Tabroom.com

Ria Shah Novice Tournament

2022 — Hoover, AL/US

Lincoln Douglas Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Alastar Adams Auburn

John Alford The Montgomery Academy

Last changed on Tue June 18, 2024 at 12:01 PM CDT

Personal Stuff

I'm John

Currently a Senior at Montgomery Academy.

I'd prefer if you sent me case; add me to the chain: john_alford@montgomeryacademy.org

If you have any questions about me, my background, or my paradigm- I'll be happy to answer them at any time.

I'll gladly answer any questions you have in-round as long as it doesn't give either side a competitive advantage.

Notes for the novice tournament:

All of the above and below apply. With that being said, I expect traditional rounds with hopefully some policy scattered about. Remember that your opponent is also a novice so they'll be just as nervous as you are. Most of all, remember that your JUDGE knows that you are a novice and totally understands if you slip up, stutter, forget an argument, or don't know how to respond to your opponent's arg. Try to have fun bc this is a learning experience.

Traditional debates are won almost entirely on weighing. Weigh the framework properly, and implicate magnitude, probability, and time frame for contention level arguments.

If you don’t understand the below information, that’s totally okay.

General (in round) Important Stuff

TECH>TRUTH. I love weird arguments and will evaluate LITERALLY ANYTHING--BUT the weirder the argument the lower the threshold for responses.

If it isn't extended/isn't on my flow-->it doesn't exist.

If you don't respond to your opponent's claim-->it is true

I think speaker points are stupid. Obviously I'll give the better speaker more speaks. However, I'll boost or lower your speaks based on attitude, sportsmanship, and general debate decorum. If you make me laugh, I'll boost your speaks.

I'll be honest with my RFD. That being said, any criticism I give you is constructive :)

Don't post round me, I find it cringe. Also, I flow weird. My flow is usually really messy/hard to follow, so I wouldn't ask to inspect it with the intention to prove my decision wrong. I'm not the one you are debating LOL

Judging Preference (In order from most to least preferred):

~Note that my preferences have no effect on my decision and REMEMBER... I like everything~

1) LARP- I find it pretty middle of the pack in terms of how much I enjoy evaluating it. However, I probably have the best grasp of it considering I've used it a lot in the past. Framework is big. I'll basically evaluate the round however I'm told (given proper evidence and warrants). Otherwise, I'll just default to magnitude, probability, and timeframe (assuming framework or other influencers of my ballot are absent).

2) Trix- I enjoy trix the most. (I've run them quite a bit at national tournaments). However the more hyper-specific/ frivolous the trix are, the less likely I'll be to expect a well-fleshed-out response from your opponent. Trix aren't typically warranted so your opponent's response doesn't have to be warranted. They are super abusive, so if you read trix aginst a novice ur speaks will be trashed.

3) K/Critques- I love K debate. The reason I put it below LARP is because I wish I had more experience going against it. That being said, I understand ROJ/ROBs really well and Cap Ks are my bread and butter (if you run cap I'll probably give you good speaks). I want to see a well-fleshed-out identity K (Considering I decide whether or not you succeed, I don't default to debate being racist, homophobic, etc.). Have a clear ballot story..

4) Trad- I have no problem with trad but I enjoy it the least because it's boring. I don't think values have almost any function in debate so please don't spend a minute and a half on morality vs. justice. I need clear weighing and value criterion clash and probably err on the side of over-explanation in traditional debates.

5) Phil- I also have no problem with philosophical arguments. The reason it is ranked last is because I have NO experience with phil debate. However I will evaluate it fairly. I have a friend in love with phil so I sorta know what to expect. I've just never run it or competed against it.

General Notes About Debate Sub-Styles (in no specific order).

1) Speed- Speed's okay. Go as fast as you want but slow down on any analytics not in the doc. I'll say clear if you're too fast.

2) Prep time- Use it however you want, flex prep is cool as long as your opponent is fine with it.

