Tabroom.com

Middle School TOC hosted by UK

2024 — Online, KY/US

Policy Debate Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Jared Adam Hire

Last changed on Sat April 20, 2024 at 4:53 AM EDT

Chattahoochee HS '21

University Of Kentucky '25

Add me to the chain: jaredaadam@gmail.com

Top:

I will pretty much vote on anything and lack many ideological predispositions with a few exceptions. I try to be as least interventionist as possible so please do judge instruction that explains to me why you have won the debate & the implications of the arguments you are going for.

Send a card doc after the debate has ended. I'll read the cards you think are important, but I tend to think the quality of evidence comes secondary to who did the better debating.

Debate is a communication activity, I will flow what I hear, not what is in the doc.

Theory:

I prefer to judge substantive debates over trivial theory arguments. Anything that isn't conditionality is a reason to reject the argument not the team. I lean NEG on condo, and would only prefer you go for it if either a. the neg severely mishandles it or b. it's the only winning option. I will not vote on blimpy theory arguments that aren't developed or articulated out earlier in the debate.

Non-resolutional theory is a non-starter.

Counterplans:

Judge kick is my default unless told otherwise.

Huge fan of them, I love me some solvency offense & AFF specific counterplans.

I am okay for counterplan competition, but the more egregious the counterplan, the lower the threshold it is to win the CP is illegitimate.

Disads:

Good

I think the interest rates DA is cracked. Though I haven't judge that many debates on this topic, I do not understand why some variation of an econ DA is not the 2NR in every debate.

Kritiks:

The best kritiks are ones with links to the plan. If you want to just rehash some theory about the world, without contextualizing it to the plan, I am not the judge for you.

Topicality:

I would prefer you read & defend a topical plan. Impact turning framework is more persuasive to me than extending a counter interpretation.

Impact Turns:

Good

Misc:

- tech > truth

- Don't sacrifice clarity for speed

Bigotry will not be tolerated

Avy Agrawal Woodward Academy

Pranav Aiyer The Quarry Lane School

Last changed on Thu May 2, 2024 at 10:48 AM PDT

Use debate@student.quarrylane.org and title the email chain adequately.

T/L

Been in debate for 4 years.

Don't have all that many hardcore preferences that aren't resolved by better debating.

Case Debate

Good case debate will especially get you good speaks---especially applicable to 2AC case debating; 'not reading new cards bc 2ac messed up' are words you should not want to hear.

Implicate how different parts of the da interact with the advantage, how much of each par the da you need to win --- is any risk of a da sufficient given a solvent cp? Does turns case make any risk of a link sufficient? does dropped link mean that probabilistic uniqueness is irrelevant?

Just like above; contextualize to what extent you need to win a net benefit in comparison to a solvency deficit.

Not great for textual plus functional as an interp. Better for function alone. Alright for textual alone.

Permutation do the counterplan > intrinsic perm

As a fellow 2A, I'll be sympathetic to theory, and think it's less arbitrary than most.

Lack of solvency advocate certainly justifies new 1AR answers.

My second favorite type of debate.

Impact calculus is key.

Aff vs K

Good link/link turns case, contextualized alt solvency to the 1AC, and case debating seem the optimal way to do it if this is your strategy.

Framework typically decides these debates so developing diverse offense for the neg would be the way to go; I'll be technical in determining and won't "It was a wash" my way out of it.

Neg vs K

Pick fairness or clash early on so you can develop offense; having both often conflict with one another, i.e going for the 'this ballot doesn't spill out; neg on presumption' 'debate doesn't change subjectivity' in tandem with 'voting neg iteratively spills up to models of debate as the community changes' seem to clash with one another; I think that negs need a mechanism of spilling out if going for models. This means starting the question of what my ballot does early, and being definitve about it.

TVA/SSD are great ways to mitigate AFF exclusion offense and thus should be well-developed; a good 1NR on TVA with solvency debating, impact calculus, puts a lot of pressure on the 1AR.

NOVICE / JV / MS

Make sure I can hear every word you're saying. this is a time to be getting better, and improving so demonstrate you've put in the slightest of effort.

I've judged these and it usually comes down to impact calculus, line by line, or resolving so if you've done all three well your speaks start at 29.

Misc

I only start flowing from the 1NC on case.

I won't look at docs unless a piece of evidence is explicitly disputed/brought up in a final rebuttal.

Number plz.

FR is NEG biased.

SPEAKS scale(stolen):

- Above 29.5: I will spend tonight crying about how beautifully you debated

- 29.5: I will tell my friends about you

- 29 – 29.5: You should get a top 5 speaker award

- 28.7 – 29: You should probably break

- 28.5 – 28.7: You gave solid speeches

- 28 – 28.5: You are a good debater, some strategic errors

- 27.5 – 28: You are decent, but made many errors

- 27 – 27.5: You made many mistakes, and probably lost the debate for your team

- 26.5 – 27: You made many errors and should end 1-5 or 0-6

- 26 – 26.5: You shouldn’t be in whatever level of debate you are

- Under 26: You were literally incomprehensible or offensive

Kavin Bendre The Avery Coonley School

Last changed on Sun May 5, 2024 at 7:20 AM CDT

Background:

Walter Payton '27

Kuh-vin, he/him

Add me to the chain: kbendre09@gmail.com

Also add paytondebatedocs@gmail.com

***Online***

If my camera is off, please do not start

Top Level:

Tech > truth

Time every speech, cx, and prep

I'll follow along the chain, but if you're unintelligible or mumbling, I won't flow it.

I try and minimize judge intervention as much as possible, but if both teams are giving tagline extensions with no clash, warranting, or crystallization, I'll be forced to intervene to some extent.

Post-rounding is good, as long as its done respectfully. If you disagree with part of my decision, feel free to argue with me about it, but know the decision will not be changed after the round.

I agree a lot with Calvin Hwang's paradigm.

I'm a good judge for plan text in a vacuum.

If you go for a counter interpretation, make sure to warrant out your standards.

Predictability probably outweighs debateability, but I can be persuaded either way.

Disads:

Straight link or impact turning a disad is underutilized

Respond to the warrants of the other team's link/link turn instead of just saying "link outweighs link turn" or vice versa

Counterplans:

Advantage CPs are underutilized and pairing them with a good DA is a very solid strategy.

Most PICs aren't abusive. With that being said, I'll feel more comfortable voting on a PIC that is truly competitive compared to one that takes out a minimal part of the plan.

I lean Aff on questions of competition.

CPs should (probably) have a solvency claim and warrant, but don't necessarily mean a card.

Judge kick is a logical extension of condo. 1AR and 2AR needs to make an argument as to why judge kick is bad for me to not automatically consider the status quo.

Kritiks:

Very familiar with cap literature, somewhat familiar with antiblackness, heidegger, settler colonialism, and a few others, but for the most part not super comfortable with K lit. Below average for the Neg in these debates.

Most Ks spread long, confusing tags with large words that often misrepresent the actual content of cards. Make sure to explain the tags and slow down. Do more warrant-level explanation of your cards.

You link you lose is probably bad

K Aff v. Policy:

Neg leaning in these debates, but will obviously decide based on the flow

In order to win the round, Aff teams need to have a clear claim to the ballot - absent this claim, and with the Neg including at least some role of the ballot argument, I'm obligated to vote Neg

Most counter-interps on framework are garbage, I’m more likely to vote on an impact turn to fairness or clash

Ballot PIK + Presumption is underutilized

Debated equally by both sides, the Neg would always win on T, but obviously that rarely occurs

If you're a middle schooler or novice, you shouldn't read a K Aff.

K v. K:

I will have very little idea what I'm doing in this debates, but if you win you win.

Theory:

Nothing's a voter with the exception of condo. Anything else is (probably) reject the argument.

You probably need to win condo bad to win perf con, in which case just do condo

Number of conditional advocacies doesn't really matter, it's more about competing models. Dispo is more likely to convince me than uncondo, but needs to be able to resolve offense.

Not sure why the community norm is "new affs justify infinite condo".

Random Things:

Love rehighlightings, whether they are inserted or read is up to you. But if they are inserted, their overall implication must be explained, or I'm very unlikely to factor it into my decision.

Overall, I'm more likely to vote on small, technical concessions than most judges, but if you're spreading several blocks of analytics don't expect me to go back through the doc and find the argument if I don't hear it - if it's not on my flow, I can't evaluate it, even if it was dropped

Hot Takes:

Framework on a K outweighs theory - debated well, framework is about the role of the judge/ballot in debate, and fairness and education

Neg terror is great, but condo is also probably bad

Zero risk and presumption are real and reasons they are not are usually interventionist

Wipeout is easier to win than Process CPs

Try or die is intuitive

Speaker Points:

-0.2 for every argument you claim to be dropped when it was actually responded to

<26.5 - evidence violation

26.5-27.5 - lack of clarity, speed, depth, and understanding in arguments

27.5-28 - decent clarity, below average speed, decent depth of arguments, probably going 2-4 or 3-3

28-28.5 - my standard average for points, those at the upper end are probably clearing as a low seed while those at the lower end are going 3-3.

28.5-29 - one of the better speakers at the tournament, great clarity, decent speed, well-warranted arguments, clearing as a higher seed

29+ - top 5 speakers at the tournament, one of the top seeds

Aadi Bhagat ModernBrain

Hana Bisevac Hire

Last changed on Fri April 19, 2024 at 4:46 AM CDT

add hbisevac0@gmail.com

niles north 23, kentucky 27

general

the core predisposition I have is that technical execution and preventing judge intervention should be at the forefront of whatever approach you take. this means that technical concessions (including cheap shots) matter and there should be lots of judge instruction.

big fan of cool strategies. I enjoy research a lot and will always appreciate and reward a well-researched and thoughtful strategy, whatever that be. (but, I am also not qualified to mediate interpersonal problems between debaters!)

evidence matters a lot. you should read all the cards. debaters have to set the metric for how evidence should be evaluated and do comparison.

organization is extremely important. you should number arguments, sign post, and slow down at times.

thoughts

topicality: predictability matters a lot more to me than other things. have good cards. this means cards that define the word, not just use it. reasonability will forever seem super arbitrary to me but can sometimes be fine against suspect interpretations. limits for the sake of limits is not persuasive and internal link debating is very important.

counterplans: solvency deficits need explainable impacts. competition debates are good. NEG flex and precision are usually very persuasive. most AFF theory violations seem pretty silly to me and standalone theory ever being the A-strategy doesn’t make a ton of sense to me.

kritiks: teams should get to weigh the AFF but excluding Ks doesn’t make sense. vagueness on the link explanation will favor the AFF. backfile Ks with no relation to the topic are icky and the links will always sound unpersuasive. there are a lot of things that teams feel compelled defend but are entirely irrelevant in the larger context of the debate. things like realism, util, etc. often end up just buzz-words used that are not contextualized to any of the larger parts of the 1AC/thesis of the K. the less you disprove the 1AC, the less compelling you are.

planless AFFs: the more you struggle to explain the advocacy (in a non-vague way), the more favorable I am toward the NEG. I'm more persuaded by arguments about skills and methods that result from the 1AC being good as opposed to debate/institutions being bad.

asserting an argument is new or dropped does not constitute an argument, you should jump up and down about it with thoughtful explanation.

everything above applies. I do not like tricks, I do not like phil, and I do not like RVIs. (and whatever else elizabeth elliott thinks)

other

please format email chains properly with the tournament, round, and teams.

if you are interested in debating in college and want to know more about kentucky, feel free to reach out!!

Daryl Burch McDonogh

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 10:13 AM EDT

Daryl Burch

currently the director of high school debate for McDonogh

formerly coached at the University of Louisville, duPont Manual High School (3X TOC qualifiers; Octofinalist team 2002) the head coach for Capitol Debate who won the TOC. McDonogh won the TOC in 2007. I have taught summer institutes at the University of Michigan, Michigan State, Emory, Iowa, Catholic University, and Towson University and Wake Forest as a lab leader.

I debated three years in high school on the kentucky and national circuit and debated five years at the University of Louisville.

I gave that little tidbit to say that I have been around debate for a while and have debated and coached at the most competitive levels with ample success. I pride myself in being committed to the activity and feel that everyone should have a voice and choice in their argument selection so I am pretty much open to everything that is in good taste as long as YOU are committed and passionate about the argument. The worst thing you can do in the back of the room is assume that you know what I want to hear and switch up your argument selection and style for me and give a substandard debate. Debate you and do it well and you will be find.

True things to know about me:
Did not flow debates while coaching at the University of Louisville for two years but am flowing again

Was a HUGE Topicality HACK in college and still feel that i am up on the argument. I consider this more than a time suck but a legitimate issue in the activity to discuss the merit of the debate at hand and future debates. I have come to evolve my thoughts on topicality as seeing a difference between a discussion of the topic and a topical discussion (the later representing traditional views of debate- division of ground, limits, predictability etc.) A discussion of the topic can be metaphorical, can be interpretive through performance or narratives and while a topical discussion needs a plan text, a discussion of the topic does not. Both I think can be defended and can be persuasive if debated out well. Again stick to what you do best. Critiquing topicality is legitimate to me if a reverse voting issue is truly an ISSUE and not just stated with unwarranted little As through little Gs. i.e. framework best arguments about reduction of language choices or criticism of language limitations in academic discussion can become ISSUES, voting issues in fact. The negative's charge that the Affirmative is not topical can easily be developed into an argument of exclusion begat from predictable limitations that should be rejected in debate.

