Hi!
I am a parent judge, so please keep this in mind, especially during Policy/LD rounds. Speaking quickly is ok - but please be wary of spreading, I need to be able to understand to give accurate RFDs and speaker points.
I am open to any arguments, so feel free to run whatever you feel comfortable with. I would like off-time road maps, and will comply with tournament rules regarding file sharing, CrossEx, and prep. Explain clearly why you deserve the ballot in this round, and be cautious that I will tend to lean tech over truth - I will take into consideration strategy. Theory is okay by me, but be clear about why it matters and link - vague arguments are not voters.
Although I'm open to flowing anything and will do my best to understand your arguments, please note that if critiques are used, I expect them to be fully explained and the relevance to the position established. Clash is important, and I will value engagement over card dumping.
Please be polite and have good sportsmanship, I will not tolerate any harmful arguments, behavior, etc. Good luck everyone!
My email id for sharing any material related to debate: ayuvaraj@hotmail.com

anirv.ayyala@gmail.com add me to the chain, he/him

Debated at James Logan HS currently debating for CSUF

TLDR

tech>truth

Read whatever best for you and I'll judge accordingly. There are inevitable argument preferences that infect my thought process but good debating and technical skills will always beat pandering to my debate beliefs. The 2nr/2ar decision should be what the best option on the flow is every time.

1. Policy v K

2. KvK

3. Policy v Policy

Policy

Plan affs - good for anything, better ev comparison gets you out of most problems. Strong specific internal links are great and the best offense against process or adv cps.

DAs - best for straight turns over turns case. Aff specific links and ev comparison gets you through most debates. DA + case 2nrs are some of my favorite to judge but I'm often convinced by case o/ws in these debates. Clear impact scenario comparison is the best judge instruction in these debates.

CPs - not the best for process, I've judged a minimal amount of competition debates but I've generally leaned towards functional competition as the best standard. Technical concessions make this debate a lot easier than I'm making it seem so if you are fully winning the competition flow explain what establishes competition and what the best standard is. Clever perms are appreciated and often easier to understand than 10 new definition cards. I love specific adv cps and rehighlighting 1ac ev goes a long way for you. Adv cps solve most affs I judge but often lose against good aff internal link analysis. Respond to deficits sufficiently and it should go your way. I default judge kick unless told otherwise.

For the aff, offensive DAs are always better than defensive arguments on CPs. Strong deficits cross-applied from case solvency/impact cards are my favorite responses and help a lot during time pressure.

T - Love and hate it. Can be great but is very often not, call out nonsensical interps and most evidence on T is atrocious. Predictable limits is prob my fav standard but anything goes. I assume models unless said otherwise and I don't weigh reasonability significantly but I can be convinced it matters.

K

Read Ks on the neg exclusively in hs but have become a lot more flex in college

I'm most familiar with setcol, afropess, cap and security Ks.

Links to the plan are amazing but not required - I tend to lean towards middle ground interps but direct comparison of the impacts of your model vs their model helps you when trying to refuse fiat. I tend to prefer subjectivity shifts over only this round matters but I find a lot K teams are insufficient at answering no shift or alt causes. Long overviews are a waste of time and contextualizing your offense makes me really happy - specific empirics are great link warrants.

Affs best option is to just directly answer the links and is the best perm arg you can give me. I love impact turn 2ars and most K teams aren't ready to go card for card on heg. Extinction o/ws is very convincing if you weigh the aff but answering the death K with 'being alive is a prereq' misses the mark entirely. Just because you believe extinction is prior doesn't make the aff morally bankrupt, contextualize your response to your scenarios and weigh consequences as an ethical filter. 2ar theory against the alt is great with me and often underutilized.

Kaffs

Read these all of my career. Debate is a game but how we play the game is up to you. Use your case as offense on other flows and remember that the aff is more than just an impact turn - im voting aff because I think it's a good idea not because a certain model of debate is worse.

v FW - My debate experience shows aff preference but I find my judging record to be heavily neg favored. I'm good for both sides and have been in these debates more than enough times to make the correct decision.

I prefer impact turn 2ars and am often left unconvinced on aff counter interps - they are almost always arbitrary and never solve limits. This is not to say it's an unviable strategy in front of me, but I do by a large margin prefer interps that are reasonably attached to the rez than some self-serving interp. Affs need both content and form level impact turns - smart cross applications of them win you these debates.

For the neg, sufficient defense to the impact turn usually wins you these debates. I am often unconvinced of affs pushes to deem every topical aff as violently unethical and you should exploit this. Clever TVAs and clear warrants for the possibility of good topic/policy engagement are very convincing to me. T with a strong reform good push on case almost always results in a neg ballot from me.

Fairness and clash are both impacts and can be internal links - I don't have a preference towards either but I think smart 2nrs do better by making a decision on procedural fairness vs the clash internal link turn instead of splitting time on both. If you are going for fairness the top of the 2nr should be why procedural fairness o/ws everything else.

Name: Eric Beane

Affiliation: Langham Creek HS (2018-Present) | University of Houston (2012-2016) | Katy Taylor HS (2009-16)

GO COOOOOOGS!!! (♫Womp Womp♫) C-O-U-G-A-R-S (who we talkin' bout?) Talkin' bout them Cougars!!

*Current for the 2024-25 Season*

Policy Debate Paradigm

I debated for the University of Houston from 2012-2016. I've coached at Katy-Taylor HS from 2011 - 2016 and since 2018 I have been the Director of Debate at Langham Creek High School. I mostly went for the K. I judge a lot of clash of the civs & strange debates. Have fun!

Specific Arguments

Critical Affirmatives – I think your aff should be related to the topic; we have one for a reason and I think there is value in doing research and debating on the terms that were set by the topic committee. Your aff doesn’t need to fiat the passage of a plan or have a text, but it should generally affirm the resolution. I think having a text that you will defend helps you out plenty. Framework is definitely a viable strategy in front of me.

Disadvantages – Specific turns case analysis that is contextualized to the affirmative (not blanket, heg solves for war, vote neg analysis) will always be rewarded with high speaker points. Comparative analysis between time frame, magnitude and probability makes my decisions all the easier. I am a believer in quality over quantity, especially when thinking about arguments like the politics and related disadvantages.

Counterplans – PICs bad etc. are not reasons to reject the team but just to reject the argument. I also generally err neg on these questions, but it isn’t impossible to win that argument in front of me. Condo debates are fair game – you’ll need to invest a substantial portion of the 1AR and 2AR on this question though. If your counterplan has several planks, ensure that you include each in your 2NC/1NR overview so that I have enough pen time to get it all down. I think the "judge kick" is incredibly lazy. You need to appropriately kick out of arguments utilizing some semblance of strategy for me to evaluate what you are putting forward.

Kritik Section Overview - I enjoy a good K debate. When I competed in college I mostly debated critical disability studies and its intersections. I've also read variations of Nietzsche, Psychoanalysis and Marxism throughout my debate career. I would greatly appreciate a 2NC/1NR Overview for your K positions. Do not assume that I am familiar with your favorite flavor of critical theory and take time to explain your thesis (before the 2NR).

Kritik: "Method Debate" - Many debates are unnecessarily complicated because of this phrase. If you are reading an argument that necessitates a change in how a permutation works (or doesn't), then naturally you should set up and explain a new model of competition. Likewise, the affirmative ought to defend their model of competition.

Kritik: Alternative - We all need to be able to understand what the alternative is, what it does in relation to the affirmative and how it resolves the link+impact you have read. I have no shame in not voting for something that I can't explain back to you.This by far is the weakest point of any K debate and I am very skeptical of alternatives that are very vague (unless it is done that way on purpose). I would prefer over-explanation than under-explanation on this portion of the debate.

Vagueness - Strangely enough, we begin the debate with two very different positions, but as the debate goes on the explanation of these positions change, and it all becomes oddly amorphous - whether it be the aff or neg. I feel like "Vagueness" arguments can be tactfully deployed and make a lot of sense in those debates (in the absence of it).

Case Debate – I think that even when reading a 1-off K strategy, case debate can and should be perused. I think this is probably the most undervalued aspect of debate. I can be persuaded to vote on 0% risk of the aff or specific advantages. Likewise, I can be convinced there is 0 risk of a DA being triggered.

Topicality - I'm down to listen to a good T debate. Having a topical version of the aff with an explanation behind it goes a long way in painting the broader picture of debate that you want to create with your interpretation. Likewise being able to produce a reasonable case list is also a great addition to your strategy that I value. You MUST slow down when you are addressing the standards, as I will have a hard time keeping up with your top speed on this portion of the debate. In the block or the 2NR, it will be best if you have a clear overview, easily explaining the violation and why your interp resolves the impacts you have outlined in your standards.

New Affs are good. That's just it. One of the few predispositions I will bring into the debate.

"Strange" Arguments / Backfile Checks - I love it when debate becomes fun. Sometimes we need a break from the monotony of nuclear armageddon. The so-called classics like wipeout, the pic, etc. I think are a viable strategy. I've read guerrilla communication arguments in the past and think it provides some intrigue in policy debate. I also think it is asinine for judges or coaches to get on a moral high horse about "Death Good" arguments and refuse to vote for them. Debate is a game and if you can't beat the other side, regardless of what they are arguing, you should lose.

Other Information

Disclosure Practices - Debates are better when both sides are adequately prepared to argue against each other. I believe in good disclosure practices and that every varsity competitor should be posting their arguments after they are read in a debate. I will vote for disclosure theory, however, if you choose to read that argument you need to provide substantial proof of the violation. You need to have made all reasonable attempts at contacting the other team if their arguments are not posted before the debate begins. I will NOT punish novice competitors for not disclosing or knowing what that is, so please do not read disclosure theory against them.

Accessibility - My goal as an educator and judge is to provide the largest and most accessible space of deliberation possible. If there are any access issues that I can assist with, please let me know (privately or in public - whatever you are comfortable with). I struggle with anxiety and understand if you need to take a "time out" or breather before or after a big speech.

