Yes put me on the chain: grantandersondebate@gmail.com

I can't believe I have to say this but if you send a google doc that doesn't allow downloads or copy and paste I will dock your speaks and be more receptive to theory arguments that the other team makes.

The most important thing:

The most important part of debate is participation, so if you're going to be a jerk to me, your partner, or your opponents, you will lose speaks. Remember that everyone comes to debate from a different starting point, just because you debated in middle school doesn't mean you are a better person than everyone else. For the other side of that coin, I'll try and be as nice as possible and just remember that one bad round in your second tournament doesn't mean that debate isn't for you or that you should quit. I've found myself there plenty of times but I've always come back to debate, it will be OK.

To all novices I am judging:

If you are reading my paradigm you are doing a good job, I'm probably going to tell you to read it anyway so nice job :).

Onto my actual paradigm:

FLOW

I've run most args at one point or another. I will be fine with literally whatever, just explain it well.*

Do impact calc and explain your link chain. If you can do line by line that would be great.

Just don't drop arguments, this will literally win you most of your debates, flowing, line by line, and analytics will help you.

*this is mostly true as long as you aren't racist sexist, homophobic, advocate for self harm etc.

PREP:Prep ends when you press save on your word doc or share on your google doc. If you are talking to your partner about anything debate related that isn't a tech problem you should be running prep.

One last thing:Remember to chill out, this is a debate round, you're going to be ok no matter what happens, and the other people in this room are your friends.

PS:If you bring up the 2013 cheese wiz incident at Patty's Birthday Party in North Dakota you will lose the round and I will be telling Wayne Tang about you.

GBN '24

Dartmouth '28

2A/1N, she/her. Please do not address me in the second person.

In accordance with guidance from my employer, please use a SpeechDrop or Tabroom initiated fileshare, NOT an email chain.

Everyone should aim to make the round an enjoyable and educational opportunity.

Flow.

Tech > truth. However, I will not vote on racism/sexism/etc good or things that happen outside the round.

Complete arguments should have a claim, warrant, and impact. I will not evaluate arguments that do not have a claim, warrant, and impact.

You do you in terms of argument type/style/performance and I'll make my decision based on the line by line at the end of the debate and try to be as least interventionist as possible. Judge instruction shouldn't be missing from any type of debating.

I do however, find myself increasingly annoyed by "gotcha" based strategies (like hidden ASPEC or animal wipeout). I'll (begrudgingly) vote on just about anything, but higher speaker points go to well thought out strategies (ideally topic specific).

I will flow on paper without the doc open. I will read evidence at the end of the round if the line by line does not sufficiently yield a decision or when explicitly instructed to do so in the final rebuttals. This means if I miss something, that's on you for not articulating, going too fast, etc.

Predispositions:

T -

I worked at DDI over the summer and judge a fair number of debates, but I still have very little knowledge of what the T landscape looks like for this topic. Be specific, slow down, and explain your arguments thoroughly.

Voting to normatively limit the topic is less persuasive to me if the negative argues I should ignore predictability.

Instruction on how I should read evidence in the round is important.

Reasonability must be adequately warranted.

CPs:

Fine for process counterplans (I went to GBN lets be real), but realistically lean aff on permutations, especially if the counterplan text is obviously plan plus, fiats the plan, etc.

I would prefer specific counterplan strategies over 400+ advantage counterplan planks.

Theory:

Condo is the only reason to reject the team not the argument (probably). However, keep in mind "reject the argument not the team" is a warrantless claim.

DAs:

I greatly enjoying judging these debates.

Ks:

I am better for Ks that depend on thoroughly explained links, especially if the theory revolves around identity, economics, ecology, etc. than high theory/post-modernism. I vote for the K more than I anticipated. I am immensely frustrated with the mutilation of critical theory in how they are deployed as debate arguments.

T-USFG/Framework:

I have rarely gone for non-T positions against planless/K affs. This means I have limited experience in K v K or other strategies and will require a greater degree of guidance if you go for these strategies.

LD Tricks:

why?

Feel free to ask questions about my decisions. But keep in mind that debate is ultimately a communicative, persuasive activity, and if I have voted against you, that means you have failed to communicate to me the merits of your argument no matter how good you thought your debating was. In other words, stay humble ☺️

Have fun and good luck!

Pronouns - him/he\they
Email(s) - abraham.corrigan@gmail.com, catspathat@gmail.com

Hello!

Thank you for considering me for your debate adjudication needs! Judging is one of my favorite things & I aspire to be the judge I wanted when I debated, namely one who was flexible and would judge the debate based on arguments made by debaters. To do that, I seek to be familiar with all debate arguments and literature bases such that my own ignorance will not be a barrier to judging the arguments you want to go for. This is an ongoing process and aspiration for me rather than an end point, but in general I would say you should probably pref me.

I'm fun!

Sometimes I even have snacks.

<*Judging Quirks*>

- I have absolutely zero poker face and will make a lot of non verbals. Please do not interpret these as concrete/100% definitive opinions of mine but rather as an expression of my initial attempts to place your argument within the particular context of the other arguments advanced in a debate.

