Hello, My Name is Brigido Cruz, I like for the competitor be clear and loud as I may miss something, just speak up a bit. But for the most part I prefer you use the format that is comfortable with you. Please introduce yourself before speeches. And NO RUDENESS PLEASE, Let's be respectful and have a good debate.

A little about me:

Currently coaching: Sage Hill School 2020-Present

Past Coaching: Diamond Ranch HS 2015-2020

I also tab more tournaments, but I keep up with my team so I can follow many of the trends in all events.

-

I prefer all of my speakers to make sure that any contentions, plans or the like are clear and always link back to the topic at hand. You're free to run theory or K at your peril. I've heard great rounds on Afro-pessimism and bad rounds on it. I've loved a round full of theory and hated rounds full of theory. All depends on how it's done, and what the point of it.

I am a social studies teacher, so I can't unknow the rules of American government or economics. Don't attempt to stay something that is factually inaccurate that you would know in your classes.

Be respectful of all parties in the room - your opponent(s), your partner (if applicable) and the judge. Hurtful language is in not something I tolerate. Pronouns in your names are an added plus.

Speaking clearly, even if fast, is fine, but spreading can be difficult to understand, especially through two computers. I will say "Clear" if I need to. In an online format, please slow down for the first minute if possible. I haven't had to listen to spreading with online debate.

For LD, I don't mind counterplans and theory discussions as long as they are germane to the topic and as long as they don't result in debating the rules of debate rather than the topic itself. In the last year most of my LD rounds have not been at TOC bid tournaments, but that doesn't mean I can't follow most arguments, but be patient as I adjust.

Truth > tech.

*It's work to make me vote on extinction or nuclear war as a terminal impact in any debate. That link chain needs to be solid if you're doing to expect me to believe it.*

In PF, make sure that you explain your terminal impacts and tell me why I should weight your impacts vs your opponents' impacts.

WSD - I have been around enough tournaments to know what I should hear and I will notice if you're not doing it well. Thinking global always. Models should always be well explained and match the focus on the round. Fiat is a tricky thing in the event now but use it as you see fit.

samuel.juhl@dmschools.org

I am in my 4^th year of coaching speech at East High School in Des Moines. I competed as a student in LD in high school. I have judged every IE event and every debate event. I primarily view debate as an educational activity. If debate weren’t a place for students to develop speaking and argumentation skills, I think debate would have almost no value and I wouldn’t be spending my valuable time away from my small children coaching and judging debate. I’ve broken down my paradigm into sections so that you can skip to the portions of the paradigm that apply to you.

LD/PF

Because I primarily participate in debate for the educational value. I am a Truth>Tech judge but I want to explain what that does/doesn’t mean to me. Truth>Tech doesn’t mean that you don’t have to respond to your opponents’ factually spurious arguments. I’m still going to rely heavily on my flow to determine the outcome of the round. I think it is fundamentally unfair to insert my own arguments into a round though I will do it if a competitor is arguing something abhorrent ie: that it is morally good to kill children or something.

Truth>Tech does mean that unserious arguments do not require a response. Logical fallacies exist for a reason and modern debate is filled with logical fallacy abuse. If in LD, you use a non-topical nazi analysis to point to some problem with a moral framework I likely won’t take that argument as seriously as a resolution critique of the moral framework. Similarly, I don’t find many of slippery slope arguments that have 40 links to some colossal impact to be especially strong arguments either. This doesn’t mean that you can’t win with these arguments on my ballot it just means that I am going to be receptive to responses that point out the problems with slippery slope arguments or bringing everything back to the third Reich when we are debating public service or something.

I expect you to fully articulate your arguments. Don’t just tell me that your first contention turns their second contention tell me why your first contention turns their second contention. Similarly, don’t just make the claim that some behavior is bad for debate, tell me why the behavior is bad for debate. A claim isn’t an argument and won’t really get acknowledged as one on my flow.

I realize that this is debate and not speech and so I don't decide debate rounds on speaking skills but rather the argumentation. However, an argument rendered incomprehensible because of the rate of a person’s speaking is the same as an argument not made on my ballot. I will not read a speech doc unless the document is an accommodation to allow someone to participate in debate. Debate, be definition, is an oral activity and I think that reading speech documents invites the judge to understand arguments that have been ineffectively articulated in round and is a form of judge intervention.

