Hi, Im America Ayala (She/Her/Ella)!

america.ayala4647@gmail.com: please add me to the email chain and feel free to reach out to me to ask me any questions.

About me: I recently graduated from Elizabeth Learning Center after debating for the school's policy team for 4 and a half years as a varsity. I started very policy-oriented but later moved on to find my favorite style of debate which was performance. I am now debating a sophomore at CSUN, with my high school debate partner.

OV:

1. Read anything as long as you can explain it/justify it.

2. I was a K debater (set col, fem, gender, rage, psychoanalysis, trans, and queer, I read a lot of other lit as well.) Don't assume that I will understand the literature you read and explain it to me as you would to any other judge.

3. Tag teaming is cool just don't speak over your partner!

4. I debated my entire high school career as varsity (except for two tourneys as JV) and was captain of our team at ELC.

5. I do not tolerate verbal abuse, belittlement, or anything homophobic, sexist, racist, or that would make someone feel unsafe in the debate space, especially against your own partner! I will lower your speaker points.

6. A dropped argument is a dropped argument, prove to me why it matters tho.

Affirmatives: Read any type of aff you want in front of me but do keep in mind these few things:

1.) Impact out your stuff: Make sure that by the end of the debate, I know what the impact is and how and if it gets solved.

2.) Non-topical affs: I am 100% your judge for this but I do hold the FW debate to a higher standard if there is no plain text.

3.) Clash: Make sure there is equal engagement from both the neg and the aff on the case debate because I feel like a lot of teams just lose it. If you don't have evidence to answer arguments just do line by line, that is far more acceptable than 0 engagement. If there is going to be 0 engagement then make sure it is justified by the end of the debate.

4.) Presumption: Don't just say presumption, tell me why this is a voter.

Negatives:

DA:These are cool just make sure you have a uniqueness claim, a link, and an impact or else it is not a DA to me and shouldn't be judged as one. If it is gonna serve as a net benefit make sure to tell me how the CP solves it.

CP:I love counterplans that are explained and contextualized to the affirmative but if its not that's okay so as long as you solve for some net benefits. If you are aff make sure to tell me why the CP doesn't solve the case that will definitely sway my ballot your way.

Procedural/ Voters/Theory :I love when these are actually debated properly make sure you have standards when reading these don't just make a claim to it if you plan to center the rebuttals on it.

1.) Condo: I am pretty neutral, just make sure to justify to me why it is a voter.

2.) Vagueness args: Please, make them only if something is actually vague, and you can prove it to be vague. Have a bright line if you want this to actually be a voter or else I'll just default to my own interp of vagueness.

3. ) Ethic voters:if you make these please make sure that you make it clear to me where specifically it is that there is an ethics violation. If you can quote, or refer back to a specific comment or remark made please make it clear. I think debate should be a safe space but it is also an educational one. People can make mistakes, but remember to be mindful and apologetic if someone has educated you on something that is morally or ethically incorrect.

T:I am not that good of a judge for T debates only because a lot of people default to using jargon as extensions and explanations. Make sure that you are impacting out this stuff and explaining to me why every one of your standards is fair game or is important. Debate to me is not just a game so keep that in mind, but if you do good at debating then I'll vote for it. I love a damm good TVA, win this, and ill fs vote for your T.

K:I love a good K.

1. I am knowledgeable in set col, fem, pessimism, gender, rage, psychoanalysis, trans, and queer theory. I've also read a lot of other lit as well. Don't assume that I will understand the literature you read.
2. Make sure there are contextual links and that there is at least one link being explained to me in the block that is explicitly related to the aff.
3. If you are going to be doing a lot of FW debates, make sure to let me know when you are giving me a roadmap. Don't assume I am just gonna default to FW.
4. Alternatives can be dropped but if you want to win the debate explain to me why there is still a link and why the K itself still matters. If you are going for the alternative then make sure that I am aware of what the alt does and what that looks like/ how to engage.

LD section:
1. Im sorry, I have judged LD but I am familiar with the topic and have watched and judged a few rounds. Everything in the policy section should mostly apply, ill update this section more as I get more comfortable creating preferences for this category.

2. Please do not try to spread if you know it will cost you your clarity, focus on extending your arguments instead of trying to make a multitude of them.

Affiliations:

I am currently coaching teams at lamdl and have picked up an ld student or 2.

I do have a hearing problem in my right ear. If I've never heard you b4 or it's the first round of the day. PLEASE go about 80% of your normal spread for about 20 seconds so I can get acclimated to your voice. If you don't, I'm going to miss a good chunk of your first minute or so. I know people pref partly through speaker points. My default starts at 28.5 and goes up from there. If i think you get to an elim round, you'll prob get 29.0+

Evidence sharing: use speechdrop or something of that nature. If you prefer to use the email chain and need my email, please ask me before the round.

What will I vote for? I'm mostly down for whatever you all wanna run. That being said no person is perfect and we all have our inherent biases. What are mine?

I think teams should be centered around the resolution. While I'll vote on completely non T aff's it's a much easier time for a neg to go for a middle of the road T/framework argument to get my ballot. I lean slightly neg on t/fw debates and that's it's mostly due to having to judge LD recently and the annoying 1ar time skew that makes it difficult to beat out a good t/fw shell. The more I judge debates the less I am convinced that procedural fairness is anything but people whining about why the way they play the game is okay even if there are effects on the people involved within said activity. I'm more inclined to vote for affs and negs that tell me things that debate fairness and education (including access) does for people in the long term and why it's important. Yes, debate is a game. But who, why, and how said game is played is also an important thing to consider.

As for K's you do you. the main one I have difficulty conceptualizing in round are pomo k vs pomo k. No one unpacks these rounds for me so all I usually have at the end of the round is word gibberish from both sides and me totally and utterly confused. If I can't give a team an rfd centered around a literature base I can process, I will likely not vote for it. update: I'm noticing a lack of plan action centric links to critiques. I'm going to be honest, if I can't find a link to the plan and the link is to the general idea of the resolution, I'm probably going to err on the side of the perm especially if the aff has specific method arguments why doing the aff would be able to challenge notions of whatever it is they want to spill over into.

I lean neg on condo. Counterplans are fun. Disads are fun. Perms are fun. clear net benefit story is great. The sept/oct topic really made me realize I never dabbled in cp competition theory (on process cps). I've tried to fix that but clear judge instruction is going to be very important for me if this is going to be the vast majority of the 2nr/2ar.

If you're in LD, don't worry about 1ar theory and no rvis in your 1ac. That is a given for me. If it's in your 1ac, that tops your speaks at 29.2 because it means you didn't read my paradigm.

Now are there any arguments I won't vote for? Sure. I think saying ethically questionable statements that make the debate space unsafe is grounds for me to end a round. I don't see many of these but it has happened and I want students and their coaches to know that the safety of the individuals in my rounds will always be paramount to anything else that goes on. I also won't vote for spark, trix, wipeout, nebel t, and death good stuff. ^_^ good luck and have fun debating

Online Debate: Don’t be classist, I have hardware that can support online debate, but that doesn’t mean everyone else does. Let’s not make online debate more difficult by giving people a hard time for not having the proper equipment in a pandemic that nobody expected. If your audio cuts out, I’ll stop your time so we can resolve connection issues. I’ll either ask you to start from where you first cut out or summarize what you said, depending on the length of the outage. It takes all of us to make this work.

About me:

He/Him/His

Yes, add me to the email chain: s.cardenas00@yahoo.com

Debated policy 2 1/2 yrs for South Gate HS under LAMDL

Debated for 2 years with California State University, Northridge

Coached 2 years with South Gate High School

Here's the TL;DR. There's no argument I wouldn't listen to - run arguments you're comfortable with. That being said, I do have more experience with critical arguments. Lately, I've found myself really enjoying framework debates with clash on education/skills impacts. If you have any questions, please ask me. Argumentation and debate is a fluid activity with ever-changing circumstances; therefore I believe paradigms should be fluid as well. My paradigm will always change depending on debate norms.

I will NEVER vote for a "racism/homophobia/misogyny/etc... good" impact turn. I will instantly downvote you and give zero speaks.

==================================================================

Preferences

Burden of Rejoinder vs. Burden of Persuasion: I feel that both are necessary. Personally, I think our activity has placed so much emphasis on the burden of rejoinder that we have lost almost all emphasis on the burden of persuasion. Teams will string together dozens of internal links to create an astronomically improbable scenario and treat it as truth. Truth be told, the probability of the average “big stick” advantage/disad is less than 1% and that’s just real talk. Fast teams read a disad that was never very probable to begin with and because the 2AC is not fast enough to poke holes in every layer of the disad the judge treats those internal links as conceded (and thus 100% probable). Somehow, through no work of their own the neg’s disad went from being a steaming pile of non-sense to a more or less perfectly reasonable description of reality. The takeaway is… that when i judge, I try (imperfectly to be sure) to balance my expectations that students meet both the burden of rejoinder and the burden of persuasion. Does this require judge intervention? Perhaps, to some degree, but isn't that what it means to “allow ones self to be persuaded?” To be clear, I do not think it is my job to be the sole arbiter of whether a claim was true or false, probable or unlikely, significant or insignificant. I do think about these things constantly though and i think it is both impossible and undesirable for me to ignore those thoughts in the moment of decision. It would behoove anyone I judge to take this into account and actively argue in favor of a particular balance between the burdens or rejoinder and persuasion in a particular round.

Case: Obviously, case is important. I've felt that in recent years case has often been shoved aside and forgotten.

T/FW: Probably the most important flow for me. I really value education/skills impacts.

CP's: I find that cp's are best when they're original and have solid solvency literature.

DA's: Similar to the cp's, I think DA's are best when they're original and have solid link/impact chains. Our interpretation of a solid internal link chain may differ, however. See "Burden of Rejoinder vs Burden of Persuasion" for an explanation.

K's: The takeaway is … I would say I am more friendly to critical arguments than some judges, but that also means I require a higher level of explanation and depth for those arguments. For instance, it is not sufficient to argue that the aff’s reps/epistemology/ontology/whatever is bad and these questions come first. You have to tell me in what way the aff’s methodology is flawed and how exactly would this result in flawed thinking/policy/ect. Unlike disads, individual links to kritiks have to have impacts to be meaningful. In general, I think people read too many cards when running kritiks at the expense of doing a lot textual and comparative work.

K Aff's: Similarly, on what I said about neg k’s, I need you to explain your methods and their material consequences.

*** I've really only written the most essential stuff. Im still working on this***

hi! my name is elva chen (she/her)

email: elvachen1234@gmail.com

im a current varsity debater for downtown magnets high school (4 years)

preferences:

my biggest pet peeve is dropped arguments, so please please please try your best to answer everything, even if you don't have prepped answers to it

tag-teaming is okay as long as one teammate is not overpowering the other. please allow both sides to have equal chances at talking

my favorite offcases are DAs and K. if any offcases are going to run, please be knowledgeful about it. i

PLEASE signpost. i get lost in the arguments sometimes so please say "next" or "moving onto"

i LOVE theory, if you ever want to run an argument like condo or vague alts, im all for it.

Hi so I’m writing a new paradigm because I have changed a lot in the past years so my favorite type of debate is policy — i love a good disad and i think with upcoming election + middle east politics is just true. I really like in depth clash on uq and link pages. I am good for anything I think my opinions in debate are most similar to Andrew Wesel Jun Kwon Jonathan Meza Vontrez White Scott Phillips. I agree with almost all their paradigms but I’m also good for theory — I think aspec can be valid at times. This is pretty brief because I’m typing this at marlborough during a kids prep time but is probably more reflective of who I am now

Old Paradigm — Hi! I'm traditionally an LD Debater - although I have experience with both world schools and policy. I will flow everything you say, but there are certain arguments I frankly look down upon (tricks and rvis), I'm not a fan. If you want to read a K, I'm your judge. I love Ks. I will not be doing your work for you though, I'm not going to buy your alt framework and link work if it's is not clear actually explain it rather than reading cards and pretending you understand the lit. Tech > Truth. Sorry, this isn't super long, making it last minute. I usually start at 28 - 28.5 depending on the format and will move up and down from there. I've debated this water topic at LD camps - so I'm relatively familiar w the lit. Please feel free to ask me as many questions as you want pre-round just because of this messy paradigm.

email - lila@daoudi.org

put me on the email chain ^^^^^^

my phone number is 323-636-2046 ---- please call or text me if you have any questions

hi! I’m currently a junior who’s debated policy at Lake Balboa for four years, all in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Debate League/LAMDL. You can find me on the wiki at Lake Balboa DaSt and Lake Balboa BrDa. I’m a 2A/1N, pronouns are she/her, and find my email is: addison.rachel.debate@gmail.com

On the aff I’m currently running a big stick, but I have a lot of experience with soft lefts, and spent half of last season running a k aff. That means I’m receptive to pretty much anything, though k affs do have a higher threshold for explaining their theories of power because I’m still learning all the lit bases.

On T I think it's super underrated. Impact it out and talk about the models winning topicality sets within debate as a whole.

On cps my 1NRs tend to be PICS/process cps but I'm good with any. I default to reject the team unless told otherwise. Up to 3 Condo is usually good, but I’ll vote condo bad no matter the number of advocacies.

On disads, judging these debates comes easier to me. I love a clear impact calc with contextualized links and a clear story, and for the aff link turns are my favorite.

On kritiks even though I’ve only ran Cap K and Set Col, my league loves to run them. Same as on the k aff, explain your theory of power or risk my confusion. I refuse to vote for a ballot I can not understand. But I love kritiks and I’ll vote without the alt.

Now for just misc stuff: tech > truth, I evaluate card quality less than most and will only go back to read the cards if the credibility/contents of them are questioned, I default to flowing by ear but will follow the doc if intelligible, tag teaming should be limited, sending the doc out doesn’t count as prep (I am forced to debate on a school chromebook and understand the pain), and default speaks to 27.5.

Finally the way I debate and think of debate can be contributed to these people, all of whose paradigms have influenced my own: Andrew Stepanyan, Joseph Barquin, Justin Parco

DEMPSEY CRONIN MEMORIAL INVITATIONAL SPECIFIC:

1. I’ve never judged LD before and have only seen one LD round period. I don’t know what a Trick is, struggle with Phil, and am a policy girly at heart.

2. I only have middle school ballots meaning I have the privilege of judging middle schoolers! My debate career began the second half of my seventh grade year, and my on a whim choice to join debate was one of the best decisions of my life. I’m here because I want to spread my love for this activity as far as I can. Ask me questions, be positive, and be curious!

2017-2019 LAMDL/ Bravo

2019- Present CSU Fullerton

Please add me to the email chain, normadelgado1441@gmail.com

General thoughts

-Disclose as soon as possible :)

- Don't be rude. Don't make the round deliberately confusing or inaccessible. Take time to articulate and explain your best arguments. If I can't make sense of the debate because of messy/ incomplete arguments, that's on you.

-Speed is fine but be loud AND clear. If I can’t understand you, I won’t flow your arguments. Don’t let speed trade-off with the quality of your argumentation. Above all, be persuasive.

-Sending evidence isn't prep, but don't take too long or I’ll resume the timer. (I’ll let you know before I do so).

Things to keep in mind

-Avoid using acronyms or topic-specific terminology without elaborating first.

-The quality of your arguments is more important than quantity of arguments. If your strategy relies on shallow, dropped arguments, I’ll be mildly annoyed.

-Extend your arguments, not authors. I will flow authors sometimes, but if you are referencing a specific card by name, I probably don’t remember what they said. Unless this specific author is being referenced a lot, you’re better off briefly reminding me than relying on me to guess what card you’re talking about.

