Tabroom.com

Middle School TOC hosted by UK

2022 — NSDA Campus, KY/US

Lincoln Douglas Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Arush Adabala '22 Greenhill School

Naomi Alan Marlborough School

Evan Alexis HuaXia Chinese School - Houston

Diana Alvarez Marlborough School

Diego Arcos HuaXia Chinese School - Houston

Suresh Balivada Bob Lanier Middle School

Joseph Barquin Marlborough School

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 4:53 PM PDT

Affiliations:

I am currently coaching 3 teams at lamdl (POLAHS, BRAVO, LAKE BALBOA) and have picked up an ld student or 2. I am pretty familiar with the fiscal redistribution and WANA topics.

I do have a hearing problem in my right ear. If I've never heard you b4 or it's the first round of the day. PLEASE go about 80% of your normal spread for about 20 seconds so I can get acclimated to your voice. If you don't, I'm going to miss a good chunk of your first minute or so. I know people pref partly through speaker points. My default starts at 28.5 and goes up from there. If i think you get to an elim round, you'll prob get 29.0+

Evid sharing: use speechdrop or something of that nature. If you prefer to use the email chain and need my email, please ask me before the round.

What will I vote for? I'm mostly down for whatever you all wanna run. That being said no person is perfect and we all have our inherent biases. What are mine?

I think teams should be centered around the resolution. While I'll vote on completely non T aff's it's a much easier time for a neg to go for a middle of the road T/framework argument to get my ballot. I lean slightly neg on t/fw debates and that's it's mostly due to having to judge LD recently and the annoying 1ar time skew that makes it difficult to beat out a good t/fw shell. The more I judge debates the less I am convinced that procedural fairness is anything but people whining about why the way they play the game is okay even if there are effects on the people involved within said activity. I'm more inclined to vote for affs and negs that tell me things that debate fairness and education (including access) does for people in the long term and why it's important. Yes, debate is a game. But who, why, and how said game is played is also an important thing to consider.

As for K's you do you. the main one I have difficulty conceptualizing in round are pomo k vs pomo k. No one unpacks these rounds for me so all I usually have at the end of the round is word gibberish from both sides and me totally and utterly confused. If I can't give a team an rfd centered around a literature base I can process, I will likely not vote for it. update: I'm noticing a lack of plan action centric links to critiques. I'm going to be honest, if I can't find a link to the plan and the link is to the general idea of the resolution, I'm probably going to err on the side of the perm especially if the aff has specific method arguments why doing the aff would be able to challenge notions of whatever it is they want to spill over into.

I lean neg on condo. Counterplans are fun. Disads are fun. Perms are fun. clear net benefit story is great.

If you're in LD, don't worry about 1ar theory and no rvis in your 1ac. That is a given for me. If it's in your 1ac, that tops your speaks at 29.2 because it means you didn't read my paradigm.

Now are there any arguments I won't vote for? Sure. I think saying ethically questionable statements that make the debate space unsafe is grounds for me to end a round. I don't see many of these but it has happened and I want students and their coaches to know that the safety of the individuals in my rounds will always be paramount to anything else that goes on. I also won't vote for spark, trix, wipeout, nebel t, and death good stuff. ^_^ good luck and have fun debating

Judy Becker Alice Deal

Last changed on Fri February 23, 2024 at 7:42 AM EDT

About Me: Hi! I'm a parent judge who's judged a number of LD and Speech tournaments over the past several years.

Speech

I understand that each speech event is a bit different, but generally, I will judge your speech based on topic/piece selection, your technical speaking skills (enunciation, projection, etc.), your ability to engage me in the topic or piece, your ability to inhabit the characters and world of the story (Interp), and the flow and persuasiveness of your speech (OO). I view speech activities from the perspective of a former courtroom lawyer as well as a former theater kid.

I was not a debater in school but I'm a (former) litigator whose instinct is to view LD as analogous to some of the hardest fought cases I argued in court.

Framework/Standards Debate: Set a standard for the round that makes sense in terms of the activity. If you are debating LD, I want to hear about the resolution.

Case Structure: Contentions should be carefully crafted, contain warrants and impacts, and link back to the standards to provide a well-researched, well-reasoned case position. I will be listening for case positions that are supported by research and evidence.

I strongly prefer argument-focused rounds over technicality- or definition-focused rounds. I won't be able to follow the intricacies of a technicality-focused round, so it will not help you anyway.

I will flow anything that I can of what you run, and evaluate based on my flow. I am not familiar with the K or with theory. If you're running either I expect you to slow down on taglines, provide clear links and impacts (and a well defined alternative for the K). If I can't understand it, I can't evaluate it.

If running abstract Ks, complex theory with few links, or blippy philosophy with no clear in round and out of round applications, I am not the judge for you. I'm looking for something better developed and more understandable.

Speed: I take detailed notes throughout a round (don't worry; I'm a fast typer). Speaking too quickly -- especially spreading! -- likely just means I will miss a key point. Please speak slowly enough to ensure I catch every contention, piece of evidence, and rebuttal.

Time: Feel free to time yourself, but I will also track time. When time finishes, I will let you finish a word or phrase, but then I will cut you off.

RFD and Speaker Points: My decision will be in favor of, and I will award the most speaker points to, the debater who best provides analytically sound arguments that tie directly to the resolution, effectively rebuts their opponent's arguments, establishes points in a logical, cogent manner, speaks clearly and confidently, holds my attention, particularly through (appropriate) humor and/or interesting but not convoluted or overly technical language, and maintains standards for decorum.

Good luck!

Jacob Bosley NSU University School

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 10:14 AM EDT

Assistant Speech & Debate Coach at NSU University School

Last Update: November 2023---Thoughts on "Disclosure" and "Evidence Ethics" in PF added.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1---Big Picture

Please put me on the e-mail chain.

Policy--- uschoolpolicy@gmail.com AND jacob.daniel.bosley@gmail.com

Public Forum--- uschoolpf@gmail.com AND jacob.daniel.bosley@gmail.com

I actively coach and research policy and public forum debate. I enjoy technical, organized debates. I don’t think I have particularly controversial views, but have tried to be thorough where it matters for prefs/pre-round prep.

Policy vs. K---An argument is an argument, assuming it’s complete, warranted, and applicable.

Tech vs. Truth---Tech obviously informs truth, but if I have to decide between intuitive and well-explained arguments vs. terrible evidence, I’ll choose the former. There are few things I won’t vote on, but “death good” is among them.

Offense vs. Defense---This is a helpful paradigm for assessing relative risk, but risk can be reduced to zero.

2---General Practices

Speed---Go for it, but at the higher end you should scale back slightly. I flow on a computer without much shorthand.

Evidence---I read it during debates. When referenced in CX, I’ll likely go to it. Quality is in the back of my mind, consciously or not.

Re-Highlighting---If small, I don’t think you need to re-read in speech. Don’t expect me to read a giant card to figure out if you’re right.

Digital Debate---Make sure everyone is present with confirmation before starting. Be reasonable about tech issues, as I will track tech time. If there are major issues, I’ll default to tournament procedures.

Decorum---Sass, snark, or shade are fine within reason. I’m not a good judge for hostile approaches, e.g. interrupting speeches.

“New” Arguments---The more late-breaking, the more open I am to responses. “Late-breaking” is relative to me catching the initial argument. Happy to strike 1AR/2NR arguments rightly flagged as “too new.”

Alternative Practices---I’m here to flow and judge a debate, awarding a single win. If you’re trying to do something different, I’m not the judge for you.

3---T vs. Plans

“Competing Interpretations”---This makes more intuitive sense to me than “reasonability,” but that's often because the latter isn't explained as a frame. Affs are still better off prioritizing offense.

"Fiscal Redistribution" Specifics---I was not at camp this summer, and at this point in the season still do not have strong views on most of the debated T issues like “FR = tax and transfer” or “FJ = no subsets.” From grad school studying health policy, "Social Security can be turned into single-payer health insurance" seems a bit absurd, but I’ll let evidence dictate decisions.

4---T vs. K Affs

Frustrations---These debates are often two ships passing in the night due to reliance on pre-written blocks. Please make judges lives easier by:

A---Have a robust defense of your model of debate, including roles for teams/judge, examples of how debates play out, net-benefits, etc.

B---Pick and choose your offense and compare it with what the other team has actually said.

"Affirmation"---At a bare minimum, affirmatives should have some relationship to the topic and “affirm” a clear advocacy. I am not sympathetic to purely negative arguments/diagnoses of power relations.

"Debate is a Game" vs. "Subject Formation"----Debate is a complicated space that's competitive, academic, and personal space. Arguments that assume it’s only one seem a bit shallow. Offense can be made assuming all three.

Terminal Impacts---“Fairness” or “clash” can be terminal impacts, though often teams don’t seem to explain why.

"Truth Testing"---I am less persuaded by these arguments because all argumentation seems to rely on some outside/unstated assumptions. I can certainly be persuaded that the structure of debate warps content and that could be a reason for skepticism.

"TVAs"---The 2NR needs to explain what offense they think the TVA resolves instead of expecting me to figure it out.

"T = [X Violent Practice]"---Feel free to impact turn the resulting curriculum, models, debates, etc. of an interpretation of debate, but its difficult to convince me reading an argument about the topic of discussion is analogical to policing/"stop and frisk"/"drone strikes"/other material violence.

5---Kritiks

Framework---I don't get middle grounds by default. I will resolve this debate one way or the other based on what is said, and then determine what remaining arguments count as offense.

Uniqueness---The alt needs to resolve each link, or have some larger reason that’s not relevant, e.g. framework. Affs are often in a better spot pressing poorly explained alternatives/links.

Competition---I presume affs can test mutual exclusivity of alts, whether against a “plan” or “advocacy.” Feel free to argue different standards of competition. The less the aff outlines a clear method, the more I’m persuaded by “no plan, no perm.”

Perm Texts---They are great. This can be difficult when alts are amorphous, but 1AR/2AR explanation needs to rise above “do both.”

6---Counterplans

Judge Kicking---If you want me to explicitly consider multiple worlds post-2NR, e.g. both CP vs. aff and/or status quo vs. aff, make an explicit argument. Saying the words “the status quo is always an option” in CX is not enough for me.

Theory vs. Literature---Topic literature helps dictate what you can persuade me is reasonable. If your only basis for competition is a definition of “resolved”/“should” and a random law review, good luck. If you have evidence contextual to a topic area and a clear explanation of functional differences in implementation, I’m far easier to persuade.

Solvency Advocates---CPs should have solvency advocates of “comparable quality” to the 1AC. If your Advantage CP plank cites 1AC evidence, go for it. If you’re making something up, provide a card. If you’re trying to make card-less “Con Con” a thing, I’m a hard sell.

Intrinsicness---Both the aff/neg need to get better at debating intrinsic/“other issues” perms. I'm an easier sell than others that these obviate many of the sillier CPs.

7---Disadvantages

Framing---It's everything: impact calculus, link driving uniqueness or vice-versa, the works. Smart arguments and coherent narratives trump a slew of evidence.

Internal Links > Impacts---I find most "DA Turns the Case" / "Case Turns the DA" debates don't spend enough time on causation or timing.

Politics Theory---Most 2AC theory blips against Politics DAs aren’t complete arguments, e.g. “fiat solves the link” or "a logical policymaker could do both." Still, intrinsicness arguments against DAs are underutilized.

8---Theory

Conditionality---It’s difficult to convince me some conditionality isn’t necessary for the neg to be viable. Things can certainly change based on substantive contradictions or quantity. Negs should be clear under what conditions, if any, they can kick individual CP planks.

Other Theory Issues---It’s difficult to persuade me that most theoretical objections to CPs or perms are reasons to reject the team.

“Tricks”/“Spikes”---Please no.

9---Public Forum Specifics

I am not a "lay"/"flay" judge.

A few views of mine may be idiosyncrasies:

Paraphrasing---I’m convinced this is a harmful practice that hides evidence from scrutiny. Evidence should be presented in full context with compete citations in real time. That means:

A---Author, Date, Title, URL

B---Complete paragraphs for excerpts

C---Underlining and/or highlighting indicating what is referenced.

D---Sending evidence you intend to read to opponents before the speech is delivered.

Purely paraphrased evidence compared to a team reading cut cards will be treated as baseless opinions.

Line-by-Line

A---You need to answer arguments in a coherent order based on when/where they were introduced.

B---You need to extend complete arguments, with warrants, in later speeches. If not in summary, it’s too late to bring back from the dead in final focus.

If neither side seems to be doing the needed work, expect me to intervene.

Disclosure---I generally think disclosure is beneficial for the activity, which is why our program open sources. However, I am not as dogmatic about disclosure when judging. It is difficult to convince me "disclosure in its entirety is bad," but the recent trend seems to be shifting interpretations that are increasingly difficult to meet.

Absent egregious lack of disclosure/mis-disclosure, I am not the best judge for increasingly demanding interpretations if opponents have made a good faith effort to disclose. For example, if a team forgot to disclose cites/round report for a single round, but is otherwise actively disclosing, it is difficult to convince me that a single mistake is a punishable offense.

While I don't want to prescribe what I think standard disclosure should be and would rather folks debate the specifics, I am an easier sell than others on some things:

A---The quality of debates is better when students know what arguments have been read in the past. This seems more important than claims that lack of disclosure encourages "thinking on your feet."

B---Debaters should provide tags/citations of previously read contentions. A doc with a giant wall of text and no coherent tags or labels is not meaningful disclosure.

C---Round reports don't seem nearly as important as other forms of disclosure.

Evidence Ethics---Evidence issues are getting egregious in PF. However, I also do not like some of the trends for how these debates are handled.

A---NSDA Rules---If an evidence challenge is invoked, I will stop the debate, inform the team issuing the challenge that the entire debate will hinge on the result of evaluating that challenge, and then consult both the NSDA rules and any tournament specific procedures to adjudicate the challenge. Questions of evidence ethics cannot be just "theory" or "off-case" arguments.

B---"Spirit" of Rules vs. Cheap Shots---I admittedly have idiosyncracies on specific issues, but if they come up will do my best to enforce the exact wording of NSDA rules.

i---"Straw" arguments where the cut section clearly does not represent the rest of the article, ellipses out of major sections, bracketing that changes the meaning of an article (including adding context/references the author didn't intend), and fabrication are easy to convince me are round-enders.

ii----A single broken URL, a card that was copy and pasted from a backfile incorrectly so the last sentence accidentally cut off a couple words, and other minor infractions do not seem worth ending a round over, but it's up for debate.

iii---Not being able to produce the original full text of a card quickly seems like a reason to reject a piece of evidence given NSDA wordings, though I worry this discourages the cutting of books which are harder to provide access to quickly during debates.

Scott Brown Honor Academy

Liz Brusseau Isidore Newman Middle School

Rushil Chetty HuaXia Chinese School - Houston

Last changed on Sat February 17, 2024 at 12:15 AM CDT

Hey, I'm Rushil (he/him).

Strake Jesuit '23

Princeton '27

Note that I haven’t been involved with debate for almost a year at this point and am unfamiliar with the topic; err towards overexplanation.

I debated Lincoln-Douglas at Strake Jesuit for four years and have a little over 10 years of experience in Speech & Debate. I have four career bids and a bid round and have qualified to TFA State (x3), TOC (x2), and NSDA Nationals(x2).

Add me to the email chain: rechetty23@mail.strakejesuit.org

Tech>Truth to a large extent, I should have little work to do at the end of the round and your final speech should write my ballot

Prefs:

LARP/Trad - 1

Theory/T - 1

Kritiks - 2

Phil - 3

Tricks - 4

LARP:

Read whatever you're comfortable with

Weighing and clash are super important on both impacts and evidence

I love a good framework debate, CPs and Politics are great too

Theory:

I default competing interpretations, no RVIs, DTD, and Fairness unless told to evaluate differently

Please don't read frivolous theory lol

Weigh well between voters and standards

Slow down if there's no doc

Please be specific and explain your arguments and weighing well

I'm not a fan of Non-T affs so my threshold for responses is not very high

Kritiks:

I've read mainly SetCol and Cap but understand a few other Ks as well

I'm okay with reps and not a huge fan of K affs

Don't use this to evaluate what you read though because I will not fill in any gaps for you or vote off anything that is not well-explained - especially if it's clear to me that your opponent does not understand your explanation as well

If you're asked to explain the K in CX and talk really fast and use a lot of jargon that your opponent clearly cannot understand, it will hurt your speaks

I prefer material alts but I'll still evaluate refusal - explain why it's good and solves case if possible

Please don't throw in a floating PIK out of nowhere, at least hint at it in the 1N

Phil:

Not a huge fan of Phil and not the best at evaluating it either, but I'll do my best to listen to your arguments

Weigh well and explain your warrants

I default to truth testing and presumption and permissibility affirm

Tricks:

Yeah please don't read any lol, this includes skep triggers and a priori

I'll still evaluate them but my threshold for responses is really low - if your opponent tells me to throw them out because they ruin debate I'll 100% listen to them because I agree lol

I'll allow responses to "Evaluate the debate after X" in all speeches because I really don't like voting on these and don't like them in general

If you do read tricks and are really dodgy about explaining or identifying them in CX, it will hurt your speaks

Miscellaneous:

Keeplocal recordings of your speeches - anything that I don't hear does not get flowed unless you can send me a recording of it

Be polite and don't swear - I find it really annoying when debaters feel the need to swear in round or try to one-up their opponents - it's not ethos-y at all and doesn't make you a better debater

Please don't read or say anything offensive or intentionally misgender your opponent - I won't drop you if you accidentally do it but if it becomes obvious I'll be more receptive to arguments they make. Obviously if you do something offensive, please take time to apologize for it WITHIN THE ROUND

I won't read off the doc, so make sure you are clear

I'll call clear twice before I stop flowing anything I can't understand

I'll flow CX

Please make the round accessible - this doesn't mean always debating trad against a novice, rather explain your arguments very well and don't spread

Arguments must be extended through every speech to be evaluated

If you concede it, it's true

No new responses in the 2NR/2AR unless you're going for meta theory or responses to 1AR shells

Noah Christiansen ModernBrain

Last changed on Wed January 17, 2024 at 5:46 AM PDT

Here's my email - I don't use my personal one for debate anymore - please put me on the chain: noah@modernbrain.com

ModernBrain Coach '19-Present

Valley International Prep Coach '21-'22

Polytechnic Coach '22-'23

Chadwick and Sierra Vista Coach '23-Present

I debated for four years in policy debate at McQueen high school, two years at CSU Long Beach (where I qualified to the NDT twice), and was on the Trojan Debate Squad for two years at USC. Currently, I am a speech and debate coach for ModernBrain which means that at times I have to judge public forum, ld, congress, etc. (although I judge policy most). For all of the non-policy people that I judge - please don't change your debate style just because I did policy debate. I'd much rather see you do what you do best instead of try to spread and read arguments that you aren't familiar with.

Debate is simply whatever you want it to be. Are there specific rules that should be desired over others? Is debate just a game or is it a revolutionary game with potential for change? I think there are a litany of questions that occur in debates that should be left open for the debaters to answer. With that being said, I appreciate all types of debate whether you're policy or kritikal and am open to vote on anything.

Disclaimer: Question to all of the judges that auto-vote FW: If I auto-voted on the K or a K aff would I be a bad judge? I will never ever ever understand how some judges will auto vote framework. I see a lot of these judges and it's ridiculous. Even the judges that say they will never vote on framework. Like, what? We are better than this. We are judging people who are taking time to craft out strategies and you have such an ideological bias for a side that you will vote kids down because you disagree? I coach some K debaters and our pref sheet is at such a disadvantage - this is sad. So, for the debaters, be yourself and read the arguments you want in a debate with me as your judge because that's what I'm here for.

Some specific stuff:

T - I enjoy T debates a lot, ESPECIALLY when the topic allows for great T arguments. The China QPQ T and the Education Curriculum T allowed for some great conversations that were in-depth and allowed both sides to have good reasons for their model of debate. I find it difficult to adjudicate topicality debates when it's incredibly minute (not that I wouldn't vote on it, but the model of debate and potential abuse needs to be EXTRA clear). When judging high school, I see a lot of debaters either a) only spending time on the interp debate, or b) only spending time on the impact level. Clearly, both of these things matter, but if the aff appears to be topical on face then you need to be really clear on this question. Fair warning - I haven't judged a lot on the policy topic, so make sure T is clear...

DA - DA's are always great debates if it's unique and coupled with a great CP. Usually in policy debates, both the aff and neg like to throw around a lot of buzz words and spend a lot of time on the impact level, but I really like to see specific link stories that have a tie to the aff rather than a super generic one (unless the aff itself isn't super unique, then obvi, fair game). If you have a CP that solves the DA, great! Explain why it solves the DA and avoids the net-benefit, but if you don't have a CP or don't go for a CP, then make sure there is some turns case analysis/DA outweighs.

CP - I don't go into debates thinking "I think X CP is a cheating CP" - It should be left up to the debaters what types of arguments should/shouldn't be allowed in debate. With that being said, any CP in front of me should be fine, but please have the CP solve something... I've seen/judged a lot of debates where the CP sounds good but doesn't actually do anything. I won't kick the CP if you don't tell me to. This doesn't mean you have to take forever explaining to me why I should kick it, but there should be some justification. One important thing to note: I want to do the least amount of intervention as possible. With that being said, I don't auto judge kick if you're winning the DA and losing the CP. All you need to say is: "If you don't buy the CP kick it for us." Preferably, you should have a warrant because if the aff gets up and says, "no judge kick for fairness/education" and you don't have a warrant for judge kick, I'll have to default to no judge kick.

K - I mainly went for the kritik, but that doesn't mean I'm a "k hack" by any means. I do a lot of reading now (much more than I did in previous years) and I'm starting to see the nuances in a lot of critical theory. I understand that these theories can be super complex (especially for high schoolers), so I am understanding to the fact that warrants might be not incredibly in-depth. HOWEVER, please try your best to explain k as well as possible. Just because I read the literature doesn't mean you should assume that I know what you're talking about. The judge kick stuff from the CP above applies here as well if you kick the alternative.

FW - I think that engaging the aff is something the negative should do, but I do not think FW should be taken away completely because FW is saying that the neg wants to engage with the aff, but they are unable to. The aff should defend why their content and model of debate is good, so FW is a viable strategy. In college, I went for FW against K affs, but when I was a 2N in high school, I would usually go for a k against a k aff. So, for the FW teams, just because I like the K doesn't mean you shouldn't go T. Good TVA's are always great. A lot of affs that I see don't necessarily need to be untopical, so I feel that the neg can point that out with a TVA. In general, I personally like indicts on case coupled with FW (especially policy-making good, presumption, etc.)

