Tabroom.com

Alpharetta Treasure Hunt

2023 — Alpharetta, GA/US

Novice Policy Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Rajeswari Anand Alpharetta HS None

Cynthia Qi Bai Alpharetta HS

Brian Bellamy Thomas County Central

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 5:16 AM EDT

I based my decisions on the overall effectiveness of the debater. I usually determine effectiveness by the quality of the arguments made. Quality arguments are those that state a coherent claim that is clearly linked to the resolution at hand. Further, the claim is supported by quality evidence and quality warrants with analysis and commentary. In a very close debate, I will also consider backing, response to rebuttal, and other aspects of good argument. I find the Toulmin model of argumentation to be a persuasive model of argumentation. I favor logical appeals over appeals of ethos and pathos. However, in PF and LD, I will give weight to appeals of ethos and pathos when the argument is well-made. I will consider appeals of ethos when determining the credibility of evidence used to support a claim. I will discount the importance of a claim in which the evidence supporting the claim is shown by the opponent to be faulty because of the qualifications of the author, the context of the evidence, or other qualitative factors in the evidence. I like for contestants in debate to clash with the other contestant and explain to me when they choose not to clash for strategic reasons so that I can understand their reasoning and prioritization of their arguments. I try really hard to let the contestants tell me what is important in the round, and I try not to let my personal reflections on logic or political views influence my decisions unless the debaters provide little more than superlatives for me to base my decision on. I do not enjoy spreading and find that I loose track of the depth of arguments being made. If my flow is shallow for one side but deep for another, I may give a decision to the side with the deeper argument is the impact of that argument is sufficient when compared with any arguments on the flow that were dropped by that team. In other words, I prefer quality over quantity. When both teams give high quality arguments with clash and have similar impacts, I may base a decision on the overall clarity and effectiveness of the speaker. But, I generally reward quality of argument much more than quality of speaking. I will punish a speaker who does not conduct themselves professionally during a round, as I feel this is detrimental to the educational quality and purpose of the contest.

With respect to topicality and other issues outside of debate on the resolution, I will give weight to those issues when supported. I will decide them much like I would any other claim. I will not grant a round based on topicality or a like voting issue if stated without warrants backing them, as I feel this would be making a decision based upon my own opinion. I feel the debaters should be rewarded for explaining their reasoning for arguments, and I look harder at arguments that are more than just the statement of a claim without more.

Maggie Berthiaume Woodward Academy

Last changed on Fri April 26, 2024 at 6:11 AM EDT

Maggie Berthiaume Woodward Academy

Current Coach — Woodward Academy (2011-present)
Former Coach — Lexington High School (2006-2008), Chattahoochee High School (2008-2011)
College Debater — Dartmouth College (2001-2005)
High School Debater — Blake (1997-2001)
maggiekb@gmail.com for email chains, please.

Meta Comments

1. Please be nice. If you don't want to be kind to others (the other team, your partner, me, the novice flowing the debate in the back of the room), please don’t prefer me.

2. I'm a high school teacher and believe that debates should be something I could enthusiastically show to my students, their families, or my principal. What does that mean? If your high school teachers would find your presentation inappropriate, I am likely to as well.

3. Please be clear. I will call "clear" if I can't understand you, but debate is primarily a communication activity. Do your best to connect on meaningful arguments.

4. Conduct your own CX as much as possible. CX is an important time for judge impression formation, and if one partner does all asking and answering for the team, it is very difficult to evaluate both debaters. Certainly the partner not involved in CX can get involved in an emergency, but that should be brief and rare if both debaters want good points.

5. If you like to be trolly with your speech docs (read on paper to prevent sharing, remove analyticals, etc.), please don't. See "speech documents" below for a longer justification and explanation.

6. I am not willing or able to adjudicate issues that happened outside of the bounds of the debate itself — ex. previous debates, social media issues, etc.

7. In debates involving minors, I am a mandated reporter — as are all judges of debates involving minors!

8. I’ve coached and judged for a long time now, and the reason I keep doing it is that I think debate is valuable. Students who demonstrate that they appreciate the opportunity to debate and are passionate and excited about the issues they are discussing are a joy to watch — they give judges a reason to listen even when we’re sick or tired or judging the 5th debate of the day on the 4th weekend that month. Be that student!

9. "Maggie" (or "Ms. B." if you prefer), not "judge."

What does a good debate look like?

Everyone wants to judge “good debates.” To me, that means two excellently-prepared teams who clash on fundamental issues related to the policy presented by the affirmative. The best debates allow four students to demonstrate that they have researched a topic and know a lot about it — they are debates over issues that experts in the field would understand and appreciate. The worst debates involve obfuscation and tangents. Good debates usually come down to a small number of issues that are well-explained by both sides. The best final rebuttals have clearly explained ballot and a response to the best reason to vote for the opposing team.

I have not decided to implement the Shunta Jordan "no more than 5 off" rule, but I understand why she has it, and I agree with the sentiment. I'm not establishing a specific number, but I would like to encourage negative teams to read fully developed positions in the 1NC (with internal links and solvency advocates as needed). (Here's what she says: "There is no world where the Negative needs to read more than 5 off case arguments. SO if you say 6+, I'm only flowing 5 and you get to choose which you want me to flow.") If you're thinking "nbd, we'll just read the other four DAs on the case," I think you're missing the point. :) It's not about the specific number, it's about the depth of argument.

Do you read evidence?

Yes, in nearly every debate. I will certainly read evidence that is contested by both sides to resolve who is correct in their characterizations. The more you explain your evidence, the more likely I am to read it. For me, the team that tells the better story that seems to incorporate both sets of evidence will almost always win. This means that instead of reading yet another card, you should take the time to explain why the context of the evidence means that your position is better than that of the other team. This is particularly true in close uniqueness and case debates.

Please read rehighlightings out loud rather than inserting them.

Do I have to be topical?

Yes. Affirmatives are certainly welcome to defend the resolution in interesting and creative ways, but that defense should be tied to a topical plan to ensure that both sides have the opportunity to prepare for a topic that is announced in advance. Affirmatives certainly do not need to “role play” or “pretend to be the USFG” to suggest that the USFG should change a policy, however.

I enjoy topicality debates more than the average judge as long as they are detailed and well-researched. Examples of this include “intelligence gathering” on Surveillance, “health care” on Social Services, and “economic engagement” on Latin America. Debaters who do a good job of describing what debates would look like under their interpretation (aff or neg) are likely to win. I've judged several "substantial" debates in recent years that I've greatly enjoyed.

Can I read [X ridiculous counterplan]?

If you have a solvency advocate, by all means. If not, consider a little longer. See: “what does as good debate look like?” above. Affs should not be afraid to go for theory against contrived counterplans that lack a solvency advocate. On the flip side, if the aff is reading non-intrinsic advantages, the "logical" counterplan or one that uses aff solvency evidence for the CP is much appreciated.

What about my generic kritik?

Topic or plan specific critiques are absolutely an important component of “excellently prepared teams who clash on fundamental issues.” Kritiks that can be read in every debate, regardless of the topic or affirmative plan, are usually not.

Given that the aff usually has specific solvency evidence, I think the neg needs to win that the aff makes things worse (not just “doesn’t solve” or “is a mask for X”). Neg – Please spend the time to make specific links to the aff — the best links are often not more evidence but examples from the 1AC or aff evidence.

What about offense/defense?

I do believe there is absolute defense and vote for it often.

Do you take prep for emailing/flashing?

Once the doc is saved, your prep time ends.

I have some questions about speech documents...

One speech document per speech (before the speech). Any additional cards added to the end of the speech should be sent out as soon as feasible.

Teams that remove analytical arguments like permutation texts, counter-interpretations, etc. from their speech documents before sending to the other team should be aware that they are also removing them from the version I will read at the end of the debate — this means that I will be unable to verify the wording of their arguments and will have to rely on the short-hand version on my flow. This rarely if ever benefits the team making those arguments.

Speech documents should be provided to the other team as the speech begins. The only exception to this is a team who debates entirely off paper. Teams should not use paper to circumvent norms of argument-sharing.

I will not consider any evidence that did not include a tag in the document provided to the other team.

LD Addendum

I don't judge LD as much as I used to (I coached it, once upon a time), but I think most of the above applies. If you are going to make reference to norms (theory, side bias, etc.), please explain them. Otherwise, just debate!

PF Addendum

This is very similar to the LD addendum with the caveat that I strongly prefer evidence be presented as cards rather than paraphrasing. I find it incredibly difficult to evaluate the quality of evidence when I have to locate the original source for every issue, and as a result, I am likely to discount that evidence compared to evidence where I can clearly view the surrounding sentence/paragraph/context.

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.

David Conley North Atlanta High School None

Xiwen Deng Johns Creek High School

Guliana Freitas Johns Creek High School

Aarush Gupta Alpharetta HS

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 4:45 AM EDT

UMich Classic BLP '23

Alpharetta High School '26

Hey,

I have debated PF for 3 years and have completed 1 year of policy debating. I am actually excited to judge you; believe it or not.

