∨∨∨ If PF skip to the bottom of the page ∨∨∨

UIL: I know UIL is supposed to be more "traditional," but you're welcome to be as techy as you want as long as you're sharing cases!

Shortcuts

1 - Policy/K

2 - Trad

3 - Phil

4 - Theory/T

Strike - Tricks

Tech > Truth

Fairness = Education

Spreading = Bad, Speed = Good

I prefer Speech Drop or NSDA File Share, but my email is larsoncrank@gmail.com

----------

Background

Klein Collins '22

Texas '26 (History & Government)

I competed on the Houston circuit for 7 years in total (2015-2022). Although I competed in nearly every event, LD was always my favorite and the event that I participated in most frequently. I'm self-taught and because of this I mainly ran trad arguments throughout my career. However, later into high school I focused heavily on LARP and the K. I was a 3x qual for TFA State and NSDA Academic All-American for anyone who cares about my "qualifications."

Considering my background as being self-taught, I sympathize greatly with novice debaters and those that don't have the same resources as other power house schools. If you at any time are unsure of terminology or general proceedings involved in debate, please reach out! I would be more than happy to help anyone who may be struggling or is confused. Asking questions is so important to growing as a debater, and it is something I personally never did enough of.

----------

Logistics

In regards to the shortcuts listed above, this is simply a measurement of how comfortable/familiar I am with specific styles of debate. I think as a judge I'm obligated to not allow my own biases related to debating techniques impact the RFD. I encourage all competitors to debate how they want and I will adapt as I see accordingly.

I flow by ear, but I still want access to your case. Not only does this prevent confusion if there's discrepancy during the round, but I think it's ultimately a good practice to share your case with everyone in the room.

Please give a roadmap before your speech AND signpost during your speech! This makes it so much easier for me to flow, and ensures I don't miss any figures you put out. The clearer you are with the tags, the better!

When it comes to spreading, I think the practice as a whole is entirely destructive for debate. With that being said, there is a perfectly clear line between spreading and speed needed to construct a case. I'm a proponent of speed, but if you are intentionally spreading (you know who you are) I will stop flowing and dock your speaker points. I've started flowing again on paper more frequently as opposed to using my computer, so this may be another reason to slow down at least for tags and line-by-line.

I expect to see clash over framing! You need to reference throughout the round which FW I ought to be evaluating under. I'm so tired of cases (mainly policy-based) that lack any sort of FW. PF exists for a reason! If I don't have a FW then I don't have any standard to compare evidence with which in turn makes producing a good RFD difficult. Not to mention, I will also just err to your opponent's framing if you don't present one or it has a lame offensive position.

I'm going to default tech before truth-testing for the simple reason that it has more objective grounds for me to vote off of. I do my very best to not allow my personal opinions/beliefs impact the RFD and evaluate only what is said during round. I need to see the warrant for every argument though. I won't vote for an unwarranted argument even if it wins in a tech debate!

I don't have a preference for fairness or education as shocking as that might sound. I know most judges tend to prefer fairness, but I think both are beneficial to debate. It is your job as a competitor to prove to me what I should think in this situation. Nonetheless, my threshold to vote on a theory shell is pretty high to begin with. There needs to be a clear story of abuse that overrides whichever standard you choose to defend (or both).

I think speaker points are stupid. Moreover, don't take what I give you to heart because I really don't put much thought into it. I use them more as a gauge to the level of preparedness and passion I see from competitors.

I don't keep time. Time yourselves!

I don't flow CX. However, when it comes to flex prep I don't really have any opinions. As long as both competitors are cool with it, do whatever you want.

----------

Trad

As mentioned above, I was an extremely traditional debater for the majority of my career. Although it is a simple strategy, I think it can be just as effective as any of the more "progressive" styles. Case debate is something I’m fully capable of evaluating. This is a random thought, but as I've become more experienced with the other forms of debate, I've developed somewhat of an awkwardness to the word "contention."

Tell me when something is non-unique! I found that in my time as a debater there were so many occasions, some I even missed in round, when identifying when something was non-unique could have easily just ended the debate. With that being said, make unique arguments that can’t just be manipulated to support any position!