K affs - I love a good k aff that is engaging. The aff definitely needs to defend: Why the ballot solves, what their method does, and why their model of debate is good (applicable in a FW debate). I enjoy k affs with a good topic link if possible. The FW debate is an important debate to be had due to the divisiveness in the debate community. The big problem I've noticed with people running k affs is that debaters don't do enough ballot key analysis. I'm open to any theory and can follow along with whatever you're talking about. I prefer an advocacy statement in these debates because if there isn't one, I don't know why my ballot matters to you. Again, I'll vote on anything, but I'll be especially sympathetic to FW if I'm not told what the endorsing of my ballot does/indicates. I know this is specific to FW (because that's all most people read), but method v. method debates are also fantastic.

Policy affs - Not too much to say here. If the aff is a good idea then the aff wins.

Be yourself. Debate can be pretty exhausting and frustrating at times, but a lot of us forget that it's an activity that should be enjoyed. It's amazing to be in debate because a lot of people don't even have access to the activity. Debate has opened up so many opportunities, allowed me to make some amazing friends, taught me how to be a better person, made me smarter, and made me an advocate to stand up for what's right. I remember being incredibly upset and angry after losses because I felt that it invalidated who I was when, in reality, a judge didn't perceive my argument to be the winning one. Debate is so much more than winning and the TOC. It's a place where you can activate your agency. #AbolishTheCoachesPoll

Lastly, be nice to each other! Make some friends, have fun researching, and don't forget to start your timers.

Brett Cryan HuaXia Chinese School - Houston

Last changed on Fri March 22, 2024 at 7:19 PM MDT

add to chain/speech drop:

backslash309@gmail.com

top level:

TLDR: I will vote on anything. except arguments about things that didn't happen inside the round, although disclosure is fine.

Policy and K debates are my favorite, but reading what you want and giving a good speech is much more likely to get higher speaks than trying to tailor what you read to what you think my ideological preferences are.

Tech > truth, but truth determines the extent tech matters. A blatantly false claim like "the sky is red" requires more warranting than a commonly accepted claim ie "the sky is blue". Unwarranted arguments in the constructive that receive warrants later on justify "new" responses to those warrants. This doesn't mean I won't vote on tricks or theory, but the ability to say "X is conceded" relies on "X" having a full Claim/Warrant/Impact - the absence of crucial elements of an argument such as warrants will mean that adding them in later speeches will justify new responses. If an argument is introduced in a speech where no such response is valid, it carries little weight, for example: I am not going to think fairness categorically outweighs education if fairness outweighs is introduced in the 2AR.

Not voting on call outs. Not my business.

random thoughts:

--- Qualified authors & solid warrants in your ev are important. Evidence comparison and weighing are also important. In the absence of evidence comparison and weighing, I may make a decision that upsets you. That is fundamentally your fault.

--- In the absence of paradigm issues on my flow, I'm going to evaluate theory contextually. This means I will only grant you the logical implication of the words you say, and will not automatically grant you assumptions like drop the debater. For example, if a 1AR tells me "PICs are a voter cuz they steal the aff", this logically means that PICs are a bad argument, but doesn't explain why the neg should lose for reading it. Functionally, this means I'd default drop the argument absent any explanation. This headache can be easily avoided through warranted, extended arguments.

--- Most Ks that people get away with in LD have horrible warranting in the 1NC. Blowing up blippy Ks with elaborate turns case analysis, framework arguments, thesis explanations, etc that is not present in the 1NC obviously merits 2AR responses that I will give full credence to.

--- K affs being vague and shifty hurts you more than it helps. I'm very unsympathetic to 2AR pivots that change the way the aff has been explained. Take care to have a coherent story/explanation of your K aff that starts in the 1AC and remains consistent throughout the debate.

--- I default to judgekick.

--- I have heard a concerning amount of people saying "you cannot win a perm without a deficit" lately. This is absurd. The neg has the burden of competition. In the circumstances in a counterplan debate where neither the aff nor the neg has offense due to a perm, I vote aff. For example, if the neg goes for a consult NATO counterplan and the 2AR goes for "do the plan + consult NATO on other issues", the aff wins even without a deficit insofar as the 2NR does not clearly delineate offense vs the perm. There is no risk of offense for either side, but that means the plan is the logically safest option, as it is less of a deviation from the status quo than the counterplan.

Blake Dee ModernBrain

Nathan Fleming The Harker School

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 10:20 AM PDT

Updated for Northwestern: It occurs to me I haven't touched this thing in awhile. They often feel quite self-aggrandizing, so I'm hoping to keep this short and informative.

For college debates, please add

caldebatechain@gmail.com

For HS, please add

nathankarlfleming@gmail.com

Ks & Framework: I like clash. I think debate is special because of the depth of debate it allows. That means if your K aff is only for you, I'm not. If your K aff defends topic DAs and has a cool spin on the topic though, I'm your guy. I don't believe that heg good isn't offense, and people should feel comfortable going for impact turns against the K in front of me, because it's cleaner than T a lot of the time. Fairness is an impact, but it's way worse than skills.

Theory: the primary concern is the predictability of the interp. In order for it to be predictable, it needs to be based in a logical interpretation of the resolution. This precludes the vast majority of theory arguments. People seem to be souring on conditionality --- I am not one of those people. I've yet to hear an objection to it not solved by writing and reading higher quality arguments.

A few closing comments: unsorted

-I'm kind of an ev hack. I try not to read cards unless instructed, but if you read great ev, you should be loud and clear about telling me to read it, and if it's as good as you say, then speaker points may be in order.

-Sometimes recutting the other team's card to answer their argument is better than reading one of your own. If you want me to read their card on your terms, include highlighting in another color so we're on the same page on what part you think goes the other way.

-Arguments I won't vote for

-X other debater is individually a bad person for something that didn't happen in the debate

-saying violence to other people in the debate is a good idea

-speech times are bad or anything that literally breaks the debate

-new affs bad

Lincoln Douglas

I judge this now, but I'm still getting used to it, so go easy on me. So far, my policy debate knowledge has carried me through most of these debates just fine, but as far as I can tell these are the things worth knowing about how I judge these debates.

-Theory doesn't become a good argument because speech times are messed up. Dispo is still a joke. Neg flex is still important. That doesn't mean counter plans automatically compete off certainty/immediacy, and it doesn't mean topicality doesn't matter. It does mean that hail-marry 2AR on 15 seconds of condo isn't gonna cut it tho.

-Judge instruction feels more important than ever for the aff in these debates because the speech times are wonky.

-I generally feel confident w/ critical literature, but not all of the stuff in Policy is in LD and visa-versa. So if you're talking about like, Kant, or some other funny LD stuff, go slow and gimme some time.

-This activity seems to have been more-or-less cannibalized by bad theory arguments and T cards written by coaches. I will be difficult to persuade on those issues.

-I don’t flow RVIs.

Public Forum

Copy-Pasting Achten's.

First, I strongly oppose the practice of paraphrasing evidence. If I am your judge I would strongly suggest reading only direct quotations in your speeches. My above stated opposition to the insertion of brackets is also relevant here. Words should never be inserted into or deleted from evidence.

Second, there is far too much untimed evidence exchange happening in debates. I will want all teams to set up an email chain to exchange cases in their entirety to forego the lost time of asking for specific pieces of evidence. You can add me to the email chain as well and that way after the debate I will not need to ask for evidence.

This is not negotiable if I'm your judge - you should not fear your opponents having your evidence. Under no circumstances will there be untimed exchange of evidence during the debate. Any exchange of evidence that is not part of the email chain will come out of the prep time of the team asking for the evidence. The only exception to this is if one team chooses not to participate in the email thread and the other team does then all time used for evidence exchanges will be taken from the prep time of the team who does NOT email their cases.

Nishanth Gaddam Charlotte Latin School

David Griffith Hire

Last changed on Mon June 10, 2024 at 1:15 PM EDT

David Griffith

Coach at the University of Kentucky and New Trier High School

griffithd2002@gmail.com for high school and college email chains as well as any questions you may have.

ukydebate@gmail.com and debatedocs@googlegroups.com for college email chains only.

Hate mail can be sent to jordandi505@gmail.com and/or debateoprf@gmail.com, and you are welcome to add both of those to any email chain if you want.

Two non-negotiables:

The aff must depart from the status quo---winning that the status quo is bad does not mean anything. If the aff does not provide a solution to a harm and instead chooses to simply explain how the world works to me, I will vote neg on presumption.

The neg always gets infinite conditionality---I am completely unwilling to decide a debate on how many positions were read. The neg will never be punished for obeying the pairing by disagreeing with the aff.

Other than those principles, here are some general notes that will help you get the best decision from me:

Organization is significantly more important than substance---I refuse to flow the speech doc. If you don't number your arguments, talk in intricately worded paragraphs, or fly through every argument at the same speed, I will miss arguments and feel that I'm a good enough flow not to feel bad about missing something. Debate is a speech activity.

Tell me what to do in every place possible---robust judge instruction is your only hope of avoiding catastrophic judge intervention in front of any judge. Final rebuttals should clearly explain the implication of winning your most important arguments relative to other arguments in the debate. Doing so will result in a faster, clearer decision and better speaker points.

Explain the importance of technical concessions---the bar I use for this is that I have to be able to explain to the other team what the implication was of them dropping a certain argument. Often, teams assert that things like "turns case" are dropped but won't say what this means. If you truly believe something is conceded and important enough to jump up and down about, don't leave it up to my intuition to figure out if it wins you the debate.

Complain about new arguments---I generally think new 1AR arguments have gotten out of hand. If the block makes deliberate choices informed by 2AC errors/concessions and tells me this, I am highly likely to obey 2NR judge instruction to ignore whatever the 1AR cooked up. For the aff, I am more than willing to entertain the idea that the 1NR does not get new impacts to the DA (or perhaps give the 1AR add-ons in response). For the neg, I am more than willing to strike an unwarranted "perm do both" from my flow of the 2AC if the 1NC explained why the CP avoided the net benefit (emphasis on explained).

Make complete arguments, and refuse to answer incomplete ones---it is not the 12-off 1NC that makes me angry, it is the 2AC that treats each off-case equally. If the 1NC doesn't read a link, the 2AC doesn't need to go to that sheet because fully conceding the other components of the DA doesn't disprove plan desirability. Is there value in hedging your bets? Maybe, but it's not always necessary. Similarly, I consistently see 2ACs that accurately assess that a 1NC position was incomplete and then spend an inordinate amount of time on that sheet. This will make me second-guess whether the 1NC applied because it tells me that you take the argument seriously. Stop doing that.

How should you approach debates involving planless affirmatives?

Shallow debating will favor the neg---I find that teams will often repeat lines of argumentation that they assume to be true without explaining them. For neg teams, this is oftentimes asserting that fairness is an impact without any of the explanation required to prove such a claim, and for aff teams, this usually looks like asserting some structural problem with debate and/or the topic without explaining why that problem exists/why the aff solves it. This is where my bias comes in: because I am more familiar with the neg side of things, when underdeveloped, I am more likely to intervene for the negative.

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

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

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

Tricks are for kids---I'm a terrible judge for teams that rely on dropped tricks in order to win, especially if those tricks are vague assertions of "serial policy failure" or "ontology" or "root cause" without tailored application to the aff. I'm a great judge for nuanced link debating, competing ethical frameworks, and alternatives oriented towards changing the world in some capacity rather than simply explaining it. Remember, I must be able to explain why arguments interact in order for me to weigh one in your favor, so if I can't explain why the link turns case, the link does not turn the case.

Here is a list of thoughts related to counterplans!

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

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

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

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

Regarding topicality against policy affs.

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

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

Predictability matters vastly more than anything else---I think that the more precise or predictable an interpretation is, the less it matters how good its limits are on the topic in a vacuum. If a "bad" definition is more precise or predictable, limits are solely a reason we should've written the resolution better. I am not compelled by neg limits arguments when attached to unpredictable interpretations. I am equally unpersuaded by whining about aff ground when attached to interpretations that barely define words in the resolution.

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

In the event that the neg goes for the status quo...

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

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

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

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

Some more thoughts on impact turns.

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

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

Lilia Guizatoullina HuaXia Chinese School - Houston

Last changed on Fri April 5, 2024 at 7:38 PM EDT

hi! i'm lily :) lilia.guiz@gmail.com

ASK ME ABOUT SPEAKS BOOSTS BEFORE ROUND

i'm a sophomore at binghamton and study math/philosophy. i debated in ld in high school and policy my freshman year of college, ndt qualled and ceda doubles.

i mostly read "pomo" and theory. but i have read almost every style of argument at some point, so read what you want and debate well.

my ability to understand fast spreading has never been great, and has only gotten much worse the past year as i'm not involved in debate outside of a bit of coaching, so please slow down. i am also unfamiliar with the topic and meta, but that shouldn't affect the way you debate, just avoid using any acronyms or explain what they are (especially if i am judging you rounds 1-2).

general thoughts:

[1] i do not have the power to decide what arguments are valuable and which kind aren't. if you can't answer a bad argument, my ballot will likely be an indication that you cannot answer bad arguments.

[2] tech>truth but arguments need warrants!!! not voting on under-explained arguments, even if it's an econ da i've heard a million times that wasn't explained in the 2nr.

[3] i am tab on content/trigger warning theory BUT reserve the right to end a round or hack against you if you try gratuitously discuss a sensitive topic, regardless of whether you read a warning or not

[4]do not delay rounds unless necessary. don't come to the room late (unless there's a legitimate reason, preround coaching/prepping is not), aff should be SENT at/before start time, don't steal prep time, don't go overtime in speeches, etc. i've never lowered speaks but will

[5] ev ethics stuff you will auto-lose for includes clipping and whatever gets you in trouble for academic dishonesty at a school (ie fabricating sources). if your opponent is doing these things, you should stake the round on them, but other forms of ev ethics (ie not providing a link) should be decided in-round.

[6] i appreciate being spoon-fed RFDs. realistically, you will not be getting good speaks if this does not happen

[7] i am not here to police the way you act or carry yourself, but i would much rather judge rounds where debaters treat each other with kindness and respect

[8] i agree with everything in this paradigm - i worked with mark when i was fresh out of high school, so a lot of the ways i approach debate as a judge/coach were influenced by him. i was coached by sesh joe and breigh plat in high school (if you are old enough to know who they are), so they were also influential to how i approach this activity in general

Jack Han QD Learning

Wyatt Hatfield BASIS Independent Silicon Valley

Sunay Hegde HuaXia Chinese School - Houston

Last changed on Sun February 11, 2024 at 9:18 AM EDT

For Stanford:

Everything in LD paradigm applies to PF. You can spread and I don’t care what you read. Send all speech docs beforre your speech with the cards your reading to my email below, if we have to do some weird calling card stuff I’m prolly gonna doc points bc it just takes way too long. Ideally you don’t paraphrase, won’t hack straight against if you do, but may lower speaks, so just read cut cards.

Email:sunayhegde2017@gmail.com

Hey, I'm sunay (he/him). I did LD at Montville Highschool for 4 years. Got a bid in LD my senior year and a few bid rounds.

It's been like 6 months since I have actively thought about debate. This means that you should probably go like 60-70% of your max speed in rebuttals (I have always been a bad at flowing either way) and always err on the side of over-explanation, especially for more dense debates. There are probably things I have forgot and need time to think about.

Shorter version:

Pref Sheet for all Events (1 is highest, 5 is lowest):

1 - Policy/theory

2 - K (security, cap, grove)

3 - tricks

4- phil

5 - pomo, performance

Defaults:

Theory - Dtd, C/I, no rvis

Presumption/Permissibility flows neg

yes 1ar theory

extinction ows

Will probably better fairly generous with speaks but generally my metric will be to start at a 29 and go up or down depending on strategy etc..

*As a general note, I don't care what you read and will vote on literally anything as long as its not racist, sexist, etc.., but things on the lower side of my pref list mean that I have less experience with them/will have a harder time evaluating more higher levels of those debates and will probably need you to go slower/over explain.

Long Version:

tech > truth

Policy- favorite style of debate and debated this the most. I really like smaller affs and specific case debate as opposed to generic impacts. Impact calc in the back half of the round is super important, 2nr/2ar needs the comparison otherwise my ballot becomes much harder to make. Also don't forget ev comparision since i'm unlikely to do the work there if you do not do it for me.

Theory - Dont care if its friv. Go a little slower through analytics and on the interp text/counterinterp text, esp if its analytic, since if u go full speed through like 3 shells good chance im gonna miss stuff. Disclosure good, but if you use it to abuse novices speaks will probably be lower. Good standard comparison and clear abuse stories make these rounds easier to judge.

Tricks - Will vote on anything as long as it has some type of warrant. Won't be too happy with ev after x speech args but like if its conceded and extended with a warrant I'll vote on it. Generally, if you want to read em - delineate them, err on the side of overexplaining the arguments (like don't be blippy) and be up front in CX. Also, reading them on a novice or trad debater will cap your speaks at 28. *Fair note here that just because I will vote for them does not mean I am gonna be the best at evaluating a Nailbomb AC or something of that sort.

Phil - Im not well read on a lot of type of phil. My knowledge on most lit bases is fairly rudimentary, which means for more niche arguments I'm unlikely to know it. I also was on the util side most of the time in these debates, meaning that however hard I try to be tab those biases will probably sway me in close debates. With all that being said, if u wanna read it go ahead, although im probably not the best to evaluate these debates. If you do go for it j make sure to explain it coherently and not just use a bunch of buzz words. This means that you probably shouldn't go max speed when explaining your syllogism and be blippy when extending random blips at the top of fw. I also really find permis/presumption debates to be pretty tedious, so if your nc/ac is just a bunch of permis/presumption triggers im probably also not the guy for you. This also means if skep is your strat im probably not the person to pref.

K - I've only really read cap and security as a debater so assume I don't know your lit and err on the side of overexplaining the theory of power in the 2NR. I really like well done K debates, so please don't forget the line-by-line for overarching overview answers and shallow explanations of the arguments that regurgitate buzzwords,. Including examples to explain the theory of power and/or alternative are also good. I also like specific links to the 1AC, generic links are fine but specificity will always better your chances of winning and/or getting good speaks. Make sure to have turn cases or alt solves stuff in there too. Also pomo makes me confused, so just be sure to explain it, im not gonna be able to vote off weird buzzwords i dont understand no matter how tab i try to be.

K affs/performance - I like K affs that have a clear advocacy that actually does something (non t/performance affs are fine but the threshold for either explanation of what the aff does/justifying the impact turn to T will be much higher). If you have some vague advocacy that is basically non T and super shifty, but act like its T in 1ac cx, I am going to be much more receptive to T args compared to if the aff was just non-T and went hard for the impact turn. This also means the overview to the 1ar should slow down and give a explanation of the affs theory of power, what the aff does, and why I should vote aff. If im left confused as to what the aff actually does by the end of the round, the presumption push the neg is going to make will be much more persuasive. Basically, make sure your ci is not super vague and ridiculously blippy, be ready for the impact turn debate, and give a clear explain as to what the aff does.

There is probably a bunch of stuff im missing just because i dont want this paradigm to be too long, so if you have a specific question just ask it before the round.

Xin Hu Sugar Land SpiderSmart

Curtis Jefferson ModernBrain

Last changed on Thu January 25, 2024 at 1:15 AM PDT

Experience: Competed in LD, Congress & Policy in MS & HS; LD for two years in college. On the IE side, competed in pretty much the entire range of interp and original events, both prepared & extemporaneous, in HS and college. Have judged in middle school, high school, and college circuits off and on over the past 20 years.

For all formats of debate: Remember that at its core, debate is the art of convincing your audience, through civil discourse, that your position on the resolution (aff/neg) should be upheld. Don't be condescending (to your opponent or your audience), but don't expect the audience (and the judge) to do the analysis work for you. Clear arguments in support of your position, with appropriately connected and explained supporting material, will win over simply bombarding me (and your opponents) with a mountain of potential arguments and piles of evidence. Quality can be more important than quantity; you may extend if your opponent drops an argument, but don't necessarily assume a dropped thread or two wins you the round. Speed is fine, but clarity is more important. I need to be able to understand, follow, and flow; I can't give you credit for points I don't catch as you go along, and the art of debate, as a speech activity, is in the oral delivery of your speeches and arguments--not me reading the text [technical issues that may occur in online rounds excepted]. I don't enter any round looking for specific arguments or issues to be addressed; it is up to you to convince me that your argument/proposal/approach/perspective is superior, within the general expectations and framework of the event format.

LD: I'm a flow judge when it comes to LD. The arguments made in round, the clash between those arguments, and how well you support your position and connect your arguments typically weigh heavily in my decision--value clash is an area I find can be key to the overall debate. Ks and CP arguments are fine by me, though I find it is most effective if you can make very clear links when doing so. I will consider theory arguments, but be sure they do in fact specifically connect to what is going on in the round. I'm not a fan of spreading in LD; I won't drop or mark down a debater if they can do it effectively, but I defer to the quality can be more important than quantity idea in this respect. Bear in mind that, at its core, LD debate should be framed through the lens of values and what ought to be. The side that can most effectively argue for their position as a general principle through a compelling value framework is likely to get my vote.

Policy: I take essentially a tabula rasa approach when judging policy/CX debates. While stock issues, disads, etc., can (and very often do) all play a role in making my decision, I am open to hearing from both sides what issues should be weighed most heavily in determining the outcome of the round--as I recognize the importance of each can change not only based on the resolution but also based on the issues that are raised in the course of the round itself. I will entertain theory arguments, but be careful that they don't end up obscuring the arguments you are presenting in support of your side of the resolution or your plan/counterplan/advantages/disadvantages.

PF: I am open to considering any type of argument (progressive is fine), as long as you clearly link it to the resolution. PF is meant to focus on advocating for a position, so don't get bogged down in specific plans or counterplans for implementation. I generally find it hard to consider completely new arguments in summary or final focus. In my experience, I tend to decide rounds based on impacts, so be clear with those and be prepared to convince me that your impacts weigh more heavily than those on the other side. Clash is important. I will consider theory arguments (see first sentence of this section), but I find they can muddle the overall debate if not executed well--just sharing that so you're aware of my perspective.

Mitsuki Jiang Bob Lanier Middle School None

Graham Johnstone HuaXia Chinese School - Houston

Last changed on Mon February 19, 2024 at 3:22 AM CDT

hi, i'm graham. i competed at vestavia hills for two years, acquiring two bids and qualifying to the toc my senior year.

BERK EDIT:i haven’t really thought about or heard debate in a while. slow down (especially on analytics) and maybe even over explain.

add me on the chain- ingegrahamjohnstone@gmail.com

tldr: read anything. the pref chain is just indicative of what i read as a debater/how comfortable i am with each style. argumentative dogmatism is bad! i also heavily align ideologically to my former coach sira ahuja, whom i will quote multiple times in this paradigm.

pref chain:

k - 1

policy - 1/2

theory - 2/3

tricks - 3

normative phil - 4/5

disclaimer

i do have very slight hearing issues so i will sometimes corroborate my flow with the doc. however, that also means that you should slow down and clear off the doc (which you should have been doing anyways). if i don't catch something, i'll be upfront about it if applicable.

miscellaneous thoughts

- i like to read evidence (especially in policy rounds) - if you read good, warranted evidence and follow it up with contextual, explanatory analysis that makes it to where i have to do less reading, your speaks will be rewarded tremendously.

