For evidence exchange, questions, etc., use: ishan.debate@gmail.com.

Add (for email chains): strakejesuitpf@mail.strakejesuit.org

I competed in PF at Strake Jesuit from 2019-2023 and now coach. Most results are viewable here.

I view debate as a communicative, research-centric game. Winning requires you to persuade me. The following should give you enough information to do so:

General

I dislike dogma and judge debates more from a "tech" perspective than "truth", although the two often go hand-in-hand.

Quality evidence matters. Arguments require a warrant. Impacts are not assumed. Sounds analytics can be convincing, but usually not blips.

I will not vote for arguments I cannot make sense of.

Speak clearly. Slow down on taglines and for emphasis. I flow by ear.

Cross-ex is binding otherwise it's useless. Bring up relevant concessions in a speech.

By default, I presume for the side that defends the status quo.

Evidence practices

Send speech docs before you speak. This should include all the cards you plan on introducing. Marking afterwards does not require prep.

Stop the round and conducting an evidence challenge if you believe someone is violating the rules.

Avoid paraphrasing.

PF

Defense is not sticky.

Second rebuttal should frontline.

Extensions are relevant not for the purpose of ticking a box but for clarity and breaking clash.

Cards should have descriptive taglines.

I like to reward creativity.

My threshold for non-utilitarian framing is higher than most.

1FF weighing is fine, but earlier is better.

I dislike the pre-fiat and IVI trend.

Theory

These debates may have more intervention than you'd like.

I dislike heavily semantical and frivolous theory debates.I believe that paraphrasing is bad and disclosure (OS in particular) is good. That said, I am not a hack.

Defaults are no RVIs (a turn is not an RVI), reasonability > CI, spirit > text, DTA, and respond in next speech.

Ks

Be familiar with your stuff and err on the side of over explanation.

Very hesitant to vote on discourse-based arguments or links not specific to your opponents actions and/or reps in the debate.

Any response strategy is fine. Good for Fwk and T.

Non-starters

Ad-homs/call-outs/any unverifiable mud-slinging.

Tricks.

Misc

Avoid dawdling. Questions, pre-flowing, etc. should all happen before start time.

Post-rounding is educational and holds judges accountable. Just don't make it personal.

Have fun but treat the activity and your opponents seriously and with respect.

Debate PF at Strake 2021-2025 - please add me to the doc: guodaniel3@gmail.com

For MSTOC LD:

Do what you do best - go as fast as you want and be respectful, kind, and fun!

Policy - 1

K - 2

Theory/T - 2/3

Phil - 5

Tricks - 5

I debate PF so err on the side of over-explanation. Be very clear on what voting for you does and what the links are, especially if fully non-T. Not good for high phil/extremely uncommon K. Please don't overadapt to me if it's a panel - just do what you do best!

PF:

Tech> Truth, go as fast as you want and read whatever you want.

Cleanest link into best weighed offense, but arguments must have coherent extensions - uniqueness, link, impact.

Impact Calc and Backhalf Thoughts: (Stolen from Ishan's Paradigm)

I assess probability largely based on if you are winning your argument. However, arguments don't necessarily start at 100%. You establish probability through evidence and explanation. Probability matters, especially when magnitudes are similar (e.g., extinction). If probability weighing becomes new defense, call it out.

Extensions are yes/no. Extend, definitely, but I would much rather time be spent on actual debating. A few sentences or a run-on containing a claim, warrant, and impact is sufficient to be considered "extended." However, arguments are usually harder to win on the flow with a shallow extension. If something is conceded, my threshold drops significantly. Nit-picky details become relevant if there is clash (e.g., if there is impact defense then extending a specific internal link is important). However, tactfully detailed extensions of the uniqueness, link, or impact that leverage the nuances of evidence and/or arguments more broadly can be very strategic and sometimes necessary for frontlines, weighing, and breaking clash. Basically,there should be a purpose to what you say: if it's not advancing the debating or clarifying something, it's not affecting the outcome of the round.

Link turns without uniqueness are defense. Uniqueness responses can zero a turn's offense, but remember that the "turn" then becomes defense. Even then, generally speaking,link > uniqueness.

By default,I presume neg/con.

Not good for PF K's w/o alts, poor evidence ethics, or any sort of -isms

I will vote on areas of resolved clash rather than resolving clash myself, unless I have to. I am not concerned with speaking. So long as you are clear, I will give speaks based on strategy. I have some experience with progressive debate. I am comfortable with theory, having run it a decent number of times. Friv theory is fine, but if read against novices or teams that clearly don't know how to respond to theory I may drop speaks but will still evaluate it. I'm more uncertain on Ks. Read them if you want and I'll try to evaluate it, but I can't guarantee I will do so correctly.

