09 Mar 2026

Debate Hot Takes

Hi everyone! I hope everyone has had a great season so far. Here are some of my debate hot takes:

1. Spectators.

One time, I was with the other LS team (LS KA) and they had a flight 2 pairing while we had already had our flight 1 round. So, we went to watch their round. Also, Gary Ayala’s brother was with us. We get to the round. Then, these opponents are like “nah, we don’t allow specs”. Bro are we serious. My partner and I dipped but Gary’s brother was like: “I don’t even do debate, I’m just tryna support my brother”. These opps still are like “nah, we don’t allow specs”.

I understand that spectators make people nervous. But, these opps were afraid of Gary’s non debate brother leaking their goated lay strat. We are doing Public Forum. It is not that deep. Why are we afraid of kids watching you debate? Genuinely do not understand why we kicking out specs.

Another trend that is stupid is debaters, during outrounds, will make competitors close their computers/put their phones away. It is not that serious. There is no way your “super special strat” is that important. I know some people are worried about someone docbotting your opponent. If this is true, your opp was going to lose in either scenario. Why are we forcing the kids just scrolling or prepping out their opps for the next round from using tech.

Judges also get way too excited about this. Like the amount of times a judge has yelled to the specs “PUT YOUR PHONES AWAY OR I WILL KICK YOU OUT”, is actually funny. Bro, this is an extracurricular activity, not the Olympics.

2. Prefs.

Why doesn’t pf use prefs?

“Oh pf is supposed to be an event free from scary technical arguments”. Sure buddy. I understand why prefs don’t exist for tournaments like Harvard, Yale, Penn (tournaments where the elusive Farhan Khan has excelled at). But for the TOC. Are we serious? Last year, I got 3 lay judges. No hate to lay debate. Lay debate is very fun and has its place. Some people love lay debate and would prefer a lay judge than a hypertech. But this feels like an insult to the amount of prep that goes into debate.

Teams will prep hours of technical arguments and never get a chance to read it because they get straight lays. On the flip side, the average 1-5, 2-4 debater will get the hypertechs. It’s almost like we have a system that works for every other format of debate that for some reason pf doesn’t adopt. Oh wait. It’s called prefs.

Look, I understand that judge adaptation is an important skill. I don’t think prefs should be used at every tournament. But for major tournaments like the TOC, Glenbrooks, Emory, etc. we should adopt prefs.

3. Events.

Why is everyone treating policy as the gold standard, super awesome debate event, while pf is its scrawny little brother. I know other people have talked about this before. But, people keep bringing this up. PF is its own event. That means the final focus is not the “2ar”. Topicality can be read on the aff.

Stop treating PFers like worse debaters. Y'all are way too dogmatic and entitled about this. PFers have different skills. Put Montgomery Bell in Harvard Finals versus Plano. It’s going to be wraps. Worse than Harvard Finals 2025. 7-0 Plano. MBA is going to acquiesce by first cross. Obviously in a policy round MBA would win. But we are comparing apples to oranges here. There is no “best” format of debate.

In my opinion, PF is a good mix of debate. There is less prep needed than policy, you get a partner, and you can also have technical debates. I don’t understand why people still look down at PF. But what do I know?

4. Beeping timers.

Maybe I’m biased because I don’t have one of the super cool debate timers. But bro. I know you guys are setting the times early. I remember watching LS KH vs Strake GZ at the illustrious Lexington Winter Invitational. During every speech my goats LS KH gave, at like 3:55, the beeping would go off. Meaning while during Strake’s speech, the timer wouldn’t go off until like 4:07. I respect the hustle. But if I’m judging you, I’m going up and throwing the timer out the window.

5. Prestige.

Yo, who told all these kids they are tuff. At every major tournament, there is always like a clique of the “best debaters”. It is not that deep. I don’t think it’s healthy to idealize debaters. As the infamous Tesu Ham explained: “Bro, Everyone is just a kid in highschool.”

Debate should be more of a team sport and less exclusionary. Someone’s competitive record should not be deciding whether or not you will talk to them.

This also goes for in-round. Why are people genuinely afraid of some teams? It is not that deep. No one is untouchable, everyone is beatable. You shouldn’t go into round already having lost.

6. Weighing.

Timeframe versus try or die is the most useless debate of all time. Genuinely, all the debaters who have graduated from 2023-2025 are brainwashed on how to evaluate a technical debate.

“I look at the weighing first”. I understand why in a vacuum this makes sense. But sometimes these debates are decided by a difference of 1 month in timeframe.

One scenario is like China invades Taiwan and the other is like the Penguins of Madagascar will build a nuclear satellite and blow it up in space and then Morocco will see this and be like “oh shoot we gotta proliferate” that will set off a chain reaction in which Tanzania makes Tarzan the supreme leader and he decides to conquer Uzbekistan, which pisses off Pakistan and ignites a nuclear war.

Guess what. The Penguin scenario happens in March while China doesn’t invade until April. Thus, the Penguin scenario prereqs the China scenario because just the nuclear satellite is enough to distract the US, so China takes the opportunity to invade.

Dawg, this obviously doesn’t make sense. Arguments have inherent probability. Weighing is only necessary insofar both teams have equal risk of case. Look, I know “equal risk” sounds like intervention. That’s why judge instruction exists! Probability weighing isn’t real but neither is timeframe weighing. Defence matters more than both. I don’t know why PF judges require 45 seconds of the two minute final focus to be weighing. This is still left over from when teams wouldn’t read extinction impacts making weighing actually important

I think this way of evaluating debates makes arguments inherently worse. I know people get mad at PFers stupid scenarios. But a model in which a scenario wins if there is a marginal risk of offence and won timeframe weighing, incentives a race to the bottom in terms of perceptual garbage arguments.

7. Util.

It’s zero.

8. Dogmatism.

I know people have talked about this recently but bro. Can we all just take a chill pill?

Full texting is chill.

Paraphrasing is chill.

Ks are chill.

Phil is chill.

Skep is chill.

Tricks are chill.

Like I don’t understand why everyone gotta ban the type of arguments read in debate. Especially, judges actually be getting pressed when new teams try to read the k. I don’t understand why judges give teams reading subs grace but then when a team is trying out the k they get all dogmatic and strict. Just let people try out new strategies. Don’t nerf someone’s speaks for it.

At the end of the debate is a game but it’s also the friends we make along the way. So we should all just do whatever maximizes the most utility for the community. JK.

-- Eli