"The game of chess is like a sword fight. You must think first before you move. Toad style is immensely strong and immune to nearly any weapon. When properly used it's almost invincible." - Wu-Tang Clan 93'

| William Agustin | Damien High School '24 | Varsity Policy Debater |

Email: william06agustin@gmail.com

General Things

- Don't be mean to others; I get it's a debate and things might get heated, but don't resort to being hateful or rude. Be passionate and professional. I love to see debates where people seem to actually be enjoying what they do

- I'm generally a nice guy when it comes to speaker points. If you are decent, you'll be getting anywhere from a 28.0 - 29.0.

- I like jokes only if they are funny. I'll put a list of things I like and +0.2 speaks if you make a reference to any of those.

- Tech > Truth

- Feel free to ask me questions. I've spent all this time debating and I'd love to help anyone on their own debate journey. Don't feel a question is too dumb or stupid because trust me I've been there.

- Stephen Lewis owes me $5; Omar Darwish reminds me of the BFG except hostile.

- Do whatever you like, I've been through it all in terms of debate and can understand most things.

Update for the 2022-23 Season

- This topic makes me hate debate

Theory

- SPREAD CLEARLY! I am not a robot. If you miss parts of your theory or all of it and you decide to go for it, I will not hesitate to vote it down. This should be rare, however, as I am very used to spreading at this stage of my experience in debate.

- Explain the Violation and Interpretation. For conditionality, please don't just say "Condo is bad. *Lists XYZ Impacts*" but actually give me an interpretation of how many off cases are allowed and why your opponent's amount is abusive. Makes the debate so much easier for both of us. I haven't been exposed to much theory violations besides the top level, so make sure you say your interpretation and violation clearly.

- Clipping, Racial/ Derogatory Slurs, and extremely offensive or hateful language won't be tolerated and will result in either losing the round or severely low speaker points. I won't be a complete police officer and punish you if you skip maybe a line or two, paragraphs and more are an issue. In terms of clipping, I won't punish you unless the other team calls you out.

Topicality

- Love this argument by the way ONLY if debated right.

- Creative and smart internal links (ie Clash, Limits and Ground, Portable Skills, etc.) are very persuading to me BUT make sure the internal link makes sense and that your interpretation actually accesses that internal link. Always extend the terminal impact: Fairness or Education. An explanation of how fairness and education makes debate better is really great and persuasive.

Disadvantages

- Make sure to include all parts (Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, Impact)

- Impact Calculus is a must especially if you are going for it alone or as a Net Benefit

- Genuinely think generic disads are underutilized so don't hesitate to use them if you enjoy those args!

Counterplans

- In terms of theory on counterplans, generally I'm going to lean neg.

- Perms: If you want to have a perm as a legitimate strat in your 2AR/1AR, I like well explained perms, not just a blip then later extrapolated. Actually tell me what the world of the perm looks like and why it is net better than the counterplan other than "They aren't mutually exclusive". If you want to make a PDCP arg since you think it's just plan plus, make sure to actually explain that to me.

- ATTENTION NOVICES! Add a Net Benefit please :D A net benefit is a disadvantage that applies to the affirmative but not your counterplan. It's the only way it's actually competitive!

Kritik

- I enjoy and understand the Kritik. I had the pleasure of debating with the reincarnation of Jacques Lacan, Prevail De Rox, which gave me a new appreciation and understanding of the K. I am very familiar with common Kritiks (ie Capitalism K, Security K, Set Col K, etc) and other more advanced Kritiks but regardless of my knowledge I want the explanation all the same: clear.

- Link Analysis: In a round I went for Baudrillard, a wise judge told me the steps to good link analysis: 1) Explanation - Explain the link and don't just extend the warrants of the card, actually apply those warrants onto their case. It makes me very happy when you pull specific instances of their plan or solvency and compare it to your link. 2) Quoting Sources - Use specific lines from your link card, especially if it matches up well with your opponent's case. 3) Impacting - On top of extending your impact card's warrants, explain why the link leads to the impact. 4) Turns Case - Show how the links or your impact completely turn or at least outweigh case.

- Extend case in the 2NR if you are going for the K unless it totally turns case.

- Say judge kick, don't expect me to just do it.

- Perms on the Counterplan portion pretty much apply here: explain your perms basically.

Things About Me

- If you make a joke about a person named Roan Murphy I will give you +0.2

For Parliamentary:
- New to this form of debate - but I know enough to give a competent decision
- Don't drop arguments and make sure to extend your own
- Big picture explanation and answering the points will be rewarded
- Policy is just parliamentary but faster and with more jargon so I'll probably get it

Email: edeng25@damien-hs.edu

he/him

Policy debater for Damien, class of 25

*2024-25 Update*

I have absolutely zero topic knowledge this year as I has not done anything related to the IP topic. This means I do not know the debate norms specific to this topic, and I am completely unfamiliar with any of the topic specific arguments that you might be reading. This means you would need to spend a bit more of your speech explaining your positions to me as opposed to other judges.

Please don't be rude to your opponents before, during, or after the debate. Being rude will affect your speaker points and will result in a ballot for the other team for serious offenses.

Clipping violations need to be proven with a recording unless it was very obvious that the opposing team was clipping in their speech (ex. they took 5 seconds reading a card that was 2 pages long).

As a general note, read what you want, I don't have a strong opinion on any policy arguments.

I try to be tech over truth, but I won't vote on nonsense arguments unless completely dropped by the other team. This is especially true about novices hiding ASPEC under T violations. If you want to actually run ASPEC, make it a separate off. I will honesty allow new aff answers to hidden procedurals in novice since losing to hidden ASPEC is not a good learning experience.

Rehighlights should be read instead of inserted.

Please time your speeches yourself, I often forget to set a timer.

I am not the best at flowing, but I will not flow off the speech doc. I am okay with speed, but I won't be able to flow is the speech is too unclear for me. To help me with my flow, you should slow down on tags, and differentiate between the tag and the card itself. You can also try to pause for a second between arguments, to give me sufficient pen time to flow those arguments. Also, you should still add me to the email chain in case I need to read the cards if the debate is close.

As a general note, please give judge instruction, such as explaining why winning each argument would matter, or explaining why X argument does not matter in the larger debate. This would allow me to reach my decision faster and reduce the risk that I misunderstand your argument.

T:

I usually prefer Competing interps over Reasonability - especially on affs that don't seem that topical, but that issue can be debated out.

For the standard debate on T, doing impact calculus on the standards will make a big difference on how I should evaluate the interpretations, so you should do it.

CP:

Most CPs are probably theoretically good, and a reason to reject the argument at worst.

Condo is Ok. I will lean more towards the aff on condo in novice year. However, that does not mean I will always vote for condo.

Any permutation should be paired with some offense to make it more likely I vote on the perm. Even though presumption flips aff when a CP is read, a perm without any offense would mean any risk of the perm not solving the net benefit would mean I should vote neg.

