TL;DR

Anika Basu (she/her)

2A/1N

I'm a senior at Lexington High School.

Yes, I want to be on the email chain: anikabasudebate@gmail.com

Title of the chain should be: Tournament - Round X: Team Code (Aff) v. Team Code (Neg)

I won't vote for anything sexist/racist/homophobic/etc. Other than that, I'll vote on anything as long as it's explained well. I won't judge kick the CP unless instructed to do so.

**Note for online debate: Please be clear! If you have tech issues, make sure to let me know before the round.

If you're reading my paradigm, you're probably a novice, so here's what I look for:

Do

- LBL ("They said... but...")

- Evidence comparison

- Impact calc (don't just tell me what the time frame, probability, and magnitude are-- explain which one is most important and why that means your impact outweighs theirs)

- Splitting the block (don't repeat the same arguments in the 2nc and 1nr, you can split them up!)

- Argument resolution

- Flow

- Be clear and flowable

- Be confident!

- Have good, offensive CX questions

- Signpost/give roadmaps before your speech and be organized in general

- Time your speech and prep

- Extend arguments by explaining the claim, warrant, and impact

- Point out dropped arguments and explain why that argument is important

- Explain why you won the debate at the top of your final speech

- Make your arguments contextualized to round and the 1ac-- reading a bunch of blocks some varsity debater gives you just tells me that you know how to read blocks:)

- Ask me questions after the round! Remember to have fun and learn as much as you can.

Don't

- Be mean to your partner or the opposing team

- Read arguments you don't understand

- Read arguments the opposing team doesn't understand without trying to explain it to them during cx (this is directed at k affs)

- Make tagline extensions (see above)

- Steal prep!!! I see this a lot.

- Make new arguments in rebuttals (1ar, 2nr, 2ar)

- Just point out dropped arguments-- explain what it means and how it helps you

- Lie

**If you don't know what any of this means, ask me before the round!

Miscellaneous

- I love the politics da

- When it comes to T debates, I look for good evidence! Also, don't read your generic blocks, make it contextualized to the round and what your view of the topic is.

- I like good case debates! (case turns, rehighlighting 1ac ev, etc.)

- Impact turn debates are fun:)

- <3 condo is usually fine unless there's any in-round abuse. more than 3 is pushing it if you're a novice.

- I'd prefer it if you'd call me "Anika" (AHH-nih-kah) and not "Judge"

- Open CX is fine but excessively talking over your partner/being rude is not!

- Feel free to email me if you have any questions about my decision or anything else!

Speaks Scale

I'll start at 28.5 and move up or down.

Under 27: you probably did something really horrible/racist/etc.

27-28.4: Needs improvement.

28.5-29: Good.

29+: Impressive!

+0.2 if you make me laugh

+0.2 if you show me your flows after the round/email them to me if we're online (let me know after the 2ar)

Hello! My name is Tim (Sim Low's league partner), and you can call me by my name.

Everyone should understand that although debate is a competitive activity, it should still be one that is enjoyable. Winning is great, but please relax and enjoy your round.

Background:

I competed mainly in Public Forum as the second speaker and in Lincoln-Douglas as well as in some Forensic events (Impromptu and Original Oratory) during high school. My high school team competed mainly on the VHSL district level, where I won speaker and team awards. I now currently compete in College Parliamentary at Johns Hopkins University, where I major in neuroscience on the pre-med track.

General:

For the email chain, please use my gmail: littletimmy10004@gmail.com.

For other inquiries such as questions about your round, how to improve, etc., you can reach me at hdo11@jhu.edu.

The most important thing in any debate round is asking "why." Every debater should always ask why their argument is being said and why it is even important in the round. Please do not give me bare statements that are simple reiterations of what your research says. Remember to always warrant, mechanize, and impact/weigh your arguments.

I can, and will, follow speed; that does not mean, however, that you should speak at an incomprehensible pace. I will say ‘clear’ or ‘slow’ up to three times - if you fail to adapt, I will flow what I can and whatever I cannot will be missed. I realized that there are some of you guys who speak at >500 wpm; this is absolutely insane for me, so please slow down or you risk me not catching and flowing what you say, which will be reflected in the RFD.

I am very strict on debate being inclusive and equitable. If you even, at the slightest, include any rhetoric that is prejudiced or bigoted towards your opponents, you will automatically be given a loss with the lowest speaks possible. Trust me, I have done this in the past and will continue to do so as it makes my job easier. Likewise, please do not be rude to each other during the debate, particularly during the cross-examinations/rebuttals. I understand that aggressive debates exist; however, if I find that you are being excessively, and persistently, disrespectful, I will dock your speaks. Lastly, please disclose on time. I hate voting on disclosure because I want to hear what you guys have prepared. However, if your cases are not disclosed on time and there is a disclosure argument that has substantive warranting and weighing, I will end up voting for it at the very top.

I will happily answer questions after the round, but I will not tolerate being yelled at by you or your coaches. As much as I love feedback from you guys, please do not post-round me in bad faith. If you decide to post-round me, trust me that my decision will not change. My RFD will be comprehensive enough that when I explain it to tab or whoever I must explain it to, they will also agree with my RFD and stick with my decision.