I love impact turns. Even though trad stuff is considered simplistic, an amazing strategy to shoot for is when you can prove to me that your case/world/whatever solves better.

Trad args can fairly beat the other debate styles on this paradigm no matter how scary they may seem!

----------

Policy

If you read above regarding my thoughts on trad debate, you would've seen that I don't particularly like the word "contention." Moreover, I'm much more receptive (and think that it sounds better overall) when policy phrases are used such as "ADV" or "DA."

I love DAs. Make sure you have a clear link chain for whatever conclusive impact you are trying to get me to see! Too often debaters write useless tags that claim the card they are reading says one thing (when in reality it is not as impactful/strong as they make it out to seem). Call your opponent out if you see them doing this! It's not always a bad idea to read beyond what is highlighted/underlined/bolded. I want to see line-by-line how X leads to Y and Y leads to Z in a realistic manner. ADVs are cool too, but I figured that was implied from my stance on DAs.

CPs are extremely intuitive and strategic for a Neg that can easily circumvent most Aff cases. However, I will accept (and strongly encourage) Aff arguments of abuse based on Neg interps that are too abstract/broad with little to no in-text plan. I don’t have a ton to say about PICs though because honestly I don’t see them ran that much.

----------

K

I'm familiar with the basic ones, but it is in your best interest to assume that I know nothing about what you are talking about. Explain your theory and model of debate thoroughly! This is especially true if you’re an Aff wanting to run a K simply because I have much more experience with the Neg K.

Clear Link -> Clear Impact -> Clear Alternative

K needs to be fairly specific when you link it to your opponent’s model of debate, but I think there is leg room for certain positions.

While judging I have found that I actually enjoy K debate much more than I originally thought. Although, if you’re going to run a K but structure it like a trad/policy case to avoid the nuances of the debate, just save us all some time and run the K how it’s supposed to be ran.

Familiar: Cap, Set Colonial, Fem, Heg, Nietz, & Afro-Pess

---------

T

I will vote for a topical argument if there is genuinely warrant for needing to discuss ambiguities in the resolution/definitions/Aff interps. I think this is especially strategic against things like Ks or frivolous Theory that is extremely far-fetched and/or has very little (if anything) to do with the resolution at hand.

Moreover, I expect to see debate related to the resolution. If your opponent has neglected their obligation to perform this task, call them out! The extent to what constitutes “debate related to the resolution” I leave up to the competitors.

----------

Phil

Phil args are good when debaters actually know what they are talking about and not just rambling on about complex theory they can’t even explain themselves. You need to be able to easily contextualize your debate world. This isn’t for my understanding, but simply for the fact that if you can’t explain it in simple terms you probably don’t understand it that well.

I'm familiar with popular writings, but as mentioned in my opinion on Ks, assume I know nothing about what you are talking about. Explain everything there is to know about your model of debate in a timely manner! Somewhat related, but I would advise you to be extremely careful reading Marxism in front of me.

Empirics > Analytics (in most cases)

Familiar: Kant, Locke, Util, Marx, Rawls, Hobbes, Skepticism, & Determinism

----------

Theory

I have very mixed feelings on theory. Part of me finds it very stupid and just an attempt to talk oneself out of debating against good strategies. The other part of me sees its complexity and admires it as a unique form of debate. If this is your choice of debate, ensure that you have given me a proper rundown on what it is you are trying to get me to vote on. Whether it be an issue regarding fairness, education, or technicality, I need more than just a short excerpt read at the speed of lightning during one of your rebuttals.

I can firmly say that there is an extremely low chance that I will actually "drop the debater" unless something egregious has occurred. "Drop the argument" makes so much more sense than dropping the debater entirely. "Preventing future abuse" and handing them a singular L isn't going to stop them from just running the same case in another round.

STOP SAYING DTD!

I will NOT vote off Disclosure Theory. Not only will I not flow the argument, but I find it very classist and distasteful. I won’t auto-down you, but your speaker points will certainly take a hit. As someone who debated for a small program with few resources dedicated to this activity I sympathize with those that are not adequately included in the loop and/or involved with collective wikis.

----------

Tricks

I probably won't vote off this, but you can try it if you really want to.

