Add me to any email chains:

Email: amanchaudhary.hhs@gmail.com

Summary

I've done LD, PF, CX, Extempt Debate, and Congress. With that being said I've been heavily focused on CX for the last couple of years. If arguments your opponent dropped arguments don't just say it's dropped explain the importance, same for extending arguments. And please signpost it helps me flow! I've fine with speed but I'd prefer to have the case.

I don't include roadmaps as speaking time and flashing doesn't count as prep. Just don't abuse this. Try not to waste time between speeches. Most tournaments already run late.

Policy:
You can spread however much you want in the constructives, I really don't care just flash the case to me. If you're not reading evidence then make this distinct (slow down, emphasize, etc) or I won't hear it. If you spread in the rebuttals I'm not going to flow it. I'm fine with any argument as long as it's clearly explained.

LD:

Framework is useless if it's not clearly linked to your arguments. Explicitly say how they link or I'm less likely to vote off of them. That being said I'd value framework above case arguments. Don't solely go for it but adequately put some time into this portion of the debate. It separates you from CX and PF.

If you're going to spread just flash the case, I'll follow along. 

PF:

PF isn't a speed debate so don't spread. I vote on strong links and impact calculus so make sure to highlight these. Evidence is really crucial in PF, having recent evidence and having strong internal warrants matters a lot. 

If my email is needed for any purpose, it is pc727970@gmail.com.

Hey! I'm Paresh Chotaliya, although Parry works as well. I have experience in mostly LD, WSD, and Extemporaneous Speaking (Extemp), however, I did a little PF and CX and I understand it to a limited extent. I don't like being called judge, so just call me by my name.

LD-

I love a Value/Value Criterion debate, I think that this is what makes LD unique from other events. If you drop it, you will probably lose my ballot unless the opponent does as well. I also like impacts, and I prefer impacts that tie into your Value/VC (ex. Millions of lives being saved solved under the framework of utilitarianism.) I'll also look at other impacts, but I'll prioritize the impact if it ties back to the framework. I don't like spreading, but if you do, flash the case. As for progressive stuff, I'm still learning it, but I can understand it if it makes logical sense. I'll try to look at it from the proper viewpoint, but you should stray away from it as much as you can.

I like Yale's Speaker Points guide:

29.5 to 30.0 - WOW; You should win this tournament
29.1 to 29.4 - NICE!; You should be in Late Elims
28.8 to 29.0 - GOOD!; You should be in Elim Rounds
28.3 to 28.7 - OK!; You could or couldn't break
27.8 to 28.2 - MEH; You are struggling a little
27.3 to 27.7 - OUCH; You are struggling a lot
27.0 to 27.2 - UM; You have a lot of learning to do
26.0 to 26.9 - OH MY; You did something very bad or very wrong

WSD-

I am fairly new to WSD, having only debated it for a year. However, I strongly believe that this is a purely logic-based debate. What do I mean by that? I expect good clashes and rebuttals in the round based on the logic of the argument. You should be able to prove to me why the opposition's logic does not make sense, and why yours does. I also do believe in the structure of speeches, 1s should be substantive-based, and the Opp 1 should have some refutation. The 2s should have a majority of refutation with some impact weighing. The 3s should have either clash points or world analysis, with a brief refutation in the beginning if needed and impact weighing again at the end. The 4 should be a supplement to the 3, either expanding on the points the 3 made or covering the other side (clash or world).

UPDATE: I have now debated on the international level, and I do find some new criteria.

1. I don't think a lack of a 3rd sub in the 2 is strategic in most cases, but if there is a great reason to, I will give you full points for strategy. It's pretty obvious when there is a strategic reason to.
2. Make sure no new examples/evidence are brought up in the 4. This is a strict rule, and if you do, or even try to sandbag it in, I will give you low speaks.
3. Be respectful with POIs; no badgering, make them short and give the speaker a chance to respond. If you're clarifying something, just say the clarification, don't re-explain it to me.
4. I highly recommend these slides to look at, I do look at these criteria when judging: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1dQ4SOa1tsfrRuE5fOCEqc1J3F5m6o5BD-YqX9e2quN8/edit#slide=id.g1834de5c652_0_7

PF-

I will say one thing about PF: It is meant to be the common man's debate, accessible to the public (hence its name). I will NOT appreciate any theory, Ks, etc. As you can probably guess, spreading is off the table as well. I should be able to understand this even if I were a parent judge who's judging for the 1st or 2nd time.