Send the email chain 5 minutes before round starts. None of us want to be here all day.

aarushgup14@gmail.com

Generic:

Don't be rude to your opponents
Accept that you WILL lose a lot. Winning in itself doesn't help you improve.
Don't talk about me after round. It's not a good habit, and when you do it to other judges, it eventually comes out one way or another. Word spreads quick. Don't do it.
Don't be intimidated by cross-ex, it is an art but is not difficult. Remember, your opponent is as scared as you are. You have heard this 10,000,000 times but I promise you, you have to be confident even if you have to fake it. Most cross-exs unless you are in a very high level of debating will require some form of faking your way through it, so be witty about how you answer!
If you are confused or feel like there is no hope, trust me there is always a way out. Give your best shot at it.
Don't steal prep. This means talking to your partner about debate outside of you or your opponent's prep time. 3 strikes and i deduct -0.2 speaks off both of you.
Don't cheat in any other form. It only hurts you.
flow every speech, yes even the 2ar and speeches you are not giving. flowing = winning debates.

TLDR: Tech judge, warrant out your args as much as possible, do impact calculus, don't drop stuff, pls make cx/crossfire not boring, don't cheat, clarity > speed

Other than the TLDR stuff, here is some arg specific stuff:

Policy

Case:A good case debate is really interesting and really makes me want to know about your 1ac. I have probably seen your 1ac plenty of times so please try to make unique and smart arguments with it. Use any piece of evidence you can to try to answer the neg.

For rookies and novices, you don't need to memorize your cards, but please know what your 1ac says. I will love you referencing specific pieces of evidence in your debates.
PLEASE. EXTEND. YOUR. IMPACTS. Your impacts tell me why I must vote for you. If you don't explain it to me throughout the entire debate, you are essentially not convincing me at all. Who cares about a UBI?

DA: This is my favorite neg argument because of its simplicity.

Weigh your impacts. Why should your disadvantage/advantage matter MORE than your opponents??? If you are debating it you are meant to be arguing about how it outweighs the opponent's argument.
Don't drop any straight turns, these are deadly.

CP: Can be pretty cool. As a novice, you will probably have a hard time going for perms in the 2ar, so I suggest you argue your solvency deficits well. I will vote on condo, international fiat, and 50 state uniformity.

K: These debates can become very messy and give the judge a hard time. But, if you explain all your args well in an organized fashion, I can vote on it.

T: Very annoying as aff, very fun as neg.

don't drop standards. The standards are impacts. You have probably noticed by now that I care about impacts because they are the most important thing to debate.
Please do evidence indicts. Topicality is about debating definitions, so I need reasons as to which one is better

Novice:

Constructive Speech:

- Be clear

- No offensive themes (pretty self-explanatory)

- don't slur your words

Rebuttal:

- respond to the opponent's uniqueness, links, and impacts

- don't drop anything; even if it's difficult to respond to, say something

- please try to frontline in the second rebuttal

Summary:

As you may have heard before, the summary is one of the most important speeches if not the most.

Make sure you:

- extend your case (collapse if you have more than 1 contention or if your sole contention has like 4+ links)

- frontline, ESPECIALLY THE TURNS, EVEN IF YOU DROP ONE OF YOUR CONTENTIONS, RESPOND TO THEIR TURN

- make sure to extend responses on your opponent' case (no new responses)

- if you are going second, remember that you only have to frontline the responses the opponent extended in the first summary, so please don't waste your time frontlining dropped responses

- WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH; this tells which side to prefer so if you don't weigh and the opponent does it's a win for them unless they pretty much conceded all the responses. Also, please do comparative weighing--tell me why you're opponent's weighing is wrong or is insignificant compared to yours.

FF:

- same stuff as summary

- you MUST weigh no questions about it, pls it matters so much here

-please tell me why you're winning this debate, that helps me when entering the ballot

Speaker scale:

30.0 - You could not have possibly given a better speech.

29.6-29.9 - You have done everything right and gave an almost perfect speech; I see only tiny tweaks required to make your speeches perfect

29.0-29.5 - You had a good speech, you know what you are doing and have a good understanding of the evidence read in a round...

28.1-28.5 - Not bad, lot of room for improvement.

28.0- You are not interested in this debate at all

< 28.0 - Probably never gonna give this out, this is if you exhibited any -isms.

-0.3 speaks for every time I hear you cuss.

Shehab Hashim North Atlanta High School None

Sadie Hils Chattahoochee High School

Abhinav Ivaturi Alpharetta HS

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 9:54 AM EDT

UMich Classic BLP '23

Alpharetta High School '26

Hey,

I have debated PF for 2 years and have completed 1 year of policy debating. I am actually excited to judge you; believe it or not.

Send the email chain 5 minutes before round starts. None of us want to be here all day.

abhivaturi@gmail.com

Generic:

Don't be rude to your opponents
Accept that you WILL lose a lot. Winning doesn't help you improve. Guess what does.
Don't talk about me after round. It's not a good habit, and when you do it to other judges, it eventually comes out one way or another. Word spreads quick. Don't do it.
Don't be intimidated by cross-ex, it is an art but is not difficult. Remember, your opponent is as scared as you are. You have heard this 10,000,000 times but I promise you, you have to be confident even if you have to fake it. Most cross-exs unless you are in a very high level of debating will require some form of faking your way through it, so be witty about how you answer!
If you are confused or feel like there is no hope, trust me there is always a way out. Give your best shot at it.
Don't steal prep. This means talking to your partner about debate outside of you or your opponent's prep time. 3 strikes and i deduct -0.2 speaks off both of you.
Don't cheat in any other form. It only hurts you.
flow every speech, yes even the 2ar and speeches you are not giving. flowing = winning debates.

TLDR: Tech judge, warrant out your args as much as possible, do impact calculus, don't drop stuff, pls make cx/crossfire not boring, don't cheat, clarity > speed

Other than the TLDR stuff, here is some arg specific stuff:

Policy

Case: A good case debate is really interesting and really makes me want to know about your 1ac. I have probably seen your 1ac plenty of times so please try to make unique and smart arguments with it. Use any piece of evidence you can to try to answer the neg.

For rookies and novices, you don't need to memorize your cards, but please know what your 1ac says. I will love you referencing specific pieces of evidence in your debates.
PLEASE. EXTEND. YOUR. IMPACTS. Your impacts tell me why I must vote for you. If you don't explain it to me throughout the entire debate, you are essentially not convincing me at all. Who cares about a UBI?

DA: This is my favorite neg argument because of its simplicity.

Weigh your impacts. Why should your disadvantage/advantage matter MORE than your opponents??? If you are debating it you are meant to be arguing about how it outweighs the opponent's argument.
Don't drop any straight turns, these are deadly.

K: These debates can become very messy and give the judge a hard time. But, if you explain all your args well in an organized fashion, I can vote on it.

T: Very annoying as aff, very fun as neg.

don't drop standards. The standards are impacts. You have probably noticed by now that I care about impacts because they are the most important thing to debate.
Please do evidence indicts. Topicality is about debating definitions, so I need reasons as to which one is better

Novice:

Constructive Speech:

- Be clear

- No offensive themes (pretty self-explanatory)

- don't slur your words

Rebuttal:

- respond to the opponent's uniqueness, links, and impacts

- don't drop anything; even if it's difficult to respond to, say something

- please try to frontline in the second rebuttal

Summary:

As you may have heard before, the summary is one of the most important speeches if not the most.

Make sure you:

- extend your case (collapse if you have more than 1 contention or if your sole contention has like 4+ links)

- frontline, ESPECIALLY THE TURNS, EVEN IF YOU DROP ONE OF YOUR CONTENTIONS, RESPOND TO THEIR TURN

- make sure to extend responses on your opponent' case (no new responses)

- if you are going second, remember that you only have to frontline the responses the opponent extended in the first summary, so please don't waste your time frontlining dropped responses

FF:

- same stuff as summary

- you MUST weigh no questions about it, pls it matters so much here

-please tell me why you're winning this debate, that helps me when entering the ballot

Speaker scale:

30.0 - You could not have possibly given a better speech.

29.6-29.9 - You have done everything right and gave an almost perfect speech; I see only tiny tweaks required to make your speeches perfect

29.0-29.5 - You had a good speech, you know what you are doing and have a good understanding of the evidence read in a round...

28.1-28.5 - Not bad, lot of room for improvement.

28.0- You are not interested in this debate at all

< 28.0 - Probably never gonna give this out, this is if you exhibited any -isms.

-0.3 speaks for every time I hear you cuss.

Rishabh Jain Woodward Academy

Last changed on Tue February 27, 2024 at 5:30 AM EDT

Rishabh Jain (he/him)

Woodward '24, debated for 3.5 years. Northwestern '28.

24rjain@woodward.edu

Influences: Bill Batterman, Maggie Berthiaume, Sam Wombough, Gabriel Morbeck

I have decent topic knowledge.

Novice Version:

I hope yall take enjoyment in this activity. Debate can be an incredibly fun and rewarding experience, and I'll do my best as a judge to make it that way for yall. The main things i want yall to do is:

have fun!
be nice!
be clear and practice line by line!
don't clip - if you don't know what this is, feel free to ask me
send me the chain!
flow and look like you're invested in the debate!
tell me you know, or at least you're trying/pretending to know what you're talking about.

