anirv.ayyala@gmail.com add me to the chain, he/him

Debated at James Logan HS currently debating for CSUF

TLDR

tech>truth

Read whatever best for you and I'll judge accordingly. There are inevitable argument preferences that infect my thought process but good debating and technical skills will always beat pandering to my debate beliefs. The 2nr/2ar decision should be what the best option on the flow is every time.

1. Policy v K

2. KvK

3. Policy v Policy

Policy

Plan affs - good for anything, better ev comparison gets you out of most problems. Strong specific internal links are great and the best offense against process or adv cps.

DAs - best for straight turns over turns case. Aff specific links and ev comparison gets you through most debates. DA + case 2nrs are some of my favorite to judge but I'm often convinced by case o/ws in these debates. Clear impact scenario comparison is the best judge instruction in these debates.

CPs - not the best for process, I've judged a minimal amount of competition debates but I've generally leaned towards functional competition as the best standard. Technical concessions make this debate a lot easier than I'm making it seem so if you are fully winning the competition flow explain what establishes competition and what the best standard is. Clever perms are appreciated and often easier to understand than 10 new definition cards. I love specific adv cps and rehighlighting 1ac ev goes a long way for you. Adv cps solve most affs I judge but often lose against good aff internal link analysis. Respond to deficits sufficiently and it should go your way. I default judge kick unless told otherwise.

For the aff, offensive DAs are always better than defensive arguments on CPs. Strong deficits cross-applied from case solvency/impact cards are my favorite responses and help a lot during time pressure.

T - Love and hate it. Can be great but is very often not, call out nonsensical interps and most evidence on T is atrocious. Predictable limits is prob my fav standard but anything goes. I assume models unless said otherwise and I don't weigh reasonability significantly but I can be convinced it matters.

K

Read Ks on the neg exclusively in hs but have become a lot more flex in college

I'm most familiar with setcol, afropess, cap and security Ks.

Links to the plan are amazing but not required - I tend to lean towards middle ground interps but direct comparison of the impacts of your model vs their model helps you when trying to refuse fiat. I tend to prefer subjectivity shifts over only this round matters but I find a lot K teams are insufficient at answering no shift or alt causes. Long overviews are a waste of time and contextualizing your offense makes me really happy - specific empirics are great link warrants.

Affs best option is to just directly answer the links and is the best perm arg you can give me. I love impact turn 2ars and most K teams aren't ready to go card for card on heg. Extinction o/ws is very convincing if you weigh the aff but answering the death K with 'being alive is a prereq' misses the mark entirely. Just because you believe extinction is prior doesn't make the aff morally bankrupt, contextualize your response to your scenarios and weigh consequences as an ethical filter. 2ar theory against the alt is great with me and often underutilized.

Kaffs

Read these all of my career. Debate is a game but how we play the game is up to you. Use your case as offense on other flows and remember that the aff is more than just an impact turn - im voting aff because I think it's a good idea not because a certain model of debate is worse.

v FW - My debate experience shows aff preference but I find my judging record to be heavily neg favored. I'm good for both sides and have been in these debates more than enough times to make the correct decision.

I prefer impact turn 2ars and am often left unconvinced on aff counter interps - they are almost always arbitrary and never solve limits. This is not to say it's an unviable strategy in front of me, but I do by a large margin prefer interps that are reasonably attached to the rez than some self-serving interp. Affs need both content and form level impact turns - smart cross applications of them win you these debates.

For the neg, sufficient defense to the impact turn usually wins you these debates. I am often unconvinced of affs pushes to deem every topical aff as violently unethical and you should exploit this. Clever TVAs and clear warrants for the possibility of good topic/policy engagement are very convincing to me. T with a strong reform good push on case almost always results in a neg ballot from me.

Fairness and clash are both impacts and can be internal links - I don't have a preference towards either but I think smart 2nrs do better by making a decision on procedural fairness vs the clash internal link turn instead of splitting time on both. If you are going for fairness the top of the 2nr should be why procedural fairness o/ws everything else.

College Prep (2015-2019), Wake Forest (2019-2023)

ADA 2023 Champion, CEDA 2023 Co-Champion, 2023 Copeland Panelist, NDT 2023 Quarterfinals, NDT 2022 Octafinalist, NDT 2021 Doubles

Coach at George Mason & Harker

anadebate07@gmail.com

for college policy debates: please also add masondebatedocs@gmail.com

TLDR:

My only actual hardline stances are that I believe line-by-line is good, we should care about how we impact other people, and impact calculus wins debates.

I make decisions based on complete arguments, which require claims, warrants, and impacts/implications.

My favorite debates to judge are the ones in which teams do what they do best. I appreciate in-depth preparation and high-quality clash more than anything.

I am most excited about judging case vs disad debates. Debates not about the effects of the plan are less persuasive, less educational, and less engaging to me in almost every way.

I prefer to judge debates in which the Affirmative is about the topic, and the Negative disagrees with the Affirmative's proposed change from the status quo.

I prefer not to judge a debate about an issue that would best be resolved outside the constraints of a competitive debate.

I try to flow every word said in speeches & cross-ex unless instructed otherwise.

I think about debates in terms of strategic moves and argument function --- explaining arguments on that meta level is the most compelling and understandable to me, especially in debates with complex legislative nuance and/or critical theories.

I do not flow RVI's - I only flow complete arguments.

I refuse to vote on disclosure or other norm based theory arguments unless a) it is entirely conceded b) i witnessed MISdisclosure with an intent to lie or cheat --- anything else is not worthwhile for anyone's time. New AFFs are good.

Framework debates:

My least favorite debates, but I judge them the most

Impacts? Fairness is an impact, but you gotta do impact calc & can't skip out on warrants. I struggle to see how clash is an external impact but am open to hearing otherwise - for me, clash seems to be, at most, a sliding scale/question of maximization - but you provide a warrant otherwise and I'll write it down. Topic education is guided by predictable limits and/or explaining why the (specific) ground you gained/lost is good/bad.

TVA vs Switch Side? I think 2NR strategy is guided by AFF strategic vision, so my preference is probably based on technical concessions and/or context of the debate.

Models vs Violation? Your call, I've judged both and evaluated each on technical bases. The AFF probably has responses to each, so I don't find one approach more true/right than the other. I'm just line-by-line oriented.

Impact turn vs Counter-interp 2AR? Your call! I only think it's strategic that you pick one or the other and full send - typically starting on the Framework flow with your one major disad to the NEG's interp and impacting it out is the start of many winning 2ARs in front of me. If you go for the counter-interp, don't expect me to fill in blanks either way if it can or cannot solve the NEG's offense. If you're going for impact turns to the NEG's model/interp, then explain why that outweighs/turns NEG offense and probably best to have defense to their interp/model as well.

The NEG can win in front of me that case ought not outweigh Topicality, but you should say that. I do not auto-let kritikal AFFs leverage the case against Topicality if the NEG has presented reasons why I shouldn't evaluate that offense; I think the AFF should answer that argument. My burden for answering this argument is rather low, which is why I tend to be less persuaded by Framework interps about the NEG not being required to meet the burden of rejoinder. I like debates where teams disagree with one another, so this interpretation of what debate can and/or should be isn't something that I really find compelling. That doesn't mean the AFF doesn't have to respond, but I definitely think your offense is magnified by this interpretation of debate and explaining why that's true is compelling to me. However, if this is your approach on either side, you just have to win on the technical debating level, and you'll most likely get my ballot.

AFF v K on NEG? Overly specific AFF interps are less compelling than some version of weighing the effects/justifications against the K, and they tend to link far harder to NEG offense. I'm not a 'will always weigh the case' nor a 'loves the fiat k' truther - I just like impact calculus, comparison of warrants, and explanation of any solvency claim presented. You should still answer the links if going for framework or at least say why the case outweighs or solves the links.

General Debate Thoughts:

I auto-judge-kick.

Theory debates aren't fun to judge, but I understand the strategic utility on both sides. 1 reason condo is good & impact calc >> spending a certain amount of time.

I'm not great for competition debates; I don't like evaluating scripts read at each other with minimal impacts and direct engagement on the line by line.

If util and/or consequentialism are wrong, you have to say how I should evaluate impacts otherwise. I don't fill in the blanks for either side. Good impact calc tends to win debates in front of me.

I am not a fantastic judge for a competition debate and tend to need you to do impact calc & internal link comparison for me because I will not fill in blanks for this debate or default one way or another. I'm also not great for a process debate. This is the one style of debate I did and coached the least.

Will vote AFF or NEG on presumption

T debates aren't my favorite to judge but Limits ---X--------------- AFF Ground

You must read the re-highlighting aloud if the other team did not read those exact words in the card. If not reading the rehighlighted words aloud, you can also read the line(s) in cross-ex or explain the implication and what the rehighlighting means for my ballot in the tag of the rehighlighting. I think debate is a communication activity, not one where I read cards on my own and independently decide. However, that doesn't mean low-quality ev constitutes a good argument.

I will let you know if I need a card doc - I probably won't. I strongly dislike judge intervention, so I aim to read every card during the debate as it is read to understand the context and completeness of every argument presented during each speech. I try to be predictable in my decision-making, given I believe debate takes a lot of work, dedication, and time, which judges ought to respect by evaluating debates technically by flowing and comparing each argument as presented. This means I also only evaluate arguments presented in speeches. Cross-ex matters, but I can not vote on arguments not also made in speeches.

I am FAR more persuaded by negative criticisms that prove why the Affirmative as presented is bad, not just nonsolvent. I tend to struggle to see how the Negative does not have to respond to Affirmative defensive claims to the K -- framing out Affirmative offense still requires technical debating.

I stop flowing when the timer goes off.

I care about debate. I don't particularly appreciate when teams read cringe and questionably ethical backfile checks designed to mess with opponents.

I think disclosure is, in nearly every case, good. I have zero tolerance for misdisclosure, lying, and shady practices designed to evade clashing with your opponent.

If high-theory kritikal arguments are your bread and butter, just please lead with implications and claims that I can break down into impact-forward arguments. I just don't know how to spell or define some of the words you say very fast, but I will evaluate every debate as objectively as possible always / nevertheless.

I've read most arguments in debate at one point or another, and I have also judged most arguments in debate at one point or another. I would not suggest prescribing ideological convictions onto me, absent what this paradigm describes. I feel as if my knowledge of the following are roughly equitable, for context: communism, international relations theories and american hegemony (its pros and cons), afropessimism, political capital, conditionality and its history in debate, political capital in congress.

I appreciate historical examples as explication for argumentation, almost as much as an explanation of their relevancy to your argument / comparison to your opponents' warrants.

Speaking:

Speed = arguments effectively communicated per minute.

Clarity >>

Speaker Points? I try to default to this table's scale

[30 = nearly impossible to get/seniors at last tournament

29.9-29.7 = fabulous & expect to be in deep elims

29.6-29.4 = excellent & elim worthy performance

29.3-29.1 = good & expect to break

29-28.7 = median

28.6-28.4 = room for improvement

28.3-28 = some hiccups & things to work on

27.9-27.6 = room to improve and there is some debate stuff to learn

27.5 -27 = there is a lot of room to grow

26.9 and below = something went pretty wrong]

LD:

Not great for LD nonsense unless you want to explain things to me with an emphasis on impact calc & judge instruction.

I do not flow nor know how to evaluate phil, skep, tricks, and the like. If you do not defend some form of consequentialism, I am most likely not your judge.

In LD, I do not believe the 1NC/AR has the burden to rejoin frivolous, ridiculous theory arguments placed in the 1AC/NC to avoid clash.

Counterplan theory is fine. Litmus test is if the argument is prevalent in the activity of policy debate, it's probably fine. Except animal wipeout.

I would certainly prefer to not a LD debate with arbitrary disclosure norms; i think these debates and theory shells are worse for novices and access issues.

The most TLDR:

If I cannot explain your argument to you ethically or technically, the odds are that I cannot vote for you.

RVI's & tricks are nonstarters.

Hi I'm Scott. My background is in policy debate (2004-2018) but I have primarily coached LD since 2018.

I am a great judge for technical, mechanical line by line debate. Clarity and judge instructions are axiomatic.

Online debate: I'm a computer nerd - I use three monitors where I have my flow, the speech docs, campus/zoom, and the ballot all on different monitors. While I do not flow from the speech docs, I do actively follow along. Please note that this is exclusive to online debate and that in brick and mortar debates in person that I do not look at speech docs until after the round has concluded. My flow in both instances will be based entirely on what is communicated during the speech, not reconstructed from speech documents.

