Email Jororynyc@gmail.com

Perry Hs

CSUF

Assistant coach at Peninsula, 2023-Present

Cleared at the Toc.

Alot of the way I think comes from Amber Kelsie, Jared Burke, Tay Brough and Raunak Dua - LD thoughts from Elmer Yang and Gordon Krauss.

Condense the debate to as few arguments as possible and have good topic knowledge.

Mostly read K arguments - Some policy arguments on the neg. Some Affs had plans.
I am bad for Phil or Trix.
FW: Fairness is an impact,
I also have an increasingly higher threshold for K debate because most of it done in LD is bad.

I wont flow until 1NC case so I can read evidence. I also have no problem telling you I did not understand what you said if its not explicit by the last speech.

Hiii, ♥

Email: Jaec.debate@gmail.com

if you can debate w/ your camera on - I would appreciate that greatly

A bit about myself and my rules:

My name is Jaelynn or Jae (she/her) and I currently debate at Lane Tech

I am a K-debater but I understand policy very well

I really like music, art and do (Mexican) folkloric dancing.

I will stop the round if I see any offensive language that does not pertain to the argument (k's and such)

• round stops - you lose
• will report to tab
• will be talking to your coach

On debate:

General:

Point out dropped arguments and extend !!!

okay with the tag team but I should have an idea of whose CX it is. (not for t2- not allowed)

Topicality:

I think its really good for this topic and understand it well

• I will only vote on it if you can tell me why it matters for this round not just debate in general.

DA's:

impact calc >>>>>

CP:

- i think they are highly effective just try not to be too abusive

K's

• I LOVEEEE K's -
• Please explain your jargon - I understand a fair amount but it may be difficult for high-theory arguments
• Explain well!!

HAVE FUN PLEASE and SHOW YOUR PERSONALITY!!

If you make a Childish Gambino reference at any point I will give you +.1 speaks

OR figure out when to play the song comically and get +.3

Thankkkk youu for reading,

- Josh (he/him)

I'm a former national circuit high school debater from the mid-1990's, but since that time I have not had much in-round debate experience until the 2020-2021 season.

My general approach is to assess the round based solely on the arguments presented by the debaters, with as little intervention by me as possible, and where tech dominates truth. The remainder of this paradigm should be viewed in that light -- that is, it's a heads up on my general perspectives on debate that may or may not be helpful to you, but if we're all doing our jobs well, my perspectives shouldn't really matter and shouldn't enter into the RFD.

The specifics below are really intended to highlight a handful of areas where my own views or capabilities may differ from other judges.

********

Flowing / speed / clarity: I flow on paper. Please don't start your speech until you've given a roadmap, and until it's clear that I'm ready.

If you're an experienced high school debater, please know that my ear for speed is not quite what it used to be. I would suggest going a little bit slower everywhere except the body of cards. (That said, I do pay attention to what is read in the body of cards, and only consider a card to be evidenced to the extent that it is actually read in the round.) You certainly don't need to be at normal-person conversational speed, but taking 20-30% of your speed off would probably be helpful to you.

Please include some sort of unambiguous verbal indicator at the end of a card and before the following tag. A very brief pause is a start. A simple and clear "Next" is better. While it may be old-school, and very slightly inefficient, I'm still partial to some sort of number or letter in early constructives, particularly because numbers and letters allow for easier signposting in the line-by-line in later speeches. (Though, I also tend to hate 1-a-b-c, 2-a-b-c, etc., unless the sub-structure is highly related to itself, e.g., CP theory.)

There's an extent to which line-by-line seems to be a lost art, as does flowing. To an extent, I'll try to do the work for you and see if a given argument has in fact been dropped, but the best way to ensure that my flow has you covering everything is to signpost everything, and respond / extend in the order of the original line-by-line, i.e., the 1NC on-case and the 2AC off-case.

Please include me on the email chain -- I'll provide my email address before the round. In middle school and high school novice, my standard policy is to *not* follow along in the file, and I won't read cards unless I need to do so at the end of the round in order to assess some question of evidence. At the high school JV and Varsity levels, I'm more willing to follow along in the speech doc in order to do my part to adapt to you. But, I still expect clarity, signposting, and modulating speed on tags and cites.

Also, particularly at the high school JV / Varsity levels, I would strongly advise against reeling off multiple blippy analytics in the course of several seconds. If you do so, then if you're lucky, I will get one out of every four arguments on my flow, and it may not be the one you want the most. If there's a round-winning argument that you need me to understand, best to explain it thoroughly rather than assume I will understand the argument based on just a handful of words. This is all the more true if your delivery relies excessively on debate jargon or short-hand, some of which I can guarantee I'm not yet familiar with. (As an example, in a recent round, it took me a minute to infer that "a-spec", which I hadn't previously heard of, was just short-hand for "agent specification", with which I'm fairly familiar.) Please trust that I'm doing my level best, and that I'll be able to follow you when you're explaining things reasonably well.

In the end, if it's not on my flow, I can't assess it as part of the round, even if it's in your doc.

Kritiks: I have no principled opposition to voting on kritiks. This includes kritiks on the Aff. I do think Aff has the burden of proof to win definitively that they do not or should not need to have a topical plan. That is a burden that I have seen overcome, though the more of these rounds I see, the tougher this sell becomes for me. Regardless, in the end this is a question that I'll resolve based on the flow.

I'm arguably not clever enough to understand many kritiks -- I dropped the philosophy major because I couldn't hack it, and became a physics/math major instead -- so persuading me to vote on the basis of a kritik may require a fair bit more explanation than you would typically offer. I will take no shame in telling you that I straight up didn't understand your argument and couldn't vote on it as a result. This most likely occurs if you overly rely on philosophical jargon. If anything, my lack of experience relative to other judges in this particular debate subspace probably provides a natural check on teams reading arguments that they don't understand themselves. I'll posit that if you can't explain your argument in reasonably simple terms, then you probably don't understand it, and shouldn't win on it.

I'll say as well that I've judged a number of K teams that seem to rely heavily on blocks that have been prepared fully in advance, or maybe very slightly tweaked from what's been prepared in advance, with little attempt to actually engage with the other side. First, I find these speeches pretty tough to flow, since they're often extremely dense in content with little attempt to engage with their audience. Second, I happen to think this over-reliance on advance-prepared speeches is rather horrible for the educational value of the activity. It pretty severely undermines the "K debates are better for education" argument, and it also acts as a fairly real-time demonstration of the "link" on "K debates are bad for clash". I'm likely to be highly sympathetic to an opposing side that has any reasonable degree of superior technical execution when K teams engage in this practice.

