omar - he/him -
Niles West (nw '24)

don't need the chain but i'd prefer it if i need to look at ev after the round

omaans1@nilesk12.org

NWDebateDocs23@gmail.com

top level:

don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.

Free Palestine

do what you're good at instead of trying to adapt to what you think I'd like - keep in mind i love debate so i will try my best to adjudicate whatever you present regardless of form or content

you are responsible for what you say in-round

be clear, keep track of your own speech and prep time, yadda yadda

don't be boring :)

_______________________________________

extra:

judge intervention is bad - i will try to evaluate the arguments the debaters have made thru their framing as per the flow, and if non-existent i probably default to an offense-defense paradigm

if i look like i can't hear you, i can't hear you. speak up!

primarily a "K debater" - BUT i've read policy aff, K affs, gone 1 off, gone 6 off, etc., etc..tldr i've gone for the K and also done policy land means you do not need to "adapt" but this does not mean you don't need to do judge instruction and LBL (or at least cleaning up the flow) Lol

also primarily was a 1a/2n but i double 2'd a decent chunk my Senior year if that helps with anything(?)

look to alden conner and devane murphy's tab's for paradigmatic influence

“Time urself, don't ask me for 63.124186 seconds of prep just say 'start prep' and then say 'stop prep' when ur done. im not that responsible dawg, i will forget and you will use 75.1928 seconds and be mad at me and no one wants that“ - Will Sterbenc

if you're a novice don't sweat a thing, this year is meant for learning!! always feel free to ask any questions after the round and i'll answer to the best of my ability

College Prep (2015-2019), Wake Forest (2019-2023)

Coach at George Mason & Harker

anadebate07 at gmail

I make decisions based on complete arguments, which require claims, warrants, and impacts/implications.

My favorite debates to judge are the ones in which teams do what they do best. I appreciate in-depth preparation and high-quality clash more than anything.

I prefer to judge debates in which the Affirmative is about the topic, and the Negative disagrees with the Affirmative's proposed change from the status quo.

I prefer not to judge a debate about an issue that would best be resolved outside the constraints of a competitive debate.

I auto judge-kick.

Theory debates aren't fun to judge, but I understand the strategic utility on both sides. 1 reason condo is good & impact calc >> spending a certain amount of time

If util and/or consequentialism are bad, you have to say how I should evaluate impacts otherwise. I won't fill in the blanks for either side.

Don't need to read a plan for me to vote AFF.

Fairness is an impact, but you gotta do impact calc & can't skip out on warrants. I struggle to see how clash is an external impact but am open to hearing otherwise.

Will vote on presumption

T debates aren't my favorite to judge but Limits ---X--------------- AFF Ground

Gotta take prep for flow checks

Will let you know if I need a card doc - probably won't.

You must read the re-highlighting aloud if the other team did not read those same words in the card.

I try to flow every word said in speeches & cross-ex unless instructed otherwise.

Speaker Points? I try to default to this table's scale

[Speaker point scale link broke:

30 = nearly impossible to get/seniors at last tournament

29.9-29.7 = fabulous & expect to be in deep elims

29.6-29.4 = excellent & elim worthy performance

29.3-29.1 = good & expect to break

29-28.7 = median

28.6-28.4 = room for improvement

28.3-28 = some hiccups & things to work on

27.9-27.6 = room to improve and there is some debate stuff to learn

27.5 -27 = there is a lot of room to grow

26.9 and below = something went pretty wrong]

Not great for LD nonsense unless you want to explain things to me with an emphasis on impact calc & judge instruction. I'm not a great judge for Phil because I just don't understand the implications of a lot of arguments so you have to fill in the blanks for me. Especially re explaining how to evaluate arguments without being a consequentialist. In LD, I do not believe the 1NC has the burden to rejoin frivolous, ridiculous theory arguments placed in the 1AC to avoid clash over the content of the 1AC.

I think disclosure is, in nearly every case, good. I have zero tolerance for misdisclosure, lying, and shady practices designed to evade clashing with your opponent. If your approach to competing is to debate without integrity, you should strike me.

I will never vote for an argument I could never justify ethically explaining back to you.

RVI's & tricks are nonstarters.

ajbyrne1018(at)gmail.com

New Trier ‘16

Northwestern '19

Hierarchy of how I want you to refer to me: "AJ">>>> "Mr. Byrne" >>>>>>>>>>"My Dude" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Judge"

Background: I debated at New Trier for four years (2x TOC qualifier) and then at Northwestern for three years. I coached for New Trier from 2016-2019. Back coaching for New Trier for fiscal redistribution topic. In the “real world” I am a pursuing my MEd in School Counseling from Loyola University Chicago.

I have judged 80+ debates on the Fiscal Redistribution Topic

Judging is one of my favorite things to do. 99 out of 100 times I would rather be judging than have a round off.

I value debaters that show enthusiasm, passion, and respect for the game. I am eager to reward preparation, good research, and debaters WHO DO NOT FLOW OFF THE SPEECH DOC. I have nothing but contempt for debaters who disrespect the game, their opponents, or (most importantly) their partners.

Debate is a communication activity. I am not flowing off the speech doc and will not reward a lack of clarity or debaters who think it is a good idea to go 100% speed through their analytic blocks. I will be very lenient for teams that are on the opposing end of such practices.

Planless is fine but you absolutely need to defend that choice. I think that my voting record is slightly neg leaning but that is because I do not think aff teams go for enough offense or they struggle to explain what debate looks like under their interpretation.

I am not voting for any argument regarding your interp being “good for small schools”

Default is no judge kick – I need specific 2NR instruction for me to do that for you. “Sufficiency framing” is not the same as judge kick.

Process CPs are fine (except Conditions I mean c’mon). Probably neg on most theory questions but also not going to let the neg get away with murder just because they are neg. The less generic and more germane to the topic the CP is, the better the neg is. If you are thinking about reading commissions or an advantage CP, I think you should probably read the advantage CP.

Zero risk of the DA is real, zero risking a DA without needing to read evidence is possible.

Plan Popular is not an argument that link turns an agenda DA.

Kritiks are rad. Kritiks that rely entirely on winning through framework tricks are miserable. If I am not skeptical of the aff's ability to solve their internal links or the alt's ability to solve them then I am unlikely to vote negative.

Other things:

Tag-team CX is fine but also sometimes very frustrating to evaluate. If I think someone is not adequately participating in CX, their points will suffer greatly.

Only Mavs and Neg teams debating new affs get to use CX as prep time. If a team wants to use CX as prep time under any other circumstances, the opposing team will be able to read additional evidence during this time.

CX begins at the first question asked, even if that question is something like “What card did you stop at?” (The only exception is “are you ready for cx?”)

Debates need to start on time, please!

More Debate Thoughts

These aren’t intended to be relevant to your pre-round prep. Just some opinions after spending 4 years away from the activity and then judging over 70 fiscal redistribution debates.

