Shameless Plug:

HIGH SCHOOLERS AND COACHES — IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR A COST-EFFECTIVE DEBATE CAMP THIS SUMMER COME TO THE UH HONORS DEBATE WORKSHOP (HDW). We have some of the top faculty from around the country teaching an intense two-week course for Congress, LD, CX, PF, and WSD with a one-week Individual Events portion.

More information -https://uh.edu/honors/Programs-Minors/co-curricular-programs/debate/debate-workshop/

Background/other notes:

University of Houston (2023-current)

Jordan High School (2020-2023)

I am a Policy debater at the University of Houston.

I competed mainly in Congressional Debate for all 4 years of high school with sprinkled experience in WSD and Extemp.

Please put me on the email chain (for policy people) and ask me for my email before the round starts.

Don't call me "judge" -- call me Cooper :D

Pronouns are they/them

CX/Policy:

Policy v Policy: I like these debates, generally. I think what’s key for me in evaluating these is proper framing of impacts and sufficient ev comparison. re-highlighting is great. Have clear weighing, give me clear overviews in 2AR’s and 2NR’s as to where your winning the debate.

Policy Aff v K: I really like these debates. I think the key here is the FW debate and sufficient aff analysis of neg alternatives. The aff needs to have a clear defense of policy action being able to resolve the K. Typically these debates devolve into incrementalism vs the alt (assuming the aff wins their FW interp). In this case I need very explicitly why either incrementalism is preferable to the alt or why incrementalism is fundamentally unable to resolve the K. On the link debate, the more specific the k link is the better. Typically, it’s pretty easy for the aff to weave out of non-1AC specific links so yeah. On impact calc here, if the K has a good link, the threshold for me voting on extinction outweighs is high. Perm arguments are more compelling to me alongside linking to aff to working to resolve the K.

K Aff v K: I love these debates lol. However, I’m not that familiar with every lit base. Therefore, explanations and overview of each K in the debate is key for my ability to adequately evaluate them. In these method debates, I just need good solvency deficit claims to either side. Or maybe more specifically adequate reasons as to why the starting point of the aff or the neg is the best starting point in order for understanding the topic.

General K Notes: In College thus far I've ran K’s on both the aff and the neg. I’m most familiar with Queer Theory, Settler Colonialism, Security, Weaponitis, Cap, and Ableism. I also have a surface level understanding of Afro-Pess, but for some of the more nuanced aspects of this argument im going to probably need a bit more explanation compared to other K’s. Outside of these arguments, my exposure to other lit is minimal. That does not mean I wont vote on other K's, it just means they need to be explained well.

T: Im gonna be so for real. I do not like T debates, but ill still vote on it. Interp's should be obvious and self evident. I define this as generally being realistic. I think most K aff's are mostly topical as long as there is a clear justification as to why the aff is the best or better starting point than pursuing a policy based aff or a topical plan. I'm willing to give a good amount of leeway to K aff's as long as they do what they need to on the T flow.

Theory: For theory arguments i need pretty explicit reasons as to why I should vote on it to reject the team. There are a lot of instances where if the violation is not significant enough I would definitely buy the argument that I should just tank speaks and not reject the team (obviously this does not include racism, transphobia, homophobia, ableism, etc.). This is more referring to things like one theory argument I heard recently that was a "power-tagging" violation. Justifications like "its unfair because we have to read their evidence", or anything to that effect, wont ever win in front of me because you should be skimming through evidence already. So yeah, just be realistic when banking rounds on theory violations. Most often, violations should be really obvious and justifiably unethical for me to vote on them.

Congress:

good arguments matter more to me than presentation. For me presentation is more of secondary "tie-breaker" when i have to compare competitors who both present good arguments. But good speaking will not discount bad argumentation and clash on my ballots.

A good argument in congress is not just a independently strong argument, but also needs to be a relevant point in context of the round. There should be a clear overview that connects your speech to the rest of the speeches in the round.

