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 :).

diegojflores02@gmail.com

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

Coach Huntington Park High School

I prefer the last 2 rebuttals to start with a big-picture overview about the core issues that need to be resolved followed by efficient, technical line-by-line. There should be a blend of tech, persuasiveness, and good ethos moments in order to win the debate. When debates are close and I am comparing arguments, I look at their construction (claim, evidence, warrant, framing/judge instruction). If one side has more components and a more complete argument, it is more likely they win. If both sides are equal, then that is when my understanding of what's true is used to evaluate who has won that specific argument on the flow.

I don't care what you read, only how. I enjoy debate because of the work that is produced from all sides. I almost despise some of the arguments people like to read (ie heg good) but appreciate the work it takes and will evaluate it equally because my flow decides who wins, not my personal beliefs. I was successful in high school as a flex policy-leaning debater and in college as only K-oriented.

These are some of my beliefs about debate that are usually in the back of my head depending on the debate I'm judging:

*Critical affirmatives need a solid counter-model of debate. I believe in the benefits of clash and a stasis point from which all teams can prepare from, but just as much believe that the content that derives from that stasis point matters.

*Policy teams with big stick impacts should stop being weasels about their "reps." Defend them and go rah rah patriot cus you're not foolin me or anybody else, it would make debates more fun than "i need fiat, extinction go brr look at my case"

*Critical debaters should provide more examples of the connections between the impacts to the link / the alternative and real life. I'm not a fan of debates that get real heavy into theory v. theory k's without tying it back.

*no judge kick do it yourself, pls more overview / storytelling on the da, down for t debates but go slower

*silly theory like multiple perms bad floating piks good mwah ha ha ha

LAMDL Debaters

disclose on the wiki (unless its new) or im capping speaks <28.7. it deprives both sides of better debates, widens the gap between debaters who go to camp and those who don't, and disincentivizes new varsity teams from trying to be better.

Updated for Loyola 2024

Top Level

SLOW DOWN AT THE TOP OF YOUR 2NR. Your T/disad/counterplan/case overview should be delivered much slower than your 1NC. I cannot understand an overview delivered at the same speed as 1NC evidence. My being able to understand what ballot story you are extending is more important than blitzing through 3 more reasons your uniqueness evidence is the greatest evidence in the history of evidence, possibly ever.

4 years VLD experience at Loyola in LA; 2x TOC qual, went to TDI, very familiar with west coast style args. I read policy arguments exclusively. Go for what you want, and if I understand why you won the round, I will vote for you. Balance clarity, persuasiveness, charisma, logical soundness, and humor to earn the highest possible points. Low points for unclear and monotonous debaters who read a 6 minute prewritten 2NR with a lot of cards. Dropped arguments are true; however, an argument must have a claim, warrant, and impact. Please go for dropped insta-win arguments over your favorite disad that they read 10 responses to. No reverse voting issue (RVI) will be considered under any circumstances. Do not provide trigger warnings for anything. I give longer than average verbal RFDs, but I do not type much on tabroom, so take notes if you want to refer back to it.

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. The tournament must run on time.

Use the tabroom speech sharing link instead of email. Most school emails scan files sent over networks, so email is often unusably slow.

Disads

- Intrinsicness is legit. Politics is winnable though.

- Zero risk exists, and is quite common in probability

- Open to arguments that extinction does not have infinite magnitude

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

- 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. This is because a counterplan is functionally a disadvantage where the link is competition, so conceding this no link argument should get the neg out of the offense the aff reads. Other "dispositions" are effectively condo and should be pointed out as such.

- Add-ons are not legitimate

- Fine voting on all counterplan theory

T

- Always a solid 2NR choice. Equally persuaded by n-factorial affs and specific affs being unfair.

Theory

- If you would read it in front of Andrew Overing, you can 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 winnable.

- The only out of round theory violations considered shall concern the disclosure of arguments. You can read disclosure against people not on the wiki.

K

- 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. I have had zero exposure to critical theory in college. Not a fan of America/the west/society/objective truth bad Ks. I think many of these Ks can be dismantled by smart common sense aff analytics. This doesn't mean I won't vote on a setcol K, but I may give the aff more leeway than other judges.

- Many alt can become a floating PIK, so go for it if they forgot to read floating PIKs bad. This is your easiest route to the ballot when reading a K.

- I haven't thought about K tech in a long time. If you are giving a K 2NR, slow down and walk me through exactly what I am voting on.

- Role of the ballot = roll of the eyes.

- Framework is a true argument. But do true arguments always win?

Ev Ethics

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

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. Independent voter wall of shame: "Saying we should keep bases in Korea and Okinawa to entice military recruits is a voting issue", "Saying 'blind' is ableist and a voting issue", "saying [this everyday word I put on my wiki] in round is a voting issue", "not providing a trigger warning is a voting issue", "reading T is a voting issue because grammar is racist"

- I have no problem 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 because I believe it is a highly strategic argument in LD. 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.

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

won dsds3 and finaled ukso

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

- here is my wiki so you can see what I have read

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 Identity Stuff. 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

Like performance affs just explain why your aff has a place in the activity/why you aren’t defending the rez. If your main 2ar strat going into the round is “they did a racism!!!11!11!1” then you should rework the aff.

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.

Good for all policy arguments. Okay with kritiks that disprove the affirmative with links to the plan or its justifications. Below average with non-Kantian philosophy positions, but I will try my best. Not good for theory or tricks.

Convinced by reasonability – affirmatives need a counter-interpretation.

I tend to read a lot of evidence, so spending more time reading quality evidence will serve you well.

I try not to be expressive in the 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 sophomore at USC. In high school I did policy on the MN and nat circ. I worked at NSD as an LD lab leader summer of 2023 & 2024. 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

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 will vote for anything that wins the flow so long as it does not compromise the safety of anyone in round.

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. 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. This should be the top of the 1ar and 2ar.

T/Theory

I will vote based off of the flow -- spreading through dense analytics is a bad idea.

LD

1 - Policy

1 - Ks

2 - Trad

2 - Theory

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

*I will vote for tricks, but they need to be warranted when they are read and you need to be clear about the implication

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