Summer Novice Invitational
2020 — Online, US
Lincoln Douglas Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideI've debated for 3 years at Aragon High School.
Shortcut:
1- literally everything(phil, theory, tricks, K)
Top Level:
Go for whatever you want just make sure to explain it. I have debated in every way you can think of I have had pretty much any debate out there. People that have influenced my views in debate a lot are Jarvis Xie, Abhinav Sinha, Yesh Rao, and Jane Lichtman which means paradigmatically my views are pretty similar.
Stuff that will get you higher speaks:
- AUTO 30:if you spend 30 seconds of the 1AC playing the homelander sample on "on time" from the metro album into the transition to "superhero" and begin spreading when future starts rapping
- AUTO 30: getting sturdy preround
- +1.0 spit bars preround like if freestyle and you spit bars +1
- +1.0 talking bout how rap lyrics influenced your life.
- +1.0: GETTING ME FOOD +1.0: Call your parents (or guardian or any significant role model in your life) before the round starts and tell them you love them
- +0.5: Showing me screenshot evidence that you have followed LaMelo Ball on Instagram, reshared his most recent post on your story, and changed your ig bio to "1 of 1"
- +0.5: Winning while ending speeches early and using less prep (let me know)
- +0.3: Making fun of your opponent in a non-obnoxious manner
- +0.3: Making references to goated shows in your speeches (Suits, the Office, etc.)
- +0.3: Being funny
- +0.3: if you add a producer tag before you start spreading or you got a creative card signature
- +0.2: Drip (extra speaks if you didn't have to drop a rack on your fit)
- +0.5/0.1:I will have my switch with me before the round:if you and your opponent both want to, y'all can play a 1-stock game - winner gets +0.1, loser gets -0.1ORyou can play individually play me - winning gets you +0.5, losing gets you -0.1
- +0.2/-0.2:Feel free to play music pre-round:if I like the songs you play, I'll boost your speaks, but if I don't like them, I'll take away speaks (I won't deduct more than 0.2). For refernce, some of my favorite artists are Fivio Foreign, Pop Smoke, Drake, J. Cole, and lil Tjay, but I do enjoy my fair share of indie/alt, pop, k/c/jpop and disney music
- Note that most speaks additions/substractions is subject to change based on the quality of your execution of the task
Pooja Agarwal
add me to the email chain (if there is one) : 23agarwalp17@stu.smuhsd.org
TL;DR: Have fun, explain your args clearly, and weigh weigh weigh!
DO NOT:
1. Say anything that may be offensive to someone, ex. racist, homophobic, etc. if you have to ask yourself if what you're about to say is offensive, don't say it.
2. Please do not read circuit arguments with lay opponents- if you're both circuit i'm fine with it but please do not read circuit args and spread against trad/lay debaters
Lay
I'm pretty fine with all lay debates, but here's what I like/will give you a better chance of winning:
1. all args need a link, warrant, impact clearly articulated
2. signpost please, tell me exactly what argument you're talking about
3. speak clearly and loudly, especially online
4. fw should not be your only response, i like fw + case responses
5. turn turn turn!
6. i love analytics
7. i protect the 2nr, no new args in the 2ar
8. WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH
Circuit
i'm not the best judge for it, so i'd run your lay args with me. if you really need a circuit round, i'm most comfy with larp, theory, light phil, then everything else. and slow down please especially for analytics
Feel free to email me if you have any questions.
2022
Similar preferences to those below. I still value clarity and clash. For Congress, I value presentation, delivery, and style as well. Most of all, be your authentic self. Make passionate arguments you care about. Discuss the real-world impacts. Be respectful of your opponents and have fun!
Stanford 2020 and 2021
Here are some preferences:
I prefer traditional NSDA LD debate. If you spread, run theory, and/or kritiks, I will do my best to keep track but I do not yet have the experience to judge it yet. I'm getting better at it, though, so if you have more "circuit-type" argumentation, be sure to signpost and explain.
It is also my belief that skilled circuit debaters can be just as skilled at traditional debate (take a look at NSDA Nationals 2011 and 2018). And this year's NSDA National Champion competed at this same tournament a couple years ago. So there is lots of crossover.
Signpost. I will flow, but you can help by keeping the debate organized.
Crystallize. Break down the debate. Tell me what you think are the most important voting issues. Weigh arguments and impacts.
Have fun debating the big ideas of this resolution. It matters and your opinions matter, so challenge everyone in the room to consider this topic both philosophically and practically.
Stanford 2019
Please put me on the email chain: hcorkery@eduhsd.k12.ca.us
English teacher. Long time baseball coach; first year debate coach!
Here are some preferences:
Stay with traditional NSDA LD debate. If you are on the circuit, I respect your skill set; I’m just not ready for it yet. If you spread, run theory, and/or kritiks, I will do my best to keep track but I do not yet have the experience to judge it yet. And it is my belief that skilled circuit debaters can be just as skilled at traditional debate (take a look at NSDA Nationals 2011 and 2018).
Signpost. I will flow, but you can help by keeping the debate organized.
Crystallize. Break down the debate. Tell me what you think are the most important voting issues. Weigh arguments and impacts.
Have fun debating the big ideas of this very important resolution. I am a Marine Corps veteran and I understand the real-world impacts of foreign policy decisions. Your opinions matter so challenge everyone in the room to consider this topic both philosophically and practically.
Stanford 2018
Public Forum debate was designed with both the public and the lay judge in mind. For this reason, I'll judge your round based on the side that presents the clearest, best-supported, most logical argument that convinces the public and the public's policy makers to vote one way or another on a resolution.
I appreciate it when you explicitly state when you are establishing a "framework," making a "contention" or claim, providing a "warrant" or "evidence" and analyzing an "impact."
For speaker points, I value poise, eye contact, gestures, and pacing (changing your voice and speed to make effective points).
Finally, since this is JV Public Forum, we need to have a "growth mindset" and understand that this level of debating is developmental. JV Public Forum debaters are trying to improve and ultimately become varsity debaters. Winning is obviously important (I've coached sports for 20 years), but in my mind there is a clear distinction between JV and Varsity levels in any activity. JV is developmental competition. Varsity is the highest level competition.
