Tabroom.com

Damus Hollywood Invitational

2024 — Sherman Oaks, CA/US

Varsity Policy Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Naomi Alan Damien-St. Lucy's 2 rounds

Dylan Amo OES 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 16, 2024 at 10:44 AM PST

For email chains ... my email is amod (at) oes . edu

I am a former the HS policy debate coach and CEDA Coach. Founding member of the Portland Urban Debate League - expanding debate opportunities to underserved schools in Portland Metro.

I was a policy/LD debater for Lincoln High School in the early 90s and CEDA debater for The American University in Washington, DC. Upon graduation, I returned to coach the American CEDA program for three more years. After a long hiatus, I’ve been called back to the activity that I love. Beyond my coaching experience, I am a founder of the Portland Urban Debate League.

Debate is awesome! But … it’s only as good as we, as a community, make it. I am coming back to the activity to make sure that it continues for future generations. Teams that disrespect their opponent, or this activity, will be dealt with severely on my ballot. Integrity is not something to trifle with for short-term strategic benefits.

1. Homophobic, racist, religiously intolerant, or sexist language and/or behavior will not be tolerated.

2. Rudeness, dishonesty, cruelty and vulgarity devalues the activity.

3. Have fun! Strive for creativity, humor, debate scholarship, humility, compassion, and being strategic.

Stylistic Overview

1. CLASH!

2. Quality over quantity. Just because I can handle a faster round doesn't mean that it impresses me.

3. Smart analytics is always better than lazy warrantless evidence.

4. Debates about evidence QUALITY and CONTEXT are to be encouraged!

5. I am ok with tag teaming during cross ex so long as it provides greater clarity and isn’t abused.

6. So long as it’s not a new case, advantage/scenario or neg position. The negative and affirmative positions should be disclosed pre round, if asked.

7. If asked, evidence must be made available to the opposition.

8. Provide a clear decision-making calculus from the start throughout the round and please do all the impact analysis for me.

9. I believe one or two prestandards (a propri) arguments are sufficient, anything more and I lean towards abuse.

10. I've been away from the activity for a few years and online debating creates some clarity issues. Let's bring it down a notch or two while my ear gets retrained to the activity.

Positions

Kritiks

I’m more than open to them. But know that I’d probably rather judge just about anything … than a postmodernism debate. Even if you argued this in front of me 5 times this season, debate a K as if I’ve never heard the topic before.

Topicality/theory debates

Slow down for clarity, these debates tend to be nuanced. Try to limit these positions to only abusive situation

Disadvantages

Not shockingly, case specific disads are better than generic.

Counterplans

Competition is key. Aff leaning on Conditionality. Legit perms must include all of plan and part of the counter plan.

I will try to judge whatever you want, within reason, so long as you justify it.

Anirv Ayyala Damien-St. Lucy's 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu July 25, 2024 at 10:59 PM PST

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

Debated at James Logan HS currently debating for CSUF

TLDR

I will judge any kind of debate but obv racism good isn't a strat

tech>truth

Policy v K - 1

KvK - 2

Policy v Policy - 2

Policy

Plan affs - good for anything, better ev comparison gets you out of most problems. Shorter link chains > long ones

Specific DAs and case answers are the best neg responses. Don't take counterplan competition for granted and clever perms are amazing. I weigh reasonability on condo heavily. Any other theory is up to debate.

Can be great but is very often not, call out nonsensical interps and ev comparison is not just author quals. Predictable limits is prob my fav standard but anything goes. I assume models unless said otherwise and I don't weigh reasonability significantly.

Read Ks on the neg most of the time but am easily convinced to vote against it, I've felt link thresholds and alt solvency are rarely done well but are great when actually explained. Links to the plan are amazing and fw helps you weigh the K but do NOT act as a link - I can be convinced that your model rejects the aff but just saying state bad or topic bad isn't a sufficient explanation. 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. You need to win fw to weigh the aff, extinction o/ws doesn't tell me why you should get fiat.

Kaffs

Read these the majority 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 ballot for a Kaff usually goes like: Aff had a substansive impact turn to T and the c/i solves enough to not break debate completely. A neg ballot usually is the impact turn doesn't o/w a risk of topic engagement being good and the neg's interp provides significantly more/better clash than the counter interp

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.

Affs should impact turn both content and form and most counter interps don't solve limits - you need to provide what neg ground looks like under your model.

Neg teams should read as many off as you can cause it's not like they're going for condo, piks are under utilized and ethics piks can help mitigate offense on the impact turns and make a neg ballot generally easier.

Ian Beier College Prep 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 16, 2024 at 5:02 PM UTC

**Online update: if my camera is off, i am not there**

I think debate is a game with educational benefits. I will listen to anything, but there are obviously some arguments that are more persuasive than others. i think this is most of what you're looking for:

1. arguments - For me to vote on an argument it must have a claim, warrant, and impact. A claim is an assertion of truth or opinion. A warrant is an analytical connection between data/grounds/evidence and your claim. An impact is the implication of that claim for how I should evaluate the debate. debate is competitive and adversarial, not cooperative. My bias is that debate strategies should be evidence-centric and, at a minimum, rooted in an academic discipline. My bias is that I do not want to consider anything prior to the reading of the 1AC when making my decision.

2. more on that last sentence - i am uninterested and incapable of resolving debates based on questions of character based on things that occurred outside of the debate that i am judging. if it is an issue that calls into question the safety of yourself or others in the community, you should bring that issue up directly with the tournament director or relevant authorities because that is not a competition question. if you are having an interpersonal dispute, you should try resolving your conflict outside of a competitive space and may want to seek mediation from trained professionals. there are likely exceptions, but there isnt a way to resolve these things in a debate round.

3. framework - arguments need to be impacted out beyond the word 'fairness' or 'education'. affirmatives do not need to read a plan to win in front of me. however, there should be some connection to the topic. fairness *can be* a terminal impact.

4. critiques - they should have links to the plan or have a coherent story in the context of the advantages. i am less inclined to vote neg for broad criticisms that arent contextualized to the affirmative. a link of omission is not a link. similarly, affirmatives lose debates a lot just because their 2ac is similarly generic and they have no defense of the actual assumptions of the affirmative.

5. counterplans - should likely have solvency advocates but its not a dealbreaker. slow down when explaining tricks in the 2nc.

6. theory - more teams should go for theory more often. negatives should be able to do whatever they want, but affirmatives need to be able to go for theory to keep them honest.

7. topicality - its an evidentiary issue that many people impact poorly. predictable limits, not ground, is the controlling internal link for most T-related impacts. saying 'we lose the [insert argument]' isnt really an impact without an explanation of why that argument is good. good debates make comparative claims between aff/neg opportunities to win relative to fairness.

8. clipping - i sometimes read along with speeches if i think that you are clipping. i will prompt you if i think you are clipping and if i think you are still clipping i will vote against you even if the other team doesnt issue an ethics challenge.

9. 2nr/2ar - there are lots of moving parts in debate. if you disagree with how i approach debate or think about debate differently, you should start your speech with judge instruction that provides an order of operations or helps construct that ballot. teams too often speak in absolute certainties and then presume the other team is winning no degree of offense. that is false and you will win more debates if you can account for that in your speech.

10. keep track of your own time.

unapologetically stolen from brendan bankey's judge philosophy as an addendum because there is no reason to rewrite it:

---"Perm do the counterplan" and "perm do the alt" are claims that are often unaccompanied by warrants. I will not vote for these statements unless the aff explains why they are theoretically legitimate BEFORE the 2AR. I am most likely to vote for these arguments when the aff has 1) a clear model of counterplan/alternative competition AND 2) an explanation for where the

I would prefer that debaters engage arguments instead of finesse their way out of links. This is especially awful when it takes place in clash debates. If you assert your opponent's offense does not apply when it does I will lower your speaker points.

In that vein, it is my bias that if an affirmative team chooses not to say "USFG Should" in the 1AC that they are doing it for competitive reasons. It is, definitionally, self-serving. Self-serving does not mean the aff should lose [or that its bad necessarily], just that they should be more realistic about the function of their 1AC in a competitive activity. If the aff does not say "USFG Should" they are deliberately shifting the point of stasis to other issues that they believe should take priority. It is reciprocal, therefore, for the negative to use any portion of the 1AC as it's jumping off point.

I think that limits, not ground, is the controlling internal link for most T-related impacts. Ground is an expression of the division of affirmative and negative strategies on any given topic. It is rarely an independent impact to T. I hate cross-examination questions about ground. I do not fault teams for being unhelpful to opponents that pose questions in cross-examination using the language of ground. People commonly ask questions about ground to demonstrate to the judge that the aff has not really thought out how their approach to the resolution fosters developed debates. A better, more precise question to ask would be: "What are the win conditions for the negative within your model of competition?"

Anish Bhadani Peninsula High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed July 31, 2024 at 4:41 PM PST

Email Chain: anishbhadani22@mittymonarch.com

Affiliations: Archbishop Mitty High School, University of Southern California '26 (debating)

Debate means different things to different people. My role as an adjudicator is to ensure my own conception of debate does not affect my decision-making. I profoundly appreciate the dedication and effort this activity demands of those who participate in it. Above all else, I will do my best to reflect that in my decision-making.

Tech over truth. Any argument, so long as it has a warrant, will be accepted on face, regardless of how compelling it may be. I will aim to be as non-interventionist as possible. Whichever side possesses a clearer path to victory will win. Judge instruction in the rebuttals and narrowing your path to the ballot to a few key issues will go a long way.

There are certain arguments I do find more persuasive if won, as well as styles of debating that tend to do better in front of me. For the sake of transparency, I will disclose them here. You can choose whether or not to adapt to them. These are preferences and not inexorable.

General.
Evidence quality matters quite a lot. Spin is welcomed, but only gets you so far. Analytical arguments, however, should be made and will be weighed.

Reading fewer cards that are actually highlighted is always preferable to dumping more cards that are highlighted to say nothing.

The arguments you’re going for and extending in the final rebuttals should be clear and well-explained. Don’t presume I will read a card you quickly referenced in the 2AR or consider it extended. Explicitly stating which argument or card you’re extending is ideal.

Theoretical objections are almost always reasons to reject the argument, not the team. Proving conditionality’s bad is a tall task.

Ks.

Critical AFFs are much better when they're related to the resolution.

For going for framework against these AFFs, the less blocks you read, the better. Usually convinced that fairness is an impact.

I'm a bigger fan of the TVA than most, especially when well-explained and contextualized to the AFF.

Don't have many preferences about Ks on the NEG, read whatever you like. So long as it's well-explained.

Misc.
Inserting rehighlightings is great. Just reference those rehighlightings again in later speeches.

Default to no judge kick unless told otherwise.

Arguments about individual people or their actions outside the activity will not be evaluated. Ad-homs lack warrants.

Asking what was read is perfectly fine but constitutes cross-x time. Asking what was marked does not.

Start the 1AC chain before the round starts.

Feel free to postround.

LD.

Not good for tricks. Won’t vote on RVIs.

Ethics.
Lifted from Navya Simha’s paradigm.

“Anything explicitly racist, sexist, transphobic, etc. is not allowed. I will not evaluate arguments about someone's character based on actions outside of the round. Ethics issues are not arguments for the ballot. Please be respectful.
Clipping requires a recorded violation presented by an alleging team. I will then evaluate the evidence presented and issue a loss to the team which allegedly clipped if they have clipped, or the alleging team if there was no clipping.
Evidence ethics challenges require staking the round on the challenge. If you do not stop the round, I will not consider it. If the round is stopped for this, I will then decide whether or not the challenger has a legitimate claim or not based on NSDA/tournament guidelines and will use the appropriate recourse. When possible, however, I would strongly prefer to see debating of the evidence in a substantive manner. You can always settle it before the round.”

Ilan Boguslavsky Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu October 3, 2024 at 6:37 AM PST

Ilan Boguslavsky (he/him)

Head-Royce '24

UC Berkeley '28

Add me to the chain: ilan.boguslavsky@gmail.com and hrsdebatedocs@gmail.com (policy only)

Top-level:

Read what you want. I read a policy aff my first two years of high school and a k aff my last two years. Now I go for only policy arguments in college.

Tech > truth, I'll pretty much vote for anything if won technically and will do my best to minimize judge intervention. I do not care about rep or anything that happens outside of the round.

Write my ballot at the top of the rebuttals

Well researched and specific neg strats > generics

Quality of cards > quantity of cards

Everything below is just some thoughts, but tech obviously outweighs everything else.

Topicality:

Specific and well thought out t debates > generic t violations

Competing interps > reasonability

Counterplans:

I am good for advantage cp's and aff specifc pic's. I am getting better for competition debates.

I default to judgekick unless the aff contests it.

Disadvantages:

Explicit turns case and impact analysis makes the DA a lot more persuasive.

Mitigating the case is very important.

No risk is possible but hard to win.

Kritiks:

I am familiar with most common K literature. Throughout high school I read afropess, black feminism, racial cap, security, deleuze, cybernetics, beller, etc.

I'll probably know what you're talking about but you should have a coherent explanation of your theory of power

Specific links to the aff >>> generic links

Explain your impacts. a lot of times teams k teams read a link without doing any impact calc

I'm fine if you go for framework + a risk of a link or a material alt that solves the links but I think the latter requires a lot more work on mitigating the case and answering da's to the alt

Framework is usually the most important part of these debates.

K-Affs:

K-affs should be unique to the topic, however you want to approach that is up to you.

Explain what your aff does and how it resolves the impacts of the 1ac

If you are vague about your advocacy or shift what your aff does throughout the debate to skirt case turns or k links i'll err neg on framework or no perms.

I think its easy to win that k-affs do get perms and the easiest way for the neg to win otherwise is to point out specific instances of in-round abuse where the aff team has shifted their advocacy to spike links.

K-affs need to affirm something not just say that the topic is bad

Framework vs K-Affs:

I have been on both sides of this debate, I pretty much exclusively go for framework against k aff's in college and I understand the pedagogical benefits of both models of debate.

I do not care if you go for fairness or clash/skills, fairness can be an internal link or an impact

Debate has game-like elements but I can be convinced that it's more than a game

I prefer a counter interp but am fine for a straight impact turn strategy

The counter interp will never solve the neg's offense but it can mitigate limits explosion arguments and can act as terminal defense

Aff’s need specific answers to tva and ssd

Its an uphill battle for the aff if the neg wins that the tva allows for a discussion of the aff's harms and they can read the aff on the neg in other debates

K v K:

These debates usually come down to the perm so the neg needs specific links that are opportunity costs to the aff

Affs need to defend their literature and authors instead of no linking arguments that probably link to the aff

Theory:

Anything but condo is probably a reason to reject the argument not the team

Condo is good but I can be persuaded otherwise

Dont spread through theory blocks

LD stuff:

Everything from the rest of my paradigm applies

Good for policy v policy, policy v k, k v policy, k v k, theory

I haven't seen much of phil debate but it seems fine-- make sure to explain arguments thoroughly though

Would prefer not to judge tricks but will still evaluate them

No RVI's

Random stuff:

The death k is a valid argument

You can insert rehighlightings if the lines in the card have already been read by the other team but you must read any new lines/warrants.

Tell me if you want to stake the round on an ethics violation and I will stop the round, otherwise debate it out

Sergio Chavez Notre Dame High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 9, 2024 at 2:05 AM PST

Background:

Debated all 4 years at Notre Dame High School.

Started as a 2N, finished as a 2A. 'Policy debater,' but I enjoy K's.

TL:

Please put me on the email chain. Highly recommend sending a test email at least 5 minutes before the round starts --sergiochavezdebate@gmail.com

Pronouns: he/him -- feel free to call me by my name ("Sergio") -- "Judge" is fine

Tech > Truth (absent ethics violations)

Be nice!

Read what you want! I'd rather you debate with what you know best than try over-adapting to me.

I enjoy solid clash and organization in the debates, otherwise, I feel like I have to do work for you. There should be clean line-by-line so I can easily follow your speech. Cross-applications are great when used strategically and sufficiently implicated.

Debate as if I have zero topic knowledge -- over-explaining things, especially first semester, is better than assuming I know what you're talking about. Remember that debate is meant to be educational, not just a word competition.

CX -- super underutilized and very helpful when done right. Build ethos, demonstrate topic knowledge, and most importantly ask questions with intention/direction. Yes, there are things you gotta get through like status of off-case, etc. but you can control the round (or lose it) with CX.

Speaking -- Clarity > Speed. Spreading is fine, but please be clear and at least try to be a little expressive (i.e. intonation, body language, eye contact, etc.), I will be more interested in what you have to say. I will yell "CLEAR!" if you are absolutely unintelligible. If I cannot hear your arguments, it won't be on the flow and I will not evaluate them. I am physically expressive, so my expressions will let you know what I'm thinking.

Timing -- Please time yourselves, especially prep. Even when I'm debating I forget to time my opponents and that'll probably be worse while judging. You can finish your sentence after the timer, nothing more (feel free to ask me where I stopped flowing).

Online -- If my camera is off, I am probably not there so always check with me (and your opponents) before speaking).

Please feel free to ask questions before the round.

Great argument. Neg teams should utilize it to check weird affs. You should probably have proof of neg ground loss / limits explosion and a reasonable case list.

Always extend voters, impact out the IL (i.e. education, fairness, clash, debateability), and do impact calc. If it's not there, I can't and won't vote on it.

T comes before theory. It's a procedural question of whether the debate should've even happened in the first place (this description does not necessarily apply to FW vs. K-Affs).

Case:

Please robustly defend the aff in CX; defend a real Internal Link(s) for your advantages and impact scenarios; be prepared to defend your scholarship. I can appreciate smart, offensive 1AR and 2AR pivots to beat the neg's args. If you think it's necessary in the 2AC, I'm all for it.

Rehighlightings do not have to be reread as long as its implication/purpose is sufficiently explained in the tag. These can be valuable, but the worse they are, the less they matter. If the rehighlighting is on the longer end, you might want to read it.

CP:

Love them IF debated properly. Don't be too cheaty on the CP's -- some planks are just fine and probably sufficient.

If you want to run a Process CP with an internal net benefit, it better have a link to the aff or you're losing to an intrinsic perm. It's the neg's responsibility to prove why the CP is good and necessary for the topic/against [x] aff.

DA:

YES! (most of the time) DA's need impact calc and cohesive story. Please don't be read two cards in the 1NC and call it a disad. Turns case analysis is OP.

Framework is optional. 2NR should decide if they're going for FW or a Link to the aff. Regardless, Links should be applied to the aff, even if they are a little generic. Pull 1AC lines, use CX to win links, and re-explain the aff through the K's lens. The alt should at least solve the links. Be careful using mindset shifts as your alt, this gives the aff is an easier route for the perm.

Here are some miscellaneous notes for K's that I've ran:

--Capitalism K -- Good generic across most topics. I personally think defending a material alternative (e.g. socialism) is better than forefronting FW. Positional competition is overrated, get better at Link debate.

--Settler Colonialism K -- I've read the Set Col K on the neg (shout out Olivia Deantoni) and have had significant time discussing not only neg strategy but also aff answers to this K with one of my coaches, Joshua Michael. There's so much room to develop specific Link debate. Ontology is meant to lower the threshold for winning the Link; it's not required to win the K. If you read Tuck and Yang as your alt, and 1NC CX says the alt is not material decolonization, you're wrong.

--Security K -- Another good generic across topics, and I feel like teams could read it this year too. I mostly view the the Security K as "spicy impact defense" (shout out Viv). It's also why I liked it, because of how it necessitates in-depth clash on case and examples. I think there are two ways to go for the K: (1) FW = you link, you lose, and (2) Impact turn = spicy impact defense. Either way, the neg should win a low risk of the aff.

Tricks -- throw-away K tricks in the neg block (e.g. embedded death k, predictions fail) are not a great way to win rounds, but I've seen them work -- 1ARs, please don't drop them, a sentence is usually enough for me to throw out dumb arguments. Even if they are dropped, the 2NR must be specific and apply the args themselves to the aff. For "predictions fail," if the aff wins risk of case, I think their predictions are correct and I will err aff.

K-Aff:

I've learned to grow somewhat fond of K Affs. I think that teams that utilize their 1AC to win portions of the debate, like an impact turn to FW, are strategically doing the right thing. I've seen some more deflective strategies that aren't as fun / educational to debate. Do not just throw a bunch of jargon and lingo if you're not going to explain it. Save your overviews for the line-by-line. Decide whatever you want to defend the aff does and own it.

Theory:

Conditionality -- condo is probably good, and usually reasonable if the 1NC has 1-3 condo, but I will always evaluate the flow first. Proving in-round abuse is really helpful for the aff instead of just debating at the unrealistic, hypothetical level of everything conditional imaginable vs. no condo.

Matt Conrad Westlake High School 6 rounds

Cade Cottrell The Meadows School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 9, 2024 at 7:10 AM PST

cadecottrell@gmail.com

Updated November 2024

Yes I know my philosophy is unbearably long. I keep adding things without removing others, the same reason I was always top heavy when I debated. But I tried to keep it organized so hopefully you can find what you need, ask me questions if not.

For the few college tournaments I judge, understand that my philosophy is geared towards high school students since that is the vast, vast majority of my judging/coaching. Just use that as a filter when reading.

Seriously, I don't care what you read as long as you do it well. I really don't care if you argue that all K debaters should be banned from debate or argue that anyone who has ever read a plan is innately racist and should be kicked out of the community. If you win it, I'm happy to vote for it.

***Two Minutes Before A Debate Version***

I debated in high school in Utah, and in college for UNLV. I coached Green Valley High School, various Las Vegas schools, as well as helping out as a hired gun at various institutions. I have debated at the NDT, was nationally competitive in high school, and coached a fair share of teams to the TOC if those things matter for your pref sheet (they shouldn't). I genuinely don't have a big bias for either side of the ideological spectrum. I seem to judge a fairly even mix of K vs K, Clash of Civs, and policy debates. I can keep up with any speed as long as its clear, I will inform you if you are not, although don't tread that line because I may miss arguments before I speak up. If you remain unclear I just won't flow it.

Sometimes I look or act cranky. I love debate and I love judging, so don't take it too seriously.

My biases/presumptions (but can of course be persuaded otherwise):

- Tech over Truth, but Logic over Cards

- Quality and Quantity are both useful.

- Condo is generally good

- Generic responses to the K are worse than generic K's

- Politics and States are generally theoretically legitimate (and strategic)

- Smart, logical counterplans don't necessarily need solvency advocates, especially not in the 1NC

- #Team1%Risk

- 2NC's don't read new off case positions often enough

- I believe in aff flexibility (read: more inclusive interpretations of what's topical) more than almost anyone I know. That is demonstrated in almost every aff I've read or coached.

- I'll vote for "rocks are people" if you win it (warrant still needed). Terrible arguments are easily torn apart, but that's the other team's duty, not mine.

***

A Few Notes You Should Know:

Speaker Points: Firstly, I compare my speaker points to the mean after almost every tournament, so I try to stay in line with the community norm. I have had a dilemma with speaker points, and have recently changed my view. I think most judges view speaker points as a combination of style and substance, with one being more valuable than the other depending on the judge. I have found this frustrating as both a debater and coach trying to figure what caused a judge to give out the speaks they did. So I've decided to give out speaker points based solely on style rather than substance. I feel whichever team wins the substance of the debate will get my ballot so you are already rewarded, so I am going to give out speaker points based on the Ethos, Pathos, and Logos of a debater. Logos implies you are still extending good, smart arguments, but it just means that I won't tank speaks based off of technical drops (like floating pics, or a perm, etc) as some judges do, and I won't reward a team's speaker points for going for those arguments if I feel they are worse "speakers", the ballot is reward enough. Functionally all it means is that I probably give more low-point wins than some judges (about one a tournament), but at least you know why when looking at cume sheets after tournaments.

Debate is a rhetorical activity. This means if you want me to flow an argument, it must be intelligible, and warranted. I will not vote on an argument I do not have on my flow in a previous speech. I am a decent flow so don't be too scared but it means that if you are planning on going for your floating pic, a specific standard/trick on theory, a permutation that wasn't answered right in the block, etc. then you should make sure I have that argument written down and that you have explained it previously with sufficient nuance. I might feel bad that I didn't realize you were making a floating pic in the block, but only briefly, and you'll feel worse because ultimately it is my responsibility to judge based off of what is on my flow, so make those things clear. Being shady RARELY pays off in debate.

