| Policy Debate | Michigan '28 | Damien High School '24 |

email: william06agustin@gmail.com

Favorite judges who I try to judge like: Christina Phillips, Kevin Hirn, or basically anyone else on the Michigan staff.

TL;DR for before round:

- Tech > Truth ALWAYS - I will only go based off the flow and never add my own details. When I evaluate debates and debate myself, I look at offense like health bars in Street Fighter and defense can lower those bars. Very strange analogy but I genuinely see things that way, take it how you will.

- Mostly a policy debater in high school and college; however I lowkey have a good understanding of the K so I'll be fine on that as long as you're technical

- If you remember Damien MA or LA or know Michigan AO and you liked the way we debated or what we went for then I'm probably fine for you.

- Card docs are always helpful

- Don't go for condo in front of me unless dropped entirely; 87% chance I won't vote for it. "Neg Terrorism is good" - David Sposito i think. Also most of my career was made off of 10 off 1NCs and praying the opponent drops it. Don't be like me, I see now that this strat made me a scrub, but also idc if you are.

- MAKE THE DEBATE EASY FOR ME - good judge instruction >>

Things that will nuke your speaks:

- Being unclear for the sake of being faster; stop it its cringe just be more efficient.

- Clipping, I won't personally call you out, but if the other team does its an auto L. HOWEVER, if I catch you clipping a ton and the other team doesn't I will nuke your speaks

- Putting cards in the card doc that weren't there. I flow...

- Shadow extending cards. I would much rather you take the time to attach SOME warrants to the card you're extending.

More General Info:
- Love a good Counterplan and Disad debate.

- I love advantage counterplans HOWEVER I hate 2NC CPs and CP planks without solvency unless they are ban planks or something really basic. I will disregard 2NC CPs if there is theory against it.

- Generally think you can insert rehighlightings of evidence.

- I will NOT READ INTO THE UNHIGHLIGHTED/NOT UNDERLINED CONTEXTS OF YOUR EVIDENCE UNLESS INSTRUCTED OTHERWISE. Your card can be smelly garbage but I won't discredit it unless the other team instructs me to further read into the context of a card. I've lost plenty of debates in which judges read in-depth into the quality of the article cut and I personally believe unless it was called into question it shouldn't be regarded. I will let you know after the round if your card sucks but I won't let it influence my decision unless instructed otherwise.

- I'm lowkey ok for the K. I worked on Edelman, Psychoanalysis, and various Cap Ks in high school. Even though I went for them, I don't like framework heavy Ks, but I'm not gonna reject it on face but I am more empathetic to fairness in those situations.

- Fairness is absolutely an impact.

- I can evaluate competition debates

- Generally lean NEG on theory except for international fiat, multiactor fiat, and devolution cps.

- I won't vote on out of round stuff. I'm not a washing machine don't air your dirty laundry in front of me.

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....

my email: josephjhong06@gmail.com

please add: damiendebate47@gmail.com if I am judging for Damien

not active in college debate

debated from 2020-2024

zero topic knowledge

first year out so i vot easiest way out - tech>truth

if you read a K in front of me, explain your theory of power and explain your alt (unless u kick the alt and go for fw but thats a different story)

I think I have a higher standard for the K - if you don't know the authors then don't read it

pomo Ks> everything else

not evaluating RVIs (unless dropped)

my previous paradigm randomly deleted itself idk why ill fix it soon (maybe)

make a marvel rivals reference for +0.01 speaks

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: yoshidebate@gmail.comdamiendebate47@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.

(Surprising, Tragic, and deeply saddening) Peninsula Invitational Update

I CANNOT BELIEVE I HAVE TO SAY THIS: no brain rot, you will get deducted speaker points for excessive brain rot usage.