3) Topicality - I love T. I evaluate the T flow before I evaluate anything else. I lean towards reasonability on T since there isn't an objective limit on the topic -> language is arbitrary.

4) Theory - I default to competing interps, no RVI's, DTD on shells against entire advocacy, drop the argument for everything else.

5) Disads - read them. Not a huge fan of 2 card DA's with UQ and an internal link in the same card but I'll still vote for it. I have a pretty high threshold for PTX DA's because I think they are especially egregious.

6) CP's - yes. default to 1-2 condo good unless convinced otherwise. PIC's probably fine if you can handle the perm debate.

Narcy Amireddy Hoover

Anish Boyella LAMP HS

Last changed on Sun January 21, 2024 at 4:23 PM CDT

About me:
Hey everyone my name is Anish Boyella.
I am currently a junior at LAMP HS.
I'd prefer it if you send me your case, and I require it if you are spreading, and add me to the email chain: My email is anishboyella@gmail.com
I've been doing LD for almost 2 years.
I am a JV State Champ

General (in the round) Important Stuff
- MAKE SURE YOU ARE RESPECTFUL/PROFESSIONAL TO THE JUDGE AND OPPONENT! NO RACISM, SEXISM, HOMOPHOBIA, OR ANY TEASING OF ANYBODY TO YOUR OPPONENTS AND JUDGES, I don't believe in automatic drops, unless you violate NSDA rules :).
- Tech > Truth (but don't run stupid stuff, like Aliens kill us all, I will still evaluate but I will hate it)
- If it isn't extended/isn't on my flow -->it doesn't exist.
- If you don't respond to your opponent's claim -->it is true no matter what
- Speaking fast is fine with me, add me to the email chain though.
- Make sure you signpost. It will be hard for me to understand if you do not tell me what you are doing. (my opponent claimed this..... or moving on to my case...)
- I don't flow cross, but I will listen to it. If you poke holes in your opponent's arguments, please bring it up in rebuttals.
- Provide voters in 2ar/2nr
- I don't mind theory shells or weird args, but please explain them very clearly as if I didn't know what any of it meant.
- Please make sure you impact weigh at least one, preferably multiple times.
- The more confident you sound, the more speaker points you will get. Please be loud enough and speak clearly and concisely in rounds.
- I will evaluate all arguments, although I don't default to anything.
- I don't enjoy pics or plan affs, but I can evaluate them correctly.
- If you make me laugh then you get +1 speaker point.
- Act like I have no idea about the resolution, thus you should be able to evaluate, explain, and defend all your args in order for me to buy it.
- I would like off-time roadmaps and please stick to them.
- My decision is final, Please do not argue with judges (extremely unprofessional)
- Please keep time and do not go over +10 seconds over the given time.
Any criticism I give will be constructive, so don't get discouraged, all of us are learning and improving at all times.

Most of all, have fun! Debate is a great experience, so just enjoy it whether you win or lose.

Catey Rose Callahan Vestavia Hills High School

Chris Colvin The Montgomery Academy

Arman Dolatabadi Vestavia Hills High School

Last changed on Thu February 2, 2023 at 11:24 AM CDT

واهاهاهاه‌هاهاهاهاه‌هاهاهاه‌هاهاهاه‌هاهاهاهاهاهاه‌هاهاهاه‌هاهاهاهاه‌هاهاهاهاه‌هاهاهاهاهاهاه

مهدی صدقدار-

Hi, and welcome to my paradigm! My name is Arman Dolatabadi (dole-at-ah-bud-dee), and I'm a current LD debater at Vestavia Hills High School. Add me on the email chain: aydolatabadi@gmail.com

TLDR: Be compassionate to your fellow debaters and I'll be a good judge for you.