(*Update: This is no longer true in online debate tournaments, I look through docs because of potential clairty/tech issues*: I don't look at speech docs during debates except in rare instances. I read much less evidence after debates than most judges, often none at all. If you want me to read evidence, please say so, but also please tell me what I'm looking for. I prefer not to read evidence, so when I do after a round it means one of three things: 1. The debate is exceedingly close and has one or two issues upon which I am trying to determine the truth (rare). 2. You asked me to read the evidence because "its on fire" (somewhat common and potentially a fire hazard). 3. The debate was bad enough that I am trying to figure out what just happened.)

Prep time: I generally let teams handle their own prep, I do prefer if you don't stop prep until the email is sent. Doing so will make me much happier. If you are very blatantly stealing prep, I might call you out on it, or it might affect speaker points a little.

***

Neg: I am very much in favor of depth over breadth. Generally that doesn't affect how I feel about large 1NC's but it means I find myself thinking "I wish they had consolidated more in the block" quite often, and almost never the opposite. If you don't consolidate much, you might be upset with the leeway I give to 1AR/2AR explanations. Being shady RARELY pays off in debate. Pick your best arguments and go to battle.

DA's: I love in-depth disad debates. Teams that beat up on other teams with large topic disads usually have one of two things: A. A large number of pre-written blocks B. A better understanding of the topic than their opponents. If you have both, or the latter, I'll quite enjoy the debate. If you only have the former, then you can still get the ballot but not as much respect (or speaker points). Small disads very specific to the aff are awesome. Small disads that are small in order to be unpredictable are not. I am of the "1% risk" discipline assuming that means the disad is closely debated. I am not of that discipline if your disad is just silly and you are trying to win it is 1% true, know the difference.

CP's: I have a soft spot for tricky counterplans. That doesn't mean I think process/cheating counterplans are legitimate, that just means I'll leave my bias at the door more than most judges if you get into a theory debate. That said, theory is won or lost through explanation, not through having the largest blocks. Generally I think counterplans should be functionally and textually competitive, that doesn't mean you can't win of yours isn't, it just means if it is then you probably have some theoretical high ground. I also think if you have a specific solvency advocate for the counterplan (meaning a piece of evidence that advocates doing the counterplan, not just evidence that says the counterplan "is a thing" [I'm looking at you, Consult CP people]) you should utilize that both as a solvency argument and as a theoretical justification for the counterplan. I am neutral on the judge kick question. If you want me to judge kick, say so in the 2NR/2NC, and if you don't then say so in the 1AR/2AR, that's an argument to be had. However, if no one makes an argument either way, my default is if the 2NR is DA, CP, Case, then I think there is an implicit assumption in that strategy that the squo is an option. If the 2NR is only CP & DA, I think the implicit assumption is aff vs. CP. Advantage counterplans are vastly underutilized. Logical counterplans probably don't need solvency advocates.

T: I think the way reasonability is construed is sad and a disservice to the argument. I perceive competing interpretations as a question of whose interpretation sets the best standard for all future debate, and reasonability as a question of whether the aff harmed the negative's fairness/education in this specific round. Under that interpretation (Caveat: This assumes you are explaining reasonability in that fashion, usually people do not). I tend to lean towards reasonability since I think T should be a check against aff's that try to skirt around the topic, rather than as a catch-all. T is to help guarantee the neg has predictable ground. I've voted neg a few times when the aff has won their interp is technically accurate but the neg has won their interp is better for fairness/limits/ground, but that's mostly because I think that technical accuracy/framer's intent is an internal link, rather than an impact. Do the additional work.

Theory: This is a discussion of what debate should look like, which is one of the most simple questions to ask ourselves, yet people get very mixed up and confused on theory since we are trained to be robots. I LOVE theory debates where the debaters understand debate well enough to just make arguments and use clash, and HATE debates where the debaters read blocks as fast as possible and assume people can flow that in any meaningful fashion (very few can, I certainly can't. Remember, I don't have the speech doc open). I generally lean negative on theory questions like condo (to a certain extent) and CP theory args, but I think cp's should be textually, and more importantly, functionally competitive, see above.

Framework/T against Non-Traditional Aff's: I have read and gone for both the Procedural Fairness/T version of this argument and the State Action Good/Framework version of this argument many times. I am more than willing to vote for either, and I also am fine with teams that read both and then choose one for the 2NR. However, I personally am of the belief that fairness is not an impact in and of itself but is an internal link to other impacts. If you go for Fairness as your sole impact you may win, but adequate aff answers to it will be more persuasive in front of me. Fairness as the only impact assumes an individual debate is ultimately meaningless, which while winnable, is the equivalent of having a 2NR against a policy aff that is solely case defense, and again I'm by default #1%RiskClub. "Deliberation/dialogue/nuanced discussion/role switching is key to ____________" sorts of arguments are usually better in front of me. As far as defending US action, go for it. My personal belief is that the US government is redeemable and reformable but I am also more than open to voting on the idea that it is not, and these arguments are usually going straight into the teeth of the aff's offense so use with caution. TVA's are almost essential for a successful 2NR unless the aff is clearly anti-topical and you go for a nuanced switch side argument. TVA's are also most persuasive when explained as a plan text and what a 1AC looks like, not just a nebulous few word explanation like "government reform" or "A.I. to solve patriarchy". I like the idea of an interp with multiple net benefits and often prefer a 1NC split onto 3-4 sheets in order to separate specific T/FW arguments. If you do this, each should have a clear link (which is your interp), an internal link and impact. Lastly, I think neg teams often let affs get away with pre-requisite arguments way too much, usually affs can't coherently explain why reading their philosophy at the top of the 1AC and then ending with a plan of action doesn't fulfill the mandates of their pre-requisite.

K's: These are the best and worst debates. The bad ones tend to be insufferable and the good ones tend to be some of the most engaging and thought provoking. Sadly, most debaters convince themselves they fall into the latter when they are the former so please take a good, long look in the mirror before deciding which you fall under. I have a broad knowledge of K authors, but not an in depth one on many, so if you want to go for the K you better be doing that work for me, I won't vote for anything that I don't totally understand BEFORE reading evidence, because I think that is a key threshold any negative should meet (see above), so a complex critical argument can be to your advantage or disadvantage depending on how well you explain it. I also think the framing args for the K need to be impacted and utilized, that in my opinion is the easiest way to get my ballot (unless you turn case or win a floating pic). In other words, if you can run the K well, do it, if not, don't (at least not in the 2NR).

Edit: I think it usually helps to know what the judge knows about your critique, so this list below may help be a guide:

I feel very comfortable with, know the literature, and can give good feedback on: Nietzsche, Wilderson, Moten (& Harney), Security, Neoliberalism, Historical Materialism, Colonialism (both Decoloniality and Postcolonialism), Fem IR, Deleuze and Guattari (at least relative to most).

I have both debated and read these arguments, but still have gaps in my knowledge and may not know all the jargon: Hillman, Schmitt, Edelman, Zizek cap args, Agamben, Warren, Ableism, Kristeva, Heidegger, Orientalism, Virillio, Lacan, Anthro, Ligotti, Bataille, settler colonialism metaphysics arguments.

ELI5: Baudrillard, postmodern feminism arguments, Killjoy, Bifo, Zizek psychoanalysis, Object Oriented Ontology, Spanos, Buddhism, Taoism, your specific strain of "cybernetics", probably anything that isn't on these lists but ask first.

***

Aff:

Bad aff teams wait til the 2AR to decide what their best arguments are against a position. Good aff teams have the round vision to make strategic choices in the 1AR and exploit them in the 2AR. Great aff teams have the vision to create a comprehensive strategy going into the 2AC. That doesn't mean don't give yourself lots of options, it just means you should know what arguments are ideally in the 2AR beforehand and you should adapt your 2AC based off of the 1NC as a whole. Analytical arguments in a 2AC are vastly underused.

Non-Traditional Affirmatives: I'm fine with these. They don't excite me any more or less than a topical aff. I think the key to these aff's is always framing. Both because negatives often go for framework but also because it is often your best tool against their counter-advocacy/K. I often am more persuaded by Framework/T when the aff is antitopical, rather than in the direction of the resolution, but I've voted to the contrary of that frequently enough. This won't affect the decision but I'll enjoy the aff more if it is very specific (read: relevant/jermaine/essential) to the topic, or very personal to yourself, it annoys me when people read non-traditional aff's just to be shady. Being shady RARELY pays off in debate.

Answering K's: It is exceedingly rare that the neg can't win a link to their K. That doesn't mean you shouldn't question the link by any means, permutations are good ways to limit the strength of neg offense, but it means that impact turning the K/alternative is very often a better strategy than going for a link turn and permutation for 5 minutes in the 2AR. I think this is a large reason why aff's increasingly have moved further right or further left, because being stuck in the middle is often a recipe for disaster. That said, being able to have a specific link turn or impact turn to the K that is also a net benefit to the permutation while fending against the most offensive portions of negative link arguments are some of the best 2AR's.

Last Notes:

I prefer quality over quantity of arguments. If you only need a minute in the 2NR/2AR then just use a minute, cover up any outs, and finish. I believe in the mercy rule in that sense. I will vote against teams that clip and give the culprit 0 speaker points, however I believe in the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt", so be certain before levying accusations and make sure to have a recording. (Explicitly tell me that you want to issue a clipping challenge, I've had debaters email me and I don't see it, or wait until after the debate. Don't do that.)

I'll give you +.1 speaker points if you can tell me what phrase appears the most in my philosophy. Because it shows you care, you want to adapt to your judge, and maybe because I'm a tad narcissistic.

Things I like:
- A+ Quality Evidence (If you have such a card, and you explain why its better than the 3+ cards the other team read, I accept that more willingly than other judges)

- Brave (strategic) 1AR/2AR decisions

- Politics disads that turn each advantage

- If you are behind, I'd much rather you cheat/lie/steal (maybe not steal, and cheat within reason) than give up. If you ain't cheatin' you ain't tryin'.

- Neg blocks that only take 1-2 flows and just decimate teams.

- Controlling the "spin" of arguments (I'll give a lot of leeway)

- Energy Drinks/M&M's/Candy (Bringing me any of these will make me happy, me being happy generally correlates to higher speaker points)

Things I don't like:
- Not knowing how to send speech docs in a timely manner!

- Debaters that act like they are of superior intelligence compared to their partner/opponents

- Reading arguments with little value other than trying to blindside teams (timecube, most word pics, etc.) Being shady RARELY pays off in debate.

- Being unclear

- Horses (Stop acting like they're so goddamn majestic, they're disgusting)

- Toasted Coconut

Zadie DeFord Sonoma Academy 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed October 30, 2024 at 6:38 AM PST

hi!

sonoma ‘24 (1A/2N), ucla ‘28, she/her
add me to the email chain zadiedeford@gmail.com and sonomacardscardscards@gmail.com

top level

basically just do what you want

-speed is fine
-i have no topic knowledge
-tech > truth absent ethics violations
-organization and judge instruction is super important
-write my ballot- the top of the 2nr/2ar should be what you would want me to start my rfd with
-i won’t vote on an argument i don’t understand
-saying anything racist/sexist/homophobic/otherwise problematic is an easy way to get an L + the lowest possible speaks + i will contact your coach

specific stuff:

k affs: i’m prob not the best judge for k affs but i’m also not the worst. i read a k aff my senior year and you can definitely read yours in front of me as long as its explained well. it should probably be related to the topic. i will happily vote neg on presumption if you don't explain your aff adequately

framework: boring. if u read blocks straight down and dont engage with the aff u will not win. i probably think debate is a game

k v k: i usually went for kritiks against k affs but i don’t have a ton of specific literature knowledge here so def overexplain. i think these debates are interesting but please know what you’re talking about

policy v k: sure. i’m familiar with the basic ones but if the lit is confusing please explain explain explain

topicality: i don't know anything about the topic so i might be a little confused. line by line is soo important in t rounds. give examples and do impact calc

counterplans: do whatever. i think i default to judge kick but i’ve also never been in a round where that mattered

disads: slow down and explain the link story. impact calc/comparison is important. don’t just tell me what the impact is, tell me how to evaluate it. defense on case is also crucial

theory: i’m fine to judge these. condo is probably good. i will be so sad if i have to vote on something stupid like utopian fiat

“i will likely vote for the team who is best able to isolate the central question of the round and explain why the arguments in the round mean they’ve won” -mateo mijares (he taught me almost everything i know about debate and i’ll try to judge like the nicer version of him)

“i think debate is fun, people do silly things, people make even sillier arguments. laugh about it.” -malone urfalian

be nice good luck have fun !!

Norma Delgado Lake Balboa College Prep 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 7:02 AM PST

2017-2019 LAMDL/ Bravo

2019- Present CSU Fullerton

Please add me to the email chain, normadelgado1441@gmail.com

General thoughts

-Disclose as soon as possible :)

- Don't be rude. Don't make the round deliberately confusing or inaccessible. Take time to articulate and explain your best arguments. If I can't make sense of the debate because of messy/ incomplete arguments, that's on you.

-Speed is fine but be loud AND clear. If I can’t understand you, I won’t flow your arguments. Don’t let speed trade-off with the quality of your argumentation. Above all, be persuasive.

-Sending evidence isn't prep, but don't take too long or I’ll resume the timer. (I’ll let you know before I do so).

Things to keep in mind

-Avoid using acronyms or topic-specific terminology without elaborating first.

-The quality of your arguments is more important than quantity of arguments. If your strategy relies on shallow, dropped arguments, I’ll be mildly annoyed.

-Extend your arguments, not authors. I will flow authors sometimes, but if you are referencing a specific card by name, I probably don’t remember what they said. Unless this specific author is being referenced a lot, you’re better off briefly reminding me than relying on me to guess what card you’re talking about.

-I don’t vote for dropped arguments because they’re dropped. I vote on dropped arguments when you make the effort to explain why the concession matters.

- I don’t really care what you read as long as you have good reasoning for reading it. (ie, you’re not spewing nonsense, your logic makes sense, and you’re not crossing ethical boundaries).

Specific stuff

[AFFs] Win the likelihood of solvency + framing. You don't have to convince me you solve the entirety of your impact, but explain why the aff matters, how the aff is necessary to resolve an issue, and what impacts I should prioritize.

[Ks/K-affs] I like listening to kritiks. Not because I’ll instantly understand what you’re talking about, but I do like hearing things that are out of the box.

k on the neg: I love seeing teams go 1-off kritiks and go heavy on the substance for the link and framing arguments. I love seeing offense on case. Please impact your links and generate offense throughout the debate.

k on the aff: I like strategic k affs that make creative solvency arguments. Give me reasons to prefer your framing to evaluate your aff's impacts and solvency mechanism. The 2ar needs to be precise on why voting aff is good and overcomes any of the neg's offense.

[FW] Choose the right framework for the right aff. I am more persuaded by education & skills-based impacts. Justify the model of debate your interpretation advocates for and resolve major points of contestation. I really appreciate when teams introduce and go for the TVA. Talk about the external impacts of the model of debate you propose (impacts that happen outside of round).

[T/Theory] I have a higher threshold for voting on minor T/Theory violations when impacts are not contextualized. I could be persuaded to vote on a rebuttal FULLY committed to T/theory.

I am more persuaded by education and skills-based impacts as opposed to claims to procedural fairness. It’s not that I will never vote for procedural fairness, but I want you to contextualize what procedural fairness in debate would look like and why that’s a preferable world.

[CPs] CPs are cool as long as you have good mutual exclusivity evidence; otherwise, I am likely to be persuaded by a perm + net benefit arg. PICS are also cool if you have good answers to theory.

[DAs] I really like DAs. Opt for specific links. Do evidence comparison for me. Weigh your impacts and challenge the internal link story. Give your framing a net benefit.

I am more persuaded by impacts with good internal link evidence vs a long stretch big stick impact. Numbers are particularly persuasive here. Make me skeptical of your opponent’s impacts.

Kenny Delph Fort Collins High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed August 28, 2024 at 12:59 PM EST

he/him delphdebate@gmail.com

year 11 of debate

coach at wake forest

former LRCH and Kansas Debater

TLDR:

When it comes to evaluating debates, two things are the most important for me:

1. Clear judge instructions in the rebuttals of how I should filter offense and arguments made in the round. Impact and Link framing are a must. if I can't explain the argument myself, I probably can't vote on it.

2. Impact comparison and clear reason why I should prioritize impacts in the round between the neg and aff. Each argument should have a claim - warrant - impact for me to evaluate it as such.

Use these to filter the rest of my paradigm and general in round perception.

General

I consider myself to be pretty flexible when it comes to arguments that teams want to read. I debated more critically but you should read whatever arguments that you are comfortable with. Any racism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc will be met with speaker points that reflect, so don't be an assho|e.

Most of my debate experience was in critical debates on both the aff and neg (I was a 1A/2N), but I’m not unfamiliar with the technical aspects of policy debates.

I’m probably not the best for Topicality debates in general when it comes to plan-based policy debates and less likely to vote on Framework vs plan-less affs if going for impacts such as fairness/competitive equity or predictability. I generally lean more into truth over tech in most debates, but tech is important for impact comparison.

for college: still formulating how I understand and evaluate as a judge, so making sure I clearly understand what I should evaluate without intervention from me comes down to how you go for your arguments. The less judge intervention I feel like I have to do, the happier we are all in the post-round RFD.

——————————————————————————————

Truth over tech/Tech over truth? - Depends, i view myself evaluating truth before tech concessions but that isn’t always the case. I think technical concession are important for evaluating impact debates, so utilize both these to your advantage.

Framework on the Neg? - I’ll evaluate any negative arguments about the meta of debate. If you win your model of debate is good and the aff in question doesn’t access it then generally I’m pretty neutral on Framework arguments. Same for K’s with framing questions, the way you want me to evaluate a prior question should be framed as such.

10 off? I’d prefer if you didn’t, gish galloping is a fascist tactic.

Theory arguments? I believe theory arguments are heavily underutilized in high school debates. I evaluate conditionality and presumption debates as much as I evaluate K vs Framework. I have a certain threshold for certain arguments that I will vote on in theory debates, I think condo is a definite aff/neg ballot if it gets dropped in the neg block or rebuttals. I tend to vote neg on presumption, in those debates I think a lot of the perm debate and solvency portions of both sides are important to those rounds. CP contextual theory, perm text theory, textual severance, etc im all game for theory. i think theory debates get underutilized a lot

K affirmatives

I read them, I think that you should read whatever you read on the aff. I will vote for them, but I at least think they should be in the direction of the topic and a reason why the topical version doesn't solve.

Performance

If performance is your thing - go ahead go for it.

FW on the neg

I will vote on a neg FW but I think that there are certain arguments that I'm gonna have a harder time pulling the trigger on, i.e. fairness. I don't think fairness is something I would absolutely vote on but of course that all depends on the round. I also think the neg should be doing a lot of work why the state/usfg is worth it, why the aff isnt good for a model of debate, or why the judge should care. Generic args on framework aren't gonna cut it for me tbh, i need a concise way of why i should view the debate through the neg and why the aff doesnt solve etc etc.

K’s

Pretty versed in most of the lit but you shouldn't use a lot of buzzwords in front of me. I think you should say why the aff is uniquely bad and how the alternative can resolve its impacts and the squo. Why perms don't solve, links are disads, etc etc. I find alternative debates to be the most shallow, I think even if you are winning reason the links are disads you still need a reason the alt isn't the squo. Role of the ballot arguments are self-serving but it makes is a lot easier to evaluate them when they are dropped or not contested by the aff. Aff teams: FW on Ks is underutilized, I think you should make arguments about why you should get to weigh your impacts vs the K.

Any other questions just ask before the round, "If you can't dazzle me with excellence, baffle me with bullshit."

Said Dibinga Chota New Designs Charter School-University Park 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu August 22, 2024 at 2:09 AM PST

Hello and greetings! I hope you're doing well.

I respect the dedication and sacrifices you make to excel in debate. I'm honored to hold the Donus D. Roberts Coaching Excellence Award and the First Diamond Award. My journey in Policy Debate began in middle school, and now I coach and judge various competition styles, including CX, Policy, BQ, PF, moot court, mock trial, and High School Shark Tank. This experience has given me valuable insights into the demands of this activity.

My background spans finance, law, technology, film, and a passion for history. I've been involved in debate since 6th grade and have been coaching since 2012, maintaining a deep love for this pursuit. You’ve chosen a challenging path, and I admire your commitment.

Lastly, I'm not responsible for your feelings. Win graciously, lose graciously. I'm happy to provide feedback to your coach, and my email is included in the RFD for further contact if needed. I insist that the communication be via your coach or with your coach's written permission. I'll use Sharedocs on the NSDA platform, so there's no need to exchange personal emails among participants, and I will not ask you for your email.

-----

As a judge, I adhere to a traditional policy debate framework, with a strong focus on topicality, evidence, and clash. Here are specific points that guide my decision-making:

1. Topicality and Relevance: I prioritize arguments that directly engage with the resolution. I expect debates to be centered on the proposed policy and its implications.

2. No Race, Systemic Oppression, or Anti- Arguments: I do not vote on arguments that are primarily focused on race, systemic oppression, or any form of "anti-" argument (e.g., anti-capitalism, anti-imperialism). My focus is on the debate as it relates to the resolution and the specific policy issues at hand.

3. Theory Arguments and Multiple Worlds: I do not consider theory arguments or multiple worlds as voting issues. Debaters should focus on substantive, resolution-centered arguments.

4. Clash and Direct Engagement: I value debates where teams directly address each other's arguments, staying within the bounds of the resolution. Rebuttals should focus on engaging with the substance of the opposing team’s case.

5. Evidence and Analysis: Strong evidence and logical reasoning are crucial in my evaluation. I expect debaters to present and explain evidence that directly supports their case and is relevant to the resolution.

6. Moderate Speed and Clarity: While I’m comfortable with fast-paced debates, clarity is essential. I prefer a pace that ensures arguments are clearly articulated and easily understood.

7. Behavior and Conduct: I do not tolerate personal attacks or profanity. I will issue one warning for such behavior. If it continues, I will disqualify the team responsible.

In summary, I approach debates with a focus on traditional policy arguments, staying on topic, and engaging in direct clash. I do not vote on arguments related to race, systemic oppression, theory, multiple worlds, or similar critical arguments. My judging style is best suited for debaters who engage with the resolution in a clear, evidence-based, and topic-centered manner.

With the exception of elimination rounds, I don't disclose the rounds winner.

---

Let's dive into my judging philosophy by sharing how I look at the components of a debate:

1. Framework (Affirmative and Negative):

- What it is: A set of rules and principles that define the scope of the debate.

- What it is not: A case-specific argument or evidence.

2. Role of the Ballot (ROB):

- What it is: A statement explaining what the judge should prioritize when making their decision.

- What it is not: An argument against the opponent's case.

3. Plan (Affirmative):

- What it is: The proposed policy or action the affirmative team advocates for.

- What it is not: The entirety of the affirmative case; it's just one element.

4. Counterplan (Negative):

- What it is: An alternative proposal presented by the negative team.

- What it is not: A critique or disadvantage argument.

5. Topicality (Negative):

- What it is: An argument challenging the affirmative's compliance with the debate topic.

- What it is not: A critique of the affirmative's content.

6. Disadvantage (Negative):

- What it is: An argument showing the negative consequences of the affirmative's plan.

- What it is not: A counterplan or a critique.

7. Critique/Kritik (Negative):

- What it is: A critical analysis of the assumptions or ideology underlying the affirmative case.

- What it is not: A traditional argument based on evidence and impacts.

8. Cross-Examination (CX):

- What it is: A period during the debate where one team questions the other to gather information and make arguments.

- What it is not: A time for making speeches or presenting new arguments.

9. Rebuttal (Affirmative and Negative):

- What it is: Speeches aimed at refuting the opponent's arguments and reinforcing your own.

- What it is not: A time for introducing entirely new content.

10. Evidence/Contentions (Affirmative and Negative):

- What it is: Factual information and arguments that support your case.

- What it is not: Personal opinions or unsupported assertions.

11. Flowing (Judge's Role):

- What it is: Taking detailed notes of the debate to track arguments and make an informed decision.

- What it is not: Making decisions based on personal biases or emotions.

12. Time Limits:

- What it is: Strictly enforced limits for speeches and cross-examinations.

- What it is not: Flexible or arbitrary timekeeping.

