Hi, I’m Elisha Bell. I'm a high school parli debater who has been in the circuit for 5 years.

Be kind and respectful to your opponents but don’t hesitate to call them out on unfair arguments or promotion hate speech of any kind (racism, sexism, classism, etc.). Even if the opposing team doesn't call you out on hate speech don't think you got away with it, I will and I won't take it lightly in both the distribution of speaker points and my decision on the round.

I don’t mind heckling as long as it is warranted and doesn't take away from the round. I will take points off if I deem it aggressive heckling, but don't let that scare you away from engaging at all. I'll let you know in the round when you're getting close to crossing that line, before taking points off.

You can speak at whatever speed is most comfortable for you. I don't mind spreading as long as your opponents and I are still able to hear your points.

As for things I look for in a speech:

Please signpost throughout your speech as well as provide a roadmap when you start.

Make sure to engage with the other teams arguments. Don't just expand on your points without responding to refutations first, especially in later speeches (You're point doesn't still stand just because you said it does). There needs to be reasoning behind not just your responses to their points but also why yours flow through

WEIGH. Weighing is what in the end can make or break a round for you. Why do your points matter? What effect does this have on the world? Why is what you're saying have a more positive effect than your opponents? Why do your impacts matter more than your opponents? Your points don't matter if you don't have any impact to back them up.

If you have any other questions about my preference on something in round just ask me before and I'll be more that happy to answer or a question about my feedback just let me know and I can give you my email

Most importantly; have fun, humor is always welcome and enjoyed. Don't take things too seriously it's only middle school debate, I promise it is not as serious as you think. Have a great round debaters and good luck!

and if u get Athena Li tell her I'm the better judge :)

Ilan Boguslavsky (he/him)

Head-Royce '24

UC Berkeley '28

Add me to the chain: ilan.boguslavsky@gmail.com and hrsdebatedocs@gmail.com (policy only)

Top-level:

Read what you want. I read a policy aff my first two years of high school and a k aff my last two years. Now I go for only policy arguments in college.

Tech > truth, I'll pretty much vote for anything if won technically and will do my best to minimize judge intervention. I do not care about rep or anything that happens outside of the round.

Write my ballot at the top of the rebuttals

Well researched and specific neg strats > generics

Quality of cards > quantity of cards

Everything below is just some thoughts, but tech obviously outweighs everything else.

Topicality:

Specific and well thought out t debates > generic t violations

Competing interps > reasonability

Counterplans:

I am good for advantage cp's and aff specifc pic's. I am getting better for competition debates.

I default to judgekick unless the aff contests it.

Disadvantages:

Explicit turns case and impact analysis makes the DA a lot more persuasive.

Mitigating the case is very important.

No risk is possible but hard to win.

Kritiks:

I am familiar with most common K literature. Throughout high school I read afropess, black feminism, racial cap, security, deleuze, cybernetics, beller, etc.

I'll probably know what you're talking about but you should have a coherent explanation of your theory of power

Specific links to the aff >>> generic links

Explain your impacts. a lot of times teams k teams read a link without doing any impact calc

I'm fine if you go for framework + a risk of a link or a material alt that solves the links but I think the latter requires a lot more work on mitigating the case and answering da's to the alt

Framework is usually the most important part of these debates.

K-Affs:

K-affs should be unique to the topic, however you want to approach that is up to you.

Explain what your aff does and how it resolves the impacts of the 1ac

If you are vague about your advocacy or shift what your aff does throughout the debate to skirt case turns or k links i'll err neg on framework or no perms.

I think its easy to win that k-affs do get perms and the easiest way for the neg to win otherwise is to point out specific instances of in-round abuse where the aff team has shifted their advocacy to spike links.

K-affs need to affirm something not just say that the topic is bad

Framework vs K-Affs:

I have been on both sides of this debate, I pretty much exclusively go for framework against k aff's in college and I understand the pedagogical benefits of both models of debate.

