My email is rachett@cps.eduadd me to the email chain

- spreading is fine just BE CLEAR IF YOU ARE MUMBLING I AM NOT FLOWING

- If you’re running a k as a novice will give you extra speaking points but only if you have good framework

- No biased language or isms of any sorts

- I will give extra speaker points if you crack a joke

- debate is supposed to be fun so have a good time and you will do great

Glenbrook South '24

aayanalidebate@gmail.com

Time everything -- speeches, cross ex, prep -- I am not timing for you.

Run whatever you want. Don't care about how many off-case.

The important things here:

• Lean slightly NEG in framework debates, but will probably vote aff if the neg doesn’t have good external offense like fairness.
• Dropped arguments are true, even if they aren't true in real life, and I'll vote on them.
• Reward strategies with deep research with great speaker points.

Theory/topicality:

• These debates have an inherent ceiling in terms of how much of your skill they demonstrate. I'm generally receptive to the idea that the never-ending race to the "best for debate" theory interp causes arbitrariness and substance crowd-out.
• No strong opinion on the "other issues perm," besides that it's hard to decide a winner if near-evenly debated. Because perm do the CP involves evidence, I prefer that debate.
• Theory is a better route than competition for answering most "cheaty" counterplans. This is a controversial take, but if you disagree with me, I implore you to tell me your answer to "nuke China if and only if the plan." I heavily prefer interpretations like "uniform 50 state fiat is bad," or "fiating a non-policy action is bad," over "process CPs bad" or "agent CPs bad."
• Default to predictability being the gold standard. It determines what an in-round unfair practice is. Reasonability is not separate from the interps debate nor does it mean T is non-viable. Instead, it’s the impact to predictability, and also reduces the threshold for aff offense on the interp debate.
• Evenly debated, I'll probably judge kick, but only if the neg tells me to.
• Condo? The number definitely matters. Around 5 or less will always be fine, but it’s hard to tell the aff that they need to prove the aff is a better solution than 15 planks with 30 ways of solving each advantage.

Critiques:

• Better for the K on the neg than my high school argument choice may suggest. I don't think it's very hard to defend the 1AC's justifications; state/heg/cap good arguments obliterate most kritiks that boil down to "you did a government."
• I'll never create a middle ground framework that the debaters didn't propose. Generally, don't think the middle ground framework makes sense -- a plan's consequences don't trade off with its logic.
• Clever permutations and alt theory are underutilized against the cap K. Teams shouldn't have to rejoin "everyone becomes happy communists."
• Hard to win "ontological" claims unless there are dropped warrants.

Substance:

• The best debates are ones that use more evidence and less unsubstantiated spin.
• Default to risk = probability x magnitude.
• I care a lot about terminal impacts.
• Reverse causality matters. "The IRS is key to democracy" being highlighted in a card doesn't matter if the card doesn't explain why, absent the IRS, democracy wouldn't exist.
• I love studying statistics and love debates comparing studies.

Evelyn Alsop, she/her 

Maine East '24 

Add me to the email chain: evelyn.a.alsop@gmail.com

General philosophy: I tend to lean more policy in my argumentation, but that doesn't mean you can't read Ks in front of me. Please just make sure you explain it extra well because I'm likely not that familiar with the literature. 

DAs:

I really like them...as long as they're well thought out. I tend to prefer DAs with strong links, otherwise there's no way for your impacts to happen. That being said, please make sure you tell a story with a DA and contextualize your evidence to the round. 

Counterplans:

I tend to lean against perf con, do with that what you will. However, I will need a team to point it out within a round in order for me to vote on it. ALWAYS PERM A COUNTERPLAN!!! Please show me how the perm solves for the counterplan, but as neg tell me why your counterplan avoids an impact and how it solves for the aff. I lean neg on counterplan theory unless it's condo against more than 8 off. 

Kritiks: 

As a more policy leaning person, I need you to have quite a strong alt and I find it hard to vote for a team without an alt. Please contextualize your links to this specific aff, especially if the other team points out that it's generic. Please make sure there is an impact to your K and that you extend it, otherwise there's no reason to vote for it. 

Topicality: 

I'm very familiar with T and think it's an underused strategy, but that means that you still need to do it well in front of me. Please make sure that you're showing why your standards matter, and contextualize them into this round. Caselists and TVAs are super persuasive. Please also show why fairness or education matters and how that plays into a specific round. 

Add both to the email chain, email the first one with questions: anadebate6@gmail.com AND gbsdebatedocs@gmail.com

Senior at Glenbrook South High School, Fourth Year Policy Debater, 2N/1A

Tech over truth: I strongly believe debate is more about the articulation and presentation of arguments rather than the actual validity of them. However, if the debate is even on the tech level, I will default to truth based on evidence as a tiebreaker.

Please don't call me judge - you can just call me Ana (pronounced like Ana from Frozen)

General hot takes:

1) Stealing prep: don't do it. I will dock your speaks. This is extremely frustrating. Trust me, the few extra seconds are never worth it. It's very obvious what you're trying to do. This also includes prepping while your opponent is sending out their speech docs. Needless to say, if you're having tech issues, I understand.

2) Cross ex: I find cross ex to be one of the most important aspects of a debate, since it's the only time you are able to interact with the other team and truly expose how much they really know what they're talking about. Take advantage of this. I value teams who cross ex strategically as a way to set up future arguments they plan to make in the debate.

3) Judge instruction: This is when you provide the judge with an exact path (or preferably multiple paths) of how a ballot for your side is warranted, typically provided in the last rebuttal by both sides (2AR/2NR). I love judge instruction because it helps show me the debaters' interpretations of how to frame my ballot and helps give me an more accurate picture of what exactly I should vote on. Generally, this skill is incredibly rare for novices and much more common in varsity division, so if you can do it correctly, I will massively boost your speaks and give you a higher probability of getting the ballot.

4) Timing: Please time both your speeches/prep time as well as your opponents'. I will probably time them too, but just in case I don't, you should be keeping track of your own time and stopping yourself as needed.

5) Courtesy: Please don't be rude to your opponents, even if you think the argument they are making is dumb or doesn't make sense. Instead, articulate that in your speech using warrants from evidence.

6) Using your evidence: A lot of the quality of your evidence is what you make of it. Draw out specific warrants from your evidence. Even if your evidence is of better quality than your opponents', if they explain theirs better, I will be more inclined to buy their argument. Just reading cards and not expanding on them in later speeches isn't enough to get me to vote on that argument.

7) Clarity: Please be clear in your speeches. I should be able to flow by ear rather than have to look at your speech doc to understand what you're saying. I would much rather prefer you slow down, are clear, and read less cards over spreading through a bunch of cards when no one understands what you're saying.

8) Line by line: It's very obvious when you're simply reading your team's blocks, especially in the later rebuttals. While this is fine and inevitable to an extent, I encourage you to do line-by-line for the later rebuttals. This means going through the arguments you have made and are going for and acknowledging/responding to why those arguments are better than your opponents'.

9) Flowing: Please flow. A lot of novices don't understand the importance of flowing, which causes them to drop arguments. Flowing will make you a substantially better debater and help improve your speaker points. Trust me that it is very obvious when debaters aren't flowing. I will increase speaks if you're flowing well.

10) Tag team cross ex is great, but try to avoid talking over your partner.

11) I don't evaluate arguments said after the timer goes off, but cross ex is binding.

12) Have fun!: I know debate can feel stressful, but it's important you also enjoy yourself while you're doing it and think back to why you're in the activity in the first place. Experiment with new arguments, be kind to others, and recognize that you have many rounds ahead of you and opportunities to get better.

Specific Arguments

T vs. Policy Affs

Pretty terrible on this topic. Needless to say, I generally am a really big fan of topicality and love judging these debates when done correctly. Make sure you have standards in your 1NC. Make sure to have a we meet argument and a counter interpretation in the 2AC, as well as reasons to prefer your interpretation. Also, clearly articulate your impacts and why they outweigh any sort of in-round impacts and are a reason to reject the aff and team. If you have the same impacts, explain to me why you access them better than your opponents.

T vs. K Affs

I doubt I will be judging many of these debates at the novice level, but I generally err neg on T against K affs, especially when affs have nothing to do with the topic. However, that doesn't mean that if the 2NR is framework that I will automatically vote for it. Also, if affs have at least some connection to the topic, I am more inclined to give the aff more leeway.

DAs

I love DAs! I frequently go for DA and case in the 2NR. I am more than willing to vote on DA outweighs case if you do enough impact calc in the 2NR. Needless to say, I am a sucker for good 2ARs that are able to find unique ways to leverage the case to access the DAs impacts, provided that analysis is not entirely new.

If you're reading the politics DA, make sure you're reading updated uniqueness cards from within the few days or week following up to the tournament, since I'm unlikely to vote on a completely non-uq DA if the other team reads more updated non-uq evidence.

CPs

Generally, I'll lean neg on theoretical questions on CPs. I feel that, unless dropped or completely mishandled, things like PICs bad and International Fiat bad are reasons to reject the argument not the team, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't be willing to vote for them if dropped or not adequately responded to by the neg team. However, I wouldn't rely on theory for CPs as your main offense, except if the CP is clearly cheating. I understand International Fiat will be big on the NATO topic, and it's tough to find neg ground, so I probably will err neg on it unless the aff makes a definitive claim as to why rejecting the team is important, and the neg doesn't have a sufficient answer.

Ks

I am definitely familiar with the lit base for Kritiks to an extent but do not have much experiencing running Ks other than cap. However, if you're reading a high theory kritik or one that is not a core generic, make sure you spend extra time clearly outlining the thesis of the kritik to me. I think a common mistake novices make is reading kritiks they don't understand at all. I would advise against this, since it seems like you don't really understand what you're talking about, thus lowering your ethos. Try your best to read all of your evidence and familiarize yourself with it before each tournament. I am definitely more than willing to vote for kritiks if articulated properly, and it's clear what exactly you're critiquing.

Theory

I'll vote on anything, but I generally think that most theory arguments with the exception of condo aren't reasons to reject the team. Condo is generally good but I can certainly be convinced otherwise, especially if there is apparent substantial in-round abuse, like multiple multiplank advantage CPs with kickable planks. Nevertheless, I won't hesitate to pull the trigger on dropped theory arguments, as long as constructive speeches have reasons why they're a voter.

Speaker Points

Generally, I will give you high speaks if you understand your evidence and are familiar with it, which will definitely show in cross ex and your speeches. Also, dropping the least amount of arguments possible and doing line-by-line is great. Being nice to your opponents and flowing will boost your speaks as well!

Bonus points for being funny in your speeches!

Morgan Bard (she/her)

2ac/1nc , 4th year at Niles North, morgan.debate4@gmail.com (add to email chain!!)

any form of homophobia, racism, sexism, ableism, etc. results in an automatic L and an email to your coach. if anything you're gonna read has the possibility of being triggering, pls ask the opposing team if they're comfortable with that arg.

tech>>>truth -- ex. the sky is green; as long as you give me good evidence proving the sky is green, ill vote on it.

Quality over quantity of arguments, what this means is i'd prefer fewer better in depth arguments rather than 10 bad arguments that don't enhance the debate round, especially for novi debates.

time your own speeches

t-- love love love. but if you're reading it in the 2NR it should be the ONLY arg in the 2NR. overall one of my fav args.

da's-- amazing as long as you read them correctly and don't drop any part of it.

cp's-- basically the same as da's but you really need to go ham on why it's better than the affs plan.

impact turns-- LOVE THESE!! go all out on turns

k's-- def not my fav arg but that won't affect my vote. just do it well and we'll be good

framework and roll the ballot-- YES-- how should i look at the round! TELL ME how I should vote and why!

if you have any questions at all ask during round or email!!

good luck y'all <3

kbarnstein@alumni.depaul.edu

My background: I'm currently serving as the head coach at Maine East, after many years of serving as an assistant. For much of the past 7 years, I judge an average of 15-20 rounds on the topic. I debated at Maine East HS back in the late 90s & early 00s for four seasons under the tutelage of Wayne Tang. As such, I tend to lean towards a policy making approach that seeks the best policy option. I tend to view topicaliy/theory through a prism of fairness and education. I don't mind listening to debates about what debate should be. I default to viewing the plan as the focus of the debate.

If you are running a K, I like the links to be as specific to the affirmative's advocacy as possible. If your alternative doesn't make sense, that means that the affirmative must be worse than the status quo for you to win your K.

I strongly dislike reading your evidence after the round- I expect the debaters to do that work in the round. If I call for a card, it will typically be to verify that it says what you say it says. I will not give you the benefit of warrants you did not explain, however I may give the other team the benefit of the card not saying what you said it did.

Rose - she/her -

Uiowa'27

Niles West '23

rose@bilicki.com

Top level:

Debate should be a safe space for all people involved. If you feel unsafe in a round, please let me know and I will stop the round and go to tab. Please put you emotional well being over debate, even if you feel pressure to kept debating through sickness, panic attacks etc it is okay to take an L on tabroom to protect yourself. This also means that racism, misogyny, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, and any other form of violence is prohibited. I will not hesitate to hold people accountable in round, high school policy has a huge accountability problem and I want to be part of the solution.

As a disabled debater I understand the struggle to exist within this space, if you need something from me to make it more inclusive (sit closer, need to record the RFD, time to stop and take meds, etc) please let me know and I will do my best. I will be wearing a KN95 or better mask, I almost have extras if you would like one please ask!

If you want to know more about debating at Iowa or in college more generally please feel free to come talk to me after the round!

General thoughts:

Although I run k based arguments, while judging I put an extreme amount of emphasis on the flow. Doing line by line and keeping a clean flow are all key to how I view a debate. This does not mean big picture explanations cant win you the debate, you just need to explain why dropped arguments don't matter. I want to be least interventionist as possible, but if you don't clean up the debate for me I am going to have to make my own decisions hence my paradigm. I am going to vote on the 2ar/2nr, if your card in the 1nc is fire but you dont explain it at all I will not be voting on it.

