***I have the most empathy for debaters with a lack of institutional support/access issues if you believe you fit in this category please reach out (ethannichen@gmail.com) I will be happy to accomodate online judging for free or for insanely cheap"***

Ethan (he/him) --- dont call me judge

email chain: lemmecompeteatthetoc@gmail.com

School codes I went under: Sharks independent EC, Dawson independent EC, Chen independent EC, and Glenda dawson EC.

qualled to the TOC in LD

People that coached/influenced me heavily:

K - Aidan Etkin, Shreeram Modi

Theory/Phil - Jackson White, Bodhi Rosen

Policy debate - Brett Cryan, Parker Traxler, Lydia Wang

Main:

Tech > truth, Ill evaluate anything imaginable that has a claim, warrant, and impact.

Any preference I have can be nulled by good debating.

Post rounding is fine - if I make a bad decision I deserved to be flamed and held accountable for it.

cx/flex are binding

I won't adjudicate issues that occurred outside of the debate.

Debate is a game. Could be more.

Pref shortcut: (how comfortable I feel evaluating these debates)

K vs policy, Kaff vs tfwk - 1 (Im fine with models or microagressions)

Case vs DA - 1

K vs phil - 2 (I think the phil debater is usually on the more convincing side on these debates)

k vs k -2

Cp competition - 3

Theory - 3

phil vs phil - 4 (not good for dense phil debates although I try my best to be intellegent when adjudicating them)

Topicality - 4/5 (with the exception of subsets I have not been in any of these debates or thought about them)

Policy:

I like politics/elections DA

Love Impact turns

Weigh internal links > Weigh terminals

Counter plans:

Condo is good

Yes judge kick unless told otherwise

Process CPs are fine.

Probably need some hand holding for competition. Functional only > Functional + Textual > Textual only.

Kritiks:

I'm very good for K teams that realize that Ks are a technical tool, I'm bad for K teams that try to ethos their way out of technical concessions

Material:

Unstrategic imo, DA+CP usually doesnt solve case and the link is usually never unique to the plan, and ks as impact turns are silly absent framework.

Framework:

Ballot solvency is the most persuasive warrant for fairness first.

"weigh the case" makes no sense against reps links or claims of in-round violent rhetoric. Just go for plan focus/No K

Exclusive framework interpretations are extremely strategic. I won't default to a middle ground if one is not introduced.

Philosophy:

Alright for Kant, err on overexplanation for everything else

I dont think you need Truth testing for Skep to be a win condition.

PF specific: Keep the public back in public forum unironically

general thoughts: speech times in this event are burdensome making an incentive to be skimpy on warrants and implications which makes "progressive" arguments harder to evaluate or come to a coherent desiscion, Im fine with them but I generally do think pfers tend to be significantly better at policy or "substance" debating.

Im fine for paraphrasing, but I much prefer cards, I also do not share the same pointless requirements for disclosure as most pf judges (It's not that deep).

K debates:

K debates in this event are a mess, the round usually becomes an irresolvable k vs theory round where pfers just turn off their brains and act like they dont know how to weigh or implicate arguments which shouldnt be the case because I know pfers can be extremely smart and ethosy with weighing analysis.

Non topical K affs make no sense in pf since there's no burden of rejoinder, but you do you and Im still open to it.

Just because Ive seen this far too many times: If you read a tfwk shell and the violation is "they arent topical" and you dont read definitions. Im obliterating your speaks.

Misc:

I dislike dead time, if you have flow clarification questions take prep or use cx.

Dont count down your speeches "3...2...1" START YOUR SPEECH IDC.

Send all Docs in Word anything else will cap your speaks at 27

hi! im sahas

I debate for jenks hs in oklahoma

add me to the email chain vsahas11@gmail.com

if im judging at a eif scrimmage its because a judge has dropped/theres not enough ☹
if I am judging you I may show up like 5-15ish minutes late bc I still have duties as the tournament director

I have experience in mainly trad LD, PF, and extemp

please let me know before round if youre prog or trad

spreading is fine as long as me and your opponent have your speech docs. please dont try to outspread novices! be nice!

I know a little prog but im not very confident with it so bear with me please

uhhh what else

oh yah heres my prefs

1 (yippee! I understand this well and can most likely give a fair ballot!) - 5 (wtf is happening I cant vote on this so I will just drop you)

Trad/lay - 1 i have done trad the most and im better at judging it

ks - 2 most of my knowledge of prog is just in ks but its still limited

theory - 3 its okay but def not my favorite

topicality, friv theory - 4 I love topicality arguments but please dont lie -- make sure they make sense. friv theory will get you a side eye

phil v phil - 5 im not the brightest/well educated with complex phil so be careful

tricks - 5 i hate tricks!

yes I will share my flow after round! it may not be the best bc I flow on sheets

PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR ARGUMENTS!!!!!! if you dont I wont vote for you

make sure they make sense please

any type of racist, sexist, xenophobic, or other _phobias will be an auto loss for you. i dont vote on things that happen outside of round unless its the thing I mentioned before

if you can make me laugh somewhere in your speech I will give you +1 speaker point. All of my speaker points have a minimum of 28 as long as you dont break any rules!

uhhhhh what else

be nice in cross please! dont constantly speak over your opponent or constantly cut them off. you can be aggressive but not to the point of being rude please

if you guys have any questions please lmk!!! if you want an oral ballot after round lmk before round begins please