I debated policy for Washburn Rural High School way back in 1993, then debated for two seasons in college. I am rusty, though. I have only judged once since college, and that was 15 years ago. I'll flow everything you say, but please help me out by signposting clearly.

While the K was after my time, I am not biased for or against it. You are welcome to run any type of argument that you want, but you have to tell me why it wins the round.

That said, I do like case impacts weighed against DAs. Hammer the arguments you know you are winning and let me know why the world would be a better or worse place depending on how I vote.

I'm excited to be back in the debate world, and I promise you will have my undivided attention. I will do my best to make the right decision.

Thanks and good luck!

Gene Bressler (they/them). I dislike being referred to as "judge," outside of your speeches. I prefer my first name.

Debated 3 years at Calvert Hall, currently in my 4th year at Wake Forest. If you're considering college debate, feel free to ask about Wake's debate program/scholarship process.

add me to the chain: genebresslerdebate[AT]gmail.com

Paradigms are overrated. Nobody judges the way they think they judge. Every round is different. I kinda think this paradigm makes me sound like a robot. I'm really not. Persuasion matters to me in the same, often intangible way, it matters to everyone whose made a decision about anything. Bias will inevitably occur, but I've tried to outline when I believe it's most likely below.

I think and care about debate a lot. I will pay attention to whatever you're doing, and try to think the way debaters are thinking, rather than send you on an intellectual masterclass in the RFD. Put differently, I don't care if you do things the way I would've done them.

1) Cliff Notes

a) 2v2 debate, each person gives a constructive and a rebuttal. If you give a pre-scripted performance featuring both partners, that's fine. However, in the rebuttals, I am strictly flowing the words of the first person to speak.

b) Most things that bother old people don't bother me (feel free to go to the bathroom, fill up your water, and experience joy or frustration).

However, stealing prep is obvious and annoying. If I believe you're stealing prep, I will awkwardly ask if you're running a timer. Please spare us both that interaction.

c) Be clear. I am only looking at the document when you are reading cards. I will call clear if things are getting murky. After the second clear call, if I notice clipping, I will end the debate.

d) I flow straight down, usually on a laptop. If you are exceptionally clear, well structured, and/or number your arguments, I will try to line things up. However, my top priorities are getting as much down as possible and paying attention.

I evaluate debates technically, beginning exclusively from the flow. This means I will not read evidence if the implications of a card are not clearly laid out by either team. The more time debaters spend indicting ev on the flow, the more time I will spend card docs.

I am confident in my flowing abilities. If my understanding of an argument changes drastically from 1AR-2AR, I will strike new explanation. For all previous speeches, new arguments should be identified by the debaters.

e) Judge kick is the default, but if the AFF says no, I'll evaluate it technically. If 1NC CX suggests judge kick, objections must start in the 2AC.

f) Considering things that happened "out of round," is necessary to cohere competing interpretations, or disclosure theory. As a result, it's difficult for me to totally disregard the impact of all "out of round" issues.

While I am not qualified for or interested in litigating personal disputes, when both teams treat something as an argument rather than a "tournament issue," I am hard-pressed to not, also, treat it as an argument. Unless this becomes the fulcrum of the debate it is unlikely I will discuss it in my decision itself. But do know, I listen to and consider all the words both teams say during a debate.

g) Lastly, you are free to post round me if you wish. I don't mind being pressed, and understand frustration. I do ask that you allow me to explain myself, or pause to collect my thoughts.

I may ask that we discuss things over email if I am time pressed, hungry, or not feeling my best. Please take this as an expression of my discontent with the physical constraints of debate tournaments, not a personal grudge.

Less likely to be relevant, but perhaps helpful.

2) It's very hard to dissuade me from using an offense/defense paradigm to think about debate. There are two main implications to this

a) If both teams advance an interpretation (framework on the K, topicality, theory) I will decide on one and only one of those interpretations. Debaters are free to advance a middle ground, but I won't come up with one for you.

As a result, not meeting either/any interpretation on T/theory is almost always a round-ender.

b) Reasonability needs explicit framing. If it is the substance crowd out DA, treat it like offense. If it's a plea to abandon offense/defense, explain some other metric. If you want me to do the latter, you'll need substantial time investment starting in at least the 1AR.

3) Disadvantages

a) Less "try or die," than some. If one team accesses unmitigated try or die, they're likely in a good spot because of structural uniqueness. But if there's mitigation, and/or some alternative framing argument, I am amenable to evaluating big offense somewhere else.

That's not to say I don't care, or that your should avoid this sort of impact calculus. But I think other people care more than me, and acknowledging that seems relevant.

b) I'm fine for agenda politics/elections/other "bad" DA's. Explicit judge instruction on how I should interpret/how much I should care about evidence goes a long way.

