Buck Arney (He/Him)

buckarney@gmail.com

Northwestern 27'

Head-Royce 23'

Last Update: 2/11/25

Top Level Thoughts:

Tech > Truth

I love this activity, it had a profound impact on my life and still does, and I hope it does for y'all as well. Please treat others with respect and have fun in this activity as for many this activity is a place people call home.

In college I go for nearly exclusively policy arguments and in high school I went for nearly exclusively critical arguments.

Generic neg strats with very little clash with the aff have to be one of my biggest problems with debate, conversely highly strategic and thought out neg strats are my favorite part of the activity.

I am very disinterested in debate rep. I love seeing upsets and hate that the community for some reason prevents them from happening due to rep. If you are really the best you should beat everyone.

Flowing Practices:

I flow on my computer using excel as I cannot handwrite proficiently enough to flow. I flow straight down.

I will have the 1AC and 1NC docs open, after that I WILL NOT open any docs until after the round if reading evidence is necessary.

Argument Specifics:

Counterplans: Great for these and love a good pic. I am good for evaluating a process debate but lean aff on competition (For the IP topic I am probably more neg biased because they seem uniquely nuked). However, neg teams are almost always better at process competition because of prep bias which means you should not be deterred if you are confident in your competition debating.

Disads: Good for these, go for what you want here.

T: I love T debates. Well thought out T debates are some of the best debates to watch. If you believe the aff in the round is not topical please go for T.

K:The K is a great argument when it is accompanied with well-thought-out contextual link and impact debating. Without that I am pretty uninterested. I am well versed in kritiks that pull from ableism, security, asian, and black studies. I am just not good for the microaggresions K like at all, obviously will evaluate it technically but I think not only is it in the opposite direction of the literature that it is paired with but it also can be very trivializing.

K-Affs: Went for a K-AFF for most of highschool and I am down the middle when it comes to T v these affs. This is not an ideological pre-disposition rather it is an issue with teams either being terrible at going for a K-Aff or terrible at going for T. K-Affs need to have an answer to SSD and TVA that is CONTEXTUAL to their aff, if they do not have this it is a very uphill battle. Teams going for T have to answer the specificity of T-USFG disads, disads are not just policing, and if you answer the DA like this you will probably lose. I also recommend going for things outside T-USFG, teams generally have horrible answers to Cap, T-Tactics, T-Parametrics etc.

If your Kritikal aff is not adjacent to the topic the bar for a negative ballot is at the floor.

Theory: Solid for theory and don't really have any ideological predispositions except that I think condo is conclusively good and have not really been convinced otherwise, obviously if it is dropped I will probably vote for it.

Extra:

I am not a huge fan of speaker point inflation, but I am also not going to fight it because I am not an old-head "debate was better when we spoke off tubs and I had to carry a printer cross-country" type of person.

I love innovation, if you are actively innovating arguments in debate please pref me and I will probably give you good speaks and advice

+.1 for good sports references or just being funny overall

Ilan Boguslavsky (he/him)

Head-Royce '24

UC Berkeley '28

ilan.boguslavsky@gmail.com

hrsdebatedocs@gmail.com (policy only)

My old paradigm was far too long and redundant. As I’ve judged more, I’ve realized I have almost no opinions about arguments as long as they are technically won. Read whatever you want. I read primarily K arguments in high school and now read solely policy arguments/framework in college, I’ll know what you are talking about. Teams that are able to effectively summarize the round and write my ballot at the top of the rebuttals will generally receive higher speaker scores. I flow on excel, I have the speech docs open during the 1AC and 1NC to look for clipping but I will not open any subsequent documents.

I default to judge kick until contested.

I default to reject the argument not the team on theory besides condo.

Inserting rehighlightings can be debated out.

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

I'll strike new 2AR arguments off my flow.

Background:

Debated all 4 years at Notre Dame High School.

Started as a 2N, finished as a 2A. 'Policy debater,' but I enjoy K's.

TL:

Please put me on the email chain. Highly recommend sending a test email at least 5 minutes before the round starts --sergiochavezdebate@gmail.com

Pronouns: he/him -- feel free to call me by my name ("Sergio") -- "Judge" is fine

Tech > Truth (absent ethics violations)

Be nice!

Read what you want! I'd rather you debate with what you know best than try over-adapting to me.

I enjoy solid clash and organization in the debates, otherwise, I feel like I have to do work for you. There should be clean line-by-line so I can easily follow your speech. Cross-applications are great when used strategically and sufficiently implicated.

Debate as if I have zero topic knowledge -- over-explaining things, especially first semester, is better than assuming I know what you're talking about. Remember that debate is meant to be educational, not just a word competition.

CX -- super underutilized and very helpful when done right. Build ethos, demonstrate topic knowledge, and most importantly ask questions with intention/direction. Yes, there are things you gotta get through like status of off-case, etc. but you can control the round (or lose it) with CX.

Speaking -- Clarity > Speed. Spreading is fine, but please be clear and at least try to be a little expressive (i.e. intonation, body language, eye contact, etc.), I will be more interested in what you have to say. I will yell "CLEAR!" if you are absolutely unintelligible. If I cannot hear your arguments, it won't be on the flow and I will not evaluate them. I am physically expressive, so my expressions will let you know what I'm thinking.

Timing -- Please time yourselves, especially prep. Even when I'm debating I forget to time my opponents and that'll probably be worse while judging. You can finish your sentence after the timer, nothing more (feel free to ask me where I stopped flowing).

Online -- If my camera is off, I am probably not there so always check with me (and your opponents) before speaking).

Please feel free to ask questions before the round.

T:

Great argument. Neg teams should utilize it to check weird affs. You should probably have proof of neg ground loss / limits explosion and a reasonable case list.

Always extend voters, impact out the IL (i.e. education, fairness, clash, debateability), and do impact calc. If it's not there, I can't and won't vote on it.

T comes before theory. It's a procedural question of whether the debate should've even happened in the first place (this description does not necessarily apply to FW vs. K-Affs).

Case:

Please robustly defend the aff in CX; defend a real Internal Link(s) for your advantages and impact scenarios; be prepared to defend your scholarship. I can appreciate smart, offensive 1AR and 2AR pivots to beat the neg's args. If you think it's necessary in the 2AC, I'm all for it.

Rehighlightings do not have to be reread as long as its implication/purpose is sufficiently explained in the tag. These can be valuable, but the worse they are, the less they matter. If the rehighlighting is on the longer end, you might want to read it.

CP:

Love them IF debated properly. Don't be too cheaty on the CP's -- some planks are just fine and probably sufficient.

If you want to run a Process CP with an internal net benefit, it better have a link to the aff or you're losing to an intrinsic perm. It's the neg's responsibility to prove why the CP is good and necessary for the topic/against [x] aff.

DA:

YES! (most of the time) DA's need impact calc and cohesive story. Please don't be read two cards in the 1NC and call it a disad. Turns case analysis is OP.

K:

Framework is optional. 2NR should decide if they're going for FW or a Link to the aff. Regardless, Links should be applied to the aff, even if they are a little generic. Pull 1AC lines, use CX to win links, and re-explain the aff through the K's lens. The alt should at least solve the links. Be careful using mindset shifts as your alt, this gives the aff is an easier route for the perm.

Here are some miscellaneous notes for K's that I've ran:

--Capitalism K -- Good generic across most topics. I personally think defending a material alternative (e.g. socialism) is better than forefronting FW. Positional competition is overrated, get better at Link debate.

--Settler Colonialism K -- I've read the Set Col K on the neg (shout out Olivia Deantoni) and have had significant time discussing not only neg strategy but also aff answers to this K with one of my coaches, Joshua Michael. There's so much room to develop specific Link debate. Ontology is meant to lower the threshold for winning the Link; it's not required to win the K. If you read Tuck and Yang as your alt, and 1NC CX says the alt is not material decolonization, you're wrong.

--Security K -- Another good generic across topics, and I feel like teams could read it this year too. I mostly view the the Security K as "spicy impact defense" (shout out Viv). It's also why I liked it, because of how it necessitates in-depth clash on case and examples. I think there are two ways to go for the K: (1) FW = you link, you lose, and (2) Impact turn = spicy impact defense. Either way, the neg should win a low risk of the aff.

Tricks -- throw-away K tricks in the neg block (e.g. embedded death k, predictions fail) are not a great way to win rounds, but I've seen them work -- 1ARs, please don't drop them, a sentence is usually enough for me to throw out dumb arguments. Even if they are dropped, the 2NR must be specific and apply the args themselves to the aff. For "predictions fail," if the aff wins risk of case, I think their predictions are correct and I will err aff.

K-Aff:

I've learned to grow somewhat fond of K Affs. I think that teams that utilize their 1AC to win portions of the debate, like an impact turn to FW, are strategically doing the right thing. I've seen some more deflective strategies that aren't as fun / educational to debate. Do not just throw a bunch of jargon and lingo if you're not going to explain it. Save your overviews for the line-by-line. Decide whatever you want to defend the aff does and own it.

Theory:

Conditionality -- condo is probably good, and usually reasonable if the 1NC has 1-3 condo, but I will always evaluate the flow first. Proving in-round abuse is really helpful for the aff instead of just debating at the unrealistic, hypothetical level of everything conditional imaginable vs. no condo.

hi!

sonoma ‘24 (1A/2N), ucla ‘28, she/her
add me to the email chain zadiedeford@gmail.com and sonomacardscardscards@gmail.com

top level

basically just do what you want

-speed is fine
-i have no topic knowledge
-tech > truth absent ethics violations
-organization and judge instruction is super important
-write my ballot- the top of the 2nr/2ar should be what you would want me to start my rfd with
-i won’t vote on an argument i don’t understand
-saying anything racist/sexist/homophobic/otherwise problematic is an easy way to get an L + the lowest possible speaks + i will contact your coach

specific stuff:

k affs: i’m prob not the best judge for k affs but i’m also not the worst. i read a k aff my senior year and you can definitely read yours in front of me as long as its explained well. it should probably be related to the topic. i will happily vote neg on presumption if you don't explain your aff adequately

framework: boring. if u read blocks straight down and dont engage with the aff u will not win. i probably think debate is a game

k v k: i usually went for kritiks against k affs but i don’t have a ton of specific literature knowledge here so def overexplain. i think these debates are interesting but please know what you’re talking about

policy v k: sure. i’m familiar with the basic ones but if the lit is confusing please explain explain explain

topicality: i don't know anything about the topic so i might be a little confused. line by line is soo important in t rounds. give examples and do impact calc

counterplans: do whatever. i think i default to judge kick but i’ve also never been in a round where that mattered

disads: slow down and explain the link story. impact calc/comparison is important. don’t just tell me what the impact is, tell me how to evaluate it. defense on case is also crucial

theory: i’m fine to judge these. condo is probably good. i will be so sad if i have to vote on something stupid like utopian fiat

“i will likely vote for the team who is best able to isolate the central question of the round and explain why the arguments in the round mean they’ve won” -mateo mijares (he taught me almost everything i know about debate and i’ll try to judge like the nicer version of him)

“i think debate is fun, people do silly things, people make even sillier arguments. laugh about it.” -malone urfalian

be nice good luck have fun !!

diegojflores02@gmail.com

Bravo '20, CSULB OF '24, LAMDL 4eva

Coach Huntington Park High School

Debate how you want:

I appreciate rebuttals that start big-picture overviews identifying what you have won, where the opponent has messed up, and what should be the core issues that decide the debate. After that, efficient and technical line-by-line.

The flow decides how I vote, not my biases. Usually, the argument that has more structure (framing / claim / warrant / reasoning) is more likely to win against an incomplete argument (missing one of those). When debates get close, it is because both sides have made complete arguments. In that scenario, I look at the evidence and decide based on who has better support. My last resort is to resort to my understanding of what is "true."

There are only 3 biases I do hold about debate:

Critical affirmatives need a solid counter-interpretation over impact turn strategies in the 2AR.

Policy teams need to defend their "reps" instead of just saying "extinction brr i need fiat look at my case"

K v. K debates need to bridge the gap between high-theory jargon and how offense manifest to material violence.

Policy @ Northwood -> UCLA '26 (Environmental Science/Conservation Biology)

Email Chain - alexfu004@gmail.com

LD and PF paradigm at bottom

TL;DR

• Debate is a game
• Do impact calc
• I'm more familiar with Policy strats
• Slow down on analytics, especially on T, theory, or jargon
• Tech determines truth

2024 Update: ~20 rounds judged.

General

Don't be a bad person, you've seen it on other paradigms, no racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia, etc.

DA/CP

I love them! Your disads should be specific to the aff, but generic links fine too if you put the work into them and contextualize them to the aff. Condo is probably good, internationall/private/object fiat is probably bad. I mainly read process counterplans and states in high school so make of that what you will.

K

I mainly went for the Cap K and find myself voting for SetCol pretty often, but I'm still not the best judge for the K. Case specific links would be great! The Aff should explain the perms instead of just throwing them out there, at least by the 1ar but preferably in the 2ac. I'll treat framework like an impact debate, but I tend to lean weighing the aff.

Ks I'm more familiar with: Cap, SetCol, Berlant/Suffering, Yellow Peril/Orientalism, Security, Militarism

Ks I'm less familiar with: Deleuze, Bataille, "pomo"-esque Ks (with reason), Kant

T

I'll vote on it, but I'm persuaded by reasonability more than other judges. The neg needs to win a clear instance of abuse beyond just "it's what they justify," and the Aff ideally should have specific reasons why the counterinterpretation resolves or turns neg offense.

Planless Affs

I have very limited experience with reading K affs (maybe 3 or 4 times ever), but I'm receptive to them. I think that having a stasis is necessary for debate, and I think that fairness is good, whatever fairness means. That said, I do think that K Affs can provide unique educational value, and if the Aff can prove their aff is important to talk about certain issues I can still buy it. Framework is probably your best 2NR against K Affs, I went for education and movements mainly in my junior and senior year in high school but I can be persuaded to vote on fairness as well.