Collapsing is good. You should not go for multiple contentions unless they are easy to frontline and quick to extend.

Rebuttals can be blippy if you implicate well in the back half. Tech over truth for all responses.

Good weighing gives you a massive advantage if you have any access to your case. Please do link weighing--it is the easiest path to the ballot. If weighing is very blippy on both sides with little comparison, I will go truth over tech to break clash if there is no other way to evaluate the round.

Speaking faster than 250 wpm is a risk if I don't have a speech doc. If you go above 300, please give clear extensions in the back half.

Email chains are good. If you are using them or speech docs, add me to them. LAHolmes25@mail.strakejesuit.org

I will only look at evidence if a team tells me to, or if there is heavy unresolved debate over it at the end of the round.

Read tricks if you want but implicate clearly in the back half. If both teams read tricks, I'll give both teams 30s. If only one team reads tricks, the team that read tricks loses speaks. I have a low threshold for responses if only one team reads tricks.

Joshua Martinez (they/them).

Debated for Strake Jesuit for 4 years.

For email chains/questions - JEMartinez.docu@gmail.com

General

don't care what you wear or how you present in round.

speaks start out at 29.5 and move up and down by 0.1 as a scale; however, if you have an ego, I will drastically drop your speaks, passion is nice, being obnoxious isnt.

racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia have no place in debate. you get an L + 20. don’t misgender your opponents if they have pronouns disclosed

ask me questions after round, pick my brain, I encourage it. If you leave round frustrated, ask me about it. Respect me as a person who makes mistakes but stand by your convictions.

Debate is a competition but not a game, this means that how we think about the debate space matters and the knowledge produced from it is important and should be evaluated. epistemological arguments carry a lot of weight with me and I’d like to vote on them, whether they be framework/post or pre-fiat because how we think has material consequences for people. Thus–

The bastardization of evidence is antithetical to actually learning something from the debate space.

I have very little patience for bad debate evidence: if a card is obviously miscut, your opponents are lying about evidence or intentionally misconstrued it. Feel free to stake the round on an evidence challenge, I will vote for them. If you think your evidence isnt cut properly, fix it before round or dont read it.

read content warnings, if you aren’t sure if something requires a content warning, read one anyways.

Background.

I did debate all four years in high school for Strake Jesuit in Public Forum. I did okay, qualified to TOC, qualified to TFA state 3 years, and got to quarters one time.

I have an academic interest in critical theory both inside and outside of college. I loved doing K debate my senior year, and read queer/anti-capitalist/asian k ground with my partner. I am most familiar with Butler, Marx/Engels, Said and basic phil stuff alonside a limited engagement with critical race theory/anti-colonial/imperialist lit that ive picked up here and there.

My exposure to critical args was from reading first, debate second, meaning that I would appreciate more work from debaters in translating everything into the debate space, if you show an actual interest and seem knowledgeable in the lit bases you draw from, I will want to vote for you.

Substance/LARP/Topical Debate (PF/LD)

Tech over Truth.

Good substance rounds are amazing to watch.

Decent Flow Judge, not the best with speed tbh, if you think its going to be a problem then send me a doc, I would really appreciate it, but I don't really think they solve, err on the side of caution. Faster than 250wpms is fine if you slow down for important stuff.

Evidence without implication to the round/specific arguments is meaningless. Slowing down for implications and analytics is very nice.

If you care about the ballot, then please signpost, be safe than sorry. If I get lost, it will take my ~10 seconds to get back on track and I will not be flowing.

I appreciate good strategy sooooo much. I’ll outline what I consider good strategy.

1. Comparative Weighing is an absolute must for me, it should be smartly contextualized in round. Link level, impact level, meta-weighing, policy maker stuff, uniqueness weighing, actor analysis, SOMETHING.

2. Evidence comparisons are a godsend and will break clash for me on the flow. If you have good evidence, lord it over your opponents, it makes the round so much easier to vote on.

3. Easily differentiated warrants and implications for responding to your opponents, using evidence from constructive to frontline, nuanced case offense, and smart extensions that do more than just extend.

4. Overviews are nice, they just get spammed a lot in Public Forum.

I prefer arguments that have a good amount of work on them. My willingness to believe defense is predicated on the strength of the original response, if a 5-second blippy turn is met with a similar 5-second frontline, I buy the frontline. If that very same turn is to be massively blown up in the back-half, I am less likely to buy the defense/turn over the original and well-warranted case offense.

