I'm not real...I'm a hallucination actually caused by black mold in schools.(Mass hysteria am I right?) Anyway, just make sure your arguments are reasonable and flow well, remember to have fun!

Hi I’m Jane Bailey!

I’ve been doing debate for 2 years- I’ve done congress, extemp and policy but primarily do congress. I’ve competed and have finaled at the local, state and national level.

tech>truth: I value strong arguments that can be backed up with credible evidence. Proper analysis is super important to me- if you can explain an argument fully I will reward you for it.

I don't care if you have 1 million TOC bids if you are racist, sexist, homophobic or outwardly rude to your opponent for ANY reason- this will be taken into serious consideration and I will not vote in favor of your ballot.

Overall please have fun!

If you have any questions please ask me personally or email me: janekbailey@icloud.com

she/her prns please

be respectful, any amount of bigotry is an automatic loss.

Don't be unnecessarily rude to your opponents, you just look like a jerk dawg.

"I don't care if you have 1 million TOC bids, I will not vote for any bigotry." - Jane Bailey 2024

bonus speaker points if you give me a Dr. Pepper, snacks, or energy drinks

I like clear links to arguments and valid arguments on why your impact will happen. Don't run a nuc ext impact and expect me to vote on it with no clear link chain that leads to the impact.

If you drop something in summary I won't flow it through to final focus, so make sure to remember your arguments. (Just because they drop arguments doesn't mean an automatic win- point it out, and then I'll evaluate it).

I do NOT care if your opponent dropped something. I will not evaluate/ judge for it

I have tinnitus so please speak loudly and clearly

Overall just be logical, respectful, and give it your all. Good luck! :)

clipping & ethics violation = auto L

If there’s an email chain, please add me: sanjanadebates@gmail.com

she/her

UPDATED: DEC 2023

Hi, My name is Sanjana. I'm a Johnson High School debater and have mostly competed in Policy (CX) though I have dabbled a bit in LD.

Name- Please don't call me Judge or Ms. I would prefer Sanjana. (Sun-ja-naa).

If you don't have time to look at this entire paradigm, don't worry, just do what you do best, and I'll adapt to you. I try to be as unbiased as possible and weigh all arguments. As long as you're clear go as fast as you want (I would prefer you go slower for analytics). I love watching debaters with personalities, make jokes (not hurtful or overtly mean ones).

NOVICES-

how to become a winner (& super duper cool)-

1. be confident, if you believe something say it like you believe. even if you don't know what you are talking about, talking about it like you fully believe it will sell it.
2. be respectful, please try to be nice
3. try your best, don't give up halfway through
4. learn, improvement is bound to happen, I love talking about debate so do not hesitate to email me with any questions. always happy to help!

may the odds be ever in your favor:))

NON- NOVICES-

DEBATE (LD, CX, PF)

PREF SHORTCUTS-

• kritiks (identity)- 1
• policy- 1-2
• kritiks (pomo)-3
• theory-4
• phil- 5
• tricks-5- know fundamentally nothing about this argument, but I'll still flow it and would need you to take time to explain it to me if you are going for it

TLDR-

• Please be able to explain your arguments to me and your opponent, reading and dumping cards will just make me cringe.
• Don't read dozens of offs and rely on your opponent to drop one to win. It's not a good model for debate. I would rather see fully fleshed-out debates.
• Do what you are best at rather than over-adapting to my paradigm. If you present a clear narrative and warrant your impact(s), I'll vote for you.
• My favorite debates to watch are ones where both debaters look like they wanna be there.
• Tech > truth in most instances. An argument must have sufficient explanation for it to matter to me, even if it’s dropped. You need a warrant and impact, not just a claim.
• love love love judge instruction- write my ballot for me, explain to me why you're winning, do some impact calc
• One of my favorite things to see is the re-highlighting of your opponent's evidence, it shows me you are paying attention to their arguments and is my favorite on case stuff to evaluate. Go a step further and make it link to your offensive arguments. That being said try to re-highlight in a completely different color, I tend to enjoy seeing re-highlighting in red.
• frame your arguments!!: "If I win this that means... I win this.. and that causes this".
• signpost!
• Do not steal prep. Make it obvious that you are not prepping if there's not a timer running.
• Do not lie during CX. For example, If you read Condo Bad and your opponent asks if you read it and you say no I will ask you if I should cross it off my flow. I also flow CX, I think it's critical in debate and helps me better understand how to view your arguments.
• I believe that condo is good but you can challenge that

AFFIRMATIVES-

your choice, read what you want! I have read both Kaffs and policy affs so you can go crazy just please know what your aff says. for example, if you are reading a K- aff and can't explain your theory of power I'll cry.