Northview '21
University of Illinois - Urbana Champaign '25
Debated LD in high school for 3 years and coached for 1 year, 10 career bids, cleared at TOC in 2020 and 2021
I've competed in Policy and PF as well - the below paradigm should be flexible enough across all debate divisions
Doc sharing is good for evidence ethics and accessibility, spreading or no spreading.
I prefer using Speech Drop for docs, its easier.
Email: sreyaash.das@gmail.com
Some quick notes and preferences:
1) I'll call clear/slow 3 times, so do be clear.
2) I like fast and efficient debates, so feel free to uplayer and spit out blippy analytics but make sure they're warranted arguments
3) Tech> Truth. Crazy args are fine, but the threshold for answers get lower. Higher level debates should always incorporate some level of truth behind arguments.
4) Non negotiable: speech times/rules, prep can be CX but CX can't be prep, compiling a doc is prep but flashing/emailing isn't, there's no "clarification time" before CX, clipping and ev ethics.
5) I'll disclose speaks. I think its a good norm to follow.
6) Don't let the type of debater you are facing affect your arguments. Exposure to different forms of argumentation on both sides is what spreads education within debate, regardless of experience; I wouldn’t have joined circuit LD if I hadn’t faced different progressive arguments at locals. Only condition is that you should be nice and reasonable: spread but send docs, be nice in cx, and your speaks will be boosted. Be sketchy and tricky just to get an easy ballot, and I'll nuke your speaks.
7) "If you are clearly better than your opponent and it is obvious that you are winning the round, please, dear lord, do not use all of your speech time just because you have the time- win the round and sit down so we can have a discussion and make it more educational than just you repeating conceded arguments for 13 minutes." ~ Stephen Scopa
8) I disclosed with good practices - open source with round reports and first/last 3. If your wiki is a model of what I believe to be good disclosure norms, show/tell me before the round and I'll bump up speaks.
9) Arguments and their truth level start at 0 and work their way up based on effective warranting. Conceded claims don't mean I automatically vote for them if they were originally unwarranted.
Prefs Overview
Note: Just because certain things are ranked low, DOESNT mean I won't vote off it, nor does it mean I don't enjoy it. I pride myself on trying to be as flex as possible, so feel free to run virtually anything. 1 = Most familiar/Best at judging this. 4 = Least Familiar/Worst at judging this
Policy/Larp -2
Kritiks - 2
Theory - 1
Phil -3
Tricks -2
I'm serious with these pref ranks - I'm comfortable with judging any form of argumentation
Policy/Larp:
Defaults: Judge Kick, ev > analytics
Be smart and do link analysis
Politics and process args are fine, higher bar for explanation tho
Zero risk is a thing
Explain cards - these debates are won with good analysis AND evidence
Ev comparison is key - don't make me spend 20 minutes reading through all the cards
1ARs - read theory vs CPs, low bar for case extensions if its simple
2NRs - answer theory vs CPs, please structure the collapse
Don't forget to kick out of things
Theory
Defaults: F/E are voters, drop the debater, competing interps, rvis
Standard weighing is dead - plz do it
Paragraph theory is fine
Be clear on standards so I at least have the standard name flowed
Terminal D on a shell is a thing even under competing interps, there has to be offense isolated at the end of the round.
Send interps/counter interps plz
Combo shells are cool, reasonability is persuasive versus them
Kritiks:
Dont be a doc bot the entire time
Link analysis contextualized to the aff is cool, it isn't enough to win your theory of power
Framework (weigh/cant weigh case) determines the result most of the time - win it
Buzzwords don't mean anything - just because the 1ar didn't explicitly say the words "Role of the ballot" doesnt mean there isn't defense on the kritik's theory of power
K Affs/T:
These Affs should have isolated a problem and proposed a method or model
Personal narratives hold little weight to me since the ballot isn't a referendum on one's identity
Reading a K aff isn't an excuse to not be technical, same for the 2NR on T
Fairness/Clash/Research is cool, do weighing if going for T
No preference in a K aff v. framework debate - I've been on both sides
Nuanced framework interps and warrants are cool (sabotage, passive voice, etc.)
Philosophy:
Defaults: epistemic confidence, comparative worlds
I'm cool with anything - the denser the phil the more explanation required
I think this type of debate still requires some level of interaction with actual offense
Spec phil affs are cool and I wish I saw more
Tricks:
Defaults: presumption negates unless the neg defends an advocacy, permissibility affirms
If it's gonna be a tricks round, delineate all arguments and dont be sketch in cx
Rebuttal extensions have to point me to what I am extending on the flow
Slow down on blips - flowability is key
Otherwise, I'll vote on anything explained.
Traditional:
I was a trad lad for a year, so you can have a traditional round, though I'd prefer otherwise.
Substance > V/VC debate
Frameworks are so arbitrary in lay debate, half the time theres no distinction between 2
I vote off the flow, ethos/pathos boosts speaks but won't just get you the ballot. Contrary to most beliefs, even traditional debate is based off of some level of technicality.
Speaker Points:
I think speaker points are based off of arguments made, and the strategies taken to attempt to win the round. As long as I understood you throughout the round, and you made sound strategic decisions in the round based off my paradigm, you'll get high speaks.
Hey everyone!
LD Paradigm
Yes to email chain - rohitdayanand8@gmail.com
My name is Rohit (he/him) and I debated for Monta Vista High School from 2019-2023 in LD, gaining 5 career bids to the TOC and qualling my junior and senior year. My preferred debating style in high school was more towards policy debate, as I mainly competed on the west coast, but I believe I’d be pretty fair in evaluating most styles of debate. As I judge more, the prefs below should become less and less relevant.
Quick pref guide for LD
1. LARP-style args - cps, das, plan
1: Good topic specific t debates
2: kritiks - IR, Setcol, Afropess,
1-2: Topical Phil Debates
3-4: Pomo, High theory
3-4: Tricks, blippy incoherent theory,
Speaks are at my discretion so don’t ask for higher speaks in round- ill try to average at a 28.5
PF Paradigm
Do what you do / look at the LD paradigm. If I’m judging at a traditional tournament and you’re running a K against a novice team - you might win but your speaks will not.
Yes roadmaps keep it brief
I'm cofortable with kritiks, theory, and speed - please send docs
do contextual analysis -
Weighing is important - and I don't just mean magnitude, timeframe, or scope what I mean is actual analysis to why if you win your argument it's more important/turns your opponents internal links
*last updated April 12, 2021*
Hey all, I’m Ben (they/them), I go to Los Altos High School
Add me to the email chain benfe024@gmail.com
tech≥truth, I’ll avoid intervention as much as possible while still ensuring accessibility to the round.