TLDR

in an 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 development 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 likely to increase as a tournament progresses given the inevitable exhaustion. If the debate gets messy my intuition is most likely to prefer to punish the worst 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 surprised, thinking, or reading your ev, frowning is not always a bad signal and vice versa nodding don't 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

The burden of Proof determines the 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 args are fine on either side, at this point its just a technical debate.I am of the personal opinion that debate is fundamentally a game and fairness is intrinsically good, but not very ideologically attached to this "clash of civilizations" thing.

I enjoy K aff which is nuanced.

I strongly dislike arguments that call into the humanity/identity of the debater in the round and/or reference to what happened outside of the round, because I am not sure what I as a judge supposed to do with these kinds of arguments. Not that I would not vote on them, but I think you need to contextualize them to the debate or convince me it's not just an accusation of sorts.

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

Not a philosopher yet, so pls explain theory.

CP

perm is just a test of competition

CP competition is based 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 as a voter, but willing to raise the threshold of solvency

DA

Zero risk exists, rarely happens

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 (on the neg)

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, psycho, Lee Edelman, antiblackness.

1AC rehighlights is good

Phil comp is bad (but will vote for it)

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

Minor Pet Peeves

ask for marked doc when it's like just a few cards skipped/cut

"they drop it" with no explanation"

"they drop it" when they did not

"if you do not 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 line,

marking multiple cards in the same speech

theory prolif in the 2AC

send out 7+ OFF and can't 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 infinite condo like a good 2N should. But if I am being honest, time skew is also the worst way to debate condo in front 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, depth vs breadth, strat skews, and why the model of condo is bad, etc. Yes, the 1AR needs to start the full condo debate, I will not give 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 alternative only kills neg flex and arg testing since skews are inevitable" and the 2ar just keeps 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; topic-specific research is good; disclosure is good; i care about argument engagement and i value flexibility; stay hydrated & be a good person.

--

about me:

she/her

i coach policy debate at damien-st. lucy's

--

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 teams that do topic research and not the best for teams whose final rebuttals sound like they could be given on any topic/against any strategy.

--

Topic Knowledge: I don't teach at camp but I do keep up with the topic. I'm involved in the Damien-St. Lucy's team research. My topic knowledge for events that aren't policy debate is zero, but I'll rarely be judging these events anyway.

--

email chains:

damiendebate47@gmail.com

nethmindebate@gmail.com

please add both

--

non-negotiables:

1 - speech times - constructive are 8 minutes, rebuttals are 5, each partner must give one constructive and one rebuttal, cx cannot be transferred to prep.

2 - evidence ethics is not a case neg - will not vote on it unless you can prove a reasonable/good-faith attempt to contact the other team prior to the round.

3 - clipping requires proof by the accusing team or me noticing it. i'll vote on it with no recording if i notice it.

4 - i will not evaluate out-of-round events. this means no arguments about pref sheets, personal beef, etc. i will evaluate disclosure arguments.

--

flowing from the speech doc?

i will not flow from the speech doc.

i will only open speech docs in the middle of a debate for the following purposes:

1 - checking for clipping (i'll do this intermittently throughout the debate)

2 - to look at something that was emailed out and flagged as necessary for my understanding of the debate (rehighlighted evidence, disclosure screenshot, chart that's part of a card, perm text with certain words struck out, etc)

i will download speech docs at the end of the debate to read all relevant evidence prior to submitting my ballot

--

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:) you must show me your flows before i enter the ballot!!

--

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 theory arguments 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.

Speed/clarity – I will say clear up to two times per speech before just doing my best to flow you. Going fast is fine, being unclear is not. 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 is still about communication - please watch for nonverbals, listen for people saying "clear," etc.

Disclose or lose. Previously read positions must be on opencaselist. New positions do not need to be disclosed. "I do not have to disclose" is a losing argument in front of me 100% of the time.

