My Name is Ravi Boggavarapu and i request to use my first name for addressing . And use my emailID: rfocus2020@gmail.com for sending cards.

Basic Rules:

Affirmative Constructive Speech 8 minutes
Negative Cross Examines Affirmative 3 minutes
Negative Constructive Speech 8 minutes
Affirmative Cross Examines Negative 3 minutes
Affirmative Constructive Speech 8 minutes
Negative Cross Examines Affirmative 3 minutes
Negative Constructive Speech 8 minutes
Affirmative Cross Examines Negative 3 minutes
Negative Rebuttal 5 minutes
Affirmative Rebuttal 5 minutes
Negative Rebuttal 5 minutes
Affirmative Rebuttal 5 minutes
Prep time 8 minutes per team

Hi there! :) I am currently a third year debater at Woodward Academy!

Yes! please include me in the email chain -- 25kbrown@woodward.edu

A few things I like to see from debaters!

1. Utilizing CX. CX is your opportunity to jab at the other team, poke holes in their arguments, ask for clarification, and give me reasons to rethink particular arguments. Please take the time to think about how you can set up your arguments and Strat.
2. BE NICE!! yes debate is competitive but there is a such thing as "friendly competition." So please, be nice and kind toward your opponents.
3. Try giving rebuttal speeches off the flow! I love to see debator's challenge themselves by debating off the flow while still being clear and effective. This raises speaks through the roof!
4. Please invite clash and in depth arguments. It's going to be very hard for me to vote for you, if I don't understand your argument or if its not fleshed out. Prove it to me! Give me evidence based reason why I should vote for you!
5. Lastly, HAVE FUN! :) let loose, and use these opportunities to learn and grow as debators.

Hello: I am a brand new parent judge! Please be clear when speaking and clarify new terms. When judging debate, I look for how you articulate your arguments, how you present counter-arguments and overall how passionate you are about defending your side.
I prefer quality over quantity when hearing contentions.

I believe good debate skills are not just about speaking a lot, but being a good listener is also important.

I appreciate your patience and wish best of luck to both teams!

Director of Debate at Alpharetta High School where I also teach AP US Government & Politics (2013- present)

Former grad assistant at Vanderbilt (2012-2013)

Debated (badly) at Emory (2007-2011).

Please add me to the email chain: laurenivey318@gmail.com

Top-level, I really love debate and am honored to be judging your debate. I promise to try my best to judge the round fairly, and I hope the notes below help you. Most of the below notes are just some general predispositions/ thoughts. I firmly believe that debaters should control the debate space and will do my best to evaluate the round in front of me, regardless of if you adapt to these preferences or not.

I flow on paper and definitely need pen time; I've tried to flow on the computer and it just doesn't work for me.

Counterplans- I like a good counterplan debate. I generally think conditionality is good, and is more justified against new affirmatives. PICs, Process CPs, Uniqueness CPs, Multiplank CPs, Advantage CPs etc. are all fine. On consult counterplans, and other counterplans that are not textually and functionally competitive, I tend to lean aff on CP theory. All CPs are better with a solvency advocate. If the negative reads a CP, presumption shifts affirmative, and the negative needs to be winning a decent risk of the net benefit for me to vote negative. I am probably not the greatest person for counterplan competition debates.

Disads- The more specific, the better. Yes, you can read your generic DAs but I love when teams have specific politix scenarios or other specific DAs that show careful research and tournament prep. If there are a lot of links being read on a DA, I tend to default to the team that is controlling uniqueness.

Topicality- I find T debates sometimes difficult to evaluate because they sometimes seem to require a substantial amount of judge intervention. A tool that I think is really under utilized in T debates is the caselist/ discussion of what affs are/ are not allowed under your interpretation. Try hard to close the loop for me at the end of the 2nr/ 2ar about why your vision of the topic is preferable. Be sure to really discuss the impacts of your standards in a T debate.

Framework- Framework is a complicated question for me. On a truth level, I think people should read a plan text, and I exclusively read plan texts when I was a debater. However, I'll vote for whoever wins the debate, whether you read a topical plan text or not, and frequently vote for teams that don't read a plan text; in fact, my voting record is better for teams reading planless affirmatives than it is for teams going for FW. However, I also think this is because teams that don't defend a plan are typically much better at defending their advocacy than neg teams are at going for FW. I tend to think affs should at least be in the direction of the topic; I'm fairly sympathetic to the "you explode limits 2nr" if your aff is about something else. Put another way, if your aff is not at least somewhat related to the topic area it's going to be harder to get my ballot. I do think fairness is a terminal impact because I don't know what an alternative way to evaluate the debate would be but I can be persuaded otherwise.

Kritiks- I am more familiar with more common Ks such as security or cap than I am with high theory arguments like Baudrillard. You can still read less common or high theory Ks in front of me, but you should probably explain them more. I tend to think the alternative is one of the weakest parts of the Kritik and that most negative teams do not do enough work explaining how the Kritik functions.