Even though a specific CP to an aff is very good, a generic CP made specific through a good solvency card is also persuasive to me.

DA:

0% risk of a DA is possible to achieve, but it will probably be very hard to achieve it. This means there should be some other offense on why the DA is bad or the aff outweighs the DA.

Impact calculus on the impacts of the DA or aff also make it much easier to evaluate which impacts of the DA comes first. That means you should explain why your impact outweighs theirs.

K:

The argument I have the least experience with is the K, so make there is a good explanation of it for me to be comfortable voting for it, especially if the K has a high complexity to it. However, don't make your overview too long so that you never really answer the line-by-line.

On FW, you should give a bigger explanation on how your FW implicates the round, and how the role of the ballot or role of the judge calls for me to do.

K-Affs:

If you want to read a K-Aff in front of me, you need to explain what exactly the ballot does in order to make me vote for you. Also explain how your theory of power implicates the neg's arguments, do not assume I know what your theory of power is. For the neg, I am willing to vote for presumption, especially if I do not know what the ballot would do for the aff.

Other types of Debate:

I don't know much about other types of debate besides policy debate, so make sure to explain what each argument would do in terms of the round.

For LD, the only difference in my judging philosophy is that I would be more lenient towards the aff on condo due to the shorter speech times, but as before, that does not mean I will auto-vote for it. I have a very high threshold on voting for philosophical arguments in LD, try to engage the debate in another form.

For PF, I do not really know much about it, so please explain what winning each argument would mean for me.

For congress, I have zero experience with this type of debate. You should probably treat me as a lay/parent judge.

Feel free to ask me anything about my paradigm before the round starts.

Here is my email: Rghibaudo23@damien-hs.edu

Debated Policy in Highschool for 3ish years

comfortable with anything -- don't be mean to the other team....

email - josephjhong06@gmail.com

okay so apparently this is something becoming increasingly common but PLEASE stop calling me "judge" i have NOT hit unc status

currently a student at ucsd, debated at damien for cjr, water, nato, and econ - teamcode Damien HP

tech > truth

im familiar with both K and policy debate - i read every type of aff and went mostly for adv and process cps with a case turn on the neg

i was mostly a 2a so im fairly sympathetic to condo bad but i also liked to read an average of 8 off in each debate so honestly theory depends on the specific warrents u present

these r the K's i read the most - baudrillard, beller, bifo, cap, deleuze, edelman, set col

read whatever u want tbh - any warranted argument is winnable

honestly the only thing i'll probably struggle with voting for this year is T bc i have a lack of topic knowledge but feel free to go for FW i went for it half the time i was neg vs K affs

for LD:

PLEASE NO TRICKS I HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO EVALUATE THEM

i will not evaluate rvis.

About Me/Debate Background:

My name is Sean Kassounian, I am currently a Freshman at Damien High School and I am taking an Honors Debate Course. Next year, I have enrolled in AP Debate for my Sophomore year which is taught by Mr. Lewis, the Damien Debate Coach. I have a good experience revolving around the basics of debate and how a team should perform, and I have flowed multiple high school debates.

Email: sjkassounian25@damien-hs.edu

How do you judge?

I do base a lot of my decisions on argumentation and the severity of dropping arguments and if they were poorly executed, but I also have a strong belief in how debaters present themselves. You should definitely have a good understanding of what arguments you give to the debate; don't have a DA or CP that you have no idea of what it's about.

More about my judging style:

I don't have an issue with people reading fast, but only if they are skilled enough. If you want to read fast, make sure you are able to be heard clearly and to not make many speaking mistakes. However, I do prefer if you read at a medium pace, but I won't hold anyone against how fast or slow they speak. I'm not a big fan of kritiks due to many debaters not having enough knowledge about them, so I don't prefer teams debating on it.

Affirmative Expectations:

• Make sure you get to solvency (I don't mind where you put solvency in your 1AC, as long as it is read)

• Know the speech order of a generic 2AC (ex: where case should be and what the offcase order is)

• Do NOT drop any offcase arguments in the Constructive speeches (any offcases dropped in the 2AC will affect my decision)

Negative Expectations

• Have more than 1 offcase (I prefer 3-5 if possible)

• Use CPs and DAs that are understandable for YOUR team, I won’t take off points based on how prestige your CP or DA is.

• Don’t overload on many offcase arguments when making your 1NC, it could put you at a disadvantage. However, if you are able to handle over 6 offcase arguments, I don’t have a problem with it.

Extra Expectations

• I expect both teams to be respectful of each other, any form of trash talk or rudeness will weigh into your team's overall points.

• HAVE FUN! This should be a good experience for everyone and I want debaters to have some fun and not be extremely serious.

• Be lively with your speeches and CXs. Have some confidence in your arguments and enunciate your speeches; this will make me feel that you are compassionate about the topic and you care.

• Make sure you know the majority of your arguments top to bottom, having clear and well-researched answers and evidence when debating. This will be beneficial for your team when I am making a decision.

add me to the chain - stephenlewisdebate@gmail.com

damien '23, msu '27

whether new arguments are allowed in the last rebuttals is for the debaters to point out and decide. unless its the 2AR. then you get no new arguments.

tag team cx is fine for answering but not for asking - more geared towards novices, if you're varsity do what you want (if you are constantly talking over your partner/opponent and being rude your speaks will suffer dramatically.) be aware that the less able you are to ask/answer cx questions will impact my ability to give you speaker points.

tech > truth

generally feel comfortable evaluating and keeping up with any style of debate whether it be a KvK debate or a very detailed and probably monotonous counterplan competition debate. obviously i have argumentative preferences, but i would never insert those into a debate i was judging and would consider myself incredibly flow centric which means if you think there is an argument that you think will win you the debate, you should ensure i have it on my flow by balancing clarity with speed.

i don't really feel the need to give some long explanation about how I feel about every little thing in debate, simply because I feel debates should purely be judged and decided by what was communicated to me. chances are i understand what's going on, and if you have sufficiently explained why you should win in the context of most debate arguments, you will win. so, if you're trying to pref me and decide not to because I didn't give you a paragraph explanation about whether or not i think fairness is an impact, sorry I guess.

LD addendum

not familiar with anything in LD that doesn't resemble policy debate. this includes tricks, phil, or whatever. i'll evaluate anything, but the likelihood i give a decision that makes sense starts to severely decline the farther away you go from traditional policy/k debate.

don't be annoying. that includes being overly aggressive/rude (there's a pretty clear bright line between being assertive/confident and being annoying), racist, sexist, or what have you. in the event that something of this nature occurs, i will nuke your speaks or intervene with tab if i feel it's necessary.

above all else, have fun. making me laugh will help your speaks.