--policy affs- great! love good case debates.

--k- affs- assume I don't know your lit base and take your time to explain it to me. I do tend to prefer when they link, refer, or connect to the topic somehow, but if you win a persuasive reason why that's not true I will vote on it. -important to win solvency, your burden of proof is higher than just winning FW on the aff, explain to me how your advocacy works. truly speech-of-art mechanisms kinda fall apart in front of good framework teams so try to complicate beyond that. I love historical examples like the black panther party. Use them to explain your solvency mechanisms or in your framework debates about the history of the activity, I find them very persuasive.

--k- affs v TFW- please if you are running a k-aff know how to answer these. I don't care what strategy you will go for. I do like when you bring up topic flaws but simply saying "debate bad" will not persuade me. The more offense you bring in about the topic the more compelling. I enjoy debates about debate because I do think this activity has an impact on our personal lives and outlook on the world. I like to weigh arguments about education, capacity building, etc. above pure procedural fairness arguments. But I like it most when teams entangle them together and say we can't have one without the other.

DISADS-

I love a good disad especially when the link debate is specific, internal links matter don't forget: When you are reading a DA you are telling a story of cause and effect. Tell me that story and make it convincing.-- please also do impact calc.

COUNTERPLANS-

• smart permutations are persuasive and win cp debates
• to beat out perms- show how the plan is competitive
• explain the net benefit-(cp and disad combos are solid arguments)

KRITIK V PLAN-

• As a 2N, this is my party trick
• the key to k debating is fully fleshing out this argument. Anytime I go for a K, I spend my entire 8-minute speech selling the Kritik. This means you have to sit there and give me a Tana Mongaeu-level storytime.
• To become a storyteller you need to fully know your story, ie, you need to understand your literature.
• I am familiar with some lit bases such as set col, cap, fem, Asian orientation, CRT, etc. But I am also not familiar with a ton such as of pomo tbh.. take your time breaking it down for me. This being said I will not fill in any holes for you.
• Link debates on the K make or break how I weigh it against the case. (I weigh the aff against the K)-- This means specific links, re-highlight cards, and the words in CX. The more quality links the better though only pick the strongest ones to fully extrapolate in the 2NR.
• if you do end up using a generic link get ready to defend it. I will vote for any link as long as it's properly explained, i.e. lay out your story with the link a part of it.
• If you're 2N your 2NC is what I look forward to in the debate. (short overviews pls, love a line by line)
• framework matters here make sure to introduce a new lens I should view the debate.
• I don't necessarily care for ROB because most times it feels self-serving.
• I've always been a big fan of reps' work. Pull quotes that make the aff terrified.
• don't pretend to be an identity group so you can read an argument (I know it sounds ridiculous but I have seen it play out)
• If you go for the alt defend it but if you do not want to go for the alt or don't have time, I am fine with you kicking it as long as you go beast on the Link debate. You now would have to prove to me that the aff would cause more harm than good (make references to your impacts)
• I also have a strong dislike for the fiat K and I do believe that being able to fiat an alt means that you ruin affs ground. With Ks, there's nothing to fiat. The actor is the judge. Vote for neg to embrace X or reject Y or send the message that Z. You should still win solvency arguments saying that the judge's action will resolve the impacts in your K, but there's nothing to fiat. That means "neg fiat bad" arguments aren't relevant. If you frame your K right you don't need fiat, trust.

TOPICALITY-

• im not the best judge for t, so if that your a strat you have to spend time explaining what your argument is to me.
• if you plan on going for it example your standards.
• Go slower than you would with a DA/K/CP. I find it harder to flow T than other off-cases at high speed.

if you make a Drake reference at any point I will increase your speaks by +.1. (I love random pop culture references so have fun with it ill probably laugh)

lab tournament paradigm:

about me: I am an extremely experienced debater that debated at harvard westlake for 26 years and won a couple tournaments like harvard(JV), Berkeley(novice), and the O'Connor cougar classic.

do NOT call me "Parker" "Hamstra" "Mr. Hamstra", or "Parker Hamstra", call me "JUDGE" or "Parker"

Disads:

Love disads! interact with disads or you won't win. Weighing is also important

the aff should never read defense to disads, you should straight turn everything in the 1nc

CP

Love this! I think that the more you cheat when reading a counterplan the cooler you are, but you still have to answer theory

Theory

Theory is always drop the debater and Yes RVI's - I think that policy debaters are really bad at defending their own practices so now you have to

Kritiks

Kritiks are the greatest form of argumentation in debate - I will vote on any kritik no matter what it says

Speaks

+1 for every minute that you end a speech early

+1 for making the other team look stupid

+1 for being mean in cross without yelling

-3 for yelling ever

Hello I am Parker.

