Tabroom.com

Viking Rumble

2023 — Skokie, IL/US

NJDG Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Luis Aburto Solorio Academy High School 4 rounds

Evelyn Alsop Maine East High School 2 rounds

Kailey Cabrera Niles North High School 2 rounds

Dylan Chikko Niles West High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 18, 2024 at 7:11 AM CDT

2/18/2024 update...please read - i am now several years removed from the point when i was actively involved in debate and kept up with the topic. i judge a combined total of around 20 policy/ld debates per season. my exposure to the topic starts and ends with each debate that i judge. my knowledge of the topic on any given season is essentially nonexistent, and my knowledge of post-2018 debate in general is probably diminishing with time. i wouldn't call myself a lay judge by any means, but a few steps above. the safest way to win a debate in front of me is to slow down (not to the point where you aren’t spreading at all, but still a bit more slow than you’d normally speak), and focus on the quality of arguments over quantity. pick a few arguments to explain in depth as opposed to having lots that aren't explained well. line-by-line in the style of "they say...but we say..." will also get you a long way with me...overviews/"embedded clash"...not so much...you can feel free to scrap your pre-written overviews entirely with me. if you want the decision in a debate to come down to the quality of evidence, please make that clear in your speeches because i won't do that on my own (i don't usually open the speech docs anymore, nor do i flow author names/card dates. keeping that in mind, statements like “extend the chikko evidence” with no elaboration whatsoever are meaningless to me, as i won’t have any idea what that specific evidence says without an explanation). i won't vote on arguments that i don't understand, miss because of speed/lack of clarity, etc. - i have voted against teams in the past because they went for arguments that i either couldn’t flow or couldn’t understand, even if they may have “won” those arguments if i’d had them on my flows. attached below is my old paradigm, last updated around mid-2019. it is all still applicable…

my old paradigm:

Happy new year.

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

I don't time anything. Not prep time, not speeches, nothing. If no one is timing your speech and I notice in the middle of it, I'll make you stop whenever I think the right amount of time has passed. The same is true for prep time.

I have no opinions on arguments. I know nothing about the topic whatsoever outside of the rounds I judge. I don't do research and don't cut cards. I'll vote for anything as long as it's grounded in basic reality and not blatantly offensive. Speak slightly less quick with me than you usually would. I'm 60/40 better for policy-oriented debating (just because of my background knowledge, not ideological preference). But I'll vote for anything if it's done well. My biggest pet peeve is inefficiency/wasting time. Please direct all complaints to nathanglancy124@gmail.com. I’m sure he’d love to hear them. Have fun and be nice to your opponents/partner/me.

I'm an Assyrian. A big portion of my life/career as an educator consists of addressing and supporting Assyrian student needs. That influences my thoughts on a lot of real-life topics that regularly end up in debates. That's especially true for debates about foreign policy and equity. So do your research and be mindful of that.

Don't say/do anything in front of me that you wouldn't say/do in front of your teacher.

Feel free to ask me before the round if you have questions about anything.

Shrutik De Northside College Preparatory 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 9, 2024 at 2:31 AM CDT

FOR NOVICE STATES: IF YOU DO NOT SEND ANALYTICS IN THE 1NC/2AC, SPEAKS ARE CAPPED AT 28.5. Not sending in the block or 1AR is fine.

shrutikde93@gmail.com

please add: kaylanfdebate@gmail.com

direct all questions and complaints to WayneTang@aol.com

Non-Negotiables:

add me to the email chain or I WILL dock your speaks to 27.1

Kritikal affirmatives will NOT be read in my round--you may NOT express your identity, EVER!

If I ever catch you stealing even a PICOSECOND of prep time, I WILL talk to your coaches and remove you from the tournament. Stealing prep counts as the time is takes to bring your computer to the podium, sending the documents, time it takes for the document to travel through the internet and land in my inbox, and time it takes for my to open the document, download it, and send it to the rest of my team. If you need to use the restroom, I will take prep time. You should have gone before.

Capitalism is GOOD. I will NOT be convinced otherwise. If you even ATTEMPT to spew that PINKO COMMIE LIBERAL GARBAGE I will contact tabroom and remove you under suspicion of espionage.