Theory

Reject the arg, not the team is persuasive in almost every case, condo aside. I lean neg on condo; I can be persuaded otherwise, but it's an uphill battle for the aff to win on it. International and Object fiat are probably illegitimate, and require more work to be done on theory if you want to win on them as the neg.

Speaks

• being creative, strategic
• clarity, especially when spreading through analytics
• efficiency between speeches, sending out docs, etc
• if you're funny
• clear signposting!
• i was inspired by another judge but please get me food (+0.1? speaks) (but dont bankrupt yourself it's not worth it) (better to just speak better probably)

LD

I'll judge it like I judge a policy round, and I'm not familiar with a lot of LD theory. I'll try to adapt but please exercise discretion.

Public Forum

I used to do PF, don't worry about having to adapt too hard

Everything above applies, don't spread if your opponent is not okay with it though. Don't read policy-esque arguments just because you can, PF probably should be a bit more accessible. I'm more receptive to Ks than most PF judges, but don't read incomplete arguments i.e. a K without an alt just because PF doesn't have advocacies.

***Updated for 2025***
Bryan Gaston
Director of Debate
Heritage Hall School
1800 Northwest 122nd St.
Oklahoma City, OK 73120-9598
bgaston@heritagehall.com

I view judging as a responsibility and one I take very seriously. I will pay attention, flow, and follow along. I will try my best to evaluate the round fairly. I have decided to try to give you as much information about my tendencies as possible to help with MPJ and adaptation.

**NOTE: I may be old, but I'm 100% right on this trend: Under-highlighting of evidence has gotten OUT OF CONTROL. When I evaluate evidence, I will ONLY EVALUATE the words in that evidence that were read in the round. Debaters, highlight better. When you see garbage highlighting, point it out and make an argument about it. The highlighting is really bad; I will likely agree and won't give the card much credit. This does not mean you can't have good, efficient highlighting, but you must have a claim, data, and warrant(s) on each card.**

Quick Version:

1. Debate is a competitive game.

2. I will vote on framework and topicality-Affs should be topical. But you can still beat framework/T-USFG with good offense or a crafty counter-interpretation.

3. DA's and Aff advantages can have zero risk.Debaters don't challenge internal-link scenarios as much as they should. They are typically weak or sometimes non-existent.

4. Neg conditionality is mostly good.

5. Counterplans and PICs are good (it's better to have a solvency advocate than not). Process CPs are okay, but I lead a little more Aff on some of these theory arguments —topic-specific justifications go a long way.

6. K's that link to the Aff plan/advocacy/advantages/reps are good.

7. I will not decide the round over something X team did in another round, at another tournament, or a team's judge prefs.

8. Be bold and make strategic choices earlier in the debate; it is usually rewarding. Sometimes, hedging your bets leaves you winning nothing.

9.Email Chain access, please: bgaston@heritagehall.com

10. The debate should be fun and competitive. Be kind to each other and try your best.

My Golden Rule: When you can choose a more specific strategy or a more generic one, always choose the more specific one IF you are equally capable of executing both strategies. But if you need to go for a more generic strategy to win, I get it. Sometimes it is necessary.

Things not to do: Don't run T is an RVI, don't hide evidence from the other team to sabotage their prep, don't lie about your source qualifications, don't text or talk to coaches to get "in round coaching" after the round has started, please stay and listen to RFD's I am typically brief, and don't deliberately spy on the other teams pre-round coaching. I am a high school teacher and coach who is responsible for high school-age students. Please, don't read things overtly sexual if you have a performance aff--since there are minors in the room, I think that is inappropriate.

Pro-tip: FLOW---don't stop flowing just because you have a speech doc.

"Clipping" in debate: Clipping in the debate is a serious issue, and one of the things I will do to deter clipping in my rounds is requesting a copy of all speech docs before the debaters start speaking. While the debate is flowing, I read along to check from time to time.

CX: This is the only time you have “face time” with the judge. Please look at the judge, not at each other. Your speaker points will be rewarded for a great CX and lowered for a bad one. Be smart in CX, assertive, but not rude.

Speaker Point Scale updated: Speed is fine, and clarity is more important. If you are not clear I will yell out “Clear.” The average national circuit debate starts at 28.4, Good is 28.5-28.9 (many national circuit rounds end up in this range), and Excellent 29-29.9. Can I get a perfect 30? I have given 3 in 22 years of high school judging, and they all went on to win the NDT in college. I will punish your points if you are excessively rude to opponents or your partner during a round.

Long Version...

Affirmatives: I still at my heart of hearts prefer and Aff with a plan that's justifiably topical. But, I think it's not very hard for teams to win that if the Aff is germane to the topic that's good enough. I'm pretty sympathetic to the Neg if the Aff has very little to or nothing to do with the topic. If there is a topical version of the Aff I tend to think that takes away most of the Aff's offense in many of these T/FW debates vs no plan Affs--unless the Aff can explain why there is no topical version and they still need to speak about "X" on the Aff or why their offense on T still applies.

Disadvantages: I like them. I prefer specific link stories (or case-specific DA’s) to generic links, as I believe all judges do. But, if all you have is generic links go ahead and run them, I will evaluate them. The burden is on the Aff team to point out those weak link stories. I think Aff’s should have offense against DA’s it's just a smarter 2AC strategy, but if a DA clearly has zero link or zero chance of uniqueness you can win zero risk. I tend to think politics DA's are core negative ground--so it is hard for me to be convinced I should reject the politics DA because debating about it is bad for debate. My take: I often think the internal link chains of DA's are not challenged enough by the Aff, many Aff teams just spot the Neg the internal links---It's one of the worst effects of the prevalence of offense/defense paradigm judging over the past years...and it's normally one of the weaker parts of the DA.

Counterplans: I like them. I generally think most types of counterplans are legitimate as long as the Neg wins that they are competitive. I am also fine with multiple counterplans. On counterplan theory, I lean pretty hard that conditionality and PICs are ok. You can win theory debates over the issue of how far negatives can take conditionality (battle over the interps is key). Counterplans that are functionally and textually competitive are always your safest bet but, I am frequently persuaded that counterplans which are functionally competitive or textually competitive are legitimate. My Take: I do however think that the negative should have a solvency advocate or some basis in the literature for the counterplan. If you want to run a CP to solve terrorism you need at least some evidence supporting your mechanism. My default is that I reject the CP, not the team on Aff CP theory wins.

Case debates: I like them. Negative teams typically underutilize them. I believe a well-planned impacted case debate is essential to a great negative strategy. Takeouts and turns can go a long way in a round.

Critiques: I like them. In the past, I have voted for various types of critiques. I think they should have an alternative or they are just non-unique impacts. Framework can be leveraged as a reason to vote Neg by some crafty Neg teams, make sure if you are going for the K framework as an offensive reason why you should win the round you clearly state that and why it's justified. I think there should be a discussion of how the alternative interacts with the Aff advantages and solvency. Impact framing is important in these debates. The links to the Aff are very important---the more specific the better.

Big impact turn debates: I like them. Do you want to throw down in a big Hegemony Good/Bad debate, Dedev vs. Growth Good, or method vs. method? It's all good.

Topicality/FW: I think competing interpretations are valid unless told otherwise...see the Aff section above for more related to T.

Theory: Theory sets up the rules for the debate game. I evaluate theory debates in an offensive/defense paradigm, paying particular attention to each team's theory impacts and impact defense. For me, the interpretation debate is critical to evaluating theory. For a team to drop the round on theory, you must impact this debate well and have clear answers to the other side's defense.

Impact framing is important, especially in a round with a soft-left Aff and a big framing page.

Have fun debating!

I've been in the debate space for a few years but this would be the first year I've dedicated myself to judging.

I don't have any preferences, just be respectful towards your opponents and have fun.

Speaker points: please speak as clearly as possible and slow down. I don't know the evidence set. I don't disclose speaker points.

(they/she)

krizelbrianne13@gmail.com --- email chain > speech drop/file share

CSUF Policy Debate

Speech Coach @ HLP

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

ppl that influence the way i think about debate: DSRB, LaToya Green, Maks Bugrov, Kwudjwa (the goat btw), Vontrez, Elvis Pineda, Anirv Ayyala, JMeza

shout outs: Kyleen, CN Forensics, CSUF Forensics

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

I have a 0 tolerance policy for in-round antiblackness, queerphobia, racism, misogyny, etc. I will not hesitate to intervene when I feel it is necessary.

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

general info:

- i prefer to be called Krizel instead of judge

- if you have more than 4 off i am asking you for paper

- i'm fine w spreading, but be clear for analytics. i will clear up to 3 times

- tl;dr: debate is a game. it's up to you how you play it

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

DA/CP:

- impact framing !!! ; explain the internals and why the DA o/w on timeframe

- functional > textual comp

- if you kick out, answer residual offense

Ks:

- articulate the alt; if i don't know what it does, i'm more inclined to vote on presumption

- Questions I need answers to: what are we debating about? role of the judge? of the ballot? why should i prefer over terminal impacts?

- the lit I know best are set/col, transnational/decolonial fem, fem ir, and cap. i know the basis for most popular critical lit, but these are args i personally have run

- you can also refer to meza’s paradigm for more of my thoughts on k debate!

KAFFs:

- kaffs are cool but i need reasons as to why we should shift the focus of the topic and how the aff actually departs from the squo

- performance ks are cool, but if you are bending the traditional ways of debate, i need reasons to prefer

- in KvKs, i just need a clear story

K v. T/FW:

- ks need to answer all impacts of T

- i should know how the kaff departs from the squo

- a carded TVA would be nice

- impact framing is important to me in these debates. explain the internals.

- take up the ontology debate

Policy v. K:

- the aff can probably get fiat, but i can be convinced otherwise

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

LD spec:

- on phil: i'm not as knowledgeable on phil debates, so i'm not the best for evaluating it; in terms of running it, i'm a phil major, so i know what most philosophers are saying. i just need clear explanations and judge instruction to know how i am applying it to the round.

- on trix: sure, but i'm not voting on silly theory; be clear on warrants, esp if they aren't on the doc (if i don't catch them rip you); for answering trix: ONLY calling it silly is not sufficient

- when it comes to framing and you two have diff framings, have a debate about why I should prefer your framing. if you have diff definitions, take up the definitions debate. leaving it up to me is a coin flip ;)

Add me to the chain- mishellekam06@gmail.com

Notre Dame 24' (2N/1A)

Top Level -

tech > truth

Please do not call me judge, just call me Mishelle

I believe the affirmative should defend the USFG strengthening its protection of domestic intellectual property rights. But, I will listen to anything and vote for anything. That being said please make good arguments with a good defense of what you are doing.

CX is definitely binding, and you either gain or lose all your ethos during it.

I am super easy to read and my face gives away what I am thinking.

put the cards in a doc, not the body of the email

I do not have the most topic knowledge, so please explain your arguments!!

K -

I am comfortable in K v Policy debates, but will be least qualified in K v K debates.

Fair warning - I am not the most literate in high-theory arguments. This does not mean I auto-vote aff when I hear fairness, but it means that I have a high threshold for link explanation and contextualization to the affirmative.

Framework -

I think fairness is an impact, but can be convinced otherwise. I do not think the TVA has to solve the entirety of the aff, but is an example of how literature can be read while defending a topical aff.

DA

I do not auto-judge-kick. In these debates, you must 1) Have updated uniqueness cards 2) Do the necessary evidence comparison 3) Impact calc. If you are just going for a DA you must minimize the risk of an aff. This does not simply mean extending impact defense but outlining logical fallacies of an affirmative and IL defense. There can be a 0% percent risk of an impact and I will vote neg on presumption if I am convinced.

dedev and politics hold a special place in my heart

tldr - do what you do best; i'll only vote for complete arguments that make sense; weighing & judge instruction tip the scales in your favor; topic-specific research is good; disclosure is good; i care about argument engagement and i value flexibility; stay hydrated & be a good person.

--

about me:

she/her

i coach policy debate at damien-st. lucy's

--

My strongest belief about argumentation is that argument engagement is good - I don't have a strong preference as to what styles of arguments teams read in front of me, but I'd prefer if both teams engaged with their opponents' arguments; I don't enjoy teams who avoid clash (regardless of the style of argument they are reading). I value ideological flexibility in judges and actively try not to be someone who will exclusively vote on only "policy" or only "k" arguments. I am good for teams that do topic research and not the best for teams whose final rebuttals sound like they could be given on any topic/against any strategy.

--

Topic Knowledge: I don't teach at camp but I do keep up with the topic. I'm involved in the Damien-St. Lucy's team research. My topic knowledge for events that aren't policy debate is zero, but I'll rarely be judging these events anyway.

--

email chains:

damiendebate47@gmail.com

nethmindebate@gmail.com

please add both

--

non-negotiables:

1 - speech times - constructive are 8 minutes, rebuttals are 5, each partner must give one constructive and one rebuttal, cx cannot be transferred to prep.

2 - evidence ethics is not a case neg - will not vote on it unless you can prove a reasonable/good-faith attempt to contact the other team prior to the round.

3 - clipping requires proof by the accusing team or me noticing it. i'll vote on it with no recording if i notice it.

4 - i will not evaluate out-of-round events. this means no arguments about pref sheets, personal beef, etc. i will evaluate disclosure arguments.

--

flowing from the speech doc?

i will not flow from the speech doc.

i will only open speech docs in the middle of a debate for the following purposes:

1 - checking for clipping (i'll do this intermittently throughout the debate)

2 - to look at something that was emailed out and flagged as necessary for my understanding of the debate (rehighlighted evidence, disclosure screenshot, chart that's part of a card, perm text with certain words struck out, etc)

i will download speech docs at the end of the debate to read all relevant evidence prior to submitting my ballot

--

flowing: it is good and teams should do it

stolen from alderete - if you show me a decent flow, you can get up to 1 extra speaker point. this can only help you - i won't deduct points for an atrocious flow. this is to encourage teams to actually flow:) you must show me your flows before i enter the ballot!!

--

Some general notes:

Accessibility & content warnings: Email me if there is an accessibility request that I can help facilitate - I always want to do my part to make debates more accessible. I prefer not to judge debates that involve theory arguments about accessibility and/or content warnings. I think it is more productive to have a pre-round discussion where both teams request any accommodation(s) necessary for them to engage in an equitable debate.

