junior pf debater at seven lakes (the 1 in seven lakes AR, I copied this from my dear compañera Siri) anshika12agrawal@gmail.com

2x tfa qualifier, 1x gtoc qualifier

i judge like BRYCE PIOTROWSKI.

tech > truth, links > weighing. you NEED warrants and impacts– tell me why the argument ur telling me matters

this is how i go through the round:

i look at weighing first and whatever wins that i'll look at first. if u win weighing but ur losing the link, u don't win the argument and i look at the other argument. if there is no weighing, i presume the best extended and argued arg.

don't do isms

frontline in 2nd rebuttal, defense isn't sticky.

extend uniqueness, link, and impact.

go for less and explain what you go for better.

time ur own prep and speeches

u can go fast if u want, i enjoy fast debates but you still have towarranteverything

i rly do not like paraphrasing, pls readcut cardsand have good evi ethics

progressive args

i like prog args

for k's, i understand nontopical ks a bit more and am only familiar w/ topical set col, sec, and cap

if you run framework, use it to actually frame the round!

paraphrasing is bad, disclo is good, trigger warnings are bad, round reports are meh

speaks

i'll start at a 28.5 and go up or down based on strategy.

have fun and learn

Jess Chai (she/her)

Debated for Seven Lakes High School for four years on nats circuit

add me to the chain: jessjc022@gmail.com

General tldr:

Please try to preflow and start an email chain before round to speed things up, tech>truth, speed is fine just send docs. As long as arguments are explained well and weighed well, I will vote for it.

Defense is not sticky. If it matters, you need to extend and implicate it in summary and final. Frontline in second rebuttal, dropped arguments in rebuttal are considered conceded.

Any bigotry means you're auto-dropped with the lowest speaks possible.

Evidence:

Cards need to be properly cut. Don't power tag your evidence, and don't spend more than 30 seconds to find a card. In general, you should already be sending docs before your speeches that already have the cut evidence in them.

Progressive Args:

I'm generally so/so on prog stuff but I'd really rather not judge a messy K/theory round.

third year debater

pf :)

LD/PF

• spreading is fine as long as you send a doc (td.trishadas30@gmail.com)
• tech>truth but your warrants need to be well explained
• weigh throughout the round; i won't do the work for you
• i don't care about cross but don't be mean please
• speaks will start at 28 and move up or down based on performance
• mention taylor swift and i will be happy

have fun!! :))

former PF at slakes; pronouns - she/her

duong.kalina4@gmail.com

if you have any questions please feel free to ask prior or after the round. Not a fan of super excessive post-rounding.

- tech>truth but warrant it

- fine with speed but you have to speak clearly (clarity's important!)

- I enjoy a snarky or funny cross as long as it furthers the debate- you can make jabs at each other's arguments but no isms (racism, xenophobia, misogyny, etc) or overt rudeness.

- extend please; Warrant your arguments. Weighing is important. Defense isn't sticky. Draw a clear path to the ballot for me.

- ev ethics are important.

- I lack experience debating and judging prog args but if you can explain it well enough go ahead and run it.

SLHS '25

3rd-year debater: 1x state qual in ld, broke at nationals in policy!

PFer

Please start email chains if spreading/in general, too, for evidence comparison, etc - samkdebate@gmail.com

Please ask me questions before the round!

Debate:

TLDR: pls just signpost and weigh weigh weigh! Give me a clear framing/weighing mechanism (it doesn't have to be an actual framework, just some calculus to allow me to make a decision). I hate intervening b/c it's unfair to both sides - don’t make me. The earlier you start weighing, the happier I am. Don’t worry too much and have fun debating! ᕙ(▀̿ĺ̯▀̿ ̿)ᕗ Muchos gracias.

Performance:

• Be NICE!

• Ev>presentation any day dawg - just don’t speak inaudibly or else ofc your speaks go down. I start at 28 and move up and down mostly based on strategy.