How I Judge/Prefs:

Pref me a 1 for every kind of debate (I am extrimeley smartt:)

I was born in the royal house of the Riad and therefore have been surrounded by the wonderful works of critical authors such as Wayne Tang, Brian Roche, Cole Weese, Jack Hightower, ZIDAO WANG (ZIDAO ZIDAO ZIDAO ZIDAO), and Trufnananv.

I am very wealthy (as a result of my genius) and have no time to listen to the grievances of debaters who think economic "inequality" (if everyone would just work hard, they would obviously succeed). If all were up to me, I would prefer debate centers around discussions of how to maintain corporate profits (reverse redistribution would be a prime example). But if you must, I will listen to discussions of economic "inequality". My decision will involve a rating of the socioeconomic setting your school is in (the richer the better, of course) and your ability to explain the benefits of capitalism and the unvaiability of nationalization of the means of production. I will also give a decision based on evidence not introduced into the round and arguments I have written down on flows of the past round I have debated in (possibly from my extremely successful novice year under the Criminal Justice topic (I won our impact calc tournament after school)).

Reasonability is possibly the greatest argument ever created (aside from cap good). I am an extremely reasonable person (my notes above reflect this) and generally agree that if the Affirmative defends the word "fiscal", or "money" they are Topical.

After the round I will ask for a document of all pieces of relevant evidence that will influence my decision. I will permit debaters to add evidence not read in the round that helps their position (especially if it is cap good) and I will thoroughly read through it come to myown conclusions based on said evidence (typically will be that cap is good). If I see the words "CNN", "MSNBC", "The Guardian", "New York Times", or another information source that clearly fabricates lies on a daily basis in a speech document with your school's name on it (regardless of if you read said evidence in the round) I will immediately vote you down and report you to tabroom.

I am especially fond of T-Reverse Federalism versus Dispositionality Turns T debates.

I think Topicality debates that boil down to standards about standard deviations are my favorite to judge.

I am extremely intelligent and am able to adjudicate any kind of debate. My favorite debate is AFF CP vs NEG DA, with the CP being the complex 50 states CP and the DA being the Supreme Court Political Capital Tradeoff DA and the Federalism DA.

Speaker Points:

I determine speaker points based on your outside knowledge of real world happenings. This includes your score on a 50 question MCQ about the principles our President Donald Trump stands for that you have 49 minutes to complete, a random number generator from 1-30, the number of letters in your last name, your ability to use Euler's Theorem to calculate the area of a oblate spheroid to then find the size of the apothem of a three dimensional pentagon, and your ability to explain an auxillary theorem in a minimum of 300 words. This all must be done during your final rebuttal or your speaker points will be capped at 27.

As a genius, I have many thoughts from previous topics I feel are relevant and should be archived in more grand settings, but as the Library of Congress has denied my petition, I submit these thoughts to you as the following:

NATO Topic:

I determine speaker points based on your outside knowledge of real world happenings. This includes your score on a 50 question MCQ about all articles of the North Atlantic Treaty that you have 49 minutes to complete, a random number generator from 1-30, the number of letters in your last name, your ability to use Euler's Theorem to calculate the area of a oblate spheroid to then find the size of the apothem of a three dimensional pentagon, and your ability to explain an auxillary theorem in a minimum of 300 words. This all must be done during your final rebuttal or your speaker points will be capped at 27.

Pursuant to Article 21 of the North Atlantic Treety (novices, it would behove you to memorize the text of every treaty of NATO as that will be very relevant for your speaker points), I will quickly give a decision based on evidence not introduced into the round and arguments I have written down on flows of the past round I have debated in (possibly from the Criminal Justice topic).

Kaylan Faraj Northside College Preparatory 4 rounds

Isa Harrison New Trier High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Sun March 10, 2024 at 11:57 AM CDT

Isa Harrison (she/her), New Trier HS

Please add me to the email chain: Isabellaharrison@gmail.com ntpolicydebate@gmail.com

don't do or say anything racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, or problematic, if you do you will lose and I will tell your coach

Tech>truth

To get high speaks:

1. At the top of the 2nr and 2ar you should give me an overview of why you win the debate

2. Organize your speech by argument

3. In the rebuttals do impact calc (tell me why your impact is better/worse than theirs)

4. Be funny, but not too funny (very small margin for error)

Ask me any questions about the round after!

