11/7 - for Mill Valley

phoebe.brous@barstowschool.org

barstow '21

she/her

Hi there. I am a junior at Barstow. I run policy arguments on the aff and neg.

tldr - run whatever you want. I love debate, and extra speaks if you make the round fun to judge. Impact calc and judge instruction are critical.

arms sales topic - random thoughts about the topic --

- revisionism is overrated and both the aff and neg shouldn't assume that just because you win the revisionism debate means that its an auto ballot for you. Also revisionism is a lot more nuanced than a yes no question

- dib disad is not good

- politics disads are not good for this topic and you have a ton of great generics to choose from (like prolif :))

- I've run Taiwan, Ukraine and Saudi Arabia

- I am pretty familiar with most acronyms

case debate - do more of this ON BOTH SIDES -- especially in the 2nr

disads - impact calc is key. A couple of good 2ac args can take out the disad tho.

t - impact calc is also key. I evaluate these debates on an offense-defense level

counterplans - I lean aff on theory but it still needs to be impacted out for me to vote on it. 2as need to put more offense on the counterplan flow. 2ns need to explain how the counterplan solves the actual aff. Sufficiency framing is good. Tell me to judge kick or I wont do it. I also think that counterplans should be functionally and textually competitive.

kritiks - I don't run a lot of kritks but I am comfortable adjudicating them, especially since most of the teams at my school run kritical arguments. Negs need to contextualize the link to the aff. The aff needs to interact with the ontology debate. I'm a little aff biased on extinction outweighs.

k affs - I don't run them but I like them. I think a well explained topic link is awesome. Impact out ur net benefits on fw please. Explain ur method.

Fw - actually answer aff offense if ur gonna go for framework. And extend an impact in the 2nr. Fairness is probably an internal link rather than an impact but I can be persuaded otherwise.

speaks:

- average is a 28.5

- my speaks will prob be inflated though because I have zero judge experience

other things:

- be assertive but not mean

- have fun!

- dont make jokes if u arent funny

- make jokes if u are funny

- it’s probably not that deep

- follow @barstowbm on instagram for .1 extra speaks.

lmao novices don't read paradigms this is kind of irrelevant

Debater for The Barstow School

I LIKE THESE THINGS:

NOT SHAKING HANDS (with me)- its pretty annoying and According to research from the University of Colorado, on average we carry 3,200 bacteria from 150 different species on our hands that are transferred when we shake hands.

Clash. Compare warrants, authors, analytics, everything. Tell me why what you said is more accurate than what they did. I give more weight to clash than quality of evidence.

Healthy competition. Be nice but be better than them at the same time.

Case debate. 7 off case is annoying to flow.

HOW I DECIDE DEBATES:

The flow. My defaults are an offense defense paradigm and utilitarianism, but all you need is one well warranted argument to say why those defaults are bad and it becomes completely up to debate.

Presumption: Very rarely with you win case so completely that there is no tangible benefit to the aff, so unless the aff team forgets to extend a critical part of their case, you should other offensive positions by the end of the round.

CP/DA: Do what you want, include turns case and impact calc early. I've debated this topic, so generics are fine.

Topicality: It's always a voter and never a reverse voter. I understand you just reading your blocks and frontlines in early constructives, but don't just extend standards throughout the debate. Do analysis about where your definitions come from and why that makes it more predictable or better. I don't need a traditional caselist, but if the negative definition stops 3 really abusive affs, list those. Conversely, if the neg definition stops 3 really good affs, the aff should point that out. I have a hard time buying reasonability unless it's specific to the aff, so explain why your aff in particular contains valuable education and is predictable. Winning in round abuse lowers the negative standard for winning competing interpretations.

educaton>fairness

Theory: I will vote for almost any theory argument

Ks: Explain alt pls- I like a good K debate

K-affs: Affs should have a connection to the resolution, but what that means is up to debate. I have read K affs and am familiar with various theory

Ask me questions before the debate if you have any and make sure to put me on the email chain.

I DO NOT LIKE THESE THINGS:

Clipping cards. I'll end the round if i can say beyond a reasonable doubt that you clipped cards. I'll cut your speaks in half too.

