About - debater for The Branson School. Email chain please - ivy_brenner@branson.org

My name is Ivy and please refer to me as such; if you call me judge, I will request you refer to me as your highness instead.

TL; DR - Read what you're best at as long as you can explain it well; don't try to overly adapt to me; be nice to the other team; don't clip cards; tech over truth and have a good time! If you're not having fun, I'm not having fun, and no one wants that.

Online - During online debate, many microphones, audio, and internet connections are poor, and often they get worse when you start speaker faster/louder. If you keep your camera off during the debate, I'll need verbal confirmation that you are present before every speech.

General - Most of my ideas about debate are still forming. I've been both a 2A and 2N, read mostly policy affs, although I did a brief stint reading a K aff at camp on the CJR topic, and primarily Ks on the neg, although I have had many DA/CP rounds and have gone for T often. Tech over truth.

Emerging Tech Topic - Not super familiar with the topic. I know most of the novice args on the topic, not a ton of other stuff. I might not know your abbreviations/topic lingo/etc.

Spreading - cool. If you're unclear, I'll tell you.

Flowing - I do flow, on paper. If you're making a bunch of arguments and not telling me what they're responsive to, I won't place them on the flow in the way that's most convenient for you - I'll write them straight down in a row in the order you said them. This especially applies to case/K (and sometimes other offcase) overviews. If you read a 48 minute case overview, don't tell me how it applies to the other team's arguments, and move on to offcase, I'm going to assume you dropped everything.

Cross Examination - I will flow CX, especially if you read evidence. Be nice. For online debate - don't talk forever and ever. Answer concisely and let the other team ask as many questions as they can. Tag team/Open CX is fine as long as it's fine with the other team. Bonus speaks if you physically tag your partner each time you want them to speak.

Case - If the neg functionally drops case, I will assume a 100% risk of the aff impacts and the aff has 100% solvency. For 2As - your overviews almost always don't answer any case arguments ever. I'd prefer to see you say just a sentence about the plan and then go straight to the line by line. If you go for case against policy affs, your speaks will SKYROCKET.

Counterplans - I like CPs, love creative CPs. Read evidence. I will judge kick if and only if the neg mentions at some point in the debate that I can or should, or that the squo is also a logical option.

Disadvantages - I love a solid DA. Read them all. I won't vote on a politics DA about a bill that has already passed, even if the aff doesn't point that out - possibly the only place I am truth over tech.

Kritiks - I love Ks. I mostly run Ks on the neg. Ks I have run - Militarism, Set Col, Carceral Geography, Abolition, Deleuze, Cap, Security. Please still explain your Ks to me as if I wasn't familiar with them, and don't assume that I'm super familiar with the writings and theories of your authors. I don't think the neg needs to win an alt for me to vote for the K - I think links and/or framework can be sufficient.

Kritikal affs - I did a brief stint running a K aff at camp one summer, but I'm not super familiar with them. However, if it's what you do best, I think you should run it over running some generic policy argument you don't have any experience with. Not being in the direction of the topic is fine with me - it's framework you have to beat.

Framework V Kritikal affs - Framework is about a model of debate. Make sure it doesn't just sound like a whine. Explain why the way in which you see the purpose and role of debate and the purposes and roles of the topic and resolution are better than whatever the aff is doing. Fairness can be an internal link and/or an impact. TVAs are good. TVAs with evidence are better.

Topicality - Love topicality debates. Will for sure vote on it. This is also about a model of debate, not about how you're upset that your DAs don't link.

Theory - I really like theory debates. There aren't a lot of arguments that can make me reject the team. Condo can, most other CP theory seems to be resolved by rejecting the CP. I will always give the neg new off in the 2NC. There should not be new voting issues in the 1AR/2NR/2AR unless something particularly egregious happened in the opponents' last speech. If you want me to vote your opponent down on theory, spend at least 1 minute in the 2AR/2NR impacting it out.

Speaks - I evaluate speaks based on the entire round, from the minute the call starts to the minute it ends, and if you are unkind, mean, rude to me or the opponents, or unethical, I will dock your speaks severely. Postrounding side note - you can do it be nice. If you post round me I will post round you back. It will be educational :)

+.1 speaks if you say poggers or loggers

+.1 speaks if you have a funny debate meme at the top of your 1AC

+.5 speaks if you bring me a sticker

Email me with questions or ask me in round.

This will not be a very long read. My debate philosophy is simple. I believe that debate should be more about building skills that will help us in the real world than it should be about winning tournaments. That means I'm not very receptive to arguments you would not use in the real world, like critiques. I prefer well-reasoned arguments about the topic you are actually supposed to be debating about. I won't immediately eliminate you for making the tournament-style arguments, but it it something I strongly advise against.

PF GGSA 2: I haven't judged PF before; I usually judge policy, so I don't have much experience with the technical aspects of PF. I'll still flow and weigh arguments and other flow-judge things, but you might need to remind me of some of the more PF-specific stuff.

Currently a senior @ College Prep. Been debating in policy for 4 years, coached by the one and only Ian Beier :)

• Usually, the 2A/1N, but have debated as 1A/1N, 1A/2N
• "Debate is probably a game, but I can be easily convinced otherwise. I will default to whoever is winning framework." - Callum
• I am open to anything; do your thing and have fun. We are all here to learn.
• I also do tech stuff; If you've got questions/curiosities regarding technology in debate: feel free to ask! I am pretty familiar the programming side of the debate wiki & student side of tabroom, programmatically interfacing w/ sci-hub, libgen, etc.

More technical things:

Quick Things:

1. Please include me on the chain: yfang@college-prep.org

2. Tech > Truth. Default framework is util good, but you can reframe this.

3. Cross is binding; Tag team cross is ok. Please, no yelling during cross.

4. Time your own speeches & prep

5. If you have a tech issue, let me know. We can pause the round to give you time to resolve it. I can probably provide some support on the spot as well.

6. If you are reading Ks or k-affs, please explain your argument clearly - I am familiar with the general stuff (set col, security, cap), but please explain specific ones/abstract ones (Foucault, Baudrillard, OOO [and with this, wipeout is probably ok... though I will probably hate voting on that], psychoanalysis, etc.)

7. If you are spreading: please go slow on large chunks of analytics (especially with theory). Or, if you want to read fast: flash the analytics.

Argument Specific Stuff:

T: Ok. But please don't package Ks into Ts and then remove the alt. Just read a K.

K: See #5 above. Generally ok with it. RFD might take a bit longer, as K cards are generally pretty thick.

CP: Cool. I will vote on condo (usually, this is the only theory ill vote on unless something really bad happens). Cardless CPs are ok ;)

DA: Go ahead. If it is some weird ptx, please explain or how it is different from the other ptx DAs being read on the circuit during that time.

Case: They are great! Often missing in policy due to the myriad of off-cases people read. I would like to see more case debates.

"for the neg, those hard right affs link chains are often very dubious, i would love to see someone actually point that out" - Callum

Speaks: If you spread well (aka tone changes on tags, etc.) that's a plus. Novices: If you show me your flow (actual flow; no blank pieces of paper, please) at the end ill add 0.1 to your speaks.

Clipping/Toxic Debating etc.:

Don't clip cards*. Don't mark every single card. If you know you won't get through everything don't write such a long speech.

* If you find that the other team is clipping, please let me know, preferably with some sort of evidence (audio/video recording for this purpose is ok. I usually won't stop you from recording). I will stop the round and investigate.

Don't steal prep/speech time.

