Berkner TFA
2020 — Richardson, TX/US
NLD Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideLovejoy 2021 2A/1N for 4 years
Purdue 2025 in Aerospace Engineering
SHORT:
Tab. Haven't read too much on the topic but know the basics, warrant your stuff well, don't go too fast bc I'm a little out of practice. Ask me specific questions if you have them, I am more than happy to answer! Call me Jack, you don't need to call me judge unless you're into that.
If you do you, you will be fine. Don't try to adapt to me, I will flow with the round and chill. I did it all, so just do what you do best.
LONG:
Apr '22
Tech >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Truth
Don't be racist, sexist, etc., it's poor taste and I will give you lower speaks. However, these are bad args, and I still expect some warrant for why I shouldn't vote on an arg- look at my opinion on tech vs truth. I will vote on stuff I think is morally wrong, even if it is messed up. If you lose to someone defending something that is that messed up, idk what to say tbh.
Since this stuff is online and I am old(er), I might miss some stuff. If you want to make sure I get it down, put it on the doc. Cards, analytics, etc. will help me better keep track of everything. If I don't get it, that sucks.
L + Ratio + Not on Flow + Slow Down on Analytics + I am Old
Feel free to ask about my RFD and thoughts, I am more than happy to explain why I did (or did not) vote on an argument. If you want feedback from me for some reason, hit me up and I can answer stuff.
Case: I am good with plan text, performative, or just advocacy statements, but you need to be able to defend/debate your choice adequately. Like if you are reading performative stuff, there better be a reason why it is that with no plan text than "felt like it." That being said, I think case is underutilized in debates and love hearing a 2A extend case and answer off case with it and all that. #Protect the 2AR
K Affs/Whatever you want to call your no plan thing: Cool, go for it. You know what you are doing, I don't think I read a plan text at all my senior year and for most of my debating career.
Framing: Model justification and model disads to neg model win debates. Impact them out, 90% of the time no one puts enough time into this but utilizing it is insane. Give me framing and examples for how the WOTA provides a better space in the future for whatever you are saying and how this round is important.
DAs- YASSSS SLAYYYYYY! Make sure to do everything that needs to be done. Aff, please do sick I/L turns and stuff, those are way more convincing than anything else I usually find.
CPs- Make sure net benefits are competitive, otherwise have fun. If you are reading an abusive CP, have blocks for theory ready.
Just a side note on the two above, I read a bunch of topicality-K strats when I debated (>90%), so take that into account before you read 53 off and on-case. This is my biggest gripe in debate is neg teams that read a bunch off and just collapse to whatever is undercovered, I am super sympathetic to aff abuse claims and theory. That being said, I have voted for flows that have 8-9 off before and will remain as unbiased as I can. Just be prepped for me to be mildly annoyed during the RFD bc these rounds make me .
T/Theory- as a 1N I did this a lot in the 1NR/wrote blocks, just say why stuff matters and all the framing/model debates. Theory and framing flows usually just become the same by the end, so if you want them distinct try to make them different. I am pretty neutral on CI and reasonability, usually based on abusiveness of definition/aff and DAs to models. If you do this, please make sure to explain why your model is better and how it impacts out- if you just say "my model is the best bc it solves racism" explain how yours does and the other side doesn't. A lot of theory/framework/framing flows just become washes bc no one explains how I should evaluate the entire round. If you have questions on this bc this is vague, I will answer them before round.
Ks- Read a bunch of BioP, NecroP, Set Col, Cap, Deleuze, Psychoanalysis, and a bunch of other random junk. Personally, If you read the best psycho debate I have ever heard and are able to win on it, you get double 30s and a dub. But don't feel pressured to do that, if you read a K and read it well and do everything you need to the K is a good choice. If you make it a PIK, you better be ready for AR theory and I am pretty sympathetic to that. NOTE: just bc I read something does not mean I will do the work for you. I may be able to make a few leaps, but I won't let you say "Set Col is oppressing natives and we need to burn down the government" as if that explains the whole K.
Roadmap + time in the chat kinda nice tho, online debate made me a lazy timer so imma prob rely on y'all to do it.
Speed: Go for it, if I can't understand I will just stare at the screen or say clear. After that, have fun I guess. It should be p obvious when I can't get what you say, but hey.
Points: Start at a 28.5, work up or down. Usually will go something like (30 29.5 29 28.5) unless something happens that makes me reconsider.
