policy:

tech>truth if someone says something absurd and outright false you should have the debate skills to technically combat it and vice versa.

even if you spread the whole speech you should at least dumb the arguments down for me at the end and explain concisely why i have to vote for you and how the evidence clashes out, i will not vote you unless you tell me how and why im voting for you.

im ok with pretty much any arguments that are well done, you're allowed to be mean but dont be horrible to each other and there should still be a level of respect.

cross ex is for you to ask genuine questions so you can genuinely understand the arguments, you can try to make args by asking targeted questions if you want idrc but youre only wasting time imo.

there is a special place in my heart for really expressive/emotional speeches where you make the judge really feel the impacts and you sound like you genuinely care, if you do this effectively youll get higher speaks but if thats not your style thats fine.

wsd:

• the way you evaluate things should be very clash centered and make sure you give credit to the other side where credit is due and dont strawman

style: im alright with speed as long as you sound eloquent and everything is coherent, show emotion if thats fitting for your style you can also get great style points for being hella techy as long as it again makes sense for your style. be loud and clear and overall just use rhetoric that makes you very persuasive.

content: clearly outline incentives and give very thorough analysis on each clash + break down the other side's args. give very good warranting and dont forget abt impacts at the end. content is also like how many GOOD examples you can provide and how well you can explain precendency with historical events.

strat: things that I look for in the strategy part of the round are: is the team consistent down the bench in terms of their path to winning the round, did the team put forward a reasonable interpretation of the motion, did the team correctly identify where the most clash was happening in the round. strat is being able to identify which args dont hold much weight in the round and which do, then allocating time accordingly. strat is also using tactics to get the other side to waste time. pois also come in here! etc etc you get the gist.

email chain -tvishadallas@gmail.com

junior @ Coppell hs -- Coppell JS

I'll vote for anything except

a) isms good

and I’ll vote you down if you display homophobic/transphobic/racist/sexist behavior -- there is no bright line and this will be determined on a case-by-case basis by me.

I'll flow cross-ex and I like k debate.

also like da, AND THE T (like t-taxes) debate.

• certainly not the best for a counterplan competition debate

• largely enjoy case debating (aka, smart solvency takeouts and impact turns)

• i can keep up with pretty much any kritik you want to read

• i love fw v k aff debates (it's what i spend almost all my time thinking about and i am less biased than what you probably assume)

Have fun and ask many questions!! Postrounding can only be educational for either you or me.

Ameya Kulkarni

Coppell '24

1. Email for the chain: ameya.alt@gmail.com
2. I am fine with almost every argument (given that it is not racist, sexist, etc.) do what you are good at and I'll do my best to evaluate the round in front of me
3. Clarity > Speed. I can't flow you if I can't understand you

Hi friends I'm Shreeya, I'm a senior at Greenhill and I do policy.

add me to the email chain: shreeyadesikan@gmail.com

Please judge instruction

Don't be racist homophobic sexist pls

time your own speeches and prep

In order for me to vote on an argument you need to extend + implicate your claim, i.e. you need a well warranted argument that has an actual impact in round

Be nice to each other, have fun! This should be fun!!!

Tejas Murugesh

he/him

Jesuit '23, IU Bloomington '27 - currently a freshman

Updated somewhat but does not cover econ stuff 2/1/2024

---I hope you realize for T and any procedural arguments that I will not follow as well along with your caselists and blippy lists - so I would rather have more explanation-y oriented stuff than the blippy lists

Yes email chain please - tejassmurugesh@gmail.com

Top Level

People do not use current evens

All in all, go for what you are best at going at -- I can evaluate most arguments BUT you must always assume that I cannot understand something i.e. don't go for the cap k and just say cap causes war without warranting it out.

Truth > Tech but can be convinced otherwise that is explained and justified i.e. you can't just say you win an argument because it's dropped. However, I err more on the truth side when it comes to bad ev quality and I try my best to pay attention to news.After spending a couple months off of debate, I hope you realize how terribly awful it is to read cards that don't assume current events. They are like history books...it already happened!

