Hey y'all

I'm a fourth-year debater from Vestavia Hills High School.

Case: Make sure your case has impacts. It is hard for me to vote on an argument that doesn't tell me how or which population is affected by their impacts. However, make sure you also have warrants. Even if your case has big numbers, I will not evaluate any of your impacts if you don't give me any explanations as to how you get there. Don't worry if your case does not get to 4 minutes; I still evaluate all arguments presented in that timeframe.

Speaking: Speak clearly. For me, you can go a little bit fast and I will still be able to understand your argument. However, I will indicate for you to slow down if you are going too fast. Most importantly, mumbling is gonna negatively affect your speaker points and make it a lot harder to understand. Send speech docs if you plan on spreading. Email is aaryaaluri143@gmail.com

Prog: By all means go ahead and do it. Just beware that my experience with progressive args is pretty limited to theory. I'll evaluate it to the best of my abilities.

Rebuttal: Prioritize offense over defense. In 1st rebuttal, do not go back onto your case unless it is an absolute necessity and you believe you have no other way to fill the 4 minutes. Weighing is not a necessity in 1st rebuttal but it would be good if you started weighing early in round. Weighing should be in 2nd rebuttal. No talking between teammates in rebuttal or any speech for that matter. 2nd rebuttal must respond to all offense that 1st rebuttal brings. 2nd rebuttal would be good to collapse but it is not required for me. Defense is not sticky.

Weighing: WEIGHING IS NECESSARY. I must know why your argument is more important than theirs to be able to vote for you. Additionally, weighing can't be one-sided. You must weigh COMPARING your impact to theirs as opposed to just restating their impact. It can start in rebuttal but IT MUST START IN SUMMARY.

Summary: 1st summary MUST COLLAPSE ON ONE ARGUMENT. Summary must also respond to all offense presented on ALL of their contentions. Summary must also have clean extensions of their case and turns in order for them to stay on my flow. 2nd summary is largely a reactive speech that must respond to the points brought up by 1st summary.

Final Focus: Largely resembles summary. NO NEW INFORMATION IN FINAL FOCUSES. Weighing, case extensions and turn extensions must be present.

Have fun with this activity. It gives back what you give it. You make connections the more you stay in the activity. I will do my best to ease your nerves and help y'all grow in this adventure.

YOU'RE GONNA KILL IT!!!!

Email: josephcharlesdan@gmail.com

You can call me Joseph (he/him) in rounds.

I was a CX debater in high school for 4 years and now debate for UTD.

My preference is the k, but I ran a lot of policy. The only arguments you shouldn't run in front of me are tricks and preferably not phil (I never ran it or debated against it, so there's a good chance I can't evaluate a phil round the way you would want me to). Debate however you want; I try not to interject my own biases into the round. This also means I'm tech over truth and will vote for arguments that I personally don't agree with. Cross is binding and I'll be paying attention. If you make the round easy for me to judge through judge instruction, you will be more likely to win and there's a much lower chance of judge intervention.

FW is fine; I don't have any specific feelings towards it. I think teams need to do more impact framing/comparison, especially if you are going for a procedural impact. I think the we meet is a yes/no question, while the TVA and SSD are more flexible. I enjoy KvK rounds as long as there is an actual link. Contextual link analysis and argument comparison are important and the easiest ways to get ahead in a round. Policy teams also let the neg get away with way too much on the alt. The perm is generally a persuasive argument against non-ontology Ks, so I do expect neg teams to have a robust answer to it.

Dropped arguments are not necessarily true, but I do give them some credence. Not that it will change the way I evaluate rounds, but I generally think debaters are better off going for arguments that are better and they are more familiar with than chasing ink unless an argument was mishandled. Spread however fast you want as long as it's not unclear.

Critical literature I read in debate:

• Afropess (Wilderson, Warren, Gillespie, Barber, etc.)
• Baudrillard
• Berardi
• University
• Cap
• Fanon
• Security

But I'm down with anything.

Email me if you have any questions!

