Coach at Heights High School (TX)
Separately conflicted with: Archbishop Mitty SM, Carnegie Vanguard KF, Cypress Ranch KH, Langham Creek SB, Woodlands SP
Judging at TOC for: Heights EP, Heritage WT

Set up the email chain before the round starts and add me. The 1AC should be sent before the scheduled start time, and the 1AC should be ready to start their speech by the start time.

If I'm judging you in Policy: heightsdocs.policy@gmail.com
If I'm judging you in LD: heightsdocs.ld@gmail.com

I debated for Timothy Christian School in New Jersey for four years. I graduated from Rice University, am currently a teacher at Heights, and predominately coach policy and LD: my program competes through the Houston Urban Debate League and the Texas Forensic Association.

Pref Shortcuts

• Policy: 1
• T/Theory: 1-2
• Phil: 2
• Kritik (identity): 2
• Kritik (pomo): 3
• Tricks: Strike; I can and will cap your speaks at a 27, and if I'm on a panel I will be looking for a way to vote against you.

General

• Absent tricks or arguments that are morally objectionable, you should do what you are best at rather than over-adapting to my paradigm.
• Tech > Truth
• I will try to be tab and dislike intervening so please weigh arguments and compare evidence. It is in your advantage to write my ballot for me by explaining which layers come first and why you win those layers.
• I won't vote on anything that's not on my flow. I also won't vote on any arguments that I can't explain back to your opponent in the oral.
• Not the judge for cowardice. That includes but is not limited to questionable disclosure practices, taking prep to delete analytics, dodgy CX answers, and strategies rooted in argument avoidance.
• It is unlikely that I will vote on a blip in the 2NR/2AR, even if it is conceded. If you want an argument to be instrumental to my ballot, you should commit to it. Split 2NR/2ARs are generally bad. Although, hot take, in the right circumstances a 2NR split between 1:00 of case and the rest on T can be strategic.
• I presume neg; in the absence of offense in either direction, I am compelled by the Change Disad to the plan. However, presumption flips if the 2NR goes for a counter-advocacy that is a greater change from the status quo than the aff. It is unlikely, however, that I will try to justify a ballot in this way; I almost always err towards voting on risk of offense rather than presumption in the absence of presumption arguments made by debaters.
• If you want to ask your opponent what was or was not read, you need to take prep or CX time for it.
• I'm colorblind so speech docs that are highlighted in light blue/gray are difficult for me to read; yellow would be ideal because it's easiest for me to see. Also, if you're re-highlighting your opponent's evidence and the two colors are in the same area of the color wheel, I probably won't be able to differentiate between them. Don't read a shell on your opponent if they don't follow these instructions though - it's not that serious.
• You don't get to insert rehighlighting (or anything else, really); if you want me to evaluate it, you have to read it. Obviously doesn't apply to inserts of case cards that were already read in the 1AC for context on an off-case flow.
• Not fond of embedded clash; it's a recipe for judge intervention. I'll flow overviews and you should read them when you're extending a position, but long (0:30+) overviews that trade-off against substantive line-by-line work increase the probability that I'll either forget about an argument or misunderstand its implication.

Policy

• Given that I predominately coach policy debate, I am probably most comfortable adjudicating these rounds, but this is your space so you should make the arguments that you want to make in the style that you prefer.
• You should be cutting updates and the more specific the counterplan and the links on the disad the happier I'll be. The size/probability of the impact is a function of the strength/specificity of the link.
• Terminal defense is possible and more common than people seem to think.
• I think impact turns (dedev, cap good/bad, heg good/bad, wipeout, etc.) are underutilized and can make for interesting strategies.
• If a conditional advocacy makes it into the 2NR and you want me to kick it, you have to tell me. Also, I will not judge kick unless the negative wins an argument for why I should, and it will not be difficult for the affirmative to convince me otherwise.

Theory

• I default to competing interpretations.
• I default to no RVIs.
• You need to give me an impact/ballot story when you read a procedural, and the blippier/less-developed the argument is, the higher my threshold is for fleshing this out. Labeling something an "independent voter" or "is a voting issue" is rarely sufficient. These arguments generally implicate into an unjustified, background framework and don't operate at a higher layer absent an explicit warrant explaining why. You still have to answer these arguments if your opponent reads them - it's just that my threshold for voting for underdeveloped independent voters is higher.
• Because I am not a particularly good flower, theory rounds in my experience are challenging to follow because of the quantity of blippy analytical arguments. Please slow down for these debates, clearly label the shell, and number the arguments.
• Disclosure is good. I am largely unimpressed with counterinterpretations positing that some subset of debaters does not have to disclose, with the exception of novices or someone who is genuinely unaware of the wiki.
• "If you read theory against someone who is obviously a novice or a traditional debater who doesn't know how to answer it, I will not evaluate it under competing interps."
• I will not evaluate the debate after any speech that is not the 2AR.

Kritiks

• I have a solid conceptual understanding of kritks, given that I teach the structure and introductory literature to novices every year, but don't presume that I'll recognize the vocabulary from your specific literature base. I am not especially well-read in kritikal literature.
• Pretty good for policy v k debates, or phil v k. Less good for k v k debates.
• I appreciate kritikal debates which are heavy on case-specific link analysis paired with a comprehensive explanation of the alternative.
• I don't judge a terribly large number of k-aff v fw debates, but I've also coached both non-T performative and pure policy teams and so do not have strong ideological leanings here. Pretty middle of the road and could go either way depending on technical execution.

Philosphical Frameworks

• I believe that impacts are relevant insofar as they implicate to a framework, preferably one which is syllogistically warranted. My typical decision calculus, then, goes through the steps of a. determining which layer is the highest/most significant, b. identifying the framework through which offense is funneled through on that layer, and c. adjudicating the pieces of legitimate offense to that framework.
• You should assume if you're reading a philosophically dense position that I do not have a deep familiarity with your literature base; as such, you should probably moderate your speed and over-explain rather than under.
• I default to epistemic confidence.
• Better than many policy judges for phil strategies; I have no especial attachment to consequentialism, given that you are doing technical work on the line-by-line.

Speed

• Speed is generally fine, so long as its clear. I'd place my threshold for speed at a 9 out of 10 where a 10 is the fastest debater on the circuit, although that varies (+/- 1) depending on the type of argument being read.
• Slow down for and enunciate short analytics, taglines, and card authors; it would be especially helpful if you say "and" or "next" as you switch from one card to the next. I am not a particularly good flower so take that into account if you're reading a lot of analytical arguments. If you're reading at top-speed through a dump of blippy uncarded arguments I'll likely miss some. I won't backflow for you, so spread through blips on different flows without pausing at your own risk.
• If you push me after the RFD with "but how did you evaluate THIS analytic embedded in my 10-point dump?" I have no problem telling you that I a. forgot about it, b. missed it, or c. didn't have enough of an implication flowed/understood to draw lines to other flows for you.

Speaker Points

• A 28.5 or above means I think you're good enough to clear. I generally won't give below a 27; lower means I think you did something offensive, although depending on my general level of annoyance, it's possible I'll go under if the round is so bad it makes me want to go home.
• I award speaks based on quality of argumentation and strategic decision-making.
• I don't disclose speaks.
• I give out approximately one 30 a season, so it's probably not going to be you. If you're looking for a speaks fairy, pref someone else. Here are a few ways to get higher speaks in front of me, however:
• I routinely make mental predictions during prep time about what the optimal 2NR/2AR is. Give a different version of the speech than my prediction and convince me that my original projection was strategically inferior. Or, seamlessly execute on my prediction.
• Read a case-specific CP/Disad/PIC that I haven't seen before.
• Teach me something new that doesn't make me want to go home.
• Be kind to an opponent that you are more experienced than.
• If you have a speech impediment, please feel free to tell me. I debated with a lisp and am very sympathetic to debaters who have challenges with clarity. In this context, I will do my best to avoid awarding speaks on the basis of clarity.
• As a teacher and coach, I am committed to the value of debate as an educational activity. Please don't be rude, particularly if you're clearly better than your opponent. I won't hack against you if you go 5-off against someone you're substantively better than, but I don't have any objections to tanking your speaks if you intentionally exclude your opponent in this way.

revisions pending

last updated: 3/10

Ammu Christ (they/them/their)

Midlothian '22

UT Austin '26

please add both garlandspeechdocs@gmail.com and graduated@gmail.com to the chain

active conflicts: Garland (2024) + various independents

**Follow the bolded portions of the paradigm if you need to skim.

---

post-TFA State 2024 updates:

The state of LD has always been in a desolate state, but this past weekend has been extraordinarily disappointing. The frequency of judging beyond this point is up to my wellbeing and being compensated beyond minimum wage.