I will do my best to evaluate arguments from the flow, but if you tell me (i.e. during your speech) to read a card after the round for an argument you extended in the final rebuttals, and the card says the opposite of what you said, then that argument will be null. Regardless, telling me to read a card so you don't have to do the actual warrant extension/why it matters is a BAD strategy in front of me, especially with the terrible ev quality we have these days.

I do not endorse reading a ton of off - like 10 off - it's such an awful model of debate - if you are a policy team on the neg, you can EASILY crush the aff with just like 6 off (without having to make me waste more trees with 10 off - but I still am wasting trees lol) - and making smart args you will be fine. Even that isn't necessary, I was a one off K debater and was happy enough with the run I had

I am not going to make arguments for you. I flow on paper, and that means I will SOLELY evaluate what warrants YOU have extended, nothing more. The only time I am going to make arguments for myself is when there is no clash, requiring me to evaluate and compare the merits of each argument and card on my own. BUT of course that won't happen because you are a great debater, and if you think you're not, well then fake it till you make it! You are each your own unique snowflake!

A theme you will notice is the contextualization of an argument to a given debate = best thing to ever do in front of me. Too many people read blocks for arguments that sound unpersuasive and make it hard to vote on.

Below are my preferences:

CPs

I dont really vibe with artificially competitive CPs, sorry not sorry! :)

I'm not doing this judge kick nonsense for you. If you're gonna go for an arg in the 2NR, then that's YOUR decision, not mine

Having a good, specific solvency advocate makes it a lot more convincing to vote on. When you start to get process-y, you need a quick overview explaining the mechanism.

For the aff, specific theory is underutilized (see theory section below). Smart permutations (like combining texts of aff and CP in unique ways etc.) show me you think outside the box, and executing and flushing out the permutation makes it super convincing.

Explain how the perm looks like/how it solves and how shields link to net benefit

If you are going for a CP flaw, impact the argument out - saying something along the lines of, "The CP text is wrong, so that means vote aff," then that is not a complete argument for me. I need standards - and ultimately a persuasive reason(s) why the incorrectness of the CP text means to vote aff (the same goes for the neg on aff plan flaws).

DAs

A good politics debater is 90% spin and 10% truth. Just kidding, you need some updated ev to win in front of me.

Heavy impact calculus coupled with link walls that have spin and contextualized (assuming you are winning the uniqueness debate) to the aff is best. All parts of a DA must be won (uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact); otherwise, it is an incomplete argument. Read cards when necessary, not just for the sake of being a policy argument.

Good evidence quality matters a lot.

Topicality

Default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise. Case lists that include affs allowed under your interp and affs allowed under the counter-interpretation, tying that in with a clear internal link and impact extension = yes please. Reading a lot of cards doesn't do much for me unless you say what you are doing with those cards (like if it's to prove your precision standard etc).

Theory

I am more likely to vote on your argument if you are making a specific theory argument and have detailed impact calculus over one-liner arguments - AND DON'T READ IT FAST PLEASEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE (bc I actually have to flow all ur stuff as a judge - I can't just be goofing around or prepping like the other team who would not be listening)

If debating a CP, I find specific theory arguments tons more convincing (example: 50 state fiat vs. conditional 50 state fiat with no solvency advocate). Every argument is a reason to reject the argument, not the team, unless told otherwise.

Ks

How I evaluate Ks at the end of the debate (unless you instruct me to do differently) -- FW, link, impact, alt

Link arguments contextualized to the aff are most persuasive to me. Having a generic link arg in the 1NC is ok, but I would really love to see research and evidentiary innovation -- having specific links shows a lot to me about your strategy thinking.

Doing a lot of work on the FW page is great and all - BUT you need to say WHY THAT MATTERS!!!!!!!! I always start on framework as the framework interpretation that wins is the one I will use as a lens to evaluate the rest of the arguments on the flow. A lot of negative interpretations need to be fleshed out more than people think they do to actually make it useful for the rest of the flow, coupled with saying what winning FW means for the rest of the flow (this goes for K affs as well); otherwise, I don't know what your big K word salad is despite having read some of the common literature bases used in debate.

