email chains - evanderdavis6@gmail.com

Debate - Washburn Rural - '19-'23

I'm fine with speed (though I am biased toward slower debates). Analysis and (especially) theory should be slower than evidence. Signpost! I will clear you if necessary.

Truth informs tech (it is a tiebreaker), but tech > truth.

I generally default to reject the arg, not the team (condo being the obvious exception).

Case

Case is undercovered. Impact turns, clash, evidence comparison, rehighlightings, etc are great.

Intelligent debate is valued. A quality logical argument with clear warrants can be worth just as much as a card.

DAs

DAs are good. I like policy-type debates and DAs are a big part of that. Specific links are best, and make a debate much more interesting. Don't neglect impact calc or be afraid to do analysis about the weakness of an internal link chain.

CPs

Condo is good. If the neg reads 5+ conditional advocacies I'm much more willing to listen to these debates, but I've found I ere neg.

I think judge kick is pretty lazy. If you tell me to and the aff doesn't contest it though, I will.

T

T debates are fine. It's annoying when you read a bunch of throw-away T args in the 1NC, but you do you. Reasonability is a decent arg, but you can't just say "reasonability" - tell me why your definition is good/real world.

Ks

I used to hate Ks. I don't anymore, but it probably isn't the best idea to read one in front of me.

Kritiks should have an alt to generate uniqueness. If you kick the alt you should probably lose to a no uniqueness argument most of the time. It's possible to win, but much more difficult.

You need to prove alt solvency. You should actually explain what the alt does instead of repeating the same canned phrase 100 times. I am not all that familiar with a lot of the literature, so make sure to actually explain.

If you want to read a K in front of me, I'd recommend kritiks of the case. I'm most willing to listen to the frameworks on those and while I don't think they're true, tech > truth. You will have an uphill battle reading reps Ks or kritiks of debate in front of me.

K/planless affs are probably cheating. I will do my best to evaluate these debates fairly, but know I'm biased.

CX

Open CX is fine, but should be limited. Prompt, don't ask questions for your partner.

Other

Things that are good:

Judge instructions, impact calc, evidence comparison, etc. Your job is to do as much of my job for me as possible - that's the best way to ensure you get a positive result.

Things that are bad:

Running args you don't understand, unnecessary rudeness, bigotry, death good.

I will do my best to evaluate the round without bias. I think I've typed out above pretty much all of my biases in evaluating debates. None of these are totally insurmountable, but you should adapt to your judge. Debate is an educational activity and as a judge, my role is to allow for experimentation and reward the team that made the better arguments.

Hi! I'm a junior at Barstow and have been debating since 7th grade. I'm big on how you deliver the arguments, aka loud enough to be well heard but please don't yell and sound confident in your arguments. with that being said:

tech >>> truth

like: k's, cp's

i flow on my laptop

would much much much rather do an email chain (email is at bottom), but if you insist on speech drop.... fine./j

go as fast as you like, but signpost, aka make sure to differentiate in between cards. i time everything and note it so yea, but that doesn't mean that yall shouldn't time yourself as I wont stop you

remember to continue arguments (extend) throughout the round

analysis in rebuttals is much appreciated, show me you know the argument

i typically end up voting based off of impac/tf/mag calc, unanswered arguments, and extinction

please stand up during cross and look at me, im the one youre trying to convinve

I don't care about 'foul' or 'inappropriate' language, but don't be excessive with it

I will mark speaker points down considerably for bad sportsmanship, its one thing to be confident and show it, its another to just be a jerk

I prefer open cross-x but am fine with whatever

please attach me on the email chain

lets have a good round and have fun!! also, this is isn't life or death, don't stress you're gonna do great.

debateava@gmail.com

please at me to the email chain: madelyn.atkins.debate@gmail.com

pronouns: she/her

expericence:

Debated at Lansing High School for 4 years

Coaching:

Lansing (2021-2022)

Shawnee Mission South (2023-current)

top level:

- tech over truth but arguments must be warranted

- Read whatever aff/neg strategy that you are the most comfortable with and I will do my best to adapt and be unbiased

- Judge instruction is important and often underutilized

topicality:

- I went for t a lot my senior year and I think it is a good strategy that more teams should go for

- I default to competing interpretations

- Explain what your model means for the topic, case lists can be helpful for this

k affs:

- framework - I think that fairness and clash can both be both impacts (but that's also up to the debaters to prove). Don't just read generic framework blocks - try to contextualize them to the aff. Specific evidence can be helpful for a TVA but isn't absolutely necessary

disads:

