I value skilled debating above all else. I am likely to vote for the debater who provides the most clear, organized argumentation. I expect you to interact with all important arguments in the round in a meaningful way. I do value framework and flow, but I will not vote solely on it unless powerful reasoning is provided. Please give me clear voters—do not make me evaluate the round on my own criteria.

Be respectful and lead with kindness.

My main paradigm is, "If I can't understand you, I can't vote for you". This means

• Speaking clearly and slow enough...spreading = you lose my ballot
• I have a novice-level understanding of Lincoln Douglas and Policy debate. Please refrain from using jargon.
• Please take time to walk me through the flow

Jaggard Williams

Me:

- Assistant coach at The Pembroke Hill School.

- I have history in Public Forum, (HS) Lincoln Douglas, and collegiate NPDA.

Preferences for round:

- Be polite. I don't vote for rude people.

- I can handle about half-flow speed, but super flow speed does not work for me. If you choose to run uber-fast speed, I will do my best to keep up, but I cannot guarantee anything. :)

- Utilize jaggardwilliams1@gmail.com for the chain.

- Give me roadmaps before speeches so I can get my flow in order.

- I don't love K debate, but if you can articulate it well, go ahead.

Here's my blurb:

I want to see genuine clash in the round. If you completely disregard your opponent's arguments just because you want to run some off-the-wall argument, I'm throwing it out the window. If you can link it to the round, then by all means run with it. If you haven't figured it out, I'll listen and ponder anything you throw at me, it just has to be clearly relevant to the round. Also - please don't be debate robots. I would love to see some humor, personality, and charisma in the round - in your speeches, arguments, articulation, mannerisms, whatever. Make it fun! Please, for the love of God, make it fun.

I was in speech and debate in high school from 2015-2019. I did HI, DUO, storytelling, poetry, and POI. Last year, I was an assistant coach for Blue Springs High School. This year, I am the assistant coach for Moreland Ridge Middle School. I never competed in debate, but I have judged many debate rounds before.

Kerav Agarwal

Pembroke Hill '26

Add me to the email chain: Kagarwal26@pembrokehill.org(Speechdrop is preferred)

Second Year of Policy Debate

TL;DR

Please read at a conversational speed so that you are articulate, don't spread

Truth<Tech

Be Organized!

I decide my vote based on Stock Issues

I don't prefer T's or K's, but I will try my best to vote for whoever is the best

Please be respectful of everyone and make sure to enjoy yourselves

General

I prefer Policy Debate compared to Kritiks, I would highly discourage it but if you do it I will flow it

Truth<Tech

I really appreciate teams that give a proper Impact Calculus

Go at a conversational speed, I like when debaters are able to clearly articulate their argument so that anyone can understand

I love anyone who is passionate about debate and their knowledge about Policy terms, however, any form of bigotry or hate speech is an immediate loss

I also do international Extemp, so I enjoy geopolitics, and I will appreciate any debate arguments based anywhere around geopolitics.

Policy Debate

T's

I do not like it when a NEG argument is primarily based on their T arguments, and most of the time I will not vote for a NEG if their argument has a T

However, if the AFF is clearly violating the Resolution and the NEG is able to provide a proper argument as to why an AFF is untopical, then I will consider it.

I believe in reasonability arguments for the AFF, but the NEG also has to be practical

If a NEG side gives a T argument and the AFF completely drops it, then I will have to consider the NEG's argument

K's K AFF's Debate Theory, FW

I consider myself a policy debater and I really don't like the concept of K's, I think it ruins the spirit of debate overall, and it shows that a team can't give proper reasons to refute an argument, I don't think that Kritiks are applicable

For Debate Theory and FW, these arguments can get pretty complicated, once again I prefer a debate based on how good the primary arguments are, although debate theory seems interesting. I won't be able to understand what you're saying if you go more too in-depth. Debate theory and FW has to have clear points, but overall if it is a good argument I will consider it in my ballot.

DA's

I will always prefer a good Impact, however, it has to have a proper link to the argument.

If a DA has a strong impact but a weak link chain, then I won't be able to vote in favor of that DA because impacts need a proper connection with the DA.

Overall, DAs are amazing, and I support them, however, they have to have a proper UQ- Link- Internal Link- Impact

CP's

CP's are a great way to show an alternative for the NEG against the AFF

That being said, I do believe that Cps such as PICs, Agents, and Advantage Cps are great arguments but once again, the team has to give a reasonable and articulate argument for what they are proposing.

Stock Issues

I do believe in the six stock issues, and that the AFF has to prove all six stock issues in order to win, and for the NEG they only have to prove one stock issue correct, mainly if it is an inherency or Solvency argument.

Other

For PFD and LD debate, I am quite inexperienced in these areas, so I will be judged just like any other lay judge and will be just looking for who are the best speakers, but policy debaters should stick to their arguments and present the best case possible

I believe being articulate, having an organized speech, and showing respectful behavior are all things that will boost speaker points, and have a more engaging round.

In Cross-Examination I don't worry too much about the questions in relation to the outcome of the round, but if a team cannot properly answer a question that is repeated multiple times, then I may consider it in my ballot.

Overall, I believe that debate is a fun extracurricular for everyone and should be taken as a learning opportunity, so if a team does have any problem or something is not right, then I would be open to the round being paused. However, I think that debate should be a great activity to grow and learn to turn losses into wins in the future.

About Me

Hello, I am a student in the Pembroke Hill School, Class of '26. This is my second year doing Policy Debate (and OO). I have debated UBI in PFD as a Middle Schooler and NATO as a CX Novice

Add me to the email chain: mamin26@pembrokehill.org (Speechdrop is preferred). Always disclose evidence.

TL;DR

• Read at a conversational speed, and please don't spread

• Tech > Truth, but I still really like truth args

• Show me why your impacts are more probable and more existential, and how you solve it (Impact Calc!!)

• For Policy: Win on the stock issues

• Give me lots of judge instruction

• Provide me with multiple reasons/alleyways that show why you deserve my ballot

• Be nice to your partner and opponents in round, especially in cross-examination

• I will try my best to make the vote for the deserved team and give comments for everyone in the ballot

General

• I will listen to any arg, but I prefer Policy args over K args.

• Go at a conversational speed, or if you want to speak fast, please don't spread- especially if your opponents would not be able to understand you. You will be risking my ballot if you read too fast.

• Provide some judge instruction and tell me why you deserve my vote.

• I really like impact debates, but I must be convinced that there are strong links.

• I love passionate rounds, but if someone is clearly being rude to another debater, I may consider voting against that person.

AFF/PRO

• Show me that you know your case

• Demonstrate why the squo is bad and how you can solve.

• Make sure your case/advantages outweigh.

• Policy specific: Make sure you win all of the stock issues.

NEG/CON

• Demonstrate to me why the squo is fine, or (specifically for Policy) show me how your CP or K solves AFF harms.

• Explain to me how you have won at least one major argument (or stock issue for Policy) in the round.

I will Dock Speaker Points if a debater is:

• Stealing prep time. I may be more lenient if it's for obvious difficulties.

• Sliming during final speeches (I have been flowing the round, I'll know when someone's lying).

• Interrupting or not letting your opponent speak during cross-examination.

• Being rude or mean, as well as laughing at an opponent.

• Saying inappropriate things that would be hurtful to groups of people. Like being an -ist or -phobic.

