durham '24 & emory '28

coach at head-royce

add: idontpostround@googlegroups.com AND breakdocs@googlegroups.com

tldr; intervention is the worst. my defaults are influenced by this. i will evaluate any and all arguments read and won’t reject any unless the opposing team (or tabroom) wins that i should do so. arguments need a warrant and implication logically tied together. they must be able to be extended and the only thing they win is my ballot.

anything else in this paradigm is just a default. some relevant ones include: new arguments in final speeches are bad, yet must be pointed out (unless it’s the 2ar). aff has burden of proof. no judge kick nor inserted rehighlightings. ncm, ci, no rvis, dtd, text of interp.

speaker points are generally dictated by the following—

1) argumentative quality: above all else, i prefer you read what you can execute most strategically. yet, there’s nothing more painful than reading “tricks” or procedurals to win just to execute them ineffectively. similarly, despite what i read in high school, certain arguments make more sense than others. framework interps that delete the entire case, most arguments asserting that obligations are entirely impossible, claims that debates can actually alter our beliefs, convoluted & unexplained logical paradoxes, and a lot more things are pretty unintuitive to me. explain and/or make them make sense.

2) strategy: efficiency/speed, judge instruction, weighing, and contextualization are very important. round vision is important; if something is dropped, tell me why i should care. all arguments should be debated to win the flow and effective ballot framing, if mishandled, can win you the debate (tell me what i care about most and whatever that means to you).

3) organization: i tend to flow by ear and essentially do not open docs. this means you should be clear. speech documents should nonetheless be high-quality and well-formatted, especially if i am asked to look at certain evidence. being prepared and starting the debate early, ending a speech early, or using limited prep will increase speaks. on the contrary, starting late = lower speaks.

if im judging pf, reference everything above + fiona hu's paradigm.

have fun & good luck!

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

I hate when debaters purposely prep loudly and smirk :) when facing opponents who are obviously less experienced or more novice, and I will happily dock speaks for your arrogance and lack of grace

Please add me to email chain: cedricbonsol(at)gmail(dot)com.

Bravo High School 2015 (Shoutout LAMDL and sending my love to other NAUDL folks <3)

University of Rochester 2019 (on and off)

I can keep up with speed faster than non-debate laypeople , but cannot keep up as well as others at TOC- and NDT-level debates.A few of my college partners and I used to ask opponents to slow down and ran ableism. I won't consider it my fault if I say "CLEAR" or “SLOW” and still can't catch your arguments (but even then, don’t put this onus on me). At the point where debaters/judges, who are neurotypical or don’t have hearing/auditory processing issues, are still asking in CX and RFD what cards/arguments were read, imagine the struggle for others.

Please speak CLEARLY and SLOW DOWN on tags or lists of subpoints if you want me to flow and evaluate it well. Honestly, this is a consistent problem I still overall don't see getting resolved by my paradigm or verbally saying "clear" or "slow" except by a couple of top-level teams. (You don't need to be fast to be good at debate. The winners of the 2024 TOC slowed down more than any other team (besides novice-JV) I've ever judged). At this point, please DO NOT spread taglines OR subpoints OR pre-written blocks. If you want to be on the safe side of me catching all of your arguments, maybe just don't spread. My brain benefits from CONVERSATIONAL-SOUNDING, VARYING INTONATION (please don’t monotone spread), and clearly pronounced speech (to your fullest capability). I struggle with memory, concentration, organization, and auditory processing in normal conversation already, and debate speed is even more demanding. Please make sure, when you want something to be flown, I have time to process what you're saying, time to mentally figure out a way to word it on my flow, AND pen/type time, before you move to the next "thing" you want me to flow.

I (and judges in general) should NOT have to rely on the speech doc to understand and flow your speeches (but in the same way I always prefer subtitles in movies/shows/videos/games, I always prefer subtitles in debate ).

If any debater in a round requests, in good-faith, accommodations (e.g. no spreading in the round), I WILL be very accommodating and lenient towards that team on arguments vs the spreading or lack of cooperation, and I will punish any bad-faith efforts to accommodate.

NOVICES:

Please don't feel too nervous. There is very little pressure on you to perform, as good judges will understand that you are new to the activity and learning. The stakes are low for your division; it's the division of learning. Mistakes are expected. And it's completely expected and NORMAL to feel like you have no idea what you're doing. Just try your best and don't be rude to the other team. :) This is just a weird activity a bunch of weird nerds like to do, and how you perform won't impact the rest of your life. :)

MAIN:

A2 “can we do x” / “are you ok with x” / "is it ok if we x": I believe that how debate works, the meaning of debate, the way I should evaluate arguments should be under the control of the debaters. It is up to you to argue and defend why you should be allowed to do certain things, how to understand the debate space/round, my role, and your roles. For me, the only rules to enforce are speech/prep times and that my ballot must go to one winner team. Other than that, what you do with those speech/prep times is what you make it.

(See bottom of paradigm for how I’ll default if neither team takes a stance on certain debate rules.)

While I’m tech over truth, I stylistically tend to enjoy debates that play with normative debate rules (e.g. nontraditional argumentation and "performance").

[Insert obligatory "still do the work / I'll still weigh traditional args, FW, T equally"]. I’m probably going to need first and foremost a direct answer to this framework if you want me to evaluate the rest of the round through some other method of evaluation (without line-by-line or other traditional “tech”) before you address the rest of the debate.

OTHER DETAILS:

If you integrate my direct interaction/participation into your performative argumentation, I'm going to enjoy that a lot.

In college one of the worst feedbacks I ever heard from a judge was "nice debaters don't win speaker awards" and that is a terrible toxic approach to debate and human interaction that I will punish. :) Sass, flair, and attitude can be warranted or argument-related, but being a jerk for no reason is bad.

Most of high school, I ran traditional policy args. Most of college, I ran non-topical kritikal/nontraditional args, especially those without plan/advocacy texts or traditional cards.

I find myself in a minority of judges who actually enjoy (secondarily to deep, developed clash) watching frivolous, trolly, or cheesy gimmicks/tricks. If you run such an argument, I'm assuming you're acknowledging any competitive compromise. Just be sensitive and don’t run death good vs a Settler Colonialism AFF in front of me. We'll see how long I keep this on my paradigm.

Explicitly kicking off-case positions you are not going for in the 2NR is the safest option to avoid my confusion.

I try to adjust speaker points according to the tournament’s level of competition.

How I’ll default until a team instructs me otherwise:

Unless told otherwise, I won't assume evidence is limited to traditional "cards."

Unless told otherwise, NEG gets the status quo as a default (and presumption) even if they don't win their other off cases; it is the AFF’s burden to defend something preferable to the status quo or explain some plan/advocacy/reason why they deserve a ballot.

Unless told otherwise, cross-ex is binding. I almost always flow it.

Unless told otherwise, tag-team CX is okay, ins and outs (instead of 1s and 2s) are okay, and prep time can be used for clarification questions.

Debated for Peninsula LD for 4 years

Add me to the email chain: alexborgas@icloud.com

I am a slow typer. I will not vote on stuff not on my flow. I probably won't clear you either, so be unclear at your own risk.

I will generally vote on any argument, except for arguments that are exceptionally illogical. This includes RVIs, tricks, truth testing, and a lot of theory arguments. Reasonability and substance crowdout against non resolutional theory. 2nr should say drop the argument and move on for 1ar theory.

Re-highlightings can be inserted, unless it generates offense. That being said, reading good re-highlightings with emphasis is persuasive.

Default to judge kick.

Hi, I'm Scott. My background is in policy debate (2004-2018) but I have primarily coached LD since 2018.

Debate is a communication activity - as such:

1) You do not need to include me in the email thread.

2) I will call for any evidence I may need to inspect after the debate has concluded. I do not refer to the speech documents until after the debate if necessary.

3) My primary source of information is what I flow from what you say in your speeches. I flow all the speeches including the entire AC, NC, plan texts, CP texts, perm texts, interpretations, advocacy statements, etc. I flow on a laptop in a google sheets template I created where I try to maintain the line-by-line and try to more-or-less transcribe the debate.

I am a great judge for technical, mechanical line by line debate. Clarity and judge instructions are axiomatic.

Debate is for the debaters. I will vote on any argument that has a valid reason and an explanation as to why that argument wins you the debate. I do not have a preference for how you debate or any particular argument, form, content, or style. I will leave the role of the ballot and the role of the judge up to the debaters to decide in the round. I will try my best to evaluate the debate using the least amount of intervention possible.

Peninsula, Cal State Fullerton

Cal State Fullerton BW

Bakersfield BB

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

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

Emails

HS: jaredburkey99@gmail.com

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

2024-25 Update:

IPR: 0

Energy: 12

LD Total: 40

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

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

Cliff Notes:

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

2. Who controls uniqueness - that comes 1st

3. on T most times default to reasonability

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

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

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

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

Specifics:

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

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

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

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

T --- Boring.

LD Specific:

1. Larp/K

2. K affs

3. Theory

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

5. Tricks

If you have any more questions for me that I may have not answered on this page, please ask me before the round starts.

For email link chains: albertcardenas17@gmail.com

I'm a product of LAMDL - shout out to urban debate leagues

Philosophy BA

General

- Post rounding = lowered speaks. I'm open to talking about the deep cuts in the round, just please don't come for me like that.

- I prefer substance debates over those reduced to sound bites of theory analytics. This doesn't mean I won't evaluate arguments like T or FW, there's substance debates to be had there. I like heavy link analysis and impact comparison + weighing.

- Speaker point inflation is real and I'm pretty generous with awarding speaker points. But, that doesn't mean you don't have to earn them.

- If I am compelled to evaluate a specific piece of evidence, I'll read and interpret it after the round.

- I don't count sending speech docs as prep time. if You run into any tech. issues just let me know so we can pause the round and get it fixed.

- I'm not typically persuaded by critical language critiques unless there's a sufficient amount of impact analysis done. Blatant violations will probably result in ending the debate and auto loss.

For LD: I have a policy background, but these days I judge more LD rounds than I do policy. I'll pretty much treat your round as I would a policy round. The only thing I'll say is

1. Be clear - really slow your spreading down, especially your analytics

2. I don't like cheap tricks, but they do often win rounds if it is not contested by the opponent. However, just because I don't like it, this doesn't mean I won't vote for it.

3. I'm not the best judge for Kant strats - my policy background informs my exposure to Kant as that usually looks like Deontology vs Util framing debates.

Aff/Case Stuff
Whether you're a 'traditional' or 'critical' debater, the 1AC should always be strategically used as an answer to off-cases. I have to know what the aff does if I'm gonna presume it's at least a good idea.

DAs
Even generic DAs can be pretty damaging, but the better the link story and impact calculus is the more consideration I may give to disads.

CPs
If there's a risk that it solves better than the aff and it has a net benefit, I'll consider weighing it. I'm also sympathetic to CP theory.

T
What I'm most concerned with in evaluating these arguments in you answering this question: Why is your model of debate better? If you're reading T, things that will work in your favor is providing a TVA (if possible), contextualizing your standards as it relates to the broader debate space against the affirmative's, and getting ahead of the substance debate on case.

Presumption

Yeah, I'll consider it.

FW
I'm down for a FW round. I like seeing a lot of clash between the typical standards offered by the neg vs those of critical affirmatives. So, do some comparison and impact analysis like what fairness means for the neg and what the terminal impact is for them and what fairness means for the affirmative and what the terminal impact might be for them. Compare impacts, weigh them against each other and convince me who has the better interpretation of debate. Also, if you're running FW don't just rely on overwhelming the affirmative with evidence. Remember, quality outweighs quantity and at the end of the round and that's what gets my ballot. Take the time to explain your evidence.


K
This is more my wheel-house, so feel free to deploy critical arguments in front of me. I'm pretty comfortable with a variety of critical literature bases, just don't rely on that fact to circumvent any in-depth analysis. Don't rob yourself of doing the work that's only going to help you improve - you'll not only help yourself, but everyone else in the debate have a more productive round.

***Author indicts - kinda like impromptu language critiques - aren't as persuasive to me unless they're thoroughly impacted out.

