Kerav Agarwal

Pembroke Hill '26

Add me to the email chain: Kagarwal26@pembrokehill.org(Speechdrop is preferred)

Second Year of Policy Debate

TL;DR

Please read at a conversational speed so that you are articulate, don't spread

Truth<Tech

Be Organized!

I decide my vote based on Stock Issues

I don't prefer T's or K's, but I will try my best to vote for whoever is the best

Please be respectful of everyone and make sure to enjoy yourselves

General

I prefer Policy Debate compared to Kritiks, I would highly discourage it but if you do it I will flow it

Truth<Tech

I really appreciate teams that give a proper Impact Calculus

Go at a conversational speed, I like when debaters are able to clearly articulate their argument so that anyone can understand

I love anyone who is passionate about debate and their knowledge about Policy terms, however, any form of bigotry or hate speech is an immediate loss

I also do international Extemp, so I enjoy geopolitics, and I will appreciate any debate arguments based anywhere around geopolitics.

Policy Debate

T's

I do not like it when a NEG argument is primarily based on their T arguments, and most of the time I will not vote for a NEG if their argument has a T

However, if the AFF is clearly violating the Resolution and the NEG is able to provide a proper argument as to why an AFF is untopical, then I will consider it.

I believe in reasonability arguments for the AFF, but the NEG also has to be practical

If a NEG side gives a T argument and the AFF completely drops it, then I will have to consider the NEG's argument

K's K AFF's Debate Theory, FW

I consider myself a policy debater and I really don't like the concept of K's, I think it ruins the spirit of debate overall, and it shows that a team can't give proper reasons to refute an argument, I don't think that Kritiks are applicable

For Debate Theory and FW, these arguments can get pretty complicated, once again I prefer a debate based on how good the primary arguments are, although debate theory seems interesting. I won't be able to understand what you're saying if you go more too in-depth. Debate theory and FW has to have clear points, but overall if it is a good argument I will consider it in my ballot.

DA's

I will always prefer a good Impact, however, it has to have a proper link to the argument.

If a DA has a strong impact but a weak link chain, then I won't be able to vote in favor of that DA because impacts need a proper connection with the DA.

Overall, DAs are amazing, and I support them, however, they have to have a proper UQ- Link- Internal Link- Impact

CP's

CP's are a great way to show an alternative for the NEG against the AFF

That being said, I do believe that Cps such as PICs, Agents, and Advantage Cps are great arguments but once again, the team has to give a reasonable and articulate argument for what they are proposing.

Stock Issues

I do believe in the six stock issues, and that the AFF has to prove all six stock issues in order to win, and for the NEG they only have to prove one stock issue correct, mainly if it is an inherency or Solvency argument.

Other

For PFD and LD debate, I am quite inexperienced in these areas, so I will be judged just like any other lay judge and will be just looking for who are the best speakers, but policy debaters should stick to their arguments and present the best case possible

I believe being articulate, having an organized speech, and showing respectful behavior are all things that will boost speaker points, and have a more engaging round.

In Cross-Examination I don't worry too much about the questions in relation to the outcome of the round, but if a team cannot properly answer a question that is repeated multiple times, then I may consider it in my ballot.

Overall, I believe that debate is a fun extracurricular for everyone and should be taken as a learning opportunity, so if a team does have any problem or something is not right, then I would be open to the round being paused. However, I think that debate should be a great activity to grow and learn to turn losses into wins in the future.

About Me

Hello, I am a student in the Pembroke Hill School, Class of '26. This is my second year doing Policy Debate (and OO). I have debated UBI in PFD as a Middle Schooler and NATO as a CX Novice

Add me to the email chain: mamin26@pembrokehill.org (Speechdrop is preferred). Always disclose evidence.

TL;DR

• Read at a conversational speed, and please don't spread

• Tech > Truth, but I still really like truth args

• Show me why your impacts are more probable and more existential, and how you solve it (Impact Calc!!)

• For Policy: Win on the stock issues

• Give me lots of judge instruction

• Provide me with multiple reasons/alleyways that show why you deserve my ballot

• Be nice to your partner and opponents in round, especially in cross-examination

• I will try my best to make the vote for the deserved team and give comments for everyone in the ballot

General

• I will listen to any arg, but I prefer Policy args over K args.

• Go at a conversational speed, or if you want to speak fast, please don't spread- especially if your opponents would not be able to understand you. You will be risking my ballot if you read too fast.

• Provide some judge instruction and tell me why you deserve my vote.

• I really like impact debates, but I must be convinced that there are strong links.

• I love passionate rounds, but if someone is clearly being rude to another debater, I may consider voting against that person.

AFF/PRO

• Show me that you know your case

• Demonstrate why the squo is bad and how you can solve.

• Make sure your case/advantages outweigh.

• Policy specific: Make sure you win all of the stock issues.

NEG/CON

• Demonstrate to me why the squo is fine, or (specifically for Policy) show me how your CP or K solves AFF harms.

• Explain to me how you have won at least one major argument (or stock issue for Policy) in the round.

I will Dock Speaker Points if a debater is:

• Stealing prep time. I may be more lenient if it's for obvious difficulties.

• Sliming during final speeches (I have been flowing the round, I'll know when someone's lying).

• Interrupting or not letting your opponent speak during cross-examination.

• Being rude or mean, as well as laughing at an opponent.

• Saying inappropriate things that would be hurtful to groups of people. Like being an -ist or -phobic.

Speaker Point Boosters:

• Know your speech- Make sure you can adequately answer questions during cross-examination, and don't speak just to waste time.

• Organize your speech docs and give me a roadmap before time starts

• Mentioning specific warrants in your evidence

• Using evidence from earlier speeches to respond

• Using cross-examination to show a contradiction in their case.

• Providing judge instructions

• Making eye contact with the judge

• Being nice.

• Smile! This is your time to shine.

Policy

T Debate

• I will not vote for a T, but I might if an AFF is clearly outside of the resolution.

• Reasonability args will be heavily considered in a T debate. However, the NEG can probably argue against that adequately and convince me otherwise.

• If the NEG runs a T and the AFF drops it, then I may vote NEG just on the T.

K's, K AFFs, FW, and Theory

• Policy debate over K args.

• If you want to run K, I would like lots of judge instruction. Otherwise, I will lose you.

• I will weigh the K to the AFF, unless I am convinced otherwise.

• I don't prefer K AFFs, but I'll tolerate them.

• FW args are fine, but don't be outrageous about it.

• Theory args are good. If you can prove to me that your opponents' args are ruining the spirit of debate (education, fairness, etc.), I'm all for it. However, it's not something that I will vote for exclusively.

DA

• Good Link > Good Impact. If there is a weak link, then I can't even consider the impact.

• Prove to me that the DA truly links to the plan, then we can talk impact.

• UQ is important to prove, but I do ultimately believe that the DA must prove that the plan leads to a serious impact

• I don't mind terminal impacts. Again, it heavily depends on strong links.

• Ultimately, if you can win on impact calc on the case (with a HEAVY emphasis on Probability and Magnitude), I will vote for you.

CP

• PICs are fair game, but I do feel like the AFF can provide solid theory args to attack them, so that's an exciting back-and-forth for me.

• I am fine with condo, but AFF generic args can easily convince me not to vote for it. Again, I don't mind it too much. Whoever wins on fairness & education will win the condo good/bad debate. If you do condo, go for at least or 3 args.

• I agree that CPs are subject to fiat, but the AFF can convince me otherwise, especially if they're up against a multi-actor fiat.

• For NEG to win CP, they MUST win on Solvency Deficit and that the CP doesn't link to the net-benefit.

Case

• I go under the philosophy that 1AC cards are some of the best cards that are used in a debate round. I would love it if some of those cards could be used here and there in later speeches.

• I am cool with re-highlightings, and I will read them.

PFD

• I have a year of experience in middle school, so I'm not the most experienced.

• No counterplans for CON, even if it sounds like PRO is making a plan.

• Whoever wins on the FW debate and fits within that FW should have no problem winning.

• Explain your voting issues in the final speeches, and why you have access to those voting issues.

• Besides that, I will likely judge the round like I would for Policy, so please bear with me.

LD

• I have no experience in this event.

• I will judge the round like I would for Policy, as well (that includes my stance on K's, CP's, and case args).

• Show me why your opponent's case leads to worse impacts and why your case solves, and you'll likely win.

Overall

If you can demonstrate proper debate technique and display why your side will make or is making the world a better place, I will vote for you. Looking forward to a fun round!

Pembroke hill

Add me to the email chain: maubuchondebate@gmail.com

(Speechdrop also works)

1 year of PFD (Section 230, UNSC)

policy now

tabula rasa

General:

Assume I am knowledgeable about the topic. overall, idc what u do. just debate. i’ll flow on paper. if u have questions please ask. if i’m not the room yet and u want to know, email me. i normally reply quickly.

Tech > Truth

I would say I am very tech compared to a lot of judges. If you make an argument (no matter how ridiculous), your opponents must respond to it. If your opponents drop something, it becomes true, no matter how crazy it is. Debate is a game.

Speed:

You can go as fast as you want. Just please provide a doc. If you don’t and I miss something, that’s on you. If it isn’t on the doc, (like analysis), please slow down.

Policy:

I LOVE policy debate. I spend the majority of my time on debate thinking about policy. idc what happens. i’ll vote on anything. disagree? debate about it.

PFD:

i competed in this. idc what you do. debate

LD:

Very very inexperienced with LD. I know there’s value and criterions. But that’s about it. I will judge it like policy unless you explain the ROB. Please consider me lay. i judges a couple of rounds of LD but that’s it.