Speaker Point Boosters:

• Know your speech- Make sure you can adequately answer questions during cross-examination, and don't speak just to waste time.

• Organize your speech docs and give me a roadmap before time starts

• Mentioning specific warrants in your evidence

• Using evidence from earlier speeches to respond

• Using cross-examination to show a contradiction in their case.

• Providing judge instructions

• Making eye contact with the judge

• Being nice.

• Smile! This is your time to shine.

Policy

T Debate

• I will not vote for a T, but I might if an AFF is clearly outside of the resolution.

• Reasonability args will be heavily considered in a T debate. However, the NEG can probably argue against that adequately and convince me otherwise.

• If the NEG runs a T and the AFF drops it, then I may vote NEG just on the T.

K's, K AFFs, FW, and Theory

• Policy debate over K args.

• If you want to run K, I would like lots of judge instruction. Otherwise, I will lose you.

• I will weigh the K to the AFF, unless I am convinced otherwise.

• I don't prefer K AFFs, but I'll tolerate them.

• FW args are fine, but don't be outrageous about it.

• Theory args are good. If you can prove to me that your opponents' args are ruining the spirit of debate (education, fairness, etc.), I'm all for it. However, it's not something that I will vote for exclusively.

DA

• Good Link > Good Impact. If there is a weak link, then I can't even consider the impact.

• Prove to me that the DA truly links to the plan, then we can talk impact.

• UQ is important to prove, but I do ultimately believe that the DA must prove that the plan leads to a serious impact

• I don't mind terminal impacts. Again, it heavily depends on strong links.

• Ultimately, if you can win on impact calc on the case (with a HEAVY emphasis on Probability and Magnitude), I will vote for you.

CP

• PICs are fair game, but I do feel like the AFF can provide solid theory args to attack them, so that's an exciting back-and-forth for me.

• I am fine with condo, but AFF generic args can easily convince me not to vote for it. Again, I don't mind it too much. Whoever wins on fairness & education will win the condo good/bad debate. If you do condo, go for at least or 3 args.

• I agree that CPs are subject to fiat, but the AFF can convince me otherwise, especially if they're up against a multi-actor fiat.

• For NEG to win CP, they MUST win on Solvency Deficit and that the CP doesn't link to the net-benefit.

Case

• I go under the philosophy that 1AC cards are some of the best cards that are used in a debate round. I would love it if some of those cards could be used here and there in later speeches.

• I am cool with re-highlightings, and I will read them.

PFD

• I have a year of experience in middle school, so I'm not the most experienced.

• No counterplans for CON, even if it sounds like PRO is making a plan.

• Whoever wins on the FW debate and fits within that FW should have no problem winning.

• Explain your voting issues in the final speeches, and why you have access to those voting issues.

• Besides that, I will likely judge the round like I would for Policy, so please bear with me.

LD

• I have no experience in this event.

• I will judge the round like I would for Policy, as well (that includes my stance on K's, CP's, and case args).

• Show me why your opponent's case leads to worse impacts and why your case solves, and you'll likely win.

Overall

If you can demonstrate proper debate technique and display why your side will make or is making the world a better place, I will vote for you. Looking forward to a fun round!

Pembroke Hill '26

Add me to the email chain: hboyle26@pembrokehill.org

he/him

Second year of Policy Debate

NATO, Fiscal Redistribution

My way of evaluating debates has been largely influenced by Parker Hopkins, Justin Smith, Alicia Stout, and Jimmy O'Connell

I really love debate and love to judge people who feel the same!

General

Tech > Truth

I feel like the impact debate has become a lost art

I love the link debate

Whatever speed is fine

Please put analytics in the Speechdoc

Clarity > Speed, I will call out "Clear" three times per speech before I stop flowing

My usual 2NR is case turn + DA + CP

Make sure you do a lot of judge instruction if you want me to vote for you

My starting speaks are 28.5

I enjoy passionate debates/debaters, and will add speaker points if you are aggressive

No homophobia, racism, sexism, any hate in general

Policy

T's

Don't just throw a T out there to get a T out there

I honestly like reasonability arguments from the AFF, but I think it is fairly easy for the NEG to convince me otherwise

Framer's Intent (only if your evidence is very, very good) > Precision = Ground = Limits > Predictability (explain to me in round which I should prefer)

K's, K AFFs, FW, and Theory

I used to consider myself a policy debater, but have started to shift my debating

If you go for real world arguments, you will have to prove to me that there will be an impact

Im still on the side that the Aff should be allowed to weigh their plan, but can be convinced otherwise

If theres not a clear or good link, its gonna be a lot harder to get my ballot

My usual 1AR was FW, Extinction o/w, Cap Good (if applicable)

Saying fairness is an I/L and not an impact is like saying nuke war is an I/L and not an impact

K Affs are cool, but really try to relate to the resolution

T is the way to go

I think theory in any facet is important to debate

Condo is probably good

DA

If you do good job explaining how the DA o/w + turns case, I WILL BE VERY HAPPY

But the impact debate is usually stale on DA's, so I tend to evaluate the link debate the most

CP

The Aff lets the Neg get away with too much stuff with CP's

I have developed a love for good PICs and Advantage CP's

Don't read a cheaty or basic CP and your speaks will reflect that

Case

I really like Inherency arguments

I am a big fan of rehighlights

A 2NR with lots of case will always make me happy

Please do impact calc in the 2NR/2AR

Anything Else

I am happy to discuss my thoughts further before rounds if you ask

I flow CX

PFD

I competed in PFD for one year during Middle School

Just weigh your impacts and have good links, and whoever does that better will win

Most likely I won't know too much about the topic, so explain it well in round

LD

I have never competed in LD, but I know the basics of the style of debate

Thank you for reading and good luck!!!

-I've been an LD debater for three years now.

-I'm going to be flowing the whole round.

-Your speaking matters but your argument and what your saying is more important if your just talking well but saying nothing I most likely wont be inclined to vote for you.

- In terms of LD specific stuff: it is an LD round your v/vc are very important to me and how I am going to judge this round.

- It's debate you're arguing against eachother so I don't have any issues with you attacking your opponents case or arguments in somewhat harsh ways or calling them out just don't go way to over the top because then its not enjoyable or anything its just annoying.

Hi, I’m currently a sophomore at Pembroke Hill High school and this is my second year in CX debate.

Add me to the email chain: mcortes26@pembrokehill.org

General:

• Tech > truth

• Go whatever speed works for you but please slow down for the tag and author

• Tell me who I should vote on and why

• Don’t steal prep

• Be nice and don’t insult people

Policy Specific:

• I really like when people include impact calc

• Stock issues matter

• Remember to mark cards if you don’t finish one/don’t clip

NEG:

• Read as many advocacies as you want but make sure that they make sense/link to the aff and don’t just read them to read something

• I will vote on condo if the aff makes a persuasive argument for it so keep that in mind when choosing which advocacies to read

• Prove how the squo is either fine as it is or that your k/cp solves better

AFF:

• Know your case

• Win stock issues

• Prove why squo is bad and how your plan solves it

T:

• I like T debates if they are done right and I will vote on it if neg has thoroughly proven that aff is untopical

• I like when there is clash with the interpretations

K’s:

• I am a policy debater not a K debater

• I don’t like them that much but if you really want to run one please make sure explain it thoroughly

CP:

• I like CP’s but I probably won’t vote on just a CP

• Try and make the CP as specific to the aff as possible

DA:

• I love DA’s and and will probably vote on them

• Make sure that there is a good link relates the aff because even if the impact is good, if there is not a strong link to the aff then I will be less likely to vote on it

• UQ is also very important to winning me over on a DA

CASE:

• Rehighlighting is encouraged

• Analytics are just as important as reading evidence and can sometimes be more persuasive

PFD/LD:

I am very inexperienced in both of these forms of debate. I do know the basics of how PFD works but that is pretty much it. If I am judging one of these rounds please consider me a lay judge.

