellaneous:

Please be nice and respect each other, debate is supposed to be fun. There is a fine line between being passionate and being rude/disrespectful.

SIGNPOST and PROVIDE A ROADMAP. As a new judge, I might not be able to tell if you jump to a different flow or are skipping across arguments. Please be specific.

CX is amazing and you should use it to your advantage. I am fine with tag teaming, but if y'all start interrupting each other or yelling over each other, I will briefly stop you and no longer allow it in the rest of the debate.

If you tell me to drop an arg, cross-apply it, etc., I will follow and do so.

New evidence in rebuttals is a hard no. Rebuttals are supposed to solidify and question arguments that have already been established in the debate.

Don't forget to have fun and enjoy it! If you're having fun, I'm having fun.

Case:

Case is extremely important in weighing the debate. Many people also forget how important offense is and only read defense (I was victim to this) -- both are very crucial.

Why is your plan good?

I love good impact calculus especially in the rebuttals, tell me why your !s outweigh and why I should evaluate yours first.

EXTEND EVIDENCE.

DA:

if you can explain the link story, that will help you a lot

I have no problem with DAs--provide me why there is a 100% risk of the DA happening with the aff

CP:

CPs are great--you really need to explain and compare the case to your CP and why yours solves better

Don't forget a CP text!!! Without a CP text, no CP.

K:

I am a HUGE fan of 1-off K debates--I typically run the settler colonialism K and cap K on my neg rounds. It is super important to balance time between explaining the alts, links, perms, impacts, and framework

Depending on what you choose to go for in the 2NR, consult with your partner on arguments you think your team is the strongest on and build upon those within the debate rather than carrying every single one and having it not well-developed.

Theory:

Theory is good, theory is great. If you choose to go for it in the 2NR/2AR though, its all or nothing--repeating blocks for 30 seconds on something both you and your partner read in the debate already is a waste of time

There should be in-depth analysis on why "x" theory is a voter and/or how I should be evaluating this in my RFD

My name is Doug, and I am new to being a debate judge. I may not get all of the acronyms or short-hand references, but I'll do my best to keep up.

I am a retired Boeing engineer, primarily in the defense industry, so I should be able to follow most technical, military or similar discussions without too much trouble. I follow political issues as well as national and foreign events fairly closely as well.

Well formed logical arguments (e.g. A and B are true, which means C, and implies D) are the easiest to follow, so keep that in mind.

I am looking forward to the experience. Good Luck!

I'm new to judging, so please be slow when articulating your arguments.

If you have something important for me to write down or circle on the flow, please say that during your speech.

I am currently a JV policy debater at George Mason University.

My pronouns are she/her.

Please put me on the email chain: I will give you my email in person/in the chat.

Pre-round short version:

Arrive on time and be respectful to everyone involved. Avoid interrupting, speaking over others, or leaving the room unnecessarily. Make sure to speak clearly and coherently, and explain your arguments properly. Not a fan of politics DAs unless you explain them properly. I recommend that you time your speeches and prep yourself. I am impartial and personal beliefs will not affect my judgment, but extreme remarks won't be tolerated.

Have fun, kick some aff and break a neg! Don't forget to gaslight (not me tho y'all stay safe), girl boss, gatekeep:)

(ps. I will give you a speaker boost if you manage to incorporate and make relatable, "slay" or music quotes, in ur speeches)

Long version:

Do not waste time. Show up to the room on time. Have the email chain ready to be sent as soon as the round starts. Do not leave the room if it is not an emergency (nobody wants to go looking for you when its time to start again.)

Be respectful to your partner, the opposing team, and most definitely me. Refer to each other using the correct pronouns. Do not speak over each other in CX. Do not interrupt your partner during CX if it is not your CX do notspeak. Do not speak to your partner while the opposing team is giving their speech.
Be clear and coherent while giving your speeches. If I cannot hear you or understand you then I am definitely not flowing any of the arguments you are making, especially analytics. I will try my best but so should you.
I like theory debates. It's often a path to victory in most debates if you know what you are talking about, and make sure that I understand what you are talking about. Also, introduce yourself before the round, I most probably do not know who you are, plus its awkward if you try to give judge instructions and call me by my first name without actually knowing who I am lol.