I do not care if you go for fairness or clash/skills, fairness can be an internal link or an impact

Debate has game-like elements but I can be convinced that it's more than a game

I prefer a counter interp but am fine for a straight impact turn strategy

The counter interp will never solve the neg's offense but it can mitigate limits explosion arguments and can act as terminal defense

Aff’s need specific answers to tva and ssd

Its an uphill battle for the aff if the neg wins that the tva allows for a discussion of the aff's harms and they can read the aff on the neg in other debates

K v K:

These debates usually come down to the perm so the neg needs specific links that are opportunity costs to the aff

Affs need to defend their literature and authors instead of no linking arguments that probably link to the aff

Theory:

Anything but condo is probably a reason to reject the argument not the team

Condo is good but I can be persuaded otherwise

Dont spread through theory blocks

LD stuff:

Everything from the rest of my paradigm applies

Good for policy v policy, policy v k, k v policy, k v k, theory

I haven't seen much of phil debate but it seems fine-- make sure to explain arguments thoroughly though

Would prefer not to judge tricks but will still evaluate them

No RVI's

Random stuff:

The death k is a valid argument

You can insert rehighlightings if the lines in the card have already been read by the other team but you must read any new lines/warrants.

Tell me if you want to stake the round on an ethics violation and I will stop the round, otherwise debate it out

Hi Middle School Debaters!

Just a bit about me, I did parliamentary-style middle school debate for 2 years, and I've done policy debate for Head Royce all four years of high school. I can't wait to watch your round!

My foremost priority as a judge is to ensure that everyone feels safe in this space. I love creative arguments, clash, and smart heckling, but none of that can come at the expense of a debater's comfort. Basically as long as you're kind and respectful everything will go great. Otherwise, speaker points may be deducted :/

Impact calculus is usually the most important part of the debate for me. Obviously all the buzz words (timeframe, probability, magnitude, etc.) are cool, but just give me a clear analysis of why the impacts of your assertions outweigh theirs.

Otherwise, make sure heckling is purposeful, don't ramble in POIs, do clear evidence comparison, and extend clear warrants in the rebuttals. And of course, be funny and have fun :)

-Dylan

best of luck! feel free to ask me to clarify anything in this paradigm.

[about me]:

Fallon '19, Dublin High '23

Experience: 1 yr middle school, 3 yrs high school PF and parli (Dublin CK) - TOC qual x2, nats x3, states, co-coaching DHS PF team

Email:kcheng05@stanford.edu

____________________________________________________________________________________

[what makes me a happy judge]:

args: I'll buy any argument as long as each claim you make is well warranted and thoroughly explained. Don't jump from claim straight to impact, tell me why and how you got there.

weighing: WEIGH AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, and make sure it's COMPARATIVE! Tell me why your argument is better than your opponent's, not just why yours is good. Consider factors like time, size, probability, effectiveness, etc.

refuting: If you don't refute something or explain why another refutation applies to it, I'd consider it conceded unless they don't bring it up again either. If your opponent drops your argument, point it out in your next speech.

speed: I can handle speed/spreading, but DON'T go fast if a) you become unclear from stuttering/lagging, or b) it's unfair for your opponents (which is true for most middle school rounds)

POIs/heckles: It's really impressive when you can strongly respond to POIs on the spot. Making and responding to POIs are good for your speaker scores. Just don't spam them abusively; same w/ heckles.

speaks: Please be respectful/accommodating to everyone in the round! If you're not, your scores will reflect that. In scoring, I reward warranting, organization, narrative, WEIGHING, collapsing, and lighthearted jokes -- make the round interesting and fun to judge!

more: I appreciate collapsing and signposting. Collapsing = focusing on 1 arg by the end of the round; signposting = making it clear when you move to a different part of your speech ("turn the 2nd impact on their 1st contention", etc).

____________________________________________________________________________________

[after the round stuff]:

disclosing/rfd: Whenever allowed to, I'll always disclose who won, speaker scores, and why. I'll answer any questions, just avoid postrounding (trying to change my decision).

[for questions/feedback/anything debate]:

email - kcheng05@stanford.edu

ig - @katiiecheng

discord - katiec#2874

I am a lay judge and speaking matters for me. I have 4 years of judging experience but primarily in Parli format. This is the first year of me judging in public forum.

