Overview:

Add me to the chain pls! alperdebate@gmail.com

- Edina Policy Debater (2019-2023)

- Familiar with Policy, PF, and LD

- Call me Alper or Judge, I don't really care. Just nothing weird like "your honor"...

- Pls feel free to ask me questions about my paradigm (LDers @ Gbx especially)

- Tech over Truth always -- the round is 100% dependent on the flow - tabula rasa, what else do you need to hear

- I'll default on existential risk outweighing. Will easily be convinced by any framing as long as you do the work for it.

- Time your speeches, although I will be timing as well.

- Clearly signpost, if you stumble through a tag/analytic/whatever, I'd rather have you re-read it to clarify

- Don't spread at 100% through analytics, I will most likely miss something, I used to do this, it's much better to be clear and only extend/respond to the arguments you need to respond to.

- No matter what I say in the paradigm, do not feel the need to over-adapt to me. I can and will adjudicate any argument impartially, without any intervention to the best of my abilities. I can be convinced by any argument as I believe debate is fundamentally a game that solely relies on what is said in the round, not the judge's ideological preferences or anything like that. Like I said earlier, I will for the most part* ONLY look at the flow and what the debaters have said in the round.

- This should be obvious, but I will not vote on arguments that are racist, sexist, homophobic, or anything of the sort. Things like "Nuke War good" are fine, but nothing endorsing su*cide or self-harm, etc...

LD (GBX 2023)

- Familiar with the format, no need to adapt much. Any jargony debate concepts that may not otherwise be intuitive/surface-level may need to be explained further.

- Fine with any type of argument (except tricks!!!!) and can be convinced by any argument, so don't be scared by anything you read here that might indicate I'm leaning any way on certain argument, ask me specific questions before the round

- On this topic especially, you need to have well-warranted internal links and a legitimate story.

- I can handle your speed lol, but don't take it as a sign to read 7 off theory (theory is fine, but I want to see good debates not cheap ones i.e., theory shouldn't be the center of the debate unless its substantive/relevant). Additionally, if you spread you NEED to be clear and have separate intonation for tags vs. card text / when you move on to another card/argument. Otherwise your speaks WILL drop drastically and I WILL miss your arguments. ONLY spread in front of me if you are extremely confident in your speaking skills.

- Will evaluate anything read (except tricks) even if I'm frustrated by the choices you make (obviously... no racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise discriminatory/violent argument)

- If it wasn't clear already, tricks are shitty and will get you an auto L/low speaks if you go for it lol

Policy:

T:

I used to love to debate T, but now I don't really have an opinion. I will 100% vote on it, good T debating is a less common skill but substance debate is more fun.. do what you gotta do tho.

- I don't love super arbitrary (cough,T - Article 5, cough) interps and if need be, truth will tiebreak if it's way too messy or too close

- Do the standards work or there's probably no ballot, also do impact weighing pls. If negs interp is better for fairness but Aff's is better for topic education, why should I vote for one over the other?

- Clash is Cool

- Education is probably the most important standard

CP's:

I said it before and I'll say it again, I love a good counterplan with the right net benefit. I think:

- Agent CP's are great, have an actual solvency advocate for it

- Process CP's are fun, and especially on this topic, can really save you from questionable affs

- I presume judge kick unless told not to... the status quo should probably always be an option...

- Aff, impact out solvency deficits -- "the Department of State is structurally inept" doesn't tell me specifically why the DoS can't do the aff.

DA's:

DA's are the best! Besides maybe funny impact turns?? It will do you good to have a Case + DA or CP + DA 2NR in front of me. I'm looking for:

- Something that's not a generic camp/NATO/topic link -- should probably be somewhat specific

- Good overview/storytelling and framing in the block/2NR

- Turns case is and always will be the best argument

- Aff: straight turns on the DA are always fun

Politics is always great, Turkish Ptx DA best DA <33

Now, if you have a CP and a DA in your 2NR:

• Behind on the DA? You better have the CP solving most if not all of case, then the low risk of DA o/w (gotta frame it decently)

• Behind on the CP? You better be winning most of the DA, preferably to the point where only one piece is highly contested, and probably win a turns case to be able to outweigh case. OR:
• If you're winning a decent/reasonable amount of defense on case, Kick the CP -- Go for high risk of the Disad, case defense means Disad outweighs.

K's:

Personally, I don't go for K's very often, but I generally understand how they function, however:

- I'm all for neg condo, but slightly less so for K's. In general, K's usually contain more theoretical and/or rich literature, and resultantly they are more difficult to understand. I'm always willing to vote on theory if it's argued well, but especially true for two or more K's.