Ks

Think about your subject position when running identity based arguments, any form of oppression you do not experience should not be casually thrown into the round as time skew or a gatcha moment, its harmful and needs to stop. I think aff teams can point this out as long as it done in a respectful manners (Asking "what is your relationship with indigenity/queerness etc?" is better than assuming someone identity)

My main k lit focus is disability studies, cap, and trans studies. In the past run security, fem ir, security studies and orientalism so those are the lit bases I am familiar with. I find k debaters misunderstanding their lit base, cards and arguments one of the most painful things to watch, so please at least be passable in your understanding. Please dont kill the flow, at least attempt to do an line by line instead of a 3 min long over view.

Policy affs - please do not be afraid to take the k up on its theory of power, those are the most fun debate for me to watch as a judge.

K affs/FW

Debate is probably a game, but what that game looks like can be debated. I tend to vote on impacts of the fw flow so impact comparison, internal link analysis and solvency questions will most likely be part of my decision. I do not think fairness is an impact with out an explanation, I think clash is the better impact in almost every case.

Neg teams: Please have something in the 1nc that is not just framework: cap, a push on presumption, a counter plan, etc make the debate way more interesting, nuanced and in-depth. If you do not have some method of resolving aff offense by the 2nr (TVA/SSD) you are shooting yourself in the foot. A pet peeve of mine is team grouping DA when they are completely unique offense, please at least try to not be a block bot.

Policy things

Judge kick if you tell me too. Please do line by line on theory especially condo, there is almost no clash in those debate. Case debating is one of my favorite things in debate. Cards and evidence matter, your terrible no card CP is not going to be the most persuasive 2nr in front of me.

Impact calculus need to be in your final rebuttal. I have often found myself deciding round where there two impacts that are both dropped by the final rebuttals but no one tells me why their impact outweighs, turn, or comes first

Online Debate:

I will have my camera on as much as I can as I am an expressive judge. Please start at a slower speed so I can get used to your voice through a microphone and make sure your zoom setting are not set to filter out back round noise (it often recognizes spreading as back round noise and you will cut out)

Random things/ speaks:

Ethos, puns, and creativity = better speaks

Remember to have fun :)

add hbisevac0@gmail.com

niles north 23, kentucky 27

general

the core predisposition I have is that technical execution and preventing judge intervention should be at the forefront of whatever approach you take. this means that technical concessions (including cheap shots) matter and there should be lots of judge instruction.

big fan of cool strategies. I enjoy research a lot and will always appreciate and reward a well-researched and thoughtful strategy, whatever that be. (but, I am also not qualified to mediate interpersonal problems between debaters!)

evidence matters a lot. you should read all the cards. debaters have to set the metric for how evidence should be evaluated and do comparison.

organization is extremely important. you should number arguments, sign post, and slow down at times.

thoughts

topicality: predictability matters a lot more to me than other things. have good cards. this means cards that define the word, not just use it. reasonability will forever seem super arbitrary to me but can sometimes be fine against suspect interpretations. limits for the sake of limits is not persuasive and internal link debating is very important.

counterplans: solvency deficits need explainable impacts. competition debates are good. NEG flex and precision are usually very persuasive. most AFF theory violations seem pretty silly to me and standalone theory ever being the A-strategy doesn’t make a ton of sense to me.

kritiks: teams should get to weigh the AFF but excluding Ks doesn’t make sense. vagueness on the link explanation will favor the AFF. backfile Ks with no relation to the topic are icky and the links will always sound unpersuasive. there are a lot of things that teams feel compelled defend but are entirely irrelevant in the larger context of the debate. things like realism, util, etc. often end up just buzz-words used that are not contextualized to any of the larger parts of the 1AC/thesis of the K. the less you disprove the 1AC, the less compelling you are.

planless AFFs: the more you struggle to explain the advocacy (in a non-vague way), the more favorable I am toward the NEG. I'm more persuaded by arguments about skills and methods that result from the 1AC being good as opposed to debate/institutions being bad.

asserting an argument is new or dropped does not constitute an argument, you should jump up and down about it with thoughtful explanation.

LD

everything above applies. I do not like tricks, I do not like phil, and I do not like RVIs. (and whatever else elizabeth elliott thinks)

other

please format email chains properly with the tournament, round, and teams.

if you are interested in debating in college and want to know more about kentucky, feel free to reach out!!

pls time ur own speeches and prep pls pls pls

she/they

niles north 25

ADD BOTH EMAILS PLEASE:

alebur3@nilesk12.org

nilesnorthnb@gmail.com

----

call me "alex", not "judge" pls!

tech>truth

clarity>speed

FOR ONLINE: i would strongly prefer if cameras were on, but no worries if not

DONT

• isms (racism/sexism/etc)
• steal prep
• take forever for the email chain (its j a pet peeve of mine pls i understand tech stuggles but pls try and be efficent when sending out stuff)

DO

• time your own speeches (i probs am not and it is the debater not judges responsibility anyway)
• FLOW.
• be respectful!
• give a roadmap/signpost ("i am going to be responding to what my opponents said" is NOT a real roadmap!)
• keep the debate intresting! debates are long, attention spans are short, have some ethos and confidence, it will go a long way! (esp for speaks...)
• impact calc. <3
• pretend im not flowing, if your opponent dropped something, tell me (but u should be flowin!)
• line by line in rebuttal speeches
• judge instruction in the 2NR/2AR goes a LONG way, it helps yall, helps me, tell me how i should write my ballot

MISC:

- i have learned i have very prominent facial reactions, if i look confused i probs am, etc

- be nice, have fun, novice year is all about learning feel free to ask questions after the round :)

- im cool with tag-teaming in CX, but please don't talk over/down to ur partner. if that happens, I will probs dock speaks. there is no reason to be rude in CX, it's obnoxious and embarrassing!

- please overexplain rather than underexplain args- assume i know nothing, overexplain everything

+ 0.1 speaks if you make me laugh or make a FUNNY joke about: anybody from Niles North, New Trier, Lane Tech, GBN, Maine East, or Cali Stoga

+ 0.1 speaks if you show me flows after the round

LASTLYYYY: have fun! debate is all about education and getting better, so don't get too stressed, it is truly never that serious and feel free to email any questions after the round :))))

kailey --- she/they

nilesnorthcm@gmail.com

tech>truth

--------speaks--------

---be respectful to your PARTNER, OPPONENTS, ME, COACHES, and importantly: YOURSELF.

---do line by line and signpost when you're moving from argument to argument

---make funny jokes about: alex burkman, raman mazhankou, saad khan, or will sterbenc

--------don't do these things--------

---stealing prep [preparing for speeches without running prep time]

---any of the isms: racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, yk all the phobias. that's ground for me giving you the lowest speaks i can, auto L + emailing your coach

--------the actual debate--------

T/L

---roadmaps: give them! "i am just going to respond to what my opponents said" is not a real order.

---i will vote on things that are straightup not true if they are warranted out correctly/dropped

AFF

---i am a 2a with an extremely high aff elo- MY RECORD DOESNT LOOK LIKE IT BUT I AM A GOOD JUDGE FOR THE AFF!

---k affs shouldn't be read by novices. if you read one in front of me, you better entertain me, because i will be sad

NEG

---please condense in the 2NR.....go for one thing!!!

---topicality: i love these debates...as for this topic, i think courts affs prob arent t and i think that deficit spending is

---counterplans: judge kick if you tell me to, i <3 cheaty process cps, i normally go like 9 off in my own debates but i'm also p good for condo on the aff

---kritiks: i'm bad for these esp like less techy stuff (only go for like...the cap k in front of me)

---disads: underrated asf. econ da is cracked on this topic

---impact turns: mwah but no death good in my rounds please

GBN '24

Dartmouth '28

2A/1N, she/her.

ekcarpen.debate@gmail.com

No death good, don't be a bigot, etc.

Everyone should aim to make the round an enjoyable and educational opportunity. I'll do my best to facilitate that as well.

Flowing and arguments that have a claim, warrant, and impact are the two most important things in debate. Flowing especially. You do you in terms of argument type/style/performance and I'll make my decision based on the line by line at the end of the debate and try to be as least interventionist as possible.

Have fun and good luck!

2/18/2024 update...please read - i am now several years removed from the point when i was actively involved in debate and kept up with the topic. i judge a combined total of around 20 policy/ld debates per season. my exposure to the topic starts and ends with each debate that i judge. my knowledge of the topic on any given season is essentially nonexistent, and my knowledge of post-2018 debate in general is probably diminishing with time. i wouldn't call myself a lay judge by any means, but a few steps above. the safest way to win a debate in front of me is to slow down (not to the point where you aren’t spreading at all, but still a bit more slow than you’d normally speak), and focus on the quality of arguments over quantity. pick a few arguments to explain in depth as opposed to having lots that aren't explained well. line-by-line in the style of "they say...but we say..." will also get you a long way with me...overviews/"embedded clash"...not so much...you can feel free to scrap your pre-written overviews entirely with me. if you want the decision in a debate to come down to the quality of evidence, please make that clear in your speeches because i won't do that on my own (i don't usually open the speech docs anymore, nor do i flow author names/card dates. keeping that in mind, statements like “extend the chikko evidence” with no elaboration whatsoever are meaningless to me, as i won’t have any idea what that specific evidence says without an explanation). i won't vote on arguments that i don't understand, miss because of speed/lack of clarity, etc. - i have voted against teams in the past because they went for arguments that i either couldn’t flow or couldn’t understand, even if they may have “won” those arguments if i’d had them on my flows. attached below is my old paradigm, last updated around mid-2019. it is all still applicable…

my old paradigm:

Happy new year.

Add me to the email chain: dylanchikko@gmail.com

I don't time anything. Not prep time, not speeches, nothing. If no one is timing your speech and I notice in the middle of it, I'll make you stop whenever I think the right amount of time has passed. The same is true for prep time.

I have no opinions on arguments. I know nothing about the topic whatsoever outside of the rounds I judge. I don't do research and don't cut cards. I'll vote for anything as long as it's grounded in basic reality and not blatantly offensive. Speak slightly less quick with me than you usually would. I'm 60/40 better for policy-oriented debating (just because of my background knowledge, not ideological preference). But I'll vote for anything if it's done well. My biggest pet peeve is inefficiency/wasting time. Please direct all complaints to nathanglancy124@gmail.com. I’m sure he’d love to hear them. Have fun and be nice to your opponents/partner/me.

I'm an Assyrian. A big portion of my life/career as an educator consists of addressing and supporting Assyrian student needs. That influences my thoughts on a lot of real-life topics that regularly end up in debates. That's especially true for debates about foreign policy and equity. So do your research and be mindful of that.

Don't say/do anything in front of me that you wouldn't say/do in front of your teacher.

Feel free to ask me before the round if you have questions about anything.

Glenbrook South '24

246115@glenbrook225.org

Tech > Truth

For novices, understanding your arguments is better than having good ones.

Warrants needed for everything. If the other team dropped T, explain why that means you win the debate.

Please flow. Especially because you're a novice.

+0.3 speaks if you: add me on the email chain, signpost, watch Game of Thrones (I will quiz you)

+0.1 speaks if you: are clear, understand your arguments, make Aayan Ali jokes

Broncos Country

Lets ride

FOR NOVICE STATES: IF YOU DO NOT SEND ANALYTICS IN THE 1NC/2AC, SPEAKS ARE CAPPED AT 28.5. Not sending in the block or 1AR is fine.

shrutikde93@gmail.com

please add: kaylanfdebate@gmail.com

direct all questions and complaints to WayneTang@aol.com

Non-Negotiables:

add me to the email chain or I WILL dock your speaks to 27.1

Kritikal affirmatives will NOT be read in my round--you may NOT express your identity, EVER!

If I ever catch you stealing even a PICOSECOND of prep time, I WILL talk to your coaches and remove you from the tournament. Stealing prep counts as the time is takes to bring your computer to the podium, sending the documents, time it takes for the document to travel through the internet and land in my inbox, and time it takes for my to open the document, download it, and send it to the rest of my team. If you need to use the restroom, I will take prep time. You should have gone before.

Capitalism is GOOD. I will NOT be convinced otherwise. If you even ATTEMPT to spew that PINKO COMMIE LIBERAL GARBAGE I will contact tabroom and remove you under suspicion of espionage.

How I Judge/Prefs:

Pref me a 1 for every kind of debate (I am extrimeley smartt:)

I was born in the royal house of the Riad and therefore have been surrounded by the wonderful works of critical authors such as Wayne Tang, Brian Roche, Cole Weese, Jack Hightower, ZIDAO WANG (ZIDAO ZIDAO ZIDAO ZIDAO), and Trufnananv.

I am very wealthy (as a result of my genius) and have no time to listen to the grievances of debaters who think economic "inequality" (if everyone would just work hard, they would obviously succeed). If all were up to me, I would prefer debate centers around discussions of how to maintain corporate profits (reverse redistribution would be a prime example). But if you must, I will listen to discussions of economic "inequality". My decision will involve a rating of the socioeconomic setting your school is in (the richer the better, of course) and your ability to explain the benefits of capitalism and the unvaiability of nationalization of the means of production. I will also give a decision based on evidence not introduced into the round and arguments I have written down on flows of the past round I have debated in (possibly from my extremely successful novice year under the Criminal Justice topic (I won our impact calc tournament after school)).

Reasonability is possibly the greatest argument ever created (aside from cap good). I am an extremely reasonable person (my notes above reflect this) and generally agree that if the Affirmative defends the word "fiscal", or "money" they are Topical.

After the round I will ask for a document of all pieces of relevant evidence that will influence my decision. I will permit debaters to add evidence not read in the round that helps their position (especially if it is cap good) and I will thoroughly read through it come to myown conclusions based on said evidence (typically will be that cap is good). If I see the words "CNN", "MSNBC", "The Guardian", "New York Times", or another information source that clearly fabricates lies on a daily basis in a speech document with your school's name on it (regardless of if you read said evidence in the round) I will immediately vote you down and report you to tabroom.

I am especially fond of T-Reverse Federalism versus Dispositionality Turns T debates.

I think Topicality debates that boil down to standards about standard deviations are my favorite to judge.

I am extremely intelligent and am able to adjudicate any kind of debate. My favorite debate is AFF CP vs NEG DA, with the CP being the complex 50 states CP and the DA being the Supreme Court Political Capital Tradeoff DA and the Federalism DA.

