PHS Middle School Intra Squad 2
2023 — Kansas City, MO/US
PHS US Judges Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideKerav 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.
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 26
2nd yr policy debater
To add me to the chain: cjiang26@pembrokehill.org
“Cindy” is preferred over “judge”, I won’t take speaks or anything off if you say “judge” though.
Tl:dr
-
tech>truth, though I won’t die on that hill. Arguments like spark and wipeout are not preferred, but I’ll vote for them if they are executed well.
-
I’m the most experienced in debating CPs and DAs, but I am open to almost all arguments, so debate how you feel comfortable!
-
JUDGE INSTRUCTION. Tell me what I should vote on.
-
Be clear, in both speed and content. Please put analytics in the document. I can flow reasonable speeds, but light to no spreading is preferred.
-
I love link/impact turns and rehighlights ^^
-
An organized speech makes everybody’s life easy. I can’t vote for things I can’t understand.
-
I will listen to the speeches, and flow off what I hear and see on the doc. That being said, please add me to any email chain, and mark cards. I also will clear you if I can’t understand your words.
-
Overviews and extensions are awesome, I’ll be fine without underviews outside of KvK.
-
Don’t under highlight then bring up unhighlighted arguments. More cards doesn't always mean a better argument.
CX
-
Pick one or two voters to go for in the last speech, don’t go for everything - please explain how you won (preferably walk me through what happened in the round), and add impact calc
- I love to see good use of questioning
- Most of my preferences are for lay debate, do whatever (with basic ethics) for flow
Neg
-
Show me how the squo is better, or how an advocacy is BETTER than the aff.
-
Reading multiple advocacies on neg is fine, but don’t try to time skew the aff during lay
Aff
-
Show me you know your case, it’s usually pretty obvious when teams just read off a coach made case without understanding it
-
Just as the neg shouldn't deliberately time skew the aff, I don’t like seeing affs with a lot of advocacies - prefer no more than 3 in lay (flow rounds do whatever you want)
CP
-
Don't go for really cheaty cps. I probably won’t vote for a word pic or delay
-
I personally think generics are generic for a reason; I enjoy judging most of them
-
I’ll default to judge kick unless aff can show neg dropped offense
-
Bonus points if your CP and DA link!
DA
-
I’ll definitely vote on DAs, but the less realistic the DA, the more susceptible it is to link attacks
-
I enjoy link and UQ debates, I think they make high quality debates
K
-
I am personally a policy debater, but I by all means welcome K debates, though I am inexperienced in KvK, so I would really appreciate explanations
-
Just because it’s a K doesn't mean you can use ad hominem arguments
-
I value a strong alt on the K!
T
-
I love to see good clashing interps!
-
I have no preferences on ground arguments (education, fairness, clash, etc.), I’ll vote on who explains it better
K affs
-
I have extremely little experience with K affs - If you choose to run one, I’ll try my best to judge it, but I will probably vote for the more clear and better executed side
Theory
-
I'm not the biggest fan of kick the team in theory, I probably won’t vote for it unless you prove that the other team genuinely deserves to lose the round, instead of kicking the argument
-
I don’t like seeing petty theories; having a vagueness debate every round isn't fun for anybody
PFD
-
I've debated PFD a few times, I don’t have a ton of experience but I have a basic understanding of what's allowed and not
-
I think it’s less of a norm to spread in PFD, so I’d prefer a reasonable talking speed
LD
-
I have no experience in LD, I’ll try my best to judge fairly though!
Earning speaks
-
I think reading and following a judge’s paradigm is one of the best ways to be respectful in a round - I will give you extremely high speaks if you show you are following my paradigm!
-
Clarity
-
Eye contact
-
Overall politeness
-
Professionalism
Docking speaks
-
Racist, homophobic, xenophobic language
-
Disengaged with the round (ex. watching Youtube during someone else’s speech)
-
Being rude during CX
-
Obvious prep stealing: I'm usually pretty lenient but let’s be ethical
-
Marking cards
-
I will destroy your speaks if I figure out you were unethical in disclosure
If any problems arise, I am always open to pausing the round and getting someone from tab or coaches
I’m currently a senior at the Pembroke Hill School in Kansas City, MO. This is my fourth year competing in policy debate and my third year competing in congressional debate.
-
2a/1n
-
MSHSAA State Policy 2nd place
Please add me to the email chain or the speechdrop: cmartin24@pembrokehill.org
General Stuff
-
Tech > Truth always
-
Disclose your evidence! If you have a paper aff you should have extra copies for your opponents and for your judges.
-
If you win the round, and genuinely are really good speakers and are at like a 27/28 in speaker points, I'll give you 30s if you make a clever joke.
-
I have a really bad resting b*tch face so please don’t mistake that as me actually being pissed.
-
Speed: Spreading's fine as long as you're clear. Your opponents should be able to understand what you’re saying! If you spread and I can’t understand what you’re saying then you’re risking my ballot.
-
Decorum: I’m all for heated crosses but if it gets to the point where you keep talking purely to run down the clock and keep your opponents from asking more questions then I’m docking your speaker points. That being said you also should not be cutting your opponents off in the middle of their sentence unless it's gotten excessive
-
Prep Time: I totally get that tech issues happen sometimes, just show me your screen so I know that you’re not just stealing prep and I won’t count it against you if you’re just having trouble getting your document to send. Other than tech issues, if someone isn’t talking then someone should be running prep.
Policy Section
-
DA’s: Love them. They’re great.
-
Make sure you’re reading all for parts ie: uniqueness, link, internal link, impact.
-
I prefer link debates over impact debates but you still need to make sure to do impact calc.
-
Having an aff specific link is key to winning on the disad flow. Otherwise the evidence you read isn’t necessarily true as it’s not actually talking about the aff.
-
CP’s: Counterplans are pretty cool. I’ll vote for them if they solve at least part of the aff better.
-
I would avoid delay cp's, they just don't really tend to serve a purpose.
-
Love actor cp’s, but you need to have an actual reason why your actor solves better. Actor cp’s shouldn’t have the same level of effectiveness as the aff, they should solve better.
-
If you read a quid pro quo cp be prepared to debate theory. Same goes for PICs.
-
T: I will absolutely vote on T.
-
If you’re going to go for Topicality in the 2nr it should take up pretty much the entire speech.
-
Make sure to have all the parts to a topicality argument ie: interp, violation, standards, voters, etc, otherwise I won’t vote on it.
-
Dropping theory on the aff is almost always an automatic loss.
-
K’s:
- They're cool, just don't drop case.
-
My ballot does not solve in round impacts.
-
Don’t try to make the argument that “If you vote for us we’ll move on to the next round and more people will hear our message!” That’s dumb.
-
Case Debate:
-
Analytics can be just as persuasive as evidence
-
I love re-highlighting of aff evidence, that’s the easiest way to win the case debate. If the neg can prove that the aff’s own authors don’t actually agree with what the aff team is saying, I will definitely lean neg on the case page.
- Don't read new in 2. ie don't read off case args in the 1nc and put all the case args in the 2nc, that's a massive time skew. That being said, IF the neg brings up new arguments in the 2nc, I don't mind if the aff reads arguments on it in the 1ar even if it counts as a "new argument."
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.
I flow the rounds and appreciate careful and reasonably-paced speaking, good evidence and knowledge of your sources. Not all sources are created equal so be willing to evaluate them. The date of a source can be important --- eg, it has current up-to-date information or it is a classic or comprehensive source that has not been superseded.
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
be nice to each other and try your best!
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.