Congress

I've been judging Congressional Debate at the TOC since 2011. I'm looking for no rehash & building upon the argumentation. I want to hear you demonstrate true comparative understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of the plan presented by the legislation. Don't simply praise or criticize the status quo as if the legislation before you doesn't exist.

LD Paradigm:

Each LDer should have a value/value criterion that clarifies how their case should be interpreted.

I prefer to evaluate a round by selecting whose V/VC weighs most heavily under their case. Winning this is not in itself a reason for you to win. Tell me what arguments you're winning at the contention level, how they link, and how much they weigh in comparison to other arguments (yours and your opponent's) in the round.

Voting down the flow, if both sides prove framework and there’s not a lot of clash I would move on to the contention level and judge off the flow.

PUBLIC FORUM

SPEED
Don't. I can't deal with speed.

EVIDENCE
Paraphrasing is a horrible practice that I discourage. Additionally, I want to hear evidence dates (year of publication at a minimum) and sources (with author's credential if possible) cited in all evidence.

REBUTTALS
I believe it is the second team's duty to address both sides of the flow in the second team's rebuttal. A second team that neglects to both attack the opposing case and rebuild against the prior rebuttal will have a very difficult time winning my ballot as whichever arguments go unaddressed are essentially conceded.

SUMMARIES
The summaries should be treated as such - summarize the major arguments in the debate. I expect debaters to start to narrow the focus of the round at this point.

FINAL FOCUS
FOCUS is key. I would prefer 2 big arguments over 10 blippy ones that span the length of the flow. If you intend to make an argument in the FF, it should have been well explained, supported with analysis and/or evidence, and extended from its origin point in the debate all the way through the FF.

IMPACTS

I rock with the nuclear war impact, but it's getting a little old, lol. The concept of a nuclear war is too complex and I find that it's been thrown too loosely in the debate space. I know it's cliche, but please don't generate this impact and tell me you win on magnitude and expect that to be a reason for me to give your team an easy ballot. If one of your impacts genuinely leads to an outbreak of a nuclear war, please warrant it well.

CX

I am a policymaker judge who does not ignore the stock issues. I think the Aff's job is to propose a topical policy solution and the Negative's job is to demonstrate why that policy should be rejected. I will weigh the advantages and disadvantages, plan vs CP, and impacts. I will vote on kritiks if they can be clearly enunciated and applied to the advocacy in round. C-X is a highly effective way of framing/rebutting your opponent's arguments.

NFA-LD

I view NFA-LD as one-person policy. Please refer to CX comments just above.

INTERP

Overall: I pay real close attention to the introduction of each piece, I look for the lens of analysis and the central thesis that will be advanced during the interpretation of literature. When the performance is happening, I'm checking to see if they have dug down deep enough into an understanding of their literature through that intro and have given me a way to contextualize the events that are happening during the performance

POI: I look for clean transitions and characterization (if doing multiple voices).

DI: I look for the small human elements that come from acting. Big and loud gestures are not always the way to convey the point, sometimes something smaller gets the point more powerfully.

HI: I look for clean character transitions, distinct voices, and strong energy in the movements. And of course the humor.

INFO: I'm looking for a well researched speech that has a strong message to deliver. Regardless of the genre of info you're presenting, I think that showing you've been exhaustive with your understanding is a good way to win my ballot. I'm not wow'd by flashy visuals that add little substance, and I'm put off by speeches that misrepresent intellectual concepts, even unintentionally. I like speeches that have a conclusion, and if the end of your speech is "and we still don't know" then I think you might want to reassess the overall direction you are taking.

FX/DX: When I'm evaluating an extemp speech, I'm continually thinking "did they answer the question? or did they answer something that sounded similar?" So keep that in your mind. Are you directly answering the question? When you present information that could be removed without affecting the overall quality of the speech, that is a sign that there wasn't enough research done by the speaker. What I vote on in terms of content are speeches that show a depth of understanding of the topic by evaluating the wider implications that a topic has for the area/region/politics/etc.