All the stuff below is just my thoughts on debate which I will ignore if you are winning on a technical level

CPs:

I'll assume judge kick unless argued otherwise, Condo is probably good. If you kick it theory goes away unless it’s condo.

(Process cps)

I don’t love process cps but I will vote for you if you win lol

I love intrinsic perms, I think the neg's best defense is proving their cp is germane to the aff (the process is a key consideration needed for the success of the aff, cards that say the aff needs to be done through the process to specifically promote the process)

I think the lie perm is underutilized against consult type process cps, nobody actually has cards about "genuinity."

I think process cps bad makes sense especially if you point out how the neg is avoiding the case debate and explain how that’s a bad model for debate. But the intrinsic perm is much better.

(pics)

I love pics, they probably aren’t bad. Affs should have offense or key warrents off of every aspect of the plan.

(adv cps)

I love adv cps, new 2ac addons justify new 2nc planks. Explain your planks well, sufficiency framing, and the link to the nb and you’ve got a goated neg strat

Precision determines the predictability, predictable limits > fair limits

I love plan text in a vacuum on the aff, the neg needs a counter interp or I assume the worst. I think more neg teams should go for presumption against ptv when applicable; if their solvency ev says the untopical thing then ptv flows neg.

T comes before theory

Ks:

I ran a few ks (cap, fem ir, biopolitics) but I was never that good at it. I will not vote on something I can’t understand at all but I will try my best to read your stuff and evaluate fairly. I want both teams to instruct me to explain how I should evaluate the debate if they win framework in the context of the neg's links, the perm, and the alt.

K affs:

I don’t like kaffs, especially when it is not obvious what argument the neg could make that would actually negate the aff on a case level.

T-USFG is a true argument so the aff has got to be extremely technical to win. If I don’t know what voting aff means I will vote neg.

I am very convinced by switch side debate, a TVA, or presumption to vote neg.

Nathan Heftman New Trier High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 5:48 AM CDT

Email: nheftman@gmail.com

New Trier 25'

He/him

I will try to be as tech over truth as possible, and I will evaluate the round as such. Exceptions are listed below.

Please do not be mean in the round, don’t physically touch/attack your opponents, don’t use slurs against your opponents, don't clip, generally be friendly people. I will not vote on Racism Good or Death Good, and reading them will result in minimum speaks and an automatic loss, as will doing any of the other actions listed previously in this paragraph.

Topic Thoughts:

When debating a topic like economic inequality, it is important that we all remember that there are real people suffering from the impacts we read in the debate round. This isn’t another topic about the one in a million possibility of a nuclear war, poverty is something many, many people experience every day, and it behooves every debater to be respectful and thoughtful about these issues.

Policy:

Case: On the aff, please know your aff. Especially for the 2AC and 1AR, being able to quickly know what arguments and cards you can field against miscellaneous case arguments both improves your ethos and your time efficiency. Ideally, every part of your affirmative has a strategic use later on in the debate, and knowing how to use your affirmative can be hugely helpful. On the negative, if you know your opponent’s aff better than they do, good on you, you’ll probably be getting good speaks this round if you can translate that into success. Aff specific strategies and arguments are very snazzy too.

Counterplans: I just had a whole year on a topic with no neg ground, so I’m fine with process counterplans, although I’m going to be rolling my eyes if it seems silly. If you actually debate competition well though, good on you. For competition specifically, if you think it’s getting tangled, please clarify your standards. For PIC’s, like disadvantages, the more specific they are to the aff, the better.

Disadvantages: There isn’t much to say. I like them. They’re pretty cool. Explain your links, explain your internal links. Do impact calculus. The more specific your links/the DA as a whole is to the affirmative, the better.

Kritiks: I default to the judge weighing the desirability of the aff or a permutation vs a competitive alternative, but I am open to any other framework that’s debated well. I have done a lot of debating with the Capitalism K, a decent amount with the Psychoanalysis K and Security K, and I probably have a half decent grasp of most other things as well like SetCol, Biopower, etc. If you want to read high theory/pull a snazzy K trick, please articulate it well. Floating PIK’s are fine, but will make me sad and probably lead to low speaks.