It might be worth you knowing that K's were not really a thing yet back when I was debating. Or rather, they were just in their infancy (particularly in high school), rarely run, and/or they were uniformly terrible arguments that I don't think are run much anymore (e.g., Normativity, Objectivism, Foucault, Heidegger). Teams argued the theoretical legitimacy of the Kritik, and whether or not they should be evaluated as part of the ballot, but these arguments weren't unified under a notion of "Framework". Alt's definitely weren't a thing, nor were Kritiks on the Aff at the high school level.

Disads: I've quickly grown wary of Neg's claiming that their disad "turns case". There's a crucial difference between a disad "turning case" (i.e., your disad somehow results in the Aff no longer accessing their own impact, and in fact, causing their own impact) and "outweighing case" (i.e., your disad simply has a shorter timeframe, higher probability, or greater magnitude than the case). I've become increasingly convinced that Neg's are simply asserting -- unwarranted both in fact and in claim -- that their disad "turns case" in the hopes of duping the judge into essentially making the disad a litmus test for the ballot. If your disad legitimately turns the case, then that's awesome -- make the argument. However I think bona fide claims of "turning case" occur far less often than Neg's want us to believe. In the end, this is not much more than a pet peeve, but a pet peeve nonetheless.

CP's: Counterplans need a solvency claim/warrant, but not necessarily a solvency advocate, per se. That is, if the CP's solvency is a logical extension of the Aff's solvency mechanism, no solvency evidence should be required.

Theory / Ethics / General Behavior: I tend to be more sympathetic to teams launching legitimate, well-reasoned, and thoroughly-explained theory arguments than it seems many more modern judges may be, up to and including "reject the team, not the argument".

When it comes to ethics and general in-round behavior, it seems that many paradigms contain a whole host of info on what judges think debate “should” be, how debaters “should” act, and/or the judge’s perceived level of fairness of certain tactics.

My own paradigm used to contain similar info, but I’ve since removed it. Why? Because I think including such info creates a moral hazard of sorts. Debaters that are predisposed to behave in certain ways or deploy certain tactics will simply not do those things in front of judges that call them out in their paradigms, and then go right back to engaging in those behaviors or deploying those tactics in front of judges that don’t. To the extent that judges view themselves at least in part as guardrails on acceptable behavior and/or tactics, it seems to me that a better approach to rooting out negativity might be to put the onus on debaters to be considerate, ethical, and reasonable in deployment of their strategies and tactics – and then, if they aren’t, to mete out appropriate consequences. I do not feel obligated to state ex-ante that “X behavior is an auto-loss” if reasonable judges would conclude similarly and respond accordingly.

Don't worry: I'm not looking to be arbitrary and unreasonable in exercising judicial discretion, nor am I looking to insert my own opinions when teams engage in behavior that's debatably unfair, but goes uncontested by the other side. Just be thoughtful. It’s great to play hard. But if your tactics are questionably fair or bad for debate, be prepared to defend them, or reconsider their use. If the other side is deploying tactics that are questionably fair or bad for debate, make the argument, up to and including “reject the team”. I will evaluate such arguments and their implications based on the flow.

******

With all of that said, I consider myself to be in the midst of getting back up to speed in the modern norms and conventions of our activity, particularly at the high school Varsity level. I'm more than willing to be convinced that I should rethink any and all of the above, whether as part of an in-round debate or out-of-round conversation.

Of course I want to be on the email chain -- chwangdebate@gmail.com

HS Debate: 19-23 (4 years) -- Walter Payton

College Debate: 23-Present -- University of Michigan

Debate Coach: 23-Present -- Walter Payton

Top Level:

I think that judging records are more informative than whatever I type in my paradigm. Judging Record

Tech > Truth. I always decide the round off the flow first and foremost. Truth will have no bearing on the round unless the debate absolutely requires it because both teams failed to do literally anything which requires significant judge intervention. As an extension of this, I will not immediately strike arguments off my flow because they are too stupid or offensive to answer. The stupider and more offensive the argument is, the easier it should be to answer.

Throughout high school, I have done both policy and kritik strategies as both a 2A and a 2N. I have read big-stick policy affs, soft left affs, k-affs, 9-off 1NCs, and 1-off K 1NCs. My current style of debate is much more rooted in policy than K.

While I coach both policy and K teams, I spend the vast majority of my time doing policy research. I am very involved in argument coaching, and am usually well-versed in whatever the topic presents.

I do not care if you post-round; I am a firm believer that you have a right to express why you think you should've won the round. Debaters invest a lot of their time to win the round so they should have the right to argue why they believe that time should have resulted in a win. If you think part of my decision is wrong feel free to argue as it leads to better conceptualization of the decision.

If I need cards after the round I'll ask for them.

Online Debate:

Slow down regardless, but if you are unclear in person you should doubly slow down. No one wants part of my decision to be "I didn't hear that argument being made in x speech because you were very unclear."

I will type in chat if I am gone and my camera will be on showing that I am not there. If you start without me being there I will incredibly confused.

Things I like:

Clear framing of my ballot and why you win.

Really smart technical tricks or concessions.

When debaters time their own speeches.

Being funny and creative in your speeches.

Things I don’t like:

Saying the words “oops” or something along those lines at the top of your speech.

Calling me anything other than my name. “Judge” is the main one. You all are like a year or two younger than me calling me that makes me feel older than I am. On the flip side, don't unnecessarily and excessively say my name in a speech just to prove you read the above line that makes me feel weirder.

Being a jerk to your partner and/or the other team.

When the 1AC has not been sent out by the time the debate is supposed to start.

Trying to be funny and failing miserably.

When both people leave after the round. Too many times have I made a decision and have to run into the hallway looking for the debaters.

Kritikal affs:

I have read kritikal affs in the past, but I am still sympathetic to negative framework arguments.

Framework v. K-affs are some of my favorites debates to watch and judge. In my experience the aff wins these debates by winning their offense on the counter-interp and/or turning the neg's offense, while the neg tends to win these debates with smart framing of their interpretation and standards to mitigate aff offense.

