I'm Athena (she/her), I am a senior policy debater. I've placed multiple times at regionals, state, and districts, so I went to nationals multiple times as well, so I sorta know what I'm doing⸝⸝✩‧₊˚

for email chain-- athena.gadi@gmail.com

❀ If I'm not judging a policy round you might be cooked, however a monkey could judge PF (if you are an LD debater close your eyes and pray to whatever god you believe in)

❀ I'm what you call a tech/tab judge

❀ I will disclose my ballot at the end idc lol

.‎

❤︎ Speed- I spread when I debate so I understand going fast to get through your arguments. But istg if you don't drop a doc and you are unintelligible it will be silly (and not in a good way for you).

‎.

❤︎ Topicality- I love topicality and I can see where it can be run in every round. You need to prove abuse or its not an issue. I don't want a 1NC without T voters. NEG, you are not running topicality as a time skew, don't drop it in the 2NR, that's silly.

‎.

❤︎ DAs- Disadvantages are better when they are more specific, thats just true, however I won't discredit a DA just because it has a vague link. If your uniqueness is two years old I will laugh at you (on the inside).

‎.

❤︎ CPs- I feel like its fair that I tell you I lowkey hate cps. If it's not competitive I'm going to draw hello kitty on the flow. I am not a fan of PICs. I believe in perm theory really heavily.

‎.

❤︎ Ks- I really like Ks, on both AFF and NEG, and I will treat them like any other argument. I am especially well versed in Fem and Set Col, but I am comfortable with Cap, Imperialism, Afro-pess, Poverty, and Orientalism. Explain any k to me properly and I will try to understand it.

‎.

❤︎ Framework- I think FW is absolutely crucial to the round. Don't drop FW that's silly and you will probably lose. If you run a K without FW I will laugh at you (on the inside).

‎.

❤︎ Theory- If you prove where there has been abuse in round, and why that outweighs, I'll vote on most theory. I am very likely to vote aff on condo. I also believe in disclosure, theres never a reason not to disclose.

‎.

❤︎ Attitude- If you are unnecessarily mean it will make me like you less. I'm six different types of minority so if you are racist, sexist, bigoted, etc. you are literally losing my ballot and I will give you non-existent speaks.

‎.

❤︎ Little things:

- Don't gaslight me... I'm like... flowing?

- I don't shadow extend, I flow what comes out of your mouth.

- If you don't number your case attacks I will cry.

- My phone times better than yours don't argue with me.

- Recency is real.

- Past the 1AC/1NC I want to see more clash and engaging warrants than cards.

- Make a hello kitty reference and you get extra speaks.

‎.

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⣶⣾⣶⣦⣄⠀⢀⣤⡴⠾⠛⠛⢷⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣾⣿⣻⢞⣳⢯⣿⣿⡋⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢿⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⡴⠶⠶⠶⣤⣤⣄⡀⢀⣀⣤⣤⠶⠶⠞⣿⡿⣞⡷⣯⣿⣿⣼⣿⣷⣤⣄⡀⠀⣀⣠⣸⣧⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⢰⡟⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠙⠋⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⡿⣽⡽⣻⣿⣽⣿⢿⢯⣟⠿⣿⣿⣿⣻⣟⡿⣿⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⣾⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣟⣧⢿⣽⣻⣿⡿⣯⣟⢾⣻⡽⣿⣷⣿⣞⣽⣳⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⢸⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠻⢾⣿⣾⠷⠟⢿⣷⣯⣟⣳⣿⣿⣿⡿⣞⣧⣿⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠈⢿⣴⠆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠙⠛⢿⣿⣽⣳⠿⣽⣾⠿⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⣸⠏⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠛⠻⠛⠋⠁⠀⢹⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⢀⡿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣨⣿⣤⡤⠦⠴
⠀⠀⠀⢸⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠉⠉⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⢸⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣴⡶⢶⣤⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⣤⣿⣤⣤⣀⡀
⢀⣀⣤⣼⣷⡤⠤⠄⠀⠀⠀⢀⣠⣶⣶⣤⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠁⠀⠀⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⡟⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠉⠉⠀⠀⢻⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⠏⠀⠀⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⡖⠒⢶⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⣤⣾⣁⡀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⣀⣨⣿⡶⠶⠂⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⠷⠶⠛⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⡿⠉⠉⠙⠛⠒⠀
⠀⠀⠘⠉⠁⠈⠻⣦⣀⣀⡤⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣠⡾⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⡾⠿⢿⣤⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣀⣤⡴⠾⠋⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⠟⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠛⠛⠶⠶⠦⣤⣤⣤⣤⣤⣤⠴⠶⠶⠶⠚⠛⠋⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

