What are your stylistic preferences for extemp? How much evidence do you prefer? Any preference for virtual delivery?

It's important that the extemp format is followed. I would prefer there be a min. of 2 sources per point. I prefer an AG that you can tie back to during each transition.

What are your stylistic preferences for Oratory/Info? How much evidence do you prefer?

Much like extemp at least 2-3 sources per point. I like the intro to be tied into the subject and your transitions link back to your AG.

Any unique thoughts on teasers/introductions for Interpretation events?

I love teasers! Make sure you intro truly introduce your piece and it isn't too long

Any preferences with respect to blocking, movement, etc.?

I prefer there to be lots of movement and blocking. Help me visualize where you are and who you are talking to.

How do you feel about author's intent and appropriateness of a piece? For example: an HI of Miracle Worker (author's intent) or a student performing mature material or using curse words (appropriateness)?

I'm not ok with vulgar pieces. I am ok with some profanity but not a lot.

WSD Judging

I'm looking for teams who can defend their case and attack their opponents. I expect you to use the proper terms (opp/prop/motions) You will lose points from me if you are rude in anyway. I'm looking for everyone to be good speakers and be able to explain their side in a way that makes sense and convinces me that you should win.

Add me- asch.debate@gmail.com

I debate for Hendrickson High School - Currently on my 3rd year of CX

I'm ok with you running any argument- make sure you warrant it out and explain to me your evidence BUT if you say any racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/xenophobic etc I'll stop the round and give you 0 speaks.

Topicality

• I don't mind it, as long as you in depth explain to me why your impacts matter, explicitly state why the aff isn't topical

• The more credible and relevant the evidence, the better.

• Include a case list- you can't just tell me something isn't topical and not include example of affs that are topical under the resolution- I will most likely err aff

Framework

• I need this to be argued in a way where you can demonstrate to me why I should frame the debate in the way you want me to
• Why should I view debate and the structure of the round through a certain lense?

Framing

• If you don't provide anything else for me to weigh, I will default to util.

• Love it but you can't simply rely on cards and blocks- know your arguments

• On this note, impact calc!
  
  

Ks

• I LOVE K's

• You must include a link, alt and impact

• Framework is the most important part of the flow - I need to know how I should view the rest of the debate. The more self serving, the better :)

• Explain to me why the scholarly literature behind your evidence should be prefer over the aff

CPs

• Explain the net benefit to me

• I'll evaluate sufficiency framing but there is such thing as absolute defense. YOU STILL MUST WIN SOME RISK OF SOLVENCY

• If extended and explained well- I will vote on a perm

DAs

• All parts of the DA HAVE to be extended throughout the debate, dropping one will make it harder for me to vote on it and a smart 2A that points it out will persuade me to vote for them

• I said it before and I'll say it again IMPACT CALC!

Lastly, have fun! :)

(Any questions send me and email!)

Westwood CC 

joonyoungchoo@gmail.com 

Please name the email chain: "Tournament - Round X - Team (AFF) vs Team (NEG)" - "TOC - Round 1 - Westwood CC (AFF) vs Westwood BS (NEG)".

Top Level Thoughts -- Stolen from Het Desai 

-- The first 20 seconds of the 2NR and 2AR should be the words that you hope I repeat back to you at the beginning of my decision. Holding my hand will be rewarded with higher speaker points, a quicker decision time, and a more favorable RFD.

-- I will rarely instantly decide the debate on a single dropped argument alone and will only consider that dropped argument in the broader scheme of what occurred. I will follow something resembling the following structure to make my decision:

A. List the­ arguments extended into the 2NR and the 2AR

B. Ask myself what, as per the 2NR and 2AR, winning these arguments will get for either the affirmative or the negative. The answer to this question will sometimes be “absolutely nothing” at which point I will cross these arguments off my flow.

C. Trace whether these points of disagreement were present previously in the debate. This will only include substantive argumentation, but will not include framing devices introduced in the 2NR and the 2AR.

D. Compare the negative and affirmative’s central issues by asking myself if losing a certain argument for a certain team will still allow for that team to win the debate.

