Online Novice Scrimmage for WA
2020 — Online, WA/US
Policy Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideEmail Chain: neocaidebate@gmail.com
School Affiliations: Interlake '21, Dartmouth '25
Refer to me as Neo (He/Him)
Top:
Be nice and have fun!
Argument preferences:
K-Affs: I default aff should be topical. Fairness! Smart K-Affs should have a strong internal link/internal link turn to impact turn fairness and clash - Good T arguments should treat them as such. No fanciness. Just predictable limits and fairness.
T: Inclined to start with limits, generally err predictability over debatability. Arbitary definitions should be a reason why competing interpretations is bad. Reasonability is offense the aff should use.
CP: Good for process counterplans and counterplan competition debates. No preference for limited intrinsicness - that is up for debate. Condo is great, going for condo is still fun. Counterinterpretations like x number of condo or pre-round make little sense. Quantify aff deficits to CPs in relation to DA risk.
DA: DA debates should be nuanced, describe a unique internal link story. Impact calc. Will not appreciate a barely highlighted 1NC shell that's missing many many internal links or uniqueness. Will reward a 2AC or CX that points out incomplete DAs.
K: Not good for Baudrillard/Batalie. Yes aff specific link analysis - that means highlighting language of the aff and good cx. Buzzword dependency is bad. I am not likely to buy Ks should not be weighed. I am fine for kicking the alt and going for framework. If the 2AR wants to go for a perm it needs to have offense against the alt not just no link/link turn analysis.
Debating Preferences:
1. Clarity over speed
3. Game should recognize Game - the best 2NRs and 2ARs should have that round vision
4. Inf condo is good, 1AR pop quizing is fun tho
5. Do impact calc
6. You WILL lose speaks for hiding Aspec under T because you are a coward, you will also lose speaks for not flowing it
7. I will match your energy, I dislike mean, arrogant people - knowing where you are wrong is just as important as convincing me you are right. If you are going to be mean, you better back it up...
Speaks:
Be smart and be clear. I will stop flowing if u aren't clear. Don't go into a debater mode and yell a bunch at people, let people talk in cx, ad homs will be rewarded with less speaks. Look at judge when cx happens.
Don't forget to have fun! Debate is so cool
_________________________________
Hi! I'm Ausha
I competed in Policy 2017-2019 and LD 2019-2021 in Washington State, running stock and critical args in both. I finished top 50 at NSDA Nats in 2021 and was the WA state LD champion.
Put me on the email chain if you make one : ausha.L.curry@gmail.com
tldr -- Run whatever you want to run. I'll listen. I'll vote where you tell me to, that's your job in the rebuttals.
Don't do/say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamphobic, etc. It'll 100% result in an L20. If at any time during the debate you feel unsafe, feel free to email me and i'll end the round and deal with it accordingly
Prefs
Policy/LARP - 1
Basic Ks - 1
T - 1
Uncommon Ks - 2
Phil - 3/4
Other Theory - 3/4
Tricks - strike
General -
1. online - go maybe 80-90% max speed and definitely start a little bit slower in case the audio is shady. also plz locally record your speeches in case either of our internet cuts out !
2. disclosure - I won't vote on disclosure unless the violation is super egregious. i was literally the only circuit debater at my HS and i couldn't afford programs like debate drills, etc. so if you're in a similar boat i will def be empathetic towards you in these rounds. On the flip side if you're from a school that has a massive team and try to run the small school arg i won't buy it
3. tech > truth - please be super clear about signposting especially online. even if your opponent straight out concedes something, I still need extensions of a warrant and some weighing for me to vote on it
4. speed - speed is good, slow down on plan/cp texts, interps, etc. I'll yell clear or just ask for the doc post speech if I feel like I missed anything too significant (if it wasn't sent already). If your 1ar is entirely analytics please either slow down or send them in the doc
5. Ev ethics - if u suspect ur opponent is clipping cards, let me know after their most recent speech. it'll also require some sort of recording for proof. Yes stake the round on it, or you can run a theory violation on it and it'll be nicer for everyone
Argument Specific -
tricks - strike me. i won't go for any of the "neg doesn't get CPs" or "eval the debate after x speech". i think they're genuinely cheating, a bad model of debate, and incredibly exclusionary and i will die on that hill
t/theory - I love t, please run it. I spent a lot of my time in policy going for t in the 2nr so I'd say this is where I'm pretty comfy judging debates. I have a pretty high threshold for other theory, especially super friv theory like font size
LD specific: I didn't run a ton of grammatical stuff like Nebel in LD but if you run it well and explain the violation clearly, it's a pretty good shot I'll vote for it. i've come to the realization i don't particularly love theory 2ars if it's only introduced in the 1ar. I think it's made for some pretty shallow debates, but again, i will vote on it unhappily
Defaults: Competing interps, DTA, condo good, PICs good, yes RVIs (note: this doesn't mean i won't flip, you'll just have to debate it)
trad (LD) - will get through these rounds unhappily, but please spice it up a little bit. Make me not want to rip my ears off. Explain phil well, i've never ran one of these cases but i've won against them if that means anything to you. please do comparative work otherwise i will have no idea how to weigh. (Post GFC outrounds, please do not go top speed for kant I NEED you to slow down and explain how everything interacts with each other)
CPs - please make them competitive and have some sort of solvency evidence unless it's some a structural issue (ie taking an offensive word out of the plan text and replacing it). i use sufficiency framing for weighing the cp against the aff meaning you'll have to do more analysis than just "cp doesn't link to the net benefit" in the final rebuttal for me to vote on it. I think both internal and external net benefits are good.