Racism, sexism, ableism, discrimination of any kind, and overuse of explicit language will not be tolerated. I will warn you if things cross the line. If it happens multiple times I will call tab to sort it out.

Have fun.

(Hi, I am software developer at Microsoft. I have three kids, aged sixteen, eight, and four. Please take care to take careful notes during the debate. This will be useful when you have job at Seattle tech company. Take care to be nice to each other. Without niceness, you will get fired at Microsoft.

Please be aware to have fun. Good luck!) - Sabrina

Hi!

My name in Matheno. I have been a participant of this activity for about over 17 years. I started to debate in High School out of the DKC Urban Debate League. I emerged onto the national circuit my novice year in 2004. I have attended debate camps at University of Iowa, University of Missouri Kansas City as well as the University of Louisville. "Performance" debate is mostly how I approached debate as a framework. Do not call it Performance debate. Debate itself is a performance. I do understand what many call "traditional debate." It's how I got introduce to this activity. I just felt better equipped as a debater dozing into what felt more authentic for me. I judge my debates on what is on the flow sheets. If its not on the flow then I cannot evaluate it. Speed does not mean to forfeit persuasion. I will listen to mostly everything. I like new and different arguments. I was a big fan of K arguments and of course ran many Kritiks. I am now a staff member at the Bay Area Urban Debate League as a Program Manager. I have been a judge every single year since I left debate as a competitor. I love this activity! I have assisted BUDL, DKC and also Atlanta Urban Debate League. Write the ballot for me. If I have to do a lot of framing and impact calculus myself then I don't think you did much coverage of handling the flow. Write the RFD for the judge. Who knows what may happen if you leave it in my hands. I have a very queer mind.

Email thread: bfandbo@gmail.com

I debated high school debate in Virginia / Washington DC for Potomac Falls '03 to '07 and college for USF '07 to '11. I am currently the debate coach for Oakland Technical High School.

add me to email chain please: aegorell@gmail.com

I am generally pretty open to vote on anything if you tell me to, I do my best to minimize judge intervention and base my decisions heavily on the flow. I love judge instruction. I err tech over truth.

However, everyone has biases so here are mine.

General - Removing analytics is coward behavior. Okay, after I put this in everyone seems to think I mean I need to see all your analytics ever. I’m saying if you have prewritten analytics you should not remove those (coward behavior) especially in the early constructive speeches. Removing analytics and trying to get dropped args from spreading poorly is bad for debate and if it’s not on my flow it didn’t happen. Analytics off the dome from your flow are great and not what I’m talking about.I'm fine with tag team / open cross-x unless you're going to use it to completely dominate your partners CX time. I'll dock speaker points if you don't let your partner talk / interrupt them a bunch. Respect each other. I'm good with spreading but you need to enunciate words. If you mumble spread or stop speaking a human language I'll lower your speaker points. Please signpost theory shells. I will evaluate your evidence quality if it is challenged or competing evidence effects the decision, but generally I think if a judge is pouring through your warrants thats probably not a good sign, you should have been extending those yourself I shouldn't have to hunt them down. Don’t cheat, don’t do clipping, don’t be rude. Obviously don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, in life in general but also definitely not in front of me. This is a competitive and adversarial activity but it should also be fun. Don’t try to make others miserable on purpose.

Topicality/Theory - Hiding stuff in the T shell is bad and I'll probably disregard it if Aff tells me to. Good T and theory debates need voters/impacts, which a lot of people seem to have forgotten about. I think for theory to be compelling in round abuse is supreme. If you're complaining you had no time to prep and then have 15 hyper specific link cards....come on. Disclosure theory is basically never viable independent offense but I think it can be a strong argument to disregard theory arguments run against you since they refused disclosure norms.

Framework - I'll follow the framework I'm given but I prefer a framework that ensures equitable clash. Clash is the heart and soul of this activity.

Kritiks - You need to understand what you are advocating for. If you just keep repeating the words of your tags without contextualizing or explaining anything, you don't understand your Kritik. I prefer to weigh the K impacts against the aff plan but I can be convinced otherwise. My threshold is high and it’s easier to access if you can prove in round abuse / actually tailored links. Also, I don't think links on K's always need to be hyper specific but I do not want links of omission. I like fiat debates. I think a lot of kritiks are very vulnerable to vagueness procedurals.

K-Affs - Good K-Affs are amazing, but I almost never see them. I used to say I tend to err neg but I actually end up voting aff more often than not mostly because negs don’t seem to know how to engage. Vagueness seems to be most egregious with k affs. Don’t be vague about what you’re trying to do or what my vote does and you’ll have a much better chance with me. I like debate, which is why I am here, so if your whole argument is debate bad you'll have an uphill battle unless you have a specific positive change I can get behind. Just because I like debate doesn’t mean it can’t also be better. I can recognize its problematic elements too. Reject the topic ain't it. I need to know what my ballot will functionally do under your framework. If you can't articulate what your advocacy does I can't vote for it. I think fairness can be a terminal impact. Negs should try to engage the 1AC, not even trying is lazy. Really listen to what the K aff is saying because often you can catch them contradicting themselves in their own 1AC, or even providing offense for perf cons.

CPs - I'll judge kick unless Aff tells me not to and why. Justify your perm, don’t just say it. You need to explain it not just yell the word perm at me 5 times in a row. I tend to be fine with Condo unless there’s clear abuse. I think I start being open to condo bad around 3 or 4? But if you want me to vote on condo you better GO for it. 15 seconds is not enough. I think fiat theory arguments are good offense against many CPs. Consult, condition or delay CP's without a really good and case specific warrant are lame and I lean aff on theory there. Advantage CPs rule, but more than 5 planks is crazy. By advantage CPs I mean like...actually thought out a targeted ones that exploit weaknesses in plans.

DAs - I evaluate based on risk and impact calc. More than 3 cards in the block saying the same thing is too many. Quality over quantity.

For LD - I try to be as tab as I can but in order to do that you need to give me some kind of weighing mechanism to determine whose voting issues I prefer. If you both just list some voting issues with absolutely no clash it forces me to make arbitrary decisions and I hate that. Give me the mechanism / reason to prefer and you'll probably win if your opponent does not. So like, do I prefer for evidence quality or relevance? Probability? Give me something. I'm probably more open to prog arguments because I come from policy debate but if someone runs a Kritik and you do a decent job on kritiks bad in LD theory against it I'll vote on that.

Debater @ College Prep '23 - policy and parli

Please put me on the chain: tleung@college-prep.org

Tech>Truth

Cross is binding

Don't steal prep

Explain your K's/K affs

Racism, sexism, discrimination will not be tolerated and you will be dropped with 0 speaks. Otherwise, please feel free to run anything you want and read however fast you want as well. Remember to have fun.

Affiliations and History:
Please email (damiendebate47@gmail.com and tjlewis1919@gmail.com) me all of the speeches before you begin.
I am the Director of Debate at Damien High School in La Verne, CA.
I was the Director of Debate for Hebron High School in Carrollton, TX from 2020-2021.
I was an Assistant Coach at Damien from 2017-2020.
I debated on the national circuit for Damien from 2009-2013.
I graduated from Occidental College in Los Angeles with a BA in Critical Theory and Social Justice.
I completed my Master's degree in Social Justice in Higher Education Administration at The University of La Verne.
My academic work involves critical university studies, Georges Bataille, poetics, and post-colonialism.
Author of Suburba(in)e Surrealism (2021).