1. Please stop starting your speech at 100% speed. It guarantees that I am going to be unable to flow you for the first 10-15 seconds.
2. To go off that, why is it considered common practice to have T as the first off in the 1NC? That basically guarantees that I won’t be able to flow an entire offcase position and that doesn’t seem good.
3. Debaters that try to go fast as possible tend to end up being very slow. Your debate speaking voice should be your regular speaking voice, but faster.
4. I usually flow on paper, so I take a second to flip between flows. This usually means in every 2AC I miss roughly six perms on the CP because it has become common practice to just dump all the perms at the top of the block instead of the MUCH BETTER practice of spreading them throughout your block.
5. Seriously, please slow down.
6. I don’t care if you highlight in purple. Standard highlighting and consistent formatting are a BARE MINIMUM for a speech doc. Otherwise I will assume that you did not prep well for the tournament.
7. If it can be demonstrated from your wiki that you suck at disclosing I will spend a significant amount of my decision making fun of you. People who suck at disclosure are bad and should feel bad.
8. From the 2AC onwards, if you are speaking from a computer and not even referencing your flow, you are not debating the right way.
9. If the 1AC isn’t ready to start at start time, a puppy dies.
10. Anybody who uses the term “Speaks” to describe speaker points should have more respect for themselves.
11. Thinking about making it my policy that if I think you are stealing prep, I just give you a 26 without telling you.
12. Why does nobody read add-ons anymore?
13. I am pretty sick of <2 minutes of the block being spent on the case pages.
14. Tournament days are less grueling than they used to be but that has been in spite of debaters best efforts to be as slow as possible. Filling up the debate with dead time means less decision time which is only bad for you. As a wise man once said: “Keep ‘er movin”

Background:

• I debated for Niles West in high school and West Georgia in college.
• BA in Philosophy.
• Currently coaching at Niles West.

Email:

• gershom000@gmail.com

Top level things:

• If you engage in offensive acts (think racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.), you will lose automatically and will be awarded whatever the minimum speaker points offered at that particular tournament is.
• If you make it so that the tags in your document maps are not navigable by taking the "tag" format off of them, I will actively dock your speaker points.
• Quality of argument means a lot to me. I am willing to hold my nose and vote for bad arguments if they're better debated but my threshold for answering those bad arguments is pretty low.
• I’m extremely hesitant to vote on arguments about things that have happened outside of a debate or in previous debates. I can only be sure of what has happened in this particular debate and anything else is non-falsifiable.
• Absolutely no ties and the first team that asks for one will lose my ballot.
• Soliciting any outside assistance during a round will lose my ballot.

Pet peeves:

• Lack of clarity. Clarity > speed 100% of the time.
• The 1AC not being sent out by the time the debate is supposed to start.
• Email-sending related failures.
• Dead time.
• Stealing prep.
• Answering arguments in an order other than the one presented by the other team.
• Asserting things are dropped when they aren't.
• Asking the other team to send you a marked doc when they marked 1-3 cards.
• Marking almost every card in the doc.
• Disappearing after the round.
• Quoting my paradigm in your speeches.
• Sending PDFs instead of Word Docs.

Ethics:

• If you are caught clipping you will receive a loss and the lowest possible points.
• If you make an ethics challenge in a debate in front of me, you must stake the debate on it. If you make that challenge and are incorrect or cannot prove your claim, you will lose and be granted the lowest possible points. If you are proven to have committed an ethics violation, you will lose and be granted the lowest possible points.
• If you use sexually explicit language or engage in sexually explicit performances in high school debates, you should strike me.

Cross-x:

• Yes, I’m fine with tag-team cx. But dominating your partner’s cx will result in lower points for both of you.
• Questions like "what cards did you read?" are cross-x questions, and I will run the timer accordingly.
• If you fail to ask the status of the off, I will be less inclined to vote for condo.
• If the 1NC responds that "every DA is a NB to every CP" when asked about net benefits in the 1NC even if it makes no sense, I think the 1AR gets a lot of leeway to explain a 2AC "links to the net benefit argument" on any CP as it relates to the DAs.

Inserting evidence or rehighlightings into the debate:

• I won't evaluate it unless you actually read the parts that you are inserting into the debate. If it's like a chart or a map or something like that, that's fine, I don't expect you to literally read that, but if you're rehighlighting some of the other team's evidence, you need to actually read the rehighlighting.

Affirmatives:

• I’m fine with plan or planless affirmatives. However, I believe all affirmatives should advocate for/defend something. What that something entails is up for debate, but I’m hesitant to vote for affirmatives that defend absolutely nothing.

Topicality:

• I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise.
• The most important thing for me in T debates is an in-depth explanation of the types of affs your interp would include/exclude and the impact that the inclusion/exclusion would have on debate.
• 5 second ASPEC shells/the like have become nonstarters for me. If I reasonably think the other team could have missed the argument because I didn't think it was a clear argument, I think they probably get new answers. If you drop it twice, that's on you.

Counterplans:

• For me counterplans are more about competition than theory. While I tend to lean more neg on questions of CP theory, I lean aff on a lot of questions of competition, especially in the cases of CPs that compete on the certainty of the plan, normal means cps, and agent cps.

Disads:

• If you're reading a DA that isn't just a case turn, it should go on its own sheet. Failure to do so is super annoying because people end up extending/answering arguments on flows in different orders.

Kritiks:

• The more specific the link the better. Even if your cards aren’t that specific, applying your evidence to the specifics of the affirmative through nuanced analysis is always preferable to a generic link extension.
• ‘You link you lose’ strategies are not my favorite. I’m willing to vote on them if the other team fails to respond properly, but I’m very sympathetic to aff arguments about it being a bad model for debate.
• I find many framework debates end up being two ships passing in the night. Line by line answers to the other team's framework standards goes a long way in helping win framework in front of me.

Theory:

• Almost all theory arguments are reasons to reject the argument, condo is usually the only exception.
• Conditionality is often good. It can be not. I have found myself to be increasingly aff leaning on extreme conditionality (think many plank cps where all of the planks are conditional + 4-5 more conditional options).
• Tell me what my role is on the theory debate - am I determining in-round abuse or am I setting a precedent for the community?

Framework/T-USfg:

• I find impacts about debatability, clash, and iterative testing to be very persuasive.
• I am not really persuaded by fairness impacts, but will vote on it if mishandled.
• I am not really persuaded by impacts about skills/the ability for debate to change the world if we read plans - I think these are not very strategic and easily impact turned by the aff.
• I am pretty sympathetic to negative presumption arguments because I often think the aff has not forwarded an explanation for what the aff does to resolve the impacts they've described.
• I don't think debate is role-playing.

• If the aff drops SSD or the TVA and the 2NR extends it, I will most likely vote neg.

2/18/2024 update...please read - i am now several years removed from the point when i was actively involved in debate and kept up with the topic. i judge a combined total of around 20 policy/ld debates per season. my exposure to the topic starts and ends with each debate that i judge. my knowledge of the topic on any given season is essentially nonexistent, and my knowledge of post-2018 debate in general is probably diminishing with time. i wouldn't call myself a lay judge by any means, but a few steps above. the safest way to win a debate in front of me is to slow down (not to the point where you aren’t spreading at all, but still a bit more slow than you’d normally speak), and focus on the quality of arguments over quantity. pick a few arguments to explain in depth as opposed to having lots that aren't explained well. line-by-line in the style of "they say...but we say..." will also get you a long way with me...overviews/"embedded clash"...not so much...you can feel free to scrap your pre-written overviews entirely with me. if you want the decision in a debate to come down to the quality of evidence, please make that clear in your speeches because i won't do that on my own (i don't usually open the speech docs anymore, nor do i flow author names/card dates. keeping that in mind, statements like “extend the chikko evidence” with no elaboration whatsoever are meaningless to me, as i won’t have any idea what that specific evidence says without an explanation). i won't vote on arguments that i don't understand, miss because of speed/lack of clarity, etc. - i have voted against teams in the past because they went for arguments that i either couldn’t flow or couldn’t understand, even if they may have “won” those arguments if i’d had them on my flows. attached below is my old paradigm, last updated around mid-2019. it is all still applicable…

my old paradigm:

Happy new year.