For all debates- I have no idea how to debate Ks, so don't expect me to vote off it. It's a matter of me not understanding Ks. DAs and CPs, and to some extent Ts and some theory, I can handle. All other "progressive" or "tech" arguments, I know nothing about.

Extemp-

This is a speech event, don't talk to me like this is a debate round. Use:

•Clear Speech

•Confidence

•Concise Points

•At least 1 piece of evidence per general point

•Analysis

•Intro & Conclusion

I should be able to be convinced by your points or learn something new from your speech. That will easily rank you very high.

Final Thoughts:

My main teachers for debate were Ronak Patel, Aman Chaudhary, and Valentin Jimenez. While they did a lot of CX, I did very little, however, I do align with them for LD and PF. For speech, it was Sneha Jobby (even though her paradigm doesn't say much.) I'll copy the parts that I align with here to save you some time:

Aman/Ronak:

PF isn't a speed debate so don't spread. I vote on strong links and impact calculus so make sure to highlight these. Evidence is really crucial in PF, having recent evidence and having strong internal warrants matters a lot.

Mr. J:

For LD, I love a great clash between values and criterions. Don't dismiss this aspect because to me this is where the original "framework" resides. CPs in LD will be judged based on the CX perspective and thus must be mutually exclusive and competitive. DAs must be presented to evaluate a CP. Give voters at the end.

Public Forum is more of a discussion for me and not necessarily based on card after card after card! Leave this for CX debate. Instead work on explaining and carrying the big picture in the round. No need to do line by line as time doesn't permit it anyway (unless you spread!). Plans and CPs have no role in Public Forum, so do not do it as I have no preference for this as an evaluator! Give voters at the end!

Sneha:

Public Address Events: I love engaging hooks that are cleverly tied into the topic of your speech. For extemp, please use at least four sources.

For any other event, ask me in rounds and I will give verbal paradigms

Say potato (non-discretely) before the round and I'll give you 2 extra speaker points. Say "Yeet that argument out of the window" and I'll give 3 speaker points. For WSD, multiply that by 2.

Speech Events:

Public Address Events: I love engaging hooks that are cleverly tied into the topic of your speech. For extemp, please use at least four sources. 

Interp Events: Characterization and blocking are essential in interp events. Also, please be mindful of rules in binder events.

Debate Events: Please be as traditional as possible.

Good luck!

if you need my email: irenemjohn@gmail.com, any questions message me on instagram @iireniie

(yes, add me to the email chain, no speechdrop)

Hi, my name is Irene! I debate World Schools for Elkins. I'm a junior and have been in the speech and debate space for three years! My pronouns are she/her.

I will not tolerate racism, xenophobia, homophobia, sexism, ableism, etc. Please respect people's names, pronouns, and identities.

Background

WSD's been my main event ever since I was a freshman. I've competed in Extemp as well.

General Notes (scroll down if I'm your judge for PF or LD)

WSD:

Hey! I've been doing Worlds for a while, and I absolutely love this event. With that in mind, know that I will judge a little stricter because I actively compete in these events, but here's what I think:

Debate is a game. Especially in World Schools, where you get to build your own world, manipulate how things look for your stakeholders, solve key issues (or even make them.) It's all about being strategic and characterizing your side properly, as well as EXPLAINING why is is better than the other world, all while utilizing your speaking skills.

I believe that Worlds is all about persuasion, in three ways: style, content, and strategy. This means making eye contact, sounding animated, not spreading, taking and answering POIs, as well as creating interesting substantives and bringing offense/defense down the bench. ALL three speakers must be involved in argumentation- it should not be the first speaker carrying the case so the second and third can just do defense.

Style: I love good speakers, and interesting hooks. Feel free to include humor as long as it doesn't distract/isn't related or prevent rebounding. I like giving high speaks, make sure to sound persuasive and include organization, intonation, emphasis, etc. I’m good with speed, but make sure not to spread rapidly to where there are clear fluency issues.

