Junior at Mira Loma High. Been debating for 3 years now.

I think of myself as a standard flow judge.

Online Debate: If competitors are comfortable, I prefer if everyone has their camera on. You will get higher speaks if you do so. Also, if my camera is not on, don't begin speaking.

Before round: Add me to the email chain - m.j20081@gmail.com

Also, label the chain appropriately, ex. Berkeley R1 Flight 1: Mira Loma AS 1st AFF vs Durham HH 2nd NEG.

Speech Docs: Send the full speech doc before speeches - if you do this you're speaks won't go below 28.5. If you elect not to do this, your opponent can take prep while you try to find individual cards.

Specific to novice: Create an off-time roadmap. It helps you and it helps me. Just don't make them long, it should be to the point and short.

Kritics:

• Even if you lose the link, if you win the ROTB you can win the round pretty easily by making a lot of claims about attempting to link into the ROTB or you're the only risk of linking into the ROTB.

• Explain your kritik in cross if its rare and ask me before round if its something I have seen before.
• No friv Ks.

Theory:

• Make sure to extend theory in every round. If dropped - I will take that into heavy consideration.
• You can run any theory you want, just explain it well
• However, they are quite boring to judge so run it at your own risk

Tricks:

• Send me a doc if you are reading tricks.
  
• Also, not a huge fan but whatever

General:

• Collapse!!! The FF should have one contention and a few args on the opps case. Choose your best argument, frontline it well, and weigh.
• Please preflow before round
• Tech > Truth. I'll evaluate the round on what is being said and make my decision off that.
• I don't flow cross. Use it to poke holes in the opps argument, not to extend your own arguments.
• If your evidence is miscut (egregiously) and called out - I will not vote for you.
• Please send evidence in the email chain in 1 min or less. Otherwise, I'll start by lowering your speaks. I really like rounds to be quick and taking forever to find evidence kind of looks like you're stealing prep time.
• Please keep track of your own prep time.
• I stop flowing 5-10 seconds after a speech time ends.
• Weighing is a core part of debate and carded weighing is cool.
• Please start weighing in summary.
• Make weighing comparative, compare link-ins, and metaweigh (pls).
• Also, please signpost. If you don't signpost, your speech gets convoluted very quickly.

Speaks:

• You'll get high speaks from me, just be confident and funny.
• I won't give you below 27 speaks unless you say something offensive.
• I'll give you instant 30 if both teams agree to debate without prep time (please agree and announce before the start of the round).

Overall, be chill in round. If you have any questions, ask before the start of the round.

Good luck!

i'm Meilyn [may-lynn] and i mostly do HS varsity policy

she/they

pembroke hill 28’

add me to the email chain: maubuchondebate@gmail.com (i hate speechdrop)

PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD HAVE A FLOW ROUND---I HAVE JUDGE 3 LAY ROUNDS TODAY AND IM LOSING MY SANITY

tech > truth in every scenario 100%

i dont care what you read and i dont care what speed its at

down for everything

Hello my name is Bakare Okikiola Daniel a debate lover, a speaker,a coach and a judge.

I bring a unique blend of impartiality, empathy, and dedication to ensuring each debater’s voice is heard and respected. I understand that debating is not just about winning or losing; it’s about presenting ideas thoughtfully, analyzing arguments critically, and engaging with opposing viewpoints in a constructive manner. I care deeply about every debater’s perspective, recognizing that each speaker offers valuable insights, regardless of whether I agree with their position.

I approach every round with a mindset of active listening and fair evaluation. Rather than simply scoring points, I strive to understand the underlying logic and evidence presented. When judging, I make sure to give equal weight to both sides of the debate, acknowledging the strengths of each argument and critiquing weaknesses in a way that’s constructive, not dismissive. It’s important to me that debaters feel their points are taken seriously, and that their efforts to communicate, persuade, and respond to challenges are respected.

I also believe in providing feedback that helps debaters grow. I don’t just point out where arguments could be stronger or more developed, but I also highlight moments where debaters show creativity, adaptability, and skillful argumentation. My goal is not only to be a neutral arbiter, but also a mentor in fostering a space where debaters can learn from each other and refine their craft.

Ultimately, my commitment is to uphold the integrity of the debate, ensuring that the decision I make is grounded in a fair, thoughtful, and respectful analysis of each side’s position. Every debater deserves to feel that their voice has been valued, and I take that responsibility seriously.