Congress:

Please add clash to the debate. I hate when it is just sides going back and forth. i actually value argumentation

Pembroke Hill '26

Add me to the email chain: hboyle26@pembrokehill.org

he/him

Third year of Policy Debate

NATO, Fiscal Redistribution, Intellectual Property Rights

My way of evaluating debates has been largely influenced by Parker Hopkins, Justin Smith, Alicia Stout, Jimmy O'Connell, and Alice Chen

General

Tech > Truth

Whatever speed is fine

Clarity > Speed, I will call out "Clear" three times per speech before I stop flowing

I mostly read policy arguments, have read kritical arguments

Make sure you do a lot of judge instruction if you want me to vote for you

Starting speaks are 28

I enjoy passionate debates/debaters, and will add speaker points if you are aggressive

No homophobia, racism, sexism, any hate in general

Policy

T's

Framer's Intent (only if your evidence is very, very good) > Precision = Ground = Limits > Predictability (explain to me in round which I should prefer)

K's, K AFFs, FW, and Theory

I'm still on the side that the Aff should be allowed to weigh their plan, but can be convinced otherwise

If there's not a clear or good link, its gonna be a lot harder to get my ballot

Saying fairness is an I/L is like saying nuke war is an I/L

K Affs are cool, but try to relate to the resolution

T or presumption is the way to go

I think theory in any facet is important to debate

Condo is probably good

DA

If you do good job explaining how the DA o/w + turns case, I WILL BE VERY HAPPY

CP

They're cool

I love Process CPs, but think that they can usually be beaten by a good perm

The Aff lets the Neg get away with too much stuff with CP's

I have developed a love for good PICs and Advantage CP's

Case

I am a big fan of rehighlights

A 2NR with lots of case will always make me happy

Please do impact calc in the 2NR/2AR

Anything Else

I am happy to discuss my thoughts further before rounds if you ask

I flow CX

PFD

I competed in PFD for one year during Middle School

Just weigh your impacts and have good links, and whoever does that better will win

Most likely I won't know too much about the topic, so explain it well in round

LD

I have never competed in LD, but I know the basics of the style of debate

Thank you for reading and good luck!!!

-I've been an LD debater for three years now.

-I'm going to be flowing the whole round.

-Your speaking matters but your argument and what your saying is more important if your just talking well but saying nothing I most likely wont be inclined to vote for you.

- In terms of LD specific stuff: it is an LD round your v/vc are very important to me and how I am going to judge this round.

- It's debate you're arguing against eachother so I don't have any issues with you attacking your opponents case or arguments in somewhat harsh ways or calling them out just don't go way to over the top because then its not enjoyable or anything its just annoying.

Hi, I’m currently a sophomore at Pembroke Hill High school and this is my second year in CX debate.

Add me to the email chain: mcortes26@pembrokehill.org

General:

• Tech > truth

• Go whatever speed works for you but please slow down for the tag and author

• Tell me who I should vote on and why

• Don’t steal prep

• Be nice and don’t insult people

Policy Specific:

• I really like when people include impact calc

• Stock issues matter

• Remember to mark cards if you don’t finish one/don’t clip

NEG:

• Read as many advocacies as you want but make sure that they make sense/link to the aff and don’t just read them to read something

• I will vote on condo if the aff makes a persuasive argument for it so keep that in mind when choosing which advocacies to read

• Prove how the squo is either fine as it is or that your k/cp solves better

AFF:

• Know your case

• Win stock issues

• Prove why squo is bad and how your plan solves it

T:

• I like T debates if they are done right and I will vote on it if neg has thoroughly proven that aff is untopical

• I like when there is clash with the interpretations

K’s:

• I am a policy debater not a K debater

• I don’t like them that much but if you really want to run one please make sure explain it thoroughly

CP:

• I like CP’s but I probably won’t vote on just a CP

• Try and make the CP as specific to the aff as possible

DA:

• I love DA’s and and will probably vote on them

• Make sure that there is a good link relates the aff because even if the impact is good, if there is not a strong link to the aff then I will be less likely to vote on it

• UQ is also very important to winning me over on a DA

CASE:

• Rehighlighting is encouraged

• Analytics are just as important as reading evidence and can sometimes be more persuasive

PFD/LD:

I am very inexperienced in both of these forms of debate. I do know the basics of how PFD works but that is pretty much it. If I am judging one of these rounds please consider me a lay judge.

Have a good debate!

Hello. As of writing this, I am a four-year policy debater and, woefully, a Congress/DI kid. I am a Missouri debater, which means I spend a lot of my time in lay debate rounds arguing politics in front of someone's half-asleep uncle in a camo hat and 30 year old Mizzou t-shirt.

Because of my debate place of origin, I have a personal affinity for slower debate. That's not to say I can't handle speed, just make sure you're clear on authors & tags. I will clear you, but don't make me get annoying with it-- I'll stop flowing eventually if I clear you too much :'( .

On the AFF

I love a good link story that you can actually explain in your own words lol. I love when debaters really know their case- I don't mind if it's a generic case if you know it in & out. K AFFs are tolerable but please don't assume I know your lingo. Just mansplain it to me, I won't be mad. I will also vote on performance AFFs/AFFs without a plan, as long as they are well-articulated (of course).

When arguing against off-case, I will generally catch on if you can prove an off case is generic/doesn't link to the AFF. I value those args. I also value analytics if you have no evidence. ALSO I will vote on condo lol sorry

On the NEG

I'm not big on running like nine generic off-case args. I prefer if your off genuinely links, or if you can convince me your generic link is worth anything. TL;DR,,,,, make sure your off links, or be good at gaslighting. Either works.

Topicality MUST BE A WORTHWHILE ARGUMENT. Don't read T just because it's part of your generic neg strat. It will make me sad.

Case debate is actually fun to me. I like analytics, but I also love a good link or impact debate. If you can prove the link story of the AFF is weak and extend it through the debate, I will value that. I also think evidence rehighlighting is the most goated thing ever. If you can spend 30 extra seconds of prep to rehighlight some boof evidence in their 1AC, I will eat it up every time.

For CPs, I do not think most PICs are demonic, save for word PICs. I also don't like delay/consult CPs. I do think those are demonic. Everything else is fine.

K debate is tricky for me. I can understand the standard Ks, but you may have to explain an obscure K to me like I'm a novice. Sorry. Please don't be discouraged from reading a funky K in front of me. I'm obsessed with obscure off-cases but only if I can actually understand what you're on about. Just give me a ten second underview.

Judge kick is weasel-y and I don't believe in it. Sorry.

Other Stuff

If you read an impact calc in the 2AR/2NR I will value it. I love a good impact calc.

IDRC about recency unless it's a PTX DA. I do care about authors though. God help you if your card is from a personal blog or the Heritage Foundation or something.

Debate is a game. That's just my philosophy. The role of the ballot is who wins, nothing more. You can convince me otherwise, though.

Don't be a jerk in cross. It's not suave, it's annoying. Interrupting, laughing at answers, or saying condescending things in cross are not cool. I will nuke your speaks.

Obviously, being -phobic or -ist in any way is off the table.

If you truly believe a rule is being violated, I welcome you to make a case on it. Advocating for yourself is key. I am open to stopping the round if need be.

As always, send me your speech docs. I can also do a Speechdrop. ALWAYS include me in the email chain.

email: maedingley@gmail.com

Please add me to the email chain for all evidence: ndunn26@pembrokehill.org

IMPORTANT THINGS:

I would prefer it if you send theory and analytics as well, especially if you are going for it in final speeches.

PLEASE DO NOT CARD DUMP. I WILL GIVE YOU LOW SPEAKS! IT IS SO BORING. GIVE ME ANALYTICS. EXPLAIN STUFF. I will give you high speaks if your explain everything and give me judge instructions.

If you want high speaks:

There is nothing that will give you higher speaks from me than giving good judge instruction. Explain to my WHY you are reading cards. WHAT are you responding to? WHY do you want me to hear the card?

Read impact turns, theory, impact calculus, funny kritiks (that are extremely well explained), and judge instruction.

Less important things:

I am a high school debater with 2 years of experience. I did one year of public forum debate in middle school and 1 year of policy debate.

You can call me judge if you want. Your honor also works.

Dropped arguments: If a team brings back an argument that they dropped, all the other team has to say is “they dropped it already so they can’t bring it back up. Don’t listen to them”. If you don’t say that, I might evaluate it. Depends on how well you extend the argument.

This is a quick summary especially if I am judging Public Forum or Lincoln-Douglas. Make what ever arguments you want as long as there is no hate involved. As long as you explain the argument thourougly, your good. Just explain why your arguments are better than your opponents and why you should win the debate. GIVE ME JUDGE INSTRUCTION!

THE FOLLOWING IS FOR POLICY DEBATE:

I am alright with all arguments as long as there is no hate involved toward specific groups of people. Run wipeout, spark, etc if you want.

I will give you better speaks if you read a good impact turn. :)

Kritiks: If you run a K, please be slow and explain your arguments thoroughly. Tell me a story. Don't expect card dumping with no explanations to be effective.

Theory: If you can adequately explain why your opponents link, I will consider voting for it. However, if you just say something like Condo Bad with no explanation and move on, I won’t vote for it UNLESS the opponents drop it. If your opponents read theory as a voter and you drop it…sorry. Not sorry:)

Please fully extend your arguments and read enough information to have a complete argument.

Impact calculus: Impact calculus is what will make a difference between winning and losing a debate. Explain WHY you should win the debate.

Clipping: If you clip, you lose. Obviously, accidentally skipping one word is fine but a whole card is a whole different story.

Stock issues: I believe that it is the obligation of the aff to uphold all 7 stock issues: Disadvantages, Advantages, Solvency, Harms, Inherency, Topicality, and Significance. I will vote neg on one of these if you can explain to me why the aff failed to uphold one of these. If you want to run T as an RVI, go ahead. I’ll think its funny but unless the neg drops it, don’t have high hopes.

Have a good debate! Good luck!

Hi fellow debaters,

I am a first-year in PFD.

