Add me to the email chain jenniferleebuckner@gmail.com.

I debated policy in high school and college. But to give you a clue how long it's been, I went to the library, used a pair of scissors to cut physical cards & hauled large Rubbermaid totes full of evidence around :-)

I have three kids in debate (two competing and one coaching in college).

Some speed is okay but be clear.

Types of arguments are up to the debaters in the round.

Have fun!

Preferences:

Clash - actually arguing against an opponent's evidence/analysis instead of just reading your own positions while substantively ignoring your opponent's positions.

Evidence analysis - not every card is as good as its tag; not every card is equal, etc. Be sure to analyze the evidence offered in the round.

Dislikes:

Rude/unkind/disrespectful behavior

Debaters reading arguments they don't understand.

I'm familiar and okay with everything, just don't be ridiculous.
Email your docs - maria041006cruz@gmail.com

PF:

-extensions

-prove uniqueness

-weigh impacts

-clear links

-65% lay

LD: Idk what a k is so voting based off of confidence, impacts, and good warranting.

-at least 80% lay

-sorry if it ends up a screw

WSD:

-speak slower/conversational paced

-clear warranting

-impact weighing (we outweigh on both the practical/principal side of the argument...)

-worlds weighing (in our world... their world...)

-clear model

Policy:

-erm idk

-100% lay

-mb if it ends up being a screw

-most likely i'll judge off of my flow (extended arguments)

General:

-don't be disrespectful

-u can time if u want

-explain why dropped/conceded items are important (my opponent failed to respond _ arg proving why _ is true...)

-if new args are brought up (in last speech) just say so it won't offend me (points will be docked if a significant amount of new arguments are presented last speech)

PF:

-extensions

-prove uniqueness

-weigh impacts

-clear links

-65% lay

LD: Idk what a k is so voting based off of confidence, impacts, and good warranting.

-at least 80% lay

-sorry if it ends up a screw

WSD:

-speak slower/conversational paced

-clear warranting

-impact weighing (we outweigh on both the practical/principal side of the argument...)

-worlds weighing (in our world... their world...)

-clear model

Policy:

-erm idk

-100% lay

-mb if it ends up being a screw

-most likely i'll judge off of my flow (extended arguments)

General:

-don't be disrespectful

-u can time if u want

-explain why dropped/conceded items are important (my opponent failed to respond _ arg proving why _ is true...)

-if new args are brought up (in last speech) just say so it won't offend me (points will be docked if a significant amount of new arguments are presented last speech)

Top Level --

wsg im aarav im a sophmore at lamar hs -- aaravkmahendru@gmail.com

add me to a doc or do speech drop js be ready when u get in the room

if ur a novice and nothing below makes sense -- just debate how you would normally would dont be afraid to speak fast

I am good for almost anything read the prefs below if you dont wanna read anything else -- will not vote on anything morally abhorrent or objectionable

Larp -- 1

T/Theory -- 1

Tricks -- 1/2

Set Col / Cap / Anthro -- 2

Phil --3

Dense Ks/ Identity stuff -- 4

LAY/STOCK STUFF -- 5

Dont let the prefs be what u read -- if ur comfortable with something go for it

Automatic Thirty Speaks -- u gotta win on these things

1] ice spikes

2] spark or wipeout

3] rvi

4] bringing me food ngl -- u still gotta win the round tho

LARP --

1] specifically for larp there needs to be good interaction between cases and good judge instruction -- if you dont weigh ur not gonna win -- impact and link turns are always good

2] please collapse to something ur winning -- theres no point to go for 3 advantages in the 2ar ur time crunched and ur gonna lose -- find something ur opponent undercovered and sit on it

3] Counterplans are always good -- just dont spam them, im good with pics and stuff, on the aff try to perm as much as possible it makes ur strat so much easier -- phrase ur perm with a net benefit

4] Plan texts are always good

T/Theory

1] i go for theory on the neg almost always -- its kinda a foolproof strategy and a huge timesuck for the 1ar as long as u read the right shell