Public Forum:

I believe that the two most important skills in Public Forum are 1) comparative analysis and 2) weighing. What this looks like is comparing the two worlds and showing me why your world is better or showing me why your arguments are the most important for x, y, z reasons. Please also look at the internal links! If you fail to do so, then I will adjudicate based on what argument I believe to be winning, and I can promise you that it will not work in your favor.

I likewise believe that having cards with proper citations is extremely important. If you assume that I will not catch you, I promise you that I will. When I enter a round, I expect all debaters to not cheat. If you do not have proper citations or if you even attempt to misrepresent research, I will drop you with the lowest speaks possible. With this in mind, please send me all your cases and any evidence you intend to read prior to starting your speeches. Yes, I mean all. If you opt out of this, I will assume that you have made up every single card that you are reading and drop you on the spot. In the extreme case that both teams do not send me their cases, have improper citations, or misrepresent research, I will ask Siri to assign the win. I take this very seriously, and I hope you all do too.

If you are inefficient in sending cases, cards, or any forms of evidence when requested, I will start your prep time; if it becomes excessive, I will deduct speaker points. I understand that internet issues exist, but this should not be taking you anything more than a couple minutes at most. I have had too many rounds where the round went past the tournament time by 15-20 minutes, and this not only takes away my time, but also delays the tournament. It really is not hard to have everything prepared before each round starts, so please spend a couple minutes after pairings drop to ensure that you have everything ready.

I have two new pet peeves in this format. The first is when you guys tell me that "you are going to collapse on x argument because it was dropped" and then subsequently do nothing. Just because there is an argument that is dropped and you say "you are going to collapse on it" does not mean I will auto-vote on it. You still need to show me why you are collapsing on that argument, why it is important, and why it outweighs any other arguments that your opponents bring up. The second is when you guys tell me that "this is frontline" or that you guys are going to "extend this." If you do not tell me why you are doing these things or why these things matter in the round, then I will not care.

Over time, some of you guys have been trying to include arguments from other formats into Public Forum. Look, if you want to engage in K debates, then go switch your format to Policy. I am unsure as to why you want to include such arguments in a format that traditionally does not include them; I promise you that you are not doing something unique by bringing in these arguments. Theory is permissible and has always been okay in this format, and that is theory when it pertains to violating basic rules, misrepresenting research, improperly cutting cards, and so on.

At the end of the day, please do not make me do extra work. If you are going to make a claim, warrant, mechanize, and impact it out. If you are going to go for any argument, delineate everything to me. What this looks like is going from step one of an argument and showing me all the steps in between to reach step five of the argument. You should never give me one step and then jump to the conclusion without delineating to me how you got there. If you fail to do so, I will not be upset, but sad... very sad.

Policy:

I will be very honest; Policy is a relatively new format for me. Although I believe that I have become a more experienced Policy judge, especially in the K debate, I am nowhere near as good as the top judges that you have seen on the circuit. I will change this once I know that I can be a proper judge for you all.

I know that many judges include in their paradigm specific preferences for how certain arguments should play out; for example, a judge may describe their preferences regarding CPs, DAs, theory, topicality, and so on. For me, I genuinely do not care about which arguments you run, as long as they are all properly explained. What this looks like is running Cap K and telling me your arguments, why you link, and why it matters in the round that you are in. Just treat me as a lay judge and explain everything to me.

Lincoln-Douglas:

Lincoln-Douglas has changed a great deal since I have participated in this event. I still know, to a great extent, the many philosophers that Lincoln-Douglas debaters cite and use in their arguments. However, I do not know much about truth-testing, tricks, combo shells, and paradoxes. If you have me as your judge, you need to either 1) include cards about the basics behind these arguments and why you are using them in your round or 2) avoid them. Take the time to explain them to me and I will be more than happy to go back and understand them so that you can still use such arguments. Otherwise, you can treat the round like any other Lincoln-Douglas round.

Speaks:

When I judge, speaks always start at 28.0. Depending on how the round goes, I move up or down. I do not see the need to explain what constitutes a high score versus a low score, but here is a short description on what your speaker scores should mean to you when I judge you. If you get a 29.5-30.0, I am clearing you and expect you to break. If you get a 29.0-29.4, you did well and I believe you can break if you are in a bubble. If you get a 27-28.9, you performed as expected. If you get anything below a 27, you did something terrible and I had no qualms docking you. Please do not be the first debater that I have given below a 27 to. Most importantly, I do not, and will not, entertain any speaks theory.

If you have made it to the end of my paradigm, congratulations are in order. You can make a joke during any of your speeches and I will bump up your speaks by 0.1 and possibly 0.2. Please enjoy your round and have fun!

Two primary beliefs:

1. Debate is a communicative activity and the power in debate is because the students take control of the discourse. I am an adjudicator but the debate is yours to have. The debate is yours, your speaker points are mine.

