Just try to speak as clearly as you can.

Email:tdbanks8@cps.edu (Will not pop up when you search you just kinda have to type it out fully)

Read your offcase before your case arguments because you can read more case in the 2nc but you cant read more offcase in the block

T:explain your impacts like fairness, clash, etc, and explain why that comes before a discussion of the plan or why the plan is untopical. View it similarly to disad/cp debating.

K's: K's are one of, if not the most powerful strategy in debate and it frequently gets underused. I am not against or for voting for the k. Don't expect me to know the depths of your literature .

Counterplans: I'm pretty persuaded by a lot of counterplan theory .

Disads:Make sure to extend every part in the speeches you go for it in I would recommend you extend in the 1nr

use speechdrop, if not: ecamdebate@gmail.com

gbn ‘26 she/her

add me to the email chain (ecatdebate@gmail.com) or use speech drop, i don't have a preference.

flow. it'll help you, i promise. line by line is important to do in a debate.

clarity > speed. if i do not understand you, i will say "clear". i would rather you get qualitative arguments across to me rather than mumbling something no one can understand just to "be fast".

tag team cross ex is fine with me for now.

PLEASE give a roadmap and signpost!! it is really helpful for the other team and the judge with flowing (ask me if you don’t know what that is).

feel free to ask questions about my decision or about debate in general.

good luck!

junior debater for GBN - 2N/1A

she/her

call me Kristin – judge is too formal considering I'm like one year older than you

264598@glenbrook225.org – if you aren't using speechdrop or the tabroom share function (you should if possible), add me to the email chain!

****************************************

TOP LEVEL

--tech >>> truth. a dropped argument is a true argument, as long as you have a claim, ev, and warrant.

--"they dropped no patent thickets" is not a full argument. "no patent thickets because other sections like 102 ensure quality – that's 1AC Rafetto" is a full argument.

--flow! if you show me your flows after the round and I can see you made an effort, I’ll boost your speaker points by 0.1.

--clarity >>> speed. this means slowing down on tags/analytics and signposting.

--if you're unflowable, I'll say "clear" – that's a cue to slow down and enunciate.

--open CX is fine to an extent. you should be learning how to ask and answer questions – if you need to ask or answer questions 1-2 times in a CX that isn't yours, that's fine, but don't interject anymore than that.

--be nice to your partner and opponents!! debate is supposed to be fun, so please don’t make the round terrible to participate in.

--I'm better for policy rounds over K rounds (<– classic GBN debater) but don't limit what you read based on that. I'll vote on anything if debated well enough.

****************************************

FOR ONLINE DEBATE (must read!!)

--go a little slower than you would normally spread during an in-person round - especially for tags and analytics. I can't flow any of your arguments if they sound like gibberish on my end.

--if my camera is off, I'm not there and you should not start the speech!!

--clarify when you're taking prep or tech time – the amount of stolen prep on online debates is ridiculous, so if you're randomly silent for 2 minutes before you're supposed to give a speech, I'll assume you're stealing prep and tank your speaks.

GBN '26
1N / 2A

Please use speechdrop if the tournament provides one through tabroom. If, for some reason, you are unable to, ask me for my email.

Please send documents as a Microsoft Word Doc.
If you are using Google Docs, you can do this by clicking File-->Download-->Microsoft Word (.docx).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Call me Judge.

Be nice. Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc.

Tech > Truth, but that doesn't mean that I evaluate the arguments in a vacuum. If an argument is completely nonfalsifiable, or not even close to truth, my burden for answers it are much lower.

