hi ! my name is abiha kashif and i did congressional debate at eagan high school for four years, card @ the UMN for a semester, now i coach congress at bloomington. if you have any questions for me, feel free to email me at kashif.abiha09@gmail.com.

for speakers:

things i like:

i like seeing that people know the different kinds of speeches (constructive, rebuttal, crystal) and where they're meant to go. i like direct clash, which is more than just mentioning names, but actually interacting with opposing arguments. "why do i believe u and not the other side?" instead of just introducing clashing data. i pay attention to your questions + making the effort to try to question, i like super active speakers. i like seeing you can speak in multiple positions, especially when you can go late.

impacts are also good! tell me why exactly ____ problem will happen if we pass/fail + why i care about it (the formula tbh)

things i don't like:

when people break cycle

rudeness

repeated recesses to write speeches

only speaking in one position

lack of clash

POs:

things i like -

not being too wordy especially in senate rounds - less talking the better!! clear handle on motions/majorities/other stuff. taking a second to double check is ok! really just the typical presiding stuff.

Hi im a 2nd year debater @ blake

add me to email chain please: ccao26@blakeschool.org + blakedocs@googlegroups.com send cut cards with speech docs before speeches

i flow/im flay

tech>truth

Most important things: EXTENDING, WEIGHING, COLLAPSING, FRONTLINING

extend case (+ other args) w uq-link-IL- impact, case is the important piece of offense and should always be extended

weighing-- especially prereqs and give WARRANTED weighing with comparison, i look to weighing first

pls collapse-- it really helps narrow the debate down + making sure everything is well warranted instead of 293048 blippy args

frontline (respond to what ur opps say in rebuttal) in 2nd rebuttal/1st summary

warrant-- if ur args r blippy its hard to evaluate them

signpost pls-- tell me where you are on the flow so its easier for me + ur opponents

clarity>speed-- be coherent

preflow before round, make sure you're fully prepped coming into round so we don't waste time

cross isn't binding (i won't evaluate stuff in cross)-- bring up stuff in speech if its important

please have good ev ethics-- don't paraphrase, use cut cards

time yourself (speeches + prep time) -- if you're 5 secs over time i will stop flowing

be nice-- no isms or i will give u L + docked speaks

no progressive args-- idk how to evaluate them

i average around 28.5-29 ish in speaks

have fun!

Hi I'm Tess, a junior at Blake in my third year of PF with nat circuit experience

Add me to the email chain: tedayhoff25@blakeschool.org AND blakedocs@googlegroups.com

quick overview

Be nice - I don't care who you are, if you're disrespectful (particularly in cross) I'll dock speaks

Not a smart strat to hit me with prog (k/theory)

I'd consider myself more tech than flay, and I'll evaluate whatever as long as it's extended and weighed

Don't spread or at the very least send a doc

debate preferences

- I'd advise against running prog on me (some experience with theory + ks but limited)

- tech > truth

- I don't flow cross but I'm listening

- speed is fine but spreading is not my fav, if you're gonna go fast send a doc --> either way, email chains are cool and highly encouraged!

- PLEASE use real evidence with cut cards. I don't like paraphrasing and reddit/linkedin aren't sources.Evidence ethics are a big deal to me! if an opponent's card sounds sus tell me to call for it and I'll take a look, if what you say sounds too good to be true, I'll also call for it

- please extend args throughout every single speech in order for me to evaluate (and not just a blip through ink)

- signposting is really cool, do it. off-time roadmaps also work, just be brief (tell me where to start on the flow before your speech). On that note, give me some sort of organization in rebuttal (number your responses)

- defense isn't sticky

- weigh, please. weighhhhh weigh weigh weigh! Weighing is the easiest way for me to write the ballot, especially if I need to break a tie. I'm a fan of prereq weighing if it's done right

- time yourself, and if your opponents go over just hold up your timer so I can see

speaker points

speaks don't really matter in the grand scheme of things but I start at 28 (27.5 for varsity)

overall thoughts

debate is supposed to be fun so if nothing else, please remember to be kind and respect one another. This is really important in cross! If you are disrespectful, making faces, interrupting your opponent, and just being rude etc. I won't hesitate to dock speaks. any discriminatory behavior or offensive language will result in an auto L and the lowest speaks tab will let me give

I'll disclose after round and give some feedback if the tourney allows

congrats if you read all this - throw in a Taylor Swift reference in round and I'll boost speaks :) if the last name is at all familiar my older brother is Wyatt Dayhoff so I get some of my opinions from him (his paradigm is wayyyy more in depth)

looking forward to judging you all!

first things first: my email is starafder26@blakeschool.org

please add me to any email chain, along with blakedocs@googlegroups.com

hi! my name is shoumili, and i'm a sophomore at the blake high school. i debate PF mostly on the local circuit with some nat circuit experience! I will act very flay in round!

debate preferences

- tech > truth

- please do not ask me to evaluate k's or theories, i'm not fit to judge either and i just don't want to in general!