On that note, I haven't judged or been in many debates that pushed the limits of DA intrinsicness. You're free to explore this, but I will be entering with a slight bias towards the negative and very few critical thoughts.

5) Counterplans

a) Ones that result in the plan are questionably competitive. I am better for the AFF in a vacuum, but in practice 95% of these debates involve major technical concessions/framing disparities that render my proclivities irrelevant. In close debates, defense is underappreciated, and 1AR-2AR continuity is paramount. Reference previous speeches as much as possible.

b) I am not great for models of debate that rely on textual competition. I find it intuitive that the text is only relevant insofar as it informs the plans mandates, or the bindingness of those mandates. I am easily convinced text is not the only way to determine these questions, and am a tough sell for positions that compete off of text alone.

c) If "sufficiency framing," is "compare the deficit to the DA," it seems impossible to not do that. If it's something else, please explain.

d) Conditionality is debatable. If its the right 2AR, go for it. My biases (not rigid) are that in-round abuse is less relevant than theoretical justifications, and the logical justifications for either teams interpretation are more important than how badly the negative needs condo to survive.

6) K's vs plans.

a) I start with framework, and decide an interpretation. While doing this, I will only evaluate "framing arguments," like ontology first if the 2NR is explicit about how they implicate framework.

Once I arrive at a framework, I evaluate the rest of the line by line according to the rubric provided. Both teams should do more explaining what arguments from the other team are excluded by their interpretation, and/or how their strategy can survive in a world of the other teams interp.

7) Planless AFF vs framework

a) Pretty even voting record. Ballot solvency matters a lot more to me than groveling over what constitutes an impact. Equally fine for fairness and clash, but internal contradictions make for awkward cross-exes.

b) Better for counter-interps than impact turning everything. Best for counter-interps with definitions, but at the very least I expect to know what sorts of debates happen under the AFF's vision of the activity.

c) Internal links matter a lot. Most framework arguments don't make a lot of intuitive sense to me, I'd prefer to vote for a "small" and specific impact with a lot of comparisons than go down the rabbit hole of "policy deliberation solves climate change," vs. "voting negative turns you into Karl Rove."

8) K v K.

a) "No perms," arguments tend to be vapid, but if the AFF drops any they are in a tough spot.

b) More offense defense than most judges in these debates. I have been known to sit, voting negative for "any risk," of a link.

9) Topicality.

a) Above thoughts on offense/defense apply. Topicality does not give me the ick, and I evaluate it like every other argument.

b) I will spare you my treatise of limits vs precision thoughts. Everyone's impacts are bad, and usually couched in "literally breaking debate," for one side. Given that, the internal link is often where the money is. Describe what types of debates occur across a season of either interp.

Be specific. Your blocks are boring, your thoughts are not.

10) Lincoln Douglas

a) Everything above applies. I don't care about speech times. Complain to your coach, for making you do this event. Not to me, who is incapable of changing your side on the pairing.

b) I am flowing, I am not following the document. If your strategy is to blaze through an underview and hope your opponent drops a win condition, you should be crystal clear on important arguments.

c) I don't know anything about the philosophical theories that are popular in LD. I'm not expecting a college level seminar, but please explain important arguments. The side that I understand more will have an obvious advantage. I am a human, not a robot.

d) If you say "evaluate the debate after 'x' speech" I will give you the lowest speaks the tournament permits. I am serious.

I'm a parent judge with limited SPAR and PF judging experience. This is my first time judging Impromptu. Please try to speak slower and more clearly. Thank you and best luck in the tournament!

Here's my email - I don't use my personal one for debate anymore - please put me on the chain: noah@modernbrain.com

ModernBrain '19-Present

I competed in policy debate for four years at McQueen High School, where I qualified to the TOC, spent two years debating at CSU Long Beach, qualifying twice to the NDT, and was part of the Trojan Debate Squad at USC for two years.

Currently, I am a debate coach for ModernBrain which means that I might have to judge public forum, ld, congress, etc. For all of the non-policy people that I judge - please don't change your debate style just because I did policy debate. I'd much rather see you do what you do best instead of try to spread and read arguments that you aren't familiar with.

--

Debate is simply whatever you want it to be. Are there specific rules that should be desired over others? Is debate just a game or is it a revolutionary game with potential for change? I think there are a litany of questions that occur in debates that should be left open for the debaters to answer. With that being said, I appreciate all types of debate.

Disclaimer: Question to all of the judges that auto-vote FW: If I auto-voted on the K or a K Aff would I be a bad judge? I will never ever ever understand how some judges will auto-vote FW. I see a lot of these judges and it's ridiculous. Even the judges that say they will never vote on FW. Like, what? We are better than this. We are judging people who are taking time to craft out strategies and you have such an ideological bias for a side that you will vote kids down because you disagree? I coach some kritikal debaters and our pref sheet is at such a disadvantage - this is sad. For the debaters, be yourself and read the arguments you want in a debate with me as your judge because that's what I'm here for.