Speaker Points:

I determine speaker points based on your outside knowledge of real world happenings. This includes your score on a 50 question MCQ about the principles our President Donald Trump stands for that you have 49 minutes to complete, a random number generator from 1-30, the number of letters in your last name, your ability to use Euler's Theorem to calculate the area of a oblate spheroid to then find the size of the apothem of a three dimensional pentagon, and your ability to explain an auxillary theorem in a minimum of 300 words. This all must be done during your final rebuttal or your speaker points will be capped at 27.

As a genius, I have many thoughts from previous topics I feel are relevant and should be archived in more grand settings, but as the Library of Congress has denied my petition, I submit these thoughts to you as the following:

NATO Topic:

I determine speaker points based on your outside knowledge of real world happenings. This includes your score on a 50 question MCQ about all articles of the North Atlantic Treaty that you have 49 minutes to complete, a random number generator from 1-30, the number of letters in your last name, your ability to use Euler's Theorem to calculate the area of a oblate spheroid to then find the size of the apothem of a three dimensional pentagon, and your ability to explain an auxillary theorem in a minimum of 300 words. This all must be done during your final rebuttal or your speaker points will be capped at 27.

Pursuant to Article 21 of the North Atlantic Treety (novices, it would behove you to memorize the text of every treaty of NATO as that will be very relevant for your speaker points), I will quickly give a decision based on evidence not introduced into the round and arguments I have written down on flows of the past round I have debated in (possibly from the Criminal Justice topic).

Reasonability is possibly the greatest argument ever created (aside from cap good). I am an extremely reasonable person (my notes above reflect this) and generally agree that if the Affirmative defends the word "Cybersecurity", "Artificial Intelligence", or "Biotechonology" they are Topical.

Payton '25,

email: luciaduffy123@gmail.com

she/her

1a/2n

General:

please dont be racist/sexist/homophobic/etc., will result in immediate L

have sm fun, pls don't quit debate i promise it gets better

dont run a k-aff as a novice or a freshman (in most cases)

DA:

yay we finally have a topic we can run DAs on

Ks:

I rly enjoy fw debates from the aff, often more than a purely alt-centered debate

random jargon with no explanation is not fun

CPs:

j explain theory and competition

dont make my life hard by running a huge advantage cp and kicking out of ton of planks :)

T:

Unless the other team completely drops T, don't make your 2NR on t if there are argument limits

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

+0.5 speaks if it's first round and you bring everyone coffee

+0.5 speaks if you have a CPS ventra card with you and show proof

gbn '24

she/her

1a/2n

please put me on the chain: mnf.debate@gmail.com

most important things! (not necessarily in order)

1 - have fun and just try your best! novice year is all about learning

2 - be nice to each other and me. basically just don't be racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. - otherwise i'll stop the round, vote you down and talk to your coach

3 - flow!

4 - try line by line and answer every argument. i know that novice year you'll likely have blocks but still try.

5 - do impact calc! you can always explain things more and "tell the story" of your arguments

*aff stuff*

1 - please have a plan (especially if you're a novice)

2 - explain your case well

3 - extinction probably outweighs (i can be convinced otherwise)

4 - 2nc cps and condo are probably the only things to reject the team for (if you explain well i can/will vote otherwise)

5 - tricky mechanisms are great as long as they can be explained (same goes for questionably topical affs)

*neg stuff*

counterplans

1 - i love them!

2 - willing to listen to anything (<3 process cps)

disads

1 - impact calc and turns case are always part of the best explanations

2 - explain the story of the disad well (uq, link, impact)

3 - politics >>> any other disad

kritiks

1 - familiar with some of the more common stuff (security, fem, cap, set col, etc.) but anything more complicated please explain well

2 - i default util but can be convinced otherwise

topicality

1 - explain your standards and impacts well please!

2 - not too many strong opinions on this

*other*

1 - make me laugh (or make a joke about debate people i know) and i'll boost your speaks

2 - most of these are centered around novices - if you have questions about any of my preferences email me (if you're a novice don't worry about it - just try your best!)

3- please have your camera on for online debates!! (and realize that if mine is off I'm not ready)

4 - tech over truth (BUT i think that truth influences how much i think you need to answer something)

Solorio Academy HS ‘23 --> UIUC '27

She/Her - Prefer if you didn't address me as "judge"

Put me on the email chain: nicholegarcia2023@gmail.com

Tech > Truth

More policy-oriented than anything. That doesn’t mean I’m not willing to vote on anything else. Feel free to run whatever is your style.

Top Level Tingz

• I have glanced over the high school topic very briefly so assume I know nothing about the specifics of your aff/other arguments
• I'm not doing the work for you. Write my ballot, explain dropped arguments and what that means for the round, explain the warrants for your arguments
• I’m a bit more generous with speaks. Most teams get 28-29. This is decided by how you sound (Confidence!!), quality of arguments, and overall behavior in the round
• Trust that I am competent enough to understand what went on in the round overall – Don’t post round me
• I prefer if you time yourself (if you can’t, let me know), stand up during speeches, face the judge(s), FLOW!
• Not very expressive – my resting face looks a little angry (don’t let it make you nervous)
• Absolutely will not tolerate any sort of racism, sexism, ableism, etc
• This includes putting the other team down and attacking them as people rather than their arguments

Brief Background: I debated 4 years at Solorio, competing in both UDL and nat circuit tournaments. I mostly stuck to a strict policy strategy as the 2N but hit a lot of K teams so I have a decent amount of exposure to both traditional policy and K. I went to debate camp at Dartmouth and was taught to debate by the Conor Cameron and Victoria Yonter (<3). Not currently debating for UIUC.

Case Turns – LOVE. Pretty much down with any case turn. Keep consistent and extend it throughout the debate along with your warrants.

DA’s – DA ground has looked a bit iffy :( --> I have a pretty good understanding of the more common DA's but don't expect me to fill in the argument for you. Tell me the story of the DA, explain how the Aff specifically links, and make your impact clear. Impact calc and Impact comparison are super important!

CP’s – The more sketchy the CP the more I’ll dislike (also not a huge fan of multi-plank CP's) but if you’re winning the CP I’ll vote on it. Make it clear how the CP solves the NB, and what the CP does. The CP has to be a reason to reject the Aff. Answer the Perm.

K’s – I don’t love K’s but I am willing to vote on it. I have a decent understanding of K’s but I hold the neg to a high expectation in terms of explanation of the K. If you plan to go for the K explain all of it. I expect explanations for how the K functions, what the role of the ballot is, and what the alternative and the impacts are. If I don’t know what it does you can’t reasonably expect that I’ll be able to justify my ballot for the K.

K literature that I am more familiar with: Cap, Imperialism, Set Col, Security, Fem. Anything else that isn’t a more traditional K you should assume I know nothing about. (good rule is to assume I don't know anything about the K though)

K Affs - Not a big fan --> probably not the judge you want for a K aff. Doesn't mean I refuse to vote on the aff tho it just means I expect a lot of explanation of the aff + interaction/clash with the neg.

K Aff v T --> Love T personally (I ran it very consistently), I expect K teams to be able to answer T thoroughly and properly. I lean more towards the neg. Fairness impacts are good but harder to win especially when the aff is oftentimes a turn to fairness. Other impacts I am a fan of: education (super important to me), limits, predictable clash. In order to win T it should be a large component of the block and the 2NR (but make sure you watch out for arguments on case that need to be answered). K teams can win in front of me but it is important that T is sufficiently answered.

Theory - Don't have any strong opinions on theory (but I do love a good condo round ;) ). Its a bit harder to win less traditional theory in front of me but I'll do my best to put my bias aside and weigh the impacts. DO NOT SPREAD YOUR THEORY BLOCKS. I understand its strategic if your opponents can't flow all of it but neither can I --> if you're going to ignore this and spread it at least send the block.

Topicality (policy) - Also don't have a strong opinion on topicality. I am less persuaded by a generic T block that doesn't specify the aff's violation and I am less persuaded if it's against a core file (huge aff with lots of literature/ground). I think topicality is good for keeping teams in check and preventing neg abuse but keep in mind that you should be able to clearly define what is and isn't topical (having a case list would help). Get creative but make sure your sources/definitions are credible and relevant. In order to win T it should be more than a minute of your block and all of the 2NR ( all or nothing basically).

Last Updated: November, 2023. Please put me on the chain: nathanglancy124@gmail.com

***Background***

Debated at:

Niles West High School (2014-2018)

Trinity University (2018-2020)

Michigan State University (2020-2023)

Coached for:

Winston Churchill (2018-19)

Niles West High School (2020-2023)

Niles North HS (2023-now)

University of Wyoming (2023-now)

I debated for 9 years, all the way from Oceans to Personhood. I've been a 2n for longer than I've been a 2a, but at heart I am a 2a. I currently coach at Niles North High School in northwest Chicagoland and do remote coaching for the University of Wyoming. I went for policy-style arguments throughout my debate career and relied on debate to help realize/finance my college education. Debate's done a lot for me and I'd like to think I'm doing what I can for debate. If you already know me, say hi!! If you don't know me yet, don't mind the fact that I have a grumpy resting face! I'm not shy and would love to show you pictures of my dog.

***TL;DR***

I really want to ensure you all have a satisfying judging experience. I think this means it is my role as a judge to try my best to render a decision based on the arguments made in the debate. I care about debate's existence and success. I hope that is reflected in my feedback and my efforts as a judge.

High school debaters will do well in front of me if they keep the round organized and moving, show their motivation to improve/learn/win, and maintain a positive approach to the round despite the competitive nature of debate. They'll do even better if this is coupled with good, SPECIFIC arguments :)

College Debaters should consider me capable of judging whatever you need me to. I don't have any large predispositions and therefore I would consider myself quite impressionable if faced with good judge instruction and application of arguments at the end of the debate.

I have comparatively lower amounts of college topic knowledge - fair word of warning for acronyms

*Non-argument Things*

CLIPPING: I am soooooo done with people getting away with murder clipping everywhere. In that light, I will now start dropping non-novice teams that meet my minimum standard for clipping. Triggering any one of these conditions will result in an immediate loss after the speech, with minimum speaks to the individual who does it...

1. Speaker skips a paragraph of a card in a speech

2. Speaker skips a sentence that is 10 or more words in a speech

3. Speakers skips 3-5 words 5 times within a speech

4. Speaker systematically skips 1-2 words throughout a speech

Speaks: I will reward speaks mostly on the following criteria...

1. How did you impact your team's ability to win?

2. How did you impact my judging? Did something impress me?

3. Mastery of Material - "knowing what's going on" at the highest level

4. Mastery of Tech/Organization - did you cause/fix any unnecessary/avoidable decision time hurdles?

Clarity: I'm starting to care way way more about the clarity of argument communicated earlier for how I assess risk later in the debate. I really feel like rewarding good packaging of arguments, labeling, and organization that guides the judge through what you're saying AND why that matters. I will try and highly prioritize this analysis over reading every card and seeing who did the better research project. However, instructing me to read a portion of a card obviously constitutes a form of argument that I will take into account.

Conduct: The more we have good vibes in the round, the better the experience will be for everyone. Feel free to have competitive spirit, but don't let that turn you into an unlikeable person!! That's not a winning recipe. Also I am a fan of corny humor, often to a fault. I have given one 30 in my lifetime, and it was to someone who's joke made me uncontrollably laugh during the 2ar (they lost). Don't reach for a bad joke though that's never funny.

Online Debate: Before EVERY speech and EVERY CX, please confirm that everyone is here AND that the sound is clear! Feel free to do camera on or off, I understand everyone has their reasons. Please be understanding of the different complications of online debate and let's do everything we can to keep online accessible and effective. Oh and I HATE prep stealing and doing it while online doesn't excuse it.

***Argument Things***

Case:

I should understand a consistent explanation of the 1ac and its advantages throughout the debate. Changing this narrative or being dodgy/vague is easily subject to punishment by a good neg team. AFF teams should punish teams that are light on case using clear 2ac articulations of dropped arguments instead of being equally as vague. 2NRs on case should focus on identifying what AFF impacts your case defense is responding to.

I am starting to get really tired of bad highlighting here and teams that point this out can mitigate offense here.

DAs:

They're cool, but oh my gosh do teams double, triple, quadruple turn themselves with these so often! I don't care about spamming DAs, but I wish more AFF teams would exploit contradictions in "neg flex". Neg teams can best win their DAs by getting impact framing out early and being clear about 1ar concessions to establish a high risk of your offense.

I am starting to get really tired of bad highlighting here and teams that point this out can mitigate offense here.

T:

I think explaining your vision of the topic is one of the most underrated and underutilized ways to win a T debate. Please just explain to me why in your squad room you decided that T made sense? What's the "core thing" that the AFF did that is the controversy being debated?

Things that help a lot: TVA, case-list of good AFFs under your interpretation, case-list of bad AFFs under their interpretation, definition comparison, explanation of neg ground under your interpretation AND the other teams'.

Theory:

I HATE bad theory arguments and don't want to vote on them, but I hate teams that don't flow slightly more so I will vote on that stuff (and if I miss one line ASPEC that's on you, debate's a communication activity!). Bad theory debating is a one way ticket to low speaks, but good theory debating can drastically alter how rounds go down.

I'm pretty good for theory all things considered. I went for states CP theory a lot on the education topic and am a 2a at heart, but as someone who was a 2n I understand the deep, deep love we share for condo. I feel like the best theory debaters are FLOWABLE while doing their theory debating, SPECIFIC in their impact articulation beyond just talking about clashing and doing some fair education, and INSTRUCTIVE to the judge on questions of impact comparison and justifying new arguments.

CPs:

CPs are defense and should be explained in the context of what it is defending against (the 1ac's mandate, evidence, and how the advantages are explained). This is how I often think about deficits and how a CP implicates my ballot. Re-cutting the 1ac/AFF evidence is usually the gold standard for proving a CP sufficiently solves. I feel like fore-fronting how you explain a CP early and not deviating from that is the best way to ensure you don't bring in new explanations so I don't let the AFF get new answers. I lowkey hate process CPs but sometimes it must be done.

Ks:

I'm better for the K than you think, but likely need more judge instruction about how to apply X argument. Better for evidence-heavy OR depth-focused debate. Any amount of generic evidence is best addressed through specific analysis.

