NSD TX LD Tournament
2023 — TX/US
VLD Judges Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideContact Info
Email: joshadebateemail@gmail.com (please add me to the email chain) w/ Tournament Name: School Name (Aff) vs School Name (Neg)
Pronouns: He/Him
Currently: One of the assistant coaches at Dulles HS and I Coach a few other kids.
Background (Updated For 2023-2024 Season)
I am a current Sophmore at Rice University & I graduated from Challenge Early College High School w/an extremely small and underfunded debate program.I've been part of the activity for a while and want to give back to the community. I've tried every format at least once, and I am a progressive debater who started off traditional who has made it to a few BID Rounds, including Emory & Stanford, qualified to TFA State 2x and made it octos, qualed to UIL State for Congress and LD a bunch of times, etc.
I have taught at camps such as TDC, NSD, & VBI
*I Specialize in Non-T Afropess, Afro Opt, Afro-Futurism, Performance, Cap, Security, etc. (pretty much any K literature) but started off stock/lay/traditional and understand Policy args well.
Conflicts
Institutions: Frank Black Middle School; Heights HS; Challenge Early College HS; Dulles HS
Individual Debaters: Carnegie Vanguard KF; Garland LA; & St John TI
TLDR: What I don't like
1) If you are running identity args and you don't identify with that identity i.e afropess, queerpess, feminism and you say "I" and "We" when you don't know the struggle
2) Promoting racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, lack of necessary content warnings, etc.
3) Rudeness- I understand aggression, but I am not a big fan if you are mean to others in the round. Debate rounds can cause anxiety, and people are human... remember that. Rudeness will not lose you the round, but I will tank your speaks- and if someone runs an IVI or a DTD warrant because of something said I will evaluate it.
LD & CX Specific
DA's, Larp, Stock, Lay, Stock, General Debate =)
This is what I started with. I'm cool with it! Just make sure to do the important things like:
[A] Weigh impacts and clearly delineate what arguments you are gaining offense from- if you are Aff my vote is dependent on offense, while for the Neg if the DA's/Disadvantages are great or the offense o/w the Aff- then you get my vote-pretty straightforward
[B] Defense is not sticky- please extend down the flow. I'm a lot more lenient for novices, but if your opponent does it proficiently, I will address
[C] I love evidence comparison- if you indict the author or what the card is saying, I am less likely to evaluate that card in the round- which will severely harm their link chain.
[D] Run whatever args you want and have fun- I'll vote on anything. I will evaluate extinction first and against K Affs I think its a good strat to go for.
Theory:
I default to competing interps, no rvi's and drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument, reasonability against all other types or friv shells.
I'm ok with using theory as a strategic tool but the sillier the shell the lower the threshold I have for responses. Please weigh and slow down for interps and short analytic arguments.
I personally did not disclose on the wiki because I believe it to be AB, thus, my threshold for disclosure is a lot lower. That being said, I have read different forms of disclosure and lost rounds to it where I have agreed with the RFD. I won't rule out disclosure and have no issue voting on it; just know I won't vote off of like a "small school prep" arg as a gg issue right away unless conceded.
Theory v Theory: Metaweighing is extremely important here and I have a good understanding of these debates- but they were never my prime strat. Please do the work for me-but I will my best to evaluate.
Kritiks & TFW/Topicality
K vs. Framework (TFW) - I don't default any way. I will buy debate bad args and impact turns. P-Fox & Chao helped me out a lot with this- so review their paradigm to understand how I lean
K vs Anything Else- Again, love the K! But just know that I will not hack for them. I did a lot of work with the K's, but also a lot of workIN ROUNDfor my wins with the K. Also, I personally enjoyed spectating other rounds that were not the K, as they were more interesting for me- thus I love the K, but will not hesitate to give people who think I'm a K hack the L
Non T Aff's/K Affs- LOVE THEM! Be careful though, as running Non-T Aff's against really young, inexperienced debaters will get me frustrated. Also, as a person who ran a lot of Non-T Aff's and watches a lot of Non-T performance rounds, I would be careful being lazy around me in regards to this.
*Also if you are running a K or a K Aff please LBL TFW and extinction first warrants. Its okay to impact turn and give top-level/an overview on these arguments- but I've noticed that debaters drop key warranting on TFW and extinction first that controls the IL to Aff offense or just indicts the reading of the K in the first place
**Please do not spread/blitz through your long pre-written overviews. While they do extend offense I often find them very incoherent and if they are not extrapolated to anything on the flow then it makes it hard to include and integrate them into the RFD. If you are reading an overview explain why its key (which I assume you already do) and contextualize it to the important things in the round.
Phil
I do not have the most experience going for Phil, but I have read a decent amount of it and have found myself in the back of many rounds for it.
Be sure to explain the syllogisms as I have a limited understanding of different Phil Authors (especially ones that have similar but slightly different theories to other more universal Phil authors).
Explain the TJFs- I also think that Permissibility negates but be sure to warrant it in the 1N.
Tricks (LD Specific)
I am personally not the biggest fan- I think they're a bad model of debate and are AB, but I will consider them if they are warranted and explained EXTREMELY WELL THROUGHOUT THE ROUND.
[A] Again- I will evaluate tricks but my threshold for responding to them is extremely low
[B] When I say explain it well- I don't mean just spend like 10 secs on it. You probably need to spend a solid 20-30 secs on it and why its a voting issue
[C] Tricks are ever-evolving and you honestly can make them out of any concept. Thus, don't expect me to know what the trick is
[D] I have thought about this and I WILL NOT BUY "EVAL AFTER X Speech"- I find this really dumb and I just refuse to vote on it.
[E] Identity Tricks- My threshold for evaluating them are similar to my threshold to regular tricks- make sure you warrant out the trick and give it offense independent of the AC/NC. If it is not, then I will by any takeouts of substance and cross apply it to the trick. (i.e., IF "X" Identity Trick is similar to "Y" Argument like Case ontology/thesis- then if you end up losing Case ontology/thesis, then you lose the trick).