-I don’t vote for dropped arguments because they’re dropped. I vote on dropped arguments when you make the effort to explain why the concession matters.

- I don’t really care what you read as long as you have good reasoning for reading it. (ie, you’re not spewing nonsense, your logic makes sense, and you’re not crossing ethical boundaries).

Specific stuff

[AFFs] Win the likelihood of solvency + framing. You don't have to convince me you solve the entirety of your impact, but explain why the aff matters, how the aff is necessary to resolve an issue, and what impacts I should prioritize.

[Ks/K-affs] I like listening to kritiks. Not because I’ll instantly understand what you’re talking about, but I do like hearing things that are out of the box.

k on the neg: I love seeing teams go 1-off kritiks and go heavy on the substance for the link and framing arguments. I love seeing offense on case. Please impact your links and generate offense throughout the debate.

k on the aff: I like strategic k affs that make creative solvency arguments. Give me reasons to prefer your framing to evaluate your aff's impacts and solvency mechanism. The 2ar needs to be precise on why voting aff is good and overcomes any of the neg's offense.

[FW] Choose the right framework for the right aff. I am more persuaded by education & skills-based impacts. Justify the model of debate your interpretation advocates for and resolve major points of contestation. I really appreciate when teams introduce and go for the TVA. Talk about the external impacts of the model of debate you propose (impacts that happen outside of round).

[T/Theory] I have a higher threshold for voting on minor T/Theory violations when impacts are not contextualized. I could be persuaded to vote on a rebuttal FULLY committed to T/theory.

I am more persuaded by education and skills-based impacts as opposed to claims to procedural fairness. It’s not that I will never vote for procedural fairness, but I want you to contextualize what procedural fairness in debate would look like and why that’s a preferable world.

[CPs] CPs are cool as long as you have good mutual exclusivity evidence; otherwise, I am likely to be persuaded by a perm + net benefit arg. PICS are also cool if you have good answers to theory.

[DAs] I really like DAs. Opt for specific links. Do evidence comparison for me. Weigh your impacts and challenge the internal link story. Give your framing a net benefit.

I am more persuaded by impacts with good internal link evidence vs a long stretch big stick impact. Numbers are particularly persuasive here. Make me skeptical of your opponent’s impacts.

Hello! :)

I'm a ipda/parli debater in uni. I primarily do limited prep events (in speech and debate) at CSULB and am a LAMDL alumni coach at Lake Balboa's policy team.

I vote based on how well you carry your arguments, if you answer/drop/kick arguments. Did you answer your opponents? Does your arguments outweigh or have stronger points? Do you argue why your side is better? Do you have impact cal or turns? Did you defend your points only or also provide some offensive arguments? Did you clash with your opponents and show your side to be a better choice for me to vote on? (BTW Creating a narrative/story with your evidence/cards in your rebuttals is also nice touch cause it strengthens your side. It's more visual and emotional hence more persuasive.)

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

Preferences:

- Have a road map and sign post -

clear road maps and sign posting = better understanding of what arguments are being used = clear flow = higher chance of your win

_______________________________________________________________

- Can spread, but emphasis your main points (slow down, deliberately tell me, repeat it a few time, etc.) -

by emphasizing a certain point, you give it value and in turn I give it value and know what you want to argue for. makes your point clear and understandable so I can easily write it down in my flow

_______________________________________________________________

- Tag teaming is fine -

make sure you speak eventually since cx is a part of your speaker points. I can't evaluate speaker points properly if I don't hear you in both speeches and cx. (example: if you mumble a speech and don't really participate in cx, it generates a lower score then mumbling a speech and participate in cx)

_______________________________________________________________

- Convince me as a judge, talk to judge, how do I vote, etc. -

go ahead and use logos, pathos, or ethos to try to convince me. give the role of the ballot. what am i voting on? talk to me as a judge on a one on one level, and tell me how to flow, explain important concepts, how to judge the debate, reason to prefer, or if you caught your opponents dropping something, being contradictory, or even rude. ultimately your judge has the final say on if you win or lose, so appeal to your judge

_______________________________________________________________

- Speak loud, audibly, and clearly -

this is such an important preference for me. sometimes i can't hear y'all. its either y'all are too far away, y'all speak to quiet, or there is some chatter/ac/car/general noise that is much louder than yall. i also can be hard of hearing at times and its really important that i can hear your arguments. i will also let you know in round if you need to speak up or move to a better spot. i value clarity over speed at times. i really appreciate clarity

_______________________________________________________________

- You can pretty much run anything by me -

i dont really have any preference in what you run by me, T, DA, CP, K, Framework, case only, performance. as long as you give me a reason to prefer, or give me a role of the ballot, reason to judge in a certain way, i will absolutely listen to what you have to sayand give it weight in a round. i use a mix of technical and persuasive type of evaluation, and especially depending on how you tell me to evaluate the round

try not to say "is anyone not ready?" it's a very awkward phrase with bit of a negative connotation, but don't worry if you do say it, it won't really affect your speech score. it's just very weird to hear it and "is everyone ready?" is quicker

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

Hi, if you're down here, snack or candy bribes won't give you the W, but it doesn't hurt to try lol

See you in a round! (:

for email chains: nicolettaenciu@gmail.com

Hai i am aless (she/her) My email is: alessandraescobar113@gmail.com

Graduated from CSULB

Preferences-

I am tech over truth however in certain circumstances, I will vote truth over tech (usually when the debate round is un-technical to begin with)

I don’t tolerate homophobia, sexism, racism, ableism, or any offensive arguments so don’t try it. If you do, I will give you a 25 or simply stop the debate round. If you insult me or the other opponents then I will stop the round and report you. This is an educational activity and I prioritize making this a safe space for everyone.

Onto specific arguments

T/ framework- Just give me everything; definitions, interps, clash, blah, blah etc I love it when people tell me how I should judge and give me a clear outline of what the debate means.

Kritiks- I love Kritiks, especially on the negative. Please run them right though. If you have a k aff tell me how to use your method, why it’s good, and a logical explanation as to why you decided to be untopical. Please don’t simply say something like ‘racism is bad’ Give me an actual method on how you specifically combat that (and why that’s good). It’s the same with Kritiks on the negative but just give me clear links and reasons I should prefer.

Policy affs- I love soft left policy affs but I can rock with a hard policy one too. There’s not much for me to say here except be prepared to over explain yourself with me since I usually judge/prefer kritiks.

DA’s- Explain this well and tell me why your impact outweighs.

CP’s- I think cp’s are funny but I still can vote for them. Just be clear and explain why your cp matters/outweighs. I do think cp’s can be abusive though so if the aff points this out to me I might vote on it.

More- I am pretty much a laid judge I love instructions on how to evaluate the round so I do prefer role of the judge/ ballot. I love when people use their voice to emphasize important things which is one of the things I take into account when assigning speaker points. ALSO if you have some form of feminism in your arguments I absolutely love that!!! (give me some crenshaw evidence).

The best way to contact me is through email. Bug me if you have any concerns/ questions. Even if I cannot answer them I will give you the people/resources you need to get what you are looking for.

That's it for my paradigm,,, byeeeee!

P.s if i give you a 30 you will get a hello kitty sticker!

.

diegojflores02@gmail.com

Bravo '20, CSULB OF '24, LAMDL 4eva

Coach Huntington Park High School

Debate how you want:

I appreciate rebuttals that start big-picture overviews identifying what you have won, where the opponent has messed up, and what should be the core issues that decide the debate. After that, efficient and technical line-by-line.

The flow decides how I vote, not my biases. Usually, the argument that has more structure (framing / claim / warrant / reasoning) is more likely to win against an incomplete argument (missing one of those). When debates get close, it is because both sides have made complete arguments. In that scenario, I look at the evidence and decide based on who has better support. My last resort is to resort to my understanding of what is "true."

There are only 3 biases I do hold about debate:

Critical affirmatives need a solid counter-interpretation over impact turn strategies in the 2AR.

Policy teams need to defend their "reps" instead of just saying "extinction brr i need fiat look at my case"

K v. K debates need to bridge the gap between high-theory jargon and how offense manifest to material violence.

I'm open to any direction that the competing teams want to go. That said, I prefer policy rounds to K rounds. If you are going to debate K, totally fine, but be clear on your theory and advocacy.

I am disinclined to vote for K Affs. I definitely will vote for one, but I think topicality is important.

Speed is fine, but be smart about it. Be clearer and (relatively) slower on theory, analytics, T, etc. than when you are reading cards.

Number your 1NC on case arguments and your 2AC off case responses. Structure is important; it leads to better clash.

Properly kick out of arguments. Ignoring something isn't the same as dropping it.

I'm old, but I think teams don't flow as well as they should, which leads to less clash.

You are in charge of the voting issues. You tell me how I should vote and why.

hey debaters! this paradigm has my personal opinion on specific arguments, but you don't really have to change your strategy that much. ANY ARGUMENT THAT IS EFFECTIVElY ARGUED/NOT EFFECTIVElY REFUTED, I WILL EVALUATE UNLESS IT IS OFFENSIVE. this means that no matter how crazy your opponent's argument is, if you do not refute it well enough, i'm counting it, even if i don't like it (hence you not having to change your strat too much)

HW 26'

i debate varsity ld, so i'm familiar with topic literature/acronyms but if it's like super obscure a quick explanation never hurts

email (please add me to the chain or speech drop): egoldman2@hwemail.com

tldr : tech > truth

please use ethos in your last speeches, i'm begging you. also, all of our time is valuable so try to be on time. if we start earlier, we end earlier

for novices especially: my personal philosophy is no argument is unbeatable, so worst case take a deep breath and think it through. this entire thing is a learning experience, not giving up will give higher speaks!!

personally, i run mostly policy and k's but ofc will vote on theory like spec but prob won't want to

arguments:

policy : keeping the flow clean (line-by-line, impact weigh) is my favorite in these rounds

topical k affs / k's on the neg: love it! for k's, if it's something i haven't seen before but you explain it well that will most likely result in higher speaks

theory: not overall a fan, don't let that stop you if your opponent is being abusive (or undercovers), do what you gotta do

tricks + phil : really not the best for this but if it is explain and not refuted i believe i have to vote for it

+ speaker points for weighing under estherism

+ speaker points for bringing me food, coffee, or snacks

+ speaker points for creativity and resourcefulness (2ar spins, lines from speeches as k links, rehighlightings)

- speaker points for winning on tricks or rvis

- speaker points for saying args stand

cx is definitely a speech, use it! holding your own will result in higher speaks

speaks : for novices start at a 28.8 ish and go up or down depending

all in all: debate is really hard, but it also should be fun! If you have any questions please do not hesitate to ask, let's have a great debate!

If it matters to you, I used to make critical and performance based arguments. I have coached all types. I generally like all arguments, especially ones that come with claims, warrants, impacts, and are supported by evidence.

Do you (literally, WHATEVER you do). Be great. Say smart things. Give solid speeches and perform effectively in CX. Win and go as hard as it takes (but you dont have to be exessively rude or mean to do this part). Enjoy yourself. Give me examples and material applications to better understand your position. Hear me out when the decision is in. I saw what I saw. Dassit.

Add me to the email chain- lgreenymt@gmail.com

My "high" speaker points typically cap out around 28.9 (in open debate). If you earn that, you have delivered a solid and confident constructive, asked and answered questions persuasively, and effectively narrowed the debate to the most compelling reasons you are winning the debate in the rebuttals. If you get higher than that, you did all of those things AND THEN SOME. What many coaches would call, "the intangibles".

Speaking of speaker points, debate is too fast and not enough emphasis is put on speaking persuasively. This is true of all styles of debate. I flow on paper and you should heavily consider that when you debate in front of me. I am a quick and solid flow and pride myself in capturing the most nuanced arguments, but some of what I judge is unintelligible to me and its getting worse. Card voice vs tag voice is important, you cannot read analytics at the same rate you are reading the text of the card and be persuasive to me, and not sending analytics means I need that much more pen time. Fix it. It will help us all. Higher speaker points are easier to give.

Thank you, in advance, for allowing me to observe and participate in your debate.

TG

Debates, at their core, are questions of models. I care about what you do and what you justify, but will allow you to tell me how I should perceive, structure and evaluate that. Email Chain: Kdebatedocs@gmail.com

For Arthur Delores Invitational (Worlds):

ask questions, I’m happy to answer things. Above all, I love good spirited debate, strong refutations, collapsing down of arguments, strategic concessions, comparative weighing and framing. Tell me how I should be seeing the round so I don’t have to intervene and frame it myself and your rfd will likely follow suit! I tend to defer to the simplest ballot story to resolve things and tend not to to have the energy to weigh alternative ways in which the round could’ve gone, but I’ll give you recommendations of what might’ve gotten my ballot or where I felt I could’ve been persuaded.

• content — good presentation of information, structure,
• strategy — good debate tech, answering of questions, taking questions, etc
• style — in depth analysis of said content and its implications, your aesthetic representations of this

quals:

• Competed @Southwestern CC and Southern California in Policy (2021-2024)

• Coached LD, PF, Parli, @Flintridge Prep and Westridge School (2018 - 2023)

• Coaching Worlds and LD at Harvard-Westlake (2023-Present)

I'm happy to judge your debates. Below is a list of where I think I am great, good, and bad. Below that is generic thoughts you might need to know to get the highest possible speaks.

Debates I think I am great for

- K v K (love good K debate, love bad K debate)

- Case vs DA (this is 90% of what I see nowadays)

- Fw v Aff K / K vs Plan (I’m pretty good for framework and pretty good for the aff k, these are some of my favorite debates to watch. I’m not repping out for the K, but if it is won, I will vote)

- T vs Case (love a good t debate, fairness and edu are impacts, explain how clash or limits and other internal links connect to it, and I’ll vote on T)

Debates I think I’m good for

- Case v CP/DA (counterplan competition is something I’m trying to get into, but I really need you to walk me through competition and I’ll try to work with you here)

- Condo (not that im super sympathetic about condo, but I will vote on it if warranting and weighing is done well or dropped)

- Disclosure

- Ev ethics

- Non-res theory including and possibly limited to (Process CPs bad, Severance bad, etc)

Debates I know I am bad for

- Phil ( I find that debaters assume I am as familiar with their niche framework and do not explain what is offense for them or defense for them and I am very easily lost in these debates)

- Tricks

- Debates where the negative doesn’t collapse and expects me to make decisions for them

- Debates where the entire speech is read at the same speed without slowing down for areas that are of vital importance

Thoughts about debate:

- I love a good debate where the negative collapses and makes strategic decisions. I don’t like debates where I’m asked to do things like judgekick CPs.

- Theory threshold:

--- not high but I think blippiness is getting really out of hand, LD debaters need impacts to theory and clash is not an impact, it's a standard or an internal link to something -.- in policy, condo is cool. I will vote on condo but I have a high threshold for why you couldn't read the perm and a da to the alt, whereas in LD, time skew can be kind of persuasive

--- Friv theory is also getting out of hand, if you read things like punching theory, debaters must not wear shoes, these better be like K impact framing args and not independent voters tbh.

- I have a research background and would like you to do some work with your evidence. I am a strong proponent of doing more with less. I will read along as it happens. That being said, my contemporaries are considerably better card people, I did a lot of performance. (translation: pls dont put me in a 2nr/2ar debate about competition theory about the counterplan)

- I prefer people tell me how to evaluate their debates, framing included, what matters, what doesn't -- filtering / sequencing etc

- debates are simplest and imo best executed when people reduce the number of args and clarify their argumentation and spend more time discussing the relation to the other teams args / participation in relation to their args, as well as making the link -> impact story more persuasive.