If the 1AR makes vague, nebulous assertions about their aff with zero application to any negative offense, I am very reluctant to weighing any new 2AR spin.

I believe that fairness is the best impact, but that it can be either an impact or an internal link depending on how the teams contextualize it in-round.

Teams are not willing enough to go for presumption even when it is the correct 2NR. I am more than willing to pull the trigger on presumption should the negative arguments for it be strong enough. Varying inconsistencies between the 2AC and 1AR on case make pulling the presumption trigger that much easier.

I have little experience with KvK debates. I generally think that the aff doesn't get perms, but I am very flexible on that.

Policy affs:

Do whatever.

A lot of affirmative teams are getting away with way too much and negative teams are allowing them to get away with it. Strong analytics are sometimes enough to take out shoddy internal link chains.

I am better for soft-left affs than most judges are.

Counterplans:

I enjoy counterplan competition debates but I fear that the majority of teams have literally zero clue what functional and textual competition actually mean and just use them as buzz words.

I think that people are either underutilizing immediacy and/or certainty key against process CPs, or they are giving terrible reasons for immediacy and certainty. Generic reasoning behind certainty and immediacy won't win you the round, but actually winning the deficit specific to the CP might.

Counterplan theory is a lost art of debate, which is a real shame because I love these debates. Affirmative teams are allowing negative teams to get away with murder. In a perfectly even debate I generally lean defense, but I am will decide the round purely off the flow. Should you invest the time and effort into effective and high quality theory debating, I am very receptive to such. The words “condo is a voting issue - time skew strat skew” do not constitute a complete argument. If you are just regurgitating your backfile theory blocks against each other I will disgruntledly vote for whoever backfiles are better and give both teams bad speaker points. Conversely, teams that utilize topic specification to describe the division of ground and how the theoretical objection changes will make me happy and be awarded high speaker points.

Saying "we get x condo" or "x condo is good/bad" is really arbitrary and I think is super hard to win, especially when the debate is "1 condo vs 2 condo" or something similar.

The reasoning for why new affs justify infinite condo is strange but I lean either way.

I generally find that word PICs are weak and unpersuasive. If you think that your word PIC is an exception you are welcome to try.

Kritiks:

I have found myself in the back of multiple rounds where the 2NR has been the K and am more than capable of evaluating it.

There has been a fundamental issue with how some teams are extending the K, and it has nothing to do with my predispositions on kritiks. Either:

1. 2NRs are not going for framework or the alt at all and are losing on extinction outweighs a non-causal link, or
2. 2NRs are not extending an impact (to framework, the links, or the K in general).

If you properly extend the K I am very receptive to it; I have found myself voting neg on the K when the 2NR does not have these issues and when the 2NR extends clearly articulated and nuanced arguments. I have no intention of voting up the K on vague, nebulous assertions made in the 2NR that are not applied to other parts of the flow.

I understand the basic premise of identity K's, but I have very limited experience reading them. I read an Orientalism K for a little which was more closely akin to an IR K than an Identity K. I think that saying that there's a link to the plan because of a historical event is a defensive argument for why progress is not possible but without further analysis will most likely not constitute a link to the aff.

I have next to zero experience with postmodernist/poststructuralist literature. I am not someone that easily understands that type of literature, thought or arguments. I will try and evaluate these debates as well as I can, but these types of arguments are far outside my realm of knowledge. You repeatedly saying the word “ressentiment” will definitely not help me. If you really want to win my ballot err on the side of over-explanation.

Topicality:

I am a better judge for evaluating T than most judges. There’s a strange paradox with judges that say that they are “tech over truth” but then have strong preconceptions of T debate that all but signal it is unwinnable for the neg. I have no such preconceptions. I have no preference for one standard compared to another.

I go either way on plan text in a vacuum.

I think that reasonability is very winnable, but only if you properly debate the negative’s debatability/limits push. I think debates are a lot easier to win on T if you frame it as a game of inches rather than a game of extremes. Rather than winning "our interp is good, their interp is bad", it is much easier to win that both models can be good and that either there is a small comparative advantage to one interpretation or conversely that because both are good it's a reason why competing interpretations in this instance is bad. I haven't seen any debates like this, but I definitely think teams should.

Disads:

I think that zero risk is real, and I have not heard a convincing reason why it is not real that is not interventionalist.

Other than that, I don’t think there’s a whole lot that can be said, or honestly should be said. There’s this strange dilemma surrounding politics and “generic” DAs which I don’t really get. A disadvantage is just a negative implication to the plan, there realistically shouldn’t be this much hemming and hawing to what that means. Read the disads you think will win.

Impact Turns

Impact turns are a unique opportunity to research and deploy arguments that challenge conventional wisdom, and are very fun and creative debates. I don't have any strong feelings for one side or another on any impact turn. I do not think that genocide good is a convincing answer to war good.

Speaks:

Theoretically the mean speaks should be 28.5, and I try will give speaks around there. The chance that (unless something went terribly astray) you get a 27 or a 30 is basically 0. I have and will give substantially different speaker points between partners if it is fitting, and I think low point wins are more common than is documented.

I think that giving speaker points for things like "make me laugh" or "mention x debater" is really dumb. I also think that taking away speaker points for doing thinks like calling me judge is also really dumb. If you are a funny debater that probably already affected the speaks I am giving you positively, so adding more just artificially inflates speaks.

Hotter Takes/Misc.

If you go for a new argument in the 2AR based on the 2NR, you must tell me how to evaluate it or I assign 50% weight to everything which opens the debate up to way more intervention that I am sure anyone wants.

Breaking new on paper, or sending one card at a time, or something in those regards is a little silly, but I guess I see where you are coming from.

There are individual instances of debate or state action that could be contextualized as good or bad, but I think it's hard to say that debate or the state as a whole is inherently either because of those examples. I think that using said specific examples in order to determine that debate and/or the state wholistically is either good or bad is really dumb.

Prefs short---high school debater, down for process and meh for Ks. Super tech>truth except for hypertrolly args. The less of the 1NC that could be read last year the better I am for you.

geographyandnewsnerd@gmail.com
ntpolicydebate@gmail.com

June Jack (She/They/Zhe). New Trier '25
LD + PF at the bottom.
Yes put me on the chain. I would prefer an email but SpeechDrop is fine. If your docs are verbatimized word, I will probably not get a headache. The farther your email content gets from that, the greater the chance of a headache.
Please email me after the debate for clarification - I'm always happy to explain.
Anything bolded is not up for debate. Anything unbolded can be changed by better technical debating.

