Hi there!

My name is Meher and I am a freshman in high school. I did 3 years of middle school parli and am still competing in parli at the high school level. This will be pretty long but I want to make sure to check all the boxes and include everything that will help you out during the round :)

First and foremost, if you make a discriminatory remark or argument (anything racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.), there will be serious consequences. When I was a middle school parli debater, I had opponents express incredibly hateful comments and ideologies and judges still gave them the win and high speaker points. I will definitely not let it slide under any circumstances. Kindness and respect are a must, but if you feel that your opponents are making unfair and hateful arguments, don't hesitate to bring attention to that.

In terms of my judging, here are some things I will not do:
- Dock speaker points for "talking too fast"; I am perfectly fine with whatever speed feels most reasonable for you.
- valuate my preconceptions about the topic over your arguments; I default to the flow and value tech over truth always.
- I am not going to count point of orders if the third speaker is literally just stating evidence or repeating a point already stated by their team members (as a third speaker, I understand the frustration).
- I am not someone who places an overemphasis on speaker points. Though I don't like the system of speaker points and giving a numerical value to someone's growth and effort, I completely understand that it is important for many. I will take them seriously enough for that reason, but will also reward +0.5 speaker points to whoever makes a Taylor Swift (or Gracie, Phoebe, Conan, Billie reference, iykyk). Debate is a community before anything else, so if you are a Swiftie and also happen to be an avid reader (ik I'm talking to a niche audience here), I would love to have a conversation <3 Also +0.25 for complimenting Elisha Bell and Athena Li.

Here is the list of things I look for in a good round/speech:
Impacts- You can list all the evidence and statistics you want but if you do not provide context for what that means in the bigger picture, the weight of your argument is ultimately diminished. Impacts and weighing is what the round is going to come down to, so please place most emphasis on this!
Roadmap/Clear Signposting- Signpost throughout your speech and provide a roadmap when you start.
Clash- Engage with your opponents arguments!!! Actually interact with the points they are bringing up instead of focusing the debate on technical factors like what the fiat already covers or what statistics are more credible. Be sure to properly respond to your opponents points through refutations, incorporating a strategic balance of offense and defense. This leads to better argumentation overall and a much more interesting debate for all parties involved.
Side note but I encourage POIs as long as they are respectfully used and 5-10 seconds long.

If you have any questions or concerns, just ask in-round and I will be more than happy to clarify! If you want to reach me after the round for more clarification, just ask for my email and I will give it to you.

Also, I know its a high stress environment and can be a source of anxiety so humor is always appreciated!

Here's to a great round!

Hi, I’m Elisha Bell. I'm a high school parli debater who has been in the circuit for 5 years.

Be kind and respectful to your opponents but don’t hesitate to call them out on unfair arguments or promotion hate speech of any kind (racism, sexism, classism, etc.). Even if the opposing team doesn't call you out on hate speech don't think you got away with it, I will and I won't take it lightly in both the distribution of speaker points and my decision on the round.

I don’t mind heckling as long as it is warranted and doesn't take away from the round. I will take points off if I deem it aggressive heckling, but don't let that scare you away from engaging at all. I'll let you know in the round when you're getting close to crossing that line, before taking points off.

You can speak at whatever speed is most comfortable for you. I don't mind spreading as long as your opponents and I are still able to hear your points.

As for things I look for in a speech:

Please signpost throughout your speech as well as provide a roadmap when you start.

Make sure to engage with the other teams arguments. Don't just expand on your points without responding to refutations first, especially in later speeches (You're point doesn't still stand just because you said it does). There needs to be reasoning behind not just your responses to their points but also why yours flow through

WEIGH. Weighing is what in the end can make or break a round for you. Why do your points matter? What effect does this have on the world? Why is what you're saying have a more positive effect than your opponents? Why do your impacts matter more than your opponents? Your points don't matter if you don't have any impact to back them up.

If you have any other questions about my preference on something in round just ask me before and I'll be more that happy to answer or a question about my feedback just let me know and I can give you my email

Most importantly; have fun, humor is always welcome and enjoyed. Don't take things too seriously it's only middle school debate, I promise it is not as serious as you think. Have a great round debaters and good luck!

and if u get Athena Li tell her I'm the better judge :)

Ilan Boguslavsky (he/him)

