adarshjudges@gmail.com breakdocs@googlegroups.com

Please add both.

Please send the full text of all plans, counterplans, permutations, interpretations, and other things where semantics are crucial to a decision.

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

Fine for things from policy debate. Bad to terrible for "LD-isms." Disaster in substantive phil debates.

I will not evaluate arguments based on the identity of a debater (e.g. "Vote for me because I'm [x]" or "Vote against them/don't evaluate their arguments because they're [y]").

I avoid involving the text of cards in my decision. Speeches should explain the warrants in relevant evidence and tell me why that means I vote for them. Even if a card is "conceded," not explaining it makes it irrelevant. I'll read evidence if there are two competing interpretations of a card and going either way would significantly alter my decision.

I consider dropped arguments "true".

If an argument is incoherent and can be dealt with easily, it would be silly not to answer it and then be angry that you lost to a bad argument. Respond; if an argument is bad, it shouldn't be hard to disprove.

The other side is that I should be able to evaluate the original argument. New warrants are new arguments.

I determine the completeness/validity of an argument via the opposite test: if I take the negation of the top-level claim you made, would I know you're right?

Example:
"Evaluate after the 1AC; fairness" is easily responded to with "Don't eval after the 1AC; not unfair," which means that the original argument was incomplete and I'm unlikely to evaluate it.

However, "Yoon sees American nukes as key to political legitimacy which causes him to tank the alliance post-withdrawal" isn't gone after "No link; Yoon doesn't care" alone – there would have to be a separate reason why he doesn't care or why nukes aren't key to his political legitimacy.

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

Please be nice. I'll lower speaks for being unnecessarily combative or mean. I will boost speaks for being funny or otherwise making rounds less awkward.

I vehemently agree with every word in this paradigm. I will consider increasing speaker points if you "glaze" it or the author during a speech.

I will lower speaks for excessive dead time in a debate or flow clarification outside CX or prep.

Affiliations:

I am currently coaching teams at lamdl and have picked up an ld student or 2.

I do have a hearing problem in my right ear. If I've never heard you b4 or it's the first round of the day. PLEASE go about 80% of your normal spread for about 20 seconds so I can get acclimated to your voice. If you don't, I'm going to miss a good chunk of your first minute or so. I know people pref partly through speaker points. My default starts at 28.5 and goes up from there. If i think you get to an elim round, you'll prob get 29.0+

Evidence sharing: use speechdrop or something of that nature. If you prefer to use the email chain and need my email, please ask me before the round.

What will I vote for? I'm mostly down for whatever you all wanna run. That being said no person is perfect and we all have our inherent biases. What are mine?

I think teams should be centered around the resolution. While I'll vote on completely non T aff's it's a much easier time for a neg to go for a middle of the road T/framework argument to get my ballot. I lean slightly neg on t/fw debates and that's it's mostly due to having to judge LD recently and the annoying 1ar time skew that makes it difficult to beat out a good t/fw shell. The more I judge debates the less I am convinced that procedural fairness is anything but people whining about why the way they play the game is okay even if there are effects on the people involved within said activity. I'm more inclined to vote for affs and negs that tell me things that debate fairness and education (including access) does for people in the long term and why it's important. Yes, debate is a game. But who, why, and how said game is played is also an important thing to consider.

As for K's you do you. the main one I have difficulty conceptualizing in round are pomo k vs pomo k. No one unpacks these rounds for me so all I usually have at the end of the round is word gibberish from both sides and me totally and utterly confused. If I can't give a team an rfd centered around a literature base I can process, I will likely not vote for it. update: I'm noticing a lack of plan action centric links to critiques. I'm going to be honest, if I can't find a link to the plan and the link is to the general idea of the resolution, I'm probably going to err on the side of the perm especially if the aff has specific method arguments why doing the aff would be able to challenge notions of whatever it is they want to spill over into.

I lean neg on condo. Counterplans are fun. Disads are fun. Perms are fun. clear net benefit story is great. The sept/oct topic really made me realize I never dabbled in cp competition theory (on process cps). I've tried to fix that but clear judge instruction is going to be very important for me if this is going to be the vast majority of the 2nr/2ar.

If you're in LD, don't worry about 1ar theory and no rvis in your 1ac. That is a given for me. If it's in your 1ac, that tops your speaks at 29.2 because it means you didn't read my paradigm.

Now are there any arguments I won't vote for? Sure. I think saying ethically questionable statements that make the debate space unsafe is grounds for me to end a round. I don't see many of these but it has happened and I want students and their coaches to know that the safety of the individuals in my rounds will always be paramount to anything else that goes on. I also won't vote for spark, trix, wipeout, nebel t, and death good stuff. ^_^ good luck and have fun debating

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

Framework debates:

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 meeting 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.

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 don't think I'm good or bad for a competition debate - I just care about impact calculus and warrants, which can be light in these debates.

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

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 examples / warrants 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 phil, skep, tricks, and the like. If you do not defend some form of consequentialism, I am 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.

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.

Ilan Boguslavsky (he/him)

Head-Royce '24

UC Berkeley '28

Add me to the chain: ilan.boguslavsky@gmail.com and hrsdebatedocs@gmail.com (policy only)

Top-level:

Read what you want. I read a policy aff my first two years of high school and a k aff my last two years. Now I go for only policy arguments in college.

Tech > truth, I'll pretty much vote for anything if won technically and will do my best to minimize judge intervention. I do not care about rep or anything that happens outside of the round.

Write my ballot at the top of the rebuttals

Well researched and specific neg strats > generics

Quality of cards > quantity of cards

Everything below is just some thoughts, but tech obviously outweighs everything else.

Topicality:

Specific and well thought out t debates > generic t violations

Competing interps > reasonability

Counterplans:

I am good for advantage cp's and aff specifc pic's. I am getting better for competition debates.

I default to judgekick unless the aff contests it.

Disadvantages:

Explicit turns case and impact analysis makes the DA a lot more persuasive.

Mitigating the case is very important.

No risk is possible but hard to win.

Kritiks:

I am familiar with most common K literature. Throughout high school I read afropess, black feminism, racial cap, security, deleuze, cybernetics, beller, etc.

I'll probably know what you're talking about but you should have a coherent explanation of your theory of power

Specific links to the aff >>> generic links

Explain your impacts. a lot of times teams k teams read a link without doing any impact calc

I'm fine if you go for framework + a risk of a link or a material alt that solves the links but I think the latter requires a lot more work on mitigating the case and answering da's to the alt

Framework is usually the most important part of these debates.

K-Affs:

K-affs should be unique to the topic, however you want to approach that is up to you.

Explain what your aff does and how it resolves the impacts of the 1ac

If you are vague about your advocacy or shift what your aff does throughout the debate to skirt case turns or k links i'll err neg on framework or no perms.

I think its easy to win that k-affs do get perms and the easiest way for the neg to win otherwise is to point out specific instances of in-round abuse where the aff team has shifted their advocacy to spike links.

K-affs need to affirm something not just say that the topic is bad

Framework vs K-Affs:

I do not care if you go for fairness or clash/skills, fairness can be an internal link or an impact

Debate has game-like elements but I can be convinced that it's more than a game

I prefer a counter interp but am fine for a straight impact turn strategy

The counter interp will never solve the neg's offense but it can mitigate limits explosion arguments and can act as terminal defense

Aff’s need specific answers to tva and ssd

Its an uphill battle for the aff if the neg wins that the tva allows for a discussion of the aff's harms and they can read the aff on the neg in other debates

K v K:

These debates usually come down to the perm so the neg needs specific links that are opportunity costs to the aff

Affs need to defend their literature and authors instead of no linking arguments that probably link to the aff

Theory:

Anything but condo is probably a reason to reject the argument not the team

Condo is good but I can be persuaded otherwise

Dont spread through theory blocks

LD stuff:

Everything from the rest of my paradigm applies

Good for policy v policy, policy v k, k v policy, k v k, theory

I haven't seen much of phil debate but it seems fine-- make sure to explain arguments thoroughly though

Would prefer not to judge tricks but will still evaluate them

No RVI's

Random stuff:

The death k is a valid argument

You can insert rehighlightings if the lines in the card have already been read by the other team but you must read any new lines/warrants.

Tell me if you want to stake the round on an ethics violation and I will stop the round, otherwise debate it out

https://tenor.com/view/kevin-gates-rick-ross-in-the-spot-beckham-gif-9502521574751908838

hi i'm sam/samantha, she/he/they. 2nd yr studying comm/phil/english at csuf. my only experience in forensics is collegiate nov/jv/open policy debate. shoutout csuf CD!

sacat.csufdebate@gmail.com: include me in the chain. +.1 speaker points for AFF team if the email chain is sent out BEFORE start time. if i can accommodate you in any way, shape, or form, please let me know pre-round either via. email or in-person. i have a bad poker face so im sorry in advance if i react to something i promise its not that serious.

i believe debate is an educational forum/testing ground, first and foremost. i try to rely on offense/defense weighing based on my flow. if you make a reasonability argument, ill evaluate on reasonability but i am also extremely unreasonable so ermm thanks for the trust.

this paradigm is CX/policy-oriented, but if i end up in your pf/ld round, treat me like a lay aka no trix/evaluate at 2ar/???(i am NOT flowing ts), great phil or no phil at all.

｡ﾟ•┈꒰ა ♡ ໒꒱┈• ｡ﾟ

my debate thoughts

1. policy v. DA/squo: lowk snoozer but i digress, my rfd is typically based on a damning technical error somewhere in round rather than truth-testing, take it as you will.

2. policy/Kv. Theory: i can roll with theory but i need an abuse story that makes sense. 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.

2.5 condo/topicality: besides what's said above, i believe education is the biggest terminal impact to debate; fairness as a standard tends to be arbitrary/nonuq. i expect theory to be the entire 2nr/2ar, make me care that they violated it or else i err 'reject the arg not the team.' i don't believe i have a high threshold for theory but i have high expectations for impact framing.

3. policy v. CP/PIC: i find these arguments devolve into condo theory 9/10 so not a fan, but i like cp 2nrs! direct negation of the net benefit should be the focus.

4. policy v. K/ALT:i enjoy interesting policy affs that win on non-util frameworks. 1-off K possibly my favorite form of debate.

5. K v. K: need the fw and link debate here or i swing aff.

｡ﾟ•┈꒰ა ♡ ໒꒱┈• ｡ﾟ

i like:

- fluent point a -> point b args

- clarity/ev quality>speed/# of cards. i'm a rough flower. i'll give you 3 clears before i dramatically drop my pen and stop flowing.

- guide me thru the doc, i depend on the doc during constructives so please just vocalize if you cut/skip any cards/entire blocks. otherwise, stick to roadmap.