1 - ks, phil
1.5 - policy
2 - t
3 - theory
4 - tricks and bad theory
idrc what you read and I like to think im flex - read wtv and win it.
don't be a pos tho
for reference here's my wiki - this is what I read, not necessarily what you should
for online debate
- record speeches locally and send after speech or round if theres a connection issue mid speech
- flash analytics
- send me music please I need smth to listen to
- get verbal confirmation from me before speeches that im ready
- don't worry about your camera - having it off is fine no questions asked
t/l
trad debater =/= don't read "prog" args or args u wanna read but does mean that you should try to be as accessible as you can while also staying within boundaries of what you want to do - however I trust your judgement as to what is accessible. Debate is your space, and what you read is up to you. Nobody, not even your opp, can change that.
on "death good" args: no <3. just no. benatar is fine *only* if read as a criticism of hedonic util, NOT as an advocacy - thats really what he's saying and is also just uh not repugnant
more to be added
Defaults:
truth testing (see the phil part for my thoughts on this), epistemic confidence, neg presumption, no RVIs, CIs > reasonability, fairness > education. that being said, my threshold for how heavily ill stick to these is incredibly low; say otherwise, and I'll follow.
If I cannot understand what you're saying I will yell "clear". If you haven't made any notable change in clarity after three times yelling clear, your speaks will die. Slow down for the last bit of the 2n/2ar, write my rfd for me.
judge instruction is really fuckin great.
cp/da:
tbh im a lot better for this than my wiki or what you know about me suggests
high level ev comparison is very cool. very.
the 2n collapse needs interaction w case or some level of clash w the 1ar direction of offense
Plans: have a solvency advocate lmao
Disads: clear uniqueness, links, and impacts. the more internal links necessary to complete the link chain, I'll have a higher threshold for the quality of each link. If it takes you that many steps to explain an internal link it's probably just not that true, or at least not as true as the aff.
Counterplans: have a net benefit - if ur cp only solves the aff but not a nb you need a disad or a really good offensive case push or just like,,, will lose. SA's are good, but if you can analytically prove that the cp is a good thing, impressive and acceptable. Infinite condo is a good thing. Process cp's probably true, but they should have some nuanced nb as to why this process of the aff is better.
analytic cps - are a thing.
perms are a test of competition omfl.
T:
this is a work in progress!
Theory:
I'll let you know when I hear a good rvi warrant, hasn't happened yet :/
If you win yes RVIs, you still need to win the shell.
weigh standards
funny frivolous shell done well = +0.1 speaks
the 1ar should answer the 1nc standards not just read a ci
Phil:
some of my favorite rounds to evaluate. understand your syllogism, and probably more importantly, make me understand it too. "bindingness", "freedom", "lexical prereq" means nothing to me unless you actually explain it and why it concludes your framing. not sorry. idk about you but Kant's getting kinda boring. way too many affs spend most of their time developing the syllogism and straight up just don't have robust offense. thats sad. don't be like that. good 1ar pivots against the k = high speaks. if you can give a straight ref 1nc and win, 29 speaks minimum.
Does induction fail? dunno. im quite sure I knew last week but thats a past event so idt I can induce from that ://
read an "obscure" Phil author (not Kant, Hobbes, Rawls, Sartre etc you get the point) you get a .5 speaks boost
you should engage the util and da 1nc - actually answering things >>> consequences fail
truth testing doesn't filter out util and you should stop pretending it does
Ks:
yay. I’d like to think that I know a lot of the K lit, so I’ll most likely understand it, but no matter what you gotta explain it. Go for specific links.
stolen from Patrick Fox's paradigm bc I agree w this
- Neg blocks/2NRs vs policy affs should be highly organized, overviews kept to a minumum, and most explanation done on the lbl. Organizing your 2NC/1NRs to mirror the 2AC order is good. Link debate on the permutation, framework on framework, etc. Framework should be a model of debate, so "reps first" isn't really an argument. Links should be contextualized to disprove why I should vote for the aff (whether the aff is a policy or a research object - tell me which!), and should be impacted out to some sort of turns case or external piece of offense. Examples - lines from aff ev, references to CX, etc - do them. If I don't know what the alt does by the end of the 2NR my threshold for the 2AR goes way down. Impact framing and comparison is often forgotten in these debates, and should be present in the block/2NR. Floating PIKs should be set up explicitly in the block (LD: if it's not set up in the 1NC, the 2AR gets new responses - you don't have a block! When does it "float?"), and if I miss it, that's your fault for trying to cheat. 2NRs that go for the PIK that don't robustly explain what the PIK actually looks like tend to lose to the perm, so explicitly re-contextualizing the alternative is probably in your interest - the one policy panel I've sat on was because of this.
- K v K debates - stuff gets muddled very fast in these debates, so examples + organization + clear impacting out of arguments is the winning move. I could be convinced "no perms in a method debate" may be a good argument in the abstract, but it certainly doesn't rise to the level of one in most debates. Read Marxism at your own risk - perversions of the immortal and revolutionary science and revisionist nonsense like "socialism is when healthcare" or "talking about racism is neoliberal" will make me more annoyed and I'd rather you just go for framework than be an annoying socdem.
k-affs: should defend something. your jumping off point should probably be the topic but im open to stuff if not. 2ns should go for presumption more often
more from pat:
- K affs should defend a shift from the status quo to solve an impact - if I do not think this is the case by the end of the 2AR, I will err super heavily negative because, shockingly, affs should defend things. Presumption is underexploited by the negative, but most presumption args should be less about the ballot and more about solvency (or lack thereof). Explaining why debating your aff is valuable is crucial. Overviews are fine but as time goes on, returns diminish. Case debate is essential, and I'm pretty good for the impact turn - I think the aff should be able to explain to me what it does and why it's good, which means saying those things are actually bad is obvious fair game. Wanna restate - the less 2As defend the more annoyed I get.
K v fwk
I don't have a preference in these debates but I do believe in k specific impact turns to T. If you can prove that your model of debate is preferable to T then you win the fwk debate. I think 2ar's are more convincing on the impact turn than the counterinterp, but there are strategic 2ars which go for both or j counterinterp which are good.
