Contact Info

Email: joshadebateemail@gmail.com (please add me to the email chain) w/ Tournament Name: School Name (Aff) vs School Name (Neg)

Pronouns: He/Him

Currently: One of the assistant coaches at Dulles HS and I Coach a few other kids.

Background (Updated For 2023-2024 Season)

I am a current Freshman at Rice University & I graduated from Challenge Early College High School w/an extremely small and underfunded debate program. I've been part of the activity for a while and want to give back to the community. I've tried every format at least once, and I am a progressive debater who started off traditional who has made it to a few BID Rounds, including Emory & Stanford, qualified to TFA State 2x and made it octos, qualed to UIL State for Congress and LD a bunch of times, etc.

I have taught at camps such as TDC & NSD

*I Specialize in Non-T Afropess, Afro Opt, Afro-Futurism, Performance, Cap, Security, etc. (K debater things) but started off stock/lay/traditional and understand Policy args well.

Conflicts

Institutions: Frank Black Middle School; Heights HS; Challenge Early College HS; Dulles HS

Individual Debaters: Carnegie Vanguard KF; Garland LA; & St John TI

TLDR: What I don't like

1) If you are running identity args and you don't identify with that identity i.e afropess, queerpess, feminism and you say "I" and "We" when you don't know the struggle

2) Promoting racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, lack of necessary content warnings, etc.

3) Rudeness- I understand aggression, but I am not a big fan if you are mean to others in the round. Debate rounds can cause anxiety, and people are human... remember that. Rudeness will not lose you the round, but I will tank your speaks- and if someone runs an IVI or a DTD warrant because of something said I will evaluate it.

TLDR: What I Like/Can Evaluate Better (Prefs)

*Tech>Truth*

K (T or Non-T) -1

Stock/Policy- 1

Theory- 2

Phil (High Phil is more of a 3)-2-3

Tricks- 4-5

LD & CX Specific

DA's, Larp, Stock, Lay, Stock, General Debate =)

This is what I started with. I'm cool with it! Just make sure to do the important things like:

[A] Weigh impacts and clearly delineate what arguments you are gaining offense from- if you are Aff my vote is dependent on offense, while for the Neg if the DA's/Disadvantages are great or the offense o/w the Aff- then you get my vote-pretty straightforward

[B] Defense is not sticky- please extend down the flow. I'm a lot more lenient for novices, but if your opponent does it proficiently, I will address

[C] I love evidence comparison- if you indict the author or what the card is saying, I am less likely to evaluate that card in the round- which will severely harm their link chain.

[D] Run whatever args you want and have fun- I'll vote on anything. I will evaluate extinction first and against K Affs I think its a good strat to go for.

Theory:

I default to competing interps, no rvi's and drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument, reasonability against all other types or friv shells.

I'm ok with using theory as a strategic tool but the sillier the shell the lower the threshold I have for responses. Please weigh and slow down for interps and short analytic arguments.

I personally did not disclose on the wiki because I believe it to be AB, thus, my threshold for disclosure is a lot lower. That being said, I have read different forms of disclosure and lost rounds to it where I have agreed with the RFD. I won't rule out disclosure and have no issue voting on it; just know I won't vote off of like a "small school prep" arg as a gg issue right away unless conceded.

Theory v Theory: Metaweighing is extremely important here and I have a good understanding of these debates- but they were never my prime strat. Please do the work for me-but I will my best to evaluate.

Kritiks & TFW/Topicality

K vs. Framework (TFW) - I don't default any way. I will buy debate bad args and impact turns. P-Fox & Chao helped me out a lot with this- so review their paradigm to understand how I lean

K vs Anything Else- Again, love the K! But just know that I will not hack for them. I did a lot of work with the K's, but also a lot of workIN ROUNDfor my wins with the K. Also, I personally enjoyed spectating other rounds that were not the K, as they were more interesting for me- thus I love the K, but will not hesitate to give people who think I'm a K hack the L

Non T Aff's/K Affs- LOVE THEM! Be careful though, as running Non-T Aff's against really young, inexperienced debaters will get me frustrated. Also, as a person who ran a lot of Non-T Aff's and watches a lot of Non-T performance rounds, I would be careful being lazy around me in regards to this.

*Also if you are running a K or a K Aff please LBL TFW and extinction first warrants. Its okay to impact turn and give top-level/an overview on these arguments- but I've noticed that debaters drop key warranting on TFW and extinction first that controls the IL to Aff offense or just indicts the reading of the K in the first place

**Please do not spread/blitz through your long pre-written overviews. While they do extend offense I often find them very incoherent and if they are not extrapolated to anything on the flow then it makes it hard to include and integrate them into the RFD. If you are reading an overview explain why its key (which I assume you already do) and contextualize it to the important things in the round.

Phil

I do not have the most experience going for Phil, but I have read a decent amount of it and have found myself in the back of many rounds for it.

Be sure to explain the syllogisms as I have a limited understanding of different Phil Authors (especially ones that have similar but slightly different theories to other more universal Phil authors).

Explain the TJFs- I also think that Permissibility negates but be sure to warrant it in the 1N.

Tricks (LD Specific)

I am personally not the biggest fan- I think they're a bad model of debate and are AB, but I will consider them if they are warranted and explained EXTREMELY WELL THROUGHOUT THE ROUND.

[A] Again- I will evaluate tricks but my threshold for responding to them is extremely low

[B] When I say explain it well- I don't mean just spend like 10 secs on it. You probably need to spend a solid 20-30 secs on it and why its a voting issue

[C] Tricks are ever-evolving and you honestly can make them out of any concept. Thus, don't expect me to know what the trick is

[D] I have thought about this and I WILL NOT BUY "EVAL AFTER X Speech"- I find this really dumb and I just refuse to vote on it.

[E] Identity Tricks- My threshold for evaluating them are similar to my threshold to regular tricks- make sure you warrant out the trick and give it offense independent of the AC/NC. If it is not, then I will by any takeouts of substance and cross apply it to the trick. (i.e., IF "X" Identity Trick is similar to "Y" Argument like Case ontology/thesis- then if you end up losing Case ontology/thesis, then you lose the trick).

Round Logistics

[1] Rehighlites- If you are re-highlighting, please read the highlighted text of the card

[2] Speaks IVI's- I have thought about this for a bit and came to a conclusion- If you ask for 30 speaks and you did not do anything to deserve the 30 speaks in round... you will not get it. I am sympathetic to certain situations, and if you give me a good reason for 30 speaks and have a clean round- then you got yourself a deal.

[3] Hitting a Novice- If you are hitting a Novice, here's my advice- run what you want to run (you shouldn't be limited on running certain arguments, just BCS of skill level), but don't be excessive and abusive. I think 1-2 offs (maybe 3 depending on event and skill level) is more than sufficient and you should take to time to explain arguments that they might not understand. Being abusive in round will not give you an L- but will make me super happy to TANK YOUR SPEAKS.

General Strategy:

I will slightly pay attention to Cross, but will not flow it (probably just take some notes for clarification). If it is important just make sure to flag me and BRING IT UP IN THE SPEECH.

Speaker Points: will start at 29 and will move up or down depending on your strategy- if you ask, I probably will disclose speaks and if you have any questions on how it could've improved just ask.

If you are below a 29- (28.7-28.9) Then I think the round was pretty good- but you might go 3-3 at a tournament

If they are 29.1-29.3 Then I think you did a good job and have a decent shot at breaking

If you are a 29.4-29.7 Then I enjoyed the round, thought it was good, but some strategic things had to be fixed

If you are 28.8-30 Then I thought it was a really good debate- and your strat was either extremely good or peerfect

Personal Belief:

I agree with people such as Zion Dixon, Leah Yeshitila, Patrick Fox, Issac Chao, Becca Traber, & Chris Castillo.

Taken from Leah: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=155571

Debate is not a game. Debate has material impacts on those who engage in it, especially POC. Please be mindful that debate is sometimes some debater’s only option when it comes to funding college or having a platform to speak freely. Also, it’s just not unreasonable to consider how it can be a game for some and not for others. You have a high threshold to prove to me why it is (hint: maybe find better, more strategic T shells, friend)

World Schools Specific

A] Make sure to defend your burdens and clearly explain to me why you have won the round based on those burdens

B] I will be keeping track of POI(s) so make sure to reasonably answer about 2 each speech if you are hit with POIs

C] My speaks are somewhat generous. First Speakers- just offer persuasion with the speech; Second Speakers- Make sure to clearly restate your burdens and how you are gaining offense from them as well as offer strong responses; Third Speaker- clearly crystalize the round and what lens I should be looking at it from; Reply Speaker- Please don't offer new points as that will most likely not persuade my vote in any way- just bring it home and if the speakers before did their job it should be all good.

Public Forum Specific

Weigh and clearly delineate what offense you are garnering coming out of each speech. I am a big fan of evidence comparison, weighing, and uplayering. If you do a huge Ethos push in your last speeches and you are not contextualizing the claims to any args in the round then I probably will still down you.

If you wondering if you can run any other args like K's, Theory, etc (More Policy and LD-specific things), reference the above things on my paradigm.

If you decide to run any progressive args (K, Theory, Etc. and your opponent has no idea what it is (In PF)- my threshold for them answering it is a lot lower and if you are extremely abusive with it- i.e running 2 or 3 off when you don't have to- then I will probably tank your speaks.

Speaking Events (Specific)

Just speak good- I had a lot of teammates participate in speaking events and while I have never done them I sat with them at practice and had a coach who heavily focused on speech. I know what good speeches look like and will know what rushed/no-practice speeches look like.

Congress Specific

Just do your thing. As of now I have only judged one congress round at UT but it was a fun experience. I am fine with creative intros as long as they are clever and relate to the topic. Otherwise do your thing and please attempt to create clash (especially if you are later speeches into the cycle)

I'm a PF debater at St. Agnes Academy.

I really love it when people make claims with evidence fully backing them

Presentation -

I can understand spreading, but I can tell the difference between spreading and complete gibberish, if you are going to spread, please make sure to annunciate your words.

I prefer you roadmap all of your speeches, not including the first speech. Try to reference your case and your opponent's case while attacking so I can easily flow all of your argument.

I flow cross, so make sure you ask impactful questions and reference the clashes in your speeches.

Preferences -

I won't vote for you if you do not convince me that your case is better than your opponents by attacking them.

I DISLIKE THEORY- If you argue an outlandish theory unrelated to the topic, I will not count that argument.

Hey! My name is Caleb, I am a current high school Interp-Competitor in Texas. I have been competing since the 6th Grade, and Speech and Debate is pretty much my entire life. I have competed in every speech event, and also Public Forum Debate. Here is what I look for in IE's, specifically.

Speech Events (IE):

The performance that displays the most character development is my main attention grabber. The push and pull of power and confidence within characters as the piece progresses is ever so important. For me, a piece that feels the realest and most authentic will always overpower a performance that is melodramatic or overdone. Moreover personally I love to see a hidden meaning or argument within your piece, something that the performer(s), is/are trying to bring attention to. Make use of the area, especially in middle school, and begin to get confident with understanding what your character would do in a certain situation, then making use of the space in that way. Most importantly however, everything you do needs to be for a reason. A sound effect in HI for no reason at all feels cheap, and underdeveloped to me. If a character is making a facial expression, I need to be able to understand WHY in that given moment. A purposeful performance is a captivating one!

*Prefences of Judging (From most prefered to least preferred)

1. Humorous Interpretation
2. Other Interpretation Events
3. Platform Events
4. Limited Preparation Events (Extemp, Impromptu, e.t.c)
5. Public Forum Debate

You can always count on a ballot that is long enough to be performed as your next oratory.

Hey everyone, if you're reading this chances are I'm probably judging you so here some things I generally value in rounds. This will mostly apply to WSD as it was my event of choice for 4 years.

Things that make my job hard:

• Debating on margins (restrictive definitions, abusive framing)
• Not being comparative and charitable to your opponents

If this happens, I need reasons as to why I should prefer one interpretation over the other. If the debate comes down to two ships sailing in the night I can't resolve it without intervening.

