Add me to the email chain jenniferleebuckner@gmail.com.

I debated policy in high school and college. But to give you a clue how long it's been, I went to the library, used a pair of scissors to cut physical cards & hauled large Rubbermaid totes full of evidence around :-)

I have three kids in debate (two competing and one coaching in college).

Some speed is okay but be clear.

Types of arguments are up to the debaters in the round.

Have fun!

Preferences:

Clash - actually arguing against an opponent's evidence/analysis instead of just reading your own positions while substantively ignoring your opponent's positions.

Evidence analysis - not every card is as good as its tag; not every card is equal, etc. Be sure to analyze the evidence offered in the round.

Dislikes:

Rude/unkind/disrespectful behavior

Debaters reading arguments they don't understand.

I'm familiar and okay with everything, just don't be ridiculous.
Email your docs - maria041006cruz@gmail.com

PF:

-extensions

-prove uniqueness

-weigh impacts

-clear links

-65% lay

LD: Idk what a k is so voting based off of confidence, impacts, and good warranting.

-at least 80% lay

-sorry if it ends up a screw

WSD:

-speak slower/conversational paced

-clear warranting

-impact weighing (we outweigh on both the practical/principal side of the argument...)

-worlds weighing (in our world... their world...)

-clear model

Policy:

-erm idk

-100% lay

-mb if it ends up being a screw

-most likely i'll judge off of my flow (extended arguments)

General:

-don't be disrespectful

-u can time if u want

-explain why dropped/conceded items are important (my opponent failed to respond _ arg proving why _ is true...)

-if new args are brought up (in last speech) just say so it won't offend me (points will be docked if a significant amount of new arguments are presented last speech)

PF:

-extensions

-prove uniqueness

-weigh impacts

-clear links

-65% lay

LD: Idk what a k is so voting based off of confidence, impacts, and good warranting.

-at least 80% lay

-sorry if it ends up a screw

WSD:

-speak slower/conversational paced

-clear warranting

-impact weighing (we outweigh on both the practical/principal side of the argument...)

-worlds weighing (in our world... their world...)

-clear model

Policy:

-erm idk

-100% lay

-mb if it ends up being a screw

-most likely i'll judge off of my flow (extended arguments)

General:

-don't be disrespectful

-u can time if u want

-explain why dropped/conceded items are important (my opponent failed to respond _ arg proving why _ is true...)

-if new args are brought up (in last speech) just say so it won't offend me (points will be docked if a significant amount of new arguments are presented last speech)

Top Level --

wsg im aarav im a sophmore at lamar hs -- aaravkmahendru@gmail.com

add me to a doc or do speech drop js be ready when u get in the room

if ur a novice and nothing below makes sense -- just debate how you would normally would dont be afraid to speak fast

I am good for almost anything read the prefs below if you dont wanna read anything else -- will not vote on anything morally abhorrent or objectionable

Larp -- 1

T/Theory -- 1

Tricks -- 1/2

Set Col / Cap / Anthro -- 2

Phil --3

Dense Ks/ Identity stuff -- 4

LAY/STOCK STUFF -- 5

Dont let the prefs be what u read -- if ur comfortable with something go for it

Automatic Thirty Speaks -- u gotta win on these things

1] ice spikes

2] spark or wipeout

3] rvi

4] bringing me food ngl -- u still gotta win the round tho

LARP --

1] specifically for larp there needs to be good interaction between cases and good judge instruction -- if you dont weigh ur not gonna win -- impact and link turns are always good

2] please collapse to something ur winning -- theres no point to go for 3 advantages in the 2ar ur time crunched and ur gonna lose -- find something ur opponent undercovered and sit on it

3] Counterplans are always good -- just dont spam them, im good with pics and stuff, on the aff try to perm as much as possible it makes ur strat so much easier -- phrase ur perm with a net benefit

4] Plan texts are always good

T/Theory

1] i go for theory on the neg almost always -- its kinda a foolproof strategy and a huge timesuck for the 1ar as long as u read the right shell

2] I generally think that condo is good but if there are sufficient arguments against it then i will vote on it

3] please extend paradigm issues first, if those are conceded and if debated right u can automatically win

4] meta weigh -- explain why ur standard matters the most for either education or fairness and impact that out to the debate space as a whole -

5] dont be insanely abusive to novices --but i am willing to vote off of any shell that is impacted out -- barring violations that cant be solved i will vote on any shell

Tricks

1] i went for some of this last year but had trouble weighing between them

2] if you decide to go for this then please use heavy judge instruction

3] dont expect me to catch every trick when ur spreading at 300 wpm

4] use this strategy at ur own risk -- im pretty good for the most basic stuff, gcb, eval, paradoxes, ice spikes and other stuff

K

1] I am good for any K like set col, cap or anthro

2] I really dont want to vote on identity k's but if it comes down to it I will

3] dense K debate isnt really my thing so stick to the ones above lowkey

4] K affs are also a bit tricky for me so i would probably steer clear

5] explain ur rob and thesis then go on to offense -- no long 2n overviews the lbl is so much better

Phil

1] i read a bit of kant and hobbes but other than those two all phil is basically another language to me

I am a parent judge -- I will not evaluate the following arguments

K, Phil, T/Theory, Tricks, Plan Affs,

Dont spread in front of me please I am not accustomed to it.