I view debate as a competitive research activity. I will reward strategies that involve topic and aff specific research. This can look like topic CP and Econ DA, but also politics with very specific links, a cap K with turns case and aff specific links, or a process CP with an aff-specific solvency advocate.

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

I will never vote on ableism / transphobia / homophobia / racism / sexism. I will stop the round if you do something that makes the debate space unsafe.
Ad-Homs or use of slurs / bigotry / misgendering will lead to instant loss, extremely low speaks and I'll email your coach.

Do not read Death Good/Wipeout in front of me UNLESS both teams agree to it beforehand. If the 2NR is 5 minutes of wipeout, the 2AR can spend 5 minutes talking about their favorite tea and I'll vote aff. For every speaker that extends a wipeout/death good arg without permission from their opponent, -2.5 speaks.

Berating your teammate will shred your speaks.

Disclosure is a must. This means verbal aff (unless new) and past 2NRs OR updated wikis. This also means being on time to your room for disclosure. +0.1 speaks for full, working citations, +0.3 for OpenSource that is highlighted (tell me after the debate). Exception for lay / MS debate.
CX is binding. Make sure you are asking questions in your CX. Tag-team CX is fine, as is using it for prep - you don't have to ask me for permission. I don't consider prep time cross to be binding.

PLEASE give me a roadmap
If the other team has dropped something like T and there's no theory extended, you can stop the round an tell me why. Other team can explain why there's a way out, any way out, they win. Otherwise you win. If you do this and are right, I will give you much higher speaks (29+), and can dedicate the rest of the time to helping the other team. If the other team is right, double 25s for you. If the 2NR drops condo, the 2AR can be 5 seconds of "dropped condo bad because its unfair---dispo solves---vote aff".

Assume I want a card doc unless it's like a condo debate.

--------

Love an impact turn, read lots of cards.

Topicality -
PTV is very good.
Reasonability is best framed as a substance crowd-out DA.
ground > predictability > cult of limits.
A T violation that cannot explain why that specific aff is bad for ground should lose to C/I only our aff. Unlike most judges, I think that this is a viable 2AR C/I.
An aff that says "one or more of the following" should lose to aff condo is bad.

Theory

I think condo is good up to double digits. I'll still vote on the flow. Models > in-round abuse. Research + strat skew > timeskew.

Neg flex + logic + dispo doesn't solve + you didn't define dispo >

If you can kick Adv CP planks, each plank (n) counts for 2^n advocacies. I won't make the arguement for you but 2As should.....

Solvency advocates frame theory - rehighlighted 1AC cards or aff specific advocates make me much more lenient to the neg on any theory.

Love process but give me pen time. Probably better for the other issues perm than PDCP.

Ks -
Impact turn / DA to the alt if you can.
The more the K turns the case, has material link and has an alt that solves or outweighs the case, the better I am for you. Similarly, the more aff-specific the better. 2NRs that kick the alt are fiiiinnnneeee but you probbaly lose if the 1AR doesn't drop a DA and defense.

Counterplans:

Adv CPs and PICs>>>>>>>

Do process ever solve their own net benefit?
I default to judgekick - aff debate against should start in the 1AR at latest.


DAs
PTX DAs - PC DAs are mid. Horsetrading DAs make me happy. Riders make me sad. Floor time makes my eyes sparkle with joy.
Please have turns case in the 1NR. If the 1AR drops turns case, I will protect the 2NR.
5+ 1AR cards usually make a good debate
Do impact calc in the 1NR

K Affs - i'll vote for them if they win the flow. I'd like but don't need both teams to have a vision for debate, how arguments evolve and get evaluated over the season, etc.
2AC K aff w/m means the 2NC can and should read states and politics
I'd prefer clash as with "debate solves the aff better" as a straight turn, but if you want to go for fairness I'm chill with that. Sometimes this is called "Michigan's FW 2.0", for an example see DML's 2024 UMich FW lecture.
revive jurisdiction!!!!
Dogma and advocacy skills turn the aff / fairness is why their impacts are bad = yay!
Fairness is good. What's a warrant? = not yay.

insert rehighligtings--x-----------read them
condo good---x------------condo bad
cap / security -x----------Bataille
clarity + pen time-x---------------------------speed
presumption = less change---x------------presumption goes auto-aff when there's a neg advocacy
read all the cards---x---------------------slow down on the cards
evidence comparison--x----more cards
silly args-----x--win with style, especially if you're heavily favoured

People who've influenced my thoughts on debate:
Nick Lepp, Tim Freehan, Rockwell Shapiro, Margaret Jones, David Weston, Aaron Vinson, Jeff Buntin, Rafael Pierry, Tim Ellis, Gabe Jankovsky, Arvind Shankar, Will Soper.

Postround me.


Policy Voting Record:
IP:
Econ:
5-6 Policy v Policy
0-1 Policy v K (it was cap)

-----------------------------
LD - I consider this pretty close to one person policy, with perhaps some slightly sillier arguments. Rest of paradigm still applies.

Public Lands
Policy vs Policy --- 0-1
Tricks aff vs Trad --- 1-0
Trad vs Trad --- 0-1
Policy vs Policy + K --- 1-0

I don't know or care that much about LD norms.
Send ev in a document. Before the speech.
Please do LBL.
Probably more open to affs that defend a plan.
Performances affs are also fine, T against them is often true.
make the roadmap off-time
spreading good
yes I do flow cross
disclosure is good. lack of it may even be worth a ballot based on the flow.
silly args--x--win with style
silly args mean phil and paradoxes, not "vote after the 1NC" or "formal clothes theory". Clash is good. I have a higher bar for things like a warrant that y'all probably expect.
PICs---7/10
phil - proud util hack but tech over truth. Util > Rawls > Hobbes > Skep > Virtue > Kant > Rand > dead French guys who use "the Other" that you cannot explain. Only thing LD does better than policy.


PF - I come from policy. I'm chill with whatever, including prog stuff / Ks / spreading.
0 PRO - 1 CON Trad on the HSR topic.