Speed/clarity – I will say clear up to two times per speech before just doing my best to flow you. Going fast is fine, being unclear is not. Going slower on analytics is a good idea. You should account for pen time/scroll time.

Online debate -- 1] please record your speeches, if there are tech issues, I'll listen to a recording of the speech, but not a re-do. 2] debate is still about communication - please watch for nonverbals, listen for people saying "clear," etc.

Disclose or lose. Previously read positions must be on opencaselist. New positions do not need to be disclosed. "I do not have to disclose" is a losing argument in front of me 100% of the time.

Evidence -- it matters and I'll read it. Judge instruction is still a thing here. Don't just say "read this card" and not tell me why. Ev comparison is good. Cutting good cards is good. Failing to do one or both of those things leaves me to interpret your bad cards in whatever way I want -- that's likely to not be good. The state of evidence quality these days is an actual crime scene. If you read ev that is better than the national-circuit average, I will be so happy and your points will reflect that.

Technical debating matters.I have opinions about what arguments in debate are better/worse. I think things like the fiat k and process counterplans probably produce less in-depth and educational debates than positions that require large amounts of topic research. I've still voted for these positions when the team reading these arguments executes a technical win. This means that you should not be too stressed about my predispositions -- just win the debate and you'll be fine!

--

Opinions on Specific Positions (ctrl+f section):

--

Case:

I think that negatives that don't engage with the 1ac are putting themselves in a bad position. This is true for both K debates and policy debates.

Extensions should involve warrants, not just tagline extensions - I'm willing to give some amount of leeway for the 1ar/2ar extrapolating a warrant that wasn't the focal point of the 2ac, but I should be able to tell from your extensions what the impact is, what the internal links are, and why you solve.

2ac add-ons must be coherent in the speech they are presented. You don't get to turn a random card on a random sheet into an add-on in the 2ar.

--

Planless affs:

I tend to believe that affirmatives need to defend the topic. I think most planless affs can/should be reconfigured as soft left affs. I have voted for affs that don't defend the topic, but it requires superior technical debating from the aff team.

You need to be able to explain what your aff does/why it's good.

I dislike planless affs where the strategy is to make the aff seem like a word salad until after 2ac cx and then give the aff a bunch of new (and not super well-warranted) implications in the 1ar. I tend to be better for planless aff teams when they have some kind of relationship to the topic, they are straight-up about what they do/don't defend, they use their aff strategically, engage with neg arguments, and make smart 1ar & 2ar decisions with good ballot analysis.

I think framework is true but I will do my best to evaluate your arguments fairly.It is easier to win against framework when affirmative teams explain the warrants for their arguments and don't presuppose that I immediately agree with the warrants behind their impact turns to framework.

--

T/framework vs planless affs:

In a 100% evenly debated round, I am better for the neg. However, either team/side can win my ballot by doing better technical debating. This past season, I often voted for a K team that I thought was smart and technical. Specific thoughts on framework below:

The best way for aff teams to win my ballot is to be more technical than the neg team. Seems obvious, but what I'm trying to convey here is that I'm less persuaded by personal/emotional pleas for the ballot and more persuaded by a rigorous and technical defense of why your model of debate is good.

I don't have a preference on whether your chosen 2nr is skills or fairness. I think that both options have strategic value based on the round you're in. Framework teams almost always get better points in front of me when they are able to contextualize their arguments to their opponent's strategy.

I also don't have a preference between the aff going for impact turns or going for a counterinterp. The strategic value of this is dependent on how topical/non-topical your aff is, in my opinion.

--

Theory:

Theory arguments other than conditionality are likely not a reason to reject the team. It will be difficult to change my mind on this.

Theory arguments must have warrants in the speech in which they are presented. Most 2ac theory arguments I've seen don't meet this standard.

Conditionality is an uphill battle in front of me. If the 2ac contained warrants + the block dropped the argument entirely, I would vote aff on conditionality, but in any other scenario, the aff team should likely not go for conditionality.

Please weigh! Many theory debates feel irresolvable without intervention because each team only extends their offense but does not interact with the other team's offense.

--

Topicality (not framework):

I like T debates that have robust and contextualized definitions of the relevant words/phrases/entities in the resolution. Have a clear explanation of what your interpretation is/isn't; examples/caselists are very helpful.

Grammar-based topicality arguments: I don't find most of the grammar arguments being made these days to be very intuitive. You should explain/warrant them more than you would in front of a judge who loves those arguments.

"Plans bad" is pretty close to a nonstarter in front of me (this is more of a thing in LD I think).

--

Kritiks (neg):

I am best for K teams that engage with the affirmative, do line-by,line, and read links that prove that the aff is a bad idea. Good k debating is good case debating!

I am absolutely terrible for K teams that don't debate the case. Block soup = bad.

I vote for K teams often when they are technical and make smart big-picture arguments and demonstrate topic knowledge. I vote against K teams when they do ... not that!

In general, clash-avoidant K strategies are bad, K strategies that involve case debating are good.

--

Disads:

Nothing revolutionary to say here. Teams that answer their opponents' warrants instead of reading generic defense tend to fare betterin close rounds. Good evidence tends to matter more in these debates - I'd rather judge a round with 2 great cards + debaters explaining their cards than a round with 10 horrible cards + debaters asking me to interpret their dumpster-quality cards for them.

--

Counterplans:

I don't have strong ideological biases about counterplan theory other than that condo is probably good. More egregious abuse = easier to persuade me on theory; the issue I usually see in theory debates is a lack of warranting for why the neg's model was uniquely abusive - specific analysis > generic args + no explanation.

No judge kick. Make a choice!

Competition debates have largely become debates where teams read a ton of evidence and explain none of it. Please explain your competition evidence and I will be fine! I'll read cards after the debate, but would prefer that you instruct me on what to do with those cards.

--

Speaker points:

Speaker points are dependent on strategy, execution, clarity, and overall engagement in the round and are scaled to adapt to the quality/difficulty/prestige of the tournament.

I try to give points as follows:

30: you're a strong contender to win the tournament & this round was genuinely impressive

29.5+: late elims, many moments of good decisionmaking & argumentative understanding, adapted well to in-round pivots

29+: you'll clear for sure, generally good strat & round vision, a few things could've been more refined

28.5+: likely to clear but not guaranteed, there are some key errors that you should fix

28+: even record, probably losing in the 3-2 round

27.5+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, key technical/strategic errors

27+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, multiple notable technical/strategic errors

26+: errors that indicated a fundamental lack of preparation for the rigor/style of this tournament

25-: you did something really bad/offensive/unsafe.

Extra points for flowing, being clear, kindness, adaptation, and good disclosure practices.

Minus points for discrimination of any sort, bad-faith disclosure practices, rudeness/unkindness, and attempts to avoid engagement/clash.

--

Arguments that are simply too bad to be evaluated:

-a team should get the ballot simply for proving that they are not unfair or uneducational

-the ballot should be a referendum on a debater's character, personal life, pref sheet, etc

-the affirmative's theory argument comes before the negative's topicality argument

-some random piece of offense becomes an "independent voter" simply because it is labeled as such

-debates would be better if they were unfair, uneducational, lacked a stasis point, lacked clash, etc

-"tricks"

-teams should not be required to disclose on opencaselist

-the debate should be evaluated after any speech that is not the 2ar

-the "role of the ballot" means topicality doesn't matter

-new affs bad

--

Arguments that I am personally skeptical of, but will try to evaluate fairly:

-it would be better for debate if affirmatives did not have a meaningful relationship to the topic

-debate would be better if the negative team was not allowed to read any conditional advocacies

-reading topicality causes violence or discrimination within debate

-"role of the ballot"

-the outcome of a particular debate will change someone's mind or will change the state of debate

-the 5-second aspec argument that was hidden in the 1nc can become a winning 2nr

--

if there's anything i didn't mention or you have any questions, feel free to email me! i really love debate and i coach because i want to make debate/the community a better place; please don't hesitate to reach out if there's anything you need.

matt mcfadden
matt.mcfadden.99@gmail.com - email chain - please put me on it

---update - 2025 ---

i will give the next 2n to go for the security k or a derivation of it well in front of me 30 speaks

---end of update---

IF YOU ARE NOT TAKING PREP FOR THE 1NR, THE SPEECH SHOULD BE SENT BEFORE THE 2N SITS DOWN.

YOU CANNOT SOLELY EMAIL PERM TEXTS. THE 2AC MUST READ THEM.

YOU CANNOT 'INSERT' RE-HIGHLIGHTINGS. YOU MUST READ THEM.

---update - 2023 ---

if you want to read a k on the aff, i'm not the judge for you

if you want to read a k on the neg - and do it well - i am the judge for you

---end of update---

---update - 12/5/2021 ---

Acceptable:

- All impact turns

- Specific, well-researched K's

- Condo

Unacceptable:

- AFFs without a plan text

- Talking about your identity, race, sexual orientation, class, kinks, or anything of the sort

- Untopical AFFs

- Generic, unapplied arguments

- GBX-style process CPs

---end of update---

---update - 11/7/2020 ---

reasons to strike me:

-you read a 1ac without a plan text

"27.5 if you think the 1ac is a strategy to survive."

-you talk about your identity in debates

-you read baudrillard

-you have 3-minute-long 2nc overviews

-you think a good 1nc can be made by a conglomeration of generics

---end of update---

---update---

vote from my flow |--------------------------------------X| read every card at the end of the debate

the 1ac can be whatever you want it to be |--------------------------------------X| read a plan

the cp needs a solvency advocate |------------------------X--------------| the cp doesn’t need a solvency advocate

pics are bad |--------------------------------------X| pics are good

condo is bad |---------------------X-----------------| condo is good

go for t |---X-----------------------------------| don’t go for t

k’s that link to every aff |--------------------------------------X| k’s that link to this specific aff

---end of update---

predispositions – if you accurately describe your evidence as phenomenal, i will reward you with extra speaks in proportion to how good your cards are. if you oversell your sub-par cards, i will be thoroughly disappointed. regardless of my biases, please just go for what you are prepared to execute and have the research on.

there are really only 2 things you need to take from this –

1 – do what you're good at
2 – do LINE BY LINE
"i vote on dropped arguments that i don't believe" -ian beier

things that bother me -

prep: please have the 1nr emailed out before 2nc cross-ex is over. you can go get water for -.5 speaks or you can use prep to do it.

topicality – love it. please read a good amount of cards. if you've done the research to support a well-articulated t argument, i will be overjoyed to judge the debate. although i generally default to competing interpretations, after thinking about it, reasonability is compelling if the 2ar accurately articulates why the neg interpretation is unpredictable and overly burdensome for affirmatives, which outweighs 2nr offense – this is especially persuasive if you have aff-specific cards in relation to the topic literature or legal question of the resolution. negatives that 1 – do thorough impact calculus external to ‘they explode limits – limits are good’ and 2 – give overwhelmingly extensive lists of the absurd affs their interp justifies are crucial. limits is an internal link to the topic-specific expertise the resolutional question is designed to impart.


theory – can be tedious to resolve, but i'm intrigued. 1ar's do not extend this enough. 2ar's that do the impact comparison, turns case analysis, and offense/defense framing on theory as if it were a da are very enjoyable. if theory arguments aren't well-articulated and are overly blippy, i am fine with simply dismissing them.

must disclose judge prefs theory – no, thank you. i am not sympathetic.


kritiks – the most intricate debates or the most mediocre debates – i mean this sincerely. if you are good at making a real argument, yes please. specific link work with intricate turns case analysis and examples relating to the aff win debates. reading a new phenomenal critical theory card will make my day - ie if you have done the research to support your argument, let's go. the more generic your k is, the less inclined i am to vote for you. if you are a team that goes for the k like a disad (techy, line-by-line, interacts with the case) i'll be happy to judge the debate; the inverse is true as well.


cp – wonderful.

counterplans with long texts – my favorite.

pics – they're the best. HOWEVER – they should be substantively different than the aff and have a solvency advocate.

process cp's – you're probably cheating.

states cp – teams overestimate the impact of their solvency deficits and underestimate the efficacy of theory as an answer. aff – please go for theory.


da – yes, please.

well-researched link evidence works wonders. taking a minute of the 2nr to detail turns case analysis puts you in a great position.

if you don't have a da, you don't have a da. 1% risk calculus won't make your link for you.


impact turn – please go for these if your evidence is recent and of high quality. this means not spark. doing thorough comparison between the data and qualifications of your cards versus theirs is how these debates are won.
"people should impact turn.... everything" -ian beier


neg v. k affs – if you're neg and don't win these debates, you're the exception. these are the hardest 2nr's, so i'm willing to grant some leeway.

presumption – make this argument.

framework – yes. compare your impacts at the internal link level and do intricate turns case analysis. i enjoy institutional engagement arguments vs identity affs and truth testing/fairness against more abstract affs.

the k – though i think it is an admirable strategy, unless you have hyper-specific evidence about the aff or its mechanism, you are highly susceptible to the perm.


k affs – good luck.


aff v. the k – you have an aff; that's all you have to defend.

affs lose to the k when they don't answer offense that is embedded in link arguments, lose the framework debate, letting them get away with broad and absurd generalizations, and going for too much.


execution – evidence quality doesn't replace the necessity of good debating. but i really do love good evidence.

zero risk – it’s not possible strictly in the sense of ‘zero risk’, because there is inherently a possibility of all events but it is possible to diminish the risk of an advantage or da to such a degree that it is not sufficiently significant to overcome from the noise of the status quo. i think the new fettweis card is pretty devastating impact defense. lots of neg da's are utterly ridiculous.

cx – if their cards are awful, or their da is incoherent, pointing it out is fun. being strategic in the rhetorical method you use to get the other team to say what you want, then referencing their answers in speeches to warrant arguments is persuasive and gets you additional speaks if what they said is truly applicable.

"be snarky if you want" -grace kuang

judges/people i admire - dheidt, tallungan, khirn, tyler peltekci, dan bannister, grace kuang, spurlock, matt munday, tucker carlson, forslund, scott brown.

bad args – 'racism/sexism good' args are obviously non-starters. i won't immediately dismiss 'death good' but if this is really the position you're in, you have more immediate problems than my judging preferences.