Head-Royce '24

2x toc qualifier, 2024 toc quarterfinalist, 10x career bids

Add me to the chain: ilan.boguslavsky@gmail.com and hrsdebatedocs@gmail.com

Top-level:

read what you want. I read a policy aff my first two years of high school and a k aff my last two years

tech > truth, I'll pretty much vote for anything if won technically and will do my best to minimize judge intervention

judge instruction in the rebuttals is crucial and slow down if its something important

well researched and specific neg strats > generics

quality of cards > quantity of cards

Topicality:

good for t debates. a lot of my 1nr's were extending t

specific and well thought out t debates > generic t violations

competing interps > reasonability

Counterplans:

good for advantage cp's and aff specifc pic's

not great for competition debates. if in a process cp round, each team needs to thoroughly explain and impact out their standards

judgekick is fine but the 2nr needs to say it and justify it

Disadvantages:

good for most da's just make sure you mitigate some of the case

do explicit turns case analysis

Kritiks:

good for k's and i'm familiar with most literature

throughout high school we went for: afropess, black feminism, racial cap, security, deleuze, cybernetics, beller, etc.

i'll probably know what you're talking about but you should have a coherent explanation of your theory of power

specific links to the aff >>> generic links

explain your impacts. a lot of times teams k teams read a link without doing any impact calc

i'm fine if you go for fwk + a risk of a link or a material alt that solves the links but I think the latter requires a lot more work on mitigating the case and answering da's to the alt

fwk is usually the most important part of these debates so either the aff gets the plan and all their impacts or they dont

K-Affs:

good for k-affs that are unique to the topic

explain what your aff does and how it resolves the impacts of the 1ac

if you are vague about your advocacy or shift what your aff does throughout the debate to skirt da's or case turns i'll err neg

k-affs need to affirm something not just say that the topic is bad

i dont think you need to win spill-up claims or that debate shapes subjectivity but that your praxis should be endorsed

tell me why the ballot is good

Framework vs K-Affs:

good for fairness or clash/skills, fairness can be an internal link or an impact

debate has game-like elements but I can be convinced that it's more than a game

i prefer a counter interp but am fine for the impact turn

the counter interp will never solve the neg's offense but it can mitigate limits explosion arguments

affs need specific answers to tva and ssd

its an uphill battle for the aff if the neg wins that the tva allows for a discussion of the aff's harms and they can read the aff on the neg in other debates

neg case debating is key because most aff fwk da's are embedded in the case

K v K:

k affs probably get perms but I can be convinced otherwise

these debates usually come down to the perm so the neg needs specific links that are opportunity costs to the aff

affs need to defend their literature and authors instead of no linking arguments that probably link to the aff

Theory:

anything but condo is probably a reason to reject the argument not the team

condo is good up until 5 or 6 then its probably abusive

what even is dispo?

I have a low threshold for answering cheap theory arguments

Random stuff:

racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. = auto L and lowest speaks

wont vote for racism or genocide good but the death k is a valid argument

will reward kindness and humor during rounds

you can probably insert rehighlightings if the card has already been read but the other team can contest it

tell me if you want to stake the round on an ethics violation and I will stop the round, otherwise debate it out

funny references to head-royce debaters = +.1 speaker points

Hi! I'm Kaelie. I'm a junior and have been doing policy since freshman year. Also did 2 years of middle school parli debate.

Put me on the email chain! mykaelac2025@headroyce.org

Just do what you do best, I understand it's hard to stand up and speak to a bunch of strangers. I am pretty open to all types of arguments as long as you can explain them to me.

I read a K aff on the aff and usually go for Ks and T on the neg, but I should be able to hold my own judging DAs and CPs.

I'll probably be able to hear you at most speeds, but if you think you're going too fast, you probably are. Make sure to be clear and sound confident.

Good luck and make sure to have fun!

Middle School Debate

PLEASE SIGNPOST FLOWING'S ALREADY HARD DON'T MAKE IT HARDER FOR ME!

POIs and heckles

- Love them, so please do it as often as you can (obviously stick to the rules). I think its super important for the clash in the debate and shows me you're engaged and listening to your opponents' speaking.

Impacts/Weighing

- It's super important to me to have fleshed-out impacts and do impact comparisons. I want to know why your assertions matter more than theirs and evaluate debates based on who has done a better job explaining why bigger/more probable impact under their weighing mechanism.

- Weighs, when done well, can be works of art. I love weighs that are engaging and persuasive. PLEASE do weighing mechanism comparison, it makes my job so much easier as a judge.

Evidence

- PLEASE DO NOT MAKE UP RANDOM SOURCES -- I CAN TELL WHEN YOU MAKE UP A NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE!!!!

Refutations

- These are probably one of the hardest things to do in a round, but a good refutation will put you far ahead in the debate. I like refutations of the flow, and please at least try to refute the arguments, even if its just with your own points.

Speaking

I have a pretty high threshold for speed. That said, please don't go too fast, slow down and articulate each word.

Debate is a fun activity so please be nice and don't be disrespectful.