Some specific stuff:

T - I enjoy T debates a lot, ESPECIALLY when the topic allows for great T arguments. I find it difficult to adjudicate topicality debates when it's incredibly minute (not that I wouldn't vote on it, but the model of debate and potential abuse needs to be EXTRA clear). When judging high school, I see a lot of debaters either a) only spending time on the interp debate, or b) only spending time on the impact level. Clearly, both of these things matter, but if the Aff appears to be topical on face then you need to be really clear on this question. Fair warning - I haven't judged a lot on the policy topic, so make sure T is clear...

DA - DA's are always great debates if it's unique and coupled with a great CP. Usually in policy debates, both the Aff and Neg like to throw around a lot of buzz words and spend a lot of time on the impact level, but I really like to see specific link stories that have a tie to the Aff rather than a super generic one (unless the Aff itself isn't super unique, then obvi, fair game). If you have a CP that solves the DA, great! Explain why it solves the DA and avoids the net-benefit, but if you don't have a CP or don't go for a CP, then make sure there is some turns case analysis/DA outweighs.

CP - I don't go into debates thinking "I think X CP is a cheating CP" - It should be left up to the debaters what types of arguments should/shouldn't be allowed in debate. With that being said, any CP in front of me should be fine, but please have the CP solve something... I've seen/judged a lot of debates where the CP sounds good but doesn't actually do anything, or if it does do something, it doesn't have a net-benefit. I won't kick the CP if you don't tell me to. This doesn't mean you have to take forever explaining to me why I should kick it, but there should be some justification for judge kick. One important thing to note: I want to do the least amount of intervention as possible: I won't automatically judge kick if you're winning the DA and losing the CP. All you need to say is: "If you don't buy the CP kick it for us." (Preferably, you should have a warrant because if the Aff gets up and says, "no judge kick for fairness/education" and you don't have a warrant for judge kick, I'll have to default to no judge kick.)

K - I mainly went for the K, but that doesn't mean I'm a "K hack" by any means. I do a lot of reading now (much more than I did in previous years) and I'm starting to see the nuances in a lot of critical theory. I understand that these theories can be super complex (especially for high schoolers), so I am understanding to the fact that warrants might be not incredibly in-depth. HOWEVER, please try your best to explain K as well as possible. Just because I read the literature doesn't mean you should assume that I know what you're talking about. The judge kick stuff from the CP above applies here as well if you kick the alternative.

FW - I think that engaging the Aff is something the Negative should do, but I do not think FW should be taken away completely because FW is saying that the Neg wants to engage with the Aff, but they are unable to. The Aff should defend why their content and model of debate is good, so FW is a viable strategy. In college, I went for FW against K Affs, but when I was a 2N in high school, I would usually go for a K against K Affs. So, for the FW teams, just because I like the K doesn't mean you shouldn't go for T. Good TVA's are always great. A lot of K Affs don't need to be untopical, so I feel that the Neg can point that out with a TVA. In general, I personally like indicts on case coupled with FW (especially policy-making good, presumption, etc.)

K Affs - I love a good K Aff that is engaging. The Aff definitely needs to defend: Why the ballot solves, what their method does, and why their model of debate is good (applicable in a FW debate). I enjoy K Affs with a good topic link if possible. The FW debate is an important debate to be had due to the divisiveness in the debate community. The big problem I've noticed with people running K Affs is that debaters don't do enough ballot key analysis. I'm open to any theory and can follow along with whatever you're talking about. I prefer an advocacy statement in these debates because if there isn't one, I don't know why my ballot matters to you. Again, I'll vote on anything, but I'll be especially sympathetic to FW if I'm not told what the endorsing of my ballot does/indicates. I know this is specific to FW (because that's all most people read), but method v. method debates are also fantastic. Perms are allowed by default in a method v. method debate unless I am told that they shouldn't be evaluated. I personally don't find this argument convincing. Perhaps it would be more compelling if paired with some analysis from the Aff's theory of power explaining why perms shouldn’t be allowed—though I'm not sure.

Policy Affs - Not too much to say here. If the Aff is a good idea then the Aff wins.

Trix - I'm down to judge a trix debate, but I’d like to see it done well. A truth-testing framework with a solid reason why the resolution is false can make for some really fun rounds. The issue with trix is that a lot of arguments are overly pedantic and can be answered with simple warrants. I’ll vote on any trix argument presented, but some require more explanation than others. If a poorly warranted trix argument gets dropped, I’m comfortable cross-applying arguments from another flow to resolve it.