Yearly Round Numbers:
I try to judge a fair bit each year.
Fiscal Redistribution Round Count: About 40 rounds
I judged 75 rounds or more on the NATO Topic.
I judged over 50 rounds on the Water Topic.
I judged around 40 rounds on the CJR topic.
I judged 30 rounds on the Arms topic (2019-2020)
I judged a bit of LD (32 debates) on the Jan-Feb Topic (nuke disarm) in '19/'20.
I judged around 25 debates on the Immigration topic (2018-2019) on the national circuit.
I judged around 50 rounds on the Education topic (2017-2018) on the national circuit.
LD Protocol:I have a 100% record voting against teams that only read Phil args/Phil v. Policy debates. Adapt or lose.
NDT Protocol: I will rarely have any familiarity with the current college topic and will usually only judge 12-15 rounds pre-NDT.
Please make your T and CP acronyms understandable.

Front Matter Elements:
If you need an accommodation of any kind, please email me before the round starts.
I want everyone to feel safe and able to debate- this is my number one priority as a judge.
I don't run prep time while you email the speech doc. Put the whole speech into one speech doc.
I flow 1AC impact framing, inherency, and solvency straight down on the same page nowadays.
Speed is not an issue for me, but I will ask you to slow down (CLEAR) if you are needlessly sacrificing clarity for quantity--especially if you are reading T or theory arguments.

I will not evaluate evidence identifiable as being produced by software, bots, algorithms etc. Human involvement in the card’s production must be evident unique to the team, individual, and card. This means that evidence you directly take from open source must be re-highlighted at a minimum. You should change the tags and underlining anyways to better fit with your argument’s coherency.

Decision-making:
I privilege technical debating and the flow. I try to get as much down as I possibly can and the little that I miss usually is a result of a lack of clarity on the part of the speaker or because the actual causal chain of the idea does not make consistent sense for me (I usually express this on my face). Your technical skill should make me believe/be able to determine that your argument is the truth. That means warrants. Explain them, impact them, and don't make me fish for them in the un-underlined portion of the six paragraph card that your coach cut for you at a camp you weren't attending. I find myself more and more dissatisfied with debating that operates only on the link claim level. I tend to take a formal, academic approach to the evaluation of ideas, so discussions of source, author intentions and 'true' meaning, and citation are both important to me and something that I hope to see in more debates.

The best debates for me to judge are ones where the last few rebuttals focus on giving me instructions on what the core controversies of the round are, how to evaluate them, and what mode of thinking I should apply to the flow as a history of the round. This means that I'm not going to do things unless you tell me to do them on the flow (judge kick, theory 'traps' etc.). When instructions are not provided or articulated, I will tend to use (what I consider to be) basic, causal logic (i.e. judicial notice) to find connections, contradictions, and gaps/absences. Sometimes this happens on my face--you should be paying attention to the physical impact of the content of your speech act.

I believe in the importance of topicality and theory. No affs are topical until proven otherwise.
Non-impacted theory arguments don't go a long way for me; establish a warranted theory argument that when dropped will make me auto-vote for you. This is not an invitation for arbitrary and non-educational theory arguments being read in front of me, but if you are going to read no neg fiat (for example), then you better understand (and be able to explain to me) the history of the argument and why it is important for the debate and the community.

Reading evidence only happens if you do not make the debate legible and winnable at the level of argument (which is the only reason I would have to defer to evidentiary details).

I find framework to be a boring/unhelpful/poorly debated style of argument on both sides. I want to hear about the ballot-- what is it, what is its role, and what are your warrants for it (especially why your warrants matter!). I want to know what kind of individual you think the judge is (academic, analyst, intellectual etc.). I want to hear about the debate community and the round's relationship within it. These are the most salient questions in a framework debate for me. If you are conducting a performance in the round and/or debate space, you need to have specific, solvable, and demonstrable actions, results, and evidences of success. These are the questions we have to be thinking about in substantial and concrete terms if we are really thinking about them with any authenticity/honesty/care (sorge). I do not think the act of reading FW is necessarily constitutive of a violent act. You can try to convince me of this, but I do start from the position that FW is an argument about what the affirmative should do in the 1AC.

If you are going to go for Fairness, then you need a metric. Not just a caselist, not just a hypothetical ground dispensation, but a functional method to measure the idea of fairness in the round/outside the round i.e. why are the internal components (ground, caselist, etc.) a good representation of a team's burden and what do these components do for individuals/why does that matter. I am not sure what that metric/method is, but my job is not to create it for you. A framework debate that talks about competing theories for how fairness/education should be structured and analyzed will make me very happy i.e. engaging the warrants that constitute ideas of procedural/structural fairness and critical education. Subject formation has really come into vogue as a key element for teams and honestly rare is the debate where people engage the questions meaningfully--keep that in mind if you go for subject formation args in front of me.

In-round Performance and Speaker Points:
An easy way to get better speaker points in front of me is by showing me that you actually understand how the debate is going, the arguments involved, and the path to victory. Every debater has their own style of doing this (humor, time allocation, etc.), but I will not compromise detailed, content-based analysis for the ballot.

I believe that there is a case for in-round violence/damage winning the ballot. Folks need to be considerate of their behavior and language. You should be doing this all of the time anyways.

While I believe that high school students should not be held to a standard of intellectual purity with critical literature, I do expect you to know the body of scholarship that your K revolves around: For example, if you are reading a capitalism K, you should know who Marx, Engels, and Gramsci are; if you are reading a feminism k, you should know what school of feminism (second wave, psychoanalytic, WOC, etc.) your author belongs to. If you try and make things up about the historical aspects/philosophical links of your K, I will reflect my unhappiness in your speaker points and probably not give you much leeway on your link/alt analysis. I will often have a more in-depth discussion with you about the K after the round, so please understand that my post-round comments are designed to be educational and informative, instead of determining your quality/capability as a debater.

I am 100% DONE with teams not showing up on time to disclose. A handful of minutes or so late is different than showing up 3-5 min before the round begins. Punish these folks with disclosure theory and my ears will be open.

CX ends when the timer rings. I will put my fingers in my ears if you do not understand this. I deeply dislike the trend of debaters asking questions about 'did you read X card etc.' in cross-x and I believe this contributes to the decline of flowing skills in debate. While I have not established a metric for how many speaker points an individual will lose each time they say that phrase, know that it is something on my mind. I will not allow questions outside of cross-x outside of core procedural things ('can you give the order again?,' 'everyone ready?' etc.). Asking 'did you read X card' or 'theoretical reasons to reject the team' outside of CX are NOT 'core procedural things.'

Do not read these types of arguments in front of me:
Arguments that directly call an individual's humanity into account
Arguments based in directly insulting your opponents
Arguments that you do not understand

tldr do what you do best; i'll only vote for complete arguments that make sense; weighing & judge instruction tip the scales in your favor; disclosure is good; i care about argument engagement and i value flexibility; stay hydrated & be a good person.

--

About me:

she/her

policy coach @ damien: spring 2022 - present

ld coach @ loyola: fall 2023 - present

--

My strongest belief about argumentation is that argument engagement is good - I don't have a strong preference as to what styles of arguments teams read in front of me, but I'd prefer if both teams engaged with their opponents' arguments; I don't enjoy teams who avoid clash (regardless of the style of argument they are reading). I value ideological flexibility in judges and actively try not to be someone who will exclusively vote on only "policy" or only "k" arguments.

I am comfortable evaluating arguments that are commonplace in policy (cx) debate; less comfortable evaluating nonsense trick-blip-phil-paradox-skep-word-soup quirks of lincoln douglas. This means that any CX team that debates in a coherent and well-researched manner (whether policy or k) should be fine in front of me. LD teams that read real arguments should be fine in front of me. LD teams that read "eval after 1ar" should strike me before they strike a parent judge.

