Tabroom.com

La Costa Canyon Winter Classic

2024 — Carlsbad, CA/US

Policy Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Naomi Alan Damien-St. Lucy's 5 rounds

Anirv Ayyala Hire 6 rounds

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

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

Debated at James Logan HS currently debating for CSUF

TLDR

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

tech>truth

Policy v K - 1

KvK - 2

Policy v Policy - 2

Policy

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

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

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

Read Ks on the neg most of the time but am easily convinced to vote against it, I've felt link thresholds and alt solvency are rarely done well but are great when actually explained. Links to the plan are amazing and fw helps you weigh the K but do NOT act as a link - I can be convinced that your model rejects the aff but just saying state bad or topic bad isn't a sufficient explanation. Long overviews are a waste of time and contextualizing your offense makes me really happy - specific empirics are great link warrants.

Affs best option is to just directly answer the links and is the best perm arg you can give me. I love impact turn 2ars and most K teams aren't ready to go card for card on heg. You need to win fw to weigh the aff, extinction o/ws doesn't tell me why you should get fiat.

Kaffs

Read these the majority of my career. Debate is a game but how we play the game is up to you. Use your case as offense on other flows and remember that the aff is more than just an impact turn - im voting aff because I think it's a good idea not because a certain model of debate is worse.

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

Fairness and clash are both impacts and can be internal links - I don't have a preference towards either but I think smart 2nrs do better by making a decision on procedural fairness vs the clash internal link turn instead of splitting time on both.

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

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

Jared Burke Peninsula High School 1 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 14, 2024 at 8:03 AM PST

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

Samantha Catapang Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 22, 2024 at 11:17 AM EST

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. currently 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 is an educational forum/testing ground, first and foremost. i try to rely on offense/defense weighing based on my flow. if you win a reasonability argument, ill evaluate on reasonability but it's risky as i am extremely unreasonable. 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. averse to judging trix, 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, take it as you will.

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 condo/topicality: besides what's said above, i believe education is the biggest terminal impact to debate; fairness as a standard tends to be 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. i find text/functional competition debates 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.

｡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 args, 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 thesis statement.

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 that also coaches you.

other than that, i start off all debaters at the same speaks and it goes up/down from there.

｡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.

Jenny Chambers Mission Vista High School 6 rounds

Noah Christiansen ModernBrain 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 17, 2024 at 5:46 AM PST

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.

Jessica Fairchild Mission Vista High School 6 rounds

Jay-Z Flores Huntington Park High School 2 rounds

Erica Graham Damien-St. Lucy's 4 rounds

Erica Graham paradigm for judging

Overview:
I strive to evaluate debates fairly, impartially, and based on the merits of the arguments presented within the round. My goal is to reward clear, logical, and persuasive communication while considering the structure and strategic choices of the debaters. Below are the specific criteria I prioritize when judging.

Key Criteria:

Framework:
- I prioritize the framework set by the debaters.
- If frameworks conflict, I evaluate which is better justified and aligns with the resolution.
Clash of Arguments:
- Debaters must address the opposing side's case and provide clear reasoning or evidence to refute arguments.
- I look for depth over breadth—the quality of rebuttal matters more than quantity.
Dropped Arguments:
- I track all arguments presented and penalize dropped arguments. However, if an argument is not extended or warranted, I may weigh it less.
- Debaters should flag dropped arguments during the debate to ensure clarity.
Evidence and Logic:
- Credible evidence and sound reasoning are essential. I value logical consistency and the use of reliable sources to support claims.
- Misrepresentation of evidence will be penalized heavily.
Impact Calculations:
- Weighing impacts is crucial. Debaters should explain why their impacts matter and how they outweigh their opponents.
- Impacts must be clear, compelling, and tied back to the framework.
Key Contentions:
- I assess the strength and relevance of each contention in the context of the resolution and framework.
- Winning a key contention that turns the opponent's case carries significant weight.
Speaking Style and Delivery:
- Clarity, articulation, and pacing are critical. Effective communication enhances the strength of arguments.
- Confidence, eye contact, and a professional demeanor contribute positively but are secondary to the content of the argumentation.
Signposting and Organization:
- I value organized speeches with clear signposting. If I can't follow the arguments, I can't weigh them properly.
- Referencing specific points by name or tagline is essential.

Things I Do Not Prioritize:

Speed for the Sake of Speed:
- While some speed is acceptable, excessively fast delivery that sacrifices clarity is deducted.
Overly Technical Arguments Without Explanation:
- If theory or technical arguments are presented, they need to be clear and accessible. I will not fill in gaps in the explanation.
Rudeness or Lack of Professionalism:
- Debate is a respectful exchange of ideas. Personal attacks or unprofessional conduct will negatively affect speaker's points.

Other Notes:

Flexibility: I am open to any argumentation style as long as it is clear, warranted, and tied to the resolution.
Role as a Judge: I consider myself fair, and understand this is a learning opportunity. If arguments are not explicitly made or extended, I will not consider them.

Decision-Making Process:

At the end of the round, I evaluate:

Who won the framework debate?
Which side upheld the burden of proof better under the framework?
Which impacts were weighed and prioritized effectively?

I provide constructive feedback for all speakers, including strengths and areas for improvement.

Krizel Guansing Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 6, 2024 at 1:09 AM PST

(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.

Joseph Hong Damien-St. Lucy's 6 rounds

Suhani Jampala Damien-St. Lucy's 3 rounds

Last changed on Sun September 22, 2024 at 5:23 AM CST

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!

Amanda Jordan-Starks El Camino High School 3 rounds

Gordon Krauss Peninsula High School

Simeon Lin ModernBrain 6 rounds

Dylan Liu Peninsula High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 26, 2024 at 2:51 AM PST

Include me on the chain: dylanyliu3@gmail.com

I competed for Brentwood in LD on the circuit from 2017 to 2021, competing for Emory in policy, 25'. He/Him.

I value the work and effort that goes into preparing and attending a debate tournament. I am excited to judge your round and value both my and your time!

Here's my judging stats.

