Hey! My name's George Balan & I'm a High School Judge who did 2 years of debate in middle school and continued that into high school. As a judge, my main focus will be on the reasoning and logic of your arguments, as well as if you carry that logic and reasoning from your first speaker all the way to your third. Always make sure to be respectful and kind towards your opponents, I value the way that you treat each other between the round to a pretty high degree. Most importantly, I'm looking at how you contribute not just to the debate but also to your team. Feel free to ask if you have any questions regarding my judging preferences- I'd love to make the round go as smoothly as possible. Thank you :)

Ilan Boguslavsky (he/him)

Head-Royce '24

UC Berkeley '28

2x toc qualifier, 2024 toc quarterfinalist, 10x career bids

Add me to the chain: ilan.boguslavsky@gmail.com and hrsdebatedocs@gmail.com

Top-level:

read what you want. I read a policy aff my first two years of high school and a k aff my last two years

tech > truth, I'll pretty much vote for anything if won technically and will do my best to minimize judge intervention

judge instruction in the rebuttals is crucial and slow down if its something important

well researched and specific neg strats > generics

quality of cards > quantity of cards

Topicality:

good for t debates. A lot of my 1nr's were extending t

specific and well thought out t debates > generic t violations

competing interps > reasonability

Counterplans:

good for advantage cp's and aff specifc pic's. Not great for competition debates

judgekick is fine but the 2nr needs to say it and justify it

Disadvantages:

good for most da's just make sure you mitigate some of the case

do explicit turns case analysis

Kritiks:

good for k's and i'm familiar with most literature

throughout high school we went for: afropess, black feminism, racial cap, security, deleuze, cybernetics, beller, etc.

i'll probably know what you're talking about but you should have a coherent explanation of your theory of power

specific links to the aff >>> generic links

explain your impacts. a lot of times teams k teams read a link without doing any impact calc

i'm fine if you go for framework + a risk of a link or a material alt that solves the links but I think the latter requires a lot more work on mitigating the case and answering da's to the alt

framework usually the most important part of these debates

K-Affs:

good for k-affs that are unique to the topic

explain what your aff does and how it resolves the impacts of the 1ac

if you are vague about your advocacy or shift what your aff does throughout the debate to skirt da's or case turns i'll err neg

k-affs need to affirm something not just say that the topic is bad

I don't think you need to win spill-up claims or that debate shapes subjectivity but I want to knowwhy the ballot is good

Framework vs K-Affs:

good for fairness or clash/skills, fairness can be an internal link or an impact

debate has game-like elements but I can be convinced that it's more than a game

I prefer a counter interp but am fine for a straight impact turn strategy

the counter interp will never solve the neg's offense but it can mitigate limits explosion arguments

affs need specific answers to tva and ssd

its an uphill battle for the aff if the neg wins that the tva allows for a discussion of the aff's harms and they can read the aff on the neg in other debates

neg case debating is key because most aff fwk da's are embedded in the case

K v K:

k affs probably get perms but I can be convinced otherwise

these debates usually come down to the perm so the neg needs specific links that are opportunity costs to the aff

affs need to defend their literature and authors instead of no linking arguments that probably link to the aff

Theory:

anything but condo is probably a reason to reject the argument not the team

condo is good up until 5 or 6 then its probably abusive

what even is dispo?

I have a low threshold for answering cheap theory arguments

Random stuff:

racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. = auto L and lowest speaks

wont vote for racism or genocide good but the death k is a valid argument

will reward kindness and humor during rounds

you can probably insert rehighlightings if the card has already been read but the other team can contest it

tell me if you want to stake the round on an ethics violation and I will stop the round, otherwise debate it out

funny references to head-royce debaters = +.1 speaker points

Hi! I'm Kaelie. I'm a junior and have been doing policy since freshman year. Also did 2 years of middle school parli debate.

Put me on the email chain! mykaelac2025@headroyce.org

Just do what you do best, I understand it's hard to stand up and speak to a bunch of strangers. I am pretty open to all types of arguments as long as you can explain them to me.

I read a K aff on the aff and usually go for Ks and T on the neg, but I should be able to hold my own judging DAs and CPs.

I'll probably be able to hear you at most speeds, but if you think you're going too fast, you probably are. Make sure to be clear and sound confident.

Good luck and make sure to have fun!