Have a good debate!

Debate Events:

- I've been a PuF debater for 3 years and a congress debater this year, so I have more experience in debate than speech events. I am okay with LD, but I'm still pretty lay there. I have no idea what goes on in policy, so extremely lay judge in policy.

Don't be nervous, you're doing great!

Be respectful! Attack an opponent's case, not the opponent. A heated cross is fine until you are talking over each other or just running down the clock.

If you ask me after the round who won, DON'T. I won't tell you and it is not fair to your opponent.

I am okay with (and prefer) off-the-clock roadmaps and framework, but please don't go overtime, I will cut you off after 30 seconds (general grace period by the NSDA) and it will reflect badly on your personal scores.

You can talk fast, but please try to make your words very coherent and able to understand. Use valid resources for your arguments (not Wikipedia, ProCon.org, etc). Blocking is fine, but a defense-only debate is very difficult to judge. Make sure you are defending your own case just as much as you're taking down your opponents.

Do NOT bring up new arguments in Final Focus.

Please explain the resolution or legislations clearly during your case.

Limit profanity and absolutely NO slurs even if you're "allowed" to say them.

If there is a dropped argument, point it out. Otherwise I could use it against you in judging. Tell me specific impacts, that is my preferred mode of judging. How does this affect me?

Usually, I do not appreciate plans. They are generally frowned upon so please tread lightly with that.

Present yourself well. I may take off a point for not being well-dressed as this is a business casual/formal event.

Speech Events:

- I do not know a lot about speech events, so do your best to portray what it is supposed to look like. Consider me a very lay judge but ready to learn!

Don't be nervous, you're doing great!

If you do something wrong, just keep on going. I either won't notice or will give you a chance to make up for it.

Present yourself well. I may take off a point for not being well-dressed as this is a business casual/formal event.

Please add me to the email chain for all evidence: ndunn26@pembrokehill.org

IMPORTANT THINGS:

I would prefer it if you send theory and analytics as well, especially if you are going for it in final speeches.

Prep time: Please don’t steal prep time. If you stop prep, please stop typing and whispering. That is what prep is for. This goes for both teams regardless of whose prep time it is.

PLEASE DO NOT CARD DUMP. I WILL GIVE YOU LOW SPEAKS! IT IS SO BORING. GIVE ME ANALYTICS. EXPLAIN STUFF. I will give you high speaks if your explain everything and give me judge instructions.

If you want high speaks:

Read impact turns, theory, impact calculus, funny kritiks (that are extremely well explained), and judge instruction.

Less important things:

I am a high school debater with 2 years of experience. I did one year of public forum debate in middle school and 1 year of policy debate.

You can call me judge if you want. Your honor also works.

Dropped arguments: If a team brings back an argument that they dropped, all the other team has to say is “they dropped it already so they can’t bring it back up. Don’t listen to them”. If you don’t say that, I might evaluate it. Depends on how well you extend the argument.

This is a quick summary especially if I am judging Public Forum or Lincoln-Douglas. Make what ever arguments you want as long as there is no hate involved. As long as you explain the argument thourougly, your good. Just explain why your arguments are better than your opponents and why you should win the debate.

THE FOLLOWING IS FOR POLICY DEBATE:

I am alright with all arguments as long as there is no hate involved toward specific groups of people. Run wipeout, spark, etc if you want.

I will give you better speaks if you read a good impact turn. :)

Kritiks: If you run a K, please be slow and explain your arguments thoroughly. Tell me a story. Don't expect card dumping with no explanations to be effective.

Theory: If you can adequately explain why your opponents link, I will consider voting for it. However, if you just say something like Condo Bad with no explanation and move on, I won’t vote for it UNLESS the opponents drop it. If your opponents read theory as a voter and you drop it…sorry. Not sorry:)

Please fully extend your arguments and read enough information to have a complete argument.

Impact calculus: Impact calculus is what will make a difference between winning and losing a debate. Explain WHY you should win the debate.

Clipping: If you clip, you lose. Obviously, accidentally skipping one word is fine but a whole card is a whole different story.

Stock issues: I believe that it is the obligation of the aff to uphold all 7 stock issues: Disadvantages, Advantages, Solvency, Harms, Inherency, Topicality, and Significance. I will vote neg on one of these if you can explain to me why the aff failed to uphold one of these. If you want to run T as an RVI, go ahead. I’ll think its funny but unless the neg drops it, don’t have high hopes.

Have a good debate! Good luck!

Pembroke Hill ‘25

3rd year policy debate

Top 5 ranked sophomore nationally ‘23

Add me to the chain: jghuman25@pembrokehill.org

tl;dr

1. you do you -- read what you want, I’’ flow all args

2. tech > truth, but if the debate comes up I expect you to be able to justify it

4. i have run exclusively policy positions on the aff and a mix of policy positions and k work on neg (Water, NATO, EI)

5. I don’t like vagueness in debate, but it’s up to the opposing team to hammer in (eg. aspec, funding)

6. Speaks based on how you carry yourself through the round, remaining intact and STRONG defensive/offensive will in cross while remaining composed.

7. Speed is welcome, if analytics not on the doc always appreciated that be shouted out during speech

8. Good judge instruction, just justify properly

9. I love an in depth debate on the theory flow

10. PRO CONDO, but will vote off best articulated standards on the theory page if contended

policy specific:

t:

1. Big fan of t debate

2. limits > ground,

3. Articulate your interp, especially when addressing limits

4. Weigh your interp properly. This isn’t done anywhere close to enough, can win you the t page off an opponent drop

5. I don’t believe T is automatically offense/defense but I’m up to sway by round

6. If t is on the board I want strong framing up front of standards, voters, and impact - how high a priority

7. Don’t like abusive quantity or interps generally, up to opponent to hammer in if they want the abuse claim - stand pretty neutral in round practice

k aff / fw:

1. don’t try to resolve things you can't reasonably impact

2. Stand neutral on clash, fairness, etc.

3. Hit the da head on is always high preferred

4. Number one on the board for me is Impact turns in all points

5. Love P impact debate, not used to its fullest

5. Final rebuttals spending big time on case is a beautiful strat unemployed to its fullest, should ALWAYS weigh impacts to remaining policy contentions in the round when that’s where the debate goes.