- slow your overview this will be one of the most important parts of your rebuttals and i do not want to miss anything because im lazy and i like when you tell me who is winning.

- framework. also, judge instructions/rotb.

- historical references.

- 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 typically buy 0/100% risk.

｡ﾟ•┈꒰ა ♡ ໒꒱┈• ｡ﾟ

are you running a K?

i have a surface-level understanding of common K args, although i am most familiar with IR Ks (think security ie. orientalism), setcol, nietzsche/j.p sartre lit. either way, just make sure to clearly define tech terms and have some variation of a central thesis statement.

i'm beginning to see K ran as a 'get-out-of-case-page free card'; i typically vote those down. you don't get a priori just for running the K, i want the debate over the aff getting the plan/impacts. most Ks i have voted on have unabashedly won the framework page. on the flipside, generic extinction o/w block is really boring and i snooze!!!!! i like seeing the ev comparison and standards debate here!!!!

｡ﾟ•┈꒰ა ♡ ໒꒱┈• ｡ﾟ

are you a silly goose?/speaks + bonus speaks

yes debate is educational but i also believe it's important to have fun so that we may continue to engage. i partake in shenanigans/silly whimiscal goofy theory/procedurals but it's an uphill (yet possible) battle.

you get a 30 and partner gets a 29.9 if your entire rebuttal is just an interpretive dance (incl. background music). must be the entire length of a rebuttal speech time. i promise i won't tell your coach. this primarily acts as an option if you're thoroughly convinced you're cooked, but at least want some fire speaks and good fun aka make the best out of your situation. if online format, karaoke favorite song (and screenshare the lyrics /so i can sing along)

free points if you can make me laugh.

+.1 speaker for a league of legends reference or if you can sneak some funny brainrot into it. (this stacks to an undisclosed limit)

+.1 if you make a joke about a current CSUF debater, +.2 for a joke abt a CSUF coach that also coaches you.

other than that, i start off all debaters at the same speaks and it goes up/down from there.

｡ﾟ•┈꒰ა ♡ ໒꒱┈• ｡ﾟ

final remarks

automatic judge kick of any variation of -isms, antiblackness, etc. also negative aura, i'll end a debate on an auto-loss and gossip to my teammates abt you. i'll entertain some post-rounding but if ur mean i'm leaving :c

tldr ill vote on anything unproblematic and well-justified.

free tayk, free all settled colonies, free mugshawty.

have fun and be good people.

Hello, my name is Lesly De Anda She/Her - Add me to the email chain: leslydeanda8@gmail.com

Some things about me: I Graduated from Steam Legacy High School class of 2019’ debated for 4 years for the Los Angeles Urban Debate League (LAMDL for short) as a Policy Debater! I attended Fullerton College where I debated for 2 years in JV-Open Policy Debate transferring to UC Riverside graduated in 2023. I no longer debate competitively, but I am active in judging and coaching if you ever need any help please go ahead and email me any questions after round I would love to help! I am a Policy Coach - @ STEAM LEGACY HS and a affiliate/alumni for LAMDL. I judge Policy Debate, LD Debate, and Public Forum.

** I currently travel with my husband, he will be with me in person rounds due to me/ myself having been in a High-Risk Pregnancy from a previous spine surgery I had and currently in recovery. Please don’t mind him he’ll be in the background he knows nothing about debate so he has no influence in my decision. ***

Receiving High Speaks: I love strong speakers and debaters who asks great CX questions, I love to feel the clash in the room. I tend not to pay attention to CX but when it leads to clash I will take it into consideration. Please address me by my name and talk to me before round, I hate going into round feeling like I don't know anyone or being snubbed. Debate is a show, do your BEST and be CHARISMATIC this is your show and we are all just watching.

Receiving Low Speaks: if u create a hostile environment for the other debaters in the room or people in the room I will end the round and vote up the other team immediately.

1. If say something racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, any ism's etc. I WILL DROP YOUR SPEAKER POINTS. I get it, debate is a competitive sport that can get very heated, but to me, this is an educational space and should also make you feel safe. Be a good person to the people you share this space with and contribute to the great things that this activity contributes in the best way you can do such.
2. If you have spectators in your round, please be respectful I will LOWER your speaks and and VOTE YOU DOWN if you are TEXTING and even INTERACTING with them IRKS me and is super DISRESPECTFUL.

Spreading - Is okay with me as long as everyone in the room can fully understand you - remember you can read 8 off but if I didn’t understand you who does it benefit in round ? If you ask me if I can understand spreading then I will tell you no ._. Read my paradigm.

CX - I will NOT vote on anything during CX UNLESS brought up in the constructive or debater asks me too, if you are going to create a strategy ask me to flow, if not I will not pay attention to CX.

Prep - take the time you need before a round, the internet sometimes sucks and computers act up it happens, do not steal prep time while flashing or emailing files. I am very understanding so please do not take advantage or else I will be force to stop the round. If you need to cut a card while you are reading pls send a revise version before the next speech, I find it unjust and unfair.

Flowing - I do flow everything ( not CX unless stated to), but I will not flow if your spreading is illegible, if you know your spreading is not as good as it needs to be do not make me work harder to understand. After every RFD I pretty much tell everyone that they need to flow, you can drop so many args if you don't flow.

Policy/K’ Affs - I ran both myself, but have no biasness towards either both are awesome to run! Just make sure you know how to defend yourself against Topicality. Love the uniqueness of K aff's show me what you created !!!!

Topicality - T is work and you have to put in the work in order to win my vote on T, if you are going for topicality or any theory argument in the 2ar/2nr you need to extend interpretations, violations, and standards. Standards must have impacts fairness and education is not super persuasive and will probably lean to reasonability. Good interps of what a "topical" plan should be --- that being said i will default to the better interp/definition and vote accordingly.

K’s - I LOVE A GOOD K debate and usually do vote on the K if the links/impacts are made clear. Link contextualization is key no matter the kritik. Alternative contextualization is key too if at the end of the round I do not understand what your alternative then I will drop the K and vote on the AFF on this one. PLEASE do your research, and explain what the alternative does, and how the aff links into such.

(Policy debates)Tag team CX- Once you are in Varsity , I don't believe you should be tag teaming.

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.

I am the Director of Debate at Immaculate Heart High School.

daviddosch@gmail.com

General:

1. I will vote on nearly any argument that is well explained and compared to the arguments your opponent has made.

2. Accusing your opponent of an evidence ethics or clipping violation requires you to stake the debate on said allegation. If such an allegation is made, I will stop the debate, determine who I think is in the wrong, and vote against that person and give them the lowest speaker points allowed by the tournament.

3. I won’t vote on arguments that I don’t understand or that I don’t have flowed. I have been involved in circuit LD for almost ten years now and consider myself very good at flowing, so if I missed an argument it is likely because you were incomprehensible.

4. I am a strong proponent of disclosure, and I consider failing to disclose/incorrect disclosure a voting issue, though I am growing weary of nit-picky disclosure arguments that I don’t think are being read in good faith.

5. For online debate, please keep a local recording of your speech so that you can continue your speech and share it with your opponent and me in the event of a disconnect.

6. Weighing arguments are not new even if introduced in the final rebuttal speech. The Affirmative should not be expected to weigh their advantage against five DAs before the Negative has collapsed.

7. You need to use CX to ask which cards were read and which were skipped.

Some thoughts of mine:

1. I dislike arguments about individual debaters' personal identities. Though I have voted for these arguments plenty of times, I think I would vote against them the majority of the time in an evenly matched debate.

2. I am increasingly disinterested in voting for topicality arguments about bare plurals or theory arguments suggesting that either debater should take a stance on some random thing. No topic is infinitely large and voting for these arguments discourages topic research. I do however enjoy substantive topicality debates about meaningful interpretive disagreements regarding terms of art used in the resolution.

3. “Jurisdiction” and “resolvability” standards for theory arguments make little sense to me. Unless you can point out a debate from 2013 that is still in progress because somebody read a case that lacked an explicit weighing mechanism, I will have a very low threshold for responses to these arguments.

4. I dislike critiques that rely exclusively on framework arguments to make the Aff irrelevant. The critique alternative is one of the debate arguments I'm most skeptical of. I think it is best understood as a “counter-idea” that avoids the problematic assumptions identified by the link arguments, but this also means that “alt solves” the case arguments are misguided because the alternative is not something that the Negative typically claims is fiated. If the Negative does claim that the alternative is fiated, then I think they should lose to perm do both shields the link. With that said, I still vote on critiques plenty and will evaluate these debates as per your instructions.

5. Despite what you may have heard, I enjoy philosophy arguments quite a bit and have grown nostalgic for them as LD increasingly becomes indistinct from policy. What I dislike is when debaters try to fashion non-normative philosophy arguments about epistemology, metaphysics, or aesthetics into NCs that purport to justify a prescriptive standard. I find philosophy heavy strategies that concede the entirety of the opposing side’s contention or advantage to be unpersuasive.

6. “Negate” is not a word that has been used in any resolution to date so frameworks that rely on a definition of this word will have close to no impact on my assessment of the debate.

Hi, I'm Anika! UCLA, debated at Notre Dame San Jose for 3 years, qualled 3 times, and earned 9 career bids to the TOC. Put me on the email chain (anikaganesh1989[at]gmail[dot]com) although speech drop >>

I coach withDebateDrills- the following URL has our roster, MJP conflict policy,code of conduct, relevant team policies, and harassment/bullying complaint form:https://www.debatedrills.com/club-team-policies/lincoln-douglas-team-policy

General

Will not vote on anything racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. that makes the round unsafe. This includes any arguments that deny the badness of death. Debate is an educational activity, but there are clear lines for what makes the space accessible and safe.

I will evaluate tricks but the threshold for answering them is very low -- I will lower speaks for every one read. I’m not your judge for phil and if you want to read it, treat me like I’m 5.

“If your eyes don't move up from your computer your speaks aren't moving up either” - Sophia Tian.

I'll stop flowing after saying clear/slow 3 times.

I will give the same weight to arguments as is in the evidence -- 10 highlighted words without a warrant means nothing even if your spin is great. If evidence is important in a debate, tell me to read it - dont automatically assume I will.

Policy

Default neg on presumption, judge kick

Weighing is extremely underutilized (especially turns case arguments) and should always be at the top of the speech. Lbl is important beginning from the 1ar. You should be making contextual arguments rather than making broad no links extremely specific.

Inserting rehighlightings/perm texts is fine as long as it's explained.

K

Contextualize your links to the aff in the 2nr even if they're written broadly. 2nrs shouldn't have overviews but rather answer aff arguments on the lbl. The 2nr should be organized into framework, link, and alt sections. Ideally, the 1nc and 2nr will pull lines from the 1ac to form a link wall.

