LAMDL You Say You Want A Resolution
2024 — Los Angeles, CA/US
CX Judges Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideFor email chain and questions: jorgeaguilar.4652@gmail.com
About me: Elizabeth LC '22, CSU Northridge '26. Pronouns are He/Him. I debated policy all four years of high school and still debating it in college. It's all I've ever known. With that said, I'm super down and excited to learn about other types of debate and see what I can learn from them.
Now I know you're reading this to see what kind of arguments you can read in front of me, but really you can read whatever you like. Just have fun and please MAKE GOOD ARGUMENTS!
Things you should know:
- Do your thing! This activity should center the stylistic decisions of students, not judges. There are things I like and dislike but please do what you do and I'll do my best to keep up. I also want to throw in the fact that I am very familiar with the tense feeling that comes with debate. I know it's easier said than done but if possible ease up and really try to have fun.
- Getting down to business, an argument consists of a) a claim (what I'm saying) b) a warrant (why it's true) and c) an impact (what it means). Anything less than that isn't a full argument. If you are introducing an argument, it's your responsibility to provide each of these, especially if you want it included in the final reasoning for why you should win the debate.
- Debate is a communications activity - how you're saying it matters just as much as what you're saying. It's not enough to just make an argument once in passing and assume the judge will assign proper weight to it, even if the other team does not explicitly respond to it. If something matters a lot to you, be sure to communicate that.
One last thing, I'm new to judging LD so all that theory stuff is kind of whack to me. Don't expect me to vote on it.
I also like it when people talk about the Lakers or basketball in general. Just wanted to throw that in there.
Feel free to ask if you have any questions.
Hello! My name is Jazmin I am currently a high school student from Washington Prep and a varsity debater!
of course, NO racism, sexism, homophobia, or discriminatory or hateful language or actions in any way.
I highly value clarity and passion! If you sound like you know and care about what you're saying I'm going to be able to follow along better. If you are a spreader, I don't mind at all but clearly stated arguments can definitely ensure that you get your points across better.
Pleaseee clearly sign-post and read the taglines as it helps with my flow and ultimately my decision. :)
Hi I am Alexander Bragarnik, when I am judging call me Alex. I have debated for about 2 years now in policy debate. If there is an email chain during the round please add alexanderbragarnik@gmail.com or abragarni0001@mymail.lausd.net to the chain. My pronouns are he/him and I am a 1N/2A.
When reading please be clear if you are not I will say clear meaning you should reset and read clearer. I am okay with spreading as long as I can understand you. I don't care if you tag team in cross x. You should be confident when you speak, when you read line by line please have it organized, when you start I would prefer if both teams give a road-map and sign posting throughout the debate.
I understand a lot of the literature in debate so I am okay with you running any argument as long as it is explained and carried throughout the debate in depth. I will probably vote on judge instruction and on the impacts weighed so if you prove your impacts outweigh you will probably win.
I give speaker points based off of how clear you are, how well you do in cross x, and how well you convey your arguments to me as the judge. I won't disclose speaker points unless everyone in the round agrees to it and I will try my best to give you the best RFD I can.
If you have any questions feel free to message me before and after the round but just in general have fun that's what debate is about.
PS if you connect your arguments to a funny joke/real world event I will give higher speaker points.
BRAVO MEDICAL MAGNET HIGH SCHOOL 26’,
EMAIL ME THE DOC, email on the bottom
I’m a varsity debater, but I’ve judged a practice debate or two but varsity.
Make a joke, and you’ll get +0.1 speaks not stackable (smh samuel miramontes)
For Novices/JV, I’m pretty well versed with the GND.
My experience: I’ve run a bunch of automation affs, and citizenship args, and my most recent aff is a Hawaii basic income. I run a lot of structural violence args and I’m telling you this is that as a judge yes it’s easy to vote on Extinction o/w, but like does it really? To combat extinction o/w I need some reasoning/framing why structural violence o/w and should be prioritized.
I’m not filled with wisdom but I will try to give the best feedback I can/Judge to the best
If you disagree with the ballot feel free to lmk why you think otherwise
HAVE FUN!!!
Preferences
Keep your own time.
Don’t be cheeky and prep when you’re not supposed to.
Will not evaluate new offs in 2nc
I’ll say clear if your speaking isn’t clear
EMPHASIS through speech just makes it a more enjoyable and digestible debate <3
Ballot and Speaks
Speaks start at 28
Debating is a performance after all and that means emotion/ will be rewarded with higher speaks.
Don’t justify a form of violence/ Say Death Good, will dock speaks.
Don’t be rude in CX
Know your cards and have good analytics
TECH>>>> TRUTH
-
I will evaluate an argument even if it’s false if it isn’t called out
-
You could speak amazing but it’s about what it is that you are saying
Impact Calc
-
I love impact calc and analysis, what’s gonna happen if the plan isn’t enacted, or what does happen??
Line by line
-
Callout what your opponent says, state what ur gonna say, why it matters, and why your argument is better blah blah
-
Makes debate actually clash instead of words phasing through each other
DROPPING ARGUMENTS
-
If an argument is dropped, I’m not gonna evaluate it. BUT it has to be called out for it being dropped for me to not evaluate it and tell me why it is important if it should be a voter if it’s offense.
-
If you want to Kick an argument, do it properly.
JUDGE INSTRUCTION
-
Most importantly, You are the ones debating. Tell me what to vote on or what not to vote on and why.
-
I cannot argue what I think you are trying to say, make it clear blah blah.
Arguments
in order of what I lean to the most T, K, DA, CP
T- I tend to lean towards arguments about fairness and education because that is what is extracted from this activity.
K- K’s are often not explained well enough, but if done correctly and with a good link then it works. To go against a K, I tend to lean towards if education and fairness. Point out any contradictions and blow up on it.
DA - I love a good DA, a clear strong link is needed, imo DAs are amazing. Explain why the DA makes the plan bad.
CP- I don’t have an opinion on CP’s. I tend to lean toward a good perm. As Aff, point out contradictions on CP or why it doesn’t work.
Thank you for reading all of my paradigms and good luck!
My email for debate is ZCbravopolicydebate@gmail.com
High school debate: Baltimore Urban Debate League ( Lake Clifton Eastern High School).
College debate: University of Louisville then Towson University.
Grad work: Cal State Fullerton.
Current: Director of Debate at Long Beach State (CSU Long Beach), former Director of Debate a Fresno State.
Email for chain: Devenc325@gmail.com
Speaker Point Scale
29.5-30: one of the best speakers I expect to see this year and has a high grade of Charisma, Uniqueness, Nerve, Talent, and Swag is on 100. This means expert explanation of arguments and most arguments are offensive.
29 - 29.5: very good speaker has a middle grade of Charisma, Uniqueness, Nerve, Talent, and mid-range swag. Explanation of arguments are of great quality and many of the arguments are offensive.
28.4 - 28.9: good speaker; may have some above average range/ parts of the Cha.Uni.Ner.Tal.S acronym but must work on a few of them and may have some issues to work out. Explanation of arguments are of good quality and several of the arguments are offensive.
28 - 28.3: solid speaker; needs some work; probably has average range/ parts of the Cha.Uni.Ner.Tal.S acronym but must work on a few of them and may have some issues to work out. Explanation of arguments are of okayish quality and very few of the arguments are offensive.
27.1 - 27.5: okay speaker; needs significant work on the Cha.Uni.Ner.Tal.S acronym. Not that good of explanation with no offensive arguments.
< 27: you have done something deeply problematic in this debate like clipping cards or linguistic violence, or rhetorically performed an ism without apology or remorse.
Please do not ask me to disclose points nor tell me as an argument to give you a 30. I wont. For some reason people think you are entitled to high points, I am not that person. So, you have to earn the points you get.
IF YOU ARE IN HIGHSCHOOL, SKIP DOWN TO THE "Judging Proper" section :)
Cultural Context
If you are a team that reads an argument based in someone else's identity, and you are called on it by another team with receipts of how it implicates the round you are in, its an uphill battle for you. I am a fan of performing your politics with consistency and genuine ethical relationships to the people you speak about. I am a fan of the wonderful author Linda Martin Alcoff who says " where one speaks from affects both the meaning and truth of what one says." With that said, you can win the debate but the burden of proof is higher for you....
Post Rounding
I will not entertain disrespectful or abrasive engagement because you lost the round. If you have questions, you may ask in a way that is thoughtful and seeking understanding. If your coach thinks they will do this as a defense of your students, feel free to constrain me. I will not allow my students to engage that way and the same courtesy should be extended to EVERYONE. Losing doesn't does not give you license to be out of your mind and speak with malice. Keep in mind I am not from the suburbs and I will not tolerate anyone's nasty demeanor directed at me nor my students.
"Community" Members
I do not and will not blindly think that all people in this activity are kind, trustworthy, non-cheaters, good intentioned, or will not do or say anything in the name of competition or malice towards others. Please miss me with having faith in people in an activity that often reveals people engaging in misconduct, exploitation, grooming, or other inappropriate activities that often times NEVER get reported. MANY of you have created and perpetuated a culture of toxicity and elitism, then you are surprised when the chickens come home to roost. This applies to ALL forms of college and high school debate...
Judging Proper
I am more than willing to listen to ANY arguments that are well explained and impacted and relate to how your strategy is going to produce scholarship, policy action, performance, movement, or whatever political stance or program. I will refer to an educator framework unless told otherwise...This means I will evaluate the round based on how you tell me you want it to be framed and I will offer comments on how you could make your argument better after the round. Comparison, Framing, OFFENSE is key for me. Please indict each other's framework or role of the ballot/role of the judge for evaluation and make clear offense to how that may make a bad model of debate. OR I am down with saying the debate should not be a reflection about the over all model of debate/ no model.
I DO NOT privilege certain teams or styles over others because that makes debate more unfair, un-educational, cliquey, and makes people not feel valued or wanted in this community, on that note I don't really jive to well with arguments about how certain folks should be excluded for the sake of playing the "game". NOR do I feel that there are particular kinds of debate related to ones personal identity. I think people are just making arguments attached to who they are, which is awesome, but I will not privilege a kind of debate because some asserts its a thing.