----------

PF

All of my preferences for logistics and the ROB are the same for PF as they are for LD, so it wouldn't hurt for your team to read through them (obviously some things don't matter as much like FW).

My biggest issue with PF debates is oftentimes they don't discuss the individual impact(s) of their plan enough. Since I don't have a FW to compare the evidence presented, I need for teams to clearly outline why their plan is ultimately better than your opponent's.

Because I am so used to LD, I like to think of these rounds in the terms of cost-benefit analysis or a loose construction of util calc. The team that proves to me the plan with the most pros and the least amount of cons is most likely going to get the W.

Email: dsaisriya@gmail.com (add me to all email chains)

Hey yall my name is Sai and I'm a current freshman in college. I competed in LD when I was in high school 2019-2022.

Things to keep in mind:

• Don't spread. I want to thoroughly understand the arguments you put in place. Spreading does the exact opposite and defeats the purpose of debate. It is all about quality over quantity!
• LD is traditionally known for its emphasis on logic, values, philosophy, and criterion areas so I would like to see how these connect with your overall technical arguments.
• Don't assume I know every value or criterion to ever exist. Take a sentence or so to briefly explain it.
• Try not to include too much jargon, keep it nice and simple!
• For the debate, I will keep track of the best speaker (spreading, filler words ("uhs" and "ums"), pace, confidence, etc..), and the best arguments (rebuttals, voting issues, value/criterion connections, strong evidence, etc...). I want to be convinced through the debate, so more emphasis on the arguments.
• Stating a roadmap before rebuttals is preferred.
• Have courtesy, respect, and an open mind. Everyone has different experiences when it comes to debating and speaking so always be respectful and humble.
• I will accept a grace period to finish a sentence over time, but anything over that is not going to be considered.

Overall debate however you want, but make sure to show me how all your values, criteria, and arguments are connected. Along with that enforce the impacts and tell me why you get the ballot.

I debated mostly LD at Marcus High School in Texas where I competed locally and nationally on the UIL, TFA, TOC, and NSDA circuits. I'm now the coach at San Marcos High School (TX).

TLDR

I've gotten much worse at flowing so please slow down for tags and implications.

I don't have any conscious biases towards a particular style of debate but I'm less familiar with K lit so please explain.

Judging is hard so make my life easier and tell me exactly how I should be evaluating the round.

GLHF

Defaults

ROB - I'm open to any role of the ballot/judge/etc. Open to any theory voter/standard/net benefits/impact/interp including disclosure, afc, offensive counter-interps, meta, etc. I assume I have some role as an educator, that debate is an educational activity, that education requires inclusion (and inclusion is good in itself), and that debate requires some level of fairness unless told otherwise. I'll also assume that my vote and discourse after the round can have an impact on the community. For the sake of coherency, please still address these, but if you're short on time a few words will suffice.

Spikes - If you are vague in your spikes I will lean on the side of caution so please explain what you mean by "prefer aff interps" or "err aff on theory" so I know what to do. Well developed spikes are fine.

Miscut Cards - If it's a severe case of miscutting, especially if the evidence is being used on T or as an empirical link, I will default to drop the arg. If the opponent points it out, I'm open to other impacts/args like drop debater, lower speaks, etc.

Offensive/Rude arguments – I default to drop speaks. I am open to args why I should drop debater. If you are creating an unsafe environment, I will stop the debate, drop you, and report it as appropriate.

Mislabeled turns – If I can see a possible way that this could be considered a turn, I will count it as a turn. If I can’t conceive of any possible way that this could function as a turn (and I am creative), I won’t vote on it.

Lack of understanding – Similarly to mislabeled turns, if I don't understand the argument, I won’t vote on it. To clarify, this would only happen in extreme cases like “Vote aff cause skies are blue”. I have a pretty good breadth on a lot of k lit and random phil so things like that shouldn’t be a problem. If you are running a k that isn't popular or that relies on a lot of jargon and you are worried about it, you may want to work on explaining it. I also pay attention in CX so if you're explaining it to your opponent, you're also explaining it to me.

Dropped arguments – You can only claim what you originally claimed. In other words, the probability of your event doesn't suddenly increase. If you extend a dropped argument and create a new implication with it, such as cross-applying to the opponent's case, your opponent can still attack the new implication. I default to not accepting new arguments but I'm completely open to arguments that say you should be allowed to make new arguments against blippy spikes in your second speech (also open to arguments saying the opposite).