- All arguments are evaluated within their particular context - Especially on the negative, as a debater in high school and college I went for and won a lot of debates on arguments which would be described, in a vacuum, as 'bad.' Sometimes, all you have to say is a turd and your rebuttal speeches will largely be what some of my judges described as 'turd-shinning.' This means (unless something extreme is happening which is unethical or triggering my mandatory reporter status as a public school employee) I generally prefer to let the arguments advanced in the debate dictate my view of what is and what isn't a 'good' argument.

- I am not a 'k' or 'policy' judge. I just like debate.

<*My Debate History*>

I am a 2a. This means, if left to my own devices and not instructed not to look for this, the thing that I will implicitly try to do is identify a way to leave stuff better than we found it.

High School

- I debated at H-F HS, in Illinois, for my first two years of debate where I was coached by creeps.

- My junior & senior year in HS I transfered to Glenbrook South where I was coached most by Tara Tate (now retired from debate), Calum Matheson (now at Pitt), & Ravi Shankar (former NU debater).

My partner and I largely went for agenda politics da & process cps or impact turns. We were a bit k curious, but mostly read what would be described as 'policy' arguments.

College

- I debated in college for 4 years at Gonzaga where I was coached by Glen Frappier (still DoF at GU), Steve Pointer (now [mostly] retired from debate), Jeff Buntin (current DoD at NU), Iz-ak Dunn (currently at ASU), & Charles Olney (now [mostly] retired from debate).

My partner and I largely went for what is now be described as 'soft left' arguments on the affirmative and impact turns and unusual counterplans when we were negative.

Coaching

- After graduating, I coached at Northwestern University for a year. My assignments were largely 2ac answers & stuff related to translating high theory arguments made by other teams into things our less k debaters could understand.

- I then moved to Lexington, Kentucky and coached at the University of Kentucky for two years. My assignments were largely aff & all things 2a & answering k stuff on the negative.

- I then coached/did comm graduate work at Wake Forest for two years.

- I then took a break from debate and worked as a paralegal at a law firm which was focused on civil lawsuits against police, prisons, whistleblower protections as well as doing FOIA requests for Buzzfeed.

- I then came back to debate, did some logistics for UK, then worked as an in building assistant coach at GBS.

- I am currently seeking my Masters Degree in teaching.

In accordance with guidance from my employer, please upload docs to the file share on Tabroom instead of emailing them to me.

I debated at KU and Blue Valley Southwest, I am currently coaching at Glenbrook North

FW

I am heavily persuaded by arguments about why the affirmative should read a topical plan. One of the main reasons for this is that I am persuaded by a lot of framing arguments which nullify aff offense. The best way to deal with these things is to more directly impact turn common impacts like procedural fairness. Counter interpretations can be useful, but the goal of establishing a new model sometimes exacerbates core neg offense (limits).

K

I'm not great for the K. In most instances this is because I believe the alternative solves the links to the aff or can't solve it's own impacts. This can be resolved by narrowing the scope of the K or strengthening the link explanation (too often negative teams do not explain the links in the context of the permutation). The simpler solution to this is a robust framework press.

T

I really enjoy good T debates. Fairness is the best (and maybe the only) impact. Education is very easily turned by fairness. Evidence quality is important, but only in so far as it improves the predictability/reduces the arbitrariness of the interpretation.

CP

CPs are fun. I generally think that the negative doing non-plan action with the USfg is justified. Everything else is up for debate, but well developed aff arguments are dangerous on other questions.

I generally think conditionality is good. I think the best example of my hesitation with conditionality is multi-plank counter plans which combine later in the debate to become something else entirely.

If in cross x you say the status quo is always an option I will kick the counter plan if no further argumentation is made (you can also obviously just say conditional and clarify that judge kick is an option). If you say conditional and then tell me to kick in the 2NR and there is a 2AR press on the question I will be very uncomfortable and try to resolve the debate some other way. To resolve this, the 2AC should make an argument about judge kick.

leah.debate@gmail.com

GBN ‘24

Dartmouth ‘28

What you should know:

1. Read whatever you want to read.

2. I’m not familiar with the IPR topic. I don’t know your acronyms.

3. If I have the doc open, it’s to read your cards and write down authors. I will not use the doc to fill-in speeches that are unclear.

4. The burden for a full argument is claim + warrant. “Extinction” is a claim without a warrant. “Reject the argument, not the team” is also a claim.

5. The above applies to cards. I will read non-highlighted parts of cards if necessary to resolve a relevant contextual question. I will not reconstruct sentences that are highlighted into shreds.

6. I will default to probability x magnitude unless told I should do otherwise. That applies cumulatively across internal link chains.

CPs:

1. I lean aff on competition/theory for CPs that can be read on any topic.

2. I lean neg on counterplans that compete creatively based on a resolutional phrase.

3. Not all, but many theory arguments make more sense when couched in competition.

Theory:

1. Your interpretation matters. I am more persuaded by theory arguments that are specific enough to solve some of the other team’s offense. “Uniform 50 state fiat bad” is more persuasive than “50 state fiat bad.” “3 condo” is more persuasive than “condo is good.

