:D just be nice and I’ll give good speaks

don't be too toxic

pretty familiar with this topic

speed isn't an issue, but I should be able to understand tags

email is natudaniel02@gmail.com if there's an email chain add me

Central '19-'23

Currently coaching for Central

Hi! I’m Cayden, I use they/them pronouns, please use them! I’m generally quite a neutral judge however I think that making debate an inclusive and fun space outweighs all else.

I have bad hearing so please speak extra loud and if it’s online, make sure your mic is clear!

My email is cayd3nhock3y12@gmail.com, stpaulcentralcxdebate@gmail.com if there's an email chain I’d like to be on it for ease of everything. add

This note comes before anything in this paradigm and its at the top for a reason: Please just run whatever you feel best running. I would rather have you run something I’m generally not partial to well than something I like badly. The best debates come from people running what they know best, so do that!

MS/Nov notes-

1. What I said above about having fun in debates applies even more here, I coached MS and currently coach novice and truly just want it to be a positive experience for everyone involved!
2. Read a plan text! If you are going for a CP or K, read the CP text or alternative!
3. At the end of the day, my role in debate is to help you learn and grow, I am more than happy to answer any questions before or after the round, please feel free to email me if you think of questions after the tournament is over!!!

Some notes:

Pls no death good args in front of me. Also if your args have TW/CW let me know before the round starts please, not before the speech.

Judge Instruction-I think debate has lost a lot of what I think is one of the most important pieces which is the story of arguments. I am down for the tech level, but you are much more likely to get my vote with good judge instruction and consistently explaining the story of your args and how they shake out by the end of the round.

Spreading- Clarity comes first. I will be on the speech doc for the ease of things however I will not flow off the speech doc. If I cannot understand your tag, date, and author I will flow it as an analytic. I firmly believe that policy debate would be a far better activity without spreading, that isn’t to say I see no purpose in spreading, I absolutely understand it, but I do think it is bad for our education. If you are reading this and worried I won't be able to understand you, just slow down on your tags a little bit for me and we are good, I can flow you I pinky promise. I will also call clear three times for each person after that, if I can't understand you I won't flow it.

In round non debate stuff: I debated online for a year+ so trust me, I fully understand that “normal” policy debate ethos has gone out of the window, that being said, I would prefer if you do whatever you can so I can hear/understand you better as my hearing is not great. I also will not tolerate being explicitly rude in round. I was a very assertive debater myself so I’m not saying don’t be assertive, but don’t just be flat out rude, especially during cross. You will be getting your speaks docked. As stated earlier, debate should be fun and inclusive and I think that this is an important part of it.

Tech v Truth- Not gonna lie, unsure who is like a true truth>tech judge these days. I'm securely tech>truth, only spot that I think is a little bit closer towards truth is on bad IL chains on DAs. I also weigh arguments as new the first time they have a warrant, analytic or ev.

T- I am down for T however my standards on T impacts are higher than the avergae natcir and lower than localcir. I default to models but am also more likely to happily pull the trigger on in round abuse.

Ks- I ran Ks on both sides and love them over most policy arguments however I’m not going to try and claim to understand your complex literature I just have not read. If you are able to explain your K literature well to me I would love to see you run your K, however if you can’t, I’m not going to try and do the work for you. I also probably buy most no link args over bad link args BUT I do tend to give alt solvency a fair bit of leniency. I am down for you link you lose good or bad debates, down for most K args, not a fan of baudy or psycho but I'll judge em fairly I just won't be the happiest camper.

PTX DAs- I kinda hate them but I totally get that they are a very legit strat especially on the topic, but please be able to defend why PC is real.

CPs- Go for it. I ran a lot of these and see they have a place, that being said I’m also very open to hearing arguments against that. I think that on perm theory I’m pretty deadset neutral but I default to test of competition (idk any judges who don't anymore). I can also be convinced that X type of CPs are bad for debate if given good education and fairness arguments.

