Email: Ccbezemek25@mail.strakejesuit.org

Prefs (Arguments)

Favorite - Policy or Larp and Religious arguments

Don’t likes - Dense Ks, Dense Frameworks, and Cap K

I won't vote on ad homs or unproven out of round violations

Overall, run what you want. I will evaluate what you tell me to (within reason).

Please do -

Weigh

Signpost

Speak Clearly

Extend arguments

Link arguments to framework

Explain arguments - presume I know nothing

Weighing (if you don’t give it to me it is very hard to make a decision) - (Ballot order is)

Theory, Framework (K, ROB, and ROJ go here), Case (In that order)

Magnitude (extinction) > every other argument (probability, K args, any other args besides theory) (If no weighing)

Concessions > Args in round (If you weigh your case first I will presume it first or explain why the concession doesn’t matter, but if I am left with a few concessions and a few arguments the concessions will probably influence the ballot) (Spin is still ok though)

No way to tell who wins I will vote Neg (Unless presumption and permissibility affirms)

Speed/Flowing

Send the doc - I may not look at it

I prefer to not look at doc and follow by ear

I will say clear/slow three times and stop flowing

I will flow whatever you say, but if I miss something and you bring it up later I will think it is new and won’t buy it.

I am a really slow flower (my wpm is like 60 so understand that I will miss stuff if you go too fast)

I think debate needs to be focused on how well you speak, so speed and clarity is important

Do nots -

Clip - You will either get an auto lose or terrible speaks

Say arguments that aren’t in your case that you say are/power tag (IE if you claim only 1% of all rocks can be mined, but the evidence says NASA is mining one percent then this is power tagged) (Latter if pointed out unless its egregious)

Bring up new args in late speeches - I won’t buy them, and your speaks will drop. Weighing is ok though

Don’t yell at the opponent in CX

Cuss - You get one cuss word after that I will give you a cap at 26 speaks.

Thoughts

I hate disclosure theory. I will vote on it, but I strongly dislike it.

Defense/I meets is sufficient on theory shells especially if multiple are read.

Tricks are ok, they will probably get you less speaks. I do dislike hidden indexicals or tricks in random tags though.

If someone does something that is bad, then it is their opponents job to explain why it is bad and what the judge should do.

CX is binding. If you lie in CX or dodge questions and bring it up later as a voting issue I will be very skeptical.

Overall, run what you want and I will try to judge it fairly. Presume that I know nothing about the topic or framework you are reading or I can’t evaluate it. If I can’t understand it, then I can’t vote for you.

If both sides agree to a separate activity to decide the round, then they can do that (like a chess game or something)

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

For PF - I have never judged this before. I will just judged off persuasion and argumentation. Being clear, weighing, and explaining will be important. Don’t presume I know the norms for pf like what evidence looks like, extending arguments, or theory.

Strake Jesuit ‘26

Feel free to ask any questions before/after round

I'll eval anything on the flow, the exception being ad-homs/callouts

Tech > Truth but I like truth

Pref Sheet

LARP - 1

K - 2

Non-T Aff - 2

T - 2

Theory -3

Phil - 4

Trix - 4

IVI's - 5

Send Speech docs with cards.

+.5 speaks for no suit

I do speaks off strategy and clarity

Non-T Affs-

i like these debates

know what you're reading

probably lean towards T being true but good debaters can debate through it

LARP-

implicate offense

i love metaweighing when done well

K-

Affs get to weigh the case against K's unless K team contests [which they should]

Try to make it accessible by explaining during cx etc.

understand what you're reading.

T/Theory-

default DTD, CI's >, no RVI's

i think these's debates get overdone and can be boring to judge but I'll still evaluate whatever. high threshold for what is "friv" and I'll still evaluate.

NO RVI's does not mean you cannot lose on the theory page. You can still lose to an OCI [or a "turn" to the shell if they choose to defend the converse of the shell]. Winning RVI's means that the team responding to theory can win off winning terminal defense on the theory page.

Phil-

Phil can be nice to judge err on overexplanation for more complicated things

Tricks-

have fun, if you lose reading them L 25

IVI's-

Don't read these unless it's so blatant that it's obvious they did something abhorrent. Read an actual shell, or if you like blippy reasons to vote for you, read tricks.

hi im chris cheng

---FOR NO LIMITS---

-Try your best, its perfectly fine if you dont know what you are doing

-Start/Stop rounds

-please don't surrender to your opponent. there's usually always a way to win the round.

-please extend your framework

if you read the camp case I will fall alseep

----------------random snack prizes---------------

if you don't read the camp case ill buy you a snack from the concessions stand

if you read a Kritik/Theory/Tricks/Phil ill buy you 2 snacks from the concessions stand

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

---CONTACT---

clcheng27 at mail.strakejesuit.org

tech > truth

read whatever you want

ill evaluate anything but here is a list on things that I am most well knowledgeable on:

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

1 -- phil

1 -- k

2 -- tricks

3 -- theory

3 -- larp

traditional -- strike

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

DEFAULTS

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

-permissibility affirms

-presumption negates

-shells are dtd, no rvis

some specifics:

-----------

LARP

-----------

• weigh
• read whatever you want

-----------

K

-----------

• err on over-explanation for uncommon Ks / post modern stuff
• K tricks are fine
• win a link to the aff
• idk about judging k affs

-----------

TRICKS

-----------

• i like logcon
• anything that isnt eval or a spike should be explained
• ill evaluate 30 speaks spike
• tricks need a claim, warrant, and impact, and need to be extended for me to vote on them

-----------

T/THEORY

-----------

• no such thing as friv theory
• default c/i, dtd, no rvis

-----------

PHIL

----------

• explain phil terms
• do whatever u want

----------

TRAD/DENSE PHIL

----------

• trad is a no
• dense phil maybe if explained and warranted

----------

SPEAKS

----------

25 -- you surrendered/ did something bad / dropped the aff in 1nc

the rest depends on the round

have fun

Hey, I'm Rushil (he/him).

Strake Jesuit '23

Princeton '27

Note that I haven’t been involved with debate for almost a year at this point and am unfamiliar with the topic; err towards overexplanation.

I debated Lincoln-Douglas at Strake Jesuit for four years and have a little over 10 years of experience in Speech & Debate. I have four career bids and a bid round and have qualified to TFA State (x3), TOC (x2), and NSDA Nationals(x2).