Experience :

1. 3 rounds of CNDF in Tri-City Fall Cup 2024 23/11/24

2. 2 round of Extemp at Citron December Debate Invitational 2024 4/12/2024

3. 2 rounds of LD at Citron January Debate Invitational 8/1/2025

4. 3 rounds of LD at Salado Online UIL New Year Classic 18/1/2025

5. 1 round of LD and 1 round of Extemp at Citron February Debate Invitational 5/2/2025

6. 1 round of speech and one round of Radio at Citron February Speech Invitational 12/2/2025

7. 2 rounds of Open PF at Germantown Friends Invitational 1/3/2025

8. 1 round of Extemp and 1 round of Informative speaking at Rainbow Classic ASYNC NIETOC 5/3/2025

Bakare Daniel.

she/her

McDowell 26'

sowmiyadev2017@gmail.com (speechdrop>>>>>>>email chain)

things I definitely did not steal from my partner’s paradigm...

"Don't be weird or discriminatory or make anyone uncomfortable in round. I WILL DROP YOU!!!" ~ ss 24'

“tech substance debate >>>>>>>>> theory > kritiks > lay; i will give high speaks if yall do good tech substance debate” ~ ss 25’

…okay, now for mine ->

Update for Spring Break Special:i alr know this is going to be an evi battle if it's substance, so PLEASE EVIDENCE COMPARE!! judge intervening makes me sad :(

PF

tech>truth, tabula rasa, good with speed (send docs tho)

Constructive:

1. Make sure internal links are clear, esp if ur impacting out to nukes/extinction

2. Evi exchanges that take like 6 min are no bueno ( - speaker points) so pretty pls send constructive b4 speech

Rebuttal:

1. quality > quantity - implicate the responses; you don't have to read a ton of responses, make sure that the few responses u do read are good quality

2. ALL frontlining to first rebuttal has to be in second rebuttal

Summary:

1. Must cover all of the following in some sort of way: offense, defense, frontlining, and weighing

2. WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH!! (if u metaweigh, then that's top tier)

3. Probability weighing isn’t solely defensive, but u have to tell me why to pref it (I will 100% vote on prob alone if it’s done good)---I won’t vote on try or die if there’s terminal defense on case; uniqueness/timeframe weighing on extinction/nuc war scenarios is super smart

Final Focus:

1. write my ballot for me!!

2. I evaluate in this order: weighing, case, turns, defense. If you have any questions, ask me before the round

LD

Never done LD. PF paradigm applies. No tricks.

CX

STRIKE ME!! I can keep up with speed, but I’m not good at evaluating risk scenarios. At max, you can go 4-5 off--no more than that. I agree w/ Lily Jones for DA/CP/other T. Again, I'll flow prog but I can't promise I'll evaluate that the best so again do with that what you will. If you do still decide to run a k (idk why lol), I’d be more comfortable evaluating the following: cap, security, IR.

Debate

Theory:

1. I default to competing interps and no RVIs; Idrc run whatever (round reports, disclosure, author quals, comic sans, etc); meta theory is chill; no friv theory

2. disclo--run it if u think there's actually a VALID reason for running it; ima be so real, if ur from a school with insane resources or a big team and run disclo on a small school with limited resources, I'll vote on it but ur speaks aren't going to be pretty

3. I’m good with judging theory, but make sure u know how to run it bc it’s super hard to evaluate if not done well (same w/ fw!)

Ks:

1. I can understand ks, but not the judge for evaluating it

Rando Stuff:

1. don't spread or run prog or theory on a novice, auto L 20 speaks

2. defense is NOT sticky

3. If there’s no presumption claim, I’m flipping a coin

Fun things!

1) +.2 Speaks:

• spin every time you read a turn

• Be funny during cross! (and ask strategic questions)

• if u say "yeet their contention out the window..."

2) 30 Speaks:

• unique or innovative strats (esp if ur losing front half and pick up back half)

• well done tech substance round (w/ good analysis in the back half)

Good luck and have fun!!!!!

post-rounding is educational, email me if u have questions!

hi my name is sasha (clark 23' plano west 25') and i fw debate on the low

qualifications:

extemp toc champ 24' | asu champ 24' | toc 23'24'25' | tfa, glen, emory finals

however that means i've based my paradigm off of the people that i've debated with, and the people i've been privy to sharing this space with. i largely grab ideas and word for word sections of my paradigm from:

RYAN CHANG, NAVID SHEYBANI, DAVID HUSTON, ANGEL RIBO, SKANDA GOPIKANNAN, ESHAAN CHACHAD, VIVIAN HO, HOLDEN BUKOWSKY, ARI DAVIDSON, REGGIE CHAPMAN, NEAL WHITE, MAIMUNA ILYAS, ROSHAN SHIVNANER, DAVID & AVA CUI, PLAYBOI CARTI, AMRITA SHYAM, ESTHER "bearuh" JESS, SAHITH REDDY, ARRMAN? KAPOOR?

for email chain: sasha.morel.2007@gmail.com

Tech > Truth, but all arguments need a coherent warrant and impact. Read what you are comfortable going for! I'm better for some debates than others, but this is ultimately your round to learn and have fun. I consider myself flex, so I'm equally good for everything but not amazing.