Evidence -- it matters and I'll read it. Judge instruction is still a thing here. Don't just say "read this card" and not tell me why. Ev comparison is good. Cutting good cards is good. Failing to do one or both of those things leaves me to interpret your bad cards in whatever way I want -- that's likely to not be good. The state of evidence quality these days is an actual crime scene. If you read ev that is better than the national-circuit average, I will be so happy and your points will reflect that.

Technical debating matters.I have opinions about what arguments in debate are better/worse. I think things like the fiat k and process counterplans probably produce less in-depth and educational debates than positions that require large amounts of topic research. I've still voted for these positions when the team reading these arguments executes a technical win. This means that you should not be too stressed about my predispositions -- just win the debate and you'll be fine!

--

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.

2ac add-ons must be coherent in the speech they are presented. You don't get to turn a random card on a random sheet into an add-on in the 2ar.

--

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 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 some kind of 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.

I think framework is true but I will do my best to evaluate your arguments fairly.It is easier to win against framework when affirmative teams explain the warrants for their arguments and don't presuppose that I immediately agree with the warrants behind their impact turns to framework.

--

T/framework vs planless affs:

In a 100% evenly debated round, I am better for the neg. However, either team/side can win my ballot by doing 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.

I don't have a preference on whether your chosen 2nr is skills or fairness. 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 opponent's 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:

Theory arguments other than conditionality are likely not a reason to reject the team. It will be difficult to change my mind on this.

Theory arguments must have warrants in the speech in which they are presented. Most 2ac theory arguments I've seen don't meet this standard.

Conditionality is an uphill battle in front of me. If the 2ac contained warrants + the block dropped the argument entirely, I would vote aff on conditionality, but in any other scenario, the aff team should likely not go for conditionality.

Please weigh! Many theory debates feel irresolvable without intervention because each team only extends their offense but does not interact with the other team's offense.

--

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 very helpful.

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.

"Plans bad" is pretty close to a nonstarter in front of me (this is more of a thing in LD I think).

--

Kritiks (neg):

I am best for K teams that engage with the affirmative, do line-by,line, and read links that prove that the aff is a bad idea. Good k debating is good case debating!

I am absolutely terrible for K teams that don't debate the case. Block soup = bad.

I vote for K teams often when they are technical and make smart big-picture arguments and demonstrate topic knowledge. I vote against K teams when they do ... not that!

In general, clash-avoidant K strategies are bad, K strategies that involve case debating are good.

--

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 counterplan theory other than that 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!

Competition debates have largely become debates where teams read a ton of evidence and explain none of it. Please explain your competition evidence and I will be fine! I'll read cards after the debate, but would prefer that you instruct me on what to do with those cards.

--

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

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

--

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

-"tricks"

-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

-new affs bad

--

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

--

if there's anything i didn't mention or you have any questions, feel free to email me! 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

1. mam.damiendebate@gmail.com

2. damiendebate47@gmail.com (Policy Debate Only)

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.

Preferences:

I enjoy K v K debate (or K debate writ large) I mainly ran Kritiks that would fall into the CRT category, but I am familiar with most lit bases as a result of being in the community and just reading the lit. I was mentored by people like Joshua Michael, Tim Lewis, Joshua Harrington, and many others. I did however read both Policy and Kritikal Affirmatives in my High School years - I am fairly flexible to both sides on the K from a tech perspective.

Random Things to ponder if you need to gage the situation: Yes Spreading - Just be clear; Marked docs are annoying and prob take more time and ethos away by asking for it than just flowing; Tech > Truth but it is hard to out debate truth and will probably make you look silly.