Kritikal Aff’s: I’m not a “no plan you lose” judge, but I’m probably not the best person to have in the back if you’re a K Aff. I’m fairly amenable to most K’s but I have done a lot more policy than K. If you get me, please explain things clearly for both sides, especially if it’s K vs K. Check the section about kritiks for my knowledge of the literature. I’m definitely not the best person to pref if you’ve got a tournament that’s good for K’s, but I for sure like to think I’m not the worst.

Topicality: You need to explain and compare your standards and impact for topicality as you would for impact calculus. Plan Text in a Vacuum is not a magic wand you can wave at the negative to make their topicality argument go away, it’s a real standard which I frankly don’t think is half bad. I will vote on it, but you actually need to warrant it out like you would any other interp.

Theory: I will vote on any theory that is debated well enough (A-Z Spec has a very high threshold for being debated well, if you want to go for it, have fun, but know what you’re doing.) If the theory argument IS something silly like Neg Fiat Bad, I’m much more likely to be ok with short responses and new answers if it is blown up later. Standards shouldn’t just be whining, you should articulate your theory standards very clearly, along with all other parts of your argument, as you would with any other. I will give you the ballot on these arguments but unless I genuinely believe the other team has done something abusive, you will probably be getting very low speaks. I default to weighing topicality/neg theory over aff theory, a word from the neg on this will probably cement that point if it comes down to it. For conditionality, infinite condo is good unless debated otherwise, I think dispo is pretty neato.

Cross: Please be chill in cross, it’s totally alright to be intense and a little combative, especially in an activity like debate, but it reflects bad on everyone when there’s unnecessary conflict in cross. If you ask your opponent a question, don’t immediately interrupt them, and conversely, don’t keep talking if your opponent wants to ask another question. I will lower speaks for both of these. Asking “what cards did you read” and the like will count as cross time, and I will start the timer if you ask a question of this variety. Sending out a marked copy before cross is alright, but you better be using the benefits you get from those and talking about their ev.

Novice Policy:

Note: Check policy for my opinions on arguments, this is really more for a couple specific things for novice debate.

To begin, great job checking the paradigm, that’s an excellent habit to get into, and will put you in a better spot for debating, especially against opponents who don’t.

Remember to debate well and be friendly, your opponents are most likely just starting out in high school debate, as are you, so try and build a good relationship. Everyone around you is part of a community, and it's not one any judge takes lightly.

Also, if your varsity gave you this big scary theory folder with things like ASPEC in them and told you to read it, you can, but you sure as heck be able to explain it or I am going to be very very annoyed, and the round will reflect as such.

Middle School:

If you are in middle school, the most important thing you ought to take away from the round is better speaking skills, and a big part of that is being able to respond to opponents arguments with your own. You can read arguments that just pass by without clashing, but arguments that prove a point while disproving opponents are going to be better. As new debaters, I don't expect you all to speak fast or make spectacular analytical arguments, so if you speak well, make arguments that counter your opponents, and use your cross-examination time to the fullest, you will get good speaker points. I really encourage you to write down your opponents arguments (flowing), so you can make arguments that clash against your opponents, and know what to extend into later speeches if you're opponents don't respond to your arguments. Next, concerning background knowledge, if you have an argument that you know but isn't in the packet, you need to explain it very well. If you use so much jargon that your opponents cannot engage you on this point, I'm not going to look favorably on the argument, and if you use so much jargon that I cannot understand it, I literally cannot weigh the argument at all, because I don't know what it means. Lastly, please just be nice people. No judge I know likes to vote for someone who is rude or aggressive during debate, especially cross examination. If you clearly won the debate, you will get my ballot, but if you are rude, don't expect high speaker points. You all are entering the activity, you will be debating with those around if you stick with the activity, and most likely, you will be going to the same school as them as well. Building friendly competition is much better than aggressive rivalry.

P.S. If you tell me a joke when the debate is over, you'll get an extra .1 speaker point. If you find a typo in this paradigm, that’s another .1 speaker pt. (I don’t think there are any but want to make sure.)