Add me to the email chain: rechetty23@mail.strakejesuit.org

Tech>Truth to a large extent, I should have little work to do at the end of the round and your final speech should write my ballot

Prefs:

LARP/Trad - 1

Theory/T - 1

Kritiks - 2

Phil - 3

Tricks - 4

LARP:

Read whatever you're comfortable with

Weighing and clash are super important on both impacts and evidence

I love a good framework debate, CPs and Politics are great too

Theory:

I default competing interpretations, no RVIs, DTD, and Fairness unless told to evaluate differently

Please don't read frivolous theory lol

Weigh well between voters and standards

Slow down if there's no doc

T:

Please be specific and explain your arguments and weighing well

I'm not a fan of Non-T affs so my threshold for responses is not very high

Kritiks:

I've read mainly SetCol and Cap but understand a few other Ks as well

I'm okay with reps and not a huge fan of K affs

Don't use this to evaluate what you read though because I will not fill in any gaps for you or vote off anything that is not well-explained - especially if it's clear to me that your opponent does not understand your explanation as well

If you're asked to explain the K in CX and talk really fast and use a lot of jargon that your opponent clearly cannot understand, it will hurt your speaks

I prefer material alts but I'll still evaluate refusal - explain why it's good and solves case if possible

Please don't throw in a floating PIK out of nowhere, at least hint at it in the 1N

Phil:

Not a huge fan of Phil and not the best at evaluating it either, but I'll do my best to listen to your arguments

Weigh well and explain your warrants

I default to truth testing and presumption and permissibility affirm

Tricks:

Yeah please don't read any lol, this includes skep triggers and a priori

I'll still evaluate them but my threshold for responses is really low - if your opponent tells me to throw them out because they ruin debate I'll 100% listen to them because I agree lol

I'll allow responses to "Evaluate the debate after X" in all speeches because I really don't like voting on these and don't like them in general

If you do read tricks and are really dodgy about explaining or identifying them in CX, it will hurt your speaks

Miscellaneous:

Keeplocal recordings of your speeches - anything that I don't hear does not get flowed unless you can send me a recording of it

Be polite and don't swear - I find it really annoying when debaters feel the need to swear in round or try to one-up their opponents - it's not ethos-y at all and doesn't make you a better debater

Please don't read or say anything offensive or intentionally misgender your opponent - I won't drop you if you accidentally do it but if it becomes obvious I'll be more receptive to arguments they make. Obviously if you do something offensive, please take time to apologize for it WITHIN THE ROUND

I won't read off the doc, so make sure you are clear

I'll call clear twice before I stop flowing anything I can't understand

I'll flow CX

Please make the round accessible - this doesn't mean always debating trad against a novice, rather explain your arguments very well and don't spread

Arguments must be extended through every speech to be evaluated

If you concede it, it's true

No new responses in the 2NR/2AR unless you're going for meta theory or responses to 1AR shells

Hey! My name is Lucas Chritah, and I am a rising sophomore at Strake Jesuit. To clarify, if you want good speaks, do the following:

1) Be nice! If you do something rude, I will dock your speaks.

2) Spreading (Speaking fast) is fine, but remember to be clear. I don't want to flow off the dock.

Also, I don't care whether you wear formal clothing or not. As for what I prefer in a round, the following are listed from top to bottom in order.

1) Substance ( DA's, CP's, etc.) and Phil

2) Theory and K's ( I'm fine with friv theory unless it's extremely stupid (I.e. shoe theory).

3) Tricks (If you read something stupid like eval after the 1ac, I won't evaluate it.)

To be honest, do whatever you want, just try your best!

For evidence exchange, questions, etc., use: ishan.debate@gmail.com

I competed in PF at Strake Jesuit from 2019-2023 and have coached there since.

General

In most debates, I am persuaded by the arguments articulated by the debaters above all else. I dislike dogma and judge more from a "tech" perspective than "truth," though I dislike the distinction.

Arguments require a warrant. Impacts are not assumed.

Speak clearly. Slow down on taglines and for emphasis. Debate is an oral activity. You may not "clear" your opponents.

I will not vote for an argument I cannot follow, make sense of, or otherwise understand.

Cross-ex is binding. Relevant stuff still must make its way into a speech.

Flex prep is fine. However, I will not care if your opponents do not answer clarifying questions, especially if I thought they were clear.

By default, I presume for the status quo.

Evidence

Quality evidence matters. I am increasingly likely to intervene against unethical practices and egregious misrepresentation, but I prefer evidence comparison by the debaters.

Cards should be cut and have at least: descriptive taglines (I can be persuaded by "it was not in the tag"), relevant citations (including author qualifications), and the full paragraph you quote from.

Send speech docs before speaking (word, preferably). Speech docs should include all the evidence you plan on introducing. Marking afterward does not require prep. A marked doc is also not mandatory assuming there is clear verbal marking in-speech.

If you believe someone is violating the rules, stop the round and conduct an evidence challenge (I am sympathetic to them). I will not evaluate theory arguments about rule violations.

Avoid paraphrasing.

PF

I have a relatively high warrant threshold, especially for counterintuitive or nonobvious arguments.

Sounds analytics are often convincing, but usually not blips.

Defense is not "sticky".

Second rebuttal must frontline.

Extensions are relevant not to tick a box but for clarity and parsing clash. I am not nit-picky unless prompted.

Circular explanations of non-utilitarian framing arguments are unpersuasive.

1FF weighing is fine, but earlier is better.

Slipshod, hasty weighing is overvalued. Even quality weighing will not always compensate for sloppy or underwhelming case debating. However, judge instruction is undervalued: tell me how to evaluate the round.

Probability weighing is best when compared to the opposing argument as initially presented. Timeframe is when the sum of your argument occurs, not the individual part you choose to emphasize (unless that part is employed creatively, e.g. link alone turns case). "Intervening actors" is most often just new, under-warranted defense.

The Pro and Con should probably both be topical. Alts involving fiat are counter-plan adjacent.

I reward creativity and hard work. I do not look favorably upon laziness.

LD/CX

I have enough exposure to keep up.

Best for policy debates; fine for most else.

I am not a huge fan of pushing condo to its limits.

Text and function are probably good standards for competition.

Theory

I am biased toward theory arguments about bad evidence and disclosure practices, especially when there is in-round abuse. I am biased against frivolous and/or heavily semantical theory interpretations.

Defaults are no RVIs (a turn is not an RVI and "no RVIs" does not exclude offense from OCIs), reasonability > CI, spirit > text, DTA, and respond in the next speech.

Ks

Err on the side of over-explanation. Fully Impact stuff out.

Very hesitant to vote on discourse-based arguments or links not specific to your opponent's actions and/or reps in the debate.

Any response strategy is fine. Good for Framework and Topicality.

Non-starters

Ad-homs/call-outs/any unverifiable mudslinging.

Tricks.

Soliciting speaker points.

Misc

Avoid dawdling. Questions, pre-flowing, etc. should all happen before the start time.

Post-rounding is educational and holds judges accountable. Just don't make it personal.