Unless a tournament tells me not to, I will always disclose, and I almost always tell the losing competitor(s) what they could do to have won my ballot in the round. I will sometimes provide feedback about how I would have argued for or against a point but unless those arguments were made by students in the round, they won’t affect my ballot.

Congressional debate

Speeches should be well organized. By this I mean the listener should be able to clearly delineate between your points, introduction, and conclusion. If the delineation between these things is unclear to me, the listener, your speech isn't organized enough. This does not mean reading me a list. A list is better than no organization, but the lists are basic. Think about ways to organize a speech without just going 123

Your speech, when appropriate, should be well supported by reliable and relevant sources. If you can't find research or credible analysis to back up a point that doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't make it but your speech shouldn't be entirely filled with this type of argument. Additionally, I would caution you to avoid simply making an appeal to authority in your speech make sure the source of your information is properly credentialed before making a claim

I prefer an extemporaneous delivery. Computers/notepads should be used as a reference rather than as a script. I also prefer a more polished delivery in which eye contact is more frequently maintained and a student’s movement is controlled so that it enhances the speech rather than distracts the listener. I can handle faster speech speeds but to a reasonable limit. I need people to speak at a reasonable volume. I need to be able to hear you, but yelling is also inappropriate.

Your speech should bring up new information. If your points have already been made in round, then don't waste everyone's time by repeating them. Secondly, While I understand that crystallization speeches are popular in the congressional "meta" they have to be well done and actually work to clearly delineate why one sides arguments are preferable to the other sides arguments. If all you have done is summarize the arguments the other speakers have made in round you have wasted everyone's time.

This is congressional debate not congressional speech. While I can understand a lack of clash in the authorship speech, I believe that all other speeches in a cycle of debate should make a clear attempt at refuting the specific arguments that other speakers have made in round. Bonus points if you can set up these arguments using a questioning block to draw attention to the flaws in your opponent’s logic.

If you are speaking in the negation, please don't center your argument around a problem that can be amended away. Write an amendment. If your problem with a bill is that it appropriates 20 million dollars instead of the 25 million that it should have fix that problem with an amendment.

While the PO is responsible for running a smooth and equitable chamber it is not only the responsibility of the PO. debaters that have a clear understanding of the rules and don't disrupt the chamber by making incorrect motions or violating chamber rules will be more highly ranked.

For PO’s: I care that you run a smooth and equitable chamber. Make sure you are properly following rules for recency and precedence. Additionally, where rules/procedural issues arise I expect you to be able to handle them without relying on the parliamentarian I will say that I typically have a hard time ranking POs at the top of the chamber unless the quality of debate is exceedingly low or the PO is exceptionally proficient. However, I will usually rank the PO in the top 5 if there are no serious errors in the way they conduct their chamber.

Speech

I consider your decision of what piece to perform one of the many decisions that I will evaluate in round. If your piece is problematic in its portrayal of people with mental illnesses or you are depicting an act/event I don't think is appropriate that will affect your final rank. I am tired of judging rounds in which students mine traumatic events that happen to real people in the real world to win a high school speech contest and that fatigue will start being reflected in the final ranks I assign after speech rounds.

Speeches should be well organized. By this I mean the listener should be able to clearly delineate between your points, introduction, and conclusion. If the delineation between these things is unclear to me, the listener, your speech isn't organized enough. This does not mean reading me a list. A list is better than no organization, but the lists are basic. Think about ways to organize a speech without just going 123

Your speech, when appropriate, should be well supported by reliable and relevant sources. If you can't find research or credible analysis to back up a point that doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't make it but your speech shouldn't be entirely filled with this type of argument. Additionally, I would caution you to avoid simply making an appeal to authority in your speech make sure the source of your information is properly credentialed before making a claim

I don’t judge visual aids in informative speaking. If the visual aid detracts from your speech, it will hurt your score. If the visual aid enhances your speech, it will help your score. If you have no visual aid but deliver a stellar speech I will give you a high rank.

