Put these emails on the email chain:

lasablackflag@gmail.com

lasadebatedocs@gmail.com

(She/Her)

Sixth-year of policy debate at LASA High School.

Please name the email chain something logical, preferably the format “Tournament name – Round – Aff team v Neg team”. Don’t name it something like “round 1” or “email chain”.

For online debate, I would prefer if everyone keeps their camera on, and I’ll do the same.

TLDR

I view debate as a game, which means I’m willing to vote on any arguments as long as they aren’t racist/homophobic/sexist etc. I will try and be as unbiased as possible. This is not to say that you can't win debate is something other than a game in front of me, but that I will evaluate the debate based on who did the better debating. (The fact that proving debate is a place for activism or education is something that must be "won" demonstrates what I'm talking about).

Tech over truth. Do what you do best/would like to do rather than trying to adapt to what you think I may enjoy.

I will work very hard to render the best possible decision and minimize intervention because I know that debaters work very hard.

If I don't understand an argument, I am unlikely to vote for it.

I'll read evidence if I think it might be important but will slightly prefer the debater's analysis over evidence quality. Judge instruction about whether I should weigh evidence or debating more or less will easily change how I evaluate this.

Please automatically send a card doc after the debate with cards that I should look at because they would be relevant to my decision.

Topicality

The quality of definitions read in many debates is laughably bad. Interpretations should define the word you think the aff violates. If your "definition" doesn't actually define the word and is just a contextual use, that's suboptimal. If the neg hasn't read a real definition, I don't know why the aff has to read one.

Reasonability is about whether the aff’s counter-interp is reasonable, not if the aff is reasonable.

I default to competing interps because it has a clear brightline for determining who won (offense/defense). Reasonability is confusing because I am unsure what the threshold is for something to be considered "reasonable." To make reasonability impactful in how I evaluate the debate, you should include judge instruction about what it means to be a "reasonable" interpretation.

Counterplans

I won't judge kick unless you tell me too. If you want me to judge kick, then you should say so in the block AND the 2NR. If it wasn't in the block then saying I should judge kick will be regarded as a 2NR argument. Similarly, if the aff team would not like me to judge kick it should be answered in the 1AR AND 2AR. If you don't do this I won't judge kick it for you.

In condo debates I usually think most of the 2AR is to new.

I'll assume dispo means you can kick the counterplan if they make any perms, competition arguments, or theory arguments unless you define it some other way.

Disadvantages

Quality matters more than quantity of evidence.

If you don't read a complete disad in the 1NC (Uniqueness, link, internal link impact) then the aff gets to make new 1AR answers when you do. If you never read all 4 parts of the DA, and the aff points it out then you haven't made a complete argument, I don't see why you should win. Stop being lazy because you want to read 8-off 1NCs and just do drills.

Kritiks v Plan Aff

Framework is the most important thing usually because it determines the win conditions for both teams and what sources they can access offense from.

Sometimes either side will try to forward a middle-of-the-road-type interp, something along the lines of "the aff gets the plan and the neg gets links to reps." This is confusing to me because I'm not sure how to weigh the aff's impacts vs impacts about the 1ACs reps/epistemology being bad. If this is the interp you should have judge instruction about how to compare impacts that exist on different conceptual levels or scales.

I don't care for overviews. It seems like almost no one does.

Framework

For the Neg:

Is fairness an impact? It seems self-evident that fairness is desirable at least at some level, but:

1. This "self-evidentness" makes it challenging for teams to articulate fairness as an impact because it's an abstract ethical principle that people generally feel is good, but may struggle to rationalize why. You can overcome this challenge and win that fairness is a terminal impact, but you're gonna have to do better than "you would never give a marathon runner a headstart!!"

2. It's hard to weigh something as abstract as fairness against aff impacts that are more concrete. If given a 100% risk of a fairness impact vs a 100% risk of whatever racism/inaccessibility/psychological violence impact the aff has, of course, the latter will outweigh. This means you need to win robust defense to the affs stuff. However, fairness is strategic because it can allow you to more easily win defense to their impacts that doesn't contradict your offense by saying debate is a mere game that doesn't have any influence on how we think.

You may be better off going for some sort of clash/advocacy skills/dogma impact because they can give you inroads to access the aff's subject formation offense.

I don't think you necessarily have to answer case in the 2NR to win. T is a procedural so it comes before case. However, sometimes winning case defense is an elegant way to resolve aff offense on T because their arguments will rely on winning some case arguments.

If you're aff:

You either have the choice of impact turning or going for a CI+more limited offense. Both routes have their downsides. The CI strategy can be risky because your offense is more likely to be captured by a TVA or switch side debate. Impact turning and not going for a counter interp means you have no way to access neg offense, but will probably avoid being solved by a TVA. Trying to split the middle between these two strategies means your offense probably won't make any sense.

If you are going for a counter interp + defense it would help you a lot to have definitions supported by evidence for the counter-interp. It's not a necessity but it's hard to win you solve predictability absent definitions.

If both sides debated framework perfectly, I would certainly vote neg. However, in reality aff teams tend to be better because they're in more of these debates and the neg doesn't identify what matters or understand how to answer the aff's offense particularly well.

For both sides, I'm unpersuaded by arguments that use analogies between debate and other things to hide that there's no impact to the argument. It's better if you speak literally and save the metaphors for poetry.

K v K

Impact calculus is very important. It's confusing if both teams are making arguments that operate at different conceptual levels (ex - in round debate practices vs global capitalism) and don't explain how to compare things at different scales.

Random

Whether an argument is new in the 2AR is not just a question of “did the 1AR say it?” but rather “did my understanding of it change from the 1AR to the 2AR?”

You cannot "insert rehighlighting." If you don't say it I didn't flow it. If your card is you inserting a chart, explain to me what the chart is saying or read some words.

I think post-rounding is good and I encourage asking questions if you don't like the decision.

Hello. I'm Deniz and this is my second year doing LD at Westlake.

Please add me to the email chain: db97009@eanesisd.net

You can ask any questions you have pre-round

I'm fine with any arguments as long as you understand what you're reading and can explain it clearly in cx.

