I'm fairly familiar with all types of debate and the rules associated with them. I'm alright with speed, put a lot of weight on impacts and flow, and ask that the debate is professional (i.e. avoid ad hominem, attack arguments not opponents).

I debated for all four years in high school. I did LD and PF for three years and then the policy for my senior year. I evaluate courtesy and ethics before I evaluate the flow. Please be respectful.

PLEASE USE SPEECH DROP TO SHARE EVIDENCE. If you don't know what this is ask me in round

LD:

I don't care how fast you go, I will say clear if I can't understand you.

I don't care if you run a K but you need to be able to explain it well because I don't have a ton of experience with K's but I am more than willing to learn with you if you can effectively debate the K.

I am cool with plans, counter plans and disadvantages

I weigh theory above everything else, and topicality is a theory argument.

For the value criterion debate- this is framework and it tells me how to weigh the round. I will follow that framework when making my decision if an effective debate was made on it. However, the value criterion is not a reason to vote for you, it just tells me the lense to vote through.

Please please please collapse

Please give me explicit voters

Please actually extend your case and give me specific card extensions

PF:

Plans and counter plans are illegal in PF. I will drop you if you run one.

I don't care how fast you go, I will say clear if I can't understand you.

Cost benefit analysis is not a framework. If you read CBA as your framework in your case, you are better off skipping over that part.

Please please please collapse.

Please give me explicitly voters

Please actually extend your case and give me specific card extensions

Policy:

I don't care how fast you go, I will say clear if I can't understand you.

I don't care if you run a K but you need to be able to explain it well because I don't have a ton of experience with K's but I am more than willing to learn with you if you can effectively debate the K.

I am cool with plans, counter plans and disadvantages

I weigh theory above everything else, and topicality is a theory argument.

Please please please collapse

Please give me explicit voters

Please actually extend your case and give me specific card extensions

______

Do what you do best and I will keep up

If you have any questions about my paradigm, the RFD, or debater/team-specific feedback feel free to email me at andrus.cadee@gmail.com

General- Lets explain everything you are doing. I will flow and if something is dropped then you are most likely going to loose. ROAD MAPS. Explaining and over explaining is better then assuming I know what you are talking about.

At the end of the day its your job to convince me on why and how you won. If you want me to remember something then tell me and explain why.

Subject to change.

Policy----------- As I am a policy judge now I request no Theories unless its your best theory and you explain it SUPER WELL. EXPLAIN EVERYTHING as I am a very comms judge but I will also flow. The better you make me understand what you are arguing the better chance of you winning. Reading Evidence then explaining will help your chances. Just reading Evidence is will most likely hinder you.

I’m a communications judge. Please speak clearly enough that I can understand your ideas. I can handle a faster pace but make sure you're not speaking quickly so you can repeat yourself. Give me voters at the end. I ask that you maintain professionalism and that you're respectful to your opponent's and judges.

Policy: Don't argue the Neg begins at a disadvantage or there is an uneven playing field. I will take that to mean you believe you can't beat any of the Aff arguments.

I was a former High School Policy debater. I competed for three years in Parliamentary debate for the University of Montana and have coached for 6 years now.

I am generally tabula rasa and will consider whatever arguments you make in the round. I don't think it's my job to tell you what positions to run or not to run. Your ability to decide on an effective strategy is part of debate. That said, everyone has their own preferences and biases, I have a few of my own.

Debate is a communication-based event. As such, effective communication and analysis are just as important as evidence in a round.

Mutual respect and decorum are paramount in my opinion. If you are a jerk or disrespectful to competitors you might still earn the ballot, but your speaking scores will reflect your tone and behavior. I will not hesitate to penalize someone for abusive rhetoric, slander, or any kind of hateful/discriminatory speech.

I like to see good clash of ideas and thoughtful analysis of arguments. Quality often wins over quantity with me. I have voted for teams that only won one argument on the flow, but they were able to explain why that argument won the round.

Unless specifically instructed otherwise I will revert to a stock issue/net benefits style framework. I have and will vote on things like inherency if the argument is well-made and impacted properly.

Vague or overly generic positions, and poorly supported causal link chains are not exceptionally convincing to me unless I'm given very good reasons to prefer them.