I'm fine with most CPs. Make sure they all have a plan text (speaking from personal experience lol:)). I like multi-plank CPs just as long as they actually make sense and meet your condo interp. Fiat always applies unless contested by the opposing team. Judge kicking is not really my favorite, I do not see why I should do the work for you, but if asked and not contested by the opposition I will definitely consider. I think sufficiency framing is cheating but a very smart move. Your 2NR should always be sufficiency framing of the CP based on case. I think 2 cps are fine, more than 2 is very much condo thus making me more AFF leaning in that scenario.

Topicality is fine just as long as you explain it properly and know what you are talking about. If you go for it in the 2NR please go crazy on the line by line not just pre-written blocks unless it was completely dropped.

K's are fun. They are delightful. I understand the lit behind Cap K, Set col, and Security/Complexity the most but y'all are free to run whatever you want just please give more time to explain it. Also, always tell me what the role of my ballot is and why your alt solves/ solves better than the other team's alt (if its a kvk). (Racist, Ableist, Islamophobic, Homophobic, Transphobic, and Anti-semetic remarks will NOT be tolerated. Keep yourself in check (its not that hard). Baudrillard is not welcome <3 (you can still run it, but it will be an uphill battle). FW is okay to run, it is an evil arg, but I will vote on it if debated well. (IDK if I can call myself a k debater, but my partner and I have been running KAFFs + Ks on the neg for a while).

I absolutely LOVE DAs. Simple. Easy. Super educational. And I love me some impact calc, it shows that you actually pay attention and understand the arguments. Although, I am not the biggest fan of politics DAs because I do not really have a HUGE understanding of US politics (ik cray cray). Also, for Econ DAs/Advs, I believe that our economy is subjective, the team that explains the state of our economy better with good examples, i.e labour market or GDP/inflation projections, will have my vote. If you end up going for DA plus case in the 2NR, you need to do impact calc, the number of debates I have watched with little to no impact calc is appalling.

I will (for the most part) time your speeches and prep but that does not mean you should not time them yourself.

I think that the most important quality in any speaker is the ability to construct their speech in a manner that is understandable to the general public while maintaining a respectable sense of professionalism and showcasing extensive knowledge in the field about which they are speaking. In short, don't use fancy words, it clarity over being posh.

Lastly, I do not let my personal beliefs affect my judgement, run whatever you want. You are not here to please me, you are here to prove a point. (Unless you say something so out of pocket, that I will not tolerate and you will immediately lose.) With that being said, there is one exception;

PSA: Anything that is zionist will NOT be tolerated. I cannot be unbiased in this situation, so no Israel aid dip cap DA's because you will lose immediately even if you don't go for it. Zionism, to me, is equivalent to anti-semitism, and I will not tolerate that.

NOVICES: Don't forget to have fun. It is not all about the wins and losses, you have your entire debate career to worry about that. Your novice year is supposed to be fun and educational. Even if you lose a round don't just look at the L on tab, think of all the stuff you learned from that round and the stuff you educated your opponents AND ME about (ik this might be shocking to many but I don't know everything about everything). Debate results are not life or death, you are here to have fun, make connections, get the street cred, and maybe win but winning shouldn't be the only thing you are here for.

Have fun, kick some aff and break a neg!

Don't forget to gaslight (not me tho y'all stay safe), girl boss, gatekeep:)

(ps. I will give you a speaker boost if you manage to incorporate and make relatable, "slay" or music quotes, in ur speeches, xtra xtra points if it happens to be one of my fav artists)

About Me

she/they

Broken Arrow HS ‘19 (LD 4 years)

Mo State '23 (NDT/CEDA + NFA LD 3 years)

GTA @ Wichita State

Conflicts: Broken Arrow, Tulsa Union, Pembroke Hill, Maize South, Missouri State

yes email chain: lilwood010@gmail.com

Overview

These are just my random thoughts about debate collected into one place. If you do what you do well, you will be fine. I am down for almost anything.