The later in the round you go, the more important it is to narrow down you speech to the main issues/points of clash in the round. That being said, if you argument is more constructive and less able to build off of other people arguments, then you should probably go earlier in the round. After the early speeches, every speech should begin to build off one of another through clash and connections to big constructive arguments in the round.

That isn't to say you shouldn't bring up new angles and ideas mid round, but there has to be a reason as to why what you are saying is important/needed in the round. And you should clearly communicate to me and the round why that is the case.

If you piggy-back off of other speakers, do something to add depth to what they said as opposed to throwing more evidence into their train of thought. Don't just rehash arguments, obviously.

I don't like when mid or late round speakers blatantly ignore previously made arguments that contradict/conflict with their argument. Make sure that you address every argument that interacts with your own. Also a side note, if you spoke early, use question blocks to poke holes in arguments that contradict yours. Its a good way to make sure your voice is still being heard late in the debate even if you spoke earlier.

Overall, just make sure you (both in speeches & questioning) engage the round by keeping your content relevant as the round evolves in addition to strong refutation of previous speakers.

Lastly, be respectful. Respect pronouns. Avoid agitation and be professional. Lack of composure or ignorance will definitely drop you on my ballot.

Have fun, its congress :D

LD:

Basically ditto what was I said for Policy.

Only difference is that I have no actual experience competing in LD although I have judged it.

So expect that my interpretation of LD rounds are done from a mind that is very oriented by Policy tech standards. This means I may not easily pick up on technical issues in round. That doesn't mean I won't vote based on them. But it means i need clear articulations of (especially FW debates in LD that are about criterion and values) what your winning and what the other team is not or has dropped.

PF:

I mainly care about strategy in PF. There are too many rounds I’ve seen were both sides make an initially decent argument and then refuse to interact with the others for the whole debate. I need to see weighing of all kinds in order to know whose argument is more important (assuming you can’t prove it to be wrong). Weighing will for sure make it 10x easier for me to vote for you if you do it properly. By the end of the round their should be clear points you've won on or at least that you can tell me you won on to make my job a lot easier.
I also like good presentation and professionalism in PF. Don’t be rude or condescending, that’s not going to make you look cool and smart lol. On a simular note, i don't have problems with spreading as long as you are clear and you sound good. Regardless of speed you need to still be sure to emphasize important points, links, blocks, etc.
for arguments themselves I need good framing, warranting, and impacts. By the end of the first speeches I should have a very clear grasp of the arguments in the round and there shouldn’t be a need for those arguments to be continuously readdressed and reframed throughout the rest of the round (because of vagueness/confusion). Long story short, if by the end of the first speech a can't grasp what the narrative of your arguments are then that's a problem.

Recently, Ive learned K's are thing in PF now? maybe thats always been a thing... idk. I need a clear explanation of how the K works in context of the pros policy action and also need a good reason why I should vote for the K over the magnitude of the pros impacts or why the K outweighs. To my knowledge, the concept of fiat is not a thing in PF. Therefore, I feel that i can only judge the round based on what is the "best argument". This makes judge instruction key. Make it clear what voting on the K does or why it wins the round.

WSD:

In Worlds I'm a pretty balanced judge: I love it when worlds speakers know how to present their case in an engaging way, but I don't like worlds teams that don't have the argumentation to match strong presentation.

Refutation and weighing are key.

By the end of both second speakers speeches i should already have some picture of what the main clash in the debate is as well as the groundwork for a path to ballot (early weighing, identification of the main clashes, etc.).

Be very clear with your arguments through the use of strong link chains & examples.

Also be nice to each other :D

Extemp:

You need good analysis that goes at least a step beyond whatever the article said during prep time.

I'm also looking for good delivery and persuasion.

don't crack jokes on topics that maybe are a bit more serious, make sure your intros flow well and match the topic that your speaking on.

I love jokes if they are funny and appropriate for the topic though.