+0.1 points if you make fun of omar darwish in an actually funny way

feel free to post round

Affiliations and History:
Please email (tjlewis1919@gmail.com) me all of the speeches before you begin.
I was Director of Debate at Damien High School in La Verne, CA from 2021-2024.
I was the Director of Debate for Hebron High School in Carrollton, TX from 2020-2021.
I was an Assistant Coach at Damien from 2017-2020.
I debated on the national circuit for Damien from 2009-2013.
I graduated from Occidental College in Los Angeles with a BA in Critical Theory and Social Justice.
I completed my Master's degree in Social Justice in Higher Education Administration at The University of La Verne.
My academic work involves critical university studies, Georges Bataille, poetics, and post-colonialism.
Author of Suburba(in)e Surrealism (2021).

Yearly Round Numbers:
I try to judge a fair bit each year.
Fiscal Redistribution Round Count: About 40 rounds
I judged 75 rounds or more on the NATO Topic.
I judged over 50 rounds on the Water Topic.
I judged around 40 rounds on the CJR topic.
I judged 30 rounds on the Arms topic (2019-2020)
I judged a bit of LD (32 debates) on the Jan-Feb Topic (nuke disarm) in '19/'20.
I judged around 25 debates on the Immigration topic (2018-2019) on the national circuit.
I judged around 50 rounds on the Education topic (2017-2018) on the national circuit.
LD Protocol:I have a 100% record voting against teams that only read Phil args/Phil v. Policy debates. Adapt or lose.
NDT Protocol: I will rarely have any familiarity with the current college topic and will usually only judge 12-15 rounds pre-NDT.
Please make your T and CP acronyms understandable.

Front Matter Elements:
If you need an accommodation of any kind, please email me before the round starts.
I want everyone to feel safe and able to debate- this is my number one priority as a judge.
I don't run prep time while you email the speech doc. Put the whole speech into one speech doc.
I flow 1AC impact framing, inherency, and solvency straight down on the same page nowadays.
Speed is not an issue for me, but I will ask you to slow down (CLEAR) if you are needlessly sacrificing clarity for quantity--especially if you are reading T or theory arguments.

I will not evaluate evidence identifiable as being produced by software, bots, algorithms etc. Human involvement in the card’s production must be evident unique to the team, individual, and card. This means that evidence you directly take from open source must be re-highlighted at a minimum. You should change the tags and underlining anyways to better fit with your argument’s coherency.

Decision-making:
I privilege technical debating and the flow. I try to get as much down as I possibly can and the little that I miss usually is a result of a lack of clarity on the part of the speaker or because the actual causal chain of the idea does not make consistent sense for me (I usually express this on my face). Your technical skill should make me believe/be able to determine that your argument is the truth. That means warrants. Explain them, impact them, and don't make me fish for them in the un-underlined portion of the six paragraph card that your coach cut for you at a camp you weren't attending. I find myself more and more dissatisfied with debating that operates only on the link claim level. I tend to take a formal, academic approach to the evaluation of ideas, so discussions of source, author intentions and 'true' meaning, and citation are both important to me and something that I hope to see in more debates.

The best debates for me to judge are ones where the last few rebuttals focus on giving me instructions on what the core controversies of the round are, how to evaluate them, and what mode of thinking I should apply to the flow as a history of the round. This means that I'm not going to do things unless you tell me to do them on the flow (judge kick, theory 'traps' etc.). When instructions are not provided or articulated, I will tend to use (what I consider to be) basic, causal logic (i.e. judicial notice) to find connections, contradictions, and gaps/absences. Sometimes this happens on my face--you should be paying attention to the physical impact of the content of your speech act.

I believe in the importance of topicality and theory. No affs are topical until proven otherwise.
Non-impacted theory arguments don't go a long way for me; establish a warranted theory argument that when dropped will make me auto-vote for you. This is not an invitation for arbitrary and non-educational theory arguments being read in front of me, but if you are going to read no neg fiat (for example), then you better understand (and be able to explain to me) the history of the argument and why it is important for the debate and the community.

Reading evidence only happens if you do not make the debate legible and winnable at the level of argument (which is the only reason I would have to defer to evidentiary details).

I find framework to be a boring/unhelpful/poorly debated style of argument on both sides. I want to hear about the ballot-- what is it, what is its role, and what are your warrants for it (especially why your warrants matter!). I want to know what kind of individual you think the judge is (academic, analyst, intellectual etc.). I want to hear about the debate community and the round's relationship within it. These are the most salient questions in a framework debate for me. If you are conducting a performance in the round and/or debate space, you need to have specific, solvable, and demonstrable actions, results, and evidences of success. These are the questions we have to be thinking about in substantial and concrete terms if we are really thinking about them with any authenticity/honesty/care (sorge). I do not think the act of reading FW is necessarily constitutive of a violent act. You can try to convince me of this, but I do start from the position that FW is an argument about what the affirmative should do in the 1AC.

If you are going to go for Fairness, then you need a metric. Not just a caselist, not just a hypothetical ground dispensation, but a functional method to measure the idea of fairness in the round/outside the round i.e. why are the internal components (ground, caselist, etc.) a good representation of a team's burden and what do these components do for individuals/why does that matter. I am not sure what that metric/method is, but my job is not to create it for you. A framework debate that talks about competing theories for how fairness/education should be structured and analyzed will make me very happy i.e. engaging the warrants that constitute ideas of procedural/structural fairness and critical education. Subject formation has really come into vogue as a key element for teams and honestly rare is the debate where people engage the questions meaningfully--keep that in mind if you go for subject formation args in front of me.

In-round Performance and Speaker Points:
An easy way to get better speaker points in front of me is by showing me that you actually understand how the debate is going, the arguments involved, and the path to victory. Every debater has their own style of doing this (humor, time allocation, etc.), but I will not compromise detailed, content-based analysis for the ballot.

I believe that there is a case for in-round violence/damage winning the ballot. Folks need to be considerate of their behavior and language. You should be doing this all of the time anyways.

While I believe that high school students should not be held to a standard of intellectual purity with critical literature, I do expect you to know the body of scholarship that your K revolves around: For example, if you are reading a capitalism K, you should know who Marx, Engels, and Gramsci are; if you are reading a feminism k, you should know what school of feminism (second wave, psychoanalytic, WOC, etc.) your author belongs to. If you try and make things up about the historical aspects/philosophical links of your K, I will reflect my unhappiness in your speaker points and probably not give you much leeway on your link/alt analysis. I will often have a more in-depth discussion with you about the K after the round, so please understand that my post-round comments are designed to be educational and informative, instead of determining your quality/capability as a debater.

I am 100% DONE with teams not showing up on time to disclose. A handful of minutes or so late is different than showing up 3-5 min before the round begins. Punish these folks with disclosure theory and my ears will be open.

