Hello, I'm Gabriel. I am a junior currently debating at Sumner Academy. I've done debate since 8th grade (DKC).

File Share: I would pref SpeechDrop, but if needed addgaband318@gmail.comto the chain.

Topic Knowledge (24-25): This topic is interesting, it has a lot of niche things about it that, although on the surface may seem REALLY boring, can be pretty fun.

Tech>Truth, but don't just lie. Tech applies to things that are disputable like the economy, truth applies to accepted truths like water has two hydrogen atoms.

Philosophy- I believe that debate is a good space to change peoples' minds, and it creates the innovators, legislators, and well-informed voters of tomorrow.

DA's- I need a clear calculus and DA story in order to vote on a DA. Generics are fine, but obviously the more specific the better

CP's- Condo is fine with one advocacy, but if you have multiple, ESPECIALLY if they're conflicting, its prolly bad. Dispo is prolly good, and uncondo is good. Know that these are my initial thoughts, but obviously I will move with the debate. To win the CP it must be mutually exclusive, and have a net benefit. I default to sufficiency framing.

Topicality- I will typically not consider this a voting issue unless necessary. I default to competing interpretations but if you don't give me clear voters by the 2nr I typically won't vote on it.

Kritiks- I think the K debate is fun, and if it is run correctly flowed consistently I consider them voting issues. A few things here: I default to the policymaker framework, so in order to vote for a K I need a clear framework to do so. I have ran with Cap, SettCol, Empire, Neolib, and Security K's in the past, but am familiar with Identity K's (Race, Fem, Queerness, etc.). For K aff's, I need to know what the ballot means and what my role as a judge is in the room. If I don't have that by the end of the 1a, it'll be tough to get my vote.

Speed- I can tolerate high speed. Please still be persuasive and logical. I will verbally say "clear" if it is too fast.

Let me know if you need any kind of accommodations medical issues. Don't use your prep to resolve an issue such as that. If something like that happens in the middle of a speech, pause your time and take care of yourself please.

Any form of overt racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or any other biased discrimination is not tolerable and will result in your loss of my ballot and a referral to tournament staff. not swag

If you have any questions feel free to ask before the round.

Any questions about feedback can be directed to 26gaband@kckps.org or (preferably) gaband318@gmail.com

Hi. I am a junior at the Barstow School.

email: kevin.gill@barstowschool.org

General Stuff: Be nice. Don't be racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. I am open to almost any argument. Let's try to keep the debate moving and hopefully avoid tech issues. I prefer open cross-x.

Topicality: Limits can be the cleanest standard for the neg to win but I also find ground loss important to provide context. I want both sides to explain the model of debate your interp and mpact out why it’s comparatively better.

K: Explain why winning the framework matters and how you still win the debate even if you lose the framework. You don't necessarily need a material alt to win if you go for framework. 2ACs should explicitly answer each of the link arguments even if it's just by explaining that it's a link to the status quo, a block that can impact out a dropped link argument well is likely to get my ballot as long as they are somewhat ahead on the framework or impact framing debate. Overall, if you NEG just make sure you fully understand the K and make sure you can answer questions about it.

CP: I like all CP's. If you think a CP is bad, then it's your job to beat it. Just make sure you have an impact/reason to show that you have a net-benefit.

DA: I need a compelling link story contextualized to the AFF. Impact is essential for both sides.

Don't Clip.

I like a compelling narrative, especially in the link debate. I value both technical skills and argumentative truth. Clarity and flowability will increase speaker points and chances of winning. Run whatever you feel comfortable with as long as you are mindful of what you are doing. Please don't say anything you don't understand.

If there is an ethics challenge issued and the debate is stopped, the team that is correct (about the clipping, miscut evidence, citation problem, etc.) wins the debate. Arguments about evidence ethics can be made absent an ethics challenge and without stopping the debate; for example, when connected to a citational politics argument. However, if one team says to stop the round because something is an ethics challenge, the round will stop and the team who is correct about the issue will win.

Speaker points: I usually give around a 28.6 or above

She/Her. Please don't misgender me.

Slight Kritikal Bias.

I have only debated policy on the national circuit for 2 years.

My email is sky.macivor@barstowschool.org

I flow by ear, so prioritize clarity. If I can't flow something, I won't vote on it. Always assume your opponents are a better flow than me.

My paradigm is personal preferences and opinion, not hard rules. Everything below here doesn't matter in the face of good technical argumentation.

Tech > Truth, but the more truth something has, the less tech you need to win it.

Text > Spirit

Reasonable condo is good. "We get what we did' is the only non-arbitrary counter-interp

I stop flowing after 7 off.

If you ask me to read a card I will read it after the round.

Links are the most important part of an off case. PLEASE NAME YOUR LINKS. MY FLOW WILL THANK YOU.

Debate is a game, and it impacts subject formation. These are not mutually exclusive.

SPEAKS
Starts at 28, up and down from there.

If you don't disclose, your speaks start at 25.