Things that make my job easy:

• Clearly identifying the clashing material of the debate and weighing between and within those clashes.
• Weighing the framing of arguments and clash on a meta-level (things independent of layered rebuttal e.g. the role of the argument, why I should prefer a specific type of argument as opposed to another)
• Weigh the mechs/warrants behind the argument - tell me why your reasons matter more/are better than your opposition esp. in the case where there are shared impacts which happens more often than not simply due to the nature of WSD.
• Weigh impacts if they are differentiated.
• Be strategic. Don't carry down an unwarranted framing debate to the third speeches especially when there are far better ways to allocate time in terms of forwarding arguments, making good weighing, even-if statements, or just biting the bullet and engaging. More times than not if the framing is that ridiculous, I'll buy the ref coming from O1, it doesn't matter if your opponent sticks to a bad framework if I not leaning towards it anyway. Don't overcompensate! Good judge direction and being explicit from the onset will be more than enough to sway me in favor of your side.

A combination of the aforementioned stuff is the best way to get a decision you agree with from me. A lack of these things will result in a level of intervention that you probably won't like.

I'm not super authoritarian when it comes to style. If I can flow it and you signpost you'll do fine. I think the most refined speeches are a combination of content, strategy, and style, but I’d pivot more towards content and strategy rather than semantics and rhetoric.

True Principle Arguments are fun to see in action but they need to be properly extended and weighed against the practical otherwise I’ll just have a spot on the flow of a principle that was well established but poorly leveraged against other arguments. p.s. not enough to just say the principle matters more, there's need to be analysis i.e. if you're running a reparations argument examples of weighing line(s) could be:

• Practical benefits that place X group of people secondary are immoral because of the unique historical injustice committed against them (urgency)
• We ought to fulfill this principle because of this specific condensed harm that has affected a population for decades vs a marginal harm that affects people temporarily (intensity of harm)

all and all, trust yourself, debate well, and have fun

if you have questions you can reach me at ebenezer.g.appiah@gmail.com

I am a current policy debater at Barbers Hill High School

I'm a flex debater so run whatever you want it's your round I just decide who win's (unless it's racist, sexist, ableist, etc..). Because obviouslly

Skip down to the ld section for my pref thing but most of the policy stuff still applys

Overall having a fun debate experience is the ultimate goal so strive to do so, and good luck!

For email chains, my email is nbdebate06@gmail.com

If I feel as though you are stealing prep, I will warn you first and then penalize you if it continues. Please don't steal prep, it's pretty annoying.

IDC abt being post rounded I get it just don't be dumb abt it

Also speed, go as fast as you want just put me on the chain - When i say go as fast as you want just make it to where you are still clear odds are i'll understand you but i mean you'll probably sound better if you aren't mumbling every word in your speech I'll also say clear i doubt i'll need to but i will- Just maybe slow down a wee bit in rebuttals and online

Pref short cut --- (IK this doesn't apply rn but I don't wanna do it next year because I'm lazy :))

Policy ---1

K (basic)--- 1

K (identity)---2-3

K aff --- 2-3

K (pomo) --- 4-5

Phil & tricks --- lol

Tech-----x-----Truth

Voting for policy------X----Voting for the K

CondoX----------No condo

Overviews------X----LBL

Fairness is definitely an impact----X-------Fairness is not an impact

"Neg on presumption"X----------K affs that do nothing

Policy rounds ----X---- K rounds

Breaking New X-----------Repeat same round for the whole season

Debate good--X---------Debate bad (the activity)

Debate good---X-------Debate bad (the community)

Have fun in round--X--------Debate NPC

ClashX----------Cowardice

Judge ---------x- Nic

Don't make me intervein in the round if the 2NR makes a dumb decision, but the 2AR doesn't capitalize or touch on it and loses anyways, why wouldn't I punish the 2AR harder for fumbling? and etc.

--- Online Debate

I'm fine with your camera being off when you speak just turn it on at the beginning.

Slow down a bit no need to run a dozen or so off

I would prefer we do email chain at all times but if it is imperative that we need to do file share then so be it this goes for in person too

T/FW

Explain to me what abuse has occurred or explain why I should vote against a non-t aff

I really like these debates i feel like the aff should be built around T/FW

I believe the aff should have really good impact turns to procedural fairness and topic education if you want to win my ballot on the aff in these rounds have good DA’s on T/FW

For the neg odds are they aren’t T so go for procedural fairness & topic education and why it matters so much.

I lean more neg when it comes to TVA’s so if you want to win a T/FW debate in front of me a TVA would be much appreciated

T
Try and have a definition contextual to the aff

Answer extra T or fx T because i'll vote on it if you drop it and have competing interps but i'm not going to do the work for you so call it out in the block

DA's

I love good disad debates but the thing I look for most in a debate is the link debate and the disad turns case. Don't be afraid to run generic disadvantages; however, your success with those arguments is entirely dependent on your ability to contextualize the link for me. After the link is clear, provide me with a tool for comparing your impacts to the affirmative's impacts. I'm not picky about how impact calculus is done, but it needs to have a turns case arg if you want to win the ballot because I feel like the turns case argument is really underrated.

Please have all parts of the DA it would really suck if you have no internal link :(

Have good uniqueness that's up to date

Don't have generic links to redistribution this topic is way better then NATO for DA's so have a good link.

Counter plans

While case-specific counter plans are more interesting for me to listen to, I don't evaluate them more favorable than generic counter plans. Just contextualize your generic solvency evidence if you choose that route.

Don't assume I kick the CP (or anything for that matter) from the flow unless you instruct me to. My flow will look exactly how you tell me for it to look.

If you are running a PIC, be prepared for a theory debate and the perm debate. I don't default a certain way most of the time, but I think both of those arguments are important barriers for you to overcome if you want to win my ballot. I do however err aff when it comes to obscure pics of the aff because I feel like it’s just unfair and impossible to predict.

If I didn't cover anything feel free to ask me before the round! I don't have much to say, because I feel like CP's shouldn't really be controversial.

Also go to the theory section for how I look at that on CP's

K

Run'em

just paint a picture for me to understand what the world of the alt looks like

links of omissions/thesis links are cool just say how the alt changes it, i prefer you also have links descriptive to the aff and pull lines from there cards that's how you'll win me on the link debate.

Also don't be afraid to kick an alt and go for link turns case because if you're having alt solvency deficits your best way out of it is to just go for link turns case.

Also I know for novice rounds you probably won't be running Baudrillard but if you running high theory K just let me know what it is and what it means i more a traditional K judge(Cap, Security, AfroPess/Wilderson, Imperialism, And so on)

Please say why the alt solves the link their is never enough work done on this for most of the time.

Theory

I'll evaluate any flow you put on the page besides ASPEC/OSPEC unless it's to get a link to a DA but if it's something abscure that you are trying to win on i will audiby yawn at you

I lean aff on process cp's, consult cp's, 50 states, and multi actor fiat. I lean Neg on international fiat & condo

As I said above I think condo's not really a great argument but i mean if the neg his running like 8 conditional advocates Then i would have no problem giving an aff ballot if they don't fumble

Case

I'm always ready for a good case debate and i'm cool with any case turns etc.

I love case debate where the 2NR goes for a case turn, I feel like a case turn debate goes really underutilized it would be cool if we have a lot of offense on case to go for in the 2NR

But if you want to win my ballot easily you need to be doing internal link debate on the aff. If you win that odds are you’re getting my ballot.

Have new case defense or at least up to date stuff

In debate now i feel like we don't spend enough time on case like the 2nr only doing 30 seconds of it i get how if you are winning it you feel like you should go for more offense but i mean make sure you get to all the key points on the case flow

Misc.

I don't care if you cuss etc.

I start at 28.5 speaks and I'll go up or down depending on strategy, speaking, and argument development.

I have been told I am rude in debate and where I feel some of that is right I feel like some of it is misinterpreted let's just try to have a fun round where we don't get a heated round

Please be more than a debate robot I want people to engage in the activity and inject it with there personality unless you're boring then just stick to be a robot.

LD:

I don't necessarily like trad debate but i'm cool with wtv you run just

Most of the policy stuff from above still applies just do you tho

don't run tricks though because i'll most likely sit in the back laughing and then vote you down because i hate tricks, but they're funny

PF:

lol

Please just clash like it's one of the only things i care about and want in a PF debate

Also have good offense and defense

I really don't judge PF that often so just try and have judge instruction for the love of god (or wtv you believe in)

Email: Ccbezemek25@mail.strakejesuit.org

Prefs (Arguments)

Favorite - Policy or Larp and Religious arguments

Don’t likes - Dense Ks, Dense Frameworks, and Cap K

I won't vote on ad homs or unproven out of round violations

Overall, run what you want. I will evaluate what you tell me to (within reason).

Please do -

Weigh

Signpost

Speak Clearly

Extend arguments

Link arguments to framework

Explain arguments - presume I know nothing

Weighing (if you don’t give it to me it is very hard to make a decision) - (Ballot order is)

Theory, Framework (K, ROB, and ROJ go here), Case (In that order)

Magnitude (extinction) > every other argument (probability, K args, any other args besides theory) (If no weighing)

Concessions > Args in round (If you weigh your case first I will presume it first or explain why the concession doesn’t matter, but if I am left with a few concessions and a few arguments the concessions will probably influence the ballot) (Spin is still ok though)

No way to tell who wins I will vote Neg (Unless presumption and permissibility affirms)

Speed/Flowing

Send the doc - I may not look at it

I prefer to not look at doc and follow by ear

I will say clear/slow three times and stop flowing

I will flow whatever you say, but if I miss something and you bring it up later I will think it is new and won’t buy it.

I am a really slow flower (my wpm is like 60 so understand that I will miss stuff if you go too fast)

I think debate needs to be focused on how well you speak, so speed and clarity is important

Email Chain - Start it early

Speaks -

I give speaks on the better speaker - I try to avoid giving decimals so - I think speaks should be based on how well you speak, how clear you are, and on your strategy.

30 - Very good, very clear, and good strategy

29 - Mostly Clear, and few mistakes

28 - Average speaks

27 - You are an ok speaker, but make poor decisions

26 - Hard to follow work on clarity or arguments

25 - You say something that your opponent proves is bad

Do nots -

Clip - You will either get an auto lose or terrible speaks

Say arguments that aren’t in your case that you say are/power tag (IE if you claim only 1% of all rocks can be mined, but the evidence says NASA is mining one percent then this is power tagged) (Latter if pointed out unless its egregious)

Bring up new args in late speeches - I won’t buy them, and your speaks will drop. Weighing is ok though

Don’t yell at the opponent in CX

Cuss - You get one cuss word after that I will give you a cap at 26 speaks.

Thoughts

I hate disclosure theory. I will vote on it, but I strongly dislike it.

Defense/I meets is sufficient on theory shells especially if multiple are read.

Tricks are ok, they will probably get you less speaks. I do dislike hidden indexicals or tricks in random tags though.

If someone does something that is bad, then it is their opponents job to explain why it is bad and what the judge should do.

CX is binding. If you lie in CX or dodge questions and bring it up later as a voting issue I will be very skeptical.

Overall, run what you want and I will try to judge it fairly. Presume that I know nothing about the topic or framework you are reading or I can’t evaluate it. If I can’t understand it, then I can’t vote for you.

On the tech over truth debate, I think that the judge should buy whatever is said up until the point it is either not in their evidence, or is obviously made up. If you want to reference history do it.

I think evidence usually outweighs analytics, but good analytics that counter the reasoning for evidence will come first - spamming analytics with little links doesn’t do this

If both sides agree to a separate activity to decide the round, then they can do that (like a chess game or something)

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

For PF - I have never judged this before. I will just judged off persuasion and argumentation. Being clear, weighing, and explaining will be important. Don’t presume I know the norms for pf like what evidence looks like, extending arguments, or theory.

