St. Mark's '24

2A

Tech > Truth, I'll vote on anything as long as it's warranted and not harmful (racist, sexist, etc.)

bidaresid@gmail.com

smdebatedocs@gmail.com

add both to the chain

Speaker Point Scale:

29.8 - 30 - should reach late elims
29.4 - 29.7 - should clear
28.9 - 29.2 - should go 3-3 or 2-4
28.5 - 28.8 - serious errors in strategy

+ 0.1 speaker points if you open source ev - if you are a novice and your top teams open source this also counts

How I evaluate rounds:

• even though this is novice - I will flow the rounds and try to evaluate the round with the least judge intervention
• I try to avoid reading evidence but will have to if the debaters don't resolve the central questions for me

Argument prefs:

I am fine for policy and K, but I am usually on the policy side of these debates.

DA:

I think they are especially strong on this topic.

like 70% of my 1nr's have been on the econ DA or ptx DA

CP:

I prefer you go for competition over theory - ie. against Burden Sharing QPQ - defend that counterplans must be textually and functionally competitive is better than going for conditions CP bad.

PDCP > Intrinsic Perm > "delay/sequencing" perm

K:

I will decide in favor of one sides interp

I dislike middle-ground interps because I find it hard to weigh the affs imaginary extinction impact against the negs in round violence impact - you can still go for it though

if you are reading high theory explain it well

I personally think fairness > clash, but I have gone for both and am fine for either

K affs:

I am bad for KvK debates (apart from cap K)

When I'm neg we exclusively go for T USFG (unless the 1ar or 2ac mishandles something else) so that should tell you what I think about K affs

Condo thoughts -

I have no strong thoughts - if you are Aff make sure you central offense is developed before the 2ar

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml

^I vehemently disagree with every word of this paradigm. Making mocking references to it will certainly earn you higher speaker points. You should use it to construct my argumentative ideology by taking every premise presented within it and assuming that I believe the exact opposite.

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

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

Notre Dame '24

2A

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.

About me:

Add me to the chain: tielladebates@gmail.com

I am currently a senior at ND. It's my fourth year debating. I coach MS debate at St. Francis De Sales

Y'all can call me Tiella (tea-ella) or judge, I don't care.

General notes:

clarity > speed

tech > truth

depth > breadth

Fairness and education are impacts.

Please clearly signpost.

Tagline extensions are not extensions.

You need to be flowing.

Tag team cross is fine.

I will only judge kick if you tell me to.

Be nice to your opponents. I will tank your speaks if you're mean. That being said, I love a sassy CX so long as it's respectful.

Case:

Case is extremely important in the debate. Offense and defense are equally important on the case flow. If the negative doesn't provide me with a reason not to, I will err aff.

CPs:

Make sure it's either textually/functionally competitive. PICs, process, and actor CPs are all legitimate. Your CP needs to have a net benefit in order for me to vote on it. I tend to err neg on sufficiency framing.

DAs:

Prove you outweigh on timeframe, magnitude, or probability and I'll probably vote on it, but you need a clear link argument. PC args that aren't specific to the aff are probably insufficient. Show me why the plan is a bad idea. Ptx DAs need to have recent evidence or I won't vote on it. Defense and offense should be read on both sides.

Ks:

I will vote on FW. Tell me why your FW outweighs. I need to hear a clear link argument in order for me to vote on your K. Ideally, you should be reading more than one link. It's hard for me to buy a link of omission arg. If that's your only link, it will be an uphill battle for you. I will vote on a reps link, but if you're going for one, you better have rehighlighted aff cards. You also need to defend these links in your FW. I want to hear a clear, impacted-out root cause debate. I love an alt solves the case claim. That will make it easy to vote for your K, but I will vote on the K as a DA. With that being said, it will be hard for you to get my ballot without substantial case debate.

K affs:

Go for it. Ideally, you should have a clear connection to this year’s topic. You should have 1ar/2ar consistency. I need a clear explanation of your solvency mechanism. If you only solve for in round, fine, but don't claim to solve for more than you can reasonably affect. If you have a spill-up claim, I need a clear extrapolation of how my ballot will result in that.

K v K:

Love this debate. I will likely grant the aff a perm, but I can be persuaded otherwise. If you're going for the perm debate, your perm and link defense needs to demonstrate interactions between lit bases. Neg - I need a clear answer as to why the perm is impossible. A quick mutually exclusive is probably insufficient. Explain how the aff harms whatever you're going for. Obviously, specific links > links of omission.

K v FW:

Go for it. I need a clear extrapolation as to why the aff is uniquely violent. I think K affs are inevitable so you need to prove why it's cheating and impact out that debate.I want a clear explanation of why the W/M is insufficient and why the C/I explodes limits and harms ground.

T:

Note for packet-restricted rounds: I will not vote on a violation that is not in the NDCA packet

No interpretation = no win. You need to explain the impacts of topicality. I buy that T is a prerequisite to case, but you should say those words in the debate. Tell me why T is the most important voting issue. To win my ballot you need to prove why your interpretation is the best model of debate. There needs to be an internal link debate (ground, limits, etc.) and an impact debate (fairness, education). Aff you should have a W/M and a C/I in the 2ac. Explain why you're affirmative is reasonable, but most importantly explain why the negative doesn't lose ground.

Theory:

Explain why it is important with internal links and impacts. You need specific line by line. I have an equally high threshold for the aff and neg on fairness. Whoever does the better debating will get my ballot. If you are going for theory in the 2nr/2ar the whole speech should be theory.

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

St. Mark's School of Texas '24

Please put me on the email chain: lseawarddebate@gmail.com and smdebatedocs@gmail.com.

Be nice and have fun!