For nats, lay, pf:

Ignore everything below. Debate is a game of persuasion: a] i'm influenced by winning arguments, b] i'm influenced by influential speakers. Lay/pf debate is an exercise in accessibility, strategic choices, efficiency, and judge adaptation. Think of me as a debater roleplaying as a parent judge and you'll have a good time.

Cross-ex is a speech with limited time constraints; you can ask silly questions during prep but I won't flow them or think about them.

Cordiality is good and important. Stealing prep is bad and I'll obliterate your points.

For LD/CX:

I've been rated the second worst flow-er on the Emory debate team (@micah). Take that as you will.

I don't feel that I have robust ideological views about debate, and I find that most paradigms ultimately become a lecture about how people think debate works and why you should debate that way in front of them. I am certainly unqualified to explain what particular T argument is the most compelling and why, that being said, I think you should debate how you want to debate, and I will evaluate the round to the best of my ability as the debaters have told me to. I do have some 'warnings' that you may find germane to how I make my decisions usually.

I am likely bad for pomo and tricks and will vote for it only if there is a very compelling explanation in the rebuttals that tell me what it is I'm voting for exactly and why that means you win. I don't feel particularly comfortable voting for positions that I couldn't explain back to you.

I tend to think debate is good because of clash, otherwise it's not debate.

I dislike blips. I tend to think that a winning argument requires an investment of time, and would prefer to vote on the core of the round.

i will bump up both debaters' speaker points if the 1ac begins at the round start time.

I think in round violence against people in the room can be a compelling ballot - I think there's a sliding scale of when I'm obligated to intervene and I will gladly end it shamelessly and seemingly arbitrarily, especially for children.

Clipping and other evidence violations is a tab question; I will actively listen for clipping and am open to recordings or proof that someone else is clipping.

Please don't read win 30 in front of me

Matthew McFadden Peninsula High School 4 rounds

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

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

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

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

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

---update - 2023 ---

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

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

---end of update---

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

Acceptable:

- All impact turns

- Specific, well-researched K's

- Condo

Unacceptable:

- AFFs without a plan text

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

- Untopical AFFs

- Generic, unapplied arguments

- GBX-style process CPs

---end of update---

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

reasons to strike me:

-you read a 1ac without a plan text

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

-you talk about your identity in debates

-you read baudrillard

-you have 3-minute-long 2nc overviews

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

---end of update---

---update---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---end of update---

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

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

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

things that bother me -

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

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

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

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

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

cp – wonderful.

counterplans with long texts – my favorite.

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

process cp's – you're probably cheating.

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

da – yes, please.

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

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

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

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

presumption – make this argument.

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

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

k affs – good luck.

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

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

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

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

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

"be snarky if you want" -grace kuang

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

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

Daniel Medina Huntington Park High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Sun November 10, 2024 at 1:41 PM EST

General

Huntington Park '24

CSULB '28

LAMDL x UDL 4eva <3

Currently coaching for Huntington Park and debating for csulb.

Yes, Add me to the Email Chain: dmedina1921@gmail.com

Have done competitive debate for around three years now and ongoing. I'm conformable with mostly every argument so feel free to get creative and do what you do best.

Shout-out to Tania Vasquez, Jay-Z Flores, Curtis Ortega, Desiree Delgadillo, and LAMDL!Shoutout Desiree Delgadillo 3rd place speaker at NAUDL!! my goat 30 speaks automatic - Delmy.

Don't be racist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, or make any arguments that may put debaters in potentially harmful situations or read arguments in bad-faith.

TLDR

Debates will be won based on the flow. I will evaluate arguments based off offense defense and will evaluate technical concessions prior to any other arguments. Though please do explain why dropped arguments matter otherwise other arguments potentially O/W or out frame any dropped argument that isn't explained in depth, so evidence comparison and impact calculus is very important. I don't mind what you read but how you read it so extend your claims and warrants for your evidence, do judge instruction, and comparison of evidence will get you the highest of speaks. I am mostly a K debater but am down for anything policy related like CP, DA's, and T.

The easiest way to get my ballot is to tell me where, why, and how I'm voting for you by making big picture overviews/framing offensive arguments that outweigh or resolve arguments that are being made in the round.

Rehighlights do not need to be read unless they are from a different portion of an article the 1AC has cut and used.

Pref Guide/Thoughts

1. K v T - Probably 90% of my debates. I believe that aff's need a solid counter-interpretation instead of only just impact turn strategies. More better for clash than fairness.

2. KvK - These can be very interesting, the more niche the better. Love these debates overall and they are super fun and speaks will be extremely generous to those who do their research.

3. K v Policy - Would prefer the K to have specific aff link contextualization/specific links instead of reading 10 fiat K and Extinction K cards to win framework. Alternative's don't need to solve the case but I enjoy when K teams list material alternative solvency through historical/recent analytics.

4. Policy v Policy - T should have a clear violation i.e. tell me what case lists are under your model, how their model explodes limits and allows for infinite policies/actors and rehighlights and clear judge instruction work well here a ton.

5. High Theory v High Theory - No specific thoughts just explain it in context to the aff/neg.

No Tricks unless they serve meaning like fiat is illusory.

No frivolous theory debates.

Overall

Have fun, be petty but not mean, you do you and I'll evaluate debates based on the framework debaters set in the round.

If you are from an underfunded UDL school and have questions you can send them to the same email I use for email chains above.

Jackson Mills Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue November 19, 2024 at 5:44 PM CST

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.

Adam Mimou Peninsula High School

Razeen Nasar Canyon Crest Academy 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 23, 2024 at 3:48 PM EST

They/them ( Ask for other ppls in rounds pls!!)

You can call me whatever. Razeen, Judge, ご主人様.

email chain: razeennasar1@gmail.com

As a judge I critique y'all with feedback. However, I feel judges can't be told about their competency. Especially with the position of authority. Please don't see me as an all-knowing authority figure. I am a student just like y'all. I sleep, go to school sometimes, and am a disappointment to my parents. I'm human not a debate robot. You can use this form to criticize my judging without having your name attached. Or say I'm not lame and I did well.