LD Paradigm

I have 4 years of high school LD and PF experience. I also have several years of high school coaching experience and judging experience, including significant experience with circuit debate. I am traditional in the sense that I enjoy a well-organized, well-supported, logical debate. I am big on impacts and well-explained/well-supported arguments. That being said, I am generally a tech over truth judge - Though I have preferences, I strongly believe that the judge’s role is to enter each round as a blank slate and vote based on what is happening in the particular round. I am open to and enjoy hearing different types of arguments (K's, theory, performance, etc.), so long as the aforementioned criteria are met. I only vote on what I hear in the round and despise rounds where I have to make a lot of logical leaps to get to a decision. I am also a big fan of crystallization, and for that reason, I generally dislike line-by-line in the 2AR. In short, I like to be entertained during the round, and I expect the debater to persuade me by winning the interactions in round interactions.

I am generally comfortable with speed as long as you are enunciating and I can understand you. That being said, I am not going to drop my pen, say “clear,” etc. when you are going too fast/not understandable. It is up to you to ensure that you are communicating in a way that I can follow. If I’m not flowing, you probably need to slow down and/or speak more clearly. Please note, while speed typically does not influence my win/loss decision, it may influence speaker points. I believe speaker points are reflective of communication skills, and talking as fast as possible does not necessarily highlight those skills. My perfect 30 speaker will be able to communicate not only quickly, but with clarity, confidence, and eye contact.

If you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask or email me at mhenninger@adventip.com.

Email: benhdebate@gmail.com

good 4 any style of debate

Background

district student of the year recipient '24, state finalist junior year, 2x toc, state champ senior year idk man

I'm a flex debater who read mostly K's with a little larping. I've read everything from tricks to theory to phil etc. I run whatever so I'm cool with whatever - don't adapt to me my preferences aren't that serious just run what you're good at so I can judge a good debate

TLDR

I'm terrible with card names, I like numbering cards under advantage so "1] tag, 2] tag" makes my flow look nicer when you do that

tech > truth (however, in a K round I'll buy truth > tech if it's articulated with a decent threshold. I love truth over tech v tricks debates as long as there's still some lbl engagement)

k / k aff - 1 (esp performance or very intricate / creative critiques)

Theory - 1 (hidden / "extempted" or off the doc shells are perfectly fine, I read them and I'm ok w that but if they ask for the interp send it)

tricks - 2 to 3 (I'd prefer to see a few hidden things, have an out that isn't just tricks. I don't like eval after as your SOLE spike but flow checks are legit I guess so I'll vote on it. I want either 5 spikes or 50 spikes and not a silly in between)

Phil* - 1 to 3 (check longer section)

Larp** - 2 to 3 (check longer section)

General beliefs / random thoughts

I think debate is a game but how we play it matters. I love performance debate and 4th wall type Kritiks. I have read a very wide variety of performance from playing chicana punk rock to narratives and poetry. I believe that as students we do internalize what we read and hear and that means I love to see debates that say the way we engage in debates matters. This can be non-T k affs, pre fiat under a topical left aff, or k's that indict aff reps and performativity. That being said, try to have a vision of what MATERIALLY changes from the education and rotb/alt you provide because I like 1AR materialism indicts.

That being said I do also enjoy full game type debates (i.e. tricks v tricks) and will not complain about having to judge them. do what you enjoy cause that's all that really matters tbh. Just do what you do and do it well. I'll adapt to you, don't adapt to me.

I think "hack for me bc x" or "hack for the X debater" are fine and I read them. The issue is you need to win a theory of power or causal explanation as to why you should be hacked for. This functionally means it's not hacking and is just an up layered reason to promote the team. This means that it comes second to procedurals (unless you're winning the layering debate i.e. a K aff vs T shell where you're winning impact turns / that the aff uplayers) I will vote for it given you win the theory of power / SUBSTANTIVE reason as to why you should be hacked for not just "bc I'm x"

K's

k v k debate is my favorite. I'm good for literally any lit base BUT you need to do a good job explaining the in round implications of the K bc I won't intervene for you. I'm good with topic links, rep links, word links, etc. any link is a good link BUT long link walls are good. I personally love to see the one off K Strat and that's what I read mostly. if u want alt as floating PIK you need to do the work to explain why you can and why I vote for that. I like the Strat though. also I love performative links being made and brought up in cx or rebuttals. Kick the K properly bc perm on an improper 2nr that goes for something else without kicking the K right is residual offense for the aff that can be weighed against the other off's if they extend the perm. I'm a big fan of in depth Kritiks, esoteric lit bases, unique alts, do literally anything you want to I love seeing uncommon Kritiks. Also, literature backed K tricks are broken and I will vote for them.