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

I don't time anything. Not prep time, not speeches, nothing. If no one is timing your speech and I notice in the middle of it, I'll make you stop whenever I think the right amount of time has passed. The same is true for prep time.

I have no opinions on arguments. I know nothing about the topic whatsoever outside of the rounds I judge. I don't do research and don't cut cards. I'll vote for anything as long as it's grounded in basic reality and not blatantly offensive. Speak slightly less quick with me than you usually would. I'm 60/40 better for policy-oriented debating (just because of my background knowledge, not ideological preference). But I'll vote for anything if it's done well. My biggest pet peeve is inefficiency/wasting time. Please direct all complaints to nathanglancy124@gmail.com. I’m sure he’d love to hear them. Have fun and be nice to your opponents/partner/me.

I'm an Assyrian. A big portion of my life/career as an educator consists of addressing and supporting Assyrian student needs. That influences my thoughts on a lot of real-life topics that regularly end up in debates. That's especially true for debates about foreign policy and equity. So do your research and be mindful of that.

Don't say/do anything in front of me that you wouldn't say/do in front of your teacher.

Feel free to ask me before the round if you have questions about anything.

Glenbrook South '24

246115@glenbrook225.org

Tech > Truth

For novices, understanding your arguments is better than having good ones.

Warrants needed for everything. If the other team dropped T, explain why that means you win the debate.

Please flow. Especially because you're a novice.

+0.3 speaks if you: add me on the email chain, signpost, watch Game of Thrones (I will quiz you)

+0.1 speaks if you: are clear, understand your arguments, make Aayan Ali jokes

Broncos Country

Lets ride

Pronouns - him/he\they
Email(s) - abraham.corrigan@gmail.com, acorrigan1@glenbrook225.org, catspathat@gmail.com

Hello!

Thank you for considering me for your debate adjudication needs! Judging is one of my favorite things & I aspire to be the judge I wanted when I debated, namely one who was flexible and would judge the debate based on arguments made by debaters. To do that, I seek to be familiar with all debate arguments and literature bases such that my own ignorance will not be a barrier to judging the arguments you want to go for. This is an ongoing process and aspiration for me rather than an end point, but in general I would say you should probably pref me.

I'm fun!

Sometimes I even have snacks.

<*Judging Quirks*>

- I have absolutely zero poker face and will make a lot of non verbals. Please do not interpret these as concrete/100% definitive opinions of mine but rather as an expression of my initial attempts to place your argument within the particular context of the other arguments advanced in a debate.

- All arguments are evaluated within their particular context - Especially on the negative, as a debater in high school and college I went for and won a lot of debates on arguments which would be described, in a vacuum, as 'bad.' Sometimes, all you have to say is a turd and your rebuttal speeches will largely be what some of my judges described as 'turd-shinning.' This means (unless something extreme is happening which is unethical or triggering my mandatory reporter status as a public school employee) I generally prefer to let the arguments advanced in the debate dictate my view of what is and what isn't a 'good' argument.

- I am not a 'k' or 'policy' judge. I just like debate.

<*My Debate History*>

I am a 2a. This means, if left to my own devices and not instructed not to look for this, the thing that I will implicitly try to do is identify a way to leave stuff better than we found it.

High School

- I debated at H-F HS, in Illinois, for my first two years of debate where I was coached by creeps.

- My junior & senior year in HS I transfered to Glenbrook South where I was coached most by Tara Tate (now retired from debate), Calum Matheson (now at Pitt), & Ravi Shankar (former NU debater).

My partner and I largely went for agenda politics da & process cps or impact turns. We were a bit k curious, but mostly read what would be described as 'policy' arguments.

College

- I debated in college for 4 years at Gonzaga where I was coached by Glen Frappier (still DoF at GU), Steve Pointer (now [mostly] retired from debate), Jeff Buntin (current DoD at NU), Iz-ak Dunn (currently at ASU), & Charles Olney (now [mostly] retired from debate).

My partner and I largely went for what is now be described as 'soft left' arguments on the affirmative and impact turns and unusual counterplans when we were negative.

Coaching

- After graduating, I coached at Northwestern University for a year. My assignments were largely 2ac answers & stuff related to translating high theory arguments made by other teams into things our less k debaters could understand.

- I then moved to Lexington, Kentucky and coached at the University of Kentucky for two years. My assignments were largely aff & all things 2a & answering k stuff on the negative.

- I then coached/did comm graduate work at Wake Forest for two years.

- I then took a break from debate and worked as a paralegal at a law firm which was focused on civil lawsuits against police, prisons, whistleblower protections as well as doing FOIA requests for Buzzfeed.

- I then came back to debate, did some logistics for UK, then Mrs. Corrigan got the GBS job & the rest is history!

General Info

Kylan (pronounced KAI-LINN.) If you’re not sure how to pronounce it just call me Judge.

Put me on the email chain - @gbneldb8@gmail.com

Pronouns: They/Them

I’m a third year debater at Glenbrook North, however I debated in Kansas at Olathe East for my novice year (miss y’all sm)

2A/1N

Don’t be an ist or a phobic or you will be receiving a fat L, the lowest speaks, and an email to your coach.

Tech > Truth

Make me laugh in a speech = +.1 speaks for every time

Don’t make new arguments in the final rebuttals, I’m not evaluating them

I do flow while looking at the doc but I will be listening to what you say. Still, try to be as clear as possible. I’m cool with speed but if someone in the round wants to have a no-spreading round for something they can’t control, you should do one. If you don’t send analytics and you’re speeding through blocks, I will flow what I hear. If I don’t get something important, that’s your fault.

Send analytics for higher speaks

I’m fine with wipeout, death good, spark, but if you’re going to read those PLEASE consult with the other team first.

I am fine to judge policy or Ks. I am familiar with security, cap, set col, queer theory, and some psycho + baudrillard. However you should still be adequately explaining everything during the round, especially if you’re doing some high theory jargon.

I have a lot of opinions on debate and specific arguments, but I leave those at home when I go to judge. I will vote on almost any argument if it's warranted out/explained properly. Do whatever you're comfortable with, just explain things and we'll all have a good time

I will vote on hidden aspec but it will significantly lower your speaks.

I think speaker points are arbitrary and honestly kinda cringe. I'd say my average is around a 28.5. I probably won't give you a 30 unless you absolutely knock my socks off, or you win an argument saying why I should give you a 30. My typical lowest speaks for debaters is 27.5, but 25s (or whatever's the lowest the tourney will allow) will be given if you are being actively harmful.

Conclusion/TLDR -

Don’t be a bad person and you’ll probably be fine. Explain things. Try to be funny and enjoy yourself!! Debate is so competitive and stressful nowadays and having fun should be prioritized way more than it is. Happy debating!

"Flow" - Michael Greenstein

"If I get to tell you who won right after the round, I invite you to ask questions on my decisions, respectfully disagree and tell me I'm a fool, and/or schedule an appointment to catch these hands." - Owen Crouch

gbn '24

she/her

1a/2n

please put me on the chain: mnf.debate@gmail.com

most important things! (not necessarily in order)

1 - have fun and just try your best! novice year is all about learning

2 - be nice to each other and me. basically just don't be racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. - otherwise i'll stop the round, vote you down and talk to your coach

3 - flow!