K Affs- I ran one, go crazy, love a good planless debate, love a good framework debate. Some of my favorite rounds have been performance style but also some of my least favorite have been bad K affs. I am probably not your best judge for a fairness bad round. Also, I have only ever heard one good death of debate argument and I think nearly all of the rest are not worth it in front of me.

FWK- I go through this first if its present and it will never be a "wash" for me. I default to a policy maker but also ran basically every fw under the sun so I am happy to be convinced otherwise. Please slow down on this once you get to the rebuttals and I love techy cross applications of other flows to fw.

Condo!- I go into each round deadset neutral on condo. I've seen teams win condo v a 1 off conditional advocacy and teams win v condo running 10+ conditional advocacies. I probably am truly deadset neutral on my own opinions around the 6 condo advocacies line, slightly more likely to vote aff once you hit the 10 off mark. All of this can be 100% changed by the round in front of me (obviously) just know these are the mental lines I think I have.

Theory in general- I am sad to say I feel like I need to add this because of Central. I will vote on most theory args, I defualt to condo good but that can be easily changed in round. I also think in round abuse args are always going to be the strongest but models of debate is fine too. At the end of the day though, just because I will vote on it doesn't make me happy to and your speaks will reflect that.

Also, unless the tournament rulebook specifies disclosure, please don't run disclosure theory in front of me, I believe that if you can win on disclosure theory, you can win on something else.

Add me to the email chain: indigo.sabin@gmail.com

Pronouns: He/Him

Hey all! I did Debate for four years at Eagan Highschool, and am a current freshman in college. Feel free to ask me any and all questions before the round. I’m happy to disclose if the tournament allows, and I’m also happy to answer any questions regarding my decision. However, know that my decision will obviously not change after talking to me after round.

General stuff: I'm Tech>Truth, which means I will evaluate all arguments no matter the legitimacy of it. That doesn’t mean I want to though! I think the longer Im involved with debate, the more I’ve started to lean toward the truth side of things. This is mostly because I don’t want to vote off of a bad argument just because it's funny. I think it’s so much fun to write those cases, and use them when you’re out of then tournament or with your friends. But I also know that can be frustrating for some trying to take each round seriously, regardless of their position in the tournament. I will vote for these arguments if you win on the tech, but I don’t want to, and you’re going to have to do a lot of work to do that in the first place. If there is actually no clear offense on either side I vote neg on presumption, which is lame, but so is a lack of evidence. I’m not really worried about that though.

Aggression: I truly despise aggressive debaters within cross and if you are one of those people I will give you a 25. Please be nice to each other. Debate is a activity/game we play to further our learning, understanding, and argumentation, not to show that we are better or that our opponents are foolish for not acting the same as you.

How to win my ballot:I’m looking for clear and concise argumentation along with consistent and comparative weighing. Speed is fine, but clarity is key in terms of persuasiveness. I also ask if you are going fast that you’ll send a speech doc. Im a judge that likes to call cards, and if you’re going to go fast on top of that, I would prefer receiving speech docs. As I said earlier I will vote on just about anything, but I need to see strong warranting at every level of the link chain, and I need YOU to tell me why your case is better than the opponents. Basically whatever side will be the easiest and clearest path for me to vote, I’m going to take it. So I ask you make it easier for me, because messy debates are, well, a mess to deal with.

Weighing: I'm begging you to weigh. And start weighing ans early ans you can. Weighing in rebuttal has never hurt a team, and just creates a stronger narrative for your side, and why you should win. Weighing becomes one of the first things to be forgotten, which makes more work for me to do comparison for you. You really don't want that, because I am not going to look at your contention the same way you do, so tell me how to look at it!Otherwise I'm going to make a decision 50% of you don't love.

Back half: Please condense the flow within your Summary, I do not need every single argument I've heard this round within your summary. First summary is fine to bring up some brief evidence to block out the negatives rebuttal. After Second summary I will evaluate absolutely nothing that is new within any of these speeches. FF should just be a more concise summary that uses THE EXACT argumentation used within summary. I absolutely hate bringing up new arguments in final focus and just thinking about it now makes me sad.