T:

1. I am less persuaded by the argument that I should vote to normatively limit the topic even if unpredictably.

2. I can be persuaded by reasonability, but not if it’s just the aff whining. “Reasonability” is really just an impact to arbitrariness that lowers the bar for “predictability outweighs limits.” That is, if the neg has arbitrarily attempted to exclude the aff in a manner that could easily exclude a different set of affs in a different debate, it might be more “unreasonable” to vote on limits for the sake of limits.

3. Both teams can get a lot of mileage out of describing which metrics are most significant for determining predictability.

Ks:

1. I’ll do my best to evaluate whatever you read. But, I have never read a planless aff. On the neg, I have very rarely gone for an argument that’s not T.

If I am judging you at a tournament with preferences, then you should strike me if you do not agree with all of the following:

-I am an educator first. If anything happens in the debate that I deem would not be okay in a high school classroom, I will stop the debate and vote against the team that engaged in the inappropriate behavior.

-The affirmative should defend a topical plan and defend the implementation of the plan.

-Affirmative plans these days are too vague. You only get to fiat what your plan says, not what it could mean or what you want it to mean. If you clarify your plan in cross-x, the negative can use that clarification to setup counterplan competition.

-The negative should prove why the plan causes something bad to happen, not why it justifies something bad. In other words - most of your Kritks are probably just FYIs.

-I evaluate debate in large part based on the line-by-line. If you cannot flow, I am not a good judge for you. If you cannot specifically answer the other team's arguments and apply your arguments to them and instead just read pre-scripted blocks, I am not a good judge for you.

-Debate is a communicative activity. I don't follow a card document. I listen to what you say. I will only read evidence if I cannot resolve something in the debate based on how it was debated.

-For something to count as an argument it must be complete and explained. I also must be able to understand what you are saying.

-My lifetime speaker point average range is probably lower than what you are used to.

-Cross examination and prep time start when the speech ends.

-Your technology should be working in order to debate.

-If you are visibly sick during the debate, I reserve the right to forfeit you and leave.

Isa Harrison (she/her), I debated for NT 4 yr, now freshman on Macalester team

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

don't do or say anything racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, or problematic, if you do you will lose and I will tell your coach

Tech>truth

I have not looked into the arguments on the highschool policy debate topic I have very little experience judging the IPR topic please don't assume I know what you are saying.

To get high speaks:

1. At the top of the 2nr and 2ar you should give me an overview of why you win the debate

2. Organize your speech by argument

3. In the rebuttals do impact calc (tell me why your impact is better/worse than theirs)

4. Be funny, but not too funny (very small margin for error)

Ask me any questions about the round after!

All the stuff below is just my thoughts on debate which I will ignore if you are winning on a technical level

CPs:

I'll assume judge kick unless argued otherwise, Condo is probably good. If you kick it theory goes away unless it’s condo.

(Process cps)

I don’t love process cps but I will vote for you if you win lol

I love intrinsic perms, I think the neg's best defense is proving their cp is germane to the aff (the process is a key consideration needed for the success of the aff, cards that say the aff needs to be done through the process to specifically promote the process)

I think the lie perm is underutilized against consult type process cps, nobody actually has cards about "genuinity."

I think process cps bad makes sense especially if you point out how the neg is avoiding the case debate and explain how that’s a bad model for debate. But the intrinsic perm is much better.

(pics)

I love pics, they probably aren’t bad. Affs should have offense or key warrents off of every aspect of the plan.

(adv cps)

I love adv cps, new 2ac addons justify new 2nc planks. Explain your planks well, sufficiency framing, and the link to the nb and you’ve got a goated neg strat

T:

Precision determines the predictability, predictable limits > fair limits

I love plan text in a vacuum on the aff, the neg needs a counter interp or I assume the worst. I think more neg teams should go for presumption against ptv when applicable; if their solvency ev says the untopical thing then ptv flows neg.

T comes before theory

Ks:

I ran a few ks (cap, fem ir, biopolitics) but I was never that good at it. I will not vote on something I can’t understand at all but I will try my best to read your stuff and evaluate fairly. I want both teams to instruct me to explain how I should evaluate the debate if they win framework in the context of the neg's links, the perm, and the alt.

K affs:

I don’t like kaffs, especially when it is not obvious what argument the neg could make that would actually negate the aff on a case level.

T-USFG is a true argument so the aff has got to be extremely technical to win. If I don’t know what voting aff means I will vote neg.

I am very convinced by switch side debate, a TVA, or presumption to vote neg.

Magnus Lee

New Trier Debate '24

magnuslee.debate@gmail.com

General: Do whatever, I'll flow and vote on almost anything (unless racist, sexist, etc).

• Re-highlights: Unless debated, i'll presume that inserting re-highlights of the other team's evidence is fine if explained.