Explain why an argument matters. This means you will have to do the following:

1. ARGUMENT COMPARISON. Explain why your defense is more important than their offense, why your turn outweighs the link, etc. You should contextualize your arguments to what they've read.
2. IMPACT COMPARISON. Explain why your impact outweighs on timeframe, magnitude, or probability. Then, explain why that metric for impact comparison is how I should evaluate the debate.
3. EVIDENCE COMPARISON. People in debate oftentimes don't read very qualified evidence. You should capitalize on that. Also, if their evidence doesn't say exactly what they say it says, you can insert a rehighlighting. If your author is very clear on how your scenario works, use language from the evidence in the 2NR / 2AR.
4. JUDGE INSTRUCTION. You should isolate one or two arguments in your final speeches that I should vote on. Go into depth on why this argument is the one that decides the debate, and why you're winning this. If you are doing all of the above for one or two arguments, you will have a pretty good final rebuttal.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Personal Preferences:

Cross-ex is closed. You are novices. You should be learning about the topic and how to answer questions, as this is an important skill. Having your partner answer for you deprives you of that opportunity.

Inserting rehighlightings is fine. If the card is truly not saying what they say it says, you shouldn't be forced to reread it just because they read bad evidence. However, if you spam inserted rehighlightings that are out of context words, I will give you lower speaks.

Your 2NR should consist of a CP and DA / DA with case defense / K / T. You should have a clear scenario for what the world of the negative looks like throughout your 2NR. If you extend multiple scenarios, you just waste half of your time. Your 2AR should consist of one or two arguments on each offcase, clearly explained with detail, and an extension of one advantage with all of the comparison above.

Argument Preferences:

Disadvantages: Your block should almost always include a couple of smart turns case arguments, which are extended as a case deficit in the 2NR. On aff, you should have some sort of case turns DA. I would prefer that your 2AR includes some kind of offense against the DA, whether it be a link turn, impact turn, or impact comparison from case.

Counterplans: I love counterplans. Make sure to explain how the counterplan solves case. Affs should have answers unique to their aff, because most counterplans are highly generic, which should be leveraged by the aff. If your 2AR against counterplans doesn't contain aff-specific solvency deficits, I am probably not the judge for you.

Kritiks: If you don't understand your kritik, I won't either. You have to explain to me what the kritik means. Don't read a kritik that you don't understand. Don't read 15 "framework disads" that can be summed up by one or two offensive arguments, it's harder to flow and will just end up annoying me.

Topicality: I definitely think this topic is a good one for topicality. It has the potential to be an incredibly expansive and challenging topic, and we probably need more limits on what is topical than we currently have. The burden is mostly on the aff to explain why they are the more educational interpretation of the topic and wouldn't overwhelm novices.

Theory: I'm good for theory, but I think the best vision of theory is as a 2AC time skew. Read frivolous theory arguments.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Misc:

FLOW.

HAVE FUN.

MAKE JOKES. IT WILL BOOST YOUR SPEAKS.

gbn ‘26, 1a/2n

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

no email chains. if tabroom has a designated speechdrop room for the tournament, you must use that. otherwise, set up a doc sharing room at speechdrop.net

call me faiz (it's pronounced “fez”), not judge, i’m like 2 years older than you

don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

for online debates, slow down and speak up. please. zoom/tabroom/whatever video meeting doesn't always catch everything. if your audio cuts out, i'll intervene.

if i can't understand you, i'll "clear" you. i won't feel sympathy to not vote on an argument if i miss it in an earlier speech because you were incomprehensible.

flow and do line-by-line (respond to the other team’s arguments in the order that they have presented them). when you respond to an argument that was in the speech doc that the other team didn't read, or don't respond to an argument that wasn't in the speech doc that the other team made, it looks bad. stop asking for "marked copies." flow. please. it will make you a better debater overall.

don't clip. read every word that is highlighted in the card. don't test me, i'll forfeit you and nuke your speaks.

tech > truth. this means no matter how absurd an argument might seem at face value, you cannot just stand up and say “this is dumb” and expect that to win you the debate. if an argument is really that dumb, you should be able to beat it easily. technical debating is also not just determining WHAT was dropped but WHY what was dropped matters and how important it is in the context of the rest of the debate. you should try to start thinking in these terms and explain each level of analysis to me. a complete argument consists of a claim, warrant, and impact. if your argument doesn't, i won't vote on it. this means i wont vote on "plan causes extinction, vote neg" in the 2nr if that is the only explanation present on the disad even if the 2ar does not go to the disad flow.