4 - try line by line and answer every argument. i know that novice year you'll likely have blocks but still try.

5 - do impact calc! you can always explain things more and "tell the story" of your arguments

*aff stuff*

1 - please have a plan (especially if you're a novice)

2 - explain your case well

3 - extinction probably outweighs (i can be convinced otherwise)

4 - 2nc cps and condo are probably the only things to reject the team for (if you explain well i can/will vote otherwise)

5 - tricky mechanisms are great as long as they can be explained (same goes for questionably topical affs)

*neg stuff*

counterplans

1 - i love them!

2 - willing to listen to anything (<3 process cps)

disads

1 - impact calc and turns case are always part of the best explanations

2 - explain the story of the disad well (uq, link, impact)

3 - politics >>> any other disad

kritiks

1 - familiar with some of the more common stuff (security, fem, cap, set col, etc.) but anything more complicated please explain well

2 - i default util but can be convinced otherwise

topicality

1 - explain your standards and impacts well please!

2 - not too many strong opinions on this

*other*

1 - make me laugh (or make a joke about debate people i know) and i'll boost your speaks

2 - most of these are centered around novices - if you have questions about any of my preferences email me (if you're a novice don't worry about it - just try your best!)

3- please have your camera on for online debates!! (and realize that if mine is off I'm not ready)

4 - tech over truth (BUT i think that truth influences how much i think you need to answer something)

Email: nheftman@gmail.com

New Trier 25'

He/him

I will try to be as tech over truth as possible, and I will evaluate the round as such. Exceptions are listed below.

Please do not be mean in the round, don’t physically touch/attack your opponents, don’t use slurs against your opponents, don't clip, generally be friendly people. I will not vote on Racism Good or Death Good, and reading them will result in minimum speaks and an automatic loss, as will doing any of the other actions listed previously in this paragraph.

Topic Thoughts:

When debating a topic like economic inequality, it is important that we all remember that there are real people suffering from the impacts we read in the debate round. This isn’t another topic about the one in a million possibility of a nuclear war, poverty is something many, many people experience every day, and it behooves every debater to be respectful and thoughtful about these issues.

Policy:

Case: On the aff, please know your aff. Especially for the 2AC and 1AR, being able to quickly know what arguments and cards you can field against miscellaneous case arguments both improves your ethos and your time efficiency. Ideally, every part of your affirmative has a strategic use later on in the debate, and knowing how to use your affirmative can be hugely helpful. On the negative, if you know your opponent’s aff better than they do, good on you, you’ll probably be getting good speaks this round if you can translate that into success. Aff specific strategies and arguments are very snazzy too.

Counterplans: I just had a whole year on a topic with no neg ground, so I’m fine with process counterplans, although I’m going to be rolling my eyes if it seems silly. If you actually debate competition well though, good on you. For competition specifically, if you think it’s getting tangled, please clarify your standards. For PIC’s, like disadvantages, the more specific they are to the aff, the better.

Disadvantages: There isn’t much to say. I like them. They’re pretty cool. Explain your links, explain your internal links. Do impact calculus. The more specific your links/the DA as a whole is to the affirmative, the better.

Kritiks: I default to the judge weighing the desirability of the aff or a permutation vs a competitive alternative, but I am open to any other framework that’s debated well. I have done a lot of debating with the Capitalism K, a decent amount with the Psychoanalysis K and Security K, and I probably have a half decent grasp of most other things as well like SetCol, Biopower, etc. If you want to read high theory/pull a snazzy K trick, please articulate it well. Floating PIK’s are fine, but will make me sad and probably lead to low speaks.

Kritikal Aff’s: I’m not a “no plan you lose” judge, but I’m probably not the best person to have in the back if you’re a K Aff. I’m fairly amenable to most K’s but I have done a lot more policy than K. If you get me, please explain things clearly for both sides, especially if it’s K vs K. Check the section about kritiks for my knowledge of the literature. I’m definitely not the best person to pref if you’ve got a tournament that’s good for K’s, but I for sure like to think I’m not the worst.

Topicality: You need to explain and compare your standards and impact for topicality as you would for impact calculus. Plan Text in a Vacuum is not a magic wand you can wave at the negative to make their topicality argument go away, it’s a real standard which I frankly don’t think is half bad. I will vote on it, but you actually need to warrant it out like you would any other interp.

Theory: I will vote on any theory that is debated well enough (A-Z Spec has a very high threshold for being debated well, if you want to go for it, have fun, but know what you’re doing.) If the theory argument IS something silly like Neg Fiat Bad, I’m much more likely to be ok with short responses and new answers if it is blown up later. Standards shouldn’t just be whining, you should articulate your theory standards very clearly, along with all other parts of your argument, as you would with any other. I will give you the ballot on these arguments but unless I genuinely believe the other team has done something abusive, you will probably be getting very low speaks. I default to weighing topicality/neg theory over aff theory, a word from the neg on this will probably cement that point if it comes down to it. For conditionality, infinite condo is good unless debated otherwise, I think dispo is pretty neato.

Cross: Please be chill in cross, it’s totally alright to be intense and a little combative, especially in an activity like debate, but it reflects bad on everyone when there’s unnecessary conflict in cross. If you ask your opponent a question, don’t immediately interrupt them, and conversely, don’t keep talking if your opponent wants to ask another question. I will lower speaks for both of these. Asking “what cards did you read” and the like will count as cross time, and I will start the timer if you ask a question of this variety. Sending out a marked copy before cross is alright, but you better be using the benefits you get from those and talking about their ev.

Novice Policy:

Note: Check policy for my opinions on arguments, this is really more for a couple specific things for novice debate.

To begin, great job checking the paradigm, that’s an excellent habit to get into, and will put you in a better spot for debating, especially against opponents who don’t.

Remember to debate well and be friendly, your opponents are most likely just starting out in high school debate, as are you, so try and build a good relationship. Everyone around you is part of a community, and it's not one any judge takes lightly.

Also, if your varsity gave you this big scary theory folder with things like ASPEC in them and told you to read it, you can, but you sure as heck be able to explain it or I am going to be very very annoyed, and the round will reflect as such.

Middle School:

If you are in middle school, the most important thing you ought to take away from the round is better speaking skills, and a big part of that is being able to respond to opponents arguments with your own. You can read arguments that just pass by without clashing, but arguments that prove a point while disproving opponents are going to be better. As new debaters, I don't expect you all to speak fast or make spectacular analytical arguments, so if you speak well, make arguments that counter your opponents, and use your cross-examination time to the fullest, you will get good speaker points. I really encourage you to write down your opponents arguments (flowing), so you can make arguments that clash against your opponents, and know what to extend into later speeches if you're opponents don't respond to your arguments. Next, concerning background knowledge, if you have an argument that you know but isn't in the packet, you need to explain it very well. If you use so much jargon that your opponents cannot engage you on this point, I'm not going to look favorably on the argument, and if you use so much jargon that I cannot understand it, I literally cannot weigh the argument at all, because I don't know what it means. Lastly, please just be nice people. No judge I know likes to vote for someone who is rude or aggressive during debate, especially cross examination. If you clearly won the debate, you will get my ballot, but if you are rude, don't expect high speaker points. You all are entering the activity, you will be debating with those around if you stick with the activity, and most likely, you will be going to the same school as them as well. Building friendly competition is much better than aggressive rivalry.