I am a traditional judge -- focus on framing and how your offense links -- you win the flow based off of the framing

I look for persuasive, evidence-based arguments. For example, if your opponent uses your card against you, beware that might be outcome determinative unless you find a way to rebut.

I think extinction debates are silly -- I will likely err to the side that uses probability rather than defaulting to the biggest impact

General:

-Don't be disrespectful

-Im fine with you timing yourself

-Please mention if new args are mentioned in the final speech

-Enunciate and be confident when speaking

-Don't steal time, I'm fine with a few seconds over though

Speech:

- Be confident

-Try not to do use filler words

-A creative adg will make you stand out

PF:

-Clear extensions and warrant

-Strong impacts

-Clash

-I don't mind spreading, but I prefer if you don't

-CX should be for questions and answers, not just reading evidence.

- No new arguments in the Final Focus, but you can have new evidence to support prior arguments.

-Make sure to weigh

Policy:

-Im half lay

-Aff plan should have a plan text, clearly say why their plan is significant, needed, and what current problems it would solve.

-Neg clearly explain why aff's plan is bad through a cp, k, or topicality

-No new args in the rebuttle

-If you want me to consider an arg, mention it in the last speech

-Clash

LD:

-I'm lay but I'll go for the arguments that make the most sense, contribute to the framework, and are based on the philosophy

-Aff should prove why the resolution is true while neg should try to disprove affs position

-Idk special wording so please explain stuff to me

World Schools:

-Conversational round with a clear explanation of points at the end

-Engage in both the principle and practical arguments

-POI's should be addressed consistently but not everyone can be taken

-You can take a few seconds to get ready but don't steal prep

-Weigh worlds (In our world.. but in their world..)

-Both your speaking abilities and arguments are important

Hi I'm Dick. I'm a sophomore at Lamar and I do Pf and Worlds. Add me to a doc, speech drop, or email chain before speeches.

LD- I don't judge LD often, so avoid K's and anthro. I'm good for phil (kant, hobbes, etc...), larp, and tricks.

AUTOMATIC 30 SPEAKS

- adding innington in some of your words throughout speeches

Ex: This argument is faxington

- bringing me food or bev before round (IF YOU BRING ME PEPSI OR MOUNTAIN DEW UR GETTING 20 SPEAKS)

- if you reference breaking bad (WALTUH), lethal company, or brawl stars/clash royale

- change state actor counterplan to mexico

PF- I enjoy hearing geopolitics arguments. Make sure every impact leads to mass extinction/ nuclear war or our economy dying and us losing to china. If you try to run theory you get max speaks. I like clash; don't debate passively. Read cards, defend your case.

I prefer Dick. Don't call me judge.

Speech- don't really have experience in speech

interp/Prose/POI

be clear, have a good voice with emotion, clear actions that are meaningful

public speaking-

Same thing as interp, but emphasize

Seven Lakes 2027 - aka a high school freshman

pronouns: She/her

Hi, I'm Sunny Pu, I'm a varsity LD debater for 1 year currently, but I have done PF for 2-3 years, and dabbled in some World Schools.

I was in your place about a year ago, so I'll try my best to make you feel comfortable! lf you're just genuinely confused about debate and how to get better at it I can help you because I jumped a lot from my middle school years to high school year lol.

Joke Paradigm
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DC4mn0FULec24945OF4VZcbM73YlXJ-YEm1Kqrhkguk/edit

TLDR:

• have smart strategy- will both win you rounds and raise speaks
• be a decent person
• if youre going to spreading please disclose to me before round starts, I'm a tech > truth judge but i hate being jumpscared by spreading.
• WEIGH!!!WEIGH!!! Comparitive worlds, link weighing, impact weighing, only accept some evdience weighing if it's actually relevant - but when it is it's actually really really nice.
• If you care about the ballot, then please signpost, be safe than sorry. If I get lost, it will take my ~10 seconds to get back on track and I will not be flowing.
• anyways please read my entire paradigm please it actually helps you a lot on how i;m going to judge you
• + 1 speakerpoint if you give me any real and juicy gossip in your school after round.
• +0.5 speakerpoints if you give me a spin every time you read a turn :)

General

• Be respectful but assertive
• no racism/homophobia/ableism/transphobia/sexist - automatic down and lowest of points I can get you.
• I have very little patience for bad debate evidence: if a card is obviously miscut, your opponents are lying about evidence or intentionally misconstrued it. Feel free to stake the round on an evidence challenge, I will vote for it. If you think your evidence isnt cut properly, fix it before round or dont read it.
• I will disclose unless the round was really close - if it is, i'll go off of offense
• SPEAKS start out at 29, goes down by 0.1 on the scale
• PLEASE ask questions after round. If you leave it frustrated and confused, ask me about it because I will help explain things + list out things you couldve done against argument a or b.
• Disclosure:I will usually disclose after a round, but it might take time depending on the round.

