Damien High School '27

Ccasas27@damien-hs.edu

Add me to every email chain.

2N/2A

Hello, my name's Christian Casas. I'm a JV policy debater who started July of 2023. I've debated the fiscal inequality topic. Minimal knowledge for LD.

General--

Will vote off what's on my flow. value/value criterion is not mandatory. Framework can be simplified to a general weighing mechanism, but be extremely clear about it.

Tech>truth, but tech must be based somewhat on truth.

SELL YOUR ARGUMENT TO ME, MAKE ME BELIEVE IT.

Clarity>>>Speed

Speaker points will be based on presentation and style of speaking, +.5 points for every Smiths reference in your speeches. If you make a joke about John Jesson that's actually funny I will increase your points by a varying amount.

Cross-ex is binding, will vote on contradictions made and will disregard any contradictory arguments (if pointed out).

Won't vote on structural violence good arguments; (ex: racism good, sexism good).

Please clash with your opponent, I love seeing close debates.

I'm very unlikely to vote on any tricks.

Counterplans--

• I dont think that CPs need a Solvency Advocacte, especially if its something that just came to you prerd. DO NOT take advantage of this and start reading 20 CPs with no Solvency Advocactes (I think the limit for me is 3 CPs)
• - Read them as you want - explain what the mechanism of the CP is and why I should prefer it to the aff. Explain how the CP avoids the net benefit and we shouldn't have a problem.
• I will vote on CP theory if dropped, will most likely err neg on condo.

Plans/Case--

ALWAYS READ YOUR PLAN TEXT.

I feel like a lot of debaters fumble the bag on the case debate, turning advantages is really underutilized, and so is impact calc. I love impact calc/framework, and will vote on it if I feel it outweighs-- clash with the other impacts, tell me why yours is more important.

Kritiks--

I may despise kritiks, but I will vote on it, especially if the link debate is expanded upon. Most familliar with capitalism K's. Please refrain from reading troll arguments like Death K.

Disadvantages--

Just go for status quo, extremely underutilized ballot winner that I will vote on. Once again, impact calc is what I value here a lot as long as you defend your links and uniqueness. Do not just extend your impact and expect me to vote on a DA without any links.

Theory--

I love theory debates, I will definitely vote on any theory argument if you have extensive knowledge on it. But, don't expect me to vote on a 5 second theory shell where you don't understand the argument. I need reasons why it matters, how it's cheating, and why it's crucial to debate to vote on it.

Freshman 1N/2A from Damien High School

Debating Inequality Topic

Add me to the email chain:agomez27@damien-hs.edu&damiendebate47@gmail.com(only in policy debate)

Don't hesitate to ask any questions or clarification with anything, as I will answer to the best of my abilities.

-----

General things:

Tech > truth

Spread clearly, because if you don't I'll clear you. If I have to more than once, speaks will be lowered.

Don't let my prefs bend the way you debate, since the way you are most comfortable with might give you the best chance at winning, go for what YOU love.

My ideology is simple that debate is a game.

My scoring ranges from 27-30. <27 means you committed some sort of ethics violation.

-----

Policy:

DA's: DA debates are really straightforward. Impact calc, win risk, win links, answer UQ args, etc. so I have pretty normal expectations.

CP's: The Neg should be careful with how they use the CP, decide your off-case strat and stick with it, kick it properly and I will. Have judge instruction! Good solvency advocates for a CP are fairly interesting, but having at least a sub-par extension from the 1NC to the block (except if you kick) is the bare minimum for me to evaluate CP's for my RFD. Make perms, and when you do make perms, extend those perms throughout every speech that includes the CP.

K's: I have very little experience handling K's. In general, don't use too much jargon wording with the K, judge instruction is important. Don't say (insert discrimination) good, that would, at the very least, make me completely disregard the K. Weigh impacts, for the neg, EXTEND FRAMEWORK, for the aff, leveraging perms + alt in a strat is cool.

T: I love T debates, however, I will only consider fairness/education as an impact if you give reasoning for it and if you extend, not just saying it. I am persuaded by explanations by what ground exists in the topic and limits exploded by the aff. Extend all parts of T. If you make reasonability persuasive and not just a blanket extension/dropping it, I'll be moved to vote Neg.

-----

LD:

Scoring:

1-10: Ethical issues about one's character were brought to light which I would deem inappropriate for the debate.

11-20: A lot of work needing to be done.

21-25: Fairly good argumentation, decent round in general.

≥25: A solid round with everything I expect out of a proper round.

New to LD, if you can't communicate arguments well since I know nothing about the topics, it can't be expected I would vote you up.

Be clear, confident, respectful, and communicative during speeches and cross-examination.

-----

If you make fun of Richard Parmar, Christian Casas, or Ryan Mattera in your speech in an actual funny way, I'll give you +0.1 speaks. If you make fun of John you get +0.2. (Look at their paradigms, doesn't matter)

email - jjh010@ucsd.edu

currently a student at ucsd, debated at damien for cjr, water, nato, and econ - teamcode Damien HP

tech > truth

im familiar with both K and policy debate - i read every type of aff <K, hard right, soft left> and went mostly for adv and process cps with a case turn on the neg

i was mostly a 2a so im fairly sympathetic to condo bad but i also liked to read an average of 8 off in each debate so honestly theory depends on the specific warrents u present

these r the K's i read the most - baudrillard, beller, bifo, cap, deleuze, edelman, set col

read whatever u want tbh - any warranted argument is winnable

honestly the only thing i'll probably struggle with voting for this year is T bc i have a lack of topic knowledge <which should change the more i judge> but feel free to go for FW i went for it half the time i was neg vs K affs

Please don’t spread - disclose if you need to talk fast to keep your case on time.

I regularly compete in PF and have some experience in LD so I’m relatively familiar with the topic, but to make sure I don’t misunderstand anything, please explain everything so I can follow your link chains. I cannot vote for your argument if I do not understand it.

Be respectful, be kind, don’t lose your cool

Freshman 1N/2A from Damien High School

Debating Inequality Topic

Add me to the email chain: jjesson27@damien-hs.edu

Don't hesitate to ask any questions or clarification with anything, as I will answer to the best of my abilities.

-----

General things:

Tech >> truth

Spread clearly, because if you don't I'll clear you. If I have to more than once, speaks will be lowered.