I'm also good with speed, but please slow down in tags and analytics; and remember to signpost as well. I will give low speaks if you sacrifice clarity to outspread your opponent.

LARP: This is what I'm most comfortable evaluating. Extend the links and don't drop any turns. Please weigh: the sooner you start weighing the more likely I am to vote for you // do lbl; I vote off the flow

Ks: I understand the generic lit and can vote for you if you can explain it well. You need to have good links and rob

Theory:I don't have any strong ideas about this, just please don't run friv args if you're a novice

Phil/fw:I don't really have an extensive knowledge about dense lit, but if you're reading generic things like util/sv/kant and you can correctly defend it, you should be fine

Other:

Please don't go for everything in the 1ar/2n; you need to choose and collapse

Be kind and respect your opponent

General:

L C Anderson '23, Emory '27

I competed in PF for 3 years on the national circuit

add me to the email chain: benjamincoleman05@gmail.com

tech > truth

do whatever u want as long as you’re not being a horrible person idc

go as fast as u want if you're clear enough but go MUCH slower if you're still paraphrasing for some reason

i’ll always disclose - postrounding is fine j be chill and not excessive.

SEND DOCS and if u cut out a lot of stuff send a marked doc after your speech. (a google doc does not count)

absent warrants otherwise, i presume first speaking team in pf

speaks will be good. i want u to break

Prefs Guide:

1: substance, esp if it’s fun / interesting / unique

1: T / non friv theory

2: most K (topic specific)

3: the same debate 6 rounds in a row

4: friv / tricks

5: performance

5: non-t aff

Specifics:

frontline in 2nd rebuttal, defense is not sticky

i won't evaluate new in the 2 and will attempt to protect first final if necessary

weighing is important but usually optional and i generally don't care as much as some other pf judges, u need to win the link to win the weighing

link weighing > impact weighing > no weighing

i don't care too much about extensions especially for conceded arguments but u obv still have to do it

impact turns are v fun but u should be extending your opponents link if going for them, if u don’t link i will be very sad :(

super blippy frontlining is impossible to flow especially if you're spreading so try to actually explain things. i have won rounds solely by doing this tho so obv it has its place, do it if u want just make sure i can flow it. also if u say things like "no warrant" i'm holding u to your response, u can't go up and explain why their warrant is false later

i don't flow cx, anything important should be brought up in speech but i do think cx is binding

if both teams agree i'm down to skip gcx for 1 min of prep (doesn't apply to novice pf or split panels)

Evidence + Ethics:

I don’t care about what your evidence says. I do care that both teams are able to engage with it.

if you insist on paraphrasing, at least be honest about it. own it. just fully paraphrase your case. be ready to debate theory though.

a case with 59 bracketed phrases including things like [for third-party moderation] and [unlawful activity] and “to p[reserve] profits” (yes i’ve actually seen this before) is paraphrased. a rhetoric doc with no cards anywhere to be found is paraphrased. i view those things as worse than paraphrasing because you’re being dishonest about it. please don’t lie.

taglines are not one word transitions like “currently” and “thus”, i can’t flow that. these kind of nitpicky things don’t matter as much when you’re going slower but if you’re spreading i need to be able to flow your arguments.

“rhetoric docs” are stupid and invite clipping bc your cuts usually don’t match the rhetoric. if u read off one of these i’m now requiring that u send both the doc you read from and the carded case to avoid things like this.

do not send me hyperlinks please i can’t look through that and neither can your opponents.

sorry for the rant. i’ve only ever given one team 25s and it was for doing everything i listed above in one round. if you insist on doing any of this PLEASE strike me.

Progressive Arguments:

my general rule of thumb is: if you're competing in varsity at a real circuit tournament, you should be able to handle progressive debate. anything else and you'll prob lose anyways bc you should get better at subs first

theory: default CI, no RVIs, spirit > text, DTD - read whatever shells you want, i'm very comfy evaluating

i won't inject my personal preferences in debate into theory rounds at all - while i do believe disclosure and cut cards are good, i'll vote for anything u can think of including args like theory bad

i really don’t like hearing debates about how small your school is especially if you have like 3 private coaches

IVIs are really stupid ESPECIALLY ev ethics IVIs, winning that is gonna be a massive uphill battle with me. shell format is nearly always better just bc most IVIs are super shifty and do not have explicit paradigm issues until the backhalf making them annoying to evaluate.

OCIs are good and circumvent the RVI debate

read theory immediately after the violation and answer your opponent's shell in the speech directly after it was read

u usually need a brightline for reasonability otherwise it can get tricky to evaluate but those args def have their place

I do not require trigger warnings. i will obv vote on a shell that says they’re good or bad but i do not think they improve debate in any way and are just used to exclude certain types of arguments. also it’s the real world triggering stuff happens j don’t be excessively graphic

K: fine just don't expect me to know your lit.

debate on the LBL, don't read 2 minute OVs and expect me to apply them everywhere on the flow.

don't spam jargon you don't understand because i likely won't either. if i can't explain smth back to you i won't vote on it.

this should be pretty obvious but don't paraphrase your k, u should also def be open sourcing these after they’re read bc they can get super unpredictable and shifty in pf

don’t spread random theory blocks off policy backfiles (u know who u are). idc if neg fiat is bad if they don’t fiat anything

i really like topic-specific k's like cap or sec with big stick impacts but anything is fine as long as u warrant it out. after judging enough shallow pf k rounds i’d like to say i’m a pretty good judge for them so do with that what u will.