How I think about rounds:

This mainly occurs on a round by round basis but my typical evaluation framework comes down to How I should evaluate debates (i.e. FW/Role of Judge/Ballot/wtv) and then filtering through the key offense points in the 2NR/AR. I find that it becomes harder to think about what my "role" as a judge should be without any understanding of what the buzz words/ theory dictate that I am (i.e. if I'm supposed to accept an invitation to X explain what is X what does joining X do in the round and what does my presence do for that) absent that I tend to default to what was happening in round as opposed to thinking about the larger issue that I am supposed to be working towards. If for whatever reason I end up with nothing to frame my mind I am going to default to my biases which you can extrapolate within the paradigm

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

Theory:

I've found myself going for T in the 2NR more often than not so I have some idea of what good T debates should look like. I don't want to say make T your A-Strat because those debates are VERY boring and probably make me sleepy and yawn throughout the entire debate. To get my ballot on T you need to: 1. Have a good story as to why the aff isuntopical 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.

CPs:

I dont think that CPs need a Solvency Advocacte, especially if it's 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.

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.

- I tend to listen to music during prep time/during my rfd writing time; if you have any recs ill take them

adammimou82@gmail.com

Assistant LD Coach for Peninsula HS

Offense-defense - arguments are evaluated probabilistically.

Exclusive framework interps are unpersuasive, I generally think the aff should get the plan and the neg should get links, but I am willing to evaluate either.

I feel somewhat comfortable evaluating deontological frameworks. I have less experience with other frameworks but will do my best to assess them fairly. However, I'm not the judge for strategies that rely heavily on 'tricks' or 'a prioris.'

I think most skepticism or 'permissibility' arguments are defense. I do not vote on defense.

I’m convinced by reasonability against all 1NC theory arguments.

I try to stay non-expressive during rounds. If I show any facial expressions, it is most likely unrelated.

There is no designated time for flow clarification during a debate. If you want to ask your opponent what was or wasn't read, you must do so during cross-examination or use your prep time. If you mark cards during your speech (i.e., if you start reading a card but do not finish it), you should clearly state where you marked it and send a marked document immediately after your speech. You are not required to include cards you did not read.

I do not have a specific metric for speaker points, but demonstrating a clear understanding of the topic and minimizing dead time are effective ways to improve your score.

I prefer adjudicating thoroughly researched arguments related to the topic.

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.

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

Damien High School '26 - he/him

Damien PP

I think about debate a lot like her.

Tech > Anything

Top Level

-Do what you do best. Read any argument you are comfortable with. I am here to be receptive of your prep and work, not put arbitrary limits on what arguments I would or would not prefer. As a debater and one of the few primary file producers on my team, I am aware of the hours it takes to create files and will refuse to let your hard work be obstructed by my ideological predispositions. Arguments deemed "generic" by the broader debate community are good and necessary. As elegantly phrased by Rafael Pierry, "Whether something could be 'read identically on a previous topic' has no bearing on whether it rejoins the affirmative." This extends to all arguments, except things that occur outside of the debate space (ad homs, callouts, etc.) - Process CPs, fiat Ks, hidden A-Spec, Wipeout, etc are all fair game.

-I will evaluate a debate based off my flow. I will likely read each side's evidence, but only scrutinize it if it becomes a point of contestation in the debate/my decision heavily relies on it. If a card doesn't say what one side wants it to, then the other side should point that out. My thought process will be to make the least interventionist decision for both sides.

-Often, paradigms are inadequate ways of getting to know a judges' ideological predispositions. These are the arguments/Affs I ran my sophomore year and my (current) junior year.

-Condo is good in nearly every instance but technical debating can easily flip this the opposite way. 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. See more of my thoughts below.

-Insert rehighlightings to keep the other side accountable for their evidence. Open cross is good. Disclosing evidence is good. You don't need to send analytics. Sending the speech document does not count as prep time.

-Finally, nearly every thought below can be overcome by technical debating. These are my meta-level thoughts, but arguments made in the debate ultimately determine what I believe as a judge.

K AFFs

-Kritikal affirmative teams must out-tech the negative to win these debates. Based purely off of the side I was on in the majority of these debates, I lean Neg on why fairness is an impact my ballot can solve. Technical debating can easily flip this the opposite way. I am very unsympathetic to 2AC overviews that claim to implicitly answer everything while the rest of the 2AC refuses to line-by-line the 1NC.