CX ends when the timer rings. I will put my fingers in my ears if you do not understand this. I deeply dislike the trend of debaters asking questions about 'did you read X card etc.' in cross-x and I believe this contributes to the decline of flowing skills in debate. While I have not established a metric for how many speaker points an individual will lose each time they say that phrase, know that it is something on my mind. I will not allow questions outside of cross-x outside of core procedural things ('can you give the order again?,' 'everyone ready?' etc.). Asking 'did you read X card' or 'theoretical reasons to reject the team' outside of CX are NOT 'core procedural things.'

Do not read these types of arguments in front of me:
Arguments that directly call an individual's humanity into account
Arguments based in directly insulting your opponents
Arguments that you do not understand

policy debater for Damien High School, TOC'23, '24,

Please include both on the email chain: yli25@damien-hs.edu damiendebate47@gmail.com

Preference: All emails should have “Tournament Name+ Round# + aff team code+ neg team code” in their title. please send the email before the round start, with the obvious exception that you are breaking a new aff.

I don't run prep time while you email the speech doc. Put the whole speech into one speech doc.

General

in a ideal world: I think debate is a game of persuasion and you should be able to present any argument and my only job as the judge is to flow and make a decision based on the technical argumentation. This means if you want wipeout, coercion DA, PoMo K, or manifest-your-inner-WGLF debate, go for it. That being said, not all arguments are created equal. Proper argument developement will get my vote on any arguments. (1 sentence aspec is not a complete argument and will not get you the auto win even if dropped).

In reality: Remember that your judge is a human not a robot. My threshold for No-BS is likley to increase as a tournement progress given the inevitbale exhaustion. If the debate gets messy my intuition is most likley to perfer punish the worse mistake in round than to evaluate every single detail of strategic moves, i.e. the last rebuttal should always have judge instruction.

My face is expressive during debate but pls ignore it bc its not always what it looks, I might just be suprised, thinking, or reading your ev, frowning is not always a bad signal and vice versa knodding dont always mean I agree.

I have to admit that sometimes judging novice feel like "which team has the better block", which is not a very enjoyable kind of debate for me. Please at least show me you know the argument.

Lets be real here, people, we all try to evade clash. but dont be scared of clash, you need them to win debate.

Top level

Tech >>> Truth

Condo is good but also the only CP theory I would vote on (longer rant at the very bottom)

dropped arg are tru, but need to be extended

Burden of Proof determines Presumption

T

50-50 on reasonability vs competing interp

pls quantify ground and limit

T >> Condo

Read a real T on this topic pls -

Do you want a plan in 1AC ?

K arg are fine on either side, at this point its just a technical debating.I am of the personal opinion that debate is fundementally a game and fairness is intrinsically good, but not very ideologically attached to this "clash of civilization" thing.

I enjoy K aff that is nuanced.

I strongly dislike arguments that calls into the humanity/identity of the debater in round and/or reference to what happened out side of the round, because I am not sure how am I as a judge suppose to do with these kinds of argument. Not that I would not vote on them, but I think you need to contexilze them to the debate or convice me its not just an accusation of sorts.

Who wins the strongest IL to their impact + impact calc wins these kind of debate.

Not a philosopher yet, so pls explain theory.

CP

perm is just a test of competition

CP competition is base on mandates

Competition is not Topicality (e.g. T-should)

need instruction if you want me to judge kick

I will not vote on no-solvency-advocate theory

DA

Zero risk exist, rarely happen

UQ determines the direction of the link

I like turns case analysis

Ev quality is very important - I am done with teams cutting "it passed the committee " as a ptx UQ

Offense, Offense, Offense, OFFENSE!!!!

K

love them, specificity and good clash will get me to vote on any kind of K, but inversely, I loathe block-botting and generic K strategy.

Ks I have went for my debate career: Cap, set col, security, pyscho, Lee Edelman, antiblackness.

1AC rehighlights is good

phill comp is bad (but will vote for it)

if you read 7+ OFF just to explode 13 minute of K you are a coward, but who cares if you end up winning

Minor Pet Peeves

ask for marked doc when its like just a few cards skipped/cut

"they drop it" with no explaination

"they drop it" when they did not

"if you dont like it go do LD/PF "

"we will answer that if you make the argument", pls my brother in christ just answer the damn question.

long ov that could have just been line by lined,

marking multiple cards in the same speech

theory prolif in the 2AC

send out 7+ OFF and cant finish them so you skip

DO NOT DO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

Steal preps

Clipping

Insult your opponent

be anti-disclosure

Condo Rant

For all you 2As out there, I feel ya, it is terrifying when there are 13 OFF 1NC and 5 of them made it to the block. Hence I am not gonna outright worship infinte condo like a good 2N should. But if I am being honest, time skew is also the worst way to debate condo infront of me. You need to have a good interpretation that can solve for time skew, and I hardly see myself voting on that time skew is a uq impact of condo. Instead, if the 1AR is gonna carry the cross of condo, it needs to talk about research, deepth vs breadth, strat skews, and why the model of condo is bad, etc. Yes, the 1AR need to start the full condo debate, I will not gave new 2AR spin on standards. Moreover, you need to connect all of standards to your Counter-interpretation, why does that solve. The neg always wins condo when they are like "yeah, condo def sucks for the aff, but any other alternataiveonly kills neg flex and arg testing since skews are inevitble " and the 2ar just keep extending horror stories of condo without telling me why is dispo/limited-condo/their CI/ a good alternative that solve the unforgivable sins of condo.

tldr do what you do best; i'll only vote for complete arguments that make sense; weighing & judge instruction tip the scales in your favor; disclosure is good; i care about argument engagement and i value flexibility; stay hydrated & be a good person.

--

About me:

she/her

policy coach @ damien-st. lucy's: spring 2022 - present

ld coach @ harker: fall 2024 - present

--

Recently rewritten paradigm, probably best to give it a quick skim!

My strongest belief about argumentation is that argument engagement is good - I don't have a strong preference as to what styles of arguments teams read in front of me, but I'd prefer if both teams engaged with their opponents' arguments; I don't enjoy teams who avoid clash (regardless of the style of argument they are reading). I value ideological flexibility in judges and actively try not to be someone who will exclusively vote on only "policy" or only "k" arguments.

I am good for policy teams that do topic research and aim to not go for process cp backfiles every 2nr. I am also good for k teams that do topic research and answer the aff and go for 2nr arguments that are substantive (not "role of the ballot"). I am bad for ld teams that go for ld-specific things ("tricks"), but am good for ld teams that are well-researched and read policy or k arguments.

More LD-specific notes/thoughts at bottom of paradigm.

--

Topic Knowledge:

I don't teach at a policy camp in the summer. I am involved in the Damien-St. Lucy's team research, and have vaguely kept up with the camp evidence updates. Most of my early-season topic knowledge is a result of hearing Chris yap at me about how he has a law degree in this field. So, consider my topic knowledge to be a less-smart version of Chris. Will update this section of the paradigm if/when that changes. Independent of this, I am generally a bad judge for arguments that rely on understanding of or alignment with community-developed norms -- I don't form my topicality opinions in July and then become immovable on them for the remainder of the season.