Round Logistics
[1] Rehighlites- If you are re-highlighting, please read the highlighted text of the card
[2] Speaks IVI's- I have thought about this for a bit and came to a conclusion- If you ask for 30 speaks and you did not do anything to deserve the 30 speaks in round... you will not get it. I am sympathetic to certain situations, and if you give me a good reason for 30 speaks and have a clean round- then you got yourself a deal.
[3] Hitting a Novice- If you are hitting a Novice, here's my advice- run what you want to run (you shouldn't be limited on running certain arguments, just BCS of skill level), but don't be excessive and abusive. I think 1-2 offs (maybe 3 depending on event and skill level) is more than sufficient and you should take to time to explain arguments that they might not understand. Being abusive in round will not give you an L- but will make me super happy to TANK YOUR SPEAKS.
General Strategy:
I will slightly pay attention to Cross, but will not flow it (probably just take some notes for clarification). If it is important just make sure to flag me and BRING IT UP IN THE SPEECH.
Speaker Points: will start at 29 and will move up or down depending on your strategy- if you ask, I probably will disclose speaks and if you have any questions on how it could've improved just ask.
If you are below a 29- (28.7-28.9) Then I think the round was pretty good- but you might go 3-3 at a tournament
If they are 29.1-29.3 Then I think you did a good job and have a decent shot at breaking
If you are a 29.4-29.7 Then I enjoyed the round, thought it was good, but some strategic things had to be fixed
If you are 29.8-30 Then I thought it was a really good debate- and your strat was either extremely good or peerfect
Personal Belief:
I agree with people such as Zion Dixon, Leah Yeshitila, Patrick Fox, Issac Chao, Becca Traber, & Chris Castillo.
Taken from Leah: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=155571
Debate is not a game. Debate has material impacts on those who engage in it, especially POC. Please be mindful that debate is sometimes some debater’s only option when it comes to funding college or having a platform to speak freely. Also, it’s just not unreasonable to consider how it can be a game for some and not for others. You have a high threshold to prove to me why it is (hint: maybe find better, more strategic T shells, friend)
World Schools Specific
A] Make sure to defend your burdens and clearly explain to me why you have won the round based on those burdens
B] I will be keeping track of POI(s) so make sure to reasonably answer about 2 each speech if you are hit with POIs
C] My speaks are somewhat generous. First Speakers- just offer persuasion with the speech; Second Speakers- Make sure to clearly restate your burdens and how you are gaining offense from them as well as offer strong responses; Third Speaker- clearly crystalize the round and what lens I should be looking at it from; Reply Speaker- Please don't offer new points as that will most likely not persuade my vote in any way- just bring it home and if the speakers before did their job it should be all good.
Public Forum Specific
Weigh and clearly delineate what offense you are garnering coming out of each speech. I am a big fan of evidence comparison, weighing, and uplayering. If you do a huge Ethos push in your last speeches and you are not contextualizing the claims to any args in the round then I probably will still down you.
If you wondering if you can run any other args like K's, Theory, etc (More Policy and LD-specific things), reference the above things on my paradigm.
If you decide to run any progressive args (K, Theory, Etc. and your opponent has no idea what it is (In PF)- my threshold for them answering it is a lot lower and if you are extremely abusive with it- i.e running 2 or 3 off when you don't have to- then I will probably tank your speaks.
Speaking Events (Specific)
Just speak good- I had a lot of teammates participate in speaking events and while I have never done them I sat with them at practice and had a coach who heavily focused on speech. I know what good speeches look like and will know what rushed/no-practice speeches look like.
Congress Specific
Just do your thing. As of now I have only judged one congress round at UT but it was a fun experience. I am fine with creative intros as long as they are clever and relate to the topic. Otherwise do your thing and please attempt to create clash (especially if you are later speeches into the cycle)
Hi, Im Diego, Qualled to TOC once, my email is dsarcos23@mail.strakejesuit.org
K's/ K affs- 3
Kv larp-2
phil-4 if obscure, 2 for kant
T/theory-1
tricks-1
LARP-1
Theory defaults: competing interps, DTD, no rvis, fairness and education are voters
Phil Default: epistemic confidence
additionally default to comparative worlds
things I will not vote on: adhoms in any form, anything else is fine
+ .5 speaks if you do 10 pushups before the round
Hi, I'm Antonio - please just call me Antonio (anything else is awkward)
antoarguelles47@gmail.com
Clear Lake '23 | UT Austin '27
I debated all four years of high school but only competed on the national circuit my senior year. I TOC qualled in LD primarily reading Ks on the aff and neg and TFA qualled 3 times in LD.
Debate should be a safe space, I won't tolerate misgendering, asking people about their identity, or any argument that says something like racism or sexism good.
Please stop asking me for 30 speaks, just debate better.
Note for traditional/lay debaters: Debate however you are most comfortable, but if you want to try something new I encourage you to go for it.
TLDR: I'd like to be tab, I think dogmatism is bad and always found it annoying how unwilling judges would be to even listen to certain arguments. With that being said, I'm much better at evaluating Ks, policy, and T-framework than I am at judging tricks, phil, or theory. Again, just because I'm willing to evaluate almost all positions, I do not understand every position to the same degree. I largely agree with Holden Bukowsky on a lot of things as they were both coaches of mine and are very smart people. If you have questions about my paradigm feel free to email me.
Cheat sheet if you're too lazy to read (based on how comfortable I feel evaluating the argument):
K v K, policy v K, K-aff v TFW, K v anything tbh - 1
^Note: Although I read the K in hs, I'm not going to be more inclined to vote for you just because you read a K in front of me. For people on the TFW or policy side of these debates: debate as you normally would, I'm happy to vote on a good extinction outweighs 2ar or procedural fairness first 2nr against a K or K-aff.