General Thoughts/Methods:

Tech>truth, unless you say something egregious (see speaker points section for more info). I will 100% vote for an argument saying that everyone on Earth in one year is going to be speaking Turkish as a lingua franca just as long as it's executed well.
I really enjoy creative arguments, but not creative frameworks or values. If you make "the value debate" a thing, I will scream internally.
I don't flow cross-ex, but if something important happens, I'll take note of it.
I will not extend your arguments for you.
Generally, I think the amount of time left in the 1NR and the 1AR are good gauges of how well-thought out your responses are. Please use all of the time available in these speeches.
Spreading is fine, just send me the doc and check with your opponent that they're okay with it.
Framework arguments along the lines of "X framework justifies X atrocity" are just not very convincing to me.
If you have any issues with my decision, feel free to talk with me about post-round. The last thing I want to be during this competition is an unfair judge.

Preferences:

I do really enjoy listening to progressive arguments, but not everyone here knows how to respond to them. If you do decide to run one of the arguments I have listed below on an opponent who clearly doesn't know how it works, I'm not going to evaluate it at all.

Plans/Counterplans: These cases look very normal to me. Feel free to run any plan or counterplan you want, for the most part. Condo is valid. Don't drop the perm. Judge kick is a lie. Specify status. Also, I can't believe I have to say this, but a regular plan text is automatically topical to the resolution.

Kritiks: YES. 10/10. 29/10 if you make it a setcol K.

Theory: I like theory when it actually checks abuse. If not (see exception below), then it's probably going to get dropped on my flow pretty quickly. This especially applies to topicality shells.

Tricks: I'm not expecting anyone to run tricks, but if other judges have been unreceptive to them thus far, then GREAT NEWS! I will evaluate your tricks. Just make sure that they make debate a more lively activity, rather than a colder one.

Also, with whatever case you run, PLEASE don't make U.S. heg its central point. I'm begging you.

Speaker Points:

Speaker points usually end up being completely subjective from judge to judge, so I try to offer a little bit of consistency to the way I award them. I start speaker points at 28.5 and raise them from there depending on how well I think you delivered your argument.

The only ways your speaks will drop below this cap would be if you:

a. foster a mean-spirited environment while speaking, ESPECIALLY in cross-ex. [26 or lower]

b. say something completely egregious in-round. No racism, homophobia, sexism, or anything of the like. Basically, don't attack someone's innate characteristics. [L25]

c. run an argument in the same fashion as "death good," "discrimination good," or "genocide good" [L25]

Some other things that affect speaks:

Confidence
Good organization
Signposting
Providing an accurate off-time roadmap
Creative arguments

Fun stuff you can do for extra speaks:

Show me you read my paradigm by telling me the minimum amount of times I pressed "enter" when writing it. [+0.5 speaks]
Send me a song recommendation. The only catch is that it can't be in English. [+1.0 speaks or higher if the song is good. If the song is not good, +0.1 speaks]

kashvi gaddam Hoover

Christian Glenos Mountain Brook Junior High

Bradley Hartnett Auburn

Michael Hornbuckle Holy Family Cristo Rey None

Hope Johnson Vestavia Hills High School

Armaan Lalani Vestavia Hills High School

Leah Lethander Auburn

Brianna Mcclendon The Montgomery Academy None

Edward Pang Vestavia Hills High School

Yash Param LAMP HS

Monsi Parekh Vestavia Hills High School

Thomas Patton Vestavia Hills High School

Nikhil Pochana LAMP HS

Last changed on Fri January 26, 2024 at 12:29 PM CDT

Hello!

My name is Nikhil Pochana. I'm a junior at LAMP High School. I've done speech and debate for almost 2 years. I've competed regularly in different events across the speech and debate spectrum, including LD.

My email is npochana0417@gmail.com if you want to share your speech docs with me.

Ria Shah Novice Tournament:

This is a novice tournament. As such, I automatically prefer traditional rounds. This means focus on framework and the substantive arguments of the round. I don't really want to see any complex progressive or policy args; please be mindful of the purpose of the tournament and of the experience levels of your opponent. Above anything, the round should serve as a learning opportunity for everyone. Do your part to keep it that way.

