I'm Athena (she/her), I am a senior policy debater. I've been doing this for four years, I placed multiple times at regionals, state, and districts, and nationals multiple times as well, so I sorta know what I'm doing⸝⸝✩‧₊˚

.‎

If I'm not judging a policy round you might be cooked, however a monkey could judge PF (if you are an LD debater close your eyes and pray to whatever god you believe in)

.‎

❀ for email chain--athena.gadi@gmail.com

❀ I'm what you call a tech/tab judge (I vote on the flow don't drop anything)

❀ I will disclose my ballot at the end idc lol

.‎

❤︎ Speed- I spread when I debate so I understand going fast to get through your arguments. But istg if you don't drop a doc and you are unintelligible it will be silly (and not in a good way for you).

‎.

❤︎ Topicality- I love topicality and I can see where it can be run in every round. You need to prove abuse or its not an issue. I don't want a 1NC without T voters. NEG, you are not running topicality as a time skew, don't drop it in the 2NR, that's silly.

‎.

❤︎ DAs- Disadvantages are better when they are more specific, thats just true, however I won't discredit a DA just because it has a vague link. If your uniqueness is two years old I will laugh at you (on the inside).

‎.

❤︎ CPs- I feel like its fair that I tell you I lowkey hate cps. If it's not competitive I'm going to draw hello kitty on the flow. I am not a fan of PICs. I believe in perm theory really heavily.

‎.

❤︎ Ks- I really like Ks, on both AFF and NEG, and I will treat them like any other argument. I am especially well versed in Fem and Set Col, but I am comfortable with Cap, Imperialism, Afro-pess, Poverty, and Orientalism. Explain any k to me properly and I will try to understand it.

‎.

❤︎ Framework- I think FW is absolutely crucial to the round. Don't drop FW that's silly and you will probably lose. If you run a K without FW I will laugh at you (on the inside).

‎.

❤︎ Theory- If you prove where there has been abuse in round, and why that outweighs, I'll vote on most theory. I am very likely to vote aff on condo. I also believe in disclosure, theres never a reason not to disclose.

‎.

❤︎ Attitude- If you are unnecessarily mean it will make me like you less. I'm six different types of minority so if you are racist, sexist, bigoted, etc. you are literally losing my ballot and I will give you non-existent speaks.

‎.

❤︎ Little things:

- Don't gaslight me... I'm like... flowing?

- I don't shadow extend, I flow what comes out of your mouth.

- If you don't number your case attacks I will cry.

- My phone times better than yours don't argue with me.

- Recency is real.

- Past the 1AC/1NC I want to see more clash and engaging warrants than cards.

- Make a hello kitty reference and you get extra speaks.

‎.

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⣶⣾⣶⣦⣄⠀⢀⣤⡴⠾⠛⠛⢷⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣾⣿⣻⢞⣳⢯⣿⣿⡋⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢿⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⡴⠶⠶⠶⣤⣤⣄⡀⢀⣀⣤⣤⠶⠶⠞⣿⡿⣞⡷⣯⣿⣿⣼⣿⣷⣤⣄⡀⠀⣀⣠⣸⣧⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⢰⡟⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠙⠋⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⡿⣽⡽⣻⣿⣽⣿⢿⢯⣟⠿⣿⣿⣿⣻⣟⡿⣿⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⣾⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣟⣧⢿⣽⣻⣿⡿⣯⣟⢾⣻⡽⣿⣷⣿⣞⣽⣳⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⢸⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠻⢾⣿⣾⠷⠟⢿⣷⣯⣟⣳⣿⣿⣿⡿⣞⣧⣿⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠈⢿⣴⠆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠙⠛⢿⣿⣽⣳⠿⣽⣾⠿⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⣸⠏⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠛⠻⠛⠋⠁⠀⢹⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⢀⡿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣨⣿⣤⡤⠦⠴
⠀⠀⠀⢸⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠉⠉⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⢸⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣴⡶⢶⣤⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⣤⣿⣤⣤⣀⡀
⢀⣀⣤⣼⣷⡤⠤⠄⠀⠀⠀⢀⣠⣶⣶⣤⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠁⠀⠀⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⡟⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠉⠉⠀⠀⢻⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⠏⠀⠀⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⡖⠒⢶⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⣤⣾⣁⡀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⣀⣨⣿⡶⠶⠂⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⠷⠶⠛⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⡿⠉⠉⠙⠛⠒⠀
⠀⠀⠘⠉⠁⠈⠻⣦⣀⣀⡤⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣠⡾⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⡾⠿⢿⣤⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣀⣤⡴⠾⠋⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⠟⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠛⠛⠶⠶⠦⣤⣤⣤⣤⣤⣤⠴⠶⠶⠶⠚⠛⠋⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

