Pronouns: He/Him/His

Email chain: Teams should always be setting up an email chain before the round, as it makes evidence exchange much faster and more efficient. I also want to be on said email chain/Speechdrop- parunprasad1234@gmail.com

General:

I will vote for anything if there is a warrant, an impact, and solid comparative weighing, as long as your evidence isn't horribly cut/fake. Every argument you want on my ballot needs to be explained in the the first rebuttals(1nc/nr and 1ar) and extended for it to be evaluated, and I will disclose exactly how I made my decision (as long as the tournament allows it).

• Tech > Truth

• Speed is Fine

LD:

• Give me an offtime roadmap before beginning your speech

• I’d like to see weighing as soon as possible within the round. Comparative weighing is critical to preventing any sort of judge intervention

• Defense isn’t sticky, anything you want in the round has to be in the rebuttals

• Organize your speech and signpost throughout

• Speech-by-speech notes:

• Good with speed butplease slow down on analytics off-doc. If you go full speed on off-doc analytics, you risk me not catching all of them.

I should be able to evaluate any arguments you read as long as it is warranted well.

Pref Sheet:

Theory and Policy - 1

Tricks - 2

K - 2

Phil - 3

Prep: You must use prep to read evidence

• Higher speaks for reading below

Free 30 if you read, hide, and extend Indexicals Properly.

Summit ‘ 26

He/Him

add me the chain or make a speechdrop b4 the rd

Connor.h.chau@gmail.com

Current junior at Summit high school debated LD and parli sophomore year and PF freshman year

Big influences/ the goats: Mabel Reiger, Sai Karavadi, Judah Jones, Ari X and others im forgetting lol

tech> truth

good for speed just send the doc I flow off the doc anyways

TLDR-

K- 1

K affs-1

T/Theory-2 good for any kind of t/theory debate on any spectrum

Larp/policy- 2

phill-3/4

tricks-3 if done right/ 5 if done badly

friv theory- strike

Trad-1/2

I actually do not care what round I end up judging I think judge adaption is a meh skill (that’s why prefs exist) which means whatever round you end up giving me is what I’ll adjudicate to my best ability ie if it’s phill v phill I’ll know less but if it’s k v phill or k v policy I’d be better, My philosophy is that I’m here for whoever is debating which means I’ll adapt to YOU. Granted rfd may take a wee bit longer

I prob do have some internal bias tho ie since I debate mainly K rn which means I’ll understand the K team better then the phill team so err on over explanation regardless

auto 30 if you have ur pet look at the screen when u speak

speaks- I am a speaks fairy like probably I feel bad giving low speaks I err 28.9+ unless u do smth bad

About me:

Prior to graduating in 2024 I was the captain of the Appalachian State University Speech and Debate program where I now serve as an assistant coach. I have competed in like,, every standard forensics event under the sun at one point or another. My home base in middle/high school was PF, and now is NPDA/NFA-LD. My true love is interp events, but that is nine times out of ten not why you are here lol

Speechdrop > an email chain if possible, email is at the bottom of my paradigm for chains though

Your case:

TLDR - Run what you want, and show me you know what you’re doing

I’m happy with both trad and progressive rounds. I’m originally from a trad circuit, and I’ll never get bored of a trad round done well. However, as I got to college I found a love for performance and res Ks. You should run whatever kind of case suits you best, as long as you make sure all arguments are well developed (trix are generally not well developed, fyi).

Disclosure theory is boring and lame, so are T shells made to be kicked, but do what you must.

On T- I am VERY hesitant to vote on the possibility of “abuse” in round, much safer for me if you can warrant and prove from your first speech how/why your theory is important.

PLEASE GIVE ME FRAMEWORKS! I want to know how you are evaluating, and more importantly I want you to tell me how to be evaluating. I enjoy good FW clash but don’t like when I am at the end of a round and neither side really warranted out their framing, or just let 2 counter interps exist all the way until the end. Make it concise, tell me what FW is best, and tell me how you are doing it (or prove how you win both framings to make me very happy).

Arguments that are in any way discriminatory (ie racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, classist, transphobic, etc) are always going to lose and give you low speaks.

In-round:

Debate jargon is appropriate and has its place, try your best to explain as you go for accessibility but in a crunch know that I am with you.

Off-time roadmaps are fine with me, but make sure you are using it to tell me the order of your speech, nothing more.

I was a speedy debater and am comfortable with most spreading, but the round should only be going as fast as everyone participating is comfortable with. Never feel bad asking for what you need to understand the round and create better arguments. Also you will see a hit in speaker points if you share your case and rip through 30 pages in 5 minutes without anyone understanding unless they read along, that’s not what this activity is for.

On content warnings: a lot of content that always requires a warning is unnecessary in round anyway, or is simply unnecessary as they are brought up consistently under a given res. Don't give a graphic depiction of violence to get your point across. Using them for things like "feminism" can certainly become trivializing. Exercise good judgment, talk to your coach, use them when necessary.

I won’t flow cross, so make sure to bring up important points in your rebuttals!

Make sure you’re engaging! There are a lot of technicalities in debate, but it is ultimately, fundamentally, a game of persuasion. Good argumentation can always make up for less than stellar speech, but having the best of both worlds can almost guarantee you my undivided attention, and probably the win.

Run fun cases, create good clash, slay your speeches, and over all else, be a nice person. The fastest way to get high speaks from me is to be the person that promotes fairness, accessibility, and kindness in the debate space.

Feel free to ask questions after round or send me an email! I am always happy to talk about forensics. (coltrainzm@appstate.edu)

altsneedplantexts@gmail.com

Don’t call me ‘Judge.’ I’m a freshman in college

UC Lab ES & ‘24

Michigan ES & '28

Top Level

Tech over truth.

Moderate topic knowledge.

Default to yes rehighlightings, but if one team objects, like everything else, it’s up to debate.

I also default to judgekick (assuming conditionality) and offense-defense.

Apart from the 2AR, you must identify unjustified new arguments as such for me to cross them out.

Asking what cards were skipped or where they were marked is part of CX.

T

Fine for predictability outweighs limits or the other way around.

Good for plan text in a vacuum. Neg teams need a counter-interpretation of how to determine the plan’s mandate.

Ks/K-Affs

I’m much better for them than my history of argument selection would suggest. Win the flow and I’ll vote on it.

Framework is never a ‘wash,’ and arbitrarily crafting a ‘middle ground’ interpretation when neither side has advocated for one is interventionist and incoherent. I’ll look to framework first and clearly decide which interpretation I should be using to evaluate the rest of the debate before doing so.

No preference between fairness and clash.

Make it clear whether it’s a question of competing interpretations or just this round/what my ballot does or why that shouldn’t matter. This is often very important in these debates and yet it’s given 20 seconds of attention by both teams combined.

Please say, and maybe go for, something other than “tab solves” against framework DAs like legal definitions, individuation, etc. Judging this argument is really annoying and repetitive.

Fairness might be the only impact, an impact, an internal link, or an anti-black penal code — all comes down to how you debate it.

Specific links are fantastic, but going all-in on the “unique cybernetics DA to the plan that turns case” is a really tough sell (unless really mishandled). The link most likely a) isn’t unique, b) is just a solvency takeout, c) is resolved by the perm, and/or d) is outweighed by the aff.

I’m not too familiar with KvK debates, so please give me judge instruction if I end up in the back of one.

DAs

Carded turns case is good. I generally don’t care about turns case as much as other judges though — the likelihood of extinction seems more pressing than the manner/timeframe in which it happens.