Some Ks that I've read and/or I'm comfortable with them:
Baudrillard, cybernetics, security, poetry, D&G, gift, Foucalt, Lacan, ableism, Agamben, Bataille, grove
^explain it^
yo tf is up w the 5 line long k tags ?! stop it.
non-indigenous setcol, nonblack afropess, etc are dtd issues - this is not something I will fill in the gaps on myself, but my opinion and I am very open to 2ns/2ars that go for procedurals like these.
Tricks:
trix are still args and still need warrants. I'll probably be just as confused as your opponent if you collapse to one half a sentence in the middle of your underview. I guess I’m impartial to tricks.
I find that the good ol fwk rob spec tt analytic brain rot 1nc isnt the most compelling but is strategic.
hiding "evaluate after the ac" in a cite of a card isnt a good thing :)
Ev ethics: should be read as a shell - allows for deliberation over it as well as opportunities to actually set norms. much better than a procedural which leaves me w a half explained ev violation and no idea how to decide anything. go read Holden Bukowsky's paradigm for more on this.
RFDs
please post round me talking about debate is fun
don't do it w the intent to be angry tho lol
Some things to get higher speaks:
-Signposting is always good.
-give content warnings!!!!!!! (but not when you don't need one obvs)
-Taking proper prep-time. That’ll make me happy.
-keeping the theory debate clear
-if you have some time left in the 2n (or 2ar) I appreciate if you either go back and keep extending offense, as long as it isnt just a repeat of the first half of the 2n, or slow down, give a lbl and tell me how I should be voting on this round. Slowing down and sequencing should be done more.
-pictures of pets in speech docs
-good 2ns on marxism
-music references
-from pat: Before the debate, both teams/debaters can give me recommendations for a song/s to listen to during prep time, which I will do, and if I vibe with it I may bump speaks.
Some things to get lower speaks:
-making arguments in cx. If you spend 20 seconds making an argument and then you say "what do you have to say to that?", I'll roll my eyes and yawn.
-obviously, evidence ethics are important, so maintain them please. heavy evidence ethics (if proven) is an L20
-be nice to people. cmon.
some other stuff, and pet peeves:
Call me whatever you want, but be consistent I guess. I don't really mind, but if you'd like you can call me my name (Ben!), "judge" "dude", whatever you want.
Explain your cards- "extinction" isn't a good tag. "this causes extinction by..." is a good tag.
Make all the references you'd like, you do you.
You may not concede your remaining cx time to prep time. if you have 20 seconds left of cx, either ask a question, or stop the timer and start your prep.
Anyhoo, just have fun.
obligatory:
Policy--------------------------------X-------------K
K/Policy----------X-----------------------------------Theory/Phil
States CP good----------X------------------------States CP bad
Politics DA is a thing-X----------------------------Politics DA not a thing
UQ matters most---------------X-----------------Link matters most
Fairness is a thing------X-------------------------Delgado 92
Fairness is an Impact-------------------------X------Fairness is an Internal Link
Try or die---------X--------------------------------What's the opposite of try or die
Clarity--X-------------------------------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity
Limits-------------------------X---------------------Aff ground
Presumption----X----------------------------------Never votes on presumption
Resting grumpy face---------------------------X-Grumpy face is your fault
Longer ev--------X---------------------------------More ev
Fiat solves circumvention-----------------------X-Can't fiat enforcement if not in the res
CX about impacts-----------------------------X---CX about links and solvency
Fiat double-bind--------------------------X----------------literally any other arg
1AR should be a card wall-------X--------------------------------------No 1AR cards
(LD) 2NR should be a card wall---------------X-------------------------------No 2NR cards
Memes in speech doc--X-------------------------------------------I'm a boomer and wouldn't appreciate these
CEDA--------------------------------X--------------------------------NDT
Harvard------------------------------------------------------X--Berkeley
good transparent a prioris and clear tricks -x------------------------- what's an a priori?
Rawls------------------------------X-Literally anything else in existence
Sending Analytics in 1ar/2nr-X------------------------------"I don't want to send"
Five 1AR shells-------------------X------------huh,,, just,,, don't do that.
nathan.gong@utexas.edu
Hi everyone, I did LD in high school at Plano East and qualified for the TOC three times. Went twice, broke once, yada yada. I now study Canfield Business Honors and Finance at UT Austin.
I haven't thought about this activity since I quit halfway through senior year of high school and thus don't have any argumentative preferences. However, I appreciate people that are intelligent - be strategic, make good arguments, and have fun! I had the best time while reading arguments for fun (particularly body politics) although I mostly read policy arguments. I will try my best to give a fair decision.
Email chain: kaving1226@gmail.com
For JV: I'm just here to chill and help y'all get better! Lay is about word efficiency for me, so I will only consider the flow. I love cases with lots of philosophy, so going above and beyond there will really please me as a judge. Please check the notes for my takes on relevant debate norms.
Heyo! I’m starting my junior year at American High (Fremont) - which marks my 2nd year of circuit LD experience. ;)
Pronouns: he/him/his
Notes:
- look, speaker points really aren't great when it comes to racial, gendered, and ableist biases. I'll give all debaters 29.3 minimum (so it's not too sus) unless they do some things that are really problematic, gotta exploit the system you know
- that being said, i'll give instant 30 speaks if y'all can make me laugh
- be nice in cross x pls
- bigotry is a straight drop. don't question the bright line here, i really hope i never have to do this, so if i do this I mean it.
- I understand if debaters get really anxious - I will stop time (or the round if needed) so you can take a breather.
- if your opponent reads a Ben Shapiro Identity Politics K, you will win the round ONLY if you blast WAP (imarkeyyz) Ben Shapiro remix at full volume in your rebuttal speech (For Sam Harris, say "Well I read actual philosophy" and for Jordan Peterson, say "My opponent simultaneously wants to save glaciers and abolish ICE. Ooga booga". With passion pls).
