Tabroom.com

Junior National Championships

2024 — Coppell, TX/US

Policy Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Iliyan Ali Greenhill School 4 rounds

Neha Bachu Greenhill School 2 rounds

Erick Berdugo Hire 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 3:14 PM EDT

My judging philosophy is first built on the approach that debaters define the debate. This means I generally do not have any predisposition against anything within the context of the debate. Hence, I do NOT push an agenda. The arguments presented before me are to be engaged by both sides and analysis should be given whereby I should either reject or accept those arguments. This means arguments for or against should be well developed and structured logically. There needs to be a clear framework, but this is only the first level. Impacts and disadvantages need to fit within this framework. They need to be developed and consistent within the framework.

If there is one thing I do not like, blip arguments. These are essentially glorified tag lines that have no analysis behind them, where then a debater claims a drop of this 'argument' becomes a voter for them. For me: no analysis = no argument thus is not a voter. However, if within the context of the debate both debaters do this they lose the right to complain about me intervening. So, take heed, do this and I will allow myself to insert how these blips should be pieced together and the analysis behind them.

There needs to be clash. Far too often debaters do not really analyze. Generally, people view good debates where the flow shows responses to everything. I view this as a fallacy. There should be analysis as to how the arguments interact with each other in regards to the line by line debate and hopefully build a bigger view of the entire debate. Again, it is the debater's job to fine tune how everything pieces together. Specifically, I prefer hearing voters that are in some way intertwined versus a bunch of independent voters. Yet, though, I prefer intertwined voters it does not mean independent voters could not subvert or outweigh a good story.

Things I have voted for AND against

K - I actually like a good K debate. However, I do warn debaters that often I see people run K's they have no reason running because they themselves do not really understand them. Further, as a theme, debaters assume I am as familiar with the authors as they are. Not true. Rather, I feel it imperative that the position of K be well articulated and explained. Many debaters, read a stock shell that lacks analysis and explanation. NEW - Alts need to be clear as to what they will cause and what the world of the alt will look like. Nebulous Revolutions will not sway me, because you will need to have some solvency that the revolution will lead to the actual implementation of the new form of thought.

counter plans - I have no problem with these in the world of LD.

Topicality - I generally stand within the guidelines of reasonability. Muddy the waters and that’s what I will likely default to.

Role of the Ballot - At its heart I think the ROB is a paradigm argument or more simply a criterion argument so that even if one on face wins it does not guarantee a win because the opposite side can in the venue of the debate meet the criterion or ROB. However, the ROB I tend not to like are ones devolve the debate into pre fiat and post fiat debate. I tend towards post fiat worlds in close debates.

RVI - Again this less so, an RVI for seems to be justified within the context of some blatant abuse. As an analogy I have to see the smoking gun in the offenders hand. If it not clear I will side with a standard model. To date I have not voted on an RVI as of 1/05/2024

Understand, I honestly do approach all arguments as being justifiable within the confines of a debate. However, arguments I will on face reject are arguments whose sole objective (as a course or an objective for gain) is to oppress, murder, torture or destroy any class or classes of people. That is to say you know what you are doing and you are doing it on purpose.

I'd say that the realm of debate is for students to engage and craft. As I am no longer a competitor my bias, if it exist, should only intercede when debaters stop looking at human beings as genuine but rather as some abstract rhetoric.

Feel free to ask me some questions. but understand I'm not here to define what will win me. Good well structured argumentation that actually engages the other side are the types of debates I find most interesting. It's your world you push the paradigm you want. My voting for it or against it should not be interpreted as my support of the position beyond the confines of the debate.

Personal Narratives - I am not a fan of these arguments. The main reason, is that there is no way real way to test the validity of the personal narrative as evidence. Thus, if you introduce a personal narrative, I think it completely legit the personal narrative validity be questioned like any other piece of evidence. If you would be offended or bothered about questions about its truth, don't run them.

Communication - I believe in civility of debate. I am seeing an increasingly bad trend of students cursing in debates. I fundamentally, think High School debate is about learning to argue in an open forum with intellectual honesty and civility. The HS debate format is not one like private conversations between academics. I reject any belief that the competitive nature of the debate is like a professional sport. Cursing is lazy language and is a cheap attempt to be provocative or to fain emphasis. Thus, do not curse in front of me as your judge I will automatically drop you a point. Also, most people don’t know how to curse. It has its place just not in HS debate.

