Hi, I'm Lilly Martin. Email: lillymar0427@gmail.com

I'm a senior at Johns Creek and have been debating for one whole year! Woo! I'm a 2A/1N in policy so I'm familiar with that. I love DAs. :)

Overall I think I'm pretty friendly and if this is your first year don't sweat it.

My rules:

time your own debates! (I don't want y'all to go over, although I'll keep time too)

Please don't steal prep, don't talk in between rounds(unless using prep), and try to email in the thread on time

DON'T SEND GOOGLE DOCS. It's a bad move to send anything other than word docs. Google docs take forever and it sucks. Word helps to make sure everyone's on the same page.

Please talk loud enough for me to hear. I don't care if you stand or anything(some judges do) but please talk in a way that your opponent and I can hear you. But also DON'T SHOUT. It's rude and I'll cry probably.

Suggestions:

If I give you notes write them down so your coach can help and so you remember!

FLOW FLOW FLOW FLOW FLOW FLOW FLOW FLOW FLOW FLOW FLOW

Don't do stupid cross-x questions, if you don't have anything to say- it's ok, just stop and we can get out of here faster.

No one likes a bully. No one.

You get 8 min prep. Use it. Please don't abuse it.

Also, try to read paradigms, not all of them are completely useless like mine is

Good luck and remember it's never really that serious.

Alpharetta MT '23, Emory '27

Email

eshansmomin@gmail.com

---email title should provide useful information. Ex. Tournament---Round #---Team A v. Team B.

TLDR

---adopted from Anthony Trufanov, Tim Ellis, Jordan Di

—-if you have no idea who I am, literally read all policy arguments my senior year, found the quickest and smallest way to get to nuclear war on the aff while going for every cheaty courts, international fiat, let's fiat X DA in thing possible: https://opencaselist.com/hspolicy22/Alpharetta/MoTh

---debating and judge instruction matter way more than personal preferences.

---generally good: more cards, predictability, conditionality, judge kick.

Top Level

---tech > truth

---I will flow and vote on things said in the debate. Ideological considerations are irrelevant and I will value judge instruction more than anything

---asking for what cards were read is CX

---stop hiding ASPEC or other dumb stuff. You'll lose speaker points.

---flowing is great---if I can tell you are not at least sufficiently, it will not go so well.

---condo is good, if a new aff, go crazy

K

---don't say buzzwords and I am not as comfortable with these arguments---does not mean I will not hear these arguments but will need more explanation

---specific > backfile.

---have links to the plan > links about reps

---do case debating

---good framework debating and links don't usually need an alternative

T

---competing interpretations > reasonability.

vagueness in any form is almost always not a voting issue but can implicate AFF solvency.

---better interpretations and more cards are always good

---impact comparison will heavily shape my decision

CP

---DA/CP---love them, most comfortable with these debates

---default is judge kick. theory is an uphill battle and winning that condo is bad is an uphill battle

---solvency deficits need impacts tied to the ADVs, 1ar and 2ar consistency is crucial here

---intrinsic perms are fine, but they need a justification like textual legitimacy

---pretty NEG on most theory---competition probably decides if it's legit

DA

---framing pages are mostly silly. Ks of things the NEG has said > “but the DA has internal links.”

---I'm down for politics DAs in most variations---please explain what is going on for UQ

---impact turns are fun BUT plz make them coherent

---good impact calc will be rewarded and is always good

Others

---not voting for death good

---stealing prep, clipping cards = auto L

---"Being racist, sexist, violent, etc. in a way that is immediately and obviously hazardous to someone in the debate = L and 0. My role as educator > my role as any form of disciplinarian, so I will err on the side of letting stuff play out - i.e. if someone used gendered language and that gets brought up I will probably let the round happen and correct any ignorance after the fact. This ends when it begins to threaten the safety of round participants. Where that line is entirely up to me." – Truf.

Coach at Alpharetta High School 2006-Present
Coach at Chattahoochee High School 1999-2005
Did not debate in High School or College.

E-mail: asmiley27@gmail.com

General thoughts- I expect debaters to recognize debate as a civil, enjoyable, and educational activity. Anything that debaters do to take away from this in the round could be penalized with lower speaker points. I tend to prefer debates that more accurately take into account the types of considerations that would play into real policymakers' decision making. On all arguments, I prefer more specifics and less generics in terms of argument choice and link arguments.

The resolution has an educational purpose. I prefer debates that take this into account and find ways to interact with the topic in a reasonable way. Everything in this philosophy represents my observations and preferences, but I can be convinced otherwise in the round and will judge the arguments made in the round. I will vote on most arguments, but I am going to be very unlikely to vote on arguments that I consider morally repugnant (spark, wipeout, malthus, cancer good, etc). You should avoid these arguments in front of me.

Identity arguments- I do not generally judge these rounds and was traditionally less open to them. However, the methods and messages of these rounds can provide important skills for questioning norms in society and helping all of us improve in how we interact with society and promote justice. For that reason, I am going to work hard to be far more open to these arguments and their educational benefits. There are two caveats to this that I want you to be aware of. First, I am not prima facie rejecting framework arguments. I will still be willing to vote on framework if I think the other side is winning that their model of debate is overall better. Second, I have not read the amount of literature on this topic that most of you have and I have not traditionally judged these rounds. This means that you should not assume that I know all of the terms of art used in this literature or the acronyms. Please understand that you will need to assist in my in-round education.