Phil - I studied political philosophy in college, so I’m open to discussions on the ancient Greeks, social contract theorists, or whatever. Just make sure it’s explained well.

--

Be yourself. Debate can be pretty exhausting and frustrating at times, but a lot of us forget that it's an activity that should be enjoyed. It's amazing to be in debate - especially because we're really lucky as a lot of people don't even have access to the activity. For me, debate has opened up so many opportunities, allowed me to make some amazing friends, taught me how to be a better person, made me smarter, and made me a better advocate to stand up for what's right. I remember being incredibly upset and angry after losses because I felt that it invalidated who I was when, in reality, a judge didn't perceive my argument to be the winning one. Debate is so much more than winning and the TOC.I've completely changed my views on competition and it's for the best. Debate isa place where you can activate your agency and everyone is in debate for different reasons.

Let's work on making the community a better place than when we found it. Make some friends, have fun researching, and don't forget to start your timers.

Hey y’all,

Experience: I did four years of policy debate in high school. In high school, I did primarily K debate (identity politics). My focus was on intersectional feminism.

Other stuff :

Baudrillard, Nietzsche, etc... = Will require extensive explanation as I don’t have a lot of experience with it.

Traditional policy debate is fine. Keep it courteous and respect each other.

If you have questions you can email me:

Email: bluelily2222@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Email - jhong@shcp.edu

In high school, I competed in policy debate, public forum, and original oratory in California's CFL. I also attended CNDI and a few circuit tournaments in policy as a junior and senior. Finally, I competed at the California state tournament in policy debate and at the NSDA national tournament in public forum. In college I studied political science with a focus in comparative politics. Currently, I'm a social studies teacher and forensics director at Sacred Heart Cathedral in San Francisco.

My main event was policy, I have experience competing and judging on the circuit, but less experience than a coach or former competitor who judges regularly on the topic. Currently, I spend most of my time teaching Novices the stock issues, as opposed to having in depth discussions about patent eligibility and textual competition with our Varsity debaters.

Tl;dr – Treat me as a medium judge: If you want to pick up my ballot, don't go too fast, explain arguments, and speak clearly and persuasively.

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

Notes specific to policy:

1. It's been a long time since I competed on the circuit. The most important consequence concerns speed. I can handle some, but will likely have a lower tolerance than most regular circuit judges. The faster you go, the more impeccable your organization has to be for me to flow competently. I refuse to flow off the speech doc. I evaluate the words that I can understand that come out of your mouth. If I can’t understand you, I will say so, and then it’s your responsibility to adapt or risk me not flowing your arguments.

2. I try to be tabula rasa. However, judges are not RFD tabulators basing their decisions on some algorithm handed down from on high. We are people who try to place their biases aside for two hours at a time to be as fair as possible. While I believe technical execution is more important than my own beliefs about what is closest to the truth, what I believe is more important than either is the story telling aspect of debate. Debate is, above all, a communication activity. The oldest and still the most effective and powerful form of communication is story telling.

3. Stylistically, I’m willing to vote for and have voted for almost every type of argument. Do your thing as long as you do it well.

4. I'd rather see fewer well-researched, well-constructed, and well-articulated arguments than a lot of dubious ones. I know every paradigm says this, but it's particularly important to me. As a student and teacher in the social sciences, I've noticed that a lot of what we do in policy debate is poor social science. Not all of you will grow up to be political scientists or economists, but I do believe that everyone can benefit from a better understanding of what constitutes good social science. Causal inference ought to require a high burden of proof in policy debate, just as it does in academic social science. (If I ran debate, I would make this article required reading for everyone.)

5. In terms of performance, I'm old fashioned and against things like tag team cross X. For better or worse, my view of speech and debate remains obstinately stuck in the days of jackets and ties. These preferences won’t effect my decision, but they may effect my assignment of speaker points.

6. Finally, be kind. I have more experience with the activity than a parent judge, but if you wouldn't do it in front of a parent, then don't do it in front of me.

7. If you want to know my position on specific issues go look at Debnil Sur’s paradigm. He’s very smart, and I mostly agree with everything there.

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

Notes specific to IPR topic:

I'm finding it somewhat of an intellectual challenge to judge rounds on this topic with which I have little familiarity. Please focus on explanation of warrants, framing and impacting arguments, and judge instruction. Do not assume I have any prior topic knowledge about IP law, specific authors, etc.

Hi! I’m Suhani (she/her)!

