Lexington '23

Dartmouth '27 (not debating)

He/him

presumption2nr@gmail.com for chains.

Please format the subject line of the email chain as the following:

Tournament name Round number---Aff team [Aff] vs. Neg team [Neg]

E.g. Trevian R6---Lexington HV [Aff] vs. Lexington TW [Neg]

Hi everyone. Call me Jeffrey/Jeff. 4 years at Lexington High School as a primarily policy 2N.

Feel free to ask me any questions you have.

Notes for big lex:

These will be my first rounds judging on this topic. I haven't coached on this topic, nor have I done research in the literature, so extra explanation goes a long way, especially w/ respect to particular programs/pieces of legislation/other abbreviations or topic-specific niches. I will follow more if you don't throw out big words and complex acronyms. I've been out of the activity for a bit so excuse me if I'm missing one-liners you throw out (hint hint don't throw out one-liners).

I have been very unfond about the quality of arguments and evidence recently (see misc.). I may internally laugh at your evidence for my own pleasure. Sometimes I'm expressive. Maybe I vibe. Speaks may suffer. White's an All-Star.

Top Level:

Technical debating informs the truth value of any argument. I think it is unfair to the debaters for me, as being outside the bounds of the forum that is the debate, to inject my own knowledge, biases, preconceived notions into the round to come to a conclusion about the round. Therefore, to the best of my ability, I will rely entirely on what is presented to me when coming to a decision. All of my thoughts and opinions below should be read as guidance for how you should approach/debate in a round with me in the back, not as my hardened views of arguments.

I tend to have a high threshold for argument explanation. If you are "winning an argument", don't blaze through it in 10 seconds and then rinse and repeat with another 5/6/7 more. Be strategic about what you choose to extend and how you explain it. The more effort you put into evaluating an argument and its influence in the round, the more likely it is that I will be swayed to value said argument highly, particularly in a close debate.

Both sides should send card docs after the round.

I will say clear once then I will stop flowing.

TLDR for prefs: Best for policy v. policy, then lower than that policy v. k, then a good bit lower kaff v. 'policy', then somewhere very far below that, k v. k. Then all the way at the bottom are teams reading bad evidence.

Policy stuff

T

- Has a special place in my heart.

- The best T debates involve deep dives into what each model of debate looks like in terms of the debates themselves, the literature, and bilateral research potentials.

- I find link turn/root cause or thesis-level controlling arguments particularly persuasive.

- Also very persuaded by critiques of evidence quality. Far too often teams on both sides get away with reading evidence that’s cut out of context or doesn’t actually define a resolutional word/phrase.

- My pet peeve is aff teams that first throw around the phrase "functional limits exist under our topic", then run through a list composed of the states cp, a politics da, and the cap k, which has been repeated in each previous speech. Make real arguments, do your research.

- If the 2NR is 5 minutes of t-subsets, and you win, i'll give you minimum 29.5.

DAs

- I understand this topic isn’t the greatest. Idc if you read politics, something topic-specific, or jump the gun on the elections da, so long as you execute well. I honestly have a soft spot for a well-thought-out politics DA.

- tell me a good story

- both evidence and explanation are important. evidence = pieces of a puzzle, your explanation is putting it together. link explanation, spin, and evidence analysis are all arts and I'll be impressed if you put them together coherently.

CPs

- Do whatever. I love a good innovative CP, especially a well-research, topic-specific one. As such, I will be happier seeing some CPs read more than I will be for others (e.g. the sunsets cp), but at the end of the day, I was a 2N who had to read inevitably read and go for generics so I will understand the decision you make. I just might be a little more bored (kidding).

- I won’t judge kick unless told to.

- Solvency deficits need implications.

- I’m fine w/ a lot of condo. Perfcon has its place in debate; it's usually not a reason to reject the team.

K stuff

Policy aff v. K

- Familiar with most of the more common literature bases (cap, security, blackness arguments, setcol, sort of psycho, etc.). The more devious you get with your K, the less likely it is that I will understand it if you don’t explain it properly.

- You don’t need a specific link, but you DO need to at least contextualize your generic link. I have a fairly high bar for neg links given that I think a lot of evidence that’s read doesn’t meet the standard for specificity, which is a point that aff teams should exploit. When neg teams ARE ahead here, it’s because of their extrapolation beyond the evidence, and a generic/surface-level interrogation of the link by the aff. Summary: I think there’s potential on both sides here that often times gets lost.

- Aff: attack the alt. Neg: flush it out earlier. Making the alt a floating PIK in the 2NR is funny but also ballsy if you don't set it up properly.

- Framework debates end up being washes a lot. Do with that what you will.

K v. framework/policy

- Only found myself on the negative here.