Big Picture Stuff:

- I'm big on tech over truth, so run whatever you want

- High clash, effective CX, knowing your ev, and open sourcing are routes to high speaks.

- I'd appreciate a card doc. No need to ask.

Specifics:

These are my personal thoughts on various positions. If you outdebate you opponents, they won't matter. Even in close debate, IMO I've never made a decision based on them, but I feel I should let you know anyway.

T:

I like plan text in a vacuum

I think predictability is more important than debatability.

CP:

I think deficits should have clear impacts in the 2AC. ("CP d/n solve the AI scenario" is fine. "CP can't fund the plan" isn't)

I'm fine with inserting CP or perm texts.

Don't be scared of going for theory - I'll treat it like any other argument.

I'm good for condo bad. I prefer research/education as the impact, but fairness is fine too.

DA:

Impact calc leads to wins.

I'll give higher speaks for newer UQ ev.

I'm open to politics DA theory/theory-based no link args.

K:

Aff specific links go a long way.

I don't want to or think I should create a middle ground framework.

I think vague alts are abusive.

I don't think fairness is an impact beyond turning the neg's impacts.

I don't think purely analytic FW DAs should be given much credit.

Case:

Have it, if possible.

DA + Case 2NR = High speaks.

Affiliations: St. Mark's 2024

paradigm from Maxwell Chuang

Email Chain: harrywangdebate@gmail.com. and smdebatedocs@gmail.com. Please make the subject of the chain relevant. ie. include the tournament, round, and teams debating in the subject line of the email.

TLDR:

-Tech>Truth

-If i cannot explain what I am voting for by the end of the round I will not vote on it.

-Won't vote on out of round issues

-I will read evidence if a team if asked to after the round, but in round explanation of the evidence >

-Ask if you have questions about something not on my paradigm

Online:

-Camera on = good

-Don't start your speech if my camera is off

Topicality:

-T debates are good

-Evidence quality matters

Counterplans:

-Biased for the negative on most counterplan theory, but the affirmative can definitely convince me otherwise

-The affirmative should be certain and immediate

-Tell me to judge-kick the counterplan

-Will vote for any counterplan given better technical execution by the negative

-PICs are good

-Word PICs also good

-Process counterplans great

-Advantage counterplans good

Ks:

-Not well-versed in high theory literature

-Well-versed in cap, good for security, etc.

-Long overviews make me sad

Disadvantages:

-Taking a generic disadvantage and contextualizing it to the 1AC is strategic

-Turns case is awesome and is even better with spin

-However, that only matters if you win a substantial risk of the disadvantage

-Link uniqueness is important

K Affs/T USFG:

-If your strategy is not to defend the resolution traditionally, you should go for a counter-interp that provides the negative a benefit from negating the 1AC

-I personally think procedural fairness is an impact, but I can be convinced otherwise

Theory:

-Neg biased on most theory

-Aff theory: usually hailmary and bad

-condo is good, same with 50 state

Speaks:

-Will unmute to clear 3 times in one speech before going to play league

-being funny/making jokes = higher speaks

-mentioning league = +.1 speaks

-cx: you do you

Random:

-Yes, you can insert rehighlightings

-I will protect the 2NR

-No risk exists

-Good formatting gets bonus speaks, not making the email chain correctly gets less speaks

-Clipping = L

-Open Source = +.1 speaks if you let me know

Affiliations: St. Mark's 2024

paradigm inspired by Maxwell Chuang/ Harry Wang

Email Chain: howardzdebate[at]gmail[dot]com and smdebatedocs[at]gmail[dot]com. Please make the subject of the chain relevant. ie. include the tournament, round, and teams debating in the subject line of the email.

TLDR:

-Tech>Truth

-If i cannot explain what I am voting for by the end of the round I will not vote on it. 

-Won't vote on out of round issues

-I will read evidence if a team if asked to after the round, but in round explanation of the evidence >

-Ask if you have questions about something not on my paradigm

-pls have good impact calc

Online:

-Camera on = good

-Don't start your speech if my camera is off

Topicality:

-T debates are good

-Evidence quality matters

-T A5 is a non starter

Counterplans:

-Biased for the negative on most counterplan theory, but the affirmative can definitely convince me otherwise

-The affirmative should be certain and immediate

-Tell me to judge-kick the counterplan

-Will vote for any counterplan given better technical execution by the negative

-PICs are good

-Word PICs also good

-Process counterplans are fine but i don't like them

-Advantage counterplans good

Ks:

-DON'T GO FOR K IN FRONT OF ME. I AM BASICALLY CLUELESS ON THE K

-I somewhat know security K but that's it

Disadvantages:

-disads are great

-i love good overviews and turns case with good spin

-lbl is really good. 

-do good link explanations too. if you just do tagline explanations for the link I probably won't be to inclined to believe it unless it just goes dropped 

K Affs/T USFG:

-If your strategy is not to defend the resolution traditionally, you should go for a counter-interp that provides the negative a benefit from negating the 1AC

-I personally think procedural fairness is an impact, but I can be convinced otherwise

-pls don't read k aff. basically auto L 

Theory:

-Neg biased on most theory 

-Aff theory shouldn't be a solely hail mary strat

-condo is usually good unless it's really abusive by the neg. 3 condo is usually good

Speaks:

-Will unmute to clear 3 times in one speech before just ending the speech

-being funny/making jokes = higher speaks

-mentioning league = +.1 speaks

-cx: be nice :)

Random:

-please don't insert rehighlightings. just read the evidence. i probably won't evaluate if you don't read it

-I will protect the 2NR

-No risk exists

-Good formatting gets bonus speaks, not making the email chain correctly gets less speaks

-Clipping = L

-Open Source = +.1 speaks if you let me know