So what about cards that use curse words? Choose wisely, is the purpose because it is being descriptive of reporting actual words thrown at persons such as racial slurs. I will not necessarily be bothered by this, however, if it is the words of the actual author, I advise you to choose a different author as it is likely using it to be provocative versus pursing any intellectual honesty.

I do not have a have a problem with spreading. However, I do not prompt debaters for clarity as it is the debaters responsibility to communicate. Further, I think prompting is a form of coaching and gives an advantage that would not exist otherwise. If on the off chance I do prompt you (more likely in a virtual world) You will be deducted 1 speaker point for every time I do it. If the spread causes a technical issue with my speakers - I will prompt once to slow it down without penalty, only once.

NEW: 1/29/21

My email is erick.berdugo@gpisd.org and erickberdugo01@gmail.com for email chains. I am now putting myself part of the email chain due to virtual tournaments and to help overcome technical issues regarding sound. However, please understand I will NOT read along. I have it there for clarification if a audio issue arises during the speech. I still believe debaters should be clear when speaking and that speaking is still part of the debate.

I will automatically down a debater that runs an intentionally oppressive position. IE kill people because the world sucks and it’s bad to give people hope. However, if a person runs a position that MIGHT link to the death of thousands is not something I consider intentional.

NEW - 1/29 7:30PM Central Time

DISCLOSURE - Once parings come out. If you are going to make contact with your opponent requesting disclosure you need to CC me on the email chain: erick.berdugo@gpisd.org and erickberdugo01@gmail.com. Unless I am part of the request I will NOT evaluate the validity of the disclosure inside the round. If you do not read my paradigm and you run disclosure and your opponent does read this. They can use this as evidence to kick it directly and I will. This means they do not have to answer any of the shell.

I expect folks to be in the virtual debate room 15 minutes prior to the debate round. I especially expect this if a flip for sides has to be done. We as a community need to be more respectful of peoples time and of course from a practical matter allows an ability to solve technical issues which may arise.

NEW UPADATE 2/11/2022

Evidence - So, folks are inserting graphs and diagrams as part of their cases. I have no issue with this. However, unless there is analysis in the read card portion or analysis done by the debater regarding the information on the graph, diagram, figure, chart etc. I will not evaluate it as offense or defense for the debater introducing these documents. Next, if you do introduce it with analysis, it better match what you are saying. Next, as a scientist I am annoyed with graphs using solid lines - scientist use data points as the point actually represents collected data. A solid line suggest you have collected an infinite amount data points (ugh). The only solid line on graphs deemed acceptable are trend lines, usually accompanied with an equation, which serves as a model for an expected value for areas for which actual data does not exist.

Special Notes:

You are welcome to time yourself. However, I am the official time keeper and will not allow more than a 5 second disparity.

When you say you are done prepping I expect you are sending the document and will begin with a couple of seconds once your opponent has confirmed reception of the document. This means you have taken your sip of water and your timer is set.

COMMUNICATION WITHIN THE ROUND - I understand when debating virtually where one is set up is not always going to be an ideal situation. However, one should not be communicating within anyone other than ones own partner. There should be zero communication with someone not in the debate. This means those chat boxes need to be off. I understand there is no way to police this situation, however, please remember it looks poorly and you never want to have doubt cast upon your ethical behavior. Also, its just disrespectful.

Last updated 2/11/2022 6:23 PM - Most of the changes are due to poor grammar.

Berdugo

Siddarth Bidare ModernBrain 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 9:41 AM EDT

St. Mark's '24

Tech > Truth, I'll vote on anything as long as it's warranted and not harmful (racist, sexist, etc.)

bidaresid@gmail.com

smdebatedocs@gmail.com

add both to the chain

Speaker Point Scale:

29.8 - 30 - should reach late elims
29.4 - 29.7 - should clear
28.9 - 29.2 - should go 3-3 or 2-4
28.5 - 28.8 - serious errors in strategy

+ 0.1 speaker points if you open source ev - if you are a novice and your top teams open source this also counts

How I evaluate rounds:

even though this is novice - I will flow the rounds and try to evaluate the round with the least judge intervention
I try to avoid reading evidence but will have to if the debaters don't resolve the central questions for me

Argument prefs:

I am fine for policy and K, but I am usually on the policy side of these debates.

DA:

I think they are especially strong on this topic.

like 70% of my 1nr's have been on the econ DA or ptx DA

CP:

I prefer you go for competition over theory - ie. against Burden Sharing QPQ - defend that counterplans must be textually and functionally competitive is better than going for conditions CP bad.