General note about reading my paradigm - most things are phrased in terms of policy debate structure & norms (2nr/2ar being 5 minutes, "team" instead of "debater," "planless aff" = "non-t k aff," etc). If I'm judging you in LD and you have questions about how something translates to LD, feel free to ask!

--

email chains:

ld email chains: loyoladebate47@gmail.com and nethmindebate@gmail.com

policy email chains: damiendebate47@gmail.com and nethmindebate@gmail.com

if you need to contact me directly about rfd questions, accessibility requests, or anything else, please email nethmindebate@gmail.com (please don't email the teamail for these types of requests)!

--

flowing: it is good and teams should do it

stolen from alderete - if you show me a decent flow, you can get up to 1 extra speaker point. this can only help you - i won't deduct points for an atrocious flow. this is to encourage teams to actually flow. i recently witnessed a 2ac that answered a whole k that was not read in the 1nc. it nuked my value to life. this is my attempt at remedying it:)

--

All of my deal-breakers/hard and fast rules/moments of "I won't vote on this" are dependent on four things:

1 - protecting the safety of the participants in the round (no harrassment, no physical violence, etc).

2 - voting for things that meet the minimum standard to be considered an argument (it needs to have warrants & make some amount of logical sense).

3 - rules set forth by the tournament (speech times, one team wins and one team loses, I have to enter my own ballot, etc).

4 - i will only evaluate the debate after the end of the 2ar. this is 0% negotiable. i did not think i would have to say this, but i guess i do.

--

My voting record is roughly 50-50 on most major debate controversies (yes, even planless affs vs framework). As long as your argument doesn't violate the above four criteria, go for it!

I think that warrants are hard to come by in many debate rounds these days, even ones with “good” teams. Err on the side of a little too much explanation, because if your arg is warrantless, you will be ballotless. Extensions need to include warrants, not just taglines.

Independent voters need warrants and an articulation of why they should be evaluated before everything else. These debates could generally benefit from more judge instruction and weighing. Simply calling something an independent voter doesn’t mean I vote for you if you extend it.

Disclose or lose. Non-new affs should be on the wiki & should be disclosed to the neg team a minimum of 30 min before round. Neg offcase positions that have been read before should be on the wiki. Past 2nrs should be disclosed to the aff team a minimum of 30 min before round. New affs don't need to be disclosed pre-round. I am 1000000% done with teams that don't disclose. I have zero belief that there is any good reason for non-disclosure. If your opponent engages in any disclosure nonsense, read theory and there's a 95+% chance I vote for you, regardless of how good they are at the theory debate. Don't like disclosing? Pref someone who is willing to tolerate your nonsense (not me).

note: i am far more lenient on disclosure with novices/debaters who haven't debated at national-circuit tournaments before. the grumpiness of the above section is directed at people who know how to disclose and purposefully avoid it. you know who you are:)

--

Some general notes

Accessibility & content warnings: Email me if there is an accessibility request that I can help facilitate - I always want to do my part to make debates more accessible. I prefer not to judge debates that involve procedurals about accessibility and/or content warnings. I think it is more productive to have a pre-round discussion where both teams request any accommodation(s) necessary for them to engage in an equitable debate. I feel increasingly uncomfortable evaluating debates that come down to accessibility/cw procedurals, especially when the issue could have easily been resolved pre-round.

Speed/clarity – I will say clear up to two times per speech before just doing my best to flow you. I can handle a decent amount of speed. Going slower on analytics is a good idea. You should account for pen time/scroll time.

Online debate -- 1] please record your speeches, if there are tech issues, I'll listen to a recording of the speech, but not a re-do. 2] debate's still about communication - please watch for nonverbals, listen for people saying "clear," etc.

I am not comfortable evaluating out-of-round events. The only exception to this is disclosure. I will vote on reasonable and good faith disclosure theory (yeah you should probably disclose on opencaselist, no you probably shouldn't lose for forgetting one round report). I will not vote on arguments about random out-of-round events, things that happened in another round, things that happened on a team's pref sheet, or any other arguments of this nature.

--

Speaker points:

Speaker points are dependent on strategy, execution, clarity, and overall engagement in the round and are scaled to adapt to the quality/difficulty/prestige of the tournament.

I try to give points as follows:

30: you're a strong contender to win the tournament & this round was genuinely impressive

29.5+: late elims, many moments of good decisionmaking & argumentative understanding, adapted well to in-round pivots

29+: you'll clear for sure, generally good strat & round vision, a few things could've been more refined

28.5+: likely to clear but not guaranteed, there are some key errors that you should fix

28+: even record, probably losing in the 3-2 round

27.5+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, key technical/strategic errors

27+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, multiple notable technical/strategic errors

26+: errors that indicated a fundamental lack of preparation for the rigor/style of this tournament

25-: you did something really bad/offensive/unsafe.

Extra speaks for flowing, being clear, kindness, adaptation, and good disclosure practices.

Minus speaks for discrimination of any sort, bad-faith disclosure practices, rudeness/unkindness, and attempts to avoid engagement/clash.

--

Opinions on Specific Positions (ctrl+f section):

Case:

I think that negatives that don't engage with the 1ac are putting themselves in a bad position. This is true for both K debates and policy debates.

Extensions should involve warrants, not just tagline extensions - I'm willing to give some amount of leeway for the 1ar/2ar extrapolating a warrant that wasn't the focal point of the 2ac, but I should be able to tell from your extensions what the scenario is, what the internal links are, and why you solve.

Planless affs:

I've been on both sides of the planless aff debate, and my strongest opinion about planless affs is that you need to be able to explain what your aff does/why it's good.

I tend to dislike planless affs where the strategy is to make the aff seem like a word salad until after 2ac cx and then give the aff a bunch of new (and not super well-warranted) implications in the 1ar. I tend to be better for planless aff teams when they have a meaningful relationship to the topic, they are straight-up about what they do/don't defend, they use their aff strategically, engage with neg arguments, and make smart 1ar & 2ar decisions with good ballot analysis.

T/framework vs planless affs:

I'm roughly 50-50 in these debates. I don't have a strong preference for how framework teams engage in these debates other than that you should be respectful when discussing sensitive material.

I think that TVAs can be more helpful than teams realize. While having a TVA isn't always necessary, winning a TVA provides substantial defense on many of the aff's exclusion arguments.

I don't have a preference on whether your chosen 2nr is skills or fairness (or something else). I think that both options have strategic value based on the round you're in. Framework teams almost always get better points in front of me when they are able to contextualize their arguments to their opponents' strategy.

I also don't have a preference between the aff going for impact turns or going for a counterinterp. The strategic value of this is dependent on how topical/non-topical your aff is, in my opinion.

Theory:

The less frivolous your theory argument, the better I am for it.

Please weigh! It's not nearly as intuitive to make a decision in theory debates - I can fill in the gaps for why extinction is more impactful than localized war more easily than I can fill in the gaps for why neg flex matters more/less than research burdens.

default to no rvis <3 medium uphill to change my mind on this one

Topicality (not framework):

I like T debates that have robust and contextualized definitions of the relevant words/phrases/entities in the resolution. Have a clear explanation of what your interpretation is/isn't; examples/caselists are your friend.

Grammar-based topicality arguments: I don't find most of the grammar arguments being made these days to be very intuitive. You should explain/warrant them more than you would in front of a judge who loves those arguments.