I judge debates according to the systematic connection of arguments rather than solely line by line…BUT doesn’t mean if the other team drops turns or other arguments that I won’t evaluate that first. They must be impacted and explained. PLEASE always point out reason why the opposing team is BAD and have contextualized reasons for why they have created a bad impact or make one worse. I DO vote on framework and theory arguments….I’ve been known to vote on Condo quite a bit, but make the interp, abuse story, and contradictions clear. If the debate devolves into a theory debate, I still think the AFF should extend a brief summary of the case.
Don’t try to adapt to how I used to debate if you genuinely don’t believe in doing so or just want to win a ballot. If you are doing a performance I will hold you to the level that it is practiced, you have a reason for doing so, and relates to the overall argument you are making…Don’t think “oh! I did a performance in front of Deven, I win.” You are sadly mistaken if so. It should be practiced, timed well, contain arguments, and just overall have a purpose. It should be extended with full explanation and utility.
Overall I would like to see a good debate where people are confident in their arguments and feel comfortable being themselves and arguing how they feel is best. I am not here to exclude you or make you feel worthless or that you are a "lazy" intellectual as some debaters may call others, but I do like to see you defend your side to the best of your ability.
GET OFF THEM BLOCKS SOME! I get it coaches like to block out args for their students, even so far as to script them out. I think this is a practice that is only focused on WINNING and not the intellectual development of debaters who will go on to coach younger debaters. A bit of advice that I give to any debater I come across is to tell them to READ, READ, READ. It is indeed fundamental and allows for the expansion of example use and fluency of your arguments.
A few issues that should be clarified:
Decorum: I DO NOT LIKE when teams think they can DISRESPECT, BULLY, talk RUDE to, or SCREAM at other teams for intimidation purposes in order to win or throw the other team off. Your points will be effected because this is very unbecoming and does not allow this space to be one of dialogue and reciprocity. If someone disrespects you, I am NOT saying turn the other cheek, but have some tact and utility of how you engage these folks. And being hyper evasive to me is a hard sell. Do not get me wrong, I do love the sassiness, sarcasm, curtness, and shade of it all but there is a way to do it with tact. I am also NOT persuaded that you should be able to be rude or do whatever you want because you are a certain race, class, gender, sex, sexuality, or any other intersection under the sun. That to me is a problematic excuse that intensifies the illegit and often rigid criticism that is unlashed upon "identity politics."
Road maps: STICK TO IT. I am a tight flower and I have a method. However, I need to know where things go so there is no dispute in the RFD that something was answered or not. If you are a one off team, please have a designed place for the PERM. I can listen well and know that there are places things should go, but I HATE to do that work for a team. PLEASE FLOW and not just follow the doc. If you answer an arg that was in the doc, but not read, I will take it as you note flowing nor paying attention to what is going on.
Framework and Theory: I love smart arguments in this area. I am not inclined to just vote on debate will be destroyed or traditional framework will lead to genocide unless explained very well and impacted based on some spill over claims. There must be a concrete connection to the impacts articulated on these and most be weighed. I am persuaded by the deliberation arguments, institutional engagement/building, limits, and topical versions of the Aff. Fairness is an interesting concept for me here. I think you must prove how their model of debate directly creates unfairness and provide links to the way their model of debate does such. I don't think just saying structural fairness comes first is the best without clarification about what that means in the context of the debate space and your model of debate.
Some of you K/Performance folks may think I am a FW hack, thas cute or whatever. Instead of looking at the judge as the reason why you weren't adequate at defending your business, you should do a redo, innovate, or invest in how to strategize. If it seems as though you aren't winning FW in front of me that means you are not focusing how offense and your model produces some level of "good." Or you could defend why the model approach is problematic or several reasons. I firmly believe if someone has a model of debate or how they want to engage the res or this space, you MUST defend it and prove why that is productive and provides some level of ground or debatability.
Winning Framework for me includes some level of case turn or reason why the aff produces something bad/ blocks something good/ there's a PIC/PIK of some kind (explained). This should be coupled with a proficient explanation of either the TVA or SSD strategy with the voter components (limits, predictability, clash, deliberation, research burden, education, fairness, ground etc.) that solidify your model of debate.
Performance: It must be linked to an argument that is able to defend the performance and be able to explain the overall impact on debate or the world/politics itself. Please don’t do a performance to just do it…you MUST have a purpose and connect it to arguments. Plus debate is a place of politics and args about debate are not absent politics sometimes they are even a pre-req to “real” politics, but I can be persuaded otherwise. You must have a role of the ballot or framework to defend yourself, or on the other side say why the role of the ballot is bad. I also think those critics who believe this style of debate is anti-intellectual or not political are oversimplifying the nuance of each team that does performance. Take your role as an educator and stop being an intellectual coward or ideology driven hack.
Do not be afraid to PIK/PIC out of a performance or give reasons why it was BAD. Often people want to get in their feelings when you do this. I am NOT sympathetic to that because you made a choice to bring it to this space and that means it can be negated, problematized, and subject to verbal criticism.
Topic/Resolution: I will vote on reasons why or why not to go by the topic...unlike some closed minded judges who are detached from the reality that the topics chosen may not allow for one to embrace their subjectivity or social location in ways that are productive. This doesn’t mean I think talking about puppies and candy should win, for those who dumb down debate in their framework args in that way. You should have a concrete and material basis why you chose not to engage the topic and linked to some affirmation against racism/sexism/homophobia/classism/elitism/white supremacy and produces politics that are progressive and debatable. There would have to be some metric of evaluation though. BUT, I can be persuaded by the plan focus and topic education model is better middle ground to what they want to discuss.
Hella High Theory K: i.e Hiediggar, Baudrillard, Zizek, D&G, Butler, Arant, and their colleagues…this MUST be explained to me in a way that can make some material sense to me as in a clear link to what the aff has done or an explanation of the resolution…I feel that a lot of times teams that do these types of arguments assume a world of abstraction that doesn’t relate fully to how to address the needs of the oppressed that isn’t a privileged one. However, I do enjoy Nietzsche args that are well explained and contextualized. Offense is key with running these args and answering them.
Disadvantages: I’m cool with them just be well explained and have a link/link wall that can paint the story…you can get away with a generic link with me if you run politics/econ/tradeoff disads. But, it would be great to provide a good story. In the 2NC/1NR retell the story of the disad with more context and OFFENSE and compartmentalize the parts. ALWAYS tell me why it turns and outweighs case. Disads on case should be impacted and have a clear link to what the aff has done to create/perpetuate the disad. If you are a K team and you kick the alt that solves for the disads…that is problematic for me. Affs need to be winning impact framing and some level of offense. No link is not enough for me.
Perms: I HATE when people have more than 3 perms. Perm theory is good here for me, do it and not just GROUP them. For a Method v Method debate, you do not get to just say you dont get a perm. Enumerate reasons why they do not get a perm. BUT, if an Aff team in this debate does make a perm, it is not just a test of competition, it is an advocacy that must be argued as solving/challenging what is the issue in the debate.
Additionally, you can kick the perms and no longer have to be burden with that solvency. BUT you must have offensive against their C/P, ALT, or advocacy.
Counterplans/Advocacies: They have to solve at least part of the case and address some of the fundamental issues dealing with the aff’s advantages especially if it’s a performance or critical aff…I’m cool with perm theory with a voter attached. I am cool with any kind of these arguments, but an internal net benefit is not enough for me in a policy counterplan setting. If you are running a counter advocacy, there must be enumerated reasons why it is competitive, net beneficial, and is the option that should be prioritized. I do love me a PIK/PIC or two, but please do it effectively with specific evidence that is a criticism of the phrase or term the aff used. But, know the difference between piking out of something and just criticizing the aff on some trivial level. I think you need to do very good analysis in order to win a PIC/PIK. I do not judge kick things...that is your job.
Affs in the case of PIK/PICs, you must have disads to the solvency (if any), perm, theory, defend the part that is questionable to the NEG.
Race/ Identity arguments: LOVE these especially from the Black/Latinx/Asian/Indigenous/Trans/Sexuality perspective (most familiar with) , but this doesn’t mean you will win just because you run them like that. I like to see the linkage between what the aff does wrong or what the aff/neg has perpetuated. I’m NOT likely to vote on a link of omission unless some structural claim has risen the burden. I am not familiar with ALL of these types of args, so do not assume that I know all you literature or that I am a true believer of your arguments about Blackness. I do not believe that Blackness based arguments are wedded to an ontology focus or that one needs to win or defeat ontology to win.
I am def what some of you folks would call a "humanist and I am okay with that. Does not mean you can't win any other versions of that debate in front of me.
Case Args: Only go for case turns and if REALLY needed for your K, case defense.…they are the best and are offensive , however case defense may work on impacts if you are going for a K. If you run a K or performance you need to have some interaction with the aff to say why it is bad. Please don't sandbag these args so late in the debate.
CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE --------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am of the strong belief that Congressional debate is a DEBATE event first and foremost. I do not have an I.E or speech background. However, I do teach college public speaking and argumentation. The comments I leave will talk about some speech or style components. I am not a judge that heavily favors delivery over the argumentation and evidence use.
I am a judge that enjoys RECENT evidence use, refutation, and clash with the topics you have been assigned.
STRUCTURE OF SPEECHES
I really like organization. With that said, I do prefer debaters have a introduction with a short attention getter, and a short preview statement of their arguments. In the body of the speech, I would like some level of impacting/ weighing of your arguments and their arguments ( if applicable), point out flaws in your opponents argumentation (lack of solvency, fallacies, Alternative causes), cite evidence and how it applies, and other clash based refutation. If you want to have a conclusion, make sure it has a short summary and a declarative reason to pass or fail.
