Hi!!

As of 5/12/2022, I am a Junior at West High School. 

I debate in pf and am fine-ish with some spreading.

I am tech over truth in debates. One mini-exception is public forum: the point of pf is to be convincing, so I factor speaking demeanor into pf rounds. 

Email: seijidebate[at]gmail[dot]com

Top Level:

West High School SLC '24

Harvard ‘28

Call me "Seiji" [say-G]. Pronouns: he/him/his

Title the subject of the email chains: [Tournament Name] [Round Number] AFF [School Name] vs NEG [School Name]

I am colorblind. I can't see blue highlighting.

No PDFs.

I prefer to watch a good debate I have less experience with than watch a bad debate where teams try to appeal to my preferences. "I begin evaluating almost every debate by listing out all the impacts made in the 2NR and 2AR and then determine the degree to which each team gets access to the fullest extent of those impacts by parsing out the rest of the debate. After, I'll weigh these impacts by deciding what the implications of winning each of them are (defaulting to and prioritizing the comparative metrics forwarded by the debaters in the round) and then usually have a good idea of who I believe should win." - Kenji Aoki. Good debating, line-by-line, impact calc, etc. will all minimize the intervention I have to do and help with me evaluating args I have less experience with. Dropped args still need claims and warrants extended.

KAFFs/Framework:

KAFFs usually get the perm but I hold a high threshold for how it is explained, especially when you're trying to moot/shield links. I'm open to NEG interpretations of how the perm should be theoretically evaluated beyond just "a test of competition."

Fairness can or can’t be an impact. Winning it's an "intrinsic good" requires you to win a prescriptive - not just descriptive - reason as to why debate should be a game, which is why I'm more convinced with explanations as to how fairness is a necessary internal link to the educational value of debate and why both sides require it for their impacts.

Clash needs to be explained comparatively between the two models of debate. I think the most convincing explanation of clash as an impact is how it implicates skills.

Any NEG case debating should implicate AFF solvency for their potential impact turns and/or become offense for why discourse around your interp is good.

Topicality:

I tend to give greater weight to cards that define the word in a holistic context, not just use it in a sentence or for a specific purpose, article, or court case, UNLESS that specificity matters in the debate.

I like impacts like limits and ground to be contextualized to how the topic operates, i.e. what is the core controversy of the topic and what arguments (ground) are necessary for external educational-related impacts.

Counterplans:

All CPs are fair game and competitive until proven otherwise.

I default to judge kick, but I'm open to a 2AR that pushes back on judge kick if 'perm shields'/'links to the net benefit' is a core part of the strategy, especially if the 2NR doesn't have defense of judge kick.

Sufficiency framing doesn't always apply to the AFF's impacts that are yes/no questions. I also prefer it be contextualized to the internal links at least by the 2NR AND why 'sufficiently' solving outweighs the specific AFF deficits.

The more specific the solvency advocate, the better. If you have a really good and specific card that says the 50 states can solve the specific mechanism/area of the plan, I am more likely to err NEG on substance and theory than if the AFF only dumps 3 generic topic fed key warrants.

0 solvency is possible (this applies to the AFF too).

Disadvantages:

You do you.

0 risk of an impact is possible.

Being late breaking in these debates (not reading a terminal/uniqueness in the 1NC) just makes me a lot more lenient on new 1AR and 2AR answers.

Kritiks:

Contextualized overviews are very cool. Super long overviews are not.

Links that are able to pull lines from the 1AC/2AC or rehighlight their cards are very good and help me better evaluate the link debate.

Whatever happens on the framework debate will obviously dictate how I evaluate rhetoric links but I'm more inclined to evaluate them if it's in the tag of a card/said in a highlighted portion, speech, or CX and less inclined to evaluate them when it's a rehighlighting of the 1AC's shrunken text or anything similar.

Your framework interp should probably moot the AFF and have links that interact with how case is framed in terms of impact calculus and solvency. If you're going for the alt, you should probably just scrap framework and engage the AFF on the level of materiality with the links OR have a framework interp that enables you to abusively fiat solvency. I want to know what the alt does at the end of the round.

Plan pre-round what you want your 2NR to look like based on which part of the K works best against your opponent's AFF (framework/alt).