Newman Smith ’23 (4 years of LD) , UT Austin ’27, I work for DFW Speech and Debate, & coach policy at Damien-St Lucys

Add me to the email chain— sujamps@gmail.com

If it's a policy round add the team-mail damiendebate47@gmail.com

stolen from nethmin -- I am comfortable evaluating arguments that are commonplace in policy (cx) debate; less comfortable evaluating nonsense trick-blip-phil-paradox-skep-word-soup quirks of lincoln douglas. This means that any CX team that debates in a coherent and well-researched manner (whether policy or k) should be fine in front of me. LD teams that read real arguments should be fine in front of me. LD teams that read "eval after 1ar" should strike me before they strike a parent judge.

in general you can look to nethmin's paradigm for more understanding of how I evaluate rounds

Policy—

This is what I did majority of my senior year, and what I am most comfortable judging—but dont let this dissuade you from reading what you want in front of me—as long as its warranted I will evaluate it.

I love when people cut good prep! I love when you can actually explain and warrant arguments!—especially if your scenario is pretty nonsense (like me doing my com sci homework leads to extinction) having really good ev and a really good explanation will help a lot and beat back any skepticism I have for voting for a very silly scenario.

Plan affs are so fun!

I default to util and weighing impacts by probability*magnitude

K—

I can handle most k lit besides anything pomo tbh..

If you are gonna run pomo in front of me explain it to me like i'm 5.

I think aff gets to weigh case but can be convinced otherwise.

I am not voting for the k if a) I have no idea what the k is saying and/or b) your alt doesnt solve and im not sure what it does (examples are helpful!).

Reading afropess or queer pess when you are not black or queer is weird.

T/Theory—

Alot of these debates get really messy—collapse to one standard to make my life easier.

Im pro disclosure not pro nonsense disclosure shells (must disclose round reports, cites, new affs, etc).

(Policy specific) My threshold for voting on theory is somewhat lower than your average policy judge-however this doesn't mean reading your condo blocks automatically wins you the debate.

Phil—

If you’re reading phil in front of me, treat me like im 5 years old because if its not Kant or Rawls I probably have no idea what your framework is saying and I will be confused.

Tricks—

Tricks make my head hurt and it will be an uphill battle for you to try to convince me you should win the round on one especially because I have never seen a trick with an actual warrant.

The more nonsense the trick the lower the threshold for responding to it is.

Don't make me evaluate silliness your speaks will reflect it.

Speaks—

I give speaks based on strategic decisions and clarity.

Ill say slow/clear three times and so if I still end up missing args it is your fault.

If you have a speech impediment, let me know so clarity will not be evaluated for your speaks.

If you’re rude to your opponent or just do anything to make the round unsafe/exclusionary your speaks will be docked and you might just lose the round—this would obv be for more egregious things—ie maybe dont purposefully misgender people or say slurs etc if you want to win a debate in front of me.

My least favorite thing ever is doc bot vs doc bot debates and speaks will reflect it.

Misc—

I can handle speed, but don’t go your top speed in front of me, I can probably handle a 7/10 if 10 is the fastest person on the circuit.

PLEASE slow down on analytics.

I will not flow off the doc or back-flow.

Stop calling everything an IVI.

Don't make me intervene as a judge—extend warrants, weigh between arguments, do judge instruction.

I generally don't feel comfortable evaluating things that did not happen in round other than disclosure.

Lack of warrants in debate is killing me, I'm not voting on an argument that is not warranted, doesn't make sense.

I spend a lot of time with a lot of old grumpy policy coaches, and therefore judge similarly to old grumpy policy coach.

Prep time ends when the email is sent--stop stealing prep and wasting everyone's time.

Entertain me!

lowell 24’ cal 28'

put lowelldebatedocs@gmail.com on the email chain

tldr: first year out policy debater and very flexible, comfortable with ks, theory, policy, whatever you want

my only accomplishment is breaking at the toc as an at-large team ^^

my biggest inspiration is debnil sur

i probably think of arguments similarly to him, since he's coached me for all of my debate career

general background: im currently an undeclared liberal arts major at uc berkeley and hoping to go into law. in high school, i debated with many many many partners (basically the whole team) and that taught me the art of adaptation- i ended up debating with dora, where i got most of my legitimate varsity experience... i read both impact filled policy affs and an asian women k aff which i LOVED reading. on the neg i have gone for the classic states cp ptx, econ adv cp, as well as race ir, psychoanalysis, and a silly nommo cp. as u can tell, i have experience debating a variety of arguments and will prob be comfortable with essentially anything.

topic background: zero. sorry :*( i am very interested in ip rights and will def learn more about it thru out the topic.. pls explain things clearly bc i do not get things sometimes. if i don't understand ur aff by the end of the round, ur much more likely to lose... and that's a u problem, not mine!