Finally, I place a high emphasis on actually answering the prompt in USX, IX and Spontaneous Speaking. Try to make sure you answer the question you’ve been asked and aren’t doing something adjacent to it. I will rank people who do not actually answer the question at the bottom of the chamber.

I am a parent volunteer judge. This is the first time that I serve as a judge for the Public Form debates, but I have always been an avid reader of current news and column articles on the various political and social issues that are the topics of PF debates. I am an evidence-based judge and I can handle moderate speed, but not fast speed. I am looking forward to working with other judges and participants in the upcoming events.

hi my name is sasha (clark 23' plano west 25') and i fw debate on the low

qualifications:

extemp toc champ 24' | asu champ 24' | toc 23'24'25' | tfa, glen, emory finals

however that means i've based my paradigm off of the people that i've debated with, and the people i've been privy to sharing this space with. i largely grab ideas and word for word sections of my paradigm from:

RYAN CHANG, NAVID SHEYBANI, DAVID HUSTON, ANGEL RIBO, SKANDA GOPIKANNAN, ESHAAN CHACHAD, VIVIAN HO, HOLDEN BUKOWSKY, ARI DAVIDSON, REGGIE CHAPMAN, NEAL WHITE, MAIMUNA ILYAS, ROSHAN SHIVNANER, DAVID & AVA CUI, PLAYBOI CARTI, AMRITA SHYAM, ESTHER "bearuh" JESS, SAHITH REDDY, ARRMAN? KAPOOR?

for email chain: sasha.morel.2007@gmail.com

Tech > Truth, but all arguments need a coherent warrant and impact. Read what you are comfortable going for! I'm better for some debates than others, but this is ultimately your round to learn and have fun. I consider myself flex, so I'm equally good for everything but not amazing.

TLDR

1. Be good people. Racism, homophobia, etc. will get you dropped. Be respectful before, during, and after the debate to the people around you (something you should do anyways) and don't cheat with evidence.

2. If you are clear, I can handle any speed. I will only judge based off of what I get down, so if you're unintelligible, that's on you. Above all, make sure your opponent is fine with it.

3. Not doing any work for you. Extend things yourself, explain your arguments to me, and read your rehighlights. Let me know if I should take a look at specific pieces of evidence, what layer I should think about first, what arguments I should reject for what reason, etc.

4. Disclose properly. Breaking new is fine, but everything else should be done at least 30 minutes before the round. I'm probably never voting on New Affs Bad.

PREF SHEET

1. K

2. Policy

3. Theory

4. T/Tricks

5. Phil (bro plz strike)

argument specifics (the numbers/letters DO NOT mean anything that's just for navigation)

note: this goes for both sides (e.g., kritik means k negs and -affs)

1. phil - hold my hand for anything that is past kant or any derivative of util. i am probably (surely) not the best judge for anything past these.

a) explain/warrant out the syllogism to me like i'm a parent

2. the kritik - love it. please make the alt/solvency mechanism clear, as well as cleanly extend them if you want me to vote on your for it. i will be pressured to vote against you on topicality (for planless affs) if you don't adequately respond to any form of it. just make sure the links are contextual to the topic or are specific, NOT anything randomly pulled out of a pat backfile and read on a teenager at 8 a.m.

a) 1ac quotes are great if they genuinely link. like this will make my morning/afternoon/night much better

b) dylan said it best: "[i] strongly dislike the trend of identity-based arguments that appropriate the language of antiblackness literature to make their argument"

c) make sure turns case is in the 2nr with your link o/v or something like that; i'll be tempted to not buy it regardless of how well it was extended because at that point why care?

3. policy - yeah that's great. i will vote on plan affs, da, cps, etc.

a) make a turns case argument in the 2nr and weigh accordingly

b) if your internal links are nonexistent/bad i will be pressured to vote neg on presumption

4. theory - sure if it's a genuine violation/abuse, just warrant it out

a) if it's frivolousANDun-/under-covered, i will vote for you but just know you ruined my day

5. tricks - strike me if you absolutely desire running this

6. topicality - a note: mygood friend and teammate angel ribohas an excellent paradigm on this.tl;dr, i'll buy it but "weigh, weigh, weigh".