- slow down a bit for me, speak louder for me, pen time for tags will boost your speaks with me

- Lastly, I tend to defer to the simplest ballot story possible. Please collapse and make a choice. I think thats the beauty of debate is winning your argument rather than forcing me to have to do the evaluation of a number of sheets in the 2nr. Basically, if you go into the 2nr with 4 off case and expect me to judgekick things, and make decisions on how to evaluate all of them, I'm going to be really upset.

I'll do my best to explain the world you've laid out for me in the debate and how I came to my decision in my RFD but I will not likely explain the the entire world of the debate in relation to the implication of (x) unless it helps me vote differently.

email chain: csulbegg@gmail.com

LAMDL/DMHS '23 now debating at CSULB '27

ppl i talk abt debate with: jean kim (bestieeee), aless escobar (my db8 partner), gabby torres, erika linares, curtis ortega, diego flores, deven cooper, jaysyn green

stuff to know

tabroom has been glitching but please refer to me as Dorian they/them even if my name shows up as something else

have the chain done before im in the room if possible

be nice to each other

things to know

run whatever arguments you're the best at. i vote on things i don't think are true all the time. so stick to what you know.

i appreciate a good role of the ballot/judge and framework debate above anything else. if you're winning framework, use that to your advantage!

annunciation > spreading like please i dont wanna be mean but like please...

impact things out. if something was dropped, tell me why that matters in the round.

i LOVE LOVE LOVE "even if" arguments

don't just do defense, also make offensive arguments and force your opponents to explain the nitty gritty of their stuff

you become a lot more compelling when you use real world scenarios/examples for every argument

if you come up with questions after the round, have your coaches email me :)

Ks & K Affs

I'm a K-aff and K-friendly judge so feel free to pref me if that's what you go for. Make the framework debate exceptionally clear for me. Do extensive work on how your K Aff creates subject formation or changes subjectivities and why reading the k aff in the debate space is good. It is crucial you make and win these arguments in every speech. I think these arguments are inherently true and winnable but don't just automatically assume I'll believe this if it is not made a huge deal in the round since on instinct T/FW teams are gonna say k affs are useless (which i soooo disagree with but not winning these arguments makes debating a K aff exceptionally harder) and you SHOULD have extensive answers to this...

As for Ks as an off case, really just make the links known. like spending 1-3 minutes of your speech on the links will do you justice and also do more work to explain the alternative because I feel as though the alt debate almost becomes an afterthought in some debates . . . also don't assume i automatically know what you're talking about if you're running some higher theory things. So idk, I would appreciate a good overview lol

T & T-FW

i like to try to be a flexi debater so if T/T-FW if your go-to then I'm willing to vote on that as well. Impact the procedural out and definitely use examples of how their model of debate wasn't/can never be fair to you.

LD specific

don't do tricks

speaker points

i start at a 28.5

good speech organization, line-by-line, answering things said in cross X will get you good speaks

i will lower speaks for general rudeness in round or only one partner engaging/answering CX the entire time or spreading with no annunciation

i think a lot of kids don't know the difference between being assertive and rude so if I find behavior particularly problematic I'll notify coaches

i would prefer if you didn't run arguments that interfere with the way I evaluate speaks. I try my best not to inflate speaker points and be fair in my assessment of who deserves what speaks.

I will disclose speaks after the round only if requested during the rfd.

thx for reading

since u made it to the end something you should know about me is that i love cats. if you can guess what my fav cat breed is I will give you +0.1 on your speaker points (hint its an expensive cat and is kinda instagram-famous) email me your guess with everyone on a chain and i will reply if you got it right.

Background: I debated at San Joaquin Delta Community College for 2 years and am now currently competing for California State University Long Beach. I have experience in IPDA, Parli, LD, Policy, Impromptu, and Extemp.

IPDA: I believe that the principles of the IPDA constitution should be followed. That being said, since I do have experience in debate and know the jargon, I am ok with it as long as one side is not being excluded from the debate because of this. Both sides should agree before the debate starts if they want to use jargon or debate strategies from other forms of debate. If your opponent catches you off guard by using jargon or a debate strategy from another form of debate, I expect you to either properly refute it or call it out as being unwelcome in this debate format and why.

Parli: I allow all types of arguments, Kritiks, Theory, T, Etc. I do not like extreme parroting and will not flow anything said by a person speaking when it is not their speaking turn.

Policy: I am not too experienced competing in policy but know how it works. If I ask you to slow or clear please do so. Failure to do so after will most likely lead to me missing arguments.

Bravo HS/LAMDL 2018

CSU Fullerton BA 2022

University College London MSc 2023

javierh319@csu.fullerton.edu

TLDR: PLEASE frame

As a debater I spent most of my career reading K's but most of my time in grad school doing policy-specific research (global governance, international political economy, public policy). While I can confidently say I am more than happy to judge pretty any iteration of a nontraditional aff, I find myself slightly more sympathetic to framework than before (ie procedural fairness is a voter). Regardless, if reading nontraditional affs is what you do, point me to an advocacy statement and Im happy to hear it.

I havent heard a 2ar/2nr go for theory in quite some time but if you do the work, my threshold for voting on it isnt out of reach by any means.

Because I've recently been judging a more even mixture of policy, k, and clash of civs debates, I instinctively go to framing first when looking at my flow after a round, I am also pretty persuaded by judge-instructive language.

In recent times, my threshold for the perm is slightly higher in terms of articulation and contextualisation of: 1) what exactly it looks like 2) how it functions as some sort of combo of the aff and the alt/cp 3) how that implicates the debate

Suggestions/preferences/most likely to get you a win:

1) CLEARLY EXPLAIN the solvency and the links(don't just make a claim because I most likely will not buy that; you must explain how neg/aff leads to your claim/argument or back your claim/argument up with evidence).

2) SPEAK CLEARLY: I cannot evaluate an argument if I did not hear it(maybe you spoke too low or too fast or stuttered a lot).

3) Rebuttals are so IMPORTANT: In your rebuttals, you should be listing impact calcs, main arguments/points, and why the judge should vote for you. (even if you already said some arguments in the past speeches, bring it back up if it's important.)

4) SIGN POST and LABEL; this makes it easier for me to flow.

^ These first 4 are the MAIN. But these are still obviously important:

-I am tech over truth BUT that doesn't mean I will evaluate arguments that are clearly false.

-Don't say anything offensive or ridiculous. In other words, be REASONABLE and RESPECTFUL. (No sexism, racism, or anything bad and discriminatory is ever acceptable) - This is for in-round debate and outside of debate.

-If the other team drops an argument you must EXPLAIN that importance and what it means.

-Be confident and have fun.

PLEASE EMAIL ME FOR ANY QUESTIONS: ehuang0005@mymail.lausd.net

No clue why it still has my deadname on my judge paradigm, but please refer to me as Andres or just my last name (pronounced Jobe).

Email: jobbravodebate@gmail.com (they/he)
Affiliation: Bravo Medical Magnet '24 / UC Irvine '28
I am happy to answer any questions you have before and after the round.

____________________

TLDR; Run whatever you want as long as you follow the structure of the argument and do not be a menace to people. Please give me judge instruction, tell me why everything you're saying is important. Speak clear and loud and ask me if I'm ready to hear your speech. I only vote based on what I have on my flow paper, which means you MUST let me know what you're saying. Don't cheat and bring in new arguments in later speeches, I will take off speaker points. PLEASE KNOW THAT I AM A JUDGE WHO IS VERY VERY VERY VERY KEEN ON FAIRNESS AND FOLLOWING THE RULES. Your speaker points start at 28.0 and go up or down based on your performance throughout the round. Have fun!!

_____________________

Long Paradigm:

Although I enjoy watching specific types of debates, I will still evaluate any arguments that you run; feel free to run CPs, DAs, T, K's, K-Affs, soft left, big stick, etc. However, I will not vote for you if you are racist/ sexist/ homophobic/ transphobic/ ableist, derogatory, or rude. If any of you degrade others or me at any point of the debate(before, during, or after the debate started), I will give you an auto-L, lowest speaker points available, an extremely long lecture, and will contact your coach. I trust you to be good people.

_____________________

Speaker Points:

The baseline for speaks is 28.0. It will go up depending on your ability to perfect the Holy Trinity: Format, Performance, and Technicality.

1. Format: follow the format of the arguments I gave you above. Follow the time structure of debate. This should be the easiest points to win and would give you a decent.
2. Performance: have clarity, have a good tempo and speed, BE PASSIONATE WHEN SPEAKING. This also means that when you're speaking you must be confident, and not pause a lot in the middle of your speech because you're not sure what else to say. This also means you MUST use all of your speech time or else it shows unpreparedness. KEEP TRACK OF YOUR TIME.
3. Technicality: The hardest thing in the world for debaters apparently. This means: NOT DROPPING ARGUMENTS, ANSWERING ARGUMENTS EFFECTIVELY, CALLING OUT DROPPED ARUGMENTS, DOING IMPACT CALC, JUDGE INSTRUCTIONS, OVERVIEWS, EFFECTIVE LINE BY LINE, ETC.). I weigh this above the other 2 standards, which means if you do poorly at this you will probably expect your speaker points to NOT be higher than a 28.1 and be around the 27.2-27.8 range.

Things that will drop your speaker points (that don't fall under Holy Trinity):

• Typing when it's NOT prep time (sending docs, bathroom break, etc.)
• Still talking after speech time is over (I will tell you when I permit cross ex after time is over)
• Card clipping (plz highlight your cards)
• Reading new cards in rebuttals (with the exclusion of 1nr)
• New arguments in the neg block and beyond

_____________________

Preferences For Rounds (1-10 scale)

Soft-Left Policy vs. K: 3/10 Eh not the best debates I've judged

Soft-Left Policy vs. Policy: 7/10 love it, wish I saw more of these

Big Stick Policy vs. K: 6/10 More interesting clash and the impact debate is most interesting

Big Stick Policy vs. Policy: 7/10 policy v. policy is cool

K-Aff vs. K: 5/10 hit or miss with this ... pls pls pls only run Ks if you know how to run them

K-Aff vs. Policy: 10/10 I love creative debates, they offer refreshment in my judging career

Counterplans:
NEG: I will not vote on or evaluate CPs with no CP text. that being said, feel free to run a CP, BUT you must have a CLAIM and a WARRANT as to why it's better than the aff. You want to prove to me that you have a net benefit the aff can't access and show that you solve better. Often times, debaters either get lost in the permutation debate and ultimately doesn't give the judge a clear story on how the CP works and how it interacts with the aff plan. If the affirmative calls you out on dropping permutations, I will weigh it against you and it will make it very hard for me to vote for you on the CP.
A lot of neg debaters I've come across are confused on the CP structure, so I'll give it here. I will NOT give you good speaker points if you can't abide by basic debate structure.

AFF: I want to see a permutation at the top of my CP flow in the 2ac. Extend it until the end. I enjoy it when an aff team runs multiple permutations and only go for 1 perm in the 1ar. If you drop the permutation and don't have any good defense against the CP and the neg team calls you out for it, I will most likely vote neg (given that they've explained what it means to drop the perm)

_____________________

Disads:
For the sake of my sanity PLEASE have IMPACT CALC. This goes for both aff and neg.

NEG: Follow the structure of a DA: uniqueness, link, internal link, impact. If I don't see this structure on my flow, it will be hard to want to vote for you. If you're using the DA as a net benefit to the CP, I want to hear the distinction or I will not put it on my flow. If the affirmative calls you out on not including all the components of the DA/drop your arguments, I will ultimately believe that the affirmative does not trigger the impacts of the DA.

AFF: please respond to all components of the DA and do impact calc. PLEASE HAVE OFFENSE AGAINST THE DA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

_____________________

Theory/Topcality:
I love theory and topicality, IF done right. If you're running T when the other side clearly doesn't violate, I will not appreciate it. Even if you're using T as a time skew make it somewhat relevant and interesting. I don't vote on Disclosure Theory unless I see valid proof / the tournament rules say so.

NEG: If you're going to go for theory please extend all your points and belabor the reason why it's a voter for education and fairness. I need a card provided to support your interpretation for whichever word you're defining.

AFF: Counter-interpretation need a card. RVI get out of here

_____________________

Kritiks/K-Affs:
NGL getting kind of boring here, I'm very tired of debaters running Ks without knowing the literature and the structure of the K. I would prefer if the neg team sticks to policy negs if you're certain you can't make a K interesting to me in this debate round.

NEG:

• I don't like Cap K but I'll still vote on it!
• As a native/indigenous debater who ran a bunch of set col performance k's and k-affs... pls try not to read set col unless one of yall identify as indigenous, especially if the alternative is to embrace some sort of indigenous praxis.... I get really uncomfortable hearing people read over experiences of indigenous folk for the sake of having an argument
• I don't like Postmodernism...........
• Every other K is good as long as you have proper framework and have specific links, I don't think the alternative has to be valid for the neg to win on K-- just need to prove aff links and make squo uniquely worse

AFF:K-Affs w/ no plan text or advocacy statement pls no...... must have some form of advocacy or clear goal thank youuu. What I said for the neg applies here!

chain email: csulbkt@gmail.com

Jean Kim (she/her) policy debater @ CSULB '27

my favorite debaters: Dorian Gurrola (debate bestie), Gavvie Torres (debate partner), Erika Linares (debate sister), Aless Escobar (debate twin), Curtis Ortega, Jaysyn Green, Deven Cooper

please know

spread at your own risk. not being clear enough will dock your speaks.

have a lot of pathos to convince me I enjoy the dramatics

speaker points

start at 28.5

i flow cross X and weigh that into speaker evaluation

please don't tell me what I should be doing with my speaker points

using real world examples to support your arguments are very compelling and will results in good speaks

i'll disclose speaks if you ask during the rfd

LD specific

don't do tricks plz

K affs

Good K-affs will have a strong link to the topic or else I find it to be an uphill battle. You MUST be making arguments about why the debate space is key and/or it changes subjectivities and/or results in subject formation. I am a K-aff friendly judge if you'd like to pref me but if you're not winning the arguments I listed above I'll find it harder to vote aff. And I do think those claims are winnable but it must be a huge part of the aff in EVERY speech.

K's

love a good K. don't assume I know high theory literature, definitely wouldn't mind an in-depth overview. you should be winning your framework and alternative. I also appreciate an in-depth link debate or seeing those links cross applied on case.

T/T-FW

i'm also willing to vote on this. focus more on how the MODELS of debate that are being forwarded are particularly bad for debate for XYZ reason. So think of what their model of debate looks like outside of this round and why it's unfair/bad for education/worse for clash/etc.

Case

neg should be saying there is a 0% chance of solvency, go for case turns, or if there is a small chance of solvency it still results in something worse than the squo etc. also neg ... never drop the aff impacts especially if it's like an extinction impact .. aff should be saying any risk of solvency is a reason to vote aff/case outweighs/aff is a good idea.

CP

this is cool, just make the net benefit the top of the flow every speech if this is what you go for. should be saying how the CP solves the aff AND more (i.e. disad or case turn).

THANKS FOR READING :DDDDD

Peninsula '26

peninsulamkdebate@gmail.com

Top Level: Tech > Truth.

No marked copies if it's only one or two cards.

Asking for skipped cards/positions requires prep or cross-ex time.

Time your own stuff and keep track of prep.

Open-cross if fine, don't ask if it is. Don't interrupt your partner.

Disclose at least 20 minutes before the round.

Tech > Truth.

All theory is a reason to reject the arg not the team unless dropped or its condo. I will evaluate the condo debate purely technically.

Good for T, Disads, and all counterplans.