Don't be afraid to utilize rhetoric and a bit of passion depending on the topic.

have fun and learn

Jess Chai (she/her)

Debated for Seven Lakes High School for four years on nats circuit

add me to the chain: jessjc022@gmail.com

General tldr:

Please try to preflow and start an email chain before round to speed things up, tech>truth, speed is fine just send docs. As long as arguments are explained well and weighed well, I will vote for it.

Defense is not sticky. If it matters, you need to extend and implicate it in summary and final. Frontline in second rebuttal, dropped arguments in rebuttal are considered conceded.

Any bigotry means you're auto-dropped with the lowest speaks possible.

Evidence:

Cards need to be properly cut. Don't power tag your evidence, and don't spend more than 30 seconds to find a card. In general, you should already be sending docs before your speeches that already have the cut evidence in them.

Progressive Args:

I'm generally so/so on prog stuff but I'd really rather not judge a messy K/theory round.

third year debater

pf :)

LD/PF

• spreading is fine as long as you send a doc (td.trishadas30@gmail.com)
• tech>truth but your warrants need to be well explained
• weigh throughout the round; i won't do the work for you
• i don't care about cross but don't be mean please
• speaks will start at 28 and move up or down based on performance
• mention taylor swift and i will be happy

have fun!! :))

former PF at slakes; pronouns - she/her

duong.kalina4@gmail.com

if you have any questions please feel free to ask prior or after the round. Not a fan of super excessive post-rounding.

- tech>truth but warrant it

- fine with speed but you have to speak clearly (clarity's important!)

- I enjoy a snarky or funny cross as long as it furthers the debate- you can make jabs at each other's arguments but no isms (racism, xenophobia, misogyny, etc) or overt rudeness.

- extend please; Warrant your arguments. Weighing is important. Defense isn't sticky. Draw a clear path to the ballot for me.

- ev ethics are important.

- I lack experience debating and judging prog args but if you can explain it well enough go ahead and run it.

Nicole He (she/her)

Debated for Seven Lakes High School for four years on nats circuit

Email: nicolexinyao1@gmail.com, add me to the chain if there is one

General tldr:

I’m tabula rasa in that my brain is empty and I don't know anything about the topic please explain everything. Also try to preflow and start an email chain before round to speed things up, tech>truth, speed is fine just send docs. As long as arguments are explained well and weighed well, I will vote for it.

Preferences:

Trigger warnings are needed for graphic arguments, but only if they're genuinely triggering. I think it's kind of silly to need trigger warnings just because people say the word "sexual assault" or if there are "mentions of gendered violence" because that just silences debaters who are trying to debate about important issues that they care about. If you do want to read tw theory for nongraphic readings of violence though, I will still evaluate it. But again, this doesn't mean trigger warnings aren't important and if something graphic and triggering is read it has to come with an opt-out form. Any violation of this that causes distress in round will most likely not lead to a good ballot for you.

Defense is not sticky. If it matters, you need to extend and implicate it in summary and final. Frontline in second rebuttal, dropped arguments in rebuttal are considered conceded.

If you want the easy win and want to make my life easier please do comparison in every speech you can. Comparative weighing, evidence comparison, and meta-weighing all decrease the chance that I intervene and generally make the round less messy. I usually think that in terms of metaweighing, probability and the whole policy paralysis warrant is weak and confusing, but if it's the only meta-weighing done I will vote on it.

Any bigotry means you're auto-dropped with the lowest speaks possible.

Evidence:

If para or direct quote, have cut evidence ready to send if its called for

Don't lie.

Speaks:

Just be chill, funny, and strategic, and speaks shouldnt be bad for you

Progressive Args:

I've read Ks, SV framework, and theory in high school and they still confuse me so I would much rather just hear a regular debate and probably be a better judge for one too.

If you decide to not listen to me and run these arguments, make sure you have an impact (especially Ks, please don't read one that does not solve anything), and don't just throw jargon at me. Again, if you just explain things well and do the comparison, I'll vote on it.

Please don't read tricks. I won't know what to do with it.