2] I generally think that condo is good but if there are sufficient arguments against it then i will vote on it

3] please extend paradigm issues first, if those are conceded and if debated right u can automatically win

4] meta weigh -- explain why ur standard matters the most for either education or fairness and impact that out to the debate space as a whole -

5] dont be insanely abusive to novices --but i am willing to vote off of any shell that is impacted out -- barring violations that cant be solved i will vote on any shell

Tricks

1] i went for some of this last year but had trouble weighing between them

2] if you decide to go for this then please use heavy judge instruction

3] dont expect me to catch every trick when ur spreading at 300 wpm

4] use this strategy at ur own risk -- im pretty good for the most basic stuff, gcb, eval, paradoxes, ice spikes and other stuff

K

1] I am good for any K like set col, cap or anthro

2] I really dont want to vote on identity k's but if it comes down to it I will

3] dense K debate isnt really my thing so stick to the ones above lowkey

4] K affs are also a bit tricky for me so i would probably steer clear

5] explain ur rob and thesis then go on to offense -- no long 2n overviews the lbl is so much better

Phil

1] i read a bit of kant and hobbes but other than those two all phil is basically another language to me

I am a parent judge -- I will not evaluate the following arguments

K, Phil, T/Theory, Tricks, Plan Affs,

Dont spread in front of me please I am not accustomed to it.

I am a traditional judge -- focus on framing and how your offense links -- you win the flow based off of the framing

I look for persuasive, evidence-based arguments. For example, if your opponent uses your card against you, beware that might be outcome determinative unless you find a way to rebut.

I think extinction debates are silly -- I will likely err to the side that uses probability rather than defaulting to the biggest impact

General:

-Don't be disrespectful

-Im fine with you timing yourself

-Please mention if new args are mentioned in the final speech

-Enunciate and be confident when speaking

-Don't steal time, I'm fine with a few seconds over though

Speech:

- Be confident

-Try not to do use filler words

-A creative adg will make you stand out

PF:

-Clear extensions and warrant

-Strong impacts

-Clash

-I don't mind spreading, but I prefer if you don't

-CX should be for questions and answers, not just reading evidence.

- No new arguments in the Final Focus, but you can have new evidence to support prior arguments.

-Make sure to weigh

Policy:

-Im half lay

-Aff plan should have a plan text, clearly say why their plan is significant, needed, and what current problems it would solve.

-Neg clearly explain why aff's plan is bad through a cp, k, or topicality

-No new args in the rebuttle

-If you want me to consider an arg, mention it in the last speech

-Clash

LD:

-I'm lay but I'll go for the arguments that make the most sense, contribute to the framework, and are based on the philosophy

-Aff should prove why the resolution is true while neg should try to disprove affs position

-Idk special wording so please explain stuff to me

World Schools:

-Conversational round with a clear explanation of points at the end

-Engage in both the principle and practical arguments

-POI's should be addressed consistently but not everyone can be taken

-You can take a few seconds to get ready but don't steal prep

-Weigh worlds (In our world.. but in their world..)

-Both your speaking abilities and arguments are important

Hi I'm Dick. I'm a sophomore at Lamar and I do Pf and Worlds. Add me to a doc, speech drop, or email chain before speeches.

LD- I don't judge LD often, so avoid K's and anthro. I'm good for phil (kant, hobbes, etc...), larp, and tricks.

AUTOMATIC 30 SPEAKS

- adding innington in some of your words throughout speeches

Ex: This argument is faxington

- bringing me food or bev before round (IF YOU BRING ME PEPSI OR MOUNTAIN DEW UR GETTING 20 SPEAKS)

- if you reference breaking bad (WALTUH), lethal company, or brawl stars/clash royale

- change state actor counterplan to mexico

PF- I enjoy hearing geopolitics arguments. Make sure every impact leads to mass extinction/ nuclear war or our economy dying and us losing to china. If you try to run theory you get max speaks. I like clash; don't debate passively. Read cards, defend your case.