TLDR

1. Be good people. Racism, homophobia, etc. will get you dropped. Be respectful before, during, and after the debate to the people around you (something you should do anyways) and don't cheat with evidence.

2. If you are clear, I can handle any speed. I will only judge based off of what I get down, so if you're unintelligible, that's on you. Above all, make sure your opponent is fine with it.

3. Not doing any work for you. Extend things yourself, explain your arguments to me, and read your rehighlights. Let me know if I should take a look at specific pieces of evidence, what layer I should think about first, what arguments I should reject for what reason, etc.

4. Disclose properly. Breaking new is fine, but everything else should be done at least 30 minutes before the round. I'm probably never voting on New Affs Bad.

PREF SHEET

1. K

2. Policy

3. Theory

4. T/Tricks

5. Phil (bro plz strike)

argument specifics (the numbers/letters DO NOT mean anything that's just for navigation)

note: this goes for both sides (e.g., kritik means k negs and -affs)

1. phil - hold my hand for anything that is past kant or any derivative of util. i am probably (surely) not the best judge for anything past these.

a) explain/warrant out the syllogism to me like i'm a parent

2. the kritik - love it. please make the alt/solvency mechanism clear, as well as cleanly extend them if you want me to vote on your for it. i will be pressured to vote against you on topicality (for planless affs) if you don't adequately respond to any form of it. just make sure the links are contextual to the topic or are specific, NOT anything randomly pulled out of a pat backfile and read on a teenager at 8 a.m.

a) 1ac quotes are great if they genuinely link. like this will make my morning/afternoon/night much better

b) dylan said it best: "[i] strongly dislike the trend of identity-based arguments that appropriate the language of antiblackness literature to make their argument"

c) make sure turns case is in the 2nr with your link o/v or something like that; i'll be tempted to not buy it regardless of how well it was extended because at that point why care?

3. policy - yeah that's great. i will vote on plan affs, da, cps, etc.

a) make a turns case argument in the 2nr and weigh accordingly

b) if your internal links are nonexistent/bad i will be pressured to vote neg on presumption

4. theory - sure if it's a genuine violation/abuse, just warrant it out

a) if it's frivolousANDun-/under-covered, i will vote for you but just know you ruined my day

5. tricks - strike me if you absolutely desire running this

6. topicality - a note: mygood friend and teammate angel ribohas an excellent paradigm on this.tl;dr, i'll buy it but "weigh, weigh, weigh".

STYLE:

As stated above, if you are not clear, I will tell you so. If I have to tell you more than once, I will give much less weight to the argument than you wish me to do so. Tag-team CX is okay as long as one partner does not dominate the discussion. I will let you know when that becomes the case. If you wish me to disclose and discuss the argument, you may challenge respectfully and politely. Attempts at making me look ridiculous (which at times is not difficult) to demonstrate your superior intelligence does little to persuade me that I was wrong. My response may very well be “If I’m so stupid, why did you choose to argue things this way?” I do enjoy humor and will laugh at appropriate attempts at it. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. Make them specific. Just a question which starts with "Do you have a paradigm?" will most likely be answered with a "yes" with little or no explanation beyond that. You should get the picture from that.

TOPICALITY

My normal defaults:

- Competing interps

- Drop the debater

- No RVI's

Reasonability is about your counter-interp, not your aff. People need to relearn how to go for this because it's a lost art in the age of endless theory debates.

Arbitrary counter-interpretations that are not carded or based on evidence are given significantly less weight than counter-interps that define words in the resolution. "Your interp plus my aff" is a bad argument, and you are better served going for a more substantive argument.

Slow down a bit in these debates, I consider myself a decent flow but T is a monster in terms of the constant short arguments that arise in these debates so please give me typing time.

You should probably make a larger impact argument about why topicality matters "voters" if you will. Some standards are impacts on their own (precision mainly) but outside of that I have trouble understanding why limits explosion is bad sans some external argument about why making debate harder is bad.

Weigh internal links to similar pieces of offense, please and thank you.

SPEAKS

29.7-29.9: Near perfect execution. If your performance was replicated consistently, you would deserve to be in the top 5 speakers at the tournament and reach deep elims. I do not give this out very often

29.4-29.6: Great execution, but not novel or exciting/parts of the debate seemed like throwaway arguments. There were a couple missed opportunities or mistakes, but overall a proficient performance. If this speaking was replicated consistently, you would be in the top 20 speakers at the tournament and reach the quarters.This is where most of my higher-end points lie.

29-29.3: Very good execution. If replicated, you might get a speaker award, you'd certainly clear, and you may win an elim. This is where most of my "winning" points lie.

28.7-28.9: Above average execution + you could clear.

28-28.6: On par with the middle of the pack. Speeches need work on technical proficiency, block writing, proper use and comparison of evidence, etc.