Extensions – Just a single sentence will do. IE: “Extend the fw that we must respect autonomy for morality to guide action” or “Extend Gray that terrorism causes extinction”. Focus on the function of the arg in relation to the round. Your goal here is just to let me know what strategy you're going for and what my ballot should say. If you don't extend I will be very confused and think it doesn't matter anymore.

Disclosing cases before/during/after the round - It's common practice to share your case with your opponent during the round (if not before). Unless you object to this practice (which is also okay, though you may be inviting theory), please be prepared to do so in a timely manner. If you would like to share your case with me during the round as well, that would be much appreciated as it also saves me time after the round.

Speaks - Evaluated on the basis of where I think you are in relation to the rest of the pool at the tournament with an average of 28. I say clear or slow if I'm completely lost but I try not to. I will give bonus points to you if you challenge my view of something or teach me something new, or if you show respect and kindness to your opponent. Some debaters feel that if they are paired with an opponent who is new to the activity, they will have less of a chance to show how good they are and their speaks will suffer. However, if you use the opportunity to show a mastery of the fundamentals, as well as kindness and inclusivity, your speaks will reflect it.

Accessibility - If there is something making debate inaccessible to you that I can help with please let me know! This is especially true if it can be resolved (or mostly resolved) within the round such as having debaters slow down if you are learning English.

If you have any questions, please feel free to talk to me!

Enjoy yourselves and have fun!

email: vadajanak@gmail.com

pronouns: she/her/hers

About me-

My name is Vada Janak :)

I currently coach at LBJ Early College HS in Austin. Go Jags!

I competed for Tuloso-Midway HS (2016-2020)

I did CX, LD, WSD, and Big Questions on the debate side in high school. I also did Congress and Extemp. I've placed state and nationally in WSD and placed at the state level in CX. I qualified to the national tournament each year of high school, and collected bids to the TOC & NIETOC.

TLDR:

First, do what you're good at! I would much rather judge a round that you are comfortable having than judge one where you are trying to match my paradigm word for word.

Given that you:

1) explain the claim, warrant, and impact to your arguments. You will have a better chance of me correctly evaluating your arguments the way you want me to.

2) Make sure, on that note to properly explain your positions, don’t make an assumption that I know your DA scenario, K jargon, or weird philosophies. Help me out, so that I can help you out

3) Have comparative analysis of evidence, arguments, and/or performative styles as it compares to your own and how I ought to prioritize impacts as it relates to your framing of the round.

4) Be Persuasive, it will go a long way to making me to sign my ballot your way if you can make the round enjoyable, touching, funny, etc – it will also help your speaks.

-Please note: there is a clear distinction between persuasion and passion and being rude. I do not take kindly to rudeness, and it will show in your speaks.

5) Write the ballot for me in your last speech, tell me how you win. Take risks, and don’t go for everything. Make me think, “woah, cool, gonna vote on that” “When what they said in the last rebuttal was exactly how I prioritized stuff too, judging is soooo easy [it's often not :(]". If you tell me how to vote, why I should vote that way, and why it matters for the round, it will be an easier ballot for you.

6) It has also been a while since I have judged policy in person so please read slower (faster than convo speed but slow enough that you're not gasping for air every 4 seconds), at least on analytics. If you want to sample a speed for me before the round, just ask and I will let you know if that is too fast.

The real one:

1st: policy

2nd: WSD

3rd: LD

Policy:

I was most comfortable doing a blend of traditional and progressive CX in high school. I ran PTX DA's, T, and Cap K the most out of every argument on the Neg. I ran soft left policy affs on the China, Education, and Arm Sales topics, but I ran a K Aff on immigration.

Affs:

You can run either a plan, K Aff, or a performative aff. I am more familiar and understanding of plan text aff's, but I really appreciate the literature and concepts behind the K aff's I have seen. Given that, I will probably need those types of aff's to be explained more in the later speeches and probably read at a slower speed.