Prep stealing. I understand it can take a while to get docs into an email or flashdrive, but after you say stop prep that's all you should be doing. I'll start by asking you to stop, but if it gets too out of hand I start docking your points.

Being rude. You don't have to dislike someone just because you want to beat them in a debate round. Excessive aggressive behaviors will be voted down. Be nice

Too much jargon without explanation.

Brice Hansen

PGPs: he/him, they/them (no preference)

Email: bricedhansen@gmail.com

as of 10/28/21
About me:
-I debated for 4 years at La Crosse Central High school in Wisconsin being bounced back and forth between PF and Policy. I am now on my 8th year of judging/assistant coaching. I graduated from UW-La Crosse in 2020 with a major in political science focusing on political theory and ideology and a minor in math education. Currently I am a Graduate student at the University of Minnesota Twin Cities in a Social Studies Master's Degree and Teacher Licensure program.

Paradigm as a Judge:
-As a debater who was thrown around between PF and Policy, I enter a round open to being told how I should judge the round. However if neither side argues the role of the judge/ballot/framing beyond the round, I will likely default to a role as a policy maker. Either way I still expect a full debate. I really enjoy K's (on aff or neg) just make sure you have and can explain the link. Framework is first priority in evaluating the round. If framework isn't read, then for most intents and purposes you can consider me a "policy judge," though I don't hold any strict views as to how a round should go or be evaluated.


Specifics:

Open CX- if it's your turn to ask questions and your partner asks the majority of them you'll probably both lose speaker points

Please include me in the email chain: bricedhansen@gmail.com

Arguments: I love framework. I don’t hold any "strict" views on the role of the ballot or of the judge so I leave it to the debaters to shape that. I love K’s, they're good and fair-ground.
There are arguments/authors I will not validate or listen to, a few are listed here (please don't make me add more):

*

low Speed = bad / faster speed = better

any card from Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, or any other author that makes claims of "race blindness" or uses biology pseudoscience to justify racist social/political theory.

cards and authors that actively support the oppression of peoples

Timecube
*

Delivery: In novice debates I never really expect speed. In a round I'll give everyone 1 warning. If the speaker doesn't slow down or clear up their speech I may stop flowing parts that aren't understandable or only record what I can keep up with, as well I will give leeway to the other team missing arguments or cards because they couldn't catch it. In other words, if you read like 14 one-sentence CP's and perms back to back I might only get down 7 of them, I might actively refuse to acknowledge any of them because I think it's malpractice and absolutely and laughably ridiculous. So just like don't do that, you're better than that.

Different Cases: I’ll listen to non-traditional affs, performance affs, and kritikal affs. In fact, I'd encourage you to test one out or run one. Just be ready for a Topicality/framework. I will not vote neg on T/FW on my own just to intervene against a non-traditional, performance, or K-Aff. If you want to win on T, framework, or a call of abuse it has to be the focus of your last rebuttal and evident, otherwise I won't give it much weight in what the round came down to.

Theory & Framework: I like good theory debates, but I need to know how it is relevant for me to care about it. If your fighting to win/view the round in a framework, you should be consistent with that and not just treat as a "hail-mary" argument from your first speech; pull yours through and weigh in your framework throughout the round.

Honestly, framework is huge in round and plays a huge role in how I evaluate the round. If you want to go for FW you can't drop it in any speech. If framework isn't contested, then isn't brought up until the 2nr/2ar I will not weigh it. FW doesn't get just to be opportunistically used, it must be used consistently to be considered valid praxis.

Topicality: T is important, but I won't just default a neg vote on T without it being the focus of the 2nr. I've voted for untopical plans before because T and abuse wasn't the focus of the rebuttals, and I will do so again. Right now I'd say T is best used as an argument when a plan text hinders the ability of a team to have a functional debate on the terms the 1ac sets, and/or is well beyond the span of the topic/resolution. If abuse isn't evident in the negative block and isn't the focus of the 2nr, I will not intervene for the neg and they will probably not win T.