It is difficult to label me traditional or non traditional but safer to assume that i can go either way and am partial to traditional performative debate which is the permutation of both genres. Teams that run cases with well developed advantages backed by a few quality pieces of evidence are just as powerful as teams that speak from their social location and incorporate aesthetics such as poetry and music. in other words if you just want to read cards, read them poetically and know your argument not just debate simply line by line to win cheap shots on the flow. "They dropped our simon evidence" is not enough of an argument for me to win a debate in front of me. If i am reading your evidence at the end of the debate that is not necessairly a good thing for you. I should know what a good piece of evidence is because you have articulated how good it was to me (relied on it, repeated it, used it to answer all the other arguments, related to it, revealed the author to me) this is a good strategic ploy for me in the back of the room.

Technique is all about you. I must understand what you are saying and that is it. I have judged at some of the highest levels in debate (late elims at the NDT and CEDA) and feel pretty confident in keeping up if you are clear.

Not a big fan of Malthus and Racism Good so run them at your own risk. Malthus is a legitimate theory but not to say that we should allow systematic targeted genocide of Black people because it limits the global population. I think i would be more persuaded by the argument that that is not a NATURAL death check but an IMMORAL act of genocide and is argumentatively irresponsible within the context of competitive debate. Also i am not inclined to believe you that Nietzsche would say that we should target Black people and exterminate them because death is good. Could be wrong but even if i am, that is not a persuasive argument to run with me in the back of the room. In case you didn't know, I AM A BLACK PERSON.

Bottom line, I can stomach almost any argument as long as you are willing to defend the argument in a passionate but respectful way. I believe that debate is inherently and unavoidable SUBJECTIVE so i will not pretend to judge the round OBJECTIVELY but i will promise to be as honest and consistent as possible in my ajudication. Any questions you have specifically I am more than happy to answer.

Open Cross X, weird use of prep time (before cross x, as a prolonging of cross x) all that stuff that formal judges don't like, i am probably ok with.

db

Xavier Burchfield ModernBrain

Last changed on Sat May 4, 2024 at 3:43 AM PDT

Xavier Burchfield

xavierburchfield09@gmail.com

I have been every speaker pos.

I will easily vote on a well explained and debated theory argument

If I am judging novice, which I probably am, DO NOT BE A BLOCK BOT PLEASE, that is not helping you get better, it just looks stupid when you read something and just don't know what it is when answering cross

Prepared to vote on anything

IF YOU WANT TO HAVE A GOOD CHANCE OF WINNING, READ A POLICY AFF, DONT READ A K AFF, AND k's on the neg are a little more easy, but it might confuse me.

I will vote on the K, but the team reading it is at a disadvantage as I don't always feel comfortable voting on it if the debate is messy, or if the K isn't explained well

I strongly suggest you don't read a k aff against me, and if you make a mistake and do, pretend I am a baby. Explain everything very well.

I tend to lean neg against k affs

I usually understand the T-FW arguments and don't need as much explanation, but I definitely need help understanding case.

(I will vote on wipeout or spark or death good)

If it is debated well, I will feel comfortable voting on it

Dropping case in the 2ac and full pushing condo the rest of the debate is a fire strategy

I love a good case turn on the neg in the 2nr, and on aff, i love a turn on a disad

This doesn't mean read something completely new, if you read something completely new, I won't even flow it and the other team doesn't have to acknowledge it because it is not their burden.

Don't be scared to go for risky arguments, I won't take my personal beliefs into the debate, so even if you run wipeout or spark, if it is technically debated well, I will vote for it.

If you are answering cross, and you avoid the questions, and just yap about something else, speaks are going to probably go down.

Pronounce punctuation verbally (Brandon Lin)

Impact turn fairness

SPEAKS

25 --- Rock bottom, you were discriminatory, mean, etc, or you clipped.
26-27 --- You barely spoke and had no warrants and just practically yapped about nothing relevant.
27-28 --- It was mid, you spoke fine, but it wasn't anything great.
28-29 --- somewhat good, you had good clarity, you had good speed and understanding of arguments.
29-29.5 --- You were really good and i liked mostly all of it.
29.5-30 --- You have a very bright future and did really well in the debate.

Sadiya Bushner The Avery Coonley School

Athena Chan The Quarry Lane School

Last changed on Wed May 1, 2024 at 7:43 AM PDT

quarry lane '26

any pronouns

athenasiyang@gmail.com

qlspolicy@gmail.com

debate@student.quarrylane.org

top level

tech > truth; i will judge off the flow and intervene as little as possible. do whatever it takes to win. flesh out your arguments in the rebuttals. compare evidence. give judge instruction.

speed is fine. clarity is better. slow down on analytics and tags. something i've been told is to put a decently chunky card at the top of your 2ac blocks to give the judge pen time.

explanation is more important to me than evidence, and i will only go back to read ev if necessary.

don't insert evidence; i will only evaluate it if you read it.

smart cx questions are deadly and will be rewarded.

be respectful and have fun :)

theory

voting issues are typically a reason to reject the argument, not the team.

not the greatest judge for condo/theory in general, but if you choose to extend it, explain it well and do good impact calculus. i'll assume dispo means you can kick the cp if the aff reads perms or theory unless you define it otherwise.

efficient condo extensions in the 1ar are lovely.

don't read hidden aspec/theory.

i default to competing interpretations. have a lot of evidence and make sure you're comparing evidence quality.

reasonability is convincing against contrived t violations, but i'm not great at evaluating it. we meet is a yes/no question. caselists are very helpful.

haven't dug very deep into k literature. i'm better for more common/straightforward k's (cap, security, setcol), but better explanation overcomes most barriers.

i am agnostic on framework, but i'm sympathetic towards 2ar recontextualizations bc 1ars on fw are painful. i am especially sympathetic to 1ar args when the block is sloppy on line-by-line and makes vague cross-apps from the overview.

the link debate is super important -- be specific to the aff and explain why the two worlds are incompatible. "whoever talks about the aff more in a kritik round usually wins."

alt explanation is so crucial too -- what does the alt actually do? if the alt can solve a majority of the aff, that lowers the threshold for the link soooo much. root cause explanation also helps a ton.

case-specific and advantage counterplans are really fun. i prefer functionally competitive cps with solvency advocates, but do whatever it takes to win.

i'm neutral on cp theory, but if the cp has good solvency advocates, i err neg. smart perms will be rewarded.

give instructions for sufficiency framing and judge kick. i default to no judge kick.

presumption flips aff if you go for a world, but i can be persuaded by "less change" or "neg flex" means presumption is neg warranting.

impact calc is great. turns case analysis is super important, but don't overdo it because it's largely irrelevant if you lose the rest of the da. explain perception/timeframe differentials and why they matter.

k affs

very fascinating. t-usfg, cap k, and piks make the most sense to me.

i prefer clash as an impact to t, but choose wisely based on the aff and their strat. smart tvas access and mitigate the aff's offense and helps 2nr analysis so much.

misc

post-round me! i think it's really educational.

don't steal prep. don't be racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/etc.

if you find an ethics violation pre-round, please tell your opponents. treating it like an in-round strategy is a terrible model for debate.

see the paradigms of christopher thiele,yao yao chen,and eleanor barrett for more details.

Brandon Chen ADL

Jordan Di Hire

Last changed on Tue April 30, 2024 at 2:20 PM EDT

UK, Peninsula

Email

---add: jordandi505@gmail.com, griffithd2002@gmail.com

---forward complaints to: debateoprf@gmail.com

---email title should include relevant information, such as the tournaments, teams, and round.

TLDR

---this is the only section that matters.

---I will flow and decide the debate accordingly. Any preferences can be overridden by technical execution and judge instruction. If I am left to my own devices on particular arguments, I am usually tempted to arrive at the most “reasonable” conclusion.

---as I am flowing and I don’t enjoy suffering, I will flow straight down. While I am a good flow, I am prone to miss things. Debate is a communicative activity and it’s on debaters to make themselves more comprehensible. That doesn’t necessarily mean you must slow down. Rather, there are several other things to do to be more clear: separate analytics with carded arguments, use numbers, differentiate using tone, and frontload argument labels.

---I am incredibly malleable. That means judge instruction and “framing” are important to how I make decisions. This also means debaters should utilize this early and often to hash out my rubric for deciding. The range of possibilities are vast but include anything from impact calculus to inserting a re-highlighting to the direction of presumption. I would much rather debaters hash these out rather than be left to my own rather weak defaults. I find myself diverging from other judges usually when I am given a set of arguments with little instruction for how to evaluate them. I assure you, extending argument #10 is less relevant than explaining the implications of #1-9. Debate becomes entirely untenable if I insert my own thoughts and opinions into certain arguments where debaters have explained it in a particular way. For example, if a team explains the link as “perception-based” and that premise is uncontested by the other team, I do not care if the aforementioned team’s evidence actually speaks to this frame or not.

---I don’t know what constitutes a “good” or “bad” argument. All I know is technical and warranted debating, usually with evidence to support it. That being said, I prefer you to read all the evidence.

---I will ask if I want a card doc, but you should assemble one under the presumption I will want one. Evidence should be formatted neatly, using verbatim, and organized coherently. This is true of both the card doc as well as every speech that features evidence.

---I want to adjudicate the round in front of me. Anything that affects my ballot is ideally confined to the start of the 1AC through the end of the 2AR. I have literally zero interest in anything extraneous to that.

---I got rid of the long section about evaluation mainly since it’s now entirely above for the most part.

Other Thoughts

---the topic: I have done quite a lot of topic research and have a better than average understanding of economics. T arguments generally seem bad, but I am quite open to an appeal to limits. What is with all this process garbage when you have the Econ DA. Like, I am pretty good for process stuff, but like the Econ DA exists.

---planless AFFs: specificity is preferable to vagueness, debate is a game could be more, but it certainly is that, AFF offense should hopefully be intrinsic to the process of debate, and K v. K debates are something I think about a lot. My familiarity with your arguments and/or literature is higher than what may be expected.

---DA: K of impacts is better than "probability first" and politics DA is good.

--CP: sufficiency framing is intuitive, judge kick good, condo good, most theory should be perm justifications, and am generally pretty NEG on most theoretical arguments. I am fine for CP competition debates, but prefer the distinction be drawn as early and clearly as possible.

---K: it should either be a DA or framing the AFF out of the debate, specificity is good, framework interps should be mutually exclusive or don't matter, I don't care fiat isn't real. Research about the K is incredibly interesting to me and I want to reward it. Demonstrating a commitment to researching topic- and AFF-specific literature and applying it as such is something that I enjoy.

---T: yes competing interps unless ridiculous, predictable limits are good, more cards are good, definitions of words are good, and internal link debating is good. A note for clarity is I can be pretty good for limits. I'm not as much in the camp of "small difference in predictability outweighs big limits DA" as people I think I am associated with.

---conditionality: since this is increasingly popular and because I've recently had to think about this a lot due to a lousy 2N I know making me answer condo, I decided to put some random thoughts here about it. These will be thoughts for the NEG just because I don't have many interesting thoughts for the AFF other than maybe that these will be the most important things for you to grapple with. Things I am good for the NEG about:

· Theory is usually "cowardice," as per the sentiment of said lousy 2N. I have yet to see a 1NC where I thought the 2A's job was so difficult that it would be impossible to substantively respond. For example, you don't NEED an 8 subpoint response with 5 cards to answer the Constitutional Convention CP. The flip side of this for the AFF is either establishing a clear and consistent violation from the 2AC onward or focusing on the "model" of debate to override my presumption that maybe this 1NC wasn't too bad.

· NEG flex is great. Two sets of arguments are persuasive to me here. First, side bias. 2AR is certainly easier than the 2NR. I am unsure about "infinite prep," but I am persuaded that AFFs typically can answer most NEG arguments thematically. For example, having a good "certainty key" or "binding key" warrant addresses a whole swath of potential CPs. Second, the topic. Teams that appeal to the nature of the topic (honestly for either side) are persuasive to me. For example, the idea that appeals to "specificity" allows the AFF to murder core generics is one I find persuasive.

· The diminishing utility of conditionality seems true to me. Appeals to "infinite condo" allowing the nth degree of advocacies is something I am presumptively skeptical about. There are only so many arguments in the NEG box that disagree with the 1AC in different ways. Take what I said about being able to answer arguments thematically to apply here. In addition, for the NEG to accomplish such a massive proliferation, arguments tend to be incomplete. Again, this was talked about above.

