I am Faisal Hamzeh

I debate for West High School your ettuquite should be decent

I like Phil v Phil and can handle a good framework debate

tech>truth

I like contracts, lib, and intent-based frameworks, I am not a fan of util-type frameworks but will vote if done well and I will be as fair as possible I also am indifferent about sv if you do it well I will vote for you.

I like speechdrop.net but email chains are good too. (also sry in advance this is longer than I thought it was gonna be)
gwsmi26@icstudents.org

I'm Gwen Smith, a student @ICW '26. Im a Varsity debater, I mostly do LD but I've done PF tournament, a Policy tournament, Congress, and some speech events (HI, Spont, Extemp). I'm familiar with how most stuff works. Feel free to just call me Gwen, Judge, dude, bro, anything is chill with me.

Any pronouns are good, if you have preferences please feel free to tell me. I believe that debate should be accessible to everyone so if you have a specific thing that helps you in round or something that you think I should know, I promise I will listen to you and I understand that everyone is different. Other accommodations, just email me before the round or come up and find me, Ill usually be wearing some loud shirt or big headphones and you can just flag me down.

I'll eval most stuff as long as there is good warranting for it. (and it's not incredibly bigoted [racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc]. i.e. if you run something really stupid (shoes theory, anarchy, etc.) ill only evaluate it if it actually has something semi-valid to back it up. Everything in Jayden Noblitt's paradigm is against my evaluation ethics /j.

TL;DR: Be nice in round, be persuasive, everything is chill with me, Ill vote on pretty much anything if you convince me enough. (Novices can just ctrl f "novice")

Tech>>>>>Truth, if you have good warranting for the moon being made of cheese, its true for the round. Also no new arguments in the 2AR I will not vote on them

Framework/phil- I love seeing framework clash, please try and interact with your opponents if applicable. I'll include opinions on this during RFD and my notes. Phil is literally so fun, do what you want.

Policy Style (LARP)-These are alright, I'm personally more of a K and phil debater so I don't really read these, just have good warranting and have good tags. im very neutral about these. Im not a huge fan of extinction impacts and would like to see something more unique, that being said, im not gonna penalize you for it. I would rather you dont read this in front of me, but if you do, make it interesting (SPACE COL!!!!)

Speed- I can handle most speeds. If your spreading is clear and I'm on the Email chain I should be ok. I might shout clear if it's really bad. SLOW DOWN ON CLAIMS AND TAGS PLEASE!!!

Trix-These are fine ig, I dont particularly enjoy these, but if the debate boils down to the trick, Ill vote on it. If the trick is stupid I might actually not vote on it because I personally hate responding to them. I will not vote on any more than 2 Aprioris, three friv shells or anything realated to Joe Biden /j. (Refer to Isaac McCarty)

CX- I love CX please please please do more than ask for repeats of cards and really try and play the debate game with your opp. Especially as a novice I would love to see it. I believe CX is binding, if I hear it I assume its true for the round.

Ks- I am a K debater, so yes its great, just make sure it actually links and your K is unique. I will eval pess, make your links believable and if theyre not unique, make them better. If your K is too dense and like full of jargon Im really not going to want to evaluate it. please explain your lit so I can understand your argument.

Theory- totally fine, just make it not incredibly friv unless you plan to make the round funny. Defaults are as follows

Competing Interps>Reasonability || No RVIS>RVIS || Education>Fairness (I think debate should be more educational, if you want me to vote for fairness, make me think so, debate is inherently unfair for POC, queer, and female presenting debaters). || 1AR theory is fine

Speaks- Yes everyone's favorite part. I'll give speaks based on a couple factors. 1) If you come up with creative arguments and have clash on different fronts. 2) If you use your time in good ways and give good speeches. That shows that you are thinking about what you're doing instead of just doing it because someone else told you to.

30- You were great. You made good arguments, and made some really bold choices in round.

29- you were good, speeches were clear and convincing, I can tell you know what you're doing.

28- This is pretty average for me. You were a good debater and I liked your overall style but there were some key things in round that were hard to follow.

27- Where Ill start from, you were pleasant, but you maybe were unorganized or unclear in some way. You dropped some important stuff and you werent particularly convincing.

26- I wasn't very convinced by your arguments and you didn't use your time well, something in round was off

25 or lower- you did something in round that was really bad and were overall not a very sportsmanlike competitor.

Disclosure- I fully believe that people should know who won the round but I'll mostly be going off of what the tournament wants me to do. I probably won't disclose speaks because I personally enjoy the thrill of knowing who won awards.