In round let's be reasonable on T, not oblivious. If a team uses a common acronym such as USFG, and you're not sure what they mean just ask. Unless the team is using them to intentionally mislead, don't try to make some abstract T argument on it and claim they stand for something completely unrelated to the resolution like "United States Faceters Guild." Be reasonable about things, don't try to just strictly rulemonger in a nonconstructive way. If you want to go for an executive or courts CP that's fine, I don't make an assumption on what branch of the USFG the aff's actor is so there's merit to those CP's, just ask in CX what branch(es) the actor is. I don't like presumption on A-Spec when CX after the 1ac can resolve it. The aff gets to reserve clarification of the acting branch(es) for CX after the 1ac should it become a question, if you don't ask them about it then go for a-spec you are actively wasting everyone's time and it's clear as glass. 

DAs: If the disad’s uniqueness, link, and/or impact has been defeated or torn apart I’m not likely to weigh any of the DA other than evidence and arguments that apply to other areas in my decision. On DA's I look heavily at the risk of impact and the minimum impact it may have in a situation if it has any. Cross-applying DA's to other flows is fair game and more teams should remember that it's a thing they can do.

CPs: I will still flow through and apply any evidence and arguments you made if you kick a CP, I won't let you remove arguments from a round only your advocacy for the CP. Fiat and competitiveness are fair-ground arguments for me and I will listen to them. Really I'll listen to pretty much any argument you make on CP's but will not strike the evidence and arguments you presented from the round.

Kritiks: K's are good, I enjoy them. I've voted for and against all kinds of K's so don't expect any K to immediately win or lose you the round, I can personally agree with your K and vote against it based on the round or disagree with aspects of your K but vote for it. I don't have a preference to whichever K you run; you won't lose a round for running a K I'm not as personally experienced with, just run a K whose link makes sense for the plan. On alt; the alt can be an advocacy, but you should be able to explain what your advocacy/alt is and be able to point out where you made the argument for it in your cards. Be consistent with your 'alt,' redefining what your advocating in rebuttals is analogous to changing your CP so try to avoid doing that. If you wanna run clash of the K's between a K-aff and a K on the neg, I'm up for it, make it constructive though and remember not every K is exclusive to others.

Role of the aff and neg: I tend to view the role of the aff to present a plan and/or defend the resolution, and the role of the neg is to negate that. I may be the judge but I don't set the rules of debate, I just have a say over what is fair. If you feel that the resolution is insufficient for the moment as the aff then go beyond and make the case why the resolution isn't enough, the debate space is a space for advocacy and the discussion of ideas so it's vital to have that discussion here. Just don't mistake settling for the resolution and presenting a plan as the end of one's advocacy, dual power is an important praxis and there may be many other plans a team may wish to advocate for but only can pick one for this space.

Other Things to consider:
My favorite techniques and practices in a round are explaining arguments and weighing the round in common terms so that there is no confusion. It makes my job easier and lets everyone do a better job in round of both learning the topic and arguing on it.

When deciding on a winner I look at what points were emphasized in the rebuttals and then the net impacts on the flow. I’ll look at it through whatever frames I’m asked to look at it through otherwise I’ll decide on which side presents the best policy in the round. I am a really big fan of world-by-world comparisons in the 2r's.

Framework is HUGE. If the 1ac reads framework and it isn't contested in the 1nc, and then is extended in the 2ac, then that is probably how I will be evaluating the round if it's pulled through in every speech. If FW is not argued in the 1nc and not mentioned in the 2ac, just consider the framework dead and weightless if/when used in the rebuttals, and me really disappointed.

I have a tendency to see the 2NR and 2AR as speeches that narrow down each side to their final arguments. It's not that 1R's are less important they're like the staging grounds for the final arguments, but if you intend to win on something then bring it up in the 2R. I don't want to vote on something you aren't convinced you won on, and if you are convinced you won an argument and are convinced that it should win you the round, it better be in the 2R.

Hot takes:

If climate change/warming bad is your impact, you don't need to read an impact card. Anyone who doesn't understand the scope of warming impacts, needs/wants it explained to them, or questions the validity warming impacts really shouldn't be judging in 2019. Just say it as an analytic. You should probably still read your link chain unless it's absolutely obvious.

