please add me to the email chain - dorothyvdarden@gmail.com

I graduated from Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart and debated for 4 years.

I will vote on pretty much anything as long as you explain it and tell me why I should vote on it.

I read along with the speech doc during each speech and if you are caught repeatedly and intentionally clipping you will lose and your speaker point lowered.

Non-T affirmatives

I believe all affirmatives should defend the United States Federal Government reduce restrictions on immigration, you are welcome to defend how you define that individual terms.

I will more than likely vote in line with a standard definition of those terms (plan text!)

I do believe that reading an affirmative that is explicitly a K aff is cheating.

CP

They need solvency advocates that align with the CP text and the planks of the CP. Be clear about the net benefit in cross ex.

DA

I am a big fan of the politics DA, have a link that is legitimate and you can explain it. The impacts need to be fully explained and compared to the affirmatives impacts.

K

The links need to be clear. If you run a K make sure it has an alternative that you can clearly explain and it is not just "alternative is to reject the aff", that is not an alternative. Tell me what the role of the ballot is, why should I vote for the plan or for the alternative?

Topicality

It is a test of competing interpretations and I will vote on it if you prove the interpretation is predictable and the best for education, limits, etc.

Theory

Conditionality is good for debate but can be abusive, explain why it is bad in the specific round for it to matter. If the other team drops your theory argument and you can impact it out then capitalize on it!

Carrollton '18

University of Pennsylvania '22

18mfelixpadilla@gmail.com -put me on the email chain

Evidence quality matters. I expect the other team to call out bad evidence, but I will probably not decide the debate on a piece of evidence if I am truly appalled at how awful it is.

The affirmative must defend an instance of topical action by the USFG. Allowing the affirmative team to not advocate the resolution creates bad debates. I disagree that debate is bad and I do not understand why I should vote for a team that deliberately came to participate in an activity they claim is bad.

Everything that follows below is way less important than this: I try to evaluate every argument fairly rather than injecting my own opinions.

Case

Soft left affs make the most sense

Framing contentions are good but the outcome of framing debates depends on teams actually answering the claims made in the evidence as opposed to just restating their own arguments

Topicality

Topicality is not a reverse voting issue

I tend to think limited topics make for better topics

I default to competing interpretations and I am very rarely persuaded by reasonability unless a particularly compelling case is made

Make sure to implicate the link in terms of the terminal impact (i.e. why is lack of education important and what does it mean for debate?)

Counterplans

Counterplans need to be functionally and textually competitive

Solvency deficits should be impacted in terms of the aff’s advantages

If the perm is three words up until the 2ar I won't vote on it

Condo, advantage CPs, aff-specific PICs- usually good

Process/delay/consult CPs, 50 state fiat, international fiat, agent CPs- ehh

Word PICs, floating PIKs- usually bad

DAs

I’m not persuaded by politics theory arguments

Good politics disads are great, bad politics disads are awful; my least favorite disads are contrived politics disads with bad evidence that only serve the purpose of trying to confuse the aff team

K

The aff gets to weigh their aff and the neg gets a pragmatic alternative; it’s very hard for me to vote on a framework that holds the affirmative to a perfect standard (in terms of epistemology, representations, etc)

To get me to vote on a kritik: aff specific links are important and feasibility is too

I will not vote on something that no one in the round can explain except you, and I will also not vote on death good/high theory/anything that relies on you confusing the other team

Fiat double bind does not make sense, and fiat is good

I’m not persuaded by arguments that rely on spillover.

Floating PIKs are bad

Other

The USFG is all the aff needs to specify

Fairness is an impact

Policy debater for 4 years at Cypress Bay High School, 2014-2018. Johns Hopkins University '22 but not debating. Qualified to the TOC twice and debated right-of-center but am open in general.

Put me on the email chain pls: lkot1004@gmail.com

General

Tech > truth - Even if I don't necessarily agree with the argument, if you're winning it, that's what matters most, assuming there's an explanation (argument = claim + warrant + impact). A dropped argument is true provided there's a re-explanation that hits the 3 parts. I love smart analytics and clever spin on cards, especially when debating against less fleshed-out (by the other team) but higher quality evidence.

Sound smart - If you've done the research/know your evidence, this is the best way to get good speaks or come across persuasively in front of me. It's most persuasive when you actually know what your ev says and what reasons it gives, and can evaluate theirs as well (rehighlting, calling out lack of warrants, qualifications, etc.)

Line-by-line - You can be very smart but not be organized, which won't help. Line your arguments up in a coherent manner and you'll do well in front of me. Answer arguments in the order of the line-by-line (usually starts with 2AC order of responses to offcase and 1NC order of responses on-case)

Arms Sales - I haven't judged on this topic yet, so spell out your acronyms at some point, but this is a topic I feel pretty comfortable with. I love good Topicality debates, but don't assume I know the nuances of your definition/model of debate under that topic without explaining it to me.

**I prefer to be able to evaluate a debate solely based on the arguments provided rather than reading through the evidence after a round! How you debate in the round is most important (your technical manipulation of arguments and responses/offense and defense) not how good your unexplained cards are. I said it before but smart analytics and spin can go a long way.