Hi! I'm a thrid year PFer at seven lakes.

Please extend - if you want something to be a voting issue extend it in both final focus and summary

defense is not sticky

second rebuttal should frontline- even better if you collapse

please weigh your arguments comparatively

I look at the link debate first, then evaluate which arguments to prefer based on weighing

Please please signpost!!

SLHS '25

3rd-year debater: 1x state qual in ld, broke at nationals in policy!

PFer

Please start email chains if spreading/in general, too, for evidence comparison, etc - samkdebate@gmail.com

Please ask me questions before the round!

Debate:

TLDR: pls just signpost and weigh weigh weigh! Give me a clear framing/weighing mechanism (it doesn't have to be an actual framework, just some calculus to allow me to make a decision). I hate intervening b/c it's unfair to both sides - don’t make me. The earlier you start weighing, the happier I am. Don’t worry too much and have fun debating! ᕙ(▀̿ĺ̯▀̿ ̿)ᕗ Muchos gracias.

Performance:

• Be NICE!

• Ev>presentation any day dawg - just don’t speak inaudibly or else ofc your speaks go down. I start at 28 and move up and down mostly based on strategy.

• Debate is where the logic sparkles: make the round educational and don’t impede on this. For example, experienced debaters reading 13 offs on a brand new novice is just so embarrassing to watch, and not for the novice.

• Go fast and spread if you want! Send a speech doc to my email but slow down on tags and author names or else I 100% will not catch an argument. Also, add analytics on the doc - and slow down during them.

• I default to relatively high (30) speaks unless debaters are unnecessarily harsh, rude, or mean to their opponents in the round (speaks will be dropped so be nice [̲̅$̲̅(̲̅ ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°̲̅)̲̅$̲̅]).

• Speaks can and most likely will be bumped up if you make super creative arguments or make me laugh (try to be engaging). Most cheesy dad jokes will make me giggle - but also, don't fool around. Education>entertainment. :|

• Be persuasive and explain your arguments heavily to me ESPECIALLY why I ought to vote for certain things on your side as compared to your opponent (flush out weighing please).

CX:

• It's going to be a long round you might as well be nice to your opponents.

• If spreading, send doc but also pls signpost! There are usually many, many arguments within the round - I will flow all possible arguments, but I will try my best to get the most crucial components of the round.

• Most of the stuff in LD is pretty relevant here - ie prog arguments.

• The latest speech to bring up new args and cards should be the 1ar/1nr unless it is the most critical aspect of the round. but logically, a new arg in the 2ar/2nr is way too abusive so if the argument is absolutely nothing related to what your side has previously mentioned, I will probably not consider it.

• Quality>quantity, dtd>dti, tech>truth, but reasonability gets iffy so I lean to more counter interp (unless its friv theory, etc)

LD:

• Please signpost well or else I can't flow all possible arguments, but I will try my best to get the most crucial components of the round.

• I do not pay attention that much to cross ex: if you’re trying to make cx binding or poking holes in case, mention it clearly. Ex: “judge, pls note” or something of that sort. One more thing! Don’t be hostile - cx is not that deep. Just answer the question and move on unless you’re trying to make a point.

• Make the framework debate reasonable and I will vote for the side with the best argumentation and upholding of said framework. If no framework is read during the round and no debater specifies, I will default to Util.

• Winning framework does not win you the round: it only wins you a favorable offense-weighing mechanism.

• Please try to start weighing in your second speech. 1NC weighing is cool but don’t focus on it too much if you don’t have time. 1AR definitely has to weigh - I think it’s unfair to bring new weighing mechanisms in the 2AR that the 2N could not respond to, but I also have not watched enough LD rounds to know.

• Anything you want me to vote on must be extended into 1/2AR or 2NR, anything else I won't evaluate it and the argument will be dropped.

• No brand new arguments in 2NR and 2AR. Extension of weighing and additional implications of link ins, etc may be evaluated based on the tangency of the starting argument.

