Hi! I'm Kyson, a nat circuit LD debater from Millard North High School in Nebraska.

Add me on any email chains: kysonbloomingdale at gmail

Top line I'll vote on any argument that isn't doing an -ism, I really don't care that much what arguments you decide to read. Granted, readings arguments that you can explain well gives you a much easier path to my ballot.

Updated 9/2024: Only go full speed on cards, please slow down for tags/analytics/etc. Tone it down to like 60% your normal speed. If you don't and I can't flow everything you said, that's on you ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Prefs based on how comfortable I feel evaluating the debate (don't let this prevent you from reading your case but stuff towards the bottom you'll need to flesh out)

1- Theory, all LARP (impact turns, process cps, wipeout, etc), KvK, KvTFW, trad

2- simple phil

3- Tricks

4- Dense phil and Pomo

If you are still reading and are confused about something or have a question, ask (or email me).

Intro: Hi! I am a freshman debater in high school for Millard West.

Contact: 531-721-6795 or dahmkeava@gmail.com

Like: I am a very open judge and I love seeing interesting cases ran, and I would be open to most cases that you would like to run.

Tech >>>>>>> Truth

Dislike: I will not vote for theory in a round just becuase you tell me that it should come first in the round. You would have to debate it well, flow it through the whole round, and convince me why theory should be my voter.

Other: I am okay with spreading as long as it is still clear. With my limited experience still being in my first year of high school if you want me to follow the round you must remain clear. Speed level 7 out of 10 is what I am most comfortable with.

hey guys! I do LD debate for millard west high school!

my contact info is:

saragillum.sara@gmail.com

im really open to anything you want to run

also, i feel like im pretty fair with speaker points, as long as you try i’m sure you’ll be happy with them!

I prioritize clear logical connections, credible evidence, and well-explained impacts. I value depth over speed, so don’t sacrifice clarity for the sake of going fast.

My name is Aum Naik, I am a Public Forum Debater at Westside High School!

Speechdrop - I don’t mind it, it is up to the debaters. Just make sure if you are using it to share the code to the room with me.

Arguments/Weighing - I prefer tech arguments, but will buy most arguments. I will weigh primarily based on impact, timeframe, magnitude, and probability. Your arguments should be extended as well as well developed and primary parts of your speeches, if you bring them up like once and don’t keep reinstating your argument or to ground it, I may not weigh it.

Speed- I am okay with speed, however I prefer clarity. I am not geared towards very fast paced speakers and/or spreading. These may drop speaking points, but will not necessarily impact my decision unless it is making it difficult to understand the argument.

Flow - I will go off the flow. If your arguments are not clear and are not extended I may not consider it when voting.

Questions?

- Any questions about RFD or in general you can email me at [aumnaik2020@gmail.com].

Email: Saiseelam446@gmail.com

+1 speaker point if you name 2 countries that have red in their flag BEFORE the round

Middle School Debate

Recommendations: I highly recommend that you speak clearly and at a reasonable speed.

Prohibitions:If I cannot understand what you are saying because you are speaking too quickly (spreading) then I will not weigh them in the RFD

If I cannot understand what you are saying I recommend that you disclose your case

I expect a respectful debate to take place, be kind.

How I Judge: I am generally accepting of valid arguments in the debate, I expect sources to be cited and arguments to be extended.

How I Award Speaker Points: I will be awarding speaker points based on how you respond to arguments, your ability to maintain a clear train of thought, your ability to ask and respond to questions in Cross Examination, and how to behave in the debate.

How you respond to arguments:how you rebuff your opponent's attacks, and how you attack your opponent's case

Your ability to maintain a clear train of thought: Road mapping, clearly explaining what you are attacking

Your ability to ask and respond to questions in Cross Examination:A clear, and strong question asking/responding ability will earn you higher points

How you behave in the debate: I expect a polite debate.

Notes:

If you have any questions after I deliver the RFD feel free to ask

If you have any questions about debate, those are welcome as well.

Feel free to email me with any questions, see it at the bottom

+1 Speaker Point if you challenge me to a game of Rock-Paper-Scissors and WIN.

Email:noahsharff747@gmail.com

Hi, I'm a 4th-year policy debater at Millard North (now im retired).