Evidence - When you mark cards I usually also write down where they are marked on my flow –also, before CX starts, you need to show your opponents where you marked the cards you read. If you are starting an email chain - prep ends as soon as you open your email to send the document. I would like to be on your email chain too - ericdebate@gmail.com

High Speaks? - The best way to get high speaks in front of me is in-depth comparative analysis. Whether this be on a theory debate or a disad/case debate, in depth comparative analysis between author qualification, warrants and impact comparison will always be rewarded with higher speaker points. The more you contextualize your arguments, the better. If you are negative, don't take prep for the 1NR unless you're cleaning up a 2NC disaster. I'm impressed with stand-up 1ARs, but don't rock the boat if you can't swim. If you have read this far in my ramblings on debate then good on you - If you say "Go Coogs" in the debate (it can also be after a speech or before the debate begins) I will reward you with +0.1 speaker points.

Any other questions, please ask in person or email – ericdebate@gmail.com

I'm Sandy! I use they/them (ENG) or elle (ESP) pronouns. Please add me onto your email chains! My email is: boltonbarrientosdebate@gmail.com

2024 will be my twelfth year in the MNUDL. Talk to me about Debate en Español!

• 2nd year as the Spanish debate coach for Minneapolis South
• 4th year as the Novice Policy debate coach for Minneapolis South
• Debated for Roosevelt H.S. for 4 years
• Debated for Keewaydin M.S. for 3 years

You can always let me know if you have any access needs entering a debate round and you do not have to justify it to me. I’ll try my best to meet everybody in the room where they’re at, since that’s one of my roles as an educator.

I highly value story-telling and big picture analysis in your speeches.I love a 1AC that's narrative (i.e. internal link chain) is easy to understand. I love a 2AR overview that tells me in the story of the AFF and why its impacts matter on each flow of the end of the debate. I love a K 2NR that flips the script of the 1AC to tell me why the links actually do matter in the greater context of liberation and structural violence. I love a counterplan v. permutation v. AFF plan debate that really lays out what it means for the conditional advocacies to be mutually exclusive i.e. competitive or not.

What does this mean for you practically?

• Impacts: When listening to the impact debate (on any flow-- framework, T, theory, kritikal or policy strategies), I'm looking for you to strategically and persuasively tell me why the impact is the most important thing in the round. Exaggerate! Tell me it's "try or die" for the AFF/NEG! Minimize your opponents' impact any chance you get! Abandon phrases like "might happen" or "could solve" and replace it with "will happen" and "absolutely solves". Don't be afraid to use impact calculus. Of course, these framing tools require warrants just like any other argument, but they really make a difference in if I will confidently vote for you or not.

• Internal Links: Speaking of warrants for your impacts, you need coherent internal link chains. Telling me "vote AFF to avoid nuclear war" in your rebuttals isn't enough. It's important to answer questions like: War with who? When? And of course, what's the link to the AFF? Telling me the "AFF makes capitalism worse" isn't enough. What part of capitalism? Over-consumption? Labor exploitation? Extractive logic? Wealth hoarding?

• Solvency: Advocacy statements and solvency should be clearly and consistently explained and extended for both AFF and NEG (if applicable). If you're AFF, make sure to consistently make it clear why the AFF is mutually exclusive with any alternative NEG advocacies.

(I know alternatives are tricky to explain and defend. As a Kritik nerd, I will both cut you some slack AND hold you to higher standards. The Alternative is a pretty cool part of the debate, but the NEG doesn’t need it to win. I'm personally really interested in radical movement building and how communities organize to make change, if that's a helpful frame to consider when thinking about how you would explain your alternative to me. I will always be especially geeked about connections to social movements that are doing work out in our own Twin Cities communities. Feel free to email me with questions!)

• Compare your arguments with your opponents -- clash is king!

• Communicate effectively -- if you're so fast you're unintelligible, or if your Kritik blocks are so dense that nobody understands what's going on, that is on you.

• Evidence is really important, but I have a pretty expansive understanding of evidence: storytelling, anecdotes, poetry, dance, journals, zines, prose, scientific journals, history, accounts, common sense thinking, etc. are all forms of evidence that can generate knowledge and prove your arguments. They can also all be contested.

• Theory: I do not have the flowing skills nor brain for intensely technical theory debates. Procedural arguments like Condo, A-Spec, etc. will not make it in my RFD unless it was egregiously dropped. Topicality and Framework are definitely on my RFDs so if you do want to go for it, this is a sign for you to slow! down!

• Out of Round Issues: I will not vote on out of round issues. If this happens in a round I am judging, I will defer to trusted adults in the community including tab, the MNUDL and coaches.

• Kritiks: I was a K debater in high school. If you're curious about Kritiks, want feedback on strategies, or just to talk through ideas -- please talk to me! I can definitely provide more specific comments and ideas on abolition, settler colonialism, Indigenous feminisms, and queer theory.

• Please define your acronyms before you use them!

• As opposed to Abbie "Big A" Amundsen (<3), I am a big fan of overviews!

Stolen from Izak the GOAT

Debate is for the debaters. Do what you are best at. You have worked hard on your arguments – don’t over adapt to me, just execute as well as you can. You could skip the rest of the paradigm and go back to cutting updates.

Pure technical evaluation of debates is impossible. Style and presentation are relevant. Conduct in round is relevant. Cross-x is relevant. The flow does not exist in a vacuum - I am a human being. Those factors affect what I write down, what I’m thinking about/how I feel when I write it down, and how I understand what I wrote down when I look at it later. You as a debater are relying on my knowledge of debate concepts when you communicate your speech, and in close rounds you don't have time to reinvent the wheel.

Don't Run "XYZ" Argument (adapted from Ideological Flexibility) -- If you said something is good, the other team can say it's bad. If the argument is horrible, it should be easy to answer. I like it to be played out in debates when possible because that's what we are here to do.

HOWEVER-- I am also a marginalized person with acute lived experiences related to xenophobia, ableism, queerphobia, transphobia etc. That positions me as a minority in the debate community who experiences all arguments through those lenses. This has been true as a competitor and a coach, which is what informs my commitment to abolitionist debate education.

If your arguments implicate my livelihood and the dignified humanity of my community, I will dislike it. It will effect how I evaluate the round. This is an invitation for you to think critically about your audience. I'm happy to be patient with you as I explain my perspective, if you are willing to listen to it outside the scope of the competition.

We are in community with each other and I care about those relationships. Sometimes the game of debate has to be put on pause to care for the people in the room, especially if they feel that an argument was uncomfortable and/or harmful. Earnestly talking about how arguments affect people is an important factor of argumentation and winning debates, too, because it implicates your method.

MN Buffoonery

Tag team is fine. I would love it if you high fived your partner when you do it, a la wrestling. I won't enforce this preference in any way other than telling you at the beginning of the debate and it won’t have any speaker point consequences. I just think it's a great way to navigate cross-ex with your partner in a way that's balanced, equitable, and fun!

National Circuit

I am primarily a Novice coach in Minnesota, and also have auditory processing issues. I have 10+ years of knowledge but Novice ears and flows. Spreading is fine but please include analytics and prepare to send marked docs. Slow down.

TL;DR

Have fun! Be nice! Stay organized! That's all it takes.

Peninsula, Cal State Fullerton

Cal State Fullerton BW

Bakersfield BB

Previously Coached by: Shanara Reid-Brinkley, LaToya Green, Travis Cochrain, Lee Thach, Max Bugrov, Anthony Joseph, and Parker Coon

Other people who influence my debate thoughts: Vontrez White and Jonathan Meza

Emails

HS: jaredburkey99@gmail.com

College: debatecsuf@gmail.com jaredburkey99@gmail.com

2024-25 Update:

IPR: 7

Energy: 14

LD Total: 75

College: Going to be coaching Cal State Fullerton more so I expect to be judging college, have a depth of topic knowledge, and be doing more research for the team.

HS: Mostly will be in LD this year, I imagine I will be judgeing policy teams a few times this year and help out with the Pen policy kids from time to time.

Cliff Notes:

1. Clash of Civs are my favorite type of debates.

2. Who controls uniqueness - that comes 1st

3. on T most times default to reasonability

4. Clash of Civs - (K vs FW) - I think this is most of the debates I have judged and it's probably my favorite type of debates to be in both as a debater and as a judge. I would like to implore policy teams to invest in substantive strategies this is not to say that T is not an option in these debates, but most of these critical affs defend some things that I know there is a disad to and most times 2AC just is flat-footed on the disad. 2As fail to answer PICs most times. 2ACs overinvestment on T happens a bunch and the 2NR ends up being T when it should have been the disad or the PIC. All of this is to say that T as your first option in the 2NR is probably the right one, but capitalize on 2AC mistakes

5. No plan no perm is not an argument --- win a link pls

6. Speaker Points: I try to stay in the 28-29.9 range, better debate obviously better speaker points.

7. Theory debates are boring --- conditionality good --- judge kick is a logical extension of conditionality

Specifics:

K --- The lack of link debating that has occurred for the K in recent years is concerning, the popularization of exclusive-based FW has diminished the value of the link debate. That being said I understand the strategic utility of the argument, but the argument less and less convinces me. I will not default to plan focus, weigh the aff, or assume weigh the aff when each team is going for exclusive fw. This is all to say that the link argument is the predominant argument and the K of fiat as a link argument is not convincing at all. Smart 2Ns that rehighlight 1AC cards and use their link arguments to internal link turn/impact turn the aff should win 9/10 in front of me. All to say that good K debating is good case debating.

FW--- Fairness its an impact but also is an internal link to just about everything --- role of the negative as a frame for impacts with a TVA is very convincing to me - only this debate matters is not a good argument, these debates should be a question about models of debate - carded TVAs are better than non-carded TVAs and are a sure fire way to win these debates for the negative --- I would describe myself as a clash truther most times, debate is net good maximizing clash preserves the value of debate --- 2As whose strategy is to impact turn everything with a CI is much more convincing to me than attempts to use the counterinterp as defense to T, although can be persuaded by the counterinterp being defense to T

DA--- Fast DAs are more convincing, turns case arguments good, any DA is fair game as long as its debated well

CP --- Must know what the CP does with an explanation --- good for functional competition only, not the biggest fan of text and function or textual only.