Content: I value both the principle and practical, and I know what motions are which. This means if you're trying to be abusive with your models or not define the motion correctly, I will know. Characterize your case well. Create well-crafted arguments that include plenty of analysis. I always mention this when I judge/teach- you do not need a third substantive if you feel like it won't strengthen your case. I will not dock you, because I understand that the lack of a third sub helps for more substantial refutation.

I’m tech > truth unless it’s completely ludicrous (ex: hate crimes do not exist, believe me, I’ve heard that one before) and am clean slate- I will buy arguments based on what I hear in round and not prior knowledge, except if you are reading a homophobic, sexist or discriminatory argument (automatic L and docked speaks). Do not try to bring up things from other events (ex: ask for cards, evidence ethics, etc), and if you’re using fiat, please make sure you know what you’re doing.

Strategy wise- bring the best arguments down on the bench, call out inconsistencies in POIs and speeches, and explain why you win (write my ballot for me!). POIs are a very important part of strategy, however, if you decide to abuse the limits of POIs, or be abusive in any way, I will not hesitate to call you out in round and dock points. I also want to see strategic use of your time, and not just repetition- every speech should help solidify my vote for your team. What I mean by strategic clash is this: for example, if you're on Opp, your 3 and 4 should not be reiteration. Use the 16 minute block wisely and give me voters in your reply, rather than doing an overall summary of your case that is more suited for the 3 to do.

Personally, I think World Schools should stay World Schools- it's an interesting form of debate that does not rely on spreading or throwing out a dozen arguments so one will stick. Do not debate on technicality- WSD is about the big picture. This isn't PF, Policy, or LD- you must debate why your arguments win on an overall level and which world is better.

I'm a 2nd/4th speaker, so I pay special attention to your rebuttals, what arguments you carry down the bench, and how you break down the round. On the note of reply speeches- I don't think reply speeches should be filled with rebuttal to the opposing 3/4- rather, I think the main focus should be WHY you win the debate (aka voting issues). As a judge, I should be referred to. I should be asked what world I buy, what world I would rather live in/agree with, etc. If you choose to make new arguments in reply that are not on my flow, I will dock your points and you will be called out for this abusive mindset.

COMPARATIVE, so many people forget this, this should start in the Opp 1 and Prop/Opp 2, continuing through the round. Your reply should include comparative. Weigh the worlds. Again, please weigh, World Schoolers often forget that their arguments need impact weighing as well as comparative. If weighing does not at MOST start in the 3rd speeches, I will not consider it valid.

Comparative weighing = easiest way to win my ballot! You don't have to use explicit weighing mechanisms, but I should know on what grounds you're weighing on.

Finally- persuasion, as mentioned before, is very important to me. At the end of the day, I will likely vote for the person who convinced me the most, even if some of the opponent's arguments slipped through undefended. This is critical in Worlds as dropped arguments don't hurt you as much- whatever both sides clashed on is what matters most.

Public Forum and LD

I've judged PF and LD (usually novice) and what I'm finding is that too often speeches are all defense, with no offensive arguments made. While not much offense is necessary in the first rebuttal, I need to see it in second rebuttal and onwards. Speeches are NOT all rebuttals- there's been multiple times where teams say their first constructive and then everything else (rebuttal, summary, final focus) is just responding to the other's side arguments, not weighing, and no evidence clash.

Please include roadmaps for your speeches after the first constructive. A simple "First I will go over the opponent's case, refute their arguments, and expand upon our contentions" will suffice. Otherwise when I flow, I'm not aware of what exactly I should start off with. Again, please include evidence and real clash, or else I as the judge am forced to intervene and make my own conclusions.

I need, I repeat, NEED warranting. What a lot of debaters do (in any event) is jump from A to Z with no B and C. For example, if your argument is about universal healthcare, don’t try to jump from A to Z and say your impact is “nuclear war.” Fully flesh out your arguments and at least try to make your logic reasonable so I have a clear place to vote.

FOR PF: Weigh in third summary and extend in final focus: weighing should be impactful AND comparative. You need impact calculus, and this is not a simple “we outweigh on magnitude” rather you must explain WHY, or I will not consider it valid. I will not consider weighs in final focus, even if it's the only weighing in round.