REFUTATION
After the first 2 speeches of the debate, I put heavy emphasis on the idea that these speeches should have a refutation component outside of you extending a previous argument from your side, establish a new argument/evidence, or having some kind of summary. I LOVE OFFENSE based arguments that will turn the previous arguments state by the opposition. Defensive arguments are fine, but please explain why they mean the opposition cannot solve or why your criticism of their evidence or reason raises to the level of rejecting their stance. Please do not list more than 2 or 3 senators or reps that you are refuting because in some cases it looks like students are more concerned with the appearance of refutation than actually doing it. I do LOVE sassy, assertive or sarcastic moments but still be polite.
EVIDENCE USE
I think evidence use is very important to the way I view this type of debate. You should draw evidence from quality sources whether that is stats/figures/academic journals/narrative from ordinary people. Please remember to cite where you got your information and the year. I am a hack for recency of your evidence because it helps to illuminate the current issues on your topic. Old evidence is a bit interesting and should be rethought in front of me. Evidence that doesn't at some level assume the ongoing/aftermath of COVID-19 is a bit of a stretch. Evidence comparison/analysis of your opponent is great as well.
ANALYSIS
I LOVE impact calculus where you tell me why the advantages of doing or not doing a bill outweighs the costs. This can be done in several ways, but it should be clear, concise, and usually happen in the later speeches. At a basic level, doing timeframe, magnitude, probability, proximity, or any other standard for making arguments based on impact are great. I DISLIKE rehash....If you are not expanding or changing the way someone has articulated an argument or at least acknowledge it, I do not find rehash innovative nor high rank worthy. This goes back to preparation and if you have done work on both sides of a bill. You should prepare multiple arguments on a given side just in case someone does the argument before you. There is nothin worse to me than an unprepared set of debaters that must take a bunch of recesses/breaks to prepare to switch.
Background Info:
- Debated 4 years in high school for Downtown Magnets High School, currently studying in UCI and use my free time to judge debate tournaments. :(
-Currently a Sophomore at UCI. :(
- I'm experienced in judging in more local tournaments, but it is nice to judge different teams from different places and it's great to see a diversity in arguments.
Debate Arguments:
- You can honestly run anything you want. It can be 8 off or 1 off, as long as your comfortable with your arguments.
- I do like certain arguments such as topicality, critiques, and political affirmatives. However, you don't have to run these arguments if you don't want to evidently.
- I don't have much preferences besides having good line by line arguments(organization), contextualizing arguments(especially if it's a K), and clash in the debate round.
Speaker Points:
-I usually don't give low speaker points to anyone really, the only thing I would encourage is to not rely too much in tag team cross-ex and do not come across as rude.
-Also(VERY IMPORTANT), I do give out bonus speaker points to those who take the challenge to either relate the round to a meme(joke) or philosophical arguement. Anything that makes the round "entertaining" is recommended to get those high speaks.
- That's pretty much it, good luck :)
Hello! :)
I'm a ipda/parli debater in uni. I primarily do limited prep events (in speech and debate) and coach policy.
I vote based on how well you carry your arguments, if you answer/drop/kick arguments. Did you answer your opponents? Does your arguments outweigh or have stronger points? Do you argue why your side is better? Did you clash with your opponents and show your side to be a better choice for me to vote on? (BTW Creating a narrative/story with your evidence/cards in your rebuttals is also nice cause it strengthens your side. It's more visual and emotional hence more persuasive.)
--------------------------
Preferences:
- Have a road map and sign post -
clear road maps and sign posting = better understanding of what arguments are being used = clear flow = higher chance of your win
_______________________________________________________________
- Can spread, but emphasis your main points (slow down, deliberately tell me, repeat it a few time, etc.) -
by emphasizing a certain point, you give it value and in turn I give it value and know what you want to argue for. makes your point clear and understandable so I can easily write it down in my flow
_______________________________________________________________
- Tag teaming is fine -
make sure you speak eventually since cx is a part of your speaker points. I can't evaluate speaker points properly if I don't hear you in both speeches and cx. (example: if you mumble a speech and don't really participate in cx, it generates a lower score then mumbling a speech and participate in cx)
_______________________________________________________________
- Convince me as a judge, talk to judge, how do I vote, etc. -
go ahead and use logos, pathos, or ethos to try to convince me. talk to me as a judge on a one on one level, and tell me how to flow, explain important concepts, how to judge the debate, reason to prefer, or if you caught your opponents dropping something, being contradictory, or even rude. ultimately your judge has the final say on if you win or lose, so appeal to your judge
_______________________________________________________________
- Speak loud, audibly, and clearly -
this is such an important preference for me. sometimes i can't hear y'all. its either y'all are too far away, y'all speak to quiet, or there is some chatter/ac/car/general noise that is much louder than yall. i also can be hard of hearing at times and its really important that i can hear your arguments. i will also let you know in round if you need to speak up or move to a better spot
_______________________________________________________________
try not to say "is anyone not ready?" it's a very awkward phrase with bit of a negative connotation, but don't worry if you do say it, it won't really affect your speech score. it's just very weird to hear it and "is everyone ready?" is quicker
---------------------------------
Hi, if you're down here, snack or candy bribes won't give you the W, but it doesn't hurt to try lol
See you in a round! (:
for email chains: nicolettaenciu@gmail.com
Isabel Gomez Hernandez (She/Her/Ella)
-I was a policy debater for STEAM Legacy High School for a little more than 2 years.
-UCSC alumna with a B.A in Latin American Latino Studies/Sociology
-I try to explain who won at the end of each round and why. I also try to give advice to everyone so they can improve for their next round.
CAMS GL
Tech over truth
Introduction
BRAVO Varsity Debater -- 24-25 Co-Captain -- shoutout to my team ᕙ(@°▽°@)ᕗ!!
Preferences/Standards
I'm fine with almost everything, I'm happy aslong as proper debate structures are withheld all round. I ask you to keep your own time and run prep time properly. Please give a roadmap and signpost properly -- because I hate judge intervention,if I didn't catch something you said then I will NOT evaluate it. If something is dropped within a speech, it will make it harder for me to evaluate it -- most likely I will not weigh a dropped argument. Please do not bring up a new off (besides theory or something similar) in the 13-minute neg block (2nc/1nr), I will not evaluate it at all -- Aff feel free to call neg out because I will lean with you. For novices and JV please stay to your packets.
Be confident! Try your best to make sense of and understand what you're actually reading! Have fun, at the end of the day you're all here to learn!
Ballot/Speaks
Speaks start at 28. I think I'm pretty generous so aslong as you show me your trying your best I will reward you!
Tech>Truth. Of course, being persuasive is a big factor but to avoid judge intervention/bias, I will have to evaluate any arguments that were dropped or conceded. This doesn't mean I will automatically vote on you if you didn't drop anything.
Include enough clash/line-by-lines, should try to refer/support your claims with a warrant/card, try explaining how your impact is triggered through the other team model/plan and how you solve it.
If your rude or try to justify a form of violence your speaks will be terrible.
Threshold to win on something (Tailored more to the GND):
For both sides please give me judge instructions, later on the speech please make it clear what I would be voting on. It makes it had on me when you read a whole both of arguments to me and leave me to organize and prioritize everything. To avoid judge intervention as well, please be direct in the rebutall what you are winning on and what I'm gonna vote on.
Aff: Maintain all stock issues, prove aff desirable even along with neg offense. Tell me why your plan outweighs or should be prioritized whatever point neg has made. I value extinction args, if I don't see a proper impact calc or case outweigh I will be disappointed and it will make it very hard to vote for you. This doesn't mean teams can just say extinction outweighs, I need warrants and a proper explanation of how extinction will occur. 2ac-1ar-2ar must hold consistent answer, I will less likely evaluate an argument that sounds very new in the rebuttal -- please put it in the 2ac and extend from there.
Neg: Please properly make an argument (claim, warrant, impact). I find that a lot of teams can prove something true over aff but fail to give me an impact, so what if you're correct? What does that mean? Do it turn case and mean aff links back into their own impact or is it they can't solve? Aff dropping an argument is NOT an auto-lose, it will make them weak but it's up to you to impact the fact they dropped it and what it means.
Neg case -- If you read a lot of cards, please extend on it later on why the argument you made should be a voter. If this isn't carried throughout speeches consistently I won't evaluate it.
Neg CP -- I must see a clear counterplan text, a clear solvency method, and a clear net benefit and why aff can't access that. You must also win how your cp in competitive and must have a well-put perm answer. If your net benefit is a DA, you must defend that DA or the CP is also a wash.
Neg DA -- Must maintain a consistent and clear structure throughout the round -- Uniquness, link, internal link, and impact. Must be a good impact calc done or the DA is a wash. Tell me what it means to be winning on a DA and how it turns aff, I don't wanna make this connection for you so please do it.
Other
If you wanna send me cards or add me to an email chain feel free to ask me. After a round, feel free to also message or ask further questions!
Suggestions/preferences/most likely to get you a win:
1) CLEARLY EXPLAIN the solvency and the links(don't just make a claim because I most likely will not buy that; you must explain how neg/aff leads to your claim/argument or back your claim/argument up with evidence).
2) SPEAK CLEARLY: I cannot evaluate an argument if I did not hear it(maybe you spoke too low or too fast or stuttered a lot).
3) Rebuttals are so IMPORTANT: In your rebuttals, you should be listing impact calcs, main arguments/points, and why the judge should vote for you. (even if you already said some arguments in the past speeches, bring it back up if it's important.)
4) SIGN POST and LABEL; this makes it easier for me to flow.
^ These first 4 are the MAIN. But these are still obviously important:
-I am tech over truth BUT that doesn't mean I will evaluate arguments that are clearly false.
-Don't say anything offensive or ridiculous. In other words, be REASONABLE and RESPECTFUL. (No sexism, racism, or anything bad and discriminatory is ever acceptable) - This is for in-round debate and outside of debate.
-If the other team drops an argument you must EXPLAIN that importance and what it means.
-Be confident and have fun.
