Xavier Burchfield

xavierburchfield09@gmail.com

I have been every speaker pos.

I will easily vote on a well explained and debated theory argument

If I am judging novice, which I probably am, DO NOT BE A BLOCK BOT PLEASE, that is not helping you get better, it just looks stupid when you read something and just don't know what it is when answering cross

Prepared to vote on anything

IF YOU WANT TO HAVE A GOOD CHANCE OF WINNING, READ A POLICY AFF, DONT READ A K AFF, AND k's on the neg are a little more easy, but it might confuse me.

I will vote on the K, but the team reading it is at a disadvantage as I don't always feel comfortable voting on it if the debate is messy, or if the K isn't explained well

I strongly suggest you don't read a k aff against me, and if you make a mistake and do, pretend I am a baby. Explain everything very well.

I tend to lean neg against k affs

I usually understand the T-FW arguments and don't need as much explanation, but I definitely need help understanding case.

(I will vote on wipeout or spark or death good)

If it is debated well, I will feel comfortable voting on it

Dropping case in the 2ac and full pushing condo the rest of the debate is a fire strategy

I love a good case turn on the neg in the 2nr, and on aff, i love a turn on a disad

This doesn't mean read something completely new, if you read something completely new, I won't even flow it and the other team doesn't have to acknowledge it because it is not their burden.

Don't be scared to go for risky arguments, I won't take my personal beliefs into the debate, so even if you run wipeout or spark, if it is technically debated well, I will vote for it.

If you are answering cross, and you avoid the questions, and just yap about something else, speaks are going to probably go down.

Pronounce punctuation verbally (Brandon Lin)

Impact turn fairness

SPEAKS

1. 25 --- Rock bottom, you were discriminatory, mean, etc, or you clipped.
2. 26-27 --- You barely spoke and had no warrants and just practically yapped about nothing relevant.
3. 27-28 --- It was mid, you spoke fine, but it wasn't anything great.
4. 28-29 --- somewhat good, you had good clarity, you had good speed and understanding of arguments.
5. 29-29.5 --- You were really good and i liked mostly all of it.
6. 29.5-30 --- You have a very bright future and did really well in the debate.

He/Him, email: joshuachen1208@gmail.com

Experience: Currently a HS Policy and PF debater for ADL

For Public Forum:

PF does not require spreading so please go through your speeches with clarity. Signposting is really important and for summary speeches please give a clear overview as to what ur contention is. Lastly, please be respectful during crossfire if not it will piss me off.

For Policy Top:

Be quick on sending emails

I will time but please time yourselves.

Truth is important but I'm persuaded by logic and presentation

Both teams should prioritize internal link explanation over impact explanation.

Weighing your impacts

Don't go too fast on analytics.

I don't flow CX, but I'll comment on it if there's anything I liked or disliked

Fairness has a great impact, but I also like impacts about iterations, research, and clashes. Without a predictable AFF constraint, I don't think debate could exist.

If it's dropped it's true but explain why

Don't make the debate boring

Explaining your link chains,

OVERVIEWS ARE A MUST-HAVE

Aff top:

I would appreciate it if you guys take the initiative to start the debate as well as exchange your case and past 2NRs. I don't really like K Affs, 1A Please be clear when transitioning between cards or advantages. Clear overviews of the advantages during the 2A are needed.

Couterplans

• Cheat counterplans that simply "reword" the Aff are pretty funny but I won't vote on them.

Disads

• Politics DAs are fun ig
• Turns case is extremely valuable framing for the neg.
• the aff should have offense when answering DAs. It's always helpful to have the option to shake things up in the 1ar.

Ks - I love them

• But I dislike lazy link debating.
• Explain how the alt solves the links and why the perm doesn't.
• Alt shouldn't be too complicated
• Fiat and perm can be answered with framework.

Please stay respectful and have a good attitude, especially during cx, or else I’ll get pissed

hi! I'm Emma :) my pronouns are she/her/hers, and I'm a junior (class of '25) debating with ADL and attending TES (for those of you in Taiwan). I'm in my fourth year of CX, but I also do some extemp, world schools, and PF on the side. feel free to email me at eyhchuo@gmail.comfor any questions!

Smart Debate (SD)/Public Forum (PF)

it's difficult to lay out reasons in exact bullet-points for what you should do for me to vote for you (because they depend on the substance and technical debating in different rounds), but here are a few things I believe in which help me judge:

1 --- tech over truth. if you tell me the sky is pink and the other team doesn't tell me otherwise, I think it's true for the sake of the debate round. that being said, I will not vote on that argument alone without you telling me why it matters, which leads me to:

2 --- framing/judge instruction. I need to know how you want me to evaluate the debate --- i.e. which arguments you think matter and why they matter + why you think, under that framing, your arguments matter more than your opponents' arguments. to explain that, you need:

3 --- well-explained link and internal link stories. you need to tell me what your arguments mean for me to vote for you and even make a decision at all! also, if I don't know what your arguments mean, it's likely that I won't understand the ways that you're using an argument (e.g. if you say that your contention A answers their contention B, but not tell me what contention A means, I won't understand why contention A can be used to rebut contention B, which means that I'll probably still give **close to** 100% risk to contention B.). finally:

4 --- impact/why your story matters. you should try to do impact calculus to tell me why your arguments matter more than your opponents'. this way I can decide between two different stories from two different sides.