Debate is for the debaters. I will vote on any argument that has a valid reason and an explanation as to why that argument wins you the debate. I do not have a preference for how you debate or any particular argument, form, content, or style. I will leave the role of the ballot and the role of the judge up to the debaters to decide in the round. I will try my best to evaluate the debate using the least amount of intervention possible.

Shortcuts

Policy/"LARP" - 1

Philosophy - 1-3#

K - 1

K Aff / Performance- 1

Theory - 1

Topicality vs. K Affs - 4-5

Topicality vs. Policy Affs - 1

Tricks - 1-6#

#ELI5

usc update: if i say clear that means slow down your speech; stop reading your blocks like cards.

if i can improve in-round accessibility in any way, shape, or form, please let me know pre-round either via. email or in-person. sacat.csufdebate@gmail.com include me in the chain before start time.

she/he/they. current ndt/ceda cx debater, shoutout csuf cd! i know all that i do in thanks to latoya green, joel salcedo, maksim bugrov, vontrez white, natalie yehezkel, csuf dm, and csuf forensics.

i believe debate can be whatever you want it to be: game, radical testing ground, educational forum, or just a room of people. i read both policy + k, no particular preference for judging either. death/wipeout good-adjacent arguments OK if the warrant isn't problematic (ie. racist)

this paradigm is CX/policy-oriented, but i do judge quite a bit of ld; trixsters pls strike me

｡ﾟ•┈꒰ა ♡ ໒꒱┈• ｡ﾟ

debate methinks

1. policy v. policy: i prefer a vertical spread on less sheets for trad debates. rfd is usually centric of a damning technical error. i lovelovelove policy vs. case-turning DA; clear impact calc is so important.

2. Theory: abuse story should be contextual to the round. reading 7 off, winning the link debates, then going for ground loss in the 2nr is not convincing and i wish 2ars called this out more often. neg gets condo but don't annoy me and waste 5 sheets of paper. you should absolutely disclose but i won't vote on it unless it was an egregiously unpredictable aff.

2.5. standards: i believe education is the biggest terminal impact to debate; fairness is arbitrary/non-unique; at most an internal but besides that, practically non-responsive.

3. policy v. CP/PIC: net benefit should be top of the flow. text/functional competition debates tend to get messy so i'm more preferable to functional competition against the perm.

4. policy v. K/ALT: extremely big fan of 1-off K vs. policy. call the c/i arbitrary, self-serving, and tell me specifically what people can/can't read under these models. even better, go for the 'your ontology/impact/link/authors wrong, case o/w.'

5. K v. K: i like seeing goated fw arguments via standards, rotb, and interp/case turns. i'm willing to hear no/yes perms in method v. method but typically yes perms.

｡ﾟ•┈꒰ა ♡ ໒꒱┈• ｡ﾟ

i like:

- roadmapping the doc, i depend on the doc during constructives (i'm a rough flower). stop reading tags like cards. i like to flow on paper so give me pen time.

- slow any overviews/judge instructions/etc. i do not want to miss anything because im lazy and i like when you tell me who is winning. stop spreading through blocks.

- fw debate; yes competing interps!!!

- ir debates;; big big ir fan but also only updated ir debates bc why are we reading inherency from sub-2020 lol?

- solid links directly in the plan text, cards, or cx. aff is bound to the content of 1ac.

- link debate>impact debate, i don't buy 0/100% risk.

- punish dropped arguments and cross-x misfires with impacts/why it matters, not just 'they dropped so yk it's true' ??

｡ﾟ•┈꒰ა ♡ ໒꒱┈• ｡ﾟ

are you running a K? mfw ir

Ks should be resolution-proximial. i'm familiar with common K arguments; as a 2n, i'm a fan of security/IR, setcol, and degrowth/socialism.

i'm fond of alts that propose an alternative action besides rejecting the 1ac.i don't vote on alts i don't understand, nor am i inclined to judge kick unless you are explicitly winning an extended uniqueness claim.

｡ﾟ•┈꒰ა ♡ ໒꒱┈• ｡ﾟ

silly goose/speaks + bonus speaks

i partake in shenanigans/silly whimsical goofy theory/procedurals. it's obviously an uphill battle against a serious opponent, but it'll make me laugh and i'll give you speaks for being ballsy.

+.1 for a league of legends reference or if you can sneak some funny brainrot into it. (repeatable to an undisclosed limit) +.2 if you reference/give a costco guys-style boom meter review (+.3 if you do the individual booms) at the top of your rebuttal.

irregardless, i provide speaks on cx performance, case knowledge, persuasive appeal, and timeliness. i'm a speaks hack for intelligible speakers.

｡ﾟ•┈꒰ა ♡ ໒꒱┈• ｡ﾟ

final remarks

any variation of in-round -isms, antiblackness, etc. is not tolerated + negative aura. auto-loss and i'll gossip to my teammates abt you. post-rounding ok but if ur mean i'm leaving :c

i may have sweet treats to share while typing up my rfd; feel free to partake or decline. :)

tldr ill vote on anything unproblematic and well-debated.

free tayk, free all settled colonies, free my mugshawty.

have fun and be good people.

2017-2019 LAMDL/ Bravo

2019- Present CSU Fullerton

Please add me to the email chain, normadelgado1441@gmail.com

General thoughts

-Disclose as soon as possible :)

- Don't be rude. Don't make the round deliberately confusing or inaccessible. Take time to articulate and explain your best arguments. If I can't make sense of the debate because of messy/ incomplete arguments, that's on you.

-Speed is fine but be loud AND clear. If I can’t understand you, I won’t flow your arguments. Don’t let speed trade-off with the quality of your argumentation. Above all, be persuasive.

-Sending evidence isn't prep, but don't take too long or I’ll resume the timer. (I’ll let you know before I do so).

Things to keep in mind

-Avoid using acronyms or topic-specific terminology without elaborating first.

-The quality of your arguments is more important than quantity of arguments. If your strategy relies on shallow, dropped arguments, I’ll be mildly annoyed.

-Extend your arguments, not authors. I will flow authors sometimes, but if you are referencing a specific card by name, I probably don’t remember what they said. Unless this specific author is being referenced a lot, you’re better off briefly reminding me than relying on me to guess what card you’re talking about.

-I don’t vote for dropped arguments because they’re dropped. I vote on dropped arguments when you make the effort to explain why the concession matters.

- I don’t really care what you read as long as you have good reasoning for reading it. (ie, you’re not spewing nonsense, your logic makes sense, and you’re not crossing ethical boundaries).

Specific stuff

[AFFs] Win the likelihood of solvency + framing. You don't have to convince me you solve the entirety of your impact, but explain why the aff matters, how the aff is necessary to resolve an issue, and what impacts I should prioritize.

[Ks/K-affs] I like listening to kritiks. Not because I’ll instantly understand what you’re talking about, but I do like hearing things that are out of the box.

k on the neg: I love seeing teams go 1-off kritiks and go heavy on the substance for the link and framing arguments. I love seeing offense on case. Please impact your links and generate offense throughout the debate.

k on the aff: I like strategic k affs that make creative solvency arguments. Give me reasons to prefer your framing to evaluate your aff's impacts and solvency mechanism. The 2ar needs to be precise on why voting aff is good and overcomes any of the neg's offense.

[FW] Choose the right framework for the right aff. I am more persuaded by education & skills-based impacts. Justify the model of debate your interpretation advocates for and resolve major points of contestation. I really appreciate when teams introduce and go for the TVA. Talk about the external impacts of the model of debate you propose (impacts that happen outside of round).

[T/Theory] I have a higher threshold for voting on minor T/Theory violations when impacts are not contextualized. I could be persuaded to vote on a rebuttal FULLY committed to T/theory.

I am more persuaded by education and skills-based impacts as opposed to claims to procedural fairness. It’s not that I will never vote for procedural fairness, but I want you to contextualize what procedural fairness in debate would look like and why that’s a preferable world.

[CPs] CPs are cool as long as you have good mutual exclusivity evidence; otherwise, I am likely to be persuaded by a perm + net benefit arg. PICS are also cool if you have good answers to theory.

[DAs] I really like DAs. Opt for specific links. Do evidence comparison for me. Weigh your impacts and challenge the internal link story. Give your framing a net benefit.

I am more persuaded by impacts with good internal link evidence vs a long stretch big stick impact. Numbers are particularly persuasive here. Make me skeptical of your opponent’s impacts.

LASA 24 // USC 28

Email: dollingerjack21@gmail.com

- Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.

- Asking what cards were marked or what cards were skipped are CX questions.

- You cannot use CX as prep.

- Not good for affs without a plan.

- I am a good judge for impact turns and think more teams should go for them (especially in the 1AR).

- More teams should go for substance against process counterplans.

- Fine with everything else.

- Disrespect LeBron James = auto 27.

LD:

- Not a good judge for tricks.

Hello Everyone!

I am Aayush Dwivedi, and I competed in traditional public forum and Lincoln-Douglas debate at Step by Step School from 2019 to 2023.

I am a competent judge and feel very comfortable evaluating all kinds of arguments. Please ask me for my paradigms before the round for more information if necessary.

Please ensure that all evidence exchange processes occur quickly and succinctly.

Please add me to the email chain @aayushd@g.ucla.edu

Good luck!

Playlist Update: TFA '25 - i like music a lot, it was going to be my career before debate ruined my life. i listen to a confusingly wide range of it. debaters and coaches can recommend me a song to listen to during prep or decision time - good enough songs may merit a small (+0.1) speaks bump for everyone in the room. a friend told me since i ask debaters to recommend me music, i should put the music i'm listening to here for reference. currently listening to Texas Flood - Stevie Ray Vaughan & Double Trouble.

TFA Rant - a few big updates that i think matter for strategy and speaker points. nothing new per se, but this season has accelerated my final metamorphosis into a grumpy old person judge and made a few tendencies that generally ring true to me stick out more than usual:

1. neg teams need to read better cards and read cards better. i am not the card machine i used to be, and i will never knock the 2n hustle - sometimes the 2nr just has to be slop by necessity - but i am increasingly frustrated by the absence of quality, aff-specific evidence produced by 1ncs - cutting 2-4 cards about the 1ac's legal framework being nonsense is a much more winning addition to neg strat than the third process counterplan. most affs on this topic do not solve, are not key to the impact, read cards that say nothing, and are an ungodly amalgamation of legal standards that were never meant to intersect in the way 2as are forcing them to - the number of advantages that can be reduced to zero by a smart cx and recuttings or even just close readings of 1ac evidence is only matched by the number of 2ns that fail to do it. i get this topic is rough for the neg, but it's not that rough - we can cut a real disad, a case turn, or a deficit every once in a while (or even, god forbid, go for the K). IP bad is not astounding by any means, but with smart debating and good cards it beats 80% of what qualifies as a neg generic on this topic (*cough*sui generis*cough*).

2. i am increasingly astounded by how good i am for the "soft left" aff. this may be related to the above, but most disads and net benefits have laughable internal links and in no coherent world are a higher risk than the aff. this is not carte blanche to say "menand 5" at the impact and move on, but it is to say that if you are reading a 1ac that is built to capitalize on defending an impact that is "smaller", but starts at 100% risk, you should take me extremely high and expect speaker points bordering on irresponsible if you can execute. i am in no way bad for extinction in these debates, but "util=trutil" is increasingly less an argument and more a dogma judges and debaters cling to, and quality evidence and smart cx beats nonsense 2nr ramblings about 1% risk + 10 cards citing Bostrom/MacAskill and the CSER that border on sociopathic. this could also be me just getting bored of abstractions like "try or die" vs "timeframe controls the direction of turns case" as a substitute for real impact calculus, though, so reading an aff with a real advantage and making smart answers to the disad likely helps you here as well.

3. clash debates suck and framework teams are getting worse. this is not to say i am worse for framework - i am as good, if not better for it, than ever - but it is to say that the 2ns who seem most committed to the idea framework is an engaging and responsive negative strategy are making the best possible case for why it isn't one. most 2ncs and 2nrs are scripted essays with zero allusion to the aff or it's evolution through the debate, and your blocks are brain-meltingly boring. if you gave the same 2nr impact overview on a disad regardless of what aff scenarios you were weighing it against it would be lazy and unstrategic debating (maybe a bad example, since 2ns do this one a lot now too), yet i have heard the same "clash turns the case" speech a billion times without explanation of the contours of said "clash" or what parts of "the case" it turns, which has led to an increasing aff win-rate. look, i'm maybe in the minority of "k people" at this point who actually agrees fairness is an impact and framework substantively answers these affs - but you gotta, you know, answer the aff with it. come on, gamers.