I am decent with speed and jargon, but if it impacts clarity and understanding it might impact what I get on the flow. My general rule is that if you are going too fast or are otherwise incomprehensible, I will put my pen down as a signal that I am not following you. If it's not on my flow, it probably won't be on my ballot either. Speed is not a substitute for substance. Your strategy should be something beyond talking faster than anyone else at the tournament and hoping they miss something.

Cross examination is binding and I will hold you to your word on how you choose to answer questions. Also, where I coach tag-team cx is against the rules. I won't penalize you if you do it, but each debater ought to be able to ask and answer questions without one partner taking over each time.

I don't consider new arguments in rebuttals. Responses are okay. Evidence to support existing positions is okay but any attempt to bring up brand new arguments or resurrect dropped ones won't make it onto my ballot.

Do your own extensions, cross-applying, impact calculus and voting issues. Please don't expect me to do a lot of extra work for you on the flow at the end of the round. You might not like how I choose to weigh things when left to my own devices. It's a lot more productive to simply say: what the argument is, how you have won it, and why that should decide the round.

Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.

Add me on email chains and email me if you have any questions before/after the round: hankanator13@gmail.com

TL;DR: I consider myself Tab Ras. I am comfortable with any type of argument, I am comfortable with any speed (P L E A S E drop a doc if we're online. I dont care how good you are, momentary lag could literally lose you my ballot - if i dont hear it or read it, i dont flow it), don't impact turn structural violence if you have any moral compass, and be respectful. Debate is a game you play with your friends, and you can't be friends with someone you don't respect! Plus if everyone is mad at each other all the time, none of us have fun. I probably won't look at the debaters too much, but know that I am listening, flowing, and processing every word!

Above all, the most important part of every debate is inclusion: Elitist and exclusionary practices are killing this activity across the board.

When your opponent has an accessibility request; unless you have a legitimate reason that their request is unrealistic, please comply and adjust your strategy so that your opponent can participate at their best. Reading overly complex arguments so your opponent can't respond and spreading when your opponent has asked you not to does not make you cool, smart, or a good debater. The best debaters are excited to have their ideas tested by other intellectual minds, not so scared of losing that they will do anything they can to manipulate the ballot for a cheap win. Oh, and also, please remember to have fun :)

LD/PF

LD: Value/Criterion

• This is framework. It decides how I vote and what impacts I vote on, but it is not in and of itself a reason to vote for you. So just know, if you stand up in your last speech and tell me your first voter is the v/c debate, I am inwardly sighing.
• There are a million different arguments you can read for framework, and the majority are strong enough to vote through. That being said, in my humble opinion, V/C arguments like Morality are empty and mean nothing. Whose morals? What moral guidelines? So, know that the more specific and nuanced framework will most always win out over the vague and general one.

PF: Framework

• For the love of all things good in this world, please stop reading Cost/benefit analysis in any and all debate events. PF topics are almost always written to have an inherently CBA structured debate, so reading it in case is a waste of your precious time. The only time you should read CBA is if your opponent reads some wacky framing and in the rebuttal you're like "Nah, cba lol" in which case you're fine. I'm exaggerating, but at the same time I'm really not.
• Seething pretense out of the way... CBA is the assumption, but I 100% believe that you can read alternative framework in PF. When you can't read a plan, F/W can help you narrow the debate in a nonabrasive way, and can lead to some very powerful debates. That being said, the same standards apply from LD (and policy...)

Substance

• Links, Links, Links. Debate is about the links. How do we get from your argument to its impact; how does voting for economic growth leads to a decrease in poverty; how does the existence of great power competition lead to nuclear war; how does implementing a UBI mean a marxist takeover that results in the death of all the soy plants as we are all forced to be vegans, etc! If you go through the effort of intentionally building a solid narrative that can guide me to the voting issues, the ballot will probably be in your favor. In other words, extend your case, don't just respond to what your opponent has said against your arguments!
• Impact Calc! The more impact calc you do in the debate, the less I have to do after the speeches are over, and that only works in your favor. Tell me why your arguments outweigh your opponent's and the debate will be a lot easier for you.
• A clean flow makes a clean ballot! Make the effort to stay extra organized, and it will only work in your favor.
• Give me voters; in your perfect world, my RFD should just be a regurgitation of your last speech. Tell me where you're winning in your eyes. Tell me what's important to evaluate and make my life easier.
• Be Confident in yourself! You've got this!