3 Years of policy at Jenks High School ('25)

The short version

-Be nice-- to your opponents (there is an exception were they've said something insanely problematic and they seem to defend it/dont apologize about it), to your partner (the amount of time ive seen debaters be mean to their partners is crazy to me), and to me.

-Cross isn't supposed to be aggressive it's supposed to be informational and is binding if your opponent brings it up in the next speech

-Sometimes you need a break so taking a second of prep before any speech or cross is fine

-Don't say anything any-phobic or any-ist

-High speaks are just anyone who tries and isn't rude in round, also if you seem to know your stuff to a degree it can help.

-Please send analytics IF you have them-- I am not a native English speaker and Spanish is my first language so when you go 400wpm it sorta starts sounding like Spanish. This does not mean don't spread, but it does mean that if you're planning on having the fw section on my k flow be two pages long please send the analytics if you have them.

- I like good disclosure practices, if you dont know how to talk to me after round on what exactly disclosure is.

The long version:

PF: pls weigh your impacts-- the biggest thing i see and hear abt novice pf are debaters not weighing their impacts. Listen to your coach bcs they are definitely more knowledgeable when it come to teaching debate but i personally believe that when starting out you wont understand the other more techy parts of debate and it makes a judges life easier when making a decision after round.

LD: I did ld once. Not really my cup of tea and I doubt ill see much of this in novice but I'm definitely probably better at evaluating an ld round that's not trad. Thats not to say trad isn't good or that you shouldn't do it in front of me but you will need to explain your lit bases more and how they apply to your specific args. Again be nice to your opponent, especially since you're probably in novice as your reading this and it's everyone's first few times!

Policy: I do mostly policy stuff when debating but I will evaluate k stuff if that's what you're into, I just may not be the best for it:

Ks: I like Ks, i am comfortable with cap to a degree and i ran fem ir during the nato topic a lot (basically a type of security k so im cool with that too). Run whatever you want but keep in mind im not going to be an expert or even know every single lit base, especially if its really niche. I get confused by FW a lot so try to make it clear on my flow so that i dont evaluate it incorrectly-- and dont have a k overview thats going to fill up 2 pages of my flow-- i rather you do the line by line rather than answer everything messily in the overviews.

CPs: I personally don't believe in a lot of cp abuse stories and think that the aff needs to win something more substantive on the counterplan, but i am willing to hear it out and maybe vote if you do enough work on it.

DA: I feel like clear analysis in a DA debate has become under appreciated. Don’t just tagline debate your 1NC shell the entire round— give me the warrants of the cards and cross apply it to specific areas of the Aff. Impact weighing is huge here, if i’m in a round where the 2ar and 2nr simply shadow extend their impacts (i.e. “climate change is bad" and "war is bad") and don’t actually extend the warrants as to why that’s bad then i’m just left with deciding what I personally think is worse and you don’t want that— i dont want to be interventionist so your last rebuttal should in a way write my ballot for me.

