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!!!

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!

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

PFD addendum for NSDA 2024

I am incredibly concerned about the quality of the evidence read in debates and the lack of sharing of evidence read.

Teams who send evidence in a single document that they intend to read in their speech and quickly send an addendum document with all evidence selected mid speech will be rewarded greatly.

I will ask each team to send every piece of evidence read by both teams in ALL speeches.

Competed:

2011-15 – Lawrence Free State, KS, Policy (Space, Transportation, Latin America, Oceans)

2015-17 – JCCC, KS, NDT/CEDA (Military Presence, Climate Change); NFA-LD (Bioprospecting, Southern Command)

2017-20 – Missouri State University, MO, NDT/CEDA (Healthcare, Exec Authority, Space); NFA-LD (Policing, Cybersecurity)

Coached:

2016-17 – Lawrence High School, KS, (China Engagement)

2017-19 – Olathe West High School, KS, (Education, Immigration)

2019-22– Truman High School, MO, (Arm Sales, CJR, Water)

2020-Present– Missouri State University, MO, (MDT Withdrawal, Anti-Trust, Rights/Duties, Nukes); NFA-LD (Climate, Endless Wars)

2022-23- Truman State University, MO, NFA-LD (Elections)

2022-Present - The Pembroke Hill School, MO, (NATO, Economic Inequality).

Always add:

phopsdebate@gmail.com

Also add IF AND ONLY IF at a NDT/CEDA TOURNAMENT: debatedocs@googlegroups.com

If I walk out of the room (or go off-camera), please send the email and I will return very quickly.

Email chains are STRONGLY preferred. Email chains should be labeled correctly.

*Name of Tournament * *Division* *Round #* *Aff Team* vs *Neg Team*

tl;dr:

You do you; I'll flow whatever happens. I tend to like policy arguments more than Kritical arguments. I cannot type fast and flow on paper as a result. Please give me pen time on T, Theory, and long o/v's etc. Do not be a jerk. Debaters work hard, and I try to work as hard as I can while judging. Debaters should debate slower than they typically do.

Evidence Quality X Quantity > Quality > Quantity. Argument Tech + Truth > Tech > Truth. Quals > No Quals.

I try to generate a list of my random thoughts and issues I saw with each speech in the debate. It is not meant to be rude. It is just how I think through comments. If I have not said anything about something it likely means I thought it was good.

Speaker Points:

If you can prove to me you have updated your wiki for the round I am judging before I submit the ballot I will give you the highest speaker points allowed by the tournament. An updated wiki means: 1. A complete round report. 2. Cites for all 1NC off case positions/ the 1AC, and 3. uploaded open source all of the documents you read in the debate inclusive of analytics. If I become aware that you later delete, modify, or otherwise disclose less information after I have submitted my ballot, any future debate in which I judge you will result in the lowest possible speaker points at the tournament.

Online debates:

In "fast" online debates, I found it exceptionally hard to flow those with poor internet connections or bad mics. I also found it a little harder even with ideal mic and internet setups. I think it's reasonable for debates in which a debater(s) is having these issues for everyone in the debate to debate at an appropriate speed for everyone to engage.

Clarity is more important in a digital format than ever before. I feel like it would behoove everyone to be 10% slower than usual. Make sure you have a differentiation between your tag voice and your card body voice.

It would be super cool if everyone put their remaining prep in the chat.

I am super pro the Cams on Mics muted approach in debates. Obvious exceptions for poor internet quality.

People should get in the groove of always sending marked docs post speeches and sending a doc of all relevant cards after the debate.

Disads:

I enjoy politics debates. Reasons why the Disad outweighs and turns the aff, are cool. People should use the squo solves the aff trick with election DA's more.

Counter Plans:

I generally think negatives can and should get to do more. CP's test the intrinsic-ness of the advantages to the plan text. Affirmatives should get better at writing and figuring out plan key warrants. Bad CP's lose because they are bad. It seems legit that 2NC's get UQ and adv cp's to answer 2AC thumpers and add-ons. People should do this more.

Judge kicking the cp seems intuitive to me. Infinite condo seems good, real-world, etc. Non-Condo theory arguments are almost always a reason to reject the argument and not the team. I still expect that the 2AC makes theory arguments and that the neg answers them sufficiently. I think in an evenly matched and debated debate most CP theory arguments go neg.

I am often not a very good judge for CP's that require you to read the definition of "Should" when answering the permutation. Even more so for CP's that compete using internal net benefits. I understand how others think about these arguments, but I am often unimpressed with the quality of the evidence and cards read. Re: CIL CP - come on now.