-- Tech > truth in most instances. Unless I’m offered an alternative framework to judge debates, I will default to assuming that dropped arguments are true arguments. That being said, technical debating does not warrant an auto-win and the assumption that certain arguments are auto round winners when dropped leads to disastrous decisions. For instance, judges seem to automatically assume that “realism good” is an impact turn to every IR critical argument come 2020. While it would certainly be nice if the negative explained which portions of realism they agree/disagree with (e.g. rational actor model, the model of the nation state, etc.), it is not the burden of the 2NR to answer “realism good” in this hypothetical situation if the 1AC, 2AC, and 1AR choose not to explain why winning realism is good/true implicates the negative’s arguments.

-- Numbering, labeling, and compartmentalization are very important for me. Whenever possible, each argument in the 2AC should be numbered / labeled and those numbers / labels should be referenced for the rest of the debate. The 2NC and the 2NR’s responses to affirmative arguments should always be numbered.

-- Sound like you want to be here.

-- Debate is incredibly difficult and time-consuming. I love this activity and hope you can as well. I have tremendous respect for the hard work you’ve done to come here and will try to reciprocate that in my decision. I will be ready to defend my decision. Thus, “If you feel unsatisfied with my RFD, I encourage you to post-round me. I will not take any offense or judge your personality because of your reaction to my decision. I was/am always quick to disagree with judges as a debater and have always considered disagreement the highest form of respect.”– Vikas Burugu.

Sreyas Rajgopal: "actual arguments > ad homs" I will not evaluate any arguments about anything that occurred outside of the round outside of disclosure etc. or render a decision about the ethicality of any person I am judging. I don’t know you and this is incredibly uncomfortable.

Framework

1. I feel very comfortable evaluating these debates. I do not think I have significant ideological preferences for either side and have spent an absurd amount of time strategizing arguments for both sides. “Don't over-adapt to me in these debates. If you are most comfortable going for procedural fairness, do that. If you like going for advocacy skills, you do you. Like any other debate, framework debates hinge on impact calculus and comparison” – Yao Yao Chen. I went for mainly procedural-based impacts centered around clash and argumentative refinement when I was negative. This strategy requires greater defense to the aff’s impact turns, but makes it less difficult for you to indict the aff counter-interp.

2. Switch side debate is massively underutilized in HS debate. Most 2NRs assert TVA and SSD with no connection to the rest of the arguments. The 2NC and 2NR should spend time applying their impact filters to specific parts of aff offense. This can be made most effective by explaining your switch side argument on the impact turn you believe it resolves the best.

3. “TVA: who cares. If the 1AC says "reduce FMS to Saudi - we must discuss the Yemen War now!" on the water topic, it is not the negative's burden to describe how the aff team could have made their 1AC topical. TVA could be useful as defense (especially if conceded) but tends to factor little in my decisions” – Shree Awsare.

4. Most Framework approaches can be filtered into one of two categories:

A) Finding a middle ground

While this approach will be significantly harder to assemble / formulate, it gives affirmative teams the ability to impact turn both the content of debates that would occur under the negative’s interpretation AND the reading of framework with significantly less drawbacks than the impact turn approach. It will, however, require affirmative’s to wade through the traditional components of a topicality debate and will be subject to good negative teams closely scrutinizing affirmative counterinterpretations. An important question that not enough negative teams ask is how the aff’s counter-interpretation solves their impact turns. “Aff odds of winning are substantially higher if you persuade me that the negative can debate the aff over the course of a season with a relatively even win-percentage. Advance impact-turns boldly, but do not forget defense” – Rafael Pierry.

B) Impact turning topicality

This argument is only particularly persuasive if you win an argument aside from competing interpretations for how a debate should be evaluated. Unless your argument is debate bad, I will struggle to find a way to vote for no topic at all against a competent negative team. However, if you do win an argument that reduces the question of my ballot to an individual debate, the impact-turn only approach becomes much more viable. Aff offense here should focus on why the 1NC’s reading of framework is violent.

5. Neg teams should extend presumption and contest aff solvency throughout the debate. This will make it much more difficult for the aff to shift to more persuasive impact turns that are likely not resolved by their counter-interpretation/the ballot.

