"The game of chess is like a sword fight. You must think first before you move. Toad style is immensely strong and immune to nearly any weapon. When properly used it's almost invincible." - Wu-Tang Clan 93'

| William Agustin | Damien High School '24 | Varsity Policy Debater |

Email: william06agustin@gmail.com

General Things

- Don't be mean to others; I get it's a debate and things might get heated, but don't resort to being hateful or rude. Be passionate and professional. I love to see debates where people seem to actually be enjoying what they do

- I'm generally a nice guy when it comes to speaker points. If you are decent, you'll be getting anywhere from a 28.0 - 29.0.

- I like jokes only if they are funny. I'll put a list of things I like and +0.2 speaks if you make a reference to any of those.

- Tech > Truth

- Feel free to ask me questions. I've spent all this time debating and I'd love to help anyone on their own debate journey. Don't feel a question is too dumb or stupid because trust me I've been there.

- Stephen Lewis owes me $5; Omar Darwish reminds me of the BFG except hostile.

- Do whatever you like, I've been through it all in terms of debate and can understand most things.

Update for the 2022-23 Season

- This topic makes me hate debate

Theory

- SPREAD CLEARLY! I am not a robot. If you miss parts of your theory or all of it and you decide to go for it, I will not hesitate to vote it down. This should be rare, however, as I am very used to spreading at this stage of my experience in debate.

- Explain the Violation and Interpretation. For conditionality, please don't just say "Condo is bad. *Lists XYZ Impacts*" but actually give me an interpretation of how many off cases are allowed and why your opponent's amount is abusive. Makes the debate so much easier for both of us. I haven't been exposed to much theory violations besides the top level, so make sure you say your interpretation and violation clearly.

- Clipping, Racial/ Derogatory Slurs, and extremely offensive or hateful language won't be tolerated and will result in either losing the round or severely low speaker points. I won't be a complete police officer and punish you if you skip maybe a line or two, paragraphs and more are an issue. In terms of clipping, I won't punish you unless the other team calls you out.

Topicality

- Love this argument by the way ONLY if debated right.

- Creative and smart internal links (ie Clash, Limits and Ground, Portable Skills, etc.) are very persuading to me BUT make sure the internal link makes sense and that your interpretation actually accesses that internal link. Always extend the terminal impact: Fairness or Education. An explanation of how fairness and education makes debate better is really great and persuasive.

Disadvantages

- Make sure to include all parts (Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, Impact)

- Impact Calculus is a must especially if you are going for it alone or as a Net Benefit

- Genuinely think generic disads are underutilized so don't hesitate to use them if you enjoy those args!

Counterplans

- In terms of theory on counterplans, generally I'm going to lean neg.

- Perms: If you want to have a perm as a legitimate strat in your 2AR/1AR, I like well explained perms, not just a blip then later extrapolated. Actually tell me what the world of the perm looks like and why it is net better than the counterplan other than "They aren't mutually exclusive". If you want to make a PDCP arg since you think it's just plan plus, make sure to actually explain that to me.

- ATTENTION NOVICES! Add a Net Benefit please :D A net benefit is a disadvantage that applies to the affirmative but not your counterplan. It's the only way it's actually competitive!

Kritik

- I enjoy and understand the Kritik. I had the pleasure of debating with the reincarnation of Jacques Lacan, Prevail De Rox, which gave me a new appreciation and understanding of the K. I am very familiar with common Kritiks (ie Capitalism K, Security K, Set Col K, etc) and other more advanced Kritiks but regardless of my knowledge I want the explanation all the same: clear.

- Link Analysis: In a round I went for Baudrillard, a wise judge told me the steps to good link analysis: 1) Explanation - Explain the link and don't just extend the warrants of the card, actually apply those warrants onto their case. It makes me very happy when you pull specific instances of their plan or solvency and compare it to your link. 2) Quoting Sources - Use specific lines from your link card, especially if it matches up well with your opponent's case. 3) Impacting - On top of extending your impact card's warrants, explain why the link leads to the impact. 4) Turns Case - Show how the links or your impact completely turn or at least outweigh case.

- Extend case in the 2NR if you are going for the K unless it totally turns case.

- Say judge kick, don't expect me to just do it.

- Perms on the Counterplan portion pretty much apply here: explain your perms basically.