I love going all-in on the politics straight turn in the 2AR! Extra points if you do this successfully.

CPs

I don’t care if the counterplan is ‘recycled’ or has a ‘generic’ internal net benefit (unless, obviously, the AFF technically wins that I should via a permutation or theory.)

I love a good competition debate, whether it's 'perm: do the CP' or 'CPs must compete textually and functionally.'

You’re better off going for conditionality in the context of models, not in-round abuse. Strategy and time skew don’t justify new 2AR arguments. However, I don't have a predisposition against conditionality bad if the flow is won, especially absent a strong arbitrariness/reasonability push from the Neg.

Net benefits to process counterplans are seriously terrible. If your AFF has good ‘certainty key’ or ‘say no’ deficits, don’t be afraid to go for substance against a silly process CP.

Very amenable to AFF appeals (theoretically or substantively) to vague advantage CP texts, especially ones without advocates.

Impact turns/framing

Love them. Run wild. Russia war good, dedev, animal wipeout, etc. are all fair game.

‘Try or die’ refers to the scenario in which, unless I vote a certain way, extinction is inevitable. Absent a compelling reason I should reject this frame and/or very low risk the team who controls try or die can solve it alongside a similarly large probability and timeframe differential, I find it hard not to default to ‘try or die’ if this situation arises.

Not great for Kant and LD tricks that challenge the conventional wisdom surrounding logic/decision-making. I’ll vote on them if you win the flow, of course, but I can only vote for arguments I understand, so err towards explanation rather than spamming the taglines of complex paradoxes and moral axioms.

Case Debate

2As often get away with murder. Most AFFs are already awful, and near-zero after blippy and shallow 2AC line-by-line that 2Ns don’t take advantage of.

Speaker points

+0.1 speaker points if you open source all your cards (tell me)

+0.1 speaker points if you make fun of a current/former UC Lab or Michigan debater. I’ll consider +0.2 for current/former partners (Mahi, Ishan, or Rishi)

i’ve been debating for 4 years, i'm a sophomore on the ahs team, and i went to nationals in 2024

ld: i prefer traditional debate, with focus on values. if you win the framework you typically win the round. voters are extremely important not only for me but also so i can see that you fully understand the round and can lay out all the reasons you should win. clear speaking, linear arguments, etc, are also appreciated. i do not flow cx.

speech: i'm looking for an informative speech with clearly outlined points. if it’s an interp then characterization is really important.

of course, always be respectful, whether you are giving a rebuttal, talking with your opponent, or in cx (being abusive in cx will lose you speaker points)

i will flow the round separately, but all my other notes will be on your ballot.

LD- Explain to me why you should win- weigh impacts and real word scenarios. If you run some thing you need to explain why I should vote for you. I dislike Ks and if you run one without a good alt you will immediately lose because it just wastes everyone’s time. T/Theory I enjoy a good debate that goes along with this but it needs to countinue throughout the round and if it turns into a circle argument of what who said then I’ll drop it from my flow. LD in my mind shouldn’t be very fast paced (I can handle the sped it just doesn’t belong in LD) so do it at your own risk. Values and criteria’s I think these should be heavily explained and will go into my rfd a lot so make sure to explain them and they make sense. If you drop args then that will be a big factor in my rfd and will make it very hard to win if you drop anything. MOST IMPORTANT have fun and be kind- debate is meant to be fun at the end of the day and you should want to have postive experiences for doing as such!

Rock Hill CG (2022-2024)

Email: danushftw@gmail.com – put me on the chain.

I have gone for all types of arguments. I care about how you communicate more than the particular content of speeches. I appreciate debaters who approach each individual round from the perspective of winning the judge's ballot. This means answering arguments in an orderly fashion, emphasizing places where you are ahead, and condensing down to a few central issues.

I am not Tech > Truth and will probably give more leeway to teams that drop technical arguments on the flow against things like Wipeout versus a standard DA vs Case debate. This does not mean you should stop reading Process CP's, Theory Violations, or anything else that can be repeated in multiple debates but assess the quality of academic literature upon which your positions are based.

Affs should probably be topical but I don't care. I read planless affs in many of the most competitive debates of my career, usually about Settler Colonialism and Capitalism. Negative teams should go for procedural fairness in front of me combined with some form of "debate doesn't shape subjectivity". Affirmative teams should just go for an impact turn by the end of the 2AR - winning a legitimate counterinterp is something I've never seen done that well.

Really really terrible for strategies about "call outs" or testifications of your opponents' character, if I see things like screenshots or other accusations in a non-disclosure context it will be almost impossible to win. Debate is not court and I am not qualified to adjudicate your character in one hour and thirty minutes. Please leave these discussions outside of the debate and if you geniunely feel unsafe in the room with an opponent we can work to get that resolved with the tabroom.

Condo is good but I will vote otherwise if the 2NR spends 10-15 seconds answering it. Both teams should understand how powerful theory is when it often uplayers every other word that has been said in the debate. I will judge kick if you tell me to but probably not otherwise and it is easy for aff teams to convince me not to.

You must READ rehighlights of the opponents evidence - this a communication activity please remember that in all aspects of the debate but especially this one

PF:

Please read cut cards instead of referencing them in paraphrased chunks, if this is something you are unfamiiar with we can look at some examples before the debate. Feel free to go as fast as you would like and read whatever arguments you think are strategic. I care less about rhetoric than most PF judges (more than most policy judges!) so just try to win on the flow because it will encompass almost 100% of my decision.

Quals are overrated, post round if you want but I can't guarantee you will get the result you want

Email is dgibson7227@gmail.com

Add me to the email chain

If I'm not flowing its not because I've already submitted my ballot its because the way I compete and judge is rlly weird with regards to flowing, I find that most of the time rounds aren't as intricate as a full round flow would require, but I still have a pretty good memory so don't cap in the 2AR, I prob won't buy it. I do flow to an extent most of the time tho.

https://discord.gg/MGZ6wD4rz6 join this for independent resources. If you don't have access to debatedrills or something similar or your school gives you negative support you are also cool. also if ur a speech kid who wants to learn debate go for it.

Deleted my old paradigm because it was too much yapping

tldr I will vote on literally any argument (emphasis on argument) that is won, I dont care about pf or traditional circuit rules you can read counterplans on me I dont care about the NSDA, card speed analytics are fine, pref me 1 for anything but trad in which case pref me 2, my defaults are intentionally weird because judge adaptation is an underutilized skill

I hold every argument to the same standards meaning you cannot ethos your way to my ballot period

If you are trad vs circuit I will give your arguments the benefit of the doubt, meaning that if I think its (>67%) responsive ill vote for you

Defaults (a lot) (literally any arguments will change these):
Presumption goes to the team with a worse competitive record (think chess elo)
Permissibility defaults to presumption unless you tell me otherwise
I don't default to any paradigm issues, shells without them die
T/theory is not violent
Anyone can read any argument
Theory vs truth testing flips theory unless otherwise argued (literally any framing)
My contractual obligation as a judge extends to voting on literally any reason to affirm or negate
Ks are only a disad to the AC
Fiat is good
Role of the ballot is to vote for the team with arguments left on the flow, if both teams meet its TT
Conditionality is good for any #
Severance is good for any # as long as the aff remains topical
Plan inclusive [x] is good
Condo planks are good
Combo shells are good
Insert argument style here is good
Race based burdens bad
If I don't get voter weighing on theory pages (or impact weighing in general but this happens much less) I will default to tab solves- if tab's email starts with an even numbered letter (b, d, f, etc) I will default to whoever read voters first, if its odd, ill default to whoever read them second. This is crazy arbitrary for the sake of maintaining tab judging and to get people to weigh.
Top speed anytime if you're clear, I go fast too

Speaks start at your tournament average, if speaks aren't disclosed or it is r1 I start at 28.5 but i am very flexible in both directions...
...although if you do want more speaks, here's a list of additional challenges
Answer a math problem of my choice: instant 30 (these are not conventional math problems)
Have a palmer hills debate sticker on your laptop or tabletote: +0.2 each
Find the flaw(s) in one of my a prioris (i pick): +0.3

Hey guys! I'm Laynie, and I'm stoked to be judging your round! I'm a current LD debater and an LD captain from the Big Island of Hawaii, and I debate in a very traditional circuit, so that's what i'm most familiar with. I am familiar with Ks, CPs, PICS, Theory, etc, but it's not what I'm best with. HOWEVER, I think it's super cool, and if that's your style, go for it! Pease know though that I'm always happy to judge good traditional debate.