1 - I'm not sure why debaters feel the need to be cutting necessary corners to explain and win their arguments sufficiently well. It disservices you from winning by underexplaining your arguments and hoping I can make

2 - Be considerate when you're postrounding your judges. Many of us are paid well below minimum wage and volunteer/prorate lots of hours into the activity with little to no return in favor of keeping the community having adequate judging. I'll do my best to explain how I reached my decision and answer clarifying questions, but if you expect me to automatically change my decision, its too late, try again next time.

3 - I am not your babysitter and will give you a stern look if you or any person in the room acts like a toddler throwing a tantrum. Especially things such as grabbing another debater's laptop without their permission and turning it towards the judge.

4 - I hold absolutely no sympathy for individuals that don't make a concerted attempt for disclosure (ie explicitly refuse to send their cases over, not disclosing on opencaselist dot com) and then read some 2000s-esq theory shell saying they are unable to engage with the 1AC. Go argue with your coach, not me.

5 - It should go without saying that if I find out that you attempt to make a structural/ontology claim (or analogously use some grammar of blackness) through cutting a sui**de note as your basis, you will get the lowest speaks possible and I will contact your coach either by the RFD or directly. Absolutely ridiculous.

---

I would best describe myself as a clairvoyant when it comes to judging. I have no strong feelings when it comes to how I evaluate arguments, and feel that I agree with a wide spectrum of opinions and debate takes, even the usual divide that exists within educational/“non-educational” forms of debate.

I will vote up anything except anything morally repugnant (see: racism, homophobia, sexism, etc) or out of round issues. Some arguments require a lot more instruction than others in front of me, choose accordingly.

General takes:

• Evidence determines the direction of argument quality - Bad arguments will either have little to no evidence, but it is possible to spin smart arguments from bad evidence. Arguments without evidence is definitely doable, but then again, y’all are high schoolers.

• To win an argument, you need to sufficiently win that it has a claim, impact, and warrant.

• The 1AC will “set the topic” (whether it adheres to the resolution or not), the 1NC will refute the 1AC in any form. I am inclined to vote affirmative if the affirmative world is more preferable than the status quo or a different world proposed by the negative.

• Debate is a communication activity. It may or may not have “spillover” into the real world. I am of the opinion, by default, we probably don’t. I can be convinced either way, though.

• My ballot is solely a decision on which debater was more persuasive. Being persuasive requires a bundle of strategy, tech, charisma, and ballot-painting.

• At bare minimum, I need to get submit my ballot in before tournament directors nag on me. Other than that, do whatever other than being violent.

• As a neurodivergent person, it is sometimes a bit hard for me to follow implications/strategies of things as well as deciphering rebuttals. My favorite type of rebuttals will respond to things top-down in the order of the previous speech and/or group and do sub-debates in specific areas on my flow. Your speed when it comes to the rebuttals should be 70% of the speed of the constructive.

• I care a lot about form and content. The 2NR/2AR must isolate and collapse to one argument (most of the time). I am very receptive to arguments that specifically complicate the reading of multiple conflicting positions in the rebuttal. (See: a non-T aff going for condo, collapsing to multiple Phil positions and a util advantage, etc). This doesn’t really apply if conflicting positions are read before the rebuttals.
• I default no judgekick.

• I think I’m pretty good at nearly transcribing most speeches. My typing speed spikes anywhere between 110-140 words per minute. I tend to flow more and try to isolate warrants since my brain tends to forget immediately if I don’t write down full warrants/explanations for things. Not a you problem, just a neurodivergent thing. In terms of speed, not a problem, just need clarity and will clear you if it is not present or give up not typing anything if I can’t legibly type anything.

• Speaks are based on execution, strategy, collapse, and vibes. 28.2-28.6 is the cume for average. 28.7-28.9 means you’re on the cusp for breaking. 29-29.3 means you’ll break and reach early/mid slims. 29.4+ means you will go deep elms and/or win the tournament. Not all speaks are indicative of this, but normally they will try to follow this guideline.

LD specific takes:

• Pref guide:
• I feel best apt to evaluate K, non-T, policy, Util/Kant debates.
• I can adequately evaluate theory. I find that these debates aren’t impossible, but I definitely will be thinking a lot more harder in these debates.
• Exercise caution around tricks and “denser phil” (anything not Util or Kant). I can still evaluate these, but I find in these debates I need arguments overexplained in terms of strategy for me to follow.

• I default comparative worlds over truth testing. I think offense under either form of argument evaluation is doable, but I need that blatantly explained to me.

• I’ve changed my thoughts on tricks. I think that I was formerly being dogmatic by saying they don’t hold “educational value”. I actually don’t care now. Read them if you fancy these arguments, but I require a lot more judge instruction to understand strategy/collapse.

• As formerly for tricks, I’ve also changed my thoughts on theory. A shell must have a violation to be legitimate. See below in a later section about specifics with theory offense.
• A caveat for evidence ethics theory. I do not find this shell convincing at all. In order to win with this shell in front of me, the alleged violation must prove that there was malicious intent with the altercation of evidence. I will also ask if both debaters would like to stop the round and stake the round on evidence ethics. If the person who read the shell says no, my threshold for responses on the shell automatically goes down to the lowest possible amount of responses. The threshold to win the argument at this point becomes insanely steep.

• If I haven’t made it clear already, please spend more time explaining function and implications of these arguments if you want to win my ballot. I find that I am following these arguments more better than I was like a year ago, but you should do more work to overexplain to me to win. I don’t know to make that more obvious.

• I default competing interpretations, no RVIs, and drop the debater on theory shells.

• I am willing to zero out a theory shell’s offense if there is no real violation. It is up to the person reading the shell to prove that there is either a textual or functional violation in the first place. No amount of competing interpretation justifications will matter if there is no violation to the shell. I don’t care if the violation is textual or functional, I just need one to grant offense to the shell in the first place.

• I find that paradigm issue debates are sailing ships in the night — you should really group them whenever they’re spread across multiple pages. If the warrants to your paradigm issues are the same I’ve heard over the past year and a half, I will flow them as “dtd, c/I, no rvi” (and vice versa when responding)
• I enjoy unique warrants to paradigm issues, but find non-T offs trying to come up with their own warrants sort of fall flat if they reject a conception of debate.

• IVIs need an impact when introduced. Will not vote on these without one.

• I default theory > K >= content FW > content — this is a rough diagram and open to different justifications for weighing.

• You can find any other relevant thoughts on the K and policy here in the archive for December 2023. My thoughts really haven’t changed as much for the K nor policy. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-KidiW8WJQi0-PWf2lx33GPi9kiRySLl1TbV_fGZ1PY/edit?usp=sharing

You can request a copy of your flow at any point after the RFD is given.

Good luck! :>

Hello :)

I’m Faizaan Dossani. He/Him. Add me to the email chain: faizaan.dossani@gmail.com

Westlake (TX) 2017-2021, I also coached here for the 2021-2022 season.

General/Introductions

I don't really have any disposition to any particular style of debate and will simply vote for whichever argument is winning the highest layer of the flow. I also have a low tolerance of being disrespectful to your opponents; just be nice please.