Performance + Non-T Affs

prob don’t read these with me. most of u don’t know how to debate these in pf and will lose to t-fw bc you’re used to aff hacks and i am not one of them.

i also really don’t like to hear these bc a lot of pf teams kinda ignore the flow and get upset easily during these rounds when teams actually debate their arguments instead of conceding making them super painful to judge.

if u read a callout or smth at the beginning i will pretend to ignore it unless u try to garner offense off of it in which case i prob won't give it to u and you'll get 25 speaks. this is one of the few things i’m not completely tab on and i feel no shame about it.

if you want to read a k aff and think u can win, go ahead you can still obv pick up my ballot. if i enjoy the round i will be especially impressed.

to everybody: just have fun. i get it stressful rounds happen just try not to take it too seriously. after judging recently i realized i actually care a lot about how u guys do so i always put time into my decisions and love when teams ask me more questions after round. if you want any advice feel free to contact me whenever and i’ll be happy to help :)

hi!! i'm excited to judge! i've been debating in LD at Westlake for three years

TLDR: tech > truth. you do you!! i'll try my best to understand whatever you're reading. weighing!!!!! if you do something discriminatory or make the round unsafe, it's an auto-L with low speaks.

K: i love Ks and run them a lot. please don't read an identity-based position about a group that you do not identify with. i prefer line by line over implicit clash in overviews.

policy: super cool. i'm comfortable with these arguments, but weighing is super super important.

T/theory: also super cool, but don't read any theory against things like your opponent's appearance. friv is fine.

phil: decently familiar with kant, rawls, levinas, hobbes, deleuze. no crazy explanation is necessary just don't assume i automatically know everything you're talking about.

tricks: probably don't read these. K tricks are better but still need to be well-warranted for me to buy them.

i prefer speechdrop over email, but just in case my email is cc95736@eanesisd.net (you can also email with any questions/comments/concerns before or after the round)

30 speaks if you can guess the name of the turtle that my blue bracelet is tracking

be nice to each other, have fun, and happy debating :)

Hi! I'm Alex! (she/her)

Pls add me to the email chain alexcoulter512@gmail.com.

Westlake 2024 - I've been debating for 4 years

I'm good to eval anything as long as it isn't offensive. Read what you're best at! Just don't be any of the ists, isms, and obics. Please respect pronouns, triggers and be kind!

Fine with any speed but pls be clear with tags/analytics

Have fun and be nice! :)

Ks

Read what you want to read! Please have clear links, rob, and alt. And do not read identity Ks if you do not identify with that identity group! I will drop you with very low speaks.

LARP

I'm good to eval larp. Please weigh and have a clear explanation of your link chain

T/Theory

If you read frivolous theory you should have a clear explanation of the interp and why it is good for debate.

Phil

I have a good understanding of Deleuze, and decent understanding of Kant, Hobbes, Rawls, etc. For dense phil pls understand your fw/ method and be able to articulate it.

Tricks

Yucky! K tricks are griddy if they are warranted

See you in round!

i'm ellis (he/him), a senior pfer at westlake, this is my second year :)

if you guys are gonna do an email chain i'd like to be on it: ellishaynes2004@gmail.com

send speech docs, and please try and have preflows done before round. i'll give you a minute or so if you really need it but i'm not gonna delay the whole tournament just so you can write preflows. sorry lol

gen speech stuff: give a roadmap/signpost, it makes my life a lot easier. i'm fine with speed but if it comes at the price of clarity i'll give you a chance to fix it before docking your speaks a little. doubt this'll be a problem tho. as my good friend alex rodgers once said "debate should function like a funnel." collapse as the round goes on so i can have a cleaner flow. treat me like a parent in that i want your cards to be fully warranted and explained thoroughly- don't take advantage of the fact that i have topic experience. also pls frontline in second rebuttal.

extensions: extend case and responses; neither offense or defense are sticky

turns: implicate them otherwise there's no reason for me to vote on them. if your opponent doesn't implicate a turn on a c you want to drop, tell me and i'll let you drop it uncontested. that said, if a turn on one of your c's goes extended w/o response then it'll weigh pretty heavily on my decision and likely lose you the round.

weighing: just do it please lol, and don't say "we outweigh on probability." i can explain that more pre-round, but if you say it, it's prob a -0.5. just do normal util weighing or read a framework or something

norms/theory: i'm prob not gonna evaluate theory or any type of progressive args, but i don't think any of you were planning on running it anyways. in that same stride, i'm fine with paraphrased cards as long as the evidence isn't misrepresented. if your opponents call for a card and they (or i) determine that you've in some way betrayed the author's original intention, you'll lose prob 0.5-1 speaker point depending on how bad it is. and please don’t read disclosure. i like it and think it’s a good norm, but this is a novice round lol

cross: i will definitely be listening, but i won't flow or count it for/against you when it comes time to write my ballot. that said, if your opponent says something significant in cross that you want me to consider, bring it up in speech. i once lost around because i accidentally conceded something in second cross. don't be like me. i also will time you guys but please pay attention in any case.

speaks: i'll start around 28.5 and go up/down as needed, but i'll prob give you all high speaks- i'm not really picky.

overall just be nice. a small, tiny, miniscule amount of aggression is permissible in cross and stuff, but the moment it becomes discriminatory or otherwise hateful i'm not gonna tolerate it.

that goes for the rest of the round too. if you're rude before or after, speaks will be docked. just be polite. it's a novice debate round, not the end of the world. this activity shouldn't be stressful.

if you have questions about any of this, please do not hesitate to ask (be it before round via email or in the room). i only started as a junior so i know what it's like to be new :)

bonus speaks: you'll get some if you do a 360 while reading a turn or if you make me laugh. it has to be intentional though- i have to be laughing with you... also, if you tell me your favorite song by the smiths i'll give you anywhere from 0.1-0.5 bonus speaks depending on which one it is

I have done PF debate for four years at westlake. TOC and TFA State qualed.

I am okay with any argument as long as you extend, give me voters and are winning on the flow.

Don't be offensive, racist, sexist, antisemitic, etc. or I will drop you and your speaks.

Have fun in round and make it a positive experience for everyone.

Bonus speaks if you include a call out to Bad Bunny, do a 360 spin during a turn or make me laugh.

Lay

Have fun and be nice! :)

My name is Andy and I go to Westlake High School. I'm currently a sophomore.