--

email chains:

ld email chains: nethmindebate@gmail.com

policy email chains: damiendebate47@gmail.com and nethmindebate@gmail.com

if you need to contact me directly about rfd questions, accessibility requests, or anything else, please email nethmindebate@gmail.com (please don't email the teamail for these types of requests)!

please include an adult (your coach, chaperone, or even parent) on the email chain if you are emailing me directly -- just a good safety norm to not have direct communications between minors & adults that don't know them!

--

flowing: it is good and teams should do it

stolen from alderete - if you show me a decent flow, you can get up to 1 extra speaker point. this can only help you - i won't deduct points for an atrocious flow. this is to encourage teams to actually flow:)

--

Some general notes

Accessibility & content warnings: Email me if there is an accessibility request that I can help facilitate - I always want to do my part to make debates more accessible. I prefer not to judge debates that involve procedurals about accessibility and/or content warnings. I think it is more productive to have a pre-round discussion where both teams request any accommodation(s) necessary for them to engage in an equitable debate. I feel increasingly uncomfortable evaluating debates that come down to accessibility/cw procedurals, especially when the issue could have easily been resolved pre-round.

Speed/clarity – I will say clear up to two times per speech before just doing my best to flow you. I can handle a decent amount of speed. Going slower on analytics is a good idea. You should account for pen time/scroll time.

Online debate -- 1] please record your speeches, if there are tech issues, I'll listen to a recording of the speech, but not a re-do. 2] debate's still about communication - please watch for nonverbals, listen for people saying "clear," etc.

I am aggressively pro-disclosure. Disclosure is one of the elements of debate that is most important for small-school and novice accessibility. If you do not disclose, I will assume that you prefer the exclusionary system where only big schools have access, and I will punish your speaker points accordingly. I am so aggressive about enforcing disclosure with all teams (big and small school) because I believe in the mission of the open evidence project and other similar open source disclosure practices. tldr disclose or lose!

--

Speaker points:

Speaker points are dependent on strategy, execution, clarity, and overall engagement in the round and are scaled to adapt to the quality/difficulty/prestige of the tournament.

I try to give points as follows:

30: you're a strong contender to win the tournament & this round was genuinely impressive

29.5+: late elims, many moments of good decisionmaking & argumentative understanding, adapted well to in-round pivots

29+: you'll clear for sure, generally good strat & round vision, a few things could've been more refined

28.5+: likely to clear but not guaranteed, there are some key errors that you should fix

28+: even record, probably losing in the 3-2 round

27.5+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, key technical/strategic errors

27+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, multiple notable technical/strategic errors

26+: errors that indicated a fundamental lack of preparation for the rigor/style of this tournament

25-: you did something really bad/offensive/unsafe.

Extra speaks for flowing, being clear, kindness, adaptation, and good disclosure practices.

Minus speaks for discrimination of any sort, bad-faith disclosure practices, rudeness/unkindness, and attempts to avoid engagement/clash.

--

Opinions on Specific Positions (ctrl+f section):

--

Case:

I think that negatives that don't engage with the 1ac are putting themselves in a bad position. This is true for both K debates and policy debates.

Extensions should involve warrants, not just tagline extensions - I'm willing to give some amount of leeway for the 1ar/2ar extrapolating a warrant that wasn't the focal point of the 2ac, but I should be able to tell from your extensions what the impact is, what the internal links are, and why you solve.

--

Planless affs:

I tend to believe that affirmatives need to defend the topic. I think most planless affs can/should be reconfigured as soft left affs. I have voted for affs that don't defend the topic, but it requires superior technical debating from the aff team.

You need to be able to explain what your aff does/why it's good.

I tend to dislike planless affs where the strategy is to make the aff seem like a word salad until after 2ac cx and then give the aff a bunch of new (and not super well-warranted) implications in the 1ar. I tend to be better for planless aff teams when they have a meaningful relationship to the topic, they are straight-up about what they do/don't defend, they use their aff strategically, engage with neg arguments, and make smart 1ar & 2ar decisions with good ballot analysis.

--

T/framework vs planless affs:

In a 100% evenly debated round, I am likely better for the neg than the aff. However, approximately none of these debates are evenly debated. Either team/side can win my ballot by doing the better technical debating. This past season, I often voted for a K team that I thought was smart and technical. Specific thoughts on framework below:

The best way for aff teams to win my ballot is to be more technical than the neg team. Seems obvious, but what I'm trying to convey here is that I'm less persuaded by personal/emotional pleas for the ballot and more persuaded by a rigorous and technical defense of why your model of debate is good in this instance or in general. I have historically voted against aff teams that made arguments along the lines of "vote for me or I'll quit debate."

I think that TVAs can be more helpful than teams realize. While having a TVA isn't always necessary, winning a TVA provides substantial defense on many of the aff's exclusion arguments.

I don't have a preference on whether your chosen 2nr is skills or fairness (or something else). I think that both options have strategic value based on the round you're in. Framework teams almost always get better points in front of me when they are able to contextualize their arguments to their opponents' strategy.

I also don't have a preference between the aff going for impact turns or going for a counterinterp. The strategic value of this is dependent on how topical/non-topical your aff is, in my opinion.

--

Theory:

The less frivolous your theory argument, the better I am for it.

Please weigh! It's not nearly as intuitive to make a decision in theory debates - I can fill in the gaps for why extinction is more impactful than localized war more easily than I can fill in the gaps for why neg flex matters more/less than research burdens.

--

Topicality (not framework):

I like T debates that have robust and contextualized definitions of the relevant words/phrases/entities in the resolution. Have a clear explanation of what your interpretation is/isn't; examples/caselists are your friend.

Grammar-based topicality arguments: I don't find most of the grammar arguments being made these days to be very intuitive. You should explain/warrant them more than you would in front of a judge who loves those arguments.

--

Kritiks (neg):

I tend to like K teams that engage with the aff and have a clear analysis of what's wrong with the aff's model/framing/epistemology/etc. I tend to be a bit annoyed when judging K teams that read word-salad or author-salad Ks, refuse to engage with arguments, expect me to fill in massive gaps for them, don't do adequate weighing/ballot analysis/judge instruction, or are actively hostile toward their opponents. The more of the aforementioned things you do, the more annoyed I'll be. The inverse is also true - the more you actively work to ensure that you don't do these things, the happier I'll be!

--

Disads:

Zero risk probably doesn't exist, but very-close-to-zero risk probably does. Teams that answer their opponents' warrants instead of reading generic defense tend to fare better in close rounds. Good evidence tends to matter more in these debates - I'd rather judge a round with 2 great cards + debaters explaining their cards than a round with 10 horrible cards + debaters asking me to interpret their dumpster-quality cards for them.