+ I absolutely LOVE smart link and impact turns so if you can win on that you’re amazing but even if you don’t end up winning on it I’ll give you some extra you’re-a-smart-person speaker points

Speaks

usually I give out speaks within the 27.5-29.5 range; if you get higher than that, you are extraordinary. am literally hailing you you are my favorite speaker ever I tell all my friends about you keep up the good work you are a literal boss. if you get lower for that, it's most likely just because of discriminatory or disrespectful behavior that I do not and will not tolerate in any instance. please please just be nice.

if you're in the bottom half of the 27.5-29.5 range, my suggestion would be to practice your speech more and be more confident in it because it was probably great; speak louder & read clearer. if you're in the top half of this range, congrats! keep it up! for more detailed comments about speaks though, you can always ask me through email, in person, etc.

Others

I do NOT tolerate any discriminatory behavior (racist, homophobic, sexist, etc, or being rude to your partner or opponents). I'll do my best to make this a safe space because what really matters is that you get a place to speak about your ideas --- so please do reciprocate by being nice to everyone.

thanks for reading & enjoy your debates! :)

Please add both emails to the email chain:

PeninsulaDebateKD@gmail.com

PennDebateDY@gmail.com

Please disclose before round

Tech>Truth

Won't vote on AdHoms

If you hit a Suiiiiii after each speech, it will bolster your ethos and make me more likely to vote for you.

Telling me who your favorite player is, and I'll either dock or add points depending on how valid I think it is.

Coach @ Asian Debate League

Debated 4 years at Kapaun** Mount Carmel in Wichita, Kansas, 2017

Debated 4 years NDT/CEDA/D3 at University of Kansas, 2021

Email chain: gaboesquivel@gmail.com

My biases:

I lean aff for condo. Some might say too much. I might expect a lot from you if you do go for it.

For K's I value consistency between the scale of the links and impacts i.e. in round impacts should have in round links.

I strongly bias toward "The K gets links and impacts vs the aff's fiated impacts" unless someone delivers a very persuasive speech. I can be persuaded that making a personal ethical choice is more important than preventing a nuclear war.

I lean toward affs with plans. Fairness concerns me less than usual nowadays. I like research/clash impacts.

I will read evidence and vote for evidence in debates where things are not settled by the debater's words. This happens frequently in T debates and impact turn debates.

Status quo is always an option=judge kick

How I judge:

I am patient with novices because most of my students are novices.

I listen first and read your evidence second. If you are clear, this distinction shouldn't matter. If you aren't clear I'm not comfortable reading your blocks and cards to fill in the gaps for you.

I flow and use everything I hear in my decision, and overemphasize what is said in the rebuttals. I'll reference the 1AR speech to protect the 2NR on a 2AR that "sounds new" and I'll reference the block on a 2NR that claims the 1AR dropped something. I'll reference a 2AC on a 1AR that claims the block dropped something, etc.

For a dropped argument to be a true argument it must have been a complete claim and warrant from the beginning. I am not a fan of being "sneaky" or "tricky". Unless you are going for condo ;)

I am persuaded by ethos and pathos more than logos. I find myself wanting to vote for a debater who tries to connect with me more than a debater who reads a wall of blocks even if they are technically behind. When both teams are great speakers I rely more on tech and evidence.

I try to craft my decision based on language used by the debaters. I reference evidence when I cannot resolve an argument by flow alone. PhD's, peer reviewed journals, and adequate highlighting will help you here. If I can't resolve it that way I'll look for potential cross applications or CX arguments and might end up doing work for you. If I do work for one team I will try to do the same amount for the other team. It might get messy if its close, that's what the panel is for, but please challenge my decision if you strongly disagree and I'll tell you where my biases kicked in.

**Pronounced (Kay-pen)

Please add me to the email chain: yukig1234@gmail.com

Peninsula '26

Tech > Truth

Clarity > Speed

Overall:

I will vote on any argument as long as it's well explain and impacted out. I will default to judgekick. I'm not too confident on Ks but will still try to evaluate them in the debate to the best of my ability. Don't let this stop you from reading them though. If I don't understand what you are saying I will say clear. After I say clear 3 times during one speech, I'll stop flowing. Don't be racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. It'll be an auto loss. Speaks start at 28 and go up or down depending on what you do in round.

Specifc arguments:

Topicality/Theory: Provide counterinterps, specific violation, etc. Fairness is probably good. I won't vote on RVIs.

Counterplan: Perms are a test of competition. I lean neg on condo but I will vote on it.

Disadvantages: Impact calc is important. Doing good work on the link debate is also important.

Kritiks: Make sure you understand the kritik and can clearly explain the story. I am familiar with basic Ks (Cap, Set Col, Imperialism, Security) and some other random ones but try to explain your K clearly anyways.

For LD and PF, I'm not familiar with the topic so please clearly explain confusing arguments.

Have fun! ☺

Peninsula '24

Add me to the email chain: peninsulalailai@gmail.com

Peninsula '25 (hopefully) Yale, Harvard, or Stanford '29 (definitely)

Put me on the email chain: neptunicrager@gmail.com

Do impact calc or I will obviously and visibly flip a coin while staring at you, immediately submitting my ballot following that. You cannot prove a connection between these two things.