• Debate is where the logic sparkles: make the round educational and don’t impede on this. For example, experienced debaters reading 13 offs on a brand new novice is just so embarrassing to watch, and not for the novice.

• Go fast and spread if you want! Send a speech doc to my email but slow down on tags and author names or else I 100% will not catch an argument. Also, add analytics on the doc - and slow down during them.

• I default to relatively high (30) speaks unless debaters are unnecessarily harsh, rude, or mean to their opponents in the round (speaks will be dropped so be nice [̲̅$̲̅(̲̅ ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°̲̅)̲̅$̲̅]).

• Speaks can and most likely will be bumped up if you make super creative arguments or make me laugh (try to be engaging). Most cheesy dad jokes will make me giggle - but also, don't fool around. Education>entertainment. :|

• Be persuasive and explain your arguments heavily to me ESPECIALLY why I ought to vote for certain things on your side as compared to your opponent (flush out weighing please).

CX:

• It's going to be a long round you might as well be nice to your opponents.

• If spreading, send doc but also pls signpost! There are usually many, many arguments within the round - I will flow all possible arguments, but I will try my best to get the most crucial components of the round.

• Most of the stuff in LD is pretty relevant here - ie prog arguments.

• The latest speech to bring up new args and cards should be the 1ar/1nr unless it is the most critical aspect of the round. but logically, a new arg in the 2ar/2nr is way too abusive so if the argument is absolutely nothing related to what your side has previously mentioned, I will probably not consider it.

• Quality>quantity, dtd>dti, tech>truth, but reasonability gets iffy so I lean to more counter interp (unless its friv theory, etc)

LD:

• Please signpost well or else I can't flow all possible arguments, but I will try my best to get the most crucial components of the round.

• I do not pay attention that much to cross ex: if you’re trying to make cx binding or poking holes in case, mention it clearly. Ex: “judge, pls note” or something of that sort. One more thing! Don’t be hostile - cx is not that deep. Just answer the question and move on unless you’re trying to make a point.

• Make the framework debate reasonable and I will vote for the side with the best argumentation and upholding of said framework. If no framework is read during the round and no debater specifies, I will default to Util.

• Winning framework does not win you the round: it only wins you a favorable offense-weighing mechanism.

• Please try to start weighing in your second speech. 1NC weighing is cool but don’t focus on it too much if you don’t have time. 1AR definitely has to weigh - I think it’s unfair to bring new weighing mechanisms in the 2AR that the 2N could not respond to, but I also have not watched enough LD rounds to know.

• Anything you want me to vote on must be extended into 1/2AR or 2NR, anything else I won't evaluate it and the argument will be dropped.

• No brand new arguments in 2NR and 2AR. Extension of weighing and additional implications of link ins, etc may be evaluated based on the tangency of the starting argument.

• Quality>quantity, dtd>dti, tech>truth, reasonability and counter interp are based on warrants provided.

• Tricks!! No. Depends on my leniency at that point. Also I don’t understand half of them so it’s a wasted effort lol.

• LARP and substance is my strongest form of debating as I understand it the most, just make reasonable arguments and weigh weigh weigh.

• Progressive debate:

• I'm good with generic K's (Cap, set col, imperialism) but exemplify the links and alternatives extremely thoroughly, or else I won’t understand the argument. Identity k's are extremely swag but make sure the thesis and offense are clearly outlined. If you read Baudrillard or any extremely convoluted k that I do not understand, my RFD will send you into a hyperreality so be careful :)

• Phil is something I'm not that great with evaluating, but as long as you extend parts of the syllogism and explain, I will most likely understand it! Kant and Hobbes are what I'm most familiar with. I've heard/read/witnessed some whacky phil, but as long as it makes sense, I can vote on it. (͠≖ ͜ʖ͠≖)

• Theory is great, but don't be abusive with it and call for it only when there is reasonable abuse during the round. I will vote on the T if it is logical and fair!