DA's:

DisAds are probably my favorite cup of tea. My go to has always be the politics DA. I am familiar with probably every DA there is. Case specific links are always preferred. Don't just read 4 generic DA's unless that's all you have. However, if it is pretty generic, it will take less work for the aff to tell me no link. Also explain the internal link! The more you tell me about how we really get from the plan text to nuke war the better time we will both have. And please please please do real impact calculus and evaluation. Don't just say "The DA outweighs the case." Tell me why.

T:

I am a firm believer in the idea that a well ran T can be voted on in the 2NR. Given that, if you go for T, it should be the ONLY thing in the 2NR, and it should be easily explained and have voters.

CP's:

Tell me how the CP works, why its mutually exclusive, and specifically how it actually solves the aff and prevents the DA. And if you're going to put 8 different planks, tell me how each of those is important. If the Aff doesn't perm the CP or give me a good reason why it doesn't solve, I'll more than likely vote for it. If it is not specified by either team, I assume the CP is unconditional.

K's:

Like I said above, not my cup of tea, but I would like them to be. I'm familiar with Cap and Neolib, so anything out of that area will need to be explained. Please use case/resolution specific links. You can read your "state action links" cards, but the aff has a pretty good footing to tell me why that's a bad link. UNLESS, state action is unique to your K and you explain to me how this isn't the same thing you read every round. Typically, the impact to the K and the Aff are drastically different so please tell me how to evaluate your systematic oppression impact to their nuke war. I hold K's to their alt's. Unless the Neg tells me why, how, and when the alt happens/who can engage with the alt/how the ballot plays a role in facilitating the alt, the Aff pretty much has free reign to tell me that the Alt doesn't solve.

Theory:

If your opponents have given you a real reason to run theory please do! I strongly believe in debaters having discussions with each other about how one of their actions was bad for debate. I also will vote off of Condo bad, especially if you read more than 5 off :)

WSD:

This was by far my favorite event to compete in in high school. I think that it offers the most real world skills and provides the most real education

I started competing in WSD in 2016. The event has drastically changed since then, but I believe how it was 2016-2018 was the best version of it. In 2020, I was 2nd top speaker at TFA state and 12th top speaker at NSDA Nationals to give you some perspective.

I'll evaluate the round in the three ways the ballot allows me to: style, content, and strategy. I will take into consideration the "flow", but just because you "lose the debate" in a technical sense does not mean you automatically lose. Nor if you win the technical parts does it guarantee that you will win the ballot.

Style:

Persuasion, tone, speed, and attitude in the round are things I will consider for your style points. Use your ethos, pathos, logos. This is WSD so do not spread. I also will dock your style points if you're rude or disrespectful to your opponents or to me. Also, don't just read off your paper for the entire first and second speeches. This event has lots of extemporaneous elements to it.

Content:

The first speech is super important to make sure that you can get full content points in the whole round. If the meat of your case isn't good, then you're going to have a rough time in the other speeches. If you're not defining words in the motion, explaining how your model works (if there is one) or giving synthesized examples in the different points, then you're going to have a hard time getting points here. Believe it or not, it is easy to tell when words are coming out of your mouth but nothing is really being said, you know? Just be logical and thoughtful with your words.

Strategy:

This is the most undermined point area in WSD in my opinion. It might be the lowest about of possible points, but most people rarely get them. If you set up your different points in a strategic way, ask POI's that you'll use in your next speech, and organize the debate to tell me not just why your opponents are losing, but also, reasons that you're winning, the points are yours to have. I appreciate organization and I believe that the way you set up your speech is a strategy of itself, so keep that in mind too.

POI's:

Please please please ask/state POI's!!!!!!!!!! Far too often do people not ask enough. A good POI will help get you points in style, content, and strategy. Even more so, ask POI's when your opponents are on a roll because you don't want to let them talk for 8 mins uninterrupted. BUT. Please note, there is a very clear difference in a good "aha! gotcha" POI and a rude uncalled for POI.

Also! you don't have to take every POI you get asked, but if you ignore every single one I will think you do not know what you are talking about or that you are not paying attention.

pls send docs

rheya.kurian@gmail.com

good luck!