Speaks:

I use the tournament's metric that they give me.

Here is the template I use if they don't give me one:

<27: you did something ethically wrong (clipping, discrimination, etc.)

27.5-27.8: you're probably a 0-6/1-5 bracket

27.9-28.2: you're probably in 1-5/2-4 bracket

28.3-28.6: you're probably in the 3-3 bracket

28.7-29.0: you're probably in the 4-2 bracket.

29.1-29.4: you're probably going to make it to early/mid elims

29.5-29.8: you're going to late elims

29.9-30.0: you're winning the tournament

Hey guys!

First of all, you are awesome for doing speech and debate, and I wish that I had gotten involved this early!

Second of all, I am a junior in high school have been doing Oratory and Lincoln Douglas debate for all three years. In oratory, I got second place at state last year and fourth this year. In Lincoln Douglas, I was last year's state champion, and I am a two-time national qualifier (I was also a national finalist last year).

For speeches, please be clear in your points and please feel free to provide background information and stories to support that point. For speeches specifically, presentation is really important. Make sure to have emotion when you talk and convince me about what you are talking about. It should also be clear that you care about what you're talking about.

For debates, I am okay with some aggression, but don't be mean (there is a difference!). While I will probably be able to understand if you talk quickly, i feel like it is unfair to your opponent if you talk so fast that they can't understand you, so make sure to talk slowly enough that your opponent can understand.

Thanks!

LD: In order to win, I'm looking for strong value and criteria that tie into all your contentions. Although evidence isn't more important than logic and morals, you need to have evidence to support that logic.

Policy: Evidence is key. All your arguments should be backed up by evidence. Whoever completes the burden better will win.

OO: Speak clearly and avoid filler words. Your story should be interesting enough to keep me entertained for the few minutes you are speaking.

Extemp: Use whatever evidence you can. If you only find quotes, use those. If you find numbers, use those. Make sure your arguments make sense and are relevant to your topic.

Overall, if I can't understand you, I can't judge you on it. Do not be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. Any of those things will decrease your chances of winning.

I was involved with debate in high school for two years where I completed in Public Forum debate and several speech events. I have spent the last 8 years working with various high schools with their programs, and judging at multitude of tournaments during those years. I have also been a tournament director for over 30 tournaments, and am currently an assistant coach at the school I teach at. I am a more traditional judge overall, but I have no issues with progressive and spreading as long as it is meaningful to the debate. I want clash between sides, and I want good coherent arguments with evidence and reason. Make sure you are directing your claims to the judge and that I understand what you are talking about. Organization is key for me and you should have and order to what you are saying. Impact calculus is the key thing for me overall though, tell me why your argument works, the probability, and the impact. Good luck to both sides.

I judged many years of debate and IE events except policy. I can handle any speed but do not like the speed of progressive policy. Every event has its rules and structures, I like road map and framework, they help a lot to see whether the person or the team is sticking with their flow.

LD, l look for things that whether the value and value criterion line up with their contentions. Evidence credible or not. Speaker has the fire along their speech or argments but not sound yelling?

PF, team needs to know their topic well. Time management on speech whether things are well organized by FW or flow, evidence always important in PF. Wrong information under my knowledge, definitely out some points from me. Plan should not be spending time during in PF, it is not policy event. Speaker point should be high with high convincing tone and voice but not yelling.

Please do not spend time in rule argument, I want hear your opinions on the topic!

Hey besties!

I am currently a junior and state champ for international extemp and PF captain. I love speech and debate very much and know the rules well. I have competed in most events, but I stick to PF to extemp.

I WANT TO SEE PASSION

DEBATE: I have immense respect for LD'ers and love watching LD rounds because I could never. I have never done policy, but I will be doing it next year so show me a good round! I will be flowing and expect an organization. Run something traditional or absolutely insane, I love both. I'm more traditional in debate, but convince me! In your speeches tell me why you should win! I will drop every claim that isn't supported by evidence. I will ask for cards if needed. 

SPEECH: I love love extemp and expect lots of evidence CITED CORRECTLY PLEASE. Oratory is always an adventure. I love to hear unique stories. Organization is key. Give me a good hook! Keep me engaged. 

