Tabroom.com

RCC Novice Championship

2022 — NSDA Campus, IL/US

Novice Judges Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Aidan F Cullen Hire 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 12, 2022 at 6:48 AM CDT

Hi everyone, this is my paradigm: I am currently a senior at Jones. I have been a debater for the Jones team for four years and I am one of the triumvirate captains of Jones. I use he/him pronouns. If you can mention at some point that you read my paradigms I will give you +0.1 speaks. - The lesson here is ALWAYS READ THE PARADIGM.

It would be great if you could add me to the email chain here acullen2@cps.edu. Also I will be available for questions later if you need them.

First before we start on what I like: Please keep the debate professional, have fun and all but don't waste my time or the opponents time.

No hate speech of any kind will be tolerated results in auto loss, and zero speaks. I will not call out any authors, unless obviously it is incredibly clear that they are problematic, but if the opposing team does this it will be weighed in round.

Try not to commodify violence for the ballot. As we are debating remember that there are very real impacts outside of debate.

Please please please signpost. This saves so much time in round, it helps both me and the opposing team evaluate arguments and makes the entire debate easier.

Time should be run by the team, I will keep a timer going also.

Please signpost

I tend to lean truth over tech but I do really enjoy theory arguments. I think that truth would mostly be evaluated in a debate that is incredibly convoluted.

On K's. Please explain clearly how it links, how it causes the impact and how the alt solves. I really enjoy K's especially when they are well done.

On topicality. I will tend to lean affirmative here. I think it is the job of the negative to prove that the affirmative is non topical, however, if standards are not extended on the affirmative this is a problem for them.

On theory- Run it 100%. Fun theory is one of my favorite parts of debate.

Case Turns- Also another argument that I find really fun. This is one of the arguments that I mainly run, so I am pretty well versed in them.

Part of debate is understanding when is the right time for a specific argument. Please understand and reflect on your privileges as a school before reading arguments like "small schools T". Also understand that debate is a game that we all can engage in, and ensure that every argument you make is welcoming to me and the other team. I am fine with uncomfortable arguments as long as they do not cross into being problematic.

Debate is about learning, and having fun with your arguments. Good luck with your round!

Cornell Franklin-Smith Whitney M. Young Magnet High School 5 rounds

Arielle Gearring Lane Tech College Prep H.S. 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 14, 2024 at 11:07 AM CDT

Lane Tech 22' | Michigan State 26'

(R-E-L) Arielle

aegdebate[at]gmail.com

she/her/hers

baseline:

I appreciate kindness and wit. everyone deserves to be here. I'll speak to tab/coaches if warranted.

stop stealing prep. it makes me sad. ill dock ur speaks.

if you're a novice who doesn't read a plan you will receive feedback but not my ballot.

I prefer you use my name (see top) instead of judge.

I don't write out/give crazy long rfds, if you have in depth questions on substance of specific args please email me, I'll end you my notes.

I am not qualified to adjudicate out of round disputes. if approached before the round about an inability to debate someone for a personal reason, I will take you to tab.

misc

I hate random lull time before/after speeches -- pls do ur best to send out emails promptly

"see-pee" and "dee-ay" make me cringe

9-10 sheets is excessive. you get 8 & you can pick the ones I flow.

-----

I believe judges should adapt to their debaters not the other way around and no one wants to read 7 paragraphs on how I feel on random arguments. So do what you do best

judge instruction. love when you write the ballot for me

tech >> truth (to an extent) | clarity >>>> speed

ev analysis & comparison!

I tend to flow attention to cx

The K

MSU mostly likes to read plans, but I did not read one throughout most of high school. I have seen and debated most of the literature out there. You however will need to explain higher theory to me.

1 - On the NEG

AFF can weigh their plan. Alt solvency is important to me, I prefer you don't kick it.

enough Pomo

2 - On the AFF

I find myself voting for framework a lot and I don't think its because I am bad for K Affs, I find teams tend to critique the res debate but never impact it out or contextualize it to the round.

I prefer when your 1ac cards should probably feature and interact with the resolution. If your literature isn't topic specific I find it hard to rally for you on framework.

is procedural fairness an impact? meh

<<< clash personally.