STYLE:

As stated above, if you are not clear, I will tell you so. If I have to tell you more than once, I will give much less weight to the argument than you wish me to do so. Tag-team CX is okay as long as one partner does not dominate the discussion. I will let you know when that becomes the case. If you wish me to disclose and discuss the argument, you may challenge respectfully and politely. Attempts at making me look ridiculous (which at times is not difficult) to demonstrate your superior intelligence does little to persuade me that I was wrong. My response may very well be “If I’m so stupid, why did you choose to argue things this way?” I do enjoy humor and will laugh at appropriate attempts at it. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. Make them specific. Just a question which starts with "Do you have a paradigm?" will most likely be answered with a "yes" with little or no explanation beyond that. You should get the picture from that.

TOPICALITY

My normal defaults:

- Competing interps

- Drop the debater

- No RVI's

Reasonability is about your counter-interp, not your aff. People need to relearn how to go for this because it's a lost art in the age of endless theory debates.

Arbitrary counter-interpretations that are not carded or based on evidence are given significantly less weight than counter-interps that define words in the resolution. "Your interp plus my aff" is a bad argument, and you are better served going for a more substantive argument.

Slow down a bit in these debates, I consider myself a decent flow but T is a monster in terms of the constant short arguments that arise in these debates so please give me typing time.

You should probably make a larger impact argument about why topicality matters "voters" if you will. Some standards are impacts on their own (precision mainly) but outside of that I have trouble understanding why limits explosion is bad sans some external argument about why making debate harder is bad.

Weigh internal links to similar pieces of offense, please and thank you.

SPEAKS

29.7-29.9: Near perfect execution. If your performance was replicated consistently, you would deserve to be in the top 5 speakers at the tournament and reach deep elims. I do not give this out very often

29.4-29.6: Great execution, but not novel or exciting/parts of the debate seemed like throwaway arguments. There were a couple missed opportunities or mistakes, but overall a proficient performance. If this speaking was replicated consistently, you would be in the top 20 speakers at the tournament and reach the quarters.This is where most of my higher-end points lie.

29-29.3: Very good execution. If replicated, you might get a speaker award, you'd certainly clear, and you may win an elim. This is where most of my "winning" points lie.

28.7-28.9: Above average execution + you could clear.

28-28.6: On par with the middle of the pack. Speeches need work on technical proficiency, block writing, proper use and comparison of evidence, etc.

27.5-27.9: Speeches and CX execution need work, we're not effectively answering the opponent's arguments, speech order is messy and not cohesive, speaker is unclear and could benefit from speaking drills.

27-27.4: Lack of attention to opponent's arguments, improper division of speech/CX time and energy, dead speech time, ineffective use of prep, etc.

25-26.9: Speeches seem lost, leaving time on the clock, CX is spent asking clarification or "wouldn't you agree that..." questions, etc.

20: You have done something wrong interpersonally and I'm sure we will discuss it before points come out.

other things

1. why do i even have to say this: any -ism or -phobia/form of violence or misgendering is an L20, i seriously don't care if it's the first card in your 1ar i'll submit the ballot and potentially talk to tab. please just don't be a bad person. if i genuinely missed something violent that happened in round, i'm sorry and i invite you to please talk to me after

2. if you have any questions post-round don't hesitate to ask me or email me @ the email above. no 3nr/-ars please, just a genuine space where i will give you extra criticism that wasn't in the rfd if you would like me to and i'm not busy. education is key

3. i'm not an expressive guy, ask my friends. you could get an L25 or W30 regardless of whether i look like i stepped in mud or a child on christmas morning. i will be flowing, and don't get caught off-guard if i start looking at the ceiling---my pen is still moving at the same speed/accuracy as your content.