- lean neg on process and condo and some actor, lean aff on multi-actor, international, etc.

- (in the context of policy) big fan of new 2nr evidence - but will limit it to 4-5 cards at max.

- with regards to t-framework, i actually really love framework debates. despite reading mainly k affs in high school, i have been on both sides of the debate many times and am as neutral as can be. that being said, k 1ars against framework with little-to-no clarity regarding the affirmatives model of debate/the role of the negative will lose in front of me.

- in terms of k literature, most familiar with ir k's (namely grove), baudrillard, set col, psychoanalysis, cap (mainly beller), and queerpess. i never encountered afropess as a debater, but i did read some of warren, wilderson, and gillespies' works.

- i love creative arguments regardless of which style of debate they're categorized as. things like clash royale theory, the 21 savage kritik, the rider disadvantage, and alien wipeout ( thanks anshul) are things i enjoy very much. creativity/interesting strategy will be rewarded with better speaks if executed well!!! (this does not mean spamming random 1ar shells and throwing every other flow.)

things i don't like / will refuse to evaluate:

- do not commit one of the isms

- reading an argument that violates a pre-stated accommodation.

- very high threshold for disclosure against novices and / or small school trad debaters (anything else is fair game tho, i just think disclosure against those who don't know how to disclose / know what it is should be taught out of round.)

if you do any of these things (except maybe disclosure), expect a 25

speaker points:

i'll disclose them if you ask. it feels like debaters are getting less and less clear every year so if you speak well you will be greatly rewarded.

Chrishma Karkada The Golden State Academy

Last changed on Sat February 10, 2024 at 6:32 AM EDT

Hey guys,

LD

I’m a parent judge, but I have some familiarity with more progressive argumentation. I’m going to do everything I can to make it a productive round for you, but please make sure you do everything you can to make sure that I’m able to do that.If you get put in front of me for a round, please make sure you do the following:

-Send a speech doc WITH basic analytics. I don’t need your speech word for word, but make sure it’s organized, in the right order, and make sure I can follow along.

-Send me a speech doc of the 1ac before the round. I will flow it and read it to understand.

-Don’t spread outside of contentions. If you go anything faster than conversational in the rebuttal, I will be unable to flow you. I will call clear if you’re unclear.

-I strongly recommend that you stick to utilitarian arguments, as those are the most logically true and easy for me to adjudicate. Make sure that you do a ton of impact calculus, as that’s what determines the round. Tell me why your side is more likely to cause extinction/is going to cause it faster, etc.

-If you HAVE to read another type of argument, do so at your own risk - it is entirely possible that I misunderstand an argument and can’t vote off of it. But here’s my thoughts:

-K - From my understanding, a kritik can function like a normal contention, but with different framework and impact. If you run something really bizarre and weird, I may not be able to understand it - something critiquing capitalism or racism might be easier to understand.

-Theory/Topicality - Don’t unnecessarily use this. I find it very difficult to judge this type of debate. If something actually happened, go ahead, but try your very best to avoid it as I don't know much about these arguments.

-Philosophy - I do not know how to judge this

-Tricks - I do not know how to judge this

EXTEMP

I don’t know if paradigms for Extemp is the norm, but I have one anyway in case you wanted to take a look.

I’m going to weigh both performance and substance quite highly. A well delivered speech full of awful analysis is just as bad as a badly delivered speech with good analytics. I will say that I have the most experience with Interp events, so I do enjoy a speech which is delivered in an upbeat, confident manner over a more monotonous dump of facts.

I’ll default to the following time signals
-down from 5 every minute
-C at 30,
-Count down from 10

Please give me at least 2-3 solid pieces of evidence per argument. Please don’t make blatantly false statements or give me a speech with fabricated data/analysis. A very well delivered speech talking about Barack Obama the Republican is not going to go over well!

As we’re online, I’m going to be very lenient to those with technology issues. If you drop out or cut out, I’ll do everything I can to make sure you get to give your speech in it’s entirety, at least as much as the tournament permits.

Please do not cheat! It is VERY obvious if you’re looking at your outline during your speech. I’ll give you a LOT of leeway, given that you’ll inevitably have to look at the timer, have your eyes stray from the camera, etc, but make sure that you just look somewhere near the computer for the entirety of your speech. Cheating on that helps nobody and certainly won’t help you grow.

Overall, just do your best, good luck, and most importantly - HAVE FUN!!

David Kilpatrick The Harker School

Last changed on Tue July 2, 2024 at 7:37 AM CDT

The only things you really need to know:
1. If you berate, threaten, verbally or physically attack your opponents, I will end the debate and you'll receive a loss along with the lowest points Tabroom will allow me to assign.
2. Don't endorse self-harm.
3. Arguments admissible for adjudication include everything said from when the 1AC timer starts until the 2AR timer ends. Anything else is irrelevant.

4. I'm unlikely to vote for hidden dropped one line theory arguments. Hidden ASPEC, new affs bad, severance in a voting issue, X random CP type is bad etc. I accept that my commitment to the idea judges should assess debates as technically as possible and this notion might seem contradictory but big debates coming down to these types of arguments makes the activity worse and detracts from my belief that hard work is what should be rewarded.

Other than that, do what you do best. Technical debating is more likely to result in you winning than anything else.

I am a coach at The Harker School. Other conflicts: Texas, Emory, Liberal Arts and Science Academy, St Vincent de Paul, Bakersfield High School.

Email Chain: yes, cardstealing@gmail.com

You will receive a speaker point bump if you give your final rebuttal without the use of a laptop. I will give higher points to speeches with errors/pauses/inconsistencies etc. where the speaker debates off their flows than speeches that sound crystal clear and perfect but are delivered without the speaker looking up from their computer screen. If you flow off your laptop I will use my best judgement to assess the extent to which you're delivering arguments in such a way that demonstrates you have flowed the debate.

Ultimately, do what you do best. Giving speeches you're comfortable with is almost certainly a better path to victory than attempting to adapt to any of this stuff below. Debate is extremely hard and requires immense amounts of works. I will try to give you the same level of effort that I know you've put in.

Debate is an activity about persuasion and communication. If I can't understand your argument because what you are saying because you are unclear, haven't explained it, or developed it into a full argument-claim, warrant, impact, it likely won't factor in my decision.

The winner will nearly always be the team able to identify the central question of the debate first and most clearly trace how the development of their argument means they're ahead on that central question.

Virtually nothing you can possibly say or do will offend me [with the new above caveat] if you can't beat a terrible argument you probably deserve to lose.

Framework- Fairness is both an internal link and an impact. Debate is a game but its also so much more. Go for T/answer T the way that makes most sense to you, I'll do my best to evaluate the debate technically.

Counter-plans-

-spamming permutations, particular ones that are intrinsic, without a text and with no explanation isn't a complete argument. [insert perm text fine, insert counter plan text is not fine].

-pretty neg on "if it competes, its legitimate." Aff can win these debates by explaining why theory and competition should be separated and then going for just one in the 2ar. the more muddled you make this, the better it usually is for the neg.

-non-resolutional theory is rarely if ever a reason to reject the team. Generally don't think its a reason to reject the argument either.

-I'm becoming increasingly poor for conditionality bad as a reason to reject the team. This doesn't mean you shouldn't say in the 2ac why its bad but I've yet to see a speech where the 2AR convinced me the debate has been made irredeemably unfair or un-educational due to the status of counter plans. I think its possible I'd be more convinced by the argument that winning condo is bad means that the neg is stuck with all their counter plans and therefore responsible for answering any aff offense to those positions. This can be difficult to execute/annoying to do, but do with that what you will.

Kritiks

-affs usually lose these by forgetting about the case, negs usually lose these when they don't contextualize links to the 1ac. If you're reading a policy aff that clearly links, I'll be pretty confused if you don't go impact turns/case outweighs.

-link specificity is important - I don't think this is necessarily an evidence thing, but an explanation thing - lines from 1AC, examples, specific scenarios are all things that will go a long way

-these are almost always just framework debates these days but debaters often forget to explain the implications winning their interpretation has on the scope of competition. framework is an attempt to assign roles for proof/rejoinder and while many of you implicitly make arguments about this, the more clear you can be about those roles, the better.

-i'm less likely to think "extinction outweighs, 1% risk" is as good as you think it is, most of the time the team reading the K gives up on this because they for some reason think this argument is unbeatable, so it ends up mattering in more rfds than it should

LD -

I have been judging LD for a year now. The policy section all applies here.

Tech over truth but, there's a limit - likely quite bad for tricks - arguments need a claim, warrant and impact to be complete. Dropped arguments are important if you explain how they implicate my decision. Dropped arguments are much less important when you fail to explain the impact/relevance of said argument.

RVIs - no, never, literally don't. 27 ceiling. Scenario: 1ar is 4 minutes of an RVI, nr drops the rvi, I will vote negative within seconds of the timer ending.

Policy/K - both great - see above for details.

Phil - haven't judged much of this yet, this seems interesting and fine, but again, arguments need a claim, warrant and impact to be complete arguments.

Arguments communicated and understood by the judge per minute>>>>words mumbled nearly incomprehensibly per minute.

Unlikely you'll convince me the aff doesn't get to read a plan for topicality reasons. K framework is a separate from this and open to debate, see policy section for details.

PF -

If you read cards they must be sent out via email chain with me attached or through file share prior to the speech. If you reference a piece of evidence that you haven't sent out prior to your speech, fine, but I won't count it as being evidence. You should never take time outside of your prep time to exchange evidence - it should already have been done.

"Paraphrasing" as a substitute for quotation or reading evidence is a bad norm. I won't vote on it as an ethics violation, but I will cap your speaker points at a 27.5.

I realize some of you have started going fast now, if everyone is doing that, fine. However, adapting to the norms of your opponents circuit - i.e. if they're debating slowly and traditionally and you do so as well, will be rewarded with much higher points then if you spread somebody out of the room, which will be awarded with very low points even if you win.

Amir King Kudos College Of Youth Leadership

Gordon Krauss ModernBrain

Daniel Lee Honor Academy

Yoyo Lei HuaXia Chinese School - Houston

Wesley Loofbourrow ModernBrain

Last changed on Sat May 13, 2023 at 5:24 AM PDT

Tech savvy truth telling/testing debaters who crystallize with clarity, purpose persuasion & pathos will generally win my ballot.

My email: wesleyloofbourrow@gmail.com

For CHSSA: Flow judge, please weigh impacts in rebuttals, please win line by line, please make arguments quickly and effectively, and make the largest quantity & quality of arguments that you can. Thanks.

Updated Paradigm for NDCA & TOC

My intent in doing this update is to simplify my paradigm to assist Public Forum debaters competing at the major competitions at the end of this season. COVID remote debating has had some silver linings, and this year I have uniquely had the opportunity to judge a prolific number of prestigious tournaments, so I am "in a groove" judging elite PF debates this season, having sat on at least half a dozen PF TOC bid rounds this year, and numerous Semis/Finals of tournaments like Glenbrooks, Apple Valley, Berkeley, among many others.

I am "progressive", "circuit style", "tabula rosa", "non-interventionist", completely comfortable with policy jargon and spreading, open to Kritiks/Theory/Topicality, and actively encourage Framework debates in PF. You can figure out what I mean by FW with a cursory reading of the basic wikipedia entry "policy debate: framework" -- I am encouraging, where applicable and appropriate, discussions of what types of arguments and debate positions support claims to a superior model of Public Forum debate, both in the particular round at hand and future debates. I think that PF is currently grappling as a community with a lot of Framework questions, and inherently believe that my ballot actually does have potential for some degree of Solvency in molding PF norms. Some examples of FW arguments I have heard this year include Disclosure Theory, positions that demand the first constructive speech of the team speaking second provide direct clash (rejecting the prevalent two ships passing in the night norm for the initial constructive speeches), and Evidence theory positions.

To be clear, this does not mean at all that teams who run FW in front of me automatically get my ballot. I vote all the time on basic stock issues, and in fact the vast majority of my PF decisions have been based on offense/defense within a role-playing policy-maker framework. Just like any debate position, I am completely open to anything (short of bullying, racism, blatant sexism, truly morally repugnant positions, but I like to believe that no debaters are coming into these elite rounds intending to argue stuff like this). I am open to a policy-making basic Net benefits standard, willing to accept Fiat of a policy action as necessary and justifiable, just as much as I am willing to question Fiat -- the onus is on the debaters to provide warrants justifying whatever position or its opposite they wish to defend.

I will provide further guidance and clarifications on my judging philosophy below, but I want to stress that what I have just stated should really be all you need to decide whether to pref/strike me -- if you are seeking to run Kritiks or Framework positions that you have typically found some resistance to from more traditional judges, then you want to pref me; if you want rounds that assume the only impacts that should be considered are the effects of a theoretical policy action, I am still a fine judge to have for that, but you will have to be prepared to justify those underlying assumptions, and if you don't want to have to do that, then you should probably strike me. If you have found yourself in high profile rounds a bit frustrated because your opponent ran positions that didn't "follow the rules of PF debate", I'm probably not the judge you want. If you have been frustrated because you lost high profile rounds because you "didn't follow the rules of PF debate", you probably want me as your judge.

So there is my most recent update, best of luck to all competitors as we move to the portion of the season with the highest stakes.

Here is what I previously provided as my paradigm:

Speed: Short answer = Go as fast as you want, you won't spread me out.

I view speed as merely a tool, a way to get more arguments out in less time which CAN lead to better debates (though obviously that does not bear out in every instance). My recommendations for speed: 1) Reading a Card -- light-speed + speech doc; 2) Constructives: uber-fast + slow sign posting please; 3) Rebuttals: I prefer the slow spread with powerfully efficient word economy myself, but you do you; 4) Voters: this is truly the point in a debate where I feel speed outlives its usefulness as a tool, and is actually much more likely to be a detriment (that being said, I have judged marvelous, blinding-fast 2ARs that were a thing of beauty)...err on the side of caution when you are instructing me on how to vote.

Policy -- AFFs advocating topical ethical policies with high probability to impact real people suffering right now are best in front of me. I expect K AFFs to offer solid ground and prove a highly compelling advocacy. I love Kritiks, I vote for them all the time, but the most common problem I see repeatedly is an unclear and/or ineffective Alt (If you don't know what it is and what it is supposed to be doing, then I can't know either). Give me clash: prove you can engage a policy framework as well as any other competing frameworks simultaneously, while also giving me compelling reasons to prefer your FW. Anytime you are able to demonstrate valuable portable skills or a superior model of debate you should tell me why that is a reason to vote for you. Every assumption is open for review in front of me -- I don't walk into a debate round believing anything in particular about what it means for me to cast my ballot for someone. On the one hand, that gives teams extraordinary liberty to run any position they wish; on the other, the onus is on the competitors to justify with warranted reasoning why I need to apply their interpretations. Accordingly, if you are not making ROB and ROJ arguments, you are missing ways to get wins from me.

I must admit that I do have a slight bias on Topicality -- I have noticed that I tend to do a tie goes to the runner thing, and if it ends up close on the T debate, then I will probably call it reasonably topical and proceed to hear the Aff out. it isn't fair, it isn't right, and I'm working on it, but it is what it is. I mention this because I have found it persuasive when debaters quote this exact part of my paradigm back to me during 2NRs and tell me that I need to ignore my reasonability biases and vote Neg on T because the Neg straight up won the round on T. This is a functional mechanism for checking a known bias of mine.

Oh yea -- remember that YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME.

Public Forum -- At this point, after judging a dozen PF TOC bid rounds in 2021-2022, I think it will be most helpful for me to just outright encourage everybody to run Framework when I am your judge (3 judge panels is your call, don't blame me!). I think this event as a whole desperately needs good quality FW arguments that will mold desirable norms, I might very well have an inherent bias towards the belief that any solvency reasonably expected to come from a ballot of mine will most likely implicate FW, and thus I am resolved to actively encourage PF teams to run FW in front of me. If you are not comfortable running FW, then don't -- I always want debaters to argue what matters to them. But if you think you can win a round on FW, or if you have had an itch to try it out, you should. Even if you label a position as Framework when it really isn't, I will still consider the substantive merits behind your arguments, its not like you get penalized for doing FW wrong, and you can absolutely mislabel a position but still make a fantastic argument deserving of my vote.

Other than "run FW", I need to stress one other particular -- I do not walk into a PF round placing any limitations whatsoever on what a Public Forum debate is supposed to be. People will say that I am not "traditional or lay", and am in fact "progressive", but I only consider myself a blank slate (tabula rasa). Every logical proposition and its diametric opposite is on the table in front of me, just prove your points to be true. It is never persuasive for a team to say something like "but that is a Counterplan, and that isn't allowed in PF". I don't know how to evaluate a claim like that. You are free to argue that CPs in PF are not a good model for PF debates (and lo and behold, welcome to running a FW position), or that giving students a choice between multiple styles of debate events is critical for education and so I should protect the "rules" and the "spirit" of PF as an alternative to LD and Policy -- but notice how those examples rely on WARRANTS, not mere assertions that something is "against the rules." Bottom line, if the "rules" are so great, then they probably had warrants that justified their existence, which is how they became the rules in the first place, so go make those underlying arguments and you will be fine. If the topic is supposed to be drug policy, and instead a team beats a drum for 4 minutes, ya'll should be able to articulate the underlying reasons why this is nonsense without resorting to grievances based on the alleged rules of PF.

College Parli -- Because there is a new topic every round, the threshold for depth of research is considerably lower, and debaters should be able to advocate extemporaneously; this shifts my view of the burdens associated with typical Topicality positions. Arguments that heavily weigh on the core ground intended by the topic will therefore tend to strike me as more persuasive. Additionally, Parli has a unique procedural element -- the ability to ask a question during opponent's speech time. A poignant question in the middle of an opponent's speech can single handedly manufacture clash, and create a full conversational turn that increases the educational quality of the debate; conversely, an excellent speaker can respond to the substance of a POI by adapting their speech on the spot, which also has the effect of creating a new conversational turn.

lysis. While this event has evolved considerably, I am still a firm believer that Value/Criterion is the straightest path to victory, as a strong V/C FW will either contextualize impacts to a policy/plan advocacy, or explain and justify an ethical position or moral statement functioning as that necessary advocacy. Also, V/C allows a debater to jump in and out of different worlds, advocating for their position while also demonstrating the portable skill of entering into an alternate FW and clashing with their opponent on their merits. An appropriate V/C will offer fair, reasonable, predictable, equitable, and functional Ground to both sides. I will entertain any and all theory, kritiks, T, FW. procedure, resolution-rejection/alteration, etc. -- but fair warning, positions that do not directly relate to the resolutional topic area will require a Highly Compelling warrant(s) for why. At all times, please INSTRUCT me on how I am supposed to think about the round.

So...that is my paradigm proper, intentionally left very short. I've tried the more is more approach, and I have become fond of the less is more. Below are random things I have written, usually for tournament-specific commentary.

Worlds @ Coppell:

I have taken care to educate myself on the particulars of this event, reviewing relevant official literature as well as reaching out to debate colleagues who have had more experience. My obligation as a fair, reasonable, unbiased and qualified critic requires me to adapt my normal paradigm, which I promise to do to the best of my abilities. However, this does not excuse competitive debaters from their obligation to adapt to their assigned judge. I adapt, you adapt, Fair.

To learn how I think in general about how I should go about judging debates, please review my standard Judge Paradigm posted below. Written short and sweet intentionally, for your purposes as Worlds debaters who wish to gain my ballot, look for ways to cater your strengths as debaters to the things I mention that I find generally persuasive. You will note that my standard paradigm is much shorter than this unique, particularized paradigm I drafted specifically for Worlds @ Coppell.

Wesley's Worlds Paradigm:

I am looking for which competitors perform the "better debating." As line by line and dropping of arguments are discounted in this event, those competitors who do the "better debating" will be "on balance more persuasive" than their opponents.

Style: I would liken Style to "speaker points" in other debate events. Delivery, passion, rhetoric, emotional appeal. Invariably, the power of excellent public speaking will always be anchored to the substantive arguments and authenticity of advocacy for the position the debater must affirm or negate. While I will make every effort to separate and appropriately quantify Style and Content, be warned that in my view there is an inevitable and unbreakable bond between the two, and will likely result in some spillover in my final tallies.

Content: If I have a bias, it would be in favor of overly weighting Content. I except that competitors will argue for a clear advocacy, a reason that I should feel compelled to vote for you, whether that is a plan, a value proposition, or other meaningful concept.

PAY ATTENTION HERE: Because of the rules of this event that tell me to consider the debate as a whole, to ignore extreme examples, to allow for a "reasonable majority" standard to affirm and a "significant minority" standard to negate, and particularly bearing in mind the rules regarding "reasonability" when it comes to definitions, I will expect the following:

A) Affirmatives will provide an advocacy that is clearly and obviously within the intended core ground proffered by the topic (the heart of hearts, if you will);

B) Negatives will provide an advocacy of their own that clashes directly with the AFF (while this is not completely necessary, it is difficult for me to envision myself reaching a "better debating" and "persuasion" standard from a straight refutation NEG, so consider this fair warning); what the Policy folk call a PIC (Plan-Inclusive Counterplan) will NOT be acceptable, so do not attempt on the NEG to offer a better affirmative plan that just affirms the resolution -- I expect an advocacy that fundamentally NEGATES

C) Any attempt by either side to define their opponent's position out of the round must be EXTRAORDINARILY compelling, and do so without reliance on any debate theory or framework; possibilities would include extremely superior benefits to defining a word in a certain way, or that the opponent has so missed the mark on the topic that they should be rejected. It would be best to assume that I will ultimately evaluate any merits that have a chance of reasonably fitting within the topic area. Even if a team elects to make such an argument, I still expect them to CLASH with the substance of the opponent's case, regardless of whether or not your view is that the substance is off-topic. Engage it anyways out of respect.

D) Claim-Warrant-Impact-Weighing formula still applies, as that is necessary to prove an "implication on effects in the real world". Warrants can rely on "common knowledge", "general logic", or "internal logic", as this event does not emphasize scholarly evidence, but I expect Warrants nonetheless, as you must tell me why I am supposed to believe the claim.

Strategy: While there may be a blending of Content & Style on the margins in front of me as a judge, Strategy is the element that I believe will be easy for me to keep separate and quantify unto itself. Please help me and by proxy yourselves -- MENTION in your speeches what strategies you have used, and why they were good. Debaters who explicitly state the methods they have used, and why those methods have aided them to be "on balance more persuasive" and do the "better debating" will likely impress me.

