San Diego State University Comm major

Current Trojan Debate Squad member (Policy Debate) 23/ '24

NDT / CEDA qual

Your work towards making your speeches clear for my flow will be reflected in my ballot.

Please include me in the email chain joaquinresell@gmail.com

If you have any more questions for me that I may have not answered on this page, please ask me before the round starts.

For email link chains: albert@lamdl.org

Current: Regional Coordinator for Los Angeles Metropolitan Debate League (LAMDL)

Debated 4 years in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Debate league

Coach and Assistant Program Manager for Los Angeles Metropolitan Debate League for 2 years

Currently attending CSULB (not actively debating)

General

- I don't appreciate being post rounded. If you don't agree with my RFD after multiple attempts of providing a sensible explanation, that's on you. I will tell you to be a better debater, gg. If you'd like, I'm open to exchanging emails so as to not stall future rounds.

- If you run a critical affirmative with multiple methods and theories that don't blend well together or create a performative contradiction, then expect some less than celebratory speaks.

- If neither the aff or neg have any clashing impacts in the round, then you're forcing me to vote aff because aff is a 'good idea'.

- If you're aff and you read multiple perms against a K and say "extend the perm/s" in the 2AC without further context, I'm going to be lost.

- I'm open to any argument so much as you can defend it and make a persuasive case to me. But really, just do what you do best. If you want to run a policy affirmative with heg good and nuclear war advantages, great! If you wanna run a critical affirmative that argues the topic is anti-black, heteronormative, colonialist, anthropoecentirc, capitalist, etc., that's cool too! Just have a fun debate!

- I'm pretty generous with speaker points, but that doesn't mean you don't have to earn them.

- If I feel I have to evaluate a piece of evidence, I'll call for it when the round ends.

- I don't count sending speech docs as prep time.

- I'm not typically persuaded by critical language critiques. Unless the neg has a very good impact analysis and comparison of what using certain phrases or words looks like compared to the aff's impacts, then it's not going to contribute to my decision calculus. However, I'll listen to your argument and flow it like I would any other.

For LD: I have a policy background, but these days I judge more LD rounds than I do policy. I'll pretty much treat your round as I would a policy round. The only thing I'll say is

1. Be clear - really slow your spreading down, especially your analytics

2. I don't like cheap tricks, but they do often win rounds if it is not contested by the opponent. However, just because I don't like it, this doesn't mean I won't vote for it.

Aff/Case Stuff
I believe the case is important. That being said, if you don't have an impact, then why should i care about voting affirmative? Also, if you have nuclear scenarios in your affirmative, please don't just say "nuclear war is going to occur" and expect me to consider it as an argument. If you say exactly that, then you have a claim without a warrant. You have evidence, and you need to be able to explain those internal links. As for critical affirmatives, i believe the case should be able to respond to any or at least most off cases the negative presents which is to say it should have built-in answers. For example, if you have an affirmative that discusses anti-blackness, then your case should potentially be able to respond to many offs like FW, T, Cap, Anthro, Settlerism, or any other incantation of high theory, etc. Just make you use your case to its fullest is all i'm saying.

DAs
They're cool; the more specific of a link you have the better the round will go for you. Although, I might consider a DA that's obviously generic if the Aff doesn't respond properly. As for politics DA's, you better explain those internal links.

CPs
These are cool too; I've voted for CPs before and i'll probably vote on them again. I usually don't however, because they're used as a time skew and/or lack any substantive explanation.

T
Alright, so these arguments I'm not so thrilled about generally because when I see T being ran it's ran with generic blocks that don't really say anything, but just makes the neg sound like they're whining. So what if the aff is untopical? Why should I care if they explode the limits of the resolution? Why is this key to education? Why does that negatively impact the round? These are things that I hold a high threshold for and these are things that need to be explained in a way that will make me vote for you. But, I'm open to hearing it and considering it if you can run it persuasively. PLEASE slow down on your analytics a tiny bit.