Francis Jayaratne

Head-Royce School '23 | Claremont Mckenna College '27

MS Parli debate (2017-2019, 2 years)

Policy debate (2019-2023, 4 years) Topics: Arm sales, Criminal Justice Reform, Water Resources, NATO emerging tech

TOC (2023)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wo3OM2_E7FU

Emails (add both):

mtglord123@gmail.com

hrsdebatedocs@gmail.com

For Policy Debate:

• Have fun with debate
• Please format email chain subject lines as "Tournament Round Aff Entry vs Neg Entry"
• My flowing wasn't the best when I debated, but I still had some success so make of that what you will
• I read a Policy Aff for 1.5 years and a K Aff for 2.5, wrote a policy Aff
• In my last year I went a ton for death good and other whacky arguments --> love it, if you read these types of args I'll be with you 100%
• Disclosure is good+important
• I'll assume nobody in the round is trying to be actively malicious, and I think apologies remedy most in round conflict
• Don't call me judge, feel free to say my name
• Make me laugh --> I'm often expressive so feel free to take that into account
• CPs and Ks absolutely need to beat the perm or win FW
• T is great if you can prove real abuse, especially if they're shifty in round. Affs are too shifty nowadays and defend too little with their plan texts
• DAs with good links are cool
• Silly/contrived/generic/most process CPs aren't that cool
• Don't use CX as prep
• If a plan text is vague/the Aff is being shifty I'm 100% willing to vote neg on vagueness/parametrics type args
• I 100% will vote for a substantiated and harmful instance of evidence manipulation/ethics violation. Even if not done purposefully policy debate needs good evidence standards, however I'll also weigh reasonability, don't make frivolous ethics violations.
• For the K:

- Love them, especially with post fiat links and explanations like circumvention etc.

- Winning FW makes the K debate super easy, I think if it comes down to it I won't do a middle of the road approach

- When I debated I read racial cap, Deleuze, Tech Ks, and Security Ks

• In the K Aff debate:

- You need to prove that your education o/w some level of clash+fairness loss

- Fairness is kinda an impact but my mom told me life ain't fair so...

- Beat SSD/TVA

- I'm very unsympathetic towards K affs that say the topic as a whole is bad/should be ignored, each year's new topic brings a new valuable topic to learn about imo

- I'm absolutely willing to vote for the Neg off FW, you just need to win it

For Middle School Debate:

- I'm a high school debater, so as long as I can actually hear you, I probably can follow you

- I am flowing, probably on my computer otherwise on paper

- Don't spread in MS debate or misuse high school debate terms

- Make me laugh, it'll help your speaks and make your pathos better

- While I miss heckles, over zoom no heckling

- Debate is all about making connections --> Connections between contradicting points, your own assertions, pieces of evidence etc. In many ways it's a web

- I love good POIs and will keep track of them. They can and should be a key part of clash and interacting with the opponents and clash. However, don't abusively overuse POIs. While I'll appreciate the effort behind a bad POI, it doesn't automatically help your side

- Be confident, doesn't matter if you're an introvert or extrovert, everyone can at a minimum look confident and that really goes a long way

- I'm probably a mixture of tech and truth (meaning I evaluate debates both off of my flow/exactly what was said, and also with some level of common sense)

- Not a fan of Plans/counterplans, instead frame them as potential alternatives that the Pro/Con/Aff/Neg precludes

- In the rebuttal speeches I really want to see good impact calculus/comparison. More often than not the other team has some impact, what you need to do is tell me why yours comes first

- Weighing mechanisms are cool but misused. If it's too broad I don't care about it. If it's not explained why it comes first, it probably doesn't come first. If it's not tied back to your own points/assertions, then your overall story is less convincing. Honestly saying your weighing mechanism is utilitarianism (doing the most amount of good for the most amount of people), is probably the best W/M in MS debate imo

- I really like good refutations and answers. A weird way I viewed debate was as a knife throwing competition. Each knife is an assertion, and each thrower is the speaker. Instead of throwing a bunch of knives at the target and hoping some stick, it's better to have a few highly accurate throws. Even better is "catching" your opponent's knife and throwing it back at them. In my eyes that's a really good refutation that either turns their own point against them or that stops it from ever hitting the target

- Compare compare compare. Comparing points wins you debates --> More than that, Answer Questions. Most debates come down to your side answering a question, and their side answering that question with the complete opposite answer. Tell me why your answer is right while theirs is wrong. If that doesn't happen, I'm left having to just use common sense.