Include me on the email chain

Gserickson27[The at symbol]mail.strakejesuit.org

I put the parenthesis so that no scrapers get my email

Just some info
Freshman at Strake Jesuit
did 2 yrs of MS debate
Do primarily NatCirc debate now\\

LD-

Pref Shortcuts

Theory-1

Trad-1

Phil-2/3

Simple Ks-2

Tricks-1

LARP-2

Complex Ks-2/3

Performance Ks-4 - Unless its Posadism, then 1 [This is just to troll my homie who lost to a Posadism K]

Identity Ks- 2

THIS GOES FOR EVERYTHING

1. Tricks are not ableist, I will buy that arg if warranted well though
2. Saying Eval bad (as in running eval is bad) is not the same as answering eval (if you want the guide, say IVI: Eval bad etc + Dont eval after x, eval after 2AR- what NSDA wants, makes every other speech waste of time)
3. Friv is great, I love friv
4. Debate good
5. IVIs count as tricks, they are blips that can be blown up later
6. i support new modes of argumentation, breaking a new Aff means you don’t have to disclose
7. Dropped args=True
8. Cant pick up a dropped arg (If you do policy, Ill make an exception IF the arg is picked back up in the Cs
9. if the AFF is a resource allocation AFF [Asian Pivot, ban X bc it costs $$$, etc] then the NEG can legit just say CP: Give Y to X but don’t do the AFF, and the AFF’s job becomes harder——— so don’t run that
10. the NC has to respond to the AC, just bc its called a constructive doesn’t mean it doesn’t have to frontline
11. You can refer to me as chat (it will increase speaks)
12. Debate well
13. Generally being funny increases speaks

Speaks

1. If you get below a 28, you are probably doing something wrong, and I’ve probably talked to your coach
2. I eval 30 speak spike
3. Idc if you spread, just send the doc
4. Clearly signpost, and make clear crossappliations
5. Refer to me as chat
6. be funny
7. if the debate is boring, I give lower speaks

General things:

• Be respectful to your opponent(s)
• I will NOT tolerate racism, homophobia, sexism, or xenophobia. Any form of offensive rhetoric will cost you the round.
• Any specific debate questions concerning my judging philosophy, just ask, and I will answer to the best of my ability :)
• At the end, somebody must win the round; my decision shouldn't determine your value as a debater or individual.

Hi, my name is YA-ME-A, I currently debate at Heights Highschool where I have had an active 4-year career which is unfortunately coming to a close. I started my career during the pandemic as an LD debater ("online debates were yuck!") in my sophomore year I studied a new format CX or Cross Examination, so I am familiar with both LD and CX formats.

As far as competitive success I have qualified for HUDL courthouse in both years of my career; I have competed in the TOC circuit and have had slight success. I have observed some highly competitive matches, while also practicing my RFD drafting skills.

When creating an email chain please add me: yamiaeverlin@gmail.com

Some things that I would like to see:

- A consistent story in both the affirmative and the negative; This means when presenting your case ensure that the arguments connect to one another and make sense. Trust your gut because you have worked hard to develop your case so just simply tell your story; the easier the story is to follow this does influence my decision.

- Clash: It is very entertaining to see debaters interacting with one another in a battle of passion; As I do say I would like to see passion but, I would also like debaters to keep in mind sportsmanship, because this is a learning environment for all. Debate is an offensive and defensive sport so don’t forget to attack and defend your position.

- Closing Summary; In the past I have found it helpful to reflect on the entirety of the case because this can allow my judge to fill in any holes that may have been missed. So, I would like to see debaters to summarize what had just occurred and why I should vote for them.

- Have FUN!!

Things that I do not want to see:

- Disrespect of your opponent; Everyone is here to learn and get better we all value debate and this is no place to discourage others.

- Spreading; You are not required to speak fast, speak clearly, and annunciate your wording to present a clear case.

Arguments that I prefer or are familiar with:

K’s Kirtiks – I have evaluated several Kirtiks listing a few (AFRO PESS, SET COL, etc.) So, I am familiar with some generic K’s but if presenting something I have never seen please be sure to explain very well.

T/T-Shells – T is cool, I just need to understand the abuse of the debater as well as present good standards and voters.

Arguments I am not familiar with:

Tricks – I have not been exposed to these and I would prefer if debaters stayed away from the usage of this.

LD:

I find value based arguments based on how things ought to be over policy to be most persuasive in LD debates, although policy as support can certainly be useful and demonstrative. Progressive argumentation is fine, and spreading is fine as long as it can still be understood. I expect the winning argument to be persuasive and effectively communicated, I should feel that I have been made to believe in what is being said and why you should win. If I need your case in writing to follow it, it won't be as persuasive and will be judged accordingly. I expect the debaters to set the terms, rules and ultimately the outcome of the debate based on what is said, not left unsaid. I won't connect the dots for your arguments, explain it me. I'm a huge fan of philosophical arguments setting up for clash. I'm familiar with a variety of K's and KvK's are great. I enjoy a debate that both an expert and a lay-judge can identify a winner. As far as speakers, I am looking for well paced delivery, sign posts, strong framing and weighing being presented effectively to tell me why you will win.

General prefs

1 Value Framework/Phil

2 Policy/ K's

3 Theory

4 Tricks

PF: I'd really prefer to see pf done the way it was intended. In other words pure policy and impact weighing without utilizing more progressive methods of debate. That being said, I'll judge it the way the debaters wind up debating the topics. So if you go tech rather than substance I'll still be able to judge properly. Generally I don't expect a value framework and the default is util calculus. Creative and unique arguments will be

Congress: I'm looking for congressional debaters to display appropriate round vision and understanding of the argumentation and how it is interacting on the chamber floor. A great constructive speech given in the middle of a session without clash won't be judged as well as if it were given earlier. I like to see good utilization of questions to impact the debate in chambers, as well as good clash during speeches with direct refutation of other congressional reps. Speeches at the end of a debate on a bill should be more crystallization speeches, and preferably give me weighing mechanisms for how to vote on each bill. Delivery matters, but proper understanding of the interaction of argumentation and directing that debate appropriately impacts my ballot the most heavily. Good funny AGD's are always appreciated as well as some LARP in congress is always nice to see. Proper framing of the issues is something lacking in most congress sessions and doing so will help you stand out on my ballot.

Andrew Gibson
Director of Forensics at The Woodlands College Park High School
Speech Drop Preffered




Before the round/ During the round logistics
A big thing for me is staying on time at any tournament therefore I will be starting the round when both teams are present. Please pre-flow before the round starts. I should not be waiting long periods of time to actually start the round. I am the same way with prep time during a round I believe this has becomes extremely abused in todays circuits. Do not tell me "I will take 1.5 minutes of prep and then the timer goes off and you take another 5 minutes to get to the podium. It is always running prep When a speech ends and you are taking prep simply say starting prep now and keep a running clock. Once you are at the podium ready to speak say cease prep and start your roadmap. Sharing Speeches is INCLUDED in speech time


Policy (UPDATED FOR TFA STATE)

I am a more Traditional Style of Judge. Speed doesnt bother me too much as long as you are clear and dont spread tags/analytics.

T - I love Topicality debates if they are ran correctly make sure there is clash on standards and abuse is shown. Paint the story as to why this skewed the round in any capacity.

Theory -I am good with theory debate if true abuse is shown within the round. Make sure you show the abuse that exists and what was loss by this happening

DA/CP/Case Debate - This is probably the easiest way to my ballot. Impact calculus is very important for me paint a picture as to what the affirmative plan looks like and what the world looks like either in SQ or Counterplan world.

Kritik -I am not a K judge this will be a tough way to my ballot. if you are going to run it I prefer case specfic not generic K's just to the topic not the case.

Role of ballot is big for me tell me what my ballot does and why I should use my power as judge to pull the trigger.

Any questions please feel free to ask!

I am currently a 2A/1N policy debater at Heights High School and have been debating for 2 years. I have debated HUDL (Houston Urban Debate League) since the beginning of my career, and have more recently have been predominantly a TFA/national circuit debater. I've gone mainly for policy arguments with some Cap K so that's what I am most comfortable with but I am not against evaluating or going for other arguments.

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

While I will vote on anything I do have some preference:

• LARP(DA/CP): 1
• T/Theory: 2-3
• Phil: 4
• Identity Kritiks: 3
• Pomo Kritiks: 4
• "Basic" K's (i.e. Cap, Security, Set Col): 1
• K Affs: 5
• Tricks: Strike

While this list is pretty accurate it is good to ask before round about specifics.

General comments:

• Do what you are good at. I am pretty open so as long as you explain your arguments well, I will likely be able to evaluate it. For arguments like Ks that I'm less familiar with doing more explanations within your speeches can go a long way and help me to better evaluate your arguments.
• Tech > Truth unless super dumb
• I love creative LARP debates going for unheard of and homebrew CPs/DAs makes for some of my favorite debates.
• Threshold for speed is a 7/10 (10 being the fastest debater on the circuit). I recommend slowing down on tags and blocks so I can catch everything but don't be afraid to speed through text of card.
• Judge instruction is very helpful and should be heavily utilized in your 2NR/2AR
• During my season I went for Cap K and lot's of LARP off case dump so I'm most comfortable in those rounds. This is not saying don't go for other arguments, but I will be the best judge if this is similar to your strat.
• I'm not great for K affs I typically air that affs should be topical in some form but if it's you thing I can be convinced I just have a higher threshold for voting you than many other judges might.

Specifics:

• Clash is good please try to do it as much as possible it makes the best rounds where people learn the most and I actually feel comfortable voting. Specifically for middle schoolers I've seen multiple rounds where i felt like each side just didn't answer eachother and I had to intervene which is bad for you letting any of my bias come in makes for a worse RFD.
• Impact weighing is your friend. most importantly it makes my life easier but also it is so important to actually win your argument. I love it and you should use it to write my ballot. Impact weighing can always go both ways from extinction to soft left reading framing cards can be crucial when making my decision.
• I'm not the best theory judge out there, but still read it and I will do my best to evaluate. Some of my preferences are condo good, disclosure good, and misdisclosure bad. Feel free to ask me before round about certain theory shells.
• LD/PF:I do policy debate and have never actually competed in any PF or LD. I have judged in two middle school tournaments before and watched multiple lD rounds as well as flowed them. I am still not super familiar with some norms within either format or the topic. Most everything here should still apply, but make sure to ask certain questions before round if it's possible I won't understand.

-Finally don't be sexist, racist, homophobic etc. I will stop the round and tank your speaks if you become offensive within round.

-Make sure to ask clarification questions before round and have fun.

Email: jamie_hao@northlandchristian.org

Ask me questions before the round

LD:

Important stuff

1] No Racism, homophobia, you get it, I will judge intervene and vote you down

2] Accesibility matters

3] Dont be mean, dont read 5 off to a novice.

4] Speaks are default to 28.5 , and i'll take points on and off depending on in round strat, and speech

5] its your decision to stake the round on ev ethics or just a theory shell

NOVICES!

1] Weigh, tell me why your impacts matter and why i should vote for you

2] Collapse on less arguments and go for 1 in the 2N/2A

Quick Hack sheet

K- 1

Phil- 1

Dense Phil- 2

T/Theory- 3

Tricks- 3.5 I dont know how to judge it but the threshold for responding it is rly low

Policy- 4

Trad- 5

• Yes Flex Prep
• Send me docs
• Tech > Truth

Ok, who is this?

Hi, I'm Anderson! This is my third year debating for Northland Christian School in Houston and I'm a junior. I am a pretty mid national circuit LD debater, and I've done a lot of traditional and progressive LD. I have one career bid round, qualed to TFA State 2x, broke at TFA State my junior year, and I have qualed to NSDA Nats 2x in LD. I've also dabbled in extemp, and I qualed in WSD for NSDA Nats.

LD

General

I want the doc - email is anderson_hendrix@northlandchristian.org but I definitely prefer speechdrop

I take judging very seriously, and I will treat every round as equally important. I am very open to postrounding as long as you are kind, as debaters we should be able to defend our decision (won't be able to change it tho).

Probably one of the worst flowers in the nation, you will find me in the back typing with two of my fingers. Spreading is totally fine, but with that being said, PLEASE SLOW DOWN on analytics, I would consider myself as a 7 out of 10 in terms of speed. If you have the need to go fast, please send analytics, otherwise I won't feel bad if I don't catch an argument.

Be kind to novices - You don't need to spread to beat a novice. Do what you need to do to win, but please don't be intentionally uneducational. The higher your kindness, the higher your speaks will be. Also, please don't waste all of your speech time if you are clearly winning.

I have low toleration for rudeness- there's definitely a fine line between being perceptually dominant and being rude. Sassiness is fine - being a jerk will irritate me and I will TANK your speaks. Showing decency to your opponent is appreciated.

Tech>Truth to the highest extent ethically possible -will eval any arg with two exceptions: 1] If the argument isn't warranted in the first speech that it is read or in the extension and 2] If it makes the debate space unsafe

I do keep time - but feel free to time yourselves. I will stop flowing once you go over time. Finishing a sentence is fine, making a new arg is not.