6. clash is a prereq to actualizing the aff >>>>>>>>> aff hasn’t been tested win on presumption ALWAYS

k v policy:

1. In round impacts must be presented immaculately when contended

2. Fw debate is high strung for me here, but most rounds won’t contend there so don’t view it as necessary to go hard depth, just present arg strong up front and let the debate flow accordingly off it

3. Big value to me in weighing aff epistemologies foremost

4. please debate the case, unless you're way ahead on why you don't have to

5. Card dump on the k should be made concise by the 2nr; f/w + link, link is a da + try or die for the alt. you get the idea

6. Like tricks

da:

1. link specificity (date, specificity) debate huge

2. DA + pic out always set the stage for a beautiful combo in my eyes - know how to run them full on together

3. Link debate big for me, but want great impact framing and impact turns are more than welcome

4. Put args in context, same goes for card framing - author interp debate can be good

5. Case turn args applied to the aff i/l's - low risk big reward

cp:

1. Neg should utilize cps to the fullest they can get away with

2. Pic and actor cp plus appropriate accompanying da always phenomenal combo

3. cp doesn't need to solve all of the aff

4. Adv cps can make for an interesting round, but know what you’re running

5. Multi-actor fiat isn’t great in my eyes

7. Dislike consult and delay cps, should be STRONG warrant - even when used for time skew

case:

1. A mostly case 2ar and 2nr especially is my favorite thing in CX if you can manage to frame out the round with them

2. Read ev rehighlights

3. Link debate good but impact framing and turns are the golden path to the ballot

4. 1ar can have appropriate new args - don’t abuse this, it’s a threshold (goes for neg too)

5. A neg flow which condenses big to primarily case at the end of the round is one of my favorite things in policy by far

---------------------------------------------------------------

Speaks:

• Be charismatic, debate doesn’t mean a thing if you can’t express yourself strongly to form real change in the real world (do this and you’ll be pleased with your speaks)

• Address the room properly: judges, opponents, audience

I'm an experienced Judge, and I've been doing PF for three years. I've done a few speech events but I'm more experienced in debate.

Debate events:

As I said, I do PF and am more familiar with these events. I am a fast talker so I don't mind it, BUT BE CLEAR! Talk loud and don't mumble (that will affect your speaker points). Please look at me when talking, not your opponents (this alleviates conflict between opponents). Write my ballot for me because I will try to flow as much as possible. Be respectful and don't EVER attack your opponents. I don't like profanity so please avoid it. Please watch your time because I will stop you after ten seconds. I mainly judge off of my flow but if it's close, I will pick the better speakers and the more professional team.

Speech events:

I have done a few events in this category and have also judged these. I would still consider myself a lay judge in this category. Talk loud and do not mumble, again, this WILL affect your speaker points. I don't like profanity and will probably mark off for it. I will stop you after 10 seconds so please watch your time. I will judge off of eye contact, topic, volume, and actions (if applicable).

Good luck! Be confident and try your best!

In terms of debating, I have experience in both PFD and CX debate. I did PFD for one year, and CX for two. I am quite leaneant when it comes to judging. I am a traditional judge, and a pragmatic. I will judge based on who clearly wins the arguments. If it is close, then I will look at individual details. If for example, a team dropped an argument, I will hold it against them only if the other team extends it and exclusively mentions it. Otherwise, they too drop that argument. I also need to understand links and impacts well, as those are the most important factors for me. You cannot make an argument without explaining how it links to the plan or even how these line of events will happen. You will not win any debates without explaining links. Furthermore, impacts are also important. If you try and run a K or CP, then explain why it is important or why the impact outweighs. That is crucial when I determine the victor of a round. For example, if someone read a, inequality DA against an advantage that prevents extinction, I will favour the aff. As the aff has the bigger impact. I need to have to care about the impact and understand why it matters. Extinction abviously will always outweigh all else, as in the scenario I previously mentioned, inequality doesnt matter if humans are dead, thus the impact outweighs. As I said, I am a fairly simple judge, I will go by the argument and see which carries the more weight. Weight of the impact is key. I am also accepting to intelectual arguments, but they should be supported by evidence. If you do not give evidence, then I have no reason to trust your claims. I also like to see when debaters explain why their evidence is better than their opponents' evidence. Of course I also will favour CPs if they are done properly. In summa, I wish for a good debate pulling on all the evidence available and using strong arguments and tactics. Indeed, debate is also about tactics, as you have to know the timing of when to read something. Lastly, I am not particularly a fan of spreading, although I will allow it. Your reading must be intelligable, so that I can understand what you are saying. I will favour the team that reads more clearly and enunciates more than the other, in summa, the side that speaks more persuasively will gain my attention more. That is all for my paradigm.

I am currently a junior at the Pembroke Hill school. I am currently an LD debater, and have competed in CX for two years prior. I have only competed in local tournaments during my time as a CX debater.

Add me to the chain: shong25@pembrokehill.org

top:

1. you do you -- read what you want

2. tech > truth, but probably a bit more interested in truth than other judges

3. You must extend the warrants to properly extend an argument

4. I don't have much experience with spreading, so if you do want to spread, make sure that you have good clarity. Otherwise, don't bother and just read fast.

5. Send analytics

6. Give good judge instruction, I want to intervene as little as possible

speaks:

1. default is 28.8 start cx w/ "riddle me this" +.1 speaks

2. making a clever joke +.1 speaks

3. making an unclever joke -.2 speaks

policy:

k affs:

1. The aff should be in the direction of the resolution

2. I'm not that familiar with the literature, so spend more time on it than you usually do

k's on the neg:

1. Rejecting the aff is not an alternative, that is what I do when I agree to endorse the alt. Explain to me what happens to change the world when I endorse your alt.

2. The aff should be allowed to weigh the aff against the K.

3. In round impacts must be presented immaculately when contended

4. Card dump on the k should be made concise by the 2nr; f/w + link, link is a da + try or die for the alt. you get the idea

t:

1. Big fan of t debate

2. limits> grounds

3. I don't believe t is automatically offense/defense but am willing to be persuaded

4. Read ev about the function of the aff and how it's untopical (rehighlights, etc...)

da:

1. I like da's

2. Link specificity and contextualization is key

cp:

1. Neg should utilize cps to the fullest they can get away with

2. cp doesn't need to solve all of the aff

3. Adv cps can make for an interesting round, but know what you’re running

4. Dislike consult and delay cps, should be STRONG warrant - even when used for time skew

case:

1. Love impact turn debates

2. If you have no evidence, analytics can be just as good

Hi my name is Sophie Hong I do HS policy debate.

Speechdrop is preferred, add me to the email chain if there is one.

If you start the speech with "hey fellas" or "oh my garv" = 30 speaks

pls give good judge instruction, literally walk me through why I should vote for you

impact calc!!

pls straight turn the DA

when kicking args pls say sp

running the ares CP>>>

Pembroke Hill 26

2nd yr policy debater

To add me to the chain: cjiang26@pembrokehill.org

“Cindy” is preferred over “judge”, I won’t take speaks or anything off if you say “judge” though.

Tl:dr

• tech>truth, though I won’t die on that hill. Arguments like spark and wipeout are not preferred, but I’ll vote for them if they are executed well.

• I’m the most experienced in debating CPs and DAs, but I am open to almost all arguments, so debate how you feel comfortable!

• JUDGE INSTRUCTION. Tell me what I should vote on.

• Be clear, in both speed and content. Please put analytics in the document. I can flow reasonable speeds, but light to no spreading is preferred.

• I love link/impact turns and rehighlights ^^

• An organized speech makes everybody’s life easy. I can’t vote for things I can’t understand.

• I will listen to the speeches, and flow off what I hear and see on the doc. That being said, please add me to any email chain, and mark cards. I also will clear you if I can’t understand your words.

• Overviews and extensions are awesome, I’ll be fine without underviews outside of KvK.

• Don’t under highlight then bring up unhighlighted arguments. More cards doesn't always mean a better argument.