Policy v policy - 2
T - 2
Theory - 3
Phil - 4
Tricks - 4
Trad/lay - 1
Long version:
Tech > truth but I'm not going to do the work for you. A conceded argument isn't inherently a winning argument, if your opponent concedes that the sky is green you still need to explain why that wins you the round.
I flow on my laptop but I'm not fantastic at keeping up with anything above roughly an 8/10 in terms of speed. Generally, as long as you're clear and slow down a little on analytics I should be able to keep up.
I tend to agree with disclosure theory. With that being said, if you read disclosure theory at a local against a traditional debater your speaks are capped at a 25.
Things I like (taken from Holden's paradigm):
I like good debates. If you execute your arguments well, then I will be impressed.
I like debates that require little intervention, make my job easy for me please I hate thinking.
I like well researched arguments with clear connections to the topic/the affirmative.
I like when email chains are sent out at start time, don't delay the round any more than it has to be please.
I like good case debate
I like it when people make themselves easy to flow, this means labeling arguments (for example, giving arguments names, or doing organization like "1, 2, 3, a point, b point, c point, etc.), I can't vote for you if I don't know what the heck the complete argument is so making sure I can understand you is key
I like debaters that collapse in their final speeches, it makes nice room for analysis, explanation, and weighing which all make me very happy.
I like it when I am given some kind of framing mechanism to help filter offense. This can take place via a standard, role of the ballot/judge, impact calc, fairness v education, a meta ethic, I don't care. Just give me something to determine what the highest layer/impact should be.
Hi! I am Regina and I am currently a freshmen at Columbia University. I debated LD in High school, qualifying for the TOC in my Junior Year. I was primarily a K debater, reading Set Col and Queerpess although I did enjoy the general LARP debate.
They/them
Email - rb3735@columbia.edu
I prefer speech drop - please set it up before the round starts and have your documents ready to go.
For spreading - If I have to say clear more than twice, I am dropping your speaks
Arguments I enjoy most when judging (in order from most to least):
- Kritiks
- LARP
- Theory
- Philosophy
- Tricks - strike me, won’t vote on it
tech > truth as LONG AS YOU HAVE WARRANTS
sept/oct 23 update - I am not super familiar with the topic so please don’t abbreviate + clearly articulate link to impact for LARP debates
IF YOU ARE READING KANT in a kant vs util debate - please explain the arguments to me like I am 5, I want to vote for you but if I dont understand it I cannot vote on it
If you are in any way racist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc in round I WILL drop you with the lowest speaks I can give you.
Disclosure - I don’t have very strong opinions on this, but running disclosure and your opponent dropping it is not an auto win for you (especially if your opponent is a novice, be better and beat them on substance).
K aff vs T-fw - I am ngl K affs were my favorite thing in the world to run so the neg has a slight uphill battle. However I have a high threshold for the aff defending their interpretation of topic/debate, so you have to be able to defend it.
(Below is stolen from Rose that I strongly agree with)
An argument has a claim, a warrant, and an implication. Less than that and you have not made an argument and I will not evaluate it. Don't test my limits on this - I don't care if words you've said were not answered by your opponent, they have not "dropped an argument" until you have actually MADE one
Evidence quality matters a bunch, I'll probably read evidence in close debates, and I won't fill in the blanks for your incomplete highlighting. I would prefer well-warranted analytics to bad, under-highlighted cards.
I have coached LD at Strake Jesuit in Houston, Tx since 2009. I judge a lot and do a decent amount of topic research. Mostly on the national/toc circuit but also locally. Feel free to ask questions before the round. Add me to email chains. Jchriscastillo@gmail.com.
I don't have a preference for how you debate or which arguments you choose to read. The best debaters will 1. Focus on argument explanation over argument quantity. 2. Provide clear judge instruction.
I do not flow off the doc.
Evidence:
- I rarely read evidence after debates.
- Evidence should be highlighted so it's grammatically coherent and makes a complete argument.
- Smart analytics can beat bad evidence
- Compare and talk about evidence, don't just read more cards
Theory:
- I default to competing interps, no rvi's and drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument against all other types.
- I'm ok with using theory as a strategic tool but the sillier the shell the lower the threshold I have for responsiveness.
- Please weigh and slow down for interps and short analytic arguments.
Non-T/Planless affs: I'm good with these. I'm most compelled by affirmatives that 1. Can explain what the role of the neg is 2. Explain why the ballot is key.
Delivery: You can go as fast as you want but be clear and slow down for advocacy texts, interps, taglines and author names. Don't blitz through 1 sentence analytics and expect me to get everything down. I will say "clear" and "slow".
Speaks: Speaks are a reflection of your strategy, argument quality, efficiency, how well you use cx, and clarity. I do not disclose speaks.
Things not to do: 1. Don't make arguments that are racist/sexist/homophobic (this is a good general life rule too). 2. I won't vote on arguments I don't understand or arguments that are blatantly false. 3. Don't be mean to less experienced debaters. 4. Don't steal prep. 5. I will not vote on "evaluate after X speech" arguments.
Hey, I'm Rushil (he/him).
Strake Jesuit '23
Princeton '27
Note that I haven’t been involved with debate for almost a year at this point and am unfamiliar with the topic; err towards overexplanation.
I debated Lincoln-Douglas at Strake Jesuit for four years and have a little over 10 years of experience in Speech & Debate. I have four career bids and a bid round and have qualified to TFA State (x3), TOC (x2), and NSDA Nationals(x2).