I'll evaluate any arguments as long as I understand them and you extend them with a link and impact. You can ask me before the round if I'm ok with it but if it's not a dense k or niche Phil then I should be fine.

tech > truth

I feel most comfortable judging -

1 - Policy, theory

2 - phil, tricks, topicality

3 - K

Prep

I can keep track of prep time. Don't steal prep. Use it efficiently. I'm cool with flex prep

Speed

I am cool with speed as long as you are relatively clear. If you do spread very quickly, send the doc please.

I will tell you to slow down or say clear a few times if you are going too fast. After that, if I still can't discern what you are saying, I will tank speaks and might be more inclined to not vote for you.

Cross Ex

I do listen and flow cx. Try to ask good questions.

Speaks

If you end your speech with extra time, I will boost speaks. Using cx well will also net you higher speaks.

If you go for an interesting or cool strat, then I will also boost speaks.

Policy

Counterplans are cool, and clever PICs are great. When extending CPs, make sure to clearly explain the solvency and net benefit, and why it competes. DAs are fine, try to have up to date cards. Uniqueness card especially.

Phil

I am most familiar with Kant. Other stuff I'm okay with are rawls, deleuze, prag, and levinas. I probably won't be able to evaluate anything other than what I've listed.

Theory

I will evaluate friv theory. Default to competing interps dta no rvis. Slow down on interps and counter interps

Topicality

Having cards helps convince me of a violation. It's cool to see a t shell with different standards and implications than what most people read.

K

Please only read generic stuff

How to make me vote for you

• Weigh
• judge instruction
• one off case
• clear ballot story
• link analysis
• strategic concessions

Also make sure to have fun debating

SEND ALL SPEECH DOCS AND CASES TO: ak98641@eanesisd.net

Please send case and speech docs, please send all cards read in every speech. Share ALL new evidence with me before the speech during which it is read.

I am fine with spreading and speed if you send case and speech docs.

-

-

-

I am fine with theory

- Sticky defense

If you are running a prog argument and/or a K, explain it and confirm it with me before round

Noah Wong was here

Joshua Kou was not here and does not condone this

Westlake '24

Email: nikxkas@gmail.com

Please don't call me "judge", just Nik is preferable.

Tech>Truth

I'll vote on anything as long as its warranted.

Make the round fun because debate can get boring easily.

i did PF for 4 yrs on westlake KK

if u bring me food from concessions i will boost speaks

please put me on the email chain: shikharkaul1@gmail.com

send doc b4 speeches

i did pf so varsity LD speed is a little fast for me, pls slow down if you are reading stuff thats not on your doc

I can't flow what I don't hear

please extend every argument you want to go for in every speech

please weigh your arguments

Ks

I am somewhat familiar with Ks but do not rely on me to correctly evaluate them, also idk any K lit

T/Theory

I'm comfortable with most theory and T arguments you might read. If your opponent paraphrases, or doesn't disclose, I encourage you to read theory. Although I don't enjoy it I will vote off of friv

LARP/substance

very comfortable do whatever

Phil

I have limited knowledge on phil, but you can still read util, sv, and kant

Tricks

don't really like them but if you really want to read it I will evaluate it

overall idc what u read j have fun

Hey y’all!

I’m Anastasia/Ana – Westlake LD '23, Baylor Policy '27 (2A/1N primarily)

In High School, I got to three bid rounds and went to TFA all four years, i was in elims Junior/Senior year.

If you're interested in debating in college, Baylor has a great team with a ton of resources! Email me if you're just scrolling through tab, or talk to me before/after round and I can connect you with the coaching staff.

Pronouns – she/her

General:

Please be nice to each other! Debate is a fun activity & should be treated as such, your opponents pronouns & triggers are non-negotiables and not complying with either will result in an L0. Safety > any round win ever. We are all human and deserve to be treated with the respect as such.

fine with speed just slow down on analytics, I flow on my laptop for reference.

please send all docs – prefer speech drop but email is anastasiaskeeler@gmail.com

In high school, I exclusively read the K post-sophomore year. Before that, I did soft-left policy debate, and throughout my career enjoyed going for T. I have not done any topic research and am not actively coaching high school. Please explain super specific link scenarios slightly more than you would with active coaches.

if you want more specifics of how i think about debate look to Holden Bukowsky's paradigm - they coached me for the majority of my career & we think about debate very similarly.

Specific thoughts:

policy:

I think policy debate is cool. A lot of nuanced debates have been super interesting to watch & be a part of, but the same 3 affs and disads on every topic gets boring. I love creative advocacies and a good impact turn debate.

Some of my favorite speeches to give are a 2n on an impact turn (spark and dedev being my go-tos)

Please, for the love of God, weigh. This largely applies to any novice rounds/ less experienced debaters – but regardless, 15+ seconds of impact calc will get you much higher speaks.

T/theory:

Once you get into more blippy/tricky shells I will be fairly lost, if you go for the shell I need a clear explanation of the abuse story and why I should vote on it/the norm it would create.

I don’t have defaults for paradigm issues – being in policy has made my threshold for justifications lower. That being said, don't assume I don't need justifications for DTA/D, or CI/reasonability, you just don't need to 5 point everything.

Ks:

This is what I do the most, I am the most comfortable evaluating this kind of debate & would love to judge this.

Familiar with just about everything. For reference, I went for cap on the aff and neg my senior year, grove as a 2n and 2a this season, and dabbled in Baudrillard, Setcol, Delueze, Disability (kolorova, mollow, etc) and Beller in high school.

Doing policy has raised my threshold for explanation significantly: I think a good portion of K debate can be done on the theory of power page using your offense to do line by line. Please make my life easy.

Phil:

I am familiar with a lot of ethical framing args and Phil positions. just explain everything and make sure that what you are saying actually makes sense - ie your ethic + meta ethic and how the framing operates in the round

That being said, the way that phil gets executed now is something I am infinitely less comfortable with, the one paragraph of framing and then a bunch of blips. I am going to need you to go slower & give more explanation for these positions.

Tricks:

I dont like these. If you read these i will probably sigh loudly. I can eval them but speaks will be low and i will be sad.