PDCP > Intrinsic Perm > "delay/sequencing" perm

I will decide in favor of one sides interp

I dislike middle-ground interps because I find it hard to weigh the affs imaginary extinction impact against the negs in round violence impact - you can still go for it though

if you are reading high theory explain it well

I personally think fairness > clash, but I have gone for both and am fine for either

K affs:

I am bad for KvK debates (apart from cap K)

When I'm neg we exclusively go for T USFG (unless the 1ar or 2ac mishandles something else) so that should tell you what I think about K affs

Condo thoughts -

I have no strong thoughts - if you are Aff make sure you central offense is developed before the 2ar

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml

^I vehemently disagree with every word of this paradigm. Making mocking references to it will certainly earn you higher speaker points. You should use it to construct my argumentative ideology by taking every premise presented within it and assuming that I believe the exact opposite.

Allie Chase Greenhill School 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 12:57 PM CDT

Associate Director of Debate @ Greenhill

Still helping KU in my free time

Please add me to the email chain: a.rae.chase@gmail.com

I love debate and I will do my absolute best to make a decision that makes sense and give a helpful RFD.

Topicality

Competing interpretations are easier to evaluate than reasonability. You need to explain to me how we determine what is reasonable if you are going for reasonability.

Having said that if your intep is so obscure that there isn't a logical CI to it, perhaps it is not a good interpretation.

T debates this year (water topic) have gotten too impact heavy for their own good. I've judged a number of rounds with long overviews about how hard it is to be negative that never get to explaining what affirmatives would be topical under their interp or why the aff interp links to a limits DA and that's hard for me because I think much more about the latter when I think about topicality.

T-USFG/FW

Affirmatives should be about the topic. I will be fairly sympathetic to topicality arguments if I do not know what the aff means re: the topic after the 1AC.

I think teams are meming a bit on both sides of this debate. Phrases like "third and fourth level testing" and "rev v rev debates are better" are kind of meaningless absent robust explanation. Fairness is an impact that I will vote on. Like any other impact, it needs to be explained and compared to the other team's impact. I have also voted on arguments about ethics, education, and pedagogy. I will try my best to decide who wins an impact and which impact matters more based on the debate that happens.

I do not think the neg has to win a TVA to win topicality; it can be helpful if it happens to make a lot of sense but a forced TVA is generally a waste of time.

If the aff is going for an impact turn about debate, it would be helpful to have a CI that solves that impact.

DA’s

I would love to see you go for a disad and case in the 2NR. I do not find it persuasive when an affirmative team's only answer to a DA is impact framing. Impact framing can be important but it is one of a number of arguments that should be made.

I am aware the DA's aren't all great lately. I don't think that's a reason to give up on them. It just means you need a CP or really good case arguments.

K's

I really enjoy an old-fashioned k vs the aff debate. I think there are lots of interesting nuances available for the neg and the aff in this type of debate. Here are some specific thoughts that might be helpful when constructing your strategy:

1. Links of omission are not links. Links of “commission” will take a lot of explaining.

2. Debating the case matters unless there is a compelling framework argument for why I should not evaluate the case.

3. If you are reading a critique that pulls from a variety of literature bases, make sure I understand how they all tie to together. I am persuaded by aff arguments about how it's very difficult to answer the foundation of multiple bodies of critical literature because they often have different ontological, epistemological, psychoanalytic, etc assumptions. Also, how does one alt solve all of that??

4. Aff v. K: I have noticed affirmative teams saying "it's bad to die twice" on k's and I have no idea what that means. Aff framework arguments tend to be a statement that is said in the 2AC and repeated in the 1AR and 2AR - if you want fw to influence how I vote, you need to do more than this. Explain how it implicates how I assess the link and/or alternative solvency.

5. When ontology is relevant - I feel like these debates have devolved into lists of things (both sides do this) and that's tough because what if the things on the list don't resonate?

CP's

Generic counterplans are necessary and good. I think specific counterplans are even better. Counterplans that read evidence from the 1AC or an aff author - excellent! I don't have patience for overly convoluted counterplans supported by barely highlighted ev.

I do not subscribe to (often camp-driven) groupthink about which cp's "definitely solve" which aff's. I strongly disagree with this approach to debate and will think through the arguments on both sides of the debate because that is what debate is about.

Solvency deficits are a thing and will be accounted for and weighed along with the risk of a DA, the size of the DA impact, the size of the solvency deficit, and other relevant factors. If you are fiating through solvency deficits you should come prepared with a theoretical justification for that.