- fairness matters. CAVEAT: I was a fairness debater, but I like seeing research/testing/skills/clash debates more because 2Ns tend to actually interact with the aff’s offense in those rounds rather than just saying “procedural fairness matters” over and over. I’m more convinced by teams that take fairness beyond that and add link-turns, pre-requisite arguments about “the game”, etc., that frame the way I should evaluate fairness in the context of the neg’s offense as well. TLDR: don't jettison comparisons or legit argumentation.

- I'm not ideologically opposed to k affs, but make them topic-relevant. PLEASE.

- More swayed by impact turns of framework and standards than counter-interpretations that try to solve neg offense. Not convinced by impact turns of the reading of framework itself.

- Use the case debate. On both sides. I cringe seeing teams read evidence about the wrong theory on case (negative); please put in effort to make the case debate substantive. Presumption is a real argument. Your kaff should actually do something, not be a FW preempt.

- Totally down for good memes in honor of the lexington debate tradition.

K v. K

- not my area of expertise

- framing, judge instruction, and explanation go far in these debates. I’m moreso convinced by examples as proof than assertions about a controlling theory of power.

Misc.

Maybe this is my internal 2N but I have been pretty disappointed at the poor quality of evidence pervading the last few topics. I consider myself to have been a debater highly valuing evidence, and that has translated now to judging. While I will obviously not go out of my way to discredit what a piece of evidence says, my threshold for agreeing with a team pointing out the flaws in a piece of evidence is significantly lowered if the evidence itself is terrible. Conversely, if you’re reading good evidence, I will be happy to read it your way assuming you’ve explained and defended it well.

I don’t remember who said this but they're spitting. Speed ≠ words per minute, but legible arguments made per minute.

I won’t bump speaks for this but my mood will significantly improve if you make jokes or banter during the round, whether that be in speeches, between speeches, during cross-ex, or before/after the round (obviously given that what you say isn't demeaning, hateful, or anything of the like). Debate is competitive, but meant to be fun for everyone involved. I like seeing you all enjoying your time at tournaments, so don’t take yourself too seriously with me in the back. Will be extra happy if you make jabs at Atul Venkatesh, Misty Wang, Vinit Iyer, Shreyas Sreeprakash, Ishan Kinikar, or really any other (ex) lexington debater.

Lexington '23

I went to the TOC my junior year if that matters to you

I was primarily a K debater in high school but I read policy affs a lot of the time

Put me on the email chain: vinit1.iyer@gmail.com

Top Level

Tech>Truth, litmus test for judge intervention is very high

Don't say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, abelist etc in round - depending on the offense I will drop you

Give me the easiest way to way to vote, that means 30 sec at the top to frame the debate are key

Debate is a game at its core, but it can be other things too

Debates are often a question of impact calc, especially clash debates.

Please post round me - it is a good practice and may help clear up any issues you have with my RFD

Throwing shade is fine but crosses the line when it becomes mean - this is especially true for novices

Be respectful towards both your opponents AND your partner

CX is a powerful weapon, take that as you will

Please read arguments that you are comfortable with, my preferences are very easily overturned by good debating

Reading tricks and stupid arguments is perfectly fine and I will vote on them. If the argument is that stupid the other team should be able to answer it efficiently and if they fail to do so, I don't see how voting for them would make any sense.

LD

I have little to no topic knowledge

Most of the policy biases apply but the most important thing is that you do you. As long as your arguments are executed in the most technical manner possible I don't care what arguments you read.

As per new LD arguments that I have less familiarity with like some theory, some tricks and phil, you are going to have to explain more in depth. This doesn't mean you shouldn't read these arguments but it does mean that I will need a little longer to process them.

PF

I have little to no topic knowledge

Treat me like the most technical judge you have ever had. I don't care what arguments you read, everything is on the table (even the most squirelly arguments) as long as you technically execute them. Given that there is very little time given in PF final speeches I find collapsing down to a few arguments to be the most beneficial. Spreading is ok as long as your opponents are ok with it.

Policy

I have some topic knowledge but some intricacies might need to be explained more in depth for me

Here is my list of debates that I am most comfortable judging to least comfortable judging:

Policy v K

K v K

Policy v Policy

Preferences relating to each set of arguments:

Policy Affs vs Ks -

Neg

- Open to almost any k (including the death k if that matters)

- FW is the biggest part for me, losing FW probably means you lose

- Explanation of your theory is extremely important without too much jargon, I am not going to do the work for you

- Link articulation is VERY important, specific links are preferred but generic is also chill

- Alt needs to resolve the links if ur going for it

Aff

- Affs should prioritize extinction O/W and FW over the perm

- Affs should try their best to clash with the negs theory of power

- Affs win when they win a defense to extinction O/W, FW and some level of disproving the negs theory

FW vs Kaffs -

Neg

- Clear impact explanation and calculus is necessary

- I like education and skills more than fairness but fairness is an impact

- Use your offense to turn theirs, I don't just want you to reiterate debate is a game a billion times and hope you win