- Some impacts need to be explained more while others don't until the last speech. Saying the economy will collapse doesn't need to be impacted out to people losing their jobs and becoming poor until the last speech. On the other hand, climate change probably requires less of an explanation since talking about polar bears isn't really crucial.

- If the debate comes down to a piece of evidence I will probably look at it

- Don't read a definition unless it'll help your side

- Wrap up what you're saying when time goes off, I highly recommend you time yourself when giving your speech

Hey I'm Athena, I'm currently a junior at Piedmont High and have been debating parli for the past six years. I have the most experience in parli (norcal tech but also some lay) but I also know how LD and policy work. This might be a bit long, but I wanted to include everything I felt was necessary and would help you out! If any of this funny debate jargon doesn’t make sense to you or if you have any questions about why I evaluate stuff in a certain way please ask me before the round! I am always happy to take the time to explain - paradigms with a lot of lingo always scared me so i def understand feeling overwhelmed

- Basic human decency always comes before winning. This should be common sense (in debate and in life), but don't say or do anything discriminatory or rude to anyone in the round. This will not be tolerated and I will immediately drop you, have a Serious Discussion, and escalate to equity/tab accordingly. Please stop reading stuff written by Nazis. The violence behind these kinds of ideas, words, and actions doesn’t disappear just because you’re in a debate round and tabula rasa does not shield you from that. I also find that most arguments like this tend to lose on the flow anyways.

Don't misgender anyone. If you do this and do not immediately apologize and correct yourself, you will be dropped and a Serious Discussion will also be in order.

- Please don't ask to shake my hand. I wear a mask but idc if you do.

- Speak at whatever speed seems reasonable to you but if anyone in the round asks you to slow or clear you should slow or clear.

- Grace period is like 15s, finish up your thought but I will stop flowing

- Weighing is really really really important! I can't stress this enough it's so important for evaluating the round. I want to see clean collapses in the back half of the round, metaweighing is cool, and just please do weighing work i will be sad if you don't

- Please actually interact with your opponents' arguments, I feel like arguments over stuff like author credibility are kind of pointless and shallow (esp in parli where no one can really fact check anything anyway) and if their author really is that bad surely there’s some logical fallacy/otherwise incorrect thing they’re employing and subsequently somewhere they’re losing on the flow? that you can talk about instead?? Idk, I just think proper clash makes everything more interesting and creates much better argumentation

- Tech over truth but the less truth there is the less tech it takes to beat it

Parli:

- I find that mspdp does not understand how POO’s work. Reading an extension from the previous speech is definitely not a new argument. Reading a response to something someone said in the block is a golden turn and is a thing you can do. That being said, I protect, but sometimes I forget so you should call the point of order just in case, I will not penalize you

- Please please PLEASE if you poi make sure they are 1) a QUESTION 2) directed at your opponents NOT ME. I have no problem with pois and in fact encourage them as a whole, just please use them for their intended purpose of asking a relevant and clarifying question to your opponents. I’m getting really tired of the whole awkwardly shoehorned in as a question, “well we say this so do you agree that x is true” thing, like save that for your own speech and you can absolutely utilize poi's strategically but this is just not that. I also don’t care if you don’t poi, it won’t affect my perception of you as “engaged” or wtv but I do generally think it is nice to accept a poi or two

- Case is cool. Please give me good links and uniqueness in the right direction!!

- I appreciate counterplans and don’t have any strong opinions either way on theoretical illegitimacy, so open to theory. Please address any perm spikes on the aff

- I love k’s! I’ve currently been doing cap and cap adjacent k’s but I love learning about different k’s so feel free to run whatever in front of me. You should explain your lit base in your FW - assume both I and your opponents don’t know it and answer questions if they come up. I like specific links and they will give you an easier path to the ballot than generics. Please have good solvency, I think that unless you are very clear about how your spicy abstract prefiat epistemological rejection of something or another alt solves I find it hard to buy and will have a lower threshold for “no solvency womp womp” responses by the other team

K affs should have strong topic harms OR strong framing justifying the aff. Ideally both actually both is good. I will vote on FW/T as long as it doesn’t cross over into “K’s are prima facie bad”