My name is Valery and I'm a senior at Jenks High School going into my third year of policy as a 2a! Im not going to pretend that im a complete blank slate when judging and have no internal biases bcs thats not true, to me thats kinda impossible but i will try my best to adapt to the round and evaluate things to my best-- im not perfect and no where near the fairly knowledgeable in debate so i may mess up and if you genuinely think i made a bad decision feel free to email me after the round when the anger has subsided and we can both try to understand the round more and make this a better space. Heres my email for disclosure vgdebate25@gmail.com -- and what i like seeing in rounds:

PF: pls way your impacts-- the biggest thing i see and hear abt novice pf are debaters not weighing their impacts. Listen to your coach bcs they are definitely more knowledgeable when it come to teaching debate but i personally believe that when starting out you wont understand the other more techy parts of debate and it makes a judges life easier when making a decision after round.

LD: I'm a little more familiar with ld, but i still need a lot of explanation and analysis with value and criterion-- and i will evaluate on the flow so just do whatever you're comfortable with. Again be nice to your opponent, especially since you're probably in novice as your reading this and it's everyone's first few times!

Policy: I do mostly policy stuff when debating but I am familiar with kritical stuff if that's what you're into:

Ks: I like Ks, i am comfortable with cap to a degree and i ran fem ir during the nato topic a lot (basically a type of security k so im cool with that too). Run whatever you want but keep in mind im not going to be an expert or even know every single lit base, especially if its really niche. I get confused by FW a lot so try to make it clear on my flow so that i dont evaluate it incorrectly-- and dont have a k overview thats going to fill up 2 pages of my flow-- i rather you do the line by line rather than answer everything messily in the overviews.

CPs: I personally don't believe in a lot of cp abuse stories and think that the aff needs to win something more substantive on the counterplan, but i am willing to hear it out and maybe vote if you do enough work on it.

DA: I feel like clear analysis in a DA debate has become under appreciated. Don’t just tagline debate your 1NC shell the entire round— give me the warrants of the cards and cross apply it to specific areas of the Aff. Impact weighing is huge here, if i’m in a round where the 2ar and 2nr simply shadow extend their impacts (i.e. “climate change is bad" and "war is bad") and don’t actually extend the warrants as to why that’s bad then i’m just left with deciding what I personally think is worse and you don’t want that— i dont want to be interventionist so your last rebuttal should in a way write my ballot for me.

Topicality: Ive come to realize that high school debaters tend to underestimate topicality when on the aff and the 2n's usually dont go for it unless its against a planeless aff or if the other team straight up dropped it. I like T, i feel like neg should be going for it more bcs its strategic and its fairly easy to evaluate it coming out of the 1ar and 2nr-- sometimes 2ar pivots a fun to watch but the 1ar still has to do the work to get there. Idk what else to say, my 2n partner hates to say it but hes a t debater at heart so ive been in a lot of rounds where its been the 2nr if that helps when deciding what you're gonna run.

Procedurals: some theory args is find not believable like PIC's bad bcs i feel like the aff should be able to defend laterally what they wrote in their plantext. But if something is droped i believe it to be a true arg and if the aff does work and mentions you drop it that means that i vote aff in that scenario. Condo should be a "condo good/bad" debate, minus one condo good debates are dumb to me to a degree but again do the work on it.

Main notes:

-Be nice-- to your opponents (there is an exception were they've said something insanely socially problematic and they seem to defend it/dont apologize about it), to your partner (the amount of time ive seen debaters be mean to their partners is crazy to me), and to me.

-Cross isn't supposed to be aggressive it's supposed to be informational and is binding if your opponent brings it up in the next speech

-Sometimes you need a break so taking a second of prep before any speech or cross is fine

-Don't say anything any-phobic or any-ist

-High speaks are just anyone who tries and isn't rude in round

-Id say my speed tolerance is a 8/10-- but i still like having the doc in case the debate ends up being around a specific card and both teams have different interpretations of it. I also am a firm believer of disclosing analytics if you have them, especially if you're going to go max speed and in novice.