- I err Tech>truth, just note that tricky strats will not get more than 29 speaks and I also have a soft spot for ROB weighing against tricks/blip theory
- I default - Permissibility flows neg, presumption flows aff
Var Prefs:
1 - Performance / Ks / K affs
My favorite :) I love the K aff v K debates, I’ve read stuff from Cixous to Spivak to Foucault to Marx (went back in time i guess lol) and I've recently had experience with Baudrillard & Barthes Poetry Ks and Hip Hop Pedagogy K affs, so I’ll prolly have some context when I see your Ks. Now lemme clarify for a sec - cap Ks with trutil are not Ks. They are cap CPs lol. And util links into cap btw, i hope your opponent reads this paradigm and uses this turn against you. Gimme that ROB debate pls. And I want clear explanations of the alt, because it is also, in a way, a critical CP text, the link and impact are net benefits. If you run a biopower K and the alt is whatever-being without any solvency add-ons, you better be Agamben himself or that rebuttal speech is gonna be tuff fr. Generally when you extend that K, you need to explain the advocacy in English (or not, depends on the K i guess) without omitting those critical complexities.
2 - T/ Theory
Yep, K + T and Theory shells have been my go-to neg strat. You don't always need cards (tho it will help significantly with weighing against C/Is) some abuses are just obviously true and can be extemp-ed. Aight for the aff: It's pretty hard to win RVIs on topicality (but if they run like 5+ T shells that seems problematic but you also could just warrant your own meta-theory). 1ar theory/independent voters cool with me. For the neg: I'm fine with theory as a time suck - but if its very apparently blippy then you better be ready to properly defend against the RVI in the 2nr. don't concede the 1ar shells, you have 6 minutes to cover. Otherwise, make sure you extend the right standards, do some good weighing on the voters, and you're gucci.
3 - Phil
While I love phil cases, I have not spent much time in the lit - the most I know is a lil Kant, Hegel, Virtue Ethics, and some democratic theories (Republicanism, Deliberative Democracy, a lil Rawls). The syllogism has to make sense in the rebuttal speeches if you're running really dense shells in the constructive - don't treat it like tricks blips pls.
4 - Policy/CPs/DAs
I have spent years at this point dumping on policy cases. Trutil hurts my soul. In the scenario where I end up judging policy debaters: don't worry - you'll make me unhappy but the flow will be evaluated all the same. I do appreciate good weighing on magnitude, timeframe, probability, all that jazz.
5 - Tricks
No. Full-on tricks debates are always weird and un-fun for me to evaluate. Don't do this to me. Please. If the day comes tho, I will still flow fairly. However, if you drop a single piece of offense on a trick, that entire trick layer will be - at best - a wash.
GOOD LUCK IN ROUND :)
Hello!
I am a parent judge. I prefer well-articulated arguments with clear impacts delivered at a moderate speed.
Please do not spread, or run kritiks, counterplans/plans, theory or topicality.
I have not done independent research on this topic, so make sure to impact your arguments and have clear tags and voting issues. I prefer a thoughtful, analytical rebuttal to a rapid evidence dump.
The biggest thing is to be respectful to your opponent. Yelling does not win you arguments, nor does it gain you many speaker points. Other than that, debate to the best of your ability! I look forward to judging your round!
The Greatest Conceivable Pranav Kalkunte exists and determines morality!
1] Ontology - there are 2 conditions for existence, existence in mind, and in reality. A being that exists, in reality, is definitionally greater than something that doesn’t exist. Thus, if the GCPK exists only in the mind but does not in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than the GCPK. But we can’t conceive of something greater than the GCPK by definition. Thus, if the GCPK exists in the mind, then the GCPK exists in reality.
2] Motion- Objects are in motion. Everything in motion was put in motion by something else that is moving. There must be a first mover, and that is the GCPK. The alternative is an infinite regress, something relies on the further back and there is no starting point.
3] Contingency- there are 2 forms of being, a necessary and a contingent being. An existence is contingent if it is based on the existence of something else. Not everything is contingent, because then, by definition, it all could have never existed. Thus, the necessary being exists, a being that can’t not exist. The necessary being is GCPK.
4] Degrees - Properties come in degrees. In order for there to be degrees of morality, there must be something perfect against which everything else is measured. The GCPK is the pinnacle of perfection against which everything else is measured.
5] Teleology- essence precedes existence- everything has a purpose. A cup exists to hold water and is made so by purposeful design. To be purposeful, there needs to be a creator of purpose, which is the GCPK.
6] Pascal’s wager – default to a belief in the GCPK since disobeying the GCPK’s will would be infinite badness, but irrationally following a nonexistent GCPK is only instrumentally bad.
7] Performativity – you couldn’t contest the arguments of the 1AC without being here because of the first mover which means every argument you make concedes the authority of the GCPK and collapses to me.
Thus, we ought to remain in consistency with the GCPK’s will and the GCPK’s will is infinitely good.
tldr do what you do best; i'll only vote for complete arguments that make sense; weighing & judge instruction tip the scales in your favor; disclosure is good; i care about argument engagement and i value flexibility; stay hydrated & be a good person.
--
About me:
she/her
policy coach @ damien-st. lucy's: spring 2022 - present
--
Recently rewritten paradigm, probably best to give it a quick skim!
My strongest belief about argumentation is that argument engagement is good - I don't have a strong preference as to what styles of arguments teams read in front of me, but I'd prefer if both teams engaged with their opponents' arguments; I don't enjoy teams who avoid clash (regardless of the style of argument they are reading). I value ideological flexibility in judges and actively try not to be someone who will exclusively vote on only "policy" or only "k" arguments.
I am good for policy teams that do topic research and aim to not go for process cp backfiles every 2nr. I am also good for k teams that do topic research and answer the aff and go for 2nr arguments that are substantive (not "role of the ballot"). I am bad for ld teams that go for ld-specific things ("tricks"), but am good for ld teams that are well-researched and read policy or k arguments.
More LD-specific notes/thoughts at bottom of paradigm.
--
Topic Knowledge:
I don't teach at a policy camp in the summer. I am involved in the Damien-St. Lucy's team research, and have vaguely kept up with the camp evidence updates. Most of my early-season topic knowledge is a result of hearing Chris yap at me about how he has a law degree in this field. So, consider my topic knowledge to be a less-smart version of Chris. Will update this section of the paradigm if/when that changes. Independent of this, I am generally a bad judge for arguments that rely on understanding of or alignment with community-developed norms -- I don't form my topicality opinions in July and then become immovable on them for the remainder of the season.
