Lay judge, no spreading. I have judged Congress to oi to policy. I will always write long form notes on in round speeches, but I may not set up my flow like conventional debaters.

sai.ankireddi@gmail.com

Hi! I'm Addis (she/her)!

Conflicts:

Downtown College Prep 2018 - tbd

Silicon Valley UDL 2018 - tbd

Yerba Buena HS 2023 - tbd

TLDR:

• do what you do best! I'm here to help you grow!

• I did primarily k affs and k on the neg but I'm still well versed on policy affs and neg strats
• put me on the email chain: addisarcdebate@gmail.com
• do not only extend your author name, I rarely catch that on my flow, extend ur argument first!!

• if you're going to spread, please be clear on the tagline, I will say clear if you're going too fast.
• i've been helping coach this season so i am roughly familiar with the topic. however, pls break down the acronyms.

general preferences:

*please do not base your strategy on my preferences I am okay with anything honestly as long as it isn't racist, death good, sexist, etc...*

K/Method Affs: framing is most important here, I need to know my role as the judge and why your impacts matter. I love all kinds of ks and know a majority of the lit but that doesn't mean I don't need your explanation of your aff and its interpretation of the lit. do the work for me, tell me what your author is trying to say and how that makes the world a better place compared to the status quo. Also just because I am okay with Ks does not mean I won't vote on fw because you undercovered it.

CPs and DAs: these are super underrated and a lot of people don't go for these arguments anymore :(. it really needs to be explained well, especially the link debate. I need to know why your impact matters, and what happens if I vote for the plan instead of your cp or your da. These have to go together, you need to have a net benefit to your CP, and if you don't the chances of me voting for it are slim.

Ks on the neg: a great emphasis on what the alt is and what it does when I vote for you is crucial for my ballot. I need to be able to explain why i prefer your alt and impacts over the aff in my ballot. the only way to do that is by your speeches giving me a clear idea. IMPACT CALC IS A MUST WHEN RUNNING A K!!

theory or t: explain the impacts of your standards, what is the harm caused by their c/i. if you're going for t or theory only go for that in the 2nr or the 2ar, it needs to be flushed out before i can vote on it. if you don't end up going for t or theory pls kick out of it properly, many teams don't do this, and leaves a lot of unanswered questions for me.

tech or truth?: tech > truth! id prefer if your arguments had cards that warranted them but I will vote on common sense analytics! but i also don't want to listen to 10 cards about one argument that could have been just one good card with analytics. i'd also prefer if you didn't send a 28-page doc on just one argument and it's not in order.

Spreading: I've always believed spreading is the most elitist part of debate and very ableist. that being said if you do spread your speaks won't go down as i don't really care that much if you do or don't. as long as you are clear enough for me to understand you, we are all good. if i say clear more than 3 times and you do not slow down or become clearer, i will put my pen down and stop flowing. if your opponent does say that they'd prefer you not to spread please be accommodating and not spread.

speaks: starting range is 28 and can go up or down! being misogynistic, sexist, racist, ableist, and/or rude will get you 25 pts and an email to your coach explaining what happened in round.

accessibility and accommodations: please respect everyone's pronouns in the round. also if someone clearly asks for accommodations on their wiki or verbally please be decent people and be accommodating. debate may be a game but it shouldn't make us inconsiderate people.

miscellaneous: i flow with paper and pen. a roadmap will definitely help to not miss arguments. pls sign post when you are moving on. open cross is fine with me. if u reference hasan piker anytime in your speeches, i'll give you +.5 on your speaks.

how i debated: i debated primarily reading anti black, mestizaje, and warren K affs in my time. i have practically seen it all coming from an urban debate league. i was taught by Dr. Robert Burns and Janet Escobedo and competed alongside chris mcginnis so take my paradigm with a grain of salt and really just know im open to pretty much anything. https://tinyurl.com/debatedcp.

kbarnstein@alumni.depaul.edu

My background: I'm currently serving as the head coach at Maine East, after many years of serving as an assistant. For much of the past 7 years, I judge an average of 15-20 rounds on the topic. I debated at Maine East HS back in the late 90s & early 00s for four seasons under the tutelage of Wayne Tang. As such, I tend to lean towards a policy making approach that seeks the best policy option. I tend to view topicaliy/theory through a prism of fairness and education. I don't mind listening to debates about what debate should be. I default to viewing the plan as the focus of the debate.