Not voting on something I didn't see happen in-round. This includes not disclosing past 2NRs.

+0.5 speaker points for a well-maintained wiki. Let me know if you think you meet that criteria.

CX open + binding, spreading good--this isn't a midwest local (hopefully)

Clipping is an auto-win--just not for you.

Truth > Tech insofar as I will probably try to subconsciously rationalize a ballot for arguments I think are better.

CONDO. It's good, have never gone for condo in 4 years as a 2A, but you can win it's bad--some stuff if you're getting curbstomped on substance and want a cop-out:

If the aff can prove the neg constructed the 1nc in such a way that it was impossible to respond to, i.e. contradictory condo, I'll eagerly vote on it.

2NC counterplanning out of straight turns is annoying and cowardly but you can probably justify it. Aff should straight turn in the 1AR, not 2AC to prevent this. Also, usually it often screws with their offense so be on the lookout.

Number of off doesn't really change how chill I am with conditional advocacies unless your interps make it such--doesn't meet the counterinterp, or the debate comes down to like 1 CP, 1 K vs 3 condo or some numerical comparison where the debate comes down to the merits of that one extra advocacy.

I can tell if you're going for it because you're losing everywhere else and want to turn the debate into a coinflip- I get it, but is substance really that unwinnable for you? Will probably lower your speaks if you go for it as a cop-out but doesn't consciously affect the decision itself.

Have a real interp in the 2AC. Once saw a shell that was "Condo strat skew research dispo solves" and I reconsidered my involvement in this activity. Please, make it well thought-out and intricate in the constructive if you want to have a shot at winning with a blown up 2ar.

K Affs:

I really wanna see a topical K aff debated well. I'm talking Atticus Glen style arguments. High skill floor, but I'll be impressed and give you high speaks if you can pull it off effectively.

Reconsider reading a planless aff in middle school/novice year, but for these debates:

Fairness is an impact and will be unless "just an internal link" is literally dropped

Aff should impact turn neg standards. Your C/I almost never solves their offense and the Limits DA is fire

Very sympathetic to the argument that the only thing my ballot can do is decide who won on a technical level, and convincing me otherwise in the face of competent debating is an uphill battle

Counterplans:

Significantly less convinced of neg's pleas for absurd counterplans on Fiscal Redistribution. Go for the Econ DA! Debate the case!

The Aff should go for theory more. Probably like 70/30 aff in most instances with a well-crafted interp (multi-level fiat, international, multi-actor, honey) (Side Note: Interp's really important. "Process CPs are bad" probably isn't one, "consult CPs bad" probably is.

Send permtexts. It's time-consuming and hard to think under the pressure of a huge 1nc, but competition is a great way out of a debate where you may have zilch against a new process counterplan, and I just enjoy these debates if done well (or competently given it's middle school)

Functional + Textual competition is weird to me. Why not just go for theory instead of making up a new way counterplans compete? Smart perms are fun to see, but seem intuitively bad for neg offense and debate in general.

Offsets is obviously not competitive if they don't have "increase fiscal redistribution" in the plantext. Counterplans compete with the Aff, not the topic--if they're not the topic, go for T!

Taxes PIC competition is 50/50. Aff should have a deficit or be prepared for the Perm do the CP debate.

Universality PICs are... hard. It feels bad to give the Aff subsets, but also probably unbeatable if the neg goes for a PIC? Maybe the solution is just to read social security, idk.

I have a higher standard for advantage CP planks than most. The Aff obviously gets new 1AR answers to planks not substantiated with a piece of evidence if not written out in excruciating detail. If Eagan LS would have read your CP, reconsider.

DA:

DAs are pretty good on this topic, for the first time in forever. You could probably beat every universal BI or JG aff on Econ DA + case--and high speaks if you do.

Contextualizing the link will do wonders. Super hard to justify a neg ballot when your explanation and spin doesn't go beyond the generic 1NC card. If you don't have any specific links, then spin like it's goddamn ballet and go for gold

Rider DAs one of the only probably illegit ones. The best interp of fiat is one where the consequences of the Aff are focused on, not any extraneous BS.

Horsetrading is arguable- it's based on the consequences of passing the plan and the plan alone absent some sort of weird attatchment to it but nobody writes these DAs anymore so who really cares

K:

As the meta moves away from substantively engaging the Aff, I get less and less amendable to neg framework pushes. You don't even have a link to the Aff--you've gone for FW as offense. These often contradict the links, as well--if the aff makes it less likely, but it's also antiblack, isn't it good to prevent antiblack violence?

FW: Aff probably gets the plan but that doesn't mean it's all that matters--best interp is probably that aff has to defend reps but gets to use the consequences of the plan as a justification for them. Neg gets reps links but has to explain why it outweighs the plan's consequences. Both sides agree you can't sever representations from justifications so it comes down to case debate. K debate is case debate!

Perm seems very hard to beat on this topic. When the Aff boxes you into "giving poor people money bad" you're in the wrong parts of the library for debating in front of me.

Alt's super important and people don't put much thought in anymore--go for the perm if it solves the impacts to the K, not the links because double bind becomes real. Alt bad must be a part of the 2ar--"case outweighs" gets you nowhere against competent teams.