T --- Boring.

LD Specific:

1. Larp/K

2. K affs

3. Theory

4. Phil - Been convinced more and more about Phil thanks to Danielle Dosch, I would still say I am not the best for Phil

5. Tricks

if i can accommodate you in any way, shape, or form, please let me know pre-round either via. email or in-person.

hi i'm samantha, she/he/they. current ndt/ceda cx debater, shoutout csuf CD! sacat.csufdebate@gmail.com include me in the chain. +.1 speaks for AFF if email chain is sent BEFORE start time.

i believe debate can be an educational activity, radical testing ground, game, or whatever the hell else you want it to be. i run policy + k so read whatever you feel comfortable with :3 i try to rely on offense/defense weighing based on my flow. i'll evaluate death/wipeout good-adjacent arguments if the warrant isn't problematic.

this paradigm is CX/policy-oriented. for ld, highly averse to judging trix (consider striking me), but would love to evaluate more phil rounds.

｡ﾟ•┈꒰ა ♡ ໒꒱┈• ｡ﾟ

debate methinks

1. policy v. policy: lowk snoozer but i digress, my rfd is typically based on a damning technical error somewhere in round rather than truth-testing.

2. Theory: i need an abuse story that makes sense. reading 7 off, winning the link debates, then going for ground loss in the 2nr is not convincing and i wish 2ars called this out more often. i expect theory to be the entire 2nr/2ar. i have high expectations for impact framing.

2.5 standards: i believe education is the biggest terminal impact to debate; fairness is arbitrary/nonuq.

3. policy v. CP/PIC: i find that these debates have a 90% chance of devolving into condo theory so not a fan, but i like cp 2nrs! net benefit should be top of the flow. text/functional competition debates tend to get messy so i'm more preferable to functional competition against the perm.

4. policy v. K/ALT: i enjoy interesting policy affs that win on non-util frameworks. 1off K is possibly my favorite form of debate.

5. K v. K: i like seeing goated fw arguments via standards, rotb, and c/in turns.

wtf is plan in a vacuum.

｡ﾟ•┈꒰ა ♡ ໒꒱┈• ｡ﾟ

i like:

- roadmapping the doc, i depend on the doc during constructives (i'm a rough flower) so please just vocalize if you cut/skip any cards/entire blocks. otherwise, stick to roadmap. also please stop reading tags like cards.

- slow any overviews/judge instructions/etc. i do not want to miss anything because im lazy and i like when you tell me who is winning.

- fw debate; yes competing interps!!!

- historical references.

- solid links directly in the plan text, cards, or cx. aff is bound to the content of 1ac.

- link debate>impact debate, i don't typically buy 0/100% risk.

- lbl rebuttals

- impact!!!! did they drop something?? did they make an oopsie in cx?? impact it out and iterate why i should consider it's implications!!

｡ﾟ•┈꒰ა ♡ ໒꒱┈• ｡ﾟ

are you running a K? mfw ir

i have a surface-level understanding of common K theses, although i am most familiar with IR Ks (security, orientalism), setcol, nietzsche/j.p sartre lit. either way, just make sure to clearly define tech terms and have some variation of a central advocacy that posits debate as a key space. (why are you here and not on tedtalk?)

i want the debate over the aff getting the plan/impacts. i expect to have an extensive ontology + fw flow. i like seeing the ev comparison and standards debate over fw.

refer to my goat jonathan meza's kritique section for more in-depth thoughts on k debate.

｡ﾟ•┈꒰ა ♡ ໒꒱┈• ｡ﾟ

silly goose/speaks + bonus speaks

yes debate is educational but i also believe it's important to have fun so that we may continue to engage. i partake in shenanigans/silly whimsical goofy theory/procedurals but it's an uphill (yet possible) battle.

you get a 30 and partner gets a 29.9 if your entire rebuttal is just an interpretive dance (including background music of your choice). must be the entire length of a rebuttal speech time. i promise i won't tell your coach. this primarily acts as an option if you're thoroughly convinced you're cooked, but at least want some fire speaks and good fun aka make the best out of your situation. if online format, karaoke favorite song (and screenshare the lyrics so i can sing along)

+.1 speaks for a league of legends reference or if you can sneak some funny brainrot into it. (this stacks to an undisclosed limit) +.3 speaks if you reference/give a costco guys-style boom meter review in your rebuttal overview.

irregardless, i provide speaks on cx performance, case knowledge, and persuasive appeal.

｡ﾟ•┈꒰ა ♡ ໒꒱┈• ｡ﾟ

final remarks

any variation of in-round -isms, antiblackness, etc. is not tolerated + negative aura. i'll end a debate on an auto-loss and gossip to my teammates abt you. post-rounding ok but if ur mean i'm leaving :c

tldr ill vote on anything unproblematic and well-debated.

free tayk, free all settled colonies, free my mugshawty.

have fun and be good people.

I've coached LASA since 2005. I judge ~120 debates per season on the high school circuit.

If there’s an email chain, please add me: yaosquared@gmail.com.

If you have little time before the debate, here’s all you need to know: do what you do best. I try to be as unbiased as possible and I will defer to your analysis. As long as you are clear, go as fast as you want.

Most judges give appalling decisions. Here's where I will try to be better than them:

• They intervene, even when they claim they won't. Perhaps "tech over truth" doesn't mean what it used to. I will attempt to adjudicate and reach a decision purely on only the words you say. If that's insufficient to reach a decision either way--and it often isn't--I will add the minimum work necessary to come to a decision. The more work I have to do, the wider the range of uncertainty for you and the lower your speaks go.
• They aren't listening carefully. They're mentally checked out, flowing off the speech doc, distracted by social media, or have half their headphones off and are taking selfies during the 1AR. I will attempt to flow every single detail of your speeches. I will probably take notes during CX if I think it could affect my decision. If you worked hard on debate, you deserve a judge who works hard as well.
• They give poorly-reasoned decisions that rely on gut instincts and ignore arguments made in the 2NR/2AR. I will probably take my sweet time making and writing my decision. I will try to be as thorough and transparent as possible. If I intervene anywhere, I will explain why I had to intervene and how you could've prevented that intervention. If I didn't catch or evaluate an argument, I will explain why you under-explained or failed to extend it. I will try to anticipate your questions and preemptively answer them in my decision.
• They reconstruct the debate and try to find the most creative and convoluted path to a ballot. I guess they're trying to prove they're smart? These decisions are detestable because they take the debate away from the hands of the debaters. If there are multiple paths to victory for both teams, I will take what I think is the shortest path and explain why I think it's the shortest path, and you can influence my decision by explaining why you control the shortest path. But, I'm not going to use my decision to attempt to prove I'm more clever than the participants of the debate.
• If you think the 1AR is a constructive, you should strike me.

Meta Issues:

• I’m not a professional debate coach or even a teacher. I work as a finance analyst in the IT sector and I volunteer as a debate coach on evenings and weekends. I don’t teach at debate camp and my topic knowledge comes primarily from judging debates. My finance background means that, when left to my own devices, I err towards precision, logic, data, and concrete examples. However, I can be convinced otherwise in any particular debate, especially when it’s not challenged by the other team.
• Tech over truth in most instances. I will stick to my flow and minimize intervention as much as possible. I firmly believe that debates should be left to the debaters. I rarely make facial expressions because I don’t want my personal reactions to affect how a debate plays out. I will maintain a flow, even if you ask me not to. However, tech over truth has its limits. An argument must have sufficient explanation for it to matter to me, even if it’s dropped. You need a warrant and impact, not just a claim.
• Evidence comparison is under-utilized and is very important to me in close debates. I often call for evidence, but I’m much more likely to call for a card if it’s extended by author or cite.
• I don’t judge or coach at the college level, which means I’m usually a year or two behind the latest argument trends that are first broken in college and eventually trickle down to high school. If you’re reading something that’s close to the cutting edge of debate arguments, you’ll need to explain it clearly. This doesn’t mean I don’t want to hear new arguments. On the contrary, a big reason why I continue coaching debate is because I enjoy listening to and learning about new arguments that challenge my existing ways of thinking.
• Please mark your own cards. No one is marking them for you.
• If I feel that you are deliberately evading answering a question or have straight up lied, and the question is important to the outcome of the debate, I will stop the timer and ask you to answer the question. Example: if you read condo bad, the neg asks in CX whether you read condo bad, and you say no, I’ll ask if you want me to cross-out condo on my flow.

Framework:

• Don't over-adapt to me in these debates. If you are most comfortable going for procedural fairness, do that. If you like going for advocacy skills, you do you. Like any other debate, framework debates hinge on impact calculus and comparison.
• When I vote neg, it’s usually because the aff team missed the boat on topical version, has made insufficient inroads into the neg’s limits disad, and/or is winning some exclusion disad but is not doing comparative impact calculus against the neg’s offense. The neg win rate goes up if the 2NR can turn or access the aff's primary impact (e.g. clash and argument testing is vital to ethical subject formation).
• When I vote aff, it’s usually because the 2NR is disorganized and goes for too many different impacts, there’s no topical version or other way to access the aff’s offense, and/or concedes an exclusion disad that is then impacted out by the 2AR.
• On balance, I am worse for 2ARs that impact turn framework than 2ARs that have a counter-interp. If left to my own devices, I believe in models and in the ballot's ability to, over the course of time, bring models into existence. I have trouble voting aff if I can't understand what future debates look like under the aff's model.

Topicality:

• Over the years, “tech over truth” has led me to vote neg on some untruthful T violations. If you’re neg and you’ve done a lot of research and are ready to throw down on a very technical and carded T debate, I’m a good judge for you.
• If left to my own devices, predictability > debatability.
• Reasonability is a debate about the aff’s counter-interpretation, not their aff. The size of the link to the limits disad usually determines how sympathetic I am towards this argument, i.e. if the link is small, then I’m more likely to conclude the aff’s C/I is reasonable even without other aff offense.