Presumption

Yeah, I'll consider it.

FW
I'm down for a FW round. I like seeing a lot of clash between the typical standards offered by the neg vs those of critical affirmatives. So, do some comparison and impact analysis like what fairness means for the neg and what the terminal impact is for them and what fairness means for the affirmative and what the terminal impact might be for them. Compare impacts, weigh them against each other and convince me who has the better interpretation of debate. Also, if you're running FW don't just rely on overwhelming the affirmative with evidence. Remember, quality outweighs quantity and at the end of the round and that's what gets my ballot. Take the time to explain your evidence.


K
I love these arguments; I suppose my preference of style might favor you if you enjoy deploying Ks. My understanding of the philosophies and theories of authors read in debate travel beyond the bounds of this activity, but just make sure you are explaining your criticism coherently because I won't do the work for you, nor will I reward butchered arguments. So, to reiterate, if you read Baudrillard and you're talking about the seduction of the object or some other, explain it in a coherent manner. I don't care if you're running Bataille and you're trying to be unintelligible. Just remember, I have to understand what you're communicating to me (unless not knowing is a reason to vote you up lol) in order to evaluate your arguments. A good K debater will find killer links against the case and will use the case against itself to win the round.

*I personally shift back and forth on args focused on author indictments. For instance, I will agree on criticisms of high theory authors such as Heidegger, DnG, or Nietzsche. However, when I see these arguments deployed, it often sounds like the team that runs them is whining. SO, I will side with these ivory tower authors if you can convince me that even if Nietzsche is white and has never been oppressed, self-overcoming or whatever is probably a good idea and that not doing the aff is life affirming or whatever.

Performance
I love the creativity of these arguments, so if you run these go for it. However, don't just perform for the sake of performing or because 'it's cool'. Always use your performance as a way of turning your opponent's offensive arguments. Tell me how to evaluate the performance in contrast to the neg.

Let's have a good round.

Hello! My name is David and I have a rather simple paradigm. I've done debate all through middle and high school. I currently do Parli debate and Int Extemp. For me debate is all about on-the-spot critical thinking and execution.

When judging the areas I focus on are (in descending importance):

1. Structure: I want to see clean signposting, solid link-chain and impact calculus at the end of every point (Starting in the 1st Speech). What this looks like is presenting a solid top of case framework (i.e. limits, definitions, plans, AND A VALUE). Please -- if you can -- tell me at the top of your case what your value/weighing mechanism is. Then, clearly tie back to that weight in every point. This makes for a really easy judging and subsequently a really easy ballot.
2. Argument/Debating: I want specific reference to the speeches that happen before yours. Things like "As Aff 2nd speaker said" or "Turn Opp's first point for X,Y,Z". If possible please layer refutations, saying something like "I have 3 responses on this point". Keep debating clean and civil. Though it's good to play into emotions and pathos while you speak, debate is supposed to be an academic confrontation and conversation of ideas so please do your best to conduct yourself like the wise students/scholars you are. Opp 1st speech should immediately respond to Aff's case. Both 2nd speeches should try to respond to every point with refutation or counter-refutation. 3rd speeches should look at big clash points, but spend at least a minute weighing.
3. Speaking Style: Rather simple. The perfect speaker speaks clearly, is not too fast and not too slow, and is able to make me invested in their speech even if it's the most banal subject. I don't want this to be at the sacrifice of the first two points, but often times speaking style can make your structure and debating better. PLEASE ASK POI's. 2-3 POI's offered and 1-2 POI's taken makes for a much more lively debate.

If you have any questions at all please do not hesitate to ask me before round! Debate is about learning and having fun, all I want is a debate that embodies that idea.

My email is ffish26@students.polytechnic.org

She/her

Polytechnic '26

Overall, just be respectful, have fun, and please impact.

Debated 2 years at Downtown Magnets High school and 1 Year in College. I am familiar with both LD and Policy Debates.