If you are running a K, I like the links to be as specific to the affirmative's advocacy as possible. If your alternative doesn't make sense, that means that the affirmative must be worse than the status quo for you to win your K.

I strongly dislike reading your evidence after the round- I expect the debaters to do that work in the round. If I call for a card, it will typically be to verify that it says what you say it says. I will not give you the benefit of warrants you did not explain, however I may give the other team the benefit of the card not saying what you said it did.

hi my name is nhi (she/her/they/them) i used to debate policy in high school (go yb!!!!!)

run whatever cases/Ks/theory/DAs/CPs/whatever/etc you want the worlds ur oyster

i appreciate signposting and offtime roadmaps as i do flow the entire round

i <3 impact calc

i <3 k affs

DON'T be bigoted or condescending

DO have fun :D

and put me in the email chain: nhipbui04@gmail.com esp if you plan on spreading

peace and love

Hello,

This is my second year as a parent judge. While many "k affs" are cleverly conceived, I value and adjudicate in favor of those debaters who focus on the core issues of the assigned topic and can most clearly and logically lay out their case.

I am a parent judge and judging for past one and half year.

I prefer if both teams would reference their evidence and make their arguments concise and easy to understand.

Like to see debates where people keep a story straight throughout.

Hi there! My name is Kenneth (he/him) :D

I mainly debated policy in high school, and now I don't WOOOOOOO!!!

Add me to the email chain: kennethgaerlan113@gmail.com

Feel free to ask me any specific questions before the round!

Run whatever you want as long as it's not discriminatory + tricks in LD (strike me)

Spreading really annoys me and makes me scream, shake, cry, and throw up internally

Please follow any accommodations requested

Be kind, have fun, and take this as an opportunity to learn!

Eat it up...devour even, and leave no crumbs behind

GO YB!!!

New to judging.

Go slow and explain arguments.

Looking for strong logical content in speeches.

I had no experience competing, coaching, or judging speech and debate prior to becoming a teacher coach for Yerba Buena High School's speech and debate team in 2020. Since then, I have judged policy, public forum, and impromptu.

I enjoy listening to all types of arguments, but please treat me as a layman judge and thoroughly explain your arguments, especially if uncommon debate jargon/terms are involved. For every argument brought into a round, strong evidence and warrants should follow. I tend to favor a well-supported argument over several weak arguments (quality > quantity). Additionally, I prefer that debaters do not spread.

For email chains: lae@esuhsd.org

I am a former college parli debater and broke at several tournaments in both domestically and internationally. I have a fair amount of parli judging experience, having served as the chief adjudicator for several college tournaments across the East Coast.

When judging debates, I take notes on the main arguments and rebuttals of the round. I try to capture as much detail as possible, however, when debaters speak very quickly or try to give a lot of information in a short amount of time, it may make it more difficult for me to write down everything that was said.

It is important for teams to weigh and frame their arguments, as I will use frames presented in the round in my decision. It is also important for me that teams give high quality arguments with warrants/explanation as to why the argument is correct. Simply mentioning an argument or an impact does not count for me as meaningfully contributing to the round. The team that is best able to persuade me (as an average person) for or against the motion and contributes the most to the round wins the debate.

Topicality/Being true to the motion: In my mind, motions are set for a reason and it is important that people argue in the spirit of the motion for the round. While gov may have some fiat power, it is important that the model is not so complex or exclusive of too many scenarios. Arguments questioning gov's model or whether arguments are made in the spirit of the motion will be considered and weighed based on the quality of the argumentation.