Have fun but treat the activity and your opponents seriously and with respect.

Include me on the email chain

Gserickson27[The at symbol]mail.strakejesuit.org

I put the parenthesis so that no scrapers get my email

Just some info
Freshman at Strake Jesuit
did 2 yrs of MS debate
Do primarily NatCirc debate now\\

LD-

Pref Shortcuts

Theory-1

Trad-1

Phil-2/3

Simple Ks-2

Tricks-1

LARP-2

Complex Ks-2/3

Performance Ks-4 - Unless its Posadism, then 1 [This is just to troll my homie who lost to a Posadism K]

Identity Ks- 2

THIS GOES FOR EVERYTHING

1. Tricks are not ableist, I will buy that arg if warranted well though
2. Saying Eval bad (as in running eval is bad) is not the same as answering eval (if you want the guide, say IVI: Eval bad etc + Dont eval after x, eval after 2AR- what NSDA wants, makes every other speech waste of time)
3. Friv is great, I love friv
4. Debate good
5. IVIs count as tricks, they are blips that can be blown up later
6. i support new modes of argumentation, breaking a new Aff means you don’t have to disclose
7. Dropped args=True
8. Cant pick up a dropped arg (If you do policy, Ill make an exception IF the arg is picked back up in the Cs
9. if the AFF is a resource allocation AFF [Asian Pivot, ban X bc it costs $$$, etc] then the NEG can legit just say CP: Give Y to X but don’t do the AFF, and the AFF’s job becomes harder——— so don’t run that
10. the NC has to respond to the AC, just bc its called a constructive doesn’t mean it doesn’t have to frontline
11. You can refer to me as chat (it will increase speaks)
12. Debate well
13. Generally being funny increases speaks

Speaks

1. If you get below a 28, you are probably doing something wrong, and I’ve probably talked to your coach
2. I eval 30 speak spike
3. Idc if you spread, just send the doc
4. Clearly signpost, and make clear crossappliations
5. Refer to me as chat
6. be funny
7. if the debate is boring, I give lower speaks

strake debater

have fun and do whatever

put me on the email chain-sjhasan27@mail.strakejesuit.org

i will evaluate anything but i do prefer certain arguments.

1- tricks

2- larp, theory

3- structural k's

4- phil

5/S- identity k's

speed is fine just make it clear

no swearing or else you get a 25

Laura Huang (she/her)

laurahuang333@gmail.com

❀

About Me:

✿ LD @ Carnegie Vanguard '25. Did policy for a bit.

✿ TLDR: you do you. Debate is a game that involves extensive research, and everyone here is committed to it. Read 10 off, go for anything you must do to win the debate. Whether it be the cap K, the politics DA, a process CP, or conditionality, I will evaluate your arguments as equitably as I can.

✿ My preference is substantive affirmatives and engagement with equally as substantive negative strategies that rejoin the plan. Debate that engages in nuanced clash will certainly be rewarded with speaks. I am not a fan of strategies that are purposely designed around avoiding the other team's arguments and running from clash, but I certainly will evaluate them.

❀

Good luck! Feel free to email me if you have questions.

strake '27

I am switching form PF to LD this year

I will judge like a tech but be careful if you run theory. Make sure its very clear and not sloppy and then I can probably vote on it.

Make sure to extend because I won't eval it if its not extended. Make sure to weigh because then I'll it makes it really hard for me. Just give me a clear line on the flow and I'll probably vote for you.

Add me to email chain - PMHablinski26@mail.strakejesuit.org

If this is for 2024, probably don't read progressive arguments on me unless it is general theory. Otherwise, I evaluate fairly standardly based on the flow.

Tech > Truth to an extent (ie my threshold for responses decreases as your argument gets more farfetched)

Speed - go whatever you want but be clear and DEF send a doc if above 250 (you should probably send one either way)

Substance -

1. I evaluate in a tech manner
2. Framing... prefiat is silly / I'll evaluate most framing arguments tho
3. Second rebuttal should frontline or else the argument is conceded
4. If you don't weigh you'll probably lose the round (strength of link isn't real and probability better be implicated very well)
5. I'll evaluate whatever you give me but make sure to break the clash or else your argument is obv less easy to access

Progressive -

I'll evaluate most shells (think para, disclo, tw, and t) - I'd advise y'all against reading friv theory (if there is genuine abuse like misdisclosure y'all should probably read a shell if comfortable)

IVIs are generally ok if obvious but otherwise prob make it a shell

Evidence challenges are fine - just has to be on true grounds

Try not to read Ks on me - I'll probably screw you

Speaks -

+.5 if you weigh in rebuttal or attack in 2nd constructive

If you bring me food auto 30s unless... (see below)

If you're racist, sexist, homophobic, or overly rude I'll give you an L25

Auto 25 speaks if you're silver sumith

Strake Jesuit ‘26

michael.meng43@gmail.com

Technical ability to defend an argument precedes the actual truth of said argument. Debate is a technical speaking activity that requires concessions to be taken as truth; however, absent explicit concessions and/or dropped arguments, zero risk and the opposite are extremely difficult to achieve. Despite this, even dropped arguments can and should have their implications debated out. Sweeping claims of anything rarely exist.

Arguments must contain a claim, warrant, and implication to have meaning within a debate round. I have a low threshold for a warrant: anything except self-proclaimed truths. However, subpar arguments and warrants require equally subpar arguments or warrants to answer. Additionally, arguments that contravene basic understanding will generally require extreme amounts of warranting and explanation. I will only evaluate arguments and/or issues discussed within the speaking times, written on my flow, and explained and implicated to my understanding; nothing else is a factor in my decision.

mingyi.mary.li@gmail.com

LD @chs ‘26

Be nice!

Spreading(speaking fast) is fine, but remember to be clear. I don't want to flow off the dock.

My preferences:

1. Policy
2. Ks
3. Theory

Not comfortable with tricks or phil (other than Kant)

village '26

used to go to st agnes but the team there was not cool

sherine.liu07@gmail.com

i'll vote off anything with a claim warrant impact that's not problematic (ie racism, sexism, homophobic remarks, etc)

tech > truth

i read mostly policy args and theory but I think I can judge most stuff - with that being said read whatever u want

auto 30 if u bring me food

hi im meddy contact me wasdcode6489@gmail.com

PREFS

larp - 1

k - 1/2

theory - 3

trix - 3

phil - 4/5

ill evaluate anything thats warranted well

+ 1 speaks for cs2 reference
- 1 speaks for valorant reference

FOR NO LIMITS -

- speak clearly
- ill give extra speaks if you beat me in brawl stars (amount depends on brawler used)

Joshua Martinez (they/them).

Debated for Strake Jesuit for 4 years.