Performance
I dig performance debate. Whatever it is (i.e. poetry, narrative, music incorporation, etc.), just tell me what the function of the performance is and how I should evaluate it or weigh it against any opposing off-cases.

Let's have a good round.

https://tenor.com/view/kevin-gates-rick-ross-in-the-spot-beckham-gif-9502521574751908838

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

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

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

this paradigm is CX/policy-oriented, but if i end up in your pf/ld round, treat me like a lay. highly averse to judging trix (consider striking me), but would love to evaluate more phil rounds.

｡ﾟ•┈꒰ა ♡ ໒꒱┈• ｡ﾟ

debate methinks

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

2. Theory: i need an abuse story that makes sense. reading 7 off, winning the link debates, then going for ground loss in the 2nr is not convincing and i wish 2ars called this out more often.

2.5 standards: i believe education is the biggest terminal impact to debate; fairness is arbitrary/nonuq. i expect theory to be the entire 2nr/2ar, make me care that they violated it or else i err 'reject the arg not the team.' i don't believe i have a high threshold for theory but i have high expectations for impact framing.

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

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

5. K v. K: need the fw and link debate here or i swing aff.

wtf is plan in a vacuum.

｡ﾟ•┈꒰ა ♡ ໒꒱┈• ｡ﾟ

i like:

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

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

- fw debate; yes competing interps!!!

- historical references.

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

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

- lbl rebuttals

｡ﾟ•┈꒰ა ♡ ໒꒱┈• ｡ﾟ

are you running a K?

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

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

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

｡ﾟ•┈꒰ა ♡ ໒꒱┈• ｡ﾟ

silly goose/speaks + bonus speaks

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

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

free points if you can make me laugh.

+.1 speaker for a league of legends reference or if you can sneak some funny brainrot into it. (this stacks to an undisclosed limit)

+.1 if you make a joke about a current CSUF debater, +.2 for a joke abt a CSUF coach/alum that also coaches you.

other than that, i provide speaks on cx performance, case knowledge, and persuasive appeal.

｡ﾟ•┈꒰ა ♡ ໒꒱┈• ｡ﾟ

final remarks

automatic judge kick of any variation of -isms, antiblackness, etc. also negative aura, i'll end a debate on an auto-loss and gossip to my teammates abt you. post-rounding ok but if ur mean i'm leaving :c

tldr ill vote on anything unproblematic and well-justified.

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

have fun and be good people.

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.

T:

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.

K:

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.

High school debate: Baltimore Urban Debate League ( Lake Clifton Eastern High School).

College debate: University of Louisville then Towson University.

Grad work: Cal State Fullerton.

Current: Director of Debate at Long Beach State (CSU Long Beach), former Director of Debate a Fresno State.

Email for chain: Devenc325@gmail.com

Speaker Point Scale

29.5-30: one of the best speakers I expect to see this year and has a high grade of Charisma, Uniqueness, Nerve, Talent, and Swag is on 100. This means expert explanation of arguments and most arguments are offensive.

29 - 29.5: very good speaker has a middle grade of Charisma, Uniqueness, Nerve, Talent, and mid-range swag. Explanation of arguments are of great quality and many of the arguments are offensive.

28.4 - 28.9: good speaker; may have some above average range/ parts of the Cha.Uni.Ner.Tal.S acronym but must work on a few of them and may have some issues to work out. Explanation of arguments are of good quality and several of the arguments are offensive.

28 - 28.3: solid speaker; needs some work; probably has average range/ parts of the Cha.Uni.Ner.Tal.S acronym but must work on a few of them and may have some issues to work out. Explanation of arguments are of okayish quality and very few of the arguments are offensive.

27.1 - 27.5: okay speaker; needs significant work on the Cha.Uni.Ner.Tal.S acronym. Not that good of explanation with no offensive arguments.

< 27: you have done something deeply problematic in this debate like clipping cards or linguistic violence, or rhetorically performed an ism without apology or remorse.

Please do not ask me to disclose points nor tell me as an argument to give you a 30. I wont. For some reason people think you are entitled to high points, I am not that person. So, you have to earn the points you get.

IF YOU ARE IN HIGHSCHOOL, SKIP DOWN TO THE "Judging Proper" section :)

Cultural Context

If you are a team that reads an argument based in someone else's identity, and you are called on it by another team with receipts of how it implicates the round you are in, its an uphill battle for you. I am a fan of performing your politics with consistency and genuine ethical relationships to the people you speak about. I am a fan of the wonderful author Linda Martin Alcoff who says " where one speaks from affects both the meaning and truth of what one says." With that said, you can win the debate but the burden of proof is higher for you....

Post Rounding

I will not entertain disrespectful or abrasive engagement because you lost the round. If you have questions, you may ask in a way that is thoughtful and seeking understanding. If your coach thinks they will do this as a defense of your students, feel free to constrain me. I will not allow my students to engage that way and the same courtesy should be extended to EVERYONE. Losing doesn't does not give you license to be out of your mind and speak with malice. Keep in mind I am not from the suburbs and I will not tolerate anyone's nasty demeanor directed at me nor my students.

"Community" Members

I do not and will not blindly think that all people in this activity are kind, trustworthy, non-cheaters, good intentioned, or will not do or say anything in the name of competition or malice towards others. Please miss me with having faith in people in an activity that often reveals people engaging in misconduct, exploitation, grooming, or other inappropriate activities that often times NEVER get reported. MANY of you have created and perpetuated a culture of toxicity and elitism, then you are surprised when the chickens come home to roost. This applies to ALL forms of college and high school debate...

Judging Proper

I am more than willing to listen to ANY arguments that are well explained and impacted and relate to how your strategy is going to produce scholarship, policy action, performance, movement, or whatever political stance or program. I will refer to an educator framework unless told otherwise...This means I will evaluate the round based on how you tell me you want it to be framed and I will offer comments on how you could make your argument better after the round. Comparison, Framing, OFFENSE is key for me. Please indict each other's framework or role of the ballot/role of the judge for evaluation and make clear offense to how that may make a bad model of debate. OR I am down with saying the debate should not be a reflection about the over all model of debate/ no model.

I DO NOT privilege certain teams or styles over others because that makes debate more unfair, un-educational, cliquey, and makes people not feel valued or wanted in this community, on that note I don't really jive to well with arguments about how certain folks should be excluded for the sake of playing the "game". NOR do I feel that there are particular kinds of debate related to ones personal identity. I think people are just making arguments attached to who they are, which is awesome, but I will not privilege a kind of debate because some asserts its a thing.

I judge debates according to the systematic connection of arguments rather than solely line by line…BUT doesn’t mean if the other team drops turns or other arguments that I won’t evaluate that first. They must be impacted and explained. PLEASE always point out reason why the opposing team is BAD and have contextualized reasons for why they have created a bad impact or make one worse. I DO vote on framework and theory arguments….I’ve been known to vote on Condo quite a bit, but make the interp, abuse story, and contradictions clear. If the debate devolves into a theory debate, I still think the AFF should extend a brief summary of the case.

Don’t try to adapt to how I used to debate if you genuinely don’t believe in doing so or just want to win a ballot. If you are doing a performance I will hold you to the level that it is practiced, you have a reason for doing so, and relates to the overall argument you are making…Don’t think “oh! I did a performance in front of Deven, I win.” You are sadly mistaken if so. It should be practiced, timed well, contain arguments, and just overall have a purpose. It should be extended with full explanation and utility.

Overall I would like to see a good debate where people are confident in their arguments and feel comfortable being themselves and arguing how they feel is best. I am not here to exclude you or make you feel worthless or that you are a "lazy" intellectual as some debaters may call others, but I do like to see you defend your side to the best of your ability.

GET OFF THEM BLOCKS SOME! I get it coaches like to block out args for their students, even so far as to script them out. I think this is a practice that is only focused on WINNING and not the intellectual development of debaters who will go on to coach younger debaters. A bit of advice that I give to any debater I come across is to tell them to READ, READ, READ. It is indeed fundamental and allows for the expansion of example use and fluency of your arguments.

A few issues that should be clarified:

Decorum: I DO NOT LIKE when teams think they can DISRESPECT, BULLY, talk RUDE to, or SCREAM at other teams for intimidation purposes in order to win or throw the other team off. Your points will be effected because this is very unbecoming and does not allow this space to be one of dialogue and reciprocity. If someone disrespects you, I am NOT saying turn the other cheek, but have some tact and utility of how you engage these folks. And being hyper evasive to me is a hard sell. Do not get me wrong, I do love the sassiness, sarcasm, curtness, and shade of it all but there is a way to do it with tact. I am also NOT persuaded that you should be able to be rude or do whatever you want because you are a certain race, class, gender, sex, sexuality, or any other intersection under the sun. That to me is a problematic excuse that intensifies the illegit and often rigid criticism that is unlashed upon "identity politics."

Road maps: STICK TO IT. I am a tight flower and I have a method. However, I need to know where things go so there is no dispute in the RFD that something was answered or not. If you are a one off team, please have a designed place for the PERM. I can listen well and know that there are places things should go, but I HATE to do that work for a team. PLEASE FLOW and not just follow the doc. If you answer an arg that was in the doc, but not read, I will take it as you note flowing nor paying attention to what is going on.

Framework and Theory: I love smart arguments in this area. I am not inclined to just vote on debate will be destroyed or traditional framework will lead to genocide unless explained very well and impacted based on some spill over claims. There must be a concrete connection to the impacts articulated on these and most be weighed. I am persuaded by the deliberation arguments, institutional engagement/building, limits, and topical versions of the Aff. Fairness is an interesting concept for me here. I think you must prove how their model of debate directly creates unfairness and provide links to the way their model of debate does such. I don't think just saying structural fairness comes first is the best without clarification about what that means in the context of the debate space and your model of debate.

Some of you K/Performance folks may think I am a FW hack, thas cute or whatever. Instead of looking at the judge as the reason why you weren't adequate at defending your business, you should do a redo, innovate, or invest in how to strategize. If it seems as though you aren't winning FW in front of me that means you are not focusing how offense and your model produces some level of "good." Or you could defend why the model approach is problematic or several reasons. I firmly believe if someone has a model of debate or how they want to engage the res or this space, you MUST defend it and prove why that is productive and provides some level of ground or debatability.

Winning Framework for me includes some level of case turn or reason why the aff produces something bad/ blocks something good/ there's a PIC/PIK of some kind (explained). This should be coupled with a proficient explanation of either the TVA or SSD strategy with the voter components (limits, predictability, clash, deliberation, research burden, education, fairness, ground etc.) that solidify your model of debate.

Performance: It must be linked to an argument that is able to defend the performance and be able to explain the overall impact on debate or the world/politics itself. Please don’t do a performance to just do it…you MUST have a purpose and connect it to arguments. Plus debate is a place of politics and args about debate are not absent politics sometimes they are even a pre-req to “real” politics, but I can be persuaded otherwise. You must have a role of the ballot or framework to defend yourself, or on the other side say why the role of the ballot is bad. I also think those critics who believe this style of debate is anti-intellectual or not political are oversimplifying the nuance of each team that does performance. Take your role as an educator and stop being an intellectual coward or ideology driven hack.

Do not be afraid to PIK/PIC out of a performance or give reasons why it was BAD. Often people want to get in their feelings when you do this. I am NOT sympathetic to that because you made a choice to bring it to this space and that means it can be negated, problematized, and subject to verbal criticism.

Topic/Resolution: I will vote on reasons why or why not to go by the topic...unlike some closed minded judges who are detached from the reality that the topics chosen may not allow for one to embrace their subjectivity or social location in ways that are productive. This doesn’t mean I think talking about puppies and candy should win, for those who dumb down debate in their framework args in that way. You should have a concrete and material basis why you chose not to engage the topic and linked to some affirmation against racism/sexism/homophobia/classism/elitism/white supremacy and produces politics that are progressive and debatable. There would have to be some metric of evaluation though. BUT, I can be persuaded by the plan focus and topic education model is better middle ground to what they want to discuss.