Add me to the email chain: rechetty23@mail.strakejesuit.org
Tech>Truth to a large extent, I should have little work to do at the end of the round and your final speech should write my ballot
Prefs:
LARP/Trad - 1
Theory/T - 1
Kritiks - 2
Phil - 3
Tricks - 4
LARP:
Read whatever you're comfortable with
Weighing and clash are super important on both impacts and evidence
I love a good framework debate, CPs and Politics are great too
Theory:
I default competing interpretations, no RVIs, DTD, and Fairness unless told to evaluate differently
Please don't read frivolous theory lol
Weigh well between voters and standards
Slow down if there's no doc
T:
Please be specific and explain your arguments and weighing well
I'm not a fan of Non-T affs so my threshold for responses is not very high
Kritiks:
I've read mainly SetCol and Cap but understand a few other Ks as well
I'm okay with reps and not a huge fan of K affs
Don't use this to evaluate what you read though because I will not fill in any gaps for you or vote off anything that is not well-explained - especially if it's clear to me that your opponent does not understand your explanation as well
If you're asked to explain the K in CX and talk really fast and use a lot of jargon that your opponent clearly cannot understand, it will hurt your speaks
I prefer material alts but I'll still evaluate refusal - explain why it's good and solves case if possible
Please don't throw in a floating PIK out of nowhere, at least hint at it in the 1N
Phil:
Not a huge fan of Phil and not the best at evaluating it either, but I'll do my best to listen to your arguments
Weigh well and explain your warrants
I default to truth testing and presumption and permissibility affirm
Tricks:
Yeah please don't read any lol, this includes skep triggers and a priori
I'll still evaluate them but my threshold for responses is really low - if your opponent tells me to throw them out because they ruin debate I'll 100% listen to them because I agree lol
I'll allow responses to "Evaluate the debate after X" in all speeches because I really don't like voting on these and don't like them in general
If you do read tricks and are really dodgy about explaining or identifying them in CX, it will hurt your speaks
Miscellaneous:
Keeplocal recordings of your speeches - anything that I don't hear does not get flowed unless you can send me a recording of it
Be polite and don't swear - I find it really annoying when debaters feel the need to swear in round or try to one-up their opponents - it's not ethos-y at all and doesn't make you a better debater
Please don't read or say anything offensive or intentionally misgender your opponent - I won't drop you if you accidentally do it but if it becomes obvious I'll be more receptive to arguments they make. Obviously if you do something offensive, please take time to apologize for it WITHIN THE ROUND
I won't read off the doc, so make sure you are clear
I'll call clear twice before I stop flowing anything I can't understand
I'll flow CX
Please make the round accessible - this doesn't mean always debating trad against a novice, rather explain your arguments very well and don't spread
Arguments must be extended through every speech to be evaluated
If you concede it, it's true
No new responses in the 2NR/2AR unless you're going for meta theory or responses to 1AR shells
add to chain/speech drop:
top level:
TLDR: I will vote on anything. except arguments about things that didn't happen inside the round, although disclosure is fine.
Policy and K debates are my favorite, but reading what you want and giving a good speech is much more likely to get higher speaks than trying to tailor what you read to what you think my ideological preferences are.
Tech > truth, but truth determines the extent tech matters. A blatantly false claim like "the sky is red" requires more warranting than a commonly accepted claim ie "the sky is blue". Unwarranted arguments in the constructive that receive warrants later on justify "new" responses to those warrants. This doesn't mean I won't vote on tricks or theory, but the ability to say "X is conceded" relies on "X" having a full Claim/Warrant/Impact - the absence of crucial elements of an argument such as warrants will mean that adding them in later speeches will justify new responses. If an argument is introduced in a speech where no such response is valid, it carries little weight, for example: I am not going to think fairness categorically outweighs education if fairness outweighs is introduced in the 2AR.
Not voting on call outs. Not my business.
random thoughts:
--- Qualified authors & solid warrants in your ev are important. Evidence comparison and weighing are also important. In the absence of evidence comparison and weighing, I may make a decision that upsets you. That is fundamentally your fault.
--- In the absence of paradigm issues on my flow, I'm going to evaluate theory contextually. This means I will only grant you the logical implication of the words you say, and will not automatically grant you assumptions like drop the debater. For example, if a 1AR tells me "PICs are a voter cuz they steal the aff", this logically means that PICs are a bad argument, but doesn't explain why the neg should lose for reading it. Functionally, this means I'd default drop the argument absent any explanation. This headache can be easily avoided through warranted, extended arguments.
--- Most Ks that people get away with in LD have horrible warranting in the 1NC. Blowing up blippy Ks with elaborate turns case analysis, framework arguments, thesis explanations, etc that is not present in the 1NC obviously merits 2AR responses that I will give full credence to.
--- K affs being vague and shifty hurts you more than it helps. I'm very unsympathetic to 2AR pivots that change the way the aff has been explained. Take care to have a coherent story/explanation of your K aff that starts in the 1AC and remains consistent throughout the debate.
--- I default to judgekick.
--- I have heard a concerning amount of people saying "you cannot win a perm without a deficit" lately. This is absurd. The neg has the burden of competition. In the circumstances in a counterplan debate where neither the aff nor the neg has offense due to a perm, I vote aff. For example, if the neg goes for a consult NATO counterplan and the 2AR goes for "do the plan + consult NATO on other issues", the aff wins even without a deficit insofar as the 2NR does not clearly delineate offense vs the perm. There is no risk of offense for either side, but that means the plan is the logically safest option, as it is less of a deviation from the status quo than the counterplan.
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 :)
Add me to the chain. My email is roselarsondebate @ gmail . If I'm judging LD, please add lhpsdebate @ gmail as well.
she/her
Assistant Coach at Homestead 2020-2021
Head Coach at Homestead 2021-2022
Currently Assistant Coach at Lake Highland Prep
Currently College Policy at the University of Kansas
CEDA Octofinalist x1, CEDA Quarterfinalist x1, NDT Double Octofinalist x1
If you're interested in college debate, please reach out, I'd love to direct you to some resources. ESPECIALLY if you are interested in debating for/attending KU - we have a wonderful program and I'd love to talk to you about it.
I've judged too many debates to care what you read. I've coached and judged every style, and feel comfortable evaluating anything read in your average debate. DON'T OVERADAPT, do what you do best, make complete, smart arguments, and we'll be fine. I'm studying philosophy and economics at Kansas.