Kritiks:

• The kritik teams I've judged that have earned the highest speaker points give highly organized and structuredspeeches, are disciplined in line-by-line debating, and emphasize key moments in their speeches.
• Just like most judges, the more case-specific your link and the more comprehensive your alternative explanation, the more I’ll be persuaded by your kritik.
• I greatly prefer the 2NC structure where you have a short (or no) overview and do as much of your explanation on the line-by-line as possible. If your overview is 6 minutes, you make blippy cross-applications on the line-by-line, and then you drop the last three 2AC cards, I’m going to give the 1AR a lot of leeway on extending those concessions, even if they were somewhat implicitly answered in your overview.
• Framework debates on kritiks often don't matter. For example, the neg extends a framework interp about reps, but only goes for links to plan implementation. Before your 2NR/2AR, ask yourself what winning framework gets you/them.
• I’m not a good judge for “role of the ballot” arguments, as I usually find these to be self-serving for the team making them. I’m also not a good judge for “competing methods means the aff doesn’t have a right to a perm”. I think the aff always has a right to a perm, but the question is whether the perm is legitimate and desirable, which is a substantive issue to be debated out, not a gatekeeping issue for me to enforce.
• I’m an OK judge for K “tricks”. A conceded root cause explanation, value to life impact, or “alt solves the aff” claim is effective if it’s sufficiently explained. The floating PIK needs to be clearly made in the 2NC for me to evaluate it. If your K strategy hinges on hiding a floating PIK and suddenly busting it out in the 2NR, I’m not a good judge for you.

Counterplans:

• Just like most judges, I prefer case-specific over generic counterplans, but we can’t always get what we want.
• I lean neg on PICs. I lean aff on international fiat, 50 state fiat, condition, and consult. These preferences can change based on evidence or lack thereof. For example, if the neg has a state counterplan solvency advocate in the context of the aff, I’m less sympathetic to theory.
• I will not judge kick the CP unless explicitly told to do so by the 2NR, and it would not take much for the 2AR to persuade me to ignore the 2NR’s instructions on that issue.
• Presumption is in the direction of less change. If left to my own devices, I will probably conclude that most counterplans that are not explicitly PICs are a larger change than the aff.

Disadvantages:

• I’m a sucker for specific and comparative impact calculus. For example, most nuclear war impacts are probably not global nuclear war but some kind of regional scenario. I want to know why your specific regional scenario is faster and/or more probable. Reasonable impact calculus is much more persuasive to me than grandiose impact claims.
• Uniqueness only "controls the direction of the link" if uniqueness can be determined with certainty (e.g. whip count on a bill, a specific interest rate level). On most disads where uniqueness is a probabilistic forecast (e.g. future recession, relations, elections), the uniqueness and link are equally important, which means I won't compartmentalize and decide them separately.
• Zero risk is possible but difficult to prove by the aff. However, a miniscule neg risk of the disad is probably background noise.

Theory:

• I actually enjoy listening to a good theory debate, but these seem to be exceedingly rare. I think I can be persuaded that many theoretical objections require punishing the team and not simply rejecting the argument, but substantial work needs to be done on why setting a precedent on that particular issue is important. You're unlikely to win that a single intrinsic permutation is a round-winning voter, even if the other team drops it, unless you are investing significant time in explaining why it should be an independent voting issue.
• I think that I lean affirmative compared to the rest of the judging community on the legitimacy of counterplans. In my mind, a counterplan that is wholly plan-inclusive (consultation, condition, delay, etc.) is theoretically questionable. The legitimacy of agent counterplans, whether domestic or international, is also contestable. I think the negative has the right to read multiple planks to a counterplan, but reading each plank conditionally is theoretically suspect.

Miscellaneous:

• I usually take a long time to decide, and give lengthy decisions. LASA debaters have benefitted from the generosity of judges, coaches, and lab leaders who used their decisions to teach and trade ideas, not just pick a winner and get a paycheck. Debaters from schools with limited/no coaching, the same schools needed to prevent the decline in policy debate numbers, greatly benefit from judging feedback. I encourage you to ask questions and engage in respectful dialogue with me. However, post-round hostility will be met with hostility. I've been providing free coaching and judging since before you were birthed into the world. If I think you're being rude or condescending to me or your opponents, I will enthusiastically knock you back down to Earth.
• I don't want a card doc. If you send one, I will ignore it. Card docs are an opportunity for debaters to insert cards they didn't read, didn't extend, or re-highlight. They're also an excuse for lazy judges to compensate for a poor flow by reconstructing the debate after the fact. If your debating was disorganized and you need a card doc to return some semblance of organization, I'd rather adjudicate the disorganized debate and then tell you it was disorganized.

Ways to Increase/Decrease Speaker Points:

• Look and sound like you want to be here. Judging can be spirit murder if you're disengaged and disinterested. By contrast, if you're engaged, I'll be more engaged and helpful with feedback.
• Argument resolution minimizes judge intervention. Most debaters answer opposing positions by staking out the extreme opposite position, which is generally unpersuasive. Instead, take the middle ground. Assume the best out of your opponents' arguments and use "even if" framing.
• Demonstrate that you flowed the entire debate. If you're reading pre-scripted 2NC/2NR/2AR blocks without adapting the language to the specifics of your debate, you've only proven that you're literate but possibly also an NPC. I would much rather hear you give a 2NR/2AR without a laptop, just off your paper flows, even if it's not as smooth.
• I am usually unmoved by aggression, loud volume, rudeness, and other similar posturing. It's both dissuasive and distracting. By contrast, being unusually nice will always be rewarded with higher points and never be seen as weakness. This will be especially appreciated if you make the debate as welcoming as possible against less experienced opponents.
• Do not steal prep. Make it obvious that you are not prepping if there's not a timer running.
• Do not be the person who asks for a roadmap one second after the other team stops prep. Chill. I will monitor prep usage, not you. You're not saving us from them starting a speech without giving a roadmap.
• Stop asking for a marked doc when they've only skipped or marked one or two cards. It's much faster to ask where they marked that card, and then mark it on your copy. If you marked/skipped many cards, you should proactively offer to send a new doc before CX.

Hai i am aless (she/her) My email is: alessandraescobar113@gmail.com

Graduated from CSULB

Preferences-

I am tech over truth however in certain circumstances, I will vote truth over tech (usually when the debate round is un-technical to begin with)

I don’t tolerate homophobia, sexism, racism, ableism, or any offensive arguments so don’t try it. If you do, I will give you a 25 or simply stop the debate round. If you insult me or the other opponents then I will stop the round and report you. This is an educational activity and I prioritize making this a safe space for everyone.

Onto specific arguments

T/ framework- Just give me everything; definitions, interps, clash, blah, blah etc I love it when people tell me how I should judge and give me a clear outline of what the debate means.

Kritiks- I love Kritiks, especially on the negative. Please run them right though. If you have a k aff tell me how to use your method, why it’s good, and a logical explanation as to why you decided to be untopical. Please don’t simply say something like ‘racism is bad’ Give me an actual method on how you specifically combat that (and why that’s good). It’s the same with Kritiks on the negative but just give me clear links and reasons I should prefer.

Policy affs- I love soft left policy affs but I can rock with a hard policy one too. There’s not much for me to say here except be prepared to over explain yourself with me since I usually judge/prefer kritiks.

DA’s- Explain this well and tell me why your impact outweighs.

CP’s- I think cp’s are funny but I still can vote for them. Just be clear and explain why your cp matters/outweighs. I do think cp’s can be abusive though so if the aff points this out to me I might vote on it.

More- I am pretty much a laid judge I love instructions on how to evaluate the round so I do prefer role of the judge/ ballot. I love when people use their voice to emphasize important things which is one of the things I take into account when assigning speaker points. ALSO if you have some form of feminism in your arguments I absolutely love that!!! (give me some crenshaw evidence).

The best way to contact me is through email. Bug me if you have any concerns/ questions. Even if I cannot answer them I will give you the people/resources you need to get what you are looking for.

That's it for my paradigm,,, byeeeee!

P.s if i give you a 30 you will get a hello kitty sticker!

.

email chain: csulbegg@gmail.com

LAMDL/DMHS '23 now debating at CSULB '27

ppl i talk abt debate with: jean kim (bestieeee), aless escobar (my db8 partner), gabby torres, erika linares, curtis ortega, diego flores, deven cooper, jaysyn green

stuff to know

tabroom has been glitching but please refer to me as Dorian they/them even if my name shows up as something else

have the chain done before im in the room if possible

be nice to each other

things to know

run whatever arguments you're the best at. i vote on things i don't think are true all the time. so stick to what you know.

i appreciate a good role of the ballot/judge and framework debate above anything else. if you're winning framework, use that to your advantage!

annunciation > spreading like please i dont wanna be mean but like please...

impact things out. if something was dropped, tell me why that matters in the round.

i LOVE LOVE LOVE "even if" arguments

don't just do defense, also make offensive arguments and force your opponents to explain the nitty gritty of their stuff

you become a lot more compelling when you use real world scenarios/examples for every argument

if you come up with questions after the round, have your coaches email me :)

Ks & K Affs

I'm a K-aff and K-friendly judge so feel free to pref me if that's what you go for. Make the framework debate exceptionally clear for me. Do extensive work on how your K Aff creates subject formation or changes subjectivities and why reading the k aff in the debate space is good. It is crucial you make and win these arguments in every speech. I think these arguments are inherently true and winnable but don't just automatically assume I'll believe this if it is not made a huge deal in the round since on instinct T/FW teams are gonna say k affs are useless (which i soooo disagree with but not winning these arguments makes debating a K aff exceptionally harder) and you SHOULD have extensive answers to this...

As for Ks as an off case, really just make the links known. like spending 1-3 minutes of your speech on the links will do you justice and also do more work to explain the alternative because I feel as though the alt debate almost becomes an afterthought in some debates . . . also don't assume i automatically know what you're talking about if you're running some higher theory things. So idk, I would appreciate a good overview lol

T & T-FW

i like to try to be a flexi debater so if T/T-FW if your go-to then I'm willing to vote on that as well. Impact the procedural out and definitely use examples of how their model of debate wasn't/can never be fair to you.

