Arushi, she/her, MSJ '24, arushisinghdinker@gmail.com  for email chain

LD for 2 years, 1 year lay and 1 year circuit, I'm familiar enough with PF and MSPDP to judge rds

policy >>> T/theory > phil > K >>> niche phil/Ks you don't explain until the 2nr/2ar or fall apart in cx >> tricks

good debating trumps prefs (minus tricks)

 

Novice/MSPDP

do whatever makes you comfortable :D

argument = claim + warrant + impact

backfile dump can easily be beat by smart analytics & empirics

comparative weighing & embedded clash best

 

Policy

love clash over prepared points of engagement! I'm fine for most things here

a bit harder to convince me that consult cps are mutually exclusive with the aff

if you're going for a perm explain it please. even a short line in the 1ar of what the perm would look like or why it's preferrable/solves is better than "perm do both and perm do cp"

tech > truth obviously but truth k2 ethos and I truth lean (gasp!) more if I'm evaluating novice

weigh!!! even in extinction v extinction, why is your impact more likely? why does your extinction scenario mean more pain? what does even a risk of your impact mean vs your defense on their impact?

comparative impact calc is crucial, why is your weighing standard better?

links that turn the case are my FAVORITE, if you're doing impact turns case then have a blip about why you o/w on timeframe or come first

impact turns like dedev are cool, I'm a bit less inclined to vote for spark but I might with good evi & debating, the farther you stray from truth on impact turns (disease good) the less I buy

I might buy no vtl but good yes vtl debating will usually trump, critiques of extinction/link scenario are much better than saying it's ok if 7 bil people die because cap dehumanizes workers in squo

default: judge kick, squo > risk of aff harm

 

Topicality

if you run nebel T and can't explain how the resolution functions through the upward entailment/adverb test during cx ... uh

evi for normal means please

explain why your definitions are semantically or norm-wise superior, don't just spam 5 Wikipedia entries

if you're going for limits please have a caselist, don't just say they explode limits, say allowing this aff means you allow x & y affs which means i have to research x & y which is bad because z

explain functional limits check don't just throw it around as a buzzword, why is allowing x & y affs good? or why would that not be possible without good lit

substance debates best on this

default: predictability best standard, norms > semantic trash

 

Theory

if i can't flow your friv/hidden theory shell i won't vote on it. if it isn't in the doc it should be clear enough and not 2 sec of "vote neg if they defend their plan" under your breath

looking at me/your opp in the eyes while saying theory shells/voter issues not in doc is +0.4 speaker

just saying x is a voter issue does not mean you can blow it up in the next speech, even if it's stupid there needs to be a warrant, consult cps aren't a voter just because you said so they're a voter because they explode limits

can't believe I have to say this but yes I will buy an RVI

i'm more receptive to condo bad than most circuit debaters

I will not vote on shoes or stuffed animal theory. only pre-round based shell I will evaluate is disclosure.

running disclosure on novices is kinda sad but as long as you're also winning on substance or something your speaks are safe

defaults: no RVI, reasonability, DTA

 

Phil

good phil debates are great

love sophia tian esque phil debating, asking questions or making arguments in layman/simple terms

ex: your moral theory is following evolution, so what is the moral significance of wisdom teeth?

being able to question the assumptions that moral theories rely on (nazis v kant) and also being able to properly respond to those questions results in very high speaks

i'll buy syllogisms that aren't carded only if they're general like kant, if you're reading virtue ethics please have some actual evi, don't just rely on tricks to win

theory in response to phil is.. interesting.. i'll vote on it if it makes sense

if you can explain your framework and it's developed off the bat I am happy to evaluate it

default: util?

 

Ks

it's unlikely I'll ever vote on a floating pik, but sweep for them anyway

identity debates will never not be awkward, I'll still evaluate args but I lean moral hazards

vote for me because I'm x marginalized identity or give me the ballot to rectify harm against x marginalized group are in the top 10 worst debate arguments

new 2nr explanations are evaluated as such, i strongly dislike arguments that make no sense in the 1nc and I even more dislike lacking explanations in cx. if you can't explain your thesis until you have a time advantage it probably isn't very good. aff should point this out.

will buy impact turns against these (cap/heg/liberalism good)

post facto ROBs make no sense and opp should point this out

i am bad for ROB is to reject the aff or vote aff/neg

 

K affs are an uphill battle, please be creative and not just impact turn all neg standards

limits/fairness > clash/edu for 2nr 

default: case gets to be weighed

 

Tricks

don't! :)

I am unlikely to vote for dropped "kick them because they're aff" args if I couldn't flow them

i will buy theory on tricks bad

I will never vote for "evaluate the debate after x speech." I evaluated the debate before the 1AC.

