Woodward Academy '20

University of Virginia '24

Email chain: ghanate.nishita@gmail.com

People who taught me how to debate and their paradigms:

Bill Batterman: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=10298

Maggie Berthiaume: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=1265

Meta Comments

1. Respect your opponents. Don't do silly things or make fun of your opponents.

2. The document that you send out should be the exact same document that you are reading from your computer. Not only will you be depriving me the opportunity to read along with you, but you will also be giving me the impression that your arguments are bad enough that if your opponents knew what you were saying they would win.

3. I care the most about clash and nuanced arguments. The best debates are ones with aff-specific strategies that show off what both teams know about the topic. I am not impressed by winning debates on State CPs that fiat out of everything or affirmatives without a solvency advocate with contrived advantages. Engage the literature.

4. I read evidence at the end of a round. It doesn't make or break my decision, but I definitely would lean more to the side of being a "truth over tech" judge.

5. You can win absolute defense in front of me. It's hard but not impossible especially if your opponent reads cards that clearly conclude in the opposite direction or leave out an internal link.

Critiques

If the point of your kritik is to say words that your opponents won't understand, I will not understand what you are saying either. Avoid jargon. Try to explain your arguments more. I am familiar with the most common critiques (capitalism, anti-Blackness, settler colonialism, militarism, feminism, abolition).

I think aff-specific kritiks or generic kritiks with aff-specific links can be an amazing strategy especially if it's a core of the topic kritik (IE the abolition K on the CJR topic). However, I think too many "K teams" get away with reading silly links, links of omissions, serial policy failure, the fiat double bind, or any other K trick you can name. The best K debates are the ones that actually pinpoint something that the aff has done or something in their plan that is in fact bad. I'm not saying that all links should be to the plan, but I am saying that all links should be grounded in the 1AC. If the goal of your kritik is to clash with the aff from a new angle (IE reform vs transformative justice), you're on the right track.

Topicality

For not trying to be topical teams:

I think that teams should read a plan text especially in sub-varsity levels. Debate isn't a forum designed to provide a survival strategy or create a community of resistance. It is inherently a competitive space. Teams that do choose to read a non-topical aff should be prepared to defend every part of the 1AC through the end of the 2AR. CX is binding and I will hold you to what you say regardless of what you say in later speeches.

For teams with a plan text:

I enjoy T debates with concise impacts that actually attempt to exclude affs that shouldn't be a part of the topic. For this reason, T-Substantial is extremely persuasive to me given how well it limited the immigration and arms sales topic. As such, giving me a case list of not only what you include but also what you exclude is going to be extremely persuasive. But, I'm probably not going to vote on an interpretation that excludes a core of the topic aff.

'Planicality' is a non-starter for me. It's silly to think that adding the word substantial (or any other words in the resolution) all of a sudden makes your plan topical. It encourages poorly written plan texts that are incredibly vague so the aff can spike out of DAs while also doing all kinds of things that have no relation to the topic. It also poses an unfair burden on the neg as they now not only have to defend T to limit the scope of the plan, but also win substance as well.

Theory

I generally believe that the only voter is conditionality(No, {insert letter here}SPEC is not a voter), but I can be persuaded that some other theory violation is a voter especially if the theory violation is egregious.

Hiding ASPEC (not putting it on a separate flow) is a great way to lose speaker points for both negative debaters. Calling out your opponents and making hidden ASPEC an RVI is a great way to add to your speaker points.

Impact debating matters just as much in theory debates as it does in any other debate. If you don't have an impact and articulate why it matters more than your opponent's, I will likely not vote for you.

I will not judge kick unless the neg explicitly asks me to and the aff doesn't provide a theoretical reason not to. Keep in mind that if the neg has "dropped" the aff's advantages, a judge kick only benefits the aff.

Counterplans that compete off of certainty or immediacy are likely not competitive. Permutations, even perm: do the counterplan, do not have to be topical, as in they only have to meet definitions of the words in the plan. Similarly, I don't think Agent CPs are competitive unless the aff has specified their agent or read an advantage to their agent.

Disclaimer

While these are my general opinions of debate, I am by no means a norm setter or emotionally attached to them. I can always be persuaded by what happens in a debate round.