Run literally anything you want and I will evaluate as long as it has a warrant, that being said be nice and don't cheat. i do LD and know nothing abt pf(don't try to gaslight me bc i know) but i will make you time your own speeches.

also weigh your impacts, I don't know who to vote for if you don't tell me.

Speaks:

nobody is perfect, but somebody can get perfect speaker points

30: what a great debater! I think I will put this ballot on my wall!

29: you made a strategic decision and collapsed

28: you were decently good and didn't drop anything

27: you participated and you weren't mean

26:said something offensive(doesn't include yelling)

if you show me that you reposted LaMelo Ball on Instagram I will give you +.3 speaks

Hey everyone,

I'm Angela and I do LD at Reagan HS. Please do framework debate and impact weighing. Engage with your opponents arguments. Tell me why I'm voting for you in the last speech. Also PLEASE signpost. Time yourself.

I also competed in PF in middle school and had so much fun. If you have any questions feel free to ask me.

Have fun and be confident!

Angela

Winston Churchill '25 -- 3 years of mostly PF

Put me on the email chain, my email is cameroningramdebate@gmail.com

Feel free to reach out with any questions you may have

most of this is taken from Vivek Yarlagedda, Ishan Dubey, and Ilan Benavi

TDLR: Tech PF Judge

---PREFS---

LARP -- 1

Theory -- 2

Plans/Counterplans -- 2

Topical Kritiks -- 3

Non-T Kritiks -- 4

High Theory/Phil, Performance, etc -- 5 (Strike)

---GENERAL---

Tech > Truth

Truth is largely determined by the technical debating in round. Debate is a game about persuasion. I am most persuaded by arguments. Treating me like a stereotypical policy-leaning flow/circuit judge is usually a safe bet, though not a lock. Conceded arguments are "true" per se, but only the conceded parts. "Even if" arguments and cross-applications are fair game. This should go with out saying but I will not vote on an argument that I cannot make sense of or explain back to you, even if dropped.

Prep Time

Don't steal it. Flex prep is fine. Clarification questions are flex prep.

Signposting

Signposting is crucial, especially for messier rounds. Judge instruction is also super helpful and highly valued (how to evaluate the round, when/whether I should grant new arguments, if I should gut-check or err one way or another, etc).

Cross

Cross ex is binding but you need bring up relevant concessions in a speech (it can be brief, don't waste time re-inventing the wheel). I'll likely listen to cross ex but will not flow it. Open cross and skipping GCX are good.

Weighing

Resolve clashing link-ins/pre-reqs/short circuits -- otherwise I'll most likely have to intervene to resolve it.I'll be sad and you'll be mad.

Weighing is important but totally optional, I'm perfectly happy to vote against a team that read 12 conceded pre-reqs but dropped 12 pieces of link defense on the arg they weighed

Probability weighing exists but shouldn't be an excuse to read new defense to case. It should be limited to general reasons why your link/impact is more probable ie. historical precedent

Link weighing is generally more important than impact weighing (links have to happen for impacts to even matter).

Defense

Frontline in second rebuttal -- everything you want to go for needs to be in this speech

Defense isn't sticky. That said, I am very lenient towards blippy defense extensions in first summary if second rebuttal doesn't frontline something at all, just make sure it's there

I think defending case is the most difficult/impressive part of debate, so if half your frontlines are two word blips like "no warrant," "no context," and "we postdate," I'll be a little disappointed.

Evidence Ethics/Exchange/Thoughts

Send speech docs before you speak. This is non-negotiable for national circuit tournaments and entails, at a minimum, sending all evidence you plan on introducing. If you choose to send "specific pieces of evidence", I will not stop your opponents from stealing prep in the meantime.

Use an email chain, preferably, speechdrop, or tab for exchange. Don't send google docs, especially if you intend on disabling the option to copy and/or download. Long evidence exchanges are a huge pet peeve. The quicker and smoother the round, the better.

Marking docs doesn't require prep. Using accessible formatting on verbatim or sending rhetoric is fine so long as the cards are included as well, though I think that sending rhetoric may be a violation of some shells.

Evidence matters a lot to me. Debate is a researched-based activity. Evidence/warrant comparison plays a huge part in most of my decisions. Do it so I don't have to.