Misc-If both teams agree that topicality will not be read in the debate, and that is communicated to me prior to the start of the round, any mutually agreed previous year's topic is on the table. I will also bump speaks +0.5 for choosing this option as long as an effort is made by both teams. I am strongly in the camp of tech over truth.

I am unlikely to vote on disclose your prefs, wipeout, spark, or anything else I would consider morally repugnant. I also don't think debate should be a question of who is a good person. While I think you should make good decisions out of round, I am not in the camp of "I will vote against you for bad decisions you made out of round" or allegations made in round about out of round behavior. But, I have voted against teams or substantially lowered speaks for making the round a hostile learning environment and think it is my job as a judge and educator to make the round a safe space.

Good luck! Feel free to email me with any questions.

I am a former debater for Alpharetta Highschool (2012-2016). I was a 2N

email - sachin.kv.98@gmail.com add me to the email chain but know that I will not be following along the document during the speeches and only am going to look at the doc after the round if I need to.

In terms of which arguments to read in front of me, you should just do you. I do have some predispositions which are outlined below. i do tend to lean policy, but can easily be convinced otherwise and have voted more for kritiks than I thought I would in the past.

Topicality - I think that T debates can easily get messy but enjoy a good T debate when it is impacted well on both sides. Fairness, education, and deliberation arent impacts by themselves and you need to explain why each of these are important. Topic size, breadth and depth are also not impacts, they are internal links to deliberation and education.

Kritiks - I usually find myself voting for the team that talks about the aff more. This means that links need to be contextualized to the aff and the turns case arguments should talk about the aff as well. This applies for K's like antiblackness and meta weird K's. I am not familiar with a lot of the literature besides cap. security, and other basic K's, so talking about the aff and explaining the link is especially important if you like to read these arguments.

Framework - Make sure to explain what the negative's vision of debate would look like and why that would be bad and viceversa for the aff. Like on Topicality, limits and grounds are internal links to deliberation and education. But why are deliberation and education important? I tend to lean Neg on framework vs non-traditional affs, but can easily be convinced otherwise.

DA's & Case - love a good ptx vs case throwdown. Make sure to do clear impact comparison. DA's that access the internal links to the aff area awesome and vice versa for affs. impact calculus is good. Carded turns case args are important.

CP's & Conditionality - Really like specific counterplans that are based off of the other teams evidence. Even though i was a 2n, i tend to lean Aff on competition especially with process counterplans. I really like creative and multiplank counterplans. I believe conditionality should be debated like any other T debate. Explain the internal links and use your counter interpretation to solve the other sides offense.

- Tech > truth

- I like jokes

- I will not under any circumstance vote for morally repugnant arguments such as racism good or death/suicide good.

Sophia Kaye - she/her

Woodward '24

add me to the email chain please - 24skaye@woodward.edu

my inspo comes from my coaches Maggie Berthiaume and Bill Batterman (feel free to look at their paradigms as well :)

background

hey everyone!

i'm Sophia, i have been debating for 6 years and attended Georgetown debate camp my sophomore year and UMich debate camp my junior year and senior year.

because of my years of experience, i am pretty knowledgeable about debate. that being said, you still need to explain your arguments fully so i can evaluate them.

i might seem like I'm in a bad mood but it's either because i didn't get any sleep or i haven't eaten (it's not bc of yall)

remember that if you don't send your analytics not only will your opponents not see them I won't either

even though i go to Woodward i lowkey really like weird k's but ofc policy also slays

fav args : consult India cp, abolition k (from cjr year), condo, and i LOVE LOVE LOVE the set col k

speaking/performance

please do not say i am starting on my first word (what else would you start with?)

TECH >>>>> TRUTH. i think that true arguments are alot easier to debate and win tho. will i vote on the obscure theory you hid on case the other team dropped? maybe but i will be frowning heavily and your speaker points will probably be lowered. i like theory (like condo) debates but i love substantial debates.

clarity > speed (always, always, always) - DON'T CLIP!!

for cards go ahead and speak as fast as you want, but be clear!

i give pretty high speaker points. no 30's (future toc and ndt winner or you memorize the entire 1AC and look at me or ur opponents while spreading it and not clipping, i would probably cry)

extra/basic things

if you feel uncomfortable debating the team that is in front of you for any reason shoot me an email immediately. please tell me before the debate so i can work things out with tab and see what i can do to help.

ALWAYS respect your peers, i do not want to see any kind of hostility toward the opposing team. you need to be a team player and show good sportsmanship. no racism, homophobia, transphobia, sexism, etc. will be tolerated. this will result in an auto L and a meeting with your coach.

don't steal prep because i will say something, you know better. tech issues always happen, don't stress about it :)

neg terror - i like it but as aff you should not let the neg get away w the stuff they get away with.