If the neg says something like "the judge should evaluate the epistemological implications of the aff's research practices," then that's a pretty ambiguous interp - it becomes less ambiguous when you define what are "epistemological implications" and "aff's research practices" in the context of this debate - like just edit your blocks with some specific examples and ta-da it's a lot more interesting!

If the aff says something like "weigh the consequences of the plan/aff vs the k" - then define for me what the consequences are in this debate - because otherwise the neg will just make consequences fit their own definition and not give you the offense you want.

For the aff, I find offensive reasons against the alternative quite impressive coupled with reasons how the aff might avoid that; however, permutation/link turn strategies are quite nice as well (I personally did this one the most). I do think that when a K is a non-starter for the neg team to go for (as in just being a time suck for the 2AC to card dump), then I think the aff should make that clear in CX - BUT if the aff messes up in the 2AC because of that and then the neg takes the aff on it...I'll definitely consider it.

Also for the aff -- if you're always going for that same impact turn strategy -- it has to be specific to the K and what is happening in that debate. Too many debaters' 2AR sounds like it can be copied and pasted into any other debate and I wouldn't even notice -- and the same goes for the neg with all your scripts.

Framework vs K affs

Procedural fairness is fine to run in MOST instances - you can still run it but I would be careful with your words, most especially with Ks of 1) debate and 2) the topic that err more on the identity side - if you make some sort of actually pejorative argument towards any folk, than I might have to seriously consider auto voting. I generally find impacts like skills and education more persuasive than fairness as a lot of teams when going for fairness just say, "It's an intrinsic good to debate." I can always be persuaded otherwise by this if you actually impact out fairness - like trust me I'm all for it just impact it out

Arguments about why your impact turns the aff's impacts is quite persuasive coupled with external reasons = high chance I'm voting for you.

Negatives reading arguments about how there are other ways that the aff would be accessible outside of this debate (like going to a book club and reading their scholarship etc.) are quite persuasive as well.

TVA/SSD are quite useful because most affs don't have good defense to them.

Saying FW is policing because it causes psychic violence is a tough argument for me to vote on - this is a voluntary activity, and if you actually are feeling psychic violence then I am here to help.

Case vs K affs

Presumption is soooooooooooo badddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd. Unless it's against like some high theory mash-up jumbo bumbo soup, then sure. But like if it's against some K aff that's in the direction of the topic and is just like a really big K of debate community -- then pleaseeeeeeeeee for the love of god to nottttt go for it.

You are much better off with saying why the aff's method is bad, why their theory of power is bad, and if they reject the state then say why state and institutional engagement good. and you know all the other types of those args are good too.

K affs

Sure, but am more likely to vote on a well-researched topic-y aff rather than a generic one that has no tie to the topic and/or is a backfile, so if you are reading one that has no tie to the topic/generic, make sure to be on your A game. Judge instruction vs T-FW is very very useful.

With the amount of mash-up K affs these days and if the aff wants to have a high chance of winning, then you need to have a quick overview at the top of the case page explaining what your advantage/theory of power/construction of the world is about and what your advocacy is. Or even a 10 second one of just saying the advocacy statement in easier words really goes a long way. That way I can really plunge my brain into your type of theory of power (and this honestly goes for all theories - what would an anticapitalist ecosocialist think of economic policy?? you get the idea)

Miscellaneous & Stylistic Items

Extending evidence means saying saying the warrants you are extending to support your argument in addition to perhaps referring to the author name

Clarity > speed otherwise I can't flow you, which means if I can't flow you then I don't know what arguments you are speaking and hence you are kinda screwed

Line by line > your own order

Speaker points

Russia invaded Ukraine, there's a conflict between Palestine and Israel, there's constant political changes happening all the time in literally every sphere, COP28 just happened in early December, etc. You gotta mention all the possible current events or have inherency cards (for your specific arg/theory) to prove your point is true. Remember, debate is a scholarly activity that revolves around what is happening rn, not yesterday, but NOW!