I competed in LD on the local and nat circuit in which I cleared at TFA and a sizable chunk of nat circuit tourneys. I also taught at ODI for its past two sessions. I think debate is a game with educational value and freedom. This basically means that I am tech>truth, but still care about maintaining the pedagogical value and accessibility that debate should have. I try to do everything possible to not intervene in my decisions, so navigate my ballot for me.

Kritiks + K Affs

I primarily read these arguments, as my go-to strat junior and senior year was 1-off K. I mainly read Settler Colonialism, Baudrillard, Wynter, Anthro, Berardi, Derrida, cap stuff, and Islamophobia lit but am extremely familiar with a lot of k lit (disability lit, most black scholars, and most identity politics). I have an extremely basic understanding of high theory (Deleuze, Nietzsche, etc.), but as long as you do the proper explanation, I can probably evaluate any literature you throw at me.

• Overviews are appreciated but good line by line is usually more compelling for my ballot
• I think reading pess args when you don't identify with that certain group is bad.
• Give trigger warnings. If you forget and remember midway through the speech, pause your timer and just ask everyone; safety is the most important.

LARP

I read/cut many larp positions and it was also the style of debate I hit the most, so I'm pretty comfortable evaluating these debates. I haven't done much research into the topic literature so please explain your positions to me very clearly!

• DO WEIGHING or I won't know which impacts you want me to evaluate first which means I have to intervene :(
• Evidence comparison is a must have in competing claims over the same argument
• I think reading like 6+ off and then just going for the one the aff had like 10 seconds to respond is a lazy strat, but I guess I will vote off it

Tricks

I have a love/hate relationship with tricks. I don’t mind an underview with some spikes scattered in, but I don’t understand most of the paradoxes. (Spark, GCB, Zenos, etc.) I think a lot of the tricks are stupid in nature, but I guess I will evaluate them.

• Don't be sketchy!
• Make sure that all of your tricks are on the doc. Even if you say "im extempting x" in the speech you still should send a doc of whatever analytics you read. In tricks debates, I heavily rely on the doc compared to other debates.

T + Theory

Usually wasn’t an off in my strats, but I think good theory debate can be fun. Bad theory debate means that you are just regurgitating the shell and not actually explaining how I should evaluate the abuse story on a framing level.

• I won't default any paradigm issues; please just make the implications yourself
• The more frivolous the violation, the more likely I will lower the threshold for response
• I think some form of disclosure is probably a good idea, but I also think that can be up for debate

Phil/FW

I barely read any complex framing other than Mouffe. However, I have judged a lot of phil debates so I feel that I can probably handle whatever you read as long as it is properly explained.

- Explain your complex buzzwords to me, examples will boost speaks

- I think framing hijacks/proving why your framework precludes their moral theory can be extremely compelling in these debates

Traditional Debate

I never really partook in any traditional style of debate (VC or definitional stuff) but I did debate traditional debaters a lot and feel that I can confidently evaluate these debates.

• I think the extra attention to ethos is nice in these debates, but at the end of the day I will still evaluate your arguments on a technical level first
• I'd rather you spend more of your time focusing on the substance of the debate instead of value/VC. I often find that most values are kinda the same thing but just worded differently, which makes evaluating weighing between different values kinda futile.

PF Paradigm

I never actually competed in PF but going to Westlake allowed me to drill/prep with a lot of our PFrs so I have been heavily exposed to the argumentation style and evolving nature of PF. The people that I have worked with that I have pretty similar takes on debate are Cale McCrary, Zain Syed, Jawad Bataneih, Jason Luo, and Cherie Wang.

• You can debate as tech or lay as you want in front of me. Doing LD broadened the styles of debate I partook in, so I can handle whatever progressive arguments you throw at me. Speed is fine as well, but be clear.
• I will give both teams plus 0.2 in speaks if yall just flash cases before constructive, we all know your calling for evidence just to steal prep which wastes everyones' time

Speaks + Misc.

I give speaks based off efficiency, argument quality, and just your general attitude in round. I try to be as consistent as possible with speaks, so you will most likely get between a 28-29.6 unless you do something exceedingly bad/good.

• Please record your speeches, especially if you have a history of laggy wifi
• Throwing in jokes during your speeches is always a plus
• For evidence ethics, I'd rather you form the argument into some type of theory shell instead of staking the round and allowing me to decide, but I will try to default on whatever rules the tournament is following

I know debate can be stressful and toxic; just do your best and have fun cause at the end of the day we are just some losers yelling at each other on NSDA campus :)

Hi, I'm David and I debated for Scarsdale '24

I qualified to the TOC 2x, mainly reading phil, theory, and a few Ks. I am extremely bad for policy vs policy.

Put me on the email chain: polarpenguins24 [at] gmail [dot] com

Circuitdebater: https://ld.circuitdebater.org/w/index.php/Library its a super amazing resource for getting started with progressive debate!

Novice LD paradigm:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bK4ByBl9-xCtH6J50CEL2v9ufWIxro1h-XP9oywCpXw/edit?usp=sharing

TLDR - tech>>>truth BUT arguments must contain a claim, warrant, and impact for me to vote on it, even when being extended. I'll be slightly more leniant for the 1ar and 2ar otherwise affirming would not be possible. I don't like implicit clash and am skeptical of the legitimacy new cross apps.

I'll try to conform mostly to the assumptions that both debaters make about the implication of arguments (paradigm issues, X is repugnant=dtd, nuke war=extinction) because it seems the least interventionist. I will (ambivalently) default to fairness & education being voters only if it is excessively clear both debaters are making that assumption. These defaults can be changed by saying "no warrant." dont make me default.

I'm bad at flowing if you're unclear or too fast - if i say clear or slow please repeat what you said esp if it's important since i probably already missed arguments.

Quick prefs

phil: 1

Theory: 1

T: 2

policy v policy: 4-strike

policy v anything else: 2

Ks (pomo and identity/material): 2-4 depending how its read

security/IR K: strike

tricks: 2

Phil

- did this most as a debater

- wont vote on presumption/permissibility unless explicitly triggered or round is irresolvable, default presumption affirms permiss negates

- win a central claim & implicate e.g. naturalism vs nonnaturalism, internalism or constitutivism or externalism, realist or antirealist, consequentialist vs deontological vs aretaic

- hybrid phil/k is cool if debating a k

- have a defense of humanism/ideal theory if you are reading it

Policy

- dont larp v larp in front of me pls

- i do not understand cp competition

- textual competition is lowk fake

- judgekick valid under TT paradigm but not as much for CW

- cool impact turns are good, i'm open to literally any including extinction and death good.

- advantages just feel wrong i dont think we're gonna die if we do nothing but the ev is what it is ig

Kritik

- this is cool, i've thought of phil v k the most

- saying "independent voter" does not make it one

- lbl>ov

- do k fwk debate or u lose

- i dislike rejection/refusal alts unless actually grounded in the lit

- a lot of cards just don't have a warrant, good evidence goes a long way. if your opponent tells me to read your evidence and it says nothing i will have to disregard it

- dont combine a lot of theories of power and j go for one in the 2nr. either maintain your weird combination or only read one thesis claim.

- performance is fine, but i have a much higher standard for framing in these debates, explain how to engage

- link wall = ur cool

- non t is fine, but if you're impact turning tfw you need a really clear explanation, and slow down please, I will probably have no idea what the impact turn is if you blitz through your blocks. I am probably biased towards framework espeically when there's a compelling tva.

- I know about baudrillard, berardi, virilio, lacanian psychoanalysis, mollow, edelman, warren, heidegger, wilderson, setcol, weheliye, deleuze.

- don't like policy "Ks" like IR, security, empire, i do not know what that means

- i dont like ontology claims when u dont have a psychoanalysis warrant. just say you're making a structural claim

Theory

- will vote on anything

- theres a diff between funny and annoying frivolous theory - e.g. circuitdebater theory vs. must not say X word

- shells must indict practice of reading args, not the validity of args. e.g. must not read 1ar theory legit, dtd, no rvi, ci, highest layer is a shell that proves those paradigm issues are wrong, not that the act of reading those paradigm issues are wrong, meaning I should conclude to not use those paradigm issues, not to drop the debater.