6. The 2AR should center 1-2 pieces of central offense through which to explain their strategy. “Less random DA’s that are basically the same, and more internal links to fully developed DA’s. Most of the time your DA’s to the TVA are the same offense you’ve already read elsewhere” – Joshua Michael.

7. Fairness is an "impact" vs. "internal link". Who cares?! This is a distinction without a difference. We've mutually agreed how this works in all other contexts, so why is this any different? A "nuclear war" is an impact until the other team reads nuclear war good. No one would ever continue to argue "nuclear war" is their impact. They would refer to the negative effects of that nuclear war (mass death) as their impact. Fairness is no different, so it should be debated as such.

Kritiks v Plan

1. I’m comfortable in these debates as well. I have at least a decent grasp on most of the common Ks in debate and have likely went for them a number of times.

2. How you frame your arguments will likely have a significant impact on my evaluation of them. “All debate is storytelling, but K debate especially so” – Anirudh Prabhu. Not enough preparation is spent on how you will package your arguments, cross-examination, and/or general round vision.

3. Framework means a lot more to me than it does to some judges. A vast majority of judges seem to arbitrarily intervene and decide to take a middle stance on the framework debate and generate their own justifications for why this “middle stance” is preferable. I will avoid doing this at all costs and only decide between the interpretations present in the 2NR and the 2AR. It will likely be the first argument I evaluate, unless the affirmative has decided not to prioritize it.

“How I should "weigh the aff" versus the K is rarely self evident. I don’t mind a little bit of arbitrariness in a framework interp if you are instructing me clearly on how to evaluate your offense versus their offense” – Anirudh Prabhu. Negative defense to the aff’s standards are usually insufficient and should be prioritized more, while aff teams should borrow more from their negative framework arsenal against planless affirmatives and explain why a model of debate where the affirmative gets to weigh the plan is most reflective of the resolution and why debate over that predictable stasis point is the best model.

4. High link specificity will be rewarded. Although I will still evaluate the debate as presented, demonstrating you’ve thought about how your K interacts with the affirmative will be rewarded in speaker points and in the decision. Unlike many other judges, I will certainly be willing to vote on turns case arguments when your link arguments are well-explained in the context of the affirmative.

5. The permutation is overrated as the basis for affirmative strategy because of debate’s reliance on offense/defense evaluation. Winning on the permutation often requires winning independent of the permutation as well. Instead, Affirmatives should prioritize developing their aff as offense more.

6. Extinction outweighs is a devastating argument against most neg Ks. I have a difficult time understanding neg responses as they are reliant on Framework and/or do not contest the specific scenario for extinction in the 1AC. “If you're reading a policy aff that clearly links, I'll be pretty confused if you don't go impact turns/case outweighs” – DKP.

Kritiks/Other Strategies v No Plan

If technical debating and argument comparison is not lost, I will enjoy the debate. These debates are incredibly difficult, but rewarding to engage in.

1. It will be difficult to convince me that your K aff does not have to defend something. You got to pick and choose what to defend and should be held responsible for those choices. This becomes less true as the neg's criticism becomes more trivial, but I will have a relatively lower threshold for link explanation.

2. I am not persuaded by “no perms in method debates”. Although permutations tend to get out of control in these debates, I do not believe entirely abandoning competition is the solution. The negative needs links that disprove the aff. However, the threshold for a no link argument if one is forwarded by the affirmative will be higher. The neg is best served explicitly establishing a higher threshold which I will be receptive to.

3. Go for presumption. Press the aff on its ability to solve. Vague assertions about your aff will not be rewarded with either the ballot or speaker points and I will not be lenient to new aff extrapolation.

4. Go for Topic DAs and Impact Turns if the affirmative links. Or better yet, link them to it. Usually, aff responses are woefully insufficient.

5. This might sound terrible for the aff, but if the neg does not refute aff shifts with specific link explanation, I’m likely quite a good judge for the aff. Kritikal affirmatives have easy angles to exploit vs substantive negative strategies. Neg teams are often awful at contesting the aff, so applying your theory and solvency explanation to different pages effectively should be an easy route to victory.