PLEASE EMAIL ME FOR ANY QUESTIONS: ehuang0005@mymail.lausd.net
Experience: 3 years of policy debate in high school. 2 year in varsity, 1 in JV/Novice.
VHTPA: 2021-Present
Contact: ahuerto0001@mymail.lausd.net
DO NOT:
- Bring up arguments in support of any of the "-isms" like sexism, racism, or any of the "-phobias" like homophobia and such.
- Do not extend time for cross x or prep time. The point of time limits is to practice the optimization of communicating certain topics in a concise manner. You are not helping yourself or the other team by doing this.
- Do not cheat in the round by looking up details you are unsure of in google or text teammates. If I catch you it's an auto lose. Again, this does not help you or the team you are debating. You will only be cheating yourself by doing this.
During the Round I will..
Pretend I know nothing about the topic. If you tell me something and make a good enough claim as to why this happens I will believe you unless contested.
Debate Preferences:
- I'm fine with tag-teaming, but I'd prefer dividing up cross ex traditionally.
- I prefer clarity over speed, if I don't catch what you are saying (especially if an argument you just read is really good) I will not flow it, so be careful as it might cost you the round.
- Be civil during cross-ex. I notice that in debate rounds some teams shout and interrupt one another; I appreciate passion, but not interruption.
- Be passionate when speaking. Emphasize the most important arguments.
- Clash is important. If you hear an argument being brought up like "Inflation DA" look for Inflation DA answers, this helps the debate round become more well-developed.
- Cite authors when you are referring to a warrant made in one of your cards.
- (ignore this number tabroom won't let me delete it for some reason)
Case:
I love impact calc and solvency deficits. Lots of debates are super technical, but the urgency of all your plan is down to whether something bad happens if we don't enact it, so make sure not to drop any impact arguments.
Disad + CP:
Do lots of work on the net benefit and don't forget to emphasize the terminal impacts. Give me clarity on how specifically the aff causes the disad, why it is bad, and how the counterplan is uniquely good to solve these impacts. As aff, point out possible contradictions in their arguments and tell me why the counterplan doesn't work opposed to the affs plan through impact calc. Also, tell me why the disad isn't true.
Other Lightly Debate Related Issues:
I know its very easy to get caught up with the competitiveness of debate and its also very easy to feel anxious during tournaments, but just know that in the end this is all an educational sport. Don't be afraid to try out new arguments and don't feel pressured to learn stuff you are not comfortable with arguing. You do you and I will judge to the best of my extent giving feedback and some motivational advice during the RFDs. To everyone who made it this far in the paradigm good luck to your round whether I'm judging it or not.
No clue why it still has my deadname on my judge paradigm, but please refer to me as Andres or just my last name (pronounced Jobe).
Email: jobbravodebate@gmail.com (they/he)
Affiliation: Bravo Medical Magnet '24 / UC Irvine '28
I am happy to answer any questions you have before and after the round.
____________________
TLDR; Run whatever you want as long as you follow the structure of the argument and do not be a menace to people. Please give me judge instruction, tell me why everything you're saying is important. Speak clear and loud and ask me if I'm ready to hear your speech. I only vote based on what I have on my flow paper, which means you MUST let me know what you're saying. Don't cheat and bring in new arguments in later speeches, I will take off speaker points. PLEASE KNOW THAT I AM A JUDGE WHO IS VERY VERY VERY VERY KEEN ON FAIRNESS AND FOLLOWING THE RULES. Your speaker points start at 28.0 and go up or down based on your performance throughout the round. Have fun!!
_____________________
Long Paradigm:
Although I enjoy watching specific types of debates, I will still evaluate any arguments that you run; feel free to run CPs, DAs, T, K's, K-Affs, soft left, big stick, etc. However, I will not vote for you if you are racist/ sexist/ homophobic/ transphobic/ ableist, derogatory, or rude. If any of you degrade others or me at any point of the debate(before, during, or after the debate started), I will give you an auto-L, lowest speaker points available, an extremely long lecture, and will contact your coach. I trust you to be good people.
_____________________
Speaker Points:
The baseline for speaks is 28.0. It will go up depending on your ability to perfect the Holy Trinity: Format, Performance, and Technicality.
1. Format: follow the format of the arguments I gave you above. Follow the time structure of debate. This should be the easiest points to win and would give you a decent.
2. Performance: have clarity, have a good tempo and speed, BE PASSIONATE WHEN SPEAKING. This also means that when you're speaking you must be confident, and not pause a lot in the middle of your speech because you're not sure what else to say. This also means you MUST use all of your speech time or else it shows unpreparedness. KEEP TRACK OF YOUR TIME.
3. Technicality: The hardest thing in the world for debaters apparently. This means: NOT DROPPING ARGUMENTS, ANSWERING ARGUMENTS EFFECTIVELY, CALLING OUT DROPPED ARUGMENTS, DOING IMPACT CALC, JUDGE INSTRUCTIONS, OVERVIEWS, EFFECTIVE LINE BY LINE, ETC.). I weigh this above the other 2 standards, which means if you do poorly at this you will probably expect your speaker points to NOT be higher than a 28.1 and be around the 27.2-27.8 range.
Things that will drop your speaker points (that don't fall under Holy Trinity):
- Typing when it's NOT prep time (sending docs, bathroom break, etc.)
- Still talking after speech time is over (I will tell you when I permit cross ex after time is over)
- Card clipping (plz highlight your cards)
- Reading new cards in rebuttals (with the exclusion of 1nr)
- New arguments in the neg block and beyond
_____________________
Preferences For Rounds (1-10 scale)
Soft-Left Policy vs. K: 3/10 Eh not the best debates I've judged
Soft-Left Policy vs. Policy: 7/10 love it, wish I saw more of these
Big Stick Policy vs. K: 6/10 More interesting clash and the impact debate is most interesting
Big Stick Policy vs. Policy: 7/10 policy v. policy is cool
K-Aff vs. K: 5/10 hit or miss with this ... pls pls pls only run Ks if you know how to run them
K-Aff vs. Policy: 10/10 I love creative debates, they offer refreshment in my judging career
Counterplans:
NEG: I will not vote on or evaluate CPs with no CP text. that being said, feel free to run a CP, BUT you must have a CLAIM and a WARRANT as to why it's better than the aff. You want to prove to me that you have a net benefit the aff can't access and show that you solve better. Often times, debaters either get lost in the permutation debate and ultimately doesn't give the judge a clear story on how the CP works and how it interacts with the aff plan. If the affirmative calls you out on dropping permutations, I will weigh it against you and it will make it very hard for me to vote for you on the CP.
A lot of neg debaters I've come across are confused on the CP structure, so I'll give it here. I will NOT give you good speaker points if you can't abide by basic debate structure.
AFF: I want to see a permutation at the top of my CP flow in the 2ac. Extend it until the end. I enjoy it when an aff team runs multiple permutations and only go for 1 perm in the 1ar. If you drop the permutation and don't have any good defense against the CP and the neg team calls you out for it, I will most likely vote neg (given that they've explained what it means to drop the perm)
_____________________
Disads:
For the sake of my sanity PLEASE have IMPACT CALC. This goes for both aff and neg.
NEG: Follow the structure of a DA: uniqueness, link, internal link, impact. If I don't see this structure on my flow, it will be hard to want to vote for you. If you're using the DA as a net benefit to the CP, I want to hear the distinction or I will not put it on my flow. If the affirmative calls you out on not including all the components of the DA/drop your arguments, I will ultimately believe that the affirmative does not trigger the impacts of the DA.
AFF: please respond to all components of the DA and do impact calc. PLEASE HAVE OFFENSE AGAINST THE DA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
_____________________
Theory/Topcality:
I love theory and topicality, IF done right. If you're running T when the other side clearly doesn't violate, I will not appreciate it. Even if you're using T as a time skew make it somewhat relevant and interesting. I don't vote on Disclosure Theory unless I see valid proof / the tournament rules say so.
NEG: If you're going to go for theory please extend all your points and belabor the reason why it's a voter for education and fairness. I need a card provided to support your interpretation for whichever word you're defining.
AFF: Counter-interpretation need a card. RVI get out of here
_____________________
Kritiks/K-Affs:
NGL getting kind of boring here, I'm very tired of debaters running Ks without knowing the literature and the structure of the K. I would prefer if the neg team sticks to policy negs if you're certain you can't make a K interesting to me in this debate round.
NEG:
- I don't like Cap K but I'll still vote on it!
- As a native/indigenous debater who ran a bunch of set col performance k's and k-affs... pls try not to read set col unless one of yall identify as indigenous, especially if the alternative is to embrace some sort of indigenous praxis.... I get really uncomfortable hearing people read over experiences of indigenous folk for the sake of having an argument
- I don't like Postmodernism...........
- Every other K is good as long as you have proper framework and have specific links, I don't think the alternative has to be valid for the neg to win on K-- just need to prove aff links and make squo uniquely worse
AFF:K-Affs w/ no plan text or advocacy statement pls no...... must have some form of advocacy or clear goal thank youuu. What I said for the neg applies here!
Currently debating as a Varsity, and national circuits.
Truth over tech, pretend like I do not know anything about the evidence so please convince me
I appreciate good eye contact with the judges. I also do not mind fast reading just please be clear. Make sure to slow down on the taglines.
I prefer Good evidence comparison and good cx clash.
Im not really picky on too many things though I prefer no tag teaming as it makes it difficult to flow at times.
Email: mking9493@polahs.net
Hello I’m Marterria/ Marti I go to Polahs i’m in 11th grade l have been debating for 3 years and am a varsity debater.
Tag teaming is okay I’m not picky about anything just be respectful to everyone in the room.
You can throw out the most bizarre arguments and win but you NEED TO EXPLAIN IT WELL like for example "nuclear war good" you can win on if you explain it well. BUT racist, homophobic, and sexist argument are never and will never be okay and you will lose and get low speaks.
K, cp, da, and t’s are all good but if you don’t know how to run them fake it till you make it perform, perform, AND perform !!!