LD specific

don't do tricks

speaker points

i start at a 28.5

good speech organization, line-by-line, answering things said in cross X will get you good speaks

i will lower speaks for general rudeness in round or only one partner engaging/answering CX the entire time or spreading with no annunciation

i think a lot of kids don't know the difference between being assertive and rude so if I find behavior particularly problematic I'll notify coaches

i would prefer if you didn't run arguments that interfere with the way I evaluate speaks. I try my best not to inflate speaker points and be fair in my assessment of who deserves what speaks.

I will disclose speaks after the round only if requested during the rfd.

thx for reading

since u made it to the end something you should know about me is that i love cats. if you can guess what my fav cat breed is I will give you +0.1 on your speaker points (hint its an expensive cat and is kinda instagram-famous) email me your guess with everyone on a chain and i will reply if you got it right.

Updated - 9/5/2024

Email: I do not use email for debate rounds please use tabroom.share or speech drop.

Experience:

Coached debate at HAIS (1), Crosby (3.5), Dulles (3.5), and Niles West (3.)

Debated policy for 4 years at Crosby (2004-2008), In College at UMKC (Fall 2009), and Houston (Spring 2009, 2012-2015)

Non-negotiables

• If you use sexually explicit language or engage in sexually explicit performances in high school debates, you should strike me.
• If you think the appropriate response to other people explaining how they need to be included in debate is to say "West is best" or "Violence towards people like you is good" please strike me.
• Purposeful or dismissive acts of misgendering will result in a full speaker point loss and if the other team makes it an argument the possible loss of a ballot.
• All permutations must have a text.
• I will not vote on hidden theory shells unless the following are met (I clearly have it on my flow, the document sent during the round includes it , and the theory is warranted to be sufficient for a winning argument how it is read in the original form.)

Tech ---------------------------------------------------------X----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Truth

I very slightly side with tech, but more importantly conceded arguments are only as good as the warrants you extend and what the evidence actually says. Not your tagline, the argument/evidence. I think this is important because the Flow is very important to my decision making but I am not willing to vote for a gross misrepresentation of evidence, nor am I willing to entertain tagline extensions as warranted explanations. I can never think of a reason for a debater to say "read this card" if you're doing your job I should read it and go yep that is what they said in round! Truth also matters, if confronted with conflicting claims about the nature of a set of evidence I will pass judgement on correctness over technical factors.

What is Debate?

I think that we need to understand we are a community of people responsible for the activity, We are responsible for teaching and guiding students to make decisions that are descriptive of the community they wish to compete within.

Policy

Theory

Theoretical rejections of the team have an incredibly high burden in my mind. Theoretical rejections of the argument have a much lower burden. For me to vote for a team entirely on theory they must prove that the debate was borderline impossible. Contrarily to win reject them argument you only have to prove the debate would be better without the argument. To me using theory to force a condensing of the round is a sound strategy. Also, generally, if you're conceding that conditionality is good then you're highly unlikely to get me to vote down the team on another theory argument.

DA's

Disadvantages are the core of all aspects of debating. Make sure you extend all four components when going for a DA. This includes when going for Disadvantages from any perspective.

CP's

Calling into question the legitimacy of many different types of counter-plans should be a portion of your strategy. Too many affirmatives allow the negative to get away with a lot of abuse on the counter-plan that they shouldn't. CP must have a text, a clear solvency mechanism and a net benefit. Please make sure you extend each if you go for the argument. Perm do Both, Perm Do CP, and Perm do aff and CP on other issues are all answers to various things, but the latter two you need to justify. Please create nuance in both perm and theory debates this makes life a lot easier.

Framework

I feel strongly that framework should be part of a strategy to answer critical affirmatives but should not be your "answer" for critical affirmatives. Given the debates I have watched most recently the question of fairness vs critical education has largely come out of the side of critical education arguments. I also think that the majority of rounds I voted for framework have been for clash standards, with a very strong push for limiting subject formation, and a very strong push that the game effects every aspect of debate and thus infects the critical education/DA's the aff is going for. Combined with SSD or solid TVA push this tends to be the easiest way to my ballot as the negative. I also find the more you mitigate the aff itself the more likely I am to vote for something like Fairness or Clash is a sliding scale.

For the affirmative having your DA/Critical Education impact turn the content we clash over needs to be explicitly done, I generally am fine with any number of potential frames for this type of arguments and am willing to vote on innovations if they impact turn the clash or fairness' content or form. That being said I do not judge college debates (I've judged like 3 in my lifetime.) and as such the new verbiages or the hottest new trend needs to be explained to me in this format. What is the argument? Why does it impact turn Clash/Fairness? and What resolves the claim? (Alt or interp.) The aff must also have a good reason it needs to occur on the aff. I'm down for SSD bad to be clear but being aff is special and their should be a reason you need to be aff.

Critical Affirmatives

Critical affirmatives should have a solid defense of both their importance but also the importance of debating it. There should be a clear area of debate that the negative can and should engage in. That being said I really enjoy watching good Kritikal affirmatives deploy the various ways of relooking at debate structures and topics. I find affirmatives that are either very small but willing to engage with whatever strategy the negative chooses, or conversely, very large structural affirmatives that will engage on a theory level with everything to be the best. Be ready to answer the core questions negation should ask you. Why this aff? Why this round? Why negate this? Why this ballot? If you think you have good answers to those then I'm likely going to enjoy watching the debate.

The Kritik

Kritik as framework :I am willing to vote for kritiks that pair down to just a framework argument but feel this decision needs to be hyper clear in the 2NR, preferably in the 2NC as that would give you the biggest set of arguments and still lets you no link aff offense. If you are going for framework then do that, don't hedge bets that's generally how you lose rounds. Win that the affs scholarship is fundamentally abhorrent or unreliable to the point of worthlessness. Win that this furthers systems of domination, and win that a model of rejection proposed by the negative interp is a better world for debate than the consequences only style the aff uses.

Kritik as structure: I am willing to vote for kritiks as structural criticisms, I treat these debates very much how I treat CP/DA debates. You need to win the alt and a net benefit that outweighs the aff. Obviously you can do that through mitigation of the aff or via the alternative resolving the impacts, or action of the 1AC. I like clear Link -> Impact -> Alt solves extensions just like I expect that from CP/DA Debates.

The PIK: I have no issues with these if they are clearly flagged (I do mean very clearly) in either the 1NC or the Block. I do not think you get to answer the CX question can the kritik result in the aff, say no and then proceed to go for a PIK. I think these can be strategic especially against arguments about reps, but you need to win reps severance bad, and that PIKS are good. It is a strategy do not mind it have fun.

I am okay with judging anything in round. I firmly believe that debates should be left up to the debaters and what they want to run. If you want to read policy or a new kritik; I am good with anything y'all as debaters want to run. Do not read anything that is homophobic, racist, ableist, or sexiest in round. Debate should be a safe place for everyone. A little bit about me I was a 1A/2N my senior year. I recently graduated from Sac State with a major in Communications and Women's Studies. I am currently applying to Law school and will be attending a law school in fall of 2024. I am currently a policy coach for the Sacramento Urban Debate League, coaching at Ghidotti, CKM, and West Campus.

Kritikal Affs: I love identity politics affirmatives. They are one of my favorite things to judge and hear at tournaments. I ran an intersectional k aff my senior year. If you run an identity politics affirmative then I am a great judge for you. For high theory k affs I am willing to listen to them I am just not as well adapted in that literature as identity politics. But on the negative, I did run biopower.

Policy Affirmative: Well duh.... I am good at judging a hard-core policy round or a soft-left affirmative. Once again whatever the debaters want to do I am good with judging anything.

Framework: I feel like the question for framework that debaters are asking here is if I am more of a tech or truth kind of judge. I would say its important for debaters to give me judge instruction on how they want to me to judge the round. If you want me to prefer tech or truth you need to tell me that, and also tell me WHY I should prefer tech or truth. The rest of the debate SSD, TVAs etc need to be flushed out and not 100% blipy. But that's pretty much how I feel like with every argument on every flow.

CP/DA: Do whatever is best for you on how many you want to bring into the round.

Theory: I will be honest; I am not the best at evaluating theory arguments. I know what they are, and you can run them in front of me. But if you go for them, judge instruction is a must, and explaining to me how voting for this theory shell works for the debate space etc.

I like being told what to vote for and why. I am lazy to my core. If I have to look at a speech doc at the end of the round I will default to what happened in the round, not on the doc.

On a side note, go follow the Sacramento Urban Debate League on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook. Also, I want to be in the email chain. My email is smsj8756@gmail.com thanks!

My email is: simeonfeng@gmail.com

I'm from the science background so good reasoning and sounding logic to support your case during the debate are the primary quality I'm leaning towards.

Presentation skills: clarity, confidence and fluence are things I value. Spreading is okay but less important to me.

Manners: Be respectful to your opponents. No tolerance to harmful, hateful language / actions.

Good luck!

Last edit 02/16/24:

Christopher McGinnis

Add me to the chain! (chrmcg17@gmail.com).

Affiliations:

Downtown College Prep

Silver Creek High School

Silicon Valley Urban Debate League

Just a few helpful FAQ's:

• Yes open cx is ok (unless it's a mav round or prohibited by the tourney)
• Yes email me your ev
• Yes I disclose (unless directly prohibited by the tournament)
• Yes you need to time your own prep/cx/speech
• Strike me if ur going to post round me, like you can def ask me questions regarding my decision but pls don't make it awkward, I'll slowly back out of the room to be real.
• Pronouns are (He/him)
• Also feel free to ask me questions/email me post round for clarifying Q's.
• Pls ask questions before the round so you have the best understanding of my judging philosophy.
• Please make me aware of any accommodations before the round.
• I debated for 4 years in hs, but I haven’t debated in 2 years sooooo i’m not super familiar with the topic.

Overview

I have a decent amount of policy experience (4yr), and have relatively well rounded knowledge of the lit base for higher level args such as K's. I've debated on the local, state and national circuits and have seen many types of args and styles. With this in mind I have little judging experience so forgive me if I get super into it lol, feel free to debate however you want as I feel like I've seen it all in terms of arg style. If you want to be a policy team, go for it, if you want to run a 1 off k , go for it. One thing I will say is that I tend to engage better with args that have good time allotment and nuance, thus you'll be rewarded for spending time building and executing an arg.