IDK if this is ever gonna be relevant but I think the novice division is more for learning how to debate, with the topic as a vehicle for core topic args to be introduced so novices can learn how to apply topic arguments to debate and learn how arguments interact with each other. If that doesn't make any sense, just know that I don't like it when novices run Process CPs or goofy stuff their varsity/coaches told them to run and win because the other team has no idea what they're doing.

Long (Varsity) Version:

I'll be attempting to resolve the questions I always had of a judge when i was debating. I'll try to keep my personal biases (explained below) out of every round, but they might affect my feedback to a degree. Feel free to post round - every judge should be able to defend their decision, and if they can't, that's on me. Just don't scream at me please.

Tech over truth. Ideological predispositions are irrelevant to my decision calculus. I will evaluate the most atrocious 14 off 1NC that boils down to warming good in the 2NR the same way I will evaluate a 2NR that goes for a deep and nuanced advantage CP with a hyperspecific DA to the aff. The only exception is when arguments become so morally repugnant to a standard beyond debate that I have to give an L + 0. This includes: suicide good + racism, sexism, etc. good. "My role as educator outweighs my role as any form of disciplinarian, so I will err on the side of letting stuff play out. This ends when it begins to threaten the safety of round participants." - Truf.

Tech over truth is not to say I'll vote on dropped ASPEC hidden in some random CP shell with a humongous smile on my face. While I will vote on it, I probably won't be happy about it at all. The best debates (and the ones that result in higher speaker points) are where two teams who are able to communicate clearly and confidently demonstrate deep understanding of a topic. I also think truer arguments are easier to win on.

FYI - an argument is a claim and a warrant - if a claim is dropped, but it has no warrant nor an implication on the rest of the debate, it's probably going to be completely irrelevant to how I evaluate the debate.

I understand that a claim and a warrant might sound infinitely regressive - take for example the derivative of x^2 is 2x because you do the power rule. But there could always be a warrant for why you do the power rule, like it's best and fastest method. But there could always be warrant for why its the best and fastest method, and so on, and so forth. So I'll draw a line and count anything as an argument when the claim you make has at least 1 "because XYZ claim".

Above all, you do you. Don't try to cater to me - that will probably be a worse debate than if you just did what you usually do. Every preference I list in this paradigm can be overcome by good debating, these are simply my views in a debate where these beliefs are not contested.

Misc Practices:

I'm good for tag teaming, just keep it at a reasonable level.

Inserting rehighlights is definitely a good practice, but you have to explain what the rehighlight says before you insert it.

Also, if you're recutting an article and reading stuff from beyond what the other team has cut it to be, you must read the recut. Inserting a bunch of ev into the debate without an explanation defeats the whole point of debate being a communicative activity.

Sending analytics? You don't need to, but it's probably a good idea to - I want to say my flowing skills are average.

CX as prep? no, unless you're mav.

Highlighting colors? Good for blue, green, yellow, purple, gray for rehighlights/inserts etc. Just don't make the highlighting absolutely atrocious and unreadable.

Card Docs? Send them please. Chances are I won't look at them unless the debate truly comes down to the evidence OR if a team expressly tells me to look at a card, however.

Addendum: Please Don't Tag Cards Like This. Who Writes Anything Like This.

Substantive Thoughts on Arguments:

General/Stuff that doesn't really fit into any one category.

I don't really have any strong feelings on "neg terrorism" (CPing out of straight turns, lots of condo). Do what you must. Too many aff teams let the neg get away with antics though.

Case Debate.

Most 1ACs are usually nonsensical and have glaring flaws the neg tends to not exploit, instead opting for impact defense. Why are you doing this? Good case debating, and likewise, a 1AC that the aff team can coherently explain, will result in higher speaks.

Disadvantages.

No hot takes on them. Politics DAs are fine. Turns case is extremely important, and applying it at all levels of the DA is a good idea.

Counterplans.

Fine for you going for artificially competitive counterplans, but evenly debated, I'd lean aff.

Some theoretical objections to these are explained in a way that every CP would violate. "Reject Process CPs" - what is a process? Isn't every CP a process?

Creative advantage CPs are good. The monstrous multiplank advantage CP is kind of fun.

International fiat on domestic topics, object fiat, and multi-level government fiat is bad.

Impact Turns.

These can be fun and nuanced.

Spark or wipeout are fine with me.

Kritiks.

The 2NC and 2NR has to explain their theory of power and their impact coherently. Otherwise, I likely won't have any idea what I'm voting on, and that's going to make my decision much harder to parse thru. A really buzzwordy overview won't help.

I will not decide a middle ground framework and will only choose between the ones both sides present me in the debate.

Not much knowledge on stuff beyond security/cap/set col - you'll probably lose me a bit if you're rocketing 400 WPM thru a bunch of blocks on high theory. I kinda understand bataille though.

Topicality.

I think plan text in a vacuum is a true argument, but I think it has limited use cases. (i.e., if they go for "if they win PTXIV vote neg on presumption" and i could truthfully vote neg on presumption if the definition of the word took out the whole aff, i wouldn't recommend going for it)

Evenly debated, I think predictability > limits/debatability.

Limits is probably a better impact than ground.

Theory.

Condo is probably good. This isn't to say I won't vote on condo bad - I think the best condo 2ARs identify round-specific reasons why condo was bad so as to avoid the best general condo good offense.

Skew feels inevitable.

Anything else is probably just a reason to reject the arg.

K Affs.

Only ever been neg vs a k aff.

Presumption is really good against a lot of these. I think smart K affs that actually can beat presumption are kind of cool.

T USFG.

Go for it.
Good for either fairness or clash. I think fairness is an impact, and is probably more strategic a majority of the time. But clash is still fine with me in the back.

KvK.

Probably have no idea what I'm doing here tbh.

Varsity Speaker Points

<28 - Clipped, or other technical fouls.

28 - You messed up a lot.

28.5 - Median.

29 - I think you're breaking.

29.2+ - Solid elim run.

29.6+ - Winning the tournament.

29.9 - Future NDT winner.

Don't ask for a 30 pls.

Ways to get speaker points:

knowing what you're talking about
being nice
sounding smart and confident and clear
having good evidence and explaining said good evidence
judge instruction
doing line by line
well formatted and organized evidence + docs

Ways to lose speaker points:

being slow to send out stuff, being kinda late to start the round
unclarity (is that a word?)
rudeness or disrespectfulness
dropping multiple pieces on the line by line

Good luck!

Megan Klingler Pace Academy

Risha Kohli Alpharetta HS

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 9:49 AM EDT

Alpharetta '25

Email

---rishakohli@gmail.com

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

TLDR

---adopted from Eshan Momin (and anyone he gives credit to)

---debating and judge instruction matter way more than personal preferences.

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

Top Level

---tech > truth

---I will flow and vote on things said in the debate. Ideological considerations are irrelevant and I will value judge instruction more than anything

---stop hiding ASPEC or other dumb stuff. You'll lose speaker points.

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

---theory debates are good

---don't say buzzwords and I am not as comfortable with these arguments---does not mean I will not hear these arguments but will need more explanation

---specific > backfile.

---have links to the plan > links about reps

---do case debating

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

---competing interpretations > reasonability.

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 will heavily shape my decision

---DA/CP---love them, most comfortable with these debates (pls have a NB)

---default is judge kick.

---solvency deficits need impacts tied to the ADVs

---intrinsic perms are fine, but they need a justification like textual legitimacy

---framing pages are mostly silly. Ks of things the NEG has said > “but the DA has internal links.”

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

---yay impact turns

---good impact calc (and turns case) will be rewarded and is always good

Others

---clash is good + have fun!

---not voting for death good

---stealing prep, 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.

I'll pretty much vote on anything just try your best, and you're always welcome to ask any questions or "post-round" bc ik debaters work hard :)

AND please add a pun related to this topic somewhere in your speech for +0.1 speaks!

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.

Neha Mahesh Alpharetta HS

Last changed on Fri March 22, 2024 at 2:06 PM EDT

her/shey

ahs 25'

⋆ ˚｡⋆౨ৎ˚

Short:

neha not judge please i swear~~i also would not like to be a judge so~~

Judging you: tech>>>>>>truth
Prefs: I don't like cross examination at all and I think resolutional debating is better as a PF judge I think sticky defense applies and I don't award points over 26 because its 0-30 so no one is worthy of anything higher in any instance and I will vote on who spoke better. you can still pref me i guess...

rookie/novice: if you're flowing and your flows are good, +.1 speaks. time your speeches.

yes i want to be on the chain: nehamahesh.2007@gmail.com

⋆ ˚ ꩜ ｡ ⋆୨୧˚

Long:

Dropped arguments are 100% true. Anything that follows are my opinions which are ripoffs of other opinions of more qualified people and have no bearing on my decision unless these things are said in the round:

DA--- My TLDR for this comes from an old nerdy debate scenario. If the negative reads a nonunique politics disad from 10 years ago, and the affirmative says nothing on the uniqueness level and drops it, I'm voting on the 10-year-old DA. Therefore, making smart analytics can easily reverse that. If debaters make smart uniqueness controls the link or vice versa, they will be rewarded for it. The 2AR should be impact calc heavy even if they have answered the DA, and the negative should make arguments that a 1% risk means I should prefer the disad. Overivews and judge instruction are king.