CX

• Pick one or two voters to go for in the last speech, don’t go for everything - please explain how you won (preferably walk me through what happened in the round), and add impact calc

• I love to see good use of questioning

• Most of my preferences are for lay debate, do whatever (with basic ethics) for flow

Neg

• Show me how the squo is better, or how an advocacy is BETTER than the aff.

• Reading multiple advocacies on neg is fine, but don’t try to time skew the aff during lay

Aff

• Show me you know your case, it’s usually pretty obvious when teams just read off a coach made case without understanding it

• Just as the neg shouldn't deliberately time skew the aff, I don’t like seeing affs with a lot of advocacies - prefer no more than 3 in lay (flow rounds do whatever you want)

CP

• Don't go for really cheaty cps. I probably won’t vote for a word pic or delay

• I personally think generics are generic for a reason; I enjoy judging most of them

• I’ll default to judge kick unless aff can show neg dropped offense

• Bonus points if your CP and DA link!

DA

• I’ll definitely vote on DAs, but the less realistic the DA, the more susceptible it is to link attacks

• I enjoy link and UQ debates, I think they make high quality debates

K

• I am personally a policy debater, but I by all means welcome K debates, though I am inexperienced in KvK, so I would really appreciate explanations

• Just because it’s a K doesn't mean you can use ad hominem arguments

• I value a strong alt on the K!

T

• I love to see good clashing interps!

• I have no preferences on ground arguments (education, fairness, clash, etc.), I’ll vote on who explains it better

K affs

• I have extremely little experience with K affs - If you choose to run one, I’ll try my best to judge it, but I will probably vote for the more clear and better executed side

Theory

• I'm not the biggest fan of kick the team in theory, I probably won’t vote for it unless you prove that the other team genuinely deserves to lose the round, instead of kicking the argument

• I don’t like seeing petty theories; having a vagueness debate every round isn't fun for anybody

PFD

• I've debated PFD a few times, I don’t have a ton of experience but I have a basic understanding of what's allowed and not

• I think it’s less of a norm to spread in PFD, so I’d prefer a reasonable talking speed

LD

• I have no experience in LD, I’ll try my best to judge fairly though!

Earning speaks

• I think reading and following a judge’s paradigm is one of the best ways to be respectful in a round - I will give you extremely high speaks if you show you are following my paradigm!

• Clarity

• Eye contact

• Overall politeness

• Professionalism

Docking speaks

• Racist, homophobic, xenophobic language

• Disengaged with the round (ex. watching Youtube during someone else’s speech)

• Being rude during CX

• Obvious prep stealing: I'm usually pretty lenient but let’s be ethical

• Marking cards

• I will destroy your speaks if I figure out you were unethical in disclosure

If any problems arise, I am always open to pausing the round and getting someone from tab or coaches

I'm Ria I am a first year cx debater for Pembroke

add me to the email chain rkumar27@pembrokehill.org

cx

Do whatever arguments you want, I'll flow it. I'm not the most experienced policy debater so if your gonna run a K please explain it well, explain fw to me too, and have a good impact. I really enjoy a good fem k and love a good cp If you're gonna run a DA you need to explain clearly how it turns/outweighs case. PLEASE PLEASE SIGNPOST it makes life so much easier when I flow. I like a good T debate and I'm most likely gonna vote based on who explains it better. Speaker points wise I'm not too harsh I really love watching a good debate. Please obviously don't go over time in speeches I will allow a ten second grace period, but after that I will start deducting speaker points

PFD

I debated public forum at one tournament and in middle school, so pretty lay. With time don’t go over I will allow a ten second grace period before deducting speaker points. I know the basics of PFD and know how it works, I know cx can get really heated but please be civil and kind otherwise I will start deducting speaker points. I also love some impact calc so throw some of that in.

LD

no idea what you do in LD i am very lay. I know there are value criterions ? and other stuff but yeah.

Have fun, be civil, and treat everyone with respect. Any homophobia, racism, or sexism will result in an automatic loss.

I’m currently a senior at the Pembroke Hill School in Kansas City, MO. This is my fourth year competing in policy debate and my third year competing in congressional debate.

• 2a/1n

• MSHSAA State Policy 2nd place

Please add me to the email chain or the speechdrop: cmartin24@pembrokehill.org

General Stuff

• Tech > Truth always

• Disclose your evidence! If you have a paper aff you should have extra copies for your opponents and for your judges.

• If you win the round, and genuinely are really good speakers and are at like a 27/28 in speaker points, I'll give you 30s if you make a clever joke.

• I have a really bad resting b*tch face so please don’t mistake that as me actually being pissed.

• Speed: Spreading's fine as long as you're clear. Your opponents should be able to understand what you’re saying! If you spread and I can’t understand what you’re saying then you’re risking my ballot.

• Decorum: I’m all for heated crosses but if it gets to the point where you keep talking purely to run down the clock and keep your opponents from asking more questions then I’m docking your speaker points. That being said you also should not be cutting your opponents off in the middle of their sentence unless it's gotten excessive

• Prep Time: I totally get that tech issues happen sometimes, just show me your screen so I know that you’re not just stealing prep and I won’t count it against you if you’re just having trouble getting your document to send. Other than tech issues, if someone isn’t talking then someone should be running prep.

Policy Section

• DA’s: Love them. They’re great.

1. Make sure you’re reading all for parts ie: uniqueness, link, internal link, impact.

2. I prefer link debates over impact debates but you still need to make sure to do impact calc.

3. Having an aff specific link is key to winning on the disad flow. Otherwise the evidence you read isn’t necessarily true as it’s not actually talking about the aff.

• CP’s: Counterplans are pretty cool. I’ll vote for them if they solve at least part of the aff better.

1. I would avoid delay cp's, they just don't really tend to serve a purpose.

2. Love actor cp’s, but you need to have an actual reason why your actor solves better. Actor cp’s shouldn’t have the same level of effectiveness as the aff, they should solve better.

3. If you read a quid pro quo cp be prepared to debate theory. Same goes for PICs.

• T: I will absolutely vote on T.

1. If you’re going to go for Topicality in the 2nr it should take up pretty much the entire speech.

2. Make sure to have all the parts to a topicality argument ie: interp, violation, standards, voters, etc, otherwise I won’t vote on it.

3. Dropping theory on the aff is almost always an automatic loss.

• K’s:

1. They're cool, just don't drop case.

2. My ballot does not solve in round impacts.

3. Don’t try to make the argument that “If you vote for us we’ll move on to the next round and more people will hear our message!” That’s dumb.

• Case Debate:

1. Analytics can be just as persuasive as evidence

2. I love re-highlighting of aff evidence, that’s the easiest way to win the case debate. If the neg can prove that the aff’s own authors don’t actually agree with what the aff team is saying, I will definitely lean neg on the case page.

3. Don't read new in 2. ie don't read off case args in the 1nc and put all the case args in the 2nc, that's a massive time skew. That being said, IF the neg brings up new arguments in the 2nc, I don't mind if the aff reads arguments on it in the 1ar even if it counts as a "new argument."

Me:

She/Her

PFD at Pembroke Hill Middle School (22-23)

I do theater so will be good for interp events

Between a lay judge and flow judge, closer to lay tho. Might know some things

Also performed IEs in class but never at tournament

Always disclose evidence.