None of this is to say don't make make analytics.Sound analytics can be very convincing, especially when used to exploit inevitable gaps in logic. Smart arguments and strategic decision-making can absolutely beat quality evidence. That said, I may not catch nor vote on incredibly blippy analytics.

I encourage you to stop the round and conduct an evidence challenge if you believe someone is violating NSDA and/or tournament evidence rules (generally clipping, fabrication, straw-manning, ellipses). If there is a rule against something and you are not willing to stake the round, it will be difficult to convince me that the practice merits a loss. That said, rules are a still a floor, not a ceiling.

Other

I'll probably always have done some research on the topic, but still explain jargon.

Absent warrants, I'll presume first due on non-fiated topics, and status quo on fiated topics. No new presumption warrants in final focus though, make sure they're in summary.

Winning zero-risk is not impossible but will usually require solid explanation and/or evidence.

Speak at whatever rate you want so long as you are comprehensible, most people think they are clearer than they are. I was a fast-ish debater but appreciate the slow-and-steady approach. Fast or slow, pen time is nice.Do not sacrifice clarity. Slowing down on analytics and for emphasis, especially in back-half speeches, tends to be helpful. If you spread, please read real taglines (thus, additionally, etc. don't count) and actual cards otherwise flowing will be difficult and your speaker points will decrease.

I stop flowing when the timer hits 0. Time yourselves and call each other out.

I think long case extensions are bad for clash, so I have a very low threshold for extensions, BUT, they must be very clear. Ex. "We're going for our argument on X". Answering turns on arguments you're not going for is a must, however you chose to do that. I do think that extensions of things that are not case do require slightly more in depth extensions -- think turns, defense, etc, but not to the same extent as other judges. Things like impact turns and Ks do not need explicit extensions unless you want to clarify the link story for me.

If you want to read a complex/wacky argument, just be read to defend and explain it (especially the latter). You'd be surprised at how often you can win rounds on "untrue" arguments, so it's disappointing to hear such arguments read solely for comedic effect.Being strategic and having fun are not mutually exclusive.

Well-warranted impact turns are often strategic: democracy, growth, food prices, climate change, disease, etc. Please supplement these with impact defense and interact with your opponent's impact evidence/explanation if you go this route. Arguments like spark are fine, arguments like wipeout are questionable.

Please label email chains clearly. Ex. "Grapevine R1 -- Winston Churchill IM (Aff 1st) vs Southlake Carroll RY (Neg 2nd)".

---PROGRESSIVE---

Theory

I prefer binary theory debates over semantical ones. I will probably ask myself: "Is X practice enough for Y team to lose the round?" Avoid theory as a crutch. I am not a good judge for frivolous theory. In elimination rounds especially, you have to win substantial offense to convince me that it is more important than substance. Substance crowd-out is absolutely an impact and one that I will implicitly consider. Lack of a CI is not always round-ending, especially if you plan on impact turning the shell; I will simply assume that you are defending the violation/status quo. Shoe and Team Sweater theory is friv, hyper-specific disclosure shells and must not send Google docs are not.

Defaults: Text > Spirit, CI > Reasonability, yes OCIs (non-negotiable), no RVIs (a turn or anything of the sort is not an RVI), DTA, DTD doesn't need to be explicitly said or extended -- a warrant for why something is a voter/reject the team/debater is sufficient.

Paraphrasing is bad. It will be hard to convince me otherwise. I will not directly penalize you for paraphrasing if it is not an issue in the round or unless evidence is egregiously misrepresented, in which case speaker points will suffer and you may lose. Bracketing can be just as bad as paraphrasing. If you bracket, do so in good faith. If there is a theory debate, intent matters. The only difference with paraphrasing in terms of penalization is if there is clearly excessive bracketing then I will decrease speaker points and call you out.

Disclosure is probably good and open-sourcing is probably the best way to do so. I do not think OS qualifies as semantical. If you read disclosure without open-sourcing, it will be a harder sell. More broadly, reading disclosure with bad disclosure practices is a colossal risk.

You only need a Content Warning if discussing something something graphic, but I do not personally think that the absence of a CW should be an in-round voting issue and opt-outs definitely aren't.

I don't love "IVIs" (short procedural arguments are different) but will vote on them if they are presented as a complete argument and won. If the abuse is clear and obvious, an "IVI" will suffice, though I strongly dislike the term.

I will never vote for call-outs, ad-homs, or arguments based on things outside of the round that are non-verifiable (I think disclosure is different but not all circumstances surrounding it). If there is an in-round issue, that's a different story.