tell me why you should win the debate ("judge instruction"). your 2nr/2ar should clearly lay out to me what my decision should sound like. clearly interact with the other team’s arguments. if you want me to vote on something, you should make it a big point in the speech and explain it thoroughly. consolidate. include impact and evidence comparison. why should the disad outweigh the case or vice-versa ("magnitude," "timeframe," "probability")? why is your evidence better than theirs? identify qualifications, warrants, etc.

cx is open but don't monopolize it. your partner's not "worse" than you and the 1v1 format exists for a reason.

be organized. signpost (tell me when to switch from flow to flow). please don't send your speech in three different documents. try to send cards that you are reading before the speech.

to decide the debate, i will go solely off of my flow. i will not read any evidence unless the 2nr/2ar explicitly tells me to or if there is no other way of deciding the debate based off of what i have on my flow.

don't steal prep. this means when you stop prep you don't prep. pretty self-explanatory so why is it so hard to follow?

ask me questions pre- or post-round if you get confused. "post-rounding" is a debater's right. if i can't explain my decision to you, that's my fault and not yours (in most cases).

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

the following probably won't convince you to not run the arguments that you like, but it's just a heads up that i will probably be more receptive to these arguments and reward with better speaks over others.

disads: da-case debating and 2nrs are among my favorite debates. basically anything is fair game. explain the links and compare impacts and i'll probably understand it.

counterplans: on the substantive side of counterplans, anything pretty much goes. i am debating, so i have topic knowledge. if your counterplan is really confusing, please don't just assume i understand it and explain it to me.

condo's good. i find it very hard to believe that the negative performed some egregious practice that you couldn't adapt your 2ac strategy to face your opponent. i am very unlikely to vote on condo unless it is dropped because it teaches you bad aff practices. if condo is a large part of the 1ar, we all know what you're thinking. it's especially sad because substantive debates usually make it or break it at the 1ar. aff teams with entrenched mindsets to get scared at the 13-5 minute time skew that is literally built into every debate's structure have never appealed to me. "i'm losing on substance so i'm going to go for condo in the 2ar, regardless of how the debate plays out" is a classic train of thought among novices who often do not get better.

other theory is usually non-convincing to me. examples of in-round abuse (why is what they did in this round uniquely bad for debate) are the best way to go if you want to convince me to vote on reasons the counterplan is theoretically illegitimate (be specific). i find it absurd that the negative should have to justify or defend your absurd counterplan examples.

kritiks: (only talking about the cap k here because you're constrained to the packet)

the cap k is fun. if you're reading the impact as white supremacy, you should be able to explain why that outweighs literal extinction of the human race. if you're reading the impact as the environment, or war, or some other tangible impact, root cause is always a good strategy. do your best to explain everything well and engage with your opponent's arguments to create a cohesive k debate.

framework: weigh the aff. "you-link-you-lose" is pretty unconvincing. the burden of the neg is to prove that the plan causes your impacts, not simply that it justifies something bad. having a solvent alt helps. i doubt me voting for you in this round makes us less racist.

topicality:

i love a good t debate. i can be easily convinced. explain your standards and your impacts well. paint me a picture of the vision of the topic, both under your interp and their counterinterp. predictability probably outweighs debateability.

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

extra:

I AM THE INDO-PAK. guess correctly who i'd support in a cricket match and i'll give you +0.1 speaks.

randomly mention peter parker or peter griffin in your 2nr/2ar and i'll give you +0.1 speaks.

GBN '26 she/her

Use speech drop, if not available add me to the chain

liorakdebate07@gmail.com

Be nice, flow, have a good time

Speak clearly because if I don't understand you I can't evaluate your arguments. I will say "clear" if I can't understand you -- clarity is far more important than speed

impact calc and framing are super important

-- your 2nr/2ar should tell me what I'm voting on and why. basically think of it as writing my ballot for me

Try your best to learn from what you are doing-- try to understand what you are saying (we've all said things that we don't understand, this is the time to learn from it)

Try your best and have a good time

gbn 26’

2a/1n

she/her

add me to the chain pls → 264795@glenbrook225.org

Top

-- you can call me emma, i’m not that much older than you

-- tech>truth

-- clarity>speed

-- please signpost!