Assume I watch the news regularly, obsessively even.

Saying Cap is as good as it gets is gonna take some work for me

impacts that don't lead or focus on extinction are more reasonable and more likely. People suffering is an impact by itself, any impact chain that extends from there is usually indefinite speculation or hyperbole that detracts from actual suffering that is more likely to happen and is ongoing. That's not to say worse impacts don't spiral from chains of events, but that most of the time there is a minimum definite impact of suffering.

Meghana Lakkireddy

they/them

Senior at Barstow in Missouri

Pls put me on the email chain: meghana.lakkireddy@barstowschool.org

Be nice in round please. Being rude puts me in an uncomfortable position and generally makes the round worse for everyone involved.

This is my fourth year of debate. I'm a 2A/1N. I read a queer theory K-Aff and other Ks on the neg. Don't be afraid to read traditional policy arguments in front of me tho, I'm always up for a good hard-right debate. I tend to weigh tech over truth unless something problematic is said in round (racism good, etc.)

--Kritiks--

I'm most comfortable here - I'll listen to anything you put into the round, but kritkal debates are the most valuable when both teams walk out of them with a greater understanding of the theory being presented. If you can't explain the K without your blocks, don't run it. I feel pretty comfortable in most of the areas of literature (at least enough so to judge novice debates), so do what you want.

***sidenote: if you read Baudrillard as an excuse to be an asshole, I will be pissed.

--K Affs--

Fine, obviously. Again, know your lit base. This is especially important when running your K on the aff - I expect you to know it inside and out. Because your aff is not T, it's imperative you give me and the other team AMPLE explanation of your thesis, your method or lack thereof, and your reasons for rejecting the resolution. That being said, I am more than happy to vote on framework.

--Framework--

I personally don't think procedural fairness is an independent impact, but I'll try and stay as neutral as possible in the round. For the neg, you need to prove that the aff's discussion is available under your interpretation of the topic and that the education policy education produces is good. The aff needs to win that their discussion couldn't happen under the neg's interp and that the education the neg reproduces is bad.

--DAs--

Read 'em. I've cut enough politics updates to know what's happening. That being said, I have a pretty high link threshold - make sure you make them clear.

--CPs--

These are fine. I prefer if they're carded. I do think consult CPs, Object FIAT CPs, and new 2NC CPs are cheating so. Do with that what you will.

--T/Theory--

I err neg on everything except Condo and T (other than the stuff I mentioned above). I think 3 conditional advocacies is probably pushing it.

sidenote: Gals in debate, I know it sucks to have to constantly deal with your male counterparts cutting you off and generally disrespecting you through the round. If I notice this, I will dock their speaks. Don't be afraid to call someone out if they're being misogynistic.

--Speaker Points--

(Stolen from Harun Khan) Usually given based on how I feel after the round, but I start everyone at 28.5. Things that influence my points include your ethos, argumentation selection, critical thinking abilities, and knowledge of topic.

30: You were the best novice I have ever seen

29.5-29.9: You were excellent in terms of argument development, argument choice, ethos, etc.

29-29.4: You were really good, but lacked in one of the more important areas above

28.6-28.9: You were good, but lacked in two of the areas above

28-28.5: You were average, but lacked in two or more areas above

27.5-27.9: You have some work to do, but you weren't too egregiously bad

Anything below that you probably said something offensive (or clipped -- don't clip)

In summary, I'll vote on basically anything if it's not problematic, be nice in round, try your best, and remember to have fun!

I am currently a freshman at Mount Mercy University in Cedar Rapids, double majoring in Social Work and Political Science. As MMU does not have a debate team I currently not debating. So, I am not super familiar to the topic so you probably have to do some extra explaining to me. However, I am familiar with the current political debates on immigration currently and have a basic understanding of how immigration and ICE functions so I do know some things about the topic.