Topicality

1. “A decent amount of evidence with intent to define considerably improves your offense.

2. Caselists on both sides help.

3. I tend to care most about predictability” – Ruby Klein.

4. “The articulation of reasonability that will persuade me is that the substance crowdout generated by T debates outweighs the difference between the two interps” – Anirudh Prabhu.

5. In most circumstances, affs should utilize reasonability, functional limits, and arbitrariness as their 2AR strategy.

Counterplans

1. Well-researched strategies (especially PICs) will be rewarded. Topic/aff-specific advocates go a long way.

2. I will default to judge-kick unless told otherwise. Generally, I believe no judge-kick arguments should start in the 1AR at least if you want to win them.

3. I will default to the model that counterplans must compete functionally and textually, but I am willing to hear alternative models for competition.

4. Sufficiency framing is asserted without an implication in most instances. You should set a threshold for how much the CP needs to solve i.e. “1AC ev says we need to meet the 2 degree threshold – if the CP gets there it’s sufficient to solve and deficits do not matter past that”. Otherwise, this seems to be intuitive and just an assertion that serves as a poor substitute for impact calculus.

5. Presumption goes to least change.

Disads

1. “Turns the case” is important in some debates, but not others. It’s important to recognize when to prioritize it. The argument that war causes structural violence is intuitive and should not require too much explanation aside from explaining how it implicates framing. Turns case arguments at higher levels of the DA are more persuasive when applied to the aff’s internal links.

2. I generally care more about link defense than impact defense. Link framing is especially important because it can start argument resolution in your favor.

3. Smart analytic arguments are significantly under-utilized. Most politics scenarios, for example, can be logically disproven by a series of analytic arguments. But, the better the other team’s evidence is the more you’ll need of your own.

Case

1. Like everyone else, I like good case debating. 2Ns that show they know the aff better than the other team will especially be rewarded with higher speaks.

2. I will be very strict for the 2AC and 1AR on case. The 2AC needs to actually answer the 1NC case arguments not just re-explain your advantage. I will also be deeply skeptical of new 1AR/2AR arguments on the case especially if your explanation of the aff shifts.

3. Everything from the DA section apply just as much here.

Theory

1. I’m likely better for theory arguments than most because I evaluate them similarly to every other argument. But, if left to my own devices, I’m neg leaning on most questions.

2. “A creative perm debate is likely better and less life-denying, but I understand that theory is necessary to beat process CPs that steal the aff and cheat" - Ruby Klein.

3. I'm far better than the average judge for aff-specific PIKs. I think they're heavily underutilized and a personal favorite of mine. Defeating a strong aff theory argument is still difficult given significant aff pushback especially if the PIK was not explicitly one in the 1NC. However, I find these strategies are often most true to nuanced disagreements in the literature, so there is a strong pedagogical benefit to pursuing them.

Sam Church

Harvard '27 | Liberal Arts and Science Academy (LASA, "Law-Suh") '23

TLDR: I am indifferent.

please add me to the email chain: samsdebateemail@gmail.com

---Paradigm---

I am a first year out. I debated on the national policy debate circuit for all four years of high school, and am currently doing policy debate at Harvard.

Debate is ultimately a technical game. I find myself frustrated when judges attempt to intervene with their own conceptions of "truth," or "argumentative quality." As such, I will attempt to disregard my preconceived notions to the best of my abilities when deciding a debate. The 2AR and 2NR should therefore begin by telling me where to start.

I don't want a card doc. Instead, teams should point out what evidence they think matters and why the other team's evidence is bad. Please refer to evidence by author name if you want me to go back through and find it.

I probably care less about cards and evidence quality than other people. Bad arguments can be beaten with short analytics, if a team can't adequately respond to an awful argument then they don't deserve to beat it.

I absolutely do not care what arguments you read.

Counterplans: no thoughts. I will happily judge a competition or theory debate.

Kritiks: I am familiar with most of them. will happily zero the aff or zero the links depending on how framework goes.

K Affs: I am probably better for T than K v K. impact turn the reading of framework, the resolution, whatever, I do not care.