"Exceeds expectations"/I've gone for: Cap, Security, Biopolitics/Agamben

"Meeting expectations"/I feel fine judging: Set Col, Anti-blackness (Nihilism, Pessimism, to name a few), Orientalism/Colonialism, Imperialism, Queer pessimism, Trans pessimism, Ableism

"Needs improvement"/err towards over-explaining: Psychoanalysis, Bataille, Heideggerian stuff, Baudrillard, Deleuze

I have not judged a KvK debate yet.

Framework:

I almost exclusively went for t-usfg/framework in HS and college, but that doesn't make me care about dropping a policy team. Impact articulation matters for me but far too often I find teams blending concepts such as fairness and clash in incoherent ways. I don't care about the label, but rather the underling explanation and how it is being applied in the debate. If you have any other questions look at Josh Harrington's philosophy on K AFFs, that'll reflect roughly how I feel.

Nate's sliding scales about debate:

Tech/Truth----------------------------X-Facts are Facts & Dropped args are as true as the warrants conceded

Condo-------X----------------------Respect the Aff Peasant (have and will vote on it, clear args in the 1ar key)

Process CP/Normal Means Competition----------------------------X- 100 plank case-specific advantage CP

Super Big CP-----------------X------------Deep Case Debating

Simply saying "Sufficiency Framing"-----------------------------X-Explain why CP solves sufficiently

Zero Risk Framing----------X-------------------Any Risk Framing

Perm Double Bind--------------X---------------Haha Silly Policy Hacks

Deb8=Karl Rove----------------------------X-That was one dude

Salad K----------------------------X-Single K Thesis

Economic Growth----------------------------X-( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

***Miscellaneous***

Email chain is always preferable to anything else barring tech issues

I don't like cards in the body of the email... but nobody seems to care... oh well...

I am fine with open cx. All people should be.

The Prep Rule: I will increase speaks from what I would have given by .1 for every minute of prep not used - speaks can be earned by specifically telling me the balance of prep your team had remaining before their last rebuttal. Capped at .5 boosted speaks.

Massive pet peeve: if you call a CP a "see-pee" I will think about it so much that it might disrupt my flowing and you might instantly lose (I am being sarcastic).

here's a photo collage about debate that I made in high school:

GBN '24

leah.debate@gmail.com

I don't think this paradigm will provide you with any relevant insights. Within reason, just debate what you want to debate.

If you care, these are the most important things to keep in mind:

1. Be a good human

2. Flow

3. Tech > truth, but the burden for a full argument is a claim + warrant

4. Debate is a persuasive and communicative activity. At the very least, pretend like you care

5. Do impact comparison

6. I would rather you reason out why their argument is wrong than read blocks you don't understand

Specific thoughts if you're still reading:

DAs:

- This topic has great core disads with expansive lit bases and links to every aff - you can impress me by knowing more about the aff than they do

CPs:

- The existence of actual disads means I have a slightly higher bar for a legitimate CP, but I'm fine with anything you can justify on the flow

- I am getting increasingly frustrated by internal net benefits with ridiculous spillover claims not about the CP - you can likely beat these with analytical pushes

T:

- Paint a picture of your vision of the topic.

- Absent an argument explaining otherwise, I think predictability is the most important internal link because a topic with arbitrary limits is functionally unlimited.

- Might be a hot take but I actually find the T taxes controversy pretty interesting. That being said, I think teams are getting away with making broad, exaggerated claims on both sides of the debate. Just saying "states CP" or "econ DA" isn't an argument.

Ks:

- Without other instruction, I will weigh the world of the aff against the world of the alt by comparing the consequences of each scenario

- If you read anything more complex than cap/security/generic topic ks, you need to be particularly explicit in judge instruction, but that should be true regardless

- In debates with more material alts, the "perm double bind" is often compelling. The less that argument makes sense, the more likely I am to wonder about the value of the neg's framework interp

Theory:

- Everything except condo and maybe 2nc CPs are reasons to reject the argument

- Condo is probably good, but it becomes more questionable when the neg can kick planks or combine separate cps

If I am judging you at a tournament with preferences, then you should strike me if you do not agree with all of the following:

-I am an educator first. If anything happens in the debate that I deem would not be okay in a high school classroom, I will stop the debate and vote against the team that engaged in the inappropriate behavior.

-The affirmative should defend a topical plan and defend the implementation of the plan.

-Affirmative plans these days are too vague. You only get to fiat what your plan says, not what it could mean or what you want it to mean. If you clarify your plan in cross-x, the negative can use that clarification to setup counterplan competition.

-The negative should prove why the plan causes something bad to happen, not why it justifies something bad. In other words - most of your Kritks are probably just FYIs.

-I evaluate debate in large part based on the line-by-line. If you cannot flow, I am not a good judge for you. If you cannot specifically answer the other team's arguments and apply your arguments to them and instead just read pre-scripted blocks, I am not a good judge for you.

-Debate is a communicative activity. I don't follow a card document. I listen to what you say. I will only read evidence if I cannot resolve something in the debate based on how it was debated.

-For something to count as an argument it must be complete and explained. I also must be able to understand what you are saying.

-My lifetime speaker point average range is probably lower than what you are used to.

-If you are visibly sick during the debate, I reserve the right to forfeit you and leave.

Jonah (he/him) - you don't need to call me "judge," but you can if you can if it feels weird to call me by my first name.

Add jhalloran@cps.edu to the email chain and please send out the 1AC asap

For novices -

• Flow, be engaged, and do line by line to maximize your chances of winning. Show me your flows (on paper) immediately after the round for extra speaker points.
• Don't run troll arguments just because your varsity gave them to you and you think you can "shock and awe" your opponents or me - this includes procedurals like ASPEC and objectionable arguments like death good.
• Use your final rebuttal speech to explain why I should vote for you. Tell me which things you're winning, why winning those will win you the debate, and why you losing things you're behind on don't matter.
• Be clear when you are speaking. I need to be able to hear you to flow your speech.
• Always put your offense before your defense!
• Please please PLEASE time your own prep and speaking time.
• Please give roadmap before every speech except the 1AC, telling me which arguments you will be extending/answering, and in which order.

• There's no need to be excessively rude or "edgy." It's ok to be nervous, but you don't need to take it out by being nasty to your opponents. This is especially true if you're much more experienced than them (for example if you debated in middle school or are a sophomore).

Email: michaeldavidh5@gmail.com

Current Affiliation: None

Conflicts (Please list any past associations you’ve had with a school/organization in the last 3 years--i.e coaching, debating and/or attending): I’ve judged for several different schools. I coached and debated for Lincoln Park HS.

Debate Experience: Three years high school debate experience, attended summer institutes at Emory, Northwestern and Dartmouth. I have been a debate coach for one year. I currently judge tournaments off and on and won’t know topic intimately.

DISADVANTAGES: I enjoy politics DA. Every DA needs to tell a solid link story (incl. Internal Link), generic links being less convincing.

TOPICALITY and THEORY: More persuaded by arguments of education than fairness. Team usually needs to prove in-round abuse or loss ground for me to vote on fairness. I find reasonability counter-standards to often be convincing. Teams must commit significant time to T or theory arguments in rebuttals for it to become a voting issue.

COUNTER PLANS: If decent theory arguments are made, I inclined to vote down PICs and Consult CPs. I’m not a fan of Conditional/Dispositional debates and rarely vote down a team because of it. I tend to find CPs without a spelled out plan text abusive.

KRITQUES: Links and internal links need to be clear. I prefer the alternatives to be thoroughly discussed. If K lacks an alternative then I need to know the role of the ballot. Framework and “Role of the Ballot” needs to always be competitive (e.g., should not simply be “vote against the plan”).

KRITICAL AFFIRMATIVES: I am open to K Affirmitives, but the more radical they are, the more Affirmitive must define their interpretation of policy debate. Affirmitive must have prepared response for what the Negative can potentially run against the case.

MISCELLENEOUS: I’m a bit old-school in preferring to see debaters standing up, and looking at the judge during cross-x. Tag team is allowed, but partner of debater being questioned should not dominant the responses. Please be nice and respectful in asking/giving evidence, referring to the other team and conducting C-X, otherwise I can deduct speaker points. If I need to read cards/evidence as a judge then the debaters are doing something wrong.

hi, i'm betsy!

she/her

please put me on the email chain! betsydebates@gmail.com

senior at glenbrook south, in my fourth year of debate

clash clash clash clash! your top priority should be actually responding to the other team's arguments.

simple arguments that you actually understand & can explain > weird complicated blocks that your varsity wrote for you

do not steal prep

stand when you speak

be nice!!!!!! and speak clearly above all - if i can’t understand you i can’t vote on any arguments you make.

i'm pretty comfortable judging most arguments, as long as they're explained. this is particularly true if you're reading high theory ks, weird technical cps, etc - it needs to be adequately explained if you want me to vote on it, don't assume i already know about it.

join the women & gender minorities in policy debate collective! ask me about it or email wandgminpolicydebatecollective@gmail.com, follow the Instagram @women.genderminoritiesincx

bnkatz1@gmail.com

Northside '21

Northwestern '25

0 time TOC qualifier, 4 years of debate for Northside College Prep

He/Him

--

If I am judging a virtual debate and you send documents with analytics omitted, you will be docked speaker points. Your mic quality is not nearly as good as you think it is, so why would you voluntarily make it harder for the person who's deciding which team wins (me) to understand what you're saying by omitting a useful visual supplement? Act like I'm half-deaf.

--

Pay attention to where you use jargon and explain or contextualize where you can. This topic has lots of acronyms so it would help to say full phrases and what they actually mean at least once in-round.

If you can't explain an argument you plan to read in front of me at a conversational speed, there are very good odds that you won't win me over when trying to spread it. Debate what you're comfortable with, not what you think I'll like the most.

I avoid reading speech docs where possible. I will read a card if it is referenced during cross-ex, as well as if specific warrants are called to my attention during speeches. However, I will not give the full robustness of a card's argument to you if all you are doing is repeating the author's name and the claim.

Primarily debated soft left affs in high school, but have also read traditional policy. I have read every kind of argument on the neg. Increasingly sympathetic to traditional big stick affs as a judge, just because soft left debaters have a structurally harder time winning the debate.

Thoughts on arguments:

• Both aff and neg teams severely underfocus on case. This is almost universal. For the neg, aff evidence is never as good as it's made out to be and should be called out in the 1NC. If you're an aff team and truly believe your case is good, then actually spend time talking about why your warrants respond to the neg's on- and off-case arguments (which it should if it's good) beyond just saying that you are extending X card.
• Disads reach zero risk very easily. Although framing debates tend to be ineffective and misfocused, my general perspective is that low probability likely negates high magnitude at the point that a layman would consider your DA contrived. I like politics DAs but they tend to be really bad, and case-specific DAs are often the most interesting but always harder to develop. In general, if you think your DA is good, I'll probably think it's okay; if you think your DA is bad, I'll probably think it's terrible. A good internal link makes everything I said above moot.
• Counterplans have been massacred without forgiveness and it makes me sad. I strongly dislike the current norm of going for the most abusive counterplan that can still be voted for, but a won argument is a won argument. Still, I tend to bias aff theory against CPs even if it's not a reason to reject the team. (advantage cps > pics/agent cps > process cps > cps that compete off of a single word). As far as complicated mechanisms go, go nuts, I'll be able to grasp it.
• Not sure what this topic holds, but I imagine lots of the research will be focused on security and reps-based kritiks. One characteristic of Ks which somehow appears all the time in K Aff debates but never gets drawn own on the neg side is the role of Ks in shaping how the round is argued. If you treat your K like a counterplan, you're fighting a losing battle. I'm not necessarily pro "framework K," but ultimately the alternative is just a digestible manifestation of the epistemology/pedagogy/whatever that you claim the aff is undermining.
• Topicality debates tend to be dependent on a lot of factors external to the resolution - mainly how late into the year it is and how many affs have already been generated on the topic. A small topic tends to lean aff on allowing innovative (to an extent) plans, but large topics justify limiting what affs are acceptable more stringently. In a given round, this is largely irrelevant, but good debaters draw these characteristics in as warrants on the standards debate. These claims provide rhetorical strength and can help the persuasiveness of the line-by-line on interpretations/standards substantially.
• K Affs are interesting and I'll happily vote on them, but I am, personally, reasonably persuaded by aff arguments favoring predictability and the benefits of switch-side debate. A good kritikal aff is not one which critiques the resolution, but critiques the way that we debate the resolution. If your aff does the latter, most framework arguments go out the window. I will deduct speaker points for 2ACs that have a massive overview but doesn't include it in the doc.
• K v K debates are the debates I have debated and certainly judged the least. I think it's the burden of the aff to prove that perms are allowed in a method debate since the aff has already gone so far as to reject the resolution to justify reading their advocacy, but it is up for discussion. Cap links to just about everything but that doesn't always means it's good. The Parenti and Emanuele card is not nearly good enough for the amount it gets read by neg teams. Most of what I said in my thoughts on Ks extends here too.

Two separate instances of clipping will result in an auto-loss and zero speaker points for both debaters. To be clear, clipping is intentionally skipping highlighted parts of a card while acting as though it was still read. To not clip, explicitly state when you stop reading a card before fully finishing ("cut the card at [x]"), keep track of where you stopped reading that card, and after your speech ask if anyone in the round wants a marked copy of your document where the highlighting you didn't read in the card is omitted.

***FOR NOVICES: HOW TO WIN***

Flowing is the most important (and underutilized) skill in debate. Write down your opponent's arguments. All of them.

Do line-by-line - Read and answer everything you just wrote down. Answer your opponent's arguments. All of them.

Novices that learn how to do both of these semi-competently will win the vast majority of their rounds.

Sarah Kwon
Glenbrook South '24 (2a/1n)

Yes! Add me to the email chain: skwondebates@gmail.com

Pronouns: she/her

Tech>Truth. Other thoughts I have are short, because I think paradigms are pretty pointless in novice year.

T - It's fun!

CP - I like. Process CP debates bore me sometimes. Ticky tacky theory args are usually a reason to reject the argument, not the team.