 

Ethics/Misc

clipping sucks and I always have the doc open so I wouldn't recommend trying it

if you're pressed for time cut the card after your warrant and press enters while reading so you can send the updated doc after your speech

as someone who sucks navigating word, sending your docs isn't prep as long as it's obvious you're just looking through your files and not typing anyls

yes you can write down your order while saying it aloud, that's not prep

asking your opponent about what they did/didn't read if they don't send a marked doc is not prep! what?? but obviously clarifying what they went for/they read outside the doc is

extra cx time is NEVER prep. flex prep is asking your opp questions during your prep

slowing down on anyls/anything not in doc +0.2 speaker and increases the chance of me actually flowing it

in gen please slow down on warrants/important arguments, why you would spread by your strongest points is beyond me, if they are likely to win you the debate make sure I flow them

weigh!!!

arguments need warrants. if I can't comfortably explain why I voted for an argument/position in my RFD I'm unlikely to consider it

yes they dropped x, but what does that mean? explain the warrant

unless you're doing embedded clash, keep overviews short

embedded clash & being organized >>> 

"they said condo bad. that's untrue because condo is good..." <

numbering arguments is ok and sometimes preferable but I'm totally ok with just top down

as someone who had to debate toc qualifiers as a novice i am not as "omg how dare they spread 4 offs against a novice!" as some circuit debaters, expect to be treated like the division you are debating in. but, running disclosure theory against someone whose school isn't even on the wiki or being super rude to a novice who doesn't know buzzwords kills ethos (also i hate buzzwords)

 

racism/sexism/homophobia etc is so cringe and 100% will not get you the ballot!

(they said util which implies future generations which is homophobic because gay people can't have babies is not an independent reason for me to drop you but yelling "gay people suck" during cross is)

microaggressions/condescending tones/being rude might not be an auto loss but they will definitely kill your ethos and make it that much harder for me to give you the ballot no matter how much u outtech

putting the name of any twice b-side as the header of one of ur offs is +0.3 speaks

if you debate the entire round without technology, you'll receive auto 30s

for everything else, please refer to rahil pasha's paradigm

Shrey, he/him, MSJ '24, 3x TOC qual, 7 career bids, shrey[dot]raju[at]gmail.com for email chain

I consider myself a flex debater, but I primarily dabble in phil/theory and debate the least in Ks and tricks.

I don't care what arguments you read, just do them well. As long as I can flow your arguments and coherently explain them back to you in my rfd, I'll vote on it.

I'll give extra speaks for in-round humor, but tank speaks if it ends up being mean or toxic. I'll also slow or clear you as much as needed, but the more I have to do it, the worse your speaks will be.

Good luck!

Mission San Jose '24

Hi! I'm Saranya, I'm a junior at MSJ, 2x TOC qual and 5 career bids.

I prefer file share. Email: saranyasingh926@gmail.com

Follow my bird on Instagram! @donthecockatiel

Novice:Making smart arguments > speaking nicely. Weigh! Have fun and don't be afraid to ask questions!

Tech > Truth, I don't care what you read

Conceded arguments are true arguments but you can make reasons as to why you should get new responses. I like independent voters don't go crazy though.

Quick Prefs (order of comfort):

Policy - 1

Stock Ks (set col, cap, afropess) - 1.5

Phil - 2

Theory/T - 2

High theory/more complicated Ks - 3

Trix - 4

Default to competing interps, drop the debater, no RVIs.

Policy: One of my favorite types of debate and the one I probably did the most often. I enjoy tricky CPs, a good util debate, a strong politics DA, etc. Generally lean neg on CP theory

Stock Ks: I mostly read set col but I'm familiar with other stock Ks. If you read the security K without case defense I will commence screaming, crying, throwing up

Phil: I like to think I have some experience with phil and I think I would enjoy judging these debates. I have the most experience with Kant and virtue ethics (Shrey Raju credits). I'll vote on things I don't understand because I don't understand much unless your opponent calls you out for having an incoherent framework.

Theory/T: I don't have an issue with going for frivolous shells but I ranked it lower because I think I'm not great at evaluating these debates. I often find the standards level unresolvable so weighing and paradigm issues will get you ahead. I love Nebel T, caselists win championships (get it bc it's like defense wins championships but like debate)

High theory: I don't care if I don't understand the conceded alt, I'll vote on it anyway because as I said above I don't understand much.

Speaks: Speaks based on strategy. If you make me laugh, I'll laugh but it won't be reflected in the speaks because I'm not funny and I'm salty about it.

If you're mean I'll be sad :( and sometimes sad people accidentally give 20 speaks oops

Hi!

+1.0 speaker points for every clever Taylor Swift reference (if I like it...) if someone gives an entire speech in song form, auto 30s for your team.

beyond that, please refer to this paradigm by Vedesh Kodnani (whom I greatly admire)