Things I like:

• SIGNPOSTING!! I will flow the round, and decide the round based on that. If you don't signpost, I cant flow your arguments correctly.
• Clarity. I can understand spreading IF AND ONLY IF I have your docs. My email is layniehendo@icloud.com, please add me to your email chain! Otherwise, just articulate your arguments clearly, and we'll all have a good time.
• Good weighing and warranting. For LD, you need to weigh your arguments clearly under your framework. Warrant all of your arguments, or I can't vote on them. Always tell me why what you're saying matters!
• Framework is my very very favorite part of LD. Please please please don't just throw it away! I prefer framing to come at the top of the flow, but just make sure you spend time on it at some point.
• I love GOOD theory debate. If your opponent is abusive, call them out!
• I love philosophy debate, and if the round goes further than extinction outweighs, I will be so happy. Non util frameworks are so cool, and I have so much more fun evaluating rounds without interesting frameworks.

Things I don't like:

• Disclosure theory. I just think it's dumb. I will almost never vote on disclosure theory.
• Trix. I know you wanna, but dont do it.
• Meanies. Don't bully your opponent! If you're mean, I will give you VERY low speaks. Same goes if you lie.
• NO NEW IN THE 2! If you bring up any new offensive arguments past the 1AR and 1NR, I will absolutely not flow them or evaluate them. In my opinion, this is lazy. It makes me very very mad when I have to debate people who do this, and if you do, its not gonna help you. Defensive arguments are okay, as is cross-applying anything that's already been brought up.

If im judging you in PF, feel free to skip grand cross and use one minute of prep instead. I think its dumb.

Extra

Call out your opponent if they are misinterpreting evidence! I take evidence very seriously, and if your opponent is doing anything that seems fishy with evidence, let me know in your speech. I'll always take a look at the evidence, and if its false or illegally formatted, i'll drop it from the flow. I hate paraphrased evidence, and a hyperlink is not a good enough citation for me. In my book, ONLY fully cut properly cited cards or graphs should be used.

Cross is your time. I don't flow cross, and its never binding unless it gets brought up in the next speech

I will always try to give you high speaker points. I start with 28 as a baseline, and will go up or down from there.

Make me laugh! Things will be better for you and me if we have fun with this.

if it comes down to it, I’ll vote neg on presumption.

I'll give verbal RFDs if you guys want/if the tournament allows, but it’s gonna stay brief.

Good luck to everyone!!

abby.holland.ut@gmail.com (please add me to the email chain!)

CCHS '24 (2N all 4 years)

she/her

policy

middle school

most of this probably doesn't apply beyond the general notes. Please extend warrants and evidence from speech to speech. Impact calc and judge instruction is super important! if you're interested in high school debate I'd love to answer questions!

general

tech>truth

I'm fine with any speed just please enunciate and slow down on analytics. if I can't understand you I'll call clear twice and then stop flowing. slow down a tiny bit on online debates

please explain acronyms at least once so I know what you're talking about

I've been told its pretty easy to tell what I'm thinking based on my facial expressions, I don't know how much this translates to debate rounds

TL;DR: I'd rather watch a good round than a round that's worse because you overadapt to me, so do whatever you want just explain it well. Everything below are just my preferences and ramblings. Impact calc and judge instruction in the 2ar/2nr are really important to me, line-by-line is great, the more work you do to minimize judge intervention the easier my decision is and the less confused/frustrated you will be with my decision.

DA

DAs are great, run whatever as long as you run it well. Case-specific DAs make me very happy and super generic DAs make me sad but I understand their use.

I LOVE politics DAs! That being said I think generic links such as PC are usually poorly explained (PC is fake change my mind). I have a higher threshold for voting for vague links. Specific links are amazing here and I think you should know how key politicians would vote in the world of the DA. (bonus points if you have a CP that avoids the ptx DA with specific evidence key politicians would support the CP)

i'm willing to vote for intrinsicness

IMPACT CALC please! zero risk is a thing, framing can take out a DA if its done well

CP

Great, you do you. Specific CPs are better. Please have solvency advocates and a net benefit. Stop writing CP plan texts that are multiple paragraphs long (looking at you 2Ns). I'm probably not the best judge for in depth competition debates, but i'll do my best and i reccomend you slow down a tiny bit in these debates

I lean neg on most theory, except I'm aff leaning on multi-actor fiat. uniform 50-state fiat is silly. condo is good

you should debate judge kick

T

contextualized interps are better. Please slow down a little on analytics

I won't vote for aspec hidden at the bottom of a T-flow, label it clearly. This also means I'm more lenient on 1ar answers to hidden aspec

Case

Case debate is really underrated! Utilize in-depth case debate and case turns!

K v. Policy Aff

I love these debates, a one-off k debate against a soft left policy aff is probably one of my favorite debates.

I've read cap, queerness, security, and anthropocentrism. I have some knowledge of afro-pess, fem, setcol, and a little bit of baudrillard (although I really dislike baudrillard). Feel free to read other Ks, just make sure to explain them clearly!

if your K is secretly just a CP + DA in a trench coat pretending to be a K it probably loses pretty easily. I'm going to pick a framework based on the flow, not a middle ground. Line-by-line debate is better than super long, not contextualized overviews. Also please be able to actually articulate what the world of the alt looks like and how it interacts with the aff.

If you have an element of performance, make sure to link it back to your solvency (also I think performance is super cool and would love to see more of it!)

K affs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dnTLx4XQDI

I don't have much experience with K affs, but I think they're great! Just make sure to explain it well. I think they should have some link to the topic

I don't think I'm qualified to have a leaning on K affs v. FW, I'll vote for either. fairness is an impact, but I prefer it as an internal link

KvK

I have almost no experience with these debates but I think they're cool, so do what you will with that information.

Policy Affs

I love soft left affs! Please have a solid framing page

2as please make your plan text mean something, wtf are fiscal polices designed to facilitate regulated market socialism

LD

I'll probably judge this similarly to how I would a policy round, please explain how your value/criterion frames your impacts!

other events

I have less experience in speech, but I'm excited to judge all events so don't be worried!

Misc

Be a good human! Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.