Author indicts are gonna need to be impacted out because 20 "deleuze is a pedophile" cards or whatever doesn't really amount to much substantive offense.

Psycho's probably bs. Will be easier to prove I should reject it for unfalsifiability than not.

T:

Very hard to convince me debatability is all that matters with competent precision/predictability explanation by the aff. Predictable limits, precision prerequisite to ground, etc. are all pretty damn convincing and predictability outweighs is generally the aff's best bet.

Not very many reasonable T violations on this topic.

Lean neg on T courts for debatability reasons given there's 0 lit on either side.

Reasonability is just the argument your c/i solves enough of their limits DA that the predictability DA outweighs--explain it more like that instead of "1% risk we solve any of their offense is AUTO AFF BALLOT BECAUSE SUBSTANCE CROWD OUT!"

Non-resolutional procedurals should lose to infinite regress.

Feel free to ask about the decision- I encourage it. It's really helpful for growth to understand how you could have improved your speech and even more so to actually do it (redos!).

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

OLD:

I will never vote for the quid pro quo counterplan. Under any circumstances.

I will drop you for using mac. Non-negotiable.

Firm believer in all disciplines being equal- besides mental evaluation it must also be physical- post-round you will physically combat the other team (or because of online debate challenge them to a clash royale match) to determine speaker points and I will give the winner a piece of chocolate- this also means I am persuaded by a challenge of a physical confrontation in the 1ac in order to determine the ballot.

My memory isn't great so please recite every piece of evidence you would like to extend word-for-word

If I see a plantext, auto L and 25 speaks

Condo is bad. Negation theory ONLY justifies the squo

Vagueness is almost always good- if I can't understand what the aff or alt does by the end of the round that motivates a ballot not to mention the strategic benefits

Ground and Grounds is the same word

Truth > Tech- I do not flow and will be evaluating the debate purely based on cards

RVIs are very persuasive- requires significant negative investment to convince me not to vote on it and that time investment just proves skew further

I will not disclose personal moral beliefs- however if you violate any it will make it almost impossible to vote for you

Trump won the election. Take from that what you will. "Biden solves" will result in a 25 and auto-loss.

Do not look me in the eyes during cross-ex- I will view it as a challenge of my authority and any maggots who dare gaze into the void will be consumed

Argue with the other team after the round to determine my decision- look to pf grand cross for an example

Feeding into the previous vagueness point- this applies to speaking too- I will believe you if you say you finished a card unconditionally and accusations of clipping will be punished

My _ key is broken- please do not say any word with an _ in it or I will not be able to flow it and be irritated

Make an obscure reference to (insert unknown debater) for 0.1 extra speaks!

Please warn me when you're about to start the speech with a 10 second countdown and get verbal confirmation by everyone in the room individually that they're ready for you to start- it's important everyone is ready.

Will evaluate arguments either team asserts as dropped as made even if unintelligble earlier

Please pronounce all punctuation verbally- it prevents me from flowing effectively if you do not.

Elroy Liu

Email: spitfire.38.48@gmail.com

Debate how you would normally would if you haven't seen my name on the pairing. Treat the following as advice that would make my decision easier, or that wwuld increase your speaker points.

Burden: Debaters have the burden of winning the round rather than relying on the judge to work it out. Defend what you're doing in a debate if it's questioned and out-perform your opponent if you agree on the parameters. Be ready to explain why your position is desirable, especially if it’s nontraditional.

Speaking: Clarity over speed, especially for online debates where quality is not as good. When reading analytics, read at a slower pace. Assume I am not following the speech doc.

Dropped Args: A dropped argument is a true argument if it contains a complete claim and warrant from the beginning.

Conduct: It's fine to be aggressive, but don't be overly rude or condescending. Debate is a game, and it should be kept fun for the most part.

Time: I might not always remember to keep time, so it's best to get into the habit of keeping your own time.

Good luck y'all.

OCSA '27

ivaliu2008@outlook.com

I agree with Rafael Pierry on most everything. While I heavily prefer strategies that are centered around substantively rejoining topical 1acs, I will vote for anything, from wipeout to hidden ASPEC. However, I'm still terrible for phil, tricks, critiques, and most affirmative theory arguments, especially conditionality.

The only other opinions that will be relevant to my decision: offense-defense. Judgekick is default. Evidence quality matters. Clipping tags is not a thing. Insert rehighlightings; read recuttings. If you ask for a 30, you will receive a 25 instead. I start flowing during the 1nc on case, so if you want to hide something, do it there.

peninsulaLL27@gmail.com

Try my best to be tech > truth.

Flow and respond to your opponents arguments.

Cards are not everything! You do not have to read a new card for every argument the opponent makes. Try your best to use evidence you have already read to respond. (2AC and onwards).

Evidence comparison is very cool. Please remember you had 2 constructive before the rebuttals and use the cards you read.

Clarity > Speed.

Judge instruction in the 2n/ar is very helpful. Outline the exact reason that I’m going to vote for you and I will be extremely happy.

Be nice!

(Bonus speaks if you tell me who your debate idol is. Double if they’re from Peninsula)

jpark.debate@gmail.com

University of Kansas '23, Washburn Rural '19

he/him/his

Coaching for the Asian Debate League and Taipei American School

Based in Taiwan, so the time difference will affect my judging. This means you need to have more enunciation and clarity than usual.