Have fun & be nice! Looking forward to judging y'all :)

westlake 24' - this is my fourth year of debate (pf)

add me to the email chain and send me whatever you're reading: ak87187@eanesisd.net

people I agree with: Romeer Pillay, Amogh Mahambre, Akhil Bhale

Rules (can affect my decision if you break these):

- don't be exclusionary or problematic in round

- dropped arguments are true if extended properly

- second rebuttal must frontline

- summary must extend everything that gets evaluated (defense isn't sticky)

- probability weighing must have a warrant or else it doesn't count (eg. "we outweigh on probability because nuke war is unlikely" is not real weighing)

- nothing new in second final, I won't evaluate it

Preferences (can improve speaks but not ballot):

- read off of cut cards

- preflow and set up chain before the round time starts

- weigh in second rebuttal

- good strategy gets you better speaks

Senior at Westlake HS. I do PF.

email chain: joshbce123@gmail.com

Flow judge, Tech > Truth, line-by-line.

1. Please, please, extend in summary and final focus. This means that you must explain the uniqueness, link, and impact of the argument. Not just mentioning the name of the contention.
2. Signpost clearly, e.g. on our first contention... on their third contention...
3. Use rebuttal to address the specific links of their case, don't just give general reasons why enacting the resolution is good or bad. You DO NOT need to extend your case in rebuttal.
4. I don't flow cross. If you have a good idea or if your opponents concede something mention it in your next speech.
5. Time yourselves.
6. Give comparative weighing. Don't just say we outweigh on magnitude, instead say our impact of x outweighs their impact of y.
7. No new responses to case in summary / final focus. Backline the responses that you made in rebuttal.
   
   
8. I'd rather you collapse in summary and final focus than spend 2 minutes extending 3 contentions.

Post round me if you like.

T/L

Hi, I'm Chloe

Pronouns: she/her

Yes, put me on the email chain - cskaustin2@gmail.com

LASA '23

Penn '27 (I don't debate in college but coach ld for Harker and policy for LASA)

TLDR

- Tech > Truth, if they drop an argument it's true, but you have to explain what it is and why it matters

- Impact calc is your friend and wins debates

- Your 2AR/2NR writes my ballot at the top

- Flow and do line by line

- I get we're coming back from online debate but that's no excuse to steal prep, it's just obvious now

- Above all, have fun and be nice to each other! Smiles make me smile and speaker points go up.

T (what's that)

I love T. I actually think this topic is pretty neg biased, but I can be convinced otherwise. I default to competing interpretations. Let's not read blocks at each other and do some line by line!

CPs (the only thing relevant for policy teams this year)

Go for it! I err neg on process and agent counterplans, but the aff is probably right about no international and private actor fiat. I used to be a big fan of consult NATO, so if you can make it competitive, more power to you. Some big school is inevitably gonna break some tiny-ass aff that does nothing, in which case go for a process CP (Sam I'm looking at you).

DAs (if you can find them)

I love a good CP/DA debate. PTX DAs always become a question of evidence quality. I'm totally down to have a DA throw down. Specific DA links are important, especially when this topic is filled with generics.

Edit: I take it back. I don't care if your DA links are specific on this topic. If you can find a coherent da, you're doing great.

Ks (you'll just have to figure out my hot takes)

Clash is an impact. Fairness is an impact.

The aff prob gets their plan. Links don't have to be to the plan but you need to explain why you get the links that you do.

Cap, Tech-O, and Set Col are what I used to read. I’ll listen to any K, but I’m not the best with high theory. I swear to god if someone says the word "Baudrillard" I'm going to vomit.

No, death is not good. No, I will not vote for any offensive arguments. If you're asking yourself if there should be a trigger warning there probably should be so that everyone involved can have a comfortable experience.

I'm realizing I think framework really does make the game work, so a K aff is probably an uphill battle but not unwinnable.

Framing

I have a slight bias towards extinction outweighs separate from util. I'm also super sympathetic to a util turns structural violence argument if it's specific.

Theory

Go off, err neg on everything.

I generally believe that infinite condo is good, if you're a novice reading some varsity team member's condo blocks, I get it, I did it my novice year, but obviously better to have your own blocks that you're familiar with and understand. (+0.1 if you say Sam made you do it).

I will vote on ASPEC, my favorite argument in debate, BUT ONLY IF IT'S DROPPED AND YOU IMPACT IT OUT. "They dropped ASPEC" isn't enough.

Hi there!

I’m a current debater at Westlake ('24 grad).

LARP: what I run. Make sure your framework makes sense and we're good. Be sure you can explain it well in cross. Do make sure you weigh and relate it back to the framework to make my job easier.

K/Phil: I don't expect this in novice but if you're going to run it make sure you understand. Keep it simple. Obv no identity Ks if you aren't that. Also I don't know much lit

Theory: please no friv in novice, that would be mean. But otherwise it's ok. I don't really do theory myself though.

Tricks: be real nobody is reading this in novice

Extend your arguments, blah blah blah, signpost well.

Be nice! This is novice, you’re here to have fun and practice. Don’t be racist or misgender people or anything.

I absolutely need the docs sent before the speech, but speed is fine if you’re decently clear. Just don't push it.

cl96246@eanesisd.net

any pronouns

Debater at LASA

For novices:

Do impact calculus, line by line, write my ballot for me. Explain the implication to winning your arguments, explain why evidence comparison matters.

email chain: alexandranlosoya@gmail.com

Westlake Public Forum and FX: two years

TAMU Speech and Debate currently

If you have any questions about my paradigm feel free to ask me!

PF Paradigm

IF SPREADING PLS SEND CASE :)

I understand FW, theory args, Kritiks, etc., just let me know beforhand if thats what you are reading so i can prepare! please keep the round clean, so it's easy to flow (Tell me where I'm flowing the arguments on their side/your side of flow) or else i may miss an argument, or get confused which could cost you the round.

*Weighing and not dropping responses are two of my biggest voters*

Tell me why I must prefer your argument over the opp. Public Forum sometimes feels very short, and when you are covering lots of areas it may be tough to give thorough explanations. An explanation of why your argument is more important than the opp, how it affects their case, and why i need to vote aff/neg will stick more in my memory than an argument that was thrown together and only mentioned for two seconds. especially when rounds get messy, extending this clean through the round if it's unresponded to can win you the ballot.