I'm excited for you all! GOOD LUCK!!!

Hey besties! 

I am currently a junior in high school and speech captain of my team. I love speech and debate and have done it for 4 years. I have a solid background in multiple events: my main debate event is LD (2 years), and I also do impromptu and occasionally foreign extemp (if i feel like it lol). I have also competed in oratory, congress, public forum, and a couple more events that are irrelevant (KIDDING HAHA)... 

Here is what I am looking for in rounds:

For debate:

• Feel free to run whatever you want! I am more traditional than progressive when it comes to debate, but please, enlighten me. If you are running a K or counterplan, just make it make sense :)
• I. LOVE. IMPACTS. Tell me why your arguments matter. Explain the actual effects of what you are advocating for/against,, what's the significance behind it?
• Evidence is a must. Without evidence, your argument holds no ground. 
• I am good with speed, as long as you are clear and concise. 
• Be passionate but kind!

For speech:

• Make it passionate and entertaining
• Tone, eye contact, clarity
• Organization is key!!!

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask !!!

IE/Speech: Please make sure you are a clear speaker and keep a good pace (ex. not rushing or going too slow just to fill time) and that your speech is structured appropriately for your event. Be engaging and interesting! I love to see confidence and passion in a round. If your event allows you to add in personal elements please do so, and don't be afraid to properly emote while presenting. (Impromptu speeches that are well structured will rank higher in round)

Debates: Be polite in round, I understand that debate sometimes gets heated but you still must be cordial to your opponents. You are attacking their case, not them. Try your best to use neutral pronouns (they/them) and do not look at your opponents during cross.

I value structure and the flow of the argument, rounds will be decided on whichever argument makes the most logical sense depending on the debate format and which side counters their opponents better and more clearly. Make sure that you attack down the flow and in order, as it keeps your rebuttal speeches organized and it helps me give you better feedback.

Experience: I was primarily a Congressional debater, I also participated in Public Forum, Impromptu, and Extemp (Foreign and National). I have learned the formatting for the other IE’s and debates throughout my time in debate which is why correct structure is valued highly in round.

TL;DR Do whatever makes you comfortable (this includes reading any arg allowed by the tournament, tag-team cx, flex prep, and spreading)

Experience: This is my 7th year of policy debate (2 in MS, 4 in HS, 1st in College). For those who care, I debated at the TOC my junior year and qualled my senior year.

HS: SLC West

College: Utah/UTD DS

Add me to the email chain - westslcps[at]gmail[dot]com - also please use this email for doc requests, questions about a round or about debate in general (I really enjoy talking about debate so you will never be bothering me by sending me an email).

The email chain title should include the name of the tournament, round #, Aff Team Code and Neg team code (i.e. TOC R1 SLC West PS v Appleseed YZ) and the file names should be more descriptive than just '2AC'.

General

Warrants > Tech > Truth

If you lack clarity, turn it down slightly otherwise I may miss important arguments. Flowing/info processing time is real, if you are trying to speak at top speed with little vocal inflection, I may miss a whole lot. I don't flow off the doc but I will have it open to check for clipping (reduced speaks unless the other team calls you out in which case I'll do whatever tab says). I will say clear once and then stop flowing and make it obvious.

I genuinely hate bad disclosure practices.

Everything in my paradigm is a 'default'. If a team wins something that I shouldn't default to (debate isn't a game, competing interps < reasonability, etc.), then for that debate, I will accept the claim while coming up with my rfd.

I don’t care what style of debate you prefer. Instead, I’m interested in your ability to defend and advance the advocacies and arguments you find important and/or strategic. Some additional thoughts.