Debated for UWG ’15 – ’17; Coaching: Notre Dame – ’19 – Present; Baylor – ’17 – ’19

email: joshuamichael59@gmail.com

Online Annoyance

"Can I get a marked doc?" / "Can you list the cards you didn't read?" when one card was marked or just because some cards were skipped on case. Flow or take CX time for it.

Policy

I prefer K v K rounds, but I generally wind up in FW rounds.

K aff’s – 1) Generally have a high threshold for 1ar/2ar consistency. 2) Stop trying to solve stuff you could reasonably never affect. Often, teams want the entirety of X structure’s violence weighed yet resolve only a minimal portion of that violence. 3) v K’s, you are rarely always already a criticism of that same thing. Your articulation of the perm/link defense needs to demonstrate true interaction between literature bases. 4) Stop running from stuff. If you didn’t read the line/word in question, okay. But indicts of the author should be answered with more than “not our Baudrillard.”

K’s – 1) rarely win without substantial case debate. 2) ROJ arguments are generally underutilized. 3) I’m generally persuaded by aff answers that demonstrate certain people shouldn’t read certain lit bases, if warranted by that literature. 4) I have a higher threshold for generic “debate is bad, vote neg.” If debate is bad, how do you change those aspects of debate? 5) 2nr needs to make consistent choices re: FW + Link/Alt combinations. Find myself voting aff frequently, because the 2nr goes for two different strats/too much.

Special Note for Settler Colonialism: I simultaneously love these rounds and experience a lot of frustration when judging this argument. Often, debaters haven’t actually read the full text from which they are cutting cards and lack most of the historical knowledge to responsibly go for this argument. List of annoyances: there are 6 settler moves to innocence – you should know the differences/specifics rather than just reading pages 1-3 of Decol not a Metaphor; la paperson’s A Third University is Possible does not say “State reform good”; Reading “give back land” as an alt and then not defending against the impact turn is just lazy. Additionally, claiming “we don’t have to specify how this happens,” is only a viable answer for Indigenous debaters (the literature makes this fairly clear); Making a land acknowledgement in the first 5 seconds of the speech and then never mentioning it again is essentially worthless; Ethic of Incommensurability is not an alt, it’s an ideological frame for future alternative work (fight me JKS).

FW

General: 1) Fairness is either an impact or an internal link 2) the TVA doesn’t have to solve the entirety of the aff. 3) Your Interp + our aff is just bad.

Aff v FW: 1) can win with just impact turns, though the threshold is higher than when winning a CI with viable NB’s. 2) More persuaded by defenses of education/advocacy skills/movement building. 3) Less random DA’s that are basically the same, and more internal links to fully developed DA’s. Most of the time your DA’s to the TVA are the same offense you’ve already read elsewhere.

Reading FW: 1) Respect teams that demonstrate why state engagement is better in terms of movement building. 2) “If we can’t test the aff, presume it’s false” – no 3) Have to answer case at some point (more than the 10 seconds after the timer has already gone off) 4) You almost never have time to fully develop the sabotage tva (UGA RS deserves more respect than that). 5) Impact turns to the CI are generally underutilized. You’ll almost always win the internal link to limits, so spending all your time here is a waste. 6) Should defend the TVA in 1nc cx if asked. You don’t have a right to hide it until the block.

Theory - 1) I generally lean neg on questions of Conditionality/Random CP theory. 2) No one ever explains why dispo solves their interp. 3) Won’t judge kick unless instructed to.

T – 1) I’m not your best judge. 2) Seems like no matter how much debating is done over CI v Reasonability, I still have to evaluate most of the offense based on CI’s.

DA/CP – 1) Prefer smart indicts of evidence as opposed to walls of cards (especially on ptx/agenda da's). Neg teams get away with murder re: "dropped ev" that says very little/creatively highlighted. 2) I'm probably more lenient with aff responses (solvency deficits/aff solves impact/intrinsic perm) to Process Cp's/Internal NB's that don't have solvency ev/any relation to aff.

Case - I miss in depth case debates. Re-highlightings don't have to be read. The worse your re-highlighting the lower the threshold for aff to ignore it.

LD

All of my thoughts on policy apply, except for theory. More than 2 condo (or CP’s with different plank combinations) is probably abusive, but I can be convinced otherwise on a technical level.

Not voting on an RVI. I don’t care if it’s dropped.

Most LD theory is terrible Ex: Have to spec a ROB or I don’t know what I can read in the 1nc --- dumb argument.

Phil or Tricks (sp?) debating – I’m not your judge.

adammimou82@gmail.com

Assistant LD Coach for Peninsula HS

Offense-defense - arguments are evaluated probabilistically.

Exclusive framework interps are unpersuasive, I generally think the aff should get the plan and the neg should get links, but I am willing to evaluate either.

I feel somewhat comfortable evaluating deontological frameworks. I have less experience with other frameworks but will do my best to assess them fairly. However, I'm not the judge for strategies that rely heavily on 'tricks' or 'a prioris.'

I think most skepticism or 'permissibility' arguments are defense. I do not vote on defense.

I’m convinced by reasonability against all 1NC theory arguments.

I try to stay non-expressive during rounds. If I show any facial expressions, it is most likely unrelated.

There is no designated time for flow clarification during a debate. If you want to ask your opponent what was or wasn't read, you must do so during cross-examination or use your prep time. If you mark cards during your speech (i.e., if you start reading a card but do not finish it), you should clearly state where you marked it and send a marked document immediately after your speech. You are not required to include cards you did not read.

I do not have a specific metric for speaker points, but demonstrating a clear understanding of the topic and minimizing dead time are effective ways to improve your score.

I prefer adjudicating thoroughly researched arguments related to the topic.

kmoore@svudl.org

You don't need to be overly polite, but you also do not need to be rude. I will vote for the other team if you are blatantly disrespectful and rude with no context for it within the round.

How fast can I go?

As fast as you want while remaining clear. If you must spread, don't slur the words together. If I can make out the individual words you're using, I can keep up. I'm not going to tell you if I can't keep up, that's the risk you run by spreading as fast as possible. I am usually much more in favor of a smaller amount of well supported and reasoned arguments though. Technical skill alone will not win a round judged by me, but it will play a significant factor in whether or not you win.

How does he award Speaker Points?

Purely based on who the best speaker is, which is a totally subjective system. If you can speak clearly yet quickly, maintain eye contact when appropriate and keep filler words to a minimum you'll get higher speaking points. If you can find a way to speak to me instead of at me, you'll get higher speaker points. Don't feel like you need to do anything special, I'm not stingy with Speaker Points.

What can I run in front of him?

Run whatever you want, I'll judge it based on the arguments presented to me by you and your opponent.

Anything else?

I'm a debate coach, and have debated for a few years in high school. I've been involved with the debate community in some way, shape or form for more than 10 years. Philosophical arguments are immensely appealing to me, so if you are running a Kritik I will be more than happy to follow along if you decide to get really abstract and in the weeds with it. I enjoy technical and nuanced arguments, feel free to really dive into things because I will be able to follow your train of thought and weigh it against your opponents if you do a good enough job contextualizing it and tying it into the debate. If you read evidence to me and don't spend any time analyzing the evidence and contrasting it with your opponents/telling me why I should value your evidence over theirs I will not be happy. Don't just read evidence to me and expect me to do the work.

Don't add me to the email chain as a way to ignore speaking clearly. I'm OK with being on the email chain, and if you add me I will look at the evidence. If you ASK me if I want to be on the email chain, I will more than likely say no.

Email chain: I.claud33@gmail.com

They/ Them - She/Her

Policy debate for three years in high school at regional circuit.

No oppressive language. No card cutting/ clipping. No hateful language. No more than 5 off.

Violation of this will result in low speaks or a losing ballot, probably both.

PLS no new args in the rebuttals. Im not going to eval them. Im really not.

CX: speaks start at 28.5 and go up based on performance, clarity, tech execution of args, strat, persuasion, and manners:) - give me my rfd and that will def help lol.

I don think ive ever given a 30 but tbh im not sure what an ideal speech would be. I need to think on that.

Tag team Cx is fine

Keep ur own time, keep each other accountable. I forget all the time to stop prep (literally the most important thing)

If it’s not in the flow, it didn’t happen

If I can’t hear/ understand you- I will let u know “clear”

I flow on paper so if u make a qwk analytic I’m so sorry to tell u, but I probably didn’t get it

General:

Pretend I am a big illiterate baby.

I have never seen a news outlet. I don't scroll social media. I don't look out windows. I have never ever existed before this debate round, explain everything to me.

Contextualize every piece of ev and EXTENSIVE analysis on what the voters are.

Specifics:

K

Love the k.

I’m familiar with: Set Col, Cap and Chicano

But I'm always willing to become familiar with more :)

Links can be re-highlighted ev, generated during cx, or can be based off their plan text. However, that does not mean read three pieces of Link ev, after two cards your time would be better spent contextualizan the link and preempting perm args

Aff

Good with any impact. Just pay attention to the framing.

K aff

I like K affs. Best k affs are those that dont sideline the res and rather make a stasis point for decent ground so you can access ur education impx.

IF ur rapping/singing/ performing in a 'non-traditional' way, then I need you to tell me how to flow it- analyze what your performance specifically did in the context of this round, in your own words. Ex: if ur singing chappell roan, i want some analysis on how chappell roan is either key to solvency or whatever.

I can vote for a TVA or a kvk, i pref kvk.

DA/CP

Internal link. Internal link. Internal link. If you don't make the storyline straight, I will not buy your impact. Ideally should be a net benefit to a cp.

Cp: Net benefit. Net benefit. Net benefit. I will one hunddo vote on tva or perm on presumption.

but perms must be fully fleshed out, I should not be left wondering after the 2ac the how and when of the perm. Solvency defcts should be clarified with the perm.

Debate is first and foremost a research game.

Speed-Run Overview

E-Mail Chain: Yes, add me (chris.paredes@gmail.com) & my school mail (damiendebate47@gmail.com). I do not distribute docs to third party requests unless a team has failed to update their wiki.

Experience: Damien '05, Amherst College '09, Emory Law '13L. This will be my eighth year coaching in debate, and my third year doing it full time. I consider myself fluent in debate, but my debate preferences (both ideology and mechanics) are influenced by debating in the 00s.

IP Topic Knowledge: I studied IP law while at Emory and was the recipient of an IP law scholarship. So I should be a pretty good judge for evaluating topic specific arguments and true analytics that rely on topic knowledge are likely to be super persuasive to me. I am very unsympathetic to neg gripes about this topic as I believe case specific research should be the default model of debate so 1) lack of generic neg ground is not necessarily a problem, 2) there neg ground but most teams have not done the pre-requisite research to find it.

Debate Philosophy: Debate is a game. The game can take many forms depending on how the players engage with it. I believe the ideal form of the game is one in which the debaters gain resolutional knowledge by arguing the desirability of the affirmative's proposed hypothetical government action. The best debaters are ones who develop good topic knowledge and do the research necessary to defend their case or make nuanced objections to the opponent's aff case. Debates about the meta of the game, both the topic (T) and what community norms should be regarding certain tactics (theory), are also a valuable endeavor that too few teams are willing to engage in. I am much more open than a normal judge to decide the round on these issues.

Judging Philosophy: The prime directive in every game is to win. Consequently, I interpret all your choices in debate as tactical decisions attempting to secure maximal chance of victory. All of my personal preferences can be overcome if you debate better than your opponents and I will vote for almost any argument so long as I have an idea of how it functions within the round and it is appropriately impacted. You can minimize intervention against you by 1) providing clear judge instruction and 2) justifications for those judge instructions. The best 2NRs and 2ARs are pitches that present a fully formed ballot that I can metaphorically sign off on. However, I am extremely averse to deciding the round on any non-argument related norms (how debaters should behave in round), and I will not adjudicate a round based on any issues external to the game (whether that was at camp or a previous round).

I run a planless aff; should I strike you?: As a matter of truth I am very firmly neg on framework, but tech over truth means that I usually end up voting aff close to half the time. Insofar as debate is a game, I draw a distinction between rules and standards. The rules of the game (the length of speeches, the order of the speeches, which side the teams are on, clipping, etc.) are set by the tournament and left to me (and other judges) to enforce. Comparatively, the standards of the game (condo, competition, limits of fiat) are determined in round by the debaters. Framework is a debate about whether the resolution should be a rule and/or what that rule looks like. Persuading me to favor your view/interpretation of debate is accomplished by convincing me that it is the method that promotes better debate compared to your opponent's. What counts as better (more fair or more pedagogically valuable) is something determined in round through debate. My ballot always is awarded to whoever debated better. I will hold a planless aff to the same standard as a K alt; I absolutely must have an idea of what the aff (and my ballot) does and how/why that solves for an impact. If you do not explain this to me, Iwill "hack out" on presumption. Performances (music, poetry, narratives) are non-factors until you contextualize and justify why they are solvency mechanisms for the aff in the debate space.

Evidence and Argumentative Weight: Tech over truth, but it is easier to debate well when using true arguments and better cards. In-speech analysis goes a long way with me; I am much more likely to side with a team that develops and compares warrants vs. a team that extends by tagline/author only. I will read cards as necessary, including explicit prompting, however once start reading the critically. Cards are meaningless without highlighted warrants; you are better off with one "painted" card than several under-highlighted cards. Well-explained logical analytics, especially if developed in CX, beat bad/under-highlighted cards.

Accommodations: External to any debate about my role that happens on framework, I treat my function in the room as judge first and facilitator of education second. Therefore, any accommodation that has potential competitive implications (limiting content or speed, etc.) should be requested either with me CC'd or in my presence so that tournament ombuds mediation can be requested if necessary. Failure to adhere to proper accommodation request procedure heavily impacts whether I give any credence to in-round voters attached to failure to accommodate or other exclusion based arguments.

Argument by argument breakdown below.