Hey! My name is Adelle Levanger (she/her). Please include me on the email chain – adellelevanger@gmail.com

Some background on me:

· I did policy (3 years) and LD (1 year) in highshcool

· I did mostly limited prep IEs in higschool

· I am competing in IPDA and several IEs in college right now

General

· I am big on tech>truth. I will come into the round a blank slate. What you tell me, I will believe (except for things like racism good or homophobia is justified- but that should be an obviously bad argument). If you tell me the sky is orange, I will buy it until it is disproven in the round. I have had so many rounds impacted by judge intervention and it is literally the worst- so i will do the best i can to keep my personal views on what is right/wrong out of things because this round is about your arguments, not what i think about things.

· However, because I am a blank slate you need to tell me how to vote. Give clear voters, impact calc, and framing. And be clear when you are kicking out of things.

· I am comfortable with speed. Please just be clear. I will flow whatever you say. I am confident I will be able to catch most of what you say, but if there is an email chain, I would like to be included so I don’t miss anything.

· Put offense on the flow! Having offense on the flow makes it much easier for you to win that argument.

· I like off time roadmaps and signposting. The more organization there is the more I can flow.

· Please have clash!

· I love debate, so just make it a fun round and enjoy yourself!

LD

· If you want to go fast, that is fine with me!

· Have clash and impacts and tell me which impacts to weigh first.

· Show me how you best meet the V/C.

· Aff doesn’t get inherent access to an advocacy, so if you read a counterplan you should prove why you deserve access to an advocacy.

PF

· I have my background in mostly policy, LD, and ipda, so I am not as experienced with PF. That being said, I am still comfortable following arguments and general debate lingo so don’t feel like you need to treat this like a totally comms round and explain all of the lingo. But still explain and warrant out your arguments.

Policy

On Case

· Tag teaming is fine. Just do it within reason. It should be clear who's cross it is supposed to be. But policy is a partner event for a reason. so feel free to work and collaborate with your partner, but don't overshadow them when it is their time to question or speak.

· I always ran policy affs, so that is where I am most comfortable. That being said, I will flow whichever type of aff you read.

· I am moderately informed on the NATO security topic, but if there are really nuanced arguments that require a solid understanding of current legislation or something like that, be clear with your warrants and explanations so I can follow you 100%

· Give me impact framing!

· I give aff fiat. You get to claim that your plan will pass. But you don’t get to fiat your solvency. You must prove that you actually solve.

· Case debates are fun, just make sure there is clash. And neg – work to put offense on the flow.

K-aff

· Again, I always ran policy affs, so that is where I am most comfortable. But I will still flow a k aff. But prove why your k is more important than the resolution!

· I am fairly comfortable with the general concepts of a lot of K authors (Baudrillard, Freud, Zizek, Foucault). But aside from Foucault, I haven’t read a ton of the actual literature, so be clear about your claims and warrants so I make sure I understand you correctly.

· There needs to be a way for all parties to engage with the kritik. Debate is a game we learn from. There are a lot of kritiks that center around identity and identity politics specifically. Someone in the round who does not fall under the identity in discussion should have the opportunity to engage in meaningful, educational, respectful, and constructive conversation surrounding the kritik. If someone is unable to engage because they are not personally impacted by the topic at hand, that is bad for debate and education. Discourse around someone's ability to engage with a topic surrounding identity can also lead to outing or disclosing information that someone doesn't feel comfortable sharing- which is never okay. so everyone in the room should be able to respectfully engage with the topic.

Disads

· I like disads! For my first two years of policy my neg strat was usually Disad and T.

· I am sympathetic to the fact that you have lost a lot of internal links over the past few years due to current events. But still work to have a clear and complete link chain.

· Have an impact and a link please. It is tricky to weigh a disad that has no impact or link.

Kritiks

· I got into K debate my last year of policy debate. I think Ks are really fun. I usually ran Biopower, Chaos/Entropy, and occasionally cap or disability.

· Just make sure you have a good link and an impact

Topicality

· I ran a lot of T in policy. My affs were also a little on the untopical side of things, so I did a lot of T debate as aff too.

· Have impacts to your T shells

· I buy that T (and Kritiks) are A Priori voting issues.