-- everyone should flow and do line by line → it will boost your speaks and increase your chances of winning! i know that this can be difficult at the novice level, but please at least try, you are learning and it will help you get better!

-- judge instruction is important → clearly frame the debate in final rebuttals and tell me why you should win

-- do not steal prep time or clip cards

-- novices should not be reading k affs

-- don’t be racist, sexist, etc. i will vote you down immediately

-- be kind, respectful, and have fun! debate is an activity and you should be enjoying it

Args

DAs → great. so underrated in my opinion. i love a good case vs. the disad final rebuttal. just make sure you have good case defense and are doing impact calc. i understand disads might be difficult to go for on this topic though.

CPs → good. make sure you extend a net benefit and are explaining solvency. the aff should have specific solvency deficits to the cp.

Ks → i am better for policy debates and don’t rly like them at the novice level because they are complicated. please don't read something that you don’t understand at all. it tends to get pretty messy and i won't weigh your argument if you don't explain it in a way that makes sense. if you do want to go for the K, make sure to explain it well and really focus on framework.

T→ okay. pretty valid on this topic. i think CPs/DAs/case are the best for me, but i am fine with T debates. go for what you want, you don't have to decide based on my prefs! just make sure you explain your standards and interp, T is a voting issue!!!

Theory → eh. usually a reason to reject the arg not the team but good as a time skew. only theory i will potentially vote on is condo (i'm lowkey a condo enthusiast). it should be in the 2ac and i think that it's definitely a viable 2ar option if you cover the lbl well and are winning offense.

Case → please don't drop it. aff or neg. i totally understand that these are some of your first debate rounds ever but presumption ballots are boring :(

Misc

-- make a kendrick vs. drake reference and i might boost speaks

-- if i look grumpy in round, that’s just my resting facial expression, i promise i'm very nice

gbn ‘26

former 1n/2a

use speechdrop. if that's not possible for whatever reason, add me to the chain: 264817@glenbrook225.org

note: i am no longer debating. i don’t have a lot of knowledge on the ip rights topic → slowing down and explaining your arguments in more detail will help.

flow and interact with the other team’s arguments to become a better debater, win more rounds, and get better speaks

top level

• have fun and be nice!

• novice year is to get used to how debate works. don’t get so upset about losing.

• flow!!! this is the biggest thing that most novices miss out on → i know that you’re probably thinking, “why should i flow if the other team drops a da every single debate,” but you need to look at the BIG PICTURE. you will not do well in varsity if you don’t know how to flow

• arguments need a claim, warrant, and impact → saying “they dropped [xyz], so you should vote for me” is not going to win you a round

• tech > truth, but absurd arguments probably have a higher threshold for winning

• policy >>>>>>>>>> k

• i care about evidence! → if you extend a piece of evidence to the 2NR/2AR, I will look at it to make sure it says what you claim it is saying. in a debate where i cannot resolve an issue from the flow, the quality of evidence will be something i weigh into my decision

• do impact calc in the 2NR/2AR using magnitude, timeframe, and probability

• do judge instruction. explaining to me why i should vote for something makes you sound more compelling

general

• it is good practice to send the email chain shortly after pairings are released, not 1 minute after the round has started. you are not going to lose a round by sending the aff early

• time your own prep. i will be timing it as well. if you lie about your prep time, i will dock your speaks

• when you end prep, you should send the email right away. it doesn’t take 5 minutes to send an email (unless you’re having tech issues)

• cx is binding → that means that you should hold up to something you said in cx. the other team can incorporate something from cx into their arguments.

