HAVE FUN

Don't try any args you aren't comfortable with just to get the ballot, you learn with every round, you can't win them all, but at least you'll be better after every loss (especially if you do redos and take notes on the RFD)

TLDR:

I am a flex debater, recently switching to more K-oriented strategies, but I still definitely know more about policy strats. You have no need to worry about args you read with me judging because I am able to evaluate them all in a normal manner. Again have fun!

Okay now to the actual paradigm

I am a junior at Damien High School. And compete in varsity policy

add my email @codydebate04@gmail.com

T v plan

T is an interesting argument for me. If T is dropped I will more often than not sign a neg ballot already, impact out T, and make me understand how why because they aren't T is going to make the debate space worse.

CP

I love counter plans, I've been going for these since freshman year, watch out when going for a counterplan with just an internal net benefit because I find it's harder for me to vote. If you have an intention ongoing for a counterplan with me, go for a disad as a net benefit. (I have a high threshold for internal net benefits)

DA

Again, another argument that I love. Make sure that you properly articulate the link, especially when you go for some odd disad about affairs happening far away from America, especially when the entirety of the advantage is specific to the US, explain to me how the affirmative causes your disad. Do good impact comparison, write the ballot for me in the 2NR, give me a good analysis of your impacts, and why I should put that above case.

K

(Updated 12/11/20), I'm a K debater now, I understand and am able to mostly properly judge going for a K, so do not fear reading a K with me as your judge. I go for the K in most rounds I am in nowadays.

K affs

(Updated 12/11/20)

I read a K aff, I have no problem with one reading a K aff with me as their judge. But that doesn't mean I will hack for you, T-USFG is always a viable argument and is definitely necessary to evaluate to the fullest extent.

Affs with a plan (policy)

Love it, through the debate continue to explain to me how the I-link leads to your impacts and why that is the most important through the debate, if it is a soft left aff, convince me why you o/w on the DA's extinction impacts. Normally, I default to extinction if both teams botch the framework. But, I also nearly always flow aff if an advantage goes nearly fully conceded.

How To Get Good Speaks

Good CX (questions and answers)

Confidence

Persuasiveness

Good analytical arguments

Show me your flows at the end of the debate for +.2 speaks (I won't ask you need to read the paradigm to find out).

Freshman at lmu

did debate for Damien hs

email for chain -> josephblmu@gmail.com

you can read whatever you want just be clear

make me laugh and ur speaks will be nice

I am a junior at Damien High School.

Here are some good quotes for your enjoyment:

"Your punishment is indian food"- Chris Paredes & Donny Peters

"My prediction for you, Noah, is 1-4"- Chris Paredes

"Where is my red bull"- Brendan Tremblay

"Ayyyyyyy, wassuuuup hooommmmmmieeeee!!!!!"- Nolan de Jesus

"Get out of my chair"- Brendan Tremblay

"Jermaine get out"- Tristan Bato

"That's a dollar"- donny Peters

"My dad crashed our self-driving Tesla"- Nolan De Jesus

*presses the no button*- Chris Paredes

"That 2ar in doubles was pretty fire, am I right guys?"- Brendan Tremblay

"Give me all of your candy"- Timothey Lewis

"is ending arm sales to Lybia topical?"- Tristan Bato's girlfriend (Kelly)

"Can you sign my permission slip?"- Leon asking his parents, because he is not an adult yet

"Noah is their advantage called frontline?"- Joseph barragan

"My uncle's name is Shaquille O'neil"- Omar Darwish

"The Ukraine"- Noah Bartholio & Joseph Barragan

"I am functionally a senior"- Tristan Bato, when he was only a junior

"This politics file is the same as last year's, but you took out all of the cards regarding immigration"- Chris Paredes

"The Counterplans solves, that's Tremblay 19"-Brendan Tremblay

Damien High school 22' , 3rd-year varsity debater

put me on the chain @ - JJBartholomew22@damien-hs.edu

he/him

General:

Respect the judge and opponents

I'm cool with spreading just don't go warp speed through blocks and always emphasize/signpost, ill shout clear if you're going too

fast. thoroughly extend warrants, shadow extending sucks. Better analysis is better than card dumping and

don't leave it up to me to do the work for you. Good speaks for comparative analysis. I'm pretty familiar with

the topic but don't assume I know the entirety of an arg.