2. I am not tabula rasa. Anyone that claims that they have no biases or have the ability to put ALL biases away is probably wrong. I will try to put certain biases away but I will always hold on to some of them. For example, don’t make racist, sexist, transphobic, etc arguments in front of me. Use your judgment on that.

FW

I predict I will spend a majority of my time in these debates. I will be upfront. I do not think debate are made better or worse by the inclusion of a plan based on a predictable stasis point. On a truth level, there are great K debaters and terrible ones, great policy debaters and terrible ones. However, after 6 years of being in these debates, I am more than willing to evaluate any move on FW. My thoughts when going for FW are fairly simple. I think fairness impacts are cleaner but much less comparable. I think education and skills based impacts are easier to weigh and fairly convincing but can be more work than getting the kill on fairness is an intrinsic good. On the other side, I see the CI as a roadblock for the neg to get through and a piece of mitigatory defense but to win the debate in front of me the impact turn is likely your best route. While I dont believe a plan necessarily makes debates better, you will have a difficult time convincing me that anything outside of a topical plan constrained by the resolution will be more limiting and/or predictable. This should tell you that I dont consider those terms to necessarily mean better and in front of me that will largely be the center of the competing models debate.

Kritiks

These are my favorite arguments to hear and were the arguments that I read most of my career. Please DO NOT just read these because you see me in the back of the room. As I mentioned on FW there are terrible K debates and like New Yorkers with pizza I can be a bit of a snob about the K. Please make sure you explain your link story and what your alt does. I feel like these are the areas where K debates often get stuck. I like K weighing which is heavily dependent on framing. I feel like people throw out buzzwords such as antiblackness and expecting me to check off my ballot right there. Explain it or you will lose to heg good. K Lit is diverse. I do not know enough high theory K’s. I only cared enough to read just enough to prove them wrong or find inconsistencies. Please explain things like Deleuze, Derrida, and Heidegger to me in a less esoteric manner than usual.

CPs

CP’s are cool. I love a variety of CP’s but in order to win a CP in my head you need to either solve the entirety of the aff with some net benefit or prove that the net benefit to the CP outweighs the aff. Competition is a thing. I do believe certain counterplans can be egregious but that’s for y’all to debate about. My immediate thoughts absent a coherent argument being made.

1. No judge kick

2. Condo is good. You're probably pushing it at 4 but condo is good

3. Sufficiency framing is true

Tricks

Nah. If you were looking for this part to see whether you can read this. Umm No. Win debates. JK You can try to get me to understand it but I likely won't and won't care to either.

Theory
Just like people think that I love K’s because I came from Newark, people think I hate theory which is far from true. I’m actually a fan of well-constructed shells and actually really enjoyed reading theory myself. I’m not a fan of tricky shells and also don’t really like disclosure theory but I’ll vote on it. Just have an actual abuse story. I won’t even list my defaults because I am so susceptible to having them changed if you make an argument as to why. The one thing I will say is that theory is a procedural. Do with that information what you may.

DA’s

Their fine. I feel like internal link stories are out of control but more power to you. If you feel like you have to read 10 internal links to reach your nuke war scenario and you can win all of them, more power to you. Just make the story make sense. I vote for things that matter and make sense. Zero risk is a thing but its very hard to get to. If someone zeroes the DA, you messed up royally somewhere.

Plans

YAY. Read you nice plans. Be ready to defend them. T debates are fairly exciting especially over mechanism ground. Similar to FW debates, I would like a picture of what debate looks like over a season with this interpretation.

Presumption.

Default neg. Least change from the squo is good. If the neg goes for an alt, it switches to the aff absent a snuff on the case. Arguments change my calculus so if there is a conceded aff presumption arg that's how I'll presume. I'm easy.

LD Specific

Tricks

Nah. If you were looking for this part to see whether you can read this. Umm No. Win debates. JK You can try to get me to understand it but I likely won't and won't care to either.

I did public forum for 4 years in high school and have been coaching it for 2 years now. I am okay with speed. However, send me your case if you think you will be speaking too fast. I need to understand what you are saying if you want me to vote for you. I like to see clear and clean extensions of your links, warrants, etc. You need those to win the round. You don't need to weigh too much in your rebuttal, but you need to start weighing in summary for me to vote for you. And make sure to signpost too. It's also easier for me to vote for you if you write the ballot for me. And don't be rude in the round to me or your opponents. You can be good at debate, but don't be cocky. Don't be afraid to ask me questions about my paradigm or the round if you have them (or email me too)!

Also, if I am ever in the policy pool, please strike me! I am not a policy judge so I don't want to screw over your round because I am not totally sure how to judge policy.

email - johnevans201413@gmail.com

Hello—I will evaluate who best presents their argument and is able to clearly articulate their viewpoint and persuade me of the truth of their position. I am a parent judge, but I have experience in multiple forms of debate from high school.

LD/PF:
For LD and PF, I consider myself a traditional judge, so keep this in mind. I will vote for K’s in LD, but be cautious it's not policy. LD is not really meant to be spread like a policy debate. If you need to send a doc, you're going too fast. Cross ex is crucial so keep that in mind.