For Middle Schoolers only: If you read a process CP and the other team can't answer it, and then youdon't go for it, and win, I will give you much higher speaks.

Fairness. That's all I'm going to say about kritiks.

Reading any kind of "Pomo" K is the equivalent of speaking Mandarin in front of me: I will claim to know what you're talking about but will only understand 10% of it.

Director of Forensics, Cal State Northridge

Email speech documents to lemuelj@gmail.com

Any other inquires should go to joel.lemuel@csun.edu

He/him pronouns

***********

A. Judging/Coaching History

- Over 19 years of experience judging/coaching competitive debate events; less experience with speech and individual events (5 years)

- Worked with students of all ages: elementary (MSPDP), middle school (MSPDP), high school (policy, LD, public forum), and college (NDT/CEDA, NFA-LD, NPDA, IPDA, CPFL)

B. General Philosophy

1. Do you thing! This activity should center the stylistic proclivities of students, not judges. Full stop. My academic background has taught me reasonable arguments come in a variety of forms, styles, and mediums. I've coached and judged a wide range of styles from very traditional (e.g. topicality, disads, cps, and case), critical (e.g. post-structural/modern/colonial theory), to very non-traditional (e.g. performative/identity/method debate). There are things I like and dislike about every style I've encountered. Do what you do and I'll do my best to keep up.

2. "Inside Baseball" Sucks. These days I mostly judge college policy and high school LD. That means I am unlikely to know most of the acronyms, anecdotes, inside references about other levels of debate and you should probably explain them in MUCH more detail than you would for the average judge.

C. Pedagogical/Competitive Points of Emphasis

1. Importance of Formal Evidence (i.e. "cards"). I once heard a judge tell another competitor, “a card no matter how bad will always beat an analytic no matter how good.” For the sake of civility I will refrain from using this person’s name, but I could not disagree more with this statement. Arguments are claims backed by reasons with support. The nature of appropriate support will depend on the nature of the reason and on the nature of the claim. To the extent that cards are valuable as forms of support in debate it’s because they lend the authority and credibility of an expert to an argument. But there are some arguments where technical expertise is irrelevant. One example might be the field of morality and ethics. If a debater makes a claim about the morality of assisted suicide backed by sound reasoning there is no a priori reason to prefer a card from an ethicist who argues the contrary. People reason in many different ways and arguments that might seem formally or technically valid might be perfectly reasonable in other settings. I generally prefer debates with a good amount of cards because they tend to correlate with research and that is something I think is valuable in and of itself. But all too often teams uses cards as a crutch to supplement the lack of sound reasoning. The takeaway is … If you need to choose between fully explaining yourself and reading a card always choose the former.

2. Burden of Persuasion vs. Burden of Rejoinder One of things that makes policy and LD debate (and perhaps public forum) a fairly unique activity from a policy/legal perspective is our emphasis on the burden of rejoinder. If one competitor says something then the opponent needs to answer it, otherwise the judge treats the argument as gospel. Debaters might think their judges aren't as attentive to the flow as they would like, but ask any litigator if trial judges care in the least whether the other attorney answered their arguments effectively. Emphasizing the burden of rejoinder is a way of respecting the voice and arguments of the students who spend their valuable time competing in this activity. But like everything else in debate there are affordances as well as constraints in emphasizing the burden of rejoinder. Personally, I think our activity has placed so much emphasis on the burden of rejoinder that we have lost almost all emphasis on the burden of persuasion. I can’t count the number of rounds I have participated in (as a debater and as a judge) where the vast majority of the claims made in the debate were absolutely implausible. The average politics disad is so contrived that it's laughable. Teams string together dozens of improbable internal link chains and treat them as if they were a cohesive whole. Truth be told, the probability of the average “big stick” advantage/disad is less than 1% and that’s just real talk. This practice is so ubiquitous because we place such a heavy emphasis on the burden of rejoinder. Fast teams read a disad that was never very probable to begin with and because the 2AC is not fast enough to poke holes in every layer of the disad the judge treats those internal links as conceded (and thus 100% probable). Somehow, through no work of their own the neg’s disad went from being a steaming pile of non-sense to a more or less perfectly reasonable description of reality. I don't think this norm serves our students very well. But it is so ingrained in the training of most debates and coaches (more so the coaches than the debaters actually) that it’s sustained by inertia. The takeaway is… that when i judge, I try (imperfectly to be sure) to balance my expectations that students meet both the burden of rejoinder and the burden of persuasion. Does this require judge intervention? Perhaps, to some degree, but isn't that what it means to “allow ones self to be persuaded?” To be clear, I do not think it is my job to be the sole arbiter of whether a claim was true or false, probable or unlikely, significant or insignificant. I do think about these things constantly though and i think it is both impossible and undesirable for me to ignore those thoughts in the moment of decision. It would behoove anyone I judge to take this into account and actively argue in favor of a particular balance between the burdens or rejoinder and persuasion in a particular round.

3. The Role of the Ballot/Purpose of the Activity/Non-Traditional Debate. The first thing I want to say isn’t actually a part of my philosophy on judging debates as much as it is an observation about debates I have watched and judged. I can’t count the number of rounds I have watched where a debater says something akin to, “Debate is fundamentally X,” or “the role of the ballot is X.” This is not a criticism. These debaters are astute and clearly understand that defining the nature and purpose of the activity is an extremely useful (often essential)tool for winning debates. That said, in truth, debate is both everything and nothing and the role of the ballot is multiple. Asserting the "purpose of debate" or "the role of the ballot" is essentially a meaningless utterance in my opinion. Arguing in favor "a particular purpose of debate” or “a particular role of the ballot” in a given round requires reasons and support. Policy debate could be conceived as a training ground for concerned citizens to learn how to feel and think about particular policies that could be enacted by their government. Policy debate could also be conceived as a space students to voice their dissatisfaction with the actions or inactions of the governments that claim to represent them through various forms of performance. Excellent debaters understand policy debate is a cultural resource filled with potential and possibility. Rather than stubbornly clinging to dogmatic axioms, these debaters take a measured approach that recognizes the affordances and constraints contained within competing visions of "the purpose of debate" or the "role of the ballot” and debate the issue like they would any other. The problem is assessing the affordances and constraints of different visions requires a sober assessment of what it is we do here. Most debaters are content to assert, “the most educational model of debate is X,” or the “most competitive model of debate is Y.” Both of these approaches miss the boat because they willfully ignore other aspects of the activity. Debates should probably be educational. What we learn and why is (like everything else) up for debate, but it’s hard to argue we shouldn’t be learning something from the activity. Fairness in a vacuum is a coin-flip and that’s hardly worth our time. On the other hand, probably isn’t a purely educational enterprise. Debate isn’t school. If it were students wouldn’t be so excited about doing debate work that they ignore their school work. The competitive aspects of the activity are important and can’t be ignored or disregarded lightly. How fair things have to be and which arguments teams are entitled to make are up for debate, but I think we need to respect some constraints lest we confuse all discourse for argument. The phrase “debate is a game/the content is irrelevant” probably won’t get you very far, but that’s because games are silly and unimportant by definition. But there are lots of contests that are very important were fairness is paramount (e.g. elections, academic publishing, trials). Rather than assert the same banal lines from recycled framework blocks, excellent debaters will try to draw analogies between policy debate and other activities that matter and where fairness is non-negotiable. So the takeaway is … I generally think the topic exists for a reason and the aff has to tie their advocacy to the topic, although I am open to arguments to the contrary. I tend to think of things in terms of options and alternatives. So even if topicality is a necessarily flawed system that privileges some voices over others, I tend to ask myself what the alternative to reading topicality would be. Comparison of impacts, alternatives, options, is always preferable to blanket statements like “T = genocidal” or “non-traditional aff’s are impossible to research.”

4. Theory Debates (i.e. Debates about Debate Itself) I have a relatively high threshold for theory arguments, but I am not one of those judges that thinks the neg teams gets to do whatever they want. You can win theory debates with me in the back, but it probably isn’t your best shot. As a general rule (though not universal) I think that if you didn’t have to do research for an argument, you don’t learn anything by running it. I have VERY high threshold for negative theory arguments that are not called topicality. It doesn’t mean I wont vote on these arguments if the aff teams makes huge errors, but a person going for one of these argument would look so silly that it would be hard to give them anything about a 28.

nanruili2025@gmail.com

Peninsula '25

Novices:

Do line by line. Look at what your opponent has said, and respond to it by saying it's wrong, or the argument has no implication.

Put your offense first. If you're Aff, extend your case before answering their DA.

Sum up how you won the debate in the last two speeches.

Non-negotiables:

Topicality, fairness, and clash are good. The 1AC must read a topical plan.

The aff gets to weigh the full 1AC. The neg gets to critique the full 1AC.

The negative gets infinite conditionality.

Process CPs are only good if they punish poor plan writing OR the topic sucks (ex. IPR).

I will not evaluate something that happened outside of the round.

I will only flow 6 off case.

Thoughts:

Bar the above, every argument is probabilistic and requires a claim and warrant. Conceding an argument means conceding the warrant. The implications can still be contested. Except if a team strategically concedes an argument made by the other.

Truer arguments require less tech to win, especially for topicality. If you're right about what a word means, you'll (probably) win.

Case specific strategies will result in higher speaker points and a greater chance at victory.

Hi I’m Erika Linares, I currently debate for CSULB, I have around 2-3 years of experience of debating policy.

Yearish at LAMDL-2 Years at CSULB

my email:erikalinares1260@gmail.com

HOW TO MAKE IT EARIER FOR ME TO VOTE FOR YOU:

1. Have a clear path on how you want me to vote on what argument and why you are winning it.
2. Weigh it Out: Even if you dropped an arguemnt or arn't winning it tell me as to why your argument ouwweigh thos dropped arguments.

SPREADING: You can spread as long as your clear enough to do so, while reading make sure to indicate when you are moving from arguemnt to the other, if you do start to become unclear I will say "Clear" and if its still not clear enough I won't flow it.

HOW I JUDGE:

I will start with tech to evaluate the debate and then if something is unclear I will use truth to figure it out.

BUT-

If you have a ROB or FW as to how I should evaluate the debate then I will judge you base off that.

K- When running a K make sure that the link is viable and make sense, if I can't figure out how the K links to Aff by the end of the round I will disregard it.

DA- Again have a viable link for the DA.

CP- Make sure to explain how the CP solves for the impacts that it might bring up and the impacts to the aff.

T- I am not the best at T, but if you go for T make sure you have how they violeted and standard, and why there model of debate is bad.

LD-

Don't run tricks, I am not sure as to how I should evaluate them.

Hi! I’m Jenelle (jenelledebate@gmail.com) Lake Balboa ‘26. Email for any questions/email chains

when it comes to my preferences: i allow tag teaming (unless a maverick is present), have roadmaps (and stick to them!) or clearly signpost, say “next” after each card is read, and slow down on tags + authors

other general thoughts:

• Make overviews: o/vs should be at the top of each flow and should explain that flow – as aff it should explain your stock issues and as neg your o/v should give a brief explanation on your uq, link ,internal link, and impact. It saves you sm time and gives me a better understanding of the flow youre on.

• provide proper warrants: you shouldnt just give me a claim – give me the evidence and explain the significance it. I wont buy arguments unles you are able to properly explain them to me accordingly

• judge instruction: by the 2a/2nr’s you should be or have been spelling out the reason why you win the debate. “Judge you vote aff” with no proper reasoning why i should does not count as proper judge instruction, you should be telling me the specific reasons why i should vote for you or which flow i should vote on

• i’m tech > truth

• Call out dropped arguments: call the dropped argument out and explain the significance of it. I wont buy empty claims like “they dropped this so we win.” explain to me why you win on that argument or how that leads to u receiving the ballot – flesh out and call out dropped arguments

• have good line by lines: the whole 1ar should be entirely of “they say __ we say __” it makes it easier to answer each argument in the least amount of time and makes it easier for me to flow u. But in general you should have good line by lines

• Make impact calcs: by the end of the debate you should be explaining what your impacts are, how they occur, when itll occur, who they are affecting, and how much it will affect our population (timeframe, magnitude, and probability). Do this especially when running DAs!! Comparing impacts is the most important part of debate, whoever explains their impacts more will likely receive the ballot.

• extend arguments throughout the debate and explain them thoroughly: dont forget to explain your arguments consistently in all of your speeches. Do not drop any arguments, especially during the neg block, but be sure to explain what your arguments are and the significance of them

• Allocate your time accordingly: the 1ac should be backflowing the 2ac to make sure nothing goes unanswered, the 2ac should backflow the 1ar to do the same. As aff, case should be at the top of your roadmap, do not leave case to be at the bottom of it. If youre not able to get through all of your cards, dehighlight them – and when your partner is spending too much time on one flow, let them know! If you dont have proper time allocation, you wont get to key arguments and likely lose on something that couldve been solved by having proper time allocation.

• Be sure to flow well: Your judges notice when you dont flow at all or dont flow well, lots of arguments are dropped during the 2ac/neg block/rebuttals, you need to flow good in order to call out these arguments. When key arguments are dropped and are not called out, it shows me that you didnt flow good, so plsss flowwww.

• Act like i know nothing about the topic: you should be explaining to me what organizations you use/what acronyms you use/or what niche parts of your arguments are and the importance of them, dont assume i know what youre talking about. I wont vote on an argument surrounding something that i dont understand. you are the one debating, you should be telling me these things

• Be organized: if you dont know your roadmap signpost clearly. If you dont tell me what flow youre on im going to miss key parts of your arguments, if youre moving onto case – tell me, If youre moving onto a DA – tell me. Answering arguments should be organized, too -- preferably through a line by line

Argument specifics

• For CPs — explain to me the net benefit, prove the mutual exclusivity of both plans, explain ur solvency mechanism, how u solve for the aff’s impacts, and how you solve better than the aff. as aff, explain to me the world of the perm and how both plans are not mutually exclusive.

• for Disads — pls explain the internal link (HOW will your impact occur), explain the impact, give me a clear link, and plsss make an impact calc. as aff, i expect no link or link turns, and to explain why your impacts outweigh their DA

speaks — they start at 28 and go up and down depending on how u do. but if you’re confident, loud, persuasive, and passionate, u’ll get high speaks.

Overall have fun! please don’t be rude to any of your opponents. any acts of racism, homophobia, etc, will not be tolerable and result in an auto lose

Email: bloayza2019@gmail.com

Experience: 3 years of high school debate for DMHS in LAMDL, now doing my 4th year of college debate at CSUF

I ain't asking for much, just don't be racist, hateful, sexist, homophobic, ableist, and basically, anything that might make a competitor uncomfortable or might make ME uncomfortable.

I'm comfortable with spreading but if you spread through crucial arguments I may not catch it at times so if you want me to flow your most important arguments then slow down a bit. In the realm of online debate sometimes I might not catch arguments if they're not given in conversational speed.

IF you are reading this as an LD debater you will get more info reading the policy page to get a better idea

==LD==

Don't run tricks in front of me. I will not get them, which means I won't vote on them. This also goes for theory debates theory has to be very good at explaining violations and why this is a voting issue or else leave me out of it.

Nebel T isn't a real argument, I do not care who Nebel is.

I probably won't vote on Reverse Voting Issues, they don't make a lot of sense to me as a policy debater (but can possibly be persuaded)

==Policy Debate==

Framing: Framing arguments are a very easy way for me to vote for you, I find it something easy to vote on when teams tell me how I should evaluate the round and why evaluating the round that way is good. This also means that having the role of the ballot/judge argument would be very effective in persuading my decision but these arguments need warrants to them.