PLS PLS PLS PLS CALL ME SOPHIA NOT JUDGE

i often make faces during rounds (ignore them)

if i don't have my camera on (and we're not in prep time), you can assume i'm not there. always ask everyone including me if they are ready

ev comparison and quality ev is so important

if i can't flow u its not an argument.

no warrants = no argument

judge instruction has a HUGE impact on me (i want you to tell me how to write my ballot)

cx

please be respectful during cross

look at me during cross and not to your opponents

i like cx questions that will get straight to the point. i do allow tag-teaming to a certain extent, i still have to hear you speak so i can give you speaker points

no rants please

"what is fiat" gives me the shivers especially if it's a good team. you know what fiat is.

flowing/speech docs

always always give a road map before a speech

give answers in order and preferably number them

send out word docs if you can!

please organize your speech docs (example: if u say ur going on to the k only read cards/analytics for the k)

anything other then yellow, blue, or green highlighting upsets me extremely

rebuttals

i'm a 2a so ik the lying strats in rebuttals :) (basically if they didn't drop it don't say they did i flow!!!)

please go slower on analytics if you can, that way i can flow all the arguments and listen so it's easier for me to get all of your arguments in.

all args

HUGE FAN OF SMART NEG BLOCK SPLITS AND STRATS IN GENERAL (I LOVE ABSTRACT ONES)

case - i am a huge case debater so in-depth clash on case makes me happy

t - don't run unless it's an actual violation, provide a case list that meets ur interp. i'm big on t-usfg against k's i think it's the best strat.

cp - i love cps. smart adv cps have my heart. read the text slowly so i can fully understand the plan. explain why the cp solves the affs impacts better. i feel like i normally judge kick, but i will be even more inclined to do so if you tell me to or don't tell me to.

da - has to link to the aff. explain impacts, i love impact calc. i like politics a lot but (and ik this is hard) you have to have updated uq. if you don't, don't go for it in the block.

theory - i love theory so much (esp condo). if you're going for theory it has to be the ENTIRE 2NR/2AR. i'm more neg leaning on everything but condo.

k - i love k's. explain how it operates practically. i'll weigh the aff unless u tell me not to (u gotta win that tho). explain the alt really well. i LOVE when the k specifically links to the aff. explanation > evidence

k aff's - i don't want to wait until the 2AR for the k to suddenly make sense. i rlly like k aff debates but i'm honestly not the best w performance and abstract k aff's but ik "basic" k's (fem ir, cap, set col etc.)

impact turns - i love a good impact turn. i'm down for any args (i'll listen to the abstract ones like wipeout and spark won't guarantee i will vote for them tho). i believe that war is bad, all forms of discrimination is bad, and all form of suffering is bad so don't try to tell me they are good.

THANKS FOR READING YALL!

p.s. if you say ggs i will laugh

ctrl + f "Planless Affs v. T", “Policy Aff v. T”, "Policy Aff v. CP/DA", "Policy Aff v. K", or "K v. K" for relevant sections

Cambridge '20

Georgia '23 (https://comm.uga.edu/debate/recrutiment or email jstupek8@gmail.com) Go Debate Dawgs!

they/them. ask your opponents what pronouns they prefer before the round and stick to them. pls call me jack or big dawg not judge

jackmdebate@gmail.com - please have the 1ac sent by the round start time.

mc hammer reads philosophy, you should too

i am autistic, don't read into my facial expressions as a reliable predictor of the ballot. apologies in advance for any confusion

IF YOU READ GRAPHIC DESCRIPTIONS OF VIOLENCE, INCLUDE A TRIGGER WARNING AND HAVE A VERSION OF THE CARDS OMITTING THE GRAPHIC DETAILS READY IF SOMEONE INDICATES IT'S AN ISSUE. I DON'T WANT ANYONE TO HAVE TRAUMATIC FLASHBACKS BECAUSE YOU WERE TOO LAZY TO TYPE OUT A SENTENCE ON THE WIKI/AT THE TOP OF THE DOC.

*i have hearing difficulties, please either send the doc you're reading from or SLOW DOWN. i.e. you probably don't need to send your T-USfg 2NC analytics but make sure you're reading them at a speed that people that don't have the exact blocks you're looking at in front of them can still understand

**LD/PF - i only competed in policy and i'm unfortunately unfamiliar with the particular nuances of LD/PF debate so i am more likely to vote for substantive arguments than procedurals that rely on an understanding of LD/PF debate norms.

Top Level

- debate is too serious. i enjoy fun rounds, i greatly appreciate jokes. kindness is underrated - opponents are (most likely) not your enemy but rather fellow participants in an extracurricular activity who have decided to spend their weekend debating with you instead of doing literally anything else. please treat them that way.

- you get three perms per arg. new 1AR articulation of the perm warrants new 2NR responses.

- i am uncomfortable with being asked to adjudicate things that occurred outside of the round. (note: i consider the round to start when the pairing comes out, so disclosure theory etc. are still fair game i just have the same institutional (lack of) capability to handle things like Title IX violations as you). i take ethics violations very seriously. if you believe your opponents have behaved in a manner inconsistent with ethical participation in this activity, let me know and i'll contact tab instead of starting the round.

- racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, anything that makes the round unsafe is a quick way to earn an instant L and zero speaker points. i will not hesitate to intervene.