Don't let my prefs bend the way you debate, since the way you are most comfortable with might give you the best chance at winning, go for what YOU love.

My ideology is simple that debate is a game.

My scoring ranges from 27-30. <27 means you committed some sort of ethics violation.

-----

Policy:

DA's: DA debates are really straightforward. Impact calc, win risk, win links, answer UQ args, etc. so I have pretty normal expectations.

CP's: The Neg should be careful with how they use the CP, decide your off-case strat and stick with it, kick it properly and I will. Have judge instruction! Good solvency advocates for a CP are fairly interesting, but having at least a sub-par extension from the 1NC to the block (except if you kick) is the bare minimum for me to evaluate CP's for my RFD. Make perms, and when you do make perms, extend those perms throughout every speech that includes the CP.

K's: I have very little experience handling K's. In general, don't use too much jargon wording with the K, judge instruction is important. Don't say (insert discrimination) good, that would, at the very least, make me completely disregard the K. Weigh impacts, for the neg, EXTEND FRAMEWORK, for the aff, leveraging perms + alt in a strat is cool.

T: I love T debates, however, I will only consider fairness/education as an impact if you give reasoning for it and if you extend, not just saying it. I am persuaded by explanations by what ground exists in the topic and limits exploded by the aff. Extend all parts of T. If you make reasonability persuasive and not just a blanket extension/dropping it, I'll be moved to vote Neg.

-----

LD:

Scoring:

1-10: Ethical issues about one's character were brought to light which I would deem inappropriate for the debate.

11-20: A lot of work needing to be done.

21-25: Fairly good argumentation, decent round in general.

≥25: A solid round with everything I expect out of a proper round.

New to LD, if you can't communicate arguments well since I know nothing about the topics, it can't be expected I would vote you up.

Be clear, confident, respectful, and communicative during speeches and cross-examination.

-----

If you make fun of Richard Parmar or Ryan Mattera in your speech in an actual funny way, I'll give you +0.1 speaks. (Look at their paradigms, doesn't matter)

ABOUT ME

Background: He/him/his pronouns. I competed in Lincoln-Douglas, Public Forum and IEs for six years. I’ve also been judging local tournaments on-and-off for six years. I was not very competitive in high school (I mostly did Model UN lol) and learned more about debate through teaching and judging.

TLDR: I’ll flow the round and vote off what’s on my flow. Tech>truth. Generally, feel free to go fast with some exceptions (below). I consider off-time roadmaps a must, and when you’re responding to framework, please state it explicitly (e.g. “The order is 1) framework 2) on-case 3) two offs.”) Make flowing easy for me: extend, cross-apply, collapse and weigh. I like to see lots of clash and clear, warranted links. In general, I think my thoughts on debate shift around a lot over time, but I will try my best to keep this paradigm updated as my beliefs change. At the moment, I'm somewhat conflicted on how I feel about email chains and speed. Feel free to ask me about anything unclear before the round begins.

DEBATE, BY EVENT

LD: I do not consider value/value criterion to be mandatory. Feel free to simplify your framework debate to a general weighing mechanism; just make sure to be clear about it. Continue reading below:

PF (and LD cont.): I generally do not flow or pay attention to cross-examination. If you anticipate that there’s any chance whatsoever that some part of your theory position may depend on cross-ex, please let me know before the round begins. I will in no way count it against you if you don’t actually end up reading T. Accordingly, I consider cross-ex to be entirely your time to get clarification on your opponent’s arguments, call for cards and prep your next rebuttal. No need for theatrics to try to make your opponent trip up over their words or something; it won't be on my flow.

CX: I have not personally competed in this event, but have judged in the past. I don't have a particular approach to judging CX different from other debate events; I am a tabula rasa judge that's moderately comfortable with speed and T/K.

OPEN DEBATE

Plans/Counterplans vs. Contentions: I believe that the Affirmative generally gets to frame the debate. Usually, that will fall under one of the following two categories: 1) a topical plan versus the status quo or another competitive counterplan 2) AFF contentions in support of affirming the resolution versus NEG contentions negating the resolution. I prefer plan debate over contention debate, because I believe it structurally favors clash and good debate. Notwithstanding, I will vote for contention ACs but make sure to read clear, warranted, link chains and don’t assume you solve for all your impacts by fiat.

Theory: What is debate? What should debate be? If you want to win a theory position in front of me, be prepared to convince me of your answer to these questions. At the end of the day, the “rules of debate” are what the debaters themselves make of the activity. I subscribe to the belief that the reason that debate exists is because it’s (one of) the only spaces where students can make an adult sit down for an hour, listen to their ideas and take them seriously. To keep debate meaningful to that end, debaters themselves ought to be the ones to decide how debate is practiced and adjudicated. Theory is the primary tool for self-enforcement of what I see as made up, debatable rules.

When reading T, read an interpretation, violation, standards and voters. Read your interpretation slowly, and then repeat it again. Argue each of these points out and do not assume I already know what you mean if you just say “strategy skew is bad for education.” Be clear about what you’re saying and highlight points of nuance. When the round has multiple theory positions, it’s ever more important for you to argue why I should prioritize some theory over another.

Some specifics: 1) Outside the round, I am generally conditionality bad but it’s up to you to convince me one way or another. I tend to think limited conditionality is reasonable (e.g. the NEG gets one condo counterplan and one condo K). 2) Dispositionality means nothing to me. It should mean that the CP is unconditional unless the AFF perms, but as long as teams are reading dispo with different rules, the inconsistency makes the term useless. If you’re reading a dispo position, be extremely clear what the condition to kick is. 3) Disclosure as a practice is good, systematically abusive use of disclosure theory against small schools/new debaters is really, really awful. 4) Theory can be an RVI but that’s still up for debate, and usually shouldn’t come down to theoretical abuse.

Kritik/criticisms: I’ve read a couple and heard several different Ks in rounds, but be forewarned that I am absolutely not an expert on K. I am less experienced with performances than K of case. I like to hear fresh and exciting debate, but make sure I can understand what you’re reading. Make sure to have a clear link, impact, alternative and alt-solvency. Like with T, read your link slowly, twice.

