Tech>truth in all circumstances.

I will try to keep my intervention to a minimum and judge the round based solely on the arguments presented by the debaters. My personal opinion on the arguments should not matter and should not affect my decision.

Please speak clearly so that I can follow your arguments. Please use verbal indicators at the end of a card and before the following tag. It would be helpful if you could use numbers or letters in early constructives to make signposting easier.

Please include me on the email chain and ensure your speech is clear and well-paced. Avoid using excessive jargon and short-hand as it may appear confusing. If I cannot understand your argument, I will not include it in the final decision. This is especially important for Kritiks. Try to explain your philosophy as though you are explaining it to a twelve-year-old.

Shotgun please- just be clear enough

Please don't run things without a clear link story

I am fine with some K's usually cap and property with some variation

NO K-AFFS

Condo and Disclosure Theory are fine but explain well

I will vote on a sensical topicality argument 95% of the time

Read at least 2 disads

Disads are my favorite type of off-case. I will give a lot of weight to a good and understandable DA

0 speaker points if you are racist, homophobic, or discriminatory

Also, run multiple off, prolly like 3 or 4

no rhyming please, unless it is essential to our case like a poetry k

My inspirations are Christian Klein, Lane Lubell, and Ward Haj Darweesh.

Read fast, but the most important thing for me is enunciating. You have to get through the whole thing, but try not to sound like a mindless robot who doesn't know what they're talking about. Read with some emotion if you want good speaker points.

Also be sure to sign post, since that makes it a million times easier to flow and just will make me happy as a judge.

Give me an explanation of why I should vote for you in your rebuttals, otherwise there is no reason I should. You can give me a whole lot of reasoning on why the other team is wrong and how all your points make sense and all that, but if you don't explain why we need the real-world impacts of your plan, I'll have no motivation to vote for you. The best case option would be if you just pretty much laid out my ballot for me and I could almost just type the winner's rebuttal as my ballot, but being that purposeful about it is tough, so no worries if that's not quite what your 2nd rebuttals are.

Oh and also on the note of 2nd rebuttals, I know that a lot of judges want you to kick a bunch of off-case and just spend a bunch of time on one thing, or if you keep topicality just give an explanation of only that and drop everything else, but I honestly find that the more off-case there is, it makes for a more fun round and you can keep something in the debate with adequate responses without having to kick everything else, so in short I don't really care about kicking everything in your 2NR's, just read what you feel like reading and I'll honestly judge the round based on that.

Okay one more thing but talking about off-case made me think of this, if you're reading off-case make sure the link is EXTREMELY clear. I find that for a lot of off-case, the link can be very, very poorly explained, even non-existent in some cases, and that is the most important part of it in my opinion as otherwise it is irrelevant to the debate completely. With that being said, if you're missing any of the parts of a DA, impacts, uniqueness, links, any of that, I will completely disregard the DA and knock it off the flow. You NEED every single part to make a coherent off-case argument, and without just one of those, if it's not read or if the other team has a clear win on it or any of that, the DA will be disregarded from my decision and flow.

Other than that, I'm good with everything. Just make sure to speak clearly, use line by line, and know what you're saying.

Good luck!

Pronouns: He/Him/His/They/Them

Background:

Avery Coonley '26

Add me to the chain: shahvij@averycoonley.org

29.5 + speaker points if you run the pirate aff (Just kidding don't do it)

Greatest inspirations are: Aaron Kim, Mahi Shah, Joshua Friess, Kavin Bendre, Eric Youngquist, and Christian Kline

MMSDL:

For this year's topic intellectual properties: My favorite Aff is PERA or even Shop Safe

T: For this year it's just a time suck in the core files so either kick out of it (unless the AFF drops it) or don't read it as part of your neg strat. For the AFF I don't care if it's a case file tournament T is still a voter. If that's your only analytic on T then you will lose on it.

AI INDUSTRY DA: Great take if you read it. Best DA against AI copyrights this year not against other case files. This could be a round winner in AI copyright cases

COURT CLOG: Great argument especially because most of the ev makes sense. Climate Change impact link is kinda sketchy. The links against the affirmative are lowkey decent. Aff is hard to argue against this.

INFLATION DISAD: Decent isn't specifically that good for one aff it's more of a general aff however it doesn't mean that it is generic at all. Good take for certain Affs'.

That's all the off.

(Shotgun's are fun if you've got the speed)

Expectations:

Discriminatory, hateful, harmful, and/or profane language is forbidden, and its use will result in loss of rounds and speaks.

- Time both cx and your/opponent's speeches. Well, I or other judges keep official time it's good to keep your own.