Debate - general

• You are responisble for keeping time for both speeches and prep, and you validate your opp's prep and speech time
• tech> truth; you can say the most outlandish stuff but if it wins on flow and you convince me, I'll vote on it.
• Spreading:if you're spreading put your speech docs in email chain: default.sunny.pu@gmail.com
• Slow down on Analytics/taglines/author names- and make sure that your doc is actually comprehensible - minus speaker points if not
• Decent Flow Judge, not the best with speed tbh, if you think its going to be a problem then send me a doc, I would really appreciate it, but I don't really think they solve, err on the side of caution. Faster than 250wpms is fine if you slow down for important stuff.

- be well versed in your cards and KNOW what you're saying - aka if opponent asks for cards/ link/claim/internal link - please give full version/ summarize quickly

• I love love love weighing - weigh against opponent link/ impact CLEARLY during a round will make me very happy :). Debate is better with good clash and we love to see it :)!!!

- I listen to CX but i don't like flow it - but if you trap your opponents into admitting something they shouldnt, then extra speaker points because it's awesome.

• I appreciate voting on strategy and being smart, not doc botting 30 responses from the 600-page exclusive block file compiled from circuit connections.

  Ishan Dubey is cool, watched him debate in strake jesuit debate camp. his rounds were enjoyable to watch, not just because he was a good tech debater, but because he was strategic, he grouped responses, weighed to beat back timeskews, he framed ballots for the judges. Be like ISHAN, he cool.

• appreciate good strategy sooooo much. I’ll outline what I consider good strategy.

  1. Comparative Weighing is an absolute must for me, it should be smartly contextualized in round. Link level, impact level, meta-weighing, policy maker stuff, uniqueness weighing, actor analysis, SOMETHING.

  2. Evidence comparisons are a godsendand will break clash for me on the flow. If you have good evidence, lord it over your opponents, it makes the round so much easier to vote on.

  3. Easily differentiated warrants and implications for responding to your opponents, using evidence from constructive to frontline, nuanced case offense, and smart extensions that do more than just extend.

  4. Overviews are nice, they just get spammed a lot in Public Forum.

• Also: HIGH SPEAKER POINTS
• good strategy
• turns
• arguments that are claim; warrant; sometimes impact.
• smart cross ex

LD

On the current LD topic

- guys when discussing please use sensitive language and arguments, especially regarding any Israel- Palestine conflict contentions.

- I have debated this topic so i know pretty much most of the arguments

1. TRAD
2. LARP
3. Theory
4. Kritik - strike

• framework: I like explain why your world fullfills the framework on your opp and yours. Also why your framework is better, prereq etc.
• Go the extra step in offense and collpase on at least 2 - go extra step in extension/frontlining
• Aff solvency: This may seem kinda niche but i love good aff solvency cards. i feel like the solvency of "oh but if we don't do the resolution then it'll all be solved" is just not enough especially since because the negation is defending status quo), theres usually not a strong enough warrant to deter from status quo. Aff solvency cards just list out specifics and it's just really nice.

• Theory

- err on side of caution for theory - I'm very picky on accepting theory so unless your opponent violates somehting in the round I probably won't like theory too much, but I'll still flow it.

My threshold for responses against theory is directly proportional to how friv I think it is.

Don't attempt to skew your opponents out of the round by reading 5 god awful interps, if you actually care about norms then there should be sufficient time to actually debate them. If this happens, make it a response and I will vote on it.

• I default competing intercepts.

• Will default to no RVI’s unless contested.

• K v. Theory, I default to the K if the theory of power is conceded, either a. Contest the theory of power or b. Weigh the shell against the rotb/ToP and interact in the speech its introduced.

• In Theory v. Theory, please metaweigh, I have a low threshold for voters, I don’t believe not disclosing will collapse the activity. Compare the actual impacts to break clash.

PF

• I don't like spreading in PF that much
• It's pretty much everything in the General debate category, just NO progressive debate. i am purely trad in PF - but I can accept fast speaks.

- I don't know much about the topic - it's plastics isn't it lmfao - so treat me like I dont know much of it.

Debate is great. At its best, it teaches amazing critical thinking, research skills, and teaches us to engage and clash with others' ideas. I'm pretty flexible on what counts as debate arguments but pretty persuaded that prepared opponents produce better debates.

Some aspects that are critical for me:

1: I don’t judge often which means I likely won’t be able to keep up at the rate many circuit debaters prefer. About half as fast as your maximum is probably acceptable for me to flow and think (but no faster).

2: Be nice and respectful. Try to not talk over people. Share time in crossfire periods. Words matter, think about what you say about other people. Attack their arguments and not the people you debate.

3: Arguments must be extended in each speech.

4: Read and have your evidence ready.

5: Lead with labels/arguments and NOT authors. Number your arguments.

Things that are good and you should probably have/do
Confidence
Flagging important issues in the debate
Jokes
Respect
Great and strong CX questions and answers

Effective crystallization is critical. For me to vote for you I need to know specifically what arguments you won, why, and how.