The K

I'm interested by these arguments but do not have an amazing understanding of most of them.

Err on the side of over-explanation. Be very clear on what voting for you does and what the links are, especially if fully non-T.

"Conceding" the text of a ROB does not mean the round is over: creative weighing under a conceded ROB is welcome.

Reject alts and discourse alts are probably fake, but I will vote on them if won. I'm pretty flexible with extra-topical alternative/method strategies, which I think is needed for a well-executed K in PF. (pls do that; ontological revisionism > reject capitalism)

I will never vote for arguments precluding your opponents from linking in or "we said it first".

Framework and T-FW are pretty persuasive to me. Theory uplayers the K but I can be convinced otherwise.

Framing/ROTB

I default to util and will evaluate basic framing (think Fem, SV, etc). Anything more complex is out of my realm, but I'll listen to anything.

Plans/Counterplans

I've run them before, I think they're good, but I'm probably pretty lenient in terms of responses. If it's a natcirc, I don't care about the rule that bans them, if it's NSDA districts or nats, you might be able to sneak it in but I probably won't eval it.

Won't work on "on balance" resolutions, but if it's a fiated policy topic, go for it I guess.

Tricks

I won't evaluate anything I don't understand and my knowledge on these falls off a cliff once you go past "predictions fail" to "dogmatism paradox", but in general, probably just don't.

---EXTRA---

After Round

I will disclose who I voted for unless there is a rule against it. There will always be some explanation on the ballot.

Speaker points are my decision (I will not give everyone 30s because you asked) but I will try to standardize them as much as possible. I will base speaker points off of the event norms, strategy, coherence, argument quality, increments, and tournament (local, national).

Post-round/ask questions. Doing so is educational, holds judges accountable, and makes debate more transparent. Being upset is fine, just don't make it personal.

Speaks

I usually give pretty good speaks, and assign them based on clarity and in-round strategy, with bonus points for word efficiency and humor.

---NON PF EVENTS---

The PF paradigm applies, I do almost exclusively PF, but I'm not super unfamiliar with a lot of policy arguments, LD is the event I'm least familiar with.

Main difference to note is counterplans, read them, go for them, but be sure to explain them. Theory is a valid response to a lot of things, i.e. process CPs, mostly.

PF/LD:

read whatever - tech> truth - weigh arguments - tell me specifically in the last speech why you win - open space, don't be afraid to say what you want - don't be rude or offensive - I give high speaks - good luck + have fun

email: shealandry101@gmail.com

middle school pf/ld paradigm: I have not competed a pf round before, but i have watched many debate rounds and I can pretty easily understand the arguments you are trying to make. -> I am not familiar with this topic but ^

˗ˏˋ ★ ˎˊ˗

background: I am currently a Junior at Churchill High school and compete in the policy division of debate (3 years) and have some experience with congress.

˗ˏˋ ★ ˎˊ˗

general:I encourage post rounding/ asking questions after debate- please ask me questions :) and i will try to clarify my decision/ give possible room for improvement

there is a BIG difference between being aggressive and competitive vs being rude (im not clueless i will know when you are being rude and there will be consequences) for reference look at speaker points :)

flowing good- do it

˗ˏˋ ★ ˎˊ˗

speaker points: I'd say i give pretty good speaking points on average 28.0 especially since this is only a middle school tournament, BUT if you are mean, sexist, racist, homophobic etc. by any amount (even a joking one-liner) speaker points will be as low as possible, if it continues then i will notify tab (aka. your coach) :(

other than that 28.0 is your starting point- it will fluctuate depending on how well you do :)

˗ˏˋ ★ ˎˊ˗

misc:

-tech>>>>truth- i will be reading over evidence, but if an argument is not explicitly made then I won't be voting on it (womp womp)

-making jokes can always be fun in debate, but I find that most jokes made in rounds are bad, unless it is the funniest thing to ever grace planet earth I wouldn't try to make a joke (it'll be awkward for most people in the room)

-remember that debate is supposed to be fun, you should not come out of the debate hating your opponent or holding a grudge if you lose (most people in debate are cool there's no reason to be rude)

-any violation of ethics will result in an auto L ( do i really need to further explain??)

- if you give me food/ drink before round i will give you auto-30's (im allergic to mangos and apricots)

-yes i am your judge but dont call me "judge" either 1) dont refer to me; or 2) call me my name: Shea (pronounced Sh-ay)

if you have any questions about my paradigm feel free to ask/ email me before round :)

About Me:

I invented debate. Before you had even been conceived, I had already conquered the world. My reputation is known across the lands. Cease any efforts to deceive me, for I cannot be fooled. My decision is absolute, my spirit untamed, my flowing lazy, and I like debate.