Kritiks on the Negative:

I like policy debate personally, but that should 0% stop you from doing your thing. I think I like K debates much better than my brain will let me type here. Often, I end up telling teams they should have gone for the K or voted for it. I think this is typically because of affirmative teams’ inability to effectively answer critical arguments

Links of omission are not links. Rejecting the aff is not an alternative, that is what I do when I agree to endorse the alternative. Explain to me what happens to change the world when I endorse your alternative. The aff should probably be allowed to weigh the aff against the K. I think arguments centered on procedural fairness and iterative testing of ideas are compelling. Clash debates with solid defense to the affirmative are significantly more fun to adjudicate than framework debates. Floating pics are probably bad. I think life has value and preserving more of it is probably good.

Kritical Affirmatives vs Framework:

I think the affirmative should be in the direction of the resolution. Reading fw, cap, and the ballot pik against these affs is a good place to be as a policy team. I think topic literacy is important. I think there are more often than not ways to read a topical USfg action and read similar offensive positions. I am increasingly convinced that debate is a game that ultimately inoculates advocacy skills for post-debate use. I generally think that having a procedurally fair and somewhat bounded discussion about a pre-announced, and democratically selected topic helps facilitate that discussion.

Case Debates:

Debates in which the negative engages all parts of the affirmative are significantly more fun to judge than those that do not.

Affirmatives with "soft-left" advantages are often poorly written. You have the worst of both worlds of K and Policy debate. Your policy action means your aff is almost certainly solvable by an advantage CP. Your kritical offense still has to contend with the extinction o/w debate without the benefit of framework arguments. It is even harder to explain when the aff has one "policy" extinction advantage and one "kritical" advantage. Which one of these framing arguments comes first? I have no idea. I have yet to hear a compelling argument as to why these types of affirmative should exist. Negative teams that exploit these problems will be rewarded.

Topicality/procedurals:

Short blippy procedurals are almost always only a reason to reject the arg and not the team. T (along with all procedurals) is never an RVI.

I am super uninterested in making objective assessments about events that took place outside of/before the debate round that I was not present for. I am not qualified nor empowered to adjudicate debates concerning the moral behavior of debaters beyond the scope of the debate.

Things that are bad, but people continually do:

Have "framing" debates that consist of reading Util good/bad, Prob 1st/not 1st etc. Back and forth at each other and never making arguments about why one position is better than another. I feel like I am often forced to intervene in these debates, and I do not want to do that.

Saying something sexist/homophobic/racist/ableist/transphobic - it will probably make you lose the debate at the worst or tank your speaks at the least.

Steal prep.

Send docs without the analytics you already typed. This does not actually help you. I sometimes like to read along. Some non-neurotypical individuals benefit dramatically by this practice. It wastes your prep, no matter how cool the macro you have programmed is.

Use the wiki for your benefit and not post your own stuff.

Refusing to disclose.

Reading the 1AC off paper when computers are accessible to you. Please just send the doc in the chain.

Doing/saying mean things to your partner or your opponents.

Unnecessarily cursing to be cool.

Some random thoughts I had at the end of my first year judging NDT/CEDA:
1. I love debate. I think it is the best thing that has happened to a lot of people. I spend a lot of my time trying to figure out how to get more people to do it. People should be nicer to others.
2. I was worse at debate than I thought I was. I should have spent WAY more time thinking about impact calc and engaging the other teams’ arguments.
3. I have REALLY bad handwriting and was never clear enough when speaking. People should slow down and be clearer. (Part of this might be because of online debate.)

4. Most debates I’ve judged are really hard to decide. I go to decision time often. I’m trying my best to decide debates in the finite time I have. The number of times Adrienne Brovero has come to my Zoom room is too many. I’m sorry.
5. I type a lot of random thoughts I had during debates and after. I really try to make a clear distinction between the RFD and the advice parts of the post-round. It bothered me a lot when I was a debater that people didn’t do this.

6. I thought this before, but it has become clearer to me that it is not what you do, it is what you justify. Debaters really should be able to say nearly anything they’d like in a debate. It is the opposing team’s job to say you’re wrong. My preferences are above, and I do my best to ignore them. Although I do think it is impossible for that to truly occur.

Disclosure thoughts:

I took this from Chris Roberds who said it much more elegantly than myself.