Be reasonable on your timings for evidence call. Otherwise I will start running prep.

CX- Ok with K debate but make your theory clear with evidence. No new arguments in rebuttal speeches please. I value impact calc.

Show sportsmanship and be professional.

Email - kobeski.michael@gmail.com please include me on the email chain.

It is ok to use a reasonable amount of time for roadmaps or to send/drop files. But prepare ahead of time, and do not make this excessive. I give leeway, but will indicate when I think you are wasting time by gently encouraging you. If you continue, then I will start your speech. Don't make me be the bad guy as it will impact my willingness to continue to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Experience - Long time debate judge and coach. I have judged several policy, LD, and public forum rounds last year. Last year I judged rounds below national circuit level competition. I have experience coaching high level students on the Washington State circuit in the 90s.

Policy/LD - I am familiar with Policy and LD debate.

Public Forum - I am not as familiar with Public Forum debate.

General Philosophy - I will try to flow and base my decision on the arguments made by the competitors. I encourage debaters to directly respond to the arguments made by their opponents, and I urge competitors to make arguments that have claims, warrants, and impacts. I prefer that debaters use evidence to support arguments. Reading evidence alone is not an argument.

Although I am receptive to all arguments, some claims have greater thresholds than others. It is still the debaters' responsibility to refute the arguments. I have voted for alternative frameworks and out of round impacts, but mostly because the other team didn't respond well to those claims.

Constructive speeches should be used to construct new arguments, and rebuttals should be used to respond/refute/extend previously made contentions. I am not receptive to new arguments made in the final speech, and need for the debaters to show how their arguments in second speeches have been developed from previously articulated positions. Dropped arguments are conceded arguments. But you can always do impact comparisons.

In order for me to evaluate an argument, I must be able to understand and flow it. Vocal clarity is very important, definition of terms and jargon is also important. Moderate Speed is generally ok IF (IF IF IF) you are speaking clearly. I will not interrupt you to say unclear, and will continue to try to flow. It is your responsibility to recognize that you are unclear. It is ok for a partner to politely indicate that a speaker is unclear.

It's your round, and you can present any arguments you want in any style you want. I will be more effective as a critic if you signpost, label your arguments, and follow the flow. If you want to kick out of the line-by-line, then I will struggle to follow you and will most likely have to intervene to make sense of the arguments. It is ok if you don't want to signpost or tell me where to flow arguments, you will just have to live with my decision as I tend to vote in favor of the team that does the best of helping me organize my flow.

Signposting means to tell me where to flow your arguments. For example "On the counterplan, their first permutation was this..., my argument is this...." The more you do this, the better I will be as a judge.

TIME YOURSELF

Newark Science '25

ashleylourencoacts@gmail.com

email chain subject line should be: [Tournament Name] '[Year] | Round [X] | [Team XX] (aff) vs [Team XX] (neg)

I will not pretend I am able to hear and flow every word of the 400 wpm 1ar. This means no tricks, give me pen time, don't refer to args by the cite. I don't flow author names

don't be a jerk

No shadow extensions.