(T, CPS & DAs)

what is the difference between 5 or 6 condo?

topicality: underrated when done properly. I used to be skeptical of judges that said that they have little or no topic knowledge, but now I understand, slow down and explain your definitions, please!!

reading theory is good, going for theory because you dont want to debate substance is NOT.

process counterplans are also probably cheating but can be persuaded otherwise.

case debating is underrated and most times done poorly, if you go for a case turn in the 2nr I'll boost ur speaks

Justin Goldberg Northside College Preparatory 5 rounds

Alejandra Leos Whitney M. Young Magnet High School 4 rounds None

Nellie Lothian Hire 2 rounds

Katelyn Luu Whitney M. Young Magnet High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 13, 2024 at 2:07 AM CDT

Hi, my name is Katelyn, and I am former policy debater for Skinner West and Whitney Young. I now currently judge/mentor both teams, and have been in debate for around 6-7 years. I judge both PF and policy.

My email: kjluu@cps.edu

Here are some general rules/things I like to see:

- Time yourself please, this should be a debater's responsibility

- Spreading is always nice but give roadmaps + signpost (clarity>speed)

- Always include impact calculus in the rebuttal speeches

- I prefer overviews in speeches rather than giving me an underview with remaining time (overviews are always good to hear)

- Organized line by line in the rebuttal speeches is always good

- tag teaming is ok but don't take over CX

- please overexplain rather than underexplain to get through more arguments

- I tend to prefer substance of the debate over generalized arguments or evidence, so make sure you are not just extending cards and evidence but also providing analytics and building clash

- I tend to not take questions/arguments made in the CX into account in my ballot, you must bring whatever it was that occurred up in a speech for me to weigh it and flow it

- tech over truth

AFF:

- always always always extend your impacts- I tend to weigh presumption so please give me impact extensions through your rebuttals

- evidence/source debate is good clash in my opinion, updated evidence is always good

- I don't vote too heavy on perm- I want to see why you expand on refuting net benefits, solvency advocates, etc

- I vote on T, so please take your time to refute it - I really REALLY like well thought out and run T arguments

- I typically go for extinction rather than moral/human rights arguments

NEG:

- I vote on NEG presumption, so please expand squo solves arguments and turns- there are a lot of good case turns that can be abused that typically are not extended in debate rounds- I would love to see clash on case

- I weigh all offcase arguments, but I tend to see DAs as net benefits or loopholes rather than physical arguments on their own (please do run DAs though)

- I don't weigh K too heavily, but I do appreciate framing and theory arguments

- I really like T arguments and clash - please go all in or drop T in the rebuttals- I really hate to see poorly run Topicality

- Be clear when kicking out of offcase arguments and please don't commit a forfeit offense :)

- I am familiar with a few K args, majority of the CPs, DAs and more, but I love to hear new arguments every now and then

That's all I've got, I love to see respectful and educational debates filled with clash. Thanks for reading my paradigm, and good luck debating!

Sam Price Lane Tech College Prep H.S. 3 rounds

Sam Rockrohr Lane Tech College Prep H.S. 4 rounds

Sarah Rubinov Hire 3 rounds

Last changed on Mon March 7, 2022 at 10:54 AM CDT

Hello everybody! I'm Sarah, I'm a senior, varsity debater, and co-captain (aka part of the triumvirate) of the debate team at Jones. She/her/hers pronouns please.

For the email chain: srrubinov@gmail.com

TLDR: signpost, truth > tech, don't like voting T for core file debates, weird things are good but your things are better, be kind and respectful to everyone in round, NO UKRAINE, I don't bite so talk to me. I'm here to help! P.s. I seem to be aff-biased? Do with that what you will.

LONG VERSION:

*March '22 update: DO NOT TALK TO ME ABOUT UKRAINE. Do not use it as an argument, try not to mention it, and just generally think through why you feel compelled to bring it up in round (p.s. I have personal connections to the conflict so please tread extremely carefully). The Russia DA is fine but if you want to use the Ukraine crisis to support it, please do your best to just imply or indirectly refer to the situation. If you want me to expand on why/how I feel about this, just ask.*

- SIGNPOST YOUR SPEECHES. Tell me where I should be putting your arguments. Otherwise, I will do the work for you which will 1) make me upset and 2) result in an outcome you might not be happy with. You do not get to tell me that I missed your argument if you didn't tell me where that argument should be.

- I severely lean truth > tech. You shouldn't change your strategy or specifically tailor the round to be only about truth, but I am telling you my biases in advance so you aren't surprised in round. Conceded arguments still default to true arguments, but I will entertain reasonability claims on concessions (I'm a 1A so I get it).