- TVA > SSD but affs don't have great defenses against SSD so take that how you will

- Very hard to win if you don't disprove their theory especially with ontology based K affs

Aff

- C/I > Straight impact turn

- I want some relation to the topic so you can provide reasons as to why your C/I is a better model for debate

- Make sure to do a lot on the impact level and try to best mitigate their impacts

- Topical Kaffs have a special place in my heart, if you are able to have a W/M and win on it I will boost your speaks

CPs

- No judge kick

- Textual competition is an asinine standard

- I don't know that much about intrinsicness so keep that in mind

- Presumption flips aff if the CP solves more than the Aff

- Theory is underutilized against this type of argument so please consider it as a valid option

DAs

- Turns case matters for me more than most - this doesn't mean turns case is an auto-win, it just means that I think you may want to spend more time on it

- Card dump > other things

Policy T

- The topic is quite big, try to have a precise definition of what you are limiting under your interpretation to exclude all ambiguity

- Make sure to actually articulate impacts, "we maintain limits" is not an impact articulation

- I need a clear story of the violation

- Competing interps vs Reasonability is debateable

K V K

- K affs getting a perm is a debate to be had

- You probably need a robust link to the aff, "we control rc" is NOT a link

- Role of the ballot = rolling my eyes

- Alternatives should probably be as robust and as concrete as possible. This means "insert jargon" is not an alternative

- Please don't drop the floating PIK

Theory

No specific thoughts except that neg teams are getting away with murder and you should capitalize on it

Perf Con can be a reason to reject certain reps arguments

Put me on the email chain please: ishan.kinikar@gmail.com

Open CX is fine

I judge novice rounds a lot and I am up to date on the novice topic.

Some quick thoughts:

Tech > Truth (as long as what you are saying isn't racist/misogynistic/homophobic/transphobic/ableist/etc)

I find myself evaluating debates using an offense-defense paradigm many times - I tend to categorize arguments as being one or the other and consider the implications on the debate from there.

Unless your CP is extremely abusive, I have a reasonably high bar for voting solely on theory - just because it's not a voter doesn’t mean it's a competitive CP (with exceptions of private actor fiat, consultations, and other similar constructs where I generally think that proving abuse is not too difficult). I enjoy creative CPs that generate competition in interesting ways and K-related CPs as well.

I’m biased towards anything under 4 condo being quite reasonable and I’m unlikely to vote on it unless it’s absolutely mishandled in that situation.

T 2NRs vs Policy Affs - These have been some of my favorite rounds while debating - I like clear execution of a strategy with one terminal impact and well fleshed out internal links down the flow. Quality > Quantity when it comes to T for me so collapsing down the flow as the debate goes on is key with me in the back.

As long as you properly explain the theory of the K, I can follow along. I am familiar with a number of K-literature bases - most familiar with identity K literature bases, but I am also comfortable with capitalism, cybernetics, academia Ks, and opacity-related ideas. The ideal 2NR in front of me against policy affs will likely be a FW heavy strategy with well-explained links but if going for the alt solves the links/aff’s impacts is your thing then don’t let me stop you. Against K affs, make sure that if you are reading a non-identity K against an identity K aff that you have solid answers to positionality and give high importance to the alt/competing strategies portion of the debate.

T vs K Aff rounds - I enjoy unorthodox K aff strategies against T (but I still won’t vote on them if they aren’t good strategies) - please do it in front of me (whether it is that your aff functions in a separate world or you have found a new framing question/theory of how debate functions in relation to the outside world). I tend to think that while fairness has an impact, I am more likely to vote on education impacts with well done internal link debating. Please engage with case as well - if you don’t go for case in the 2NR that is fine but know that as long as the K-aff’s theory of power is a major internal link to their impacts, basically unmitigated aff impacts outweighs a chance of fairness.

Things that will add speaker points: Good line-by-line, smart use of CX, top-level framing in rebuttals, 1ARs that recover after a really good block, and good strategic choices throughout the round. I also tend to reward neg blocks that make good use of analytics as opposed to reading a million nonsense cards.

Updated for states '23:

I'm Anna, she/her, freshman @ uchicago

Add me to the chain: annakozlova@uchicago.edu

Respect your opponents' pronouns (ask)

Let me know if you are having some kind of tech issues (wifi, microphone) before the round.

Background:

I debated policy for 4 years at LHS (in mass), alternating 2n/2a. Tech>truth***, I will put aside personal biases to evaluate your arguments fairly. Especially after judging a lot of LD/PF in the last year, as well as teaching PF over the summer, i've gotten more experienced with evaluating specific arguments, although I still think there is a fairly universal way to judge them, which are all outlined below.