Tricks (this is mostly an LD thing):

I used to say that I would never vote on tricks. I've decided it's bad to exclude a style of argumentation just because I don't enjoy it. Here are some things to know if you're reading tricks in front of me:

1 - I won't flow off the doc (I never flow off the doc, but I won't be checking the doc to see if I missed any of your tricks/spikes)

2 - The argument has to have a warrant in the speech it is presented

3 - The reason I've been so opposed to voting on tricks in the past is that I've never heard a trick that met the minimum threshold to be considered an argument

Kritiks (neg):

I tend to like K teams that engage with the aff and have a clear analysis of what's wrong with the aff's model/framing/epistemology/etc. I tend to be a bit annoyed when judging K teams that read word-salad or author-salad Ks, refuse to engage with arguments, expect me to fill in massive gaps for them, don't do adequate weighing/ballot analysis/judge instruction, or are actively hostile toward their opponents. The more of the aforementioned things you do, the more annoyed I'll be. The inverse is also true - the more you actively work to ensure that you don't do these things, the happier I'll be!

Disads:

Zero risk probably doesn't exist, but very-close-to-zero risk probably does. Teams that answer their opponents' warrants instead of reading generic defense tend to fare better in close rounds. Good evidence tends to matter more in these debates - I'd rather judge a round with 2 great cards + debaters explaining their cards than a round with 10 horrible cards + debaters asking me to interpret their dumpster-quality cards for them.

Counterplans:

I don't have strong ideological biases about how many condo advocacies the neg gets or what kinds of counterplans are/aren't cheating. More egregious abuse = easier to persuade me on theory; the issue I usually see in theory debates is a lack of warranting for why the neg's model was uniquely abusive - specific analysis > generic args + no explanation.

Judge kick - you've gotta tell me to do it. I'm not opposed to it, but I won't assume that you want me to unless the 2nr tells me to. No strong opinions for/against judge kick.

currently no strong opinions on things like normal means or counterplan competition on the fiscal redistribution topic. this means you can probably get away with more in front of me as long as you warrant it/read good evidence.

--

Arguments I will NEVER vote for:

-arguments that are actively discriminatory or make the round unsafe ("misgendering good," "let's make the debate about a minor's personal life," other stuff of that nature).

-any argument that attempts to police what a debater wears or how they present (this includes shoes theory/formal clothes theory).

-any argument that denies the existence/badness of oppression (i don't mean i won't vote for "extinction outweighs." i mean i won't vote for "genocide good.")

--

if there's anything i didn't mention or you have any questions, feel free to email me! if there's anything i can do to make debate more accessible for you, let me know! i really love debate and i coach because i want to make debate/the community a better place; please don't hesitate to reach out if there's anything you need.

Hello! My name is Lucy Margulis, my email is lucy.ella.mm@gmail.com

I'm a student at Oakland tech and this is my fourth year debating policy debate. I am a 1A/2N and I tend to debate soft left policy cases. I will vote for arguments that are thoroughly expanded upon and impacted out. Make sure to stay organized and signpost. I prefer tech over truth. I hope to stay impartial to make the round as educational and fun as possible for everyone. Do not use any harmful or discriminatory language. Have fun!

T/Framework - Make sure to explain your voters, impacts, and generally why your version of debate is best. Pay attention to the role of the ballot, if there is no counter role of the ballot than I will view the round through the perspective of the one provided.

K - Make sure to explain why your framework is best for debate, how your alternative functions, and how you access solvency.

K-AFFs - Make sure to have a clear advocacy statement that proposes a change, explain why it's important for debate, and what the ballot does.

CP/DA - Make sure the CP has a clear net benefit and has case specific warrants. On the DA explain risk and impact calc. On Perms, please explain how the perm functions and why it works. I'm open to condo but start buying “condo bad” arguments around 5 off.

Case - Any case is fine, make sure you can specifically explain how your plan solves.

Speaking - Tag team cross-x is fine but please make sure both partners are speaking equal amounts. Going line by line, organization, signposting, and clear, persuasive, logical arguments are all important. Spreading is fine but please articulate and enunciate words clearly. Again, do not use harmful or discriminatory language. Remember to be passionate and have fun!

Updated for Economic Inequality Topic

Overview

E-Mail Chain: Yes, add me (chris.paredes@gmail.com) & my school mail (damiendebate47@gmail.com). I do not distribute docs to third party requests unless a team has failed to update their wiki.

Experience: Damien 05, Amherst College 09, Emory Law 13L. This will be my seventh year as the Assistant Director at Damien (part-time), and my second year as Director at St. Lucy's Priory (full-time). I consider myself fluent in debate, but my debate preferences (both ideology and mechanics) are influenced by debating in the 00s.

This Year's Topic: I believe that the point of the resolution is to force debaters to learn about a different topic each year. So I think that debaters who develop good topic knowledge -- i.e., debaters who understand economics as a complex field of academic study and can analyze how different policies would affect the economy at different levels -- will have a massive advantage on internal link debating and are better equipped to win my ballot.

Debate: I am open to voting for almost any argument or style so long as I have an idea of how it functions within the round and it is appropriately impacted. Debate is a game. Rules of the game (the length of speeches, the order of the speeches, which side the teams are on, clipping, etc.) are set by the tournament and left to me (and other judges) to enforce. Comparatively, standards of the game (condo, competition, limits of fiat) are determined in round by the debaters. Framework is a debate about whether the resolution should be a rule and/or what that rule looks like. Persuading me to favor your view/interpretation of debate is accomplished by convincing me that it is the method that promotes better debate, either more fair or more pedagogically valuable, compared to your opponent's. My ballot always is awarded to whoever debated better; I will not adjudicate a round based on any issues external to the round, whether that was at camp or a previous round.

I run a planess aff; should I strike you?: As a matter of truth I am predisposed to the neg, but I try to leave bias at the door. I do end up voting aff about half the time. I will hold a planless aff to the same standard as a K alt; I absolutely must have an idea of what the aff (and my ballot) does and how/why that solves for an impact. If you do not explain this to me, I will "hack" out on presumption. Performances (music, poetry, narratives) are non-factors until you contextualize and justify why they are solvency mechanisms for the aff in the debate space.

Evidence and Argumentative Weight: Tech over truth, but it is easier to debate well when using true arguments and better cards. In-speech analysis goes a long way with me; I am much more likely to side with a team that develops and compares warrants vs. a team that extends by tagline/author only. I will read cards as necessary, including explicit prompting, however I read critically. Cards are meaningless without highlighted warrants; you are better off fewer painted cards than multiple under-highlighted cards. Well-explained logical analytics, especially if developed in CX, can beat bad/under-highlighted cards.

Debate Ideologies: I think that judges should reward good debating over ideology, so almost all of my personal preferences can be overcome if you debate better than your opponents. You can limit the chance that I intervene by 1) providing clear judge instruction and 2) justifications for those judge instructions; the 2NR and 2AR are competing pitches trying to sell me a ballot.

Accommodations: Please email me ahead of time if you believe you will need an accommodation that cannot be facilitated in round so that I can work with tab on your issue. Any accommodation that has any potential competitive implications (limiting content or speed, etc.) should be requested either with me CC'd or in my presence so that tournament ombuds mediation can be requested if necessary.

Argument by argument breakdown below.

