Add me to the email chain: alexborgas@icloud.com

Read whatever you want as long as it’s well explained and warranted.

Your 2nrs and 2ars should make it clear why you won and what I should vote on. Tell me how I should evaluate the debate.

You should do comparative impact calculus between you and your opponent’s impacts and clash with your opponent as much as possible.

Answering your opponent's arguments in the order they're presented makes it easier for me to follow along.

Please time yourselves and have fun.

Background:

4th Year Debater at Notre Dame High School.

I've been both a 2N and currently a 2A. 'Policy debater,' but I enjoy learning about K literature.

TL:

please put these emails on the email chain always and send a test email at least 5 minutes before the round starts -- sergiochavezdebate@gmail.com notreddebate@gmail.com

pronouns: he/him -- feel free to call me by name ("Sergio" or "Serg") -- not "Judge"

tech > truth absent ethics violations

be nice!

(For online, if my camera is off, I am probably not there so always check with me (and your opponents) before speaking)

I enjoy solid clash and organization in the debates, otherwise, I feel like I have to do work for you. There should be clean line-by-line so I can easily follow your speech. Cross-applications are great when used strategically and sufficiently implicated.

Speaking -- Clarity > Speed. Spreading is fine, but please be clear and at least try to be a little expressive (i.e. intonation, body language, eye contact, etc.), I will be more interested in what you have to say. I will yell "CLEAR!" if you are absolutely unintelligible. If I cannot hear your arguments, it won't be on the flow and I will not evaluate them. I am physically expressive, so my expressions will let you know what I'm thinking.

Timing -- Please time yourselves. Even when I'm debating I forget to time my opponents and that'll probably be worse while judging. You can finish your sentence after the timer, nothing more (feel free to ask me where I stopped flowing).

Please feel free to ask questions before the round.

T:

Hell yeah. This topic is great for T, and neg teams should utilize it to check weird affs. You must have proof of neg ground loss and a reasonable case list.

Always extend voters, impact out the IL (i.e. education, fairness, clash, debateability), and do impact calc. If it's not there, I can't and won't vote on it.

T comes before theory. It's a procedural question of whether the debate should've even happened in the first place.

Case:

Please robustly defend the aff in CX; defend a real Internal Link(s) for your advantages and impact scenarios; be prepared to defend your scholarship. I can appreciate smart, offense 1AR and 2AR pivots to beat the neg's args. If you think it's necessary in the 2AC, I'm all for it.

Rehighlightings do not have to be reread as long as its implication/purpose is explained in the tag. These can be valuable, but the worse they are, the less they matter.

CP:

Love them IF debated properly. Don't be too cheaty on the CP's -- a few planks are just fine and probably sufficient.

If you want to run a Process CP with an internal net benefit, it better have a link to the aff or you're losing to an intrinsic perm. It's the neg's responsibility to prove why the CP is good and necessary for the topic/against [x] aff.

DA:

DA's need impact calc and cohesive story. Please don't be read two cards in the 1NC and call it a disad. Turns case analysis is OP.

K:

Framework is a must. Links should be applied to the aff, even if they are a little generic. Pull 1AC lines, use CX to win links, and re-explain the aff through the K's lens. The alt should at least solve the links. Be careful using mindset shifts as your alt, this gives the aff is an easier route for the perm.

Here are some miscellaneous notes for K's that I've ran:

--Capitalism K -- I personally think defending a material alternative (e.g. socialism) is better than forefronting FW. Positional competition is overrated, get better at Link debate.

--Settler Colonialism K -- I've read the Set Col K on the neg and watched it being debated by one of my former partners (shout out Olivia Deantoni), and have had significant time discussing not only neg strategy but also aff answers to this K with one of my coaches, Joshua Michael. If you read Tuck and Yang as your alt, and 1NC CX says the alt is not material decolonization, you're wrong.