For email chains/questions - JEMartinez.docu@gmail.com

General

don't care what you wear or how you present in round.

speaks start out at 29.5 and move up and down by 0.1 as a scale; however, if you have an ego, I will drastically drop your speaks, passion is nice, being obnoxious isnt.

racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia have no place in debate. you get an L + 20. don’t misgender your opponents if they have pronouns disclosed

ask me questions after round, pick my brain, I encourage it. If you leave round frustrated, ask me about it. Respect me as a person who makes mistakes but stand by your convictions.

Debate is a competition but not a game, this means that how we think about the debate space matters and the knowledge produced from it is important and should be evaluated. epistemological arguments carry a lot of weight with me and I’d like to vote on them, whether they be framework/post or pre-fiat because how we think has material consequences for people. Thus–

The bastardization of evidence is antithetical to actually learning something from the debate space.

I have very little patience for bad debate evidence: if a card is obviously miscut, your opponents are lying about evidence or intentionally misconstrued it. Feel free to stake the round on an evidence challenge, I will vote for them. If you think your evidence isnt cut properly, fix it before round or dont read it.

read content warnings, if you aren’t sure if something requires a content warning, read one anyways.

Background.

I did debate all four years in high school for Strake Jesuit in Public Forum. I did okay, qualified to TOC, qualified to TFA state 3 years, and got to quarters one time.

I have an academic interest in critical theory both inside and outside of college. I loved doing K debate my senior year, and read queer/anti-capitalist/asian k ground with my partner. I am most familiar with Butler, Marx/Engels, Said and basic phil stuff alonside a limited engagement with critical race theory/anti-colonial/imperialist lit that ive picked up here and there.

My exposure to critical args was from reading first, debate second, meaning that I would appreciate more work from debaters in translating everything into the debate space, if you show an actual interest and seem knowledgeable in the lit bases you draw from, I will want to vote for you.

Substance/LARP/Topical Debate (PF/LD)

Tech over Truth.

Good substance rounds are amazing to watch.

Decent Flow Judge, not the best with speed tbh, if you think its going to be a problem then send me a doc, I would really appreciate it, but I don't really think they solve, err on the side of caution. Faster than 250wpms is fine if you slow down for important stuff.

Evidence without implication to the round/specific arguments is meaningless. Slowing down for implications and analytics is very nice.

If you care about the ballot, then please signpost, be safe than sorry. If I get lost, it will take my ~10 seconds to get back on track and I will not be flowing.

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

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

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

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

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

I prefer arguments that have a good amount of work on them. My willingness to believe defense is predicated on the strength of the original response, if a 5-second blippy turn is met with a similar 5-second frontline, I buy the frontline. If that very same turn is to be massively blown up in the back-half, I am less likely to buy the defense/turn over the original and well-warranted case offense.

For this reason, concessions aren’t sacred. If a team can cross-ap defense from something very similar to beat-back a “conceded turn” then I am willing to consider it frontlined.

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

Ishan Dubey was on my team, his rounds were enjoyable to watch, not just because he was a good tech debater, but because he was strategic, he grouped responses, weighed to beat back timeskews, he framed ballots for the judges. Be like Ishan, I like Ishan.

Additional Information.

• Hidden links are stupid, hiding blips that concede arguments honestly seems ableist.

• Defence is sticky in PF, but not in LD due to speech time differences.

• I don’t know the topic as well as you do, abbreviations for long terms should be explained at least once.

• PLEASE have speech docs prepared and evidence ready, I will doc speaks for holding up the round, not for wifi issues. I hate not being on time. Pre-flow preferably outside of round if you can.

Theory, Kritiks, and Framework Debate

Tricks arent in the title for a reason, don’t read them

CUT GOOD EVIDENCE FOR THEORY, K’s, AND FRAMEWORK. There is an infinite amount of material to comb through, it exists, and I know it does.

Evidence ethics is incredibly important. Please actually read your evidence, if you point out incredibly lazy K evidence, it will be a place for me to sign my ballot.

Personal Bias

• Queer Pess arguments are extremely poorly understood in the debate space, I have lots of personal gripes against Edelmen. Run at your own risk, ill try to make it not inform my ballot.

• death-good is something I really don’t want to vote for.

Theory

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

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

• I default competing interps.

• Will default to no RVI’s unless contested.

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

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

• I wont autodown theory except for:

• I won’t vote on disclosure against identity args

• Content warnings bad

• Any form of counter interp against misgendering/deadnaming

PF: Structure your shells like a normal pf shell: interp, violation, standard, voters, underview

LD: My evaluation of a “god awful interp” is much higher in LD because I am less familiar with the material. I am aware that theory covers more ground than in PF and won’t autodown anything, be sure to implicate and slow down on frontlines/backhalf of the round more than you normally would so I can follow along. Err on the side of caution.

Kritiks

Tldr: overexplain.

I really really want to vote on a K, but I am not a K hack. Please actually know your authors, your advocacy, and what your evidence says. If I think you just stole your k off the wiki with no clue what is says, I will down you. In cross, if you are struggling to answer softball questions like “whats your alt” or “whats capitalism”, I really don’t want to vote for you and have a much much lower threshold for responses.

If you decide to read progressive stuff and your opponents obviously have no clue what to do, DO NOT be abusive. Depending on the severity, will either drop your speaks or down you.

If you don’t know what a K is and your opponents are reading it against you: read their evidence, have them explain their evidence, ask them basic questions, and turn it into a response. I will vote on it if they can’t answer.

Nuanced links for any K is highly recommended. I’ll vote on generic K links but my threshold for responses is lower against them.

K ground questioning knowledge production/epistemology is something i have a real soft spot for if done well. Explain why current IR/militarism/policy-making is flawed with good warrants and your fine.

Please flesh out the Alt and overexplain the material, winning on the flow matter less if I am just completely clueless on what the K actually does. Implicate out to your opponent's case and take the time to explain why it turns case, limits offence, impact filter, etc.

Extend the Alt in every speech and flesh out how and why you have offense in the round. If your getting offense from something else, make that clear and tell me to disregard the alt.

Performative offense is great, ill vote on conceded performative offense if properly explained

I am a big fan of KvK debate.

K ground I know nothing about, if you decide to read, treat me like child

High Phil. Affo Pess/Futurism. Kant. Border K’s. Psychoanalysis.

PF:

Most PF k’s are god awful, read T if your opponents have a really bad K and I will probably vote for you.

You need an alt. Discourse isn’t an alt. The alt is probably the most important part of the K and it needs to be decent for me to vote for you.

Your cards should be long, with actual warranting in your evidence any card with 20 words highlighted is not K evidence.