I'm find with the k on either side and feel equally comfortable judging policy v k and kvk debates. I mostly read setcol/ir/cap but I'll evaluate any lit base as long as its explained and debated well.

K affs should leverage kritikal offense vs theory, t, etc. to create external offense that doesn't rely on fairness.

Great 2ar’s cite and indict specific examples, have big picture analysis (doesn't have to just come from going for fw), and explain how the aff interacts with the kritik.

Fairness is an impact. Good TFW 2nr’s have caselists, a TVA, and a clear abuse story. K affs will often have indicts of fairness and education so its key to explain both why they don't get kritikal offense and mitigate it via presumption, weighing, etc.

Cx matters a lot in these debates – reverse pit of doom, asking what the alt does, how the TOP explains the aff, what the aff Does, etc.

Topicality

Interps with well researched definitions are important. 2nr's and 2ar's should explain what models of debate they create.

Good 2nr's pre-empt the 2nr, include offensive caselists, and weigh between standards. Evidence comparison is important, but explaining which comparison metric I should prefer is equally as key.

Nebel-T is less great than topic specific violations, and I’m not voting on the grammar da/niemi.

Theory

Default reasonability > competing interps, no rvis, and dta on everything other than condo and t. I also err neg on counterplan theory, but I don’t have strong opinions on it and can be convinced otherwise

I will not vote on 1ar theory without a warrant that becomes a 3 minutes from “condo is a voter for strat skew.”

Slow down on interps and standards and pause between shells.

I’ll vote on disclosure and think proper disclosure (if your teammates read it, disclose it) is important.

Update for Presentation 2024(updates to LD sections and overview)

Themost important thing you read from this paradigm is my view on speech docs. Do not assume at any point in time that I am on the speech doc. I will download it etc so I can use it if necessary, but I am absolutely not reading along your speech doc while you speak. I will listen to you and flow the best I can, but if it's not on my flow then it's not in the debate.

If you want me to look at your evidence for some reason, you can do that in a few ways. You can put the evidence at issue in some manner (author quals, evidence comparison, evidence indicts, evidence ethics, etc.) or you can literally just say "go look at the X card" (and not "go look at the entire affirmative case").

This is just forward notice! What this means is please do things like pause when transitioning between arguments or flows, indicating clearly when you are reading new evidence or analytics (examples below), and generally slowing down during analytics that are important for you to win the debate.

Update for MS TOC 2024 (the only important updates are PF-specific for MS TOC)

Updated March 2023 (note this is partially from Greg Achten's paradigm - an update for Kandi King RR 2023)

Email: huntshania@gmail.com-please put me on the email chain

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Overview [updated MS TOC 24]

I've done debate for over a decade now, and I think it's a really awesome activity when we share similar value in the activity. Please be kind and respectful to each other, and have fun debating! Feel free to ask any questions/clarifications before you debate.

Some quick background, I competed the longest in LD in high school (elims of NSDA, 4th speaker / quarters at TOC, championed Greenhill, Co-championed Cal Berkeley Round Robin and Finals at Cal Berkeley Tournament my senior year). I've also competed in a lot of other events besides LD (WSDC, Impromptu, Extemp, Oratory, PF, Congress) and other notable achievements include being runner-up at NSDA 2013 in Extemp Debate and debating for the USA on the NSDA's inaugural USA Debate team my senior year in WSDC. I've coached a lot of students at this point, I was an assistant coach for Northland, Harvard-Westlake for 4 years, The Harker School for 3 years as the MS Director of Speech and Debate and currently as an assistant coach/law student, and am currently one of co-coaches for Team USA through the NSDA. Good luck, have fun, and best effort!

Paradigm[Updated October 2024]

[**Note I copied this paradigm from my colleague, Greg Achten at The Harker School when my paradigm was deleted in March 2023.]

I enjoy engaging debates where debaters actively respond to their opponent's arguments, use cross-examination effectively, and strategically adapt throughout the debate. I typically will reward well-explained, intellectually stimulating arguments, ones that are rooted in well-grounded reasoning, and result in creativity and strategic arguments. The best debates for me to judge will either do a stand up job explaining their arguments or read something policy-based. I love a new argument, but I just caution all debaters in general from reading arguments your judge may not have a background in that requires some level of understanding how it functions (that often debaters assume judges know, then are shocked when they get the L because the judge didn't know that thing).

I haven't judged consistently in awhile, and what that practically means it'd be wise to:

(1) ask questions about anything you may be concerned about

(2) avoid topic-specific acronyms that are not household acronyms (e.g., LW (living wage) that are topic-specific or super niche Act titles)

(3) explain each argument with a claim/warrant/impact - if you explain the function of your evidence, I'll know what you want me to do with that evidence. Without that explanation, I may overlook something important (e.g., offense, defense, perm, or "X card controls the link to..", etc)

Speaker Points:[Updated October 2024]

Biggest things to do while debating in front of me that will get you better speaker points and increase the chances I understand your arguments:

(1) SLOW on taglines, EXTREMELY slow on author names/dates, and I am flexible on top speed through text of cards if you are clear and emphasize key warrants

(2) I need to understand an argument, at least with some surface level understanding, to vote off of it. You can heighten the chance I can understand it by explaining the function of your arguments (perhaps this is "judge instruction" but if it's a way you canwin or a way your opponent canlose, it needs to be flagged)

(3) Have fun, establish your presence in the debate, and try not to be rude to your opponent! Even if they started it!

Argument Preferences:

The execution of the argument is as important as the quality of the evidence supporting the argument. A really good disad with good cards that is poorly explained and poorly extended is not compelling to me. Conversely a well explained argument with evidence of poor quality is also unlikely to impress me.

Critiques: Overall, not what I read often in debates, but you'll likely do fine if you err on the side of extra explanation, extending and explaining your arguments, directly responding to your opponents arguments, etc. I try my best to flow, understand more nuanced arguments, etc. But, I don't have a background in critical studies so that will need extra explanation (especially links, framing arguments, alternatives).

Topicality/Theory: I am slightly less prone than other judges to vote on topicality. Often the arguments are quickly skimmed over, the impact of these arguments is lost, and are generally underdeveloped. I need clear arguments on how to evaluate theory - how do I evaluate the standards? What impacts matter? What do I do if you win theory? How does your opponent engage?

The likelihood of me voting on a 1ac spike or tricks in general are exceptionally low. There is a zero percent chance I will vote on an argument that I should evaluate the debate after X speech. Everyone gets to give all of their speeches and have them count. Likewise any argument that makes the claim "give me 30 speaker points for X reason" will result in a substantial reduction in your speaker points. If this style of theory argument is your strategy I am not the judge for you.

Philosophy/Framework: dense phil debates are very hard for me to adjudicate having very little background in them. I default to utilitarianism and am most comfortable judging those debates. Any framework that involves skep triggers is very unlikely to find favor with me.

Evidence: Quality is extremely important and seems to be declining. I have noticed a disturbing trend towards people reading short cards with little or no explanation in them or that are underlined such that they are barely sentence fragments. I will not give you credit for unread portions of evidence. Also I take claims of evidence ethics violations very seriously and have a pretty high standard for ethics. I have a strong distaste for the insertion of bracketed words into cards in all instances.

Cross examination: is very important. Cross-ex should be more than I need this card and what is your third answer to X. A good cross-ex will dramatically increase your points, a bad one will hurt them. Everyone in the debate should be courteous.

Disads/CP's: these are the debates I am most familiar with and have spent nearly all of my adult life judging and coaching. DA turns the case is a powerful and underutilized argument. But this is all pretty straightforward and I do not think I have a lot of ideas about these that are not mainstream with the exceptions in the theory section above.

Speaker points:for me are based on the following factors - clarity of delivery, quality of evidence, quality of cross examination, strategic choices made in the debate and also, to a degree, on demeanor. Debaters who are friendly and treat their opponents with respect are likely to get higher points.

Also a note on flowing: I will periodically spot check the speech doc for clipping but do not flow from it. I will not vote on an argument I was unable to flow. I will say clear once or twice but beyond that you risk me missing many arguments.

Public Forum

Pretty much everything in the above paradigm is applicable here but there are two key additions. First, I strongly oppose the practice of paraphrasing evidence. If I am your judge I would strongly suggest reading only direct quotations in your speeches. My above stated opposition to the insertion of brackets is also relevant here. Words should never be inserted into or deleted from evidence.

Second, there is far too much untimed evidence exchange happening in debates. I will want all teams to set up an email chain to exchange cases in their entirety to forego the lost time of asking for specific pieces of evidence. You can add me to the email chain as well and that way after the debate I will not need to ask for evidence. This is not negotiable if I'm your judge - you should not fear your opponents having your evidence. Under no circumstances will there be untimed exchange of evidence during the debate. Any exchange of evidence that is not part of the email chain will come out of the prep time of the team asking for the evidence.

Other than that I am excited to hear your debate! If you have any specific questions please feel free to ask me.

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 > 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

policy

yes weighing, impact calc, case debate. 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: csulbkt@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

i'll disclose speaks if you ask during the rfd

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

Email: gordondkrauss@gmail.com

Claremont, UCLA, Peninsula.

Offense-defense. Everything is probabilistic. Nothing will be evaluated yes/no except theoretical questions like 'we meet' or 'is the perm severance'.

Hi! I'm Sam. Harvard Westlake '21, Vanderbilt '25. Email chain or speech drop please: samantha.mcloughlin@harker.org but I'd prefer speech drop. LD TOC qual 4x + 20 bids + won some tournaments (Valley, Yale, Stanford, etc) in high school - reading policy args, some basic T/theory, and some Ks/topical K affs (settler colonialism, fem IR, etc). I also coached for the past three years (more or less all over the argumentative spectrum) and currently coach for Harker, so I have some topic familiarity.

Everything in this paradigm (minus the hard and fast rules) is just a preference - my strongest belief about debate is that it should be a forum for ideological flexibility, creative thinking, and argumentative experimentation. I realized this paradigm was way too long so I tried to bold stuff for pre-round skimming.

Hard and Fast Rules--

I will not flow off the doc and I am not calling clear just for fun. I'm so for real, it will not just affect your speaks, you will lose the round because I don't have your arguments down. In the 1AC/off case in the 1NC, I'll follow the doc if I'm worried about clipping, and flow by ear (without the doc) if I think that you may be unflowable. Every rebuttal, the doc is closed. If I can't tell if you are reading all the words in your cards, I will assume you're not.

There's no flow clarification slot in a debate - take CX or prep if you need to ask what was read (exception is marked cards).