Pembroke Hill ‘25

3rd year policy debate

Top 5 ranked sophomore nationally ‘23

Add me to the chain: jghuman25@pembrokehill.org

tl;dr

1. you do you -- read what you want, I’’ flow all args

2. tech > truth, but if the debate comes up I expect you to be able to justify it

4. i have run exclusively policy positions on the aff and a mix of policy positions and k work on neg (Water, NATO, EI)

5. I don’t like vagueness in debate, but it’s up to the opposing team to hammer in (eg. aspec, funding)

6. Speaks based on how you carry yourself through the round, remaining intact and STRONG defensive/offensive will in cross while remaining composed.

7. Speed is welcome, if analytics not on the doc always appreciated that be shouted out during speech

8. Good judge instruction, just justify properly

9. I love an in depth debate on the theory flow

10. PRO CONDO, but will vote off best articulated standards on the theory page if contended

policy specific:

t:

1. Big fan of t debate

2. limits > ground,

3. Articulate your interp, especially when addressing limits

4. Weigh your interp properly. This isn’t done anywhere close to enough, can win you the t page off an opponent drop

5. I don’t believe T is automatically offense/defense but I’m up to sway by round

6. If t is on the board I want strong framing up front of standards, voters, and impact - how high a priority

7. Don’t like abusive quantity or interps generally, up to opponent to hammer in if they want the abuse claim - stand pretty neutral in round practice

k aff / fw:

1. don’t try to resolve things you can't reasonably impact

2. Stand neutral on clash, fairness, etc.

3. Hit the da head on is always high preferred

4. Number one on the board for me is Impact turns in all points

5. Love P impact debate, not used to its fullest

5. Final rebuttals spending big time on case is a beautiful strat unemployed to its fullest, should ALWAYS weigh impacts to remaining policy contentions in the round when that’s where the debate goes.

6. clash is a prereq to actualizing the aff >>>>>>>>> aff hasn’t been tested win on presumption ALWAYS

k v policy:

1. In round impacts must be presented immaculately when contended

2. Fw debate is high strung for me here, but most rounds won’t contend there so don’t view it as necessary to go hard depth, just present arg strong up front and let the debate flow accordingly off it

3. Big value to me in weighing aff epistemologies foremost

4. please debate the case, unless you're way ahead on why you don't have to

5. Card dump on the k should be made concise by the 2nr; f/w + link, link is a da + try or die for the alt. you get the idea

6. Like tricks

da:

1. link specificity (date, specificity) debate huge

2. DA + pic out always set the stage for a beautiful combo in my eyes - know how to run them full on together

3. Link debate big for me, but want great impact framing and impact turns are more than welcome

4. Put args in context, same goes for card framing - author interp debate can be good

5. Case turn args applied to the aff i/l's - low risk big reward

cp:

1. Neg should utilize cps to the fullest they can get away with

2. Pic and actor cp plus appropriate accompanying da always phenomenal combo

3. cp doesn't need to solve all of the aff

4. Adv cps can make for an interesting round, but know what you’re running

5. Multi-actor fiat isn’t great in my eyes

7. Dislike consult and delay cps, should be STRONG warrant - even when used for time skew

case:

1. A mostly case 2ar and 2nr especially is my favorite thing in CX if you can manage to frame out the round with them

2. Read ev rehighlights

3. Link debate good but impact framing and turns are the golden path to the ballot

4. 1ar can have appropriate new args - don’t abuse this, it’s a threshold (goes for neg too)

5. A neg flow which condenses big to primarily case at the end of the round is one of my favorite things in policy by far

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

Speaks:

• Be charismatic, debate doesn’t mean a thing if you can’t express yourself strongly to form real change in the real world (do this and you’ll be pleased with your speaks)

• Address the room properly: judges, opponents, audience

I'm currently a sophomore at Pembroke Hill in Kansas City, MO. This is my second year of policy debate and International Extemp, and my fourth year doing debate.

Please add me to the email chain agupta26@pembrokehill.org

General

1. You say whatever I flow

2 tech> truth

3. Flow and ideally correctly with multiple pieces of paper and not with the paper horizontally

4. I like spreading

5. Big stock issues guy if neg wins one stock issue they win debate

6. Big impact calc guy

7. Love clash

8. Be passionate and respectful not rude and talking over each other this is not a presidential debate

9. In general not a huge fan for just doing a bunch of different arguments just to see if one sticks

Policy

T

I love a good topicality but don't put one just to cover all stock issues especially if on neg.

If the neg runs a T and the aff drops it and the neg brings this up I will vote neg

I like a good topicality but do not put a topicality just to cover all stock issues.

K, FW and Theory

I am fine with K arg but I need a strong link

Often times I prefer Policy Arguments since I chose Policy over LD

Usually not an approach I would take but can be very powerful and moving

Like how my old coach to Barstow Gabe Cook who taught a pairing which talked about challenges against minorities in debate and they were very successful with it

Also for FW need very strong link and more analytics

DA

I value the link and impact equally because either without the other is a very weak argument. If there is a bad link then the impact does not matter but if the impact is very low you most likely will lose to impact calc to the aff. Generally speaking I like DA a lot.

CP

I like a good CP that is case specific and tailored to counter weakness in the aff. I think it shows that there is a better solution to resolution and back and forth between aff is entertaining. Overall I think if you are to use a CP it has to be well articulated and prove something is seriously flawed with aff.

Other stuff

Don't be rude

Don't make fun of your opponents for any reason

If you believe your opponents have violated a rule that should make them lose the debate you should stop the round immediately

In terms of debating, I have experience in both PFD and CX debate. I did PFD for one year, and CX for two. I am quite leaneant when it comes to judging. I am a traditional judge, and a pragmatic. I will judge based on who clearly wins the arguments. If it is close, then I will look at individual details. If for example, a team dropped an argument, I will hold it against them only if the other team extends it and exclusively mentions it. Otherwise, they too drop that argument. I also need to understand links and impacts well, as those are the most important factors for me. You cannot make an argument without explaining how it links to the plan or even how these line of events will happen. You will not win any debates without explaining links. Furthermore, impacts are also important. If you try and run a K or CP, then explain why it is important or why the impact outweighs. That is crucial when I determine the victor of a round. For example, if someone read a, inequality DA against an advantage that prevents extinction, I will favour the aff. As the aff has the bigger impact. I need to have to care about the impact and understand why it matters. Extinction abviously will always outweigh all else, as in the scenario I previously mentioned, inequality doesnt matter if humans are dead, thus the impact outweighs. As I said, I am a fairly simple judge, I will go by the argument and see which carries the more weight. Weight of the impact is key. I am also accepting to intelectual arguments, but they should be supported by evidence. If you do not give evidence, then I have no reason to trust your claims. I also like to see when debaters explain why their evidence is better than their opponents' evidence. Of course I also will favour CPs if they are done properly. In summa, I wish for a good debate pulling on all the evidence available and using strong arguments and tactics. Indeed, debate is also about tactics, as you have to know the timing of when to read something. Lastly, I am not particularly a fan of spreading, although I will allow it. Your reading must be intelligable, so that I can understand what you are saying. I will favour the team that reads more clearly and enunciates more than the other, in summa, the side that speaks more persuasively will gain my attention more. That is all for my paradigm.

I am currently a junior at the Pembroke Hill school. I am currently an LD debater, and have competed in CX for two years prior. I have only competed in local tournaments during my time as a CX debater.

Add me to the chain: shong25@pembrokehill.org

top:

1. you do you -- read what you want

2. tech > truth, but probably a bit more interested in truth than other judges

3. You must extend the warrants to properly extend an argument

4. I don't have much experience with spreading, so if you do want to spread, make sure that you have good clarity. Otherwise, don't bother and just read fast.

5. Send analytics

6. Give good judge instruction, I want to intervene as little as possible

speaks:

1. default is 28.8 start cx w/ "riddle me this" +.1 speaks

2. making a clever joke +.1 speaks

3. making an unclever joke -.2 speaks

policy:

k affs:

1. The aff should be in the direction of the resolution

2. I'm not that familiar with the literature, so spend more time on it than you usually do

k's on the neg:

1. Rejecting the aff is not an alternative, that is what I do when I agree to endorse the alt. Explain to me what happens to change the world when I endorse your alt.

2. The aff should be allowed to weigh the aff against the K.

3. In round impacts must be presented immaculately when contended

4. Card dump on the k should be made concise by the 2nr; f/w + link, link is a da + try or die for the alt. you get the idea

t:

1. Big fan of t debate

2. limits> grounds

3. I don't believe t is automatically offense/defense but am willing to be persuaded

4. Read ev about the function of the aff and how it's untopical (rehighlights, etc...)

da:

1. I like da's

2. Link specificity and contextualization is key

cp:

1. Neg should utilize cps to the fullest they can get away with

2. cp doesn't need to solve all of the aff

3. Adv cps can make for an interesting round, but know what you’re running

4. Dislike consult and delay cps, should be STRONG warrant - even when used for time skew

case:

1. Love impact turn debates

2. If you have no evidence, analytics can be just as good

PFD addendum for NSDA 2024

I am incredibly concerned about the quality of the evidence read in debates and the lack of sharing of evidence read.

Teams who send evidence in a single document that they intend to read in their speech and quickly send an addendum document with all evidence selected mid speech will be rewarded greatly.

I will ask each team to send every piece of evidence read by both teams in ALL speeches.

Competed:

2011-15 – Lawrence Free State, KS, Policy (Space, Transportation, Latin America, Oceans)

2015-17 – JCCC, KS, NDT/CEDA (Military Presence, Climate Change); NFA-LD (Bioprospecting, Southern Command)

2017-20 – Missouri State University, MO, NDT/CEDA (Healthcare, Exec Authority, Space); NFA-LD (Policing, Cybersecurity)

Coached:

2016-17 – Lawrence High School, KS, (China Engagement)

2017-19 – Olathe West High School, KS, (Education, Immigration)

2019-22– Truman High School, MO, (Arm Sales, CJR, Water)

2020-Present– Missouri State University, MO, (MDT Withdrawal, Anti-Trust, Rights/Duties, Nukes); NFA-LD (Climate, Endless Wars)

2022-23- Truman State University, MO, NFA-LD (Elections)

2022-Present - The Pembroke Hill School, MO, (NATO, Economic Inequality).

