Background:

Debated all 4 years at Notre Dame High School.

Started as a 2N, finished as a 2A. 'Policy debater,' but I enjoy K's.

TL:

Please put me on the email chain. Highly recommend sending a test email at least 5 minutes before the round starts --sergiochavezdebate@gmail.com

Pronouns: he/him -- feel free to call me by my name ("Sergio") -- "Judge" is fine

Tech > Truth (absent ethics violations)

Be nice!

Read what you want! I'd rather you debate with what you know best than try over-adapting to me.

I enjoy solid clash and organization in the debates, otherwise, I feel like I have to do work for you. There should be clean line-by-line so I can easily follow your speech. Cross-applications are great when used strategically and sufficiently implicated.

Debate as if I have zero topic knowledge -- over-explaining things, especially first semester, is better than assuming I know what you're talking about. Remember that debate is meant to be educational, not just a word competition.

CX -- super underutilized and very helpful when done right. Build ethos, demonstrate topic knowledge, and most importantly ask questions with intention/direction. Yes, there are things you gotta get through like status of off-case, etc. but you can control the round (or lose it) with CX.

Speaking -- Clarity > Speed. Spreading is fine, but please be clear and at least try to be a little expressive (i.e. intonation, body language, eye contact, etc.), I will be more interested in what you have to say. I will yell "CLEAR!" if you are absolutely unintelligible. If I cannot hear your arguments, it won't be on the flow and I will not evaluate them. I am physically expressive, so my expressions will let you know what I'm thinking.

Timing -- Please time yourselves, especially prep. Even when I'm debating I forget to time my opponents and that'll probably be worse while judging. You can finish your sentence after the timer, nothing more (feel free to ask me where I stopped flowing).

Online -- If my camera is off, I am probably not there so always check with me (and your opponents) before speaking).

Please feel free to ask questions before the round.

T:

Great argument. Neg teams should utilize it to check weird affs. You should probably have proof of neg ground loss / limits explosion and a reasonable case list.

Always extend voters, impact out the IL (i.e. education, fairness, clash, debateability), and do impact calc. If it's not there, I can't and won't vote on it.

T comes before theory. It's a procedural question of whether the debate should've even happened in the first place (this description does not necessarily apply to FW vs. K-Affs).

Case:

Please robustly defend the aff in CX; defend a real Internal Link(s) for your advantages and impact scenarios; be prepared to defend your scholarship. I can appreciate smart, offensive 1AR and 2AR pivots to beat the neg's args. If you think it's necessary in the 2AC, I'm all for it.

Rehighlightings do not have to be reread as long as its implication/purpose is sufficiently explained in the tag. These can be valuable, but the worse they are, the less they matter. If the rehighlighting is on the longer end, you might want to read it.

CP:

Love them IF debated properly. Don't be too cheaty on the CP's -- some planks are just fine and probably sufficient.

If you want to run a Process CP with an internal net benefit, it better have a link to the aff or you're losing to an intrinsic perm. It's the neg's responsibility to prove why the CP is good and necessary for the topic/against [x] aff.

DA:

YES! (most of the time) DA's need impact calc and cohesive story. Please don't be read two cards in the 1NC and call it a disad. Turns case analysis is OP.

K:

Framework is optional. 2NR should decide if they're going for FW or a Link to the aff. Regardless, Links should be applied to the aff, even if they are a little generic. Pull 1AC lines, use CX to win links, and re-explain the aff through the K's lens. The alt should at least solve the links. Be careful using mindset shifts as your alt, this gives the aff is an easier route for the perm.

Here are some miscellaneous notes for K's that I've ran:

--Capitalism K -- Good generic across most topics. I personally think defending a material alternative (e.g. socialism) is better than forefronting FW. Positional competition is overrated, get better at Link debate.

--Settler Colonialism K -- I've read the Set Col K on the neg (shout out Olivia Deantoni) and have had significant time discussing not only neg strategy but also aff answers to this K with one of my coaches, Joshua Michael. There's so much room to develop specific Link debate. Ontology is meant to lower the threshold for winning the Link; it's not required to win the K. If you read Tuck and Yang as your alt, and 1NC CX says the alt is not material decolonization, you're wrong.

--Security K -- Another good generic across topics, and I feel like teams could read it this year too. I mostly view the the Security K as "spicy impact defense" (shout out Viv). It's also why I liked it, because of how it necessitates in-depth clash on case and examples. I think there are two ways to go for the K: (1) FW = you link, you lose, and (2) Impact turn = spicy impact defense. Either way, the neg should win a low risk of the aff.