David Li
WWHS, 24
tidaldolphin10@gmail.com - yes email chain

Spark                                                                                                 No Spark

X---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quick prefs:

1 - Policy
2 - Phil
3 - K
4 - T/Theory
5 - Tricks

DEb8 don’t H8.

Quick run down: Do you what you do best. I mostly read policy arguments in high school. If you are a K team spend the time to explain the lit that you almost definitely know more than me about. Be nice and have fun. No one wants to spend their Saturday feeling bad about themselves.

Style/Speed: Make sure to sign post well so I can stay organized. Fine with speed just please slow down on tags, authors, and analytics.

T: Can either be pretty interesting or really really boring. Not saying don’t read T, just saying that a meaningful standards debate and proof of in round abuse will go a long way. T is a voter and RVIs are probably not the best idea in front of me.

Theory: probably reject the argument unless condo. I don’t like the 3 second ASPEC blips or ASPEC hidden in the word doc with no verbatim heading.

DA: I don’t need really specific links, just contextualize it to the aff. I think that disad turns the aff is convincing as well as a good impact calc. Feel free to read politics or generics but specific disads are always neat.

CP: Same thing as DA’s, generic is fine, specifics are cool. Affs should be able to explain what each perm would look like.

K: They can be fun with good debating and understanding of the argument. I am not going to know as much about the K literature as you do, debate accordingly. Specific links can be convincing but contextualization of any link to the aff is a must. A long overview explaining the K would be helpful, but if you feel that you can do a good explanation in the line by line with a shorter overview, then im good with that too.

K Aff: Same thing as K, do some work explaining the thesis but feel free to read them.

Case: read it and impact turns can be fun if you really flesh them out in the block/2nr.

My email is ferry4554@gmail.com for the email chain.

Hello, my name is Sam.

I currently go to school at UT Austin. I did speech and debate for four years at the high school level. I mainly did Lincoln Douglas, being a two-time qualifier for TFA state and also a UIL state qualifier for 6A LD debate. I also did public forum and extemporaneous speaking.

Paradigm for LD

I mainly did traditional debate when I was active so that is what I am most familiar with. I'm not opposed to policy arguments or progressive elements in LD; feel free to run them! I ask that you not run tricks.

I have a hard time keeping up with spreading but feel free to do so if that is what you and your opponent both want to do. If you do spread, try to be very clear when reading taglines and the author for a card.

Add me to the email chain --> heptane565@gmail.com

Hello. My name is Shaurya Pathania and I am a junior at Westwood Highschool. My email is shauryapathania75@gmail.com (I want to be added to the email chain.) Let me know if you have any questions before round.

Prefs:

1 - Policy

2 - T

3 - Theory/Phil/K (The more abstract or dense - the lower on the prefs I am)

4/5/Strike - Trix

Don't be afraid to read args that are low on my prefs, do whatever u want - this is just what I am most comfortable dealing with. Try to keep round as educational and as safe as possible and just have fun!

Westwood '26 he/him

Current Sophomore at Westwood High School, add me to email chains & speech drops - dhruvpatil8807@gmail.com

tech>truth

General Debate Things

• Run whatever you want

• If you have an Ethics challenge then stop the debate

• If one side says ___ bad and one side says ___ good tell me why I prefer your side

• No prep stealing

• I will decide the debate based on the flow and nothing else

• If any argument is blatantly false, it should be easy to disprove

• Absent a presumption warrant, I presume the losers of the flip

• If a team doesn't extend CALL THEM OUT in your speech

• My threshold for warrants isn't that high
  CALL YOUR OPPS OUT in your speech if they don't have any

• I'll call clear three times, after that if I can't understand you I won't flow you

• Send all cards read in round before your speech where you read them so that no time is wasted for random 1 piece EV exchanges (This probably only needs to be mentioned for PF as other debate events are usually great w/ EV)

PF

• No new arguments past Rebuttal other than frontlining in First Summary
  (If a team has new arguments too late in the round CALL THEM OUT in your speech and I will cross the args off my flow)
• Frontline in Second Rebuttal
• Defense is not Sticky
• Weighing must happen in summary at the latest, only new weighing allowed in 1st FF is responsive/comparative weighing against your opps weighing from 2nd Summary (If a team doesn't weigh in summary or has new 1st FF weighing CALL THEM OUT in your speech and I will cross it off my flow)
  (If a team has new 2nd FF weighing I will cross it off my flow)