- I refuse to participate in ballot commodification (but you have to explain to me why the ballot is being commodified for me to vote on it). Also, do not tell me that a vote in either direction equates to me advocating for nuclear war/human rights violations/death/etc.

- I really really really don't like voting on T at Novice tournaments, but I will if I have to. Please don't make me vote on T.

- DO NOT TELL ME THAT A VOTE EQUATES TO ME ADVOCATING FOR NUCLEAR WAR/HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS/DEATH/ETC. I will be very upset and will dock speaks.

- I like weird, quirky theory/procedural arguments; you just have to explain them and win them. If you like wipeout, space col, or any other thing that would put you on a traditional policy judge's hit list, I'm here for it. Also, I might give you +0.1 speaks just for being ballsy (but only read those args if you want to/like to, not just for the speaks!).

- ABSOLUTELY NO SEXISM, HOMOPHOBIA, RACISM, OR OTHER DISCRIMINATION IS TOLERATED (I will vote on this: if it's obvious, it's an automatic loss, I'll give you the lowest speaks possible, and I will be speaking to your coaches and tab. If it isn't obvious, and you want to debate the round K-style, explain to me why/how a team is being discriminatory in some way OR explain how the round was specifically structured in a discriminatory way in the last rebuttal)

- I am a K debater. I know the basics of policy debate, but I am not up to date on whatever is happening in Congress rn, nor do I understand all of the abbreviations your aff specifically uses. Mention what your abbreviations are! Your opponents also probably don't know what they stand for.

- RE: the aff-biased thing. I'm noticing that some judges vote neg on presumption, but I find myself doing the opposite. I have a high threshold for neg arguments to negate any and all benefits that may come from passing the plan. I tend to evaluate the neg on effective proof of the plan being undesirable and lack of aff solvency. (this may be confusing, sorry!)

- Be mindful of online debate! Speak a little slower, a little louder, and articulate more. Be understanding of tech difficulties or lags. I will never take points off for asking clarifying questions, especially if you're lagging, so ask! I give each round 10 minutes of tech time, so just let me know if you want/need to use it. That allowance is me trusting you not to steal prep. Do NOT abuse my compassion.

- Sending speech docs is not prep unless it takes a long time (and I mean, like five minutes or more) or something was forgotten before the speech started. I am very generous with time, but I will start being stricter if I find out you aren't timing your own speeches.

- I am old fashioned and still flow 100% on paper.

- Try your best and have fun!

I promise I'm not trying to scare you or harm you, I'm here to help you learn! My notes are only there to inform you of what's in my head while I'm judging. You can always ask me questions about why I voted a certain way or anything debate and I will do my best to answer. Also! Please let me know if something has made you uncomfortable, either during round or post-round. My email is always open to you! Good luck!

Matthew Sung Northside College Preparatory 3 rounds

Wayne Tang Northside College Preparatory 2 rounds

Put me on the email chain (WayneTang@aol.com). (my debaters made me do this, I generally don't read evidence in round)

General Background:
Former HS debater in the stone ages (1980s) HS coach for over many years at Maine East (1992-2016) and now at Northside College Prep (2016 to present). I coach on the north shore of Chicago. I typically attend and judge around 15-18 tournaments a season and generally see a decent percentage of high level debates. However, I am not a professional teacher/debate coach, I am a patent attorney in my real (non-debate) life and thus do not learn anything about the topic (other than institutes are overpriced) over the summer. I like to think I make up for that by being a quick study and through coaching and judging past topics, knowing many recycled arguments.

DISADS AND ADVANTAGES
Intelligent story telling with good evidence and analysis is something I like to hear. I generally will vote for teams that have better comparative impact analysis (i.e. they take into account their opponents’ arguments in their analysis). It is a hard road, but I think it is possible to reduce risk to zero or close enough to it based on defensive arguments.

TOPICALITY
I vote on T relatively frequently over the years. I believe it is the negative burden to establish the plan is not topical. Case lists and arguments on what various interpretations would allow/not allow are very important. I have found that the limits/predictability/ground debate has been more persuasive to me, although I will consider other standards debates. Obviously, it is also important how such standards operate once a team convinces me of their standard. I will also look at why T should be voting issue. I will not automatically vote negative if there is no counter-interpretation extended, although usually this is a pretty deep hole for the aff. to dig out of. For example, if the aff. has no counter-interpretation but the neg interpretation is proven to be unworkable i.e. no cases are topical then I would probably vote aff. As with most issues, in depth analysis and explanation on a few arguments will outweigh many 3 word tag lines.