POIs: The use of Questions during opponent's speech time is a tool that involves all three elements, Content/Style/Strategy. It will be unlikely for me to vote for a team that fails to ask a question, or fails to ask any good questions. In a perfect world, I would like speakers to yield to as many questions as they are able, especially if their opponent's are asking piercing questions that advance the debate forward. You WANT to be answering tough questions, because it makes you look better for doing so. I expect the asking and answering of questions to be reciprocal -- if you ask a lot of questions, then be ready and willing to take a lot of questions in return. Please review my section on Parli debate below for final thoughts on the use of POI.

If you want to win my vote, take everything I have written above to heart, because that will be the vast majority of the standards for judging I will implement during this tournament. As always, feel free to ask me any further questions directly before the round begins. Best of luck!

Elissa Lu Dougherty Valley Bridge

Greg Malis Isidore Newman Middle School

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 10:28 AM CDT

I teach math and serve as chair of the math dept at Isidore Newman School in New Orleans. I retired from coaching high school at the end of the 2017-2018 school year. I coached Policy and LD (as well as most every speech event) for over 25 years on the local and national circuit. In the spring of 2020, we started a Middle School team at Newman and have been coaching on the middle school level since then.

I judge only a handful of rounds each year. You will need to explain topic specific abbreviations, acronyms, etc. a little more than you would normally. You will also need to go slower than normal, especially for the first 30 sec of each speech so I can adjust to you.

Email chain: gregmalis@newmanschool.org

My philosophy is in three sections. Section 1 applies to both policy and LD. Section 2 is policy-specific. Section 3 is LD-specific.

Section 1: Policy and LD

Speed. Go fast or slow. However, debaters have a tendency to go faster than they are physically capable of going. Regardless of your chosen rate of delivery, it is imperative that you start your first speech at a considerably slower pace than your top speed will be. Judges need time to adjust to a student's pitch, inflection, accent/dialect. I won't read cards after the round to compensate for your lack of clarity, nor will I say "clearer" during your speech. In fact, I will only read cards after the round if there is actual debate on what a specific card may mean. Then, I may read THAT card to assess which debater is correct.

Theory. Theory should not be run for the sake of theory. I overhead another coach at a tournament tell his debaters to "always run theory." This viewpoint sickens me. If there is abuse, argue it. Be prepared to explain WHY your ground is being violated. What reasonable arguments can't be run because of what your opponent did? For example, an aff position that denies you disad or CP ground is only abusive if you are entitled to disad or CP ground. It becomes your burden to explain why you are so entitled. Theory should never be Plan A to win a round unless your opponent's interpretation, framework, or contention-level arguments really do leave you no alternative. I think reasonable people can determine whether the theory position has real merit or is just BS. If I think it's BS, I will give the alleged offender a lot of leeway.

Role of the Ballot. My ballot usually means nothing more than who won the game we were playing while all sitting in the same room. I don't believe I am sending a message to the debate community when I vote, nor do I believe that you are sending a message to the debate community when you speak, when you win, or when you lose. I don't believe that my ballot is a teaching tool even if there's an audience outside of the two debaters. I don't believe my ballot is endorsing a particular philosophy or possible action by some agent implied or explicitly stated in the resolution. Perhaps my ballot is endorsing your strategy if you win my ballot, so I am sending a message to you and your coach by voting for you, but that is about it. If you can persuade me otherwise, you are invited to try. However, if your language or conduct is found to be offensive, I will gladly use my ballot to send a message to you, your coach, and your teammates with a loss and/or fewer speaker points than desired.

Section 2: Policy only (although there are probably things in the LD section below that may interest you)

In general, I expect that Affs read a plan and be topical. K Affs or Performance Affs have a bit of an uphill climb for me to justify why the resolution ought not be debated. If a team chooses this approach, at minimum, they need to advocate some action that solves some problem, and their remedy/method must provide some reasonable negative ground.

I think K's need a solid link and a clear, viable, and competitive alt, but I best understand a negative strategy if consisting of counterplans, disads, case args.

Section 3: LD only (if you are an LDer who likes "policy" arguments in LD, you should read the above section}

Kritiks. In the end, whatever position you take still needs to resolve a conflict inherent (or explicitly stated) within the resolution. Aff's MUST affirm the resolution. Neg's MUST negate it. If your advocacy (personal or fiated action by some agent) does not actually advocate one side of the resolution over the other (as written by the framers), then you'll probably lose.

Topicality. I really do love a good T debate. I just don't hear many of them in LD. A debater will only win a T debate if (1) you read a definition and/or articulate an interpretation of specific words/phrases in the resolution being violated and (2) explain why your interp is better than your opponent's in terms of providing a fair limit - not too broad nor too narrow. I have a strong policy background (former policy debater and long-time policy debate coach). My view of T debates is the same for both.

Presumption. I don't presume aff or neg inherently. I presume the status quo. In some resolutions, it's clear as to who is advocating for change. In that case, I default to holding whoever advocates change in the status quo as having some burden of proof. If neither (or both) is advocating change, then presumption becomes debatable. However, I will work very hard to vote on something other than presumption since it seems like a copout. No debate is truly tied at the end of the game.

Plans vs Whole Res. I leave this up to the debaters to defend or challenge. I am more persuaded by your perspective if it has a resolutional basis. For example, the Sept/Oct 2016 topic has a plural agent, "countries" (which is rare for LD topics). Thus, identifying a single country to do the plan may be more of a topicality argument than a "theory" argument. In resolutions when the agent is more nebulous (e.g., "a just society"), then we're back to a question as what provides for a better debate.

Kaavya Mehrotra Dougherty Valley Bridge

Last changed on Thu January 18, 2024 at 2:13 AM PDT

Debate PF at Dougherty Valley but have experience in policy, LD, and speech events

add me on the email chain (ask in person)

tech>truth

weigh! it's fun and wins rounds

speed is fine but sending a doc is always safer and better

If its 8 in the morning i probably will be asleep so advise against just blasting into top speed immediately

not afraid to make an 'i didn't understand it' rfd

I disclose if the tournament allows and I can disclose speaks if everyone in the round wants (i give 29.6 block unless you made the round unsafe but if you look to the bottom it's very easy to get a 30)

don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, rude, or xenophobic. Just be a decent person!

TABULA ROSA!

Everything in the final should be in summary (obviously, don't know why I should have to say that)

If you have two cards that directly contradict each other, please weigh them. If I get no reason to prefer one card over another, then I won't evaluate either.

I don't listen to cross so if someone concedes something in a cross then mention it in your speech. By that I mean I barely pay attention to content and lowkey think cross can be the funniest part of the debate

To save time just send all the cards you are reading before your speech. I can also tell when you steal prep so I will dock your speaks

Progressive arguments require a speech doc and no paraphrasing

I don't mind theory but I would prefer not to listen to it.

Usually theory debates just become teams yelling at each other about their opponent’s character and gets overly aggressive for no reason
Paraphrasing is bad if they don’t have cut cards and i don’t care about disclosure

Policy

Don’t know anything about the topic so just explain like im genuinely stupid

Like DAs and CPs

Ks were not really my strat but i like them

Never read k affs and usually read fw when i hit it

No tricks or phil

Preferences (for strikes)

LARP - 1

Theory/T - 2

Kritik - 3

Non-T Kritik - 4

Tricks - 5 (strike)

Phil - 5 (strike)

Performance - 5 (strike)

Speaks

tournaments are stressful and I don't want to make it worse by giving bad speaks

30 speaks if you reference Taylor Swift

30 speaks if you bring me food

If you make the round fun by telling jokes or making everyone feel comfortable, i give 30 speaks.

Congress

my sister placed 5th at TOC, 5th at Nationals, and championed ASU, and made finals of several national circuit tournaments so look at her paradigm. She is Divya Mehrotra.

I love crystal speeches if done well and if you take that risk to give one then, please do proper weighing

Ross Miller Bob Lanier Middle School

Tara Miller Bob Lanier Middle School

Avay Mishra Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy

Rhys Moon ModernBrain

Last changed on Sat January 14, 2023 at 1:30 AM PDT

rhys.e.moon22@gmail.com

Peninsula 22 | Harvard 26

All of my preferences are somewhat malleable, but like every other judge, my history in the activity informs the biases and frames of reference through which I view certain arguments.

Policy:

Most comfortable with this. Condo is fine. I find that many affirmative qualms with counterplans can be resolved through competition debating rather than theory. Not the biggest fan of politics. Good for impact turns.

Kritiks:

These are fine. CX really matters here (on both sides). 2NR floating PIKs + framework interpretations are new arguments, and I won't evaluate them. I think that most kritik alternatives can't solve the links and definitely can't solve the case.

K-Affs:

I think that affirmatives should defend a plan. I strongly prefer fairness impacts over clash/movements. Good for the Cap K. Amenable to arguments that K-Affs should be held to a much more rigorous standard re: permutations.

Philosophy:

Probably bad for this, as you might expect. You should err on over-explaining your syllogism, and make impact calculus arguments on the contention or at least try to compare your offense against their turns/defense. I'm absolutely horrible for this if your strategy relies on calc indicts, frivolous theory, random independent voting issues...similar nonsense.

Theory:

I am convinced by reasonability + DTA. My interpretation of reasonability is that I should weigh the impact of the shell vs. the DA to substance by foreclosing a debate over the topic by voting on theory. I am unconvinced and confused by most "brightlines" for reasonability and find them arbitrary.

I'll probably tailor your speaks to the ridiculousness of the theory argument and significantly lower the bar for responses.

Other:

I am not interested in judging rounds where the primary strategy on either side is to read tricks, frivolous theory, or other similarly unwarranted arguments that necessitate being dropped in order to win. I will actively stop flowing if you blaze through twenty spikes in monotone without ever pausing between arguments.

Show your opponents respect! Have fun if you can.

Hakeem Muhammad ModernBrain

Saul Munn ModernBrain

Last changed on Fri January 6, 2023 at 9:55 AM PDT

saul munn

he/him or they/them whatever you're more comfortable with

peninsula ld 2020-2022

peninsula parli 2018-2020

undergrad at brandeis studying philosophy

add me to the chain saulsmunn@gmail.com

---

NOVICES: LOOK AT THE NOTE AT THE BOTTOM!!!

---

PREFS

i'm not amazing at (circuit) debate, lol -- sorry

1 - policy

2 - stock phil/stock theory/annoying policy stuff like politics DAs and agent CPs

3 - non-stock phil/K/non-stock theory

4/5/strike - trix

---

i'm not really that familiar with non-stock phil and non-stock K — feel free to go for it but you should explain it more than you normally might. write my ballot in the 2nr/2ar to make it easier to vote for you.

trix are a great way to get bad speaks and probably an L

---

RANDOM STUFF

- IMPORTANT: PLEASE do not send cards in the body of an email -- add them to a doc and send the doc :)

- IMPORTANT: SET A WIN CONDITION AND EXPLAIN HOW YOU MEET IT! please write my ballot for me in your rebuttals — explain what your arguments mean for my ballot, don't just make the argument.

- 0.1% chance ≠ 0% chance — read up on nassim taleb

- send analytics if you have them

- be nice

- don't be racist/sexist/homophic/classist/any other type of discrimination/exclusion

- be funny (pls & ty)

---

SPEAKER POINTS:

do:

- use correct grammar

- bring some massive energy

- have good & consistent formatting in your document (blank line between each card, each offcase cleanly listed, same highlighting color, same font, no bullet points, etc)

- have a clean and c r i s p wiki. i'm not going to go looking, but if you think yours looks clean and crisp, point it out to me (before the round starts)

- make me laugh (in a good way)

don't:

- use bad grammar

- have an unorganized speech/don't give an order/dont follow the order you gave/etc

- have bad strategy

- show up late/have to use the bathroom halfway through/generally disruptive/rude

- be annoying -- either to me or to the other team (what's a floating pik?)q

- make me laugh (in a not so good way)

---

FOR NOVICE/PF/PARLI/ETC:

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE send the documents you're reading, if you're reading from any documents. send the document right before your speech (preferable), before the whole debate (less preferable), or after the debate (really not preferable and i'll probably dock your speaker points). you don't need to send it to your opponent, but are you really that afraid to have a quality debate?

the reason i need your document is that i need to check to make sure that you're using your evidence correctly. for instance, if you misquote an article, or say that evidence came from 2021 when it actually came from 2015, or claim that your author has a PhD when they actually don't – that's an instant loss, even if the opponent doesn't point it out. if you see something with bad evidence ethics, point it out to me during your speech as a theory argument (if you know how to make them; if not, then just point it out).

---

a haiku:

if you're in pf

and you choose to paraphrase

please expect nuked speaks

-saul munn

Kirthi Narayanaswamy Redwood MS

Anusha Neupane ModernBrain

Bill Nichols Alice Deal

Stephanie Odom ModernBrain

Nelson Okunlola Marlborough School

Last changed on Thu March 28, 2024 at 1:04 PM CDT

PREP TIME ENDS WHEN THE DOC IS SENT. THIS IS A REMINDER TO INCORPORATE DOC SENDING INTO YOUR PRACTICE AND DRILLS. IF I SEE YOU FUMBLING WITH YOUR COMPUTER 10 SECONDS AFTER YOU STOP PREP, I'M STARTING PREP RIGHT BACK UP. IF YOU'RE OUT OF PREP THEN I'M STARTING YOUR SPEECH TIME.

I EXPECT ROUNDS TO START EXACTLY AT (MAYBE EVEN EARLIER THAN) THE DESIGNATED START TIME. IF YOU START THE CHAIN AND SEND THE 1AC ~2 MINUTES PRIOR TO THE START TIME WE'LL BE GOOD.

THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR FLIGHT 2 DEBATES STARTING LATE BECAUSE OF DEBATERS. YOU HAD AN HOUR EXTRA TO PREPARE/START THE EMAIL CHAIN/PRE-FLOW.

IF A TIMER IS NOT RUNNING (speech, cx, prep time) YOU SHOULD NOT BE PREPPING (looking at docs, typing, writing) THAT IS STEALING PREP

Okay enough yelling. Sorry I'm getting old and grumpy.

Email: okunlolanelson@gmail.com [Add me to the chain]

About me: I debated in Texas mostly in LD and did a little Policy. Had a short stint for Northwestern debate (GO CATS). If you're reading quickly before a round, read the bold.

General/Short version:

- Tech > Truth

- Judge instruction is axiomatic. The best final speeches start and end with judge instruction.

- Assume I know very little about the topic, your author, the norms, the meta e.t.c. This means (for the most part) you do you, extend and explain your position and I'll do my best to objectively evaluate it

- If its a Policy throwdown, please slow down a bit in those final speeches. Remember I'm probably not familiar with the topic. This is mostly for LD since shorter speeches/rounds means less time to explain those [internal] links.

- I'm not flowing of the doc - I believe that judges flowing off the doc incentivizes HORRIBLE clarity and rhetorical practices. Won't even glance at the document unless absolutely needed (1/10 debates). It is YOUR job to extend and explain your evidence, not my job to read it and explain it for you. Clarity is axiomatic.

- PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD SLOW DOWN on analytics, tags, interpretations, plan/cp text, theory. You can go as fast as you want on the card body. Remember speed can be a gift or a curse.

- Debate whatever and however you want. Go all out and do your thing, just DO NOT be violent or make the space unsafe.

- Frame your impacts and weigh your impacts. No one wins their framework anymore. Its a shame. It would make debates atleast 37% easier to decide.

- Errr on the side of explanation and slow down a bit for dense [analytic] philosophical debates. I do not have a PhD in philosophy.

- Bad theory debates get more annoying as I get older. I promise you no one is thrilled to decide on a debate on "evaluate the debate after the 1AC" be forreal. You still have to respond to bad theory arguments though (shouldn't be terribly hard)

- You will auto-lose if you clip cards or falsely accuse. You will auto-lose for evidence ethics violations

- A good speech consists of judge instruction, overview, line by line, and crystallization (and obviously strategy). Good speeches = good speaks. Rhetoric and Persuasion is important.

- I don't care how far away or how close to the topic you are but you must justify your practice. This is your activity not mine. I'm simply here to give feedback, decide a winner, and enjoy the free food from the judges lounge. If you think fairness is an impact, defend it. If you think skills matter, defend it. If you think defending USFG action causes psychological violence, defend it.

- One thing to note for "non-T" affs vs T, I need you to account for/interact with your opponents impact. If I am simply left with a fairness/skills impact vs the impact turns and no interaction between the 2 and no Top Level framing issues, I will be forced to intervene. (This is bad for affirmatives because I think that fairness is *probably* a good thing)

- If there's an important CX concession, please flag it and/or get my attention in case I have zoned out.

- If i'm judging Policy debate, just don't assume I know some jargon, norm, or innovative strategy and err on the side of explanation.

- I won't kick the CP for you unless you tell me to *AND justify* why I should.

- No you cannot "Insert re-highlighting." Are you serious? Why is this even a thing? If its not read, its not on my flow.

- Don't get too **graphic** on descriptions of antiblack violence (or any violence for that matter). Trigger warnings are welcomed and encouraged.

- Referencing college teams or other teams doesn't really get you anywhere, "our models allows for Michigan vs Berkeley debates" I simply do not know or care about these teams

- If you need to know something specifically ask before the round.

Good luck, do your thing, and have fun!

Joseph Or ModernBrain

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 2:07 PM PDT

hi!

email: 25josephor@gmail.com

for novice/ms debaters: if you're reading this paradigm, you’re already on the right track! do your thing, and don’t count yourself out. we’ve all had a first day, and it only goes up from there! all the feedback/constructive criticism you receive and opponents you hit will shape you to improve and become a better debater over time :)

accessibility is important to me!! as far as i’m concerned, i’m mostly judging novice/ms teams for the time being. these divisions are here to provide spaces for newer debaters to learn and grow into more experienced ones. this means that if the ac reads 6 mins of trad and is clearly newer in cx, your speaks will not appreciate your 5 off spread + tricks.

for trad: engage in the contention debate and explain how each argument links back to your framing. (value/vc stuff). HOWEVER -

- only invest time in the value debate if your values actually clash (ik morality v. justice is common in trad but it probably won't be the crux of my rfd).

- sure, debate the value criterion, but if they're similar like preserving human life v. util/maximizing expected well-being, focus on contention debate (and weigh!)

---

FOR PROG:

policy -

yes cards ------------X--------------------------------- less cards

ok ptx -----x--------------------------------------- ptx sucks

condo bad --------------------------------------x------- condo good

pics good -----------x-------------------------------- no pics

yes agent/process cps -------------x----------------------------- no

perm blip storm -------------------------------------------XXX- real competition arguments

more off ---------------------x---------------------— more case

ks -

k affs ------------------------x-------------------- t-fw

(aff) creative interp of the topic --x------------------------------------- debate bad w/ little to no topic mention

cap/setcol/security/anthro/pess/futurism/etc --x------------------------------------- baudy and his besties

loooong o/v and "extend from the ov" for 5 mins --------------------------------------x------ line. by. line.

fw interp in the nc/ar -X---------------------------------- oh btw ik it's late breaking but here's an interp

specific/topic links ------------X--------------------------------- generic links

explain the perm -X---------------------------------- alt perm blip storm

floating piks (if hinted at in the nc) ------------------x---------------- nooooo

theory/t -

slow down -x------------------------------------------ a doc full of analytics at full speed!!

a long underview -----------------------------------x------- underviews are boring

friv interps ------------------------------------------x-- reading more substantive positions

rvis ----------------------------------x---------- noooo

doing definition comparison in t debates --------------x-------------------------------------- not?

clearly delineating a violation in a t shell -X-------------------------------------------------------- no flowed violation until the nr

phil -

overexplain -x------------------------------------------ assume joseph isn't a debater from california who doesn't regularly debate nuanced phil positions

straight up acs/ncs -X-------------------------------------------- phil w/ 283928392 trix inserted

going for substantive offense -X----------------------------------------------- collapsing to a 1 sentence analytic i might not have even flowed completely

have a good round! :)

(if ur a novice reading this -- mention you read my paradigm before the round for + speaks)

Rodrigo Paramo Greenhill School

Last changed on Tue April 16, 2024 at 3:07 PM CDT

i debated in LD and policy in high school, graduating in '13. this is my 6th year coaching @ greenhill, and my second year as a full time debate teacher.

[current/past affiliations:

i coached independent debaters from: woodlands ('14-'15), dulles ('15-'16), edgemont ('16-'18);
team coach for: westwood ('14-'18), greenhill ('18-'22);
program director for dallas urban debate alliance ('21-'22);
full time teacher - greenhill, ('22-now);
director of LD @ VBI ('23-now) - as a result of this, I am conflicted from any current competitor who will teach at VBI this summer. you can find the list of those individuals on the vbi website]

i would like there to be an email chain and I would like to be on it: greenhilldocs.ld@gmail.com -would love for the chain name to be specific and descriptive - perhaps something like "Tournament Name, Round # - __ vs __"

I have coached debaters whose interests ranged from util + policy args & dense critical literature (anthropocentrism, afropessimism, settler colonialism, psychoanalysis, irigaray, borderlands, the cap + security ks), to trickier args (i-law, polls, monism) & theory heavy strategies.

That said, I am most comfortable evaluating critical and policy debates, and in particular enjoy 6 minutes of topicality 2nrs if delivered at a speed i can flow. I will make it clear if you are going too fast - i am very expressive so if i am lost you should be able to tell.

I am a bad judge for highly evasive tricks debates, and am not a great judge for denser "phil" debates - i do not think about analytic philosophy / tricks outside of debate tournaments, so I need these debates to happen at a much slower pace for me to process and understand all the moving parts. This is true for all styles of debates - the rounds i remember most fondly are one where a cap k or t-fwk were delivered conversationally and i got almost every word down and was able to really think through the arguments.

i think the word "unsafe" means something and I am uncomfortable when it is deployed cavalierly - it is a meaningful accusation to suggest that an opponent has made a space unsafe (vs uncomfortable), and i think students/coaches/judges should be mindful of that distinction. this applies to things like “evidence ethics,” “independent voters,” "psychological violence," etc., though in different ways for each. If you believe that the debate has become unsafe, we should likely pause the round and reach out to tournament officials, as the ballot is an insufficient mechanism with which to resolve issues of safety. similarly, it will take a lot for me to feel comfortable concluding that a round has been psychologically violent and thus decide the round on that conclusion, or to sign a ballot that accuses a student of cheating without robust, clear evidence to support that. i have judged a lot of debates, and it is very difficult for me to think of many that have been *unsafe* in any meaningful way.

A note on the topic - after judging at hwl, i have realized that many of the policy debates I am seeing are too big, have too many moving parts, and are not being clearly synthesized by either the affirmative or the negative debaters. this leaves me liable to confusion in terms of what exactly the world of the aff / neg does, and increases how much i appreciate a comparative speech that explains the stakes of winning each argument clearly, and in relation to the other moving parts of the debate.