- I probably lean Aff on framework v K on a truth level, but I only evaluate based on the flow of course.

- Probably no mindset shifts or weird, 100% utopian advocacies without framework.

- Links should be contextualized to the Aff, not just "NATO is militaristic so inherently, any NATO usage = easy neg W"

- Pulling lines from their cards is even better and you'll be rewarded for it.

Condo:

Neg gets condo generally, win whichever is the better model of debate -- competing interps

Competing interps ^^^ that means I'll vote for condo bad if they read one condo, I literally do not care, if the neg is terrible at answering it then I view it like any other argument won in a round.

Don't be afraid to go for it

Condo is probably more convincing if the advocacies read are garbage/clearly there for a time skew (few ways this could be true) and if that can be articulated to me. Proving in-round abuse is very very helpful but not essential.

General Theory:

Debate's objective is to do the better arguing, if you think something is preventing argumentation, run theory and articulate it to me. For theory, I need these things:

- In-round abuse and/or possible future abuse

- Standards, education being the most important

- What to do about (reject the team, argument, use it as a reason to prefer etc...)

Specifically:

- ASPEC --- Neg

- PIC's/PIK's can go either way, but word PIC's/PIK's, unless out of the plantext, I tend to lean Aff

- Perf Con --- slightly Aff

- Utopian Fiat --- slightly Aff

- INTL-Fiat --- Neg

- 50 State Fiat --- slightly Aff

- Non-Gov --- slightly Neg depending on the context, agents are fine, groups of people (refer to K's section) are not

- Condo --- Neg

- Dispo --- Neg

- Delay and Process CP's --- slight Aff

- Agent CP's --- Neg

- New 2NC CP's --- strongly Aff

and in general,

- A theory 2NR/2AR should be 5 minutes of theory and nothing else

Speed:

- Spread through whatever you need to in your constructives

- Slow down and sign post your tags

- Slow down for analytics a little bit or at least put them in your doc

Speaks:

The most important thing for high speaks from me is organization of your arguments and knowing them well.

Clarity when you speak is important, make sure to open your mouth/annunciate

Speak with passion...

Good line by line/indicts will get you better speaks

All the technical things mentioned in my overview will give you better speaks

Good impact calc and overviews will get you better speaks

Personal Background: I debated four years in Wisconsin. I competed at NCFLs and NSDAs 4 times each. Most of my experience is in PF, Congress, and extemp but I have some experience with other events.

Include me on Email Chains please: rspors25@gmail.com

The vast majority of the rounds I have judged this year are policy rounds. That being said, don't spread in front of me. If you are spreading, share a speech doc, but just please don't. If you are running a K, T, or CP, you better be ready to explain it well (For example if you are running a T don't just rattle off the tags Education, Time abuse etc. Explain these arguments to me well). I tend to prefer 1 or 2 well reasoned arguments over 15 tags with no links or warrants.

TLDR: Have good ethics, Trust the Flow, Don't be a jerk.

Policy:

If you have received a blast and I am your policy judge, please know my experience is in PF/LD in a very traditional district. A fairly low level of Speed is okay but if I can't hear you I can't flow you. I will keep a flow and I will vote on the flow. If you are running a theory or a K it will take work to convince me but I am not against these types of arguments. Topicality or Framework arguments are things I am far more familiar with and I also tend to find them more relevant to the round than other theory arguments. In essence, convince me that your plan would work, and is the best solution. If you are the neg, Convince me they are wrong.

PF: Constructive: Speed is fine as long as you are clear. If you are unclear I will stop flowing and if it isn't on my flow it isn't on my ballot. I competed in a very traditional district so that is what I am most familiar with. If you are running some sort of progressive debate, make it a strong case. I think progressive arguments are overused in PF. If you are running something weird, explain it well and convince me. I think debate is ultimately an event based in convincing your opponents and judge. Convince me your argument isn't so weird.

Rebuttal: I want a line by line. 2nd rebuttal should include responses to 1st rebuttal otherwise it is dropped. That being said, don't be toxic and attempt to spread people out of rounds by arguing you should win the round based on a dropped third subpoint on your sixth response to their observation. Win the round via solid argumentation not some trick.