Theory -

Theory cool and ill vote on it, unless there's an obvious answer. I generally think Condos good but ill evaluate it if the

other team mishandles it. No aspec, cross-x solves. The same condo rules apply to all theory if its argued well and its

mishandled ill vote. Individual off case violations are a reason to reject the team unless told otherwise.

CP/DA -

Love good CP's and DA's

Thoroughly explain how the CP interacts with the DA,

The permutation usually solves and every counterplan needs a specific reason why the perm can't function or is bad

Neg: I don't have a high threshold for DA's, especially on this year's topic, ill vote on it if it's not likely as long as you

frame the debate properly. Don't shadow extend if you're going CP DA, thorough explanation of how the CP

doesn't link or resolves the NB. Decision/impact calc is important, I won't do the work for you unless the aff is lacking. 2NC cp's

are fire.

Aff: I'm not a fan of the solvency deficits that x actor can't do x plan because of authority unless there's a solid impact. Not all

Solvency deficits need a major one but at least a good reason. I'll side with the affirmative on judge kicking unless im

told otherwise and evaluate DA's vs the squo. Perms are your friend and you should use them, they're usually the best way out of a

CP.

T -

I'm a big fan of T on this year's topic

Neg: I'll vote if explained well, author quals and intent to define/exclude is important. Competing interpretations is usually

good, must be explained or ill default to reasonability. Good explanation of how each component interacts with one

another. Thoroughly extend the interpretation and compete off of it. I generally don't like T but its definitely viable given the topic.

Aff: Don't just read a generic block, genuinely answer it. I usually don't like reasonability unless it's expanded upon

but not just if I think the aff is T. I'm not a huge fan of the SCOTUS aff's so watch out for T.

K -

Neg: not my favorite, don't assume I know all of the literature but I'm pretty familiar,

no votes for no explanations, let me know if I need a new flow for the overview, good link works win, decision calc for

filtering my decision, read a plan

Aff: must be effective on the case, don't undercover it to answer the K, ill vote on perf con if its a major contradiction. Perms

usually arent your friends here. Perf con justifies severing reps. I'll usually let the aff weigh case.

Case -

Aff: be efficient in case, don't spend the whole 2ac on it. Explain the aff well.

Neg: don't card dump and expect to win, DA turns case arg's are good, good impact on both sides of the debate is important. Im

willing to vote on presumption if there are major concessions and I'm effectively told so

Pronouns: He/Him/His

Email: tjbdebate@gmail.com

I'd really appreciate a card doc at the end of the round.

About me

Debated in policy for four years at Damien High School in La Verne, CA. I placed pretty well at some national tournaments and received some speaker awards along the way. I have worked as a judge and staff member at the Cal National Debate Institute. I was a consultant/judge for College Prep, and this is my first year as an assistant coach for College Prep.

I mostly think about debate like her. If you like the way she thinks then I probably think the same way.

Top Level

**** I will try my hardest to flow without looking at my computer so I suggest debating as if I have no reference to what is being read. Clarity is much more important than unchecked speed ****

Debate is a competition, but education seems to be the most intrinsic benefit to the round taking place. I believe that debates centered around the resolution are the best, but that can mean many different things. Debate is also a communicative activity so the first thing that should be prioritized by all the substance is the ability to clearly convey an argument instead of relying on the structure and tricky nature of policy debate.

The most important thing for me as a judge is seeing line-by-line debating instead of relying upon pre-written blocks. Drops happen and that is debate, but what I most hate to see are students reading off their laptops instead of making compelling indicts of their opponents' arguments off the top of their heads. Debate requires some reaction to unexpected things but I think that it enhances critical thinking and research skills.

