Hello!

My name is Cindy Chanay and I am a LAMDL (urban debate) alumni. I was a varsity debater at Bravo Medical Magnet High School, and now debate in NPDA and NFA-LD at UC San Diego. I also have acquired experience in speech, mostly in interp events.

Please put me on the chain (if there is one): cindypaolachanay@gmail.com. Speechdrop also works.

Now that I am in the judging position, I will give a few insights into how I view debates.

Some quick notes:

1. Be nice. In other words, be mature, and good people.

2. Have fun! :)

3. I will not allow conflicts that can put at risk the debate environment such as comments/arguments that can hurt other debaters and others in general, this includes and is not limited to racism, sexism, etc.

Note for LD: My views are similar to policy, but specifically for y'all: No trix please, reverse voters might make my head hurt, and good explanations are a must, especially as I probably lack deep topic knowledge- shadow extensions are not the best.

Some of my debate background (if that's important to you): I debated throughout high school, and I was mostly a K-Aff/K debater. If I didn't go for the K, I went for T (either topicality or theory). I have the most experience with settler colonialism, capitalism, and indigenous feminism type arguments. I have heard a bit of pomo arguments, but these will need more explaining to get my ballot. More on some specific sections will be below :).

Case (General)- Unavoidable. If you're aff, don't lose case, it can cost you the ballot. I find that in most cases winning that your aff outweighs can save you from a few defensive neg arguments. Yet, this depends on how your aff interacts with the neg arguments. For the neg, this is where it can get fun if you're losing your off-case positions. Don't underestimate the case to focus on your off-cases. Always look for a way to poke holes in the aff case. It will be quite hard for me to not look at case unless you win another flow.

Policy Affs: I didn't utilize these as often, but they can be fun. I rather you have two solid advantages than five that make no sense, though.

K-Affs: This is where I am most comfortable. I read a K-Aff in my last two years of high school debate and continue to read them in college. For the aff: Be prepared for T-FW and the Cap K, and explain your solvency. If I don't understand your solvency the more I am inclined to vote neg. I do enjoy performance affs, and non-traditional affs as well. While topic affs are easier for me to judge, I will evaluate a "non-topical" aff. Always make the aff o/w argument, because in most cases it does and it gets you out of a lot of negative offense, but you must know how to utilize this argument and where. For the neg: You can win on T-FW- but I think that it's not the only way to win against a K-Aff. I suggest to also make vagueness and presumption arguments on case, I will vote on them. I also like to hear more creative ways of beating a K-Aff (this can include theory, more in-depth K's, counter-performances, etc.)

DA/CP- I don't have much experience here, as I stated before I debated mostly the K on both sides. But, I will say that to win using this strategy, it's best to have the CP + DA so that there is a clear net benefit. For the neg- If you're going just for the DA, focus more on the link and the impact, as that's where I am more likely to vote. Uniqueness questions can be a voter, but it's usually not likely. Win that there is a link and that your impact o/w and you should be good. For the aff: Either straight turn the DA or at best win the link turn. You can also convince me on a no link, but remember that n/l is mostly just defensive, don't rely solely on that argument. For CP's: It's harder to win here if you don't have a DA, I find permutations quite convincing, but you can win. Have some relative advantage to the CP and win that it o/w. I think that winning theory on the permutation is fun. For the aff: Make permutations. Most of the time the CP is not that distinct from the aff/ has no net benefit enough to outweigh the aff. This is why you have to prove your aff is better and not lose case.

T-I usually went for T if I didn't go for the K. We meet arguments I think are mostly defensive, and I prefer counter interpretations. I usually use a competing interpretations lens, but I can be persuaded to use reasonability. Violation I think is a must, and the standards and voters should always be there. While I don't mind a short shell, make sure to explain the standards and voters in the extensions of the T. This is especially true if the T becomes the 2NR, I need to know why the aff violates and what that does to the debate space. For theory specifically: I will listen to aspec in the 1NC shell, but please don't extend it or much less go for it, unless the aff just clean drops it, I just don't find it persuasive. Most other specs I'm fine with and will vote on. I will vote on theory if you explain it well. Please don't pull tricks or rvi's, if you had that on mind, I will not vote on them.

K- Again, I am more comfortable in these debates. I don't think that you need to win all parts of the kritik to win it, but you definitely want to win at least a link to have some relative offense. Yet, I can also be persuaded to just vote on the alternative alone, if you know how to handle that debate, because this type of approach can implode on you if not done correctly. I do think that you have to answer framework though, because I need to know how to weigh the aff and the K. Give me reasons to prefer your interp. Remember to explain your alternative well, and impact framing because that can be a winning ballot paired with a decent link. On that note, I prefer links that are specific to the context of the aff, but some "general" links can be made into specific links if you are smart and pull lines from the aff's evidence. For the aff specifically: Utilize perms to the best of your ability. This is the easiest way to beat the K. Also pair it with at least a link turn and fw. But, I would prefer you have more than that to be able to have a cleaner win against a K. Disclaimer: While I do have some general ideas and am more knowledgeable in the set col and cap K debate, I don't know all of the literature available, so don't fall short on explanations. This is especially true for pomo literature because it can get confusing very quickly.