- I'll follow along on the chain unless you start to mumble in which case your arguments aren't on my flow.

- Don't steal prep

- Roadmaps should be clear (don't kick in roadmaps)

- Judge instruction wins rounds. Tell me what issues to prioritize and why they outweigh the other team's impacts.

- Don't start off-case in the 2NC it's super annoying and is also a forfeit in some tournaments

- Don't ask me for a roadmap just give one

When doing line-by-line, go straight down the flow and clearly signpost. Don't get sucked into reading long blocks which are barely responsive and leave me to sort out what arguments they're meant to be responding to.

Post-rounding is good, as long as its done respectfully. If you disagree with part of my decision, feel free to argue with me about it, but know the decision will not be changed after the round.

ARGUMENTS:

T:

Predictability probably outweighs debateability, but I can be persuaded either way.

Put T first in neg strat and 1NC unless you have other theory arguments.

T is a voting issue so if they drop it completely it's all you should go for in the 2NR

Disads:

Turns case is important and should be at the top of most 2NRs on a DA.

Need good link explanation to feel comfortable voting on it.

Straight turns are very underutilized throughout debate. Straight link turns, especially on politics and economy disads for this topic, are some of my favorite debates.

Link turns are good so use those

Can't drop a link turn as the neg

CP:

The CP must have a net benefit of some sort. I like a DA rather than an internal net benefit but it doesn't really matter as long as it's well debated. Be careful arguing for a solvency or timeframe net benefit, especially if you're also going for case turns.

Advantage CPs are underutilized and pairing them with a good DA is a very solid strategy.

Most PICs aren't abusive. With that being said, I'll feel more comfortable voting on a PIC that is truly competitive compared to one that takes out a minimal part of the plan. For example, take a Green New Deal job guarantee. PICing out of the GND or FJG part is a competitive PIC. PICing out of people who haven't received a vaccine is not, and I'll be much more sympathetic to PIC theory in this case.

I technically lean Aff on questions of competition, but the Neg almost always wins on it because the Aff doesn't debate it correctly and/or doesn't understand what textual and functional competition are.

CPs should (probably) have a solvency claim and warrant, but don't necessarily need a card if its intuitive.

Judge kick is a logical extension of condo. 1AR and 2AR needs to make an argument as to why judge kick is bad for me to not automatically consider the status quo.

K:

K's can be fun as long as you know what you are arguing. While they are cool to run I discourage running Ks that either I have no idea what they are are you don't even know what you're saying. The Ks I'm most familiar with are setcol and racial cap and a bit on academia from previous round experience. (It's okay against Kaffs)

Kaff vs policy:

Neg leaning in these debates, but will obviously decide based on the flow

In order to win the round, Aff teams need to have a very clear claim to the ballot - absent this claim, and with the Neg including at least some role of the ballot argument, I'm obligated to vote Neg

Most counter-interps on framework are garbage, I’m more likely to vote on an impact turn to fairness or clash

Ballot PIKs + Presumption are underutilized

Debated equally by both sides, the Neg would always win on T, but obviously that rarely occurs

KvK debate:

I'll try and flow it but I have no idea what's happening. Be clear so I can understand your K better.

Random stuff:

Coinflips for K's are fine but if you're the AFF don't agree unless you don't care about the round.

Funny things I've seen or heard of in the past:

More people die from bathtubs than terrorism.

The pirate 1AC talking about how you wanna be pirates. Then you demonstrate and steal the judges ballot give yourself 30s and the W then give them their computer back. (DON"T READ THIS)

Bargaining: If you're a maverick at a tournament or round you're not going to do good out run the bargaining AFF. Tell the neg that you can have the W on this debate round so long as I get a 30. It's pretty funny.

Some things to do in speeches:

1AC: This should be well prepared and read at a good speed. The 1AC should be practiced. I can tell if it's not. You can lose speaker points if the 1AC is not done well. Practice Practice Practice!!!.

CX: Don't be a jerk in cross-x. No yelling but also speak up so both your opponents and I can hear you. While cx is not part of my vote it can be important if the team you're debating against doesn't answer a question. Please point this out in later speeches to give a larger reason to vote for you.

1NC: Same as the 1AC don't mumble and speak clearly. The 1NC should lay down the offcase. I love Shotgunning a.k.a reading all the offcase and oncase possible. Unless the AFF is going to drop Inherency 99% of the time don't read it. Your shotgun should always have a counterplan unless the counterplan your league allows is garbage or has no net benefit.