Speaker Points:

I believe speaker points is a flawed system. I will evaluate you as a speaker, and you shall not pass. Unless you participate, in which case I will give you at least a 26.A Thirty is impossible, unless you incorporate a rhyme.

Resolution:

It's there for a reason, so stick to it.

Email Chain:

My email is "brettkellymackay@gmail.com".

Crossfire:

Answer the question your opponents ask. No games of ???? and ????. Otherwise I will be very upset ????.

Public Forum:

General:

I served my tenure in a generic office building as a lie detector. That being said don't test me. I know how to defend myself from your ruthless onslaught of misinformation

First Speech (Constructive):

Read a case, not a theory or a k. You are not a philosopher so don't try to get overly intellectual in your speech.

Second Speech (Rebuttal):

Signpost, I need to know which way albuquerque is.

Third Speech (Summary):

I would prefer if you summarized, but that is just my take on the summary speech.

Fourth Speech (Final Focus):

I need to know why you big number bigger than other big number.

Lincoln-Douglas:

Don't get lost in the sauce.

LD debate at Winston Churchill High School

email: elijahccmcgill@gmail.com

Arguments: Go for anything you’re comfortable with.

Disadvantages: Good.

CP: win mutual exclusivity and net benefit.

Kritiks: There's a recent issue of debaters cutting link cards that don't really link to the aff; so simple perm could convince me.

Theory: Theory should not be used for silly reasons, but instead give a blueprint on how debate should be run ethical. i.e. disclosure and mechanisms. I'm comfortable to vote on plan affs as long as their topical. No RVIs.

Tricks: Tricks are for kids

Spikes: Anything but evaluate after the 1ac. However a winning answer to spikes can be a simple thumbs down

email: anjalimd100@gmail.com

pronouns: she/her

My name is Anjali (un-jah-lih), and I'm a debater at Johnson High School. I'm well versed in Lincoln Douglas, but I have knowledge about other forms of debate, and I also have past experience in Speech (Prose, Poetry, DO, and Extemporaneous).

In general, I'm pretty open to anything and I don't have any biases toward a particular way of going about things. Just do your best and be respectful to everyone in the round :)

How I evaluate debate

Clearly tell me why I should vote for you/ I want to see clear defense, impacts, and links. I will vote on understanding of the issue, evidence, and explanation. Make sure address everything properly and don't concede anything!

Speeches

- If you don't talk about it in summary, I'm not evaluating it in final focus.

Cross

- Please don't argue during cross. I don’t pay attention to cross. In my opinion, cross is meant to examine your opponent’s case and clarify any questions.

What's up y'all! Excited to be judging you today!

FOR UTNIF - Please extend the aff in the 1AR and the 2AR - I can help with what this means. Just ask me before the round if you don't understand.

Email for chain - rmlddebate@gmail.com

About me - I debated for Claudia Taylor Johnson for 2 years in LD and CX. I received 1 bid to the TOC, won UIL State 6-A LD my senior year and got multiple top-3 speaker awards at various nat circuit tournaments. I also qualified to TFA State for CX and LD, and made it to elims at NSDA Nationals.

Positions read - I read a mix of every type of K, various theory shells, Phil and some tricks, some policy DAs and trad when I had to. I should be able to understand whatever, but if it's confusing and not very common, err on overexplaining.

TLDR -

- I will vote on anything, literally anything, as long as it has a claim, warrant and impact and is coherent. I believe anything else is judge intervention and that is horrible, so y'all can read whatever you want. But I do draw the line at anything that's blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

- Spreading - I can understand it obviously but please SLOW DOWN on the taglines and citations, and keep at an 8/10 of your regular speed ideally. I will slow and clear you if I must.

- Quick prefs - I will vote on anything, but this is based on what I actually understand, from 1-5

• K, Phil, Theory, Trad - 1

• Policy, Tricks - 2. I understand this, but please make it clear where I vote on high level CP competition debates and confusing tricks rounds.

- Tech over truth

- I will vote on whatever’s conceded as long as ithas warranting. Ex - i won’t vote on ‘eval after the 1AC since the sky is blue’ since that isn’t coherent. New warrants require new responses.

- Solid advice - please weigh and collapse for everything

Specifics - opinions/facts that may help

K -

• Debated this the most so comfortable with most sides of this debate

• K’s must have a ROTB to be K’s. Otherwise it’s just a DA + CP.