DAs - I enjoy unique, nuanced das. I really like politics and i'll buy them pretty easily if there's a good link to the aff. Should have an overview in the final rebuttal and the block shouldn't be just reading new ev and not answering line by line.
ks - go for it! I like them if they're ran well but make sure you know that your own lit. I'm most familiar with generics (setcol, cap, security), Foucault, a little Edelman, and Baudrillard, any other high theory ones you should explain more though. open to pomo but never really ran it during high school and only hit it a couple times.
k affs - I like these, i ran more than a few. They don't have to be topical, but I think it's easier to win on t if they're in the direction of the topic. I mostly end up going for k v k against these affs but i also run fw in the 1nc, see the t section above if you have questions about that. tvas can be deadly so please blow it up if T/FW is your nr strat!
performance - never ran this, but always enjoyed watching these rounds. Tell me why the 1ac is important in the debate space and win T and it'll be a super easy aff ballot. negs be careful and please don't say anything offensive <3 but i feel like a different K or pik is always a better bet than fw against these
Speaks -
I think i tend to give relatively high speaks averaging between a 28-29. Things that'll boost your speaks: nice pics of aubrey plaza at the top of the speech doc, good organization, clear weighing, and strategic decisions
+.5 for flashing analytics
Please call me Emily (not 'judge') and add me to the chain: emilyfengdebate@gmail.com
Did a negligible amount of coaching in the 2021-2022 AY and have not dabbled in debate since. I also have no topic knowledge, so please proceed accordingly.
Debated for 4 years at Interlake, currently a sophomore at Harvard.
2A in senior year, 2N for 3 years before that. Most experienced with CP/DA/T vs. plan aff debates, but I will listen to anything.
1. Be a decent human being! I care deeply about inclusion in this space & have no tolerance for rude, condescending, or marginalizing behavior.
2. Speak clearly and slow down if needed. Explain acronyms/niche, topic-specific terms. Please give me time to shuffle my flows.
3. Debate with intention. Introduce well-researched positions, read/compare warranted evidence, avoid rambling overviews, and line up numbering.
4. Explain why things matter. An argument needs a claim and warrant. Impact out statements. Set thresholds. Be instructive and make choices.
5. Pathos can coexist with technical execution. Make the 1AC exciting by setting up a well-paced narrative & delivering it with enthusiasm. Be assertive but respectful in CX. Poke lighthearted fun at silly arguments, underscore pivotal claims, and demonstrate that you know the most important parts of the debate. I love passionate 2ARs (but also have a higher bar for them).
6. The following is a laundry list of preferences. Ideological positions are easily overturned by in-depth debating. I like limits/predictability explanations (T vs plan affs), fairness (T vs planless affs), academically-sound analytics, historical examples/references to 1AC evidence with kritiks, and smart challenges of the "offense/defense" paradigm (I have a lower threshold for reasonability/"zero risk" than most). I dislike exhaustive framing contentions, debating kritiks like they are counterplans/disads, making random perms against kritiks, the phrases "try or die"/"I don't get a 3NR"/"don't make me reinvent the wheel," death good, and trivial theory arguments (or arbitrary interpretations during reasonable debates, like condo).