Always Add:

emoore27@pembrokehill.org

Email chains are more convenient for me than speechdrop.net. But if there is one on Tabroom.com use that before anything else. To summarize: Tabroom.com speech drop (if provided) > email chain > speechdrop.net.

tl;dr

I personally am not very involved in debate, but my friends are. If I am judging you, my friends probably got me to do it. My friend Meilyn in particular is rather annoying about this. Love her tho. Though, I will try my best to do you and your hard work justice. Be nice, being aggressive won’t get you anything. Swearing is fine, but not an excessive amount, and absolutely no slurs (even if you're allowed to say it). If any problems arise, I am always open to pausing the round and getting/calling someone from tab or coaches. I will not disclose unless required to by tab.

PFD:

• You do you and I'll flow. Don’t spread tho. Have a reasonable talking speed

• I will judge cross no matter what. Pull yourself together

• Don’t steal prep

• Always send the analytics, there is no point in not putting them there

• Whoever wins on the FW debate and fits within that FW should have no problem winning.

• Explain your voting issues in the final speeches and add impact calc

• Explain the topic well, I will have a very vague idea of it

• Be nice to your partner and opponents in round, especially in cx

• Don’t clip cards

• Debate jargon is not appreciated.

• Roadmaps are very cool

• JUDGE INSTRUCTION. Tell me what I should vote on.

Speaks:

Speaks for me are going to be evaluated on how well you persuaded and keeped me listening. So a combination of content and performance.

Increases Speaks

• Addressing the room properly: judges, opponents, audience

• Being an overall nice person

• Explaining arguments very well

• Being respectful, yet firm in cross.

• Professionalism

• Eye contact

• Clarity

• Appropriate humor (crack a joke for an extra 0.5 points)

Decreases Speaks

• Disengaged with the round (i get sometimes debate can get dull, but don’t start watching youtube)

• Actively removing analytics

• Being racist/sexist/homophobic/etc. (probably an auto-L)

• Stealing prep

2nd year cx debater at pembroke hill email: fmurphy27@pembrokehill.org

tech>truth

condo is aii

dont be bad at spreading, otherwise just dont spread

no judge kick unless instructed

pembroke hill '24

add me to the chain: joconnell24@pembrokehill.org

fourth year of policy debate

tl;dr

1. you do you -- read what you want and I'll flow it -- "I think have a higher bar for a complete argument that the average judge and some may say I care more about the "truth" side of "tech over truth." This is not necessarily about content, but about argument development/evidence/persuasion." -- Jimin Park

2. impact weighing and judge instruction is important

3. i ran exclusively policy positions on the aff and a mix of policy and k on the neg (CJR, Water, NATO, FR)

4. this topic seems to have an issue with plan vagueness and i don't really want to vote for a team who doesn't know what their plan really does or how it is funded

5. i like debate a lot. i watch a lot of debates, read a lot of paradigms, look at a lot of research outside of debate, etc. i'll do my best to come to a good decision, but always err on the side of over explanation

6. disclosure is good.

policy specific:

t:

1. love a good t debate

2. limits > ground

3. "The articulation of reasonability that will persuade me is that the substance crowdout generated by T debates outweighs the difference between the two interps” – Anirudh Prabhu

4. people don't do enough impact comparison and explanation of how their interp solves the other side's offense

5. i don't think T is automatically offense/defense but obviously can be persuaded otherwise

6. i really like emory gk vs minnesota pr ndt '22

k aff / fw:

1. do not try to resolve things you can't reasonably impact

2. i don't think i have a preference on clash, fairness, etc.

3. go for the impact turn sure, but id still prefer you make responses to das.

4. "The threshold to win an impact turn vs framework when reading an AFF about research practices tends to be difficult because it requires winning a threshold of contingent solvency that I don't think is usually achievable, or at the very least are typically poorly explained." -- maddie pieropan

5. "The 2NC and 2NR should spend time applying their impact filters to specific parts of aff offense. This can be made most effective by explaining your switch side argument on the impact turn you believe it resolves the best" -- Arnav Kashyap

6. turns case are good. clash is a prereq to actualizing the aff >>>>>>>>> assume the aff is false because we couldn't test it

7. not experienced in k v k debates; will need a lot of explanation and judge instruction if the neg k is not cap; i have no huge preferences on perm/no perm but the aff will need to do more than just saying "no perms in a method v method debate"

a. i also think alt distinction is important, no matter how big your link is

k v policy:

1. this is where i spend the most time thinking about debate outside of rounds

2. not super comfortable with pomo or stuff like that

3. i care about framework more than most i think, but general default is affirmatives get to weigh the aff but have to defend their epistemologies; recently a lot of judges are strongly against a middle ground-interpretation but i think i'm more amenable to that

4. please debate the case, unless you're way ahead on why you don't have to

5. make smart choices and go for the right stuff; f/w + link, link is a da + try or die for the alt. you get the idea

6. From Kenji Aoki: "I'm most persuaded by framework strategies that do one of three things:

1. attempt to just exclude the aff and win substantial impact turns to their model of plan focus/consequentialism,
2. limit the scope of aff solvency while enhancing the scope of alt solvency, or
3. are ditched in favor of more particular engagements on the link/impact/alt level of the kritik"

7. tricks are cool

da:

1. link specificity and contextualization is key

2. i generally like a good ptx da, but i'm not comfortable adjudicating debates around certain ptx theory

3. i don't really believe in "any risk of the link"

4. i typically thing impact turning is unhelpful here -- i'd prefer you spend your time on the link/uq level, particularly making arguments about which controls the other

5. turns case arguments are very persuasive when applied to the i/l's of the aff

cp:

1. imo affs let the neg get away with way too much on cps

2. that being said, i think functional pics are a great way to gain offense--especially if you have a well-researched and specific solvency advocate

3. the cp doesn't need to solve all of the aff and i often find solvency threshold debates trivial

4. adv cps often seem illogical -- but i like them and think they are super fun

5. the textual/functional model seems generally good to me

6. condo is mostly good, multi-actor fiat is mostly bad

7. consult and delay cps are probably bad

8. i will always default to judge kick unless convinced otherwise -- exception is i won't judge kick in order to vote on presumption

case:

1. underutilized

2. read the rehighlights

3. i feel pretty amenable to some new 1ar arguments

4. i love impact turn debates thanks to truman connor

-----------------------------------------------------------------

pfd:

1. not experienced

2. i know plans aren't allowed, but depending on the topic, being pro can sound like advocating for one -- doesn't mean con can go for a cp

3. teams should always be reading some sort of framework for how i should evaluate the round

4. i will probably evaluate like a policy debate

ld:

1. not experienced here either

2. i think plans and cps are allowed?

3. I'll probably evaluate v/vc, ks, cps, etc. very similar to a policy round

---------------------------------------------------------------

things that boosts speaks:

1. being funny -- debate is supposed to be fun

2. well-organized docs

3. smart analytic arguments

4. clever rehighlightings

5. taking strategic risks

things that lower speaks:

1. being rude

2. being racist/sexist/homophobic/etc. (probably an auto-L)

3. actively removing analytics

4. stealing prep

5. i keep seeing teams orally feed each other words in rebuttal speeches and it's getting excessive imo. it's hard to listen to two people talk at once. i'd rather the partner just tell me than say it and have their partner repeat it. write a block if you have to, but like... i think the 2xr should be able to expand on what the 1xr is trying to tell them on their own without having to be fed every single word

I flow the rounds and appreciate careful and reasonably-paced speaking, good evidence and knowledge of your sources. Not all sources are created equal so be willing to evaluate them. The date of a source can be important --- eg, it has current up-to-date information or it is a classic or comprehensive source that has not been superseded.

