Hi guys!

I've done Policy since 2022, I'm pretty well versed in all positions and I've debated this topic before, so I have a fair understanding of the research and uniqueness behind many arguments.

I am open to any arguments, so feel free to run whatever you feel comfortable with. I would like off-time road maps, and will comply with tournament rules regarding file sharing, CrossEx, and prep. Explain clearly why you deserve the ballot in this round, and be cautious that I will tend to lean tech over truth - I will take into consideration strategy. Theory is okay by me, but be clear about why it matters and link - vague arguments are not voters.

Although I'm open to flowing anything and will do my best to understand your arguments, please note that if critiques are used (on aff or neg), I expect them to be fully explained and the relevance to the position established. Clash is important, and I will value engagement over card dumping.

Please be polite and have good sportsmanship, I will not tolerate any harmful arguments, behavior, etc. Good luck everyone!

My email id for sharing any material related to debate: shreyaaithal07@gmail.com

Hello! I am a senior in highschool that has done a few public forum varsity tournaments. If you would like my email to ask any questions or for email chains, it is dalkhairy610@students.fairmontschools.com.

My judging style is tech>truth. I will be voting on which side has the best impact weigh in. I am fine with spreading, but you are required to send a speech doc to me and your opponents before you start the speech. Crossfire will not be flowed at all because I want you to use it to ask for clarifications and not just make fun of the other opponents arguments. I will also be keeping track of the time for everything, but I will be lenient on case speeches. No new evidence is allowed in summary or final focus. No running any theory or k against teams that are not highschool varsity. Lastly, understand that my rfd's are purely based on my opinion and that you should only take them as a learning experience. I do also plan on disclosing rfd's at the end of the round.

Have fun!

Im Isabel Chang (she/her). I did OCDL for 2 years. I do pf now this is my 2nd year.
I've debated with Modernbrain and now I'm a freshmen at Fairmont Prep.

In round: im good with anything

How I vote:

tech ------x------------------ truth

Links are more important than impacts.

Contention debate > fw debate

For impacts probability and timeframe of impacts over their magnitude and scope.

Weighing on the prereq and weighing doesn't just entail saying why your link/impact is big. Tell me why it's comparatively greater than everything else in the round. Or comparatively has better links/warrants. Argument interaction is key.

i can send flows after round

Speaks: I try to give people 28-30 speaks but this is my advice: Enunciation, good pace, volume and BE KIND.

-song recommendation for an extra speaker point before the round starts

-if you steal more than 15 seconds prep time, speaks are capped at 27.

-30 speaks if no prep time

TLDR: tech over truth u do u

Disclosure: Use speech drop or email @roydebate2@gmail.com

Speaks ova:
Your starting speak for me is 27.5 lowest I'll give you is 25 and highest is 30


You can lose speaks if you abuse your opponent too much.

Prefs

PF: All arguments are fun more specific bellow; not exactly the best judge for trix and K's but I can handle it
Spreading: u do u
Trix: Line by line it please
K's: Cool ????
Theory/T: Love them favorite types of argument, cool with friv as well i dont think any theory is friv until disproven
FW: Nice and simple
Standing or sitting; I do not care if you sit or stand

Random stuff

Do not ask "can i have the first question" in cross if you're the 1ac or nc or its 25 speaks

Defense is not sticky

Extensions aren't the be all end all unless its a close debate, their purpose is to break clash not be a voter

30 speaks if ur not wearing formal clothing, can we like leave that in the past we are fr the only event that spams suits atp

Do not:

Too abusive: eg. if it's your opponent is a newer debater don't read 5 offs, spread, 3 t-shells and FW, just win by skill rather than being fugazi as hell

think im presuming 1st speaking team, I err neg unless given presumption args(heavily urge u to spend 3 seconds of ur speech reading one if its a close round u wouldn't believe how many good debates collpase down to that on 3 judge panels for the flay trust bruv)

this list will grow over time

Thats all, extra info below if u want

Here are some debaters that I like and agree with- refer to them if you want more info, i was taught debate by all of them to some extent and therefore share similar views. I consider these 3 quotes some of the best advice any debater can take.