Hella High Theory K: i.e Hiediggar, Baudrillard, Zizek, D&G, Butler, Arant, and their colleagues…this MUST be explained to me in a way that can make some material sense to me as in a clear link to what the aff has done or an explanation of the resolution…I feel that a lot of times teams that do these types of arguments assume a world of abstraction that doesn’t relate fully to how to address the needs of the oppressed that isn’t a privileged one. However, I do enjoy Nietzsche args that are well explained and contextualized. Offense is key with running these args and answering them.

Disadvantages: I’m cool with them just be well explained and have a link/link wall that can paint the story…you can get away with a generic link with me if you run politics/econ/tradeoff disads. But, it would be great to provide a good story. In the 2NC/1NR retell the story of the disad with more context and OFFENSE and compartmentalize the parts. ALWAYS tell me why it turns and outweighs case. Disads on case should be impacted and have a clear link to what the aff has done to create/perpetuate the disad. If you are a K team and you kick the alt that solves for the disads…that is problematic for me. Affs need to be winning impact framing and some level of offense. No link is not enough for me.

Perms: I HATE when people have more than 3 perms. Perm theory is good here for me, do it and not just GROUP them. For a Method v Method debate, you do not get to just say you dont get a perm. Enumerate reasons why they do not get a perm. BUT, if an Aff team in this debate does make a perm, it is not just a test of competition, it is an advocacy that must be argued as solving/challenging what is the issue in the debate.
Additionally, you can kick the perms and no longer have to be burden with that solvency. BUT you must have offensive against their C/P, ALT, or advocacy.

Counterplans/Advocacies: They have to solve at least part of the case and address some of the fundamental issues dealing with the aff’s advantages especially if it’s a performance or critical aff…I’m cool with perm theory with a voter attached. I am cool with any kind of these arguments, but an internal net benefit is not enough for me in a policy counterplan setting. If you are running a counter advocacy, there must be enumerated reasons why it is competitive, net beneficial, and is the option that should be prioritized. I do love me a PIK/PIC or two, but please do it effectively with specific evidence that is a criticism of the phrase or term the aff used. But, know the difference between piking out of something and just criticizing the aff on some trivial level. I think you need to do very good analysis in order to win a PIC/PIK. I do not judge kick things...that is your job.

Affs in the case of PIK/PICs, you must have disads to the solvency (if any), perm, theory, defend the part that is questionable to the NEG.

Race/ Identity arguments: LOVE these especially from the Black/Latinx/Asian/Indigenous/Trans/Sexuality perspective (most familiar with) , but this doesn’t mean you will win just because you run them like that. I like to see the linkage between what the aff does wrong or what the aff/neg has perpetuated. I’m NOT likely to vote on a link of omission unless some structural claim has risen the burden. I am not familiar with ALL of these types of args, so do not assume that I know all you literature or that I am a true believer of your arguments about Blackness. I do not believe that Blackness based arguments are wedded to an ontology focus or that one needs to win or defeat ontology to win.

I am def what some of you folks would call a "humanist and I am okay with that. Does not mean you can't win any other versions of that debate in front of me.

Case Args: Only go for case turns and if REALLY needed for your K, case defense.…they are the best and are offensive , however case defense may work on impacts if you are going for a K. If you run a K or performance you need to have some interaction with the aff to say why it is bad. Please don't sandbag these args so late in the debate.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE --------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am of the strong belief that Congressional debate is a DEBATE event first and foremost. I do not have an I.E or speech background. However, I do teach college public speaking and argumentation. The comments I leave will talk about some speech or style components. I am not a judge that heavily favors delivery over the argumentation and evidence use.

I am a judge that enjoys RECENT evidence use, refutation, and clash with the topics you have been assigned.

STRUCTURE OF SPEECHES

I really like organization. With that said, I do prefer debaters have a introduction with a short attention getter, and a short preview statement of their arguments. In the body of the speech, I would like some level of impacting/ weighing of your arguments and their arguments ( if applicable), point out flaws in your opponents argumentation (lack of solvency, fallacies, Alternative causes), cite evidence and how it applies, and other clash based refutation. If you want to have a conclusion, make sure it has a short summary and a declarative reason to pass or fail.

REFUTATION

After the first 2 speeches of the debate, I put heavy emphasis on the idea that these speeches should have a refutation component outside of you extending a previous argument from your side, establish a new argument/evidence, or having some kind of summary. I LOVE OFFENSE based arguments that will turn the previous arguments state by the opposition. Defensive arguments are fine, but please explain why they mean the opposition cannot solve or why your criticism of their evidence or reason raises to the level of rejecting their stance. Please do not list more than 2 or 3 senators or reps that you are refuting because in some cases it looks like students are more concerned with the appearance of refutation than actually doing it. I do LOVE sassy, assertive or sarcastic moments but still be polite.

EVIDENCE USE

I think evidence use is very important to the way I view this type of debate. You should draw evidence from quality sources whether that is stats/figures/academic journals/narrative from ordinary people. Please remember to cite where you got your information and the year. I am a hack for recency of your evidence because it helps to illuminate the current issues on your topic. Old evidence is a bit interesting and should be rethought in front of me. Evidence that doesn't at some level assume the ongoing/aftermath of COVID-19 is a bit of a stretch. Evidence comparison/analysis of your opponent is great as well.

ANALYSIS

I LOVE impact calculus where you tell me why the advantages of doing or not doing a bill outweighs the costs. This can be done in several ways, but it should be clear, concise, and usually happen in the later speeches. At a basic level, doing timeframe, magnitude, probability, proximity, or any other standard for making arguments based on impact are great. I DISLIKE rehash....If you are not expanding or changing the way someone has articulated an argument or at least acknowledge it, I do not find rehash innovative nor high rank worthy. This goes back to preparation and if you have done work on both sides of a bill. You should prepare multiple arguments on a given side just in case someone does the argument before you. There is nothin worse to me than an unprepared set of debaters that must take a bunch of recesses/breaks to prepare to switch.

Hello, my name is Lesly De Anda She/Her - Add me to the email chain: leslydeanda8@gmail.com

Some things about me: I Graduated from Steam Legacy High School class of 2019’ debated for 4 years for the Los Angeles Urban Debate League (LAMDL for short) as a Policy Debater! I attended Fullerton College where I debated for 2 years in JV-Open Policy Debate transferring to UC Riverside graduated in 2023. I no longer debate competitively, but I am active in judging and coaching if you ever need any help please go ahead and email me any questions after round I would love to help! I am a Policy Coach - @ STEAM LEGACY HS and a affiliate/alumni for LAMDL. I judge Policy Debate, LD Debate, and Public Forum.

** I currently travel with my husband, he will be with me in person rounds due to me/ myself having been in a High-Risk Pregnancy from a previous spine surgery I had and currently in recovery. Please don’t mind him he’ll be in the background he knows nothing about debate so he has no influence in my decision. ***

Receiving High Speaks: I love strong speakers and debaters who asks great CX questions, I love to feel the clash in the room. I tend not to pay attention to CX but when it leads to clash I will take it into consideration. Please address me by my name and talk to me before round, I hate going into round feeling like I don't know anyone or being snubbed. Debate is a show, do your BEST and be CHARISMATIC this is your show and we are all just watching.

Receiving Low Speaks: if u create a hostile environment for the other debaters in the room or people in the room I will end the round and vote up the other team immediately.

1. If say something racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, any ism's etc. I WILL DROP YOUR SPEAKER POINTS. I get it, debate is a competitive sport that can get very heated, but to me, this is an educational space and should also make you feel safe. Be a good person to the people you share this space with and contribute to the great things that this activity contributes in the best way you can do such.
2. If you have spectators in your round, please be respectful I will LOWER your speaks and and VOTE YOU DOWN if you are TEXTING and even INTERACTING with them IRKS me and is super DISRESPECTFUL.

Spreading - Is okay with me as long as everyone in the room can fully understand you - remember you can read 8 off but if I didn’t understand you who does it benefit in round ? If you ask me if I can understand spreading then I will tell you no ._. Read my paradigm.

CX - I will NOT vote on anything during CX UNLESS brought up in the constructive or debater asks me too, if you are going to create a strategy ask me to flow, if not I will not pay attention to CX.

Prep - take the time you need before a round, the internet sometimes sucks and computers act up it happens, do not steal prep time while flashing or emailing files. I am very understanding so please do not take advantage or else I will be force to stop the round. If you need to cut a card while you are reading pls send a revise version before the next speech, I find it unjust and unfair.

Flowing - I do flow everything ( not CX unless stated to), but I will not flow if your spreading is illegible, if you know your spreading is not as good as it needs to be do not make me work harder to understand. After every RFD I pretty much tell everyone that they need to flow, you can drop so many args if you don't flow.

Policy/K’ Affs - I ran both myself, but have no biasness towards either both are awesome to run! Just make sure you know how to defend yourself against Topicality. Love the uniqueness of K aff's show me what you created !!!!

Topicality - T is work and you have to put in the work in order to win my vote on T, if you are going for topicality or any theory argument in the 2ar/2nr you need to extend interpretations, violations, and standards. Standards must have impacts fairness and education is not super persuasive and will probably lean to reasonability. Good interps of what a "topical" plan should be --- that being said i will default to the better interp/definition and vote accordingly.

K’s - I LOVE A GOOD K debate and usually do vote on the K if the links/impacts are made clear. Link contextualization is key no matter the kritik. Alternative contextualization is key too if at the end of the round I do not understand what your alternative then I will drop the K and vote on the AFF on this one. PLEASE do your research, and explain what the alternative does, and how the aff links into such.

(Policy debates)Tag team CX- Once you are in Varsity , I don't believe you should be tag teaming.

Update: Harvard-Westlake '25 - i'm judging from the University of Houston debate room this weekend because my apartment was broken into and my desktop computer + wi-fi router were stolen. all the usual e-debate caveats apply, but historically i judge online with a much better headphone/mic setup than is currently available to me - focus a bit more on clarity than usual.

All chains: pleaselearntoflow@gmail.com

and, please also add

HSPD: dulles.policy.db8@gmail.com

HSLD: loyoladebate47@gmail.com

CPD: uhoustondebate@gmail.com

please have the email sent before start time. late starts are annoying. annoying hurts speaker points.

Dulles High School (HSPD), Loyola High School (HSLD), University of Houston (CPD) - if you are currently committed to debating at the University of Houston in the future, please conflict me. If you're interested in debating at UH, reach out.

please don't call me "judge", "Mr.", or "sir" - patrick, pat, fox, or p.fox are all fine.

he/him/his - do not misgender people. not negotiable.

"takes his job seriously, but not himself."

safety of debaters is my utmost concern at all times. racism, transphobia, misogyny, etc. not tolerated - I am willing to act on this more than most judges. don't test me.

debated 2014-22 (HSPD Oceans - NDT/CEDA Personhood), and won little but learned lots. high school was politics disads and advantage counterplans with niche plans. college was planless affs and the K, topicality, or straight turning an advantage. i'm a 2N from D3 - this is the most important determinant of debate views in this paradigm.

every judge thinks arguments are good or bad, which makes them easier or harder to vote on, usually unconsciously. i'm trying to make it clear what i think good and bad arguments are and how to debate around that. on average, happiest in debates with lots of cards for a disad or K + case vs aff with a plan, but high-quality, well-warranted arguments + judge instruction >>> any specific positions - Kant, planless affs, process counterplans, and topicality can be vertically dense, cool debates. they can also be total slop. i'm a full time coach and i judge tons of debates, but my topic/argument knowledge won't save bad debating. i flow carefully and value "tech" over "truth", but dropped arguments are only as good as the dropped argument itself - i don't start flowing until i hear a warrant, and i find i have a higher threshold for warrants and implications than most. i take offense/defense very seriously - debating comparatively is much better than abstractions.

Wheaton's law is axiomatic - be kind, have fun. i do my best to give detailed decisions and feedback - debaters deserve no less than the best. coaches and debaters are welcome to ask questions, and i know passions run high, but i struggle to understand being angry for it's own sake - just strike me if you don't like how i judge, save us the shouting match.