Always add:

phopsdebate@gmail.com

Also add IF AND ONLY IF at a NDT/CEDA TOURNAMENT: debatedocs@googlegroups.com

If I walk out of the room (or go off-camera), please send the email and I will return very quickly.

Email chains are STRONGLY preferred. Email chains should be labeled correctly.

*Name of Tournament * *Division* *Round #* *Aff Team* vs *Neg Team*

tl;dr:

You do you; I'll flow whatever happens. I tend to like policy arguments more than Kritical arguments. I cannot type fast and flow on paper as a result. Please give me pen time on T, Theory, and long o/v's etc. Do not be a jerk. Debaters work hard, and I try to work as hard as I can while judging. Debaters should debate slower than they typically do.

Evidence Quality X Quantity > Quality > Quantity. Argument Tech + Truth > Tech > Truth. Quals > No Quals.

I try to generate a list of my random thoughts and issues I saw with each speech in the debate. It is not meant to be rude. It is just how I think through comments. If I have not said anything about something it likely means I thought it was good.

Speaker Points:

If you can prove to me you have updated your wiki for the round I am judging before I submit the ballot I will give you the highest speaker points allowed by the tournament. An updated wiki means: 1. A complete round report. 2. Cites for all 1NC off case positions/ the 1AC, and 3. uploaded open source all of the documents you read in the debate inclusive of analytics. If I become aware that you later delete, modify, or otherwise disclose less information after I have submitted my ballot, any future debate in which I judge you will result in the lowest possible speaker points at the tournament.

Online debates:

In "fast" online debates, I found it exceptionally hard to flow those with poor internet connections or bad mics. I also found it a little harder even with ideal mic and internet setups. I think it's reasonable for debates in which a debater(s) is having these issues for everyone in the debate to debate at an appropriate speed for everyone to engage.

Clarity is more important in a digital format than ever before. I feel like it would behoove everyone to be 10% slower than usual. Make sure you have a differentiation between your tag voice and your card body voice.

It would be super cool if everyone put their remaining prep in the chat.

I am super pro the Cams on Mics muted approach in debates. Obvious exceptions for poor internet quality.

People should get in the groove of always sending marked docs post speeches and sending a doc of all relevant cards after the debate.

Disads:

I enjoy politics debates. Reasons why the Disad outweighs and turns the aff, are cool. People should use the squo solves the aff trick with election DA's more.

Counter Plans:

I generally think negatives can and should get to do more. CP's test the intrinsic-ness of the advantages to the plan text. Affirmatives should get better at writing and figuring out plan key warrants. Bad CP's lose because they are bad. It seems legit that 2NC's get UQ and adv cp's to answer 2AC thumpers and add-ons. People should do this more.

Judge kicking the cp seems intuitive to me. Infinite condo seems good, real-world, etc. Non-Condo theory arguments are almost always a reason to reject the argument and not the team. I still expect that the 2AC makes theory arguments and that the neg answers them sufficiently. I think in an evenly matched and debated debate most CP theory arguments go neg.

I am often not a very good judge for CP's that require you to read the definition of "Should" when answering the permutation. Even more so for CP's that compete using internal net benefits. I understand how others think about these arguments, but I am often unimpressed with the quality of the evidence and cards read. Re: CIL CP - come on now.

Kritiks on the Negative:

I like policy debate personally, but that should 0% stop you from doing your thing. I think I like K debates much better than my brain will let me type here. Often, I end up telling teams they should have gone for the K or voted for it. I think this is typically because of affirmative teams’ inability to effectively answer critical arguments

Links of omission are not links. Rejecting the aff is not an alternative, that is what I do when I agree to endorse the alternative. Explain to me what happens to change the world when I endorse your alternative. The aff should probably be allowed to weigh the aff against the K. I think arguments centered on procedural fairness and iterative testing of ideas are compelling. Clash debates with solid defense to the affirmative are significantly more fun to adjudicate than framework debates. Floating pics are probably bad. I think life has value and preserving more of it is probably good.

Kritical Affirmatives vs Framework:

I think the affirmative should be in the direction of the resolution. Reading fw, cap, and the ballot pik against these affs is a good place to be as a policy team. I think topic literacy is important. I think there are more often than not ways to read a topical USfg action and read similar offensive positions. I am increasingly convinced that debate is a game that ultimately inoculates advocacy skills for post-debate use. I generally think that having a procedurally fair and somewhat bounded discussion about a pre-announced, and democratically selected topic helps facilitate that discussion.

Case Debates:

Debates in which the negative engages all parts of the affirmative are significantly more fun to judge than those that do not.

Affirmatives with "soft-left" advantages are often poorly written. You have the worst of both worlds of K and Policy debate. Your policy action means your aff is almost certainly solvable by an advantage CP. Your kritical offense still has to contend with the extinction o/w debate without the benefit of framework arguments. It is even harder to explain when the aff has one "policy" extinction advantage and one "kritical" advantage. Which one of these framing arguments comes first? I have no idea. I have yet to hear a compelling argument as to why these types of affirmative should exist. Negative teams that exploit these problems will be rewarded.

Topicality/procedurals:

Short blippy procedurals are almost always only a reason to reject the arg and not the team. T (along with all procedurals) is never an RVI.

I am super uninterested in making objective assessments about events that took place outside of/before the debate round that I was not present for. I am not qualified nor empowered to adjudicate debates concerning the moral behavior of debaters beyond the scope of the debate.

Things that are bad, but people continually do:

Have "framing" debates that consist of reading Util good/bad, Prob 1st/not 1st etc. Back and forth at each other and never making arguments about why one position is better than another. I feel like I am often forced to intervene in these debates, and I do not want to do that.

Saying something sexist/homophobic/racist/ableist/transphobic - it will probably make you lose the debate at the worst or tank your speaks at the least.

Steal prep.

Send docs without the analytics you already typed. This does not actually help you. I sometimes like to read along. Some non-neurotypical individuals benefit dramatically by this practice. It wastes your prep, no matter how cool the macro you have programmed is.

Use the wiki for your benefit and not post your own stuff.

Refusing to disclose.

Reading the 1AC off paper when computers are accessible to you. Please just send the doc in the chain.

Doing/saying mean things to your partner or your opponents.

Unnecessarily cursing to be cool.

Some random thoughts I had at the end of my first year judging NDT/CEDA:
1. I love debate. I think it is the best thing that has happened to a lot of people. I spend a lot of my time trying to figure out how to get more people to do it. People should be nicer to others.
2. I was worse at debate than I thought I was. I should have spent WAY more time thinking about impact calc and engaging the other teams’ arguments.
3. I have REALLY bad handwriting and was never clear enough when speaking. People should slow down and be clearer. (Part of this might be because of online debate.)

4. Most debates I’ve judged are really hard to decide. I go to decision time often. I’m trying my best to decide debates in the finite time I have. The number of times Adrienne Brovero has come to my Zoom room is too many. I’m sorry.
5. I type a lot of random thoughts I had during debates and after. I really try to make a clear distinction between the RFD and the advice parts of the post-round. It bothered me a lot when I was a debater that people didn’t do this.

6. I thought this before, but it has become clearer to me that it is not what you do, it is what you justify. Debaters really should be able to say nearly anything they’d like in a debate. It is the opposing team’s job to say you’re wrong. My preferences are above, and I do my best to ignore them. Although I do think it is impossible for that to truly occur.

Disclosure thoughts:

I took this from Chris Roberds who said it much more elegantly than myself.

I have a VERY low threshold on this argument. Having schools disclose their arguments pre-round is important if the activity is going to grow/sustain itself. Having coached almost exclusively at small, underfunded, or new schools, I can say that disclosure (specifically disclosure on the wiki if you are a paperless debater) is a game changer. It allows small schools to compete and makes the activity more inclusive. There are a few specific ways that this influences how ballots will be given from me:

1) I will err negative on the impact level of "disclosure theory" arguments in the debate. If you're reading an aff that was broken at a previous tournament, on a previous day, or by another debater on your team, and it is not on the wiki (assuming you have access to a laptop and the tournament provides wifi), you will likely lose if this theory is read. There are two ways for the aff to "we meet" this in the 2ac - either disclose on the wiki ahead of time or post the full copy of the 1ac in the wiki as a part of your speech. Obviously, some grace will be extended when wifi isn't available or due to other extenuating circumstances. However, arguments like "it's just too much work," "I don't like disclosure," etc. won't get you a ballot.

2) The neg still needs to engage in the rest of the debate. Read other off-case positions and use their "no link" argument as a reason that disclosure is important. Read case cards and when they say they don't apply or they aren't specific enough, use that as a reason for me to see in-round problems. This is not a "cheap shot" win. You are not going to "out-tech" your opponent on disclosure theory. To me, this is a question of truth. Along that line, I probably won't vote on this argument in novice, especially if the aff is reading something that a varsity debater also reads.

3) If you realize your opponent's aff is not on the wiki, you should make every possible attempt before the round to ask them about the aff, see if they will put it on the wiki, etc. Emailing them so you have timestamped evidence of this is a good choice. I understand that, sometimes, one teammate puts all the cases for a squad on the wiki and they may have just put it under a different name. To me, that's a sufficient example of transparency (at least the first time it happens). If the aff says it's a new aff, that means (to me) that the plan text and/ or advantages are different enough that a previous strategy cut against the aff would be irrelevant. This would mean that if you completely change the agent of the plan text or have them do a different action it is new; adding a word like "substantially" or "enforcement through normal means" is not. Likewise, adding a new "econ collapse causes war" card is not different enough; changing from a Russia advantage to a China, kritikal, climate change, etc. type of advantage is. Even if it is new, if you are still reading some of the same solvency cards, I think it is better to disclose your previous versions of the aff at a minimum.