Background

I was a 4-year debater at CR Wash, debated at Nationals my senior year. I was typically a 2A/1N but I have been double 2s. I was more of policy debater for sure. However, I can be down with Ks if explained well. I am okay with speed- I am a speed debater but you HAVE to slow down on analytics and tags so I know you are moving on to a new argument. Sign posting is appreciated. YOU CANNOT JUST SAY EXTEND X! You MUST extend warrants and compare it to their answers! I would like to be added to the email chain my email is 18mmineart@gmail.com Also please call me by my name, not just “judge.”

General

If you are mean in CX will be docked speaker points. If you are mean to your partner you will lose speaker points. I will call you out during my RFD. Please make the debate fun- not just serious and competitive. While being competitive and serious about debate is good you should be having fun and learning first and foremost.

FW/ T/ Theory

If against a K/ K AFF I will lean more towards FW in general. It is hard for me to vote for K framework. As for T. I like it and I will vote on it. If dropped I will tend to value its impacts more than the impacts of the AFF. Also, if you make every mildly sketch thing a voter- it loses validity for me.

Ks

Again, I am more of a policy debater. I generally enjoy them but struggle with high theory Ks unless you explain it super well to me. I am persuaded by more specific alts- not by just rejecting the AFF- you have to give me more of a reason on the link and impact level of the debate.

DAs

I love DAs. As a more policy-oriented debater I run these a lot. To win on just a DA alone I need a cohesive link story, updated uniqueness, and IMPACT CALC that is comparative to the AFF’s impacts. Politics debates are always fun.

CPs

Again, a huge fan of these. Make sure you have a net benefit and it is legitimately competitive. I particularly like advantage CPs. Perms are just a test of competition. I am not a huge fan of pics or arguments similar to them.

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

I'm not going to look at the card text unless someone in the round calls into question something in the actual text of a card, so please explain the warrants of your card yourself if you want me to evaluate it!

Background

I'm currently a 4th year undergraduate at the University of Minnesota Twin Cities majoring in Computer Science and Statistics. Debate-wise, I'm the former captain of the La Crosse Central High School Policy Debate Team. I did debate for all four years of high school strictly in policy. Note that I haven't competed in competitive debate for about 4 years now, so please keep that in mind. I like to be positive with everyone I meet, so feel free to loosen up and have fun!

If I happen to be judging your PF or LD round, please understand that I have a strictly policy background. I consider myself somewhat capable of evaluating any argument, so there shouldn't be much of an issue. However, if there's something very PF/LD specific, I'd make sure you'd explain it more plainly to me.

Judging Philosophy

I will vote on what I'm told to vote on in the round. In other words, role of the ballot and framework is important! For example, if the neg has a killer nuclear war DA that they win almost 100%, but the aff totally wins framework and tells me to vote for the team that solves best for real world structural violence, I will vote aff.

Arguments evaluated at the end must be pulled through the whole debate. If a team calls out that an argument was dropped in the block/1AR and they're right, I'm not evaluating it. In general, you need to point out that the opponent dropped the argument if you want me to drop it. If you don't, I will generally evaluate it as if it wasn't dropped if your opponents bring it up again later. This holds especially true if you address the dropped argument as if it wasn't (i.e., you have responses to the argument in your speech). The only major exception is that, if the 2ar pulls through an argument that was obviously dropped in the 1ar, I'm not evaluating it if I notice it. This is because the negative has no chance to call this out.

That being said, I will vote on any argument if its argued well and is actually won in round. My political and philosophical biases should not play a role in my decision.

Round Rules

Open CX is fine, just make sure whoever is supposed to be doing the CX or supposed to be CXed is doing most of the talking. If not, speaks are going down.

I will start prep more or less when you say you're starting and stopping. You should start prep when you start working on an argument and you should stop it when you are saving the file for sending. Please don't take forever sending files. I'm pretty generous with time, so don't abuse it. If I or someone else catches you stealing prep, I'm starting prep and docking speaks. Rule of thumb, if you can, please take your hands off your computer/pen when prep stops if you aren't the one sending the file.

Do not be racist, sexist, Islamophobic, homophobic, etc. People of all different identities are welcome in this space. If you have a problem with that, you can leave the round.