FOR LD: Value/Value Criterion Clash - I expect you to have a clear value and value criterion, but I use them as a way to evaluate the round (framework), not as a voting issue (unless they're really, really bad, abusive, or maybe unexpectedly brilliant). Show why you meet your opponents' v/vc as well as your own, or why yours makes much more sense in context of the round, then move on. It's probably not going to be a big independent voter for me.

While PF and LD tend to be about technicality, using "we had more sources" isn't necessarily a valid argument. However, if you say "empirically, we prove that our arguments/impacts are valid because of "XYZ" evidence" I will buy that.

Style-wise, I don't like having to listen to monotone cases. Please, PLEASE, don't read off of the laptop entirely. Interact with me as a judge. I will give you an auto 30 if you read your cases off of paper.

Also, for PF: grand cross in my opinion is a waste of time and I'm fine with skipping it for a minute of prep. I will ask you before round begins, please don't say "I want the extra minute of prep" after 3rd summary because then it's completely focused on final focus, and that's like... a 2 minute speech.

If I'm judging you for speech events or interp!

Hello there! I love speech and interp and I'm super impressed by the amount of time and dedication it takes to perfect your pieces. I do Extemp sometimes; thus, the way I judge will be influenced by it. In extemp, I expect you to have AGD, intro, 3 main points, conclusion- but if your format is something totally different, as long as it has clear substance, I will evaluate it. Please at least give me 2-3 sources. Impromptu is fun- interpret your topic any way you like and make it a good, structured speech. For interp- do what you do best!

Extra Notes for Events

I will give higher speaks for interesting hooks, making me laugh, and overall making it an interesting debate. I’m a fan of intense debate rounds like any other judge but I don’t want to hear borderline screaming for hours.

Good luck and have fun! If you have any questions, please email me at irenemjohn@gmail.com!

About Me:

Elkins High School '25

I am a very chill judge. My experience with Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas is minimal, and my main event is World Schools Debate.

As for credentials: I have over 3 years of debate experience, and qualified for state twice in World Schools Debate.

General:

Theory is allowed (except for WSD and Congress) and is appreciated if entertaining enough.

Show respect to yourself, your partner (if applicable), and your opponents. Sportsmanship should be shown throughout the duration of the debate. I will give you a small interval of time to get to know your opponents and me before the round, so use that time wisely. After we get started with the debate, don't go off-topic unless it is complementing your case or adding humor to your speech.

If you have any specific questions about your speech, argumentation, or tips, feel free to ask me once the debate is over. I am also open to any questions regarding my paradigm prior to the debate, so make sure to be prepared. Try to go the restroom before the round starts, but if you really need to go wee wee mid-round, then wait until a speech is completed before you proceed.

Please make this debate as constructive as possible, and focus on the topic at hand. I don't appreciate arguments based on the legitimacy of evidence or cards, so save your energy and don't waste the little time you have. As a world schools debater, I appreciate ethical worldview arguments. Try to make a majority, if not all, of your argumentative substance appealing and worthwhile for you and me. I will consider giving you/your team extra points if your hook is fire.

Speaks:

WSD:

I usually start in the middle of the speaker's point range, (ex. Range: 60-80 Start: 70) and I will add or subtract points based on your performance. Sound confident and be loud, concise, and enunciate your words. Basically, just speak proper English with an "outside voice". Ensure everyone in the room can hear and understand what you are saying. If I cannot comprehend your words, they will not be taken into consideration.

Public Forum:

Make sure you are prepared and cards, links, etc. are ready. My knowledge in this event is diminishing with age, but I will know if you are trying to cheat. If I do not remember the procedures in this event, please correct me and give me or give me an overview prior to the round. However, I will have no problem following your arguments and evidence, so try to make your speech cohesive and easy to flow.

World Schools Debate:

If you goof up...

I will know :)

Have fun and good luck to all!

Please add me to the email chain: rpatel135798642@gmail.com

Speech drop is cooler tho

About me:

LV Hightower '24
POLICY DEBATER
Debated TFA, UIL, and NSDA policy circuit

I mostly judge to help out tournaments/schools with judging because I want tournaments to have more flow judges who know the events rather than parents

NOVICES!!