Tricks -- throw-away K tricks in the neg block (e.g. embedded death k, predictions fail) are not a great way to win rounds, but I've seen them work -- 1ARs, please don't drop them, a sentence is usually enough for me to throw out dumb arguments. Even if they are dropped, the 2NR must be specific and apply the args themselves to the aff. For "predictions fail," if the aff wins risk of case, I think their predictions are correct and I will err aff.

K-Aff:

I've learned to grow somewhat fond of K Affs. I think that teams that utilize their 1AC to win portions of the debate, like an impact turn to FW, are strategically doing the right thing. I've seen some more deflective strategies that aren't as fun / educational to debate. Do not just throw a bunch of jargon and lingo if you're not going to explain it. Save your overviews for the line-by-line. Decide whatever you want to defend the aff does and own it.

Theory:

Conditionality -- condo is probably good, and usually reasonable if the 1NC has 1-3 condo, but I will always evaluate the flow first. Proving in-round abuse is really helpful for the aff instead of just debating at the unrealistic, hypothetical level of everything conditional imaginable vs. no condo.

You can call me : Carlos

Lay Judge - please speak slowly and clearly , I'm new to debate, this is my first tournament judging

My email is:

Cdjr223@hotmail.com

Background

Corrine (cuh - rin) she/her

4th year debater at Notre Dame - 1a/2n

email: tormenatordebate2025@gmail.com

TL:

tech > truth, clarity > speed

please flow

claims must come with warrants

judge instruction!!!!

call me by my name (please say it right, if you don't know how just ask me)

be nice!

Case:

A lot of case is always fun. Understand your aff and defend it in cross. Remember to extend your aff and explain internal links and solvency, don't just assume I know how it works.

T:

T is great! Make sure you have a clear violation. Case lists and ground lists are key for me.

K:

I like ks, am familiar with set col, security, cap. If its not that, just explain it. Please have specific links to the aff, whether its to the actions or to their reps. Generic links will not get you far. Floating piks probably bad, utopian fiat is reciprocal. For set col specifically, I go for this k quite a bit, default to anything on my coach Joshua Michael's paradigm.

CP:

Counterplans are cool. Sufficiency framing is pretty good. I will judge kick unless you tell me not to. Counterplans need net benefits. Point out cheaty counterplans, at the very least to grant you more leeway on the perm. Haven't had much competition debate, so if it gets down to that just explain.

DA:

Impact calc. Impact calc. Impact calc. Love some turns case. Love link turns. Tell me a story.

Theory:

Condo is good unless it's like 5+, especially if counterplans can kick planks, then its as many worlds as there are combinations (I won't assume this, point it out to me and how that uniquely makes condo bad).

Miscellaneous:

Read rehighlightings

open cross is fine

love sassy, but there is a clear distinction between sassy and rude – don't be rude.

I will time you so don't lie

Have fun!

General Notes

Don't be a bigot. This includes misgendering competitors. You will lose the ballot.

I generally give relatively high speaks due to the subjective nature of speaker points and the issues therein.

Remember to time yourselves and your opponents.

At invitationals, add me to the email chain using crystal.debate.speech@gmail.com .

In all forms of debate, I value logical argumentation and strong analytics supported by credible evidence. Speed, if clear, is fine, as long as it remains at a level that works for all debaters in the round. Out-spreading an opponent kills education.

"Off-Time Roadmaps"

Stop. If you signpost and are clear throughout your speeches, I will not need a "brief," off-time roadmap.

If I am flowing DAs, CPs, Ks, Advantages on separate pages, just give me the order (e.g., "The order is Case, DA, CP").

Policy (and Policy-Style Parli)

I am open to theory arguments and will rarely vote on T , but you need to explain them clearly and thoroughly in the round. I studied critical theory as applied to literature in both undergraduate and graduate school, so I have a strong background in feminist, Marxist, deconstructionist, queer, and psychoanalytic theory. I enjoy a well-executed K, but only run kritiks you know well -- not something you grabbed off the wiki/open ev.

I strive to evaluate the round using the framework agreed upon by the debaters and do not have a particular preference regarding stock issues, policy maker, etc.

LD

Support and bring everything back to your V/VC -- even if you're running a plan (for non-CA LD). Evidence certainly matters but evidence without analytics will do very little for you.

PF

I'll accept theory arguments when necessary to address in-round abuse, but please proceed with caution. I still value Public Forum as a form of debate that can be understood by lay judges, so please don't spread or run a K, and keep the jargon to a minimum.