• Judge kick: Unless debated, I won't judge kick unless the negative indicates in 1NC CX that "the status quo is always a logical policy option". Judge kick must be introduced in the block, not the 2NR.

• Speaks: speak clear, pick and choose args. Be good in CX.

T:

• Low knowledge for IP, so prioritize explanation and slowing down

• Contextualizing standards debating to internal links is crucial, especially when comparing predictability/ debatability, and limits/over-limiting

CPs:

• CP solvency is the negative's burden to prove, not the affirmative's burden to disprove. If the negative does not provide an explanation (referencing 1AC evidence, reading cards, analytics) then I'll presume the CP does not solve

• I generally lean affirmative on questions of competition, especially on CPs that compete based off certainty or immediacy.

Ks:

• If your strategy is to confuse your opponents, you'll confuse me too. If I can't understand your argument, I am far more likely to vote for non-responsive arguments. This can be overcome with explanation, slowing down, and avoiding jargon

•Framework: I generally think fairness is an impact and most framework DAs are contrived. The best way to overcome this is a reasonable framework, with clear explanation for both the affirmative and negative's win conditions.

K Affs:

• I generally think fairness is an impact and debate is just a game. However, I'll vote for whoever debates this better

• See the first bullet point on Ks

Hailey Lorence, she/her

Maine East '24

Add me to the email chain: hlorence78@gmail.com

CX is a speech please stand up and face the judge :)

Calling me judge or Hailey is fine

I won't take time out of your prep if a team asks for a marked version of the doc, u should give it to them. however, if u need to ask the other team clarification questions after the cross, you do need to take prep for that. If a debater needs to use the restroom that is completely fine, but unless there is a timer running there is absolutely no prepping. I try my best to time speeches, cx, and prep but I am human and do make mistakes, so you are still responsible for timing your own speeches, do not expect me to do so or rely on that.

Do not steal prep, if there is not a speech or prep timer running you should not be prepping, this includes going over strategies with your partner, at this point in the season y'all should already know better, but I'll only start docking points if I have to remind you more than once.

• General philosophy: I tend to lean more policy in my argumentation, but that doesn't mean you can't read Ks in front of me. Please just make sure you explain it extra well because I'm likely not that familiar with the literature.

  DAs:

  I like them as long as they're well thought out. I tend to prefer DAs with strong links, otherwise there's no way for your impacts to happen. That being said, please make sure you tell a story with a DA and contextualize your evidence to the round.

  Counterplans:

  I tend to lean against perf con, do with that what you will. However, I will need a team to point it out within a round in order for me to vote on it. ALWAYS PERM A COUNTERPLAN!!! Please show me how the perm solves for the counterplan, but as neg tell me why your counterplan avoids an impact and how it solves for the aff. I lean neg on counterplan theory unless it's condo against more than 8 off.

  Kritiks:

  As a more policy leaning person, I need you to have quite a strong alt and I find it hard to vote for a team without an alt. Please contextualize your links to this specific aff, especially if the other team points out that it's generic. Please make sure there is an impact to your K and that you extend it, otherwise there's no reason to vote for it.

  Topicality:

  I'm pretty familiar with T and think it's an underused strategy, but that means that you still need to do it well in front of me. Please make sure that you're showing why your standards matter, and contextualize them into this round. Caselists and TVAs are super persuasive. Please also show why fairness or education matters and how that plays into a specific round.

Please be respectful, I will not tolerate anything homophobic, racist, sexist, etc.

—Speaker Points—

Below 26.4: you did something wrong (cheaty/offensive)

26.5-27.5: Below average

27.5-27.9: Average

28-29: Above average

29+: Very good

Top shelf:

Pronouns are she/her

Just call me Alyssa or ALB - do not call me judge and dear debate Lord do not call me ma'am.

RE: Truf's flowing off the doc post - times I look at the doc:

-I typically will read the plan text and CP texts during the round in the sense that if I mis flow those we are all kinda cooked. I spot check for clipping on cards every once in a while. If there is an ornate perm text I will check that during the debate. If a specific piece of evidence is called into question during CX or during a speech I may check that piece of ev during CX or during prep. Besides that I will not under any circumstances flow off the doc. If you are unclear and I therefore do not understand your argument I could not expect your opponents to and therefore I will not vote for you.

Email chains: SonomaCardsCardsCards@gmail.com AND alyssa.lucas-bolin@sonomaacademy.org AND ipostround@googlegroups.com I strongly prefer email chains over speech drop etc.

I deleted most of my paradigm

...Because I have run into way way way too many situations where people wildly misinterpret my paradigm and it leads to a rather miserable situation (mostly for myself.)

Debate well and we'll figure it out.

I'd prefer you talk about the topic and that your affirmative be in the direction of the topic. I could not possibly care less if that is via policy debate or K debate. False divide yada yada. Both policy teams and K teams are guilty of not actually talking about the topic and I am judging ALL of you.

Speed is fine but I need clear distinction between arguments and I need you to build up your speed for the first 10 seconds.