Stop reading my paradigm (read this section but nothing below)!!! I don't want my paradigm to influence the way you debate. I suggest you don't read it because it will get you confused. Just debate how your coach taught you and I will follow. As a novice, your #1 job is to have fun debating and enjoy your experience. After the round ask me as many questions as you would like and I will try to answer them to the best of my ability with my prior debate knowledge.

Just remember what you practiced and what your coach taught you, no matter win or lose it is great that you are here!

In novice rounds, I will never vote off theory unless it is absolutely egregious/abusive (if you don't know what this means forget I said it).

Scroll down for other events

CX
shortcut:
1 bad - 5 good
Planless K aff - I will use your debate round as an hour-and a half-nap nap then vote neg
DA - 5(who doesn't run DAs)
CP - 5
K - 3 (I only understand a couple so explain)
Topicality - 5 (these are so underused, T debate is what got my partner and I to our first nats)
Theory - 4 (I love good theory debates that aren't pointless if the theory debate is pointless your speaks will reflect it)

Paradigm:

The name of the debate is policy so that's what I expect. I hate going into these debates about how debate is bad and how debate as a norm hurts people. First of all, it really doesn't(why are you here) second of all idgaf. Acc debate something about the topic.Overall I'm tab, I will weigh any kind of argument (Cap good/bad, death good/bad, all that stuff) I'm not picky just make it make sense. The debates I hate judging the most are the debates where nothing is clear and I'm throwing a dart blindfolded for my ballot.

I see condo as an excuse for teams not doing speed drills (just get good)

Tech -x---------- Truth
Condo bad ----------x- Just get good
Policy ---x-------- K
Limits -------x---- aff ground
T -x---------- K aff
Policy fw ---x-------- Any other fw

In constructive spread however fast you want(as long as its understandable) just make sure I have speech doc, if you are reading analytics tell me and slow down and make it a noticeable change in your voice so I know what analytics.

If you want me to vote for T or theory it needs to make up at least 2 minutes of the final speech (2nr or 2ar). If you don't cover it at least that much it the arg has to be so convincing that I feel bad for you about the round.

Most of my cx comes from Aman Chaudhary, Issac Chao, and Valentin Jimenez, they taught me debate so go read their paradigm to find out more about me (good pf and ld cuz he is basically my only basis for those)

LD

I know a bit about the debate, if you are prog please run prog its what I will fully understand coming from CX. Other than that I really want to see a good debate between battling frameworks and values. I think the whole trad LD debate saying "My value is this... My value criterion is this" is overplayed. Just tell me why you win under a fw idc what you value who you value or how you achieve your value. Just outweigh the fw debate and prove you are right and you have my ballot.

I'm cool with DA, CP, and most K's (I'm not the biggest fan of the far-left identity K's there is nothing wrong with them but they leave me with the feeling of voting for the person, not the argument and that is a moral position I would prefer not to be in)

Overall, my ballot is pretty easy to get in LD just don't be basic and be offensive, win FW and outweigh.

PF

I really don't understand this event. I will try to vote as best as I can. I would judge it as a lay CX round about who outweighs the topic. Just be persuasive and make good args and you will be fine. I am very sorry if I jf you. :)

Speaker Points

I tend to give high speaks. I start at a 29 and give you points if you do something good or entertaining and take points if you do something dumb or talk past time.

If you say "Yeet that argument out of the window" with a straight face in your speech I'll give you one extra speaker point, For WSD I'll give points as I see fit

atharvdebate@gmail.com | (add me to every email chain)

Background

I am Atharv Shukla, class of 2026 at Elkins High School. I am primarily a policy debater, but I have minimal experience/knowledge in events such as DX, NX, FX, PF, and LD. As for addresses, I don't really care whether you call me "judge" or not, as long as a moderate level of professionalism is maintained. For your information, my pronouns are He/Him, but once again, I don't really care what you call me.

Also, I'm like half deaf so pls send the doc--much appreciated!

General

tldr: don't be lazy.

Tech > Truth

Of course, I will not tolerate anything along the lines of racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, etc.