Theory/Prog:I do and will evaluate theory, but I will not vote for any frivolous theory.

-I’m a paraphrasing hack, because evidence in debate is so atrocious. You need to have the evidence in your card verbatim, and you need to have cut cards, I’m begging you.

-I will vote on trigger warning theory if one hasn’t been provided. I’m not stingy on how this is done, you can give a trigger warning verbally, or through a google form. I really don’t care how the trigger warning is delivered, as long as both sides understand the content they’re going to hear.

-I like disclosure, but it’s not an auto-win if you’re in the pro disclosure side. I really don’t love judging disclosure but I will.

-I’m not the best judge to evaluate Ks but I will. It’s not my favorite debate, and I don’t really see much of a purpose. All arguments and experiences are valid, but there’s a time and a place for those to be argued for. I think since most people don’t have good answers to it, it becomes a tool used to win, rather than to highlight an issue within our community or world.

Speaker Points: 99% of the time I won't give you anything lower than a 27, unless you say something truly triggering, offensive, racist, sexist, or rude in any way. Tbh speaker points are pretty dumb, so I give relatively high speaks. I wouldn't worry about it as long as you're a half decent human being. But if you’re really looking for that 30, here’s what I’m looking for.

Speaker Point Breakdown
30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

Overview

-archan.debate@gmail.com---add me to the chain.

-Tech over everything. Debate is a game and you should maximize your chances of winning. Judges who say "I'll vote on anything except [xyz]" don't understand what tech over truth means.

-Many decisions I've witnessed have been atrocious. Judges don't vote for args they like even though it was a technical crush, they rep out based on coaches poll rankings, or just don't evaluate the tech because they ideologically agree with one side. I will try my hardest to not do any of those things.

-CX is often the most interesting part of the debate. Show resolve and stand your ground. If you defended something in your speech, defend the logical implications in cross. One of my biggest pet peeves is when teams try to weasel out of the hard cx questions.

-Innovation is good---if you have something that is genuinely new to debate, I will be very happy to listen to it.

-Neg terror is good. My most fun 2ACs were always against 10+ off. Aff teams should win theory or counter-terror (straight turn the DAs, read stuff that can be cross applied across the flows and don't cross apply till the 1AR, and impact turn everything). Chaotic debates are the best debates.

-The point of debate isn't to maximize clash nor to avoid cowardice. It's to win. Go for dropped aspec, don't send analytics, and generally anything that increases your chances of getting the ballot. I will award strategic decisions more than your attempt to showcase your bravery by flexing about how you made the unstrategic decision to take your opponent up on what they're good at.

-If you win a try-or-die claim, I will pretty much always vote for you---if we're guaranteed to go extinct in one world, I'd always choose a different world.

-Inserting rehighlightings is good and should be done more---it lowers the barrier to entry for ev comparison and deters bad evidence.

-There is no substantive argument that's off limits: death good, hidden aspec, and spark are all fair game.

-Rep means nothing to me. A lot of my prefs as a small school debater my junior and senior year were preffing around judges who we thought would vote for whichever team had more clout as debaters. I will not care about how many bids you have, where you are on the coaches poll, or what school you go to.

-Read more impact turns.

-Ad homs are logical fallacies that don't win ballots.

Hot takes

Most paradigms are the exact same and don't give any insights into how to debate in front of them. Judges who don't have any controversial debate opinions haven't thought about debate enough. Here's a (non-extensive) list of mine:

-Plan text in a vacuum is true. Judges who simultaneously hate positional competition and PTIAV don't understand competition. Both PTIAV and competition describe how to determine the mandates of the aff. Any counter-interp to PTIAV is equivalent to positional competition and justifies competition off of that. Eg, if you think that a better standard is cross-ex explanations of the plan, then that's logically identical to having an interp that CPs can compete off of cross-ex.

-How "generic" an argument is has no implication for how well it rejoins the 1AC. No clue why people have a moral panic over seeing the NGA CP.

