policy debater for Damien High School, TOC'23, '24,

Please include both on the email chain: yoshidebate@gmail.comdamiendebate47@gmail.com

Preference: All emails should have “Tournament Name+ Round# + aff team code+ neg team code” in their title. please send the email before the round start, with the obvious exception that you are breaking a new aff.

I don't run prep time while you email the speech doc. Put the whole speech into one speech doc.

(Surprising, Tragic, and deeply saddening) Peninsula Invitational Update

I CANNOT BELIEVE I HAVE TO SAY THIS: no brain rot, you will get deducted speaker points for excessive brain rot usage.

TLDR

in an ideal world: I think debate is a game of persuasion and you should be able to present any argument and my only job as the judge is to flow and make a decision based on the technical argumentation. This means if you want wipeout, coercion DA, PoMo K, or manifest-your-inner-WGLF debate, go for it. That being said, not all arguments are created equal. Proper argument development will get my vote on any arguments. (1 sentence aspec is not a complete argument and will not get you the auto win even if dropped).

In reality: Remember that your judge is a human, not a robot. My threshold for No-BS is likely to increase as a tournament progresses given the inevitable exhaustion. If the debate gets messy my intuition is most likely to prefer to punish the worst mistake in round than to evaluate every single detail of strategic moves, i.e. the last rebuttal should always have judge instruction.

My face is expressive during debate but pls ignore it bc its not always what it looks, I might just be surprised, thinking, or reading your ev, frowning is not always a bad signal and vice versa nodding don't always mean I agree.

I have to admit that sometimes judging novice feel like "which team has the better block", which is not a very enjoyable kind of debate for me. Please at least show me you know the argument.

Lets be real here, people, we all try to evade clash. but dont be scared of clash, you need them to win debate.

Top-level

Tech >>> Truth

Condo is good but also the only CP theory I would vote on (longer rant at the very bottom)

dropped arg are tru, but need to be extended

The burden of Proof determines the Presumption

T

50-50 on reasonability vs competing interp

pls quantify ground and limit

T >> Condo

Read a real T on this topic pls -

Do you want a plan in 1AC ?

K args are fine on either side, at this point its just a technical debate.I am of the personal opinion that debate is fundamentally a game and fairness is intrinsically good, but not very ideologically attached to this "clash of civilizations" thing.

I enjoy K aff which is nuanced.

I strongly dislike arguments that call into the humanity/identity of the debater in the round and/or reference to what happened outside of the round, because I am not sure what I as a judge supposed to do with these kinds of arguments. Not that I would not vote on them, but I think you need to contextualize them to the debate or convince me it's not just an accusation of sorts.

Who wins the strongest IL to their impact + impact calc wins this kind of debate.

Not a philosopher yet, so pls explain theory.

CP

perm is just a test of competition

CP competition is based on mandates

Competition is not Topicality (e.g. T-should)

need instruction if you want me to judge kick

I will not vote on no-solvency-advocate theory as a voter, but willing to raise the threshold of solvency

DA

Zero risk exists, rarely happens

UQ determines the direction of the link

I like turns case analysis

Ev quality is very important - I am done with teams cutting "it passed the committee " as a ptx UQ

Offense, Offense, Offense, OFFENSE!!!!

K (on the neg)

love them, specificity and good clash will get me to vote on any kind of K, but inversely, I loathe block-botting and generic K strategy.

Ks I have went for my debate career: Cap, set col, security, psycho, Lee Edelman, antiblackness.

1AC rehighlights is good

Phil comp is bad (but will vote for it)

if you read 7+ OFF just to explode 13 minutes of K you are a coward, but who cares if you end up winning

Minor Pet Peeves

ask for marked doc when it's like just a few cards skipped/cut

"they drop it" with no explanation"

"they drop it" when they did not

"if you do not like it go do LD/PF "

"we will answer that if you make the argument", pls my brother in Christ just answer the damn question.

long ov that could have just been line by line,

marking multiple cards in the same speech

theory prolif in the 2AC

send out 7+ OFF and can't finish them so you skip

DO NOT DO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

Steal preps

Clipping

Insult your opponent

be anti-disclosure

Condo Rant

For all you 2As out there, I feel ya, it is terrifying when there are 13 OFF 1NC and 5 of them made it to the block. Hence I am not gonna outright worship infinite condo like a good 2N should. But if I am being honest, time skew is also the worst way to debate condo in front of me. You need to have a good interpretation that can solve for time skew, and I hardly see myself voting on that time skew is a uq impact of condo. Instead, if the 1AR is gonna carry the cross of condo, it needs to talk about research, depth vs breadth, strat skews, and why the model of condo is bad, etc. Yes, the 1AR needs to start the full condo debate, I will not give new 2AR spin on standards. Moreover, you need to connect all of standards to your Counter-interpretation, why does that solve? The neg always wins condo when they are like "Yeah, condo def sucks for the aff, but any other alternative only kills neg flex and arg testing since skews are inevitable" and the 2ar just keeps extending horror stories of condo without telling me why is dispo/limited-condo/their CI/ a good alternative that solve the unforgivable sins of condo.