TLDR:

---very low econ knowledge

---very bad for K AFFs, fiat Ks, process counterplans, and technical T arguments

---decent for other policy arguments and Ks that are DAs

________________________________________________________________________________________

TLDR:

---Not the greatest flow, likes creativity, more likely to care about macro-issues than minor technical drops, avoid jargon/acronyms, will vote on args that promote sedition

---Fully-developed strategies that clash tend to perform better in front of me.

---I think have a higher bar for what constitutes a 'complete argument' than the average college-aged judge and some may say I care more about the "truth" side of "tech over truth." This is not necessarily about content, but about argument development/evidence/persuasion.

---My debate beliefs are malleable. This paradigm might make me seem like an old person (true, though), but good debating can remedy my predispositions. Good ev helps too.

---Largely persuaded that:

(1) incomplete args in the 1NC justify new responses

(2) net benefits should be verbally stated in the 1NC

The justification for both of these will be below.

________________________________________________________________________________________

General:

Positives

1---Respecting your opponents (CX, pronouns, don't mercilessly bludgeon less-experienced debaters), be ethical, etc.

2---Efficiency. In your speech, during prep, emailing, down-time. etc. If you don't need 10 minutes of prep for the 2NR/2AR, don't take it.

3---Taking debate seriously. Pay attention, flow, try. But also, have fun! We are all invested, so let's make our debates worthwhile. Ad-homs are bad and not arguments.

4---Research (evidence matters, but so could spin). Vertifical proliferation is better than horizontal proliferation of arguments. Also, likely won't vote for death good.

5---Ethos and Clarity. I am a bad judge for teams that just spit into their computer at 300 WPM at 65% clarity. Lowkey think that debaters that are slow (while being smart, technical, etc.) are *****chefs kiss***** I should hear every single word you say. Please enunciate and recognize that debate is also a communication activity instead of a block-perfecting competition in the 2NR and 2AR. If you are a team that has rebuttals prescripted without any plans of contextualization (such as asserting things happened when they didn't), then please email me your 2NR/2AR blocks, and I will assign your speaker points during the 1AC and vote against you.

6. Organization---speech docs, cards, wikis

Negatives

1---Lack of analysis. You should have framing arguments, judge instruction, contextualization, and argument development.

2---Debates that make me litigate things outside of the debate.

3---Vagueness. It should be clear what your AFF does, what the plan means, what the counterplan does, what your highlighting of evidence means, and what the tags of your cards are intended to communicate. I am likely more amenable to vagueness arguments than most judges.

Misc

I kicked the AFF in a decent chunk of debates I was in. I do not think this influences my judging but my AFF (and NEG) debates would sometimes look really different than a lot of people.

________________________________________________________________________________________

Policy:

Topicality vs. Policy AFFs

T versus policy AFFs was one of my least favorite arguments. It isn't ideological, but I spent most of my debate career debating with 2Ns who were obsessed with it, so I just never really thought about it. I find most T debates dry but I understand the strategic necessity of them. My aversion stems from 1NCs that lack a violation and then debate becoming late-breaking.

To improve my VTL when going for T, internal link explanation is important. 2Ns have seemed to forget that there ought to be a reasonable explanation about how we get from the violation to zero NEG ground ever. Both teams should have more debating about what the interp/counter-interp debates would look like. Assertions of topic biases or quality of generics should be explained with warrants. I am not the ideal judge for a technical T argument.

For some reason, I find ground arguments more compelling than limits/precision. Not sure if this will affect my judging, but I've always thought that limits arguments were hyperbolic. Big topics feel good if the NEG has robust strategies to counter them. When evenly debated, plan-text-in-a-vacuum is a tough sell for me.

Disadvantages

The optimal 2NR is a DA and the case. Counterplans are for cowards. I'm not as big on the modern Politics DA as most Kansas debaters but it's okay. I would prefer not to judge debates about intrinsicness tests.

AFFs teams should have offense on the DA. NEG teams should try to have real "turns case" arguments outside of "nuke war is bad."

Counterplans

I'm mostly AFF-leaning on theory arguments. I'm not wedded to these beliefs, but I have some predispositions. I am not a huge believer in conditionality. This is not a free invitation to go for condo in the 2AR, merely an observation that in-depth debates are better.

My least favorite genre of argument as a debater was the process counterplan. Again, I understand its strategic utility and will judge the debate neutrally. I'd prefer a 2NR that is about why the AFF's bad. Competition debates are dry. Comparative evidence between the AFF and the counterplan's process demonstrating functional competition could make me hate your counterplan a little less. I am also a less qualified judge for complex competition debates.

Case

I am a good judge for presumption and giving a low weight to the AFF advantages. The 2AC and 1AR get away with murder on the case, so the NEG teams should use that to their advantage. This is an area where good debating will be rewarded with nice speaker points.