-Soft left affs should be the norm. If deployed right, the security K should deter all extinction affs because it's right that all of the 1ACs impacts are fake. If aff teams were able to debate framing contentions properly and judges didn't hack for extinction outweighs, the aff win percentages would skyrocket. There's a reason that no one takes debate cases seriously irl, and people just need to be able to import that logic into debate.

-If you're allowed to kick parts of CPs, then that means that every CP text is functionally infinite condo as you can kick any individual letter or permutation of letters.

-Textual competition is terrible. If the norm, I think it would collapse debate. The distinction between only being able to permute words vs being able to permute letters seems to be an arbitrary line drawn to make it work in the aff's favor. But, taken to the logical extent, it would be that you could literally permute any combination of letters or punctuation to make any sentence. Especially because the aff gets to choose the plan and jam as many characters in it as possible, this seems like it would be very hard to beat. The best answer I heard was PICs deter, but under a model of textual + functional, the majority of the PICs wouldn't be functionally competitive, but the ones that are could be read either way, so I don't get how this is defense. With that being said, it was around 50% of my 2ARs against process CPs, so it obviously can be defended in a debate.

-Affs need to be immediate. If they don't, then it makes it impossible to ever be neg. The aff team will always get out of DAs by delaying the plan (the answer that's like normal means = immediate is [a] an assertion with no ev backing it up and [b] taken out if the aff chooses to say that it isn't immediate in the plan). That seems like a big-ish issue, but I think that the bigger issue is that it makes any CP unviable. Teams can always say "perm do the CP and the plan in 100 years". That solves every net benefit ever because they're all based on the squo for uniqueness. It's definitely not intrinsic since the perm just specs the timeframe of the aff (similar to how they can go for PDCP against the courts aff by 'speccing' that the aff is the courts). It would destroy all neg ground.

-Most theory interps should be impossible to win. Nearly all of them don't have a clear interp (what is a 'process CP'?), get rid of all CPs (every CP necessarily has to PIC out of something to beat PDCP), or don't exclude anything (no CP 'results in the aff,' proven by competition args). Neg teams that exploit this will have a very easy time beating theory in front of me.

-There are so many things in LD that would eviscerate the best policy teams. If there was a team that ever got good at phil or tricks, most policy people would not know how to respond.

K-Affs

-Very good for K teams that realize that Ks are a technical tool that is strategic because it has so many good tricks, very bad for for K teams that try to ethos their way out of technical concessions.

-Impact turns > counter-interps. Your counter-interp will always be contrived and incoherent when held up at scrutiny. Middle ground strategies are just harder to thread the needle on. It probably also links to your exclusion DA.

-Ambivalent between fairness and clash---go for whatever you're more comfortable with/what's going better for you in the round.

-Reading T is no different than other forms of engagement vs K affs. It is not "psychic violence".

-Read more stuff vs K affs---word PICs against un-underlined portions of the 1AC or impact turns to stuff like warming are all fair game.

-Go for presumption. When teams choose to give up fiat, they require winning that voting aff does something. It doesn't.

-I think that I'm more lenient on neg teams for links to DAs. If one of your cards says your method does something, impact turns to that definitely link as it disproves that the endpoint of your research practice as a desirable goal.

Ks on the neg

-Neg framework interps should moot the plan. Trying to debate the K like it's a CP means that it'll lose to the perm double-bind. If the aff gets to weigh their plan, extinction will almost always outweigh.

-Framework is never "a wash". It's a theory debate that has two discrete choices---not a continuous spectrum that the judge can arbitrarily chose their default ideological predisposition from.

-Philosophical competition is a worse version of positional competition (you not only get links off of what the 1AC says, but now the vibes that it gives off too?), but teams mess up on it. No counter-interp to philosophical competition = impossible to go for the perm.

-Use more K tricks. I'm very good for it.

-Defend your method---if the 1AC says that Russia is a threat, then defend that Russia is a threat.