- make turns case args and impact calc is helpful

counterplans:

- process counterplans are okay, but I probably err aff on theory

- delay counterplans are cheating

- textual and functional is always good

- err neg on condo but can be convinced otherwise

- all theory args except for condo I default to reject the arg not the team

- I will only judge kick if the neg makes the argument and the aff doesn't contest it, best to start this debate before the 2nr/2ar

kritiks:

- answer arguments on the line by line instead of in a long overview

- specific links are better than generic ones

- clearly explain the link, impact, and alt

case:

- neg should utilize case debates more - could definitely win on presumption

Hello Debaters!

I am a high schooler in the class of '25, but I've been debating since 2019.

GENERAL/SHORT VERSION:

If something is dropped, point it out to me, I will not do your work for you.

Docs: I prefer a Microsoft Doc, but Google Docs are okay. Send the docs through an email chain (abrown25@heritagehall.com is the email you should use for me!) or SpeechDrop.

PLEASE BE KIND TO YOUR PARTNER AND THE OTHER TEAM IN ROUND.

Speed: I'm okay with speed, but clarity is everything to me, so please be clear!

Analytics: Always make analytics, but if they are not on the sent doc, please tell me when you are going on to them! (E.X. Next - Analytics)

If you take too long to download or share a Doc, I will start your prep time. I will give a warning before I start it. If you are having technical difficulties, communicate that with me and I will assist as best I can.

Please face the judge in CX and make eye contact during the rebuttals. This goes a long way toward making your arguments more persuasive and will earn you speaker points in round!!

CASE DEBATE: I think case debate is great, and is often underused on both sides! With case, I look for quality over quantity of evidence. Explain to me why your evidence is better!

NEG:

K's: I love a good K, but if I don't understand it, I won't vote for a K I don't understand. Make sure not to fall behind/concede F/W!

T: I will vote for T if it is properly extended, but you must have a clear violation and impact/voting issue.

Theory: I will vote on any decent theory, but again, extend it and have a clear impact/voting issue.

DA/CPs: I will vote for any DA/CP I feel is fair, but I need to understand how they work in order to vote for them!

AFF:

AFF Cases: I will vote on any fair AFF case with properly extended impacts AND solvency. I prefer plans, and if you don't have a plan, you will need to focus on impacts/solvency (if any) and why those outweigh neg impx.

AFF, if the Neg team is being unfair, call them out on it! I will vote on unfairness, but again, I need to understand what the Neg team is abusing, and the voting issues. For me to vote, this needs to be a large part, (3ish minutes) of your final speeches for me to vote, though if the Neg concedes this, I will vote.

I know debate is stressful, but have fun, it's a game!

blanechndlr@gmail.com

Big K person, tech>truth, love judge instruction, sound confident, be strategic. Don't be rude to your opponents. For anything other than policy I have 0 topic knowledge so all I can say is speak and debate well.

Caius Gish cgish06@gmail.com

Background Information: I am currently a senior high school debater for Heritage Hall, and I have debated for four years.

Novice Paradigm:

Open CX is fine by me, but it is up to the consensus of both teams.

Email Chain is preferable to speech drop, and I would like to have access to whatever method is used.

I am tech over truth, which means that under normal circumstances, if I am given the chance, I will default to whatever argument I think has been executed the best. There are some standards, as my threshold for some arguments, such as SPARK, is much higher than others. However, this does not mean that I will not vote for it, so if you feel confident explaining an argument, than you have the ability to run it.

Please keep focus on the round from the beginning of the 1AC-the end of the 2AR. I would prefer that you focus on prepping before and after rounds, but I understand that some rounds are stressful, so there is grace there. However, if I see someone clearly not participating during the round, it will most likely reduce your speaker points.

Although the goal of a tournament is to win, win or lose, it is likely that there are going to be many different mess-ups regarding flow, answering arguments, and other basics. As such, the most you can do towards improving is giving your best attempt at understanding the round.

Most importantly, have fun!

Barstow 24 High school senior email: nithin.guduputi@barstowschool.org

Do what you want. I will evaluate arguments based on what is said. I will not question the validity of an argument unless explicit evidence is provided to the contrary.

I will judge the rounds based on

Traceability of argument- I want to be able to understand the argument which can be achieved by clearly conveyed arguments with a traceable line of reason.