Be nice. Really, that's it. Debate should be a fun activity and debaters should leave a round being happy and being friends with their opponents. I don't want to see harassment or insults, both in round and out of round. You're losing speaks if you do that. I'm also probably going to be more empathetic towards the team being harassed/insulted, so I probably might subconsciously give them more credit in their arguments. So, even if you only care about my ballot, it would still benefit you to be respectful of the other team. I'm the last judge you should be making snarky comments at the other team in front of. Be courteous, and understand that everyone deserves respect.

Tech

No, I don't know all abbreviations or debate jargon. if you wanna be safe, take the time to explain the more sophisticated jargon or abbreviations if it's crucial to your arguments later in the round.

Speed is usually OK, but I can get lost if you either go too fast or you aren't signposting well. I had OK speed as a debater myself, but I was never really that good at it, so please keep that in mind. Speed on cards is a-OK, just make sure differentiate and slow down a bit on tags so I know what's going on. Analytics/explanation/non-carded arguments are another beast. Please slow down for these. You don't need to speak unbearably slowly, but don't speak so fast that words start getting slurred or missed. My tolerance for speed is not bad, but if there's a key argument to your whole argument, you should definitely slow down for that (good practice for any sort of discussion, really). Rule of thumb, if I don't know what you're saying due to speed, I'm not flowing it. If I don't catch a little argument in the middle of your long, un-carded speech at 300000 WPM and the opponent doesn't catch it, I'm more willing to give them leeway when you say "they dropped it!!!", since it's probably not on my flow either.

If you want to be loud, go ahead, just please don't scream at me. There's a difference between being loud and assertive and just straight up screaming. That threshold for loud vs. screaming is really high, but it's there. I'm going to find it hard to figure out what you're saying if it's being screamed at me. That being said, I do not believe that being loud means you are more persuasive. It is totally possible to speak decisively and assertively without being loud. Additionally, there's a distinction between being passionate and being loud; passion will actually probably make you more persuasive in more k/philosophical rounds. Volume will not.Rule of thumb: Favor enunciation over volume- it will make your argument much easier to follow.

I'll try my best to avoid expressing during a speech, but it's probably going to be obvious if I'm confused or lost, so if you notice that I'm lost, please slow down and take time to explain.

Arguments

Disadvantages: No problem here. Make sure you explain the link chain well enough and it should be convincing to me. I find internal links to nuclear war pretty weak, so you better make sure to explain how the plan somehow causes nuclear war if you go for this argument in the 2NR. Case turns with disadvantages are very convincing and powerful, do them. Unless you tell me otherwise, I will default to weighing the impact of the DA to the Aff at the end of the round if the neg decides to go for it.

Topicality: I actually quite like good T debates, it's just that they are more often then not really bad. Make sure you defend your interpretation. I need to know why its the best in the round (standards, standards, standards!) and why I should focus on yours over your opponent's. You also need to explain your voters, why should I vote down the team for it? If there's not compelling standards arguments on the T or the reasons to vote for T are bad, I'm going to default that the aff's topicality violation doesn't really hurt the round and I'm not voting them down for it. Therefore, if you aren't clearly explaining why the topicality violation is bad for debate, you can still lose the topicality debate even if they concede that they aren't topical.

Kritiks: I'm decently versed in kritiks, especially security kritiks. Please note that most of my experience with Ks and their arguments are within the context of debate. It would probably help you to assume that I haven't heard of your K before if it isn't a more conventional K like "security" or "capitalism" Ks. I am not that well read on this type of theory. That being said, I can follow a K quite well and I tend to understand the arguments pretty fast. Please take time to explain the link and alt very well, especially if this is your 2nr argument of choice. I need to know why the aff specifically links to the K and I need to know why the alt solves. If I don't understand the K at the end of the round, it's going to be hard for me to vote on it if it wasn't completely dropped by the aff. For most Ks, I see alts as in round, real world solvency, so no fiatted action. Basically, the ballot is what contributes to the alt solvency. How and why does my ballot help solve the large issues the K addresses? Answering this should be a key focus of your final speech(es) if you are going for it. My reasoning for this is that, if I didn't judge like this, you could theoretically win the K argument by doing:

"The aff doesn't solve the inherent issues with capitalism. The alt is a miracle cure that solves capitalism. Therefore, we should win."