Tag team is fine but I'd prefer that the designated partner handle most of the cross ex - only intervene if it is absolutely necessary. I am an educator and would prefer to see each student develop their skill set.

Stop stealing prep.

Please make as many T Swift references as possible.

Have solvency advocates - plz plz plz don't read a cardless CP :(

Heavy stuff:

*No touching. Handshakes after the debate = fine but that is it.

*I am not the right judge for call outs of specific debate community members

*I am a mandatory reporter. Keep that in mind if you are reading any type of personal narrative etc in a debate. A mandatory reporter just means that if you tell me something about experiencing violence etc that I have to tell the authorities.

*I care about you and your debate but I am not your debate mommy. I am going to give you direct feedback after the debate. I won't be cruel but I'm also not a sugar coater. It takes some people off guard because they may be expecting me to coddle them. It's just not my personality - I deeply care about your debate career and want you to do your best. I also am just very passionate about arguments. If you're feeling like I'm being a little intense just Shake It Off (Lauren Ivey.)

*Clipping = zero points and a hot L. Clarity to the point of non-comprehension that causes a clipping challenge constitutes clipping.

*I am more than fine with you post rounding as long as you keep it respectful. I would genuinely prefer you understand my decision than walk out frustrated because that doesn't help you win the next time. Bring it on (within reason). I'm back in the ring baby.

Let's have a throwdown!!! If you're reading this before a round I am excited to see what you have to offer.

Avi Shah — New Trier '24 — Michigan '28 — He/Him — 2A

Add me to the chain:

avishahdebate@gmail.com

ipostround@googlegroups.com

ntpolicydebate@gmail.com

Please title the email chain something relevant — "Tournament Name, Round #, Aff Team versus Neg Team"

Evaluating Debates

Please don't say or do anything racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

Tech over truth in every instance. I won't stop rounds unless you tell me to.

I would protect the NEG from new 2AR arguments at my own discretion. Otherwise, it's up to you to point out new arguments.

I won't read evidence unless you tell me to.

I will judgekick even if you don't tell me to.

Planless Affirmatives

I am good for "quick tricks" on either side — microaggressions, fairness paradox, truth testing, etc. Identify these tricks and extend/answer them when necessary.

Topicality

I think about reasonability as additional education offense for the AFF.

Tend to think that predictability matters more than debatability, but 1ARs often debate this poorly. A large limits DA can outweigh a small predictability DA even if the AFF wins that predictability outweighs debatability in a vacuum.

Kritiks

I have no ideological dispositions against kritiks. The ones that seem most strategic to me try to moot the plan using an alternative framework to evaluate the 1AC. If you don't try to do that, I will likely be good for aff permutations.

Aff teams would be well served going for theory against alternatives that clearly fiat a lot more than the plan does. "Utopian" fiat seems a little arbitrary to me, but more nuanced and specific interpretations like international actor/private actor fiat will likely be persuasive.

I am familiar with/have gone a lot of kritiks (cap, security, antiblackness, settler colonialism, etc), but anything based on postmodernist literature will likely require more explanation if the nuance of the literature base is relevant to the decision.

Kritiks of utilitarianism/consequentialism are very confusing to me. Not to say you shouldn't go for them in front of me, but rather that overexplaining instead of assuming I know the nuanced of your specific kritik of utilitarianism is probably the right move.

Speaker Points

Speaker points will reflect the division I'm judging in, my perception of how nationally competitive the tournament is, and, above all, the performance of the debaters in the room. Speaker points are growing to be entirely more arbitrary — so I'll try to define some parameters that, at least in front of me, will earn you high speaker points (or at the very least, will prevent you from losing speaker points).

Answer arguments in the order they were presented. This doesn't preclude you from reading long overviews or generalizing the debate in broad, sweeping themes, but rather just means I would prefer to judge debates in which those overviews were contextualized to the other teams arguments (in the order they were presented). For example, kritik overviews should change based on whether the aff is built to go for framework and extinction outweighs versus the permutation and link turn.

Identify win conditions and relevant portions of the debate. Often, final rebuttals completely misdiagnose what the important questions of the debate are. Correctly identifying these portions and explaining their implications to me will substantially increase your chances of winning and your speaker points.

There are certainly other factors that influence how I give speaker points. Clarity, speed, technical execution, effective cross-examinations, persuasive speaking, quality of research, and, unfortunately, the performance of the team before this tournament and whether I know them personally or not, are among the factors that I probably consider in my mind whether I like to or not. I will try to be as objective as possible in assigning speaker points — including minimizing the prior knowledge and bias I have to or against any particular partnership.

Please number your arguments. It makes my flow 10 times less messy and makes it very obvious to me when one conscious thought has concluded and where the next has begun. Strict adherence to line-by-line and numbering will earn you extremely high points.

Based on how I have historically assigned speaker points, it seems as if speaker points > 29 means I think you are going to break, and speaker points > 29.3 means I think you are going to win at least one elimination round.

-0.1 for every 2 minutes late the round starts. I like having decision time and there’s a start time for a reason.