COUNTERPLANS
Case specific CPs are preferable that integrate well (i.e., do not flatly contradict) with other negative positions. Clever wording of CPs to solve the Aff and use Aff solvency sources are also something I give the neg. credit for. It is an uphill battle for the Aff on theory unless the CP/strategy centered around the CP does something really abusive. The aff has the burden of telling me how a permutation proves the CP non-competitive.

KRITIKS
Not a fan, but I have voted on them numerous times (despite what many in the high school community may believe). I will never be better than mediocre at evaluating these arguments because unlike law, politics, history and trashy novels, I don’t read philosophy for entertainment nor have any interest in it. Further (sorry to my past assistants who have chosen this as their academic career), I consider most of the writers in this field to be sorely needing a dose of the real world (I was an engineer in undergrad, I guess I have been brainwashed in techno-strategic discourse/liking solutions that actually accomplish something). In order to win, the negative must establish a clear story about 1) what the K is; 2) how it links; 3) what the impact is at either the policy level or: 4) pre-fiat (to the extent it exists) outweighs policy arguments or other affirmative impacts. Don’t just assume I will vote to reject their evil discourse, advocacy, lack of ontology, support of biopolitics, etc. Without an explanation I will assume a K is a very bad non-unique Disad in the policy realm. As such it will probably receive very little weight if challenged by the aff. You must be able to distill long boring philosophical cards read at hyperspeed to an explanation that I can comprehend. I have no fear of saying I don’t understand what the heck you are saying and I will absolutely not vote for issues I don’t understand. (I don’t have to impress anyone with my intelligence or lack thereof and in any case am probably incapable of it) If you make me read said cards with no explanation, I will almost guarantee that I will not understand the five syllable (often foreign) philosophical words in the card and you will go down in flames. I do appreciate, if not require specific analysis on the link and impact to either the aff. plan, rhetoric, evidence or assumptions depending on what floats your boat. In other words, if you can make specific applications (in contrast to they use the state vote negative), or better yet, read specific critical evidence to the substance of the affirmative, I will be much more likely to vote for you.

PERFORMANCE BASED ARGUMENTS
Also not a fan, but I have voted on these arguments in the past. I am generally not highly preferred by teams that run such arguments, so I don't see enough of these types of debates to be an expert. However, for whatever reason, I get to judge some high level performance teams each year and have some background in such arguments from these rounds. I will try to evaluate the arguments in such rounds and will not hesitate to vote against framework if the team advocating non-traditional debate wins sufficient warrants why I should reject the policy/topic framework. However, if a team engages the non-traditional positions, the team advocating such positions need to answer any such arguments in order to win. In other words, I will evaluate these debates like I try to evaluate any other issues, I will see what arguments clash and evaluate that clash, rewarding a team that can frame issues, compare and explain impacts. I have spent 20 plus years coaching a relatively resource deprived school trying to compete against very well resourced debate schools, so I am not unsympathetic to arguments based on inequities in policy debates. On the other hand I have also spent 20 plus years involved in non-debate activities and am not entirely convinced that the strategies urged by non-traditional debates work. Take both points for whatever you think they are worth in such debates.

POINTS

In varsity debate, I believe you have to minimally be able to clash with the other teams arguments, if you can’t do this, you won’t get over a 27.5. Anything between 28.8 and 29.2 means you are probably among the top 5% of debaters I have seen. I will check my points periodically against tournament averages and have adjusted upward in the past to stay within community norms. I think that if you are in the middle my points are pretty consistent. Unfortunately for those who are consistently in the top 5% of many tournaments, I have judged a lot of the best high school debaters over the years and it is difficult to impress me (e.g., above a 29). Michael Klinger, Stephen Weil, Ellis Allen, Matt Fisher and Stephanie Spies didn’t get 30s from me (and they were among my favorites of all time), so don’t feel bad if you don’t either.

OTHER STUFF
I dislike evaluating theory debates but if you make me I will do it and complain a lot about it later. No real predispositions on theory other than I would prefer to avoid dealing with it.

Tag team is fine as long as you don’t start taking over cross-ex.

I do not count general tech screw ups as prep time and quite frankly am not really a fascist about this kind of thing as some other judges, just don’t abuse my leniency on this.