4. please extend before you talk about something. make a bare-bones o/v at the VERY least (you won't love your speaks but you might love your win). if you yell at me at 8 in the morning about how one word in subpoint AA of Z of AB of so on and so forth was dropped without telling me WHAT the argument is, i will cry

EXTEMP - bold is TLDR

I don’t have any strong political affiliation, and I’m more than welcoming for political jokes (all in good spirit of course). I value good fluency, good rhetoric, and good tags. Extemp should be entertaining. Obviously, make sure your links are clear, and have good content and evidence.

Basically, all of your analysis should be linear, i.e a sets up b and b sets up c which is why my answer is correct. A lack of cohesive argumentation in extemp is the easiest way to get a really mid rank even if you're a good speaker.

for the love of god have all of your points stand alone, don't have point 1 explain point 2 and etc...

Anything over 7:20 will probably have you ranked down. 7 minutes is the limit and grace is to help you finish your last sentence or two. Please follow good structure, 100% of your extemp speeches should have 3 points.

Anyways please be yourself, as a competitor I can easily tell when you try use canned jokes that don’t fit.

If you steal jokes and I recognize that, you're actively violating the rules of extemp - that's a 6.

I prefer competitors memorize the majority of their speech, that’s how you impress me as a judge. the more stuff you have to reference in round makes me feel like your 30 minutes was used incorrectly. if you do use a card/notes please try and limit it to sources.

I'm a really slow typer, so i'm looking down a lot at my computer and stuff - just because im not looking directly at you doesn't mean i'm disinterested, and certainly doesn't mean i'm not listening.

if i can sense you're having fun, then i will too.

Jude Sims-Barber, as featured on https://www.change.org/p/keep-the-public-in-public-forum?source_location=search

Hello debaters! I’m a university student studying philosophy and sociology, and was a debater throughout high school for three years. My main proficiency was with Lincoln-Douglas debate and Congressional debate but I am very familiar with Public Forum, Policy, and IDPA debate (and, to a lesser extent, British Parliament and World Schools Debate).

I use any and all pronouns and my email is njudesims@gmail.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTE: I have minor hearing loss. My inner ear tissue is scarred and my speech perception is affected as a result. This is not an issue of volume, it is an issue of clarity and enunciation. As a result, I cannot understand spreading. It is simply out of my ear's reach. And before you ask, no, you don't magically have the perfectly understandable spreading cadence.

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

General Notes (please read):

Debate is educational first and foremost. Yes, it is competitive (a "game"), but you should always debate in good faith and not use cheap arguments or tricks just to win. Try to understand your opponent and their arguments, and try to make the debate reach a point of conclusion rather than simply making cheap dunks or disingenuous attacks. Communication relies on mutual trust and a desire to learn, not a desire to dominate or win.

Truth over tech. Techy truth is generally fine. I will not disclose. I don't have time to argue with high schoolers about why they lost.

While I understand the desire to make as many arguments as possible, the default should be using an ordinary, pedestrian speed to communicate well-researched ideas. Do not be disingenuous, either in the arguments you choose to run (knowing that they're designed or cut in a manner to disorient your opponent) or the way you explain/extend them.

-Stay topical. You chose to come to this tournament, you paid the entry fee, you know the topic. It's different when academics decide to discuss the weaknesses of our discourse models or the symbolic violence inherent in... English syntax. You aren't an academic, you're a high schooler competing in a competitive tournament you voluntarily signed up for--debate what the resolution says.

Time limits exist as a statement of how long the statements you need to make should take. They are not an excuse to cram as much stuff into that time by spreading.

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

For Lincoln-Douglas:

-Keep it traditional. The most engaging LD debates are those that speak in concrete terms about abstract ideas, using what we examine on a surface level (mere political issues) and revealing hidden moral assumptions or frameworks (theory).

-Is is not ought. Merely because something is the case in the real world says nothing about whether such a thing is morally justified. No, you don't have the solution to the is-ought gap.

-You must have a Value and Criterion. Lincoln Douglas is all about framing topics with an ethical framework. When we say that something is moral or immoral, we must do so with an ethical framework (i.e., consequentialism, deontology, etc.). A value of Morality is meaningless, as the purpose of LD is to normatively prescribe a special importance to a particular value or good (it tells me nothing as a judge if you value morality. You might as well say "it is good to do good things and bad to do bad things").