- Theory is nifty. Defaults in case you don't read them (but can be persuaded otherwise): competing interps > reasonability, text of the interp, LOC theory probably comes before MG theory, no RVIs but I'm fine with it, you just have to win it. K’s bad is cringe. I'll vote on T but I want it to be clean and not an awfully convoluted round about semantic minutiae. Condo is whatever I don't really feel like people run it in parli anyway tho. I think there’s maybe something to be said for disclosing during prep that you are running a k of some sort, especially in novice, but I don’t really know how I’m supposed to enforce or verify that. Parli moment

- i don’t really know how to eval tricks except tropicality, I love tropicality

LD:

- please do good signposting and please slow down on analytics! It’s been a hot minute since I’ve watched any super spready rounds so please cut me some slack

- Email: [will put up before tourn] Would be nice if you could format the subject line as Tournament - Round # - Aff AB vs Neg XY. It should not take you two minutes to send cards unless you’re having a legitimate issue, in which case you should let me know asap otherwise I’ll start prep after ~30s

- Take a look at the parli section, most of my opinions are the same. You can run plans and counterplans, lol.

- FW is very cool and important! Idk what else to say here.

- Trad LD is like weird to me tbh. Make it abundantly clear why your value + criterion matters ig?

- Look okay I get that debate can get rather heated but being annoying in CX gets you nowhere, I appreciate some snark but being straight up rude is a different thing and also not funny. Also please stop screaming "THEY MISHANDLED THIS" at the top of your speech, like they probably didn’t and you still need to explain why that matters

Other stuff:

- READ CONTENT WARNINGS. I err on the side of too many CW/TW’s being better than the alternative (this obviously excludes jokes, which will also make me mad). If you get trigger warning theory run against you just apologize, move on, and do better in the future. It's that easy. I do not want to see forced outing or justifications of violent rhetoric. I can and will drop the debater. I am not open to postrounding about this.

Conversely, I would also like it if you didn't villainize your opponents when they are actually making a good faith effort to improve (and it is usually easy to tell if they are!)

- Speaker points are a) nonsensical, inconsistent, problematic, and prioritize cishet white men, and b) very important to a lot of you. After some consideration, I've also realized that me giving out straight 30's is unfair to the majority of debaters who don't roll me/a point fairy as a judge. My (imperfect) attempt to rectify those two issues is to give speaks purely based on strategic decisions and never on speaking ability. I will never ever ever dock speaks for your clothes, internet connection, stuttering/speaking quietly/etc(if it interferes with my ability to understand you i will let you know), sounding “angry” (esp if you are fem presenting!), speaking “informally”, etc!!!! That being said, I do think I tend to be generous with speaks. That also being said, obviously, if you do any of the (few) things I told you not to do regarding your conduct towards others in the round, I will drop your speaks.

- +0.5 speaks for bringing me A Trinket (food, something from nature, or some otherwise nifty object), +0.1 for saying “we stay silly” or “yippee”, +0.2 for playing or referencing any segment of the musical masterpiece that is I Will Eat Raw by Joel jacobs at any point while I am in the room, showing me your flows after the last speech (middle school only), calling elon musk a clown and honking your nose, or each phoebe bridgers reference :))

Also say something funny please debate is not as serious as y'all think I really wish people got more silly with it

+0.3 if you make fun of elisha bell

- If you have any questions after the round, just ask me and I'll give you my email, feel free to ask about anything whenever!

- I'm just vibing you're just vibing, there's always room for improvement, have fun and good luck y'all!!

I am a parent judge and have judged LD debate tournaments for the past three years. I was also a LD debater when I was in high school.

My biggest pet peeve is when debaters spread. It adds little to the value and purpose of LD debate. LD debate has always been about laying out clear evidence and articulating your point of view and your rebuttals. Spreading is a way of getting across as much evidence as you possibly when instead, the goal should be to get your message across with less words. The inherent educational value of LD debate is to teach one how to research, analyze and articulate your POV. Conviction in real life has nothing to do with how fast you speak. Clear, precise arguments are what I value most. LD debate is here to reach you life skills...and speaking fast is not one of them. Just remember - quality over quantity. If you can't explain yourself in a few words, then you are not going to convince me.

I encourage debaters to lay out their roadmap and to say upfront how many contentions they will be speaking to. This will help me flow and keep track of your arguments.

Don't just read your cards and quote your citations. Try to understand what the underlying message and meaning is.

If your opponent doesn't refute your contention, don't just assume I will catch it; call it out.