P.S. If you tell me a joke when the debate is over, you'll get an extra .1 speaker point. If you find a typo in this paradigm, that’s another .1 speaker pt. (I don’t think there are any but want to make sure.)

Top shelf:

Pronouns are she/her

Just call me Alyssa or ALB - do not call me judge and dear debate Lord do not call me ma'am.

email chains: gbsdebatelovesdocs@gmail.com

questions etc: alucasbolin@glenbrook225.org. If you are a student from another school emailing me please copy an adult coach on the email (just a good safety norm.)

Director of Debate at GBS since 2019, and assistant coach at GBS for a year before that. Prior to that I had taken a few years off of debate but coached at Notre Dame, University of North Texas, University of Nevada Las Vegas, and USC. I only mention this because I've coached debate in a variety of geographical locations with a variety of different argument perspectives. I hope this information helps avoid you "pigeon-holling" me into a Glenbrooks cyborg or whatever the community perception is. If you do this anyway, you'll find yourself either pleasantly or unpleasantly surprised at the end of the debate.

People always ask about my own debate career - the answer is "meh - not bad, not great." I was one of those debaters who qualified to the TOC (once) and the NDT (three times) but was in no way shape or form going to clear at either of those tournaments. This has made me a much better coach because I spend a ton of time thinking about how I can help my own debaters and the people I judge go from good to great. I try to always make sure it's about you and not about me, but I use my own experience to fuel my passion for the activity. Never in my Wildest Dreams (Lauren Ivey) would I kill it in my own debate career but I think I'm pretty okay at giving you feedback to help you kill it in yours.

Brownie points for having as many T Swift, cat, and/or Heartstopper references as possible. To be clear - the reward here is making me smile. I will not actually bump your speaker points or anything because I don't play that way.

Hot takes:

I love debate more than anything else in the world. If you show that YOU love debate more than anything else in the world that is going to go way way way farther than any preference of mine.

Favorite args in order of favoriteness (not so you make these args - just trying to give you a sense of me as a judge)

1. Politics DAs - I am still waiting for someone to do a one off strategy where it's just politics and the case. Be that person.
2. Well-executed case debate that features internal link and solvency presses in addition to impact D
3. Kritiks with SPECIFICITY TO THE AFF (either in analysis or evidence or - gasp - both)
4. Wonky debates about competition
5. Very weird impact turns, straight turns, etc

*I am not a great judge for condo - my teams go for it, I know I know, but it does not come from me. I'll vote on it - I just have a high threshold.

*I am a huge switch-side debate person - I really hate the community trend towards only reading arguments that fit in politically correct norms. If you have an evil argument Bring. It. On. I am personally progressive but that has absolutely nothing to do with how I judge debates. The obvious exception to this is attacking people's identity or safety. But if you're packing an absurd impact turn or read a politics da about a piece of legislation that is objectively terrible that you can prove is good, etc, I will be deeply amused.

*I literally have "2a" tattooed on my foot. 2ar terrorism is one of the most wonderful things in debate - make big bold choices if the foundation is there in the 1ar.

*My teams do everything - some are hard right policy teams and some are ... not that. I tend to think that debaters debate best when they find their own brand of debate and let their personalities shine through.

* No roboting through the round. Think. Make risky moves. Let's get weird.

*Style: Don’t be a jerk for the sake of it, but you shouldn’t feel pressure to be sugary sweet if you’re not - expectations of civility, politeness, etc tend to fall on noncis dudes and BIPOC disproportionately. Therefore a little attitude is fine with me. It’s a competition. I'm a woman who directs a major debate program and co-directs one of the biggest tournaments - I understand the need to be assertive and hold your ground.

*Clarity is very important to me. So is pen time.

*Technical debating, line by line, etc are important to me. If you flow off the doc I am not the judge for you.

*Zero risk is a thing. Love me some smart defensive arguments against silly arguments. GIVE JUDGE DIRECTION - challenge normal conceptions of risk.

*If you're making new args late in the debate you're likely to have to justify them to me. That doesn't mean don't do it, it just means defend your actions. THE 1AR IS NOT A CONSTRUCTIVE.

*You do you, but I find that I am slightly more confident in my judging if you include your analytics in the doc. I solemnly swear I am flowing by ear, but just being able to process information both visually and through listening helps my mental processing a bit.

*The one exception to the above is that if you read a new 1ac on paper I am 100% in favor - I truly enjoy watching people freak out when they have to deal with paper debate since I had the not-so-lovely experience of transitioning to paperless mid college debate career.

*EXPLAIN YOUR ACRONYMS - especially in a t debate.

Other random hot takes:

Wipeout - trash takes itself out every single time (me)

Impact turning Ks old school style - it's a love story, baby just say yes (me)

Baudrillard - I forgot that you existed (me)

No cp solvency advocate- now we've got bad blood (Aayan)

More than 6 or 7 off - You're On Your Own Kid (Aayan)

Things that are sexist/homophobic/racist etc - I Know Places where that is tolerated but I will not let rounds I judge be one of them (Aayan)

You must Speak Now (Lauren Ivey/me) in your own cross ex - like obvi tag teaming is sometimes fine but I hate when one partner does ALL of the cx in any given debate.

Heavy stuff:

*No touching.

*I am not the right judge for call outs of specific debate community members

*I am a mandatory reporter. Keep that in mind if you are reading any type of personal narrative etc in a debate. A mandatory reporter just means that if you tell me something about experiencing violence etc that I have to tell the authorities.

*I care about you and your debate but I am not your debate mommy. I am going to give you direct feedback after the debate. I won't be cruel but I'm also not a sugarcoater. It takes some people off guard because they may be expecting me to coddle them. It's just not my personality - I deeply care about your debate career and want you to do your best. I also am just very passionate about arguments. If you're feeling like I'm being a little intense just Shake It Off (Lauren Ivey.)

*Clipping = zero points and a hot L. Clarity to the point of non-comprehension that causes a clipping challenge constitutes clipping.

*I am more than fine with you post rounding as long as you keep it respectful. I would genuinely prefer you understand my decision than walk out frustrated because that doesn't help you win the next time. Bring it on (within reason). I'm back in the ring baby.

Let's have a throwdown!!! If you're reading this before a round I am excited to see what you have to offer. YAY DEBATE!!!

Glenbrook North- he/him

If you are visibly sick, I reserve the right to forfeit you and leave.

spipkin at gmail. Please set up the chain at least five minutes before start time. I don't check my email very often when I'm not at tournaments.

1. Flow and respond to what the other team says in order.

2. You almost certainly are going too fast for how clear you are.

3. Kritiks on the neg: Probably a bad idea in front of me.

4. K affs: You definitely want to strike me.

5. No inserting anything into the debate besides like charts or graphics (things that can't be read aloud). You don't need to re-read the plan and counterplan text, and you can say perm specific planks, but if you are reading a more complicated perm than that, you should read the text. The litmus test is "insert the perm text."

6. I generally flow cross-x but won't guarantee I'll pay attention to questions after cross-x time is up. I also don't think the other team has to indefinitely answer substantive questions once cx time is over.

7.Plans: If you say you fiat deficit spending in CX, you don't get to say PTIV on T taxes. If you say normal means is probably deficit spending but it could be taxes, you get to say PTIV but you also risk the neg winning you are taxes for a DA or CP. Fiat is limited to the text of what you have in the plan. Implementation specification beyond the text requires evidence and can be contested by the neg.