Prog

Theory Defaults (These don't matter unless they aren't touched on in the debate)

• No RVIs
• Competing Interpretations > Reasonability
• Spirit of the interpretation > Text of the interpretation
• DTD

Evaluating Defaults(These don't matter unless they aren't touched on in the debate)

• Theory > K > Substance

Speaks

Depends on the tournament and division (for 28-29.9) but I've put my normal national circuit varsity division standards for speaks

• 0-25
  L on Ethics challenge (If the Ethics challenge doesn't give me speaks to give to the losers of the Ethics challenge I intervene and give at max a 25 depending on how egregious I think the ethics violation was)
  You ran any ___ism good or egregiously offensive arguments

• 25.1-27.9
  Very poor technically -> A little bit below average

• 28-28.7
  Average -> Decent

• 28.8-29.3
  Good, you will probably break

• 29.4-29.7
  I wouldn't be surprised to see you get very far in or even win the tournament

• 29.8-29.9
  A favorite of mine to win the tournament and just an incredible technical debater

• 30
  Perfection

Back when the OGs and I were watching the Good Ol' debates between the democratic Stephen A. Douglas and my main man Abraham Lincoln from the republican party, I learned a couple of things about debate.

Short Cut Prefs:

1 - Policy/T/Theory

2 - Phil (Kant, Hobbes, Util), K (Cap, Pess, Set Col, Psychoanalysis)

3 - Tricks

4 - Dense Phil, K (anything I didn't list), K Affs

Big Things:

I go to Westwood High School and I am a junior.

email: akhileshpissay@gmail.com

An ideal debate probably has an affirmative that defends a meaningful change from the status quo and a negative that proves an opportunity cost to that change.

Fine with speed as long as you are clear, will clear you/say slow

Policy:

• affs must defend change from squo

• adv cps are underrated, read them more

• favorite 2nr is cp + da

• ^that is tied with the ! turn 2nr

• make more offensive arguements rather than defensive ones

Theory/T:

• T debates are cool, I just wish people explained to me the violation a little better

• nebel/leslie needs good explanation in 2nr to be voted on

• Condo 2ars are underrated, i find a lot of 2nrs to be making terrible arguments for condo good

• disclosure is good, losing to disclosure makes people disclose better imo but ill be lenient with like rr theory and such

• defaults: dtd, ci, no rvis, education/fairness voters

K:

• Debate i dabbled into the least, but i still have a good understanding for a couple of lit bases (psychoanalysis, set col, afropess, cap, asian mel)

• Topic specific links > generics

• i think that the aff should always be able to weigh case, i think excluding the aff is stupid bc it moots the 1ac, if aff, my favorite 2ar is framework + case o/ws

• Topical k affs are cool but i think that extinction o/ws is a true argument

• T-FW stuff: Err neg on framework debates but still think that the aff must win why their model is better, pls dont j ! turn fw, answer it w why ur model is good

Phil:

• I know what kant, levinas, hobbes, and util say. If you want to read something else ie agonism, pettit, butler, exc, feel free to read it but if u want the ballot i need to understand it in the round

• Explain me the philosophy as if i was a two year old - goo goo ga ga

• cps/das dont negate is funny but i have low threshold for this argument

• tricks are troll but make sure to have claim, warrant, impact to them

• Pls ask for new 2nr/2ar answers to tricks, they are usually read as a claim and warrant but no impact till the 2nr/2ar.

Speaks:

• 29.8-30: should win the tournament/did a v v good job

• 29.3-29.7: you are good, will def clear, maybe late elims

• 28.9-29.3: probably clear, def bubble round

• Probably wont give anything below 28 if u try and debate, unless you say something racist, sexist, exc.

I like to see a good clash. I do not have a preference when judging. As an older judge I tend to listen and look more at the debate clash. I flow fast, organized and well. I do not drop case arguments and look for that when judging a round. The arguments and a clear understanding of one's case is crucial for me when determining a round. Throwing out evidence with no understanding or context does nothing for me. Strength in the second constructive is important to me as I see this as the best opportunity to defend, clarify and reiterate one's case.