4) At tournaments that don't have wifi, this should be handled by the affirmative handing over a copy of their plan text and relevant 1AC advantages etc. before the round. If thats a local tournament, that means as soon as you get to the room and find your opponent.

5) If you or your opponent honestly comes from a circuit that does not use the wiki (e.g. some UDLs, some local circuits, etc.), I will likely give some leeway. However, a great use of post-round time while I am making a decision is to talk to the opponent about how to upload on the wiki. If the argument is in the round due to a lack of disclosure and the teams make honest efforts to get things on the wiki while I'm finishing up my decision, I'm likely to bump speaks for all 4 speakers by .2 or .5 depending on how the tournament speaks go.

6) There are obviously different "levels" of disclosure that can occur. Many of them are described above as exceptions to a rule. Zero disclosure is always a low-threshold argument for me in nearly every case other than the exceptions above.

That said, I am also willing to vote on "insufficient disclosure" in a few circumstances.

A. If you are in the open/varsity division of NDT-CEDA, NFA-LD, or TOC Policy your wiki should look like this or something very close to it. Full disclosure of information and availability of arguments means everyone is tested at the highest level. Arguments about why the other team does not sufficiently disclose will be welcomed. Your wiki should also look like this if making this argument.

B. If you are in the open/varsity division of NDT-CEDA, NFA-LD, or TOC Policy. Debaters should go to the room immediately after pairings are released to disclose what the aff will be. With obvious exceptions for a short time to consult coaches or if tech problems prevent it. Nothing is worse than being in a high-stress/high-level round and the other team waiting until right before the debate to come to disclose. This is not a cool move. If you are unable to come to the room, you should be checking the wiki for your opponent's email and sending them a message to disclose the aff/past 2NR's or sending your coach/a different debater to do so on your behalf.

C. When an affirmative team discloses what the aff is, they get a few minutes to change minor details (tagline changes, impact card swaps, maybe even an impact scenario). This is double true if there is a judge change. This amount of time varies by how much prep the tournament actually gives. With only 10 minutes between pairings and start time, the aff probably only get 30 seconds to say "ope, actually...." This probably expands to a few minutes when given 30 minutes of prep. Teams certainly shouldn't be given the opportunity to make drastic changes to the aff plan text, advantages etc. a long while after disclosing.

Pembroke Hill 26

2nd yr policy debater

To add me to the chain: cjiang26@pembrokehill.org

“Cindy” is preferred over “judge”, I won’t take speaks or anything off if you say “judge” though.

Tl:dr

• tech>truth, though I won’t die on that hill. Arguments like spark and wipeout are not preferred, but I’ll vote for them if they are executed well.

• I’m the most experienced in debating CPs and DAs, but I am open to almost all arguments, so debate how you feel comfortable!

• JUDGE INSTRUCTION. Tell me what I should vote on.

• Be clear, in both speed and content. Please put analytics in the document. I can flow reasonable speeds, but light to no spreading is preferred.

• I love link/impact turns and rehighlights ^^

• An organized speech makes everybody’s life easy. I can’t vote for things I can’t understand.

• I will listen to the speeches, and flow off what I hear and see on the doc. That being said, please add me to any email chain, and mark cards. I also will clear you if I can’t understand your words.

• Overviews and extensions are awesome, I’ll be fine without underviews outside of KvK.

• Don’t under highlight then bring up unhighlighted arguments. More cards doesn't always mean a better argument.

CX

• Pick one or two voters to go for in the last speech, don’t go for everything - please explain how you won (preferably walk me through what happened in the round), and add impact calc

• I love to see good use of questioning

• Most of my preferences are for lay debate, do whatever (with basic ethics) for flow

Neg

• Show me how the squo is better, or how an advocacy is BETTER than the aff.

• Reading multiple advocacies on neg is fine, but don’t try to time skew the aff during lay

Aff

• Show me you know your case, it’s usually pretty obvious when teams just read off a coach made case without understanding it

• Just as the neg shouldn't deliberately time skew the aff, I don’t like seeing affs with a lot of advocacies - prefer no more than 3 in lay (flow rounds do whatever you want)

CP

• Don't go for really cheaty cps. I probably won’t vote for a word pic or delay

• I personally think generics are generic for a reason; I enjoy judging most of them

• I’ll default to judge kick unless aff can show neg dropped offense

• Bonus points if your CP and DA link!

DA

• I’ll definitely vote on DAs, but the less realistic the DA, the more susceptible it is to link attacks

• I enjoy link and UQ debates, I think they make high quality debates

K

• I am personally a policy debater, but I by all means welcome K debates, though I am inexperienced in KvK, so I would really appreciate explanations

• Just because it’s a K doesn't mean you can use ad hominem arguments

• I value a strong alt on the K!

T

• I love to see good clashing interps!

• I have no preferences on ground arguments (education, fairness, clash, etc.), I’ll vote on who explains it better

K affs

• I have extremely little experience with K affs - If you choose to run one, I’ll try my best to judge it, but I will probably vote for the more clear and better executed side

Theory

• I'm not the biggest fan of kick the team in theory, I probably won’t vote for it unless you prove that the other team genuinely deserves to lose the round, instead of kicking the argument

• I don’t like seeing petty theories; having a vagueness debate every round isn't fun for anybody

PFD

• I've debated PFD a few times, I don’t have a ton of experience but I have a basic understanding of what's allowed and not

• I think it’s less of a norm to spread in PFD, so I’d prefer a reasonable talking speed

LD

• I have no experience in LD, I’ll try my best to judge fairly though!

Earning speaks

• I think reading and following a judge’s paradigm is one of the best ways to be respectful in a round - I will give you extremely high speaks if you show you are following my paradigm!

• Clarity

• Eye contact

• Overall politeness

• Professionalism

Docking speaks

• Racist, homophobic, xenophobic language

• Disengaged with the round (ex. watching Youtube during someone else’s speech)

• Being rude during CX

• Obvious prep stealing: I'm usually pretty lenient but let’s be ethical

• Marking cards

• I will destroy your speaks if I figure out you were unethical in disclosure

If any problems arise, I am always open to pausing the round and getting someone from tab or coaches

I'm Ria I am a first year cx debater for Pembroke

add me to the email chain rkumar27@pembrokehill.org

cx

Do whatever arguments you want, I'll flow it. I'm not the most experienced policy debater so if your gonna run a K please explain it well, explain fw to me too, and have a good impact. I really enjoy a good fem k and love a good cp If you're gonna run a DA you need to explain clearly how it turns/outweighs case. PLEASE PLEASE SIGNPOST it makes life so much easier when I flow. I like a good T debate and I'm most likely gonna vote based on who explains it better. Speaker points wise I'm not too harsh I really love watching a good debate. Please obviously don't go over time in speeches I will allow a ten second grace period, but after that I will start deducting speaker points

PFD

I debated public forum at one tournament and in middle school, so pretty lay. With time don’t go over I will allow a ten second grace period before deducting speaker points. I know the basics of PFD and know how it works, I know cx can get really heated but please be civil and kind otherwise I will start deducting speaker points. I also love some impact calc so throw some of that in.

LD

no idea what you do in LD i am very lay. I know there are value criterions ? and other stuff but yeah.

Have fun, be civil, and treat everyone with respect. Any homophobia, racism, or sexism will result in an automatic loss.

I’m currently a senior at the Pembroke Hill School in Kansas City, MO. This is my fourth year competing in policy debate and my third year competing in congressional debate.

• 2a/1n

• MSHSAA State Policy 2nd place

Please add me to the email chain or the speechdrop: cmartin24@pembrokehill.org

General Stuff

• Tech > Truth always

• Disclose your evidence! If you have a paper aff you should have extra copies for your opponents and for your judges.

• If you win the round, and genuinely are really good speakers and are at like a 27/28 in speaker points, I'll give you 30s if you make a clever joke.

• I have a really bad resting b*tch face so please don’t mistake that as me actually being pissed.

• Speed: Spreading's fine as long as you're clear. Your opponents should be able to understand what you’re saying! If you spread and I can’t understand what you’re saying then you’re risking my ballot.

• Decorum: I’m all for heated crosses but if it gets to the point where you keep talking purely to run down the clock and keep your opponents from asking more questions then I’m docking your speaker points. That being said you also should not be cutting your opponents off in the middle of their sentence unless it's gotten excessive

• Prep Time: I totally get that tech issues happen sometimes, just show me your screen so I know that you’re not just stealing prep and I won’t count it against you if you’re just having trouble getting your document to send. Other than tech issues, if someone isn’t talking then someone should be running prep.

Policy Section

• DA’s: Love them. They’re great.

1. Make sure you’re reading all for parts ie: uniqueness, link, internal link, impact.

2. I prefer link debates over impact debates but you still need to make sure to do impact calc.

3. Having an aff specific link is key to winning on the disad flow. Otherwise the evidence you read isn’t necessarily true as it’s not actually talking about the aff.

• CP’s: Counterplans are pretty cool. I’ll vote for them if they solve at least part of the aff better.

1. I would avoid delay cp's, they just don't really tend to serve a purpose.

2. Love actor cp’s, but you need to have an actual reason why your actor solves better. Actor cp’s shouldn’t have the same level of effectiveness as the aff, they should solve better.

3. If you read a quid pro quo cp be prepared to debate theory. Same goes for PICs.

• T: I will absolutely vote on T.

1. If you’re going to go for Topicality in the 2nr it should take up pretty much the entire speech.

2. Make sure to have all the parts to a topicality argument ie: interp, violation, standards, voters, etc, otherwise I won’t vote on it.