Topicality

Debating T well is a question of engaging in responsive impact debate. You win my ballot when you are the team that proves their interpretation is best for debate -- usually by proving that you have the best internal links (ground, predictability, legal precision, research burden, etc.) to a terminal impact (fairness and/or education). I love judging a good T round and I will reward teams with the ballot and with good speaker points for well thought-out interpretations (or counter-interps) with nuanced defenses. I would much rather hear a well-articulated 2NR on why I need to enforce a limited vision of the topic than a K with state/omission links or a Frankenstein process CP that results in the aff.

I default to competing interpretations, but reasonability can be compelling to me if properly contextualized. I am more receptive when affs can articulate why their specific counter-interp is reasonable (e.g., "The aff interp only imposes a reasonable additional research burden of two more cases") versus vague generalities ("Good is good enough").

I believe that many resolutions (especially domestic topics) are sufficiently aff-biased or poorly worded that preserving topicality as a viable generic negative strategy is important. I have no problem voting for the neg if I believe that they have done the better debating, even if I think that the aff is/should be topical in a truth sense. I am also a judge who will actually vote on T-Substantial (substantial as in size, not subsets) because I think there should be a mechanism to check small affs.

Fx/Xtra Topicality: I will vote on them independently if they are impacted as independent voters. However, I believe they are internal links to the original violation and standards (i.e. you don't meet if you only meet effectually). The neg is best off introducing Fx/Xtra early with me in the back; I give the 1ARs more leeway to answer new Fx/Xtra extrapolations than I will give the 2AC for undercovering Fx/Xtra.

Framework / T-USFG

For an aff to win framework they must articulate and defend specific reasons why they cannot and do not embed their advocacy into a topical policy as well as reasons why resolutional debate is a bad model. Procedural fairness starts as an impact by default and the aff must prove why it should not be. I can and will vote on education outweighs fairness, or that substantive fairness outweighs procedural fairness, but the aff must win these arguments. The TVA is an education argument and not a fairness argument; affs are not entitled to the best version of the case (policy affs do not get extra-topical solvency mechanisms), so I don't care if the TVA is worse than the planless version from a competitive standpoint.

For the neg, you have the burden of proving either that fairness outweighs the aff's education or that policy-centric debate has better access to education (or a better type of education). I am neutral regarding which impact to go for -- I firmly believe the negative is on the truth side on both -- it will be your execution of these arguments that decides the round. Contextualization and specificity are your friends. If you go with fairness, you should not only articulate specific ground loss in the round, but why neg ground loss under the aff's model is inevitable and uniquely worse. When going for education, deploy arguments for why plan-based debate is a better internal link to positive real world change: debate provides valuable portable skills, debate is training for advocacy outside of debate, etc. Empirical examples of how reform ameliorates harm for the most vulnerable, or how policy-focused debate scales up better than planless debate, are extremely persuasive in front of me.

Procedurals/Theory

I think that debate's largest educational impact is training students in real world advocacy, therefore I believe that the best iteration of debate is one that teaches people in the room something about the topic, including minutiae about process. I have MUCH less aversion to voting on procedurals and theory than most judges. I think the aff has a burden as advocates to defend a specific and coherent implementation strategy of their case and the negative is entitled to test that implementation strategy. I will absolutely pull the trigger on vagueness, plan flaws, or spec arguments as long as there is a coherent story about why the aff is bad for debate and a good answer to why cross doesn't check. Conversely, I will hold negatives to equally high standards to defend why their counterplans make sense and why they should be considered competitive with the aff.

That said, you should treat theory like topicality; there is a bare amount of time and development necessary to make it a viable choice in your last speech. Outside of cold concessions, you are probably not going to persuade me to vote for you absent actual line-by-line refutation that includes a coherent abuse story which would be solved by your interpretation.

Also, if you go for theory... SLOW. DOWN. You have to account for pen/keyboard time; you cannot spread a block of analytics at me like they were a card and expect me to catch everything. I will be very unapologetic in saying I didn't catch parts of the theory debate on my flow because you were spreading too fast.

My defaults that CAN be changed by better debating:

- Condo is good (but should have limitations, esp. to check perf cons and skew).

- PICs, Actor, and Process CPs are all legitimate if they prove competition; a specific solvency advocate proves competitiveness but the lack of specific solvency evidence indicates high risk of a solvency deficit and/or no competition.

- The aff gets normal means or whatever they specify; they are not entitled to all theoretical implementations of the plan (i.e. perm do the CP) due to the lack of specificity.

- The neg is not entitled to intrinsic processes that result in the aff (i.e. ConCon, NGA, League of Democracies).

- Consult CPs and Floating PIKs are bad.

My defaults that are UNLIKELY to change or CANNOT be changed:

- CX is binding.

- Lit checks/justifies (debate is primarily a research and strategic activity).

- OSPEC is never a voter (except fiating something contradictory to ev or a contradiction between different authors).

- "Cheating" is reciprocal (utopian alts justify utopian perms, intrinsic CPs justify intrinsic perms, and so forth).

- Real instances of abuse justify rejecting the team and not just the arg.

- Teams should disclose previously run arguments; breaking new doesn't require disclosure.

- Real world impacts exist (i.e. setting precedents/norms), but specific instances of behavior outside the room/round that are not verifiable are not relevant in this round.

- Condo is not the same thing as severance of the discourse/rhetoric. You can win severance of your reps, but it is not a default entitlement from condo.

- ASPEC is checked by cross. The neg should ask and if the aff answers and doesn't spike, I will not vote on ASPEC. If the aff does not answer, the neg can win by proving abuse. Potential ground loss is abuse.

Kritiks

TL;DR: I would much rather hear a good K than a bad politics disad, so if you have a coherent and contextualized argument for why critical academic scholarship is relevant to the aff, I am fine for you. If you run Ks to avoid doing specific case research and brute force ballots with links of omission or reusing generic criticisms about the state/fiat, I am a bad judge for you. If I'm in the back for a planless aff vs. a K, reconsider your prefs/strategy.

A kritik must be presented as a comprehensible argument in round. To me, that means that a K must not only explain the scholarship and its relevance (links and impacts), but it must function as a coherent call for the ballot (through the alt). A link alone is insufficient without a reason to reject the aff and/or prefer the alt. I do not have any biases or predispositions about what my ballot does or should do, but if you cannot explain your alt and/or how my ballot interacts with the alt then I will have an extremely low threshold for treating the K as a non-unique disad. Alts like "Reject the aff" and "Vote neg" are fine so long as there is a coherent explanation for why I should do that beyond the mere fact the aff links (for example, if the K turns case). If the alt solves back for the implications of the K, whether it is a material alt or a debate space alt, the solvency process should be explained and contrasted with the plan/perm. Links of omission are very uncompelling. Links are not disads to the perm unless you have a (re-)contextualization to why the link implicates perm solvency. Ks can solve the aff, but the mechanism shouldn't be that the world of the alt results in the plan (i.e. floating PIK).

Affs should not be afraid of going for straight impact turns behind a robust framework press to evaluate the aff. I'm more willing than most judges to weigh the impacts vs. labeling your discourse as a link. Being extremely good at historical analysis is the best way to win a link turn or impact turn. I am also particularly receptive to arguments about pragmatism on the perm, especially if you have empirical examples of progress through state reform that relates directly to the impacts.

Against K affs, you should leverage fairness and education offensive as a way to shape the process by which I should evaluate the kritik. I'm more likely to give you "No perms without a plan text" because cheating should be mutual than I am to give it to you because epistemology and pedagogy is important.

