I debate for Millard North High School.

Important Stuff:

***Please fully explain the logic of your argument if you want me to evaluate it as a warrant***

- Extend your arguments in the second half of the round if you want me to vote off it.

- Try not to just extend through ink, and if your opponents do that, then point it out.

- Weigh and respond to weighing (do the comparative analysis).

Other stuff:

- Tech > Truth

- Speed is okay, but clarity should not be sacrificed

- I think that 2nd rebuttal should frontline defense on their case

- I'm not experienced with progressive arguments, so run them at your own risk

- Although I'm experienced with this topic, I still can't evaluate anything if it's not in the round, so make sure you're explaining details as if you were talking to someone who has no background knowledge.

- I'm a highschool debater that does PF so I am familiar with the event

- I like to see weighing, tell me why your impacts are important

- Speed is okay, but don't sacrifice clarity

- Warrant out your responses and extend links!!

- Mostly tech > truth

- I have topic knowledge but please still warrant your arguments

Sriman Dooshety - Varsity PF Debater - Senior @ Millard North High School

How I Evaluate a Round:
I would say that I am generally tech over truth, however, I will try my best to evaluate what I have on the flow, but please also convince me. I will most generally vote on an argument that has the better warranting and explanation as well as weighing implications.

Side Note:
I am not very familiar with progressive arguments/theories. I have limited experience with these ideas in debate, but I am totally willing to listen if everything is clearly explained and brought into the debate at an appropriate time. You're probably better off trying to avoid having me evaluate such a round.

Preferences in terms of what's going on in the round:
I appreciate off-time roadmaps and signposting if you can, but they don't need to be super elaborate.

I allow speakers a 5-second grace period after the time is up to finish their speeches. If you go over 5 seconds, I will stop flowing and listening.

if you want me to buy into your card/argument, I expect you to explain what the number or card means. Tell me why I should be voting for you based on your evidence (you need to do more than cite the name)

IMPACT- Weighing is the strongest way for me to vote on your argument. At the end of the round, I want to see clear voting points that have been pulled through consistently.

Rebuttal: First rebuttal should attack their opponent's case fully and can do some weighing if they have time, no need to extend the case. The second rebuttal should probably be frontline by interacting with any offense read in the first rebuttal.

Summary: Extend your warrants specifically and give me reasons to prefer over your opponents. Make sure that you weigh your impacts against your opponents.

Final Focus: This speech should mirror the summary speech. Tell me why you're winning!

Cross: I don't flow cross, but if you really want to bring something from cross mention it in your speech.

Prep: Each team has 3 minutes of prep and I will be keeping time. You must take prep time if you are reading evidence.

Speed: Generally I will be fine with whatever as long as I can understand you and flow, however, if I can't understand what you are saying then I won't be able to flow which only hurts you in the round.

Any questions or concerns please feel free to ask me before/after the round or you can reach me at sriman.dooshety@gmail.com

Good Luck!

Pronouns: He/Him/His

Background: I went to Millard North from 2019-2023 and am currently a biochemistry and finance double major at UNL. I'm also premed so if you have any questions about that feel free to ask.

Email chain: Teams should always be setting up an email chain before the round, as it makes evidence exchange much faster and more efficient. I also want to be on said email chain- abhi1karri@gmail.com

Experience:

Background: I did PF for 4 years at Millard North High School, from 2019-2023. Throughout my career, I got a total of 6 bids and qualified for nats 3 times.

Coaching: I'm currently a private coach, email me if you're interested.

General:

I like seeing the different strategies applied by different teams. That's why I'm open to almost anything and all the preferences I talk about are things that can be overcome with good debating. With that being said here are my thoughts and preferences:

Tech > Truth. Please go for conceded arguments because they are considered true on my flow so it makes both our lives easier by going for it. I will say tho conceding an arg is not the end of the world because I'll still be open to weighing/cross applications against it.

I can only vote on an argument if I understand what I'm voting on so explain what you are going for in a way that I can understand. That doesn't mean to give me a 30-second extension it just means to be understandable when you explain ur arguments, especially the important ones in the round.

Being blatantly rude/cheating/bad evidence ethics in round is an easy way to get your speaks tanked. Regardless of how "good at debate" you may be, there's no excuse for this. With that being said I average a 28 on the nat circuit and 28.5 on local but I do believe speaks are very subjective so I'm very easily influenced by any sort of "give us all 30s" arguments.

I'm fine with speed up to 250 wpm but anything over that and I'd need a speech doc.

Preferences:

I'd like to see weighing as soon as possible within the round. Your weighing should also be comparative, not just restating your impacts and saying you outweigh but linking it to some sort of mechanism and giving a comparison between different impacts. I also think prereqs and link-ins are underutilized in PFso remember to use those.

Probability is one of the least important weighing mechanisms to me. 99% of the time if you win your link and internal link you win near 100% prob so this won't be too persuasive of a weighing mechanism in front of me.

Please organize your speech and signpost throughout your speech. There's nothing more frustrating than flowing a speech where everything is jumping around.