Speed: My comfortability with spreading tends to vary based on how active I’ve been in the speech and debate community. If my judging record indicates that it’s been more than six months since I’ve last judged an open debate round, please check with me prior. Generally, any rate of delivery up to around 300 wpm should be perfectly fine – I can type well over 100 wpm – as long as you’re enunciating. If it becomes a problem, I will call slow/clear. For newer debaters: you may interrupt your opponent’s speech by stating “slow” or “clear” if you can’t hear them. If your opponent doesn’t acknowledge your request, you may consider reading a “theory” argument that they ought to lose the round for disregarding basic debate etiquette. Debaters planning to be toxic and spread a new debater out of a round: be forewarned, my threshold for voting on such T shells is low.

Other: Do not neglect signposting. If you blitz through your arguments, I can get lost in my flow if you don’t make it easy for me. If whatever you argue isn’t on my flow, I cannot and will not consider it in my decision. I highly recommend that you read author and year slowly and twice before each card. Make it crystal clear where your warrant ends and where analytic or impacts begin. I expect that counterplans are competitive. I will vote on a perm for non-competitive counterplans. Impact calculus is magnitude, scope, timeframe, probability and reversibility. All of the above are important. I will default to weighing them about equally until/unless you argue otherwise and give me reasons to prefer one (or more). One of my biggest debate pet peeves: Debaters wasting precious rebuttal minutes on the framework debate unnecessarily (e.g. when you’re going for two different, highly specific forms of utilitarianism but your impacts weigh equally regardless of which one wins). I think I have moderately expressive non-verbals. Speaker points if the tournament does not provide a standard rubric: below 25 you did something despicable or otherwise awful, 25-25.9 very poor 26-26.9 below average, 27-27.5 average, 27.6-28 good, 28-28.9 you should break, 29-29.9 you should be in late elims, 30 you are in the top 1% of debaters I’ve seen.

NOVICE DEBATE

Be respectful of your opponents and do your best. The most important thing is to have fun and learn! If your opponent is doing something really abusive in the round, I will vote on theory. For new debaters, this means that you can argue that they ought to lose the debate for being abusive. Do not under any circumstances read frivolous T in novice. Do not read K. Do not spread unless you have explicitly checked with your opponent and they have OKed it. See the “Speed” portion of my paradigm above. Make sure to signpost clearly and I highly recommend that you say author/year twice for every card. Weigh out the impacts of the round and read voting issues (explain to me why your impacts are more important than your opponent’s, and why you should win). Use all your prep time and don’t concede rounds even if you think you’re losing. You never know what’s happening on my flow, and mine is the one that ultimately matters. Speaker points if the tournament does not provide a standard rubric: below 25 you did something despicable or otherwise awful, 25-25.9 lot of room for improvement, 26-26.9 below average, 27-27.5 average, 27.6-28 good, 28-28.9 you should break, 29-29.9 you should probably be in open, 30 no, but seriously, why are you in novice?.

policy debater for Damien High School, TOC'23, '24,

Please include both on the email chain: yli25@damien-hs.edu damiendebate47@gmail.com

Preference: All emails should have “Tournament Name+ Round# + aff team code+ neg team code” in their title. please send the email before the round start, with the obvious exception that you are breaking a new aff.

I don't run prep time while you email the speech doc. Put the whole speech into one speech doc.

IP Topic Thought

• bad year for process cp
• but neg ground sucks too
• so I will allow any and all form of neg terrorism
• I would love to see some soft left aff
• squo aff prob also a thing on this topic

General

I think debate is a game of persuasion and you should be able to present any argument and my only job as the judge is to flow and make a decision based on the technical argumentation. This means if you want wipeout, coercion DA, PoMo K, or manifest-your-inner-WGLF debate, go for it. That being said, not all arguments are created equal. Proper argument developement will get my vote on any arguments. (1 sentence aspec is not a complete argument and will not get you the auto win even if dropped).

Remember that your judge is a human not a robot.If the debate gets messy my intuition to resolve the debate is most likley to perfer punish the worse mistake in round than to evaluate every single detail of strategic moves, i.e. the last rebuttal should always have judge instruction, Judge instruction is very important for me.

My face is expressive during debate but pls ignore it bc its not always what it looks, I might just be suprised, thinking, or reading your ev, frowning is not always a bad signal and vice versa knodding dont always mean I agree.

I have to admit that sometimes judging novice feel like "which team has the better block", which is not a very enjoyable kind of debate for me. Please at least show me you know the argument.

Lets be real here, people, we all try to evade clash. but dont be scared of clash, you need them to win debate.

Top level

Tech >>> Truth

Condo is good but also the only CP theory I would vote on (longer rant below)

dropped arg are tru, but need to be extended

Burden of Proof determines Presumption

T

50-50 on reasonability vs competing interp

pls quantify ground and limit

T >> Condo

Do you want a plan in 1AC ?

K arg are fine on either side, at this point its just a technical debating.

I am of the personal opinion that debate is fundementally a game and fairness is intrinsically good, but not very ideologically attached to this "clash of civilization" thing.

I enjoy K aff that is nuanced.

I strongly dislike arguments that calls into the humanity/identity of the debater in round and/or reference to what happened out side of the round, because I am not sure how am I as a judge suppose to do with these kinds of argument. Not that I would not vote on them, but I think you need to contexilze them to the debate or convice me its not just an accusation of sorts.

Who wins the strongest IL to their impact + impact calc wins these kind of debate.

Not a philosopher yet, so pls explain theory.

Just like T debates, the more realistic I feel you are describing the resolution/debate space/community more I am inclined toward your argument.

CP

perm is just a test of competition

CP competition is base on mandates

Competition is not Topicality (e.g. T-should)

need instruction if you want me to judge kick

DA

Zero risk exist, rarely happen

UQ determines the direction of the link

I like turns case analysis

Ev centric here

Offense, Offense, Offense, OFFENSE!!!!

K

love them, specificity and good clash will get me to vote on any kind of K, but inversely, I loathe block-botting and generic K strategy.