"act like you've been here."

details

- evidence: Dallas Perkins: “if you can’t find a single sentence from your author that states the thesis of your argument, you may have difficulty selling it to me.” David Bernstein: “Intuitive and well reasoned analytics are frequently better uses of your time than reading a low quality card. I would prefer to reward debaters that demonstrate full understanding of their positions and think through the logical implications of arguments rather than rewarding the team that happens to have a card on some random issue.” Richard Garner: "I read a lot of cards, but, paradoxically, only in proportion to the quality of evidence comparison. Highlighting needs to make grammatical sense; don’t use debate-abbreviation highlighting"

- organization: good (obviously). extend parts your argument as responses to theirs. follow the order of the previous speech when you can. hard number arguments ("1NC 2", not "second/next"). subpointing good, but when overdone speeches feel disjointed, substitutes being techy for sounding techy. debating in paragraphs >>> bullet points.

- new arguments: getting out of hand. "R" in 1AR doesn't stand for constructive. at minimum, new args must be explicitly justified by new block pivots - otherwise, very good for 2NRs saying "strike it".

- inserting cards: fine if fully explained indict of card they read – new arguments or different parts of the article should be read aloud. will strike excessive insertions if told if most are nothing.

- case debates: miss them. advantages are terrible, easily link turned. solvency can be zero with smart CX and analytics. executing this well gets high speaker points.

- functional competition: good, makes sense. textual competition: silly, seems counterproductive. positional competition: upsetting. competing off of immediacy/certainty: skeptical, never assumed by literature, weird interpretation of fiat and mandates. plank to ban plan: does not make other non-competitive things competitive. intrinsicness: fine, but intrinsic perms often not actually intrinsic. voting record on all these: very even, teams fail to make the best arguments.

- process counterplans: interesting when topic and aff specific, annoying when recycled slop. insane ideas that collapse government (uncooperative fedism), misunderstand basic legal processes (US Code), and don't solve net benefit (most) can be zero with good CX. competition + intuitive deficits > arbitrary theory interps.

- state of advantage counterplan texts is bad. should matter more. evidence quality paramount. CX can make these zero.

- judge kick: only if explicitly told in a speech. however, splitting 2NR unstrategic – winning a whole counterplan > half a counterplan and half a case defense. better than most for sticking the neg with a counterplan, but needs airtime before 2AR.

- "do both shields" and "links to net benefit" insanely good, underrated, require a comeback in the meta. but, most permutations are 2AC nothingburgers, making debates late breaking - less i understand before the block = less spin 1AR gets + more lenient to 2NR. solve this with fewer, better permutations - "do both, shields link" = tagline, not argument.

- uniqueness controls link/vice versa: contextual to any given arg. extremist opinions ("no offense without uniqueness"/"don't need uniqueness") seem silly.

- impact turns: usually have totalizing uniqueness and questionable solvency. teams should invest here on top of impact debate proper.

- turns case/case turns: higher threshold than most. ideally carded, minimally thoroughly explained for specific internal links.

- impact framing: most is bad, more conceptual than concrete. "timeframe outweighs magnitude" sometimes it doesn't. why does it in this debate? "intervening actors check" who? how? comparing scenarios >>> abstractions. worse for "try or die" than most - idk why 100% impact x 2% solvency outweighs 80% link x 50% impact. specificity = everything. talk about probability more. risk matters a lot.

- the K: technical teams that read detailed evidence should take me high. performance teams can also take me - i've coached this with some success, and i'm better for you than i seem. good: link to some 1AC premise/mechanism with an impact that outweighs the net benefit to a permutation, external impact that turns/outweighs case, a competitive and solvent alternative. bad: antonio 95, "fiat illusory", etc. devil's in the details - examples, references to aff evidence, etc. delete your 2NC overview, do 8 minutes of line-by-line - you will win more.

- aff vs K: talk about the 1AC more, dump cards about the K less - debate on your turf, not theirs. if aff isn't built to link turn, don't bother. "extinction outweighs" should not be the only impact calculus (see above: impact framing). perm double bind usually ends up being dumb. real permutation and deficit > asserting the possibility of one - "it could theoretically shield the link or not solve" loses to "it does neither" + warrant.

- framework arguments: "X parts of the 1AC are best basis for rejoinder/competition because Y which means Z" = good, actually establishes a framework. “weigh the aff”/“reps first” = non-arguments, what does this mean. will not adopt a “middle ground” interp if nobody advances one – usually both incoherent and unstrategic. anything other than plan focus prob gives the negative more than you want (e.g: unsure why PIKs are bad if the negative gets “reps bad” + "plan bad"). consequently, fine with “delete plan”, but neg can win with a framework push that gives links and alt without doing so.

- clash debates: vote for topicality against planless affirmatives more often than not because in a bad debate it’s easier for the negative to win. controlling for quality, I vote for the best K and framework teams equally often - no strong ideological bent. fairness or a specific, carded skills impact >>> “clash”. impact turns and counterinterps equally winnable, both require explanation of solvency/uniqueness and framing against neg impacts + link defense. equally bad for "competition doesn't matter" and "only competition matters". language of impact calculus (“turns case/their offense”, higher risk/magnitude, uniqueness, etc) helps a lot. both sides usually subpar on how what the aff does/doesn't do implicates debates. TVA/SSD underrated as offense, overrated as defense - to win it, i need to actually know what the aff/neg link looks like, not just gesture towards it being possible.

- best rounds ever are good K v K, worst ever are bad ones. judge instruction, organization, specificity key. "turns/solves case" >>> "root cause", b/c offense >>> defense. explaining what is offense, what competes, etc (framework arguments) >>> "it's hard to evaluate pls don't" ("no plan, no perm"). aff teams benefit from "functional competition" argument vs 1NCs that spam word PICs and call it "frame subtraction". "ballot PIK" should never win against a competent aff team. Marxism should win 9/10 negative debates executed by a smart 2N. more 2NRs should press case - affs don't do anything. idk why the neg gets counterplans against planless affs - 2ACs should say this.

- critical affs with plans/"soft left" should be more common. teams that take me here do hilariously well if they answer neg arguments (the disad doesn't vanish bc "conjunctive fallacy").

- topicality: for me, more predictable/precise > “debatable” - literature determines everything, unpredictable interpretations = bad. however, risk is contextual - little more precise, super underlimiting prob not winner. hyperbole is the enemy - "even with functional limits, we lose x and they get y" >>> "there are 4 gorillion affirmatives". reasonability: about the counterinterpretation, good for offense about substance crowd-out and silly interps, bad for "good is good enough". plan in a vacuum: good check against extra/fx-topicality, less good elsewhere. extra-topicality: something i care less about than most. extremely bad for arguments about grammar/semantics.

- aff on theory: “riders” to the plan, plan being "horse-traded" - not how fiat works. counterplans that fiat actors different from the plan (includes states) - a misunderstanding of negation theory/neg fiat. will probably not drop more than the argument. neg on theory: literally everywhere else. arbitrariness objection strong. conditionality is a divine right bestowed by heavenly mandate, so i defend it with religious zeal. RVIs don't get flowed. LD-esque theory shenanigans: total non-starter.

- disclosure: good, but arbitrary standards bad. care little about anything that isn't active misclosure. new unbroken affs: good. "disclose 1NC": lol.

- LD “tricks”: disastrously bad for them. most just feel like defense with extra steps. nobody has gotten me to understand truth testing, much less like it.

- LD phil: actually pretty solid for it. well-carded, consistent positions + clear judge instruction for impact calculus = high win-rate. spamming calc indicts + a korsgaard card or two = less so. i appreciate straight turn debates. modesty is winnable, but usually a cop-out + incoherent.

- if the above is insufficiently detailed, see: Richard Garner, James Allan, J.D. Sanford (former coaches), Brett Cryan (former 2A), Holden Bukowsky, Bryce Sheffield (former teammates), Aiden Kim, Sean Wallace, (former students) and Ali Abdulla (best debate bud).

procedural notes

- pretty bad hearing damage in my left ear (tinnitus) + don’t flow off the doc. still quite good at flowing, but clarity matters a lot – 2x "clear", then I stop typing. debaters go through tags and analytics too quickly – give me pen time, or i will take pen time. you can ask to see my flow.

- terrible poker face. treat facial expressions as real-time feedback.

- i have autism. i close my eyes or put my head down during a speech if i feel overstimulated. promise i'm still flowing. i make very little eye contact. don't take it personally.

- card doc fine and good, but only cards extended in final rebuttals – including extraneous evidence is harshly penalized with speaks. big evidence enjoyer - fire cards get fire speaks, but only when i'm told.

- CX: binding and mandatory. it can get you very high or very low speaks. i flow important things. "lying by omission" is smart CX, but direct dishonesty means intervention (i.e: 1NC reads elections, "was elections read?", "no" = i am pausing CX and asking if i should scratch the flow).

- personality is good, but self-righteousness isn't really a personality trait. it's a game - have fun. aggressive posturing is most often obnoxious, dissuasive, and betrays a lack of appreciation for your opponents. this isn't to say you can't talk mess (please do, if warranted - its funny, and i care little for "decorum"), but it's inversely related to the skill gap - trolling an opponent in finals is different from bullying a post-nov in presets.

- prep time ends when the doc is sent. prep stolen while "sending it now" is getting ridiculous. if you are struggling to compile and send a doc, do Verbatim drills. i am increasingly willing to enforce this by imposing additional prep time penalties for excessive dead time while "sending the extra cards" and such.

- there is no flow clarification time – “what cards did you read?” is a CX question. “can you send a doc with the cut cards marked” is fine, “can you take out all the cards you didn’t read” means you weren't flowing, so it'll cost you CX or prep. not flowing negatively correlates with speaks. be reasonable - putting 80 case cards in the doc and reading 5, skipping around randomly, is bad form, but objecting to the general principle is telling on yourself. flow.

- related to above, if you answer a position in the doc that was skipped, you are getting a 27.5. seriously. the state of flowing is an atrocity. you should know better. flow.

- speaks: decided by me, based on quality of arguments and execution + how fun you are to judge, relative to given tournament pool. 28.5 = 3-3, 29+ = clearing + bidding, 29.5+ = top 5-10 speakers + late elims, 30 = perfect speech.

- not adjudicating the character of minors I don’t know regarding things I didn’t see.

- when debating an opponent of low experience, i will heavily reward giving younger debaters the dignity of a real debate they can still participate in (i.e: slower, fewer off, more forthcoming in CX). if you believe the best strategy against a novice is extending hidden aspec, i will assume you are too bad at debate to beat a novice on anything else, and speaks will reflect that. these debates are negatively educational and extremely annoying.

- ethics challenges: only issues that make continuing in good faith impossible are worth stopping a debate. the threshold is criminal negligence or malicious intent. evidence ethics requires an impact - omitting paragraphs mid-card that conclude neg changes the argument; leaving out an irrelevant last sentence doesn't. open to alternative solutions - i'd rather strike an incorrectly cited card than not debate. ask me if i would consider ending the round appropriate for a given issue, and i will answer honestly. clipping requires a recording to evaluate, and is an instant loss (no other way to resolve it) if it is persistent enough to alter functional speech time (criminal negligence/malicious intent, requires an impact). inexperience grants some (but minimal) leniency. ending a debate means it will not restart, all evidence will be immediately provided to me, and everyone shuts up - further attempt to sway my adjudication by debaters or coaches = instant loss. loser get an L0 and winners get a W28.5/28.4. all this is out the window if tabroom says something else.

- edebate: it still sucks. i keep my camera on as much as possible. if wifi is spotty, i will turn it off during speeches to maximize bandwidth, but always turn it back on to confirm i'm there before speeches. assume i am not present unless you see my face or hear my voice. if you start and i'm not there, you don't get to restart. low-quality microphones and audio compression means speak slower and clearer than normal.

closing thoughts

i have been told my affect presents as pretty flat or slightly negative while judging - trying to work on this - but i truly love debate, and i'm happy to be here. while i am cynical about certain aspects of the community/activity, it is still the best thing i have ever done. debate has brought me wonderful opportunities, beautiful friendships, and made me a better person, and i hope it can do the same for you. i am very lucky i found it.

take care of yourself. debaters increasingly present as exhausted and malnourished. three square meals and sleep is both more useful and better for you than overexerting yourself. people underestimate how much even mild dehydration impacts you. it's a game - not worth your well-being.

i like music. i listen to a very wide range of it. HS debaters can recommend me a song to listen to during prep or decision time - enjoyable music gives everyone in the room +0.1. music i dislike receives no penalty.

good luck! have fun!

