General/Defaults:

• Add me to the email chain: taha.amir575@gmail.com and miralomadocs@gmail.com (ADD BOTH).

• Tech > Truth no matter what - I will flow and vote for things on my flow. You can’t phase me and you should do whatever you have to do to win. IDGAF

• You can do anything in round as long as you give me a reason you should - counterplans, paraphrasing, etc. If there is a warrant why you should be able to do that and you win that warranting, you can get away with it. Hell, you can go past speech times or give new responses in later speeches if you warrant it well. (Everything is good until you say it isn’t, unless it contradicts with my previous defaults - then you have to give a warrant on why it's good.)

• However, there are 2 things I won’t negotiate on. First, Clipping is an Auto L, 25 speaks. Second, 30 speaker points theory is stupid, I’ll give you speaker points how I think you deserved them.

• I default to Drop the Argument, Competing Interps, and Yes RVIS - that can be changed with a word. (However please at least somewhat warrant your paradigm issues)

• I default to Util and the ROTB is “To vote for the better debater” unless otherwise said in round.

• I can handle speed, but send docs with all cards because it makes it easier in case anyone misses anything - and makes evidence exchange a lot easier.

• Presumption/Permissibility flows neg. If I have to presume on value topics I will flip a coin and whoever wins the coinflip I vote for. If you think there's no offense in the round please make even one presumption warrant, I'll buy it.
  
  

Pref Sheets:

1 - Policy args/LARP

1 - Theory

3 - Tricks

3 - K/K Aff

4 - Phil/High Theory

Substance:

• The (substance) debates I loved the most was when both teams went for a link into extinction and weighed it against each other. Clever, logical weighing that isn’t overused and cliche will have me engaged in the debate and will boost your speaker points. I think that making warrant comparisons and clearly analyzing how each argument interacts with another is very important - take this how you will.
  
  

• Do not leave anything up for intervention - If you have mitigation on your case but are winning the weighing debate or vice versa, explain in speech why you should be winning the debate as a whole, i.e. why is the mitigation more important or why is the weighing more important.
  
  

• I think it's sometimes strategic for teams to concede what they are clearly losing instead of bluffing their way out of it - it makes comparisons between arguments a lot easier and clearly delineates the flow a lot better. No one is falling for your rhetoric so just save it.
  
  

• Defense is sticky in 1st summary - if it was conceded in 2nd rebuttal it doesn’t have to be extended. All arguments that you’re planning on going for have to be frontlined in the 2nd rebuttal, I won’t buy frontlines in the 2nd summary.
  
  

• My leeway for extensions is pretty low, just explain the argument simply, you don't need incredible warrants in the summary if I heard them in the previous speeches.
  
  

• Turns aren't defense, if you want me to vote for one, explain why your link is better than theirs.
  
  

• Impact turns/DA's in rebuttal are pretty underutilized and also good, I'll vote for dedev, spark, etc.
  
  

• I can usually tell if defense is terminal or not but an implication on why it is makes the round a lot cleaner (sometimes a well warranted implication can turn mitigatory defense into terminal defense)

Theory:

• Theory is apriori but I'll vote for X comes first arguments (even substance). I think full text disclosure is good, paraphrasing is bad, and I’m neutral towards open source. I won’t hack for anything, however.
  
  

• The shell needs to be extended in every speech, but don't read the shell word for word (only the interp).
  
  

• Weigh the net benefit against the standards, there's almost no weighing in theory debates and it makes them hard to evaluate. That includes Meta theory: Meta theory comes before theory naturally but there needs to be a basic warrant why in the speech.
  
  

• Friv theory is fine, do what you need to win. I don’t have any preconceived notions nor any ‘higher thresholds’ for any stupid theory arguments - debate is a game so I’ll evaluate it like any other.
  
  

• Education and Fairness aren't voters until you tell me why. Can be as simple as "only portable skill of debate" or "sways the evaluation of the ballot"

K/K aff

• Your K needs a link, impact, an alt, and usually, a Role of the ballot.
  
  

• If the K impacts to extinction, just read it as a DA. Unless you make claims about how they can't weigh case, it's just easier for everyone. That being said, Weighing against the K is pretty underutilized, extinction probably o/w
  
  

• K affs need an advocacy if they're not advocating for the resolution. If that advocacy isn’t topical, T is a very good strategy against K affs, and I think its true. That doesn’t mean I’m not perceptive to K affs, just that if you hit one, read T.
  
  

• Even if you lose the link, if you win the ROTB you can win the round pretty easily by making a lot of claims about attempting to link into the ROTB or you're the only risk of linking into the ROTB.
  
  

• Explain your jargon-y high theory phil/k arguments, im probably not familiar with it and cross is a good time to explain it since I'll be listening in. I can't vote for what I don't know (but I'm familiar with common K args like cap, security, etc). This includes the nuanced arguments of basic philosophers like Kant (I don’t know what a ‘categorical imperative is.’
  
  

• The K lit I’m most familiar with is Baudrillard - I’ve read Hostage Taking a couple of times as well as Cruel Optimism and Nailbombs. You’ll have the most success reading Baudrillard in front of me (as opposed to other Ks).

