Tabroom.com

JCHS Gladiator Debates

2023 — Johns Creek, GA/US

Non-Varsity Policy Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Seojean Ahn Hire None

Gia Atmakuri Hire

Aryan Bhattacharya Northview High School

Ravi Kumar Boggavarapu Northview High School

Ria Chandwani Alpharetta HS

Last changed on Sat January 13, 2024 at 3:01 AM EDT

Hey

Alpharetta 26’

Please add me to the chain and send the chain out asap, before round starts chandwani.riaa@gmail.com

Top Level Stuff — read this—

Be on time lets get the round started asap and send the chain quick, no one wants to be here all day.
Be nice to everyone inside and outside the round, we are all here to learn and dont take losses to heart they are what help you grow.
Clarity>Speed I can flow fast spearing thats clear, but no unclear spreading if I say clear more than 3 time in one speech I will stop flowing.
If your opponents drop an argument tell me, also make sure you tell me why it would win you the debate.
Make funny jokes key word funny.

Argument Specifics

I am open to voting on most arguments, but and not limited to (death good, sexism good, racism good, and usually any “ism” feel fell to clarify with me pre round if you have to)

Extend the arguments you want to go for.

Counter Plans

Have a net benefit (internal or external)
Frame the CP show me why it solves better than the aff.
Know what the netbenifit is some people dont and when people ask in cross you should know both the (1n and 2n)
Cp debates are fun, if they are done well.

DA’s on this topic are good.
Have updated uniqueness if it’s a ptx da.
Explain them well
Impact calc on the DA— is defiantly key to winning.

K’s

I am most definitely not a K debater. I dislike running them, going against them, or deciding on them. That being said, if you extend the K well and answer everything, especially on framework, then I don’t necessarily mind voting on it. I will also allow essentially any K that you want to run, as long as your coach is okay with it. K affs are a whole other topic and I don’t like those either. However, if you’re going to run one, remember the rules for answering both the K stuff (like framework, alt fails, condo, etc.) and regular case defense/offense.

T’s

T debates are fun I enjoy them.
Dont drop Standards
Violation has to be legit— seen some crazy stuff lol.

Affs

Don’t drop solvency, and answer/extend the aff using a line-by-line (LBL) strategy. Try to have 2 or 3 advantages with a couple of impacts for each.
For the 2AC specifically, short extensions of the 1AC cards are all that are necessary.

Speaker Points

I probs will end up giving speaks on the higher end - especially for novice debates

Below 27.0: Being blatantly rude, aggressive, or showing any "ism" (being sexist, racist, etc.) on purpose and outside the scope of debate arguments
27.0 to 28.4: Good foundation but additional prep is probably needed
28.5 to 29.0: Solid but you still have room for improvement (average range)
29.1 to 29.4: Great debating, keep up the good work
29.5 to 29.9: Really smart debating, amazing job
30: Literally perfect, nothing could be better

******Ways to improve your speaks include: being funny, making smart arguments, having fun, being clear, not saying your opponent conceded/dropped something when they didn't

*******Ways to ruin your speaks clipping cards, being rude in cross ex or any speeches, stealing prep.

DONT Clip Cards -- Lowest Speaks I can Give + Loss--- for refrence clipping cards is when u only read a part of the card, and move on without marking the card, or you read a part of the card and then jump to a diffrent part withought reading whats in between.--- I can explain before the round if yall need me to.

Xiwen Deng Hire

Katherine Forero-Rodriguez Hire None

Samantha Forero-Rodriguez Hire None

Guliana Freitas Hire

Renee Jia Hire

Theodore Kim Hire

Isaiah Lartey Hire

Julia Liu Alpharetta HS

Last changed on Fri January 19, 2024 at 10:30 AM EDT

Hey there!

I'm Julia, and I am usually a 2A though I do swap a lot. I am now a 2nd year debater at Alpharetta High School.

Please add me to the email chain! -- lanlanjulia@gmail.com

I personally like people who start the debate early, so please send out an early email chain, it would be nice. If there are issues, I can understand!

General Debate Guidelines/Preferences

I am definitely tech>truth!