For this reason, concessions aren’t sacred. If a team can cross-ap defense from something very similar to beat-back a “conceded turn” then I am willing to consider it frontlined.

I appreciate voting on strategy and being smart, not doc botting 30 responses from the 600-page exclusive block file compiled from circuit connections.

Ishan Dubey was on my team, his rounds were enjoyable to watch, not just because he was a good tech debater, but because he was strategic, he grouped responses, weighed to beat back timeskews, he framed ballots for the judges. Be like Ishan, I like Ishan.

Additional Information.

• Hidden links are stupid, hiding blips that concede arguments honestly seems ableist.

• Defence is sticky in PF, but not in LD due to speech time differences.

• I don’t know the topic as well as you do, abbreviations for long terms should be explained at least once.

• PLEASE have speech docs prepared and evidence ready, I will doc speaks for holding up the round, not for wifi issues. I hate not being on time. Pre-flow preferably outside of round if you can.

Theory, Kritiks, and Framework Debate

“Progressive” for all the PF people

Tricks arent in the title for a reason, don’t read them

CUT GOOD EVIDENCE FOR THEORY, K’s, AND FRAMEWORK. There is an infinite amount of material to comb through, it exists, and I know it does.

Evidence ethics is incredibly important. Please actually read your evidence, if you point out incredibly lazy K evidence, it will be a place for me to sign my ballot.

Personal Bias

• Queer Pess arguments are extremely poorly understood in the debate space, I have lots of personal gripes against Edelmen. Run at your own risk, ill try to make it not inform my ballot.

• death-good is something I really don’t want to vote for.

Theory

My threshold for responses against theory is directly proportional to how friv I think it is.

Don't attempt to skew your opponents out of the round by reading 5 god awful interps, if you actually care about norms then there should be sufficient time to actually debate them. If this happens, make it a response and I will vote on it.

• I default competing intercepts.

• Will default to no RVI’s unless contested.

• K v. Theory, I default to the K if the theory of power is conceded, either a. Contest the theory of power or b. Weigh the shell against the rotb/ToP and interact in the speech its introduced.

• In Theory v. Theory, please metaweigh, I have a low threshold for voters, I don’t believe not disclosing will collapse the activity. Compare the actual impacts to break clash.

• I wont autodown theory except for:

• I won’t vote on disclosure against identity args

• Content warnings bad

• Any form of counter interp against misgendering/deadnaming

PF: Structure your shells like a normal pf shell: interp, violation, standard, voters, underview

LD: My evalutation of a “god awful interp” is much higher in LD because I am less familiar with the material. I am aware that theory covers more ground than in PF and won’t autodown anything, be sure to implicate and slow down on frontlines/backhalf of the round more than you normally would so I can follow along. Err on the side of caution.

Kritiks

Tldr: overexplain.

I really really want to vote on a K, but I am not a K hack. Please actually know your authors, your advocacy, and what your evidence says. If I think you just stole your k off the wiki with no clue what is says, I will down you. In cross, if you are struggling to answer softball questions like “whats your alt” or “whats capitalism”, I really don’t want to vote for you and have a much much lower threshold for responses.

If you decide to read progressive stuff and your opponents obviously have no clue what to do, DO NOT be abusive. Depending on the severity, will either drop your speaks or down you.

If you don’t know what a K is and your opponents are reading it against you: read their evidence, have them explain their evidence, ask them basic questions, and turn it into a response. I will vote on it if they can’t answer.

Nuanced links for any K is highly recommended. I’ll vote on generic K links but my threshold for responses is lower against them.

K ground questioning knowledge production/epistemology is something i have a real soft spot for if done well. Explain why current IR/militarism/policy-making is flawed with good warrants and your fine.

Please flesh out the Alt and overexplain the material, winning on the flow matter less if I am just completely clueless on what the K actually does. Implicate out to your opponent's case and take the time to explain why it turns case, limits offence, impact filter, etc.

Extend the Alt in every speech and flesh out how and why you have offense in the round. If your getting offense from something else, make that clear and tell me to disregard the alt.

Performative offense is great, ill vote on conceded performative offense if properly explained

I am a big fan of KvK debate.

K ground I know nothing about, if you decide to read, treat me like child

High Phil. Affo Pess/Futurism. Kant. Border K’s. Psychoanalysis.

PF:

Most PF k’s are god awful, read T if your opponents have a really bad K and I will probably vote for you.

You need an alt. Discourse isn’t an alt. The alt is probably the most important part of the K and it needs to be decent for me to vote for you.