Like mentioned above, add me to every email chain. I used to have prefs on email chain over speechdrop, but do whatever gets the round moving faster. You gotta realize that, as a judge, I could care less about your docs. I'm also kinda slow so just send over most of your stuff and I'll flow it.

As for speaks, I will award them in a range of 26-30 (<26 if you really mess up). 30 speaks is for a perfect debate: no stuttering, no awkward pausing, no lack of flow, no abusive card cutting, etc. I start at 27, as I assume that level of competence in your debating. If your speech makes me laugh for the right reasons, you gain speaks. For doing any of the aforementioned activities you lose speaks.

Show humility in a debate round. Don't deliver a 30-second speech because you believe your opponent is "incompetent". Show respect for me and each other, and I will show it back. I give you three strikes for misconduct (two if I'm in a bad mood).

Feel free to ask me for additional RFD after the round, after all, it is my job. I have learned so much from my judge RFD (especially in rounds where I've had my a** handed to me) and I believe it is very important to learn from your mistakes.

Speaking:

Every time you say, "I'm gonna start on my case and then attack my opponents", you lose 0.2 speaks. Literally say "6 off and top down" or "6-123", I will know what you mean.

Spread if you want to just send the docs I'm deaf. Slow down on the taglines tho.

Policy

"pf is baby ld,
ld is baby policy,
policy is in its own league" - Asad Ahmed

I am generally very friendly and don't keep up with the usual grumpy stereotype of most policy judges (don't be the reason I develop it). I will engage in small talk before and after round. I'm also a policy debater so I WILL point you out on your bs (however I won't vote off it cause judge intervention is bad).

If you're gonna spread please be good at it, otherwise i will not hesitate to start docking speaker points.

"Email chains. Yes, I want to be on it. Yes, card docs are appreciated. I will give a warning if I catch someone clipping cards. If it continues to happen after the warnings, I will stop the round. Ev with missing paragraphs in between highlighted lines, misquoted or misattributed authors, etc. are reasons for teams to lose the round on evidence ethics. I will stop the round and evaluate the evidence when the team calls for an ev ethics challenge. Cards that start in the middle of a paragraph or clearly omit paragraphs (even if unhighlighted) ARE forms of cheating and I WILL drop debaters on it." - Nine Abad

Theory

Idrc about theory, however, I will flow it and if the opponent is unable to properly respond and shut it down, I will give that argument (however less its worth for "drop the argument") to the side that successfully ran it. Run content-focused arguments that are relevant to the aff/neg. If the opponent concedes "drop the team" I'll probably give you the win. My beliefs:

• condo is good (3+ condo is debatable tho...)
• condo perfcon good
• disad perfcon bad (idk why you need theory on this tho...)
• general disclosure okay (put your contact info on the wiki)
• hyperspecific disclosure bad (just ask for the 1ac and nothing more)
• Ks good
• K affs good
• links of omission bad
• education with spillover I/L > fairness > education without a spillover I/L
• fiat good
• 50-state uniformity is utopian but a norm (I think you can read stuff like "Texas says no")

K:

• I'm not voting on procedural standards bad unless you have piles upon piles of evidence on it. If this is your only clash on fw I'm probably just flowing aff on the k. (pess and other ontology is an exception)
• Pls don't run a K if you have no idea what it says; I hate messy K debates and tend to just default to anything else in the 2ar.
• Don't run K bad theory, for the love of god just say 'materiality good' or something.
• Tell me how to evaluate the K. Do i weigh the alts? Why does your framework matter? Why should I vote on the perm over the alt? Don't just spam cards, explain to me how I'm voting and you'll be happy with my ballot.
• I'll applaud you for running a discreet K, I don't find it to be abusive. Vice versa, don't complain if it's not on openev.

Disads:

Policy debate needs more DAs. My favorite DAs are: ptx, readiness, tradeoff, specific econ, etc. DAs need impact weighing. I need to know why your DA is going to happen before the plan can prevent the impacts. Paint me a big picture, I tend to get lost on weird impacts. If the aff points out you have no timeframe, consider the DA lost. If you're running it as a net benefit of a CP, you need to prove to me why the CP doesn't link into the DA. DA+CP in the 2nr is lit and I will not hesitate to vote you up if it makes sense.