A few things to note:

1) Please watch your speed. Personally, I'm fine with spreading as long as I have a speech doc. But you're competing in a novice tournament, so remember that. Speak at a normally understandable pace.

2) I like framework. I don't care if that makes me weird. I like it. So debate it. Explain why I should vote on your fw and why I shouldn't vote on your opponent's. Make sure that you tie your impacts to the fw as you weigh.

3) Weighing is particularly important in traditional rounds--it's how I determine who won the round. Please weigh!!!!!!!!!!!

4) The 2nd half of the round (end of 1ar forward) is where the round is won. Use it wisely. Start focusing on key points of clash and explain why I should vote your side on that issue over your opponent.

5) Use your final speech to give voters. The 2nr/2ar should be a prewritten RFD--it needs to explicitly explain why you won.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Prefs:

tech > truth

Extend it if you want me to evaluate it

Please do not assume that I know everything about the topic--explain and flush out your arguments.

I do not flow cx, so extend whatever was said in your speeches if you want me to flow it

Give an off-time roadmap and ask if everyone is ready before beginning your speech.

Signpost. If I don't understand it, I can't flow it. So tell me where you are in your speech (Ex.: On contention 1, they said....)

Just b/c the arg is conceded doesn't necessarily mean I'll vote on it/it'll give you offense. You need to explain the implications the concession has on your position--explain why it benefits you and what it means for the round.

Above all, be respectful of everyone in the round. No homophobia, sexism, racism, etc., or personal criticism of your opponent--that will be an automatic drop.

Speaks will be given based on speaking quality (tone, intonation, clarity) and your overall presence in the round.

Remember, this tournament is a learning experience for everyone. Do your best and have fun!

Benjamin Prince Auburn

Snekha Rajasekaran Vestavia Hills High School

Elizabeth Ray The Montgomery Academy None

Jake Robinson Vestavia Hills High School

Last changed on Tue April 16, 2024 at 7:47 AM CDT

General stuff:

I like K's, LARP, dense frameworks (especially "weirder" ones like meta-ethical ones), and phil v phil debates.

Arguing your K AFF is more important than T is good - especially if you're good at doing it.

I have pretty serious tracking issues so be very obvious when signposting and send the doc if you're spreading. For instance if you do LBL then slow down and look at me -- make it obvious please. Also slow down if you're going over something hyper-important (for example if someone perms your K or CP and you want me to get what you have, slow down and look at me and say "the response to the perm is...").

The last and most important thing is layering. For instance, if you destroy your opponent on phil but lose miserably on theory then GIVE WARRANTS why phil layers above theory and I'll layer phil above theory (if unaddressed -- which normally it is) and vice versa. Otherwise I'll just default to normie stuff (Rotj > RoB > theory > Phil and/or fw > case). If you win the Rotj debate it's an auto-win UNLESS your opponent layers something like theory above the Rotj debate and you lose on the layering debate, athough I've never seen that happen and I'm curious how you would go about layering theory above rotj or rob.
**whether or not Phil layers above theory is contextual — if your opponent does something obv wrong then theory layers above Phil. If it’s truth-testing with Phil then Phil layers above (unless the above thing happens). If either debater layers properly then whoever wins the layer debate will have whatever they’re arguing for be evaluated top-level.

Quick list of my pref's:

Phil - 1

*bonus points if you formalize your arguments in first-order logic (must be valid) - if you do this I will place you above your interlocutor in terms of speaks (due to clarity) — if you do it well enough (i.e. if it’s obv you know a decent degree of logic then I’ll give 30 speaks)

*bonus points if you truth-test by using meta-ethics (e.g. non cognitivism, error theory, meta-ethical relativism, etc) — auto-W if your opponent drops it / loses on clash to it (30 speaks and W if done right)

K's - 1 (I like cap K and anthro K the most)