An argument has a claim, a warrant, and an implication. Less than that and you have not made an argument and I will not evaluate it. I don't care if your opponent didn't answer words you said, they haven't "dropped" anything unless those words were complete arguments. If you can't explain something like a paradox or condo logic coherently, don't go for it. If you can, feel free, and I'd love to vote for you.
I will not arbitrarily treat arguments as "silly" or "not engaging with the aff" because they are not an aff-specific disadvantage. I don't share the attitudes of judges who treat process counterplans, skep/determinism, broad critiques with non-specific links, or impact turns like spark as second-tier arguments because they link to other affirmatives. The more generic an argument is, the easier it may be to beat on specificity, but I am not particularly sympathetic to "this is generic, ignore it."
I enjoy in-depth clash and don't enjoy under-warranted blipstorms, so I will likely enjoy your debates more and consequently give you better speaker points if your strategies include specific, complex, and vertical debating as opposed to shallow horizontal debating. I've historically been the best for debaters who understand their arguments very well and are prepared to defend them, whether they be afropessimism, heg good, Kant, or process counterplans, and historically been the worst for debaters who rely on cheap shots to dodge clash.
Topicality should include case lists, preferably both offensive and defensive.
I view counterplan theory as a reason to reject the argument, not the team. I can be persuaded otherwise.
Neutral in framework debates, equally good for impact turn as counterinterp strategies, skew slightly towards clash but totally fine with fairness. I will evaluate the differences between the aff's model and the negative's model unless someone forwards an alternative model for how I should think about framework debates.
Arguments I don't like but will vote on: epistemic modesty, frivolous theory, Mollow
Arguments I don't like and won't vote on: racist/sexist/transphobic/homophobic/ableist positions, theory based on debaters' appearance or dress, eval
Arguments I like and want to see more of: circumvention, skepticism and determinism, specific impact turns, normative justifications for utilitarianism > "extinction outweighs", psychoanalysis, the cap K against policy affs, carded TVAs, advantage counterplans
You will lose .1 speaker point every time you ask a flow clarification question outside of CX time, unless I also did not flow what was said, and if that's the case, don't worry about it, because I won't be evaluating it.
My strong preference is that if one debater is a traditional debater that their opponent make an effort to participate in a way that's accessible for that debater. I would much rather judge a full traditional debate than a circuit debater going for shells or kritiks against an opponent who isn't familiar with that style. If you do this, you will be rewarded with higher speaker points. If you don't, I will likely give low point wins to technical victories that exploit the unfamiliarity of traditional debaters to get easy wins.
Note on speaker points:
29.5+ one of the best speakers at the tournament
29.0-29.5 fantastic speaker
28.5-29.0 above average speaker
28.0-28.5 average speaker
27.5-28.0 below average speaker
27-27.5 very bad speaker
I will not give below a 27 unless something seriously wrong happens in the debate.
I have given two 30s in 300+ rounds of judging, congrats if you get one.
Happy to answer other questions pre round or by email.
hello, i'm enya. i debated for southlake carroll in LD for 4 years, got 4 bids, and broke at the TOC my senior year. i'll keep this short.
chain: enyapinjani@gmail.com
pref sheet:
policy - 1
theory/topicality - 1-2
phil - 3, kant is a 1
k - 3 (cap and security is a 1, pomo is a 4)
tricks - 3
i primarily debated policy style arguments until my senior year. my senior year i explored kant, theory, and tricks.
- make the round easy for me to evaluate
- don't extend a bunch of arguments and expect me to piece them together
- don't steal prep
- be nice to novices and don't read arguments u don't understand
- be respectful to your opponents and me
- if your a girl/gender minority in debate - please dont hesitate to reach out to me for advice!
yes, add me to the email chain: claudiaribera24@gmail.com
I've worked/taught at camps such as utnif, stanford, gds, and nsd.
overall thoughts: I believe it's important to be consistent on explicit labeling, generating offense, and extending some sort of impact framing in the debate because this is what ultimately frames my ballot. Debate is a place for you to do you. I will make my decisions based on what was presented to me in a debate and what was on my flow. This means I am unlikely to decide on debates based on my personal feelings about the content/style of an argument than the quality of execution and in-round performance. It is up to the debaters to present and endorse whichever model of debate they want to invest in. Have fun and best of luck!
Case
-- Case is incredibly underutilized and should be an essential part of every negative strategy. You need to have some sort of mechanism that generates offense/defense for you.
Policy affs vs. K
-- I am most familiar with these types of debates. With that being said, I think the affirmative needs to prioritize framing i.e. the consequences of the plan under a util framework. There need to be contestations between the aff framing versus the K's power of theory in order to disprove it, as not desirable, or incoherent, and why your impacts under the plan come first. Point out the flaws of the kritiks alternative and make solvency deficits. Aff teams need to answer the link arguments, read link defense, make perms, and provide reasons/examples of why the plan is preferable/resolve material conditions. Use cross-x to clarify jargon and get the other team to make concessions about their criticism.
CP
-- CP(s) need to have a clear plan text and have an external net benefit, otherwise, I'm inclined to believe there is no reason why the cp would be better than the affirmative. There needs to be clear textual/function competition with the Aff or else the permutation becomes an easy way for me to vote. Same with most arguments, the more specific the better.
-- The 2NR should generally be the counterplan with a DA/Case argument to supplement the net benefit. The 1AR + 2AR needs to have some offense against the counterplan because a purely defensive strategy makes it very hard to beat the counterplan. I enjoy an advantage counterplan/impact turn strategy when it’s applicable. Generally, I think conditionality is good but I can be persuaded otherwise.
DA
-- Please have good evidence and read specific DAs. If you have a good internal link and turn case analysis, your speaker points will be higher. For the aff, I think evidence comparison/callouts coupled with tricky strategies like impact turns or internal link turns to help you win these debates.
Theory
-- I don't really have a threshold on these arguments but lean towards competing interps over reasonability unless told otherwise.