AFF

I like to keep these specifics short, let me know what you're doing, why and how. I like to think of the aff as a balloon, if you let someone poke a hole, the entire balloon pops. You have infinite time to get to know your aff, so know your aff. With this in mind I like to reward people who take risks in debate, so run a k or do a performance if you want. Whatever you do argue well and have fun with it! Also I understand this might be your first or second time running your case, if so now is the time to learn and take notes so you can build it further.

DA/CP/PIC

I don't have a ton of topic knowledge for this year, thus if you want to run a da/cp that isn't generic (think federalism and states cp) than you might have to put some work in letting me know what your trying to say. Also, I'm not gonna vote for it if I don't know the impact, don't make me assume the world ends let me know why and how. If you run a cp that's generic have good specifics, It pains me to vote for stale args :(. Also, if you run a pic, to be completely real I might get lost, good luck!!

K

K's are fun!! Just pls pls pls know the lit, obviously you don't have to be at a graduate level understanding buttttt I will probably know if you found it 15 min before the round (who knows though prove me wrong). I don't want to name authors I favor to avoid bias, just be aware of your arg and it's implications especially when running a K. My attention span is short but my tolerance for ignorant args is shorter. Also when running turns pls make me aware that you are making an offensive arg and don't just spread through them, that could be your winner. Racial args that are poorly executed by individuals that don't experience said impacts tends to sour the arg as a whole.

Theory

I <3 theory, but as the great Ryan Mills said "Theory is an uphill battle" be careful as theory is generally a last resort. You must prove In round abuse, which is a difficult task. It's a good idea to have me in the room for disclose to avoid theory issues.

Spreading:

Ok so, I have pretty low tolerance for spreading, I'll clear you once or twice but eventually I will put my pen down. Do what you want but beware and keep an ear out for my clear.

At the end of the day, I made some of my deepest connections through debate, our community is everything. My first and foremost role as a judge in your round is to make the debate space as safe and accessible as possible. Racism, xenophobia, homophobia or intolerance of any kind will not tolerated in my rounds. Pls respect your opponent during and after the round. As a debater I despise judge interference, however I will gladly interfere if a student is made to feel unsafe or uncomfortable.

Make good args and have fun ya'll!! <33

(he/him); armangiveaway@gmail.com

Debated for four years at Peninsula

Currently at Cal (not debating) studying plant biology and data science

If I can't understand you I'll stop flowing. Don't expect me to compensate from the doc - I usually don't look at those until the end of the debate. Stay on the safe side and be clear even if it means sacrificing speed.

You must read your rehighlightings if you want me to evaluate them.

General notes: the rebuttals should be like an RFD, you need to explain a way in which I can feel comfortable voting for you while also taking into account your opponents offense. Please don't just extend arguments from your constructives but also interact with your opponents claims.

Plan-less affs: Please don't. But if you must I prefer if they be contextualized to the topic. If you're reading something complicated, I need a solid enough explanation in the round that's sufficient for me to understand what the argument you're going for is. Obviously T is the most intuitive argument against these positions and you should certainly go for it if you want to. I find that impact turning T is the best way to go if you're aff. Fairness is an impact. I also really like seeing contextualized and well researched Ks and PIKs against these sorts of affs. If you have one, don't be afraid to go for it.

Soft-left affs: I think they're great. You need a compelling argument for why I should shift away from the delusional impact weighing assumptions that policy debate has normalized. CPs that solve the aff are probably the best neg strat.

T v. plan: Don't really have any unusual thoughts on T. Go for it if you must. I have a limited experience going for or judging it but as long as you debate it well you should be fine.

K: I enjoy these, and I have found myself primarily going for them as I matured as a debater. I like specific critiques. If I listened to your 2NC in a vacuum and I didn't know what 1AC you were responding to then that's a problem so make sure to do the contextual work here to really impress me.

Framework for the K: I'm inclined to evaluate debates through an offense-defense paradigm. It's your job to show that the assumptions made in the 1AC implicate aff solvency/truth claims.

If you're aff in front of me and you're choosing between impact turning or link turning the links, you should impact turn unless you have a good reason not to. I find teams tend to be more successful in front of me doing the former.

Theory: you need in round abuse to go for it. I love theory 2ARs against really abusive CPs. It's probably your best way out. I think i'm pretty charitable to condo 2ARs.

Thoughts on competition: I don't default to judge kick and I don't think "the status quo is always a logical option" is a particularly good model since it invites loads of judge intervention. If you go for a CP and the aff has offense to the CP that outweighs the offense the neg has forwarded then i'm voting aff. Same goes for the alt.

I have a lower bar for aff victory on the perm than most people I know. The role of the perm is to prove that all of the plan and some of the CP/Alt could plausibly happen and not trigger the DA. As long as I reasonably believe this to be true, then i'm voting aff. I don't think the aff needs to win a 'net benefit' to the perm bc that makes the perm no longer about competition and warps it into some sort of advocacy that the aff could go for which isn't what I believe the perm to be.

Process Counterplans: I don't necessarily have a problem with these. God knows I went for them way too often in high school. However, I am very charitable to affirmative perms that test the germaneness of the net benefit.

LD Note: You can probably skip the part of the AC where you define all the words in the res. Not a fan of tricks.

darinparkdebate@gmail.com

darin, not judge please.

i do not keep up with or frequently think about debate. please slow down 20%+, especially on theory, competition, etc.

i really don't care what you do. mostly everything is grounds for debate barring blatantly problematic positions. the more you demonstrate comprehensive understanding of a topic, the better.

probably worse for planless affs than average and slightly better for topicality against affs with a plan than average.

conditionality is nearly always good.

you can't insert re-highlights.

do not talk about things that happened outside the round.

Email - reesethomasj@gmail.com - include on all chains

Affiliation - USC (debater), Niles West (coach), Michigan (instructor) - I would drop my own mother in a debate round if she lost.

General:

Read what you want. I don't understand the separation between teams calling themselves "policy debaters" or "K debaters." Debate is a process that is performed through close readings.

I think that dropped arguments are mostly true (if there are warrants) and conceded arguments are 100% true.

• All debates ARE ABOUT LISTENING, if you show me you are actively engaged in your opponent’s arguments your speaker points will increase, if you are not listening I will be super upset.

I've been on both sides of every argument you can imagine and feel confident I can evaluate the arguments you want to go for.

I once had very detailed sections about my thoughts on various positions, but know now that I was doing a disservice to you because you aren't going to (nor should you) reinvent yourself in the 10 minutes before the 1AC starts. Instead I am offering things that irk me which is to say the debate is entirely in your hands. I list these things only to provide context to why I am probably frowning (I am expressive) and also to remain light hearted. I know that you are probably anxiously reading this determining pre-round strategy or pre-tournament prefs but just know even being here is an A+ in my book and you should do what you do best!

Things that irk me:

Word salad highlighting.

Tag, "the aff causes extinction", one line highlighted, next card!

Re-highlighting but never referencing the lines you re-highlight.

"It's me and my blocks against the world" - I too have a good relationship with my computer but hope that for two hours we don't just have our heads buried in our screens.

"It's going to be 16 off and the 2NR strategy is time skew"

Extending a CP without 1) doing solvency explanations for the aff advantages 2) refusing to explain the mechanism of the CP as though I am a lawyer and know what nuance thing you are spreading at light speed. I should not need to read your cards, I rarely call for a doc, and if I don't know literally what the process of the CP is I will not be voting for it.

DA - forcing me to do comparative impact calculus for you.

FW - It's a game, no it's my life and then I imagine both teams just start mauling each other. While important framing devices they only matter in so far as you apply them.

Going for FW as an abstract Willy-Wonka thing rambling about a big library while dropping impact turns.

Answering FW - 1) policing 2) here is my list of bad people 3) I am part of x, y, z debate tradition but DO NOT ask me any details about the tradition.

Going for FW - here's my counter list of bad people + fairness paradox (maniacal laughter).

T - treating limits like it's math class and providing nothing tangible for me to sink my ballot into.

Ks - but I read my FW block at you and went for links that had nothing to do with the aff as an object of research!

Ks - if I can just weigh my aff it's a sure ballot (the 2NR does not go for FW).

Ks - link analysis was when I wrote out 6 thesis statements and said "the aff causes" 8 times

K affs - you mean you didn't understand the aff, I said modernity 10 times, how could you vote on presumption when the neg doesn't go to case - well to be fair I literally did not understand the aff.

K affs - but I read the presumption block I read against every K aff, shouldn't that count for something?

Theory - Debate is so my side bias, here is my list of 10 debate buzz words and good luck Thomas! Also they dropped subpoint G of my vagueness azspec block easy ballot!

Other:

An ethics violation is only an ethics violation if the team stakes the round on it.

Speech time ends, I stop flowing - not getting paid enough to listen to all that.

Email chain: lukasrhoades11@gmail.com

Peninsula 22, UCLA 25. I mostly read policy arguments.

I decide rounds based on arguments I flow. I assign weight based on the completeness of an argument. I will not evaluate new arguments in the 2AR, so justify anything that may seem new. I will not evaluate anything that occurs outside of the round.

I will not look at the document during your speech. I will only evaluate what you highlight. I will not clear you, but it will be clear that I cannot understand you. Differentiating tags and content in constructive speeches will greatly improve your chance of winning. I will not reconstruct your speech from analytics.

I flow cross examination.

I will not intervene to create new arguments. I will decide framework by choosing between interpretations provided by the debaters.

The above are non-negotiables, but everything else is decided through arguments on a round-by-round basis. For example, I will vote on presumption if you explain why I should.

Default: kick the counterplan.

Be nice!

Lowell '20 l UCLA '24 | Berkeley Law '27

Yes, email chain: zoerosenberg [at] gmail [dot] com, please format the subject as: "Tournament Name -- Round # -- Aff School AF vs Neg School NG"

Background: I was a 2N for four years at Lowell, I qualified to the TOC my senior year and was in late elims of NSDA. I don't debate in college due to a lack of policy infrastructure. I judge somewhat frequently on the west coast so I have a good sense of arguments being read on the circuit.