yes open cross is fine and yes spreading is fine too

~~~~~~~~~~

I did policy for like 3 or 4 years. I do LD now. I'd say I know how to debate, been in my fair share of bid rounds. go forth and do line by line.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ct3CLVSEBPs

i have a 20.21% sit rate -- not a good judge!

add [georgetowndaydebate@gmail.com] to the email chain.

bad for straight policy rounds. mediocre for k and clash rounds.

All policy debaters should be commended for their participation in a challenging event. Debaters should argue their cases in an environment of mutual respect.

I vote on a combination of stock issues and policy. I am open to nearly any argument, and believe debaters have a great deal of freedom in the line of arguments pursued. However, it would be best if debaters understood the theory behind their arguments and argued in a structured way. 1ACs, topicality arguments, inherency arguments, disadvantages, and even counterplans should have a structure or outline to follow. Debaters should work to engage their opponents, and a good start is to flow the opponents’ arguments and attempt to refute point-by-point, using signposting to guide all who are in the room. After the 1AC, really no argument should be completely prepared in advance, but should be in response to what is argued by your opponent.

Debate is a verbal contest. I do not read anything written or posted to a shared cloud. I will only judge the round based on things that are said and heard clearly. Speech at all times must be understandable. If you are making numerous, different arguments in a single speech, speed or spreading may be needed. But at all times, debaters should use signposting (a numerical outline) to help listeners follow along and flow. I have heard far too many rounds where the debaters in the room could not even agree on which arguments or evidence were read into the round because everyone was entirely too focused on written briefs that were emailed or shared via the cloud instead of listening to (and flowing) their opponents' speeches.

One of the very few rules of debate that all tournaments follow is that in cross examination debate, each speaker shall give one constructive speech, get cross examined once, ask CX questions once, and give a rebuttal speech. This means that cross examinations CAN NOT be open. Partners may not assist with cross examination, either in answering questions or in responding to them. Debaters should follow the established rules on this matter, and it is not for the debaters themselves to change these rules. I promise you will learn more if you engage in questioning without help from your partner.

As the judge, you should be watching me and addressing me as you talk, not your opponents. Your goal is to persuasively argue why I should vote for you and not your opponent. Watch my body language. If I am flowing, I am engaged. If not, you may have lost me or you may be pursuing a futile line of argumentation. I judge partly based on your ability to think on your feet. This means that your speech SHOULD NOT be entirely prepared in advance (with the exception of the 1AC), but should be based on engaging point-by-point with what was said by your opponent.

I am the timekeeper, and you do not need to tell me when your speech begins. I will start the time when you begin your speech.

TL;DR:

· Make it clear and easy for me to see why you won and you'll probably win.

With More Words:

I've judged and coached extensively across events but at this point spend more time on the tab side of tournaments than judging.

If you want the ballot, make clear, compelling, and warranted arguments for why you should win. If you don’t provide any framework, I will assume util = trutil. If there is an alternate framework I should be using, explain it, warrant it, contextualize it, extend it.

Generally Tech>Truth but I also appreciate rounds where I don’t hate myself for voting for you. That being said, I firmly believe that debate is an educational activity and that rounds should be accessible. I will not vote for arguments that are intentionally misrepresenting evidence or creating an environment that is hostile or harmful.

I am open to pretty much anything you want to read but, in the interest of full disclosure, I think that tricks set bad communication norms within debate.

General Stuff:

Most of this is standard but I'll say it anyways: Don’t extend through ink and pretend they "didn't respond". In the back half of the debate, make sure your extensions are responsive to the arguments made, not just rereading your cards. If they say something in cross that it is important enough for me to evaluate, make sure you say it in a speech. Line by line is important but being able to step back and explain the narrative/ doing the comparative analysis makes it easier to vote for you.

Weighing is important and the earlier you set it up, the better. Quality over quantity when it comes to evidence-- particularly in later speeches in the round, I'd rather slightly fewer cards with more analysis about what the evidence uniquely means in this specific round. Also, for the love of all that is good and holy, give a roadmap before you start/sign post as you are going. I will be happier; you will be happier; the world will be a better place.

Speed is fine but clarity is essential. Even if I have a speech doc, you'd do best to slow down on tags and analytics. Your speaks will be a reflection of your strategic choices, overall decorum, and how clean your speeches are.

Evidence (PF):

Having evidence ethics is a thing. As a general rule, I prefer that your cards have both authors and dates. Paraphrasing makes me sad. Exchanges where you need to spend more than a minute pulling up a card make me rethink the choices in my life that led me to this round. Generally speaking, I think that judges calling for cards at the end of the round leads to judge intervention. This is a test of your rhetorical skills, not my ability to read and analyze what the author is saying. However, if there is a piece of evidence that is being contested that you want me to read and you ask me to in a speech, I will. Just be sure to contextualize what that piece of evidence means to the round.

A Final Note:

This is a debate round, not a divorce court and your participation in the round should match accordingly. If we are going to spend as many hours as we do at a tournament, we might as well not make it miserable.

Sure, I'd Love to be on the Email Chain: AMurphy4n6@gmail.com

Hi! Please put me on the email chain: graceodebate@gmail.com

I use she/her pronouns and am a current Junior at Lexington High School :)

**Note for online debate: please be clear, if you have tech issues please let me know before the round.

If you're reading my paradigm, you're probably a novice, so here's what I look for:

I'm fine with policy, if you run a k or a kaff make sure you explain everything. I lean more neg on theory (ie condo, 50 state fiat etc). Anything more than 3 condo is too much in the novice division. I default to competing interpretations but can be swayed the other way.

I won't judge kick the CP unless told so.

DO:

Line by line! Extend your own arguments and answer your opponents arguments. Point out if your opponents didn't answer any arguments and explain why that supports your argument. You can use the “they said…. But …” format to answer arguments.

Sign post! Tell me when you are moving onto a new offcase (ie. Next off, the states CP)

Make sure you do impact calc! Why does your impact matter more? (that includes ev comparison- why is your author better?

Make sure you prioritize your arguments in the last speech. Tell me how I should evaluate the debate/which argument I should be voting on (ie. you can vote on the DA debate because they dropped… Which means …)

CP- I’m fine with agent and process CPs. Love a good CP and DA debate.

DAs :) Explain the story of the DA. Especially in the 2nr. Make sure that you are doing good link, internal link and impact calc debate (especially in the 2nr- weigh the impacts of the DA vs the impacts of the case)

Case- LOVE a good case debate. DO Case turns, Impact turns. Get some offense on the case debate flow. Case debate is underutilized so take advantage of it.

T- I default to competing interpretations but can be swayed the other way. If you are going for T in the 2nr either the entire 1nr should be T or a majority of it should be T. I value evidence comparison (date, author qualifications etc.) but I also remember to do impact calc (ie. ground, limits etc.). Make sure you have offense and defense on the flow (ie. why their interpretation is bad and why yours is better).

K- I don’t have a lot of experience here. My experience in Ks goes to the extent of the Cap K and stops about there. If you run anything else please make sure that you explain the entire story of the k.

DON'T

-Be sexist/racist/homophobic/etc.

-Be mean to your partner or opponent

- Be mean to your partner or the opposing team

- Read arguments you don't understand

- Read arguments the opposing team doesn't understand without trying to explain it to them during cx (this is directed at k affs)

- Make tagline extensions (see above)

- Steal prep!!! I see this a lot.

- Make new arguments in rebuttals (1ar, 2nr, 2ar)

- Just point out dropped arguments-- explain what it means and how it helps you

**If you don't know what any of this means, ask me before the round!

Speaks

28.6-29- Amazing:)

28.5- You're doing great!

27-28.4- Could make some improvements

+0.2 if you show me your flows after round

+0.1 if you make me laugh

+0.1 if you win on presumption (but i don't advocate for it)

+0.1 if you mention my partner Anika Basu :)

Good Luck! Have Fun! You got this!

TLDR: Seven years of policy debate experience. Preserving education in debate informs my likes/dislikes. Have fun! Don’t spread. Make smart analytics! Explain your internal links and perform thorough impact calculus. Closed CX. Don’t be rude.

Experience

Former debater from the Washington Urban Debate League. I debated parliamentary for three years in middle school and policy for four years in high school. I've judged several rounds on this topic, but I have more experience judging novice than varsity. I haven’t debated in three years, so please bear with me as I reorient myself to this space. I’m appreciative of a team that can provide roadmaps, signposts, and clear overviews to make this transition easier.

Philosophy

Education is inherently political; What we learn and don't learn influences how we frame problems and decide which lives matter. Amid Twitter beefs and black squares, debate is one of the few spaces that produces pedagogical outcomes that change the way students engage with geopolitical issues. Debate fosters critical engagement between the policy nerd, the activist, and the community. Today's debate rounds will create tomorrow's future activists; the pioneers that will change the world one day. Any attempt to make this space inaccessible is harmful to not only the activity of debate, but also to the balance of the scales of justice, and the people willing to sacrifice their lives to balance its scales. Debate uniquely allows its participants to negotiate what is and isn't educational discourse. With this privilege and responsibility, we must actively work to create a space that promotes fair and constructive discussion. This includes considerations for accessibility to literature, speed, and peace of mind while debating these complex issues. As a judge, I will respond negatively to any educational injustice in this space that discourages students from attending debates.

Debate should be in some part accessible to outsiders. Some paradigms mention the phrase “debate is a game”. This perspective limits the number of spectators able to participate constructively to those that know the rules, which are quite technical. Debate must be an education equalizer rather than a dramatization of the esoteric academy and the jargon-filled chambers of Congress. Let's address issues without the high horse and ivory tower. There is a reason debate is not just archive making. It's the performance of the ideas themselves that makes the cards we read not just a part of an archive, but evidence that significantly changes our orientation toward issues within our schools, communities, and the world. Preserving education in debate provides us with the tiniest bit of leverage when nudging the arc of the moral universe closer toward justice. Without the space to intervene in the archives we create, we limit the number of people that get to determine how these archives are read, interpreted, and applied to the real-world impacts that are happening. Thus, debaters should work to understand as much as they work to win. There is immense privilege here. Educational spaces, though powerful in their potential to contemplate just futures, are not accessible to everyone.

I want to see passionate and respectful engagement with your cards and especially your internal links. I don’t want you to spread through three war scenarios without flinching. Be careful when reading plans about marginalized groups you’re not a part of. Establishing affective relationships to your evidence can hopefully mitigate using war scenarios as currency to get shiny trophies. Lives have inherent value, and any treatment of a life as disposable will affect your speaker points. Speak about these issues with dignity and respect. When you spread through your impacts, it is dismissive of the lives affected by tragedy. If you show up on a weekend to debate about NATO, an organization created after a devastating war, I’m going to assume you’re better than that.