Strength of Rebuttal- if the rebuttal properly answers the opposition's argument and extends their own arguments again.

Respectfulness- I fully expect debtors to be respectful of one another and conduct themselves with manner and poise.

I will maintain time, good luck.

Hello! Please put me on the email chain, (nathan.hollander05@gmail.com).

About me: I'm a Senior in high school, and I have been debating policy for the past 4 years. I have a little bit of experienced judging, but make sure your arguments are explained well. I come from the online debate times so I know how much of a nightmare tech can be, no need to take prep if you have difficulties sending, just try to be quick about it.

Debate Stuff: I can understand spreading decently well, but please go slower for tags and analytics. I'm fine with all arguments and I really like Ks, just make sure you explain the alt. Tech > Truth but truth helps make points believable. Don't clip and don't steal prep. Overall, just debate how you normally would and have fun!

NOTE: If I am juding a non policy round, dont assume I know anything, make sure everything you do is well explained as this may be the first time I've seen that type of debate

(Bonus speaks if you put effort into your outfit)

Hi! I’m Suhani (she/her)!

Newman Smith ’23 (4 years of LD) , UT Austin ’27 (double major computer science & psychology w/ a minor in gender studies) and I work for DFW Speech and Debate

Add me to the email chain— sujamps@gmail.com

If it's a policy round add the team-mail damiendebate47@gmail.com

If it’s an LD round add the other team-mail loyoladebate47@gmail.com

flowing: it is good and teams should do it—

stolen from alderete -- if you show me a decent flow, you can get up to 1 extra speaker point. this can only help you - i won't deduct points for an atrocious flow. this is to encourage teams to actually flow. please do this before i submit the ballot

don't acc expect to get 1 extra speaker point from me, this functions on a logarthimic scale.

stolen from nethmin -- I am comfortable evaluating arguments that are commonplace in policy (cx) debate; less comfortable evaluating nonsense trick-blip-phil-paradox-skep-word-soup quirks of lincoln douglas. This means that any CX team that debates in a coherent and well-researched manner (whether policy or k) should be fine in front of me. LD teams that read real arguments should be fine in front of me. LD teams that read "eval after 1ar" should strike me before they strike a parent judge.

in general you can look to nethmin's paradigm for more understanding of how I evaluate rounds

Policy—

This is what I did majority of my senior year, and what I am most comfortable judging—but dont let this dissuade you from reading what you want in front of me—as long as its warranted I will evaluate it.

I love when people cut good prep! I love when you can actually explain and warrant arguments!—especially if your scenario is pretty nonsense (like me doing my com sci homework leads to extinction) having really good ev and a really good explanation will help a lot and beat back any skepticism I have for voting for a very silly scenario.

Plan affs are so fun!

I default to util and weighing impacts by probability*magnitude

K—

I can handle most k lit besides anything pomo tbh..

If you are gonna run pomo in front of me explain it to me like i'm 5.

I think aff gets to weigh case but can be convinced otherwise.

I am not voting for the k if a) I have no idea what the k is saying and/or b) your alt doesnt solve and im not sure what it does (examples are helpful!).

Reading afropess or queer pess when you are not black or queer is weird.

T/Theory—

Alot of these debates get really messy—collapse to one standard to make my life easier.

Im pro disclosure not pro nonsense disclosure shells (must disclose round reports, cites, new affs, etc).

(Policy specific) My threshold for voting on theory is somewhat lower than your average policy judge-however this doesn't mean reading your condo blocks automatically wins you the debate.

Phil—

If you’re reading phil in front of me, treat me like im 5 years old because if its not Kant or Rawls I probably have no idea what your framework is saying and I will be confused.

Tricks—

Tricks make my head hurt and it will be an uphill battle for you to try to convince me you should win the round on one especially because I have never seen a trick with an actual warrant.

The more nonsense the trick the lower the threshold for responding to it is.

Don't make me evaluate silliness your speaks will reflect it.

Speaks—

I give speaks based on strategic decisions and clarity.

Ill say slow/clear three times and so if I still end up missing args it is your fault.

If you have a speech impediment, let me know so clarity will not be evaluated for your speaks.

If you’re rude to your opponent or just do anything to make the round unsafe/exclusionary your speaks will be docked and you might just lose the round—this would obv be for more egregious things—ie maybe dont purposefully misgender people or say slurs etc if you want to win a debate in front of me.

My least favorite thing ever is doc bot vs doc bot debates and speaks will reflect it.