1AC rehighlights is good

phill comp is bad (but will vote for it)

if you read 7+ OFF just to explode 13 minute of K you are a coward, but who cares if you end up winning

Minor Pet Peeves

ask for marked doc when its like just a few cards skipped/cut

"they drop it" with no explaination

"they drop it" when they did not

"if you dont like it go do LD/PF "

"we will answer that if you make the argument", pls my brother in christ just answer the damn question.

long ov that could have just been line by lined,

marking multiple cards in the same speech

theory prolif in the 2AC

send out 7+ OFF and cant finish them so you skip

DO NOT DO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

Steal preps

Clipping

Insult your opponent

be anti-disclosure

Condo Rant

For all you 2As out there, I feel ya, it is terrifying when there are 13 OFF 1NC and 5 of them made it to the block. Hence I am not gonna outright worship infinte condo like a good 2N should (at least when I am judging). But if I am being honest, time skew is also the worst way to debate condo infront of me. You need to have a good interpretation that can solve for time skew, and I hardly see myself voting on that time skew is a uq impact of condo. Instead, if the 1AR is gonna carry the cross of condo, it needs to talk about research, deepth vs breadth, strat skews, and why the model of condo is bad, etc. Yes, the 1AR need to start the full condo debate, I will not gave new 2AR spin on standards. Moreover, you need to connect all of standards to your Counter-interpretation, why does that solve. The neg always wins condo when they are like "yeah, condo def sucks for the aff, but any other alternataiveonlykills neg flex and arg testing since skews are inevitble " and the 2ar just keep extending horror stories of condo without telling me why is dispo/limited-condo/their CI/ a good alternative that solve the unforgivable sins of condo.

Peninsula '25 (hopefully) Yale, Harvard, or Stanford '29 (definitely)

Put me on the email chain: neptunicrager@gmail.com

Do impact calc or I will obviously and visibly flip a coin while staring at you, immediately submitting my ballot following that. You cannot prove a connection between these two things.

Not voting on something I didn't see happen in-round. This includes not disclosing past 2NRs.

+0.5 speaker points for a well-maintained wiki. Let me know if you think you meet that criteria.

CX open + binding, spreading good--this isn't a midwest local (hopefully)

Clipping is an auto-win--just not for you.

Truth > Tech insofar as I will probably try to subconsciously rationalize a ballot for arguments I think are better.

CONDO. It's good, have never gone for condo in 4 years as a 2A, but you can win it's bad--some stuff if you're getting curbstomped on substance and want a cop-out:

If the aff can prove the neg constructed the 1nc in such a way that it was impossible to respond to, i.e. contradictory condo, I'll eagerly vote on it.

2NC counterplanning out of straight turns is annoying and cowardly but you can probably justify it. Aff should straight turn in the 1AR, not 2AC to prevent this. Also, usually it often screws with their offense so be on the lookout.

Number of off doesn't really change how chill I am with conditional advocacies unless your interps make it such--doesn't meet the counterinterp, or the debate comes down to like 1 CP, 1 K vs 3 condo or some numerical comparison where the debate comes down to the merits of that one extra advocacy.

I can tell if you're going for it because you're losing everywhere else and want to turn the debate into a coinflip- I get it, but is substance really that unwinnable for you? Will probably lower your speaks if you go for it as a cop-out but doesn't consciously affect the decision itself.

Have a real interp in the 2AC. Once saw a shell that was "Condo strat skew research dispo solves" and I reconsidered my involvement in this activity. Please, make it well thought-out and intricate in the constructive if you want to have a shot at winning with a blown up 2ar.

K Affs:

I really wanna see a topical K aff debated well. I'm talking Atticus Glen style arguments. High skill floor, but I'll be impressed and give you high speaks if you can pull it off effectively.

Reconsider reading a planless aff in middle school/novice year, but for these debates:

Fairness is an impact and will be unless "just an internal link" is literally dropped

Aff should impact turn neg standards. Your C/I almost never solves their offense and the Limits DA is fire

Very sympathetic to the argument that the only thing my ballot can do is decide who won on a technical level, and convincing me otherwise in the face of competent debating is an uphill battle

Counterplans:

Significantly less convinced of neg's pleas for absurd counterplans on Fiscal Redistribution. Go for the Econ DA! Debate the case!

The Aff should go for theory more. Probably like 70/30 aff in most instances with a well-crafted interp (multi-level fiat, international, multi-actor, honey) (Side Note: Interp's really important. "Process CPs are bad" probably isn't one, "consult CPs bad" probably is.

Send permtexts. It's time-consuming and hard to think under the pressure of a huge 1nc, but competition is a great way out of a debate where you may have zilch against a new process counterplan, and I just enjoy these debates if done well (or competently given it's middle school)

Functional + Textual competition is weird to me. Why not just go for theory instead of making up a new way counterplans compete? Smart perms are fun to see, but seem intuitively bad for neg offense and debate in general.

Offsets is obviously not competitive if they don't have "increase fiscal redistribution" in the plantext. Counterplans compete with the Aff, not the topic--if they're not the topic, go for T!

Taxes PIC competition is 50/50. Aff should have a deficit or be prepared for the Perm do the CP debate.

Universality PICs are... hard. It feels bad to give the Aff subsets, but also probably unbeatable if the neg goes for a PIC? Maybe the solution is just to read social security, idk.

I have a higher standard for advantage CP planks than most. The Aff obviously gets new 1AR answers to planks not substantiated with a piece of evidence if not written out in excruciating detail. If Eagan LS would have read your CP, reconsider.

DA:

DAs are pretty good on this topic, for the first time in forever. You could probably beat every universal BI or JG aff on Econ DA + case--and high speaks if you do.

Contextualizing the link will do wonders. Super hard to justify a neg ballot when your explanation and spin doesn't go beyond the generic 1NC card. If you don't have any specific links, then spin like it's goddamn ballet and go for gold

Rider DAs one of the only probably illegit ones. The best interp of fiat is one where the consequences of the Aff are focused on, not any extraneous BS.

Horsetrading is arguable- it's based on the consequences of passing the plan and the plan alone absent some sort of weird attatchment to it but nobody writes these DAs anymore so who really cares

K:

As the meta moves away from substantively engaging the Aff, I get less and less amendable to neg framework pushes. You don't even have a link to the Aff--you've gone for FW as offense. These often contradict the links, as well--if the aff makes it less likely, but it's also antiblack, isn't it good to prevent antiblack violence?