2AC: It's difficult to do a 2AC. That's why it's one of my favorite speeches. It's also probably one of the hardest next to the 1AR. Please don't mess it up. 2ACs are important for the round. I've personally seen 2As win and lose rounds. Line by line, Line by line, Line by line!!! It's really important. If you need prep take it before the 2AC. On your flow make sure you respond to all of the negs arguments and extend your own. Dropping args in the 2AC will lose rounds. Be careful and use good time management.

2NC: Split the block in the 2NC. If you don't know what that means ask your coaches or me in a round if you need to. For experienced debaters splitting the block is a great way to manage time and one of the best ways to win rounds. In the 2NC I like to see all oncase you may have missed in the 1NC. Line by line is greatly appreciated in the 2NC. Overall time management is not that big of an issue seeing as the 1NR can recover for you.

1NR: Offcase goes here. Read and extend disads, counter plans, t, etc. If your partner or yourself dropped anything in the 2NC read the oncase that they missed. If you want or need to kick out of a DA in the 1NR.

1AR: Arguably one of the most difficult speeches in debate. Like the 2AC 1ARs win and lose rounds which is why their so important. You need to read fast in the 1AR to cover all arguments. Not too fast. I never want your arguments to be WASTED.Like the 2ACs 1ARs win and lose rounds.

2NR: This is your last chance to convince me that you win this round. If it's not convincing you may lose the round. Kick Kick Kick!!! Kick out of disads, t, maybe cps. 2-3 off cases should be in the round by this point. At the end I like it if you "lay out the ballot" Go through my ballot and tell me what you're winning on, why it matters, and lastly why you're winning the round.

2AR: This is your last chance to convince me that you win this round. If it's not convincing you may lose the round. This is also the last say in the debate. IMPACT Calc in the 2AR is appreciated for my flow. At the end I like it if you "lay out the ballot" Go through my ballot and tell me what you're winning on, why it matters, and lastly why you're winning the round. Same as the neg you need to convince me.

Not just extension cards but line by line too for the above cards.

Please don't read more than 3 cards in rebuttals. I hate it when teams do that. Rebuttals are for analytics not whatever garbage extensions you wan't to read. Unless it's a good card that will win you the round you can lose speaks for doing this unnecessarily.

Speaks:

+0.1 if you say "tic tac toe --- 3 in a row ---- we win" at the top of your 2nr/2ar, but it has to fit the debate

+0.2 if you open source every card you read (you must tell me)

-0.2 for every argument you claim to be dropped when it was actually responded to

<26.5 - evidence violation

26.5-27.5 - lack of clarity, speed, depth, and understanding in arguments

27.5-28 - decent clarity, below average speed, decent depth of arguments, probably going 2-4 or 3-3

28-28.5 - my standard average for points, those at the upper end are probably clearing as a low seed while those at the lower end are going 3-3.

28.5-29 - one of the better speakers at the tournament, great clarity, decent speed, well-warranted arguments, clearing as a higher seed

29+ - top 5 speakers at the tournament, one of the top seeds

If you have any questions during feedback in round don't hesitate to ask. If you have any questions later feel free to ask. Email's at the top. I may not respond as recent as you wanted but I will try to respond.

????Good luck for your round with me and future rounds at this tournament.

Make sure files are in word. Files are formatted correctly. There are good roadmaps. GOOD SIGNPOSTING. Good flows.

Show your flows and if they're good enough I'll consider adding speaks.

Zayd(he/him)

Avery Coonley' 26

Add me to the chain at: siddzay@averycoonley.org

Middle school debater at the Avery Coonley School with some high school experience.

TLDR: Don't be racist/sexist/homophobic etc, and EXPLAIN all your arguments.

MMSDL Stuff

If I am judging you you are probably a middle school novice or jv.

Please read your evidence before debating, I can tell if you didn't. It is a core files leagues so you have all the files and can read the evidence.

I really don't like it if you start your off-case in the 2NC.

Have clear roadmaps(see flowing/speed/clarity).

Time your own speeches.

Do not be mean or rude, being racist/sexist/homophobic etc will lose you the round.

On specific arguments:

T: I really won't vote on it unless it is dropped.

DA's: No hot takes, its your main off-case in a core files league with no k's. Just make sure you can explain to the parts of your DA's!

CP's: No opinions, just tell me why the CP is better than the plan

Flowing/Speed/Clarity

I flow on paper and am fine with any speed as long as you're clear.

Please give a roadmap before your speech. You don't have to ask me if I want one, just do it.

Please be clear in your speeches. If I can't hear the tags then it is not likely those cards will factor into my decisions.