Speed: I am okay with it (just be clear) unless your opponents are not. Just be respectful of your opponents and you should be okay. I will call CLEAR if necessary.

Speech: do you. I will time and count you down if the event requires it and I'll also give you hand signals.

Don't worry too much if it's your first debate, I am a debater like you, so don't worry, I know what it's like.

If you have any questions before the round you can contact me at cindypaolachanay@gmail.com

You can also use that email to ask questions if you have any after the round as well :).

About Me:

Bravo '20, CSULB '24, LAMDL 4eva

2024 ADA Champ, CEDA Semis, NDT Quarters, #3 Copeland Panelist

Currently coaching Huntington Park High School

Email: diegojflores02@gmail.com

People I talk about debate with or have influenced me heavily: Deven Cooper, Jaysyn Green, Geordano Liriano, Curtis Ortega, Andres Marquez, Isai Ortega, Toya Green, Azja Butler, Cameron Ward, Jonathan Meza, Jared Burke, Elvis Pineda, Irshad Reza Husain, Tatianna Mckenzie, Khamani Griffin

TOC Update

nothing new, if anybody's interested in debating at csulb lemme know

How I Judge

• Judge instruction above all else. Tell me why your argument comes first (framing, recency, more contextualized, etc.) or why winning x part of the flow wins you the rest, and do the opposite to your opponent's framing. A long 2AR/2NR overview that identifies the 2-3 biggest issues to resolve is much more instructive to me than blasting off a pre-written block. I fully believe that the focus of the debate is completely up to the debaters to determine and will decide it only on what the flow says, not what I think it should say.
• When resolving arguments for either side, I tend to view it kind of like debate math. If one side has a full extension of their argument (claim, warrant, ev) and the other side is incomplete (claim, warrant, no ev), then I default to the side that has a more complete explanation of their argument. In scenarios where debating is equal, I listen to judge instruction and read evidence when necessary, but this a rarity. I hate having to insert my own beliefs about debate in order to decide which argument is better, which is why direct argument comparison and judge instruction are the most important things to do when I'm judging you.
• I flow straight down and heavily decide debates based on technical execution, so responding to the arguments in the order that they come in is preferable to me. However, I am completely fine with you going in your own order as long as you clearly state what argument you're responding to and still directly engage your opponent's arguments.
• I don't have the docs open during the debate and only refer to them during cx to read ev or if the debate is really close. I'm comfortable flowing any speed, but will not hesitate to say in the RFD that I could not catch an argument because the analytics were unflowable or the argument did not make sense. Please do not spread your analytics as if they're cards.
• Capable of writing a clear RFD for any style of debate, but my advice for improvement is better if critical literature is introduced. I only read K-oriented arguments in college, but was a flex/policy-leaning debater in high school.
• Following the above ensures that good, technical debating always overrides my personal beliefs (hate capitalism and psychoanalysis but vote on them all the time its concerning)
• No judge kick make your own decisions, inserting rehighlights is fine with me on the condition that you explain what the rehighlight says using quotes from the ev.
• Speaker points start at a 28.5 and move up and down according to execution: Rebuttals > Organization > Strategic pivots/ concessions > Sounding like you want to be here > Winning Cross-ex moments is probably my list of priorities when thinking about it
• boo being a bad person to your opponents booooo. i'm all for debaters standing on business, petty throwdowns, etc., but i am not for full-on disrespecting your opponents simply for the sake of it. every debate is a performance and you should be aware of how you come off.
• Format stuff -- title ur email chains [Tournament Name - Round x - Team A -Aff- v. Team B -Neg-), pls put ev in a doc before sending it out, etc.

Argument Preferences

I appreciate debaters who stick to their convictions and are confident in their ability to win what they're best at regardless if the judge is predetermined to agree with their set of arguments or not. The following is a list my personal beliefs about debate that only matter if there is a complete absence of judge instruction/technical debating by both sides. Anything that is not addressed just means I'm neutral for both sides about the argument and is overwhelmingly determined by the flow.

K Affs - Affs should be clear about the method/epistemological shift from the status quo they defend and why it challenges the impacts/theory of power outlined in the 1AC. I'm better for method-based K Affs than solely epistemological ones because I think the latter is susceptible to presumption arguments since I'm usually unsure about the scale that is required for the epistemological shift to solve the 1AC's impacts and why the aff is uniquely key. Method-based affs should be prepared to debate impact turns.

K Aff v. Framework - I strongly prefer a counter-interpretation than just a impact turn strategy. What it means to be resolutional must be defined in the 2AC through definitions or a different vision for engagement. I also strongly prefer that the counter-interpretation is in reference to models of debate established by scholars in the activity (DSRB’s Three Tier, Elijah Smith’s KFM, Amber Kelsie’s Blackened Debate, etc.). I think there is enough history of debate established for us to have substantive debates over the pros/cons of traditional/non-traditional models of debate.