Counterplans:

I don't have strong ideological biases about theory other than that some amount of condo is probably good. More egregious abuse = easier to persuade me on theory; the issue I usually see in theory debates is a lack of warranting for why the neg's model was uniquely abusive - specific analysis > generic args + no explanation.

No judge kick. Make a choice!

--

LD-specific section:

-you might think of cx judges in ld as people who despise judging ld and despise you for doing ld. i try to not let this be true about me. all of my issues with ld can be grouped into two general categories: 1) speech times/structure (not your fault, won't penalize you for it), and 2) the tendency to read unwarranted nonsense, such as "tricks," shoes theory, etc (you can avoid reading these args very easily and make me very happy)

-i am a horrid judge for tricks and frivolous theory. please just go for another argument!

-i am okay for phil. i don't have any personal opposition to philosophy-based arguments, i just don't coach/judge these arguments often, so i will need more explanation/hand-holding. many phil debates recently have involved tricks, which has soured me on this argumentative style, but i would be happy to judge a straight-up phil debate:)

-you don't get 1ar add-ons -- there is no 2ac in ld

-i teach at ld camp every summer, so assume i have some idea of community norms, but don't assume i am following trends super closely

--

Arguments that are simply too bad to be evaluated:

-a team should get the ballot simply for proving that they are not unfair or uneducational

-the ballot should be a referendum on a debater's character, personal life, pref sheet, etc

-the affirmative's theory argument comes before the negative's topicality argument

-some random piece of offense becomes an "independent voter" simply because it is labeled as such

-debates would be better if they were unfair, uneducational, lacked a stasis point, lacked clash, etc

-a debater's moral character is determined by whether they read policy or k arguments

-evidence ethics should be a case neg, as opposed to an opportunity for reasonable preround discussion and an opportunity to correct mistakes

-"tricks"

-debaters get to make arguments about how many speaker points they should get

-teams should not be required to disclose on opencaselist

-the debate should be evaluated after any speech that is not the 2ar

-the "role of the ballot" means topicality doesn't matter

-debaters get to claim the alternative is a floating pik after pretending not to know what a floating pik is during cx

--

Arguments that I am personally skeptical of, but will try to evaluate fairly:

-it would be better for debate if affirmatives did not have a meaningful relationship to the topic

-debate would be better if the negative team was not allowed to read any conditional advocacies

-reading topicality causes violence or discrimination within debate

-"role of the ballot"

-the outcome of a particular debate will change someone's mind or will change the state of debate

-the 5-second aspec argument that was hidden in the 1nc can become a winning 2nr

-the affirmative may not read a plan because of "bare plurals"

--

if there's anything i didn't mention or you have any questions, feel free to email me! if there's anything i can do to make debate more accessible for you, let me know! i really love debate and i coach because i want to make debate/the community a better place; please don't hesitate to reach out if there's anything you need.

EMAIL: JLoza25@damien-hs.edu

Pronouns:He/Him

I love clarity, emphasis, all that. Be confident when you're speaking.

MAIN ADVICE:

Just have fun with this.

About Me:

Freshie at Damien HS and did policy for a year.

My name is Justin Loza, and just call me Justin, or Loza, I don't really care.

How I Judge:

If you get through half an argument in your opening speeches, I probably won't count it, but if you want try to persuade me otherwise. I'm always up for that. If you want to know what argument preference I have, you're in luck, I don't have one. Just explain yourself to the fullest extent and don't give half baked arguments (watch out for this in your rebuttals).

I like debate's that don't just go back and forth about cards, I like debates where the people talking actually understand what their saying and could explain it good in their own words.

ADVICE:

-Don't clip (skip around)

-No name calling, slurs, just Negative stuff like that, but if you're here you probably know better, I hope...

-Please give roadmaps/orders, and also make sure everyone is ready to go, before you go

-Be a good teammate, and overall good person in your round, if you do this you probably have bigger goals on your mind, make it easier and make a good name for yourself

SPEAKS:

I score my speaks based off of, again, how confident they are speaking, as well during Cx you gotta be on top of it to get good speaks.

My average will be a solid 27.5-28

+.5 if you just are awesome at all aspects (you'll know)

+.5 if you're funny, we need more laughter in a debate

Nárhi jámaxakia

- Email chain -- mam.damiendebate@gmail.com & damiendebate47@gmail.com

TL;DR:

- Affiliation: Damien (Debater): 2020 - 2024 (Coach): 2024 - Present; Northwestern (Debater) 2024-Present

- 2x TOC Qualifier

- Call me: Mark/Markos - Judge will make me cringe

- Assume I have 0 idea of what the topic says - you should break down acronyms and try and have detailed explanations over assuming I know anything about the topic

- I am fine voting on anything - except if it's an impact turn to structural violence (i.e. racism good; colonization good; etc) -- I will not flow it, I will not evaluate it, I will doc your points, alert tab, and your coaches about it.

- Tech > Truth; but its hard to out tech truth

Preferences:

- I enjoy K v K debate (or K debate writ large)

- I like performance debate - so claims about specific identities are always welcomed

- For more ideas of what I enjoy in settler colonialism debates see the following people's paradigms: Maddie Pieropan and Joshua Michael.

- HOWEVER - I read both Policy and Kritikal Affs and Positions, so I am comfortable with most of the arguments.

- Yes Spreading - Just be clear - I flow what I hear - if you are unclear and I don't get it on my flow - you don't get it in the round.

Ks:

- Yes! I love the K - my philosophies range from Some PoMo to Settler Colonialism (so Set Col, Psycho, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Cybernetics, Queer Pessimism, Orientalism, Feminism, Afro-Optimism/Pessimism, etc), but I am good with a majority of philosophies, as long as you can explain the links to the aff and they are developed well within the block, you should be fine.

- I like K debate where there is nuance, if you are reading blocks that your coach wrote prerd and dont know what you are saying, dont read the K.

- Link Debate: IF by the 2nr you have not given me a clear explanation of the link to the aff... you're not going to like how I vote.

- Alts: you can kick it - but you better have a really good link story as to why your links outweigh/negates any risk of the affirmative solvency mechanism and a great FW debate.

- Identity PTX - Go ahead - but make sure that you aren't being racist/appropriating a culture that you don't have an ontological relationship with. (If you don't know what that means you should not be reading Ks)

Theory:

- I tend not to like voting on T - however, I will vote on T if you go for it.

- To get my ballot on T you need to:

1. Have a good story as to why X is cheating

2. Cite in round abuse (Losing links/ CP ground, strat skew, etc)

3. Tell me why I should care specifically about cheating in that rd - if your T arg is way too vague, ill will not vote for it.

- I will not vote for nonsense theory - like disclosure, etc. these are bad arguments and I don't care.

CPs:

- I dont think that CPs need a Solvency Advocacte, especially if its something that just came to you prerd. DO NOT take advantage of this and start reading 20 CPs with no Solvency Advocactes (I think the limit for me is 3 CPs)

- Read them as you want - explain what the mechanism of the CP is and why I should prefer it to the aff. Explain how the CP avoids the net benefit and we shouldn't have a problem.