--
email chains:
ld email chains: nethmindebate@gmail.com
policy email chains: damiendebate47@gmail.com and nethmindebate@gmail.com
if you need to contact me directly about rfd questions, accessibility requests, or anything else, please email nethmindebate@gmail.com (please don't email the teamail for these types of requests)!
please include an adult (your coach, chaperone, or even parent) on the email chain if you are emailing me directly -- just a good safety norm to not have direct communications between minors & adults that don't know them!
--
flowing: it is good and teams should do it
stolen from alderete - if you show me a decent flow, you can get up to 1 extra speaker point. this can only help you - i won't deduct points for an atrocious flow. this is to encourage teams to actually flow:)
--
Some general notes
Accessibility & content warnings: Email me if there is an accessibility request that I can help facilitate - I always want to do my part to make debates more accessible. I prefer not to judge debates that involve procedurals about accessibility and/or content warnings. I think it is more productive to have a pre-round discussion where both teams request any accommodation(s) necessary for them to engage in an equitable debate. I feel increasingly uncomfortable evaluating debates that come down to accessibility/cw procedurals, especially when the issue could have easily been resolved pre-round.
Speed/clarity – I will say clear up to two times per speech before just doing my best to flow you. I can handle a decent amount of speed. Going slower on analytics is a good idea. You should account for pen time/scroll time.
Online debate -- 1] please record your speeches, if there are tech issues, I'll listen to a recording of the speech, but not a re-do. 2] debate's still about communication - please watch for nonverbals, listen for people saying "clear," etc.
I am aggressively pro-disclosure. Disclosure is one of the elements of debate that is most important for small-school and novice accessibility. If you do not disclose, I will assume that you prefer the exclusionary system where only big schools have access, and I will punish your speaker points accordingly. I am so aggressive about enforcing disclosure with all teams (big and small school) because I believe in the mission of the open evidence project and other similar open source disclosure practices. tldr disclose or lose!
--
Speaker points:
Speaker points are dependent on strategy, execution, clarity, and overall engagement in the round and are scaled to adapt to the quality/difficulty/prestige of the tournament.
I try to give points as follows:
30: you're a strong contender to win the tournament & this round was genuinely impressive
29.5+: late elims, many moments of good decisionmaking & argumentative understanding, adapted well to in-round pivots
29+: you'll clear for sure, generally good strat & round vision, a few things could've been more refined
28.5+: likely to clear but not guaranteed, there are some key errors that you should fix
28+: even record, probably losing in the 3-2 round
27.5+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, key technical/strategic errors
27+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, multiple notable technical/strategic errors
26+: errors that indicated a fundamental lack of preparation for the rigor/style of this tournament
25-: you did something really bad/offensive/unsafe.
Extra speaks for flowing, being clear, kindness, adaptation, and good disclosure practices.
Minus speaks for discrimination of any sort, bad-faith disclosure practices, rudeness/unkindness, and attempts to avoid engagement/clash.
--
Opinions on Specific Positions (ctrl+f section):
--
Case:
I think that negatives that don't engage with the 1ac are putting themselves in a bad position. This is true for both K debates and policy debates.
Extensions should involve warrants, not just tagline extensions - I'm willing to give some amount of leeway for the 1ar/2ar extrapolating a warrant that wasn't the focal point of the 2ac, but I should be able to tell from your extensions what the impact is, what the internal links are, and why you solve.
--
Planless affs:
I tend to believe that affirmatives need to defend the topic. I think most planless affs can/should be reconfigured as soft left affs. I have voted for affs that don't defend the topic, but it requires superior technical debating from the aff team.
You need to be able to explain what your aff does/why it's good.
I tend to dislike planless affs where the strategy is to make the aff seem like a word salad until after 2ac cx and then give the aff a bunch of new (and not super well-warranted) implications in the 1ar. I tend to be better for planless aff teams when they have a meaningful relationship to the topic, they are straight-up about what they do/don't defend, they use their aff strategically, engage with neg arguments, and make smart 1ar & 2ar decisions with good ballot analysis.
--
T/framework vs planless affs:
In a 100% evenly debated round, I am likely better for the neg than the aff. However, approximately none of these debates are evenly debated. Either team/side can win my ballot by doing the better technical debating. This past season, I often voted for a K team that I thought was smart and technical. Specific thoughts on framework below:
The best way for aff teams to win my ballot is to be more technical than the neg team. Seems obvious, but what I'm trying to convey here is that I'm less persuaded by personal/emotional pleas for the ballot and more persuaded by a rigorous and technical defense of why your model of debate is good in this instance or in general. I have historically voted against aff teams that made arguments along the lines of "vote for me or I'll quit debate."
I think that TVAs can be more helpful than teams realize. While having a TVA isn't always necessary, winning a TVA provides substantial defense on many of the aff's exclusion arguments.
I don't have a preference on whether your chosen 2nr is skills or fairness (or something else). I think that both options have strategic value based on the round you're in. Framework teams almost always get better points in front of me when they are able to contextualize their arguments to their opponents' strategy.
I also don't have a preference between the aff going for impact turns or going for a counterinterp. The strategic value of this is dependent on how topical/non-topical your aff is, in my opinion.
--
Theory:
The less frivolous your theory argument, the better I am for it.
Please weigh! It's not nearly as intuitive to make a decision in theory debates - I can fill in the gaps for why extinction is more impactful than localized war more easily than I can fill in the gaps for why neg flex matters more/less than research burdens.
--
Topicality (not framework):
I like T debates that have robust and contextualized definitions of the relevant words/phrases/entities in the resolution. Have a clear explanation of what your interpretation is/isn't; examples/caselists are your friend.
Grammar-based topicality arguments: I don't find most of the grammar arguments being made these days to be very intuitive. You should explain/warrant them more than you would in front of a judge who loves those arguments.
--
Kritiks (neg):
I tend to like K teams that engage with the aff and have a clear analysis of what's wrong with the aff's model/framing/epistemology/etc. I tend to be a bit annoyed when judging K teams that read word-salad or author-salad Ks, refuse to engage with arguments, expect me to fill in massive gaps for them, don't do adequate weighing/ballot analysis/judge instruction, or are actively hostile toward their opponents. The more of the aforementioned things you do, the more annoyed I'll be. The inverse is also true - the more you actively work to ensure that you don't do these things, the happier I'll be!