Policy first, NFA LD next, then HS LD at the bottom -- if there is no specific section for either LD format assume it’s the same as policy or ask me questions pre round! :)

yes open cx - yes you can sit during cx - yes flex prep

!!:) please send out analytics :)!!

Please provide trigger warnings if there is graphic descriptions of violence against fem ppl included in your arguments

K Affs/Ks

I prefer K affs that are related to the topic OR the debate space. I enjoy watching performance K affs that incorporate parts of the topic.

I believe fairness (procedurally or structurally) is not an impact. I believe it is an internal link.

I love a good TVA - but I would prefer it be creative to the aff and carded to demonstrate that it could solve the aff's offense.

I believe perf con is bad.

I'm starting to believe I prefer movements / material alternatives over reject / thought project alternatives. I find myself easily persuaded by arguments that alternatives lack the means to resolve the links and impacts. I like when alternatives are specific in what they accomplish in the block.

I LOVE perm debates. I am a sucker for creative perms that are specific to the alternative. If you execute this strategy correctly, you will be rewarded.

CP

I think condo is good to an extent. The extent is up for debate.

I default to judge kick.

T

I LOVE T!

In round abuse should be present, but I also believe that setting a precedent for the community might be more important.

I think grounds and limits are both good arguments, but I find I am more persuaded by limits. Going for either is fine.

Misc.

I LOVE ptx.

Impact turn debates are super fun.

NFA LD

NFA LD has some norms that are different than policy so I will try to establish my thoughts on some of those in here.

yes spreading - yes disclose - yes email chain - (sigh) yes speech drop

Disclosure

Will vote on disclosure theory IF it's egregious. I think empty wikis are probably bad after attending 2 tournaments. I think if every aff they've ever read is uploaded, even if not every round is, zeroes the impact. I think not disclosing an aff 15 minutes prior to the round is probably bad if no wiki entries or multiple affs on the wiki. TLDR: nondisclosure has to actually inhibit your pre round prep.

Theory/Procedurals

I think mandating an inherency contention is silly, UQ from the advantages can answer this.

Solvency advocate theory is cowardice. If the aff doesn't have a solvency advocate, then... you should... be able to beat it...

Will vote on speed bad due to accessibility concerns.

For condo, my thoughts differ from policy and HS LD. With a 6 minute 1ar, that allows the affirmative more time to answer NC arguments. Therefore, unlike in HS LD, 2 CPs are probably my max. However, if the 2 CPs are polar opposite worlds (ex - US should engage in bilat relations with China vs US should first strike China) I would be willing to err affirmative. Kicking planks is probably bad. Judge kick is probably bad. Basically, make sure your CPs aren't abusive, and I'm good.

Other Thoughts

Stop being scared to put offense across the pages in the 1ar.

Bad DAs can be beat with analytics and impact D.

Update your ptx UQ cards.

Call out people's crappy case cards.

Cut better case cards.

I hate underviews.

HS LD

I prefer 1/2 off in depth debates to shallow 3/4 off debates in LD - I find that by the end of the round if there is more than 2 off I am left doing a lot of work for teams simply because there was not enough time to cover every necessary component in an argument.

T

RVIs aren’t real and I will never vote on them unless there is literally 0 (and I mean 0, not a single word said) arguments on it. even then, I will be extremely sad. please don't go for it.

CP

1 CP is fine - 2 is too many (hint hint: i am very aff leaning on condo)

Theory

Theory in LD is wild to me. I am not the best judge for silly theory tricks. The theory I am most willing to vote on is condo and perf con. Second most willing is any other policy theory arg. If you're wondering about a specific theory arg feel free to ask me pre round.