Counterplans

· I never read a ton of counterplans, but I am comfortable enough with them to follow.

· Consider slowing down on your Text just a little bit so I make sure I get it all.

· You need to have a net benefit of some sort. A disad or even a turned advantage. But you need to be able to do something that the aff can’t do.

Theory

· I think Theory is fun. Just explain it and impact it out

Everyone:

tldr: I know this is a lot of information. But I think the most important thing you should know is the tech>truth thing. I really will do my best to be a blank slate. Tell me what to buy, what to evaluate, and how to vote. Feel free to ask me more specific questions before the round or email me with questions when you get ballots back. Have fun!!

Speech & Debate Teacher Coach (2020 - Present)

DCP El Primero High School

She/Her Pronouns

Add me to your email chain: jlew-munoz@dcp.org

Personal Background

Consider me as a lay judge. Never competed in speech or debate events in high school or college. Earned a BS in Mathematics and MA in Teaching. Became a teacher coach as there is an alignment with constructing mathematical proofs and constructing logical arguments as seen in both speech and debate. Main experience teaching/judging policy debate and impromptu speech.

Policy Debate

Please, please, please …

• No spreading. I am okay with normal to moderate speed. Talk clearly and enunciate.

• Explicitly state your claims (arguments), warrants (evidence/reasoning), and impacts (why it matters/net impact).

• Signpost and give me an off-time road map. Make it easy for me to flow.

• Rebut/Clash. Attack your opponent's case as much as possible. So make sure to keep track of what they are saying. (FLOW!) Note: I’ll vote on dropped arguments if I catch it. Also, if there is genuinely no defense or clash, I default neg.

• On a similar note, weigh all arguments using impact calculus. Talk about magnitude, scope, probability, etc. Show me how the plan can either create a net positive or net negative impact on the world.

No K’s, theory, or tricks.

I am a parent judge with some experience in judging Policy and Public Forum. When I judge, I will not read your evidence as reading a newspaper but listen to your speech. I am ok with a faster speed, but please be clear when you speak. I will try my best to remove personal biases but focusing on your arguments presented.

Barry University School of Law (2021 - Present)

American Heritage School, Head Debate Coach (2019 - 2021)

California State University, Fresno (2017-2019)

Contact Information: My email is nickbmirza95@gmail.com. I would like to be on the email chain.

Overview

Since I'm no longer coaching, my perspectives have changed and leave it up to you how I should confront the debate, regardless of argumentation style. My experience has almost exclusively dealt with running a plan text, disdadvantage/counterplan, and framework/cap (I can count on one hand the amount of times I went for cap though). I'm not against evaluating planless affirmatives when the debaters engage with the substance of their opponents arguments. I enjoy the clash between policy and kritikal teams.

Evidence Quality

I place a high value on evidence quality. I'll evaluate arguments that address a discrepancy between what is being said and what the evidence actually says. It's important to me that you know and understand the evidence you are bringing into the round.

Speed

I'm comfortable with speed, but my advice is too slow down on important arguments so I can make sure I flow it properly. This includes any prewritten analytics that are unloaded at me.

Topicality

I'm less persuaded by topicality in a policy throw down and would prefer a debate about the implications of the plan. I default to competing interpretations. Evidence should have an intent to define.

Framework

I enjoy framework debates. There needs to be an explanation of why your model of debate is better.

Disadvantages

My favorite. The link is the most important. Evidence that doesn't talk about the specific plan of the affirmative should be addressed, but I can be persuaded if the negative can thoroughly explain the application.

Counterplans

Eh. There needs to be a net benefit. I'm inclined to believe the status quo is a viable option, so in my adverse opinion, a counterplan is best when it's essential to alleviate a disadvantage. No opinion on judge kicking, but permutations need to be answered thoroughly. Lean negative on condo.

Kritiks

I'll vote for them. The alternative explanation is important and I listen/flow attentively to how it is conveyed. Generally, I have trouble understanding how alternatives function in the real world, so you need to do that explanation for me. I evaluate debate space impacts, but would prefer an analysis of outside of the round as well. I don't read the literature and my experience in debate is pretty much exclusively answering kritiks. My familiarity with literature leans toward identity. I don't understand post modernism or high theory whatsoever.

hello!!! I am Michelle. :))

I was a debater, but now, I am not. Yippee!!