DA's

I'd rather see disads on case instead of as an off position just because I think it's more strategic unless you have a really good case neg to the aff but you do you. if disads are your Strat I'm down to watch it just really implicate the scenario out and do good metaweighing. I also like seeing K links as disads either as their own off or as DA's on case page. I commonly read opacity or race/gender k links as a disad vs k affs and would love to judge that type of round. just explain the links really well and why I care. (goat 1NC vs K affs is 2 off, K then opacity DA) condo reps are fine you can read a K that indicts extinction but also read a DA that impacts to extinction on case or as an off. I evaluate that as a turn to the aff and not a perfcon or double bind but you can maybe convince me that it is.

CP's

I have a low threshold for 1AR theory VS CCPs, PCPs, and DCPs if the aff says durable fiat / normal means would include the CP method BUT if you say why they can't do that (ground, clash, neg choice, etc) in the 1NC I'll probably lean neg on the fact aff needs to contest the CP method (esp if normal means wasn't specced in cx or 1ac) Generally love CP's though and I'll evaluate no card / one card CP's if they're good. Also I'll judge kick if you tell me. towards the end of my career I read more advantage CP's and am a big fan of an advantage CP versus K affs / Topical k affs

PIC/K's

go for it same as above cp stuff just debate how you want and do it well. I do want a good perm block in the 1NC though or else I will buy 1AR "perm blocks should've been in 1NC" args I won't buy that but still read a pre-empt. Word PIKS are less convincing to me despite that I read them bc it's hard to explain the PIK without linking yourself but that doesn't mean I won't vote on a well written word PIK. overall just win your argument I'd rather see it as an ethos push as a disad to their rhetoric that turns their assumptions. I have a medium-high threshold for pics because most can just be abusive analytics. However, I have a low threshold for analytic pics against a K aff because i think if they arbitrarily defend non topical to a point that's not even directionally topical than you can pic out of a part of the aff and i'll vote on it (just win some form of competition through like process or thesis indicts or a disad on case outweighing the world of the perm)

Theory

I don't care whether the interp is positively worded or negatively worded but a + c/I vs your - interp will be more convincing. I'm cool with frivolous theory and 1AR restarting. just do good. I love 1AR restarts. If you're larping against the K and are getting slaughtered or don't have the right blocks, just restart. I think the 1AR gets one shell without an under view in the 1AC but the 2nr will have a lower threshold for responding to it. you get infinite shells when you win the under view.

Defaults with theory:

DTD, no RVI (yes impact turns, no rvi even if 1ar restarts), competing interps, but all these can be changed if u tell me to.

no preference in fairness over education but fairness is I/L to edu. I like a good standards debate. 2n (or 2AR if 1AR theory) should be on ONE standard that can be implicated out to other standards. i.e. "I'm going for limits" then impact it out to clash

c/I "ill defend the violation" is fine with me. especially bc against frivolous neg worded interps it's just a good Strat.

I do think fairness will win most the time over education against k affs or weird neg strats.

Tricks

I used to hate them, now I don't and I sometimes read them. I love a good tricks aff BUT the more abusive you are the more I'll love to see a one off K against the aff and it'll be really hard slightly harder for you to win. if the 1NC makes good indicts of reps / tricks / TT model of debate then I'll allow grouping instead of LBL (even if they drop your goofy "must lbl" trick) ONLY if they answer the "must lbl" spike

tricks are a bad model of debate so the K vs them is basically hacking BUT I do also agree that if they drop too much stuff you can win the tricks v K debate with a good 2AR.

more abuse = lower threshold (hiding spikes, "what's an a priori?", "extempted" off the doc spikes in the 1AC, etc)

tricks v tricks debates are cool though. tricks v larp w things like definitional a priori's or log con are also fun. I love Phil tricks and hijacks so read those if ur good at it.

its fine if you say "What's an a priori" one time just to troll idrc

Phil

Mostly read butler, Pettit, Kant, emotivism, determinism, internalism, paradoxes, various hijacks, levinas, these are all ones. etc. reallllyyyy dense Phil that isn't one of the previous will probably require more work for you to explain but I'll try my best and am very willing to watch that debate.