Topicality: Ive come to realize that high school debaters tend to underestimate topicality when on the aff and the 2n's usually dont go for it unless its against a planeless aff or if the other team straight up dropped it. I like T, i feel like neg should be going for it more bcs its strategic and its fairly easy to evaluate it coming out of the 1ar and 2nr-- sometimes 2ar pivots a fun to watch but the 1ar still has to do the work to get there. Idk what else to say, my 2n partner hates to say it but hes a t debater at heart so ive been in a lot of rounds where its been the 2nr if that helps when deciding what you're gonna run.

Procedurals: some theory args I find not believable like PIC's bad bcs i feel like the aff should be able to defend laterally what they wrote in their plantext. But if something is droped i believe it to be a true arg and if the aff does work and mentions you drop it that means that i vote aff in that scenario. Condo should be a "condo good/bad" debate, minus one condo good debates are dumb to me to a degree but again do the work on it.

Pronouns- any pronouns are fine, he/him If you have specific pronouns let them be known before the round, if you dont respect someones pronouns your speaks will be as low as they can be, i get the occasional mispeak but if its obvious you dont give a crap your speaks will be trash.

Email-nathan.hernandez2213@gmail.com (spam my email and I will be very upset)

put me on the chain pls

Background- Debated 4 years for Guymon high school in Oklahoma (now a student-athlete at Rogers State, no college debate) under the GOAT and now NSDA hall of fame coach Michael Patterson. 2021 and 2022 policy state champ made state FEX finals a few times and won some IE events a few times at state and qualified to NSDA nationals.

side note-this is a dying activity much to my sadness, so if you are facing someone who is much less experienced than you don't be a jerk and just destroy them, help them learn and be nice and slow down a bit I'm sure a senior team doesn't need 8 off to handle a novice team, crap like this is what drives people away from the activity.

TLDR; tab ras

As far as policy and all debate really goes I try to approach every round with tabula rasa so just have fun and run whatever you normally run as long as it is not sexist, racist, homophobic, or anything hateful, i will not hesitate to vote down any team that participates in card clipping, "ism", plagiarism, i don't care how much you are winning the flow

Policy-spreading- is fine just send a doc copy

Ks- are fine but dont expect me to know your Lit base, was a huge cap/setcol/bioP/anthro debater in HS so i know them pretty well, i understand most Ks but dont expect me to understand your super complex Baudi K so please explain your warrants and your lit base

DA- is cool more specific the better. I get generic links are easy but its always smart to go with more specific links they make the debate way more interesting to judge. Also idk why people are starting to feel like they can run a 2 card long DA and that somehow covers it, i get the strategy for it but its just annoying.

theory- is cool not really a huge voter but I mean if you're winning it I will. Run whatever theory you want as long as it is not problematic (most theory debates are pretty trash but im down to be proven wrong), I prob wont vote on your RVI unless there is some fr abuse.

CPs- are cool i really really enjoy specific ones, i think PICs are kind of lazy and will be down to vote on PIC theory but its never ran it so wahtev. I always love a good CP comp debate, please make the status of your CP known or ask, trust me. I was a big CP debater my senior year so i love those guys. PLEASE HAVE A SOLVENCY ADVOCATE

T- is dope aswell make sure to extend and go for standards they are underutilized. When answering T a counter def or we meet is a good idea, probably the best idea but you cant just run that, if you drop standards you basically lose the round.

Case- is underutilized and can make or break a round i love a good case debate. SOOO much room for good clash on the flow if you use case correctly which makes the best rounds. Also pls pls pls do line by line on case, i hate having to jump around my flow. Ill do my best to put it where i think it goes but if it ends up on the wrong thing, sorry...

Speaks- are determined on how clean your line by lines are and spreading and overall behavior in the round and overall debate skill. It's not that deep bro.

random-i was a 1a/1n all through highschool and more tech>truth judge unless it just gets ridiculous with the hyper tagging. will ask for a card to be shown if i think it can deterime a round or was highly contesed throughout the debate.