flowing/evidence: i will definitely NOT going to read u into a decision (unless i have zero clue what is happening) i will take your word for whats in your evidence and the warrants UNLESS the opposing team points it out. which means... if the other side is completely lying abt the evidence and ur not pointing it out, u will probably lose bc what are u doing. with that being said if u lie abt ur evidence i will lower ur speaks if i find out!

k affs and framework: i have debated on both sides of this debate, and i feel comfortable voting for either side. i went for a k aff with an impact turn style on framework and that worked out... okay? i understand how these debates turn out and it's often just reading blocks without much impact comparison. please explain things clearly instead of just dropping jargon, i'll still get it, but its just a lot more persuasive if there's an explanation. refer to debnils paradigm for detailed thoughts.

k v k:i will probably be aff leaning if i do not understand what the k is. i have gone for cap k and this baudrillard k against k affs but its like not really complicated. if u are confident that u can write me an rfd at the top of ur 2nr that makes sense, then yes, go for it! but i am not deep into k literature so u cannot rely on me to do the background information for u. i think k debaters win too much by relying on k hacks that just do the thinking for them. pls learn how to think!

policy v ks: i have a lot of experience debating ks with a policy aff as well as the neg so i understand the usual framework tricks etc etc. similar to what i said above, i think k debaters often turn off their brain and read blocks and rely too much on k hack judges. if u are going to spread thru blocks, at least slow down occasionally so u can explain to me what exactly ur win condition is and ur main pieces of offense. yes, the world is racist, but why does the aff make it worse? u cannot be upset at me if i vote aff if u just spent the whole debate spreading thru analytics with big words with zero specific analysis abt the aff. for me its better when ks are dumbed down, like yes the opponents won't understand it, but what makes u think the judge does too? u don't need to use big boy words u found from searching up "ways to describe racism"

topicality: i think these debates are interesting if debated well. it's not just comparing which author is more qualified, but more abt the model of debate that your definition justifies. give examples, point out in round abuses that would make you much more persuasive. i am not very familiar with the topic still and would appreciate if examples are explained and contextualized.

theory: im okay for this.. condo is good ! stupid theory arguments are stupid. i will still vote on it if horribly mishandled. but it must obviously have a warranted debates with less comparison are hard to resolve for me and more analysis and explainations will only help you.

counterplans: i default to judge kick. i don't think i have judged a counterplan competition round yet but i think im ok for it? just dont spread thru analytics plz

disads: please over explain and slow down disad stories! this topic is really confusing for me and im probably exhausted so i need you to slow down and explain to me. do impact calc, tell me how to evaluate them, contextualize them! good impact calculus usually wins you this debate. however even if i dont completely understand your disad but if i have a vague picture and you're winning impact calc then i'll probably vote for you. love aff straight turns btw, so strategic.

misc:

i am very expressive so do ur best to guess what im thinking

unless i am visibly in distress or deep in thought, im probably not taking a long time to decide, im just writing down comments

i hope you all know i am as stressed as you are while waiting for my decision. i know how it feels and it only makes deciding more stressful

Yashi (She/her)

Parent judge

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

Clarity>speed

I won't be timing the speeches

Be kind, respectful, enjoy, and have fun!

I am currently a Policy Debater at Gonzaga University and am coaching at Niles West High School

TLDR

Yes email chain - tzdebatestuff@gmail.com

Time yourself and time your opponents

I have experience with most types of arguments but don't assume I have read your author/lit already. Explain your theory/complex legal args in language that is understandable

Impact calc wins rounds

speed is good but outside of policy it's cringe

Tech over truth within reason (ie a dropped arg with no warrant or impact doesnt matter)

I don't care at all what you say and will vote on anything that is not immediately and obviously violent

Not a fan of the super-aggressive debate style - unless executed perfectly it comes off as cringe 99.9% of the time

Judge instruction please

T

Some of the most interesting debates I have judged have been T debates against policy teams. In a perfect world the negative should explain what the in round implications of the untopical aff were as well and probably more importantly what it would mean for debate if their interpretation was the new norm.

Going for T doesnt mean you cant extend a case turn you're winning

Limits is a very convincing argument for me - I probably agree that a ton of small affs would be bad

FW

I have read both policy and K affs

Debating about debate is cool but if it is distracting from x scholarship it is less cool

Bad K affs are not cool but good K affs are cool

K affs that don't address the resolution/stem from topic research are not good and start from adeficit

I find myself pretty split in FW v K Aff debates. If the aff sufficiently answers/turns FW I have no problem voting aff to forward a new model of debate. I find this specifically true when the 1AC has built-in or at least inferential answers to fw that they can deploy offensively.

At the same time if the negative does good FW debating and justifies the limits their model imposes I feel good voting on FW. I am not convinced that reading FW in and of itself is violent though I recognize the impact these arguments may have on x scholarship which means that when this gets explained I am down to evaluate the impacts of reading these types of arguments but I don't think its a morally bankrupt argument to go for or anything like that.