Speed is fine (this is of course a danger sign because no one would admit that they can’t handle speed). If you are going too fast or are unclear, I will let you know. Ignore such warnings at your own peril, like with Kritiks, I am singularly unafraid to admit I didn’t get an answer and therefore will not vote on it.

I will read evidence if it is challenged by a team. Otherwise, if you say a piece of evidence says X and the other team doesn’t say anything, I probably won’t call for it and assume it says X. However, in the unfortunate (but fairly frequent) occurrence where both teams just read cards, I will call for cards and use my arbitrary and capricious analytical skills to piece together what I, in my paranoid delusional (and probably medicated) state, perceive is going on.

I generally will vote on anything that is set forth on the round. Don’t be deterred from going for an argument because I am laughing at it, reading the newspaper, checking espn.com on my laptop, throwing something at you etc. Debate is a game and judges must often vote for arguments they find ludicrous, however, I can and will still make fun of the argument. I will, and have, voted on many arguments I think are squarely in the realm of lunacy i.e. [INSERT LETTER] spec, rights malthus, Sun-Ra, the quotations and acronyms counterplan (OK I didn’t vote on either, even I have my limits), scaler collapse (twice), world government etc. (the likelihood of winning such arguments, however, is a separate matter). I will not hesitate to vote against teams for socially unacceptable behavior i.e. evidence fabrication, racist or sexist slurs etc., thankfully I have had to do that less than double digits time in my 35+ years of judging.

Alice Tidmarsh Lane Tech College Prep H.S. 5 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 12, 2024 at 9:44 AM CDT

Add me to the email chain: aatidmarsh@gmail.com

Former LT debater/coach

(virtual debate) Please turn your camera on while you're speaking if possible

Tell me why you win the debate, do impact calc, know the material you're reading, time yourself, don't be rude. Don't be a bigot.

I'm ok with tag team cross ex but ask the other team

for all --

I have some topic knowledge but it's not comprehensive, assume that I know nothing

Most familiar with K debate, but read whatever you want as long as you're doing in-depth, specific line-by-line

for novices --

Good line-by-line will get you further than any number of cards in round. Your 2NC should not be 8 minutes of cards. Your 2AC case defense should include analytics and extensions.

DAs--obviously fine, just make sure that you are defending and extending your entire link chain throughout the debate. If you only extend what the other team responds to and end up with just uniqueness and an impact in the 2NR, that's hard to vote for.

T-- Make sure that you clash and are directly responding to the other team's arguments. Don't just read the same T overview in every speech, go in-depth on your arguments.

CPs--make sure you don't link to the net benefit, explain how the world of the CP functions as opposed to the world of the plan, tie in solvency deficits on case to explain why the CP is better. Use the CP in your impact calc--if the aff is weighing their impacts vs your DAs but you solve the impacts of the aff, I have no reason to vote for them.

Ks--I've read a lot of Ks and I have a good grasp of security, cap, psychoanalysis, set col, and fem Ks. Even if you're reading one of those arguments, explain the theory of the K and especially your links very clearly. Read framework and do it with intention--don't just read the same 3 lines in every speech. I won't kick the alt unless you tell me to.

Theory--read it, slow down when reading, make sure you're listening to what the other team is saying and directly responding. Direct clash on theory is important. I dislike perf con and ASPEC but I will vote on it if you win on it.

K affs -- I am generally opposed to novice K affs--I think more often than not the neg is completely confused and it's not a valuable exercise for either side. I will listen to you, I will give you feedback, and I will not automatically vote you down for reading it, but I will probably lean neg.

Please read overviews, when you're speaking make sure to signpost and say "AND" or "NEXT" between cards.

Show me your flows after the round for +0.2 speaks

Rithika Tudmilla Northside College Preparatory 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 10, 2023 at 6:21 AM CDT

Email Chain: artsy2133@gmail.com

She/her

Northside College Prep '22

University of Chicago '26

Experience: 4 years of Policy Debate in high school, now American Parliamentary Debate in UChicago. Yes, Parli. Go ahead, laugh. In high school I had a history of running policy, not a master at critical philosophical arguments but can keep up.

TIPS

I like depth over breadth. If you're going to run 11 off, fine. But having a few, well-explained off-case arguments in the 1NC is better for you and your opponents if you actually want to learn something. This also applies to your second rebuttals for both sides; focus on 2 or 3 key arguments you think you are ahead on, explain your warrants, and compare your warrants to the warrants of your opponents.