*bonus points for Cap K if you use LTV to prove how capitalism is exploitative and/or one or more of Marx’s four forms of alienation in 1844 manuscripts (mustn’t be quoted specifically first there but the general idea must be there) (30 speaks for using LTV properly, +2 or +3 speaks for alienation)

*Also bonus points if you directly quote Marx (+2 or +3 speaks)

*bonus points for anthro K if you question your opponent on their non-vegan commitments in cross and make them look INSANE for holding those commitments (e.g. NTT) - I automatically will give 30 speaks for this iff you do it right (I’m very serious)

Larp - 2

Theory - 2

Troll - 3

T - 3 or 4

Trix - 4 or 5

*along with the above ways to get more speaks, speaks will deviate based on how good of a speaker you are, how confident you sound, how aggressive you are in cross w/o crossing the line (more aggression = better), the more background knowledge you have on the topic (e.g. if you’re deep into philosophy it’ll be obvious and I also appreciate empirical knowledge)

Clarifications:

Phil -- the above ranking applies mostly to contemporary, analytic philosophers -- I don't really understand Kant, Hobbes, or contintential phil much but I can probably evaluate it. The sort of thing I'm interested in seeing you do is run meta-ethics for your fw, formal logic warrants (ie modal, predicate, or PL), skep scenarios, etc. You can also do something phil-related like "God is real!" and run modal ontological arguments, kalam args, etc. which is pretty hilarious to see someone do. I know Marx but I’m knowledge-less on the finer details (e.g. historical materialism). Most of what I know of him has to do with the labor theory of value, his critique of capitalism, etc. Which I am sympathetic towards.

My strongest topics are meta-ethics, formal logic, and philosophy of religion. I know some epistemology and metaphysics, the more you stray away from these core fields in analytic philosophy the more unlikely I am to understand what’s going on.

K's — ideally link it in and ideally the K's on neg but I'll evaluate K affs.

LARP — self-explanatory, most judges like policy-style debates and I don't want to detract too far off from the educational value of debate and what debaters have prepped off-hand.

Troll — I like aliens, Santa Claus cases (shoutout to montgomery JA), “proving” God’s existence, and anything super crazy that obv your opponent wouldn’t have prepped out lol (have fun surviving the perm if you run this tho)

*doing any of the above from the set of things I like troll-wise mentioned above gives you 30 speaks automatically

T — I like t-framework and I've ran it before. However, I think really good warrants can be given to justify a non-topical aff. If it's obv the aff debater intends a topical debate but the plan is non-topical on some technicality then that's very good for the neg debater to point out.

Trix — honestly I don't see the hype. It has no educational value whatsoever and ofc your opponent will drop at least one of them. I don’t care if they do and if you’re getting your butt kicked on everything else I won’t vote off it unless you layer why trix prereqs everything else.

Cross — I think that’s super undervalued and cross is important. It’s good for showing you’re way ahead of your opponent and beating them (especially beating them on rhetoric). I’m ok with mean, over the top cross but just don’t cross the line. Asking funny questions means more speaks, destroying ur opponent in cross (w/o being too mean -- just don't insult them) also means more speaks. Over the top cross ex's are always super funny to watch.

Rik Roy LAMP HS

Last changed on Wed June 19, 2024 at 12:34 PM CDT

Hi I'm Rik (he/him)

I'm a senior at LAMP HS. Share all cards with me at Rikcroy@gmail.com.
Feel free to ask me any clarifying questions.

Any exclusionary practices (hate speech, verbal attacks/threats, intentional steps to make the space uncomfortable or inaccessible) are an automatic drop + minimum speaks. This is at my discretion and distinct from theory voters.

Speaker Points: I try to give high speaks :)

30 - Innovative links and turns, captivating storytelling, persuasive weighing, comfortable and respectful presence, all while maintaining technical prowess on the flow. You thoroughly impressed me.

29.9 - You generally made the right arguments, spoke with confidence while being respectful, and demonstrated an understanding of debate with no major holes in your speeches. Overall good round.