When it comes to content, I sincerely do not have any big leans toward any type of argument. Just come to the round with a well-researched strategy and I will be happy to hear it. My only non-starters are arguments that promote interpersonal violence, prejudice toward any group of people, or danger toward anyone in the round. If those arguments are made, the offending team will lose, receive a 0 for speaker points, and I will speak with their coach. The safety of students is the number one priority in an academic space such as debate.

Thoughts on Specific Arguments Below:

Disadvantages: Impact calculus and Turns case/Turns the DA at the top, please. These debates are won and lost with who is doing the most comparison. Don't just extend arguments and expect me to just clean it up for you. I like politics DAs, but I want more comparisons of whose evidence is better and more predictive instead of just dumping cards without any framing arguments. Go for the straight turn. I love bold decisions that are backed up by good cards.

Counter plans: I am all about good counterplan strategies that have great solvency evidence and finesse. I have grown tired of all the nonsense process, agent, and consult counter plans, and while I will vote for them, I prefer to hear one that is well-researched and actually has a solvency advocate for the aff. Regarding theory, most violations are reasons to justify a permutation or to lower thresholds for solvency deficits, not voters. Consult CPs are however the most sketchy for me, and I can be convinced to vote against them given good debating.

Topicality: Love these debates, but sometimes people get bogged down by the minutiae of the flow that they forget to extend an impact. Treating T like a disad is the best way to describe how I like teams to go for it. Please give a case list and/or examples of ground loss. Comparison of interpretations is important. I think that the intent to exclude is more important than the intent to define, but this is only marginal.

Kritiks: Over time I have become more understanding of critical arguments and I enjoy these debates a lot. The alternative is the hardest thing to wrap my head around, but I have voted for undercovered alternatives many times. I think that the more specific link should always be extended over something generic. Extending links is not enough in high-level rounds, you have to impact out the link in the context of the aff and why each piece of link offense outweighs the risk of the aff internal link. I prefer that the negative answer the aff in these rounds, but I do not think it is impossible to win without case defense. The only thing that matters is winning the right framework offense.

Planless Affs: Performance 1ACs are great but there has to be an offensive reason for the performance. I won't vote on a dropped performance if there is no reason why it mattered in the first place. I prefer that these affs are in the direction of the topic, but if there is a reason why only being responsive to the resolution matters, then I am fine with it not being so. Framework is a good strategy, but I don't like voting on fairness, because I don't believe that it is a terminal impact. I believe that having a fair division of labor is important, but not because debate is a game. Debate has intrinsic educational value and both teams should be debating over how they access a better model of the activity. For the negative, I like it when teams just answer the aff method and clash over the effectiveness of the 1AC.

Conditionality: I think that up to 3 advocacies are fine for me. Anything more and I am more sympathetic to the aff. Don't get it twisted, if the neg screws up debating condo, I will vote aff.

Feel free to ask me anything before the round. Most importantly compete, respect each other, and have fun.

I am a policy debater at Peninsula High School. My email is ryanchoi2317@gmail.com.

Peninsula '22 | UCLA '26

Add me to the chain:

blakedee58@gmail.com

I haven't been active in the debate community for a little bit so clarity and a clean flow would be appreciated. If you're exploding down your block I will not be able to follow most of your args.

Arguments must include a claim, warrant, and impact.

T/CP/DA: I find that evidence quality is quintessential - I slightly lean towards a legally precise definition that reflects consensus rather than a debateability push. But, can be easily swayed for either side. If you're aff and its soft left with a framing advantage, actually debate the DA. Riders are probably not legitimate. Neg on CP theory, unless it's an instance of extreme abuse. I will default to kicking the CP for the neg if there's nothing said. Solvency advocates aren't necessary, but coherent explanations of solvency are.

K: Good if they disprove why I should vote affirmative, but if they're something like the fiat makes me sad K, I will almost certainly vote against you. Will usually let the aff weigh the material consequences of the aff if framework is debated out equally by both teams.