Note: everything cut down word wise so it takes less time. Hence bare bone wording. Pls ask for elaboration irl :) Based on average reading speed TLDR will take 1 minute, whole thing 6.5 minutes of reading. Immensely cut down from initially 20 min(egregiously long).

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeRkloyjH8sARng_HNNNPtHhlMFaIrPK0jekgp7bspJ9jppeg/viewform?usp=sf_link

Speaks:

If you look at my speaking points history I'm generally pretty generous. If you do 4 things for me I will give you 30 speaks for free!

Ask your opponents for pronouns or just have some exchange related to that in round
Email me your case so I can read along while you read your case (if I miss anything I can reference back or re-read during cross). Don't make excuses about why you can't. If you don't want to then just don't do it. The only exception I will make is if you show me the TOURNAMENT doesn't allow me.
Finish your speech coherently and use like 95% of your time with legitimate substance.
Send evidence efficiently and don't waste time in between speeches or waste time in general.

For every one missed I'll doc 1.25 speaks. If you are just mean or rude to your opponents then I'll just give an auto L with 25 even if you win on the "flow".I have no tolerance for being mean :) I will try my best to find reasons to vote against people who are borderline mean through the flow too. A respectful environment is a prerequisite to people feeling comfortable to debate! All these asks for me are EXPECTATIONS, not preferences!

SHORT I DONT WANT TO READ AN ENTIRE THING OF NONSENSE BUT I WANT TO KNOW THE JIST:

Did HS PF debate+ college parli. was okay in HS pretty good in college now.

Mostly, Tech>Truth. However, don't use tech to bully. Still subconsciously influenced by bias. Uncontrollable. Some arguments I inherently understand more.

IF IM MAKING EYE CONTACT THAT MEANS I AM CONFUSED AND DON'T KNOW WHERE TO FLOW NOT THAT I AM LISTENING INTENTLY!!! IF YOU TAKE ANYTHING AWAY TAKE THIS!!! At one point I get self-conscious if I look too much in confusion when I don't know what to flow and look down. >~<

Pf 2nd rebuttal frontlines. No New Offense FF not in summary. Policy/LD don't know extension norms thus gonna be forgiving w/ extensions.

Generally against tech being topicality, Theory, and Ks Would consider non-disingenuously for real abuse/problematic rhetoric.

Spreading can't flow fast so it's bad. Don't sound like you are drowning.

Extinction big no no. Unless topic calls for it. No daylight savings causes extinction(real round)

Make sure not same impact scenario. Don't weigh Nuke war w/ Russia against Nuke war w/ Russia on magnitude. Compare links. Talk about uniqueness.

I prefer warranted low magnitude high probability vs high magnitude low probability. Even if an argument outweighs, if it isn't extended well and I can't explain it I won't vote off it. Argument understandability is a prereq to voting on any argument for me. I have ALOT of rounds where I vote for an impact cuz it's the only one explained.

Jargon pls no. I barely know prog debate.

Don't expect me to understand afro-anthropessimism pre-post modern feminist neo liberal hauntology @400WPM.I barely understand my college lecturers at 1/4th that speed. even at normal pace without accessible wording I won't get it. 100% have not read your arg lit before. Need slow good explanation for new concepts to me aka most of arguments.

Don't assume I remember what each author said. I don't remember 1/2 of UCSD debaters in a quarter. You think I'm gonna remember aiusdbh 13 from the 1NC 45 minutes ago.

PF DEBATE

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

Pls email me your cases before the start of the round.

Pls frontline in 2nd rebuttal rather than 2nd summary

I will vote off turns if not blippily read and make sense.

Pls use voters in the final focus and COLLAPSE. I'm serious about collapsing.

I... am lazy and use single-use paper plates cuz I don't like doing dishes, but also my romantic partner is in marine biology and roasts me for single use plastic... aka I can see both sides :)

POLICY DEBATE

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

Don't understand "new sheets" and flowing is hard. Though i try my best. Most decision focused on 1/2 AR/NR. Better to be honest it's hard for me than lie. Sorry! I will try to be as informed as possible by the round. Pls bear with my stupidity. Know I'm trying my hardest to give a good decision.

Since I know this event fundamentally relies on spreading and silly impacts and stuff I will just throw out all my Pf and Parli stupidity and try my best to evaluate from a policy debater brain. Unfortunately, I am bad at policy lol.

PARLI DEBATE

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

I compete in college parli. I have no clue what the norms are in HS parli. College parli is basically policy without the cards. So that is how I see parli. Pls don't try to spread it's already painful to hear in college. If it's the norm I'm fine with topicality and Counterplans. Please don't read an aff K, and if that isn't a norm yet thank god. I am open to K arguments if it isn't used to shut out opponent and outspread them with complicated jargon.

I have won 4 college parli tournaments this past year so like I feel like I know what's up with parli.

I love debates that are on topic and have relevant and easy to understand arguments that have nuance!

Longer preferences

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

I am an idiot

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

I'm stupid, not a humble statement. Don't let the absurd length fool you. It's a sign of insecurity, not knowledge. This is at the top for a reason. I make wrong decisions when forced to think myself. Verbally make a speech that I can nearly mimic in my RFD.

I'm not competing so don't assume I know topic-specific acronyms/words are. Common sense ideas to you aren't common sense to most people. I can't figure out push or pull doors don't think I can figure out your argument.

Debate jargon for prog is a no no. Just take the couple of extra seconds to explain. Don't assume arguments. Explain things like "fairness/education voter" and "reasonability means judge intervention" even though seems common sense explain why these are good/bad.

Fully explain all your args. The reasons why an argument is logically true beyond evidence.

Don't say extend from past speech. I already forgot that last speech bro. I have the short-term memory of a goldfish. Think of it this way, in your classes if your teacher says expanding on what was said 15 minutes ago, and doesn't somewhat reexplain there is simply confusion.

Access

--------

Don't use tech debate as a way to bully new debaters. Tech is meant to make debate fairer, and challenge knowledge. Instead, it's become a tool used by the privileged to win silly arguments with coach-made responses that less-resourced schools can't beat. Don't contribute to bad debate norms I will be sad.