• Quality>quantity, dtd>dti, tech>truth, reasonability and counter interp are based on warrants provided.

• Tricks!! No. Depends on my leniency at that point. Also I don’t understand half of them so it’s a wasted effort lol.

• LARP and substance is my strongest form of debating as I understand it the most, just make reasonable arguments and weigh weigh weigh.

• Progressive debate:

• I'm good with generic K's (Cap, set col, imperialism) but exemplify the links and alternatives extremely thoroughly, or else I won’t understand the argument. Identity k's are extremely swag but make sure the thesis and offense are clearly outlined. If you read Baudrillard or any extremely convoluted k that I do not understand, my RFD will send you into a hyperreality so be careful :)

• Phil is something I'm not that great with evaluating, but as long as you extend parts of the syllogism and explain, I will most likely understand it! Kant and Hobbes are what I'm most familiar with. I've heard/read/witnessed some whacky phil, but as long as it makes sense, I can vote on it. (͠≖ ͜ʖ͠≖)

• Theory is great, but don't be abusive with it and call for it only when there is reasonable abuse during the round. I will vote on the T if it is logical and fair!

PF:

Cross apply most of LD but use in context of PF terms

• Default to util calculus unless fwrk is read.

• Quality>quantity (I love super innovative contentions)

• Weighing should be the brunt of your summary - most arguments should become crystalized/set up for final focus

• No substantially new arguments in both

• Spreading and progressive arguments are welcome! Just send a doc. If your opponent cannot understand it, I may or may not. Refer to the LD paradigm for more

• I do not pay attention that much to cross ex: if you’re poking holes or whatever, mention it clearly. Ex: “judge, pls note” or something of that sorts. CX is binding only if you specify it lol. Again, don’t be hostile - crossfire is not that deep.

• I personally believe that grand cross is wasteful of time, but it will most likely depend on the situation (aka: if there are questions to be asked, etc). If both sides don't have any questions - I'm cool with splitting grand into 1:30 of prep for both sides.

Anything else: Just try your best and be confident!

Speech/Interp:

I'm not an avid extemper nor am I an interper - but the events are super cool!

Have fun and be confident in your speaking! Your voice is your best weapon in today's world (sorry cringe)

Main points

• Ask me for time signals before you start. Otherwise, I default to odds down (ie 7 left, 5 left, 3 left, 1 left, grace).

• I don't have any trigger warnings but it’s a good practice to mention any for judges or spectators in the room if your speech contains graphic/sensitive topics.

• Content is as important as presentation (idk how to evaluate and give good feedback on presentation though I know the basics).

• if you forget your speech, take a breath and continue - it happens to anyone; just remember: fake it till you make it! it's about how you recover and not how perfect your speech can be

• I can't reiterate this enough: I am not a speech kid - I like arguing instead of public speaking. I just like statistics and things that quantify arguments. However, I will rank based on how unique your topic is, how well you present it, and how well your overall performance is. Don't change your speech for me just do whatever you think is the best for you!

• I have no idea what speech norms are, but don't be rude in your speech? I know debaters get a lil audacious so please don't be like them :)

• Finally - have fun! do your best. We're all here to learn - especially me! The more passionate you are about your topic, the more I will like your speech.

Interp (specifically)

• In total, I have watched around 15 pieces. Don’t expect me to know how to evaluate the round like other interp judges or lay judges may. I’ll probably rank based on entertainment/emotional appeal/impact of the speech rather than other technicalities. Up to date, I have never judged an interp round, but I have a bunch of friends that I should be learning how to judge from.

• Common note – interp fits are an extreme slay so heads up for compliments!

Extemp -

• Same idea about time signals – ask me for specific ones or else I default to odds down.

• Components that I look for and make critical in the way I rank: Intro (w/ AGD, background, question, and preview ), 3 main points, conclusion (remember to restate your question and recap your points!).

• Include as many citations as you want: I personally use at least 7 as a good measure (intro: 1, 2 per body point) use them wisely, don’t just tell me the Washington Post said that Biden’s approval rating significantly declined and then call it a day - explain it! That’s the point of extemp - give your own analysis and tie it back to your main point.