4. k teams are getting annoying again and 2as need to stand on business more. the first time i saw antonio 95 in a neg doc this year i almost had a stroke. 90% of 2ns who go for "microaggressions" as a framework angle couldn't define the term if pushed. i can't really blame neg teams though - the reason these strategies win is because 2as are failing to call stupid stupid and instead pretending calling tabroom over the imaginary microaggression that is "reading a plan" is a substitute for answering the K and forcing the neg to win a real link argument. if the 2nr is 5 minutes of ontology and fiat bad, the 2ar can and should punish them by straight turning this for 5 minutes straight. framework alone is not a neg win condition, it just sets one - 2as need to have the guts to win under it anyways or double down on setting their own so we can get out of this mess (because that's how the meta finally shifted away from this last time we were here). in general, 2ar brute-force against the K needs to make a comeback.

5. debaters should try to be jerks less. i'm not a decorum fiend by any means, and this isn't to say you can't have swagger or enjoy throwing down, but the level of outright posturing has far outpaced any justification for it from debaters. i was *also* annoyingly self-righteous earlier in my coaching and debating career and probably felt every debate was a chance to prove something or settle some imagined beef, so i really get it, but we all grow up eventually, and i cannot help but cringe at this sort of thing in retrospect. i promise you being level-headed and direct while simply debating better is far bigger aura than whatever is happening in most CXes these days. debate is a community of profound differences, but everyone i've ever met in debate tends to agree on a few things: none of us had to show up or do this on a random weekend, this whole thing kinda sucks when you take it too seriously, but we ultimately do it anyways for a shared love of the game. there are far too few rounds in a debater's (or even judge's) career to waste it on being annoying about nothing.

All chains: pleaselearntoflow@gmail.com

and, please also add (based on event):

HSPD: dulles.policy.db8@gmail.com

HSLD: loyoladebate47@gmail.com

CPD: uhoustondebate@gmail.com

please have the email sent before start time. late starts are annoying. annoying hurts speaker points.

Dulles High School (HSPD), Loyola High School (HSLD), University of Houston (CPD) - if you are currently committed to debating at the University of Houston in the future, please conflict me. If you're interested in debating at UH, reach out.

please don't call me "judge", "Mr.", or "sir" - patrick, pat, fox, or p.fox are all fine.

he/him/his - do not misgender people. not negotiable.

"takes his job seriously, but not himself."

safety of debaters is my utmost concern at all times. racism, transphobia, misogyny, etc. not tolerated - i am willing to act on this more than most judges. don't test me.

debated 2014-22 (HSPD Oceans - NDT/CEDA Personhood), and won little but learned lots. high school was politics disads and advantage counterplans with niche plans. college was planless affs and the K, topicality, or straight turning an advantage. i'm a 2N from D3 - this is the most important determinant of debate views in this paradigm.

overall, flexibility is king. on average, i'm happiest in debates where the aff says "plan, it's good", the negative says "disad" or "kritik", and lots of cards are read, but high-quality, well-warranted arguments + judge instruction >>> any specific positions - Kant, planless affs, process counterplans, and topicality can be vertically dense, cool debates. they can also be total slop. every judge thinks arguments are good or bad, which makes them easier or harder to vote on, usually unconsciously. i'm trying to make it clear what i think good and bad arguments are and how to debate around that. i'm a full time coach and i judge tons of debates (by the end of the 24-25 season, i will have judged 900 rounds since graduating in 2019), but my topic/argument knowledge won't save bad debating. i flow carefully and value "tech" over "truth", but dropped arguments are only as good as the dropped argument itself - i don't start flowing until i hear a warrant, and i find i have a higher threshold for warrants and implications than most. i take offense/defense very seriously - debating comparatively is much better than abstractions.

quoth Bankey: "Please don’t be boring. Your pre-written blocks are boring." increasingly annoyed at the amount of rebuttal speeches that are entirely read off a doc. a speech off your flow that is obviously based on the round that just happened with breaks in fluency/efficiency will get higher speaks than a speech that is technically perfect but barely contextual to the debate i'm judging.

Wheaton's law is axiomatic - be kind, have fun. i do my best to give detailed decisions and feedback - debaters deserve no less than the best. coaches and debaters are welcome to ask questions, and i know passions run high, but i struggle to understand being angry for it's own sake - just strike me if you don't like how i judge, save us the shouting match.

"act like you've been here."

details

- evidence: Dallas Perkins: “if you can’t find a single sentence from your author that states the thesis of your argument, you may have difficulty selling it to me.” David Bernstein: “Intuitive and well reasoned analytics are frequently better uses of your time than reading a low quality card. I would prefer to reward debaters that demonstrate full understanding of their positions and think through the logical implications of arguments rather than rewarding the team that happens to have a card on some random issue.” Richard Garner: "I read a lot of cards, but, paradoxically, only in proportion to the quality of evidence comparison. Highlighting needs to make grammatical sense; don’t use debate-abbreviation highlighting"

- organization: good (obviously). extend parts your argument as responses to theirs. follow the order of the previous speech when you can. hard number arguments ("1NC 2", not "second/next"). sub-pointing good, but when overdone speeches feel disjointed, substitutes being techy for sounding techy. debating in paragraphs >>> bullet points.

- new arguments: getting out of hand. "R" in 1AR doesn't stand for constructive. at minimum, new args must be explicitly justified by new block pivots - otherwise, very good for 2NRs saying "strike it".

- inserting cards: fine if fully explained indict of card they read – new arguments or different parts of the article should be read aloud. will strike excessive insertions if told if most are nothing.

- case debates: miss them. advantages are terrible, easily link turned, and most aff's don't solve. solvency can be zero with smart CX, close reading of 1ac ev, and analytics. executing this well gets high speaker points.

- functional competition: good, makes sense. textual competition: silly, seems counterproductive. positional competition: upsetting. competing off of immediacy/certainty: skeptical, never assumed by literature, weird interpretation of fiat and mandates. plank to ban plan: does not make other non-competitive things competitive. intrinsicness: fine, but intrinsic perms often not actually intrinsic. voting record on all these: very even, teams fail to make the best arguments.

- process counterplans: interesting when topic and aff specific, annoying when recycled slop. insane ideas that collapse government (uncooperative fedism), misunderstand basic legal processes (US Code), and don't solve net benefit (most) can be zero with good CX. competition + intuitive deficits > arbitrary theory interps.

- state of advantage counterplan texts is bad. should matter more. evidence quality paramount. CX can make these zero.

- judge kick: only if explicitly told in a speech. however, splitting 2NR unstrategic – winning a whole counterplan > half a counterplan and half a case defense. better than most for sticking the neg with a counterplan, but needs airtime before 2AR.

- "do both shields" and "links to net benefit" insanely good, underrated, require a comeback in the meta. but, most permutations are 2AC nothingburgers, making debates late breaking - less i understand before the block = less spin 1AR gets + more lenient to 2NR. solve this with fewer, better permutations - "do both, shields link" = tagline, not argument.

- uniqueness controls link/vice versa: contextual to any given debate. extremist opinions ("no offense without uniqueness"/"don't need uniqueness") both seem silly.

- impact turns: usually have totalizing uniqueness and questionable solvency. teams should invest here on top of impact debate proper.

- turns case/case turns: higher threshold than most. ideally carded, minimally thoroughly explained for specific internal links.

- impact framing: most is bad, more conceptual than concrete. "timeframe outweighs magnitude" sometimes it doesn't. why does it in this debate? "intervening actors check" who? how? comparing scenarios >>> abstractions. worse for "try or die" than most - idk why 100% impact x 2% solvency outweighs 80% link x 50% impact. specificity = everything. talk about probability more. risk matters a lot.

- the K: technical teams that read detailed evidence should take me high. performance teams can also take me - i coach this frequently with some success, and i'm better for you than i seem (most teams are terrible at recognizing/answering arguments within performances). good: link to some 1AC premise/mechanism with an impact that outweighs the net benefit to a permutation, external impact that turns/outweighs case, a competitive and solvent alternative. bad: antonio 95, "fiat illusory", etc. devil's in the details - examples, references to aff evidence, etc. delete your 2NC overview, do 8 minutes of line-by-line - you will win more.

- aff vs K: talk about the 1ac more, dump cards about the K less - debate on your turf, not theirs. if aff isn't built to link turn, don't bother. "extinction outweighs" should not be the only impact calculus (see above: impact framing). perm double bind usually ends up being dumb. real permutation and deficit > asserting the possibility of one - "it could theoretically shield the link or not solve" loses to "it does neither" + warrant.

- framework arguments: "X parts of the 1AC are best basis for rejoinder/competition because Y which means Z" = good, actually establishes a framework. “weigh the aff”/“reps first” = non-arguments, what does this mean. will not adopt a “middle ground” interp if nobody advances one – usually both incoherent and unstrategic. anything other than plan focus prob gives the negative more than you want (e.g: unsure why PIKs are bad if the negative gets “reps bad” + "plan bad"). consequently, fine with “delete plan”, but neg can win with a framework push that gives links and alt without doing so.

- clash debates: vote for topicality against planless affirmatives more often than not because in a bad debate it’s easier for the negative to win. controlling for quality, I vote for the best K and framework teams equally often - no strong ideological bent. fairness or a specific, carded skills impact >>> “clash”. impact turns and counterinterps equally winnable, both require explanation of solvency/uniqueness and framing against neg impacts + link defense. equally bad for "competition doesn't matter" and "only competition matters". language of impact calculus (“turns case/their offense”, higher risk/magnitude, uniqueness, etc) helps a lot. both sides usually subpar on how what the aff does/doesn't do implicates debates. TVA/SSD underrated as offense, overrated as defense - to win it, i need to actually know what the aff/neg link looks like, not just gesture towards it being possible.

- best rounds ever are good K v K, worst ever are bad ones. judge instruction, organization, specificity key. "turns/solves case" >>> "root cause", b/c offense >>> defense. explaining what is offense, what competes, etc (framework arguments) >>> "it's hard to evaluate pls don't" ("no plan, no perm"). aff teams benefit from "functional competition" argument vs 1NCs that spam word PICs and call it "frame subtraction". "ballot PIK" should never win against a competent aff team. Marxism should win 9/10 negative debates executed by a smart 2N. more 2NRs should press case - affs don't do anything. idk why the neg gets counterplans against planless affs - 2ACs should say this.

- critical affs with plans/"soft left" should be more common. teams that take me here do hilariously well if they answer neg arguments (the disad doesn't vanish bc "conjunctive fallacy").

- topicality: for me, more predictable/precise > “debatable” - literature determines everything, unpredictable interpretations = bad. however, risk is contextual - little more precise, super underlimiting prob not winner. hyperbole is the enemy - "even with functional limits, we lose x and they get y" >>> "there are 4 gorillion affirmatives". reasonability: about the counterinterpretation, good for offense about substance crowd-out and silly interps, bad for "good is good enough". plan in a vacuum: good check against extra/fx-topicality, less good elsewhere. extra-topicality: something i care less about than most. extremely bad for arguments about grammar/semantics.

- aff on theory: “riders” to the plan, plan being "horse-traded" - not how fiat works. counterplans that fiat actors different from the plan (including states) - a misunderstanding of negation theory/neg fiat. will probably never drop more than the argument. neg on theory: literally everywhere else. arbitrariness objection strong. i don't think new affs justify neg terrorism - seems silly, 2ns should pre-emptively case neg things - but i do think being neg justifies it. i consider conditionality a divine right and will defend it with religious zeal. RVIs don't get flowed. these are the strongest opinions in this paradigm. i am an unapologetic hack on these matters.LD theory shenanigans: non-starter.

- disclosure: good, but arbitrary standards bad. care little about anything that isn't active misclosure. new unbroken affs: good. "disclose 1NC": lol.

- LD “tricks”: disastrously bad for them. most just feel like defense with extra steps. nobody has gotten me to understand truth testing, much less like it.

- LD phil: actually pretty solid for it. well-carded, consistent positions + clear judge instruction for impact calculus = high win-rate. spamming calc indicts + a korsgaard card or two = less so. i appreciate straight turn debates. modesty is winnable, but usually a cop-out + incoherent.