· "Dispo" is a bit ridiculous. The 2AC must define it (the NEG needs to implicate this still). After some tinkering, I unironically began searching for a definition of "dispo." Everything I found either defines it differently from each other or from the way it has been defined in most debates I have judged. Therefore, I can be easily convinced the phrase "dispo solves" by itself does not constitute a complete argument. The only other thought I have other than the "plank + process spam" stuff (which I like) is that I can be persuaded "dispo" would mostly only ever allow one advocacy. It now seems intuitive to me that absent 1NC construction that made sure every DA was a net benefit to every CP, the 2A could force the NEG to have to extend everything but since one links to the net benefit, it would be impossible to vote NEG.

· This is more of a random quibble that I think can be used to frame a defense of conditionality. It seems logical to me that the ability of the AFF to extend both conditionality and substance in the 1AR, forcing the 2NR to cover both in a manner to answer inevitable 2AR shenanigans (especially nowadays) is the same logic criticized by "condo bad" as the 2AR can pick and choose with no cost. It seems worse in this case given the NEG does not have a 3NR to refute the 2AR in this scenario. This is a firm view, but it seems much easier to me for the 2AR to answer the fourth mediocre CP in the 1NC (like uncooperative federalism lol) than for the 2NR to answer the 5-minute condo bad 2AR that stemmed from a 45-second 1AR.

---death good: a quick note since I have had to think about this recently. I won't vote for anything endorsing self-harm or violence against anyone in the debate. That is different than arguments like spark/wipeout, the "death k," death good, or some revolutionary praxis (for example, Huey Newton). I think the line is generally a difference between arguments about the people within the debate vs actual academic controversy.

---evidence ethics or anything else in a similar vein should typically be debated. That's what I prefer but if there is a clear violation consistent with tournament policy, the onus is on the debaters to direct me to stop the round and address it.

---"Being racist, sexist, violent, etc. in a way that is immediately and obviously hazardous to someone in the debate = L and 0. My role as educator > my role as any form of disciplinarian, so I will err on the side of letting stuff play out - i.e. if someone uses gendered language and that gets brought up I will probably let the round happen and correct any ignorance after the fact. This ends when it begins to threaten the safety of round participants. Where that line is entirely up to me." – Truf.

Gabriel Esquivel Yglesias ADL

Last changed on Sat May 18, 2024 at 12:48 AM CST

Coach @ Asian Debate League

Debated 4 years at Kapaun** Mount Carmel in Wichita, Kansas, 2017

Debated 4 years NDT/CEDA/D3 at University of Kansas, 2021

Email chain: gaboesquivel@gmail.com

My biases:

I lean aff for condo. Some might say too much. I might expect a lot from you if you do go for it.

For K's I value consistency between the scale of the links and impacts i.e. in round impacts should have in round links.

I strongly bias toward "The K gets links and impacts vs the aff's fiated impacts" unless someone delivers a very persuasive speech. I can be persuaded that making a personal ethical choice is more important than preventing a nuclear war.

I lean toward affs with plans. Fairness concerns me less than usual nowadays. I like research/clash impacts.

I will read evidence and vote for evidence in debates where things are not settled by the debater's words. This happens frequently in T debates and impact turn debates.

Status quo is always an option=judge kick

How I judge:

I am patient with novices because most of my students are novices.

I listen first and read your evidence second. If you are clear, this distinction shouldn't matter. If you aren't clear I'm not comfortable reading your blocks and cards to fill in the gaps for you.

I flow and use everything I hear in my decision, and overemphasize what is said in the rebuttals. I'll reference the 1AR speech to protect the 2NR on a 2AR that "sounds new" and I'll reference the block on a 2NR that claims the 1AR dropped something. I'll reference a 2AC on a 1AR that claims the block dropped something, etc.

For a dropped argument to be a true argument it must have been a complete claim and warrant from the beginning. I am not a fan of being "sneaky" or "tricky". Unless you are going for condo ;)

I am persuaded by ethos and pathos more than logos. I find myself wanting to vote for a debater who tries to connect with me more than a debater who reads a wall of blocks even if they are technically behind. When both teams are great speakers I rely more on tech and evidence.

I try to craft my decision based on language used by the debaters. I reference evidence when I cannot resolve an argument by flow alone. PhD's, peer reviewed journals, and adequate highlighting will help you here. If I can't resolve it that way I'll look for potential cross applications or CX arguments and might end up doing work for you. If I do work for one team I will try to do the same amount for the other team. It might get messy if its close, that's what the panel is for, but please challenge my decision if you strongly disagree and I'll tell you where my biases kicked in.

**Pronounced (Kay-pen)

Ariel Gabay Hire

David Griffith Hire

Last changed on Sun April 21, 2024 at 8:00 AM EDT

David Griffith

Coach at New Trier

Debated at Oak Park River Forest and the University of Kentucky

Add griffithd2002@gmail.com and jordandi505@gmail.com to the chain.

If you are interested in debating in college and want to know more about Kentucky, please feel free to ask me via email or at tournaments. I also (most likely) have Kentucky Debate stickers on me at any given tournament, so if you want one, let me know.

The following is the only information that you must know. The rest of this paradigm is just organized ramblings that may or may not be helpful.

Conditionality is good---I will vote neg if the 2AR is only condo. This is neither a prediction nor a challenge. It is a threat. Every other theory argument is fair game (including yes/no judge kick), but I will never punish the neg for advocacies that the 2NR does not extend.

Organization is more important than style or substance---if you are unclear, refuse to number, do not signpost, make arguments in long, intricately worded paragraphs, or fly through analytics at a million miles an hour, I will miss arguments. I will never use the speech doc to fill in holes because debate is communication activity. If I miss an argument, that is on you because debate is a speech activity, not a reading contest. I always try to make it obvious that I am not able to follow you through both verbal and non-verbal cues.

I have very few argumentative preferences---other than my hatred of theory, I hold very few predispositions when it comes to arguments informed by evidence of any kind, whether that be cards, personal experience, or something else. The only thing I must know by the end of the debate is why you should win. Put another way, I value execution more than substance. I do not read very many cards. I do not assign arbitrary importance to single lines not impacted out in final rebuttals.

How do you get the decision you want from me?

Tell me what to do in every place possible---robust judge instruction is the only way to avoid catastrophic judge intervention. Rather than force the judge to find the win for them, the best debaters tell the judge both why they win and the other team loses. This is aided by a clear, cohesive, and consistent narrative through the debate. Final rebuttals should clearly explain the implication of winning your most important arguments, particularly relative to the other team's arguments. Doing so will result in a faster, clearer decision and better speaker points. I only read cards when it is absolutely required because of a dispute over evidence quality, qualifications, etc. I do not read cards to fill in gaps on my flow.

Explain the implication of technically concessions---the bar I use for this is that I have to be able to explain to the other team what the implication was of them dropping a certain argument. Often teams will assert that things like "turns case" are dropped but won't say what this means or what the argument even is. If you truly believe something is conceded and important enough to jump up and down about, you are leaving me to my own devices to figure out the extent to which that argument matters. The most often reason that I sit on elim panels is because I, right or wrong, often have a different understanding of technically conceded arguments than the other judges. The way to avoid this is by arguing concessions as if the other team will win full risk of every other argument and explaining why I still vote for you (this means arguing conceded links as if the other team wins link defense to the other links, theory as if the CP is better than the plan, or rollback as if the aff wins solvency). Otherwise, relative risk could come back to bite you.

What can you do change about your debating to maximize your chances of winning?

Complain about new arguments more than usual---the bar is on the floor. I think new 1AR arguments have gotten out of hand. If the block informs me of its deliberate choice not to make certain arguments because of 2AC errors/concessions/to avoid new 1AR arguments, I am very likely to obey 2NR judge instruction to ignore whatever new 1AR nonsense occurs. For example, if the 2AC says "perm do both" but does not explain why it solves the net benefit, the negative does not have to answer it. Further, if the 1AR then explains why it shields, the 2NR can just say the explanation was new. For the aff side, I willing to entertain the idea that the 1NR does not get new impacts to the DA (or even give the 1AR add-ons in response). Just call these things out when you see them, and the debate will become much simpler.

Don't pander---as much as being pandered to boosts my ego, I would much rather see people do what they're comfortable with. Debating with personality and confidence is infinitely more likely to boost your chances of winning than your argument selection. Debate is a persuasive activity, and I would be lying if I said it was possible to sever presentation from technical debating. If you debate your best, everything in this paradigm, including my stylistic preferences, go away.

Make complete arguments, and refuse to answer incomplete ones---it is not the 12-off 1NC that makes me angry, it is the 2AC that treats each off-case equally. If the 1NC doesn't even try to read a link, the 2AC does not have to say no link because fully conceding every other component of the DA doesn't matter unless if the link is zero. If the 1NC reads a link to a different aff, you should only say "no link" in the 2AC. If the 1NC doesn't say the CP solves the case, the 2AC does not have to say it doesn't unless you are afraid that once explained, the 1AR will have to overcompensate. I consistently see 2ACs that will accurately assess that a 1NC position was incomplete and then spend an inordinate amount of time outcarding the 1NC. This will make me second-guess whether the 1NC applied because it tells me that you take the argument seriously. Stop doing that.

How should I approach debates involving planless affirmatives?

Shallow debating will favor the neg---I find that teams will often repeat lines of argumentation that they assume to be true without explaining them. For neg teams, this is oftentimes asserting that fairness is an impact without any of the explanation required to prove such a claim, and for aff teams, this usually looks like asserting some structural problem with debate and/or the topic without explaining why that problem exists/why the aff solves it. This is where my bias comes in: because I am more familiar with the neg side of things, when underdeveloped, I am more likely to intervene for the negative simply by virtue of the fact that I have only been aff in these debates like 4 times roughly 6 years ago, and I do not have as much of an intuitive grasp on how the aff arguments apply to the neg ones as I do of the inverse.

You don't need to adapt---I'm agnostic towards both the "best impact" to framework and the "best" way to answer it. I don't view framework debates as distinct from anything else and try my best to maintain the same conventions of judging that I do in every other debate.

Focus on internal links---what I mean by this is that teams seldom disagree with one another about whether debate has some value. The question that each team should try to answer in front of me is how we can maximize debate's value wherever it exists. A good portion of the final rebuttal needs to be dedicated to explaining why the model that you have forwarded does that better than the other team's can. This may just boil down to "do impact comparison," but I find that framework debates are more engaging to watch and easier to evaluate when teams explicitly focus on comparison as opposed to making large, structural claims and trying to get me to connect the dots for them.

What should you know in debates where the neg goes for the K against a policy aff?

Vagueness will favor the aff---I'm a terrible judge for teams that rely on dropped tricks in order to win, especially if those tricks are vague assertions of "serial policy failure" or "ontology" or "root cause" without tailored application to the aff. I'm a great judge for nuanced link debating, competing ethical frameworks, and alternatives oriented towards changing the world in some capacity rather than simply explaining it.

Very good for the link turn and perm---I would much prefer to judge link turn/perm debates than whatever you'd call buzzword-laden 2ARs about utilitarianism. I often find myself questioning why alternatives solve link arguments. If you read a 1AC full of pre-empts, I strongly prefer you go for those rather than gesturing at the world being complex and saying the case is true as an abstraction.

Here is a list of thoughts related to counterplans.

Judge kick is my default, I guess?---does this even matter in the year of our lord 2024, where no one goes for "links to the net benefit" and very few teams have full-throated defenses of permutations against anything but the slimiest of process junk? If no one tells me to kick the counterplan, I guess I'll kick it, but I'm a very easy sell on the argument that I shouldn't.

I need to understand CP solvency---I do not presume that a CP solves the case in the same way that I do not presume the 1AC reading a plan text automatically means it solves its advantages. The 2AC cannot drop CP solvency if CP solvency is not argued by the 1NC. The same is true for the 1AR if the 2NC does not explain the CP. The neg burden here is not unreasonable, but I have seen enough decisions hinging on this issue recently that I feel the need to say this explicitly.

Not great in complex competition debates---these tend to be the debates that go over my head the most. I find myself voting neg a lot just because of technical concessions and a lack of 2AR judge instruction inviting intervention based on my general neg bias. Moreover, I am not intimately familiar with the inner workings of functionally and textually non-severance partially-but-sometimes-fully intrinsic permutations, and I require extra hand-holding in the 2NR/2AR on that particular issue.

Impacts matter---solvency deficits need connections to them. "Delay" and "certainty" only matter if the aff has a short-term impact that requires certainty. If I can't explain what impact that is, the deficit doesn't matter.

Theory ideally justifies a perm, not a ballot---I can see myself voting on most theory arguments. I don't love these debates most of the time, but I get it, cutting cards about CPs is hard work. I prefer that theoretical objections to CPs are phrased as justifications for competition, as those debates seem much less arbitrary than the latest flavor of "X CP is bad because it solves the case." That being said, this really only applies to process CPs, so I understand the utility of a theory 2AR in every other situation.

Will I vote on T against a policy aff!

Absolutely---some of the best debates I've watched, judged, and have participated in involved T. Good T speeches earn very high speaker points. I don't really care what the T argument is as long as you explain it compellingly.