Won't vote on any arg that makes debate unsafe. This includes any arg that denies the badness of racism/sexism/etc, or says death good (args like spark/wipeout = ok, cuz it doesn't deny the value of life, it's just fancy util maths that says extinction better preserves the value of life). If your opponent wins your argument is repugnant (absent any larger framing or judge instruction), I'll drop the argument, unless you presented your argument with the agreement that it was repugnant (ie, if you admit your position is racist, but attempt to say that doesn't matter), in which case I will consider your repugnance purposeful and drop you.

Ev ethics - stake the round on it (ie W30 to the person who is right and an L with the lowest possible speaks to the other) if evidence is misrepresented (an omitted section contradicts or meaningfully alters the meaning of the card). I think a good litmus test for misrepresentation is: does the article agree with the claims presented in the card? If it's missing a sentence or two at the beginning/end of a paragraph but it doesn't change the meaning of the card, you're better off reading it as theory. To make everyone's life easier, just cut ev well (this means full citations, full paragraphs, in alignment with the author's intent).

Clipping = an L with the lowest speaks I can give.

Speaks are my choice, not yours (put away 30 speaks theory). Also, won't disclose speaks.

For online debate, I expect that you record all your speeches in case you, your opponent, or I drops out.

Argument TLDRs--

Defaults: reasonability on theory, competing interps on t, drop the debater on t/theory, no RVIs, T>theory>everything else, comparative worlds, fairness + education are voters, policy presumption, epistemic confidence

^All those can be easily changed with a sentence.

K debate - Line by line >> long overviews. Winning overarching claims about the world is helpful, but you need to apply those claims to the specifics of your opponents arguments or else I will not do those interactions for you. Framework is important (honestly most of the times in policy v K debates, the person who wins fw wins the round). Links to the plan are preferred, but not necessary - the less specific your links, the more fw matters, and the more persuasive the permutation is. I also tend to think debate should be about arguments, not people, which means I'll likely be unpersuaded by personal attacks or "vote for me" arguments. I'm more persuaded by skills impacts on T Framework than fairness, and more persuaded by non topical affs that impact turn things than try to find a middle ground.

Policy - Yay! Zero risk not a thing but arguments still must be complete to be evaluated. Underdeveloping off in the 1nc = they get less weight in the 2nr. Rebuttal ev explanation > initial ev quality, but if your opponent's ev sucks and you point that out, that falls under the first category. Read your best evidence in the 1NC - I'll be persuaded by arguments that the 2NR doesn't get new evidence unless it's directly responsive to the 1AR. Big fan of creative and topic specific counterplans <3(consult __ is usually not creative).

Theory - PICs and condo are probably good. Other CPs (international fiat, agent, process etc) are a bit more suspicious. All of this is up for debate. Descriptions of side bias are not standards. The more frivolous the shell = the truer reasonability and DTA are, and the lower the bar for answers. On that note, reasonability and DTA are under-utilized.

Philosophy - [GBX edit -- realized I've spent too long in debate and am now solidly fine with phil/actually think about it a good bit. Will enjoy a substantive philosophy round.] Not the area i'm the most comfortable in, but I'll try my best. I'd love to see a well explained phil debate, but I will not enjoy a blippy phil round that borders closer to tricks debate. I'd rather you leverage your syllogism to exclude consequences rather than relying on calc indicts. Debaters should take advantage of nonsensical contention args.

Tricks - I don't think a model of debate predicated on the avoidance of clash (ie relying on concessions) is an educational model. My test for whether an argument falls under this model of debate is: ask yourself if you would be willing to go for an argument if it was responded to competently. The same idea also extends to the formatting of your argument (ie you should delineate + thoroughly explain all your arguments with clear implications). I won't purposefully insert my personal beliefs about the value of tricks debates into the round, but it does mean that I'll probably be more receptive to arguments that indict tricks debate as a model. Some arguments are truer than others, and it's easier to win true arguments in front of me than false ones. I also default comparative worlds, and have given more than one RFD that boils down to "X trick was won but there's no truth testing ROB under which it matters." Up-layering tricky affs with Ks or strategic theory is smart, and when leveraged correctly make claims of new 2NR responses more persuasive.

Lay - I have respect for good lay debaters since I know I could never be one. That said, I will definitely evaluate the debate on a technical level regardless of the style. Good lay debaters can beat circuit debaters by strategically isolating key arguments. Circuit debaters vs lay debaters don't need to modify their style of debate, but should do everything they can to be accessible (explain stuff in CX, send docs, etc) (same applies to debates where there is a large skill gap).

Misc - My threshold for independent voters is high. Emphasizing this after a couple rounds where it's been relevant.

Rant Section--

Tech > truth, but separating the two is silly. The more counter-intuitive an argument, the higher the bar for winning it, and the lower the threshold for responses. Saying "nuclear war bad" probably requires less warranting than "nuclear war good" cuz the second one has the burden of proof to overcome the intuitive logical barrier to its truth value.

I'll deal with irresolvability using the "needs test" - the burden of proof falls on the side that "needs" to win the argument (ie the burden of proof is on the neg in the perm debate because the neg needs to beat the perm, but the aff doesn't need to win the perm).

I won't vote on arguments telling me to "evaluate the entire debate after X speech" that are introduced in X speech - it generates a contradiction. Also, the 2AR is after all the speeches before it - interpret this as you choose.

Likes/Dislikes--

Likes: plans bad 2NR on semantics if you understand the grammar behind it and are not reading someone else's blocks, creative and non-offensive policy impact turns, creative process CPs (no this is not the ICJ CP or consult the WTO), plan affs (yes I realize this contradicts with my first like), multiple shells bad, Ks with links to the plan, presumption/case presses vs non T affs, topical K affs, reasonability/DTA on frivolous theory, collapsing, flashing analytics

Dislikes: the grammar DA, RVIs, plans bad 2NR on semantics when you don't understand the grammar behind it, plans bad 2NR that's just reading off someone else's doc with no topic specific analysis, standard spec, buffet 2NRs, hidden args, non T affs that are an FYI not an advocacy, combo shells that don't solve their offense, "strat skew", "this argument is bad" [then doesn't explain why the argument is bad], "that's an independent voting issue" [doesn't explain why it's a voting issue past just the label] (this also applies to 1AR arguments not labelled as voting issues that magically become voting issues in the 2AR), "what's a floating PIK" "what's an a priori", being rude or interrupting your opponent (especially if you're more experienced or in a position of power) (at best it adds nothing at worse it's unkind)

General

Huntington Park '24

CSULB '28

LAMDL x UDL 4eva <3

Currently coaching for Huntington Park and debating for csulb.

Yes, Add me to the Email Chain: dmedina1921@gmail.com

Have done competitive debate for around three years now and ongoing. I'm conformable with mostly every argument so feel free to get creative and do what you do best.

Shout-out to Tania Vasquez, Jay-Z Flores, Curtis Ortega, Desiree Delgadillo, and LAMDL!Shoutout Desiree Delgadillo 3rd place speaker at NAUDL!! my goat 30 speaks automatic - Delmy.

Don't be racist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, or make any arguments that may put debaters in potentially harmful situations or read arguments in bad-faith.

TLDR

Debates will be won based on the flow. I will evaluate arguments based off offense defense and will evaluate technical concessions prior to any other arguments. Though please do explain why dropped arguments matter otherwise other arguments potentially O/W or out frame any dropped argument that isn't explained in depth, so evidence comparison and impact calculus is very important. I don't mind what you read but how you read it so extend your claims and warrants for your evidence, do judge instruction, and comparison of evidence will get you the highest of speaks. I am mostly a K debater but am down for anything policy related like CP, DA's, and T.

The easiest way to get my ballot is to tell me where, why, and how I'm voting for you by making big picture overviews/framing offensive arguments that outweigh or resolve arguments that are being made in the round.

Rehighlights do not need to be read unless they are from a different portion of an article the 1AC has cut and used.

Pref Guide/Thoughts

1. K v T - Probably 90% of my debates. I believe that aff's need a solid counter-interpretation instead of only just impact turn strategies. More better for clash than fairness.

2. KvK - These can be very interesting, the more niche the better. Love these debates overall and they are super fun and speaks will be extremely generous to those who do their research.

3. K v Policy - Would prefer the K to have specific aff link contextualization/specific links instead of reading 10 fiat K and Extinction K cards to win framework. Alternative's don't need to solve the case but I enjoy when K teams list material alternative solvency through historical/recent analytics.

4. Policy v Policy - T should have a clear violation i.e. tell me what case lists are under your model, how their model explodes limits and allows for infinite policies/actors and rehighlights and clear judge instruction work well here a ton.

5. High Theory v High Theory - No specific thoughts just explain it in context to the aff/neg.

Overall

Have fun, be petty but not mean, you do you and I'll evaluate debates based on the framework debaters set in the round.

If you are from an underfunded UDL school and have questions you can send them to the same email I use for email chains above.

Prior experience:

Debated as a 2A for James Logan High School for 4 years. Went almost exclusively for K’s on the aff and the neg. Currently debating as a 2A for the University of California. I exclusively go for policy arguments now.

Judging:

emiliomenotti@berkeley.edu

Jameslogandebatedocs@gmail.com

A majority of my debates have been one off/K Affs so do with that what you will. Im a sucker for a good Security/Cap/Settler Colonialism Kritik. However, this does not mean I wont vote for a policy argument. I love debate and do not have a predisposition towards particular styles. At the end of the day my rfd is a referendum on who debated better. That being said, do not try and over-correct for me. I think debate is a space for you to pursue whatever you want (as long as it’s not overtly violent like racism/sexism/discrimination good).

Don’t bomb through analytics its annoying to flow and you will lose speaks. The less you act like a jerk the better. Theres a time and place for everything.

Rebuttals are often the most frustrating part of debate. This is when people have to get off the blocks and start thinking big picture. I like debaters who write their ballot for me in the 2NR/2AR. More judge instruction will not only get you better speaker points but dramatically increase your chances of winning. Im more than likely not going to vote on ticky tacky arguments, but who has a better big picture analysis for why they’ve won the debate and can flush out the benefits to granting them a ballot. In close debates, impact calc goes a long way. I will read evidence at the end of the round, but that is not an excuse for lazy debating.

extra .1 speaks for making fun of a current cal debater

Add me to the chain: speechdrop[at]gmail.com

I like to have access to the docs but I wont be flowing off them.

tldr: My name is Jonathan Meza and I believe that at the end of the day the debate space is yours and you should debate however you want this paradigm is just for you to get an insight on how I view debate. One thing is I won't allow any defense of offensive -isms, if you have to ask yourself "is this okay to run in front of them ?" the answer is probably no. I reserve the right to end the debate where I see fit, also don't call me judge I feel weird about it, feel free to call me Meza or Jonathan.