GGSA/State Qualifier: I will still judge rounds technically, as one does for circuit debate. However, I believe adaptation is one of the most important skills one can get out of debate so I encourage you to speak slowly, especially with parents on the panel.

--

Tech before truth. It's human nature to have preferences toward certain arguments but I try my best to listen and judge objectively. All of the below can be changed by out-debating the other team through judge instruction and ballot writing. Unresolved debates are bad debates.

Speed is great, but clarity is even better. If I'm judging you online please go slightly slower, especially if you don't have a good mic. I find it increasingly hard to hear analytics in the online format.

Be smart. I rather hear great analytical arguments than terrible cards. I generally think in-round explanation is more important than evidence quality.

I'm very expressive, look at me if you want to know if I'm digging your argument!

Call me by my name, not "judge".

Debnil Sur taught me everything I know about debate so check: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=debnil&search_last= for a better explanation of anything I have to say here.

Longer Stuff

What arguments does she prefer? I went for mostly policy arguments and feel more in my comfort zone judging these debates. That being said, I moved more to the left as my years in high school came to a close and am down to judge a well-defended kritikal affirmative. I think debate is a game but it's a game that can certainly can influence subjectivity development. Note: I would still prefer to judge a bad policy debate, over a bad kritikal debate.

Online Debate Adaptions

Here are some things you can do to make the terribleness of online tournaments a little less terrible.

1 - I really would like your camera to be on, wifi permitting. Debate is a communicative activity and your persuasion increases by tenfold if you are communicating with me face to face.

2 - Please use some form of microphone or slow down by 20%. It is really hard to catch analytics with poor audio quality.

3 - The benefits of sending analytics vastly outweigh the cons of someone having your blocks to a random argument.

4 - If it takes you more than a minute to send out an email chain I will start running prep. I genuinely don't understand how it can take up to five minutes to attach a document to an email chain lmao

K Stuff:

K Affs: I read a kritikal affirmative all of senior year but on the negative went for framework against most K affs. I don't have a definite bias toward either side. However, kritikal affirmatives that defend a direction of the topic and allow the negative to access core topic generics jive with me much more than simply impact turning fairness and skirting the resolution.

Framework: Fairness is an impact. By the 2NR please don't go for more than two impacts. Having a superior explanation why the TVA resolves their offense and doing impact comparison will put you in a good spot. Switch-side debate is a silly argument, but feel free to convince me otherwise.

Neg: I know the lit behind security, neolib, psychoanalysis, and necropolitics. Make of that which you will. I'm not going to be happy listening to your 7 minute overview. Explain the thesis of the kritik and contextualize the link debate to the aff and I will be quite happy. Winning framework means you probably win the ballot. And as Debnil puts it, "I believe I'm more of an educator than policymaker, which means representational critiques or critiques of debate's educational incentive structure will land better for me than most judges."

Competing interps or reasonability? Competing interps. Asserting a standard like limits needs to be warranted out, explain why your impacts matters. Have a clear vision of the topic under your interp, things like case-lists and a solid understanding of arguments being read on the circuit are important. T before theory. Also a good topicality debate is my favorite thing ever.

Is condo good? Yes, most of the time. Things like amending stuff in the block, kicking planks, fiating out of straight turns are sketchy. But in most debates, unless it's dropped or severely mishandled I lean neg. To win condo the affirmative must have a superior explanation why multiple advocacies made that debate unrecoverable. Going for condo only because you're losing on substance is not the move. Hard debate is good debate. Other theory preferences (I-Fiat, Process CPs, etc.) are likely determined by the topic. However, they're almost always reasons to reject the argument not the team.

Policy stuff? I like it. Link centered debate matters the most, so focus on uniqueness and link framing. Do comparative analysis of the warrants in your evidence. I really dislike bad turns case analysis, link turns case arguments will sit better with me. I think most types of counterplans are legitimate if the neg wins they are competitive. I'll judge kick if you tell me to do it.

Please include me on email chains: nsaper@polytechnic.org

Debate Coach at Polytechnic School (Pasadena, CA)

Policy debater in high school ('03) and in college at USC ('07)

Moderate speed is okay, but clarity is key. If I can't understand you, I will let you know--but I'm not going to say "clear" more than twice in a speech.

Tell me how I should decide the round and why. Tell me why you are right, why your evidence is better, why you should win, etc.

Participants must handle timekeeping. Cross-ex is binding.

Add me to the email chain: nkshetty170@gmail.com

Parent Judge

Tag team/open cross is fine

Do’s:

Speaking clearly

Being nice to your opponent and make sure to smile!

Adding everyone to the email chain

Dont’s:

Toxicity

Non disclosure

Being mean to the judge or the opponents (there’s no reason to be mean)

Being late

Be respectful, debate is supposed to be fun. Speak clearly and don’t be condescending to your opponents.

Have fun!

Berkeley '26

Peninsula Graduate

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

If it's more than 2 short cards or if the card is long, put it in a doc.

You can insert rehighlightings, but explain the argument you're making.

I'm tech>truth, but complete arguments need claim(s), warrants, and impact(s). "They dropped the impact" is not an argument or something I can vote on alone.

Speed is okay but you need to be clear. For theory arguments, framework, K overviews, and T you need to be at least as slow as the speed you read tags. If you are reading anything, including your blocks, at the speed you read the body of a card, I will not flow the words you are saying.

I will probably protect the 2NR from new 2AR arguments; there should be a version of the argument you are extending in the 1AR unless it is a new 2NR argument.

Cross-ex is important.

Please do impact calc/argument comparison.

Theory: I will vote on dropped theory, if explained, and I think condo is good but can be persuaded otherwise.

CPs: I will judgekick counterplans if there are no arguments about it, and the 2AR can have new judgekick bad args.

T: Fairness is a impact and fairness>skills/education. Reasonability is a question of how I evaluate the interpretation debate, not the we meet.

Disads: I don't think a disad can have zero risk (including when the aff makes framing arguments) (unless it's already happened) so you should debate as though the disad has a sizeable risk. Specific cards and arguments are best -- use evidence quality, if you have it, to your advantage.

Ks: I think the advantages of the hypothetical implementation of the plan should be weighed against the impacts to the links. I can be persuaded by framework arguments, but as with T, I think fairness>skills/education. Please do impact calc and make the links specific to the aff/case. I am very unlikely to vote for fiat is illusory type arguments or similar tricks.

K Affs: On framework, fairness>skills/education. I generally think that the aff should defend a hypothetical action of the United States federal government, but can be persuaded otherwise. Assume I do not know your theory, so you should make sure to explain your arguments clearly--I won't vote for you if I don't know what I'm voting for. For K v K, I am probably not the best, but if this debate happens, both sides should make the distinctions between the two Ks clear. I think the aff gets perms.

Definitely ask any questions you have before the round.

Be nice and good luck!

DEBATE & GENERAL BACKGROUND:

4 years, high school (1987-1991, IE [oratory, extemp], Congress, LD)

4 years, Boston College (1991 - 1995, NDT/Policy)

Moot court, Villanova Law School

Assistant Coach/Judge, Kings College (1996 - 1997)

Coaching/Judging: ~ 100+ rounds 1996 - present

Assistant Speech & Debate Coach, Sacred Heart Cathedral Prep (current)

Attorney (litigation): 27years (my ‘day job’)

OVERVIEW

Please send all evidence to: cdsdebatejudge@gmail.com

Remember that at its core, debate is a communication activity and the debater’s job is to persuade. Well presented arguments, with strong links and internal links and supported by credible evidence with authoritative sources, are always the most persuasive. I appreciate clash — debaters should not sidestep their opponent’s arguments. Take them head on and address them.

I’m a lawyer, and this is a legal topic, but don’t assume that means I can decipher every esoteric argument. And it is up to YOU, the debaters, to make the arguments. I will not bring my background (e.g., deciding that a legal argument you make is wrong) into a round at your expense when your opponents do not make that argument.

My quirks, issues, and pet peeves:

• Organization and Roadmapping. I debated back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, man discovered fire, and debaters carried 150 pounds of evidence with them in tubs across college campuses. Affirmative cases lived in literal “affirmative cases” - accordion folders of various colors. But back then, people were organized. Electronic debate appears to have warped everyone's ability to number or name their arguments, or even have a remotely organized speech. If you are debating in front of me, name your off case positions (e.g,, "Disadvantage - Court Clog" or even "Harold the Counterplan," but SOMETHING that distinguishes them) and organize them. "A. Link, B. Uniqueness, C. Internal Link, D. Impact, etc.), tell me where you are on case and number your arguments ("Now go to Contention III, Solvency, I have five arguments, 1. Aff can't solve because . . . ") Take a beat (or at least a breath) between positions so I know there is a transition. I will stop flowing if I am lost or can't follow you. If you choose not to number or organize your arguments, you do so at your peril.
• Speed is fine. Incoherent debate is not. I can generally follow you if you go quickly and enunciate and number your arguments. If you don't, I can't. It's as simple as that. I'm also not beholden to the blocks that go back and forth, even if you email them to me. The evidence has to be introduced orally. Sometimes debaters debate from the evidence that they exchange and not from the evidence that actually gets introduced in the round - and I won’t consider that evidence. Please remember this fact.
• Baseless evidentiary/ethical challenges. Never, ever, ever make these claims lightly. I have seen many debates where these claims have been thrown around haphazardly like it's just another argument in the line by line. But they're not. If you make a serious ethical challenge to evidence (fabricated source, miscited source, cards cut seriously out of context so as to completely change their meaning), I reserve my right to stop the debate and evaluate the challenge immediately. Teams making an ethical challenge must be able to prove it with an original copy of the source material that clearly shows the violation. Teams that allege an ethical violation that they cannot prove will lose the debate and get zero speaker points. On the other hand, teams proven to have committed an ethical violation will lose the debate and get zero speaker points.