Experience:

HS PF+ College Parli. was mid in HS (4-3 STOC). College I got better & have won tournaments. College parli is budget policy w/out cards. However, I'm mostly a topical debater. Vaguely understand/use CPs/T/Ks/Theory.

General debate

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

In short, I will try to find the quickest way and clearest way to vote. If an argument is messy I'll likely vote off something way smaller that may not even outweigh. I want your last speeches to be what you want me to say in my RFD.

Tech Truth?

I am generally tech over truth with a couple of exceptions

When tech is used as a means to exclude
Dump low-quality args hoping for drops.
Arguments are clipped
Borderline false args e.g Nuke war good(low threshold for response)

Case

Please send case. Allows me to flow. Flowing helps me keep track. More likely to vote for yall. Also just good practice.

Rebuttals

Please try to signpost. By that I mean if you directly say, which response with things like " on x argument, their yth response about z we have x amount of responses. or if it's 1 response give the response.

Also, please don't say "no evidence, no warrant, no explanation" rather explain why the lack of a warrant means their argument is false and what it actually is like. Also, I am down for logical arguments. Not everything needs to be carded if it's analytical. If something is analytical like "no one wants to be nuked" and you say nO eViDenCe then there is no way I'm voting on the response.

Final speeches:

Please voters. Frame independent reasons to vote rather than line by line. go reasons why you win, and cover defense/turns on their offense.

Line by line = Line w/out the ine.

While I try to exclusively flow. Directing me on the flow can make me interpret the flow in a better way for y'all. Will focus on what I'm told to. So focus on best args.

Pls collapse. 1 good arg>3 bad arguments. Either you collapse or my mental health collapses.

Don't say "extend (author)" or "extend my response on x argument." extend what the author says or the argument itself. If you don't explain your arguments and just assume I know them I won't vote for them!

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

Weighing

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

I.Will.Do.Anything.I.Can.To.Not.Vote.On.Bad.Extinction.Scenarios.Within.my.Power.as.a.Judge.

Exceptions are topics that kinda rely on those ideas. Like Conflict for NATO/ great power conflict. Or climate change for PRC econ or enviro. Heavily prefer against it.

Probability weighing:

Fleshed-out arguments are rewarded. Don't go for the "risk of offense infinite magnitude extension multiply infinity." not gonna vote on that. arg of "risk of offense" means you aren't good enough to defend case. a low chance of your case to me is a 0 chance. However, the opponent needs to win probability claims.

Same/similiar impact weighing:

Make sure you aren't having exact same or similar impact to the opponent then OW on "magnitude"

Many topics have different sides same impact. Rather than weigh impacts you compare links or compare uniqueness. Uniqueness is the better route for me. 2 possible ways to deal w/ clash IMO.

1.Mostly look to Uniqueness 70% of time. Is SQUO going good or nah. If going well why fix something that isn't broken. Inversely, if things going wrong we need to take action to fix.

2. Distinguish impacts. Explain why your scenario uniquely links more. Maybe it's more specific. It affects more countries. It has bigger actors. Your link bigger than theirs. Whatever way to show e.x how your link into nuke war is better than theirs.

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

Progressive Debate

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

Structural Violence: Only prog argument I vibe with. Main it center of your narrative. Don't make it secondary defeats the purpose of prioritizing underprivileged if you deprioritize them by dropping arg on it.

Spreading: I can't follow it at all. I'll try to follow doc. Tell me what you cut from it. Heavily prefer not. Don't use as a way to shut out opponents. Will insta L.

Topicality:Don't read to add an extra layer. I will be sad. Don't make bad debate norms. Abusing new teams w/out resources to learn about debate in the meta sense is shameful. Only read if legit non-topical. If actually hurts ability to debate use it. Don't say "fairness/education voter" explains why. Default reasonability.

Kritik:I PROMISE I don't know your lit. I am stupid. keep it simple. Don't use area-specific lingo. If you have to have heard it before to know it don't read it. If you can't be simple w/ it that means you don't know it. Kinda troll nowadays become cancelling your opponent for "insert ism"

I have, lately, been more sympathetic to them in certain instances. I am fine with Kritiks on nuke war impacts, western construction of "terrorists," Orientalism on China impacts, Democracy promotion bad/ causes othering, AI deserving rights, Speed bad K, and tech debate bad K. Ultimately, I won't want to vote on a K that can be linked to anything and any topic. I feel that anything that is legit misunderstood and really messed up to the point where it shouldn't be "seen from both sides" is a place I would legit evaluate a Kritik.

K aff: No lol. screams "I'm not good enough to defend the topic, and I'm lazy." If you feel passionate anyway read it.

Theory:Frivolous theory will lead to AUTO L 25. Won't deal with it. Default RVIs. Minimal experience judging theory. The threshold for abuse is high. Must prove in-round abuse, not potential abuse.

MISC

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

If you made it down here Idk why you wasted time reading this far lol

Disclose decision:

Yes, if tourney allows. Will try to be quick. Will try to be constructive as possible. If not being constructive lmk. Want to talk about strengths, improvement areas, the round itself, if you loss potential paths to the ballot. For winning team how to make more clear. A lot of apologizing. Pls if you have an issue bring it up w/ me directly rather than say stuff outside of round. I want to clarify and not "judge screw" as I had that as a debater I felt and ik the frustration. If you found RFD good bad you can give feedback on form.

If flight 1 goes quickly I will give feedback. If y'all troll with timing I'll just type my feedback. I assume y'all prefer to hear, just start the round ASAP.

NDCA wiki:

If you disclose that's cool and awesome! However, I'm not receptive to disclosure theory in PF. In other events, if used to bully new debaters that won't be tolerated.

Decorum:

The presentation has a subconscious effect on everyone. Will try to prevent that.

No tolerance for rude debaters. Will drop if bad enough rudeness. Don't be overly rule stigent/ talk over people/ be snarky/make too many faces. Also, will lower speaks. Be nice! Isn't hard. Will give high speaks otherwise.