Pronouns- any pronouns are fine, he/him If you have specific pronouns let them be known before the round, if you dont respect someones pronouns your speaks will be as low as they can be, i get the occasional mispeak but if its obvious you dont give a crap your speaks will be trash.

Email-nathan.hernandez2213@gmail.com (spam my email and I will be very upset)

put me on the chain pls

Background- Debated 4 years for Guymon high school in Oklahoma (now a student-athlete at Rogers State, no college debate) under the GOAT and now NSDA hall of fame coach Michael Patterson. 2021 and 2022 policy state champ made state FEX finals a few times and won some IE events a few times at state and qualified to NSDA nationals.

side note-this is a dying activity much to my sadness, so if you are facing someone who is much less experienced than you don't be a jerk and just destroy them, help them learn and be nice and slow down a bit I'm sure a senior team doesn't need 8 off to handle a novice team, crap like this is what drives people away from the activity.

TLDR; tab ras

As far as policy and all debate really goes I try to approach every round with tabula rasa so just have fun and run whatever you normally run as long as it is not sexist, racist, homophobic, or anything hateful, i will not hesitate to vote down any team that participates in card clipping, "ism", plagiarism, i don't care how much you are winning the flow

Policy-spreading- is fine just send a doc copy

Ks- are fine but dont expect me to know your Lit base, was a huge cap/setcol/bioP/anthro debater in HS so i know them pretty well, i understand most Ks but dont expect me to understand your super complex Baudi K so please explain your warrants and your lit base

DA- is cool more specific the better. I get generic links are easy but its always smart to go with more specific links they make the debate way more interesting to judge. Also idk why people are starting to feel like they can run a 2 card long DA and that somehow covers it, i get the strategy for it but its just annoying.

theory- is cool not really a huge voter but I mean if you're winning it I will. Run whatever theory you want as long as it is not problematic (most theory debates are pretty trash but im down to be proven wrong), I prob wont vote on your RVI unless there is some fr abuse.

CPs- are cool i really really enjoy specific ones, i think PICs are kind of lazy and will be down to vote on PIC theory but its never ran it so wahtev. I always love a good CP comp debate, please make the status of your CP known or ask, trust me. I was a big CP debater my senior year so i love those guys. PLEASE HAVE A SOLVENCY ADVOCATE

T- is dope aswell make sure to extend and go for standards they are underutilized. When answering T a counter def or we meet is a good idea, probably the best idea but you cant just run that, if you drop standards you basically lose the round.

Case- is underutilized and can make or break a round i love a good case debate. SOOO much room for good clash on the flow if you use case correctly which makes the best rounds. Also pls pls pls do line by line on case, i hate having to jump around my flow. Ill do my best to put it where i think it goes but if it ends up on the wrong thing, sorry...

Speaks- are determined on how clean your line by lines are and spreading and overall behavior in the round and overall debate skill. It's not that deep bro.

random-i was a 1a/1n all through highschool and more tech>truth judge unless it just gets ridiculous with the hyper tagging. will ask for a card to be shown if i think it can deterime a round or was highly contesed throughout the debate.

Args i 9/10 wont vote-stuff that happened outside of a round, links by their schools (idc if they are a christian school), debate is a game.

args i will vote you down for running-death good (seriously..why), racism or any ism good, name calling, reverse racism.

overall just have fun be nice and enjoy yourselves. Funny jokes in your speech will be rewarded with better speaks i dont think debate should be a monolouge of zombies, crack the occasional joke trust me ill laugh even if i really dont find it funny.

i prefer if you have your cams on when speaking or doing CX/crossfire.