-Ethical theories are not values. You cannot 'value' utilitarianism--it is an ethical framework through which we quantify or evaluate that which we hold important. We can examine the utility of 'positive freedom' as a value, but we cannot simply value utilitarianism.

-Avoid criteria that are bulkily worded ("ensuring healthcare access" or something similar). Try to limit criteria to established philosophies, ideas, methods, or theories.

-I highly value philosophical consistency and a solid understanding of the philosophical ideas and ethical theories argued for. I know judge intervention is frowned upon, but if you misrepresent a philosophical position or idea, it will be hard for me to trust your proclaimed level of expertise on the topic. Simple mistakes are perfectly okay, as a lot of philosophy is rather impenetrable.

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

For Public Forum:

-PF is not policy. You used to be prohibited from citing evidence in PF until after Ted Turner sponsored it. PF is the lay debate in high school circuits. Keep it simple. To clarify, I do expect you to use evidence, but also your own proficiency for debate.

-If you know a piece of evidence is deeply flawed or even wrong, why run it on the chance that your opponent won't know how to respond? Does that not seem disingenuous to you?

-I'm primarily a flow judge, and I care deeply about clear statements of arguments and rebuttals. If you don't signpost, I'll likely miss it. Tech mainly bores me, so do try to make quality arguments--if you make bad arguments, then I won't prefer them solely because the opposing team couldn't mention the sixth drop of the fourth subpoint in a three minute speech. If the argument is bad, then it's bad--simple as. (By bad, I mean poorly explained, incoherent, frivolous, or cheap.) Drops are only a point in your favor insofar as the dropped argument is actually substantial to the overall debate.

-Focus on broader impacts. Remember that the burden of the CON is not to propose any comprehensive plan of action, merely demonstrate why the PRO is ineffective or harmful.

-Do not spend too much time on one specific point with one specific point of evidence. Give weight to what's important. Collapse by the end. The earlier, the better.

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

For Big Questions:

-Big questions is a descriptive debate, which means that you are debating on what is (descriptive) rather than what ought be the case (normative). What this means is that you are, on aff or neg, answering the big question at hand. What's more, big questions require big answers, and any reasonably big answer contains quite a lot of philosophy. Your case should include some measure of balance between raw theoretical material (philosophy, broadly) and hard science. Depending on the topic, you might lean more to one side (e.g., objective morality exists vs. humans are naturally self-interested).

-In my experience (for the few years BQ has been around), disputes over evidence in BQ shouldn't be boiled down to "well our sources disagree." Generally, a dispute around a big question is epistemological, about how we come to know things and how certain that knowledge really is. For example, saying that "humans are naturally protective of their young" is not really disagreeable on a factual basis, but whether that information is significant as to whether humans are self-interested is a matter of specific theoretical framing and definition.

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

For Policy:

-Don't spread. If you go too fast, I'll say 'clear' until you slow down. This has resulted in me saying clear within the entire 8 minutes of a speech, so please do slow down.

-Please do not force me to rely on an email chain to decide the round.

-On T: I am pretty lenient when it comes to whether a plan/counterplan is topical or not. My standard for determining this is whether or not the plan fits in what I conceive as the "spirit of the resolution." Something may not be strictly topical as per the verbiage of the resolution, but is still topical as it fits the resolution's intended spirit as written. The only times I will flatly reject a plan on topicality is (1) if it is too large in scope, as to encompass the resolution rather than the other way around, or (2) it is so disconnected from the topic that it may as well be a non-sequitur. As an additional note, please don't waste time making a bunch of topicality arguments. It is often time-consuming.

-K's are most commonly a cheap trick, in my view--I know that they're used topic to topic and round to round with little change, as a means to minimize exhaustive prep and real engagement with the topic. The only exception I'll give is to specific instances of abolition/discourse K's, in which you argue (in good faith, I'll be able to tell) that the verbiage or framing of the resolution overly limits available/acceptable discourse. Regardless, don't anticipate a vote in a K's favor. You signed up for this tournament, after all, and your decision to sidestep the topic reflects at least partially on your intellectual honesty.