Things About Me

- If you make a joke about a person named Roan Murphy I will give you +0.2

For Parliamentary:
- New to this form of debate - but I know enough to give a competent decision
- Don't drop arguments and make sure to extend your own
- Big picture explanation and answering the points will be rewarded
- Policy is just parliamentary but faster and with more jargon so I'll probably get it

Email: Jcarlson2026@damien-hs.edu

If you are running a K or a K aff then make sure to explain all parts of it or else I won't vote for it

I will vote on anything as long as your arguments are extended and explained well

Make sure to be clear and sign post well I will not go to the dock to flow something that I couldn't because of clarity

Don't be rude that will definitely dock your speaks

Tag team cx is fine for answering but not for asking -- more geared towards novices, if you're varsity do what you want (if you are constantly talking over your partner/opponent and being rude your speaks will suffer dramatically.)

If you have any questions about the debate email me

Hi! I am a lay judge.

I dislike spreading and value interacting with your opponent's arguments well.

Email: edeng25@damien-hs.edu

he/him

Policy debater for Damien, class of 25

Please don't be rude to your opponents before, during, or after the debate. Being rude will affect your speaker points and will result in a ballot for the other team for serious offenses.

Clipping violations need to be proven with a recording unless it was very obvious that the opposing team was clipping in their speech (ex. they took 5 seconds reading a card that was 2 pages long).

As a general note, read what you want, I don't have a strong opinion on any policy arguments.

I try to be tech over truth, but I won't vote on nonsense arguments unless completely dropped by the other team. This is especially true about novices hiding ASPEC under T violations. If you want to actually run ASPEC, make it a separate off. I will honesty allow new aff answers to hidden procedurals in novice since losing to hidden ASPEC is not a good learning experience.

Rehighlights should be read instead of inserted.

Please time your speeches yourself, I often forget to set a timer.

I am not the best at flowing, but I will not flow off the speech doc. I am okay with speed, but I won't be able to flow is the speech is too unclear for me. To help me with my flow, you should slow down on tags, and differentiate between the tag and the card itself. You can also try to pause for a second between arguments, to give me sufficient pen time to flow those arguments. Also, you should still add me to the email chain in case I need to read the cards if the debate is close.

As a general note, please give judge instruction, such as explaining why winning each argument would matter, or explaining why X argument does not matter in the larger debate. This would allow me to reach my decision faster and reduce the risk that I misunderstand your argument.

T:

I usually prefer Competing interps over Reasonability - especially on affs that don't seem that topical, but that issue can be debated out.

For the standard debate on T, doing impact calculus on the standards will make a big difference on how I should evaluate the interpretations, so you should do it.

CP:

Most CPs are probably theoretically good, and a reason to reject the argument at worst.

Condo is Ok. I will lean more towards the aff on condo in novice year. However, that does not mean I will always vote for condo.

Any permutation should be paired with some offense to make it more likely I vote on the perm. Even though presumption flips aff when a CP is read, a perm without any offense would mean any risk of the perm not solving the net benefit would mean I should vote neg.

Even though a specific CP to an aff is very good, a generic CP made specific through a good solvency card is also persuasive to me.

DA:

0% risk of a DA is possible to achieve, but it will probably be very hard to achieve it. This means there should be some other offense on why the DA is bad or the aff outweighs the DA.

Impact calculus on the impacts of the DA or aff also make it much easier to evaluate which impacts of the DA comes first. That means you should explain why your impact outweighs theirs.

K:

The argument I have the least experience with is the K, so make there is a good explanation of it for me to be comfortable voting for it, especially if the K has a high complexity to it. However, don't make your overview too long so that you never really answer the line-by-line.

On FW, you should give a bigger explanation on how your FW implicates the round, and how the role of the ballot or role of the judge calls for me to do.

K-Affs:

If you want to read a K-Aff in front of me, you need to explain what exactly the ballot does in order to make me vote for you. Also explain how your theory of power implicates the neg's arguments, do not assume I know what your theory of power is. For the neg, I am willing to vote for presumption, especially if I do not know what the ballot would do for the aff.

Other types of Debate:

I don't know much about other types of debate besides policy debate, so make sure to explain what each argument would do in terms of the round.

For LD, the only difference in my judging philosophy is that I would be more lenient towards the aff on condo due to the shorter speech times, but as before, that does not mean I will auto-vote for it. I have a very high threshold on voting for philosophical arguments in LD, try to engage the debate in another form.