Please collapse - especially if its the 2NR

Here's mysophomore year wiki and junior year wiki if you want to see what I usually read

Traditional/Novice LD

If you do these four things, you will most likely get my ballot.

1. KNOW YOUR CASE & EXTEND - I feel that a saddening amount of rounds are lost bc people don't understand what their case says, if you can give me a well-warranted explanation behind your arguments and do good extensions, your case will seem really strong, and you will be far ahead if you are doing a better job than your opponent.
2. JUDGE INSTRUCTION - tell me where the most important arguments in the round are, and where I should be voting.
3. WEIGHING - explain to me why the impacts of your case are the most important, and TIE IT BACK TO YOUR FW. You could be winning every argument that you make, but if your opponent is the only one who is doing weighing you WILL lose the debate.
4. BIG PICTURE ANALYSIS -compare worlds for me, explain what the aff world looks like versus the neg world, this can be a huge tiebreaker, especially if the debate is close on the line by line.

Progressive LD

Shortcuts (based off of how comfortable I am with judging them):

T/Th - 1

Policy - 1-2 (see below)

Phil - 2-3 (see below)

Tricks - 2-3 (see below)

K - 4

K Pomo - Strike

Things I won't vote on

• Anything that changes the LD format (6-3-7-3-4-6-3)
• Hack for me because I am x identity
• Anything that tells me how to evaluate a speech during or after that speech i.e. I won't evaluate "Give me new 2ar args" in the 2ar but I will if it is introduced in the 1ac or 1ar. This means I won't evaluate "eval after the 1ac/1nc".
• No speaks theory - speaks are my choice

Policy

Love it! It's what I read most. I'm pretty much cool with anything in this category, and I will give really high speaks for high quality larp v larp debates.

In Policy rds, I really enjoy 0 off case strategies as well as 5+ off strategies with t shells, cps, and das. My favorite 2Ns are Adv CP + DA or case turn & DA + Case. I really enjoy when aff debaters execute turns on net benefits and DAs and such. I also really enjoy solvency deficits to CPs that are creative and contextual to that CP.

PLEASE do lots of impact calc and judge instruction - pretty much who does a better job of this in larp v larp debates wins.

I don't necessarily read evidence after debates, bc I don't want my interpretation of the evidence to change the evaluation of the round -however, I will read evidence if you flag it and tell me to look at it

DAs---Biggest thing here is impact calculus - every 2nr going for the DA should have analysis such as "DA turns case" + "DA ows case" etc. You will lose the round if you don't do some sort of weighing with the aff. Link specificity and evidence quality are important in these debates. I won't automatically not buy it if the evidence is bad, but I will make 1ar and 2ar link pushes extremely persuasive.

CPs---Every cp should have three things: 1] CP Text - explain in thorough what the cp implements 2] Net Benefit - a reason why the world of the cp is better than the world of the aff 3] Competition - a reason why your cp can't be done with the affirmative. Default to no judgekick, you should tell me if you want me to. I enjoy cps that are cheaty (delay, consult, etc.) but be prepared for a theory debate - because I also really enjoy cp theory :)

Competition---Probably not the best judge for very dense competition debates, I would consider myself pretty average here. Err on the side of over-explanation in these debates

Case Debate---Please do case debate. Put some defense, put some turns, do something. Not only does it give you more viable 2nr strategies, but it also gives the aff more things to respond to.

Impact Turns---Love them. Spend 7 minutes, read non-policy stuff and make them your case page. Do impact calc. Also, don't impact turn stuff like racism or homophobia etc.

Soft Left Affs---Also cool, my career has been spent mainly reading hard right policy positions, but I have read soft left affirmatives here and there. I think 1acs should have strong justifications and reasons why you should prefer structural violence impacts and reject extinction arguments.

Theory

Also love this! Will evaluate any shell and there is no such thing as a "frivolous" shell - anything else is judge intervention. I won't "gut check" shells j because I think or you think they are silly. If you think it is a bad shell, you should able to beat it back.

Defaults---Fairness=education, DTD, CI, No rvis, text over spirit, and norm setting model, changed with one warrant though.

Reasonability---So underrated. I am pretty persuaded by good reasonability arguments with a clear bl, especially if the violation is small. This argument can be very strategic if you are able to couple it with other arguments.

RVIs---Don't get the hate honestly. It's a great way to punish bad shells and create more outs. I find Yes rvis vs no rvis very engaging, and I will be very pleased if you successfully go for an RVI.

Disclosure---You should disclose. I read anything in my career from round reports to contact info and winning against disclosure is going to be difficult. I think that generic disclosure shells are super winnable but violations like round reports are justifiable. I think disclosure is very true but I will not be happy if you read it against someone who clearly doesn't know what it is or have access to the wiki. Sure, you probably will get the ballot, but don't expect high speaks from me.

Evidence Ethics---I think that reading ev ethics as a shell is much better than staking the round. I think winning it as a shell is super easy and gets out of lots of trouble. If you decide you do a challenge, I will instantly end the round and there are no takebacks. If it is a false accusation, you will receive the L.

T

I also really enjoy a good T debate. I have read lots of topicality from t-fwk to t-subsets on the jf24 topic. Please do lots of judge instruction when it comes to these debates and tell me in 2nrs and 2ars what arguments come first. If you are winning your definition, tell me why that matters. If you are winning a limits standard, tell me why I am still voting for you, even if the aff wins their PICs DA. Caselists are also good, especially if you are reading a ground standard.

T-nebel/leslie/bare plurals/wtv you call it---T shells that require high levels of semantics are probably not my cup of tea, probably bc I am not that smart. I'm sure Nebel is awesome, but I think that just reading regular t-can't spec is more persuasive then using cards from a debate blog. There is probably always a better t violation to read in front of me then Nebel.

Phil

I actually have started to really enjoy phil arguments even though I struggled with them for a major chunk of my career. I am not by any means good at phil debate, but I am interested and enjoy these args. Just know that I have a major lack of experience.

I have a basic understanding of fws such as Util, SV, Kant, Rawls, Hobbes, Contracts, Polls, I-Law, Constructivism, Pragmatism, and Determinism/Skep. Anything else is still fine but just make sure you are explaining your syllogisms and connecting the dots for me. Impact calc that explains how you weigh offense are also extremely helpful. Also, don't think that you don't need to explain anything just because you read a fw that is on this list.

PLEASE SLOW DOWN -lots of phil debaters blitz through tons of analytics which makes it super difficult to keep up.

PLEASE do more offense debates - no one does debates on the contention layer in phil rds which makes me sad. It is super strategic to respond to offense because you can concede to their fw and go for the offense debate if its dropped or undercovered. I also find CPs that do the aff or that have offense under the aff fwk to be extremely strategic against phil affs.

Util v Other Phil---Good for this. Have been on both sides of this debate and really enjoy these when they are executed well. I am a big fan of calc indicts and TJFs in these debates.

Phil AFFs---I enjoy phil affs that have framing + contention + util advantage, I think it is extremely strategic (unless if you read it against someone who definitely won't read util).

Phil v Phil---Not fantastic for this, but I definitely want to see this debate. You are going to want to hold my hand and do lots of fw interaction.

K

Iffy judge for this at best. It's not that I have a general distaste for these arguments, I just don't have a great understanding of them and probably wouldn't be able to adjudicate these debates well. I have a very surface-level understanding of cap, setcol, security, and afropess, but I'm not familiar with any other lit.

K Affs---yeahhh I just read fwk and pics against these so I don't know much about them. I have a higher threshold for solvency for KS than most judges, you should explain why the advocacy solves the impacts of the K, otherwise I will be extremely persuaded by a 2NR presumption push.

Ks---I know Ks aren't CPs, but if u are going for the alt, you should probably explain the alt to me like a cp. Explain why it solves the links of the k, why it's competitive etc. I like independent analytical links and I think that links that quote lines from the 1ac are super strategic.

2NRs---I feel like there is a trend in K debate where the 2nr makes tons of new extrapolations and explanations, I don't love if there are framing interps, rotbs, are new justifications that are introduced in the 2n, and I will have a pretty low threshold of answering them. I also HATE long overviews, please do not read K overviews that last the entire speech or that "answer" the aff arguments, I will likely miss some arguments if u do that. Shorter overviews that explain the thesis of the K are appreciated, just don't script your speech. Point is, do work on the line by line in the 2nr, don't read a super long overview.

Framework

I definitely lean more towards fwk, and have really only debated on this side, so I probably will be biased for this argument. I strongly do believe that affs should be tied to the topic in at least some capacity, but I will attempt to put that opinion behind me and try my best to be 50 50.

Going for t-fwk - Good for any impact you want to go for such as fairness, education, or clash. I think it's best when you read standards with offense under different impacts so that you have multiple 2nrs to go for. 2NRS on this probably should touch case, especially if your opponent is reading arguments on T that rely on their TOP.

Answering t-fwk - If you are going for a DA or an impact turn on T, please just explain it to me and why it ows the neg arguments. Defense against standards is also good for me, highly encourage lbling them. Also explain why the tva is violent/bad is to me, if you concede a tva it's probably game over. I'm probably missing a lot of things so just ask me.

Tricks

Fine with them as long as they have warrants - won't pull the trigger on them if the warrant isn't complete.

Don't love one line blips that are hidden in huge blocks of text - persuaded by ableism ivis on these

Good explanation is key - I am perfectly comfortable giving an "I don't get it" rfd - if i cant explain it back in the rfd I am not voting on it

SLOW DOWN - these debates can get incomprehensibly fast - please do not blitz through analytics, I also won't vote on it if I didn't catch it within a hidden block of text

Please don't overdo it - I don't want to see a 120 point underview and I still want to see some sort of debate on a substantive layer

Preferences---Enjoy theory related spikes, those can be pretty fun to evaluate. Less good for truth testing offense debates/substantive tricks, but still have debated these several times.

Speaks

My range of speaks that I give is from 26-30, and I start from a 28.5 and move up or down for there. My speaks scale is also like this

30 - Omg I'm inspired, late elims at least

29.4-29.9 - Fantastic debater, will reach mid to late elims

29-29.3 - Did a great job, early elims

28.5-28.9 - Did good, Bubble round

28-28.4 - Getting up there, possibly bubble round

27-27.9 - Can be improvements to your strat, but you have potential.

26-26.9 - Probably not ready for the event/division

Lowest speaks I can give - isms/phobias/ev ethics/clipping/stuff of that sort

Keep in mind that my speaks change depending on the difficulty of a tournament - its much easier to get a 30 at a novice ld local than it is to get a 30 at the TOC (I can't judge at the TOC but you know what I mean).

THINGS THAT WILL GIVE YOU GOOD SPEAKS:

• Critical thinking!!!! (not reading off a doc for 13 minutes)
• Mentioning frogs in your speeches
• Making jokes and just making the debate entertaining
• Ending your speeches early and still winning (if you lose tho ur speaks will be low)
• Good strategic decisions
• Being kind!!!!!!
• Clear signposting and speech organization

THINGS THAT WILL GIVE YOU BAD SPEAKS:

• Being shady in CX
• Being repetitive with your arguments
• Unclear spreading
• Being rude
• Sexism, racism, ableism, homophobia, anything of that sort

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

PF

• I don't know the topic, treat me as a less experienced judge.
• You better not paraphrase
• Probably more receptive than most judges to framing args because that is the LDer in me
• K's in PF seem silly, I dont think 4 mins is enough to develop a good K + respond to other args, but I'm not a good k judge to begin with sooo
• Spreading is fine with me, but j make sure ur opponents are cool with it, ik that lots of ppl still don't spread in PF, If you want to be a super technical debater, you should probably do LD or CX.

Hiii!!! My name is Rubick (or Rubi for short) and I really enjoy judging speech and debate rounds. I am more of a debater but I also enjoy a good speech/interp round. I did debate all four years of high school and mainly focused on WSD (with a side of extemp), so that is what I am the most comfortable with. If I am judging a round, there are a few things that I am looking for;

In World Schools Debate

1. Which team proves and justifies their side the most? Making sure you prove your arguments to be true is highly important as it gives me an idea of what your side looks like. It also proves that you are able to defend your side and outweigh your arguments.

