Dominic Chacko

Jesuit College Prep '23

2N as a novice and sophomore,2A junior and senior yr

Please add me to the email chain: chackodominic3@gmail.com

TLDR:

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

Top-level: Know early on what your potential victory paths are. As you pick and choose args also explain why I should prioritize the parts of the debate that are going well for you.

• 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, ..." is the gold standard.
• 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

1A/2N for 3 years

2A/1N for 1 year

CSUS '27 (I'm on their LD team)

Please call me Mari (not Mary) or Atlas, either one works, 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.

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
• artificial 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.

T comes first

Ks

I love Ks. I've gone for Settler Colonialism, Security, Cap, and Queer cyborg. 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

When it comes to alts don't try to be shifty and change what your alt does--either you mindshift change or do a material alt-- i.e if you read Tuck and Yang and say you don't do material decol, why are you reading Tuck and Yang?

Mind-shift change alts can be easy to perm.

Take from the 1AC and use crossX to prove your links.

K-aff

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. Don't overuse jargon if you aren't going to explain what they mean, because i won't understand. Weigh your impacts against the FW or at least turn their impacts on FW. I need you to do extra work to prove that the aff can solve your impacts.

Theory

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

Condo when there are more than 7 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 disclosure 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 disclosure. 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 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. (ppl be wildin)

Pre-round short version:

Arrive on time and be respectful to everyone involved. Make sure to speak clearly and coherently, and explain your arguments properly. 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!

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.

Be respectful to your partner, the opposing team, and most definitely me. Refer to each other using the correct pronouns. 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. Also, introduce yourself before the round, I most probably do not know who you are. plz don't call me "judge", im js a silly 18 yr old lad fam.

I like theory debates. It's often a path to victory in most debates if you know what you are talking about. Debating about debate is so much fun. More than 2 condo makes me lean aff. Perf con shudnt be the A Strat unless they actually do it egregiously within the round, even if cold cut conceded (unless its a rhetoric/ontology debate, then yeah go for perf con, and cook plz).

I'm fine with most CPs. 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 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, as I mentioned above.

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 do line by line not just pre-written blocks unless it was completely dropped. Impact it out, why is being untopical harmful, why should I care? Why is their model bad?

Ks are fun. Run whatever you want just explain it well. Also, always tell me what my role/the role of my ballot is and what it means in the bigger sense. (Racist, Ableist, Islamophobic, Homophobic, Transphobic, and Anti-semetic remarks will NOT be tolerated. Keep yourself in check (it's not that hard). FW is okay to run, I will vote on it if debated well.

DAs are also fun. You need to do impact calc, it shows that you actually pay attention and understand the arguments. 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/data, 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 more impact calc, the number of debates I have watched with little to no impact calc is appalling.

I will not time your speeches and prep, grow up fam.

Lastly, I do not let my personal beliefs affect my judgement, run whatever you want. (Unless you say something so out of pocket, that I will not tolerate and you will immediately lose<3)

Have fun, kick some aff and break a neg!

About Me

she/they

Broken Arrow HS ‘19 (LD 4 years)

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

Grad Student @ Wichita State

Conflicts: Pembroke Hill, Maize South, Lawrence Free State, Missouri State, Wichita 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.

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

Policy

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.

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

TLDR: nondisclosure has to actually inhibit your pre round prep.

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.

Condo

Kicking planks + judge kick = probably bad

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.