Email (for questions or email chain): jing.w4ng@gmail.com

TLDR: weigh, write my ballot, and be nice, i am lazy judge

General

• My philosophy as a judge is tabula rasa, and minimal judge intervention. As a debater I understand how frustrating it is when your judge votes you down because of their own biases, inputs, or preconceptions. However, I do think this is a two sided issue. If the debater leaves the judge with a bunch of puzzle pieces but no instructions how to put them together, I will have to use my brain to come to a decision, so while I believe in minimal judge intervention, it is also your job as a debater to prevent me from intervening. You can do this by clearly framing and weighing impacts, more details in it's own category.
• The better your analysis is, clearer your signposting is, and apparent your weighing is, the higher probability that you will earn my ballot. I understand it is easier said than done but please try your best in these categories, it will help not only in this debate round but any round you participate in.
• Be nice, I understand the competitive aspect but you can be both competitive and friendly.
• I believe in post rounding if you believe I made a wrong decision. Postrounding is only bad when it becomes a personal attack, but I believe inquiring how a judge arrived at a decision or trying to understand their line of reasoning is extremely important. So please postround me if you disagree, I'll be happy to explain my decision in further depth.

Weighing/framing:

• I don't wanna just hear extinction is bad and that alone is a reason why I should vote a certain side. I'm more interested in the magnitude, timeframe, and probability of your impacts. And why that matters in the context of the round. Like everything, I want analysis and reasoning.
• If you don't tell me how to weigh something, I will default to magnitude > probability. This isn't a reason to not weigh at all and if nobody tells me how to weigh you'll probably get lower speakers. Again I don't want to intervene so please don't make me.
• I default to util. If you are running a structural violence aff and the neg runs an extinction impact (or vise versa), you need to tell me why I should prioritize structural violence over extinction. Too many times I hear these FW debates become a repeat of one's own points (ie: SV causes policymakers to ignore minorities) without actively engaging with the other FW.
• I love pummer 15.

LD:

UPDATE: I finally collected the infinity stones of debate events and did LD once, but honestly i just ran policy stuff with util framing, so everything below still applies.

• I'm gonna be honest I will evaluate LD rounds like a policy round. I'm not an LD debater but I am semi-aware of how things work. That being said please ask questions, never doing LD myself I'm not sure what you want to know from me as a judge, but the most important thing is that I look for line by line, analysis, warrants, weighing impacts. If you do these well or somewhat well you'll likely be the person I vote for.
• I am familiar with util and the common evidence ran (pummer, blum, bostrom, etc) and structural violence. If you wanna read kant or something go ahead but i will warn you I understand kant (or any other random philosopher) in a very shallow level.
• I love LARP.
• I am fine with all arguments except phil, since I'm assuming the person reading this is a novice, I don't think this will apply but for some reason if you are a novice who runs phil, you can go for it but be aware I'm less competent on the matter, and prefer policy arguments.

Policy:

CPs (10/10)

• A CP must be textually and functionally competitive. please have a net benefit somewhere.
• I find process CPs or consult CPs that steal aff ground slightly abusive at times and am SLIGHTLY sympathetic towards aff theory arguments, but honestly I'd rather hear you just debate it. If you choose the theory route it won't affect your speaks this is just a personal preference.
• if you want to win this, I need the 2NR to do some clear analysis on why the plan is insufficient and the counterplan isn't. I think you should extend at least 1 solvency deficit that applies to the aff but not the neg (if possible), but honestly this doesn't matter that much but I will be very happy if you do.
• I lean neg on condo and I don't have a specific preference for 50 states fiat. update: at some level (4+ condo positions, it's defintely bad and I will be sympathetic towards those arguments).