Debate bad as an argument is not convincing to me, we are all here by free will and we all love debate or at the very least think it is a good academic activity. This does not mean you cannot convince me that there are problems within the community .

Switch side debate probably solves your impact turn to framework - affs that undercover SSD put themselves in a really tough spot. I often find myself rewarding strategic 2NR decisions that collapse on SSD or the TVA (or another argument you may be winning).

Fairness is always good

Debate is a game- I am severely not convinced by "no it isn't, debate is my life" - it is inarguably a game to an extent and everyone chose to come play it. Unlimited other places to advocate for X literature means no reason debate is unique.

Theory

Theory is good.

If you read like 6 reasons to reject the team I think some warrants are necessary. ex:"Reject the team, utopian fiat bad" is not an argument - why is x thing utopian?

If you are going to go for a theory arg in a final rebuttal ensure your partner extended it substantially enough for you to have adequate arguments to go for or give a nuanced speech on the specific args extended by your partner - generalized rebuttals on theory are bad. At the same time I am cool with hailmary rebuttals on theory because you are getting destroyed in every other part of the debate

I tend to lean neg on condo stuff but not by much

Will vote on perf con

Dont read your theory blocks at 2 million wpm

Bonus points for contextualizing your theory args to the round they are being deployed in

If you want to go for theory spend more than 7 seconds on it when you are first deploying the argument

K

Cool with a 1 off and case strat

Kritiks are cool

Vague alts are annoying and if I cant understand how the alt solves case and you don't have good case stuff I am gonna have a tough time voting neg unless the link debate implicates that (and is articulated)

Explain links in clear terms and be specific to the aff you are hitting. Specific links are better than generic like state bad links but if you have a generic link please explain to me how the aff uniquely makes the situation WORSE not just that it doesnt make it better - these are different things

Pull out CX moments / sketchy 1AC decisions and EXTEND them as specific links

I am totally cool with performance and love me some affect but if you are reading cards about how performance is key to X and your whole "performance" is playing like 10 seconds of a song before your 1AC and you don't reference it again then I am cool voting neg on "even if performance is good yall's was trash" (assuming this arg is made lol)

Winning FW is huge but you still need to leverage it as a reason for me to vote on X. Just because you are "winning" FW doesn't mean I know how you want me to evaluate args under this paradigm. So, when you think you are winning FW explain how that implicates my role as the judge.

Apply arguments please - K debate is becoming increasingly broad (ie. if I win my theory of power I should win the debate) which I don't disagree with but it does mean specificity in argument application is more and more important. Tell me what you want me to do with the arguments you are making and which of the arguments your opponents made are implicated.

CP

CPs are great but 10 plank conditional counterplans are kinda silly.

2nc CPs (or CP amendments) are lit

Advantage CP defender

Probably should be functionally and textually competitive ig

DA

DAs are awesome and CP DA strat is a classic

UQ is extremely important to me. A lot of links are ignorant to UQ so explain the link in the context of the UQ you are reading

Explain your impact scenario clearly - bad internal links to terminal impacts r crazzzzzy

PF

I did PF in HS but it was trad so I am likely going to evaluate the round through a policy lens.

Will vote on theory

Cool with K stuff

LD

Pretty much same as PF - never did LD but I have judged it a ton so I will likely judge how you instruct me to but default to a policy lens.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Debate is hard and stressful but relax and be confident and have fun!

Feel free to email me with any questions tzdebatestuff@gmail.com

QLS 24 (2A/2N)

USC 28 (2A)

Email Address (add both on chain plz):zleyi0121@gmail.com ; debate@student.quarrylane.org

I learned everything I know about debate from Chris Thiele - his paradigm is 1000x more detailed than mine will be.

24-25 Updates: I have no idea what this year's high school topic looks like - plz explain the case clear : )

Top Level (TLDR):

- Tech > Truth

- OpenSource is good. Paraphrase is bad

- Speech Doc is mandated. Please set up an email chain before the round starts and send all your cards and evidence for each speech.

- Don't steal prep and time your own speech/prep

-English is my second language (people who know me probably know I still struggle with it sometimes. ), but Speed is okay with me (ie, normal high school/college spreading, so don't read dumb theory arg against your opponent, pls.)Quality>Quantity.

- I have no offense with most arguments. You may say, "human extinction is good" or "xx country is evil." I am cool with animal and alien impact as well. At least you should follow the structure of "author+claim+warrants+data+impact."

- Usually would judge kick but prefer getting instruction

- Not a huge fans for overview. Just need one sentence in the top of the 2nr/2ar instructed me how I should write my ballot and why you win the debate.