LD/PF-Never done it but i know the gist of it, alot of my policy paradigm applies except in PF it seems as though spreading is bad but i wont stop you. Send the docs still please and im sorry if i confuse the times with policy but ill do my best to give a good RFD and decision. Im cool with whatever LD tricks are ive judged a few rounds of both debates so i can evaluate it decently well probs not high level deabtes tho.

undebatable things

tech (in terms of tech/truth, i believe the term 'truth judging' is actual nonsense). this means i evaluate everything unless tab forces me not to (violent behavior or arguments that have been explicitly highlighted by tab to stop for are them 'forcing me')---anything else is NOT tech

if something tab says is bad happens, i stop the round. if you think something bad enough has happened or that i missed it, stop the round and point it out to me. tab will still decide lol. if tab refuses to decide, the team that stops loses and ill give speaks based on the number of speeches given.

some people say 'im tech because dropped arguments are true' and then say 'but an argument is ONLY a claim and a warrant.' this is nonsense. in semantics we have propositions, and both the 'claim' and the 'warrant' are propositions. the warrant is a proposition that is purported to justify the claim, but that warrant also seems to require further justification. thus if we mandate warrants we must either 'warrant down' propositions until a self-evident truth appears (something i can look at and establish as unequivocally true), or pick an arbitrary point to stop. this means there are three models of debate here. i call them: constructivism (all propositions are assumed to be true), arbitrary nonsense (requiring X amount of 'warrants down'), or destructivism (propositions must be proven absolutely true). i think destructivism is impossible for two reasons. A. self-evident truth doesn't exist; B. even if it does, there's not enough of it to establish all of the claims we need for modern debate. arbitrary nonsense is very bad for infinitely many reasons, but we should isolate a few. i think it is formally incoherent in that whatever number of "warrants down" required should also apply the bottom of the warrant chain, thus invalidating any chain of logic. i also think that it is arbitrary in that like, saying "you only need to justify the proposition one level down" (which is the most common view) is no different than saying "i need three levels down." this also doesn't solve the problem of warrantless claims, because any proposition can be purported to be a justification for another i.e. "you should vote aff because pigs are green."

^ in this model, spamming arguments like "you should vote neg because [something that does not imply the first proposition]" is answered by "group the vote neg arguments---their warrants don't logically imply that you should vote neg, but our arguments do." alternatively, i think "go to the vote neg stuff. group these---warrantless" also answers it well enough.

dropped propositions are true

^ the only exception to this model is unjustified 'new' propositions made in the 2AR---these get excluded because the negative does not have an opportunity to respond

i think a proposition is 'new' when it appears in a speech and has not appeared in any prior speech. i do not, by default, exclude new propositions in any speech except the 2AR without justification for why i should---HOWEVER, i think justifying this past the 1NR is so easy you should basically never lose.

i think new propositions are justified whenever they contradict or qualify a new proposition made by the opponent in the prior speech. that includes claims they make about your stuff.

when writing the ballot, i only evaluate propositions that are in the final rebuttals.

some people say they have 'defaults' when they judge a debate. this is not full tech judging, because it includes a certain bias (though minor and forgivable). default enjoyers might object to me and argue that in a DA vs case debate, neither side establishes util as a reason to vote either way---thus, defaultless judges should have no way to vote.

to resolve this, i believe that debaters can make 'implied propositions'---for example, the proposition 'you should vote aff because our plan prevents 500 people from dying" implies that i should vote aff if the plan prevents people from dying. the proposition "you should actually vote neg because the plan causes 1000 people to die" forwards that instead, i should vote aff if the planNET prevents people from dying. the affirmative has two responses to this: agree to this weighing and contest the death count, or contest the weighing. most affirmatives agree to the weighing, and thus my 'default' has been establishes. these things tend to work themselves out in real debates.

'dropped' propositions occur when a speech articulates them, and then by the next speech of that same side, the opponent has articulated no proposition that contradicts or qualifies those propositions.

