arushadabalar@gmail.com

Topshelf

- I'm fine w speed but slow down on interps and analytics

- Default to comparative worlds over truth testing.

LARP

This is what I'm most familiar with. I have read counterplans, disads, PICs, etc. and am comfortable voting for any of them. In these debates, clear weighing between impacts and strong evidence comparison are what are most likely to win my ballot.

Ks:

A good Kritik has three things in my opinion: a framing argument/ROB that frames why I should prioritize the impacts of the Kritik, link specific to the plan, and an alternative that I can easily understand and that actually does something. I primarily went for the cap K, and soft left affirmatives from time to time, but am comfortable evaluating most Ks, unless they involve high theory. However, I will have a high brightline for the explanation of the K.

T/Theory:

Prob won't vote on dumb theory arguments but comfortable evaluating t debates. I think 2 condo is fine but ill vote on the theory argument. above 3 condo, I'll prob err aff. I default drop the debater, competing interps, no RVI’s. If shell is frivolous, I'll lean other way.

Phil:

I went for phil sometimes in highschool, and I think phil debates are actually fun. However, I prefer phil arguments will a few well explained and carded warrants rather than a bunch of blippy warrants.

Tricks:

I have a very high threshold for voting on these.

Yes I'd like to be on the email chain: grapevinelddocs@gmail.com

Updated as of 2/2/22

NLD Paradigm

Argumentation

1. I'm fine with traditional arguments, plans, counterplans (no PICs though), and disads. Please don't run K's, non-T affs, or theory in novice. They have no educational value in a round where your opponent (and maybe even you) probably doesn't understand the literature/structure of the argument. A one-sided round isn't a round, it's a monologue.

2. If you're going to spread, be sure your opponent is okay with it. Ask them in front of me or it didn't happen.

3. I don't like conditional counterplans. I'll vote on one if I absolutely have to but your speaks will suffer.

Ways to win

1. Be sure to crystallize your speeches and give voters!! It makes the round a lot easier to evaluate and will help with the organization of your speech as well. Make it really clear why you deserve my ballot.

2. When you're extending your offense, don't just say the author name, actually give warrants as to why your argument is true.

3. When discussing impacts, use impact weighing! A lot of times, debaters tend to discuss their impacts like two ships passing in the night, simply repeating their impact and saying it's better without actually weighing it against their opponent's. Tell me why your argument outweighs using specific language (magnitude, timeframe, probability, etc.)

4. Always contest opposing frameworks. Frameworks are the medium through which I view the round. It's quite difficult to win the round whilst operating under a framework your impacts aren't meant to be evaluated under.

5. Signpost where you're going to go on the flow! Give the order before the speech and be sure to slow down to signify what you're going to be discussing next during the speech. (Ex. "now, onto the neg page, on contention one...")

6. TIME YOURSELVES PLEASE. I think unmuting to interrupt someone who has gone over time is awkward and I don't like doing it. If you don't time yourselves and I have to tell you when to stop speaking, I will be sad.

Speaker Points

1. I think speaks are pretty arbitrary because there's no real, universal scale for evaluation, so I will try to give speaks from 27-30. If you get lower, it's because you were problematic/rude.

2. On that note, if you're rude to your opponent or make the debate space unsafe, I will tank your speaks and possibly even vote you down. Just be a nice person.

3. If you make a Marvel reference in your speech I'll give you +.2 speaks

4. Asking good CX questions will also bump your speaks!

5. If you say "cold conceded" or "it's game over for them" or any iteration of those two phrases I will put my head down on my desk in sorrow and then decrease your speaks by .2.