-Beating 'extinction outweighs' relies on you winning an alternative to util (or winning fw to moot the impact).

-More teams should go for theory against alts---most are nonsense and fiat way more than should be allowed.

-If the alt is material, it mostly always has some great DAs to go for. Going for heg good vs basically any material alt is almost always a viable strat.

Soft left affs

-They're good. See "hot takes" section.

-Two types of framing interps that are good:

---Discounted util: defend that consequences matter, but the way that we calculate them should be different in some way that discounts the impact. Eg, probability * ln(impact). Of course, this has some problems, but it's a much better starting point than "probability first".

---Alternatives to util: preferably something that says something like consequences are irrelevant combined with a boatload of "consequences fail" cards.

-Most framing contentions are atrocious. These are some args that are almost uniformly awful in debates:

---Probability first: a 75% risk of a paper cut doesn't outweigh a 74% risk of being tortured.

---Cognitive bias: a helpful tiebreaker, but it's not an interp. Also you open yourself up to cognitive bias claims going in the other direction.

---Conjunctive fallacy: doesn't assume debate where dropped args are true, so the diminishing effect, while true irl, is useless for debate.

---Don't evaluate future lives: might be true (probably not though), but largely irrelevant as if they win their interp, 7 billion * 1% will still outweigh.

---Util is racist/sexist/ableist: it still requires you to have a counter-interp for framing. Even if you win that util is the worst thing in the world, if I don't have some other heuristic to evaluate impacts, then I have to use util because it's the only one introduced in the round.

T

-PTIAV is good. See "hot takes" section.

-Good for T debates. Read more cards, indict your opponent's ev, and win the tech.

-Reasonability seems pretty bad. The only net benefit is substance crowd-out, but that's impact turned by just winning that T debates are good (which, I'm pretty easily persuaded is true). It seems to be arbitrary (at what threshold is an interp reasonable?) and the culmination of all reasonable interps seems pretty unreasonable. Despite this, the main answer seems to be "judge intervention," which honestly is probably inevitable.

-Debatability and predictability are often talked about in a vacuum, separated from the actual context of the debate. Everyone agrees that a definition that isn't predictable at all or one that would destroy our ability to debate would be worse than a middle ground that is fairly predictable or fairly debatable. As such, I think teams should spend like time arguing about whether predictability or debatability outweigh, and spend that time explaining how their opponents interp isn't predictable or debatable.

-Tech > truth means that I'll vote on weird interps. Especially if there's some sort of technical mistake (dropping one interp in an interp spam, debatability outweighs predictability, or that overlimiting is good), you should go for it.

CPs

-I've gone for every flavor of bad CPs available: Space Elevators, Future Gens, Consult [x] country. It's very winnable in front of me, but aff teams that know what they're doing will have no problem in easily defeating most of them on competition.

-Saying the words "sufficiency framing" in every 2NC/2NR overview doesn't really convince me of anything.

-All theory and competition debates are models debates. Make sure that you are defending your model, not whatever happened in this round.

-Every CP is a PIC, and they all have a process. Make your theory interp precise.

-I'm very good for condo debates---on both sides. Condo is about the practice, not the number of condo you read in the round---number interps are inevitably arbitrary and devolve to infinite anyways. It's probably the only theoretical reason to reject the team. The only neg impact is neg flex---I don't know why people go for anything other than that in the 2NR.

-Uniqueness matter a LOT in theory debates. Both sides generally agree on the direction of the link (ie, everyone agrees that a world without condo would be harder for the neg), but you need to win uniqueness to make it be a DA against your opponents interp. Obviously there's the generic debate stuff like first/last speech, infinite prep, or 13-5 block skew, but topic specific analysis almost always trumps those. Engage and interact with your opponents warrants for uniqueness, don't just read your generic block back at them.

-Do more work for the debatability DA for definitions.

-Analytical CPs are good. If its obvious how they solve the aff, no explanation is needed. If it's complicated, then you should explain it, preferably in the 1NC.

-Fiating in DAs is underrated and more teams should do it.