0% risk of a proposition being true is only possible if the claim that it is untrue is dropped. 100% risk of a proposition being true is only possible if the claim that it is true is dropped. so long as there is a proposition that contradicts or qualifies a proposition (even if one of them is MUCH stronger: i.e. "nuclear war causes extinction by creating ash clouds that drop global food supply which causes a cycle of further nuclear escalation until all food is gone and everybody is dead" vs "no it doesn't because uhhh... i forgor"---the nuclear war = extinction enjoyed has about a 99.99999% risk of their proposition here, but not 100%), it will never be 100% true.

evidence hasNO special status to me as a judge unless tab forces me to give it special consideration (ev ethics) or you say i should somehow. i think that in a model where both teams send evidence without debating about it, citations are inserted, analytic arguments that increase the veracity of the paragraphs under them (your author quals, date, etc make your propositions more credible!). however, i don't think there's any reason that debaters can't just paste an author's words as an analytic--you could read a 1AC stripped of all citations and i would just eval it as if its propositions are slightly less credible. sidenote: i do not actually weigh the propositions under ev as being truer unless brought up, or unless im told to look at them as inserted stuff, ie "our ev is from two days ago," or "look at this author's quals---we're right." the other team can contest this.

a ballot is justified by claiming that i should vote aff or neg (sometimes this is implied)

X% risk i should vote AFF implies (100-X)% risk i should vote NEG

if it is 50% for both, this state is equivalent to both sides being silent (neither justifying anything), in that case i vote NEG because i expected the AFF to justify something first

if a ballot has not been justified for either side by the end of the round, i vote NEG. this is not because of a 'resolutional burden of proof,' but because the affirmative speaks first and thus i expected them to say something before i expected the negative to. rounds, where both teams sit down immediately instead of speaking and forgo cross-examination, are good examples of this, as are rounds where the affirmative gets up and gently speculates about the dearest emotions of colors without saying that this is a reason to affirm. i think this is an important distinction. ill construct some model rounds below after clarifications

Round #1

1AC: Red is an angry color.

1NC: Silence

2AC: Red is an angry color.

2NC: Silence

1NR: Silence

1AR: Red is an angry color.

2NR: Silence

2AR: Red is an angry color.

Ballot: Neg.

Round #2

1AC: Red is an angry color so you should vote AFF.

1NC: Silence

2AC: Red is an angry color so you should vote AFF.

2NC: Silence

1NR: Silence

1AR: Red is an angry color so you should vote AFF.

2NR: Silence

2AR: Red is an angry color so you should vote AFF.

Ballot: Aff.

Round #3

(You get the idea.)

AFF: Red is an angry color so you should vote AFF.

NEG: Silly! Voting AFF doesn't follow from that.

Ballot: Aff.(Why?: AFF has articulated the proposition that I should vote AFF because red is an angry color. The NEG points out that this justification doesn't imply that I should vote AFF. However, the NEG never articulates why I should vote NEG, and the AFF continues to argue that red being an angry color means I should vote AFF. This means I believe that there is a very low risk the AFF proposition is true, and a very high risk the NEG proposition is true. Because there is a very TINY reason to vote AFF, and no reason not to, I vote AFF.)

Round #4

AFF: Red is an angry color so you should vote AFF.

NEG: Blue is a sad color so you should vote NEG.

Ballot: Neg.(Why?: This debate is the type that drives me insane. Because the risk that I should vote for either side is equal, I vote NEG because nothing has been justified and I expected something from the AFF first.)

Round #5

AFF: Red is an angry color so you should vote AFF.

NEG: Silly! Voting AFF doesn't follow from that. Blue is a sad color so you should vote NEG.

Ballot: Neg.(Why?: The likelihood that I should vote AFF is mitigated by the NEG proposition that it doesn't follow from red being an angry color. The likelihood that I should vote NEG is unmitigated.}

Round #6

1AC: Red is an angry color so you should vote AFF.

NEG: Silly! Voting AFF doesn't follow from that. Blue is a sad color so you should vote NEG.

Subsequent AFF: Silly! Voting NEG doesn't follow from that. Red is an angry color so you should vote AFF.

Ballot: Neg.(Why?: This is equivalent to Round #4 risk-wise, which triggers a NEG ballot.)

debatable things

debate seems to make the most sense whenever affirmative teams justify the resolution's truth. the resolution is an ambiguous proposition and topical plans are examples of that proposition alone.

Extra-T: i do not believe that extra-T is a relevant remark personally. consider:

X = The resolution should occur.

Y = Some certain extra-topical action is occurring.

In the case where the extra-topical action is the difference between winning or losing substantively (the only case that matters), the logic can be constructed as:

If Y, then X.