For PF, I do not really know much about it, so please explain what winning each argument would mean for me.

For congress, I have zero experience with this type of debate. You should probably treat me as a lay/parent judge.

Feel free to ask me anything about my paradigm before the round starts.

Dylan Duarte(he/him/his)

Damien High School Class of 2026

I'm most educated in policy, so if you want to adapt to the ballot. Debating with in depth evidence analysis, argumentation with heavy judge instruction will do wonders.

Email: dduarte2026@damien-hs.edu

General Stuff, applicable for all forms of debate:

Eye contact, speaking fluently, and being able to speak without looking at your speech page is huge for me.

I will vote for the team who exhibits good persuasion skills and who can "sell" their idea to me. I will be available for questions before the round on clarification for my form of judging.

My email is open for any questions.

Tech>Truth

Be friendly and respectful before, during, and after round.

After Round: I will provide the winner of the debate + improvements on both sides.

All in all, just debate like you do with your other judges, and I will flow, and follow!

Hi, my name is Hayoung (pronounced Ha-young) and I have been debating in PF for 2 years, so I am not that good at debate myself, so please forgive me if I make mistakes.

Basic Rules:

• be respectful: i can't stress this enough, don't be rude, racist, sexist, or homophobic at any point
• don't cut people off during cross: this is apart of the respectful rule, but it's really important
• have fun: this isn't life or death, and no matter what, you should only think to learn and have fun in this round

Speaks:

• be confident in yourself; even if you don't know what you are talking about, fake it till you make it
• you're speaks start at 30, then I'll start taking them off as you make mistakes (if you make no mistakes then great!)
• +0.5 if you use the word kerfuffle

Public Forum

Overall:

• try not to spread too much
• have clear enunciation, speak clearly so I can understand
• signpost to tell me exactly what you are responding to, i won't flow it if I don't know where it is
• I'm mostly tech over truth, but I will also lean for truth if the opposition totally makes no sense (e.g. weird links to extinction)
• if there is a framework, you have to respond to it or at least link in (which means that you prove that you solve for the framework better)

Prep:

• don't be prep police unless they go over 30 seconds (e.g. going 4 seconds over time is not that big of a deal)
• reading cards does not take prep time, based on my experience; but if both sides agree that it does, then that's fine

Cross:

• ask for cards at the start or end of cross, don't waste a question on asking for a card
• have confidence, don't become timid because the other speaker is intimidating
• try to set up your rebuttal in cross

Case:

• I'm mostly tech over truth, but I will also lean for truth if the opposition totally makes no sense (e.g. weird links to extinction)
• I will probably not buy extreme impacts like extinction
• do NOT paraphrase evidence, I won't buy it
• frameworks are really helpful, but it's not required

Rebuttal:

• I love overviews, they explain the entire case as a whole
• collapse: if you know you can't win something, drop it (but remember to phrase it in a way that benefits you: "the most important contention in our case is _" over "we collapse on _ contention")
• group responses: don't keep cross applying responses from 2 seconds ago, group the argument and respond to it at once
• when you give me evidence and say that it refutes their evidence, warrant it, explain why. just throwing numbers out doesn't explain why I should prefer your evidence (you can phrase it exactly like this: "prefer our evidence because...")
• for blocks specifically, if they respond to some blocks but not others, I would prioritize just extending what they dropped rather than trying to argue (unless of course the refutations are incredibly important for the round)

• 2nd rebuttal specific:
• based on my experience, 2nd rebuttal has to frontline case
• please please PLEASE respond to turns (and non-uniques sometimes) on your case, they are like the most important
• try frontlining first then refuting because your offense is always more important than defense

Summary:

• PLEASE extend your case, including your link and specific impact; if you don't extend, I may not vote for your case
• ALSO extend the points you are going for, whether it's a block or frontline
• usually, you collapse a contention here if you know that it's not worth wasting time for
• DON'T GO FOR EVERYTHING; trust me, it won't work
• don't bring up new arguments (excludes 1st summary frontlines), I won't buy it
• generally, bringing up new evidence in summary is not a good idea
• weigh in summary, I might not consider final focus weighing too heavily; weighing should be comparative (e.g. "we outweigh on magnitude because our impact of # is greater than their impact of #")
• for frontlines specifically, if they drop some of their responses, you don't have to explain that they dropped it (unless it is important that they dropped it), just argue for what they haven't dropped
• implications are your friend; if you prove that something happens, implicate why that helps you gain the vote