• I go more content>speaks for novices and I tend to in general - it's just easier for me to evaluate. I know it's a speaking activity and I will rank based on it - but the arguments (and the way they are phrased/explained) are just more compelling and that is how I rank speakers.

• Presentation! Speaker’s triangle is cool! Its basic but super useful - it helps me identify when you're transitioning to another point

• Project! You’re convincing me that your defense/answer to the question you chose is right and reasoning well
  
  

You've made it to the bottom! Thanks for reading; good luck and have fun!

uil circuit policy debater

Im Andres i'm a junior at Seven Lakes. 2x TFA qualifier, 1x TOC quallifier, PFBC Student Andrescasas0705@gmail.com the email chain.send speech docs with all cut cards before speech

tech > truth, The first thing i evaluate in the debate is if you are winning the link level debate because if you don't win your argument then you don't win the weighing, if both teams are winning their arguments i then go to the weighing, if there is no weighing i default to the best extended and or biggest arg of the round.

don't be disrespectful

frontline in 2nd rebuttal, defense isn't sticky.

extend uniqueness, link, and impact. - This goes for turns as well, especially if your opponents dont extend their uq and imp for you.

go for less and explain what you go for better.

time ur own prep and speeches

u can go fast if u want, however (Quality > Quantity)

Arguments made in cross are not binding

Manage your own time i won't be timing you guys

progressive Args

I can evaluate but am not fully familiar and will not fully enjoy the round unless explained REALLLYYY well

K's im familair with are Cap, Col, Orientalism, and Fem.

speaks

i'll start at a 28.5 and go up or down based on strategy, politeness, and presentation. (may help to be funny)

overall, have fun! i'll disclose and give feedback, feel free to ask questions about my rfd

I have competed in congress my self, but I am familiar with what is classified as a strong argument in other events as well.

In Debate, I look for:

-tone variation (only congress)

-refutation/clashing with other side or other debators (addressing their concerns, explaining why your side is the better world and wins the debate especially if you give a late round)

-I like unique arguments if you are able to stand your ground and explain how that argument applies well to the debate

-confidence even if you are dealt a bad set of cards or have to argue for a hard to argue for side

-participation when possible (if you’re in congress, I expect you to ask a good amount of questions when possible unless you are forced to write a late round)

-strong arguments or strong enthusiasm in your argument

-credible and non biased sources (no Wikipedia or made up sources of course)

-fluency in speaking (speech breaks/stuttering doesn’t matter much to me if you recover your fluency)

In Speech events, I look for:

-tone variation/emotion

-consistency in your performance

-passion

-fluency in speaking (speech breaks/stuttering doesn’t matter much to me if you recover your fluency)

-for duo/duet, a strong cooperation and synchronization between both actors

junior pf debater at seven lakes (the 2 in seven lakes AR) siri@ramineni.name

2x tfa qualifier, 1x gtoc qualifier

i judge like BRYCE PIOTROWSKI.

tech > truth, links > weighing. you NEED warrants and impacts– tell me why the argument ur telling me matters

this is how i go through the round:

i look at weighing first and whatever wins that i'll look at first. if u win weighing but ur losing the link, u don't win the argument and i look at the other argument. if there is no weighing, i presume the best extended and argued arg.

don't do isms

frontline in 2nd rebuttal, defense isn't sticky.

extend uniqueness, link, and impact.

go for less and explain what you go for better.

time ur own prep and speeches

u can go fast if u want, i enjoy fast debates but you still have to warrant everything

i rly do not like paraphrasing, pls read cut cards and have good evi ethics

progressive args

i like prog args

if ur running fw, make sure to use it to actually frame the round. i also would prefer if u extend it. ext v sv debates tend to become kinda repetitive and back and forth so make sure you're actually interacting with warrants.

for k's, i understand nontopical ks a bit more and am only familiar w/ topical set col, sec, and cap.

paraphrasing is bad, disclo is good, trigger warnings are bad, being topical is good, round reports are meh

speaks

i'll start at a 28.5 and go up or down based on strategy.