Other notes!

Some people think it is auto-true that politics disads and certain cp's are terrible for debate. I don't agree with that. I think there are benefits/drawbacks to most arguments. This matters for framework debates. A plan-less aff saying "their model results in politics DA's which is obviously the worst" will not persuade absent a warrant for that claim.

Love a good case debate. It's super under-utilized. I think it's really impressive when a 2N knows more about the aff evidence than the aff does.

Please don't be nasty to each other; don't be surprised if I interrupt you if you are.

I don't flow the 1AC and 1NC because I am reading your evidence. I have to do this because if I don't I won't get to read the evidence before decision time in a close debate.

If the debate is happening later than 9PM you might consider slowing down and avoiding especially complicated arguments.

If you make a frivolous or convoluted ethics challenge in a debate that I judge I will ask you to move on and be annoyed for the rest of the round. Legitimate ethics challenges exist and should/will be taken seriously but ethics challenges are not something we should play fast and loose with.

For debating online:

-If you think clarity could even possibly be an issue, slow down a ton. More than ever clarity and quality are more important than quantity.

-If my camera is off, I am not there, I am not flowing your speech, I probably can't even hear you. If you give the 1AR and I'm not there, there is not a whole lot I can do for you.

Ross Fitzpatrick Greenhill School 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed April 10, 2024 at 8:39 AM EDT

Put me on the email chain (ross.fitz4@gmail.com)

I debated for four years at Barstow in Kansas City and four years at the University of Kansas

I took two years off and now I'm back working with Greenhill + doing some judging for USC

Top Level:

Do what you do best, I'll try to keep up. That being said, what I really want to see (especially for high schoolers) is teams debating straight up. What I mean by that - I'm getting tired of this meta that seems to forefront winning on tricks over out debating your opponent. I don't like seeing things like hidden A-spec or a 1nc constructed out of 2017 backfiles with one substantive position. Pick what you are best at, be willing to start the debate over that position early in the round, and have at it. I'll vote on whatever that choice is, but I like teams that are truly willing to clash and engage with the best version of their opponent's arguments.

I try my best to get everything down on my flow, and it's what I'll decide the debate on. If you think an argument is especially important to deciding the debate, make sure you slow down and emphasize its importance so it ends up factoring into my decision

Your speaks will reflect how easy you make my job, that means focusing on argument comparison . judge instruction and framing my ballot for me in the final rebuttals. Impact out conceded arguments and choose a few issues you're winning to frame out your opponent's offense.

Argument Specifics:

Having judged pretty consistently this year after time off, I think I can more readily identify my preferences in args and how to deploy them.

FW: I've debated both sides of this argument, although I've spent more time thinking about it on the neg than the aff. I think affs should have some sort of relationship to the topic, but I don't have strong feelings about what that should be. I think fairness and clash are both impacts and impact turnable. Aff teams, I think the best strategy is an impact turn to the negative standards, and an emphasis on how the 1ac interacts with framework. I find that in these debates I often vote for the team that is best at re-characterizing the debates that occur in the other team's model. i.e. does the TVA ever actually get debated like the neg team says it would? what types of affs would the counter-interp include outside of the generic list of popular K authors? I also like to reward innovation in explanation in these rounds, because it's easy for them to feel stale.

T:I am pretty neutral on the question of competing interpretations vs reasonability. Reasonability should be a question of the aff's counter interp and not the aff itself. Impact comparison is just as important in a T debate as any other.

Ks: Links don't have to be to the plan, but you should explain how they implicate the plan and use aff language, evidence, performance to prove them. Alternatives that solve the links are better than ones that don't. I can be convinced the debate should be about something other than the consequences to the aff. I'm also down to vote on extinction outweighs and the aff is a good idea.

CPs: Well developed, specific CPs w solvency advocates are awesome. I find some varieties more cheaty than others: Word PICs, Conditions CPs, Delay, etc. Process CPs probably not cheating but not my fave to vote for. Also please slow down when debating CP competition. Basically, I'm not the best for CPs that do the whole aff.

DAs: Thumbs up. Spin can get you out of a lot, even if you're worried about specific evidence. Impact overviews and turns case arguments are an absolute must, especially in later rebuttals. Again, make my job easy. Tell me why your impacts are more important than theirs.

Theory: Proving in round abuse is the best way to get a ballot. Most of the time I lean toward rejecting the argument over the team.