- CP theory is bad - don't drop it and I won't vote on it.

DAs:

- I'm going to quote one of my judges when I started debating "I don't know why people don't just go for the squo"

- If you think that the DA is sufficient to win a turns case argument - just go for the DA and case defense. If I don't have a clear explanation of the link story by the 2nr - you have made a mistake and will probably lose this debate (give me warrants as to why the aff doesn't solve but links to the DA.)

Notes/Random Stuff ab me:

- If you feel like you still have Qs about my paradigm feel free to ask me b4 the round/email me - I have nothing better to do in that 30 minutes of prep lol.

adammimou82@gmail.com

Assistant LD coach for Peninsula HS

Tech over truth – I will flow all arguments and vote on what you extend into your final speeches.

Good for all policy arguments. Okay with kritiks that disprove the affirmative with links to the plan or its justifications. Below average with non-Kantian philosophy positions, but I will try my best. Not good for theory or tricks.

Convinced by reasonability – affirmatives need a counter-interpretation.

I tend to read a lot of evidence, so spending more time reading quality evidence will serve you well.

I try not to be expressive in the round. If I make any facial expressions, it is probably unrelated.

TLDR - I am a senior at Damien high school, and I have been debating since freshmen year

Add me to the chain please -- email -- rrmurphy24@damien-hs.edu

What I like:

-I am cool with tag-team/open cross

-tech over truth

-frame the ballot for me in the rebuttles

What I don't like:

-Non-disclosure (unless breaking new aff)

-Toxic behavior

-People being late (There are some exceptions)

Overall have fun

If you have any questions about the debate please contact me I am happy to help, we are all learning here, and don't be afraid to ask questions

Specifics-

aff- read whatever, policy or k, if you read policy I prefer plan texts that are really specific and aren't just restating the resolution

theory- to win theory you need to prove in round abuse, if you don't you won't win on this

t- I don't especially like to watch t debates, you can go for predictability or debatability, just impact either one of them out

da- generic links arent great, the more specific the link the better the da,

cp- I enjoy adv cps or unique ways to solve the aff, I also enjoy creative pics

k- I'm an ok judge for the k, I'm good with basic stuff like cap and security, if you go for higher literature its probably safer to have a more in-depth explanation about it throughout the debate

- If you make a joke about a person named William Agustin I will give you +0.1

Senior at Damien High School,

Add me to the email chain (noahortizdebate@gmail.com, damiendebate47@gmail.com)

Don't be a bigot

I agree w/ this paradigm - (Tabroom.com)

Judge instruction on how to evaluate the round bring clarity to RFD's. This involves clearly denoting how the round should be evaluated with justification.

Pointing out concessions can clarify positions in the debate.

There is a case for in-round violence winning the ballot.

In regard to models of debate, theory, topicality, and frameworks are always a question. There are many forms of contesting standards on both sides, both influencing the question of whether or not fairness takes premise over education or vice versa, or what causes something to not be fair or educational.

For counterplans and alternatives, influenced by how I evaluate the round, and the implications of what the advocacies resolve. The question is which is the option that best fits the model of debate presented in round that I end up siding with, or one I agree mitigates the presented impacts which could imply what I should vote for. (This includes solvency indicts)

For disadvantages, these debates are influenced by how I evaluate the round, and the implications of the disadvantages impacts in the round. Warranting impacts usually is or is part of how I'll determine whether the status quo or another advocacy is a better option.

In regard to Kritiks and K-affs, examining models/resolutions and/or their implications is always a question. For the most part I'll look for what to endorse or not endorse and (why). Links should also be contextual.

"I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be" ---Isaac Asimov

--- THE IMPORTANT STUFF ---

Add me to the email chain: damiendebate47@gmail.com and pp.damiendebate@gmail.com

Damien High School '26 - he/him

"Thanks for playing, gamers!" - Tim Lewis

Tech > Anything

-Default condo is good but can be persuaded otherwise. Other theory is a reason to reject the arg, and not the team unless mishandled by either side, which would still require impacting out theory.

-Signposting well will get you very high speaks.

-Go for any argument you feel like. I'm willing to vote on almost anything; don't let my preference interfere with your debate style.

-Whether or not new args should be counted in rebuttals or something is technical truth MUST BE EXPLAINED or else I will not consider it.

-USE A WORD DOC (not Google Docs pls but if you have to that's ok)

-Generics are good. I am not the judge who discounts an argument because it is not topic-specific.

Maddox Park

Call me Maddox in-round.

Damien '2026

2A/1N.

Put me on the chain:

pp.damiendebate@gmail.com

damiendebate47@gmail.com

______________________________________________________

Top Level

**Unless you're working on prefs, this is all you need to know about me before the round.

Go for whatever you want. I know you all work hard and have a style of debate you enjoy - I'm not here to interfere with that.

Get good speaks by being yourself. Be funny if you're funny, stoic if you're stoic, I don't really have a preference.

Tech over truth. A dropped argument is true. A conceded intrinsicness argument on a disad most likely means the disad is zero risk, and a perm that goes unanswered is legitimate.

Read or explain rehighlights. The new highlighted text must either be read or explained thoroughly in the tag if inserted.

Tell me to judgekick.Whether I should judgekick the CP is debateable, but I'll do it if told to.

Spreading is good. Feel free to do it, but be clear.

Disclosure is good. Show me your wiki after the round and if you disclose 1AC/1NC docs, I'll tick up your speaks.

Post-round conduct.I might take longer than most to write a thorough RFD and comments, but my verbal RFD will immediately state which side won. No questions are bad questions.

Have fun! Debates should be fun and exciting. Don't harrass the other team.

Evidence

Thoughts on Highlighting. You don't always need complete, full sentences if you can get all the warrants that you need.

Thoughts on Ev Ethics.I'll default strictly to tournament, then NSDA rules. Please don't make me evaluate a round on this.

Impact Framing

I Default To Util & Consequentialism. They're what I'll default to evaluating unless told otherwise.

Impact Calc is Key. Most debates are won on this.

You Can Win Zero Risk. However, that's normally done on the internal link level.

Case Debate

2ACs with good warrants of 1AC cards start at 29.I'm highly impressed by 1AC knowledge.

Topicality/Theory

I like predictability.Theory interps that shift goalpoasts and don't rejoin or allow weighing of the aff are probably bad for debate.

Neutral on condo. as a 2A and a 1N, I have both administered and defended neg terror. Emotional appeals don't persuade me as much as logical deficits to their model.

Plan text in a vacuum is fine. I'm not vehemently opposed to it.

Will vote on dropped theory.If the block concedes the perm and says "reject the argument, not the team", that's probably sufficient. The 2AC doesn't have to say much on aspec.

Textual and functional competition rocks.I'll say more on this in the CP section.