PF:

Cross apply most of LD but use in context of PF terms

• Default to util calculus unless fwrk is read.

• Quality>quantity (I love super innovative contentions)

• Weighing should be the brunt of your summary - most arguments should become crystalized/set up for final focus

• No substantially new arguments in both

• Spreading and progressive arguments are welcome! Just send a doc. If your opponent cannot understand it, I may or may not. Refer to the LD paradigm for more

• I do not pay attention that much to cross ex: if you’re poking holes or whatever, mention it clearly. Ex: “judge, pls note” or something of that sorts. CX is binding only if you specify it lol. Again, don’t be hostile - crossfire is not that deep.

• I personally believe that grand cross is wasteful of time, but it will most likely depend on the situation (aka: if there are questions to be asked, etc). If both sides don't have any questions - I'm cool with splitting grand into 1:30 of prep for both sides.

Anything else: Just try your best and be confident!

Speech/Interp:

I'm not an avid extemper nor am I an interper - but the events are super cool!

Have fun and be confident in your speaking! Your voice is your best weapon in today's world (sorry cringe)

Main points

• Ask me for time signals before you start. Otherwise, I default to odds down (ie 7 left, 5 left, 3 left, 1 left, grace).

• I don't have any trigger warnings but it’s a good practice to mention any for judges or spectators in the room if your speech contains graphic/sensitive topics.

• Content is as important as presentation (idk how to evaluate and give good feedback on presentation though I know the basics).

• if you forget your speech, take a breath and continue - it happens to anyone; just remember: fake it till you make it! it's about how you recover and not how perfect your speech can be

• I can't reiterate this enough: I am not a speech kid - I like arguing instead of public speaking. I just like statistics and things that quantify arguments. However, I will rank based on how unique your topic is, how well you present it, and how well your overall performance is. Don't change your speech for me just do whatever you think is the best for you!

• I have no idea what speech norms are, but don't be rude in your speech? I know debaters get a lil audacious so please don't be like them :)

• Finally - have fun! do your best. We're all here to learn - especially me! The more passionate you are about your topic, the more I will like your speech.

Interp (specifically)

• In total, I have watched around 15 pieces. Don’t expect me to know how to evaluate the round like other interp judges or lay judges may. I’ll probably rank based on entertainment/emotional appeal/impact of the speech rather than other technicalities. Up to date, I have never judged an interp round, but I have a bunch of friends that I should be learning how to judge from.

• Common note – interp fits are an extreme slay so heads up for compliments!

Extemp -

• Same idea about time signals – ask me for specific ones or else I default to odds down.

• Components that I look for and make critical in the way I rank: Intro (w/ AGD, background, question, and preview ), 3 main points, conclusion (remember to restate your question and recap your points!).

• Include as many citations as you want: I personally use at least 7 as a good measure (intro: 1, 2 per body point) use them wisely, don’t just tell me the Washington Post said that Biden’s approval rating significantly declined and then call it a day - explain it! That’s the point of extemp - give your own analysis and tie it back to your main point.

• I go more content>speaks for novices and I tend to in general - it's just easier for me to evaluate. I know it's a speaking activity and I will rank based on it - but the arguments (and the way they are phrased/explained) are just more compelling and that is how I rank speakers.

• Presentation! Speaker’s triangle is cool! Its basic but super useful - it helps me identify when you're transitioning to another point

• Project! You’re convincing me that your defense/answer to the question you chose is right and reasoning well
  
  

You've made it to the bottom! Thanks for reading; good luck and have fun!

LD and CX:

TRUTH OVER TECH.

Please no skits, roasts, songs, etc. Most other args are fine. Spreading is fine but please signpost/slow down at least with the tags.

PF:

Please share all cards before the round. Calling for cards counts against prep.

Congress:

I prefer Extemp style, which involves less *reading* to the chamber and more *speaking* to the chamber. I don't mind jokes, but I do mind crude / vulgar jokes. There are ways to be funny while maintaining decorum.