Miscellaneous

"Try or die" is triggered when extinction is guaranteed if I vote for one side — which will almost certainly guarantee a ballot for the other team. This presumption towards try or die can be flipped by debating as to why timeframe or probability should come before magnitude, but this way of evaluating impacts seems so intuitive to me in debates where both teams agree that extinction is the most important impact to avoid that it'll be hard to do so. If try or die is not a claim made by either team, but the conditions for try or die have been triggered (e.g. 2NR only extends solvency takeouts to warming and 2AR extends warming), I am pretty sure that I would consider it to be try or die to avert warming. This is because, to me, try or die isn't an "impact framing" or "impact calculus" argument but rather just an argument that is logically triggered when a certain set of arguments are present in the debate. I am pretty sure this is not interventionist, but am open to changing this view.

Email: danielasilvio2007@gmail.com

Please include me in the email chain, thanks. Please make sure the tournament name, round number, and both team codes are in the subject of the email chain. Or with this new speech drop thing, the aff should make the speech drop and share the code with everyone in the room.

I've been on the Maine East Debate Team for the past four years and have judged for the past year. I am a hard-core flower when it comes to judging.

When deciding the round, please don't leave the room or start talking obnoxiously loud - I unfortunately have to think.

General/Personal Things -

I am a policy leaning judge, I understand Ks to a certain degree, but I don't understand them in deep way. I definitely understand general K's more than Identity K's. With that being said, still run whatever you want to run, but at the end of the day, keep in mind what judge is in front of you. People can't vote on things they don't understand -- especially if the team is messy with it/doesn't explain why I should vote on it.

Along those lines, please run things that you are comfortable with, don't try to bite off more than you can chew - you will get too ahead of yourself. Run what you know best - whatever that may be.

• I am fine with tag teaming, but at the end of the day, it is still one person's cross-x, so your partner shouldn't be overpowering you. Know what you are doing and show me that you know that you know what your doing, or in worst case scenario, fake it till you make it.
• Please stand up during your cross-x, I don't flow cross-x, so I need to be able to hear you.
• If the other team is not answering your questions - they either have no clue, or your not asking good questions.

• Please face the judge when you are spreading, or when you are in cross-x - just a personal thing.
• A marked version of the doc, excluding a big MARK or a bunch of enters where they cut a card, is prep time.
• Don't steal prep, it becomes evident. Will doc speaks.
• Feel free to call me judge, or Daniela/Dani, I am fine with either.
• Make sure that you are timing your own speeches, and prep time, of course I will be also timing your prep, but at the end of the day, it is still your responsibility
• I am not ok with extensive swearing. A few swear words is ok, and here and there, I don't mind. If it is becoming apparent in every speech - it will tank your speaks. A swear word should not be in every sentence.
• I am not ok with sexism, racism, don't say anything transphobic or homophobic. I will end the round, I simply won't hear it, and I won't subject myself or anyone in round to hear it. If you have any questions regarding this, feel free to ask me pre-round.
• Make sure that the email chain, with everyone included on it is sent out before the round.
• If I say clear, make sure that you clear.

CASE -

If you are AFF, you need to be able defend your AFF in it's entirely, you need to have answers to your cross-x questions, and you need to be able to defend it, and properly extend your impacts, and your advantages across your speeches. Though, with that being said, don't overly cover case, and make sure that you are responding and talking time during your speeches to hit on off case.

CP -

Please say 'Counterplan' - not "Cee-Pee" it's kind of annoying, and it's really just a me thing. If you Perm a CP, please make sure to throughoutly explain how the perm solves better than the actual CP, make sure to flush out the impacts and the Net benefit. If you drop the net benefit, you are losing the CP. Make sure that your CP also links to the aff, if you drop the link, the CP doesn't become a reason for my decision.

If there are multiple perms, make sure that you respond to each one, and clearly state when you are responding to each one.

DA -

Prove how the DA links. If you can't prove that, you just wasted time.

I think DA and Case debates are good as long as the DA scenario makes sense and the line by line is properly executed.

Please don't go for a bad ptx scenario that has no internal link.

Condo/Theory/T -

I am just going to put this all together. They don't all need to be run together - I don't expect them too, but I am going to write about them together. I know that they are all separate arguments. (My paradigm didn't save the first time, and I really don't feel like writing this in full detail all over again. If you are deathly concerned about my thoughts on this deeply, and this goes for any of my stances on any argument, I don't mind to take a minute before the round to answer the questions.)

Don't run condo good/bad unless the neg team exceeds more than 3 CONDITIONAL off case. That is my line of discretion. If you drop one of these three things, whatever that may be in round, it becomes ammo for the other team to point out and use against you.

If you hit T - make sure you have a C/I, preferably with a card. I'm not too picky. No C/I by the time of the 2AC - assume that you probably lost on it if the Neg team goes for it. To win on T you have to prove that the Aff is not topical and explain why being topical matters. Don't only say "Fairness and Education" those are just words, you need to explain what that means and why it's important to debate.

T is a voter for me!