Soft Left

I enjoy soft left AFFs but framing contentions need to contain offense. ________________________________________________________________________________________

Critiques:

Ks vs. Policy AFFs

I'm better for Ks on the NEG. I will award specificity, especially backed with evidence. I will have a hard time voting on critiques that lack interactions with the scholarship and thesis of the 1AC. If the NEG reads a K impact turn to the AFF's advantage, that is likely the best strategy in front of me. Or, have a robust framework justification with turns case arguments. I seem to care a little bit more about performative contradictions/linking to your own K than some (not for theory reasons). The closer your K is to a soft-left impact turn, the better. I am willing to vote on non-extinction impact-turns (example: heg is racist/causes violent interventions---bipolarity is preferable).

K AFF vs. T: USFG

I have voted both ways but am a bad judge for you/find most AFF offense not intrinsic to T. Explain what debates over the AFF interp would look like. I always thought framework debates were thought-provoking and helped me think about debate. Explain what debates over the NEG interp/TVA would look like. I am open to voting for either fairness or education. I am a believer in research about the topic, so the closer your AFF is to being about the topic, defending a theory of power, being a substantial shift from the status quo, and defending material action, the better. Any lit bases outside of bio power, colonialism, settler colonialism, capitalism, and IR need more explanation.

________________________________________________________________________________________

(1) Incomplete Arguments

I am mostly compelled that the 1AR should get whatever it wants in response to incomplete 1NCs. Debates are increasingly rewarding blippy 1NCs, causing debates that are worse to judge and I believe judges ought hold the line on what the debate community constitutes a complete argument. If a 1NC DA shell lacks uniqueness, then why should the 2AC be burdened to make link turn args as to how they reverse the deficiencies of the status quo. The logical conclusion of "you have to answer everything" would mean the AFF would have to read impact d to random floating impacts, which is absurd.

(2) Net Benefits

Whatever the net benefit of every advocacy is should be specified in the 1NC. This is low-cost for the NEG and would improve debates/AFF strategy. CX doesn't remedy this because NEG teams take forever to answer, which is unfair for the AFF because the 1A could be asking good, substantive questions. Instead, I have to listen to the 1N say "everything is a net benefit... wait... <>...then the 2N takes 15 seconds to decide and then lists net benefits to analytical con con, states, the one card Security K, a card-less 15 plank advantage counterplan, and a process counterplan. This take might seem extreme, but I believe it is the least arbitrary and most efficient way to resolve net benefit shenanigans (a time limit feels weird). For most counterplans, they are only complete arguments if they have arguments about solvency AND competition in the 1NC. Counterplans that rely on DAs to beat the perm and complete, so it seems logical that the NEG should be responsible for this. Lastly, I want to award bold strategies. The clearer the net benefits are, the better AFFs will be at straight-turning and NEGs will read better DA + CP combinations.

Sage 26',UCB 30',Wharton 34',Harvard 38',Brown 42',Stanford 46',Columbia 50',Duke 54',MIT 58',CalTech 62' Never making it out of acadamia...

ilovefracking6@gmail.com

been debating for like 4 years now? i forgot its been a while

I think debate is good, but you are free to contest that, kaffs are always welcome.

that said, Critical Affirmatives are good, but you have to prove your method of power and overall method. Explain your ROB. One thing i have against this is please don't read something like "Racism bad" and the rest of the aff is just a complaint of how the world operates. Theres PF for that.

Ts: ts are good to competition and i will vote for it, on the critique you have to win that procedural > structural, vice versa if your aff.

Ks: ks are generally good but oftentimes i end up not knowing what ur alt does or i vote on no link, so explain your link and the alt correctly, as a somewhat decent k debator i really love these debates so please do it well.

Das: go for them, i tend to er towards the neg if you can tell me why the risks o/w the aff, that is if, you do the other parts well

Cps: meh, most of them are kinda generic I mostly lean towards aff, if you are gonna read a cp i am most likely not your judge but I'll still try to evaluate it

Theory: fun, if the opponent is abusive you should def run theory, just don't run RVIS :)

Novice - I'm fine with spreading but honestly if you are gonna spread just sent ur analytics i promise you no ones gonna steal your stuff.

Feel free to postround

don't cheat and i wont cheat

arthur.v.qin@gmail.com

Don’t pref me if you don’t read a plan and care about winning.

It is true that every debater enters a two hour round wanting to win, and any argumentation otherwise will result in an immediate vote for the opponents in the spirit of unfairness, because you have just said that you do not want to win.

"When debaters walk in the room, they expect the judge to render a fair decision, not to rob them of years of hard work and dedication by substituting their personal biases for the arguments presented."

I try to make my speaks normally distributed (u = 28.4, sd = 0.5).

Prep ends when email is sent.

Topicality is primarily a question of truth.

Debate is better when debaters are dressed business professional (applies to online debate).

Everything is probabilistic. You can win the full weight of a dropped argument and easily still lose the debate.

Email: jet.semrick@gmail.com

Coach @ ADL and Taipei American School | Debated @ University of Kansas 2019-2023 and Shawnee Mission East 2015-2019

______________________________________________

Summary:

--My goal is to render a decision without intervention. I will work hard to evaluate and provide helpful feedback for any arguments presented regardless of my opinions. I enjoy judging debates where debaters work hard. Currently, my full time job is to teach and research the high school topic.

--I believe AFFs should be topical and solve a unique problem. The NEG should argue the AFF is undesirable. I am a good judge for any strategy that demonstrates the plan is a bad idea.