Make sure to do line by line! Answer your opponents' arguments by inditing their authors or warrants, and explain how your warrants are better. Contextualize it to the round as a whole and TELL ME how it helps you win in your rebuttals.

If you are going to extend an argument from a constructive, make sure it's been explicitly extended in all of the following constructive and rebuttals for it to have weight in the round final decision. If you hear your opponent extending an argument in their second rebuttal that they didn't in the first rebuttal, make sure to call it out and explain why it's not fair. If you do, it's a good sign you are flowing carefully and I will probably increase your speaker points.

AFF

All affs are cool to read, including K Affs. If you are breaking a new aff, please be explicit in your overview to explain the mechanisms, implications, and solvency. Be careful about topicality. This topic implicates a huge scope of affs, so any limiting standards on Topicality will be convincing.

Running disadvantages is good. I have a higher threshold for extinction-level impacts so make sure you explain how your impact has a better probability, timeframe, and magnitude over your opponent's. If you are going against a soft-left affirmative, framing should be a large part of your argumentation in order to tell me how I should evaluate the debate.

The solvency advocate for counter plans needs to be strong for it to win. Make sure you have both internal and external net benefits to the CP so that you explain how the counterplan avoids the disadvantage and how there is an advantage to it that the Affirmative can't access. Permutations are important and will probably be the round decider if it goes insufficiently answered. Have a clear explanation of why your counterplan cannot happen at the same time as the affirmative.

KRITIK

Kritiks are all valid and appreciated. The links should be strong and a viable alternative should be proposed in order for it to be properly evaluated against the Affirmative. I understand the necessity of criticism but an answer to the "so what" question needs to be provided. Makes sure to do K framing to tell me how I should evaluate the Kritik in the round.

THEORY

I do think theory is a voter as long as it's legitimate, so make sure you have a good defense if you are challenged. I consider three or more conditional advocacies to be convincing for condo, but if you have a good explanation of why one or two is cheating, go for it. If you find yourself going for theory, you should dedicate your entire second rebuttal to it. At that point, nothing else will matter. Make sure to isolate points of real in-round abuse or a good argument for why potential abuse is harmful.

Random note: if you are looking for a good pen to use for debate flowing, I recommend Pilot G-2. I like using 0.7mm but 0.38mm is also out there if you prefer Ultra Fine.

Samantha Walsh Northside College Preparatory 3 rounds

Sadie Wilson-Voss Northside College Preparatory 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu October 1, 2020 at 10:02 AM EDT

Add me to the email chain: swilsonvoss@gmail.com

Please do not spread at full speed over zoom. Stick with an 80% speed for me.

I debated for Northside College Prep from 2016-2020. I read soft-left affs my freshman year, big stick affs my sophomore year, and critical affs in my junior and senior years. I have defended (and am most familiar with) a vast array of critical arguments, particularly in the area of queerness. This includes authors such as Puar, Edelman, Munoz, Preciado, etc.

I will vote for whoever makes good arguments that are better than the other team's arguments.

Quality > Quantity. If you're considering reading mediocre cards to shield yourself from crafting logical analytics with a few gems, that is not a good idea in front of me.

For the K, if your alt does less, your framework should do more. There is no winning a useless alt with useless framework. But a (mostly) useless alt with (very) useful framework... well..

Also link, please. That whole "non-unique DA" thing is something I have seen many a critical 2N fall to. So unless you have a reason, give me some detailed extrapolations that don't come from your 1NC generic link shell. Your speaks will be higher if your final rebuttals include impact analysis on such extrapolations.

For counterplans, <3 Interesting advantage counterplans. <3 Cheeky process counterplans. Just win competition.

For T, please give me specifics of what debate looks like under your interpretation as opposed to reading off names of policy affs. I am unfamiliar with random aff names on this topic. Otherwise, I like to default to competing interps unless you tell me I shouldn't.

While I mostly debated critically, this does not mean I dislike policy v policy rounds, nor will I shy away from evaluating a DA. I like politics. I know about politics. So read politics.

I will not ask for evidence unless there is a very rare scenario where I do in fact ask for evidence. But don't expect it to happen - I default my evaluation to words made by your mouth.

Don't be the person in the room that makes me wish I were somewhere else.

Don't let the round work you up. This too shall pass.

Login to Tabroom

RCC Novice Championship

2022 — NSDA Campus, IL/US

Novice Judges Paradigm List

Judges