Args i 9/10 wont vote-stuff that happened outside of a round, links by their schools (idc if they are a christian school), debate is a game.

args i will vote you down for running-death good (seriously..why), racism or any ism good, name calling, reverse racism.

overall just have fun be nice and enjoy yourselves. Funny jokes in your speech will be rewarded with better speaks i dont think debate should be a monolouge of zombies, crack the occasional joke trust me ill laugh even if i really dont find it funny.

i prefer if you have your cams on when speaking or doing CX/crossfire.

LD/PF-Never done it but i know the gist of it, alot of my policy paradigm applies except in PF it seems as though spreading is bad but i wont stop you. Send the docs still please and im sorry if i confuse the times with policy but ill do my best to give a good RFD and decision. Im cool with whatever LD tricks are ive judged a few rounds of both debates so i can evaluate it decently well probs not high level deabtes tho.

TL;DR:

If you have technological constraints that preclude any of the following standards inform me and I will ignore it when considering speaker points. If there is no sufficient explanation and these standards are not met it will be reflected in speaker points.

Email and SpeechDrop are the two acceptable mediums for sending speech documents. NSDA DocShare is only acceptable if some parties use an email chain and include the NSDA DocShare's 'email' on that chain. Place the following emails on any chain:

adam.humphrey44@gmail.com

okpolicydebate@googlegroups.com

realartistsofguantanamobay@googlegroups.com

The only acceptable format for a speech is .docx. No content should be located in the 'body' of an email.

Speech documents must contain at minimum all pieces of evidence read in a speech, with all words said from that evidence demarcated (traditionally through highlighting) and all demarcated words said. If you elect not to read certain demarcated words, verbally indicate where you are stopping the evidence.

It is kind but optional to open-source or send analytics, even if your opponent explicitly requests it. Kindness may be rewarded with higher speaker points, but not if kindness constitutes 'going easy' on your opponent (not crushing somebody on an argument they do not understand is unstrategic for a different reason than sending analytics is unstrategic). Completely decimating your opponent strategically is the best way to teach them.

LONG:

I do what debaters tell me to do with these exceptions:

- If any debater requests to end the round, I immediately end the round. The same is true for reporting something to Tabroom.
- If I become aware that a debater is incapable of communicating that they wish to end the round, I immediately end the round.
- If I am externally coerced (for example by tab, law enforcement, or rogues stealing my ballot), I may be physically incapable of meeting the above standard.

Sometimes I may struggle to understand what you are instructing me to do. I view this as a personal error on my part. Here is my policy for resolving this.

- First, I will flow your speech auditorily.
- If that fails, I will make active attempts during prep time to decipher any confusion by analyzing my flow.
- If that fails, I may read evidence where possible to clear up mistakes.
- If that fails, I will use the speech document (if it contains anything beyond evidence) to clear up mistakes.

Disclaimer: I doNOT intend to go rogue by doing any of the above. If I spot that you are misrepresenting your evidence or that a different claim in your evidence is made, I will not consider that. I solely use these methods to help me understand the exact claims you have made.

I still may evaluate incorrectly. This brings me to my policy on postrounding. It is good if you disagree with me. We should figure out the source of the disagreement. I may be in the wrong, and though I am incapable of changing the ballot, I am capable of changing future ballots.

The above means that all of the following concepts in any section beneath are negotiable. I do, however, believe a team advocating for the frames I'm going to enumerate is in a better spot to win them:

All propositions introduced are weakly assumed to have a 100% probability of truth. 'Weakly' means that this assumption of truth only exists in the abject absence of an assertion of the contrary.

"Warrants" are propositions that lend credence to another proposition. Rebutting an opponent's proposition requires asserting the contrary. Good debates involve me 'lining up' warrants for a proposition and its contrary and comparing them, sometimes with 'deeper-level' warrants for each warrant. However, propositions do not require warrants to be considered---instead, the threshold for a strategic response to them is much lower.