I prefer Dick. Don't call me judge.

Speech- don't really have experience in speech

interp/Prose/POI

be clear, have a good voice with emotion, clear actions that are meaningful

public speaking-

Same thing as interp, but emphasize

Seven Lakes 2027 - aka a high school sophmore(ik i'm unc to yall)

pronouns: She/her

Hi, I'm Sunny Pu, I'm a varsity CONGRESS debater for 1 year currently, but I have done PF for 2-3 years, did LD for one year, and dabbled in some World Schools, now in Congress :(

Heres your shop of speaking points(please don't take this seriously):

Please call me “judge” whenever possible. I enjoy the ego boost. Anything else is punishable with -1 speaker points.

The stupider your argument is the better it is. Be as abusive against your opponent as much as possible. I won’t stop you, that would violate your autonomy.

Speed over clarity. 500 wpm MINIMUM. I refuse to flow at all. If you flow for me, I’ll give you +2 speaks.

No truth, ONLY TECH.

Box each other during questioning for full speaks.

Insult every other judge on the panel +5

Do Cx with eyes closed +1

Chug your boba +0.5

Choke on it +0.5

Sing your rebuttal +2

Insult Grace +1

Sob after every speech +2

Give your speech facing away from me +2

Use a laptop -5

Abuse your opponent +1

Fold you flow into an airplane and throw it at your opponent during their rebuttal +3

Flow on multiple sheets of paper -1 for each sheet

Flow with pencil +1

Flow with marker +2

Flow on slack +10

Commit a federal crime during the round +10

Grace -20

Turn around every time you read say status quo +0.5

Do hopscotch during any of your speeches +1

Flirt with Donald trump +1

100% sugar, 100% ice, hot boba order +1

Win the round -5

Call me Unc and I'll up you on speaks otherwise call me by my name I'm only 2 years older than you

Congress

• I'm heavy on tech>lay(aka arguments over everything else)
• AGD: you can make funny jokes about pop culture, I'll probably get iT

• You can do agds about diddy but please be funny about it
• learn when and how to be funny
• If you give me a narration about how a certain person experinced this and how it effected them, like Johnny here experienced dying, fail this bill to prevent taht! I will down you unless it's done exceptionally, because I know this sounds mean but it's a cheap agd and i really dont gaf unless you severely emotionally charge it

Speaking/Rhethoric

• Emotion
• I'm looking for inflection (tone variation)
• Connection to the chamber and yourself => how does this effect everyone personally?
• Lowkey figurative language => metaphors, similies, alliteration when done right is goated frfrfr

Arguments

• if you refrain the debate in a different way and differentiate yourself from the rest of the chamber i will instantly up you but only if you do it effectively
• I'm huge on arguments
• Please don't rehash(repeat) arguments
• I don't want to hear 23 versions of the same arguments
• PLEASE be sensitive when it comes to certain arguments
• REF: please yes king

POing

• Please know your procedures
• know how to control your own chamber please

• Please be professional and no commenting on any speeches, rude and brings down the morale

Debate is great. At its best, it teaches amazing critical thinking, research skills, and teaches us to engage and clash with others' ideas. I'm pretty flexible on what counts as debate arguments but pretty persuaded that prepared opponents produce better debates.

Some aspects that are critical for me:

1: I don’t judge often which means I likely won’t be able to keep up at the rate many circuit debaters prefer. About half as fast as your maximum is probably acceptable for me to flow and think (but no faster).

2: Be nice and respectful. Try to not talk over people. Share time in crossfire periods. Words matter, think about what you say about other people. Attack their arguments and not the people you debate.

3: Arguments must be extended in each speech.

4: Read and have your evidence ready.

5: Lead with labels/arguments and NOT authors. Number your arguments.

Things that are good and you should probably have/do
Confidence
Flagging important issues in the debate
Jokes
Respect
Great and strong CX questions and answers

Effective crystallization is critical. For me to vote for you I need to know specifically what arguments you won, why, and how.