3. Dropping theory on the aff is almost always an automatic loss.

• K’s:

1. They're cool, just don't drop case.

2. My ballot does not solve in round impacts.

3. Don’t try to make the argument that “If you vote for us we’ll move on to the next round and more people will hear our message!” That’s dumb.

• Case Debate:

1. Analytics can be just as persuasive as evidence

2. I love re-highlighting of aff evidence, that’s the easiest way to win the case debate. If the neg can prove that the aff’s own authors don’t actually agree with what the aff team is saying, I will definitely lean neg on the case page.

3. Don't read new in 2. ie don't read off case args in the 1nc and put all the case args in the 2nc, that's a massive time skew. That being said, IF the neg brings up new arguments in the 2nc, I don't mind if the aff reads arguments on it in the 1ar even if it counts as a "new argument."

My name is Himani Mulbery and I am a second year debater at Pembroke Hill High School. I compete in PFD and INFO. During a round I would like to see debaters using evidence as much as possible. I also think it's important for both partners to contribute during grand crossfire.

2nd year cx debater at pembroke hill email: fmurphy27@pembrokehill.org

tech>truth

condo is aii

dont be bad at spreading, otherwise just dont spread

no judge kick unless instructed

pembroke hill '24

add me to the chain: joconnell24@pembrokehill.org

fourth year of policy debate

tl;dr

1. you do you -- read what you want and I'll flow it -- "I think have a higher bar for a complete argument that the average judge and some may say I care more about the "truth" side of "tech over truth." This is not necessarily about content, but about argument development/evidence/persuasion." -- Jimin Park

2. impact weighing and judge instruction is important

3. i ran exclusively policy positions on the aff and a mix of policy and k on the neg (CJR, Water, NATO, FR)

4. this topic seems to have an issue with plan vagueness and i don't really want to vote for a team who doesn't know what their plan really does or how it is funded

5. i like debate a lot. i watch a lot of debates, read a lot of paradigms, look at a lot of research outside of debate, etc. i'll do my best to come to a good decision, but always err on the side of over explanation

6. disclosure is good.

policy specific:

t:

1. love a good t debate

2. limits > ground

3. "The articulation of reasonability that will persuade me is that the substance crowdout generated by T debates outweighs the difference between the two interps” – Anirudh Prabhu

4. people don't do enough impact comparison and explanation of how their interp solves the other side's offense

5. i don't think T is automatically offense/defense but obviously can be persuaded otherwise

6. i really like emory gk vs minnesota pr ndt '22

k aff / fw:

1. do not try to resolve things you can't reasonably impact

2. i don't think i have a preference on clash, fairness, etc.

3. go for the impact turn sure, but id still prefer you make responses to das.

4. "The threshold to win an impact turn vs framework when reading an AFF about research practices tends to be difficult because it requires winning a threshold of contingent solvency that I don't think is usually achievable, or at the very least are typically poorly explained." -- maddie pieropan

5. "The 2NC and 2NR should spend time applying their impact filters to specific parts of aff offense. This can be made most effective by explaining your switch side argument on the impact turn you believe it resolves the best" -- Arnav Kashyap

6. turns case are good. clash is a prereq to actualizing the aff >>>>>>>>> assume the aff is false because we couldn't test it

7. not experienced in k v k debates; will need a lot of explanation and judge instruction if the neg k is not cap; i have no huge preferences on perm/no perm but the aff will need to do more than just saying "no perms in a method v method debate"

a. i also think alt distinction is important, no matter how big your link is

k v policy:

1. this is where i spend the most time thinking about debate outside of rounds

2. not super comfortable with pomo or stuff like that

3. i care about framework more than most i think, but general default is affirmatives get to weigh the aff but have to defend their epistemologies; recently a lot of judges are strongly against a middle ground-interpretation but i think i'm more amenable to that

4. please debate the case, unless you're way ahead on why you don't have to

5. make smart choices and go for the right stuff; f/w + link, link is a da + try or die for the alt. you get the idea

6. From Kenji Aoki: "I'm most persuaded by framework strategies that do one of three things:

1. attempt to just exclude the aff and win substantial impact turns to their model of plan focus/consequentialism,
2. limit the scope of aff solvency while enhancing the scope of alt solvency, or
3. are ditched in favor of more particular engagements on the link/impact/alt level of the kritik"

7. tricks are cool

da:

1. link specificity and contextualization is key

2. i generally like a good ptx da, but i'm not comfortable adjudicating debates around certain ptx theory

3. i don't really believe in "any risk of the link"

4. i typically thing impact turning is unhelpful here -- i'd prefer you spend your time on the link/uq level, particularly making arguments about which controls the other

5. turns case arguments are very persuasive when applied to the i/l's of the aff

cp:

1. imo affs let the neg get away with way too much on cps

2. that being said, i think functional pics are a great way to gain offense--especially if you have a well-researched and specific solvency advocate

3. the cp doesn't need to solve all of the aff and i often find solvency threshold debates trivial

4. adv cps often seem illogical -- but i like them and think they are super fun

5. the textual/functional model seems generally good to me

6. condo is mostly good, multi-actor fiat is mostly bad

7. consult and delay cps are probably bad

8. i will always default to judge kick unless convinced otherwise -- exception is i won't judge kick in order to vote on presumption

case:

1. underutilized

2. read the rehighlights

3. i feel pretty amenable to some new 1ar arguments

4. i love impact turn debates thanks to truman connor

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

pfd:

1. not experienced

2. i know plans aren't allowed, but depending on the topic, being pro can sound like advocating for one -- doesn't mean con can go for a cp

3. teams should always be reading some sort of framework for how i should evaluate the round

4. i will probably evaluate like a policy debate

ld:

1. not experienced here either

2. i think plans and cps are allowed?

3. I'll probably evaluate v/vc, ks, cps, etc. very similar to a policy round

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

things that boosts speaks:

1. being funny -- debate is supposed to be fun

2. well-organized docs

3. smart analytic arguments

4. clever rehighlightings

5. taking strategic risks

things that lower speaks:

1. being rude

2. being racist/sexist/homophobic/etc. (probably an auto-L)

3. actively removing analytics

4. stealing prep

5. i keep seeing teams orally feed each other words in rebuttal speeches and it's getting excessive imo. it's hard to listen to two people talk at once. i'd rather the partner just tell me than say it and have their partner repeat it. write a block if you have to, but like... i think the 2xr should be able to expand on what the 1xr is trying to tell them on their own without having to be fed every single word

I flow the rounds and appreciate careful and reasonably-paced speaking, good evidence and knowledge of your sources. Not all sources are created equal so be willing to evaluate them. The date of a source can be important --- eg, it has current up-to-date information or it is a classic or comprehensive source that has not been superseded.

OV

Hi! I am currently a junior at the Pembroke Hill School, making it my third year competing in debate. Since it's Missouri, I compete primarily in local tournaments in CX, but have tried a few national circuit tournaments. Note that I say "probably" in a lot of these opinions so they could be changed and aren't definitive.

Add me to the email chain: lryan25@pembrokehill.org

TLDR/TOP LEVEL

1. Tech > Truth; BUT you need to warrant out your claims and I'd prefer if there is at least some truth to your arguments.

2. I can keep up with some speed, but will also be following along on the speech docs & flowing, so if you plan on going fast send your analytics. I cannot keep up with the faster TOC debates.

3. I tend to prefer policy arguments over kritikal arguments & will understand them easier, BUT don't be afraid to read a K, you just may have to explain it more.

4. AFFs should defend the resolution. This isn't to say I will auto-vote you down for K-AFFs, but I don't think my ballot solves in round impacts, so keep that in mind.

5. Don't be mean in cross and try not to talk over each other, but I get that it can be heated.

6. Don't steal prep. I'm sympathetic to tech issues but I will need to see your screen.

7. You tell me what the ROB and the role of the judge is. I'm inclined to say that it's to be a policymaker and to weigh the world of the AFF vs. the status quo/world of the neg, but can be convinced otherwise.

8. Email = Speechdrop > Flash Drive >>> Paper >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “We don’t disclose”

9. Don't read the bathtub analogy. Or the chair equivalent.

DA

1. I enjoy these and spent a lot of time going for DA/CP as a 2NR.

2. Specific links are key to winning the DA as the negative team, but the more vague/poor at explaining the AFF is, the more credence I give to generic links.

3. Impact calculus is definitely important in the 2NR. If you go for a DA, you really need to explain why I care that passing the AFF causes something bad to happen.

CP

1. Best when paired with a DA (or a case turn, I guess).

2. If you are reading more than 3 CPs, I'm going to give condo to the AFF unless you can really defend it. Otherwise, I feel like I'm slightly AFF leaning on condo, but don't let it scare you from reading multiple CPs.

3. Delay CPs and Consult CPs are probably cheating (especially on this topic).

4. Default to judge kick the CP, but could be convinced otherwise.

5. Similar to DAs, the more specific to the AFF the CP the better.

6. Multi-actor fiat, excessive perms (4+), and excessive planks (7+) are probably bad.

K

1. Least familiar with these, only have ever run & gone for Cap K, so you need to over explain them (especially the more confusing ones).

2. Yes, the AFF gets their impacts (unless you are very good at convincing me otherwise). Yes, debate is probably a game (otherwise what are we doing?) No, my ballot probably doesn't solve in round impacts (so having a clear alt other than "reject the aff" is important).

3. Please crystallize K debates by the 2AR/2NR and don't try to extend everything across the flow.

4. Very unfamiliar with K v K debates so you will need to do A LOT of explaining the nuances of your competing frameworks and crystallize to get me to understand at the end of the debate. I don't want to be sorting through all my flow paper at the end of the debate when you didn't send your blocked out FW analytic

T

1. Default to competing interpretations, but can understand and be persuaded to reasonability. Please explain how winning this helps you win the debate. In similar fashion, NEG teams please explain how winning your interpretation helps you win the debate and the violation.