I will not evaluate arguments that are dropped—if you don’t respond to a card the opp makes and it becomes important in final focus i will have no reason to vote your contention if the opp consisely explains why their dropped response is very important to my voting. i will not evaulate the arg.

Please do not say anything offensive, racist, sexist, etc. I will drop speaks for this.

i LOVE cross—obviously let everyone speak, but please get involved! i will raise speaks and feel free to get a bit confrontational but not if it will harm anyone in the room

Write my ballot for me.. i may have done debate and still do but that does not mean i am going to help you at all with your case and arguments. write the ballot for me like i am a lay judge or i will just judge off whats on my flow.

tech > truth judge

Have fun in the round!

FX/DX Paradigm

Let me know if you have any questions at all when walking in i would be so happy to answer any of them!

based off of my experience in speech i feel like its very preformative even if you are nervous or start forgetting parts of your speech try to play it off and keep going. I do not get to see your prep only the topic, your time, and preformace so focus on that and having your speech flow smooth!

please do the correct walk for DX and FX it helps me know when you are switching to new points, conclusions, etc.

try to include all sources and names for your pieces of information in your speech so i can write them down and its easier for me to rank all opponents later so i can look back and re-read my notes to properly rank extempers

I do PF and DX for Westlake.

Extemp:

content> presentation

Please make a joke for your AGD

Presentation always helps, but I’m mostly judging you off of the quality of your arguments

PF:

tech>truth

I’m comfortable with progressive argumentation

I will give you at least 29.5s if you bring me food/a drink - my Starbucks order is an Irish cream cold brew

my email is mm85629@eanesisd.net

If you bully your opponents during cross, I will lower your speaks

If you say your opponent conceded everything you said when they literally frontline everything, I will give you a 25

Please don’t be annoying

Don’t be racist/sexist/ableist/homophonic/transphobic/etc.

Hi guys my name is Yara Mustafa and I'm an LDer from McNeil!

I would prefer to be on the email chain yaram.debate@gmail.com

Shortcuts:

Phil/K: 1

Larp: 2-3

theory : 3-4

Tricks: 4

Theory

Theory is not my strongest area of practice, but I understand and grasp all the steps and complexities of how theory works as a concept. Blippy and “sneaky” arguments blow over my head. Speed in theory is a big deal especially if it’s not in the doc, and I would appreciate it if you send your interp/counterinterp if it isn’t in the doc. Reasonability is defense and counter interps are offense. Friv theory is so yucky please don’t read it. I love 1ar shells

Phil/ Framework

This is my favorite style of debate, and I think there are so many ways to utilize phil in front of a wide array of judges. Many people hate phil debate, I genuinely have so much fun during a good phil round. Personally, I really like Deleuze, Rawls, Butler, Hobbes, and Realism. I also have experience answering different consequential frameworks, so by default I understand the intricacies of fw indicts on util and vice versa. In a framework debate it is very important to have a clear clash between how the different worlds function. For example if you read Util, justifying comparative worlds against a normative fw might be really useful in the end. I default epistemic confidence and truth testing unless directed otherwise. It's also important to have contextual responses as to why your opponents framing fails, and reasons to prefer yours. I think that hijacks and smart cross applications are really fun. TJFs are amazing and love them yayyy.

LARP

I have a lot of experience debating LARP but it is definitely not my area of expertise or my favorite. CPs and disads are very fun but they have to be heavily weighed and implicated out. I do think that in order to access your larp offense you have to win Util though. Counterplan theory is one thing that I normally need an over explanation of (textual and functional competition). I think that PICs are smart when read in round, but I do give more leeway to the aff when pics are bad is read. Perms and different types of perms against counterplans in general are needed.

Kritiks

I enjoy K framing debates alot and the utilization of the theory of power and the thesis of the kritik as responses to your opponents case. In general the Link and the alt of the kritik should be articulated well. The alt should be well explained and weighing should be done in general. A world of what the alt looks like should be articulated in a good manner. When talking about the ROB, make a clear indication of why your offense ow’s and why your opponent does not have access to that role of the ballot in the first place. Kaffs don't have to be topical, I think its a fun debate tbh. I also really think how you interpret the literature in the first place needs to be well fleshed out, so there's an explanation of the complexities of the K (ex if its ideal/non-ideal, ontology, violence). I really do like different literature but I am not familiar with the jargon of them. I have experience with Deleuze, Cap, Baudrillard (kinda), Psychoanalysis, set col, afro-pess, security, glissant, etc.

Tricks

I think tricks are fun when I am not the one debating against them!! It’s kinda awful to drown in a bunch of tricks so I do feel that tricks are gross. I never really read tricks very often, but I do think that articulation of the arguments and implications of how that argument truly functions is very important. I genuinely don’t understand some tricks though so I don’t really like hearing them round I think they are kinda bs.

Non-topical affs

I think Non-topical affs are super cool and I genuinely like hearing them, but I don’t read them at all. I’m familiar with normal kritik literature but over explanations are necessary for any specific nuance. I enjoy a good T/fw debate, and I love method debates!! I Appreciate a strategic and contextualized TVA. Having specific tvas rather than generalized tvas are key to having a good clash. Standards should be well articulated and the abuse story needs to be clear. As a response to Non-t affs, i have been learning about counter kritiks. I like optimism ks such as glissant which are cool responses to non-t affs.

Did PF for 4 years TOC and state qualled. Can evaluate any argument theory/Kritiks/FW.

nothing sexist/racist/homophobic. Just be a good person or you get an L25

add me to email ajpaulson2@gmail.com

Tech>truth unless it’s problematic.