The main TL/DR for me is the core of debate -- say what you will about tricks and silly arguments, what matters is being able to win on substance, and although I'd prefer that substance be legitimate, I just want to be able to weigh either side at the end of the round. If there is a genuine ethics issue, we can pause the round, but I don't like watching tricks debate all too much. I'm familiar with the topic for this session, and you can assume I have a good amount of background -- I'm also a history and polisci major, so make it interesting. I like K's, good case debate, interesting DAs (if you can spin them in any way as plausible), etc -- not a fan of nitpicky T or tricks debate. Clarity in your argument is critical -- you can be fast, just be clear in both speech and logic. GFW. (Also I'm a big fan of impact calc, that should be in your speech, c'mon).

No racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc -- your speaks will plummet.

*********

novpol:

tl;dr - i'm good with any argument you want to run as long as you explain it fully (especially this year, seeing as i have less experience with the topic than in previous years), i have no pref for aff or neg, i've been both a 2n and 2a at this point so i respect the hustle on both sides.

impact calc is also super important to me!

please please PLEASE tell me why your impact should be prioritized, or why your aff is more important.

use analytics - don't just rely on cards.

extend your arguments throughout the round. line by line - respond to your opponents specific arguments.

extend your arguments - keep them, your cards, etc, in the round after you read them once!

stay organized. use your time efficiently, split the block well (ask if you're not sure what this means), be polite in CX, and don't trash-talk.

i'm a more policy-leaning person in general, but i'm down for a good K or theory debate, again if you explain it fully.

GFW!

jvpol:

tl;dr - a lot of the things in this paradigm about how i evaluate arguments will still apply to you, even if you've been debating for a little while. however, if it your second or third year debating, i have higher expectations about the way you explain your off case or your aff, the way you behave during CX and before/after/during the round, and the nuance you give to all of your (and your opponents) arguments.

long:

general: be organized! since it's your first year, all that matters is for you to have fun in the round and learn a lot! good and well-setup flows not only make it easier for me as a judge to evaluate your arguments, but it also makes it easier for you to extend these arguments or respond to your opponent's arguments. also, i'm down for open CX when both partners can respond to and ask questions, but if i can clearly see one of you is talking over and controlling the other, i will not like that and will dock the more aggressive person's speaks. speaking of which, i will not tolerate partners interrupting one another during their respective speeches; i find it rude and toxic for the environment, so please be kind to one another!!! that is one of the most important things!

one of the biggest issues i see novices struggling with, especially during the packet debates, is the lack of analytics until the 2N/ARs. i think it's normal to be worried that the arguments you make off the top of your head aren't going to work, but honestly, if you're just reading cards in all of your speeches that have nothing to do with your opponents' arguments, it doesn't help you during the round. make analytics, point out if your opponent dropped an argument, tell me why you win in your own words, and explain your arguments also in your own words. super duper important for everyone, but specifically addressed to the novpol packet debates.

speaking: i'm fine with spreading, as long as you're clear. be as fast as you want, but if i stop understanding you, i will say clear, and if you don't acknowledge that through slowing down or emphasizing your words more, i will take off speaker points.

CX: i always pay attention to cross ex - you can poke a lot of holes in your opponents' arguments here, and it's just as important to stay persuasive.

case: i enjoy a good case debate; as long as the arguments all interact with one another and you're not just reading random blocks that have nothing to do with the 1AC, we'll be all good! weigh your impacts, defend your 1AC, and extend your authors from the 1AC! they do not disappear when you go into your 2AC and 1AR, so use them!!!

especially with the packet, i find that novices avoid analytics, any arguments that don't have cards, and extending their cards into the 2AC and the rest of their speeches. it feels like a waste of reading cards, for one thing, it's less persuasive, it makes your life harder, it's less educational... overall just extend your cards and arguments! make analytics! take risks! i cannot emphasize this enough (and yes, it's in my paradigm twice, that's how important i find this).

also, your arguments need to be there throughout the round if you genuinely want me to evaluate them - if you say something in your 1AC/2AC but do not bring it up back up until the 2AR (or 1NC and 2NR), i can't vote on it.

do impact calculus! it's great practice and it's super helpful to me to evaluating your case.

disads - i like disads as an argument, although i might not be able to buy politics DAs like elections or senate after the election, but other than that, i'm down for a good story. make sure that the link chain to the affirmative is clearly outlined in the 1NC, and that the impact calculus is there. weigh! your! impacts! explain to me why your impact is larger, more probable, or more imminent, and why it's more important! this is crucial in winning the DA - otherwise, i can't evaluate why your disad should be prioritized.

counterplans - i'm a big fan of counterplans (if they're competitive, but that's up for debate :)). speaking of competition, i come in with no bias about any types of counterplans. aff, if you want to convince me the counterplan text isn't competitive, convince me. neg, if you want to win the counterplan, give me a clear story of how it works, why it solves better than the affirmative, the internal/external net benefits, otherwise i can't vote on it. i don't have much to say about the more policy-leaning arguments, mostly because i'm more experienced with them, and want to let you have free rein with them!