Everything else is in CX

CX

I default to stock issues until told otherwise. I will vote on what you tell me to except impact turns to structural violence as explained above.

T

Here is where I have made enemies (Jett). I will vote for T. I will. But just be very aware that the bar for your Interp is really high. If their aff is actually non-topical, then it should be the easiest debate to vote on as I believe in fairness and education above all else. However, if the T debate is just teams spreading definitions of what Russia or NATO is back and forth, I will ignore T. You have been warned. :P

Theory

Every theory shell needs the following: Interpretation, Violation, Standards, Voters/Impacts, and Framing. Theory is to correct abuse, so don't make me sad by being abusive with your theory.

F/W

Tab Ras - what you say goes, right up until they say something different. Then you've gotta prove why your worldview is better.

AC

I don't care how you structure your case, just make sure it has all the necessary parts. K affs are dope and you will make me happy by reading one, but it is really easy to tell if you're reading one without knowing what it actually is, typically by the first cx, if not the rebuttals (don't just steal off of open ev).

DA

Every disad needs clear uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact. If they all exist in one piece of evidence, great. But you need to do the work to make the chain of events clear to me, as the clearer your argument is the more likely I am to vote on it.

CP

I love a CP. Read one if you do too. Every CP needs a text, it needs to be mutually exclusive, and it needs to have a net benefit. I.e. I need to know what the counterplan is, why it can't happen in the aff world, and why it is a better course of action than the aff. Perms are a test of competition, so if they can prove why the aff and neg can coexist, it doesn't become a reason to vote neg anymore, and I can comfortably default to the aff.

K

Warning for Idaho: I understand that it can be exciting to get a prog judge and want to read a k on the rare opportunity. However, in my experience, it is better for you to win the round with the prog judge and get solid feedback on the arguments you know, as opposed to the arguments that you've brushed up on or downloaded from the wiki. I'm always in the mood for a K, but reread the fairness piece at the top of the RFD. If you're a varsity excited to smoke a novice because, unlike you, the novice hasn't spent hours reading Baudrillard or Mbembe, you are bad at debate and I dislike you. That being reiterated, I love a good K debate! A few notes:

• Frame the ballot. When you read a K, give me a role in your vision of the world so that I know what's expected of me as a judge; give me instructions. If I have a stock lay case against an Identity K, I'm going to need work from both sides to determine the ballot. Most likely the K will be read against a case that has V/C or CBA which is framework. So, contest the moral question brought by the other team; don't ignore it.

• In 999/1000 cases I Do Not Believe in You Link You Lose. Prove the impact, no matter how obvious the impact is (even cap). Prove everything and assume nothing.
• The more specific the alt the better. Personally, I believe the material strategies outweigh complex ivory tower proposals to change the entirety of the human race's epistemology. In other words, I buy the alt of anarchist revolution by defunding the police and handing out guns in the street more than I buy the alt of transforming society into hippies singing kumbayah and loving one another. Extreme and hyper specific examples for sure, but I hope the point is carried across.

Do it, but do it right. I need a clear impact, a clear link to the aff, and an even clearer alternative. A material course of action is always better than a vague epistemology argument (tho epistemology is obviously key to K). I you want me to burn everything down, I will grab the torch, but you need to do all of the work necessary to outweigh the aff.

Good communication, with arguments based on evidence, logic, and persuasion. Reasonable arguments and impacts. Extreme harms such as mass extinction, nuclear annihilation, cannibalism, zombies, etc. require extreme real-world evidence. Not recommended.

Logical fallacies make for weak debate. I watch for logical fallacies, but also expect the opposing team to point out if their opponent is relying on a logical fallacy as part of their case.

I expect the following during debate rounds:

1. Debaters should provide their own timekeeping. Judges should be observers and not controlling the round.
2. Tag-teaming protects a weak debater by hiding in the shadow of a strong debater and consequently slows their growth. I do not allow tag-teaming in rounds.
3. Debate should be focus on discussion of the topic. No ad hominem attacks.