NOT SIGNPOSTING(Numbering arguments, saying when you move on to the next argument/flow, giving ample pen-time, etc.) WILL DOCK YOUR SPEAKS AND MAKE IT HARD FOR ME TO VOTE FOR YOU BECAUSE I WON'T BE ABLE TO FLOW YOUR ARGUMENTS.

Doubling down on bigotry is an auto L and 0 speaks. Apologize in the speech after. Debate should be a safe space.

Don't tag your cards "Extinction" or "Nuclear War." They should be grammatically accurate, to a reasonable extent. (I'll be honest, it's rough when you don't cut most of your cards. I don't follow this from time to time, but it's something to strive for.)

-0.5 speaks for every speech you don't send out your analytics. Even though I don't flow off the doc, sending analytics increases clash which is good for debate.

Be kind, lighthearted, and respectful with your opponents, even if you are debating something heavy, like an identity K.

Don't do unnecessary post-rounding. It's embarrassing, and I won't to change the ballot. Questions like "why didn't you vote on this" are fine, just don't be aggressive.

Focusing on Ethos will up your speaks, especially in cross.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

The most criminally ignored part of a debate. Rounds are won and lost in cross.

Questions should have a purpose and end goal.

Don't ask long winding questions that are clearly just arguments. Save those for your speeches. Cross is the time to set up those arguments.

CASE DEBATE

I love me some good case debate. I think fleshing out a scenario > having a bunch of extinction impacts, but it doesn't really matter.

Case turns are amazing and slept on, especially if they implicate the solvency of the aff.

I like 3-4 minutes on case.

KRITIKAL AFFS

I love them more than policy affs, meaning I end up having a slight aff bias with these.

K affs always get "Fiat lite" meaning they can assume their method will happen(They don't have to win that this debate round will spill up to make a communist party or something), but they have to talk about the types of things that fiat would typically ignore, like how would such a communist party organize, or gather members, etc.

I am not sympathetic to "look at all the ground we lost" arguments on framework. You need to say what and why you lost an argument, and why you couldn't run the opposing argument(I.E. Don't just say "We lost IP bad" say "We lost IP bad and IP good because they'll no link out of it"

Debate Framework At It's Best

The more you challenge them on substance rather than framework the better.

Disads against K affs are incredibly underrated and should be ran more often.

KvK debate is the best, most nuanced debate about method solvency. You do not get a perm here.It ends up being competing theories of power and how lit bases interact, which is incredibly interesting. I will vote on KvK much happier than T-FW rounds.

PROCEDURALS/THEORY

If you run aspec I will laugh, and if you go for it, I will glare. But for real I will have a hard time voting on a 5 second aspec shell that I couldn't flow. If I did flow it, and you made a point of signposting it, it's fine.

They're good if they have in-round abuse. This is what turns a bad condo round into a good condo round, etc.

You need an Interp, Violation, and Impacts. You need to extend all of these(I.E. I can't vote on topicality if I don't know why the aff isn't topical.)

TOPICALITY

This was kind of covered in the Procedurals section, but please have impacts/standards/reasons to prefer.

This is where "the more truth something has, the less tech you need to win it" really shines. I will definitely vote on topicality against an obviously topical aff if it's debated well, but T really only shines against blatantly untopical affs(I'm looking at you, mars col.)

DISADVANTAGES

Not much to say here. Focus on links, uniqueness overwhelms is an underrated argument that more teams need to make IMO.

Straight turning a disad is incredibly cool and I will boost your speaks if you do it well.

COUNTERPLANS

I am not a counterplan debater, so you will need to explain the intricacies of your counterplan very well.

I am completely oblivious to counterplan competition. Do not pref me if you are a process counterplan debater.

KRITIKS

My favorite off case.

Don't take them personally(If someone runs setcol against you, don't take it like they're attacking your identity)

Same thing as K affs, they get a lesser fiat. They don't have to win that this round is key to communist party organizing, or that this round is key to decol, but they do have to contend with how that method would be put into practice. They get significantly less fiat then K affs, meaning that they have to contend with much more issues with alt solvency and viability.

LINKS ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT. This is where the nuanced magic happens, where the clash is the most palpable, and where the most creative debate can happen. I've seen many rounds decided because the neg decided to go for the link as a solvency deficit to the aff and I love it.

Please don't downplay K impacts. I get that you have an scary extinction impact, but it doesn't look good if you equate structural violence to simply "being mistreated."

On framework:

I default to fairness being an internal link and an impact, but you should win that debate is valuable to bolster your impact(I.E. Why does debate being unfair matter if the game has no inherent value)

Good lord please do impact comparison. If the aff wins 100% of fairness and the neg wins 100% of education, and if I don't hear impact comparison I will default to weighing the aff.

I believe a productive debate round is one with high clash and poignant questions that leave every participant with new knowledge. I recognize and appreciate observant, responsive arguments.

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

JDI '23, MNDI '24

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

cx

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

case

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

disads

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

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

cps

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

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

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

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

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

k's

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

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

t

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

theory

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

hot takes

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

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

pf

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

ld

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

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