8 things to know:

Evidence Ethics: In previous years, I have seen a lot of miscut evidence. I think that evidence ethics matters regardless of whether an argument/ethics challenge is raised in the debate. If I notice that a piece of evidence is miscut, I will vote against the debater who reads the miscut evidence. My longer thoughts on that are available on the archived version of this paradigm, including what kinds of violations will trigger this, etc. If you are uncertain if your evidence is miscut, perhaps spend some time perusing those standards, or better yet, resolve the miscutting. Similarly, I will vote against debaters clipping if i notice it. If you would like me to vote on evidence ethics, i would prefer that you lay out the challenge, and then stake the round on it. i do not think accusations of evidence ethics should be risk-less for any team, and if you point out a mis-cutting but are not willing to stake the round on it, I am hesitant to entertain that argument in my decision-making process. if an ev ethics challenge occurs, it is drop the debater. do not make them lightly.
i mark cards at the timer and stop flowing at the timer.
Complete arguments require a claim warrant and impact when they are made. I will be very comfortable rejecting 1nc/1ar arguments without warrants when they were originally made. I find this is particularly true when the 1ar/1nc version are analytic versions of popular cards that you presume I should be familiar with and fill in for you.
I do not believe you can "insert" re-highlightings that you do not read verbally.
please do not split your 2nrs! if any of your 1nc positions are too short to sustain a 6 minute 2nr on it, the 1nc arg is underdeveloped.

Evidence quality is directly correlated to the amount of credibility I will grant an argument - if a card is underhighlighted, the claim is likely underwarranted. I think you should highlight your evidence to make claims the author has made, and that those claims should make sense if read at conversational speed outside of the context of a high school debate round.
i do not enjoy being in the back of disclosure debates where the violation is difficult to verify or where a team has taken actions to help a team engage, even if that action does not take the form of open sourcing docs, nor do i enjoy watching disclosure theory be weaponized against less experienced debaters - i will likely not vote on it. if a team refuses to tell you what the aff will be, or is familiar with circuit norms but has nothing on their wiki, I will be more receptive to disclosure, but again, verifiability is key.

topicality arguments will make interpretive claims about the meaning or proper interpretation of words or phrases in the resolution. interpretations that are not grounded in the text of the resolution are theoretical objections - the same is true for counter-interpretations.i will use this threshold for all topicality/theory arguments.

Finally, I am not particularly good for the following buckets of debates:

Warming good & other impact turn heavy strategies that play out as a dump on the case page
IR heavy debates - i encourage you to slow down and be very clear in the claims you want me to evaluate in these debates.
Bad theory arguments / theory debates w/ very marginal offense (it is unlikely i will vote for theory debates where i can not identify meaningful offense / where the abuse story is very difficult for me to comprehend)

Identity ks that appropriate the form and language of antiblackness literature
affs/nc's that have entirely analytic frameworks (even if it is util!) - i think this is often right on the line of plagiarism, and my brain simply cannot process / flow it at high speeds. my discomfort with these positions is growing by the round.

Byoung Chul PARK The Golden State Academy

Chan Park HuaXia Chinese School - Houston

Rishit Pradhan Stratford Milpitas

Christian Quiroz Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 1:07 PM EDT

Hey, I'm Chris, and I debated for Newark Science for four years in LD and Policy. To start, I'd like to say that although I was known as a particular kind of debater, I encourage you to do what you can do the best, whether that be Kant, theory, performance, etc.

As a common rule, please don't go your top speed at the beginning of your speeches. Go slower and build up speed so I can get accustomed to your voice. I've had times where debaters started at their top speed, which wasn't really that fast, but I wasn't accustomed to their voice at all, so I missed a few of their arguments. To prevent this, please don't start blazing fast. Build up to your top speed.

I've come to realize I am probably one of the worst flowers in the activity. This doesn't mean I won't hold you to answering arguments but it does mean that I am far less likely to get a 5 point response than the next person. Take that as you will.

I'm far from a tabula rasa judge; if you say or do anything that reinforces racist, heterosexist, ableist norms then I will vote against you. This is not to say that you'll always lose Kant against Wilderson; rather, it's about the way in which you frame/phrase your arguments. If you say "Kantianism does x, y, and z, which solves the K" then I'm more willing to vote for you than if you say "Kant says empirical realities don't matter therefore racism doesn't exist or doesn't matter"

On that note, I'm an advocate of argument engagement rather than evasion. I understand the importance of "preclusion" arguments, but at the point where there are assertions that try to disregard entire positions I must draw a line. I will be HIGHLY skeptical of your argument that "Util only means post-fiat impacts matters therefore disregard the K because it's pre-fiat." I'm also less likely to listen to your "K>Theory" dump or vice versa. Just explain how your position interacts with theirs. I'm cool with layering, in fact I encourage layering, but that doesn't mean you need to make blanket assertions like "fairness is an inextricable aspect of debate therefore it comes before everything else" I'd rather you argue "fairness comes before their arguments about x because y."

I think that theory debates should be approached holistically, the reason being that often times there are one sentence "x is key to y" arguments and sometimes there are long link chains "x is key to y which is key to z which is key to a which is key to fairness because" and I guarantee I will miss one of those links. So, please please please, either slow down, or have a nice overview so that I don't have to call for a theory shell after the round and have to feel like I have to intervene.

These are just some of my thoughts. If I'm judging you at camp, do whatever, don't worry about the ballot. As I judge more I'll probably add to this paradigm. If you have any specific questions email me at cfquiroz@gmail.com

UPDATE: I will not call for cards unless
a) I feel like I misflowed because of something outside of the debater's control
b) There is a dispute over what the evidence says
c) The rhetoric/non underlined parts of the card become relevant

Otherwise, I expect debaters to clearly articulate what a piece of evidence says/why I should vote for you on it. This goes in line with my larger issue of extensions. "Extend x which says y" is not an extension. I want the warrants/analysis/nuance that proves the argument true, not just an assertion that x person said y is true.

Yesh Rao Princeton Middle School

Last changed on Sat July 13, 2024 at 8:56 PM EDT

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 receiving 27 bids to the Tournament of Champions making quarters along with championing some tournaments (Glenbrooks, Bronx, Lexington, etc). I'm now a freshman at Berkeley studying Business and coaching on the side.

I always thought paradigms were far too long so I'll try and keep this short. Debate is a time consuming, stressful activity and it is a disservice to the effort of debaters for judges to arbitrarily determine which arguments are worthy of consideration. I will evaluate any argument that contains a claim, warrant, and impact. My only preference is that you read arguments with the intention of contestation and put thought into what you say. Debate is a lot more fun to judge when you read the things you understand and enjoy reading. Please don't adapt to what you think I may be better for. My favorite part of the activity was getting to experiment with arguments I really enjoyed ranging from policy affs to Non T K affs all the way to niche phil and theory. That being said, well explained arguments 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.

Tajaih Robinson Eastern Middle School

Nick Ryan Hire

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 12:49 PM EDT

Philosophy Updated 9-5-17

Nick Ryan – Liberty Debate – 10th year coaching/Judging

Please label your email chains “Tournament – Rd “#” – AFF Team vs Neg Team” – or something close to that effect. I hate “No subject,” “Test,” “AFF.” I would like to be included “nryan2wc@gmail.com”

Too often Philosophy’s are long and give you a bunch of irrelevant information. I’m going to try to keep this short and sweet.

1. I spend most of my time working with our “Policy teams,” I have a limited amount of working with our “K/Non traditional” debaters, but the bulk of my academic research base is with the “traditional” “policy teams;” don’t expect me to know the nuances of your specific argument, debate it and explain it.

2. Despite this I vote for the K a fair amount of time, particularly when the argument is contextualized in the context of the AFF and when teams aren’t reliant on me to unpack the meaning of “big words.” Don’t rely on me to find your “embedded clash” for you.

3. “Perm Do Both” is not a real argument, neg teams let AFFs get away with it way too often and it shifts in the 1AR. Perms and Advocacy/CP texts should be written out.

4. If neither team clarifies in the debate, then I default to the status quo is always an option.

5. These are things that can and probably will influence your speaker points: clarity, explanations, disrespectfulness to the other team, or your partner, stealing prep time, your use of your speech time (including cx), etc.

6. Prep time includes everything from the time the timer beeps at the end of the lasts speech/CX until the doc is sent out.

7. I think Poems/Lyrics/Narratives that you are reading written by someone else is evidence and should be in the speech document.

ADA Novice Packet Tournaments:

Evidence you use should be from the packet. If you read cards that weren’t in the packet more than once it’s hard to believe it was a “honest mistake.”

If you have any questions about things that are not listed here please ask, I would rather you be sure about my feelings, then deterred from running something because you are afraid I did not like it.

Shivakumar Seetharaman Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy

Last changed on Sat February 17, 2024 at 4:11 PM PDT

Last updated: 2/2/2024 (Evergreen)

General:

I am a tabula rasa judge who will do my best to judge arguments based on the flow. Please do not spread or exceed significantly faster than the conversational pace because I am not the fastest at taking notes... I have judged for 4 years (Public Forum/LD/Parli) and mainly lay debate, however I am down to hearing progressive arguments if explained clearly and well.

Start all speeches with an off-time roadmap: Signpost and tagline extremely clearly. I cannot flow you if I do not know where you are. Please take at least 1-2 POIs per speech as I believe there is a purpose in them existing in the first place.. I will disclose my result at the end given that this does not go against tournament protocol.Finish on time as well.The grace period is illegitimate. You get your minutes and then you are done. Granted, I will not explicitly tell you your time is up -> that is for you and your opponents to enforce in-round.

Case:

This is my favorite type of debate. Simple and easy -> run the status quo or a counterplan if you are Neg and run a plan if you are gov. Be specific but do not spend 50% of your speech on top-of-case. I need lots of weighing and terminalization in the MG/MO and the clean extensions through the LOR/PMR. I barely protect, it is best to call the POO.A good collapse into the key voters and instructing me where to vote and why is the key to winning my ballot. Statistics and empirics are underrated in Parli: But do not lie please. Do not rely on them entirely to the point where you have no logic, but there should be a good balance and mix of logic and evidence.

Theory:

Will never vote on Friv T: I will evaluate actual theory against "real abuse", but explain every single jargonistic-like term in great detail. Err on the side of caution, I have judged very very few progressive rounds. I do not default to anything. If you do not tell me anything I can simply not evaluate it -> I also do not randomly put theory before case, that is up for you guys to argue. Overall, I would recommend just sticking to the case given my wavy evaluation of theory, but if there is actual proven abuse in the debate round then it is best to run it in some form or another.

Kritiks:

Never heard a Kritik before in a round. Best not to run this, I don't understand this concept still to this day. You can try, but explain everything in great detail.

Overall, be respectful to your opponents, it goes a long way for speaker points as well. Best to run a traditional, slower case debate with really solid impacting and statistics. If you collapse into voter issues and effectively rebut the opponent's points, you have a good shot at winning the round.

Good luck to everyone.

Anthony Shen Redwood MS

Kyna Shen Redwood MS

Christina Shi The Golden State Academy

John Sims Isidore Newman Middle School

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 3:13 AM CDT

Yes, I want to be on the email chain. jmsimsrox@gmail.com

UT '21 update (since I'm judging policy): I judge probably around a dozen policy rounds on the DFW local circuit a year (since about 2011), so I'm not a policy debate expert but I shouldn't be confused by your round. That means that I will probably understand the arguments you're making in a vacuum, but that you should probably err on the side of over-explaining how you think those arguments should interact with each other; don't just expect me to be operating off the exact same policy norms that you/the national circuit do. I am fairly willing to evaluate arguments however you tell me to. I have read a decent bit of identity, setcol, and cap lit. I am less good on pomo lit but I am not unwilling to vote on anything I can understand. Totally down for just a plan v counterplan/disad debate too.

Tl;dr I'm fine with really any argument you want to read as long as it links to and is weighed in relation to some evaluative mechanism. I am pretty convinced that T/theory should always be an issue of reasonability (I obviously think that some debates are better when there is a clear counter-interp that offense is linked back to); if you trust me to compare and weigh offense on substantive issues in the debate, I can't figure out why you wouldn't also trust me to make the same judgments on T/theory debates (unless you're just making frivolous/bad T/theory args). I enjoy any debate that you think you can execute well (yeah this applies to your K/counter-plan/non-T aff; I'll listen to it). I base speaker points on whether or not I think that you are making strategic choices that might lead to me voting for you (extending unnecessary args instead of prioritizing things that contribute to your ballot story, dropping critical arguments that either are necessary for your position or that majorly help your opponent, failing to weigh arguments in relation to each other/the standard would be some general examples of things that would cause you to lose speaker points if I am judging). Beyond those issues, I think that debate should function as a safe space for anyone involved; any effort to undermine the safety (or perceived safety) of others in the activity will upset me greatly and result in anything from a pretty severe loss of speaker points to losing the round depending on the severity of the harm done. So, be nice (or at least respectful) and do you!

Wyatt Skala Kudos College Of Youth Leadership

Last changed on Sun July 18, 2021 at 12:22 PM AKDT

If you don't think debate is a game and you have been debating for more than a year you are wrong you should feel bad about it. I did Policy in high school and bp now.

My Judging Philosophy: I like good argumentation. It is one thing to have a good idea, you need to be able to defend it. Tell me how to vote and I will vote for your idea. Debate is a game and you should be able to create a winning strategy by any means. I am a games player judge.

Dropped args flow 100% in the favor of the team that didn't drop them. That said I won’t extend dropped args for you. Same goes for voting tell me explicitly why I should vote for you. The debate is your playground I am here to moderate only. This should be about what you think is the best line for the position you have been given.

Speed: If we are at a national tournament and you don't speed I won't give you more that 26 speaks. In local or lay tournaments I will dock you points for speeding without your opponents saying there okay with it IN FRONT OF ME before you do so.

Spread: Tbh, do you but beyond 7 off case I will never buy a 'grouping bad' argument. Personally I have never seen or had a round where someone spread a good team out of round. If you default to running as many argument as you can to extend one through the block your not Woke enough. I won't weigh it in round but I will call you out on a lack of sauce on the ballot for your coaches to read.

Stock Issues Cases: I don't mind stock issues. If you feel this is the best path for victory or what you are most comfortable running run it. I like traditional impact calc, bonus points for Royals in 10 (LMFAO, please go for it kid). That said you have to basically be the next great orator to sell me a politics da. I will try to keep my bais in check but the ptix da has been the same dumpster fire since I was debate.

Aff K: I know quite a bit about K cases. I ran one at nsda nats twice and three times for NCFL. I know most about Agamben and Derrida based cases but have a lot of respect for Wilderson and Foucault cases. If you run it I expect you to be the expert on your case. That said don't do policy if you are not. Camp K Aff's are never good and they never had been. If this is the route you are going for try doing research.

NEG: Go wild, I think neg is the harder position. All I ask is you match your opponent's speed but I give you permission to fight dirty. No line of attack is off limits for you run. I have mad respect neg teams that can pull off sick fw and theory shells.

If you want to know my perfect round I'm looking for on any resolution.

- Aff runs a case with a plan text and leans heavy into a K through 1AC framework. [IE any pedagogy maters K.]

- Neg runs five off: 1 cp, 2 da, 1 t, cap k(With alt solves), in any order. Turns on advs and engage fw.

You get .5 speaker points for putting the word "Pepsi" in a tag line.

Abigail Spencer ModernBrain

Last changed on Sat April 20, 2024 at 12:11 PM CDT

I'm working on restructuring this. We're all aware it looks a bit silly. So some parts might be out of place, but I want to put them in here.

Some updated things to know:
No, you don't have to adapt your strategy to be more K heavy because my paradigm has a furby. In fact, I will be annoyed if you seem to pander.
Along this vein - I wouldn't consider myself a K hack. I find more and more that I am very comfortable voting on conceded procedurals. To me, "this theory argument doesn't matter/isn't good" as a one-sentence response with no warrants is categorically conceding it. But this goes from procedurals generally, and isn't really very K-related in my mind.
I prefer flowing off the speech unless I can't, so I might not notice clipping. Feel free to challenge.
If you are going for a K, the 2NR should make some commitment to explaining your alt.
My topic knowledge is literature-heavy, jargon, not so much. This is to say, please don't rename their DA to another name you've heard for it because this gets a bit confusing to me during roadmaps. Just call it what it was in the 1NC and I will be a happy camper.
I really like weighing debates, especially at the impact level. Link debates I feel require intervention far more often.
More and more I feel like being a good judge means being a lazy judge - not as far as flowing, I try to take the flow extremely seriously. I more find that the more I consider my own philosophy in a decision, the more I worry I'm intervening. That being said, tabula rasa probably isn't possible - my philosophy is a bit less predictable than other judges. I have tried to annotate the consequential things up here. If you're completing TOC prefs and have questions, feel free to email.

Last Update 04/20 (eyo) - Policy debaters, you're in the right spot. PF, scroll down to the bottom for the relevant section.

Sections:
(1) About Me; (2) a section about keeping debates safe; (3) how I give speaker points; (4) a disclaimer about my side bias for neg; (5) my thoughts on K's; (6) general thoughts on evidence/weighing; and (7) a PF section. If you don't care about these things specifically, there is no reason to read the rest of my paradigm. Unless maybe you're bored, but I'd say a game of chess would be a better way to alleviate that. lichess.org is a good place for that.

TLDR: I'll find the cleanest path to the ballot on the flow. Tech >>> Truth. Don't be violent, make debate an educational activity and I'll probably be a good judge for you.

abigailnspencer[at]gmail.com.

(1) About Me
Coaching: University of Chicago Lab, South Shore, Potomac Debate Academy
Formerly: McDade Classical, Lindblom, Phillips Exeter, SWSDI

Competed in NDT/CEDA policy debate and AFA-NIET speech (Arizona State). Top 10 NSDA point earners '20. I've done most events. I can flow. I did a lot of hybrid partnerships, so I've run arguments across the spectrum. Performance, trad, it's all cool.

(2) PLEASE BE A GOOD HUMAN
Disclaimer: I do not give you a W or higher speaker points for respecting pronouns. I think that respecting pronouns is a good way to make debate a safe and welcoming space. If you want to know my values, read my debate background. I am tired of being treated like a judge who will vote for you just because you asked for your opp's pronouns.

that being said, you should use they/them pronouns for anyone who has not disclosed otherwise in your round. I'm seeing an influx of trans debaters cling to this activity as a safe space - don't be what shatters that.

there's also an unspoken imbalance in the accessibility of pronoun disclosure. it takes 10 seconds to update your bio to tell the homies you're cis. for trans debaters this decision carries all the weight in the world and isn't always instantaneous. not disclosing pronouns does not mean you do not care. it is often because it is not safe to do so.

make debates safe before you make them winnable. your words may just change someone's life.

(3) Things that I give high speaks for:
Argumentative and strategic consistency and awareness- in every cross or speech you give, I can identify a clear understanding of your case and strategy. You're not just reading each speech in front of you, you're thinking about the round as a whole.

Also, I am always impressed by good topic knowledge. I don't expect this, since topics are broad and you're not required to be an expert, but for me I will definitely bump up speaks if you clearly know a lot about this topic from your research.

Finally, I don't really care about how you speak/where you speak in the room. I don't care about eye contact. What I consider to be good for "professionalism" is being accountable for prep time, speech times, and cross times. I won't be upset if you take a second to get ready when you are about to start your speech. But if you're consistently ending prep and speaking very promptly after, I will reward that with higher speaks since I do kind of dislike when people "end prep" and then very clearly continue to read through their speech and mentally prep until they start talking.

Be kind to your partners. Do not be overly cocky.

(4) am I BIASED??? (not clickbait)
I've been voting neg a lot recently. I'm not a neg hack, but I think a lot of affs forget how easy it is to vote neg and not intervene when the aff isn't weighed against the status quo. Please extend your impacts! An overview that's even 30 seconds in the 2AR is critical to explaining why the aff is a good idea if you want me to vote for it.

I am finding more and more debates decided during the last speech on each side. I think debates can totally be won or lost earlier, but I'm just not seeing that at the hs level. This is all to say - frame, frame, frame. Cool debaters have cool voters. I vote on the flow and I don't necessarily care that a card or two were dropped, unless you want to explain why it loses the debate. Spend less time extending cards and more time telling me why you win and they lose - I crave judge intervention less than you do, trust me.

(5) Your name makes you sound like a neolib, but you have college policy experience...can I read my K?
I fall into the category of K debater that appreciates a good K but has a visceral reaction to a bad one. I don't see the same novelty most judges do in your performance, I'm sorry. I hit a sex worker/call girl rage performance in college and since then I've realized that anything can happen in these rounds. Please don't assume that me having K experience means reading a K is the best strategy. I will totally vote for your K, but I will hold you to defending it properly and explaining how you solve your impacts - especially if you want me to accept a non-traditional ROB, like "always vote for this K, no matter what."

Essentially, debate the way you want to and I'll evaluate accordingly.

THE DEFAULT IS debate is a game, you win on the flow. You can read another interp though, I'll evaluate whatever you tell me debate is.

(6) The other, less interesting debate stuff you should know.
I will warn that coming from Policy I'm a bit sussed out by why the one card they dropped is more important than all the other work they did on your flow. Do not expect me to do the work for you. I'm looking for the cleanest path to the ballot, but please explain why I should vote on something. Conceded offense probably isn't great for you, but if you just extend a dropped turn that wasn't ever fleshed out and they're winning case, it comes down to who does the better comparative. Framework debates are cool.

You make my job so much easier when you define an aff world against a neg world. What actually happens when the resolution is "passed"? I don't want to re-read your link story after the round, and I'm more likely to believe it hearing it in summary and final focus than I am when critically evaluating my flow. Extend impacts, they won't do it by themselves (trust me).

Speed's cool with me if it's cool with all debaters in the round. I'd personally send out a speech doc after 300wpm because of the likelihood of lag in online settings. In general, if you want your arguments on my flow make sure you're loud and clear. I flow everything on its own sheet, so off-time road maps are cool. Signposting is even cooler.

Don't use unnecessary jargon. Unless this is visibly a higher level tech round, I do believe you should be doing everything in your power to make sure everyone in round has access to the same education you do.

Make debate educational, above all else. Accessibility is a pre-requisite to education. Exclude, you lose.

(7) PF gets a tiny lil spot here
1. I coach/teach classes in ES and MS PF - even though I judge policy more often, I'm very familiar with PF as an event and don't expect you to act like high schoolers or policy debaters. Don't get overwhelmed by my paradigm! I can judge you.

2. Weighing arguments in summary/final focus is essential for me, more than any other thing. Weighing just means comparing your case to theirs and specifically telling me why I vote for you and not them. Just because your arguments are good isn't enough; I need to know why they're better.

3. Crossfire is not a speech, so if you make a good attack on their argument in cross that you want me to evaluate on the flow, bring it up in your next speech.

4. Extensions can be simple, I just need to know you haven't forgotten your case - like, you don't have to rexplain your whole case in every speech, but it also doesn't look good if you spend so much time responding to what they ay that you don't talk about your case after constructive.