After a long day of debating/judging, we get to go outside and breathe in fresh air and hug our families. While this may not be the reality of every debater, it is certainly much better than the worlds created by your hypothetical impacts. Either that, or we’re not talking about issues important enough to sustain the activity of debate. If you spread, especially without clarity, I will assume that you’re conceding that winning a debate takes priority over round accessibility and cultivating affective relationships with literature.

General

• Familiarity w/ Topic. I haven’t done a ton of topic research. Don’t assume I know an acronym.

• Research and Evidence. I know that research is a skill, and everybody has various levels of research skills and access to coaches. Not every student has access to prestigious summer camps, coaching opportunities, and even tournaments. I take that into consideration when judging a round. If you’re a novice and want to learn how to do research, I'm more than happy to talk with you and spend time with you throughout the tournament to help you learn how to research.

• Arguments. I award high speaker points to debaters that can explain key specific details about their arguments. Good warrants will be the difference between two cards and an explanation of why I should prefer yours. It also makes for a good debate where novices can learn, please consider the educational impacts for them as well. Giving back to the sport by prioritizing education in rounds is crucial to the fairness and longevity of debate.

Affirmatives

• Must be a change to the status quo.

• Performance: I haven’t judged a performance aff yet, but I would appreciate some explanation of how the design of your aff links to some real-world impact. I’d also appreciate an explanation of why your specific methodology is important for how we address the topic, and to what audience. Like K affs, show me how to situate myself to the round and what I should do with my ballot.

Off case

• Topicality. Only if necessary. Very pretty debates to flow if the team is good but unnecessary if they stop us from talking about things that are clearly relevant. Also, convince me why having T debate trades off with or solves education in the round. Lenient toward novices that are just learning how to use topicality. I want to see well-defined and limited counter-interpretations. I’m not a fan of incrementally better counter-interpretations. Predictability, limits, and ground are internal links.

• Kritiks. I’m not as familiar with K literature, so I’d appreciate clear explanations without jargon. Your K overview should be easy enough to explain to a five-year-old. The goal of educational spaces that take on this type of literature is to make it accessible. Don’t describe the status quo, will vote aff if I’m not convinced that the alternative is substantial enough to overcome the status quo. Please have clear and specific links. I will also vote aff if the issue in the K describes an issue that is larger than what the aff is capable of solving, although aff will have to win no link at least (can’t perpetuate harm).

• Disadvantages. Convince me your impacts aren’t deus ex machina to save your ass in the round later. Don’t just run a random DA because you feel you should strategically do so. Have a story that makes sense, have a clear and specific link to the aff, and have a good internal link story that can be reasoned out in terms of impact calculus (weighing the probability and timeframe of each IL) 2ACs should expose weak internal links with smart analytics.

• Counterplans: Perm. Don’t default to theory in 2AC without at least trying to make substantial responses to the cp.

Likes

• Well signposted line by line in rebuttals. Help me trust your flow.

• Be smart, engaging, and entertaining. Have fun! Be passionate! Read tags clearly and emphasize figures.

• Quality of cards over quantity. Use cards with statistics and expert analysis.

• Talk about whatever you want. I don’t have any preferences for policy or k affirmatives if the policy/advocacy statement is articulated well. I’m interested in learning about whatever it is you're passionate about if it’s clearly and thoroughly explained and I am convinced of your harm. Go for interesting, fun, logical, smart, and non-problematic arguments.

• Tell me how I should position myself in relation to the round. Clearly articulated education impacts will often be voters for me. I will vote against anything occurring in the round that perpetuates significant harm to education. However, please don’t run theory to avoid engaging with the case.

• Smart analytics. I award good analytics generously with speaker points. Use cards wisely. Only read extension cards if you must, but otherwise do your due diligence and put your best evidence out in the first half of the round. If your scenarios don’t make sense, I will vote against you. The best way to get my ballot is to paint a clear picture of the world of the affirmative and the world of the negative. Articulating the big picture purely through chunks of evidence will lose me.

• Show me some level of engagement with the other team by having specific strategies against the case. Demonstrate at least some effort of engagement, even if you have no idea what to do. Ask as many questions as you need during CX to figure it out but try to find at least some evidence/analytical argument that is strong.

• Explain your evidence. Everything needs to be thoroughly explained. Making sense of the literature is crucial to good clash debate.

• Closed CX. (1) Debate is a public speaking activity. (2) There’s a reason for four CXs.

• Roadmaps and signposting. Novices get a lot of leeway here.

• Read tags clearly.

• ! calculus. Will vote for the team that wins their impacts.

Dislikes

• Feeding your partner answers in speeches and in CX.

• Reading cards that you cannot explain.

• 1NRs that are constructive speeches. As a former parliamentary debater, it makes my skin crawl.

• Theory. Not a fan of theory unless the other team gives you no choice.

• Shadow extending. Leniency toward novices, but I expect you to be engaging with the evidence and familiarizing yourself with your opponent’s cards as the round progresses. Otherwise, the entire debate will be “extend [author], [date]”, which is just archive-flexing, and we can do that at home. I have higher standards for you all.

• Email chains. Send them for accessibility purposes, but in no way does that excuse you from spending 30 seconds spreading a nuclear war scenario. If I must look at an email chain to know what you're saying, your speaker points will reflect that. I would’ve gone to the library if I wanted to sit and read all day.

• Bad link stories. I need to be convinced of your internal links. Be generous with impact calculus.

• Jargon. Tags and overviews should not be jargony for Kritiks. I have not read a lot of K literature and I'm not remarkably familiar with the literature on this topic. If you can’t explain your Kritik, you shouldn’t be running it. It hurts clash.

• Long overviews. Be smart with your time.