Joseph Nahas

"If you want to dump responses on the flow, I respect that, but I HIGHLY SUGGEST that you don't spam under-warranted and blippy analytics. Conversely, I LOVE warranted, smart, and efficient analytics. Good analytics are underrated :)"

Martand Bhagavatula

"any argument introduced in rebuttal, for example, must be fully flushed out/warranted in the rebuttal speech. If something's under-warranted in rebuttal, and your opponents call you out for that, you can't go up in summary and say: "they say there's no warrant, but here's the warrant:" and explain it in detail for the first time. With that in mind, explanations should stay constant. They can't get more in-depth throughout the round, nor can they really be less in-depth, with the former essentially prompting the formulation of a new argument, and the latter hurting your odds of winning'"

Gabe Rusk

"Let me stress again... I think it is an intervention to look at speech doc during a speech if you cannot understand the speaker. This incentivizes 2,000 word cases. I will not look at the speech doc until after the speech to read evidence only if it is relevant to a discussion in the round. If I clear you twice it probably means I am not going to be able to effectively flow what you want."

I do PF - I flow. Before the round add me to the email chain. Debate is fun (don't make it sad) - also please ask me questions after the round about anything unclear or if you disagree with my decision. There is a difference between asking questions to be better for future rounds/tournaments and being a bad sport - if you're rude after the round I will switch my decision. I'll disclose unless the tournament has explicitly said not to.

General suggestions:

• You need to signpost every time (if you have questions about this, ask me before round). If you don't signpost I will probably be able to follow but I'm not going to be happy and it could effect my decision if the debate is kinda messy. I think signposting is more valuable than just giving a roadmap or the order before the speech.
• Offense and defense are equally important so frontline - from second rebuttal and on.
• I know you will have block-files, but come up with nuanced arguments and engage with your opponents.
• Truth > tech but you need to have evidence to back up everything you say.
• In summary and final focus, collapse, extend links warrants and impacts, frontline, and weigh.
• I think spreading, Ks, theory, and other prog args are overdone in PF and defeats the purpose of the event. If you do them I won't vote for you.
• Having framework is good, (you still need to weight though just because I prefer your framework, doesn't mean you automatically win) if it's not used, then I will be dependent on your comparative weighing. Do not make me weigh, but I will especially if one side has no impacts.
• Give trigger warnings for sensitive arguments to be respectful to everyone.

How to get high speaks:

• Be respectful during cross. Don't cut each other off, if you accidentally do, apologize and just let them finish.
• Cross is for questions, not time to restate your case and explain it unless explicitly asked.
• If your speeches (other than constructive and reading cards) is done without a pre written doc and done well, I will be really impressed and you could get a 30. Do not do this if you know you will speak better with written/typed out speeches.

If I judge any other debate I'll be a flay judge and obviously if your event requires/readily uses one of the things (ie.. spreading) that I said not to do, please do it for your event (aka don't conform your event to pf). Just know that I'm not familiar with all the terms so write my ballot for me.

Have fun!

good theory>substance>friv theory>traditional K's>trix>identity K's>non-T aff (but i’ll evaluate anything)

I do PF for Fairmont

Add me to the chain: ara.mehran5002@gmail.com & fairmontprepdebateteam@gmail.com

While I am receptive to K's, you need to do adequate research of your own. I've seen K's in PF work and not work because the speech times are so short. If it is stolen from a policy or LD wiki, I will be much less receptive. If you choose to run these arguments, run them well.

Feel free to post round i think it’s educational.

Someone please call a TKO

30 speaks if you win a staring contest in cross

hi there! i'm a junior at Northwood High School and serve as Northwood S&D's tournament coordinator. please include me on all email chains @ aishuram0774@gmail.com

LD/PF: you have to win off the flow to a certain extent but if you make a dumb argument (ex: nuclear war in PF when the topic is about a rather impactless US domestic issue) I'll judge you for that. if you are being abusive and bring up new arguments/responses in FF/summary, I will make a note. i would consider myself a flay judge because I do think persuasion plays a significant role in any debate. also, please don't impact to extinction. it ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

i will give you an RFD if I feel like I can make a decision right away. i do guarantee, however, that I will give you constructive feedback (verbally) and other things that you can take away from this experience to get better at debate.