I'll give you 30 speaks if you figure out the significance of 47 in the team-mails on your first try.

Misc—

(LD Jan-Feb Topic Specific) I do not want to judge any Zionism/Israel good debates. I will vote you down and give speaks that will make you unhappy. Adapt or lose.

I can handle speed, but don’t go your top speed in front of me, I can probably handle a 8/10 if 10 is the fastest person on the circuit.

PLEASE slow down on analytics.

I will not flow off the doc or back-flow.

Stop calling everything an IVI.

Don't make me intervene as a judge—extend warrants, weigh between arguments, do judge instruction.

I generally don't feel comfortable evaluating things that did not happen in round other than disclosure.

Lack of warrants in debate is killing me, I'm not voting on an argument that is not warranted, doesn't make sense.

I spend a lot of time with a lot of old grumpy policy coaches, and therefore judge similarly to old grumpy policy coach.

Prep time ends when the email is sent--stop stealing prep and wasting everyone's time.

Entertain me!

MY EMAIL FOR SPEACH'S: cyrus.shaikh@barstowschool.org

I am a high school senior. My primary role as a judge is to assess the arguments presented by both teams and determine which side has effectively conveyed their message and provided stronger, more compelling reasons. I do not have a preference for any type of arguments, meaning any type of DA's, Counter Plans, Kritiks, etc. I am fine with anything as long as you argue it well.

I will base my decision on the following criteria:

1. Clarity and Organization: I expect debaters to present their arguments clearly and logically. Points should be well-structured, and I should be able to follow the line of reasoning easily.

2. Content and Evidence: I will assess the quality of the content presented by both teams. I value well-researched and relevant evidence that supports the claims made.

3. Rebuttal: Effective rebuttals are key to a strong debate. I will pay close attention to how well each team addresses the arguments of the opposing side.

5. Clash: Clash refers to the direct engagement and refutation of opposing arguments. I will evaluate the extent to which debaters engage with their opponents' arguments and respond to their points.

6. Speaking Style: I appreciate clear, articulate, and confident speakers. I don't care how fast you go as long as you are actually speaking words.

My role is to objectively assess the debate and render a decision based on the criteria mentioned above. I will not introduce my personal biases into the decision-making process and will strictly adhere to the arguments presented in the debate round.

Timekeeping: I will keep time and expect debaters to adhere to the time limits for their speeches and cross-examinations. If a debater goes over time, I will consider that in my evaluation.

I look forward to an informative and engaging debate. Best of luck to both teams, and let's have a productive and respectful debate! Good Luck to everyone!

-If you have any more questions or concerns, please feel free to reach out or come speak to be one on one before the round.

email chain - rishabh.sood@barstowschool.org

My name is Rish. I am a junior at the Barstow School and have debated since 7th grade.

I don't care about how fast you go, just make sure that you are signposting and I know when you move on to the next card/argument.

don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.

Case:

Don't take case too loosely. Impact extensions, calc, and evidence comparison are great and can help (make sure it's clear that you are ev comparing).

I don't care what aff it is but you must be able to defend it and know it well.

DAs

I like DAs. They're pretty fun. have good links. try not to have the same impact as the aff. kinda makes it useless ngl.

CPs

I like CPs. They're pretty fun. not much to say there. just do you.

Ks

I don't really like Ks because I think they're OP. but i wouldn't mind if you run them. Just make sure you know what you're talking about.

CX

I don't mind it being open. Don't hack at each other. Keep it civil.

I'd like to be added to the email chain mwoodcock692@gmail.com

(he/him)

email chain >> speech drop

Experience:

Debating:

I debated at Lansing High School for 4 years

Debated two years at KU (alliances and antitrust)

Coaching:

Lansing (2020-2022)

Shawnee Mission South (current) :)

Top Level -

1. Tech over truth, the only scenario in which I may look towards truth rather than tech is as a means to break a tie in portions of debates that are extremely difficult to resolve (i.e. lack of clash)

2. Don’t let anything said in this paradigm discourage you from reading/going for any argument, the best debates are ones where people have devoted ample time in researching the argumentative positions they read. I enjoy debate and will put my best effort into my decision because of the ample work that debaters put into the activity should be seen and rewarded as such, which I believe requires judges to do the same.

3. If any arguments that are homophobic, racist, and etc. are presented you will lose the debate and be rewarded the least amount of speaks as possible. This also includes any other way that you may make the debate space less safe for people.