In the end what really matters is how you extend and frame the theory debate. I will most likely vote for the team that better contextualizes their theory arg.

I'll vote on a dropped theory arg as long as it's properly extended.

Ks/K AFFs -

Like I said before, I understand Ks to a certain degree, but at the end of the day, more unique Ks are not my strong suite. I have run and judged and looked into CAP, and Security. I have hit a bunch of K affs while debating, so yes, I am not stupid when it comes to this topic, don't assume that I am. Everyone has a strong suit, and this is not mine.

Make sure that there is FW, a link and an alt. Make sure that this is all defended and not dropped by either team. I will actually cry if neither team reads a FW card. Especially if that's the only thing to evaluate at the end of the round.

Have fun, especially your novice year -- it's your time to learn and grow, if you don't like my comments on my RFD take it with a grain of salt, but I say useful things.

If you made it this fair - and most usually don't, but I will raise you're speaks if you make a Taylor Swift/dress to impress Reference or complement me on any of my stickers.

New Trier Class of 2025

She/Her/Hers

reagancsubeck@gmail.com

Top Level:

• Be respectful of me, your opponents, and your teammates
• Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic

You're all novices - be nice and supportive because this is a year to learn, not to crush (and because being nice is generally good). I am here to support you and help you improve but also to make debate fun so if you feel unsafe or you're being hurt by someone else, I will help you resolve it.

I have 0 opinions on what arguments you run other than the caveats above so just do your thing!

If you need help with technical stuff, feel free to ask! On more debating stuff, try your best and ask me after the round. I'll be glad to help you with anything then!!!

Have fun and good luck!!!!

Annie (she/her)

Please add me to the email chain: atong3@cps.edu

tech > truth

I'll vote for anything - I don't like death good though

Impact calc is good

Dropped arguments need to be warranted otherwise I don't think they have an impact

Don't be a jerk

please time yourself

for novices:

IF YOU ARE READING THIS BEFORE THE ROUND, SET UP THE EMAIL CHAIN NOW AND MAKE SURE THE 1AC IS SENT BEFORE START TIME :)

add me to the chain - vwdebate@gmail.com, gbsdebate2024@gmail.com

vivi (pronounced vee-vee), she/her, gbs 25

things you cannot do:

- be mean to your partner - you are all novices, you are all learning, you are all trying to win. choose kindness

- say that death is good because life on earth is bad (no wipeout, yes spark)

- be sexist/racist/etc.

- use christianity (or any religion, probably) for the purposes of a debate argument - christian wipeout, k affs about God's will, etc. = no-gos. if you make arguments about God's will in relation to the aff/neg/ballot/round/topic at all, i will stop you and vote you down. religion is not something to be deployed in a strategic context. the exception to this may be identity-based k affs, but idk how relevant that will be for the divisions i'm judging.

prep ends when you're done editing the doc. do not prep when the timer's not running. send out the 1nc during 1ac cx.

if you're sending out multiple cards, i'd prefer it if you sent them in a doc instead of the body.

you can insert rehighlightings but ONLY if you explain the argument the rehighlight is making in the tag of the rehighlighted card (i.e. 'their card concedes [xxx]---inserted').

for jv/non-novices:

i'm a 2n who goes for mostly policy stuff, but i go for the k occasionally. i'm probably familiar with most of your arguments at some level and i'm most familar with the cap, fem, security, and ir-esque lit bases. i would like to judge either policy throwdowns or nuanced k v policy aff debates.

stuff from the novice section applies.

paradigms are usually just judges' personal diaries of debate thoughts that don't usually matter in round. given that, here are some of my debate thoughts which will probably be irrelevant given that tech > truth no matter what:

policy affs

- 2acs on case - make full arguments. please. you need warrants, not just tagline extensions of 1ac ev. answer what their cards say. if the 2ac on case is bad i will not let the 1ar make new arguments to fix it.

- 2acs on other stuff - why do we put seven perms at the very top of our 2ac blocks. put a card or smth at the top instead for flowability's sake - or, at the very least, give me pen time.

- when evaluating new 2ar arguments, extrapolations, or cross-apps, i will ask myself 'could the 2nr have predicted this argument?' if the answer is no, i'll disregard the argument. i'll obviously evaluate the line by line, but as a 2n my sympathies lie with the neg. hedge against this by having a strong 2ar justification for your new arg or cross-app.

- 2ar impact calc is often underutilized. the 2ar overview should frame the entire debate for me, which should include comparative impact calc if the 2nr is a disad or the way i should evaluate the deficit(s) if the 2nr is a counterplan.

cps

- i like them, especially given that the neg has basically no ground on this topic. case-specific ones are best (as is true for any argument), but i'm happy to judge a process cp debate too. personally i would rather judge pdcp than perm other issues, but do what you gotta do

- condo's probably good. feel free to try to convince me otherwise in the 2ar tho

- deficits need impacts, not just at the level of 'if they don't solve this scenario then we all go extinct' but at the level of 'this deficit means they can't access x internal link which triggers our scenario because...'. the more specific the impact, the better the deficit.

t

- i think predictability is the best angle for both teams. if you have a more predictable interp (either in terms of legal precision or community consensus) you should emphasize that. the way i think about predictability is: what did both teams probably base their prep around? this year, i would say mandel is the most predictable definition in that sense. last year, it was hicks. this means predictability operates both on the level of research and the standards that the community has generally adopted. this is the best way to explain the impact AND link to predictability imo.