--Security K -- Great NATO topic generic, and I feel like teams could read it this year too. I mostly view the the Security K as "spicy impact defense" (shout out Viv). It's also why I liked it, because of how it necessitates in-depth clash on case and examples. I think there are two ways to go for the K: (1) FW = you link, you lose, and (2) Impact turn = spicy impact defense. Either way, the neg should win a low risk of the aff.

Tricks -- throw-away K tricks in the neg block (e.g. embedded death k, predictions fail) are not a great way to win rounds, but I've seen them work -- 1ARs, please don't drop them, a sentence is enough for me to throw out dumb arguments. Even if they are dropped, the 2NR must be specific and apply the args themselves to the aff. For "predictions fail," if the aff wins risk of case, I think their predictions are correct and I will err aff.

K-Aff:

I've learned to grow somewhat fond of K Affs. I think that teams that utilize their 1AC to win an impact turn, etc. are strategically doing the right thing. Do not just throw a bunch of jargon and lingo if you're not going to explain it. Save your overviews for the line-by-line. Please choose to defend something that the aff does and own it.

Theory:

Conditionality -- condo is probably good, and most likely reasonable if the 1NC has 1-3 condo, but I will always evaluate what happens in the debate first. The aff should probably prove in-round abuse.

Hey y'all

Debated policy for 2 years and change at Notre Dame High School

Dartmouth '27

Roll Trees

Yes chain please – colsonduncan@gmail.com

TL/DR – Do what you do as long as its good and be satirical not snarky

CP's

Need a Solvo Advo and Net Ben.

Some CP's dont belong on the topic (or any topic) – if this is the case the perm debate will most likely be an uphill battle for the neg but other than that I enjoy these args

Ev indichts work wonders for the solvency page

DA's

I love a good disad – please explain the story clearly especially when it comes to the links of like a ptx DA, which tend to be pretty contrived. Indichts and good analytics go a long way in the block esp when reading generic links

Please do impact calc – great neg debating has been done on the link debate without giving a reason why that link means literally anything and this is losing

K's

I've gone for cap and security, and am relatively familiar with antiblackness, set col, and fem. Explain the link well, do case debate, and if you are extending an alternative please explain how it solves the aff. High theory has gotta be clear and contextualized (but im probably not the best judge for that stuff)

^ on the aff

I've gone for a lot of fun stuff against them but mostly T, so feel free to read them but know that if I can't explain what the aff does to the neg why I voted for you, I simply won't. And the closer to the topic the aff is, the easier it is for me to buy it, especially against FW

Case

Underutilized and essential sometimes if you are going for a K; a part of most of my 2nrs. Case turns are so much fun, especially on this topic. I firmly believe that this part of the debate can be by far the most in-depth and warranted by both teams, and it's always nice to see that.

T

in the words of ian mackey-piccolo:

"T is for cowards, but maybe going for it in front of a judge who says this makes you not a coward? I’m not sure. I’d happily vote for a technically proficient coward."

Other than that caselists are helpful

Theory

I think general that condo is probably good aside from egregious 1ncs or new block condo.

And please dont spread through blocks written years ago by your coach and hope to win – you gotta answer the speech – same goes for FW (all topicality tbh)

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

add me to the chain- mishellekam06@gmail.com

notre dame high school (2n/1a)

dont call me judge, just call me Mishelle

tech > truth

general notes

• I will listen to anything and vote for anything. you do you, that being said please make good arguments and have a good defense of what you are going for
• I'm super easy to read. If I'm making faces, it's probably because I am confused or can't understand what you're saying. If I'm nodding, that is generally a good thing
• I LOVE a good case debate- there can be a 0% percent risk of an impact and I will vote neg on presumption if I am convinced
• I am definitely very, very flow-oriented. That being said, to have a full argument you need to make a claim, warrant, and an impact. If those things aren't there, I'd rather not do the work for you and simply reward the team that did. I also flow on paper, pen time is important.

t

i love t, especially on this topic. If you can not answer what ground you lose out of the 1nc or give a case list I will most likely vote aff.