- speaker points: my range is generally high-27s to mid-29s. i would probably be considered a point fairy but occasionally it goes the opposite way so warning you in advance. making and executing strategic decisions in rebuttals is the best way to get higher speaks in front of me. i reward taking risks. while i try to hold the line on new args, most judges are inherently suckers for a lying 2A. contextualizing your arguments to the other side’s will earn you more points than just spreading through a K or CP explanation written by coaches four years ago devoid of context or specificity. i.e. "CP solves advantage 1 because [warrant], solves advantage 2 because [warrant]" as opposed to "CP solves entire topic because [warrant]" or "K solves our links and case because [warrant]" and not "THEY DROPPED THE ALT (they probably didn't if we're being honest), WE WIN BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THAT'S JUST HOW DEBATE WORKS I GUESS".

Scale based on my immediate reaction after the speeches:

30 - Perfect. I do not want anyone I coach to hit you in elim rounds because it's gg.

29.9-29.5 - Woah. You're almost done! The summit is near and you'll be there with a few more practice speeches.

29.4-29 - Yo that was fire. Y'all did your thing and executed well. Good job!

28.9-28.5 - Nice!

28.4-28 - Pretty Good.

27.9-27.5 - Needs some work.

<27.5 - If I've given you this, you know what you did.

- the roughly two hours that i am in the room are your time. if you want to post-round me, go for it (although once i submit the ballot there's nothing i can do to change the decision) but please be courteous regarding your opponents' desires and make sure any more immediate concerns they may have have been resolved before we get into it

- read whatever you want. although i personally lean in certain directions on common debate args, i try to check as many biases as possible at the door and base my decisions on the actual debating done. i want to limit judge intervention as much as possible so comparison and telling me how i should resolve the debate is very important. if i don't have judge instruction coming out of the 2XR, i intervene to resolve the round the best i can. condo is probably the arg you are least likely to win in front of me but i'll vote for it if it's mishandled

- the status quo is always a logical option unless you tell me it isn't

- 2xr should start with: "[Our arg] outweighs [their arg] because"

- dropped args are true, it's up to you to make that matter though

- rather than tell you what i think about specific issues, i think it may be more helpful to disclose how i come to decisions. in the absence of a clear dub for either team, i evaluate the flow. if i can't come to a decision based purely on my flow and memory of the round, i read the ev for each arg and decide whether the cards support the args that are being made as well as which team has better ev for each specific arg. if i still can't come to a decision based on reading cards, i'll reconstruct the debate and necessarily fill in gaps for both sides based on my understanding of the best version of each team's args. YOU DO NOT WANT THIS. there is a non-zero probability that your cards are not as good as you think and potentially a very large probability that filling in the gaps works out better for the other team. to avoid this, DO GOOD COMPARISON. compare ev quality, risk of impact scenarios, EVERYTHING. i understand how frustrating it is when you catch an L after a super close debate because it feels like the judge did slightly more work for the other side. i do not want this for you. you do not want this for you. work with me and you'll probably be much happier with the result. in the absence of judge instruction, i will intervene as necessary to resolve the round.

Planless Affs v. T

- planless affs typically beat T in front of me with nuanced impact turns or a C/I based on counter-definitions of words in the resolution with a DA. i am not a good judge for C/Is that aren’t based in definitions of words in the rez as i am typically persuaded by the 2NR argument that it’s arbitrary and self-serving (which is irrelevant/actually good if you go for the impact turn to T). i'm most persuaded by fairness and clash as impacts to T. TVAs are defense, i won't vote on that alone so make sure you have offense against the aff's model (even if it's just that the TVA is good and the aff's model precludes reading it). i believe that procedural fairness is a terminal impact although i can be persuaded that it’s only an i/l if you make the arg

- i will vote on presumption if the neg proves that the aff just results in the squo

- i went double 2s most of my debate career. my favorite neg rounds in college were 2NC T/1NR Case but i read planless affs my senior year and prepped against T so i think i'm pretty 50/50 in these debates when equally debated

Policy Aff v. CP/DA

- affs typically beat the CP/DA strategy in front of me by either winning a solvency deficit to the CP that outweighs the DA or proving that the CP is not competitive. I will vote on zero risk of the DA but only if there's offense against the CP.

- probably a better judge for theory than most against CPs. i default to believing that CPs must be textually and functionally competitive but can be convinced otherwise absent aff warranted argumentation

- note for soft-left/K affs with a plan - although i am convinced by framing that says we should prioritize structural violence or reject util/extinction logic, you're not going to win on that alone if the neg has a CP that resolves the aff's impacts especially if the neg is winning that i should view CP solvency through sufficiency framing

Policy Aff v. T

- i am a grammar nerd, args that are based on grammatically incorrect definitions are unlikely to win in front of me i.e. i can't vote for "United States" is an adjective because that's wrong

- models are important

- i tend to do the most intervention in these debates. absent a 2NR/2AR that completely writes my ballot, i find myself resolving the round by going through my flow and the docs and reconstructing the debate with the best version of both sides' arguments.

Policy Aff v. K

- 2AR should be either fwk + case outweighs/offense OR fwk + perm + no link/alt fails. if the negative wins framework but the affirmative wins that the aff is a good idea it likely means that the aff's knowledge production is good which often solves the link.