7. I will match your energy - if you are kind/act like you want to be there, I will be happier! That said, I understand that debate is a stressful activity and will do my best to make sure you are comfortable.
hi, im hari! interlake hs (policy), fremont hs (moved) (ld), umich '27 (policy, briefly). i'd likely agree with most things an interlake debater (in particular co '23 and up) has to say about debate; they taught me everything i know about this activity.
read the bold if in a rush
update for umich camp tournament: i understand people not wanting to send analytics, but you need to be clear. i will not clear you. if you don't send analytics but are spreading through them like card text (fast, unclear, not enunciating), i will not catch many of the arguments you are making. more than comfortable defending a decision on "you were not clear enough, it is not on my flow." this hasn't happened yet, don't make it happen thanks!
also, because this is online, do not believe in any of my facial expressions :sobbing_emoji:. If it looks like im nodding my head, it's probably because i'm bouncing my leg up and down and as a result my head is bobbing. If I look annoyed, it's more than likely it's because I'm concentrating on flowing, or squinting because my glasses are never clean enough.
non-negotiables: no -isms, no cheating (clipping). i get to stop the rd.
tech > truth. no intervention. if someone tells me to stop the round for whatever reason i will, tabroom decides the winner from there. apart from that, i truly don't care what you say, here's some stuff that'll make me vote for you:
1. explain your arguments. i don't study economics or government, nor do i read the authors in your 1nc for fun. i'm on the math, skincare, & charli xcx side(s) of twitter if that helps. i know how basic gov and econ systems work (three branches, supply & demand, etc.) + judged @ camp, but don't throw around acronyms/jargon and expect me to know them: i probably don't.
2. i love it when people do judge instruction. implicating arguments even if they're not good will win you rounds. i'm so serious. also i like laughing so be funny it's great + will help speaks. be clear, it makes judging easier + more enjoyable, i also rarely look at the speech doc (mostly only for author names). i'd say i'm good at flowing, you need to be good at spreading. that's what makes this work. enunciate & emphasize when reading analytics, particularly for LD.
stuff i have read--this is representative of what arguments i have thought would win rounds, not if i think they're correct. i don't think winners win is true, but it was like ~100% of my 2ARs to politics. historically, i have said "policy" arguments more than "critical" ones, but that shouldn't matter to you. at camp most of my neg ballots were on some framework k. biggest things is do line by line, and tailor your blocks to the other side's argument, which includes everything from 1NC link cards to 2AR framework explanations.
"defaults" (debated equally/not debated at all, i'll have to insert my opinions unfortunately. don't let that happen): weigh the plan and the kritik. only functional competition necessary. fairness is an impact. infinite condo good. eg. 2ac/1ar/2ar only say the words "condo is a voter, kills 2ac time allocation which is unfair." 2nc/2nr only say the words "condo is good, key to rigorously test the aff, necessary for education." i'm voting neg because i am biased: not my fault nobody did line by line. you should tell me to judge kick the counterplan or alternative (there's a slight chance i'll forget, but i haven't yet so hopefully i can keep that up!)
i like really flavorful or interesting strategies but don't go for something that you don't know or understand. eg. neg's going for a (sometimes dropped) floating pik or fiat k, or impact turn/case turn 2NRs. i also enjoy when aff's straight turn DAs, have unconventional strategies against the K (interesting framework interp or k-ing their k), or leverage framing with non-extinction-impact affs in a way that's not "probability first butterfly effect no util" etc.
have fun! if you play ssbu, listen to charli xcx, have a really cool boba order, or a monkeytype/typeracer/etc speed above 167 wpm, lmk!
I start out as a Stock Issue Judge. The Affirmative must maintain all of the stock issues to win the debate---Topicality , Significance Harms, Inherency Solvency. If the Affirmative maintains all of the Stock Issues I then become a comparative advantage judge. I weigh the advantages of the Affirmative versus the disadvantages, kritiks and counterplans of the negative. I won't intervene in a debate but I would be receptive of arguments that 1. the negative can only have one position in a debate and 2. that the negative cannot kritik the status quo without offering a counterplan.
I’m the head coach of the Mount Vernon HS Debate Team (WA).
I did policy debate in HS very, very long ago - but I’m not a traditionalist. (Bring on the progressive LD arguments-- I will listen to them, unlike my daughter, Peri, who is such a traditional LD'er.)