27.5 and above. Strategic usage of cross-ex by setting up your arguments and asking questions that shed light on the sketchiness of the other team's argument means your points will increase. Ima put you real low if you be asking me for points or telling me how to do points cuz that's just wrong

Another way to increase points is choosing certain arguments in the rebuttals and thoroughly extending them, clashing with the other team's arguments, meaning the 1AR-2AR (same for the neg) should not be re-reading the 2ac.

Being rude, racist, sexist, etc. would decrease points and potentially lose you the debate if it becomes too much. But I know that you won't do that because you are a nice human being and must exemplify that. Debate is merely a competitive activity, not the $5 million lottery (and nor is it a gambling addiction). Enjoy the ability to engage in such a fun and novel activity when the world is not doing the best right now. Be the policy maker or critical theorist you always wanted to do.

Speaker points should not be your goal in debates, but you, as a novice/JV, should focus on the argument at hand in the debate. Honestly, if you want good speaks, don't be a jerk and get your head into the game (i.e. this debate round).

Trishay (he/they)

Coppell NK

Email Chain: trinaman09@gmail.com

Top Level

I am completely disinterested in adjudicating arguments that explicitly claim racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia or transphobia to be good. Neither am I interested in listening to death good or self-harm arguments. Wipeout isn't necessarily the same as the latter two.

Although I've mainly researched and debated critical arguments for the past 2 years, I feel comfortable adjudicating almost anything.

Ballot framing that consolidates winning arguments at the top of the 2NR/2AR, although rarely done correctly, will boost speaker points, make decisions quicker, and most likely make everyone in the room happier. If done correctly, the first 20 seconds of the 2NR/2AR should be the words you expect me to say back to you during my RFD.

I enjoy debates and debaters that keep rounds light-hearted. Humor and trash talking are great given that it is kept respectful.

Judge Instruction

I've seen far too many frustrating decisions during my time debating. Here's where I will try to make better decisions than them.

1. They intervene with personal beliefs, despite claiming to be "truth over tech" or "unbiased". Although every argument I adjudicate will have a different relation and interpretation to me just like everyone else in the room, I will attempt to adjudicate and reach a decision solely on the words you say. If that's insufficient to reach a decision either way--and it often isn't--I will add the minimum work necessary to come to a decision. The more work I have to do, the wider the range of uncertainty for you and the lower your speaks go.

2. They pull the trigger on one argument without considering the rest of the debate. Although dropped arguments can be devastating, I will almost never vote for a single dropped arguments. Doing so makes debate grounded solely in technics and scriptocentrism while overlooking the research, styles of argumentation, and performative/dialogic aspects of the activity. This approach makes deserving students walk out of rooms with frustration and anxiety despite working countless hours towards the activity; only to lose because the judge wants to make the fastest and self-preserving decision. As someone who has felt this frustration far too many times, I hope that my RFDs will be able to reward the research and effort you've put into the activity

3. They develop an affinity for one side based on biases or affiliations. I don't care what you wear, how you present yourself, or how you wish to perform in this space.

4. They aren't listening carefully. They're mentally checked out, flowing off the speech doc, distracted by social media, or have half their headphones off and are taking selfies during the 1AR. I will attempt to flow every single detail of your speeches. I will probably take notes during CX if I think it could affect my decision. If you worked hard on debate, you deserve a judge who works hard as well.

5. They give poorly reasoned decisions that rely on gut instincts and ignore arguments made in the 2NR/2AR. I will probably take my sweet time making and writing my decision. I will try to be as thorough and transparent as possible. If I intervene anywhere, I will explain why I had to intervene and how you could've prevented that intervention. If I didn't catch or evaluate an argument, I will explain why you under-explained or failed to extend it. I will try to anticipate your questions and preemptively answer them in my decision.

6. They reconstruct the debate and try to find the most creative and convoluted path to a ballot. I guess they're trying to prove they're smart? These decisions are detestable because they take the debate away from the hands of the debaters. If there are multiple paths to victory for both teams, I will take what I think is the shortest path and explain why I think it's the shortest path, and you can influence my decision by explaining why you control the shortest path. But, I'm not going to use my decision to attempt to prove I'm more clever than the participants of the debate.