K: I'm comfortable judging K's. I'm very comfortable with set col literature and I am familiar with afropess, ableism, and cap literature. Don't worry if I'm not familiar with your K literature all I ask for is a more thorough explanation of your literature and your theory of power. In order to win the K for me, you need to have a link, and if the link is vaguely explained/generic then I really won't buy that you link. If you do link what does that mean and why is that an indictment of the aff (what's the impact).

Kaffs: I'm cool with people running Kaffs and I won't immediately vote them down but I do have to require a good explanation of the aff.

DA: you can win a DA by itself if you have impact framing and how that impact outweighs the affs impacts and part of that impact framing you need to win uniqueness. You also need to win a link on how the aff causes the impacts of the DA. DA must have all its parts in order for me to evaluate it, it must have uniqueness, a link, an internal link, and more importantly an impact.

CP: I also vote for CPs with or without a DA, the DA in my mind is not necessary for a CP but that means proving the competitiveness of the CP and why the CP is preferable over that aff and that means why it solves better for the impacts of the aff or if you're running this with a DA why the CP solves and doesn't link to the DA.

T/FW: In order for me to vote for T you need to win a few questions, why you're model of debate is good, you also need to win how they violate and why that's bad for the round. You need to extend your standards/reasons to prefer your model of debate over theirs.

Hello beautiful people!

I am AJ Lozano and I'm thankful and ecstatic to be your judge today. Thank you so much for engaging and participating!

PLEASE INCLUDE ME IN THE E-MAIL CHAIN

ajloracdebate@gmail.com

A Little Bit About Me:

I am a go-with-the flow kind of person, so my actions will reflect the vibe I am getting from you guys, as the debaters.

However, don't get me wrong. I am very easy to talk to and please do not hesitate to ask me any questions.

I've debated for five years, been involved with different types of debate for seven years, and now happy with my work with different debate leagues on the West Coast. I am cool with any argument- Ks, Theories, etc.

Rules/Requests

With that being said, I am a rather strict judge and I have rules/requests while I am in this round with you all.

1) Please be kind to one another! I understand in the heat of the moment, everything can be frustrating and sometimes, you just want to yell. However, kindness is my philosophy and goal in life! Friendship does not matter in your joking/fooling around, I do not want it to occur within the supposed 64-80 minutes of the round. Although, pre- and post- round, go ahead and joke around and hug each other.

2) I will always be the official timer! You may keep time for yourself as a reference, but once my timer goes off- TIME IS DONE! ***IF THE TEAM SAYS THEY'RE OPEN/READY FOR CX OR PREP TIME, TIME WILL START. No need to say "starting time in..." It's already going :)

3) SIGNPOSTING- Please do it. I want for your words to be properly understood and interpreted so let me know whether you're on-case and specify your off-case. Ideas will come back to you so let me know if you are moving back to something different.

3)SPREADING- is always allowed. However, I do request slowing down when reading the tag. If I do not understand what you are saying, I am not going to flow it.

4) Cross-Examination: I ask you to please use this time wisely and strategically. Please note that I will flow CX. It will be considered as an argument. I generally do not mind tag-teaming, but ensure your opponents are comfortable too- they have the final say. Also, this phrase is popular but works differently with everyone. Be very careful when you use "This is my CX..." It may or may not look good on your speaker points.

5) REMEMBER: You are talking to me- not the other team. I am in the conversation- NOT listening to one.

6) PROFANITY: You can curse in a GENERAL sense! PLEASE, do not curse at another debater! This will result in an automatic low speaker rating, despite amazingness of speech content. Stay kind, but feel free to use words to emphasize!

DISCLOSURE

I will always give feedback on anything from speaking to arguments that were run. However, the disclosure of speakers points and who won is based on how I saw the round-depending on how the debaters make me feel. It's hard to piss me off, so please don't :) I've almost always disclose. If it takes me a long time, I'm sorry :P

Entering each round, I have no bias or preference. I am evaluating what I see and hear within the round. Convince me, persuade me. All in all, enjoy, have fun, and good luck!

Email:

andresmdebate@gmail.com

Cal Debate

For the most part I decide the debate through tech over truth. The baseline for speaker points is 28.5. Please don’t say anything racism, sexist, homophobic, ect…

Kaffs: I tend to think that having a strong link to the topic is better and more persuasive. If you want to run a kaff that doesn’t have a link then it would be best to give me reason for why that is important. Especially for the theory of power it is important to me that you explain the warrants behind the claims that you make.

Framework: You should definitely run it and I tend to think that whoever has a better articulation of their impacts tends to win the framework debate. Giving examples when it comes to debating limits and grounds is especially key for me and for my evaluation if the aff does explode limits. You should spend time and flush out your arguments beyond light extensions of the 1nc.

T: I tend to default to which interpretation creates better resolutional debates however can be convinced otherwise. An important note here is that a lot of teams should spend more time comparing impacts and giving me reasons why their model of debate is better than only focusing on standards.

DA/CP: Having great evidence is cool but you should spend more time impacting out why it matters. Oftentimes I think that there should be more work done on the internal links of your scenarios or explaining the process of the CP.

LD: I don't really know much about tricks, Phil,and other stuff

Have fun and do what you do best! :)

Debated for Downtown Magnets High School 2019-2023

Currently debate for Cal State Fullerton

NAUDL Quarters

LAMDL 2022-23 City Champion

Add to email chain: Davidm57358@gmail.com

Coached by: THE GOAT VONTREZ WHITE, Jared Burke, DSRB, Toya, Anthony Joseph, Travis, Yardley Rosas, Elvis Pineda, Chris Enriquez

Any questions you have regarding my paradigm or way of thinking in debate please refer to vontrez white at wvontrez@gmail.com

Tech > Truth

For the larger part of high school I strictly ran big stick affs and strict policy strategies. I almost always run the K in college now.

Read whatever you feel most comfortable with

Specifics:

Case:

Few things here I think a lot of teams will ignore the case debate or have extremely shallow debates. Card dumping is not fun and makes debating and judging so much harder and its not fun for anybody. This looks like going down the LBL in the 2ac the block etc. Of course if you think a card is necessary go for it but be strategic. I love rehighlights or very specific case debates I will probably give you extra speaks if you do a really good case debate.

T:

I'm not experienced with T. I've probably gone for it less than 5 times in my entire career. I think reasonability over competitive interpretations. I can judge a T debate and understand how it works but if your strategy is to always go for T I probably wont be the best judge for you.

If you want to run T FW go for it its a strategy I'm pretty familiar with I dont think i necessarily lean aff or neg in this case though.

CP:

Love a good CP. That being said I greatly dislike teams that will read 3 CP in the 1nc with just the plan text or a vague card. I'm all for a good clash debate and really reading CPs in that way just kills a majority of the clash the 2ac can have. I'll be more sympathetic to condo arguments in that case. Plank CPs are fine, explain the progression of the CP and you should be good. Have a good NB or internal NB I think this is where most debates are lost especially when teams just cannot explain what the NB is.

DA:
Pretty ok with these types of debates. Be creative with your DA's will definitely give great speaker points for a unique DA.

K:

go for it. I can understand and flow it. I think a lot of K debates become washed from either the alt debate or the fw debate.

K affs: To be honest I find myself voting a lot more on T FW/USFG and I dont think its necessarily because K affs are bad or anything but because I think teams need to really push on the idea that debate changes subjectivities a lot of y'all are letting these policy teams push you around. There's some good cards out there and I fundamentally do think debate changes subjectivities but it doesn't mean i'll buy it if you do minimal work on it. Also a link to the topic gives you a higher chance at winning in front of me.

Speaker Points begin at 28.5 I do not disclose speaker points.

additionally will give extra speaker points if you can add some humor to your speeches!

overall, just have fun. Debate is a space that we all engage in to learn and enjoy. That being said be respectful of the other team and be mindful of the language that you use. Any inappropriate language or behavior will not be tolerated and will be reported instantly to Tabroom and Coaches.

Add me to the chain: speechdrop[at]gmail.com

tldr: My name is Jonathan Meza and I believe that at the end of the day the debate space is yours and you should debate however you want this paradigm is just for you to get an insight on how I view debate. One thing is I won't allow any defense of offensive -isms, if you have to ask yourself "is this okay to run in front of them ?" the answer is probably no. I reserve the right to end the debate where I see fit, also don't call me judge I feel weird about it, feel free to call me Meza or Jonathan.

Pref Cheat sheet:

Policy: 2-3
K: 1
Phil: 1
trix: 4-5
K aff/Performance: 1-2
T: 1
Theory: 1
about me: Assistant debate coach for Harvard Westlake (2022-). Debated policy since 2018 that is my main background even tho I almost only judge/coach LD now. Always reppin LAMDL. I am a big fan of big words but I don't always know what they mean.

inspirations: DSRB, LaToya,Travis, CSUF debate, Jared, Vontrez, Curtis, Diego, lamdl homies, Scott Philips, Kwudjwa, Cat, and Krizel

theory: Theory page is the highest layer unless explained otherwise. Aff probably gets 1ar theory. Rvis are "real" arguments I guess. Warrant out reasonability. I am a good judge for theory, I am a bad judge for silly theory. Explain norm setting how it happens, why your norms create a net better model of debate. explain impacts, don't just be like "they didn't do XYZ voter for fairness because not doing XYZ is unfair." Why is it unfair, why does fairness matter I view theory a lot like framework, each theory shell is a model of debate you are defending why is not orientating towards your model a bad thing. Oh and if you go for theory, actually go for it do not just be like "they dropped xyz gg lol" and go on substance extend warrants and the story of abuse. Theory v Theory debates are fun but I need judge instruction as to how to evaluate the theory shells against each other and comparison between the scope and magnitude of the violations or which interpretation is best for debate or else I default on which ever violation came first.

Topicality: The vibes are the same as above in the theory section. I think T is a good strategy, especially if the aff is blatantly not topical. If the aff seems topical, I will probably err aff on reasonability. Both sides should explain and compare interpretations and standards. Standards should be impacted out, basically explain why it's important that they aren't topical. The Aff needs a counter interpretation, without one I vote neg on T (unless it's kicked).

Larp: I appreciate creative internal link chains but prefer solid ones. Default util, I usually don't buy zero risk. For plan affirmative some of you are not reading a different affs against K teams and I think you should, it puts you in a good place to beat the K. as per disads specific disads are better than generics ones but poltics disads are lowkey broken if you can provide a good analysis of the scenario within the context of the affirmative. Uniqueness controls the link but I also believe that uniqueness can overwhelm the link. straight turning disads are a vibe especially when they read multiple offs.

K affirmatives: I appreciate affirmatives that are in the direction of the topic but feel free to do what you want with your 1ac speech, This does mean that their should be defense and/or offense on why you chose to engage in debate the way that you did. I think that at a minimum affirmatives must do something, "move from the status quo" (unless warranted for otherwise). Affirmatives must be written with purpose if you have music, pictures, poem, etc. in your 1ac use them as offense, what do they get you ? why are they there ? if not you are just opening yourself to a bunch of random piks. If you do have an audio performance I would appreciate captions/subtitles/transcript but it is at your discretion (won't frame my ballot unless warranted for otherwise). In Kvk debates I need clear judge instruction and link explanation perm debate I lean aff.

Framework: I lean framework in K aff v framework debates. These debate become about debate and models defend your models accordingly. I think that the aff in these debates always needs to have a role of the negative, because a lot of you K affs out their solve all of these things and its written really well but you say something most times that is non-controversal and that gets you in trouble which means its tough for you to win a fw debate when there is no role for the negative. In terms of like counter interp vs impact turn style of 2AC vs fw I dont really have a preference but i think you at some point need to have a decent counter interp to solve your impact turns to fw. If you go for the like w/m kind of business i think you can def win this but i think fw teams are prepared for this debate more than the impact turn debate. I think fairness is not an impact but you can go for it as one. Fairness is an internal link to bigger impacts to debate.

Kritiks: I am a big fan of one off K especially in a format such as LD that does not give you much time to explain things already reading other off case positions with the kritik is a disservice to yourself. I like seeing reps kritiks but you need to go hard on framing and explain why reps come first or else the match up becomes borderline unwinnable when policy teams can go for extinction outweighs reps in the late game speeches. Generic links are fine but you need to contextualize in the NR/block. Lowkey in LD it is a waste of time to go for State links, the ontology debate is already making state bad claims and the affirmative is already ahead on a reason why their specific use of the state is good. Link contextualization is not just about explaining how the affirmatives use of the state is bad but how the underlining assumptions of the affirmative uniquely make the world worst this paired up with case take outs make for a real good NR Strategy.

Phil:I have warmed up to this style of debate in the past couple of months and believe it is a valuable aspect of LD, that being said over explanation and Judge instruction is very important for me in these debates. I lean towards epistemic confidence. phil innovation is cool.

Trix:Honestly explain your offense even if its silly and I'll vote for it I'm just not a big fan of a bunch of hidden args everywhere.

speaker points: some judges have really weird standards of giving them out. if I you are clear enough for me to understand and show that you care you will get high speaks from me. I do reward strategic spins tho. I will do my best to be equitable with my speak distribution. at the end of the day im a speaker point fairy. +.1 for brain rot reference (doesn't stack I got my limits)

She/her

3 years experience as a policy debater

Judging/Coaching & Teaching debate since 2017

Big fan of radical reform arguments and analytic-heavy argumentation.

Totally open to weighing T and Framework as voters in the round, but if they are THE voter give it it's due diligence. As far as K's and DA's go, you need to sell me on your link story so your impacts and alts are logical next steps and not reaches or jumps. At the end of the day, if you can sell the argument to me I'm likely to buy it. Do your thing! I don't subscribe to the idea that a debater should shift their strategy to cater to a judge, a judge should weigh what is presented and not value an argument based on their own debate style.

Beyond clarity, technicality, and presenting ability; the better you are at demonstrating content knowledge, developing arguments beyond simply reading evidence, and weaponizing in round happenings for offense: the higher the speaker points distributed will be. The only individual action that will negatively affect my ballot is if discourse gets too catty/heated between debaters and if after being warned said verbal aggression/rudeness/etc. continues: then speaks will be docked.

Email chain: I.claud33@gmail.com

They/ Them - She/Her

Policy debate for three years in high school at regional circuit. Judging since then, so maybe 7ish years of xp in poli.

No oppressive language. No card cutting/ clipping. No hateful language. No more than 5 off.

Violation of this will result in low speaks or a losing ballot, probably both.

PLS no new args in the rebuttals. Im not going to eval them. Im really not.

CX: speaks start at 28.5 and go up based on performance, clarity, tech execution of args, strat, persuasion, and manners:) - give me my rfd and that will def help lol.

I don think ive ever given a 30. Maybe at most a 29.5, but tbh im not sure what an ideal speech would be. I need to think on that.

Tag team Cx is fine

Keep ur own time, keep each other accountable. I forget all the time to stop prep (literally the most important thing)

If it’s not in the flow, it didn’t happen

If I can’t hear/ understand you- I will let u know “clear”

I flow on paper so if u make a qwk analytic I’m so sorry to tell u, but I probably didn’t get it

General:

Pretend I am a big illiterate baby.

I have never seen a news outlet. I don't scroll social media. I don't look out windows. I have never ever existed before this debate round, explain everything to me.

Contextualize every piece of ev and EXTENSIVE analysis on what the voters are.

S

Specifics:

K

Love the k.

I’m familiar with: Set Col, Cap and Chicano

But I'm always willing to become familiar with more :)

Links can be re-highlighted ev, generated during cx, or can be based off their plan text. However, that does not mean read three pieces of Link ev, after two cards your time would be better spent contextualizan the link and preempting perm args

Aff

Good with any impact. Just pay attention to the framing.