I (used to) debate at the Liberal Arts and Science Academy (LASA) in Austin, Texas as a 2N. I also (used to) debate for Texas as a 2N (for one tournament).

Put me on the email chain: alexandreahuang@gmail.com

Do what you do best and I will judge it to the best of my ability. When I competed, I always believed the best decisions were rendered exclusively based on the words that came out of the debaters' mouths. I will try my best not to intervene unless it becomes an absolute necessity so the tournament can go on.

Stuff about me:

Neg leaning on most theory, but feel free to go for condo, my partner and I went for it pretty often.

Exclusively went for framework versus K affs.

Read some Ks on the negative, but my bread and butter are DAs and CPs.

I would rather you read re-highlightings than inserting them.

Good luck, have fun, stick to your (non-violent) guns!

Put me on the chain -- its1gonbeoff@gmail.com

Top Level

Tech > Truth.

Tech over truth.

Tech over truth.

Everything below is rambling that i'm easily convinced otherwise by, dogma is the single most harmful portion of judging that I as a debater hated. If you feel that I had made an incorrect decision please feel to post round me for an hour, because my duty as a judge is to evaluate the debate correctly.

I have no material predispositions, here's some of my understandings.

Spark is a fantastic argument, and most 2AC's are horrible to it. The best execution of spark usually is a 2NC on AI bad and negative util however go for aliens or whatever I really don't care.

Wipeout is fine, reincarnation is fine, the gregorian time pik is fine.

Please don't take me for K debate's not that i'm not interested in judging them, but rather incompetent at adjudicating them.

Here's how I debated:

take all of these things with a grain of salt. I mean it, your arguments will not effect my decision one bit and I won't hack for anything. These are just my understandings of debate, so I can adjudicate it as technically as possible. Most of these things are ADVICE not predispositions.

Kritiks, after my 4 years of debating I have concluded that the K is irrelevant and everything devolves into some random reps link, a floating pik, or the fiat K. Personally I find the fiat K to be strategic and most affirmatives struggle to answer it, K teams that go for the link struggle with two things

1. Framework, if you are going for a link that is based on the 'reps' then you need to win this
2. Permutation, if you are going for a link that is based on the 'consequence' of the plan, you need an answer to the double bind
3. Alternative, applies to subpoint two, but I find most negative teams struggle to answer the perm double bind.

Kritikal affirmatives, I have concluded your 1AC is irrelevant and all that matters is your 2AC to FWK, the best 2AC's to topicality have a plethora of DA's, and not 50 rephrased 'silencing/exclusion/conformity' DAs.

K v K debates, negative teams struggle with the permutation, you need a coherent link, affirmative teams should use their 2AC DA's to topicality vs the Cap K, negative teams should read 15 links in the block if you want to go for it.

Debate is probably a game structured by competition.

I believe fairness is a superior impact to clash, because I as a debater concluded that the ballot is only a remedy of a procedural violation of unfairness, debate is likely a game structured by competition, and the most persuasive topicality DA's in the status quo such as the K of models, or predictability is subjective struggle vs questions of this round rather than models. Clash is great vs things like the conformity DA/old school FWK DA's, I find clash more compelling on the aff v K. I also just generally don't care what you do, if you really want to debate the K of models then go for it doesn't matter to me.

Affirmatives should recognize that silly arguments that are non-sensical under a question of models, such as 'disclosure checks fairness' become more persuasive under questions of this round.

Policy debate

Process CP's are the greatest and most strategic argument ever invented in the history of debate, and I mean it. The best ways the affirmative can beat it is, through either competition, or a deficit and inb defense often does wonders.

DA's these are great, however you cannot go for the squo and drop the case. I will always try and not DIE, time frame is a nonsensical argument but if the affirmative doesn't answer it correctly/drops it ill err negative. Politics is fine, the rider DA is fine affirmative's 2AC to the rider is horrible, seriously look into it.

Adv CP's these are great but the negative cannot go backfile hunting and paste in the AT: warming planks, you could do this and win debates but at the highest level these won't cut it, however these are an excellent way for the 2A to hate you and make the debate so much more difficult for the affirmative. negative teams should 2NC CP out of Addons or if one of their planks got nuked.