-K Affs should go for an impact turn to fairness/clash and the Neg should defend why fairness/clash turns/accesses the Aff's offense at a more proximate level.

T

-Reasonability must be paired with a we meet or counter-interp should the Aff choose to consolidate to this in the 1AR.

-I'm familiar with most T interps on this topic/topic mechanisms.

DAs

-Big fan of politics and (a few months ago) the elections DA. Arguments like patents bad, trademark trolls, and court clog are winnable too, but most Affs are designed to beat these.

-Turns case analysis is underutilized. I place much weight on impact comparison and turns case arguments.

-Zero risk is possible. Dropping something like "fiat solves" or "bottom of the docket" without any relevant cross-applications zeros the disad.

Ks

-Ks of the plan's investments are good (fiat, extinction, death, reps, etc.). Specific Ks are better. Don't assume I'm familiar with high-theory literature, because I'm likely not. Cap, Racial IR, Set Col (kinda) literature I am familiar with. This should not discourage you from going for such arguments, just something to keep in mind.

-Framework can zero a K in complete isolation if debated well by the AFF. The 1AR's burden is to prove why each link is not to the plan, and most of the times, they're not. However, diligent line-by-line is key. A lot of the time, the Neg wins framework by a single technical drop. That being said, I will evaluate said dropped sub-points as any other conceded argument.

Impact Turns

-All impact turns are good and have a special place in my heart. None are off limits except objectively unethical ones (racism good, etc). Wipeout and spark do not apply to the aforementioned category. Technical impact turn debating is probably the easiest way to get high speaker points in front of me.

-Turns case matters just as much here as on disads. See my thoughts on this above.

CPs

-Process CPs are good, especially on the IPR topic. Obviously, technical debating can easily flip this, but evenly debated, warrants for Neg Ground loss are hard to beat. That being said, I was on the Aff side of many competition debates defending Text + Function, so enter these debates with this in mind.

-A 2N who knows their competition debate and understands the mechanism of their CP will get very high speaks in front of me. Conversely, a competition-versed 2A who out-techs their negative counterpart is equally as impressive.

-Logical CPs don't need a solvency advocate, at least in the 1NC.

-Advantage CPs with rehighlighted 1AC evidence will automatically boost your speaks if it is advanced into the block. This shows dedication to research and willingness to go into the Aff's evidence. Most of the time, Aff evidence doesn't say what they say it does.

-Infinite condo is good, since you either win a model of conditionality being good or bad. The Aff should respond to this by as much chaos as possible. Straight turn disads, impact turn them, or read generic solvency deficits to CPs, and only cross apply them in the 1AR when they are mishandled by the block. Just because your Aff, doesn't mean you can't be tricky.

-Will default to judgekick unless 1AR contests it. Will still be open for 2NR warrants for me to judgekick even if.

Theory

-Would rather not be judging these, but I get it. If you need to go for condo, go for condo. And do it for the entire duration of the 2AR. I lean Neg on condo being good, but was also on the Aff side of these debates. In conditionality debates, the 1AR must answer each warrant the block advances unless it is unflowable or flat-out warrantless, which both should be pointed out if either is the case.

-In-round abuse only lowers the bar for the AFF to win a standard, such as strategy or time skew, and does not serve as a persuasive warrant for why a model of conditionality is inherently bad.

-Will vote on ASPEC if dropped and flowed with a warrant.

Novices:

-Spreading is good. If you can read 8 off intelligibly, and the other side fails to defend their aff, then the neg should logically win this debate.

Maddox Park

Call me 'Maddox'.

Damien '26

2A/1N.

Put me on the chain:

pp.damiendebate@gmail.com

damiendebate47@gmail.com

______________________________________________________

Top Level

This is all you need to know about me before the round. If doing prefs, probably look at everything else.

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. I absolutely resent judge intervention in all its forms. Do your thing!