Please run whatever you want, and I will try to follow along. :DD Please do not be mean. :(( Also, if you spread, I will cry. If you really really really really really want to spread I guess you can if you really really really really really really want to....

I really like K affs!!

Can you please add me to the email chain too: michellenguyen2004@gmail.com??

Thank you!!! :DD

follow yb on instagram @ybhsdebate !!!

P.S. Thanks Nhi!!!

P.S.S. I hate Ivy. Tell her to email me back!!! Note: she replied! yippee!!

Fun Fact: In 1894, US president Joe Biden awarded Yerba Buena debate society with the Nobel Peace Prize.

Hi there! I've been performing since I was very young, and I am a 2007 graduate of the American Musical & Dramatic Academy in New York City. I direct both adult and youth productions at my local theatre and have been an active judge in both this year's, as well as last year's, tournament seasons.

I have completed the NFHS Cultural Competency course, and I identify as diversity enhancing!

POI/PR/PO: Show me a strong commitment to your material, with bold but organic choices. Use your binder --this is a reading event-- but don't hide behind it!

HI/DI: Make sure your piece tells a decisive story and that your character transitions are smooth enough that I know who's talking at at all times! Also important: sure, bold choices are good, but I still want to see the nuances behind your characters and what you're saying. Rather than just doing stock characters, approach them from a place of truth. That almost always yields funnier and/or more powerful results!

EXTEMP: Research, research, research! I'm looking for a well-organized speech that answers the question clearly and provides a lot of cited sources.

OO/INFO: I love how much I learn when judging both of these categories. Remember your top priority is to teach us something, and that good lessons are organized, compelling, and easy to understand.

CONGRESS: Ask great questions of your fellow debaters and be researched enough to be able to provide convincing answers to the questions that are asked of you! Looking for strong points and organization in your speeches!

Remember that no one can offer exactly what YOU offer, and embrace that! Most of all, have fun!

Parent judge, please try to go slower and err on the side of overexplaining jargon on the topic. Warrant out and impact all of your arguments. Good reasoning and explaining of your side will win you the round.

I am a former debate coach and debate tab staffer at many regional and circuit-level tournaments in California. I competed in student congress and have actively coached congress, speech (e.g., oratory or platform events), LD, and public forum debate. I competed from 2006 to 2008, coached from 2008 to 2013, and tabbed from 2011 to 2022. My specialty is in tabbing and evaluating TOC-level congressional debate rounds.

Outside of speech and debate, I have my PhD in Social Psychology. I focus on group identities and how it affects our thoughts and behaviors. Between that and my other professional experiences, my view of speech and debate has now become focused on the communication of information and logical arguments for an audience.

Here is how this has affected my perspectives of debate rounds:

1. Do not actively harm anyone else in the debate round. Personal attacks, ad hominem arguments, or similar actions detract from the speech and debate experience. If you engage in any behavior that actively harms yourself or a competitor, I will give the win to your opponent and immediately let tab staff know of your behavior.
   