Misc things:

Any use of AI to generate prompted text and use the text as "evidence" is deemed a fabrication of evidence and is a reason for an ethics challenge.
If the 1AC clips, I won't stop the round unless the 1NC points it out. I will however, vote against the clipping team. I just want y'all to get an educational debate and I will give a full substance RFD.
If an argument says extinction is good because the alternative is worse, it is wipeout.

Anderson High School ‘21

University of Texas at Dallas ‘25

Email: arikarch@gmail.com

I'm looking for some teams to coach and drill with for the 2023-24 season, so if I judge you and you're interested, feel free to inquire at the email above

I look favorably speaks wise on teams that have the email chain set up when we all get to the room, and unfavorably on teams that take forever (clearly stealing prep) to send the doc

I try to be as tab as possible, so you can read whatever you'd like, with a few exceptions

Things I won't vote for

• Stuff that happened outside the round
• Death good
• Frivolous theory
• Aliens

tough sell for word PIKs, and willing to vote aff on pdcp for a lot of counterplans.

tough sell for condo

My thoughts

Overall, you do you. I'm fine with pretty much anything except the stuff I listed right above. I'm comfortable with a variety of different things and I want students to go for what they like not what I like

Slow down, its better to read one less card than to be unclear. I am probably not reading your cards unless there is a dispute about what they say and I am specifically directed to. I flow based on what I can hear, not on what you have in the doc

I don't like overviews, most of your speech should be on the line by line, especially with the k, really long overviews are going to make you lose speaks

Clipping is an automatic L

Being exceedingly rude will make me not like you, and your speaks will suffer badly. Just chill. If you're making this space unsafe for others, L 20 automatically

Tabula rasa

Skinner North '23, Walter Payton '27.

I did MS varsity cx for one yr. Sorry if that raises red flags. I was a semifinalist at state + if it helps, I think I only ever lost 2 rounds.

PLEASE ADD ME TO THE CHAIN (vliang2@cps.edu). ((Email chain = just send your speech documents to me through email. People usually cut analytics (non-carded arguments) out. That probably means don't send anything after the 1ar.))

Notes:

he/him. This should go without saying, but please don't purposefully misgender me! I'll nuke your speaker points.

Signpost. May be the deciding factor. Seriously. I don't care if it's 1 2 3 or next, next, next...just signpost. "They say...we say..." is fine. Separate your arguments and tell me what you're responding to. Fun Fact: I hate guesswork! Don't make me go "this card could respond to this card...but it's also applicable to..." no. Just no. When you don't signpost, you force me to guess and rely on my biases. Hanging me 50 feet from the roof of an underground spring while asking me to prove Riemann's hypothesis would probably be easier.

AND, NOTE: respond to each other's arguments. Have clash. Do not just repeat your argument in the last speech (unless the other team didn't respond- that's called extending) because then I legit have no idea what to evaluate you on.

Time your speeches. I'm not joking. Time your opponents, time your prep, time their prep...while I will try to time y'all, I have time blindness- so unless you want your opponent to have 50 instead of 5 min of prep, start timing.

Tech > Truth. Do I think organic fruits actually cure cancer? Nah. But if you drop it, and they extend it (properly, and explain to me why it wins) then I'll vote on it. I'm probably a little less skewed than most judges though.

On that note, you'll win so many more rounds if you make my job as easy as possible. Crystalize. Tell me by...at least the 1AR what issues I should prioritize, how this argument shapes the round, and how the argument impacts the world. Why are you winning?

On that note, aff--- case first, then off. Same for neg, it's typically off first, than case.

In the 2NR/2AR/whatever, do your impact calculus at the top of the speech. Not the bottom. Go back to magnitude/probability/timeframe if you want. Sucker for more advanced stuff though like scope/severity/disjunction vs conjunction/etc. Go for one thing. Do not waste your time trying to cover everything. Pick and encompass/outweigh/etc.

Also, I'd like to think that I can tell when you read something that's prewritten and when you read stuff that's your own. I'm here to tell you that I love analysis. Do analysis! Especially the 2AC--- for extensions, don't tell me "extend this" and then read a semi-related card...put in the work and tell me why this card is relevant in the debate. I know how limited prep time is in MS, so I won't care if you make stuff off the fly. Assuming that you don't go off the rails and start linking to aliens or something. If you at least try, I'll probably give you like +0.1 speaker points if you do that, obviously more if it's actually good.

Spreading...is....okay. I think it's usually unnecessary for MS, and if you're spreading I would obviously prefer an email chain. If you've competed in the HS circuit, it might be best to reduce speed by like 20% just in case. Signpost and slow down on analytics. Oh my god, do not spread through analytics.

edit: I also consider tags as analytics. Do not spread through the tag and then slow down on the card. You essentially force me to create a tag for your card in the middle of the round. This leads to messy and confused debates.

SECOND EDIT: DO NOT BE SEXIST, RACIST, ETC. I usually won't outright stop the round, but it'll reflect in your speaks.

Oh, and ask me questions about the rfd. It's helpful for you, and it's helpful for me.

Case v DAs/Case Turns:

Do this. I love this. That being said, do it if you're confident. Don't overadapt.

DAs:

Uh, they're okay. Don't really have anything for or against them. I think the link chain for most MS DAs is unstable and wobbly, but I ran them a lot. It's fine. Just overexplain how it works, how x causes y, and how z is bad...etc etc.

T:

Look, I've been there. I've been the person reading a shell so garbage it takes itself out. But I will almost always lean Aff on this one. Sorry. T is inherently an argument about the division of ground--- the division of ground in core leagues is usually fine. Like, 90% of the time it's just being used as a time skew for the negative bc of the procedural.

edit: supposedly T is actually about accuracy--- probably best summed up as "framer's intent." fine, I'll vote on that. PROVIDED you criticize the ground interp correctly + don't drop everything in the constructives, god.

That being said, if you actually spend time on T...if you devote the 1nr/2nr to it and really go for it...maybe. Argue against my paradigm and explain why T isn't abusive in this case. For the Aff, you'll need to win that you are predictable and are within reason of the topic + link to core generics. For the Neg, you'll have to win that the Aff has completely exploded research burdens/is so specific that it kills edu.

CPs:

One thing: net benefit (which is what we would gain from doing the CP instead of the plan). You need that. You really need that. I'll probably vote aff on that one if not. Oh, and I really like DACPs- that's when you pair a DA with a CP together so the DA can act as the net benefit.