Combining logic with data and statistics make for a more convincing and powerful argument.

Most important of all, don't get discouraged if you don't win; have fun and enjoy the spirit of LD debate. Be proud of all your hard prep work that went into the tournament.

Don't talk fast, drink water, enunciate, and be confident. I follow the flow of the debate very closely and I appreciate reference citations and more current evidence.

i am also extremely focused on seeing good behavior and respect by both teams to each other. Please maintain respect courtesy and good behavior and good sportspersonship. This is extremely important to me

I enjoy long walks, watching football on sundays and con limon corn nuts while I am judging as a light snack

good luck to all

I am a Junior in highschool

I did middle school debate all 3 years and am now doing high school Public Forum debate.

I am ok will all POIs and heckles as long as they aren't repetitive or so constant that they disrupt the speaker

POIs are generally encouraged, not giving any POIs or heckles throughout the debate will be perceived as a lack of engagement in the debate.

I will be timing your speeches but I am ok with you timing yourself.

Signposting during and before speeches is good for organization of the speech but is not necessary if you are clear on what you are responding to and talking about in your speech.

But how does this affect Lebron's Legacy?

Parli coach at Berkeley High.

Former debater and coach at Head-Royce.

Short Version:

I have experience competing in policy, parliamentary, and MS debate. I am K and speed friendly. Know the arguments that you run. I will NEVER vote on K if it is clearly prewritten/poorly understood by the team that reads it. I don't like any fishy tricks within the round: wasting your opponent's time, skewing the round (i.e. running then dropping an essential arg), and the classic...over spreading.

Make sure the choices you make in rounds enhance your argumentation. Be good people.

If you have read through this paradigm come to the round and tell me: "Sherbert Lemon." I will know and be impressed.

Long Version:

Check out these paradigms as these are the judges/coaches who have mainly informed my judging standards:

• Larry Dang (Policy)
• Joel Jacobs (Parli)

Shoutout to my first debate coach Vy Linh Nguyen. She runs GGSA and is a rising star in Parli debate. If you name drop her in round I will be VERY VERY Impressed.

Dhruva Sood(he/him)

Head-Royce '24

USC '28

Put me on the chain: Dhruvasood1@gmail.com and HRSDebatedocs@gmail.com

Top Level:

Read what you want. I read a Kaff for three years in high school, and went for the K in most rounds, but my 1nrs were made up of T, DAs, CPs and Case.

Tech > Truth, I will vote for anything under the sun. I think judges saying tech over truth but then listing arguments they won't vote for is a little ridiculous (barring anything violent, racist, homophobic, etc..). there are predispositions below, but all of them can be overcome if you win it technically.

If you have new out of the box arguments or arguments you think most judges won't vote for I'll be good for you.

Evidence quality matters a lot to me, I will read every card that is mentioned in the final rebuttals. In order to win an argument you must win a claim + evidence + impact, if you fail to have a card that substantiates your claim or impact you cannot win that argument, similarly if the evidence you have barely substantiates the claim or impact it's going to be a lot harder to win that argument. On the other hand, if your evidence is very good and specific you should be clear about that and flag it for me

Greatly prefer specific strats to generics. I have no issue with generic case or off case arguments, but am just likely to be more bored

Topicality:

I'm good for T, many of my 1nrs were extending it

Caselists are super useful

Competing interps is probably better than reasonability (but I can be convinced otherwise)

Disadvantages:

good for these, case debate is probably necessary here.

Make sure to have explicit warranted out reasons for outweighs and turns case analysis

Counterplans:

Least familiar with counterplan debates, particularly competition, if your strategy relies heavily on noncompetitive counterplans or dubiously competitive counterplans I am probably not the best judge for you. Not to say I won't vote here, but these are just debates I have had very little of in the past.

Good for specific pics

Judgekick is probably fine, but it has to be said

Kritiks:

Familiar with a good amount of literature bases, In high school I read security, cap, racial cap, deleuze, set col, asian american studies, critiques of enlightenment thinking, and the death k. Not super familiar with higher theory stuff, but should be able to keep up if you explain it.

specific link evidence and examples are the best thing to have in these debates.