- spreading is fine (don't sacrifice clarity), but you must send out speech docs in an email chain

- please please please use REAL EVIDENCE from REAL SOURCES (no, reddit doesn't count). ev ethics are a very big deal, using uncut cards or made up sources will cost you the round! paraphrasing is so terrible and suspicious pls email me if u don't know how to cut a card

- pls extend args throughout every single speech: this means uq, link, internal link, and impact.

- sticky defense is a scam, anything that you think should win you the round should be overtly emphasized. even better, if your opps dropped the arg then point it out to me!

- signpost + offtime road map every speech

- time yourself

- i'm a pretty expressive person so if i'm confused or agreeing with what you're saying you will very much see it on my face

- cross isn't binding and doesn't determine anything on my ballot. however, if something important is said in cross that could really benefit you, bring it up in speech, where i will then evaluate it (only if it's not in like the last speech of round)

speaker points

i think speaks are kinda pointless but still cute and fun! i will start at 28 for everybody and work my way up. round vision, clarity in speech, how you generally handle round, humor, and overall good vibes will increase your speaker points.

general expectations

debate is genuinely not that deep so please remember to be kind and respect one another. constant interruption, eye rolling, passive aggressiveness and overall rudeness will dock you speaks. any discriminatory behavior or offensive language will result in an auto L and the lowest speaks tab will let me give. i will also disclose and give quick feedback after each round if the tourney lets me!

try your best, learn, and most importantly have fun!

This used to be much longer, but at this point there are only a few things you need to know about me:

They/Them

I am currently a UMN Policy debater and an Edina High school LD Coach.

1—I am absolutely dead inside in terms of arguments I will vote on anything and everything if won and have minimal preferences. I will vote on spark, warming good, skep, condo, derrida, ect.

2—I have a lot of feelings about in round conduct—sexism, transphobia, homophobia, racism, micro aggressions or not, are things I will intervene and end debates on. If you are overly rude, dismissive, or cruel expect a 27. I have had a lot of experience on the receiving end and will always make time to talk with anyone about how to manage these situations.

3—I am tech over truth and check my biases at the door.

4—I have been an ideologically flexible debater for my entire career—read Ks, policy args, and phil in HS LD and now mainly read policy arguments. I did four years of LD and now do college policy, have been a 2A/1N and 2N/1A.

5—I will not, repeat, I will not ever flow from the doc or back flow. I will clear you three times and then give up. Low speaks will be in your future. Speed is not a problem for me, clarity is.

6—I will read evidence is it is necessary for my decision OR I have been instructed to read it, but if you can’t explain the evidence to me I will not vote on it.

7—Disclosure is an intrinsically good norm both before the debate and on the wiki after—if you send a screenshot of your wiki to the email chain and it is good I will bump speaks +0.1.

8—I value clash a lot and think clash is the basis to how we get most of the benefits of debate. I generally am convinced debates where the affirmative defends a topical action and the negative argues that action is undesirable create the most meaningful clash. Does that mean I auto vote NEG on t-fw? No. Does the AFF have to convince me they provide better model of debate? Yes.

9—Feel free to email me or find me with questions before and after debates—I love debate and would be more than willing to answer any questions.

10—Not a big fan of theory—deeply persuaded by reject the argument and reasonability. However, I am still tech over truth and have voted for everything from AFC to spec status to condo. I don’t hold really any thoughts on condo probably more willing to vote on it than most.

11—You can post round me at your own risk--I care a lot about this activity and think hard about my decisions and will always do my best to explain them, but pointless arguing with me will get you nothing.

12--Yes you can tag team, yes flex prep, yes email chains, preference for cameras on but won't penalize you in anyway, no I do not care where you sit or if you sit for speeches, call me kacee, and let me know if you have any other questions.

13--You do you, not you do me. As a debater strategic value over coded personal desire to read an argument, I read arguments I thought I could win with and that always came first for me, I really value cut throat strategic debating, but I would also love to see you go for arguments you clearly believe and are passionate about--don't try to be me I've listened to myself debate more times than I can count, but I do want to listen to how YOU debate.

14--If any part of your strategy is premised on personal attacks against individuals, judges, or coaches and their identities unrelated to the content of the debate, I am not a good judge for you---please strike me.

15--Ev ethics unless truly egregious (e.g. removing the word "not") should be debated out via theory.