If I let you do that, then I should also probably let the aff do extremely unfeasible plans that would solve large issues as well. I don't think that leads to good and interesting debate.

The important thing is that, if you lose the alt, you're losing the K. Without an alt, I'm just seeing Ks as non unique DAs, which won't win you the round. Case turns with Ks are probably the best things Ks have though, so do them!

Counterplans: Counterplans are great. I won't vote on a CP without a net benefit though unless you make a very compelling theory argument, so make sure you have a net benefit to leverage over the aff. Perms work wonders for the aff. The neg needs to win a solvency deficit to the perm in order to beat it, and the aff needs to win a solvency deficit to the CP in order to win. Basically, prove to me why your plan is best.

On the other hand, I really don't like consult CPs, PICs, etc. For those of you who don't know what those are, I envy you, but here's an overblown example:

Counterplan: We should do the aff's plan but ask NATO first.

I think these CPs are basically cheating and that they make for very bland and arbitrary debate. I'll still vote for them if the aff doesn't call you out on it, but if the aff makes even a simple theory arg, you better win that debate decisively or I'm dismissing the CP.

KAffs: I can follow most K affs, as long as you keep taking some time to walk me through your criticism. Make sure you have your in round solvency. if there's no policy action/plan text, I'm not evaluating any fiat. You need to explain to me why the ballot is key to the movement of the K aff and why ignoring the resolution is good (similar to how you win Ks). T/Framework on K affs are pretty convincing to me, so you may need to do more work as to why we need to dismiss the resolution. That being said, I have no problem voting for K affs, you just need to win your args. The biggest pitfall to watch out for here is articulating why you need the ballot. Otherwise, I will probably default voting neg on T for norms'/rules' sake even if I agree with everything you said.

Framework: Please do this. This is probably one of the easiest way a team can boost their stance in a round. Tell me what's more important in the round. This is especially important if there's competing impacts like structural violence vs. nuclear war. If you win this, I'm evaluating the round within your framework, so I'll ignore what you tell me to ignore.

Theory: I kinda like theory debates when done well. You need to explain why whatever the other team is doing is bad for debate (AKA, standards). You also need to tell me why I need to vote down the team for the violation, otherwise I'm defaulting to just rejecting their argument. Asking for me to reject the argument is a lot easier to win than asking me to reject the team, so make sure you know what you're doing if this is your final rebuttal strategy.

Speaker Points: I find assigning speaker points quite challenging. However, there are a list of things that I know I will dock points for. If you care about speaker points a lot, here's a non-exhaustive list of things I will definitely knock you down for:

• Discrimination
• Offensive Language (not swearing in general, but language that can be harmful to other people)
• Personal attacks on other team
• Confusing speeches (especially line by lines where you don't clearly connect your argument to the argument you are addressing. Please signpost)
• The "laugh" (laughing/chuckling/scoffing at the opponent's argument or question as a way to attack its legitimacy. You aren't actually proving that the question/argument is illegitimate, you are just coming off as mean)
• Not treating your opponents like equals/not respecting your opponents
• Interrupting Speeches
• Clear disorganization with partner
• (Repeatedly) claiming that arguments were dropped even though they weren't
• 2AR cheating (bringing up new or previously dropped arguments in the 2AR)

I will be deciding speaker points using criteria beyond the ones above, but the list above serves as a good list of things I really don't like in a round.

Remember to have fun! It can be easy to get lost in the competition, but remember that we're all here to have a good time. Debate is much better when you're having fun!

Name : Lauren Velazquez

Affiliated School: Niles North

Email: Laurenida@gmail.com

General Background:
I debated competitively in high school in the 1990s for Maine East. I participated on the national circuit where counterplans and theory were common.

Director of Debate at Niles North

Laurenida@gmail.com

ME

Experience:

I competed in the 90s, helped around for a few years, took a bit of a break, have been back for about 7 years. My teams compete on the national circuit, I help heavily with my teams’ strategies, and am a lab leader at a University of Michigan. In recent years I have helped coach teams that cleared at the TOC, won state titles and consistently debated in late elim rounds at national tournaments. TL/DR--I am familiar with national circuit debate but I do not closely follow college debate so do not assume that I am attuned to the arguments that are currently cutting edge/new.