Topicality

Debating T well is a question of engaging in responsive internal link debating. You win my ballot when you are the team that proves their interpretation is best for debate -- usually by proving that you have the superior internal links (ground, predictability, legal precision, research burden, etc.) to the more important terminal impact (fairness and/or education). I love judging a good T round and I will reward teams with the ballot and with good speaker points for well thought-out interpretations (or counter-interps) with nuanced defenses. I would much rather hear a well-articulated 2NR on why I need to enforce a limited vision of the topic than a K with state/omission links or a Frankenstein process CP that results in the aff.

I default to competing interpretations. Reasonability can be compelling to me if properly contextualized. I am more receptive to reasonability as a filter (when affs can articulate why their specific counter-interp is reasonable) versus reasonability as weighing mechanism ("Good is good enough.")

I believe that many resolutions (especially domestic topics) are sufficiently aff-biased or poorly worded that preserving topicality as a viable generic negative strategy is important. I have no problem voting for the neg if I believe that they have done the better debating, even if I think that the aff is/should be topical in a truth sense. I am also a judge who will actually vote on T-Substantial (substantial as in size, not subsets) because I think that T-Substantial is the proper mechanism to check small affs.

Fx/Xtra Topicality: I will vote on them independently if they are impacted as independent voters. However, I believe they are internal links to the original violation and standards (i.e. you don't meet if you only meet effectually, or extra topical ground proves limits explosion). The neg is best off introducing Fx/Xtra early with me in the back; I give the 1ARs more leeway to answer new Fx/Xtra extrapolations than I will give the 2AC for undercovering Fx/Xtra.

Framework / T-USFG

For an aff to win framework they must articulate and defend specific reasons why they cannot and do not embed their advocacy into a topical policy as well as reasons why resolutional debate is a bad model. Procedural fairness starts as an impact by default and the aff must prove why it should not be. I can and will vote on education outweighs fairness, or that substantive fairness outweighs procedural fairness, but the aff must win these arguments of the flow. The TVA is an education argument and not a fairness argument; affs are not entitled to the best version of the case (policy affs do not get extra-topical solvency mechanisms), so I don't care if the TVA is worse than the planless version from a competitive standpoint.

For the neg, you have the burden of proving either that fairness outweighs the aff's education or that policy-centric debate has better access to education (or a better type of education). I am neutral regarding which impact to go for -- I firmly believe the negative is on the truth side on both -- it will be your execution of these arguments that decides the round. Contextualization and specificity are your friends. If you go with fairness, you should not only articulate specific ground loss in the round, but explain why neg ground loss under the aff's model is inevitable and uniquely worse. When going for education, I am fine with clash as an internal link. But I am very receptive to just internal link turning the aff model and arguing that plan-based debate is a better internal link to positive real world change: debate provides valuable portable skills, debate is training for advocacy outside of debate, etc. Empirical examples of how reform ameliorates harm for the most vulnerable, or how policy-focused debate scales up better than planless debate, are extremely persuasive in front of me.

Procedurals/Theory

I think that debate's largest educational impact is training students in real world advocacy, therefore I believe that the best iteration of debate is one that teaches people in the room something about the topic, including minutiae about process. I have MUCH less aversion to voting on procedurals and theory than most judges. I think the aff has a burden as advocates to defend a specific and coherent implementation strategy of their case and the negative is entitled to test that implementation strategy. I will absolutely pull the trigger on vagueness, plan flaws, or spec arguments as long as there is a coherent story about why the aff is bad for debate and a good answer to why cross doesn't check. Conversely, I hold negatives to equally high standards to defend why their counterplans make sense and why counterplans are competitive with the aff.

That said, you should treat theory like topicality; there is a bare amount of time and development necessary to make it a viable choice in your last speech. Outside of cold concessions, you are probably not going to persuade me to vote for you absent actual line-by-line refutation that includes a coherent abuse story which would be solved by your interpretation.

Also, if you go for theory... SLOW. DOWN. You have to account for pen/keyboard time; you cannot spread a block of analytics at me like they were a card and expect me to catch everything. I will be very unapologetic in saying I didn't catch parts of the theory debate on my flow because you were spreading too fast.

My defaults that CAN be changed by better debating:

- Condo is good (but should have limitations, esp. to check perf cons and skew);

- PICs, Actor, and Process CPs are all legitimate if they prove competition; a specific solvency advocate proves competitiveness while the lack of specific solvency evidence indicates high risk of a solvency deficit and/or no competition;

- Aff gets normal means or whatever they specify; they are not entitled to all theoretical implementations of the plan (i.e. perm do the CP) due to the lack of specificity;

- the neg is not entitled to intrinsic processes that result in the aff (i.e. ConCon, NGA, League of Democracies);

- Consult CPs and Floating PIKs are bad.

My defaults that are UNLIKELY to change or CANNOT be changed:

- CX is binding;

- Lit checks/justifies (debate is primarily a research and strategic activity);

- OSPEC is never a voter (except fiating something contradictory to ev or a contradiction between different authors);

- "Cheating" is reciprocal (utopian alts justify utopian perms, intrinsic CPs justify intrinsic perms, and so forth);

- Real instances of abuse justify rejecting the team and not just the arg;

- Teams should disclose previously run arguments;

- Real world impacts exist (i.e. setting precedents/norms), but specific instances of behavior outside the room/round that are not verifiable are not relevant in this round;

- Condo is not the same thing as severance of the discourse/rhetoric (you can win severance of your reps, but it is not a default entitlement from condo);

- ASPEC is checked by cross (the neg should ask and if the aff answers and doesn't spike, I will not vote on ASPEC; if the aff does not answer, the neg can win by proving abuse including potential ground loss).

Kritiks

TL;DR: I would much rather hear a good K than a bad politics disad, so if you have a coherent and contextualized argument for why critical academic scholarship is relevant to the specific aff, I am fine for you. If you run Ks to avoid clash and rely on links of omission and criticisms about the state/fiat, then I am a bad judge for you. If you ended up with me in the back for a planless aff vs. a K, reconsider your prefs and/or strategy.

A kritik must be presented as a comprehensible argument in round. To me, that means that a K must not only explain the scholarship and its relevance to the aff (links and impacts), but it must function as a coherent call for the ballot (through the alt).A link alone is insufficient without a reason to reject the aff and/or prefer the alt. I do not have any biases or predispositions about what my ballot does or should do, but if you cannot explain your alt and/or how my ballot interacts with the alt then I will have an extremely low threshold for disregarding the K as a non-unique disad. Alts like "Reject the aff" and "Vote neg" are fine so long as there is a coherent explanation for why I should do that beyond the mere fact the aff links (for example, if the K turns case). If the alt solves back for the implications of the K, whether it is a material alt or a debate space alt, the solvency process should be explained and contrasted with the plan/perm. Links of omission are very uncompelling. Links are not disads to the perm unless you have a (re-)contextualization to why the link implicates perm solvency. Ks can solve the aff, but the mechanism shouldn't be that the world of the alt results in the plan (i.e. floating PIK).

Affs should not be afraid of going for straight impact turns behind a robust framework press to evaluate the aff. I'm more willing than most judges to weigh the impacts vs. labeling your discourse as a link. Being extremely good at historical analysis is the best way to win a link turn or impact turn. I am also particularly receptive to arguments about pragmatism on the perm, especially if you have empirical examples of progress through state reform that relates directly to the impacts.

Against K affs, you should leverage fairness and education offensive as a way to shape the process by which I should evaluate the kritik. I would much rather, and am more likely to, give you "No perms without a plan text" because cheating should be mutual than weeding through the epistemology and pedagogy debate to determine that your theory of power comes first.

Counterplans

I think that research is a core part of debate as an activity, and good counterplan strategy goes hand-in-hand with that. The risk of your net benefit is evaluated inversely proportional to the quality of the counterplan is. Generic PICs are more vulnerable to perms and solvency deficits and carry much higher threshold burden on the net benefit. PICs with specific solvency advocates or highly specific net benefits are devastating and one of the ways that debate rewards research and how debate equalizes aff side bias by rewarding negs who who diligent in research. Agent and process counterplans are similarly better when the neg has a nuanced argument for why one agent/process is better than the aff's for a specific plan.

- Process CPs: Neg ground should be a product of neg research, not spray and pray checks on the 2AC. I am extremely unfriendly to process counterplans where the process is entirely intrinsic; I have a very low threshold for rejecting them theoretically or granting the aff an intrinsic perm to test opportunity cost. I am extremely friendly to process counterplans that test a distinct implementation method compared to the aff. There are differences in form and content between legislative statutes, administrative regulations, executive orders, and court cases. The team that understands these differences and can impact them is usually the team that wins my ballot. Intentionally vague plan texts do not give the aff access to all theoretical implementations of the plan (Perm Do the CP). The neg can define normal means for the aff if the aff refuses to, but the neg has an equally high burden to defend the competitiveness of the CP process vs. normal means. The aff can win an entire solvency take out if there is a structural defect created by deviating from normal means.

I do not judge kick by default, but 2NRs can easily convince me to do so as an extension of condo. Superior solvency for the aff case alone is sufficient reason to vote for the CP in a debate that is purely between hypothetical policies (i.e. the aff has no competition arguments in the 2AR).

I am very likely to err neg on sufficiency framing; the aff absolutely needs either a solvency deficit or arguments about why an appeal to sufficiency framing itself means that the neg cannot capture the ethic of the affirmative (and why that outweighs).

Disadvantages

I value defense more than most judges and am willing to assign minimal ("virtually zero") risk based on defense, especially when quality difference in evidence is high or the disad scenario is painfully artificial. I can be convinced by good analysis that there is always a risk of a DA in spite of defense, but having a good counterplan is the way the neg has to leverage itself out of flawed disads.

Nuclear war probably outweighs the soft left impact in a vacuum, but not when you are relying on "infinite impact times small risk is still infinity" to mathematically brute force past near zero risk.

Misc.

Speaker Point Scale: I feel speaker points are arbitrary and the only way to fix this is standardization. Consequently I will try to follow any provided tournament scale very closely. In the event that there is no tournament scale, I grade speaks on bell curve with 30 being the 99th percentile, 27.5 being as the median 50th percentile, and 25 being the 1st percentile. I'm aggressive at BOTH addition and subtraction from this baseline since bell curves are distributed around the average and not everyone being actually average. Elim teams should be scoring above average by definition. The scale is standardized; national circuit tournaments have higher averages than local tournaments. Points are rewarded for both style (entertaining, organized, strong ethos) and substance (strategic decisions, quality analysis, obvious mastery of nuance/details). I listen closely to CX and include CX performance in my assessment. Well contextualized humor is the quickest way to get higher speaks in front of me, e.g. make a Thanos snap joke on the Malthus flow.

Strategy & Clash Points: Debaters have increasingly adopted a variety of bad habits. To counter this, I reward good practices -- those that demonstrate research and preparation with a willingness to engage in class -- with bonus speaks. On the aff, plan texts that have specific mandates backed by solvency authors get bonus speaks. I will also reward affs for running disads to negative advocacies (real disads, not solvency deficits masquerading as disads -- Hollow Hope or Court Politics on a Courts CP is a disad; "CP gets circumvented" is not a disad). Negative teams with case specific strategies (i.e. hyper-specific counterplans or a nuanced T or procedural objection to the specific aff plan text) will get bonus speaks. I will punish teams whose behavior minimizes clash and shows a disdain for research and preparation (hiding ASPEC, misplacing arguments on other flows, etc.) with lower speaks.

Delivery and Organization: Your speed should be limited by clarity. I reference the speech doc during the debate to check clipping, not to flow. You should be clear enough that I can flow without needing your speech doc. Additionally, even if I can hear and understand you, I am not going to flow your twenty point theory block perfectly if you spit it out in ten seconds. Proper sign-posted line by line is the bare minimum to get over a 28.5 in speaks. I will only flow straight down as a last resort, so it is important to sign-post the line-by-line, otherwise I will lose some of your arguments while I jump around on my flow and I will dock your speaks. If online please keep in mind that you will, by default, be less clear through Zoom than in person.

Cross-X, Prep, and Tech: Tag-team CX is fine but it's part of your speaker point rating to give and answer most of your own cross. I think that finishing the answer to a final question during prep is fine and simple clarification and non-substantive questions during prep is fine, but prep should not be used as an eight minute time bank of extra cross-ex. I don't charge prep for tech time, but tech is limited to just the emailing or flashing of docs. When you end prep, you should be ready to distribute.

Thais Perez, Wake ‘26

Add to chain: tcperezdeb8@gmail.com, debate@student.quarrylane.org

I care about debate, and hope that my RFDs reflect that. All of us are taking time to do this activity for different reasons, but regardless, I will try to respect the time and energy you are putting into debate by being attentive and rendering the best decision I can.

Things that matter to me, that should matter to you:

- Flowing. I do it, and I do it on paper. This means that if you are going at lightning-quick speed and sound incredibly unclear while doing so I probably won’t write down, or much less understand, anything you are saying. I sometimes get hand cramps/tremors, so if you see me lift my hand up for a second, you probably want to slow down. My flow is everything to me when I judge debates, and I try my very best to articulate decisions based on a precise interpretation of my flow. Slow and clear debaters will be rewarded with more speaker points than fast and clear debaters.

- CX. I flow it, and it can make-or-break your speaker points. Using your entire CX for clarification questions about cards your opponents did not read is a waste of time and you should instead use prep time for that. Don’t treat prep time like cross-ex, I won’t pay attention to it.

- Offense/Defense. Intuitively, I don’t really understand how else to judge debates. Any other paradigm seems to require intervention which I try to minimize, however, I can be persuaded to think otherwise depending on how ‘reasonability’ and ‘competing interpretations’ are technically debated.

- Evidence. It only matters if you make it matter. I don’t like reading evidence unless I’m specifically told to, although I tend to read re-highlightings just because I find them interesting when they’re done well.

Plan AFFs:

- In K debates, I will look at the framework debate first. I will resolve the framework debate one way or the other. AFF teams should not underestimate the power of a well-explained alt solves the case argument.

- Impact calculus is significant to me, but the impact debate is not in a vacuum, and I make sure to weigh each part of the debate equally. Relative risk is the only way to evaluate DA debates and avoids arbitrarily intervening just because we have an aversion to death.