DAs (10/10)

• I'm fine with generics, but I do expect that you do some analysis and explanation on the link in the block. I value generic link contextualization with analytics just as much as carded evidence as long as you point to how your evidence helps you reach that conclusion. Analytics are underrated!!
• Weigh your impacts please. You gotta tell me why the impacts of your DA are worse than the potential benefits of the aff. Be prepared for the 1% risk of the aff arg that every 2ar pulls.
• I love econ DA and go for it every 2NR, take this as you will

Ks (8/10)

• I would consider myself a decent k judge, i dont run them a lot but I do debate them a lot, so I am familiar with a lot of your lit (antiblackness, setcol, ong i love psychoanalysis i am good judge for embracing the death drive, fem, etc). I'm less familiar with baudrillard and puar and queer ks in general but my experience with other Ks allows me to understand it on a basic level.
• I think topic links are perfectly fine, but I also want analysis how the aff is an example of the topic or a continuation of the topic. I think the best link debates are when generic cards are contextualized/explained in context of a specific aff. In terms of aff, I find gradualism and incremental reform extremely convincing as a perm warrant.
• I think the weakest part of a K is the alt. I like to hear a specific, in depth explanation of what the alt actually does. I think the best way to approach this is to say how the alt operates (grassroots, movement, protest, political lobbying) or for pess arguments what pessimism looks like and how this achieves your intended effect. A quick overview on the alt should be sufficient, try not to be vague. (i will not vote down an alt soley for being vague, but i think this can make or break aff defense on the alt in tight rounds).
• If you are going for pre fiat offense, I want to hear why representations in debate matter, and why rejecting the aff is key to a bigger picture/movement. I would like to hear analysis and warranting on how debate shapes subjectivities, or some warrant to why I have an ethical obligation to vote them down. "education" alone is not a reason, because honestly reading the 1NC/1AC should've solved for your reps, so I need a ballot key warrant.
• I'm not a fan of hiding root cause impacts and kritik tricks, I will only vote on a "conceded" root cause if it's explicitly stated. ie: if the 1NC reads a K without root cause argument and stands up in the 2NC and says aff conceded root cause, I will not consider it dropped but if 2NC makes new articulation and 1AR drops, I will consider it. Aff if a neg team hits you with this trick I will accept "new" arguments.

Disclosure:

• Disclose please. Like everything this is up for debate but i'd like to warn you I am super sympathetic towards disclosure arguments. I will not intervene and will be as objective as possible but if you're reading this and don't disclose, please let me convince you otherwise.
• I value disclosure a LOT, if im for some reason judging you in congress or pf I will make exceptions. disclosure is very important to helping underfunded programs get access to prep, cards, ev ethics, and overall quality clash. I find the argument "thinking on your feet" unconvincing, because thinking on your feet requires a basic level of prior knowledge, and disclosure prevents debaters from achieving this.
• the reality is not everyone has time to cut cards all day, and while I do think wiki mining is a bad community norm, I do think the alternative is a privilege not every debater has access to. Reading and finding articles is time consuming, and not everyone has the private coaches to do this for them, or the time to do it themselves due to circumstances out of their control. so while wiki mining is not great, it is necessary to keep debate accessible.
• i also find the amount of powertagging going out of control, like severe powertagging. Nobody can check ev in 10 min before the round, which is why open source disclosure is important to being able to call out powertagging and force people to read better evidence.
• disclosure with Ks is a two sided issue for me. 1 i think it's completely unfair to dump a bunch of high theory on a first year out without disclosing or giving them the time to adequately understand your theory so they can debate you, but I also understand the issue of disclosing identity Ks. If you do not open source like a biopolitics K or non-identity K, I will be very skeptical of your 'educaiton' claims because you by not open sourcing prevented your opponents from educating themselves or learning about your lit on their own time.

T+Theory (10/10)

• people forget to weigh education and fairness way too often. I don't really know why education or fairness is important in the context of the round unless it is articulated, I'm not going to explicitly vote you down for not impacting out education fairness clash or whatever, but it will increase probability that I become sympathetic to aff reasonability arguments.
• Default to competing interps. Lets be real reasonability is a little arbitrary. (this question is up for debate though)
• I will vote on frivolous theory and meme theory. Debate should be fun and funny.
• I will vote on RVIs. But if you decide to go for one I expect you to impact it out like you would a normal T shell, as well as win your counter interp.

Speaks:

if you incorporate the song 'lovebomber baby' or 'domingo' SNL espresso parody into your speech you will get 30 speaks.

i tend to give inflated speaks (i don't think i give lower than 29 unless tournament forces me to) because why not, but beware if i give you a 30 that doesn't mean you're perfect debater, i tend to yap a lot in the feedback section so pay attention to those.

I like precise and concise cards over lengthy and weak cards. Also like speakers that sound more confident in the topic they are talking about.