DAs

-Politics is a good DA, I'm not sure why everyone seems to hate it. It's a negative consequence of the plan that's probably real for most affs.

-Good for fake DAs that rely on artificial competition. Fiat in more offense.

-I debated on three topics where there was no link uniqueness (Water, CJR, and NATO). Thumpers are extremely useful. If a neg team can't tell you why the link would be triggered by the plan but nothing else that already happened, it's probably a losing DA.

-Uniqueness CPs and CPing out of future thumpers is pretty much always legit in the 1NC, and debatably legit in the 2NC.

-Both sides should read more evidence on what normal means is on most process DAs. Ie, if you're aff facing a resource tradeoff DA, reading ev that normal means is increased congressional funding is often a good argument.

-I think turns case is often overhyped. It depends on the neg winning the uniqueness and link, which the aff team is rebutting anyways.

Impact Turns

-Go crazy. I'm good for anything you have.

-Sustainability is often more important than both sides give it credit for---it frames functionally everything else in the debate.

-Fiat out of aff scenarios!! I will give high speaks for smart CPs---most external aff impacts vs impact turns are very easy to have an analytic CP that solves it.

-S-risks outweigh X-risks. While it's often helpful to have a card for this, I'll automatically assume it absent impact calc from either side and make it a side constraint to avoid a small risk of any S-risk, similar to how judges would evaluate a 1% risk of extinction over anything else even without explicit impact calc.

-Big pet peeve of mine is saying something is "unethical" without engaging the substance of the argument. In most impact turn debates, both sides agree that util is how you frame ethics. So, if the neg is saying that extinction would net increase utility, saying "wipeout is unethical" isn't an argument unless you win that it's worse (in which case, you don't need to say that argument, because you would've won anyways).

-Update your cards---especially for less common impact turns, everyone reads super old cards---don't do that.

-Spark: go for better args. Nuclear winter is obvi made up and is solved by the bunkers CP. Nuclear tornadoes/Saarg (who is actually batshit btw) is empirically denied and taken out by a CP that spaces nuclear attacks out. UV is better, but people in the poles would probably survive. But, civilizational collapse would eliminate all tech, making us vulnerable to all disasters and elimination potential for beneficial AI and space col. Those are S-risks that def outweigh any neg scenario (which, to be fair, are almost always worse than aff scenarios).

-Wipeout: win positive V2L, alien contact won't cause extinction, MCE solves animal suffering, and some random future tech won't condemn us all to infinite torture. These are all very intuitive and true arguments. In evenly matched debates, the aff would always win. However, due to prep disparities (people who are planning to go for wipeout will spend more time prepping it out than an average aff team), these debates are not often evenly matched.

LD Stuff

I've never debated in LD, but I've now coached/judged one LD tournament and was extremely close to the LDers at my school and talked to them about LD specific things. I will be completely lost in phil rounds, but I think that I'll be decently competent in tricks rounds and good in theory rounds. Your best bet is gonna be to go for policy-like stuff though, I'll have the most familiarity with it.

However, with that being said, the neg side bias seems pretty massive in LD and I'll probably be sympathetic to aff teams that try to use tricks or cheaty args to try to compensate for that.

Prefs shortcut:

1 - policy v policy, policy v k, k v policy, theory

2 -

3 - tricks

4 - k v k

5/s - phil

-This topic is insane for mechanism CPs---I would highly recommend reading them in front of me.

-Idk if this is true, but I heard that LDers don't go for fairness on framework often---I think that's a mistake and that fairness is probably the best impact.

-Nebel T is low key kinda true.

-Tricks---I'll evaluate them, and I feel like I'll be better than most policy judges as I went for pretty tricky stuff, but I think that I'll still be worse for you than most judges. I feel like I'll also be more lenient on newer args bc I'm used to a format where there's a lot of time to recover if you mess up. I'll be fine for tricks like truth testing, presumption and permissibility, paradoxes, and calc indicts. Probably not so much for things like evaluate after X speech.