- reasonability, dta, and round abuse are underused

- weigh early

- default to assumptions of both debaters. if i can't tell, like if its a low level or a lay debater then it's dta, no rvi, reasonability. these are changed with a single warrant.

- must still have warrants for paradigm issues

T

- weigh

- i think semantics is persuasive since i think TT is true

- reading T as TT is chill too

- persuaded by “must not defend implementation” on resolutions that are value statements. An example is "Resolved: Justice requires open borders for human migration" which does not imply the hypothetical implementation of a policy action. Check my JF23 wiki for the T shell and i'll give you high speaks if you give a good 2nr on the shell.

Tricks

- i'm nowhere near a hack. i am happy to not vote on tricks with no warrant at all like tacit ballot conditional.

- I like tricks with warrants like indexicals (read with warrants), skepticism, permissibility triggers, etc.

- tricks must have an implication in the speech where they're introduced

- pretty sus of extemped tricks (im bad at flowing) and hidden tricks

Speaks

- i'll prob average around a 29

- i reward being funny, nice, mean but in a funny and nice enough way, good spreading, not reading off the doc for your entire speech, round vision, efficiency, and demonstrated knowledge w case

Hey y’all!

I’m Anastasia/Ana – Westlake LD '23, Baylor Policy '27 (2A/1N primarily)

In High School, I got to three bid rounds and went to TFA all four years, i was in elims Junior/Senior year.

If you're interested in debating in college, Baylor has a great team with a ton of resources! Email me if you're just scrolling through tab, or talk to me before/after round and I can connect you with the coaching staff.

Pronouns – she/her

General:

Please be nice to each other! Debate is a fun activity & should be treated as such, your opponents pronouns & triggers are non-negotiables and not complying with either will result in an L0. Safety > any round win ever. We are all human and deserve to be treated with the respect as such.

fine with speed just slow down on analytics, I flow on my laptop for reference.

please send all docs – prefer speech drop but email is anastasiaskeeler@gmail.com

In high school, I exclusively read the K post-sophomore year. Before that, I did soft-left policy debate, and throughout my career enjoyed going for T. I have not done any topic research and am not actively coaching high school. Please explain super specific link scenarios slightly more than you would with active coaches.

if you want more specifics of how i think about debate look to Holden Bukowsky's paradigm - they coached me for the majority of my career & we think about debate very similarly.

Specific thoughts:

policy:

I think policy debate is cool. A lot of nuanced debates have been super interesting to watch & be a part of, but the same 3 affs and disads on every topic gets boring. I love creative advocacies and a good impact turn debate.

Some of my favorite speeches to give are a 2n on an impact turn (spark and dedev being my go-tos)

Please, for the love of God, weigh. This largely applies to any novice rounds/ less experienced debaters – but regardless, 15+ seconds of impact calc will get you much higher speaks.

T/theory:

Once you get into more blippy/tricky shells I will be fairly lost, if you go for the shell I need a clear explanation of the abuse story and why I should vote on it/the norm it would create.

I don’t have defaults for paradigm issues – being in policy has made my threshold for justifications lower. That being said, don't assume I don't need justifications for DTA/D, or CI/reasonability, you just don't need to 5 point everything.

Ks:

This is what I do the most, I am the most comfortable evaluating this kind of debate & would love to judge this.

Familiar with just about everything. For reference, I went for cap on the aff and neg my senior year, grove as a 2n and 2a this season, and dabbled in Baudrillard, Setcol, Delueze, Disability (kolorova, mollow, etc) and Beller in high school.

Doing policy has raised my threshold for explanation significantly: I think a good portion of K debate can be done on the theory of power page using your offense to do line by line. Please make my life easy.

Phil:

I am familiar with a lot of ethical framing args and Phil positions. just explain everything and make sure that what you are saying actually makes sense - ie your ethic + meta ethic and how the framing operates in the round

That being said, the way that phil gets executed now is something I am infinitely less comfortable with, the one paragraph of framing and then a bunch of blips. I am going to need you to go slower & give more explanation for these positions.

Tricks:

I dont like these. If you read these i will probably sigh loudly. I can eval them but speaks will be low and i will be sad.

Have fun & be nice! Looking forward to judging y'all :)

Millard North High School '23

LD for 4 years - 3 on the national circuit

email - nathan.liu1203@gmail.com

Debate is hard, and everyone puts a lot of time in - I will reciprocally put effort into judging your debate and, to the best of my ability, bracket my predispositions.

Post-rounding is acceptable as long as it stays respectful and in-round.

I coach with DebateDrills- the following URL has our roster, MJP conflict policy,code of conduct, relevant team policies, and harassment/bullying complaint form:https://www.debatedrills.com/club-team-policies/lincoln-douglas-team-policy

Introduction

Name: Rishit Pradhan

Email: pradhanrishit@gmail.com

School: Stockdale '23

Top Level Thoughts (Read this if u want to win)

I think in terms of adaptation the stylistic preference of the judge comes prior to the stylistic preference of the event. So I’ll buy most args that aren’t problematic.

Stratford Spartan Invitational:

Hi everyone! I'm Zach (He/Him) - zacharybsarver@gmail.com. I debated LD on the national circuit for San Mateo and was coached by Holden Bukowsky and Jalyn Wu (if you know who either of them are, my debate feelings are a weird amalgamation of the two). I'm now a freshman at Rice. I was never particularly competitively successful, but I really enjoyed my time in debate, and now that I'm out of debate I thought judging could be fun.

Quick things for this tournament:

This is my first time judging. I'm obviously going to try to do a good job, but keep that in mind. I've also only ever done LD, so if I end up judging a different event, I will be figuring out the speech times right before the debate. I should still be able to evaluate the round though.

While my background is very progressive, this is not a national circuit tournament, and I'm expecting a traditional debate. I'm happy to judge a progressive round, but that should be agreed to beforehand between both debaters. For example, while I can evaluate spreading, I'm not going to be happy if one debater is spreading and the other clearly can't keep up. *Please also read the progressive LD section if you're planning on running circuit-y stuff*

I haven't been in a debate round for almost a year at this point. I know nothing about the topic and my familiarity with the more niche/technical parts of debate is probably a bit rusty.

Please do all of the important things that everyone always tells you to do, like signposting, explaining impacts, weighing, etc. People are telling you to do these things for a good reason.

Apparently people might be dressed up in costumes? +.2 speaks for a good costume and +.1 if you make a Halloween pun.

Progressive LD stuff (should apply to other events as well):

It's been a while since I've flowed spreading, and I was never particularly good at flowing to begin with. If you go at about 7/10 top speed and stay clear, I should be fine. If I can't understand you, I'll say clear a few times, and if you don't slow down after that then it's now your problem instead of mine.

I was primarily a K debater, but I'm also decently comfortable with well-explained phil (clear syllogisms, NOT 11 blippy independent reasons to prefer) and larp (DAs and stock CPs, NOT 6 process CPS with 4 planks each). I love a good case debate too.

I'm less comfortable with T and theory, so I'd only really recommend running them if you're going to go a little slower and overexplain so I don't miss arguments, or if there's a real violation (T-FW, etc.).

Definitely feel free to email me ahead of the round if you have any questions, want to run something but aren't sure if I'm comfortable evaluating it, or want more in-depth opinions! I know I'm not the best circuit judge in the world, but hopefully I'm better than a parent judge.

Hey, I'm Prateek. I'm a sophomore in high school and a 4th year LD debater at Lake Highland Prep in Florida. I have gotten 9 career bids to the TOCs this year and cleared at the TOC in 2022. Add me to the email chain at prateekseela24@gmail.com

I believe that debate is a game. However, it can have out-of-round implications and be used in other ways. Either way, I will vote on any argument as long they are not structurally exclusionary, racist, sexist, etc. Speed is good and you can go however fast you want. The following are rankings in terms of my comfortability and familiarity with types of arguments.