CP--- Can be convinced that process CPs or agent CPs might be bad, but I would encourage teams to read them along with 1000 plank advantage counterplans because they are fun. Smart advantage counterplans combined with aff-specific strategies should be rewarded because they are hard to make but very impressive. I lean neg on theory in opinion because 2A's should just answer arguments but I'm not opposed or going to punish the affirmative for making them and going for them in the 2AR. See thoughts on condo.

K--- If you're reading Baudrillard and I hear welcome to the carnival I will become very happy. I will also not understand anything you're saying in your long overviews. High theory K's are not for me, but if you explain them well enough I will try to evaluate them in the same way that I would evaluate any argument made. Also, yes links should at least be specific to the aff. I think the more specific the better. If the link is to fiscal redistribution, I think that makes for a weaker K.

T--- I really like T. It makes me very happy when the affirmative is clearly untopical and they lose on T. Please put a violation in the 1NC.

K Affs---On this year's topic I think that K Affs are not as strong as in years past but that's just me. If equally debated I could see myself voting either way. The trajectory of affirmative teams reading K affs with impact turns in their framework is good and smart and I will vote on them if done well. I'm a topicality enjoyer, and I only go for T versus K affs so keep that in mind. If you are reading a performance aff about sensitive topics that could be triggering to people in rounds and you refuse to accommodate them or alter some parts of your performance, please strike me because you will lose.

Condo--- I think the negative should get unlimited condo because I like abusive 1NCs. If the neg drops condo that's their fault and I will vote aff on condo. That being said, if 10 condo happens and you contradict yourself 20 times you should get punished for it.

In Round--- Won't vote on serious accusations that happened outside of the debate, I will stop the round. If you bring up an ethics challenge and say new sheet, I won't continue the debate because I don't want to adjudicate those debates and will involve an adult who can resolve the conflict. After consulting my coaches or any equivalent adult, I'll decide whether or not the round continues. Will also not vote for you if you're a meanie so don't be a horrible person.

⋆ ˚｡⋆୨୧˚

Even Longer:

read any one of the following people's paradigms because I will TRY to be as similar as possible no guarantees

tim ellis

rafael pierry

eshan momin

anish t

anish nayak

sameer j

gabe jankovsky

forslund

John Masterson Woodward Academy

Beth McMahon Decatur High School

Last changed on Mon April 8, 2024 at 2:31 PM EDT

Atlanta Urban Debate League (UDL). Decatur, Ga. Currently I teach AP Lang and direct a small AUDL program without a ton of institutional support but in a previous life I coached mostly policy on the national circuit. In fact, I've been around long enough to see the activity go from notecards in ox boxes to xeroxed briefs to some computerized debates to having everything online. I prefer to flow on paper because that's how I learned back in the dark ages.

You can put me on the E mail chain: mcmahon.beth@gmail.com.

For UDL tournaments:

I am an old school policy coach and do not love the K (even though my teams do run it) because teams just read their blocks and don't evaluate the round. That said, if you run the K, awesome -- be ready to debate the line by line and go for something other than framework. See my note below about having an advocacy of some sort.

For the Barkley Forum: If you are in speech events, know that my background is in policy. If you are a policy debater, know that I haven't judged a lot of varsity debates this year so watch the topic specific acronyms. From what I've seen it will be fine but just wanted you to be aware.

Old stuff:

Current Urban Debate League coach (Atlanta/AUDL) but a long time ago (when we carried tubs, no one had a cell phone, and the K was still kinda new) I used to coach and judge on the national circuit. I took a sabbatical from coaching (had kids, came back, things have changed, no more tubs). I still flow on paper and probably always will. FYI -- I have not judged national circuit varsity debates consistently since 2008 when I worked at a now-defunct national circuit program that had some money for travel. I've been told I'm more tech over truth and although I enjoy listening to K debates I don't have a K background (my national circuit experience has all been old school policy so like DA plus case plus CP). If you are a K team I expect some sort of ADVOCACY not just a bunch of block reading and a framework dump. If you don't have a plan you still need to advocate FOR something. Theory dumps are very frustrating to me because I don't know how to evaluate the round.

Crystalizing the round in rebuttals is an important skill - especially in front of a judge like me that did not spend 8 weeks at camp nor has read all of the lit. Or maybe any of the lit. You absolutely will be more familiar with your evidence than I will so please don't expect that kind of deep dive into the post round discussion. There was a point in my life when I could have those discussions, but I'm not there anymore. I am however more likely to buy your case attacks or a topicality argument so there's that.

Notes for IE/LD -- I judge more policy debate than LD/IE/PF/Congress but at some point this year have judged all of the above. I tend to be more tech over truth with LD and am looking for some sort of impact analysis of the values presented. My policy team does not run the K and debates more traditionally -- one of the most underutilized strategies in LD is to debate the other team's case.

Jeffrey Miller Marist School

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 12:25 PM EDT

Jeffrey Miller

Current Coach -- Marist School (2011-present)
Lab Leader -- National Debate Forum (2015-present), Emory University (2016), Dartmouth College (2014-2015), University of Georgia (2012-2015)
Former Coach -- Fayette County (2006-2011), Wheeler (2008-2009)
Former Debater -- Fayette County (2002-2006)

jmill126@gmail.com and maristpublicforum@gmail.com for email chains, please (no google doc sharing and no locked google docs)

Last Updated -- 2/12/2012 for the 2022 Postseason (no major updates, just being more specific on items)

I am a high school teacher who believes in the power that speech and debate provides students. There is not another activity that provides the benefits that this activity does. I am involved in topic wording with the NSDA and argument development and strategy discussion with Marist, so you can expect I am coming into the room as an informed participant about the topic. As your judge, it is my job to give you the best experience possible in that round. I will work as hard in giving you that experience as I expect you are working to win the debate. I think online debate is amazing and would not be bothered if we never returned to in-person competitions again. For online debate to work, everyone should have their cameras on and be cordial with other understanding that there can be technical issues in a round.

What does a good debate look like?

In my opinion, a good debate features two well-researched teams who clash around a central thesis of the topic. Teams can demonstrate this through a variety of ways in a debate such as the use of evidence, smart questioning in cross examination and strategical thinking through the use of casing and rebuttals. In good debates, each speech answers the one that precedes it (with the second constructive being the exception in public forum). Good debates are fun for all those involved including the judge(s).

The best debates are typically smaller in nature as they can resolve key parts of the debate. The proliferation of large constructives have hindered many second halves as they decrease the amount of time students can interact with specific parts of arguments and even worse leaving judges to sort things out themselves and increasing intervention.

What role does theory play in good debates?

I've always said I prefer substance over theory. That being said, I do know theory has its place in debate rounds and I do have strong opinions on many violations. I will do my best to evaluate theory as pragmatically as possible by weighing the offense under each interpretation. For a crash course in my beliefs of theory - disclosure is good, open source is an unnecessary standard for high school public forum teams until a minimum standard of disclosure is established, paraphrasing is bad, round reports is frivolous, content warnings for graphic representations is required, content warnings over non-graphic representations is debatable.

All of this being said, I don't view myself as an autostrike for teams that don't disclose or paraphrase. However, I've judged enough this year to tell you if you are one of those teams and happen to debate someone with thoughts similar to mine, you should be prepared with answers.

How do "progressive" arguments work in good debates?

Like I said above, arguments work best when they are in the context of the critical thesis of the topic. Thus, if you are reading the same cards in your framing contention from the Septober topic that have zero connections to the current topic, I think you are starting a up-hill battle for yourselves. I have not been entirely persuaded with the "pre-fiat" implications I have seen this year - if those pre-fiat implications were contextualized with topic literature, that would be different.

My major gripe with progressive debates this year has been a lack of clash. Saying "structural violence comes first" doesn't automatically mean it does or that you win. These are debatable arguments, please debate them. I am also finding that sometimes the lack of clash isn't a problem of unprepared debaters, but rather there isn't enough time to resolve major issues in the literature. At a minimum, your evidence that is making progressive type claims in the debate should never be paraphrased and should be well warranted. I have found myself struggling to flow framing contentions that include four completely different arguments that should take 1.5 minutes to read that PF debaters are reading in 20-30 seconds (Read: your crisis politics cards should be more than one line).

How should evidence exchange work?

Evidence exchange in public forum is broken. At the beginning of COVID, I found myself thinking cases sent after the speech in order to protect flowing. However, my view on this has shifted. A lot of debates I found myself judging last season had evidence delays after case. At this point, constructives should be sent immediately prior to speeches. (If you paraphrase, you should send your narrative version with the cut cards in order). At this stage in the game, I don't think rebuttal evidence should be emailed before but I imagine that view will shift with time as well. When you send evidence to the email chain, I prefer a cut card with a proper citation and highlighting to indicate what was read. Cards with no formatting or just links are as a good as analytics.