Email: sebastiangandionco@gmail.com

I'm not the most experience debater, but I have a grasp of most concepts in debate. Explain at the end why your winning the debate.

· Add me in the email chain before the round starts

· I will not keep track of time and flashing evidence is not considered prep time, but don’t be slow

· I am experience enough, but find the middle ground in speed for important arguments later in the round.

· Flush out arguments and explain high theory well including the importance of the debate

· I’m more techy

· I like performance and K’s and T

· Framework needs to be clear and concise.

Kritik’s/K-Affs:

I like performances and kritikal affirmatives, that’s basically summarizes my preference on K-affs. I am not well versed in most hard theory kritiks. I ran Cap K mostly, but I’m fine with any other kritik’s if you explain them. Don’t be intimidated to run any hard theory kritik’s, but take the time to explain the arguments.

Policy Affs:

I like all policy aff’s except the most generic ones. The more unique the affirmative is the more likely I will like the aff and probably vote on it.

DA’s CP’s:

Disadvantage links is what I focus a lot on. The structure for the DA should stay the same and answering them should stay the same not tangled in a mess. I will consider who has a more a updated Uniqueness card. Uniqueness is the foundation of the DA, so the card must be relevant. I like all Cp’s even consult, Cp w/ planks, and 2nc cps are okay. Give me a good reason why to outweigh the Cp against the aff and answer the perm. A good net benefit could be the very reason you win on the CP.

Theory/Topicality:

Any theory is fine. Topicality is one of my favorite arguments so make sure to extend interpretation and counter-interps. I want to see both negative and affirmative topicality to be contested. If you run T as a time skew that is also fine. Debate is all about strategy and using the tools you have.

I dislike trick debate

Speaks/other:

My RFD's can sometimes be unclear so ask questions

Don’t be toxic. (less speaks). I always give high speaks so don’t worry about speaks to much

As a former middle school debater who grew a lot from the activity, I see debate rounds as, above anything else, an opportunity for debaters to learn. As a result, I value well-constructed cases, and clear, logical argumentation. I will not often be convinced by arguments based on technicalities or rules unless the team can show there is a very clear violation. Still, I will be critical of teams who appear to rely on technicalities to win. I encourage debaters to actively flow the round, and to engage completely with the arguments the other team makes. A good round is one in which teams grapple with and analyze the opposing arguments.

I encourage POIs, and I am fine with heckling as long as it is not used to intentionally distract the speaker. Please use your heckles sparingly to deepen the debate.

Finally, while I do evaluate speakers on clarity, engagement in the round, speaking skills, and argumentation, I do not allow these to affect my final decision on a round. I will provide individual comments in round to help debaters improve their speaking, but my decision for the round will be based solely on the arguments and refutations made in round.

Hi! I do PF and i'm a flow judge

if you’re novice, I won’t be as strict but I still will lean towards the team that best upholds these standards, and these are things that you should be working towards regardless of experience level:

1. I will NEVER vote off of how you sound, only what you say and do. Though strong, confident speaking is a preferable skill to have, it never comes before the flow
2. EXTEND YOUR LINK CHAINS IN EVERY ONE OF THESE: (2R,S, FF)!!! Ofc you only need to extend the contention you collapsed on, but if it’s not extended, I will not vote on it (unless the other team doesn’t extend either)
3. Collapse on (preferably only 1, but 2 is acceptable) contentions starting with 2R
4. Please do NOT lie in 2FF (especially lying about stuff the other team has dropped when they have defense on it. Not to say that you shouldn't point this out when it is true, but don't call every single piece of your offense dropped if you know it wasn't). I'll be able to see through it, it will not influence my decision either way, and I'll lower your speaks
5. As for "debate etiquette" - dw, I know when the other team is making something up or gives an unsatisfactory answer. There's no need to roll your eyes or glare at them. Honestly idc if you speak over each other a little bit during cross or are extra assertive, but probably not a good habit (especially in front of parent judges)
6. Use your time wisely - emphasis on USE [ALL OF] YOUR TIME, even if it's just to strengthen arguments or weigh more
7. I've watched/judged/been in so many rounds where one side brings up a fw or overview and there's literally no interaction with it from the other side. PLEASE try to link in, propose a different fw, literally anything bc even if they concede all of your arguments you could still lose solely under their fw