13. Case Overview (Affirmative and Negative):

- What it is: A brief summary of your main arguments at the beginning of your speech.

- What it is not: A replacement for in-depth analysis.

14. Permutation (Affirmative):

- What it is: An argument that combines the affirmative and negative positions to demonstrate compatibility.

- What it is not: A standalone argument; it relies on other contentions.

15. Voting Issues (Judge's Decision):

- What it is: The key points or arguments the judge should consider when rendering a decision.

- What it is not: An exhaustive review of every argument made in the debate.

16. Cap-K (Capitalism Kritik) in Policy Debate:

- What it is: A critical argument challenging the fundamental assumptions and impacts of capitalism as a social and economic system.
- What it is not: A traditional policy argument focused on specific policy proposals or impacts.

17. Settler Colonialism in Policy Debate:

- What it is: An argument that critiques the historical and ongoing processes of colonization and displacement of Indigenous peoples.
- What it is not: A case-specific argument or a traditional policy debate contention.

As your judge, this represents my approach to evaluating debate rounds and how I assess arguments within them. The following offers further insight into my judging philosophy and perspective.

---

1. Communication Rule: No communication is allowed between teammates or judges during the debate round. Violations result in immediate removal from the room; failure to comply leads to team disqualification. This rule ensures fairness and integrity.

2. Focus During Rounds: I take judging seriously and maintain complete focus during rounds—no social media or phone distractions.

3. Debate Strategy: Address your arguments to me, not your opponent. I appreciate well-structured, respectful arguments. I do not tolerate profanity, yelling, or personal attacks. One warning will be given; continued violations will end the round, and I will discuss the matter with your coach. If your strategy is divisive or disrespectful, I'm not the right judge for you.

4. Role of the Aff: Remember, the Aff plan is not you; address your opponents as "Neg," "Aff," or "Opponent" to maintain professionalism.

5. Counterplans and Solvency: I prefer the Neg to run a Counterplan (CP). Attacking solvency without proposing a solution is unconvincing and weakens the Neg's position.

6. Flowing: I meticulously flow the round by hand and encourage teams to maintain their own flow sheets. This helps ensure that no critical arguments are overlooked, and I also flow cross-examinations.

7. Engagement: Engage directly with me as you present your arguments. While spreading is allowed, I prefer clear and effective communication. If you're spreading just to overwhelm your opponent, you’re not making a genuine argument. I don't vote based on dropped arguments alone.

8. Questions in Cross-X:Meaningful questions are more valuable than questions for the sake of it. Avoid open-ended queries and be respectful.

9. Clash:

- Central Role: Clash is the core of policy debate, where teams directly engage in argumentative confrontation.
- Importance: Effective clash shows your ability to challenge opponent arguments, influencing my decision more than exploiting dropped points. Win through strong clash, not just on dropped arguments.
- Strategy: Use clash strategically by presenting solid arguments, addressing your opponent's contentions, and exposing weaknesses. This demonstrates your argumentative skill and critical thinking.
- Outcome: The quality of clash heavily impacts my decision, making it a key factor in winning the debate.

10. Defense versus Offence: In policy debate, "defense" challenges the opponent's case, while "offense" advances the negative's position. Winning the debate requires strong defense to undermine the affirmative and effective offense to persuade me. Debaters balance these elements, adapting to my preferences for a strategic advantage.

11. Debating Off-Topic in Policy Debate:

- Warning: Please stick to the resolution's scope for meaningful debates. If your strategy is to not debate the topic outside of a K-Aff, I'd advise that you stay on the resolution and or the topic.
- Issue: A problem arises when debaters go off-topic, using unrelated strategies and tactics.
- Concerns: This hinders the educational value of debates, straying from the critical analysis of policy proposals within the resolution.

12. Non-Voting Issues Clarification:

My primary focus in evaluating the debate is on the affirmative plan’s ability to address the specific problem outlined in the resolution. I do not consider arguments related to race, bias, or social issues unrelated to the resolution as voting issues. The use of racial slurs will result in the immediate end of the round, with a vote against the offending team.

For instance, in the 2022-2023 Fracking resolution, while discussions about marginalized communities were common, banning fracking does not inherently resolve marginalization. The affirmative must demonstrate how their plan directly alleviates the issues presented; otherwise, such arguments will not influence my decision.

This approach is about maintaining relevance to the resolution, not censorship. Remember to treat the subjects of your arguments as real people, not just as props to win a round. If you need clarification, feel free to ask before the round.

I do not favor theory arguments, as I vote based on facts, not theories.

Ultimately, my decision hinges on which side better solves the problem addressed by the resolution—the Affirmative Plan or the Status Quo.

13. Perm Do Both: "Perm Do Both" must be supported by a clear explanation of how the affirmative plan and negative counterplan can work together without conflict. Simply stating "Perm do both" isn't enough—you need to demonstrate how the actions complement each other and why this integrated approach is the best solution.

14. Evidence and Warrants: In debate, assessing an author’s credibility goes beyond their qualifications; it’s about ensuring their expertise is relevant to the specific argument. Debaters must evaluate qualifications, relevance, and consistency to ensure evidence directly supports the warrant. Demonstrating how the author backs your team's position increases your chances of winning.

15. Falsifying information: Please refrain from fabricating information during a round, especially financial figures, historical facts, or legal details. I will notice.

16. Prep Time: I don't allow prep time for cross-X. If the tournament allows time for tech issues, I will enforce it strictly to the second.

17. Selling Your Position: Persuasion is key. Convince me; speed isn't everything.

18. Speakers' Points: I base these on coherent arguments, strong rebuttals, good clash, and respectful conduct.

20. A Respectful Environment: I expect respect from all participants. No profanity, personal attacks, or disrespect will be tolerated. One warning will be given; continued violations result in automatic disqualification, with the reason noted in my RFD and communicated to the coach.

21. No Direct Messaging During Rounds: If I suspect messaging, I'll ask to see your computer screen. Messaging during rounds is grounds for an immediate disqualification.

22. No Bias: I judge impartially.

23. Reason for Decision (RFD):

I provide constructive feedback to help debaters improve, highlighting both strengths and areas for growth. I've seen debaters apply my feedback in subsequent rounds, and I'm available for questions and discussions during the tournament (after the round). Taking notes during feedback can be very beneficial.

Thank you for the privilege of judging your round. As debaters, you are part of an exceptional community dedicated to meaningful and thought-provoking discourse. Let's make this tournament memorable and engaging for all involved. Best of luck on your journey in speech and debate!

Thank you very kindly,

Mr. Dibinga - Chota

Aayush Dwivedi Damien-St. Lucy's 6 rounds

Logan Fang Rowland Hall 3 rounds

Gerbie Gandionco Polytechnic School 6 rounds

Mariana Garcia Notre Dame High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue November 19, 2024 at 9:20 AM PST

About me:

Notre Dame HS '23

1A/2N for 3 years

2A/1N for 1 year

CSUS '27

Please call me Mari (not Mary) or Atlas, either one works, don't use my full name. Thanks

pls add me to the email chain: marianagarcia.debate@gmail.com

Pronouns: They/He/She

TLDR;

Have fun. Make strategic arguments and work hard. Debate is a game and if you are dedicated enough, you will succeed. A dropped argument is true if you explain why.

It's your responsibility to explain the arguments being made to me. The cards support your argument. If you have any questions after the debate don't be afraid to email me or ask questions.

I have no topic knowledge so don't overuse jargon I won't understand. Explain in-depth and how each arguments connect.

Christina Phillips and Joshua Michael taught me all I know

I enjoy CP+DA debates.

Slow down on Taglines/analytics/theory. I am extremely nit-picky when it comes to spreading analytics/ overviews/taglines/ theory/ whatever you did not flash. Don't spread it.

Online db8:

My wifi is sometimes bad so I might have to ask you to repeat certain things. If you have wifi issues I understand, just let me know and we can pause the debate and wait for you to get it fixed. Please do not say you have tech issues just to steal prep time.

I'm ok with spreading but please speak clearly. Clarity>speed

I will only say clear twice.

DAs

TL: DA o/w Case

Im ok with DAs, just explain the story of the DA to me. What is your uq claim, how do you link to the plan, IL, and why does that lead to your impact. I want to see the links explained and not a shallow explanation of the tagline. I won't buy it.

"Any risk of the DA means you vote neg" ok why? what are you winning on?

Specific links > generic -- its ok if you don't have specific links tho, you're just gonna have to do extra work to convince me. Sure read more links in the block as long you choose one in the 2NR and explain.

CPs

I have no problem voting for a counterplan. I do think the CP should have a net benefit or INB and it should be explained in-round.

Do not be afraid to run a CP. Specify what the net-benefit is in CX and explain their relation with each other.

Process and Consult CPs are pretty abusive
artificial cps are ok but its gonna be hard to convince me

Conditionality: Sure, don't have a problem. You can run as many arguments as you want, as long by the 2nc/2nr its been kicked out. If not then I think the aff can go for condo -- its more on my theory explanation.

T is good- tho it's the neg's job to tell me why the aff is untopical and why that is bad for debate.

W/M , C/I , and your standards

The aff should explain why that's not true, etc.

It's your job to clash with competing interps

I don't like T when its clear that the Aff is topical or when theres no standards. If I think your aff is untopical it's probably untopical.

I prefer K v policy debates than K v K debates. I usually always went for FW v K debate but that doesn't mean I enjoy them.

I love Ks. I know most common Ks, like Settler colonialism, Cap K, and Security. When explaining your K, explain to me why the alt solves the links, impacts and plan. Just because i know these Ks dont assume I know what your cards are talking about. You gotta explain your thesis/ theory of power to me and why its important in the debate. Your explanation of the alt is so important. It's the weakest part of the K so when someone doesn't explain it well, it hurts. Extend your FW then pick and choose which is your strongest i/l impact to extend in the 2NR. Running a poorly explained K is not fun to watch.

Don't just say you link without explaining to me why the aff causes ur impacts or why it continues x, y , z. You should def go down the lbl in the 2nc. Specific link > generic

Just because I'm queer doesn't mean you should run queer theory in front of me. I'm not well versed with the lit. When it comes to High theory, I know a bit but not enough to understand what you're saying. If you do plan to run Baudrillard, Fanon, Hegel, Deleuze, etc or any high theory, you're going to have to explain to me in depth.

- Joshua Michael taught me all I know

Theory

theory debates are fun when you have a reason to run it

Condo when there are more than 5 off>>

I have a lower threshold for the aff on Condo. I think that answering 13min of the block when the neg has read more than 5 off is unfair. Although I think it's answerable if you prioritize the right arguments and understand what's happening in the round.

pls dont hide Aspec within T

Just because I love theory does not mean I'll vote on a 5min condo with little to no explanation. If you think you're losing the theory debate, don't go for it. I don't believe in disclosure theory when someone changes to a common aff or its the first tournament of the season. I do believe that if the neg or aff refuses to tell the other or disclose then yes disclosure. I won't vote on it alone tho.Prove in-round abuse.

Case

Case is so important! please please extend your evidence and do evidence comparison. Tell me why i should prioritize your plan over what the neg is suggesting. Explain how doing the plan is good for us and why it outweighs. This should follow the lbl and you should have a short o/v on top by the rebuttal. Please don't forget about Solvency

MISC.

-SIGN POST PLEASE. If you start jumping flow from flow i will get lost and miss arguments

-Don't forget about roadmaps

-Pls respect each other, if you dont i will dock points

-don't support anything that ends with "ism"

-please make your CX useful!! Thats your time to ask smart questions to help you

-Do not clip cards- if you do i will stop the debate.

- If you ask me to drop an arg or cross apply to a diff arg i will

-dont read new evidence in ur rebuttals

-judge instruction! it will make my job so much easier!

don't forget to smile and have fun :)
Please make jokes

Stephen Goldberg CK McClatchy High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 7, 2024 at 4:20 AM PST

I am a coach at C.K. McClatchy West Campus, and Ghidotti Early College High Schools, and the Board President of the Sacramento Urban Debate League. My general philosophy is run whatever you want, do it as fast as you want, just be clear. I will vote on just about anything except racist, sexist, homophobic etc arguments. I see my job as a judge as evaluating the evidence in the round and deciding the debate based on what is said without my intervention to the greatest degree possible.

That said, I do have a few notions about how I evaluate arguments:

Topicality -- I vote on it. I do not have any "threshold" for topicality -- either the aff is topical or it is not. That said, for me in evaluating topicality, the key is the interpretation. The first level of analysis is whether the aff meets the neg interpretation. If the aff meets the neg interpretation, then the aff is topical. I have judged far too many debates where the negative argues that their interpretation is better for education, ground etc, but does not address why the aff does not meet the negative interpretation and then is angry when I vote affirmative. For me if the aff meets the neg interpretation that is the end of the topicality debate.

If the aff does not meet, then I need to decide which interpretation is better. The arguments about standards should relate to 1) which standards are more important to evaluate and 2) why either the negative or affirmative interpretation is better in terms of those standards (for example, not just why ground is a better standard but why the affirmative or negative interpretation is better for ground). Based on that, I can evaluate which standards to use, and which interpretation is better in terms of those standards. I admit the fact that I am a lawyer who has done several cases about statutory interpretation influences me here. I see the resolution as a statement that can have many meanings, and the goal of a topicality debate is to determine what meaning is best and whether the affirmative meets that meaning.

That said, I will reject topicality on generic affirmative arguments such as no ground loss if they are not answered. However, I see reasonability as a way of evaluating the interpretation (aff says their interpretation is reasonable, so I should defer to that) as opposed to a general statement without grounding in an interpretation (aff is reasonably topical so don't vote on T).

I will listen to critiques of the notion of topicality and I will evaluate those with no particular bias either way.

Theory -- Its fine but please slow down if you are giving several rapid fire theory arguments that are not much more than tags. My default is the impact to a theory argument is to reject the argument and not the team. If you want me to put the round on it, I will but I need more than "voter" when the argument is presented. I need clearly articulated reasons why the other team should lose because of the argument.

Disadvantages and counterplans are fine. Although people may not believe it, I am just as happy judging a good counterplan and disad debate as I am judging a K debate. I have no particular views about either of those types of arguments. I note however that I think defensive arguments can win positions. If the aff wins there is no link to the disad, I will not vote on it. If the neg wins a risk of a link, that risk needs to be evaluated against the risk of any impacts the aff wins. Case debates are good too.

Ks: I like them and I think they can be good arguments. I like specific links and am less persuaded by very generic links such as "the state is always X." Unless told otherwise, I see alternatives to K's as possible other worlds that avoid the criticism and not as worlds that the negative is advocating. With that in mind, I see K's differently than counterplans or disads, and I do not think trying to argue Kritiks as counterplans (floating PIC arguments for example) works very well, and I find critical debates that devolve into counterplan or disad jargon to be confusing and difficult to judge, and they miss the point of how the argument is a philosophical challenge to the affirmative in some way. Framework arguments on Ks are fine too, although I do not generally find persuasive debate theory arguments that Kritiks are bad (although I will vote on those if they are dropped). However, higher level debates about whether policy analysis or critical analysis is a better way to approach the world are fine and I will evaluate those arguments.

K and Non-traditional affs: I am open to them but will also evaluate arguments that they are illegitimate. I think this is a debate to have (although I prefer judging substantive debates in these types of rounds). I tend to think that affs should have some connection to the topic (not necessarily a plan of action) but I have and will vote otherwise depending on how it is debated. I do remain flow-centric in these debates unless there are arguments otherwise in the debate.

Rosalind Goldman Notre Dame High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun September 1, 2024 at 4:23 AM PST

Please add me to the chain: rosgoldman8@gmail.com

Notre Dame '23, UCLA '27

She/her

I was 2N who went for primarily policy args, but I will work to evaluate all arguments fairly and without predisposition.

Tech > truth

Ev quality is VERY important to me. Cards with 6 words highlighted out of context and/or grammatically incorrect are highly unpersuasive. The other team pointing this out will be rewarded with high speaks and most likely a win (presuming they have better cards).

Be clear!!! Slow down on analytics/tags/overviews/anything you really want me to understand and number your arguments (in every single speech). I am not the most exceptional flow in the world, so prioritizing clarity of a few good args over proliferation of lots of meh args will work in your favor.

I have no topic knowledge, so do not assume I understand your acronym or jargon and please err on the side of over-explanation of topic specific stuff, like mechanisms, norms, and processes.

I am super comfortable in these debates.

I love thorough, well-researched advantage CPs and agent CPs. I do not love process CPs with contrived internal NBs, but I understand that they are sometimes necessary. If you must, please reads cards that are actually about the process you fiat in the context of the topic and do your best to explain why the INB links to the aff. If you are aff in these debates, I am most likely to be persuaded by an intrinsic perm, but you must have a theoretical justification for it and explain how it resolves both the aff and the NB.

I lean heavily neg on theory and think most theory args vs CPs are meaningless affirmative whining. Condo is good probably up to 5 and then I maybe start to become more sympathetic to the aff, so long as they can explain the impact of IN-ROUND abuse. Even then, I will vote for whoever does the better technical debating. You need to explain your model of the topic and what impact it solves (and ideally, how it also resolves the other side's offense). Do not speed through a prewritten condo (or any) block at top speed; I won't be able to flow it. I find this is often a problem more for the 1AR, but all rebuttals from both sides need to have a clear interpretation, internal links to impacts, and answers to the other side's offense. Lastly, I'll probably default to judge kick unless the aff wins a theoretical reason I should not. It's better for the neg to start these debates early rather than say one line in the 2NR and let the 2AR quadruple your time here.

Please make a complete argument. DAs need UQ, a link, an internal link, and an impact. Every single part needs to be present in the 1NC and clearly extended throughout each speech, with evidence to support ALL of it.

The neg should make as many turns case args as possible, at each level of the DA (i.e. link turns case, IL turns case, impact turns case) and the aff needs to answer all of then or it's a pretty rough recovery.

Do impact calc and do it well

I am comfortable in K v Policy debates, but will be least qualified in K v K debates.

It will probably be best for you to assume I am unfamiliar with your args and lit base and so you should clearly explain your theory of power, why the aff/topic is bad, how you resolve impacts, etc.

I don't think a strong link wall necessarily needs a ton of cards(although it won't hurt), but does need to be very specific to the aff's cards, scenarios, and CX explanation.

I am probably pretty neg leaning in FW vs K aff debates. I often struggle to understand how the aff can resolve the material impacts explained in the 1AC without material change in or beyond the debate space. This means the aff needs to be very clear on what change to the squo they defend and how it overcomes structural problems in debate and the world. The neg team should always go for some sort of presumption argument on case. I also think a TVA is great defense on FW, but the neg needs to explain why it means the aff can engage under their model. Likewise, the aff cannot neglect the TVA portion of the debate.

Both sides must have a case list and explain why their list creates a better topic.

PTIV is a bad arg and a cop out, but the neg needs to explain why. Also, the neg should check that the word is, in fact, in the plan text, because I've seen this happen too many times.

I honestly really love a short (but competent) T extension in the block because I think it puts a disproportionate amount of time pressure on the 1AR. But, it's a fine line; please don't spend 45 seconds spewing through nonsense words without establishing proper offense or defense.

Misc

You cannot insert rehighlightings unless the words you have rehighlighted have already been read by the other team.

Time your own speeches and don't steal prep

Be nice, but not too nice: there is zero reason to yell at or attack your opponents, but assertive and sassy debaters are fun to watch.

Kelly Jin San Marino High School 3 rounds

Jun Kwon Sonoma Academy 6 rounds

Nethmin Liyanage Damien-St. Lucy's 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 20, 2024 at 9:14 AM PST

tldr - do what you do best; i'll only vote for complete arguments that make sense; weighing & judge instruction tip the scales in your favor; topic-specific research is good; disclosure is good; i care about argument engagement and i value flexibility; stay hydrated & be a good person.

about me:

she/her

i coach policy debate at damien-st. lucy's

My strongest belief about argumentation is that argument engagement is good - I don't have a strong preference as to what styles of arguments teams read in front of me, but I'd prefer if both teams engaged with their opponents' arguments; I don't enjoy teams who avoid clash (regardless of the style of argument they are reading). I value ideological flexibility in judges and actively try not to be someone who will exclusively vote on only "policy" or only "k" arguments. I am good for teams that do topic research and bad for teams whose final rebuttals sound like they could be given on any topic/against any strategy.

if i'm judging you in LD -- scroll to the bottom for LD-specific thoughts.most of my thoughts about policy debate are probably still applicable

Topic Knowledge: I don't teach at camp but I do keep up with the topic. I'm involved in the Damien-St. Lucy's team research.

email chains:

damiendebate47@gmail.com and nethmindebate@gmail.com

if i am judging you in ld -- don't add the team email please!

if you need to contact me directly about rfd questions, accessibility requests, or anything else, please email nethmindebate@gmail.com (please don't email the team email for these types of requests)!

non-negotiables:

1 - speech times - constructive are 8 minutes, rebuttals are 5, each partner must give one constructive and one rebuttal, cx cannot be transferred to prep.

2 - evidence ethics is not a case neg - will not vote on it unless you can prove a reasonable/good-faith attempt to contact the other team prior to the round.

3 - clipping requires proof by the accusing team or me noticing it. i'll vote on it with no recording if i notice it.

4 - i will not evaluate out-of-round events. this means no arguments about pref sheets, personal beef, etc. i will evaluate disclosure arguments.

flowing: it is good and teams should do it

stolen from alderete - if you show me a decent flow, you can get up to 1 extra speaker point. this can only help you - i won't deduct points for an atrocious flow. this is to encourage teams to actually flow:) you must show me your flows before i enter the ballot!!

on a related note, i will never flow from the speech document.

Some general notes

Accessibility & content warnings: Email me if there is an accessibility request that I can help facilitate - I always want to do my part to make debates more accessible. I prefer not to judge debates that involve theory arguments about accessibility and/or content warnings. I think it is more productive to have a pre-round discussion where both teams request any accommodation(s) necessary for them to engage in an equitable debate.

Speed/clarity – I will say clear up to two times per speech before just doing my best to flow you. Going fast is fine, being unclear is not. Going slower on analytics is a good idea. You should account for pen time/scroll time.

Online debate -- 1] please record your speeches, if there are tech issues, I'll listen to a recording of the speech, but not a re-do. 2] debate's still about communication - please watch for nonverbals, listen for people saying "clear," etc.

Disclose or lose. Previously read positions must be on opencaselist. New positions do not need to be disclosed. "I do not have to disclose" is a losing argument in front of me 100% of the time.

Evidence -- it matters and I'll read it. Judge instruction is still a thing here. Don't just say "read this card" and not tell me why. Ev comparison is good. Cutting good cards is good. Failing to do one or both of those things leaves me to interpret your bad cards in whatever way I want -- that's likely to not be good.

Speaker points:

Speaker points are dependent on strategy, execution, clarity, and overall engagement in the round and are scaled to adapt to the quality/difficulty/prestige of the tournament.

I try to give points as follows:

30: you're a strong contender to win the tournament & this round was genuinely impressive

29.5+: late elims, many moments of good decisionmaking & argumentative understanding, adapted well to in-round pivots

29+: you'll clear for sure, generally good strat & round vision, a few things could've been more refined

28.5+: likely to clear but not guaranteed, there are some key errors that you should fix

28+: even record, probably losing in the 3-2 round

27.5+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, key technical/strategic errors

27+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, multiple notable technical/strategic errors

26+: errors that indicated a fundamental lack of preparation for the rigor/style of this tournament

25-: you did something really bad/offensive/unsafe.

Extra points for flowing, being clear, kindness, adaptation, and good disclosure practices.

Minus points for discrimination of any sort, bad-faith disclosure practices, rudeness/unkindness, and attempts to avoid engagement/clash.

Opinions on Specific Positions (ctrl+f section):

Case:

I think that negatives that don't engage with the 1ac are putting themselves in a bad position. This is true for both K debates and policy debates.

Extensions should involve warrants, not just tagline extensions - I'm willing to give some amount of leeway for the 1ar/2ar extrapolating a warrant that wasn't the focal point of the 2ac, but I should be able to tell from your extensions what the impact is, what the internal links are, and why you solve.

2ac add-ons must be coherent in the speech they are presented. You don't get to turn a random card on a random sheet into an add-on in the 2ar.