- if the above is insufficiently detailed, see: Richard Garner, James Allan, J.D. Sanford (former coaches), Brett Cryan (former 2A), Holden Bukowsky, Bryce Sheffield (former teammates), Aiden Kim, Sean Wallace, (former students) and Ali Abdulla (best debate bud). my ordinal 1 for most of college was DML.

procedural notes

- flowing: i do it on my laptop. i have pretty bad hearing damage in my left ear (tinnitus), and i don’t flow off the doc. i will occasionally open docs during CX or prep time if a particular card becomes important, but this is not something you should bank on to save you being incomprehensible. i consider myself really good at flowing, but clarity matters a lot – 2x "clear", then I stop typing, put my hands up, and stare at you uncomfortably until you catch on. debaters go through tags and analytics too quickly – give me pen time, or i will take pen time. you can ask to see my flow after the debate.

- terrible poker face. treat facial and bodily expressions as real-time feedback.

- i have autism. i close my eyes or put my head down during a speech if i feel overstimulated. promise i'm still flowing. i make very little eye contact. don't take it personally.

- card doc fine and good, but only cards extended in final rebuttals – including extraneous evidence is harshly penalized with speaks. big evidence enjoyer - good cards get good speaks, but only when i'm told to read them and how.

- CX: binding and mandatory. it can get you very high or very low speaks. i flow important things. "lying by omission" is smart CX, but direct dishonesty means intervention (i.e: 1NC reads elections, "was elections read?", "no" = i am pausing CX and asking if i should scratch the flow).

- personality is good, but self-righteousness isn't really a personality trait. it's a game - have fun. aggressive posturing is most often obnoxious, dissuasive, and betrays a lack of appreciation for your opponents. this isn't to say you can't talk mess (please do, if warranted - its funny, and i care little for "decorum"), but it's inversely related to the skill gap - trolling an opponent in finals is different from bullying a post-nov in presets.

- prep time ends when the doc is sent. prep stolen while "sending it now" is getting ridiculous. if you are struggling to compile and send a doc, do Verbatim drills. i am increasingly willing to enforce this by imposing prep time penalties for excessive dead time/typing while "sending the extra cards" and such.

- there is no flow clarification time – “what cards did you read?” is a CX question. “can you send a doc with the marked cards marked” is fine, “can you take out all the cards you didn’t read” means you weren't flowing, so it'll cost you CX or prep. not flowing negatively correlates with speaks. be reasonable - putting 80 case cards in the doc and reading 5, skipping around randomly, is bad form, but objecting to the general principle is telling on yourself.flow.

- related to above, if you answer a position in the doc that was skipped, you are getting a 27.5. seriously. the state of flowing is an atrocity. you should know better. flow.

- speaks: decided by me, based on quality of arguments and execution + how fun you are to judge, relative to given tournament pool. 28.5 = 3-3, 29+ = clearing + bidding, 29.5+ = top 5-10 speakers + late elims, 30 = perfect speeches, no notes. no low-point wins, generally - every bad move by a winning team correlates to a missed opportunity by the loser.

- not adjudicating the character of minors I don’t know regarding things I didn’t see.

- when debating an opponent of low experience, i will heavily reward giving younger debaters the dignity of a real debate they can still participate in (i.e: slower, fewer off, more forthcoming in CX). if you believe the best strategy against a novice/lay debater is extending hidden aspec, i will assume you are too bad at debate to beat a novice without hidden aspec, and speaks will reflect that. these debates are negatively educational and extremely annoying.

- ethics challenges: only issues that make continuing in good faith impossible are worth stopping a debate. the threshold is criminal negligence or malicious intent. evidence ethics requires an impact - omitting paragraphs mid-card that conclude neg changes the argument; leaving out an irrelevant last sentence doesn't. open to alternative solutions - i'd rather strike an incorrectly cited card than not debate. ask me if i would consider ending the round appropriate for a given issue, and i will answer honestly. clipping requires a recording to evaluate, and is an instant loss (no other way to resolve it) if it is persistent enough to alter functional speech time (criminal negligence/malicious intent, requires an impact). inexperience grants some (but minimal) leniency. ending a debate means it will not restart, all evidence will be immediately provided to me, and everyone shuts up - further attempt to sway my adjudication by debaters or coaches = instant loss. loser get an L0 and winners get a W28.5/28.4. all this is out the window if tabroom says something else.

- edebate: it still sucks. i keep my camera on as much as possible. if wifi is spotty, i will turn it off during speeches to maximize bandwidth, but always turn it back on to confirm i'm there before speeches. assume i am not present unless you see my face or hear my voice. if you start and i'm not there, you don't get to restart. low-quality microphones and audio compression means speak slower and clearer than normal.

closing thoughts

i have been told my affect presents as pretty flat or slightly negative while judging - trying to work on this - but i truly love debate, and i'm happy to be here. while i am cynical about certain aspects of the community/activity, it is still the best thing i have ever done. debate has brought me wonderful opportunities, beautiful friendships, and made me a better person. i am very lucky it found me, and i hope it can be the same for you.

take care of yourself. debaters increasingly present as exhausted and malnourished. three square meals and sleep is both more useful and better for you than overexerting yourself. people underestimate how much even mild dehydration impacts you. it's a game - not worth your well-being.

good luck! have fun!

- pat

Intentionally being harmful, oppressive, disrespectful, rude, misogynistic, racist, bigoted, and every other adjective to describe a person I wouldn't be proud to have on my team will drop your rank, your points, your win record. I don't care what school you are from and who your coach or parents are - making others feel unsafe and unwelcome will not be celebrated or tolerated.

Before you ask, I do not exchange e-mail addresses with children. If you think that I need to be able to read your speech in order to understand your argument because you don't know how to articulate yourself properly, maybe don't pref me or ask if I want the speechdrop or whatever.

Second, unless instructed to by tournament staff, I do not disclose. Reflect on your performance after the round. Talk to others for feedback. You'll get an RFD when you get it.

Something that has sadly come up quite a bit recently - you need to be aware of your surroundings and who is listening and watching. Being rude to your opponents or judges, even in off-hand comments to your friends before rounds start, will cause you to lose speaker points.

And last, being on your phone during a person's speech or performance will cause you to lose. Every. Single. Time. AGAIN: BEING ON YOUR PHONE DURING ANOTHER PERSON'S SPEECH WILL CAUSE YOU TO LOSE EVERY TIME, EVEN IF YOU'RE THE MOST AMAZING SPEAKER I'VE EVER SEEN IN MY WHOLE LIFE. Don't be a jerk.

As an experienced judge in speech and debate, a former competitor in LD and speech events, and a current coach who values the history and tradition of the events, I want to emphasize that I do not believe that speed and volume are the sole indicators of a skilled debater. I appreciate the qualities of persuasion, clear communication, and depth of argumentation over speed. Here are some key points to consider if you want to convince me of your argument:

1. Speak clearly and enunciate your words. Ensure that your arguments are easy to follow, and don't rush through your points. Take your time to explain your ideas thoroughly.

2. A contention, by definition, is not a topic. It is a claim. Your contention should never be "international law", but should be an argument ABOUT the topic.

3. Support your arguments with relevant evidence and examples. Cite credible sources and use data when appropriate. Avoid cherry-picking data or misrepresenting facts.

4. Show that you have a deep understanding of the topic. Go beyond surface-level arguments and provide nuanced analysis.

5. Engage with your opponent's arguments thoughtfully and respectfully. Refute their points with evidence and logic rather than resorting to aggressive tactics.

6. Use cross-examination as an opportunity to clarify your opponent's arguments and highlight any weaknesses in their position. Maintain a respectful and professional demeanor during cross-examination.

7. Maintain a respectful and professional tone throughout the debate. Avoid personal attacks or disrespectful language towards your opponents. At the end of every round, you should walk away having learned something. Interfering with someone's ability to learn something from this activity because you are being rude is not cool.

8. Be mindful of your allotted time and manage it effectively. Don't rush through your speech to fit in more content. It's better to deliver a well-structured and persuasive argument within the time limit.

Remember that the art of debate is not just about winning arguments but also about fostering a respectful and constructive discourse. I value debaters who uphold these principles and contribute to the tradition of civil and persuasive discourse in speech and debate.

I can handle spreading - however, there are many of you who can't. You actually can't spread but think that you can and end up slurring through every word you say. Your speeches should still be coherent. All of you would benefit from a vocal coach to work on breathing techniques because you tend to lose your stamina partway through and begin to sound quite ridiculous.

At the end of the day, learning how to adapt to your judges will go a long way. Most of us are giving up our weekends for no pay, questionable food, and over 20 hours of sitting in uncomfortable chairs listening to children who think they are smarter than us. Sometimes you are smarter than us, but most of the time you underestimate our backgrounds and disrespect the fact that we are here for YOU and the advancement of your career in speech and debate.

As far as speech and IEs go, I am here to be informed and entertained. I do not tolerate cultural appropriation - be mindful of your accents, gestures, and intent. If you do not identify with a character ethnically, pick a different character. If you are highlighting the very real trauma of people in these rooms and have no experience with it and are performing it with the only intent of getting trophies, know that it comes through in your performances and is noticed.

-Debated 4 years LD, graduating in 2013; qualified to TOC twice and reached Quarterfinals my senior year.

-Have coached for 10 years; am currently the Head of Debate at Lynbrook High School.

+0.2 speaks for starting early when possible

CIRCUIT LD PARADIGM

1. Am very good for 'Phil' – it's my favorite part of LD debate. In my view, LD debate is supposed to be, at least partially, about the criterion.

2. Be clear, slow down on tags, and pause between separate arguments. I don't flow off the speech doc.

3. Am bad for policy v policy. If this is the debate you want to have, you should make the following adjustments:

a. Dedicate a portion of your rebuttal speeches to explaining the story of your advantage/disadvantage in the simplest possible terms.

b. Policy debates most of the time look like assertion wars to me. One side asserts this thing will happen if we pass the resolution, the other side asserts that it won't. Please address this problem by focusing on the warrants of the arguments. It will also behoove you to go more slowly as you're doing this so that things are maximally clear to me.

c. Policy debaters seem to hide behind cards a lot. They read a piece of evidence in the rebuttal and think that this is a substitute for making an argument. If you read a bunch of cards against the case and don't do any analysis or explanation of why your cards provide better warranting than the arguments being answered, the debate looks an awfully lot like a tie to me. In general, the primary job in a debate is to break ties and to explain why I should defer to you.

My view is that right after reading a piece of evidence, a debater should provide some explanation as to why the evidence is particularly good/specific/uses better warrants than the other side's evidence. Then in the next speech, when they extend the evidence, it has more weight, especially if their opponent conceded the analysis. If the first time you do comparison is in the final speech, I might just disagree with what you're saying, plus it's hard as a judge to defer to one side's comparison over another without intervening.

TLDR: don't treat LD like a policy round that gets cut off after the 1AR. If you do that, the debate will inevitably look late-breaking. Read fewer arguments and spend more time in that initial speech doing analysis/comparison.

d. If it hasn't been clear yet from the above, in front of me you should definitely do more judge instruction than you think you have to. Seriously, I have very little background with policy arguments. It isn't instantly obvious to me how things work.

4. I don’t vote on disclosure theory. There wasn't disclosure when I competed, and I thought that was a much better system, for many reasons –

a. It required both sides to actively pay attention during the debate, to flow diligently, to use their brains during prep time to come up with responses

b. Due to a., speeches were generally more responsive. Debaters did more signposting, explained things a lot more clearly, and were better at judge instruction because a rigorous flow was the reference point and not a speech doc.

c. The debates nowadays are super focused on evidence. I'd rather people read less evidence and spend more time explaining their arguments and making responses about what links/steps/warrants are missing in their opponent's case.

d. I have no idea why the aff should have to commit itself to reading a particular case or version of a case 30 minutes before the debate has even started.

e. In a world without disclosure, tournament environments are generally more relaxed. People socialize more and aren't spending 30 minutes freaking out before their round.

5. 1AR theory: if you want to be able to go for it later, you have to invest time developing it and pre-empting the 2NR. I very rarely vote on 1AR theory, not because I'm opposed to it, but because the 2AR almost always sounds new.

6. I almost never read cards after the round. This means 'inserting rehighlightings' is unlikely to be effective in front of me. Instead you should be reading aloud specific lines from their evidence that disagree with their claim.