Topicality affirmatives should go for PTIAV more, and I mean so much more. Predictability probably outweighs debatability but will be convinced otherwise, likewise for limits outweighs predictability etc. however, these are uphill battles not because I think these are unwinnable in front of me but rather because the truth of these arguments are incorrect, however if technically executed I will 100% not care.

Theory, arbitrariness is a fantastic argument and is the best impact in my opinion. Logic vs condo is excellent too. Here's why non-resolutional interpertations justify FURTHER amounts of unpredictable bad interpretations which means that an arbitraty ad hoc rule justifies the absolute worst form of your debatability impact. Logic vs condo is great, because it lets you get predictability vs debtability. Negative's burden is to prove both the implicit and explicit oppurtunity costs to the plan, which requires condo. Do I think debate is a logical game? probably, but up for debate.

UQ CP's are fine, watch out for overwhelms.

Ban the plan is incredibly strategic and great. Not sure who's right about net topicality

PIC's are great, word PICs are probably not competitive.

i'm a horrible flow, so go a little bit slower, this is not a fault of you but a fault of me and my laziness to fix it.

I will probably not ask for a card doc, as I feel these to be interventionist however, ill take a look at them in questions like this:

Jack says your author sucks says nothing and card has no warrants.

Jill says your author sucks says nothing and card has no warrants.

not sure if counterplans compete of the resolution or the plan;

offsets might or might not be competitive.

I have no idea what the new topic will be, so please over explain things.

everytime you say the "perception alone" causes something ill be sad but this argument is strategic.

Some debates are truly inadjudicable, and might require me to intervene I hope that your debates aren't bad enough that it needs to break the realm of tech over truth.

When I must intervene.

If undisputed I default to judge kick---it's the most logical extension of conditionality

questions of evidence ethics---ill stop the round accused gets a L 25 if correct, accuser gets a L 25 if incorrect.

feel free to read death good in front of me idrc.

don't say any of the isms/phobias.

Topicality > Procedurals > Theory---this is ONLY in a world like this

Affirmative drops ASPEC

Negative drops Condo

if both teams say ZERO words or does ZERO impact calculus then I will default to ASPEC outweighing condo. Why? Because the procedural controls the internal link to conditionality.

I think zero risk could be real, but in debates it never happens, here's the problem if the other team ever ASSERTS the opposite of your argument, then it's impossible for it to be zero risk. However, if the negative reads a nuclear war impact but drops MAD checks then I believe the impact is zero risk.

Presumption flips to the world of least change.

if both sides have a 100% risk of extinction, I would vote negative on presumption.

if both sides have a 100% risk of case and a 100% risk of a counterplan that solves the case but the affirmative does not extend a permutation, then I would vote affirmative on presumption.

UPDATE--4/26.24

FOR THE MSTOC-- I am a tab judge and am willing to listen to anything and everything you have to say. I am great for lay debates and even greater for more technical forms of debate. I will do my absolute best to render a decision that constructively builds character and debate skill. please pref me high if you dont want frustrating decisions.

UPDATE--4/9/24

I've come to realize that alot of judges are unwilling to vote on flat out conceded arguments that obviously have technical implications to the round. Even when extended, I seem to find that alot of the time judges are just "too dogmatic" or "unwilling to vote on theory" which is blatant intervention. Obviously, some arguments have a lower threshold than others, but when flat out conceded and doesn't have a response by the 2AR-- ill obviously vote negative. This is an event shaped by objective, not subjective evaluation, which means I will try my best not to intervene in a given round.