--
Disads:
Zero risk probably doesn't exist, but very-close-to-zero risk probably does. Teams that answer their opponents' warrants instead of reading generic defense tend to fare better in close rounds. Good evidence tends to matter more in these debates - I'd rather judge a round with 2 great cards + debaters explaining their cards than a round with 10 horrible cards + debaters asking me to interpret their dumpster-quality cards for them.
Counterplans:
I don't have strong ideological biases about theory other than that some amount of condo is probably good. More egregious abuse = easier to persuade me on theory; the issue I usually see in theory debates is a lack of warranting for why the neg's model was uniquely abusive - specific analysis > generic args + no explanation.
No judge kick. Make a choice!
--
LD-specific section:
-you might think of cx judges in ld as people who despise judging ld and despise you for doing ld. i try to not let this be true about me. all of my issues with ld can be grouped into two general categories: 1) speech times/structure (not your fault, won't penalize you for it), and 2) the tendency to read unwarranted nonsense, such as "tricks," shoes theory, etc (you can avoid reading these args very easily and make me very happy)
-i am a horrid judge for tricks and frivolous theory. please just go for another argument!
-i am okay for phil. i don't have any personal opposition to philosophy-based arguments, i just don't coach/judge these arguments often, so i will need more explanation/hand-holding. many phil debates recently have involved tricks, which has soured me on this argumentative style, but i would be happy to judge a straight-up phil debate:)
-you don't get 1ar add-ons -- there is no 2ac in ld
-i teach at ld camp every summer, so assume i have some idea of community norms, but don't assume i am following trends super closely
--
Arguments that are simply too bad to be evaluated:
-a team should get the ballot simply for proving that they are not unfair or uneducational
-the ballot should be a referendum on a debater's character, personal life, pref sheet, etc
-the affirmative's theory argument comes before the negative's topicality argument
-some random piece of offense becomes an "independent voter" simply because it is labeled as such
-debates would be better if they were unfair, uneducational, lacked a stasis point, lacked clash, etc
-a debater's moral character is determined by whether they read policy or k arguments
-evidence ethics should be a case neg, as opposed to an opportunity for reasonable preround discussion and an opportunity to correct mistakes
-"tricks"
-debaters get to make arguments about how many speaker points they should get
-teams should not be required to disclose on opencaselist
-the debate should be evaluated after any speech that is not the 2ar
-the "role of the ballot" means topicality doesn't matter
-debaters get to claim the alternative is a floating pik after pretending not to know what a floating pik is during cx
--
Arguments that I am personally skeptical of, but will try to evaluate fairly:
-it would be better for debate if affirmatives did not have a meaningful relationship to the topic
-debate would be better if the negative team was not allowed to read any conditional advocacies
-reading topicality causes violence or discrimination within debate
-"role of the ballot"
-the outcome of a particular debate will change someone's mind or will change the state of debate
-the 5-second aspec argument that was hidden in the 1nc can become a winning 2nr
-the affirmative may not read a plan because of "bare plurals"
--
if there's anything i didn't mention or you have any questions, feel free to email me! if there's anything i can do to make debate more accessible for you, let me know! i really love debate and i coach because i want to make debate/the community a better place; please don't hesitate to reach out if there's anything you need.
Hi, I'm Dhruv!
I did LD debate for Proof School, cleared at most tournaments, and went to the TOC my junior year. I now study applied math and computer science at Brown University (class of 2027).
I read mostly policy and theory arguments, sometimes read tricks, and dabbled a little with Ks and phil. Read whatever you want.
Update for Harvard: I'm getting a wee bit tired of tricks debates...
Email Chain: dhruv.r.raghavan [at] gmail.com
Prefs Shortcut (based on what I think I'm good at judging)
1. policy, theory
2. tricks
3. phil, Ks
4. k v k
Top-level ideas/opinions:
-I will vote on basically anything that's warranted (no bigotry). Even though I have opinions, I will try my best to be a blank slate.
-Debate is a game. Play the game to win.
-The content of high school debates should probably be PG-13 (sporadic cursing is fine).
-Tech>truth, but to be honest, the tech/truth distinction is kind of silly; if an argument relies on a fact that's blatantly false, i.e. "WW2 ended in 1965" I am probably going to disregard it, but I won't intervene against subjective arguments like "communism good." As a rule of thumb, arguments with better quality warrants are easier to win.
-Please don't make debate the oppression olympics.
-Tell me what impacts matter. Weighing wins debates.
-I'm not gonna vote on arguments pertaining to the identities of you or your opponent (i.e I'm __ so I should win), or arguments about events that occurred out of round (other than disclosure theory).
-Compiling is prep, but sending isn't (unless you're taking a while, in which case I'll get a bit annoyed).
-"Independent voting issues" need to have a warrant, independent weighing/framing mechanism, and an explanation of why they outweigh in the first speech they are read in.
Speaks:
I will try to base speakers points off of strategy only (the exception is when you're a jerk). I've decided to not vote on arguments pertaining to speaker points because you could just say "give us both 30 speaks" and then your opponent would concede it and that defeats the purpose of speaks. Anyways, here's a rough scale:
30: You displayed an astonishingly high level of technical proficiency, argument innovation, and knowledge in the subject matter of the debate.
29.5-29.9: You did something really creative/entertaining and showed an argumentative proficiency that will likely get you to mid-late out-rounds.
29-29.4: Your strategy was great, and you'll probably clear.
28.5-28.9: Barely clearing or even record.
28-28.4: You're below average for this tournament and your strategy wasn't great.
27.5-27.9: Your strategy had significant errors, and you didn't really understand the arguments you read.
27.4 or below: You did something that pissed me off.
Speed:
I will say clear 3 times before I stop flowing. Pause a little between cards, slow down on analytics, and enunciate every word.
Here are some loose opinions I have about specific positions:
Advantages/DAs:
-Do not assume I have any topic knowledge.
-The plan text should be clear and concise.
-Evidence comparison is a must in close debates, so know your evidence well. It's of course fine to read cards that other people cut, but make sure you've read and understood the articles.
Counterplans/CP theory:
-Perms are a test of competition.
-Do impact calc and tell me how I should evaluate the CP (i.e. sufficiency framing, judge kick, etc.)
-I err aff on cheaty counterplan competition. That means I'll have a lower threshold for functionally intrinsic perms.
Ks:
-I know more about cap and set col than other Ks.
-Don't be afraid to impact turn their model of debate.