- pat

Debated 2 years at Downtown Magnets High school and 1 Year in College. I am familiar with both LD and Policy Debates.

Email: sebastiangandionco@gmail.com

I'm not the most experience debater, but I have a grasp of most concepts in debate. Explain at the end why your winning the debate.

· Add me in the email chain before the round starts

· I will not keep track of time and flashing evidence is not considered prep time, but don’t be slow

· I am experience enough, but find the middle ground in speed for important arguments later in the round.

· Flush out arguments and explain high theory well including the importance of the debate

· I’m more techy

· I like performance and K’s and T

· Framework needs to be clear and concise.

Kritik’s/K-Affs:

I like performances and kritikal affirmatives, that’s basically summarizes my preference on K-affs. I am not well versed in most hard theory kritiks. I ran Cap K mostly, but I’m fine with any other kritik’s if you explain them. Don’t be intimidated to run any hard theory kritik’s, but take the time to explain the arguments.

Policy Affs:

I like all policy aff’s except the most generic ones. The more unique the affirmative is the more likely I will like the aff and probably vote on it.

DA’s CP’s:

Disadvantage links is what I focus a lot on. The structure for the DA should stay the same and answering them should stay the same not tangled in a mess. I will consider who has a more a updated Uniqueness card. Uniqueness is the foundation of the DA, so the card must be relevant. I like all Cp’s even consult, Cp w/ planks, and 2nc cps are okay. Give me a good reason why to outweigh the Cp against the aff and answer the perm. A good net benefit could be the very reason you win on the CP.

Theory/Topicality:

Any theory is fine. Topicality is one of my favorite arguments so make sure to extend interpretation and counter-interps. I want to see both negative and affirmative topicality to be contested. If you run T as a time skew that is also fine. Debate is all about strategy and using the tools you have.

I dislike trick debate

Speaks/other:

My RFD's can sometimes be unclear so ask questions

Don’t be toxic. (less speaks). I always give high speaks so don’t worry about speaks to much

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

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.

Ks

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

(they/she)

add me to the email chain: krizelbrianne13@gmail.com :D email chain > speech drop/file share

about me: CSUF Policy Debate. Interp/Platform Coach. Please don't call me judge, call me Krizel!

ppl that influence the way i think about debate: DSRB, LaToya Green, Kwudjwa (the goat), Elvis Pineda, JMeza

shout out: Kyleen, CN Forensics, CSUF Forensics

♡ ‧₊˚ ⋅ ౨ৎ ‧₊ .ᐟ

I have a 0 tolerance policy for in-round antiblackness, queerphobia, racism, misogyny, etc. I will not hesitate to intervene when I feel it is necessary.

♡ ‧₊˚ ⋅ ౨ৎ ‧₊ .ᐟ

specifics:

general notes:

- horizontal spread > vertical spread
- i'm fine w spreading, but be clear for analytics. i have trouble processing audio and will yell CLEAR up to 3 times
- tldr: debate is your space, debate however you want

DA/CP:

- i like these fr
- impact impact impact

- if you kick out, answer residual offense

Ks:

- articulate the alt
- the lit I know best are set/col, transnational/decolonial fem, and cap. i know the basis for most popular critical lit, but these are args i personally have run, so i know the ins and outs.

- you can also refer to meza’s paradigm for more of my thoughts on k debate!

- Questions I need answers to: what are we debating about? role of the judge? of the ballot? why should i prefer over terminal impacts?

KAFFs:

- i love kaffs! i just need reasons as to why we should shift the focus of the topic.
- performance ks are cool, but if you are bending the traditional ways of debate, I need reasons to prefer

- KvK debates can get a bit messy. i need judge instructions for what my ballot means/does

K v. Policy:

- i am not anti T/FW, but my bar for evaluating impacts of T vs. impacts of the K is definitely high

- impact framing is important to me in these debates. explain the internals.

- take up the ontology debate.

♡ ‧₊˚ ⋅ ౨ৎ ‧₊ .ᐟ

FOR LD:

- i'm not as knowledgeable on phil debates; i'm a phil major so i know what most philosophers are saying, i just need clear explanations and judge instruction to know how i am applying it to the round

- when it comes to framing and you two have diff values and value criterion, have a debate about why I should prefer your framing. if you have diff definitions, take up the definitions debate. leaving it up to me is a coin flip!

♡ ‧₊˚ ⋅ ౨ৎ ‧₊ .ᐟ

tl;dr: debate well! have good vibes.

email chain: csulbegg@gmail.com

LAMDL/DMHS '23 now debating at CSULB '27

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

stuff to know

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

have the chain done before im in the room if possible

be nice to each other

things to know

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

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

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

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

i LOVE LOVE LOVE "even if" arguments

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

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

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

Ks & K Affs

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

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

T & T-FW

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

LD specific

don't do tricks

speaker points

i start at a 28.5

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

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

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

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

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

thx for reading

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

General Notes

Don't be a bigot. This includes misgendering competitors. You will lose the ballot.

I generally give relatively high speaks due to the subjective nature of speaker points and the issues therein.

Remember to time yourselves and your opponents.

At invitationals, add me to the email chain using crystal.debate.speech@gmail.com .

In all forms of debate, I value logical argumentation and strong analytics supported by credible evidence. Speed, if clear, is fine, as long as it remains at a level that works for all debaters in the round. Out-spreading an opponent kills education.

"Off-Time Roadmaps"

Stop. If you signpost and are clear throughout your speeches, I will not need a "brief," off-time roadmap.

If I am flowing DAs, CPs, Ks, Advantages on separate pages, just give me the order (e.g., "The order is Case, DA, CP").

Policy (and Policy-Style Parli)

I am open to theory arguments and will rarely vote on T , but you need to explain them clearly and thoroughly in the round. I studied critical theory as applied to literature in both undergraduate and graduate school, so I have a strong background in feminist, Marxist, deconstructionist, queer, and psychoanalytic theory. I enjoy a well-executed K, but only run kritiks you know well -- not something you grabbed off the wiki/open ev.

I strive to evaluate the round using the framework agreed upon by the debaters and do not have a particular preference regarding stock issues, policy maker, etc.

LD

Support and bring everything back to your V/VC -- even if you're running a plan (for non-CA LD). Evidence certainly matters but evidence without analytics will do very little for you.

PF

I'll accept theory arguments when necessary to address in-round abuse, but please proceed with caution. I still value Public Forum as a form of debate that can be understood by lay judges, so please don't spread or run a K, and keep the jargon to a minimum.

Speech

In extemp, I want to see your introduction connect clearly with the topic and the rest of the speech (bring it back briefly at the end). Please clearly sign-post your main points and cite your evidence (ideally with more than just "According to the New York Times this year..."). Don't be afraid to use humor -- even if it's a little dark. Most of all, be authentic, engaging, and keep things flowing.

I will give time signals in extemp and impromptu.

In original oratory, original advocacy, & informative speaking, I look for well-crafted speeches delivered with fluency and appropriately varied tones.

If you're competing in an interp event, your intro should make me care about the topic at hand and should, of course, be your original words. Also, if you're competing in oratorical interpretation and the original speech includes cursing, please say the actual words or select a different speech (e.g., AOC's 2020 address to Rep. Yoho in which she quotes his profanity).

maya.jen@marlborough.org

marlborough '24 | harvard '28

hello! i'm maya (she/her) - i debated in LD for 4 years, qualified to the TOC 3x, and am now an assistant coach for marlborough.

general

good for policy debates about the topic + clash, not so good for the K (more familiar with cap, set col, fem k), and horrible for phil/tricks/frivolous theory (strike me).

every argument needs a claim, warrant, and an impact. if your strategy relies on your opponent missing an argument or dropping it, i'm not the judge for you.

please be clear, slow down on tags and analytics, and do good line-by-line. i'll clear you twice before I stop flowing, and i won't vote on arguments i don't understand.

good ev comparison + explanations > extending cards without explaining why they matter

warrants > littering arguments

cx cx!!! i love cx and having a clear strategy/knowing your ev makes a huge difference

be respectful. being unnecessarily condescending or rude to your opponent is not a good look.

please read your re-highlights out loud

saying an argument was dropped is not a complete argument. fully extending it and explaining its implications is a much better strategy

policy

yes weighing, impact calc, case debate.

clear explanations of aff solvency go a long way

my favourite 2NR to give was advantage cp + da + case. i'm not a fan of process CPs and not the best for judging them.

k

yes specific links to the aff + actually defend/know your alt

chain email: csulbkt@gmail.com

Jean Kim (she/her) policy debater @ CSULB '27

my favorite debaters: Dorian Gurrola (debate bestie), Gavvie Torres (debate partner), Erika Linares (debate sister), Aless Escobar (debate twin), Curtis Ortega, Jaysyn Green, Deven Cooper

please know

spread at your own risk. not being clear enough will dock your speaks.

have a lot of pathos to convince me I enjoy the dramatics

speaker points

start at 28.5

i flow cross X and weigh that into speaker evaluation

please don't tell me what I should be doing with my speaker points

using real world examples to support your arguments are very compelling and will results in good speaks

i'll disclose speaks if you ask during the rfd

LD specific

don't do tricks plz

K affs

Good K-affs will have a strong link to the topic or else I find it to be an uphill battle. You MUST be making arguments about why the debate space is key and/or it changes subjectivities and/or results in subject formation. I am a K-aff friendly judge if you'd like to pref me but if you're not winning the arguments I listed above I'll find it harder to vote aff. And I do think those claims are winnable but it must be a huge part of the aff in EVERY speech.

K's

love a good K. don't assume I know high theory literature, definitely wouldn't mind an in-depth overview. you should be winning your framework and alternative. I also appreciate an in-depth link debate or seeing those links cross applied on case.

T/T-FW

i'm also willing to vote on this. focus more on how the MODELS of debate that are being forwarded are particularly bad for debate for XYZ reason. So think of what their model of debate looks like outside of this round and why it's unfair/bad for education/worse for clash/etc.

Case

neg should be saying there is a 0% chance of solvency, go for case turns, or if there is a small chance of solvency it still results in something worse than the squo etc. also neg ... never drop the aff impacts especially if it's like an extinction impact .. aff should be saying any risk of solvency is a reason to vote aff/case outweighs/aff is a good idea.

CP

this is cool, just make the net benefit the top of the flow every speech if this is what you go for. should be saying how the CP solves the aff AND more (i.e. disad or case turn).

THANKS FOR READING :DDDDD

Email: gordondkrauss@gmail.com

Claremont, UCLA, Peninsula.

Offense-defense. Everything is probabilistic. Nothing will be evaluated yes/no except theoretical questions like 'we meet' or 'is the perm severance'.

Hi! My name is Emme and I am currently a freshman at UCSD.

Contact

I prefer SpeechDrop or the Tab file share... but email chain works if that's what you're most comfortable with (be warned my email is super super slow though)

Email: elay@ucsd.edu

Preferences/Misc.

I debated for Immaculate Heart for 3 years (2021-2024).

I mostly read policy arguments but am pretty good for Ks and phil if you actually know what you’re reading and can handle CX/explain what you read well. I love good, clever weighing. Mostly tech>truth but can be persuaded either way. I think truth is super important but I need the debater to bring up truth in order for it to outweigh tech OTHERWISE I feel too interventionist as a judge.

I can evaluate all common args but I really do not like tricks or hidden ASPEC or anything like that. Look at other Immaculate Heart judges for more on this - while I will flow these args I will probably not vote on them unless severely mishandled (i.e. If they’re dropped I’ll vote on them but don’t read them as a cheap shot to win against a novice).

Please be clear! <3 I am decent at flowing but if you are incoherent I will not be able to properly get down all your args. Clarity and quality over quantity of args read - but if you can read 8 off and still be clear I support that. I prefer to flow on paper so keep that in mind.