What is plan in a vacuum?---seriously, someone tell me. How do you interpret the plan in a vacuum? The 1AC read evidence that informs what the plan means. This is why the aff can go for solvency deficits against CPs and nuanced no link arguments against DAs. To me, it seems untenable to suggest that the evidence the 1AC used to define plan function should be ignored when deciding topicality. This is not to say that plan in a vacuum is completely unwinnable in front me. Rather, I am not a fan of writing vague plan texts that lack a clear mandate, reading a 1AC that defends potentially untopical action, and then going for plan in a vacuum as if the 1AC deliberately read an advantage/solvency cards about something the plan didn't do.

Predictability matters vastly more than anything else---I think that the more precise or predictable an interpretation is, the less it matters how good its limits are on the topic in a vacuum. If a "bad" definition is more precise or predictable, limits are solely a reason we should've written the resolution better. This also means that I believe that precision is possible. Certain people in debate have convinced themselves that one definition cannot be more "precise" than another. Tell that to a lexicographer, and they will laugh in your face. This is what T debates should be all about. While I agree that "random court definition" is not a desirable model, there is always a debate to be had over the applicability over those "random court definitions," and the case facts, context of the definition, and outcome of the opinion certainly are relevant when reading the resolution. In past debates with insufficient impact calculus in the 2NR/2AR, I have intervened in favor of the team that more convincingly articulates predictability as an internal link because of this view.

The aff should go for reasonability---this is the ultimate conclusion to my disdain for limits. Most neg impacts to T can be taken out easily enough that offense about substance crowd-out can outweigh them.

What if I have the misfortune of needing to go for the status quo?

This is where I am the most neg biased---I am better than average for believing the world is better now than it is post-plan. I'm generally bad for structural uniqueness arguments if there's adequate link debating by the neg, and I am such a sucker for case defense that even weak DAs end up doing enough for me to win.

Evidence quality matters---this is in the DAs section of the paradigm because it is where it matters most. Far too often, teams read lots of bad cards that gesture at vague economic concepts for a few rebuttals, tell me to read the cards, and then don't look alarmed when I conclude that the cards sucked. Debates over bad evidence result in more intervention, particularly when that evidence is under-explained by the 2NR/2AR. This means that if you're going for the status quo with a DA that doesn't have the best evidence, you cannot afford to let your cards do the debating for you.

Thumpers are boring and cowardly---mostly applies to politics on this topic. "There are other bills in Congress" is not a link nor a uniqueness answer to the politics DA. You have to explain why your thumper implicates the DA or is not priced in by the neg reading a uniqueness card.

Be smart---I am not a particularly smart person but know one when I see one. Smart arguments as an alternative to getting lost in the cards will not only increase your chances of winning, but it will also boost your speaker points. Knowing stuff about the world is really cool.

How can I get better speaker points?

Be yourself---the worst form of overadapting is when serious people try to be funny or funny people try to be serious. I love debaters with personality and reward them with speaker points much more than I do anything else. Show me you want to be there, and you'll be fine.

Any thoughts on impact turns?

Impact framing matters more than impact defense---I am more than willing to pull the trigger on impact framing even with unmitigated impacts from the other side. I am not averse to stomaching a nuclear war if animals come first or risking the heat death of the universe if future generations don't matter. I think people care too much about impact defense in this debates when it rarely matters. Invest more time in explaining how I should decide the debate than assuming I can follow the implication of every technical drop exactly how you envision I shoudl.

I have no thoughts on the substance of impact turns---everything is fair game. It is virtually impossible to get me to toss an impact turn without substantive refutation. If you can't explain why spark or wipeout or warming good is incorrect, you deserve to lose because the majority of impact turns are academically ridiculous and/or philosophically inconsistent.

Why is your paradigm so long?

I like reading long paradigms when I am bored. I put a lot of care into judging and like to learn about how people think, so I try to make my paradigm reflect both of these values. Plus, I judge enough debates to be guaranteed an audience, so I might as well take advantage of it.

I also think paradigms are mostly unhelpful (this extends to my own). The best way to learn how a judge thinks is to have them judge you and to ask questions after the debate. Most judges, myself included, don't really know how they judge debates until they're in them. The length of this paradigm reflects a series of observations that, if adhered to, would make it easier to predict how I would vote.

I struggle to get rid of parts of my paradigm. I update it whenever I'm bored because that is what spending a long time on debate will do to your brain. As a debater, I hate paradigms that don't provide helpful information about why a judge thinks the way that they do. I figure that having a long paradigm is the best way to avoid being unhelpful, because the more information I include, the clearer my thinking should be to the people I am judging. It also forces me to adhere to the procedures I explain, theoretically resulting in more consistent decisions over time.

For LD.

Strike me if you go for tricks and/or theory. Do not take me high if you don't read and defend a plan. I have read some philosophy and have a decent understanding of much of what is read in LD, but I do not intuitively understand how some of it applies to debate, so I may need more explanation than the normal LD judge would for some of the more complex stuff (think: the more premises in your logic equation, the more explanation I need to understand why your argument is sound).

Rishi Jain Woodward Academy

Last changed on Sat April 20, 2024 at 5:43 AM EDT

Rishi Jain

Put me on the chain : 27rjain@woodward.edu

1st Year Policy Debater for Woodward Academy — Class of 2027

Top Level:

Online debates if my camera is off I’m not there. Confirm I’m there before starting. Be a bit clearer than usual.

Tech over truth. I believe debate is a game and we're all here to win, though that belief can be changed through some good debating, as can all of my biases. I'll vote on anything. Racist, nonfalsifiable, etc. it doesn't matter to me. If you came here planning to win rounds on that, while I may not like it on a one-to-one level, it won't stop me from voting on it, nor will it angle me against it in-round. However, there is a fine line between running racist, violence-endorsing, sci-fi arguments, and actually advocating for such insane ideas that we discuss in a random classroom. Don't cross the line.

If an argument you run threatens the other team or just does something like real-world bad, that crosses the line. "My role as educator outweighs my role as any form of disciplinarian, so I will err on the side of letting stuff play out. This ends when it begins to threaten the safety of round participants." — Trufanov

Judge instruction == appreciated.

I'm best for judging policy arguments.

CP's:

Love them. Running that insanely massive advantage counterplan is pretty cool as well once you read through all the cards and understand it. Might want to explain those decently well in the final rebuttals though. Judgekick if verbally told to, but that can be disputed easily. I don't judgekick by default — you must say it. Process CPs I don't completely like, but I'm 100% able to vote for them, I just think that they can't win against theory arguments and well-crafted permutations.

No, it is not game over if you drop a CP plank. I like line-by-lining the planks of course, but those generic "only the aff can solve x" blocks might work out for you if the neg doesn't answer it correctly. Dropping a plank isn't me insta-voting neg.

CPs should be made to not lose to permutations easily. Don't read one that does.

I default to normal permutation theory: a legitimate permutation is one that includes all of the plan and part or all of the counterplan.

Of course, severance and intrinsicness need to be impacted out. Can't just say its severance and then move on. You'd be kinda in a weird place if they extend it and say that the internal link to severance perms being bad wasn't said, so there isn't a reason it's bad.

K's (both aff and neg):

(neg) K's are fine, but make sure you explain it to me. I'm not completely well-versed in K's. I’m good with understanding Framework arguments usually. Please make the links easy to understand. Similarly, K-AFFs are fine with me. I love a good K debate. Don't hyper-speed through your framework blocks, or really anything — being clear and concise is great. Also, define words. Please don't expect me to know some random word that the K makes up with a really vague definition. They're kinda interesting when well debated and explained! I’ve gotten better at them recently. If your framework doesn’t moot the aff, get a better framework please because it’s hard to evaluate the aff impacts v. Aff Reps/Epistemology. No framework read = default to evaluating the plan vs. alt and I’ll intervene when necessary if I don’t find any path forward to a decision given by either side. K tricks don’t really work for me without a really good top-level explanation, because most of the time I’m too dumb to understand them.

TLDR, default ROB = evaluate plan vs. the alt, default ROJ = determine winner of the debate. explain to me because I'm dumb with high-theory. Cap, Racial Cap, SetCol, Psycho, and Death Ks are the Ks I'm familiar with. I'm slightly familiar with Anti-Blackness and Afropessimism, but not 100%, more like 35%.

(aff) K affs == cool, but why is the topic uniquely bad? Why can't the TVA solve? It is my opinion that novices shouldn't be reading a K Aff, but if you read one in front of me, I personally think that W/M and a C/I on T is a terrible strategy compared to impact turning T, I think K v. K Affs is cool. I think performance is able to be evaluated, but you gotta tell me that, and also I think that your performance can just be terrible being a reason I shouldn't evaluate it.

(general) Please utilize CX against the K. I think it's interesting when a K team explains their argument, but they should remember: buzzwords/fancy complex words that aren't things a typical high schooler would know about/understand are always bad. They get lower speaks from me too. AKA, anything ending with "-ology" should be explained, and anything with like over... idk 3 syllables? Just use your judgement.

DA's:

Always great. Maybe it would be fun to just bombard somebody with like 4-5 DAs, but I wouldn’t know. I especially love the all DA 1NR — I think a good 2AC makes it pretty time-pressured which gets all the good arguments and cards read on a position.

Remember the entire DA when answering it. I like to see good offense and smart arguments on all places of the DA. If somebody reads a huge 10-card uniqueness wall in the 2NC for a DA, why bother with the uniqueness debate when you could do a UQ o/ws the link argument?

Yes, yes, you can win 100% risk of defense, but I think that's incredibly hard.

When going for offense, please do in-depth clash.

Example: For a link turn on an Econ DA, why is the link wrong? What effects/parts of the plan counter the link? Be specific. If you're more specific than your opponents on an issue, chances are I'll err your way because I actually know what you're on about.

Also, I love these nice turns case people are always making! Do them analytically. If the 1AR drops them, make it the ballot! Turns-case is lovely.

UQ CPs need to be well-crafted and have a reason that they can't be permed. Most lose to PDB. A contrived reason that they can't be permed is kinda stupid though.

Politics DAs == Love them. Elections and PC tradeoff is what I'm familiar with most.

Impact Turns:
Love them!! Especially the ludicrous ones. Not much to say.

Imo, unethical impact turns aren't a voting issue. Tech over truth means what it means. I'll vote on death good.

Ts/Theory:

No preferences for Ts. I like running them, but unless the aff is like egregiously untopical or they just drop T, I think it's hard to win. I don't have any random prefs like reasonability first or whatever. Just tell me in the 2NR/2AR why your model of debate is good and why their model is bad. This goes for all theory: All theory is is just a debate about models. Why is your model good? Why is their model bad?

T's are good. Convince me. It’s especially interesting when the AFF is definitely 100% topical but you still argue T. Theory arguments are fine, but I would prefer you don't go all in on theory if you still have some other chances of winning elsewhere in the debate. It takes time to understand and, even though the impacts are evaluated first, I would prefer theory as an end-of-the-debate-all-in-nothing-to-lose sort of thing. No, this doesn't mean I err to reasonability, it just means that if I think you could've gone for something else, or had you been winning somewhere else, why would you take the time and extend that theory? I get it if they drop it, but just going for theory for giggles isn't going to get some cool speaker points in lieu for that nice in-depth econ DA debate you could've had rather than the boring condo debate.

Of course, if you're losing, I guess theory is your savior. Just don't forget theory crossapplications.

I like the all T 1NR too, although some people hate it.

General:

Open CX/'Tag-Team' CX is allowed. Don't bulldoze your partner. You're both supposed to know your arguments.

Don't cheat. I always prefer 0 downtime in debates, so do you really need that marked doc? If I can't understand your argument, you should either go for another one or consider a different argument. I won't vote on it if I can't understand it. If you say it, I evaluate it, and I try my best not to do work for you. Slow down on analytics please I'm decent at flowing but I'm not the godly listener-hyper-typer flower. Be clear please!

Sometimes I flow on paper. Sometimes I don't. That shouldn't affect how you give your speech. Give me pen time and time to switch between flows, and clarity please.Justify new arguments if they’re in the 1AR/2NR/2AR. New 2AR arguments aren’t evaluated (the ones that are really new and unjustified, also, new warrants count this way too). Time yourself. I will time you as well. Use Microsoft Word & Verbatim please for sending docs. At the very least, use word and I’ll convert to verbatim. Unformatted docs are not appreciated, and if you don’t send out some cards, chances are I won’t read them. I won't dock speaks if you don't use word + verbatim, I'd just prefer it this way.

I'm fine with fast spreading, but make sure you are clear when you do it. If I can't understand you, I won't count the argument; please make an overview, but don't have a 5 minute long overview. Tech > True unless both sides are over on tech, then I evaluate the truthfulness of the argument. Explain K's completely, don't expect me to know huge vocabulary words (like seriously, what is floccinaucinihilipilification?). I flow and I use speech docs. If you're going to remove analytics from speech docs, slow down on them.

Comprehensive case defense > running as many off-case as possible and practically dropping both advantages

(and extend that case defense too! I love an in-depth case debates! Affirmatives should be ready for in-depth case defense, not just count on too many off-case and low case defense. The way some affs are crafted is just horrifying to me.)