   Think about what you plan to say or do before you say and do it. This can often lead to a better round and less potential for unintentional outcomes from a round. This can also help identify biases within ourselves and each other that affect what we do and do not perceive or how our words and actions can affect others. I am trying to learn how my biases influence how I see the world, and I hope you take time to do so as well.
2. Any argument that you want to run that does not actively harm yourself or your opponent works for me. This includes traditional and progressive arguments. Importantly, any argument that you want to run is fine with me if you can explain the argument in simple English. Tell me why your argument is relevant and matters in the round, and I will evaluate it. Arguments filled with excessive jargon without an attempt to explain it in simple English will likely be ignored.
3. Debate is inherently an activity based on value judgements. Arguments that focus on an empiric as the take-home point (e.g., we save x more lives than our opponents or save x more money than our opponents) do not inherently have value by itself. You need to tell me why your evidence and analysis matters (e.g., overall, our side allows us to achieve something we value or avoid something that we do not value). Tell me what matters, and tell me why I should weigh it above your opponents' case. On average, I will value plausible evidence more than implausible examples. As an aside, extinction arguments will usually be ignored and excluded from my flow if it is irrelevant to the topic.
4. It is up to you to convince me as a judge that your evidence is (1) valid and (2) relevant to the round. Sensationalist or inflammatory arguments or evidence that do not add to the overall logic or arguments of the round will be ignored completely (e.g., they will not make my flow sheet). It is your responsibility to ensure that your argument is (a) not sensationalist, (b) not inflammatory, and (c) relevant to the round
5. I do not support the game theory of spreading, or the idea of running so many arguments that it is impossible to counteract all arguments in a specific round. Communication matters. Speed is okay but spreading is strongly discouraged.
6. Most debates focus on a specific topic or point. Although it is a tactic to focus on a specific aspect of the debate, concede that point after much of the round has passed, and then state “I concede the point that we spent much of the round that we discussed while still winning on the rest of my case that my opponent has overlooked,” I find that to be a very cheap debate tactic that does not have much real world applicability. If you and your opponent explicitly or implicitly focus on a specific point or area of contention within a round, I will decide my ballot based on that point or contention.
7. Specific to LD: I need a value. Morality is not a value, as groups define what it means to be moral (Ellemers et al., 2013). I need to know a specific value that you think I should promote or prefer in the round.
8. Specific to Congressional Debate: You may have noticed that I said I competed in student congress but evaluate congressional debate rounds in my introduction. That is intentional. Congressional debate has grown into a multifaceted event with nuanced arguments regarding policy and societal proposals and implications. Assume that my rankings is based on diversity of skills (e.g., can you give multiple types of speeches), essentialism within the round (e.g., what was your holistic effect within the round, or how would the round be different if you were not in the round), and quality of novel arguments and argument advancement during debate on a topic.
9. I rank presiding officers and know how to evaluate them based on 2 years of being a presiding officer and 14 years of evaluating student congress and congressional debate rounds.
10. All things being equal, I rank students lowly who only give crystallization speeches within the round. The goal of congressional debate is to advance discussion on a topic. There are many ways to do so (e.g., sponsorship, early-cycle extension speeches, summary and late-cycle extension speeches, and crystallization speeches). All speeches have value, but I prefer students who show diversity in their speech types when possible. When diversity is not possible, I need to know how your speech extends an argument above and beyond summarizing what was previously discussed. Often, crystallization speeches summarize events without extending discussions. In rounds where it is possible for all speakers to give two speeches, I rate students who choose to only give crystallization speeches lower.

Overall, I hope you have fun, communicate clearly, use valid and relevant evidence effectively, and be respectful of yourselves, your opponents, and the community. We all showed up because this is something that we enjoy. Treat others with the respect you hope to be treated with, and I will do my best to treat everyone with respect throughout the round.

Parent judge that has only judged a few debates. Please no spreading and use stock issues. Have fun!!

e-mail chain: afroditeoshun@gmail.com

Heyyyy, I’m Eli (nickname Afro)! I debated for Brooklyn Tech and currently debate for Binghamton University (former Bing PT, now Bing CT).

Personal thoughts (on debate): Debate is legit a business. To debate is work. So my advice: put as much, or as little, time in debate but let it be with intention, purpose, and control. Like yes, enjoy the activity, but after a certain point what is the plan for how you interact with this space (and especially your arguments)?

That said, I do not have the capacity to busy myself with argumentation that is a waste of time (meaning it lacks intention, a goal, and/or a purpose). I'm deeply intuitive and clock things with ease.

Let me not feel about your arguments how Grace Jones felt about meeting Lady Gaga:

https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/grace-jones-on-meeting-lady-gaga-i-just-didnt-feel-a-soul-2015510/

-

Top of the line: I view everything through ethos, and/or the lack of it (this hurts you). I vote for the team who best articulates a politic that shows an understanding of the world beyond technicalities and jargon.