2. Provide framework and characterization for your side. It helps to know what to look for in your arguments and case.

3. If you have a principle argument, explain why your argument is true and how it can be fulfilled. If you have a practical argument, make sure to give links to your argument and clear impacts. You should be able to use your arguments and compare them to your opponents. Don't tell me their argument is non-unique without telling me why. Or don't tell me your arguments are better than your opponents without telling me why. Keep in mind that there is always a WHY to an argument. Always make sure to weigh your arguments!

4. If your speech is organized and there is clear signposting then it is easy for me to follow what you are saying. With that being said, it doesn't mean I will prioritize style over content but it can help you get more points. Make sure to sound conversational and not like you are reading off a paper. Try to engage with your opponents during refutation or during POIs. It should feel consistent throughout the bench and like every speaker is doing what they are supposed to do. Should not be like speaker 3 bringing up information to salvage the round that should have been brought by speaker 2 which by then might be too late and wouldn't really count anymore.

5. Your POIs should be strategic. Make sure to try to ask POIs during every speech and try to take 1-2 throughout your speeches. A lack of POIs can look like a lack of engagement with your opponents. This doesn't mean you should be barricading your opponents with POIs, you must always be considerate.

Overall, make sure to have fun and enjoy the debate. I expect everyone to be nice and respectful during the round at all times.

In PF/LF

Although I am no expert, I have a couple of years of experience judging and a few times participating in either event.

PF: I like to see argumentation. Which side best utilizes the most to respond to their opponents? It also means having well-developed arguments that have warrants and impact. I also look to see if there is interaction or clash. How can you explicitly respond to an argument made by your opponent? Otherwise, the unaddressed argument will take the higher ground. Keep in mind how you respond to an argument and how you discredit your opponent’s arguments. This will help me see who is advancing the most significant arguments in the round. Since this is a team event, I also look for team balance. Make sure team effort between partners is noticeable. There should be consistency between the two, make sure both bring the same rebuttal or almost the same. I should not hear new arguments during the last few speeches. Lastly, I would prefer no spreading, but if you normally talk fast, just try your best to ensure that whatever you say is understandable.

LD: I will vote based on the debater most successful in protecting their side. Regarding the structure of argumentation, I look for who is the better debater by advancing ideas while also engaging in their opponent’s argument. I enjoy good delivery, warrant, and impact. When it comes to framework-level argumentation, I want to know why your framework makes you win, and respond to the framework always; What do you value? What is your value criterion? Which framework is best to evaluate the arguments? I want you to make sure you explain your side and engage with your opponents as much as possible. At the end of the round, I am voting for the right side because of how much you tried to persuade me and how much you showed me your side outweighs the other.

In Speech/Interp events:

Extemp: Although I know you only have 30 minutes to research and memorize a speech and it can be very challenging for some, (trust me, I struggled with this event too) I want you to try your best to inform me or persuade me of whatever it is that you are speaking about. Your speech should be easy to follow. Have a beginning, middle, and end. I love a good intro that makes me want to listen to more, even better if you can tie it up with your conclusion and your arguments should help you answer the question you are given. After your speech, I want to feel like I just learned something new even if it is about an event that has been talked about for years now. First and foremost, be confident! Nothing else matters if you yourself don't feel good about what you are doing.

Others: Have fun while you are sharing a story. Make sure to feel confident and know you gave it your all. I might not know much but I know these might be stories from real-life people and you should make sure you are not just telling a story but teaching your audience why this story or moment is important. Most importantly, be yourself and stay true to who you are.

Regardless of the event, I will always enjoy a good round. If you have any questions, feel free to reach out to my personal email at rubickhernandez@gmail.com

Personal Background

As of Feb. 2023, I have competed/judged speech for 5 years and judged debate for around 3.5 years. I also participated in theatre/musical theatre and MUN in high school.

Speech

I can always give time signals and will usually ask if you would like any if I forget to, please feel free to ask for them

Generally anything goes, I never really expect you to make any significant change in speech based on a judge’s preferences.

That being said for interp my ballots often end up being highly technical(Pantomime inconsistencies, vocal inflection at key moments, etc.) as I want to give you as much actionable feedback in my comments as possible, however the ranks may not seem to match as often the more non actionable reasons of the RFD supersedes in importance for my decision.

For platform/limited prep I generally want to see some physical organization that mirrors your speech organization(walks to separate points, etc.).

Debate

• I keep time and I expect you to keep time for both yourselves and your opponents, keep everyone honest

• for speeches I generally give ~2-3 seconds of grace to finish a sentence unless in a panel, do not abuse this privilege

• Spreading is fine as long as articulation is good, although scale back some for PF such that a lay judge can fully comprehend your arguments(whatever that looks like for you)

• If a format has Cross, I generally want to see you do something more than just clarifying questions, ex. Like probing for weaknesses that will be expanded on in your next speech

• Fully realizing your impacts is very important especially in the final 1-2 speeches even if some repetition is required

• Unless instructed otherwise, feel free to run almost anything at your discretion Ks, Aff-Ks, Plans, Theory, etc.

• That being said your links need to be strong for me to vote for it

• Specifically for Ks, I often want to see a R.O.B argument to give me a reason to vote for you in the round even if I do buy the K

• Specifically for Theory, the communication of what the theory argues/shows needs to be clear

• Unless you can explain one of the above to a Lay judge with ease I would advise against running the above in PF

• At the end of the debate I will often give verbal feedback (exceptions being if a tournament runs on a tight schedule with flights, I have been double booked in the speech and debate pool and need to make it to a round, the tournament is running far behind, or I am instructed not to do so), after this verbal feedback I may if I have a clear winner(unless instructed otherwise), otherwise I will not

I am a former 1A/2N policy debater at Heights High School and have been involved in debate for the past 3 years. I have debated HUDL (Houston Urban Debate League) since the beginning of my career but have been predominantly a TFA/national circuit debater. I have a good understanding of debate but fall 2024 will be my first time judging anything above middle school debate and I will be a first year out. do with that what you will!

Yes I would like to be on the email chain: kaitlynlewis10305@gmail.com

general stuff:

• do what you are good at. if you somehow end up with me in the back of the room and your argument preferences do not align with mine, don't try to over adapt to me. i try my best to be as flexible of a judge as possible (debate is for the debaters, not the judges)
• tech > truth - but this doesn't mean that i auto vote you up because your opponent dropped an argument you made. you still have to extend it fully. if you think that the concession of this argument means you won this debate, tell me why. you still need to implicate it out for me so i know why this concession matters for the ballot.
• strike me for tricks. i did policy debate so i will just be confused and sad if i'm in the back of the room for that kind of debate.

• i'd say i'm pretty good for speed. i'm good with flowing but definitely slow on analytics. i also try my best not to flow off the doc but i will be checking cards to catch any clipping or misc stuff.
• do not be rude pls it makes the debate space so uncomfortable for everyone involved. I understand sometimes with like black fem rage or asian rage arguments you feel that you need to be rude for performance but u rlly don't. if you are just being assertive in cx or otherwise its mostly ok as long as we aren't making the debate space hostile or unwelcoming
• i don't like judge intervention. i often times as a debater would feel that i lost a debate because the judge made the arguments for the other team or just gave them credit for more work than was actually done in their speeches. so, i will do everything in my power to do the least amount of judge intervening as possible. with that, please do sufficient weighing and do your best to write my ballot for me in 2 nr/ar.
• i spent this most recent season going for the set col almost every 2NR. the season before i almost always went for security. do what you will with that info. for anyone who thinks oh nvm can't pref her she's only a k judge --- while its true that i hardly ever went for the da/cp debate on the neg, almost every aff round i had was fully policy and they were a lot of fun so I love those debates just as much as the k and would be more than happy to judge these debates!

other things:

• PLEASE compare evidence. this is soooo underutilized in debate and such a solid argument. this is especially relevant for topicality debates.
• impact weighing is so important. I think this is especially true of disad v case debates because if you both have some extinction impact you must explain why you win t/f and probability and why those matter more.
• k's (on the neg): I went for the k a lot and I think I am the most experienced with this argument. But I won't hack for you and I was a 2N who spread through like 200 blocks in the 2nc and then tried to capitalize on what the 1ar drops. If the 1ar does drop something thats not an auto neg ballot - explain to me why it should be though. For aff teams I'm forgiving to new 1ar answers if the argument was new in the block or super blown up in the block. Also I think case outweighs is really underutilized in these debates so use being aff to your advantage. For neg teams explanation is super important on the alt. I cannot and will not vote for an alt I do not understand.
• k's (on the AFF): i do not have a lot of experience with this debate but when i was in these rounds as a debaters i almost exclusively went for fw. i don't really know how good i am for these debates so i wouldn't count on me being awesome for an extremely close debate but if that's what you like to read, go for it. i will def need more explanation (on both sides) but I will do my best. definitely better for the k v fw debate than for the k v k debate - but i can for sure follow along especially if you are going for like "cap solves root cause" or whatever.
• da's: i love disad + case 2nrs. like so much. i think these debates are the most fun to judge (LARP in general honestly). i don't have any unusual thoughts here other than i think winning a DA without case in the 2nr is tough. obvi specific links > generic links. i think aff teams need to question disad internal link chains bc would us not passing 'x' bill cause extinction.... likely not.
• i am decent for either side of the theory debate. one thing abt me is I do think the 50 state voting fiat theory can be implicating out as a reason to reject the team, as well as ANY theory arg. I don't understand why judges commonly default do drop the arg if the other team didn't explain why it's not a reason the reject the team, so weird. no other special thoughts here. just if you want me to reject the team, make sure to implicate it out.
• ld/pf: i am a strictly policy debater but have judged ld before. many pf (and some ld) specific arguments may be foreign to me so try to explain as best you can. most of my general stuff will likely still apply to you and don't worry about me, just do what you are comfortable with!

lastly,debate is fun, rounds where no one looks like they want to be there are significantly worse to judge. the more effort you put into the round = the more effort I will put into my decision.

I'm a current LD debater ????????

spread is fine, but I'd prefer it not to be so fast that I can't pick up the main idea of what you are saying.

off cases are fine, no tricks, please.

speaker points will be won based on how you speak to your opponent and present your case. Be at least somewhat passionate and knowledgeable about your case.

weighing is very important, thus you will be more likely to win the round if you can accurately weigh your arguments against your opponent. sometimes there isn't an easy turn for an argument, prove to me why your argument means more.

impacts will be a large deciding factor for me as well. if your impact is nuclear war, recession, etc, a single card won't do it for me. for me to take this argument, you will need to explain the likelihood.

any discriminatory language will dock your speaker points and you will not win that round. be kind to each other and to communities you may be discussing.

basically, I'm somewhat progressive, but I also value traditional aspects. if you speak pretty and prove you know your topic, speaker points go up. respond to all impacts, and weigh, you'll be fine.

good luck to all ✨✨

email: jake_mccathran@northlandchristian.org

hi i'm jake (he/him) and i'm a third year debater at northland christian school who does mainly ld. contact me before round if you have any questions

LD:

basically just debate how you want, i will evaluate any arguments with warrants. i'm more of a tech over truth judge, but please extend your arguments, even if your opponent drops them, or i will not flow them. weigh your offense, i don't care how many arguments you're winning in the round, it means nothing to me if you don't weigh. in terms of framework, explain why you winning framework matters, if it means the opponent has no offense, explain to me why. too many times i see debates over framework that have no impact on the round whatsoever. i have my progressive related paradigm at the bottom but before you even consider it, please make sure your opponent is ok with it, if you spread against someone who is inexperienced, your speaks will be tanked. also if you're gonna spread, add me to the email chain.

things i like:

• collapsing to one contention
• good weighing
• highlighting your cards in light blue
• being respectful to your opponent
• clear voters at the end of rebuttals

things i don't like:

• being unnecessarily rude
• stealing prep
• talking too quiet or just being unclear
• new responses in the 2nr or 2ar (for pf, no new args in the final focus)
• being racist, sexist, ableist, etc. (please just use common sense)

for speaks, i'll usually give them based off good speaking, being polite, and having good strategy such as strategically collapsing, good extensions, and good weighing. another good way you can get speaks from me is making the round funny. seriously if you just take 5 seconds out of your speech to make a joke, i laugh at a lot of things and you can definitely get a boost by making the round entertaining. a few good ways to get your speaks tanked include clipping cards, stealing prep, being totally unclear, and being disrespectful to your opponent.

for y'all progressive folks:

larp is very cool and probably what i'm most comfortable with judging as that is what i have gone for almost all my rounds. plans, DAs, CPs, all that stuff i'm fine with but without weighing, i'm a lost man. pls weigh. impact turns im very much fine with. counterplans i love, especially abusive counterplans, but u better be ready for a theory debate if it's too abusive.

theory is also very cool and i couldn't care less how stupid your shell is, just make sure u have actual warrants in your standards. default to DTD, competing interps, and no RVIs. 1ar theory is cool but im open to that debate.

