Hello! I did LD for four years but I have forgotten most things very fast, so please explain your arguments well and clearly! I'm okay with all arguments as long as they're have a clear claim warrant impact and tie everything into framework please (I evaluate on framework a lot). If you must spread that's fine but I would prefer that you limit yourself to just talking fast, sorry!

I did four years of PF and two years LD in high school. I am currently a freshman at Cal. Speed is fine, but PF is not designed for spreading. The integrity of debate lies in good organization, solid impacts, and weighing. A few things:

- Things I extend across the flow have to be extended through each speech. No random extensions of arguments brought up in case and forgotten until FF

- Don't try to cover the entire round in FF! Prioritize, weigh, tell me what is most important

- I listen to cross, but extend anything important through each speech

- Evidence debate can get messy--when you do use it, use it right

- Please be courteous to each other and enjoy yourselves!

Feel free to ask if you have any other questions before round.

Joshua Chung

Put me in the email chain please: joshua.yjn.chung@gmail.com

UC Berkeley

Torrey Pines High School

Conflicts: Torrey Pines High School, Dougherty Valley

I competed in the LD circuit for 4 years in high school. Debated for Torrey Pines High School but prepped with Dougherty Valley and haven't debated since the end of my high school career.

I read a lot of Ks, K affs, and plans.

Speaker points

I usually end up giving high speaker points. Usually in the 29-30 range. As long as you articulate your argument clearly and extend the correct arguments, I will vote for you.

General Beliefs

Full disclosure. If you don't disclose in full to the wiki, I'll most likely vote against you if disclosure theory is read.

CX matters. Understanding your arguments is good for your speaker points.

No need to give me a full on summary of why you won. Give me good extensions and I will connect the arguments for you.

I will only vote on arguments I flowed, so please be clear.

Debate is supposed to be fun, so please don't disrespect your opponent.

Hard Stops

Card Cutting

Not flashing the case to your opponent. If not by flash drive, google, etc, please prepare to show opponent the laptop.

Theory

GO for it. If you do think there was something abusive about an argument read or the round itself, read theory.

I generally think condo is good, but if there are too many conditional advocacies, I think condo should be read.

Topicality

Go for T. I generally tend to vote against debaters who aren't topical.

Critical arguments

I read a lot of Settler Colonialism, Security, and Capitalism Ks. Towards the end of my senior year, I read a lot of high theory args such as Deleuze and Baudrillard.

I love Critical arguments a lot. I only ask of debaters to clearly explain the link and the alternative. If I don't understand either of these two parts, I'll probably not vote for the K.

-If you go for a K trick, please be clear.

Philosophy

I might not be the best judge for Phil, but if you are reading it, please explain thoroughly. CRYSTALIZE when reading Phil. If I don't know what your Phil framework is, I will most likely lean towards Util.

Plans/Counterplans/Disads

-plan flaw args good

-permutations good

-counterplan advocacy should be explained clearly

-disads are nice. Please weigh arguments. Offense is more important than defense. :/

Currently a high school student; this paradigm is strictly for middle school debate. I debate public forum, so Ks, DAs, theory, etc. aren't going to go too well for me. 

I'm not too fond of off time road maps. On time doesn't take that long, if it stretches past 15 seconds you're typically avoiding clash.

I don't flow cx but I will pay attention to the points you make/pertinent questions. If your opponent concedes something in cx, make sure to bring it up in your next speech, otherwise it won't be considered in the final ballot.

FW: If your fw clashes w the other teams, make sure to provide warrants for why I should prefer yours over theirs. Util and cost-benefit are the same thing, no need to debate over that.

Evidence: If your evidence clashes, explain why yours is better (more recent, less bias, author qualifications, larger sample size in study, etc). Empirical >>> anecdotal evidence. If you challenge methodology you must be able to prove why theirs is flawed and yours is more sound, but don't spend too much time on it. Clipping is bad.

Summary: Line by line or voter issues, you do you. Start covering impacts, if you haven't already.

Final focus: Don't bring up dropped evidence/arguments. All points must have been previously extended. Impacts will ultimately decide the round, unless neither team brings up or makes any good impacts. Don't spend so much time attacking your opponent's impacts that you don't have time to defend your own.

Speakers points/cross-x: Please remain civil during cross and speaks will be above 25. Overt aggressiveness/attempts at intimidation will be result in low speaks. Don't dominate cross-x time, your opponents should have equal opportunities to ask questions. Rapid fire questions are not advised. Yes/no questions acceptable, but if the other team wants to expand on their answer, allow them to.

I debated LD for Canyon Crest Academy for 4 years. It's been a year since I was last in debate so I'm going to be rusty when it comes to flowing. I'll call clear if I don't know what you're saying.

I was a Phil/theory debater in high school, but I'll vote on any argument as long as it's properly warranted. Spend extra time explaining your K if it's really dense. Please crystallize in the last speech - I want to just read someone's 2ar/2nr back to them as the rfd.

put me on the email chain: kli2@swarthmore.edu

Just some background: I am currently a freshman at Penn. I competed in Public Forum debate for all four years of high school on both the league and circuit level.

1. Please don't spread. I only encountered spreading once throughout my debate career, so I won't be able to understand it. If you're speaking too fast, I will stop flowing and will only continue if you slow down.

2. Extend your arguments. I will not count an argument that is brought up in Final Focus unless it was extended throughout the round.

3. I don't flow during cross, so any important concessions should be mentioned in the next speeches.

4. Weigh impacts ! ! !

Add me to the email chain: rithvik321@gmail.com

Pre-HWL update: I read an NFU aff on the college XA topic and judged at CPS, so I'll get acronyms and know the core affs + neg generics pretty well. I really enjoyed the debates I judged at CPS and hope to be preffed by similar debaters. My points in LD have been a little low, so I'll correct for that, but I still won't be giving out 29s like candy.

Top level: Judge direction and technical sharpness should be your top priorities. I'm not very expressive unless you make a particularly bad or reprehensible argument. Please flow!

For policy debates: If judge kick isn't debated out, I'll kick CPs for the neg. I err neg on CP theory unless there's a clear abuse story. I think States and ESR are legitimate but can be compelled that planks added to get out of solvency deficits, amendments, kicking planks, etc. are theoretically suspect.

For K debates: I read the K a lot in high school (mostly Baudrillard and settler colonialism) and have made mostly policy arguments in college (save for Cap), so I am okay with judging in clash purgatory. I don't mind whether neg teams go for fairness or skills-type arguments, but both sides should do clear impact comparison. I also strongly prefer that K teams follow the line-by-line. If you say "but methods debate" in a K v K debate, I will have no idea what this means.

Cheapshots: I read Sextus Empiricus, the sorites paradox, etc. in high school, and I will vote for this genre of argument if you execute well, but I really prefer judging real arguments.

LD:

---Yes: policy or K arguments (especially topic-specific), theory like condo/PICs bad

---No thanks: "traditional" arguments

---Absolutely not: frivolous theory/tricks/"I hate clash"

Final notes: Have fun, and don't take yourself too seriously! If you have any questions, ask before the round or email me.