cp

If a cp is abusive I will lean aff on theory, but any generic topic cp please don't go for theory. Intrinsic perms are fun. if the 2NR can not describe what the cp does you will not win the debate. adv cp with rehighlights >>>>>

k

fair warning - i am not the most literate in high-theory arguments. this doesn't mean I won't listen to your baudrillard k's, but it means that I have a high threshold for SPECIFIC links and also a simple explanation of the argument since I will most likely be confused until you explain yourself. The neolib k and security k are my fav 2nrs to give. Teams need to explain what I need to prioritize first, whether that is epistemology, reps, framework, or whatever, just make sure you say so! I don't like HUGE overviews and I am a big believer in putting your link and impact work where it makes sense on the line by line not just at the top. root cause is op.

da

the best 2nr. impact calc is a must.

theory

I will most likely lean neg on most theory questions unless a CP is simply very, very abusive, but even those can be defended sometimes

Please add me to the chain: aaronkinsley20@gmail.com

Notre Dame '24

Aaron>Judge

TLDR

Tech>Truth

Go for whatever you like in front of me. I would much rather see a debate where you went for an argument you understood then see you try to go for an argument you think I would like more even though you haven't prepared it as much.

Do impact calc. I will give you much higher speaks if you write my ballot with your final speech.

T

I love a good T debate and wish more debaters went for it. I think fairness can be an impact but you must explain why. PTIV is a bad argument and I won't vote on it.

To make my ballot easier for me you should explain why the ground you are including or excluding is bad or good for a seasons worth of debates.

CP

I am very comfortable judging these debates. I do like adv cp's but don't like when planks don't have a solvency advocate. I would much rather the 1nc have 1-2 cp's that make a complete argument than a 1nc that has 5 cp's that only make half an argument. Waiting to develop a cp into a real argument until the block will significantly lower my threshold for allowing new 1ar arguments.

I lean neg on most cp theory but can be persuaded otherwise.

I lean aff on competition debates, especially against process cp's or cp's that compete off of delay, but you must explain to me why the inb is contrived and not germane to the aff. I will not mind voting neg on an abusive cp if the the aff spews their generic competition blocks without contextualizing them to the round.

I will only judge kick the cp if you tell me to.

DA

Please read a complete da shell in the 1nc with uq, link, IL, and an impact. I love a bunch of turns case cards and new impact scenarios in the block. However, when it comes to the link and uq portion of the da, I would much rather have a clear and coherent story with answers to the other teams arguments then a ton of cards with no connection between them or interaction with the flow. I think these debates have become to much about reading as many cards as possible in the block while forgetting tat you should be explaining why the cards you are reading matter to the debate. Cards are good, but they're not everything.

For the aff, I love big moves in the 2ac and 1ar, and will probably give you high speaks if you go for an impact turn that is well executed.

K

I am good with judging these rounds. However, I have not done the most reading, so do not assume that I understand the theory of power you are reading. Explain the story of your K and read a clear link to the plan. If you have not proven why the aff is a bad idea, I will not vote for you.

For fw, I don't have a preference between which impact you go for as long as you explain what your impact scenario is and why it outweighs your opponents impacts.

I have gone back and forth on whether or not I think the perm double bind is stupid, but right now probably think I would vote on it if well executed.

K Aff's

I'm fine with judging an aff without a plan, however, I never read a k aff myself and would probably not consider myself the best judge for you. If you do get me, please explain what your solvency mechanism is and make it clear if you spill out of round or not. I don't think you have to win that you make broader changes in debate to win the round but I think all to often the aff will be intentionally vague about what the aff solves until the 2ar.

Theory

I will usually only vote on theory if it's dropped. The 3 theory args would still vote for when contested would be Floating Piks, International fiat, and Condo.

For condo, you must larify n round abuse for me to vote down the other team. Do not just say they read x amount of condo. Explain why those specific 1nc arguments made it impossible to gain something positive from this debate.

Misc

Time your own speeches.

Be nice to each other.