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.

Don't spread thru tags. I am not embarrassed to yell "clear" as many times as I need to get this point through.

Read rehighlights or explain insertions. 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 debatable.

Spreading is good. Feel free to do it. The idea that "novices shouldn't spread" is asinine.

Disclose. Do 1AC disclosure on the email chain so I can clearly evaluate misdisclosure claims. Show me your wiki after the round and if you disclose 1AC/1NC docs, I'll tick up your speaks.

Post-round conduct.I'll try to be quick and immediately state who won without any amenities. No questions are bad questions. I don't take anything personally.

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

I believe in zero risk. As disad links, internal link chains, and strikeout perm deficits become more hackneyed and contrived I become much more willing to vote for a team when they sufficiently win a defensive argument. More on this below.

______________________________________________________

Evidence

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

Procedure for 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 evaluate unless told otherwise.

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

Zero Risk is Absolutely Possible.I ardently believe this. Ridiculously contrived DA scenarios or impacts that have been thumped to the ground have no risk of occurring. Of course, your cards and explanations must prove this.

Case Debate

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

Topicality/Theory

Gateway issues suck. 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 2ARs. Don't misinterpret this as "Maddox hates Process CPs" tho because I genuinely love them. I can appreciate and enjoy debates involving unique process CPs, but will go nuts for a good competition 2AR.

I don't believe strikethrough or intrinsic perms need net benefits. If you've won that your model of competition is good, it's logical that you don't need a deficit to beat the CP.

What I am certain is bad for debate (but will still vote for): Uniqueness CPs that obviate straight turns, consult CPs, condition CPs, and CPs that compete off of banning the aff or mandating some random horrific 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, large PICs.

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

Textual and functional competition is awesome. Any reason to prefer works.

Disads/Case Turns

Disad-case 2NRs have my seal of approval. I hold a higher threshold to winning edgy impact turns.

Ev Quality Matters. Most disads on this topic suck and can answered with at least one logical analytic. Call out when shifty 2Ns like Leah Ileto try to box your aff into a link that doesn't make logical sense. If the internal link ev is cooked, then 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. Affirmatives that mandate Congressional action most likely pass with some legislative disputation. However, congresspeople don't perceive fiat so rider disads probably don't link. Horsetrading is lame. Floor-time is meh.

Impact Turns Need Real Links.I don't think that a card mentioning "emissions reduction" constitutes a link. However, if a 1AC asserts that climate mitigation is impossible without the aff, then warming good is obviously fair game.

Kritiks (Neg)

I'm fine with them, but the burden to prove links to the aff and how those links implicate case is significantly higher with me than most judges. A 1NC doc that only has one off and does no case debate except for links to vague notions of the 1AC impacts will lose.

Go for the alt.It's just always better.

Love framework 2ARs. Explain how fairness or clash turn the K, and you're well off in front of me.

Fairness is an impact, just like clash. Either can serve as a straight turn to framework theses.

Slow down on framework. If I don't understand your "Paraontological Eschatology DA" in the block, I won't give it to you in the 2NR.

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/epistemology debates. I'm just not convinced that authors are credible enough or that cards have enough warrants to give the neg sweeping notions about social psychology most of the time. Aff cards tend to be far more nuanced.

Explain everything. 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.

Floating PIK must be clear in the block. You must have an explicit warrant for the alt solving the aff.

Check the procedurals section for tricky voting issues. Most are a thumbs-down.

K-Affs

K Notes Above Apply. I have a much stronger burden than most to prove that engagement in state is bad and that the topic necessitates wholesale rejection.

Weigh your impacts. I'm predisposed to believe that my ballot might not affirm anything other than the role of the ballot brightlines I've substantiated above in the Topicality/Theory section.

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.

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 — thwamster@gmail.com.
Please include the following in the subject: tournament name, round number, year, affirmative team code, negative team code.
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.