• Spreading. Recently I had a conversation with a debater from my league about how judges are supposed to teach students how to have affective relationships with literature. That we should teach students how to be more ethical people and to understand the assumptions that underline the evidence read in rounds. That reading things for 8 mins with no thought, not flinching when talking about nuclear war and purposefully dissociating to train yourself to spread negatively impacts the affective value of debate. Please help debate be something that I can bring my little siblings to, and they'll learn something about the world versus fixating on the spreading. Centering debate around technique reinforces elitism in debate and can function as a voter if flagged by the other team.

• Rude behavior. Positionality in the debate space is huge. I still see a lot of problems for neurodivergent debaters in this space. Please consider your privilege- and check it. Or else I will do it for you in speaker point deductions. I find rude behavior to be ignorant and discouraging to students interested in debating or continuing their debate careers. I will be exponentially generous with deductions the more you defend your behavior during and after the round. If you're particularly unpleasant, I will make you go outside and touch grass. We will take a walk after the round until we find a tree or something, and I will make you touch the bark or the grass around it while I deliver my RFD (As someone with allergies, I’m only being slightly facetious) …post-rounding will be handled with a similar procedure. If you can afford to be rude then you have not engaged with your evidence and your impacts.

• Leaving DC out of your States CP.

• Having a laptop eye level/blocking face. Like damn, we just went through a pandemic and you’re really not tired of looking at a screen all day?

If you are starting an email chain for the debate, I would like to be included on it: psusko@gmail.com

Default

Debate should be centered on the hypothetical world where the United States federal government takes action. I default to a utilitarian calculus and view arguments in an offense/defense paradigm.

Topicality

Most topicality debates come down to limits. This means it would be in your best interest to explain the world of your interpretation—what AFFs are topical, what negative arguments are available, etc—and compare this with your opponent’s interpretation. Topicality debates become very messy very fast, which means it is extremely important to provide a clear reasoning for why I should vote for you at the top of the 2NR/2AR.

Counterplans

Conditionality is good. I default to rejecting the argument and not the team, unless told otherwise. Counterplans that result in plan action are questionably competitive. In a world where the 2NR goes for the counterplan, I will not evaluate the status quo unless told to by the negative. The norm is for theory debates to be shallow, which means you should slow down and provide specific examples of abuse if you want to make this a viable option in the rebuttals. The trend towards multi-plank counterplans has hurt clarity of what CPs do to solve the AFF. I think clarity in the 1NC on the counterplan text and a portion of the negative block on the utility of each plank would resolve this. I am also convinced the AFF should be allowed to answer some planks in the 1AR if the 1NC is unintelligible on the text.

Disadvantages

I am willing to vote on a zero percent risk of a link. Vice versa, I am also willing to vote negative on presumption on case if you cannot defend your affirmative leads to more change than the status quo. Issue specific uniqueness is more important than a laundry list of thumpers. Rebuttals should include impact comparison, which decreases the amount of intervention that I need to do at the end of the debate.

Criticisms

I am not familiar with the literature, or terminology, for most criticisms. If reading a criticism is your main offensive argument on the negative, this means you’ll need to explain more clearly how your particular criticism implicates the affirmative’s impacts. For impact framing, this means explaining how the impacts of the criticism (whether it entails a VTL claim, epistemology, etc.) outweigh or come before the affirmative. The best debaters are able to draw links from affirmative evidence and use empirical examples to show how the affirmative is flawed. Role of the ballot/judge arguments are self-serving and unpersuasive.

Performance

In my eight years as a debater, I ran a policy affirmative and primarily went for framework against performance AFFs. The flow during performance debates usually gets destroyed at some point during the 2AC/block. Debaters should take the time to provide organizational cues [impact debate here, fairness debate here, accessibility debate here, etc.] in order to make your argument more persuasive. My lack of experience and knowledge with/on the literature base is important. I will not often place arguments for you across multiple flows, and have often not treated an argument as a global framing argument [unless explicitly told]. Impact framing and clear analysis help alleviate this barrier. At the end of the debate, I should know how the affirmative's advocacy operates, the impact I am voting for, and how that impact operates against the NEG.

Flowing

I am not the fastest flow and rely heavily on short hand in order to catch up. I am better on debates I am more familiar with because my short hand is better. Either way, debaters should provide organizational cues (i.e. group the link debate, I’ll explain that here). Cues like that give me flow time to better understand the debate and understand your arguments in relation to the rest of the debate.

Notes

Prep time continues until the jump drive is out of the computer / the email has been sent to the email chain. This won't affect speaker points, however, it does prolong the round and eliminate time that I have to evaluate the round.

I am not a fan of insert our re-highlighting of the evidence. Either make the point in a CX and bring it up in a rebuttal or actually read the new re-highlighting to make your argument.

The debaters that get the best speaker points in front of me are the ones that write my ballot for me in the 2NR/2AR and shape in their speeches how I should evaluate arguments and evidence.

Depth > Breadth

Please add me onto the email chain: acy3@rice.edu

I'm fine with anything

DA - you need to win uniqueness and how the aff links

CP - explain why you solve better/solve most of the aff

K - explain your theory of power

T - explain why fairness/education outweighs

Theory - explain why it outweighs the debate

Other notes:

- Tech > Truth

- I'll be timing your speeches

- Spreading is fine, but I need to be able to understand what you're saying

- Don't cheat: no clipping cards/tags, stealing prep, lying in your speech, etc

- Don't be mean, racist, rude, sexist, homophobic, etc

- Tell me you read my paradigm and I'll give you +0.1 speaks