Pref Cheat sheet:

Policy: 2-3
K: 1
Phil: 2
trix: 4-5
K aff/Performance: 1-2
T: 1
Theory: 1
about me: Assistant debate coach for Harvard Westlake (2022-). Debated policy since 2018 that is my main background even tho I almost only judge/coach LD now. Always reppin LAMDL. I am a big fan of big words but I don't always know what they mean.

inspirations: DSRB, LaToya,Travis, CSUF debate, Jared, Vontrez, Curtis, Diego, lamdl homies, Scott Philips, Kwudjwa, Cat, and Krizel

theory: Theory page is the highest layer unless explained otherwise. Aff probably gets 1ar theory. Rvis are "real" arguments I guess. Warrant out reasonability. I am a good judge for theory, I am a bad judge for silly theory. Explain norm setting how it happens, why your norms create a net better model of debate. explain impacts, don't just be like "they didn't do XYZ voter for fairness because not doing XYZ is unfair." Why is it unfair, why does fairness matter I view theory a lot like framework, each theory shell is a model of debate you are defending why is not orientating towards your model a bad thing. Oh and if you go for theory, actually go for it do not just be like "they dropped xyz gg lol" and go on substance extend warrants and the story of abuse. Theory v Theory debates are fun but I need judge instruction as to how to evaluate the theory shells against each other and comparison between the scope and magnitude of the violations or which interpretation is best for debate or else I default on which ever violation came first.

Topicality: The vibes are the same as above in the theory section. I think T is a good strategy, especially if the aff is blatantly not topical. If the aff seems topical, I will probably err aff on reasonability. Both sides should explain and compare interpretations and standards. Standards should be impacted out, basically explain why it's important that they aren't topical. The Aff needs a counter interpretation, without one I vote neg on T (unless it's kicked).

Policy: I appreciate creative internal link chains but prefer solid ones. Default util, I usually don't buy zero risk. For plan affirmative some of you are not reading a different affs against K teams and I think you should, it puts you in a good place to beat the K. as per disads specific disads are better than generics ones but poltics disads are lowkey broken if you can provide a good analysis of the scenario within the context of the affirmative. Uniqueness controls the link but I also believe that uniqueness can overwhelm the link. straight turning disads are a vibe especially when they read multiple offs.

K affirmatives: I appreciate affirmatives that are in the direction of the topic but feel free to do what you want with your 1ac speech, This does mean that their should be defense and/or offense on why you chose to engage in debate the way that you did. I think that at a minimum affirmatives must do something, "move from the status quo" (unless warranted for otherwise). Affirmatives must be written with purpose if you have music, pictures, poem, etc. in your 1ac use them as offense, what do they get you ? why are they there ? if not you are just opening yourself to a bunch of random piks. If you do have an audio performance I would appreciate captions/subtitles/transcript but it is at your discretion (won't frame my ballot unless warranted for otherwise). In Kvk debates I need clear judge instruction and link explanation perm debate I lean aff.

Framework: I lean framework in K aff v framework debates. These debate become about debate and models defend your models accordingly. I think that the aff in these debates always needs to have a role of the negative, because a lot of you K affs out their solve all of these things and its written really well but you say something most times that is non-controversal and that gets you in trouble which means its tough for you to win a fw debate when there is no role for the negative. In terms of like counter interp vs impact turn style of 2AC vs fw I dont really have a preference but i think you at some point need to have a decent counter interp to solve your impact turns to fw. If you go for the like w/m kind of business i think you can def win this but i think fw teams are prepared for this debate more than the impact turn debate. fine you all win fairness is probably an impact but i prefer accessibility, clash, education.

Kritiks: I am a big fan of one off K especially in a format such as LD that does not give you much time to explain things already reading other off case positions with the kritik is a disservice to yourself. I like seeing reps kritiks but you need to go hard on framing and explain why reps come first or else the match up becomes borderline unwinnable when policy teams can go for extinction outweighs reps in the late game speeches. Generic links are fine but you need to contextualize in the NR/block. Lowkey in LD it is a waste of time to go for State links, the ontology debate is already making state bad claims and the affirmative is already ahead on a reason why their specific use of the state is good. Link contextualization is not just about explaining how the affirmatives use of the state is bad but how the underlining assumptions of the affirmative uniquely make the world worst this paired up with case take outs make for a real good NR Strategy.

Phil:I have warmed up to this style of debate in the past couple of months and believe it is a valuable aspect of LD, that being said over explanation and Judge instruction is very important for me in these debates. I lean towards epistemic confidence. phil innovation is cool.

Trix:Honestly explain your offense even if its silly and I'll vote for it I'm just not a big fan of a bunch of hidden args everywhere.

speaker points: some judges have really weird standards of giving them out. if I you are clear enough for me to understand and show that you care you will get high speaks from me. I do reward strategic spins tho. I will do my best to be equitable with my speak distribution. at the end of the day im a speaker point fairy.

adammimou82@gmail.com

Assistant LD Coach for Peninsula HS

Note for Blake: I primarily judge and coach LD, but I competed in policy for my senior year and cleared at the TOC. I feel reasonably familiar with current argumentative norms but I have not done any topic research.

I will evaluate all arguments and base my decision on what you extend into your final speeches. I will try not to let my argumentative preferences influence my decision.

Perm texts should be sent before the 2AC.

Exclusive framework interps are unpersuasive, I generally think the aff should get the plan and the neg should get links, but I am willing to evaluate either.

I feel somewhat comfortable evaluating deontological frameworks. I have less experience with other frameworks but will do my best to assess them fairly. However, I'm not the best judge for strategies that rely heavily on 'tricks' or 'a prioris.'

I think most skepticism or 'permissibility' arguments are defense. I do not vote on defense.

I’m convinced by reasonability against all 1NC theory arguments, but less against topicality.

I try to stay non-expressive during rounds. If I show any facial expressions, it is most likely unrelated.

There is no designated time for flow clarification during a debate. If you want to ask your opponent what was or wasn't read, you must do so during cross-examination or use your prep time. If you mark cards during your speech (i.e., if you start reading a card but do not finish it), you should clearly state where you marked it and send a marked document immediately after your speech. You are not required to include cards you did not read.

I do not have a specific metric for speaker points, but demonstrating a clear understanding of your positions and minimizing dead time are effective ways to improve your score.

I do not pay attention to or flow "flex prep". If there is something you want me to hear, ask in cx or make it an argument.

usc '26 (NDT/CEDA Policy)

edina '23 (HS Policy)

he/him

Hi! My name is Sabeeh and I am a sophomore at USC. In high school I did policy on the MN and nat circ. I worked at NSD as an LD lab leader summer of 2023 & 2024. TLDR: I flow and will judge the round in front of me, regardless of my argumentative preferences.

-----

Please add me to the chain -- sabeehmirza05@gmail.com

I will not vote for an argument that I do not understand or that I cannot explain at the end of the round. Both of us will be unhappy with my decision.

I have no problem with speed, but you need to be clear. There should be a distinction between your card and tag voice. Give me an indicator if you are moving on to the next card (ie. AND, NEXT, etc).

tech>truth

General Stuff

Overview

I have gone for a big stick aff, a soft left aff, and a non-T/planless aff all in the same year - don't feel like you have to adapt for me. I will vote for anything that wins the flow so long as it does not compromise the safety of anyone in round.

DA/CP

I'll judgekick unless someone tells me not to. Not a ton that needs to be said here otherwise.

Ks

My knowledge and experience is mainly in set col, militarism/imperialism, security, and cap. I can evaluate other Ks, but will just need more explanations. I won't default to a "middle of the road" framework unless a debater introduces one, or unless the framework debate is truly irresolvable.

For kaffs: I've both read a kaff and gone for T against them -- I don't think that I am particularly picky on arguments. Kaffs need to be conscious of presumption -- I need to know what voting aff does and/or what it endorses. This should be the top of the 1ar and 2ar.

T/Theory

I will vote based off of the flow -- spreading through dense analytics is a bad idea.

LD

1 - Policy

1 - Ks

2 - Trad

2 - Theory

4 - Phil and Tricks (will need HEAVY explanation and judge instruction)

*I will vote for tricks, but they need to be warranted when they are read and you need to be clear about the implication

0. General:

chain for policy/general questions

cmeowdebate@gmail.com

chain for ld (pls add both)

cmeowdebate@gmail.com

newmanspeechdocs@gmail.com

Coaching/Conflicts: Isidore Newman, Marlborough, Coppell, and a few LAMDL teams.

Debate Shoutouts: Deven Cooper, Dayvon Love, Diego "Jay-Z" Flores, Erika Linares, Geo Liriano, Jaysyn Green, Daniel Medina, Destiny Popoca, Lauren Willard, Cameron Ward, Gabriela Gonzalez, Isai Ortega, Andres Marquez, Elvis Pineda, J-Beatz, J-Burke, Von, Cameron Ward, Toya, Ryan Upston, Y'Mahnie Harvey, Max Wiessner, Dorian Gurrola, Aless Escobar, Jean Kim, Gavie Torres, Clare Bradley, and all of #LAMDLGANG.

"IR topics are cool bc we learn abt the world and stuff" - E.C. Powers, Wyoming Debate 5/22/23.

UT Update: I have judged less than 10 policy rounds this year. Assume I know little-to-zero about the topic. I think this topic is painfully boring---if you find a way to entertain me, speaks will reflect such.

NEW NOTE: When asking status of the off/offs - if you utter the words "the status quo is always an option" instead of just "condo", -0.3 speaks. It's cringe/negative aura and does not answer the question.

1. Pref Guide:

General: Currently entering my junior year and currently debate for CSULB (2 years of NDT-CEDA debate, 3 1/2 of LAMDL Debate) and have about 2 years of circuit judging experience.

Judging Style: I judge based what's on the flow, and the flow only. Judge intervention is silly and I try not to do it unless I absolutely need to fill in the gaps. Offense/Defense paradigm is how I evaluate debates, and will vote for the team that did the better debating unless told otherwise. Dropped args are true args, but need to be impacted out. No judge kick, make your own decisions and for the love of god start the round on time. Speaks will reflect all of these instances.

I care about evidence quality far less than most judges. I care more about line by line, 3rd/4th level testing, and in-depth clash as opposed to just "how good evidence is". If I wanted to read evidence, I would read a book. I judge debates to see debaters debate out arguments, and reading evidence as a starting point for an RFD when not contested seems paradoxical to the activity.

I disagree with the community's recent justification for judges commenting on their personal biases/insertions when evaluating/discussing debates. Nobody cares about your debate career or what happened during it. The only role that judges have is evaluating debates objectively and neutrally, no matter how badly you lost your final round. Funnily enough, my only personal bias is that judges shouldn't have any. I judge the flow, and vote based on technical execution of arguments, and nothing else.

This does not mean that debates about debate/personal callouts/other debates that don't solely center the topic are off the table. I will evaluate those the same way I evaluate everything else.

