Email: seijidebate[at]gmail[dot]com

Top Level:

West High School SLC '24

Harvard ‘28

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

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

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

No PDFs.

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

KAFFs/Framework:

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

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

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

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

Topicality:

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

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

Counterplans:

All CPs are fair game and competitive until proven otherwise.

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

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

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

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

Disadvantages:

You do you.

0 risk of an impact is possible.

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

Kritiks:

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

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

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

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

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

Speaks:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

29.5-29.8: you're going to late elims

29.9-30.0: you're winning the tournament

she/her

add me to the email chain: amritakrishn@gmail.com

Main experience is in LD, with 4 years HS (UT & National Circuit) under my belt. I served as debate captain for my high school team and have experience with World Schools and PF, albeit the latter not from competing myself. All other events I have a basic level of knowledge about. Rule of thumb I'd suggest is that you consider me a lay judge for all events excluding LD.

For all events:

• Racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. is an automatic loss or DQ, no exceptions.
• Going over time is Bad because It's There For A Reason. I will be timing you just to be sure
• Hydrate please
• Be courteous just in general please and thank you :)

For all debate events:

• Sitting or standing won't increase/decrease speaks
• Prep starts as soon as you start writing or typing. Please don't Literally Cheat
• On that note, if your opponent is using their prep time, you can also use that time to prep
• Speaks are earned, not given, but I hate speaker point ties for awards/breaks because I don't think it's an accurate reflection of a debater's skill. Speaks rubric can be found at the end of my paradigm

Specific paradigms for each respective event listed below. It's highly likely I'll be exclusively a debate judge (if not exclusively an LD judge) so preferences for speech won't be denoted. In fringe cases, just ask me prior to round start.

LD

General

• Clarity over speed always. Speaker points will be lost if I can't follow. Hand signals for if I can/can't understand you will be provided upon request. If you must talk anywhere over ~250 wpm, include me on the email chain
• Include voters in your last rebuttal. If none are specified by one/either party, default voters will be framework and solvency for the resolution. I'll also consider a morality voter if it's pertinent to the resolution (i.e. "ought" directly present)
• If you aren't telling me why you should win your round, you probably aren't winning your round. Weigh your impacts & general arguments pleeeeeeeease
• Signposting & off-time roadmaps are great. Please Use Them