CX is binding. I love a good CX exchange BUT be kind to your opponent. I really respect debaters who can get their opponent to give them the answers/links they need in CX while being cordial and not condescending.

Be nice in round and out! Being nice will def boost your speaks in front of me. Don’t be rude/try to intimidate new debaters. Debate should be fun! So try and make it an enjoyable and educational experience for both you and your opponent.

I think disclosure is good! And conditionality... most of the time.

Hi, I’m Hope! Marlborough '24. Harvard '28.

I debated for four years in LD and I'm now an assistant coach for Marlborough.

Please disclose and add me to the email chain: hope.lee@marlborough.org (speechdrop is also fine)

Preferences:
I'm most familiar with policy debate, okay with K debate (mostly cap, setcol, fem, identity), and a strike for phil/friv theory/tricks.

Argument Quality > Quantity. I will not vote on arguments I do not understand, which means substituting jargon/buzzwords for in-depth explanation and storytelling will not get you far in front of me. Instead of assuming I have extensive background knowledge on a topic, you should err on the side of over-explanation.

I am also not the judge for you if your strategy relies on deception or getting an opponent to miss an argument.

I am most impressed by debaters who know and utilize their evidence, and who engage the core controversies of the topic through substantive arguments.

DA and K links should ALWAYS be contextual to the affirmative - read me lines from the 1AC!

Explanations of CP and alt solvency should be detailed, contextualized to the impacts, and something I can explain back to you when writing my ballot. Not great for dense CP competition debates.

JUDGE INSTRUCTION! Arguments are often missing a "so what." Even if you're winning every argument on the flow, make the implications of each argument explicit. Saying an argument was dropped/conceded is not a complete argument. Fully extending the argument and explaining how your opponent dropping it affects the debate is a much stronger strategy. If you're doing excellent judge instruction, my RFD should mirror the instructions you gave in-round.

Impact calculus and weighing should be present in every speech. As I judge I want to know how I should resolve competing claims.

I am fine with speed. Slow down on tags. I'll stop flowing after I yell clear twice.

Clipping and disclosure games are an immediate drop.

Please reach out if you have any questions!

Hi I’m Erika Linares, I currently debate for CSULB, I have around 2-3 years of experience of debating policy.

Yearish at LAMDL-2 Years at CSULB

my email:erikalinares1260@gmail.com

HOW TO MAKE IT EARIER FOR ME TO VOTE FOR YOU:

1. Have a clear path on how you want me to vote on what argument and why you are winning it.
2. Weigh it Out: Even if you dropped an arguemnt or arn't winning it tell me as to why your argument ouwweigh thos dropped arguments.

SPREADING: You can spread as long as your clear enough to do so, while reading make sure to indicate when you are moving from arguemnt to the other, if you do start to become unclear I will say "Clear" and if its still not clear enough I won't flow it.

HOW I JUDGE:

I will start with tech to evaluate the debate and then if something is unclear I will use truth to figure it out.

BUT-

If you have a ROB or FW as to how I should evaluate the debate then I will judge you base off that.

K- When running a K make sure that the link is viable and make sense, if I can't figure out how the K links to Aff by the end of the round I will disregard it.

DA- Again have a viable link for the DA.

CP- Make sure to explain how the CP solves for the impacts that it might bring up and the impacts to the aff.

T- I am not the best at T, but if you go for T make sure you have how they violeted and standard, and why there model of debate is bad.

LD-

Don't run tricks, I am not sure as to how I should evaluate them.

I am a "lay" judge. Please speak clearly, avoid speed, explain thoroughly and do not make assumptions about my knowledge of the topic. I prefer well articulated argumentation. Please don't be too tech-y with me, I don't know what Ks or T or phil are.

Debated for Downtown Magnets High School 2019-2023

Currently debate for Cal State Fullerton

NAUDL Quarters

LAMDL 2022-23 City Champion

Add to email chain: Davidm57358@gmail.com

Coached by: THE GOAT VONTREZ WHITE, Jared Burke, DSRB, Toya, Anthony Joseph, Travis, Yardley Rosas, Elvis Pineda, Chris Enriquez

Any questions you have regarding my paradigm or way of thinking in debate please refer to vontrez white at wvontrez@gmail.com

Tech > Truth

For the larger part of high school I strictly ran big stick affs and strict policy strategies. I almost always run the K in college now.

Read whatever you feel most comfortable with I will vote on almost any argument. No tricks.

Specifics:

Case:

Love a good case debate extend warrants. Don't card dump if you don't need to good warrant extensions far o/w me having to flow all your cards. Not too versed in the policy side of the world so I may not fully understand your aff until way later in the debate which means either sit on the ov explanation or use key words in the 1ac to answer your opponents arguments. Good rehighlighting will get extra speaks I think debaters often get away with pretty bad evidence and you should def take a moment to call it out.

T:

Policy: I am not your judge for this debate. I usually buy reasonability over competitive interpretations but I can also be swayed the other way. If your strat is T and I'm in the back spend a good amount of time on the explanation of the topic and why they dont meet I'm not versed at all in high school topics so dont expect me to just know what your talking about.

T/FW: I'm good with these debates. While I would not rather hear these debates in my rounds I'm more than willing to vote on them. I'm often persuaded by subjectivity shifts and don't think debate is a competitive activity is persuasive but if you have warrants I'm more than willing to hear it out.

CP:

CP are fun. Don't make me flow a 1nc cp that just has a plan text. Utilize severence and intrisic theories on the permutations although reject the argument is more convincing than reject the team. I will vote on reject the team but if not impacted out well enough I'll throw it away. ADV CP are fine although explaining mechanisms again is a must for me.

DA:

Pretty ok with these types of debates. Be creative with your DA's will definitely give great speaker points for a unique DA.

K:

K debates are amazing. I'm more than likely to evaluate K debates as truer than other debates which is from my personal bias but this does not mean I'll do the work for you. Assume I know nothing and explain the arguments to me. I'm familiar with abolition, set col, cap, and racial cap but if you get more into the pomo debates I am not your judge for them. Don't overcomplicate it and keep it simple.

K Affs:

Same applies to above. Go for the impact turns on T. C/I should provide some stasis point but can be convinced otherwise. Performance teams should really be extending their performance throughout the entire debate not sure why most teams end at the 1ac and you should definitely have your performance as a reason you should win the round.

Speaker Points begin at 28.5 I do not disclose speaker points.

additionally will give extra speaker points if you can add some humor to your speeches!

overall, just have fun. Debate is a space that we all engage in to learn and enjoy. That being said be respectful of the other team and be mindful of the language that you use. Any inappropriate language or behavior will not be tolerated and will be reported instantly to Tabroom and Coaches.

Add me to the email chain: Speechdrop@gmail.com
Affiliations: Harvard Westlake (2022-)

TLDR: the debate space is yours and you should debate however you want. Don’t call me judge Jonathan and/or Meza is fine.
My GOATs: Shanara Reid-Brinkley, LaToya Green, Vontrez, Scott Philips, Kwudjwa
Shout out: CSUF Debate, CSULB Debate, LAMDL

I am probably considered a clash judge, (Policy v K) and (K v FW) are my favorite type of debates but I don’t mind evaluating (K v K) or Policy throwdowns. Theory and Phil debates hold a soft spot in my heart.

specific thoughts:

K: Please have a link. Framework heavy strategies have value but I am more convinced by a bigger link debate than framework no plan. That being said I don’t default to weighing the aff, or plan focus. Both sides should be able to win on either framework. Good K debating is good case debating when going for the kritik make sure to include how your links turn the case. Link contextualization is not just about explaining how the affirmatives use of the state is bad but how the underlining assumptions of the affirmative uniquely make the world worst this paired up with case take outs make for a real good NR Strategy.

FW: Clash > Fairness, but you can go for any impact you want. I appreciate carded TVAs. (K v FW) should center competing models, aff teams should have a counter interp and role of the negative as defense to T even if going for the impact turns. More convinced by impact turns than we meet. K affs should be in the direction of the topic but can be persuaded otherwise.

DAs: Should be fast and turn case. Strategic straight turns in response to disads are appreciated

Counter plans: I appreciate good competition debates. Functional > textual competition. Counterplans probably should have a solvency advocate but it is what it is. Good advantage counterplans are good.

T: Aff probably needs a counter interpretation. Standards should be impacted out

Theory: big fan. Theory page is the highest layer unless explained otherwise. Aff probably gets 1ar theory. Rvis are "real" arguments I guess. Warrant out reasonability. I am a good judge for theory, I am a bad judge for silly theory. Explain norm setting how it happens, why your norms create a net better model of debate. explain impacts, don't just be like "they didn't do XYZ voter for fairness because not doing XYZ is unfair." Why is it unfair, why does fairness matter I view theory a lot like framework, each theory shell is a model of debate you are defending why is not orientating towards your model a bad thing. Oh and if you go for theory, actually go for it do not just be like "they dropped xyz gg lol" and go on substance extend warrants and the story of abuse. Theory v Theory debates are fun but I need judge instruction as to how to evaluate the theory shells against each other and comparison between the scope and magnitude of the violations or which interpretation is best for debate or else I default on which ever violation came first.

LD Specific:
Phil: it is a valuable aspect of LD, that being said over explanation and Judge instruction is very important for me in these debates. I lean towards epistemic confidence. phil innovation is cool.

Trix: Trix your heart out but be clear and let me know what im voting on.

Speaks:I give them fr.

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).

FW

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.

LD

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.

jackson.n.mills@gmail.com

debated for little rock central (20-24), am now debating @ usc

they/them

pls call me Jackson, not judge

Do what you do best — most of my career has been spent running critical arguments, but I've found myself in some policy rounds as of late and feel comftorable evaluating whatever. Obviously I have biases and opinions but good debating will ensure none of those influence my decision. Having to change your debate style because of a judge's personal convictions sucks, so do what you're invested in! Clarity and judge instruction are my only two big asks. Won't yell clear (awkward), will just make a confused face if I can't understand you.

FOR LD: best for rounds that mimic policy debate (think T/CP/DA/K), have judged trad, and am bad for friv theory or tricks. Phil seems like it could be interesting but has a high bar for explanation in front of me.

Argument thoughts:

--Fine with most approaches from either side of the framework debate — aff teams can go for the counter-interp or impact turn, and neg teams can go for any impact. Fairness can be an internal link or an impact, but if it's the latter then it's your burden to explain why (as it is with any "impact" for both sides). Please do impact comparison.

--I really appreciate good link debating on Ks! You should be investing time here regardless of if your K is more fwk-heavy or alt-heavy (unless the debate becomes an impact turn debate like cap good/bad, heg good/bad, etc., in which the link will probably matter less). Perm double-bind is an argument but not one that I think TKOs material alts. Neg teams should be willing to contest extinction outweighs. Aff teams should be willing to impact turn alts.

--Judge kickmust be said if you want me to do it.

--No big thoughts in relation to theory/competition — I don't really spend much time thinking about these args outside of the few rounds I've judged them in, so good judge instruction is helpful in these debates.

Misc.

--Fine w/ some pettiness or standing on business, but am not a fan of debaters just being mean for the sake of it.

--Asking questions/post-rounding/emailing/etc. is all good.

--Rehighlightings don't need to be read to be evaluated, but if you're reading a part of their article that was not part of the original card then it should be read.

adammimou82@gmail.com

Assistant LD Coach for Peninsula HS

Exclusive framework interps are unpersuasive, I generally think the aff should get the plan and the neg should get links, but I am willing to evaluate either.

I do not flow off the document.

I feel somewhat comfortable evaluating deontological frameworks. I have less experience with other frameworks but will do my best to assess them fairly. However, I'm not the judge for strategies that rely heavily on 'tricks' or 'a prioris.'

I think most skepticism or 'permissibility' arguments are defense. I do not vote on defense.

I’m convinced by reasonability against all 1NC theory arguments.

I try to stay non-expressive during rounds. If I show any facial expressions, it is most likely unrelated.