-

Speed: If I yell clear twice, more than likely I will default to what I’ve heard and understood. So, if it comes down to the flow, please make sure I understand the important points. For your sake, not mine.

-

Policy Affs- I need a clear framework for how I am to evaluate the plan (and round) beyond a reactionary response to the negative. I also require a clear link story to the impact(s), and how the plan actualizes a politic to secure a resolution to the harms of the 1AC.

In many words, block out for T. That seems to be a lot of policy teams' (on the Affirmative) weakness.

T/Framework: I think procedurals can be a proper way to contest the aff's methodology and solvency mechanism. That depends on nuance and the way it is read. So, T-USFG: that’s fine (sometimes convincing), but you're not gonna go far if the block is just surface level on questions of YOUR wants.

I think frameworks in the realm of materiality/embodiment/etc are good.

CPs: I’m pretty neutral on them. Please just remember to have a net benefit (whether it’s internal or a DA).

I love Critical CPs.

DAs: Again, also pretty neutral. In order to justify a win with the DA, I require a very clear and concise link story as well as impact comparison to justify the DA as a takeout to Aff solvency. Like, why is it important? Many times I see DAs be ran and I'm just like... this feels like a huge FYI and still don't know why I should care (judge instruction)...

-----

The K-

Aff: Let the aff be in discussion of the topic. If not, I need instruction as to why I should care. I feel like that's my entire paradigm: why should I care... how should I evaluate the round...?

Neg: I think it’s important for content and form to be aligned. I require strong judge instruction because I refuse to do any more labor than I need to. This applies to Affs as well, but I specified here as the Neg has the burden of rejoinder. Meaning y'all have to win an actual DA to the Aff and/or an outweigh claim.

POMO: I require an advocacy that could easily be materialized or understood in a way that I can intuitively see it solving for the impacts. Examples and analogies would be best.

Identity 'ish: to win my ballot, you have to win your Theory of Power and that your method best alleviates the violence that incurs from power (as opposed to being an 8/9-minute FYI). I'm familiar with many and live in the intersections of many. Black Fem args have my heart tho

~~

Performance: As someone who's only done this style since High School, know this: just because you think your art is cool or creative, does not make it new or good. It’s important to stay on point as there’s a higher threshold for how the critique can actualize in-round (due to its deviation from normative performances). This is especially true if you black.

So, make sure to be consistent in each speech- because your stylistic choice in itself is also a critique. Lastly, be strategic and use your 1AC/1NC to leverage offense throughout the round.

-----

Theory: No one reads it properly for me. Divert from only using shells and apply it to the performances of the opposing team, so that I can evaluate the importance of this voter. Clear articulation (and extension) of the abuse story is key.

-

-

Any rhetoric that defaults to antiblackness (yes that includes misogynoir), queer/trans-phobia, ableism, etc- I have the complete right to drop you and end the round. I do not care. Auto-loss.

//

I live for a good ki ki, a roast, a gag. So, gag me and I will give a boost to your speaks.

///

Anything more than 5 off, you're clicking... but you're clicking down (hopefully y'all know the reference).

////

I (still) flow on paper.

/////

I cuss, but only to emphasize certain points. That said, with Novs/JV I'll watch my mouth but varsity? I view y'all as growing academic peers and therefore will speak to you as such. Do not be surprised if I say a curse here or there, it is what it is.

Hellooooooooooooooo :DDDDD

My name is Hoang Anh Tran(she/they), I am currently a freshman in college. Don't be scared if you have me, I will be easy and soft on you :)

The thing is, I have problems with my hearing, so please NO SPREADING, NO SPREADING, NO SPREADING. Trust me, you don't have to speak too fast to win, at least for me. Please be at the average speed but also convinced, okay?

I encourage you guys to bring up anything you know besides regular aff or neg files, such as counterplan, K, disadvantages, etc. Just use whatever you feel confident of, and treat the rounds as the game you choose to play <3

My email: hoanganh.tran@sjsu.edu

Good luck :DDDDDD