IRL politics:

Pure tab judge is impossible and fake. IRL knowledge sphere is Marxism. not the "government does stuff" leftism though. Fine with being critical of America and the economy.

arman omidvar Peninsula High School 4 rounds

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

(he/him); armangiveaway@gmail.com

Debated for four years at Peninsula

Currently at Cal (not debating) studying plant biology and data science

If I can't understand you I'll stop flowing. Don't expect me to compensate from the doc - I usually don't look at those until the end of the debate. Stay on the safe side and be clear even if it means sacrificing speed.

You must read your rehighlightings if you want me to evaluate them.

General notes: the rebuttals should be like an RFD, you need to explain a way in which I can feel comfortable voting for you while also taking into account your opponents offense. Please don't just extend arguments from your constructives but also interact with your opponents claims.

Plan-less affs: Please don't. But if you must I prefer if they be contextualized to the topic. If you're reading something complicated, I need a solid enough explanation in the round that's sufficient for me to understand what the argument you're going for is. Obviously T is the most intuitive argument against these positions and you should certainly go for it if you want to. I find that impact turning T is the best way to go if you're aff. Fairness is an impact. I also really like seeing contextualized and well researched Ks and PIKs against these sorts of affs. If you have one, don't be afraid to go for it.

Soft-left affs: I think they're great. You need a compelling argument for why I should shift away from the delusional impact weighing assumptions that policy debate has normalized. CPs that solve the aff are probably the best neg strat.

T v. plan: Don't really have any unusual thoughts on T. Go for it if you must. I have a limited experience going for or judging it but as long as you debate it well you should be fine.

K: I enjoy these, and I have found myself primarily going for them as I matured as a debater. I like specific critiques. If I listened to your 2NC in a vacuum and I didn't know what 1AC you were responding to then that's a problem so make sure to do the contextual work here to really impress me.

Framework for the K: I'm inclined to evaluate debates through an offense-defense paradigm. It's your job to show that the assumptions made in the 1AC implicate aff solvency/truth claims.

If you're aff in front of me and you're choosing between impact turning or link turning the links, you should impact turn unless you have a good reason not to. I find teams tend to be more successful in front of me doing the former.

Theory: you need in round abuse to go for it. I love theory 2ARs against really abusive CPs. It's probably your best way out. I think i'm pretty charitable to condo 2ARs.

Thoughts on competition: I don't default to judge kick and I don't think "the status quo is always a logical option" is a particularly good model since it invites loads of judge intervention. If you go for a CP and the aff has offense to the CP that outweighs the offense the neg has forwarded then i'm voting aff. Same goes for the alt.

I have a lower bar for aff victory on the perm than most people I know. The role of the perm is to prove that all of the plan and some of the CP/Alt could plausibly happen and not trigger the DA. As long as I reasonably believe this to be true, then i'm voting aff. I don't think the aff needs to win a 'net benefit' to the perm bc that makes the perm no longer about competition and warps it into some sort of advocacy that the aff could go for which isn't what I believe the perm to be.

Process Counterplans: I don't necessarily have a problem with these. God knows I went for them way too often in high school. However, I am very charitable to affirmative perms that test the germaneness of the net benefit.

LD Note: You can probably skip the part of the AC where you define all the words in the res. Not a fan of tricks.

Justin Parco Lake Balboa College Prep 6 rounds

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

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

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

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

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

Checklist:

Spreading - OK

Tag Team CX - OK

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

Pronouns - He/Him

Arguments Allowed - All

Favorite Strat - DA + CP

Marked Cards - Send revised version ASAP

Default Paradigm - Policymaker

Truth v.s. Tech - Tech

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

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

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

Speaker Points Scale:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

< 26: You have done something problematic.

25 The zero point of debate.

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

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

Evidence share email: parco.debate@gmail.com

Chris Paredes Damien-St. Lucy's 3 rounds

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

Overview

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Argument by argument breakdown below.

Topicality

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

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

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

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

Framework / T-USFG

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

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

Procedurals/Theory

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

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

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

My defaults that CAN be changed by better debating:

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

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

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

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

- Consult CPs and Floating PIKs are bad.

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

- CX is binding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kritiks

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

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

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

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

Counterplans

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

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

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

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

Disadvantages

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

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

Misc.

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

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

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

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

Sandeep Pathak San Marino High School 6 rounds

Elvis Pineda Lake Balboa College Prep 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon January 8, 2024 at 4:09 AM PST

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!

Arthur Qin Peninsula High School 6 rounds

Viplove Rahate Canyon Crest Academy 6 rounds

Isaiah Salgado The Harker School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 11:31 PM PST

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.

Narayan Shetty ModernBrain 6 rounds

Charlie Synn Canyon Crest Academy 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 12:26 PM PST

Email - chulho.synn@sduhsd.net.

tl;dr - I vote for teams that know the topic, can indict/rehighlight key evidence, frame to their advantage, can weigh impacts in 4 dimensions (mag, scope, probability, sequence/timing or prereq impacts), and are organized and efficient in their arguments and use of prep and speech time. I am TRUTHFUL TECH.

Overview - 1) I judge all debate events; 2) I agree with the way debate has evolved: progressive debate and Ks, diversity and equity, technique; 3) On technique: a) Speed and speech docs > Slow no docs; b) Open CX; c) Spreading is not a voter; 4) OK with reading less than what's in speech doc, but send updated speech doc afterwards; 5) Clipping IS a voter; 6) Evidence is core for debate; 7) Dropped arguments are conceded but I will evaluate link and impact evidence when weighing; 8) Be nice to one another; 9) I time speeches and CX, and I keep prep time; 10) I disclose, give my RFD after round.

Lincoln-Douglas - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop debater for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) PICs are OK; 5) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition and impact of definition on AFF/NEG ground wins; 6) Progressive debate OK; 7) ALT must solve to win K; 8) Plan/CP text matters; 9) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 10) Speech doc must match speech.