Planless affs:

I tend to believe that affirmatives need to defend the topic. I think most planless affs can/should be reconfigured as soft left affs. I have voted for affs that don't defend the topic, but it requires superior technical debating from the aff team.

You need to be able to explain what your aff does/why it's good.

I dislike planless affs where the strategy is to make the aff seem like a word salad until after 2ac cx and then give the aff a bunch of new (and not super well-warranted) implications in the 1ar. I tend to be better for planless aff teams when they have some kind of relationship to the topic, they are straight-up about what they do/don't defend, they use their aff strategically, engage with neg arguments, and make smart 1ar & 2ar decisions with good ballot analysis.

T/framework vs planless affs:

In a 100% evenly debated round, I am better for the neg.However, most of these debates are not evenly debated. Either team/side can win my ballot by doing the better technical debating. This past season, I often voted for a K team that I thought was smart and technical. Specific thoughts on framework below:

The best way for aff teams to win my ballot is to be more technical than the neg team. Seems obvious, but what I'm trying to convey here is that I'm less persuaded by personal/emotional pleas for the ballot and more persuaded by a rigorous and technical defense of why your model of debate is good.

I don't have a preference on whether your chosen 2nr is skills or fairness. I think that both options have strategic value based on the round you're in. Framework teams almost always get better points in front of me when they are able to contextualize their arguments to their opponent's strategy.

I also don't have a preference between the aff going for impact turns or going for a counterinterp. The strategic value of this is dependent on how topical/non-topical your aff is, in my opinion.

Theory:

Theory arguments other than conditionality are likely not a reason to reject the team. It will be difficult to change my mind on this.

Theory arguments must have warrants in the speech in which they are presented. Most 2ac theory arguments I've seen don't meet this standard.

Conditionality is an uphill battle in front of me.If the 2ac contained warrants + the block dropped the argument entirely, I would vote aff on conditionality, but in any other scenario, the aff team should likely not go for conditionality.

Please weigh! Many theory debates feel irresolvable without intervention because each team only extends their offense but does not interact with the other team's offense.

Topicality (not framework):

I like T debates that have robust and contextualized definitions of the relevant words/phrases/entities in the resolution. Have a clear explanation of what your interpretation is/isn't; examples/caselists are very helpful.

Grammar-based topicality arguments: I don't find most of the grammar arguments being made these days to be very intuitive. You should explain/warrant them more than you would in front of a judge who loves those arguments.

"Plans bad" is pretty close to a nonstarter in front of me (this is more of a thing in LD I think).

Kritiks (neg):

I am best for K teams that engage with the affirmative, do line-by,line, and read links that prove that the aff is a bad idea.

I am absolutely terrible for K teams that don't debate the case. Block soup = bad.

I vote for K teams often when they are technical and make smart big-picture arguments and demonstrate topic knowledge. I vote against K teams when they do ... not that!

In general, clash-avoidant K strategies are bad, K strategies that involve case debating are good.

Disads:

Zero risk probably doesn't exist, but very-close-to-zero risk probably does. Teams that answer their opponents' warrants instead of reading generic defense tend to fare better in close rounds. Good evidence tends to matter more in these debates - I'd rather judge a round with 2 great cards + debaters explaining their cards than a round with 10 horrible cards + debaters asking me to interpret their dumpster-quality cards for them.

Counterplans:

I don't have strong ideological biases about counterplan theory other than that condo is probably good. More egregious abuse = easier to persuade me on theory; the issue I usually see in theory debates is a lack of warranting for why the neg's model was uniquely abusive - specific analysis > generic args + no explanation.

No judge kick. Make a choice!

Competition debates have largely become debates where teams read a ton of evidence and explain none of it. Please explain your competition evidence and I will be fine! I'll read cards after the debate, but would prefer that you instruct me on what to do with those cards.

LD-specific section:

-my ld topic knowledge is not as good as my policy topic knowledge. i cut a few cards and see a few ld debates every topic, but that's about it. best to over-explain topic-specific things

-you might think of cx judges in ld as people who despise judging ld and despise you for doing ld. i try to not let this be true about me. all of my issues with ld can be grouped into two general categories: 1) speech times/structure (not your fault, won't penalize you for it), and 2) the tendency to read unwarranted nonsense, such as "tricks," shoes theory, etc (you can avoid reading these args very easily and make me very happy)

-i am a horrid judge for tricks and frivolous theory. please just go for another argument!

-i do not judge philosophy-based arguments often, since i primarily judge policy. i am not ideologically opposed to these arguments but will need a lot of handholding-explanation. i am happy to judge these debates, i just need more explanation. as a note -- phil positions that contain tricks are not a winning strategy.

-i am not a good judge for the various flavors of ld theory arguments that say the affirmative should not get to read a plan

-you don't get 1ar add-ons -- there is no 2ac in ld

Arguments that are simply too bad to be evaluated:

-a team should get the ballot simply for proving that they are not unfair or uneducational

-the ballot should be a referendum on a debater's character, personal life, pref sheet, etc

-the affirmative's theory argument comes before the negative's topicality argument

-some random piece of offense becomes an "independent voter" simply because it is labeled as such

-debates would be better if they were unfair, uneducational, lacked a stasis point, lacked clash, etc

-"tricks"

-teams should not be required to disclose on opencaselist

-the debate should be evaluated after any speech that is not the 2ar

-the "role of the ballot" means topicality doesn't matter

-new affs bad

Arguments that I am personally skeptical of, but will try to evaluate fairly:

-it would be better for debate if affirmatives did not have a meaningful relationship to the topic

-debate would be better if the negative team was not allowed to read any conditional advocacies

-reading topicality causes violence or discrimination within debate

-"role of the ballot"

-the outcome of a particular debate will change someone's mind or will change the state of debate

-the 5-second aspec argument that was hidden in the 1nc can become a winning 2nr

if there's anything i didn't mention or you have any questions, feel free to email me! i really love debate and i coach because i want to make debate/the community a better place; please don't hesitate to reach out if there's anything you need.

Alyssa Lucas-Bolin Sonoma Academy 5 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 20, 2024 at 8:25 AM CST

Top shelf:

Pronouns are she/her

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

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

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

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

I deleted most of my paradigm

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

Debate well and we'll figure it out.

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

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

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

Stop stealing prep.

Please make as many T Swift references as possible.

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

Heavy stuff:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matthew McFadden Peninsula High School 5 rounds

Last changed on Mon April 15, 2024 at 2:26 AM PST

matt mcfadden
matt.mcfadden.99@gmail.com - email chain - please put me on it

IF YOU ARE NOT TAKING PREP FOR THE 1NR, THE SPEECH SHOULD BE SENT BEFORE THE 2N SITS DOWN.

YOU CANNOT SOLELY EMAIL PERM TEXTS. THE 2AC MUST READ THEM.

YOU CANNOT 'INSERT' RE-HIGHLIGHTINGS. YOU MUST READ THEM.

---update - 2023 ---

if you want to read a k on the aff, i'm not the judge for you

if you want to read a k on the neg - and do it well - i am the judge for you

---end of update---

---update - 12/5/2021 ---

Acceptable:

- All impact turns

- Specific, well-researched K's

- Condo

Unacceptable:

- AFFs without a plan text

- Talking about your identity, race, sexual orientation, class, kinks, or anything of the sort

- Untopical AFFs

- Generic, unapplied arguments

- GBX-style process CPs

---end of update---

---update - 11/7/2020 ---

reasons to strike me:

-you read a 1ac without a plan text

"27.5 if you think the 1ac is a strategy to survive."

-you talk about your identity in debates

-you read baudrillard

-you have 3-minute-long 2nc overviews

-you think a good 1nc can be made by a conglomeration of generics

---end of update---

---update---

vote from my flow |--------------------------------------X| read every card at the end of the debate

the 1ac can be whatever you want it to be |--------------------------------------X| read a plan

the cp needs a solvency advocate |------------------------X--------------| the cp doesn’t need a solvency advocate

pics are bad |--------------------------------------X| pics are good

condo is bad |---------------------X-----------------| condo is good

go for t |---X-----------------------------------| don’t go for t

k’s that link to every aff |--------------------------------------X| k’s that link to this specific aff

---end of update---

predispositions – if you accurately describe your evidence as phenomenal, i will reward you with extra speaks in proportion to how good your cards are. if you oversell your sub-par cards, i will be thoroughly disappointed. regardless of my biases, please just go for what you are prepared to execute and have the research on.

there are really only 2 things you need to take from this –

1 – do what you're good at
2 – do LINE BY LINE
"i vote on dropped arguments that i don't believe" -ian beier

things that bother me -

prep: please have the 1nr emailed out before 2nc cross-ex is over. you can go get water for -.5 speaks or you can use prep to do it.

topicality – love it. please read a good amount of cards. if you've done the research to support a well-articulated t argument, i will be overjoyed to judge the debate. although i generally default to competing interpretations, after thinking about it, reasonability is compelling if the 2ar accurately articulates why the neg interpretation is unpredictable and overly burdensome for affirmatives, which outweighs 2nr offense – this is especially persuasive if you have aff-specific cards in relation to the topic literature or legal question of the resolution. negatives that 1 – do thorough impact calculus external to ‘they explode limits – limits are good’ and 2 – give overwhelmingly extensive lists of the absurd affs their interp justifies are crucial. limits is an internal link to the topic-specific expertise the resolutional question is designed to impart.

theory – can be tedious to resolve, but i'm intrigued. 1ar's do not extend this enough. 2ar's that do the impact comparison, turns case analysis, and offense/defense framing on theory as if it were a da are very enjoyable. if theory arguments aren't well-articulated and are overly blippy, i am fine with simply dismissing them.

must disclose judge prefs theory – no, thank you. i am not sympathetic.

kritiks – the most intricate debates or the most mediocre debates – i mean this sincerely. if you are good at making a real argument, yes please. specific link work with intricate turns case analysis and examples relating to the aff win debates. reading a new phenomenal critical theory card will make my day - ie if you have done the research to support your argument, let's go. the more generic your k is, the less inclined i am to vote for you. if you are a team that goes for the k like a disad (techy, line-by-line, interacts with the case) i'll be happy to judge the debate; the inverse is true as well.

cp – wonderful.

counterplans with long texts – my favorite.

pics – they're the best. HOWEVER – they should be substantively different than the aff and have a solvency advocate.

process cp's – you're probably cheating.

states cp – teams overestimate the impact of their solvency deficits and underestimate the efficacy of theory as an answer. aff – please go for theory.

da – yes, please.

well-researched link evidence works wonders. taking a minute of the 2nr to detail turns case analysis puts you in a great position.

if you don't have a da, you don't have a da. 1% risk calculus won't make your link for you.

impact turn – please go for these if your evidence is recent and of high quality. this means not spark. doing thorough comparison between the data and qualifications of your cards versus theirs is how these debates are won.
"people should impact turn.... everything" -ian beier

neg v. k affs – if you're neg and don't win these debates, you're the exception. these are the hardest 2nr's, so i'm willing to grant some leeway.

presumption – make this argument.

framework – yes. compare your impacts at the internal link level and do intricate turns case analysis. i enjoy institutional engagement arguments vs identity affs and truth testing/fairness against more abstract affs.

the k – though i think it is an admirable strategy, unless you have hyper-specific evidence about the aff or its mechanism, you are highly susceptible to the perm.

k affs – good luck.

aff v. the k – you have an aff; that's all you have to defend.

affs lose to the k when they don't answer offense that is embedded in link arguments, lose the framework debate, letting them get away with broad and absurd generalizations, and going for too much.

execution – evidence quality doesn't replace the necessity of good debating. but i really do love good evidence.

zero risk – it’s not possible strictly in the sense of ‘zero risk’, because there is inherently a possibility of all events but it is possible to diminish the risk of an advantage or da to such a degree that it is not sufficiently significant to overcome from the noise of the status quo. i think the new fettweis card is pretty devastating impact defense. lots of neg da's are utterly ridiculous.

cx – if their cards are awful, or their da is incoherent, pointing it out is fun. being strategic in the rhetorical method you use to get the other team to say what you want, then referencing their answers in speeches to warrant arguments is persuasive and gets you additional speaks if what they said is truly applicable.

"be snarky if you want" -grace kuang

judges/people i admire - dheidt, tallungan, khirn, tyler peltekci, dan bannister, grace kuang, spurlock, matt munday, tucker carlson, forslund, scott brown.

bad args – 'racism/sexism good' args are obviously non-starters. i won't immediately dismiss 'death good' but if this is really the position you're in, you have more immediate problems than my judging preferences.

Joshua Michael Notre Dame High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 12:10 PM EST

Debated for UWG ’15 – ’17; Coaching: Notre Dame – ’19 – Present; Baylor – ’17 – ’19

email: joshuamichael59@gmail.com

Online Annoyance

"Can I get a marked doc?" / "Can you list the cards you didn't read?" when one card was marked or just because some cards were skipped on case. Flow or take CX time for it.

Policy

I prefer K v K rounds, but I generally wind up in FW rounds.

K aff’s – 1) Generally have a high threshold for 1ar/2ar consistency. 2) Stop trying to solve stuff you could reasonably never affect. Often, teams want the entirety of X structure’s violence weighed yet resolve only a minimal portion of that violence. 3) v K’s, you are rarely always already a criticism of that same thing. Your articulation of the perm/link defense needs to demonstrate true interaction between literature bases. 4) Stop running from stuff. If you didn’t read the line/word in question, okay. But indicts of the author should be answered with more than “not our Baudrillard.”

K’s – 1) rarely win without substantial case debate. 2) ROJ arguments are generally underutilized. 3) I’m generally persuaded by aff answers that demonstrate certain people shouldn’t read certain lit bases, if warranted by that literature. 4) I have a higher threshold for generic “debate is bad, vote neg.” If debate is bad, how do you change those aspects of debate? 5) 2nr needs to make consistent choices re: FW + Link/Alt combinations. Find myself voting aff frequently, because the 2nr goes for two different strats/too much.

Special Note for Settler Colonialism: I simultaneously love these rounds and experience a lot of frustration when judging this argument. Often, debaters haven’t actually read the full text from which they are cutting cards and lack most of the historical knowledge to responsibly go for this argument. List of annoyances: there are 6 settler moves to innocence – you should know the differences/specifics rather than just reading pages 1-3 of Decol not a Metaphor; la paperson’s A Third University is Possible does not say “State reform good”; Reading “give back land” as an alt and then not defending against the impact turn is just lazy. Additionally, claiming “we don’t have to specify how this happens,” is only a viable answer for Indigenous debaters (the literature makes this fairly clear); Making a land acknowledgement in the first 5 seconds of the speech and then never mentioning it again is essentially worthless; Ethic of Incommensurability is not an alt, it’s an ideological frame for future alternative work (fight me JKS).

General: 1) Fairness is either an impact or an internal link 2) the TVA doesn’t have to solve the entirety of the aff. 3) Your Interp + our aff is just bad.

Aff v FW: 1) can win with just impact turns, though the threshold is higher than when winning a CI with viable NB’s. 2) More persuaded by defenses of education/advocacy skills/movement building. 3) Less random DA’s that are basically the same, and more internal links to fully developed DA’s. Most of the time your DA’s to the TVA are the same offense you’ve already read elsewhere.

Reading FW: 1) Respect teams that demonstrate why state engagement is better in terms of movement building. 2) “If we can’t test the aff, presume it’s false” – no 3) Have to answer case at some point (more than the 10 seconds after the timer has already gone off) 4) You almost never have time to fully develop the sabotage tva (UGA RS deserves more respect than that). 5) Impact turns to the CI are generally underutilized. You’ll almost always win the internal link to limits, so spending all your time here is a waste. 6) Should defend the TVA in 1nc cx if asked. You don’t have a right to hide it until the block.

Theory - 1) I generally lean neg on questions of Conditionality/Random CP theory. 2) No one ever explains why dispo solves their interp. 3) Won’t judge kick unless instructed to.

T – 1) I’m not your best judge. 2) Seems like no matter how much debating is done over CI v Reasonability, I still have to evaluate most of the offense based on CI’s.

DA/CP – 1) Prefer smart indicts of evidence as opposed to walls of cards (especially on ptx/agenda da's). Neg teams get away with murder re: "dropped ev" that says very little/creatively highlighted. 2) I'm probably more lenient with aff responses (solvency deficits/aff solves impact/intrinsic perm) to Process Cp's/Internal NB's that don't have solvency ev/any relation to aff.

Case - I miss in depth case debates. Re-highlightings don't have to be read. The worse your re-highlighting the lower the threshold for aff to ignore it.

All of my thoughts on policy apply, except for theory. More than 2 condo (or CP’s with different plank combinations) is probably abusive, but I can be convinced otherwise on a technical level.

Not voting on an RVI. I don’t care if it’s dropped.

Most LD theory is terrible Ex: Have to spec a ROB or I don’t know what I can read in the 1nc --- dumb argument.

Phil or Tricks (sp?) debating – I’m not your judge.

Tommy Mounarath Rowland Hall 4 rounds

Last changed on Sun November 10, 2024 at 1:25 AM PST

Please include me on the email chain: tmounarath@gmail.com

NOV 2024 update:

I've only judged one tournament on this topic, so I'm vaguely familiar with some arguments but if there's a couple of acronyms, maybe explain what they are to me (I have yet to have someone explain what Mayo-Alice is to me).

Also, you need slow down so I can actually flow your arguments. I am NOT as fast as I use to be, that or send your analytics. Otherwise, very high chance I will miss some of your arguments on the flow. If you spread your analytics like you do your cards, I will not be able to flow your speech. Your best bets are either send your analytics or slow down. Best tip I can give you for my ballot is to explain your arguments to me like I am 5, I'm not as fast as I use to be. The more clear you are, the better I'll understand your argument and the more likely I may vote for you. A lot of times I miss things on the flow because I'm just not catching up to the first couple speech docs until at least around the 1NR. So just realize what's more important! Finishing your card or making sure I even caught it in the first place? Although it doesn't really matter if I end up flowing everything as debaters tend to drop 80% of arguments by the 1AR anyways as I have noticed ( I have only seen like 3 teams not guilty of this in the past year).

I usually end up understanding what's happening in the debate by the 1AR. But again, I'm pretty rusty, tend to lean more towards truth over tech (unless its something really bad like a dropped perm in the 1AR), and the best way to get me to vote for you is to make sure there's like 3 clear voters why you win, a very very clear internal link chain scenario or well fleshed out link work and impact calc, and overall just confidence that it makes more sense to vote aff or neg. CLEAR INTERNAL LINK CHAIN SCENARIOS ARE THE EASIEST WAY TO GET MY BALLOT.

P.S. I like jokes, gets ya extra speaks in my book. Also using my name I tend to find persuasive.

Recent voting decisions worth noting:

Voted aff on condo when Peninsula LL went against 11 off.

Voted neg against condo as the 1ar claimed it was dropped but the negative ran 1 off so I ended up not buying the argument as I'm more of a truth voter rather than tech. It really came off as more of a cop out to because the aff got out debated on the k flow which to me just made an aff ballot that much less persuasive to me.

Voted neg on econ disad in octos at meadows simply because I felt the neg did good enough solvency takeouts on case with better internal link chain scenarios. Both teams didn't do a good enough job explaining some of the evidence mentioned in the 2NR/2AR so I even went through the effort of reading the evidence and then applying it to the arguments made in the debate.

Identity:

I am a 2nd generation Laotian American male with ADHD, my parents are refugee's from the Vietnam war. I grew up in a middle class home around Salt Lake City, Utah and I love a good joke.

I currently study aerospace engineering at Cal Poly Pomona, and my favorite hobby is freestyle street dance.

Experience:

High school: 2 years.
Went to camp at the Weber State Debate Institute in 2015 (Lab leaders: Mike Bausch, Jazmine Pickens, and Sam Allen). After my first year debating, started doing open Policy my senior year @Copper Hills High School under Scott Odekirk.
I mostly ran straight up policy arguments and plenty of Marx.

College: 2 years.
My mentors were: Ryan Wash, Omar Guevara , Ryan Cheek, and Liz Dela Cruz.
Mostly did Marx, disability, and model minority k debate.

Procedurals:

I'm fine with speed, but my ADHD does make it a bit harder for me to catch phrases. So if your spreading is really high pitch and quiet, my best advice is to speak up and slow down maybe 15% every time I say "clear"

Flex prep is fine.

Prep ends once you finish sending your speech docs.

Talking to your partner and reorganizing documents count as prep.

Argument preference:

I love a good straight up policy debate. That was my strong suit in high school. So straight up debate is fine.

I ran a lot of critical arguments in college like Marx, model minority, disability, etc. So K debate is fine for me as well.

However, the only K's I'm not the best for high theory ones. I don't know anything about Baudrillard, Berlant, Lacan, Nietzche, etc. At best, I only know surface level information about them. So unless you can argue your K and explain it to me like I'm a 5 year old, you might be better off going with a different strat.

I know what it's like to have a bad judge and so my goal when it comes to giving an RFD is as as follows:

- When it comes to dropped arguments, I default to the burden of rejoinder meaning dropped arguments are considered true. The only exception being that you have claimed why some dropped arguments won't matter in context to what you are already winning. HOWEVER I tend to be more of a truth over tech type of judge. So if there was a 30 second theory blip in the neg block the 1NR dropped, unless the violation is super obvious I probably won't buy it.

- If the 1AR clearly dropped something, then it's up to the negative to protect the 2NR from any new arguments in the 2AR, otherwise I end up buying unfair arguments. (Unless they are outrageously new).

- If both teams have consistently clashed on the same argument that sways my decision one way or the other, then I depend on my own knowledge of the argument as well as how nuanced each teams arguments were.

I usually vote aff when:

- It makes sense to me what the aff does

- I buy the permutation

- I buy the aff outweighs any negative offense

- I don't buy the negative's link work

- I don't buy that the CP/K solves the aff

I usually vote neg when:

- I buy the links AND that the impacts outweigh the aff

- I buy the alt solves the K/aff

- I don't think the aff actually does anything

- I buy the aff is untopical and should thus lose because they make debate/their own impacts worse.

arman omidvar Peninsula High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 15, 2024 at 4:19 AM PST

(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.

Justin Parco Lake Balboa College Prep 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 21, 2024 at 5:23 AM PST

Background: I debated for a highly-competitive high school that traveled to national events before debating at USC. I have coached at several schools over the years, and I currently work as a full time teacher at LBCPM, a proud member of LAMDL, where I am the head debate coach. I was a 2A for most of my career, and I usually ran traditional policy arguments.

My "Why" Statement: Learning about government, politics, and political philosophy prepared me to work in the real world, both in congress and later in the classroom where I now teach Economics, U.S. Government, and U.S. History. I think that learning about America - both the good and bad - and the various policies it could enact right now has immense value. I also work with non-profit groups to promote civics education and financial literacy in the classroom.

What you can run:Generally speaking, any argument can be presented unless it violates an actual law or rule of the tournament and/or league. I am a teacher, and I like think I am am empathetic person, so I promise I will do my best to ensure the environment is productive and professional. I think anything that qualifies as targeted harassment, threats, or makes the debate space so hostile to others that they should not reasonably be required to debate requires me to contact tournament staff or intervene in the round. I find that this community is fantastic overall, especially in recent years, and I do not expect to be in this position often, if at all.

My Preferences: I think education about real-world policy is very important, and I most enjoy arguments that engage with the topic clearly. I also vote on framework, theory, and topicality when it is well-argued. I don't strictly prefer one argument type over another, but if I can't understand what is happening I will probably not vote for you. That said, I do like the freedom of policy debate and I will for non-traditional strategies if they are well-explained. I will always strive to be as fair as I possibly can. In some cases, I really need you to teach me about your argument before I can evaluate it properly, especially newer theory, as my work does not allow me enough time to read the source material for everything I might encounter.

Checklist:

Spreading - OK

Tag Team CX - OK

Email Chain - YES, ADD ME (see email at bottom)

Pronouns - He/Him

Arguments Allowed - All

Favorite Strat - DA + CP

Marked Cards - Send revised version ASAP

Default Paradigm - Policymaker

Truth v.s. Tech - Tech

Prompting - If you are just saying "move on" or "answer this" once or twice it's fine, but if you are giving your partner's speech it's going to cost you both points. I do not like yelling out entire sentences to repeat word-per-word.

Independent Voters - OK, but prefer less voters with more explanation

Speech Doc - I would prefer the full doc, but if you send cards only I will do my best.