4. Taking CX as prep will be rewarded with lower speaks.

5. JUDGE INSTRUCTION! If you think that a portion of the debate should be the deciding factor, then tell me why that is and how I should evaluate it. The more judge instruction that you do, then the more happy you are to be with the decision I give.

Topicality -

I default to competing interpretations, if you believe I should evaluate this differently, then tell me to do so. Some big things that matter to me here is that I think both teams should have a robust explanation of what they think the topic should look like. I find limits to be more compelling than a loss of ground as internal links to the impacts that you are going for.

Impact comparison is still important here, like why does fairness outweigh education or the impacts that your opponents are going for. If the debate takes the course where both teams are going for fairness, then this should be done at the internal link level, but regardless there needs to be more impact comparison in topicality.

I think that I am pretty relaxed with my biases as to what aff's are topical and I like to think that I reward teams who invest research into these arguments and think that teams who read aff's that are perceived to be regarded as topical to the community should be punished for lazy debating on whether their aff is topical or not.

Critical Affs –

I prefer aff's have some relationship with the topic, I also want you to tell me what and how this relationship is established. I feel pretty comfortable adjudicating these debates but also believe that the more judge instruction you give me, the happier you will be. I also think that the more offense that you generate on the fw page, then the better position you put yourself in. I think if you are reading a version of an anti-cap lit based aff, then generating this offense can be more difficult, but not impossible. The ones that I have seen on this topic feel pretty defensive on fw and I think you should invest time into creating this offense.

For the neg --- I believe there is a trend where teams are choosing to read definitions that stop at Ericson, and/or some sort of evidence that is similar to it. I don't think this puts you in a position to win your limits offense and my threshold for aff defense and offense is increasingly more compelling. So, if this is your strategy, then you need to invest time into creating a vision of the topic that is actually limiting.

The 2nr should have some discussion of case, or tell me how fw interacts with the case page and give me ample judge instruction on why it should come first. Reading positions other than just framework are more enjoyable debate to watch, but fw debates can be equally as interesting as long as there is time devoted to it and your strategy.

Disads -

Not much to say here...

I think there has been a trend towards reading the least number of cards as possible, while there may be SOME cases where those cards make all the arguments needed, I will be sympathetic to new 1ar arguments should they be extended into the block.

Link specificity and spin are what I look for and reward if it is being done. Obviously, the more specific the link the better, but good spin can go a long way.

I like and reward aff strategies that straight turn disads and/or other offense generating strategies.

Counterplans –

Counterplans can make for interesting debates. I tend to side with the neg on pics and agent counterplans. I think other competition questions are typically decided on whichever team has invested more time in their strategy revolving around competition. Furthermore, I am more than happy and comfortable in adjudicating these debates, again judge instruction is important here.

With theory debates I think I am most compelled to reject the team only in context with condo but can be persuaded with other theory arguments if you are able to impact them out well enough. I enjoy watching aff teams double-down on condo and I don’t think there is a certain number of off that makes me more/less likely to vote on the argument, just win your interpretation if this is what the debate boils down to.

Kritiks –

The more specific of a link I think the better (this goes very any argument though) whether or not this is a link to the plan or the aff's performance, link spin can also go a long way. Pulling lines from evidence and contextualizing them to your link analysis is good. I do not think there must be an alternative in order to win the debate, just make sure you are wining other arguments that justify you doing this (i.e. framework). With these debates telling me what and why x matters are very important in framing my ballot.

With permutations I think the neg has to do more than just say, “all links are disads to the perm,” make sure to explain how they operate as such, and if you are going for the perm being intrinsic and/or severance make sure to explain why and tie an impact to it. On the flip side, I think that aff teams need to do a better job at answering each individual piece of offense to win a permutation (i.e. each link, disad, or solvency question) with a net benefit.

Case -

Don’t neglect case, it never hurts to extend some sort of defense or offense no matter how miniscule it may be. I think neg teams going for k’s sometimes get away with not going to the case page, if this happens make sure to use your aff.

I don’t understand the use of framing pages. They are often things that don’t matter if the neg just wins the disad or kritik that they are going for. I think the best examples of framing pages were affs written on the immigration topic and have since not seen one that was inherently offensive rather than defensive. The same goes for pre-empts. This is not to say don’t have a fed key warrant, but rather don’t just read a bunch of thumper cards or random pieces of impact defense. In this instance you should just read another advantage.