Counterplans

I think that research is a core part of debate as an activity, and good counterplan strategy goes hand-in-hand with that. The risk of your net benefit is evaluated inversely proportional to the quality of the counterplan is. Generic PICs are more vulnerable to perms and solvency deficits and carry much higher threshold burden on the net benefit. PICs with specific solvency advocates or highly specific net benefits are devastating and one of the ways that debate rewards research and how debate equalizes aff side bias by rewarding negs who who diligent in research. Agent and process counterplans are similarly better when the neg has a nuanced argument for why one agent/process is better than the aff's for a specific plan.

- Process CPs: I am extremely unfriendly to process counterplans where the process is entirely intrinsic; I have a very low threshold for rejecting them theoretically or granting the aff an intrinsic perm to test opportunity cost. I am extremely friendly to process counterplans that test a distinct implementation method compared to the aff. Intentionally vague plan texts do not give the aff access to all theoretical implementations of the plan (Perm Do the CP). The neg can define normal means for the aff if the aff refuses to, but the neg has an equally high burden to defend the competitiveness of the CP process vs. normal means. There are differences in form and content between legislative statutes, administrative regulations, executive orders, and court cases; I will vote aff on CP flaws if the neg's attempt to hot-swap between these processes produces a structural defect.

I do not judge kick by default, but 2NRs can easily convince me to do so as an extension of condo. Superior solvency for the aff case alone is sufficient reason to vote for the CP in a debate that is purely between hypothetical policies (i.e. the aff has no competition arguments in the 2AR).

I am very likely to err neg on sufficiency framing; the aff absolutely needs either a solvency deficit or arguments about why an appeal to sufficiency framing itself means that the neg cannot capture the ethic of the affirmative (and why that outweighs).

Disadvantages

I value defense more than most judges and am willing to assign minimal ("virtually zero") risk based on defense, especially when quality difference in evidence is high or the disad scenario is painfully artificial. Nuclear war probably outweighs the soft left impact in a vacuum, but not when you are relying on "infinite impact times small risk is still infinity" to mathematically brute force past near zero risk. I can be convinced by good analysis that there is always a risk of a DA in spite of defense.

Misc.

Speaker Point Scale: I feel speaker points are arbitrary and the only way to fix this is standardization. Consequently I will try to follow any provided tournament scale very closely. In the event that there is no tournament scale, I grade speaks on bell curve with 30 being the 99th percentile, 27.5 being as the median 50th percentile, and 25 being the 1st percentile. I'm aggressive at BOTH addition and subtraction from this baseline since bell curves are distributed around the average. Elim teams should be scoring above average by definition. The scale is standardized; national circuit tournaments will have higher averages than local tournaments. Points are rewarded for both style (entertaining, organized, strong ethos) and substance (strategic decisions, quality analysis, obvious mastery of nuance/details). I listen closely to CX and include CX performance in my assessment. Well contextualized humor is the quickest way to get higher speaks in front of me, e.g. make a Thanos snap joke on the Malthus flow.

Delivery and Organization: Your speed should be limited by clarity. I reference the speech doc during the debate to check clipping, not to flow. You should be clear enough that I can flow without needing your speech doc. Additionally, even if I can hear and understand you, I am not going to flow your twenty point theory block perfectly if you spit it out in ten seconds. Proper sign-posted line by line is the bare minimum to get over a 28.5 in speaks. I will only flow straight down as a last resort, so it is important to sign-post the line-by-line, otherwise I will lose some of your arguments while I jump around on my flow and I will dock your speaks. If online please keep in mind that you will, by default, be less clear through Zoom than in person.

Cross-X, Prep, and Tech: Tag-team CX is fine but it's part of your speaker point rating to give and answer most of your own cross. I think that finishing the answer to a final question during prep is fine and simple clarification and non-substantive questions during prep is fine, but prep should not be used as an eight minute time bank of extra cross-ex. I don't charge prep for tech time, but tech is limited to just the emailing or flashing of docs. When you end prep, you should be ready to distribute.

Strategy Points: I will reward good practices in research and preparation. On the aff, plan texts that have specific mandates backed by solvency authors get bonus speaks. I will also reward affs for running disads to negative advocacies (real disads, not solvency deficits masquerading as disads -- Hollow Hope or Court Capital on a courts counterplan is a disad but CP gets circumvented is not). Negative teams with case negs (i.e. hyper-specific counterplans or a nuanced T or procedural objection to the specific aff plan text) will get bonus speaks.

Dougherty '24

Experience: Policy, LD, Some PF

Prefer Speechdrop, but here's my email: aahan.patel.debate@gmail.com

Label Speechdrop or Email chain: Stanford Round 1: Dougherty Valley PR vs Peninsula LL

TLDR:

Pronouns: he/him

Call me Aahan, saying judge is cringe

No racism, sexism, bigotry

Have fun

Every argument has a claim, warrant, impact

Tabula rasa

Slow down on tags

I will yell clear twice, if you are still unclear after that, then I will stop listening

WEIGH!!!

Go 75% top speed on analytics

Soft left and big stick affs are both fine

Please interact with arguments, don't just block file hack

Education and fairness both matter, just win whichever one you are going for

Feel free to ask questions about my paradigm

And please ask questions after the round, I am here to help!

Prefs:

LARP/K: 1

Theory/Topicallity: 2

K affs: 3

Phil: 4

Trix: “Silly rabbit! Trix are for kids!”

CP:

- smart and creative counterplans are great

- PICS and Adv CPs are fun!! Please read them.

- start the solvency debate in the 1NC (card or analytic), not the 2AC. The burden of proof on the negative!

- defining "sufficiency framing" isn't enough - make it contextual.

- read CP theory but don't spread through blocks.

DA:

- Disads are cool, I went for them a lot earlier in my career

- Ptx disads are cool. They are even cooler if you have spec links

- Have overviews in rebuttals

- WEIGH!

Kritiks:

Starting to appreciate them more and read a lot of them near the end of my career

- Familiar with generic Kritiks

- generally went for cap, security, abolition, berlant, wounded attachments, empire, necropolitics

- not really familiar with intense critical literature but am willing to vote on it (i.e. pomo)

K affs:

- relavant/topical K affs where the plan actually solves are really sick and I would love to judge them

- Never gone for them, but good ones are really fun to judge

- Usually go for FW (movements) or Cap K/Reps K vs K affs

- K affs do get perms

Topicality:

- T debates are fun!

- Good interpretations are really enjoyable

- have good evidence with an intent to define and exclude, offensive/defensive case lists, etc.

- WEIGH!!!

- DON'T spread through lbl

Theory:

- Will take into account any theory that isn't frivolous

- DON'T spread through theory

- Evidence ethics is stake the round - see Samantha Mcloughlin

- Condo is prolly good unless you convince me otherwise

- Disclosure is good, will vote on disclosure theory

- New Affs are good

- Friv Theory bad + lower speaks

Misc:

- tell me to judge kick or I won't: condo assumes 2NR collapse exists

- Impact turns are nice

- extra speaksfor either a One Piece reference or a Kendrick Lamar lyric

Hi, I’m Ashley Quach

Yale '27

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

I have debated policy for four years with the Bay Area Urban Debate League and am open to all arguments so long as you can back them up!

Tech > Truth — Please stay organized!

T/Framework

I like role of the ballot! If you don’t have a counter role of the ballot, I am forced to view the round in the perspective of the one that was provided.

I enjoy T and framework but you have to do the groundwork to show me why your version of debate is best.

Theory /Condo: I’m open to condo, but start buying “condo bad” arguments when there are more than 6 off.