8. Highlighting should form a coherent sentence. If it's word salad, I'm not going to waste my time trying to parse the meaning.

9. I like counterplans that are germane to the topic. Most of the process counterplans I've seen this year are not that They either can't solve the net benefit or they're not competitive or both.

avi shah -- new trier ls -- '24 -- he/him -- 2n

add me to the chain -- avishahdebate@gmail.com

please title the email chain something relevant -- "tournament name, round #, aff team vesus neg team"

top level

don't do or say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, or problematic, if you do I will give you an auto-loss and the lowest speaks possible at the tournament

tech > truth

please don't call me judge, avi is fine

topicality

i like t debates - reading cards is important especially if you are going for predictability

i am intuitively persuaded by competing interpretations because I think T debates are valuable but will evaluate the debate based on reasonability if it is proven that that's a better metric to evaluate the debate

neg teams, make sure to have a counter interpretation about how to evaluate T debates if the aff has said plan in a vacuum

counterplans

i will listen to but be bored by the same process counterplan debates over and over again

conditionality is good, i can be persuaded otherwise

try not to go for conditionality in novice debates

absent instruction not to, i will judgekick at my discretion

disadvantages

turns case is important

the higher up on the link chain turns case is, the better

make your link story specific - generic in the 1nc is fine and even if you don't have specific evidence try to contextualize the da to the aff in the block

kritiks

I am familiar with most generic kritiks and am more than willing to vote on them if explained well enough so that I can explain it back to you in my rfd

contextualize the link to the aff

speaks

I will give very high speaks. that being said, there are a couple of things to do to increase your speaks

1. be funny, not overly serious. debate can get boring, a joke here or there can be helpful

2. be ready. when prep is over, the doc should be ready to be sent, and the speech should start shortly after.

Glenbrook South '24

246872@glenbrook225.org to add me to the email chain

2a

First time judging so please go slowly (don't spread too much for example)

Tech>Truth: Evidence does not matter if you cannot present it properly in a way that will shift the debate in your favor

You must understand what you are saying. Think of it this way: If you cannot present your args in a concise and accurate manner to a complete stranger, then you should not be reading it. Know your side of the debate by heart. Cross-examination usually reveals how well teams know what they are talking about.

Flow, flow, FLOW. I cannot emphasize this enough. Winning teams flow.

+0.1 speaks for making a debate-related joke that is actually funny
+0.3 speaks for proper email chain, correct flows, and automatic signposting.

Most, importantly, have fun and relax! Novice year is the time to try new things and make great memories with your friends.

P.S. I don't mind a bit of horsing around at all. Jokes are fine, even the more "spicier" ones if you know what I mean :) You won't get in trouble for what you say in the debate room, unless of course, it breaks a rule or something, obviously. Anyway, I'm looking forward to seeing some great debates with all of you! Good luck!

GBN 2025--He/Him

Put me on the email chain: CS.Debate.GBN@gmail.com

You can call me Chris, Christopher, etc. Judge is fine but anything else is preferable.

Read whatever you're comfortable with, but I go to GBN so obviously better for policy than Kritiks.

Tech>Truth.

Hiding ASPEC is cringe, mark it as a separate off or my threshold for aff arguments against it becomes super low.

Give an order before every speech.

Tag Team cross-ex is fine, but don't try to speak for 30% or more of the time.

Impact calc!!!! Sounds super simple but that's what most novice debates come down to. Signposting or slowing down on tags is key to effective flowing for both me and the other team, don't be a robot reading into your screen.

Please be clear, I won't hesitate to clear you, and if it keeps happening speaks will be deducted.

To quote the entirety of a wise man's paradigm "flow."

At the end of the day, debate is a game, make jokes and be friendly. Throw in a niche fallout or Pikmin reference and maybe I'll even boost speaks.

Longer Paradigm thoughts:

Topicality - I think I lean more in the camp that Fiscal Redistribution requires taxes and transfers, but I'm ultimately willing to be swayed in the other way. Other than that everything's fair game. Explain to me why your standards are good and how you solve their standards/how their standards are bad/why yours are more important. I used to be very negative on plan text in a vacuum but I think it's more viable now. DON'T HIDE ASPEC ON T.

Disadvantages - Frame why uniqueness controls the link or link controls uniqueness, straight turns are always appreciated but don't try to be in a situation where you straight turn the disad and then do nothing with it. Explain how the disad turns case, doing it at the internal link level is preferable. Disadvantages are finally a solid position this year and nothing beats a good econ DA debate, but still show me that judge instruction on impact calc, why should probability matter more than magnitude, etc.

Counterplans - Explain to me why your interpretation is good and why there is bad, too many novices just assert their definition and that puts me in a sticky situation, but I think I might lean aff in said scenario. Judge Kick is a natural extension of condo, but give me the condition for the judge kick. States Counterplan can take you a long way, especially with a politics DA, and I would prefer that debate over Lopez Counterplan V359. That being said I'm still willing to vote on process counterplans.

Kritiks - Least familiar area. Don't label arguments on the framework as "DAs," while I think ultimately all negative frameworks end up becoming you link you lose try to convince me it's not. Affs need an argument against the alt or a solvent alt makes for an easy neg decision. Don't just throw out buzzwords, if you don't know what you're doing chances are I know you don't. Impact out your links on the perm and in general, perm double bind is a convincing argument.

K affs - Novs reading K affs is so wacky, I applaud your efforts but chances are you have no clue what you're doing. I'll evaluate fairness as an impact if quantified properly by the neg. K affs probably don't get perms but debate is a game of persuasion. TVAs and SSDs make my job a lot easier. Performance is cool but if you're doing it make sure to keep it throughout the entire debate. Willing to give some leeway to the neg because chances are they also have no clue what they're doing. In general, if you're reading a K aff I'm sorry, I go to GBN.

Theory - Willing to vote on condo regardless of off, but one-off makes reasonability a good argument in the neg's favor, clash on interps and standards. "so-and-so" argument is bad is usually a reason to reject the argument, being a voter is harder to win but still willing to vote on it. "You guys" theory and those sorts of args are hard to win, if I have a reasonable belief that the other team said it without malice or mistakingly I probably won't vote for it. Generally not a fan of SPEC args, use perf-con as a way to justify getting out of sticky situations, it's probably not a voter unless they're being extremely abusive on it. Not voting on actions done out of round. Answer the theory argument on the flow it was introduced on, don't just call it "condo" or "50 states fiat bad"

Other thoughts - Does a set of all sets contain itself? I like technology debates and impacts, science is super cool, and having debates about it is even better. I don't really like disease impacts, and I think it's one of the only times where I could be persuaded to have a 0% risk, but probably not.

New Trier Class of 2025

She/Her/Hers

reagancsubeck@gmail.com

Top Level:

• Be respectful of me, your opponents, and your teammates
• Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic

You're all novices - be nice and supportive because this is a year to learn, not to crush (and because being nice is generally good). I am here to support you and help you improve but also to make debate fun so if you feel unsafe or you're being hurt by someone else, I will help you resolve it.

I have 0 opinions on what arguments you run other than the caveats above so just do your thing!

If you need help with technical stuff, feel free to ask! On more debating stuff, try your best and ask me after the round. I'll be glad to help you with anything then!!!

Have fun and good luck!!!!