Anish Guddati ModernBrain 2 rounds

Dhiya Hemchand Greenhill School 4 rounds

Maya Jagsi Greenhill School 2 rounds

dylan jones Hire 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri May 17, 2024 at 3:22 PM CDT

[[ ]] I was told my old paradigm was too long, so I've shortened it considerably. I still agree with everything that was there broadly, and you can read the archived version here.

[[ ]] About Me

I debated in HS and won some stuff, graduating in 2021. I also had a brief stint in NDT/CEDA policy and won nothing. I haven't competed since early 2022.
Disinterested in judging vacuous non-arguments and listening to kids be jerks to each other. Be nice. Violence in front of me is an L0 and a talk with your coach. The target of this violence decides what happens with the debate. Yes, this includes misgendering. its probably best to avoid gendering whoever ur debating as a good rule of thumb.
MUCH WORSE FOR E-DEBATE. It's too draining and I zone out a lot. Pref me online at your own risk.
I want to be on the email chain, and I want you to send docs in Word doc format: dylanj724@yahoo.com
Yes speed, if you have to ask though you're likely unclear and I urge you to correct it.
Yes, clash. No to arguments that are specifically designed to avoid engagement

[[ ]] Specfic Arguments

tl;dr is that I think every decision is interventionist to some degree, but I try to be as predictable and open about my preferences as possible.
yes, policy; counterplans, disads, etc. are fine. Zero risk is probably a thing. I think it's more interventionist to vote on unwarranted arguments unjustified by the evidence than to read evidence after the debate without being prompted. My BS detector is good and if you're lying about evidence, I'll probably know.
yes kritiks, but I lean more toward policy these days. these next two sentences might seem paradoxical, but I assure you they are not. I am deeply interested in poststructuralist positions and think I will be the best for you if this is your thing. you should defend something material and do something. preference for speeches that contain the alternative and do something material instead of heavy framework dumps with "reject the aff." To clarify, framework and a link is a fine 2nr but the important part is a link. If I don't know what the aff is doing that is actively bad I cannot vote it down even under your framework interp.
yes planless/creatively topical/critical affs, but again I lean more toward policy these days. justify why reading your aff in a space where it must be negated and debated against is good, not just why it's good in a vacuum. talking about the resolution is a must - you should not be recycling backfiles from a different topic and saying nothing about the resolution. Talk about the entire resolution and don't abstract from words or modifiers. if I don't know what the aff does, I'm not voting for it. I'm a big sucker for presumption.
yes T-FWK. fine for both fairness and clash, although if you're going for fairness as an internal link, you're probably better set going for clash as an impact itself. Talk about the aff, don't just debate past it. letting the aff win that they resolve xyz impact turn with conceded warrants from case usually means you will lose.

[[ ]] LD Specific:

Phil: sometimes. I understand these arguments theoretically considering it's what I'm studying and I know what people like Kant, Levinas, Spinoza, and Hegel say. I don't understand the debate application of these folks. Be clear and overexplain.
Tricks: strike me.

If you have questions email me, although the archived version of my paradigm at the top will likely answer them. Good luck!

Sirini Karunadasa ModernBrain 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 27, 2024 at 1:22 AM CDT

jnats note: please use speech drop https://speechdrop.net/

Hi! I go by sorin! Senior at Coppell High School.

add me to the email chain :)

s8rink@gmail.com

Email format: ( “aff name” vs “neg name” - “tournament name” - rd #) - or something that has all of that

TLDR:

I'm okay with speed
I flow
off time roadmaps please
I like impact calc and judge instruction
don't be disrespectful
have fun :)

things to keep in mind:

*Please do impact calc! if i'm judging you you're probably a novice so all that means is tell me why ur impact matters more (under ur fw) or using things like magnitude, probability, timeframe, scope

*argumentation is great but weighing makes my job so much easier and i'm way more likely to vote for you

*please signpost! as novices yall can get really messy so it would mean alot to tell me what you're answering and what flow you're on!!

*wont flow new arguments in 2nr/2ar

*keep your own time, incase i forget

*send me a email or tell me if you ever feel unsafe during/after round, and lmk if theres anything i can do :)

*will disclose (if both teams want it) unless tournament rules say otherwise

LD/CX

Evaluation stuff:

Policy args: yes please! I understand this, go for it!, make sure to weigh

DAs: I understand this, go for it!