Francis Jayaratne

Head-Royce School '23 | Claremont Mckenna College '27

MS Parli debate (2017-2019, 2 years)

Policy debate (2019-2023, 4 years) Topics: Arm sales, Criminal Justice Reform, Water Resources, NATO emerging tech

TOC (2023)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wo3OM2_E7FU

Emails (add both):

mtglord123@gmail.com

hrsdebatedocs@gmail.com

For Policy Debate:

• Have fun with debate
• Please format email chain subject lines as "Tournament Round Aff Entry vs Neg Entry"
• My flowing wasn't the best when I debated, but I still had some success so make of that what you will
• I read a Policy Aff for 1.5 years and a K Aff for 2.5, wrote a policy Aff
• In my last year I went a ton for death good and other whacky arguments --> love it, if you read these types of args I'll be with you 100%
• Disclosure is good+important
• I'll assume nobody in the round is trying to be actively malicious, and I think apologies remedy most in round conflict
• Don't call me judge, feel free to say my name
• Make me laugh --> I'm often expressive so feel free to take that into account
• CPs and Ks absolutely need to beat the perm or win FW
• T is great if you can prove real abuse, especially if they're shifty in round. Affs are too shifty nowadays and defend too little with their plan texts
• DAs with good links are cool
• Silly/contrived/generic/most process CPs aren't that cool
• Don't use CX as prep
• If a plan text is vague/the Aff is being shifty I'm 100% willing to vote neg on vagueness/parametrics type args
• I 100% will vote for a substantiated and harmful instance of evidence manipulation/ethics violation. Even if not done purposefully policy debate needs good evidence standards, however I'll also weigh reasonability, don't make frivolous ethics violations.
• For the K:

- Love them, especially with post fiat links and explanations like circumvention etc.

- Winning FW makes the K debate super easy, I think if it comes down to it I won't do a middle of the road approach

- When I debated I read racial cap, Deleuze, Tech Ks, and Security Ks

• In the K Aff debate:

- You need to prove that your education o/w some level of clash+fairness loss

- Fairness is kinda an impact but my mom told me life ain't fair so...

- Beat SSD/TVA

- I'm very unsympathetic towards K affs that say the topic as a whole is bad/should be ignored, each year's new topic brings a new valuable topic to learn about imo

- I'm absolutely willing to vote for the Neg off FW, you just need to win it

For Middle School Debate:

- I'm a high school debater, so as long as I can actually hear you, I probably can follow you

- I am flowing, probably on my computer otherwise on paper

- Don't spread in MS debate or misuse high school debate terms

- Make me laugh, it'll help your speaks and make your pathos better

- While I miss heckles, over zoom no heckling

- Debate is all about making connections --> Connections between contradicting points, your own assertions, pieces of evidence etc. In many ways it's a web

- I love good POIs and will keep track of them. They can and should be a key part of clash and interacting with the opponents and clash. However, don't abusively overuse POIs. While I'll appreciate the effort behind a bad POI, it doesn't automatically help your side

- Be confident, doesn't matter if you're an introvert or extrovert, everyone can at a minimum look confident and that really goes a long way

- I'm probably a mixture of tech and truth (meaning I evaluate debates both off of my flow/exactly what was said, and also with some level of common sense)

- Not a fan of Plans/counterplans, instead frame them as potential alternatives that the Pro/Con/Aff/Neg precludes

- In the rebuttal speeches I really want to see good impact calculus/comparison. More often than not the other team has some impact, what you need to do is tell me why yours comes first

- Weighing mechanisms are cool but misused. If it's too broad I don't care about it. If it's not explained why it comes first, it probably doesn't come first. If it's not tied back to your own points/assertions, then your overall story is less convincing. Honestly saying your weighing mechanism is utilitarianism (doing the most amount of good for the most amount of people), is probably the best W/M in MS debate imo

- I really like good refutations and answers. A weird way I viewed debate was as a knife throwing competition. Each knife is an assertion, and each thrower is the speaker. Instead of throwing a bunch of knives at the target and hoping some stick, it's better to have a few highly accurate throws. Even better is "catching" your opponent's knife and throwing it back at them. In my eyes that's a really good refutation that either turns their own point against them or that stops it from ever hitting the target

- Compare compare compare. Comparing points wins you debates --> More than that, Answer Questions. Most debates come down to your side answering a question, and their side answering that question with the complete opposite answer. Tell me why your answer is right while theirs is wrong. If that doesn't happen, I'm left having to just use common sense.

- Some impacts need to be explained more while others don't until the last speech. Saying the economy will collapse doesn't need to be impacted out to people losing their jobs and becoming poor until the last speech. On the other hand, climate change probably requires less of an explanation since talking about polar bears isn't really crucial.