kritiks - i've been mainly policy for my high school years, meaning i'm not well versed in most k literature (except for more policy ones, like the capitalism kritik). however, like i mentioned above, i'm down for any argument, as long as you're able to explain it well. i want to make sure you can clearly articulate links and your alternative, as well as your framework, etc. if i can tell you're just reading blocked out k's from varsity members, i'm less inclined to vote for you. as well as that, interact! with! the! 1AC! even though you're running a k that basically just says "aff bad for x complicated reason", you need to do case debate! running an argument parallel to the aff doesn't produce anything within the round. LINK DEBATE: i also really prefer specific links over generic links, although if you can spin the generic link nicely, i will like that as well. ON THE ALT DEBATE: pleeeease explain your alt to me very clearly. alts are often extremely questionable (to put it nicely), so if you're advocating for it and you go for it, make sure we all understand it. thank you!

k-affs: like i mentioned, i'm not super educated in k literature, and especially k-affs. i absolutely will not pretend that i fully understand your aff from just the 1AC, so please! explain it to me like i'm a parent judge or someone who has never interacted with a k aff, even though i have. i'm also not the biggest fan of them, but if you can somehow convince me my ballot can do something outside of the round, then i may vote on it. i personally do not believe that my ballot has any role other than determining who wins/loses the round simply because of the nature of debate (and how many times you've read the k aff before my round - what makes me unique?). if there is a performance/song/whatever in your 1AC, use that throughout the round if you can, although i'm not exactly sure how it works (again - k aff dumdum, so if your aff is a k-aff, i will be reasonably lenient in your arguments). if you run a tva/fw, explain it to me, be very clear, etc. same as with all arguments, make sure you understand it beforehand, and aren't reading straight down whatever file the varsity folks gave you.

framework - framework! i enjoy framework on the neg, i think it's an important part of debate, and i love a good framework debate with interacting arguments on both sides. explain your interp to me, standards, etc. for the neg - when you're running a K, make sure you explain to me why your framework ISN'T self serving, because often times, i find that it is. other than that, go crazy, i'll happily judge whatever you put in front of me! again, this is super important: understand your arguments! as first years, you gotta know what you're doing so you can learn from the round.

theory/t - this is another argument i'm not the most familiar with, but just like the K, explain it very well. i think fairness is an internal link to education, not that it's an impact, but try to convince me otherwise. i like a good t debate, give me your interp and a case list (underrated!), or a counterinterp, reasons to prefer, etc. i don't really hold a bias about precision vs specificity, so feel free to convince me. i will buy any argument as long as you explain and understand it!

overall, i just want you guys to have fun and learn a lot. as first/second year debaters, all that really matters is that you get educational experience in a respectful and fun way, especially in debate, which is such a challenging yet rewarding activity. i was one of you once, so i will be extremely nice within the round, whether that be if you have a question for me, or are having technical difficulties. no prep time will be taken from you if your wifi glitches out, or your document crashes, because i completely understand! GFW!

nLD/nPF:

i don't debate in these events, but i'm very familiar with the topic for this month as well as general arguments so i can still judge well. i have plenty of experience with judging and teaching PF, but LD is where i lack a little bit (so if you have any arguments that aren't linear, like some forms of tricks, flesh out really well). since i debate in policy, please make sure to lay out the story of your aff/neg or pro/con position very clearly - i value impact weighing a LOT, especially in PF and LD. explain to me why your impacts are more important, whether that be due to your framing, your "solvency", or otherwise. you also need to be able to flesh out, or really thoroughly explain, the chain of events that you're defending. however, i may not understand all of the nuances of a debate like LD if you read tricky arguments, which is something to take into account. i will be able to give an educational rfd (my style is speech-by-speech), because i've seen a lot of these rounds and i've been involved in debate for years, so the round will be productive for you. and good luck have fun! p.s. if any of the policy args apply to you, and i'm assuming they do, take that info!

so...you've read to the end of my paradigm. very impressive!! here's my speak increase/decrease chart:

note: i will not significantly change your speaker points from what i think you deserve - if i think you got a 28 (including some of these things, because some of these you do implicitly and i think they ought to contribute to your final speaker points), i cannot boost you up to a 28.5 or 28.7, but i can give you up to a 28.2 of additional points when you make purposeful changes to how you debate based on my boosters.

28.5 is what i am adjusting from throughout the round.

+0.1 if you post my email without asking me on the email chain - this lets me know you read my paradigm, or at least am aware that i have one, which is a good practice to encourage.

+0.1 if you make a funny new england joke

+0.1-0.3 if you talk to me about any of the things i listed i enjoy - it's nice to know you're human and not just a face on NSDA campus :) (this depends on how entertaining i find your comments)

+0.1 if you show me your neat flows after the round! like i said, organization during a round is super important, and i think encouraging organized flows is crucial in furthering your debate career.