CX is always open but you must use all 3 minutes for questions, I will start your prep timer if you decide to take prep instead of asking questions.

add me to the chain: snockol2243@gmail.com

Tech always over truth.

I flow C/X, but it's up to you to use C/X in your speeches.

Speed is great, but be clear. Please slow down for analytics and blocks; I can't always catch all of it.

I'm biased towards DA/CP debate over T or the K.

For the K: I'm a firm believer in weighing the advantages of the hypothetical implementation of the plan against the impacts of the links. For framework I'm biased towards fairness over education.

For the K Aff: On framework, fairness > education. Please explain your advocacy to me like I don't know anything about it, because I don't.

I would prefer if you added me to the email chain: jinuleonam@gmail.com

I am a sophomore at Palos Verdes Peninsula High school who has debated starting in middle school.

Please disclose at least 20 minutes before the round if there is evidence of bad disclosure I will be more sympathetic to theory

General information for rounds: Open cross is fine just don't talk over your partner, spreading is cool but don't sacrifice clarity for speed, always tech>truth in debates I will vote on literally any argument (Death K, Spark, Impact turning Ks) this does not mean I endorse the arguments. Extending an argument is not just saying the tag but fully re-explaining all parts of it.

Please give an order at the top of a speech and signpost

I really enjoy watching you clash with your opponent's arguments and compare evidence meaningfully

Don't assume I understand all your jargon, explain arguments well

I'm fine with sass cursing etc to an extent (please don't be racist, sexist, homophobic)

Cross ex: please be respectful of everyone if you are overly aggressive you will lose speaks and credibility

T: I will only vote on T if you make a specific argument with examples of in-round abuse. Out of the impacts on T I am generally most persuaded by fairness (this applies for framework against K affs as well). Please fully extend Interp violation standards and voters don't just scream they dropped ez dubs.

CP: When reading abusive CPs (certain process cps, annoying PICs that steal offense, technical pseudo net benefits) I will become much more sympathetic to theory and intrinsic perms against that CP so be careful. I generally am not convinced by condo would not recommend going for it unless there was clear abuse or it was dropped.

DA: Nothing special here just make sure your link work is strong. Impact comparison is underutilized in the last speeches. Fully extend links impacts I link through the entire debate.

K: I will not consider Ks if you don't explain the link work well. When running your kritik please explain everything clearly if I don't hear a link specific to the aff or I have no idea what the alt does I will not vote. Avoid spamming buzz words especially when answering cross ex it shows you don't understand your own kritik.

K - Affs: I am biased against them but if you believe in your cause and show clear understanding and care you might win me over.

Speaks: Innovative or funny arguments are good and I will give you extra speaks for creativity

If you teach me a chess gambit for black side that I do not already know +0.1 speaks.

darinparkdebate@gmail.com

please call me darin and not judge!

i really don't care what you do. mostly everything is grounds for debate barring blatantly problematic positions. the more your strategy rejoins the 1ac, the higher your speaks will be.

if the top of your final rebuttal does not tell me what i should repeat back to you in my rfd, do not pref me. offense-defense shapes how i render most decisions.

convincing me you should not have to read a plan will be an uphill battle and will require significant concessions from the negative team.

i vote on the k for the neg somewhat frequently. i prefer when things are said about the plan.

conditionality is nearly always good, but there is an alarming trend with how poorly 2n's handle aff extensions of theory.

limited functional intrinsicness is probably good. i can be persuaded otherwise.

if you say the phrase "fiat double bind" in your speech, your speaks are capped at 27.0.

you can't insert re-highlights.

do not talk about things that happened outside the round.

Email chain: rrn.debate [at] gmail [dot] com

Background: Mamaroneck High School, University of Southern California – Policy Debate

Tech over truth.

Be clear, don’t be surprised when an argument I can’t flow doesn’t make it into my decision. I am slow at typing and on average get down 60% of your speech down on my flow.

Don't clip, be rude, or lie.

I agree with Ken Karas on most everything.