Speaker Points Scale:

30. Perfection. I couldn't see you improving in this round in any reasonable way. Rarely given.

29.5-29.9: One of the best speakers in the tournament. Strategic decisions were ideal, spoke clearly, and was charismatic.

29 - 29.4: Very good speaker. Above average strategic decisions, very clearly spoken, and overall fairly persuasive. Or exceptional at some but not all things.

28.5 - 28.9: Good speaker. Average performance in this round in terms of strategy, clarity, and persuasiveness.

28 - 28.4: Solid speaker who kept up with the debate to some degree but made significant mistakes.

27 - 27.9: Beginner-level speaker for their division who needs significant work on the fundamentals but was able to compete to a some degree.

< 27: You have made multiple major mistakes in this round, didn't use your time, and/or were extremely unclear.

< 26: You have done something problematic.

25 The zero point of debate.

------------------------------

Remember to have fun, and don't let the competitive nature of the activity get in the way of making friends and contributing to the community as a whole.

Evidence share email: parco.debate@gmail.com

Chris Paredes Damien-St. Lucy's 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 21, 2024 at 9:00 AM PST

Overview

E-Mail Chain: Yes, add me (chris.paredes@gmail.com) & my school mail (damiendebate47@gmail.com). I do not distribute docs to third party requests unless a team has failed to update their wiki.

Experience: Damien '05, Amherst College '09, Emory Law '13L. This will be my eighth year coaching in debate, and my third year doing it full time. I consider myself fluent in debate, but my debate preferences (both ideology and mechanics) are influenced by debating in the 00s.

Topic Knowledge: I do not teach at camp, so I will be a very poor judge for arguments that rely on following "meta norms" established by camp. I should be a pretty good judge for evaluating topic specific arguments; I studied IP law while at Emory and was the recipient of an IP law scholarship. I am also very unsympathetic to gripes about this topic as I believe case specific neg research should be the default model of debate.

Debate: I believe that the point of the resolution is to force debaters to learn about a different topic each year, so debaters who develop good topic knowledge generally out-debate their opponents. That being said, I am open to voting for almost any argument or style so long as I have an idea of how it functions within the round and it is appropriately impacted. Debate is a game. Rules of the game (the length of speeches, the order of the speeches, which side the teams are on, clipping, etc.) are set by the tournament and left to me (and other judges) to enforce. Comparatively, standards of the game (condo, competition, limits of fiat) are determined in round by the debaters. Framework is a debate about whether the resolution should be a rule and/or what that rule looks like. Persuading me to favor your view/interpretation of debate is accomplished by convincing me that it is the method that promotes better debate compared to your opponent's. What counts as better (more fair or more pedagogically valuable) is something determined in round itself. My ballot always is awarded to whoever debated better. I will not adjudicate a round based on any issues external to the round (whether that was at camp or a previous round).

I run a planess aff; should I strike you?: As a matter of truth I am firmly neg, but I try to leave bias at the door and end up voting aff about half the time. I will hold a planless aff to the same standard as a K alt; I absolutely must have an idea of what the aff (and my ballot) does and how/why that solves for an impact. If you do not explain this to me, Iwill "hack" out on presumption. Performances (music, poetry, narratives) are non-factors until you contextualize and justify why they are solvency mechanisms for the aff in the debate space.

Evidence and Argumentative Weight: Tech over truth, but it is easier to debate well when using true arguments and better cards. In-speech analysis goes a long way with me; I am much more likely to side with a team that develops and compares warrants vs. a team that extends by tagline/author only. I will read cards as necessary, including explicit prompting, however I read critically. Cards are meaningless without highlighted warrants; you are better off with one "painted" card than several under-highlighted cards. Well-explained logical analytics, especially if developed in CX, beat bad/under-highlighted cards.

Debate Ideologies: I think that judges should reward good debating over ideology, so almost all of my personal preferences can be overcome if you debate better than your opponents. You can limit the chance that I intervene by 1) providing clear judge instruction and 2) justifications for those judge instructions. The best 2NRs and 2ARs are pitches that present a fully formed ballot that I can metaphorically sign off on.

Accommodations: External to any debate about my role that happens on framework, I treat my function in the room as judge first and facilitator of education second. Therefore, any accommodation that has potential competitive implications (limiting content or speed, etc.) should be requested either with me CC'd or in my presence so that tournament ombuds mediation can be requested if necessary. Failure to adhere to proper accommodation request procedure heavily impacts whether I give credence to in-round voters.

Argument by argument breakdown below.

Topicality

Debating T well is a question of engaging in responsive impact debate. You win my ballot when you are the team that proves their interpretation is best for debate -- usually by proving that you have the best internal links (ground, predictability, legal precision, research burden, etc.) to a terminal impact (fairness and/or education). I love judging a good T round and I will reward teams with the ballot and with good speaker points for well thought-out interpretations (or counter-interps) with nuanced defenses. I would much rather hear a well-articulated 2NR on why I need to enforce a limited vision of the topic than a K with state/omission links or a Frankenstein process CP that results in the aff.

I default to competing interpretations, but reasonability can be compelling to me if properly contextualized. I am more receptive when affs can articulate why their specific counter-interp is reasonable (e.g., "The aff interp only imposes a reasonable additional research burden of two more cases") versus vague generalities ("Good is good enough").

I believe that many resolutions (especially domestic topics) are sufficiently aff-biased or poorly worded that preserving topicality as a viable generic negative strategy is important. I have no problem voting for the neg if I believe that they have done the better debating, even if I think that the aff is/should be topical in a truth sense. I am also a judge who will actually vote on T-Substantial (substantial as in size, not subsets) because I think there should be a mechanism to check small affs.

Fx/Xtra Topicality: I will vote on them independently if they are impacted as independent voters. However, I believe they are internal links to the original violation and standards (i.e. you don't meet if you only meet effectually). The neg is best off introducing Fx/Xtra early with me in the back; I give the 1ARs more leeway to answer new Fx/Xtra extrapolations than I will give the 2AC for undercovering Fx/Xtra.

Framework / T-USFG

For an aff to win framework they must articulate and defend specific reasons why they cannot and do not embed their advocacy into a topical policy as well as reasons why resolutional debate is a bad model. Procedural fairness starts as an impact by default and the aff must prove why it should not be. I can and will vote on education outweighs fairness, or that substantive fairness outweighs procedural fairness, but the aff must win these arguments. The TVA is an education argument and not a fairness argument; affs are not entitled to the best version of the case (policy affs do not get extra-topical solvency mechanisms), so I don't care if the TVA is worse than the planless version from a competitive standpoint.

For the neg, you have the burden of proving either that fairness outweighs the aff's education or that policy-centric debate has better access to education (or a better type of education). I am neutral regarding which impact to go for -- I firmly believe the negative is on the truth side on both -- it will be your execution of these arguments that decides the round. Contextualization and specificity are your friends. If you go with fairness, you should not only articulate specific ground loss in the round, but why neg ground loss under the aff's model is inevitable and uniquely worse. When going for education, deploy arguments for why plan-based debate is a better internal link to positive real world change: debate provides valuable portable skills, debate is training for advocacy outside of debate, etc. Empirical examples of how reform ameliorates harm for the most vulnerable, or how policy-focused debate scales up better than planless debate, are extremely persuasive in front of me.

Procedurals/Theory

I think that debate's largest educational impact is training students in real world advocacy, therefore I believe that the best iteration of debate is one that teaches people in the room something about the topic, including minutiae about process. I have MUCH less aversion to voting on procedurals and theory than most judges. I think the aff has a burden as advocates to defend a specific and coherent implementation strategy of their case and the negative is entitled to test that implementation strategy. I will absolutely pull the trigger on vagueness, plan flaws, or spec arguments as long as there is a coherent story about why the aff is bad for debate and a good answer to why cross doesn't check. Conversely, I will hold negatives to equally high standards to defend why their counterplans make sense and why they should be considered competitive with the aff.

That said, you should treat theory like topicality; there is a bare amount of time and development necessary to make it a viable choice in your last speech. Outside of cold concessions, you are probably not going to persuade me to vote for you absent actual line-by-line refutation that includes a coherent abuse story which would be solved by your interpretation.

Also, if you go for theory... SLOW. DOWN. You have to account for pen/keyboard time; you cannot spread a block of analytics at me like they were a card and expect me to catch everything. I will be very unapologetic in saying I didn't catch parts of the theory debate on my flow because you were spreading too fast.

My defaults that CAN be changed by better debating:

- Condo is good (but should have limitations, esp. to check perf cons and skew).

- PICs, Actor, and Process CPs are all legitimate if they prove competition; a specific solvency advocate proves competitiveness while the lack of specific solvency evidence indicates high risk of a solvency deficit and/or no competition.

- The aff gets normal means or whatever they specify; they are not entitled to all theoretical implementations of the plan (i.e. perm do the CP) due to the lack of specificity.

- The neg is not entitled to intrinsic processes that result in the aff (i.e. ConCon, NGA, League of Democracies).

- Consult CPs and Floating PIKs are bad.

My defaults that are UNLIKELY to change or CANNOT be changed:

- CX is binding.

- Lit checks/justifies (debate is primarily a research and strategic activity).

- OSPEC is never a voter (except fiating something contradictory to ev or a contradiction between different authors).

- "Cheating" is reciprocal (utopian alts justify utopian perms, intrinsic CPs justify intrinsic perms, and so forth).

- Real instances of abuse justify rejecting the team and not just the arg.

- Teams should disclose previously run arguments; breaking new doesn't require disclosure.

- Real world impacts exist (i.e. setting precedents/norms), but specific instances of behavior outside the room/round that are not verifiable are not relevant in this round.

- Condo is not the same thing as severance of the discourse/rhetoric. You can win severance of your reps, but it is not a default entitlement from condo.

- ASPEC is checked by cross. The neg should ask and if the aff answers and doesn't spike, I will not vote on ASPEC. If the aff does not answer, the neg can win by proving abuse. Potential ground loss is abuse.

Kritiks

TL;DR: I would much rather hear a good K than a bad politics disad, so if you have a coherent and contextualized argument for why critical academic scholarship is relevant to the aff, I am fine for you. If you run Ks to avoid doing specific case research and brute force ballots with links of omission and reusing generic criticisms about the state/fiat, I am a bad judge for you.If I'm in the back for a planless aff vs. a K, reconsider your prefs/strategy.

A kritik must be presented as a comprehensible argument in round. To me, that means that a K must not only explain the scholarship and its relevance (links and impacts), but it must function as a coherent call for the ballot (through the alt). A link alone is insufficient without a reason to reject the aff and/or prefer the alt. I do not have any biases or predispositions about what my ballot does or should do, but if you cannot explain your alt and/or how my ballot interacts with the alt then I will have an extremely low threshold for disregarding the K as a non-unique disad. Alts like "Reject the aff" and "Vote neg" are fine so long as there is a coherent explanation for why I should do thatbeyond the mere fact the aff links (for example, if the K turns case). If the alt solves back for the implications of the K, whether it is a material alt or a debate space alt, the solvency process should be explained and contrasted with the plan/perm. Links of omission are very uncompelling. Links are not disads to the perm unless you have a (re-)contextualization to why the link implicates perm solvency. Ks can solve the aff, but the mechanism shouldn't be that the world of the alt results in the plan (i.e. floating PIK).

Affs should not be afraid of going for straight impact turns behind a robust framework press to evaluate the aff. I'm more willing than most judges to weigh the impacts vs. labeling your discourse as a link. Being extremely good at historical analysis is the best way to win a link turn or impact turn. I am also particularly receptive to arguments about pragmatism on the perm, especially if you have empirical examples of progress through state reform that relates directly to the impacts.

Against K affs, you should leverage fairness and education offensive as a way to shape the process by which I should evaluate the kritik. I would much rather, and am more likely to, give you "No perms without a plan text" because cheating should be mutual than weeding through the epistemology and pedagogy debate to determine that your theory of power comes first.

Counterplans

I think that research is a core part of debate as an activity, and good counterplan strategy goes hand-in-hand with that. The risk of your net benefit is evaluated inversely proportional to the quality of the counterplan is. Generic PICs are more vulnerable to perms and solvency deficits and carry much higher threshold burden on the net benefit. PICs with specific solvency advocates or highly specific net benefits are devastating and one of the ways that debate rewards research and how debate equalizes aff side bias by rewarding negs who who diligent in research. Agent and process counterplans are similarly better when the neg has a nuanced argument for why one agent/process is better than the aff's for a specific plan.

- Process CPs: Neg ground should be a product of neg research, not spray and pray checks on the 2AC. I am extremely unfriendly to process counterplans where the process is entirely intrinsic; I have a very low threshold for rejecting them theoretically or granting the aff an intrinsic perm to test opportunity cost. I am extremely friendly to process counterplans that test a distinct implementation method compared to the aff. There are differences in form and content between legislative statutes, administrative regulations, executive orders, and court cases. The team that understands these differences and can impact them is usually the team that wins my ballot. Intentionally vague plan texts do not give the aff access to all theoretical implementations of the plan (Perm Do the CP). The neg can define normal means for the aff if the aff refuses to, but the neg has an equally high burden to defend the competitiveness of the CP process vs. normal means. The aff can win an entire solvency take out if there is a structural defect created by deviating from normal means.

I do not judge kick by default, but 2NRs can easily convince me to do so as an extension of condo. Superior solvency for the aff case alone is sufficient reason to vote for the CP in a debate that is purely between hypothetical policies (i.e. the aff has no competition arguments in the 2AR).

I am very likely to err neg on sufficiency framing; the aff absolutely needs either a solvency deficit or arguments about why an appeal to sufficiency framing itself means that the neg cannot capture the ethic of the affirmative (and why that outweighs).

Disadvantages

I value defense more than most judges and am willing to assign minimal ("virtually zero") risk based on defense, especially when quality difference in evidence is high or the disad scenario is painfully artificial. I can be convinced by good analysis that there is always a risk of a DA in spite of defense, but having a good counterplan is the way the neg has to leverage itself out of flawed disads.

Nuclear war probably outweighs the soft left impact in a vacuum, but not when you are relying on "infinite impact times small risk is still infinity" to mathematically brute force past near zero risk.

Misc.

Speaker Point Scale: I feel speaker points are arbitrary and the only way to fix this is standardization. Consequently I will try to follow any provided tournament scale very closely. In the event that there is no tournament scale, I grade speaks on bell curve with 30 being the 99th percentile, 27.5 being as the median 50th percentile, and 25 being the 1st percentile. I'm aggressive at BOTH addition and subtraction from this baseline since bell curves are distributed around the average and not everyone being actually average. Elim teams should be scoring above average by definition. The scale is standardized; national circuit tournaments have higher averages than local tournaments. Points are rewarded for both style (entertaining, organized, strong ethos) and substance (strategic decisions, quality analysis, obvious mastery of nuance/details). I listen closely to CX and include CX performance in my assessment. Well contextualized humor is the quickest way to get higher speaks in front of me, e.g. make a Thanos snap joke on the Malthus flow.

Delivery and Organization: Your speed should be limited by clarity. I reference the speech doc during the debate to check clipping, not to flow. You should be clear enough that I can flow without needing your speech doc. Additionally, even if I can hear and understand you, I am not going to flow your twenty point theory block perfectly if you spit it out in ten seconds. Proper sign-posted line by line is the bare minimum to get over a 28.5 in speaks. I will only flow straight down as a last resort, so it is important to sign-post the line-by-line, otherwise I will lose some of your arguments while I jump around on my flow and I will dock your speaks. If online please keep in mind that you will, by default, be less clear through Zoom than in person.

Cross-X, Prep, and Tech: Tag-team CX is fine but it's part of your speaker point rating to give and answer most of your own cross. I think that finishing the answer to a final question during prep is fine and simple clarification and non-substantive questions during prep is fine, but prep should not be used as an eight minute time bank of extra cross-ex. I don't charge prep for tech time, but tech is limited to just the emailing or flashing of docs. When you end prep, you should be ready to distribute.

Strategy Points: I will reward good practices in research and preparation. On the aff, plan texts that have specific mandates backed by solvency authors get bonus speaks. I will also reward affs for running disads to negative advocacies (real disads, not solvency deficits masquerading as disads -- Hollow Hope or Court Politics on a Courts CP is a disad; "CP gets circumvented" is not a disad). Negative teams with case specific strategies (i.e. hyper-specific counterplans or a nuanced T or procedural objection to the specific aff plan text) will get bonus speaks.

Darin Park Peninsula High School 5 rounds

Dwayne Paul Brophy College Prep 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 9, 2024 at 11:18 AM MST

Email Chain

Add me: dgpaul8@gmail.com

Please include tournament and round number in the subject line of the email.

T/L

Tech > Truth always - There is a lower threshold for refuting an "argument" that is clearly untrue, but it is your burden to clearly explain why it should be evaluated as false

I will make the least interventional decision, meaning:

T is the highest layer - the rest is up for debate, but you better deliver a very solid T
What's conceded is true, but will only have the implications as argued by you
More judge instruction - Communicate the locus of your offense and defense clearly. If the final rebuttal is thoughtlessly extending and answering arguments without a unified argument, your likelihood of winning is low. Have intent - I will not grant any logic or rational to you if not explicitly said.
My vote is always influenced based on how the round goes down - I have no preconceptions

DAs

U/Q is up for debate - my vote is influenced based on how you debate

No preference over specific links vs. generic ones - just tell me why your link is relevant

Don't drop straight turns, and don't double turn yourself - that being said, you have to tell me they did it for me to evaluate

As the affirmative, if you drop a disadvantage, I'm still willing to hear weighing arguments from the rebuttals as to why you outweigh, but I will assume 100% risk of it happening

CPs

I think sufficiency framing is a valid argument - that being said, you must explicitly make it, and if you can't defend it, I won't buy it

'Judge kicking' the counterplan is merely to evaluate the disadvantage against the plan, in order to test whether the plan is in fact better than not only the counterplan but also the status quo. The ONLY burden of the negative is to disprove the desirability of the plan. The desirability of the counterplan should be irrelevant if the status quo is better.

I will assume judge kick, but if presented with reasons not to, it's up for debate

The threshold for winning against frivolous T-interpretations is lower, but you better be sure that it really is frivolous

Won't vote on RVIs

I'll view your standards however you debate them - ie. show me why fairness o/w education

T v. K-Affs

The negative needs to have good reasons, argued effectively, why being topical is a good thing. Consequently, the affirmative needs to have good reasons, argued effectively, why it's not - I'm not preconditioned to vote either way.

Ks On the Neg

I'm fine with all kritiks - whatever you want to argue, argue it - my only brightline is that you argue it better than the other side

Argue whatever framework you want to - the team that wins framework decides how I view the kritik debate - doesn't equate to an automatic win or loss - just depends on the framework interpretation

Extinction o/w is a good debate - show me why it does, and show me it why it does not - I'm open to swinging either way

What matters most is that you make your point - these debates boil down to a battle between positions

Theory

No preconceptions on whether conditionality is a good or bad thing - A good affirmative can explain why it's bad, and a good negative can explain why it's not - if it is completely 50/50, which I personally do not believe it, that means the negative won on conditionality - the affirmative is burdened with proving it is bad (51/49).

Most condo 2ARs are new - if you really want to go for it, make sure your 1AR sufficiently covered it - blowing up a a little blip in the 1AR is a hard sell

Debate the standards - don't just read down blocks

All other theory arguments are fine - exception to incredibly frivolous theory arguments - even if dropped, if they hold no arguable, serious, realistic weight, I'm not going to vote on it

Cross-Examination

I do not flow cross-x

It can be fun to watch

Bring up anything you would like me to evaluate from cross-x in your later speeches - I won't automatically assume anything

Speaker Points

Strong strategy, being engaging to watch, being smart, being clear = higher speaks

Making wrong strategic choices, being underprepared or ignorant about substance, making bad arguments, not being clear = lower speaks

30 = best debater I've seen

29.6 - 29.9 = top debater at the tournament

29.1 - 29.5 - break deep into outrounds

28.6 - 29.0 - capability to break

28.0 - 28.5 - solid team, some learning to do

< 28.0 - some work to do

Ethics

Being racist, sexist, or violent in a way that is immediately and obviously hazardous to someone in the debate is bad.

Role as an educator outweighs role as a disciplinarian - I err on the side of letting things play out and correcting ignorance after the fact - This ends when it threatens the safety of round participants

You should give this line a wide berth

Arthur Qin Peninsula High School 5 rounds

Rayeed Rahman Peninsula High School 5 rounds

Eshaan Rawat Damien-St. Lucy's 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 12, 2024 at 1:31 AM PST

Overview

Hey, I'm Eshaan.

Debated at James Logan (RS) - arms sales, cjr, water, nato

Currently at UC Irvine, not debating

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

Also please format the chain [TOURNAMENT --- ROUND # --- AFF vs NEG]

* congress paradigm is at the bottom

TLDR

Tech > truth no matter what. I'll pull the trigger on any argument if you can debate it. This includes death good, wipeout, tricks, etc. The only caveats are ad homs and other arguments regarding the personal qualities of other debaters.

I was a K debater. I don't have the same experience judging super fast tech rounds as other judges, and I probably am not the best judge if you are going for theory or complex policy args. Regardless, I'll still evaluate all rounds technically, but here are my preferences.

1 - K v policy / policy v K

2 - K v K

3 - policy v policy

Clarity >>>>>> speed. I'm a decent flow but clarity is a must, especially on theory interps and analytics. I'm not going to catch 100% of the things you say, so if you think a round hinges on a small tech thing, either clearly flag it or slow down. Especially for online debates.

Judge instruction is highly appreciated. I try to do as little intervention as possible, so if you write my ballot for me I'll be pretty happy.

Everything below is a preference, not a rule, and can be changed with good debating.

Specifics

K Affs and FW

I read K affs when I debated. They are tools to win and should be used as such. Smart K tricks, clever impact turns are all ways to beat the one argument you're guaranteed to hit (framework).

Generally, affs should impact turn T either at a form or content level. Most counter interps are arbitrary and easily lose to limits. Affs should also try to explain the aff outside of T. It's not really required but it helps paint a clearer picture of how the aff functions, ballot solvency, etc.

For the neg, I think framework should be in every 1nc, the time tradeoff is strategic even if you're going for another offcase position. Fairness is a good impact because it's true, however many teams have struggled to articulate the "why" it matters. Here, I think truth testing is perhaps the most coherent extrapolation of fairness alongside winning that debate has zero external impact. However, I'm equally good for teams that go for skills impacts with the usual clash i/l.

Neg terror is amazing. Read 8+ off it's not like the aff is going to go for condo. Generally I think PIKs are underutilized whether they be reps piks (word piks, author piks, etc.) or actual piks such as reading your policy aff as a pik on the neg. All are viable and work at tying down what the aff actually defends. If the aff defends nothing, presumption is a viable 2nr.

Policy Affs and K Negs

Pretty much all of our 2nrs my senior year were the K. Strong link debating is great, generic links are not so great. However, I have had my fair share of wins on the state good / assimilation link. What matters is how you debate it, not what it is.

K's should be debated technically like any other argument.

For aff teams, generic answers are fine, but you should leverage good 2ac cards later in the debate. There's some more general things written below but what I find the most glaring in rounds is having some answer to ontology.

Theory against alts is a must. Most alts do nothing which can be exposed in 1nc cx. The ones that do something are wildly utopian and lose to the perm double bind.

If your aff has russia and china war impacts it's generally better to impact turn the security K rather than go for a perm. Lots of teams would have a much better route if they defended their reps and went for the impact turn.

Disads

I'm fine for any disad you go for. The main thing is judge instruction and comparative impact calc. I haven't been in a lot of these rounds, but explaining how I should leverage a DA vs case will help me write my ballot and improve your speaks.

I'm good for politics. When I had to read disads, politics was pretty much the only disad available. Realistically, it's a consequence of the plan passing.

Counterplans

More aff teams should go for intrinsic perms and more neg teams should defend that textual comp is a bad standard.

For neg teams, please read the cp text verbatim. It's interesting to see a generic cp text that has something like "we should do [PLAN] and consult someone " and then the 1n just adlibs the plan text based on memory. I'm amenable to arguments about competition if this ever gets brought up.

Theory

T - PTIV seems like the most reasonable model, though this is obviously debatable. Predictable limits to me is the most convincing impact.

Please give case lists if possible. I haven't judged enough rounds on this topic to know what ample aff / neg division should look like.