Ks really aren't my jam, but they are cool when i know what's going on. i really only know cap ks, set col, afropes, and anything else NEEDS explanation. i think i lot of people miss it when people say your Ks needs explanation because i still never see good explanations in round. do not assume i know your K. also make sure your alt is clear in what it does.

phil is pretty fun, i love kant and util, and can judge rawls, structural violence, and hobbes, but also explain these!!! slow down on analytics, i like tjfs, and meta ethics are also cool.

tricks are definitely a thing. they can be funny and smart if executed correctly, but i will not vote on it if it doesn't have a warrant. also be accessible when running this sort of stuff such as novices because i would really hate to vote off a one line ivi that went conceded by someone and it's like their second tournament. just be mindful about that or speaks go downnnnn.

other debate events

my ld paradigm cross applies for the most part, but for events such as pf, worlds, etc, please don't spread or run crazy progressive positions. i also don't know the topics, so treat me as a pretty lay judge.

IEs

i don't do IEs very much, but i judge based off how well you present yourself, your clarity, and the content of your speech, such as having good sources and analysis. also, make it entertaining. a lot of speeches just talk about politics and get boring fast, so throw in some jokes and i'll be more likely to be engaged and rank you higher.

email: emymorgan45@gmail.com

I am an ex-high school debater for heights high school, I debated for about 3 and a half years. I debated in the policy format, so I have little experience in other formats such as LD and PF. This means that if you are going to run arguments that are exclusive/ only popular in your respective formats(i.e. phil/tricks in LD), you will need to take extra time to explain how they interact with the debate.

pref sheet:

LARP: 1 I've spent a lot of my time in debate running LARP strategies on the neg, with an average of 4-5 off case, so I think generics are good, and pointing out something is generic doesn't win you offense or defense unless you tell me why

T: 1

I have a lot of thoughts about theory and topicality, love the arguments, went for them a lot my senior year despite policy not being very good for those kinds of arguments. I like all kinds of theory arguments, would prefer more robust ones to shallow ones but I am not hacking. p.s. rant at the bottom of my paradigm about procedurals

I evaluate T as a disad, i.e.
The interp generates uniqueness
The violation is the link
The standards are the internal link
The voters are the impact
This also means that there is offense and defense on this flow, so 'risk of offense' independent of the genuine validity of the interp can be convincing

This also means that paradigm issues (reasonability/competing interps) are very important on this flow, telling me how to evaluate the debate is an important tool for you, especially if you disagree with how I evaluate topicality, a robust reasonability push means you can still win the flow without standard or voter debating

I also think that a lot of T arguments are versatile, clever cross application of standards on other parts of the flow and vice versa, as well as cross applying t on to other flows is important

do voter weighing, I evaluate this flow as a disad, and you do impact calc with disads, do it here too

Th: 1

Similar thoughts to my Topicality thoughts above but there are some unique things here

first I think procedurals are on a separate level to topicality, i.e. if you win fairness bad on the topicality flow and don't cross apply fairness bad onto the procedural flow I will still evaluate fairness on the procedural flow

Similar to paradigm issues, telling me to evaluate the flow as 'in round abuse' or 'models of debate' are pretty important, and you could also use it to answer things like reasonability or as a justification for reasonability

I'm cool with almost any interp, the worse the interp the easier it should be to answer as the standards are harder to justify, just dont make it offensive or classist

although I won't evaluate out of round arguments I can't see on the wiki. I will vote on disclosure, and if you want to, for example, make a theory shell about how non-black debaters shouldn't read afropess, the violation should be able to be proven on the wiki. Another judge put it well, "I have neither the authority nor the resources to do my own investigation", so I will only do so if it can be proven on an opponent's wiki. (the exception is disclosure emails)

Hiding theory is lame, paragraph shells are less lame but if you really want to go for a shell I would appreciate if you said something like 'new sheet' in the roadmap and read a full shell

'no rvi's' is just a claim with no warrant, dont let it scare you, make it an rvi if you want

I also evaluate theory as a disad, clever cross applications are important, voter weighing is good, same stuff as above

structuralist K's: 2-3 I love cap and borderlands, familiar with SetCol, psycho, afropess, and a couple others, just ask
I did not debate K's a lot as a high school debater and was never really good with dense fw debates. That being said it was less a lack of understanding and more my inability to zoom out during rounds and identify more important offense, mostly due to limited time. Now that I am a judge I have more time to analyze that and I am also not the one making strategic decisions so you should not let my past dissuade you from reading those types of arguments.

pomo K's: 4-5 Can't say I am familiar with any pomo lit bases so it's going to require extra explanation

tricks: 5/Strike Never seen a tricks debate, I won't hack against you I will probably just be confused

Just remember to ask questions, I've judged at only three tournaments so the pref sheet is more based on my familiarity with the arguments as a debater, rather than a judge.

Other thoughts:

im good for speed

tech > truth

time yourselves please, I will be timing but I'm not perfect with it

you should take the easiest route to my ballot, don't drop conceded contentions for the sake of clash, but also tell me why you win the debate because they dropped whatever they dropped

for pf, please keep crossfire kind and formal, especially for grand crossfire, judging a crossfire that turns into a shouting match is uncomfortable and I will dock your speaks

rant:

If you are about to be judged by me this is most likely not relevant to you unless you're as into theory as I am, but I have strong opinions about theory and specifically how judges evaluate theory in debate.
I personally believe debate is a game (although can be persuaded otherwise on a round by round basis) and that judges are expected to be educators. this entails an expectation for judges to evaluate arguments debaters make and give feedback on how they are run. This is not an unpopular view, and a lot of judges actually agree on this, which makes it strange the fact that judges are also willing to hack on the subject of theory. As a debater, I've dropped ballots because people don't think that "x issue" is a voting issue. This injection of internal bias is judges determining what education is and isn't important, and that is not something the judge should be allowed to do, debaters debate for different reasons, and if they find that theory debate is where they learn the most, there is almost no justifiable reason(excluding reasons like it's racist or transphobic) to hack against a team for reading an interp they didn't like, or reading theory in general. Even if you think that topic education/policy education is super important, it creates a strange interaction with the fact judges are also willing to vote on k affs. If policy or topic education is so important to you, why don't you hack against k aff teams? Either you do hack against both, which is objectionable for separate reasons, or it is just personal bias. Not liking theory is not enough to hack against them, you are judging for a reason, either to meet an obligation, you're getting paid, or you think debate is important, in any case, you have a reason to be judging, you aren't here for yourself, so behave accordingly, and make the round for the debaters, your enjoyment of the debate is second to what the debaters want. Another issue is the paradigms judges put out. A lot of paradigms out there are just misleading, in the way they have a tldr section that says they are 'blank slate' 'tab' or 'will vote on anything', but will not vote on an interp, or, in the same paradigm, have a list of interps they don't think are a voting issue. Lying to kids in an educational activity is pretty objectionable, and it is pretty easy to write 'almost anything, excluding x theory interp', and nor is it a fringe case that debaters go for theory, so it's pretty strange the judges are willing to just, lie about that. Still, judges that include a list of interps that they don't think are voting issues is still bad, like congrats on figuring out your biases, but when you find a bias the response should not be 'let me warn people' but instead 'let me try and adjust myself'. People are willing to adjust biases for other arguments, K debaters who spent 8 years saying policy education is bad will become judges and vote on big stick affs, and da/cp debaters try their best to understand and vote on K's, but the compromise ends at theory debates for some reason. Judges are fine with voting on arguments they don't agree with because they think the education is valuable, or because debate is for the debaters and so they should evaluate the argument, the same logic should apply to theory as well. If you don't vote on theory because you don't understand it, you should just say that. Judge adaptation is an educational part of debate, if your judge just can't understand the cap k, don't run the cap k, but if you can understand theory, but won't vote on it, that isn't something debaters should be forced to adapt to. All of this has an impact on debate, I've already talked about how debaters education is damaged, because in many rounds they just can't do theory debate because they won't get a ballot for it, but its an issue more broadly for fairness and education. Theory and topicality debate is specifically good for small schools. Large programs have a lot of coaches and team members to go in and cut a bunch of cards, easing the prep burden for their teams, small schools don't have the same ability, skewing the debate towards big schools. Theory debates are not the same, specifically in T debates, you really only need one definition card, having multiple definition cards isn't nearly as important as having several carded link answers to a disad for example. Having one intent to exclude card is good enough to beat several intent to define cards, so just like that it is evened out. Big schools could get coaches to write out a ten point response to an interp, but if it is not their debaters doing that work, they wont know how to extend it. Allowing judges to pick and choose what they think are voting issues, is also an issue itself. T, Theory, K's, CP's, DA's, C/T's, policy aff's, k aff's, they're all important arguments in debate, each produces their own education, none of the above are arguments judges should hack against, and allowing judges to just pick which of the above are important to them is an issue itself. I want to be the judge I always wanted in the back of the room in my debates, I want to be a judge who doesn't scare debaters into not collapsing on their favorite/winning argument because they think the judge will hack against them, theory is as valid a collapse as a cp, or a disad, and I will evaluate your debates as such, your judge adaptation is not a question of do I like it or not, but a question of do I understand it or not. I am also not saying that I will hack for theory. I think theory is very interesting, and I enjoy it a lot, and I find answering theory as enjoyable and as interesting as reading it, so as long as you don't drop the flow I will evaluate the arguments made on both sides equally. Anyway, thanks for reading my rant.
(***By the way 'infinite theory args bad'/'non res theory bad' is still an argument I could buy, just cause I like theory and think it's important doesn't mean I won't eval this arg***)

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.

hi, i'm andy, i coach for lanier :)

he/him/his

background:

congress & some extemp | 6 years

general:

• you're the debater

• you do the debating and let me do the judging

• if you don't say it (clearly), i don't flow it

• speed - 5/10

• norms - if it ends in ism, it probably isn't appropriate

• if it’s not on my flow, it doesn’t exist

congress:

• i mained this event, so i know it very well - it's a badly structured event

• i promise to always read the packet/bills before judging the round

• main caveat: if it’s a “debate event”, then it should be judged as an actual debate (even tho it’s not)

warranting is #1 - anything that goes unwarranted is dropped

defense/offense role - anything your side says, you uphold because you operate as one faction

• if your side doesn’t respond to something, absent your defense, i assume it’s conceded

• this affects your argumentation negatively if you don’t respond, but read the same warrants that have already gone conceded

• vice versa for offense, i will assume that your side is dropping the offense if you do not tell me what offense has been read and why it still applies

• absolutelyno counterplans, it removes the point of debating the legislation

speaking - the easy part

• everyone can yap

• not everyone can make yapping not sound like yapping

• you should not look down at your pad for anything other than sources and names

• if there is a lack of eye contact, i will be very sad and drop you

• if you’re funny, then use it to your advantage

• if you’re not, then don’t try to be

• rhetoric is awesome

• stylistically, i don’t care what you go for, but play to your strengths

cx - please don’t be overly aggressive

• it is ok to assert yourself, but don’t be rude or aggressive

• you should not be using this time to make an argument

• if you use the words, “how does your argument still stand?”, i will stop listening

• if you use the words, "where's the expert that says that?", i will also stop listening

• if you shout, i’m tuning you out

weighing - this is my absolute favorite thing

• weigh comparatively - compare option x and y, but make the comparison using some kind of standard

• magnitude, scope, timeframe, pre-req, etc.

• but on top of these standards, compare within them

• i.e. 100 million dollars > 10 million dollars (magnitude)

• without weighing, i have to intervene and weigh myself

• but this is ultimately your job, so if you don’t weigh, i will drop your speech score

framing - this is my second favorite thing

• frame using stakeholder analysis/important questions in the debate

• part of framing is backtracking: “so far in this debate…”

• just remind me of what’s happened so far cuz the rounds are long

• establish a stakeholder - which group/entity is most important

• what is the goal of the legislation?