Tech vs. Truth

• TL;DR: Tech > Truth unless you're going into the round with the intent of not debating

~~~ line break ~~~

• My general position on this is that Tech > Truth I GUESS but this has a ton of nuance to it though because debaters are debaters
• On tech: it's you (or the opponent's) job to point out bad internal links or just Cover The Basic Flow
• On truth: Arguments' truth value will always be considered, although prior knowledge about the topic won't influence my decision. Essentially my point with making this distinction is that intentionally running like 17 different half-baked arguments for the sole purpose of overwhelming the opponent is not LD. Maybe you'd feel right at home in policy because I see a lot of former policy debaters or very techy LD competitors try and do this so just know it's not working for me

Progressive

• Plans and counterplans good! Actually makes the debate measurable in a real-world sense too so I'd say it's arguably more applicable to LD than any other prog elements
• Framework > Theory/Phil ALWAYS. You aren't winning if you don't win the framework voter in some way
• Theory is very eh. T conceptually or otherwise doesn't need to be explained to me like I'm 5, mostly because you'll have a tough time trying to get me to vote for it regardless unless there's a clear violation of actual by-the-books NSDA rule by your opponent
• (Side note: NatCir has this extremely strange obsession with running really terrible T with the sole intention of trying to roll people who don't understand T. This probably doesn't help my current impression with theory in general so if you're running T you had better hope you have a good argument behind it lol)
• I would very much not recommend you run any kind of Ks in your cases for two reasons. One is I competed in the UT circuit so I'm obviously ultra-traditional (lol) but also I'm very much a Noob at specific Kritikal philosophy. Please just run normal cases else I will be a Sad Camper

Other events under construction!

• I plan on having dedicated Policy/PF/Speech paradigms here, but for now I don't think I have enough knowledge to actively write one for each event. Again, just assume that I'm a lay judge if I somehow end up in your event. Sorry :(

Speaks Rubric (for Debate kids)

• 30: Outstanding. Should go undefeated or get 1st or whatever is The Best for that specific tournament
• 29: Actively impressed me in round
• 28: Exceeded my expectations in some way
• 25-27: Good work!
• 24: Was disrespectful in some way or did something Pretty Bad to actively have me remove speaks
• < 23: No
• DQ or 0-1: Violated NSDA rule

he/him

I stress confidence in delivery - speeches filled with fluff aren't encouraged, but if you can go at it with as much energy as possible, it will be rewarded. Presenting yourself as knowledgeable and competent is key.

Emphasize analytics and historical background, which makes your speech more grounded and adaptable, in addition to increasing your expertise.

Good phrasing and valuable commentary are vital. I don't just want a rehash - contribute something to the discourse around your topic, give me a fresh angle.

Concise solutions are awesome, but I also understand that some topics are too loose and messy for that - just make your conclusion make sense.

For your own health, please avoid personal AGDs in pretty much everything but oratory.

If you're racist, homophobic, or sexist, you will get a six regardless of the rest of your speech.

This is an incredibly impressive activity, and you should all be super proud. Thank you and good luck!

She/Her

I find confidence in delivery to be the aspect that makes an already great speech into one that's incredible.

Being grounded and recognizing the power you have in this space are vital. I want to hear your voice!

You all are incredible, thank you for the privilege of your time. Good luck!

chocolatecookieswirl@gmail.com

West High 2020'

University of Utah 2024'

B.S Economics

B.S Political Science

One of my core principles about debate is accepting a variety of arguments, so I encourage that students have in their strategy whatever they are comfortable running and won't let any of my predispositions or bias of an argument affect my views of the debate, so I default to tech > truth unless told otherwise.

BUT over the few years I have encountered two positions that seem to be an uphill battle for me.

1) Conditionality -- I have a firm belief that conditionality is vital for negative teams to have an effective strategy in any debate. Please posit a reason why

2 Ks without ANY case defense -- Unless you are making you link you lose arguments on framework. I have a hard time evaluating the K when there is a huge risk of the aff.

Debate is a game at its core but can be easily convinced otherwise. I have run primarily k affs during my junior and sophomore year and only well versed in cap and security. I typically went for policy arguments and framework as a 2N. I enjoy watching the affirmative make clever counter interpretations to eliminate or at least minimize offense on framework, coupled with link or impact turns to the negative model of debate.

Labeling of arguments has become increasingly important to me. It is the clearest way to communicate what argument you are extending for me.

I try to follow this rubric for deciding speakers.

http://collegedebateratings.weebly.com/points-scale.html

Specifically, I look for line by line clarity and organization, overall argument deliberation, and awareness in the debate, in that order. I also reward good disclosure practices on your caselist and in round, so let me know if you believe you meet those criteria, so I can reward you. :)

I have not debated in years, and judge on and off, but I try my hardest, and I am not Michael Wimsatt BUT I do take Judge instruction VERY seriously.

Experience:

Language Arts, Debate Coach, Master's Degree in Technology and Education.

Overall Paradigm:

1. Stand firmly (both metaphorically and literally). Be careful of drunken-sailor syndrome.
2. Do not use notes. Being memorized is always better. (For Interps, not Debates)
3. Use cited evidence to support claims.
4. Use proper grammar and pronounce words correctly.
5. Ask questions that further the debate in cross-x

POLICY PARADIGM: (drop-down for LD and PF)

Spreading: If you don't say something in the round, it isn't part of the round. Additionally, only what I understand counts as being said. Your shared evidence files do not count if you don't get around to saying what is written there.

Kritiks: identify the relevance to the topic before your rebuttal. Example: Religious freedom is not a racism issue so don't try to identify the whole religious freedom argument as not worthy of arguing because you get to say the word racism.

LD PARADIGM:

Spreading: I will not listen to spewing. If I can't understand you, you aren't competing.

Topicality: The quality of your debate will be judged by presenting the topic as the topic (Topicality). Throwing in racism as an argument for something that doesn't even relate just because you like to argue about that thing, doesn't bode well for your technique. In other words, if you must spend more time dedicated to showing why your points are part of the topic instead of why they are more valid than the points of your opponent, you are not on topic.

Theory: Just saying that you win because such-and-such doesn't mean you actually win. Prove your argument is right with valid evidence.

Kritik: Doesn't belong in Lincoln Douglas. If you intend to win based on the idea that you shouldn't be debating something, you won't.

Framework: You should use it. I will be able to flow better if you address items in the order you deem most valuable.

PF PARADIGM:

Not yet identified separately. See LD paradigm for best modality application in PF.

Experience:

Speech and Debate Coach, 8 years

Teacher: History, Language Arts, Civics, and Constitution

Judged PF, LD, Policy, Congress, BQ, and most IE events.

Style:

Cases based solely on theory are often very flimsy but are not altogether invalid. If an opponent is running theory alone, that does not promise a win. You should adequately address their arguments as well as supporting your own topicality.

Spreading anywhere outside of policy debate seems inappropriate most of the time. In policy rounds it should be tempered. If it is in your case but not in your speech, you might not be able to use it and it may be difficult for your opponent to use it against you, but they won't have to.

Novel arguments that are well tied to topicality are always enjoyed, but don't promise a win.

Flow:

Most of my flow is primary contentions and how well they are supported vs attacked. Not significant detail but I can follow cards just fine. Contradictory cards from opponents are just as valid unless you can prove otherwise.

Presentation skill:

Unless something stands out as amazing: Logos>Ethos>Pathos>eye contact

Debate events aren't memorized speeches. If you want me to look up and make eye contact so you can guess what I am thinking, you will get less notes in the process and neither of us will enjoy the round nor the results.

Speech events of any kind maintain the opposite expectation. They should be memorized and make connections. Interps don't require eye contact but you get to decide the value of the 4th wall.

Flagrant violations will always negate your efforts.

Ad Hominem attacks against an opponent will be disciplined in your scores. If they are minimal, you might be warned. If they are excessive or major, they will be addressed through your coach, the tournament director, and possibly your admin or the NSDA.

Calling your opponent stupid in round or after the round in ear shot of the judge is a great way to forfeit a well won round.

I respect your coach and the tournament director but I am not afraid to debate with them either.