Don't be scared about loosing, it is a learning experience!

You don't have to call me judge, just call me Julia, it makes me feel closer with everyone this way.

Clarity>>>>>speed!! I do not like people who go fast but are either too unclear/quiet! It doesn't matter how slow you are, please be clear!

Please do NOT be rude to each other - this includes not being racist, homophobic, cuss etc. We enjoy a relaxed and respectful debate environment.

Do not steal prep, its easy. Hands off your computer and no talking to your partner when the opponent is not running prep. If you continuously do this, I will deduct speaks. And, DO NOT CLIP CARDS. There will be an exception for people who just started debate, but if you clip cards, it is an automatic lose!

I recommend flowing! It makes you much more organized and able to give out a good 2nr/2ar!

I am a HUGE fan of impact calculus! Make sure to state either you outweigh on - timeframe, magnitude, or probability! And make them clear so I can understand them!!

When you do impact calculus, I prefer when people say they outweigh on one factor instead of all three.

Extend your arguments! If the other team drops something, give me warrants to tell me why I should vote for you! Many teams do not do this, it is pretty much an issue to me.

I really like people who extend off of cards in cross x or line by line analytics/rebuttals. Please do these.

Debate details--

Case-

I do a lot of case outweighs as affirmative, and sometimes negative. If you can effectively tell me how your case outweighs and is much more worse than the other team, it is a good sign and very persuasive towards me.

Like any other debates, extend impacts, etc. I do enjoy effective clash so do respond to each other and point out flaws.

DA-

I am someone who would usually go for DAs because they are generally easy to go against case outweighs, especially if it is a net benefit to a counterplan.

Please tell me why your DA outweighs! A good link debate on the DA is great. If there is a specific Politics DA - tell me why recency of the card is either good/bad. These DAs are usually pretty complicated than the generic ones.

Careful of straight turns, it is bad if you completely disregard those.

Don't drop arguments mid-round, I do not like those. Impact turn > Link turn, they are easier to evaluate, me personally.

CPs-

I like CPs generally. They are a good argument to go for. Usually Condo good, but if you can convince me otherwise, I am all for it. Though I will not vote on condo often since this theory is pretty much not brought up most of the time.

If theory such as condo is dropped - tell me why it is bad. If you are going to go for condo, extend it a whole 5 minutes in your rebuttals.

50-state uniformity is something I will vote for too if it is convincing enough. Don't drop these, theory is important.

Usually nice if extended in the rebuttals, a pretty good way to go against solid affirmatives. Make sure you do impact calculus! I will disregard you if you don't, I see impact calculus as a very important part of the debate. (You can impact calc condo too)

T--

I usually do not really vote on these, they are pretty hard to evaluate. Don't really like Ts a lot though

Predictability and standards>> everything else

Do not drop "we meet" I would think that you disregarded the T. If you go for this argument.

Please tell me why you are topical. Extend off of cards, explain to me.

K--

I am not a fan of K's either, they are usually VERY complicated and it is just a bunch of people thinking they know what they are doing, but they don't.

They usually contain a lot of "truth" things, so I do not like sensitives topics like these.

MAKE SURE TO EXTEND FW IF YOU ARE EXTENDING THE K.

Tell me why alt solves, and to do so - list out how it alt solves impx, etc.

I usually look for common Ks like cap k. Ks with huge theory usually makes me confused if not explained or set out nicely.

Overviews in Ks are pretty effective. Neg teams, you can say how your kritik outweighs and turns the case.

SHOUT OUT TO MR. SMILEY FOR THE SPEAKER POINTS CHART :)

30- This debater is so good that they will instantly change the minds of any national leader, wipe out famine, stop wars, and start peace.

29.8- This is the best speech that I expect to be made at any similar tournament this year. Based on this round, I expect this individual to win top speaker at national tournaments.

29.5- Based on this round, I expect this individual to win top speaker at this tournament.

29.0- Based on this round, I expect this person to win a speaker award at this tournament

28.6- Based on this round, I expect this person to be in the top half of speakers at the tournament but not win a speaker award.