However, Y is not true because the extra-topical action is not occurring. Thus, the only relevant deciding factor of the substantive debate ought to be the topical portion of the plan. if the negative doesn't make this argument, I'll eval it. i have not seen a good response to it though. i guess you could say "ignore logical implications because it's... [X procedural benefit]" but i think the neg arg that this nukes all debate forever is strong.

kaff: i am very bad in these debates because i think that (and i may just be stupid) debaters rarely set up a clear 'win condition' for me to evaluate, so i end up kind of screwed. i think if you are a kritikal affirmative you should be very explicit "we win if we prove that X is good..." etc

avg speaks is 28.5 or 3 in oklahoma

Oklahoma speaks guide:

1 - you were not only a bad debater, but your behavior in this round particularly irked me

2 - bad debating

3 - fine debating

4 - good debating

i think trufanov's ontology of debate arguments is important, but slightly incorrect in places.

the plan is a 'mandate'---something that must always occur in the world the aff weighs. the most likely occurrences surrounding the plan are 'normal means.' CPs must compete by having a net benefit predicated on the exclusion of some mandate in the plan. DAs, on the other hand, can link only to normal means functions of the AFF, but the probability of that normal means function would mitigate those DAs.

positionality is a bad model, planicality is alright, resolutionality is prob true (https://substack.com/home/post/p-139810565).

CPs: textual comp is incoherent, truf is probably right that functions like not doing whatever is implied in an "only if" CP are extractable for perms

CPs IMO do not rejoin the plan. this view has multiple justifications but is much too complex to articulate here. going for this arg in front of me is honestly likely to persuade me if you debate it well technically and i wont reject it. i have not yet seen a good answer to it.

Ks: non-FW Ks lose to affs that know how impacts and weighing works (there is NO WAY the rev happens fast enough to solve the 'root cause' of imminent Iranian escalation). FW Ks i THINK lose to FW when evenly debated. im not 100% sure. good K debaters are better technically than their opponent---Ks are cheating and that's not a bad thing. the block should be chock full of tricks and the 2NR should go for whichever trick the AFF mishandled.

procedurals come before substantive debate

Debate: I am not particularly picky on anything, but please be respectful to your opponent(s). Feel free to run progressive arguments, but beware that I may not get them if you aren't clear.

LD: Make sure to clarify how your criterion supports your contentions! Also, don’t drop all your contentions for the sake of the value debate. Do not make all of your arguments cross-applications of your own case unless there is a legitimate clash. I vote primarily on the quality of coverage.

PF: Any speaking speed is fine, just make sure you are coherent. A heated cross-examination is fine but please don’t spend the entire time yelling at each other. I vote on the quality of evidence and general coverage.

debated at jenks high school for 4 years, judge for jenks high school now. she/her

tl;dr : slow down on taglines/analytics, tabula rasa, put me on the email chain: caroline.kizziar00@gmail.com

speed: if you don’t send me something and i don’t catch it that really sucks for you.

Counterplan: i don’t think they’re abusive in general, that being said if the aff team correctly points out an instance of abuse on a counterplan and really impacts it out i could be persuaded otherwise. you should have either a specific solvency advocate or a really good reason why your generic one works. sufficiency framing should be well explained but ill def vote on it. i will not judge kick your counterplan unless you convince me i should. please for the love of god read a card with your counterplan— just the text is not enough.

disads: core generics are important but as a former 2A i know that most of them suck— tell me why and i will 100% listen to that analysis. i think evidence comparison is especially important on a DA.

kritiks: i was mostly a policy debater so im not as familiar here— you need to explain your lit for me to vote. im willing to listen to state bad arguments, but will be sympathetic if an aff team correctly asserts that the alt is vague/doesn’t do anything. rejection alts are bad. the more abusive your framework is the less likely i am to weigh it. I generally believe util but i can be convinced that i should weigh something else if you can convince me that their internal link chain specifically is faulty/bad— not just internal link chains in general. for k affs: don’t pref me. i think fairness is absolutely an impact to fw. i am not the judge for you. if you read debate bad/death good/baudrillard i do not want to hear it. I won’t lie i did go for a lot of cap good/heg good arguments in high school but pls just read what you’re good at not what you think i want to hear. i am very sympathetic to the perm double bind argument.