Clash IS GOOOD but don’t get out of hand keep it respectful. I love CLASH like show me your passion about it even if you don't have passion for it like I said “ perform, perform, AND perform’’.
Please put me on the email chain: qibinlei@gmail.com – feel free to email me if you have any questions about debate.
Background – I (he/him) was a policy debater at the Los Angeles Metropolitan Debate League (UDL) for 4 years (2016-2020)
I was coached by Joseph Barquin for the last 2 years of my debate career. I tend to agree with Jonathan Meza (partners in the 2018-2019 season) and Jared Burke (CSUF/CSUB Mentor) on their perception of debate. Most of my understanding of debate has come from extensive dialogue with them.
I've been out of the debate community for a while now and I haven't actively judged policy debate in over 2? years now (hence no familiarity with the current topic or current argumentative developments). Please be a little more thorough with jargon/acronyms and general arguments.
Research, in my opinion, is the most important part of this activity. I value meticulous research conducted a topic in order to create nuanced arguments. This has had the most impact on my career and I use these skills on a daily basis.
Hi I’m Erika Linares, I currently debate for CSULB, I have around 2-3 years of experience of debating policy.
Yearish at LAMDL-2 Years at CSULB
my email:erikalinares1260@gmail.com
HOW TO MAKE IT EARIER FOR ME TO VOTE FOR YOU:
- Have a clear path on how you want me to vote on what argument and why you are winning it.
- Weigh it Out: Even if you dropped an arguemnt or arn't winning it tell me as to why your argument ouwweigh thos dropped arguments.
SPREADING: You can spread as long as your clear enough to do so, while reading make sure to indicate when you are moving from arguemnt to the other, if you do start to become unclear I will say "Clear" and if its still not clear enough I won't flow it.
HOW I JUDGE:
I will start with tech to evaluate the debate and then if something is unclear I will use truth to figure it out.
BUT-
If you have a ROB or FW as to how I should evaluate the debate then I will judge you base off that.
K- When running a K make sure that the link is viable and make sense, if I can't figure out how the K links to Aff by the end of the round I will disregard it.
DA- Again have a viable link for the DA.
CP- Make sure to explain how the CP solves for the impacts that it might bring up and the impacts to the aff.
T- I am not the best at T, but if you go for T make sure you have how they violeted and standard, and why there model of debate is bad.
LD-
Don't run tricks, I am not sure as to how I should evaluate them.
Hi! I’m Jenelle (jenelledebate@gmail.com) Lake Balboa ‘26. Email for any questions/email chains
when it comes to my preferences: i allow tag teaming (unless a maverick is present), have roadmaps (and stick to them!) or clearly signpost, say “next” after each card is read, and slow down on tags + authors
other general thoughts:
-
Make overviews: o/vs should be at the top of each flow and should explain that flow – as aff it should explain your stock issues and as neg your o/v should give a brief explanation on your uq, link ,internal link, and impact. It saves you sm time and gives me a better understanding of the flow youre on.
-
provide proper warrants: you shouldnt just give me a claim – give me the evidence and explain the significance it. I wont buy arguments unles you are able to properly explain them to me accordingly
-
judge instruction: by the 2a/2nr’s you should be or have been spelling out the reason why you win the debate. “Judge you vote aff” with no proper reasoning why i should does not count as proper judge instruction, you should be telling me the specific reasons why i should vote for you or which flow i should vote on
-
i’m tech > truth
-
Call out dropped arguments: call the dropped argument out and explain the significance of it. I wont buy empty claims like “they dropped this so we win.” explain to me why you win on that argument or how that leads to u receiving the ballot – flesh out and call out dropped arguments
-
have good line by lines: the whole 1ar should be entirely of “they say __ we say __” it makes it easier to answer each argument in the least amount of time and makes it easier for me to flow u. But in general you should have good line by lines
-
Make impact calcs: by the end of the debate you should be explaining what your impacts are, how they occur, when itll occur, who they are affecting, and how much it will affect our population (timeframe, magnitude, and probability). Do this especially when running DAs!! Comparing impacts is the most important part of debate, whoever explains their impacts more will likely receive the ballot.
-
extend arguments throughout the debate and explain them thoroughly: dont forget to explain your arguments consistently in all of your speeches. Do not drop any arguments, especially during the neg block, but be sure to explain what your arguments are and the significance of them
-
Allocate your time accordingly: the 1ac should be backflowing the 2ac to make sure nothing goes unanswered, the 2ac should backflow the 1ar to do the same. As aff, case should be at the top of your roadmap, do not leave case to be at the bottom of it. If youre not able to get through all of your cards, dehighlight them – and when your partner is spending too much time on one flow, let them know! If you dont have proper time allocation, you wont get to key arguments and likely lose on something that couldve been solved by having proper time allocation.
-
Be sure to flow well: Your judges notice when you dont flow at all or dont flow well, lots of arguments are dropped during the 2ac/neg block/rebuttals, you need to flow good in order to call out these arguments. When key arguments are dropped and are not called out, it shows me that you didnt flow good, so plsss flowwww.
-
Act like i know nothing about the topic: you should be explaining to me what organizations you use/what acronyms you use/or what niche parts of your arguments are and the importance of them, dont assume i know what youre talking about. I wont vote on an argument surrounding something that i dont understand. you are the one debating, you should be telling me these things
-
Be organized: if you dont know your roadmap signpost clearly. If you dont tell me what flow youre on im going to miss key parts of your arguments, if youre moving onto case – tell me, If youre moving onto a DA – tell me. Answering arguments should be organized, too -- preferably through a line by line
Argument specifics
-
For CPs — explain to me the net benefit, prove the mutual exclusivity of both plans, explain ur solvency mechanism, how u solve for the aff’s impacts, and how you solve better than the aff. as aff, explain to me the world of the perm and how both plans are not mutually exclusive.
-
for Disads — pls explain the internal link (HOW will your impact occur), explain the impact, give me a clear link, and plsss make an impact calc. as aff, i expect no link or link turns, and to explain why your impacts outweigh their DA
speaks — they start at 28 and go up and down depending on how u do. but if you’re confident, loud, persuasive, and passionate, u’ll get high speaks.
Overall have fun! please don’t be rude to any of your opponents. any acts of racism, homophobia, etc, will not be tolerable and result in an auto lose
Affiliations:
Downtown Magnets High School: 2018 to 2021
University of Northern Colorado: 2021 - Present
Things to know:
Be nice.
Have four years of policy debate (CX) experience, so I understand the concept of debate and everything that it entails. If you have any questions or concerns, email me as fast as possible (danielmangandi1029@gmail.com). To flash please send it to mang2626@bears.unco.edu.
Some background about me is that I am a gay/hispanic person (he/him/they pronouns), I am very fond of queer theory and have run it before. I am a psychology and philosophy major at the University of Northern Colorado, with a specialty in studying metaphysics and epistemology. I also have some experience in logic and identity theory (mostly feminist and queer theory).
Some things to take note of:
1. Interrupting your partners during cross-ex. Trust your partner's response or at least make them finish their thoughts before you add on. DON'T INTERRUPT them during their sentence.
2. Being homophobic, sexist, racist, etc. I will automatically stop the round and call it out. You will be punished with your speaks (0) and an automatic L. Debate is a safe space and those types of rhetoric/actions are not acceptable. Micro-aggressions committed would be called out during the round with a warning, if it continues I would stop the round. To add on, I will talk to your coach/team about what happened during the round.
3. Speed. If you are going too fast that it starts to become unclear I would warn you at most twice. If it still continues I would just stop flowing. In the top of your speech start off slow and build up your speed; so that it becomes easier to flow your speech.
4. Please have clash! Respond to your opponent's arguments and extend your own.
5. I will vote on the easiest argument happening in the round. If you drop the Disad I'm voting for it (if impacted out). If you drop the violation on T in the 2Ar I would vote for T for the Neg (if impacted out). Don't make me do the work for you. If I do an excessive amount of work to vote on you, you'll probably get low speaks. --Note-- Just because something was dropped doesn't mean I'm always gonna vote on it. Don't just say "they dropped [blank], vote for us" it needs to be explained as to why dropping the argument is something worth talking about (dropping a link defense is not the same as dropping a turn).
7. If you want to read a Kaff, please make it accessible for everyone (have a transcript to send it to everyone in the round. If you don't... I might not catch it, and if your opponents drop it then I'm not voting for it because you didn't make it accessible.). Also, make sure that you explain what your theory of power is and what are you doing about it. NOTE OF WARNING: Have your Kaff be in the direction of the topic, not gonna vote on something outside of the topic because I would be lost once the moment you send the 1ac (my brain can't handle your big brain energy).
8. For T, make sure that you have your interp, standards, and violation extended. One of my favorite off-cases so I am very nitpicky on how you run it and how arguments are impacted out. I think that fairness and education impacts are very persuasive but not fully impacted or articulated then I am prone to go with aff reasonability.
9. For Da's, articulate your link story, if its vague I won't buy it. Have an impact story and say why the impact outweighs.
10. Make your Cp's textually competitive. Also biased towards condo args (6 off-cases are fine but any more makes it iffy for me and tend to go aff leaning).
11. For K's make sure your links are contextualized as well as your alternatives. I have knowledge on cap, security, fem/queer, bio-politics/bio-power, topic generics (i.e the K everyone runs during the topic like for the cjr topic it was the abolition k), and settler colonialism. If you want to test your luck on very complex K's, I would recommend explaining it very well (don't use too much jargon... imagine you are explaining your k to a 5-year-old).
12. Good Luck! Remember that debate is a place for learning, safety, and fun.
Email chain: I.claud33@gmail.com
They/ Them - She/Her
Policy debate for three years in high school at regional circuit. Judging since then, so maybe 7ish years of xp in poli.
No oppressive language. No card cutting/ clipping. No hateful language. No more than 5 off.
Violation of this will result in low speaks or a losing ballot, probably both.
PLS no new args in the rebuttals. Im not going to eval them. Im really not.