Middle School Debate

PLEASE SIGNPOST FLOWING'S ALREADY HARD DON'T MAKE IT HARDER FOR ME!

POIs and heckles

- Love them, so please do it as often as you can (obviously stick to the rules). I think its super important for the clash in the debate and shows me you're engaged and listening to your opponents' speaking.

Impacts/Weighing

- It's super important to me to have fleshed-out impacts and do impact comparisons. I want to know why your assertions matter more than theirs and evaluate debates based on who has done a better job explaining why bigger/more probable impact under their weighing mechanism.

- Weighs, when done well, can be works of art. I love weighs that are engaging and persuasive. PLEASE do weighing mechanism comparison, it makes my job so much easier as a judge.

Evidence

- PLEASE DO NOT MAKE UP RANDOM SOURCES -- I CAN TELL WHEN YOU MAKE UP A NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE!!!!

Refutations

- These are probably one of the hardest things to do in a round, but a good refutation will put you far ahead in the debate. I like refutations of the flow, and please at least try to refute the arguments, even if its just with your own points.

Speaking

I have a pretty high threshold for speed. That said, please don't go too fast, slow down and articulate each word.

Debate is a fun activity so please be nice and don't be disrespectful.

Tech > Truth + read anything you want.

Add me to the email chain or card doc - atharv262213@gmail.com. Send cut cards in the email chain/paste cut cards in the doc.

1. Read what you want. Don't change your year-long strategies for what I may or may not like - I will evaluate it. My paradigm gives my preferences on each argument, but you should debate the way you are most comfortable with.

2. Send speech docs to me (the judge) for constructive and rebuttal. Both teams have to agree on whether they want to send speech docs to each other. If you paraphrase, send what you read and the cards. Send word docs or google docs, not 100 cards in 12 separate emails.

3. Don't lie about evidence. I highly recommend calling your opponent out for bad evidence ethics. I will only intervene if the round is decided by an egregiously miscut card.

4. Be respectful. Especially in cross - speaks will be cut.

5. Extend, collapse, warrant, weigh. Easiest way to win any argument is to do these 4 things better than the other team and you'll win my ballot.

Absolutely nothing new in final focus or 2nd summary. Weighing in second summary is acceptable.

All arguments should be responded to in the next speech outside of 1st constructive. If it isn't, the argument is dropped. Theory, framing, ROBs are the exception to this as they have to be responded to in the next speech.

Every argument in final focus should be warranted, extended, and weighed in summary/FF to win you the round. Missing any one of these 3 components is likely to lose you the round. Frontlining in 2nd rebuttal is required. I don't get the whole "frontline offense but not defense" - collapse, frontline the argument, and move on. Defense isn't sticky - extend everything you want in the ballot in summary, including dropped defense.

Progressive Debate

Kritiks

-I can evaluate Kritiks and have read them before

-All types of Kritiks are acceptable

-PIKs are also good with me

-If you want to read theory against Kritiks, I'm open to that

Theory

-I default to no RVIs and counterinterps. The default is in the case that no one reads warrants but if you warrant otherwise, I'll accept it (ie yes RVIs, reasonability)

-Must be responded to in the next speech

I am a parent judge (software engineer) with 1 year of judging experience. I value arguments that are explained clearly and presented in a well organized flow. Speaking too fast or having a messy flow will only hurt you so try and keep your information and end goal clear.

Theories: I do not understand theories very well. If you want to run theory, explain slowly what the theory is, and why I should vote on it over case. Also clearly explain how the other team is violating your theory.

Kritiks: I do not understand kritiks so most likely if you run a kritik, I will get confused so please do not run them unless absolutely necessary.

Please be respectful to others during the round.

add me to the email chain: ruyizhang07@gmail.com

PUBLIC FORUM:

Tech > truth. I only evaluate based on what's presented in the round. That means that everything has to be warranted, extended, and implicated if necessary.I WILL NOT DO THIS FOR YOU.

Please extend offense. That means in every speech explain to me what contention/argument you're winning on and why. That way, I clearly can see that's what you want me to vote on. It's okay to collapse near the end (drop an argument and only focus on one) to save time. I won't penalize you for that and I recommend it or else you don't cover time to cover the entire debate.

Defense is not sticky.please interact with your opponent's responses. Don't just say "they don't have evidence", "no warrant", or repeat your argument again. If you don't respond I will assume it's true no matter how outrageous it is.