Read re-highlights don't just insert them

your off time roadmap should tell me what order my flows go it

I'll evaluate dropped arguments as true, but you still have to extend a warrant and explain why it means you win for me to vote on it

I'll probably dock 0.1 speaks if you say "I stand in the firmest of affirmations/negations"

I'll give +0.1 speaker points for mean girls or legally blonde references in context (movie or musical)

feel free to ask me anything

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=244725

I vehemently disagree with everything in this^ paradigm and if you make references to how terrible it is I'll boost your speaks

TL;DR:

If you have technological constraints that preclude any of the following standards inform me and I will ignore it when considering speaker points. If there is no sufficient explanation and these standards are not met it will be reflected in speaker points.

Email and SpeechDrop are the two acceptable mediums for sending speech documents. NSDA DocShare is only acceptable if some parties use an email chain and include the NSDA DocShare's 'email' on that chain. Place the following emails on any chain:

adam.humphrey44@gmail.com

okpolicydebate@googlegroups.com

realartistsofguantanamobay@googlegroups.com

The only acceptable format for a speech is .docx. No content should be located in the 'body' of an email.

Speech documents must contain at minimum all pieces of evidence read in a speech, with all words said from that evidence demarcated (traditionally through highlighting) and all demarcated words said. If you elect not to read certain demarcated words, verbally indicate where you are stopping the evidence.

It is kind but optional to open-source or send analytics, even if your opponent explicitly requests it. Kindness may be rewarded with higher speaker points, but not if kindness constitutes 'going easy' on your opponent (not crushing somebody on an argument they do not understand is unstrategic for a different reason than sending analytics is unstrategic). Completely decimating your opponent strategically is the best way to teach them.

LONG:

I do what debaters tell me to do with these exceptions:

- If any debater requests to end the round, I immediately end the round. The same is true for reporting something to Tabroom.
- If I become aware that a debater is incapable of communicating that they wish to end the round, I immediately end the round.
- If I am externally coerced (for example by tab, law enforcement, or rogues stealing my ballot), I may be physically incapable of meeting the above standard.

Sometimes I may struggle to understand what you are instructing me to do. I view this as a personal error on my part. Here is my policy for resolving this.

- First, I will flow your speech auditorily.
- If that fails, I will make active attempts during prep time to decipher any confusion by analyzing my flow.
- If that fails, I may read evidence where possible to clear up mistakes.
- If that fails, I will use the speech document (if it contains anything beyond evidence) to clear up mistakes.

Disclaimer: I doNOT intend to go rogue by doing any of the above. If I spot that you are misrepresenting your evidence or that a different claim in your evidence is made, I will not consider that. I solely use these methods to help me understand the exact claims you have made.

I still may evaluate incorrectly. This brings me to my policy on postrounding. It is good if you disagree with me. We should figure out the source of the disagreement. I may be in the wrong, and though I am incapable of changing the ballot, I am capable of changing future ballots.

The above means that all of the following concepts in any section beneath are negotiable. I do, however, believe a team advocating for the frames I'm going to enumerate is in a better spot to win them:

All propositions introduced are weakly assumed to have a 100% probability of truth. 'Weakly' means that this assumption of truth only exists in the abject absence of an assertion of the contrary.

"Warrants" are propositions that lend credence to another proposition. Rebutting an opponent's proposition requires asserting the contrary. Good debates involve me 'lining up' warrants for a proposition and its contrary and comparing them, sometimes with 'deeper-level' warrants for each warrant. However, propositions do not require warrants to be considered---instead, the threshold for a strategic response to them is much lower.

Propositions are propositions regardless of where they are introduced. This means that hiding ASPEC in brackets while you're reading evidence is permissible. If you weren't flowing, flow.

Propositions are propositions regardless of how 'dumb' they are. This means that hiding 'evaluate after the 1NC' is permissible. If they're so dumb, disprove them.

I do not think there is such a thing as a 'default.'

Speaker points are based on (in no particular order):

- Strategy
- Quality of Argument
- Kindness
- My Personal Enjoyment
- (Not) Being A Speech Document Terrorist
- Your Judge Instruction on the Speaker Points I Ought To Assign

I am open to instruction about speaker points, but I consider the other standards to also be implicit claims as to what speaker points you should receive, so you may have to debate yourself.

MY BIASES:

Metaethics: I prefer them coherent and offensive. 'Coherent' means clearly defined and consistently applicable. Stuff like 'our only commitment is that racism is bad' doesn't articulate a metaethical position. 'Offensive' means they don't also filter out all offense you have. For example, emotivism or skepticism both filter AFF and NEG offense equally, meaning they have no impact on the round unless 100% dropped. However, Kantianism magnifies promise-breaking offense while filtering consequential impacts. On the other hand, dropped skepticism obviously means vote NEG on presumption. The is-ought gap additionally strikes me as a serious problem that metaethical theories have to bridge.

Non-Topical 1ACs: I appreciate it when they clarify what they defend, if anything. I am probably NEG-leaning on framework, but not for the reason NEG teams currently read.

Defensive Case Arguments: I don't think I'm biased here.

Offensive Case Arguments: I don't think I'm biased here.

Topicality: Covered a little on theory. I'm likely biased toward predictability and logic claims.

Disadvantages. I don't think I'm biased here.

Counterplans. I personally believe all counterplans are illegitimate, and that agent counterplans are especially illegitimate. However, they are also fun---and I've only known 3 people who can articulate why counterplans at large are illegitimate. I do not share the disdain for 'artificially competitive' or 'cheating' counterplans beyond the aforementioned standards, and I likely lean NEG on those questions.

Kritiks: I think there are two types---framework kritiks and fake kritiks. The former I am likely AFF-biased on framework, but not for the reasons AFF teams currently read. The latter I think are merely counterplans (for example, cap is just a different impact scenario for abolishing IP in many cases).

Theory: Violations are binary and do not have 'risk'---51% 'risk' means you're winning the violation, 50% or 1% 'risk' means you are not. This means AFF teams can collapse to the we meet. I think the interpretation is what you say it is. If evidence comes after, that just lends credence to the interpretation. If the evidence is the interpretation, then so be it.

Here are some helpful sources I tend to agree with:

- The Debatalist Papers
- Adhitya Thirumala
- Chinmay Khaladkar

I am likely more favorable to kritikal debate than the latter two on that list.

Hi everyone! My name is Ashley Kim and I’m a rising sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania. I debated in LD in my local area so I really only have experience debating in a traditional, lay circuit. I can handle speed but personally I have never spread while debating so please take that into consideration. If you want to spread, you can, I may just miss some stuff. As a judge, I want you to debate the way you want to so please know that you are the priority. Don't change how you debate because of my preferences.

Please use the following email: ashley.kim.college23@gmail.com

General things about me (sorry it's messy):

-I will flow CX on a separate piece of paper but unless you bring it up in your speech, it's not going to be evaluated at the end of the debate

-Have examples ready during CX and rebuttals, I think they make for a strong debate.

-I don't have a preference for your criterion so please run whatever you want to. In other words, I'm not one of those people who go crazy over the criterion because LD is a "moral" debate. Obviously it's preferable when your arguments connect back to your criterion but I don't need a huge criterion debate if your criterion's are similar and the debate is mostly going to be in the contentions.

-If you make a claim and your opponent asks you for evidence and you don't have it, I'm probably not going to look favorably on that

-Having logically sound and evidence backed arguments is the gold standard for me

-Clear rebuttals with sign posting and numbering arguments is much appreciated

-I really love logically sound arguments, that are well warranted, have evidence, and explain why they are important

-Please don't read off a bunch of cards without analysis

-Please give me a short off-time roadmap before you begin

-Please don't automatically try to link everything to nuclear war/extinction in cases where it doesn't make sense. For example, if you tell me that universal housing somehow leads to nuclear war, it's going to take a lot more convincing for me to buy that argument. If you tell me that lethal autonomous weapons will lead to nuclear war, that's fine because it's realistic.