Parent judge

please speak slowly

About Me - I am a junior policy debater at Damien. I will base my decision on solely the evidence, what is said in round, and facts provided within the round and will not let my personal beliefs persuade my decision.

Add Me - rmattera2026@damien-hs.edu

General Opinions - Spreading is good as long as you have clarity, but make sure to slow down on the tags and make sure to signpost. I don't mind aggressive cross-ex. I will not tolerate racist/sexist behavior towards another person. Please use a word doc (google docs are ok but preferably word). Tech over truth. In my eyes, a dropped arg is true. I won't distort rebuttal speeches to get to the coolest/cleverest ballot. The RFD will focus purely on what words are said in your speeches.

Topicality - I like T a lot and I will vote on it if the negative does an effective job of extending it in the 2NC and the rebuttals. Things definitely needed on T in the 1NC should be an interp, violation, and voter for fairness and education. Often what I find most challenging in T debates is evaluating reasonability. Having a clear/coherent answer to this will boost your favors on this. Ridiculous T definitions are increasingly hard to win in front of me.

Counterplans - If you love process CPs, consider yourself lucky. I think highly technical debating with these is extremely impressive and will reward your speaks. I don't like Advantage CPs that much. I will consider how certain planks are described is not explained well enough in the block by the negative, but I enjoy creative planks for solving the AFF's internal links/impacts. Abusive Adv CP with WAY too many planks are a major trigger for me and my ears will be open for theory args. All other CPs are fine to read in front of me. MAKE PERMS!!!

Disads - I'm a big fan of politics disads and creative trade-off disads. Impact comparison/calculus is important for both sides to win if this is the 2NR. Straight turns are more convincing than you may think. Often the neg mishandles them, which you should capitalize on. Still, impact calculus is key to beating big-stick disads.

Kritiks - Okay I'm gonna be completely honest. I think Ks are the most annoying args in debate. I am often conflicted between my personal beliefs and the factual evidence that is provided in round and I don't enjoy making those kinds of decisions. However, I like framework debates and will vote on framework on either the aff or the neg. I think framework is always necessary in K debates. I'm familiar with Cap Ks, Set Col Ks, Racial Ks, and Security Ks. I will still evaluate high theory Ks the same way, but don't be mad at me if I miss your K "tricks" or a certain TOP.

K-Affs - Now let's discuss K-Affs. I absolutely despise K-Affs because, again I'm often forced to implement my personal beliefs into the debate. I don't think the aff should have the ability to make perms if they don't read a plan, however I will vote on the perms if not responded to. If the neg answers the perms made by a K-Aff team, I won't consider the perms anymore.

Theory - Read any theory arg in front of me, I really don't care. Unless I conclude that your theory arg is abusive then I won't vote on it.

Case Debates - I like case debates a lot and feel that it's often mishandled. Case Turns are often fun to flow and judge so don't be afraid to read some.

Email Chain: irissim0730@gmail.com

The Meadows School (Class of 2025)

she/her

T/L-

• General Rule, be nice and civilized- we're not animals screaming at each other. Any offensive statements that are homophobic, sexist, racist, etc., and personal attacks are an automatic loss- no question.
• tech > truth; Your technical skill should make me believe/be able to determine that your argument is the truth. That means you have to give warrants and not j say it, but explain, compare, and impact them with the other team's ev.
• warrants- make sure it's in the card and not j tags. It's really dissatisfying when debates operate on a solely claim/tag base level with no deep evidence-based analysis.
• discussions of source, author intentions and 'true' meaning, and citation are important and I think it can become quite interesting.

Case-

• Love, Love, Love a good case debate.
• Make sure to make good turns on case as a neg and create offense against it- I tend to lean on Neg when they are able to make great offense and kill the Aff with the strat.
• It's not about card dumping but extending and refuting to the main points- You don't need a card for everything they say.
• I'll vote on complete defense if the arguments are vry well spoken.

Topicality/Theory-

• Personally, I don't like T.
• tend to err Aff on this because I agree that debating regarding specific words or non-substance parts of the plan doesn't reinforce the educational aspect students get from speech and debate.
• well-explained impacts.
• “limits good” and standards are not impacts and valid reasons.
• “They unlimit the topic by justifying x types of affs that we cannot hope to prepare for” is an impact.
• important to have conciseness within your args and connections between the 1NC way of explaining till the 2NR's way of interp, standards, etc.

• I think Theory is just a spice to debate, and prefer a more substance debate.
• still open to it and will adjust :)- When going for it, just make sure to impact it (fairness and education) everything else are internal links to these impacts. Make sure to explain everything concisely. Err Neg on Condo.