Propositions are propositions regardless of where they are introduced. This means that hiding ASPEC in brackets while you're reading evidence is permissible. If you weren't flowing, flow.

Propositions are propositions regardless of how 'dumb' they are. This means that hiding 'evaluate after the 1NC' is permissible. If they're so dumb, disprove them.

I do not think there is such a thing as a 'default.'

Speaker points are based on (in no particular order):

- Strategy
- Quality of Argument
- Kindness
- My Personal Enjoyment
- (Not) Being A Speech Document Terrorist
- Your Judge Instruction on the Speaker Points I Ought To Assign

I am open to instruction about speaker points, but I consider the other standards to also be implicit claims as to what speaker points you should receive, so you may have to debate yourself.

MY BIASES:

Metaethics: I prefer them coherent and offensive. 'Coherent' means clearly defined and consistently applicable. Stuff like 'our only commitment is that racism is bad' doesn't articulate a metaethical position. 'Offensive' means they don't also filter out all offense you have. For example, emotivism or skepticism both filter AFF and NEG offense equally, meaning they have no impact on the round unless 100% dropped. However, Kantianism magnifies promise-breaking offense while filtering consequential impacts. On the other hand, dropped skepticism obviously means vote NEG on presumption. The is-ought gap additionally strikes me as a serious problem that metaethical theories have to bridge.

Non-Topical 1ACs: I appreciate it when they clarify what they defend, if anything. I am probably NEG-leaning on framework, but not for the reason NEG teams currently read.

Defensive Case Arguments: I don't think I'm biased here.

Offensive Case Arguments: I don't think I'm biased here.

Topicality: Covered a little on theory. I'm likely biased toward predictability and logic claims.

Disadvantages. I don't think I'm biased here.

Counterplans. I personally believe all counterplans are illegitimate, and that agent counterplans are especially illegitimate. However, they are also fun---and I've only known 3 people who can articulate why counterplans at large are illegitimate. I do not share the disdain for 'artificially competitive' or 'cheating' counterplans beyond the aforementioned standards, and I likely lean NEG on those questions.

Kritiks: I think there are two types---framework kritiks and fake kritiks. The former I am likely AFF-biased on framework, but not for the reasons AFF teams currently read. The latter I think are merely counterplans (for example, cap is just a different impact scenario for abolishing IP in many cases).

Theory: Violations are binary and do not have 'risk'---51% 'risk' means you're winning the violation, 50% or 1% 'risk' means you are not. This means AFF teams can collapse to the we meet. I think the interpretation is what you say it is. If evidence comes after, that just lends credence to the interpretation. If the evidence is the interpretation, then so be it.

Here are some helpful sources I tend to agree with:

- The Debatalist Papers
- Adhitya Thirumala
- Chinmay Khaladkar

I am likely more favorable to kritikal debate than the latter two on that list.

Debate: I am not particularly picky on anything, but please be respectful to your opponent(s). Feel free to run progressive arguments, but beware that I may not get them if you aren't clear.

LD: Make sure to clarify how your criterion supports your contentions! Also, don’t drop all your contentions for the sake of the value debate. Do not make all of your arguments cross-applications of your own case unless there is a legitimate clash. I vote primarily on the quality of coverage.

PF: Any speaking speed is fine, just make sure you are coherent. A heated cross-examination is fine but please don’t spend the entire time yelling at each other. I vote on the quality of evidence and general coverage.

debated at jenks high school for 4 years, judge for jenks high school now. she/her

tl;dr : slow down on taglines/analytics, tabula rasa, put me on the email chain: caroline.kizziar00@gmail.com

speed: if you don’t send me something and i don’t catch it that really sucks for you.