If you are going to read fem, please please please cut very good fem evidence or just make it framework. Most of the fem k’s on the circuit I have massive problems with for simplifying critical literature and turning them into “vote fem team to center women”.

LD:

Err on the side of caution when you're figuring out what I can evaluate. If you can, read the more basic version of something if you have it.

I like topical k affs. Nontopical k’s I have a harder time understanding.

Pick 2 pieces of offense at most to collapse on.

Go the extra step in extensions/frontlining.

FW [wip]

PF: use good evidence, implicate why your opponent's links/impacts are problematic under your fw.

LD: overexplain, please. I have very little exposure to LD fw.

stag '26, she/her, i do ld but i used to do pf i can flow and understand all events pretty well

for no limits -

pls don’t read ur coaches prep read anything u want as long as it’s urs

i'll literally eval ANYTHING as long as u warrant it well

i mainly read trad + Ks + lots of sv - prob best for these debates but i'll evaluate anything u read as best i can but i suck @ phil so sorry

be nice 2 novices idc what u read but dont do like 10 off going super fast js cuz u can and they cant

email for docs is betsymcdonaldsaa@gmail.com add me to email chain or speech drop - send a doc if ur opp wants one

auto 30 if u say smt funny or bring me candy/celsius or follow my instagram (@betsymcd222) or spotify (click here)

feel free to post round idc

Hi I’m Aneel and I debated for Strake Jesuit in LD for 4 years. I qualified to the TOC twice and broke and got to octos my senior year. Below is what args I’m good at evaluating:

1 - LARP/Phil/Theory

2 - Tricks

3 - K/Everything else

I mainly read LARP, Phil, and theory when I debated.

I debated a lot of Ks and read them occasionally but I am not familiar with the lit, so if u want to read one make sure u explain things well.

I'll try to be as tab as possible and will evaluate any argument. Tech > truth. If ur spreading, please be clear.

I give extra speaker points if you are able to make the round as quick as possible.

If u want to add me to the email chain: avmehra20@mail.strakejesuit.org

Set up and add me to the email chain before the round begins; I might bump speaks if you do. marun0591@gmail.com

I will be annoyed if it isn’t set up because that’s means you didn’t read my paradigm.

Please sit down early if you can. I will bump speaks.

I debated for 4 years at Strake Jesuit and qualled to the TOC my senior year in 2020. In high school, I primarily read Kantian philosophy, theory, policy args, and some identity Ks. You can do whatever you want in front of me as long as you have a claim, warrant, and impact. I’m extremely bad at flowing, and don’t flow off docs. I only look at docs for evidence ethics or to resolve a debate if I have to. I’m totally comfortable not flowing or downing you if ur too fast or unclear, it’s on you if I don’t catch it. Be nice to each other especially novices, and do not steal prep or cheat. I also do not like long winded orders/off time road maps--be succinct. Random note: my favorite debates are flowable theory debates with legitimate abuse stories and lots of line-by-line. Speaks are primarily based on strategy, efficiency, technicality, and clarity.

Update for UH: I haven’t judged in a while so go slow.

Update for Churchill 2023: I haven’t judged in a while so go slow. I know nothing about the topic.

kelvinmeng07@gmail.com

1 - Policy, Theory
2 - K
3 - Tricks, Phil

Bad flower. Slow down on pre-written analytics.

Overexplain unintuitive arguments. Concessions aren't a substitute for lack of explanation. Scenarios start at 0.

Bad tricks debate is difficult to sit through. Logic aprioris are fine, "no neg arguments" are not. Extempting tricks is egregious.

I reserve the right to end rounds due to ableism.

Debate is a game.

Strake Jesuit '25

Email: shahqdebate@gmail.com

Please set up email chain before round

I'll vote on anything. That being said, all I ask of you is to be clear when you extend stuff and extend a warrant. I really don't want to have to not buy a good argument just because you never extended a warrant, so please don't put me in that position. Conceded arguments have lower thresholds for extension and I will not vote on arguments that do not have warrants or arguments I do not understand. This should go without saying, but weigh, signpost, and slow down on analytics.

Explain arguments as if I didn't know the topic. Be explicit with why I should vote for you and write my ballot for me.

In Depth:

Tech > Truth, 99.9% of the time.

Pref Shortcut:

Theory/Policy - 1

Tricks - 2

Phil - 3

K - 4/strike

Speaks:

Probably not gonna go under 28.

I evaluate speaks on strategy.

Defaults:

These can be changed.

-DTD

-Competing Interps

-No RVIs

-Fairness/Education Are Voters

-Comparative Worlds

-Permissibility/Presumption Negate (Presumption goes to the side of least change if the 2NR does not defend the squo)

-Util

Non negotiables

• I won't evaluate arguments that tell me to change the times of speeches
• I won't "evaluate after x speech" if you are reading it in "x" speech.
• I won't evaluate ad-homs or out of round practices that don't pertain to the round.
• Poorly ran tricks will lower speaks.
• Compiling the doc is prep, sending is not.
• Warrants for spikes must be extended even if conceded.
• Answer cx questions.

For No Limits:

You can ignore stuff below this if it doesn't all make sense. Just try your best and have these rounds to improve your abilities for the season.

Strake Jesuit ‘26

My role is to avoid intervention and evaluate the debate in front of me. Do not try and over-adapt, do what you do best. And, most importantly, have fun and be nice and respectful to each other!

SBRubinstein26@mail.strakejesuit.org - add me to the email chain. Speechdrop or file share is cool too, just agree with your opponent.

Quick Prefs -

Policy - 1

K - 2

Phil - 2

Theory/T - 2/3

Tricks - 3

Misc -

Tech>Truth, but truth/intuitiveness of an argument makes it easier to win.

Every argument needs a claim, warrant, and impact.

Won’t vote on anything that is racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

You need some sort of overview to explain the position, but it can never substitute for good line-by-line.

Judge instruction>>>> - Don’t leave me to decide how I should frame and evaluate the debate, tell me how you are winning and how I should view the debate.

Extend the aff properly - 1AR extensions have become extremely blippy which doesn’t really make sense since that’s usually where most of your offense comes from.

Please signpost.

I’m okay at flowing, so make sure to clearly differentiate between taglines and cards.

Not voting on anything that occurred outside of the round except disclosure. (No ad homs)

I’ll give the 2AR a lot of leeway given many new 2NR claims/evidence that isn’t directly responsive to the 1AR. Similarly, a 2AR that makes a 1 line, usually underwarranted, response into 2 minutes of in depth analysis probably doesn’t get these completely new extrapolations.

I reserve the right to not evaluate any argument that either a] isn’t on my flow or b] I don’t understand as per the debater’s explanation.

Split 2NRs/2ARs make the debate super messy and it’ll be much harder for me to vote for you.