topicality: i do like t but please don’t run a bad t argument just because you think i want to hear it. you should have in round abuse and a pretty fleshed out explanation of your world vs. their world. I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise. as the year goes on i weigh t less and less. that being said, if something isn’t even tangentially related to the resolution, you are going to lose.

case: i think case debate is underutilized, you should have something more than impact d even if it is just an analytic. same thing as k’s, please be explaining your aff i need to know what is going on don’t assume i know your advantages like you do.

crossx: definitely binding, definitely checks vagueness, should be brought up in later speeches.

theory: like any other judge i really don’t want to see a theory 2nr strat but if you believe that you have clear examples of abuse and that they genuinely deserve to lose for it, go ahead. condo is good, perfcon is fine, multiple perms are good, etc.

performance: whatever. im not too jazzed about this kind of debate but if you impact out why you need to play music in the round, go ahead. If your narrative has to do with sexual violence please dont be graphic, there are minors in the room.

misc: flash isn’t prep until it gets excessive, open cx is good as long as both sides agree, i don’t think debate should be funny. if you’re here and you run “joke” off case positions i will vote you down for wasting my time. you are not nearly as funny as you think you are.

Hello I am Brandon (He/Him), I have experience in both PF and LD but have no experience in policy so if I’m judging you in policy please be patient with me I'm sure I’ll get the hang of it.

LD:

I did LD my freshman year of high-school so I have a little bit of experience but not a lot. I’m not extremely picky just be respectful of your opponents. Sound confident in yourself and your arguments. I remember how scary debate was in the beginning you’re gonna do great!

PF:

I did PF for the majority of high-school and it was always my favorite form of debate. I went to state with it my junior year so I have a good amount of experience in it. Just like I said for LD be respectful of your opponents. I know cross can get very heated and chaotic especially during grand cross I just ask you to stay respectful. When it comes to sitting or standing during your speeches I’m okay with either whatever you’re most comfortable with. I am also okay with you timing yourself but I will also keep time. Try to sound confident in your speeches. You’re gonna do great!

Policy:

I have no experience in Policy but I have done some research and talked to teammates who do compete in policy to learn some. Please be patient with me I am learning with you. Like with the other forms of debate I ask that you are respectful of your opponents. I also ask that you keep the spreading to a minimum I'm okay with fast speaking just please enunciate so I can understand. I look forward to learning with and from you you’re gonna do great!

Hi, I'm Taylor. Keep in mind that my thoughts will probably change on specific aspects of debates as I judge more rounds, so I might change some things here and there in my paradigm.

My email: taylorrafferty22@gmail.com

About me (If you care)

I debated at Jenks High School for four years. I mainly did Lincoln-Douglas Debate and International Extemp. While at Jenks on the state level, I was in 4 state final rounds between Lincoln-Douglas and International Extemp. On the national level, I was a 4x national qualifier in 3 different events, and in my senior year, I took 24th in the nation in Lincoln-Douglas Debate. I now attend ESU and personally coach a few students in LD. Despite my LD experience I find myself judging mostly policy rounds these days but I will see a LD or PF round every now and then.

General Debate Things

1. Tech>Truth; however, my threshold for responding to bad arguments is incredibly low.

2. I like Impact calc a lot. It would help if you did it.

3. Offense will get you further with me rather than defense. I don't think defense should be abandoned but telling me why you win goes much further than telling me why you don't lose.

4. EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS. I'm not going to do work for you if you don't extend your arguments through your last speech. I'm not gonna bother weighing it into my decision.

5. Crystalize and summarize your best arguments and why you won them in your final speeches. Generally, going for every argument on the flow is not in your best interest.

6. Time yourself. I'm terrible at it.

7. If you can be funny or sarcastic in a round (not at the expense of actually debating well), then more power to you. I will probably give you more speaks.

Traditional LD

Only Warning

I will NOT hesitate to drop anyone who spreads or engages in debate practices that would not be persuasive or understandable to a reasonable person—this is not negotiable. Please do not see my policy background or circuit LD experience as an invitation to make this round uninteresting for everyone involved. I do not think it's impressive to win the flow while making the debate as inaccessible as possible for your opponent.