Background: Masters student at University Nebraska Lincoln studying Communication Rhetoric with an emphasis on critical theory and film. Former 2021 NFA-LD National Champion, 2019 Missouri State Policy Champion, 2018 NCFL LD Quarterfinalist.

While I will likely vote for almost anything if you have the proper framework to justify it. I am a former critical anti-blackness debater. I believe debate is more than a game and my experience in the activity has obviously informed my love for critical debate. Critical education is a cornerstone of this activity that I love to explore. However, you can read just about anything in front of me but you should know my strengths and weakness as a judge. Don't think reading critical stuff is a auto-win, far from it, I'll hold you to a somewhat higher standard because I know what good K debate looks like and I understand it.

I'm not super well versed in the intricacies of policy argumentation despite my 10 years in this activity. I just ask you to meet me where I'm at. I love a good policy debate whenever the story of the AC is CLEAR and EXTENDED throughout the entirety of the debate. Your AR's shouldn't just be extension and tech, I need overviews and clear articulations of what the AFF does, what it solves and why it matters. Run your heg/econ/war policy AFF, just do it well. If you do run policy, do it well. However, I draw the line at any death/extinction good arguments. It's weird and privileged asf. If you think your opp can be construed as accelerationist or fascist, call it out as so and you will likely win. I'm tired of hearing "all humans need to die". I won't auto-down vote but if your opp impacts out your genocidal rhetoric, you're cooked tbh.

Policy NC's: In order, I prefer K's, Case Turns, DA's, CP's, Topicality, and Theory. I expect the AFF to cover all negative positions unless AR theory says otherwise. I will vote for topicality on policy AFF's but it will be an uphill battle reading framework against a non-T critical AFF. If it feels exclusionary, and the aff wins that it is, good luck.

Test your critical sauce in front of me, I will vote for K's/Critical AFF's them or give in depth feedback on how to improve them. I have a moderate/deep knowledge of most identity/class based critical literature and surface level understanding of po-mo crit lit. Run your critical/non-T AFF if you can win the topicality/methods debate, run the K if you know the actual links to the AFF. Rebuttal articulation is EVERYTHING.

If you're reading a non-T critical AFF, I would like your evidence to be rooted in the topic through the lens of your critical theory . I will be more sympathetic to well-crafted (rare) framework against non-T AFF's that are filled with backfile cards that have been read ad-nauseam in nearly all debate communities since 2000-2010 or even worse, cards that aren't even about the topic or identity. I'm not asking for you to role play the state, that's whack asf, i'm just asking you to innovate. I don't wanna hear the same afropess, be gay do crime and cap K cards that have been circulating in the community for decades. I want you to apply contemporary critical theory to the specific resolution at hand, you don't have to affirm the resolution but please, have to 1/3 or 1/2 or 2/3 of your AFF cards use same language used in the topic. There are scholars of all identities writing about Nuclear War, find them and amplify their voice. Framework is always an uphill battle in front of me but it's much easier when the AFF is not engaging with critical lit rooted in the topic.

K's: You need to clearly articulate why and how the AFF specifically links, and clearly isolate these links in the rebuttals. Explain why the perm isn't possible. Do not read afropess if you're not black. If you read links of omission, you better hope your opponent does not have a good response to why links of omission aren't real because I find those arguments persuasive. Links should be predicated off AFF action, language, impacts, politics, advantages etc.

Theory: Sure, I guess. I don't know much about condo/dispo/presumption, etc., so just try to explain them a little more than you'd usually have to for judges like me. I am less hesitant to vote for theory if it comes from an affluent or white team running frivolous theory interps against marginalized debaters/small schools. I encourage smaller teams to run disclosure theory against their opponents. If you're in policy, I may not be familiar with certain theory arguments.

Speed: I'm comfortable with speed if you go slow on tags and share docs. I flow on my laptop for most debates. Since I flow on my laptop, flash all docs and if you can, analytics too. Extra speaks for flashing analytics.

How to Get My Ballot: Win thesis-level claims and tell me where to vote and why. Exploit concessions (with warrants).

Feel free to email me at andre.j.swai@gmail.com for additional thoughts after the round and questions about college debate.