Condo - Go for it. I don't have much to say here as I've been in very few condo rounds as a 1-off K debater. It's probably the only theory issue that I default to as a voter, but again like everything else in this paradigm, this can be changed.

Misc

Here are some of my personal preferences and how I tend to look at debates, also including speaker point stuff.

Sometimes I'll read ev out of interest, but unless it's something that's been contested throughout all rebuttals, what the ev says is solely what the debaters in the round tell me it says.

Speaks - My speaks are probably a little inflated. I'll try to adjust them based on tournament, division, etc. For now its loosely as follows:

29.5+ --- One of the best debaters I've seen in this division ever
29.0 - 29.4 --- Really good
28.5 - 28.9 --- Average - above average
28.0 - 28.4 --- Needs improvement - below average
< 28 --- :(

Speaks for me are largely determined on a combination of smart decision-making and clarity and maybe sometimes humor and debate personality.

Congress

Mainly looking for clear framing, impact comparison, and speaking. Early speakers should set a clear framework for the rest of the round identifying key points. Late round speakers should consolidate issues and have refs to other senators.

Good POs will usually get in the top 5 (3-4). A large part of my ranks are determined off the flow and technical abilities of debaters. However excellent speaking usually separates good from great. This includes humor, powerful intros/conclusions, good tonal fluctuations, smart use of CX, and other smaller things.

Riley Reichel Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 12, 2024 at 5:15 AM PST

I debated for 4 years in policy at Head-Royce as a 1A/2N and went for the K on both the aff and the neg for my last 3 years. I now debate at UC Berkeley and only go for policy args.

Put me on the email chain:

rileyreichel@gmail.com

please name the chain something reasonable.

for online debates, please try to have your camera on. speaking into the void feels weird

Do what you do best. This paradigm is short because I will vote for almost any argument so long as it is won in debate. Below are predispositions but every single one can be overcome by debating well. I know everyone says this but I will try my hardest to stick to the flow and judge as objectively as I can. I have also realized I tend to make faces when I like or do not like something.

I read all the evidence mentioned in the final rebuttals. I put a lot of weight in evidence quality and you should be very loud about telling me if your evidence is good, I'll reward it with high speaks.

FW v K aff: These used to be my favorite type of debates but are quickly becoming unfun to watch and judge. I usually find them hard to resolve because neither side does nearly enough impact calculus. 2NCs fail to grapple with specific offense and read generic blocks that the 1AR responds to with generic blocks. Read their evidence, answer specific offense, and weigh impacts.

K v K: Never heard a convincing arg for why K affs don't get perms. Most reasons are predicated off of winning T. I think these debates tend to devolve into perm vs link which seems hard to win for both sides. I like affs that stick to their theory and go for impact turns rather than just becoming whatever the neg read. While your author probably does agree that capitalism/the LIO/hegemony/whatever is bad, it is unlikely that they fully agree with what the negative has said. Debate those intricacies and prove that your model of debate creates nuanced and in-depth clash. The more you run towards no link/perm, the more I buy FW arguments about clash and skills.

Theory: I have been confused by judges who arbitrarily choose not to vote on theory even when fully conceded. Cheap theory violations are easily answered and I am rarely convinced by one liner theory violations in the 2AC becoming 2-3 minutes of the 1AR. That being said, if the negative drops it, go for it. I won't choose not to vote on it just because it's theory, it was short in the 2AC, or because what the negative did was "reasonable".

Random stuff so that you can't get mad at me when this happens:

won't vote on stuff that happened outside the round

will drop you and give 0s for anything blatantly offensive done in round and am willing to end debates early if I think something unsafe is happening

I think reading extinction arguments and not being able to defend against the impact turn is cowardice

I have become increasingly annoyed with people acting like jerks in round. It's a communicative activity and everyone is spending their time here willingly, try to keep that in mind.

I think you can reinsert rehighlighting if it's just saying the other team miscut the evidence. If you're trying to make a new arg, you should prolly read it.

Some people and paradigms to look at to better understand the way I view debate: Larry Dang, Nathan Fleming, Nick Fleming, Katie Wimsatt, Emilio Menotti, Archan Sen, Taylor Tsan. Their paradigms are better than mine (except Emilio) and they taught me everything I know.

extra .1 speaks for references to old/current Cal debaters

Lukas Rhoades Peninsula High School 6 rounds

Mike Shackelford Rowland Hall 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 2:48 AM MST

Mike Shackelford
Head Coach of Rowland Hall. I debated in college and have been a lab leader at CNDI, Michigan, and other camps. I've judged about 20 rounds the first semester.

Do what you do best. I’m comfortable with all arguments. Practice what you preach and debate how you would teach. Strive to make it the best debate possible.

Key Preferences & Beliefs
Debate is a game.
Literature determines fairness.
It’s better to engage than exclude.
Critique is a verb.
Defense is undervalued.

Judging Style
I flow on my computer. If you want a copy of my flow, just ask.
I think CX is very important.
I reward self-awareness, clash, good research, humor, and bold decisions.
Add me to the email chain: mikeshackelford(at)rowlandhall(dot)org

Feel free to ask.

Want something more specific? More absurd?

Debate in front of me as if this was your 9 judge panel:

Andre Washington, Ian Beier, Shunta Jordan, Maggie Berthiaume, Daryl Burch, Yao Yao Chen, Nicholas Miller, Christina Philips, jon sharp

If both teams agree, I will adopt the philosophy and personally impersonate any of my former students:

Ben Amiel, Andrew Arsht, David Bernstein, Madeline Brague, Julia Goldman, Emily Gordon, Adrian Gushin, Layla Hijjawi, Elliot Kovnick, Will Matheson, Ben McGraw, Corinne Sugino, Caitlin Walrath, Sydney Young (these are the former debaters with paradigms... you can also throw it back to any of my old school students).

LD Paradigm

Most of what is above will apply here below in terms of my expectations and preferences. I spend most of my time at tournaments judging policy debate rounds, however I do teach LD and judge practice debates in class. I try to keep on top of the arguments and developments in LD and likely am familiar with your arguments to some extent.

Theory: I'm unlikely to vote here. Most theory debates aren't impacted well and often put out on the silliest of points and used as a way to avoid substantive discussion of the topic. It has a time and a place. That time and place is the rare instance where your opponent has done something that makes it literally impossible for you to win. I would strongly prefer you go for substance over theory. Speaker points will reflect this preference.

Speed: Clarity > Speed. That should be a no-brainer. That being said, I'm sure I can flow you at whatever speed you feel is appropriate to convey your arguments.

Disclosure: I think it's uniformly good for large and small schools. I think it makes debate better. If you feel you have done a particularly good job disclosing arguments (for example, full case citations, tags, parameters, changes) and you point that out during the round I will likely give you an extra half of a point if I agree.

Andrew Sinsioco Peninsula High School 5 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 22, 2024 at 9:08 AM PST

Email:a.sinsioco1@gmail.com

-Peninsula' 21 - USC' 25

Have fun. Be nice.

Outside of the occasional tournament I judge at, I think very little about the topic. Slow down and don’t take for granted I understand any topic specific jargon

tech>truth generally, although some arguments, of course, require more tech to win than others

I’ll try to find the simplest way to the ballot which requires the least work

Very hard pressed to vote on presumption type arguments. Absent any offense, even the smallest chance that the aff does something positive for the world is enough reason to vote affirmative

Other than that, any opinion I have about arguments can be overcome by better debating.

Thoughts

The first 30 seconds of the final rebuttal should write my RFD.

K Affs:

Probably read a plan tbh, but I will enjoy K affs with a strong explanation of what the aff actually does clear articulation of how debate operates under their framework.

I often find defensive arguments weaker and think the counter interpretation solves little of the actual neg offense. impact turn framework standards and the neg's model of debate. Have better answers to fairness. I think most 2ac’s lack here

Fairness >>>>>>> Education/Skills > whatever else. Please go for some combination of fairness and strong defense (SSD, TVA, no subjectivity shift, etc, especially if the aff is designed to impact turn education. My voting record in these debates is pretty aff favored despite argumentative preferences, and it’s because 2n’s fail to recognize how K affs are designed to beat certain strategies. Go for a framework impact which is better insulated from case.

However, if going for an education type impact, at least go for an impact related to the intrinsic critical thinking skills we gain from debate versus anything that requires you to win the state is good. Again, you can do whatever you want, but policy education good strategies require you to decisively and substantively engage with case which is often very difficult.

I really enjoy and prefer judging substantive offense against the K itself. Don't be afraid to go for the heg da or cap good or whatever.

If your K is able to disprove thesis of the aff and the assumptions it relies upon, I will love your K.

I will default to weighing the aff versus the K.

I have an aversion to strategies that solely rely upon winning framework and arbitrarily disregarding huge swaths of the debate. I will assign less weight to these arguments unless they are dropped. K debate is case debate. The kritik should engage with the affirmative and disprove its thesis.

Your links should reference a specific line/assumption which the affirmative's scenario relies upon, explain why that line/assumption is flawed, impact out why I should care/the material implications of that flawed assumption, and how the alternative resolves the link. The more specific the better.

Ideally, you should be leveraging your answers on case to bolster your argument otherwise I'm willing to grant the aff the truth of their scenario which makes it difficult to win that their assumptions are flawed.

CP: I dislike cp's that compete off immediacy and certainty. Tbh the more time I spend out of debate, the less I understand functional vs textual competition and the other issues that come up during these debates. Given that please err towards over explanation and clarity

DA's: Enjoy most flavors of disads, but generally dislike ones whose links are predicated on silly interpretations of fiat.

T: Slow down and clearly explain what debate looks like under each interpretation and the implications of your impacts, as well as how your interpretation solves your impacts. I generally feel predictability and precision often guides the way I adjudicate these debates on a top level. What I should prioritize is certainly debatable

Case: I find well-researched, dissections of the affirmative case to be the coolest things to judge and will reward the effort.

Theory: Condo is good, and I don't see value in interps that numerically limit the number of conditional advocacies. Either all condo or no condo

Most theory arguments are reject the argument unless you specifically explain otherwise

Dhruva Sood Head-Royce High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 13, 2024 at 6:58 AM PST

Dhruva Sood(he/him)

Head-Royce '24

USC '28

Put me on the chain: Dhruvasood1@gmail.com and HRSDebatedocs@gmail.com

Top Level:

Read what you want. I read a Kaff for three years in high school, and went for the K in most rounds, but my 1nrs were made up of T, DAs, CPs and Case.

Tech > Truth, I will vote for anything under the sun. I think judges saying tech over truth but then listing arguments they won't vote for is a little ridiculous (barring anything violent, racist, homophobic, etc..). there are predispositions below, but all of them can be overcome if you win it technically.

If you have new out of the box arguments or arguments you think most judges won't vote for I'll be good for you.

Evidence quality matters a lot to me, I will read every card that is mentioned in the final rebuttals. In order to win an argument you must win a claim + evidence + impact, if you fail to have a card that substantiates your claim or impact you cannot win that argument, similarly if the evidence you have barely substantiates the claim or impact it's going to be a lot harder to win that argument. On the other hand, if your evidence is very good and specific you should be clear about that and flag it for me

Greatly prefer specific strats to generics. I have no issue with generic case or off case arguments, but am just likely to be more bored

Topicality:

I'm good for T, many of my 1nrs were extending it

Caselists are super useful

Competing interps is probably better than reasonability (but I can be convinced otherwise)

Disadvantages:

good for these, case debate is probably necessary here.

Make sure to have explicit warranted out reasons for outweighs and turns case analysis

Counterplans:

Least familiar with counterplan debates, particularly competition, if your strategy relies heavily on noncompetitive counterplans or dubiously competitive counterplans I am probably not the best judge for you. Not to say I won't vote here, but these are just debates I have had very little of in the past.

Good for specific pics

Judgekick is probably fine, but it has to be said

Kritiks:

Familiar with a good amount of literature bases, In high school I read security, cap, racial cap, deleuze, set col, asian american studies, critiques of enlightenment thinking, and the death k. Not super familiar with higher theory stuff, but should be able to keep up if you explain it.

specific link evidence and examples are the best thing to have in these debates.

Both sides should try to know early on whether the K is going to be framework or alt dependent. The latter requires more work as you probably have to do a good amount of case debating in addition to alt solvency and perm debating (the alt rarely ever actually solves case).

shiftiness is super annoying in these debates, if you're defending something like decol you should be ready to defend against the material implications/turns to that.

Cross ex is one of the most important parts of these debates, both sides are usually making a good amount of pretty flimsy arguments, so hold them to them.

explain your impacts, and impact out the links

K-Affs:

Good for kaffs that are intrinsic and close to the topic. I think k affs that have little to no resolutional tie are both boring and probably unstrategic.

Kaffs should affirm something, not just critique the resolution

Examples of your solvency/method are incredibly important and useful, please have them

Think spillout arguments are very unconvincing by both sides, I'm not sure why kaffs need to spill out, and i'm rarely convinced that they do

that being said, you should still have a coherent view of why the ballot/affirmation of your method is good

I think non T-usfg t options are highly strategic against kaff teams, find a word in the resolution they don't meet other than the usfg that doesn't necessitate state action, and kaffs are likely to just read their fw blocks straight down at you anyways. I will be incredibly happy if you read other t violations in these rounds.

Vs. framework:

Fairness can be an impact or internal link

Debate is a game, but it is not just a game

I prefer counterinterps/countermodels instead of just impact turns, I think having a clear view of what debates should look like is better than just why they're bad now.

The aff needs to have clear answers to TVAs and SSD that are embedded within the case. It will be a huge uphill battle for you otherwise.

I think reading a counterplan and turning it into a tva is kind of played out now, everyone expects it, and it doesn't seem to be a great time trade off

please read specific tvas to the aff, the debate will be substantially easier for you to win, and odds are [x] soft left aff of the year or [x] aff that talks about capitalism and oppression will not resolve the impacts of the affs framework arguments

Neg case debating is incredibly important, all of their framework offense will be imbedded in the 1ac

Vs. the K

winning that kaffs don't get perms is likely reliant on winning framework, which means its a largely unwinnable argument in my opinion. Absent winning framework I don't there is justification for there being a difference between kaffs and policy affs that justifies not giving them perms. that being said if the aff is super shifty I'm much more likely to buy this argument.

as said above for kaffs and k debates, I think examples on both sides are some of the most important things to have.

the aff should have clear perm evidence and link turn evidence, the neg should have clear and specific link evidence.

stick to your literature/authors. Odds are both sides authors will agree on things like cap or heg being bad, but that doesn't mean they are saying the same thing or are mutually compatible

Theory:

Probably not great for these debates, just the area I have the least experience in

realistically 4-5 condo is probably fine (can be convinced otherwise)

I have a low threshold for beating cheap theory arguments, but you've got to answer them

Misc:

I don't think you can insert rehilightings if the words that are relevant have not yet been said by either team. Debate is a communicative activity which means you have to speak your arguments.

The death k is 100% justifiable to be read in round

I won't vote on things that I didn't see/didn't happen in round

Racism, homophobia, sexism, etc.. = Auto loss + Lowest speaks possible

You can stop the round or debate out ethics violations, this is probably good to ensure more teams call them out. If you debate it out should have clear cuttings of the rules of the tournament and what an ethics violation is/looks like, from there you have to impact out why it matters.

Be funny, I am very easy to make laugh and it will go a long way

Funny references to current or past HRS debaters = +.1 speaker points

Some other paradigms to look at to better understand how I think about debate: T Weddington, Tessa Harper, Cat Jacob, Riley Reichel

Sanoja Sridevan Peninsula High School 5 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 19, 2024 at 1:05 PM PST

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!

Chris Thiele The Quarry Lane School 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri October 11, 2024 at 6:44 AM PST

Big picture:
- I don't read/flow off the doc.
- no evidence inserting. I read what you read.
- I strongly prefer to let the debaters do the debating, and I'll reward depth (the "author/date + claim + warrant + data + impact" model) over breadth (the "author + claim + impact" model) any day.
- Ideas communicated per minute > words per minute. I'm old, I don't care to do a time trial of flowing half-warrants and playing "connect the dots" for impacts. 3/4 of debaters have terrible online practices, so this empirically applies even more so for online debates.
- I minimize the amount of evidence I read post-round to only evidence that is either (A) up for dispute/interpretation between the teams or (B) required to render a decision (due to lack of clash amongst the debaters). Don't let the evidence do the debating for you.
- I care a lot about data/method and do view risk as "everyone starts from zero and it goes up from there". This primarily lets me discount even conceded claims, apply a semi-laugh test to ridiculous arguments, and find a predictable tiebreaker when both sides hand me a stack of 40 cards.
- I'm fairly flexible in argument strategy, and either ran or coached an extremely wide diversity of arguments. Some highlights: wipeout, foucault k, the cp, regression framework, reg neg cp, consult china, cap k, deleuze k, china nano race, WTO good, indigenous standpoint epistemology, impact turns galore, biz con da, nearly every politics da flavor imaginable, this list goes on and on.
- I am hard to offend (though not impossible) and reward humor.
- You must physically mark cards.
- I think infinite world condo has gotten out of hand. A good rule of thumb as a proxy (taking from Shunta): 4-6 offcase okay, 7 pushing, if you are reading 8 or more, your win percentage and points go down exponentially. Also, I will never judge kick - make a decision in 2NR.
- 1NC args need to be complete, else I will likely buy new answers on the entire sheet. A DA without U or IL isn't complete. A CP without a card likely isn't complete. A K with just a "theory of power" but no links isn't complete. A T arg without a definition card isn't complete. Cards without any warrants/data highlighted (e.g. PF) are not arguments.
- I personally believe in open disclosure practices, and think we should as a community share one single evidence set of all cards previously read in a single easily accessible/searchable database. I am willing to use my ballot to nudge us closer.
-IP topic stuff - I have a law degree and am a tech geek, so anything that absolutely butchers the law will probably stay at zero even if dropped.

Topicality
-I like competing interpretations, the more evidence the better, and clearly delineated and impacted/weighed standards on topicality.
-I'm extremely unlikely to vote for a dropped hidden aspec or similar and extremely likely to tank your points for trying.
-We meet is yes/no question. You don't get to weigh standards and risk of.
-Aff Strategy: counter-interp + offense + weigh + defense or all in on we meet or no case meets = best path to ballot.

Framework against K aff
-in a tie, I vote to exclude. I think "logically" both sides framework arguments are largely empty and circular - the degree of actual fairness loss or education gain is probably statistically insignificant in any particular round. But its a game and you do you.
-I prefer the clash route + TVA. Can vote for fairness only, but harder sell.
-Very tough sell on presumption / zero subject formation args. Degree ballot shapes beliefs/research is between 0 and 1 with neither extreme being true, comparative claims on who shapes more is usually the better debate pivot.
-if have decent k or case strat against k aff, usually much easier path to victory because k affs just seem to know how to answer framework.
-Aff Strategy: Very tough sell for debate bad, personalized ballot pleas, or fairness net-bad. Lots of defense to predict/limits plus aff edu > is a much easier path to win.

Framework against neg K
-I default to (1) yes aff fiat (2) yes links to 1AC speech act (3) yes actual alt / framework isn't an alt (4) no you link you lose.
-Debaters can debate out (1) and (2), can sometimes persuade me to flip on (3), but will pretty much never convince me to flip on (4).

Case Debate
-I enjoy large complex case debates about the topic.
-Depth in explanation and impacting over breadth in coverage. One well explained warrant or card comparison will do far more damage to the 1AR than 3 new cards that likely say same warrant as original card.

Disads
-Intrinsic perms are silly. Normal means arguments less so.

Counterplans
-I think literature should guide both plan solvency deficit and CP competition ground.
-For theory debates (safe to suspect): adv cps = uniqueness cps > plan specific PIC > topic area specific PIC > textual word PIK = domestic agent CP > ban plan then do "plan" cp = certainty CPs = delay CPs > foreign agent CP > plan minus penny PICs > private actor/utopian/other blatant cheating CP
-Much better for perm do cp (with severance justified because of THEORY) than perm other issues (with intrinsicness justified because TEXT/FUNCT COMP english games). I don't really believe in text+funct comp (just eliminates "bad" theory debaters, not actually "bad" counterplans, e.g. replace "should" with "ought").
-perms and theory are tests of competition and not a voter.
-debatable perms are - perm do both, do cp/alt, do plan and part of CP/alt. Probably okay for combo perms against multi-conditional plank cps. Only get 1 inserted perm text per perm flowed.
-Aff strategy: good for logical solvency deficits, solvency advocate theory, and high level theory debating. Won't presume CP solves when CP lacks any supporting literature.

Critiques
-I view Ks as a usually linear disad and the alt as a CP.
-Much better for a traditional alt (vote neg -> subject formation -> spills out) than utopian fiated alts, floating piks, movements alts, or framework is my second alt.
-Link turn case (circumvention) and/or impact turns case (root/prox cause) is very important.
-I naturally am a quantitative poststructuralist. Don't think I've ever willingly voted on an ontology argument or a "zero subject formation" argument. Very open to circumvention oriented link and state contingency link turn args.
-Role of ballot is usually just a fancy term for "didn't do impact calculus".
-No perms for method Ks is the first sign you don't really understand what method is.
-Aff strategy: (impact turn a link + o/w other links + alt fails) = (case spills up + case o/w + link defense + alt fails) > (fiat immediate + case o/w + alt too slow) > (perm double bind) > (ks are cheating).
-perms generally check clearly noncompetitive alt jive, but don't normally work against traditional alts if the neg has any link.

Lincoln Douglas
-no trix, phil, friv theory, offcase spam, or T args written by coaches.
-treat it like a policy round that ends in the 1AR and we'll both be happy.

Public Forum
-no paraphrasing, yes email chain, yes share speech doc prior to speech. In TOC varsity, points capped at 27.5 if violate as minimum penalty.
-if paraphrase, it's not evidence and counts as an analytic, and cards usually beat analytics.
-I think the ideal PF debate is a 2 advantage vs 2 disadvantage semi-slow whole rez policy debate, where the 2nd rebuttal collapses onto 1 and the 1st summary collapses onto 1 as well. Line by line, proper, complete argument extensions, weighing, and card comparisons are a must.
-Good for non-frivilous theory and proper policy style K. TOC level debaters usually good at theory but still atrocious executing the K, so probably don't go for a PF style K in front of me.
-prefer some civility and cross not devolve into lord of the flies.

Anthony Trufanov Sonoma Academy 5 rounds

Last changed on Sun November 10, 2024 at 12:17 PM EST

Assistant Director of Debate at Dartmouth;Coach at Sonoma Academy and Head Royce. He/him.

Email Chain

Add me: ant981228@gmail.com

College people, add:debatedocs@googlegroups.com

High school people, add: sonomacardscardscards@gmail.com

Please include the tournament, round, and teams debating in the subject line of the email.

I write here.

Key Things to Know

1. I will flow your debate and vote based on that flow. I will read evidence if needed to learn more about an issue that the flow is insufficient to decide.

2. I will flow on paper in line-by-line format with my computer closed. If I do not have paper and cannot borrow it, I will flow on my computer and will not have the speech doc open. I will not attempt to reconstruct my flow from the speech doc. If you are interested in me writing down what you said, you should deliver your speech in a way that reflects that interest. If I did not understand something you said based on your speech, your opponent does not have to respond to it.

3. I prefer negs that clash.

4. I will judge kick unless instructed otherwise.

5. If you say death good you lose.

6. If you ask for a 30 you will get a 25.

Online

I STRONGLY prefer that all cameras be on whenever anyone in the debate is speaking, but I understand if internet or other considerations prevent this.

If my camera is off, assume I am away from my computer and don't start talking. If you start your speech while I am away from my computer you do not get to restart. That is on you.

Here is how to successfully adjust to the online setting:

1. Inflect more when you are talking.

2. Put your face in frame. Ideally, make it so you can see the judge.

3. Get a microphone, put it close to your face, talk into it, make sure there is an unobstructed line between it and your mouth.

4. Talk one at a time.

Big Picture

Tech determines truth unless it's death good. If you tell me to embrace death because life is bad I will vote against you even if you do not go for the argument. I strongly prefer to solve problems without resorting to violence or force.

Here is my decision procedure:

1. I will identify the most important issues in the debate, decide them first based on the debating, then work outward.

2. What is conceded is absolutely true, but will only have the implications that you say it has. Unless something is explicitly said, conceded, and extended, or is an obvious and necessary corollary of something that is said, conceded, and extended, I will attempt to resolve it, rather than assuming it.