Counterplan: i don’t think they’re abusive in general, that being said if the aff team correctly points out an instance of abuse on a counterplan and really impacts it out i could be persuaded otherwise. you should have either a specific solvency advocate or a really good reason why your generic one works. sufficiency framing should be well explained but ill def vote on it. i will not judge kick your counterplan unless you convince me i should. please for the love of god read a card with your counterplan— just the text is not enough.

disads: core generics are important but as a former 2A i know that most of them suck— tell me why and i will 100% listen to that analysis. i think evidence comparison is especially important on a DA.

kritiks: i was mostly a policy debater so im not as familiar here— you need to explain your lit for me to vote. im willing to listen to state bad arguments, but will be sympathetic if an aff team correctly asserts that the alt is vague/doesn’t do anything. rejection alts are bad. the more abusive your framework is the less likely i am to weigh it. I generally believe util but i can be convinced that i should weigh something else if you can convince me that their internal link chain specifically is faulty/bad— not just internal link chains in general. for k affs: don’t pref me. i think fairness is absolutely an impact to fw. i am not the judge for you. if you read debate bad/death good/baudrillard i do not want to hear it. I won’t lie i did go for a lot of cap good/heg good arguments in high school but pls just read what you’re good at not what you think i want to hear. i am very sympathetic to the perm double bind argument.

topicality: i do like t but please don’t run a bad t argument just because you think i want to hear it. you should have in round abuse and a pretty fleshed out explanation of your world vs. their world. I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise. as the year goes on i weigh t less and less. that being said, if something isn’t even tangentially related to the resolution, you are going to lose.

case: i think case debate is underutilized, you should have something more than impact d even if it is just an analytic. same thing as k’s, please be explaining your aff i need to know what is going on don’t assume i know your advantages like you do.

crossx: definitely binding, definitely checks vagueness, should be brought up in later speeches.

theory: like any other judge i really don’t want to see a theory 2nr strat but if you believe that you have clear examples of abuse and that they genuinely deserve to lose for it, go ahead. condo is good, perfcon is fine, multiple perms are good, etc.

performance: whatever. im not too jazzed about this kind of debate but if you impact out why you need to play music in the round, go ahead. If your narrative has to do with sexual violence please dont be graphic, there are minors in the room.

misc: flash isn’t prep until it gets excessive, open cx is good as long as both sides agree, i don’t think debate should be funny. if you’re here and you run “joke” off case positions i will vote you down for wasting my time. you are not nearly as funny as you think you are.

Hello I am Brandon (He/Him), I have experience in both PF and LD but have no experience in policy so if I’m judging you in policy please be patient with me I'm sure I’ll get the hang of it.

LD:

I did LD my freshman year of high-school so I have a little bit of experience but not a lot. I’m not extremely picky just be respectful of your opponents. Sound confident in yourself and your arguments. I remember how scary debate was in the beginning you’re gonna do great!

PF:

I did PF for the majority of high-school and it was always my favorite form of debate. I went to state with it my junior year so I have a good amount of experience in it. Just like I said for LD be respectful of your opponents. I know cross can get very heated and chaotic especially during grand cross I just ask you to stay respectful. When it comes to sitting or standing during your speeches I’m okay with either whatever you’re most comfortable with. I am also okay with you timing yourself but I will also keep time. Try to sound confident in your speeches. You’re gonna do great!

Policy:

I have no experience in Policy but I have done some research and talked to teammates who do compete in policy to learn some. Please be patient with me I am learning with you. Like with the other forms of debate I ask that you are respectful of your opponents. I also ask that you keep the spreading to a minimum I'm okay with fast speaking just please enunciate so I can understand. I look forward to learning with and from you you’re gonna do great!

Hi, I'm Taylor. Keep in mind that my thoughts will probably change on specific aspects of debates as I judge more rounds, so I might change some things here and there in my paradigm.

EDIT: A lot of my thoughts on policy have changed. You should read it if you're doing your prefs.