LD ONLY: i enjoy listening to arguments with a framework of structural violence.

if you drop a taylor swift reference in your speech, auto 0.5 speaker points boost for you. i accept bribes in the form of venti iced pumpkin spice chai lattes with soy (jokes... but in all seriousness :)

Hi, I'm Willie!

Add me to the email chain: williedebates@gmail.com --- Label the chains something so I can go back and find it. Include the tournament and round number.

Above all, be kind!

1 --- Substance stuff:

Tech > Truth. I'm willing to vote off of any argument that is well argued. I've run PolCap disads, elections, riders, climate change preserves agriculture needed to prevent extinction, Elon Musk will get us to mars to save humanity with single use plastic, stock cases with nuance, extinction first framing, and many of my contentions end in extinction. I say this not to dictate what arguments you should run, it goes to say that you should run whatever you feel comfortable with. This being said, it's key that such link chains be nuanced and warranted. If your evidence can't answer who initiates a nuclear strike, where the strike hits, what's different about today that makes such escalation unique, etc --- then you might want to reevaluate your impact. The art of a nuanced internal link that analyzes key current events has seem to gone away much to my dismay. Please read good internal links and I will be much happier and inclined to vote for you! Failure to do so means I'll have low thresholds for responses to the argument. Simply pointing out a lack of coherent detail of the impact scenario would likely make me a little more hesitant to vote for it if that is what the round comes down to.

I vote off the flow. Conceded arguments are counted as true, but only the conceded parts. Don't abuse it to make it seem like the whole argument was dropped. The smarter thing to do in front of me is take this piece of conceded nuance and demonstrate how it takes out other responses put on the argument, outweighs other arguments, and even takes out other arguments. This is the beauty of technical debating in my view. If you win weighing and the argument is won, you win the round! Don't drop your opponent's arguments. Dropped arguments are extremely difficult to recover from and in the majority of cases if a team implicates their argument, it's game over. On the flip side, if an opponent drops one of your arguments, exploit that error.

Weigh, please. Weigh EVERY point of clash. Broadly, I need to know whose impacts are more important. I love a good link-in but they aren't enough unless you weigh your link-in against the original link. I love good pre-reqs and they will boost your odds of winning the impact calculus. Also, weigh contrasting claims. If one team argues that a plan causes wages to go up and another team argues that a plan causes wages to go down. I need to know how to break the clash. Does one team have a warrant that specifically applies to the status quo? Does one team's wage impact go global as opposed to domestic? I also love it when teams use evidence to compare clash. Tell me a flaw with your opponent's evidence and tell me why that matters as well as why such evidence flaws win you the clash. It goes without saying, that you have to win your offense that outweighs to actually win. As a disclaimer, I have a very high threshold for "try or die" weighing. Lately, teams seem to use try-or-die weighing when they can't frontline link/impact defense. Zero risk is a thing. Of course, it's not impossible to win try-or-die. If you go down this route you will have to do a very good job explaining how the defense is only mitigatory, but even then, if the other team has offense, I will be much more inclined to vote for them. Your weighing would have to prove how a small risk of your offense comes first.

The back-half debate should have full extensions of UQ, link, and impact of the argument you are going for. I massively prefer you go for one argument instead of all of them. On your opponent's case: please extend the card name, a warrant for your response, and an implication of why said fact or analysis takes out an argument. I like comparative analysis and weighing.

A good rebuttal to me has numbered responses and goes line by line. The best rebuttals are when rebuttal speeches tether each of their cards to a 1AC/1NC card and do the comparative as it goes along. Makes it easier to dictate clash and keeps my flow a little more organized. Please implicate your turns and show why they outweigh the original link or are more probable then the original link.