K - Familiar with generic Ks. The more specific the link to the aff, the better.

K-Affs - I have yet to see a novice team run one well.

DA - DA + Case 2NRs bring me joy - do it !!

Theory - Condo is generally good, but you can change my mind. Don't hide aspec if you can help it - novice year is for learning!

Other things to note:

• Call me Sarah, not judge.
• Clarity, organization, and good impact calc go a long way.
• Being funny and sassy is amazing and you will see me laugh (but don't be rude).
• No racism, homophobia, sexism, etc. If you do --> auto-loss, tanked speaks, and I will tell your coach.

add me to the email chain! auddebater@gmail.com (yes it's a pun)

non-negotiables

1. have fun and don’t be afraid to make mistakes — that’s how we learn
2. be respectful and conscious of everyone in the round
3. cross-examination is open and binding
4. every argument should have a claim, warrant, and an impact. (for example, you can tell me the sky is green, but I’m not going to vote for it until you tell me where in your evidence points to that conclusion, why I should prefer your evidence over your opponents, and what it means for the argument as a whole [included scope, magnitude, probability, etc.])
5. flow

Hello! I'm Collin Lamb, I am a former debater at Lane Tech High School now attending IIT.

IMPORTANT NOTE FOR 23/24 SEASON:I am not an active debater on any team in any way. I am DEEPLY unfamiliar with this year's topic and even more unfamiliar with arguments you might feel are routine or to be expected. Do not rely on a store of background knowledge you might assume I have, ensure that your arguments are coherent to someone who is, for lack of a better term, a layman on this topic. Sorry ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Spreading: Fast is good, clear is better. I am not your opponent, so I will be getting a majority of my flows from what I hear; not by scrolling through your speech doc.

Please time all your own speeches, CX, and prep.

Ks: Full disclosure, I am not a big K guy. So PLEASE explain these very clearly. Act as if I know very little, make your K make sense and make them matter in the face of policy affs and arguments.

General Things: Be very clear in your arguments. Explain it to me like I'm five and you're teaching me the ABCs, whichever side makes their argument the clearest and most coherent could be the deciding factor of the debate. Don't be a jerk. I get that tensions and things run high during tournaments but don't be an overt jerk to the other team. Bonus: If you can somewhat organically fit the phrase "Yabba-Dabba-Doo" into one of your speeches you will receive +0.1 speaks. (Limit one per customer)

clamb2@hawk.iit.edu

Santiago Leyva - Solorio Academy HS'24

Add me to the email chain (sleyva5@cps.edu)

He/him/his

General:

-Clarity and quality of arguments over speed.

-Tell me how you're winning.

-Be nice to everyone in the round.

-Look at my facial expression, and it may tell you something.

- If you make a funny joke of Conor Cameron, I'll give you +0.1 speaker points.

Intro/Affiliations

Email: zachlim804@gmail.com

- Former student at New Trier HS (2015-2019) and the University of Pittsburgh (2019-2022).

- Experience: 6 years as a policy debater, no TOC bids, & NDT doubles (NDT '21) in college. I have been coaching for 2 years and judging for 4 years, albeit the past year and a half has been PF heavy.

**PF Stuff at the bottom

Online Debate

Cameras on preferably, slow down, and I don't know why this happens but wait until you know 100% that I am present before you give an order or start your speech. A black screen with my name means I am not there/ready unless I say otherwise.

Important/Relevant Thoughts

- For this specific topic, I am not familiar with the trends and arguments being made on the circuit, specifically the subsets, but I am knowledgeable on NATO as an organization from a previous college topic.

- My experience is policy-heavy, but in college, I strayed away from strict policy debating to more critical debating on both sides, mostly reading iterations of racial security and racial capitalism kritiks and critical affs with a plan. I am most comfortable adjudicating DA v. case, CP/DA v. case, and K v. case; it ultimately isn't my choice what I hear, but point is I think I've seen, heard, and debated a wide variety of arguments that will help aid in judging so do what you know best.

- I find debate enjoyable and I truly appreciated judges who gave a full effort in paying attention and offering an understandable RFD so I will attempt to emulate that in every round that I judge. With that, the best thing you can do for yourself is, up to you how you go about this, to orient your debating around "making my job easy". Whether you lean critical or policy, be more reliant on explanation and spin rather than being solely reliant on what your evidence says. Show me the big picture and within that picture, point out any fine details that are important for me to evaluate. Be explicit, get straight to the point, and avoid unnecessary speak/fillers. Judge instruction is key.

- A judge is never going to be unbiased when listening to different types of arguments. However, pre-conceptions are malleable and good debating (lbl, explanation, etc.) can supersede argument bias, but given my varying degrees of knowledge/expertise in different arguments, adaptation will matter in how "good debating" is performed in round.

- Continuity in argumentation and explanation will be scrutinized. Having been on both sides as a 2N and 2A, I believe many final rebuttals get away with a lot of new spin/explanation, so as I have throughout judging debates, I will hold a higher standard for extensions and such.

- Absolutely do not read morally reprehensible arguments such as death good, racism good, homophobia good, etc. There is no room for that in debates, and it is not courteous to your judge or opponents. You will be dropped and receive a zero.

- The link below will take you to a doc that I wrote many years ago, containing specific thoughts I have about specific types of arguments. I honestly do not think it's as relevant as it was when I was a first year out, but if you aren't familiar with what I think of certain arguments, then feel free to check it out to gain some more clarity. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d5pO-KRsf90F5Y-9Hfc1RlzRxsu21KCSxV9aVZFcRH0/edit?usp=sharing

- Don't hesitate to ask me any questions about my college debate experience as well as my time at Pitt. Feel free to email me or ask after the round!

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

Public Forum

I am a flow-centric judge on the condition your arguments are backed with evidence and are logical. My background is in policy debate, but regardless of style, and especially important in PF, I think it's necessary to craft a broad story that connects what the issue is, what your solution is, and why you think you should win the debate.

I like evidence qualification comparisons and "if this, then that" statements when tied together with logical assumptions that can be made. Demonstrating ethos, confidence, and good command of your and your opponent's arguments is also very important in getting my ballot.

I will like listening to you more if you read smart, innovative arguments. Don't be rude, cocky, and/or overly aggressive especially if your debating and arguments can't back up that "talk". Not a good look.

Give an order before your speech

zucie lopez (they/she)

solorio'23 -> isu'27

add me to the email chain pls!

--> zucielopez13@gmail.com

i competed for solorio in high school. i'm currently not debating in college.

i'm not familiar with this years topic so try to explain your arguments ( not only does it help me but also lets me know that you know what you're talking about)

be respectful. there is no reason to be rude to other people in the round. i DO NOT allow homophobia, sexism, racism, ableism, etc. any form of discrimination will result is automatic loss.

Hi, my name is Katelyn, and I am former policy debater for Skinner West and Whitney Young. I now currently judge/mentor both teams, and have been in debate for around 6-7 years. I judge both PF and policy.

My email: kjluu@cps.edu

Here are some general rules/things I like to see:

- Time yourself please, this should be a debater's responsibility

- Spreading is always nice but give roadmaps + signpost (clarity>speed)

- Always include impact calculus in the rebuttal speeches

- I prefer overviews in speeches rather than giving me an underview with remaining time (overviews are always good to hear)

- Organized line by line in the rebuttal speeches is always good

- tag teaming is ok but don't take over CX

- please overexplain rather than underexplain to get through more arguments

- I tend to prefer substance of the debate over generalized arguments or evidence, so make sure you are not just extending cards and evidence but also providing analytics and building clash

- I tend to not take questions/arguments made in the CX into account in my ballot, you must bring whatever it was that occurred up in a speech for me to weigh it and flow it

- tech over truth

AFF:

- always always always extend your impacts- I tend to weigh presumption so please give me impact extensions through your rebuttals

- evidence/source debate is good clash in my opinion, updated evidence is always good

- I don't vote too heavy on perm- I want to see why you expand on refuting net benefits, solvency advocates, etc

- I vote on T, so please take your time to refute it - I really REALLY like well thought out and run T arguments

- I typically go for extinction rather than moral/human rights arguments

NEG:

- I vote on NEG presumption, so please expand squo solves arguments and turns- there are a lot of good case turns that can be abused that typically are not extended in debate rounds- I would love to see clash on case

- I weigh all offcase arguments, but I tend to see DAs as net benefits or loopholes rather than physical arguments on their own (please do run DAs though)

- I don't weigh K too heavily, but I do appreciate framing and theory arguments

- I really like T arguments and clash - please go all in or drop T in the rebuttals- I really hate to see poorly run Topicality

- Be clear when kicking out of offcase arguments and please don't commit a forfeit offense :)

- I am familiar with a few K args, majority of the CPs, DAs and more, but I love to hear new arguments every now and then

That's all I've got, I love to see respectful and educational debates filled with clash. Thanks for reading my paradigm, and good luck debating!

About me:

I am a current senior at GBS (2022-23)

Please add me to the email chain 236328@glenbrook225.org

My debate philosophy:

I am open to all forms of debate and have done extensive debate in both K's and generic policy args

Tech > Truth; and I will vote on even the most outlandish impact turns or scenarios as long as you meet the burden of proof.

Have fun with debate and don't be a jackass to the other team

Katharine Morley -- she/they

Put me on the email chain: katharine.morley.debate@gmail.com

Please feel free to email me with questions.

Northside 2020-2024

send out the email chain at round time even if I am not there

Novices: flow, follow tournament rules, and ask questions post-round

• in your 2nr/2ar write the ballot (explain why you win)
• do line-by-line (aka respond to the other team's arguments)
• put offense first

If you make me laugh +0.5 speaks

MBA '22

Northwestern '26

Add me to the email chain: jackpacconi2026@u.northwestern.edu

tl;dr

- These are my predispositions, but technical prowess can easily alter them.

- Tech > Truth. I will evaluate an argument to the extend that I understand it and could explain it to the losing team post-round. The flow and technical debating resolve most debates, but I appreciate quality evidence and if necessary will read it. Dropped arguments are true, but only insofar as I will only evaluate the words you said. Often teams will expand on dropped arguments, permitting new answers. 

- I'm best for policy arguments, but K teams can still win my ballot through better technical debating.

Topicality vs. K Affs

- I probably lean neg in these debates, but better debating can change that. While I think T is often strategic and comfortable, I would prefer to see a substantive debate, but play to your strengths. 

- Counter-interp > Impact Turning. If you read a plan-less aff, I am not a huge fan of the popular impact turning strategy because I evaluate clash debates like T vs. policy affs. I care a lot about the counter-interp. Both sides should clearly clearly define the words in the resolution and explain what their topic as well as their oponent's topic look like by establishing strong internal-links. There should be a clear role for the aff and the neg. It is rather difficult to convince me that debate is more than a game or that debate has some emancapatory potential. 

- Fairness > Clash, but go for what you're best at. 

Topicality vs. Policy Affs

- I will vote for any predictability, limits, or ground impact but typically care more about the internal links. I should have a clear vision of what the topic looks like for the aff and neg as well as what arguments will be read.

- I'm better for plan text in a vacuum than most judges. 

K vs. Policy Affs

- Neg teams will struggle to persuade me to not weigh the plan unless the line-by-line flows neg. 

- I like alts that do something beyond just rethinking or being critical, but understand the strategic appeal. 

- I prefer links to be to the plan. 

- Death and extinction are probably bad. The neg is more likely to convince me that the link outweighs, alt solves case, or link turns case than to adopt an alternative risk calculous. 

Counterplans

- I'm good for competition. I think the aff frequently lets the neg get away with murder. Functional + textual competition makes intuitive sense to me, but I am down for functional vs. textual competition debates. 

- I love PICs when they're aff specific. 

- Condo is probably good; egregious, kickable 20 plank advantage counterplans are probably bad. If the neg wants me to judge kick the counterplan, they should tell me.

Misc

- You can insert re-highlightings if you explain what the re-highlighting says and why I should care. Teams should be punished for what their evidence says, but you need to explain it. I will be very grumpy if you just say "insert this rehighlighting" without explanation. 

Amber Paramore (she/her)

Background: policy debate going on 6 years

Add me to the email chain: aparamore@cps.edu and wydebatetm@gmail.com

tl;dr I like Ks, T, CPs, DAs (in that order), go for whatever (nothing discriminatory), frame your arguments.

Any blatant racism, sexism, etc. and I will vote you down and give the lowest speaks possible.

Kritiks

<333

I have always been a K debater (ignore freshman year). If you want to run one, go for it. Make sure you actually understand the K you're running; using philosophical jargon that you don't understand won't make it more likely for me to vote for it, but make it funny if you do. Explain the K so I can clearly see why the world of the K is better, why it's a prereq to the aff, etc. etc. If you're losing that the alt can't solve, then just sufficiently prove why any link to the aff would make the squo worse. Keep up with your framework and respond to the other team's standards.

K-affs, questioning the resolution, questioning debate itself--whatever it is, those are all super fun and incredibly necessary--go for it. K v K debates are also fun, just stay organized.

(this only applies LATER in the season--it's now later) +0.2 speaks to aff if they run a K-aff, and +0.2 speaks to neg if they go for a K.

Topicality

I generally like T, and have gone for it quite a few (too many) times, but the neg has to be able to prove aff is not topical. Spend time on T, extend your interp, violation, standards, and voters. Affs need to sufficiently prove we meet arguments--everything else is moot if affs meet the interp. Voters are pretty important for neg if you want me to, y'know, vote on it.

CPs

CPs are good, but it has to be able to compete with the aff. Explain why the CP is mutually exclusive; aff needs to sufficiently argue that it isn't for me to vote on it. CPs need a net benefit, external or internal idc but it needs to have one. I won't judge kick unless you ask me to.

Disadvantages

For neg, have clear links and explain them clearly. If you can’t explain how the aff links to the DA then idk how to weigh it or why to vote on it. Impact calc is important; tell me why your impact should be weighed over other impacts. Not the biggest fan of teams going for DAs, but that doesn't mean I won't vote on it.

Framing/FW

Always, always, always frame your arguments. Tell me what I should weigh the most and why. I’ll only weigh what the teams tell me to.

Speaks/Cross

- Signpost; say “and” or “next” between cards.