Speech Events:

I tend to prefer speaking over analysis, but just barely. Between a solid speaker with solid analysis, and a decent speaker with incredible analysis, I'll vote for the latter. I need to see Ethos (good sources), Pathos (humor, empathy, and/or vulnerability) and Logos (analysis and original thinking), though I value them in reverse order (Logos > Pathos > Ethos).

Interp Events:

With dramatic events, I definitely value realism as opposed to melodrama. With humorous events, PLEASE avoid racist/sexist etc. stereotypes and impersonations when distinguishing between characters.

hey I'm aditya! add me to the email chain. debate.ap2007@gmail.com

+0.5 speaks for whoever starts the email chain IF it's labeled properly. Ex. "TOC R3 Cinco Ranch MP vs Seven Lakes CL." ( disregard if your a novice)

TLDR; Tech>Truth. Read whatever you want. As long as it's warranted, I'll vote off of it. Otherwise, do whateveryou want as long as it isn't problematic (racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.) or else automatic L and I'm nuking your speaks. MAKE SURE TO COLLAPSE, EXTEND AND WEIGH!!!

[General]

1. Weighing wins you rounds. I evaluate weighing first so make sure to weigh EVERYTHING including turns, defense, offense, etc. Weighing should also be comparative. Please don't just stand up and say "we outweigh on timeframe". Explain to me why it matters and why it's more important than the opponent's weighing. Without comparison, I'm hesitant on voting because even if you prove your impact is bad, it doesn't mean theirs couldn't be worse. Weighing should also be done on the link level. I default to strength of link but pre req and probability is fine.

2. Please signpost. The easier it is for me to follow you on the flow, the easier it is for me to judge the round.

3. I'm not a flowing god but speed is fine with me. Just send speech doc if you're going to go over 275 wpm. You should still be clear when spreading and you shouldn't be trading off clarity for speed.

4. Extend everything you want me to evaluate. This includes turns, das, arguments, etc. Make sure to also extend every part of an argument.... uniqueness, link, internal link, impact. Impact extensions are CRUCIAL and a lot of teams tend to forget. If the opponents forget to extend an impact in first summary, just tell me and you'll win. An argument without an impact isn't an argument. Remember a claim without a warrant isn't an argument either. I won't vote on anything that isn't extended in summary and ff.

5. Flex prep is fine. Don't try to steal prep either it's obvious. You can time yourself but let me know if you want me to time as well.

6. I presume neg unless told otherwise.

7. Wear whatever you want it doesn't matter

8. I'll disclose after just ask

[Rebuttal]

Defense is not sticky. Anything not addressed by second rebuttal is conceded. You should be collapsing in second rebuttal anyway so it shouldn't be difficult to frontline. You'll probably lose if you try to go for everything so collapsing is pretty important.

[Summary and Final Focus]

Summary is by far the most important speech in the round and can come in clutch. According to Yoni Rosenbloom, summary should:

1- Tell me what arguments still stand on both sides

2- Weigh the impact of each remaining argument

3- Tell me why your team has won the round

Most importantly, my threshold for extensions in summary is extremely high. If you want me to evaluate it, please extend it. If it isn't extended, I'm crossing it out on the flow.

Final focus should mirror summary. I'm fine with new weighing in first ff but please don't read a prerequisite analysis because I'm not evaluating it. Summary and FF should also be cohesive. I'm not voting on stuff new in ff.

[Cross]

I'm not going to be paying attention in cross so if anything important happens, make sure to bring it up in a speech. Don't get too toxic and try to engage without being rude or snarky.

[Evidence]

Paraphrased evidence sucks. Read cards

if you paraphrase, have the cards cut or your speaks are gonna suffer (ignore if novice, jv, or ms)

If your cards are misconstrued, expect an auto L and nuked speaks

if evidence i s bad, tell me to call for it or else I probably won't look at it

[Framing]

Like most judges, i default to util but I'll evaluate anything

[Theory]

I don't run usually run theory and I don't have much experience with them but I'll evaluate it. Please don't run theory to pick up the ballot and only read it if an abuse actually occurs. I default to competing interps and yes RVIs unless told otherwise. I think paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good but I won't be bias.