-You can call me judge or whatever, I don't really care :)

-The average speaker points I give is probably around a 28.5

TLDR:

• Spread at your discretion. Spreading while reading cards is fine just make sure your analytics are clear and not too fast.
• The best arguments have compelling evidence from reputable sources, have strong impacts, and ARE LOGICALLY SOUND.
• Card analysis is VERY IMPORTANT. Please don't read a bunch of cards at me without explaining WHY that card is relevant and important in the round.
• I only have experience competing in trad, lay debate so please keep that in mind before running something super progressive or spread
• Impacts don't matter unless the warrants that got you there make sense and have been explained thoroughly

1. Trad (if you are a trad debater, please please let me judge your round)
2. Phil
3. Ks (please explain very clearly as I'm unfamiliar with the "not basic" Ks)
4. LARP (just explain clearly the different parts of it and explain why you won)
5. Tricks, other weird prog stuff

AT THE TOP, this paradigm is outdated in some parts. I've become less caring in what exactly you run and have become largely more comfortable in all debate topics. FEEL FREE TO READ ANYTHING! I'm better at everything than I was when I originally wrote this. Would change it but I'm too lazy rn, will change when I start judging for real. Rankings in what I WANT to hear at the bottom of the LD section is still largely true though.

If you’ve read through my paradigm recently, it’s been updated. Specifically, the K section.

Current debater and president at Dr Phillips High School in Lincoln-Douglas but have debated in most of the other debate events as well. Honestly, I'm cool to evaluate anything that is explained to me and that I can hear so feel free to run anything but make sure that the more complicated the argument gets, the better you explain it. With that being said, I do have my preferences, opinions, and pet peeves. (Note: I am a pretty grumpy person who is basically socially inept so don't take anything I end up saying or acting like too personally, I suck at emotions and social stuff)

Y'all, my paradigm is long and probably poorly written cause English is hard, ask questions prior to round start. I'd rather start round a little late than have you confused about what I like.

Postrounding is probably good... especially if you think I'm the dumbest person who has ever judged you. Just don't be rude and concise, I am NOT convinced by you yelling at me, even if I'm wrong.

I prefer using Speechdrop but email chains are fine. Email: cyrislimdebates@gmail.com

(LD)

PANIC!!! WHAT DOES THIS JUDGE LIKE:

1 - Phil, Trix (phil), Trad

2 - Theory, T, Ks you can explain

3 - LARP, Identity Ks

4 - Friv Theory, Ks you can't explain, Trixs (26 off, opp can't have offense, etc.)

S - Performance Debates

Paradigm proper:

General mumblings from a grumpy person - I'm going to be honest with all of you, I WILL evaluate any argument. The prefs are just there for you to understand my background knowledge and how comfortable with the argumentation type I am. I don't mind if you run phil, LARP, or even a performance debate, I'll still evaluate it, but the rankings are just there for you to know how much you have to explain to me or how well you gotta perform. Things lower on the list are things where you just have to naturally perform better. That doesn't mean you don't have to do well with those I rank higher, it just means that you are naturally going to get me faster. I won't hack for anything and will do the best I can with anything given to me. (Note on performance: I just don't think you'll have time to explain to me why performance is good, why YOUR performance is uniquely good, and put on the performance. I just think it's a super high burden on you and you might not have enough time but if you're confident in your skills and explaining, go ahead. I would love to see/hear it.)

Phil - Personally love this form of debate and find that it is underutilized on the circuit and especially locally, people tend to opt for Policy, Util, or some other basic framework which is fine but Lincoln Douglas is the PHILOSOPHICAL debate event, it gets infinitely more interesting when framework is more than just a reused Morality Util one. Frameworks I particularly like are Kant, Hobbes, and Pettit (I know, I'm basic) but will appreciate anything new like Rand or Levinas. I don't particularly like Util, I'll weigh it but don't expect super high speaks (Usually will give +.1 for just having a non-Util/MSV fw). With this in mind, DO NOT run a framework your coach gave you just because I like phil, make sure you truly understand what it's talking about and how it interacts within the round; if I have reasonable grounds to doubt that you have any idea what your fw is saying, -1.0 speaks.

Trad - As a kid in central Florida who primarily (and sadly) mostly competes locally, I'm super comfortable with trad (to be honest, how are you NOT comfortable in trad) and most of my debate year is lay trad debates. That means feel free to pref me highly if you want to ask for a trad round or go for a trad round but I would prefer rounds that transcend the boundaries of trad. More phil or tricky rounds are gonna make me infinitely more interested in the round but don't feel like you're being forced to not do trad. For trad, just treat me like you would a lay judge but just cut out the fluff that is associated with it.

Theory - Honestly, I'll evaluate it as long as real abuse can be proved. Usually default DTD, Competing interps, no RVIs, yes to 1AR theory but can be convinced otherwise. I can be swayed to buy 2NR theory. Legit theory comes first on my ballot so it's usually key to respond to it. It'll be difficult to get me to vote on friv theory; my threshold on responses is SUPER low and the only way to win with friv theory is basically to have your opponent drop it or completely mishandle it.

Note on evidence ethic theories: I will always ask you after your speech whether you want to stake the round on it. If the answer is no, don't run the shell.

LARP - It's whatever, as long as it makes sense then I'll evaluate it. I default on a morality Util framing without any speaker deductions and will assume you will be weighing as such. Weighing is a MUST to properly secure my ballot in more policy-centric rounds. I always assume DAs turn case and Plans and CPS need a text telling me exactly what the plan is to properly evaluate it. (i.e. Resolved: The United States will slowly phase out fossil fuels by increasing renewable energy production from solar) Solvency is a MUST.

Ks- I think they're useful when done well and explained well. Ks that you cannot explain easily in the time provided to you should not be run as all it does is clutter the round. Linking the K to the resolution, something your opponent is running, or to debate in general, clearly is key to making a coherent K and one I feel comfortable voting off of. I'm fine with K affs. The K should function as your offense and not just a part of your offense, it's either go all in or not at all.

As a general principle, I believe that: radicals alts >> normals alts >>>> reject the aff. Will eval any of them though, I just think some are def stronger than others with rejection being the weakest by far.

Quick side note, I've been loving the Academy K lately. Take that information as you will :)

Trixs- Honestly, as I become more active with using prog tactics, phil trixs have really grown on me. I kinda want you to try and run these if you can cause I feel like they create a fun debate but of course, won't get you the auto-win. Personally been running Kant 1AR indexicals and skep NC a lot and I find them fun to see and do. I don't like judging a billion Trixs so I won't be happy about it but you can run a full Trix case if you want to and I'll try my best to keep up. Key thing to keep in mind, if one of the Trix gets turned or a theory is read against you, you will most likely lose.