+0.2 if you're nice to your opponents before, during, and after the round - good sportsmanship is so crucial, especially in these crazy times, so be respectful people! don't interrupt a lot in cross ex, don't talk over one another, no personal attacks, no post rounding, no angry facial expressions, etc.

+0.2-4 if you ask me thoughtful questions about the round, ask about how you could have run an argument better, ask about the details about my decision, etc. it's important that you improve, and getting detailed feedback other than just the RFD is incredibly useful! i'll love you taking initiative.

-0.7 at least if you're racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, before, during, or after your round - i will tolerate absolutely none of this, and while this might not influence my decision by a lot, it will drastically affect your speaker points.

-0.2 if you bash your previous opponents in the round, are rude within the round, scream at your opponents, etc - show proper etiquette and sportsmanship in debate, this is just as important as any arguments you make.

-0.3 if you read arguments such as "trigger warnings bad" or are insensitive to your opponents' triggers - i have been in a similar situation where i had a panic attack due to an aff not putting any tw at the top and could barely debate for the rest of the round. it's a personal issue for me, so please, be understanding.

-0.1 for each time you purposefully misgender your opponents - it's plain rude.

***tech>truth: this is a difficult call to make, because making horrible arguments and banking on them just because your opponent didn't answer it doesn't win you a round. however, regardless of whether or not your opponent makes those kinds of arguments, you still need to respond to them - even though i value the truth of an argument (like space lasers or aliens? no thank you), i'm still going to weigh it even if it's really out there, and if the other team manages to convince me that there is a unique and important reason that they should win the round because you didn't sufficiently answer their albeit obscure argument, it'll be even more important. this is specifically true in policy debate, and occasionally in LD, but in all kinds of debate, i honestly believe that using racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc within a round should cost you the ballot, even if your opponents didn't say more than "this is racist and that's bad, here's why". so all in all, i value tech and truth very similarly, but depending on the round, one will take priority over the other. so just answer all your opponent's arguments, don't be racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/etc, and be thorough with your arguments!

Crystal

She/Her

Add me to the email chain please: crystall1663@gmail.com

Hi! I'm Crystal. I am a 4th year high school policy debater. I am a 2N so I will be sympathetic to FW and T arguments. Besides that, I'm open to most arguments. Just try your best and be nice! Be sure to explain things during the debate for the sake of me and your opponents. If you're a novice I encourage you not to run super complicated Ks because you will trip yourself up. Overall, I will give everyone high speaks for a good and engaging debate. Some points that I will be considering when making my decisions are:

General:

Tech>Truth

In my opinion cards are not responsive— that's your job. You need to extend and apply your evidence, just reading them makes the debate stale.

Judge instruction - Tell me why you win. I can't read minds so I might interpret things differently and put together arguments in a way that disadvantages you. If you tell me why you win, then I will be able to understand how you want me to see things.

If you’re pressed for time here’s a TLDR: I am pretty much open to all arguments, if you are running an obscure one be sure to understand it yourself and explain it clearly. I like debates with a ton of clash so if you manage that in a debate your speaker points will be pretty high. Have some sort of judge instruction in your last speeches, it helps make sure that I am not misinterpreting your situation in round. Don't be harmful to other people in your round. If it was unintentional be sure to apologize, your speaker points will decrease but I will not vote against you for accidentally saying it. If you continue to be rude on purpose I will vote against you.

Now onto the long stuff. . .

Aff:

Extending Aff solvency - I think the Aff sometimes gets caught up in the Neg's arguments and forgets to extend their own solvency. Without a good reason why your case solves there is no reason for me to vote Aff. Even if you prove that the Neg doesn't have any solvency either, that just means I buy the squo is better than the world of the aff..

Answering T/FW - If your opponent makes these arguments, answer them because it could cost you the debate.

K Affs - Just know how to run a K well. Don't go for a K you have no practice in and don't understand. Generally I am open to K offs as long as the lit is explained well.

1ar - You can read cards in the 1ar. But I strongly recommend you limit it to one or two. It is better to extend cards you already read or respond to your opponents.

Neg:

Extend Case - Don't forget to answer case. Just because you have other arguments don't drop case. I will vote Aff if they have extended case and proven that they solve. If the Aff solves better than the Neg there is no reason for me to vote Neg.

New 1ar arguments - If you tell me not to consider new arguments in the 1ar I will listen to you. But that’s up to you.

Other general stuff is just being nice during CX and speeches. Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, trans phobic and ableist. I'm not a fan of death good. Talk clearly and loudly but don't interrupt others. Be sure to time yourself and don't try to steal prep. Good luck and have fun!

Email: atulhari@gmail.com - Please put me on the email chain.