Add me to the chain: kyliesuttondebate@gmail.com

Call me Kylie, not judge

2N/1A gbs '24!

TLDR for Novices:

1. Any of my predispositions can and will be overcome with good debating.

2. Tech> truth. I vote on the flow first and evidence quality next. Debate the quality of the evidence to mitigate judge intervention.

3. Claim warrant and flesh it out otherwise I don't consider it an argument.

4. Theory: Condo is generally good, but I can be persuaded otherwise.

5. K affs: don't read them your novice year

Raising your speaks:

• If you give a 2:30 min 2nr because it's a clear crush, speaks + 0.2
• Show me your flows at the end of the round and if they're complete, + 0.1
• Make me laugh!
• Be a nice person.

Overall, just have fun, this is the year to try new things and argue what you want.

Don't read Death Good in front of me just to secure the ballot, you might get the ballot but your speaks are capped at 25.0.

20250944@student.nths.net - New Trier ‘25 - they/she/he

tldr:

• Be kind, above all.
• Tech > truth, except in certain circumstances below
• Explain your violation and impacts under theory
• you should probably strike me in a K aff debate
• My tech > truth ideology peaks in T
• explain your Ks
• CPs + DAs are chill
• I won't vote on death good
• constructives are for constructing, rebuttals are for rebutting
• relax. have fun.

people who have significantly impacted my thoughts on debate, in no particular order, include Aaron Vinson, Tim Freehan, Dave Weston, Margaret Jones, Rocky Shapiro, Nick Wilson, Josh Clark, Scott Phillips, Becca Steiner, and Whit Whitmore. do with that what you will

Note for MSTOC: I know it’s the TOC, but please try more than usual to be clear. This isn’t just speed, it’s also speaking clearly and confidently. I really want to be able to understand you, but it’s harder over virtual debate than normal :/. Also, I’m doing this in place of APUSH AP test studying. So, any us history statements in your speech will earn you 0.1 speaker point!

First and foremost:

I will never tolerate racism, sexism, classism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, or general xenophobia. I will email your coach, auto-L, and give you the lowest speaks possible. Debate should be a safe space for people to have fun, not to be attacked. I will stop the round if you do anything that makes the debate space unsafe.

Death good = auto-L, lowest speaks possible, email to your coach. In light of the whole LASA vs wichita east debacle, anything, where if i look at it and think that my 2AC against death good could apply, counts as death good. 2Ns, don’t look at this and think ‘but could it be a throwaway?’ Don’t force debaters to deal with that, you have no clue what people are going through and making the debate space violent and unsafe is the antithesis of why I do debate in the first place. If the 1N reads death good, but i hear the 2N refusing to extend it, 29.5+ speaks to the 2N, or vice versa.(you’ll still lose, though).

Novice version:

Honestly, novice year is the hardest year, and I do not want to make that worse, so please don't adapt your strategy to anything here and if you show up, I think you're doing fantastic. You've got this, good luck, and above all, have fun!!

Theory:

In this instance, you really need to explain to me why what they did screwed you over and probably the farthest I get from tech>truth. Why did a neg generic PIC make it so unfair that you should win the round because they ran it? Is 1 condo advocacy that bad? Should your one-sentence hidden aspec be given enough weight to earn a whole ballot? You can win this, but know that the more teams that have won against it, the more the odds are stacked against you. In-round abuse will change this, though. If the neg ran 15+ condo, weaponized perfcon, or ran ten new 2NC CPs with no justification other than ‘condo!’, something like that, run theory and you have a decent shot.

If you're doing a condo 2AR when the neg didn't drop condo, I probably already mentally voted neg, and ifthe aff takes over 20 seconds of prep for the 2AC, I won’t like it if you try to argue infinite prep time.

Case:

read a good aff, please.

K affs:

I should know what your aff does coming out of the 2AC at maximum, and preferably out of 1AC cx. Especially here, I won't penalize speaks for 2Ns saying 'what is this' and you should respond with something that would be understandable to someone who hasn't read your lit(e.g. don't say 'we advocate for a method of corporeal care', say 'we advocate for creating a space for caring about the condition of humans')

Topicality is capital T true, maybe one of the most true arguments in debate, and both teams know it. Please, act like it. I don’t care whether you go for clash or fairness, as long as you have an impact. Most of the time I go for clash, so if you choose that route, I’m better versed there. I’ll still vote on the flow, so aff teams, you can win.

But honestly, if you read a k aff, you should probably strike me. I don’t believe that these arguments should be ran in novice debate.

T

In general, I don’t like these debates, and reading dictionary definitions after a round isn’t that fun. But if an aff is genuinely untopical and you're sure that their strategy against all of your offense will be 'no link', go for it!

Ks:

I default to the judge is a policymaker, the aff can weigh the plan, and the neg gets whatever fiat they want, but can be convinced otherwise with good debating and warrants. I'm more familiar with cap and security, so other Ks need more explanation. Side note, if you use words that wouldn't be recognizable to anyone who hasn't read your literature(like simulacra in Baudrillard) then please explain them in the block, not the 2NR, otherwise the aff's job is much harder.

pronounce kritik like critic or cricket and I'll boost your speaks +0.2, and ask Len Livshits or Lindsay Ye why.

CP + DA + ! turns:

For process CPs, I’m aff-leaning on perms, and neg-leaning on theory. For all other CPs, I’m neg-leaning on theory and perms, and aff-leaning on solvency or offense. You need to tell me to judgekick and use sufficiency framing. It’s two sentences and is probably already in your 2NC O/V. If you think that the competition debate is messy, just go to why your standards outweigh theirs(ie- neg bias) and what your standards are.

If your adv CP doesn’t have a solvency advocate, you are the solvency advocate, and I treat the CP’s solvency as such. fyi ;)

100% or 0% risk only exists if the argument was dropped or kicked.

but like...who dislikes adv CPs + econ DA?

2Rs:

Be nice, don't lie, framing my ballot at the beginning of the speech is always a good idea- don't let your opponents decide what the round is about.

Arguments need a claim and warrant in earlier speeches for you to win extending them. eg. ‘CP can’t solve i-law, moving on’ in the 1AR without ‘it’s not a clear signal’ means that I won’t give the 2AR ‘it’s not a clear signal’. I’ll auto-strike new arguments off my flow for the 2AR, so 2Ns, don’t worry. This also goes for the 2NR- you’re not allowed to make up new net benefits or add a fw DA.

This is technically the 1AR, but honestly idk where else to put this- my bar for a warrant in the 1AR is significantly different from the 2AR. For example, states CP. If the 1A says the words ‘extend perm do both - looks like federal follow-on so it shields the nb, done by federal funding and state implementation’ and then answers the neg’s reasons why pdb fails, that is all the explanation I need and the 2AR is clear to extend pdb. I’m a 1A, I get it, 1ARs are hard.

If your 2R is less than five sentences and you win, you’re getting a very high 29. If you lose, medium to very low 28. If the 2NR is less than five sentences and is about to win, but the 2AR somehow pulls off something amazing, everyone’s getting 29.7+ :)

Speaks:

Arguing with your partner will shred your speaks- especially if they're giving the final speech. I don't care if they dropped condo, took 1NR/1AC/1NC(especially 1NC prep can be quite useful, if used well) prep, or went for the thing youthinkwill lose you the debate. You're not helping them nor yourself.

It is very, very, very easy to make me laugh, and this is under the speaks header. Do with that what you will.