Tricks

• Most tricks that deny the resolution on a truth level need a truth testing framework along with them or I won't vote on them.
  
  

• Always send docs and delineate the tricks within the docs, if its a bunch of text in a block I won't flow
  
  

• Most NIB bad shells should have a “prefer spirit of the interp” and reasonability because literally everything, including being present in the debate, is a NIB, so having spirit is prolly a checkback against stupid CI’s that spec out of the shell.

flow judge. I have 6 years debate experience, 3 in PF, reached TOC. I flow, just win the flow, you win the round.

i also love weighing, like i hella hack for weighong

Bio: Mira Loma '25. Debated natcirc, semid UK, qualled to TOC, States, and NSDAs along w my partner.

Add me to the email chain: arnav.mahendra07@gmail.com and miralomadocs@gmail.com.

TLDR

Tech >>>>> truth, but I don't evaluate progressive argumentation with the exception of IVI's on evidence or serious in round abuse like racism/sexism(which i will hack for). There is no real reason for this other than the fact that I can't guarantee you that I will eval it correctly; for the sake of you as a debater I don't want to pretend to be something I'm not. I'm slowly getting better at it and hopefully by the next time I judge you I can evaluate your cap K and 3 off.

In the meantime, here's how to win my ballot:

The way to my ballot is weighing. Weighing is the most important layer of the debate. Whoever wins this will win the round. Do metaweighing and make it clear to me whose weighing is better.

Defense is not sticky. Extend what you want extended on their case, don't j come up in FF and remind me of something from rebuttal if it wasn't also in Summary.

No racism/sexism/misogyny/homophobia/anything else that subjugates people unless you want an L20.

Both speakers speaking during case is g w me and results in 30 speaks for both.See speaks portion for more info.

Frontline in Second Rebuttal. This is pretty basic.

I will evaluate any speed with a doc; 1100 word MAX without it.When I say max I mean max pushing boundaries, I will almost certainly miss something at that speed, but will prolly get down everything important.

Nothing new in FF, new implications included.Treat summary like it's the last speech in the round. New things in FF are abusive.

Extend everything you want on my ballot in summary AND FF. There were debates where we were v up and then forgot to extend an impact, don't be like us.

I don't flow crossfires, if you want stuff that happened in cross to be on my ballot, bring it up in speech. Use cross to get key concessions out of your opponents, I'm also open to skipping it if both teams agree. Also good w open cross if both teams agree.

When your opponent calls for ev, it's your responsibility to get it quickly. I will dock speaks if I see you taking more than 2 minutes to get ev. I know how it is with different docs and your ev scattered all around your computer, but don't waste everyone's time. That said, if your opps take a long time to get evidence,I want your mics unmuted cameras on hands up to ensure equity in prep time.

Speaker Points:

They're arbitrary and do not matter, so I like to have fun w them:

Starts at 27.5

L20 for Racism/any other -ism

-1 for the aforementioned ev issues

+2 for speaking Spanish, Hindi or Portuguese during a speech for 10.0s.

+1 For any reference to Taha Amir

Auto 30 for both speakers giving case

That's pretty much it, if there's anything I missed the rest of it should be pretty standard trad flow stuff, ask me before round if you have questions.

People that have influenced my adjudication philosophy:

Sully Mrkva

Pranav Pradeep

Good luck to both teams!

Mira Loma ‘25

Competed locally and nationally for 2 years, qualified to the GToC, NSDA, and CA states

Add me to the email chain: pranavprad7@gmail.com

TLDR

Tech>Truth

I will evaluate anything as long as it isn't harmful or exclusionary

Case

Send case evidence docs before the 1ac/nc and I will up your speaks

I don’t flow of docs and I can’t flow over 1100 word cases

Rebuttal

Both teams should try to weigh in rebuttal, 1r should be weighing in rebuttal I am lenient on 2r

Collapse in 2r, defense is not sticky, 2r should frontline everything on the offense you go for

Backhalf

No new offense, defense, or weighing in final, a new backline is fine in 1st final

Extend offense in summary and final

Other Stuff

I default to the team who lost the flip

Cross is important and shows who is the better team/speaker, why else would it exist

Preflow and setup flip before round

I start at 27 speaker points and increase speaks based on in round strategy and how well you speak

Kick me on a panel if you need to I will adapt

Progressive Argumentation

Parahrasing is bad and disclosure is good (won’t hack but my opinion)

Any theory is fine (I prefer it be in the shell format)

K Aff’s are fine

If you read a Non T- K, explain the literature

I'm a high school PF debater

You can read whatever you want.

Required in each of your speeches(any one of the below):

1. Jojos reference

2. Cobra Kai reference

3. 30 speaks theory

4. nuke war impact

5. dedev ( u have to win some extent of it and i'll evaluate )

6. spreading in the final focus

7. sing the Indian national anthem at the end of each of your speeches

8. PLEASE say Game over judge at least 35 times in each speech

9. Read thankyous to whoever you want to thank for being in the tournament (3 thankyous required)

if both teams don't do this, I evaluate a round normally. I'm a flow judge but don't go too fast. pls do weighing. I like framing and theory debate. Overall, just win ur links, impacts, and weigh.