Performance - Just don't. Thank you :)

Other prefs:

• Deontological arguments >>>>
• Tech>Truth
• I will NOT pay too much attention during CX, this is your time, so I'll just passively listen
• Don't just say "My opponent doesn't have a card for this" without explaining why it matters in the context of the round; this will not be treated as a response
• Speed is fine, if you spread, send doc
• Signpost
• I am a judge where if you want to test run a new case position/debating style/argument, you should. (Assuming you just want to figure out the viability of an argument and are not trying to guarantee a win)
• I will give a verbal RFD/comments if the tournament allows and both debaters want it
• I don't flow card names anymore because it forces you to properly extend arguments instead of just having your 1AR be "judge, extend x card, they clean conceded it". I care more about arguments than cards, extend the actual warranting and arguments instead of just a card
• While there is a ranking above, here's the ranking of how much I want to HEAR arguments: Phil/phil trixs >>> theory > trixs >> Ks >>>>>>>>>>> trad = LARP

Common arguments I run: (Decided to add this here so you can see what kind of debater I am and what I'm most comfortable with)

• Frameworks: Kant, Hobbes, Pettit, Rawls, Wu Wei
• Ks: Model Minority/Orientalism, Security, Capitalism, Academy, Absurdism
• Misc: Indexicals, Skep, Determinism, Theories (Disclosure, Condo, ESPEC, etc etc)

PF Stuff:

I'm putting this here just in case I do have to judge PF one day. I am an LDer at heart so I may judge things differently from more technical judges in PF, thus I would personally treat myself like a Lay -> lower Flay judge. (I will still understand and be able to keep up with technical arguments and speed though)

• Coinflip should always happen through tab or in front of me, personal preference
• NO PARAPHRASING, EVER, I'm not joking, just don't do it, I will not vote on paraphrased evidence
• Signposting and weighing are key. Comparative worlds is a great tool for PF because it naturally doesn't use a framework to weigh
• Evidence should be able to be provided in under 45 seconds, if you can't produce it by then it'll be treated as an analytic and you should be more organized. I understand if there are technological issues, they will be treated differently
• Everything you want to mention in your speech should have been extended in the previous speech
• Theory is more sus in PF so probably try not to run it in front of me unless an actual abuse story can be traced that affects the round at large (disclosure is the only exception where it's gonna be a solid no from me)
• Unless you give me a clear reason to do a different form of weighing, I default "bigger number wins" to put it simply. The actual nuances for how I evaluate it are longer than I can put in this paradigm to keep it readable but feel free to ask, I just think that summarizes what the weighing mechanism collapses to a lot of the time
• Honestly, I've been seeing a lot more "framework" in PF at my local circuit (Looking at one specific school in general) and I honestly find it not worth it in PF. Y'all have like no time for offense as it is already and there is absolutely NO WAY for you to properly establish a framework to the level in which I believe that frameworks should be AND be able to explain how it uniquely affirms/negates. If you think you can run it, go ahead, but it usually just ends up leaving you with not enough time

Congress Stuff:

As I primarily do debate events like LD, Congress isn't really my strong suit when it comes to judging but I have done it more than a couple of times (even accidentally making it to Congress finals at NSDA Districts once and semi-ed at Nova Titan) so I'm not completely blind and stupid. Here's just a couple of points on how I eval and rank people in a chamber.

• I usually start the PO at 3. The PO usually either stays there or move down as they make consistent mistakes. POs rarely move up in my eyes unless the other people in the chamber are actually struggling or making fatal mistakes. It's a lot easier for PO to move down than up
• The first four speeches set the tone for the round and I rank based around those four speeches. That means that if the first four speeches were killer, the round is going to be tougher and if the first four speeches were mid, the rankings are going to be more lenient. (This seems obvious but I know many judges who rank after everything which I think is dumb, rank in real-time y'all)
• Please, for the love of god, motion to move to direct questioning, it's infinitely more interesting and shows me better strategic thinking in the round than one question can
• I eval based on three things in a certain order: strategic thinking -> argumentation and incorporation of evidence -> presentation. While Congress is technically as much a speech even as a debate event, I value the more "debate" things of Congress over whether or not you stand up there and be super duper confident and outward. I care more about your choices in argumentation and why/how it's important.
• TBH, safest thing to do with me as a Congress judge, treat me like a lay judge. I may have slight opinions because I've done debate and Congress before, I'm more than happy to go along with the flow and adjust to you guys.
• (Side tangent here, y'all need to write better bills man, a lot of them either just don't do anything, are boring, or written just so so so so poorly)

Policy Stuff:

Y'all, I did policy debate for the first time at the 2024 NCFL Grand Nationals Tournament in Chicago and I personally had a blast (couldn't say the same for my partner sadly). It was fast-paced, information-heavy, and huge on strategic thinking, it's everything I love about LD, especially prog. Insofar that policy doesn't wildly change on me, a lot of my comments from the LD section can be applied here but I will be more open to most of the arguments in policy as a) you have more time to explain them and b) the same arguments get used for the whole year so they are more refined than having to change every 2 months in LD. Anyways, here's a basic chart on how much I like args in policy

1- T, K, CP

2 - Identity K, t

4 - Performance

Anyways, here's some miscellaneous ramblings from me

• Dispo > Condo
• More warranted CPS > one card benefit CPS (This might just be an LD thing but CPs tend to be longer with more net benefits, a good example is to take a look at states CP on the policy and LD wikis [States solve vs States solve plus avoid dual sovereignty])
• Planks are good insofar that we don't spend half a minute on them
• DISCLOSURE IS SUPER IMPORTANT
• Tag team CX always, don't even ask, it's a yes
• Please actually link the DAs, don't just say the aff links into the DA. (*cough cough*)
• Adv 1 -> Plan -> Adv 2/S >>> Plan -> Adv 1/2/S
• Honestly, if you can bring in phil somehow, extra brownie points to you

Please remember to add ALL these emails:
fiatisnotaverb@gmail.com

xbirchtree@gmail.com

aadibhagat2008@gmail.com

jliudebate1@gmail.com

raghav.laxminarasimhan@gmail.com

bradenyian123567890@gmail.com

2N/1A. Peninsula ‘28. I debated on the circuit for two years of middle school.

If you are an Asian cis-het male, check yourself.

If you make a tribute to Angad Hayer in the final rebuttal, you will receive a 30.

If you believe that Peninsula BB has ever won a round in their debate career, strike me in the novice division.

If you believe that Damien KN beat Westwood GK in Round 7 of the Glenbrooks, pref me.

Since strikes do not exist in the novice division, debaters can choose to strike me verbally. If at any point prior to or during the debate, a debater feels uncomfortable or unsatisfied with me being the judge, they can yell the word 'strike' (you HAVE to YELL to invoke this rule). I will then promptly remove myself from the room and someone else will judge your debate.

All my convictions regarding this activity come from Braden Yian. You should assume my paradigm follows his verbatim.

The best high school policy debater of all time is Cephas Liu. The best high school Kritikal debater of all time is Rohan Kummaraguntla.

I don't believe in the model of debate that rejects the importance of rhetorical power and swaying the soul of the judge. More specifically, paradigms such as the ones of Rafael Pierry and Kevin Hirn.

I am best at judging debates that involve kritiks of imagining hypothetical USFG action and ones that involve Ad Homming your opponents.

With that being said, I believe the following sum up my thoughts:

Xavier Burchfield ---------------------------------X Aadi Bhagat

Timothy Liu --------X--------------------------------- Grant Liu

Raghav Laxminarasimhan --------------------------X-- Partner

Jack Liu -----------X------------------------------ Aarush Gaddi

Darwin Boss ---------------X--------------------- Samar Mohan

Imran Kutianawala ---------------X----------------- Nikhil Gupta

Matthew Song -------------------------X------------Adam Khaja

Angad Hayer -----------------------------X------ Aditya Gandhi

Mike Li ---------------X------------------------------ Anita Sosa

Aiden Kwon --X----------------------------- Gautam Chamarthy

Ishmeet Majhail ---X------------------------------- Charlie Pan

Arthur Qin ---------------------------------------------X-- Lais

Please put me in the email chain:austen.richardson@students.htes.org

just call me Austen pls

Quick prefs:

1 - Pomo Ks, theory, tricks

2 - Phil,

3 - K affs

4 -

5 - trad

You can run anything in front of me. These prefs are basically just what I enjoy listening to but I promise I don't care what you read.