- Competition debates can be fun, and I enjoy these debates more when teams place a heavy emphasis on evidence quality. In my mind, these are just topicality debates with the distinction being that competition is a NEG burden.

- Sufficiency framing means that I should evaluate the counterplan’s scope of solvency in relation to AFF impacts, and not the AFF in its entirety. Avoid misinterpreting that.

Non-Plan AFFs:

- Ballot solvency is central. I find most negative presumption arguments to be unpersuasive, mostly because they are never contextualized to the AFF. Tailoring your arguments to be relevant to the AFF you’re debating is the best way to make this part of the debate winnable for the NEG.

- If going for a clash impact, try to explain why iterative testing is inherent to your model and not the AFF’s. I find teams struggling to explain this impact as external which makes the debate get jumbled by the 2NR.

- In a K v K debate having offensive reasons why the permutation does not shield the link is your best bet.

Other misc. things:

- Plan/AFF vagueness is so obnoxious. Don't avoid explaining the mechanism or function of the AFF, normal means, or what your method results in/does for the debate space. If the other team doesn't know what your AFF does, neither will I which means I am likely to limit the scope of solvency to cross-examination and to what solvency evidence says.

- I default to judge-kicking if the NEG says that the status quo is always a logical option.

- Conditionality is a reason to reject the team, but most other ‘voting-issues’ are arbitrary. Having examples of what made the debate more difficult in the specific debate you are in will help you immensely.

Experience: Policy Debate (2 Years, But I still made it all the way to Urban Nationals Gurl)

Francisco Bravo Medical Magnet High School: 2016-18

Cal State Long Beach: 2018-19

Contact Info: elvispinedaten@gmail.com

In a nutshell: I'm a pretty open debater and I love hearing all types of arguments. Policy Arguments... love them, Critical Arguments... love them, just make sure to articulate your arguments because even something as simple as a Cap K are run differently from round to round. Uniqueness questions are good, Links need to be there, Impacts are vital (You don't know how many people forget to impact out their stuff... make sure you do because I NEED TO KNOW WHAT IM VOTING FOR, I will not feel bad voting you down if you have a great link story but no impacts) and I appreciate intellectual debate jargon. All in all I will vote on anything, it just has to make sense and you have to convince me why I should vote for you and not the opposing team (Cross-Analysis). I love debate; I believe its a form of academic expression and just remember to have fun and pour your hearts out on the battlefield. I'm not a point fairy but passion, effort and craft are highly rewarded as I highly value (as we all should) seeing students actively pushing themselves for both an academic and interpersonal growth!

K's: Know the literature, it'll make your clap-backs that much stronger and makes it easier to contextualize. Throughly explain the alt, I noticed that the alternative debate is always the least covered and if I don't throughly understand what I'm voting for... then the permutation becomes an easy option for me as long as I believe it is possible. LINK ANALYSIS WILL GO A LONG WAY... Just saying. I ran Queer, Ableism, Witchcraft and several CRT K's but I understand the post-modern ones as well (please don’t run baudrillard, I’ve already had to vote it up once --> Update: Twice).

K' Affs: I ran Critical affirmatives the majority of my debate career so I might already understand or be lenient towards some of the reasons why non-traditional affirmation might be good. HOWEVER!!! This doesn't mean that if you run a K Aff I'll automatically vote for you, I find myself voting on presumption arguments or framework a lot because sometimes the literature of the affirmative is so dense and either: A) I feel like there is an articulation issue (and thus disorder on the flow) because of the density of the material or B) The internal link chain which leads me to believe that the affirmative is a good idea might be fundamentally under developed.

Da's: Uniqueness... Link.... Internal Links.... Impacts. I like disads, make sure to be strategic, make them net-benefits to the Cp otherwise I do believe that the Squo is always a viable option.

Cp's: Remember that not all Cp's are plan-inclusive and to me at least all you have to prove is that your method solves better than the aff. Have Net-benefits and show me solvency deficits (It'll make your life easier trust). No I won't judge kick the CP for you unless you explicitly tell me, i feel like it gives judge intervention way to much power.

T: Topicality is more than "aff is not topical". Tell me why that is bad? What do you lose access to? Prove to me why the aff's interpretation of debate is bad or abusive. If I can make those connections and you persuade me to prefer your model of debate, then its looking good for you and I'm very inclined to vote on it.

Framework: A lot of T applies here too, make sure to win why we need procedural fairness, why is the aff's model of debate bad for the debate community in general, Internal and External impacts are convincing, and also make sure to make those common FW arguments that prove you don't limit the aff. Framework to me also doesn't necessarily mean that "USFG means the 3 Branches of Government", even though its common and I don't mind seeing it, I feel like you can tailor so many framework arguments to work around the rhetorical offense affirmatives get with that interpretation.

Aff's: PROVE TO ME WHY WE NEED THE AFF! I need to know that there is a reason why you have to affirm what you are affirming and thats why you're doing it in a nontraditional way. Also prove to me why your model of debate is preferable to the neg's arguments. Just persuade me (Make me feel like I HAVE TO DO IT). In addition, anything performative should always be used... and offensively too. Don't waste precious 1AC time without utilizing it to the best of your advantage.

Case: I LOVE CASE DEBATE <3!!! I appreciate a good neg team that directly challenges the aff's warrants and their claims. So that being said... good case debate is appreciated and will be rewarded with higher speaks. Flush out them case turns (I'll gasp if its good)

Advise for the aff: Don't forget your 1AC, YOU SPEND 8/9 Minutes on it, please utilize it and utilize it as offensively as you can!

HAVE FUN! I love debate and I'm always happy and excited to watch y'alls debates!

GOOD LUCK!

Email chain: rrn.debate [at] gmail [dot] com

Background: Mamaroneck High School, University of Southern California – Policy Debate

Tech over truth.

Be clear, don’t be surprised when an argument I can’t flow doesn’t make it into my decision. I am slow at typing and on average get down 60% of your speech down on my flow.

Don't clip, be rude, or lie.

I agree with Ken Karas on most everything.

Overview

Hey, I'm Eshaan.

Debated at James Logan (RS) - arms sales, cjr, water, nato

Currently at UC Irvine, not debating

Logistics

Please add me to the email chain: eshaandebate@gmail.com

Also please format the chain [TOURNAMENT --- ROUND # --- AFF vs NEG]

Send the 1ac before round start

Time your own prep / speeches

* congress paradigm is at the bottom

TLDR

1 - K v policy / policy v K

2 - K v K

3 - policy v policy (more below)

Specifics

Tech > truth no matter what. I'll pull the trigger on any argument if you can debate it. This includes death good, tricks, hidden aspec, etc. The only caveats are arguments regarding the personal qualities of other debaters.

I am a second-year out and do not consider myself to be a perfect judge. There will be a time when I make a wrong decision. Please postround me if you disagree with it. It can't change my ballot but I'll try my best to understand why the decision is incorrect and learn from it in the future. I also have no problem admitting that a decision is wrong if it is.

That being said, while I can't promise to always give the most correct decision, I will always try my best to render the best decision solely based off my flow. I will never vote against an argument because it's "bad" or because I don't ideologically agree with it.

I will not stop a round unless I am told to by a debater, tab, the law, or whatever higher power or if something happens concerning the safety of the debaters in the room.

Clarity >>>>>> speed. I will not have docs open during your speech. If I miss an argument on my flow I can't vote for it.

Judge instruction is highly appreciated. I try to do as little intervention as possible, so if you write my ballot for me I'll be pretty happy and your speaks will reflect that. Especially in clash rounds - I usually find myself voting for teams with better judge instruction and ballot proximity arguments.

New arguments need to be identified as new to be struck, the only exception is the 2ar.

Policy v Policy

Added because I've been judging a lot more of these rounds recently.

I was a K debater in high school. I am really not well versed in these debates and will probably not be the most qualified judge in high-level policy debates - mainly due to lack of debate experience in both judging and debating policy args. I'm not familiar with blips / acronyms or community consensus on certain args. I'm a decent flow but these debates tend to be a lot blippier than clash rounds. Try to spend a little bit more time explaining things you might find obvious and go a little slower on your blocks.

* Regarding hidden aspec since it seems to be popular? I will vote on it but if you speed through it so fast (especially in the 1nr) that your opponents miss it, there is a good chance that I do too - run it at your own risk.

Congress

Mainly looking for clear framing, impact comparison, and speaking. Early speakers should set a clear framework for the rest of the round identifying key points. Late round speakers should consolidate issues and have refs to other senators.

Good POs will usually get in the top 5 (3-4). A large part of my ranks are determined off the flow and technical abilities of debaters. However excellent speaking usually separates good from great. This includes humor, powerful intros/conclusions, good tonal fluctuations, smart use of CX, and other smaller things.

Email chain: lukasrhoades11@gmail.com

Peninsula 22, UCLA 25. I mostly read policy arguments.

I decide rounds based on arguments I flow. I assign weight based on the completeness of an argument. I will not evaluate new arguments in the 2AR, so justify anything that may seem new. I will not evaluate anything that occurs outside of the round.

I will not look at the document during your speech. I will only evaluate what you highlight. I will not clear you, but it will be clear that I cannot understand you. Differentiating tags and content in constructive speeches will greatly improve your chance of winning. I will not reconstruct your speech from analytics.

I flow cross examination.

I will not intervene to create new arguments. I will decide framework by choosing between interpretations provided by the debaters.

The above are non-negotiables, but everything else is decided through arguments on a round-by-round basis. For example, I will vote on presumption if you explain why I should.

Default: kick the counterplan.

Be nice!

Add me to the email chain: nkshetty170@gmail.com

Parent Judge

Tag team/open cross is fine

Do’s:

Speaking clearly

Being nice to your opponent and make sure to smile!

Adding everyone to the email chain

Dont’s:

Toxicity

Non disclosure

Being mean to the judge or the opponents (there’s no reason to be mean)

Being late

Be respectful, debate is supposed to be fun. Speak clearly and don’t be condescending to your opponents.

Have fun!

Email:a.sinsioco1@gmail.com

-Peninsula' 21 - USC' 25

Have fun. Be nice.

Outside of the occasional tournament I judge at, I think very little about the topic. Slow down and don’t take for granted I understand any topic specific jargon

tech>truth generally, although some arguments, of course, require more tech to win than others

I’ll try to find the simplest way to the ballot which requires the least work

Very hard pressed to vote on presumption type arguments. Absent any offense, even the smallest chance that the aff does something positive for the world is enough reason to vote affirmative

Other than that, any opinion I have about arguments can be overcome by better debating.

Thoughts

The first 30 seconds of the final rebuttal should write my RFD.

K Affs:

Probably read a plan tbh, but I will enjoy K affs with a strong explanation of what the aff actually does clear articulation of how debate operates under their framework.

I often find defensive arguments weaker and think the counter interpretation solves little of the actual neg offense. impact turn framework standards and the neg's model of debate. Have better answers to fairness. I think most 2ac’s lack here

Fairness >>>>>>> Education/Skills > whatever else. Please go for some combination of fairness and strong defense (SSD, TVA, no subjectivity shift, etc, especially if the aff is designed to impact turn education. My voting record in these debates is pretty aff favored despite argumentative preferences, and it’s because 2n’s fail to recognize how K affs are designed to beat certain strategies. Go for a framework impact which is better insulated from case.

However, if going for an education type impact, at least go for an impact related to the intrinsic critical thinking skills we gain from debate versus anything that requires you to win the state is good. Again, you can do whatever you want, but policy education good strategies require you to decisively and substantively engage with case which is often very difficult.

I really enjoy and prefer judging substantive offense against the K itself. Don't be afraid to go for the heg da or cap good or whatever.

K:

If your K is able to disprove thesis of the aff and the assumptions it relies upon, I will love your K.

I will default to weighing the aff versus the K.

I have an aversion to strategies that solely rely upon winning framework and arbitrarily disregarding huge swaths of the debate. I will assign less weight to these arguments unless they are dropped. K debate is case debate. The kritik should engage with the affirmative and disprove its thesis.

Your links should reference a specific line/assumption which the affirmative's scenario relies upon, explain why that line/assumption is flawed, impact out why I should care/the material implications of that flawed assumption, and how the alternative resolves the link. The more specific the better.

Ideally, you should be leveraging your answers on case to bolster your argument otherwise I'm willing to grant the aff the truth of their scenario which makes it difficult to win that their assumptions are flawed.

CP: I dislike cp's that compete off immediacy and certainty. Tbh the more time I spend out of debate, the less I understand functional vs textual competition and the other issues that come up during these debates. Given that please err towards over explanation and clarity

DA's: Enjoy most flavors of disads, but generally dislike ones whose links are predicated on silly interpretations of fiat.

T: Slow down and clearly explain what debate looks like under each interpretation and the implications of your impacts, as well as how your interpretation solves your impacts. I generally feel predictability and precision often guides the way I adjudicate these debates on a top level. What I should prioritize is certainly debatable

Case: I find well-researched, dissections of the affirmative case to be the coolest things to judge and will reward the effort.

Theory: Condo is good, and I don't see value in interps that numerically limit the number of conditional advocacies. Either all condo or no condo

Most theory arguments are reject the argument unless you specifically explain otherwise

LD: Will judge this like a policy round. Same predispositions as before. Won’t vote on presumption. Bad for frivolous theory. Might be better for phil than I think I am?

Anything Else: will judge like a policy round including biases towards a consequentialist (Risk*Magnitude) unless otherwise stated. Definitely may make me more likely to give the extinction outweighs even assuming a low risk of a smaller impact type decision. To avoid me giving a decision which is too policy pilled, do comparative impact calc and proper weighing! Not sure what the norms are for new arguments so justify if it’s unclear.

don’t use debate jargon incorrectly lol. If you’re not fully sure what a debate word means, just use the plain English replacement.

I coach the Quarry Lane School. I debated at KU, had moderate success, and said a lot of good and bad arguments.