CX: speaks start at 28.5 and go up based on performance, clarity, tech execution of args, strat, persuasion, and manners:) - give me my rfd and that will def help lol.
I don think ive ever given a 30. Maybe at most a 29.5, but tbh im not sure what an ideal speech would be. I need to think on that.
Tag team Cx is fine
Keep ur own time, keep each other accountable. I forget all the time to stop prep (literally the most important thing)
If it’s not in the flow, it didn’t happen
If I can’t hear/ understand you- I will let u know “clear”
I flow on paper so if u make a qwk analytic I’m so sorry to tell u, but I probably didn’t get it
General:
Pretend I am a big illiterate baby.
I have never seen a news outlet. I don't scroll social media. I don't look out windows. I have never ever existed before this debate round, explain everything to me.
Contextualize every piece of ev and EXTENSIVE analysis on what the voters are.
S
Specifics:
K
Love the k.
I’m familiar with: Set Col, Cap and Chicano
But I'm always willing to become familiar with more :)
Links can be re-highlighted ev, generated during cx, or can be based off their plan text. However, that does not mean read three pieces of Link ev, after two cards your time would be better spent contextualizan the link and preempting perm args
Aff
Good with any impact. Just pay attention to the framing.
K aff
I like K affs. Best k affs are those that dont sideline the res and rather make a stasis point for decent ground so you can access ur education impx.
IF ur rapping/singing/ performing in a 'non-traditional' way, then I need you to tell me how to flow it- analyze what your performance specifically did in the context of this round, in your own words. Ex: if ur singing chappell roan, i want some analysis on how chappell roan is either key to solvency or whatever.
I can vote for a TVA or a kvk, i pref kvk.
DA/CP
Internal link. Internal link. Internal link. If you don't make the storyline straight, I will not buy your impact. Ideally should be a net benefit to a cp.
Cp: Net benefit. Net benefit. Net benefit. I will one hunddo vote on tva or perm on presumption.
but perms must be fully fleshed out, I should not be left wondering after the 2ac the how and when of the perm. Solvency defcts should be clarified with the perm.
Debate is first and foremost a research game.
I am Riley Ornelas. I have debated for a good five years, and have been judging on/off for the past two years. If I judge you, more likely than not you will be a novice/rookie. I like debaters who flow, keep their own time (I will nonetheless keep my own time), and although the constructives are the foundation of the debate, I tend to judge more of based on the cx and the rebuttals. Rebuttals are a time to test the debater to see if they understand what they are reading and incorporate their own voice with it. Being a passionate debater absolutely helps with speaker points, and my favorite thing to see is a resilient debater, no matter their position. Be polite and reasonable inside and outside the debate. You represent LAMDL and your school, so be mindful.
0. General:
Coaching/Conflicts: Isidore Newman, Marlborough, Coppell, and a few LAMDL teams.
Debate Shoutouts: Deven Cooper, Dayvon Love, Diego "Jay-Z" Flores, Erika Linares, Geo Liriano, Jaysyn Green, Daniel Medina, Destiny Popoca, Lauren Willard, Cameron Ward, Gabriela Gonzalez, Isai Ortega, Andres Marquez, Elvis Pineda, J-Beatz, J-Burke, Von, Cameron Ward, Toya, Ryan Upston, Y'Mahnie Harvey, Max Wiessner, Dorian Gurrola, Aless Escobar, Jean Kim, Gavie Torres, Clare Bradley, and all of #LAMDLGANG.
"IR topics are cool bc we learn abt the world and stuff" - E.C. Powers, Wyoming Debate 5/22/23.
1. Pref Guide:
General: Currently entering my junior year and currently debate for CSULB (2 years of NDT-CEDA debate, 3 1/2 of LAMDL Debate) and have about 2 years of circuit judging experience.
Judging Style: I judge based what's on the flow, and the flow only. Judge intervention is silly and I try not to do it unless I absolutely need to fill in the gaps. Offense/Defense paradigm is how I evaluate debates, and will vote for the team that did the better debating unless told otherwise. Dropped args are true args, but need to be impacted out. No judge kick, make your own decisions and for the love of god start the round on time. Speaks will reflect all of these instances.
I disagree with the community's recent justification for judges commenting on their personal biases/insertions when evaluating/discussing debates. Nobody cares about your debate career or what happened during it. The only role that judges have is evaluating debates objectively and neutrally, no matter how badly you lost your final round. Funnily enough, my only personal bias is that judges shouldn't have any. I judge the flow, and vote based on technical execution of arguments, and nothing else.
This does not mean that debates about debate/personal callouts/other debates that don't solely center the topic are off the table. I will evaluate those the same way I evaluate everything else.
LD Specific: everything except for phil and tricks (do it at your own risk)
2. Random/Misc:
Good Speaks Guide: Please do not delay the round/lallygag around, be excessively rude to your opponents, or endorses/argue for any isms. If you start the round on time, set up the email chain before I get into the room, and be generally funny/charismatic, you will get good speaks.
Song Challenge: I usually start speaks at 28.5 and move up/down depending on performance. On a softer note, I usually will listen to music while I write my RFD. Most times, I already have decided a winner after the 2AR has ended, but I always go over my flow/notes one last time before I write or submit my ballot. I love listening to new music, and I listen to every genre imaginable. That being said, I love to hear the tunes y'all have been jamming to recently. To encourage such behavior, debaters have an opportunity to garner extra speaks based on their music suggestions. Each team is allowed to give me one song to listen to while I write my RFD. It cannot be a song I've heard before. If I like the song, you will receive a +.1 to your speaker points. If I don't like it, you won't receive any extra, but I also won't redact any from your original score.
Advice/Help: If you are from LAMDL, debate for a UDL or public school without coaching, I'm willing to help with advice or questions y'all may have.
Hi guys, I've done debate for around 3 years. I'm currently in the varsity/open division and am a 9th grader at Lake Balboa College Prep
My email for any questions about my ballot or for email chains is apapazya0008@mymail.lausd.net
Judging Prefs: Tag teaming is great but I want to see actual teamwork if you are gonna do it, make sure it's not just one person talking the whole time and also if there's a maverick obviously don't tag team
Speaker points: I’ll start at 28.5 and work my way up or down. If you discriminate against the other team and are obviously being rude, I won't give you above a 26.5. I like judge instruction in debates so this is a way to increase your speaks if you have me as your judge.
General Preferences:
I like link turns, if you can extend it and really make sure that you are pushing it properly then I will evaluate it. Explain the no link properly. LINE BY LINES please because it makes it so much easier for me to give you a ballot, make sure you properly respond to all of the opposing teams arguments with your own and why they are better. If you’re gonna spread make sure you are being very clear so I don’t miss any of your arguments. Neg, please split the block unless you only use one off and make sure you don’t go for EVERYTHING in the 2nr ( judge kick)
Theory is a argument that I think you should go for if you really think you understand it
Cps: Explain why the CP is better than the plan and why the perm shouldn’t work and for Aff make sure you explain the perm and why the two organizations would work
Das: Explain the impact very well and how the aff links to it
Impact calcs and analysis PLEASE it makes it so much easier to understand why everything matters so I don’t have to do all the work for you, make the ballot easy
Have Fun, Debate is an activity that we are all here to enjoy!
hi! I've done debate for 3 years. I'm currently in the varsity division and a sophomore at Lake Balboa College Prep!
Email: (for questions/email chains) ofeliap2876@gmail.com
general preferences:
-tag-teaming is fine by me, just don't let it be one person mainly speaking. however, in the case of someone mavericking, tagteaming will generally not be allowed
-extend your arguments
CP/DA
for neg:
-make sure to state how your impact outweighs
-make sure to clearly state how your cp would work better than aff's plan
for aff:
- link turns!
-don't drop perms!!
and all in all... have fun! pls don't be rude to your opponents, you may be debating but that doesn't mean you should be rude…
I was a debater in high school and college. Currently I coach policy debate for Lake Balboa College Prep. I am okay with any level of speed in a debate round as long as you are clear, and I have no issue with tag-team CX.
I think that the students should debate what paradigm I should adopt when judging a round. I will default to the role of a policy-maker if no arguments are made about my role. I do not evaluate arguments made without warrants.
I think education about real-world policy is very important, and I most enjoy arguments that engage with core topic material. I also vote on framework, theory, and topicality when it is well-argued.
Remember to have fun, and don't let the competitive nature of the activity get in the way of making friends and contributing to the community as a whole.
Evidence share email: justin.parco@lausd.net
Experience: Policy Debate (2 Years, But I still made it all the way to Urban Nationals Gurl)
Francisco Bravo Medical Magnet High School: 2016-18
Cal State Long Beach: 2018-19
Contact Info: elvispinedaten@gmail.com
In a nutshell: I'm a pretty open debater and I love hearing all types of arguments. Policy Arguments... love them, Critical Arguments... love them, just make sure to articulate your arguments because even something as simple as a Cap K are run differently from round to round. Uniqueness questions are good, Links need to be there, Impacts are vital (You don't know how many people forget to impact out their stuff... make sure you do because I NEED TO KNOW WHAT IM VOTING FOR, I will not feel bad voting you down if you have a great link story but no impacts) and I appreciate intellectual debate jargon. All in all I will vote on anything, it just has to make sense and you have to convince me why I should vote for you and not the opposing team (Cross-Analysis). I love debate; I believe its a form of academic expression and just remember to have fun and pour your hearts out on the battlefield. I'm not a point fairy but passion, effort and craft are highly rewarded as I highly value (as we all should) seeing students actively pushing themselves for both an academic and interpersonal growth!
K's: Know the literature, it'll make your clap-backs that much stronger and makes it easier to contextualize. Throughly explain the alt, I noticed that the alternative debate is always the least covered and if I don't throughly understand what I'm voting for... then the permutation becomes an easy option for me as long as I believe it is possible. LINK ANALYSIS WILL GO A LONG WAY... Just saying. I ran Queer, Ableism, Witchcraft and several CRT K's but I understand the post-modern ones as well (please don’t run baudrillard, I’ve already had to vote it up once --> Update: Twice).