--Quality of an argument matters. I am more likely to be persuaded by complete, sound, and logical arguments. However, technical debating can change this predisposition. A dropped claim is irrelevant unless accompanied by a warrant and explanation of how my decision should be impacted.

--Preference for fewer, but more developed positions over many underdeveloped ones. My ideal debate to judge is the topic disadvantage against the largest affirmative on the topic.

--Take the debate seriously. Be reasonable with down time, sending out emails, and please don't send out or ask for a marked doc if it's not needed.

--Ethos, clarity, and strategic decisions will be rewarded with speaker points.

______________________________________________

Policy:

Topicality vs. Plans

Plan text in a vacuum is not a persuasive defense of a non topical AFF.

Topicality debates where I vote NEG are generally not close because of truthful arguments that are difficult to overcome via technical debating. High quality interpretation evidence is important.

Prioritize the internal link over impact explanation. Give examples and context. Ground is the most compelling standard because a 'limits explosion' can be mitigated by the existence of predictable and high quality NEG ground.

Counterplans

Specificity is best. Evidence that compares the CP to the plan is the gold standard. 1AC re-highlightings are persuasive.

Competition debates are boring and I usually vote AFF because the NEG is reading and not debating. I sympathize with the need for process on bad topics, but economic inequality... give me a break.

I will judge kick counterplans unless told otherwise. I think conditionality is bad, but necessary. I am convinced that fiating out of solvency deficits and straight turns in the 2NC is not a good practice. In general, more counterplans equal worse debating and lower speaker points. In truth, I think dispositionality is a better model because it would require more strategic decisions and research on the part of both the AFF and the NEG. However, that does not mean I am more likely to vote AFF in a condo debate. I generally end up voting NEG because conditionality does not make debate impossible and NEG flex is important.

AFF on consult, delay, process, international, word PICs, and fifty state fiat. These are reasons to reject the argument. Debates with a partially intrinsic permutation versus a non-germane process counterplan favor the AFF.

Ideally, the NEG specifies net benefits and establishes competition in the 1NC.

Disadvantages

DA and case 2NRs are the best debates to judge. I enjoy debates about the economy and politics. Mechanically sound DA debating is a lost skill. Turns case is most persuasive when supported by evidence.

The AFF should read offense when answering DAs. If the NEG wins an uncontested link argument, AFF uniqueness arguments are less persuasive because there is always a risk the status quo is stable given the certain instability of the plan. The resolve this problem, disprove the internal link which is typically the weakest part of the DA.

Case

A block and 2NR that prioritizes the case is potent given the AFF trend to be efficient at any cost. Solvency deficits and alt causes are more compelling than impact defense.

If you decide to read a "soft left" AFF make sure the framing page is meaningful. Generic framing arguments are boring and generally still devolve to magnitude x probability. I am more willing than most to vote AFF for a small magnitude high probability advantage vs. a low risk high magnitude DA.

______________________________________________

Critique:

Topicality vs. K AFFs

I want to vote NEG in these debates. I have never been compelled by arguments for why the AFF should not be topical. If the NEG reasonably executes the argument they will receive my ballot.

Fairness is the best impact for T. I am also persuaded by impacts about iteration, research, and clash. Without a predictable AFF constraint, I don't think debate could exist. I think topicality is like a baseball strike zone, its boundaries are not perfectly defined or perfect for either team, but without it the game could not be played in a competitive manner.

In order for the AFF to win, they need to defend a model of debate that provides a valuable role for the NEG, solves AFF offense, and is mutually exclusive with the NEG model. If you are impact turning NEG standards, you must provide a compelling reason why voting for your advocacy resolves your offense.

Critiques vs. Policy AFFs

I will likely weigh the plan. To win, the NEG needs to win link turns case arguments, solvency deficits, or impact turns.

Both teams should have a reason for making a framework argument. The 2NR and 2AR need to give judge instruction for what I should do if you win or lose your framework interpretation. I default to weighing the impacts the plan can solves against the impacts of links that the alternative can resolve. I think the AFF is only responsible for impacts that they make worse.

I think the alternative should materially solve a problem, and am not persuaded by rejection style criticisms. I think linear DAs can be good and can be persuaded by an impact framing argument if you win a non-unique link to the plan.

I am persuaded that the NEG does not get to sever reps if other arguments are explicit contradictions. Examples of this are reading the cap K and growth DA. The AFF should exploit tensions between pages and generate smart DAs to alternatives or link turns.

______________________________________________

Ethics Violations:

I would prefer for debates to be completed and am not interested in judging the moral character of debaters or events that took place outside of the round. I value my role as an educator and will intervene or answer questions mid debate if that leads to an agreeable resolution that allows the debate to continue.

I would prefer to strike evidence rather than end the debate. Questions about qualifications, context, and argument representation should be argued in speeches to undermine the credibility of a position.

If there is a formal ethics challenge by a team, the debate ends. If the challenge is successful, the team who made the challenge wins and receives average speaks. If not, they lose and receive low speaks. I will defer to tab, my experience, and advice of others.

If the issue could have been resolved before the debate and is unintentional, I will likely reject the challenge. If I catch clipping, I will give a warning during the speech under the assumption that debaters are competing in good faith. If there is an egregious pattern or the warning is ignored, I will vote for the other team at the end of the debate.