For what its worth, whenever I return to in-person tournaments, I do expect email chains to continue.

What effects speaker points?

I am trying to increase my baseline for points as I've found I'm typically below average. Instead of starting at a 28, I will try to start at a 28.5 for debaters and move accordingly. Argument selection, strategy choices and smart crossfires are the best way to earn more points with me. You're probably not going to get a 30 but have a good debate with smart strategy choices, and you should get a 29+.

This only applies to tournaments that use a 0.1 metric -- tournaments that are using half points are bad.

Luis Daniel Montalvo Alpharetta HS

Last changed on Tue February 27, 2024 at 3:02 PM EDT

Alpharetta HS, class of 2026, 1A/2N

Add me to the email chain, ldmontalvos@gmail.com

Email title should provide useful information. Ex. Tournament---Round #---AFF Team A v. NEG Team B.

The most important stuff is in TLDR and Speaks. Everything was adapted from people at Alpharetta.

Cynthia Bai is always wrong.
TLDR

-"Tech > Truth, but the less truth, the easier the argument is to answer. Meanwhile, the implication of concessions is only what you make it." - Jordan Di

-Clarity>Speed, I'll say clear twice and then stop flowing.

-As a general rule, you can speed up on cards but make sure you slow down on tags, author names, and analytics, as well as letting me know when you're changing flows.

-Don't do anything rude or disrespectful (pretty self-explanatory).

-I love a good line by line. Flowing is also really important.

-A conceded argument is a true argument, but you should still explain to me why I should care.

-If it's a policy round, 2NR/2AR should have impact calculus (magnitude, risk/probability, timeframe).

-I won't value brand-new arguments made in rebuttals.

-Be controlling, yet respectful, in cross-ex.

-I like a good counterplan debate. I generally think conditionality is good if there are less than 2/3 advocacies in a round but can be convinced otherwise. Unlimited condo is justified against new affirmatives.

-If the negative reads a CP, presumption shifts affirmative, and the negative needs to be winning a decent risk of the net benefit for me to vote negative.

-Solvency deficits and net benefits should be explicitly stated.

-Theory debates are fun. Condo is obviously a voter, and everything else can be a voter if thoroughly explained. I find "AFF needs to prove we made the debate impossible" arguments awfully compelling on non-condo theory so the AFF needs to establish why the NEG makes the debate uniquely unfair.

-Prefer more specific DAs, but I will vote for generics as long as the link is well explained.

-I honestly believe political capital theory is fake but I understand that it's a key generic, especially on this topic. The NEG however needs to thoroughly prove uniqueness and sufficiently answer winners win and PC is fake for them to win.

-Thumpers are good.

-If there are a lot of links being read on a DA, I tend to default to the team that is controlling uniqueness.

-Use a caselist/discussion of what AFFs are or are not allowed under your interpretation.

-Use evidence for interpretations and make indicts when possible.

-Competing interpretations>reasonability

-Impact comparison matters

-Assume I don't know the community consensus on topicality.

-Tbh I hate critical theory and think it's just some little kids yelling big words that they don't understand. This does not mean I will not hear these arguments but will need more explanation.

-my mind kind of numbs during long K debates so like do something to keep it relevant. Start dancing or something because if not I'll just go into a coma of "the aff perpetuates colonialism" or "the aff is inherently capitalist."

-if you read one off and K I will instantly vote you down. I have a previous traumatic experience on this so it will bring back painful memories. Please don't make the nightmares come back.

-Don't really like links about reps.

-More familiar with common Ks than high theory like Baudrillard.

-Don't assume that I know all about your thesis just because I'm vaguely familiar with one of your authors.

-Unlike counterplan theory, it's very hard to convince me that K theory (floating PIKs, perf con, vague alts, etc.) are voters but can be argued well as reasons to reject the argument.

Framework/K-AFFs

-I personally exclusively read policy AFFs and go for T-USFG against nontraditional affirmatives.

-However, I'll vote for whoever wins the debate.

-Clash>Fairness

-I'm fairly sympathetic to the "you explode limits 2nr" if your AFF is about something else. Put another way, if your AFF is not at least somewhat related to the topic area it's going to be harder to get my ballot.

-The role of the ballot is to determine a winner.

Speaks

+0.2 if you make me laugh or make a good joke about any current or former Alpharetta Debater

+0.1 if you make a good joke about anything else.

+0.1 for saying you read my paradigm or asking a question about my paradigm before the round.

Speaker points scale (Thanks Mr. Smiley)

30- This individual would crush the gods of Mount Olympus in every debate and North Korea would instantly give up its nuclear program if this person was sent to argue our position tomorrow. There is literally nothing that could have been done better.

29.8- 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.

Good luck and have fun!

Ethics Violations/Conduct

I will try to avoid ending the round early as much as possible. Ethics violations, such as clipping, committed by novices will probably result in lower speaks and a comment from me but no other consequences.

Evidence ethics problems should be treated like a normal theory argument. Put another way, you should explain why this evidence problem should be a reason to reject the team/argument.

Death good and similar arguments will result in an L and 25.

"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 outweighs 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. You should give this line a wide berth." - Truf.

Kailash Alagappan Muthukumar Alpharetta HS

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 12:05 PM EDT

Alpharetta Debater - Class of 2026 - 1N/2A

here is my email, add me to ur chain - kamwbms25@gmail.com

email subjects should in context of the round and the tournament

DEFO tech over truth!

Speaker Points(Thanks Mr. Smiley) -

30- This individual would crush anyone. There is literally nothing that could have been done better, kudos to u!

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 top tournaments.

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

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

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, room for improvement.

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

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

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, I can't believe what happened.....

+0.1 if you make fun of any Alpharetta Debater - must be appropriate, of course ;)

+0.2 if you read my paradigms and/or ask a question/give a comment about it. LMK u read it!

General Thoughts/preferences -

Rookie/Novices - You should FLOW YOUR DEBATE!!! It will help you so much and I would hate picking and choosing between a bunch of dropped arguments :(

Normal stuff -

I will vote solely on things that happen IN the debate. condo is good, but if you can convince me otherwise, all power to you.

T -

Competing interps are better than reasonability

Impact comparison will be crucial

CPs -

I love these debates

Default to judge-kick

Neg-leaning on theory in CPs

solvency deficits need impacts tied to the advantages

DAs -

If you do good impact calc, then you will definitely be REWARDED

Impact turns are Ws

The more specific, the better. The more recent politics is, the better it is, it shows that you care and did recent research

Only read it if you know what it means, don't spit jargon. Make sure you know what your argument says/means, and also, the alt needs to be properly debated.

DONT DROP FRAMEWORK!

Personally, I believe people should read a plan text, but if you debate well, you can defo win.

Other stuff -

not voting for death good or anything absurd

stealing prep, clipping cards = auto L ( I will be lenient on rookies/inexperienced novices, warnings will be given, but do it twice, ur DONE!)

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 nice.

if your rude during cross x---ie keep cutting people off, undermining their answers, or laughing---I will personally talk to ur coach, if it's extreme. BE RESPECTFUL!

Hasini Namineni Alpharetta HS None

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

Keva Nimgaonkar Alpharetta HS

Last changed on Sat February 3, 2024 at 4:27 AM EDT

My email is iheartbooks137@gmail.com. Please add me to the email chain.

I am not currently debating, but I have done policy debate for the past 2 years and I have decent topic knowledge for this year. I also have experience judging rookie & novice policy, as well as novice, JV, & varsity public forum.

Top Level: I am open to most arguments, impact calc is key, truth over tech, do line by line, be nice

What to do:

The most important thing in debating for me is DON’T DROP ARGUMENTS because it’s hard to flow.
If you want to go for a specific argument, make sure to extend it all the way into the last speech so that I can clearly outline arguments on the flow. If you don’t, that is considered dropping. And if the other team points it out, I may vote on that, so be careful.
Always provide a roadmap so that I can line up the flows in order.
In general, introduce new arguments in the 1AC and 1NC, then respond to answers in the 2AC and 2NC, extend and explain in the 1NR and 1AR, and then finally do impact calc, framework, summarizing, etc. in the 2NR and 2AR. Again, I’d like to emphasize extending and explaining.
If you’re going to run any Theory argument, it must be well explained throughout the entirety of the debate that you are extending it for. If you are neg, you should spend about 5 minutes of the 2NC or even the entire 1NR on theory arguments (such as condo, framework, etc).
Send speech docs as quickly as possible. I understand if you're taking prep time, but if there are some unexpected tech issues, try to get that resolved immediately.
Speak as clearly as possible for you.
Be nice to everybody. It doesn't matter if the other team is your sworn enemy or if your partner did something wrong. You should treat every person in the room with respect. If you fail to do so, expect low speaker points.