K aff

I like K affs. Best k affs are those that dont sideline the res and rather make a stasis point for decent ground so you can access ur education impx.

IF ur rapping/singing/ performing in a 'non-traditional' way, then I need you to tell me how to flow it- analyze what your performance specifically did in the context of this round, in your own words. Ex: if ur singing chappell roan, i want some analysis on how chappell roan is either key to solvency or whatever.

I can vote for a TVA or a kvk, i pref kvk.

DA/CP

Internal link. Internal link. Internal link. If you don't make the storyline straight, I will not buy your impact. Ideally should be a net benefit to a cp.

Cp: Net benefit. Net benefit. Net benefit. I will one hunddo vote on tva or perm on presumption.

but perms must be fully fleshed out, I should not be left wondering after the 2ac the how and when of the perm. Solvency defcts should be clarified with the perm.

Debate is first and foremost a research game.

0. General:

chain for policy/general questions

cmeowdebate@gmail.com

chain for ld (pls add both)

cmeowdebate@gmail.com

newmanspeechdocs@gmail.com

Coaching/Conflicts: Isidore Newman, Marlborough, Coppell, and a few LAMDL teams.

Debate Shoutouts: Deven Cooper, Dayvon Love, Diego "Jay-Z" Flores, Erika Linares, Geo Liriano, Jaysyn Green, Daniel Medina, Destiny Popoca, Lauren Willard, Cameron Ward, Gabriela Gonzalez, Isai Ortega, Andres Marquez, Elvis Pineda, J-Beatz, J-Burke, Von, Cameron Ward, Toya, Ryan Upston, Y'Mahnie Harvey, Max Wiessner, Dorian Gurrola, Aless Escobar, Jean Kim, Gavie Torres, Clare Bradley, and all of #LAMDLGANG.

"IR topics are cool bc we learn abt the world and stuff" - E.C. Powers, Wyoming Debate 5/22/23.

1. Pref Guide:

General: Currently entering my junior year and currently debate for CSULB (2 years of NDT-CEDA debate, 3 1/2 of LAMDL Debate) and have about 2 years of circuit judging experience.

Judging Style: I judge based what's on the flow, and the flow only. Judge intervention is silly and I try not to do it unless I absolutely need to fill in the gaps. Offense/Defense paradigm is how I evaluate debates, and will vote for the team that did the better debating unless told otherwise. Dropped args are true args, but need to be impacted out. No judge kick, make your own decisions and for the love of god start the round on time. Speaks will reflect all of these instances.

I care about evidence quality far less than most judges. I care more about line by line, 3rd/4th level testing, and in-depth clash as opposed to just "how good evidence is". If I wanted to read evidence, I would read a book. I judge debates to see debaters debate out arguments, and reading evidence as a starting point for an RFD when not contested seems paradoxical to the activity.

I disagree with the community's recent justification for judges commenting on their personal biases/insertions when evaluating/discussing debates. Nobody cares about your debate career or what happened during it. The only role that judges have is evaluating debates objectively and neutrally, no matter how badly you lost your final round. Funnily enough, my only personal bias is that judges shouldn't have any. I judge the flow, and vote based on technical execution of arguments, and nothing else.

This does not mean that debates about debate/personal callouts/other debates that don't solely center the topic are off the table. I will evaluate those the same way I evaluate everything else.

LD Specific: Read tricks and phil at your own risk. Not read up on most moral philosophy, and most tricks are irritating and irrelevant. If you mainly go for these arguments, I'm probably not the best judge for you.

2. Random/Misc:

Good Speaks Guide: Please do not delay the round/lallygag around, be excessively rude to your opponents, or endorses/argue for any isms. If you start the round on time, set up the email chain before I get into the room, and be generally funny/charismatic, you will get good speaks.

Song Challenge: I usually start speaks at 28.5 and move up/down depending on performance. On a softer note, I usually will listen to music while I write my RFD. Most times, I already have decided a winner after the 2AR has ended, but I always go over my flow/notes one last time before I write or submit my ballot. I love listening to new music, and I listen to every genre imaginable. That being said, I love to hear the tunes y'all have been jamming to recently. To encourage such behavior, debaters have an opportunity to garner extra speaks based on their music suggestions. Each team is allowed to give me one song to listen to while I write my RFD. It cannot be a song I've heard before. If I like the song, you will receive a +.1 to your speaker points. If I don't like it, you won't receive any extra, but I also won't redact any from your original score.

Advice/Help: If you are from LAMDL, debate for a UDL or public school without coaching, I'm willing to help with advice or questions y'all may have.

Hi!

Lamdl alumni,

Debated for bravo medical magnet high school.

The first few years I ran mainly policy affs and negs, then my last year I ran a k aff on chicana feminism, and set col/cap ks on the neg.

Disclose as soon as possible pls.

Debate should be fun so run what you like (however any hurtful arguments will not be tolerated).

i think i hate spreading now?

recently debaters have been unflowable through the analytics/blocks/standards, make sure youre very clear because if I dont hear it I cant flow it

Be respectful, nice and have fun!

add me to the email chain please: pantojaasenat@gmail.com.

Policy affs

I ran policy affs my first few years of debate. Make sure you’re winning your solvency and preferably a framing argument as to why the aff is important within this space.

For the neg, case turns ! also solvency deficits.

Ks & k affs

I like them. This however doesn’t mean I know all about them so make sure you really explain your theory of power and really flesh out your links. If you want to win the alt, make sure everyone knows what your alt actually does. Specific aff links> generic links, 1 off K with a lot of substance are probably some of the best debates. In terms of framework make sure its clear why your interp should be preferred,

CP/DA

Make sure your CP is competitive with the aff and you have a good net benefit.

I get easily persuaded by good permutations, so make them and also don't drop them (both sides).

Make sure to explain that your disads ow the aff. impact calc! On the aff, link turns!

T/Theory

education>fairness. Make sure you’re contextualizing your impacts to the round and the space.

hi! I've done debate for 3 years. I'm currently in the varsity division and a sophomore at Lake Balboa College Prep!

Email: (for questions/email chains) ofeliap2876@gmail.com

general preferences:

-tag-teaming is fine by me, just don't let it be one person mainly speaking. however, in the case of someone mavericking, tagteaming will generally not be allowed

-extend your arguments

CP/DA

for neg:

-make sure to state how your impact outweighs
-make sure to clearly state how your cp would work better than aff's plan

for aff:

- link turns!
-don't drop perms!!

and all in all... have fun! pls don't be rude to your opponents, you may be debating but that doesn't mean you should be rude…

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

I was a high school policy debater about 30 years ago. My partner and I qualified for the TOCs three times and we made it to the semi-finals my senior year.

After a long absence from debate, I started judging LD about a year ago when my daughter started debate. I was surprised to see that LD is much more like policy now. As a former policy debater, that is fine with me. I will do my best to take a tabula rosa approach.

I judged a good number of novice rounds last year and have judged at one varsity tournament. Speed is fine but of course be clear.

I tend to vote for the debater who tells the best story at the end of the round. If it is a close debate, the quality of evidence you read may be decisive.

It is very possible that I will miss a blippy argument spoken at high speed. If there's an argument you think is a winner, make sure it's registering with me.

The kritik was just emerging when I was in high school. I'm somewhat familiar with critical arguments but am still learning the details. I am open to them so long as they are presented clearly and persuasively. You might be safer though going for more traditional policy arguments as I'm more familiar with them (they don't seem to have changed that much over the decades).

e-mail: james.park@law.ucla.edu

Email: Bryanperez516@gmail.com

Experience: I did 3 1/2 years of policy debate in LAMDL, and currently doing 5th year in CSUF

Feel free to run whatever you want in the round as long as you can properly flush out your arguments. All I really ask is that you be respectful in the round and don't do sexist, racist, homophobic, hateful, or anything that might offend your opponents or me.

Disclaimer: I am a policy debater (the activity not the debate style) with no other experience

ELC 2023, Fullerton ‘27 LAMDL ‘23

bruh if you read more than 4 Off then we have a problem, I don't want to flow three lines on 5 flows just to throw it away, on the same thought, clarity is key. BE CLEAR

arguments based off in round actions are most persuasive to me

A few things to set straight, yes I want to be on the email chain, dapr4db8@GMAIL.COM, i would prefer you send as much as possible since i have problems focusing on words or keeping up, its to your benefit since the more i understand and have on the flow for you the easier you make it for me to vote you.

If you like K lit or K arguments then i'm your guy, like i'm that guy for you, if you want to do policy then sure im cool to judge that too, i will say super technical rounds i don't necessarily know if i’m the best fit and going to high theory stuff i don't know what to tell you. I have trouble with certain literature bases but the ones I'm most comfortable with are Set-Col, CAP, Biopolitics, Security/IR, Derrida, psychoanalysis, and some wilderson. Boggs i know well and yeah i know some more niche lit bases too.

Clarity > speeeeddd, i practice what i preach which means i love it when i can actually understand what you're saying at Mach 3, if you're unsure err on the side of caution. If it becomes problematic i will not hesitate to yell clear during your speech and dock points if it's necessary

Truth > tech but not what you think, i hate the misunderstanding the truth >tech means the technical side of debate can be forgotten, i believe that the tech side holds merit but where the argument is true or not affects whether i believe it to be true or not. If you answer the perm with a simple line like their evidence points towards linking on the K lit then I'll take that and don't need further work done, the main difference is that if your argument is true you will be required to do less work on it for me to buy it. This doesn't necessitate that I'll do the work on whether you link or not for you but it means you don't need to do more.

I'm the type of debater who thinks the offcase sweet spot lies between 2-4 offcase, i've learned to deal with many off but overall i don't agree with the notion of 7+ off just to go for the dropped flow on the neg, if this is your strat i have found myself voting on it but you have to win condo/dispo because im assuming the aff will read it. The aff on this can literally give one argument answers on each flow and i'll buy it in order to clean up the flow.

I don't know why i have to say this but i generally think judge intervention is not cool, if you make an argument in the 1nr and its not in the 2nr i won't intervene and say the argument lives on my flow when it doesn't, don't like it and you can try to get me to do it but generally i feel like you should be doing the work yourself to extend it if it really matters.

I don't know if it's just me or if this is a thing with judges in general but I will default to all dropped arguments being true arguments but only if I am told to evaluate it as important. Like if you drop an argument on the T flow but you're topical i'll consider it true if your opponents call it out, if they dont i dont care, simple.

I should not have to say this because it's so common sense but if i do not get an impact on your argument then i don't care about it, i'm not sorry and i don't care, i hate having to figure out what is more important or what the significance of an argument is. You need to tell me why that argument matters.

I joke about this but actually i believe anything is debatable for the most part, dont quote me on that when you say some messed up stuffand dont get a ballot.

Please coming from a UDL i consider debater a safe and expressive space where you can learn and educate. This means i dont want to make anyone feel unsafe or attacked, any -isms or -phobias will result in below 25 speaks and serious consequences. Also if i am sensing aggression or unnecessary comments i will also call it out mid round. Dont be sorry, Be better.

AFF

V policy

I think these debates are kinda washed, no problem in front of me but not really interested in it, do a good job extending your case and why my vote matters. I think CP that does nothing for the case is a little abusive and I feel like if the CP is outlandish enough then i'll buy the perm.

Started my career with this but dont hate it, if the aff wins their Framing/fw over the neg then it's pretty easy, i think these debates come down to 1. what is more likely to happen 2. what is the biggest impact in the round and 3. What can I do something about? Solf left policy is something I will take seriously and will evaluate as such, if you're reading hard policy then i may take it a bit more jokingly.

V K’s

I think the aff has a pretty hard time not linking to the literature not matter how hard you try even if its generic so don't spend so much time on the link but rather give me link turns and reasons why your aff comes first/matters more than the K. i usually buy perm do the aff and then the alt as a viable perm, the neg can def make a theory arg about intrinsic and how timeframe is not intrinsic to either but overall i think aff then alt is pretty convincing. You need to make sure you win the FW on the aff to win, this makes it not only easier for me to make a decision but also makes it pretty easy to win your claims and overall the debate

V T

I think this is the trolliest thing to do when you read T against a policy team especially if they are prolly topical but make it fun, make it easy and give me reasons to vote your way. I think I buy these args if they are made correctly but as the aff just give me some solid reasons why you meet, if you are obviously topical then just say that and then we meet and move on. I don't need you to spend all day on this argument. If it's more than 1 T flow just ask for a combined interpretation that includes all their T flows so i don't have to have 3 T flows, this will make it easy for you to respond and also means i only worry about 1 T flow.

K AFF

I was an affirma-neg debater in highschool which means i read my k as a kaff and the reverse, i love a good k aff especially if you show me you know the material. Since I read a kaff I'm looking for a few key arguments every k aff should have 1. You need to have a reason why the debate space is key, I feel like this is common sense but if you have no reason why the aff needs to be done in debate specifically then I don't see how an aff ballot resolves anything especially when we get to theory affs 2. I need a reason why the aff needs to be on the aff, this i am not super strict on but if the neg team calls it out you better have a solid answer to it. I'll take things like how it forces the conversation to be about the literature. 3. I need you to defend an advocacy, just because its a k doesn't mean you can just critic the topic and not offer an alternative, too often i see an aff which has no advocacy or action and instead only criticize the topic, if you do this and the neg calls you out then your going to have a terrible time. 4. I need a reason for the ballot, this should be obvious but i need to know why you need my ballot or what it resolves/does. I can be persuaded otherwise on how I just need faith but that requires work like anything else.

K v K

I think these debates are always so interesting and way more fun than any other type of debate, but how do you address this as the aff, just because you read your advocacy first doesn't mean you win, tell me why your aff is uniquely better then the alt. I think if you are reading an identity affirmative or poetry, personal story whatever you should call out the neg if they decide to read about their own identity. I hardly see these debates which is a shame and means i can't give specifics but just defend your aff like you believe it because you should and you'll do more than fine.

TLDR: I love real args, don't drop arguments, too many off is a problem. Clarity performance and being cool. You should explain stuff like duhh.

NEG

Topicality

As i mentioned above this is the funniest thing you can do if the aff is topical because the aff will fall apart if you have any type of block prepared for it. I think i can buy an easy aff out on this if they seem to meet your interp but they have to make that argument i wont do it for them. If you want to win this argument either give me a definition that they dont met and yeah. I believe T is a competition of interpretations, whoever wins that their interpretation is better is the one ill take. Make risk of a link arguements, potential abuse, make sure you answer the reasonability, and please include intent to define those are all winning arguments for me on the T flow.

Kritic

Love love love, i will place a heavy hand on you if you do not do a good job. To win this infornt of me i need you to answer the perm and why the perm is bad, if not i will default to the perm because it makes most sense. Please have an advocacy that you can defend or at least explain to me as to what actions we are taking whether physical, espitological, ontological or whatever else the solvency method is, asically i need to know what you are doing if not then kick the alt and turn yourself into an alternative.if you read this line mention randomly say red leather yellow leather before the round starts and ill know you read this =). I think the kritic needs to win a link you prolly have a few, the aff is most likely gonna link so ill give it to you but please have an impact associated to the link in order for me to actually merit the argument. I need the theory of power to be explained and understood by me by the end of the round. I need you to tell me how the aff specifically triggers your impacts or criticism for me to grant you anything on the flow and more so i think the FW debate is going to be EXTREMELY important if you want to win this because who ever wins the framing of the round wins how i evaluate the arguments especially with a k. That 2nc needs to be popping and i mean it, like i want to be catching 5 links each with warrants, several DAs around the speech, framing at the top, overviews, impact explanisiton and just i need to feel sorry for the 1AR after that incredible 2nc and the 2nr bettergo for what you are winning, DO NOT DROP THINGS IN THE 2NR i cant express how many times this has happened and how much it frustrates me beyond belief. Also, don’t read arguments that contradict your k so be very careful. If you read a CAP k with a trade off DA or sum like that i wont believe you actually know what you are doing. CLARITY is key for this especially when this flow will always be the most confusing and most heavy with knowledge. I have high expectation and as such i need you to do your best to meet them. Also, break your opponentns ankles with cross ex and the 2nc, ooohhh am i gonna love that <3.