- If the debate comes down to a piece of evidence I will probably look at it

- Don't read a definition unless it'll help your side

- Wrap up what you're saying when time goes off, I highly recommend you time yourself when giving your speech

Don't talk fast, drink water, enunciate, and be confident. I enjoy long walks, watching football on sundays and con limon corn nuts while I am judging as a light snack.

Add mmartono@bu.edu to the email chain, please.

+0.5 speaks for 30 seconds of every speech in singing form.

Can we please weigh? Thanks.

I have no tolerance for people being mean and rude.

I am a Junior in highschool

I did middle school debate all 3 years and am now doing high school Public Forum debate.

I am ok will all POIs and heckles as long as they aren't repetitive or so constant that they disrupt the speaker

POIs are generally encouraged, not giving any POIs or heckles throughout the debate will be perceived as a lack of engagement in the debate.

I will be timing your speeches but I am ok with you timing yourself.

Signposting during and before speeches is good for organization of the speech but is not necessary if you are clear on what you are responding to and talking about in your speech.

But how does this affect Lebron's Legacy?

I will score the speakers on the completeness and quality of their arguments.

1. Assertion

2. Reasoning

3. Evidence

4. Impact

The topic winner should properly weigh the debate in its favour with stronger evidence and comparative analysis.

don't need to call me judge, just call me maxwell/max, he/they, head-royce school '25

hrs ms debate '19-'21, hrs hs policy debate -current, hrs ms coaching -current (also dabbled in hs parli)

t/l for any type of debate: any -ism or -phobia will get u very low speaks and probably an L, weigh and clash, have fun

tech > truth but I'll probably use truth (common sense) to break the tie

for middle school debate:

I will vote for the team that I think should win solely by evaluating the content presented to me in the 6 speeches. to increase your chances, do impact calc and weigh in the last speech. use your weighing mech. if you do not do this, you most likely will not like my decision. arguments that I will vote on have a claim, reasoning/warrant, evidence, and impact.

Probably have decent topic(s) knowledge from coaching but don't use this as an excuse to under-explain things

I’ll decide quickly and write shorter rfds now. please ask questions or postround me (don't be offensive/step over boundaries)

email - headroycewd at gmail dot com. only for questions and genuine inquiries, please

don't count down don't introduce yourself i don't care it takes decision time away

list of things I don't like: (aka lower speaks)

3rd speeches without weighing

2nd opp speeches with new assertions

pointless/abusive heckling

taking 10 years between speeches and giving unnecessarily long roadmaps

list of things I like: (aka higher speaks)

weighing and writing my ballot

line by line refuting

clash and good pois

signposting and good structure - don't jump between flows it's hard to follow, I don't like matching the args for you

being funny

extra

please don’t shake my hand unless you have an undying desire to do so thanks

time yourself, do an offtime roadmap, be hydrated and prepared.

if you get this person tell him im a better judge

I flow straight down on my computer; please ask pre-round questions.

speaker points scale

I try to keep my speaks normally distributed; u = 76.5 sd = 2.5

80 - perfect. best ms debate speech I've seen. I will be sparing with this.

79-79.5 – great speaker - both content and delivery wise. you are likely a top 10 speaker at this tournament.

76.5-78.5 – above average speaker - moments of brilliance throughout speech, engaged with opponents' arguments, and had clear delivery, but did not grasp strategic moments to win debates.

74.5-76 – average speaker - you are filling time, making some smart arguments, but not fully engaged in rebuttals of opponents' arguments.

73-74 – below average speaker - structural speech mistakes, or not clashing with opponents' points.

71-73 – unclear speaking-wise, did not fill sufficient time, or did not make compelling arguments.

>71 - you did/said something offensive, or you didn't make any arguments.

Hey! I'm TT and I'm a second debater at Quarry Lane (1st speaker for Quarry Lane LY)

add me to the email chain @tiantianyang07@gmail.com - please share your speech docs!!

PF:

cards > paraphrasing

tech > truth

extend! fully and clearly extend arguments & responses

don't go too much overtime during speeches and prep

stay respectful and inclusive during round

LD:

*reminder that I'm a PFer!

framework and impact calc matter

no frivolous theory

no K's, no fill

LARP and policy is fine

no phil

Hello Debaters!

I have been debating since MS and have continued into HS,

I enjoy it when a speech is clear and well organized. Clearly stating which argument you are extending or rebutting keeps the debate easy to flow. I think it is important to have a balance of evidence and impact in your assertions. Speaking clearly and at a good pace is important to make sure everything you say is being received by the judge. I hope your debate experience can be competitive and educational while also being fun! :)