- specificity is the most important thing is these debates. well-warranted analytics contextualized to your argument as well as the other team's will get you further than shotgunning cards with no explanation.

- if your 1AR/2AR framework explanation is entirely "you link, you lose bad" but they're going for links that have uniqueness you are probably going to lose.

- the vast majority of my college debate rounds involved cap sustainability debates so i am very familiar with the args made and ev read by both sides. although i personally believe that the cap bad cards are better, i've always cut the cap good file and will vote happily for McAfee (despite my personal belief that the card is garbage) if the other side doesn't explain their offense adequately.

- i tend to be persuaded by smart turn args regarding trivialization or cruel optimism when links seem especially contrived i.e. it's bad to say a team reading a soft left aff on a reform vs. rev topic is literally enacting physical violence against marginalized peoples "outside of the debate space" (this isn't to say i'm not persuaded by those same link args as i have and will continue to vote for "you link you lose" logic when it's debated well despite 2As whining)

K v. K

- these are the rounds i judge the least (although i find them to be interesting and wish i got to judge more) so i don't have many predisposed biases aside from defaulting to allowing the aff to read perms until the neg convinces me they shouldn't get them.

- i (believe i) am familiar with most lit bases, although this might work against you. for example, i do not want to vote for you if you read ev by José Esteban Muñoz and then claim that he makes a blanket "utopia bad" arg because that's the literal opposite of everything the author has written.

- if the neg wins the alt solves the aff, i vote neg.

- 2N - do not forget that the squo is a logical option. i.e. if you're winning that the aff doesn't solve and that there's risk of a link (for example, that the aff would cause backlash against [x] people), the squo is probably better than the aff regardless of whether or not you're winning alt solvency.

Theory

- condo is a yes/no question (i am unlikely to vote for "the negative gets [x] number of conditional advocacies", you should instead say "the negative gets NO conditional advocacies or dispositional advocacies etc"). i default to weighing the aff against the alt/squo but can be convinced to disregard the theoretical implementation of either of those options. probably not going to convince me that the neg should not get to read a K wholesale but that's more logical than some of the fw interps i've seen so ????...

- you probably should not read conflicting interps in the 1NC. 2AC to "T-read a plan" and "fiat bad" is really easy which negates any of the time skew benefits

- fiat - both sides get it until someone tells me they don't or wtv idk no neg fiat never really made sense to me but i'd vote on it if it's mishandled

authors whose work i found enjoyable or informative in no particular order: sylvia wynter, nietzsche, toni morrison, enriqué dussel, dahlma llanos-figueroa, judith butler, karl marx, gilles deleuze, felix guattari, jafari s. allen, josé esteban muñoz, reinaldo arenas, nina maria lozano, vine deloria jr., guy hocquenghem, desiree c. bailey, langston hughes, manuel zapata olivella, nicholas guillén, josé martí, colin dayan, kit heyam, ishmael reed, maggie nelson, viola f. cordova

helpful notes on a few of these authors: http://www.protevi.com/

Alpharetta Debater - Class of 2026 - 1N/2A

here is my email, add me to ur chain - kamwbms25@gmail.com

email subjects should in context of the round and the tournament

DEFO tech over truth!

Speaker Points(Thanks Mr. Smiley) -

30- This individual would crush anyone. There is literally nothing that could have been done better, kudos to u!

29.8- This is the best speech that I expect to be made at any similar tournament this year. Based on this round, I expect this individual to win top speaker at top tournaments.

29.5- Based on this round, I expect this individual to win a top speaker award at this tournament, W stuff.

29.0- Based on this round, I expect this person to win a speaker award at this tournament, solid!

28.6- Based on this round, I expect this person to be in the top half of speakers at the tournament but not win a speaker award, room for improvement.

28.4- Based on this round, I expect this person to be in the bottom half of speakers at the tournament, ngl.

28.2- This person made a legitimate effort, but is one of the bottom speakers at the tournament, but keep learning!

28.0- This person showed little to no effort or understanding in the round.

Below a 28- This person did something extremely rude or disrespectful, I can't believe what happened.....

+0.1 if you make fun of any Alpharetta Debater - must be appropriate, of course ;)

+0.2 if you read my paradigms and/or ask a question/give a comment about it. LMK u read it!

General Thoughts/preferences -

Rookie/Novices - You should FLOW YOUR DEBATE!!! It will help you so much and I would hate picking and choosing between a bunch of dropped arguments :(

Normal stuff -

I will vote solely on things that happen IN the debate. condo is good, but if you can convince me otherwise, all power to you.

T -

Competing interps are better than reasonability

Impact comparison will be crucial

CPs -

I love these debates

Default to judge-kick

Neg-leaning on theory in CPs

solvency deficits need impacts tied to the advantages

DAs -

If you do good impact calc, then you will definitely be REWARDED

Impact turns are Ws

The more specific, the better. The more recent politics is, the better it is, it shows that you care and did recent research

K

Only read it if you know what it means, don't spit jargon. Make sure you know what your argument says/means, and also, the alt needs to be properly debated.