2. Don’t read too many short, blippy T-violations. More than 2 is kinda sketchy unless the AFF is clearly not topical.

3. T is not an RVI, I don’t care what you say.

4. Don’t cheat with sketchy highlighting on T cards. Please actually make it worth our time.

CASE DEBATE

1. These are definitely under-utilized (especially in more flow rounds), but having good defense and impact turning the AFF can be a winning strategy.

2. I think that as the negative you can definitely pick apart some of the vague, big stick AFFs and some the weird soft-left AFFs with good case debate.

3. Re-highlighting ev is great! But you have to read it, don't just insert it.

That’s all!

I'm a sophomore at Pembroke Hill in Kansas City, MO. This is my second year in Policy.

Please do add me to the speech drop or email chain. My email is: msantizo26@pembrokehill.org

General:

1. Tech > truth if and only if I know nothing about the topic. If you read a card that I happen to know is factually incorrect, I will immedietely discount that card. That is the only penalty.
2. I have a hard time flowing spreading, so if you would like for me to understand you, please slow down. I could just go off of the speech drop if you truly insist.
3. I care about objectivity. I will favor arguments that have more numerous or more impactful pieces of evidence.
4. Please make sure to signpost.
5. Know your logical fallacies. I do not like them. If you catch your opponents using them, that can be a great argument for you. If I catch you using them, you will be docked speaker points. Some of my least favorite are Ad hominem, Strawman, and begging the question. Honorable mention to Sunk Cost Fallacy.
6. I don't mind cursing, but don't make it intentionally excessive.
7. Be respectful to your partner, opponents, me and any human being in general. If not, there may be consequences I elaborate further on at the bottom.

Policy specific:

AFF:

• Know your case. you will be docked speaker points if you can't answer simple CX questions.
• Impacts matter; show me that your plan has a more important impact that outweighs the negatives, because, yes, every plan has something negative to it.
• As AFF has the last speech, I see it more often where AFF will slime their last speech. It doesn't even matter which speech it is. I will be flowing. Sliming is an automatic loss from me.

NEG:

• Demonstrate to me that you can adapt. Show me you can respond to every argument.
• Do not under any circumstances use a strawman fallacy. I see them as cowardly and depending on the extent of the fallacy, I will dock speaker points
• For me, NEG only has to win one particular section unless I deem otherwise. These sections are Inherency, Solvency, CP, and/or T. I don't like voting on just advantages, disads, or K's unless given adequate reason. Also keep in mind that if you can convince me of it, you have to win all advantages. The reason I wouldn't normally vote on them is because a NEG CP can use the same advantages or have the same DA's. However, I do consider their arguments for the AFF in the final voting so both teams should read about them.
• Like the AFF, do not slime any of your speeches

T's:

• I like T arguments. Seeing others argue over interpretation of a plan text is enjoyable. However, do not make these your main arguments unless the plan is clearly untopical.
• For Topicality to win, it has to prove that the plan is not solving the squo.

Disads:

• I love disads, especially ones tailored to a specific case. My requirements are that it be well structured, clear, and have a strong Link and impact, or at least one that outweighs AFF
• For disads to win, they must prove that all the impacts they read will come to fruition without a doubt if the plan is implemented. If they lose or drop even one DA, I will not consider them in stock issues. Even if you read and won six others. That doesn't mean don't read them. Read disads because they will help with impact calculus, and the more that are provided, the more they can supplement other parts of a CP, for example.

CP's:

• I'm cool with condo's, but you must make sure to specify that a CP is a condo before you read it
• For a CP to win, it must prove that it has fewer or lesser negative impacts than the proposed plan. Simple as that.

K's, K AFF's, FW, and Theory:

• I will admit, I do not know much about K's, so any typical K jargon will be unfamiliar to me.
• From my limited knowledge of K's, I do not like them.
• I do not know what a K AFF is
• I'm fine with FW and arguing it, as long as you can prove your FW is superior.
• No theory

Gaining/retaining speaker points:

• If you are a mediocre debater or speaker, I will give you a 24 automatically.
• If I could tell you put effort into your work and case you will get 3 points
• I like fluent and intelligible speeches. These will give you 1 points
• Being respectful to everyone will give you .5 points
• I wouldn't mind light-hearted jokes and soft sarcasm, but don't push it
• I also like good word choice/diversity. Using precise language is always a bonus.
• These above values are fluid and subject to change from orator to orator.

Losing speaker points

• First and foremost: a speech impediment will not impact this scoring as long as that is conveyed to me before round or is obvious during said round. Otherwise, I may be inclined to believe you are just bad at speaking.
• Logical fallacies
• Interruption will lose you speaker points. If you are asking a question and you cut someone off before they finished their whole response, I will not appreciate it
• Stalling. Stalling in CX is poitnless. Just end the CX. Stalling in a speech is more forgivable if you're recapping points made, but don't just regurgitate useless info.
• Disrespect will not be tolerated under any circumstances. I do not want you bad-mouthing your partner in front of the room. You should not mock your opponents. As I said above, light-hearted jokes and soft sarcasm is ok, but there are limits.Homophobia, Racism, Sexism, Transphobia, or any form of hate towards any group of people, even those who are not marginalized will not be tolerated and is an automatic loss from me.This is usually why I dislike K's.

Hello, My name is Siraj and I am Varsity Debater. I have been debating three years and I am purely a flow judge. I expect evidence to be clear, true, and concise. I would prefer that speech docs are shared with me and cards are exchanged throughout round or before the round. Also, your arguments should be spoken at a normal pace (no spreading) in order for me to understand your arguments. Please be kind to one another and have fun.

Pembroke hill 26’

Email:msiragusa26@pembrokehill.org

Second year of policy

Overview

You can make jokes just make sure its appropriate

I don’t flow so consider me a lay judge

debate is about persuasion

I'm fine with policy or K as long as I can somewhat understand the argument.

Don’t be super rude, or hateful.

I don’t mind if you go super fast just make.

Ask me any questions.

Theory

Condo: can be good if done well, make good arguments

Disclosure: I like disclosure, if you don’t disclose and the neg runs disclosure theory ill probably lean neg

Other stuff depends.

T:

T can be good

K:

Ill try my best to understand but explain your stuff well

Not the best with Ks so explain what you’re trying to say

Disads:

I like disads

Goofy disads can win if I can believe them

I like PTX disads

Make sure to do it well.

Counterplans:

Counterplans are fun

I'll vote on condo if I have to

Cross:

Make sure that you aren’t incredibly rude

Don’t be annoying

Make sure that you’re ready

(( _ _ ))..zzzZZ

email chain/contact info: stoutmalicia@gmail.com

about me: recent graduate from truman state university where I debated for four years. I coach policy debate at pembroke hill in KCMO. in undergrad i studied polisci & ir, postmodern philosophy and women & gender studies.

housekeeping: doc should be sent within 30 seconds of ending prep barring unusual circumstances. signpost well (VERY CLEARLY, "NEXT OFF"). you should send analytics. card dumps and expecting me to cross apply the cards for you to the LBL is a risky game. "clean docs" that are sent that are not actually "clean" are slimy. lack of distinction between your card reading voice and your tag/analytic voice also can result in mishaps on the flow.

Debated: Immigration(CX), Arms Sales (CX), Immigration (NFA), Counterterrorism (NFA), Elections (NFA), Nukes (NFA)

Coached: Criminal Justice Reform (CX), Water (CX), Fiscal Redistribution (CX)

TLDR: Speed is cool. Signposting is necessary. Ks on the aff and neg are a vibe and procedural debates are fun.

ETHICS ISSUES: Don't scream. Be kind. Don't cheat! Don't card clip. Repeated Interrupting and yelling in CX is a voter.

Policy:

Tech > Truth: I am anti-judge intervention, I default to tech as reasonably as I can. Dropped args are generally true so long as there is some extension of a warrant. I will read cards - so at the very minimum at least make sure your evi. is somewhat coming to the conclusion you say it does. If the card is completely dropped, my threshold for this is pretty low but don't misconstrue evidence -> that's probably not good for debate.

Speed: Speed was my preference as a competitor. Will vote on the Speed K if pertinent. Slow down on analytics that aren't in the doc.

T/Theory: Big fan if you do it well. The 2NR/2AR should collapse solely to the theory page. There should be an interp, vio, standards and voters in the shell. I'll vote on potential abuse if there is a clear warrant for why I should. Love a good TVA. I default to competing interps but can be swayed.

Disclosure: Neg and aff should disclose full-text new positions on the wiki. Hard debate is good debate. I highly encourage debaters to disclose, it makes you better. Don't false disclose.

Disads: I pref aff-specific links. If you collapse to DA/Case, give me an overview on top and do lots of impact comparison. Tix aren’t my favorite but like I said tech over truth.

New in the 2: Not a fan, unless it's justified - i.e. a new theory sheet because of in-round abuse. New impact scenarios are fine, but I'll give a lot of mercy to the 1ar.

Counterplans/Conditional Advocacies (General): One condo CP/K is fine. The more conditional CPs/Ks you run, the lower my threshold gets. In most cases a CP/K combo is perfcon -- which I absolutely will vote on. I default to judge kick, but can be persuaded on why judge kicks are bad - or why I shouldn't. I won't vote solely on a solvency lens - you need to win the net benefit.

Kritiks (Neg): Please operate under the assumption that I'm completely unfamiliar with the literature you're reading -- that's the best way to avoid any specific K biases I might have. I enjoy it if you can clearly explain what the K does & what the alt looks like. Well versed on cap, militarism, security and fem. Specific K links will always be more compelling than generic ones I like alts that do something. FW is important. (IF YOU CANNOT EXPLAIN WHAT THE K DOES I HAVE A VERY LOW THRESHOLD FOR K SOLVENCY!!!)

Kritiks (Aff): I've ran K affs without a plan text. they need an advocacy statement/clear alt text. I've voted neg and aff on framework plenty of times in these debates. tell me why the debate space solves, and how that outweighs fairness claims and such. What does my ballot do? What am I voting for? Am I a policymaker? Is fiat real? If I am left not knowing the answers to all of those questions I probably won't vote on the K aff.