Okay now specific stuff

Longer version of prefs

Ks

• I honestly just don't like identity Ks, I probably don't know the lit
• K affs can be okay if you're good at them, I'm totally fine with a K aff just be good at it honestly
• pomo Ks are cool, I read psycho and I think I generally understand other stuff like baudy

Theory

• I want you to read theory in front of me
• I like spec shells
• Friv theory exists, I'll evaluate it so if u just want like a timesuck then sure but the threshold for response gets really low the more friv the shell is
• Disclo is usually a pretty easy win for me. Just disclose guys

Phil

• I'm probably more familiar with Kant
• Dense phil is cool
• Just overexplain everything and it'll be fine

Tricks

• Lowkey kinda fun
• Extemping tricks is cool
• I read determinism a lot and paradoxes are cool

Trad

• I don’t care about presentation at all I’ll vote on the flow
• long fw debates over similar values annoy me. If your values are both consequentialist just roll with it pls
• Concessions will weigh very heavily on my decision, meaning if you concede something you are extremely likely to lose. However I need someone to make an extension yk

General Thoughts/Defaults

These can be changed with args but if there's nothing on it I'll just default to these

• Permissibility flows aff, Presumption flows neg
• I think generally condo is good for debate but anything over like 3 condo offs gets iffy
• Tech > truth
• I don't want to vote on T but I will if I have to
• I won't flow cross but I'll listen
• Claim, warrant, impact everything please
• Signposting is good and always give an order
• Comparative worlds
• Education > fairness

Speaker Points

Speaks are arbitrary
I think I’m generally down to give good speaks tho, probably 29+ but can vary

Conceding stuff will make me more likely to give u bad speaks. The point of debate is to clash, so clash with everything pleaseeeee. Extemped tricks I can understand, whole contentions in trad rounds, no.

Hey y'all! I'm Will (he/him) and I primarily did LD on the National Circuit. I qualified to the TOC my senior year reading every argument under the sun. I coach for Vanguard Debate and Stuyvesant while doing work for the New Haven Urban Debate League. I am moderately versed on the ins and outs of any given topic for LD. I now attend Yale University as a History major (Go Bulldogs!)

Realized paradigm too long. I don't really care what you debate in front of me just how you do it so I just left stuff for prefs and non-negotiables. I realized I would rather have an activity where debaters experimented and were free to argue rather than an activity dictated by the whims of an 18 year old or an old head.

Tl;dr: Tech>Truth. There is no such thing as being 100% tab. If somebody claims they are 100% tab, they are lying. I will vote for anything warranted as long it is not the seven things below but I would much rather judge substantive debates about the topic.

If it means anything, my biggest influences on how I think about debate are Lydia Wang, Parker Traxler, Holden Bukowsky, Sebastian Cho, and Sim Low.

Stuff necessary for the strike card/predispositions every judge should disclose. These can all be very easily overcome. I find it more unfair to debaters when judges do not disclose these predispositions.

Infinite Condo is probably good.

Affirmatives should defend a departure from the status quo based on the words of the resolution.

The negative should rejoin the consequences of a topical plan.

Fairness is an impact.

Nonresolutional theory is bad.

Epistemic Confidence and Comparative Worlds.

UPDATE FOR HWL

Go slower then you think you have to. Online/Hybrid debate is painful and leads to audio cutting out in many instances. Keep a local recording. Give me typing time. The volatile nature of online debate means I am now even worst for cheap shot arguments that I probably do not have flowed because the audio cut out. You have been warned.

The round starts at start time. The 1AC should be read at the dot. Any delay that is not rationally explained will result in -.2 speaks every minute the 1AC is not read for whoever's fault it is.

I am serious about these rankings. I would rather you debate your best than go for policy arguments or the Kritik when you have no idea what you are doing. I primarily think about Policy and Kritikal arguments and thus am most equipped to judge these debates and clash debates. That is not to say I will not vote on other arguments. It is to say I have less experience in others and will need more explanation than usual.

Policy: 1

Kritiks: 1

Topicality: 1

Clash Rounds: 1

Theory: 1/2

Phil 1/2

Tricks: 4/5

Trad/Lay: Strike

Please just call me Will. Anything else is way too formal.

In line with transparency:

I do not flow off speech documents nor open them until somebody asks about a piece of evidence read in a debate round or a rehighlighting has been inserted/read. I flow using Excel/Flexcel and flow top-down. I will flow author names so I do not need to call for card docs later but arguments must still be complete for me to flow them. If I am flowing on paper, that is a sign for you to slow down. If I cannot flow you I will start shouting clear up to three times before I shut down my laptop and vote the other way. I will do my best to flow full advocacy statements but will open speech docs to look at texts if instructed.

My favorite rounds are usually policy v policy or K v K but I have found myself judging predominantly clash debates. I coach all sides of the ideological spectrum though I probably lean very slightly for policy teams.

Email chain>>>

Add all when I'm in the back.

william.trinh@yale.edu

vanguarddebatedocs@gmail.com

stuylddebate@gmail.com

"like many before me I have decided that I am not a fan of cop-out or cheap shot strategies designed to avoid clash and pick up an easy ballot. This means my threshold for an argument that is warranted and implicated is much higher and I feel more comfortable giving an RFD on 'I don't know why x is true per the 2ar/2nr.' If you would like to thoroughly explain why creating objective moral truths is impossible or why disclosing round reports is a good norm then please feel free to do so, but 10 seconds of 'they dropped hidden AFC now vote aff' isn't going to cut it" - lizzie su

Claims I refuse to vote on regardless of how you warrant them. (Many stolen from Alice Waters)

1]Evaluate the entire debate after (x speech) that is not the 2AR.

2]Ad homs/arguments about a debater/ callouts (if something is genuinely unsafe for you, let me or tab know before round.)

3]Any morally repugnant arg (i.e. saying racism good, saying slurs, self-harm good, skep takes out misgendering, etc.) (Heg good and death good do not necessarily cross these barriers)The debate will end.

4]Shells that dictate what your opponent must do outside the context of a debate round/dress/you get the idea. (Disclosure is something in the round).

5]Give me/my opponent [x] speaks

6]No aff/neg arguments, or any other argument that precludes your opponent from answering based on the truth of the argument. I will not vote on no 2NR I Meets or the like.

7]Arguments that were read in a speech but you say were not in CX or that you do not mention if asked what was read (for instance: if being asked if there are any indep. voters and you do not mention one, that is not a viable collapse anymore)

Prep ends when the doc is saved. Please don't abuse this privilege to take 2 minutes to send a speech document.

Current debater and Captain at Dr Phillips High School in Lincoln-Douglas but have debated in some of the other debate events as well. Honestly, I'm cool to evaluate anything that is explained to me and that I can hear so feel free to run anything but make sure that the more complicated the argument gets, the better you explain it.

Tech>truth

tristanvoss2006@gmail.com

LD stuff

1. LARP, Trad

2. Theory, K's

3. Phil

4. Trix

S - Identity K, Performance

PHIL - Most phil I'm very dense on so I'd strongly suggest not running Kant and similarly dence phil cases I'll absolutely still evaluate these and don't have anything against them but I'm gonna struggle to understand what going on.