Policy - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop team for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition wins; 5) Progressive debate OK; 6) ALT must solve to win K; 7) Plan/CP text matters; 8) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 9) Speech doc must match speech; 10) Questions by prepping team during prep OK; 11) I've debated in and judged 1000s of Policy rounds.

Public Forum - 1) I flow; 2) T is not a voter, non-topical warrants/impacts are dropped from impact calculus; 3) Minimize paraphrasing of evidence; I prefer quotes from articles to paraphrased conclusions that overstate an author's claims and downplay the author's own caveats; 4) If paraphrased evidence is challenged, link to article and cut card must be provided to the debater challenging the evidence AND me; 5) Paraphrasing that is counter to the article author's overall conclusions is a voter; at a minimum, the argument and evidence will not be included in weighing; 6) Paraphrasing that is intentionally deceptive or entirely fabricated is a voter; the offending team will lose my ballot, receive 0 speaker points, and will be referred to the tournament director for further sanctions; 7) When asking for evidence during the round, refer to the card by author/date and tagline; do not say "could I see your solvency evidence, the impact card, and the warrant card?"; the latter takes too much time and demonstrates that the team asking for the evidence can't/won't flow; 8) Exception: Crossfire 1 when you can challenge evidence or ask naive questions about evidence, e.g., "Your Moses or Moises 18 card...what's the link?"; 9) Weigh in place (challenge warrants and impact where they appear on the flow); 10) Weigh warrants (number of internal links, probability, timeframe) and impacts (magnitude, min/max limits, scope); 11) 2nd Rebuttal should frontline to maximize the advantage of speaking second; 2nd Rebuttal is not required to frontline; if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline 2nd Summary must cover ALL of 1st Rebuttal on case, 2nd Final Focus can only use 2nd Summary case answers in their FF speech; 12) Weigh w/o using the word "weigh"; use words that reference the method of comparison, e.g., "our impact happens first", "100% probability because impacts happening now", "More people die every year from extreme climate than a theater nuclear detonation"; 13) No plan or fiat in PF, empirics prove/disprove resolution, e.g., if NATO has been substantially increasing its defense commitments to the Baltic states since 2014 and the Russian annexation of Crimea, then the question of why Russia hasn't attacked since 2014 suggest NATO buildup in the Baltics HAS deterred Russia from attacking; 14) No new link or impact arguments in 2nd Summary, answers to 1st Rebuttal in 2nd Summary OK if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline.

Tania Vasquez Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon August 19, 2024 at 5:00 PM PST

My email is tjdebate08@gmail.com

please label the email chain tournament name + round #

General Judging

I'm cool with tag teaming, though I think both speakers should do their best to answer individually

Spreading- I'm okayish with it tho I would appreciate it if there was an emphasis on taglines/main arguments (like slowing down during certain stuff, raising voice etc). Keep in mind I flow on paper,,

I will reference evidence documents for throughout the speech, but i will not be looking in depth at it unless im told to by debaters

Run what you like, I am familiar with the types of arguments you make however, I am not familiar with this topic specifics so if it's a niche argument don't assume I know it.

I will not do any work for you, make my life easy, simplify and tell me what im voting on.

I do consider cross ex as a type of speech in the way i am viewing and framing your arguments

(I will give higher speaks if you can provide clear judge instruction.)

Specific Policy Arguments

Policy sometimes overwhelms me so please try to simplify/slow down especially in rebuttal speeches.

On Condo bad: I'm more willing to vote, for it if the negative runs more than 5 or more off. I just prefer having in depth debates.

T: Not the best judge for policy t vs policy t however I do think that limits is a key component in debate because it does result in the type of education we recieve in round and certain arguments can affect a teams ground.

Tech over truth but keep in mind I'm more lenient toward the truth than most.

Counterplan- I like these most when the net benefits are weighed in the round, so not so much a one sentence counterplan with no evidence. A personal pet peeve is when that one sentence counter plan ends up dropped by the block

DA- impact calc pls make my decision easy also the LINKKK explain it

K/K Affs

Generally Im good with most k literature i've run racial cap k, set col, epistemic abolition/ anarchism . Though while I am familiar with most literature, high theory ks can still be really tricky to follow through so just try to explain please

For Negative Ks : Try to be familiar with your literature, and try to articulate how the aff links, not just generically. If you can label your links and impact them throughout the speech your chances of winning are higher. Also answer why the aff doesnt get a perm? Why is the aff a bad idea? Impact it out

For K affs specifically: I'm cool with you but please be ready to defend framework well because I want to understand why you think this approach is more beneficial to the debate space and why your education matters.

For both k/ k affs: Explain your alternative. Do not dodge around the question its okay not to be material and focus on education but explain the WHY and defend. Or if you are a material alt explain.

Fw= I value education and portable skills.

No tricks, please.

Take a breath before you debate and do your best! you got this!

Scott Wheeler Peninsula High School

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 9:03 AM PST

Overall:
1. Offense-defense, but can be persuaded by reasonability in theory debates. I don't believe in "zero risk" or "terminal defense" and don't vote on presumption.

2. Substantive questions are resolved probabilistically--only theoretical questions (e.g. is the perm severance, does the aff meet the interp) are resolved "yes/no," and will be done so with some unease, forced upon me by the logic of debate.

3. Dropped arguments are "true," but this just means the warrants for them are true. Their implication can still be contested. The exception to this is when an argument and its implication are explicitly conceded by the other team for strategic reasons (like when kicking out of a disad). Then both are "true."

Counterplans:
1. Conditionality bad is an uphill battle. I think it's good, and will be more convinced by the negative's arguments. I also don't think the number of advocacies really matters. Unless it was completely dropped, the winning 2AR on condo in front of me is one that explains why the way the negative's arguments were run together limited the ability of the aff to have offense on any sheet of paper.

2. I think of myself as aff-leaning in a lot of counterplan theory debates, but usually find myself giving the neg the counterplan anyway, generally because the aff fails to make the true arguments of why it was bad.

Disads:
1. I don't think I evaluate these differently than anyone else, really. Perhaps the one exception is that I don't believe that the affirmative needs to "win" uniqueness for a link turn to be offense. If uniqueness really shielded a link turn that much, it would also overwhelm the link. In general, I probably give more weight to the link and less weight to uniqueness.