I have no speech and debate experience. I am looking for good speaking and presentation.

I'm a sophomore at Pembroke Hill in Kansas City, MO. This is my second year in Policy.

Please do add me to the speech drop or email chain. My email is: msantizo26@pembrokehill.org

General:

1. Tech > truth if and only if I know nothing about the topic. If you read a card that I happen to know is factually incorrect, I will immedietely discount that card. That is the only penalty.
2. I have a hard time flowing spreading, so if you would like for me to understand you, please slow down. I could just go off of the speech drop if you truly insist.
3. I care about objectivity. I will favor arguments that have more numerous or more impactful pieces of evidence.
4. Please make sure to signpost.
5. Know your logical fallacies. I do not like them. If you catch your opponents using them, that can be a great argument for you. If I catch you using them, you will be docked speaker points. Some of my least favorite are Ad hominem, Strawman, and begging the question. Honorable mention to Sunk Cost Fallacy.
6. I don't mind cursing, but don't make it intentionally excessive.
7. Be respectful to your partner, opponents, me and any human being in general. If not, there may be consequences I elaborate further on at the bottom.

Policy specific:

AFF:

• Know your case. you will be docked speaker points if you can't answer simple CX questions.
• Impacts matter; show me that your plan has a more important impact that outweighs the negatives, because, yes, every plan has something negative to it.
• As AFF has the last speech, I see it more often where AFF will slime their last speech. It doesn't even matter which speech it is. I will be flowing. Sliming is an automatic loss from me.

NEG:

• Demonstrate to me that you can adapt. Show me you can respond to every argument.
• Do not under any circumstances use a strawman fallacy. I see them as cowardly and depending on the extent of the fallacy, I will dock speaker points
• For me, NEG only has to win one particular section unless I deem otherwise. These sections are Inherency, Solvency, CP, and/or T. I don't like voting on just advantages, disads, or K's unless given adequate reason. Also keep in mind that if you can convince me of it, you have to win all advantages. The reason I wouldn't normally vote on them is because a NEG CP can use the same advantages or have the same DA's. However, I do consider their arguments for the AFF in the final voting so both teams should read about them.
• Like the AFF, do not slime any of your speeches

T's:

• I like T arguments. Seeing others argue over interpretation of a plan text is enjoyable. However, do not make these your main arguments unless the plan is clearly untopical.
• For Topicality to win, it has to prove that the plan is not solving the squo.

Disads:

• I love disads, especially ones tailored to a specific case. My requirements are that it be well structured, clear, and have a strong Link and impact, or at least one that outweighs AFF
• For disads to win, they must prove that all the impacts they read will come to fruition without a doubt if the plan is implemented. If they lose or drop even one DA, I will not consider them in stock issues. Even if you read and won six others. That doesn't mean don't read them. Read disads because they will help with impact calculus, and the more that are provided, the more they can supplement other parts of a CP, for example.

CP's:

• I'm cool with condo's, but you must make sure to specify that a CP is a condo before you read it
• For a CP to win, it must prove that it has fewer or lesser negative impacts than the proposed plan. Simple as that.

K's, K AFF's, FW, and Theory:

• I will admit, I do not know much about K's, so any typical K jargon will be unfamiliar to me.
• From my limited knowledge of K's, I do not like them.
• I do not know what a K AFF is
• I'm fine with FW and arguing it, as long as you can prove your FW is superior.
• No theory

Gaining/retaining speaker points:

• If you are a mediocre debater or speaker, I will give you a 24 automatically.
• If I could tell you put effort into your work and case you will get 3 points
• I like fluent and intelligible speeches. These will give you 1 points
• Being respectful to everyone will give you .5 points
• I wouldn't mind light-hearted jokes and soft sarcasm, but don't push it
• I also like good word choice/diversity. Using precise language is always a bonus.
• These above values are fluid and subject to change from orator to orator.

Losing speaker points

• First and foremost: a speech impediment will not impact this scoring as long as that is conveyed to me before round or is obvious during said round. Otherwise, I may be inclined to believe you are just bad at speaking.
• Logical fallacies
• Interruption will lose you speaker points. If you are asking a question and you cut someone off before they finished their whole response, I will not appreciate it
• Stalling. Stalling in CX is poitnless. Just end the CX. Stalling in a speech is more forgivable if you're recapping points made, but don't just regurgitate useless info.
• Disrespect will not be tolerated under any circumstances. I do not want you bad-mouthing your partner in front of the room. You should not mock your opponents. As I said above, light-hearted jokes and soft sarcasm is ok, but there are limits.Homophobia, Racism, Sexism, Transphobia, or any form of hate towards any group of people, even those who are not marginalized will not be tolerated and is an automatic loss from me.This is usually why I dislike K's.

Hello, My name is Siraj and I am Varsity Debater. I have been debating three years and I am purely a flow judge. I expect evidence to be clear, true, and concise. I would prefer that speech docs are shared with me and cards are exchanged throughout round or before the round. Also, your arguments should be spoken at a normal pace (no spreading) in order for me to understand your arguments. Please be kind to one another and have fun.

Pembroke hill 26’

Email:msiragusa26@pembrokehill.org

Second year of policy

Overview

You can make jokes just make sure its appropriate

Go for whatever you want but truth over tech.
I don’t flow so consider me a lay judge

debate is about persuasion

I'm fine with policy or K as long as I can somewhat understand the argument.

Don’t be super rude, or hateful.

I don’t mind if you go super fast just make sure you’re clear.

Ask me any questions.

Theory

Condo: can be good if done well, make good arguments

Disclosure: I like disclosure, if you don’t disclose and the neg runs disclosure theory ill probably lean neg

Other stuff depends.

T:

T can be good

K:

Ill try my best to understand but explain your stuff well

Not the best with Ks so explain what you’re trying to say

Disads:

I like disads

Goofy disads can win if I can believe them

I like PTX disads

Make sure to do it well.

Counterplans:

Counterplans are fun

I'll vote on condo if I have to

Cross:

Make sure that you aren’t incredibly rude

Don’t be annoying

Make sure that you’re ready

(( _ _ ))..zzzZZ

Condo good.

I love nuke war impact.

I hate public forum.

K's are fun I dont have too much experience with them though so explain well.

Tech over truth.

Please have good impacts.

Run whatever CP you like, if your argument is good enough you can win - if you run squo make sure you run it well

I am still decently lay so explain

be good people

know your argument don't get cooked in cx

Run theory if you want

In PFD: I did it for 1 year. switch to policy

n/a

Hi I'm Sarina and I'm a second year policy debater at Pembroke, also compete in duo, di, poetry, and poi so i can get down to some interp event judging

JDI '23, MNDI '24

Add me to the email chain! sweinman27@pembrokehill.org

cx

2A/1N, I love you my fellow 2As

case

A personal pet peeve of mine is when 1ns go for uq, link and impact. You only need to win one to win the impact doesn't happen and solves aff impact. Also inherency should be a contention. There are so many teams who have great cases but can't articulate why the plan needs to happen. That's just a general easy vote for neg on presumption if they bring it up. Use case o/w to explain to me how you use your offense.

disads

I very rarely vote for the status quo, yk since its a little messed up. I think if the 2nr does go for the disad w/ no counterplan it should really be more of an impact debate unless your opponent has such a ridiculously terrible/dropped their link.