Disadvantages/Case

Turns case only matters if the timeframe is won.

Good impact calculus and scenario analysis wins debates. Comparing the size of internal links and weighing the entire disadvantage scenario to craft a story strongly benefits the team doing the work.

Zero risk is possible but pretty difficult to prove by the aff. However, a miniscule neg risk of the disad is probably background noise.

Rehighlighting 1AC/2AC cards in the block to prove link arguments is far more convincing than reading ten cards that all say the same thing. Specificity/evidence quality are good in link debates and should be referenced in judge instruction.

Topicality

Tech over truth.

Predictability vs debatability depends on what impact you choose to go for. Debatability is more convincing for clash and topic education arguments.

Reasonability is a debate about the aff’s counter-interpretation, not the aff itself. The size of the link to the limits disad usually determines how sympathetic I am towards this argument. If the link is small, then I’m more likely to conclude the aff’s C/I is reasonable even without other aff offense.

Counterplans

Judge kick automatically unless told otherwise and only if there is no offense on the counterplan.

Presumption is in the direction of less change. If left to my own devices, I will probably conclude that most counterplans that are not explicitly PICs are a larger change than the aff.

Counterplan theory debates are boring but sometimes necessary.

Condo is generally good. 5+ condo probably not.

Counterplans without solvency advocates justify new 1AR responses.

Plan v K

Convincing link debating can compensate for other parts of the flow (theory of power, framework, etc).

Although I enjoy kritik debates that get heavy into the theory and contest the aff through solid link debating, I understand the competitive appeal of framework heavy debates and fiat Ks.

I'm comfortable with almost every vein of literature. I mainly read afropessimism and queer theory, if that matters.

Butchering literature may not lose you the debate but it will make me sad.

K v FW

My ballot generally goes to the team with higher quality technical debating. Although concessions are not damning, they may be if your strategy is narrow and can't sidestep arguments with multiple non-contingent 2NRs/2ARs.

Being on the K side of these debates has made me internalize framework and normative debate procedure if anything. Phrasing and performance matters, even if form and content may be separate.

I think I am slightly better for fairness than clash, but mainly because most debaters don't do the work of explaining the benefits to their model enough by assuming its already a given.

Debate might shape subjectivity, but the bigger question is about whether ballots do.

I'm not a referee. I judge rounds.

Fairness has impacts and might itself be an impact. Critical teams that win against fairness usually don't win by yelling "Fairness is an internal link" more times than the other side can yell "Fairness is THE impact". Same vice versa. Explaining the implication of fairness arguments relative to your impact on debate/people/the world relative to the ballot makes my decision easier for whoever does so.

Switch side debate is heavily underutilized. Affs must explain the importance of iteration to win against this argument. Rev v Rev debates must have an impact beyond "you exclude it".

The TVAs I've seen are not nearly as creative as they could potentially be.

K v K

Aff probably gets a perm.

Good link debating that pulls quotes from the aff is usually devastating especially when used to undermine legitimacy of case offense.

Good for dense critiques. Avoiding cross ex questions makes it hard to vote for you unless that redaction is warranted by the literature

Other Notes

- Speed is fine. I don't follow the document.

- Recognizing Offense vs Defense is important, especially because zero risk is almost impossible.

- Heavy on holding the line for the 2NR in terms of 1AR/2AR coherence

- Impact comparison, judge instruction, hand holding, ballot key warrants (if applicable), are what win debates at the highest level when the technical skills of each side are equal

- I will only read cards if explicitly told in the 2NR/2AR. No card doc.

- Don't steal prep, send 1AC before the round. Sending the doc doesn't count as prep but please don't "send it on the wrong chain" 12 times :(

coppell '24

run what you're good at and comfortable with; ill vote on any argument as long as its not racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

if you're fast: that's good, but make sure I can understand what you are saying (if I can't hear you I cant flow your arguments)

email for chain: yaalprabhu@gmail.com