K' Affs: I ran Critical affirmatives the majority of my debate career so I might already understand or be lenient towards some of the reasons why non-traditional affirmation might be good. HOWEVER!!! This doesn't mean that if you run a K Aff I'll automatically vote for you, I find myself voting on presumption arguments or framework a lot because sometimes the literature of the affirmative is so dense and either: A) I feel like there is an articulation issue (and thus disorder on the flow) because of the density of the material or B) The internal link chain which leads me to believe that the affirmative is a good idea might be fundamentally under developed.
Da's: Uniqueness... Link.... Internal Links.... Impacts. I like disads, make sure to be strategic, make them net-benefits to the Cp otherwise I do believe that the Squo is always a viable option.
Cp's: Remember that not all Cp's are plan-inclusive and to me at least all you have to prove is that your method solves better than the aff. Have Net-benefits and show me solvency deficits (It'll make your life easier trust). No I won't judge kick the CP for you unless you explicitly tell me, i feel like it gives judge intervention way to much power.
T: Topicality is more than "aff is not topical". Tell me why that is bad? What do you lose access to? Prove to me why the aff's interpretation of debate is bad or abusive. If I can make those connections and you persuade me to prefer your model of debate, then its looking good for you and I'm very inclined to vote on it.
Framework: A lot of T applies here too, make sure to win why we need procedural fairness, why is the aff's model of debate bad for the debate community in general, Internal and External impacts are convincing, and also make sure to make those common FW arguments that prove you don't limit the aff. Framework to me also doesn't necessarily mean that "USFG means the 3 Branches of Government", even though its common and I don't mind seeing it, I feel like you can tailor so many framework arguments to work around the rhetorical offense affirmatives get with that interpretation.
Aff's: PROVE TO ME WHY WE NEED THE AFF! I need to know that there is a reason why you have to affirm what you are affirming and thats why you're doing it in a nontraditional way. Also prove to me why your model of debate is preferable to the neg's arguments. Just persuade me (Make me feel like I HAVE TO DO IT). In addition, anything performative should always be used... and offensively too. Don't waste precious 1AC time without utilizing it to the best of your advantage.
Case: I LOVE CASE DEBATE <3!!! I appreciate a good neg team that directly challenges the aff's warrants and their claims. So that being said... good case debate is appreciated and will be rewarded with higher speaks. Flush out them case turns (I'll gasp if its good)
Advise for the aff: Don't forget your 1AC, YOU SPEND 8/9 Minutes on it, please utilize it and utilize it as offensively as you can!
HAVE FUN! I love debate and I'm always happy and excited to watch y'alls debates!
GOOD LUCK!
Currently debating national circuit as Varsity
Truth over Tech, pretend like I don't know anything so please convince me
Time your speeches. I'll take prep time for you.
Make sure to flow
Please be respectful
Give a roadmap
If you don't read solvency or clarify that you read solvency, I'll just assume you dropped case.
About me (Feel free to skip)
I am a LAMDAL varsity debater from Port of Los Angeles High School (POLAHS). I am Jun Kwons and Delmy Lopez's #2 Fan. I have done three years of debate and two year of varsity debate. I have attendedsome invitationals but I am not a debate God or even extremely competent by any means (Trust me). Don't expect anything from me in the form of wisdom or something like that but I will judge the round to the best of my ability.Thank you for reading this you say "macroni and cheese are delicious" you'll get +0.2 speaker point.
About Debate
I will listen to nearly anything. If you can make a good arguement I'll listen even if it is somewhat con . But if your are outright sexist, racist or any of the phobics your not gonna win, and if you do on tech it will still be a very low point win or double loss.
Rounds Judged
Rookie - 0
Novice - 2
JV - 1
Speaker Point (For me, I start at a 28. This is rather generous, but I WILL give out low speaks if I deem it)
29.5-30: Amazing speaking capabilities, going to win a speaker award, college bound, very entertaining, swag on 100, kino and very based my friend. (:
29.5 to 29.2: Great speaking, maybe not amazing but definitely pretty good. probably will get a speaker award, good speech execution, etc.
28.1-29.4: Good speaking, might get a speaker award, you did good.
28: Average, this is better then 50% of the population.
27.5 - 27.9 : You were in the room and spoke.
27 - 27.4 : You probably did something really weird, were lowkey problematic, or just like did not contribute/worsened your team's chance to win, you teammate probably hated you in this debate.
Anything below: You practically either didn't debate/exist or you did something crazy like "Sexism Good" so I called down a A-10 Warthog on your speaker points and probably gave you a 1 and said some rightfully mean things to you. Shameful displey.
Likes
-Jun Kwon, Michela Short, and Delmy Lopez.
-Articulation. If you can explain something very well whether it be in a simplistic or more complex way I will see that and commend that. It can get your very far in a round if your articulate. Your side will look more desirable to listen to.
-I am a K Debater so I like them. But if you don't run them correctly or poorly expect a more harsh reprisal then most other off cases. Same goes for T.
Dislikes
-I expect you to be respectful. If you act like a tool during the round and are rude don't expect high speaker points. If your particularly horrid even if you won on tech don't bet on taking the W.
-This falls in with the last one as well but I expect you to not be cocky. Cockiness will be determined at my own discretion.
-Judge intervention. If I have to jump through like twenty feet to have your point make sense, even if it is a very good point I'll still have alot of trouble taking that into account.
-Boring debates. This may seem self spoken but if the debate is boring I will zone out, I will paint my miniatures mid round, and I will play a game on my laptop. Im going to be completely honest, if I see the 1NC as all theory blocks for eight minutes expect me to be half paying attention the rest of the round. It is not that hard to make a debate interesting, if it isn't that means one side has probably already messed up big time and not even in a funny more then likely.
Thank you to Curtis Ortega. I stole borrowed a majority of this from him.
Debate Email: polahsdebatedr@gmail.com
Personal Email: drobles9585@polahs.net
Phone Number: +1 (310) 738-0853
jobs not done
I have respect for you debaters as I have never been in a round as a debater. My high school did not have a team and I did not know about Debate as an activity until my second year of teaching when I was asked to Chaperone, Supervise and "Coach" the Huntington Park Debate Team. Therefore, I would appreciate you all if you treated me as an more experienced "Parent Judge." You may practice your Spreading but make sure that you are Clear. I follow the general rules of Policy Debate. Please treat every member in the room (and the physical space) with respect. Any form of personal disrespect or personal attacks (even amongst team mates) may result in immediate disqualification. Hurtful language and any form of hate speech will NOT be tolerated and any forms said during prep, during round, or post round will be reported to Tabroom and to team Coaches/ Supervisors. As a teacher, LAUSD employee and human being, the safety of all students/ debaters is my number one priority. My goal is to be a neutral judge, but I am human. Give me clear instruction and why my vote to the AFF/ NEG is needed. Whether you chose to strike me or put me high on your judge list is not my concern. Be safe, have fun, and practice these skills. They will take you far in your personal, education, and professional young careers. Only assign me to judge Rookie or Novice!
Angel Sanchez
ELC '27
- Current Varsity Policy Debater
- Knowledgeable on the current 23-24 USFG Topic
Preferences
- Spreading is good, but slow down on tags or anything important you want me to hear (Side Note - I prefer quality over quantity, but don't let this change the way you debate!)
- You can run anything, but I don’t tolerate homophobia, sexism, racism, ableism, or any offensive arguments.
- Signpost!!!! Please let me know when you're moving on to another thing so I can flow on its respective flow.
- Tag Teaming is great, but don't talk over your partner
In general, I love seeing clashes in rebuttals and cross-examination. I do flow cross-x, as it can provide insights and details that aren't touched in other speeches. Giving me a time frame, impacts and essentially convince me how and who you want me to vote. Show me passion and show me you know what you're talking about (+ speaks).
As a current debater, I know it's hard to fulfill what you might want, but try your best! Don't be afraid to ask me any questions if you need help or if I'm confusing ya'll. There is no such thing as dumb questions!
polahs & lamdl '22
liberty '25
i debated for 4 years in an urban debate league (yes we know how to debate)
top level:
ARGUMENT = claim + warrant + impact
TURN YOUR CAMERA ON I am not listening to a debate podcast
give roadmap, signpost, have clash, make me laugh
S L O W D O W N on analytics my hand is slow
if you run more than 5 off I will dock your speaks
I cannot hear that well so if youre mumbling im not flowing that arg
dont spread blocks at me I need round contextualization
I vote on theory I think it's important
I make lots of facial expressions... they're a good indicator of how well you're doing
I need judge instruction tbh im lazy (you should do this for every judge anyways)
if you make someone uncomfortable im docking your speaks and giving that person higher speaks (being in a round where that has happened to be several times I am very sympathetic)
please make cx funny
don't steal prep bruh it's not that serious
ngl I can barely keep up with my own time in round so im def not gonna keep it as the judge. but if you seem sus with the time imma call you out
policy (cx):
~ depth over breadth so if you run a bunch of offs please explain them thoroughly bc I get annoyed having to flow a bunch of offs that get kicked in the block as a "strategy" but it really just makes the debate messy and no one knows what they're talking about
~ long overviews are a waste of time
~ saying kritiks are bad for debate will never be a good "arg" in front of me. get with the times. your model of debate is bad.