Double DA block == overpowered.

Speaker Points:

Mainly based off of CX and Rebuttals (unless something sticks out to me during the constructives [including 1NR, yes the block is a constructive]). Immediate loss + 0 speaks if any racism, sexism, or any lgbtqphobic things occur (+ cheating). Basically, don’t be offensive and I won’t give you low speaks. Don't do the '-ism's

Just do your best and you'll do well!

Mason Kim ModernBrain

Devin Lai ModernBrain

Timothy Liu ModernBrain

Lauren McBlain Hire

Last changed on Sat January 27, 2024 at 12:15 PM CDT

put me on the email chain laurenmcblain28@gmail.com

Lincoln Park (CDL) 2016-2020

University of Kentucky 2020-present

don't call me "judge," lauren is fine.

Accessibility

preferrable to reduce speed by about 15%

analytics in the doc are appreciated and will result in a .2 speaker point bump

Policy

No experience on the current topic so don't overrely on acronyms or buzz words

Read whatever you want to read - i'll do my best to evaluate all arguments without bias. I have done all kinds of debate.

Tech > truth (mostly) - I have a lower threshold for silly arguments and think a smart analytic can beat a bad card.

T is good, theory is good, disads are good, counterplans are good, abusive counterplans are good, saying abusive counterplans are bad is good, Ks are good, K affs are good, framework is good. Everything that is not racist/sexist/ableist/and/or homophobic is probably good.except for judge kick - do you want me to tell you what to go for too? no thanks. However, if the block says judge kick and the 1AR does not say no judge kick, i will begrudgingly judge kick. if the first i hear of judge kick is the 2nr - the 2ar just has to say 'no' and i will not judge kick.

my voting record on framework is split 50/50.

im biased towards the aff on fairness - i have a hard time believing the aff makes debates procedurally unfair as long as there is a strong connection to the topic. that being said, i'll still vote for it even if i think it's a little silly. best aff strat --- nuanced counter interp that solves limits and ground or just straight impact turns. best neg strat --- tva + switch side.

K v K debates are cool and you should probably still make a framework argument about how to evaluate the round. i do not care if perms exist or not in a methods debate. convince me.

I AM A VERY BAD JUDGE FOR TRICKS --- READ AT YOUR OWN RISK

get your opponents emails and send your case to them before your speech. if you do not do this, i will make you take prep time for anything that exceeds cross time to send evidence back and forth to each other.

Novice

do line by line, respond to all arguments, and extend all parts of your arguments, split the block on the neg, and narrow down what you go for in the final speeches and you will be golden.

Evidence

Sometimes I follow along, sometimes I don't. I tend to only read the evidence when the debate is close or convoluted. Other than that, I think the debating should be left to the debaters in the room, not authors or coaches who cut the cards.

If you read a great piece of evidence but can't explain the warrants and your opponent reads a mediocre piece of evidence and can, I'm more likely to side with your opponent.

Norah Parampath The Quarry Lane School

Thais Perez The Quarry Lane School

Last changed on Tue February 6, 2024 at 12:47 PM EDT

Thais (T.C.) Perez

CSSH'22/Wake'26

Coach @ Quarry Lane

Add to chain:

tcperezdeb8@gmail.com

debate@student.quarrylane.org

I evaluate debates through an offense/defense paradigm. I would consider myself pretty flow centric because I often forget things that were said in speeches otherwise, and it helps me determine how offensive/defensive arguments interact with the rest of the flow. I flow straight down, which means doing line-by-line is the best way to ensure everything you are saying gets written down. Cross-examination is a speech that I listen to intently and flow on a separate sheet; if you refer to moments from the cross-ex during speeches I will look back at that flow so take advantage of cross-ex moments to communicate to me, not the other team. I take a while for decisions, but this is mostly because I have a decision already written and spend time playing devil’s advocate to ensure that I made the correct choice. Sometimes, after this, the decision will change, but the vast majority of the time, it will not.

I can be convinced that many, if not most, arguments are true when judging a debate. Even if it is not true that “ASPEC causes extinction,” if technical debating deems that it does, then I am willing to vote for it. If you cannot prove that ASPEC does not cause extinction, you do not deserve to win the debate. That being said, this requires a warrant and an impact. I am unpersuaded by standalone claims without reasons behind them. This does not necessarily mean you need cards to support your claims, but it does mean that you need to justify what you are saying with some form of logic and explanation.

Before debating in college, I thought my ideas about debate would never change. However, I now understand that I am improving along with this activity, and my thoughts about debate will never be static. I believe that it is important to note that most of the ideas that follow are subject to change as I continue to learn from the activity and the rest of the debate community.

Plan affs:

I prefer it when “turns the case” arguments are substantiated with cards, especially if it is a non-impact turns the case argument [link turns the case/internal link turns the case/etc]. I think the politics disad is one of the more educational arguments in debate when written properly, even if it is not “real-world.”

In plan aff vs K debates, I will almost always look at the framework debate first, then the terminal impact debate. I will resolve the framework debate one way or the other. I find it frustrating and anti-educational when judges unjustifiably say things like “the framework debate was a wash” or “I didn’t know how to evaluate framework, so I weighed the aff and gave the neg links.” Aff teams should not underestimate the power of a well-explained alt solves the case argument.

Non-Plan affs:

Negative teams are always burdened with rejoinder, regardless of whether or not the affirmative reads a plan. Saying otherwise is callous and anti-educational. This is one of my views that will not change.

I do not have thoughts on whether or not clash/education/fairness are impacts or internal links. I do not have an impact preference on framework; proving to me that the ballot can solve your offense is the best way to win.

If you are reading a framework interpretation in a K v. K debate, explain why your method is best to solve or turn the other team’s offense.

Try to ensure that you have offensive reasons for why the perm does not shield the link. It will make your life and my life much easier.

Misc:

I find that debaters often attempt to adapt to their judges by reading a strategy that they are not as prepared for and is often not well-executed. In order to debate as best you can, read the arguments that you are most prepared to defend.

Plan/Aff vagueness is so obnoxious. Don't avoid explaining the mechanism or function of the aff, normal means, or how the theory you endorse interacts with the material. If the other team doesn't know what your aff does, neither will I which means I am likely to limit the scope of solvency to cross-examination and to what solvency evidence says.

I will default to competing interpretations on topicality. An offense/defense paradigm means that the affirmative must have an offensive reason why their interpretation is better than the negative’s. If reasonability is introduced, the affirmative must have justifications for why sufficiency [“good is good enough”] is a better metric for these debates and set clear standards for what reasonability looks like under their model.

I will by default judge kick conditional off case positions. I enjoy plan-specific PICs.

Arthur Qin ModernBrain

William Rieck Woodward Academy

Last changed on Sat May 4, 2024 at 6:11 AM EDT

Second year debater at Woodward Academy.

Add me to the chain: 26wrieck@woodward.edu

Tldr:

None of my argument preferences should affect the way you debate, make sure to clash with your opponents and have fun!

Tech>Truth

Be Clear, especially on tags and important analytics.

All dropped/mishandled arguments need to be impacted out.

If it’s possible use verbatim/word for docs.

Open cross is fine but if your partner is answering all your cross-ex questions it could affect your speaks.

Case:

Not too much to say here. In the 1NC try to get enough case defense instead of trying to outspread your opponents with more off case.

DAs:

Great! I have most experience with politics and econ, but great impact calc and turns case arguments can convince me of just about anything, especially case specific DAs. Make sure you have enough time to extend them, spending two minutes on a DA in the block for time skew probably isn’t a good use of your time.

CPs:

Most of them are great. I love well put together, case specific counterplans but will lean aff on theory and competition for process CP’s.

Ks:

Fine. Make sure to explain all Ks, especially high theory, and lesser-known Ks.

Go for it! I think that T probably isn’t extended enough. Against small affs that avoid core generics, T is often your best bet, but you can still definitely go for it even if, on a truth level the aff is topical.

Ps:

The only situation you should extend the common ones (ASPEC/Vagueness) is if they are dropped or fully mishandled. I can be convinced of procedurals like any other argument.

Impact turns:

There fine. Most things from disads apply. Would love for a in depth shell to be read in the 1NC, a half-baked, 1 card impact turn can be really hard to win even if your opponent only has a few good arguments against it.

Condo:

I get that its really annoying to respond to a big 1NC but I think condo should be a last resort option, still winnable.

Jeremiah Rimpson Hire

Last changed on Fri April 19, 2024 at 11:11 AM EDT

(Assistant) Coach @ Shawnee Mission South

Put me on the email chain :) jrimpson123@gmail.com

TLDR:

Judge instruction, above all else, is super important for me – I think this looks differently depending on your style of debate. Generally, I think clear instruction in the rebuttals about where you want me to focus my attention and how you want me to filter offense is amust. For policy teams I think this is more about link and impact framing, and for more critical teams I think this is about considering the judge’s relationships to your theory/performance and being specific about their role in the debate.

For every "flow-check" question, or CX question that starts with a variation of "did you read..." I will doc you .1 speaker points. FLOW DAMNIT.

General:

I am flexible and can judge just about anything. I debated more critically, but read what you're most comfortable with. I will approach every judging opportunity with an open mind and provide feedback that makes sense to you given your strategy.

I care about evidence quality to the extent that I believe in ethically cut evidence, but I think evidence can come in many forms. I won’t read evidence after a debate unless there is an egregious discrepancy over it, or I've been instructed to do so. I think debaters should be able to explain their evidence well enough that I shouldn’t have to read it, so if I'm reading evidence then you haven't done your job to know the literature and will probably receive more judge intervention from me. That being said, I understand that in policy debate reading evidence has become a large part of judging etc, because I'm not ever cutting politics updates be CLEAR and EXPLICIT about why I am reading ev/ what I should be looking for.

Will have a high threshold for voting for out-of-round violences, but if provided with receipts it's not impossible.

Please know I am more than comfortable“clearing”you. Disclosure is good and should be reciprocated. Clipping/cutting cards out of context is academic malpractice and will result in an automatic loss.

___________________________________________________________________

Truth over Tech -OR- Tech over Truth

For the most part, I am tech over truth, but if both teams are ahead on technical portions of the debate, I will probably use truth to break the tie.

Framework

I think debates about debate are valuable and provide a space for confrontation over a number of debate's disparities/conflicts. A strong defense of your model and a set of specific net-benefits is important. Sure, debate is a game, education is almost always a tiebreaker. Fairness is a fake impact -- go for it I guess but I find it rare nowadays that people actually go for it. I think impact-turning framework is always a viable option. I think both sides should also clearly understand their relationship to the ballot and what the debate is supposed to resolve. At the end of the debate, I should be able to explain the model I voted for and why I thought it was better for debate. Any self-deemed prior questions should be framed as such. All of that is to say there is nothing you can do in this debate that I haven't probably seen so do whatever you think will win you the debate.

Performance + K Affirmatives

Judge instruction and strong articulation of your relationship to the ballot is necessary. At the end of the debate, I shouldn't be left feeling that the performative aspects of the strategy were useless/disjointed from debate and your chosen literature base.

Kritiks

I filter a lot of what I have read through my own experience both in and out of academia. I think it’s important for debaters to also consider their identity/experience in the context of your/their argument. I would avoid relying too much on jargon because I think it’s important to make the conversations that Kritiks provide accessible. I have read/researched enough to say I can evaluate just about anything, but don't use that as an excuse to be vague or assume that I'll do the work for you. At the end of the debate, there should be a clear link to the AFF, and an explanation of how your alternative solves the links -- too many people try to kick the alt and I don't get it. Links to the AFF’s performance, subject formation, and scholarship are fair game. I don’t want to say I am 100% opposed to judging kicking alts for people, but I won’t be happy about it and doubt that it will work out for you. If you wanna kick it, then just do it yourself... but again I don't get it.

Any other questions, just ask -- at this point people should know what to expect from me and feel comfortable reaching out.

Goodluck and have fun!

Rick Rowden Alice Deal

Jet Semrick ADL

Last changed on Fri May 17, 2024 at 2:15 PM CDT

Email: jet.semrick@gmail.com

Coach @ ADL and Taipei American School | Debated @ University of Kansas 2019-2023 and Shawnee Mission East 2015-2019

______________________________________________

Summary:

--My goal is to render a decision without intervention. I will work hard to evaluate and provide helpful feedback for any arguments presented regardless of my opinions. I enjoy judging debates where debaters work hard. Currently, my full time job is to teach and research the high school topic.

--I believe AFFs should be topical and solve a unique problem. The NEG should argue the AFF is undesirable. I am a good judge for any strategy that demonstrates the plan is a bad idea.

--Quality of an argument matters. I am more likely to be persuaded by complete, sound, and logical arguments. However, technical debating can change this predisposition. A dropped claim is irrelevant unless accompanied by a warrant and explanation of how my decision should be impacted.

--Preference for fewer, but more developed positions over many underdeveloped ones. My ideal debate to judge is the topic disadvantage against the largest affirmative on the topic.