Add me to the email chain: kkirkpatrick@mvsd320.org
Please don’t be racist, homophobic, etc. I like sassy, aggressive debaters who enjoy what they do but dislike sullen, mean students who don't really care-- an unpleasant attitude will damage your speaker points.
Generally,
Speed: Speed hasn't been a problem but I don't tell you if I need you to be more clear-- I feel it's your job to adapt. If you don't see me typing, you probably want to slow down. I work in tabroom in WA state an awful lot, so my flowing has slowed. Please take that into consideration.
Tech = Truth: I’ll probably end up leaning more tech, but I won’t vote for weak arguments that are just blatantly untrue in the round whether or not your opponents call it out.
Arguments:
I prefer a strong, developed NEG strategy instead of running a myriad of random positions.
I love it when debaters run unique arguments that they truly believe and offer really high speaker points for this. (I'm not inclined to give high speaks, though.)
Any arguments that aren’t on here, assume neutrality.
Do like and will vote on:
T - I love a well-developed T battle but rarely hear one. I don't like reasonability as a standard-- it's lazy, do the work.
Ks - I like debaters who truly believe in the positions they’re running. I like critical argumentation but if you choose to run an alt of "embrace poetry" or "reject all written text", you had better fully embrace it. I’m in touch with most literature, but I need a lot of explanation from either side as to why you should win it in the final rebuttals.
Don’t like but will vote on if won:
“Debate Bad” - I DO NOT LIKE "Debate is Futile" arguments. Please don't tell me what we are doing has no point. I will listen to your analysis. I may even have to vote for it once in a while. But, it is not my preference. Want a happy judge? Don't tell me that how we are spending another weekend of our lives is wasting our time.
Very, very, very... VERY traditional LD - if you are reading an essay case, I am not the judge for you.
Not a huge fan of disclosure theory-- best to skip this.
Don’t like and won’t vote on:
Tricks.
Add me to the chain:sandyp21212121@gmail.com
--2x TOC Qualifier and Participant
--4x Policy Bids Total
--2x WA Policy State Qualifier
--1x WA Speech Qualifier and Participant
--1X NSDA Nationals Qualifier
TLDR:
§ I flow on my laptop and type at 200+ WPM and debaters spread at 300+ WPM. Yes Cameras on at all times.
§ I need to see faces to gage all your reactions, I make reactions too. I'm Bipolar and need Lithium, and that's a Cation BTW.Psychiatry is good.
§ I am competing for a body-building show in my local area on June 22nd, I am too low body fat to be taking any emotional trauma BS rn.
§ Debaters are expected to present good ethics as a result. My own political opinions are constantly changing but,
§ I was a very big Flex Debater with Interlake CP (Brian Chen), my senior year so I am super TABula rasa.
§ Check my 2NR Wiki from the 2020-21 CJR Topic, I went for the Courts CP and Stim DA almost every round. but I also went for
§ K's such as Black Deleuze at the Con-Way Classic in 2021. We won Finals Pikking out of a white debater lol.
§ So if you have a style of clothing for your arguments that's ok. I personally like wearing makeup and looking presentable.
§ Please spread in CX or LD divisions. Otherwise, Pufo is not to be spreading.
CP:
§ The uniqueness and link debate determine the threshold at which we evaluate the CP.
§ Sufficiency Framing is good in all instances unless you ask me to judge kick the counterplan.
§ Flash perm text blocks.
DA:
§ Good to write DAs, especially PTX-based DA's with the uniqueness flipping either way, aff or neg, which makes good debates. However
§ That being said, given the current state of tensions, the DA most likely flips Trump is elected now. 2024 would be a landslide.
§ Don't flash blocks for DA debating lol.
§ DA internal links are always solid but make sure they actually have internal links really well with big stick cards such as Starr.
T:
§ Based on competing interpretations and visions of debate.
§ This includes T-USFG debating.
§ Reasonability debating is a tie-breaker to determine the threshold at which we evaluate competing interpretations.
Aff:
§ Most affs have good internal links on this topic, but the same logic with the DA applies, I want to see a clear vision toward big stick impacts.
§ Soft-left affs are beneficial, but make sure you spin framing along with counter-plan debating, really well.
§ Big stick impact aff's don't need their own framing contention lol. Spend your aff resources on more internal links that you can.
§ SPin out of a scenario lol in case you need to go for one of your internal links.
§ See if you can impact turn too, like heg good, co2 ag good, even death good, all have proficient literature bases