~ case debate is fun tbh
~ I like case turns
~ dont tell me to judge kick- you're the one debating
~ saying that ur card postdates is not an arg
~ ballot pik/k/turn: if youre gonna sit here and tell the other team that asking for the ballot from a non white person is bad - u need to check urself this is the one arg im definitely not tabula rasa on... everybody wants the ballot - just debate that's how u get the ballot youre wasting ur time debating about the ballot cuz im gonna give it to someone whether they specifically ask for it or not it's an inevitable portion of debate
~ I dont have any hs hierarchical awareness so dont think imma vote for u bc ur that school or that team stop being pretentious this is a niche activity worry abt school more
policy v policy
~ do not pref me plz (im not incompetent or whatever but ur style of debate is just very bland)
~ i.e. "our ___ card is really good on this" LOL what does the card say???
policy v k
~ I love a good soft left aff v a critique
~ impact weighing is good but it ultimately comes down to a util debate anyways
~ I will vote on cap or fw btw so don’t be scared to run that
~ K teams don’t just be like fwk is racist u have to justify it use YOUR impacts
k v k
~ these are my fav debates to be in esp method debates
~ reject the alt – bruh u gotta tell me what mechanisms youre rejecting
~ I feel like yall be scared of each other – be confident!!!
other formats:
I don't know a thing about ld, speech, congress,pf, or parli so please explain things to me very simply
im still learning pf slowly but surely (weighing is fine but it shouldn't be in your rebuttal speech)
be interesting
tech vs truth is not real
reading cap ≠ k debater
being a k hack is not a thing
being a policy hack is a thing
the irish potato famine was a genocide
good luck
Don't be mean. I have a processing disability so please don't spread too quickly. I'll announce this before each before round starts.
My paradigm is not a series of uncompromisable rules. At the end of the day, debaters control the debate space.
On Kritiks
I love critical literature, 4 notes:
1. I do not believe in the idea that the author is irrelevant after publishing.
2. K-debater ought to produce a convincing link, and alternative. The K is likely a voter if those two arguments are articulated well.
3. Debate does not occur in a vacuum; I am open to structural fairness arguments.
4. For K-Aff's it's an uphill battle if you run a "reject the resolution" argument, I prefer reinterpretations of the resolution; this demonstrates, to me, a creative reimagination of the resolution that allows for diversified literature bases, but failure to do so would make me weigh framework arguments more favorably.
On Topicality
Topicality is standard strategy, definitely open to Topicality debate with one exception. If certain plans are core affirmatives to the topic, and the affirmative runs a truth over tech argument, then I will consider T a non-voter in those cases. Core, to me, means that the affirmative plan is standardized (many schools run that affirmative).
On CPs
I do not have strong opinions on CP Theory. I can be persuaded to multiple CPs, PICs, et cetera. Completely up to the debaters.
On Disadvantages
Disadvantages should not have a generic link, they should have a persuasive story for how it ties to the affirmative case, a specific link, or both.
On Case
I love case debate. If negative can compete on the case level - even if they lose - high speaker points are guaranteed. Shows good research, and a genuine attempt to understand the other team's arguments. Two aspects that I see as core to debate.
Experience: 3 years of policy debate in high school. 2 years in varsity, 1 in JV/Novice.
VHTPA 2021-Present
Contact: erictobias1729@outlook.com
Feel free to ask me any questions you have about my paradigm if there’s something you need more information on. Also, I should only be judging Novice/JV rounds, so this paradigm is largely targeted at them.
General Preferences
Judging Style: I try to be tech over truth to the best of my ability. If you drop something and your opponent extends it, I'll consider it true, and I value judge instruction a lot. Generally, you should spend a decent amount of time on impact calculus and contextualizing your links to the other team if you want to make it easy for me to vote for you.
Speaking & Organization: Overall, I'm fine with spreading as long as you're relatively clear, but please slow down while reading the tag and author of your cards. On the same subject, please signpost; if you're not aware, that means clearly stating when you're moving between off-cases or cards. Tag teaming is alright as long as you don't talk over your partner, I'll have to dock your speaks if you do. For CX more generally, being assertive is ideal, but don't be excessively rude or cut your opponent off in the middle of a sentence. I also like seeing specific points from CX get brought up in your speeches, and outside of general ethos, that's its main application as far as I'm concerned. PLEASE KEEP YOUR OWN TIME. I'll be keeping track as well, but it can be tiring doing so, and you should be able to take care of it on your own. Finally, though this should be obvious, saying anything racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. is the quickest route to getting a 0 and an L.
Argument-Specific Preferences
Case: I think case debate can be interesting, and I love when it gets cross-applied to other arguments, but I think it often gets a little overused. I've seen teams just read down a list of case cards for 4 minutes, and I'd much rather see fewer, more strategic case arguments that use the best-warranted cards to target weaker points of the Aff. For the Aff, responding to case should be one of your top priorities, but make sure not to get overwhelmed by it and not put enough time toward the off-cases. Additionally, you should always be trying to get the most offensive use out of your case wherever you can, usually to outweigh a DA or K or point out a solvency deficit in a CP.
DAs: DAs are probably the simplest off-case, but that doesn't mean they can't be effective. I think they work best as the net benefit to a CP, and when extending the DA, you should focus on telling a cohesive story of how the Aff causes your impacts and why those impacts outweigh the case; historical examples can definitely help you here.
CPs: Make sure to explain how your CP solves the Aff's case, and, crucially, explain why it can't coexist with the Aff. The single strongest argument against a CP is almost always the perm, so both teams need to spend a decent amount of time on that. For the Aff in particular, you need to explain specifically what your perm looks like. For JV, I tend to err Neg on CP theory, but I think it can lead to some very interesting debates, and if the Neg mishandles it, it can easily win a round on its own.
Ks: Even more so than DAs, the K needs to be very thoroughly explained (the alt in particular can be quite vague), and there's such an abundance of historical instances of what you critique that you'd be remiss not to point to one as an example of your impacts. Framework is also very helpful in arguing that your impacts outweigh, so be sure to make good use of it. For the Aff, it is possible to win the link debate against the K, especially if the other team doesn't do the best job explaining it. Overall, though, I think the best arguments attack the alt, either by arguing that it can't solve or that it can be done alongside the Aff. The same advice about perms on CPs applies here as well: explain clearly what any perm you run would actually entail.
Ts: Topicality was my favorite off-case in JV and Novice, and I love to see debates on it. The most important thing in a T debate is the two competing interpretations of the topic, and why each is the best option. This means that when you're extending T on either side, you should focus on why your definition is the best for debate. This isn't limited just to being correct, but also the question of which interpretation leads to the best rounds. I tend to err Aff on T because of the closed evidence set, but if the Neg can make their violation specific to something the Aff said or did in this particular round and/or provide a sensible TVA, they have a very good shot at winning. Also, I see T get dropped by the Aff a lot, and because it's a voting issue, doing so basically loses the round. If you drop T and the Neg extends it in the next speech, I pretty much start writing my ballot then and there.
LD:
The most important thing to me is framework in LD rounds. Unless I have a foundation that allows me to vote for you, I simply cannot justify it. The most frustrating rounds to me are the ones that have two very different, very interesting V/VCs and someone just drops theirs. That doesn't mean that 1) you can't win without winning your framework, you just have to make the other person's framework fit your case or 2) that if you two have the same framework to keep arguing because you agree. There's no reason for it.
After I determine who wins framework, I weigh the KVIs off of that framework. Again, it would take a lot for me to vote for you if you don't have any KVIs in your last speech. Those are the main points you're trying to share, and they're an easy way to narrow down the debate in your favor. If I haven't determined a winner from just framework and the KVI points, then I'll go through and look at every argument throughout the debate and determine who wins each one. From there, I usually have a winner.
I was an LD debater in high school for four years, so I'm fine with a lot of the terminology. As for the philosophies you might be running, I'm aware of a lot of possibilities, but I'm only really well versed in a few, so please take time to explain exactly what you mean (especially if it's a lesser used philosopher or a lesser known theory). I did four years of policy at USC, and am now a policy coach, so don't feel like you need to slow down for me, but I do not think LD is a place for spreading. I understand being a naturally faster speaker (I lost my own fair share of rounds because I didn't realize I was speaking too fast), but you shouldn't try to win solely on outspeaking your opponent.
Otherwise, just ask me any questions before the round that you may have.
Policy:
Hey, so I'm much different than I was in the past for Policy. I competed at the college level in Policy for USC for four years, and I am now coaching my own team, and it's been a learning experience. Here are my thoughts on things generally:
Framework/Topicality - I'm a sucker for a good T debate. It has to be good, and it has to be true, because if I'm not buying that the Aff isn't topical then you aren't going to win. But I think that FW and T args have a solid and underappreciated place in policy debate, so if you can do it well then go for it.
KAffs - I will never come into a round with a pre-conceived notion of what you should do with your debate round; however, considering how I feel about Topicality, if you're hitting a good T/FW team, then it's probably going to be somewhat of an uphill battle. I will obviously be as neutral as I can be, but we're all human and we all have biases.
K - I'm much more lenient in my feelings on the K on Neg than on Aff just because of how I believe ground works in debate. One of my partners only went for the K, so I got pretty used to how those worked. If you're running some high-theory K, then you're going to have to really explain it to me. I didn't do policy in high school, so all of those highly-circulated backfiles never got to me. Otherwise, if done well, I can be convinced of most arguments.
CPs - I almost never run these, I don't think they're the most effective argument, but I won't never vote on them. To be honest, I think they make the Neg's job significantly harder, but also, like I said before, this is your debate round. If you do a lot more work, and you end up being really good at it, then obviously you get the win.
DAs - This is usually the first half to my policy strat, so I do have somewhat of a preference for it. Make sure the link story is there and make sure you explain your impacts. I want to know that you know what you're saying.
Case Negs - This is usually the second half to my policy strat, so I also do have somewhat of a preference for this. Same as above, make sure you explain exactly why something won't solve, isn't inherent, isn't significant, etc. I think Case Negs are also under-utilized and underappreciated by debaters.
I believe that's it. Honestly, if you run anything else, that means I have no idea what you're talking about, so like explain it to me.
I'm really big into impact calc too. Extra points to whoever to fully explain to me the impact scenarios of the round and who is winning and why. It makes my job easier if I can just write down your impacts and vote from there, and that usually means it's your ballot.
Yes, I do want to be on the email chain. This email is different than before: taliamariewalters@gmail.com
Otherwise, if you have any questions, feel free to ask me in person. I'm really not that intimidating, and I LOVE talking about myself, so questions are welcome!