Prefs:

Phil - 1

T/Theory - 1

Tricks - 1

K - 2/3

LARP - 3

Defaults:

I don't want to have to default, but if I do then the following will be my defaults:

• Skepticism is true (i.e. just read a framework)

• Fairness and Education are voters

• Fairness > Education

• Jurisdiction > Fairness

• Reps > T > 1AR Theory > 1N Theory > ROB

• No RVI, Competing Interps, Drop the Debater

• Truth Testing

• Epistemic Confidence

• P + P negate

• Text > Spirit

General:

My thought on the way I should evaluate the round is basically as tab as possible. This means I'll vote on any argument proven true in the round.

Here's a list of a couple of ways I view debate/random things I would like to see:

1] An argument must consist of at least a claim and a warrant. The claim and warrant must relate to each other to be an argument, i.e. it has to be sequitur. Otherwise, I won't evaluate it.

2] Sending analytics (especially when you are reading at 350/400+ wpm)

3] Record your speeches in case your internet messes up

Theory:

There is no such thing as "frivolous theory". The entire point of the theory debate is to determine if a shell is frivolous or not. However, if your shell just says infinite abuse with barely any warrants in the 1NC, and you extremely explode it in the 2N, I may be easily persuaded aff.

Long theory underviews with under warranted arguments are fine, but at least try to justify some of your arguments, and please have good formatting.

Also, I will award better shells with higher speaks. For example, if you read a funny or creative shell. If you win on a "dumb" shell and execute it properly then I will also give you higher speaks. Some shells I just don't like generally, but will still evaluate fairly, are shells that say you can't say X paradigm issues.

I think that disclosure is probably a good thing, but this won't affect my decision. You can read whatever disclosure shell you want in front of me.

I like good paradigm issues/theory framing debates like norms creation vs. in-round abuse, standard weighing, theory tricks like framework take-outs, etc.

Topicality:

Any theory things also apply here. Please do evidence comparison and weighing. Also, try to have some good justifications for semantics. Most times, people have just 1 line no warrants. On the other side, please please please have a justification for Niemi if you read it analytically or even carded. If the 1AR is 1 sentence, "Grammar DA: ..." there is a high chance I will believe the 2AR is just completely new and not buy it. I also want a warrant as to why it is a reason to DTD and not a reason to reject semantics.

Framework:

Substantively, phil debate is what I do the most, and is my favorite type of debate. I read Hobbes, Agonism/Mouffe, Kant, International Law, and different types of Skepticism the most. I am also familiar with and have read Hegel, Levinas, Pettit, Contractarianism, Virtue Ethics, Nozick/Libertarianism, Jaeggi, and more, but you can still read anything you want.

Reading multiple hijacks that hijack the same premise of the framework is questionable, and the 1AR should point this out. That being said, I think good hijacks are incredibly under-used, and if read properly can be great. This is why you should also have a coherent syllogism and not skip steps in the actual framework.

If you're reading TJFs or lots of independent reasons to prefer, I think its a good idea to justify why frameworks have to be theoretically justified and why that comes before substantive justifications. Same thing applies to other independent reasons to prefer. I think that TJFs are really dumb, but I'll still vote on them.

I also think that a framework can and easily should be able to up-layer and be able to take out other positions like theory. It's a pretty under-utilized strategy, but if executed well can be very strategic.

Lastly, I love permissibility triggers if actually warranted.

Tricks:

Substantive tricks > random definitions and theory spamming.

Read truth testing. However, not all tricks require truth testing and if you explain why they don't I'll be happy.

I like tricks being applied to other flows, and in-depth weighing on how the logic behind the trick actually interacts with arguments being made.

Some tricks I like are trivialism, indexicals, rule-following paradox, concept skep, external-world skep, particularism, contingent standards, etc.

LARP:

Do whatever you want just weigh and you should be fine. I may not be the best at judging these debates, but I'm pretty confident I can judge most of them. Please actually justify util lol - consequentialism good warrants are not the same as util. Also, calc indicts are not silly (you can make arguments for why they are, which is fine, but asserting they are is not).

K:

My experience with these has actually increased, and I'm pretty confident I can evaluate almost every K debate. Ks I have read include Generic Cap, Dean, Anarchism, Semiocap, Lacan, Deleuze, and Settler Colonialism. Other Ks I understand but have not read to a decent point are Queerpess, Disabilitypess, Afro-pessimism, Baudrillard, Security, and more.

Just weigh your ROB and explain what it means and you will be fine. I would also like for you to engage in your opponent's framework, e.g. instead of just like "white phil bad" explain the points of disagreement or even how the historical backing affects their theory. Obviously, not all K debaters do this, but all different "types" of debaters do this in any type of round, this is just an example I have came across.

Scripps Ranch '24, Harvard '28.

12 bids, cleared twice at TOC.

sovereignagastya@gmail.com for the chain/questions.

The state of judging in LD is an existential threat to the activity. Judges routinely intervene. Flowing seems to disappear beyond "2" on the pref sheet. I will pay attention to the debate, take my time, and vote on any argument with a claim, warrant, and impact.

Tech over truth. Do whatever it takes to win (while being kind, respectful, etc).

I have a medium-high threshold for warrants. Eval after the 1AC/1NC, no AFF/NEG arguments, "condo is a voter, moots the AFF", "voter for deterrence", "indexicals--competing indexes don't deny an obligation under ours", etc. don't cut it.

Idiosyncrasies:

--Defaults, changed with a sentence: DTA (unless it's T, Condo, or Disclosure), Competing Interps, No RVIs, Judgekick. Calling something a "voting issue" does not make it one.

--"Fairness is an impact for T USFG if explained right, and limits is the most persuasive internal link. Evidence-based debate seems unworkable if there’s significant asymmetries in anticipation." I'm best for 'skills turn case' with fairness as an external impact. "Affirmatives can win without a traditional plan; critiquing neg definitions and providing counter-definitions that establish a model for both sides to engage. 'CI - discussion of topic,' 'default to us,' 'debate bad' and its corollary of naming debaters who used their skills for evil, and poor analogies that T is akin to drone strikes are dissuasive."

--"Critiques aren't counterplans. Links aren't meant to be 'unique' or 'to the plan' because they aren't 'DAs.' Private actor fiat of 'movements' or 'mindsets' makes it easier for the affirmative to win on the perm. Links must be paired with impacts that outweigh, turn, or bracket the case." Framework debates almost always require more judge instruction--what does it mean for the AFF to be an "object of research", how do I "weigh the Case" versus a critique of your representations?

--Philosophy is a dying art, but it requires well-developed impact calculus. I prefer debates with developed syllogisms and internal warrant comparison.

--Great for reasonability when teams offensively weigh the 'substance crowd-out DA' vs. NEG/AFF offense and extend a counter-interpretation/defense. Great for non-resolutional theory bad. Great for drop the argument. All of these are underutilized in theory debates. Interpretations (ideally) shouldn't be arbitrary--every counterplan includes some part of the plan and has a 'process'; similarly, most theoretical objections to counterplans are probably better expressed through precise competition debates.

--Not great for dense policy debates with a lack of judge instruction or well-explained impact calculus.

--Speaker points are boosted for strategic pivots, innovation, and good ethos (read: smart CX, not distasteful zingers). If I enjoy watching/judging the debate, you will enjoy your speaks. My average will probably be slightly higher than most policy judges.

Hello!

I'm Ailsa, and I am a Junior at San Mateo HS - currently in my 2nd year of debate

email: jjshenw@gmail.com

please ask if your opponent and I are ready before each speech

please remember to extend!