What this means for you---I lean tech over truth when it comes to execution, but truth controls the direction of tech, and some debate meta-arguments matter a lot less to me.

I am not ideological towards most arguments, I believe debate structurally is a game, but there are benefits to debate outside of it being just a game, give it your best shot and I will try my best to adapt to you.

The only caveat is do not read any arguments that you think would be inappropriate for me to teach in my classroom, if you are worried it might be inappropriate, you should stop yourself right there.

DISADS AND ADVANTAGES
When deciding to vote on disadvantages and affirmative advantages, I look for a combination of good story telling and evidence analysis. Strong teams are teams that frame impact calculations for me in their rebuttals (e.g. how do I decide between preventing a war or promoting human rights?). I should hear from teams how their internal links work and how their evidence and analysis refute indictments from their opponents. Affirmatives should have offense against disads (and Negs have offense against case). It is rare, in my mind, for a solvency argument or "non unique" argument to do enough damage to make the case/disad go away completely, at best, relying only on defensive arguments will diminish impacts and risks, but t is up to the teams to conduct a risk analysis telling me how to weigh risk of one scenario versus another.

TOPICALITY

I will vote on topicality if it is given time (more than 15 seconds in the 2NR) in the debate and the negative team is able to articulate the value of topicality as a debate “rule” and demonstrate that the affirmative has violated a clear and reasonable framework set by the negative. If the affirmative offers a counter interpretation, I will need someone to explain to me why their standards and definitions are best. Providing cases that meet your framework is always a good idea. I find the limits debate to be the crux generally of why I would vote for or against T so if you are neg you 100% should be articulating the limits implications of your interpretation.

KRITIKS
Over the years, I have heard and voted on Kritiks, but I do offer a few honest caveats:

*Please dont read "death good"/nihilism/psychoanalysis in front of me. I mean honestly I will consider it but I know I am biased and I HATE nihilism, psychoanalysis debates. I will try to listen with an open mind but I really don't think these arguments are good for the activity or good for pedagogy--they alienate younger debaters who are learning the game and I don't think that genuine discussions of metaphysics lend themselves to speed reading and "voting" on right/wrong. If you run these I will listen and work actively to be open minded but know you are making an uphill battle for yourself running these. If these are your bread and butter args you should pref me low.

I read newspapers daily so I feel confident in my knowledge around global events. I do not regularly read philosophy or theory papers, there is a chance that I am unfamiliar with your argument or the underlying paradigms. I do believe that Kritik evidence is inherently dense and should be read a tad slower and have accompanying argument overviews in negative block. Impact analysis is vital. What is the role of the ballot? How do I evaluate things like discourse against policy implications (DAs etc)

Also, I’m going to need you to go a tad slower if you are busting out a new kritik, as it does take time to process philosophical writings.

If you are doing something that kritiks the overall debate round framework (like being an Aff who doesnt have a plan text), make sure you explain to me the purpose of your framework and why it is competitively fair and educationally valuable.

COUNTERPLANS
I am generally a fan of CPs as a neg strategy. I will vote for counterplans but I am open to theory arguments from the affirmative (PICs bad etc). Counterplans are most persuasive to me when the negative is able to clearly explain the net benifts and how (if at all) the counterplan captures affirmative solvency. For permutations to be convincing offense against CPs, Affs should explain how permutation works and what voting for perm means (does the DA go away, do I automatically vote against neg etc?)

Random

Tag team is fine as long as you don’t start taking over cross-ex and dominating. You are part of a 2 person team for a reason.

Speed is ok as long as you are clear. If you have a ton of analytics in a row or are explaining a new/dense theory, you may want to slow down a little since processing time for flowing analytics or kritkits is a little slower than me just flowing the text of your evidence.

I listen to cross ex. I think teams come up with a lot of good arguments during this time. If you come up with an argument in cross ex-add it to the flow in your speech.