--Take the debate seriously. Be reasonable with down time, sending out emails, and please don't send out or ask for a marked doc if it's not needed.

--Ethos, clarity, and strategic decisions will be rewarded with speaker points.

______________________________________________

Policy:

Topicality vs. Plans

Plan text in a vacuum is not a persuasive defense of a non topical AFF.

Topicality debates where I vote NEG are generally not close because of truthful arguments that are difficult to overcome via technical debating. High quality interpretation evidence is important.

Prioritize the internal link over impact explanation. Give examples and context. Ground is the most compelling standard because a 'limits explosion' can be mitigated by the existence of predictable and high quality NEG ground.

Counterplans

Specificity is best. Evidence that compares the CP to the plan is the gold standard. 1AC re-highlightings are persuasive.

Competition debates are boring and I usually vote AFF because the NEG is reading and not debating. I sympathize with the need for process on bad topics, but economic inequality... give me a break.

I will judge kick counterplans unless told otherwise. I think conditionality is bad, but necessary. I am convinced that fiating out of solvency deficits and straight turns in the 2NC is not a good practice. In general, more counterplans equal worse debating and lower speaker points. In truth, I think dispositionality is a better model because it would require more strategic decisions and research on the part of both the AFF and the NEG. However, that does not mean I am more likely to vote AFF in a condo debate. I generally end up voting NEG because conditionality does not make debate impossible and NEG flex is important.

AFF on consult, delay, process, international, word PICs, and fifty state fiat. These are reasons to reject the argument. Debates with a partially intrinsic permutation versus a non-germane process counterplan favor the AFF.

Ideally, the NEG specifies net benefits and establishes competition in the 1NC.

Disadvantages

DA and case 2NRs are the best debates to judge. I enjoy debates about the economy and politics. Mechanically sound DA debating is a lost skill. Turns case is most persuasive when supported by evidence.

The AFF should read offense when answering DAs. If the NEG wins an uncontested link argument, AFF uniqueness arguments are less persuasive because there is always a risk the status quo is stable given the certain instability of the plan. The resolve this problem, disprove the internal link which is typically the weakest part of the DA.

Case

A block and 2NR that prioritizes the case is potent given the AFF trend to be efficient at any cost. Solvency deficits and alt causes are more compelling than impact defense.

If you decide to read a "soft left" AFF make sure the framing page is meaningful. Generic framing arguments are boring and generally still devolve to magnitude x probability. I am more willing than most to vote AFF for a small magnitude high probability advantage vs. a low risk high magnitude DA.

______________________________________________

Critique:

Topicality vs. K AFFs

I want to vote NEG in these debates. I have never been compelled by arguments for why the AFF should not be topical. If the NEG reasonably executes the argument they will receive my ballot.

Fairness is the best impact for T. I am also persuaded by impacts about iteration, research, and clash. Without a predictable AFF constraint, I don't think debate could exist. I think topicality is like a baseball strike zone, its boundaries are not perfectly defined or perfect for either team, but without it the game could not be played in a competitive manner.

In order for the AFF to win, they need to defend a model of debate that provides a valuable role for the NEG, solves AFF offense, and is mutually exclusive with the NEG model. If you are impact turning NEG standards, you must provide a compelling reason why voting for your advocacy resolves your offense.

Critiques vs. Policy AFFs

I will likely weigh the plan. To win, the NEG needs to win link turns case arguments, solvency deficits, or impact turns.

Both teams should have a reason for making a framework argument. The 2NR and 2AR need to give judge instruction for what I should do if you win or lose your framework interpretation. I default to weighing the impacts the plan can solves against the impacts of links that the alternative can resolve. I think the AFF is only responsible for impacts that they make worse.

I think the alternative should materially solve a problem, and am not persuaded by rejection style criticisms. I think linear DAs can be good and can be persuaded by an impact framing argument if you win a non-unique link to the plan.

I am persuaded that the NEG does not get to sever reps if other arguments are explicit contradictions. Examples of this are reading the cap K and growth DA. The AFF should exploit tensions between pages and generate smart DAs to alternatives or link turns.

______________________________________________

Ethics Violations:

I would prefer for debates to be completed and am not interested in judging the moral character of debaters or events that took place outside of the round. I value my role as an educator and will intervene or answer questions mid debate if that leads to an agreeable resolution that allows the debate to continue.

I would prefer to strike evidence rather than end the debate. Questions about qualifications, context, and argument representation should be argued in speeches to undermine the credibility of a position.

If there is a formal ethics challenge by a team, the debate ends. If the challenge is successful, the team who made the challenge wins and receives average speaks. If not, they lose and receive low speaks. I will defer to tab, my experience, and advice of others.

If the issue could have been resolved before the debate and is unintentional, I will likely reject the challenge. If I catch clipping, I will give a warning during the speech under the assumption that debaters are competing in good faith. If there is an egregious pattern or the warning is ignored, I will vote for the other team at the end of the debate.

Narayan Shetty ModernBrain

Michael Siragusa The Pembroke Hill Middle School

Bria Slater Woodward Academy

Last changed on Sat May 4, 2024 at 4:18 PM EDT

Paradigm

University of Miami '25

I am Bria (she, her, hers) and add me to the email chain please — bsslater02@gmail.com

General stuff:

I love judging debates and debates should be enjoyable. With that being said, please be nice to your opponents AND your partner. It is more than okay to be strong while you speak during things like CX, but still be respectful to each other.
Debate how you want to debate, but please note that I am not the best judge for heavy theory arguments.
Of course, don’t run anything offensive/inappropriate.
All I ask speaking wise is for clarity and I will tell you if I need you to speak clearer. Don’t get so caught up in trying go fast if you are no longer clear. I don’t want to have to continuously ask you to be clear.
I am fine with tag teaming during CX but only under certain circumstances. If it doesn’t fall under these circumstances then, please do not speak if it isn’t your turn.

If your partner is completely stumped with a question and is saying nothing, then you may speak.
If your partner is about to say something that may lose the round for you.

Don’t just rely on cards. With that being said, evidence is great! But your entire block shouldn’t just be reading through cards. I will read through the cards, especially if you keep emphasizing one, but reading off nothing but cards won’t get you the debate no matter how good they are. You should explain why your evidence is better. That comes with really knowing and understanding what your evidence is saying.
I don’t really like “sneaky” debaters. Here is a scenario to explain what I mean by this. Pretend I am a debater in the round and I have just made my speech doc and I save that one for me. I then make a copy of that speech doc and remove all the analytics, perm texts, counter interns, and stuff like that so the other team will not see my speech doc. Remember, if you are trying to hide stuff from the other team by removing stuff from your speech doc, you are also hiding it from me. :)
Don’t clip. You never know when I get suspicious of you clipping and when I do, I will watch closely and you don’t want to get caught clipping!!
My motto is even if you do not know what you're doing, just pretend you do :) you'll do better - guaranteed!
Might be an unpopular opinion, but I am more likely than not truth>tech

With everything else, I want you to debate how you want to debate. At the end of the round, I will look at what both teams have presented me and I will make what I believe is the best non-biased decision. Also, I will not debate for you. Do not assume that I will defer to your side for any reason.

Good Luck!

Regan E Slish Hire

Maanyata Srikantam The Quarry Lane School

Last changed on Fri May 3, 2024 at 11:30 AM PDT

add me to the email chain (both please):
mrajusrikantam@gmail.com
qlspolicy@gmail.com

background: currently a 2nd year varsity policy debater for quarry lane (2N/1A) and student coach for novice policy at quarry lane, but briefly did PF and extensively did most speech events + congress for all 3 years of middle school

not novice/tldr: im pretty involved with debate and can probably meet you where you are, so debate how you want---as long as you debate well (judge instruction, clash, weighing) you'll have a fair shot at winning your argument. only slight note for k debate (on aff and neg), ill be good unless its above a mid-level highschool varsity standard. also, i defer judge kick unless debated otherwise. i mostly work with novices so that's what the rest of this paradigm is geared towards, so if you don't think that describes you/its 5 minutes before the round, feel free to skip the rest. good luck!

For Novice Policy (10/20/23): i recommend looking at my pf paradigm below and taking whatever applies to policy out of it. but for a more top-level and policy-debate oriented summary, my most important things/some reminders are:

i am tech > truth --- this essentially means that if an argument is dropped (not answered) by the other team, i wont let them make new responses and will take your argument as the "truth" in the round, giving you the full weight of it. however, you must point out the argument is dropped, explain the argument itself, and tell me why them dropping it is important. just extending it really isn't enough---and this goes for arguments that aren't dropped too. the flip side of this is to make sure that if you think an argument is winning, extend it in the 2nc/1nr for neg or 1ar for aff so that you can have it in the 2nr/2ar---i wont let you make arguments that weren't in previous speeches UNLESS it's a response to a new argument your opponents make.
do weighing and respond to your opponents arguments --- debate is about interacting with your opponents, not having a one-sided monologue. if you aren't comparing your arguments to your opponents (telling me why your evidence is better and their evidence is worse, explaining why your argument matters more than theirs, telling me why the reasoning behind their arguments is stupid, etc), it will be very hard for me to decide the debate. i will reward you making + explaining smart arguments and interacting with your opponent's arguments with high speaks.
extend your arguments fully --- for a DA, that means explaining your uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact—for a counterplan, that means solvency (how does your counterplan solve all of the affs plan) and net-benefit—for a K, that's your link, internal link, alternative, and if you need it, framework—and for topicality, that's your interp, violation, standards, and voter (more on this at the bottom***)—again, if you don't do this, it makes it hard to decide the debate because then i have to intervene and decide whether or not i will give you whatever part of your argument you didn't extend (which means you could lose a round you deserve to win). and again remember, extending an argument isn't just saying the words "link: the plans progressive taxes hurt the IRS" and moving on, but explaining HOW progressive taxes hurt the irs (all your warrants and arguments should come from the card you read before)
collapsing on neg --- i know it's tempting to go for everything in the 2NR, but you need to make a choice and go for one winning argument. that can be a counterplan + DA, just a DA, just the K, just T, or maybe even really explaining a turn or 2 turns you have on case. of course, make sure your arguments are offensive (reasons why the aff is actually bad and i should vote negative) and not just defensive (arguments that minimize how good the aff is/their impacts). if you are going for a DA, it is good to have case for weighing (your impact outweighs or maybe even turns theirs), and for the K or CP, it is good to have case against any solvency deficits (reasons your cp/alt don't solve all the of affs plan). if you're going for t however, you don't need to go for case or anything else at all because t is a procedural argument and is what i will evaluate first.
sending evidence/general in-round logistics --- make sure to adhere to your prep time and time your own prep + speeches---i will also be timing you, but it's a good practice to have. while i won't vote against you for minor and clearly accident clipping (not reading all of the highlighted words in your cards), if you are being really abusive then it's kind of forcing my hand. please just say "mark the card at (the last words you said)" if you want to start reading another card---i really don't want to vote on clipping. send speech docs on the email chain with all cards BEFORE speeches—this applies to any card you read, unless you decide to read it mid-speech (please include analytics for the 1nc/2ac---be kind to your opponents). and lastly, this goes without saying, but racist, sexist, homophobic/transphobic etc. arguments/behaviors will not be tolerated by me and result in bad speaks and/or being dropped.
flow!!!!! --- it's super important to make sure to respond to your opponents arguments and realize that they dropped some of your arguments. i'm gonna decide the round off my flow, so you should plan how to win the round off yours.

NOTE TO NOVICE DEBATORS:having done novice policy extensively myself and currently coaching my own novices, i have a lot of sympathy for novice policy debaters. i know this type of debate is hard to grasp and i want to do my best to help you understand it, so that you can enjoy policy and stay in the event if it's for you. please feel free to ask me questions post round, whether or not its about the debate that just occurred or my decision---ill be happy to answer any policy-related questions you may have :) as we can see from my paradigm, i'll definitely have a lot to say. best of luck in all your rounds!

***note for topicality, conditionality, and theory, if you're kind of lost: yes, if topicality is dropped by the aff or condo is dropped by the neg, i will automatically vote for the neg (for topicality) and aff (for condo) as long as you extend everything you need for it. i'll explain that below, but my recommendation for novice is that you justread your entire block from the 1nc/2ac to make sure you got everything (minus the cards on t---dont reread them, just read the tags of the cards). anyways, if you want a more thorough explanation: extend your interp (for topicality, this is usually a definition that is the first card you read in the 1NC [ex: job guarantee does not include job training], and for condo, it's the top or bottom line [condo ex: unconditionality/dispo/1 or 2 worlds solves]), explain why the other team doesn't meet your interp, also known as the violation (for t, this will be like "the aff violates---they include job training" or for condo "they are conditional and read 3 counterplans", your standards (which are probably prewritten and something like limits/ground for topicality, or depth/time skew for condo---make sure to explain them, or again, just reread your block from previous speeches) and your voter (essentially your impacts, probably fairness or education, but as long as you say the words "this is a voter" ill vote on it). theory is the same (interp, violation, standards, voter) but i'll be really hesitant to vote against the other team on it unless when you read your theory block in the 2ac/2nc/1ar, it says "this is a voter" or you yourself say "this is a voter"---otherwise, ill just reject the argument its on (probably the K or CP) but not vote completely against them on this issue. i love t and theory and can pretend to like condo, so if you have any questions, i'll be delighted.