DONT DROP FRAMEWORK!

Personally, I believe people should read a plan text, but if you debate well, you can defo win.

Other stuff -

not voting for death good or anything absurd

stealing prep, clipping cards = auto L ( I will be lenient on rookies/inexperienced novices, warnings will be given, but do it twice, ur DONE!)

Being racist, sexist, violent, etc. in a way that is immediately and obviously hazardous to someone in the debate = L and 0. My role as educator > my role as any form of disciplinarian, so I will err on the side of letting stuff play nice.

if your rude during cross x---ie keep cutting people off, undermining their answers, or laughing---I will personally talk to ur coach, if it's extreme. BE RESPECTFUL!

Alpharetta '25

Alpharetta NM --- 2N/1A

Email

---aishnikkumbh@gmail.com

---email title should provide useful information. Ex. Tournament---Round #---Team A v. Team B.

TLDR

---I will not intervene unless my role of judge has been changed, or the round needs to be stopped due to (violence, threats, "cheating" or mass psychological violence being committed to the point the round can't end).

---debating and judging instruction matter far more than my personal preferences.---Every preference except the section under ethics can be changed by good debating.

---adopted from Eshan Momin, Anthony Trufanov, but NOT Lauren Ivey or Adam Smiley---[This just means my judging ideology/process is different from theirs]

---I am not ready when my camera is off.

---generally good: more cards, predictability, conditionality, judge kick.

Online Debate

---I prefer if everyone had their webcams on [though I understand if you cannot].

---debates already move slow, let's pick up the pace with technology.

---If my camera is off, assume I am away from my computer and don't start talking. If you start your speech while I am away from my computer you do not get to restart. That is on you.

---Here is how to successfully adjust to the online setting:

1. Inflect more when you are talking.

2. Put your face in the frame. Ideally, make it so you can see the judge.

3. Get a microphone, put it close to your face, talk into it, and make sure there is an unobstructed line between it and your mouth.

4. Talk one at a time.

Top Level

---tech > truth

---Unless my role as a judge is changed, I will attempt to make the least interventionary decision. This means:

1. I will identify the most important issues in the debate, decide on them first based on the debate, then work outward.

2. What is conceded is absolutely true, but will only have the implications that you say it has. Unless something is explicitly said, conceded, and extended, or is an obvious and necessary corollary of something that is said, conceded, and extended, I will attempt to resolve it, rather than assuming it.

3. I will intervene only if there is no non-interventionary decision.

4. I will attempt to minimize the scope of my intervention by simplifying the decision-making process. I would prefer to decide on fewer issues. If an issue seems hard to resolve without intervening, I will prioritize evaluating ballots that don't require resolving that issue. Example: a DA is heavily and messily contested, and may be straight turned, but the case would outweigh the DA even if the DA was 100% NEG. I will likely not attempt to resolve the straight turn as the ballot would go aff regardless. In complex debates, it would help you to instruct me on how I should do this, or instruct me not to do this if you would prefer that I resolve the debate a different way. You can also stop this from happening by debating in ways that don't require intervention to evaluate.

I am aware that this procedure can influence my assessment of substance. Given infinite decision time, I would not do this. However, decision times are shrinking. Post-round time is limited; minutes spent resolving complex or under-debated issues that are not outcome-determinative trade-off with the quality of my assessment of issues that are. I believe this process net reduces error costs.

---asking for what cards were read is CX

---flowing is great---if I can tell you are not at least sufficiently, it will not go so well.

---condo is good

K

---don't say buzzwords you can't explain logically---does not mean I will not hear these arguments but will need more explanation

---Long scripted overviews in the 2NC, 2NR then proceeding to do line by line by saying "That was in the overview" is horrendous. The standard for line-by-line doesn't decrease just because you are reading a K

---specific > backfile.

---have links to the plan/material consequences of the plan > links about reps

---do case debating

---good framework debating and links don't usually need an alternative

T

---competing interpretations > reasonability.

---predictability > debateability

---vagueness in any form is almost always not a voting issue but can implicate AFF solvency.

---better interpretations and more cards are always good

---impact comparison and evidence will heavily shape my decision.

CP

---DA/CP---love them, most comfortable with these debates [even the cheaty process cps]

---solvency deficits need impacts tied to the ADVs

---pretty NEG on most theory

DA

---im down for politics DAs in most variations---please explain what is going on for UQ

---impact turns are fun BUT plz make them coherent

---good impact calc will be rewarded and is always good

Ethics

---clipping cards = auto L

---"Being racist, sexist, violent, etc. in a way that is immediately and obviously hazardous to someone in the debate = L and 0. My role as educator > my role as any form of disciplinarian, so I will err on the side of letting stuff play out - i.e. if someone used gendered language and that gets brought up I will probably let the round happen and correct any ignorance after the fact. This ends when it begins to threaten the safety of round participants. Where that line is entirely up to me." – Truf.