[Kritik]

Tread with caution because I SUCK at evaluating them.

[Trix]

No...

[Postrounding]

sure why not

[Speaks]

I start at 28 and adjust from there.

+0.3 for being dripped out

+0.5 for disclosing on the wiki

+0.5 for reading cut cards

[Scale]

<26 = you were being disrespectful, had terrible evidence, was exclusionary, had terrible strategy, etc.

26-27 = you need to work on some stuff

27-28 = you were decent

28-29 = you did good

29-30 = you were amazing

at the end of the day, debate is meant to be a fun activity. I know it can get toxic sometimes so please let me know what I can do to make you feel more comfortable. If you have any questions, please ask me before and/or after the round. Most importantly......Have fun!

junior pf debater at seven lakes (the 2 in seven lakes AR) siri@ramineni.name

2x tfa qualifier, 1x gtoc qualifier

i judge like BRYCE PIOTROWSKI.

tech > truth, links > weighing. you NEED warrants and impacts– tell me why the argument ur telling me matters

this is how i go through the round:

i look at weighing first and whatever wins that i'll look at first. if u win weighing but ur losing the link, u don't win the argument and i look at the other argument. if there is no weighing, i presume the best extended and argued arg.

don't do isms

frontline in 2nd rebuttal, defense isn't sticky.

extend uniqueness, link, and impact.

go for less and explain what you go for better.

time ur own prep and speeches

u can go fast if u want, i enjoy fast debates but you still have to warrant everything

i rly do not like paraphrasing, pls read cut cards and have good evi ethics

progressive args

i like prog args

if ur running fw, make sure to use it to actually frame the round. i also would prefer if u extend it. ext v sv debates tend to become kinda repetitive and back and forth so make sure you're actually interacting with warrants.

for k's, i understand nontopical ks a bit more and am only familiar w/ topical set col, sec, and cap.

paraphrasing is bad, disclo is good, trigger warnings are bad, being topical is good, round reports are meh

speaks

i'll start at a 28.5 and go up or down based on strategy.

Bach Tran (he/him)

Please add me to the email chain: kienbtran1655 at gmail dot com

Seven Lakes '23

UT '27 (not debating)

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

Pref Shortcuts

This is based on my familiarity at evaluating things--will vote for anything that is explained well.

Policy, Trad - 1

Stock Theory/T, Ks - 2

Dense Theory/Ks - 3

Phil, Tricks - 4/Strike

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

General Things

TL;DR: I vote for anything with a warrant and impact but most comfortable with larp + basic T/Theory/Ks. Regardless of content, if you are technical and know what you are talking about, I will enjoy judging you. I generally try to follow what you say to evaluate debates before inserting my biases so the more judge instruction/comparison you do the better off you will be. Things like what is/isn't new, when can things be new, what's the bar for answering/extending stuff, how should I read a piece of evidence, how should an argument be framed, etc. are all very helpful and increase your chances of winning/getting high points.

Tech>truth--my predispositions below can be changed easily by out-debating the other team but my threshold for beating obviously dumb arguments are pretty low. My bar for what counts as a warrant is not that high and things like "dumb argument" is not a warrant.

I'm generally not that picky with extensions so long as there are properly warranted (i.e, an overview of a conceded advantage is probably fine). Obviously, the details of explanantion should vary proportional to how conceded things are--overviews are probably not enough to replace LBL work on arguments that are contested.

Non-starters: -isms, ad homs, changing speech times, self harm good (wipeout/spark/the death K is fine), eval after [X speech], speaker points theory.

Please start the email chain early/preflow/whatever so the debate can begin as close to the start time as possible.