Framework v. K Affs - Clash/Skills with Fairness as an internal link instead of as an impact on its own. SSD over TVA unless you have a solvency advocate. A combination of limits arguments and no clash turning the case is needed in order to win these debates in front of me. The only "engage the aff's case" I require is defense agains the aff's theory of power and their "ballot key" arguments since those two are usually cross-applied to become offense against framework.

K v. K - The biggest thing to clarify is how competing visions/demands about society structure your offense against each side of the debate. Each form of offense should have a material example of how your theoretical distinctions manifest into real impacts.

PIKs - Affs should always explain that the component that the negative has PIK'd out of is necessary for aff solvency, and that the PIK is a worse version because of it. Offense by the aff is often underdeveloped and I wish neg teams would be less afraid to go for PIKs since its usually cleaner than other flows.

Policy Affs - 2ACs overviews need to explain what the plan does and why it solves the impacts of the 1AC as opposed to just impact calculus at the top. Negative teams should be more willing to go for analytics that call out wonky internal link chains and solvency claims.

Extinction Affs v. K - Affs should defend the representations of their plan beyond "if we win case then reps true + extinction outweighs" by thoroughly explaining why the impact scenario is true as opposed to the 2AR saying "no case defense, flow our stuff through for us". I truly don't understand the new trend for every debater to rattle off "debate doesnt shape subjectivity + fairness is nice" and think that its sufficient to beat the K without addressing the link or the alt. I'd much rather hear a 2AR that substantively defends the case and impact turns the links. I absolutely hate when heg teams say "china evil cus uyghurs" or "russia evil" and refuse to acknowledge their hypocrisy in defending the United States (enslavement, genocide, current support of Israel, just history and today in general.). If you want to win heg good in front of me, I need a substantive impact turn to the link and an offensive push for why the alternative on the K is worse than the status quo, not just "fwk - weigh the aff".

Soft-Left Affs v. K - These are my favorite debates to judge. Affs should spend more time explaining why the case is a good form of harm reduction as opposed to trying to beat the ontology of the K with "progress possible + pessimism bad" arguments. I usually think that these arguments do nothing for the aff since none of the cards are about the case, and they'd be better off explaining why the aff is better than the status quo even if the neg's ontology is correct, and that a perm would resolve the links enough.

K v. Policy - K teams should have a "link turns case argument" even if the 2NR is a huge framework push, but I prefer the strategy to extend an alt that solves the case and resolves the link debate. Case defense is appreciated. I'm not the best for K 2NR's that invest most of their time into the ontology debate because I think its better for neg teams to go for specific links that turn the case or have an argument that the impacts of the K should come first before the aff, and winning a link means the alt comes first before the aff. At most, I think the ontology of a Kritik should be used to frame which impacts matter most, and it usually does not make-or-break debates for me. I don't require "specific" link evidence versus the aff, but I appreciate link contextualization in the block and I think K's are best when the 2NC/2NR pulls specific lines from the Affs speeches and explain how their method's underlying assumptions turn itself.

Counterplans - Neutral for each side about theory/competition arguments. Counterplans that only rely on internal net benefits are less likely to win in front of me since I think a combination of aff theory + a permutation can beat it.

Disadvantages - PLEASE INTRODUCE IMPACT CALCULUS IN THE 2AC/2NC, I hate when the first time I'm hearing it is in the rebuttal speeches from both sides. Direct evidence comparison above all else, i appreciate an overview of the impact scenario at the top of each speech. I'm a lot more concerned by whose impact scenario has more overall risk of occurring than a "turns the case/DA" argument.

LAMDL/UDL Stuff

• ONLY TO LAMDL/OTHER UDL KIDS - Email me with questions, speech redoes, questions about debate, and I will try my best to get back to you with advice/feedback. Not having coaches and learning debate by yourself is hard and I can’t guarantee responses all the time but I try to respond to mostly everybody that reaches out to me.
• WIKI RANT - have a wiki up by your 2nd tournament or I’m capping speaks at 29. Cites of the arguments/evidence you have read are the only thing needed, not open source. Not disclosing on the wiki diminishes the quality of debates LAMDL produces and exacerbates the gaps we have in resources as UDL schools, and it does nothing to help up and coming varsity debaters who don’t know how to start prep against teams that refuse to disclose. Debate is competitive and we’re all here to win, but it sucks when part of the reason nobody’s prepped to be negative is because nobody knows what anybody is reading.

other thoughts

• Highlight Color Rankings - Yellow > Blue > custom light pastel color > any other color is ew
• Water > Coffee > any energy drink like Red Bull or Monster is disgusting
• Tagline quality. They’re either unflowable (too long/wordy) or way too flowable (no warrant/2 word). The way people feel about highlighting trends is how I feel about tags. I hope for the perfect middle ground.
• If you run critical arguments about an identity you don’t belong to, I need you to explain what my/your role as a judge/competitor is to that literature, even if the other side never brings it up. I think it’s valuable to understand how we position ourselves in relation to literature that isn’t about us and see how it affects our decisions to use it as an argument, as well as develop ethical relationships to it.
• I think variations of the Cap K (escalante, racial cap, abolition democracy, etc.) are great and the majority of Affs mishandle them. Defending it as a methods debate as opposed to a "cap root cause + extinction ow + state engagement good" strategy is better in front of me and the affs common responses of "racist party + accountability DA + aff theory is root cause of cap" can be easily beat assuming the negative has actually read the literature behind the cap k. Despite the fearmongering by framework teams, the Cap K is a great generic and more teams should be willing to go for it.