Agent CPs are fine. No real debate there. Do a little more work for Advantage CPs. Process CPs are borderline abusive and I totally support them.

PICs...I've only ever really interacted with abusive ones, but if it's solid and it doesn't pick out of something small, sure, fine. Prove that what you're picking out of is significant.

Judge kick-- I'll do this automatically for novices, but for JV+, the neg needs to tell me that they want me to consider the status quo, ESPECIALLY if you crystalize on the CP.

Condo:

Why are you kicking stuff? It's MS! What are you going to kick? From memory, there was like 5 off, max. I mean...I guess if you run every off you can think of and contradict yourself 10 times over...if you manage to not contradict yourself into the 4th dimension, sure. Neg lean. I think the core case negs (last year, at least) really, really suck and so you really do need to rely on your offcase to generate good offense. I'm willing to hear out the Aff though.

I think of DAs as dispo--- I don't care if you kick DAs, but stop kicking them once the aff has already turned them. "Conditional DAs" don't exist.

Ks: [MS, STOP HERE]

EDIT: When in K debates, I will always default to the flow. This K section is also not applicable to you if you're just running a basic framework argument.

I'm almost 90% sure I'll never have to judge a K round, but just in case: running a K and expecting me to automatically give you the ballot is probably not the way to go. Obviously I'm open to voting on it, but lean towards overexplaining. Please explain like your life depends on it. Go through the warrants & the links and explain the story.

K v K debates are nightmarishly difficult for me to parse. Overexplaining probably would be your saving grace. I cannot stress how much you do not want me in a K v K debate.

K affs:

If you've run a K aff and I'm judging you...you're brave? I'll obviously try my best.

I think that K affs present some pretty decent arguments, but I also think FW/T-USFG wins half the time. If you can impact turn FW, win TVA, SSD, and role of the ballot, you'll probably get my vote. Unfortunately, I am probably prone to more nitpicky and weird decisions here, so take the risk if you can handle the risk.

Have fun! Debate's supposed to be fun. Again, feel free to ask about the stuff in my paradigm.

First, I need to understand what you are saying. The best debater isn't always the FASTEST.

Secondly, I want to see strong class and line by line refutation. The better you are at listening and flowing, the better you'll do at speaking. Especially for rebuttals.

Finally, as a judge for Middle School debate, I rarely judge on topicality in a case file league. but I am willing to if it played properly.

My Paradigm is extremely simple.

Firstly, I need to be able to understand the things that you say. The best debater isn't ALWAYS the fastest.

Secondly, I want to see strong clash and line-by-line refutation. The better you are at listening and flowing, the better you'll do at speaking. Especially for rebuttals.

As a middle school debate coach and judge, I rarely vote on Topicality in a case file league, but I'm willing to if its played properly.

20250692@student.nths.net

do not be racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc

Online: please do not sacrifice clarity for speed I will have a significantly harder time hearing you especially if you are not reading a card.

Tech>truth

DA:

CP:

Process CPs: Im probably siding aff on the theory part especially if there is not a specific solvency advocate for your process CP, but I also think good explanation of the CP can remedy this issue.

ADV CP: love these, read these.

It would make my ballot easier if you read a CP along with a DA

K:

Hi friends:) plz add me to the email chain if there is one @drpham1126@gmail.com

My name is Doanh Pham, but I go by Rita (she/her). Currently debating policy at University of Kansas as a 2nd year. I'm currently a double major in Political Science and East Asian Studies with a concentration in Chinese. Highschool history wise, I debated PF and did IX at Lee's Summit West Highschool for 4 years there. Was decent, was state champ and did the NSDA jazz, you can look me up at Rita Pham on NSDA. PF is my first love!

Don't be a-holes to each other. I'm a firm believer that debate is about education and pedagogy.

No matter what event, framing then tech into truth plz. Judge direction is important, you should tell me from the beginning how I should evaluate the round/on what framework. FRAMING IS TOP LEVEL. Identity politics and structural violence works well with me over extinction/econ impacts. Also evidence quality is so important to me, I will read it if you highlight its important. Below you can see events spec thoughts:

Policy: I love high theory and critical things. any flavors of Ks are welcomed and if I don't know then I'll try to keep up actively. Some of my fav is Set Col, Cap, Asian Identity/Orentialism, Academy.... I think alt is important but if you don't have one, prove to me why your link makes their aff net worse. Im very good judge for identity politics.

Stuff like wipe out and pess/death good, eh idk how I feel about it but I don't particularly love.

K aff are cool, I'm running one for the 2023-2024 season myself - but try to have it tie the resolution somehow. I'm pretty good on the FW debate, impacts like education is more convincing then fairness for the sake of fairness. This means that I'm pretty ok with seeing how the T flow interacts with K affs if that's your thing!

I am ok at policy stuff (don't run more then 4 off as a policy strat, I will be very annoyed and the args start to lose quality), T-subsets and etcs arent my thing but I will still flow. A good DA with a strong link story is always good. Extinction impacts are overrated but I will always vote on what you tell me to vote on.

Don't love PIX/PICS and stuff that steals opponents' args but justify yourself.

I usually don't cancel teams for certain args and will give them grace since I view debate as a game but you can convince me otherwise!

PF: I am very well versed in this area, and a stern believer that PF should remain like PF. Please don't try to be high theory on your opponents, otherwise go try policy.

Since rounds are only 45 min, I think CX should be binding so you can build args. Be organized, I don't care how many contention or subpoints you have, I'll keep up. I flow most things, make sure you signpost. I think since there are less arguments in PF, you should have quality evidence. Logistics are always welcomed, but if most of the round is false logic then I will decide based on evidence quality even if you did well at framing. Just because the nature of PF is more evidence based.

LD: I never did this event but I understand its about morals/ethics and a mix of pf and policy. Especially in LD, you should center around your value criteria. Ref puff stuff to know more about me but I will judge you base on how you want me to.

New Trier Class of 2025

She/Her/Hers

reagancsubeck@gmail.com

Top Level:

• Be respectful of me, your opponents, and your teammates
• Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic

You're all novices - be nice and supportive because this is a year to learn, not to crush (and because being nice is generally good). I am here to support you and help you improve but also to make debate fun so if you feel unsafe or you're being hurt by someone else, I will help you resolve it.