I did debate in high school, all 4 years. I did mainly LD & BQ, but dabbled in PF a few times. My paradigm is pretty simple all in all. The less I have to do the better. The more I think the worse it could be for you, so the less I have to do the better. The more you can explain why something matters clearly and concisely the more likely you are to have my ballet. Your job is to convince me, so convince me and do it clearly. Also, I will be going primarily off of quality over quantity. A single well-thought-out argument is much better than a hundred mediocre ones. Speaking of, I hate speed. If you want me to follow the debate, I have to be able to understand you. I will obviously still flow and will try my best to follow the arguments as best I can, but if I can't keep up I will just focus on listening and then only off of my memory for reference which is not gonna be good for you. If I miss something that will be on you, if you want me to remember something make it clear that I need to remember it. At the end of the day, all I want is a good clean debate with nothing too crazy. Debate should be fun, so do your best, have fun, and tell me why you should win!

If you want to ask anything specific, please feel free to ask!

Background:

I did debate for about 2 and a half years, sticking mostly with policy. I was the novice/ policy captain of my team my senior year. I was a semi-finalist at state in open policy and attended 2022 nationals as part of a world schools team! I have dabbled into other forms of debate but am not nearly as comfortable with them as I am with policy.

All Debate Types:

I am not familiar with the current years topics, but can catch on pretty quick. I am pretty flexible as to what I'll vote on but mostly stick to the flow and take comms into consideration. Speed is fine, if you are going too fast I will ask to see your document just to read along. Prog debate is also fine, just make sure you understand it and you don't abuse it. I won't flow CX unless you bring it up in another speech. You are allowed to time yourselves. I will do my best to keep time and give you time signals, however, I often get caught up in the debate and forget about the time. Lastly, make sure you are being kind to one another, don't yell at one another, respect each others pronouns etc.

Policy:

You guys are the luckiest group because I understand policy the best of all debate types. I am mostly tech > truth. Run K's, theory, topicality, DA's, CP's, I don't really care, as long as you do it right (if you don't it doesn't mean you will loose, I will just explain it to you in the RFD). I will be flowing so make sure you address all arguments, even if it's just to say you are kicking it. I DO NOT allow ins-and-outs and strong advise against tag-teaming, but again won't drop you for it. Spreading is good, again just do it correctly. I can understand a good spreader but will not follow if you are mumbling. I will try to time but may get caught up flowing or listening so timing yourself is strongly advised. Make sure to include voters in your last speech. Also, I WILL NOT flow CX, if something important comes up, you tell me in your next speech. I may ask for cards during the round so its easiest to add me to the email chain- taylorbellemelanese@gmail.com

LD:

LD is one of the events i am more comfortable with. I watched quite a bit at nationals and all of my best debate buddies did LD, so I've done my fair share of prep. I can keep up with any prog debate you wanna run and am fine with speed. Some of the lingo is newer to me so try to explain it in the first speech so I don't miss anything. Make sure to include voters in your last speech.

PF:

I understand PF at a very basic level, so go easy on me. Don't necessarily dumb your debate down, but go easy on the lingo and don't just assume I know things (PF specific things obviously). Make sure to give voters, be nice to your opponents and don't overpower each other too much during the grand crossfire.

Congress:

Unfortunately I have never done nor watched congress so I'm going in to this event pretty blind. Think of me as a mom judge here.

General: I did Policy debate for 4 years in highschool and I'm now studying political science in college. I'm down to vote on any type of argument and I'm fine with speed. (Just go a little easy on me because I've been out of the game for a couple years) I'm totally fine with tag teaming during CX and speeches. The easiest way to get my vote is with impact calculus and/or framework. This is my first tournament judging this season so treat me like I don't know anything about the topics because I probably don't. I really like evidence debate, and I reaaally don't like power tagging.

Policy: I always love theory and K's wanna run just make sure you know what you're talking about. My and my partner were big into Security K so that's the one I know the most about. For anything else I'm going to need some explanations and definitions. Fiat for me is always assumed.