Other random things:

Aff is given the burden of proof. If it is a wash, I'll default Neg

Default fw is util cba

I don't flow cross but i'll at least pay attention. Cross is only binding if you bring up something that was said in the speech after

Go any speed you want as long as it's clear and enunciated well (please send speech docs for spreading though)

How I give speaks: 28 is avg, it'll go up if you make strategic decisions, speak strongly, get somewhere in cross, etc. It'll go down if you're genuinely really disrespectful, are difficult to hear, make bad strategic decisions, other obvious stuff. I will pretty much never go below 25 unless you are actively making the debate space unsafe for others

Quality>quantity

tech>>>>truth - impact out to whatever you want as long as it's done well. The only times i'll switch to truth is if it comes down to evidence analysis, OR you give me a reason to prefer truer impacts (ex: "we need to focus on high probability impacts instead of always going to extinction bc ignoring problems staring us directly in the face for improbable impacts destroys rational decision making and perpetuates the current cycle of issues")

I won't ask for cards unless they sound completely unbelievable, so tell me to call for them if you think there's an issue

Feel free to ask me any questions before the round or if you want more feedback or explanation after I disclose my decision! Good luck and I'm looking forward to watching a great round :)

General: Debate is a game that is played to be won but it is also a game that can involve very personal components. So in round be respectful and inclusive. Tell me what weighing mechanism to use when evaluating who should win, debate which weighing mechanism is better, and tell me why you win within that weighing mechanism. Also, more structure and signposting is ALWAYS better. I default to evaluating the round through the technical components of the flow unless told to do otherwise.

Policy Debate: Run anything you want (politics, PICs, business confidence, anything). I prefer the contemporary debate structure (Advantages and Disadvantages) to the classical stock issues style. Solid impact weighing/framing can easily win you an otherwise close round.

Theory: I am good with anything. I prefer it when its used to actually check back for abuse in round and not just as a time suck but I am willing to vote on it regardless. I do not have a preference of the standards vs voters debate.

Speed / Speaker Points: I have no problem with speed, but be clear and maintain solid word economy. Don’t exclude other teams from the debate with your speed, it will cost you speaker points and I am open to theory/kritikal arguments against it. Otherwise, go as fast as you want. Speaker points are awarded by the quality and competitiveness of arguments made rather than persuasiveness.

I was a policy debater for 4 years in high school about 30 years ago. I'm now a law professor. Debate is both fun and one of the best things you can do to prepare yourself for a variety of interesting careers.

I've judged at 4 novice LD tournaments this year and judged a couple of novice policy rounds at a LAMDL tournament. Until this year, I had never judged LD. I was surprised to see how LD is much more like policy now. As a former policy debater, that is fine with me. I'm open to policy arguments in LD such as counterplans and disads. On the other hand, I am mindful of the fact that LD has traditionally been different from policy and there is an argument that LD debates should emphasize values. I will do my best to take a tabula rosa approach.

I'm becoming reacclimated to speed as I judge more rounds. It is helpful to slow down a bit when you are reading the tag and citation of a card. Your fastest speed should be reserved for the text of the card, but even then, try to be clear. I'm also not a fan of speakers speeding through a block of 5-6 different analytical points with no pauses. Your rebuttal speeches should be slower than your constructive speeches. Tell me a coherent story grounded in your evidence and analysis to persuade me that you won the debate.

e-mail: james.park@law.ucla.edu

put me on the chain: atejavanija25@students.polytechnic.org

she her

polytechnic '25

debate's a game, so it should be a fun and inclusive activity for everyone. that being said, just debate your best and it should be fine.