2. On politics, I will probably ignore "intrinsicness" or "fiat solves the link" arguments, unless badly mishandled (like dropped through two speeches). Note: this doesn't apply to riders or horsetrading or other disads that assume voting aff means voting for something beyond the aff plan. Then it's winnable.

Kritiks:
1. I like kritiks, provided two things are true: 1--there is a link. 2--the thesis of the K indicts the truth of the aff. If the K relies on framework to make the aff irrelevant, I start to like it a lot less (role of the ballot = roll of the eyes). I'm similarly annoyed by aff framework arguments against the K. The K itself answers any argument for why policymaking is all that matters (provided there's a link). I feel negative teams should explain why the affirmative advantages rest upon the assumptions they critique, and that the aff should defend those assumptions.

2. I think I'm less technical than some judges in evaluating K debates. Something another judge might care about, like dropping "fiat is illusory," probably matters less to me (fiat is illusory specifically matters 0%). I also won't be as technical in evaluating theory on the perm as I would be in a counterplan debate (e.g. perm do both isn't severance just because the alt said "rejection" somewhere--the perm still includes the aff). The perm debate for me is really just the link turn debate. Generally, unless the aff impact turns the K, the link debate is everything.

3. If it's a critique of "fiat" and not the aff, read something else. If it's not clear from #1, I'm looking at the link first. Please--link work not framework. K debating is case debating.

Nontraditional affirmatives:

Versus T:

1. I'm *slightly* better for the aff now that aff teams are generally impact-turning the neg's model of debate. I almost always voted neg when they instead went for talking about their aff is important and thought their counter-interp somehow solved anything. Of course, there's now only like 3-4 schools that take me and don't read a plan. So I'm spared the debates where it's done particularly poorly.

2. A lot of things can be impacts to T, but fairness is probably best.

3. It would be nice if people read K affs with plans more, but I guess there's always LD. Honestly debating politics and util isn't that hard--bad disads are easier to criticize than fairness and truth.

Versus the K:
1. If it's a team's generic K against K teams, the aff is in pretty great shape here unless they forget to perm. I've yet to see a K aff that wasn't also a critique of cap, etc. If it's an on-point critique of the aff, then that's a beautiful thing only made beautiful because it's so rare. If the neg concedes everything the aff says and argues their methodology is better and no perms, they can probably predict how that's going to go. If the aff doesn't get a perm, there's no reason the neg would have to have a link.

Topicality versus plan affs:
1. I used to enjoy these debates. It seems like I'm voting on T less often than I used to, but I also feel like I'm seeing T debated well less often. I enjoy it when the 2NC takes T and it's well-developed and it feels like a solid option out of the block. What I enjoy less is when it isn't but the 2NR goes for it as a hail mary and the whole debate occurs in the last two speeches.

2. Teams overestimate the importance of "reasonability." Winning reasonability shifts the burden to the negative--it doesn't mean that any risk of defense on means the T sheet of paper is thrown away. It generally only changes who wins in a debate where the aff's counter-interp solves for most of the neg offense but doesn't have good offense against the neg's interp. The reasonability debate does seem slightly more important on CJR given that the neg's interp often doesn't solve for much. But the aff is still better off developing offense in the 1AR.

LD section:
1. I've been judging LD less, but I still have LD students, so my familarity with the topic will be greater than what is reflected in my judging history.

2. Everything in the policy section applies. This includes the part about substantive arguments being resolved probablistically, my dislike of relying on framework to preclude arguments, and not voting on defense or presumption. If this radically affects your ability to read the arguments you like to read, you know what to do.

3. If I haven't judged you or your debaters in a while, I think I vote on theory less often than I did say three years ago (and I might have already been on that side of the spectrum by LD standards, but I'm not sure). I've still never voted on an RVI so that hasn't changed.

4. The 1AR can skip the part of the speech where they "extend offense" and just start with the actual 1AR.

Vontrez White Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 6, 2024 at 11:12 AM PST

he/him/they/them

wvontrez@gmail.com

For college debate, use this email: debatecsuf@gmail.com

CSUF 22

Coach @ Harvard Westlake and CSUF

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

For College: My debate paradigm is tailored to LD (I judge that the most). Most of the stuff below applies, with the caveat of having philosophy at a "1/2" and trix at "2/3". I think the time structure and topic wording of LD make it more viable/interesting for that format, but in college policy, I'd probably be more inclined to vote on a utilitarian framing than a deontological one. I'll read the evidence after the round and would appreciate judge instruction. No ideological leaning for K or policy. Dropped arguments = true arguments. Explain acronyms. I'd like to intervene as little as possible and don't wanna evaluate out of round stuff

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

Pref shortcut:

Policy - 1/2

K - 1

K Aff/ Performance - 2

Philosophy - 1/2

Trix - 2/3

T - 3/4

Theory - 3/4

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

I did policy debate for 4 years at Downtown Magnets (shout out LAMDL) and 4 years at Cal State Fullerton. I debated mostly truthy performance debates and one-off K strats in high school and debated the K in a very technical way in college. Currently coach flex teams in LD.

I would say my debate influences are Jared Burke, Shanara Reid-Brinkley, Jonathan Meza, Anthony Joseph, Travis Cochran, Toya Green, and Scotty P.

TLDR: I will vote for anything, as long as it's impacted out. The list of preferences is based on my comfort with the argument. Fine with speech drop or email chain.

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

General

I think debate is a game that can have heavy implications on life and influence a lot of things

Tech > Truth, unless the Tech is violent (racism good, sexism good, etc.)

Good for all speeds, but clarity is a must

Judging a trad debate would be pretty funny

My favorite neg strategies are "NC, AC", the 1 off critique, a good da/cp debate

Like creative affs (policy, phil, and k)

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

Theory

Disclosure is good unless proven otherwise

Yes competing interps, lean no RVIs (not hard rule), DTD

Shells need an interp, violation, standards, voter

Need a good abuse story/how does my ballot set norms? Why does my ballot matter? How does this implicate future debates?