LD Specific: Read tricks and phil at your own risk. Not read up on most moral philosophy, and most tricks are irritating and irrelevant. If you mainly go for these arguments, I'm probably not the best judge for you.

2. Random/Misc:

Good Speaks Guide: Please do not delay the round/lallygag around, be excessively rude to your opponents, or endorses/argue for any isms. If you start the round on time, set up the email chain before I get into the room, and be generally funny/charismatic, you will get good speaks.

Song Challenge: I usually start speaks at 28.5 and move up/down depending on performance. On a softer note, I usually will listen to music while I write my RFD. Most times, I already have decided a winner after the 2AR has ended, but I always go over my flow/notes one last time before I write or submit my ballot. I love listening to new music, and I listen to every genre imaginable. That being said, I love to hear the tunes y'all have been jamming to recently. To encourage such behavior, debaters have an opportunity to garner extra speaks based on their music suggestions. Each team is allowed to give me one song to listen to while I write my RFD. It cannot be a song I've heard before. If I like the song, you will receive a +.1 to your speaker points. If I don't like it, you won't receive any extra, but I also won't redact any from your original score.

Advice/Help: If you are from LAMDL, debate for a UDL or public school without coaching, I'm willing to help with advice or questions y'all may have.

I was a high school policy debater about 30 years ago. My partner and I qualified for the TOCs three times and we made it to the semi-finals my senior year.

After a long absence from debate, I started judging LD about a year ago when my daughter started debate. I was surprised to see that LD is much more like policy now. As a former policy debater, that is fine with me. I will do my best to take a tabula rosa approach.

I judged a good number of novice rounds last year and have judged at one varsity tournament. Speed is fine but of course be clear.

I tend to vote for the debater who tells the best story at the end of the round. If it is a close debate, the quality of evidence you read may be decisive.

It is very possible that I will miss a blippy argument spoken at high speed. If there's an argument you think is a winner, make sure it's registering with me.

The kritik was just emerging when I was in high school. I'm somewhat familiar with critical arguments but am still learning the details. I am open to them so long as they are presented clearly and persuasively. You might be safer though going for more traditional policy arguments as I'm more familiar with them (they don't seem to have changed that much over the decades).

e-mail: james.park@law.ucla.edu

Please add me to the chain, my email is rosasyardley.a@gmail.com

Policy from 2014-2021 for Downtown Magnets High School/LAMDL and Cal State Fullerton.

thoughts

general: I will listen to anything you have to say. I need you to control how I think about what is going on in the round. Framing weighing and comparing impacts is important. Extending and debating warrants as thoroughly as the debate allows is so important to me especially in the rebuttals . Also because I feel like tech and truth determine each other. You should be able to do a lot more with less. I flow on paper so I will miss quick, short, and intricate arguments. Tell me what it is I need to be voting on and why I should vote on that thing. I am very receptive to an rfd that is straight up given to me. My rfds are broad and I don't ever really get into specifics unless asked and rarely vote on a single argument.

specifics: I like k v k and k v policy debates the most. I have the most experience with arguments about the state, racial capitalism, and the intersection of race/gender/queerness/class. I need to feel like you are politically and/or socially motivated by the world to run the k you are running for me to really be persuaded by it. I need Ks to have a strong explanation of either the world or debate. Ks on the aff need a clear method and solvency. I don't mind if this isn't as strong on the neg unless the aff makes it a thing. In k v fw rounds I need both sides to have models of debate and comparison work being done on the offense. I lean towards skills, clash, tva for the neg. Generally I need links to be as specific as possible for any kind of offense or argument. I will consider any theory argument. But if you are going for them, be as contextual to the round as possible. Frankly, 4+ off is irritating to me no shade but I live for drama so go ahead but that raises the bar for you and lowers it for the aff.

other: sorry if I get sleepy, it's probably not because of the round

Overview

-archan.debate@gmail.com---add me to the chain.

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

-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. Everything below in this paradigm are general inclinations on my thoughts for how debate works, so that you can exploit some of the biases that I've gained throughout the years as to what arguments I think are convincing, but you do not need to read any of it. 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.

Hot takes

Most paradigms are the exact same and don't give any insights into how to debate in front of them. Judges who don't have any controversial debate opinions haven't thought about debate enough. Here's a (non-extensive) list of mine:

-Plan text in a vacuum is true. Judges who simultaneously hate positional competition and PTIAV don't understand competition. Both PTIAV and competition describe how to determine the mandates of the aff. Any counter-interp to PTIAV is equivalent to positional competition and justifies competition off of that. Eg, if you think that a better standard is cross-ex explanations of the plan, then that's logically identical to having an interp that CPs can compete off of cross-ex.

-How "generic" an argument is has no implication for how well it rejoins the 1AC. No clue why people have a moral panic over seeing the NGA CP.

-If you're allowed to kick parts of CPs, then that means that every CP text is functionally infinite condo as you can kick any individual letter or permutation of letters.

-Textual competition is terrible. If the norm, I think it would collapse debate. The distinction between only being able to permute words vs being able to permute letters seems to be an arbitrary line drawn to make it work in the aff's favor. But, taken to the logical extent, it would be that you could literally permute any combination of letters or punctuation to make any sentence. Especially because the aff gets to choose the plan and jam as many characters in it as possible, this seems like it would be very hard to beat. The best answer I heard was PICs deter, but under a model of textual + functional, the majority of the PICs wouldn't be functionally competitive, but the ones that are could be read either way, so I don't get how this is defense. With that being said, it was around 50% of my 2ARs against process CPs, so it obviously can be defended in a debate.

-Affs need to be immediate. If they don't, then it makes it impossible to ever be neg. The aff team will always get out of DAs by delaying the plan (the answer that's like normal means = immediate is [a] an assertion with no ev backing it up and [b] taken out if the aff chooses to say that it isn't immediate in the plan). That seems like a big-ish issue, but I think that the bigger issue is that it makes any CP unviable. Teams can always say "perm do the CP and the plan in 100 years". That solves every net benefit ever because they're all based on the squo for uniqueness. It's definitely not intrinsic since the perm just specs the timeframe of the aff (similar to how they can go for PDCP against the courts aff by 'speccing' that the aff is the courts). It would destroy all neg ground. This was still the other 50% of my 2ARs against process CPs.

-Most theory interps should be impossible to win. Nearly all of them don't have a clear interp (what is a 'process CP'?), get rid of all CPs (every CP necessarily has to PIC out of something to beat PDCP), or don't exclude anything (no CP 'results in the aff,' proven by competition args). Neg teams that exploit this will have a very easy time beating theory in front of me.

-There are so many things in LD that would eviscerate the best policy teams. If there was a team that ever got good at phil or tricks, most policy people would not know how to respond.

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.

-Impact turns > counter-interps. Your counter-interp will always be contrived and incoherent when held up at scrutiny. Middle ground strategies are just harder to thread the needle on. It probably also links to your exclusion DA.

-Ambivalent between fairness and clash---go for whatever you're more comfortable with/what's going better for you in the round.

-Reading T is no different than other forms of engagement vs K affs. It is not "psychic violence".

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

-PTIAV is good. See "hot takes" section.

-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 > 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: misimha4[at]gmail[dot]com. She/her. Asst. coach at Peninsula.

Discrimination is not allowed. I will not vote on ad hominems or premeditated ethics challenges. Evidence ethics challenges require you to stop the round. Else, they won’t be considered.

I flow straight down. I don’t start flowing until the 1NC on case because I’ll be reading cards instead. I never flow off the doc.

Tech over truth. I will always vote in the way that I think is the least interventionist. Aligning your strategy with my priors is likely the path of least resistance, but not necessary.

Here are my biases:

1. Fairness is intrinsically good and a terminal impact.
2. Risk is cumulative. Link and solvency > uniqueness and impact. I tend to care more about link turns case and less about terminal impacts than the average judge. Better for soft left or philosophy than average.
3. Ballots have no operational value and voting as if they did seems highly problematic.
4. Other than ‘we meet’ and ‘do CP’, nothing is 100 or 0 percent risk. I’m inclined to not vote on defense alone, although a defensively inclined ballot is viable if framed within offense-defense.
5. Substantive debate is to be maximized but gettable on reasonable theory arguments such as ifiat or process bad.
6. Topicality is about the plan text.
7. Interps must be predictable. Whether or not that sufficient condition has been met is to be debated. Debatability concerns merely follow.
8. Kritiks should prove why the implementation of the plan is bad. The set of assumptions you critique should render the plan undesirable. Though, consequences may not be the only relevant consideration. ‘You link, you lose’ frameworks are bad. Middle ground is best.
9. A model requiring functional and textual competition is ideal. Functional alone is viable but second best. Positional competition is unideal.
10. Critical affirmatives require a counterinterp against T as opposed to just impact turns. I feel that a model permitting truly planless affirmatives would make evaluation of debates impossible. I find the best aff arguments here to be those explaining their model maximizing some non-competitive value to debate. Though, I suspect aff teams will have an easier time simply answering a DA as opposed to defending untopicality.

Inserting rehighlighting is fine. Read recuttings.

Look up once in a while. I'll be making expressions or nodding when I hear arguments I feel particularly strong about. Frankly, there are many times in debates where I have just wanted to yell "skip" to the debaters (e.g. wiki disclosure, role of the ballot, theory is a reason to reject the team not argument, 'try-or-die', 2AC case overview, etc.) but have chosen not to so far.

Feel free to post round.

Updated 1/28/2024

Quick Q&A:

1. Yes, include me on the doc chain – mrgrtstrong685@gmail.com

2. No, I am not ok with you just putting the card in the text of the email. Even if it’s just one card

3. Idk if the aff has to read a plan. I went for framework and read a plan, so I'm definitely more versed in that side of the debate, but I'm frequently in support of identity-based challenges to framework. I went for framework because it was the best thing I knew how to go for, not because it was objectively the best

4. No, you should not try to read Baudrillard or other post-modern theories against me. (Yes. Against me.) This is not a challenge. It's not a threat, it's a warning, be careful with me. I am admitting insurmountable bias.

5. Yes, you should (please) slow down while debating if you are online. There are glitches in streaming and it’s hard enough to understand you. For a while, I tried following along with the docs when I missed something, but we all know that just leads to more errors. This is your warning: if you are not clear enough to flow I will not try to flow it. I will give two warnings to be clear (and one after your speech in case you didn’t hear me). If you choose to keep doing you, don’t expect to win or for me to know what you said. On the flip side, if you are actively slowing down to make the debate comprehensible, you will be rewarded with a speaker point bump.