Both sides should try to know early on whether the K is going to be framework or alt dependent. The latter requires more work as you probably have to do a good amount of case debating in addition to alt solvency and perm debating (the alt rarely ever actually solves case).

shiftiness is super annoying in these debates, if you're defending something like decol you should be ready to defend against the material implications/turns to that.

Cross ex is one of the most important parts of these debates, both sides are usually making a good amount of pretty flimsy arguments, so hold them to them.

explain your impacts, and impact out the links

K-Affs:

Good for kaffs that are intrinsic and close to the topic. I think k affs that have little to no resolutional tie are both boring and probably unstrategic.

Kaffs should affirm something, not just critique the resolution

Examples of your solvency/method are incredibly important and useful, please have them

Think spillout arguments are very unconvincing by both sides, I'm not sure why kaffs need to spill out, and i'm rarely convinced that they do

that being said, you should still have a coherent view of why the ballot/affirmation of your method is good

I think non T-usfg t options are highly strategic against kaff teams, find a word in the resolution they don't meet other than the usfg that doesn't necessitate state action, and kaffs are likely to just read their fw blocks straight down at you anyways. I will be incredibly happy if you read other t violations in these rounds.

Vs. framework:

Fairness can be an impact or internal link

Debate is a game, but it is not just a game

I prefer counterinterps/countermodels instead of just impact turns, I think having a clear view of what debates should look like is better than just why they're bad now.

The aff needs to have clear answers to TVAs and SSD that are embedded within the case. It will be a huge uphill battle for you otherwise.

I think reading a counterplan and turning it into a tva is kind of played out now, everyone expects it, and it doesn't seem to be a great time trade off

please read specific tvas to the aff, the debate will be substantially easier for you to win, and odds are [x] soft left aff of the year or [x] aff that talks about capitalism and oppression will not resolve the impacts of the affs framework arguments

Neg case debating is incredibly important, all of their framework offense will be imbedded in the 1ac

Vs. the K

winning that kaffs don't get perms is likely reliant on winning framework, which means its a largely unwinnable argument in my opinion. Absent winning framework I don't there is justification for there being a difference between kaffs and policy affs that justifies not giving them perms. that being said if the aff is super shifty I'm much more likely to buy this argument.

as said above for kaffs and k debates, I think examples on both sides are some of the most important things to have.

the aff should have clear perm evidence and link turn evidence, the neg should have clear and specific link evidence.

stick to your literature/authors. Odds are both sides authors will agree on things like cap or heg being bad, but that doesn't mean they are saying the same thing or are mutually compatible

Theory:

Probably not great for these debates, just the area I have the least experience in

realistically 4-5 condo is probably fine (can be convinced otherwise)

I have a low threshold for beating cheap theory arguments, but you've got to answer them

Misc:

I don't think you can insert rehilightings if the words that are relevant have not yet been said by either team. Debate is a communicative activity which means you have to speak your arguments.

The death k is 100% justifiable to be read in round

I won't vote on things that I didn't see/didn't happen in round

Racism, homophobia, sexism, etc.. = Auto loss + Lowest speaks possible

You can stop the round or debate out ethics violations, this is probably good to ensure more teams call them out. If you debate it out should have clear cuttings of the rules of the tournament and what an ethics violation is/looks like, from there you have to impact out why it matters.

Be funny, I am very easy to make laugh and it will go a long way

Funny references to current or past HRS debaters = +.1 speaker points

Some other paradigms to look at to better understand how I think about debate: T Weddington, Tessa Harper, Cat Jacob, Riley Reichel

Maxwell Wong

Head-Royce '25. 2N.

I primarily go for critical arguments. I don't dislike policy argumentation; I've just never had an opportunity to learn it super well. That said, I will be worse off evaluating "policy" arguments. I am unfamiliar with counterplan competition.

Debate technically! I will not open a speech drop. I will not flow off a speech document past the 1NC.

Hey! I'm TT and I'm a second debater at Quarry Lane (1st speaker for Quarry Lane LY)

add me to the email chain @tiantianyang07@gmail.com - please share your speech docs!!

PF:

cards > paraphrasing

tech > truth

extend! fully and clearly extend arguments & responses

don't go too much overtime during speeches and prep

stay respectful and inclusive during round

LD:

*reminder that I'm a PFer!

framework and impact calc matter

no frivolous theory

no K's, no fill

LARP and policy is fine

no phil