-- When going for theory, please extend offense and weigh between interps/standards/implications.
-- When responding/going for theory, please slow down on the interps/i-meets.
Topicality
-- Comparative analysis between pieces of interpretation evidence wins and loses these debates – as you can probably tell, I err towards competing interpretations in these debates, but I can be convinced that reasonability is a better metric for interpretations, not for an aff. Having well-explained internal links to your limits/ground offense in the 2NR/2AR makes these debates much easier to decide, as opposed to floating claims without warranted analysis. A case list is required. I will not vote for an RVI on T.
T-FW
-- I prefer framework debates a lot more when they're developed in the 1NC/block, as opposed to being super blippy in the constructives and then the entire 2NR. I lean more toward competing interps than reasonability. Aff teams need to answer TVA well, not just say it "won't solve". Framework is about the model of debate the aff justifies, it’s not an argument why K affs are bad or the aff teams are cheaters. If you’re going for framework as a way to exclude entire critical lit bases/structural inequalities/content areas from debate then we are not going to get along. I am persuaded by standards like Clash and topic education over fairness being an intrinsic good/better impact.
K affs vs. T-Framework
-- There are a couple of things you need to do to win: you need to explain the method of your aff, the nuanced framing of the aff, and the impacts that you claim to solve. You should have some sort of an advocacy statement or a role of the ballot for me to evaluate your impacts because this indicates how it links into your framework of the aff. If you’re going to read high theory affs, explain because all I hear are buzzwords that these authors use. Don’t assume I am an expert in this type of literature because I am not and I just have a basic understanding of it. If you don’t do any of these things, I have the right to vote to neg on presumption.
-- You need a counter-interp or counter-model of debate and what debate looks like under this model and then go for your impact turns or disads as net benefits to this. Going for only the net benefits/offense without explaining what your interpretation of what debate should look like will be difficult. The 2AC strategy of saying as many ‘disads’ to framework as possible without explaining or warranting any of them out is likely not going to be successful. Leveraging your aff as an impact turn to framework is always good. The more effectively voting aff can resolve the impact turn the easier it will be to get my ballot.
Kritiks
-- I went for the Kritik in almost every 2NR my senior year. I have been exposed to many different types of scholarship, but I am more familiar with some critical race theory criticisms. This form of debate is what I am most comfortable evaluating. However, it is important to note I have a reasonable threshold for each debater's explanation of whatever theory they present within the round, extensions of links, and impact framing. I need to understand what you are saying in order for me to vote for your criticism.
-- You should have specific links to affirmatives because without them you will probably lose to "these are links to the squo" unless the other team doesn't answer it well. Link debate is a place where you can make strategic turns case/impact analysis. Make sure you have good impact comparison and weighing mechanisms and always have an external impact.
-- The alt debate seems to be one of the most overlooked parts of the K and is usually never explained well enough. This means always explaining the alt thoroughly and how it interacts with the aff. This is an important time that the 2NR needs to dedicate time allocation if you go for the alternative. If you choose not to go for the alternative and go for presumption, make sure you are actually winning an impact-framing claim.
K vs. K
-- These debates are always intriguing.
-- Presumption is underutilized by the neg and permutations are allowed in a methods debate. However, it is up to the teams in front of me to do this. There needs to be an explanation of how your theory of power operates, why it can preclude your opponent’s, how your method or approach is preferable, and how you resolve x issues. Your rebuttals should include impact comparison, framing, link defense/offense, permutation(s), and solvency deficits.
Tricks/frivolous theory/skep
-- I am not the best at evaluating these types of arguments. It is important to extend the claim, warrant, and impact of your argument and WEIGH. Please slow down on analytics that are important, especially in theory debates.
lunakansasdebate@gmail.com
email chains please
You should aim to be clear in front of me. Double what you think is clear enough.
KU '26
"judge" or "Luna"
Do whatever. I'm an educator first. Maximize your chances of winning by arguing with my ballot not your opponent.
Final rebuttals are most likely to win if they start with: "Our argument is X. Their best argument is Y. Even if they win Y, we have still won the debate on X for Z reason."
Feel free to email or ask any questions.
Ev ethics (L25) is skipping more than 5 words in a card, misciting author or article title, cards cut missing at least 1 sentence, or cards cut that don't start and end with the start and end of paragraphs in the article.
It is an evidence ethics issue when not better explained by: an accident that results in leaving off an author, an accident that produces minor discrepancies in the article title, an accident that results in a missing letter, single word, or instance of punctuation at the beginning/end of a paragraph, or discrepancies better explained by the existence of multiple versions of the article. In essence, close is close enough, but wrong is never enough.
I'm a first year out, I debated LD for 4 years at Strake Jesuit. I qualified and broke at TFA State 3 times, and qualified to TOC Junior year with 4 career bids. Contact me/add me to docs at michaelastuckert4@gmail.com
You can call me "Michael" -- "judge" is fine but weird to me.
I'm tech > truth and I'll vote on anything.
tldr - run what you're good at, I'll try to act as a neutral party minimizing my intervention as much as possible, but keep in mind that I haven't judged that much and this paradigm probably makes me sound better than I actually am so please give me judge instruction/crystallization and collapse in the 2ar and 2nr - if you go for everything I'm not going to know how to vote. Whoever can present me the simplest and most coherent ballot story will probably win.
Also 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.
Pref Sheet:
Phil - 1
Theory/T - 2
K's - 2
LARP - 3
Tricks - 4
Traditional - 5
Miscellaneous:
- Spreading is fine
- I WON'T read off the doc, but I'll have it open and glance at it to make sure I know where you are
- I'll call "clear" if I can't understand you as many times as needed - I WON'T doc speaks or anything if I have to call clear I'll just miss some arguments if you're not clear.
- I'll disclose speaks just ask
- Be polite to novices, even if you can win a round in 20 seconds it’s not always kind to do so. Just be aware of how your actions might make them feel.