I’ll read evidence if you flag it, and I need it to evaluate a key part of the round.

Haven’t really thought about evidence ethics, so I’ll directly refer to NSDA/tournament policy if the round is staked, but I really prefer you don’t.

Most things below this are opinions and can be changed through the correct arguments.

Policy -

Most importantly, weigh - whoever’s impacts come prior usually wins the round.

Assume I don’t know the acronyms and terms for each topic - even if I do, this is a good practice to follow.

Impact turns are cool.

A disad 2nr needs some sort of case defense and/or reasons why the disad turns and outweighs the case.

I default functional and textual competition.

I default to no judgekick because it probably isn’t great due to the nature of LD speech times but it's cool if you justify it.

Creative perms are underutilized against cheaty CPs.

K -

On the neg -

Framework, floating PIKs, alt solves case, etc. cannot appear out of nowhere in the 2NR, and justifies new 2AR responses if it is.

Don’t assume I know the literature base that you are reading from - just explain it.

Slow down on extensions of complicated theories - too many debaters get away with quickly spreading through their extension of their thesis claim with no time for anyone to process or understand how it interacts with the rest of the debate.

Kicking the alt is fine, just explain how I should evaluate the debate.

Love examples to support the thesis.

On the aff -

I’d prefer if you give a role for negation and why debate/the ballot/competition matters for your position, and potentially a counter-model of debate that doesn’t rely on impact turning everything.

Have some sort of identifying plan text if you don’t defend the topic. I’ve seen affs that just hint at an issue or discuss some sort of course of action/advocacy without defending it or else it’ll be really easy to justify presumption.

Phil -

Presumption and permissibility negate unless argued otherwise.

I’ll be very happy in an in-depth comparative debate between two different frameworks, conversely spamming independent justifications will make me annoyed and make the debate irresolvable.

Probably somewhat familiar with whatever you read, but that shouldn’t substitute explanation.

A lot of offense people read is pretty bad. (Take advantage of that)

Default epistemic confidence - modesty doesn’t seem to make very much sense, but please explain how I should evaluate and weigh the round if you do read it.

Theory/T -

Default competing interps, dta unless incoherent, and no RVIs.

Norm setting vs in round abuse is underrated.

Weighing is the best way to get my ballot in these debates. Weighing between different shells is extremely underutilized beyond the generic “1AR theory first because 4-6-3” such as why the abuse affects every round and the entire debate like disclosure over things like CP theory. Fairness vs education and weighing between standards is great and useful also.

No such thing as frivolous theory - the worse the shell, the more intuitive the responses should be.

Caselists are awesome to prove real abuse.

Tricks -

I can evaluate these just fine, I just won’t be very happy judging a bad tricks round with floating a prioris with little interaction or understanding of what's going on.

Be upfront about them please.

Make the round clean by the end of the debate and clearly layer arguments.

Speaks -

I’ll try to average around a high 28 to a 29.

Speaks are based on strategy, technical ability, and clarity.

If I have to clear you more than twice within a minute, slow down so I at least catch something.

Please be nice to novices or someone who you are clearly better than i.e., no more than 3 offs, make the round educational, etc. I’ll reward with better speaks.

I debated LD for three years for Strake Jesuit (after a brief period in PF). I qualified for TFA State and TOC in LD, and I have instructed at TDC and NSD. I am conflicted with Strake Jesuit. Contact me/add me to docs at jpstuckert@gmail.com

You can call me "JP." "James," "Mr. Stuckert" or "judge" are fine but weird to me.

For online rounds:

1. Keeping local recordings of speeches is good. You should do it.
2. If I or another judge call “clear” video chat systems often cut your audio for a second. This means (a) you should prioritize clarity to avoid this and (b) even repeat yourself when “clear” is called if it’s a particularly important argument.
3. I don’t like to read off docs, but if there's an audio problem in an online round, I will glance to make sure I at least know where you are. I would really prefer not to be asked to backflow from a doc if there's a tech issue, hence local recordings above.
4. You should probably be at like 70% of your normal speed while online.

· I aim to be a neutral party minimizing intervention while evaluating arguments made within the speech times/structure set by the tournament or activity to pick one winner and loser for myself. Some implications:

o The speech structure of LD includes CX. Don't take it as prep and don't go back on something you commit to in CX (unless it's a quick correction when you misspeak, or is something ambiguous). I generally flow cx and factor it into speaker points, but arguments must still be made in other speeches.

o The speech structure also precludes overt newness. Arguments which are new in later speeches should be implications, refutations, weighing or extensions of already existing arguments. Whether 2N or 2AR weighing is allowable is up for debate and probably contextual. Reversing a stance you have already taken is newness -- e.g. you can't kick out of weighing you made if your opponent didn't answer it. (Obviously you can kick condo advocacies unless you lose theory.)

o I won't listen to double-win or double-loss arguments or anything of the sort. You also can't argue that you should be allowed to go over your speech time.

o Being a neutral party means my decision shouldn't involve anything about you or your opponent that would render me a conflict. If I were involved in your prefs, I would consider myself to essentially be a coach, so I won't listen to pref/strike Ks. If other types of out-of-round conduct impact the round, I will evaluate it (e.g. disclosure).

o Judge instruction and standards of justification on the flow are very important, and if they are not explicit, I look to see if they are implicit before bringing to bear my out-of-round inclinations. If two debaters implicitly agree on some framing issue, I treat it as a given.

o Evidence ethics: I will allow a debater to ask to stake the round on an evidence ethics issue if it involves: (1) brackets/cutting that changes the meaning of a card; (2) outright miss-attribution including lying about an author's name, qualifications, or their actual position; (3) alterations to the text being quoted including ellipses, mid-paragraph cutting, and changing words without brackets. Besides these issues, you can challenge evidence with theory or to make a point on the line-by-line. For me, you should resolve the following on the flow: (1) brackets that don't change meaning; (2) taking an author's argument as a premise for a larger position they might not totally endorse; (3) cases where block quotes or odd formatting makes it unclear if something is a mid-paragraph cut; (4) not being able to produce a digital copy of a source in-round. If another judge on a panel has a broader view on what the round can be staked on, I'll just default to agreeing it is a round-staking issue.

· Despite my intention to avoid intervention, I am probably biased in the following ways:

o On things like T framework and disclosure I think there is an under-discussed gap between "voting on theory can set norms" to "your vote will promote no more and no less than the text of my interp in this activity."

o I will be strongly biased against overtly offensive things (arguments which directly contravene the basic humanity of a marginalized group). I don’t think it’s prima facie offensive to read moral philosophy that denies some acts are intrinsically evil (like skep or strict ends-based ethical theories) or which denies that consequences are morally relevant (like skep or strict means-based theories). I also don't think generic impact turns against big stick impacts are innately offensive. But I will certainly listen to Ks or independent voters indicting any of those things.