-Use concrete examples when explaining your alt. Do not assume I know what "traversing the fantasy," "embracing a cartography of refusal," "joining the party," etc. are.
-I went for vague alts bad a lot, simply because most people don't know how to respond to it. That being said, affirmatives that read this shell often violate their own interpretation by reading semi-vague plan texts. So if you're gonna go for it, add specification below your plan text or something like that.
-The fiat distinction is arbitrary.
-I don't understand why people read 1-minute-long, buzzword-filled overviews at top speed. I don't flow them. They are completely useless and are often filled with incomprehensible, heinous run-on sentences. Do actual line-by-line please.
Topicality
-The word "reasonability" without any contextualization is not enough for me to drop the shell.
-Please do weighing between semantics and pragmatics, limits and PICs, etc.
-I enjoy topic specific T debates more than ones about bare plurals.
-Slow down in the 2nr please, especially if it's docced.
Theory
-Paragraph shells are fine, but you still need paradigm issues.
-I default DTD, no RVIs, and competing interps. All of these can easily be changed.
-Weighing is as important in theory debates as it is in other debates.
-Yes, you can read your 7 frivolous shells in front of me, but don't make the debate messy.
-Slow down on analytics please.
Tricks
-Fine with these debates, just slow down so I don't miss "extemped" arguments.
-TBH, I'm getting tired of these debates just because people don't read them well. If you poorly execute a tricks strategy, your speaks will suffer.
-They need a claim, warrant, and impact, just like any other argument. Paradoxes without explicit ballot implications are hard to vote on.
-If you extend a conceded trick, extend the claim, warrant, and impact.
-If they ask for the a prioris in CX, be straight up about them (though asking "What's an a priori?" as a joke is funny).
Philosophy
-While I never really got into this style of debate, I do enjoy reading and discussing philosophy and I'm down to judge these debates, especially if you're reading something new/innovative.
-Most familiar with Kant and Pragmatism, err on the side of over-explanation for other ethical theories.
Non-T/Performance/T-Framework
-If I don't know what the aff does I'm not voting for it.
-The burden is on the aff to prove why debating the topic is undesirable.
-Presumption is an underrated tool in these debates.
-Framework 2NRs should try to be specific to the round.
-I like TVAs and am persuaded by well-written ones.
-If you're going to "perform" in some way, make it clear how I'm supposed to evaluate it. Just randomly playing a song or reading a poem and not bringing it up in the 1ar is sorta useless.
That's all I have to say for now, but if you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask (by email or before the round).
Happy Debating!
I coach withDebateDrills - the following URL has our roster, MJP conflict policy, code of conduct, relevant team policies, and harassment/bullying complaint form: https://www.debatedrills.com/club-team-policies/lincoln-douglas-team-policy
Hi! I'm Yesh. I competed for 4 years at San Mateo, qualling to the TOC 4x w/ 27 career bids reaching quarters along with championing some tournaments (Glenbrooks, Bronx, Lexington, etc). I'm now a freshman at Berkeley.
Email chain: yeshraofc@gmail.com
I always thought paradigms were far too long so I'll try and keep this short. I will gladly evaluate any argument that contains a claim, warrant, and impact. My only preference is that you read the arguments you understand and enjoy debating. Debate is a lot more fun when debaters get to experiment with the strategies they've spent time working on. Please don't adapt to what you think I may be better for. I read/went for almost everything throughout my career from policy heavy strategies, to K affs, all the way to niche phil/theory.
That being said, well explained arguments (regardless of content) are both more enjoyable to listen to and easier to win.
I have experience both reading and debating against most argument styles with the one exception being dense postmodern literature. If this is something you're reading, just be clear about explanation and judge instruction.
Rather than diving into specific thoughts about arguments, here are some general things that I look for when rendering a decision.
1] Judge instruction should be at the top of your rebuttal speeches. I've always admired the ability to isolate specific pieces of contestation that you believe are most important and explaining why you are winning them.
2] I don't flow rebuttal speeches off a doc. I'm okay at flowing but it would serve you well to be really really clear when doing line by line on parts of the flow. I'm comfortable telling you that I did not vote on an argument simply because I could not comprehend a claim, warrant, and impact.
3] For K debates, good, contextual link explanation paired with turns case analysis is far preferred to broad claims about IR from a doc. Introducing framework arguments in the 1NC is something that should be done more to avoid late breaking debates. Both ways, your 2NR should be explicit about the implications of winning framework.
4] For policy debates, internal link comparision and weighing is far, far, better than unspecific impact comparision. You should explain why your internal links are more probable/faster than your opponents rather than why one impact would theoretetically be worse than another.
5] Phil debates are wonderful but I'd be a lot happier if your strategy was less reliant on blips and more on syllogistic explanations for actions and how they relate to the resolution. If the former, you should be very clear and explicit about the implication of each argument in constructives rather than introducing them in rebuttal speeches.
6] Lastly, be nice to one another. Debate is stressful and snarky comments / unnecessary aggression will almost certainly be reflected with poorer speaks. On the flip, I'm happy to boost speaks when debaters are respectful and make an active effort to make the round more inclusive / enjoyable.
Hello!
I'm really excited to judge your round(s). Here's a little about my debate experience and what you can expect from me as a judge.
Experience: I went to high school in Texas, and my circuit was competitive. I started with policy but mostly competed in LD (4 years). I have also competed in/learned Congress, Extemp, WS, and Info. My debate journey was incredibly messy with the pandemic, as it was for almost everyone in the world. My ISD switched through three different coaches in four years, and my school just started its debate program as a new campus opened in 2021. I'm excited to start fresh at UMich and hope to continue with speech & debate for as long as possible.
Judging:
I expect to be included in the email chain shreysr@umich.edu (including any text/email conversations you are having during the round about the round with your team/opponent—this is important to ensure that we are having a fair and SAFE round). As a judge, I want to make a safe space for debate a priority. Any kind of bullying/ableism will lead to you losing speaker points or losing the round.
This should apply to all your rounds, but please keep things organized. I'm not asking you to re-format anything for me, but I ask for you to be considerate of your opponents' formatting preferences AND accessibility needs.
I have not judged very many high school debate tournaments- Don't put me on prefs if you want a highly technical round because I wouldn't know how to judge that.
Be nice; we're here for the learning experience!
As a judge, my paradigm is constantly evolving. Should you have any questions, email me (linked above)