7. Speaks: I usually give between 28 and 29.

maya.jen@marlborough.org

marlborough '24 | harvard '28

hello! i'm maya (she/her) - i debated in LD for 4 years, qualified to the TOC 3x, and am now an assistant coach for marlborough.

general

good for policy debates about the topic + clash, not so good for the K (more familiar with cap, set col, fem k), and horrible for phil/tricks/frivolous theory (strike me).

every argument needs a claim, warrant, and an impact. if your strategy relies on your opponent missing an argument or dropping it, i'm not the judge for you.

please be clear, slow down on tags and analytics, and do good line-by-line. i'll clear you twice before I stop flowing, and i won't vote on arguments i don't understand.

good ev comparison + explanations > extending cards without explaining why they matter

warrants > littering arguments

cx cx!!! i love cx and having a clear strategy/knowing your ev makes a huge difference

be respectful. being unnecessarily condescending or rude to your opponent is not a good look.

please read your re-highlights out loud

saying an argument was dropped is not a complete argument. fully extending it and explaining its implications is a much better strategy

policy

yes weighing, impact calc, case debate.

clear explanations of aff solvency go a long way

my favourite 2NR to give was advantage cp + da + case. i'm not a fan of process CPs and not the best for judging them.

k

yes specific links to the aff + actually defend/know your alt

chain email: csulbkt1@gmail.com

Jean Kim (she/her) policy debater @ CSULB '27

my favorite debaters: Dorian Gurrola (debate bestie), Gavvie Torres (debate partner), Erika Linares (debate sister), Aless Escobar (debate twin), Curtis Ortega, Jaysyn Green, Deven Cooper

please know

spread at your own risk. not being clear enough will dock your speaks.

have a lot of pathos to convince me I enjoy the dramatics

speaker points

start at 28.5

i flow cross X and weigh that into speaker evaluation

please don't tell me what I should be doing with my speaker points

using real world examples to support your arguments are very compelling and will results in good speaks

LD specific

don't do tricks plz

K affs

Good K-affs will have a strong link to the topic or else I find it to be an uphill battle. You MUST be making arguments about why the debate space is key and/or it changes subjectivities and/or results in subject formation. I am a K-aff friendly judge if you'd like to pref me but if you're not winning the arguments I listed above I'll find it harder to vote aff. And I do think those claims are winnable but it must be a huge part of the aff in EVERY speech.

K's

love a good K. don't assume I know high theory literature, definitely wouldn't mind an in-depth overview. you should be winning your framework and alternative. I also appreciate an in-depth link debate or seeing those links cross applied on case.

T/T-FW

i'm also willing to vote on this. focus more on how the MODELS of debate that are being forwarded are particularly bad for debate for XYZ reason. So think of what their model of debate looks like outside of this round and why it's unfair/bad for education/worse for clash/etc.

Case

neg should be saying there is a 0% chance of solvency, go for case turns, or if there is a small chance of solvency it still results in something worse than the squo etc. also neg ... never drop the aff impacts especially if it's like an extinction impact .. aff should be saying any risk of solvency is a reason to vote aff/case outweighs/aff is a good idea.

CP

this is cool, just make the net benefit the top of the flow every speech if this is what you go for. should be saying how the CP solves the aff AND more (i.e. disad or case turn).

THANKS FOR READING :DDDDD

Hi, I’m Hope! Marlborough '24. Harvard '28.

I debated for four years in LD and I'm now an assistant coach for Marlborough.

Please disclose and add me to the email chain: hope.lee@marlborough.org (speechdrop is also fine)

Preferences:
I'm most familiar with policy debate, okay with K debate (mostly cap, setcol, fem, identity), and a strike for phil/friv theory/tricks.

Argument Quality > Quantity. I will not vote on arguments I do not understand, which means substituting jargon/buzzwords for in-depth explanation and storytelling will not get you far in front of me. Instead of assuming I have extensive background knowledge on a topic, you should err on the side of over-explanation.

I am also not the judge for you if your strategy relies on deception or getting an opponent to miss an argument.

I am most impressed by debaters who know and utilize their evidence, and who engage the core controversies of the topic through substantive arguments.

DA and K links should ALWAYS be contextual to the affirmative - read me lines from the 1AC!

Explanations of CP and alt solvency should be detailed, contextualized to the impacts, and something I can explain back to you when writing my ballot. Not great for dense CP competition debates.

JUDGE INSTRUCTION! Arguments are often missing a "so what." Even if you're winning every argument on the flow, make the implications of each argument explicit. Saying an argument was dropped/conceded is not a complete argument. Fully extending the argument and explaining how your opponent dropping it affects the debate is a much stronger strategy. If you're doing excellent judge instruction, my RFD should mirror the instructions you gave in-round.

Impact calculus and weighing should be present in every speech. As I judge I want to know how I should resolve competing claims.

I am fine with speed. Slow down on tags. I'll stop flowing after I yell clear twice.

Clipping and disclosure games are an immediate drop.

Please reach out if you have any questions!

Nick Loew - GMU'24 - 4x NDT qualifier, 1x NDT Doubles

nickloew14@gmail.com

masondebatedocs@gmail.com [College ONLY Please]

You should read whatever arguments you are most comfortable with and want to go for. None of my opinions about debate are so significant that they overdetermine deciding who won based on the individual debate in front of me.

Tech > Truth. Complete arguments require warrants to substantiate them.

T vs Plans- I enjoy well-researched and substantive topicality debates. On the other hand I dislike contrived and unpredictable interpretations that are arbitrary in nature. (T LPR on the HS immigration topic > T substantially limit on the college alliances topic).

T vs K Affs - I almost always was on the neg going for T in these debates. In front of me the aff is best set up for victory by presenting a counterinterpretation that seeks to solve the negs offense alongside impact turns to the negs model, although of course you can also win with impact turns alone. For me I will say the latter is more difficult as I struggle to vote aff when there is no counterinterp extended in the 2AR to solve some amount of limits/ground.

CPs - I enjoy specific CP strategies that include topic/aff specific evidence. In competition debates I likely lean affirmative when there is relatively equal debating and the neg has presented a CP that generically competes off of certainty or immediacy.

Ks - I like Ks with links to the plan and alternatives that attempt to solve the links impact compared to Ks that rely entirely on framework strategies. That being said, I have still voted for positions that were solely critiques of plan-focus or fiat for example. Overall, I think I’m alright for most critical positions on the neg.

Theory - Often I find myself deciding that conditionality is good.

If you have any specific questions feel free to email me.

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

Lincoln Douglas:

I strongly believe in affirmative disclosure.

Theory: I am mostly unfavorable towards/dislike one sentence theory arguments that seem and are arbitrary in nature. Furthermore, I am unlikely to believe that most theory arguments aside from condo are reasons to reject the debater (ex: solvency advocate theory/states theory/agent CPs etc… is not a reason to reject the team).

Please attempt to be clear. I have found this to be a problem more often in LD likely because of the short speech times.

FAQ: (Copied from Jasmine Stidham's paradigm)

Q:I primarily read policy (or LARP) arguments, should I pref you?

A: Yes.

Q: I read a bunch of tricks/meta-theory/a prioris/paradoxes, should I pref you?

A: No thank you. Theory thoughts above.

Q: I read phil, should I pref you?

A: I'm not ideologically opposed to phil arguments however I do not judge many phil debates. You may need to do some policy translation/over-explanation however so I understand exactly what you're saying.

Q: I really like Nebel T, should I pref you?

A: Avoid reading evidence from debate blogs. If you'd like to make a similar argument, just find non-Nebel articles. This applies to most debate coach evidence read in LD. T whole-rez generally is fine.

Q: I like to make theory arguments like 'must spec status' or 'must include round reports for every debate' or 'aspec' should I pref you?

A: Not if those arguments are your idea of a round-winning strategy. I am annoyed by strategies that rely on your opponent dropping analytics that weren't sent in the document.

Q: RVIs? No 1AR theory?

A: Nope.

About me:

Huntington Park '24

CSULB '28

LAMDL x UDL 4eva <3

Coaching for Huntington Park.

Email Chain: dmedina1921@gmail.com (Feel free to reach out if you're from a UDL!)

Shout-out to Tania Vasquez, Jay-Z Flores, Curtis Ortega, Desiree Delgadillo, Shoutout Desiree Delgadillo 3rd place speaker at NAUDL!! my goat 30 speaks automatic - Delmy (Shoutout UC Davis) and of course shout out to the rest of LAMDL and RKS 2023 <3

I have debated for around four years. Since I have entered open I have exclusively ran K's. I have engaged multiple literature bases, some of which include: Anti-blackness, Latine Migration theory, Marxism, Settler Colonialism, and Abolition democracy.

TLDR

Although I do run kritiks I say just do what you do best. Do impact calculus. Give great judge instruction and extend warrants and have fun obviously!

Pref Guide

1. Policy v K

2. K v T

3. K v K

4. Policy v Policy

5. High Theory v High Theory

K-Neg

I like these! They should have good links that are a criticism of either the material or epistemological representation or underpinning of the 1AC. Alternatives do not need to solve the case but I am receptive to teams who genuinely try to go for material alternatives that attempt to solve the case. Ontology/Framework is usually the end all be all absent a material link that outweighs/turns the aff since it tends to frame the arguments made throughout the round.

Side note: Would prefer some specific/contextual link debating instead of 10 fiat bad cards paired along with a they cause heart attacks impact.

K-AFF

I also like these! These aff's should be tied to the core of the topic and have a method that departs from the status quo in some shape or form whether you read no cards or read a million, the aff should have some sort of narrative that I can understand as it relates to the arguments you make throughout the round.

Framework

These are usually most of my debates so I have no strong biases. Regardless if you go for the fairness paradox or clash with switch side or the TVA I have no strong preference.

Policy

Do impact calculus. Extend your evidence instead of just inserting grey otherwise I will get slightly annoyed seeing "extinction" without any actual extension of the warrant.

LD

No Tricks, RVI's, or frivolous theory.

jackson.n.mills@gmail.com

Debated at Little Rock Central '20-'24, am now debating for USC

they/them

pls call me Jackson, not judge

Do what you do best — obviously I have biases and opinions but I will always try to minimize the extent to which those affect my evaluation of the debate. Debate should be about the debaters, and you shouldn't have ever have to change your style becasue of a judge's personal preferences. I've mostly read critical arguments throughout my career, but am willing to vote on pretty much anything as long as it isn't problematic or violent. Below I've listed out my thoughts on certain arguments, but good debating can turn anything you disagree with here. I don't evaluate out-of-round occurences (other than disclosure args). Have fun!

K (aff): Like these, especially when they defend something. Will vote for or against framework. No preference between the different approaches people take to going for or answering framework (i.e. models vs in-round, fairness vs clash, etc.), just tell me why it wins you the debate. Willing to vote on presumption; aff teams have a burden of explaining how they do something. Executing non-T options well is cool. In K v K debates, having offensive reasons for why the perm doesn't shield the link is useful. But also, know when you should just impact turn the K rather than grasping for a sliver of resemblance between your theories.

K (neg): Really like specific link analysis, regardless of whether your K is more fwk-heavy or alt-heavy. Probably less relevant for impact turn debates like cap/heg good though. Will not arbitrarily generate middle-ground inteprs on framework. Perm-double bind is an argument but not one that I think TKOs material alts. Neg teams should be should be willing to contest extinction outweighs. Aff teams should be willing to impact turn alts.

CPs: Will vote for anything in competition debates. Judge kick must be said if you want me to do it. Aff teams should feel free to tell me why I shouldn't, but that probably needs to start in the 1AR.

DAs: No revolutionary thoughts here — good ptx link analysis is fun to hear though. Good analytics can take out terribly-carded DAs.

T: Suprisingly not the worst judge for this. Don't have much topic knowledge though, so please explain any acronyms/specific terms.

LD: I've only ever debated policy, so go for LD-specific things at your own risk. Will be best at evaluating T/CP/DA/K stuff, but am open to phil if you can explain why it wins you a debate. Not great for tricks or frivolous theory.

Shreeram Modi (he/him)

Lynbrook, NYU, Poly Prep, Break Debate.

Email chain: debate@smodi.net, breakdocs@googlegroups.com

Subject line should include the tournament, round, and teams debating.

You can find my full judging record here. This speaks to my judging proclivities better than a paradigm would.