SLOW DOWN AT THE TOP OF YOUR 2NR

Top level - Novice

For any novice debate I judge: Stop reading after this paragraph and reread through the evidence in your case instead. Most of what is said below doesn't really apply. The one thing you need to remember to win in front of me is to extend your offense, not just reasons why their case is bad. By offense I mean reasons in a vacuum the resolution is a good or bad idea (or reasons they should lose for reading a non topical plan), e.g., that doing the resolution would boost the economy, or departing from the status quo would cause war in X country. A grave mistake would be giving a rebuttal just on why their authors are wrong or their impacts won't happen. I am not a parent judge, so I can evaluate all of your arguments, and I will try my best to give you feedback on each speech you gave to help you win in the future. You will get good speaker points for using your time, collapsing to winning arguments, making good analytic arguments, and speaking clearly. Please feel free to ask me any questions about my decision after the round.

Top level - Varsity

You get exactly what the tournament specified as your number of minutes of preparation time. You must upload your speech doc and take your hands off your computer before pausing your prep. I will time your prep. The tournament must run on time.

Add me to the email chain: lphunter@usc.edu

I debated in Lincoln-Douglas for 4 years on the national circuit at Loyola High School in Los Angeles. I qualified to the TOC twice. I read policy arguments exclusively. Go for what you want, and if I understand why you won the round, I will vote for you. Spread if you can/want to. Balance clarity, persuasiveness, charisma, logical soundness, and humor to earn the highest possible points. Alternatively, emulate Kentucky BT to the best of your ability. Droppedarguments are true; however, an argument must have a claim, warrant, and impact. If I am not flowing part of the 2NR it's because you already extended an auto-win argument (dropped process CP, dropped T) and the aff cannot win that flow. No reverse voting issue (RVI) will be considered under any circumstances.

Specifics

The aim of the sections below are to benefit your strategy by answering questions you may have about how I evaluate arguments on a theoretical level. I find it disingenuous when judges claim to be tabula rasa so you're left wondering as your prep timer ticks down if they will actually vote for a 1 condo bad 2AR, or if they think ev ethics warrants stopping the round. As such, I will not claim to be completely tabula rasa, and my argumentative ideology is listed below (although it is very light and mostly procedural).

General Strategy

- I will lower your speaker points for poor general strategy. The only thing you should be concerned with is maximizing your probability of winning. Never give a 2NR on the disad + case debate if the 1AR T definition was awful. Never give a 2AR on substance if they dropped condo. Never go for the case push if they've conceded a process counterplan or PIC. Go for alt does the aff if the aff never asked if the K was a floating PIK. Do not get attached to arguments and go for them just because you like them. Anything in the 1NC should be a viable 2NR.

Disads

- Intrinsicness is a legit arg against most politics disads when argued well, but I also went for and won on some of the worst process disads imaginable, so I am fine voting on them.

- Zero risk exists, and if the link evidence is terrible, may be easier to establish than one might think

Counterplans

- Yes judge kick, unless the aff tells me otherwise or the counterplan is unconditional

- More people should read this article, but I will still easily vote on these counterplans if the negative wins it on the flow--I read them a lot my junior and senior years.

- Dispositionality should mean that if the aff challenges the link of competition (i.e., makes a permutation) the negative can kick the counterplan, regardless of what else the affirmative reads. Other "dispositions" are effectively condo.

- Add-ons are not legitimate in LD because the neg should not get new planks in the 2nr (which creates bad debates)

- The 1AR should, in 99% of instances, read as much theory against the counterplan as possible AND be prepared to go for these shells. If you do not do this, I will comment on this choice in my RFD. (By as much theory as possible, I don't mean nonsense like "Must spec status in speech" or "must highlight in blue")

T

- Please go for it more often. At USC 2024, I think the neg would've automatically won like 3 rounds if they had gone for T-Substantial because the aff interpretation was not mutually exclusive with the neg's

- No RVIs ever: This is the only hard and fast rule I have in debate because allowing them to even be debated puts the neg in a position where half the 2NR must always be T no matter what

- Heavily restrictive interps (Nebel T) are probably necessary given how poorly many LD resolutions are worded, but good affs can beat this with reasonable case lists or a predictable counter-interpretation combined with over-limiting offense

- I don't understand the one line independent voter people read about enforcing grammar being a reason to drop the team for racism when the rest of their args probably use good grammar. I will almost certainly not vote on this argument

Theory

- If you would read it in front of Andrew Overing, read it in front of me--We agree on more than would be apparent in this paradigm. Counterplan theory is usually a decent 2AR when the 2NR undercovers. Spec is not as bad as some might say.

- No, you cannot win on an RVI here either.

- The only out of round theory violations considered will be issues concerning the disclosure of arguments (no "you were mean on Facebook 2 weeks ago and should now lose").