Speech

In extemp, I want to see your introduction connect clearly with the topic and the rest of the speech (bring it back briefly at the end). Please clearly sign-post your main points and cite your evidence (ideally with more than just "According to the New York Times this year..."). Don't be afraid to use humor -- even if it's a little dark. Most of all, be authentic, engaging, and keep things flowing.

I will give time signals in extemp and impromptu.

In original oratory, original advocacy, & informative speaking, I look for well-crafted speeches delivered with fluency and appropriately varied tones.

If you're competing in an interp event, your intro should make me care about the topic at hand and should, of course, be your original words. Also, if you're competing in oratorical interpretation and the original speech includes cursing, please say the actual words or select a different speech (e.g., AOC's 2020 address to Rep. Yoho in which she quotes his profanity).

Add me to the chain- mishellekam06@gmail.com

Notre Dame 24' (2N/1A)

Top Level -

tech > truth

Please do not call me judge, just call me Mishelle

I believe the affirmative should defend the USFG strengthening its protection of domestic intellectual property rights. But, I will listen to anything and vote for anything. That being said please make good arguments with a good defense of what you are doing.

CX is definitely binding, and you either gain or lose all your ethos during it.

I am super easy to read and my face gives away what I am thinking.

put the cards in a doc, not the body of the email

I do not have the most topic knowledge, so please explain your arguments!!

K -

I am comfortable in K v Policy debates, but will be least qualified in K v K debates.

Fair warning - I am not the most literate in high-theory arguments. This does not mean I auto-vote aff when I hear fairness, but it means that I have a high threshold for link explanation and contextualization to the affirmative.

Framework -

I think fairness is an impact, but can be convinced otherwise. I do not think the TVA has to solve the entirety of the aff, but is an example of how literature can be read while defending a topical aff.

DA

I do not auto-judge-kick. In these debates, you must 1) Have updated uniqueness cards 2) Do the necessary evidence comparison 3) Impact calc. If you are just going for a DA you must minimize the risk of an aff. This does not simply mean extending impact defense but outlining logical fallacies of an affirmative and IL defense. There can be a 0% percent risk of an impact and I will vote neg on presumption if I am convinced.

dedev and politics hold a special place in my heart

Thank you for looking at the paradigm and taking debate seriously. I'm a former World School Debater but did learn some policy a couple years ago. When debating please be clear with permutations using the specific language to indicate turns and such. I will take into account some questions in cross-ex that concern the cases but please take your time to answer the questions – I do not count long pauses as a points for winning. I don't have a preference for what y'all run but please clash. Please speak clearly and stay topical. I do give points for speaker style: you just have to be clear and use voice inflection. Please time your speeches for yourself however I will time prep-time. My scoring will be a bit off so don't be surprised of high scores. I'm not the biggest policy person so please accommodate for that. Good luck >:3

email: mmarc053106@gmail.com

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

Experience

• 4th year policy debater at Notre Dame High School

• 2a/1n

Top-level

• Obviously debate is a competitive atmosphere, but please do not be rude

• Tech > truth

• I am comfortable voting on most arguments, but am inclined to vote for some more than others

• No matter what argument you are running make sure to explain a clear story to me — if I don’t understand the argument, I won’t vote on it

• Also, feel free to call me by my name

Case

• I love case debate. I think both the aff and neg shy away from this part of the debate, while I think it should be utilized more.

Topicality

• I am comfortable voting for T

• If you decide to go for T, make sure to extend clear impacts and explain what ground you lose due to the aff running their aff

Kritiks

• I am familiar with basic K literature but not all, so make sure to EXPLAIN

• I will not vote on the K if there is no link (the more specific the link to the aff the better)

Counterplans

• Explain a clear net benefit

• If the CP doesn’t solve all of case, you need to extend defense on that flow

Disadvantages

• I really enjoy these debates, but you need a link to the plan

• If you go for a DA, you need to have good impact calculus against the aff’s case

Theory

• Condo is probably good, but will vote on condo bad if dropped

• Just because theory is different from most arguments does not mean you should skimp out on explanation

Email: kathryn.ohearn@lausd.net

Affiliation:Lake Balboa College Prep

I debated for 4 years (2006-2010) on the national circuit for Bishop Guertin High School (NH) and was ranked in the top 20 teams nationally most of my senior year. I qualified for the 2010 TOC. I debated briefly at the University of Georgia before transferring to a different college. I judged high school rounds (all divisions) quite extensively from 2008-2012. I was out of the activity from 2012-2018. Very glad to be back!