3. I will intervene if there is no non-interventionary decision.

4. I will attempt to minimize the scope of my intervention by simplifying the decision-making process. I would prefer to decide fewer issues.If an issue seems hard to resolve without intervening, I will prioritize evaluating ballots that don't require resolving that issue.

This procedure typically means (for example):

1. I will prioritize resolution of impact claims.

2. I will deprioritize resolution of claims that do not affect the relative magnitude of two sides' offense. For example, in a DA/case debate where turns case is conceded, uniqueness is often irrelevant since aff solvency is reduced to the same extent neg offense is inevitable.

As of end-of-season 2024, I have voted aff 47% of the time, and sat on 11% of panels.

I often vote quickly. This does not necessarily mean the debate was lopsided or bad; more likely, it is a sign that the teams clearly communicated the relationships between their arguments, allowing me to perform evaluations as the debate is happening. If I take a long time that means I was unable to do this, either because there was significant complexity in the debate or because communication was poor.

DAs

The agenda DA will usually not survive a rich, accurate description of the current legislative agenda based on thoughtfully reading the news.

CPs

Will judge kick unless told otherwise. I am neg on most substantive theory questions, but strongly aff on the value of theory debate as an exercise. The idea that theory is categorically bad because it is non-resolutional strikes me as little more than textualist cosplay.

Functional competition + arguing about what your plan does and how we can tell >>>>> anything involving the concept of textual competition. Textual competition is mind poison that corrupts any competition model it touches.

If I can't explain what a CP does and how it accomplishes whatever the neg says it does, I am unlikely to vote for it. You can avoid this by writing a meaningful CP text AND explaining it in the speech.

I love a good T debate. I really don't like a bad one. What sets these apart is specific application of broad offense to interpretations and impact debating that is specific to internal links, grounded in a vivid vision for debates under your topic.

I prefer topics with conceptual frameworks that guide aff and neg preparation and research.

Many parts of a T argument can be enhanced with cards - e.g. link to limits, claims of aff/neg bias in the literature, predictability via prodicts/indicts.

Argue by analogy and comparison to other affs, especially in CX.

All offense needs uniqueness. Uniqueness means that given a framework for evaluating a debate, the harms to be avoided are present on one side and absent in at least one legitimate option presented by the other. I do not care how this is achieved mechanically - turning your K into a DA is fine, an alternative is fine, a framework argument that is secretly an alternative is fine - as long as you communicate how each approach generates uniqueness for the offense you want to go for.

For whatever it's worth, I do most of my thinking about debate arguments through the lens of competition theory. This includes neg K framework arguments (which, in front of me, would benefit from disaggregating the questions of what about the aff is a basis for competition, what alternatives are legitimate, and what impacts are the most important). If you say "ontology first," what I will hear is that the aff's ontology is a basis for competition. I will expect the link arguments to be about the aff's ontology, and I will expect to hear about an alternative ontology. When these components are misaligned, my struggle with neg perm answers tends to increase.

Planless Affs

I do not judge many debates involving nontraditional affs. The biggest hurdles to voting aff for me are usually: 1) why can't the aff be read on the neg, 2) why is the aff's offense inherent to resolutional debate or to voting neg on framework instead of some avoidable examples, and 3) how do I reconcile the aff's vision of debate or the topic with debate's inherently (even if not exclusively) competitive nature.

I am very willing to entertain arguments that attempt to denaturalize debate as competition but struggle when these critiques lack an alternative or a theory of why debate as a way of putting two teams and a judge in conversation with one another is nevertheless useful.

I think affs that creatively reinterpret the resolution in a way that does not create excessive curricular demands would be more up my alley, but no one has tested this, so proceed with caution.

I am open to different understandings of what it means for things to compete if there is no plan. However, "no plan, no perms" is nonsense.

The only effect of my ballot is to decide the winner.

Speaker Points

Strong strategy, being fun/engaging to watch, being smart, being classy, being clear = higher speaks.

Making wrong strategic choices, being underprepared or ignorant about substance, making CXs annoying/pointless, making bad arguments, being needlessly mean, being a mumbler... = lower speaks. A new and frequent pet peeve is answering things from the doc that were not in the speech - that is 28.5 behavior.

I do not view speaker points as divorced from substance.

My points are slightly below average.

You can find my ethics and conduct policies here.

Malone Urfalian Notre Dame High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue September 17, 2024 at 3:33 PM PST

add me to the email chain - maloneurfalian@gmail.com

Notre Dame high school - 2018

The burden of the affirmative is to interpret the resolutional question and the burden of the negative is to act as the rejoinder of the aff. This can be whatever you want it to be if it is both flowable and making a clear argument that I can evaluate.

Clear, both argumentatively and speaking wise, debates are good. Unclear and not ideologically consistent arguments are not as good. Teams that tell good stories, see how arguments interact with each other, and contextualize warrants to the round are winning more debates. Debaters that are having fun are also probably happier and gaining more from the activity.

There is an inherent risk in presenting arguments, that is a good thing. Taking these types of intellectual risks helps you grow both in what you know and how you have come to know it. Leaving your argumentative comfort zone is the only way to improve these skills, wether you are reading the new argument or a new argument is presented to you in round.

Debate is fun and also silly! Everyone is doing silly things. It is good to laugh about it.

I have no ideological disposition against any argument. Debate is a free for all. If you think you can win on it, you should go for it. Particularly fond of impact turns and any arguments that challenge an assumption of the argument it is in response to. My version of the truth of an argument has little bearing on my decision, but evidence quality has a high bearing on how the argument is evaluated. Arbitrary line drawing of what I 'will or will not' vote on seems silly, but not in the good way. If had the inverse of this paragraph that said, 'the fifty states counterplan is a non starter for me' I would not be in the back of your round and you would not be reading this.

So, I do not tend to believe that arguments should be dismissed on the grounds of not being 'real', 'practical', or 'worth talking about.' I do not think that a jobs guarantee solving a wage spiral has anymore truth to it than china war good. I do not think that any argument that is not directly personally violent to another debater is a non starter. Autodrop L + ratio for offensive conduct. Judged more than one debate this year where the response to a word pic was to double down on that word. Not a winning strategy. I believe in a good faith apology as defense and some form of offense is a sufficient response. Good faith apology sounds subjective, I think there is a bright line that can demonstrate wether or not an act was intentional and malicious or a result of ignorance and a opportunity to learn. This should be established in the link debating. I would prefer the ballot not be a referendum on someones character. I believe an accusation of a clipping or evidence ethics auto ends the round and supersedes the content of the debate.

I find arguments that exist on polar ends of a bellcurve are more convincing to me because the larger the gap between what my ballot is endorsing and/or resolving the easier it is to think about i.e. heg good vs decol is easier to resolve to me then the perm of a soft left aff about the BIA's failings. I've probably voted for Ligotti and X country first strike about the same amount of times. Both many more than any 'soft left' aff vs a disad or a k. It is not as I don't find these arguments 'real', but that it is rarely debated out to the be the 'best' option to resolve the harms or framing of harms they have presented. I think these fail to capitalize on the benefits of either a critical or policy aff, but they have strategic value in theory. I think soft left aff's sweep non specific links or alts that don't access the impact. But that seems to be reflective of a skill issue on the negatives construction of the link debate more so than endorsement of middle ground strategies. Inversely, meeting on the bottom between poles makes a lot of sense to me and is under represented in negative strategies against arguments on either ideological end. I do think that debate is a util based game, and that winning the framing page thoroughly is the only way to get my ballot in these debates.

In the vein of critical affs I believe debate is a game. I find k affs interesting, strategic, engaging, and fun to think about. When the timer goes off it is still a game to me. I give my rfd, I talk to my debaters about what happened in the round, what we can learn from it, and I move on. Maybe I download some PDF's, cut responses, or pull backfiles if it is particularly compelling. It can be a good game with a code that can be modified round by round, but it is insulated to the 8 speeches. I think tying a personal endorsement to the ballot can be parasitic and result in a negative experience with the game. This can be debated and changed of course, but when I walk into the round I am under the assumption I am adjudicating a game with four players. The way to play that game is up to you. Some rules are negotiable. Some aren't. I think the negative is best serve disproving case in the 2nr when they are going for education/clash impacts. I find it unconvincing that a critical aff is 'unfair and impossible to debate', most of them are not very good. Most of them can be dismantled by reading the book or grad thesis their solvency card comes from. Invest the time do that once and it will change your relationship to the argument. Ballot can solve fairness. Reflecting on past RFD's I have given, to win the fairness impact you need to win that stasis is good and/or their overarching impact turn to fairness is wrong. Usually when I vote against fairness it is because the negative team has not articulated what that means. If your args on case in the 2nr are consequence focus good and pragmatism good, you need to prove why the aff doesn't access these framing arguments. Also why do you? Whats the internal link between consequences and fairness? Why is fairness something that is pragmatic? Why do games nessitate equal starting points? You get to chose where you jump off the battle bus. What is the impact I am evaluating the consequence of when you are going for fairness? Where are analogies and examples that demonstrate how it would materializes in or out of debate?

Where is the global south?

I enjoy reading cards. I enjoy cutting cards. That being said you do not need more than 5 cards to win a debate. If you send me a card doc and I did not hear those author names in the 2nr/2ar something has gone wrong in your construction of that card document. Technically conceded warrantless claims unrelated to the content of the debate do not earn ballots, but this does not mean an argument should not be answered because you think it's 'stupid'. If you cannot beat bad arguments you should not win.

Wether you chose to go for a strategy that centers around material action, epistemological framing, or theoretical illegitimacy, you need to resolve the arguments you are going for. The speech you give should be responsive to the speech before you, not just what you have written on your blocks.

I value technical debate, but I think the energy of a round is inescapable. That energy, moments on the flow, is something lost with eyes locked on the screen. Hundreds and hundreds of individual memories scribed onto long paper. Worlds. Moments. Captured. Even if I never look at them again. There is a reason I wrote it down and I think that is valuable. I'll believe anything.

Is it more truly more efficient to get your 27th condo subpoint out? Maybe it is. But I do not find that style of debate as convincing as taking up the opponent on their position on any level and having it out with them over the course of the round. Trying to win versus trying not to lose seperates the middling to higher teir of speaker points for me.

judge kick -- seems scared when people ask me to judge kick i think that it is an extension of conditionality.

multiplank counterplans -- each plank is conditional unless in a set. These probably also need solvency advocates if they are more than 'ban x' Also when it is 'ban x' arguments in the 2ac as to why banning x might be a bad idea are good and only require evidence in a reciprocal manner.

I remember the rounds I have judged, rooting for you all to get smarter, stronger, and faster when I am in the back of your rounds again !!

Molly Urfalian Notre Dame High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue February 27, 2024 at 1:12 AM PST

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

Notre Dame '23 (2A/1N for 4 years)

UC Berkeley '27 (2A/1N)

You can just call me Molly

Tech > Truth. Very few, if any, of my personal opinions will shape my RFDs. If you’ve won the argument to my understanding, I will vote for it.
Time your own speeches and prep
Judge instruction is super important to me, especially in rebuttals. I am not a mind reader and you are often less clear than you think.
I love CP + DA debates and ptx holds a special place in my heart
I am fairly expressive and do not hide displeasure or confusion well, so look at me
Yes I have always been a 2A, I don’t feel as if this

Topicality

I do not extensively research or keep up highschool topics especially what is and is not topical, so I recommend against throwing out a lot of acronyms or assuming my knowledge
case lists are the most effective way for me to compare visions of the topic
competing interps > reasonability
smaller topics are probably better for innovation

Disads

Any debate with a disad I love to hear
I love ptx disads but I also know a truly garbage one when I see it
turns case and impact calc are your best friends and should start early (on both sides)

Counterplans

Agent CPs are my favorite
I am extremely neutral on process CPs, but not debated well I lean aff on most perms
I dislike super contrived adv cps, but logical ones that exploit poor aff writing are good. Be clear about the planks that you kick.
Do impact calc between the solvency deficit and disadvantage, otherwise you are letting me decide
I default to judge kick

Kritiks

If you go for Ks consistently, I am not the best judge for you. I don't dislike them, I simply never went for them so I may not default in your favor. If you debate well and don’t leave it up to me you should have no problem.
I prefer links to the plan, at least the topic. Does not have to be cards but lines should be taken from the 1AC
Don't read a super long overview, it just sounds like words to me. Do the work on the line by line.
Floating PIKs are probably bad

K Affs

If you read a K aff, I am not the best judge for you, however, I am also not the worst. You will have to do more work explaining your disads to FW than you would in front of K judges. What is intuitive/obvious to you might not be for me.
Consistency of explanation of aff offense is SO helpful. Super shifty K affs make me upset and more importantly, I am much less likely to grant you weight of 2AR offense if it was not rooted in an explanation started in the 1AR.
If you read a high theory K aff I am less likely to vote for you compared to an indentity aff. I understand them less and have the honest pre-disposition of thinking your offense is kinda dumb
I really need your aff to do something. Just explain to me what you solve, if you don't solve anything this round will be hard for you

Neg v K Affs

Presumption is great. I find it challenging to 0 an aff on a sentence or 2 of a 2NR (this is also true of policy affs). You are much more likely to win a presumption debate in front of me if the 2NR takes the extra 15 seconds to actually engage with the 1AR answers.
Fairness is an impact. 2NR can be clash or fairness, whatever you chose is fine with me.
TVAs and SSD are great. I find that 2Ns expect me to fill in some of the reasons as to why these would solve the aff intuitively. I am unwilling to do this work for you.
I was a 1N and took the Cap K or Cap good in every 1NR I ever gave. If you feel inclined to put me in a K v K debate, I am the most familiar with this one, but also don’t. I think neg team's sitting on a usually poorly answered K affs don't get perms debate is a winning debate

Soft Left Affs

The framing page will be an uphill battle for you. I like util.
I find it hard to vote for these affs when the 2NR is a CP and a DA.

Theory

Slow down half a step, I’m a moderate speed typer
I think condo is fine. If the negative has done something actually abusive (my personal brightline is around 5-6 condo and/or a very long adv cp) explain the in round abuse. Otherwise go for it as you please.
Dispo probably does not solve anything other than research, if you want to change my mind then explain it
International fiat and changing the whole world fiat is bad. This includes K alt stuff.
Perm theory debates are cool. Limited Intrinsicness good/bad are the theory debates I had the most and judge the most. I am very neutral on the question. I find often that neg teams win on a deficit to the intrinsic perm than the theory debate.

Speaks

If you yell and are mean I will nuke your speaks. You are allowed to be loud and passionate, but there is a level of respect that needs to be maintained for your opponents at all times.
On a happier note I like snarky remarks and sassy answers. Just be funny with it
If the top of the final rebuttal is why I should vote for you and has judge instruction you're doing yourself a favor

Re-highlighting

Have the theory debate over whether it can be inserted or not, I will evaluate the debate based on the outcome
If you choose not to have the theory debate I will default to letting ev be re-inserted. I changed my position on this issue because I want more debaters to do it, and forcing teams to read re-highlights seems to discourage quality ev idicts
However, I will not do the debating for you, don’t insert re-highlighting without explaining or implicating it in the debate. So only insert the amount of evidence you can reasonably explain

Caitlin Walrath Rowland Hall 4 rounds

Last changed on Sun September 22, 2024 at 6:32 AM EST

Debate History:

Juan Diego Catholic: 2011-2014 (1N/2A and 1A/2N)

Rowland Hall-St. Marks: 2014-2015 (1A/2N)

University of Michigan: 2015-2019 (1A/2N)

University of Kentucky: 2019-2020 (Assistant Coach)

Wake Forest University: 2020-2024 (Assistant Coach)

University of Utah: Present (Poetry, NFA-LD Lead Coach || Parli (NPDA/IPDA) Assistant Coach)

*Please put me on the email chain: caitlinp96@gmail.com - NO POCKETBOXES OR WHATEVER PLEASE AND THANK YOU*

TL;DR: You do you, and I'll flow and judge accordingly. Make smart arguments, be yourself, and have fun. Ask questions if you have them post-round / time permits. I would rather you yell at me (with some degree of respect) and give me the chance to explain why you lost so that you can internalize it rather than you walk away pissed/upset without resolution. An argument = claim + warrant. You may not insert rehighlighted evidence into the record - you have to read it, debate is a communicative activity.

General thoughts: I enjoy debate immensely and I hope to foster that same enjoyment in every debate I judge. With that being said, you should debate how you like to debate and I’ll judge fairly. I will immediately drop a team and give zero speaks if you make this space hostile by making offensive remarks or arguments that make it unsafe for others in the round (to be judged at my discretion). Clipping accusations must have audio or some form of proof. Debaters do not necessarily have to stake the round on an ethics violation. I also believe that debaters need to start listening to each other's arguments more, not just flowing mindlessly - so many debates lose potential nuance and clash because debaters just talk past each other with vague references to the other team's arguments. I can't/won't vote on an argument about something that happened outside the debate. I have no way of falsifying any of this and it's not my role as a judge. This doesn't apply to new affs bad if both teams agree that the aff is new, but if it's a question of misdisclosure, I really wouldn't know what to do (stolen from DML and Goldschlag). *NOTE - if you use sexually explicit language or engage in sexually explicit performances in high school debates, you should strike me. If you think that what you're saying in the debate would not be acceptable to an administrator at a school to hear was said by a high school student to an adult, you should strike me. (stolen from Val)

General K thoughts:

- AT: Do you judge these debates/know what is happening? Yes, its basically all I judge anymore (mostly clash of civs)

- AT: Since you are familiar with our args, do we not have to do any explanation specific to the aff/neg args? No, you obviously need to explain things

- AT: Is it cool if I just read Michigan KM speeches I flowed off youtube? If you are reading typed out copies of someone else's speech, I'm going to want to vote against you and will probably be very grumpy. Debate is a chance for you to show off your skill and talent, not just copy someone's speech you once saw on youtube.

K (Negative) – enjoyable if done well. Make sure the links are specific to the case and cause an impact. Make sure that the alt does something to resolve those impacts and links as well as some aff offense OR have a framework that phases out aff offense and resolves yours. Assume I know nothing about your literature base. Try not to have longer than a 2-minute overview

K (Affirmative) / Framework – probably should have some relation to the resolution otherwise it's easy to be persuaded that by the interp that you need to talk about the resolution. Probably should take some sort of action to resolve whatever the aff is criticizing. I think FW debates are important to have because they force you to question why this space has value and/or what needs to change in said space. Negative teams should prove why the aff destroys fairness and why that is bad. Affirmative teams should have a robust reason why their aff is necessary to resolve certain impacts and why framework is bad. Both teams need a vision of what debate looks like if I sign my ballot aff or neg and why that vision is better than the other side’s. Fairness is an impact and is easily the one I'm most persuaded by, particularly if couched in terms of it being the only impact any individual ballot can solve AND being a question of simply who's model is most debatable (think competing interps).

T is distinct from Framework in these debates in so far as I believe that:

- T is a question of form, not content -- it is fundamentally content neutral because there can be any number of justifications beyond simply just the material consequences of hypothetical enactment for any number of topical affs

- Framework is more a question of why this particular resolution is educationally important to talk about and why the USfg is the essential actor for taking action over these questions

Case – Please, please, please debate the case. I don’t care if you are a K team or a policy team, the case is so important to debate. Most affs are terribly written and you could probably make most advantages have almost zero risk if you spent 15 minutes before round going through aff evidence. Zero risk exists.

CPs – Sure. Negative teams need to prove competition and why they are net beneficial to the aff. Affirmative needs to impact out solvency deficits and/or explain why the perm avoids the net benefit. Affs also must win some form of offense to outweigh a DA (solvency deficits, theory, impact turn to an internal nb/plank of the cp) otherwise I could be persuaded that the risk of neg offense outweighs a risk a da links to the cp, the perm solvency, etc.

DAs – Also love them. Negative teams should tell me the story of the DA through the block and the 2nr. Affirmative teams need to point out logical flaws in the DA and why the aff is a better option. Zero risk exists.

Politics – probably silly, but I’ll vote on it. I could vote on intrinsicness as terminal defense if debated well.

Topicality – You need a counter-interp to win reasonabilty on the aff. I default to competing interpretations if there is no other metric for evaluation.

Theory – the neg has been getting away with murder recently and its incredibly frustrating. Brief thoughts on specific args below:

- cps with a bunch of planks to fiat out of every possible solvency deficit with no solvency advocate = super bad

- 3+ condo with a bunch of conditional planks = bad

- cps that fiat things such as: "Pence and Trump resign peacefully after [x] date to avoid the link to the politics da", "Trump deletes all social media and never says anything bad about the action of the plan ever", "Trump/executive office/other actor decides never to backlash against the plan or attempt to circumvent it" = vomit emoji

- commissions cps = still cheating, but less bad than all the things above

- delay cps = boo

- consult cps = boo (idk if these exist on the immigration topic, but w/e)

- going for theory when you read a new aff = nah fam (with some exceptions)

- 2nr cps (yes this happened recently) = boo

- going for condo when they read 2 or less without conditional planks = boo

- perf con is a reason you get to sever your reps for any perm

- theory probably does not outweigh T unless impacted very early, clearly, and in-depth

Bonus – Speaker Point Outline – I’ll try to follow this very closely (TOC is probably the exception because y'all should be speaking in the 28.5+ category):

(Note: I think this scale reflects general thoughts that are described in more detail in this: http://collegedebateratings.weebly.com/points-scale.html - Thanks Regnier)

29.3 < (greater than 29.3) - Did almost everything I could ask for

29-29.3 – Very, very good

28.8 – 29 – Very good, still makes minor mistakes

28.5 – 28.7 – Pretty good speaker, very clear, probably needs some argument execution changes

28.3 – 28.5 – Good speaker, has some easily identifiable problems

28 – 28.3 – Average varsity policy debater

27-27.9 – Below average

27 > (less than 27) - You did something that was offensive / You didn’t make arguments.

Nathan Wang Peninsula High School 5 rounds

Andrew Wen Damien-St. Lucy's 3 rounds

Scott Wheeler Peninsula High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 9:03 AM PST

Overall:
1. Offense-defense, but can be persuaded by reasonability in theory debates. I don't believe in "zero risk" or "terminal defense" and don't vote on presumption.

2. Substantive questions are resolved probabilistically--only theoretical questions (e.g. is the perm severance, does the aff meet the interp) are resolved "yes/no," and will be done so with some unease, forced upon me by the logic of debate.

3. Dropped arguments are "true," but this just means the warrants for them are true. Their implication can still be contested. The exception to this is when an argument and its implication are explicitly conceded by the other team for strategic reasons (like when kicking out of a disad). Then both are "true."

Counterplans:
1. Conditionality bad is an uphill battle. I think it's good, and will be more convinced by the negative's arguments. I also don't think the number of advocacies really matters. Unless it was completely dropped, the winning 2AR on condo in front of me is one that explains why the way the negative's arguments were run together limited the ability of the aff to have offense on any sheet of paper.

2. I think of myself as aff-leaning in a lot of counterplan theory debates, but usually find myself giving the neg the counterplan anyway, generally because the aff fails to make the true arguments of why it was bad.

Disads:
1. I don't think I evaluate these differently than anyone else, really. Perhaps the one exception is that I don't believe that the affirmative needs to "win" uniqueness for a link turn to be offense. If uniqueness really shielded a link turn that much, it would also overwhelm the link. In general, I probably give more weight to the link and less weight to uniqueness.

2. On politics, I will probably ignore "intrinsicness" or "fiat solves the link" arguments, unless badly mishandled (like dropped through two speeches). Note: this doesn't apply to riders or horsetrading or other disads that assume voting aff means voting for something beyond the aff plan. Then it's winnable.

Kritiks:
1. I like kritiks, provided two things are true: 1--there is a link. 2--the thesis of the K indicts the truth of the aff. If the K relies on framework to make the aff irrelevant, I start to like it a lot less (role of the ballot = roll of the eyes). I'm similarly annoyed by aff framework arguments against the K. The K itself answers any argument for why policymaking is all that matters (provided there's a link). I feel negative teams should explain why the affirmative advantages rest upon the assumptions they critique, and that the aff should defend those assumptions.