• which side accomplishes the goal of the legislation for the stakeholder best?

• always start from the status quo

• what is changing from the status quo?

• and if historical precedent applies, what is different from past policy?

• the AFF has a burden to prove the change is unique, the goal is met, and the stakeholder wins

• the NEG has a burden to prove either the change is non-unique, the goal is not met, or the stakeholder loses

• whoever proves this to me, wins the debate

individual - ultimately tho, this is an individual event (IE, haha not debate)

• i rank individuals by interaction with the round

• your speech should uniquely build upon your side’s foundation

• if it contributes nothing, you are definitely getting the 9

• the person that is most aware of everything above will earn the 1

• if it’s really close, i’ll use speaking to differentiate

pf:

emphasis on the lay part in flay

• i will evaluate prog to the best of my ability, but no promises

• err on the side of assuming i have no idea what you’re reading or how to evaluate it

if i am capable of understanding it, i will vote on it except:

• if a school is not allowed to disclose, even if non-verifiable, i will not vote for disclosure theory

general things:

• tech > truth - unless it's blatantly abusive (i.e. the Holocaust isn't real)

• i won’t flow cross unless you bring it up in speeches

• all new arguments before 2nd summary

• defense is not sticky

• love weighing, esp metaweighing, but only if warranted

• if you could signpost/give me a roadmap before speeches, it would help a lot :)

• i default to cost-benefit analysis

• absent offense, i presume for loser of the flip, unless warranted

• base 28 spks

if you debate well and write my ballot for me, then it’ll be an easy win

• if you don’t, then i have to intervene (ex: if there’s 0 offense in final focus)

don’t make me be that judge that has to intervene.

any other debate event:

treat me like a pf judge, read through my congress stuff if that helps

interp (except extemp):

no idea what i'm doing

good luck and have fun :D

vedhshetty06@gmail.com

did debate for 3 years - heres my highschool wiki. Ive done both lay and circuit debate. on the circuit I got 7 career bids and champed 2 tournaments. on lay i made elims at nsda nationals, and I won uil state.

important—i do not care what you do in the round, just enjoy yourself and i’ll evaluate everything as best as i can. we all made the choice to spend our weekends here, so make debate fun to some degree but ofc keep it competitive. I do think its impossible to be perfectly tab, but i will try my best. I will avoid intervening as much as possible, but sometimes its inevitable -- try to minimize it. I will listen to your controversial arguments---my thoughts are that if it is a truly a bad arg then your opponent should be able to beat it easily.

- creds: agastyaand lukasparadigms.

- u deserve a quality rfd -- if u ask i will send my flow, i encourage post rounding if it helps you understand the round, ask as many questions as you need if it helps.

Prefs Shortcut:

baudrillard > truth

IMPORTANT—these short cuts are how often i read these arguments in highschool, NOT how much i want to see these arguments.

1. K's, Phil, TFW, Theory, Topic Related K AFF's

2. Adv, DA, Non-T K AFF's, Tricks

3. Soft Left AFF's, PIC's, Topicality

4. T-Subsets, Adv CP's

5. Process CP's (im getting better at these), Politics DA's

Arguments:

Disclosure: my wiki was top tier so anything flys --- go for cites, round report, os, new affs, preflip.

If it makes you marginally irritated then make it a shell. I will intervene if you get caught lying. I think disclosure is not an out of round violation. Asking 'why didnt you disclose the aff?' in cx is a pretty easy way to prevent the 'unverifiability' warrant.

Kritiks:

I'll eval it that you can explain it --- read quite a bit of lit but dont expect me to fill in the blanks if you dont warrant it. overviews are good, but keep it short and explain it on the lbl. I love K tricks, 1nc framing interps are strategic, love floating pik's just have some semblance of it in the 1nc. im good for either plan or generic links, go for ur fiat k or extinction reps k lol.

authors read or have good general knowledge on --- beller, benatar, ligotti, robinson, moten and harney, wilderson, weheliye, puar, edelman, stanley, baedan, st. pierre, mitchell & snyder, kristeva, mollow, fritsch, hughes, kim, zavatinos, selck, tuck and yang, rifkin, fanon, robinson, ganser, vizenor, baudrillard, artrip & debrix, hoofd, nietzsche, hardt & negri, rodriguez, agamben, escalante, pawlett, berardi, wang, reece, badiou, dean, deleuze, and saldhana.

agnostic on k-framework--hard left impact turning fairness works, beating it back on a middle ground framing is what i usually did, love "hard-right" plan focus -- just win it properly since there are easy 2ar's on this. consequences tied to scholarship is a good arg. 1AR intrinsic perms that beat k's are beautiful.

K aff's:

K v T - neutral on this -- imo impact turns are easier to win, and an ethosy fairness push is easier on neg. Solid tva's are deadly. T-Tactics is under used. weird T shells that arent frwk is fire too.

K v K - I love it. compare theories of power--I think framing gets under utilized in these debates. I dont like no perm blocks, they're not very persuasive.

K v Phil - i think negating using a phil nc versus a k aff is really good if you do it well, will give you phenomenal speaks if you execute it well. K versus phil affs should in truth always lose, but ive gone for this interaction a ton and won both ways.

K v Turns - (taken from nick fleming) love heg/cap good, and a bad judge for affs that don't want to defend anything. Imo, if you take a radically left position but are unwilling to debate the most surface level right-wing propaganda, you are a coward.

Phil:

lit ive read --- agonism, kant, butler, contracts, deleuze, existentialism, god, hegel, jaeggi, levinas, locke, nietzsche, pettit, rawls, testimonies, polls, util, virtue ethics, death good, determinism, hobbes, intuitionism, particularism, pragmatism, sentimentalism.

i love substantive phil -- tons of great ways to execute it. I dont like phil w/ apriori's bc those debates always devolve to tricks not phil, which at that point just make it a full tricks debate. That absolutely does not mean phil 'tricks' are off the table - i loved reading induction fails, calc indicts, afc, nfc, somewhat explicit skep triggers, performativity, ect. Hot take - theres no winning ci to converse theory.

Skepticism - I love it, i went for it a lot. Ive read all the general skep stuff, anti realism, determinism, log con, indexicals, relativism, non-cognitivism, monoism, solipsism, egoism, ect. Love the Permissibility and Epistemic Modesty/Certainty -- just do impact calc for how I should evaluate the debate. TJF's are strategic but dont let it be the only tool in your tool box. Theology is super interesting---if you can execute it, i would love to see it.

Theory:

Love these debates when its executed well - do it strategically and you'll win. these debates get underwarranted, if everything is developed youll get high speaks. Love restarts. Will evaluate anything -- read everything from AFC, to T, to Spec. 1AR theory needs to be fleshed out. Weigh between standards, judge instruction makes theory debates easy to resolve.

Evidence ethics -- please debate the shell in round -- if you chose to stake the round, I'll only vote for you if the wording of a card is egregiously miscut to intentionally change the meaning of the card or if words are made up.

Independent voters need to be at least slightly fleshed out - otherwise a 2 second response is sufficient. i think calling tab or DTA definitely solves these, make that argument fs.

I will not vote on out of round violations, or out of round issues. BUT I do think that disclosure is in round,

Tricks:

Great, but I prefer substantive ones like trivialism and indexicals. Go for a few and develop them in later speeches. Be innovative -- reading a new trick that I've never seen before gets you 30 speaks. I err against strats that require multiple concessions all over the place for a coherent strategy.

Won't vote on arguments that don't warrant their conclusion (e.g. "the sky is blue so vote aff"). Err agaibst extemping spikes, I will likely not catch them. if you do, please look me in the eye or make sure im flowing you.

TT: TT v K is cool, go for it, i think k debaters are terrible at answering it. TT v comparative worlds -- will flip each side on this, TT is prolly more true. TT v Theory -- agonistic on this, whoever is ahead will win this.

LARP:

Gotten better at adjudicating this after extensive topic research/going for Case turns almost every 2N at a few tournaments. I love 7 mins of impact turns. Will judge kick but if you tell me too.

Net benefits dont have to be germain, but its better if it is. Both functional and textual comp is not needed, but 1ar args for why they are, is valid. Neutral on textual and functional comp. Intrinsicness tests are interesting, if u win it i will vote on it. Neutral on 1ar intrinsicness in general, just justify it -- also applied to the k.

Trad:

Circuit vs. Trad. No mercy.

Speaks:

I will disclose. yes speak spikes - the funnier they are the more likely i'll give u the spks - be confident if you're good, if u read a spike then do terrible expect ur speaks to reflect that.

Speaks are arbitrary so let’s play the prisoners dilemma. Both debaters should email me separately before the round with the subject “Prisoners Dillemma” and ask for speaks:
A] If only one debater asks for the 30 then I’ll give you a 30 and your opponent a 28.
B] If both debaters ask for a 30 then both of you get 28’s.
C] BUT if both debaters ask for a 29 then I’ll give both of you 29’s.

Accessibility:

let me and your opponent know if you have or want anything -- please avoid having to debate about accessibility issues because i think it trivializes accommodations, dont weaponize this for strategic benefit either.

Hard no to voting on out of round issues - barring wiki stuff and disclosure ofc.

Policy:

Everything from the LD section applies.

Credentials - I went to TFA Texas State Championship in both 2023 and 2024. I went to NCFL National Championship in 2023. I specialize and am experienced in PF as this is my event for these tournaments.

Overview -I will not tolerate anyone being purely disrespectful. While I am a Tech judge, I can be very lay. I am tech>truth. I will not do the work for you so make your links as clear as possible and explain all arguments you want me to consider when making my final decision. While I know speed can be useful please refrain from spreading, If I can't understand you I will not flow it. I will give you two warnings before dropping my pencil. Debate is an event based upon communication so communicate clearly. Use prep time wisely and you have a grace period of one sentence.

Framework + Case Structure -I will evaluate the framework given by both teams. If only one team offers a framework and there is no clash or framework given by the opposing team, I will judge based on the framework given. I expect clear and concise contentions that should be easy to follow and flow.

Flowing + Clash -I will flow all contentions and subpoints plus evidence, AGAIN IF YOU ARE TOO FAST OR UNCLEAR, I WON'T FLOW. Any evidence you want specifically considered or any arguments please continue to emphasize throughout the round. You must carry your arguments throughout the round otherwise I will consider them to be dropped. I am fine with theory cases but try to refrain from K args. CLASH on all arguments and provide offense plus defense. I will evaluate all case turns and I am fine with you collapsing similar arguments.

Cross Ex - Please use Cross Ex wisely. Try to refrain from making arguments but rather set traps to exploit in speeches. I will evaluate Cross Ex. While I do know Cross Ex can get heated, refrain from being disrespectful. If something is mentioned in cross but not brought up again I will consider it dropped.

FF -Make it clear what I am voting on. Weigh throughout rounds but especially in FF. IMPACT IMPACT IMPACT. When I vote I need to know what happens when I vote AFF vs when I vote NEG or vice versa. Basically, why should you win, and why they should not.

WORLDS -

I will evaluate the two best arguments in the round and compare them and that will win my ballot. You can drop args in the round but the one you collapse on needs to outweigh and have stronger links than the other team's strongest arg. Presentation matters just as much as argumentation. My flow and clash + framework and case structure cross-supply to worlds as well.

Any other questions feel free to ask. (Yes put me on email chains - Devon.stevenson08@gmail.com)

*NOTE - I HAVE NOT DONE ANY RESEARCH ON THE NEW APRIL TOPIC - TREAT ME LIKE I'M CLUELESS*

vishalsurya0704@gmail.com

Seven Lakes'25

Tech over truth. I do not share the sensibilities of judges who proclaim to be technical and then carve out an exception for death good, wipeout, or planless affirmatives. The only situation in which I will not vote on an argument is when forced to by the Tabroom.

This applies to everything. You do not get a blank check because your opponents’ arguments are “trolls” or “science fiction.” Whether something could be “read identically on a previous topic” has no bearing on whether it rejoins the affirmative. It is my experience and firm belief that the vast majority of judges who describe arguments in such a fashion are dangerously incapable of answering them.

With that in mind, I will decide the debate based on the flow and nothing else.