Public Forum: I'm fine with Theory and Ks in P.F. but come on... it's P.F. Only run them if you're actually serious about the topics you're talking about. Also, please don't go super fast, I'm really not a fan of super chaotic P.F. rounds. I’m going to prefer the quality and logic of the argument over speaking skills.

Lincoln Douglas: I'm going to let you know I don't have a lot of experience with LD, but I've gone to a couple tournaments, and judged a bit. I'm totally down for Ks and at least make use of Value Criterion. If both sides just agree on one, that's fine too, just don't get caught up debating about V.C. if it's not going to help your case.

Sorry if that was confusing! Feel free to clarify or ask me more questions in round!

Also... don't say anything problematic please!

For policy debate I consider myself to be primarily a stock-issues judge. I have experience in policy and recognize the importance of the stock issues, as well as debaters clearly explaining their arguments surrounding the stock issues. I am not against theory, but hold kritiks and counter plans to a very high standard. My judging mindset is tab-ras within reason (i.e. if I know something is highly incorrect from personal/professional experience it will be scrutinized, but otherwise I leave the debate to the debaters).

From speakers I appreciate confident and well paced arguments. I will flow most rounds and even though very fast speaking does not prevent me from flowing, it is not encouraged.

Hello, my name is Paxton (He/ Him) and I love debate! If you are disclosing I would prefer you use file share or speech drop. Depending on the event you are in you can jump around my paradigm.

Circuit Debate (This section is up to date for TOC 2024)

Substance im tech over truth. Theory im truth over tech.

BE NICE! One thing that i feel happens alot more in circuit debate than locals are people being rude or down right abusive to their opponents. Please be nice. Debate is a game at the end of the day, and aggression will not make you better at it. Have passion but not anger.

There are some things to keep in mind. 1) I come from a traditional background. I am ok with you going fast and running whatever you want, but i may evaluate the round slightly different than someone who comes from a prog background. I really want you to tell me why you win. I dont need super slow voters, but i want you to either weigh really well or tell me why an arg is a round winner. At the UK opener my number 1 comment was not getting enough round analysis on why the debater won the round. Flow is great, but i need a clear reason to vote if you want to better your chances.

Im ok with speed, that doesnt mean im not a mortal. If it is unclear or not well organized then i will not have a perfect flow. I can only evaluate the round based on what gets on my flow, so dont think "ok with speed" means lose organization and clarity.

ROTB or explicit k framing is a must. I will not do the work for you on this. Also im skeptical of alts, if they arent explained in the NR i wont just give them to you. I also dont like "reject the aff alts", more creative/ more specific is better.

I dont like PICs. They have to be really good for me to vote on them.

I typically dont like theory or t. If there is legit abuse then run it and i will evaluate it, but if its a time suck or a speech filler than dont run it please. Theory is a tool not a weapon, please treat it as such. I am usually more willing to listen to theory from the aff (condo or speed bad) than from the neg. It takes a lot for me to vote on T.

I like pre speech disclosure, but im not a fan of pre round disclosure in LD. I dont think the neg needs extra prep time in LD like they do in Policy. I wont vote on disclosure theory unless you dont get the doc before the speech at all, didnt ask for it, and your opponent is spreading. If it doesnt meet those three criteria i wont vote on it.

My History

I have done well in LD, BQ, Worlds, BP, Policy, and PF. I am very familiar in any event I am judging. Policy and LD were my main events in high school. I was a state finalist in policy and a state champ in LD. I also finished 3rd at NSDA nats in LD. I am now currently coaching high school debate.

Overall

I am a tabula rasa judge (in traditional rounds). I prefer a clean flow with solid evidence and warrant extensions. I will vote off the framework, so tell me what that is! If I get no framework I default to impact calc. I WILL LISTEN TO ANY ARG. If you are running something ultra complex then do the extra work so I can understand the advocacy, but theory and k’s are great. (If you run a theory or k please give me role of the ballot analysis and do the proper extensions.) I am good with speed.

1. Don’t yell at or attack your opponents for who they are, please be civil. There is no excuse. I do understand that debate can get intense, and that is ok.
2. Roadmap and SignPost
3. Have fun and try your hardest! If you have any questions ask me after the round.