29 - You have the potential to be a powerful debater, but there are some key issues with presentation like very long pauses, disregarding large portions of arguments, not extending, etc.

27 - You were unnecessarily rude or disrespectful and generally did not represent a genuine and constructive learning environment. If you tend to dominate cx but are otherwise not a mean person, you should not worry about this.

Speed: In terms of ethos go as fast as you want, but if you're reading something prewritten that isn't sent to me, slow down a little so I can flow. If it's sent, just speak clearly and you'll be good. I'll say "clear" twice before docking points.

Disclosure:

Nat circuit: I like disclosure but I'll evaluate what's said in the round.
AL circuit: Same but the threshold for reasonability is very low.

Overview:

I'll buy any argument/style. However, don't assume that I'll know the topic lit or weigh for you. Tell me exactly why you win beyond just "my opponent is problematic."

Tech >> Truth, dropped args are true and you need to extend offense
An unwarranted argument has no offensive value, but warrants can be analytic - this should frame trix
Signpostand stick to your off-time roadmaps: it makes it easier for me to evaluate your arguments which will help you
Don't steal speech/prep time - (unless you explain what you're doing, after 5-6 seconds I'll stop listening and drop your speaks)
Feel free to ask questions post-round (if time allows), but my decision is final

Take a deep breath, speak confidently, and enjoy the experience: everything is an opportunity to learn and have fun!

Anusha Singh Vestavia Hills High School None

Arav Singh Vestavia Hills High School

Lucas Snodgrass Mars Hill Bible School None

Anshu Swamy Prattville High School None

Holland Warren Vestavia Hills High School

Manish Yalamanchili The Altamont School

Last changed on Fri November 11, 2022 at 3:52 AM CDT

Hi! I'm Manish (he/him).

Debate experience in Policy and LD

Email for questions/email chain: mychili005@gmail.com

If you have any more questions about anything specific not stated here or for clarification, please ask me before round.

*For Prefs Read Further Down

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ria Shah Novice Tournament:

This is a novice tournament so I will default to traditional debate. Personally, I am fine with running a progressive argument, but for the sake of this tournament being a learning opportunity, I would rather you stick to the traditional arguments.

Just because you run a progressive argument does not mean you win the round automatically. I still expect that you run the argument well. I may dock your speaks if it is sloppy.

If you are on the receiving end of a progressive argument, don't get discouraged. Try your best because, at tournaments like these, there is a chance that your opponent probably does not know what they are doing either. That means I might vote for you just because the work on the argument was sloppy/messy and it did not make any sense.

This is a novice tournament and so your main goal is to get experience and feedback so that you can improve for the future. Sure winning is awesome and if you win kudos to you and congratulations, but the losses are also just as important to having a successful debate career.

Please do not come into the round thinking I know everything you are talking about. Please explain your arguments and why you won as if I know nothing about the topic.

In the end, make sure to have fun and always try your best! It is okay to slip, stutter, or forget something. Debate is a growth activity. You get better over time with practice and experience. Just come into round excited and to have fun. The judges are not here to scrutinize you. We are here to help and answer any questions you have.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Prefs:

I do not have a preference for traditional or progressive (scroll down for progressive prefs).

Do not be offensive and do not be racist, homophobic, xenophobic, transphobic etc. or I will vote you down and dock your speaks. Be respectful of everyone's identity, especially pronouns. I expect that you have an overall good presence in the round.

Provide trigger warnings if you will talk about sensitive topics.

Specifics:

1) Tech > Truth - but do not say they dropped the argument and move on. Explain why the concession is important and what does it mean for you and the round. Please do question recency of evidence and author quals because those can also disprove an argument effectively, but please explain why your evidence is better in that matter.

2) Framework - Util is Trutil but I will listen to any framework, so you may have to do a little more work to show that your impacts outweigh. Remember that framework comes first! Framework is the lens through which I evaluate the arguments/impacts made in the round.

Make sure not to spend too much time on framework in rebuttals. Just do enough work so that you get your point across and you answer your opponent's claims effectively and efficiently.