CPs: I understand this go for it! make sure to explain net benefits, and net benefits of perm if you're aff

Theory: within reason pls

theory for in round abuse and high chance ill vote on it

please make sure the shell is understandable, and clear warranted voters, if i dont get it or don’t know what to do with it, I cant evaluate it properly :(

Default to competing interps, drop the debater, fairness is an i/l to education, etc.

friv theory: if its frivolous ill be highly persuaded by reasonability + low threshold for response , there’s also a time to be “funny” and not funny like don’t read some wild debaters must play Fortnite shell on a identity position

IVIs:something like misgendering or like a jargon ivi i’d prob vote on if won, but for things like author indicts— sure this old white guy is problematic, and I most likely agree with you, but it needs to have like a impact, tell me what reading this author really does yk (and in relation to your position if applicable).

Ks: at your own risk

I am a k debater but that doesn’t mean I know every lit base. (especially if high theory, err on over explanation, talk to me like I’m 5 i don’t mind getting lectured for a bit) Just tell and explain to me what your scholarship says: I wont do the work for u but don’t expect a lot either, just make it so it’s understandable and please tell a story!

If you’re a novice only run if you actually understand the literature and all, butchered ks are painful

I'm not well versed with every literature but doesn’t mean I wont evaluate it

LD Specific:

Framework:most important, tell me clearly why I should evaluate the round w your framing, and induct your opponents

Phil:not preferred

chances are high that im not familiar unless maybe like Kant or Rawls as purely framing mech, so you would have to do alot of work "dumbing it down" for me

again if its basic value criterion sure but dense phil fws i am probably not the best for it, i have trouble understanding it but if u go for it, pls crystalize it in the 1ar and 2nr

I'm not a phil debater, so wont be the best for like specific feedback

Trad: same thing as policy :), just weigh fw for sure

trix/spikes: no bruh, i won’t vote of extrapolations of a non warranted 1 line blip in the 1ac

PF and WSD

Treat me like a lay parent judge that knows how to flow basically

see LD for what i like if it’s applicable

* go at a reasonable speed, signpost, write the ballot for me

for worlds just literally treat me like you would a parent

Speaks

im generous

27 and below: you did something bad (check things that lower)

28-28.9: good job

29-30: good job x2

put a cute dog pic or a funny meme on the doc and ill give you a L 29.8 or W 29.9

Things that lower speaks:

* Any isms (racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, etc) will be a L w low speaks

* Being disrespectful to your opponent (be nice)

* Misgendering, respect peoples pronouns, if not listed, default to "my opponent" and they/them

speed: idc, just slow-er on tags, send me the docs, spread analytics at your own risk because i might not catch them

(wont effect speaks, unless I like absolutely cannot understand you)

have fun and good luck!

note for middle school NATS:

congrats on being here!!

ill keep track of all arguments:) If I'm typing on my phone I promise I'm paying attention my computer probably just died and I need to type feedback somewhere lol
if you forget speech times don’t be afraid to ask me I got you
I can time for y’all :) (my alarm is like a duck quacking though so let me know if that bothers you)
don’t stress if you’re a few mins late this place is confusing to navigate
if your event is flighted- flt 1 means you start at the time listed, flt 2 means you’re right after the flt1 round but the time should be listed as well
it’s always good to try to use all your speaking time in speeches, but don’t stress too much about it — it won’t evaluate my judging :)
don’t worry about the stuff below unless you understand it, most of it’s not applicable
ask questions if you need anything at all or if you’re confused!

- relax, you did the hard work to get here already, enjoy yourself:)

Aashik Khakoo Hire 4 rounds

Rory Liu Greenhill School 4 rounds

Ashrit Manduva ModernBrain 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 6:02 AM CDT

St. Mark's '24

dearashrit@gmail.com

smdebatedocs@gmail.com

pls add both to the chain

Be kind and have fun. Being rude/offensive will dramatically lower your speaks and make me annoyed.

How I evaluate rounds:

I evaluate the round first using the flow and judge instruction.
Tech > Truth, but true/logical/clever arguments are much easier to win than generic strategies or tricks. That being said, I'll vote on anything as long as it's warranted and not harmful (racist, sexist, etc.). Any of my below preferences can be changed by good debating and I will try to intervene as little as possible.
I strike off new arguments made in the rebuttals unless reciprocal with other new answers made (if the block makes a new impact, the 1AR can impact turn it, read defense to it, etc.). However, make sure to point out new arguments or give a justification for making a new argument.
I won't decide rounds based on things that happened before the pairing came out.

Argument prefs:

I've debated largely policy for my career so far, so take that as you will.

DA:

Zero risk is possible but unlikely.