- I like speed, but not if clarity is sacrificed.

- I prefer cameras on when you’re speaking for online debate.

- Tag team is fine, just be respectful.

- You can be aggressive during cross, but there's a line between being aggressive and rude.

Miscellaneous

- I prefer interesting K debates over policy.

- Be respectful.

- Tech >>> Truth (in policy debates)

- If you make a comment about the other team yapping during a speech or cross will get you +0.1 speaks and I'll know you read my paradigm :D

Ashna Rimal

Assistant Coach for Maine East

Add me on the email chain - ashnarimal.debate@gmail.com

Please make sure the tournament name, round number, and both team codes are in the subject of the email chain.

TLDR - You can run any non-offensive arg in front of me, if you run it well I'll probably vote you up. I like judging more technical debates (Theory/T/K) over the same old ptx scenario because I find it more interesting. You will probably get higher speaker points from me if your arguments are original, trust me judges do not want to see the exact same debate happen for 5 rounds in a row. Also, send analytics. if you're good, you don't have to win because they drop things.

K Affs

I like K Affs when they are well explained.

A few things I should not be wondering about when writing my ballot:

Why is the ballot key?

Why is this round specifically key for your offense?

Do you solve for anything and how (spill up, fiat, etc.)

Neg Stuff

Counterplans

I enjoy CPs, but you have to have all the key parts (Net Benefit, Perm Answers, Solvency, etc.)

Disads

Disads are fine - I'm not particularly opinionated about them.

I think DA and Case debates are good as long as the DA scenario makes sense and the line by line is properly executed.

Please don't go for a bad ptx scenario that has no internal link.

Kritiks

If you run a K make sure you really explain it to me.

If you wanna go for the K in the 2NR you must have a strong link to the specific aff, or an alt that solves for the K and/or the impacts of the Plan.

Focus on the link debate - winning the link helps you win FW, prove why the perm won't solve, as well as support the impact.

If I don't understand your K I won't vote for it, especially if it's less commonly run. I'm familiar with most of the more generic Ks, but if you pull out a more complex K, you need to understand it and explain it well. I will hold those types of Ks to a higher standard when writing my ballot.

Topicality

To win on T you have to prove that the Aff is not topical and explain why being topical matters.

Don't only say "Fairness and Education" those are just words, you need to explain what that means and why it's important to debate.

TOPICALITY IS A VOTER!

Theory

I'm from Maine East, I like Theory debates and I'll vote on them - but I probably have higher standards for 'good theory debating'.

PICs are probably fine.

Severance Perms are probably bad, but usually not bad enough for me to write my ballot on it.

Condo is good to an extent. I probably won't vote on Condo if they run like 1-2 off, but if they run 3 or more conditional advocacies I will lean Aff.

Perf Con is bad if you can prove specific instances of in-round abuse.

Don't expect me to vote on the arg that 1-2 CPs/Ks will Time Skew the 2AC, time skew is inevitable.

Don't expect me to vote on the "Err Neg" arg, yes Aff speaks 1st and last but y'all have the 13 min block.

Potential Abuse is not a voter. (Unless you prove to me otherwise)

In Round Abuse is a voter - If you can prove that they were somehow totally abusive I will vote them down.

THEORY IS A VOTER!

In the end what really matters is how you extend and frame the theory debate. I will most likely vote for the team that better contextualizes their theory arg.

I'll vote on a dropped theory arg as long as it's properly extended.

Speaker Points

Under 26: you did something offensive/cheaty

26-26.9: Below Avg

27-27.5: Avg

27.6-28.5: Above Avg

28.5-29.5: Very Good

Above 29.5: Excellent - I was impressed

If you do something interesting, funny, or out of the box in the round, and I enjoy it, I'll boost your speaks.

General Comments

• I will not vote on an argument I don't understand - It's your job in the round to explain your arguments to me.

• Don't be a jerk in round - Respect your partner, your opponents, and the judge(s).
• Do not clip cards or cheat in any way
• I am fine with tag team CX, but don't take over you partners CX, I will dock speaks for that.
• Clarity is more important than speed - If you are spreading a huge analytics-heavy block at full speed I will not catch more than 60% of what you are saying
• Send analytics. if you're good, you don't have to win because they drop things. Plus I will be able to make sure I get al your args when you decide to spread through that 8 min K block
• Time your own Prep/CX/Speeches.

• If the other team doesn't make an argument for why I should not Judge Kick, I will most likely roll with it.
• I do not like judge intervention, I will try to avoid, or at least minimize judge intervention as much as possible. I'd much rather vote based on what you all say in the round.
• I am willing to vote for any argument as long as it is not offensive - but you have to win the argument.

Solorio 23'

I prefer policy have leaned into the big stick impacts and low probability impact calculus more than I would like to admit. (much to the dismay of judges whos rounds devolve to solvency in order to determine probability in counterplan debates) 

This should indicate to you that often I am tech over truth. No matter how little explanation an advantage or DA scenario gets, if its dropped by the other team, 15 seconds of yelling its been dropped thus it is true typically is sufficient to allow me to weigh marginal risk of an impact which for close debate may be all you needed to win.

DA's 

I feel generally positive about voting for non-sensible Bizcon or Politics DA's but its in the execution. Please have updated evidence and a proper link no matter how strong the link is any specificity to the aff is much better than generic links (topic links are a strange grey area but need some "2NC Spin" or new evidence to better justify the link.)

grios11@cps.edu

lane tech '23

he/him/his

add me to the email chain! sdrockrohr@cps.edu

if you are debating online, please have your camera on! (at least during speeches)

i'm good with all arguments, just make sure you explain them well and tell me why you're winning the debate. don't be rude, don't be racist, don't be homophobic, don't be transphobic, and don't be any other ist or ic.

if u are a novice pls don't run a k aff! i probably will not vote in your favor.

tech>truth

i will dock your speaks if you aren't speaking clearly. don't go fast if it means you aren't saying full words.

if u show me you flowed after the round and it's really sick i'll give you +0.2 speaks :]

Calling me a judge makes me feel old but I’m fine with it if that's what you prefer, you can also call me Chris.

He/Him

Add me to the chain: rchristopher1570@gmail.com

Solorio ‘23 —> UIUC ‘27

Background:

I debated at Solorio for 4 years, competing in both nat circuit and UDL. I mostly stuck to policy but did run some of the wacky counterplans (thanks Gio! :) ). I have a good exposure to traditional policy and some on Ks. I went to debate camp at Dartmouth and got taught to debate by Conor B(if you know what the B is please tell me) Cameron and Victoria Yonter. Currently not debating.

Top Level:

• I’m not too familiar with the current high school topic so assume I don’t know any of the specifics for your aff/arguments.

• I’m better for Policy than the K, but like any other argument I’m willing to vote on it if it’s explained thoroughly

• Tech > Truth — If something is dropped don’t just say, “they dropped___” and move on. Explain the argument and make it clear how you want me to evaluate the argument.

• I’ll read evidence but it won’t weigh my decision unless you specifically tell me to look at a certain piece or if there’s a lot of evidence comparison.

• I won’t do the work for you, if you don’t contextualize an argument to the debate then I’m less likely to vote on it.

• I assign higher speaks based on how confident you are and the depth of your arguments. I doc speaks if you are rude to your opponents or partner. Being assertive is good but there’s a difference between assertiveness and rudeness.

• My ballot is submitted before I give feedback. I'm happy to walk through my ballot in a constructive manner, but aggressive post rounding is cringe.

• Should go without saying but I won't tolerate Racism, Sexism, Homophobia, Ableism, etc.

Specifics

DAs:

I think Disads are great and should be in every 1NC. Disads should tell a story of the negative consequences of passing the plan. Every part of the disad is important but I think more time should be spent on the Link and Impact.

• For the neg: If the DA is being run by itself tell me how it turns case and do impact comparison. If it's being run as a net benefit, the previous sentence applies + tell me how the CP avoids the DA. I’d be more convinced by your DA if the link is more specific to the Aff

• For the aff: I’m a fan of both offense and defense arguments when answering a DA. If you want to take the offense route you’ll need to read more cards and have a better explanation in order to execute the straight turn effectively. On the defense route make sure to focus on why case outweighs.

CTs:

I love case turns. I don’t have much to say other than more often than not, these debates get messy. Just make sure to keep everything consistent. LBL will be your best friend in these debates.

CPs:

I’m probably more open to wacky CPs than other judges, keep in mind wacky =/= abusive. Multi-plank counterplans are iffy for me, it all depends how you run them: If you go for all the planks you present then that's alright with me. If you kick out 4 of the 9 planks you presented, it’s more likely I’ll vote aff on theory. Other counterplans such as agent/process cps are fine with me.

• On the neg: Remember, the counterplan is a reason to reject the aff. ALWAYS have a net benefit; either external or internal. Make sure to explain how the CP avoids the net benefit, and how the CP access the plan and solves. Answer the perms.

• On the aff: I’m not too efficient in perm theory so if your strategy revolves around outlandish perms then I’m probably not your judge for it, but like any other argument if explained well, I’m willing to vote on them. Other than that POSTAL should be your rubric on answering CPs

Ks:

I find Ks very interesting but they’re not my strong point, far from it. You’ll have to do more work in order to get me to vote for them i.e. explaining all of it: role of the ballot, alt and impact. If you can’t tell me what any of those are, I can’t justify giving you my ballot.

I’m familiar with literature for Cap, Security, Imperialism, Set Col, etc. For high theory Ks, all of the above applies + higher expectations. Throwing buzz words will not only make your opponents confused, it’ll confuse me too.

K Affs:

Not much to say other than I’m probably not your judge for this, but if you’re willing to put in the effort and do the work, then I’m willing to do my best to judge.

I do expect you to interact and clash more with the neg.

T:

Also not much to say other that I’m less likely to vote on it if it’s super generic as in not specifying how the aff violates, also if it's against a core aff. Having a case list helps.

Theory:

I’m pretty neutral when it comes to condo and evaluate based on the round I’m judging. I’m less likely to vote on other theory arguments, unless explained well. Don’t spread through your blocks and if you do send them in the doc.

He/they, Varsity debater at Lane Tech

email: earodriguez24@cps.edu - please include me in the email chain!

Please speak clearly, I am flowing so I need to hear what you are actually saying instead of just relying on the speech doc. Time your speeches, CX, and prep. Dont be rude, homophobic, racist, etc. Friendly competitiveness is fine but you ruin the experience if you are a jerk. Explain why you should win in this round, the more I understand each sides argument the better decision I can make as a judge.

Good luck! :)

any pronouns

sroman38@cps.edu

Mamaroneck '22/Northwestern '26

vvrubin1234@gmail.com

(GBX 2023 Update)

PLEASE don't clip, especially at the varsity level. I am following along in the doc. It sucks, is unfair, and will result in a loss.

Assume that I have ZERO topic knowledge. Explain acronyms, slow down on T.

TLDR

The following are just thoughts I have, I will vote for anything obviously excluding things that are racist homophobic transphobic etc.

Tech > Truth but an argument that is less true requires less of an answer to beat it, if that makes sense. You need to have a claim/warrant/impact in order for me to consider an argument (ie. condo in the 2AC cannot be "condo--voter for aff ground" and then a minute of the 1AR)

Framework

Fairness is an impact, but the negative should not just assume I think that. Explain why, or for the aff, explain why not.

I am more persuaded by k affs that are grounded in topic literature, but if you give me a reason to think otherwise, I will evaluate it.

CP

Won't judge kick unless you tell me to

Process CP's are fine but I would prefer a well-researched strategy at least somewhat tied to the topic, smart 2ac perm texts are underutilized

DA

Politics is fine but i prefer a 1nr that does good link spin to a 1nr that card dumps bad evidence

K

You do you, neg v. policy affs I feel like the aff should get to weigh the plan and the neg should get links to reps if evenly debated, but would be persuaded by judge instruction + good impact debating by either side

Don't assume anything about my knowledge of your literature base

T

Read lots of cards

Theory

Other than conditionality, theory is usually a reason to reject the argument not the team. I am more likely to err negative if it wasn't particularly egregious.

Random

I'm generally not expressive unless I'm like, super super confused

Will adjust speaker points to the tournament/division.

Add me to the email chain- mschumacher@cps.edu and wydebatetm@gmail.com

Pronouns- she/her

MISC

I only judge on what was on the flow. I'll vote on any well developed arg. Time yourself and your prep. I'm not gonna flow new args in the 2nr or 2ar and I won't do any work for you on the flow.

Ks (don't worry abt this novices)

I love K debates. (K v K debates are better than k aff v fw but do whatever you're better prepped for). Philosophy based Ks should have really good lit and you should know what you're talking about don't just read blocks someone gave you. Neg- if you lose on the K link, you lose the K (I need specific links for each case)

SPEAKS

I will take points off if you are rude during cx or attack a team (via argument) during your speech.

Please add me to the email chain: hinashehzaddebate@gmail.com

Niles West '23

Michigan State '27

Last Update - 1.22.24

**TLDR**

I will try to not let my beliefs influence me, that being said I will not tolerate any offensive acts (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc). You will lose automatically, be given the lowest speak points and I will email coaches/school. Now that is out of the way, you should do what you do best. Most important things are keeping the round organized, show your knowledge about the topic not just read blocks. Arguments need warrants behind them, inserting top level claims even if its dropped is NOT a full argument. I am not as familiar with the highschool topic, so clear explanation, no weird acronyms will be appreciated. Last but not least, debate is suppose to be an activity where you have fun, yes competitive incentives exist but don't let that be the only thing you get out of debate.

**Specific Args**

Kritik:

I enjoy these debates when there is clash between arguments. I believe that framework determines whether links need to be unique. Dropping AFF impacts on case put you in a hard position if you are not winning that they shouldn't be able to weigh case. Teams should not allow the neg to act like/say they fiat 'movements' or 'mindsets' otherwise the debate becomes an uphill battle for the aff. Negative kicking the alt and going for links as DAs can be strategic but understanding uniqueness and framework in these debate is key. KvK rounds for the most goes which ever side has more perm + no link work, specific links are super important in these rounds.