Emails: jspiersdebate@gmail.com, debate@student.quarrylane.org

I will not arbitrarily exclude any arguments you make, besides those that compel the fact that I am a school employee obligated to report discriminatory or otherwise harmful behavior. I've been on the receiving end of technically unjustifiable decisions cloaked as judge preferences, and while I understand debate is an activity about persuasion rounds of competition are finite while judging is practically infinite so I would prefer not to tell a senior that I didn't vote for them simply because I thought their argument is bad. This applies to anything: I am as good for "ontology makes your impacts inevitable NEG on presumption" as I am for "functional only."

Despite this, argumentative meta should on balance favor truth because good arguments are harder to answer, and I often find much more enjoyment when watching the topic controversy get executed, resulting in disproportionately high speaker points to the quality of debaters.

Caveats: I am a human and have to flow the words you say. Trends like reading definitions without tags make writing things down impossible. I don't open documents, so unless I flowed it I don't know what the other team dropped. This probably means I'm bad for "dropped warrants in card" unless they're in the tag.

From the 1AR onwards, new arguments not justified when presented are illegitimate. The other team merely needs to say they are new. I don't care about the 1NR because it's 2025.

What is considered a "new" cross-application begs the question of how reasonable it is. Some are clearly reasonable (functional limits on multiple pages). Some are clearly not (a lot of 2AR hail mary's against clean drops).

For any activity other than policy, debate how you want. I'll catch on.

My paradigm is not a series of uncompromisable rules. At the end of the day, debaters control the debate space.

On Kritiks

I love critical literature, 4 notes:

1. I do not believe in the idea that the author is irrelevant after publishing.

2. K-debater ought to produce a convincing link, and alternative. The K is likely a voter if those two arguments are articulated well.

3. Debate does not occur in a vacuum; I am open to structural fairness arguments.

4. For K-Aff's it's an uphill battle if you run a "reject the resolution" argument, I prefer reinterpretations of the resolution; this demonstrates, to me, a creative reimagination of the resolution that allows for diversified literature bases, but failure to do so would make me weigh framework arguments more favorably.

On Topicality

Topicality is standard strategy, definitely open to Topicality debate with one exception. If certain plans are core affirmatives to the topic, and the affirmative runs a truth over tech argument, then I will consider T a non-voter in those cases. Core, to me, means that the affirmative plan is standardized (many schools run that affirmative).

On CPs

I do not have strong opinions on CP Theory. I can be persuaded to multiple CPs, PICs, et cetera. Completely up to the debaters.

On Disadvantages

Disadvantages should not have a generic link, they should have a persuasive story for how it ties to the affirmative case, a specific link, or both.

On Case

I love case debate. If negative can compete on the case level - even if they lose - high speaker points are guaranteed. Shows good research, and a genuine attempt to understand the other team's arguments. Two aspects that I see as core to debate.

Email - chulho.synn@sduhsd.net.

tl;dr - I vote for teams that know the topic, can indict/rehighlight key evidence, frame to their advantage, can weigh impacts in 4 dimensions (mag, scope, probability, sequence/timing or prereq impacts), and are organized and efficient in their arguments and use of prep and speech time. I am TRUTHFUL TECH.

Overview - 1) I judge all debate events; 2) I agree with the way debate has evolved: progressive debate and Ks, diversity and equity, technique; 3) On technique: a) Speed and speech docs > Slow no docs; b) Open CX; c) Spreading is not a voter; 4) OK with reading less than what's in speech doc, but send updated speech doc afterwards; 5) Clipping IS a voter; 6) Evidence is core for debate; 7) Dropped arguments are conceded but I will evaluate link and impact evidence when weighing; 8) Be nice to one another; 9) I time speeches and CX, and I keep prep time; 10) I disclose, give my RFD after round.

Lincoln-Douglas - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop debater for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) PICs are OK; 5) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition and impact of definition on AFF/NEG ground wins; 6) Progressive debate OK; 7) ALT must solve to win K; 8) Plan/CP text matters; 9) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 10) Speech doc must match speech.

Policy - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop team for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition wins; 5) Progressive debate OK; 6) ALT must solve to win K; 7) Plan/CP text matters; 8) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 9) Speech doc must match speech; 10) Questions by prepping team during prep OK; 11) I've debated in and judged 1000s of Policy rounds.

Public Forum - 1) I flow; 2) T is not a voter, non-topical warrants/impacts are dropped from impact calculus; 3) Minimize paraphrasing of evidence; I prefer quotes from articles to paraphrased conclusions that overstate an author's claims and downplay the author's own caveats; 4) If paraphrased evidence is challenged, link to article and cut card must be provided to the debater challenging the evidence AND me; 5) Paraphrasing that is counter to the article author's overall conclusions is a voter; at a minimum, the argument and evidence will not be included in weighing; 6) Paraphrasing that is intentionally deceptive or entirely fabricated is a voter; the offending team will lose my ballot, receive 0 speaker points, and will be referred to the tournament director for further sanctions; 7) When asking for evidence during the round, refer to the card by author/date and tagline; do not say "could I see your solvency evidence, the impact card, and the warrant card?"; the latter takes too much time and demonstrates that the team asking for the evidence can't/won't flow; 8) Exception: Crossfire 1 when you can challenge evidence or ask naive questions about evidence, e.g., "Your Moses or Moises 18 card...what's the link?"; 9) Weigh in place (challenge warrants and impact where they appear on the flow); 10) Weigh warrants (number of internal links, probability, timeframe) and impacts (magnitude, min/max limits, scope); 11) 2nd Rebuttal should frontline to maximize the advantage of speaking second; 2nd Rebuttal is not required to frontline; if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline 2nd Summary must cover ALL of 1st Rebuttal on case, 2nd Final Focus can only use 2nd Summary case answers in their FF speech; 12) Weigh w/o using the word "weigh"; use words that reference the method of comparison, e.g., "our impact happens first", "100% probability because impacts happening now", "More people die every year from extreme climate than a theater nuclear detonation"; 13) No plan or fiat in PF, empirics prove/disprove resolution, e.g., if NATO has been substantially increasing its defense commitments to the Baltic states since 2014 and the Russian annexation of Crimea, then the question of why Russia hasn't attacked since 2014 suggest NATO buildup in the Baltics HAS deterred Russia from attacking; 14) No new link or impact arguments in 2nd Summary, answers to 1st Rebuttal in 2nd Summary OK if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline.

Please add me to the email chain: mollyurfalian@gmail.com

Notre Dame '23 (2A/1N for 4 years)

UC Berkeley '27 (2A/1N)

You can just call me Molly

TL

• Tech > Truth. Very few, if any, of my personal opinions will shape my RFDs. If you’ve won the argument to my understanding, I will vote for it.

• Time your own speeches and prep

• Judge instruction is super important to me, especially in rebuttals. I am not a mind reader and you are often less clear than you think.

• I love CP + DA debates and ptx holds a special place in my heart

• I am fairly expressive and do not hide displeasure or confusion well, so look at me

• Yes I have always been a 2A, I don’t feel as if this

Topicality

• I do not extensively research or keep up highschool topics especially what is and is not topical, so I recommend against throwing out a lot of acronyms or assuming my knowledge

• case lists are the most effective way for me to compare visions of the topic

• competing interps > reasonability

• smaller topics are probably better for innovation

Disads

• Any debate with a disad I love to hear

• I love ptx disads but I also know a truly garbage one when I see it

• turns case and impact calc are your best friends and should start early (on both sides)

Counterplans

• Agent CPs are my favorite

• I am extremely neutral on process CPs, but not debated well I lean aff on most perms

• I dislike super contrived adv cps, but logical ones that exploit poor aff writing are good. Be clear about the planks that you kick.

• Do impact calc between the solvency deficit and disadvantage, otherwise you are letting me decide

• I default to judge kick

Kritiks

• If you go for Ks consistently, I am not the best judge for you. I don't dislike them, I simply never went for them so I may not default in your favor. If you debate well and don’t leave it up to me you should have no problem.

• I prefer links to the plan, at least the topic. Does not have to be cards but lines should be taken from the 1AC

• Don't read a super long overview, it just sounds like words to me. Do the work on the line by line.

• Floating PIKs are probably bad

K Affs

• If you read a K aff, I am not the best judge for you, however, I am also not the worst. You will have to do more work explaining your disads to FW than you would in front of K judges. What is intuitive/obvious to you might not be for me.

• Consistency of explanation of aff offense is SO helpful. Super shifty K affs make me upset and more importantly, I am much less likely to grant you weight of 2AR offense if it was not rooted in an explanation started in the 1AR.

• If you read a high theory K aff I am less likely to vote for you compared to an indentity aff. I understand them less and have the honest pre-disposition of thinking your offense is kinda dumb

• I really need your aff to do something. Just explain to me what you solve, if you don't solve anything this round will be hard for you

Neg v K Affs

• Presumption is great. I find it challenging to 0 an aff on a sentence or 2 of a 2NR (this is also true of policy affs). You are much more likely to win a presumption debate in front of me if the 2NR takes the extra 15 seconds to actually engage with the 1AR answers.

• Fairness is an impact. 2NR can be clash or fairness, whatever you chose is fine with me.

• TVAs and SSD are great. I find that 2Ns expect me to fill in some of the reasons as to why these would solve the aff intuitively. I am unwilling to do this work for you.

• I was a 1N and took the Cap K or Cap good in every 1NR I ever gave. If you feel inclined to put me in a K v K debate, I am the most familiar with this one, but also don’t. I think neg team's sitting on a usually poorly answered K affs don't get perms debate is a winning debate

Soft Left Affs

• The framing page will be an uphill battle for you. I like util.

• I find it hard to vote for these affs when the 2NR is a CP and a DA.

Theory

• Slow down half a step, I’m a moderate speed typer

• I think condo is fine. If the negative has done something actually abusive (my personal brightline is around 5-6 condo and/or a very long adv cp) explain the in round abuse. Otherwise go for it as you please.

• Dispo probably does not solve anything other than research, if you want to change my mind then explain it

• International fiat and changing the whole world fiat is bad. This includes K alt stuff.

• Perm theory debates are cool. Limited Intrinsicness good/bad are the theory debates I had the most and judge the most. I am very neutral on the question. I find often that neg teams win on a deficit to the intrinsic perm than the theory debate.

Speaks

• If you yell and are mean I will nuke your speaks. You are allowed to be loud and passionate, but there is a level of respect that needs to be maintained for your opponents at all times.

• On a happier note I like snarky remarks and sassy answers. Just be funny with it

• If the top of the final rebuttal is why I should vote for you and has judge instruction you're doing yourself a favor

Re-highlighting

• Have the theory debate over whether it can be inserted or not, I will evaluate the debate based on the outcome

• If you choose not to have the theory debate I will default to letting ev be re-inserted. I changed my position on this issue because I want more debaters to do it, and forcing teams to read re-highlights seems to discourage quality ev idicts

• However, I will not do the debating for you, don’t insert re-highlighting without explaining or implicating it in the debate. So only insert the amount of evidence you can reasonably explain

Jon Voss

Johns Creek

I've been around for a long time. Debate is not my full-time job anymore – I mostly sell vintage Pokemon cards – so with the unique exception of literature related to the Tiffany decision and the intricacies of running a small business on eBay/Mercari/Whatnot, my topic knowledge is limited to what I know about IPR from coursework completed earning my MBA and the years I spent in debate. I don't cut a ton of cards, I'm not really up on what teams are reading, I don't know what topicality norms were established over the summer, and I certainly don't know who is supposed to be good. I can still flow just as well as I used to, which is to say "barely."

Stanford LD Update: I participated in ~5 LD rounds as a high school student in 2005. I've since judged about ten rounds of the event. I imagine I would be out of my depthsjudging anything other than something resembling a 1v1 policy debate.

Yes email chain: consult.australia at gmail. Please CC your coach if you are contacting me for feedback about a debate or something. Please also consider contacting someone with a better grasp on contemporary debate trends; my takes were last hot during the Obama years if they were ever hot at all.

Trufanov flowing thing: -- I don't read along during the speeches, ever. On my laptop, in an excel template. It was is and forever shall be titled"Sheboygan North Debate Flowing Template_Working_110907.xlt." I might poke around during prep time to read counterplan/permutation texts or verify something that was said in CX. Beyond that, I won't open the doc until the debate ends unless I think you're clipping. This is important for how you debate -- using the speech doc instead of your flow as a guide is to your detriment.

> 95% of high school debates are not so close that my argument preferences would matter a whole lot. Your ability to identify the argument made by your opponent in the order they made the argument and respond to it in the next speech in the order the argument was presented ("tech") is the only thing that matters except at the margins and maybe not even then. The better team will win most rounds regardless of the judge, the arguments selected, etc. There are a handful of things that may matter to you though, especially if you are reading this anticipating that the debate I'm about to hear is going to be relatively evenly matched or otherwise fly off the rails.

--IPR topic: entering December, I've seen a lot of debates on the topic and have actively worked on the argument side of the topic a fair amount. I don't have the test cases to say it with certainty, but the topic feels impossibly large and I think I'd be very good for the NEG going for T against a 2ar that has to go for a less limiting counter-interpretation. Still very good for creative "we meet" arguments from AFFs who have made strategic choices to defend a broad plan text in hopes of trading T concerns for linking to more DAs, however.

--I won't vote on arguments that call students' character into question based on behaviors outside of the specific debate I am judging. That includes introducing evidence that undermines a person's character as an argument during the debate itself. Adults who coach students to leverage screenshots and personal attacks to win debates should leave the activity. Judges who feel differently should grow tf up. Things said or done inside of a debate I'm judging are different: you can certainly make an argument that, for example, a team should lose the debate because they used gendered language. I'll stop the debate myself and let my esteemed colleagues in the tabroom handle it if it's egregious...I've had to do it twice, ever, against ~1500 rounds judged, but I'm not afraid.

-- Limited decision times and time wasting norms from the COVID years makes it more important than ever that the 2XR prioritize the easiest path to victory. I don't want to have to resolve any more issues than I absolutely have to. You want the same thing - left to my own devices, my reading comprehension and argument resolution skills will shock and dismay some of you.