Argument specifics:

DA: Make sure that the uniqueness still applies for Politics DAs and that your DA actually links to the aff (the more specific, the better).
CP: HAVE A NET BENEFIT! I can’t stress this enough, you MUST have either an external net benefit like a DA or an internal one (it may be embedded within the counterplan text or in a separate card). If you’re unsure whether there’s an INB, it's better to read a DA that fits and kick it later rather than having to defend a CP with no NB. Also, decide on the status of the CP with your partner (condo, dispo or unconditional).
K: 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: Make sure you have both a clear violation (I strongly suggest that you have carded evidence for this, but it can technically just be an analytic) and standards for your topicality arg. Also, try not to run more than 3 Ts because at that point, you’re just trying to create a time skew for the aff. I may decide not to vote on topicality just because of that.
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. Generally, try to have less impacts (maybe three max) and more internal links (really double down on these). For the 2AC specifically, short extensions of the 1AC cards are all that are necessary.
Case negs: These MUST be aff-specific. That means actually reading through the cards and checking whether they respond to the aff, and creating analytics for arguments that don’t have carded responses.

Things to know:

If you want to introduce a claim about recent events that negates something the other side has said, with or without evidence, that is fine. However, it must be either generally common knowledge or at least able to be easily Googled.
I like voting on CPs, DAs and impact-based arguments.
I LOVE a good impact calc debate, and I enjoy seeing clash.
Truth over tech (for the most part), clarity over speed, quality over quantity of arguments
I WILL NOT tolerate any type of discrimination whatsoever. In addition, there are a few arguments I am unwilling to listen to, including but not limited to: sexism good, racism good, genocide good, and rape good. If you are considering reading one of those arguments, don’t.
If my RFD doesn’t make sense or something isn’t explained clearly, I will do my best to clarify.
You can call me Judge or Keva. My pronouns are she/her.
Please don’t hold any hard feelings about the results. The point of debating in tournaments is to improve your speaking and debating skills, and it’s impossible to do that if you win all the time. In my experience, the rounds I’ve lost are the ones where I’ve learned the most.

Speaker point scale (for rookie/novice)

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 (I have never given a 30 and don't plan on doing so)

If you get me a caramel frappuccino before the round, I'll bump speaks by 0.4.

If you tell me a good joke (it actually has to be funny), I'll increase speaks by 0.2.

Good luck!

Tanvi Pamulapati Woodward Academy

Dyumna Pandey Alpharetta HS None

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.

Elijah Reisman Pace Academy

Last changed on Wed January 24, 2024 at 11:28 AM EDT

Cypress Bay High School 2020

Emory University 2024

Note for 2023-24 Season: I have not done debate-oriented research for this topic, so I likely will not be the most familiar with your arguments before the debate begins. I have done some light research on topics peripheral to the resolution this year for my undergraduate work though.

hielijah@gmail.com

TLDR: I primary focused in high school on reading CPs, DAs, and Affs with plans, but I will vote on whatever. Speaker points explanation is at the bottom of the paradigm if you are here for that. I enjoy pretty much any debate, so don't let my paradigm influence what arguments you make. Just have a fun time. Please add me to the email chain before the round starts. If you have any questions just ask before the round

DA's: Impact comparison is super important. I've always thought that politics DA's are usually pretty bad, but if you are bringing the heat with the politics cards on the neg, or can point out the flaws in your average politics DA during the round I will be extra happy.

CP's: I am not a huge fan of the average consult counter plan in past years, but given the shallow DA ground on this topic I am more tolerant of them than I usually would be.

CP Theory: If you want to go for theory go for it, if you can stop the flow from being messy that would be nice.

Ks: Do whatever you like, not a huge fan of long overviews. I am not super convinced by plan focused style arguments, but I can be convinced otherwise.

T: Do whatever. As of now I have not judged any rounds on cjr and have not cut many cards for the topic either. Do with that information as you will.

planless affs: Go for it, just do impact calc when going for and answering T. K v K debates I'm down to watch, but will need clear link explanation during the debate.

Tech vs Truth: Tech over truth, but if something is untrue it is easier to answer.

Speaks: Generally I will try to conform to tournament norms and community norms

LD Notes:

Quick pref help: (LARP>K>Trad>Theory>Phil>Tricks)

Most of stuff from policy paradigm applies.

Not a huge fan of tricks, spikes, or rvi's but if you win on them I'll vote for them.

PF Notes:

Do whatever you want.

Charles Sanderson '24 Chattahoochee High School

Last changed on Thu April 11, 2024 at 5:02 PM EDT

Add me to the chain: ctsanderson10@gmail.com

PF blurb

I currently coach PF at Ivy Bridge Academy, where a lot of my work revolves around evidence production. Therefore, I'm fairly familiar in both the topic and the general conventions of public forum debate. That being said, my background in policy debate means that sometimes understand these debates very differently than many lay judges might. Thus:

Tech>Truth
Speed is good, so long as you are clear
Document sharing is good so long as both teams agree to it
Evidence ethics violations are a voter.

1. I flow on multiple sheets of paper, one for each of your contentions. Therefore, I find off-time roadmaps to be incredibly important but often, unfortunately, lacking. Please structure your off-time road map by contention to help me be the best judge that I can.

2. Please make sure that you time your speeches, even if I'm also already timing them. Double-timing is a great competitive norm and helps make debates more fair!

3. I prioritize argumentative nuance over your speaking ability. I believe that debates are ultimately decided by debaters who are able to 'write my ballot' through solid impact calculus (weighing) and in-depth case analysis (explaining your contentions and why I should vote on them).

4. Extend your evidence! Extend their warrants! Compare evidence and don't be afraid of argumentative clash. Debaters are only as good as their evidence and the way that they use it!

T/L -- Policy

Experience --

4 years of policy debate at Chattahoochee high school. Qualled to the TOC on the NATO topic. I genuinely love this activity and (most of) the people in it. I'm currently a 2A/2N, but have debated as every position for a prolonged amount of time.

About Me --

Hey-O! I'm Charles and I love debate.

----Influences: Kevin Bancroft, Astrid Clough, Jordan Keller, Eshkar Kaidar-Heafetz (I sing his praise), and Sarah Lundeen. (UWG debate supremacy)

First and foremost, I want this to be a space for you. I genuinely believe that my job as a judge is twofold. The first is to deliver fair, well-thought, educational decisions and feedback. The second is to ensure that this is a debate that you can participate in. If you, at any time, feel unsafe in a round that I am present in, I will fight tooth and nail for you. In a community that is increasingly divided by and has traditionally been defined by oppression, my tolerance for violence is nonexistent. Don't be an abuser. Don't reproduce the violence that has become intrinsic to so many aspects of this activity and community. Don't be the problem. Don't be the reason the queer kid quits. I ask that you, as a debater, actively work to make this space one that can be genuinely valuable for everyone, not just your Ctrl+C/Ctrl+V, straight, white, MBA policy bro. To the queer kids, the trans kids, the people of color, the disabled kids, the kid who carries unspeakable violence with them every day, I will protect you.

Strike me if you were involved (were the aggressor) in a Title IX violation at camp. Do not ever speak to me.

I am a disabled debater. I have ADHD, PTSD, PNES (seizure disorder), a slew of mental health problems, and some other stuff that I'd rather not get into. I may ask for certain accommodations, this does not mean that I cannot judge your round, just that I need you to help me so that I can help you.

I'll be the first to say it, I'm a hack for the K. There is very little that I spend more of my time thinking about. If you're a novice and want to try out kritikal arguments, I'm your judge. However, if the K isn't your thing, don't sweat it. I'll still vote on your disad about how the plan trades off with the ability of the USFG to sell Ukraine papayas, which could cause Bosnian instability that spills over into intergalactic rubber-duckie warfare. Or your PIC. Or your 5-minute T 2NR (although I'll never forgive you for it if its bad). Tech>Truth. First and foremost, I am a blank slate when casting my ballot. Most of the time...

I will not vote on arguments that I find morally repugnant. That means --

White debaters reading Afro-Pess

Malthus

Genocide good

Racism good

Eugenics good

Obviously racist/sexist/queerphobic arguments

Trigger Warnings Bad

8 OFF or higher

Roko's

Spark/Death Good is the exception here, as I feel that they have genuine value as things to be debated.

Novice O/V --

If its packet debate, dw about it. Read your args. Have fun. Try to learn. Losing doesn't mean you're stupid and winning doesn't mean you're debate-jesus.

If it isn't packet debate, dw about it. Explore the wider world of argumentation. Read whatever you want. Have fun. Try to learn. Reading my paradigm is probably a bit more important here. Losing doesn't mean you're stupid and winning doesn't mean you're debate-jesus.

General Thoughts --

I think that...