FOR NOVICES IN PARTICULAR

Debate is meant to be fun, especially when you're just starting out. It's ok to not know what you're doing. Try and extend, make some rebuttals, weigh, and do what you can in round. When you're a novice trying to do conventional debate is much better than if you were given some crazy varsity-level stuff that you don't understand. If you want to talk after the round, I will be happy to explain anything you might not have understood. The round is gonna be messy, I know that, even if you dont think so, ive judged novices, coached novices and been a novice.

Flows- I think flowing is super important. I will do some of both, flowing off the doc and what you say. I don't really flow author names but still please say them, otherwise ill think you are reading uncarded information. PLEASE FOR MY SANITY SIGNPOST!!!! PLEASE GIVE A ROADMAP BEFORE YOUR SPEECHES SO I KNOW WHERE STUFF GOES!!!!!!!

Other

Please ask if everyone is ready before you start speaking, it helps us all. Also, I will time every speech and prep time. I will know if you are stealing prep. If I don't, it's just a personal error.

+0.2 speaks if you tastefully roast Jerry Li, Quincy Tate, Adam Salem, Jayden Noblitt or Landon Stull. +0.1 speaks if you tastefully roast any debater/coach from ICW. Fun ties/Bowties also get +0.1 speaks or if you bring me food/candy/gum/soda. Im a goofy person, be funny, I don't want the round to be uncomfortable for you. If you show me your spotify and I like your music taste, instant +1 speaks. (If you can prove monism is true and you are Joe Rankin, Auto 30 speaks) (If your case is in Comic Sans, we need to have a chat about your life choices)

I love some funny pop-culture references, overall if you are a pleasant debater and a pleasant person I'll think pretty well of you. Pet pics will also get +0.1 speaks!!!

If you have questions about the round, I'll usually be happy to answer them, I completely understand what it's like not fully knowing what you lost a round on. Most of it will happen during disclosure and in my notes. Kind postrounding is totally cool. If something I did harmed you in round and you feel uncomfortable talking to me about it, please tell tab so I can do better in the future, there have been plenty of times where I was too scared to talk to someone in charge about my worries. If you need to talk after any round even if Im not your judge, Im here to help.

I'm currently a Senior at Iowa City West. I do LD Debate, the top paradigm is LD, scroll down for other events.

I want to be on the email chain: sptho24@gmail.com

I want to think that I will be as objective as possible in round, but here are some arguments I know better than others. That being said, I'll vote on anything if it is won, with only very few exceptions.

CX is binding and I don't flow it, but I'll pay attention

Tech >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Truth

EXTEND PLEASE

Shortcut (this is just my familiarity with styles, not what I will and won't vote for):

Trix - 1

Phil - 1

Theory - 1

K's - 2

LARP - 2

Non-T K affs - 2

Performance K - 3

K V K - 2/3

--------------------------------------------

Defaults:

Metatheory > Theory = T > K

Truth Testing

Presumption and Permissibility negate

Theory Voters : DTA for arguments, DTD for whole positions, Competing Interps, No RVIs (Don't make me use these please)

Note: This is just my defaults, this changes the second someone reads literally any weighing on these things

-----------------------------------------------

Note for Novices: I don't care what you run. I do want you to understand it, otherwise I won't be happy. But I will vote on tricks, K's, theory, whatever. If you are reading stuff clearly just handed to you and you don't understand it, I won't be happy and your speaks will drop. But I will still vote on it.

-----------------------------------------------

Tricks -

I'm a tricks debater, so go for it man. I think they are fun. I don't love being super sketchy in CX, you don't have to tell them every implication, but like, answer their questions truthfully. I'll boost speaks if you give a new trick I haven't seen (i.e you read a new paradox and you do understand it). The only tricks I WON'T evaluate are "eval after X" I will evaluate the whole round, I think this leads to a paradox of regression, and it's stupid. I do enjoy if you understand what you are reading. And extensions are great, please extend. Also keep in mind, the dumber the trick the lower the threshold obviously, and have warrants please.

--------------------------------------------

Phil -

I love a good phil round. I'm comfortable with most frameworks, if you're reading some really out there stuff, just explain. Frameworks I know: Rawls, Kant, Hobbes, Contracts, Libertarianism, Polls, Ripstein. (Probably more I just can't think of them). Love engaging in frameworks, and hijacks are wonderful. The main thing is explain your framework. I'm also cool if you have hidden skep triggers, but if asked in CX for them, please give them, if you try to go for one you didn't give when asked I will still evaluate it, but your speaks will drop a lot, and I am going to be easily persuaded for new responses against them if you do it. Basically, don't be shifty and don't lie.