CP

I think you need a DA or some type of net benefit for you to win any type of offense but more so i just think this is an okay debate, if you are going to read a cp and a DA why not just read a k which is far more fun. But yeah, if the cp is way out of the scope of the aff i wont believe it, i also think that the cp needs to win an actual benefit. Just make it nice and neat for me and give me reasons why it matters, you can probably refer to the K neg or v. policy on how you can do better. Almost never see these debates except for when i ran a policy aff at invitationals but even then i saw no reason why the cp is better, all these systems are screwed anyways.

DA

Okay unlike the cp flow i think this is pretty cool when you got the aff in some type of bind where either they trigger the da and cause a whole bunch of bad Stuff to happen or the DA is not real but neither are their impacts so why not avoid causing something bad to potentially happen. I think if you are winning this flow you can definitely go for it in the 2nr and make it easy for me to give you the ballot

T FW

so far i have a hard time believing any of the FW args from teams. your prolly better reading a K or some other argument against the team it just doesnt seem to hold that much sway for me. i think the neg has a burden of rejoinder and that means the neg has to create clash against the aff in some capacity. K Affs are not new you are expected to run into one which means your supposed to be ready to read some kind of argument against them. FW kinda seems like lazy debating, especially if it seems like your just reading blocks that were prewritten.

Experience: Policy Debate (2 Years, But I still made it all the way to Urban Nationals Gurl)

Francisco Bravo Medical Magnet High School: 2016-18

Cal State Long Beach: 2018-19

Contact Info: elvispinedaten@gmail.com

In a nutshell: I'm a pretty open debater and I love hearing all types of arguments. Policy Arguments... love them, Critical Arguments... love them, just make sure to articulate your arguments because even something as simple as a Cap K are run differently from round to round. Uniqueness questions are good, Links need to be there, Impacts are vital (You don't know how many people forget to impact out their stuff... make sure you do because I NEED TO KNOW WHAT IM VOTING FOR, I will not feel bad voting you down if you have a great link story but no impacts) and I appreciate intellectual debate jargon. All in all I will vote on anything, it just has to make sense and you have to convince me why I should vote for you and not the opposing team (Cross-Analysis). I love debate; I believe its a form of academic expression and just remember to have fun and pour your hearts out on the battlefield. I'm not a point fairy but passion, effort and craft are highly rewarded as I highly value (as we all should) seeing students actively pushing themselves for both an academic and interpersonal growth!

K's: Know the literature, it'll make your clap-backs that much stronger and makes it easier to contextualize. Throughly explain the alt, I noticed that the alternative debate is always the least covered and if I don't throughly understand what I'm voting for... then the permutation becomes an easy option for me as long as I believe it is possible. LINK ANALYSIS WILL GO A LONG WAY... Just saying. I ran Queer, Ableism, Witchcraft and several CRT K's but I understand the post-modern ones as well (please don’t run baudrillard, I’ve already had to vote it up once --> Update: Twice).

K' Affs: I ran Critical affirmatives the majority of my debate career so I might already understand or be lenient towards some of the reasons why non-traditional affirmation might be good. HOWEVER!!! This doesn't mean that if you run a K Aff I'll automatically vote for you, I find myself voting on presumption arguments or framework a lot because sometimes the literature of the affirmative is so dense and either: A) I feel like there is an articulation issue (and thus disorder on the flow) because of the density of the material or B) The internal link chain which leads me to believe that the affirmative is a good idea might be fundamentally under developed.

Da's: Uniqueness... Link.... Internal Links.... Impacts. I like disads, make sure to be strategic, make them net-benefits to the Cp otherwise I do believe that the Squo is always a viable option.

Cp's: Remember that not all Cp's are plan-inclusive and to me at least all you have to prove is that your method solves better than the aff. Have Net-benefits and show me solvency deficits (It'll make your life easier trust). No I won't judge kick the CP for you unless you explicitly tell me, i feel like it gives judge intervention way to much power.

T: Topicality is more than "aff is not topical". Tell me why that is bad? What do you lose access to? Prove to me why the aff's interpretation of debate is bad or abusive. If I can make those connections and you persuade me to prefer your model of debate, then its looking good for you and I'm very inclined to vote on it.

Framework: A lot of T applies here too, make sure to win why we need procedural fairness, why is the aff's model of debate bad for the debate community in general, Internal and External impacts are convincing, and also make sure to make those common FW arguments that prove you don't limit the aff. Framework to me also doesn't necessarily mean that "USFG means the 3 Branches of Government", even though its common and I don't mind seeing it, I feel like you can tailor so many framework arguments to work around the rhetorical offense affirmatives get with that interpretation.

Aff's: PROVE TO ME WHY WE NEED THE AFF! I need to know that there is a reason why you have to affirm what you are affirming and thats why you're doing it in a nontraditional way. Also prove to me why your model of debate is preferable to the neg's arguments. Just persuade me (Make me feel like I HAVE TO DO IT). In addition, anything performative should always be used... and offensively too. Don't waste precious 1AC time without utilizing it to the best of your advantage.

Case: I LOVE CASE DEBATE <3!!! I appreciate a good neg team that directly challenges the aff's warrants and their claims. So that being said... good case debate is appreciated and will be rewarded with higher speaks. Flush out them case turns (I'll gasp if its good)

Advise for the aff: Don't forget your 1AC, YOU SPEND 8/9 Minutes on it, please utilize it and utilize it as offensively as you can!

HAVE FUN! I love debate and I'm always happy and excited to watch y'alls debates!

GOOD LUCK!

My name is Alexander Ramirez. I was a part of LAMDL debate for about 2 and half years when I was in high school. I competed in varsity, but did not continue debating into university. For a couple of instances during university and consistently after graduating with a BA, I continue to judge for LAMDL and spend time with my former high school team.

I do not prioritize certain arguments over others, but instead place a bigger emphasis on extending files; both on and off cases. DA, K, T, CP, and Case are all file types I am familiar with, but each file type has a way to win off of. Theory arguments are fine, but please make sure you explain your arguments well if you're planning on winning with a theory argument.

Let's have a good debate!

Luke Rascoff - HW '27

I like speechdrop more but if it's gotta be an email chain put me on it (ljrascoff@gmail.com)

note: I am unfamiliar with the policy topic as I have been debating LD this year so please give good overviews and explanations

-I've been doing LD for 2 years

-I'll vote on pretty much anything as long as its not offensive or harmful

- Tech > Truth but true arguments have a lower threshold to win

- I really like lots of judge instruction and weighing in the nr/ar

- I am fine with being post rounded, if I cant defend my decision then I probably made the wrong one

- I am ok with speed but be reasonable (slow down on analytics if you aren't sending them)

-sending the doc isn't stealing prep but don't steal prep

-I pay attention in CX, reference it in your speeches if you get a key concession

- Impact weighing and judge instruction is everything, I rarely vote against the debater who does this better

- Be respectful to your opponents and we will be chill

- Have fun and don't get discouraged

1 - Cps/DAs: Definitely the most familiar with these, I err extinction OW's but if the links are ridiculous that is a very good thing to point out

2-T/Theory: Friv theory is dumb and I probably will not vote on it but if there's in round abuse that's well warranted feel free to go for it. If you're gonna go for condo/pics bad it can't be a 2-second blip in the 1ar and a 2AR that only says the words "they dropped it" you're gonna have to fully make the argument. Won't vote on the RVI unless theory is friv. I prefer in round abuse vs theoretical abuse for topicality but my opinions here aren't super set in stone.

V

3-K's: I know the most about Cap and Security but I'm open to any K that is well explained. Link debate is very important, links should be contextual to the aff. If I look confused, i'm confused. T-FW is a viable argument.

V

V

V

4-Phil: It's not an automatic downvote but you're gonna have to be pretty clear. I know more about util, less about kant.

V

V

5-Tricks (pls no): I'm not the judge for this, it's gonna be an uphill battle

Email with questions!

(ﾉ◕ヮ◕)ﾉ*:Hello, my name is Nahomy, my pronouns are she/her. I have debated in all 3 divisions in lamdl and I have debated in varsity 2020-2022. So debate how you want, but keep it within the topic and in connection with the topic. Most importantly... Have fun. Keep the nice vibes.Im a pretty chill Jude im cool with mostly everything. PLEASE KEEP your time I don't really like playing time keeper. PLEASE DO NOT ask me anything pertaining to debate while in the round ex: what you should run or what can be ran. Ask me these type of things before.

My Email: nahomy.rivas09@gmail.com please keep me in the email chain

If you say anything racist, homophobic, misogynistic, ableist, transphobic or xenophobic, I will vote for the other team and give you low speaker points. Please be nice to everyone in the room; this is a safe space for everyone.

I will also dock speaker points if you are disrespectful to the other team.

Time: I will keep time. Please also keep your time its really good to keep track of your time.

CX: open cross x

Here I go into detail on off cases, case, and how I vote but don't stress your self out don't overcomplicate debate just give me a nice constructive and speech on why I should vote for your side and not the other side use your evidence to back your points up. Be respectful keep it friendly with me and your opponents and were good.

Framework:

Big on framework if you run framework I expect to see a framework from both sides example if frame is ran on the aff side I expect a counter-frame from the neg ect. Also, I like to flow framework separately so make your frame explicitly clear!

Case:

Inherency: Tell me whats going on currently in the status quo and any issues going on

Advantages: explain the positive consequences that happen via your aff plan

Plan: Break down your plan in depth to give me all the good details about it

Solvency tell me how the AFF solves the issue via your plan this is very important

K:So if you choose to run K explain your ALT clearly please explain your link too. Explain why voting AFF is bad but also what voting for this K will look like and why its ultimately better than the AFF.

T: Voting issues ground and fairness I considered all of these when voting for the T.

CP: Why should I vote for the cp and how is it better than the aff plan you should tell me why I should vote for the cp than the plan

DA:How is the aff bad tell me all the harms and the how its linked to the affs plan explain your links and internal links impacts all the good stuff.Paint me a nice picture of all the bad things that happen when voting aff.Do an impact cal.

For the aff please answer the negs off cases do not leave something unanswered because then I have dropped arguments and that can led me to vote neg.This is For both sides dont drop your own arguments or your answers to your opponents arguments.

Ask me anything you want me to clear up before or after the round.

My basis are left at the door I will evaluate all the arguments how they were answered and handled during the round. Dont expect me to vote on something emotional if it dosent have anything to do with the topic at hand. and if you kick out of something I will stop considering it and say anything I should prioritize while making my decision.

Please add me to the chain, my email is rosasyardley.a@gmail.com

Policy from 2014-2021 for Downtown Magnets High School/LAMDL and Cal State Fullerton.

thoughts

general: I will listen to anything you have to say. I need you to control how I think about what is going on in the round. Framing weighing and comparing impacts is important. Extending and debating warrants as thoroughly as the debate allows is so important to me especially in the rebuttals . Also because I feel like tech and truth determine each other. You should be able to do a lot more with less. I flow on paper so I will miss quick, short, and intricate arguments. Tell me what it is I need to be voting on and why I should vote on that thing. I am very receptive to an rfd that is straight up given to me. My rfds are broad and I don't ever really get into specifics unless asked and rarely vote on a single argument.

specifics: I like k v k and k v policy debates the most. I have the most experience with arguments about the state, racial capitalism, and the intersection of race/gender/queerness/class. I need to feel like you are politically and/or socially motivated by the world to run the k you are running for me to really be persuaded by it. I need Ks to have a strong explanation of either the world or debate. Ks on the aff need a clear method and solvency. I don't mind if this isn't as strong on the neg unless the aff makes it a thing. In k v fw rounds I need both sides to have models of debate and comparison work being done on the offense. I lean towards skills, clash, tva for the neg. Generally I need links to be as specific as possible for any kind of offense or argument. I will consider any theory argument. But if you are going for them, be as contextual to the round as possible. Frankly, 4+ off is irritating to me no shade but I live for drama so go ahead but that raises the bar for you and lowers it for the aff.

other: sorry if I get sleepy, it's probably not because of the round

I Am a Student from New Designs and I enjoy debates with clash but do not talk over each other. I am Tech < Truth

I dislike Race arguments or any gender arguments.

Lilly Stobo - HW '26

add me to the email chain: lillystobo04@gmail.com or speech drop

I currently debate in LD. I will likely be familiar with most literature you choose to read, but if you are reading obscure phil, take the time to explain.

tech>truth but true arguments have lower thresholds to win

1--policy, k

2-- t

3--phil

4--tricks

CP:

Blippy unwarranted perms are cop outs for real arguments

Adv cps based on rehighlightings of the other teams ev can be extremely clever, if its a good rehighlight. If you have inserted a rehighlight that lists 2 alt causes to the aff and made a cp text off of that, the threshold for any 1ar solvency deficit is pretty high

I usually err neg on condo

DA:

I am not generally persuaded by uq controls the link

please weigh - and 30 seconds of "nuclear war is very bad" is probably insufficient considering that is probably also your opponents impact .

K/K affs:

I love good k v k or k v policy debates

Any link must be a link to the aff not just a link to the topic

I think that debating the resolution is probably good, so I prefer K affs that are generally grounded in the topic

Misc

things I will not vote on: rvis, or any violent/discriminatory argument. I will have a very high threshold for winning an argument which sole purpose is hedged on your opponent not being able to flow/missing it.

- countdown before speech = -.1 speaks

- family guy/south park references = +.2 speaks

- starting the debate and all speeches on time = +.1 speaks

- follow hw debate on insta = +.2 speaks @hwdeb8

Please, please dont steal prep, it’s always obvious. you can stop prep just before the doc is sent.

email me if you have any questions before/after the round

debate is an activity; be nice to each other

My paradigm is not a series of uncompromisable rules. At the end of the day, debaters control the debate space.

On Kritiks

I love critical literature, 4 notes:

1. I do not believe in the idea that the author is irrelevant after publishing.

2. K-debater ought to produce a convincing link, and alternative. The K is likely a voter if those two arguments are articulated well.

3. Debate does not occur in a vacuum; I am open to structural fairness arguments.

4. For K-Aff's it's an uphill battle if you run a "reject the resolution" argument, I prefer reinterpretations of the resolution; this demonstrates, to me, a creative reimagination of the resolution that allows for diversified literature bases, but failure to do so would make me weigh framework arguments more favorably.

On Topicality

Topicality is standard strategy, definitely open to Topicality debate with one exception. If certain plans are core affirmatives to the topic, and the affirmative runs a truth over tech argument, then I will consider T a non-voter in those cases. Core, to me, means that the affirmative plan is standardized (many schools run that affirmative).

On CPs

I do not have strong opinions on CP Theory. I can be persuaded to multiple CPs, PICs, et cetera. Completely up to the debaters.

On Disadvantages

Disadvantages should not have a generic link, they should have a persuasive story for how it ties to the affirmative case, a specific link, or both.

On Case

I love case debate. If negative can compete on the case level - even if they lose - high speaker points are guaranteed. Shows good research, and a genuine attempt to understand the other team's arguments. Two aspects that I see as core to debate.