TL;DR

Tech over truth---I find that any line judges will draw to exclude "silly" or "generic" arguments to be arbitrary, so I choose not to draw one. Rather, the nature of debate necessitates technical concessions be evaluated as truth, meaning I will vote solely according to my flow and vote for anything with two exceptions outlined below.

1. Bigotry---Arguments presented as (not merely accused of being) a defense of bigotry will be struck from my flow. I've generally found that I care more about decorum and respect than others; behavior that transgresses into disrespect of people in the room will lead to lower points.

2. Newness---Arguments identified as new by debaters will be struck from my flow, and new arguments in the 2AR will be struck automatically. Cards should be implicated out by the final speeches (including new cards read in the final rebuttals), otherwise any meaning I ascribe to them would be new/ex post facto.

Flowing---I flow on paper or on excel without looking at the speech document, nor will I try to reconstruct my flow from it. I will attempt to flow in a line-by-line fashion, but may resort to flowing straight-down if debaters are not organized. I may refer to evidence after the round to resolve questions my flow is insufficient to answer.

Evaluation---To decide a debate, I will list the arguments flagged in the final speeches, resolving each until a sufficient win condition is met. For each argument, I will ask myself what winning this gets the AFF/NEG, and whether losing this can still allow them to win the debate. I will not grant an argument any implications not explicitly stated, even if the argument is conceded.

COUNTERPLANS

---Will judge kick unless told otherwise.

---Inserting perm text (e.g. perm do both) is fine, inserting counterplan text (e.g. the fifty states and relevant subnational entities should 'do the plan') is not.

---Most theoretical objections to specific 'types' of counterplans would be better expressed as competition.

---I may refer to the document to resolve counterplan and perm texts, but nonetheless you should still be clear.

KRITIKS

---Offense needs uniqueness, the 2NR going for the kritik either needs framework to generate uniqueness from the AFF's performance, an alt that functions as a uniqueness counterplan, or needs to go for unique links as DAs to the plan.

---Planless AFFs vs Framework need DAs to something the NEG's model mandates or offense generated from their performance. If you are critique of competition, you should probably have an alternative to competition as well as a reason why debate is still valuable.

---The perm debate on the AFF and NEG should be contextualized to the advocacies particular to the debate and the link arguments the NEG has made rather than reading generic DAs. The AFF and NEG would benefit from characterizing what the perm looks like earlier in the debate.

---Not sure how to 'weigh case' vs an in-round microaggression. The 2AR going for this will almost certainly lose.

PHIL/TRICKS

---LD judges are too trigger-happy to vote for tricks. Yes, tech over truth, but if you are going for Curry's Paradox ("Condo Logic" is NOT the name of the argument) and can not explain to me what exactly I'm voting for, but just assert a bunch of formal logic in my face, you will lose and the RFD will be "I don't have a coherent warrant flowed."

MISC

Debaters should be flowing---you don't need to flash analytics, doing so is a courtesy but not necessary. Similarly, there is no flow clarification slot in debate; cards should be marked orally but you do not need to specify which cards/arguments you did or did not read. Ask for a version of the doc without the cards not read and I will ask that you start cross-ex or prep.

Speaker Points---they are mine, not yours; I will not evaluate speaker point theory. The logical conclusion of evaluating this genre of arguments is that everyone reads and agrees to speaks theory at which point they serve no purpose.

---Higher speaks: Making good strategical decisions, knowing a lot about debate/the topic/the world, being engaging to watch, being clear will lead to higher speaks.

---Lower speaks: Not having your tech in order, excessive dead time, answering arguments that were in the doc but were not read, making bad strategic decisions, wasting CX, being mean/tactless, and having cards and documents not formatted properly using verbatim styles will lead to worse speaks.

Events that happened out of round---for the most part, arguments based on events that occurred outside of the time between the start of the 1AC and the end of the 2AR are unverifiable. This includes but is not limited to call outs, kritiks of teams' judge preferences, arguments related to disclosure, arguments about events that occurred in another debate round. This genre of argument is easily dismissed by simply stating that the violation is not verifiable, and even if I do have knowledge regarding the events that occurred, that is only by coincidence and outside the scope of this debate round.

Insult my brother---while I won't award higher speaks for this, I'll probably find it funny. However, if the insult shows an obvious lack of knowledge or is just corny, I may treat you disfavorably.

i dislike unclear spreading and value answering arguments

Debated at Immaculate Heart, currently an assistant coach

I much prefer Speechdrop but if you must: simone.pisarik.2023@gmail.com

I will vote on any argument as long as it is complete (i.e. it has a warrant and an impact). A dropped argument is only true if you explain why it is true in the subsequent speech

Policy

I am most confident evaluating these debates

Competition evidence should be in the 1NC

K

Links need to be ABOUT THE AFF

I am unfamiliar with k v k debate

I lean aff on fw. It is very difficult to convince me that fairness is not important

Link walls and fw interpretations should be in the 1NC

Theory/T

T-fw is probably true. Fairness is the best impact

Tricks are rarely a reason to affirm or negate, especially if you have not won truth testing. Please refrain from reading them in front of me. I will do everything in my power to find a reason not to vote on them

Default reasonability on frivolous theory, competing interps on T

Phil

Don't assume that I have prior knowledge about your position. I enjoy phil debate when frameworks are thoroughly explained and robustly justified. Buzzwords and catchlines mean nothing to me

I am not familiar with phil v. phil debate (apart from util v. phil) I am open to it

Misc

**Show up on time and ready to start (I shouldn't have to ask you to send the aff). The round consists of prep time, speech time, and cx. Please avoid delays between these segments, I will dock your speaks

I flow cx

Judge instruction is important

Don't insert rehighlightings (especially if they're being used to make a new argument, e.g. link walls)

Don't hide arguments/put shells on random sheets, I probably won't flow it

A "marked doc" indicates where cards were cut, not which cards were and were not read. Figure that out during cx/prep. Better yet, just flow.

Be clear!!

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.

If I clear you, be clear.

Assistant Coach for Immaculate Heart

Speech Drop > email chain but if you must: passionfruit11905@gmail.com

Policy

CP competition cards need to be in the 1nc

Zero risk is not a thing

Ks
Not very familiar with most K literature so don’t assume I know anything

Fairness is important and I am often persuaded by a case outweighs 2ar

Link walls and framework interpretations need to be in the 1nc— links should also be very specific to the affirmative

The words "post" and "pre" fiat are meaningless to me

Phil

I find it hard it vote for aprioris, paradoxes, etc. unless you have won truth testing, but truthfully I find it hard to vote for those arguments at all. Unsure as to why I find myself judging tricks debates and would prefer not to judge them

I have a strong distaste for analytically justified frameworks — I will hear out your phil AC/NC (I do enjoy philosophy debate), just please read cards

Theory

The more frivolous the shell, the lower the threshold for response

I'm not a fan of Nebel T, impacts that have to do with "novice inclusion" and nit-picky disclosure arguments. I do not feel confident in my ability to evaluate frivolous theory debates and would prefer not to judge them

K Affs & T FW

Neg leaning in these debates, fairness is the best impact

I am unfamiliar with k v k debate

Random

Read offensive re-highlightings, insert defensive ones. Link walls should never be inserted

I flow cx, it's binding

Flow clarification happens during prep/cx

If you are reading an ev ethics violation/clipping stake the round on it and have proof/a recording. Don't read this as a theory argument.

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!

Overview

-archan.debate@gmail.com---please send the 1AC before the round start time.

-Eagan LS, Berkeley US. Coached at Georgetown Day Schools and Head Royce (policy) and Harker (LD).

-Please post-round me if you disagree with me---judges should be held responsible for bad decisions.

-LD at bottom.

-TLDR: Tech over everything. Debate is a game and you should maximize your chances of winning. Judges who say "I'll vote on anything except [xyz]" don't understand what tech over truth means. You do not need to read anything below this---everything else in my paradigm are my general inclination of how debate works, so you can exploit some of the biases that I've accumulated throughout my time in debate. Regardless of what you go for, I will attempt to judge it as fairly as possible.

-Background: debated as a 2A since 8th grade (immigration, arms sales, cjr, water, NATO) and now as a 2N in college (nukes, MBIs). Read only policy affs and went for a K in exactly 4 rounds. Staked some pretty big debates on pretty stupid args (went for hidden aspec in mich finals and christian wipeout at the TOC). Gone for pretty much every policy arg under the sun: core topic DAs and CPs, impact turns (including warming good, spark, and wipeout), good T interps, terrible T interps, non-resolutional theory, process CPs, and Kant. Qualled 3x to the TOC and got to semis my senior year. I came from a small school, and appreciate being scrappy to make up for prep disparities. Despite the laundry list of bad arguments above, my favorite debates are the ones with the most clash and two sides that are well prepared on core topic controversies. Furthermore, from going for all the bad arguments, I've realized why most of them are bad, and even a couple smart analytics can zero most of them.

-Many decisions I've witnessed have been atrocious. Judges don't vote for args they like even though it was a technical crush, they rep out based on coaches poll rankings, or just don't evaluate the tech because they ideologically agree with one side. I will try my hardest to not do any of those things.

-CX is often the most interesting part of the debate. Show resolve and stand your ground. If you defended something in your speech, defend the logical implications in cross. One of my biggest pet peeves is when teams try to weasel out of hard cx questions.

-Innovation is good---if you have something that is genuinely new to debate, I will be very happy to listen to it.

-Neg terror is good. My most fun 2ACs were always against 10+ off. Aff teams should win theory or counter-terror (straight turn the DAs, read stuff that can be cross applied across the flows and don't cross apply till the 1AR, and impact turn everything).

-The point of debate isn't to maximize clash nor to avoid cowardice. It's to win. Go for dropped aspec, don't send analytics, and generally anything that increases your chances of getting the ballot. I will award strategic decisions more than your attempt to showcase your bravery by flexing about how you made the unstrategic decision to take your opponent up on what they're good at.

-If you win a try-or-die claim, I will pretty much always vote for you---if we're guaranteed to go extinct in one world, I'd always choose a different world.

-Inserting rehighlightings is good and should be done more---it lowers the barrier to entry for ev comparison and deters bad evidence.

-There is no substantive argument that's off limits: death good, hidden aspec, and spark are all fair game.

-Rep means nothing to me. A lot of my prefs as a small school debater my junior and senior year were preffing around judges who we thought would vote for whichever team had more clout as debaters. I will not care about how many bids you have, where you are on the coaches poll, or what school you go to.

-Read more impact turns.

-Ad homs are defined as logical fallacies.

K-Affs

-Very good for K teams that realize that Ks are a technical tool that is strategic because it has so many good tricks, very bad for for K teams that try to ethos their way out of technical concessions.

-Meta seems to have shifted pretty much exclusively to microaggressions (or maybe those are just the k teams that pref me). I have unfortunately voted this up many times but I think evenly debated it should be a crush for the neg on tab solves and T isn't a microaggression, especially given the time skew between the block and the 1AR.

-Counter-interps should pretty much never be the 2AR absent large technical mishaps by the neg. Every counter-interp seems pretty contrived and incoherent when held up to scrutiny. Also it probably links to at least some part of your offense.

-Ambivalent between fairness and clash---I think explaining clash is probably easier, but fairness is more true. Go for whatever you're more comfortable with/what you're winning in the round.

-Read more stuff vs K affs---word PICs against un-underlined portions of the 1AC or impact turns to stuff like warming seem to all be fair game.

-Go for presumption. When teams choose to give up fiat, they require winning that voting aff does something. It doesn't.

-I think that I'm more lenient on neg teams for links to DAs. If one of your cards says your method does something, impact turns to that definitely link as it disproves that the endpoint of your research practice as a desirable goal.

Ks on the neg

-Neg framework interps should moot the plan. Trying to debate the K like it's a CP means that it'll lose to the perm double-bind. If the aff gets to weigh their plan, extinction will almost always outweigh.

-Framework is never "a wash". It's a theory debate that has two discrete choices---not a continuous spectrum that the judge can arbitrarily chose their default ideological predisposition from.

-Philosophical competition is a worse version of positional competition (you not only get links off of what the 1AC says, but now the vibes that it gives off too?), but teams mess up on it. No counter-interp to philosophical competition = impossible to go for the perm.

-Use more K tricks. I'm very good for it.

-Defend your method---if the 1AC says that Russia is a threat, then defend that Russia is a threat.

-Beating 'extinction outweighs' relies on you winning an alternative to util (or winning fw to moot the impact).

-More teams should go for theory against alts---most are nonsense and fiat way more than should be allowed.