- that being said - debatability is still winnable, but you need a very strong at: predictability push. there's also something to be said about predictability being a floor and not a ceiling, especially because absolute community consensus prob doesn't exist.

disads

- love them. not much to say here, especially because they're basically nonexistent now. rip econ da.

- most turns case arguments are weak either because they operate at the impact level or because they don't assume aff solvency. the best turns case arguments are ones that interact with the aff's internal links or solvency mechanism and operate at the link level of the disad (i.e. 'the link alone turns case'.)

ks

- win the line-by-line and i'll vote for you. i think the policy judge/k judge divide in debate is rlly silly. i'll vote for any arg if you're technical and win the flow.

-i like them when they are at least somewhat aff-specific and both sides do more than read down framework blocks. the debate i would most like to judge is one where the neg goes for a well-thought-out ir k (of any form) with a good turns case or impact angle and the aff impact turns the k by saying heg, deterrence, or 1ac reps are good. i'm fine for 'generic' ks too tho. the only thing i rlly dont want to judge are high theory/pommo debates. if you don't go for those args, you're golden!

- know what the alt does...please...

- the best link extensions involve 2nc rehighlights and IMPACTS. you cannot go for 'links are disads to the perm' without an impact to the link. if you're going for the cap k and your only answer to pdb (especially the double bind) is 'the aff is capitalist and thus bad' without explaining why the inclusion of the aff materially implicates alt solvency, it will be very hard for me to vote neg if the 2ar is the perm (if the aff points out your mistake).

-i don't like the death k. if for some reason you have a deep connection to bjork '93 and this is your ideal 2nr, prob don't pref me. you can go for it but i will not be excited abt judging that round

k affs & framework

- i've had so many 't is a microaggression' debates on the neg that i am insanely bored by them now. however, i do think it's the most strategic angle for most k affs to take as long as you have the strategy down. do with that what you will.

- predictability matters to me, especially when the 2nr is going for clash or the 2ar is going for a countermodel/counterinterp. how can a model be enforced if no one knows what the model is/we don't know that we need to prep for it in advance? imo you need a very strong defense of the predictability/enforceability of your model, a strong push on the unpredictability of your opponents' model, OR a strong explanation of what the ballot does to make your model a reality in order to go for these arguments. see the t section for my thoughts on what 'predictability' actually means.

- fairness and clash both have special places in my heart. i've gone for both many times. just make sure you know the 'tricks' for both and can deploy/explain whatever impact you're going for as strategically as possible.

- i have like zero experience with kvk debates. be techy, do lbl, explain your args and i'll be fine - but don't expect me to piece things together for you. if these are the debates you think you'll be having the most then you prob don't want me in the back.

stock issues (?)

- bring back inherency in the 2nr.

She/ her

Nt ‘24

Add me to the chain: sarazareadebate@gmail.com

Toplevel

If you are reading this and do not know how to send out an email chain, now would be a great time to learn

If you say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. Auto L + lowest possible speaks + contacting your coach

Flow! showing me flows after rounds = extra speaks

Try to make my flow as clean and organized as possible

Give a roadmap before your speech and signpost clearly

Time your own prep, Cx, and speeches

I <3 turns on both sides

Talk during all of your speech time, this is a great way to learn

coming up with your own arguments>>>reading your varsity's blocks

I <3 it when you frame my ballot for me and give overviews at the top of rebuttals

Pronouncing “hegemony” and/ or “democracy” correctly = +0.3 pts

Case:

I <3 case debating when it’s done well

I like it when you extrapolate warrants from your cards, compare them with the opponents’, and compare evidence

DAs:

Do clear line by line

I like impact calculus when it’s under 1 minute and impact turns. Tell me clearly why your impact outweighs and why you turn their impact

If you do ev comparison, tell me why UQ does or does not matter in the context of the round

If you’re neg and go for this, give me a clear internal link story in the rebuttals

Counterplans:

Explain why you're textually and functionally competitive, and why you solve all of case

If you're aff, impact the difference between the plan and the counterplan

Topicality:

Do standards debating comparatively, tell me why your standards outweigh the other teams'

Impact out why the aff specifically is bad or good for debate

Kritiks:

Make your link specific to the aff. reference author names and if you can, rehighlight cards

framework makes the game work

CX:

Tag team is fine

Don’t dominate your partner’s Cx and don’t be rude in general, otherwise I will actively deduct your speaker pts

I like it when you ask card-specific Qs and reference authors

—

Pls ask me if you have any questions or are confused about anything after I give my rfd! Debate is a game, so don't get too stressed; the most important thing is that you have fun and learn. policy debate is an activity to be proud of, win or lose :)