My email: taylorrafferty22@gmail.com

About me (If you care)

Assistant Coach - Mill Valley

I debated at Jenks High School for four years. I mainly did Lincoln-Douglas Debate and International Extemp. While at Jenks on the state level, I was in 4 state final rounds between Lincoln-Douglas and International Extemp. On the national level, I was a 4x national qualifier in 3 different events, and in my senior year, I took 24th in the nation in Lincoln-Douglas Debate. I now attend ESU and personally coach a few students in LD. Despite my LD experience I find myself judging mostly policy rounds these days but I will see a LD or PF round every now and then.

General Debate Things

1. Tech>Truth; however, my threshold for responding to bad arguments is incredibly low.

2. I like Impact calc a lot. It would help if you did it.

3. Offense will get you further with me rather than defense. I don't think defense should be abandoned but telling me why you win goes much further than telling me why you don't lose.

4. EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS. I'm not going to do work for you if you don't extend your arguments through your last speech. I'm not gonna bother weighing it into my decision.

5. Crystalize and summarize your best arguments and why you won them in your final speeches. Generally, going for every argument on the flow is not in your best interest.

6. Time yourself. I'm terrible at it.

Traditional LD/Kansas LD

Only Warning

I will NOT hesitate to drop anyone who spreads or engages in debate practices that would not be persuasive or understandable to a reasonable person—this is not negotiable. Please do not see my policy background or circuit LD experience as an invitation to make this round uninteresting for everyone involved. I am not amused by making every event like policy; if I wanted that, I would go judge policy, and yes, there is a time and a place for a "progressive" style of LD, but your local circuit that barely does LD for half a semester isn't one of them.

General Things

1. Framework is SUPER IMPORTANT to me. I generally evaluate things sequentially. I use who's value/criterion or framework is winning to determine which arguments and impacts to weigh and, subsequently, who's won the ballot. This means framework in and of itself is not a voter, but it has a massive impact on who wins my ballot. For example, if you're winning the aff leads to extinction but you've conceded a Kant FW, you'll probably lose.

2. Please have consistent case content in relation to your framework. I can't begin to recount how many times I have heard someone read a Kant framework and then go on to read a bunch of Utilitarian arguments. If you do this, I might cry a little. :(

3. I typically enjoy moral-based argumentation that includes philosophy or some type of explanation for why an obligation exists. After all, most of the time, the resolution asks "ought" not "should." However, if you're going for strictly practical argumentation, it would be nice for you to still explain how stopping extinction is key for moral stability and how it links to your framework properly.

4. ANALYTICS are good. I don't expect a 1AR to read many cards in a 4-minute rebuttal speech when they can't go fast. However, if your analysis is blippy analytics with bad or no warrants at all, it won't get you far with me.

5. Crystalize, Crystalize, Crystalize. In a 45-minute round where you only get 13 minutes of speech time, you need to tell me what the most important arguments are, why you won them, and how they fulfill the framework. Line by line is necessary, no doubt, but I need to know why your arguments matter and what they should mean for my ballot.

Extra Note: I will disclose if you ask and with the consent of both debaters. If you don't ask, I will assume that you don't want to know.

PFD

1. If I don't get a framework, I will default to utilitarianism for my framing. If you don't want me to do that, you should give me a framework.

2. DON'T paraphrase evidence. (Unfortunately, this seems to be a big problem, specifically in PFD.) For the love of god, please, when you read cards, cite the author properly and read a cut version of the evidence. If I get paraphrasing evidence, I will be very inclined to vote you down.

3. Don't make PFD complicated. If you cover the flow well, weigh impacts, and crystalize your most important arguments in your final speech. You will be in an excellent position to win my ballot.