28.4- Based on this round, I expect this person to be in the bottom half of speakers at the tournament.

28.2- This person made a legitimate effort, but is one of the bottom speakers at the tournament.

28.0- This person showed little to no effort or understanding in the round.

Below a 28- This person did something extremely rude or disrespectful.

Aishwarya Nikkumbh Alpharetta HS

Last changed on Sun March 17, 2024 at 8:15 PM EDT

Alpharetta '25

Alpharetta NM --- 2N/1A

Email

---aishnikkumbh@gmail.com

---email title should provide useful information. Ex. Tournament---Round #---Team A v. Team B.

TLDR

---I will not intervene unless my role of judge has been changed, or the round needs to be stopped due to (violence, threats, "cheating" or mass psychological violence being committed to the point the round can't end).

---debating and judging instruction matter far more than my personal preferences.---Every preference except the section under ethics can be changed by good debating.

---adopted from Eshan Momin, Anthony Trufanov, but NOT Lauren Ivey or Adam Smiley---[This just means my judging ideology/process is different from theirs]

---I am not ready when my camera is off.

---generally good: more cards, predictability, conditionality, judge kick.

Online Debate

---I prefer if everyone had their webcams on [though I understand if you cannot].

---debates already move slow, let's pick up the pace with technology.

---If my camera is off, assume I am away from my computer and don't start talking. If you start your speech while I am away from my computer you do not get to restart. That is on you.

---Here is how to successfully adjust to the online setting:

1. Inflect more when you are talking.

2. Put your face in the frame. Ideally, make it so you can see the judge.

3. Get a microphone, put it close to your face, talk into it, and make sure there is an unobstructed line between it and your mouth.

4. Talk one at a time.

Top Level

---tech > truth

---Unless my role as a judge is changed, I will attempt to make the least interventionary decision. This means:

1. I will identify the most important issues in the debate, decide on them first based on the debate, then work outward.

2. What is conceded is absolutely true, but will only have the implications that you say it has. Unless something is explicitly said, conceded, and extended, or is an obvious and necessary corollary of something that is said, conceded, and extended, I will attempt to resolve it, rather than assuming it.

3. I will intervene only if there is no non-interventionary decision.

4. I will attempt to minimize the scope of my intervention by simplifying the decision-making process. I would prefer to decide on fewer issues. If an issue seems hard to resolve without intervening, I will prioritize evaluating ballots that don't require resolving that issue. Example: a DA is heavily and messily contested, and may be straight turned, but the case would outweigh the DA even if the DA was 100% NEG. I will likely not attempt to resolve the straight turn as the ballot would go aff regardless. In complex debates, it would help you to instruct me on how I should do this, or instruct me not to do this if you would prefer that I resolve the debate a different way. You can also stop this from happening by debating in ways that don't require intervention to evaluate.

I am aware that this procedure can influence my assessment of substance. Given infinite decision time, I would not do this. However, decision times are shrinking. Post-round time is limited; minutes spent resolving complex or under-debated issues that are not outcome-determinative trade-off with the quality of my assessment of issues that are. I believe this process net reduces error costs.

---asking for what cards were read is CX

---flowing is great---if I can tell you are not at least sufficiently, it will not go so well.

---condo is good

---don't say buzzwords you can't explain logically---does not mean I will not hear these arguments but will need more explanation

---Long scripted overviews in the 2NC, 2NR then proceeding to do line by line by saying "That was in the overview" is horrendous. The standard for line-by-line doesn't decrease just because you are reading a K

---specific > backfile.

---have links to the plan/material consequences of the plan > links about reps

---do case debating

---good framework debating and links don't usually need an alternative

---competing interpretations > reasonability.

---predictability > debateability

---vagueness in any form is almost always not a voting issue but can implicate AFF solvency.

---better interpretations and more cards are always good

---impact comparison and evidence will heavily shape my decision.