I like good DA debates - the more specific the better, but about 30% of my 1NR's on the CJR/Water topics were politics, so I understand that generic DAs are useful.

utilize turns case and line-by-line 2AC/1AR arguments as much as possible

best affirmative answers are usually pressing the internal links

Topicality:

Default is competing interps. Predictable definitions probably matter more than a limited topic, but limited topics are good. Preparation and clash are good and limited topics tend to make that easier.

Non-resolutional procedurals are almost always not voting issues.

CP:

Again these are good for me

Cheaty counterplans - depending on how cheaty it is - the more sympathetic I am for cheaty perms or theory.

I prefer you go for competition over theory - ie. against Burden Sharing QPQ - going for an intrinsic perm is better than going for conditions CPs bad.

Probably better than most for condo bad, usually in novice/JV 3 counterplans is already pushing it.

I'm probably less familiar with your literature, so examples and specific explanation is very helpful.

Specific links are always better than generic topic links, but at worst please contextualize generic links to the aff. Affs should probably get to weigh their plan and K's of fiat are not my favorite. Alt debating is usually pretty weak for the neg, so try to give examples and be as specific as possible. For the aff, make your plan matter.

For both sides, make framework matter. Tell me what framework implicates and how I should evaluate different parts of the flow if you win/lose framework.

K affs v FW:

Better for the neg in these debates as my predisposition is that teams should defend the resolution on the affirmative.

Debate is probably a game and fairness is probably good. That being said, debate can still have material impacts on us as people, but you have to explain why voting aff matters. Clash is a good way to access aff offense for the neg. The best way to win my ballot as the aff is to impact turn the neg's model and do impact calc.

K v K

Not experienced in these kinds of debates.

The team that does the clearest link explanation and impact calculus will probably win my ballot. As for the aff, the perm seems logical to me, but the neg can definitely beat it through strong link explanation.

Impact Turns -

Also enjoy these - read good/new cards because evidence tends to matter a lot in these debates

Speaker Point Scale: I probably give above-average speaks - particularly to novices.

I know this is likely your first or second year in debate, so as long as you're trying your best and are kind to your opponents I will be very forgiving.

29.6 - 30 - should reach late elims
29.2 - 29.5 - should clear
28.7 - 29.1 - should be close to clearing
28.2 - 28.6 - didn't like the strategy

Other speaker point things:

+0.1 speaker points if you open source on the wiki

+0.2 speaker points if I can clearly tell you are trying to do line by line instead of reading your varsity team members' blocks.

Soyam Mohammed Greenhill School

Ahsan Tahirkheli ModernBrain 4 rounds

Samyutha Talagadadeevi Coppell High School 2 rounds None

Kaitlyn Tapia Coppell High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 2:41 PM CDT

I'm Kaitlyn, and I currently debate for Coppell. I use she/they pronouns.

Please add me to the email chain: kaitlyntapia427@gmail.com

1 - K

1/2 - Larp, theory

3/4 - High theory phil

4 - Tricks

General: I can flow speeches that are fast and clear. Please sign post and give proper judge instruction.

K's: I’m familiar with most mainstream K’s, and I've read up on setcol, academy, cap, deleuze, and IR quite a bit. Please explain the thesis of anything else

K affs: I'm a K aff debater myself, and I would love to judge any! I really enjoy hearing innovative and quirky affs in general. The main issues I have with voting for non-topical affs are a lack of a warrant for the ballot, or an explanation of what voting aff actually does. I have a pretty high threshold for TFW when the aff has decent offense on it, but I'm willing to vote on TFW if you run it well. I tend to err aff in a lot of KvK rounds on the perm debate, but if you have a great explanation for why the alt competes, go for it!

Larp/policy style: I used to do CX and usually went for the politics DA, consult CP, or econ DA on the neg. I went for a ton of blippy advantages in the 1AC, which I don't necessarily recommend you do. Instead, I like in-depth rounds that narrow down to a core issue or topic, since it's easiest for me to evaluate. You will be rewarded with speaks for efficient on-case coverage as the neg (I love case turn NR's)

Theory: you need all parts of a shell (interpretation, violation, standards, paradigm issues) extended throughout the round in order for me to vote on any theory/T arguments, regardless of whether or not it was dropped by the opponent. Defense is not sticky, as PFers would say. I will grant significant weight to whichever side wins and terminalizes the counter interps vs. reasonability debate, but please contextualize your standards in the specific round you are debating in to make it easier for me to see the abuse claims.