I coached for Lake Balboa College Prep from about 2019-2021. Took a break after becoming a parent, but am slowly getting involved in coaching and judging again.

I am really an open book as a judge...barring extremely disrespectful treatment of any human beings in the room, I will listen to and vote for pretty much anything. It's your debate, not mine, and I am certainly no stranger to morally questionable argumentation (I ran "nuclear war good" a whole lot in high school).

I am fine with speed, any/all kritiks (LOVE the K), all policy arguments, theory, framework, debates about debate, performance, etc. I love a good topicality debate as well.

The most important things in a debate round (IMO):

1. CLASH, CLASH, CLASH- respond directly to your opponents' arguments, instead of just throwing more/new evidence into the round.

2. Specific links- whether you're reading a kritik or a DA, the more specific your link evidence is to the affirmative you're debating, the better. On the flip side, if you're aff, please check to see if their link evidence actually talks about what your affirmative does.

3. Impact analysis- don't save it for the 2NR/2AR. You should begin your impact analysis early in the round during the constructive speeches.

4. Tell me how I should evaluate the round- for example, if framework comes first, you need to make that explicit. If I'm not told how to evaluate the round, I don't always default to offense-defense, but I do find myself making decisions through that lens more often than not.

5. Have fun and be respectful- this activity changed my life in so many ways and opened so many doors for me. Remember, we're all here to have fun, improve, and learn from each other. You'll remember more (and learn more) from the rounds where you lost/struggled than the rounds where you win.

Background: I debated for a highly-competitive high school that traveled to national events before debating at USC. I have coached at several schools over the years, and I currently work as a full time teacher at LBCPM, a proud member of LAMDL, where I am the head debate coach. I was a 2A for most of my career, and I usually ran traditional policy arguments.

My "Why" Statement: Learning about government, politics, and political philosophy prepared me to work in the real world, both in congress and later in the classroom where I now teach Economics, U.S. Government, and U.S. History. I think that learning about America - both the good and bad - and the various policies it could enact right now has immense value. I also work with non-profit groups to promote civics education and financial literacy in the classroom.

What you can run:Generally speaking, any argument can be presented unless it violates an actual law or rule of the tournament and/or league. I am a teacher, and I like think I am am empathetic person, so I promise I will do my best to ensure the environment is productive and professional. I think anything that qualifies as targeted harassment, threats, or makes the debate space so hostile to others that they should not reasonably be required to debate requires me to contact tournament staff or intervene in the round. I find that this community is fantastic overall, especially in recent years, and I do not expect to be in this position often, if at all.

My Preferences: I think education about real-world policy is very important, and I most enjoy arguments that engage with the topic clearly. I also vote on framework, theory, and topicality when it is well-argued. I don't strictly prefer one argument type over another, but if I can't understand what is happening I will probably not vote for you. That said, I do like the freedom of policy debate and I will for non-traditional strategies if they are well-explained. I will always strive to be as fair as I possibly can. In some cases, I really need you to teach me about your argument before I can evaluate it properly, especially newer theory, as my work does not allow me enough time to read the source material for everything I might encounter.

Checklist:

Spreading - OK

Tag Team CX - OK

Email Chain - YES, ADD ME (see email at bottom)

Pronouns - He/Him

Arguments Allowed - All

Favorite Strat - DA + CP

Marked Cards - Send revised version ASAP

Default Paradigm - Policymaker

Truth v.s. Tech - Tech

Prompting - If you are just saying "move on" or "answer this" once or twice it's fine, but if you are giving your partner's speech it's going to cost you both points. I do not like yelling out entire sentences to repeat word-per-word.

Independent Voters - OK, but prefer less voters with more explanation

Speech Doc - I would prefer the full doc, but if you send cards only I will do my best.

Speaker Points Scale:

30. Perfection. I couldn't see you improving in this round in any reasonable way. Rarely given.

29.5-29.9: One of the best speakers in the tournament. Strategic decisions were ideal, spoke clearly, and was charismatic.

29 - 29.4: Very good speaker. Above average strategic decisions, very clearly spoken, and overall fairly persuasive. Or exceptional at some but not all things.

28.5 - 28.9: Good speaker. Average performance in this round in terms of strategy, clarity, and persuasiveness.

28 - 28.4: Solid speaker who kept up with the debate to some degree but made significant mistakes.