1. If your overview is long enough that I need another page to flow it, I heard oratory is running thin for competitors. Being a K-debater, I know it is tempting to read these overviews, but often, parts of these overviews can be read on line-by-line.
2. Good evidence is secondary to what a debater does with it. I really appreciate evidence interrogation in speeches and cross-examination. I don't like reading cards after the debate, so please put the important spin and quotations of the card "on the flow."
3. If there is an “easy” way to vote that is executed and explained well, I’m very likely to take it. This means that the 2NR and the 2AR should write my ballot for me and usually I will quote you in my RFD.
4. I’d prefer to judge the text of the round in front of me rather than what debaters/teams have done outside of that round.
5. I appreciate technical execution and direct refutation over implied argumentation (but cross-applying stuff is chill).
6. Well-explained meta-framing arguments usually control my ballot but aren’t a substitute for substantive impact comparison.
7. Less is more. The earlier in a debate that teams collapse down to lower quantities of positions and/or arguments, the more of a chance I have to really latch onto what is going on and make a decent decision.
8. Identifying what I have to resolve behooves you. Most debates are won or lost on a few primary debatable questions. If you are the first to identify and answer those questions thoroughly, you will likely be ahead in my mind.
9. Minimizing downtime is important. Go to the bathroom and email the 1AC before the round start time.

Argument specifics:

AFFs: I have the most experience in Baudrillard K-affs but I have also read a k-aff with a plan text we defended an entire season, I read a 'hard right' aff on CJR and wrote a couple of 'soft left' affs. I'm reading an Anti-blackness aff this season. What I'm saying is that I am a good judge for you no matter what your style is, just make sure you do it well. If your aff is 'soft left', you need to ensure you are always ahead on the impact calc debate (put framing on a separate page in the 1AC).

DAs: Offense > Defense. Idk if I will never buy zero risk, but offense can overcome a 1% risk if that makes sense. I love specific link debates and turns case arguments. Impact calc is crucial.

CPs: I'm pretty neg biased on theory. That being said, tech over truth insofar as warrants are there. An argument is a claim AND a warrant (plus the author, an author is not an argument). If you say judge-kick, I probably will. If judge-kick is new in the 2NR, the 2AR doesn't have to do too much work to win it's bad.

Topicality: I don't think that all T debates are boring. Usually, I will go for competing interps before reasonability. Topicality is just hard on every topic, but it is always good to have a very solid interp card. Fairness is an impact, just a terrible one. I think it is better to use it as an internal link to education or something but you do you.

Kritiks: Yes I have read Kritiks. I have read Kritiks from all over the spectrum- such as Abolition and Orientalism but also Baudrillard and Psychoanalysis. If you read K's, I am a good judge for you but that doesn't mean you don't explain the thesis as you would in front of a non-K judge. I will also know if you don't know what you aren't talking about, read what you know best. I think debate is a game with multiple educational benefits.

Speaker points. I try to change the way I evaluate speaks based on the tournament, you might get a 30 for the same debate at a small tournament but only a 28 at a TOC qualifying tournament.

This is obviously a long paradigm, but if I missed something feel free to email me with questions. I would recommend looking at the paradigms of debaters like Seiji Aoki, Saathvik Pai, Isaiah Ortiz, Hanna Rice, and Madeline Galian in case I am not able to clear something up in time (jokes about any of them that make me laugh will get you +0.1 speaks).

- I am fine with speed as long as it is comprehensible.

- I don't flow cross.

- Please remember to provide impacts/voting issues at the end of the debate.

Top Level:
Pronouns: She/her
Email: angelazhou945@gmail.com
Don't be abusive in round, be respectful to everyone
tech>truth

Middle School:
Debate:
-Please flow and keep your arguments organized
-Try not to drop anything, if you want to kick an argument, say that you are at the beginning
-Remember, no new arguments in the rebuttals
-Signpost and give the order of the speech before you start
-Spreading is fine as long as its clear, especially the taglines
-Use anything that is allowed or is in the Novice packet
-Do impact calc, its very important
-I’m okay with any argument, if you are running a K, run it well and explain everything clearly. If I don’t understand any of your arguments, I won’t vote for it

Specific arguments:
Case: defend it well, make sure you get to solvency, provide good warrants
T: must explain the violation, voters, and a interp/counterinterp
CP: counterplans are great, defend it well, an argument isn’t just an author, you need to extend the warrant as well. I’m okay with theory if its explained well.
DA: impact calc is very important there. Have all components in your DA and extend them properly
K: once again, explain it well and have a good link to the Aff

Speech:
-have fun with it, keep it fluid/memorized if the event needs
-don’t have too many filler words
-know your topic, speech, or script super well
-be passionate about your topic