-Theory---I'll be pretty decent for you---I'll eliminate most of my biases, and for some stuff (like yes/no 1AR theory), I won't have any biases in the first place. Look at the CP section above for more advice.

-RVIs on T are probably bad? I'll be more amenable to them than I am in policy rounds bc ik it's a norm here, but I probably wouldn't recommend going for one.

-Phil---I'm gonna be fully lost. It's probably in your best interest to avoid these debates. I know basic stuff like util and deontology. I'm obviously open to hearing other stuff, but won't know it at all, which means that your burden of explaining what it is is gonna be way higher. I'm pretty biased to util though.

-Debate in front of me like you were debating in front of Sam Anderson or Aerin Engelstad

Hi, I have never judged debate before.

(This is written by Anastasia Koch, my friend, read her paradigm)

Clarity of speech and arguments is important. Don’t talk light speed, if I can’t follow it isn’t on my flow. If you look like you lost me you probably did.

Please be clear when you spread

Topics I'm familiar with ~~

Emerging Technology- It was the 2022-2023 topic, my favorite and where I started debate - it was relevant to real world events and it was really interesting to debate about

IDEA- It was to expanding education for persons with disabilities and I thought it was weird that the packet CP was to fund it through marijuana legalization

Income Inequality - Currently suffering through it

Theory~ run it, I'll listen but like if the other team spends 10 seconds on it the flow is out -

Aff has infinite prep - Neg has 13 minute speech --- This argument is a 50/50 split for me

Kritik ~ Love Kritiks - very rarely will someone know how to debate FW but love K debaters that do -- Also I buy really vague alts, like REALLY vague alts - not too vague though I guess...

Do not impact turn the cap K

IF applicable - run orientalism Kritik, I wanna see it and advocated for

Counterplan~ CP with analytics that says we solve AFF without explanation get me ick. Also like find cards that say you solve AFF somehow it's easy. Love net bens but hate internal net bens -- I genuinely believe that CPs need to have a net ben or otherwise they're kinda bad for the debate space because it just allows NEG to have so many ways to solve AFF and it could be something ridiculous like magic to solve the AFF and I would agree on that theory argument

Disadvantage ~ Run it, idk

Topicality ~ Yeah cool run it

Planless AFFs ~ I think that they are okay but have two weaknesses in my opinion.

1 - On FW, can you proof that your way of debating is good for the debate space and that o/w procedural fairness - that's where I get loss a lot because I do believe in procedural fairness is lost when K-AFFs are run but they can and should proof that current debate space it's in is all that matters

2 - If policy focus plan then can it solve your impacts without being vague - if not policy focus how is it not exclusively AFF - Can you also proof that only AFF solves while not letting the NEG to easily counterperm or not letting them just say "okay you solved it in this round already" somehow explain how that solvency in this round is not enough

Doha ElShennawy (she/her)

If you have an email chain, any questions or anything else that you would like to let me know, please use doka.debate@gmail.com.

Background:

I am a debate captain for varsity policy at Rosemount High School. I will probably only judge middle school debate or high school novice, at least for now; all things in my paradigm will be meant for novice/rookie debaters.

Prefs:

T & Theory: I have a bunch of experience with both, so I'm pretty much fine with you running those

Ks: Most of my senior year was one off afropess, or an afropess k-aff, and I mostly ran one-off the year before. I loooove Ks and will definitely vote on them. No, you don't necessarily need to win the alt to win the K flow, as long as you explain why.

CPs: I’ll vote on these too, but make sure you know what the net benefit is and to explain it in round.

DAs: If you’re running one, make sure you explain the link!! (and internal links), otherwise I have no reason to even consider the DA in the round.