27 - 27.9: Beginner-level speaker for their division who needs significant work on the fundamentals but was able to compete to a some degree.

< 27: You have made multiple major mistakes in this round, didn't use your time, and/or were extremely unclear.

< 26: You have done something problematic.

25 The zero point of debate.

------------------------------

Remember to have fun, and don't let the competitive nature of the activity get in the way of making friends and contributing to the community as a whole.

Evidence share email: parco.debate@gmail.com

Yes, put me on the email chain: triniti.santos.2028@gmail.com

Hi!!! I have been debating for three years now at Notre Dame and I am now a senior. I have been a 2N for all three of those years.

Please call me Triniti, not judge. I am far too young for that level of power.

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Most Important Info:

1. Go for whatever you are comfortable with
2. Be polite and considerate to your opponents
3. Relax and try to have fun - debate is a game (despite what some framework teams say)
4. If explained well, I will vote on arguments I don't personally believe in
5. I vote on who articulated their argument the best, YOU MUST HAVE OFFENSE AND DEFENSE in the rebuttals, and whichever team cites evidence that was EXTENDED CLEARLY THROUGH the block/1ar

Automatic Losses:

1. Racist/sexist/homophobic/other-isms are a non-starter
2. Suicide good = automatic loss and lowest speaks

DAs

1. Must have in-depth explanation of how it decks the aff
2. Must have an impact - either soft or hard (I'm not picky)
3. The stronger the link is - the stronger the chance I have of voting neg
4. One of the most overlooked parts if the IL - if you extend it properly and explain it - exponentially can help you

CPs

1. Good CP's are mutually exclusive with the aff and have an INB - this helps a lot when the DA you are going for with the CP suddenly gets straight-turned on you
2. The more straightforward it is, the better
3. The longer the text - the more easily I lose interest/get distracted - DO NOT assume I know what that really long text means - you have to explain it
4. Process CP's are GREAT - HOWEVER - this also means that I am susceptible to intrinsic perms as viable
5. Advantage CP's are good - kicking individual planks is pretty abusive, but I can be persuaded otherwise - you must be able to defend all of your planks if you go for them - make sure to stay organized - more planks = more potential confusions for me
6. The CP must have an INB/NB/reason why it's better than and different than the aff or the perm wins
7. Aff teams: Perms are always acceptable, but intrinsic perms are very hard for me to vote on unless they are clean dropped from the 2nc or it's against a Process CP

K's

1. Yes - one of the best args ever
2. I am good with security/cap/IR/identity K's
3. I have no idea what it going on with Baudrillard/Psycho/etc, but will vote on them if they are properly explained
4. Many K teams choose either the alt or framework - both are valid options I will vote on, but if you go for the alt - you must be able to articulate how it would materially happen
5. Framework is important and each team needs their interpretation/counter-interpretation of it
6. If your going for framwork: you need to tell me why the affs is specifically causing harm and how your framework is different and how (if adopted) what the change would look like in whatever setting your critiquing

K-Aff's

1. I am not your judge for this - all the framework is a little confusing and I am a fan of plan affs
2. BUT - I will do my best to flow and come to a coherent decision
3. Fairness, Education, and clash are the most important parts of framework - choose which one you want to go for and stick to it - going for all of them is a fool's move
4. You need to explain the IL (limits, ground, etc) to all of these and why your K-aff resolves them
5. If you're reading a K-aff, it is VERY important that you can tell me why this could not have been read on the neg (Neg teams - this is what you need to ask in cx)
6. The Fairness Impact turn is quite good if explained well - the neg should pre-empt this in the 2nr and talk about why fairness is good throughout the block and 2nr
7. The Cap K vs the K-aff is a good Strat

Affs

1. Plans are great and you need to defend them - let me repeat - THE ACTIONS OF YOUR PLAN TEXT ARE THE ONLY THING YOU NEED TO DEFEND
2. Advantage or turns to the neg's stuff must be extended because you cannot win on defensive answers alone
3. Add-ons in the 2ac are great and so much fun to do to stress the neg out
4. You must be able to explain what your aff does and what it looks like post-implementation

T

1. Can be the best or most frustrating debates
2. Both teams should have interps/counter-interps
3. MOST IMPORTANT: you must have an impact to the standards you discuss and how it will affect this round/other rounds at or outside this tournament

Impacts/Impact Turns

1. BOTH ARE AMAZING
2. I love a good IN-DEPTH impact debate where both teams indite the others cards and compares them - not inditing them forces me to have to go back and read them to see which team is correct about the timeframe/magnitude/probability - don't make me do this, you may not like the result
3. Impact calc is a must and should be started in the 2ac/2nc and it must tell me why I have to vote on your impact

Condo:

1. I generally think condo is bad, unless: 1) you can explain its impact very well, 2) The block clean drops it and the 1ar re-explanation is very in-depth, or 3) if the neg reads more than 7+ off

Final Notes

1. Rudeness/excessive agressions = lower speaks
2. I will clear you three times before decking speaks
3. Do not attempt to post-round me - all my decisions are final and WILL NOT be reversed
4. If you have any further questions/concerns, feel free to email me!!!