Make sure to weigh/explain why your arguments matter. Winning a bunch of short individual arguments mean nothing if you don't explain why they matter or why they matter more than your opponents. if you win one argument and your opponent wins 6, but you flesh your 1 arg out and explain why its more important than the other 6, i will most likely vote for you.

if you aren't able to explain your arguments and it becomes clear you just stole them from a varsity teammate i'll probably get upset and drop your speaks. i seriously need to be able to understand your arguments and if there is no explanation/the explanation is vastly different from what was in the constructive i'm probably not gonna be able to vote for u

please be kind to each other, eg don't make morally repugnant arguments (like racism good), don't scoff or make fun of your opponents, don't steal prep or speech time, etc. The line between aggression and rudeness is difficult / tricky at times, but please make an active effort to distinguish, and apologize if necessary.

plz no value debates, justice=morality, just debate the criterion. also don't feel the need to have a framework debate "just cause". if you have similar frameworks, or your contentions fall under your opponents, don't worry abt the fwk too much

Take care, and have fun!! :) Debate can be nerve wrecking, but the round will be over before you know it, so just debate, make the most of it, and no need for extra stress!

Jet Sun (He/Him)

Strake Jesuit '23 Northwestern '27

I did 4 years of LD at Strake Jesuit. I had a few bids and got to quarters of the TOC.

Email: jysun23@mail.strakejesuit.org

Tech over truth.

I like debates that feature long pieces of evidence.

Besides disclosure, I won’t adjudicate issues that occur outside of the debate round.

Scenarios start at 0%. Concessions aren't a substitute for lack of explanation. Sweeping explanations of the world rarely exist.

Arguments that contravene basic intuition require an extreme level of warranting that is hard given a short timeframe.

If you disagree with my decision please feel free to post-round me - I won't take offense to it - that said do it at least somewhat respectfully and realize I might have a second flight.

Other notes:

K:

I tend to think affs generally get to weigh the case.

"Ontology and the ROTB means the aff disappears" = a silly argument. Win a link. Read case defense.

I find clash and especially fairness standards in T Framework to be extremely compelling, and if debated equally I lean negative in clash debates.

Theory/Tricks:

Not a fan of strategies that rely on concessions. Interesting tricks will be rewarded with good speaks and generic ones will not.

Bad tricks debate is difficult to sit through. Logic aprioris are fine, "no neg arguments" are not. Extempting tricks will not be rewarded.

Circuit LD Paradigm

Email: selenateng24@gmail.com

Edit for NSD: I'm a fine judge for all of you, read what you want. Especially if it's something other than the stock aff/inflation DA.

Tl;dr I look for the path of least intervention to the ballot. Good for phil/theory, fine for clash debates, bad for K v K and larp v larp. I'm less lenient with super short blips than you might expect; you need to have fully fleshed-out warrants. I AM BAD AT FLOWING SO BE SLOW AND CLEAR.

Generic
- Default to truth testing, permissibility/presumption negate
- If I don't understand your case after your constructive, I won't expect your opponent to predict a massive rebuttal extrapolation.
- I'm pretty tab and don't hack against arguments that other judges might not vote on. But I won't vote for legitimately problematic things (ex. if you start screaming slurs against your opponent).

Larp
- I'm bad at evaluating policy. Please overexplain. And if you're against another larper, I'm praying that one of you uplayers.
- I can, however, evaluate util just fine. In fact, it can be quite persuasive against Ks.
- Default to epistemic confidence, yes judge kick, zero risk does exist.
- I have a lower threshold for winning calc indicts than most judges. Util debaters undercover them.

Phil
- Love it. I'm most familiar with Kant, determinism, and skep, and I'm somewhat familiar with most other common FWs, but feel free to run whatever. However, this doesn't mean you can rely on my knowledge to fill in gaps for you.
- Calc indicts <3

K
- Not the most experienced with Ks, but I'm not opposed to them.
- I view Ks as frameworks. That means when going for a K, you should try to frame it as a phil NC - i.e., heavier on the line-by-line as well as explaining why your offense is relevant and theirs isn't.
- I don't understand why so many K 2Ns have enormous overviews at the top that just explain what the K says and don't explain what implications the arguments have on the round.
- Pathos is not offense.

Theory
- I like theory. I'll vote on almost any shell if it's well-justified. SLOW DOWN ON BLIPS.
- Terminal defense on theory, even under a competing interps model, is sufficient for me to ignore a shell. In other words, I don't default to risk-of-offense framing, but you can always argue otherwise.
- It is much harder to get me to vote on independent voters and paragraph theory compared to regular theory shells. A one or two-sentence argument likely doesn't have enough warranting for a full collapse in rebuttal, but it's fine if you warrant and impact out the initial argument.

Tricks
- I'll vote on them if there's a warrant in the constructive speech. A lot of times there isn't, like "negating denies the antecedent of the resolution, and statements with false antecedents always have true consequents" is literally just words. Yeah I know it's condo logic, but I'm not doing that work for you.
- Keep the debate clean pleeease
- If you extemp a random a priori in the middle of the AC, I probably won't catch it. Just put it in the doc.

PF/Parli Paradigm for NYCUDL

Email: selenateng24@gmail.com

Hey, I'm Selena. I competed in LD debate for Millburn High School (NJ). Some miscellaneous things to take into consideration:

- I evaluate only the arguments you make in round without using my own knowledge and opinions.
- Weigh/compare between arguments! This is where a large portion of rounds come down to.
- Signpost your responses; it makes them easier to flow.
- I will be very happy if you run a framework and execute it correctly.
- A team once called me "your honor." Please don't do this or anything similar. "Selena" or "judge" is fine.
- If you have any questions before or after the round, ask or email me! I'll be happy to provide information and feedback.

email: lydiawang327@gmail.com

background: debated toc ld in hs, now 1A/2N @UH

top level:

tech>truth, if something is conceded then it’s true, but warrants still need to be extended

pet peeves:

- pdfs, google sheets, speechdrop

- counting down

- excessive flow clarification

- stealing prep

- splitting the 2nr

theory:

no such thing as friv theory read whatever you want, default c/I, dtd, no rvis

t:

i like these debates, impact weighing = good

plans:

good, higher threshold on 1AR/2AR extensions than most judges

cps:

equally good for cheaty cps and cp, good competition debate = higher speaks, judge kick unless told otherwise

da:

better than most judges for spin on politics DA, ok for intrinsicness debates

k affs:

been on both sides of the debate, probably slightly neg leaning on framework

ks:

dislike "you link you lose", rep ks, word piks, good for anything else

phil:

never read it in debate but familiar with kant, hobbes, levinas, hegel, etc in academic context

tricks:

err on over explanation, will be annoyed if long underview is read but not utilized well, meaning don’t make me flow your 11^th point on eval theory after the 1ar if you don’t extend it when conceded

She/Her

alice.debatedocs@gmail.com

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Hi y'all! I did policy for 3 years and ld for 1 year at Heights. Though I always went to ld camp, so most of my conceptual understandings about debate come from ld. I am now an assistant ld coach at The Harker School.

My two main goals when I judge are to firstly ensure that the space is safe for everyone and second evaluate the debate in front of me as neutrally as possible so long as it is not one of the 7 things below. I strongly dislike intervention. Debate should be fun!!!

Will not evaluate:

(1) ad homs/ arguments about a debater/ callouts (if something is genuinely unsafe for you, let me or tab know before round.)

(2) any morally repugnant arg (i.e. saying racism good, saying slurs, etc.) The round will end.

(3) eval after [x] speech

(4) give me/my opponent [x] speaks

(5) no aff/neg arguments, or any other argument that precludes your opponent from answering based on the truth of the argument.

(6) arguments that were read in a speech but you say were not in CX or that you do not mention if asked what was read (for instance: if being asked if there are any indep. voters and you do not mention one, that is not a viable collapse anymore)

(7) anything I did not flow and understand the implication of in the original speech. This means if you HIDE arguments you run a HIGH risk of them not being evaluated. Even if I do catch them, speaks will be lowered because I will be annoyed by your unwillingness to fully read and defend your arguments.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

How I think about rounds/debate generally:

(1) When I make decisions I first think about the following things in the following order to determine what piece of offense I am voting on: (a) the highest layer based on arguments in the round, (b) the winning framework, and (c) the winning offense under that framework.

(2) If you talk to me like I know nothing/very little you will be happier with my rfd. Not only does this increase the likeliness that I understand each of your arguments, but it also increases the likeliness that the round breaks down/is evaluated in a similiar way to how you thought about it.