---DA/CP---love them, most comfortable with these debates [even the cheaty process cps]

---solvency deficits need impacts tied to the ADVs

---pretty NEG on most theory

---im down for politics DAs in most variations---please explain what is going on for UQ

---impact turns are fun BUT plz make them coherent

---good impact calc will be rewarded and is always good

Ethics

---clipping cards = auto L

---"Being racist, sexist, violent, etc. in a way that is immediately and obviously hazardous to someone in the debate = L and 0. My role as educator > my role as any form of disciplinarian, so I will err on the side of letting stuff play out - i.e. if someone used gendered language and that gets brought up I will probably let the round happen and correct any ignorance after the fact. This ends when it begins to threaten the safety of round participants. Where that line is entirely up to me." – Truf.

Julia Pearson Northview High School

Last changed on Sat January 20, 2024 at 6:26 AM EDT

Julia Pearson

Northview '24

juliaweipearson@gmail.com ; northviewcxspeechdocs@gmail.com

TL;DR:

If you have any questions, ask me before the round.

These are just my thoughts on debate. These won't interfere with the ballot.

If you tell me to read a piece of evidence, I'll read it - chances are I will read it anyway.

Policy/Case:

I would like to see some impact turn debates.

I think that impact calculus and framing the debate for the judge is amazing.

All debate is just impact calculus. Do it, do it well, and most likely you will win.

Topicality

i've started liking topicality debates more and more. i'm very familiar with t-usfg and t-oasdi.

CPs

Especially for novices, I think that you should read a cp with a solvency advocate. I'm open to voting on theory if you win that there's abuse. I think condo is overall good to test the AFF but i can be convinced otherwise in round. I think PICs are great unless you just read it as a time skew.

DAs

I'm not a fan of DA's either - again, don't change what you read for that. As far as politics goes, I think that you need good evidence and I definitely think that fiat solves the link is a true argument (doesn't mean i'll vote on it every time). DA's should have a uniqueness, link + IL, and impact card.

K- affs

interact with the resolution

Novices, if you debate a K-aff well, you will be rewarded.

Flipside, please don't debate a K-aff bad, its really annoying

Tell me what the aff does, have an advocacy. Or something to defend.

I'll vote on straight impact turns or a counterinterp

Also cool with K v. K debates

procedural fairness is an impact not just an internal link

it can also be impact turned

impact comparison in the last speeches can go a long way.

read a TVA

Read whatever you want, and i'll go with the flow.

I'll vote on fiat bad, i'll also vote on links specific to the plan, debate it out well.

i’ve spent most of my time in debate with k’s

I don't lean either way on FW, if you win that your model of debate is better or if you win the ROJ/ROB, i'll evaluate that to the extent that you tell me to.

i default to you link you lose good unless you tell me otherwise. i don’t think a reps K needs an alt to win but i do think K's should win that the affirmative makes the status quo worst not describe the status quo and say the affirmative is part of it.

if you’re going to perm shot gun, be clear.

Familiarity:

1) Set Col, Generics (Security, Abolition), Psychoanalysis, Academy, White Reconstruction (or any Rodriguez)

2) Capitalism, Queer, eh some Baudrillard

3) Bataille, Afropess, Deleuze, Agamben, more POMO people

Theory/Procedurals

I like theory debates, I dislike generic theory debates that have no clash, but rather only use backfiles and blocks. I can be convinced that anything is a reason to reject the team if the other team just straight-up drops it or you've proven a large extent of in-round abuse. As far as procedurals go, I think A-SPEC is dumb and absent a large technical succession it will be hard to convince me to vote on it.

Kento Taylor Northview High School

Last changed on Mon May 13, 2024 at 7:03 AM EDT

redid this cus i was bored

northview 25/northview bt

debatebtbc@gmail.com

Overview

Biggest Influences: Matt Cekanor, Jerry Chen, Ayush Potdar

Tech>>>>Truth in every instance. The only role of the judge is to vote for the team who did the better debating, not to arbitrarily intervene using predispositions. I.e. I will evaluate any arguments; wipeout, spark, death good, aspec, etc. are all fair game.

"i don't care about death good, wipeout, etc. it's usually not that deep---debate's a game where we don't believe in our arguments. say whatever you want, just be prepared to defend it." - Michael Ross

"Judges who say "I'll vote on anything except [xyz]" don't understand what tech over truth means." - Archan Sen.