· Other:

o Speaks: each speech counts, including CX. Strategy and well-warranted arguments are the two biggest factors. My range typically doesn't go outside 28 to 29.5. I adjust based on how competitive the tournament is. I don't disclose them.

o Be polite to novices, even if you can win a round in 20 seconds it’s not always kind to do so. Just be aware of how your actions might make them feel.

o I am usually unpersuaded by rhetorical appeals that take it for granted that some debate styles (K, LARP, phil, theory, tricks) are worse than others, but you can and should make warranted arguments comparing models of debate.

I'm a first year out, I debated LD for 4 years at Strake Jesuit. I qualified and broke at TFA State, and qualified to the TOC. Contact me/add me to docs at: michaelastuckert4 [at] gmail.com

You can call me "Michael" -- "judge" is fine but weird to me.

I'm tech > truth and I'll vote on anything.

tldr - run what you're good at, I'll try to act as a neutral party minimizing my intervention as much as possible, but keep in mind that I haven't judged that much and this paradigm probably makes me sound better than I actually am so please give me judge instruction/crystallization and collapse in the 2ar and 2nr - if you go for everything I'm not going to know how to vote. Whoever can present me the simplest and most coherent ballot story will probably win.

Also if you disagree with my decision please feel free to post-round me - I won't take offense to it - that said do it at least somewhat respectfully and realize I might have a second flight.

Pref Sheet:

Phil - 1

Theory/T - 2

K's - 2

LARP - 3

Tricks - 4

Traditional - 5

Miscellaneous:

- Spreading is fine

- I WON'T read off the doc, but I'll have it open and glance at it to make sure I know where you are

- I'll call "clear" if I can't understand you as many times as needed - I WON'T doc speaks or anything if I have to call clear I'll just miss some arguments if you're not clear.

- I'll disclose speaks just ask

- Be polite to novices, even if you can win a round in 20 seconds it’s not always kind to do so. Just be aware of how your actions might make them feel.

- I will be strongly biased against overtly offensive things (arguments which directly contravene the basic humanity of a marginalized group). I don’t think it’s prima facie offensive to read moral philosophy that denies some acts are intrinsically evil (like skep or strict ends-based ethical theories) or which denies that consequences are morally relevant (like skep or strict means-based theories). I also don't think generic impact turns against big stick impacts are innately offensive. But I will certainly listen to Ks or independent voters indicting any of those things.

- Normal speech times please time yourself

- An argument must be extended through every speech to be evaluated

- Conceded arguments are seen as true

- I won't allow new arguments in the 2nr/2ar (unless it's like a 1ar shell the 2nr goes for reasonability and the 2ar makes arguments against reasonability // or unless you win on the flow that you get new arguments) but I'll allow extensions and expanding on an argument. If I can point to somewhere in the 1ar that can warrant an argument made in the 2ar then I'll evaluate it.

Larp:

I never really was a larper in high school so try to be especially clear in these debates

Do whatever you want just do a lot of weighing both on the impact level and evidence comparison and I'll be happy.

I'll judge kick the CP (if it's condo) if you tell me to but if you don't make the argument I won't.

I love impact turns

Politics is cool

I probably won't read cards unless you specifically tell me to

Theory:

Defaults: No RVI, Competing interps, DTD, Fairness > Education but don't make me default

I'll evaluate any shell no matter how frivolous but the less frivolous the happier I'll be

Make sure there's high quality weighing between voters and standards

Theory hedges are fine

Please slow down on the interps and short analytical arguments

T:

Err on the side of overexplaining with clear arguments and comparative weighing in a semantics 2nr I don't know how grammar works lol

I'd prefer more specific arguments in the 2nr/2ar rather than reading off of a doc

K:

I'm familiar with cap, security, Baudrillard, Deleuze, Afropessimism, Set col, Edelman, and Adorno

Don't just read one of these because I'm familiar with it - if you can't explain what you're talking about, I won't be happy. I'm only familiar with most of these because I've debated against them and I wouldn't be able to explain them to you in depth so you run the risk of confusing me unless you have some explanation. If you're good at going for high theory and pomo great! I like this type of debate, but if you don't understand what you're reading then don't read it.

Even if you're reading something I understand I won't use prior knowledge to fill in the gaps so please have warrants and explain buzzwords

Overexplain your alt especially if it's refual alts, why is it a good thing?, if I don't understand it I won't vote on it

Floating PIKs are fine but please at least hint at them in the 1N

Alt solves case arguments that are specific to the aff are great and I'm persuaded by them

K Affs:

Non-T Affs are fine

Negs that engage on the case page and go for permissibility pushes against these will make me very happy

Reps Ks:

I won't enjoy friv violations but I'll vote on them if they go conceded

I prefer straight up Ks instead of word PIKs but I'll vote on a word PIK if it goes conceded

Phil:

I was mainly a Kant debater

I know Kant, Libertarianism, Rawls, Contractarianism, Hobbes, Rousseau, Levinas, Aristotle, GCB, Util, Particuarlism, and pragmatism

Please weigh between warrants

I like syllogistic frameworks over a ton of blippy reasons to prefer

TJFs are alright but I'd be happier without them

I'll default to TT > CW, Permissibility and Presumption affirm, Epistemic Confidence > Epistemic Modesty but don't make me default

Tricks:

I don't like hiding tricks in big blocks of text

I'll be persuaded by spikes Ks

Please weigh, I won't be happy if there's a bunch of random a prioris to evaluate at the end of the debate with no weighing between them

Skep triggers are all right

I'll buy evaluate the debate after the X, but I'll have a very low threshold for answers and I'll allow new 2nr/2ar arguments against them (unless you specifically win no new 2nr/2ar arguments)

Trad:

I'm fine with it, would prefer if you go faster

I'll vote on the flow even in traditional debates

If you are debating a trad debater make the round educational for them, as a former debater I understand the struggle of trying to be educational and also trying to win, so you can still run your a strat just try to be nice. Just please don't try to blatantly out-spread them (some speed is fine but full speed against someone who's not spreading is excessive) or read a bunch of tricks or frivolous shells. If you win on the flow against a trad debate I'll vote for you, but if you were mean about it, you'll get low speaks.

- Also if you're in elims against a trad debater you can try your hardest full speed and all, just obviously still treat your opponent with respect and be nice to them.