• 1st summary specific:
• 1st summary frontlines case, and you can use cards
• manage your time well, since you have to both frontline and refute

Final Focus:

• at this point, you shouldn't be going line-by-line, you only have 2 minutes
• crucial parts of final focus is: extending case, extending the most crucial arguments / voting points, weighing
• anything else should be excluded
• do not bring up anything new, you can only extend what you have from summary (if not, I will not vote on it)

Anything Else

• assume I am blasting music through my headphones and have an IQ of a goldfish
• explain EVERYTHING; I do not understand K's, theories, etc.
• take your non-PF lingo elsewhere, I will not understand

Overall, have fun during your rounds and don't stress too much about it,

Hi all!

My name is Celine and I did PF for around 2 years.

**NON-PF SCROLL TO THE BOTTOM!!

behavioral:

• I absolutely do NOT condone any form of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. under ANY circumstance WHATSOEVER.
• Do NOT purposefully dominate cross. Each side should have the chance to ask one question at the BARE MINIMUM.
• Do NOT interrupt/talk over people. It's extremely rude and I'll physically frown at you if you do it.

In brief, please please PLEASE stay respectful and considerate of your opponents throughout the round. It is NEVER that deep and in the end, we're all here to learn and have fun :)

judging preferences:

• I'm fine with speed but please make sure not to full on spread (>250 wpm) for the sake of everyones sanity.
• Please SIGNPOST!!! (CLEARLY tell me what you're responding to on which side.) Off-time roadmaps are helpful
• I will 100% be listening to your cross, but if you want me to evaluate something said in cross, point it out to me in your speech or else I won't.
• Some judges don't require this but when I'm judging you, 2nd rebuttal should ALWAYS respond to/frontline responses read in 1st rebuttal. No exceptions.

do's (how to win my ballot):

• Give me CLEAR warranting on all of your arguments.(explain WHY and HOW your side (affirming/negating) sets off your impact)
• EXTEND EXTEND EXTEND ARGUMENTS!!! I won't vote on anything not extended to final focus. Even if your opponent drops an argument, if you want me to vote on it, you're expected to consistently include it in your speeches.
• Evidence indicts are my FAVORITEEE WHEN and ONLY WHEN executed/warranted properly. Never simply tell me evidence is "bad," "outdated," or "improper" without telling me WHY!!! (ex. "They give you evidence from 2018 saying X country and X country are on good terms-- but since then, they have had numerous new conflicts that have worsened their relations...meaning you don't buy their evidence...")
• I loveee good link-ins and clear COMPARATIVE weighing. (do NOT say "we win because our opponents don't have access to their impacts!!". that is NOT weighing.)

don'ts:

• Please don't bring up ANY new arguments in the back half of the debate. This also includes arguments you dropped in summary.
• Sure, be strategic with cross and ask questions considering the arguments you'll be making in the next speech-- but do NOT simply make arguments during cross. (ex. "Wouldn't you agree that affirming/negating would be worse because X, X, and X?") Cross is a time for clarifying questions and answers, not extra speech time.

NON-PF (LD, etc.):
What is debate? What is an argument? All behavioral expectations listed above apply but otherwise, treat me like a complete complete lay judge because I simply have NO knowledge on non-PF debate whatsoever.

Speaks:
+1 if you reference Taylor Swift in a speech
+1 if you include a pun (that I understand) in speech

(oh but don't overdo these bc thats when its just awkward!..)

good luck and have fun!! :) don't be nervous, i'm judging you but i'm not JUDGING you

I have been debating competitively for around 10 years now. 2 For PF/LD, 2 in American Parli, 4 in British Parli, 3 as a coach/instructor for PF/LD.

I make decisions sticking to the flow of the round, but still exercise common sense discretion. Evidence must be properly explained and introduced, link chains need to be explained, and impacts weighed for me using the rounds framework. For example, chains leading to nuclear war and extinction require a lot of time, evidence, and analysis for me to weigh out.

I give credit to both practical and philosophical arguments as long as they are based within tangible impacts, examples, and/or logical chains.

I am against spreading as a tactic as the online space already makes understanding of cases difficult for some debaters and spreading is antithetical to the educational value of debate. I can understand and keep up with quick speed, but spreading is too much.