• No new ROTBs or arguments in the 2NR

• I find weighing on the ROTB flow pretty strategic

Policy

• Didn’t do this as much as other forms of debate but should be comfortable judging it

• Weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh! If both cause extinction, then idk what to do lol, neg on presumption!

• Case debate and impact turns are smart!

Theory

• If you do not read a DTD implication on a shell or at least X is a voter, it is not a theory shell. I will not read voters/paradigm issues for you

• Weighing a shell to its voters and collapsing on a shell is smart!

• If you read theory, have proper extensions. Too many times i hear ‘they dropped this, we win’ and that’s it. Extend your arguments and explain them

• Fine with friv theory as long as it’s explained well. If the shell is really 'frivolous' opponents should have no problem answering it. Default to CI so offense over all

• Default - Competing interps, no RVIs

Phil

• Phil debate is dying - thus if you read phil i’ll give you 30 speaks!

• I have no inherent attachment to util/consequenitalism, good with whatever

• If it’s complex philosophy, overexplain

Tricks

• Fine w tricks but so many debaters have no warrant. Make sure you have a warrant and an impact

• I default to comparative worlds, but am totally fine with truth testing. For a lot of tricks, you must win TT first.

• Please have warrants. I won’t vote for stuff i don’t understand

Trad

• I won UIL State, was the trad GOAT so run whatever

• I am tech over truth. I care less about your ability to speak and more about WHAT you are speaking and what your arguments are

• Many trad debaters forget the criterion debate. This matters more than the value. Please please weigh under your criterion

Speaks

• I have lost so many random rounds because of speaker points. Therefore, I will give speaks between a 29-30 unless the tournament is mad at me :(
• Will vote on speaks theory!
• If you read disclosure against a trad opponent or novice, you won't like your speaks. Reading another shell is fine.

I'm Emma, a policy (CX) debater at Reagan.

♥️ if you have any questions: emmaadebate@gmail.com

CX "Crossfire"

I've been coaching and helping middle schoolers on this LD topic for a while now. I've noticed that y'all love to ask questions about evidence--- One or two is fine but they getreally repetitive, really fast. Also, do not keep pushing on a question that you know the other team is incapable of answering, trust me I'll know what's going on, but you really don't have to make a scene out of it.

General Information

♥️ I'm familiar with this LD topic so feel comfortable going beyond your cards and making some analytical/logical arguments

♥️Make sure you have offense--- When giving your speech it's important to affirm your side but also respond to the other team's arguments and make sure to contest their claim. Please put offense on my flows.

♥️Make smart arguments don't be a block bot.

♥️Do not be a block bot. (Please don't it's boring to watch)

???? +1 speaker points if you bring me a snack or drink ????

hey I'm Ujala (ooh-jah-lah) and I go to Reagan HS. I do policy debate and I'm a sophomore. ☺️♥

cx questions-

ask open ended questions

please be polite

try not to ask them to explain their entire argument in cx thats giving them more speech time

args-

make sure to always explain your arguments in detail and walk the judge through them

make sure you flesh out your args

make sure you explain your impacts and the internal link chain (how the impact will happen/get triggered)

other important notes-

impact calc!!!!

- this is the most important part of the rebuttals-- it makes or breaks the debate sometimes

please please please PLEASE try not to JUST read cards and your blocks ☹-- try to think about what they're saying and make logical responses to them

be polite, be topical and have fun!! ????????

email me if you have any questions

ujala.debate@gmail.com

HiI am Manav and you can just refer to me as that, I have been doing debate for 6 years now and I am familiar with the arguments made. ( Manavphandi2020@gmail.com)

I have been doing LD for 3 years now so Ill be okay to flow arguments that are fairly fast and other arguments that may be based more on philosophy and traditional.

Speaker points -

• I'll award based on your clarity and audibility.
• just make sure to be respectful to your opponent

Just know thatI don'tusually fall for emotional arguments that are targeted to make me feel pity and such. AlthoughI will say thatI have no biasesagainst anyagreements ingeneral as long as they areproperly stated. Debate is supposed to be a safe place so let's keep it that way as well.

Just be a good debater and try to not attack your opponent character and such.

I will gladly keep track of time if it is needed butI would appreciate if you guys could keep time by yourselves as well.

CX-

I feel as a debater a lot of the round can be affected and opened here but CX shouldn't be a reason to win it should be a way to ask your opponent questions. However if you use questions that help your stance and maybe bring it up during your rebuttals I will make sure to take that into consideration as long as you state the fact that what ever your are bring up is from CX.