- I will be strongly biased against overtly offensive things (arguments which directly contravene the basic humanity of a marginalized group). I don’t think it’s prima facie offensive to read moral philosophy that denies some acts are intrinsically evil (like skep or strict ends-based ethical theories) or which denies that consequences are morally relevant (like skep or strict means-based theories). I also don't think generic impact turns against big stick impacts are innately offensive. But I will certainly listen to Ks or independent voters indicting any of those things.
- Normal speech times please time yourself
- An argument must be extended through every speech to be evaluated
- Conceded arguments are seen as true
- I won't allow new arguments in the 2nr/2ar (unless it's like a 1ar shell the 2nr goes for reasonability and the 2ar makes arguments against reasonability // or unless you win on the flow that you get new arguments) but I'll allow extensions and expanding on an argument. If I can point to somewhere in the 1ar that can warrant an argument made in the 2ar then I'll evaluate it.
Larp:
I never really was a larper in high school so try to be especially clear in these debates
Do whatever you want just do a lot of weighing both on the impact level and evidence comparison and I'll be happy.
I'll judge kick the CP (if it's condo) if you tell me to but if you don't make the argument I won't.
I love impact turns
Politics is cool
I probably won't read cards unless you specifically tell me to
Theory:
Defaults: No RVI, Competing interps, DTD, Fairness > Education but don't make me default
I'll evaluate any shell no matter how frivolous but the less frivolous the happier I'll be
Make sure there's high quality weighing between voters and standards
Theory hedges are fine
Please slow down on the interps and short analytical arguments
T:
Err on the side of overexplaining with clear arguments and comparative weighing in a semantics 2nr I don't know how grammar works lol
I'd prefer more specific arguments in the 2nr/2ar rather than reading off of a doc
K:
I'm familiar with cap, security, Baudrillard, Deleuze, Afropessimism, Set col, Edelman, and Adorno
Don't just read one of these because I'm familiar with it - if you can't explain what you're talking about, I won't be happy. I'm only familiar with most of these because I've debated against them and I wouldn't be able to explain them to you in depth so you run the risk of confusing me unless you have some explanation. If you're good at going for high theory and pomo great! I like this type of debate, but if you don't understand what you're reading then don't read it.
Even if you're reading something I understand I won't use prior knowledge to fill in the gaps so please have warrants and explain buzzwords
Overexplain your alt especially if it's refual alts, why is it a good thing?, if I don't understand it I won't vote on it
Floating PIKs are fine but please at least hint at them in the 1N
Alt solves case arguments that are specific to the aff are great and I'm persuaded by them
K Affs:
Non-T Affs are fine
Negs that engage on the case page and go for permissibility pushes against these will make me very happy
Reps Ks:
I won't enjoy friv violations but I'll vote on them if they go conceded
I prefer straight up Ks instead of word PIKs but I'll vote on a word PIK if it goes conceded
Phil:
I was mainly a Kant debater
I know Kant, Libertarianism, Rawls, Contractarianism, Hobbes, Rousseau, Levinas, Aristotle, GCB, Util, Particuarlism, and pragmatism
Please weigh between warrants
I like syllogistic frameworks over a ton of blippy reasons to prefer
TJFs are alright but I'd be happier without them
I'll default to TT > CW, Permissibility and Presumption affirm, Epistemic Confidence > Epistemic Modesty but don't make me default
Tricks:
I don't like hiding tricks in big blocks of text
I'll be persuaded by spikes Ks
Please weigh, I won't be happy if there's a bunch of random a prioris to evaluate at the end of the debate with no weighing between them
Skep triggers are all right
I'll buy evaluate the debate after the X, but I'll have a very low threshold for answers and I'll allow new 2nr/2ar arguments against them (unless you specifically win no new 2nr/2ar arguments)
Trad:
I'm fine with it, would prefer if you go faster
I'll vote on the flow even in traditional debates
If you are debating a trad debater make the round educational for them, as a former debater I understand the struggle of trying to be educational and also trying to win, so you can still run your a strat just try to be nice. Just please don't try to blatantly out-spread them (some speed is fine but full speed against someone who's not spreading is excessive) or read a bunch of tricks or frivolous shells. If you win on the flow against a trad debate I'll vote for you, but if you were mean about it, you'll get low speaks.
- Also if you're in elims against a trad debater you can try your hardest full speed and all, just obviously still treat your opponent with respect and be nice to them.
I've judged a couple trad debates and sometimes I'm left with no idea how to vote, so if you're a trad debater please
1- Collapse and crystallize give me the cleanest most coherent ballet story and I'll probably vote for you, but if you go for everything in the 2nr/2ar I won't know where I should vote for you. By this I don't just mean giving voters at the end or flagging things as voting issues throughout the round I'll be extremely happy if in the 2nr/2ar you look at your flow and decide what your strongest contention is which one can you win the easiest? Then go for that and make it by far the biggest issue in the round with a lot of impact weighing and answering your opponents case. Winning one huge issue is a lot better than winning a ton of small issues.
2- Extend offense
3- Weigh. Trust me it'll make me a lot happier. (Meta-weighing makes me even happier, and reading turns and going for them is great)
Please don't extend through defense, answer your opponents arguments, the more clash the better
Cheating and Evidence ethics:
If you stake the round loser gets an L25 (or lowest speaks I can give), the winner gets a W30.
You don't have to stake the round I'll evaluate it in a shell format.
For staked rounds, I'll follow tournament rules.