GENERAL

1. Clarity > Loudness > Speed.

2. Framing > Impact > Solvency. Framing is a prior question. Don’t let me interpret the debate, interpret the debate for me.

3. Truth IS Tech. Warranting, comparative analysis, and clash structure the debate.

4. Offense vs Defense: Defense supports offense, though it's possible to win on pure defense.

5. Try or Die vs Neg on Presumption: I vote on case turns & solvency takeouts. AFF needs sufficient offense and defense for me to vote on Try or Die.

6. Theory: Inround abuse > potential abuse.

7. Debate is a simulation inside a bigger simulation.

NEGATIVE

TOPICALITY: As far as I am concerned, there is no resolution until the negative teams reads Topicality. The negative must win that their interpretation resolves their voters, while also proving abuse. The affirmative either has to win a no link we meet, a counterinterp followed up with a we meet, or just straight offense against the negative interpretation. I am more likely to vote on inround abuse over potential abuse. If you go for inround abuse, list out the lost potential for neg ground and why that resolves the voters. If you go for potential abuse, explain what precedents they set.

FRAMEWORK: When the negative runs framework, specify how you orient Fairness & Education. If your FW is about education, then explain why the affirmative is unable to access their own pedagogy, and why your framework resolves their pedagogy better and/or presents a better alternative pedagogy. If your FW is about fairness, explain why the affirmative method is unable to solve their own impacts absent a fair debate, and why your framework precedes Aff impacts and/or is an external impact.

DISADVANTAGES: Start with impact calculation by either outweighing and/or turning the case. Uniqueness sets up the timeframe, links set up probability, and the impact sets up the magnitude.

COUNTERPLANS: Specify how the CP solves the case, a DA, an independent net benefit, or just plain theory. Any net benefit to the CP can constitute as offense against the Permutation.

CASE: Case debate works best when there is comparative analysis of the evidence and a thorough dissection of the aff evidence. Sign post whether you are making terminal defense arguments or case turns.

KRITIKS: Framing is key since a Kritik is basically a Linear Disad with an Alt. When creating links, specify whether they are links to the Aff form and/or content. Links to the form should argue why inround discourse matters more than fiat education, and how the alternative provides a competing pedagogy. Links to the content should argue how the alternative provides the necessary material solutions to resolving the neg and aff impacts. If you’re a nihilist and Neg on Presumption is your game, then like, sure.

AFFIRMATIVES

TRADITIONAL AFFIRMATIVES

PLANS WITH EXTINCTION IMPACTS: If you successfully win your internal link story for your impact, then prioritize solvency so that you can weigh your impacts against any external impacts. Against other extinction level impacts, make sure to either win your probability and timeframe, or win sufficient amount of defense against the negs extinction level offense. Against structural violence impacts, explain why proximate cause is preferable over root cause, why extinction comes before value to life, and defend the epistemological, pedagogical, and ethical foundations of your affirmative. i might be an "extinction good" hack.

PLANS WITH STRUCTURAL IMPACTS: If you are facing extinction level disadvantages, then it is key that you win your value to life framing, probability/timeframe, and no link & impact defense to help substantiate why you outweigh. If you are facing a kritik, this will likely turn into a method debate about the ethics of engaging with dominant institutions, and why your method best pedagogically and materially effectuates social change.

KRITIKAL AFFIRMATIVES

As a 2A that ran K Affs, the main focus of my research was answering T/FW, and cutting answers to Ks. I have run Intersectionality, Postmodernism, Decolonization, & Afropessimism. Having fallen down that rabbit hole, I have become generally versed in (policy debate's version of) philosophy.

K AFF WITH A PLAN TEXT: Make sure to explain why the rhetoric of the plan is necessary to solve the impacts of the aff. Either the plan is fiated, leading a consequence that is philosophically consistent with the advantage, or the plan is only rhetorical, leading to an effective use of inround discourse (such as satire). The key question is, why was saying “United States Federal Government,” necessary, because it is likely that most kritikal teams will hone their energy into getting state links.

K BEING AFFS: Everything is bad. These affs incorporate structural analysis to diagnosis how oppression manifests metaphysically, materially, ideologically, and/or discursively, "We know the problem, and we have a solution." This includes Marxism, Settler Colonialism, & Afropessimism affs. Frame how the aff impact is a root cause to the negative impacts, generate offense against the alternative, and show how the perm necessitates the aff as a prior question.

K BECOMING AFFS: Truth is bad. These affs point to complex differences that destabilize the underlying metanarratives of truth and power, "We problematize the way we think about problems." This includes Postmodern, Intersectionality, & Performance affs. Adapt to turning the negative links into offense for the aff. Short story being, if you're just here to say truth is bad, then you're relying on your opponent to make truth claims before you can start generating offense.

, be dramatic af- I need to feel and believe it to be fully convinced.

My email is tjdebate08@gmail.com

please label the email chain like tournament name + round #

General Judging

I'm cool with tag teaming, though I think both speakers should do their best to answer individually

Spreading- I'm good with it tho I would appreciate it if there was an emphasis on taglines/main arguments (like slowing down during certain stuff, raising voice etc). Keep in mind I flow on paper

I will reference evidence documents for throughout the speech, but i will not be looking in depth at it unless im told to by debaters

Run what you like, I am familiar with the types of arguments you make however, I am not familiar with this topic specifics so if it's a niche argument don't assume I know it.

I will not do any work for you, make my life easy, simplify and tell me what im voting on.

I do consider cross ex as a type of speech in the way i am viewing and framing your arguments

(I will give higher speaks if you can provide clear judge instruction.)

Specific Policy Arguments

On Condo bad: I'm more willing to vote, for it if the negative runs more than 5 or more off. I just prefer having in depth debates.

T: Not the best judge for policy t vs policy t however I do think that limits is a key component in debate because it does result in the type of education we recieve in round and certain arguments can affect a teams ground.

Tech over truth but keep in mind I'm more lenient toward the truth than most.

Counterplan- I like these most when the net benefits are weighed in the round, so not so much a one sentence counterplan with no evidence. A personal pet peeve is when that one sentence counter plan ends up dropped by the block

DA- impact calc pls make my decision easy also the LINKKK explain it

K/K Affs

Generally Im good with most k literature i've run racial cap k, set col, epistemic abolition/ anarchism . Though while I am familiar with most literature, high theory ks can still be really tricky to follow through so just try to explain please

For Negative Ks : Try to be familiar with your literature, and try to articulate how the aff links, not just generically. If you can label your links and impact them throughout the speech your chances of winning are higher. Also answer why the aff doesnt get a perm? Why is the aff a bad idea? Impact it out

For K affs specifically: I'm cool with you but please be ready to defend framework well because I want to understand why you think this approach is more beneficial to the debate space and why your education matters.

For both k/ k affs: Explain your alternative. Do not dodge around the question its okay not to be material and focus on education but explain the WHY and defend. Or if you are a material alt explain.

Fw= I value education and portable skills.

LD

No tricks, please.

Take a breath before you debate and do your best! you got this!

LD:

The most important thing to me is framework in LD rounds. Unless I have a foundation that allows me to vote for you, I simply cannot justify it. The most frustrating rounds to me are the ones that have two very different, very interesting V/VCs and someone just drops theirs. That doesn't mean that 1) you can't win without winning your framework, you just have to make the other person's framework fit your case or 2) that if you two have the same framework to keep arguing because you agree. There's no reason for it.

After I determine who wins framework, I weigh the KVIs off of that framework. Again, it would take a lot for me to vote for you if you don't have any KVIs in your last speech. Those are the main points you're trying to share, and they're an easy way to narrow down the debate in your favor. If I haven't determined a winner from just framework and the KVI points, then I'll go through and look at every argument throughout the debate and determine who wins each one. From there, I usually have a winner.

I was an LD debater in high school for four years, so I'm fine with a lot of the terminology. As for the philosophies you might be running, I'm aware of a lot of possibilities, but I'm only really well versed in a few, so please take time to explain exactly what you mean (especially if it's a lesser used philosopher or a lesser known theory). I did four years of policy at USC, and am now a policy coach, so don't feel like you need to slow down for me, but I do not think LD is a place for spreading. I understand being a naturally faster speaker (I lost my own fair share of rounds because I didn't realize I was speaking too fast), but you shouldn't try to win solely on outspeaking your opponent.

Otherwise, just ask me any questions before the round that you may have.

Policy:

Hey, so I'm much different than I was in the past for Policy. I competed at the college level in Policy for USC for four years, and I am now coaching my own team, and it's been a learning experience. Here are my thoughts on things generally:

Framework/Topicality - I'm a sucker for a good T debate. It has to be good, and it has to be true, because if I'm not buying that the Aff isn't topical then you aren't going to win. But I think that FW and T args have a solid and underappreciated place in policy debate, so if you can do it well then go for it.

KAffs - I will never come into a round with a pre-conceived notion of what you should do with your debate round; however, considering how I feel about Topicality, if you're hitting a good T/FW team, then it's probably going to be somewhat of an uphill battle. I will obviously be as neutral as I can be, but we're all human and we all have biases.

K - I'm much more lenient in my feelings on the K on Neg than on Aff just because of how I believe ground works in debate. One of my partners only went for the K, so I got pretty used to how those worked. If you're running some high-theory K, then you're going to have to really explain it to me. I didn't do policy in high school, so all of those highly-circulated backfiles never got to me. Otherwise, if done well, I can be convinced of most arguments.

CPs - I almost never run these, I don't think they're the most effective argument, but I won't never vote on them. To be honest, I think they make the Neg's job significantly harder, but also, like I said before, this is your debate round. If you do a lot more work, and you end up being really good at it, then obviously you get the win.

DAs - This is usually the first half to my policy strat, so I do have somewhat of a preference for it. Make sure the link story is there and make sure you explain your impacts. I want to know that you know what you're saying.

Case Negs - This is usually the second half to my policy strat, so I also do have somewhat of a preference for this. Same as above, make sure you explain exactly why something won't solve, isn't inherent, isn't significant, etc. I think Case Negs are also under-utilized and underappreciated by debaters.

I believe that's it. Honestly, if you run anything else, that means I have no idea what you're talking about, so like explain it to me.

I'm really big into impact calc too. Extra points to whoever to fully explain to me the impact scenarios of the round and who is winning and why. It makes my job easier if I can just write down your impacts and vote from there, and that usually means it's your ballot.

Yes, I do want to be on the email chain. This email is different than before: taliamariewalters@gmail.com

Otherwise, if you have any questions, feel free to ask me in person. I'm really not that intimidating, and I LOVE talking about myself, so questions are welcome!

Overall:
1. Offense-defense, but can be persuaded by reasonability in theory debates. I don't believe in "zero risk" or "terminal defense" and don't vote on presumption.

2. Substantive questions are resolved probabilistically--only theoretical questions (e.g. is the perm severance, does the aff meet the interp) are resolved "yes/no," and will be done so with some unease, forced upon me by the logic of debate.

3. Dropped arguments are "true," but this just means the warrants for them are true. Their implication can still be contested. The exception to this is when an argument and its implication are explicitly conceded by the other team for strategic reasons (like when kicking out of a disad). Then both are "true."

Counterplans:
1. Conditionality bad is an uphill battle. I think it's good, and will be more convinced by the negative's arguments. I also don't think the number of advocacies really matters. Unless it was completely dropped, the winning 2AR on condo in front of me is one that explains why the way the negative's arguments were run together limited the ability of the aff to have offense on any sheet of paper.

2. I think of myself as aff-leaning in a lot of counterplan theory debates, but usually find myself giving the neg the counterplan anyway, generally because the aff fails to make the true arguments of why it was bad.

Disads:
1. I don't think I evaluate these differently than anyone else, really. Perhaps the one exception is that I don't believe that the affirmative needs to "win" uniqueness for a link turn to be offense. If uniqueness really shielded a link turn that much, it would also overwhelm the link. In general, I probably give more weight to the link and less weight to uniqueness.

2. On politics, I will probably ignore "intrinsicness" or "fiat solves the link" arguments, unless badly mishandled (like dropped through two speeches). Note: this doesn't apply to riders or horsetrading or other disads that assume voting aff means voting for something beyond the aff plan. Then it's winnable.

Kritiks:
1. I like kritiks, provided two things are true: 1--there is a link. 2--the thesis of the K indicts the truth of the aff. If the K relies on framework to make the aff irrelevant, I start to like it a lot less (role of the ballot = roll of the eyes). I'm similarly annoyed by aff framework arguments against the K. The K itself answers any argument for why policymaking is all that matters (provided there's a link). I feel negative teams should explain why the affirmative advantages rest upon the assumptions they critique, and that the aff should defend those assumptions.

2. I think I'm less technical than some judges in evaluating K debates. Something another judge might care about, like dropping "fiat is illusory," probably matters less to me (fiat is illusory specifically matters 0%). I also won't be as technical in evaluating theory on the perm as I would be in a counterplan debate (e.g. perm do both isn't severance just because the alt said "rejection" somewhere--the perm still includes the aff). The perm debate for me is really just the link turn debate. Generally, unless the aff impact turns the K, the link debate is everything.

3. If it's a critique of "fiat" and not the aff, read something else. If it's not clear from #1, I'm looking at the link first. Please--link work not framework. K debating is case debating.

Nontraditional affirmatives:

Versus T:

1. I'm *slightly* better for the aff now that aff teams are generally impact-turning the neg's model of debate. I almost always voted neg when they instead went for talking about their aff is important and thought their counter-interp somehow solved anything. Of course, there's now only like 3-4 schools that take me and don't read a plan. So I'm spared the debates where it's done particularly poorly.

2. A lot of things can be impacts to T, but fairness is probably best.

3. It would be nice if people read K affs with plans more, but I guess there's always LD. Honestly debating politics and util isn't that hard--bad disads are easier to criticize than fairness and truth.

Versus the K:
1. If it's a team's generic K against K teams, the aff is in pretty great shape here unless they forget to perm. I've yet to see a K aff that wasn't also a critique of cap, etc. If it's an on-point critique of the aff, then that's a beautiful thing only made beautiful because it's so rare. If the neg concedes everything the aff says and argues their methodology is better and no perms, they can probably predict how that's going to go. If the aff doesn't get a perm, there's no reason the neg would have to have a link.

Topicality versus plan affs:
1. I used to enjoy these debates. It seems like I'm voting on T less often than I used to, but I also feel like I'm seeing T debated well less often. I enjoy it when the 2NC takes T and it's well-developed and it feels like a solid option out of the block. What I enjoy less is when it isn't but the 2NR goes for it as a hail mary and the whole debate occurs in the last two speeches.

2. Teams overestimate the importance of "reasonability." Winning reasonability shifts the burden to the negative--it doesn't mean that any risk of defense on means the T sheet of paper is thrown away. It generally only changes who wins in a debate where the aff's counter-interp solves for most of the neg offense but doesn't have good offense against the neg's interp. The reasonability debate does seem slightly more important on CJR given that the neg's interp often doesn't solve for much. But the aff is still better off developing offense in the 1AR.

LD section:
1. I've been judging LD less, but I still have LD students, so my familarity with the topic will be greater than what is reflected in my judging history.

2. Everything in the policy section applies. This includes the part about substantive arguments being resolved probablistically, my dislike of relying on framework to preclude arguments, and not voting on defense or presumption. If this radically affects your ability to read the arguments you like to read, you know what to do.

3. If I haven't judged you or your debaters in a while, I think I vote on theory less often than I did say three years ago (and I might have already been on that side of the spectrum by LD standards, but I'm not sure). I've still never voted on an RVI so that hasn't changed.

4. The 1AR can skip the part of the speech where they "extend offense" and just start with the actual 1AR.