Speed

I don’t like spreading overall. I can flow speed, but proceed at your own risk.

I won't use speech docs to fill in things I could not catch/understand.

It’s your job to make sure you’re communicating effectively and persuasively – you can do this by making eye contact and keeping your head out of notes/computer/evidence. Although I understand that nerves often require reliance on comforts – like over-reliance on computers, etc., but your arguments will appear stronger without those nervous comforts. To that end - if you flow off your laptop I will use my best judgement to evaluate the extent to which you're delivering arguments in such a way that demonstrates you have flowed the debate.

Types of arguments

Use your time wisely and effectively. Your time should be used to persuade me with concise and articulate arguments relying on evidence.

It should go without saying - Use of rudeness and snarky comments/remarks will be reflected in your evaluation.

It’s your job to effectively communicate your claim, backup your warrants, and articulate impact.

Progressive arguments are important. I'll do my best to evaluate them fairly.

I’m of the opinion that using squirrelly arguments just to throw off your opponent generally demonstrates a weakness in your argument. Your points may suffer even if I ultimately vote for you and my threshold for responses will be lower.

Evidence

I prefer cards > paraphrasing, but it isn't a hard rule. Documentation aids in credibility. You will be punished for misrepresenting evidence or knowingly reading authors that are fraudulent or very clearly unreliable.

Know where your evidence is. If you can't find it, it's getting kicked.

Summary and Final Focus

Extend defense. Don't go for everything.

Your arguments need to be included in summary to be counted in FF.

Decorum

Be respectful and professional in your decorum and manner.

Reminder: keep in mind how hard you’ve worked – your competitors have worked just as hard. Everyone deserves mutual respect - before, during, and after the debate.

Being funny or witty is fine as long as it isn't mean, rude, or hostile. I am not afraid to tank you if are rude and/or disrespectful.

Miscellaneous– I (heart) signposts. I do NOT (heart) over use of the vocal filler “like.”

Hello!

I'm Ian Xu from Westwood High School 26'

ianxu2018@gmail.com -- reach out if you have questions both about the round or in general for debate I'd love to help!

the most important things for you reading this is

1. i love fairness first arguments and find myself voting on those and theoretical arguments in general frequently
2. i am not super super fast with flowing so i will backflow for you but i would appreciate being as clear as possible but you can still go full speed
3. weigh a lot because i might not be familiar with your specific argument so weighing and explanation will go a long way.

pref sheet:

larp - 1 - Yay! I love CPs, especially process counterplans.

phil - 4 - I am a bit so so I dont really understand most phil arguments so explain it really really well.

k - 3 - Explain it well and we should be fine.

T - 1 - Yes for sure.

tricks - 2 - entertaining; turning them is strategic some

theory - 1! - by far my favorite thing to hear - critical thinking is most needed in theory debates which is why i think its the best - explain the standards well and explain the abuse story well - paradigm issues warrants dont need to be repeated if theyre conceded but plz tell me that they were conceded and which ones to use so i dont forget lol explain abuse story tho if standard is conceded repeating the standard text word for word is sufficient - no such thing as friv - will not evaluate theory abt the persons appearance like shoes

other info:

evidence ethics -- sure stake the round for any small violation as long as you can be sure the tournament rules supports you, w30 L29.7

extensions on conceded args -- these can be like repeating the arg again w the same words ngl

defaults:

Default to util

Truth Testing > Comparative Worlds

competing interps > reasonability

rvis > no rvis

dtd > dta

Norming > In-round abuse

text > spirit

Presumption negates

Permissibility negates

fairness and edu and norming are voters

fairness > anything else

Hi, my name is Jeremy and I'm a current sophomore at Westwood High School!

westwoodpfdocs@gmail.com- Add me to the chain, please!

tech > truth

PF

• I will listen to cross but it wont be in my ballot unless brought up in the next speech (making cross fun and entertaining is reflected on speaker points given)
• No new arguments past Rebuttal other than frontlining in First Summary
• You MUST frontline in Second Rebuttal
• Defense is not Sticky
• Please weigh! Tell me why your case is better than your opponents; makes it easier for me to evaluate the round and find a path to the ballot

Remember to always have fun!