sohan.bellam@emory.edu

I won't adjudicate issues that happened outside of the debate. I do not like planless affirmatives. Do what you like.

42fryguy@gmail.com

I debated at KU and Blue Valley Southwest, I am currently coaching at Glenbrook North

FW

I am heavily persuaded by arguments about why the affirmative should read a topical plan. One of the main reasons for this is that I am persuaded by a lot of framing arguments which nullify aff offense. The best way to deal with these things is to more directly impact turn common impacts like procedural fairness. Counter interpretations can be useful, but the goal of establishing a new model sometimes exacerbates core neg offense (limits).

K

I'm not great for the K. In most instances this is because I believe the alternative solves the links to the aff or can't solve it's own impacts. This can be resolved by narrowing the scope of the K or strengthening the link explanation (too often negative teams do not explain the links in the context of the permutation). The simpler solution to this is a robust framework press.

T

I really enjoy good T debates. Fairness is the best (and maybe the only) impact. Education is very easily turned by fairness. Evidence quality is important, but only in so far as it improves the predictability/reduces the arbitrariness of the interpretation.

CP

CPs are fun. I generally think that the negative doing non-plan action with the USfg is justified. Everything else is up for debate, but well developed aff arguments are dangerous on other questions.

I generally think conditionality is good. I think the best example of my hesitation with conditionality is multi-plank counter plans which combine later in the debate to become something else entirely.

If in cross x you say the status quo is always an option I will kick the counter plan if no further argumentation is made (you can also obviously just say conditional and clarify that judge kick is an option). If you say conditional and then tell me to kick in the 2NR and there is a 2AR press on the question I will be very uncomfortable and try to resolve the debate some other way. To resolve this, the 2AC should make an argument about judge kick.

All that matters is that we have fun right??? :D

Call me Ryan, "judge" is weird. Don't be weird. (you can do it if you want lol i'm just saying)

I'm down for K's, but just make it stupid simple. I'm not really down for convoluted, borderline obnoxious K's (do with that how you will).

K aff's are kinda dumb to me.

I doubt I'll err a team over aspec, 50 state fiat, whatnot

Tech > Truth

Go for a T debate if you nice with it (fairness is goated)

Condo is good to me, but condo debates and theory in general is also fun if you nice with it

I'm against racist, sexist, or generally hurtful statements or arguments, however, I'm probably going to be one of the most lenient judges you will ever get in terms of that. Just don't do it, though, for the sake of everyone debating.

Don't be scared of looking or sounding dumb. You're here to learn. Do your best and pop off.

Email me if you want ig lol: 234238@glenbrook225.org

1a/2n but I have been a 1n/2a

Please put me on the email chain - 234281@glenbrook225.org

You can call me Luke, not Judge

Top Level:

- Be nice don't be racist, homophobic, ableist, etc - I will deck speaks otherwise and vote you down

- Tech > Truth

- Try to flow

- Have fun!

Specific

- Please explain your arguments - I will not vote for something I don't understand

- When a team drops an argument explain why it matters - don't just state that they dropped it

- I will tend to side with the Neg on theory unless there is a serious abuse

- I feel the most comfortable voting on a Kritik if there is a specific link to the Aff

- I will only kick the Cp if you say "Judge kick the Cp"

- Don't drop Framing or Framework!

Other

- If you include me in the email chain without me asking +0.2 speaks

Please email me if you have questions

yes email chain clairedb8@gmail.com

don't call me judge, claire is fine

gbn 23, she/her, 2N/1A

--

i am an aquarius sun, leo moon, and a leo rising. please take all of the above into consideration and adapt accordingly. debate is an activity rooted in persuasion, your job is to take my personal biases into account and alter your debating to the proper extent.

--

top level

online debate: your camera should be on until the end of the 2ar. if my camera is off, i'm not at my laptop.

any k is fine but i'm slightly better for policy stuff

no death/racism/homophobia/sexism good arguments or anything of that nature -- ignorance is an auto-L and an email to your coach

debating off your flow and making the wrong arguments will get you better speaks than reading a script and making the right ones

tag team cx is fine

any predispositions/biases i might have can be mitigated through good debating :)

--

speaks

a clear roadmap and signposting is the easiest way to up your speaks, prioritize clarity over speed

be nice!! to the other team and especially to your partner

--

if you have any questions about this paradigm or really anything about debate email me before the round and i'll do my best to help out - debate is a great activity that anyone can succeed at and i hope yall have fun!

Contact Info:
jaredzu@umich.edu (camp tournament only)
jzuckerman@glenbrook225.org

Questions/comments:
If you contact me for feedback, please CC your coach in the email or I will not respond.

Current School:
Glenbrook South

Prior Schools:
Glenbrook North, 18-23
Blue Valley Southwest, 10-18
Blue Valley North, 04-10

Disclaimer:
-I only know a limited number of the camp files
-I don't flow as quickly as you probably want. Slow down and care about clarity.
-Have speech docs in a usable format that both teams can use. Manage your own prep and start the debate on time.
-On a scale of evidence versus in round performance, I slightly learn towards the performance.
-Aff's should read a topical plan.
-I generally think conditionality is good.