* notes

*The Phil I'd prefer to see is Hijacks, Kant, Determinism, Skep, or tricksy type Phil, 4-5 for contracts, levinas, etc.

**I can judge a full larp debate, it'll just bore me and I'm probably not the best for it. a solid counterplan + T versus the plan aff is a good strategy in front of me. plz read Kritik against the plan <3, LD does not require a plan but I'm impartial, if they want to defend the political then I'll buy politics bad links p easily to things like queer pess etc. I will still vote on T-implementation though.

Speaks

I care more about strategy and tech of your speech over clarity. If your spreading is insanely unclear though your speaks will suffer. I disclose speaks and will general give 29+ worst you'll get with horrid spreading is like a 28.5 if you lose 29 if you win

I value speaking skills as much as logical ability. Speak clearly and concisely. I prefer if you are NOT speed reading. If I can't hear/understand what you are saying, I can't vote on those aspects of your argument.

I don't know your case as well as you do. Explain it to me. Sell me on your arguments. In short: Explain Like I'm Five.

Hello, I’m Everett Johns. I am a former high school policy debater. I am an attorney primarily practicing criminal defense, tenants' rights, and family law. I am based in Montana.

I can be emailed with questions at evjohns16@gmail.com.

I take speaking skills into account when judging for all events. It’s not just about the logic or structure- it’s also about your poise, charisma, persuasiveness, etc.

Policy: I am tabula rasa in the sense that I believe my judging paradigm is an issue to be debated in the round. I default to a policymaker paradigm if the issue isn't debated. I don't prejudge arguments; I'm open to listening to any kind of argument you care to make. Be kind and respectful of others. I prefer quality of evidence to quantity. Warrants, impacts and clash are important. I don't like time to be wasted.

LD: I tend to be somewhat of a traditionalist when it comes to theory, though I can be persuaded. I consider the standards debate (value, criterion -- and please don't refer to a "value criterion") to be very important. Big picture is as important as line-by-line. Warrants and impacts are crucial.

PF: I adhere to the NSDA rule that prohibits plans and counterplans. My primary background is policy debate, so I tend to look for impacts to arguments. The appropriate paradigm I should use to judge the round is an issue to be debated in the round. I'm not a fan of paraphrased evidence.

Hey my name is Arjun, I did PF and CX at Chelmsford High School. I am currently a freshman at UMass Amherst.

Tech > Truth

Put me on the email chain: junyyyhere@gmail.com

Racism, sexism, homophobia, etc, will NOT be tolerated, depending on what you say its a huge deduction in speaks and/or there's a good chance I drop you.

Run what u want, all substance is fine I can deal with whatever u throw at me even if i don't like it unless its discriminatory

I'll only intervene on two occasions

1. Racism/sexism/etc any other problematic things occur

2. Evidence issues. Depending on how bad it is, I will drop the argument and possibly the debater

Outside of what I just said above, for PF or CX or whatever event it is, I won't intervene on any level regardless of the argument you run

Speaks

I inflate them a lot because they're super subjective and shouldn't matter too much, usually 28s or 29s, but if you are in the bubble, just let me know and you get 30s.

Being aggressive/rude is fine to a level, being insulting means I drop speaks though

Bringing food is good, auto 30's, preferably candy or something idk

Cut cards/disclosure means +1 speaks

Case

idc what you do here, read some advantages or disadvantages or read theory or a k or respond to ur opps case in second constructive it's all up to you

If you're gonna read framing, please do it in the 1ac/1nc. If you do it in rebuttal then I'm not gonna stop your opps from reading an off against said framing in rebuttal. Just makes it much easier for everyone if you read framing in constructive.