LD

I love this event. Give me good impact calc through the criterion. Cover the flow. When making extensions I need the card name, the arg, and why you are extending it or why it matters, basic stuff (comment for locals).

PF

QOL is not a framework (comment for locals). If you are going to read a framework please make sure it is unique and not just weigh impacts. Read one if you are actually framing the round in a unique way. I love evidence and warrant extensions. Sometimes slimming the case and dropping points is ok if done strategically. I will vote off of impact calc.

Policy

You do you. I’ll vote on anything, just make sure to tell me why. I err aff on T. Only run it if there is a clear violation. If you run it, give me good analysis on the impact of the violation. Solvency is very important, aff please extend it, neg please attack it. I am cool with CP’s, k’s, and theory. All I ask is that you do the work to fully develop them if you are going to try and win on it. I want role of the ballot analysis if you run a k or theory.If you run a ton in the 1nc I will be happy and excited for the round. If you run 1 or 2 very deep complex advocacies I will also be pleased. I err prog in policy but I also think all policy can be good policy (comment for locals, "prog" in a local not national context).

He/Him

Tech over truth

Speed is fine just put me in the email chain matthewspall@gmail.com

Things I love are clash and impacts, and I love good strategy(that means please condense).

I also love the theory debate so don't be afraid to get into that or go for it in the 2nc.

With condo I can vote for anything but if you're running a ton of positions I will probably err aff, whereas if it's only a couple I will probably err neg. On condo i much prefer interps that are you can only run 1 conditional argument, rather than conditional arguments are bad.

You will lose if you clip cards

You will lose if you say anything racist, sexist, etc.

K's are fine but definitely explain them. If it took you a while to understand the K, it will probably take me a while as well and I would love to learn about whatever argument you run. If you run a K I would love to see a ton of clash with the aff case and it must show why the aff is bad.

Tell me how to vote and impact out your arguments

CPs must be mutually exclusive and have net benefit

Signpost as always

T needs to be interp violation standards and voters. Too many times I see teams not extend all of these and if you don't I will not vote on it.

Aff must prove it is better than the squo, neg must prove squo or their advocacy is better than the aff.

I'm okay with being sassy just don't be mean or rude, we should all try to be pals in debate.

Email: haltonstancil@gmail.com

---For everything---

• NO SPREADING PLEASE!

- Remember to speak clearly and concisely!

-Make sure your arguments are explicitly explainable

-Roadmap and signpost, keep consistent organization throughout the round, number your points

- Refer to your tags/author’s content for referencing cards instead of “author date”, makes evidence way easier to identify during rebuttals and extensions

-----------------------

General: I have experience with debating/judging policy and congress. Clash is the #1 biggest thing I want to see in a round.

Stock issues/T: Stock issues debate makes for a great round, style is not always imperative. T is fine, but I often find that the argument chains don't provide the debate with a meaningful/educational impact.

K's/CPs: K's and CP's are great! My experience is financial/economic IR-interrelated theory, but please be creative.

PREFACE: I have not judged a single round (this year) before this tournament (The Trojan War) so I have no idea about topic-specific references like acronyms, nuanced issues, etc. If you do the legwork to define an ambiguous issue right before you present it in the debate, that would be ideal! (No need for more than that, I can pick it up the first time)

I did debate all four years of high school and now two years in college. I mostly debated in Policy and LD while in high school.

I did Radio, Extemp, and some interp for speech.

I flow and take notes on my laptop. You can assume that I am paying attention even when I'm buried in the screen.

I am easily distracted. Talking to me directly, telling me what evidence to look at and where, clear signposting, sending over speech documents, etc. ensures that your words make their way onto my flow.

I believe any argument as true unless tested by some analytic or evidence.

I will not weigh arguments that attack a person's identity.

Try your best to make the debate accessible to everybody. If someone doesn't like speed, then don't go fast. (For example)

I am not perfect when it comes to bias, but I try my best to be a blank slate. Run whatever arguments you want. (I am only familiar with very basic K literature/strategy so be mindful of that)

I believe debate is a game so taking it "seriously" matters insofar as how we talk about impacts. Treating death as hilarious is different from giving a sarcastic answer in cross-ex. I'm okay with the latter. I'll give you a boost in speaks if you can make the debate enjoyable with non-problematic jokes.