I also tend not to credit Kritiks or T-Shells unless fully and properly explained within the context of the round. Even then, engagement with the opponents case/argumentation is necessary.

Clash is necessary within a round, proper responses and engagement with opponents cases are needed. Blanket rebuttal or generalizations about a case are less accepted. Weigh arguments individually, unless you can prove they have mutual exclusivity to another argument you have already refuted.

Happy to answer clarifications on paradigm.

*Varsity Speaks: Boost in speaker points when you compliment your partner in-speech - the more fun or earnest, the higher the speaks boost :) I've found this gives some much needed levity in tense rounds.

*Online: Please go slower online. I'll let you know if you cut out. I'll try on my end to be as fair as possible within the limits of keeping the round reasonably on time. If the tournament has a forfeit policy, I'll go by those.

Background: 3 years of college super trad policy (stock issues/T & CPs) & some parli. I coach PF, primarily middle school/novice and a few open. She/her. Docshare >

PF:

Firm on paraphrasing bad. I used to reward teams for the bare minimum of reading cut cards but then debaters would bold-faced lie and I would become the clown emoji in real time. I'm open to hearing arguments that penalize paraphrasing, whether it's treating them as analytics that I shouldn't prefer over your read cards or I should drop the team that paraphrases entirely.

Disclosure is good because evidence ethics in PF are bad, but I probably won't vote for disclosure theory. I'm more likely to reward you in speaks for doing it (ex. sharing speech docs) than punish a team for not.

“Defense is sticky.” No it isn’t.

Ex. Fully frontline whatever you want to go for in second summary in second rebuttal. Same logic as if it's in your final focus, it better be in your partner's summary. I like consistency.

If you take longer than a minute to exchange a card you just read, it starts coming out of your prep. Speech docs make sure this is never an issue, so that's another plug.

Collapsing, grouping, and implicating = good, underrated, easy path to my ballot! Doc botting, blippy responses, no warrants or ev comparison = I'm sad, and you'll be sad at your speaks.

Cleaner debates collapse earlier rather than later.

I'm super into strategic concessions. "It's okay that they win this, because we win here instead and that matters more bc..."

I have a soft spot for framing. I'm most interested when the opposing team links in (ex. team A runs "prioritize extinction," team B replies, "yes, and that's us,"), but I'll definitely listen to "prioritize x instead" args, too. Just warrant, compare, etc.

Other "progressive pf" - I have minimal experience judging it. I'm not saying you can't run these debates or I'm unwilling to listen to them, but I'm saying be aware and slow down if I'm the one evaluating. Update: So far this season, I've voted down trigger warning theory and voted for paraphrasing theory.

I'll accept new weighing in final focus but I don't think it's strategic - you should probably start in summary to increase my chances of voting off of it.

All else fails, I will 1) look at the weighing, then 2), evaluate the line-by-line to see if I give you reasonable access to those impacts to begin with. Your opponents would have to really slip up somewhere to win the weighing but lose the round, but it's not impossible. I get really sad if the line-by-line is so convoluted that I only vote on the weighing - give me a clean place to vote. I'll be happy if you do the extra work to tell me why your weighing mechanism is better than theirs (I should prefer scope over mag because x, etc).

LD:

I’m a better judge for you if you're more trad/LARP. The more "progressive," the more you should either A) strike me if possible, or B) explain it to me slowly and simply - I’m open to hearing it if you’re willing to adjust how you argue it. Send a speech doc and assume I'm not as well-read as you on the topic literature.

All:

If it's before 9am, assume I learned what debate was 10 minutes ago. If it's the last round of the night, assume the same.

Open/varsity - time yourselves. Keep each other honest, but don't be the prep police.

On speed generally - I can do "fast" PF mostly fine, but I prefer slower debates and no spreading.

Content warnings should be read for graphic content. Have an anonymous opt-out.

Have warrants. Compare warrants. Tell me why your args matter/what to do with them.

Don't post-round. Debaters should especially think about who you choose to post-round on a panel when decisions echo one another.

Having a sense of humor and being friendly/accommodating toward your opponents is the easiest way to get good speaks from me. Be kind, have fun, laugh a little (but not at anyone's expense!!), and I'll have no problem giving you top speaks.