She/They

Email: stephaniezhang19@gmail.com

I don't like friv theory and I don't care what event it is. Please stop reading theory just because you don't like what your opponent is doing.

If there are concerns/questions: email me or flag me down before round.

I did four years of high school debate (2015-2019) which was primarily policy although I did a brief stint in LD (circuit and local) with some success. I’ve been both a 2N and a 2A while in policy. I graduated from UVA in May 2023 and spent all four years of undergrad coaching middle/high school LD, PF and speech. I'm now a PhD student at UCLA studying sociology. In other words, I can probably pick a winner but since I don’t coach/judge circuit LD or policy regularly, overly topic specific things or community norms on T and theory will probably require more explanation as well as a slight decrease in speed for the first 30 seconds or so.

I was never a super successful debater and there will be things I don’t understand being said or done. That being said, most of the things on this paradigm are a weak default and the longer I've been out of debate (particularly as I swing in and out of various judging hiatuses), the more I vote against things on this paradigm or that I think are true.

Top level thoughts

Things not up for negotiation: Speech/prep time and the fact that I am signing your ballot and it is only who I think won.

I don’t think I’ll have to do this but if a round is getting out of hand (racial slurs, deadnaming, misgendering, sexual harassment, violence of any kind), I reserve the right to step in, stop the round and get tab involved.

Based on my experience, I am very concerned about the way people treat small school debaters, young debaters starting out or debaters who debate on primarily lay/traditional circuits. If you're going to be rude to these debaters for not understanding your argument (being unwilling to explain it, calling them names when they aren't sure how to engage it, etc) or refusing to adapt even the tiniest bit then I will give you a 25 with very little sympathy.

Tech > Truth within reason. I think bad arguments should be beaten and called out but the proliferation of terrible theory arguments in LD is convincing me that not every bad argument deserves a full answer beyond "this is absurd". Hence, the sillier an argument is, the lower my threshold is for answering it but you still have to answer it in some way. If you can't, then sadly for me and for you, you shouldn't win. Dropped arguments are not automatically true—you still need to tell me why drops matter and do the analysis and warranting for me to buy it. [2022 judging update: if you say things that are clearly untrue I will disregard them unless it is proved true otherwise]

Clarity > speed: Speed is the number of arguments on my flow, not your words per minute. You get one clear and after that I’ll only flow what I can with very little sympathy for what I don’t catch. I flow every event except for WSD on paper, so keep that in mind when you think about how much I'll actually write down.

I don’t read card texts and when I do, it’s either a few pieces of evidence in a super close debate or all the evidence in a debate where no one did any work for me. This means it’s important you control the spin of evidence, flush out warrants and do comparisons. I tend to think quality over quantity for evidence—smart analytics can beat bad cards and you should call out bad evidence.

Write my RFD and resolve important questions—I take the path of least resistance when making decisions. Good final speakers will make voting issues clear through framing, judge instruction, filtering comparison through nexus questions and organizing responses to their opponents. When I evaluate a round, I generally look to the biggest points of clash and impact comparison first, and filter everything through that.

Nuance tends to win rounds in front of me. The more specific you are with your analysis and the scenario you give me, the more likely I am to vote for you.

Presumption can be convincing, and I tend to think that terminal defense can tip a debate.

Tag team is ok but I’ll only flow the person who’s supposed to be speaking.

Be nice. Have fun. Treat your partner and your opponents with respect. It's nice to be important, but it's even more important to be nice

Policy, Progressive LD

Fw

Debate is a game. Whether it should mean anything else is up for debate. Fairness is an internal link (stuff like fairness is important to maintain a particular kind of debate), and I think I’m usually better for debates that pit two models of debate and their educational benefits against each other. TVAs are sometimes very useful and sometimes not necessary.

I find that I tend to vote for the side that most directly engages the other.

T

I err slightly (55-45) towards reasonability, but the more "what on earth" an aff is, the more persuaded I am by T. I don’t really think good affirmatives on a topic have to fall under one definition, but one random person defining a word in a completely different context is not a "definition".

No RVIs please and thank you.

LD: I'm pretty skeptical of the Nebel ev (and the argument as a whole).