Stop running generic disads with a net benefit to the counterplan. There's a good chance your offense is going to be self demeaning. disads with the best links to the plan are the disads you should use as a net benefit. Don't run econ da when both you and the plan spend a significant amount of money :/

cps

I like counterplans, get ready for the yap. There are 3 things I consider when evaluating a cp; does it have a net benefit? is the cp mutually exclusive? and does the risk of the net benefit outweigh the solvency deficit? Both sides need to be weighing the net benefit vs the solvency deficit.

I dislike multiplank and weirdly complicated advantage counterplans. I'm more inclined to vote for perm do the cp and allow more outrageous perm abuse if the counterplan has like 17 advantages or is just wildly unrelated to the topic. If you're going against an advantage counterplan you should be reading an add on, give the neg a larger scope to solve with their counterplan that (usually) is unrelated to the plan.

I'm chill with judge kick. If no one says anything about it I'll evaluate the neg with whatever they go for in the 2nr, but if it's mentioned in the block I'll also consider the status quo as a solution. Yes, bringing up judge kick in the 2nr is mildly abusive and if aff gives me one reason why its unfair and bad for education I'll probably only take your counterplan into my decision.

My general thoughts on perms are the more condo abuse the more I'm willing to vote on perms. Perms are viable arguments with every single plan! Just don't do a perm and crack down on cp solvency because that's awkward and I've had my fair share of doing that in novice rounds.

Use theory to justify severance perms. If the neg uses 50 state fiat or some other dubious theory phenomena then I'm chill with a severance perm, but no you cannot use a severance perm to remove your links to the net benefit.

k's

stop running identity k's when you're not part of that identity. I personally think it can be disrespectful at times, and identity k's were made for people of that identity. Also a lot of identity k's have slurs or things only people of that identity should be saying, and if you have a slur in your card yes I will dock your points. It's unprofessional and offensive.

My thoughts on perms are pretty synchronous with the cp section so look up. Framework is the most important thing in a k debate. You need to have an interpretation and standards. Don't give me an interpretation but then not say why it matters in debate. If you're aff against a K just remember presumption flips. I am not someone who engages in k debate a lot outside of cap k and fem k so if you're doing like a niche k then you especially need to explain it more with overviews. If you say you understand whats going on in a method v method debate you are a liar. I for one am fine with admitting it so I'll probably just vote whoever explains better.

t

interp, standards, violation. Miss one of those and I'm not voting on t. Aff needs to present a counter interp or say they meet. I'll probably just vote for the interp that is better for fairness and gives both teams a chance to win the round. I don't really have a lot to say about t other than fairness is my highest priority, but I'm chill w whatever impact you have.

theory

please stop running condo on teams with 1 or 2 off. It not only is annoying but it's a waste of time. For me condo is a reject the arg not the team, but if neg is running a substantial amount of conditional off just to waste your time then yeah I could see a reject the team. I'm neutral on neg fiat, and yes 50 state fiat is kinda abusive but if aff does something ridiculous i could allow that.

hot takes

hi, i like science. I consider myself to be tech > truth except one scenario: space col. I think if you genuinely love it and are going for it other than the lols then yeah I'll live but if youre using it just to waste time just don't. I am a proud space col hater and it is genuinely my biggest peeve.

Also if you make any form of brooklyn 99 reference I will raise your speaks I love that show so much

pf

I debated public forum at one tournament and in middle school, so just treat me like a lay judge. I'm not really a fan of impact debates, link turns are awesome. Answering ur opps case with purely impact calc is not really fun to watch, and I'm more inclined to vote for a link centered debate. 1-3 voters, how does that align with the fw? Seriously tell me how I should be evaluating the debate, and I can't stress enough that you NEED offense to win. You can't just block all of your opponents' points but not have any reasons your side wins, that's really unfun to judge. Defense only debates are impossible to judge and I hate evaluating based on whoever gets blocked more.

ld

Treat me like a lay judge. I know there's values and value criterions but besides that I'm no better than the average person. Honestly a lot of stuff from cx applies and I love offense, so I'm probably gonna be evaluating this like a cx round (plan specific).

The most important thing though is that you should be enjoying yourself and having fun. Debate is a learning environment and you should feel respected and treat your partners and opponents with respect. Any form of bigotry is at worse an automatic L and at least a significant dock of speaks. Have fun debating!

I am a junior attending Pembroke Hill, and this is my third year of policy debate and second year of congressional debate.

Add me to any email chains you make: cwood25@pembrokehill.org

Tl;dr

Idc what you do or don't read, just make it make sense

Tech > truth, although I do value truth almost the same

LOVE impact calculus and at least touch on stock issues

I like analytics and smart re-highlighting of cards the opposition used

Not a huge fan of spreading-- if you do make sure you have either email chain/speechdrop

Make sure i can understand you when you talk

BE NICE in cx

Pls flow-- it's obvious when you don't

NEG:

Make sure that you spend enough time debating on case, don't just forget it in favor of off case

Don't make a ton of arguments just to kick most of them, that's a waste of my time and your time

AFF:

KNOW YOUR AFF, don't get tripped up on simple questions about your case

I don't really like K affs but you do you ill put aside my bias if you do a good job debating

Make sure your advantages outweigh and win the stock issues

Policy Specific:

T:

t’s are fine with me, i can enjoy the debate if its done correctly and if the framework isn't widely out there and i will vote on it if the AFF is clearly untopical (or if you just argue it better than the other team)

NEG: you rlly need to prove to me why your interpretation is correct and better, have good violations

Don't waste your time reading it if your just gonna kick it tho

DA:

Personally i love DA’s they make a ton of sense to me

don't just be reading non-specific and generic just to put one in, if your gonna read one make it case-specific and intentional

CP:

CP’s are fine, but I won't JUST vote on the CP

Not a juge fan of PIC cp’s, but if you do a good job debating it i will consider

Condo cps are fine, i hate consult and delay cps

also don’t really like generic cps, if your gonna do one make it case specific or at least have good link

Idc if you kick it

K’s:

Not a huge fan, i don't have a lot of experience with them

Although I lean more towards traditional debate if their is clear clash and the thesis of the argument is clear i will vote on it

Easier to win me over using other debate strats

Earning Speaker Points:

Overall being a nice person

Tbh if you actually look like you want to be there

Eye contact (esp in the last speeches)

Good analytics

Losing Speaker Points:

Being rude or mean during a round

Any comments that are sexist, racist, homophobic, etc

Stealing prep (although I am usually pretty lenient with this)

Tech>Truth, Tabula Rasa

Second year CX

Email Chain: Dzhao27@pembrokehill.org

Condo good until contradictions or 2 Ks but it's up for debate.

Judge intervention sometimes if the link is just common sense or justified, not going to judge kick unless instructed.

DAs: Don't care what you run but the Link has to be somewhat logical and has too be somewhat specific.

CPs: Multiple condo fine, I like running a bunch of off to test the AFF. Just make them all make sense. Process CPs with some irrelevant Internal Net benefit is boring.

Ks: I don't like Ks, but won't mind voting for them. Reject the plan as the Alt is boring.