Bach Tran (he/him)

Please add me to the email chain: kienbtran1655 at gmail dot com

Seven Lakes '23

UT '27 (not debating)

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

Pref Shortcuts

This is based on my familiarity at evaluating things--will vote for anything that is explained well.

Policy, Trad - 1

Stock Theory/T, Ks - 2

Dense Theory/Ks - 3

Phil, Tricks - 4/Strike

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

General Things

TL;DR: I vote for anything with a warrant and impact but most comfortable with larp + basic T/Theory/Ks. Regardless of content, if you are technical and know what you are talking about, I will enjoy judging you. I generally try to follow what you say to evaluate debates before inserting my biases so the more judge instruction/comparison you do the better off you will be. Things like what is/isn't new, when can things be new, what's the bar for answering/extending stuff, how should I read a piece of evidence, how should an argument be framed, etc. are all very helpful and increase your chances of winning/getting high points.

Tech>truth--my predispositions below can be changed easily by out-debating the other team but my threshold for beating obviously dumb arguments are pretty low. My bar for what counts as a warrant is not that high and things like "dumb argument" is not a warrant.

I'm generally not that picky with extensions so long as there are properly warranted (i.e, an overview of a conceded advantage is probably fine). Obviously, the details of explanantion should vary proportional to how conceded things are--overviews are probably not enough to replace LBL work on arguments that are contested.

Non-starters: -isms, ad homs, changing speech times, self harm good (wipeout/spark/the death K is fine), eval after [X speech], speaker points theory.

Please start the email chain early/preflow/whatever so the debate can begin as close to the start time as possible.

I flow on paper. I tend to not flow author names. Speed is fine but slow down/inflect on tags and analytics and give me some pen time. Signposting, numbering, and answering arguments in order are also helpful.

Other procedural things: tell me to write stuff down in CX, probably won't time, I always disclose the RFD (+speaker points, upon request). Feel free to preround/postround/email me questions/whatever.

Speaker points: I'm generous with them as long as you are technical, strategic, and generally a nice person. My current average is in the 28.8-29 range.

If you want to initiate an ethics challenge, it's a no take-back. Winner(s) gets W30(s) and loser(s) L0(s). Would prefer that you save this for things like clipping or malicious distortions and not small violations.

Rehighlights: yes insertions if indicting author/context/less than a sentence, no if you're making new arguments/recutting the card. Debate it out if you think I should/should not evaluate certain insertions.

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

Policy

I like people who know the topic lit and are good at weighing/evidence comparison. You can read whatever as long as you can do these two things. I can be persuaded about zero risk (especially if an impact is very poorly explained).

I like impact turns. Please do 0-off impact turns/case, I promise to give you high points if execution is decent.

I will read evidence if you tell me to (no "read card", yes "read card and check for [thing]"). Good debating can usually overcome good evidence (for the most part). Good analytics + debating can beat bad arguments/cards (for the most part).

Default no judgekick, everything else (condo, PICs/whatever CP, whatever fiat/perms, etc.) are fine unless the other side reads theory. Probably slow down on dense theory stuff (mostly if you are reading like a big textual perm block or something).

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

Ks on the Neg

Know the tl;dr version of mainstream Ks (cap, set col, security and whatnot) + very vague understanding of identity/pomo stuff. Please dump down the confusing philosophies and/or granular details between different theories/authors. Unpacking buzzwords and contemporary/historical examples help a lot. Please do LBL instead of giant overviews (they are bad).

Framework: Realistically, I think "middle-road" is the most reasonable interpretation but I understand the strategic value of excluding the plan or reps/epistimology/etc. So, to each their own--I'm more than happy to weigh the plan or reject rhetoric or critically examine power structures or whatever if you win on the flow that I should do so. Judge instruction for what count as uniqueness/solvency/offense is paramount. My default is probably along the lines of "yes Ks of whatever but they must implicate plan solvency."