- Here are my "default" stances that are still subject to change based on the debate: yes condo, yes 20 minute disclosure, yes pics (including word pics), no floating piks, yes 1ar theory, yes RVIs, no paraphrasing, plan specs are fine but not required

Phil: I am knowledgeable on some of the more mainstream frameworks (Rawls, Kant, Hegel, Levinas, Nozick, Locke, etc.), but explain any other high theory arguments so that I can evaluate offense properly. I do consider reps IVIs ("your philosopher is racist/sexist/homophobic"), but teams must warrant out DTD just as one would with any theory argument.

Trad: I used to be a PF debater throughout middle school, so I'm pretty familiar with lay and traditional debates. That being said, this is probably the type of debate I am least excited to judge, just because I believe stock positions get boring after debating this topic for so long. I also don't see why one would read a value/value criterion that devolves to a utilitarian framework. Overall, if you are a trad debater, I am definitely still willing to vote for you over a larper/K debater; however, you must be winning the flow and should keep in mind that I will not factor speaking style into my decision whatsoever.

Tricks: I can understand most tricks, but I have a very high threshold for evaluating them; they essentially have to be dropped for me to even consider voting. This is simply due to the fact that I don't think a model that promotes red-herring blips does anything educational or fair for the debate space. I won't vote on new extrapolations in the NR/1AR, as well as any arguments that constrain the NC's ability to run theory.

Speaks: I average at a 28.5 and add more points with clarity, judge instruction, sign posting, and/or funny jokes. I will yell clear 3 times before I just stop flowing. I’ll decrease your speaks if you are rude (interruptive, unnecessarily aggressive). I am also not afraid to completely tank your points if you misgender your opponent. I will disclose speaks upon mutual request.

Kaitlyn Tapia Coppell High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 26, 2024 at 11:56 PM PDT

i'm Kaitlyn, and I currently debate in LD for Coppell. i have some experience in PF and CX. i use she/they pronouns.

please add me to the email chain: kaitlyntapia427@gmail.com

preferences:

1 - K, larp

2/3 - theory

4 - phil

Strike - tricks

General: i can flow any speed as long as it's clear. if you aren't confident in your clarify, i would prefer if you went slower. i flow on my laptop, if that makes any difference.

K's:

- i'm primarily a K debater, and familiar with most mainstream k's like cap and IR

- mostly read setcol, queer theory, academy, and antiblackness lit

- lean neg FW

K affs:

- i read these. aff should be about military presence, however you define that

- for aff: need ballot warrant and explanation of what affirming does. very willing to vote on presumption otherwise

- low threshold for 1ar a2 switch sides and TVA

- clash>fairness

- for neg: academy/baudrillard k>cap k

Larp (policy style):

- i did CX for a couple years in middle school and read the PTX DA, NATO consult CP, and econ DA (basic stuff)

- depth >>>

- i love case turn NRs

Theory

- FOR LD: lean neg on fw, piks probably unfair, floating piks are even worse, yes 1ar theory, yes RVIs, subsets good, neg gets 3 condo, presumption neg, disclosure at least 20 mins before is good, lean neg on vague alts/private actor fiat (all negotiable)

- FOR CX: same as above except no RVIs, neg gets 5 condo

- the nc/1ar needs all parts of a shell (interp, violation, standards, paradigm issues - DTD) for me to consider evaluating theory/T

- won a ton of T "military presence" debates this topic

- in-round abuse stories are great but not mandatory if going for norm-setting

- no theory regarding what debaters wear

Phil:

- i know a lot about Rawls and Kant. that's it.

- author reps ivis ("your philosopher is racist/sexist/homophobic") can be compelling, but you must warrant DTD

Trad:

- i used to be a PF debater and I went to nats so i am perfectly fine with evaluating lay/trad debates. stock positions are boring though

- YOU DON'T NEED A VALUE AND VALUE CRITERION. i presume util absent specification

Tricks:

- "tricks are for halloween" - patrick tapia

- this includes size 4 fond unbolded 2 second aspec shells, which get new 2ar/nr responses

Speaks:

- i average at a 28.5 and add more points with clarity, judge instruction, sign posting, and/or funny jokes.

- will yell clear 3 times before I just stop flowing

- i’ll decrease your speaks if you are rude (interruptive, unnecessarily aggressive).

- docking points if not downing for repetitive misgendering opponents

have fun and be kind

Login to Tabroom

Junior National Championships

2024 — Coppell, TX/US

Policy Paradigm List

Judges