Please make an indicator of when you are moving on to the next card. A brief pause is fine.

Speaks

-0.1 for every argument you say was dropped that was not.

+0.1 if you show me your flows after the round and they are really good.

Wrapping up

That's all I have to say about my preferences in debate. Please be kind and have fun.

Zayd

ACS '26, varsity mmsdl policy

Aff:

1AC, enunciate the tags or indicate that you're moving on to the next card.

2AC, use line-by-line and RESPOND TO ALL ARGUMENTS

1AR, this is one of the most important speeches as the 1AR responds to all arguments made in the neg block, explain why your arguments are better than theirs. Do not just state "They say ... we say..."

2AR, this is your last chance to prove why I should do the plan, tell me how to evaluate the round

Neg:

1NC, same as 1AC but put off first, makes it seem like your arguments are more important

2NC, same as 2AC, 2NC should have on-case and maybe a few of the off, depending on how much you are running

1NR, I'd recommend splitting the block. Also, 1NR should have most of the off-case

2NR, explain why your impacts are worse than theirs, kick arguments, and try to focus on around 1 or 2 instead of all of them

In general:

Be respectful

Try not to cede time, it makes it seem like you don't have enough to say about why your arguments are good

If you don't flow or aren't using a timer, I will dock speaker points

You shouldn't be asking me how much time is left in your speech, YOU HAVE A TIMER (hopefully) USE IT

Here for the middle schoolers in practice rounds (you aren't reading it I was just bored). Sorry if this is old, but I wrote too much to go back and revise so I did it very lazily.

Tldr: impact calc, good roadmaps, signposting, and most importantly clash land you good speaks. Be strategic and argue well and I will vote for you.

Speaker points/flowing related:

1. GIVE ME IMPACT CALC

Please! Give me a reason as to why an impact with 100% probability outweighs an impact with a larger magnitude but 1% probability. Or a reason why an extinction impact outweighs another impact no matter the probability. You have to weigh the impacts and tell me why yours are larger. It makes voting for you much easier.

2. Please, good roadmaps

This includes: sticking to the roadmap you gave, no weird roadmaps like "off case 1, on case, off case 2", and not saying "impact calc" or "line by line" in your roadmaps. It isn't a voter, but I will give you much fewer speaker points if you give a bad roadmap. And it impacts my ability to flow. If I can't flow your argument, I won't evaluate it.

3. Good with spreading, but be understandable

There aren't any speech docs in middle school, so I expect all arguments to be understandable. I can understand if you talk fast, but PLEASE make sure you are enunciating everything so that I can hear it. If I don't understand what you are saying, I won't flow it.

4. SIGNPOST

I will be SO ANGRY if you don't signpost. This can be with numbers, letters, the word "next", or a change in pitch, but just make sure I can understand when you move from the end of evidence on a card to the tag of the next. I will often not be able to flow arguments that aren't signposted well as I will rarely understand them, and your speaker points will reflect this.

5. CLASH!!!

The best debate is one where both sides directly clash with each other's arguments. I want to see the affirmative clash directly with negative DAs, and a good case clash between the affirmative and the negative.

6. Speaks

The average is 28. You are a great speaker if you get a 29. This would involve good impact calc, clash, and convincing speeches. Exceptional gets 29.5+. This means you amazed me. If you aren't a great speaker, meaning little clash, little to no impact calc, and or unconvincing speeches, I will give you a 27.5. You have to be REALLY bad to get a 27. Anything below that and you did something seriously wrong.

Strategy related:

1. VERY reluctant to vote on T

Really? It's middle school, and core files are released at the start of the year. You have had their affirmative case since the beginning of the year, and there are only 3 cases to be run! There's a minimal issue with topicality, and I will almost ALWAYS vote affirmative unless it is just completely dropped.

2. Defaults to extinction outweighs

Unless said differently in the round through framing, or convinced otherwise through some form of impact calc, I WILL default to extinction impacts outweigh.

3. Put your offense first

Most of the time neg should be putting off case and counterplans first, and aff should be putting case first. There are few exceptions to this. If you don't put offense first, that's a loss of some speaker points (and it puts you at a strategic disadvantage).

4. Negative - try to get down to 1 strategy by the 2nr

I don't want to see 3 off in the 2nr. Pick the strongest DA, or a CP with a DA as a net benefit, and go for it in the 2nr. Often if there are many off in the 2nr then they aren't well explained, and it makes it much harder for me to vote on it. A single strong DA is very convincing, 3 weak DAs are not as convincing.