--------------------------------------------

Theory -

I'm good for theory. No matter how frivolous. Obviously the dumber the shell the lower threshold of responses. Defaults: DTA for arguments, DTD for whole positions, C/I, No RVIs. DON'T MAKE ME DEFAULT PLEASE!!!!! If you read like 26 shells in the AC your speaks will drop (note I'll still vote on it though). I'll vote on disclosure (begrudgingly). And again, I literally don't care if it's frivolous, you win the shell you win the shell. I'm not gonna gut check unless that ends up being how it is said I have to evaluate it. Also reasonability NEEDS a brightline.

--------------------------------------------

LARP -

I'm not a larper, keep that in mind. But it's not that complicated, and I can judge it. I think it's probably the most educational for the real world, but I also think they are kinda boring. I'm cool with CPs, PICs, DAs, Plans, whatever. WEIGH. Without weighing I can't decide which impact is worse and I might default to presumption or permissibility. I'm not joking, I'm not really gonna weigh for you.

I don't know what judge kick is and to me it sounds like intervention.

Must say you're kicking something if you kick it. Not extending isn't the same as kicking

--------------------------------------------

Speed -

I can handle some speed. But as a debater I found LARPers tend to approach light speed sometimes, and so if that's you. Know if I can't understand what you say I won't flow it. I try not to flow of the doc all the time, and I'd love to not have to.

--------------------------------------------

K's -

I'm cool with stock K's (Cap, Set Col, etc).

I can do High Theory (Nieztche, Camus, Baudrillard, etc) But EXPLAIN YOUR K. I literally am not qualified at all to judge a K round without you explaining it.

K-Affs - I can judge these, didn't run them very often, but I can judge them, just explain your K and why you aren't Topical if you aren't being Topical.

K v K - I'll try, but know I'm probably not the best judge for this. I'll do my best. But I NEED a lot of instruction for this. Also how hard this is for me to evaluate depends heavily on the K's that are clashing, ie Cap K V Set Col K will be easier to evaluate than Psychoanalysis V Baudrillard.

Performance K's - I'll again try, super unexperienced with this. I need a LOT of explaining as to why your K matters, is good, and why the performance is key to the K. Again, probably better strats than this

If you kick an alt, you gotta say you kick it. Not extending isn't sufficient

Floating PIKs must be hinted at in the 1n

--------------------------------------------

Postrounding -

I'm ok with it, but I'm also a person, so don't please don't get too aggressive or anything. But please, if you think I robbed you of a win, please postround me. I think this is a good norm. However, I also reserve the right to leave if I don't feel comfortable with the post rounding.

--------------------------------------------

OTHER EVENTS

Policy

I have no clue how your event works, and I'm kinda scared to ask. I don't know your lingo, and I don't know the norms, I can't do top policy speed, please be a little slower - To be clear, I'm fine with spreading, but like more of an 8/10, keep in mind my LD background, if you make a round similar to that, I'll be really happy and your speaks might rise a little. Besides that, most of the stuff from LD applies, but like, I'll need even more judge instruction than usual. I know literally nothing about your topic or what any of the things you are talking about are. Explain what your plans and counterplans are and what they do. Otherwise it'll be hard for me to vote on it. Check the LARP section for more specifics, all that stuff applies here.

--------------------------------------------

PF

I'll treat this as basically a trad LD round, because I feel that's the best way for me to judge it. I'll do my best way to judge as I can, but do know that my LD background is a thing. NOTE: This DOES NOT mean I'm cool with circuit arguments in this style, I know that they aren't cool in PF, and running them will NOT make me happy. Judge instruct as you can, I'll do my best

--------------------------------------------

Misc

1) Please extend

2) I don't flow author names, say where you are

3) Signpost for the love of the GCB

4) If you tastefully roast an ICW varsity in LD I'll boost speaks by like +.2

If you roast ICW Quincy Tate it's like +.3

If you prove monism is true and have the line "Monism is true - I am Joe Rankin" that's like +.1 - +.3

5) Have fun, debates a game and if we aren't having fun why do we do this?

Hi my name's Nate,

I'd prefer if you just call me Nate, but "judge" is fine too.

Iowa City West '23

University of Iowa '26

My email is weimarnate@gmail.com

I did LD on the national circuit. I acquired 9 career bids to the TOC in LD, made Quarters of the TOC my junior year and Doubles my senior year. Any speed is fine.

I now do college policy debate at Iowa, I'm fine for any arguments, I will vote off of the flow.

If you are a novice read whatever arguments you want I will be able to evaluate them. Please make sure to extend arguments, and respond to important things.