Speech-by-speech notes:

Rebuttal: Frontline in second rebuttal. Dropped arguments in second rebuttal are conceded in the round.

Summary/Final Focus: I understand that different teams have different strategies for approaching these speeches. I’m fine with anything as long as it works, but keep a few things in mind. 1. Defense isn’t sticky 2. Extend your warrants specifically and give me reasons to prefer over your opponents. Don't just give me author names and expect me to know what you're talking about. 3. Final Focus should roughly mirror the summary speech.

Cross: What you say in cross is binding, but I don't flow or listen too hard to it. If something happens bring it up in the next speech for it to be evaluated in the round.

Prep: You must use prep to read evidence. You should also have all your ev ready to send over or just send a speechdoc beforehand so I don't care if you prep while your opponent is looking for their evidence to send.

Progressive Args:

I debated a couple of tournaments of NFA LD and have judged a lot of progressive rounds by now so I understand most progressive args. The only thing I'd be hesitant about running in front of me is kaffs because I lowk don't know much about them. Here are my thoughts on specific progressive args/ks:

Theory: Theory has an important place in debate to recognize real abuse, but frivolous theory is bad. I know what's considered frivolous is subjective so if your shell falls in the grey zone I'll be open to arguments for why/why not something is friv. That does not mean to run smth stupid like shoe theory in front of me and expect me to buy an argument for why it's not frivolous.

CIs are not always necessary, if you don't have one I'll just assume you are defending the violation. You can still gain offense through a myriad of ways. DTA or DTD doesn't have to be explicitly said as long as there is a voter and a sufficient warrant behind it. Almost everything else (yes/no RVIs, Reasonability over CIs, etc.) can be argued in the theory debate and I try my best to take a neutral stance on them. The most important thing to understand is that regardless of whether you know all the jargon behind theory debate if you are making proper, well-warranted arguments with an impact that will most of the time be sufficient.

I generally believe that paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good. It will be very hard to convince me that paraphrasing is good but a good disclosure debate can go either way. This isn't to say that you can't win in front of me by paraphrasing it's just saying I have a high threshold for believing that it is good.

I'll evaluate IVIs if they are well warranted and impacted out. The most important IVI that all teams should look for is when teams violate their own shell. Running something like disclo without disclosing is one of the easiest ways to get dropped so make sure to point something like that out if it happens in the round.

T: I'm fine with T in PF. I think there are def instances where people stretch the resolution way too much so I wouldn't complain if T is introduced in the round. Keep in mind that interps should have definitions within them or it will be an uphill battle.

Ks: I've debated ks before so I know more than the average judge about it but I would still be cautious running one in front of me. Be very explanatory throughout the round and explain to me exactly what my ballot does. The ks I have the most experience with are cap and security so I feel like I'd be able to evaluate those to a certain extent but I have like no experience with non-topical ks so be even more careful about running those with me. I also expect you to have a fairly strong alt if you are trying to solve a massive problem.

As for responses to ks, I'm familiar with most. I think perms, T, and Fwk are all good ways to respond to ks so make sure to utilize those and I will understand what you are saying.

Tricks: I'll pray for you...

Post-Round:

I'll always disclose unless the tournament explicitly says otherwise.

Please ask questions about my decision/ask for advice. I'll always be open to explaining any part of my decision and explaining my thoughts on certain arguments. Asking questions is also the best way to improve so never be afraid to do it.

Disagreeing with my decision/being upset about losing is fine, just don't attack me for it.

Congress:

I competed in Congress a few times in high school and did okay I'd probably dislike judging it because from what I've seen no one is really using it for its fullest potential, and almost every Congress round I've ever seen is just a bunch of constructive speeches in a row. But here are a few things that will make me happy in a Congress round:

• I'll rank you higher if you add something to the debate. I love rebuttal speeches, crystallization speeches, etc. You will not rank well if you are the fourth/fifth/sixth etc. speaker on a bill and still reading new substantive arguments without contextualizing anything else that has already happened. It's obviously fine to read new evidence/data, but that should only happen if it's for the purpose of refuting something that's been said by another speaker.

• I care much more about the content and strategy of your speeches than I do about your delivery. I guess delivery matters more to me in Congress than it does in other events, but I still think it matters significantly less than the content and strategy of the speech.

• If you don't have a way to advance the debate beyond a new constructive speech that doesn't synthesize anything, I'd rather just move on to a new bill.

Michelle Keever

My key preference to share at this time is: please do not rush. Take your time to clearly signpost your contentions, sources, and evidence.

GENERAL NOTES

*Any abusive behavior on your part will probably lose you the round. Debate is about the free exchange of ideas, so if you spread with the purpose of deception, constantly interrupt your opponent(s), or just make an attempt to erode the integrity of the event, I cannot accept your arguments.

*It's your job to tell me about why you won the round. Where was the clash? What were the voters? Why do your impacts outweigh theirs? I will do my best not to allow my own opinions and/or background knowledge to influence who wins the round.