For PF (4/2/23): tech > truth. i will judge off the flow. debate the way you want, but keep in mind that i am coming from policy and you should treat me like a tech judge. having been on the receiving end of interventionist rfds myself, i will strive to keep my personal bias to a minimum. however, that means that YOU have to do the work for me. do weighing. tell me what arguments matter more and why. be comparative. i value and reward the explanation and implication of arguments. don't just extend arguments—explain their importance and how it impacts the round. quality > quantity. on that note, make sure you are extending arguments correctly and fully (uniqueness/link/ILs/impact). i am good with speed/spreading, and i will be okay to judge a theory/k debate as long as it's no more than a JV-policy level debate. i err disclosure good and paraphrasing bad, though you are welcome to try and change my mind, i won't hack for them. send speech docs with cut cards BEFORE speeches—this applies to any card you read, unless you decide to read it mid-speech. have warrants to back up your claims. i don't really have a tolerance for bad evidence ethics, so send those docs and don't misrepresent your cards. frontline in the second rebuttal. if you go for an argument without frontlining defense, and then your opponents extend that defense, i will evaluate it as conceded defense. any argument that isn't responded to in the next speech, besides 1st constructive, i will consider dropped. offensive args in final focus must be in summary, and defense isn't sticky. any argument you want in the ballot must be extended in summary AND final focus, including dropped defense. take advantage of dropped offense + collapse! both are strategic decisions and i will reward them if they call for it. dont steal prep or be disrespectful. this goes without saying but racist, sexist, homophobic/transphobic etc. arguments/behaviors will not be tolerated by me and result in bad speaks and/or being dropped. admittedly, i am actually really intrigued by pf cross and all its theatrics. however, i won't evaluate cross unless it's brought up in a speech.

lastly, feel free to post-round me! i think its highly educational and good for debate. good luck everyone!

p.s. yes i know this pf paradigm is practically a copy of sachi patel's---she is and probably always will be my best connection to PF :)

Anna Stockstill Hire

Lane Tharp Woodward Academy

Sterling Utovac ModernBrain

Last changed on Fri May 3, 2024 at 5:44 AM PDT

Update MSTOC '24

firepowerx2@gmail.com

"We have Alex Borgas at Home" Alex Borgas at home:

I debate(d) for Peninsula, I won a few tournaments and broke at TOC. I qualified to CHSSA, somehow.

"I agree with my coach on everything" section - see Gordon Krauss, Rayeed Rahman, or Jared Burke

CX, then LD, then CX then LD.

My history in this activity is just Lay -> Phil -> K -> Theory -> Kant/Critical Combo -> LARP with varying degrees of success.

Operating Procedure

I like debate. Here because I want to be here. Will give your speeches full attention. Taken from Pat's paradigm, "That means I will not be half-flowing speeches while texting friends, I will not be checking Twitter or spacing out during CX, I will not "rep out", and I will not rush my decision to get back to my own team faster"

Definitely on paper in person, 60-40 towards paper for online debate. Indifferent to being on the chain.

How do I win? (MOST IMPORTANT)

Respect. It's good. But so is answering arguments in the order they were made. Tell me why you win.

Policy 2023-24

Background. Cut lots of cards for this, I know a lot of the core affirmative and negative positions on the topic. I didn't debate this topic as much as I wanted to due to circumstances beyond my control, but I'm confident in my adjudication ability as I've spent many weekends thinking about it.I worked with some younger debaters to various degrees / did pre-round prep / cut cards / drills. These kids ran Poly-Crisis and Degrowth.

Econ, Politics, and Elections need updated uniqueness evidence - reading cards from last yar when your opponent has one from last week puts you in a difficult spot.

Second constructive should leverage positions in your first. Sandbagging is terrible. You should present your best version of your argument as soon as possible. I don't understand why you need eight "econ high now" or "biden wins now" cards in the 1NR but you do you.

I dislike novice T debates because no one does any weighing or line by line at all. If this isn't you, this is a challenge to change my mind. I dare you, and if you succeed in this endeavor you will receive no less than a 29.1. Please don't use topicality or theory to exclude less experienced debaters.

2NRs should get to the case and 2ARs should get to the disadvantage -reiterating your points means nothing amidst uncontested points by your opponent.

Condo prob not that good but not that bad.

If you're reading like > 5 off case positions in novice consider why and how this will help you or your opponents learn... but also they have eight minutes to answer it so tough luck for them I guess? If this paradigm says anything it's that I prefer depth.

I do/did this. Topic familiarity high.

Will evaluate after 1NC; 2AR is "after 1NC"

Do anything

Phil/LARP > K > T/Th >> Substantive Tricks >>>>> Theoretical Tricks

Theory prob DTD. Make reasonability offense.

I'm the only person associated with my school in many, many years who gives a damn about philosophical arguments. Like, I read these. I also read the books they're cut from, and I think they're an integral yet unfortunately fading part of this activity. Cards are cool but like you don't need them. I really don't get the obsession with "I have a card and you don't" - like we're all smart people who can justify things...

Micah Wang ADL

Skye Warner The Avery Coonley School

Last changed on Sun May 5, 2024 at 3:13 PM CDT

20250944@student.nths.net - New Trier ‘25 - they/she/he

tldr:

Be kind, above all.
Tech > truth, except in certain circumstances below
Explain your violation and impacts under theory
you should probably strike me in a K aff debate
My tech > truth ideology peaks in T
explain your Ks
CPs + DAs are chill
I won't vote on death good
constructives are for constructing, rebuttals are for rebutting
relax. have fun.

people who have significantly impacted my thoughts on debate, in no particular order, include Aaron Vinson, Tim Freehan, Dave Weston, Margaret Jones, Rocky Shapiro, Nick Wilson, Josh Clark, Scott Phillips, Becca Steiner, and Whit Whitmore. do with that what you will

First and foremost:

I will never tolerate racism, sexism, classism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, or general xenophobia. I will email your coach, auto-L, and give you the lowest speaks possible. Debate should be a safe space for people to have fun, not to be attacked. I will stop the round if you do anything that makes the debate space unsafe.

Death good = auto-L, lowest speaks possible, email to your coach. In light of the whole LASA vs wichita east debacle, anything, where if i look at it and think that my 2AC against death good could apply, counts as death good. 2Ns, don’t look at this and think ‘but could it be a throwaway?’ Don’t force debaters to deal with that, you have no clue what people are going through and making the debate space violent and unsafe is the antithesis of why I do debate in the first place. If the 1N reads death good, but i hear the 2N refusing to extend it, 29.5+ speaks to the 2N, or vice versa.(you’ll still lose, though).

Novice version:

Honestly, novice year is the hardest year, and I do not want to make that worse, so please don't adapt your strategy to anything here and if you show up, I think you're doing fantastic. You've got this, good luck, and above all, have fun!!

Theory:

In this instance, you really need to explain to me why what they did screwed you over and probably the farthest I get from tech>truth. Why did a neg generic PIC make it so unfair that you should win the round because they ran it? Is 1 condo advocacy that bad? Should your one-sentence hidden aspec be given enough weight to earn a whole ballot? You can win this, but know that the more teams that have won against it, the more the odds are stacked against you. In-round abuse will change this, though. If the neg ran 15+ condo, weaponized perfcon, or ran ten new 2NC CPs with no justification other than ‘condo!’, something like that, run theory and you have a decent shot.

If you're doing a condo 2AR when the neg didn't drop condo, I probably already mentally voted neg, and ifthe aff takes over 20 seconds of prep for the 2AC, I won’t like it if you try to argue infinite prep time.

Case:

read a good aff, please.

K affs:

I should know what your aff does coming out of the 2AC at maximum, and preferably out of 1AC cx. Especially here, I won't penalize speaks for 2Ns saying 'what is this' and you should respond with something that would be understandable to someone who hasn't read your lit(e.g. don't say 'we advocate for a method of corporeal care', say 'we advocate for creating a space for caring about the condition of humans')

Topicality is capital T true, maybe one of the most true arguments in debate, and both teams know it. Please, act like it. I don’t care whether you go for clash or fairness, as long as you have an impact. Most of the time I go for clash, so if you choose that route, I’m better versed there. I’ll still vote on the flow, so aff teams, you can win.

If you say that your survival hinges on an aff ballot, I will be uncomfortable for the rest of the debate.

But honestly, if you read a k aff, you should probably strike me. I don’t believe that these arguments should be ran in novice debate.

In general, I don’t like these debates, and reading dictionary definitions after a round isn’t that fun. But if an aff is genuinely untopical and you're sure that their strategy against all of your offense will be 'no link', go for it!

Ks:

I default to the judge is a policymaker, the aff can weigh the plan, and the neg gets whatever fiat they want, but can be convinced otherwise with good debating and warrants. I'm more familiar with cap and security, so other Ks need more explanation. Side note, if you use words that wouldn't be recognizable to anyone who hasn't read your literature(like simulacra in Baudrillard) then please explain them in the block, not the 2NR, otherwise the aff's job is much harder.

pronounce kritik like critic or cricket and I'll boost your speaks +0.2, and ask Len Livshits or Lindsay Ye why.

CP + DA + ! turns:

For process CPs, I’m aff-leaning on perms, and neg-leaning on theory. For all other CPs, I’m neg-leaning on theory and perms, and aff-leaning on solvency or offense. You need to tell me to judgekick and use sufficiency framing. It’s two sentences and is probably already in your 2NC O/V. If you think that the competition debate is messy, just go to why your standards outweigh theirs(ie- neg bias) and what your standards are.

If your adv CP doesn’t have a solvency advocate, you are the solvency advocate, and I treat the CP’s solvency as such. fyi ;)

100% or 0% risk only exists if the argument was dropped or kicked.

but like...who dislikes adv CPs + econ DA?

2Rs:

Be nice, don't lie, framing my ballot at the beginning of the speech is always a good idea- don't let your opponents decide what the round is about.

Arguments need a claim and warrant in earlier speeches for you to win extending them. eg. ‘CP can’t solve i-law, moving on’ in the 1AR without ‘it’s not a clear signal’ means that I won’t give the 2AR ‘it’s not a clear signal’. I’ll auto-strike new arguments off my flow for the 2AR, so 2Ns, don’t worry. This also goes for the 2NR- you’re not allowed to make up new net benefits or add a fw DA.

This is technically the 1AR, but honestly idk where else to put this- my bar for a warrant in the 1AR is significantly different from the 2AR. For example, states CP. If the 1A says the words ‘extend perm do both - looks like federal follow-on so it shields the nb, done by federal funding and state implementation’ and then answers the neg’s reasons why pdb fails, that is all the explanation I need and the 2AR is clear to extend pdb. I’m a 1A, I get it, 1ARs are hard.

If your 2R is less than five sentences and you win, you’re getting a very high 29. If you lose, medium to very low 28. If the 2NR is less than five sentences and is about to win, but the 2AR somehow pulls off something amazing, everyone’s getting 29.7+ :)

Speaks:

Arguing with your partner will shred your speaks- especially if they're giving the final speech. I don't care if they dropped condo, took 1NR/1AC/1NC(especially 1NC prep can be quite useful, if used well) prep, or went for the thing youthinkwill lose you the debate. You're not helping them nor yourself.

It is very, very, very easy to make me laugh, and this is under the speaks header. Do with that what you will.

I’m a very expressive judge, to the point where if you look at me during the other team’s speech, I’ll probably look back and signal if I buy the argument they’re making or not. Also, I LOVE eye contact during your speeches bc it makes me feel like we’re friends, pls do that and your speaks will look like you’re my friend :)

But I will give high speaks. My baseline is 29, and if you ask post-round I’ll tell you what you got

CX:

Speaking over and then proceeding to repeat exactly what your partner would have said in cx will hurt speaks and almost always what the 1A speaking during 2AC cx or 1N during 2NC cx is like.

Yes open cx, don’t abuse that. The 2N shouldn’t answer all of the questions in 1NC cx.

I will never dock your speaks for asking 'what is this' questions in cross, but it will hurt your ethos if you ask the 1N to explain a core neg generic.

CX is binding, UNLESS the team goes back on what they said immediately and unanimously. Otherwise, you're tied.

I can tell when your varsity just gave you a list of cx questions and told you to ask them, and it’ll hurt your speaks if you do that. Yes, cx is hard, but you need to start out by struggling through it, and ultimately you’ll get way better!

Other:

I’m cool with sending cards in the body of the email.

The more prep time you steal, the less time I have to make my decision, and that favors the team that didn’t steal prep. you’re not just cheating, you’re hurting yourself.

Uncarded arguments are still arguments, but they will probably lose to carded ones. You're a high schooler, 'i’m the solvency advocate' arguments require a LOT of ethos.

