Email chain: blackdahling@gmail.com

Hi! My name is Dahlia Bekong (she/they). I debated in LD for Bronx Science for four years, competed at the TOC my senior year, and am now a junior at Binghamton University. I mostly read performance and kritiks throughout high school (specifically anti-blackness & quare theory), but I’m fine with most things.

TLDR: Ks/K-affs/Non-T/Performance > K Theory > LARP > T/Theory > Phil > Friv Theory/Tricks (Depends)

A few things to note:

- Debaters reading anything that makes ontological claims of violence toward a group they do not belong to will result in me autovoting you down.

- I have been out of debate for a while, so please make sure to go at about 70% circuit speed AT MOST. I was never that good at understanding spreading anyway so if you’re fine with it I’d prefer if you went even slower than that, but I’ll try to keep up with whatever pace you decide to go for.

- Please refrain from doing anything racist, transphobic, ableist, etc. If you think your position would specifically perturb me or your opponent, either refrain from reading it or ask us beforehand if it’s okay to read. If you think your opponent violates this, impact it out and I may be willing to vote on it.

- I have sensory issues, so if your case utilizes flashing imagery and/or loud sounds, either heavily reconsider reading that position or accept the fact that I may be too zoned out to flow that part of the debate.

- Above all, I LOVE creativity regarding positions. A position that’s well-constructed and has its implications thought out is something a lot of debaters lack, so if you’re willing to go the extra mile and can explain it, feel free to blow my mind.

Okay, actual debate thoughts.

First and foremost, have a model of debate. If both debaters end up LARPing or something then this probably won’t come up, but I default to debate being a homeplace, where idea testing is somewhat good but never trumps the actual safety and/or right for debaters to be in the space. This is especially true for clash of civ debates: explain your model of debate, including why you’re here, why I’m here, what we should individually do, and what the utility of the ballot is.

I will borrow a phrase from Temitope Ogundare’s paradigm that I really appreciate: “Truth over tech until tech overwhelms truth (probably because you were inefficient)”. I often find that “tech over truth” is practically used to shut down any conversations about the way personal identity manifests itself.

However, there does exist a threshold where if you clearly don’t know what you’re doing, I can’t really give you the benefit of the doubt. If you’re winning the flow on a technical level and can explain why that’s actively good then I will vote for you, but if you’re doing something like distinguishing between structural and procedural fairness solely to shut out identity positions then you’re doing way too much.

Finally, I’m on the firm position that debate is not a game. I personally depended on debate as a way to cope with transphobia and help pay to go to college in the first place, which is to say, debate has very material impacts for people that can begin from reading something in round and extend to the outside world. If your shells rely on this as a crutch to shoo way identity arguments, then I’m gonna tell you to take the L on this one.

Okay, even more specific debate thoughts.

Identity Ks/Performance: Yeah!!! I have the most experience with running these, but I will emphasize to only read one if you know what you’re doing. Slow down to explain concepts and warrant your arguments. Err on overelaborating about what the alternative actually does and weighing that against the world of the aff. For performances, make sure that the performance isn’t simply tangentially related to the case but also gives you material offense. I love specific and clear link stories so I will be very swayed if you convey that in the 2NR.

K-Affs/Non-T: Yeah!!! These were my favorite positions in high school. You can mostly look at the previous section but for these I will also advise you take an extra hard look at the model of debate stuff. Whether the aff has a clearly defined model of debate that accounts for why they’re doing what they’re doing AND the debate space at large will usually dictate whether they win against T.

K Theory: Ranges from “Yeah!!!” to “Cool”. I love seeing the incorporation of critical literature into an argument meant for norm-setting but the same rule of actually knowing what you’re talking about applies here, ESPECIALLY since you’re talking about your literature in a “debate-rule” context.

LARP: Ranges from “Cool” to “Eh”. A lot of LARP ends up impacting out to nuclear war, which is very tiring. I’d like to see weighing that involves more metrics than magnitude or scope so I don’t have to worry about the next coming of Fallout 3. I’d like to see more weighing, period. Please read proper plan texts that either correlate with your evidence or that you can explain the link between the text and your evidence. Please remember mutual exclusivity exists, especially in the case of CP’s (doubley with PICs). PLEASE make your links specific to the aff.

T/Theory: VERY heavily depends. I have an extremely high warrant for T and theory to the point where I don’t think fairness is a valid terminal impact. There are other impacts out there that actually account for material violence that occurs from the same standards that are impacted out to fairness. Make sure your interp is specific and actually encapsulates what your model of debate is (planks are very useful for this).

Identity K/Non-T aff v T/Theory (Yes, this is a specific section): Aff gets to weigh. A pet peeve is when debaters overexaggerate the reality of debate norms (i.e. someone reading one non-T aff destroying limits completely). A BIGGER pet peeve is when debaters read the latter argument to disengage from the former (especially against Black debaters). Debates of these nature should never boil down to whether the aff belongs in the space, but whether their way of incorporating it could be improved. If the neg doesn’t have a way to account for the affs’ harms, I will presume aff.

Phil: Ranges from “Cool” to “Ugh”. I’m probably the least experienced with this so I will absolutely need you to overexplain your arguments. Can very quickly become mumbo-jumbo that makes my head spin so focus on big picture work and my route to the ballot.

Friv Theory/Tricks: Ranges from “Ehh” to “No”. Will autovote you down if you read these against an Identity K/Performance position, I consider it a sign of extreme disrespect to the affirmative. Reading these against LARP, Phil, and non-identity based positions is fine and often entertaining but I have a really low warrant for responses.

changed my last name from Kyser to Kyzar, so you might notice a difference on tab vs email.

email chain: davk2300@gmail.com

Paradigm:

If there's an email chain, I'd appreciate being on it, but I'm fine with spreading as long as you're clear. If I cannot understand you, I will say, "clear".

signposting, overviews, and framework are the most important things you can do in a round. please make it extremely clear why your offense is winning, what arguments your opponent has dropped, and why I should value your framework over the other team's. you can even let me know why I should value your evidence over the other teams.

author credibility, date, publisher, etc.