(3) I will vote for any argument with a claim, warrant, and impact/implication (so long as it is not something on the list above). Obviously true arguments have a lower threshold to win than obviously false arguments simply because the burden to warrant the argument is much lower if it is already something I believe. To clarify: when I say "obviously true" arguments I do not mean arguments I personally believe, but arguments that a majority of people generally agree on as fact, such as "the sky is blue".

(4) It greatly annoys me when debaters read arguments they misrepresent. For example: (see the explanation of what indexicals actually are)This does not mean that I will vote against arguments that you misrepresent, but know that you are responsible for warranting every part of the argument and cannot just rely on name-dropping the argument, literature base, or author in place of a warrant. Additionally, I reward well researched and properly represented arguments with better speaks.

(5) I will only go back to read evidence once the entire debate is over if (a) I need to because there is a lack of comparison or (b) you tell me to (which you should do if your evidence is very good or your opponents is worse!). If I have to read evidence because of (a) I will likely be upset because I will feel like I had to intervene somewhere to determine what the better arguement was. Additionally, if you are telling me to read evidence, it is in your best interest to tell me what part of the evidence is really good or why the evidence is better to increase the likelihood I view the evidence in the same way you do.

(6) Inserting rehighlightings is fine as long as I can understand the specific implication of the rehighlighting from listening to your speech. For example: "[x card] concludes [explanation of different conclusion from original argument], INSERT REHIGHLIGHTING" is okay, "they are wrong, INSERT REHIGHLIGHTING" is not.

(7) I WON'T flow off the doc and will only pull it up in constructives to check randomly and make sure you aren't clipping.

(8) The following is a list of "defaults" I have about debate. I think that every default on this list can change as a result of the debate and there should not be an instance when I need to use a "default" because you should be warranting these arguments in the round if they are relevant.
- presumtion negates unless the negative reads a cp, in which case it affirms

- permissibility negates

- comparative words

- I will NOT judge kick unless I am told to. Preferably you would do more than say the words "judge kick" and also justify why it is good.

- competing interps, dtd, no rvi on theory

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Disclosure

The disclosure norms in debate are out of hand. I think disclosure is good. That does not mean you have to disclose if I am judging you but know if you are shifty, lie, or avoid questions I have no problem (a) tanking your speaks (<27) or (b) if you lied, automatically voting against you. Lying is unethical in a similar way to evidence ethics are and I have no problem voting against you if you lie. If you are shifty/avoid questions I will vote on the flow but know your speaks will be ruined and I will be sympathetic to the shell.

- I have judged 5+ debates in the past month where someone makes the argument “screenshots are unverifiable.” If someone says this the answer should not take more than 5 seconds and should just be “they are verifiable in the same way evidence is”. Along these lines – I have added a screenshots section to evidence ethics.

- You should be disclosing over some form of messages. If someone insists on disclosing in person/refuses to over messages, you should still ask over messages and screenshot them not answering. I don’t care if you then went and disclosed in person, send it over messages or you are not getting the I-meet.

- If you don’t want to disclose you should just say you aren’t disclosing and be willing to defend that model of debate. Don’t do things like say the aff is new when it isn’t, say you will disclose and then not, lie about which aff is being read, be unclear what is changing in the aff, etc.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Evidence Ethics

- I think that evidence ethics are a stop round issue, though if you want to just read it as a shell that's fine too and I’ll evaluate it on the flow. If you want it to be a stop round issue say something along the lines of “I want to make an evidence ethics claim, here is what happened” If you are correct W, if you are wrong L with lowest speaks

- Screenshots should not be fabricated. If a screenshot is fabricated, you should treat it as evidence ethics, and it is a stop round issue. I will verify screenshots the same way evidence is verified—by going to the source. This can be one of two things depending on the fabrication a) checking the laptops of the email or b) checking the wiki website

- The following are things I will vote on as a stop-round issue

* clipping (this includes verbally cutting your cards in a different place than your updated doc indicates… I will flow where you say “cut”)

* Citations that are missing or incorrect in one or more of the following parts (given that the information is available): Author name, year, article/book title, URL

* deleting text from the middle of the card/article (this includes replacing it with ellipsis)

* not including full paragraphs/ only having cards with partial paragraphs

* brackets that change the meaning of the text

* including/adding text into the card not from the original article

- If I catch one of these things but no one else does, I won't vote against you, I'll just tank your speaks.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Speaker Points

- I'll start at a 28.5 and work up/down from there. 28.5 is average.

- I find myself bumping speaks for: being particularly nice in round/to your opponent, reading an argument/a strategy I haven't seen in a while/ever, creative 2nr/2ars, giving a winning 2nr/2ar I did not think of during prep, rehighlighting evidence, efficiency.

- You will lose speaks for: being overly rude/aggressive, splitting 2nr/2ars unnecessarily, going for the incorrect 2nr/2ar, misexplaining arguments, an unstrategic cx, reading bad arguments (1 line tricks!), poor time allocation, if I feel like I have to intervene because of lack of evidence comparison/weighing.

- I try to base speaks primarily on strategy & execution.

Strake Jesuit '25

Email chain: justindebate314@gmail.com

I like debates that feature long pieces of evidence.

Scenarios start at 0%. Concessions aren't a substitute for lack of explanation. Sweeping explanations of the world rarely exist.

Arguments that contravene basic intuition require an extreme level of warranting that is hard given a short timeframe.

LD Quick Pref List:

K -- 1

T vs K-Affs - 1/2

K-Affs - 2

Policy Strat - 2

T - 2

Phil - 3

Theory - 4

Tricks - 4

About me:

I'm Avery, call me Avery. I use She/her. I don't like being called judge. If you "Sir" me you will not be happy with your speaks at the end of the round.

email: awilso10@trinity.edu

Put me on the email chain. The email chain should be set up before the round starts, NOT AFTER!

I debated for 4 years at Jack C Hays.

Trinity 2025

Not voting on cards written by current debaters

"techy but not super tech over truth".

My opinions about the world don't leave when I enter the round and the same applies for every other judge in existence. Certain args are obvious no go-s such as transphobia good, racism good, sexism good, etc. If your thought before an arg is "should I read this," its probably safest to assume no

I will not be friendly towards misgendering/transphobia in debate and reserve the right to vote how I want at the end of the round. Don't want me to make interventionist decisions? Don't be transphobic. This is an activity that should be safe for those involved in it. I would recommend avoiding gendering your opponent during the round, instead refer to the speech, arg, or if you must refer to the debater saying "the neg" or "the aff" will suffice.

Will I vote on death good, spark, wipeout, etc? Yes, Happily. Anything else is cowardice.

I feel as though I'm often read as a K judge - my voting record probably doesn't really reflect this to the extend one might expect. I tend to vote on extinction first a lot. I get annoyed at K args often in LD due to lack of explanation and relying on overarching claims with little to not actual debating of the aff.

Longer thoughts on things -- Updated Feb 2024

Every arg in debate is either defense or offense. At the end of the day, the team with the most winning offense wins any debate, so make your offense clear. offense, offense, offense.

K - I'm K competent, explain your thing. If you can't explain your thing I dont want to fill in the gaps for you so I'm not going to. I think LDers often don't enough framing with the K and just kind of have floating links and vague impacts, a coherent framework component to the 2nr solves a lot of this.

I've engaged and read a lot of the debate K literature, my personal interests as far as readings go should not influence what you go for. Pomo, Identity, etc (whatever arbitrary category you prefer) are all on the table. My personal interests as far as "critical" literature go are Queer Theory, Psychoanalysis, and Marxism. I am probably familiar enough with your literature to have thoughts on it and not be in the dark no matter what you read.