UPDATE--FEB 24

please set up an email chain/ speech drop prior to the round

yes chain: watkinsnate25[at]gmail.com

Currently a Junior and debate for LC Anderson in both LD & CX [ 2A/2N], Accumulated 4 bids to the TOC

I read the Kritik, Policy, and Theory the majority of the time

I default to No Judge Kick, No RVI's and Reasonability

most of this paradigm is stolen from Shree Awsare and Vaishali Sivamani

getting my ballot is shockingly uncomplex. i am becoming increasingly irritated with the rabid forms of ideological dogmatism that have taken root on both sides of the policy/k divide and the steeply declining quality of judge rfd + feedback post-return from lockdown. i am privy to watching debaters put gargantuan time and effort into reading cool and valuable things from a spectrum of different arg types and i want to see good debaters do what they do best. this means that i put immense care into rfds and value the privilege of coaching and judging at each tournament i attend. anything else is silly, wastes copious amounts of time, and waters down the quality of debates.this is your debate, not mine. do not abuse that privilege.feel free to post-round, yell at me, or whatever you have to in a respectful manner to get the most out of this experience, i will not take it personally.

Irreversible Beliefs:
- Debate is best when students reference and respond to arguments in the order in which they were presented.
- I will try my best to flow the debate. Easy-to-transcribe soundbytes, emphasis in sentences, and pen time is a must. I cannot flow debaters who shotgun 3 word arguments at top speed nor those who speak in delirious, winding paragraphs.
- I flow arguments, not character assassinations. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy. Screenshots are not evidence. I have neither the authority nor resources to launch an investigation about outside behavior, coach indiscretions, or pref sheets. Debate like you are grown.
- No double wins, devolution to another game, or soliciting audience participation. First to initiate receives a L and very low speaks.
- Escalating CX unnecessarily, heckling opponents, zoom insults, etc = cringe.
- Cheating, harassment, slurs are a L, 0 speaks, and gets your coaches involved. Same for ethics violations without evidence.
- Asking for a 30 = auto 26.
- Reading cards > Not reading cards. A smart analytic can beat a bad card, but no cards anywhere lowers chances of victory.
- No evidence insertions. Debate is an oral activity.

Idiosyncrasies:
- My speaker points are lower than the community average. I reserve 29.2+ to speakers I thought were exceptional. You can improve your points by debating your opponents rather than reading scripts, preparing effective cross-examinations, reading exceptional cards, and not breaking my verbatim with your docs. If you give your rebuttals off of a paper flow and without a computer, you will receive 0.3 speaker points higher than what you would have received otherwise.

- I am unsure why 'new affirmative' means 'blank check' for the negative. I have never understood a warrant for why it suddenly makes artificially competitive counterplans legitimate, and don't agree with the community consensus that it automatically justifies deranged conditionality. If the new affirmative is topical, it implies that the negative should have been able to anticipate it and prepare strategies. That said, the affirmative usually folds and lets the negative go bananas, so - more power to them.
- I am more amenable to negative terrorism (2NC CPs, logical CP planks without solvency advocates, word PICs, etc) than most if executed well. I do not necessarily think 'counterplans must be textually and functionally competitive' is a truism. That said, I was a 2A, and am amenable to affirmative objections. I enjoy theory debates more than most, but it has been a minute since anyone has been good at debating it.
- Objections about the legitimacy of counterplans that do all of the plan are often better explained through competition than theory.
- Critiques aren't counterplans. Links aren't meant to be 'unique' or 'to the plan' because they aren't 'DAs.' Private actor fiat of 'movements' or 'mindsets' makes it easier for the affirmative to win on the perm. Links must be paired with impacts that outweigh, turn, or bracket the case.
- Fairness is an impact for T USFG if explained right, and limits is the most persuasive internal link. Evidence-based debate seems unworkable if there’s significant asymmetries in anticipation. Affirmatives can win without a traditional plan; critiquing neg definitions and providing counter-definitions that establish a model for both sides to engage improve their win rate. 'CI - discussion of topic,' 'default to us,' 'debate bad' and its corollary of naming debaters who used their skills for evil, and poor analogies that T is akin to drone strikes are dissuasive.
- While I understand that enthymemes are to some extent inevitable in communication, I am growingly frustrated with 'technical debating' that is used as cover for having a complete argument and judge instruction. Truth bombs like 'no perms in a method debate,' 'progress is possible,' 'X is ontological,' 'T is anti-[insert population] violence' with no further detail often leaves me asking - Why? How so? I am unwilling to vote for dropped ink that I can't make sense of or can't explain back to you and your opponents.