2. I think I'm less technical than some judges in evaluating K debates. Something another judge might care about, like dropping "fiat is illusory," probably matters less to me (fiat is illusory specifically matters 0%). I also won't be as technical in evaluating theory on the perm as I would be in a counterplan debate (e.g. perm do both isn't severance just because the alt said "rejection" somewhere--the perm still includes the aff). The perm debate for me is really just the link turn debate. Generally, unless the aff impact turns the K, the link debate is everything.

3. If it's a critique of "fiat" and not the aff, read something else. If it's not clear from #1, I'm looking at the link first. Please--link work not framework. K debating is case debating.

Nontraditional affirmatives:

Versus T:

1. I'm *slightly* better for the aff now that aff teams are generally impact-turning the neg's model of debate. I almost always voted neg when they instead went for talking about their aff is important and thought their counter-interp somehow solved anything. Of course, there's now only like 3-4 schools that take me and don't read a plan. So I'm spared the debates where it's done particularly poorly.

2. A lot of things can be impacts to T, but fairness is probably best.

3. It would be nice if people read K affs with plans more, but I guess there's always LD. Honestly debating politics and util isn't that hard--bad disads are easier to criticize than fairness and truth.

Versus the K:
1. If it's a team's generic K against K teams, the aff is in pretty great shape here unless they forget to perm. I've yet to see a K aff that wasn't also a critique of cap, etc. If it's an on-point critique of the aff, then that's a beautiful thing only made beautiful because it's so rare. If the neg concedes everything the aff says and argues their methodology is better and no perms, they can probably predict how that's going to go. If the aff doesn't get a perm, there's no reason the neg would have to have a link.

Topicality versus plan affs:
1. I used to enjoy these debates. It seems like I'm voting on T less often than I used to, but I also feel like I'm seeing T debated well less often. I enjoy it when the 2NC takes T and it's well-developed and it feels like a solid option out of the block. What I enjoy less is when it isn't but the 2NR goes for it as a hail mary and the whole debate occurs in the last two speeches.

2. Teams overestimate the importance of "reasonability." Winning reasonability shifts the burden to the negative--it doesn't mean that any risk of defense on means the T sheet of paper is thrown away. It generally only changes who wins in a debate where the aff's counter-interp solves for most of the neg offense but doesn't have good offense against the neg's interp. The reasonability debate does seem slightly more important on CJR given that the neg's interp often doesn't solve for much. But the aff is still better off developing offense in the 1AR.

LD section:
1. I've been judging LD less, but I still have LD students, so my familarity with the topic will be greater than what is reflected in my judging history.

2. Everything in the policy section applies. This includes the part about substantive arguments being resolved probablistically, my dislike of relying on framework to preclude arguments, and not voting on defense or presumption. If this radically affects your ability to read the arguments you like to read, you know what to do.

3. If I haven't judged you or your debaters in a while, I think I vote on theory less often than I did say three years ago (and I might have already been on that side of the spectrum by LD standards, but I'm not sure). I've still never voted on an RVI so that hasn't changed.

4. The 1AR can skip the part of the speech where they "extend offense" and just start with the actual 1AR.

Max Wiessner Damien-St. Lucy's 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu October 17, 2024 at 11:16 AM PST

Max Wiessner (they/them/elle)

Put me on the email chain! imaxx.jc@gmail.com

email chain >>>>> speech drop

I flow on paper (adjust your speed accordingly, allow for pen/flow time, and prioritize clarity over speed).

I'll flow what I hear and refer to the doc for evidence.

*****

0 tolerance policy for in-round antiblackness, queerphobia, racism, misogyny, etc.

I have and will continue to intervene here when I feel it is necessary.

*****

About me:

5th-year policy debater at CSUF, started as a college novice (also did IEs). I've coached BP, PF, LD, and policy. Currently coaching circuit & trad LD, so my topic knowledge is usually better in these debates.

Debate is about competing theorizations of the world, which means all debates are performances, and you are responsible for what you do/create in this round/space.
More than 5 off creates shallow debates & becomes a game of technical concessions that are frustrating to evaluate. clash/vertical spread >>>>>>

coaches and friends who influence how I view debate: DSRB, LaToya Green, Cat Smith, Kwudjwa Osei, Travis Cochran, Beau Larsen, Tay Brough, Jay-Z Flores, Curtis Ortega

"Education is elevation" -George Lee

Some thoughts on specifics:

ROB/ROJ! Are we having a debate about debate? survival? education? models of debate? what does my ballot do/signal/endorse/affirm? make that clear

Policy v K: I judge a lot of clash debates so these are probably the rounds where I give the most in-depth feedback. I generally think more time should be spent on FW, how and why should I (not) evaluate the AFF?

The link debate- Contextualized/specific links are best (pls), link analysis is key, and don't fall behind on the perm debate. (Yes, severance is bad on a theory level and an ethics level, but you have to impact it out)
The alt debate- If ur going for the alt, pls spend time explaining & contextualizing the alt in the block! help me be able to visualize what I'm voting for before the 2NR

K v K: I love a method v method debate, but clarity is key to keep the debate from becoming messy or difficult to evaluate (especially in LD bc time constraints) so please focus on creating an organized story.

I'm well-read in many different areas of critical theory, but I still wanna know how those theories apply to this debate and this AFF (how did u interpret the lit?)
I will never undermine your ability to articulate theory to me. ESPECIALLY if it's a creative/fun/unique AFF or K, I'm here for it. (also refer to note above about examples of the alt/method)

FW v K AFFs: I’m pretty split on these debates. I think in-round impacts and performances matter just as much as the legitimacy ppl tend to give to fiated plan texts bc debate is ultimately a performance, and education is probably the only material thing that spills out of debate.

The AFF needs to explain the relationship the aff has to negation and adjudication, that's what defines this activity (unless you present a counter model, which I am also here for!)
I tend to prefer the counter-interp route (it's easier for me to compare models) but I'm not unwilling to vote for the impact turn
Read a TVA -- Answer the TVA

I have a pretty low bar for what I consider "topical," so arguments like (procedural) fairness aren't an auto-voter for me. I love creative counter-interps of the res, but I think the AFF still has to win why their approach to the topic is good on a solvency AND educational level (that means clash and education are persuasive args to me). You need to prove why clash generated by the content of your stasis point is good/important/necessary

If I’m judging PF:

I think the best way to adapt to me in the back as a LD/Policy guy is clear signposting and emphasizing your citations bc the evidence standards are so different between these events

also… final focus is so short, it should focus on judge instruction, world-to-world comparison, and impact calc

Carolyn Wu San Marino High School 4 rounds

Kelly Ye College Prep 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue November 12, 2024 at 2:54 AM PST

Lowell '20 || UC Berkeley '24 || Assistant Coach @ College Prep || she/her/hers

Please add both kelly@college-prep.org and cpsspeechdocs@gmail.com to the chain.

Please format the chain subject like this: Tournament Name - Round # - Aff Team Code [Aff] vs Neg Team Code. Please make sure the chain is set up before the start time.

Background

I debated for four years at Lowell High School. I’ve been a 2A for most of my years (2Ned as a side gig my junior year). Qualified to the TOC & placed 7th at NSDA reading arguments on both sides of the spectrum. I'd say my comfort for judging rounds is Policy vs. Policy ~ Policy vs. K ~ Clash Rounds >>> K vs. K.

I learned everything I know about debate from Debnil Sur, and I think about debate in the same way as this guy.He's probably the person I talk to the most when it comes to strategies and execution, it would be fair to say that if you like the way that he judges then I am also a good judge for you.

General Things

I'll vote on anything.I think there is certainly a lot of value in ideological flexibility.

Tech >>>>>>>>> truth: I'd rather adapt to your strategies than have you adapt to what you think my preferences are. The below are simply guidelines & ways to improve speaks via things I like seeing rather than ideological stances on arguments.

Looooove judge instruction - if I hear a ballot being written in the 2NR/2AR, I will basically just go along with it and verify if what you are saying is correct. The closer my decision is to words you have said in the 2NR/2AR, the higher your speaker points will be.

I will not use my ballot to resolve things that happened outside the round. Take it to tab or trusted adult coaches. Disclosure is an exception.

2024-2025 Round Stats:

Policy vs. Policy (7-15): 32% aff over 22 rounds, 25% aff in a theory/T debate over 4 rounds

Policy vs. K (2-2): 50% aff over 4 rounds

Clash (1-2): 66% neg over 3 rounds

Sat 0 times of 9 elim rounds

2023-2024 Round Stats:

Policy vs. Policy (11-18): 37.93% aff over 29 rounds, 22.22% aff in a theory debate over 9 rounds

Policy vs. K (5-2): 71.43% aff over 7 rounds

Clash (2-3): 40% aff over 5 rounds

K v K (1-0): 100% aff over 1 round

Sat once out of 12 elim rounds

Disads

Not much to say here - think these debates are pretty straight forward. I start evaluation at the impact level to determine link threshold & risk of the disad. My preference for evaluation is if there is explicit ballot writing + evidence indicts + resolution done by yourself in the 2NR/2AR, I would love not to open the card document and make a more interventionist judgement.

CPs

Default to judge kick. If the affirmative team has a problem with me doing this, that words "condo bad" should have been in the 2AC and explanation for no judge kick warranted out in the 1AR/2AR.

The proliferation of 1NCs with like 10 process counterplans has been kind of wild, and probably explains my disproportionately neg leaning ballot record. Process/agent/consult CPs are kind of cheating but in the words of the wise Tristan Bato, "most violations are reasons to justify a permutation or call solvency into question and not as a voter."

I think I tend to err neg on questions of conditionality & perf con but probably aff on counterplans that garner competition off of the word “should”. Obviously this is a debate to be had but also I’m also sympathetic to a well constructed net benefit with solid evidence.

Framework is sosososo important in these debates. I don’t think I really lean either side on this question but I don’t think the neg needs to win the alt if they win framework + links based on the representational strategy of the 1AC.

Nuanced link walls based on the plan/reps + pulling evidence from their ev >>>> links based on FIATed state action and generic cards about your theory.

Bad for post-modernism, simply because I've never read them + rarely debated them in high school. If you have me in the back you need to do a LOT of explanation.

Planless Affs/Framework

Generally, I don’t think people do enough work comparing/explaining their competing models of debate and its benefits other than “they exclude critical discussions!!!!”

For the aff: Tying your criticism to the topic >>>>>>>> saying anything in the 1AC. I’ll probably be a lot more sympathetic to the neg if I just have no clue what the method/praxis of the 1AC is in relation to the topic. I think the value of planless affs come from having a defensible method that can be contested, which is why I’m not a huge fan of advocacies not tied to the topic. Open to perms in method debates, but is something that can be debated. I prefer nuanced perm explanations rather than just “it’s not mutually exclusive”.

For the neg: I don’t really buy procedural fairness - I think to win this standard you would have to win pretty substantial defense to the aff’s standards & disprove the possibility of debate having an effect on subjectivity. I don't think I'd never vote on fairness, but I think the way that most debaters extend it just sound whiney and don't give me a reason to prefer it over everything else. Impacts like agonism, legal skills, deliberation, etc are infinitely more convincing to me. Absent a procedural question of framework, I am just evaluating whether or not I think the advocacy is a good idea, not that I think the reading of it in one round has to change the state of debate/the world.

Topicality / Theory

I default to competing interps. Explanations of your models/differences between your interps + caselists >>>>> “they explode limits” in 10 different places. Please please please please do impact comparison.

Topic education, clash, and in-depth research are more convincing to me than generic fairness impacts.

Theory debates are usually the most difficult for me to resolve, and probably the most interventionist I would have to be in an RFD. Very explicit judge instruction and ballot writing is needed to avoid such intervention.

Ethics Violations/Procedurals

I don't flow off speech docs, but I try to follow along when you're reading evidence to ensure you're not clipping. If I catch you clipping, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't know what you're doing. I will give you a warning, but drop you if it happens again. If the other team catches you and wants to stake the round on an ethics challenge, I doubt you're winning that one.

Questions of norms ≠ ethics violations. If you believe the ballot should resolve a question of norms (disclosure, open sourcing, etc), then I will evaluate it like a regular procedural. If you believe it's an ethics violation (intentionally modifying evidence, clipping, etc), then the round stops immediately. Loser of the ethics challenge receives an auto loss and 20s.

Evidence ethics can be really iffy to resolve. If you want to stake the round on an evidence distortion, you must prove: that the piece of evidence was cut by the other team (or someone affiliated with their school) AND there was clear and malicious intent to alter its meaning. If your problem isn't surrounding distortion but rather mistagging/misinterpreting the evidence, it can be solved via a rehighlighting.

Online Debate

Please don't start until you see my camera on!

If you're not wearing headphones with a microphone attached, it is REALLY hard to hear you when you turn away from your laptop. Please refrain from doing this.

I would also love if you slowed down a tiny tiny tiny tiny bit on your analytics. I will clear you at most 3 times, but I can't help it if I miss what you're saying on my flow ;(.

Lay Debate / GGSA
I actually really appreciate these rounds. I think at the higher levels, debaters tend to forget that debate is a communicative activity at its core, and rely on the judge's technical knowledge to get out of impacting out arguments themselves. If we are in a lay setting and you'd rather not have a fast round when I'm in the back, I'll be all for that. There is such a benefit in adapting to slower audiences and over-explaining implications of all parts of the debate -- it builds better technical understanding of the activity! I'll probably still evaluate the round similar to how I would a regular round, but I think the experience of you forcing yourself to over-explain each part of the flow to me is greatly beneficial.

Public Forum

I've never debated in PF, but I have judged a handful of rounds now. I will evaluate very similarly to how I evaluate policy rounds.

I despise the practice of sending snippets of evidence one at a time. I think it's a humongous waste of time and honestly would prefer (1) the email chain be started BEFORE the round and (2) all of the evidence you read in your speech sent at once. Someone was confused about this portion of my paradigm -- basically, instead of asking for "Can I get [A] card on [B] argument, [C] card on [D] arg, etc...", I think it would be faster if the team that just spoke sent all of their evidence in one doc. This is especially true if the tournament is double-flighted.

If you want me to read evidence after the round, please make sure you flag is very clearly.

I've been in theory/k rounds and I try to evaluate very close to policy. I'm not really a huge fan of k's in public forum -- I don't think there is enough speech time for you to develop such complex arguments out well. I also don't think it makes a lot of sense given the public forum structure (i.e. going for an advocacy when it's not a resolution that is set up to handle advocacies). I think there's so much value in engaging with critical literature, please consider doing another event that is set up better for it if you're really interested in the material. However, I'm still willing to vote on anything, as long as you establish a role of the ballot + frame why I'm voting.

If you delay the round to pre-flow when it's double-flighted, I will be very upset. You should know your case well enough for it to not be necessary, or do it on your own time.

Be nice & have fun.

Steven Yu Peninsula High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 21, 2024 at 5:12 AM PST

Coach for Peninsula

Plz put me on the email chain at Stevenyu0923@gmail.com

Finance/econ major, do with that what you will.

Haven't debated in a few months, slightly out of touch with topics and speed.

Policy Debate

How I frame the debate

When going for the K, framework is defense. You need a link to win with framework.
Any argument goes. There is no "ethical" limitation on which argument is appropriate or not.

Here few principles on getting my ballot:

Simplicity is good. The more complex an argument is, the more it deserves explanations. So, for the K teams with good link work, please cut out the 10 syllable poetic BS and speak normal English.

Every argument needs a claim, warrant, impact. If it misses one, opponent gets new answers or won't vote on it.

You should debate as if I have 0 understanding of the topic. So, explain acronyms and such which especially matters for intricate process CP debates or T debates.

Speaks

Hiding theory is cowardice. You can and might win but speaks = nuked. The act of hiding theory (reading theory really fast but not in the doc especially in the block) makes you guilty, even if they spot you and answer it. This is my way of trying to deter the practice.

For every min of prep you don't use I will give 0.1 of extra speaks up to a cap of 29.5.

Predispositions:

Fairness is likely an impact. Fairness paradox is likely true.

Condo is good.

Process CPs are bad but likely hard to win absent a good answer to arbitrariness.

Reasonability is likely bad.

Inserting rehighlightings is NOT ok, but the other team needs to say that as a theory arg.

Predictability > debatability

Debates and characterizations of ev > ev quality itself

Timeframe matters, determines directionality of turns case. Turns case is only as probable as the rest of the DA e.g. if DA is 1% and turns case is dropped, it net values to 1% of turns case. So the aff weighs 99% of the aff vs 1% of the DA and only that 1% of the DA turns case.

PIKs are probably bad but likely theoretically justifiable against a K aff.

When your opponents concede an argument, that implies said argument is true. However, the implications and applicability of said argument can still be debated e.g. concede the plan causes more investments (uncontestable), the extent those investments are impactful or whether that causes inflation or not can still be debated.

Plan text in a vacuum is stupid.

Experience: (2NRs senior year)

Adv CPs + impact turns are my favorite 2NRs in high school. (more than 30%)

Adv CPs + topic generic DA (30%)

Process CP (10%)

Ks/K affs

Fighting against fairness on an impact/impact turn level seems to be an uphill battle. Instead, mitigating fairness with logical internal link indicts or how the aff's FW or how the T interp solves fairness is a much better take. For that exact reason, I tend to think I'm actually better for the K team in these situations. Clash is too defensive and I don't recommend it.

Hiding Borjk in 2NC FW = eye roll.

K v T FW. Subjectivity formation here is important. If voting aff can't change minds, I intuitively believe no matter what impact turns, microaggressions, or whatever the neg has committed doesn't matter. For the K team, I believe an impact turn to legal precision/predictability here (with the ontology args to impact turn "legal credibility" or "academic expertise about the state" are best). I also believe impact turns, PIKs, and counter advocacies are creative ways to negate K affs.
Policy aff v K. Middle ground is likely the best interp. Whoever debates with that is likely going to win framework. FW Ks are strategic, but I will respect you more if you debate middle ground as a K team and actually engage substance of case.

You reserve the right to go for weird args and absurd theory, I reserve the right to not vote on it.

Granted, I'll try my best to understand, but I have 0 familiarity with phil or skep.

I might have a higher threshold of what counts as a complete argument in contrast to usual LD judges. You're better off explaining a particular arg intricately instead of proliferating many (in rebuttals).

Framing is never yes/no. Framing contentions are won probabilistically, meaning the extent you win framing is used in conjunction to DA mitigation to evaluate the debate.

For LD, each minute of prep not used is +0.2 speaks up to29.5.

Lay debate

Please go fast. I dislike lay debate.

Middleschool

Clarity > speed

Flow

Don't steal prep

Iris Zhang The Quarry Lane School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sun November 10, 2024 at 2:14 AM PST

QLS 24 (2A/2N)

USC 28 (2A)

Email Address (add both on chain plz):zleyi0121@gmail.com ; debate@student.quarrylane.org

I learned everything I know about debate from Chris Thiele - his paradigm is 1000x more detailed than mine will be.

24-25 Updates: I have no idea what this year's high school topic looks like - plz explain the case clear : )

Top Level (TLDR):

- Tech > Truth

- OpenSource is good. Paraphrase is bad

- Speech Doc is mandated. Please set up an email chain before the round starts and send all your cards and evidence for each speech.

- Don't steal prep and time your own speech/prep

-English is my second language (people who know me probably know I still struggle with it sometimes. ), but Speed is okay with me (ie, normal high school/college spreading, so don't read dumb theory arg against your opponent, pls.)Quality>Quantity.

- I have no offense with most arguments. You may say, "human extinction is good" or "xx country is evil." I am cool with animal and alien impact as well. At least you should follow the structure of "author+claim+warrants+data+impact."

- Usually would judge kick but prefer getting instruction

- Not a huge fans for overview. Just need one sentence in the top of the 2nr/2ar instructed me how I should write my ballot and why you win the debate.

- (MS/Novice/Local rounds)

1. I don't believe in the stock issue. Sorry. How people debate in recent TOC/NDT is the only pattern of debate I learned.

2. Collapsing is important: I found many teams choose to go for all the things they have at the beginning to the end for both aff and neg, but none of the flow is fully developed. pls don't do that. Extend more than 2 offs in the 2NR is a signal of losing my ballot.

3. Do full extension for the argument each speech plsplsplspls. eg. Don't extend the full DA with just one sentence with no link chain at all

For policy specific:

Topicality

- Prefer competing interpretations. Offense/Defense + weighing is better than just going for reasonability.

- More evidence + card comparison determine the truth usually

- In-round abuse is good, but you don't need it to win my ballot.

Theory

- Hidden Aspec = "L " unless u carded in the 1NC.

- I will vote on theory. However, if you are going to run really weird theories, you should consider either you have amazing standards and warranting or the other team screwed up.

- I prefer to be more offensive in theory. The same goes for topicality. Competing for an interp is definitely stronger than saying we meet.

- Condo: real theory arg, but I am really bad at going for it as a debater. I think the condo is a winning strategy for me only when the neg team drops (auto win or T > Condo?) or the neg off case span is extremely abusive. You can still extend condo and go for it, but my threshold for neg to get away with it in 2NR would be low.

- For independent theory on off case (eg. fifty state fiat and process cp bad), "reject the arg not the team" is sufficient for me if the neg team is not going for it.

Framework

- Powerful tool if you utilize it well. (Fun facts: I had ran policy aff with 2min case + 6min FW in high school)

- If you want to win the framework, you should contetualize with your opponents' counter fw and explain why your fw is less arbitary and produce better education, policymaking, etc for debate.

- Policy Aff Vs K: There's a really high threshold for me to agree not to weigh the aff, but if the aff team drops your FW, then nvm. (Truth: I hate FW. Every 2N told me I couldn't weigh anything.)

- FW Vs K Aff: Naturally, I prefer to go for Clash and TVA. Fairness can be an impact but less for me. History already show us K Aff won't completely disappear by reading more FW. Question more down to why the alternative model of debate is more important than the k. The only two true internal links for me on the neg are ground and limit. (Truth: everyone read FW against me I hate FW, but still go for it b/c I hate k v k more)

Case

- I think it's really hard for neg to know more about the case than aff does. If neg has an amazing case neg, I will reward the team.

- Go in-depth into the argument. Card comparisons are always effective. Weighing should not be later than 1AR.

- It would never be wrong to go for a DA. Go hard on weighing + turn case!!

- Follow basic offense + defense pattern

- I feel like DA is the only section that is truth > tech for me. The evidence is the most essential part. The more recent cards plus good warrants always change the uniqueness and control the link.

- I hate random cheating cp, especially when there are more than 6 offs. However, go for it when you need to win. (Truth: I also run these cps myself as 2N, but I still hate them when I need to answer them)

- Perm: prefer"perm to do both," "perm to do cp," and "perm to do the plan and part of the cp." (edit: if the plan is a process or devolution cp, i may buy intrinsic perm if u go well on theory)

- Prefer more plan based link. I am more willing to vote on link turn case strat + alt solvency than only fw.

- Going for alt needs to prove to me how the alt solves the k and the case better compared to the plan. Of course, you don't need an alt to win the debate. I will treat the K like a philosophical DA if you don't go for alt; then weighing and framework is important.

- FW prefer weigh the aff against the alt. If your A strat is win the fiat K and "you link you lost," I am probably not the best judge for you. I still vote for these empirically, but lwky fw debate is just boring. You can still got for it if that's the only thing you prepped, but I don't want neg end up cherry picking the drop instead I need big picture clear DA that has been explained clear and warranted throughout the round that I can lay my ballot on.

- Perm is generally just served for checking uncompetitive alternatives.

- Ethics violation/Call out: If someone's discourse/behaviors has been called out as an ethical issue, I think an apology should always come first. If the situation falls into a deadlock, I would prefer to stop the round and call the tab instead of treating it as a link.

KAffs

- I debated K aff throughout my junior year and first semester in college, so I think I am somewhat familiar with it. I think K aff is pretty interesting, even though most of the time, it will end up collapsing on t-usfg. Statistically, 90% of the time, I am answering the framework, so I will still vote on it if you run it well. On neg, I usually run T against K aff, but you are free to run anything else.

- Still Policy > K for me. Don't blame me if I don't understand your K trick

LD:

- I have no experience with LD debate or topic, so I will judge based on policy standards c/a. This means I will still try my best to understand your argument, but better no trick and philosophy.

Be respectful

Have fun!

Login to Tabroom

Damus Hollywood Invitational

2024 — Sherman Oaks, CA/US

Varsity Policy Paradigm List

Judges