I don’t flow cross and am fine with you ending it early

keep track of y’all’s time

ways to get 30 speaks:

Make me laugh, make the round fun, buy me something (I like chocolate), do my classwork for me, run any argument about free will

tech>truth

I will vote for any argument that is not incomplete/unwarranted

substantive issues are evaluated probabilistically (not sure why this is controversial in PF, otherwise every speech would be 99% impact calc, 1% winning any risk of a link, and 0% defense)

will not hack against "bad" arguments (ex. friv theory, most impact turns, etc.), most debaters rely far too much on judges arbitrarily inserting their own opinions about the validity of certain arguments - if an argument was truly that bad, then you should have no problem answering it

probably lean more receptive to reasonability, dta, and no RVIs than most PF judges

Hey, I'm Beah! (she/her)

Westlake '24

beahalison@gmail.com

I've been doing LD since my freshman year

In general, just be a decent human being. honor your opponents accommodation requests, give trigger warnings, don't misgender people

I'll evaluate anything tbh just make sure you extend and WEIGH

I have some hearing issues so make sure you're not whispering and if you can't spread well then just don't, be extra clear on tags and analytics throughout (it'd make me super happy if y'all sent me analytics!)--and speak on the right side of me, my left ear glitches out often

speaks-I'll boost your speaks if

-the number of words in your case is cleanly divisible by 19

-"do a 360 spin during a turn"-the more you do it the higher your speaks

-you play your favorite show's theme song during prep

-your favorite show's theme song is the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles theme song (don't lie i will be sad)

Larp-I'm good for larp, make sure you don't egregiously fumble the link chain, and don't assume that I know any common sense current events/political things because I probably don't. i know very little about this topic so extensions will be key. PLEASE make it very clear in the 2N/2AR exactly why I am voting for you, weigh, weigh, weigh!

K-this is what i usually read, non-T affs are cool, absolutely DO NOT read an identity k for a group that you do not identify as, especially pess, auto L if you do. silly K tricks are great

T/theory-very cool! I'm great with basic shells ex-condo, nebel, disclosure, etc. I'm good with friv theory just treat it like an actual argument with real implications

phil-I have a basic understanding of like Kant, deleuze, levinas, etc. I might not be the best for less basic phil but just make it clear how to weigh under your fw and don't just go off of buzz words and you should be golden

Tricks- if you want to go for it, sure, there's a good chance I won't vote on tricks tho so if you want me to you need to really explain why i should. tbh maybe just don't

Let me know if you have any questions!

Be the fire

Be the greedy

Add me to the email chain: NS99269@eanesisd.net

DO NOT be offensive or rude to your opponents in cross or any speeches. I will dock speaks if you make your opponent uncomfortable at any point in the round.

Make sure to fully explain your arguments as if I do not know anything about the topic. Keep the round clean please & tell me where I’m flowing - make sure to signpost in all speeches.

If an argument or response does not get touched throughout the round, make sure to bring it up in your speeches and explain why it matters in the round. If you want me to evaluate something said in cross, bring it up during your speech.

I’m fine with teams speaking fast but please be clear and don’t spread. Send a speech doc.

Write my ballot for me — where should I vote, why is your argument more important than your opponents, etc.

Don’t bring up new arguments in second summary, extend your contentions, weigh -> overall just the basics

Please weigh as soon as possible and actually EXTEND otherwise I will not evaluate them.

Try to come in prepared (try to have your preflows and materials ready before round starts) so we can end on time.

If you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask me any questions!!
Just try to have fun :)

Hello! I am so honored to be judging at this prestigious tournament.

I have been debating for 3 years now at Westlake in PF.

I will attempt to evaluate every argument you provide in the round, but your ability to clearly explain the argument dictates whether or not it will actually impact my decision/be the argument that I vote off of in the round. When it comes to theory or other progressive arguments (basically arguments that may not directly link to the resolution) please do not assume that I understand completely how these arguments function in the round. You will need to explain to me why and how you are winning and why these arguments are important. When it comes to explanation, do not take anything for granted. Additionally, if you are speaking too quickly, I will simply put my pen down and say "clear."

In terms of PF, although I am not a fan of labels for judges ("tech," "lay," "flay") I would probably best be described as traditional. I really like it when debaters discuss the resolution and issues related to the resolution, rather than getting "lost in the sauce." What I mean by "lost in the sauce" is that sometimes debaters end up talking more about how the debate is going down rather than the actual issues at hand. Try your best to avoid debating debate and debate the resolution.

Argument selection is a skill. Based on the time restrictions in PF debate, you should focus on the most important arguments in the summary and final focus speeches. I believe that PF rounds function like a funnel. You should only be discussing a few arguments at the end of the round. If you are discussing a lot of arguments, you are probably speaking really quickly, and you are also probably sacrificing thoroughness of explanation. Go slowly and explain completely, please.

In cross, please be nice. Don't talk over one another. I will dock your speaks if you are rude or condescending. Also, every competitor needs to participate in grand cross. I will dock your speaks if one of the speakers does not participate.

If you have any questions, please let me know after I provide my RFD. I am here to help you learn.

Pf{

I do this event

}

ld + cx + ws + congress + any speech event{

I don't do this event

}

Email chain: valentin.thevoz@gmail.com; Please CC me in any email chain you create during the round.

I debated all 4 years of high school and have a deep understanding of Public Forum and World Schools, as well as a comprehensive understanding of Congress and Extemp.

If you have any issues or questions with my paradigm please ask me about it before the round begins.

Public Forum:

Tech > Truth

I am what you would consider a flay judge.

In terms of speed, I can understand and flow most speeds, if you are speaking too fast or you are not clear enough I will just not flow whatever I did not understand so speak fast at your own risk.

I do evaluate theory but I do not like the theory debate. If your opponent wins the content debate and you win the theory debate I will most likely vote for content. Unless the infraction gives the other team a distinct advantage in the content debate.

I evaluate Nuke war arguments.

Please signpost correctly.

Do not be condescending.

IF YOU WEIGH CORRECTLY AND YOUR OPPONENT DOESN'T YOU ARE MOST LIKELY GOING TO WIN!

Do not argue with me after the round, if I think you lost then that's it, any attempts to change my mind are futile.

World Schools:

World schools was my favorite event to compete in and I have a lot of experience with it.