I've judged a couple trad debates and sometimes I'm left with no idea how to vote, so if you're a trad debater please

1- Collapse and crystallize give me the cleanest most coherent ballet story and I'll probably vote for you, but if you go for everything in the 2nr/2ar I won't know where I should vote for you. By this I don't just mean giving voters at the end or flagging things as voting issues throughout the round I'll be extremely happy if in the 2nr/2ar you look at your flow and decide what your strongest contention is which one can you win the easiest? Then go for that and make it by far the biggest issue in the round with a lot of impact weighing and answering your opponents case. Winning one huge issue is a lot better than winning a ton of small issues.

2- Extend offense

3- Weigh. Trust me it'll make me a lot happier. (Meta-weighing makes me even happier, and reading turns and going for them is great)

Please don't extend through defense, answer your opponents arguments, the more clash the better

Cheating and Evidence ethics:

If you stake the round loser gets an L25 (or lowest speaks I can give), the winner gets a W30.

You don't have to stake the round I'll evaluate it in a shell format.

For staked rounds, I'll follow tournament rules.

Think this requires more information and specifics so here's some scenarios I can think of (if there's a tournament rule contradicting any of these points I'll prioritize tournament rules over all else):

- If a card is cut in the middle of a paragraph, stake the round, I'll vote for whoever stakes

- if there's block quotes or weird formatting that makes it unclear if it's cut in the middle of a paragraph play it safe and read a shell

- If a card is straw manning without acknowledging it, NSDA rules say that I should "vote against the debater who uses a straw argument and award zero speaker points" but if a debater indicates (NSDA says verbally acknowledge, but also for me if it's in the doc like in the citation then I think that's good enough to indicate) that they're reading a strawman argument then it's fine and not stakeable (but winning a theory shell is still fine ofc)

- If a debater distorts evidence (adding or removing words without brackets) and it significantly alters the original meaning I'll vote for whoever stakes the round

- If a debater uses ellipses to leave out large sections of the card, stake the round, I'll vote for the debater who stakes the round.

- If a debater brackets evidence with indication please just read a shell, DON'T stake

If you clip more than 20 words and I catch it you'll lose - your opponent doesn't even need to stake please don't clip you never know sometimes I might be following along in the speech doc making sure

- Obviously saying cut the card here or cut this or something like that isn't clipping, if you make it clear that you didn't read something you're fine, but if you pretend that you read something that you didn't then that's clipping.

Jet Sun (He/Him)

Strake Jesuit '23 Northwestern '27

I did 4 years of LD at Strake Jesuit. I had a few bids and got to quarters of the TOC.

Email: jetysun@gmail.com

Tech over truth.

I like debates that feature long pieces of evidence.

Besides disclosure, I won’t adjudicate issues that occur outside of the debate round.

Scenarios start at 0%. Concessions aren't a substitute for lack of explanation. Sweeping explanations of the world rarely exist.

Arguments that contravene basic intuition require an extreme level of warranting that is hard given a short timeframe.

If you disagree with my decision please feel free to post-round me - I won't take offense to it - that said do it at least somewhat respectfully and realize I might have a second flight.

Notes about some arguments:

I tend to think affs generally get to weigh the case.

"Ontology and the ROTB means the aff disappears" = a silly argument. Win a link. Read case defense.

I find clash and especially fairness standards in T Framework to be extremely compelling, and if debated equally I lean negative in clash debates.

Not a fan of strategies that rely on concessions. Interesting tricks will be rewarded with good speaks and generic ones will not.

Bad tricks debate is difficult to sit through. Logic aprioris are fine, "no neg arguments" are not. Extempting tricks will not be rewarded.

Tech>truth and debate is a game. Defense isn’t sticky (if they collapse in 2nd rebuttal, in summary, have to read one response for every dropped piece of offense) New weighing is ok in first final focus. If both teams have incomplete extensions, and one team has a much better one I vote for the team with the best. If it's pretty close or team is only missing like a very small thing in the extension, I'll just evaluate as if the extension is there. Add me to the email chain: navalencia23@mail.strakejesuit.org

No Limits: Try you best and have fun!

Please ignore everything below this if you're a beginner. Thanks! I take most of my debate beliefs from Tyvan Vo and Graham Erickson.

Strake Jesuit Class of 2026

SBValladolid26@mail.strakejesuit.org

Quick Prefs -

Policy - 1

Theory/T - 2

K - 2/3

Phil-3

Tricks - 4

d

H

jlwalker430@gmail.com

I think Ian Ngo's paradigm adequately sums up my thoughts on this whole "judging" thing

i'm cathryn or you can call me cathy - she/her

clhs 27

add me to the email chain: wucathryn9@gmail.com

i'm in break so my thoughts will align similarly to people like brett cryan, perry beckett, and agastya sridhartan

my wiki from 23-24 and 24-25 so you can see what i read and how i think. refer more towards later tourneys

https://opencaselist.com/hsld23/ClearLake/CaWu

https://opencaselist.com/hsld24/ClearLake/CaWu

tech > truth, but truth of a claim controls the extent to the technical explaining it needs.

dropped args are true args, but you can't assume i flow it through if you don't extend it.

extending is important---if you are affirming, the 2nr goes for T, please extend case even if for just 4 seconds at the beginning of the 2ar if u are just going for the ci on T. otherwise im forced to vote neg on presumption.

SLOW DOWN ON TAGS.

pref list in terms of familiarity ---

theory - 1

policy - 2

tricks - 3

phil - 4

ks - 5

my defaults (very easily persuaded by contestation) ---

1 - condo good/judgekick

2 - theory -> k/rob/phil -> substance

3 - p and p negate

4 - no rvis

5 - competing interps

for strake no limits:

EXTEND PLEASE

have offense in ur 2nr and 2ar, i can't vote on pure defense...

try to use all of ur time, you will likely need it

don't stress out too much and have fun

Strake Jesuit '25

I'm a lay judge!

1 - Policy/Trad/Theory/T

2 - Phil

3 - K

extend and weigh

time yourselves

I'll vote on anything with a warrant!

Kinkaid '26

sophie.zhou@kinkaid.org

I will vote on anything with a claim, warrant, and impact.

I am most comfortable evaluating the K. Relatively comfortable evaluating topicality, theory, policy, and tricks. Not comfortable evaluating phil.

I default to no RVIs, DTD, CI, fairness first, yes judge kick, presumption negates unless there is alternative advocacy, and the aff gets to weigh case against a competitive alt. I do not want to default.

"Tech over truth. I do not share the sensibilities of judges who proclaim to be technical and then carve out an exception for death good, wipeout, or planless affirmatives. The only situation in which I will not vote on an argument is when forced to by the Tabroom."

Speaks, however, are completely up to me and are determined by AC/NC construction, in-round strategy, execution, and clarity. Making debate inaccessible to novices will cap you at a 27.

Harvey Zhu, Strake ‘23, Cornell ‘27

harveyzhu05@gmail.com