Given the above---"When debating ask the question of Why? Technical debating is not just realizing WHAT was dropped but WHY what was dropped matters and how important it is in the context of the rest of the debate. “If you start thinking in these terms and can explain each level of this analysis to me, then you will get closer to winning the round. In general, the more often this happens and the earlier this happens it will be easier for me to understand where you are going with certain arguments. This type of analysis definitely warrants higher speaker points from me and it helps you as a debater eliminate my predispositions from the debate." - Matt Cekanor.

Novices

"Avoid reading too many cards---the novice packet comes with a large set of evidence BUT most of these are not independently sufficient arguments that can be voted on. Avoid the tendency to read the "extend [insert]" block in the file and instead write out analytical extensions to what you have already read in previous speeches.

Example: If you read a 1AC with a warming impact, then subsequent speeches should NOT read another warming card but instead say "Extend [insert] 1AC evidence---it says that warming is exclusively anthropogenic with [insert] timeframe of [insert] years that comes before [insert neg impacts] and outweighs."

Other things that boost speaker points and get you closer to the win:

Being well read on your arguments---this means not having to look at your cards during 1AC cx (because you should already know it)
Putting in a clear effort---if I notice you're not trying it'll be hard for me to vote for you, debate is highkey a myth but at the end of the day should still be taken seriously.
Signposting and being clear---say when you're moving from one offcase to another."

- Aryan Bhattacharya

Topicality

competing interps good. evidence comparison. case lists.

ground > limits in my op. It's just more convincing. But again, you do you---I'll def vote for limits if it's better debated.

CPs

Judgekick unless the aff tells me why I shouldn't. Never made sense to me why I should vote for a world worse than the squo

I'm decent at competition; probably err neg if all else is equal. If perms get super technical or its about theoretical justifications, not as comfortable.

Read solvency advocates in the 1NC for the most part. 20 plank Adv CPs with no solvency advocates are hella abusive, but I probably like it given neg terrorism is cool. But the 1AR also prolly gets new answers.

"Answer the net benefit or lose! You do not want to hand the neg a try or die push, especially because your deficits likely will not outweigh 100% risk of a conceded net benefit." - Jerry Chen

DAs

Sure. Impact calc and case defense. Need uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact throughout the debate. Tell that story in the 2NR.

DA turns the case is underrated.

Kritiks

i run ks on the aff and neg 90% of debates. That being said, if your theory of power is some pomo bs, I'll definitely vote on it but I have little to no background knowledge so explain it well. or dont idrc ill just nuke your speaks.

Good links. ie there must be quotes from 1ac evidence or cross ex, at the minimum.

"Framework interps should moot the plan. Going for the alternative coupled with links to the plan's material implications means you will lose to the perm double bind." - Jerry Chen

Framework goes aff or neg; I will not create my own "middle ground" interp. I will start from framework, given it is called framework, thus is how I evaluate the debate.

K-Affs

read whatever. Have a topic link if you want. topic link makes it easier to beat the TVA but if you don't want one, you do you.

burden of rejoinder still exists. i.e. it is still a debate.

impact turns > c/i. most counterinterps are hella arbitrary and self serving, so unless you have something more nuanced than "topical affs plus us" the ci is probably ass.

T-USFG

fairness >>> everything else. fairness paradox is objectively true---but, as with everything else, it can be out-debated.

Do ballot instruction.

i want to err neg on topicality given how cheaty k affs are getting---but i will certainly evaluate it technically.

Other

Condo is good. Its not 1980 anymore. Go for it if you want and I will evaluate it objectively, but I find "no condo" to be unpersuasive.

Tag team cross is fine.

Card Doc? No.

Inserting evidence is fine.

Megha Velmurugan Hire

Kevin Wallace Hire None

Lindsay Wang Hire None

Evelyn Zhang Hire None

Login to Tabroom

JCHS Gladiator Debates

2023 — Johns Creek, GA/US

Non-Varsity Policy Paradigm List

Judges