I flow on paper. I tend to not flow author names. Speed is fine but slow down/inflect on tags and analytics and give me some pen time. Signposting, numbering, and answering arguments in order are also helpful.

Other procedural things: tell me to write stuff down in CX, probably won't time, I always disclose the RFD (+speaker points, upon request). Feel free to preround/postround/email me questions/whatever.

Speaker points: I'm generous with them as long as you are technical, strategic, and generally a nice person. My current average is in the 28.8-29 range.

If you want to initiate an ethics challenge, it's a no take-back. Winner(s) gets W30(s) and loser(s) L0(s). Would prefer that you save this for things like clipping or malicious distortions and not small violations.

Rehighlights: yes insertions if indicting author/context/less than a sentence, no if you're making new arguments/recutting the card. Debate it out if you think I should/should not evaluate certain insertions.

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

Policy

I like people who know the topic lit and are good at weighing/evidence comparison. You can read whatever as long as you can do these two things. I can be persuaded about zero risk (especially if an impact is very poorly explained).

I like impact turns. Please do 0-off impact turns/case, I promise to give you high points if execution is decent.

I will read evidence if you tell me to (no "read card", yes "read card and check for [thing]"). Good debating can usually overcome good evidence (for the most part). Good analytics + debating can beat bad arguments/cards (for the most part).

Default no judgekick, everything else (condo, PICs/whatever CP, whatever fiat/perms, etc.) are fine unless the other side reads theory. Probably slow down on dense theory stuff (mostly if you are reading like a big textual perm block or something).

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

Ks on the Neg

Know the tl;dr version of mainstream Ks (cap, set col, security and whatnot) + very vague understanding of identity/pomo stuff. Please dump down the confusing philosophies and/or granular details between different theories/authors. Unpacking buzzwords and contemporary/historical examples help a lot. Please do LBL instead of giant overviews (they are bad).

Framework: Realistically, I think "middle-road" is the most reasonable interpretation but I understand the strategic value of excluding the plan or reps/epistimology/etc. So, to each their own--I'm more than happy to weigh the plan or reject rhetoric or critically examine power structures or whatever if you win on the flow that I should do so. Judge instruction for what count as uniqueness/solvency/offense is paramount. My default is probably along the lines of "yes Ks of whatever but they must implicate plan solvency."

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

Theory/T

Send interp/counterinterp texts and slow down on your blipstorms. Default DTA (unless it's incoherent), CI, no RVIs.

I'll vote on any shell except ad homs/clothes theory but my threshold for answering silliness is probably low. If there are multiple shells please weigh them as soon as possible. I'm probably not the one for hardcore theory rounds.

"[X] is an IVI" does not automatically uplayer anything. Not voting on IVIs that miss DTD warrants when introduced.

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

K Affs

Ideally, the 1AC should defend a change from the squo at least vaguely related to the topic (doesn't have to be policy/larping the USFG) but you can do whatever if you can defend your 1AC. Probably err on more explanation of the aff/method than less.

Debate is probably a game. Anything can(not) be an impact depending on impact calc. Again, no strong opinions--but all else equal I am probably better for affs that defend a CI + impact turns vs only impact turns. That said, I also find impact turns contextualized to neg framework (i.e. "their specific explanation of fairness/limits/etc." is bad) more persuasive than categorical rejection of debate/fairness.

I think KvK rounds are really interesting but you probably want to slow down and explain interactions between the K and the aff + how the perm works (or doesn't work) because every KvK interaction has its own take on how competition functions.

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

Phil: Bad for "phil" that is tricks in disguise. Otherwise, ELI5. Slow down on analytic walls. Default presumption and permissibility negates, epistemic confidence, comparative worlds.

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

Tricks: Probably quite bad for this but if you want to go for skep or something feel free. I need lots of hand-holding/judge instruction to evaluate these debates. Will be impressed if you can convince me to abandon reality and vote for stuff like condo logic or trivialism.