Clash -

make sure to clash with your opponent and don't just read of arguments from your computer or paper, respond and defend arguments so it shows that debate is actually happening.

I am a junior at Winston Churchill HS and have been debating for two years. I've competed in novice and varsity LD, Congress, and am currently in varsity Policy.

Middle school PF paradigm:

I have very few debate opinions for middle school specifically but in general I have a few...

• tech > truth - I'll read the evidence but won't vote on anything not said in the round explicitly
• Ethics violations will be taken seriously and taken to tab so don't be annoying and make stupid arguments.

• Speaks start at 28.5 anything above or below are completely dependent on the round. Bring me a soda/energy drink for extra speaker points :)

This is middle school debate. Please have fun and don't make the experience anything other than that for everyone else.

Extra:

If you have any questions after round don't hesitate to post round me! I enjoy debate, if you want to improve, ask as many questions as you want.

Any questions beyond that or after round, email me: samroma1728@gmail.com

if there’s an email chain please add me: cbskiles2@gmail.com

hey, i'm cheyenne i debate for brandeis highschool. i currently do LD and mainly really trad stuff so if you run prog just make it understandable for me and to where i can flow the arg. i have also done congress, extemp, and interp.

if you are going to spread and it's actually terrible i will dock you. please be understandable or just do not spread :)

i don't care what you call me but in round just say judge please. outside of round call me whatever.

if you don't have time to look at this entire paradigm, don't worry, just do what you do best, and i'll adapt to you. i try to be as unbiased as possible and weigh all arguments as long as you're clear. i love watching debaters with character don't just slate your evidence.

1. be confident, if you believe something say it like you believe. convince your opp and me you are right even if you don't know what you are talking about.
2. be respectful, i love clash but not if you are going to be disrespectful
3. try your best, do not just throw the round if you feel you are losing, i will evaluate the debate until the last speech.
4. neisd kids,i have not done pf so if you don't know what is going on i won't, be clear, be kind, have fun

DEBATE

TLDR-

• heavyy on the warrant and analysis. i should not be having to make the connections in your cards you need to explain and link yourself.
• do not just read fifty million offs then expect me to vote you if your opp drops one, be respectful and smart
• do not try to overdo yourself to fit into my paradigm. i am here to evaluate you to the best of your ability you do you.
• show you are passionate in your case if i feel you don't agree it makes me not want to vote you
• evidence>claim a blanket statement will not be sufficient enough for me to vote your arg
• love love love Role of the Ballot- write my ballot for me: why are you winning, what are you winning on, what did your opp drop, etc
• have fun don't stress i know this seems like a lot

DISADS-

love disads as it is more trad but the link needs to be apparent and strong. heavy on the impact calc too.

if you run anything remotely prog like phil, trix, or t, talk to me like i am a toddler or else it may go over my head and i won't vote you on it.

i 100% stole this template off of sanjana goli, call me out on it in round ill boost your speaks.

sethsmall1107@gmail.com

label the chain--- i.e FDM Round 1 WC IM Aff 1st vs WW NY Neg 2nd

send the email asap

---i wont flow off the doc, i will look at it, but if you are unclear i wont flow.

---i will flow the tagline only. im not reading the evidence for you. 'consequently, jacobs 23 finds' will be whats on my paper.

defaults

ref > educator

dta > dtd

no rvis

presume neg

ci > reasonability

2 condo (this is pf wyd??)

stuff

idk what layer tricks operate on. run them at your own discretion.

piks are fine, just be competitive and have more offense than solving the aff.

presumption is always the bottom layer.

Top-Level:

---Put me on the email chain:ryan.debate.rr@gmail.com

---Call me whatever during round, whatever is most familiar/comfortable

---Please organize the subject---"[Tournament Name] [Round #]---[Aff Team vs. Neg Team]---J: Whalen, Ryan"---close is close enough

Affiliations:

Reagan High School ['20 - '24]

University of Texas, Austin ['24 - '28]

Thoughts:

[Influenced by Philip DiPiazza and Tristan Rios]

---Treat me as a "tabula-rosa" judge - I'm fine with anything and everything as long as you give me explicit judge instructions and argument interactions [or WHY your arguments are right/matter]

---Now, that excludes racist, sexist, homophobic/transphobic, xenophobic arguments which will render the lowest speaks possible and insta-L [not the same as impact turns]

---Spread as fast you can, but do so clearly. I will only evaluate arguments that I can take down/properly hear. If you're going to spread through blocks, either send them out... or just don't.

---Don't be rude, respect your opponents/judges, have fun, and if you can, be fun [which will get you +0.5 speaker points].