I have 0 opinions on what arguments you run other than the caveats above so just do your thing!

If you need help with technical stuff, feel free to ask! On more debating stuff, try your best and ask me after the round. I'll be glad to help you with anything then!!!

Have fun and good luck!!!!

20250944@student.nths.net - New Trier ‘25 - they/she/he

camp paradigm:

um202278@umich.edu

I am James Taiclet, the CEO of Lockheed Martin, and refuse to vote on any such BLEEDING HEART LIBERAL arguments such as 'cap bad', 'heg bad', or 'rights bad', especially ones attacking our God-given Second Amendment. Any mention of such arguments, including in the 8-point font of your card, will lead to an immediate ballot loss and report to tabroom.

Truth > tech. I am strongly convinced by any arguments made in support of the military and will actively search for them in the post-round, including but not limited to 'interventions good', 'russia war good', or spark, my favorite argument in debate. The aff should kick the aff and go for spark in the 2AC, and I will submit my ballot right after the 2AC is over.

Spread as fast as you possibly can, and I'll give 30 speaks to anyone who can speak quickly enough to make their voice sound like a semi-automatic rifle.

If any of you are aspiring engineers or servicemen for our proud US military, please come talk to me in the post-round, and I'd be happy to discuss the many benefits of selling your soul working for us!

speaker point scale that is 100% original and definitely not stolen from Nathan:

1- Lefty bastards.

5- You were wrong and debated poorly. I also dislike you.

10- You were boring so I started reading the Babylon Bee in the meantime.

15- You were alright, I liked you but you lost.

20- You won the round and were fairly good, although not that interesting.

25- You should apply for a job at Lockheed Martin, with a mind like yours we can save this country.

30- You have single-handedly given me hope for the next generation of American youth.

tldr:

• Be kind, above all.
• Tech > truth, except in certain circumstances below
• Explain your violation and impacts under theory
• you should probably strike me in a K aff debate
• My tech > truth ideology peaks in T
• explain your Ks
• CPs + DAs are chill
• I won't vote on death good
• constructives are for constructing, rebuttals are for rebutting
• relax. have fun.

people who have significantly impacted my thoughts on debate, in no particular order, include Aaron Vinson, Tim Freehan, Dave Weston, Margaret Jones, Rocky Shapiro, Nick Wilson, CPSW lab leaders, and CFMP lab leaders. do with that what you will

First and foremost:

I will never tolerate racism, sexism, classism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, or general xenophobia. I will email your coach, auto-L, and give you the lowest speaks possible. Debate should be a safe space for people to have fun, not to be attacked. I will stop the round if you do anything that makes the debate space unsafe.

Death good = auto-L, lowest speaks possible, email to your coach. 2Ns, don’t look at this and think ‘but could it be a throwaway?’ Don’t force debaters to deal with that, you have no clue what people are going through and making the debate space violent and unsafe is the antithesis of why I do debate in the first place.

Theory:

In this instance, you really need to explain to me why what they did screwed you over and probably the farthest I get from tech>truth. Why did a neg generic PIC make it so unfair that you should win the round because they ran it? Is 1 condo advocacy that bad? Should your one-sentence hidden aspec be given enough weight to earn a whole ballot? You can win this, but know that the more teams that have won against it, the more the odds are stacked against you. In-round abuse will change this, though. If the neg ran 15+ condo, weaponized perfcon, or ran ten new 2NC CPs with no justification other than ‘condo!’, something like that, run theory and you have a decent shot.

If you're doing a condo 2AR when the neg didn't drop condo, I probably already mentally voted neg.

Case:

I'm a 2N, but I also see no way around this if I'm team 1% risk---if the 1AR stands up and tagline extends case, there is now a risk of case. A small risk that a DA should be able to outweigh, but a risk nonetheless. I know a good block case strat when I see one, and if you pull it off I will be extremely impressed, but you need offense, not just defense.

Also, exception to team 1% risk, I will vote on presumption if case is a crush and I can't give the aff more than 5% risk, or if the DA is a crush and I can't give the neg more than 5% risk.

I prefer moist arguments.

K affs:

I should know what your aff does coming out of the 2AC at maximum, and preferably out of 1AC cx. Especially here, I won't penalize speaks for 2Ns saying 'what is this' and you should respond with something that would be understandable to someone who hasn't read your lit(e.g. don't say 'we advocate for a method of corporeal care', say 'we advocate for creating a space for caring about the condition of humans')

Topicality is capital T true, maybe one of the most true arguments in debate, and both teams know it. Please, act like it. I don’t care whether you go for clash or fairness, as long as you have an impact. Most of the time I go for clash, so if you choose that route, I’m better versed there. I’ll still vote on the flow, so aff teams, you can win.

If you say that your survival hinges on an aff ballot, I will be uncomfortable for the rest of the debate.

But honestly, if you read a k aff, you should probably strike me. I don’t believe that these arguments should be ran in novice debate.

T

In general, I don’t like these debates, and reading dictionary definitions after a round isn’t that fun. But if an aff is genuinely untopical and you're sure that their strategy against all of your offense will be 'no link', go for it!

Ks:

I default to the judge is a policymaker, the aff can weigh the plan, and the neg gets whatever fiat they want, but can be convinced otherwise with good debating and warrants. I'm more familiar with cap and security, so other Ks need more explanation. Side note, if you use words that wouldn't be recognizable to anyone who hasn't read your literature(like simulacra in Baudrillard) then please explain them in the block, not the 2NR, otherwise the aff's job is much harder.

read me if you’re actually considering running a K: I come from a hyper-policy school. While I don’t think that this biases me against K arguments, I cannot stress enough how much I will not vote on an argument that I don’t understand. I will appreciate it and spend extra time to try to understand it during decision time if you’re clearly trying your best to explain a K to me. but at the end of the day, you should strike me if you’re running high theory K arguments.

CP + DA + ! turns:

For process CPs, I’m aff-leaning on perms, and neg-leaning on theory. For all other CPs, I’m neg-leaning on theory and perms, and aff-leaning on solvency or offense. You need to tell me to judgekick and use sufficiency framing. It’s two sentences and is probably already in your 2NC O/V. If you think that the competition debate is messy, just go to why your standards outweigh theirs(ie- neg bias) and what your standards are.