Email Chain: irissim0730@gmail.com

The Meadows School (Class of 2025)

she/her

T/L-

• General Rule, be nice and civilized- we're not animals screaming at each other. Any offensive statements that are homophobic, sexist, racist, etc., and personal attacks are an automatic loss- no question.
• tech > truth; Your technical skill should make me believe/be able to determine that your argument is the truth. That means you have to give warrants and not j say it, but explain, compare, and impact them with the other team's ev.
• warrants- make sure it's in the card and not j tags. It's really dissatisfying when debates operate on a solely claim/tag base level with no deep evidence-based analysis.
• discussions of source, author intentions and 'true' meaning, and citation are important and I think it can become quite interesting.

Case-

• Love, Love, Love a good case debate.
• Make sure to make good turns on case as a neg and create offense against it- I tend to lean on Neg when they are able to make great offense and kill the Aff with the strat.
• It's not about card dumping but extending and refuting to the main points- You don't need a card for everything they say.
• I'll vote on complete defense if the arguments are vry well spoken.

Topicality/Theory-

• Personally, I don't like T.
• tend to err Aff on this because I agree that debating regarding specific words or non-substance parts of the plan doesn't reinforce the educational aspect students get from speech and debate.
• well-explained impacts.
• “limits good” and standards are not impacts and valid reasons.
• “They unlimit the topic by justifying x types of affs that we cannot hope to prepare for” is an impact.
• important to have conciseness within your args and connections between the 1NC way of explaining till the 2NR's way of interp, standards, etc.

• I think Theory is just a spice to debate, and prefer a more substance debate.
• still open to it and will adjust :)- When going for it, just make sure to impact it (fairness and education) everything else are internal links to these impacts. Make sure to explain everything concisely. Err Neg on Condo.

DA -

• Probability is key.
• Establishing a risk for the Aff is key- specifically why the Aff causes the risk and impact calc the ! of the DA to the ! of the Aff.
• Pretty much open to anything

CP-

• Make sure you have a net benefit
• it's okay if its not functionally or textually competitive, but I will prefer if you don't run it.
• V Cp, Start by pointing out solvency deficits and distinctions between the Cp and plan that undermine the neg's net benefit- internal links and solvency cards are good for this.
• Open to anything as long as you answer and explain args well (solvency)

K-

• Experienced in Cap, Mil, Fem, Set Col, Fem Ir, Disability, Race, etc
• As long as you can explain the cards well I will be open to it
• I don't really compelled by the framework as a voter and a solely framework-based debate is not fun. Thus, I have a low threshold for voting Aff solely on fw.
• Make sure Ks should have alternatives that actually resolve link arguments.
• I'm not going to weigh a K impact against the aff if the K can't resolve it and especially if they can't explain it.
• The alt is typically the weakest part, so the Aff should definitely attack it.
• never ignore good root cause debating - I think it can serve as terminal solvency deficits to the aff and a reason why the alt is better
• don’t make a bunch of perms you have no hope of winning unless they are conceded.
• Perm do the alt is not a perm.
• Make 1 or 2 permutations and EXPLAIN IN THE 2AC how the permutation overcomes neg links/risks of the impact.

Speaker Points-

Minimum 27.5 unless you did something really wrong

+.4 points if you rap ur speech, +.2 points if you sing a verse of a bruno mars song

(If you have any questions feel free to email me; A lot of my philosophy and opinions are influenced by Malcolm Gordon so you can check his paradigm as well)

Add me to the chain - lspecht1@icloud.com

Notre Dame High School 4th Year World School Debater

explain why an impact matters

• I will listen to any argument, vote for anything as long as you make good arguments, cover what you are going for and have good defense.
• If I am confused, you can usually read it off of my face
• I want you to do the work for me, explain why I should care and clearly format the claim, warrant, and impact.
  
  
• explain how the perm would work, I will not vote just for the words “perm do both”.