27.5-27.9: Speeches and CX execution need work, we're not effectively answering the opponent's arguments, speech order is messy and not cohesive, speaker is unclear and could benefit from speaking drills.

27-27.4: Lack of attention to opponent's arguments, improper division of speech/CX time and energy, dead speech time, ineffective use of prep, etc.

25-26.9: Speeches seem lost, leaving time on the clock, CX is spent asking clarification or "wouldn't you agree that..." questions, etc.

20: You have done something wrong interpersonally and I'm sure we will discuss it before points come out.

other things

1. why do i even have to say this: any -ism or -phobia/form of violence or misgendering is an L20, i seriously don't care if it's the first card in your 1ar i'll submit the ballot and potentially talk to tab. please just don't be a bad person. if i genuinely missed something violent that happened in round, i'm sorry and i invite you to please talk to me after

2. if you have any questions post-round don't hesitate to ask me or email me @ the email above. no 3nr/-ars please, just a genuine space where i will give you extra criticism that wasn't in the rfd if you would like me to and i'm not busy. education is key

3. i'm not an expressive guy, ask my friends. you could get an L25 or W30 regardless of whether i look like i stepped in mud or a child on christmas morning. i will be flowing, and don't get caught off-guard if i start looking at the ceiling---my pen is still moving at the same speed/accuracy as your content.

4. please extend before you talk about something. make a bare-bones o/v at the VERY least (you won't love your speaks but you might love your win). if you yell at me at 8 in the morning about how one word in subpoint AA of Z of AB of so on and so forth was dropped without telling me WHAT the argument is, i will cry

EXTEMP - bold is TLDR

I don’t have any strong political affiliation, and I’m more than welcoming for political jokes (all in good spirit of course). I value good fluency, good rhetoric, and good tags. Extemp should be entertaining. Obviously, make sure your links are clear, and have good content and evidence.

Basically, all of your analysis should be linear, i.e a sets up b and b sets up c which is why my answer is correct. A lack of cohesive argumentation in extemp is the easiest way to get a really mid rank even if you're a good speaker.

for the love of god have all of your points stand alone, don't have point 1 explain point 2 and etc...

Anything over 7:20 will probably have you ranked down. 7 minutes is the limit and grace is to help you finish your last sentence or two. Please follow good structure, 100% of your extemp speeches should have 3 points.

Anyways please be yourself, as a competitor I can easily tell when you try use canned jokes that don’t fit.

If you steal jokes and I recognize that, you're actively violating the rules of extemp - that's a 6.

I prefer competitors memorize the majority of their speech, that’s how you impress me as a judge. the more stuff you have to reference in round makes me feel like your 30 minutes was used incorrectly. if you do use a card/notes please try and limit it to sources.

I'm a really slow typer, so i'm looking down a lot at my computer and stuff - just because im not looking directly at you doesn't mean i'm disinterested, and certainly doesn't mean i'm not listening.

if i can sense you're having fun, then i will too.

I'm Riddhish Saravanan, a current sophomore PF Debater at Emerald High School and the VP of EHS Debate. I have 2 years of experience in High School debate already, in that time I have gone to numerous Nat Circuit tournaments and qualified to CHSSA States.

Put me on the email chain! saravanan5170@mydusd.org

Just do what you do best, I understand it's hard to stand up and speak to a bunch of strangers. I am pretty open to all types of arguments as long as you can explain them to me.

TL;DR:

Tech>Truth (I will evaluate all arguments as long as they are properly brought up and addressed in the round, I will NOT use my own biases/preferences when voting)

Go as fast as you want (provided you are clear), if you are becoming incoherent then I'll put my hand up and say "clear!" If you still do not slow down/increase clarity then that will be reflected in your speaks

Read any argument you want as long as it is notproblematic

please weigh!!!!!!!

Middle School Specific:

Feel free to use POI's and heckles but don't go overboard with them

State your impact cleanly and please explain to me why it is more important than the other impact(s) in the round

If you are going fast then explain what your moving onto or signpost(ie: transitioning from their 1st to 2nd argument should be mentioned)

Please stick to real evidence sources, and do NOT make up evidence or authors because I will know and it's not going to work out in your favor

Debate is meant to be fun and educational so please uphold those norms and be good people!!!!

hello!

pls add me to the email chain: smritishankar1105@gmail.com

tech > truth

how I vote in the round:

i vote on what's in summary and FF
i'm fine with speed but PLEASE keep things organized or else I will miss things aka SIGNPOST
winning your offense + winning weighing = winning the round
warrant all of your arguments ESPECIALLY your internal links well
i will give high speaks if yall do good tech substance debate.
i am bad at judging prog so ideally you shouldn't read that with me as ur judge

tech substance debate >>>>>>>>>theory/lay > kritiks