Roll of the ballot -it's most likely to vote up the team who debated the best, granted that the aff met the burden of proof and the neg the burden of rejoinder.

No preference on Reasonability/Competing Interps. Good arguments on both sides.

Ad Homms are a grey zone for me.I don't think I can evaluate them.

In-round violence is serious.Don't throw these arguments around as flow checks. If someone has been violent, I will immediately call tab. Otherwise, it's not worth reading.

Counterplans

It all comes down to evidence quality and whether the CP logically solves or not.

Good for cheaty CPs, but great for competition. I can appreciate and enjoy debates involving unique process CPs, but will go nuts for a good competition 2AR. Call out nonsense perm deficits!

What I am certain is bad for debate: Uniqueness CPs that obviate straight turns, consult CPs, condition CPs, and CPs that compete off of banning the aff or mandating some random horriffic action if and only if the aff happens.

What may be cheating: Planks without solvency advocates, 2NC CPs, amending texts, Process CPs, International CPs on a domestic topic, and miniscule PICs

What isn't cheating: Advantage CPs with solvency advocates, agent CPs, PICs.

Sufficiency Framing is Lame.It's arbitrary and I don't think it weakens deficits.

Textual and functional competition is great. Any reason to prefer works. It might not be perfect, but it prevent risk-averse 2Ns like Leah Ileto from breaking debate.

Disads

Disad-case 2NRs have my seal of approval.

Ev Quality Matters. If your internal link ev is cooked, there's zero internal link.

Turns Case/Turns DA is best.Do a lot of this for a lot of speaks.

Thoughts on Politics Links. Congress affs most likely pass with some Congressional disputation. However, congresspeople don't perceive fiat so rider disads probably don't link. Horsetrading sucks.

Kritiks

I'm fine with them, but the burden to prove links to the aff are higher for me than most judges.

Fairness is an impact, just like clash.Clash is also good as a straight turn.

Slow down on framework.Strategies that revolve around confusing the aff will not serve you well.

Tell me what to flow.Long, poetic essays about your theory of power don't matter if I can't flow them. Structured overviews and link analysis are key.

Lean aff on ontology debates. As a minority and disabled debater, I don't appreciate when teams argue that I'm perpetually locked in opposition with the state or inherently perceived as societally invaluable.

Cards should say what they're tagged to say.I'm more likely to ask for a card doc in a k round than a disad/case round. Even if I'm familiar with your theory of power, you must explain it sufficiently (and cards should reflect that).

Please please please please please do the line by line. Otherwise, a 1AR that consolidates onto a few specific arguments is convincing.

Bad alts make for strong perms.Floating PIKs are probably bad for debate, and it's unlikely that a widespread movement fiating global major actors has rejoined the affirmative.

Final Notes

This matters to me. I enjoy this activity and the benefits it has, and am on no other side but learning, fairness and fun.

Ignore all of the rampant lies that Leah Ileto (aka aspec princess) says in her paradigm about me and we'll have a great time!

Hello All,

My name is Andrew Ramallo, I am a junior at Damien High school and I this is my third-year debating.

I don't have a preference whether it comes to different types of arguments used on the neg. I primarily read policy so i'm most fluent in that, but read what you want. I am fully comfortable judging and voting on a kritik. If you're reading buzzword after buzzword tho at your opponent and don't know what the argument is i'll nuke your speaks.

Debate is a game, read a plan. If the aff just abuses their affirmative and tries to make the neg look silly without making any logical arguments or they don't weigh the importance of their aff I will NOT vote for them. There must be a warrant for why the ballot matters/spills out.

As far as pet peeves and things I look for in giving speaks. I do appreciate giving road maps/orders before your speeches. I also look for clarity and I am fine with spreading and speaking quickly but if I feel I'm unable to comprehend and hear what you're saying I will say "clearer or speak up." I absolutely hate it when people clip. Card cutting is fine as long as you tell your opponents as well as the judge(s) and send a marked document after the speech has concluded. Don't be offensive, no name calling, no slurs, limit bad language. Be a good teammate and show good sportsmanship.

(If online)

Keep cameras on, mics can be left off to limit noise when you aren't speaking. Cameras should be on unless you have a valid technical issue, so no prep stealing.

My outline for speaker points goes as follows:

-26: You did something terrible I believe that you offended someone and will report it to tab.

26-27: Needs improvement, needs to practice a lot more and cross ex lacked a lot of quality.

27-28: Needs some improvement, didn't do anything bad or wrong just not enough to go far in the tournament.

28-28.5: Good qualities as well as improvement needed. Decent cross ex usually turns out for a fairly good debate.

28.5-29: Good qualities showed, and cross ex was very thorough. Team usually makes elims maybe even further.

29-29.5: Very good speaker. Cross ex was impressive. But most importantly understood the arguments they were making and was able to back them in cross ex as opposed to just standing there and wasting cross ex time. Team makes late elims, maybe wins tourney.

29.5+: Probably one of the best debates I've seen this year. Doesn't slip up and speaks quickly but clearly and knows arguments in and out. Should be winning tournament.

I agree with pretty much any of the following people's paradigms so if you are looking for something a little bit more substantive look at: Tim Lewis, Chris Paredes, Stephen Lewis, Yueshuya Li, and also a little bit of Teddy Wachtler's paradigm.

Most Importantly, make sure you have fun have a good time, be respectful to your opponents and judge(s). If you have any questions about this paradigm don't be afraid to ask before the round.

Emails for Email Chain:

ajramallo25@damien-hs.edu

damiendebate47@gmail.com

Add me on the chain please — thwachtler25@damien-hs.edu, as well as damiendebate47@gmail.com.
Please include the following in the subject: tournament name, round number, year, affirmative team code, negative team code.
Junior at Damien HS, he/him, most fluent in policy debate. Call me whatever floats your boat.

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠴⢿⣧⣤⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣴⣿⣧⣆⣘⡄⢹⣿⣷⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣾⣿⣿⣿⣷⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⢿⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠏⠀⣴⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣀⡀⣾⡿⠀⠉⠉⠛⠋⠛⠛⠚⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⢠⣍⠹⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢹⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⢿⣷⣾⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣴⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢹⣟⢻⣿⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⣰⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠻⠿⠟⠁⠑⢶⣤⣴⣿⣿⣿⣷⣶⣬⣿⣿⣿⡿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠙⠛⠛⢛⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠛⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠻⢿⡿⠟⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

I think debate is a game with inevitable competitive and personal incentives that are net good for the activity. I will evaluate debates based on pure technical skill rather than the truth of content presented and I will vote on any types of arguments. While I will default to the role of a policymaker, how I vote or which arguments I prioritize is up to the debaters to identify and clarify. The final speeches should crystalize the arguments that I evaluate first, explain how I should evaluate them, and support with warrants why I should view the debate that way.

The vast majority of my other perspectives on debate come from Tim Lewis. His paradigm is significantly more detailed and educational, and I think a read is worth it.