-- If I can understand > 90% of the words you say (including the text of your evidence), the floor for speaker points is 29. If I cannot understand > 50% of the words you say (including the text of your evidence), the ceiling for speaker points is a 27 and you're almost certain to lose because I missed at least half of your arguments. If you debate close to conversationally and win the debate while demonstrating exemplary command of the relevant issues, I might even start throwing some 30s around. Just speak more slowly and clearly. You will debate better. I will understand your argument better. Judges who understand your argument with more clarity than your opponent's argument are likely to side with you.

-- a note on plan texts: say what you mean, mean what you say, and have an advocate that supports it. If the AFF's plan is resolutional word salad, will be unapologetically rooting for NEG exploitation in the way of cplan competition, DA links, and/or presumption-style takeouts. I guess the flip side of this is that I have never heard a persuasive explanation of a way to evaluate topicality arguments outside of the words in the plan text, so as long as the AFF goes for some sort of "we meet" argument, I'm basically unwilling to vote NEG on T assuming reasonable 2AR execution. "The plan text says most or all of the resolution (and another word or three) but their solvency evidence describes something very different," is an extremely persuasive line of argument, but I think it's a solvency argument.

-- Rehighlighting - you've gotta read it and explain what you believe to be the implication of whatever portion of their evidence you read. I'm somewhat sympathetic to allowing insertion as a check against (aggressively) declining evidence quality in debate, but debate is first and foremost a communicative activity.

-- In favor of fewer, better-developed 1NC arguments. I don't have a specific number that I think is best: I've seen 1NC's that include three totally unwinnable offcase arguments and 1NC's that include six or seven viable ones. But generally I think the law of diminishing marginal returns applies. Burden of proof is a precondition of the requirement that the affirmative answer the argument, and less ev/fewer highlighted words in the name of more offcase positions seems to make it less likely that the neg will fulfill the aforementioned burden of proof.

-- Highlighting, or lack thereof, has completely jumped the shark. Read more words.

-- I am generally bad for broad-strokes “framing” arguments that ask the judge to presume that the risk of <> is especially low. Indicts of mini-max risk assessment make sense in the abstract, but it is the affirmative’s responsibility to apply these broad theories to whatever objections the negative has advanced. “The aff said each link exponentially reduces the probability of the DA, and the DA has links, so you lose” is a weak ballot and one that I am unexcited to write.

-- I am often way less interested in "impact defense" than "link defense." This is equally true of my thoughts toward negative disadvantages and affirmative advantages. For example, if the aff wins with certainty that they stop a US-China war, I'm highly unlikely to vote neg and place my faith in our ability to the big red telephone at the White House to dampen the conflict. Similarly, if the neg wins that your plan absolutely crashes the economy by disrupting the market or causing some agenda item to fail, I will mostly be unconcerned that there are some other historical explanations for great power wars than "resource scarcity." The higher up the link "chain" you can indict your opponent's argument, the better.

-- Don't clip cards. If you're accusing a team of it, you need to be able to present me with a quality recording to review. Burden of proof lies with the accusing team, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is my standard for conviction. If you advance any sort of ethics challenge, the debate ends and is decided on the grounds of that ethics challenge alone.

-- Yes judge kick unless one team explicitly makes an argument that convinces me to conceive differently of presumption. Speaking of, presumption is "least amount of change" no matter what. This could mean that presumption *still* lies with the neg even if the aff wins the status quo is no longer something the judge can endorse (but only if the CP is less change than the plan).

-- Fairly liberal with the appropriate scope of negative fiat as it relates to counterplans. Fairly aff-leaning regarding counterplan competition, at least in theory -- but evidence matters more than general pleas to protect affirmative competitive equity. I could be convinced otherwise, but my default has always been that the neg advocate must be as good as whatever the aff is working with. This could mean that an “advocate-less” counterplan that presses an internal link is fair game if the aff is unable to prove that they…uh…have an internal link.

-- T-USFG: Debate is no longer my full-time job, so I think I have a little less skin in the game on this issue. But I'm probably at best a risky bet for affirmatives hoping to beat a solid 2NR on T-USFG. If you do have me in this type of debate:

**Affirmative teams should probably just impact turn everything the neg says and hope the 2N hasn't had their coffee yet. I am likely to be persuaded by the stock negative responses to those impact turns, but at least then it's just an impact comparison debate. And while that road to victory is still treacherous with me, "where there is a link there is a way."

**Affirmatives would be well served to prioritize the link between defending a particular state action and broader observations about the flaws of the state.

**Procedural fairness is most important. The ballot can rectify fairness violations much more effectively than it can change anything else, and I am interested in endorsing a vision of debate that is procedurally fair. This is both the single strongest internal link to every other thing debate can do for a student and a standalone impact. I am worse for the “portable skills” impacts about information processing, decision-making, etc.

**It is helpful, but not imperative, that the negative prove that the affirmative's literature could have been introduced in support of a topical advocacy and/or when debating as the negative team.

This is moved to the bottom because it was written during the 23-24 topic, but it's still instructive about how you might approach a deep impact/impact-turn debate if I'm judging:

-- Broadly, unless you can't avoid it, don't. This isn't an argument preference or literature thing; I just very authentically (and, I think, correctly) believe I am much worse at judging these debates than those that involve more external interactions between arguments. I'll give it my best shot no matter what...but you've been warned.

-- Almost every debate I've seen so far this year has collapsed into a very-hard-to-resolve "growth good"/"degrowth good" debate. These have been late-breaking and I spent the bulk of my decision time wading through ev that didn't get me any closer to an answer I found satisfactory. In each instance, I was unhappy with amount of intervention and lack of depth involved in my decision. In that regard:

*if there's a winning final rebuttal that does not require you to wade into these waters, give that speech instead. I am willing (and maybe even eager) to grab onto something external and use that as a cudgel to decide that the growth debate was difficult to resolve and vote on . I think I would be receptive, too, to arguments about how I should react in a debate that you think might be difficult to resolve, but this is just a hunch.

*you would almost certainly be better-served debating evidence that's already been read instead of reading more cards. This is especially true if the 1ac/1nc/both included a bunch of evidence on this issue...your fourth, "yes mindset shift" card is unlikely to win you the debate (or even the specific argument in question) but debating the issue in greater detail than the other team might.

*debated equally, I'm meaningfully better for the standard defenses of growth, especially as it relates to successfully achieving the changes that would be necessary to create a sustainable model of degrowth.

Peninsula '21, Cal '25

Email chain: nathan2web@gmail.com

Little to no IP knowledge, moderate understanding of bio-related IP.

Tech > truth, although frivolously untrue statements are probably hard to win (e.g. the sky is green).

Do whatever you need to win. I will do the least intervention needed to make a decision.

Even so, these preferences are a set of ideologies that I've loosely maintained as I've judged:

Actually debate the DA if you read a soft left aff. Riders are probably not legitimate. Solvency advocates aren't necessary, but coherent explanations of solvency are. K's are good if they disprove why I should vote affirmative. Slightly worse for planless affs. Condo is generally good. Most CP theory is probably a reason to reject the argument.

Other things:

My ideologies have been influenced significantly by these people: Dhruv Sudesh, Kevin Sun, etc.

Card quality matters.

If I can't understand you, I won't flow.

Don't egregiously re-highlight then "re-insert" an entire card, read it.

I don't care about things that happened outside the round.

Max Wiessner (they/them/elle)

Put me on the email chain! imaxx.jc@gmail.com

email chain >>>>> speech drop

I flow on paper (adjust your speed accordingly, allow for pen/flow time, and prioritize clarity over speed).

I'll flow what I hear and refer to the doc for evidence if necessary

*****

0 tolerance policy for in-round antiblackness, racism, queerphobia, misogyny, etc.

I have and will continue to intervene here when I feel it is necessary.

*****

About me:

5th-year policy debater at CSUF, started as a college novice (also did IEs). I've coached policy, LD, PF, and MSPDP, currently coaching circuit LD & trad LD.

• Debate is about competing theorizations of the world, which means all debates are performances, and you are responsible for what you do/create in this round/space.

• More than 5 off creates shallow debates & becomes a game of technical concessions that are frustrating to evaluate. clash/vertical spread >>>>>>

coaches and friends who influence how I view debate: DSRB, LaToya Green, Cat Smith, Kwudjwa Osei, Travis Cochran, Beau Larsen, Tay Brough

Some thoughts on specifics:

Policy v K: I generally think more time should be spent on FW, how and why should I (not) evaluate the AFF?

• The link debate- link analysis is key on both sides, specific/contextualized links are best.

• The alt debate- If ur going for the alt, help me visualize what I'm voting for before the 2NR

K v K: love kvk debate, creating an organized story is important (especially in LD bc time constraints)

• I consider myself well-read in many different areas of critical theory, I wanna know how those theories apply to this debate and this AFF/NEG position. I'm here for it. Just explain

FW v K AFFs: I’m pretty split on these debates. I think in-round impacts and performances matter just as much as the legitimacy ppl tend to give to fiated plan texts.

• I tend to prefer the counter-interp route (it's easier for me to compare models in my head). I'm not unwilling to vote for the impact turn. I just need a deeper & clearer explanation in these debates

I have a pretty low bar for what I consider "topical", (procedural) fairness isn’t an auto-voter for me. I love creative counter-interps of the res, but the AFF has to win why their approach to the topic is good on a solvency AND educational level (that means clash and education are more persuasive to me).
tldr: You need to prove why clash generated by the content of your stasis point is good/important/necessary

If I’m judging PF:

I think the best way to adapt to me in the back as a LD/Policy guy is clear signposting and emphasizing your citations bc the evidence standards are so different between these events

• also… final focus is so short, it should focus on judge instruction, world-to-world comparison, and impact calc

BVNW '22/UW '26

Debated at KU for 2 years

she/her

yes email chain: syangdebate@gmail.com

don't be mean- disclosure is good n fun

Overall Thoughts:

My face is the easiest indicator of what I think about an argument

Tech>truth. Evidence comparison is super important, reading one really good card is way better than dumping 5 bad cards. Also, please extend warrants! It's hard for me to evaluate a card when you just shadow-extend tags.

Love judge instruction in rebuttals-- what should my ballot look like, what am I voting for and the implications of it

word doc >>>> pdf

Feel free to ask me any questions you have before/after round

T:

I usually default to reasonability but I can be persuaded by competing interps. Having a good explanation for what your model of debate looks like (ie. a case list, ground you lose under their interp, why your education offense is important) is the most persuasive for me. Please slow down, especially if you're reading blocks. It's really hard to flow analytics and speeding through them will only hurt you. Explaining how you access their offense but they can't access yours is particularly helpful here.

DAs/CPs:

Specific links to the aff for a DA can be super persuasive. I think a lot of teams overlook weak internal link chains that mitigate a huge amount of risk for impacts. If you're reading big stick vs. soft left, impact calc is really important.

I think every CP needs a solvency advocate, especially those with multiple planks. I err neg on competition theory, and I usually default judge kick unless the aff team has reasons why it's bad.

Kritiks/K Affs:

Read a K aff my junior and senior year of hs, and for like one tournament last year in college. I'm more familiar with FWK v K affs compared to K v K debates, but I've debated enough from both sides to not have a preference.

The aff's method doesn't need to have a telos, but the aff team should be able to articulate what their method looks like, what it does, why the ballot is key, how it's a departure from the squo, etc. I think going for an impact turn to FWK is much more persuasive than trying to go for a W/M.

Neg FWK:

On the neg if you're going for the K please do impact calc and judge instruction would be super helpful. How do I weigh clash/fairness against the aff's impacts? I think clash is much more persuasive than fairness as a FWK impact. I am heavily persuaded by turns case analysis at the top for both the K and FWK. FWK should be a question of models that both sides justify.

Neg K:

Specific links to the aff are important and links of omission make me sad. It's super effective when you rehighlight 1AC evidence for links or if you quote cx, and you'll probably get higher speaks if you do so. I don't think the neg has to go for the alt, but if you do go for just framework, you should explain how it resolves your link arguments and the impacts.

Theory:

I probably won't vote on theory outside of condo, but I think reading multiple theory arguments as a time skew can be smart sometimes. If you're going for condo you should point out specific instances of abuse in round and why it's bad for debate.

Other Thoughts:

- If the rehighlighting is more than a sentence long you should read them, otherwise you can insert

- Don't talk over your partner in cx, also, don't answer every question for your partner. If you don't understand an argument enough to answer CX questions, you probably shouldn't read it.

- Reading/cutting good ev is important, but your explanation/application of it matters so much more

- I would much rather you read 1 card all the way through rather than cut 5 different cards two sentences in

- If you send me an email I pinky promise I'll get to it eventually, I'm just slow at responding

UCLA 26'

Debated for Orange Lutheran for 4 years - qualed twice.

aaronzhng4@gmail.com

General

Be nice. (ad homs r bad)

Evidence ethics is stake the round - see Samantha Mcloughlin

Clipping is an L20 but you need a recording to accuse someone

SLOW DOWN especially on tags/analytics and pause before switching flows

If you already won the debate then sit down early/take less prep for better speaks

Policy

Impact calc wins rounds

Know your positions

Default judgekick

Theory/T

Default competing interps and dtd on T

The 1ar is probably pretty hard - 1ar theory is smart but slow down and i need to hear warrants for your offense or I won't vote on it

Default reasonability on 1ar theory but can be convinced otherwise

Semantics/pragmatics first is stupid - predictability matters and you probably won't win going all in for one or the other

Smart topic T shells are great!

No RVIs but will vote on it if its dropped and I heard a warrant for it

Kritiks

Debate is a game, fairness is good

Affs should be topical but if not, go for the impact turn + win defense

Not well versed in k lit so explain your argument clearly or I won't vote on it

Affs get to weigh the case, negs get links to the plan

K alts about a "mindset shift" usually don't make much sense and might be cheating

Debate is about arguments not people

Phil

Not well versed so make sure you explain it well

Default epistemic modesty, extinction is bad

Tricks

Tech > truth but If I don't understand the argument then I won't vote on it

Default comparative worlds

Tjfs are bad

More likely to vote for it if you aren't being sketchy - i.e. you know what an apriori is don't pretend you don't