Think this requires more information and specifics so here's some scenarios I can think of (if there's a tournament rule contradicting any of these points I'll prioritize tournament rules over all else):
- If a card is cut in the middle of a paragraph, stake the round, I'll vote for whoever stakes
- if there's block quotes or weird formatting that makes it unclear if it's cut in the middle of a paragraph play it safe and read a shell
- If a card is straw manning without acknowledging it, NSDA rules say that I should "vote against the debater who uses a straw argument and award zero speaker points" but if a debater indicates (NSDA says verbally acknowledge, but also for me if it's in the doc like in the citation then I think that's good enough to indicate) that they're reading a strawman argument then it's fine and not stakeable (but winning a theory shell is still fine ofc)
- If a debater distorts evidence (adding or removing words without brackets) and it significantly alters the original meaning I'll vote for whoever stakes the round
- If a debater uses ellipses to leave out large sections of the card, stake the round, I'll vote for the debater who stakes the round.
- If a debater brackets evidence with indication please just read a shell, DON'T stake
If you clip more than 20 words and I catch it you'll lose - your opponent doesn't even need to stake please don't clip you never know sometimes I might be following along in the speech doc making sure
- Obviously saying cut the card here or cut this or something like that isn't clipping, if you make it clear that you didn't read something you're fine, but if you pretend that you read something that you didn't then that's clipping.
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.
I'm sid thandassery from flower mound high school '23
siddebateld@gmail.com -- reach out if you have questions both about the round or in general for debate i'd love to help!
i do care abt safety if there is something problematic in the round plz let me know and ill try my best to help
update -- no more 30 speaks spike its boring me -- only way to get good speaks is teaching calculus concepts
the most important things for you reading this is
- i love fairness first arguments and find myself voting on those and theoretical arguments in general frequently
- i am not super super fast with flowing so i will backflow for you but i would appreciate being as clear as possible but you can still go full speed
- weigh a lot because i might not be familiar with your specific argument so weighing and explanation will go a long way.
if ur debating a lay debater idc what u do your speaks will not suffer either
pref sheet:
larp - 2 - i saw this a lot; i like this a lot but i read whole res affs my whole career bc nebel is true - i will do my best but things like pt in a vacuum debates might lose me a bit ie if ur getting into something a little more in depth like super deep link differential analysis just explain things a little more because policy wasnt my primary focus... death good fine spark fine etc -- against a k just win that you get to weigh case leverage extinction answer the links and thesis claim make disads to the alt put like two decent perms down and youll probably win
phil - 2 - i read some phil affs like sentiments, polls, kant, and was interested in others but sometimes this can feel overcomplex skep was in like most of my 1ns tho i like it -- i like extinction ow a lot but if youre winning on the flow then ur winning (phil vs k is also something im not too experienced with but phil should just either go for ideal theory good because it is and have real examples of their framework being deployed, and non ideal theories should just make it clear that the fwk allows for everybody to participate in ethical deliberation.
k - 3 - i read mollow a bit towards the end of my career and have an okay understanding - i read psycho once or twice and it seems p good against k affs cap seems good too... - read a k aff like once - these kinda confuse me since there's no legit fw also floating piks are op and abusive - kvk: just gonna vote for who has more explanatory power and good impact calc ngl however extinction ow is a W strat and given equal debating will win answering the links helps but extinction ow is good enough also answering their thesis helps but idc also pointing out they dont tell me what is moral is good
T - 2- ehh - this is like trying to make theory larpy which makes me uncomfortable in my ability to judge it but i think definition comparison and truly explaining the net benefits to your interp will win this - tfwk and nebel go in theory section
tricks - 1 - entertaining; turning them is strategic some dont even need tt some do rely on pp tho
theory - 1! - by far my favorite thing to hear - critical thinking is most needed in theory debates which is why i think its the best - explain the standards well and explain the abuse story well - paradigm issues warrants dont need to be repeated if theyre conceded but plz tell me that they were conceded and which ones to use so i dont forget lol explain abuse story tho if standard is conceded repeating the standard text word for word is sufficient - no such thing as friv - will not evaluate theory abt the persons appearance like shoes
other info:
evidence ethics -- sure stake the round for any small violation as long as you can be sure the tournament rules supports you, w30 L29.7
extensions on conceded args -- these can be like repeating the arg again w the same words ngl
overviews are fine ngl but lbl is important too
defaults:
Default to util
Truth Testing > Comparative Worlds
competing interps > reasonability
rvis > no rvis
dtd > dta
Norming > In-round abuse
text > spirit
Presumption negates
Permissibility negates
fairness and edu and norming are voters
fairness > anything else
James Bowie '23 / TrinityU '27
Contact - nweerako@trinity.edu
My exp is I competed in LD for one year, senior year and qualified to TOC and TFA state primarily reading the K and phill
LD
[ pref shortcut ]
1 - K v K / K v Policy / K v Phill
1 - Policy
2 - Phil
2/3 - Trix
4 - Theory
4 - Friv Theory
not voting on ad homs that's for tab to decide
K
read the K (unemployment) on both sides, mostly D&G and Mollow. Still, I am familiar with the following lit bases ( D&G, Culp, Saldanha, Foucault, Butler, Baudrillard, Lacan, Wilderson, Wynter, Heidegger, Mollow, Fritsch Edelman. I have done some basic reading on the following ( Moten & Harney, Gillespie, Bataille, Bifo, Derrida, Beller) that being said please explain your K well with contextual interactions, there is no guarantee I will understand your K given how fast LD debate goes.
2NR should probably win some case defense, but it is not necessary
you can kick the alt and go for links as disads, but I need judge instruction
K Lit as Phill /Topical K affs
primarily my style of debate in HS on the aff
Non-T
Implicate what the aff does if I affirm, non T often loses to good presumption pushes.
Policy
Do Impact Calc/Link Weighing
Phill
Familiar w Phill on a knowledge level ie, Kant, Emotivism, Prag, Rawls, etc, but haven't watched too many Phill debate rounds
Trix
These are funny and ill evaluate them to the best of my ability. That being said, I never hit these kinds of debaters in HS and, as such, may not be that great in understanding the interactions/how these debates play out. However, I'm familiar w most tricks in a vacuum prin of explosion, condo logic, triv, and paradoxes.
Theory
I can evaluate them this kind of debate is just very boring to me however and probably what i am least experienced in