FW: Aff probably gets the plan but that doesn't mean it's all that matters--best interp is probably that aff has to defend reps but gets to use the consequences of the plan as a justification for them. Neg gets reps links but has to explain why it outweighs the plan's consequences. Both sides agree you can't sever representations from justifications so it comes down to case debate. K debate is case debate!

Perm seems very hard to beat on this topic. When the Aff boxes you into "giving poor people money bad" you're in the wrong parts of the library for debating in front of me.

Alt's super important and people don't put much thought in anymore--go for the perm if it solves the impacts to the K, not the links because double bind becomes real. Alt bad must be a part of the 2ar--"case outweighs" gets you nowhere against competent teams.

Author indicts are gonna need to be impacted out because 20 "deleuze is a pedophile" cards or whatever doesn't really amount to much substantive offense.

Psycho's probably bs. Will be easier to prove I should reject it for unfalsifiability than not.

T:

Very hard to convince me debatability is all that matters with competent precision/predictability explanation by the aff. Predictable limits, precision prerequisite to ground, etc. are all pretty damn convincing and predictability outweighs is generally the aff's best bet.

Not very many reasonable T violations on this topic.

Lean neg on T courts for debatability reasons given there's 0 lit on either side.

Reasonability is just the argument your c/i solves enough of their limits DA that the predictability DA outweighs--explain it more like that instead of "1% risk we solve any of their offense is AUTO AFF BALLOT BECAUSE SUBSTANCE CROWD OUT!"

Non-resolutional procedurals should lose to infinite regress.

Feel free to ask about the decision- I encourage it. It's really helpful for growth to understand how you could have improved your speech and even more so to actually do it (redos!).

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

OLD:

I will never vote for the quid pro quo counterplan. Under any circumstances.

I will drop you for using mac. Non-negotiable.

Firm believer in all disciplines being equal- besides mental evaluation it must also be physical- post-round you will physically combat the other team (or because of online debate challenge them to a clash royale match) to determine speaker points and I will give the winner a piece of chocolate- this also means I am persuaded by a challenge of a physical confrontation in the 1ac in order to determine the ballot.

My memory isn't great so please recite every piece of evidence you would like to extend word-for-word

If I see a plantext, auto L and 25 speaks

Condo is bad. Negation theory ONLY justifies the squo

Vagueness is almost always good- if I can't understand what the aff or alt does by the end of the round that motivates a ballot not to mention the strategic benefits

Ground and Grounds is the same word

Truth > Tech- I do not flow and will be evaluating the debate purely based on cards

RVIs are very persuasive- requires significant negative investment to convince me not to vote on it and that time investment just proves skew further

I will not disclose personal moral beliefs- however if you violate any it will make it almost impossible to vote for you

Trump won the election. Take from that what you will. "Biden solves" will result in a 25 and auto-loss.

Do not look me in the eyes during cross-ex- I will view it as a challenge of my authority and any maggots who dare gaze into the void will be consumed

Argue with the other team after the round to determine my decision- look to pf grand cross for an example

Feeding into the previous vagueness point- this applies to speaking too- I will believe you if you say you finished a card unconditionally and accusations of clipping will be punished

My _ key is broken- please do not say any word with an _ in it or I will not be able to flow it and be irritated

Make an obscure reference to (insert unknown debater) for 0.1 extra speaks!

Please warn me when you're about to start the speech with a 10 second countdown and get verbal confirmation by everyone in the room individually that they're ready for you to start- it's important everyone is ready.

Will evaluate arguments either team asserts as dropped as made even if unintelligble earlier

Please pronounce all punctuation verbally- it prevents me from flowing effectively if you do not.

Sean Mariano (he/him/his)

Damien High School Class of 2026

Email: smariano2026@damien-hs.edu

General Stuff, applicable for all forms of debate:

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.

Be friendly and positive 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!

LD

Here are some paradigms to follow, will attempt to use this as my basis for judging + whats in here: Here, and Here!

I will give +.3 speaks if the affirmative team labels their email chain in this way: Tournament name+ Round# + aff team code+ neg team code
+.3 speaks to teams who show me a good flow of the round at the end of the round.
Lean aff on condo, lean neg on other theoretical objections.
Weigh your offcase against their case, and opposite for neg teams
Love uniquely "normal" offcase like DA+CP combos, use it wisely in your rebuttals and you'll get my ballot.
Love Aff teams that actually flow and know whats happening, you'll win if you show that, and work for the desired aff ballot.
Any questions should be asked before the round, and I will answer it beforehand.

Nárhi jámaxakia

- Email chain -- mam.damiendebate@gmail.com

TL;DR:

- Affiliation: Damien (Debater) - 2020 - Present

- I am a proud Indingoeus Person/Latino to countries all around the Americas.

- Call me: Mark/Markos

- I've debated the Criminal Justice Reform topic; the Water topic; and the Emerging Tech/NATO topic (I also rank them in that order)

- I've taken took part in/coached/judged in about 20 (give or take, I don't want to do the math) this year - I have a good understanding of the topic

- I was a 2n for about 2 years, and I was a 2a for the TOC on the water topic, so I am sympathetic to the 2AC, 1AR, and the 2NR - just don't drop the bag and you should be good.

- I am fine voting on anything - except if it's an impact turn to structural violence (i.e. racism good; colonization good; etc) -- I will not flow it, I will not evaluate it, I will doc ur points, and I will alert tab and ur coaches about it.

Preferences:

- I enjoy K v K debate (or K debate writ large)

- I'm a performance debater - so claims about specific identities are always good.

- If you run set col with me and don't know what the lit is saying just for my ballot we are going to have a problem

- For more ideas of what I enjoy in settler colonialism debates see the following people's paradigms: Maddie Pieropan and Joshua Michael.

- HOWEVER - I read both Policy and Kritikal Affs and Positions, so I am comfortable with most of the arguments.

- Yes Spreading - Just be clear - I flow what I hear - if you are unclear and I don't get it on my flow - you don't get it in the round.

Ks:

- Yes! I love the K - my philosophies range from Some PoMo to Settler Colonialism (so Set Col, Psycho, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Cybernetics, Queer Pessimism, Orientalism, Feminism, Afro-Optimism/Pessimism, etc), but I am good with a majority of philosophies, as long as you can explain the links to the aff and they are developed well within the block, you should be fine.