Very low threshold on some procedural arguments (misgendering, evidence uses racist language, etc) - If debaters did a bad thing that I notice it will likely sway how I end up viewing arguments across other flows unconsciously anyways. Don't be afraid to go for "people doing bad things is bad and its a reason to reject." I'm pretty easily convinced if there is an actual violation

K Affs -- it helps a lot if they are tied into the resolution in some way as far as answering framework goes, but I dont think there by default needs to be a need for this. If you are going for a counter model that actually maybe solves things do that, if you want to just go for impact turns do that. As far as performance goes I find myself not really every doing more than writing "poem" on my 1AC flow and it never being brought up again. Performance should probably be tied into the whole speech act and not just "look I read a thing"

I have been cutting more k-affs recently and understand their strategic appeal and value -- I like it when teams pull out the k tricks when their aff instead of relying on more pathos leaning explanation. Solve an impact.

Framework vs K Affs -- I think a lot about framework debates and have become mostly opinionless on them. I find these debates conceptually really interesting but I'm not sure how much of that can ever be drawn out in LD. Do things with framework besides "limits good!" and engage the aff more. This debate in LD I think is very skewed negative.

Policy Affs vs K -- I end up tapping out on extinction first a lot, but this is mainly due to lack of impact framing or weighing by the negative. If you are doing a framework push in the 1ar/2ar you need to implicate what winning it gets you/ why the links dont matter anymore etc on a substance level. I often find perm explanations from policy affs very lacking, I'd much rather judge an impact turn to the K than a nonsensical perm 2ar. How affs win this debate is by having offense on the the K at some substantive level (links, alt, impacts, not broad issues of "fairness"). Negs should be turning the aff in some way or interact on some level with the aff outside of "there is a link, moving on to impact." otherwise I'm left just evaluating between 2nr impact rambling versus 2ar impact weighing.

Phil - Yes. I have cut phil affs of all varieties and read a lot of them in highschool (Rawls, Contractualism, Scanlon, Virtue Ethics, Kant, even a little Schopenhauer)

I've cut and prepped induction fails, Trinity goes for no free will and we live in a simulation. I rock with a lot of these arguments. I think teams are pretty bad at answering them. do with that what you will. I don't think any of these arguments require truth testing framework to win.

Make it so I either negate or CAN'T affirm the resolution with offense of why affirming would be bad or impossible then you will probably be in a good spot -- Just make sure its CLEAR and an actually strategy and not paired with like 20 other tricks and triggers -- If it's your winning arg, make it win the 2nr and GO for it

Policy Args - Yes they are good. Functionally and Textually compete, explain things. I don't go for or extend these things very often, but I promise I will follow whatever you do. Don't be afraid to go for a CP DA. There's isnt much to say about DAs -- Have uq, a link, have an internal link, have an impact; do that and youre golden

I find a lot of cards about China to be kind of ridiculously racist at points. Policy teams please point this out more.

T - LDers please read an interp with definitions of the resolution words, I'm not a fan of people just saying "grammar" or basing the interp on vague vibes the aff maybe did something bad (Nebel). I try not to hold on to many defaults on T because I think debate about meta level questions should be largely up the debaters. Counter-interps should be extended, they should have standards, and they need reasons why they are good (I dont really care what the reason for it being good is, just make sure you answer the opponents args, otherwise T interps become two ships in the night).

WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH

RVIs on T is an arg I think is foundationally silly -- you dont get to win for following norms. However, drop or undercovered args are undercovered args, go for them if you must.

Theory - Most theory read I find pedantic and rarely a reason to DTD instead of DTA (except condo). Lean neg on condo in LD but very open to it being read. Strong tendency to not vote for AFC, ACC, Colt, TJFs, etc.

Probably not the judge if your A strat is 1AR theory restarts, but I will vote on it I just likely won't be very happy. These debates just end up becoming theory overview 2ars which become very intervention heavy to evaluate.

Disclosure is weird, I don't like voting on specific kinds of disclosure (open source, first three last three, etc). I think this is distinct from args such as "New affs bad" or "mis-disclosure." I do however think disclosure is a good norm and not very persuaded by a lot of arguments to the contrary -- going for disclosure bad is an uphill battle. I don't like voting on disclosure however, but I do feel like this is a problem easily solved by debaters disclosing so my sympathy only goes so far.

Speaker Points -

Every time I enter speaker points it is basically a number randomly generated from my head. I don't have a system for this nor plan to make one. I will give speaks on the vibes, but I tend to hover around high 28 to low 29 for doing an okay/good job.

I've found out I am not a fan of highschoolers trying to be funny in speeches and at worst has made me very very uncomfortable in the past. I like snark, I'm no stranger to it and its how I often come across, there is just often a lack of tact in how this is done.

Lynbrook 23, LD & Policy, 4 bids senior year. Email: soohyukyoon1992@gmail.com

I've researched and thought most about Ks. I am best at evaling these debates. I really really like it when K's have the debater's own unique and original spin, this kind of argument innovation will be greatly rewarded.

However, I have zero preference to what you read. I am interested not in what arguments you read, but how well you can debate those arguments, ie I would rather judge a robust policy T debate filled with clash, than listen to a k v k debate where two debaters are giving monologues.

Arguments are not complete if they do not have a robust warrant, don't just say "middle east escalation causes nuke war" or "Aff is bad, because it's capitalist" tell me the why.

Ways to increase speaks:

-Giving 2nr 2ar off paper --- 1.0+

-Shaking hands after round --- 0.5+

Princeton '24, Cypress Ranch HS '20, pronouns are he/him

tldr;

Debate how you'd like to debate, I'll try to be as tab as possible. I'd like to think I'm not partial towards or against any specific styles of debate. At the end of the round, I'll make a ballot story for both sides, and compare the two, and vote for the "truer" one/one that involves less intervention. I've debated LD all of HS, on the national circuit for 2 years. If you care about winning for qualifications, I did bid.

more thoughts;

I'll generally think about the framework/weighing of the round first, unless it's clear it doesn't matter. Then I'll evaluate whoever has the stronger impacts.

For phil, I believe in persuasive, comprehensive, and cohesive methods of analyzing morality. I believe if your fw is strong, conceding a single 5-word spike probably shouldn't trigger skep or losing the layer. The better fw probably explains why that fw would create more good in the world, or is more accurate/has been more accurate in creating good.

I think a good K framework should be clear on the extent to which the judge has obligations outside of evaluating resolutional arguments, & also your characterization of the world/how debate fits into it. A good K framework should explain why adhering by the kritik's principals and world-view is more important than the materiality and specificity of the opponents case. In K vs K, I think the better K remains grounded throughout, explaining why their worldview will, in the end, help resolve more problems/create more good.

In T/Th, a persuasive argument will motivate how their shell will improve debate. Be very specific with problems in debate you can solve/improve. A 10word phrase like this -> "fairness outweighs education bc unfair arguments make the round's education bad" isn't very compelling/nuanced. I believe a good t/th debater will collapse and explain the specificities of the round, why the violation in this round outweighs continuing debates like this round, have a clear story, examples, weighing, etc.

I'm cool with tricks though i don't think tricks are generally a good strategy

more technical things:.

Any questions, please email michaelzhouabc@gmail.com or message me on facebook (my profile pic is a duck).

^^use that email for email chain too

I'll look at cards if you ask me too in ur speech

Prep time ends when the doc is compiled, as you begin sending it out

If someone is cutting cards, you need to record, and I'll stop the round after

Speaks:

25 - I'd probably say what I thought you did was bad/wrong after round. For example, you miscut, you're rude, etc.

27.5-28 bad strategy (you're going for link and impact turns), no collapse, no clue what you're ballot story is, bad technical arguing (conceding entire offs)

28-28.5 ok strategy, mediocre collapse (going for several main arguments on one off), muddled ballot story, mediocre technical arguing (several conceded arguments)

28.5-29 solid strategy (specific links, specific responses, well built case), solid collapse, good ballot story, good technical arguing (1-2 conceded arguments)

29-29.5 great strategy (innovative case, predicting opponent arguments, forcing opponent to match you), fantastic collapse, fantastic ballot story (specific to opponent's case), fantastic technical arguing (no conceded arguments, multiple responses per key argument, etc.)

29.5+ I think you'll be in finals or winning.