5. Kick things correctly

I won't point it out mid-round but speaks will reflect it and opponents can point it out. To kick a DA the negative should concede an argument that takes out the impact, internal link, or link. You can concede a non-unique argument, but only if there weren't turns. If there is a non-unique conceded, and aff had a link turn, the turn was dropped and a non-unique + link turn turns the DA into an aff advantage. Similarly, watch out when you choose what to concede! If the aff ran an impact turn, you cannot concede that as it will turn into an aff advantage. Counterplans can be kicked simply by stating "We are now advocating for the status quo". T is kicked by not stating it in the roadmap. Aff: you can kick an advantage in the same way - just like the negative, watch out for turns!

6. Aff on a counterplan

You should already know this, but if arguing for a perm you should argue why it is better than the counterplan. You could also argue no net benefit, because if the aff and counterplan have the same impacts and solvency I vote aff.

8. I will NOT do work for you

You are expected to flow and point out things like dropped arguments. If it isn't pointed out by someone, then it won't be evaluated in my decision. Dropped arguments, new arguments in rebuttals, arguments not extended that are brought back, and contradictions made by either side are expected to be pointed out to me in order for me to evaluate it.

9. Tech > truth

If an argument isn't true but dropped, it's true now! However, if two arguments are presented I am more inclined to believe the more truthful argument. If you are arguing something that wouldn't immediately appear to be true, you have to do a good job explaining it to make me vote for it. An example is UBI vs the econ DA. The 1nc will say that the UBI is inflationary or would take a lot of money. I am very inclined to believe this. The 2AC should do a good job explaining why the UBI would not be inflationary or cost as much as the negative said. If the 2ac does a better job than the 1nc does, then aff wins on the econ DA. If the 2ac doesn't explain well, then the negative easily wins on the economy DA.

Hi everyone who is reading my paradigm,

My email is eyoungquist@averycoonley.org for the email chains.

I’ve been coaching policy debate for seven years at the Avery Coonley School in Downers Grove, IL (it's a middle school). I’ve also judged a few rounds of high school Public Forum and am starting to judge Congressional this year. I kind of fell into the job as a debate coach- I didn’t have any debate experience in high school or college. I've taught Literacy for 16 years, and social studies for the last four.

That being said, please treat the debate room like a classroom in terms of behavior and decorum. If the way you are acting would not fly at your school, don't do it in front of me. Debate can get heated, the cross-ex can get pointed, but outright rudeness, swearing, etc. will come with penalties.

In terns of judging-I always view debate through the lens of a solid analytical argument, just like I would in my classroom. I need a cohesive argument, solid support, analytics, and a breakdown of why your argument is superior to your opponents’ argument. An “A” debate should look like an “A” paper.

Two things I don’t like to hear are extremely fast talking and cards that don’t support their tags. It’s great that you got through a lot of evidence and tried to put a lot of things on the flow sheet, but if you are only reading a sentence or two from each card and it doesn’t add up, it’s not a real argument. I need depth. I need CLASH.

I am really against fast reading. If you words are jumbling together and I can't make it out, it's not going on my flow. If I can't make out what you are saying, I am going to give you a "clear." If it continues, I'll give you a second one. Beyond that, I will disregard it if I can't make it out.

The round is going to go to the group that clearly lays out their argument (love signposting) and advances their ideas clearly while pointing out the flaws in their opponents’ presentation. If you are running a "K," I want an overview of the theory before you launch into it. This is especially true if I haven't seen it before. I'm not going to get what I need from your light speed reading without some background.

I’ll take T’s and K attacks that are on topic and make a valid point, but don't try to shoehorn something in just because it's what you always do. If their case is barely hanging on to being topical, go for it. Can you make a legit critique with some SOLID links? Go for it. Just don't get too esoteric on me, and MAKE SURE THE LINK IS SOLID (yes, I said it again)!!! Blocks of jargon with no real tie to the case will not work.

Please don't run a cheaty "K" Aff on me. I'm not big on the "K" Affs to begin with, so this had better be solid.

Hi!

My name is William Zhong (You probably already know that)

I've done almost 3 years of middle school debate, plus a few high school debate tournaments.

I DO NOT like K's (They really annoy me)

I'm more on the technical side, I like linked arguments that the debaters can clearly make and explain to me.

I don't evaluate cross-ex as highly, so do what you will.

If you say Game Over in your last speech, +.25 speaks

My email is zhonwil@averycoonley.org

You are supposed to time yourselves, but I'll also time (But I might forget)

I'll also try to give you a 1 minute warning

Try not to argue with your partner (I'm not afraid to give low speaks)

That's it :)

(You can ask questions before the round starts.)