I'll give you speaker points based on a combination of your in-round strategy and delivery.

I will flow just about everything. I weigh dropped arguments harder than highly contested arguments. For example, if Team A has ground on their Contention 1, and Team B doesn't ever answer or refute and put a counterargument on the flow, that Contention will be of a larger impact than Team A's contention 2 which both sides were fighting for back and forth.

If both teams cover everything on the flow to the best of their ability, it will come down to who provided the best analytical and evidential arguments. This will also largely come from whichever team had the best speaking ability.

I am Katy, my email is katyvree@gmail.com for email chains, but I very much prefer speech drop.

I debated for all four years in high school, doing PF and Policy.

Please be respectful to your opponents, debate is a game you play with your friends and I weigh courtesy and ethics above all else in the round. In other words, if you are being a jerk I will drop you.

I am cool with speed and pretty much any argument.

Policy-

I have not had any experience with this year's topic, so keep that in mind with running complicated arguments, they just need a bit more explaining.

I am cool with Ks and theory, except for frivolous theory. There needs to be a good reason why the theory links and is being run. I do not have a whole lot of experience with Ks, so if you do run it, just hold my hand a bit and make it clear to why it is important.

I will vote for topicality, but the threshold for the interpretation is pretty high. If you read a T argument just to run an argument and it kinda sucks, don't go for it later on in the round, there is a good chance I won't vote on it.

I think DA's need to have clear uniqueness, link, and impact, and must in some way relate to the ac, even if it is just a general link.

CPs are great but please make sure they are mutually exclusive to the plan and have a net benefit attached. If the cp is practically the plan, I might as well vote aff.

framing is also very good but do it early in the round.

PF-

please please please collapse. there is not enough time to run every argument and not collapsing makes the debate very muddled.

I think framework is super important and can really make or break a debate, but cost-benefit analysis is not an actual framework, it is an assumption in PF, and reading it is only a waste of time.

Voters are crucial, tell me how to vote and do the impact calc why your impacts matter more than your opponents.

LD-

I have very little experience with LD, but I know debate so do what you will and make your value/criterion clear so I know how to weigh the round.

Pronouns: He/him/his

For email chains/post-round questions: yikwill@gmail.com

TLDR: I did policy for all four years in HS, but it has been a few years. I consider myself a tabs judge, so debate the way you think will you the round. Be sure to do the analysis for me on the flow because I won't accept just name dropping evidence as a response to an argument. As long as you read your tags slow enough and your spreading is somewhat coherent, I can keep up with any speed you read at. Be kind.

Long

Please, please, please signpost. My biggest pet peeve when judging is people not telling me where they are on the flow. This is more than just saying "on the DA". Say what argument you're responding to or say you're going down the flow and stick to it. It makes it very hard for me to judge rounds when I don't know where to flow your arguments.

Background:

I did policy for all four years of high school. While it has been a few years since I've competed, I should be able to keep up with whatever you're saying at any speed. This means as a judge, I want to enable you to be your best self. Debate the way you think will win you the round. As a former debater, I know what I feels like to have to change your style to fit a judge's paradigm/prior experience.

Specifics:

* I am tech over truth except if you try to impact turn oppression, racism, genocide, etc.

F/W: It's dope if you do it right. If not, it's a hot mess. Give me clear interpretations and defend those interpretations with standards.

Theory: Basically the same as my opinions on f/w.

Ks: While my knowledge of K literature is not the best, I am quite familiar with how they work. Thus, if you're going to run a K with a rich literature background, you'll have to do the work in explaining it to me.

CPs: All good with me. I default to unlimited conditionality for the neg, but that doesn't mean I can't be convinced otherwise. I also default to "PICs are legitimate", but again, my mind can be changed with a good theory arg.

DAs: All good with me. I love a good impact calculus debate. Why should I prefer nuke war? Why should I prioritize probability? What does that mean in the context of the round? That doesn't mean I won't look at the uq, link, and I/L though if they're challenged.

Speed: Please make your tags distinct in some way from your evidence (slowing down, raising your voice, etc.). Go as fast as you'd like on the evidence but make sure you're somewhat intelligible.