There is no designated time for flow clarification during a debate. If you want to ask your opponent what was or wasn't read, you must do so during cross-examination or use your prep time. If you mark cards during your speech (i.e., if you start reading a card but do not finish it), you should clearly state where you marked it and send a marked document immediately after your speech. You are not required to include cards you did not read.

I do not have a specific metric for speaker points, but demonstrating a clear understanding of your positions and minimizing dead time are effective ways to improve your score.

Immaculate Heart '21, Berkeley '25

I am an assistant coach at Immaculate Heart

felicitypark@berkeley.edu

Do not clip or cheat in general eg; scrolling ahead in the doc, stealing prep, etc. I take accusations seriously for both parties, so you should be willing to stake the debate on a cheating violation.

Please read the arguments you feel most comfortable with - I will listen to and vote on arguments with both claims and warrants regardless of my argumentative preferences.

I will not vote on arguments that I do not have on my flow - I don’t flow off of the doc and expect you to be clear.

As a debater, my favorite affirmatives were ones with plans and big-stick advantages. Being knowledgeable about your affirmative is invaluable perceptually and strategically.

I enjoy NCs that include counterplans and DAs. I think that case debate is important and should be utilized far more.

Smart impact calculus and turns case arguments win debates - don’t rely on your prewritten overview.

Arguments in debate are probabilistic. I rarely vote on presumption because I think there’s almost always a risk.

CP:

I will kick the counterplan if you tell me to. Condo is good but more than 2 is pushing it. (This just means that >2 is when condo becomes a real argument for me not that I am inclined to vote on it.)

I like smart competition arguments and permutations. Competition evidence should be in the NC.

K:

I think that K link walls must be read in the NC; 2NR is too late

K framework arguments are usually under-warranted and too reliant on winning the K's theory. You should have to win offense for why your model is better.

I lean heavily neg on T-FW debates. I think that the aff should defend a plan and I find fairness impacts the most compelling. However, I read a non-T aff in high school and don't consider myself a hack for this argument at all.

Theory:

Generally I am sympathetic to reasonability and not a fan of silly theory arguments.

If a debater makes a good-faith effort to open source, I am unlikely to vote on an arbitrary disclosure shell.

I am not a fan of Nebel T. I find most shells to be 'plans bad' in disguise, which is a hard sell for me. I think the Aff’s PICs argument is true and very compelling.

I don’t like tricks and believe that you must win truth testing for them to be a reason you win the debate.

Philosophy:

I like well-constructed NCs and framework arguments. I think framework should be a reason why your impacts matter, not a preclusive impact filter.

Misc:

Inserting rehighlighting is fine.

Asking questions about what was read/not read is prep.

A "marked" doc simply shows where cards were cut -- it is not a transcript of what was said. You do not need to delete cards you did not read wholly. If you opponent wants this, they should take prep.

Experience: Policy Debate (2 Years, But I still made it all the way to Urban Nationals Gurl)

Francisco Bravo Medical Magnet High School: 2016-18

Cal State Long Beach: 2018-19

Contact Info: elvispinedaten@gmail.com

In a nutshell: I'm a pretty open debater and I love hearing all types of arguments. Policy Arguments... love them, Critical Arguments... love them, just make sure to articulate your arguments because even something as simple as a Cap K are run differently from round to round. Uniqueness questions are good, Links need to be there, Impacts are vital (You don't know how many people forget to impact out their stuff... make sure you do because I NEED TO KNOW WHAT IM VOTING FOR, I will not feel bad voting you down if you have a great link story but no impacts) and I appreciate intellectual debate jargon. All in all I will vote on anything, it just has to make sense and you have to convince me why I should vote for you and not the opposing team (Cross-Analysis). I love debate; I believe its a form of academic expression and just remember to have fun and pour your hearts out on the battlefield. I'm not a point fairy but passion, effort and craft are highly rewarded as I highly value (as we all should) seeing students actively pushing themselves for both an academic and interpersonal growth!

K's: Know the literature, it'll make your clap-backs that much stronger and makes it easier to contextualize. Throughly explain the alt, I noticed that the alternative debate is always the least covered and if I don't throughly understand what I'm voting for... then the permutation becomes an easy option for me as long as I believe it is possible. LINK ANALYSIS WILL GO A LONG WAY... Just saying. I ran Queer, Ableism, Witchcraft and several CRT K's but I understand the post-modern ones as well (please don’t run baudrillard, I’ve already had to vote it up once --> Update: Twice).

K' Affs: I ran Critical affirmatives the majority of my debate career so I might already understand or be lenient towards some of the reasons why non-traditional affirmation might be good. HOWEVER!!! This doesn't mean that if you run a K Aff I'll automatically vote for you, I find myself voting on presumption arguments or framework a lot because sometimes the literature of the affirmative is so dense and either: A) I feel like there is an articulation issue (and thus disorder on the flow) because of the density of the material or B) The internal link chain which leads me to believe that the affirmative is a good idea might be fundamentally under developed.

Da's: Uniqueness... Link.... Internal Links.... Impacts. I like disads, make sure to be strategic, make them net-benefits to the Cp otherwise I do believe that the Squo is always a viable option.

Cp's: Remember that not all Cp's are plan-inclusive and to me at least all you have to prove is that your method solves better than the aff. Have Net-benefits and show me solvency deficits (It'll make your life easier trust). No I won't judge kick the CP for you unless you explicitly tell me, i feel like it gives judge intervention way to much power.

T: Topicality is more than "aff is not topical". Tell me why that is bad? What do you lose access to? Prove to me why the aff's interpretation of debate is bad or abusive. If I can make those connections and you persuade me to prefer your model of debate, then its looking good for you and I'm very inclined to vote on it.

Framework: A lot of T applies here too, make sure to win why we need procedural fairness, why is the aff's model of debate bad for the debate community in general, Internal and External impacts are convincing, and also make sure to make those common FW arguments that prove you don't limit the aff. Framework to me also doesn't necessarily mean that "USFG means the 3 Branches of Government", even though its common and I don't mind seeing it, I feel like you can tailor so many framework arguments to work around the rhetorical offense affirmatives get with that interpretation.

Aff's: PROVE TO ME WHY WE NEED THE AFF! I need to know that there is a reason why you have to affirm what you are affirming and thats why you're doing it in a nontraditional way. Also prove to me why your model of debate is preferable to the neg's arguments. Just persuade me (Make me feel like I HAVE TO DO IT). In addition, anything performative should always be used... and offensively too. Don't waste precious 1AC time without utilizing it to the best of your advantage.

Case: I LOVE CASE DEBATE <3!!! I appreciate a good neg team that directly challenges the aff's warrants and their claims. So that being said... good case debate is appreciated and will be rewarded with higher speaks. Flush out them case turns (I'll gasp if its good)

Advise for the aff: Don't forget your 1AC, YOU SPEND 8/9 Minutes on it, please utilize it and utilize it as offensively as you can!

HAVE FUN! I love debate and I'm always happy and excited to watch y'alls debates!

GOOD LUCK!

Debated at Immaculate Heart, currently an assistant coach

I prefer Speechdrop but if you have to email: simone.pisarik.2023@gmail.com

I will vote on any argument as long as it is complete (i.e. it has a warrant and an impact). A dropped argument is only true if you explain why it is true in the subsequent speech

Policy

I am most confident evaluating these debates

Competition evidence should be in the 1NC

K

Links need to be ABOUT THE AFF

I am unfamiliar with k v k debate

I lean aff on fw. It is very difficult to convince me that fairness is not important

Link walls and fw interpretations should be in the 1NC

Theory/T

T-fw is probably true. Fairness is the best impact

Tricks are almost never a reason to affirm nor negate, especially if you have not won truth testing. Please refrain from reading them in front of me. I will do everything in my power to find a reason not to vote on them

Default reasonability on frivolous theory, competing interps on T

Phil

Don't assume that I have prior knowledge about your position. I enjoy phil debate when frameworks are thoroughly explained and robustly justified. Buzzwords and catchlines mean nothing to me

I am not familiar with phil v. phil debate (apart from util v. phil) I am open to it

Misc

I flow cx

Judge instruction is important

Don't insert rehighlightings (especially if they're being used to make a new argument, e.g. link walls)

Don't hide arguments/put shells on random sheets, I probably won't flow it

I have become increasingly frustrated by debaters delaying/prolonging rounds. Please show up on time and ready to start. Don't steal prep, I will call you out and it will injure your speaks significantly

A "marked doc" indicates where cards were cut, not which cards were and were not read. Figure that out during cx/prep. Better yet, just flow.

Be clear!!

Hi, I’m Anish. I debated for Peninsula for four years and qualified to the TOC twice.

My email is anish.ramireddy@gmail.com.

I was pretty bad at flowing, so please slow down and pause between your arguments.

I primarily read policy arguments, but I’d be more than happy to vote on philosophical and critical arguments as long as you explain them well and do comparative impact calc. I dislike most tricks and theory arguments because they’re underdeveloped and often lack warrants.

Other things:

It’s the debater’s responsibility to flow — asking what was read must be done in prep or cross-x

Smart analytics can beat carded evidence

You can insert rehighlighting

Default judgekick

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

Please add me to the chain, my email is rosasyardley.a gmail

Policy from 2014-2021 for Downtown Magnets High School/LAMDL and Cal State Fullerton.

I think I am best for k v k and k v fw/policy rounds. I lean towards truthy styles of debate but I view tech and truth as equally important. Go for less in the rebuttals. Write my ballot. You should be able to slow down and tell me why you win I will do very little work for you I promise you that.

email:

Isaiahsalgado24@gmail.com

About Me: I am a former Open Debater at Cal State Fullerton. I had 3 years ~ debating in college and experience as a coach at CSUF. I have vast judging and coaching experience at the High School level. I spent a lot of my Career running mostly critiques including Settler Colonial K's, Afropessimism K's, Baudrillard K's, performance K's, as well as experience running Framework.

Aside from that my cases usually involved futurisms and storytelling.

Coaches: Toya Green, Romin Rajan, Lee Thach.

Me as a judge real talk: I can understand spreading, and I'm as good as anyone at getting this down. But Imma be honest, it is hard for me to stay organized. I joined debate in college, no high school experience.

In other words, framing is super important for me. Clarity is important to me, because I want to understand how you think we/you/ I should think, view and participate in the community, in this round, at this tournament, etc. Is debate a game? is the game good? why or why not? I'd like these question answered either implicitly or explicitly. I don't inherently work with the perception that debate is (just) a "game", but if given a good argument as to why I should take on that perspective (in this round, all the time, etc) I'll take on that perspective. I prefer not to feel like a worker in the debate factory who needs to take notes and produce a ballot, but idk maybe I should function in that way-just tell me why that's true.

Evidence Reading: I will read your cards if you urge me to look at them, or if they are contested during the round. Otherwise, I am assuming they say what you tell me they say. IF you don't mention the evidence outside of the 1ac/1nc, they most likely wont stay in the forefront of my mind during the debate. This means reading the evidence will a clear voice will give you an advantage with me, because I will most likely understand the evidence better.

Impact: Proximity and likelihood> magnitude and time frame

MISC:

Clipping Cards is an auto DQ.

I really don't care what you do as far as tag teaming, changing format, playing music, using stands, seating placement, etc. Do you, just don't make the debate go longer than it needs to. Also feel free to talk to me before, after and during prep in rounds. I generally enjoy talking about debate and like helping young peeps. Just chit chat and such.

Policy- I think that a straight up policy plan is dope. MY biggest concern is the debaters ability to explain numbers to me. ITs hard for me to do the calculations and understand why specific stats are important and win you the debate. I am pretty line by line when it comes to a policy debate. Id say with me, focus on some impact calc because thats usually where my attention is mostly at. Liklihood and proximity are more important than severity, magnitude. Time-Frame is iffy but doable.