Specifics

As a 2N, I primarily went for DAs, CPs, and T, but I'm open to and have judged whatever. I love good case debate, no matter what kind of aff it is. I'm not super well-versed across K lit but know some from debating it many times/summers at camp. I will evaluate the debate based on what the 2NR/2AR tell me, as long as there are clear lines drawn to the previous speeches (warrants that are recognizable from previous speeches unless the ev was just read before). Impact calculus, framing arguments with justifications, etc. all are essential for me leaning one way over the other in th end.

*This part is largely identical to my brother, Tyler Kotler's, paradigm (also Cypress Bay '18)

DAs:

I love a good DA debate, or DA/case 2NR. These are a great time to sit down on the impact calc/turns case, and beat back thin 1AR warrants on each part of the DA. Don't forget to spend time on the case with defense/mitigation because this is essential to the DA story outweighing that of the aff.

If warrants or parts of the DA are covered poorly in the 2NR, a strong 2AR CAN beat the DA with only defense and a "risk of the advantage outweighs" story.

CPs:

I love me a good CP/DA 2NR strategy. I feel like, when executed right, the CP can do a good job mopping up the offense on the case without even having to do case work, and the DA outweighs any residual risk of a solvency deficit (or vice versa depending on the 2NR/2AR spin).

I definitely like to hear most CPs, but am definitely conscious that many may be illegitimate. Although neg leaning on CP theory, the affirmative can decisively win these debates against pretty obviously cheaty CPs or against a neg that doesn't clash on the subpoints of the theory debate.

On the aff, especially vs process CPs, don't just say perm do both, perm do the CP and move on. Setting up smart permutations and defending them can sometimes solve the net benefit, and the aff should set up a standard for competition in these debates (textual, functional, etc).

Courts affs that say USFG in the plan text have been sneaky this year and last. I can be convinced that the aff's solvency/advantages talk about using the courts and creating CP competition based on this.

T:

Clean, coherent T debates are great to watch as well. I'm persuaded by competing interpretations, offense/defense paradigm but reasonability can be won when fleshed out better than the neg's model. However, a stronger 2AR is often winning your counter-interp and a strong piece of offense you can weigh against the neg's with defense to theirs. For example, this may be an aff ground standard: why certain affs that the neg limits but are included in your CI are essential to any aff chance of victory or are key to any educational/important discussion under the topic.

On the neg, I don't necessarily have a preference to, say, limits over ground as a standard. Both can access pretty strong internal links to their impacts depending on the interp/CI, but limits has definitely seemed to be a go-to for many neg teams recently.

Case:

Case debate is a beautiful art when focused on. Smart 1NC arguments, both analytic or carded, can start a great case debate that is fun to watch and I'll be inclined to make a very thoughtful decision on, supposing the 2AC doesn't entirely blow them off (though I do understand efficiency, especially against many offcase), and the block decides to spend time on extending the important arguments in-depth. Here, the 2NR/2AR can have a great battle over warrants, offense, and defense from multiple angles, i.e. strength of the internal link vs some impact defense, etc.

K:

I'm relatively familiar with the basic ones (cap, security, etc) and least familiar with high theory (Lacan, Baudrillard, etc), so I definitely require greater explanation for these.

Unless the negative is significantly ahead on framework, I tend to side with the aff being able to weigh the case, and I feel like the aff can often collapse into the middle ground (rhetoric matters, but shouldn't exclude process of weighing impacts) - fairness and cost benefit analysis arguments make a lot of sense here. 1ar's are often blippy on framework, though, and the neg can definitely capitalize in the 2nr on this.

Please do not disguise tricky K arguments until the 2nr, make them blips in a long 2nc overview, etc - be clear with them. The "alt solves the case" shouldn't suddenly materialize in the 2nr, and I'll be lenient towards 2ar explanations against it if that's the case. Spend the time in the block to unpack these arguments. Examples are also great, especially when extending the impact/alt.

Perms on the aff can be explained to mitigate links, so I think the neg should have specific links to the aff and the perm.

Explain how framework implicates the perm - IE: winning rhetoric first means the perm severs the aff's reps and isn't legitimate.

K Affs/FWK:

I didn't read these in high school and didn't go for the K much either. This just means you need to be clear with explanations, as I'm more familiar with the neg's framework arguments. These affs should be in the related to the resolution and not be negative arguments - advocate for a change from the status quo. Also, the 2AC can be sneaky with certain case explanations, but know that I may also not follow along, not just the neg. Thus, I just ask the aff spend time developing their aff's story, as this is essential to convincingly answer possibly more generic neg case D and setting up the crucial DAs/impact turns on FWK. When these stories do come together, it becomes that much easier to me to vote aff in many of these debates.

For framework, don't expect me to take an argument and cross apply it to other parts of the debate unless I'm told to. I'm not a fan of one side making arguments in long narrative format and the other side extending arguments on the flow. On the other hand, I'm lenient towards the neg if the aff's strategy is to speed through blippy arguments until the 2ar. On the aff, winning/beating back the internal links to the neg's offense plus a risk of your own seems most effective.