Lexington High School - Class of 2023

Dartmouth College - Class of 2027 (Not debating)

Email chain should be titled as follows:

Tournament name Round number --- Aff team [Aff] vs. Neg team [Neg]

E.g. Big Lex Round 6 --- Lexington HV [Aff] vs. Lexington TK [Neg]

Big Lex Update

Assume I have zero topic knowledge. We're probably going to have a better time if the topic-related jargon is explained within the debate. I've also found myself getting increasingly frustrated at the lack of strategic vision in rounds, and this is reflected in the speaker points I give. Do what you to do and do it well. I have a high threshold for argument development and strategy when giving out good speaks.

Princeton Update

Competitive policy debater in High School, qualled to the TOC junior and senior year reading mostly Policy/LARP mixed with an occasional kritik. I won't have a problem evaluating your arguments but assume I have zero topic knowledge. If you choose to run tricks, run them creatively/properly. If you run them badly/abusively, I won't be too happy. Most of my paradigm is applicable, so feel free to read through it and ask me any questions.

TLDR:

Tech>Truth

I'm down to evaluate basically any argument. My high school career consisted of exclusively policy on the aff, and reasonably flex on the neg. Good debating will most certainly overcome any argumentative bias you may think I have.

Long version:

I'll give my thoughts on a bunch of off-case and rate how my affinity toward them

CP

I love a well-crafted CP that is part of a bigger strategy. 6 plank advantage CPs? Not so much. Also not the biggest fan of contrived process CPs. Process CPs that are worded smartly and executed well are a joy to watch but it's been a bit tiring seeing the same CPs recycled for 3 straight years. As a result, I love to evaluate a competition debate.

An underutilized aspect of CP debates is the internal net benefit. If the aff mitigates the INB enough, I can be persuaded on aff outweighs and if the neg explains the INB enough, INB outweighs becomes a dangerous strategy.

Aff-specific solvency advocates and clear opportunity costs are ideal.

DA:

Love em. As a 2A, I had my fair share of DA 1NRs so I have thought a lot about its strategic purpose. If you read a contrived DA, link articulation and contextualization is almost as valuable as the cards themselves. Turns case and impact weighing are often too shallow and definitely need to be a core part of your strategy.

I would obviously prefer a topic-specific DA to politics, but I am more receptive to the latter than most.

On the aff, cheaty DAs can be easily beaten by smart analytics. Take that approach with me in the back. Smart analytics > Nonsensical cards.

T

Not against it. T subsets was a core negative strat senior year so I would say I recognize the purpose of T. Approach T like you would approach any other argument - With an offense/defense paradigm.

I'll probably be less receptive to new 2ar extrapolation - If you got caught lackin, you got caught lackin

Critiques on the neg:

Probably more receptive towards the K than my background may indicate. I'm probably more stringent toward link specificity than most. Permutations are underutilized by aff teams. Aff teams should probably respond to K tricks.

Critical affirmatives vs. Framework

I was always on the FW side of these debates but that doesn't mean I am not a "bad" judge for Kaffs. Presumption-level arguments by the negative are valued higher but the neg is probably in a tough position if they concede the aff's theory of power.

KvK

I have only debated in one of these rounds in my career so I don't have a lot of experience with these types of debates. I am probably on the side of no perms in a KvK debate but can be convinced otherwise.

Misc:

• Condo is probably good unless you can prove in-round abuse.
• Read my fair share of memes in high school so I won't be opposed to seeing them read in round. If you do read them, you need to actually be able to defend/extend the arguments.
• Please make a joke about Jeffrey He or praise the Green Bay Packers in your speech. It will make me happy.

hi! my name is michelle, i go by she/her pronouns, and if you're reading this i'm probably judging you soon whoa! please add michellewu7154@gmail.com to the email chain

*for novices: novice year is all abt learning so if there's anything you want to work on specifically, let me know before the round

tldr:

- be clear, organized, and explain your arguments

- weigh and compare args, write my ballot for me

- time yourself and keep track of your own prep

- be nice, make the round a safe and fun learning environment

- you do you, but i'm not the most experienced in high theory ks or other strange theory

abt me:

- currently a freshman in college,

- i've done policy debate since freshman year and ran policy strategies

about the debate:

- a complete argument has a claim, warrants, and impact (all are important but most people will forget warrants and not use impacts)

- i shall say this many times, please weigh your arguments and do comparisons with your opponent's arguments (it helps me make a decision and it'll make ur debates much more in depth and fun). don't just say we have a higher probability, magnitude, or timeframe, explain why and how they interact with each other on both sides

- tech > truth (this means i will look at the arguments on the flow and what has been said, not what is my or your personal opinion. you should point dropped args and explain why they're important for you. that being said, i will not value "tech" if it is racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or in any way disrespectful because that wouldn't be very cash money of you please use ur best judgement)

- clarity > speed

- organization!! tell me which arguments you're responding to/extending and when you switch flows. please roadmap before you start your speech, which is telling me the order of flows in your speech, and sign post during your speech, which is labeling the points you're talking about

- write my ballot for me! this takes lots of practice but make your last speeches big picture, tell me what are the most important points from the round, and what i should care about. before you start the 2NR or 2AR, ask yourself "why are we winning this debate" and your answer should be the first sentence of the speech

- did someone say impact calc? did someone say evidence comparison? did someone say weighing across multiple flows? :0 yes indeed i said it (key word: outweighs)

for ld

i've judge a couple ld rounds, but i'm still unfamiliar with some jargons or ld-specific theory. i can flow your arguments, but i might need a little more explanation.

good luck and have fun!!