REBUTTALS
It is a debater’s obligation to address both sides of the flow in rebuttal speeches. A debater who neglects to both attack the opposing case and rebuild against the prior rebuttal will have a very difficult time winning my ballot as arguments that go unaddressed are essentially conceded. A team that ignores this bit of adaptation should expect to see speaker points that reflect a performance that I see as half-complete.

SUMMARIES
The summaries should be treated as such - summarize the major arguments in the debate. Debaters should start to narrow the focus of the round at this point. YOU should be the one to tell me the main clash of the round and why you won.

SPEAKER POINTS:

30 – Perfection/deeply impressive

29 - Near perfect speaking/execution/argumentation/strategy

28 - Good on pretty much all fronts

27 - Average

26-25 - Below average in one or more ways

24 or fewer - Deeply problematic in one or more ways, likely offensive in nature/something warranting an apology to one or more people and a discussion with your coach

I did both speech and debate for 4 years at Creighton Prep High School in Omaha Nebraska. I've also debated for the University of Sydney in Australia. I mostly have experience in PF, Congress, Extemp, Info, and BP debate.

Policy:

You're pretty much screwed... I know absolutely nothing about it and probably never will.

LD:

I don't have a strong background but I've seen enough to be able to judge a minuscule amount. Probably should treat me like a lay judge to be safe

- I am a huge fan of creativity in argumentation. I want to see nuanced argumentation with impacts that aren't basic (this applies to all forms of debate)

Speed

- I'm usually able to keep up pretty well but if you're just dumping arguments to dump them don't expect a strong speaker score or a vote for your side

- Whether you go fast or slow I really value fluidity

PF:

- In terms of argumentation as long as you can impact it back to the resolution I'm good with it. Make sure to impact all arguments though

- Please explain the impacts. Why should I care that the gold market will collapse? If you don't explain I'll just assume it means no bad impacts and the argument was just smoke

- I expect more persuasion and spin instead of spreading. If you do go faster there should be an equal ratio of analysis to justify why you needed to spread to create that extra time.

- I do listen to cross ex so use it wisely

- Be respectful. Speaking louder does not make you more right...

Speed

- refer to my LD section on this

Congress:

- This is probably where I am most experienced

- don't rehash, open wifi means that finding new arguments and evidence is so much easier.

- one of my biggest pet peeves is just a great speech with nothing else. Congress is not dueling oratories. Unless you are 1st aff or neg, I expect you to interact with what your opponents have said before you and extend.

- this is a debate so please actually debate. Sessions are long and I just like you must sit through them except I can't take personal privileges so please give me a reason to stay focused.

- Congress is the one event where speaking is so so important in terms of ability. I don't expect you to be the next Abraham Lincoln but please speak clearly and coherently. I value strong argumentation with strong impacts as well. If you give me 1 great speech that is worth 3 average ones. Someone once told me the greatest speech you can ever give is the one you don't give. This does not mean don't speak but rather don't keep speaking for the sake of speaking. Pick and choose your spots wisely.

- Puns. God do I hate basic cheesy openers. I mostly see this at nationals but please be unique and don't be stupid. Rapping will not give you the win and neither will singing your intro. I respect the theatre aspect of Congress but less is always more

If there's something I can do for you please let me know!

GOOD LUCK!!!!

Please add me to the email chain: debate.zhu@gmail.com

Public Forum

General Note

This event was created as an accessible alternative to policy debate, and I will judge as such. I will value and consider the arguments presented on the flow; however, I am not the judge to present blippy, under-developed, card-dumps to.

Round structure

1) Make sure to not go overtime. I will stop flowing and not consider any arguments presented after your time has elapsed.

2) Defense is not sticky. You should be extending all of your arguments in each round. If you do not carry through your arguments into each speech I will not magically carry it over for you.

3) Second rebuttal should respond to the arguments presented in first rebuttal as well as your opponents case.

4) No new in the two.

5) Read theory and kritiks at your own risk; however, I am partial towards Schopenhauer.

6) Impacts are essential. It is your responsibility to make it clear why your arguments are important and which ones should decide the outcome of the round. If you do not have an impact, you do not have a reason for me to value the argument.

7) If there are competing frameworks or definitions, it is important to establish at the top of the speech which interpretation I should be taking and why. Do not just extend through ink without any nuance.

8) In a similar vein, it is essential that you compare your arguments. A simple repetition of your arguments is not nearly as convincing as clear weighing that shows why I should choose your side.

9) I will not intervene unless you leave me absolutely no choice but to end up picking a side without any help from the debaters. I do not want to do this and you do not want me to do this so make sure you have clear and comparative weighing throughout the debate.

Views on evidence

1) I will approach the round tabula rasa, so it is your responsibility to make it clear when your opponents are misrepresenting their evidence.

2) I am ok with paraphrasing; however, misrepresentation will be reflected in your speaks and round result.

3) Have your evidence ready. If your opponents ask you for evidence you should be able to produce it within a minute. After that you are wasting my time and your opponents time.

4) A last name and year is not a sufficient presentation of your evidence. I expect to hear at least the full name, month, year, and organization. Additional qualifications of the author are also recommended.