General Things

1. If you signpost, extend your arguments, try not to drop stuff, and give an offensive reason why I should vote for you as opposed to a defensive one, you'll be in very good shape. (Offense = why I'm winning, Defense = why I'm not losing)

2. I generally evaluate things sequentially. I use who's value/criterion or framework is winning to determine which arguments and impacts to weigh and, subsequently, who's won the ballot. This means framework in and of itself is not a voter, but it has a massive impact on who wins my ballot. For example, if you're winning the aff leads to extinction but you've conceded a Kant FW, you'll probably lose.

3. Good debaters have consistency between their value/criterion or framework and their contentions. If you're reading Kant and then a bunch of util arguments, I might cry.

4. I prefer more principled and philosophical arguments in trad LD. If the debate does become a question about the consequences of adopting some policy, I prefer empirical studies and examples over random predictions without evidence. This is not to say I don't enjoy analytics with good warrants.

Public Forum Debate

1. If I don't get a framework, I will default to utilitarianism for my framing. If you don't want me to do that, you should give me a framework.

2. DON'T paraphrase evidence. (Unfortunately, this seems to be a big problem specifically in PFD.) For the love of god, please, when you read cards, cite the author properly and read a cut version of the evidence. If I get a paraphrasing of evidence, I will be very inclined to vote you down

3. Don't make PFD complicated. If you cover the flow well, weigh impacts, and crystalize your most important arguments in your final speech. You will be in an excellent position to win my ballot.

Policy Debate

Just a few general things specifics are under my prefs.

1. Please add me to the email chain. My email is at the top of the paradigm.

2. My speed threshold is around 7/10 if that is any help at all (Probably not). I will yell "clear" if you're going too fast for me. If you ignore me I will be very sad. Please SLOW WAY DOWN on the analytics you don't put in the doc. I won't flow analytics if you zoom through them.

3. Open cross is fine.

4. If you have questions about my policy paradigm, please ask before the round.

Prefs

1. Policy- Easily what I feel the most comfortable judging. I like seeing a topical aff against a competitive cp and some dis ads. I enjoy case debates, something that needs to be done way more. When you are reading your perms explain how it functions within the certain perm you read .

2. Topicality- Topicality is fun..... Until it's not. T feels more like a throwaway off-case position, especially as the violations continue getting increasingly ridiculous. I'm not saying you have to go for it if you read it, but I would like to feel like I know your T might be a legit way to the ballot rather than knowing it's just gonna be a time suck within the first 5 seconds you're into reading the T. With all that being said, winning the links to why the violation is legit is going to be way more important to me than harping on the impacts of the T. Sure, impacts are important, but if you're not going to put any effort into proving the T violation than why spend all that time impacting it out.

3. Theory- I find theory to be super boring mostly because it just turns into both teams reading their generic block files that I have heard for the thousandth time. That's not to say I won't vote on it. At some points, I have voted for speed theory and condo (It's been nearly a year, though), although I usually prefer to drop the argument and not the team. I'm very iffy on out-of-round theory violations being read I.E (the opposing team did something bad before the round started, so you are now reading theory). Once again, not that I wouldn't vote on it, but I don't have an objective view on what happened because likely I wasn't there ofc this isn't considering screenshots for a disclosure shell or something like that. I will reiterate what has been said about T previously: prove the violation first, then impact out.

4. K's- My experience with Ks has grown over the years. I generally feel comfortable with them. Explain how the alt functions and have a clear ROB; you should be fine. If you are reading something really abstract, you are going to have to explain it more to me, but I can catch on pretty fast. K affs have gotten more enjoyable for me as well just make sure it can compete and I will weigh it vs anything.

5. Performance- I am not gonna be your guy for this.

Last updated: September 28, 2023

My name is Akshitha (ack-shee-tha) and I am a varsity policy debater. I have been doing policy for two years, and have gone to regionals, state, and districts.

Disclosure- Always disclose. No exceptions. I want to be on the speechdrop/email-chain

Speed- I am fine with speed.

Topicality/ theory- I know how to evaluate but still make an effort to explain it to me. Don't run dumb stuff. Both theory and topicality need to show clear abuse for me to vote on it.

Kritiks- love love love. explain your alt or I don't really care. But if you run a K, run it well.

Signpost or I’ll be annoyed.

I don't want to hear any bigotry you will get the L.