6. JESUS CHRIST PLEASE stop trying to debate how you think I want you to. It's never a good look to over-adapt. The only exception is if you want to go for Baudrillard and somehow ended up with me as a judge. Then please over-adapt. I cannot stress enough the importance of adaptation if you are trying to tell me post-modern theory or that death is cool.

7. I don't like to read cards as a default because decision time is 20 minutes assuming there were no delays in the round. If a card is called into question or my BS meter is going off, I will read the card. Absent that, I'm mostly about the flow and ethos. Tell me what warrants in your card you want me to know about. Point out the parts in the other team's evidence that are bad for them. That makes my judging job easier, causes me to read the card, AND gives you a sick speaker point boost.

WARNINGS:

1. I am chronically ill. If you pref me, there is a chance I have a flare up while judging you. This means I will finish the debate with my camera off but am still there. I just want some privacy while sick/you really don't want to see my face if I turn my camera off. If we are in person this may mean a slight delay in the debate. One time and one time only I have gotten so sick in a debate that a bye was given to both teams. So pref me if you want the chance of a free win!
2. I am a blunt judge. When I say that I mean I am autistic and frequently do not know how to convey or perceive tone in the way that other do. If you post-round me, I wont call you out of your name, but I will be very clear about your skills (or lack thereof) in the debate.
3. I also might cry...I'm clinically hypersensitive from CPTSD. Sometimes people assume I have a tone and "match" or "reraise" what they think I'm doing. If I cry and you weren't being a total jerk, don't over-apologize and make the RFD about me, lets just plan on a written RFD in that case.
4. I appreciate trigger warnings about sexual abuse. I will not vote on trigger warning voters because it's impossible to know everyone's trigger and ultimately we are responsible for our own triggers. All debaters who wish to avoid triggers should inform opponents before the round, not center the debate on it. I'd rather use "tech time" for the triggered debater to try to get back to their usual emotional state and try to finish the round if desired.
5. If the behavior of one of the teams crosses the line into what I deem to be inappropriate or highly objectionable behavior I will stop the debate and award a loss to the offending team. Examples of this behavior include but are not limited to sexual harassment/abuse, abusive behavior or threats of violence or instances of overt racism, sexism or oppression based on identity generally.

• This does not include self-expression. I would prefer not to see an erotic performance from high schoolers as an adult, but I am able to do so without sexualizing said debaters. There are limits to this, as you are minors and this is a school activity. Please do not make me have to stop the round because you exposed yourself to the other team, or something similar. If you are in college I still feel like you are a student, but I will honor that you have the right to express yourself without sexualizing you. Please no "flashing" without consent - that is sexual harassment/assault.
• This also does not include a Black debater using the N-word, unless used intentionally to put down another Black debater to the point of distress in the other Black debater.
• When in doubt, don’t make it your goal to traumatize the other team and we will all be fine.
• If you ask a team to say a slur in CX I will interrupt the debate to change course, though I will not auto-vote against you. I don’t think we should encourage people to say slurs to try to prove a point. Find another way, or don’t pref me.

The longer version:

Speaker points:

I've been told you need to average a 29.2 to clear nowadays. Because of that:

-a learning speech will be 28.4-28.7,

-an average speech will be 28.8-29.1,

-a clearing level speech will be 29.2-29.5,

-a top ten speaker will be 29.6-29.9.

I'm not giving 30s. Ya gotta be perfect to get a 30, and Hannah Montana taught me that nobody's perfect.

If you get below a 28.4 you probably severely annoyed me.

If you get below a 28, you were probably a problem in the debate, ethically.

I have yet to give a low point win, to my memory. I generally think winning is a part of speaking well. If you cause your team to lose the debate, you’re likely to get lower points.

Speaker-point factors:

- Did you debate well?

- Were you clear?

- Did you maintain my attention?

- Did you make me laugh, critically think, or gasp?

- Did your arguments or behavior in the debate make me cringe?

- Were you going way to hard in a debate against less experienced debaters and made them feel bad for no reason?

K STUFF:

Planless Clash debates:

-I’ve rarely judged a planless debate where the neg has not gone for framework. In instances where I have, the neg was policy style impact turning a concept of the aff, not going for a K based on a different theory of the world.

-I generally went for framework against planless affirmatives when I debated, and therefore am a bit deeper on the neg side of things. That being said, I also have a standard for what the neg needs to do to make a complete argument.

-I don’t think topicality, or adhering to a resolution, is analogous to rape, slavery, or other atrocities. That doesn't mean arguments about misogynoir, pornotroping, or other arguments of that nature don't work with me. I understand the logic of something being problematic. It's just the oversimplification of theory into false comparisons I take issue with.

-I don’t think that not being topical will cause everyone to quit, lose all ability to navigate existential crises, or other tedious internal link chains. That being said, I love an external impact to framework that defends the politics of government action.

-I would really prefer if people had reasonable arguments on topicality for why or why they don’t need to read a plan, rather than explaining to me their existential impact to voting aff or neg. In the same way that I'm not persuaded the neg will quit or extinction will happen if you don't read a plan, I also don't think extinction will happen if you lose to topicality. Focus instead on the real debate impacts at hand. Though, as said above, I love a good defense of your politics, and if that has a silly extinction impact that's fine.

-I find myself persuaded that the case can not outweigh topicality. Arguments from the case can be used to impact turn topicality, but that is distinct from “case outweighs limits” in my mind. T is a gateway issue. If the neg goes for T, that's what the debate is about. This is why I think many planless 1ACs are best when they have a built-in angle against framework.

-indicts to procedural fairness impacts are persuasive to me.

-modern concrete examples of incrementalism failing or working help a lot

-aff teams need to explain how their counter interpretation solves the neg impacts as well as their impact turns.

-neg teams need to turn the aff impacts and have external offense of their own. Teams frequently do one or the other

Neg K v plans:

-Generally, the alt won’t solve when the aff does a serious push, but the aff will let the neg get away with murder on alt solvency.

-Generally, the alt doing the plan is a reason to reject the alt/team absent a framework debate, which is fine.

-Generally, contradictions justify severance

-Always, the neg is allowed to read Ks

-I'm getting more and more persuaded the neg needs a big push on framework to beat the perm. If the alt is fiated and not mutually exclusive with the plan, there is almost no way to convince me that the perm won't solve. This is not true on topics where the alt impact turns the resolution. You truly can't do both sometimes.

-Framework debates are won by engaging the theory aspect and is pragmatism/action desirable, not just one. Typically the neg spends a bunch of time winning the aff is an unethical method, while the aff is talking about fairness and limits.

-please slow down on framework blocks!

K v K debate:

I tend to find myself thinking of things in terms of causality, so if that’s not your jam you gotta tell me not to think in that way. I have *technically* judged a K v K debate, but I'm pretty sure it was a cap debate that was more impact turn-y than theory of power-y.

I'm interested in seeing debates like this despite my lack of experience.

K stuff in general:

-My degree is in math. While y’all were reading a lot of background lit, I was doing abstract algebra. You might have to break it down a bit. I'm reading a bit more of the stuff y'all debate from in grad school, but it's still safe to eli5. My masters work is mostly on pop culture, hip-hop, and Black Feminist literature. If you want to debate about Megan Thee Stallion, I should be your ordinal one because it is the topic of my thesis.

-I am more persuaded by identity or constructivism than post-modernism. I am the opposite of persuaded by post-modernism.

-I DO NOT recommend reading Baudrillard, Bataille, etc. You might think "but I'm the one that will change her mind;" you aren't. I will be annoyed for having to judge the debate tbh. You have free will to read it if you want, but I have free will to tank your points with ZERO remorse. If this third warning doesn't do it for you, you are responsible for your speaker points. If I was swapped in to judge your debate last minute, I won't tank your speaks. I only clarify because this happened to a team once.

POLICY STUFF:

CPs:

-Tell me if I can (or can’t!) kick it for you. I may or may not remember to if you don’t. I may or may not feel like you are allowed to if you don’t.

-Reading definitions of should means the perm or theory is in tough shape. It's not unwinnable, but I was a 2A… Tricky process counterplans that argue to result in the aff by means of solvency, but are *actually* competitive (more than just should and resolved definitions), game on. If that means you have to define some topic words in an interesting way, I'm fine with that. Also, despite being a classic 2A, I find myself holding the aff to a higher standard sometimes. Maybe it's because I went to MSU, but a lot of times I find myself thinking "this CP obviously doesn't solve. why doesn't the aff just say that or try to cut a card about it???"

-Make the intrinsic perm great again!

-Links to the net benefit is usually a sliding scale. But sometimes links have a certain threshold where it doesn’t matter which links less. Please consider this nuance when debating.

Theory:

-TBH – y’all blaze through theory blocks with no clarity and then get confused when I have no standards written down. These debates are bad. Be more clear. Speak at a flowable pace. Maybe make your own arguments. Idk.

-It is debatable whether an argument is a reason to reject the argument or team.

-2ACs that spend 15-plus seconds on the theory shell will see a lot more mileage and viability for the 2AR. One-sentence blips with no warrants and flow checks will be treated as such.

-impact comparison and turns case are lost arts in theory debates.

DAs:

-Yes, there can be zero DA. No, it’s not as common as you think.

-answer turns case!!!

PF/LD:

I have coached LD and PF for years, but it is hard for me to separate my years of policy debate experience from the way I judge all debates. I was trained for 8 years as a policy debater and continue to coach that format. I have participated in both LD and PF debates a few times in high school, so I’m not a full outsider

LD

I’m not a trickster and I refuse to learn how Kant relates to the topic. Similarly, theory arguments like “abbreviating USFG is too vague” or “You misspelled enforcement and that’s a VI” are silly to me. Plan flaws are better when the aff results in something meaningfully different from what they intend to, not something that an editor would fix. I’m not voting/evaluating until the final speech ends. Period.

Dense phil debates are very hard for me to adjudicate having very little background in them. I default to utilitarianism and am most comfortable judging those debates. Any framework that involves skep triggers is very unlikely to find favor with me.

PF:

Do not pref me if you paraphrase evidence.

Do not pref me if you do not have a copy of your evidence/relevant part of the article AND full-text article for your opponent upon request.

Please stop with the post-speech evidence swap, make an email chain before the debate, and send your evidence ahead of time. If your case includes analytics you don’t want to send, that’s fine, though I think it’s kinda weaksauce to not disclose your arguments. If the argument is good, it should withstand an answer from the opponent.

Second, there is far too much untimed evidence exchange happening in debates. I will want all teams to set up an email chain to exchange cases in their entirety to forego the lost time of asking for specific pieces of evidence. You can add me to the email chain as well and that way after the debate I will not need to ask for evidence. This is not negotiable if I'm your judge - you should not fear your opponents having your evidence. Under no circumstances will there be an untimed exchange of evidence during the debate. Any exchange of evidence that is not part of the email chain will come out of the prep time of the team asking for the evidence. The only exception to this is if one team chooses not to participate in the email thread and the other team does then all time used for evidence exchanges will be taken from the prep time of the team who does NOT email their cases.