K

- Read at your own risk, but if it's the only 2NR, go for it: I will try my best to evaluate objectively, but know that in 99% of cases, I either think your critique is wrong, or I do not understand it. Thankfully, I don't judge debates based on what I think is right or wrong, only by what was won.

- Almost every alt can become a floating PIK, so go for it if they forgot to read floating PIKs bad.

- Framework is generally pretty convincing, and I've never been on the other side of a framework debate

- I don't understand the opposition to conditional Ks in particular.

- Role of the ballot = roll of the eyes.

Ev Ethics

- If you stake the round on it--29.5 for whoever wins the challenge, lowest possible for the loser.

- If the issue is something you do not feel confident staking the round on, you are free to read it as a theory shell

- NO CLIPPING

Misc

- I have never seen an independent voting issue that I actually believed was a reason to vote against someone. Please stop making these arguments, unless your opponent actually does something bad.

- I am fine with wacky arguments--spark, wipeout, death good, etc. as long as they are researched and argued well. I probably went for spark more than anyone else in the 2020-21 season. Indopak and US-Russia war good were other favorites.

- Reading "prefer realism" followed by justifications for classical, as well as structural, realism is incoherent. Pick a single theory of IR if you must.

- Do not provide trigger warnings for anything

- I judge similarly to my former teammates Ben Cortez, Braden Masih, Sameer Nayyar, Andrew Pribe, and Andrew Overing, so if you pref them, pref me as well. The judges whose ideologies have influenced my view of debate the most were my TDI lab--the Dosch's, Whit Jackson, and Rex Evans, though I am not as good of a judge as any of these.

- The only argument I paradigmatically refuse to vote on are RVIs; I will not stop the round for arguments commonly viewed as bad, e.g., racism/sexism/death good. If these arguments are so bad, you should be able to defeat them on your own.

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! :)

Hw 27'

TOC x1

I am in my second year of LD at Harvard-Westlake

Add me to the email chain: kaison.maruyama@gmail.com but speechdrop is also fine

TLDR:

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

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

- Be nice to your opponents

- Don't change your strat based off of me! Read whatever and ill do my best

- I like smart cx questions

Specific Preferences -

1 - LARP

I really like creative and fun DA's/CP's but also love the generics. That being said, if I can't explain to you what the CP does / how it competes at the end of the round we will have a problem :(

I also love fun impact/link turns! I honestly prefer 15 analytics and cards on case + 2 DA's over 6 DA's and 1 card on case.

1 - Topicality

I love topicality! I have lots of experience going for T and love hearing good T 2nrs. I think T debates can also get very messy so please remember to have a clear interp and violation in the nr and have clear offensive reasons why your interp is better.

1/2 - K's

I like K's but they can sometimes be very confusing. I have experience reading Cap, Fem IR, Setcol, Security, and some Afropess. Please contextualize the link to the aff and clash with your opponents arguments!! I don't like 5 min OVs and think that you should spend more time on the LBL.

2 - K affs

For the WANA topic I have read a K aff almost every round and like them. I think that you should have a reason why debate/the ballot is key to your advocacy and isolate specific reasons why reps matter.

2/3 - Trad

I don't have a ton of experience doing trad debate but I used to do MSPDP which is somewhat similar

2/3 - Theory

I don't have many strong preferences in terms of theory arguments and everything from T applies.

4 - Phil

Uh, I don't know a lot about phil but am open to learning more! Lean towards overexplination here.

Strike - Tricks >:(

Any questions? email me!!!!

I am a senior at UCLA. I am a double major in Computer Science and Mathematics. I have limited debate experience, mostly constrained to observation and judging. I also have 6 years of experience as a secondary school and early college tutor, mostly in mathematics and technical writing areas. Furthermore, I have a strong technical and formal writing background in CS, Mathematics, and Philosophy (logic and logic-adjacent fields). I am especially interested in formal logics and their applications.

LD is my favorite event.

Since I'm relatively new to debate, I may not be familiar with all event-specific jargon, or topic literature. I have learned many of these things quickly, but please err on the side of caution or I may not understand a position of yours as well as you would like.

As a judge, my focus is substantive and logical argument over rhetoric. That's not to say that I completely disregard rhetoric in debate, but rather, that I believe debate is an academic endeavor aimed at discovering the truth on some matter. Therefore, I think clear definitions, logical argumentation, and coherence and consistency. Most rhetorical devices should be reserved for aiding a listener in following the development of a well-constructed and logical argument (e.g. analogy, metaphor, etc. where appropriate). In general, I am likely to give preference to well-constructed and logical arguments over ones which rely heavily on rhetoric and non-logical rhetorical devices.

TLDR: I subscribe to the idea that debates should have a basic adherence to first order logic, reasonability, and common sense, and that LD in particular should not be a biased event (favoring either the aff or the neg in an equal-skill round, under a typical debate-interpretation of skill). I completely admit that this paradigm may be considered very interventionist by some less traditional debaters. Recall that debate is intended to be judged by members of the general public, and is not debate for debate's sake. To think otherwise is to deprive the activity of the majority of its purpose.