LARP - Plans and counterplans are fun to evaluate, just make it make sense. A 50 states CP is frowned upon by me because you’re not even negating at that point and the aff basically has to fumble very hard for me not to vote for them

Theory - Theory goes on top of the flow. Tell me if I'm dropping the debater or the argument or I'll drop the shell, friv theory is pretty cool silliness is absolutely a voter. last thing on theory is that dont run friv theory into people who aren't experienced but genuine abuse is fine to run into newer people.

(Disclosure is only for TOC tournaments)

Trix - Ok I'll evalute if explained I'm just not familiar with them so run at your own risk.

Ks - I think they're useful when done well and explained well. Ks that you cannot explain easily in the time provided to you should not be run as all it does is clutter the round. Ks HAVE TO HAVE an alt that can be acted upon; not just reject the aff. The alt can be a CP. Linking the K to the resolution, something your opponent is running, or to debate in general, clearly is key to making a coherent K and one I feel comfortable voting off of. I'm fine with K affs but no alt here, it should be the resolution text in place of the alt (unless it's radical, then pop off) and the K should function as your offense and not just a part of your offense, it's either go all in or not at all. (COPIED FROM CYRIS LIM, HE'S PLAGARIZING MY WORK, INSTANT IVI GUYS, I DIDN'T GIVE PERMISSION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

Other prefs

• No flex prep

• Only a warrant needs a card

• Instant L and you’ll be reported to tab for doing anything xenophobic racism, sexism, homophobia, etc (you’re almost adults, learn how to behave in public if this is going to be an issue)

• No paraphrasing evidence, it's becoming bad norm in debate and is arguable an evidence violation
• Don't just say they don't have a card for that.
• I'm playing wordle in cross and not flowing (REPORT HIM IF HE'S NOT, KEEP HIM TO HIS WORD. LYING IVI!!!!!!!!!!)

Speaker points

Don’t worry, You start at 29 and move up and down from there

Sidwell '23, Dartmouth '27.

Please put me on the chain - s.k.wallace.09@gmail.com.

Debate should be fun for everyone. If I can help you in any way when it comes to your comfort or safety in the round, let me know.

OV:

1. Not sure how much I will be judging, but I know next to nothing about IPP - my sole contribution to the DDI this year was a 30 minute Kant lecture.

2. I will not open docs until after the debate ends.

3. I am best for teams that, in the 2NR/2AR, tell a cohesive and pretty story about the technical debating that has occurred.

Cards serve as a tiebreaker for technical debating on a particular argument - if I can reach a decision without reading the docs, I will.

Try or die framing is not very persuasive to me. I evaluate relative risk of advantage vs disadvantage. The risk of the advantage linearly decreases with the risk of solvency.

I will almost certainly not reject the team for anything other than conditionality.

Historically, I'm pretty good for the aff on competition/theory vs process. I try my best to overcome this bias but it is certainly one that I have - be warned.

Planless affs:

I think T debates are very fun. I usually vote affirmative either when the negative mishandles something like "unfairness inevitable", or the aff wins sufficient defense to neg debatability offense such that a K of the reading/imposition of T outweighs. I don't think I am great for the aff for "x outweighs debatability" in a vacuum, without any defense.

I am a big fan of 2ACs that hide Ks of T on every flow and blow them up in the 1AR.

I can't imagine a 2AR that convinces me to vote on "they flipped neg to read T and that's bad." It's a logical criticism of a non-topical affirmative.

K:

I generally vote negative when the neg wins a framework argument and a link that outweighs aff link turns.

I really enjoy topic Ks that utilize framework arguments that emphasize the importance of how we do research.

I am very bad for Ks that rely on the logic of cause and effect - if links are non-unique, it makes no sense to attempt to attempt to garner offense from a unique consequence of the plan. For example, "the plan is capitalist, capitalism causes extinction, therefore the plan causes extinction" is nonsensical, but variations on it appear in a shocking amount of 2NRs! Similarly, I don't think I have ever given a decision that included the phrase "the alt solves the case."

"Debaters should presume good-faith engagement by their opponents. If your strategy primarily relies on ad hominems, references to out-of-round events, screenshots, or accusations that could have been resolved by emailing your opponents or their coaches before the round, you should strike me."

Misc:

I have a tendency to talk a lot in the post round for debates that involve theory/philosophy that I am interested in - especially psychoanalysis. If you need to leave or don't want to listen to me, feel free to tell me you need to leave or to hurry up - I won't be offended!

Feel free to ask/email me about debating at Dartmouth/in college.

chloerwolf123@gmail.com

I’m a senior at American Heritage, 5 career bids and 2 bid tournament wins.

Tech>truth no exceptions

I mainly read phil, theory, and k positions this year but have read every position (including policy positions)and will be fine for anything. Here’s a link to my wiki for this year: https://opencaselist.com/hsld24/AmericanHeritageBroward/ChWo

The only qualm is that I have a hard time evaluating policy v policy debates so do extra judge instruction if you do this.

I default truth testing, no rvis, competing interps, drop the debater, fairness and education are voters, but would recommend not making me default. Not extending case in 1ar and 2ar can lead to a presumption ballot. I really like impact turns. Feel free to email me with any questions before round

Hi I'm Justin. I'm currently doing varsity LD at Heritage Broward. Cleared at the FBK this year. I mainly read Phil and K style positions whether that be on the aff or neg, but I'm open to anything.

Pls call me Justin, try not to call me Judge

Tech > Truth no exceptions barring morally abhorrent arguments and unwarranted blips.

Run wtv u want idc but make the round easy to evaluate otherwise you won’t like the defaults I make for you. The more warranting and explanation, the more likely I will be to vote for your arguments.

random thoughts

• Like good existentialist philosophy positions
• Enjoy a good NC AC debate with smart interactions on case and clear understanding of you and your opponent's position
• Prefer if you'd have real warrants instead of 3 1 line blips or TJF’s for your framework.
• Will not vote for 1line game over arguments like aspec, eval after the 1ac/1nc , hidden AFC arguments, condo logic, aprioris, IVIs with no abuse story that get blown up and awful spec arguments that literally do nothing. Winning on tricks is a last resort when the round is irresolvable and you will have your speaks tanked.
• If you ask for high speaks I’ll dock them.
• I will not assume you win framework if you win extinction ow ie (make real warrants for consequentialism).
• Enjoy a good K debate and true policy positions that aren’t absurd but despise badly executed debates. Agnostic in K v TFW debates, just convince me your model is better. Make arguments, not overviews.
• Win your framework and do real LBL, author indicts are frankly unserious but I’ll consider them if they’re really well warranted and carded.
• Trickier strategies are fine in the context of your arguments, however arguments designed to avoid clash are not. Clash between arguments is what I like most in rounds.
• Independent voters aren’t independent just because you say they are.
• I Do Not like voting on evidence ethics.

Quick prefs

1 - Phil/Phil Trix

1 - Stock K’s

2 - 4 High theory K’s (Depending on technical proficiency and density of literature)

2- Trad debate (Dont like but can evaluate)

2- 3 Topicality/Theory (Need clear abuse and ballot story in the final rebuttal speeches)

3 - Policy/Larp

5/Strike - Policy v Policy debates and 1 line tricks.

If you need any other information, you can ask me before round or look at Vontrez White’s paradigm which I agree with