- (MS/Novice/Local rounds)

1. I don't believe in the stock issue. Sorry. How people debate in recent TOC/NDT is the only pattern of debate I learned.

2. Collapsing is important: I found many teams choose to go for all the things they have at the beginning to the end for both aff and neg, but none of the flow is fully developed. pls don't do that. Extend more than 2 offs in the 2NR is a signal of losing my ballot.

3. Do full extension for the argument each speech plsplsplspls. eg. Don't extend the full DA with just one sentence with no link chain at all

For policy specific:

Topicality

- Prefer competing interpretations. Offense/Defense + weighing is better than just going for reasonability.

- More evidence + card comparison determine the truth usually

- In-round abuse is good, but you don't need it to win my ballot.

Theory

- Hidden Aspec = "L " unless u carded in the 1NC.

- I will vote on theory. However, if you are going to run really weird theories, you should consider either you have amazing standards and warranting or the other team screwed up.

- I prefer to be more offensive in theory. The same goes for topicality. Competing for an interp is definitely stronger than saying we meet.

- Condo: real theory arg, but I am really bad at going for it as a debater. I think the condo is a winning strategy for me only when the neg team drops (auto win or T > Condo?) or the neg off case span is extremely abusive. You can still extend condo and go for it, but my threshold for neg to get away with it in 2NR would be low.

- For independent theory on off case (eg. fifty state fiat and process cp bad), "reject the arg not the team" is sufficient for me if the neg team is not going for it.

Framework

- Powerful tool if you utilize it well. (Fun facts: I had ran policy aff with 2min case + 6min FW in high school)

- If you want to win the framework, you should contetualize with your opponents' counter fw and explain why your fw is less arbitary and produce better education, policymaking, etc for debate.

- Policy Aff Vs K: There's a really high threshold for me to agree not to weigh the aff, but if the aff team drops your FW, then nvm. (Truth: I hate FW. Every 2N told me I couldn't weigh anything.)

- FW Vs K Aff: Naturally, I prefer to go for Clash and TVA. Fairness can be an impact but less for me. History already show us K Aff won't completely disappear by reading more FW. Question more down to why the alternative model of debate is more important than the k. The only two true internal links for me on the neg are ground and limit. (Truth: everyone read FW against me I hate FW, but still go for it b/c I hate k v k more)

Case

- I think it's really hard for neg to know more about the case than aff does. If neg has an amazing case neg, I will reward the team.

- Go in-depth into the argument. Card comparisons are always effective. Weighing should not be later than 1AR.

DA

- It would never be wrong to go for a DA. Go hard on weighing + turn case!!

- Follow basic offense + defense pattern

- I feel like DA is the only section that is truth > tech for me. The evidence is the most essential part. The more recent cards plus good warrants always change the uniqueness and control the link.

CP

- I hate random cheating cp, especially when there are more than 6 offs. However, go for it when you need to win. (Truth: I also run these cps myself as 2N, but I still hate them when I need to answer them)

- Perm: prefer"perm to do both," "perm to do cp," and "perm to do the plan and part of the cp." (edit: if the plan is a process or devolution cp, i may buy intrinsic perm if u go well on theory)

Ks

- Prefer more plan based link. I am more willing to vote on link turn case strat + alt solvency than only fw.

- Going for alt needs to prove to me how the alt solves the k and the case better compared to the plan. Of course, you don't need an alt to win the debate. I will treat the K like a philosophical DA if you don't go for alt; then weighing and framework is important.

- FW prefer weigh the aff against the alt. If your A strat is win the fiat K and "you link you lost," I am probably not the best judge for you. I still vote for these empirically, but lwky fw debate is just boring. You can still got for it if that's the only thing you prepped, but I don't want neg end up cherry picking the drop instead I need big picture clear DA that has been explained clear and warranted throughout the round that I can lay my ballot on.

- Perm is generally just served for checking uncompetitive alternatives.

- Ethics violation/Call out: If someone's discourse/behaviors has been called out as an ethical issue, I think an apology should always come first. If the situation falls into a deadlock, I would prefer to stop the round and call the tab instead of treating it as a link.

KAffs

- I debated K aff throughout my junior year and first semester in college, so I think I am somewhat familiar with it. I think K aff is pretty interesting, even though most of the time, it will end up collapsing on t-usfg. Statistically, 90% of the time, I am answering the framework, so I will still vote on it if you run it well. On neg, I usually run T against K aff, but you are free to run anything else.

- Still Policy > K for me. Don't blame me if I don't understand your K trick

LD:

- I have no experience with LD debate or topic, so I will judge based on policy standards c/a. This means I will still try my best to understand your argument, but better no trick and philosophy.

Be respectful

Have fun!