Framework:

I think that I am better for framework than most people may think, but Impact articulation matters for me cause when teams blend impacts and become repetitive/generic it often will make you lose these rounds. These debates should make it clear whether its about models of debate, just fairness in this round or both etc. I believe that "debate is a game" does not = debate is a good game and participation in that "game" does not = can't say the game is bad. Competitive incentives probably overdetermine actions but like you need to win it and explain what it means to the round, inserting it 40 times isn't going to get you anything. I find TVA's to be wayyyy more persuasive than SSD but no matter what at least one of them should be extended because you definitely need to be able to access at least some of their offense. Aff you should just go ham on the impact turn, but it gets hard to evaluate debates where the 2AR is extending every DA and not unpacking/comparing impacts.

Topicality:

I am not very familiar with topicality on the highschool topic, thus things like TVA, list of good AFFs under your interpretation, list of bad AFFs under their interpretation, definition comparison, explanation of neg ground under your interpretation AND the other teams are helpful. I honestly think aff ground is probably a good impact specifically on this topic.

Disadvantage:

Yay I actually like DA and Case debates, comparison and organization is super important in these rounds. High Schoolers read literally horrible DAs that they will never go for, don't be afraid to straight turn them. Rehighlightings prob are good.

Counterplans:

I just don't think I am that good for competition debates, process counterplans confuse me. Rehighlighting 1AC evidence is a good way to show the CP overcomes solvency deficits and truly solves the affirmative. If you think the CP does not solve all of the aff, you should probably have some impact d/turns or whatever on what you don't solve.

**Miscellaneous**

I am willing to vote on theory, but I dont want to vote on aspec.

Condo is good!

I feel like clipping is a weird issue to resolve, like its weird to record someone without their permission? But if I catch you clipping I wont record but you will probably lose.

Tbh I lowkey give high speaks, getting away from blocks, your knowledge about the topic, organization are all the big things that go into how I give speaks. If you aren't clear and I miss an argument, its your fault. Teams also need to be giving more pen time between flows.

I feel like debate can change your subject formation, like you spend so much time in the activity, you make such close friends, spend hours researching and more. Like it is true debaters read things they don't agree with, but it is also true that debate is a unique place because its not like you are just out doing strategic debating and talking about things like IR with like your aunt or school friends. Also like I truly don't think you can look some of these judges who have spent their whole lives on debate and say that debate hasn't shaped them into the person they are now.

For other forms (pf, ld) I will evaluate rounds like I would a policy one. I am not familiar at all with either topic and am not great for weird theory things, trix etc.

Feel free to post round if you don't agree with my decision. I am happy to discuss it!

Pierson Strandquist

NCP '24

he/him

please include BOTH of these emails on the chain :)

pstrandquis@cps.edu

piersoncovi@gmail.com

speak clearly over speaking fast

I'm usually good on timing everything but make sure to keep yourself and the other team accountable on time (basically, make sure to time speeches/prep time)

if you're wondering anything about my judging style before the round, feel free to ask!

also don't hesitate to email me with any questions

Dana Thurnell (she/her)

GBS 2023

UMich 2027

Please add me to the chain dthurnelldebate@gmail.com

Limited topic knowledge

Run anything you want even if you think it is bad. That said the worse an argument is the easier it can be defeated.

I am probably not a great judge for the k. You can still run the K and if you run it very well I will vote for you but I just tend not to think they are winning. I'm definitely more familiar with stuff such as Cap K and Security but still know most other Ks. More high theory stuff will need a lot of explanation.

K affs: Once again not a great judge for them but run it if it's what you are comfortable with but I definitely lean neg on framework. I generally see fairness as an impact as long as the neg articulates it as such. Case debating in these debates is very important.

DA/CPs are really fun and I love to hear these debates. I think the aff should try to make more theory arguments against obviously illegit CPs and the neg should be prepared to defend themselves against that.

I love T but make sure to debate it well.

Theory - I'm much more open to voting on theory violations than most people so make sure to answer it.

Case debating - do it! Side note an impact turn strategy is awesome

No sexism/racism/homophobia/xenophobia/any other stuff like this - will result in me voting you down and lowest speaks. No clipping - I am listening.

Overall, have fun.

Add me to the email chain: aatidmarsh@gmail.com

Former LT debater/coach

(virtual debate) Please turn your camera on while you're speaking if possible

Tell me why you win the debate, do impact calc, know the material you're reading, time yourself, don't be rude. Don't be a bigot.

I'm ok with tag team cross ex but ask the other team

for all --

I have some topic knowledge but it's not comprehensive, assume that I know nothing

Most familiar with K debate, but read whatever you want as long as you're doing in-depth, specific line-by-line

for novices --

Good line-by-line will get you further than any number of cards in round. Your 2NC should not be 8 minutes of cards. Your 2AC case defense should include analytics and extensions.

DAs--obviously fine, just make sure that you are defending and extending your entire link chain throughout the debate. If you only extend what the other team responds to and end up with just uniqueness and an impact in the 2NR, that's hard to vote for.

T-- Make sure that you clash and are directly responding to the other team's arguments. Don't just read the same T overview in every speech, go in-depth on your arguments.

CPs--make sure you don't link to the net benefit, explain how the world of the CP functions as opposed to the world of the plan, tie in solvency deficits on case to explain why the CP is better. Use the CP in your impact calc--if the aff is weighing their impacts vs your DAs but you solve the impacts of the aff, I have no reason to vote for them.

Ks--I've read a lot of Ks and I have a good grasp of security, cap, psychoanalysis, set col, and fem Ks. Even if you're reading one of those arguments, explain the theory of the K and especially your links very clearly. Read framework and do it with intention--don't just read the same 3 lines in every speech. I won't kick the alt unless you tell me to.

Theory--read it, slow down when reading, make sure you're listening to what the other team is saying and directly responding. Direct clash on theory is important. I dislike perf con and ASPEC but I will vote on it if you win on it.

K affs -- I am generally opposed to novice K affs--I think more often than not the neg is completely confused and it's not a valuable exercise for either side. I will listen to you, I will give you feedback, and I will not automatically vote you down for reading it, but I will probably lean neg.

Please read overviews, when you're speaking make sure to signpost and say "AND" or "NEXT" between cards.

Show me your flows after the round for +0.2 speaks

Hey y'all my name is Eva Vasilopoulos and I'm a second year political science, public relations, and economics majors at Iowa State University. I just recently got back into the debate realm this year so I am not fully in the loop on the topic. I did policy debate in high school for Niles North.

Top-level

evavasdebate@gmail.com

Also please make jokes, debate gets boring really fast

I don't know this topic that well so keep that in mind

Just call me Eva, not judge

line by line is important

I don't care what speed you read but just be clear

(For CX)

Case

Impact calc key for affs to do if y'all want an aff ballot. All of my debate career I have only read soft left affs, but I do understand the literature from all aff types. If you have an aff and it has a structural violence impact with some framing, and another impact of war, disease, Econ collapse, etc. Go for one, not both if the 2ar extends their genocide and war impacts, a big no-no. (this happens a lot too)

K-Affs

I like these affs, breath of fresh air from the basic policy affs from the topic resolution. I would prefer teams to read a plan text and defend some action. (doesn't have to be USFG as an actor) I have judged and voted on identity affs a good amount during the arms sales topic and cjr topic.

DA's

have a clear internal link and link story, how does point A lead to point B. Don't use generic evidence for the link, there has to be a clear point that the AFF. I lean slightly aff on this so the neg needs to do some work to prove the DA. If you run a da PLEASE RUN A CP, with it cause yeah there is a risk but I don't have another way to solve that's on my flow. If you are running a relations da, Econ da, or other one make sure you have recent evidence so the impact is concrete.

T

t has been very over-limiting on a lot of topics I have debate on, majority of T arguments only make certain big affs topical. breath>depth. I'm pretty neutral on judging this, it comes down to the extensions in the 2nr and the response in the 2ar on how I should write my ballot. ASPEC I'm not a big fan of, if you go for it the 2nr should be just aspec and explain the voter in the round and why fairness and ed are key. CJR specific I have voted on t on this topic and I have voted against it.

CP

Love a good perm/theory debate. Both sides need to do work to prove whether if the cp is competitive/noncompetitive and that it does/doesn't solve the aff w/o linking to the net benefit. impact calc of the nb is key for my ballot.

K

A good amount of 1st-year rounds I judged were more critical. I'm in the loop on K literature, so you really don't have to explain terms just the world of the alt looks like and why I should pick the neg's fw over the affirmative. these rounds are either really good or really bad. Known to be very messy Only run it if you really understand it.No no generic link cards, have to be specific to the aff. By the 2nr the neg should have a clear story of what the world of the alt is, and why the k matters in this round.

I prefer Jairo (pronounced hi-roe) over judge, but im fine with either

He/They

jairovillalobos94@gmail.com

2A/1N for Solorio 19-23

Not debating at Northwestern 23-27

Assistant Coach at Von Steuben 24-Present

Background+Top level stuff

I debated both in nat circ and udl (Chicago Debate League) tournaments during high school. Went to camp during my freshie and soph (virtual) years, so if any questions then I am more than willing to answer.

For the current high school topic, assume I know very little---the only experience I have with it is from the other times i've judged/helped coach teams at tourneys

Tech>Truth---Doesnt mean you dont have to contextualize/explain what them dropping something means for the round, you still have to explain and make clear what the argument is for me to evaluate it in your favor

Better for policy---didn't do K debate, but don't let that stop you from running what you want///i'll vote for anything if you are winning it

No specific way to assign speaks, just be nice, speak pretty, explain things well, and youll do alright

I feel like I can be a pretty visual person with my face, so if I approve or disapprove of something then you will be able to tell(nodding head for good, scrunching my face for not so good, you get the gist)

Anything that promotes violence, discrimination, or hate is an immediate L, lowest speaks possible, and a report to tab

Specifics

In case you are wondering about in depth thoughts on arguments:

DAs

I really like disads and I think they are a staple of what neg args should be in debate. For every disad, paint me a story of how the disad actually happens if the plan were to pass, from the UQ up to the moment of the impact(big red button is pressed, oceans rise and we get 2012 IRL, the environment collapses, etc.)

• For the neg---should always be in a 1nc. For later speeches, if running DA by itself, tell me why it turns the case and do impact calc. If running as a net benefit, tell me exactly how the cp avoids the DA. Avoid generic links as much as possible; if generic link is called out then I am much much less to weigh the DA as highly as the aff
• For the aff---the best strat to go for is straight turn imo. If done well , then you have forced the neg into an awkard position and you are fully in control of that flow. Honestly if the neg fumbles the straight turn answers too then I am all for a pure straight turn 2ar. If not possible, then the main canon of arguments work, just prove why case outweighs

CTs

I LOVE case turns. These debates can get messy tho, so for both sides make sure to 1. keep the story clean and concise 2. try to organize LBL as much as possible

• Neg---If you wanna go for a CT, then you have to make sure to tell me all throughout the debate how the aff links and how the impact outweighs. Personally, I dont mind it if you sandbag in the block, so go crazy with impacts if you have them, just make sure to answer all the aff args they present cus even once concession can take out the whole ct for me
• Aff---For most of the CTs run, theres a high likelihood you link. It might just be me, but if its clear the aff links, then I just want to see you bite the bullet and tell me why that linking is good(i.e, if you increase growth then do growth good, if heg then heg good, so on, and give me specifics as to why its good). Obviously, this doesn't mean you can just disregard their impacts, so make sure to also answer or group the impacts they had. If they sandbag in the block, then crossapplying is your friend

CPs

CPs are really interesting because theyre either really good or really mid. In general, Agent/Process cps are legit, I find consult cps boring, and if your cp has more than like 5 planks then don't even run it(even you know its abusive). Also, sufficiency framing is iffy---if your cp doesnt solve the impact of the aff, then why even run it

• Neg---THE CP HAS TO BE A REASON TO REJECT THE AFF, PLEASEEEEEEE. That means even if the cp is plan plus, I still wont vote for it. You need to prove to me in the 2nr 2 things: First, you are able to access the plan and solve for the impacts through your cp, and second, doing the plan alone is bad/doing the cp would solve for discrepancies with the plan alone. That being said, you ALWAYS need a net benefit, whether it be internal or external, and explain how the CP avoids that
• Aff---Personally, I like seeing shifty perms being run and exploited like crazy if conceded. By shifty, I dont mean different wordings of the cp text so dont do that, but shifty as in like "do plan and have agency do x instead". In general, POSTAL works great with cps so just stick to that and youll be good

T

T has sucked these past few topics cus everything is so untopical but borderline topical. That being said, don't just run T as a strat skew cus that just wastes flow and could be used for more substantive off. However, still good to always have T on both sides in case of anything

• Neg---I feel like T is really underappreciated against smaller affs. If you are able to call out a team effectively on how theyre untopical, then keep it going all throughout the round and call out if their counterinterps are generic, if they severely underlimit, and so on. T can get very messy though, so unless you have a really good feeling about T, dont run it because I know we dont wanna argue over definitions for 2 hours
• Aff---If you know you're borderline topical, you better have a damn good counterinterp. Apart from that, main canon of arguments work in front of me

Ks

Ks are really interesting but far from my specialty(I had to debate under a hard right policy coach for 4 years, dont blame me). With that tho, I am really only interested/know more of the main canon of neg ks, so stuff like cap, security, afropess, queer. fem, etc. If your k is high theory, then dont pref me(I dont wanna hear about baudrillard for 2 hours)

• Neg---In front of me, you link you lose is valid ONLY IF you win framework(run it as like a da in a way). I really dont buy many alts of the ks as realistic, so if you know your alt isnt that amazing and the aff is calling you out on it, just drop it and resort to talking about how they make matters worse and why I need to evaluate the K more than I do the aff. However, if you run some generic links against the aff, then I am much much less likely to weigh it that highly if they call out the generality
• Aff---Ima be straight and to the point in what I like to see v ks- first strat, call out why the alt fails and why its probably unrealistic/doesnt solve. Second, if they kick the alt, go for case outweighs and specifically why case outweighs, so if you need util then run it in the 2ac, or impact d then also run it in the 2ac, and hell you can even do case turns k to take out the impacts. For all of that to work though, you NEED to win and stay on top of framework, so keep framework on top of the k flow in every speech. Perms are pretty weak v ks, so still read them but dont depend on them for the 2ar

K affs

In all honesty, I am not in tune with k affs like that, so I am not the best judge to run these in front of. However, if it is your main strategy, then you should run what you are most comfortable with

• Neg---Unless you would also run Cap against them, you should just run FW. I buy FW the most against k affs, just stay on top of their answers to your arguments and you should be alright
• Aff---For a k aff to stick in front of me, I need a clear explanation why running the k aff solves for your impacts and why this round is specifically necessary. I need a role of the ballot from the get go(2ac fs, 1ac preempt maybe even) and for this to be explained in depth in the later parts of the round. In a similar fashion, I need an explanation of why running on the neg cant solve, and you need to explain to me how the alt looks like in action

Theory

Most theory is really a wash for me. The only one I will vote for is condo, but that also depends on the round and how many conditional off are run

Misc. Stuff

I like jokes---if you make me laugh then i'll give you +.1-.2 speaks---specifically, joke about Conor Cameron or Victoria Yonter(and if it flies), i'll give +.3

Jon Voss

Northside College Prep

I coached high school policy debate full-time for 12 years, National Service through Legal Immigration. I've been around debate, first as a debater and then as a coach, since 02. I sat out Legal Immigration and Arms Sales, but I judged and researched some for the Criminal Justice Reform, the Water Resources, and NATO topics. Debate is not my full-time job – I work in higher education as a program/product manager – so I don't cut a ton of cards, I'm not really up on what teams are reading, I don't know what topicality norms were established over the summer, etc. I can still flow just as well as I used to, which is to say "deficiently."

