Iowa City West '26 | she/her my email is @miabd26@icstudents.org

I'm currently a varsity debater, this past season was my novice year in PF

General:

• I won't vote on theory or K
• tech>truth
• Time yourselves please I will not time you
• Be nice

Things I want to see/hear:

• Off-time roadmaps & signposting, this helps me flow
• Frontline in 2nd rebuttal
• Extend your case through speeches!!

Things I don't want to see/hear:

• Don't spread, if I miss something that's on you, it hurts me more than it hurts your opponents (my wpm is 250, going any faster than that will risk an incomplete flow).
• New args in second summary or final focus
• Analyze your cards, don't just read card after card

I don't really like the speaks system but here goes anyway:

30 - god tier, you're actually cracked

28-29 - good job, you're better than I was my first couple rounds

27-28 - average, not good but not bad

26-27 - I can understand you and you made an effort

25-26 - idk what you said but it wasn't good or I just couldn't understand what you were saying

if you do decide to do email chain pls add me to it: enram27@icstudents.org

TLDR: Slow down on tags, i know what im doing

I PREFER EMAIL CHAINS

My name is Endrit (en-DREE-tuh). (he/him/his). I have around 3 years of experience in policy and 2 years of congress and speech. Ask me any questions you may have, I'm an open book.

My basic judging rules:

Tech > truth (if you say the moon is made of cheese and your opponent doesn't respond, I will assume that's true for the rest of the round)

Time yourself. I'll time but I prefer it that way.

Debate is not all serious stuff! Don't be afraid to joke around with me and your opponents/partner in an appropriate manner.

Signpost and Roadmap. I will dock speaks for this. Im serious.

My preferences:

Policy

Ks - I used to hate Ks but now I like them. Please let me read your K so i can actually understand it. If ur gonna read something like bioneuropsychology and ur alt is like “reject [thing i dont know about] and do the death drive” ima need some time to comprehend it. That being said, I have a hard time weighing with K framework so if you are gonna go for a Cap k “default neg on framework,” be ready to explain what that framework is and why i should vote for it. If your alt is the death drive and aff reads literally one solvency card i will assume alt fails unless you prove somehow that anarchy solves.

K affs are fine. Idrk why ppl hate them. That being said, IT WILL BE VERY HARD FOR ME TO VOTE ON NON TOPICAL K AFFS. “We refuse to engage in topical debate” type stuff usually is an auto loss for me unless opposition is horrible at explaining why this is bad and extending fairness/education voters.

I am fine with speed as long as you share the doc with me. That being said, I support spreading your card contents. Slow down on titles and authors. I will pre-flow (occasionally) but if you speed through your titles and authors you will lose speaks.

I can follow a theory debate but I don't prefer it. It’s also hard to flow your voters when you are talking faster so please slow down. I dont vote on interpretation if the opposing can prove double violation (i.e Aff reads “can’t talk to partner during opposing speech” but neg says that aff violates that, i don’t vote on it) Plan in a vacuum is always a voter for me. “ERR” always catches my attention.

<3 fw if comprehendible and xtended well

I support open cx.

I find the policy community is not very fond of aspec/costspec/fundingspec, but i'll listen

As for novice specific:

Don’t use random cards from your varsity debaters

If FW is allowed: extend all voters and prove you outweigh. If your case doesn’t link to the framework I will probably not vote for you especially if opposition links better to your own framework and can prove they can win on it. Running a fancy argument is not an automatic win.

Please dont forget judge instruction, tell me how to vote

LD:

Framework/phil- I love seeing framework clash, please try and interact with your opponents if applicable. Phil is mid, but I weigh on itheavily

Policy Style (LARP)-Coming from a policy background, this is fine to me.

Speed-I can handle most speeds. If your spreading is clear and I'm on the Email chain I should be ok. I might shout clear if it's really bad. SLOW DOWN ON CLAIMS AND TAGS PLEASE!!!

Trix-Just dont.

CX-I love CX please please please do more than ask for repeats of cards and really try and play the debate game with your opp. Especially as a novice I would love to see it. I believe CX is binding, if I hear it I assume its true for the round.

Ks- I am a K debater, so yes its great, just make sure it actually links and your K is unique. Pess is a hard argument for me especially if the alt is anarchy. Please refer to my policy opinions on Ks. If your K is too dense and like full of jargon Im really not going to want to evaluate it. please explain your lit so I can understand your argument.

Theory-totally fine, just make it not incredibly friv unless you plan to make the round funny. Defaults are as follows

Competing Interps>Reasonability || No RVIS>RVIS || Education>Fairness (I think debate should be more educational, if you want me to vote for fairness, make me think so, debate is inherently unfair for POC, queer, and female presenting debaters). || 1AR theory is fine

In general:

Signpost and roadmap

Use all your prep

I don't flow well or neatly, so I do apologize if I miss an argument. You can correct me and provide evidence after the round if I missed an argument and I will genuinely re-evaluate if it was anything of extreme substance.

Say my name correctly

Provide judge guidance. I don't want to genuinely evaluate your round unless I have to (aka novices)

30 point challenge: Name every Mitski song on her last two albums (Laurel Hell and TLIIASAW). I’m a huge mitski fan.

30 - You were one of the best people I saw all day

29 - You were fantastic but you have stuff to improve on

28 - Good job. You had good speeches.

27 - This is the low end. You were okay

26 - You struggled and didn't provide me sufficient arguments

25 - You conceded your round/said a slur or offensive thing in round

(tastefully) Roast Aahana Gupta = +0.4

This is not an objective scale, and i do speaks by decimal asw.