Please add me to email chains: tianyicyang@outlook.com

pronouns: he/him

Tech > truth. I abhor when judges interject their own personal beliefs into their RFDs (with the exception of when teams make arguments that are racist, sexist, transphobic, ableist, etc).

Top Level:

The below bullet point list summarizes my broader view of debate arguments.

Now a couple of things that will make me happy that I wish novices did more often -

1. Impact calculus and ballot framing in the 2NR/2AR is mandatory - not doing so forces me to intervene/make assumptions about your arguments. In sum, tell me why I should vote for you at the top of your speech.

2. Line by line refutation is mandatory - anything else makes decisions really messy and makes it really easy for me to forget key arguments that you want me to evaluate - THE CHANCE THAT I MAKE A DECISION YOU DON’T LIKE GOES UP SUBSTANTIALLY IF YOU DO NOT DO CLEAR LINE BY LINE

3. SIGNPOSTING IS IMPORTANT - jumping between flows sporadically without indicating that you are doing so is super annoying - I will definitely lower your speaks if you do this

4. DON’T DROP THINGS JUST BECAUSE YOU DON’T KNOW HOW TO ANSWER THEM -It sucks that you’re facing a new argument that you’ve never seen before, but taking some prep time to figure out how to answer it is better than straight up dropping it and hoping the other team will forget they ever read the argument.

4. Clarity is a must - if you said something incoherently, I won’t have it on my flow.

5. Road maps before speeches are mandatory

Other Things:

1. Open Cx is fine

2. Please do not be rude to your partner or your opponents - being rude will be bad for your speaks

3. Please do not steal prep. If I notice that you are doing so excessively I will dock speaks. I understand that sometimes speech docs take forever to send out or save, so I'll try to be flexible.

4. Be confident! This will perceptually help you, and increase your speaks.

5. You can read basically any type of argument in front of me. On the neg, I've gone for DAs, CPs, Ks, T, impact turns, and various procedurals. On the aff, I've read soft-left affs, hard-right affs, and K-affs.

Here are some specific notes on types of argument:

DAs: I’m fine with politics DAs, I go for them all the time. @aff teams, you can often make bad DAs from the neg go away with a few smart analytics. You don’t need cards to point out that something is utter incoherent nonsense.

CPs: I love CPs that are from the aff's solvency advocate because they show that you (or someone on your team) actually read their ev. I'm fine with process CPs, but I'm even better for tricky perms. I’m also fine with generics like states, especially b/c there is basically 0 core neg ground on the water topic.

Ks on the neg: I'm alright with these, I'm most familiar with setcol and the cap K so with any other Ks a little bit more explaining will have to be done especially on the link level for me to vote for them. I do think that neg teams should win a specific link to the aff.

K affs: I probably won't judge a Kaff round, but just in case, I'll put some thoughts here. The most important thing in framework debates is impact calc - I need to know how I prioritize impacts and arguments. For K v K aff rounds, the aff probably gets a perm (no perms in a method debate never made much sense to me unless it’s dropped).

Topicality: The smaller the aff is, the more receptive I am going to be towards topicality arguments. I do think that reasonability is often a compelling argument IF EXECUTED CORRECTLY (especially when the T-interp is arbitrary), so T should probably not be your A-strat vs borderline topical affs unless you have nothing better to say (which, given the water topic, is an understandable situation to be in).

Theory (not including topicality) - My threshold for voting for theory is high-ish (I think reasonability or non-res theory bad tend to be quite persuasive against many theory arguments), but if they drop theory and you point that out and extend your argument I will vote for you.

Soft Left Affs: I've read these a bit, so I understand their appeal. However, I think that soft left affs are often run badly. Yes, your argument is probably true, but that doesn’t mean it merits a ballot if its not debated well. For example, a lot of soft-left teams say "conjunctive fallacy means no DA" and then proceed to poorly answer the DA, and that won't really work in front of me most of the time. I can definitely be convinced that the DA is so asinine that I should vote aff, but I won't reduce the DA for you.

Public Forum Specific:

I did policy debate in high school, not PF, so my experience in this area is quite limited. Haven't been in the debate space since April of last year so it'll take a bit of time to get used to how things are again. Most arguments should be fine but if you think I might have trouble understanding something make sure to explain it more in detail in your speeches.