If your adv CP doesn’t have a solvency advocate, you are the solvency advocate, and I treat the CP’s solvency as such. fyi ;)

100% or 0% risk only exists if the argument was dropped or kicked.

I flow impact turns on a separate page, and will reward with higher speaks if you tell me 'hey, you'll need an extra sheet for adv 2' or something. otherwise i probably won't catch your overview or first argument because i'm fishing paper out of my backpack.

but like...who dislikes the prizes CP + innovation DA?

2Rs:

Be nice, don't lie, framing my ballot at the beginning of the speech is always a good idea- don't let your opponents decide what the round is about.

Arguments need a claim and warrant in earlier speeches for you to win extending them. eg. ‘CP can’t solve i-law, moving on’ in the 1AR without ‘it’s not a clear signal’ means that I won’t give the 2AR ‘it’s not a clear signal’. I’ll auto-strike new arguments off my flow for the 2AR, so 2Ns, don’t worry. This also goes for the 2NR- you’re not allowed to make up new net benefits or add a fw DA.

This is technically the 1AR, but honestly idk where else to put this- my bar for a warrant in the 1AR is significantly different from the 2AR. For example, states CP(this wouldn't work on the IP topic, if you say this word for word I will be extremely annoyed). If the 1A says the words ‘extend perm do both - looks like federal follow-on so it shields the nb, done by federal funding and state implementation’ and then answers the neg’s reasons why pdb fails, that is all the explanation I need and the 2AR is clear to extend pdb. I’m a 1A, I get it, 1ARs are hard.

If your 2R is less than five sentences and you win, you’re getting a very high 29. If you lose, medium to very low 28. If the 2NR is less than five sentences and is about to win, but the 2AR somehow pulls off something amazing, both speakers are getting high 29s :)

Speaks:

Arguing with your partner will shred your speaks- especially if they're giving the final speech. I don't care if they dropped condo, took 1NR/1AC/1NC(especially 1NC prep can be quite useful, if used well) prep, or went for the thing you think will lose you the debate. You're not helping them nor yourself.

It is very, very, very easy to make me laugh, and this is under the speaks header. Do with that what you will.

I’m a very expressive judge, to the point where if you look at me during the other team’s speech, I’ll probably look back and signal if I buy the argument they’re making or not. Also, I LOVE eye contact during your speeches bc it makes me feel like we’re friends, pls do that and your speaks will look like you’re my friend :)

But I will give high speaks. My baseline is 29, and if you ask post-round I’ll tell you what you got

CX:

Speaking over and then proceeding to repeat exactly what your partner would have said in cx will hurt speaks and almost always what the 1A speaking during 2AC cx or 1N during 2NC cx is like.

Yes open cx, don’t abuse that. The 2N shouldn’t answer all of the questions in 1NC cx.

I will never dock your speaks for asking 'what is this' questions in cross, but it will hurt your ethos if you ask the 1N to explain a core neg generic.

CX is binding, UNLESS the team goes back on what they said immediately and unanimously. Otherwise, you're tied.

I can tell when your varsity just gave you a list of cx questions and told you to ask them, and it’ll hurt your speaks if you do that. Yes, cx is hard, but you need to start out by struggling through it, and ultimately you’ll get way better!

Other:

I’m cool with sending cards in the body of the email.

The more prep time you steal, the less time I have to make my decision, and that favors the team that didn’t steal prep. you’re not just cheating, you’re hurting yourself.

Uncarded arguments are still arguments, but they will probably lose to carded ones. You're a high schooler, 'i’m the solvency advocate' arguments require a LOT of ethos.

Please please please, if you have a blippy 1AC/1NC/2AC, come back from it. This is why I love debate- things can change so quickly and I love being in rounds where people do. your speaks will reflect this, too.

Run what you're cool with, kick what you're not, and make your 2R the best it can be!

glhf :)

current bias:

Policy v policy: 11-9 neg

Policy v K: 1-1

K v policy:

K v K: 1-0 neg

Hi everyone who is reading my paradigm,

My email is eyoungquist@averycoonley.org for the email chains.

I’ve been coaching policy debate for six years at the Avery Coonley School in Downers Grove, IL (it's a middle school). I’ve also judged a few rounds of high school Public Forum. I kind of fell into the job as a debate coach- I didn’t have any debate experience in high school or college. I've taught Literacy for 16 years, and social studies for the last three.

That being said, please treat the debate room like a classroom in terms of behavior and decorum. If the way you are acting would not fly at your school, don't do it in front of me. Debate can get heated, the CX can get pointed, but outright rudeness, swearing, etc. will come with penalties.

In terns of judging-I always view debate through the lens of a solid analytical argument, just like I would in my classroom. I need a cohesive argument, solid support, analytics, and a breakdown of why your argument is superior to your opponents’ argument. An “A” debate should look like an “A” paper.

Two things I don’t like to hear are extremely fast talking and cards that don’t support their tags. It’s great that you got through a lot of evidence and tried to put a lot of things on the flow sheet, but if you are only reading a sentence or two from each card and it doesn’t add up, it’s not a real argument. I need depth. I need CLASH.

I am really against fast reading. If you words are jumbling together and I can't make it out, it's not going on my flow. If I can't make out what you are saying, I am going to give you a "clear." If it continues, I'll give you a second one. Beyond that, I will disregard it if I can't make it out.

The round is going to go to the group that clearly lays out their argument (love signposting) and advances their ideas clearly while pointing out the flaws in their opponents’ presentation.

I’ll take T’s and K attacks that are on topic and make a valid point, but don't try to shoehorn something in just because it's what you always do. If their case is barely hanging on to being topical, go for it. Can you make a legit critique with some SOLID links? Go for it. Just don't get too esoteric on me, and MAKE SURE THE LINK IS SOLID (yes, I said it again)!!! Blocks of jargon with no real tie to the case will not work.

Please don't run a "K" Aff on me.

UC Lab '27

he/him

james.yu816@gmail.com

I am new to debate judging, and new to debate altogether. This is my first time judging a debate.

I care what the debate teams have to say so please speak clearly and slowly enough to be understood. Especially with the online format. If a debate team is speaking too fast for me to understand, I will wave my hand.

I value courtesy and logic in a debate.

I perused the core files BRIEFLY, so please no acronyms.