SPECIFICS

JUDGING PHILOSOPHY: I’m a policymaker by default but can shift to other paradigms (stock issues, tabula rasa) if persuaded to do so. Regardless of whether I’m judging LD, PuFo, or Policy, I find good, sound policies persuasive.

ORGANIZATION: Organization is everything in policy. See above. This means not only giving an off-time roadmap but keeping yourself organized on the flow itself. If an argument gets dropped, you win it. But if you don't number/organize your arguments, and I can't find it on my flow, I can't extend it and you can't win it. When you move between positions during your speech (DA, case, CP, etc.), make sure you take a beat and TELL me where you are going. And remember to EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS/EVIDENCE, because if it's not extended, it effectively ceases to exist.

DECISION CALCULUS/WEIGHING: This is something that the best debaters do well. It's essential for the 2NR and 2AR to tell me what the issues are and why they win, and exactly how I should vote and why, but it's important to start developing these analyses starting from the very first speech. Also, analyze impacts. Why do your 5 nuclear wars outweigh your opponent's global extinction? But don't forget to weigh and impact arguments throughout the debate. If your opponent drops an argument, extend it and explain why that dropped argument wins the round.

On specific issues:

Topicality: It’s always a voting issue. Don’t drop it. But voting on T is disfavored. I need to have a really good reason to vote on T. If it’s a close call, I’ll default to the case being topical. Also, if you go for T in the 2NR, you should really go for it. Fair warning - I have not heard many good T arguments on this year’s topic at all.

Affirmative case. This is always the heart of the debate. While stock issues aren't really my paradigm, cases with little impact or poor solvency don’t persuade me and rarely outweigh the impact to a good DA. Make sure your case is logical and has the requisite internal links to get to your stated harms though. Really key to have strong solvency evidence supporting the affirmative plan. Specificity in the plan is key.

Counterplans: I don't like topical counterplans, and I’m not a huge fan of introducing them in the 2N. Counterplans should be competitive and provide a clear net benefit that they can solve for. I hate conditionality - especially in cases like where the negative gets up and runs three inconsistent conditional counterplans - because I don't think it's fair to create a moving target that can be jettisoned after the negative block and am very open to “conditionality bad” theory arguments in such circumstances. That said, you need to be able to persuade me of some abuse. A single conditional or dispositional counterplan, by itself, is unlikely to push me to vote aff.

DAs: Links are key. Tenuous links to huge impacts far off in the future are far less persuasive than a compelling link to a moderate impact and a strong internal link. I find link turns to be very persuasive and will happily vote on turns. Not a fan of “nuke war good” arguments but, hey, it’s your debate, and if even silly arguments are not properly addressed they can become voting issues.

Kritiks: These were just coming into vogue when I was in college. I will evaluate and vote on them if they are well developed and coherent. However, I am VERY open to theory arguments on Kritiks, and my bias is that they don't belong in policy debate. This is distinct, of course, from a deontological "decision rule,” framework, or another impact analysis-type argument.

Good luck!

Put me on the email chain jackwalsh01@g.ucla.edu

THE IMPORTANT PART: I try to be totally agnostic when reaching decisions, but in terms of my experience I will probably be the most effective judge for clash of civs and kritik debates. I mostly answered framework and kritiks as a 1A and my neg debates were almost exclusively 1-off settler colonialism. Still, I will absolutely vote on framework against a k aff, and my experience in technical framework debates can probably help you because I can understand how your arguments interact. Trying to win framework versus a k aff in front of me means that a switch side claim or a TVA (the TVA probably being more persuasive) is very important, as aff teams tend to win some amount of "our critique/scholarship is valuable" in front of me, and I need a response to that.

And a bit about me, and how I judge:

I'm Jack, I was a 1A/2N. I judged all last year, planning on judging quite a bit this year too. I debated for three years for Davis Senior High in CX, I attended the TOC my senior year. Did NPDA for two years for UCSD with no major accomplishments, I graduated UCLA this year. I currently coach for the Sac Urban Debate League doing policy coaching and some non-policy stuff as well. If you have questions about debating and growing at a team without debate infrastructure I have a LOT of experience with that, having had to do that in both high school and college. I read queerness arguments on the aff and settler colonialism on the neg.

I'll be able to understand pretty much any rate of speed but I can only write so fast, so slow down a little bit on your very technical and in-depth analytic shells. The average number of times I call clear per tournament is zero, it really probably won't come up. I just don't want you to go top speed through your analytical framework shell so I can get everything down.

I have not yet voted for a kritik that did not win either the efficacy of their alt or their framework interpretation, I could see voting for such a kritik only if your link card is particular spicy and turns case-y (and even then it's still helpful to have framework).

I don't like having to reread speech docs. I will default to the contextualization that I hear in the round of cards, interpretations, linear disadvantages, and advocacies. This means that you have substantial latitude to spin your arguments, but also that I will hold you to a high standard for explanation and cross-application. The way that different arguments implicitly interact will very rarely come into my decision.

When I reach a decision, the first place I look is the 2NR and 2AR. The role of these last two speeches is to explain how I write my ballot for each side. The 2NR should tell me where to look on my flow when crafting a negative decision, and the inverse for the affirmative. I will probably first try to evaluate the relative impacts of the affirmative and negative, based off of the framework/impact debate. Additionally, when reaching my decision I will try to look at the round through both the viewpoint of the affirmative and negative as they portray it in their final rebuttal.

In the last year or so, I have given speaks in the range of 28.4-29.4 about 80% of the time. Above that ~10% of the time, below that ~10% of the time.

I'll probably inflate your speaker points, just don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

Hi y'all!

add me to the email chain ---lasakdubs@gmail.com AND lasadebatedocs@googlegroups.com

LASA Debate '22 || Macalester Debate '26 (follow us @macalesterdebate on insta!!)

Please do not read any arguments about suicide/death good.

I will not vote for toxic masculinity. If you are toxically masculine, strike me.

----- Policy -----

I spent my first two and a half years at LASA reading plans on the aff and policy strats on the neg. I spent the next two and a half reading Ks on the aff and neg. In college, I've read both policy and K things. No preference for what you read in front of me, I'm about equal in my understanding of all types of args.

Important things:

1. Rehighightings should be read out loud, insertings are insufficient and will be ignored.
2. I'm getting super close to writing "no open cross" in here. Y'all need to let y'all's partners speak!!
3. It is not the other team's burden to tell you what they did and did not read in their doc after their speech. Y'all should be flowing. If you need to ask if things were read or ask for a marked copy from your opponents, I will consider that your prep time.

Be entertaining, but be nice.

----- PF -----

I've started coaching PF at Edina (2023).

Since I'm coming from policy, I'm a tech judge who will keep a detailed flow of all arguments in the round. I am very willing to discuss arguments presented in the debate at length and give detailed speech-by-speech feedback to all debaters after the round.

In policy, I read both policy and kritik arguments, I am willing to adjudicate both in PF as well.

Speed is fine, but respect your opponent's level of understanding as well. A fast debate won't be a good debate if one team wins due to the others' lack of understanding and speaks will reflect that.

Debate is supposed to be fun! Be entertaining and enjoy the round, but be nice.

BVNW '22/UW '26

Debated at KU for 2 years

she/her

yes email chain: syangdebate@gmail.com

don't be mean- disclosure is good n fun

Overall Thoughts:

My face is the easiest indicator of what I think about an argument

Tech>truth. Evidence comparison is super important, reading one really good card is way better than dumping 5 bad cards. Also, please extend warrants! It's hard for me to evaluate a card when you just shadow-extend tags.

Love judge instruction in rebuttals-- what should my ballot look like, what am I voting for and the implications of it

word doc >>>> pdf

Feel free to ask me any questions you have before/after round

T:

I usually default to reasonability but I can be persuaded by competing interps. Having a good explanation for what your model of debate looks like (ie. a case list, ground you lose under their interp, why your education offense is important) is the most persuasive for me. Please slow down, especially if you're reading blocks. It's really hard to flow analytics and speeding through them will only hurt you. Explaining how you access their offense but they can't access yours is particularly helpful here.

DAs/CPs:

Specific links to the aff for a DA can be super persuasive. I think a lot of teams overlook weak internal link chains that mitigate a huge amount of risk for impacts. If you're reading big stick vs. soft left, impact calc is really important.

I think every CP needs a solvency advocate, especially those with multiple planks. I err neg on competition theory, and I usually default judge kick unless the aff team has reasons why it's bad.

Kritiks/K Affs:

Read a K aff my junior and senior year of hs, and for like one tournament last year in college. I'm more familiar with FWK v K affs compared to K v K debates, but I've debated enough from both sides to not have a preference.

The aff's method doesn't need to have a telos, but the aff team should be able to articulate what their method looks like, what it does, why the ballot is key, how it's a departure from the squo, etc. I think going for an impact turn to FWK is much more persuasive than trying to go for a W/M.

Neg FWK:

On the neg if you're going for the K please do impact calc and judge instruction would be super helpful. How do I weigh clash/fairness against the aff's impacts? I think clash is much more persuasive than fairness as a FWK impact. I am heavily persuaded by turns case analysis at the top for both the K and FWK. FWK should be a question of models that both sides justify.

Neg K:

Specific links to the aff are important and links of omission make me sad. It's super effective when you rehighlight 1AC evidence for links or if you quote cx, and you'll probably get higher speaks if you do so. I don't think the neg has to go for the alt, but if you do go for just framework, you should explain how it resolves your link arguments and the impacts.

Theory:

I probably won't vote on theory outside of condo, but I think reading multiple theory arguments as a time skew can be smart sometimes. If you're going for condo you should point out specific instances of abuse in round and why it's bad for debate.

Other Thoughts:

- If the rehighlighting is more than a sentence long you should read them, otherwise you can insert

- Don't talk over your partner in cx, also, don't answer every question for your partner. If you don't understand an argument enough to answer CX questions, you probably shouldn't read it.

- Reading/cutting good ev is important, but your explanation/application of it matters so much more

- I would much rather you read 1 card all the way through rather than cut 5 different cards two sentences in

- If you send me an email I pinky promise I'll get to it eventually, I'm just slow at responding