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

Theory/T

Send interp/counterinterp texts and slow down on your blipstorms. Default DTA (unless it's incoherent), CI, no RVIs.

I'll vote on any shell except ad homs/clothes theory but my threshold for answering silliness is probably low. If there are multiple shells please weigh them as soon as possible. I'm probably not the one for hardcore theory rounds.

"[X] is an IVI" does not automatically uplayer anything. Not voting on IVIs that miss DTD warrants when introduced.

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

K Affs

Ideally, the 1AC should defend a change from the squo at least vaguely related to the topic (doesn't have to be policy/larping the USFG) but you can do whatever if you can defend your 1AC. Probably err on more explanation of the aff/method than less.

Debate is probably a game. Anything can(not) be an impact depending on impact calc. Again, no strong opinions--but all else equal I am probably better for affs that defend a CI + impact turns vs only impact turns. That said, I also find impact turns contextualized to neg framework (i.e. "their specific explanation of fairness/limits/etc." is bad) more persuasive than categorical rejection of debate/fairness.

I think KvK rounds are really interesting but you probably want to slow down and explain interactions between the K and the aff + how the perm works (or doesn't work) because every KvK interaction has its own take on how competition functions.

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

Phil: Bad for "phil" that is tricks in disguise. Otherwise, ELI5. Slow down on analytic walls. Default presumption and permissibility negates, epistemic confidence, comparative worlds.

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

Tricks: Probably quite bad for this but if you want to go for skep or something feel free. I need lots of hand-holding/judge instruction to evaluate these debates. Will be impressed if you can convince me to abandon reality and vote for stuff like condo logic or trivialism.

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

Trad: Sure. I am more than capable but trad rounds are usually very boring and messy to evaluate. Good for technical debating, bad for yapping/grandstanding, "framework is a voting issue" (no it's not), "LD is for vAlUe dEbAtE" (no it's certainly not) and such.

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

PF Stuff

Most of the stuff above applies where applicable (the policy section is probably most relevant to PF). I'm also down for theory/the K/whatever if you want to (you still need to explain the arguments though...don't just read LD/CX backfiles and call it a day).

Evidence rant:

--No Google Docs. Absolutely not.

--If you don't send evidence/speech docs before speeches I am capping your speaker points at a 28. I don't super care how you share evidence, but if you don't and the round drags on forever, I will be very grumpy. Also if you do paraphrase I want cut cards at the bottom (at that point, why not just read the cut cards...but what do I know...).

--I think generally disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad but will still vote on the flow if you win your stuff. If debated evenly, I probably will never vote on paraphrasing good...

--I don't know how PFers get away with reading one-line, unwarranted "cards" with random prepositions as taglines that get spun out of proportions in the backhalf. Having quality evidence (i.e., warranted and written by qualified people) matters a lot, especially when the debating is even/close. Teams should also challenge silly/unwarranted extrapolations of terrible evidence more. If the other team says a blog post is somehow a "meta-study," you should point that out and I will most likely concur. Or alternatively just read better cards and explain evidence in a consistent manner.

2nd rebuttal and every speech after should probably frontline and collapse but I'm open to ignoring this if you can theoretically justify not doing so. In general, I think answering case in 2nd constructive is an interesting strategy. A full-on, well-executed impact turn dump in 2nd constructive will probably earn you very high points.

I like a lot of warranted, comparative weighing. Please do more link/internal link weighing--I do not care if your impact outweigh if you concede a bunch of link defense. The more warrants/examples you add to this step the easier it would be for both of us. Judge instruction is crucial in the backhalf and good execution will be rewarded with high points.

Trigger warnings: obviously you should include TWs for objectively triggering content. I will vote for trigger warning theory but would rather not. Please just be nice to others and don't weaponize others' suffering for competitive benefit.

Please don't yell over each other in cross/grand cross.