K- I have not traditionally been a big fan of kritiks. This does not mean that I will not vote for kritiks, and I have become much more receptive to them over the years. However, this does mean a couple of things for the debaters. First, I do not judge as many critical rounds as other judges. This means that I am less likely to be familiar with the literature, and the debaters need to do a little more work explaining the argument. Second, I may have a little higher threshold on certain arguments. I tend to think that teams do not do a good enough job of explaining how their alternatives solve their kritiks or answering the perms. Generally, I leave too many rounds feeling like neither team had a real discussion or understanding of how the alternative functions in the round or in the real world. I also tend towards a policy framework and allowing the aff to weigh their advantages against the K. However, I will look to the flow to determine these questions. Finally, I do feel that my post-round advice is less useful and educational in K rounds in comparison to other rounds.

T- I generally enjoy good T debates. Be sure to really impact your standards on the T debate. Also, do not confuse most limiting with fair limits. Finally, be sure to explain which standards you think I as the judge should default to and impact your standards.

Theory-I am willing to pull the trigger on theory arguments as a reason to reject the argument. However, outside of conditionality, I rarely vote on theory as a reason to reject the team. If you are going for a theory arg as a reason to reject the team, make sure that you are impacting the argument with reasons that I should reject the team. Too many debaters argue to reject the team without any impact beyond the argument being unfair. Instead, you need to win that it either changed the round in an unacceptable way or allowing it changes all future rounds/research in some unacceptable way. I will also tend to look at theory as a question of competing interpretations. I feel that too many teams only argue why their interpretation is good and fail to argue why the other team’s interpretation is bad. Also, be sure to impact your arguments. I tend towards thinking that topic specific education is often the most important impact in a theory debate. I am unlikely to do that work for you. Given my preference for topic specific education, I do have some bias against generic counterplans such as states and international actor counterplans that I do not think would be considered as options by real policymakers. Finally, I do think that the use of multiple, contradictory neg advocacies has gotten out of hand in a way that makes the round less educational. I generally believe that the neg should be able to run 1 conditional CP and 1 conditional K. I will also treat the CP and the K as operating on different levels in terms of competition. Beyond that, I think that extra conditional and contradictory advocacies put too much of a burden on the aff and limit a more educational discussion on the merits of the arguments.

Disads- I generally tend towards evaluating uniqueness as the most important part of the disad debate. If there are a number of links and link turns read on a disad debate, I will generally default towards the team that is controlling uniqueness unless instructed by the debaters why I should look to the link level first. I also tend towards an offense defense paradigm when considering disads as net benefits to counterplans. I think that the politics disad is a very educational part of debate that has traditionally been my favorite argument to both coach and judge. I will have a very high threshold for voting on politics theory. Finally, teams should make sure that they give impact analysis that accounts for the strong possibility that the risk of the disad has been mitigated and tells me how to evaluate that mitigation in the context of the impacts in round.

Counterplans-I enjoy a good counterplan debate. However, I tend to give the aff a little more leeway against artificially competitive counterplans, such as consult counterplans. I also feel that a number of aff teams need to do more work on impacting their solvency deficits against counterplans. While I think that many popular counterplans (especially states) are uniquely bad for debate, I have not seen teams willing to invest the time into theory to help defeat these counterplans.

Reading cards after the round- I prefer to read as few cards post round as possible. I think that it is up to the debaters to give clear analysis of why to prefer one card over another and to bring up the key warrants in their speeches.

Alpharetta 23. | NYU 27.

Add me to the email chain: app4viswas@gmail.com

Chain Title: *TEAM NAME* (AFF/NEG) vs *TEAM NAME* (AFF/NEG) - Round # - Tournament

TLDR:

- I have no topic knowledge.

- Tech>Truth

- Please be clear: clarity > speed (and I'll only flow what I hear)

- Don't hide ASPEC or dumb stuff. You'll lose speaker points

- I value persuasion as I think debate is a speaking activity first. Judge instruction and good debating > personal preferences.

- Unlimited condo good - but my threshold for responses by the aff goes down if the conditional advocacies are excessive.

- Line by line and flowing is great. Please slow down on analytics.

- Time your prep.

- If a team concedes an argument, explain to me why I should care.

- Be nice. Things can get heated in debate, but being a jerk is not cool.

Online Debate:

- If my camera's off, I'm not ready.

- I would prefer it if everyone had their camera on, but I understand if you have issues.

- Send analytics, especially in online debate.

K:

- Please explain your K very well instead of reading random blocks.

- I am not as comfortable with these arguments - does not mean I will not hear these arguments but will need more explanation

- Buzzwords annoy me - ideally don't say them

- A clear, well explained, and specific link to the AFF is crucial (rather than generic reps links)

- Don't forget about case.

- Winning the framework and links debate means you usually don't need an alt.

DA/CP:

- They're great, very comfortable with these debates.

- CPs: Solvency deficits need impacts tied to ADVs

- DAs: Impact calc is important. If you're going to impact turn, make it coherent.

- Politics DAs are too often incoherent so make sure it makes sense.

Speaker Points:

Everyone starts from 28.9, and it goes up or down from there.

+0.1 if you make me laugh or make a good joke about any Alpharetta Debater

Getting the judge snacks is good for speaks :)

Other things:

- Anything unethical, clipping, stealing prep = L and speaks nuked.

- Death good is stupid

For LD and PF:

My background in debate is exclusively in policy, but I am familiar with other formats. PF Debaters: Please keep this in mind when debating, I probably value evidence more than the average PF judge.