-If the alt is material, it mostly always has some great DAs to go for. Going for heg good vs basically any material alt is almost always a viable strat.

Soft left affs

-Two types of framing interps that are good:

---Discounted util: defend that consequences matter, but the way that we calculate them should be different in some way that discounts the impact. Eg, probability * ln(impact). Of course, this has some problems, but it's a much better starting point than "probability first".

---Alternatives to util: preferably something that says something like consequences are irrelevant combined with a boatload of "consequences fail" cards.

-Most framing contentions are atrocious. These are some args that are almost uniformly awful in debates:

---Probability first: a 75% risk of a paper cut doesn't outweigh a 74% risk of being tortured.

---Cognitive bias: a helpful tiebreaker, but it's not an interp. Also you open yourself up to cognitive bias claims going in the other direction.

---Conjunctive fallacy: doesn't assume debate where dropped args are true, so the diminishing effect, while true irl, is useless for debate.

---Don't evaluate future lives: might be true (probably not though), but largely irrelevant as if they win their interp, 7 billion * 1% will still outweigh.

---Util is racist/sexist/ableist: it still requires you to have a counter-interp for framing. Even if you win that util is the worst thing in the world, if I don't have some other heuristic to evaluate impacts, then I have to use util because it's the only one introduced in the round.

T

-I don't understand any alternative to plan text in a vacuum that would be good for debate. Pretty much anything else is equivalent to positional competition, which seems like it would be pretty bad.

-Good for T debates. Read more cards, indict your opponent's ev, and win the tech.

-Reasonability seems pretty bad. The only net benefit is substance crowd-out, but that's impact turned by just winning that T debates are good (which I'm pretty easily persuaded is true). It seems to be arbitrary (at what threshold is an interp reasonable?) and the culmination of all reasonable interps seems pretty unreasonable. Despite this, the main answer seems to be "judge intervention," which honestly is probably inevitable.

-Debatability and predictability are often talked about in a vacuum, separated from the actual context of the debate. Everyone agrees that a definition that isn't predictable at all or one that would destroy our ability to debate would be worse than a middle ground that is fairly predictable or fairly debatable. As such, I think teams should spend like time arguing about whether predictability or debatability outweigh, and spend that time explaining how their opponents interp isn't predictable or debatable.

-Tech over truth means that I'll vote on weird interps. Especially if there's some sort of technical mistake (dropping one interp in an interp spam, debatability outweighs predictability, or that overlimiting is good), you should go for it.

CPs

-I've gone for every flavor of bad CPs available: Space Elevators, Future Gens, Consult [x] country. It's very winnable in front of me, but aff teams that know what they're doing will have no problem in easily defeating most of them on competition.

-Saying the words "sufficiency framing" in every 2NC/2NR overview doesn't really convince me of anything.

-All theory and competition debates are models debates. Make sure that you are defending your model, not whatever happened in this round.

-Every CP is a PIC, and they all have a process. Make your theory interp precise.

-I'm very good for condo debates---on both sides. Condo is about the practice, not the number of condo you read in the round---number interps are inevitably arbitrary and devolve to infinite anyways. It's probably the only theoretical reason to reject the team. The only neg impact is neg flex---I don't know why people go for anything other than that in the 2NR.

-Uniqueness matter a LOT in theory debates. Both sides generally agree on the direction of the link (ie, everyone agrees that a world without condo would be harder for the neg), but you need to win uniqueness to make it be a DA against your opponents interp. Obviously there's the generic debate stuff like first/last speech, infinite prep, or 13-5 block skew, but topic specific analysis almost always trumps those. Engage and interact with your opponents warrants for uniqueness, don't just read your generic block back at them.

-Do more work for the debatability DA for definitions.

-Analytical CPs are good. If its obvious how they solve the aff, no explanation is needed. If it's complicated, then you should explain it, preferably in the 1NC.

-Fiating in DAs is underrated and more teams should do it.

DAs

-Politics is a good DA, I'm not sure why everyone seems to hate it. It's a negative consequence of the plan that's probably real for most affs.

-Good for fake DAs that rely on artificial competition. Fiat in more offense.

-I debated on three topics where there was no link uniqueness (Water, CJR, and NATO). Thumpers are extremely useful. If a neg team can't tell you why the link would be triggered by the plan but nothing else that already happened, it's probably a losing DA.

-Uniqueness CPs and CPing out of future thumpers is pretty much always legit in the 1NC, and debatably legit in the 2NC.

-Both sides should read more evidence on what normal means is on most process DAs. Ie, if you're aff facing a resource tradeoff DA, reading ev that normal means is increased congressional funding is often a good argument.

-I think turns case is often overhyped. It depends on the neg winning the uniqueness and link, which the aff team is rebutting anyways.

Impact Turns

-Go crazy. I'm good for anything you have.

-Sustainability is often more important than both sides give it credit for---it frames functionally everything else in the debate.

-Fiat out of aff scenarios!! I will give high speaks for smart CPs---most external aff impacts vs impact turns are very easy to have an analytic CP that solves it.

-S-risks outweigh X-risks. While it's often helpful to have a card for this, I'll automatically assume it absent impact calc from either side and make it a side constraint to avoid a small risk of any S-risk, similar to how judges would evaluate a 1% risk of extinction over anything else even without explicit impact calc.

-Big pet peeve of mine is saying something is "unethical" without engaging the substance of the argument. In most impact turn debates, both sides agree that util is how you frame ethics. So, if the neg is saying that extinction would net increase utility, saying "wipeout is unethical" isn't an argument unless you win that it's worse (in which case, you don't need to say that argument, because you would've won anyways).

-Update your cards---especially for less common impact turns, everyone reads super old cards---don't do that.

-Spark: go for better args. Nuclear winter is obvi made up and is solved by the bunkers CP. Nuclear tornadoes/Saarg is empirically denied and taken out by a CP that spaces nuclear attacks out. UV is better, but people in the poles would probably survive. But, civilizational collapse would eliminate all tech, making us vulnerable to all disasters and elimination potential for beneficial AI and space col. Those are S-risks that def outweigh any neg scenario (which, to be fair, are almost always worse than aff scenarios).

-Wipeout: win positive V2L, alien contact won't cause extinction, MCE solves animal suffering, and some random future tech won't condemn us all to infinite torture. These are all very intuitive and true arguments. In evenly matched debates, the aff would always win. However, due to prep disparities (people who are planning to go for wipeout will spend more time prepping it out than an average aff team), these debates are not often evenly matched.

LD Stuff

My background is fully in policy. I've gotten into LD recently---coaching/judging tournaments, and talking about LD specific things. I will attempt to evaluate everything fairly, but your best bet is to go for policy-like stuff.

However, with that being said, the neg side bias seems pretty massive in LD and I'll probably be sympathetic to aff teams that try to use tricks or cheaty args to try to compensate for that.

Prefs shortcut:

1 - policy v policy, policy v k, k v policy, theory

2 -tricks

3 - phil

4 - k v k

5/s -

-Tricks---I'll evaluate them, and I feel like I'll be better than most policy judges as I went for pretty tricky stuff, but I think that I'll still be worse for you than most LD judges. I feel like I'll also be more lenient on newer args because I'm used to a format where there's a lot of time to recover if you mess up. I'll be fine for tricks like truth testing, presumption and permissibility, paradoxes, and calc indicts. Probably not so much for things like evaluate after X speech.

-Theory---I'll be pretty decent for you---I'll eliminate most of my biases, and for some stuff (like yes/no 1AR theory), I won't have any biases in the first place. Look at the CP section above for more advice.

-Phil---I'll be okay. I haven't debated this stuff a lot but I'm deep on the lit. I won't know the applications to debate, so you should explain stuff more than you normally would.

-Learned everything I know about LD from Sam Anderson andAerin Engelstad

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.

Hi! I’m Lizzie Su (she/her). I'm currently an assistant coach for Immaculate Heart.

lizziesu425@gmail.com - reach out w/ qs

TLDR: second year out, mostly read policy but dabbled in phil. will vote on any complete argument (bar the -isms) but you should err on the side of over-explaining something if you don’t think I’m familiar

visit ld.circuitdebater.org and share with your friends

important things

--defaults/changed with a sentence: permissibility negates, policy presumption, 1ar theory is dta

--no strong argumentative preferences but I am not a fan of cop-out or cheap shot strategies designed to avoid clash and pick up an easy ballot. I will give the rfd that says "I don't know why x is true per the 2ar/2nr" or "this is not on my flow" if needed. If you would like to thoroughly explain why skep is true/a reason to negate or why disclosing round reports is a good norm then please feel free to do so, but 10 seconds of "they dropped hidden AFC now vote aff" isn't going to cut it.

--related list of non-arguments: "aspec they didnt," "no 2nr i meets" + 1ar shell they don't violate, eval after the 1ac, no aff args, no neg args. subject to change without notice!

--flow. take prep/cx for clarification (re: marked docs - minimize dead time!)

--i flow straight down in Excel by ear only. Speech docs will not be open during a speech. i shouldn't need to read evidence if you do enough comparison in round. it's on you to catch your opponent clipping with a recording.

--feel free to respectfully disagree with my decisions

argument 'preferences'

--very good for policy stuff.

--good for phil v util or phil v k

--fine for the k if you talk about the aff.

--not great for phil v phil or k v k but walk me through it and we’ll probably be fine

re: speaks

--boosted for strategic pivots and good ethos (read: smart CX, not distasteful zingers). If I enjoy watching/judging the debate, you will enjoy your speaks.

--docked for splitting the 2NR/2AR 5 different ways or otherwise making the debate irresolvable.

--docked if you ask for 30 speaks

--it has come to my attention that i was a speaks demon/goblin this past year. i'll try to be nicer.

--give me like an extra .5s to get to the counterplan flow before you say permdobothpermdothecounterplan. thanks!

--reading a 2NR off a doc full of cards you did not cut yourself is probably the least persuasive thing in debate

I'm a parent judge, please speak slowly and clearly. Clear judge instruction about why and how you win the debate will be useful. Also, don't assume I have prior knowledge about the topic so make sure to overexplain parts that may be confusing.

Parent judge, so please no spreading.

Err on the side of overexplanation. Have good signposting and voters in the 2NR/2AR. I should be persuaded to vote for you, so make it clear that your impacts are probable.

Have fun and be respectful!

I am a current coach and former competitor with a deep love for classical LD, though I occasionally judge in other categories.

I understand and can follow technical arguments and strategies, but I prefer classic framework clash with applications. In my view LD is all about thinking deeply about principles and their connection to the real world. That said, I will respect a more technical approach if you do it well.

Don't spread. Speed is fine if you enunciate well and the speech is well-written, but I do care about quality of arguments more than quantity.

All document sharing should be doneduring prep time.Factor in time for mild technical difficulties. If you aren't speaking, I'm running the prep clock.

You're probably annoyed by the above comments. I'm not as old as the above makes me sound. I promise I'm a decent guy and will give good feedback, and I'm more than capable of following speed and tech if you think you can do it well and impress me. Good luck!

She/Her

alice.debatedocs@gmail.com

Affiliations: Heights '23, Coaching Harker LD

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

TL;DR

My two goals when I judge are to (1) ensure that the space is safe for everyone and (2) evaluate the debate in front of me as neutrally as possible so long as it is not one of the 7 things below.

I strongly dislike intervention, but also think that, to some degree, it is inevitable regardless of the judge. I have tried to structure this paradigm to explain how to predict when/what intervention may occur + how to prevent it/overcome my natural intuitions.

I believe that debate is a research AND communication acitivity. This means I want to understand your arguments as you are reading them, I want you to tell me how I should be evaluating parts of the debate and evidence, and I do not want to (and will not) read documents to help me understand what is going on in the round.

Debate should be fun!!! :)

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

PF Update (Bellaire):

Please do not paraphrase evidence. Additionally, please make sure to have the full information available when citing a source in a speech (see below for evidence ethics).

Send each other evidence at the beginning of speeches, NOT between speeches during an untimed period.

I have not judged PF before and my background is only in LD and Policy, therefore I will not understand many structural things.

Kritiks, CPs, and theory do not make much sense to me in PF unless they are reasons the resolution are true/false.

If you want me to evaluate something it MUST be in a final speech. Additionally, you must answer arguments following the speech they are originally made. The only exception is the first two constructive speeches since I believe the norm in these speeches is you can introduce new arguments and are not required to contest arguments directly in the speech before. If your opponent does not extend offense in the speech following your defense against it, you do not have to extend the defense because I will stop evaluating the offense.