Rebuttal

First rebuttal can read disads/advantages but please don't just contention dump, make it somewhat responsive.

Second rebuttal has to respond to all turns and defense or its 100% conceded, ik half of y'all read disads as huge turns and just don't implicate so idc anymore, just make sure u be somewhat responsive with ur "turns".

Weighing can start here too, it's always nice when that happens

Summary

You can go for 1 or 3 things, doesn't matter to me. My personal advice is collapse, stop extending 30 things, saves us all time and helps you win easier. Extend properly. I don't need word for word extensions of ur card, just what ur arg is, it shld be like 15-20 seconds max imo

First summary doesn't have to weigh, second summary needs to weigh, no new weighing in 2ff

Final Focus

New weighing in 1ff is fine, don't go over tho try to do it if u can in summary, just the basics, no new stuff, extend, weigh, all that and same with 2ff

CX
I don't really care too much about it i will be paying attention

Also, evidence comparison is key. And for PF, i'm not talking about saying "hey my author says this warrant" I mean comparing authors. Policy/LD does it way more and doing it in PF would make it much easier to win. I guarantee you, if your opponents have evidence about Russia escalation from from a part-time blogger and you have evidence from an experienced IR scholar and you explain this, I am probably going to prefer your evidence. Do evidence comparison with warrants and authors. Authors matter just as much, if not more than warrants.

Progressive

Please never read progressive stuff on a novice/person who won't know how to interact, it just makes the whole debate boring, uncomfortable, and tiring to judge and debate for all sides. If there's a violation, just bring it up in paragraph form and i'll evaluate it.

My style in pf is usually substance sometimes a k here or there if i think it strategic or theory if it works, no k affs. My policy strat on aff is just a policy aff, on the neg its like everything, mix of whatever works, but i usually go for cps/das, the occasional k if its clean, sometimes t based on the aff/round. Even though a lot of your stuff might not line up with mine, I probably understand good amount of it, other than super complicated k/k aff lit, so don't be afraid to run what you want, just warrant it out and explain it.

CPs- Not allowed in pf, BUT i like a good cp debate, its fun, if u wanna run it in pf then go for it. U can make the argument its not allowed but that can be answered by its educational, im up for anything, do whatever.

K's- Fine with some k's and have experience with the usual (cap, setcol, sec, abolition, biopower, semiocap, etc) but more complicated stuff and just k's in general need to be explained in round. i'm not voting off what I know about the k already im voting off what you say. I don't want jargon spam even if i know the argument, i want explanations of it so there's a good debate on it that i can judge. K rounds are overall fine just know what you are running and EXPLAIN THE LINKS CLEARLY, like HOW marijuana legalization links to setcol, or some other link. It can have a link and I could know that but I'm not writing your arguments for you, just please explain it relatively clearly. My opinion and how i feel on k's has changed a good amount. A good K is great, just make sure if you run it its going to be good.

K Aff's- Haven't debated many, i don't think t/fw is inherently racist/sexist/whatever agaisnt it, you can make that and win on it easy, I just won't drop t/fw automatically if ur hoping I do. But run whatever k aff u want idrc

Theory-I just don't like it in general, it's very boring and repetitve please try not to read it I can judge it fine and won't be biased but I find rounds involving anything else more enjoyable.

Familiar with most theory arguments, disclo, para, all of that and the fun frivolous stuff. I personally think disclosure if u can is good and cut cards are good too, but i don't lean on either of those in rounds and voting on disclo bad/para good is totally fine with me. Debate and convince me however u want to on CI's and reasonability and RVI's, I default competing interps and no RVI's. Haven't debated theory much, generally I think its boring/kinda stupid unless its disclosure or paraphrasing, but even then, it won't be a high speaks win if you read it and win. If its something fun then yeah

T/fw- Go for it im fine with this, ran it enough and know it enough to be able to interact/judge it, but please please please don't just spam backfiles responses without explaining anything, i might not know what the third response on clash or procedural fairness was so just try to have all ur responses make sense and not be meaningless spam. I'm too lazy to write stuff up, you do you, I don't have any biases on anything.