- I like K debate where there is nuance, if you are reading blocks that your coach wrote prerd and dont know what you are saying, dont read the K.

- Link Debate: IF by the 2nr you have not given me a clear explanation of the link to the aff... you're not going to like how I vote.

- Alts: you can kick it - but you better have a really good link story as to why your links outweigh/negates any risk of the affirmative solvency mechanism and a great FW debate.

- Identity PTX - Go ahead - but make sure that you aren't being racist/appropriating a culture that you don't have an ontological relationship with. (If you don't know what that means you should not be reading Ks)

Theory:

- I tend not to like voting on T - however, I will vote on T if you go for it.

- To get my ballot on T you need to:

1. Have a good story as to why X is cheating

2. Cite in round abuse (Losing links/ CP ground, strat skew, etc)

3. tell me why I should care specifically about cheating in that rd - if your T arg is way too vague, ill will not vote for it.

- I will not vote for nonsense theory - like disclosure, etc. these are bad arguments and I don't care.

CPs:

- I dont think that CPs need a Solvency Advocacte, especially if its something that just came to you prerd. DO NOT take advantage of this and start reading 20 CPs with no Solvency Advocactes (I think the limit for me is 3 CPs)

- Read them as you want - explain what the mechanism of the CP is and why I should prefer it to the aff. Explain how the CP avoids the net benefit and we shouldn't have a problem.

- CP theory is bad - don't drop it and I won't vote on it.

DAs:

- I'm going to quote one of my judges when I started debating "I don't know why people don't just go for the squo"

- If you think that the DA is sufficient to win a turns case argument - just go for the DA and case defense. If I don't have a clear explanation of the link story by the 2nr - you have made a mistake and will probably lose this debate (give me warrants as to why the aff doesn't solve but links to the DA.)

Notes/Random Stuff ab me:

- If you feel like you still have Qs about my paradigm feel free to ask me b4 the round/email me - I have nothing better to do in that 30 minutes of prep lol.

About Me - I am a sophomore policy debater at Damien. I will base my decision on solely the evidence, what is said in round, and facts provided within the round and will not let my personal beliefs persuade my decision.

Add Me - rmattera2026@damien-hs.edu

General Opinions - Spreading is good as long as you have clarity, but make sure to slow down on the tags and make sure to signpost. I don't mind aggressive cross-ex. I will not tolerate racist/sexist behavior towards another person. Please use a word doc (google docs are ok but preferably word). Tech over truth. In my eyes, a dropped arg is true. I won't distort rebuttal speeches to get to the coolest/cleverest ballot. The RFD will focus purely on what words are said in your speeches.

Topicality - I like T a lot and I will vote on it if the negative does an effective job of extending it in the 2NC and the rebuttals. Things definitely needed on T in the 1NC should be an interp, violation, and voter for fairness and education. Often what I find most challenging in T debates is evaluating reasonability. Having a clear/coherent answer to this will boost your favors on this. Ridiculous T definitions are increasingly hard to win in front of me.

Counterplans - If you love process CPs, I am your judge. I think highly technical debating with these is extremely impressive and will reward your speaks. I don't like Advantage CPs that much. I will consider how certain planks are described is not explained well enough in the block by the negative, but I enjoy creative planks for solving the AFF's internal links/impacts. Although, if the CP has an absurd amount of planks, my ears will be open for theory args. All other CPs are fine to read in front of me. MAKE PERMS!!!

Disads - I'm a big fan of politics disads and creative trade-off disads. Impact comparison/calculus is important for both sides to win if this is the 2NR. Straight turns are more convincing than you may think. Often the neg mishandles them, which you should capitalize on. Still, impact calculus is key to beating big-stick disads.

Kritiks - Okay I'm gonna be completely honest. I think Ks are the most annoying arg in debate. It often forces me to conflict between my personal beliefs and the args the opponents is making and I don't enjoy making that decisions. However, I like framework debates and will vote on framework on either the aff or the neg. I'm familiar with generic Cap K, Set Col K, Security types of Ks. I will still evaluate high theory Ks the same way, but don't be mad at me if I miss your K "tricks" or a certain TOP. Now let's discuss K-Affs. I absolutely despise K-Affs because, again I'm often forced to implement my personal beliefs into the debate. I don't think the aff should have the ability to make perms if they don't read a plan, however I will vote on the perms if not responded to. If the neg answers the perms made by a K-Aff team, I won't consider the perms anymore.

Theory - Read any theory arg in front of me I don't really care. Unless I conclude that your theory arg is abusive then I won't vote on it.

Case Debates - I like case debates a lot and feel that it's often mishandled. Case Turns are often fun to flow and judge so don't be afraid to read some.

Miles Morton

Policy/LD:

Speed is fine

Not a fan of non-t critical affs

Don't love Ks either

I enjoy t debates

PF:

Speed is fine, but it's mostly up to your opponents. If they say "clear" or "speed" or something you should slow down.

Please just flash cases, if you don't I'm going to be annoyed if you call for like a half-dozen cards.

I'll evaluate most arguments barring anything offensive or insensitive.

Disclosing boosts speaks

Flashing cases probably means perfect speaks

If you flash cases or disclose and your opponents don't theory is super viable and a voter imo.

Be nice.

Weigh... That's what the decision is based on, don't focus on the line-by-line in FF, instead explain why your impacts matter more than the other teams.

Parli: PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE do not feel obligated to fill time if you're a beginner or just don't have 7 or 8 minutes worth of argumentation. I would much rather you give a 4-minute rebuttal than an 8-minute rebuttal where half of the speech is you just repeating the same things over and over again. Speed is cool so long as your opponents are fine with it. Any arguments will be evaluated unless they're discriminatory

Let me know if you have any questions

email for chain: milesmorton2@gmail.com

Have fun!