Theory

Don’t just word vomit your theory blocks. If I miss half your standards I’m not going to think that it’s a reason to reject. Most theory debates end at reject the argument, rejecting the team is a very steep uphill battle.

I’m not a fan of "new affs bad", disclosure theory (btw disclosure is still important!), and the like. As long as a reasonable attempt has been made to disclose (this does not necessarily mean the wiki) then I think disclosure theory has very little merit. If someone doesn't know what the wiki is, running disclosure theory is an auto-25. Friv theory will make me put my pen down. I don’t care what event it is.

I tend to think condo is good, but this becomes a sliding scale the more conditional options end up in the 1NC.

LD:

-Not a fan of whatever """theory""" is in LD. Policy oriented theory (condo, cp theory, perm theory and the like) is ok.

-I understand the proliferation of RVIs in LD and find it ridiculous that this is due to the proliferation of garbo theory args because here RVIs just boil down to "this is stupid, 1AR time skew is bad, vote for me". I am very persuaded by reasonability in these debates.

K

Since I don't coach, I haven't read with the intent of debating since high school but I do read a lot for school. I would say my K knowledge is average overall but quite low on authors who argue that language has no meaning, everything is meaningless, or rely on convoluted metaphors. Based on what I study you can assume some knowledge of literature around race, colonialism, capitalism, technology, etc but you can ask before round regarding specific authors/literature base.

I like Ks that are applied specifically to the aff, not just a broad theory of understanding the status quo or “the topic sucks”/“fiat sucks”. The best K debates spin convincing stories by filtering the action of the affirmative through their literature base into a convincing story that doesn't rely heavily on jargon.

I think mitigating harm is a good thing. Take that how you will

I think a team can win metalevel framing questions and still lose technical concessions

Please just be honest about how long your overview is, although if it's more than 2 minutes I would suggest reevaluating it later.

The ROB is only a question of impact calculus. Framework debates matter surprisingly little if each side puts up a fight.

I have very little experience with K v. K debates, but my default is that the affirmative gets a perm. Perm theory, like most theory, tends to annoy me when it’s done poorly.

DA/CP

I dig. Impact/link turns (within reason) are always welcome. Dedev will get a slight chuckle from me.

Topic literature is the best indication of what CPs are competitive. You should have solvency evidence in the 1NC.

Affs

Case debate please and thank you.

For K Affs:

I tend to think the affirmative should have a direct relationship to the topic (kudos for creativity), a stable advocacy/action in the 1AC (i.e: not generated after hearing the 1NC) and a robust framework response. I tend to dislike when the framework response relies on analogies or comparisons to policing or roleplaying arguments.

I’m not going to make presumption arguments for the neg, but I might raise my eyebrows at solvency claims. Both sides should take advantage of that

LD notes:

-Phil args will take more explanation in front of me. Assume 0 knowledge and slight distaste of Kant, Hobbes, and the like.

PF, Traditional LD

Evidence quality matters. That includes source, dates, including the full text of the evidence, etc. I realize traditional LD (and the PF debates I’ve seen) don’t particularly reward evidence disclosure, but that shouldn’t be an excuse to engage in dubious practices (making up evidence, clipping, mis-citing evidence) for the sake of winning. If I catch you doing so I will auto-drop you, since this is academic dishonesty.

I get irritated when the last speeches devolve into overviews. Even if you're outlining voter issues for me, you should be filtering them through nexus questions and explaining why I prefer your side or why your value/vc is better AND responding to your opponent's arguments in a coherent way. I should be able to trace a point A to point B in your scenario.

Other things

For circuit tournaments I start at a 28.5 and move up/down depending on the division. For WACFL non-policy, speaker points start a point lower (27-27.5). For WACFL policy, they start a half point lower (28-28.5).

Non-disclosure as a policy is absurd and pedagogically harmful. If I have time I will absolutely give feedback after the round, especially if it is something that needs to be fixed before other rounds. If we are in person you are absolutely welcome to track me down to ask for more.

I have a pretty terrible poker face and you 100% should use that to your advantage.

I get really peeved when debaters give silly answers during cross x. Just answer the question.

I don’t feel comfortable making a judgement on something that happened outside of the round.