Please add me to the email chain: mollyurfalian@gmail.com

Notre Dame '23 (2A/1N for 4 years)

UC Berkeley '27

You can just call me Molly

TL

• time your own speeches and prep
• stickler for ev quality
• judge instruction is super important to me, especially in rebuttals
• I was a 2A, however condo is probably good
• I love CP + DA debates and ptx holds a special place in my heart
• I am fairly expressive and do not hide displeasure or confusion well, so look at me
• tech > truth

Topicality

• case lists are the most effective way for me to compare visions of the topic
• competing interps > reasonability
• smaller topics are probably better for innovation

Disads

• Any debate with a disad I love to hear
• I love ptx disads but I also know a truly garbage one when I see it
• turns case and impact calc are your best friends and should start early (on both sides)

Counterplans

• Agent CPs are my favorite
• I am extremely neutral on process CPs, but not debated well I lean aff on most perms
• I dislike super contrived adv cps, but logical ones that exploit poor aff writing are amazing
• Do impact calc between the solvency deficit and disadvantage
• I default to judge kick

Kritiks

• If you go for Ks consistently, I am not the best judge for you. I don't dislike them, I simply never went for them so I will probably not default in your favor
• I prefer links to the plan, at least the topic. Does not have to be cards but lines should be taken from the 1AC
• Engaging with the aff and substantial case work gives me a much clearer path to vote neg
• Don't read a super long overview, it just sounds like words to me. Do the work on the line by line
• Alts should resolve the links and their subsequent impacts
• Floating PIKs are probably bad
• If its not cap, security, set col or fem ir, thats fine, just explain it.

K affs

• If you read a K aff, I am not the best judge for you, however, I am also not the worst. You will have to do more work explaining your disads to FW than you would in front of K judges because I don't have as much background knowledge, so what is intuitive/obvious to you might not be for me.
• Consistency of explanation of aff offense is SO helpful. Super shift K affs make me upset and more importantly, I am much less likely to grant you weight of 2AR offense if it was not rooted in an explanation started in the 1AR.
• If you read a high theory K aff I am less likely to vote for you compared to an indentity aff. I understand them less and have the honest pre-disposition of thinking your offense is kinda dumb
• I really need your aff to do something. If you do nothing or want me to endorse your method that doesn't do anything I will be unhappy. Just explain to me what you solve, if you don't solve anything this round will be hard for you

Neg v K affs

• Presumption is great. I find it challenging to 0 an aff on a sentence or 2 of a 2NR. You are much more likely to win a presumption debate in front of me if the 2NR takes the extra 15 seconds to actually engage with the 1AR answers.
• Fairness is an impact as long as you tell me it is.
• TVAs and SSD are great. I find that 2Ns expect me to fill in some of the reasons as to why these would solve the aff intuitively. I am unwilling to do this work for you please explain how they solve.
• I was a 1N and took the Cap K or Cap good in every 1NR I ever gave. If you feel inclined to put me in a K v K debate, I am the most familiar with this one. I think neg team's sitting on a usually poorly answered K affs don't get perms debate is a winning debate

Theory

• Condo is good until we hit 5-6 condo. At this point the strat skew offense that the aff will go for becomes more persuasive to me.
• Dispo probably does not solve anything other than research, if you want to change my mind then explain it
• International fiat and changing the whole world fiat is bad. This includes K alt stuff.
• Limited Intrinsicness good/bad are the theory debates I had the most and judge the most. I am very neutral on the question. I find often that neg teams win on a deficit to the intrinsic perm than the theory debate.

Speaks

• If you yell at someone I will literally do everything in my power to vote against you. You can be loud and be passionate, but not mean esp at another individual.
• On a happier note I like snarky remarks and sassy answers. Just be funny with it
• If the top of the final rebuttal is why I should vote for you and has judge instruction you're doing yourself a favor

Re-highlighting

• Have the theory debate over whether it can be inserted or not, I will evaluate the debate based on the outcome
• If you choose not to have the theory debate I will default to letting ev be re-inserted. I changed my position on this issue because I want more debaters to do it, and forcing teams to read re-highlights seems to discourage quality ev idicts
• However, I will not do the debating for you, if you insert re-highlighting without explaining or implicating it in the debate I will not do the work for you. So only insert the amount of evidence you can reasonably explain

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!!! :)

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

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 negative should LOSE if not debating the converse of the resolution
- 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.

Hello! I'm Tanya (she/her) – I debated for Westridge, 2x qual to the TOC. I'm now an assistant coach at Harker.

Email for docs: weitanya5@gmail.com com but I prefer speechdrop

People that impacted my views on debate the most: Samantha Mcloughlin and Elmer Yang

General

I will not vote on any arguments that make debate unsafe, including any defense of genocide, homophobia, racism, sexism, etc-ism. Debate is a game but in round accessibility matters, and if your opponent is clearly uncomfortable with any of the previous the arguments presented I will drop you and give you the lowest speaks possible

Slow down on analytics. I flow what I can understand, so if you are going too fast or unclear, I will probably stop flowing. This is especially true if you docbot the 2NR/AR at full speed – I will tank speaks if I can tell you are giving a scripted speech

My favorite rounds are when debaters prioritize clash and argument innovation. I would rather you debate the arguments you are debating rather than over adapting to my argumentative preferences

I do not feel comfortable adjudicating personal narratives/performances/survival strats/ad-homs

If you are unnecessarily rude or snarky to your opponent, I will tank speaks. There is a difference between ethos and insulting your opponent – debate is already an incredibly time-consuming and stressful activity, and being hostile only creates a more toxic environment

Policy

I primarily read these arguments in high school – my favorites were creative, topic-germane process CPs and creative impact turns

Default judgekick, neg on presumption, condo/pics good, but can be persuaded otherwise

Best speeches include argument resolution – judge instruction, weighing, evidence comparison, etc. Rebuttals should have a good mix of technical line-by-line argumentation and big-picture weighing. Your goal should be to minimize judge intervention, so please make the debate resolvable so I'm not forced to intervene

I think evidence quality is extremely important, especially since there seems to be an increase in power or mis-tagged cards. I would really prefer to not be reading cards to resolve debates so please compare author quals, extend warrants, and weigh

Inserting rehl is good and very underutilized but you must explain what you’re inserting

K

I read a topical K aff for every topic I debated and enjoyed having K debates on both sides. I’m most familiar w Setcol, Semiocap/University, and critiques of IR, but I'm am open to evaluating anything

1NC links must be contextual – you should pull lines from the 1AC, establish them during CX, etc. I enjoy 2NRs that deploy smart, technical line-by-line debating and don't rely on long, scripted overviews that throw around buzzwords. You should have a solid understanding of your theory of power, good link contextualization, and a coherent explanation of the alt

Clash/skills >>> fairness, debating the topic is probably good (could be persuaded otherwise)

When running non T affs and dense high theory/pomo, you should err on the side of over-explanation, contextualization, and line by lining. If I can't explain your theory of power back to you, I probably won't vote on it

Best K Affs and 1ARs vs Topicality have a built-in critique of what a "topical debate" looks like, which likely impact turns topic education, limits, and ground, and have a solid counterinterp

I love CX in K debates! CX is binding, so please don’t embarrass yourself by not being able to explain the alt. Good CX's will be rewarded w high speaks

Theory

Be clear and slow when reading analytics – if I can’t flow it, I won’t vote for it

Default reasonability, DTD for topicality, DTA for cp theory/everything else, no RVIs, but I can be persuaded otherwise. Arbitrariness and infinite regress are probably true arguments

Phil/Tricks

I would really prefer to not judge these debates but if you must, please err on over explanation. I will vote on anything with a claim, warrant, and impact, but if I'm lost, then I will err on the side of my argumentative preferences

Defaulted to the K (Setcol) or a process CP + no intent foresight distinction when I debated phil

I have a very basic understanding of Kant/Virtue Ethics/Determinism and am not super good for anything else

I have been in/around speech & debate for 20 years; I competed in HS & college & have been coaching ever since. I am a coach at Flintridge Preparatory & The Westridge School, and Curriculum Director of OO/Info at the Institute for Speech & Debate (ISD). I believe that the Speech & Debate events are far more complementary than we acknowledge, & that they’re all working toward the same pedagogical goals. Because debate is constantly changing, I value versatility & a willingness to adapt.

LD: quoting the inimitable Jack Ave, with whom I agree on all things, LD or otherwise: Debate rounds are about students so intervention should be minimized. I believe that my role in rounds is to be an educator, however, students should contextualize what that my obligation as a judge is. I default comparative worlds unless told otherwise. Slow down for interps and plan texts. Signpost and add me to your email chain, please (I'll provide my email address in-round).

PF: I'd rather not need to read any docs/evidence in order to decide how I'm voting, but if it comes down to that, I will (begrudgingly) scrutinize your evidence. Feel free to run any experimental/non-traditional arguments you want, but please make these decisions IN GOOD FAITH. Don't shoehorn theory in where it doesn't apply & don't run it manipulatively. I am admittedly not techy-tech girl, but I am always listening comprehensively & flowing.

Congress: I judge based on a competitor’s skill in the following areas: argumentation, ethicality, presentation, & participation.

Argumentation: Your line of reasoning should be clear & concise; in your speeches & your CX, you should answer the questions at hand. Don’t sacrifice clarity for extra content – there should be no confusion regarding why the bill / resolution results in what you’re saying. You can make links without evidence, but they must be logically or empirically sound.

Ethicality: Evidence is borrowed credibility; borrow honestly. A source should necessarily include its date & the publication in which it appeared, & should not be fabricated. No evidence is better than falsified evidence. Additionally, competitors should remember that although you may not be debating real legislation, the issues at hand are very real, as are the people they affect. An ethical debater does not exploit real world tragedy, death, or disaster in order to “win” rounds.

Presentation: Congressional Debate is the best blend of speech skills & debate ability; what you say is just as important as how you say it. The best speakers will maintain a balance of pathos, ethos, & logos in both their content & delivery style. Rhetoric is useful, but only if its delivery feels authentic & purposeful.

Participation: Tracking precedence & recency is a good way to participate – it helps keep the PO accountable, & demonstrates your knowledge of Parliamentary Procedure. Questioning is an integral part of Congress; I like thoughtful, incisive questioning that doesn’t become adversarial or malicious. Both your questions & your answers should be pertinent & succinct. Above all, I am a big fan of competitors who are as invested in making the chamber better as they are in bettering their own ranks. The round can only be as engaging, lively, and competitive as you make it - pettiness brings everyone down.