I WILL DOCK POINTS IF YOU BREAK THE RULES (Protected time, etc.).

Make sure you are timing your speeches as well as your opponent's speeches so that you know when protected time starts/ends.

Do not be too aggressive with your POIs, a good rule of thumbs is to wait 20s before asking another POI.

Do not be condescending.

Extemp:

I only did Extemp one time during high school so I am not extremely familiar with this event.

I will vote on your speaking style and your arguments, extemp formalities such as the speaker's triangle aren't really that important with me, just be confident and have a good posture.

I will not fact check your arguments unless they are blatantly false.

Make it clear when you are transitioning points.

I did PF at Westlake for 4 years and qualled for TOC 3 times kind of

email cheriewang835@gmail.com

send CASE AND REBUTTAL docs (to everyone preferably but if u and ur opponents don't decide to share cases just send to me). If i don’t get docs from you i’m giving 26s

judges r allowed to eval disclosure at TFA state so i will do that and u can see more info about disclosure below.

general things

idk the topic so clarify acronyms in speech and remember things i don’t understand aren’t evaluated as well and it is up to u to make me understand and eval them well

also speaks buff if u play a subway surfer video on ur computer for me during ur speeches it helps me flow better (u shld clarify what this means pre round so u don't do it wrong i would hate for u to waste ur time)

+.25 speaks buff every time u say “wow it’s sooooo preppy in here” when u finish taking prep

snacks are 30s (no starbucks)

no silly speaks buffs at tfa its not allowed sorry

tech>truth

don't go too fast; i can only evaluate what i can flow. if u go too fast (especially if i'm tired) could be ggs idk what to tell u. i will not pretend i heard stuff in rebuttal that was too fast for me just because the other team didn’t respond to it. for reference u should top out ~800-900 words in constructive and thats being pretty generous

i ask for docs but i'm not flowing off them that is not an excuse to go faster than i can handle and then get angry about the decision later

be nice or get 25s.

read whatever u want and i will do my best to evaluate it!

signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost

i do not flow things that aren't signposted. if there’s 100 different arguments and no one explains how they interact then they are basically meaningless to me

u r very welcome to post round either verbally after round (unless tournament is running super late then try to keep it short) or via email. i will not be mad education is great

random things

when u point out a lack of a warrant for something please also read a counter warrant or else it is not an effective response unless completely dropped!

if u read turns can u read impacts please

if u read turns can u read weighing please

if u read turns can they not be Your Case Pt. 2 But The Card Names Are Different please

hege args need real warrants too. for the one going around at state you should know that i hate the arg. won't intervene on it and have voted on it twice now but i do not like it. if u decide to read it anyway i will eval it like a normal arg i just want you to know that i hate it

i like analogies fine but not cliches (except for poking/feeding the bear i like that one. generally speaking i like bears)

above most other things i hate teams wasting my time and making me flow things that aren't useful. like i would rather hear analytics than random turns u won't go for or 8 pieces of ev that all say the same thing in rebuttal. weigh or make extra implications to pad ur time instead of reading useless ev.

do not waste both of our time by reading an overview if you are going to read it again as link level responses.

pf substance stuff

second rebuttal needs to frontline everything that they want to extend later. i would love to see some collapsing in this speech.

i have a decently high threshold for extensions but they don't need card names, just warrants and impacts. please don't go for more than one link/warrant when extending case if u don't have to.

i presume with my own coin flip unless told to do something else in round. i would love to be told to do something else in round. presuming with a coin flip is lame

warrant things

weigh things

extend things

SPARK AND OTHER IMPACT TURNS R AWESOME AND COOL BUT MAKE SURE THEY HAVE A LINK!

IMPACT DEFENSE IS HEAVILY UNDERUTILIZED IN PF AND WE HAVE STARED TO ALLOW PPL TO READ THE WORST IMPACTS I'VE EVER HEARD CAN WE STOP PLEASE!!

because of something cale mccrary made me read i would also really enjoy seeing teams experiment with responding in second constructive but thats just a thought. im pretty sure no one will do this but if u do i will pad speaks for cool strategy

love a card heavy rebuttal (not as much as an analytics heavy one because that's so much cooler) but if i hear the same response with different cards a bunch of times i will dock speaks harshly for bad strategy. give a real rebuttal if i wanted to hear 5 pieces of evidence saying schools will cut sports programs i would read it myself.

progressive debate

i'll judge anything as best as i can

i love judging theory but that means when it's bad, i hate it a lot more than mid/bad substance. i will take mediocre substance over mediocre or bad theory any day. however do not be afraid to read theory in front of me if you are fairly new to it because i love seeing people experiment and learn about progressive/new argumentation more than i hate hearing a bad theory round.

theory is great including friv but if u r being funky, u must also be fun. otherwise its just kinda terrible for everyone else and no one wants that especially not me (and u dont want that either because u won't like ur speaks)!

if u read friv and do a bad job at reading theory ill be mad cus why are u wasting my time and everyone else's

all parts of theory need to be extended in summary/final but not rebuttals (but if u want to make the argument that a rebuttal extension is necessary, go for it--it's just not my default). if u forget to extend something like DTD and they point it out u will probably not be winning off theory!

going for RVIs/DTA/reasonability are cool strats that i think are underutilized in pf!

im a big fan for os disclosure and am very open to hearing arguments for disclosure, os, misdisclosure whatever. obviously my opinion is that disclosure is good but i won't hack for it if u can't defend it. content/trigger warnings are good on graphic args but i won't hack for it if u can't defend that.

k's are out of my area of expertise so run at ur own risk--i don't mind hearing them and i'll try my best to eval but idk the big words. on top of that speed will absolutely make my brain fold in on itself and implode. if u want to read one u should probably gauge my experience w them and talk to me before round

i need a lot of judge instruction and a minimal amount of buzzwords for k's (as in i will not understand buzzwords and need full explanation in their place). personally im by far the most familiar with cap but every time i learned about wrote or debated k, all the knowledge went in one ear and out the other in like a week

again, BE NICE. especially if ur reading progressive args on novices.