Julia Pearson

Northview '24

juliaweipearson@gmail.com ; northviewcxspeechdocs@gmail.com

TL;DR:

If you have any questions, ask me before the round.

These are just my thoughts on debate. These won't interfere with the ballot.

If you tell me to read a piece of evidence, I'll read it - chances are I will read it anyway.

Policy/Case:

I would like to see some impact turn debates.

I think that impact calculus and framing the debate for the judge is amazing.

All debate is just impact calculus. Do it, do it well, and most likely you will win.

Topicality

i've started liking topicality debates more and more. i'm very familiar with t-usfg and t-oasdi.

CPs

Especially for novices, I think that you should read a cp with a solvency advocate. I'm open to voting on theory if you win that there's abuse. I think condo is overall good to test the AFF but i can be convinced otherwise in round. I think PICs are great unless you just read it as a time skew.

DAs

I'm not a fan of DA's either - again, don't change what you read for that. As far as politics goes, I think that you need good evidence and I definitely think that fiat solves the link is a true argument (doesn't mean i'll vote on it every time). DA's should have a uniqueness, link + IL, and impact card.

K- affs

interact with the resolution

Novices, if you debate a K-aff well, you will be rewarded.

Flipside, please don't debate a K-aff bad, its really annoying

Tell me what the aff does, have an advocacy. Or something to defend.

I'll vote on straight impact turns or a counterinterp

Also cool with K v. K debates

FW

procedural fairness is an impact not just an internal link

it can also be impact turned

impact comparison in the last speeches can go a long way.

read a TVA

K

Read whatever you want, and i'll go with the flow.

I'll vote on fiat bad, i'll also vote on links specific to the plan, debate it out well.

i’ve spent most of my time in debate with k’s

I don't lean either way on FW, if you win that your model of debate is better or if you win the ROJ/ROB, i'll evaluate that to the extent that you tell me to.

i default to you link you lose good unless you tell me otherwise. i don’t think a reps K needs an alt to win but i do think K's should win that the affirmative makes the status quo worst not describe the status quo and say the affirmative is part of it.

if you’re going to perm shot gun, be clear.

Familiarity:

1) Set Col, Generics (Security, Abolition), Psychoanalysis, Academy, White Reconstruction (or any Rodriguez)

2) Capitalism, Queer, eh some Baudrillard

3) Bataille, Afropess, Deleuze, Agamben, more POMO people

Theory/Procedurals

I like theory debates, I dislike generic theory debates that have no clash, but rather only use backfiles and blocks. I can be convinced that anything is a reason to reject the team if the other team just straight-up drops it or you've proven a large extent of in-round abuse. As far as procedurals go, I think A-SPEC is dumb and absent a large technical succession it will be hard to convince me to vote on it.

"RW," please and thank you. I use the "he" pronoun series.

Email: poole.ronald344@gmail.com - Please add me to the email chain

--

In general, I don't care what you do-- notwithstanding overt harm. I only wish for you to do whatever it is you do, well. You are an intellectual, so you will be held responsible for your performance and the scholarship you choose to forward. I'm a young judge/coach, yes, but I've been doing debate long enough to genuinely not be surprised by anything you could do in round. This is not an invitation to shenanigans. Let's all be fr.

I flow. I'll read speech docs, sure, but I flow... 'If I didn't flow it, it didn't happen' is my default. It's also a cautionary note to speed. You can turn yourself blue reading through your blocks so long as you don't expect me to understand you. You should slow down to a conversational pace when you're saying something I should flow. Otherwise, we'll just be looking at each other.

As for the technical aspects, everyone has equal access to competing interpretations. This is an important note on FW, T, the K... all of it. Folks should come prepared to defend their model of debate in the context of the opposing model presented by the opposing team. That's debate...

You can mark me as a 1-3 for pretty much all K & Theory debates (so long as you are absolutely sure you can out-tech your opponents). These debates-- K v. K, (some) performative debates, debates about debate-- have the potential to be super interesting and enriching for the game. They, most often, are not. Since I don't know that this can be helped entirely, my suggestion to you is to be clear and to make it make sense-- defend your assumptions to get access to your impacts. Given today's average K-team, that's the very least you could do for me to be engaged. Ultimately, I'll only consider smart, thorough offense on the flow-- y'know, the line-by-line. High theory stuff (à la Baudrillard, D&G, Bataille, and their others) is cool, but I tend to vote based on advocacy, i.e., through some definitive method which expands the (educator) framework I'm inclined to default to, not how well you can explain the ineffable in a 3 or 4-minute 2NR overview.

*Flag your analytics for me. Knowing what's you versus your authors is important for assigning speaks.

While I'm not a fan of all-out policy showdowns, since I (regrettably) end up sifting through massive speech docs, checking cards in the post-round, trust that I can keep up. On the DA, uniqueness and the link should be bracketed to tell a story. 'Uniqueness controls the link'-- I need to be clear on how uniqueness and the link interact... Another cautionary note to reading generic disad sequences, since DAs should be intrinsically related to the action of the Affirmative advocacy. I'm not so sanctimonious that I can't at least meet you half way (re: generic offense), but it is your responsibility to explain why your disad outweighs the advantages of the plan, convincingly. These thoughts similarly apply to how I vote on the CP. There should be some intrinsic connection between the plan and counterplan. There are minimum competitive thresholds (re: clarity, reasonability, functionality, and solvency) a CP should pass for me to even consider a "net benefit."