Evaluating Debates

I have a lower bar for a warrant than most. I am unlikely to reject an argument solely on the basis of ‘being a cheap shot’ or lacking ‘data.’ Unwarranted arguments are easily answered by new contextualization, cross applications, or equally unwarranted arguments. If your opponent’s argument is missing academic support or sufficient explanation, then you should say that.

I’m strict about new arguments and will protect earlier speeches judiciously. However, you have to actually identify and flag a new argument. The only exception to this is the 2AR, since it is impossible for the neg to do so.

Planless Affs

Critical teams should pref me if they are confident that they can out-tech their policy opponents. If you can’t do this, then you will likely lose. I don’t have a strong ideological predisposition against critical affs, but personally believe the best arguments favor topicality.

Equally good for ‘fairness’ or ‘skills’ framework. The aff either needs to counter-define resolutional words or have an impact turn large enough to outweigh the full magnitude of the neg’s offense.

Critiques on the Neg

The best critiques are framework arguments that moot the plan. Critiques make almost no sense when they use the language of causation or are debated like CPs. By design, they lack uniqueness and attempt to establish exclusivity through something other than traditional opportunity cost. This requires an alternate framework for evaluation.

Accordingly, I am much better for frameworks that exclude the case (or, alternatively, exclude the K) than most. I will decide the FW debate in favor of one side’s interpretation, not attempt to divine some arbitrary middle ground that splits the difference. Of course, you are free to advocate a middle ground interpretation.

Topicality

I judge topicality like any other position. This entails defaulting to offense/defense, not randomly suspending impact calculus because the aff “feels” topical enough. Reasonability is a winnable argument but requires substantial investment and should be offensively framed.

No strong opinions about any standards. Fine for ‘predictability outweighs limits’ and the reverse.

Theory

Most theoretical objections to CPs are better expressed through competition. The average theory interpretation is self-serving and contrived. All CPs have ‘a process,’ anyone can be a ‘solvency advocate,’ and any CP could ‘result in the plan.’

Against these and similar interpretations, I find neg appeals to arbitrariness difficult to overcome. If, however, you manage to craft an elegant theory interpretation, I’ll be receptive. This could include ‘CPs can only fiat governments,’ ‘CPs may not fiat both federal and sub-federal actors,’ and so on.

My default is limitless condo. This is a strong default as far as the 1NC and a moderate default for the block. I can be persuaded some egregious CPing---like CPing out of a straight turn in the 2NC---is illegitimate, but I’m inclined to lean negative there as well.

Counterplans

Much better for process and competition-based strategies than most. I don’t share the community’s sanctimonious distaste for Process CPs and tend to think a 2AC requires more than sputtering with indignation. I won’t automatically discount a net benefit because it is ‘artificial’ or ‘not germane,’ nor do I take it for granted that process strategies are inherently less educational than their counterparts.

I’m equally good for ‘must compete textuallyandfunctionally’ and ‘functionally only.’ Textual competition alone is a hard sell. If the aff wins the CP needs to compete both textually and functionally, that justifies permutation that are partially legitimate.

I’ll judge kick the CP if no one says anything. If the aff wants not to, they need to say so in the 1AR, but it’s an uphill battle.

Disadvantages

I do not understand nor participate in the moral panic about politics, ‘generic’ DAs, or links to fiat. A disadvantage is just some negative consequence the plan brings about. The nature of that consequence is entirely irrelevant, so long as the neg is capable of winning it outweighs the advantages.

What fiat means should be debated like any other argument. My default is to assume that fiat entails durable, good-faith passage and implementation of the plan.

Case

'Try or die' refers to whether extinction is inevitable. If the neg only goes for solvency takeouts, then the aff controls try or die. If the aff drops an internal net-benefit to a CP and only extends deficits, then the neg controls try or die. This is a relevant consideration. Both sides should always be aware of whether they access try or die and either point this out or explain why it is irrelevant.

Zero risk is obviously possible, but extremely hard to get to in practice. If the neg drops 1AC impacts, you should reference them, but don’t need to formally extend them in the 2AC. However, the 1AR must always extend an impact for it to be eligible for the 2AR.

Miscellaneous

For online debates, I’d prefer cameras on. I won’t punish you if you choose to keep it off though.

You don’t need to take prep for tech issues, going to the bathroom, getting water, etc.

You don’t need to flash analytics.

I currently do public forum for Bellaire High School. Feel free to ask me about anything that I don't cover in my paradigm, but I will be annoyed if you ask me about something that I already wrote about.

Add me to email chains: etang722@gmail.com

General:

tech > truth

argumentation/content > speaking

I prefer when people use email chains, otherwise it can be inefficient. I pref cut cards.

I'm familiar with debate jargon and I will vote off of the flow.

I am okay with speed, but keep in mind that I will be flowing on paper, so if you spread I might not catch everything you want me to (speech docs would be helpful).

I won't evaluate stuff in cross if you don't bring it up in speech. I'm fine with flex prep.

Clear signposting is really nice.

Please make clear extensions of warrants, not just card names.

I don't like when people doc bot. If you do, it won't factor into my decision for the round, but it might affect your speaks.

If you don't use all of your speech time, I will be very sad.

I don't recommend reading any super prog arguments in front of me.

I would not recommend reading disclosure theory in front of me.

If you run a structural violence case/fw, stick to it.

Don't be homophobic, sexist, racist, ableist, etc., that will also cost you the round. Just be respectful.

PF:

Weighing is very helpful, I love it when you start to weigh in rebuttal (especially prereqs), but I will be sad if you only use buzzwords ("we outweigh on scope" without an actual explanation for HOW or WHY that's true).

Please frontline in second rebuttal.

I don't believe in sticky defense.

No new arguments starting from second summary.

If you want me to take an argument into account, you must extend it with warrants in summary and final.

I usually start at around 28.5 for speaks.

LD:

I'm not super familiar with LD, so I will probably evaluate it similarly to a PF round (read above). Weigh. Please.

Use your value/criterion.

For Context: I am a PF debater

General

If you are going to spread your case, please make sure I can still understand what you are saying. If you prefer to spread that is fine, just email me your case so I can follow along. In general add me to the email chain: pahthakur@gmail.com

Please signpost; it really helps me ensure I fully understand your case

I won't evaluate anything from cross unless it is brought up again.

Extend all of your arguments. Saying something without expanding on it is no use.

Be respectful. Interrupting during cross, etc. will lose you the round.

PF:

Weigh.

This and rebuttals are what I will be voting on the most. If you do not apply your argument to its effects, it does not matter.

Not responding = conceding

No new arguments/evidence from 2nd summary

LD:

I do not have much experience with LD. That being said, I will vote on K's and theory if you can convince me it works. Traditional rounds will be easier to follow but will not influence my voting if you run a K.

Value/Criterion

Things that can cost you the round/things to avoid:  disrespectful behavior; condescension; non-topical arguments.

Framework: LD is a value debate. I will therefore determine whether to affirm or negate the Resolution based on how well your case upholds the value metric - value + value criterion. All else flows from here.

Case Structure: I expect a value, value criterion, and contentions. Observations are optional but if they are helpful, they are appreciated. Contentions should contain evidentiary warrants and clear impacts. I expect them to link back to your value and value criterion - I should not have to scrutinize my flow to figure out how your contentions are connected to the value metric. 

Spreading: I appreciate that spreading is increasingly common in LD and I do not penalize competitors for engaging in the practice. That said, I expect everything to be well articulated and understandable. Persuasive argument stops the moment you value speed over comprehension. I expect clean and clear signposting throughout your case, particularly if you are engaging in spreading.

Flowing: I flow every case, and base my decision based on the flow. I appreciate that competitors may share their cases with each other and that this is increasingly common practice. However, my decision will be based on what happens in the round, not on the documents provided for my reading leisure.

Time: Please feel free to time yourselves. I am also happy to time y'all if you would prefer.

RFD: This will always come back to who fulfills the value metric best. I will also note that I personally put great emphasis on cross examination and rebuttal, as these extemporaneous moments often best display skill sets and thorough knowledge of case and material.

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.

Hi, I'm Bella and I compete in PF

Speaks - I am okay with most speeds, but please make sure you speak clearly on points you want me to take into consideration when flowing. Not a fan of spreading but as long as I can understand it's all good.

Weighing -I will most likely vote based on how well you weigh.

CX-I love a good Crossfire, keep it interesting and ask good questions!!

Environment-Try and keep the attitude of the round respectful. I understand that things can get heated but that is not an excuse to be disrespectful to your opponents.

Signpost - please update me where you are throughout the round, it's super helpful with flowing and keeping track of your arguments.

Warrants - Provide clear warrants that prove why your argument is true. Highlight these and make sure to extend them. Pointing out concession of warrants is a great strategy, but don't claim stuff that not conceded. It gets annoying.

Theory- if you're going to argue theory, please argue it well and keep it consistent. Don't bring in crazy theories that don't make any sense, I probably won't vote for you.

keep track of your own time please!! and have fun!

she/her

current pfer (bellaire LW)

add me to your email chain: audreyw8ng@gmail.com <-- also use this for questions before round if u have any

- title the email Round # and your school code (ex: R3 Bellaire LW or Semis Bellaire LW)

if ur not a pfer im lay

i have experience judging extemp but idk how great of an extemp judge i am tbh

for pf (u can also probably cross apply most of these things to ld too):

my paradigm is pretty similar to most bellaire pfers

tech > truth unless it's super dumb (the sky is most definitely not purple.)

i don't flow cross so if you want it to end up on my flow, bring it up in the next speech

historically, me not timing has been pretty problematic so i'll probably time you unless i'm super super tired and get lazy lolllll

there's no such thing as sticky defense. if it's dropped at any point i dont care anymore

extend and extend well

if it's not mentioned before or during first summary i will not evaluate it. anything new after second summary will NOT be evaluated (pf)

do not try to run 10 contentions and extend the ONE that ur opponent drops ... i will be very very sad

no tricks. by far the stupidest way to try and win.

probably don't read theory, especially disclo, or k's i'll probably not evaluate it the way you'd like me to

im pretty good with speed but please send speech doc if ur gonna spread

signpost (+ roadmap b4 speech)

warrant everything

be nice

weigh (+ warrant) + metaweighing is cool too

28 speaks is usually the default. 29 is common, but 30 is pretty rare. make me laugh or make a blackpink reference for a bump

no isms (racism, sexism, etc). no homophobia. no offensive things period. i will drop ur speaks and potentially down u for anything offensive.

don't run counterplans in pf........ i cannot evaluate it

flex prep is alright, but if ur opponent stalls up all your prep time by answering ur question slowly.. that's on you

love love love collapsing - i think it's super strategic and makes judging so so so much easier

try to preflow before round if flip is settled already (but i get it if u don't)

ask any questions before round if u have any

make the round fun for me to judge. i want to be interested

write my ballot for me, don't make me think too hard, i'm not too good at that

i understand tech problems, but i'm not gonna wait for 5 minutes for you to pull up a card, 2-3 minutes max (this is already generous honestly), everything after is a drop in speaks (.5 speaks every 10 extra seconds)

on the topic of cards... please have good evidence ethics. if ur opponent has bad evidence ethics call em out so i can check the card. i'll drop a card if u can tell me why the article/author is unreliable properly

don't post-round. my decision is final i dont need you to give me 10 reasons why you think you should've won when i already finished my ballot. i probably won't disclose end of round just to avoid this, but if you have any questions after round feel free to email me, i can't guarantee an immediate response, but i'll respond eventually, also lmk that i judged you so i dont think ur some rando who got my email from nowhere. again, do not try to use this as a way to change my pov; it won't. this is only for asking any questions regarding my comments.

no offense in round = i presume neg

if you made it to the bottom of my paradigm, tell me in the last few seconds of ur 2nd to last or last speech. i'll bump speaks :)

gl hf

I'm an LD debater just for context.

I'm fine with spreading, but that doesn't mean I will be able to understand every word you say. I do think it's better to not spread and focus on maximizing using your words to the greatest potential rather than maximizing how many words you say.

For LDers, I'm fine with traditional and progressive debates. I do think progressive cases are more interesting that traditional, but the preference won't weigh too much into my decision. It'll probably just affect how attentive I am during the round.

Last thing, but using cards in your rebuttals will help your case so much.

I'm a parent judge but here is the quick layout.

1 - T/Theory

1 - Policy

2 - Tricks

3/4 - Phil (depending on density)

Strike - K

the easier you make the round for me to judge the better your speaks will be.