(8) I know I didn't put this in my roadmap, so this is a top secret section...Middle School Debate!
Who am I kidding...middle schoolers don't read paradigms. But then again, does anyone anymore?

Skye Spindler The Harker School

Last changed on Sun February 18, 2024 at 4:04 AM CDT

"Accept that you're a pimple and try to keep a lively sense of humor about it. That way lies grace - and maybe even glory." - Tom Robbins

Hello! I'm Skye. I love debate and I have loved taking on an educator role in the community. I take education very seriously, but I try to approach debates with compassion and mirth, because I think everyone benefits from it. I try to be as engaged and helpful as I can while judging, and I am excited and grateful to be part of your day!

My email is spindler@augsburg.edu for email chains. If you have more questions after round, feel free to reach out :)

Debate Background

I graduated from Concordia College where I debated on their policy team for 4 years. I am a CEDA scholar and 2019 NDT participant. In high school, I moved around a lot and have, at some point, participated in every debate format. I have a degree in English Literature and Global Studies with a minor in Women and Gender Studies.

I have experience reading, coaching, & judging policy arguments and Ks in both LD & policy.

I have been coaching going on 3 years and judging for 6. I am currently the head policy coach at Wayzata HS in Wayzata, MN. I occasionally help out the Harker School in San Jose, CA and UMN debate in Minneapolis, MN. My full time job is at the Minnesota Urban Debate League, where I am serving my second Americorps VISTA service year as the Community Debate Liaison.

Top Notes!

1. For policy & varsity circuit LD - I flow on paper and hate flowing straight down. I do not have time to make all your stuff line up after the debate. That does not mean I don't want you to spread.That means that when you are debating in front of me, it is beneficial for you to do the following things:

- when spreading card heavy constructives, I recommend a verbal cue like, "and," in between cards and slowing down slightly/using a different tone for the tags than the body of the card

- In the 2A/NC & rebuttals, spreading your way through analytics at MAX SPEED will not help you, because I won't be able to write it all down - it is too dense of argumentation for me to write it in an organized way on my flow if you are spewing them at me.

- instead, I recommend not spreading analytics at max speed, SIGN POSTING between items on the flow & give me literally 1 second to move onto the next flow

If it gets to the RFD, and I feel like my flow doesn’t incapsulate the debate well because we didn't find a common understanding, I am very sorry for all of us, and I just hate it.

2. I default to evaluating debates from the point of tech/line by line, but arguments that were articulated with a warrant, a reason you are winning them/comparison to your opponents’ answers, and why they matter for the debate will significantly outweigh those that don’t.

General - Policy & Circuit LD

"tag teaming cross ex": sure, just know that if you don't answer any CX questions OR cut your partner off, it will likely affect your speaks.

Condo/Theory: I am not opposed to voting on condo bad, but please read it as a PROCEDURAL, with an interp, violation, and standards. Anything else just becomes a mess. The same applies to any theory argument. I approach it all thinking, “What do we want debates to be like? What norms do we want to set?”

T: Will vote on T, please see theory and clash v. K aff sections for more insight, I think of these things in much the same way.

Plans/policy: Yes, I will enjoy judging a policy v policy debate too, please don't think I won't or can't judge those debates just bc I read and like critical arguments. I have read policy arguments in debate as well as Ks and I currently coach and judge policy arguments.

Because I judge in a few different circuits, my topic knowledge can be sporadic, so I do think it is a good idea to clue me into what all your acronyms, initialisms, and topic jargon means, though.

Clash debates, general: Clash debates are my favorite to judge. Although I read Ks for most of college, I coach a lot of policy arguments and find myself moving closer to the middle on things the further out I am from debating.

I also think there is an artificial polarization of k vs. policy ideologies in debate; these things are not so incompatible as we seem to believe. Policy and K arguments are all the same under the hood to me, I see things as links, impacts, etc.

Ks, general: I feel that it can be easy for debaters to lose their K and by the end of the debate so a) I’m not sure what critical analysis actually happened in the round or b) the theory of power has not been proven or explained at all/in the context of the round. And those debates can be frustrating to evaluate.

Clash debates, K aff: Fairness is probably not your best option for terminal impact, but just fine if articulated as an internal link to education. Education is very significant to me, that is why I am here. I think limits are generally good. I think the best K affs debate from the “core” or “center” of the topic, and have a clear model of debate to answer framework with. So the side that best illustrates their model of debate and its educational value while disproving the merits of their opponents’ is the side that wins to me.

Clash debates, K on the neg: If you actually win and do judge instruction, framework will guide my decision. The links are really important to me, especially giving an impact to that link. I think case debate is slept on by K debaters. I have recently started thinking of K strat on the negative as determined by what generates uniqueness in any given debate: the links? The alt? Framework? Both/all?

K v. K:I find framework helpful in these debates as well.

LD -

judge type:consider me a "tech" "flow" "progressive" or "circuit" judge, whatever the term you use is.

spreading: spreading good, please see #1 for guidelines

not spreading:also good

"traditional"LD debaters:lately, I have been voting a lot of traditional LD debaters down due to a lack of specificity, terminal impacts, and general clash, especially on the negative. I mention in case this tendency is a holdover from policy and it would benefit you to know this for judge adaptation.

frivolous theory/tricks ?: Please don't read ridiculous things that benefit no one educationally, that is an uphill battle for you.

framework: When it is time for the RFD, I go to framework first. If any framework arguments were extended in the rebuttals, I will reach a conclusion about who wins what and use that to dictate my decision making. If there aren'y any, or the debaters were unclear, I will default to a very classic policy debate style cost-benefit analysis.

Fun Survey:

Policy--------------------------X-----------------K

Read no cards-----------x------------------------Read all the cards

Conditionality good---------------x---------------Conditionality bad

States CP good-------------------------x---------States CP bad

Federalism DA good---------------------------x--Federalism DA bad

Politics DA good for education --------------------------x---Politics DA not good for education

Fairness is a thing--------------------x----------Delgado 92

Try or die----------------------x-----------------What's the opposite of try or die

Clarityxxx--------------------------------------------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

CX about impacts----------------------------x----CX about links and solvency

AT: ------------------------------------------------------x-- A2:

Michael Stuckert HuaXia Chinese School - Houston

Last changed on Sat January 13, 2024 at 6:15 PM CDT

I'm a first year out, I debated LD for 4 years at Strake Jesuit. I qualified and broke at TFA State 3 times, and qualified to TOC Junior year with 4 career bids. Contact me/add me to docs at michaelastuckert4@gmail.com

You can call me "Michael" -- "judge" is fine but weird to me.

I'm tech > truth and I'll vote on anything.

tldr - run what you're good at, I'll try to act as a neutral party minimizing my intervention as much as possible, but keep in mind that I haven't judged that much and this paradigm probably makes me sound better than I actually am so please give me judge instruction/crystallization and collapse in the 2ar and 2nr - if you go for everything I'm not going to know how to vote. Whoever can present me the simplest and most coherent ballot story will probably win.

Also if you disagree with my decision please feel free to post-round me - I won't take offense to it - that said do it at least somewhat respectfully and realize I might have a second flight.

Pref Sheet:

Phil - 1

Theory/T - 2

K's - 2

LARP - 3

Tricks - 4

Traditional - 5

Miscellaneous:

- Spreading is fine

- I WON'T read off the doc, but I'll have it open and glance at it to make sure I know where you are

- I'll call "clear" if I can't understand you as many times as needed - I WON'T doc speaks or anything if I have to call clear I'll just miss some arguments if you're not clear.

- I'll disclose speaks just ask

- Be polite to novices, even if you can win a round in 20 seconds it’s not always kind to do so. Just be aware of how your actions might make them feel.

- I will be strongly biased against overtly offensive things (arguments which directly contravene the basic humanity of a marginalized group). I don’t think it’s prima facie offensive to read moral philosophy that denies some acts are intrinsically evil (like skep or strict ends-based ethical theories) or which denies that consequences are morally relevant (like skep or strict means-based theories). I also don't think generic impact turns against big stick impacts are innately offensive. But I will certainly listen to Ks or independent voters indicting any of those things.

- Normal speech times please time yourself

- An argument must be extended through every speech to be evaluated

- Conceded arguments are seen as true

- I won't allow new arguments in the 2nr/2ar (unless it's like a 1ar shell the 2nr goes for reasonability and the 2ar makes arguments against reasonability // or unless you win on the flow that you get new arguments) but I'll allow extensions and expanding on an argument. If I can point to somewhere in the 1ar that can warrant an argument made in the 2ar then I'll evaluate it.

Larp:

I never really was a larper in high school so try to be especially clear in these debates

Do whatever you want just do a lot of weighing both on the impact level and evidence comparison and I'll be happy.

I'll judge kick the CP (if it's condo) if you tell me to but if you don't make the argument I won't.

I love impact turns

Politics is cool

I probably won't read cards unless you specifically tell me to

Theory:

Defaults: No RVI, Competing interps, DTD, Fairness > Education but don't make me default

I'll evaluate any shell no matter how frivolous but the less frivolous the happier I'll be

Make sure there's high quality weighing between voters and standards

Theory hedges are fine

Please slow down on the interps and short analytical arguments

Err on the side of overexplaining with clear arguments and comparative weighing in a semantics 2nr I don't know how grammar works lol

I'd prefer more specific arguments in the 2nr/2ar rather than reading off of a doc

I'm familiar with cap, security, Baudrillard, Deleuze, Afropessimism, Set col, Edelman, and Adorno

Don't just read one of these because I'm familiar with it - if you can't explain what you're talking about, I won't be happy. I'm only familiar with most of these because I've debated against them and I wouldn't be able to explain them to you in depth so you run the risk of confusing me unless you have some explanation. If you're good at going for high theory and pomo great! I like this type of debate, but if you don't understand what you're reading then don't read it.

Even if you're reading something I understand I won't use prior knowledge to fill in the gaps so please have warrants and explain buzzwords

Overexplain your alt especially if it's refual alts, why is it a good thing?, if I don't understand it I won't vote on it

Floating PIKs are fine but please at least hint at them in the 1N

Alt solves case arguments that are specific to the aff are great and I'm persuaded by them

K Affs:

Non-T Affs are fine

Negs that engage on the case page and go for permissibility pushes against these will make me very happy

Reps Ks:

I won't enjoy friv violations but I'll vote on them if they go conceded

I prefer straight up Ks instead of word PIKs but I'll vote on a word PIK if it goes conceded

Phil:

I was mainly a Kant debater

I know Kant, Libertarianism, Rawls, Contractarianism, Hobbes, Rousseau, Levinas, Aristotle, GCB, Util, Particuarlism, and pragmatism

Please weigh between warrants

I like syllogistic frameworks over a ton of blippy reasons to prefer

TJFs are alright but I'd be happier without them

I'll default to TT > CW, Permissibility and Presumption affirm, Epistemic Confidence > Epistemic Modesty but don't make me default

Tricks:

I don't like hiding tricks in big blocks of text

I'll be persuaded by spikes Ks

Please weigh, I won't be happy if there's a bunch of random a prioris to evaluate at the end of the debate with no weighing between them

Skep triggers are all right

I'll buy evaluate the debate after the X, but I'll have a very low threshold for answers and I'll allow new 2nr/2ar arguments against them (unless you specifically win no new 2nr/2ar arguments)

Trad:

I'm fine with it, would prefer if you go faster

I'll vote on the flow even in traditional debates

If you are debating a trad debater make the round educational for them, as a former debater I understand the struggle of trying to be educational and also trying to win, so you can still run your a strat just try to be nice. Just please don't try to blatantly out-spread them (some speed is fine but full speed against someone who's not spreading is excessive) or read a bunch of tricks or frivolous shells. If you win on the flow against a trad debate I'll vote for you, but if you were mean about it, you'll get low speaks.

- Also if you're in elims against a trad debater you can try your hardest full speed and all, just obviously still treat your opponent with respect and be nice to them.

I've judged a couple trad debates and sometimes I'm left with no idea how to vote, so if you're a trad debater please

1- Collapse and crystallize give me the cleanest most coherent ballet story and I'll probably vote for you, but if you go for everything in the 2nr/2ar I won't know where I should vote for you. By this I don't just mean giving voters at the end or flagging things as voting issues throughout the round I'll be extremely happy if in the 2nr/2ar you look at your flow and decide what your strongest contention is which one can you win the easiest? Then go for that and make it by far the biggest issue in the round with a lot of impact weighing and answering your opponents case. Winning one huge issue is a lot better than winning a ton of small issues.

2- Extend offense

3- Weigh. Trust me it'll make me a lot happier. (Meta-weighing makes me even happier, and reading turns and going for them is great)

Please don't extend through defense, answer your opponents arguments, the more clash the better

Cheating and Evidence ethics:

If you stake the round loser gets an L25 (or lowest speaks I can give), the winner gets a W30.

You don't have to stake the round I'll evaluate it in a shell format.

For staked rounds, I'll follow tournament rules.

Think this requires more information and specifics so here's some scenarios I can think of (if there's a tournament rule contradicting any of these points I'll prioritize tournament rules over all else):

- If a card is cut in the middle of a paragraph, stake the round, I'll vote for whoever stakes

- if there's block quotes or weird formatting that makes it unclear if it's cut in the middle of a paragraph play it safe and read a shell

- If a card is straw manning without acknowledging it, NSDA rules say that I should "vote against the debater who uses a straw argument and award zero speaker points" but if a debater indicates (NSDA says verbally acknowledge, but also for me if it's in the doc like in the citation then I think that's good enough to indicate) that they're reading a strawman argument then it's fine and not stakeable (but winning a theory shell is still fine ofc)

- If a debater distorts evidence (adding or removing words without brackets) and it significantly alters the original meaning I'll vote for whoever stakes the round

- If a debater uses ellipses to leave out large sections of the card, stake the round, I'll vote for the debater who stakes the round.

- If a debater brackets evidence with indication please just read a shell, DON'T stake

If you clip more than 20 words and I catch it you'll lose - your opponent doesn't even need to stake please don't clip you never know sometimes I might be following along in the speech doc making sure

- Obviously saying cut the card here or cut this or something like that isn't clipping, if you make it clear that you didn't read something you're fine, but if you pretend that you read something that you didn't then that's clipping.

Jet Sun HuaXia Chinese School - Houston

Anand Sundaram Athens Debate

Last changed on Sun February 11, 2024 at 5:10 AM EDT

I'm anti plagiarism- so it feels ethically wrong to do so without asking- but if I could copy Mike Bietz's paradigm word for word, I would (can be seen here: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=4969) except I'm ok with flex prep. In addition to everything in here I have a few additional pieces of information.

Note: If you have any questions about how to interpret my paradigm, ask me pre-round. If any of the terminology is something you're unaware of or curious about, feel free to ask me either before or after the round. If you want to look anything up, wikipedia has surprisingly thorough indexes of debate terminology (especially when you're starting out!)

For all Debate:

Disclosure is good and should be done. Sharing cases is good for fairness in debate. As someone who was in a small program during my high school debate career, the sense that the round was unwinnable because the opponent had 8 coaches giving them prep and resources to my none was incredibly frustrating, and while disclosure doesn't fully solve that, giving people from smaller programs access to evidence, cases and formats from bigger programs helps the health of the debate scene.
General disclosure rules: Share case right before the speech (aff shares case before their first speech, neg shares case after the aff finishes speech)
I flow the rounds, and catch what I can. If I don't catch it, it doesn't show up on my flow. Speaking quickly (and even spreading on a circut level) is fine, but you have to recognize your personal limits as a speaker when you do so. Intonation enables the spread, so training yourself as a speaker to be intelligible while spreading is on you.
When sharing cards, please do so equitably and fairly. Ideally, include myself (and the other judges) on the document sharing doc to ensure that we know the documents are shared fairly, and to prevent frivolous fairness theory being read in the round.
Debate is, in general, a format for education first and foremost. Fostering an environment that promotes education means that you must enter a round with empathy for your judge, opponent and audience. If a person is confused in a debate round, spend a moment to explain what you mean to them. Creating a debate environment that is inclusive and mindful of diversity gives people an opportunity to meet, learn from and grow with a diverse group of people.
Related to this, people who push a "old boys club" mentality within debate round, who seek to bully out wins on newer debaters by reading fringe argumentation, or are excessively combative to people who are clearly not comfortable in it don't have a place in debate in my opinion. Remember, although competitive this should be an environment that values being collaborative as well. Debate isn't an environment to get your rocks off and feed your ego by bullying the less experienced, and people who treat it as such will get negative outcomes on ballots from me.
Above all, remember that debate is an activity that is for fun more than it is anything else. That fun is not just your own; the priority to make everyone enjoy the experience to the best degree you can is important.

For Public Forum:

PF is not meant to be theory heavy. Philosophy has a useful basis in backing an argument, but being topic-centric is the essence of the debate format.
Exception: Any independent voters (racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, etc.) will be weighed heavily, and if any happen, it will result in an automatic loss.
On Cross: Being aggressive is good (and encouraged), but you need to give your opponent space to speak. Cutting them off occasionally is reasonable to guide the conversation, but if you ask a question and don't give the opponent space to answer or attempt to railroad a CX by turning it into a soliloquy that will be noted for speaks.
Impact calculus outweighs argument volume down the flow. If you seek to win on a line by line on argument volume, your opponent will win the debate (if you prove 9 different people will die in 9 arguments, you will lose to the person who proves 90000000 will die in one argument).
I do flow Crossfire and weigh it as a speech, so cross matters to me as a judge. Don't assume a vote that will be cross-exclusionary. Someone can win in spite of a bad cross, but cross will be weighed in how the outcome is perceived.
Dedicate summary to expressing Voting Issues and dropped arguments. Extend to why you are winning currently on the flow.
Dedicate FF to weighing mechanisms and impact calculus.

For LD:

On Theory: Theory is fine to read, and often makes debate better. One important thing about theory is that I view it as a "pact" that both debaters have to agree on.
On RVIs: I believe in RVIs as a way to counteract frivolous theory. In general, especially on a circut level, I believe the anti-RVI stances a lot of judges hold on is a portion of what creates the neg skew on the circut. Beyond "fairness" I think that, conceptually, theory takes time and mandates a response and having theory's worst case be net neutral for the team that reads it lacks fairness.
On Ks: Kritiks are good for debate, but I have a clear line in the sand:
Topical Ks: Good, make debate better, force flexibility in thought and challenge our implicit biases. Topical Ks further education in round and create a space where we challenge our baseline assumptions in a way that challenges the way we look at the world.
Non-topical Ks: The only context where I view non-topical Ks as a voter is if an independent voter manifests. Reading "debate is a male-skewed environment and societal burdens placed on women creates inherent unfairness in the debate environment" may be true, something I agree with, and something I prioritize in how I judge, but is not something that I will vote on unless the opponent is engaging in behavior that is exclusionary to that group. And as the debater, you must highlight the infringement.
On Perms: Perming is good and should be done often. In order to successfully perm in round, you must demonstrate the lack of conflict between the counterplan and the aff.
Advantages/Disadvantages: All disads and advantages need every plank in order to be considered (uniqueness, link and impact).
NO NEW ARGUMENTS IN THE 2AR
Tricks should be called out as tricks if ran against you. If a trick is identified and demonstrated to be a trick successfully, it will be treated as a voter.

Erik Sunde Bob Lanier Middle School None

Anya Tang Jane Addams Middle School

Last changed on Mon February 12, 2024 at 7:35 AM EDT

Please put me on the email chain 4ristotle.x@gmail.com.

Background - I did Policy, LD, and PF, and now coach LD and PF.

PF: I have 5 minutes before round and I need a TLDR - I'm happy to vote for a team that does good work on the line-by-line and uses creative round vision. Debaters reading fun arguments and having fun is my favorite part of this event. Grand crossfire is my least favorite part of this event and I greatly appreciate it when teams use grand cross differently/creatively (i.e. students who use grand to ask how everyone's day is; students who use grand to discuss and propose moves towards equity in the event). I believe Ks need alts in PF.

LD: I have 5 minutes before round and I need a TLDR - Ask me how I feel about (x) body of literature and I will let you know if I need you to err on the side of over-explanation. I would love to see more creative sequencing in this event.

Preferences -

1- performance, non-topical affs, K

2- LARP

3- theory

4-phil

5-tricks

General - I judge infrequently now. I judge each round with the default assumption that the role of the judge is to be a (temporary) ethical educator and that the ballot endorses your form and content. If I am nodding/shaking my head/raising my eyebrows/other weird facial expressions, please ignore me. Those are just my thinking expressions, and not a reflection on how I feel about the debate. I love performances, creative args, clash of civs, anything that experiments with the space and the activity.

Speaks- My speaks average a 29.4. They start/remain high most of the time, especially during bubble rounds. I will not vote on 30 speaks theory as a shell -- just tell me why you want 30 speaks for you and/or your opponent(s) and I will evaluate that instead if it is important for you. If there's something really egregious pointed out to me in the round, speaks will reflect that.

Speed - Number your responses. Please. More things on doc (even if it is just '12 responses' and the rest is on your flow) is good for me to follow along. If your opponent asks you to not spread, please don't be that person who does so anyways. Just cut down the case. Cut an off if you can. I am totally down to vote on speed bad in these rounds.

Here's how I evaluate the round:

1- I look at my flow for arguments that are warranted as coming before any explicit framing in the round or arguments that tell me to intervene. Especially for arguments labeled as independent voter issues, there needs to be a warrant why I don't evaluate any of the framing prior. If I'm told to throw out the flow for a compelling reason, I will do so and close my laptop/fold up my flow.

2- I evaluate the framing. I then vote however the winning framing mechanism tells me to.

3- I look for the path of least resistance to the impact I am told is most important. An argument has a warrant. I look at the remaining offense in the round and then evaluate the comparative under the framing.

Let me know if you need me to speak to tab or an ombudsperson after the round with you.

Defaults - Competing interpretations, no reverse voting issues, and drop the argument. I don't err one way or another on if debate is good/bad but I think it's an important discussion to have. I will not vote on any argument that frames a structure of violence as good (i.e. racism good). I presume the negative when there is no offense/when all offense is violent (i.e. racism good vs. sexism good).

Online Debate - In case of any wifi drops/disconnects, please have a local recording of your own speeches. If there's a disconnect and you have a local recording of your speech prepared, I will bump your speaks by 0.5. If you need to turn off your camera to debate, that’s fine. The Association of Black Argumentation Professionals (ABAP) has a "Digital Debate Bill of Rights" (you can find it online by googling "ABAP Digital Debate Bill of Rights") that informs my philosophy on safety and inclusion in online debate.

Community Clause - For 30 speaks, go above and beyond in-round to advocate for material action or to create affirming spaces for yourself/your community. Some past examples include but aren't limited to -- proposing and testing community projects through debate, mutual aid, passing out educational zines, listing action items to support local circuits (volunteer judging, helping tab or teach, pledging mutual aid).