If I smile, you did something right. If I nod, I'm following what you say. I will absolutely tilt my head and make a face if you lost me or you're treading on thin ice on believability of whatever you're saying. If I just look generally unhappy - that's just my default face. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Hi I'm Sam (she/her) and I’m a junior in college. I have 3 years of experience in PF, 1 in Parli, and now I coach PF.

Add me to the email chain: samsemcheshen@gmail.com

------------------------------------------

All:

Read content warnings for anything that might need it and have an extra case if someone opts out.

Be respectful, I'm fine with rounds being casual but everyone in the round should be respected. Be nice, be polite. If I look annoyed, that's probably just because I'm tired, but if I make it very obvious that I have stopped flowing and I am just staring at you, you're probably doing something wrong. Bad behavior will reflect in your speaks and in some cases possibly my decision.

Speed is fine (not spreading though lol) but I prefer slower debates, especially if we are online.

Time yourselves please I'm lazy. If it's novice I'll time, but you should still try and time yourselves in case I forget and so you don't have to rely on me solely.

Keep each other accountable but don't be the prep police or speech sheriff. For speeches, I'd say give each other like a 10 second grace period.

HOWEVER, I don't know why I keep seeing this but a lot of online people just start taking prep without saying anything. Please don't do this or else I am going to have to nag to make sure you're not stealing prep. If you're gonna take prep please just say so before you start.

SIGNPOST!!!! or I will have no clue what is going on.

Terminalized impacts please, I don't care that the GDP was raised by 1% what does that even mean. I should also not be hearing your impact once in constructive then never again or you just referring to it as "our impact" without restating what it is. EXTEND IMPACTS.

I'm cool with a rowdy cross those are fun just don't get too carried away and make sure everyone is able to speak.

Also, reading whole cards in cross is my pet peeve. Try not to do that.

Some evidence things!!!!:

• To save time, set up ev exchange before the round starts. (I think email chains are best but its your call)
• On that note, I don't have a set time limit for how long pulling up evidence should take, but it shouldn't take long. I've seen teams struggle to find a "card" they just read in their speech and like ???? You either got the card or you don't.
• If you just send a link and tell someone to "control f" I am gonna cry. Send cards, its not hard.
• To help enforce better norms, if I see that when your team's evidence is called for, it is properly cut and shared in an appropriate way (AKA not pasted into zoom/NSDA campus chat or handing each other your laptops), I will give your team a speaks boost. All evidence shared must abide in order to get the boost.

PF:

PF has the worst evidence ethics so go ahead and reread the evidence points I put earlier just in case.

I'm cool with paraphrasing cards but you better have a cut card version if someone calls for it.

I hate when people wait until 2nd summary to frontline. I am more comfortable evaluating frontlines done in 2nd rebuttal than if you skip that and only frontline in 2nd summary. Frankly, if the other team comes up in ff and says that frontlining only in summary is unfair, I'll probably agree with them and you'll be out of luck.

Is defense sticky? NOPE!

If it is not extended into summary, I'm not evaluating it in ff. Don't just spam your impact numbers, remind me how you get there. If you don't think you have time for that, then maybe you should have been collapsing ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Basically, if you end up not extending your case properly, oh well your loss. Literally your loss.

Other:

For LD, Policy, Parli, etc. just treat me more trad.

I can evaluate theory but I am not super experienced with it. If you want to do it anyway, make sure you slow down and REALLY explain it well to me.

If I'm allowed to, I typically disclose and give feedback. If you have questions about my decision or want specific feedback, I'm happy to explain as long as you are going about it in a respectful way.

If you have any other questions feel free to ask me before the round :)

Christian Vazquez

Damien High School '26

Contact/Email Chain: cvazquez2026@damien-hs.edu

----

General Approach:

Welcome to my judge paradigm! I am open to a variety of debating styles and strive to provide a fair and comprehensive evaluation of each round. Please feel free to add me to the email chain, and don't hesitate to ask for clarifications or questions about my judging preferences.

----

Congressional Debate:

As a judge, in this congressional debate, I'm looking for a few key things. First, I want to see clear, logical arguments. Your points should be well thought out and backed by solid evidence. I appreciate when debaters use real-world examples to support their arguments. It shows me that you understand how these issues play out in real life, not just in theory.

I also value strong public speaking skills. Confidence, clarity, and engagement with the audience are important. However, don't sacrifice substance for style. It's great if you're a charismatic speaker, but I'm more impressed by what you're saying than how you're saying it.