Debate is good as an activity, but is not intrinsically valuable. Debate is as good or bad as those who participate in the activity make it. Make of that what you will.
Tech>Truth is the best "default" position for a judge to take.
Clarity>Speed, any time. I don't care how fast you are. Your ability to do spreading drills for 5 hours every day does not affect your actual ability to debate outside of being able to say more. One good, clear argument is worth an infinite amount of speedy bad ones. I'm fine with speed, but only go as fast as you are clear. If your strat is solely reliant upon out-speeding the other team while being atrociously unclear, then you are bad at debate. Its a skill issue.
Judge instruction is incredibly valuable for teams that want to really win rounds, not to just beat the other team. There's a difference.
Case debate is a lost art.
Fairness is an internal link.
Condo/broader theory debates are really only valuable insofar as both teams get off their blocks. If one of your impacts/reasons you think that I should prefer your model in a theory debate is education, then reading noncontextual blocks straight down is not only silly, but is also a performative doubleturn. My thoughts on whether condo is good or bad don't matter here. Tell me how to think about it in your round.
"Reject the arg, not the team" is not an escape rope that I will give you. Tell me why.
You should tell me what your favorite song is. I'll surprise you with good speaks for reading my paradigm.
Big schools saying "_____ hurts small schools!!!" is absurd and is almost never an argument that will be won in front of me. Lookin' at you, MBA.
Well-thought-out author indicts that are supported by good warranting and actually have a tangible impact will not only make me very happy, but will drastically boost your speaker points. I will not object to them becoming a voter.
Clipping is a L+25. I have a threshold for how this is decided. I will not disclose it unless it becomes an issue.
"Lying 2A" strats will suffer in front of me. If you have to resort to this, it's a skill issue.
Shouting at your partner is ridiculous and, if severe enough, will earn you the worst speaks that I can give you.
CX and rebuttles will set the basis for your speaks.
Reading paradigms is probably a good idea.
Cowardice is bad.

Judging Philosophy --

I'm a blank slate unless told otherwise. My role is whatever you can win it is. The clearer the ROTJ is, the more likely that you are to win it. If not given a specific role of the judge, I will default to serving as an abstract, 4th dimensional entity, observing and weighing all aspects of every argument that makes it into the final 2 speeches to construct my decision.

To quote Jordan Keller, "...I want to see debaters who play with the bounds of the activity, so do what makes you the most satisfied: play your music, I'll dance with you... as long as you can pull it off. I am a depressed, tired, and impatient [high school] student - make me laugh."

Argument Specific --

Aff (Policy)

I'll hear it. High-quality evidence is something policy teams have struggled with SO MUCH recently. Same thing with powertagging. You should consider the fact that your solvency advocate and solvency evidence are literally the lifeblood of your affirmative. If you can convince me that you can solve for the harms that you present, you will be in a very strong position in these debates. Judge instruction is a powerful, often underutilized tool in these debates. Policy hacks, take a page out of your K debater friends' playbooks and start telling me how to think. God knows, I've barely figured it out on my own in the first place.

Aff (Kritikal)

I LOVE YOUR (good.) IDENTITY KAFF. These are the debates that I am the most familiar with. Don't get it twisted though, my standard for kritikal affirmatives is high. I am familiar with a wide range of lit bases and there's a good chance that I've read yours. If I haven't, I've probably read the literature that your authors based their works on. If I'm not familiar with it at all, GREAT!! I LOVE learning about new forms of critical literature. I feel that there is real, genuine ground for these affirmatives in debate and I think that they can provide real, genuine change for those both in and outside of the activity.

However...

Reading a Kaff, identity-based or not, is not an auto-aff ballot. Framework is a metric that you are required to beat. A good kaff is a kaff that pushes this activity and the people in it to change for the better. If you can't convince me that your kaff can do that, good luck.

T (Policy)

Objectively speaking, T is a spectacular argument with more utility than most other off-case positions in debate. However, T is often horrifically underutilized by negative teams when debating against policy affirmatives to the extent that I often find myself questioning why its even in the 1NC. This has led me to have an icky taste in my mouth when it comes to topicality. Affs, believe it or not, are bad. Affs, believe it or not, are very frequently not topical. When debating as the negative, understand that my opinions about this argument are situated on the very furthest ends of the spectrum from each other. Either you will debate T beautifully and meaningfully and I will reward you, or you will text-to-speech bot straight down the same recycled topicality blocks from 3 years ago, then kick it in the block, and I will be very sad. Do not put T in the 1NC unless you are prepared for 5 minutes of T in the 2NR. I am tired of wasting flow paper on T arguments that get conceded in the 1NR. If this is your current strategy, its a skill issue. Be better.

T - USFG

FW walks a fine line between two extremes. T - USFG has its roots in exclusion. It is important to recognize this for both the kritikal teams that are responding to it and the negative teams who are reading it. However, by no means do I think that T - USFG is evil. I think that it can be used in evil, exclusionary ways, and when it is, then affirmatives should utterly crush it in front of me. I also think that T - USFG is one of the best arguments which exists within debate for testing things like the ability of the aff to shape subjectivities, to alter the state of the academy, and to ensure that relevant, transformative kaffs are able to succeed in shaping the debate space. In contrast, ridiculous, abusive, or otherwise non-transformative kaffs will be filtered out by consistently losing to FW. How this argument is used in your round will decide how I view it. Better yet, don't make me decide at all, just tell me! Judge instruction, people!

DA -

I have literally no opinion on these and literally have only seen 2 good ones all year. mfw no disad ground outside of IPol.

CP -

Oh god. Ok, well lets start with this one. The CP and I have a love-hate relationship. As in, I love to debate the PIC but hate how massively abusive they often are. But who knows, maybe that's why I love it in the first place? Anyways, my unhealthy love-life aside, I feel like aff teams let the neg get away with way too much here. Vice versa, I think that neg teams lack so much ground on this topic, that there's maybe some room here for abuse as a form of counterbalancing. I lean aff on theory and neg on content. Thus, I feel that I'm fairly neutral here due to that fact. Reading 4 conditional counterplans is probably a bad idea in front of me.

K -

(Much of this can be C/A'ed to the KAFF section)

At this point, this is my life. For better or for worse, practically every thought or action that I engage in anymore draws some connection back to K debate. (Yes, believe me, it's just as depressing as it sounds.) I WILL know what you're talking about. I WILL read all of the cards read on this flow. If "judge adaption" is something that your coaches tell you that you need to get better at, you will read a kritik in front of me, and it will make me smile when you do. Because this is the kind of debate that I enjoy the most, (KvK, Policy v K), I plan to invest a bit more time getting into the meat and substance of what a good K debate should look like.

Links

Benefit from being specific to the aff, not just the res (we have kaffs for that, silly)
Are disads unless proven otherwise
Should occupy a large section of the block if you plan to go for the K in the 2NR
Should have good warrants
Should tell me a story about what you think the world looks like
Should probably not be cut from the anarchist library
Are offense against FW

Impacts

Should be resolvable by the alternative
Don't have to be existential to outweigh the impacts of the plan, you just have to be good with the K
Should not have a mile-long K tag

Alternatives

SHOULD NEVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES BE KICKED IN FRONT OF ME OR SO HELP YOU GOD
Probably shouldn't be fiated

Outside of subpoint 1., my opinions here are much more elaborate.

What does your alt advocate for? If you can't tell me in clear terms, good luck.

If you advocate for some form of anarchism, you will need to overcome a very high threshold for victory. Do this by giving me a clear line of material praxis for overcoming the state, a coherent theory of power, as well as specific indicts to the state itself. Anarchist theories of power are extremely weak, immature, and genuinely just silly 99% of the time. Ultimately, if your K relies on reverting to anarchism to solve for your impacts, then it's definitely utopian and also most certainly could not solve for your impacts in the real world.

Speaker Points --

Guide Scale

0-27.4 -- You messed up big-time. Never do whatever I told you not to do again.

27.5-27.8 -- You had a rough round. If this is you, I would seriously think about the feedback that I gave. Ask questions. It doesn't mean you should quit the activity, but it does mean that you need to go back and do some work with your coaches.

27.9 -- You had a just-below-bare-minimum round. You're getting there though. Numbers like these are ones that will come up with practice. Believe me, mine did.

28.0-28.2 -- You did decently, perhaps not to my standard, but its not something to cry in the back seat of the car about. You showed up, read blocks straight down, had a probably sub-par cross, and probably just had an average debate.

28.3-28.4 -- You had a debate. This is true neutral for me. 60% of debaters that I see will fall in this range. You probably aren't going to get a speaker award at this tournament, but you've got potential, and I definitely think you should stick to it. I look forward to seeing you progress.

28.5-28.7 -- You did pretty good. I see a world where you could possibly get a middle-range speaker ranking at this tournament. I think you could probably move on to break-rounds. All in all, good job. Ask questions. The answers that you'll get will determine between a 28.7 or a 29 in your next round. Save my email, hit me up, keep in contact with me after the tournament. Go eat some chocolate or something. I assume that all debaters who read my paradigm will be in this section or above.

28.8 -- You had a solid round. I'm impressed. I think you'll probably be in the top 12 speakers at this tournament. You should definitely be proud of yourself. Shoot for that 29 next round though, there's probably one or two mistakes that you made that locked you out of that upper tier.

28.9-29 -- You did GREAT. If you got a 28.9, its probably because your partner got the 29 and the tournament didn't let me give you both the same speaks. Very very solid job here. I think that you probably know your stuff. I think that you've probably got really solid skills as a young debater. I think that if you were to quit, the community would genuinely lose someone who could advance or shape it. I think you'll probably be in the top 7-10 speakers at this tournament. Good stuff!