I have a VERY low threshold on this argument. Having schools disclose their arguments pre-round is important if the activity is going to grow/sustain itself. Having coached almost exclusively at small, underfunded, or new schools, I can say that disclosure (specifically disclosure on the wiki if you are a paperless debater) is a game changer. It allows small schools to compete and makes the activity more inclusive. There are a few specific ways that this influences how ballots will be given from me:

1) I will err negative on the impact level of "disclosure theory" arguments in the debate. If you're reading an aff that was broken at a previous tournament, on a previous day, or by another debater on your team, and it is not on the wiki (assuming you have access to a laptop and the tournament provides wifi), you will likely lose if this theory is read. There are two ways for the aff to "we meet" this in the 2ac - either disclose on the wiki ahead of time or post the full copy of the 1ac in the wiki as a part of your speech. Obviously, some grace will be extended when wifi isn't available or due to other extenuating circumstances. However, arguments like "it's just too much work," "I don't like disclosure," etc. won't get you a ballot.

2) The neg still needs to engage in the rest of the debate. Read other off-case positions and use their "no link" argument as a reason that disclosure is important. Read case cards and when they say they don't apply or they aren't specific enough, use that as a reason for me to see in-round problems. This is not a "cheap shot" win. You are not going to "out-tech" your opponent on disclosure theory. To me, this is a question of truth. Along that line, I probably won't vote on this argument in novice, especially if the aff is reading something that a varsity debater also reads.

3) If you realize your opponent's aff is not on the wiki, you should make every possible attempt before the round to ask them about the aff, see if they will put it on the wiki, etc. Emailing them so you have timestamped evidence of this is a good choice. I understand that, sometimes, one teammate puts all the cases for a squad on the wiki and they may have just put it under a different name. To me, that's a sufficient example of transparency (at least the first time it happens). If the aff says it's a new aff, that means (to me) that the plan text and/ or advantages are different enough that a previous strategy cut against the aff would be irrelevant. This would mean that if you completely change the agent of the plan text or have them do a different action it is new; adding a word like "substantially" or "enforcement through normal means" is not. Likewise, adding a new "econ collapse causes war" card is not different enough; changing from a Russia advantage to a China, kritikal, climate change, etc. type of advantage is. Even if it is new, if you are still reading some of the same solvency cards, I think it is better to disclose your previous versions of the aff at a minimum.

4) At tournaments that don't have wifi, this should be handled by the affirmative handing over a copy of their plan text and relevant 1AC advantages etc. before the round. If thats a local tournament, that means as soon as you get to the room and find your opponent.

5) If you or your opponent honestly comes from a circuit that does not use the wiki (e.g. some UDLs, some local circuits, etc.), I will likely give some leeway. However, a great use of post-round time while I am making a decision is to talk to the opponent about how to upload on the wiki. If the argument is in the round due to a lack of disclosure and the teams make honest efforts to get things on the wiki while I'm finishing up my decision, I'm likely to bump speaks for all 4 speakers by .2 or .5 depending on how the tournament speaks go.

6) There are obviously different "levels" of disclosure that can occur. Many of them are described above as exceptions to a rule. Zero disclosure is always a low-threshold argument for me in nearly every case other than the exceptions above.

That said, I am also willing to vote on "insufficient disclosure" in a few circumstances.

A. If you are in the open/varsity division of NDT-CEDA, NFA-LD, or TOC Policy your wiki should look like this or something very close to it. Full disclosure of information and availability of arguments means everyone is tested at the highest level. Arguments about why the other team does not sufficiently disclose will be welcomed. Your wiki should also look like this if making this argument.

B. If you are in the open/varsity division of NDT-CEDA, NFA-LD, or TOC Policy. Debaters should go to the room immediately after pairings are released to disclose what the aff will be. With obvious exceptions for a short time to consult coaches or if tech problems prevent it. Nothing is worse than being in a high-stress/high-level round and the other team waiting until right before the debate to come to disclose. This is not a cool move. If you are unable to come to the room, you should be checking the wiki for your opponent's email and sending them a message to disclose the aff/past 2NR's or sending your coach/a different debater to do so on your behalf.

C. When an affirmative team discloses what the aff is, they get a few minutes to change minor details (tagline changes, impact card swaps, maybe even an impact scenario). This is double true if there is a judge change. This amount of time varies by how much prep the tournament actually gives. With only 10 minutes between pairings and start time, the aff probably only get 30 seconds to say "ope, actually...." This probably expands to a few minutes when given 30 minutes of prep. Teams certainly shouldn't be given the opportunity to make drastic changes to the aff plan text, advantages etc. a long while after disclosing.

My name is Himani Mulbery and I am a second year debater at Pembroke Hill High School. I compete in PFD and INFO. During a round I would like to see debaters using evidence as much as possible. I also think it's important for both partners to contribute during grand crossfire.

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

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!

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.