Speed is okay but I hate flowing off speech docs and it's on you if I drop something because I can't understand.

Please weigh and metaweigh.

1. Short Circuit > Prereq > Timeframe > Magnitude > Probability. If you don't metaweigh (tell me why I should prefer one type of weighing over another) these are my defaults.
2. I don't like probability weighing. If you win the links to your impact (prove why your impact will happen) you get 100% probability even if it's something like "aliens will take over Earth and cause extinction"

If no one weighs and/or no one wins case I'll presume neg.

Prog

1. Any theory is okay. I don't care if it's friv. For anything that's not disclosure speak slower because I may not be familiar with it
2. I've never been in or judged a K debate before. Unless you can make it really really clear you probably shouldn't run a K
3. If you run a framework please meet your framework. Poverty does not meet structural violence unless you directly tell me that people in poverty are mostly minorities. Also, you still have to weigh under a framework

Speaks

Here are some things you can do to get a speaks bump:

1. Bring me food
2. Make a Minecraft analogy
3. Message my public forum partner and tell him I'm the better debater. It's on you guys to stalk him
4. Make the round fun. Tell a joke or run an interesting argument

MIDDLE SCHOOL DEBATE

Hi all! I debate public forum under amador valley. I've basically transitioned into being their coach at this point. Let me know if you want pointers after the round. I'm more than happy to talk about it.

Tech > truth. I only evaluate based on what's presented in the round. You do not need to have evidence for a response as long as it has logic to support it. That means that everything has to be warranted, extended, and implicated if necessary. I WILL NOT DO THIS FOR YOU.

Please extend your offense. That means in every speech explain to me what contention/argument you're winning on and why. That way, I clearly can see that's what you want me to vote on. It's okay to collapse near the end (drop an argument and only focus on one) to save time. I won't penalize you for that and I recommend it or else you don't cover time to cover the entire debate.

Defense is not sticky.please interact with your opponent's responses. Don't just say "they don't have evidence" or repeat your argument again. If you don't respond I will assume it's true no matter how outrageous it is.

-IMPORTANT- WEIGHING MECHANISMS AND WEIGHING

If both sides win their argument(s) the round comes down to who has better weighing. First on weighing mechanisms.

1. You have to prove to me that you meet your weighing mechanism. If you can't even meet your weighing mechanism you can't win the round
2. If your opponent has a different weighing mechanism you need to tell me why I should judge the round under your weighing mechanism and not your opponents. (etc why "Net Benefits" is a better way to judge than "Prioritizing Minorities"). If both sides agree on the same weighing mechanism you have to tell me why you meet the weighing mechanism better than your opponent. This is where "regular" weighing comes in. See below for an explanation on how I judge weighing.
3. If both teams choose to engage in a weighing mechanisms debate and you seem to be losing it, you can "link in" to your opponent's weighing mechanism and show me why you meet their weighing mechanism better than they do.

Onto regular weighing:

1. Short Circuit > Prereq > Timeframe > Magnitude > Probability. If you don't metaweigh (tell me why I should prefer one type of weighing over another) these are my defaults.
2. I don't like probability weighing. If you win the links to your impact (prove why your impact will happen) you get 100% probability even if it's something like "aliens will take over Earth and cause extinction"

If both teams don't weigh or neither side wins their argument, I will presume Opp.

Speaks

You can do these things to get a speaks bump

1. Bring me food! ez peasy
2. Make the round fun. Tell a joke or run an interesting argument. I'm tech > truth so I'll buy any argument as long it's well-reasoned.
3. Engage in a weighing mechanisms debate. I highlighted above the different options to engage in a weighing mechanisms debate. I think that a weighing mechanism debate is one of the most spontaneous things a debater can do and it really shows me your thinking skills. Bonus points if you bring up philosophy to support your weighing mechanism
4. Respond to POIs. I know you guys are trying to get your four assertions in but it's okay to sacrifice an assertion to engage in a POI debate. It shows me you can think on your feet.
5. My favorite video game is Minecraft. Please make analogies to Minecraft.
6. Tell/message my public forum partner I'm the better debater. It's on you to stalk him
7. Extend a branch to your opponents. This can be literally or figuratively.

My paradigm is really long so if you have any questions just let me know. I'm more than happy to answer any questions.