TLDR - I am a senior at Damien high school, and I have been debating since freshmen year

Add me to the chain please -- email -- rrmurphy24@damien-hs.edu

What I like:

-I am cool with tag-team/open cross

-tech over truth

-frame the ballot for me in the rebuttles

What I don't like:

-Non-disclosure (unless breaking new aff)

-Toxic behavior

-People being late (There are some exceptions)

Overall have fun

If you have any questions about the debate please contact me I am happy to help, we are all learning here, and don't be afraid to ask questions

Specifics-

aff- read whatever, policy or k, if you read policy I prefer plan texts that are really specific and aren't just restating the resolution

theory- to win theory you need to prove in round abuse, if you don't you won't win on this

t- I don't especially like to watch t debates, you can go for predictability or debatability, just impact either one of them out

da- generic links arent great, the more specific the link the better the da,

cp- I enjoy adv cps or unique ways to solve the aff, I also enjoy creative pics

k- I'm an ok judge for the k, I'm good with basic stuff like cap and security, if you go for higher literature its probably safer to have a more in-depth explanation about it throughout the debate

- If you make a joke about a person named William Agustin I will give you +0.1

Former 1N/2A from Damien High School (He/him/his)

Debat(ed) NATO Topic
Debat(ed) Inequality Topic

Add me to the email chain: rparmar2026@damien-hs.edu. (Add damiendebate47@gmail.com for only Policy rounds)

Don't hesitate to ask any questions or clarification with anything, as I will answer to the best of my abilities.

If you can name me the Clippers lineup from Game 7 in the 2nd round in the 2020 playoffs, I will give you +0.1 speaks.

-----

General things:

Tech > truth

Spread clearly, because if you don't I'll clear you. If I have to more than once, speaks will be lowered.

Don't let my prefs bend the way you debate, since the way you are most comfortable with might give you the best chance at winning, go for what YOU love.

My ideology is simple that debate is a game.

-----

Speaker Points:

<26 = Ethical debate issues (clipping, offensive language, etc)

26 - 27 = Much work is needed, teetering on speak bomb

27-28 = Needs improvement, definition of OK

28-28.5 = Debating at the acceptable level, good.

28.5 - 29 = I am impressed.

29+ = I have been THOROUGHLY impressed

-----

Policy:

Disadvantages: DA debates are really straightforward. Impact calc, win risk, win links, answer UQ args, etc. so I have pretty normal expectations. Specifically with the UQ debate. If you get "out UQ'ed" and don't attack that at all, I'm just not going to give you risk.

Counter-Plans: The Neg should be careful with how they use the CP, decide your off-case strat and stick with it, kick it properly and I will. Have judge instruction! Good solvency advocates for a CP are fairly interesting, but having at least a sub-par extension from the 1NC to the block (except if you kick) is the bare minimum for me to evaluate CP's for my RFD. Process CP's are really fun, but one would either be judged harsher or much better based on, again, how you use it/extend. EXTEND PERMS!!!

Kritiks: I don't read much lit and am not a K debater, however, I have some decent experience debating K's/K-affs. In general, don't use too much jargon wording with the K, judge instruction is important. Don't say (insert discrimination) good, that would make me, at least, drop the K. Weigh impacts, for the neg, EXTEND FRAMEWORK. For the aff, leveraging perms + alt in a strat is cool.

Topicality: I love T debates, however, I will only consider fairness/education as an impact if you give reasoning for it and if you extend, not just saying it. I am persuaded by explanations by what ground exists in the topic and limits exploded by the aff. Extend all parts of T for me to evaluate. If you make reasonability persuasive and not just a blanket extension/dropping it, I'll be moved to vote Neg.

Condo: Condo is bad until aff seems like they're actively winning it. Extend everything, always.

Case: Case debates are hella fun. Case turns + debating off the flow on case is awesome. I nitpick A LOT on case, so just debate like normal and my RFD will be based on the debate.

-----

LD:

I'm not incompetent, so I can understand different DA's and such, but don't be "vague"...please...

Be clear, confident, respectful, and communicative during speeches and cross-examination.

-----

Mina Rokes

Damien High School '26

Contact/Email Chain: minarokes@gmail.com

----

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!

Hello,

my email is liamcryals@gmail.com

policy debater for 7 years so im fine with anything. I like Ks, antiblackness, and Orientalism. probably wont vote on fw or t

I am a debate parent. I always do my best to be fair. I appreciate a well-articulated speech with understandable speed, well organization, logic flow of framework, qualitive evidence supporting the arguments, and good delivery with adequate body gesture and audience communication. Crossfire plays a role too but being assertive not aggressive is very important. I look forward to a respectful, thoughtful and meaningful debate.

Add me on the chain please — thwachtler25@damien-hs.edu, as well as damiendebate47@gmail.com.
Please include the following in the subject: tournament name, round number, year, affirmative team code, negative team code.
Junior at Damien HS, he/him, most fluent in policy debate. Call me whatever floats your boat.

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠴⢿⣧⣤⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣴⣿⣧⣆⣘⡄⢹⣿⣷⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣾⣿⣿⣿⣷⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⢿⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠏⠀⣴⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣀⡀⣾⡿⠀⠉⠉⠛⠋⠛⠛⠚⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⢠⣍⠹⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢹⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⢿⣷⣾⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣴⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢹⣟⢻⣿⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⣰⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠻⠿⠟⠁⠑⢶⣤⣴⣿⣿⣿⣷⣶⣬⣿⣿⣿⡿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠙⠛⠛⢛⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠛⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠻⢿⡿⠟⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

I think debate is a game with inevitable competitive and personal incentives that are net good for the activity. I will evaluate debates based on pure technical skill rather than the truth of content presented and I will vote on any types of arguments. While I will default to the role of a policymaker, how I vote or which arguments I prioritize is up to the debaters to identify and clarify. The final speeches should crystalize the arguments that I evaluate first, explain how I should evaluate them, and support with warrants why I should view the debate that way.

The vast majority of my other perspectives on debate come from Tim Lewis. His paradigm is significantly more detailed and educational, and I think a read is worth it.

Max Wiessner (they/them/elle)

Put me on the email chain! imaxx.jc@gmail.com

email chain > speech drop/file share

*****

0 tolerance policy for in-round antiblackness, queerphobia, racism, misogyny, etc.

I have and will continue to intervene here when I feel it is necessary.