The split: 2nd rebuttal must frontline. I'd advise collapsing at this point. Please do a clean kick out and explain how the defense takes out the offensive turn. I will vote off of turns that are not kicked out of properly. I'll be lenient on extensions of the internal link since it's something both sides agree to. I guess this extends to impacts as well, but it will be an uphill battle if you aren't weighing your turn which probably requires an explanation. No need to extend your argument in rebuttals (only frontlining if you're 2nd)

Speed: For perspective, my rebuttals average 240 words per minute. However, I've gone up to 300 words per minute as well as flowed debaters on my team that go up to that speed regularly. I do think however, I did my best technical debates going 240/230 wpm as opposed to these blazing speeds. Instead of reading those 4 extra cards at max speed, slow down and make smart analytics to implicate your cards (see above) Please slow down on tags, cites, and analytics when spreading. If you're going to spread, send a doc to everyone. The doc is not an excuse to be unclear. I will only utilize the doc for flowing purposes under the rare circumstance I got distracted during your speech (ie. someone called me, I spilled something, etc)

Send full speech docs with all your cards (properly cut) in order as it makes the evidence exchange much easier. It'll boost your speaks

2 --- Progressive stuff

Theory: I read disclosure once and paraphrase once last year. I won the disc shell, lost the para shell. This should tell you I'm pretty mediocre when it comes to the theory world. Trigger warning theory should almost never be read in front of me unless it is graphic. I'd rather not judge a theory round. I'm far from the perfect judge for a theory round with several shells and moving parts. If y'all go down the theory route for some reason, then slow down as there is no tag or card that makes it easy for me to decipher. From a strategic standpoint, I'd avoid. In order to be fair to y'all, I have some strong opinions on common norms in debate. While I remain as tabula rasa as possible, I suspect I have innate cognitive biases that create higher thresholds to win certain arguments. This rarely applies to substance debate since I could care less about a lot of the topics we debate about, but it's hard for me to unlearn why I chose to practice certain norms in the debate space. I believe disclosure is good for the debate space. Disclosure to me should be full tags, cites, and highlighted text. I think paraphrasing is a bit icky and have rarely seen a paraphrased 1AC/1NC without at least some unintentional mischaracterization. I personally do round reports and think their good for making productive debates but I feel a lot less strongly about it compared to disc and para. Judge defaults are: No RVIs, Competing Interps > Reasonability, Spirit > Text. Judge defaults can be changed if debaters tell me to do so in round.

Kritiks: I've run a K once and hit a few K's but never won a single round. That should tell you I'm not the best judge for a K round. I will very likely make the wrong choice in a K round. You're more likely to win my ballot reading a friv theory shell (still very not ideal), normal theory shell (pretty not ideal), or substance (very ideal). If for some reason a K is still your best option, I did read the Buddhism Kritik once. Tell me what my ballot does now that I'm no longer in the hypothetical policymaking world and how voting for you is the best way to access said role of the ballot. Weighing will be very key. I think PF needs more work explaining alts. It's a lot of heavy rhetoric that may be fleshed out in an 8 minute policy 1NC, but can't be quite articulated in 4 minutes. Consider changing the wording of the alt to be understandable where each word well be expanded upon so I'm not left with an alt that is comprised of 40% words I do not know the meaning of.

Tricks: I don't have the willpower to ever judge tricks so no --- sorry.

3 --- Extra stuff

Time yourselves

I think presumption is a form of intervention. If there's no offense I will vote for whoever is winning the weighing debate. If that fails I look at who had better extensions, If it's still somehow even, I relent to begrudgingly presuming first.

Postrounding is fine but keep it chill

+0.1 speaks if you send the cards highlighted in green (not some gross variation of green it has to be the standard neon green)

Be kind.

I'm pretty facially expressive when judging. You'll see me nodding if I find an argument intuitive -- do with that as you will.

People that shape the way I view debate: Rohun Gupta, Kion Manesh, Gabe Rusk

4 --- For LD and Policy

You poor souls - I do PF --- never debated a policy/LD round in my life so you're going to have to give a LOT of judge instruction. Assume I don't know a single norm unique to your event.

If you do anything progressive then I will probably make the wrong decision and if I can't figure it out will probably just vote for the team that didn't introduce prog.

I understand Plans, CPs, Disads (sucker for a Riders DA or Politics DA), Advantages. I understand the Delay CP, Consult CP, States CP. Advantage CP is dope. If you are slow when reading the plan/CP text and explain how the advantage or disad is solved/avoided by the plan/CP, I can probably understand it.

Topicality is fine but I'm not sure a team should be dropped for T violations. Obviously, you can win that topicality should warrant a drop the debater but I have a high-ish bar to vote for this. This obviously does not apply if the entire aff/neg is nontopical