Note on Post-rounding - I'm happy to answer your questions. Please be respectful of my time. Ask me for lit recs! (Critical literature, poetry, prose...)

Last thoughts- For every student I judge, but especially students of color, queer/trans students, misogyny-affected students, students with disabilities, and first generation/low-income students: I know firsthand that debate can sometimes be hard, cruel, and exhausting, and I hope you all find/have some sense of community and joy here. I hope you all have wonderful support systems of educators, trusted adults, and peers. We are all here to learn, in one way or another, and I find myself leaving every round having learned something new. Thank you for trusting me to be in the back of the room for your round. Y'all are going to change the world -- be proud of yourself. From Audre Lorde's The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle The Master's House: "Without community, there is no liberation."

Lengthier version here: Ask me for questions/preferences/opinions. I am comfortable evaluating most things. Otherwise, please just do a good job on the line-by-line.

Note on scholarship: I am a good judge for you if you are new to the K and you are doing your best to engage, and a good judge for you if this is your millionth time reading your favorite K author. I have the same expectations for your engagement with the scholarship in both cases; this is to say, I hope you provide a rigorous and original synthesis of the author(s) that you read with the topic that you choose to think through/with/against/beyond. What does this look like: you are identifying specific parts of the topic that you are critiquing, articulating how the impact interacts with the affirmative, and explaining why I need to frame the round in a certain way.

K aff: Do what pleases you (or do nothing if that is the aff). I appreciate when kritikal affirmatives include a ballot story. Later in the round -- leverage the 1AC! Effective sequencing is how I find myself voting for the aff, and I appreciate well-warranted sequencing that tells me how an opponents' strategic decisions (i.e. their collapse) can reflect or influence the sequence of evaluating arguments in each debate. The theorization in the affirmative should be used to indict the theory/topicality page -- how you debate is intertwined/produced from what you debate, and vice versa.

Against the K aff: I am excited to see new strategies that rely on scholarship/strategies that you love. I think this sets up the round for great debates around competing methods. I am not excited to see multiple blips as offs and a 2NR strategy that relies on going for the most undercovered off. I appreciate it when teams identify framing deficits and propose creative CROTBS. I appreciate it even more when the framing debate is specific, prioritized, and applied to the space that we take up in this round.

T-FW: I think T-FW needs to have a TVA with some form of solvency advocate (doesn't need to be carded, I'm happy to evaluate warrants, please just tell me why the TVA solves). I live for creative TVAs. The TVA to "dismantle anti-queerness in the workplace" compels me less than the TVA to crash the courts because the former engages with the aff in a much shallower manner than the latter. I would like to see more forms of TFW that experiment with what it means to be topical, or why topicality is necessary to access liberatory impacts. I would like to see less forms of TFW that go for fairness as a voter, "ballot subjectivity impossible," and "debate is a game." These arguments tend to be overhashed and non-interactive. I default to fairness as an internal link to education but have been compelled to vote otherwise. Tell me why TFW forecloses aff outs (i.e. epistemic suspicion).

Performance: See K aff section. I am on board with almost whatever you choose to perform. I am super compelled by arguments that identify performative offense on any page (i.e. their collapse, reading evidence/not reading evidence, actions in cross). Don't be afraid to sit on things and just sequence it out! The flow is never my end-all-be-all in these rounds. The performative contradiction needs to be sequenced. I'm less compelled by reasons why the perfcon decks fairness than I am by reasons why the perfcon reinforces a system of domination or damages the team's pedagogical/liberatory value. If you are going to include me in the performance that is fine, please just be clear what your expectations for my participation are before the speech (i.e. the judge should play Mahjong during the 1AC). My one exception to this is that I will not physically touch a debater I am judging. Please extend the performance beyond the constructive. It is good offense and you should be able to synthesize your theorizing and your performance to articulate how it affects you, me, us. Be safe when you perform (i.e. please do not injure yourself and/or others) -- if you are reading an argument and you are worried anyone other than you/your partner will read the ballot, PLEASE LET ME KNOW and I will alter my language on my ballot to give you educational feedback while respecting your privacy and give you a longer verbal rfd.

K: Link evidence needs to be specific in both tags and analysis. Please pull quotes!! If you are reading a K with pulled links from another round, I can tell and it will make me sad. I think it is incredible and reflects how rigorous your work is as a debater when you historicize the K or provide compelling reasons as to why we shouldn't/cannot. I think it is even more incredible when you can point to your experiences in debate or in this round and say, "Here is how the theory of the K has influenced the way we act and talk and judge in this round." I am happy when the K builds links from the form of the affirmative debater and justifies why performances in collapsing, cross, docs/cites, etc. are all links to the K. I am sad when the K overview is only an extension of your theorization and not a reactive implication of how the K out-sequences or interacts with the rest of the round. Against the K, perms I am not compelled by are often a little too blippy and don't ID a net benefit or contextualize themselves through the aff. I would love fewer well-contextualized perms instead of plenty of underdeveloped perms.

A note on the K in PF: I know times are shorter. I will not fault you for not completely hashing out a theory of power so long as the extension/overview contextualizes the K to the round. Please stop reading a K and also your case. Just use the full time to sit on the K. Trust me. I will be happier with four minutes of a kritik as opposed to two minutes of the K and two minutes of why U.S. diplomacy is key to resolve oil prices.

LARP: I like creative case turns. I like impact scenarios with rigorous internal links. I like when debaters can defend or draw on increasingly-recent events and historical trends to explain situations as more than isolated events.

DA: See LARP.

CP: There comes a point where there are diminishing returns on the number of conditional advocacies you choose to read. Please include full text in your doc/please don't extemp your text. I am also not super convinced by "risk of net benefit" as a reason to instantly write a negative ballot. I am super convinced when the affirmative is able to takeout or weigh against the net benefit, because this makes it easier for me to understand how offense at the end of the round interacts with each other under different metrics. I don't think process CPs, internationally-fiated CPs, or PICs are terrible. I think creative CPs (i.e. consult tumblr) are incredible.

Phil: I'm fine for most foundational authors and some of their secondary literature. This is definitely the section where you should ask if I am familiar with (x) author. If I am not, please slow down and over-explain the evidence. I recognize the overlap between phil and critical scholarship (i.e. Spinoza and Deleuze), and I'm able to follow along best when you explain things in K terms to me (sorry). Generic arguments about non/ideal theory good/bad are not super compelling to me in the backhalf -- instead, they are excellent foundations for you to enter a critical conversation about scholarship, and it helps me to evaluate phil debates better when you're able to use them as the foundation for contextualized criticisms of the aff/neg.

Theory: I am happy when I judge a shell with standards that are comparative and isolate unique benefits of your interpretation. I get more persnickety about theory the later it's introduced and I absolutely need to hear an interpretation, violation, and standards extended to vote on it. The blippier it is the less compelled I am to consider it. See notes on defaults at the top.

Tricks: I understand if this form of debate brings you joy. It usually does not for me and I am probably not the best judge for this. If you are reading this ten minutes before your round and have nothing prepared except for skep/paradoxes, please know I am more compelled by you reading/writing a poem in these ten minutes as a path to the ballot than I am by tricks. Please. Give me poetry instead of tricks.

Things debaters do to make me vote for them:

-Taking the time to compare between different warrants, or compare methodologies, or compare evidence.

-Adding me to the email chain or flashing me your speeches (Please don't do the latter unless absolutely necessary--I would prefer to social distance).

-Being kind to yourself and to others.

Things debaters do that will result in the proverbial hot L (and will likely result in a conversation with tournament administrators and/or your school):

-Any form of impact turn on racism/sexism/fascism/a turn that frames a structure of violence as good. Seriously? Debate has no space for these types of arguments. I am hard-pressed to find pedagogical value in them, and even as some form of satire/accelerationism/whatever justification you come up with, I find it difficult to justify the harm that's being done in round if I endorse violent content. I did not think I would have to include this on my paradigm, but I am sad that arguments like these are still run. I would like to believe that debaters are brilliant, kind, and caring towards each other in the community. I will drop you immediately and assign the lowest speaks possible.

-Misgendering. Language like "they," "the aff/neg," "the rebuttal," is good and should be your default. Disengaged arguments about "non-verifiability," "mutual harm," "lying for the ballot," or "new in the 2AR/NR" will not convince me and will make me unhappy. I understand that mistakes happen. However -- if you are misgendering another debater repeatedly and that debater introduces it as a reason to drop you in the round, I will vote on it and give you the lowest speaks possible. If you have 5 minutes to prepare for your next round, you have 5 minutes to practice your opponent's pronouns and avoid using gendered language that misgenders them. If your opponent has not disclosed pronouns, please use gender-neutral language. One way to practice: "They dropped the argument." "This is their flow paper." "The charger belongs to them." Using students' correct pronouns is important for them to feel safe and engage with the debate round at a level that is educational for both you and your opponent. If you wish, you can include your pronouns on Tabroom to be sent in blasts in your profile (the icon of a person) here.

-Direct outing. Financial status, disability, queerness/transness, gender, trauma -- if you force your opponent to disclose that they have a disability to avoid a theory shell, I will be unhappy. I like it even less when y'all spend half an hour before round digging up your opponent's personal information, school, neighborhood, etc. It's unsafe, violating, and makes a lot of assumptions. If your opponent argues that this should be a reason to drop you, I will be inclined to drop you and give you the lowest speaks possible. I evaluate direct outing differently from arguments that a certain model/method outs people and renders them vulnerable to structures of harm. What does this look like? "Are you queer?" "Can you afford a coach?" "Do you have a disability?" I understand debaters have good intentions and want to make rounds accessible sometimes. I also understand finding spaces of affinity is difficult. But I ask that y'all not do it under the competitive tensions of an adjudicated round. One way that has been helpful for me (and perhaps you have other suggestions) has been to ask, "What are some things I can do to make the round accessible for the both of us? For me, it would help to have 14pt or larger font for our tags."

-Theory arguments that criticize your opponents' presentation -- shoes theory, hat theory, formal/informal clothes theory are the fastest ways for me to cast a (losing) ballot before first cross. I will not evaluate these arguments under any circumstances -- not even as time-fillers or as the only offense in the round. If you have a genuine concern about something your opponent is wearing, notify the tournament administrators or a coach. I will not use my ballot to tell a student how to dress.

Patrick Tapia HS2 Academy

Paul Tatton Alice Deal

Last changed on Sat January 13, 2024 at 3:25 AM EDT

Avoid at all costs: Tricks, non-topical positions, wasted time in rounds doing doc exchanges, off-time roadmaps, time suck arguments.

Framework/Standards Debate--Set a standard for the round that makes sense in terms of the activity. If you are debating LD, let's hear about the resolution. Ensure resolution ties. I vote on whether to affirm or negate the resolution...not a critique on the consequential outcome of forced policy parameters.

Case Structure: Contentions should be carefully crafted, contain warrants and impacts and link back to the standards in order to provide a well researched/reasoned case position. A case position that is founded upon theory arguments that is without research or evidence to support the basic claims are simply assertions and will be treated as such. I am not a judge that will vote for tricks, time suck arguments, or spreading intended to overwhelm the opponent.

Speed—I take notes and flow. Speed of discussion should not be so fast as to lessen the judge’s ability to record. If it is unintelligible or full of debate jargon that doesn't either further the argument or advance your position then I will be far less compelled to write it down, understand it, or vote for it at the end of the round. Simple lines of analytics are not arguments...they should be explained.

Flowing--I do

Time--Feel free to time yourselves, but I will be tracking time as well. I will let you know when time is up.

RFD: It is based upon the debater that provided--throughout the round--a logically sound set of arguments that are presented in a cogent manner. I put great weight on effective rebuttals than constructive speeches.

Speaking: This is a communication activity that carries with it standards for decorum. If you are appearing before a judge for the first time, I urge debaters to always put their best foot forward. Address your advocacy toward the judge, and show a level of courteousness that one might encounter in any professional work environment. Speaker points reflect all of these elements.

Annie Thomas Frank Black Middle School

Kate Totz Marlborough School

Last changed on Mon June 17, 2024 at 3:38 AM CDT

— FOR NSDA WORLDS 2024 —

Please ignore everything below - I have been coaching and judging PF and LD for several years, but evaluate worlds differently than I evaluate these events. This is my second nationals judging worlds, and my 3rd year coaching worlds.

I do flow in worlds, but treat me like a flay judge. I am not interested in evaluating worlds debates at anything above a brisk conversational speed, and I tend to care a lot more about style/fluency/word choice when speaking than I do in PF or LD.

—LD/PF - Updated for Glenbrooks 2022—

Background - current assistant PF coach at Blake, former LD coach at Brentwood (CA). Most familiar w/ progressive, policy-esque arguments, style, and norms, but won’t dock you for wanting a more traditional PF round.

Non-negotiables - be kind to those you are debating and to me (this looks a lot of ways: respectful cross, being nice to novices, not outspreading a local team at a circuit tournament, not stealing prep, etc.) and treat the round and arguments read with respect. Debate may be a game, but the implications of that game manifest in the real world.

I am indifferent to having an email chain, and will call for ev as needed to make my decision.
If we are going to have an email chain, THE TEAM SPEAKING FIRST should set it up before the round, and all docs should be sent immediately prior to the start of each speech.
if we are going to do ev sharing on an email, put me on the chain: ktotz001@gmail.com

My internal speaks scale:

Below 25 - something offensive or very very bad happened (please do not make me do this!)
25-27.5 - didn’t use all time strategically (varsity only), distracted from important parts of the debate, didn’t add anything new or relevant
27.5-29 - v good, some strategic comments, very few presentational issues, decent structuring
29-30 - wouldn’t be shocked to see you in outrounds, very few strategic notes, amazing structure, gives me distinct weighing and routes to the ballot.

Mostly, I feel that a debate is a debate is a debate and will evaluate any args presented to me on the flow. The rest are varying degrees of preferences I’ve developed, most are negotiable.

Speed - completely fine w/ most top speeds in PF, will clear for clarity and slow for speed TWICE before it impacts speaks.

I do ask that you DON’T completely spread out your opponents and that you make speech docs available if going significantly faster than your opponents.

Summary split - I STRONGLY prefer that anything in final is included in summary. I give a little more lenience in PF than in other events on pulling from rebuttal, but ABSOLUTELY no brand new arguments in final focuses please!

Case turns - yes good! The more specific/contextualized to the opp’s case the better!

I very strongly believe that advocating for inexcusable things (oppression of any form, extinction, dehumanization, etc.) is grounds to completely tank speaks (and possibly auto-loss). You shouldn’t advocate for bad things just bc you think you are a good enough debater to defend them.
There’s a gray area of turns that I consider permissible, but as a test of competition. For example, climate change good is permissible as a way to make an opp going all in on climate change impacts sweat, but I would prefer very much to not vote exclusively on cc good bc I don’t believe it’s a valid claim supported by the bulk of the literature. While I typically vote tech over truth, voting for arguments I know aren’t true (but aren’t explicitly morally abhorrent) will always leave a bad taste in my mouth.

T/Theory - I have voted on theory in PF in the past and am likely to in the future. I need distinct paradigm issues/voters and a super compelling violation story to vote solely on theory.

*** I have a higher threshold for voting on t/theory than most PF judges - I think this is because I tend to prefer reasonability to competing interpretations sans in-round argumentation for competing interps and a very material way that one team has made this round irreparably unfair/uneducational/inaccessible.***

norms I think are good - disclosure (prefer open source, but all kinds are good), ev ethics consistent w/ the NSDA event rules (means cut cards for paraphrased cases in PF), nearly anything related to accessibility and representation in debate
gray-area norms - tw/cw (very good norm and should be provided before speech time with a way to opt out (especially for graphic descriptions of violence), but there is a difference between being genuinely triggered and unable to debate specific topics and just being uncomfortable. It's not my job to discern what is 'genuinely' triggering to you specifically, but it is your job as a debater to be respectful to your opponents at all times); IVIs/RVIs (probably needed to check friv theory, but will only vote on them very contextually)
norms I think are bad - paraphrasing!! (especially without complete citations), running theory on a violation that doesn’t substantively impact the round, weaponization of theory to exclude teams/discussions from debate

K’s - good for debate and some of the best rounds I’ve had the honor to see in the past. Very hard to do well in LD, exceptionally hard to do well in PF due to time constraints, unfortunately. But, if you want to have a K debate, I am happy to judge it!!

A prerequisite to advocating for any one critical theory of power is to understand and internalize that theory of power to the best of your ability - this means please don’t try to argue a K haphazardly just for laughs - doing so is a particularly gross form of privilege.
most key part of the k is either the theory of power discussion or the ballot key discussion - both need to be very well developed throughout the debate.
in all events but PF, the solvency of the alt is key. In PF, bc of the lack of plans, the framing/ballot key discourse replaces, but functions similarly to, the solvency of the alt.
Most familiar with - various ontological theories (pessimistic, optimistic, nihilistic, etc.), most iterations of cap and neolib
Somewhat familiar with - securitization, settler-colonialism, and IR K’s
Least familiar with - higher-level, post-modern theories (looking specifically at Lacan here)

William Turner ILearn Education

Shalini Tyagi Milpitas High School

Ethan Van Nostrand Bob Lanier Middle School

Aiden Wang Youth Voices

Catherine Wang HuaXia Chinese School - Houston

Last changed on Fri May 3, 2024 at 11:56 AM CDT

hey, I'm catherine! rising sophomore at rice university, did debate middle through high school both local and natcir and qualified to tfa twice, but stopped junior/senior year

add me to the email chain: cw160@rice.edu

tldr: i do not care what you're reading and will evaluate anything as long as you're making sense (claim, warrant, impact) and obviously not problematic. the more an argument clearly defies basic intuition or logic, the more warranting is necessary (i.e. even if your opponent concedes a super illogical argument there is a high barrier to me voting on it). don't get completely sucked into lbl and instead consider big-picture of the round. in other words, weigh and give judge instructions so that i have to minimally think (and intervene). feel free to ask me any clarifying qs before the round. don't be too stressed and have fun!

disclaimer: haven't debated since around 2021 and have no understanding of the topic so please explain whatever you're doing and don't assume i know anything. haven't flowed since i stopped debating and was never fantastic at it - if i don't hear you make an argument, it won't make it onto the flow (apologies) so consider going slower

prefs shortcut:

1 - policy (cp/da/pics), pomo/high theory

2 - T/theory

3 - other Ks, phil

4 - tricks

disclaimer: i wouldn't trust myself to evaluate any of these things at a very high technical level, so err on the side of over-explanation

---

Policy

pretty comfortable with cps/das/pics, not so familiar w/ more legislative stuff. 2n collapse + impact weighing = sunshine and rainbows.

i know the most abt deleuze, bataille, and weheliye, and i know a good amount about baudrillard, glissant, setcol, model minority, generic cap, and probably some more I'm forgetting. however, regardless of what you're reading, i expect you to know and be able to explain it well.

K Affs / Performance

- k or performance affs need to answer why the topic is bad, why it belongs in the debate space, and why i should vote aff

Theory

read it but was never my main strat. if you're collapsing to theory, please weigh between standards instead of just lbl or it will get very confusing very fast. independent voters tend to be blippy and not warranted very well, so if you're going for one you need to extend and elaborate on why it should actually be an independent reason to down someone. i default dtd, ci, no rvi.

- friv theory is fine, but the more frivolous the shell, the lower my threshold for response

Phil

familiar w/ conventional phil fws (kant, hobbes hegel, levinas) but never really went for them myself. explain clearly and thoroughly

Tricks

never read them and always thought they were kinda goofy, but i'll vote on them if u tell me why it matters

Other

- WRITE MY BALLOT FOR ME. give judge instructions, esp for 2n/2a weighing.

- please collapse in 2n/2a or i will collapse

- PLEASE EXTEND

- speed is probably fine, but 1) since we're online u should go abt 80% of ur original speed 2) ngl i have not flowed in a very hot second (and i was never superb at it) so maybe go another 10% slower. clarity > speed

- have fun!

Ke Wang Sugar Land SpiderSmart

Lydia Wang HuaXia Chinese School - Houston

William Wei ModernBrain

Last changed on Wed January 17, 2024 at 9:53 AM PDT

Email: w267ww@gmail.com

debate at peninsula LD for three years

I don’t think an actual detail paradigm for novice ld is essential, I debate at the national circuit and have familiarity with all the progressive arguments that novice will run. I think the most important thing is remembering line by line argument your opponent made and not drop anything. You should always extend your offense first and weigh it against your opponent's offense (impact calc).

I find in many cases debater just respond to the opponent argument by simply rephrasing what their case and evidence is without any interaction (or card and evidence just completely get forgotten and never mentioned later in the round). Tell me why your evidence is better and how their evidence isn't contextualize to yours and didn't answer it. This is why reading and understanding the position and topic you read can be very helpful.

Finally please be respectful and have fun. I can and will end the round if anything inappropriate/mean/hurtful behavior happens. Debate should be logos and not ethos, I don't decide the winner of the debate by who's a better speaker or sounds smarter in cx. Feel free to ask me any question after the debate even if you think my opinion is wrong, listening to feedback is how you learn greatly.

List of thing I would really like to hear from a novice round:

impact calc on the internal link level
impact calc overall and specially why timeframe, possibility, or magnitude (which ever your going for) is MOST important compared to the other, and don't just talk about your impact compare it with your opponents
case turn da or da turn case
a good organized flow with different position on different sheet (show me at the end of round and I will boost your speaker point)
Give me an order before speech
going for cp correctly
kicking out stuff when you need to and not just going for everything in your last speech
pls just call me judge not my real name pls it feel weird

if you want to see a funny photo look at Aaron Yi paradigm

OLD STUFF:

General

Run any argument you want (except very not familiar with trick)

speed fine, slow down on analytic

Tech > Truth, but true argument easier to win

dropped argument only true if explain how it interact with debate

Speech Point

Clarity, good organization, Polite = High speaker point

aggressive and fast don't mean high speaker point

Don't be rude in cx

You not suppose to ask your opponent did you read this or what argument did you answer other then ac/nc... YOUR SUPPOSE TO FLOW

less off with better link and longer card > 8 off

impact clac more then just prewritten block, be comparative, also impact clac the link vs link turn

timeframe important as it means your impact happen before other and turn

tell me what argument they didn't answer or didn't answer well that WHY that important and affect the debate

I love seeing argument about evidence comparison and what the card actually say.