Non-traditional affs: Fairness is an impact, you can also go for others. Probably not the best judge for the aff teams. A lot of the time, I find it difficult to see how the ballot resolves aff impacts.

Theory: Condo is generally good.

I am a policy debater at Damien Highschool. Please put me on the email chain.

otkaissi22@damien-hs.edu

I evaluate debates based on the impacts that the teams state. I also enjoy clash debating. For public form I evaluate the debate based on competing frameworks. For LD I look at which side best supports their value and value criteria.

I can do normal speaking speed or just a bit faster than normal talking rate.

I am a policy debater at Damien

Policy

How I evaluate the debate is based on competing impacts I evaluate topicality based on competing interpretations I am not very familiar with kritiks I OK with speed

Lincoln Douglas

I evaluate the debate based on the value

Public Form

I evaluate the debates on competing frameworks

please put me on the email chain at dnmeza22@damien-hs.edu

I am a policy debater at Damien High School. I have had some experience with debate in middle school. Please put me on the email chain rvmody22@damien-hs.edu. I judge a debate based on impact and that has the best reasoning will win. I prefer clash debating. For public forum, I evaluate debate based on competing frameworks. For LD, I look at which side best supports their value and value criterion.

Ryan Mullan

I am currently a sophomore at Damien High School and a second-year debate student. Please refer to me as Ryan, Judge, or any other formal names. I evaluate as a policymaker and I also highly value statistics. I would also as the debaters to slow down on the tags and to speak with clarity. In order to get high speaker points, I need to see that the debater knows the cards inside and out without having to look at the documents. I also value politeness and respect for the judges and the opposing team. I will deduct speaker points if the debaters argue with each other or me.

rpmullan22@damien-hs.edu

Senior at Peninsula

Pronouns: they/any

put me on the email chain thanks: derric.parker@gmail.com

Usually I decide rounds by

1) evaluating questions of the theoretical justifications for having the debate round/debates in general

2) within the lens of 1, evaluating questions of how I see debate generally/contribute towards a good model for debate in general

3) within the lens of 1 and 2, weighing the substantive/theoretical pieces of offense which each team has made and deciding who accesses the most/most important offense.

-Tech > truth

-Condo good

-Fiat is immediate

-Fairness is an I/L to truth testing, truth is tautologically a good thing to pursue

-Winning abuse means i reject the argument

General Stuff

- I read policy and french stuff, less well-versed in identity/cap stuff

- Affs should have a solvency advocate – I'll vote on death good or anti-debate, you just have to explain what voting aff implicates and why that’s preferable to what voting neg does

- (obviously) the less generic the disad link the better

- I see T as a disad vs. policy affs and a counterplan vs. K affs

-“Rebuttal speeches should be closing doors not opening more” -Dylan Barsoumian

For your speaker points

Auditory ethos is infinitely more important than visual ethos (I wrote this before online debate but its more true now), so please be clear, don’t hum-spread, and emphasize when saying important stuff

you don’t need to call me judge

Peninsula '22 | USC '26

Add me to the chain:

chrislrsims@gmail.com

Did policy for three years LD for one year. Clarity > speed - if I can’t hear your argument I’m not going to flow it. Be nice!

Policy:

Ran almost exclusively policy in high school so very comfortable with these debates. Especially love counterplan competition debates and in-depth DA turns case/case turns DA.

Theory:

I don't like it unless there is in-round abuse. Reasonability and DTA are powerful, especially if explained thoroughly. My view of reasonability is that I should weigh the impact of the abuse versus the benefits a debate over the topic. Don't run ridiculous theory arguments.

Condo is good.

Kritiks:

Your critique should directly disagree with the plan or implicate the solvency of the case in someway. I do not like links of omission. Links should be clearly explained and turn/ow case. Case is critical in the debates, if you do not touch it I probably won't vote for the K.

Read a plan!

Philosophy:

Not comfortable with evaluating these debates.

Don't run any calc indicts, frivolous theory, and random independent voting issues.