TKO- if you know you know (and it's not T + K + On Case)
If I laugh audibly, +.5 SPEAKS
Be nice to your opponents. If you are winning, don't drag it out, I hate it when a team spends 3 minutes just roasting the other team bc they have time. If you end your speech early bc the round is legit over and get us out early, both of y'all will have a minimum of 29.5.
I already sold my soul to the MIC/DIB, so do your worst. Also if you want to hear about sick planes, lmk.
amanda072086@gmail.com
Speak clearly. Any speed is fine as long as you slow down and read your tag lines and main points very clearly. Spreading is fine. Give clear indication of when you have reached the burden you set out.
LD: I am a true values debate judge in LD. Tabula rasa judge. Flexible to any kinds of cases and arguments as long as they are respectful. If your case is not topical or abusive and your opponent argues and proves that in their speeches then I am willing to vote based on topicality, education and abuse.
PF and CX: Be respectful and cordial to your opponent. I’m open to most anything in Policy rounds. Always stay on the debate topic, don’t wander off onto an irrelevant subject because it’s more enjoyable to argue about than the topic is. Always allow your opponent the opportunity to complete their sentence before continuing to cross.
I’m a Tabula rasa Judge especially in Policy debate. If you don’t tell me how you want me to weigh the round and set a minimum burden for each side to have to meet within the round to win then I will default to judging based on the block and will turn into a games playing judge and will make voting decisions based on what my flow shows and dropped arguments or arguments that were lost or conceded will very much factor into my vote. Impacts, Warrants and links need to be made very clear, and always show me the magnitude.
I have judged at several different debate tournaments for different events in years past but just recently started judging LD.
As a judge, I prefer you to present your arguments and explain why those arguments should win the debate. I don't rely on a flow as much as I do persuasion on the topic.
I prefer crystallization on both sides.
I do not enjoy spreading and please no trick cases.
Jimmy Wolf / Last Updated 05/31/2024 for GCDS National Qualifiers
Email Chain - (jimmyjimwolf@gmail.com)
*I prefer email chains, TLDR in bold
August 2016 - June 2020: Competed at THEO
--PF Paradigms--
--Strikes-- I won't vote on any of these things.
-
No “evidence paraphrasing,” tags can paraphrased but they have to be carded.
-
No counter interpretations/”tricks” in debate.
-
If your strategy involves reading more than three off case and kicking all of them but the one your opponents didn't catch or have time to respond to.
--Preferences--
-
Offtime Roadmaps
-
Signpost
-
Formality
-
Majority of rebuttal should be defense (reasons to reject your opponents’ advocacy).
--General--
-
All kinds of arguments are acceptable in debate (Framework/Evidence/Definition/Topicality/Morality/Theory/K/CP)
-
My default framing is cost benefit analysis (CBA).
-
Absent offense (reasons to vote for your advocacy) by PRO in the round and I will default CON on the ballot.
-
Given the times in PF I am okay with poverty, unemployment, GDP, inequality, etc. as impacts. I would prefer quantified terminals impacts (recession, war, etc.).
-
I am tech>truth. I evaluate strictly on what is presented in the round. I will inevitably have to choose one argument over the other but I will base those interpretations on warrants and analysis presented in the round - not outside information.
--Non Negotiables--
-
The second rebuttal must respond to turns.
-
Summary should consolidate.
-
Extensions must include warrants.
-
Final Focus should be voters and weighing, most rebuttals in FF will be dropped. Arguments in final focus should also be presented in the summary to weight. My RFD is heavily based on consolidation and the arguments presented in the FF.
--Style--
-
Speaker points are on presentation, not arguments.
-
Speed: I will say clear if I cannot follow, if it continues I will drop my pen till I can follow. Slow down on argument tags and cites. Give both me and the other team the doc if spreading.
--Progressive Debate-- I’m okay with progressive debate but a few notes if you are running it.
-
Debate is an education place, run progressive arguments to exclude your opponents and I’ll give you 25 speaks low point wins at best.
-
Please know/understand what you are reading. Do not read something for the sake of reading it. K’s/Theory need to be well explained and extended.
-
Theory/Topicality Defaults In Order: RVI, Drop the Debater, Topicality
--LD Paradigms--
--Strikes-- I won't vote on any of these things.
-
No “evidence paraphrasing,” tags can paraphrased but they have to be carded.