29.1-29.3 -- You knocked my socks off. You have changed my standards for novice debate forever and I will never forget your round. Spectacular. I think that you'll probably be in the top 6 speakers at this tournament.

29.4 or higher -- You have probably done something amazing. I've never seen it in action. If you do it, I'll update my paradigm and just, like, write a description of you and your round or something. If you get a 29.4 or higher from me, I genuinely think that you should be winning both top speaker as well as the tournament.

Boosters

+0.1 for any of the following

Beating me to the round room
Bringing me caffeine
Kindness to your fellow debaters
Good post/pre-round banter
Asking for each other's pronouns

Abby Schirmer Marist School

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 2:46 PM EDT

Marist, Atlanta, GA (2015-2019, 2020-Present)
Pace Academy, Atlanta GA (2019-2020)
Stratford Academy, Macon GA (2008-2015)
Michigan State University (2004-2008)

Pronouns- She/Her

Please use email chains. Please add me- abby.schirmer@gmail.com.

Short version- You need to read and defend a plan in front of me. I value clarity (in both a strategic and vocal sense) and strategy. A good strategic aff or neg strat will always win out over something haphazardly put together. Impact your arguments, impact them against your opponents arguments (This is just as true with a critical strategy as it is with a DA, CP, Case Strategy). I like to read evidence during the debate. I usually make decisions pretty quickly. Typically I can see the nexus question of the debate clearly by the 2nr/2ar and when (if) its resolved, its resolved. Don't take it personally.

Long Version:
Case Debate- I like specific case debate. Shows you put in the hard work it takes to research and defeat the aff. I will reward hard work if there is solid Internal link debating. I think case specific disads are also pretty good if well thought out and executed. I like impact turn debates. Cleanly executed ones will usually result in a neg ballot -- messy debates, however, will not.

Disads- Defense and offense should be present, especially in a link turn/impact turn debate. You will only win an impact turn debate if you first have defense against their original disad impacts. I'm willing to vote on defense (at least assign a relatively low probability to a DA in the presence of compelling aff defense). Defense wins championships. Impact calc is important. I think this is a debate that should start early (2ac) and shouldn't end until the debate is over. I don't think the U necessarily controls the direction of the link, but can be persuaded it does if told and explained why that true.

K's- Im better for the K now than i have been in years past. That being said, Im better for security/international relations/neolib based ks than i am for race, gender, psycho, baudrillard etc . I tend to find specific Ks (ie specific to the aff's mechanism/advantages etc) the most appealing. If you're going for a K-- 1) please don't expect me to know weird or specific ultra critical jargon... b/c i probably wont. 2) Cheat- I vote on K tricks all the time (aff don't make me do this). 3) Make the link debate as specific as possible and pull examples straight from the aff's evidence and the debate in general 4) I totally geek out for well explained historical examples that prove your link/impact args. I think getting to weigh the aff is a god given right. Role of the ballot should be a question that gets debated out. What does the ballot mean with in your framework. These debates should NOT be happening in the 2NR/2AR-- they should start as early as possible. I think debates about competing methods are fine. I think floating pics are also fine (unless told otherwise). I think epistemology debates are interesting. K debates need some discussion of an impact-- i do not know what it means to say..."the ZERO POINT OF THE Holocaust." I think having an external impact is also good - turning the case alone, or making their impacts inevitable isn't enough. There also needs to be some articulation of what the alternative does... voting neg doesn't mean that your links go away. I will vote on the perm if its articulated well and if its a reason why plan plus alt would overcome any of the link questions. Link defense needs to accompany these debates.

K affs are fine- you have to have a plan. You should defend that plan. Affs who don't will prob lose to framework. A alot.... and with that we come to:

NonTraditional Teams-
If not defending a plan is your thing, I'm not your judge. I think topical plans are good. I think the aff needs to read a topical plan and defend the action of that topical plan. I don't think using the USFG is an endorsement of its racist, sexist, homophobic or ableist ways. I think affs who debate this way tend to leave zero ground for the negative to engage which defeats the entire point of the activity. I am persuaded by T/Framework in these scenarios. I also think if you've made the good faith effort to engage, then you should be rewarded. These arguments make a little more sense on the negative but I am not compelled by arguments that claim: "you didn't talk about it, so you should lose."

CPs- Defending the SQ is a bold strat. Multiple conditional (or dispo/uncondish) CPs are also fine. Condo is probably good, but i can be persuaded otherwise. Consult away- its arbitrary to hate them in light of the fact that everything else is fine. I lean neg on CP theory. Aff's make sure you perm the CP (and all its planks). Im willing to judge kick the CP for you. If i determine that the CP is not competitive, or that its a worse option - the CP will go away and you'll be left with whatever is left (NBs or Solvency turns etc). This is only true if the AFF says nothing to the contrary. (ie. The aff has to tell me NOT to kick the CP - and win that issue in the debate). I WILL NOT VOTE ON NO NEG FIAT. That argument makes me mad. Of course the neg gets fiat. Don't be absurd.

T- I default to offense/defense type framework, but can be persuaded otherwise. Impact your reasons why I should vote neg. You need to have unique offense on T. K's of T are stupid. I think the aff has to run a topical aff, and K-ing that logic is ridiculous. T isn't racist. RVIs are never ever compelling.... ever.

Theory- I tend to lean neg on theory. Condo- Good. More than two then the aff might have a case to make as to why its bad - i've voted aff on Condo, I've voted neg on condo. Its a debate to be had. Any other theory argument I think is categorically a reason to reject the argument and not the team. I can't figure out a reason why if the aff wins international fiat is bad that means the neg loses - i just think that means the CP goes away.

Remember!!! All of this is just a guide for how you chose your args in round. I will vote on most args if they are argued well and have some sort of an impact. Evidence comparison is also good in my book-- its not done enough and i think its one of the most valuable ways to create an ethos of control with in the debate. Perception is everything, especially if you control the spin of the debate. I will read evidence if i need to-- don't volunteer it and don't give me more than i ask for. I love fun debates, i like people who are nice, i like people who are funny... i will reward you with good points if you are both. Be nice to your partner and your opponents. No need to be a jerk for no reason

Ridah Shanavas Alpharetta HS

Last changed on Wed March 20, 2024 at 5:14 PM EDT

I HAVE ZERO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE EXPLAIN ALL LINKS CLEARLY I WILL NOT DO THE DEBATING FOR YOU

add me to the email chain: ridahvs@gmail.com

THE SHORT:

I enjoy seeing clash in all debates. Please don’t read more off just so you can ‘skimp’ on answering the aff. If the aff isn’t answered well, then there’s no point in having more off. I WILL vote on the aff just bc it wasn’t answered well. That goes for the aff too. The off cases need to be answered well. Or I’m going to have to vote on presumption.

DO NOT DROP ARGUMENTS!!! On top of that GIVE A ROADMAP!! If you don’t, I’m going to flow it on wtv flow I think is best and it might not turn out so well for you. What I weigh is up to you. Tell me EXACTLY how to frame the debate. Although I have experience with debate, I WILL NOT FILL IN GAPS IN YOUR ARGUMENTS! If your args have enough holes in them to sink a ship, then they aren’t winning you anything.

I am fine with heated cross-ex as long as things don’t get out of hand. Remember to be professional and do EXACTLY what you’re supposed to.

AFF

do what u do. read the 1ac clearly, spreading is fine. answer all arguments. And explain why condo or any fiat is unfair and why that means I should vote for u. You can use analytics and reasoning to no link any off case.

OFF CASE:

K: I love seeing k’s, esp when they’re debated well. When they’re not… I’m very reluctant to vote on them. Make sure to explain the links and how the impact and the alt work/happen. You don’t need to win the alternative, if you win a link and FW and explain why this means I should vote on the k, that's sufficient, but the alternative provides another reason why voting k is a good idea. The winner of the ‘framework’ debate will be weighed first. I will ALWAYS weigh the aff first if the neg DOESN’T win framework.

CP: I LOVE a well debated CP and I’m all for voting on sufficiency framing if you tell me why. Planks cps must be debated very well + theory should be answered. DO NOT introduce multiple planks CPs. Two at most, any more than that is playing with fire.

T: Bc T is a theory arg, I will RARELY vote on T UNLESS it’s debated very well. And I mean VERY well. Do not just say the violation and move on, if you’re a T team then you need to spend a whole 5 min on T in the block.

DA: I’m fine with any DA but the DA needs to be proven to have an impx. Keeping a DA around just for the net benefit is not smthing I like.

I absolutely despise bad sportsmanship, take the L with pride. And take the W with dignity. No ragging, fighting, and/or barbed insults during or after the round. All debates should be CLEAN and educational. If there are any insults your speaks will be NONEXISTENT.

Dont call me judge, I WILL BARF. Anything but judge, it makes me sound like some 80 year old man. Also, make sure that you remember that we are all part of a debate community that strives to accomplish the same goal, and that losing just brings you one step closer to winning.

Angel Sosa Pace Academy

Lilly Swann Alpharetta HS None

Kun Tsai North Atlanta High School None

Login to Tabroom

Alpharetta Treasure Hunt

2023 — Alpharetta, GA/US

Novice Policy Paradigm List

Judges