I’m a very expressive judge, to the point where if you look at me during the other team’s speech, I’ll probably look back and signal if I buy the argument they’re making or not. Also, I LOVE eye contact during your speeches bc it makes me feel like we’re friends, pls do that and your speaks will look like you’re my friend :)

But I will give high speaks. My baseline is 29, and if you ask post-round I’ll tell you what you got

CX:

Speaking over and then proceeding to repeat exactly what your partner would have said in cx will hurt speaks and almost always what the 1A speaking during 2AC cx or 1N during 2NC cx is like.

Yes open cx, don’t abuse that. The 2N shouldn’t answer all of the questions in 1NC cx.

I will never dock your speaks for asking 'what is this' questions in cross, but it will hurt your ethos if you ask the 1N to explain a core neg generic.

CX is binding, UNLESS the team goes back on what they said immediately and unanimously. Otherwise, you're tied.

I can tell when your varsity just gave you a list of cx questions and told you to ask them, and it’ll hurt your speaks if you do that. Yes, cx is hard, but you need to start out by struggling through it, and ultimately you’ll get way better!

Other:

I’m cool with sending cards in the body of the email.

The more prep time you steal, the less time I have to make my decision, and that favors the team that didn’t steal prep. you’re not just cheating, you’re hurting yourself.

Uncarded arguments are still arguments, but they will probably lose to carded ones. You're a high schooler, 'i’m the solvency advocate' arguments require a LOT of ethos.

Please please please, if you have a blippy 1AC/1NC/2AC, come back from it. This is why I love debate- things can change so quickly and I love being in rounds where people do. Especially this year, it’s kind of a running joke at NT that me and my partner get the worst pairings(at our first 2 tournaments, we faced 8 teams on the coaches’ poll). We didn’t give up until the final speech. You can too.

Run what you're cool with, kick what you're not, and make your 2R the best it can be!

glhf :)

current bias:

Policy v policy: 9-8 neg

Policy v K: 1-1

K v policy:

K v K: 1-0 neg

hi novices, follow the heade

About me:

• email: 254230@glenbrook225.org
• i go to glenbrook north
• im a junior

if your round starts in 15 minutes: ⏲

• try your best not to drop anything
• i will probably vote for anything you just have to explain it well enough
• dont be mean
• im more policy than kritik but i will listen to anything
• PERSUADE ME, its ok if you dont know what your talking about
• if your reading this your doing the right thing

Speaks:

• if you flow on paper i will give you +.1 speaks if i see them and i approve (ask me before round if you have questions)
• i prefer clarity over speed
• if you somehow put in a joke about these names I will give your +.1 speaks (kirsten kelly, andromeda lifshits, chloe zhu, kenneth paul royer III, henry Keiffer, sofia shaw)

• 29.6-30 - The Best - Everything you could ask for as a judge and more. (Top 5 speaker award)

  29-29.5 - Very, Very good - Did everything you could expect as a judge very, very well. (Top 10 speaker award)

  28.6-28.9 - Very Good - Did very well as a whole, couple moments of brilliance, but not brilliant throughout.

  28.3-28.5 - Good - Better than average. Did most things well. Couple moments of brilliance combined with errors.

  28-28.2 - OK - Basic skills, abilities, and expectations met. But, some errors along the way. Very little to separate themselves from others. Clearly prepared, just not clearly ahead of others.

  Below 28 - OK, but major errors - Tried hard, but lack some basic skills or didn’t pay close enough attention.

• Below 25

Spectrum:

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

Tech--------------------X--------------------------Truth

Theory (only if you explain why voter)-----X----------------------------------------No theory

Read no cards-----------------------X------------Read all the cards

condo good------X------------------------condo bad

States CP good-------X---------------------------States CP bad

Politics DA is a thing----X-------------------------Politics DA not a thing

Longer ev------------------------------X-----------More ev

HS affs must tax-----------------------------X--------HS affs not required to tax

Glenbrook South 25'

xe/they (they/them is fine)

Call me by my name please, not judge.

email chain -> junioryongdebate@gmail.com

*****

the stuff you really want to know :

- Clash is good, responding to the other teams args is better, doing both earns you a double thumbs up

- Impact calc is appreciated, tell me why you should win, why does your argument matter more than the other teams

- Arguments that you can explain and understand well >>> strange "(not) funny" blocks that your Varsity wrote for you

- Fine judging most arguments, as long as YOU can explain them. This gets a little weird if you're reading something no one knows. It needs to be explained thoroughly only if you want me to vote on it, do not assume I know what you're talking about, especially since we're off-packet now.

- I will adapt to you, debate in the way that is most comfortable to you.

*****

other things that you should also know :

- Don't steal prep, that means when the timer is up, your hands need to be off the device unless you're sending the doc.

- Stand facing me, not the other team when speaking, same during cx

- Speak clearly, your face should not be buried in your screen.

- PLEASE DO NOT GO FASTER THAN YOUR LIMIT. I know some novices like to go fast cause its cool, but no one will understand you, which means I won't either. If I cannot understand or hear you, I will not flow, meaning I will not vote on that arg cause you were unclear.

- Be nice. Yes, be competitive, but we're human.

- Don't make any offense jokes, comments, etc. I do not take homophobia, transphobia, racism etc. lightly and will lower your speaks to the ground.

(if you get me a black milk tea with boba -> +.3 speaks)

She/ her

Nt ‘24

Add me to the chain: sarazareadebate@gmail.com

Toplevel

If you are reading this and do not know how to send out an email chain, now would be a great time to learn

If you say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. Auto L + lowest possible speaks + contacting your coach

Flow! showing me flows after rounds = extra speaks

Try to make my flow as clean and organized as possible

Give a roadmap before your speech and signpost clearly

Time your own prep, Cx, and speeches

I <3 turns on both sides

Talk during all of your speech time, this is a great way to learn

coming up with your own arguments>>>reading your varsity's blocks

I <3 it when you frame my ballot for me and give overviews at the top of rebuttals

Pronouncing “hegemony” and/ or “democracy” correctly = +0.3 pts

Case:

I <3 case debating when it’s done well

I like it when you extrapolate warrants from your cards, compare them with the opponents’, and compare evidence

DAs:

Do clear line by line

I like impact calculus when it’s under 1 minute and impact turns. Tell me clearly why your impact outweighs and why you turn their impact

If you do ev comparison, tell me why UQ does or does not matter in the context of the round

If you’re neg and go for this, give me a clear internal link story in the rebuttals

Counterplans:

Explain why you're textually and functionally competitive, and why you solve all of case

If you're aff, impact the difference between the plan and the counterplan

Topicality:

Do standards debating comparatively, tell me why your standards outweigh the other teams'

Impact out why the aff specifically is bad or good for debate

Kritiks:

Make your link specific to the aff. reference author names and if you can, rehighlight cards

framework makes the game work

CX:

Tag team is fine

Don’t dominate your partner’s Cx and don’t be rude in general, otherwise I will actively deduct your speaker pts

I like it when you ask card-specific Qs and reference authors

—

Pls ask me if you have any questions or are confused about anything after I give my rfd! Debate is a game, so don't get too stressed; the most important thing is that you have fun and learn. policy debate is an activity to be proud of, win or lose :)

gbn 25

email chain: chloezdebate@gmail.com

tech > truth, anything goes besides obvious no’s (homophobia, racism, etc)

flow

if you’ve read this, say “real gs move in silence like lasagna” in any speech for +0.2 speaks