Add me to the email chain

' gronkyd@gmail.com '

Peninsula '27

second-year policy debater

Tech > truth, tell me what's true don't expect me to know it

this means I will vote on BS args if you have a clear claim warrant and impact that goes uncontested

Speaks start at 28.5

Please spread clearly, if I cannot understand you I might miss stuff in your speech

Inexperienced with K, if you plan on going for it please thoroughly explain your links and the alt

not a big fan of K affs and am sympathetic towards the neg, but if there are logical reasons against T I will vote aff

absolutely 0 experience for KvK debate

usefordebate1@gmail.com

Spreading is fine as long as you're clear, still fairly new to judging, currently debating mostly substance, not too informed on K-style debates but I'll try to follow it, just explain the links very clearly and articulate the neg story. Theory and T are fine, just don't be frivolous and I generally buy drop the arg for anything except Condo. The base for speaks will be 28, +0.1 for being funny. -0.2 if you fail to be funny. I don't vote on tricks and do impact calc on the 2nr and 2ar. Tech > Truth but I don't buy fake or racist arguments, and if you run racist args you're getting the lowest speaks.

Give an order before your speeches.

Do impact calc at the top of the 2nr and 2ar- explain your args.

Don't read random blocks, contextualize your arguments for what your opponents are reading

Cameras on if tech permits.

Peninsula ’26

Add me to the email chain:

jonnyfyang@gmail.com

Debate is a game with a winner and a loser. The fundamental objective and driving force is to be the best and win the game. Do whatever is strategically deemed of you to have the best chance of winning, as long as it is not constrained by ethics or by your morality. This means different things to different people, so I won't judge based on what you think good and effective technical debating is.

However, for argument selection, please do not read racism good, death good, or any other argument that pertains to discrimination/suicide good in any way. Those arguments are never okay, even as a joke. Other than that, you're good to go.

Be nice. We are peers playing a competitive game, but it doesn't need to become a hateful experience. Focus on your mental attitude and treat others the way you want to be treated.

I'm mostly going to be judging novice debates, so I'm going to emphasize a couple of things.

1. Do impact calculus! Give me a clear explanation of the impact you are going for and why it might be more important than the impact they are going for.

2. Flow! It's the main aspect of debate. Answer all of the arguments they have made, and when they drop yours be quick to point it out.

3. Please ask questions!!! I don't expect you to debate your best but I want you to improve and use these rounds as building blocks to improve future debates. Even generic questions like "Thoughts on x speech" are good and appreciated.

Have fun! Do your best and make sure to smile :).

Coach for Peninsula

Plz put me on the email chain atStevenyu0923@gmail.com

Tech over truth dropped arguments are presumed to be true, but I do believe that true arguments are easier to defend.

Simplicity is good. The more complex an argument is, the more explanation is needed beyond it's "dropped" or tag line extensions.

Truthfully, not the best flow in the community so would like you to slow down on analytics especially if not in the doc.

Hiding theory is cowardice. You can and might win but speaks = nuked

Every argument needs a claim, warrant, impact. If it's missing any one of the 3 components, I reserve the right to not vote on it.

For every min of prep you don't use I will give 0.1 of extra speaks up to a cap of 29.5.

You should debate as if I have 0 understanding of the topic

I find myself somewhat expressive during the debate. Feel free to use that to your advantage.

Tech over truth. But below are my predispositions. They can all be changed by technical debating but I find myself being convinced easier if debaters abide by said predispositions.

Anything is game. No args are off limits. Whether it's egregious impact turns or stupid theory arguments. But arguments about personal issues or issues outside of debate is off limits.

Fairness is likely an impact.

Condo is good.

Process CPs are bad but likely hard to win absent a good answer to arbitrariness.

Reasonability is bad.

Inserting rehighlightings is NOT ok.

Predictability > debatability

Debates and characterizations of ev > ev quality itself

Timeframe matters, determines directionality of turns case.

PIKs are probably bad but likely theoretically justifiable against a K aff. (went for this a decent bit)

Plan text in a vacuum is stupid.

Familiarity with arguments

Policy stuff all fine. Not a big fan of politics.

Turns case is as probable as the rest of the DA. If DA is 1% and turns case is dropped, it net values to 1% so the aff weighs 99% of the aff vs 1% of the DA.

Not a fan of complex theory debates other than T.

Adv CPs + impact turns are my favorite 2NRs in high school.

Ks are fine. Although it's best if the FW interpretation allows your opponents to weigh the plan because it's defense not offense. If you win FW without a link to the 1AC then I still vote aff on presumption. If you are spreading analytics on FW straight down, please save pen time. Winning case is a good idea proves education about case is good.

K aff vs T --- I find myself more aff leaning then people would imagine. I believe the only real internal link for the neg is predictability. Even that internal link is arbitrary and likely can't solve. K affs that just call T or whatever the neg does microaggressions will find a hard time succeeding in front of me. K affs that undercut the neg's internal links to fairness by indicting legal precision or predictability could be very successful.

I believe PIKs, creative impact turns, or counter advocacies are also ways to negate K affs.

LD

God forbid I ever judge LD but if I do, please stay as far away as possible from Phil or Tricks.

Middleschool:

Clarity > speed

Flow

Don't steal prep