General tips:

Speaker points: SIGNPOST!!!!!! Unless it’s the 1AC, you should be giving a roadmap for every speech. Don’t be overly aggressive or passive aggressive/condescending to anyone in round or in the room. Keeping your speeches organized and making sure your tags are obvious and clear will help you out a lot, both in speaker points and just having generally neater debates. Saying “next” between cards or numbering them is the easiest way to do so. If you interrupt someone as they’re trying to answer your cross-ex question and then use “they didn’t even answer our question” as some sort of leverage in your next speech, I’ll immediately take off speaker points because that’s honestly just annoying. Please don't start screaming as a way to emphasize your point; sure you can talk a little louder than usual, but I'm not trying to get a migraine and it's honestly just annoying and unnecessary, no matter how much of a "tactic" you seem to think it is.

CX: As long as there are 2 people on both teams, I’m fine with tag teaming. Just make sure that you ask or answer most of the questions if it’s your cx time. If you’re mav against a team of 2, I’m fine with you taking any extra CX time as prep.

When extending cards, make sure you explain why you are extending the card and contextualize it in the round and why it is important. If you don't, there might not be any real meaning to it, especially for me as the judge.

Feel free to ask me any questions before, after, or during the round. As long as it’s debate related and not cheating, I’ll give you an answer if I have one. I’ll add more things as I think of them. Again, my email is doka.debate@gmail.com.

WE MUST DEBATE

-

About Me

You can call me Daniel (He/Him).

Eagan '23, Georgia Tech '26.

I debated LD for four years at Eagan, competing at a mix of local and circuit tournaments.

Check out paradigms from Mark Kivimaki, Sam Anderson, and Aerin Engelstad if you'd more detail. I agree a lot with what they have to say.

Updated 12/12/2023.

Important

Put me on the email chain - danielwochnick@gmail.com.

Feel free to email me before/after the round with any questions.

I'll disclose a decision if both debaters are okay with it.

I'll listen to pretty much anything (exceptions are no bigotry, no personal attacks), but I won't vote on it if I don't understand it. Arguments also must have cogent warrants and be explained.

Be respectful. (I will drop you and/or tank your speaks if this becomes a problem, especially if your opponent points it out).

I will accommodate whatever you need to be comfortable. You don't have to call me "judge." I have no preference if you stand or sit, wear a mask, debate on paper or read from a computer, have you camera on or off, wear a suit or pajamas, sit in the front or back of the room, etc. as long as I can hear you clearly when you speak

Speaks

Please have fun debating! Be serious when it's appropriate but please don't be serious all the time

You'll get higher speaks if you make smart strategic choices or if you make me laugh

I'll bump your speaks up (at my discretion) if you:

Format your doc nicely (if applicable).

Ask your opponent a question that's not debate related in cross (especially if it's funny).

Email me song recommendations!

LD

I'll vote off the flow. That said it will benefit you to tell me how I should evaluate the round. Don't leave it up to my interpretation.

Spend more time explaining things I'm less likely to understand if they're important to the round.

Speed:

I won't be able to flow top-speed spreading, especially online. If I can't flow it I won't evaluate it. 'Fast' speed for locals is fine. Please be clear.

Argument Preferences (These are just my defaults, I am happy to be convinced otherwise):

1 - Policy - I dislike multiple condo, process counterplans, otherwise policy stuff is great.

2 - K - Not super familiar with K lit so explain it well. They're fun. Topical K Affs are awesome.

3 - Phil - Explain it well, I'm not super familiar with the lit. Real-world examples are the best.

4 - Theory - You better have a good reason for reading it. Fairness is not really an independent voter, unless your opponent broke an actual hard rule. I default to reasonability, drop the argument, no RVIs, but convince me otherwise.

5 - Tricks - Just don't (Unless it's funny, then maybe).

Unranked - Traditional LD - Go for it. Make sure you engage with your opponent to the best of your ability.

PF

I don't have experience judging PF, but you can consider me tech over truth. I'm not a fan of paraphrasing. I have a semi-circuity background in LD so I am comfortable with evaluating policy-esque arguments (see my LD paradigm for more detail).

Policy

See my LD paradigm. I've watched a handful of policy rounds and am familiar with the structure of policy arguments, but assume I have no topic knowledge. I won't be able to flow a fast policy round, make your doc look nice.