Counterplan

defensive argument to solve aff and avoid da

condo might be drop debater when more then 1, anything else most likely drop argument only

I think perm most important

Kritik/Phil

I default to weighing the case, comparative world

l feel link and alt should be most important part and pls don’t forget fw debate

I think T should be read against K aff, all the other "argument" just too hard to win. Impact should be fairness

I never rlly run it myself, so there is that

Topictality

I feel interps is the most important part, caselist also important

both fairness and education important persuade me

not going to vote for rvi

Theory

in round abuse only, I might judge intervene depend on how stupid it is (ex: snoring theory auto ignore)

I think dislcousre theory is a real theory, personally I always send my 1ac file as soon as paring come out even if it 2 hour beore round. I think clash is never a bad thing.

random stuff for fun

Funny argument that stupid--------------------X real argument

sped everything----------------X----Slow down for tag

just debating-X-------------------trying to talk to judge to make them like you at lay tournament

How To Keep Ducks - Duck Keeping Tips For Beginners

Josh Weingarten Honor Academy

Ethan Wilkes Youth Voices

Last changed on Thu June 6, 2024 at 9:44 PM CDT

Welcome to my debate dissertation.

John Paul Stevens '23 + UT Austin '27 (Math)

I mostly did congress during high school but find myself usually judging circuit(ish) LD. I now occasionally do APDA (college debate) and run a debate camp.

I believe debate is a game with educational implications. The purpose of this paradigm is not to tell you how to debate, it is simply a way for me to communicate my argumentative bias and broader debate philosophy to competitors. You choose what you do with the information in this paradigm. With that being said, if you think my decision is incorrect, you are welcome to post round me. As long as you remain respectful, I am always willing to have an educational discussion that can improve both my judging skills and your debating. However, if the tournament directors get upset, that's on you.

I'd prefer speech drop, but if not, put me on the email chain: ethanjwilkes@gmail.com

Events covered in this paradigm: Congress, LD/Policy, PF, Worlds, Extemp

Now for the fun stuff. Buckle up cause I'm a yapper.

Congress:

The round starts in 5 minutes and you’re asking “is the judge flow?”: The easiest path to my 1 is for you to stop making arguments that you think are decent or good and start making arguments that you think will WIN the debate. There is a very key difference. Answer that argument nobody else will and defend your side's winning condition if you want my 1.

The long version:

Zach Wu once said, "[Congress] is neither a debate nor speech event. It is a game of raw persuasion: however you choose to win that game is totally up to you." I find this is to be the perception of the event I align most closely to.

Just like everyone else, I don’t like rehash, I don’t think you should give a constructive last cycle, I like refutation, etc etc. The remainder of this paradigm will be directed towards less obvious and more specific parts of congress.

I keep a scale in my head of which side I believe is winning the debate. At the end of the debate, I will rank the debaters by how much I believe they changed my scale of who is winning.

Here is an explanation of how I determine who I think is winning the debate/my general thoughts on congress:

Most importantly, will always be in favor of stretching the norms of congress. What this means is up to you, but by no means do I believe that congress should be done in a specific way or that our norms are stagnant. Do things that have not been done before and make me rethink the way I view this event. I'm worried that competitors, coaches, and judges are getting bored of congress so any attempt to be interesting will be fairly evaluated.

I seriously dislike when debaters rely on evidence without providing the logical warrant for their argument. It’s like when your math teacher tells you to show your work, if you just read a piece of evidence without explaining why your argument is true, I have no idea what you’re thinking. If you want to be most persuasive to me, make sure you explain the warrant for your argument. Evidence is supplementary.
I also seriously dislike when debaters do a poor job of impacting. I would like a very in depth explanation as to why I should care about your argument both in the real world and in the context of the debate.
Don’t just refute arguments willy nilly, refute the BEST arguments on the other side of the debate. It’s really obvious when debaters try to take the easy way out by refuting the arguments at the bottom of the barrel or making arguments that are not well thought out. Responding to the best ground of the other side is the best thing you can do to make your side win the debate.
I hear a lot of arguments that are exclusively defensive (constitutionality, enforcement, etc.). I also hear a lot of arguments that don't follow the laws of uniqueness (not being dependent on a change in the status quo). So simply put, I believe that the affirmative’s job is to prove the bill is better than the status quo (and nothing else) and the negation's job is to prove the bill creates a worse world than the status quo. (this also means I will not evaluate your counter plan)
Weighing is important, but not as important as the congress community likes to pretend it is. Yes, I need a reason to prioritize your argument over someone else's but since there are so many arguments in a CD round, it is not easy to individually weigh your argument against everyone else. So, whenever you decide to weigh, my advice would be to treat it like comparing worlds more than it is actual weighing. This also means that uniqueness is very important in my eyes because that's what characterizes each world in the debate. Remember, weighing must also serve a strategic purpose in the round. Weighing for the sake of weighing will not really give you many brownie points on my ballot.

Have fun with structure -- Run one point and I'll think you're cool. Drop 5 warrants with no claims and I'll probably think you're even cooler. Forcing yourself to a rigid structure can seriously limit the potential of your argumentation so get creative!!!!
It is rare that a PO will be deserving of my 1. It takes an incredible PO and a really rough chamber for me to even consider it. POs usually sit between my 3-6, but I may adjust it depending on what the break is for the round. It is also pretty rare that a PO will get my 9, but if I feel like the round was a total mess, I will consider the drop. But I generally just believe a PO should be in the background and do their best to make the judge and debaters job easier. I’m also not a big fan of flexing your accomplishments in your PO speech.

LD (and policy ig):

I like good arguments and dislike bad ones...

Just kidding.

I vote for bad arguments all the time.

I'm willing to vote on anything with a warrant, tech>truth, speed is cool as long as you slow down a bit on anything that isn't on the doc

I aim to be a tab robot.

For your prefs:

T/Theory - 1

I am willing to vote on RVIs more than most judges but I still default to competing interps

The more friv the shell, the lower the bar for answering it is. To be clear, I will still evaluate any shell with the single exception that it is not about the appearance of your opponent.

I default DTA for T violations (but can be convinced otherwise). I am otherwise impartial on DTA or DTD

It can be really difficult to keep track of the line by line on these analytic heavy theory debates so please either slow down or put the analytics on the doc :)

K - 1

If the aff is non-T, be prepared to answer the T-Fwk, cap k, presumption, case pushback from the 1N. I truly dislike poorly prepped K debates but truly love in-depth, prepped K debates.

I really don’t like vague alts: I think you should be able to defend the alt as some action that someone can take -- even for all my set col debaters out there, you should be able to defend the pragmatic implementation of your land back alt, almost as if it was a plan. I especially dislike 2NRs that can't explain the alt or explain why it's contextual to the aff/what it does for the purpose of the debate

I view Ks as DAs with a CP, if you want to strategically kick the CP (alt) and go for the K as a disad of the aff, I’m here for it

I think teams going against the K should go for framework + extinction outweighs more often

I am willing to vote for cap good, heg good, spark, dedev, etc. However, I am NOT willing to vote for death good.

(goes with phil) Literature base I'm very familiar with: set col, marxism, security, mollow/crip pess/disabilities, afropess, baurdillard, deleuze, queer pess

Assume I know nothing about anything else

There is a serious issue with neg K teams making an argument that nobody understands then clarifying it in the 2NR and saying the 1AR mishandled. Please just be a good sport and don’t do this, explain the argument honestly if you are asked during cross.

Trad - 3

I'll judge this as tabula rasa as I can. Do not feel the need to debate "progressively" because you think that will be the most conducive to me. I will adapt myself to the round. I will say though, framework is often extremely silly in these trad debates because they are usually comparing something very similar (util vs. maximizing expected well being) or it is never implicated into the debate (framework is a lens I use to evaluate debates, not a voter in and of itself).

LARP - 3

I feel like CPs should be competitive with the plan, i guess it's fine if they are not but I find myself just buying the perm against these uncompetitive CPs the majority of the time

Mostly impartial on whether or not PICs, consult CPs, process CPs, etc are good/bad, can be convinced either way

Pls tell me what your permutation looks like "perm do both" and nothing else will leave me clueless with what to do on my flow, but I generally treat perms like a test of competition rather than an advocacy itself

I appreciate good impact turns, reading your generic spark or dedev backfile is cool, but creativity is even cooler

Pre requisite > Probability > Scope/Magnitude > Time frame

Phil - 3

Here’s how phil debates work: the AC riffs off 8 warrants for the cateogorical imperative (they are all one line and have no warrant), the 1N does not line by line them but the 1AR doesn’t extend them? the strategy in these debates never makes sense to me

I've become increasingly more tolerant of phil debates, I think you should engage more on the contention level debate rather than banking these rounds on framework. Of course you should put ink on both, but generally contention level debates are much less of a crap shoot. I would hate for you to lose the entire debate because you didn't respond to subpoint F of warrant 6 for induction fails.

My defaults:

Comparative world > truth testing

Presumption affirms < presumption negates
Permissibility affirms > permissibility negates

PF:

I will still probably evaluate about anything but I tend to prefer a good, fundamentally sound and traditional PF round. My other thoughts include:

The main exception to the rule above is that I believe theory should be used as a tool in PF to set better norms. Theory by far is the non-traditional argument I am most susceptible to voting for in PF.
PF K debates are a little silly in my eyes -- most teams are either reading surface level literature just so they can say they're reading a K or they're under-explaining more complicated literature so the debate usually becomes uneducational either way. However, if you take the risk and run the K but manage to change my perception, I will give you 30 speaks (you'll likely win the round too lol).
Collapse in summary!
A lot of judges want you to weigh early but I actually don't really care, as long as you weigh at some point.
The team second speaking should frontline in rebuttal.
I will not read evidence unless you tell me to in summary/final focus.
Good framing arguments make me happy but don't feel the need to make any just because you think I'll like it

Worlds:

I competed pretty extensively on the international circuit. I mainly gave the 2/4, but spoke everywhere at some point. I sometimes compete in APDA in college which is basically worlds but a lot more technical and extemporaneous.

I'd like to say I'm as tech as they come, but it truly is very difficult to evaluate these debates with 0 intervention. This is mostly because it's against the norm for you to kick arguments which makes my job a bit difficult. With that being said, I try and be as tab as I can, but forgive me if I make mistakes. My other thoughts are listed below:

I find myself really confused with what I'm supposed to do with principled arguments on my flow. Maybe I'll evaluate it if I think the practical debate is a wash? Maybe it's how I'm supposed to weigh practical offense? Maybe it functions as a priori offense? I'm not really sure. So, if you decide to go for a principled argument, please tell me what I'm supposed to do with it on my flow and why.
Rhetoric is SUPER cool and fun as long as it is good. This will probably not help you win the round but it will make me happy and boost your speaks. I think rhetoric can also help with argument clarity.
I think the opp block should coordinate on what they go for. Depending on what is more important in the round, one should probably dedicate a lot of time to defense, the other should be much more offensive. An 8 minute opp whip followed by a 4 minute opp reply that just summarizes the opp whip is a missed opportunity and adds no value to the round.
Third subs are not required but can be very strategic. I usually found that when I went for them, it would rarely ever be brought up in the OA/RFD, even if it was basically cold dropped. I find many third subs to be very good if they are independent offense from the central clash of the debate. They will absolutely weigh on my ballot just like any other argument would.
Structure speeches however you would like. Don't feel binded to some two/three question speech, I will just flow what I hear.
Focus on the line-by-line! Win individual links and then implicate them as a larger voting issue in the round/run me through the strategic implications of the argument. This will make the round easiest for me to evaluate and will give you the best chance of winning my ballot.
Do not be afraid to kick arguments/collapse! Very much against the norm in worlds but I would rather you do all the frontlining/extension/link work necessary for one argument than to poorly cover 3 arguments.

Extemp:

I throw away most technical argumentation factors for this event and will judge it like your AP Lang teacher. Logically sound arguments will be more important than speaking/rhetoric/jokes, but that doesn't mean they'll completely determine my ranks. Evidence is important, but not as important as people like to pretend it is. I would rather you give me no evidence but your argument makes logical sense than dump fake evidence. Also, unconventional structure is awesome and I will probably heavily reward it.

I have SO much respect for people that can do this as their main event for a long time. This is one of the most, if not the most, mentally draining events...so PLEASE take care of yourself. Drink water, eat good meals, and take breaks. This is true for every event but especially this one.

Good luck and fun debating!

Di wu Briarcliff Middle School

Jarvis Xie HuaXia Chinese School - Houston

Last changed on Sat February 17, 2024 at 1:07 PM CDT

Things that can get you higher speaks:

AUTO 30: Bringing me a celsius, low-calorie energy drink, diet coke, protein bar/shake, food (something not too unhealthy but lowkey boba)
+0.5:Tell me who your favorite Strake alumni debater is and text them thanking them for their lasting impact on the activity
+0.5: Show me screenshot evidence that you followed LaMelo Ball or Niki Zefanya on Instagram and reshared his or her most recent post on your story
+0.5: Winning while ending speeches early and using less prep (let me know)
+0.3: Guess my favorite twice member
+0.3:Innovative funny arguments
+0.2: Making fun of your opponent in a non-obnoxious manner
+0.2: Making references to goated shows in your speeches
+0.2: Being funny
+0.2: Drip
+1.0/-1.0:If you and your opponent both agree, you can have a push-up competition and the winner gets +1 and loser gets -1

Notes:

I haven't thought about debate in like a year
I don't enjoy tricks rounds that much and lowkey my mood at the time affects speaks

I debated for 3 years at Strake and got 12 bids. Add me to the email chain:jarvisxie03@gmail.com

Shortcut:

T/Theory/Reps: 1

Normal Phil: 1

Normal K: 2

Tricks: 2

LARP: 3

Weird Phil: 4

Weird K: 4

Non-negotiables:

One winner and one loser

Normal speech times - 6-3-7-3-4-6-3

Defaults:

~I can be convinced to go the other way very easily.

No judgekick

Truth testing

How to Win:

You do you – just do it well.Tell me very clearly how to evaluate the round and why you’re winning compared to your opponent, and that’ll probably be what I decide on. I liked to read a little of everything in my rounds, so don’t be afraid to try out some obscure strategy in front of me – just know how to explain it well enough for the win. I will say, though, I am more than fine evaluating these rounds, of course, but my least favorite types of rounds are LARP vs. LARP rounds.

How to Greatly Improve Your Chances at Winning & Boost Speaks:

-Weigh:Do it as much as you possibly can manage. It doesn't matter to me if you're winning 99% of the arguments on the flow; if your opponent wins just that 1% and does a better job at explaining WHY that 1% matters more in terms of the entire debate, you will probably lose that debate. Weighing + meta weighing + meta-meta weighing and so on is music to my ears. Also, doing risk analysis is excellent and very persuasive for weighing.

-Crystallize + Judge Instruction:You really don't need to go for every possible argument that you're winning. You should take the time to provide me with a very clear ballot story so that I know why I should vote for you. It might even behoove you to explicitly say: "Look. Here's the thesis of the aff/neg: (insert story of the aff/neg). Here's what we do that they can't solve for: (insert reason(s) to vote aff/neg). Insofar as I'm winning this/these argument(s), you vote aff/neg."

-Warrant your Arguments:When making arguments, be sure to provide clear WARRANTS that prove WHY your argument is true. Highlight these warrants for me andmake sure to extend themfor the arguments that you're going for in later speeches - if done strategically and well, I will probably vote for you. Also, pointing out the concession of warrants is just generally good for strength of link weighing, which I absolutely love. Please don't claim that stuff that isn't conceded is conceded, though; that is annoying to myself and your opponent.

-Signpost:Make very clear to me where you are on the flow and where you want me to put your responses. This will help to prevent any ambiguities that might affect my decision.

-Creatively Interpret/Implicate Your Arguments:Feel free (in fact, I encourage you) to provide your own unique spin to your arguments by providing implications that may not be explicit at first glance. Just make sure your original argument is open-ended enough to allow for your new interpretation. Truth claims are truth claims, so I don't care if you go for extinction outweighs theory, the kritik link turns fairness, or anything of the like, as long as you warrant the argument and win it.

Speed:

I’m fine with it– make sure to start off slow and ramp up to your higher speeds so that I can get used to it. I flow on my computer and will say slow or clear several times if necessary – that being said, if you still continue to be incoherent, I will not get your arguments on my flow and will not be able to evaluate them.

That being said, there are things I will DEFINITELY want you to slow down for to make sure that I catch them.

Slow down on:

1. Advocacy/CP Texts

2. Text of Evaluative Mechanism(This can include the text of your ROB, your standard/value criterion, etc.)

3. Theory Interps

4. After Signposting(Just pause for a second so that I can navigate to that part of my flow)

Speaks:

I will assign speaks based on your strategic decisions in round, but being clear definitely doesn’t hurt.

Random Notes:

-Tech > Truth:Technical proficiency outweighs the actual truth value of an argument. Even if I do not personally agree with your argument, the onus is on the opponent to prove why the argument is false or shouldn't be evaluated. If your opponent fails to do this, then I will view the argument as legitimate and will evaluate the argument accordingly.

-Talk to me prior to the round if you need any accommodations.If you have a legitimate problem with a specific argument that impedes you from debating at your best, then please, by all means, let me know before the round starts.

-Have Fun with the Activity:feel free to make jokes/references/meme (a bit) in round. Debate is admittedly a stressful activity, and so is school and basically the rest of life, so feel free to relax. Make sure that your humor is in good taste. However, there is a very fine line between humor and arrogance/insults, and I do not want to have to deal with a situation where "fun goes wrong."

Further notes:

- IF YOU'RE GIVING A 2AR VERSUS T OR THEORY, EXTEND CASE. I will negate on presumption if it's just a 3-minute PICs 2AR with nothing on case

- AGAINST NOVICES/NON-PROGRESSIVE DEBATERS: If this is a bid tournament, just don't be rude. You can read whatever position you want, but if you don't spread and read like a good phil NC or something so that the round is educational, you'll get good speaks. otherwise, read whatever you want. Idc ill give u normal speaks -- just try to make the round educational. the only time I will rly have to dock ur speaks is if you're being mean straight up. if it's elims, do whatever you need to win.

- I will not vote on an argument I don't understand or didn't hear in the initial speech, obviously, so even if you're crushing it on the flow, make sure you're flowable and explain things well.

- Prep time ends when you're done prepping, you don't need to take prep to send out the doc by email, but you do for compiling a doc.

- I will vote on non-T positions; just tell me why I should and explain the ballot story.

- Don't steal prep or miscut. u can call ev ethics by staking the round or reading it as a shell/making it an in-round argument - whatever u want.

Paradigms I ideologically agree with/took inspiration from:

Neville Tom (took the majority of his paradigm), Chris Castillo, Tom Evnen, Matthew Chen

Non-negotiables:

One winner and one loser

Normal speech times - 6-3-7-3-4-6-3

Defaults:

~I can be convinced to go the other way very easily.

No judgekick

Truth testing

How to Win:

How to Greatly Improve Your Chances at Winning & Boost Speaks:

-Signpost:Make very clear to me where you are on the flow and where you want me to put your responses. This will help to prevent any ambiguities that might affect my decision.

Speed:

That being said, there are things I will DEFINITELY want you to slow down for to make sure that I catch them.

Slow down on:

1. Advocacy/CP Texts

2. Text of Evaluative Mechanism(This can include the text of your ROB, your standard/value criterion, etc.)

3. Theory Interps

4. After Signposting(Just pause for a second so that I can navigate to that part of my flow)

Speaks:

I will assign speaks based on your strategic decisions in round, but being clear definitely doesn’t hurt.

Random Notes:

Further notes:

- IF YOU'RE GIVING A 2AR VERSUS T OR THEORY, EXTEND CASE. I will negate on presumption if it's just a 3-minute PICs 2AR with nothing on case

- I will not vote on an argument I don't understand or didn't hear in the initial speech, obviously, so even if you're crushing it on the flow, make sure you're flowable and explain things well.

- Prep time ends when you're done prepping, you don't need to take prep to send out the doc by email, but you do for compiling a doc.

- I will vote on non-T positions; just tell me why I should and explain the ballot story.

- Don't steal prep or miscut. u can call ev ethics by staking the round or reading it as a shell/making it an in-round argument - whatever u want.

Paradigms I ideologically agree with/took inspiration from:

Joseph Georges (took the majority of his paradigm), Neville Tom, Chris Castillo, Tom Evnen, Matthew Chen

Anna Yang ILearn Education

Thane Zeeh The Harker School

Last changed on Sat April 6, 2024 at 2:29 PM MDT

Add me to the chain at zeeht@duq.edu or use SpeechDrop.

At the outset, I debated three or so years between Policy and Lincoln Douglas (LD) debate in high school, three years on the NFA LD circuit in college (Utah), a little bit of coaching here and there (CCHS and Harker), and am currently a (1L year) law student at Kline.

At a high level,I generally view myself as prioritizing technical concessions over truth, and a well-developed technical debate with in-depth analysis is always encouraged.

As far as arguments and "unconventional cases",arguments are arguments; performance, advocacy, non-traditional, soft left, etc. are all arguments. Questions such as "Does policymaking outweigh individual resistance?" or "Does activism come before ground?" are questions that are usually answered on a round-to-round basis.

I love critical evidence arguments (huge speaker points here), whether it's arguing a team's evidence doesn't say what the team claims it does, a parallel compression between two pieces of evidence, or even a comparison of the persuasiveness of the authority behind the evidence. You gotta go further than, "their evidence is power tagged ... next!" No no, explain the warrant as to why it does so.

On topicality, ever since I entered law school, I've warmed up to T debates. As a prior issue, you must actually prove abuse. For example, when you say negative ground, the negative team must actually be suffering from a lack of readiness, and explicitly explain why that is. Or, if you say fairness, why is it unfair and why should I be willing to vote a team down for being unfair? With that said, I will tend to apply either 1) the most widely accepted reasonable interpretation of the word in question (community reasons) or 2) the most legally and academically sound definition.

Next on the K, I enjoy the K. When judging the K, I generally analyze the round through framework. Each side should have a well-warranted framework argument as to why I should view the round their lens (e.g., policy making over epistemology, ontology over individual resistance, or even government fiat over subject formation). I will filter the rest of the Kritik through the lens of whomever team wins framework. Oh, and I frankly have no opinion on whether alternative fiat's a thing.

Finally, the DA/CP. I tend to avoid voting on a 1% risk of the disadvantage means a negative ballot argument. I find that debaters generally lack the warrant development and explanation as to why their disadvantage matters and I won't do the work for them. If you're going for a disadvantage, timeframe and likelihood matter. Actor, consult, etc. CPs are great, while well-developed analyses on actor CPs with warrants are even greater.

On LD and PF, the inclusivity of LD debate means that speed must be agreed upon between debaters. If you ignore the accessible standard of speed that your opponent has set up for you, I have no problem dropping you off of a ten-second speed theory shell. PF calls for an accessible and public-based style of communication. This means eloquence, persuasion, and easy-to-flow argumentation will be rewarded far more than tech and speed. Of course, this does not mean discounting the role of warrants in your argumentation.

Aaron Zhang ModernBrain

Aidan Zhu HuaXia Chinese School - Houston

Harvey Zhu HuaXia Chinese School - Houston

Login to Tabroom

Middle School TOC hosted by UK

2022 — NSDA Campus, KY/US

Lincoln Douglas Paradigm List

Judges