Explain why I should vote for your framework and not your opponent's. Tie your impacts back to the framework and weigh too.

3) Spreading - I am fine with speed, but please send out a speech doc. Please slow down on tags and authors. Please slow down a little, emphasize, and be clear on analytical arguments. For novice tournaments, I am fine with faster than conversational speed, but it's a good idea to not spread.

4) Flow - The being said about spreading, if it is not on my flow, I will not consider it and it is as if it was never said. Extend through the rebuttals if you want me to evaluate it.

5) CX - I will not flow cross, but bring up anything from cross if you want me to flow it in your speech. Please be respectful during cross.

6) Weighing -Please do it! It makes it easier on me to determine who won. I am also a big fan of Impact calc. It helps me weigh the round. Magnitude, Time-Frame, and Probability are your best bet with me as your judge.

7) Time - I can keep time but I expect you to keep your own time.

8) Signpost and Off-time roadmaps - Great for keeping the speech organized and makes flowing easier. Try to stick with the roadmap you give. Do not go back and forth between flows, it is harder to flow and I will tend to miss arguments that you make.

9)Rebuttals - I would like to see you do some analysis during rebuttals i.e. don't rely heavily on just using cards for rebuttals. Use your critical thinking skills and make analytics. Also, restating the card will not get you anywhere. Explain how it interacts with your opponent's arguments, what the purpose is, and what does it mean for you when you give voters.

10) Speaks - Speaks depend on your demeanor in round and how well you articulated your arguments.

I will give you +0.5 speaks if you reference something relevant from pop culture in your speech. +1.0 for anything chemistry or biology related.

Don't just make a generic reference or state it at the end of a speech (like I love this *specific song* or *specific actor*). It needs to be entwined in your speech somewhere and it makes sense within the context of your speech. Same goes for the chemistry or biology reference.

But don't waste your time on this too much. I would rather you focus on the arguments presented than trying to get those extra points. I usually give pretty high speaks unless there is a reason for me not to.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Progressive Args:

I would not encourage running these args at novice tournaments, but whatever floats your boat.

1) K's- I just started getting into the literature, but that does not mean I know everything and that I understand what you are talking about. Although, I do enjoy a good K debate.

If you do run a K, make sure to CLEARLY explain your arguments thoroughly and why you win the round.

I lean Aff on framework, so neg will have to explain well why I should vote for the neg's framework. Explain how the Aff links and how the perms do not solve. Also, explain the alt well and how it solves too.

You can run a K Aff, but I'm probably not the best judge for that. I lean neg on T-Framework, so Aff will have to clearly answer T-FW well.

2) CP's - I am a big fan of these. Just make sure you have a plan-text if running a CP. I think they are fair, but Aff can certainly run theory, especially when there is in-round abuse. State and explain the net benefit to the CP and answer the perms.

3) DA's - I love these. They're one of my favorites to run on neg. Make sure you explain the uniqueness and the link and the impact well. Tie it back to the framework and weigh.

4) LARP - Aff's can have plan-text but they don't have to, but Aff's have to defend the resolution.

5) Theory - If you do run theory, just be aware I have a little trouble judging theory so you may have to do some work on explaining it. I have gotten a bit better at it, but just make sure you do adequate work on it. Same goes for T. If you run ASPEC without asking in CX, I will not consider it.

6) Tricks - I think they're dumb and won't acknowledge them.

7) Phil - Keep in mind I have little to no experience with Phil debates. Remember, I am open to anything, but please explain your arguments well.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

If you have any more questions about anything specific not stated here or for clarification, please ask me before the round starts.

Also, please ask me any questions you have after the round/tournament.

I look forward to seeing some amazing debates! Good Luck!

Dylan Zhao Vestavia Hills High School

Login to Tabroom

Ria Shah Novice Tournament

2022 — Hoover, AL/US

Lincoln Douglas Paradigm List

Judges