I think condo is good

1AR restarts are risky but I'd be pleasantly surprised if executed well

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

Policy

Absurd internal link chains should be questioned

Default util

No zero-risk

Uniqueness controls the link

Impact turns are good

Perms are tests of competition, not new advocacies

Yes judge kick

Will read evidence if told to do so

Quality ev > Card dump of bad ev

Usually default reasonability on T

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

I have a reading background in several critical literature bases. I am most read in anti-capitalist theory, afro pessimism, fugitive black studies, settler colonialism, and Baudrillard. For the sake of the debate, assume I know nothing and explain your K

Winning theory of power important

Perm solves the link of omission

Specific link > state bad link

Affs should weigh the aff vs. the K, negs should tell me why this isn't possible OR deal with affs impacts

Extinction outweighs debate probably good here

Soft left affs with a good link turn are persuasive for me

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

K Affs

I appreciate affirmatives that are in the direction of the topic. Affs that don't defend any portion of the resolution need a heavy defense of doing so otherwise T is pretty persuasive (imapct turn it)

I try not to have a leaning into T-FW debates, but I find myself often voting negative. Similar to Theory/T, I would love to hear about the affirmative's model of debate compared to the negative's. Impact turns to their model are awesome but there is a higher bar if I don't know what your model is.

Read a TVA -- Answer the TVA

Fairness is an impact. Clash is important. Education matters

KvK debates are super interesting, but I hate when they become the Oppression Olympics. Perms are encouraged. Links of omission are not. Contextualize links to the affirmative and clearly tell me how to evaluate the round.

Lean yes on perms in KvK/method debates

Performances should be used offensively. I will flow your poems/videos/whatever, just have a defense of it and utilize it to win

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

Phil

I find these debates fun to judge, but debaters should still err on the side of over explanation (especially if its dense)

Epistemic confidence

I don't care what phil you read, but I would probably enjoy seeing something I've never judged before

Weighing matters here still, especially between competing frameworks and meta-ethics

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

Trix

Sure, all I ask is that the trick has a warrant (even if it's hidden). If executed poorly, I will probably nuke speaks. If I miss the warrant for your trix and it's not in the doc, unlucky

I will evaluate the debate after the end of the 2AR (non-negotiable)

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

Speaker Points

Pretty much summed up here

If you make a joke about Jared Burke, +.1 speaker point

Max Wiessner Hire 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu October 17, 2024 at 11:16 AM PST

Max Wiessner (they/them/elle)

Put me on the email chain! imaxx.jc@gmail.com

email chain >>>>> speech drop

I flow on paper (adjust your speed accordingly, allow for pen/flow time, and prioritize clarity over speed).

I'll flow what I hear and refer to the doc for evidence.

*****

0 tolerance policy for in-round antiblackness, queerphobia, racism, misogyny, etc.

I have and will continue to intervene here when I feel it is necessary.

*****

About me:

5th-year policy debater at CSUF, started as a college novice (also did IEs). I've coached BP, PF, LD, and policy. Currently coaching circuit & trad LD, so my topic knowledge is usually better in these debates.

Debate is about competing theorizations of the world, which means all debates are performances, and you are responsible for what you do/create in this round/space.
More than 5 off creates shallow debates & becomes a game of technical concessions that are frustrating to evaluate. clash/vertical spread >>>>>>

coaches and friends who influence how I view debate: DSRB, LaToya Green, Cat Smith, Kwudjwa Osei, Travis Cochran, Beau Larsen, Tay Brough, Jay-Z Flores, Curtis Ortega

"Education is elevation" -George Lee

Some thoughts on specifics:

ROB/ROJ! Are we having a debate about debate? survival? education? models of debate? what does my ballot do/signal/endorse/affirm? make that clear

Policy v K: I judge a lot of clash debates so these are probably the rounds where I give the most in-depth feedback. I generally think more time should be spent on FW, how and why should I (not) evaluate the AFF?

The link debate- Contextualized/specific links are best (pls), link analysis is key, and don't fall behind on the perm debate. (Yes, severance is bad on a theory level and an ethics level, but you have to impact it out)
The alt debate- If ur going for the alt, pls spend time explaining & contextualizing the alt in the block! help me be able to visualize what I'm voting for before the 2NR

K v K: I love a method v method debate, but clarity is key to keep the debate from becoming messy or difficult to evaluate (especially in LD bc time constraints) so please focus on creating an organized story.

I'm well-read in many different areas of critical theory, but I still wanna know how those theories apply to this debate and this AFF (how did u interpret the lit?)
I will never undermine your ability to articulate theory to me. ESPECIALLY if it's a creative/fun/unique AFF or K, I'm here for it. (also refer to note above about examples of the alt/method)

FW v K AFFs: I’m pretty split on these debates. I think in-round impacts and performances matter just as much as the legitimacy ppl tend to give to fiated plan texts bc debate is ultimately a performance, and education is probably the only material thing that spills out of debate.

The AFF needs to explain the relationship the aff has to negation and adjudication, that's what defines this activity (unless you present a counter model, which I am also here for!)
I tend to prefer the counter-interp route (it's easier for me to compare models) but I'm not unwilling to vote for the impact turn
Read a TVA -- Answer the TVA

I have a pretty low bar for what I consider "topical," so arguments like (procedural) fairness aren't an auto-voter for me. I love creative counter-interps of the res, but I think the AFF still has to win why their approach to the topic is good on a solvency AND educational level (that means clash and education are persuasive args to me). You need to prove why clash generated by the content of your stasis point is good/important/necessary

If I’m judging PF:

I think the best way to adapt to me in the back as a LD/Policy guy is clear signposting and emphasizing your citations bc the evidence standards are so different between these events

also… final focus is so short, it should focus on judge instruction, world-to-world comparison, and impact calc

Coralynn Yang Peninsula High School 4 rounds

Login to Tabroom

La Costa Canyon Winter Classic

2024 — Carlsbad, CA/US

Policy Paradigm List

Judges