Speaker Point Ranges

28.1-28.3 = Needs Improvement

28.4-28.6 = Well Done

28.7-28.9 = Excellent

29.1-29.5 = Thoroughly Impressed

30 = Top Seed

Emory 26, Lawrence Free State 22

serenajosephinerupp@gmail.com

I am extremely tech > truth, which frames the rest of my thoughts about debate. Every time I judge this paradigm gets shorter because my predispositions are weak and irrelevant to the vast majority of debates.

Only non-negotiables:

1. No death good.

2. I won't vote on things that happen outside of the round. I'm 20 years old and so unqualified to mediate high schoolers' interpersonal conflicts.

T:

Absolutely love T debates when debaters do impact comparison. Competing interpretations > reasonability.

Truthfully, I think that predictable limits are the gold standard. Limits for the sake of limits are bad. The most legally precise definition isn't necessarily the best one for debate. That being said, just debate.

Ks:

I am comfortable judging Ks like cap, set col, antiblackness, security, etc. I know basically nothing about postmodernism/poststructuralism/high theory.

My predisposition is that teams should get to weigh their aff and that framework interps that entirely exclude Ks are unpersuasive.

K affs:

In a close T debate, I’m a bit better for the neg. This is an issue with experience more so than bias. I’ve basically always been on that side of the debate, so I can subconsciously fill in more gaps when both teams lack judge instruction. With that said, I am so flow-oriented that this rarely matters. I’m just going to vote for the team that wins more of their impact and explains why it outweighs. Fairness is an impact so long as you can explain it as one. I don’t have a strong preference between clash and fairness. If you’re neg, I’m on par better for T than the K because that’s where my experience lies.

DAs:

Obviously great. Smart turns case explanation = good speaks.

CPs:

Functional and textual competition is the gold standard. Default to judge kick.

Theory:

Conditionality is the only reason to reject the team. I'm a 2N and personally believe that condo is good, but quality of debating matters most. The aff needs to clearly explain an impact prior to the 2AR, or else I’m very sympathetic to the neg. Please do line by line.

Alpharetta 21. Emory 25.

Email chain: hargunn.sandhu03@gmail.com

Note:

I have ZERO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE. Explain acronyms and don't assume I know the limits/consensus on T.

General:

1. Tech > Truth. Better debating can easily overcome any of the preferences I have below. Judge instruction is key, especially in the final rebuttals.

2. Good debating requires quality evidence; strong logical explanation, and contextualization.

3. Online debate: please slow down and enunciate more than you normally would. Clarity should not be sacrificed for speed. Sending analytics might be useful in case internet cuts out. Try to keep your camera on at least during speeches and CX.

4. Racism, sexism, discrimination, or any other problematic actions will result in an L and the lowest speaks.

5. Clipping = L and lowest speaks. If you accuse someone of clipping you must have evidence, if you fail to prove they clipped then you get an L.

Specifics:

1. K:

a. K Affs: Clash > Fairness > Education/Skills. I'm more inclined to vote on t usfg/framework since I have mostly been on this side of the debate. Heg good, cap good, etc are all good 2nr options. However, I do think the aff can win with impact turns to the negative's model. Good K affs have a connection to the topic and a clear offense/defense mechanism in the 1AC.

b. Ks: Leaning towards aff gets to weigh the plan. Who cares if fiat isn't real. Specific links, pulling quotes from the 1AC, and in-depth explanation at every level are very important. Avoid large overviews. Turns case/root cause/alt solves > fw 2nrs. Extinction ow/impact turn > permutation 2ars.

2. CPs/DAs:

a. CPs: Cool. If undebated, I'll judge kick the CP. I might be a little more receptive to intrinsic perms than most.

b. DAs: Turns case is crucial. Politics DAs are good, spin is important. 0% risk is a thing, but hard to get to.

3. Theory:

a. Conditionality: Good. Worth noting that I think aff teams rarely capitalize on neg teams' poor defense of condo.

b. International CP and Ctrl + f word PICs are bad assuming even debating. Neg leaning on most other theory.

4. T - Assuming even debating, competing interps > reasonability. Precise, contextual evidence is key to winning these debates, for both the aff and the neg, but especially the aff if there's a substantial limits differential. Read cards. Both sides should be clashing over their visions of the topic and the impacts to it.

5. Case: Not a fan of framing pages. Impact Turns are fantastic. Good case debating is underutilized. Presumption is possible.

6. Misc:

- Speaks: I'm prolly a little above average giving them out. Specific strategies are good. It always helps to make the round fun. Quality evidence is good. If you opensource, let me know, + .1

- Insert perm texts

- I'm usually not expressive, and anything I do express is usually not your fault.

- Things I prolly won't vote on: ASPEC, death good, and out of round issues