Yes email chain: jvoss1223 AT gmail DOT com. I don't read along during the debate, I just like it so that I can ensure nobody's clipping cards and also so that I can begin my decision-making process immediately after the debate ends. This is important for how you debate -- using the speech doc instead of your flow as a guide is to your detriment.

-- fiscal redistribution topic - I heard a few debates on it before the season started but (as of the early season tournaments) you should consider my topic knowledge extremely limited, especially as it relates to topicality norms and complex explanations of fringe economic theories. I do have a basic understanding of the academic concepts that undergird the topic, however, and I will be somewhat involved in argument production this year.

-- Almost every debate I've seen so far this year has collapsed into a very-hard-to-resolve "growth good"/"degrowth good" debate. These have been late-breaking and I spent the bulk of my decision time wading through ev that didn't get me any closer to an answer I found satisfactory. In each instance, I was unhappy with amount of intervention and lack of depth involved in my decision. In that regard:

*if there's a winning final rebuttal that does not require you to wade into these waters, give that speech instead. I am willing (and maybe even eager) to grab onto something external and use that as a cudgel to decide that the growth debate was difficult to resolve and vote on <other thing>. I think I would be receptive, too, to arguments about how I should react in a debate that you think might be difficult to resolve, but this is just a hunch.

*you would almost certainly be better-served debating evidence that's already been read instead of reading more cards. This is especially true if the 1ac/1nc/both included a bunch of evidence on this issue...your fourth, "yes mindset shift" card is unlikely to win you the debate (or even the specific argument in question) but debating the issue in greater detail than the other team might.

*debated equally, I'm meaningfully better for the standard defenses of growth, especially as it relates to successfully achieving the changes that would be necessary to create a sustainable model of degrowth.

-- a note on plan texts: say what you mean, mean what you say, and have an advocate that supports it. If the AFF's plan is resolutional word salad, will be unapologetically rooting for NEG exploitation in the way of cplan competition, DA links, and/or presumption-style takeouts. I guess the flip side of this is that I have never heard a persuasive explanation of a way to evaluate topicality arguments outside of the words in the plan text, so as long as the AFF goes for some sort of "we meet" argument, I'm basically unwilling to vote NEG. "The plan text says most or all of the resolution (and another word or three) but their solvency evidence describes something very different," is an extremely persuasive negative line of argument, but I think it's a solvency argument.

-- Rehighlighting - you've gotta read itand explain what you believe to be the implication of whatever portion of their evidence you read. I'm somewhat sympathetic to allowing insertion as a check against (aggressively) declining evidence quality in debate, but debate is first and foremost a communicative activity.

-- I don't need nor want a card doc at the end of the debate. I have everything in my inbox already. I know what cards you did/didn't read because I was flowing. I'm honestly a little skeptical of debaters providing judges a lens through which to evaluate different controversies after the 2AR has ended. And to be frank, most of these debates aren't so close that judgement calls on ev are necessary to determine who won.

-- In favor of fewer, better-developed 1NC arguments. I don't have a specific number that I think is best: I've seen 1NC's that include three totally unwinnable offcase arguments and 1NC's that include six or seven viable ones. But generally I think the law of diminishing marginal returns applies. Burden of proof is a precondition of the requirement that the affirmative answer the argument, and less ev/fewer highlighted words in the name of more offcase positions seems to make it less likely that the neg will fulfill the aforementioned burden of proof.

-- Highlighting, or lack thereof, has completely jumped the shark. Read more words.

-- Clarity, or lack thereof, has been bad for awhile, but online debate really exacerbates the problem. I won't use the speech doc to bail you out. Just speak more slowly. You will debate better. I will understand your argument better. Judges who understand your argument with more clarity than your opponent's argument are likely to side with you.

-- I am generally bad for broad-strokes “framing” arguments that ask the judge to presume that the risk of <> is especially low. Indicts of mini-max risk assessment make sense in the abstract, but it is the affirmative’s responsibility to apply these broad theories to whatever objections the negative has advanced. “The aff said each link exponentially reduces the probability of the DA, and the DA has links, so you lose” is a weak ballot and one that I am unexcited to write.

-- I am generally better for a narrow solution that tackles an instance of oppression than an undefined/murky solution that aims to move the needle further than the pragmatic alternative. Some of this new stuff about philosophical competition and associated negative framework arguments that block the AFF from leveraging the 1ac as offense is wild.

-- I am often way less interested in "impact defense" than "link defense." This is equally true of my thoughts toward negative disadvantages and affirmative advantages. For example, if the aff wins with certainty that they stop a US-China war, I'm highly unlikely to vote neg and place my faith in our ability to the big red telephone at the White House to dampen the conflict. Similarly, if the neg wins that your plan absolutely crashes the economy by disrupting the market or causing some agenda item to fail, I will mostly be unconcerned that there are some other historical explanations for great power wars than "resource scarcity." The higher up the link "chain" you can indict your opponent's argument, the better.

-- Sort of a related point, but I thought it might be good to separate this out. I have found myself mentally exhausted at the end of almost every Zoom debate I've judged. There is something about flicking your eyes across three screens while transcribing an entire debate that's occurring in my headphones that is so much more draining than what debate looked like back in the day. I think this impacts how I judge. I certainly don't have any inclination to spend the decision time reading a bunch of evidence if I can avoid it. I don't think that's laziness (but maybe...) -- I'm just tired of staring at a screen. Anything the 2NR / 2AR can do to help craft a simple path to victory that allows me to minimize the number of "decision tree" questions I need to resolve is highly recommended.

-- Don't clip cards. If you're accusing a team of it, you need to be able to present me with a quality recording to review. Burden of proof lies with the accusing team, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is my standard for conviction. If you advance any sort of ethics challenge, the debate ends and is decided on the grounds of that ethics challenge alone.

-- Yes judge kick unless one team explicitly makes an argument that convinces me to conceive differently of presumption. Speaking of, presumption is "least amount of change" no matter what. This could mean that presumption *still* lies with the neg even if the aff wins the status quo is no longer something the judge can endorse (but only if the CP is less change than the plan).

-- Fairly liberal with the appropriate scope of negative fiat as it relates to counterplans. Fairly aff-leaning regarding counterplan competition, at least in theory -- but evidence matters more than general pleas to protect affirmative competitive equity. I could be convinced otherwise, but my default has always been that the neg advocate must be as good as whatever the aff is working with. This could mean that an “advocate-less” counterplan that presses an internal link is fair game if the aff is unable to prove that they…uh…have an internal link.

-- T-USFG: Debate is no longer my full-time job, so I think I have a little less skin in the game on this issue. I also suspect the Trump presidency and the associated exposure of explicit racism within the United States may have made me a better judge for affirmatives that do not instrumentally defend the topic/federal government action. I'm not sure how much better, though, and I'm probably at best a risky bet for affirmatives hoping to beat a solid 2NR on T-USFG. If you do have me in this type of debate:

**Won't vote on any sort of argument that amounts to, "debate is bad, so we will concede their argument that we destroy debate/make people quit/exclude X population of student, that's good."

**Affirmatives would be well served to prioritize the link between defending a particular state action and broader observations about the flaws of the state.

**Procedural fairness is most important. The ballot can rectify fairness violations much more effectively than it can change anything else, and I am interested in endorsing a vision of debate that is procedurally fair. This is both the single strongest internal link to every other thing debate can do for a studeny and a standalone impact. I am worse for the “portable skills” impacts about information processing, decision-making, etc.

Please put me on the email chain: sammywinchesterwalsh@gmail.com.

I debated for Northside for four years and graduated in 2022. I am not debating in college.

I lean policy, but I will vote on anything if you are winning it.

Clash is especially important, go a level further than the tag, tell me why you are right and they are wrong.

Please do not forget about Case. 

T and Theory - If you lose any T or theory arguments that are ran against you, I will usually vote against you. Though the standards of the argument need to be impacted out to be considered. For example "They lost T." is not enough for me to vote on, you need to go a level.

DAs and CPs - Very comfortable with them, go for it.

Policy Aff v. K - As I lean policy, if you are running a K, turns case arguments work best with me. On framework for both sides, make sure it is consistent. Please try not to change your interpretation or standards throughout the round. Unless it is an integral part of the K to ignore Case, don't concede or forget about case in the 2NR. I am decently comfortable with the standard Ks, but anything super specific or academic, you will need to make it make sense to me. I will not vote on something I do not understand by the end of the round. If you are going for it, you should be able to explain it adequately.

K Aff - I will not vote on something I do not understand by the end of the round. If you are going for it, you should be able to explain it adequately. Especially since academic K's are about learning. However, if you're framing is based on being confused, you're going to need to do some explanation there, but if you win it, I will vote accordingly. Arguments against K Affs that I like are other Ks and Cede the Political, though anything can work.

Glenbrook South '23

Please add me to the chain: hmwdebate@gmail.com.

kinseydebates@gmail.com

Hey Jake (LEE)
I made one phone call
I got the same house as you
Same cars, too
It's really not that hard
Oh hey, by the way, welcome to the top little brother
Feels good, huh?
But let's not forget how you got here
(YAH-YEET)

Little brother Jakey try to roast me? (what?)
Little brother standing on his own two feet?
(not for long)
I'm a dog, you're a puppy, call you Kong
Let's talk about your garbage that you call a song
It should be every other day, just some strong advice
I made you famous once, it's about to happen twice
Yeah, you on Disney, but who helped you read all your lines (that's me)
Don't forget boy, you were my shadow on Vine
Now you got a few subscribers, and you think that you're the shiz
I'll admit, you got money, you got bars, you got chicks
But you're a d***
You ain't thankful for your fans, it's kinda funny
Do your investors know Team 10 ain't making any money?
See, it starts with the talent, but it's hard when you got none
I think you kinda salty 'cause I'm the favorite son
I'm a maverick, you're a sidekick, yeah I brought you to LA
If there's one thing you should know
You don't frick with the Logang

Hold up, Ima throw up
Looking at your face you don't know what it means to glow up
Trying to dance and acting class
It's doing nothing now you try to rap
(come on, hold up)
Catch the flow, you can't, oh no
Maybe Team 10's got it
I mean, that's how you grow
But you still can't sell out any shows
No, you still can't find some matching clothes
(YAH-YEET)

You're just killing the vibe, fact
You ain't doing it right, double fact
Trying to play ball with the dogs
You don't know what you've done you just ruined your life, yeah
You're just killing the vibe, yeah
You ain't doing it right, yeah
Trying to play ball with the dogs
You don't know what you've done you just ruined your life, yeah

What happened, Jake?
Man, we used to love each other
After all, we came from the same mother
Biologically, you know that makes us brothers
So much negativity, it really makes me wonder (why?)
I feel like you just need a maverick shirt
(Link in description!)
When you insult me Jakey, it really hurts
Sometimes I wish my real brother was Dirk
(Disney!)
But now I gotta go and put you in the dirt

Yo, wait what?
hold up, hold up
Why'd the music stop?

Uh Oh! That's Alissa Violet
Used to be your chick
Now she in the Logang
And you know she on my, team!

Those cars ain't yours man
That shiz was just floated
Gun tattooed on your leg
'Cause she knew you weren't loaded

I act movies that your fans watch with their baby sitters
I thought you were my boy, guess I have a baby sister
You're tryna, be a model shoulda, kept nells visser
Go make another video, 'bout who's the better kisser

Is it called Team 10, cuz you take 10 percent of your friends? (That's fucked up, Jake)
When the contract dies, so does their carrer it ends? (That's also a fact)
Are you mad just 'cause you couldn't sign the Dolans? (They're smarter than you)
So you had to replace them with some spanish twins? (haha WEAK !!)

It's every day bro, do you give up at night?
We 24/7 man, you picked the wrong fight
I'm a savage
You are average
I'm a beast
I'm going wild
This song will be the death of you
I'm 'bout to be an only child!

Please add me to the chain

bjwhite10@cps.edu

Pronouns: he/him

Tech>Truth

Don’t be a jerk + don’t be racist/sexist/homophobic

Try to time your own speeches/cx/prep

Mention Juice WRLD in your speech for extra speaks

I can tell when you're stealing prep - Don't do it

Roast Greyson Parfenoff for extra speak

fionayindebate@gmail.com

she/her

gbn 23

1a/2n

please don't call me judge

scorpio sun, taurus moon, gemini rising - adapt accordingly

top level:

- don't be racist, queerphobic, sexist, ableist, etc. - i will vote you down and give you lowest speaks possible

- death is bad - do not say death is good

- tech > truth but explain the implications of a dropped argument

- other than what's above, good debating can overcome my predispositions, so read what you like

be nice & have fun, if you have any questions feel free to ask!