I try to evaluate LD on the following framework:

Constructions: I flow the verbal constructions, not the documents. I will not look at any documents you send me. Please note this in conjunction with my stance on spreading (below). Constructions are the foundation of the debate. Anything that is a voter was in a construction, or has foundation in it. That does not mean everything in the construction is a voter. But, any position in the construction could be a voter. In particular, presence or foundation in a construction is requisite to being a voter. The immediate consequence of this view is that I do not vote on arguments introduced without foundation in later speeches. This includes evidence that is on a card or a document or other medium, but not in the verbal construction. Furthermore, your opponent does not even need to point out a position introduced later without foundation. I will simply ignore any and all discussion which lacks foundation from the first two speeches in the debate.

Constructions are also the only place where you may establish your framework. Framework positions given in rebuttals, without foundation in a construction, will be ignored.

Cross Examination: I don't flow cross. Cross is for you to prepare your next speech. Q/A in cross does not serve as foundation for a voter in a later speech if it was not brought back up in the speech immediately following your cross. This is particularly relevant for the neg - if your cross vanishes in your 1NR, it vanishes from the debate. Same is true for the aff on the 1AR; however the foundation for arguments in the 2AR should be in the 1AC and the 1NR, regardless of what happens in cross.

Rebuttals: All flowed. You can expect that most (but not necessarily all) voters will be issues extended in a rebuttal speech. This includes not only the 2AR and the 2NR, but also the 1AR. However, I reserve the right to vote on points in a constructive which are not addressed by one side or the other, especially if their magnitude was made out to be large. Furthermore, you can expect it will be rare, but in a close debate (e.g. the rebuttal speeches are complete washes) I may vote on issues which were only in the constructives. You may think of this in the following way: Voters in later speeches will generally have larger magnitude when I decide the round.

Symmetric rebuttals, without further substantiation in the form of evidence or in lieu of logical refutation of your opponent's position, will be considered a wash and not voted on. So you can give a symmetric argument (e.g. aff says housing -> employment and neg says employment -> housing) and I will simply draw the sides on that point, unless one side does more work to say why the other side is wrong.

Furthermore, conditional arguments may become voters if I feel that your attempt at using conditionality is just to avoid a concession. For example, saying "that argument was conditional, so I'm dropping it" in your 2NR, after the aff has rebutted you in the 1AR, is probably not going to fly. Strategic concessions are just that - concessions. It is certain that if such a 'conditional' argument, as described in the example, is addressed in the 2AR that it is going to become a voter (or not a voter, depending on what is being argued) in favor of the aff, regardless of whether an appeal in the 2AR was made to the content of the argument itself or to the theoretical issue of conditionality.

Voters: So far we have that for an issue to be a voter it must have foundation in a constructive (from either side). Additionally, the following may disqualify an issue from being a voter without a squeak from your opponent:

• Circular arguments. The following schema is circular: p -> (a1 -> a2 -> ... -> an) -> p ~ p -> p. Why are circular arguments bad? Because they hinge on the truth of the premise which is being assumed. Which I, as a judge, know nothing about. That is, you have not convinced anyone of any truth - so I cannot vote on it. Non-trivial circular arguments may not be discarded if your opponent does not point them out (e.g. arguments where n is large in the above schema). An example of a trickily-constructed circular argument, that would be discarded without mention from the opponent, is the following: "If shelters worked, why would we be debating the right to housing? Therefore, shelters do not work." Veiling circular arguments with rhetorical devices (such as rhetorical questions) will not work.
• Otherwise logically invalid arguments, which are trivially invalid (see validity here). Trivial meaning the scheme of the argument is sufficiently simple that I could write its truth table in a few seconds. An example of a trivially invalid schema is the following: a1 -> a2. a1. ergo a3. Another example: a1 -> a2. ~a1. ergo ~a2 (this is the converse, an extremely common example I see). However, complicated invalid arguments may be voted on if your opponent does not point out their invalidity. Note that I do not require that your arguments be sound.
• Tautological arguments are not voters (p or ~p, "the car is red or it is not red"), unless your framework explicitly excludes first order logic. Word of warning: if your framework excludes first-order logic, you need to define your logic, or I won't be able to flow any of your points effectively. Generally considered to be dangerous territory.
• Deliberately contradictory positions are not voters. Basic adherence to logic means adhering to p or ~p.
• Evidence violations. Generally as according to the NSDA handbook. However this is something that usually needs to be explicitly brought to my attention, because I don't read any documents.
• Ad homs. Will never be voted on. Ever. No exceptions. e.g. "my opponent is unprepared for this debate".
• Framework. I will never vote on framework alone. Framework is a mechanism to establish the magnitude and probability of an impact (e.g. both debaters agree on utilitarianism as a value criterion so the magnitude of their impacts will be judged on whichever helps the greatest amount of people). I will never vote on something like "utilitarianism is better than pragmatism" directly.
• Not obviously topical, without justification that it indeed is. For example: You are the aff, the resolution is "Should the United States Government guarantee the right to housing", and your "construction" consists of one fact each about 256 different animals. If you do not clearly establish how these animal facts support the resolution, you are going to lose. In this case, the neg doesn't even have to win - you will just lose, because you have no voters under my paradigm.
• I couldn't flow it because you spoke too fast or unclearly. Returns to such an issue in rebuttals will be considered to lack foundation unless your opponent deliberately concedes the foundation. This may be an issue while spreading (above 350 wpm). May be resolved if your opponent understood the point and debates you on it, such that I am able to piece it together. That is, you have the benefit of the doubt here.
• In order to understand your points it would take me more time to consider them than there is in the speech, or you use words that are so incredibly uncommon I do not know them (e.g. "supererogatory") and therefore cannot understand what you are saying. This largely falls under the above - I won't be able to flow it. This additionally applies to word-salad. I probably will write a question mark. I have before. Clarity, please.
• Platitudes are not voters on their own. Justify. Justify. Justify.