My freshman year I mostly read the China and DoD Tradeoff disads--idk if that helps lmao.

Counterplans:

In my opinion, every 1nc should have at least one counterplan. I love competition, so debate on the perm. Say the perm is intrinsic or severance, tell me why the permutation isn't topical. I love perms specifically, so PDB, PDCP, PDPCP, PDP, and more are alright by me.

I love external net benefits just please don't go for a federalism NB if you kicked the fed DA into the block.

Topicality:

90% of 1nc t is bs. If your 2nr strat is t-prog there is a 99% chance I'm voting aff. So many judges say only run T is you think it's legit, but I think it's okay to run 3 Ts in the 1nc for a time skew, as long as you drop 2 of them in the block. My general rule of thumb is 3 Ts max with the most legit one in the block (but preferably none because topicality is BS).

1nc:

I don't really care if the 1nc is like 12 off, I think it's actually kind of fun. I applaud one card Ks as long as you maintain them in the block, and I personally will probably up your speaks if you extend like 80% of your off into the block (for fun). I don't find these 1ncs to be abusive, just have some discretion against inexperienced teams ig.

K-aff:

I think K affs are cool. My personal favorite arguments against K affs are presumption, t, ballot pik, K, etc. If you're doing KvK I will 100% get lost on the fw flow so there is a 99% chance I'm gonna go alt vs. alt.

LD

Refer to policy paradigm above but here's some more yapping:

idk what larping is

ld fw is stupid--I think util is bad for a whole flurry of reasons (eugenics, justice, etc.)[email me after round and I'll send you cards on it]

i will evaluate LD the same way i evaluate policy so just consider that

ld theory is also lowk stupid and i have a very low threshold on it( i.e if your shell against theory is like an avg policy shell I'll consider it defense unless you highkey blunder dat ho

prog > trad (still hate LD theory tho I'm ngl)

Also, if you collapse on K in the 2nr, all 6 minutes need to be K+Case.

Public Forum

Dawg it's just case debate.

Run something stupid and I might vote you on it.

for high level debate refer to policy paradigm.

for low level debate treat me as adam sandler.

Add me to any email chains:

Email: mybilv@gmail.com

About me:

I've done LD, CX, Extempt Debate, Congress, and a few speech events. I’ve done 3 years of Varsity Policy Debate, 1 year of Varsity LD Debate. I’ve competed at NSDA Nationals, TFA State, and UIL State.

General:

If you are spreading please make sure to flash me the case. I don't care about speed as long as you flash me the case I will follow along. DO NOT spread analytics because I will not flow it. Slow down for analytics and other important details. Signposting is crucial in debate, please do it. It will help me flow along better. For any debate I want to see clash amongst the arguments. Breakdown every detail: its significance, impact, etc. Extend that into drops as well. If your opponent drops an argument don't just say you win because they dropped it explain to me why that argument wins you the round.

Preferences:

tech>truth

1. t

2. cp

3. da

4. case

5. framework

6. larp

7. theory

8. k

9. phil

10. tricks

Policy:
You can spread however much you want, but just be mindful in terms of clarity and comprehensibility. If you are spreading through analytics I will not flow. Please slow down for analytics and important details. Learn to control your speed and modulation to place emphasis on where you want me to focus on and vote off of. I'm fine with any arguments you run as long as you clearly explain it. I hate K’s so please don't run them but if you do again just explain it thoroughly.

LD:

I prefer more of a traditional LD debate, not a big fan of the progressive LD, but I did debate policy for the majority of my debate career so I will understand progressive args. Framework is crucial in LD but is not the only thing that will win you the round. Please make sure to link your framework to your case and tell me why you win the framework debate.

PF:

Treat me as a lay judge in this event. However, PF isn't a speed debate so don't spread. I vote on strong links and impact calculus so make sure to highlight these. Evidence is really crucial in PF, having recent evidence and having strong internal warrants matters a lot.

With all that being said above all make sure to have fun! If you do crack jokes and make it a fun debate round I might give extra speaker points ;) but be mindful and respectful of everyone