6. I don't disclose speaks please don't ask

If you have any questions about the round or about debate in general, feel free to ask! Contact me at dropsofgold479@gmail.com :)

Structured, Introduction, description and conclusion

Flow should be logical and connecting to each other

All points should be fact based with source information

Arguments should be based on facts

Emphasize the key points in the speech

Please add me to the email chain: grapevinelddocs@gmail.com

Last updated 2/4/22

General info

I'm a varsity debater at Grapevine High School, and have been debating for four years. I am cool with basically anything, just don't be rude and don't read anything you don't understand. Some things that really help me decide who to give the ballot at the end of the round are as followed:

1. Impact weigh: Give me reasons to prefer your impact based on timeframe, magnitude, probability, etc. Don't simply extend the impact without telling me why.
2. Voters: In your last speech tell me why you win, what arguments on the flow are important, and the impacts which you solve for. This helps me as a judge know what is important and what I should be looking at when the round ends.
3. Extend: Throughout your speeches (other than your first speech) you should be looking to extend your arguments throughout the round, and try to focus on only a few main arguments during your last speech. Don't waste time trying to cover absolutely everything, but extend what you think can win you the round, and tell me the weight that it holds when you extend it.

Ks

I love kritiks, but they shouldn't be read in novice. I'll vote on it, but it'll reflect in your speaks.

Theory

I personally don't like theory too much, as it can get extremely abusive extremely fast. I'll still vote on it if your opponent is being abusive, but if you read anything like the ABCs or random theory shells that don't apply to the round at all I'll most likely tank your speaks, so just don't do it. (No frivolous theory please)

Phil

I'm not up to date on super specific literature, but anything like Baudrillard, bifo, Kant, etc. I will vote on.

Spreading

Spreading is fine with me, go as fast as you like, but please signpost (ie. say next or something similar when moving onto the next card). This helps both myself and your opponent so they actually understand what you are saying, don't try and spread your opponent out of the round or I'll drop your speaks.

Breakdown

Tricks - Don't read them, period.
Ks - 1
Trad - 1
T - 2
Phil - 2
Theory - 3
High Theory - 4

if you make an anime reference in your round ill give you .2 speaks

Include me on the email chain please: jessie.pein@duke.edu. I really prefer speech drop tho.

Hey! I'm Jessie Pein. I debated for Harrison High School in Harrison, New York. I primarily debated on the national TOC circuit, but I am also familiar with traditional debate (attended both NCFL nationals and NSDA nationals '21). I qualified to the TOC junior year and senior year, broke my junior year, and I have 11 career bids. I worked at both NSD Philly and NSD Flagship this past summer. I mostly read topical Ks, soft left affs, and some T/Theory; but I'd strongly prefer if you debated your best layer, the way you'd like to (and will be disappointed if you read something just because you think I'll like it). I will evaluate almost every argument as long as it has a claim, warrant, and an impact. Be kind, show respect to the activity, and most importantly, have fun reading what you want to read! Additionally, feel free to email me after round!

Harvard Update '24: I won't vote on music related theory. If I can't hear you, I can't flow you, so this is more for you then it is for me.

Shortcut:

1. Ks
2. Phil
3. Theory
4. Policy/Tricks

Random:

I have learned to appreciate a good skep/determinism 2NR. This doesn't mean you should auto read this argument; I am just noting that my debating history might lead you to believe I do not evaluate these arguments, which is untrue.

I am definitely the worst judge for a policy vs. policy debate or a heavy tricks round.

Novice rounds:

1. weigh. your. impacts. please. novice rounds get irresolvable super quickly, so using weighing in your speeches is necessary (probability, magnitude, etc.)

2. signpost! please tell me when you're extending your arguments, or when your responding to your opponent's. if you're responding to the AC, tell me that's what you're doing.

3. give voters! write my ballot for me. if you're giving the 2AR, respond to their voters and interact.

4. do not steal prep. if i see you're stealing prep, i will say something.

Basically, just do what you're good at. Keep me entertained. Happy debating!

If you have any questions about anything written here, please don't be afraid to ask! Debating as a novice can be scary, so i'll try to provide as much feedback as possible in my RFDs. also, +.1 speaker points if the email chain/speech drop is ready to be sent ahead of time.

I have been in debate for three years, however, I only have a background in PF. To win my ballot you must adapt to that style of debate and explain your arguments more than you are likely used to.

I would prefer an email chain to send all speech docs- zekestalnaker17@gmail.com

I am a communications teacher (I was never a debater) therefore I focus more on the educational aspect of the debate. Please do not assume that I understand all debate terminology and techniques. I need you to educate and persuade me through organized speeches and clear explanations.