Case: I LOVE turns and I will vote on them if they are impacted out properly. Do not expect me to vote on a dropped turn if you do not weigh it in the round. Case debate is a lost art for the negative, I award high speaks to debaters who do quality evidentiary analysis.

Fun Speaks: clever tasteful APPROPRIATE humor in round is rewarded w/ speaker points :)

Condo good.

I love nuke war impact.

I hate public forum.

K's are fun I dont have too much experience with them though so explain well.

Tech over truth.

Please have good impacts.

Run whatever CP you like, if your argument is good enough you can win - if you run squo make sure you run it well

I am still decently lay so explain

be good people

know your argument don't get cooked in cx

Run theory if you want

In PFD: I did it for 1 year. switch to policy

be nice to each other and try your best!

n/a

Hi I'm Sarina and I'm a second year policy debater at Pembroke, also compete in duo, di, poetry, and poi so i can get down to some interp event judging

JDI '23, MNDI '24

Add me to the email chain! sweinman27@pembrokehill.org

cx

2A/1N, I love you my fellow 2As

case

A personal pet peeve of mine is when 1ns go for uq, link and impact. You only need to win one to win the impact doesn't happen and solves aff impact. Also inherency should be a contention. There are so many teams who have great cases but can't articulate why the plan needs to happen. That's just a general easy vote for neg on presumption if they bring it up. Use case o/w to explain to me how you use your offense.

disads

I very rarely vote for the status quo, yk since its a little messed up. I think if the 2nr does go for the disad w/ no counterplan it should really be more of an impact debate unless your opponent has such a ridiculously terrible/dropped their link.

Stop running generic disads with a net benefit to the counterplan. There's a good chance your offense is going to be self demeaning. disads with the best links to the plan are the disads you should use as a net benefit. Don't run econ da when both you and the plan spend a significant amount of money :/

cps

I like counterplans, get ready for the yap. There are 3 things I consider when evaluating a cp; does it have a net benefit? is the cp mutually exclusive? and does the risk of the net benefit outweigh the solvency deficit? Both sides need to be weighing the net benefit vs the solvency deficit.

I dislike multiplank and weirdly complicated advantage counterplans. I'm more inclined to vote for perm do the cp and allow more outrageous perm abuse if the counterplan has like 17 advantages or is just wildly unrelated to the topic. If you're going against an advantage counterplan you should be reading an add on, give the neg a larger scope to solve with their counterplan that (usually) is unrelated to the plan.

I'm chill with judge kick. If no one says anything about it I'll evaluate the neg with whatever they go for in the 2nr, but if it's mentioned in the block I'll also consider the status quo as a solution. Yes, bringing up judge kick in the 2nr is mildly abusive and if aff gives me one reason why its unfair and bad for education I'll probably only take your counterplan into my decision.

My general thoughts on perms are the more condo abuse the more I'm willing to vote on perms. Perms are viable arguments with every single plan! Just don't do a perm and crack down on cp solvency because that's awkward and I've had my fair share of doing that in novice rounds.

Use theory to justify severance perms. If the neg uses 50 state fiat or some other dubious theory phenomena then I'm chill with a severance perm, but no you cannot use a severance perm to remove your links to the net benefit.

k's

stop running identity k's when you're not part of that identity. I personally think it can be disrespectful at times, and identity k's were made for people of that identity. Also a lot of identity k's have slurs or things only people of that identity should be saying, and if you have a slur in your card yes I will dock your points. It's unprofessional and offensive.

My thoughts on perms are pretty synchronous with the cp section so look up. Framework is the most important thing in a k debate. You need to have an interpretation and standards. Don't give me an interpretation but then not say why it matters in debate. If you're aff against a K just remember presumption flips. I am not someone who engages in k debate a lot outside of cap k and fem k so if you're doing like a niche k then you especially need to explain it more with overviews. If you say you understand whats going on in a method v method debate you are a liar. I for one am fine with admitting it so I'll probably just vote whoever explains better.

t

interp, standards, violation. Miss one of those and I'm not voting on t. Aff needs to present a counter interp or say they meet. I'll probably just vote for the interp that is better for fairness and gives both teams a chance to win the round. I don't really have a lot to say about t other than fairness is my highest priority, but I'm chill w whatever impact you have.

theory

please stop running condo on teams with 1 or 2 off. It not only is annoying but it's a waste of time. For me condo is a reject the arg not the team, but if neg is running a substantial amount of conditional off just to waste your time then yeah I could see a reject the team. I'm neutral on neg fiat, and yes 50 state fiat is kinda abusive but if aff does something ridiculous i could allow that.

hot takes

hi, i like science. I consider myself to be tech > truth except one scenario: space col. I think if you genuinely love it and are going for it other than the lols then yeah I'll live but if youre using it just to waste time just don't. I am a proud space col hater and it is genuinely my biggest peeve.

Also if you make any form of brooklyn 99 reference I will raise your speaks I love that show so much

pf

I debated public forum at one tournament and in middle school, so just treat me like a lay judge. I'm not really a fan of impact debates, link turns are awesome. Answering ur opps case with purely impact calc is not really fun to watch, and I'm more inclined to vote for a link centered debate. 1-3 voters, how does that align with the fw? Seriously tell me how I should be evaluating the debate, and I can't stress enough that you NEED offense to win. You can't just block all of your opponents' points but not have any reasons your side wins, that's really unfun to judge. Defense only debates are impossible to judge and I hate evaluating based on whoever gets blocked more.

ld

Treat me like a lay judge. I know there's values and value criterions but besides that I'm no better than the average person. Honestly a lot of stuff from cx applies and I love offense, so I'm probably gonna be evaluating this like a cx round (plan specific).

The most important thing though is that you should be enjoying yourself and having fun. Debate is a learning environment and you should feel respected and treat your partners and opponents with respect. Any form of bigotry is at worse an automatic L and at least a significant dock of speaks. Have fun debating!

Jaggard Williams

Me:

- Assistant coach at The Pembroke Hill School.

- I have history in Public Forum, (HS) Lincoln Douglas, and collegiate NPDA.

Preferences for round:

- Be polite. I don't vote for rude people.

- I can handle about half-flow speed, but super flow speed does not work for me. If you choose to run uber-fast speed, I will do my best to keep up, but I cannot guarantee anything. :)

- Utilize jaggardwilliams1@gmail.com for the chain.

- Give me roadmaps before speeches so I can get my flow in order.

- I don't love K debate, but if you can articulate it well, go ahead.

Here's my blurb:

I want to see genuine clash in the round. If you completely disregard your opponent's arguments just because you want to run some off-the-wall argument, I'm throwing it out the window. If you can link it to the round, then by all means run with it. If you haven't figured it out, I'll listen and ponder anything you throw at me, it just has to be clearly relevant to the round. Also - please don't be debate robots. I would love to see some humor, personality, and charisma in the round - in your speeches, arguments, articulation, mannerisms, whatever. Make it fun! Please, for the love of God, make it fun.

I am a junior attending Pembroke Hill, and this is my third year of policy debate and second year of congressional debate.

Add me to any email chains you make: cwood25@pembrokehill.org

Tl;dr

Idc what you do or don't read, just make it make sense

Tech > truth, although I do value truth almost the same

LOVE impact calculus and at least touch on stock issues

I like analytics and smart re-highlighting of cards the opposition used

Not a huge fan of spreading-- if you do make sure you have either email chain/speechdrop

Make sure i can understand you when you talk

BE NICE in cx

Pls flow-- it's obvious when you don't

NEG:

Make sure that you spend enough time debating on case, don't just forget it in favor of off case

Don't make a ton of arguments just to kick most of them, that's a waste of my time and your time

AFF:

KNOW YOUR AFF, don't get tripped up on simple questions about your case

I don't really like K affs but you do you ill put aside my bias if you do a good job debating

Make sure your advantages outweigh and win the stock issues

Policy Specific:

T:

t’s are fine with me, i can enjoy the debate if its done correctly and if the framework isn't widely out there and i will vote on it if the AFF is clearly untopical (or if you just argue it better than the other team)

NEG: you rlly need to prove to me why your interpretation is correct and better, have good violations

Don't waste your time reading it if your just gonna kick it tho

DA:

Personally i love DA’s they make a ton of sense to me

don't just be reading non-specific and generic just to put one in, if your gonna read one make it case-specific and intentional

CP:

CP’s are fine, but I won't JUST vote on the CP

Not a juge fan of PIC cp’s, but if you do a good job debating it i will consider

Condo cps are fine, i hate consult and delay cps

also don’t really like generic cps, if your gonna do one make it case specific or at least have good link

Idc if you kick it

K’s:

Not a huge fan, i don't have a lot of experience with them

Although I lean more towards traditional debate if their is clear clash and the thesis of the argument is clear i will vote on it

Easier to win me over using other debate strats

Earning Speaker Points:

Overall being a nice person

Tbh if you actually look like you want to be there

Eye contact (esp in the last speeches)

Good analytics

Losing Speaker Points:

Being rude or mean during a round

Any comments that are sexist, racist, homophobic, etc

Stealing prep (although I am usually pretty lenient with this)

Tech>Truth, Tabula Rasa

Second year CX

Email Chain: Dzhao27@pembrokehill.org

Condo good until contradictions or 2 Ks but it's up for debate.

Judge intervention sometimes if the link is just common sense or justified, not going to judge kick unless instructed.

DAs: Don't care what you run but the Link has to be somewhat logical and has too be somewhat specific.

CPs: Multiple condo fine, I like running a bunch of off to test the AFF. Just make them all make sense. Process CPs with some irrelevant Internal Net benefit is boring.

Ks: I don't like Ks, but won't mind voting for them. Reject the plan as the Alt is boring.