Here are some tips to score higher in speaker points and/or ranking:

Be concise and to the point. Don’t wander off-topic.
Engage with your fellow debaters. Rebuttals and counterarguments show me you’re listening and thinking critically.
Show some passion! I want to see that you care about the topic you're debating.
Lastly, respect is key. Even when you disagree, be respectful to others' viewpoints.

Remember, I'm here to judge your debating skills, not your personal beliefs. I'm looking forward to seeing what you bring to the debate!

----

Novice Policy:

1. Clarity in Speaking: Speed (spreading) is acceptable, but clarity is crucial. If I can't understand you, I'll ask for clarification.

2. Signposting: Clearly outline your arguments. Failure to signpost will impact your speaker points.

3. Respectfulness: Always maintain a friendly demeanor towards your opponent.

4. Argumentation: Ostentatious or harmful arguments will not be tolerated. Show a deep understanding of your material, both in speeches and cross-examinations.

5. Structure: Ensure your arguments are well-structured and complete.

6. Rebuttals: You may introduce new arguments in rebuttals, but I prioritize quality reasoning over novelty.

7. Prep Time: Do not misuse prep time. Any indication of stealing prep will lead to a reduction in speaker points.

8. Topicality: Avoid dropping topicality arguments.

Preferred Arguments/Strategies for Novice Policy

1. Conditional Arguments (Condo): When you use conditional arguments, you present multiple advocacies or plans and clarify that they are conditional. This means you can choose to defend or discard them as the debate progresses. The key is to be strategic in how you deploy these arguments, making sure they are well-developed and not contradictory. Properly leveraging conditional arguments can provide flexibility and adaptability in your strategy, potentially swaying the debate in your favor.

2. Kritiks: If you're engaging with Kritiks, even if you're not highly experienced, always make sure to respond to them. Ignoring a Kritik can be risky, as it may lead the judge to favor the other team. To effectively respond, understand the core argument of the Kritik, directly address its link and impact, and if possible, offer a counter-critique or turn. It’s important to engage with the philosophical or ideological critique at its root rather than just treating it as a policy argument.

3. Disadvantages and Case Analysis: A well-constructed disadvantage (DA) involves a clear link to the affirmative's case, a specific impact, and an impact calculus that explains why this impact is significant and urgent. In your case analysis, focus on directly refuting the key points of the affirmative's case and demonstrating a clear clash. A strong case strategy should also include a solid defense of your own case, ensuring you're not just on the offensive but also safeguarding your position.

Remember, clarity and strategic thinking are crucial across all these argument types. Make your points succinctly and ensure they logically contribute to your overall case narrative

Speaker Points:

Minimum 27.5, unless you did something really wrong

+.2 points if you make fun of Brandon Park in an actually funny way (make fun of his paradigm; it doesn't matter)

----

Parliamentary Debate:

-Maintain a positive attitude towards both teammates and opponents.
-Feel free to spread, but remember, clarity is key.

----

Feel free to approach me for any further inquiries about my judging style or preferences. Happy debating!

i debated pf under flintridge prep cy. we qualified/were invited to gold toc twice plus nationals, state (california), and round robins, and did pretty well

add me to the chain: avaye@outlook.com

general (this is all pf specific)

• tech>truth
• frontline in 2nd rebuttal
• extend everything ur going for in summary
• collapse
• weigh & metaweigh PLEASE IM ACTUALLY BEGGING YOU. IF YOU DON'T I LITERALLY HAVE NO WAY OF EVALUATING THE ROUND AND VOTING. also when u weigh dont just tell me why ur impact is good, pls actually compare ur argument to ur opponents
• if its not in summary it cant be in final; unless its new weighing in first final
• i got carried by my partner every time we debated prog so read theory at ur own risk & absolutely do not read Ks. i love a good substance round; if u have absolutely no prep id rather u read tricks or beetle facts or sing

my judging habits (feel free to disregard but could be important for speaks)

• dont go overtime
• slow evidence exchanges r my absolute least favorite parts of debates so make it quick, preferably just rly quickly send cut cards before speech. also taking over 30 seconds to find a card is so sus
• dont call me judge in ur speech every 10 seconds
• down to skip grand cross if everyone is
• pls do not make the round boring i beg u

ultimately: be respectful, dont be problematic, make the round run smoothly, and have fun. cheers to an educational and enjoyable debate