Please please please, if you have a blippy 1AC/1NC/2AC, come back from it. This is why I love debate- things can change so quickly and I love being in rounds where people do. Especially this year, it’s kind of a running joke at NT that me and my partner get the worst pairings(at our first 2 tournaments, we faced 8 teams on the coaches’ poll). We didn’t give up until the final speech. You can too.

Run what you're cool with, kick what you're not, and make your 2R the best it can be!

glhf :)

current bias:

Policy v policy: 11-9 neg

Policy v K: 1-1

K v policy:

K v K: 1-0 neg

Courtney Woolridge Alice Deal

Frank Yan The Quarry Lane School

Sam Yan The Quarry Lane School

Eric Youngquist The Avery Coonley School

Last changed on Sat February 17, 2024 at 9:08 AM CDT

Hi everyone who is reading my paradigm,

My email is eyoungquist@averycoonley.org for the email chains.

I’ve been coaching policy debate for six years at the Avery Coonley School in Downers Grove, IL (it's a middle school). I’ve also judged a few rounds of high school Public Forum. I kind of fell into the job as a debate coach- I didn’t have any debate experience in high school or college. I've taught Literacy for 16 years, and social studies for the last three.

That being said, please treat the debate room like a classroom in terms of behavior and decorum. If the way you are acting would not fly at your school, don't do it in front of me. Debate can get heated, the CX can get pointed, but outright rudeness, swearing, etc. will come with penalties.

In terns of judging-I always view debate through the lens of a solid analytical argument, just like I would in my classroom. I need a cohesive argument, solid support, analytics, and a breakdown of why your argument is superior to your opponents’ argument. An “A” debate should look like an “A” paper.

Two things I don’t like to hear are extremely fast talking and cards that don’t support their tags. It’s great that you got through a lot of evidence and tried to put a lot of things on the flow sheet, but if you are only reading a sentence or two from each card and it doesn’t add up, it’s not a real argument. I need depth. I need CLASH.

I am really against fast reading. If you words are jumbling together and I can't make it out, it's not going on my flow. If I can't make out what you are saying, I am going to give you a "clear." If it continues, I'll give you a second one. Beyond that, I will disregard it if I can't make it out.

The round is going to go to the group that clearly lays out their argument (love signposting) and advances their ideas clearly while pointing out the flaws in their opponents’ presentation.

I’ll take T’s and K attacks that are on topic and make a valid point, but don't try to shoehorn something in just because it's what you always do. If their case is barely hanging on to being topical, go for it. Can you make a legit critique with some SOLID links? Go for it. Just don't get too esoteric on me, and MAKE SURE THE LINK IS SOLID (yes, I said it again)!!! Blocks of jargon with no real tie to the case will not work.

Please don't run a "K" Aff on me.

Tyler Zabolio The Quarry Lane School

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 2:40 PM EDT

I am currently a Policy Debater at Gonzaga University and am coaching at Niles West High School

TLDR

Yes email chain - tzdebatestuff@gmail.com

Time yourself and time your opponents

I have experience with most types of arguments but don't assume I have read your author/lit already. Explain your theory/complex legal args in language that is understandable

Impact calc wins rounds

speed is fine but outside of policy it's cringe

Tech over truth within reason (ie a dropped arg with no warrant or impact doesnt matter)

I don't care at all what you say and will vote on anything that is not immediately and obviously violent

Not a fan of the super-aggressive debate style - unless executed perfectly it comes off as cringe 99.9% of the time

Judge instruction please

Some of the most interesting debates I have judged have been T debates against policy teams. In a perfect world the negative should explain what the in round implications of the untypical aff were as well and probably more importantly what it would mean for debate if their interpretation was the new norm.

Going for T doesnt mean you cant extend a case turn youre winning

I probably agree that a ton of small affs would be bad

I have read both policy and K affs but recently have been reading majorly critical arguments

Debating about debate is cool but if it is distracting from x scholarship it is less cool

Bad K affs are not cool but good K affs are cool

K affs that don't address the resolution/stem from topic research are not good

I find myself pretty split in FW v K Aff debates. If the aff sufficiently answers/turns FW I have no problem voting aff to forward a new model of debate. I find this specifically true when the 1AC has built-in or at least inferential answers to fw that they can deploy offensively.

At the same time if the negative does good FW debating and justifies the limits their model imposes I feel good voting on FW. I am not convinced that reading FW in and of itself is violent though I recognize the impact these arguments may have on x scholarship which means that when this gets explained I am down to evaluate the impacts of reading these types of arguments but I don't think its a morally bankrupt argument to go for or anything like that.

Debate bad as an argument is not convincing to me, we are all here by free will and we all love debate or at the very least think it is a good academic activity. This does not mean you cannot convince me that there are problems within the community .

Switch side debate probably solves your impact turn to framework - affs that undercover SSD put themselves in a really tough spot. I often find myself rewarding strategic 2NR decisions that collapse on SSD or the TVA (or another argument you may be winning).

Theory

Theory is good.

If you read like 6 reasons to reject the team I think some warrants are necessary. ex:"Reject the team, utopian fiat bad" is not an argument

If you are going to go for a theory arg in a final rebuttal ensure your partner extended it substantially enough for you to have adequate arguments to go for or give a nuanced speech on the specific args extended by your partner - generalized rebuttals on theory are bad. At the same time I am cool with hailmary rebuttals on theory because you are getting destroyed in every other part of the debate

I tend to lean neg on condo stuff but not by much

Will vote on perf con

Dont read your theory blocks at 2 million wpm

Bonus points for contextualizing your theory args to the round they are being deployed in

If you want to go for theory spend more than 7 seconds on it when you are first deploying the argument

Cool with a 1 off and case strat

Kritiks are cool

Vague alts are annoying and if I cant understand how the alt solves case and you don't have good case stuff I am gonna have a tough time voting neg unless the link debate implicates that (and is articulated)

Explain links in clear terms and be specific to the aff you are hitting. Specific links are better than generic like state bad links but if you have a generic link please explain to me how the aff uniquely makes the situation WORSE not just that it doesnt make it better - these are different things

I am totally cool with performance and love me some affect but if you are reading cards about how performance is key to X and your whole "performance" is playing like 10 seconds of a song before your 1AC and you don't reference it again then I am cool voting neg on "even if performance is good yall's was trash" (assuming this arg is made lol)

Winning FW is huge but you still need to leverage it as a reason for me to vote on X. Just because you are "winning" FW doesn't mean I know how you want me to evaluate args under this paradigm. So, when you think you are winning FW explain how that implicates my role as the judge.

CPs are great but 10 plank conditional counterplans are kinda silly.

2nc CPs (or CP amendments) are lit

Advantage CP defender

DAs are awesome and CP DA strat is a classic

UQ is extremely important to me. A lot of links are ignorant to UQ so explain the link in the context of the UQ you are reading

Explain your impact scenario clearly - bad internal links to terminal impacts r crazzzzzy

I did PF in HS but it was trad so I am likely going to evaluate the round through a policy lens.

Will vote on theory

Cool with K stuff

Pretty much same as PF - never did LD but I have judged it a ton so I will likely judge how you instruct me to but default to a policy lens.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Debate is hard and stressful but relax and be confident and have fun!

Feel free to email me with any questions tzdebatestuff@gmail.com

Iris Zhang The Quarry Lane School

Last changed on Fri May 17, 2024 at 3:58 AM PDT

QLS 24 | USC 28

Policy (3yrs) and PF (1 yr).

Email Address: zleyi0121@gmail.com ; debate@student.quarrylane.org

I learned everything I know about debate from Chris Thiele - his paradigm is 1000x more detailed than mine will be.

Top Level (TLDR):

- Tech > Truth

- OpenSource is good. Paraphrase is bad

- Speech Doc is mandated. Please set up an email chain before the round starts and send all your cards and evidence for each speech.

- Don't steal prep and time your speech

- Speed is okay with me (ie: normal high school/college spreading, so don't read spreading theory against your opponent pls. it's dumb.) Just be clear and be slower at the tag and analytics. (Notice English is my second language.) Quality>Quantity.

- Please Line by line the argument. Don't drop arguments and bring up brand-new stuff in your last speech.

- I have no offense with most arguments. You may say, "human extinction is good" or "xx country is evil." I am cool with animal and alien impact as well. At least you should follow the structure of "author+claim+warrants+data+impact."

- Won't judge kick unless getting instruction

- (MS/Novice rounds)

1. I don't believe in the stock issue. Sorry. How people debate in recent TOC/NDT is the only pattern of debate I learned.

2. Collapsing is important: I found many teams choose to go for all the things they have at the beginning to the end for both aff and neg, but none of the flow is fully developed. pls don't do that. Extend more than 2 offs in the 2NR is a signal of losing my ballot.

- Not a huge fans for overview. Just need one sentence in the top of the 2nr/2ar instructed me how I should write my ballot and why you win the debate.

- Cool with Post-Round. I think it's pretty educational. However, the question should be a more technical base regarding the argument. Instead of "I said this in my speech. did you not flow it?" (Truth: I post-round when I am a debater. I think it's more a process of self-validation. The ballot won't change, but I would tell you I made a wrong judgement if I truly think I made a wrong decision. The chance would be pretty rare though.)

For policy specific:

Topicality

- Prefer competing interpretations. Offense/Defense + weighing is better than just going for reasonability.

- More evidence + card comparison determine the truth usually

- In-round abuse is good, but you don't need it to win my ballot.

Theory

- I will vote on theory. However, if you are going to run really weird theories, you should consider either you have amazing standards and warranting or the other team screwed up.

- I prefer to be more offensive in theory. The same goes for topicality. Competing for an interp is definitely stronger than saying we meet.

- Condo: real theory arg, but I am really bad at going for it as a debater. I think the condo is a winning strategy for me only when the neg team drops (auto win or T > Condo?) or the neg off case span is extremely abusive. You can still extend condo and go for it, but my threshold for neg to get away with it in 2NR would be low.

- For independent theory on off case (eg. fifty state fiat and process cp bad), "reject the arg not the team" is sufficient for me if the neg team is not going for it.

Framework

- Powerful tool if you utilize it well. (Fun facts: I had ran a policy aff with 2min case + 6min FW in high school)

- Winning a well-developed FW would determine how I eveluate every argument in the round

- If you want to win the framework, you should contetualize with your opponents' counter fw and explain why your fw is less arbitary and produce better education, policymaking, etc for debate.

- Policy Aff Vs K: There's a really high threshold for me to agree not to weigh the aff, but if the aff team drops your FW, then nvm. (Truth: I hate FW. Every 2N told me I couldn't weigh anything.)

- FW Vs K Aff: Naturally, I prefer to go for Clash and TVA. Fairness can be an impact but less for me, especially when debate collapse on subjectivity change. History already show us K Aff won't completely disappear by reading more FW. Question more down to why the alternative model of debate is more important than the k. The only two true internal links for me on the neg are ground and limit. (Truth: everyone read FW against me I hate FW, but still go for it b/c I hate k v k more)

Case

- I think it's really hard for neg to know more about the case than aff does. If neg has an amazing case neg, I will reward the team.

- Go in-depth into the argument. Card comparisons are always effective. Weighing should not be later than 1AR.

- It would never be wrong to go for a DA. Go hard on weighing + turn case!!

- Follow basic offense + defense pattern

- I feel like DA is the only section that is truth > tech for me. The evidence is the most essential part. The more recent cards plus good warrants always change the uniqueness and control the link.

- My favorite off strat, go on competition

- I hate random cheating cp, especially when there are more than 6 offs. However, go for it when you need to win. (Truth: I also run these cps myself as 2N, but I still hate them when I need to answer them)

- Perm: prefer"perm to do both," "perm to do cp," and "perm to do the plan and part of the cp." You can read other forms of perms, but I don't think that's a winning strategy. (edit: if the plan is a process or devolution cp, i may buy intrinsic perm if u go well on theory)

- Prefer more plan based link.

- Both sides can fiat the alt. Prove to me how the alt solves the k and the case better compared to the plan. Of course, you don't need an alt to win the debate. I will treat the K like a philosophical DA if you don't go for alt; then weighing and framework is important. FW prefer weigh the aff against the alt. If your A strat is win the fiat K and "you link you lost," I am probably not the best judge for you.

- Perm is generally just served for checking uncompetitive alternatives.

- Ethics violation: If someone's discourse/behaviors has been called out as an ethical issue, I think an apology should always come first. If the situation falls into a deadlock, I would prefer to stop the round and call the tab instead of treating it as a link.

KAffs

- I debated K aff throughout my junior year, so I think I am somewhat familiar with it. I think K aff is pretty interesting, even though most of the time, it will end up collapsing on t-usfg. Statistically, 90% of the time, I am answering the framework, so I will still vote on it if you run it well. On neg, I usually run T against K aff, but you are free to run anything else.

LD:

- I have no experience with LD debate or topic, so I may judge based on policy standards. This means I will still try my best to understand your argument, but better no trick and philosophy.

Be respectful

Have fun!

Login to Tabroom

Middle School TOC hosted by UK

2024 — Online, KY/US

Policy Debate Paradigm List

Judges