• im fine with open cx, but i think that the person who gave the speech should be answering the questions. if you answer all of your partner’s questions, your partner isn’t going to grow as a debater and as a team, you will have a hard time winning debates later on. in the big picture, do not take over your partner’s cx unless you think they are going to say something that will lose you the debate

• SLOW DOWN. you probably think that you are really fast, but that comes with being really unclear. i can’t flow if you’re spitting out jargon

• do not read blocks straight down in the rebuttal. i will boost speaks if i see that you are actively trying to clash with the other team’s arguments. you will not learn anything if you only read blocks that your coaches wrote up for you, and it will make you seem less compelling --> doline-by-line and answer all of the other team's arguments IN ORDER
  

t

• interacting with the other team’s arguments and evidence quality is super important here

• fairness is the best impact

das

• probably the best argument in debate

• politics and econ are my favorite das --> i will be happy if you give a good 2NR on these

• impact calc is super important when going for das

• a lot of novices spend their whole 5-minute 2NR on a da but forget about case. don’t be one of them

• i will be more compelled if you have a specific link (not just that ip links)

cps

• i like a variety of cps but advantage and process cps are ones i mostly went for when i was actively debating

• NO JUDGE KICK, unless you tell me that the squo is always an option. otherwise, i will weigh the cp against the plan

• i like solvency deficits

• condo is a voter. don’t spam 15 cps in the 1nc.

k

• i’m super bad for the k. i think that the negative should prove that the aff directly causes something bad to happen, not that it justifies something bad

k affs

• do not read these in front of me. i will have a hard time evaluating the debate and probably won’t make the best decision

theory

• everything except condo is probably a reason to reject the argument, not the team

speaks

• speaks will generally range from 28-29.5

• ways to boost speaks: starting the round on time, giving a rebuttal off of the flow, flowing, actively engaging with opponents’ arguments, being clear, answering your opponents' arguments in the order on your flow, etc.

• ways to tank speaks: being mean to your partner or opponents, reading your coaches’ or varsity’s blocks straight down, dropping case or offcase, stealing prep, spamming perms, reading too fast to the point when you’re incoherent, etc.

Debate Experience
I've never debated. If you want detailed analysis of your speeches and in round decisions I am not your judge.

"Coaching" Experience

Philips Academy- Chicago, IL 2010-2012
*I was a second adult.

Kenwood Academy- Chicago, IL 2014-present
*My main focus is coaching and supporting the novices (and ordering the bus). If you're planning to run a strategy far outside something that a generic novice would be able to understand I likely won't either... (okay, maybe that is cutting myself a little short- but truthfully ...)

Email Chain: The Round must use the in tabroom, or similar, to share files as this is safer for you & me :)
speechdrop.net is easy to use. Use this if the tabroom share isn't setup.

I try to enter the debate as neutral and open as possible. I want to hear clash and a good demonstration of understanding from the AFF and NEG (if you're reading a card you should understand and be able to explain it - especially in R speeches. basically "why is this argument or evidence important". I find I give slightly more leniency to the negative in terms of understanding especially for novice debaters, but, Affs you chose the case so you should know and understand your own cards and plan.

Good signposting is so important to me and really helps me to flow arguments and not waste time trying to figure out which flow you've moved on to.

I'm always looking for good impact calc and a good solid explanation of why your team wins over the other. "they dropped x-y&z" often isn't good enough for me- why were those arguments essential for them to win and without them they have now in your interpretation lost the round.

I'm okay with spreading as long as I can understand what you're saying. don't just assume because you sent out the cards that you can blur all of your words together. If I can't confidently flow it then I wont and it wont be part of my decision. For novice debaters it is often helpful to slow down for the tags. sign posting and a clear roadmap are also essential to a well organized debate. (it might not be normal but I love when debaters give the name of their offs in the 1NC- just helps me stay organized).

K- I enjoy K debates as long as the NEG really understands their advocacy and their alt. If you can't explain it you likely can't defend it well.

DA- cool.

CP- also cool. nothing big to note here. (I'm a little boring and I like a CP to be paired with a clear DA)

please run your own timer

Racism, bigotry, homo/transphobia, antisemitism, Islamophobia, or hatred towards a group is never acceptable and I will give the win to the other team almost automatically.

Be respectful and assume best intent from your opponents.