In PF, I understand the affirmative burden to prove the resolution true and the negative to prove the resolution false. The "burden of rejoinder" for the negative does not make sense because sometimes the negative goes first and I am not sure how you predict the aff plan and then rejoin it if you do not know what it is?

Non topical affirmatives for the reason above are a non-starter in PF.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Will not evaluate:

(1) ad homs/ arguments about a debater/ callouts (if something is genuinely unsafe for you talk to a coach)

(2) any morally repugnant arg (i.e. saying racism good, saying slurs, etc.) The round will end.

(3) eval after [x] speech

(4) give me/my opponent [x] speaks

(5) no aff/neg arguments, or any other argument that precludes your opponent from answering based on the truth of the argument.

(6) arguments that were read in a speech but you say were not in CX or that you do not mention if asked what was read (for instance: if being asked if there are any indep. voters and you do not mention one, that is not a viable collapse anymore)

(7) anything I did not flow and understand the implication of in the original speech. This means if you HIDE arguments you run a HIGH risk of them not being evaluated. Even if I do catch them, speaks will be lowered because I will be annoyed by your unwillingness to fully read and defend your arguments.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

General Thoughts:

(1) When I make decisions I first think about the following things in the following order to determine what piece of offense I am voting on: (a) the highest layer based on arguments in the round, (b) the winning framework, and (c) the winning offense under that framework.

(2) If you talk to me like I know nothing/very little you will be happier with my rfd. Not only does this increase the likeliness that I understand each of your arguments, but it also increases the likeliness that the round breaks down/is evaluated in a similiar way to how you thought about it.

(3) I will vote for any argument with a claim, warrant, and impact/implication (so long as it is not something on the list above). Obviously true arguments have a lower threshold to win than obviously false arguments simply because the burden to warrant the argument is much lower if it is already something I believe. To clarify: when I say "obviously true" arguments I do not mean arguments I personally believe, but arguments that a majority of people generally agree on as fact, such as "the sky is blue".

Here is a list of arguments that if evenly debated will be hard to convince me of. I understand it is kind of unclear what "even debating" is, but you can minimize the risk that I think something is evenly debated by doing judge instruction or explicit evidence comparison, which I will use even if it goes against my intuitions:

- the aff cannot weigh case
- extinction does not matter at all (especially vs phil positions that seem to care about preventing bad consequences to some degree)
- the affirmative cannot read plans
- the best model of debate is not one where the aff is at least tangentially related to the resolution
- 2nr/2ar theory is legit

(4) It greatly annoys me when debaters read arguments they misrepresent. For example: (see the explanation of what indexicals actually are)This does not mean that I will vote against arguments that you misrepresent, but know that you are responsible for warranting every part of the argument and cannot just rely on name-dropping the argument, literature base, or author in place of a warrant. Additionally, I reward well researched and properly represented arguments with better speaks.

(5) I WON'T flow off the doc and will only pull it up in constructives to check randomly and make sure you aren't clipping. I have gotten very comfortable recently "clearing" people and that is because debaters have gotten particularly unclear during long analyic blocks and the bodies of cards. I understand going faster during the text of cards BUT you should not become mumbly/unflowable. I am not reading off the document and want to understand the warrants of your arguments/evidence as you read them.

(6) I will only go back to read evidence once the entire debate is over if (a) I need to because there is a lack of comparison or (b) you tell me to (which you should do if your evidence is very good or your opponents is worse!). If I have to read evidence because of (a) I will likely be upset because I will feel like I had to intervene somewhere to determine what the better arguement was. Additionally, if you are telling me to read evidence, it is in your best interest to tell me what part of the evidence is really good or why the evidence is better to increase the likelihood I view the evidence in the same way you do.

(7) Inserting rehighlightings is fine as long as I can understand the specific implication of the rehighlighting from listening to your speech. For example: "[x card] concludes [explanation of different conclusion from original argument], INSERT REHIGHLIGHTING" is okay, "they are wrong, INSERT REHIGHLIGHTING" is not.

(8) The following is a list of "defaults" I have about debate. I think that every default on this list can change as a result of the debate and there should not be an instance when I need to use a "default" because you should be warranting these arguments in the round if they are relevant.
- presumtion negates unless the negative reads a cp, in which case it affirms

- permissibility negates

- comparative worlds

- I will NOT judge kick unless I am told to. Preferably you would do more than say the words "judge kick" and also justify why it is good.

- competing interps, dta, no rvi on theory

^ Note: I still think terminal defense is possible vs an interp... ie even if you win competing interps, theres no counter-interp, but the other side wins an "i-meet" I will not vote for the shell because an "i-meet" is terminal defense since the shell no longer has a violation.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Disclosure

The disclosure norms in debate are out of hand. I think disclosure is good. That does not mean you have to disclose if I am judging you but know if you are shifty, lie, or avoid questions I have no problem (a) tanking your speaks (<27) or (b) if you lied, automatically voting against you. Lying is unethical in a similar way to evidence ethics are and I have no problem voting against you if you lie. If you are shifty/avoid questions I will vote on the flow but know your speaks will be ruined and I will be sympathetic to the shell.

- I have judged 5+ debates in the past month where someone makes the argument “screenshots are unverifiable.” If someone says this the answer should not take more than 5 seconds and should just be “they are verifiable in the same way evidence is”. Along these lines – I have added a screenshots section to evidence ethics.

- You should be disclosing over some form of messages. If someone insists on disclosing in person/refuses to over messages, you should still ask over messages and screenshot them not answering. I don’t care if you then went and disclosed in person, send it over messages or you are not getting the I-meet.

- If you don’t want to disclose you should just say you aren’t disclosing and be willing to defend that model of debate. Don’t do things like say the aff is new when it isn’t, say you will disclose and then not, lie about which aff is being read, be unclear what is changing in the aff, etc.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Evidence Ethics

- I think that evidence ethics are a stop round issue, though if you want to just read it as a shell that's fine too and I’ll evaluate it on the flow. If you want it to be a stop round issue say something along the lines of “I want to make an evidence ethics claim, here is what happened” If you are correct W, if you are wrong L with lowest speaks

- Screenshots should not be fabricated. If a screenshot is fabricated, you should treat it as evidence ethics, and it is a stop round issue. I will verify screenshots the same way evidence is verified—by going to the source. This can be one of two things depending on the fabrication a) checking the laptops of the email or b) checking the wiki website

- The following are things I will vote on as a stop-round issue

* clipping (this includes verbally cutting your cards in a different place than your updated doc indicates… I will flow where you say “cut”)

* Citations that are missing or incorrect in one or more of the following parts (given that the information is available): Author name, year, article/book title, URL

* deleting text from the middle of the card/article (this includes replacing it with ellipsis)

* not including full paragraphs/ only having cards with partial paragraphs

* brackets that change the meaning of the text

* including/adding text into the card not from the original article

- If I catch one of these things but no one else does, I won't vote against you, I'll just lower your speaks.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Speaker Points

- I'll start at a 28.5 and work up/down from there. 28.5 is average.

- I find myself bumping speaks for: being particularly nice in round/to your opponent, reading an argument/a strategy I haven't seen in a while/ever, creative 2nr/2ars, giving a winning 2nr/2ar I did not think of during prep, rehighlighting evidence, efficiency.

- You will lose speaks for: being overly rude/aggressive, splitting 2nr/2ars unnecessarily, going for the incorrect 2nr/2ar, misexplaining arguments, an unstrategic cx, reading bad arguments (1 line tricks!), poor time allocation, if I feel like I have to intervene because of lack of evidence comparison/weighing.

- I try to base speaks primarily on strategy & execution.

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

Coach for Peninsula

Plz put me on the email chain at Stevenyu0923@gmail.com

Finance/econ major, do with that what you will.

Haven't debated in a few months, slightly out of touch with topics and speed.

Policy Debate

How I frame the debate

1. When going for the K, framework is defense. You need a link to win with framework.
2. Any argument goes. There is no "ethical" limitation on which argument is appropriate or not.

Here few principles on getting my ballot:

Simplicity is good. The more complex an argument is, the more it deserves explanations. So, for the K teams with good link work, please cut out the 10 syllable poetic BS and speak normal English.

Every argument needs a claim, warrant, impact. If it misses one, opponent gets new answers or won't vote on it.

You should debate as if I have 0 understanding of the topic. So, explain acronyms and such which especially matters for intricate process CP debates or T debates.

Speaks

Hiding theory is cowardice. You can and might win but speaks = nuked. The act of hiding theory (reading theory really fast but not in the doc especially in the block) makes you guilty, even if they spot you and answer it. This is my way of trying to deter the practice.

For every min of prep you don't use I will give 0.1 of extra speaks up to a cap of 29.5.

Predispositions:

Fairness is likely an impact. Fairness paradox is likely true.

Condo is good.

Process CPs are bad but likely hard to win absent a good answer to arbitrariness.

Reasonability is likely bad.

Inserting rehighlightings is NOT ok, but the other team needs to say that as a theory arg.

Predictability > debatability

Debates and characterizations of ev > ev quality itself

Timeframe matters, determines directionality of turns case. Turns case is only as probable as the rest of the DA e.g. if DA is 1% and turns case is dropped, it net values to 1% of turns case. So the aff weighs 99% of the aff vs 1% of the DA and only that 1% of the DA turns case.

PIKs are probably bad but likely theoretically justifiable against a K aff.

When your opponents concede an argument, that implies said argument is true. However, the implications and applicability of said argument can still be debated e.g. concede the plan causes more investments (uncontestable), the extent those investments are impactful or whether that causes inflation or not can still be debated.

Plan text in a vacuum is stupid.

Experience: (2NRs senior year)

Adv CPs + impact turns are my favorite 2NRs in high school. (more than 30%)

Adv CPs + topic generic DA (30%)

Process CP (10%)

Ks/K affs

Fighting against fairness on an impact/impact turn level seems to be an uphill battle. Instead, mitigating fairness with logical internal link indicts or how the aff's FW or how the T interp solves fairness is a much better take. For that exact reason, I tend to think I'm actually better for the K team in these situations. Clash is too defensive and I don't recommend it.

Hiding Borjk in 2NC FW = eye roll.

• K v T FW. Subjectivity formation here is important. If voting aff can't change minds, I intuitively believe no matter what impact turns, microaggressions, or whatever the neg has committed doesn't matter. For the K team, I believe an impact turn to legal precision/predictability here (with the ontology args to impact turn "legal credibility" or "academic expertise about the state" are best). I also believe impact turns, PIKs, and counter advocacies are creative ways to negate K affs.
• Policy aff v K. Middle ground is likely the best interp. Whoever debates with that is likely going to win framework. FW Ks are strategic, but I will respect you more if you debate middle ground as a K team and actually engage substance of case.

LD

You reserve the right to go for weird args and absurd theory, I reserve the right to not vote on it.

Granted, I'll try my best to understand, but I have 0 familiarity with phil or skep.

I might have a higher threshold of what counts as a complete argument in contrast to usual LD judges. You're better off explaining a particular arg intricately instead of proliferating many (in rebuttals).

Framing is never yes/no. Framing contentions are won probabilistically, meaning the extent you win framing is used in conjunction to DA mitigation to evaluate the debate.

For LD, each minute of prep not used is +0.2 speaks up to29.5.

Lay debate

Please go fast. I dislike lay debate.

Middleschool

Clarity > speed

Flow

Don't steal prep

I am a Debate coach at Loyola High School. I primarily coach LD debate.

I see debate as a game of strategy. The debaters are responsible to define the rules of the game during the debate.

This means that debaters can run any argument (i.e. frameworks, theory, kritiks, disadvantages). I will assess how well the debaters frame the arguments, weigh the impacts, and compare the worlds of the Aff and Neg.

However, I am not a blank slate judge. I do come into the round with the assumption of weighing the offense and defense and determining which world had the more comparatively better way of looking at the round.

As for Speakers' points, I assess those issues based upon:

1. How well the speakers spoke to the room including vocal intonation, eye contact, posture.

2. I also look for the creativity of the argument and strategy.

High Speaker Points will be awarded to students who excel in both of these areas.

Debaters are always welcome to ask me more questions about my paradigm before a round begins. The purpose of debate is educational as well as competition. So, debaters should feel comfortable to interact with me before and after the round about how to do well in the round and after.