-
No counter interpretations/”tricks” in debate.
-
If your strategy involves reading more than four off case and kicking all of them but the one your opponents didn't catch or have time to respond to.
--Preferences--
-
Offtime Roadmaps
-
Signpost
-
Formality
-
Majority of rebuttal should be defense (reasons to reject your opponents advocacy).
--General--
-
All kinds of arguments are acceptable in debate (Framework/Evidence/Definition/Topicality/Morality/Theory/K/CP)
-
My default framing for LD is utilitarianism.
-
For policy based resolutions, absent offense (reasons to vote for your advocacy) by PRO in the round and I will default CON on the ballot.
-
Given the times in LD I am okay with poverty, unemployment, GDP, inequality, etc. as impacts. I would prefer quantified terminals impacts (recession, war, etc.).
-
I am tech>truth. I evaluate strictly on what is presented in the round. I will inevitably have to choose one argument over the other but I will base those interpretations on warrants and analysis presented in the round - not outside information.
--Non Negotiables--
-
The 1AR must respond to turns.
-
The back-half of the NR and the 2AR should be voters and weighing. Most blocks in these speeches will be dropped, frontlines will flow through though.
--Style--
-
Speaker points are on presentation, not arguments.
-
Speed: I will say clear if I cannot follow, if it continues I will drop my pen till I can follow. Slow down on argument tags and cites. Give both me and the other team the doc if spreading.
--Progressive Debate-- I’m okay with progressive debate but a few notes if you are running it.
-
Debate is an education place, run progressive arguments to exclude your opponents and I’ll give you 25 speaks low point wins at best.
-
Please know/understand what you are reading. Do not read something for the sake of reading it. K’s/Theory need to be well explained and extended.
-
Theory/Topicality Defaults In Order: RVI, Drop the Debater, Topicality
--CX Paradigms--
--Strikes-- I won't vote on any of these things.
-
No “evidence paraphrasing,” tags can paraphrased but they have to be carded.
-
No counter interpretations/”tricks” in debate.
-
If your strategy involves reading more than four off case and kicking all of them but the one your opponents didn't catch or have time to respond to.
--Preferences--
-
Offtime Roadmaps
-
Signpost
-
Formality
-
Majority of rebuttal should be defense (reasons to reject your opponents advocacy).
-
Final focus should be line-by-line voters on framing and weighing. Weighing can be easily done on impact calculus. Please only do crystallization if you and your opponent are ignoring framing. Rebuttals in final focus will most likely be dropped.
--General--
-
All kinds of arguments are acceptable in debate (Framework/Evidence/Definition/Topicality/Morality/Theory/K/CP)
-
My default framing is stock issues.
-
I am tech>truth. I evaluate strictly on what is presented in the round. I will inevitably have to choose one argument over the other but I will base those interpretations on warrants and analysis presented in the round - not outside information.
--Non Negotiables--
-
The second rebuttal (1R) must respond to turns.
-
Summary should consolidate.
-
Extensions must include warrants.
-
Counterplans must be competitive/unique
-
Given the times in CX I want quantified terminals impacts (recession, war, etc.). There is more than enough time to extend these from poverty, unemployment, GDP, inequality, etc. impacts.
--Style--
-
Speaker points are on presentation, not arguments.
-
Speed: I will say clear if I cannot follow, if it continues I will drop my pen till I can follow. Slow down on argument tags and cites. Give me (and the other team if they request) the doc if spreading.
--Progressive Debate-- I’m okay with progressive debate but a few notes if you are running it.
-
Debate is an education place, run progressive arguments to exclude your opponents and I’ll give you 25 speaks low point wins at best.
-
Please know/understand what you are reading. Do not read something for the sake of reading it. K’s/Theory need to be well explained and extended to vote on.
-
Theory/Topicality Defaults In Order: RVI, Drop the Debater, Topicality
--Congressional Debate--
-
Speaking is important in this event for me. I judge probably 65/35 on arguments vs speaking, respectively.
-
This is a mock Congress. Debate as such. Do not forget that you are a Representative/Senator.
-
I also take participation in the chamber into account. Ask questions, call motions, vote, etc.
-
Please present clash if you aren’t giving the authorship/sponsorship. Simply saying the name of another student and claiming they are wrong does not count.
-
I try to stay pretty educated on politics, but I won’t know the ins and outs of every bill/resolution in the country. Make sure you are clearly explaining what you are talking about