I will vote on any argument with a claim, warrant and impact. I will vote for any style, the following is just a preference of what I'm most familiar with, I will not hack against you or hurt your speaks because of what style you debate. (The only args I won't evaluate/I will drop you for reading is saying something like racism good)

I enjoy creative and strategic positions. Speaks are based on strategy/technical skill.

I will evaluate arguments such as death good.

Tech>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Truth

Prefs:

Tricks-1

Phil-1

Theory-1

Ks-2

LARP-3

LARP

I don't LARP very much but LARP is pretty straight forward so I'll be able to evaluate a LARP round. If you're going to have a dense larp debate there's probably better judges for you to pref, but just because I'm your judge doesn't mean you can't larp.

Tricks

Tricks can be good and bad. 100% tech>truth. I will listen to anything with a warrant. If you read a variation of condo logic please understand conditional logic. I will give you good speaks if you read a new paradox that I've never heard of and you clearly know what it says (or if you invent a paradox/trick). I will also give you good speaks if you execute theory tricks creatively. If you actively bamboozle (this does not mean overwhelm with blips) someone you will get high speaks. There is a difference between making tricky arguments in the sense of you fooling your opponent and just spamming arguments like "no neg analytics" in the underview. I'll vote for both, but the former will receive higher speaks.

Ks

I read a lot of ks. I like k tricks, please hint at a floating pik in the NC. Some literature I am fairly familiar with is Deleuze, Nietzsche, Camus, Lacan, Baudrillard and Berardi. If I didn't list something you can still read it this is just some authors I am more familiar with compared to others.

Theory

I will listen to all theory shells no matter how frivolous. I default to drop the argument on shells read on specific arguments and drop the debater on shells read on entire positions, no RVIs, and competing interps. To clarify, these are only my defaults if literally zero arguments are made, e.g. you read a whole shell but don't read paradigm issues. Please read paradigm issues, because if you don't I'll tank your speaks. If you read paradigm issues, and your opponent agrees to them or explicitly reads them again in one of their shells I will use those. So, if the AC and NC read shells with, dtd, no rvis, and competing interps, then the 2NR can't stand up and go for yes RVIs.

Phil

Phil is probably what I like to watch the most. I think the NC AC strategy is very strategic and will give you good speaks if you execute it well. Hijacks and preclusive arguments are cool. If you think your framework is super complicated for some reason just explain it well but I'll probably be able to evaluate a phil debate. Please weigh in the framework debate because that makes it a lot easier to evaluate. I default epistemic confidence.

Defaults

Truth Testing

Presumption and permissibility negate.

See theory section for theory defaults.

Metatheory>Theory=T>K

I default to strength of link weighing between different theory shells on the same layer, but would highly prefer you make weighing arguments between shells. I.e. 1ar theory before NC theory or vice versa.

Note on hitting a trad debater/novice:

Do whatever you want, I'm not going to tank your speaks for like, spreading, reading theory or something. I also won't hurt your speaks if you just have a phil or larp debate with them, any approach is fine. The only thing is don't try to embarrass or make fun of them. You deserve to win if you did the better debating but you don't need to insult them or something like that.

Note on Post Rounding: Please do it if you think I intervened. I can take it, feel free to let me hear it if you think I've wronged you. You deserve to get angry at me if I robbed you of a win (which is not my goal just to clarify). And, if you throw in a good roast we can have a good laugh.

You need to extend things in every speech even if your opponent didn't contest them in later speeches. E.g. your 2ar can't be 3 minutes answering T and not extend any substantive offense.

Speaks

Things that will hurt your speaks:

1. Reading no framework in the AC.

2. Doing no line by line (unless just blitzing overview arguments was strategic in the situation, which is conceptually possible).

3. Ending cross ex like a minute early.

4. Being rude or way overconfident.

5. You're clearly just reading off a doc that someone else wrote.

6. Making the round really messy (especially when there was a clean way to win).

Things that will boost your speaks:

1. Clearly knowing the arguments you're reading. E.g. being able to explain your framework really well in cross.

2. Weighing and just making the round generally easier to evaluate.

3. Doing what you want to do and just executing it well.

4. Being funny.

29.5-30: You will break and make it deep out-rounds. OR you did something really creative or interesting, like made the 2AR impossible because your 2NR was so good.

29-29.5: You'll probably break and could win a few out-rounds.

28.8-29: You'll probably break.

28.5-28.7: You'll probably be on the bubble.

28-28.5:You'll probably go 3-3 or maybe break.

27.5-28: You did a little worse than average.