Kritiks

I like Ks and I think they are a good neg strat. I’ve run many different K’s myself, but do not assume I understand everything, and thoroughly explain them as if I know nothing about the topic. Please be clear about your alternative and why your framework is best for the debate space. I buy good links!

K AFFS: I enjoy a good K debate, but tend to err on the policy side. With that being said, it won’t stop me from voting on the K aff that can prove why the advocacy is important to the debate space and how it proposes some sort of change to the status quo.

CP/DA

I will vote on a good CP, but I generally tend to lean towards the aff plan if the CP doesn’t have a net benefit or any offense. In terms of the DA, If you’re going to go for this you need to extend it out throughout all of your speeches and make sure your links are clear. Please make sure to signpost if your DA is the net benefit to the CP.

CASE: Any case is fine. I'm not currently debating this year so I might not be familiar with the case specific lingo. Please make your arguments clear if it is specific to your case. Extend your impacts!

I don’t do judge kicks. I’ll flow the argument the entire round if you do not concede it.

Speaker Points:

• I’ll dock your speaker points if you use discriminatory and harmful language. I will reject the team if I have to. I won’t hesitate to intervene to keep the debate space safe.

• I appreciate a passionate speech! It still might not be enough to win you the round but you’ll get good speaks.

• Line by lines and signposting will get you points as well.

• Spreading is fine with me but there's a difference between mumble spreading and clear articulation.

Email: lilmisswatticle@gmail.com
Hi, if you bring me food/drink and you might get an extra speaker point. I’ve been to nationals and I’m currently still debating. I AM NOT A LAY JUDGE!!! I flow the whole round and I wanna focus to give you good feedback. I will give you most of the feedback in round but I’ll still write some stuff on the rfd if I miss something. Put me on the chain!! I wanna see your evidence. Do not say PROBLEMATIC Stuff I will vote you down. Example: black people aren’t oppressed or anything racist. Don’t bore me to sleep I am really excited about debate and if you bore me that’s a problem. Be creative I wanna see your arguments come to life. I really like k debate, it’s fun to judge, I also think T is a voter if you run it correctly.

Hi! My name's Mia — Add me to your email chain please! miattran06@gmail.com

I debate on this topic and reside in policy, so I can most likely follow along with your lingo, but please complete your arguments as if I don't know anything about this topic. I don't have many biases, none that will ever interfere with my decision, any argument is fine as long as it's not hurtful in any way. I will try my absolute best to stay impartial to make the debate space fun and enjoyable for everyone.

I currently debate with the Bay Area Urban Debate League and have been debating for 4 years. I am a 2A/1N, who generally debates soft-left, policy cases. I'm inclined to vote for arguments that are thoroughly aired out, well explained, and elaborated on — back up your arguments!

Tech >> Truth, so make sure to stay organized! I'll try my best to place arguments where they seem to fit, but you doing it for me is preferable — so please, SIGNPOST!

Speaks -

• There is a big difference between mumbling and clear articulation. If you spread and I cannot understand, I will ask you to clear, if it continues, I will stop flowing the arguments.

• Please do not use any harmful language! I will not hesitate to deck your speaks, or even stop and intervene. Debate should be fun, safe, and educational—any hurtful and discriminatory language will not be tolerated.

• I enjoy a passionate speech! Performance will not solely win you the round, but it will definitely get you better speaks.

T/Framework - Role of the ballot matters! Provide a counter role of the ballot or else I’m forced to view the round through the lens of the one that is given to me.

I like T/Framework, but please make a great effort into developing a clear basis if you are planning to go on these kinds of arguments in the rebuttals — impact it out!

Theory/Condo - Please be clear on your voting issues — if you are going to go for these arguments, you must explain why they’re abusive and how said abuse has occurred in round.

Run condo if you’d like, but I won’t start buying into “condo bad” until 5+ off case positions are run.

Kritiks/K-Affs - I really enjoy K’s and think that they are a smart neg strategy. I commonly run K’s myself, so I understand the basis, but please clearly articulate the link, alt, and solvency — it is crucial for good K’s and will help me clearly define if it is worth the ballot.

For K-Aff’s Specifically: I sway more policy, but that will never deter me from erring on the side of a good K-Aff. I have heard many K-Affs before and believe that every good one NEEDS a clear advocacy statement (i.e. what are you doing? Why is this advocacy important? How does this function in benefitting the cause in the real world?)

If there is no roll of the ballot provided from either side, I will default to a role-play policy making lens — In my opinion, debate is a game (unless convinced otherwise), if T is run, I’ll default to technical and procedural issues to determine the round.

CP/DA - I enjoy a good CP and will vote on it, but only with a clear net benefit and case specific warrants. For DA’s please do the work on risk and impact calc — without this it’s difficult for me to gauge the importance of the ballot. Also, be clear on the internal link story for the same reasons.

For perms: Please be clear on how your perms function and how it’s mutually exclusive.

Lastly! Don't forget to have fun! That's what debate is all about!

Hello, I am software engineer at Google. Please keep in mind that I do not know about NATO and actually have a good friend named Nato. Do not offend her.

During the cross examination period, I will take bullet point notes and expect every other debater in the room to do so as well. Failure to present adequate notes will result in an immediate loss and a meeting with all parties, including the coach. It will be good experience when you are software engineer at Google.

My mother-in-law Sabrina Huang (her paradigm applies as well) debates with my husband William Pirone, and we are all one happy family (peep College Prep debaters).

My mother Sabrina taught me to take debate very seriously from her position as a professor of International Relations at the prestigious University of California, Berkeley. I will not tolerate using "UC Berkeley" or "Cal" or "UCB" as it is disrespectful to the University of California, Berkeley. Using a shortened version of the University of California, Berkeley is unacceptable and may result in an automatic loss. I wish you luck in your steps to become software engineer at Google.

Make sure to have an interesting debate. You don't want to have the only clash happening in a spectator's Clash Royale game. This has happened before, and although Clash Royale may be more productive than having two ships passing in the night, in-round clash is helpful too.

–––––––––––––––

Hi, I'm Julian and I'm a senior at College Prep. You may think I'm a troll, but I hear it a lot and think it's unfounded (ha). I've debated a 2A, 2N, double 1, double 2, and did a round maverick before, so I know how hard giving a 1AR can be or giving a 2NR on a position you don't know well. I've gone for a ton of arguments over the years, including a blatantly untopical corporate crime affirmative (my favorite argument), nonunique politics disads, and arguably the best of the best: Triple-O and wipeout (we even won on it once, and imagine what happens when you say wipeout for your past 2NRs). Ian Beier taught me most things I know about debate, so if you're looking for a more comprehensive philosophy go take a look at his paradigm.

If I'm judging you, you're probably doing novice policy. I was in your shoes 3 years ago, and I know you might be nervous. Remember to have fun, and I'll do my best to make it a helpful experience for you. If you're in novice policy, you can probably ignore pretty much everything else on this paradigm.

I think debate is a game, and the ballot goes to whichever team better explains why they should win. Other than that, everything else is open to interpretation. Even my thoughts on what debate is are up for debate in a round. I heavily lean tech > truth, and I will vote for "bad arguments" if you win them. Your speaks might take the hit if the argument is heinous enough. Other than that, do what you want to do with the round. It's yours.

Although there are some arguments that I am more familiar with than others, don't let this stop you from trying out a new position or something like that. As long as you know what you are talking about and don't use a ton of buzzwords as a substitute for real explanation, you should be good to go. I've done a few debates on this year's topic, so I'm not going into the round completely unaware.

Feel free to email me at jvuong@college-prep.org if you have any questions about what's here. Put me on the chain!