*****

about me:

4th-year policy debater at CSUF (I also do IEs: poi, poetry, ads, ca, and extemp). I've coached BP, PF, LD, and policy. Currently coaching LD and policy, so my topic knowledge is usually better in these debates. I would consider myself a K debater, but I’ve run all types of arguments and have voted for all kinds of arguments too

• Debate is about competing theorizations of the world, which means all debates are performances, and you are responsible for what you do/create in this round/space.
• More than 5 off creates shallow debates. Don't feel disincentivized to add more pages, just know better speaker points lie where the most knowledge is produced. clash/vertical spread >>>>>>

coaches and friends who influence how I view debate: DSRB, Toya, Travis Cochran, Beau Larsen, JBurke, Tay Brough, Vontrez White, Brayan Loayza, JMeza, Bryan Perez, Diego Flores, Cmeow

"Education is elevation" -George Lee

DA/CP combo:

CPs are fun. Impact calc is key, how does the impact of the DA supersede AFF solvency claims?

K’s:

I usually run/most familiar with arguments relating to set col, antiblackness, racial cap, bio/necropolitics, and/or queer/trans theory, so those are the lit bases I know best. Just EXPLAIN your theory as if I know nothing bc I might not (pls don't just namedrop a philosopher and expect me to know them)

• Are we having a debate about debate? survival methods? education models? life? make that clear

• K on the NEG: don't fall behind on the perm debate. Contextualized/specific links good. Severance is definitely bad, both on a theory level and an ethics level, but you have to prove that it happened.
• Policy v K: I love judging clash debates. I think these are maybe the best for topic education (unpopular opinion). FW should be a big thing in these debates. What's my role? What's urs?
• KvK: I love a method v method debate, but they can get messy and unclear, especially in LD so please focus on creating an organized story. I will never undermine your ability to articulate theory to me, so I expect a clear explanation of what's going on to avoid the messiness/unclearness

FW v K’s:

I’m pretty split on these debates. I think in-round impacts matter just as much as the ones that come from a plan text bc debate is ultimately a performance.

Education is probably the only material thing that spills out of debate. That means (procedural) fairness isn’t an auto-voter for me. Clash and education are more persuasive.

• Counter-interps are key for the AFF to win the education debate. So is some sort of "debate key" or "ballot key" argument

I have a pretty low bar for what I consider "topical", and I looove creative counter-interps of the res, but I think the AFF still has to win why their approach to the topic is good on a solvency AND educational level

if I’m judging PF:

I think the best way to adapt to me in the back as a LD/Policy guy is clear signposting and emphasizing your citations bc the evidence standards are so different between these events

- also… final focus is so short, it should focus on judge instruction, world-to-world comparison, and impact calc

Misc:

• DO NOT steal prep. The timer goes off, stop typing/writing, and (depending on the format) send the doc or get ready to start speaking/flowing.

• I will not connect things that are NOT on the flow, I'm gonna quote Cmeow's paradigm here bc they got a point "I read evidence when I'm confused about something, and I usually will do it to break the tie against arguments, or I will read ev if it's specifically judge instruction and something I should frame my ballot on. But, I will never ever make decisions for debates on arguments that have not been made."

• yellow is the worst highlight color. Don't feel like you need to re-highlight everything before the round, you won't be marked down. Just know if I make a weird face, it's the yellow...

and most importantly, slay

Coach for Peninsula

My default role in a debate isn't an adjudicator or an educator but an audience that needs to be entertained.

But if you are like me in high school and believed winning is all that matters you should read more below...

Unchangeables

1. When going for the K, framework is defense. You need an actual link to win.
2. Any argument goes. Death good, racism good, whatever you want. I won't automatically punish you for it. But if they make an arg it's fair game. But hiding borjk = eye roll.

Plz put me on the email chain atStevenyu0923@gmail.com

Tech over truth, but I do find it easier to convince me of args I believe in.

Here few principles on getting my ballot:

Simplicity is good. The more complex an argument is, the more it deserves explanations. So, for the K teams with good link work, please cut out the 10 syllable poetic BS.

Every argument needs a claim, warrant, impact. If it misses one, opponent gets new answers or won't vote on it.

You should debate as if I have 0 understanding of the topic. So, explain acronyms and such which especially matters for intricate process CP debates or T debates.

I find myself somewhat expressive during the debate. Feel free to use that to your advantage.

Speaks

Hiding theory is cowardice. You can and might win but speaks = nuked. The act of hiding theory (reading theory really fast but not in the doc especially in the block) makes you guilty, even if they spot you and answer it. This is my way of trying to deter the practice.

For every min of prep you don't use I will give 0.1 of extra speaks up to a cap of 29.5.

Predispositions:

Fairness is likely an impact. Fairness paradox is likely true.

Condo is good.

Process CPs are bad but likely hard to win absent a good answer to arbitrariness.

Reasonability is bad.

Inserting rehighlightings is NOT ok, but aff needs to say that as a theory arg.

Predictability > debatability

Debates and characterizations of ev > ev quality itself

Timeframe matters, determines directionality of turns case. Turns case is only as probable as the rest of the DA. if DA is 1% and turns case is dropped, it net values to 1% so the aff weighs 99% of the aff vs 1% of the DA.

PIKs are probably bad but likely theoretically justifiable against a K aff. (went for this a decent bit)

Plan text in a vacuum is stupid.

Experience: (policy 2NRs)

Adv CPs + impact turns are my favorite 2NRs in high school. (more than 50%)

Adv CPs + topic generic DA (20%)

Process CP (10%)

Ks/K affs

Fighting against fairness on an impact/impact turn level seems to be an uphill battle. Instead, mitigating fairness with logical internal link indicts or how the aff's FW or how the T interp solves fairness is a much better take. For that exact reason, I tend to think I'm actually better for the K team in these situations. Clash is too defensive and I don't recommend it.

• K v T FW. Subjectivity formation here is important. If voting aff can't change minds, I intuitively believe no matter what impact turns, microaggressions, or whatever the neg has committed doesn't matter. For the K team, I believe an impact turn to legal precision/predictability here (with the ontology args to impact turn "legal credibility" or "academic expertise about the state" are best). I also believe impact turns, PIKs, and counter advocacies are creative ways to negate K affs.
• Policy v K. Middle ground is likely the best interp. Whoever debates with that is likely going to win framework. FW Ks are strategic, but I will respect you more if you debate middle ground as a K team and actually engage substance of case.

LD

God forbid I ever judge LD but if I do, please stay as far away as possible from Phil or Tricks.

Lay debate

Please go fast. I dislike lay debate.

Middleschool:

Clarity > speed

Flow

Don't steal prep