Summary: Summary is the hardest speech in a round. As a general rule, if something isn't in your summary it better not be in your final focus. Summary is a speech for crystalizing your arguments into something that can be used in your final focus and weighing. PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WEIGH. If you don't weigh, you make me weigh. You will be sad because I may not weigh your voters favorably, I will be sad because you made me do more work. Don't make everyone sad. Weigh! Also don't just say "we win on timeframe and scope and yada yada yada" I can do that. Tell me why, under the established framework you are winning in a way that means you must win the round. If you want to use all those fancy weighing words, don't just shout the buzzwords at me. Tell me why I should be deciding the round in terms of timeframe, magnitude etc.

Final Focus: Give me the voters. Tell me why you're winning the important points of the round and tell me why that means you're winning the round. The final focus is not "Rebuttal: Reprise" (nor is the summary for that matter). Please do not just word vomit every card your side read the whole round. Tell me why you won.

LD:

Values and Criterions are important. Treat them like they are important. Whichever value wins out is how I am going to weigh the round. Make your arguments in terms of the values and weigh under the criteria.

Lincoln Douglas is a debate of values and morals. Keep that in mind.

Progressive debate is fine just make it make sense.

Everything I said above about speed, argumentation and weighing remains true for LD.

Congress:

1. This event is called congressional DEBATE, not congressional speech giving. Use your speech times to advance an argument, to directly clash with other speakers, and to persuade the audience to your side. That being said while I do want a well-reasoned debate, you are also essentially cosplaying as senators so there is some room for theatrics and if done well, this can add to your speech. A boring speech is not very persuasive.
2. SPEED! Speed does not belong in this event whatsoever. You are senators persuading the body to vote one way or another on a bill not policy debaters.
3. I would rather you give no speech at all than a repetitive, pre-written speech that takes time from other debaters who want to bring up new points.
4. Questioning periods, points, and motions weigh heavily on my ballot. Use these to your advantage. Answering questions well is HUGE for me. Effective use of parli pro is impressive to see, but incorrect use is a big disadvantage.
5. I will rank the PO as we are instructed to do. If you are an excellent PO you are likely in the running for the top spot in my rankings. If you are a poor PO you will likely find yourself near the bottom. Being a good PO is about running a fair and efficient chamber. I want that chamber to run like a well oiled machine.
6. Evidence, Follow the same ethics and evidence things I have stated below.

General Things for Everyone:

The Flow: In this round the flow is going to be king. If I can't understand you I can't flow you and if it isn't on my flow it isn't on my ballot.

Critique: I will disclose if they let me. I will give a oral critique if they let me. Everything will be on the ballot. I know how valuable that feedback is to coaches and competitors alike. If you are unhappy with my oral critique, look to my ballot for more information. If you have any questions, ask them. I am more than happy to give more advice/feedback. If you are just postrounding trying to argue about my decision. Don't, that's annoying.

Evidence Ethics:IMPORTANT There is nothing that irritates me more than shoddy evidence standards. This is an educational activity and if there is a card to which the content is in question it is possible I will call for said card. Be prepared. I want to be included in your email chains (rspors25@gmail.com).

Cross: Don't be abusive. Be assertive. I think cross is one of the most informative parts of a debate round. I will be actively listening but not actively flowing. If something is conceded in cross, it is conceded. That being said, it still needs to be brought up in speeches to make my ballot. If something important happens during cross, explicitly tell me "Judge write that down" I will but then I will expect you to elaborate in a speech.

Speaker points: I will probably be pretty generous with speaks. If you are racist, homophobic, sexist, Antisemitic, or anything else bad, expect the speaks to reflect that. Cross is a really good way to impress me and show me that you are a 30 pt speaker.

About me:

I am currently a student at University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, majoring in Information Science and Technology.

I debated Policy Debate for Ronald Reagan High School for 4 years (2017-2021).

Current Assistant Director for Ronald Reagan Debate Team (2021-present)

Please put me on the e-mail chain<3 : nickdebate12@gmail.com

Paradigm:

I believe in tech over truth, making sure that you respond to all arguments on the table. Typically, I am more K sided in understanding than policy. I think policy args when done in large successions can get draining and uneducational. I LOVE to see a good k debate round with an interesting alt and clash coming from the aff team. Though, when it comes to technicality, I often vote on policy args (DAs, Ts, CPs) when they are not responded well enough.

Make sure you are respectful toward your partner, the debaters you are competing against and the judge. More importantly, please be respectful towards the topics and concepts you bring up/go against. The beauty of Policy Debate is the opportunity teams get to address current social issues and personal experiences. Please maintain a level of respect when addressing them. Disrespect can and WILL negatively affect your speaker points.