How debates will be decided based on the voters:

I decide based on expected values of (the surviving, subject to the above disqualifications) issues and impacts. That is, probability and magnitude (and sign, could be negative impact). Both of these are subject to framework. So, if you win on framework, and your probability and magnitude under your framework are bigger, you are going to do well. If nobody wins on framework, then I will default to epistemic modesty, where probability of an impact becomes the conditional probability given the likelihood of the framework. The likelihood of a framework is something you should argue for. The probabilities I decide can also be a function of the soundness (strength of links) of an argument itself, if they are independent of the framework.

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

Below this point you can find my wishn't list. This list consists things which will largely impact your speaks, but in severe cases will impact voting.

• Extinction. You better have a good case. E.g, probability for the argument "homelessness causes nuclear war" is quite low, so the expected value is going to be near-zero by default.
• Theory debates. Unless they are clearly warranted. Especially applies to opening with theory in your 1AC.
• Plan affs trying to prove generality from a single instance. This scheme is invalid (there exists x, blah, therefore for all x, blah). You are at risk of losing all possible voters in your case
• Too many positions. Hard to flow. Easy to discount. Dilutes magnitude. Substance over quantity, please. Expounding deeply on a few positions is generally better than adopting very many and say very little about each. You have a time limit - use it wisely.
• Spreading (>350 wpm). Often lacks clarity. If I can't flow it, I can't vote on it.

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

Other notes

• Status quo arguments, especially ones that argue for solvency, may open your argument to judgement under the common experience (i.e. my opinion) unless mechanisms for how solvency is achieved are clearly laid out.
• I like aff implementation (usually not plan aff). Some of the LD issues seem difficult to argue without at least tacit points about implementation. Plans will also help you solve, and if you solve you are likely to win the round.
• Counterplans good. But they should a) only be introduced if the aff has a plan and b) be competitive with the aff plan. Introducing a cp without the aff espousing a plan is introducing an argument without foundation (i.e. you are negating nothing).
• I am very open to post-round questions from contestants.
• If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask me before the round.

adammimou82@gmail.com

Assistant LD coach for Peninsula HS

tech over truth - i will flow all arguments and vote on what you extend into your final speeches.

"like many before me I have decided that I am not a fan of cop-out or cheap shot strategies designed to avoid clash and pick up an easy ballot. This means my threshold for an argument that is warranted and implicated is much higher and I feel more comfortable giving an RFD on 'I don't know why x is true per the 2ar/2nr.' If you would like to thoroughly explain why creating objective moral truths is impossible or why disclosing round reports is a good norm then please feel free to do so, but 10 seconds of 'they dropped hidden AFC now vote aff' isn't going to cut it" - lizzie su

i do not feel confident in my ability to evaluate the following debates:

-phil ac vs phil nc

-k aff vs non cap kritik

-phil ac vs kritik

non-condo theory shells are dta unless otherwise justified

convinced by reasonability - affs need a c/i

i tend to read a lot of evidence - spending more time reading quality evidence will serve you well

better for framework 2nrs that go for fairness

i try not to be expressive in round if i make any facial expressions it is probably unrelated

usc '26 (NDT/CEDA Policy)

edina '23 (HS Policy)

he/him

Hi! My name is Sabeeh and I am a freshman at USC. In high school I did policy on the MN and nat circ. I worked at NSD Philly as an LD lab leader summer of 2023. TLDR: I flow and will judge the round in front of me, regardless of my argumentative preferences.

-----

Please add me to the chain -- sabeehmirza05@gmail.com -- if you have any questions before or after a round feel free to email.

Don't be racist, homophobic, ableist, sexist, etc.

I will not vote for an argument that I do not understand or that I cannot explain at the end of the round. Both of us will be unhappy with my decision.

I have no problem with speed, but you need to be clear. There should be a distinction between your card and tag voice. Give me an indicator if you are moving on to the next card (ie. AND, NEXT, etc).

tech>truth

General Stuff

Overview

I have gone for a big stick aff, a soft left aff, and a non-T/planless aff all in the same year - don't feel like you have to adapt for me. I'm not ideologically opposed to most arguments. Do not read anything that will make the round an unsafe place.

DA/CP

I won't judgekick unless you tell me to. Not a ton that needs to be said here otherwise.