Policy Debate

1. I didn't do policy debate in high school or in college. That being said, I have judged policy for a few years now and have been able to learn most of it myself. However, don't expect me to be able to know uber-specific lingo or argumentation. Obviously, doing LD debate and judging policy, I have picked up a lot, but that does not mean I know how every single perm or kritik functions. Even as someone with some success in debate I am not going to sit here and pretend like I'm going to know exactly what you're saying while you're going NASCAR speed. To solve this use your smart people skills if you have doubt that I'm going to understand your alt, permutations, standards, framing, etc.... you should probably explain to me how it functions and what it means for the debate. If you want to treat me like a lay parent judge, I really couldn't care less.

2. I'm a busy college kid who is nice enough to judge on the weekends. I have not done any research on the topic at all, and honestly, even if I did have time, I probably wouldn't anyway, this topic looks abysmal. Don't expect me to know topic-specific lingo without seeing a doc.

3. My speed threshold is around a 7/10. I will say "clear" if it gets too fast. If you are reading analytics, please put them in the document if you gonna Zoom through them, but if you really want to make me happy, just slow down on them. If you make me type out 5 perms that I have to remember by memory as you speed through them, I will probably not even attempt to flow them. The rule here is to be reasonable to me.

General Things

1. Policy (Case, DA, CP) - I love a good case debate to weigh against a few disads and a counterplan. This is going to be where you get my best quality of judging. I'm a sucker for specific links; although generics aren't terrible, I will reward specifics and good evidence quality. I will make a big sad face if case is completely ignored after the neg block seems to happen in half the rounds I judge. As far as counterplans go, I'm cool with advantage and process counterplans unless I'm given a reason not to be. This extends to conditionality as well.

2. T- I have to admit topicality is very uninteresting. Its literally the same generic files being read every time, which really isn't the fault of anyone; I just have heard the same thing for a while now. Long story short, I prefer competing interps, but I can be sympathetic toward reasonability. Not a huge RVI guy I already find T to be painful so if your trying to bait T I'm probably not gonna be enthusiastic about it. In all seriousness, if you gonna go for T, I need good work to be done on the violation and standards.

3. Theory - I have a lot of the same thoughts on theory as I do on T (shocker). Out-of-round abuses or before-round abuses are a little tricky to handle screenshots would be great for something like disclosure theory if you want to run that. I am EXTREMELY sympathetic to voting for an issue that was mentioned either on tabroom or verbally before the round that then became an abuse such as speed, pronouns, disability etc...... Just be smart, and this should never be an issue for you. That aside, most theory is really bad and is either bait or just awful interps. I'm definitely sympathetic towards reasonability and prefer to drop the argument, not the team, outside of the previously mentioned arguments.

4. K-I'm familiar with a certain level of K lit. Anything going into some deep epistemological grounds or just outright obscure, you're going to need to explain to me. Really good, specific links will get you in a good place with me right off the bat. The alt, I think, deserves some more nuance than it seems to get. If it's uber vague, tell me at least why it's sufficient to solve. Yes, weigh the aff unless I'm told otherwise. Yes perms but please explain how they function saying a perm then moving on isn't persuasive to me.

5. K affs- I will be upfront about this Im probably not your guy for this if it makes you feel any better I have voted for some K affs before. These rounds just usually get into some lit I'm not familiar with and get so fast, especially on the T framing, that I just get cooked. AC advocacy needs to be clear. Again good links matter to me. Your TVA responses should probably be really good unless you want me to find easy reason to vote neg. Most Importantly, I need to know what the K does and need some level of solvency from the K.

Last updated: September 28, 2023

My name is Akshitha (ack-shee-tha) and I am a varsity policy debater. I have been doing policy for two years, and have gone to regionals, state, and districts.

Disclosure- Always disclose. No exceptions. I want to be on the speechdrop/email-chain

Speed- I am fine with speed.

Topicality/ theory- I know how to evaluate but still make an effort to explain it to me. Don't run dumb stuff. Both theory and topicality need to show clear abuse for me to vote on it.

Kritiks- love love love. explain your alt or I don't really care. But if you run a K, run it well.

Signpost or I’ll be annoyed.

I don't want to hear any bigotry you will get the L.