CX is a power struggle. Usually, whoever dominates cross, dominates the round. I will pay attention to CX but I will not base my RFD on it unless you bring it up during your speeches.

Don't do any tricks or run anything frivolous. If I feel like you're running disingenuous arguments, it makes it much harder for me to imagine you as a policymaker.

I do not enjoy 1% solvency arguments, nor do I enjoy "try or die" arguments. decisions made off of fear, desperation, poor planning, etc. do not inspire confidence in me.

I enjoy unique perspectives, but I do not enjoy when a Debate becomes the struggle Olympics.

Don't accuse your opponent of being predatory unless they actually are. if I do see someone being predatory, 9/10 times they've already lost the ballot without your intervention

You can however make the claim that your opponent's case has a myopic view because xyz

I will vote for Topicality. I will vote for Non-Topical Aff's if the team provides a clear method for how the neg is meant to engage in a fair debate.

I will also vote for a non-topical aff if you can convince me that I should prioritize other voters over fairness, e.g education because a grave disservice is being done and debate is functionally bad because of it.

Speaker Points

30 You were one of the best debaters I've ever seen

29: You were excellent and get an A
28: You did a pretty good job but stumbled in a few places
27: You can grow in many areas

I typically give out high 28's and low 29's.

"Honorable defeat is preferable to dishonest victory." - Rishi Mukherjee

Ishaan Tipirneni, He/Him/His

Call me "Ishaan" not "judge" please.

Email: Ishaantipirneni504@gmail.com, yes put me on the chain

Education: Lexington '24 | Northwestern '28

Debate Experience: 4 yrs of HS policy debate, 3x TOC Qualifier

Conflicts: Lexington, Hawken

Prefs: First year out. I'm probably a worse judge than I was debater. I am probably not capable of judging a TOC-level KvK debate. I give out speaks based on the relative talent in the pool. Thus, if you debate like one of the better teams in the pool you will get high speaks and vice versa. I have ZERO topic knowledge, so please explain everything. I probably evaluate a debate more like a debater than a seasoned judge, so I won't think as critically about the round compared to other judges. I vote on the path of least resistance.

TOC Update: Keep everything above in mind. I am a subpar judge for this tournament. I have not thought about debate in a year. I have flowed ~10 rounds in the last year. My experience as a debater is out the window. The people that compete/have competed at the college level or have been active participants in the community for a while are significantly better judges than I am. With that said, I can still judge high level debates, but I just won't think as critically as those people.

Top-Level:

Tech > Truth. Your ethos only matters for your speaks. Therefore, technical line-by-line is the basis of my decision.

I will boost speaks for both teams if the debate is efficient. I hate downtime. Nobody wants to spend 2+ hours in a round.

Post-rounding is chill if you genuinely believe you are right. Questions are always welcome.

Give me an easy way to vote for you. Judge instruction is the best way to gain my ballot. We both don't want intervention.

I am not afraid to vote you down because I don't understand your argument or I don't understand you.

I will "clear" you, but if it's multiple times, your speaks will tank.

I can be convinced of nearly anything in the confines of a debate round.

All of my debate opinions have been formed by ex-Lexington debaters who went for egregious arguments. This should answer any "should i read [x] in front of Ishaan" questions.

Specific Comments:

Policy Affs: I love creative policy affs (that dodge generics and are probably not topical). These are what I read virtually my entire career.

CPs: Condo is probably a reason to reject the team. Textual competition is sketchy.

DAs: Make sure to REALLY explain the link because most links are trash. Make sure your 1NC shells are highlighted with some sort of argument being made.

T: I need a COHERENT violation and impact story to vote for your T interp, not just "they dropped x." I will vote on PTIV. To win T on the neg, you just have to prove a violation and why that’s bad. Impact calc is HUGE for T debates and is necessary to get my ballot.

K-affs: I think these can be really good when creatively done, but please make your argument coherent and not just a preempt to FW. I usually find presumption a really good option against k-affs because they often don't make much sense at all. Make sure you have some reason to vote for you. In terms of the content, I am chill with high theory, race, cap or whatever amalgamation of political theory you call an aff, but it must be explained well.

K: I will vote on basically any K. On the neg, the debate is usually down to FW, so please actually do impact framing and make it easy to determine who is actually winning the flow. Link articulation is a MUST for me, so make sure you explain the link or why you don't link, depending on the side you’re on. Alts are usually bad, try to make yours actually say something coherent. Explain clearly why the alt resolves the links. I need a really good reason why aff teams shouldn't be allowed to weigh the plan.

FW/T-USFG: Fairness is an impact; debate is a game & much more. I really like it when the FW team goes for reasons as to why plan debating is good to solve a lot of the impacts the K aff is forwarding or arguments as to how less fairness or clash means less participation or less effective communities of care. Usually, FW teams lose on the impact framing debate, or when they lose the internal link debate. I need good impact framing for this. K-affs shouldn't go for the W/M unless you have a plantext. I probably lean neg on this debate.

Idc how many off you read, but if your one-card Ks or two-card DAs aren't making arguments in the 1NC, you will not get leeway in the block.

If you give a final rebuttal w/ no computer and/or don't use all of your prep, I'll boost your speaks significantly.

If you make a GOOD joke about Misty Wang, Billy Blechman, Ila Dohrmann, Buck Arney, Lex LM, or any ex-Lex debater I will boost your speaks. Jokes in general are good, but you better be funny. Debate is never that deep.