Impact Turns - Adding this just cause, I love these. Spark, wipeout, dedev, all impact turns, except things that are bad like racism good, are fine with me. I've been aff and read neg links or whole neg args and then impact turned them myself. Doing something creative or fun like that, reading cards for ur opponents and then impact turning it all, will get you nice speaks.

Email me after if you have questions about stuff in the round

Intro:

Add me to the email chain: chaitrapirisingula@gmail.com

Hey! I'm Chaitra Pirisingula and I use she/her pronouns. I debated for 4 years at Millard North on the local and national circuit. I mostly ran phil and some Ks. I also enjoyed theory and T.

Tech > Truth

Read anything you want as long as you explain it well.

Speed is fine.

Quick prefs:

theory/T/phil - 1

K - 2

LARP - 3/4

tricks - 4

Longer:

Theory/T: I really enjoy these debates even if they are frivolous. I think there should be a lot of weighing with standards and voters. You should read voters but if the debate gets really messy my defaults are fairness>education, no RVI, competing interps, and drop the debater.

Phil: I am most familiar with this type of debate. I've read a lot of frameworks but I am most familiar with Kant, Butler, Levinas, and Macintyre. I think you should always try to line by line a framework as well as make general responses. Make unique arguments and answer your opponents line by line.

Ks: I mostly read cap and set col but I am somewhat familiar with other authors popular in debate. A lot of my teammates were K debaters so most of my knowledge is based on their rounds. As long as you explain your theory well and don't just rely on long prewritten overviews, these can be great debates. I default to T>K but it would be pretty easy to convince me otherwise.

Non-T/Performance: As long as you explain your method well and make the round accessible these rounds are great, but I do think affs should generally have some topic link.

LARP: I probably won't know much about the topic (especially if it's one of the first tournaments on a new topic) so that might make these rounds harder to adjudicate. Evidence comparison is important but also make sure you spend a lot of time answering the warrants of the evidence itself. You should read a framework but I default to util is no other framework is provided.

Tricks: I will listen to them but I don't like voting off blips so my threshold for responses is very low.

Overall, I am open to anything as long as rounds have a lot of clash and you understand your arguments. Be nice, be creative, and have fun!

Debate experience:

I debated policy in high school and another 4 years as a policy debater for USC (NDT). Was away from debate for about 15 years, but the over last 5 years, I've been frequently judging PF and LD rounds (with several TOC-bid tournaments the last couple of years for LD). Haven't judged too many CX rounds recently, but am comfortable with both trad and kritik argumentation. I'm a bit of a dinosaur in this activity, and I do prioritize evaluating the quality of your evidence over just relying on blippy arguments from your doc, and I usually rely on evidence quality as a crucial tie breaker if you don't provide good judge instruction that aligns with my logical thought processes.

Feel free to add me to the email chain for evidence: ptapia217@gmail.com

Preferences (LD):

Policy / LARP: 1

K Args: 2

Phil: 3

Tricks: strike

More details:

Policy / LARP:

I am most familiar with these positions. Run what you want on Aff and Neg.

Kritiks:

I am reasonably familiar with most generics (setcol, cap, afropess) and a few postmodernist positions, but it might be safe to assume that I may not be as familiar with the literature base as you might be.

K Affs:

I have tended to vote close to 50/50 for and against K affs, so I tend to be fairly open-minded about these positions, but I am more persuaded when you can articulate a clear and compelling reason as to why you need my ballot. However, I also enjoy a good framework debate that's clearly contextualized for the aff (and the round) rather than something mechanically just read from premade blocks.

Phil / Tricks:

I am less familiar with phil arguments other than more mainstream positions like Kant. I shouldn't be your preference for these rounds. Save tricks for Halloween.

Speaker Points:

I tend to be reasonably generous and won't give anything below a 28.5 in a bid tournament. If I think you're strong enough to break, I won't give you less than a 29.5. I won't disclose speaker points, however.