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

Trad: Sure. I am more than capable but trad rounds are usually very boring and messy to evaluate. Good for technical debating, bad for yapping/grandstanding, "framework is a voting issue" (no it's not), "LD is for vAlUe dEbAtE" (no it's certainly not) and such.

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

PF Stuff

Most of the stuff above applies where applicable (the policy section is probably most relevant to PF). I'm also down for theory/the K/whatever if you want to (you still need to explain the arguments though...don't just read LD/CX backfiles and call it a day).

Evidence rant:

--No Google Docs. Absolutely not.

--If you don't send evidence/speech docs before speeches I am capping your speaker points at a 28. I don't super care how you share evidence, but if you don't and the round drags on forever, I will be very grumpy. Also if you do paraphrase I want cut cards at the bottom (at that point, why not just read the cut cards...but what do I know...).

--I think generally disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad but will still vote on the flow if you win your stuff. If debated evenly, I probably will never vote on paraphrasing good...

--I don't know how PFers get away with reading one-line, unwarranted "cards" with random prepositions as taglines that get spun out of proportions in the backhalf. Having quality evidence (i.e., warranted and written by qualified people) matters a lot, especially when the debating is even/close. Teams should also challenge silly/unwarranted extrapolations of terrible evidence more. If the other team says a blog post is somehow a "meta-study," you should point that out and I will most likely concur. Or alternatively just read better cards and explain evidence in a consistent manner.

2nd rebuttal and every speech after should probably frontline and collapse but I'm open to ignoring this if you can theoretically justify not doing so. In general, I think answering case in 2nd constructive is an interesting strategy. A full-on, well-executed impact turn dump in 2nd constructive will probably earn you very high points.

I like a lot of warranted, comparative weighing. Please do more link/internal link weighing--I do not care if your impact outweigh if you concede a bunch of link defense. The more warrants/examples you add to this step the easier it would be for both of us. Judge instruction is crucial in the backhalf and good execution will be rewarded with high points.

Trigger warnings: obviously you should include TWs for objectively triggering content. I will vote for trigger warning theory but would rather not. Please just be nice to others and don't weaponize others' suffering for competitive benefit.

Please don't yell over each other in cross/grand cross.

compete on the nat circ

put me on the email chain: jzhao25@mail.strakejesuit.org

feel free to reach out if u have questions

prefs

larp - 1

theory/kritiks - 2

k affs - 3

trix - 4

big picture stuff

tech > truth

debate is a game ill vote off anything with warrants

do anything u want as long as its not problematic i.e racist, homophobic, etc

collapse extend and weigh

if ur going 250+ wpm send a doc

speed is a tool that should be used to explain things better and give them more breadth not to spam warrantless arguments but a good dump is always appreciated

weighing needs to be comparative and meta weighing or link weighing are good way to clear up the weighing debate

dont try to hide new defense as "probability weighing"

sol weighing is only relevant if the arg is conceded and u do meta weighing off of sol

link weighing > impact weighing

anything that isnt frontlined in second rebuttal is conceded

turns need to be implicated and weighed

cross doesnt matter to me

stuff in ff has to be in summary and needs an explicit extensions of unq link internal link and impact for anything u go for

default neg but u can make args for defaulting aff/neg or 1st/2nd

no new presumption warrants in ff

pls no off the clock roadmap just signpost

prog

fine w theory - dont need to extend interp/violation in rebuttal but the shell should be read in the speech after the violation

default to yes rvis competing interps and spirit over text

no rvis doesnt mean ur shell is a no risk offense issue - if someone wins a link turn on ur shell or that their ci is better u lose

if multiple shells are being read they need to be weighed against each other

paraphrasing is bad disclosure is good but it doesnt mean ill hack for those arguments

not well versed in more complex k lit like baudrillard but i have a good understanding of the stock stuff like cap, security, set col, etc so run at ur risk

try to make the k as accessible as possible so that a parent could understand

low threshold to responses to trix and dont hide them in tags