Your cards should be long, with actual warranting in your evidence any card with 20 words highlighted is not K evidence.

If you are going to read fem, please please please cut very good fem evidence or just make it framework. Most of the fem k’s on the circuit I have massive problems with for simplifying critical literature and turning them into “vote fem team to center women”.

Read a queer counter k for me and I will have a very very strong preference to vote for you. I love love judith butler, I’ve annotated my copy of Gender Trouble, queer theory is my lifeblood, if you have no clue what any of that is, probably read substance instead.

LD:

Err on the side of caution when you're figuring out what I can evaluate. If you can, read the more basic version of something if you have it.

I like topical k affs. Nontopical k’s I have a harder time understanding.

Pick 2 pieces of offense at most to collapse on.

Go the extra step in extensions/frontlining.

FW [wip]

PF: use good evidence, implicate why your opponent's links/impacts are problematic under your fw.

LD: overexplain, please. I have very little exposure to LD fw.

Boston university 27

been a debater at strake for 3 years I was both a first and second speaker I have 3 gold bids so I'd like to think I'm decent at debate

email for if there's an email chain.

woturley23@mail.strakejesuit.org

I'm going to be more of a tech judge

defense isn't sticky extend it if you want it to be considered

you must extend all parts of your case/contention in summary and final

need to frontline in 2nd rebbutal

pls collapse the round will get too bogged down if you don't

pls pls pls pls pls pls pls pls do comparative weighing it controls what I look to first and is most likely your best shot to the ballot

turns don't matter if you don't implicate them or give them a impact

if y'all both agree to have a lay round I'll judge that way

you'll either get 30 speaks or 25 only way you get 25 if you're some form of ism ex racism or if you're rude to your opponents it'll get docked

I don't evaluate cross unless its brought up in speech

you can curse if you want

Tech>truth and debate is a game. Defense isn’t sticky (if they collapse in 2nd rebuttal, in summary, have to read one response for every dropped piece of offense) New weighing is ok in first final focus. For the Bilo Bowl only: Rather than defaulting 1st, if there’s no complete extensions, the team with the most complete extension wins.

Strake ‘23 | The London School of Economics ‘26

Tech > Truth

Speed is fine. If you spread, send me a speech doc.

If it is not extended I will not vote off of it.

New implications in 2nd summary / FF are pretty sketch and I am probably not willing to vote off of them.

Please weigh and signpost well. Probability, strength of link, clarity of link are not real weighing mechs. Probability weighing is literally just how conceded your arg is. UQ weighing > Link weighing > Impact weighing. No new weighing after 1st summary. Second rebuttal should collapse/weigh (also just a good general thing to do).

Try to resolve clash by doing warrant comparison. Weighing pieces of evidence against each other can be really strategic and make messy case debates look very clear.

Impact turns are underutilized in PF but are highly effective.

Evidence is overrated. Good analytics beat bad evidence. I will not intervene on bad evidence unless one team calls it out and explains why it is a voting issue.

You can call a TKO if you believe your opponents don't have any path to the ballot. The round stops and if you're right you get a W30 and if you're wrong you get a L20.

Progressive:

I think progressive args are good for pf.

Framing: Framework should be read in constructive. Second constructive MUST answer framework otherwise its conceded. When responding to framework, an alternative framing must be provided or I'll just default to whichever team introduced framing when evaluating impacts. I kinda understand some phil but its probably not a good idea to read it in front of me if you don’t explain and implicate it well.

Theory: I default to competing interps and no RVIs. Reasons to grant RVIs or default to reasonability can be persuasive if done correctly. I generally think disclosure of any identity based arguments is dumb and frankly pretty problematic. Please weigh theory over K or vice versa. If not, I generally (emphasis on generally) think k comes before theory.

Kritiks: I like k debate. Lit bases I’m more familiar with are Orientalism, Security, Imperialism, Set Col, Fem, Queer Theory, Cap, Afropes, and Critical Asian Lit, and a bit of Baudrillard and bioptx. I can probably judge other stuff but just slow down a bit. For context, I read a lot of Asian stuff and queer theory. Ks need a real alt and contextualized links.

Personally, I don't really think topicality is a good response to a kritk if given by itself. Reading topicality against a k Neg is pretty dumb in pf because the Neg does not need to be topical only refuse the aff. Also, when responding to a k, please for the love of all things holy, respond to the ROTB or provide your own.

"I am a freshman" or "I have never debated theory" etc. is not a response to progressive arguments.

Tricks: Trix are for kids

K's and Theory MUST be extended in rebuttal.