email chains > speech drop
luke.vu0@gmail.com
debate however you want to
LD Paradigm at the bottom
Notes for online debateIf you raise your pitch while spreading, please go slower so you don't peak or modify your gain filter so your audio does not cut outPrefer cameras on including prep
If you have a fun strategy feel free to run it in front of me - this excludes exclusionary strats
Good for speed, just make sure you're clear, if I clear you and you don't change then don't be surprised if my flow misses an argument you made
Evidence quality and ethics are highly valuable to me, although I typically let the flow decide what is "true". That being said I have a low threshold for ignoring bad cards, if your opponent reads bad cards jump on this. If you don't, I won't do the work for you.
Additionally rehighlighting their evidence will always boost your speaks and be very good at zeroing the argument that card makes for them. However, make sure you are right about what you point out.
feel free to post round if you don’t think my decision was clear
Topicality -
Default to competing interps (this means you need to say reasonability and extend it through the 2ar)
Topic specific definitions > general definition > noncontextual definitionsI can be persuaded otherwise but this is what I default to
I enjoy evaluating T debates and would consider myself good for them.

T USfg -
Negative teams need to answer the impact turns by being specific about how their impacts implicate the affirmative model's solvency. Your education/fairness arguments mean nothing if it is key to something that the affirmative is critiquing.
Typically the team which is more specific with their framework offense will win the debate, broadly saying debate is violent or procedural fairness is key are unpersuasive absent a reason why the other team's model does not solve for your impact or exacerbates it.
Clash is probably the most persuasive impact for me, but I will also vote on education and fairness as impacts
Affirmatives need to define the role of the negative

K Affs -
Teams that counter-define the resolution and create an interesting model of debate will more often than not win in front of me. I find full impact turns to T less persuasive relatively but will still vote on them.
Any affirmative that is willing to defend itself and its purpose in the debate space may be read in front of me. Advocate for what you want my ballot to represent and I will typically use it as such unless you lose framework.

Theory -
Have a high threshold for most arguments as a I believe they should typically be reasons to reject the team

Disadvantages -
Turns case arguments are important to me, especially when comparing extinction impacts
Soft left affs should look to win the framing page with more than just "extinction never happens".
The best way to zero a disad is with evidence indicts.
There is not always a risk of the link/impact and I will typically read the cards surrounding those two most thoroughly in my decision

Counterplans -
If you are going to read cards on the counter plan it should have a solvency advocate in the 1NC, otherwise I will be easily persuaded by theory
CPs based off 1AC evidence are some of my favorite to judge
I lean neg on the question of sufficiency framing so comparison of the world post-aff vs post-cp are very important to me

Kritiks -
I would say I'm a good judge for any K
I think that the block should have a significant amount of link explanation, therefore I'm more empathetic to grouping blippy links in the 1AR as a way to deter the link shotguns that seem to have become more popular. This is because too often I see teams throw out 5 or 6 links in the block to have the 1AR drop one they apparently aren't prepared to go for in the 2NR and end up collapsing the debate down to the one argument which was covered. (this will tank your speaks as a 2N)
Framework is key to how I evaluate the alt and what my ballot represents - teams can still win absent framework and it is a viable 2nr in many cases if you're ahead on the link debate
On that note, affs should try to isolate whether the alt is material or not as early in the debate as possible, this informs a lot of the debate and letting the negative run away with this will lose you debates.
LD -
Quick Prefs
K - 1Trad/Policy - 1Phil - 2Theory - 2Performance - 3LARP - 3Tricks - 4
I enjoy watching debates where debaters can show off their knowledge, I care less about overviews and think that your line by line intrinsically makes the claims your overviews will and it is more persuasive to have me reference your line by line than your overview.
Willing to vote on tricks and technical debates and the flow will often determine my ballot, however I'm not as good for tricks because I believe some debates over tricks are really bad, theory less so but they can become frivolous
Performance and LARP debates may need to spend a bit more time on judge instruction in the final rebuttals for judge framing since I lean towards framework in the context of these debates