Ks

My knowledge and experience is mainly in set col, militarism/imperialism, security, and cap. I can evaluate other Ks, but will just need more explanations. Don't be afraid to kick the alt and go for framework if you're winning it. I won't default to a "middle of the road" framework unless a debater introduces one, or unless the framework debate is truly irresolvable.

For kaffs: I've both read a kaff and gone for T against them -- I don't think that I am particularly picky on arguments. Kaffs need to be conscious of presumption -- I need to know what voting aff does and/or what it endorses.

T/Theory

Make my ballot as clear as possible. Make the violation clear, show me in round abuse.

I don't have a good number of condo that I will stand firmly by. It's more about how it's debated as opposed to how many condo.

To win a theory shell, I need to have flowed it (read: slow down and be clear).

LD

1 - Policy

1 - Ks

2 - Trad

4 - Phil and Tricks (will need HEAVY explanation and judge instruction)

*Frivolous theory is not something I particularly want to judge/vote for, but will do it if it wins the flow (my threshold for voting on a friv theory shell is high)

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!

hi! my name is shea (he/him)

put me on the email chain: shea.rueda@gmail.com

I debated with The Bishop's School for 3 years and Capitol Debate before that. I did PF and LD in high school (mainly LD) and I currently compete with USC in college policy. I have experience debating on the national circuit but also a lot of local lay type of tournaments.

*Novice*

Novice debaters: You can basically ignore the rest of my paradigm besides this section.

• Make sure to clearly tell me which argument you are talking about during your speeches (ex: "On first contention, we have three responses here..."). I always found that giving my judges a brief off time roadmap was helpful for organization.
• I know debate can be heated at times, but please remember to be respectful and courteous to your opponents (and your partner!) before, during, and after the round.
• I will keep time but also try to keep your own time as well, it's a good habit.
• Please don't interrupt your opponents speech to say that they went over time or set a timer that goes off really loud. I promise that I'll notice when they go over time and stop flowing.
• In your final focus (even summary), I would advise you to not go for every single argument in the round--talk about the most important points of the round and tell me why you're winning there.
• Make sure to to not assume that the judge automatically believes something (ex: don't just say that the impact of the argument is climate change, tell me why climate change is bad and why it's the most important argument).
• Weight between different arguments. Tell me which impact has the most magnitude or probability to happen. Extra speaker points if y'all get into why your weighing mechanism that you're winning is more important than your opponents!
• If your evidence clashes with your opponents, tell me why you should prefer your evidence (author credentials, recency, they misinterpret the text).
• Ask for evidence during prep time. If there's a dispute over evidence I will check it post round.

TLDR:

1- Policy/Traditional

2/3- Cap, Set Col, and Pess

3-Theory/T

4-Other Ks

5-Phil

Strike-Tricks

General:

Tab approach, don't assume I know or believe almost anything

I debated mostly policy args in high school, I'm most comfortable with this. I ran a bit of theory and some Ks infrequently

i'm good with you recording the round, ask your opponent

PLEASE SIGNPOST, it's really annoying trying to flow when I don't know which flow you're talking about and I'm not that fast at typing or writing lol

Being sarcastic is fine with me, but being rude or overly abrasive during the round will dock your speaks + L for egregious violations

Speed: slow down on analytics and tags (like 30% slower than on cards)

I will say slow or clear like 4 times before I start docking speaks

Tech> Truth but please still explain throughly in later speeches what arg was dropped, why that matters, etc

BUT if your arg is just inherently and blatantly wrong I won't vote on that

Serious evidence ethics claims will stop the round

I love weighing work done early and often, but esp in the later speeches

Crystalize in the last speech, tell me why you're winning

I default to 1ar theory is fine and no rvis but I would be open to voting on those

Ask for cards during prep time

I'm not gonna vote for death good

Pre round disclosure is a good norm, but I'm not gonna buy your shell if the arg is new

I think avg/middle of the pack speaks should be around 27.5

Policy/Traditional

I did this the most in high school and I'm most comfortable with this

I'm gonna get really bored by the end of the tournament, run a unique arg

I usually don't buy "no risk of the DA" but its possible if you explain it

CPs: Be explicit with the solvency, what it is, how it solves the aff

PICs, Agent, Consult, Process CPs are good, but i'm willing to hear theory about why it isn't

K

I like both K affs and negs, I think some of the best educational experiences for me in debate have come out of these rounds

K on the neg: I'll consider generic links but it's that much easier for me to also buy a "no link" arg. Tell me how you generate offense in the later speeches.

Like CPs, be specific with the solvency, why it solves the link/aff

Theory/T

Don't run a billion shells against a novice or traditional debater, like bruh.

I default to reject the arg, not the team, tell me why to reject the team

Weighing between standards is k2 my ballot

Default to presumption flows neg, but tell me why it doesn't

TVAs are compelling

Phil

I hit Kant a fair amount, but I never ran phil myself, assume I know nothing and over explain

Author indicts to phil are compelling to me, but only when you explain why the indict proves their theories are problematic/wrong and why that means we should reject.

+0.1 speaks If you make a Celtics reference