FW- Honestly, framework is pretty cool. I think its become kind of a meme at this point about my annoyance with whiney FW debaters, so make sure you are being real with your critique. Framework says that there is a structure which needs to be followed for this activity to run efficiently. This assumes that the game of debate is good, so explain why the game is good, or why your specific version of the game is good. When you run framework you are saying that the other team is debating in a way that lessens/nullifies the benefits of debate. That is a big claim, so treat it as such. If you are just using it strategically- more power to you buuuuuuut, it makes you hella less persuasive if thats how you are coming off. Also, Fairness is not inherently a terminal impact, lol. At least mention debate is a game and tell me why the games good.

K- I love k's, but they get hella sloppy. With k's, i need to know that you are solving your impacts. seems basic but im shocked at how often debaters dont explain how their "self abolishment" solves antiblackness. Acknowledging that there is a problem isn't a solution, or plan or anything. It's just a diagnosis. I need a prescription. HAving said that, Im pretty open minded when it comes to different strats. The more weird the more fun for me.

I'm way more truth than tech.

General

Assistant coach for Immaculate Heart High School.

Speechdrop >> Email

Email: ssanchez2024@ihs.immaculateheart.org

Preferences (Short)

1-policy, T

2/3-theory

3- Phil, K's

No-tricks, friv theory, death good, etc

Misc

- GO SLOW. GO SLOW. GO SLOW. I am a very slow flower and I will give an rfd that I didn't hear the argument so I did not vote for it.

- Must stake the round for clipping (need a recording) and ev ethics.

- Clarification questions about what your opponent read is CX or prep.

- If you are winning the round and you do not need to take extra time (and you don't) I will boost speaks

she/her

northside college prep '24- 1N/2A

ucla ‘28

claireshankdebate@gmail.com

Critical Debate Takes

• I like when 1NCs are off the flow- evidence is for the weak and if you read evidence in the 1NC your speaks are capped at a 27.
• 2AR lies are 2AR TRUTHS. The smartest debaters will change their aff in the 2AR. This is the only way to check back against neg terrorism.
• read warming good and you instantly win. specifically, please read the "quebec secession" scenario or "the ice age is approaching". These arguments are capital T true.
• please post round my decision. if you call me "stupid woman" i will be compelled and go to tab to change your decision.

Top line

• If you're racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, or otherwise you will be voted down and given the lowest speaks possible idc.
• tech> truth
• PLEASE DO NOT READ DEATH GOOD
• Frame the round for me in rebuttals- explain why i should vote for you and why you're winning the round
• Arguments need to be warranted out- if they drop something explain why it matters
• impact analysis impact analysis impact analysis
• please flow. i will scream if you ask in cx "what did you read".

CPs

• A smartly crafted advantage CP is one of the best arguments in debate
• I like process CPs but they have to have some relation to the topic for me to buy that an intrinsic perm doesn't solve. If you write a creative perm i will be happy.

DAs

• DAs are awesome yay just explain the link stories and do a ton of impact calc against the case

T

• T is cool people just don't do it right- answer each other's arguments and do impact calc. I need an explanation of your interp, why they dont meet it, and the impact of their model.

Ks

• Ngl I’m probably not the best judge for K affs- ofc you do you and i will do my very best to evaluate the round but you are going to have to over explain the aff especially on framework. I think the best K affs are ones that have some topic link.
• I like Ks more on the neg but I'm not super well versed in high theory stuff- if you're reading baudrillard, deleuze, etc, you're going to have to be really specific. If you don't know what you're talking about, don't read the K. I love myself some fem IR, Cap , antiblackness, set col, all the basic stuff. It's super important to explain your K's story and links should be articulated and used as offense.

Theory

I'm good for theory debates- esp ones like condo, PICs bad, perm theory, etc. However, it's super important to explain impacts and interps. If theory is your strategy, you have to go all in on it in final rebuttals for me to vote on it. I'm also going to be hard to convince that stuff like agent CPs, multiplank CPs or utopian fiat are abusive unless they are completely dropped.

BE NICE AND HAVE FUN!!

My paradigm is not a series of uncompromisable rules. At the end of the day, debaters control the debate space.

On Kritiks

I love critical literature, 4 notes:

1. I do not believe in the idea that the author is irrelevant after publishing.

2. K-debater ought to produce a convincing link, and alternative. The K is likely a voter if those two arguments are articulated well.

3. Debate does not occur in a vacuum; I am open to structural fairness arguments.

4. For K-Aff's it's an uphill battle if you run a "reject the resolution" argument, I prefer reinterpretations of the resolution; this demonstrates, to me, a creative reimagination of the resolution that allows for diversified literature bases, but failure to do so would make me weigh framework arguments more favorably.

On Topicality

Topicality is standard strategy, definitely open to Topicality debate with one exception. If certain plans are core affirmatives to the topic, and the affirmative runs a truth over tech argument, then I will consider T a non-voter in those cases. Core, to me, means that the affirmative plan is standardized (many schools run that affirmative).

On CPs

I do not have strong opinions on CP Theory. I can be persuaded to multiple CPs, PICs, et cetera. Completely up to the debaters.

On Disadvantages

Disadvantages should not have a generic link, they should have a persuasive story for how it ties to the affirmative case, a specific link, or both.

On Case

I love case debate. If negative can compete on the case level - even if they lose - high speaker points are guaranteed. Shows good research, and a genuine attempt to understand the other team's arguments. Two aspects that I see as core to debate.

Yoo what's Gucci?! Or whatever it is the kids are saying these days. My name is Asia, I debated LD all four years of high school for The Meadows School so I'm familiar with how this shindig goes down. I've read through a basic aff/neg case but that's about the extent of my knowledge on the topic so don't assume I'm well versed and be sure to explain any complex concepts well.

Note that I've been out of practice as a judge so please, for the love of our lord and savior Nicki Minaj, SLOW DOWN and ease into speed. If I have to remind you more than a few times to slow down or to be clear, I'll drop speaks and stop writing. I want to actually pay attention and understand your arguments so please do yourself the favor and be clear.

I'm a stickler about stealing prep so don't think you're being slick by "forgetting to start your timer". I will be flashing prep and my time is the only time that matters so no funny business and I do count flashing as prep!

Cross ex is your time to shine and probably my favorite part of the round. Use this time wisely and I will without a doubt reward you with extra speaker points. However, DO NOT BE RUDE OR BULLY YOUR OPPONENT! This is a given for the entire round. Don't get me wrong, I love a spicy aggressive cross ex (especially from my ladies) but if you cross the line into being rude I will drop you to the lowest speaks possible. I thoroughly believe this is your time to make your case stand out and to make your opponent sound like a moron, just do it tastefully.

I was more of a K debater back in the day and am well versed on the literature. I tend to prefer K's, case/CPs/Disads, and T and am NOT THE BIGGEST FAN OF THEORY. I am not the judge to be running frivolous theory shells in front of!!! I will in fact hate you, and I want you to know you are making me very sad. This does not mean don't run theory in front of me. Good theory is appreciated as I believe there is a time and space for it, but don't be that person running theory just to run theory. Not a fan of performance either.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask before the round. I'm happy to answer questions after, but you will not argue with me. If you have a problem with me or my decision, I really don't care. You can complain to your coach and if they come up to talk to me I'll tell them the same thing I'll tell you -- I will not argue with you and my decision is final, so kick rocks. It is not my fault that you did not perform well, so learn and do better next time.

To end this on a positive note -- I love debate and am not as scary as I look (unless it's an early round and I haven't had my coffee). I want you both to enjoy the round, make smart arguments, and kick butt. May the best debater win!

Hi my name is DeLorean Thomas, I judge mostly PF, LD, and Congress. I'd like to be on the email chain.

As a judge, I reward debaters who establish an easily understandable framework and communicate their arguments in a clearly and persuasively in a manner that would be accessible to individuals that don't have a background in forensics.

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 !!

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

TL

• 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

I have been in/around speech & debate for 20 years; I competed in HS & college & have been coaching ever since. I am a coach at Flintridge Preparatory & The Westridge School, and Curriculum Director of OO/Info at the Institute for Speech & Debate (ISD). I believe that the Speech & Debate events are far more complementary than we acknowledge, & that they’re all working toward the same pedagogical goals. Because debate is constantly changing, I value versatility & a willingness to adapt.

LD: quoting the inimitable Jack Ave, with whom I agree on all things, LD or otherwise: Debate rounds are about students so intervention should be minimized. I believe that my role in rounds is to be an educator, however, students should contextualize what that my obligation as a judge is. I default comparative worlds unless told otherwise. Slow down for interps and plan texts. Signpost and add me to your email chain, please (I'll provide my email address in-round).

PF: I'd rather not need to read any docs/evidence in order to decide how I'm voting, but if it comes down to that, I will (begrudgingly) scrutinize your evidence. Feel free to run any experimental/non-traditional arguments you want, but please make these decisions IN GOOD FAITH. Don't shoehorn theory in where it doesn't apply & don't run it manipulatively. I am admittedly not techy-tech girl, but I am always listening comprehensively & flowing.

Congress: I judge based on a competitor’s skill in the following areas: argumentation, ethicality, presentation, & participation.

Argumentation: Your line of reasoning should be clear & concise; in your speeches & your CX, you should answer the questions at hand. Don’t sacrifice clarity for extra content – there should be no confusion regarding why the bill / resolution results in what you’re saying. You can make links without evidence, but they must be logically or empirically sound.

Ethicality: Evidence is borrowed credibility; borrow honestly. A source should necessarily include its date & the publication in which it appeared, & should not be fabricated. No evidence is better than falsified evidence. Additionally, competitors should remember that although you may not be debating real legislation, the issues at hand are very real, as are the people they affect. An ethical debater does not exploit real world tragedy, death, or disaster in order to “win” rounds.

Presentation: Congressional Debate is the best blend of speech skills & debate ability; what you say is just as important as how you say it. The best speakers will maintain a balance of pathos, ethos, & logos in both their content & delivery style. Rhetoric is useful, but only if its delivery feels authentic & purposeful.

Participation: Tracking precedence & recency is a good way to participate – it helps keep the PO accountable, & demonstrates your knowledge of Parliamentary Procedure. Questioning is an integral part of Congress; I like thoughtful, incisive questioning that doesn’t become adversarial or malicious. Both your questions & your answers should be pertinent & succinct. Above all, I am a big fan of competitors who are as invested in making the chamber better as they are in bettering their own ranks. The round can only be as engaging, lively, and competitive as you make it - pettiness brings everyone down.

UCLA 26'

Debated for Orange Lutheran for 4 years - qualed twice.

aaronzhng4@gmail.com

General

Be nice. (ad homs r bad)

Evidence ethics is stake the round - see Samantha Mcloughlin

Clipping is an L20 but you need a recording to accuse someone

SLOW DOWN especially on tags/analytics and pause before switching flows

If you already won the debate then sit down early/take less prep for better speaks

Policy

Impact calc wins rounds

Know your positions

Default judgekick

Theory/T

Default competing interps and dtd on T

The 1ar is probably pretty hard - 1ar theory is smart but slow down and i need to hear warrants for your offense or I won't vote on it

Default reasonability on 1ar theory but can be convinced otherwise

Semantics/pragmatics first is stupid - predictability matters and you probably won't win going all in for one or the other

Smart topic T shells are great!

No RVIs but will vote on it if its dropped and I heard a warrant for it

Kritiks

Debate is a game, fairness is good

Affs should be topical but if not, go for the impact turn + win defense

Not well versed in k lit so explain your argument clearly or I won't vote on it

Affs get to weigh the case, negs get links to the plan

K alts about a "mindset shift" usually don't make much sense and might be cheating

Debate is about arguments not people

Phil

Not well versed so make sure you explain it well

Default epistemic modesty, extinction is bad

Tricks

Tech > truth but If I don't understand the argument then I won't vote on it

Default comparative worlds

Tjfs are bad

More likely to vote for it if you aren't being sketchy - i.e. you know what an apriori is don't pretend you don't

My pronouns are he/him. I'm a parent lay judge. My email is xingdonz@gmail.com.

As a parent judge, I prefer the following:

1. No spreading. Try not to speak too fast. This helps me better understand your arguments.
2. The logic behind the arguments. Relevance of evidence and sources is important.
3. Overall delivery/presentation, including your manners to your opponents.
4. Keep track of your own time and your opponent’s time.

Happy debating!