DA -

• Probability is key.
• Establishing a risk for the Aff is key- specifically why the Aff causes the risk and impact calc the ! of the DA to the ! of the Aff.
• Pretty much open to anything

CP-

• Make sure you have a net benefit
• it's okay if its not functionally or textually competitive, but I will prefer if you don't run it.
• V Cp, Start by pointing out solvency deficits and distinctions between the Cp and plan that undermine the neg's net benefit- internal links and solvency cards are good for this.
• Open to anything as long as you answer and explain args well (solvency)

K-

• Experienced in Cap, Mil, Fem, Set Col, Fem Ir, Disability, Race, etc
• As long as you can explain the cards well I will be open to it
• I don't really compelled by the framework as a voter and a solely framework-based debate is not fun. Thus, I have a low threshold for voting Aff solely on fw.
• Make sure Ks should have alternatives that actually resolve link arguments.
• I'm not going to weigh a K impact against the aff if the K can't resolve it and especially if they can't explain it.
• The alt is typically the weakest part, so the Aff should definitely attack it.
• never ignore good root cause debating - I think it can serve as terminal solvency deficits to the aff and a reason why the alt is better
• don’t make a bunch of perms you have no hope of winning unless they are conceded.
• Perm do the alt is not a perm.
• Make 1 or 2 permutations and EXPLAIN IN THE 2AC how the permutation overcomes neg links/risks of the impact.

Speaker Points-

Minimum 27.5 unless you did something really wrong

+.4 points if you rap ur speech, +2 points if you sing a verse of a bruno mars song

(If you have any questions feel free to email me; A lot of my philosophy and opinions are influenced by Malcolm Gordon so you can check his paradigm as well)

hey! i'm ira (he/him) add me to the chain: irasirulnick1219@gmail.com

Meadows ('25) Brown University ('29)

4th year nat circuit varsity debater

primarily a 2N but I 2A from time to time

***Please send out 1AC before round starts

t/L

you do you, judge adaptation is important but don't change your core strat for me. I want to see what you do best!

tech >>> truth

yes tag team cross

be respectful, creating a hostile environment will reflect in your speaks or possibly your ballot

organization is key! Flow, Flow, Flow

judge instruction + impact calc + line by line = WWW

I won't flow cx, but it's binding. bring up substantial errors or contradictions in ur speech

you got this, feel free to ask questions!

speaking

smart analytics >>> card dumping

spreading is good BUT clarity >>> speed

please differentiate your tag from the actual card (SLOW DOWN!!!)

show me your flows RIGHT after the 2AR - i may boost ur speaks

DA

strong case debating and impact calculus is key

turns case args are more compelling

good story telling makes up for mediocre evidence

CP

my favorite debates

contextualizing solvo to the specific aff makes these debates 10x more interesting

K

alt!!!! i have a low threshold for voting affirmative if the neg just goes for framework

not extremely well versed in k lit, but im familiar with cap, set col, fem, etc.

contextualized, specific link debating key

these debates get messy, focus on staying organized and flowing

T

explain your violation

"limits good" is not an impact, "they unlimit the topic by justifying x types of AFF that we can't hope to prepare for" is an impact.

i default to competing interps unless convinced otherwise

won't buy "on packet, no abuse"

Theory

go for it! if its well debated, I'll vote on it

everything but condo is prolly reject the arg

making sure args aren't too new in the last rebuttals are key

Case

YES, LOVE

having 0% risk is nearly impossible, having offense on here is helpful

Add me on the chain!! jenwang.noodle@gmail.com

Jennifer Wang

she/her

I'm not debating this year so make sure you explain complicated topics!

t/l stuff

Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. I'll give you a 0

I'll adjust! run whatever you are familiar with and what you can explain well.

tech>truth, but you have to explain to me why that wins you the debate, don't assume I know

Speaking

Speed is ok, just make sure we are clear on analytics - if I don't catch it, I don't flow it, you don't win on it :(

tag-team CX is fine by me, just ask your opponents

BE COURTEOUS!! A little sass in your speech is funny and will keep me awake, but no personal attacks - I will cap your speaks at 27

+0.1 speaks if you make me laugh (intentionally)

+0.1 speaks if you sing a verse of Call Me Maybe (with your heart into it)

K/K-affs:

I'm not to familiar with too many lit bases, I'm more of a policy team in general. Just make sure you explain your arguments well and there's substantial clash happening, don't just spread blocks at each other and hope they land. I do like a good K debate, though!

DA:

Impact calc/comparison!! Make sure you compare your impacts to your opponents and tell me why they're more important in this debate. Straight turns are always fun to watch, impact turns even better as long as you defend it well.

I won't pick apart your opponent's ev for you, make sure you do that in your speech!

0 risk exists.

CP:

I'm okay with anything you want to run here, no matter how ridiculous.

I won't judge-kick the CP unless you tell me to

Theory is fine by me, just make sure you apply the violation to the current debate and explain how the round has become "undebatable" for you

Case:

Don't throw the case debate out in the block! Case turns are good.

I'll vote on complete defense if the arguments are good and well-developed. Please don't try it tho