June Jack New Trier High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri June 28, 2024 at 4:05 AM CDT

Prefs short---high school debater, down for process and meh for Ks. Super tech>truth except for hypertrolly args. The less of the 1NC that could be read last year the better I am for you.

geographyandnewsnerd@gmail.com
ntpolicydebate@gmail.com if it's a high school round

June Jack (She/They/Zhe). New Trier '25
LD + PF at the bottom.
Yes put me on the chain. I would prefer an email but SpeechDrop is fine. If your docs are verbatimized word, I will probably not get a headache. The farther your email content gets from that, the greater the chance of a headache.
Please email me after the debate for clarification - I'm always happy to explain.
Anything bolded is not up for debate. Anything unbolded can be changed by better technical debating.

I will never vote on ableism / transphobia / homophobia / racism / sexism. I will stop the round if you do something that makes the debate space unsafe.
Ad-Homs or use of slurs / bigotry / misgendering will lead to instant loss, extremely low speaks and I'll email your coach.

Do not read Death Good/Wipeout in front of me UNLESS both teams agree to it beforehand. If the 2NR is 5 minutes of wipeout, the 2AR can spend 5 minutes talking about their favorite tea and I'll vote aff. For every speaker that extends a wipeout/death good arg without permission from their opponent, -2.5 speaks.

Berating your teammate will shred your speaks.

Disclosure is a must. This means verbal aff (unless new) and past 2NRs OR updated wikis. This also means being on time to your room for disclosure. +0.1 speaks for full, working citations, +0.3 for OpenSource that is highlighted (tell me after the debate). Exception for lay / MS debate.
CX is binding. Make sure you are asking questions in your CX. Tag-team CX is fine, as is using it for prep - you don't have to ask me for permission. I don't consider prep time cross to be binding.

PLEASE give me a roadmap
Risk is a %, not black and white.

If the other team has dropped something like T and there's no theory extended, you can stop the round an tell me why. Other team can explain why there's a way out, any way out, they win. Otherwise you win. If you do this and are right, I will give you much higher speaks (29+), and can dedicate the rest of the time to helping the other team. If the other team is right, double 25s for you. If the 2NR drops condo, the 2AR can be 5 seconds of "dropped condo bad because its unfair---dispo solves---vote aff".

Assume I want a card doc unless it's like a condo debate.

--------

I love Impact Turns - the best are ones that are somewhat plausible - prolif good is probably better than ice age but do what makes you happy.

I am very happy to vote for an aff team that kicks the 1AC and goes for a straight turn of a DA.
My favorite 1NCs are either 8 off, 2 off Adv CP Econ DA, or a very specific case strategy that is so good as to make the other term start reading a different aff.

Topicality -
I think PTV as modified by CX is probably the best model.
Reasonability is best framed as a substance crowd-out DA.
ground > predictability > cult of limits.
A T violation that cannot explain why that specific aff is bad for ground should lose to C/I only our aff. Unlike most judges, I think that this is a viable 2AR C/I.
An aff that says "one or more of the following" should lose to aff condo is bad. Aff conditionality was bad!

Theory

I think condo is good up to double digits. I'll still vote on the flow. Models > in-round abuse.

I'm cool for your process CP, as long as you beat the perm.I'm better for a smart functionally intrinsic perm than like 85% of judges - but, it comes down to who wins their model of competition. I often have a higher bar for what is a "function".

Solvency advocates frame theory - rehighlighted 1AC cards or aff specific advocates make me much more lenient to the neg on any theory.

Longer article I wrote on my thoughts on theory.

If you can kick Adv CP planks, each plank (n) counts for 2^n extra advocacies. I have SOME limit to condo, after all

Ks -
I'm pretty left but I also go for cap good and heg good a lot. Do with that what you will.
Turns Case / root cause - yes. Fiat double bind, I would rather not.

I'm much better for Kritiks with alternatives that solve some element of the aff than framework. I'll vote without an alt if there's a technical crush on framework. I think "you link you lose" could win, but its not the best arg for me. I'm good for "we get reps links", and I think philosophical competition is probably not the *best* model for debate but it's interesting.
I went for clash as defense to framework and fairness as the external impact as a 2A vs neg Ks.

Ethics:

Util is truetil until you prove it isn't.
"I default to the assumption that extinction is categorically distinct from even 99% of the human race going away." - David Griffith
Soft left affs are fine but are generally unstrategic unless they kick the aff and go for an impact turn - I have yet to see a good team for for framing in the 2AR.

Counterplans:
I love big Adv CPs that solve all of the affs case while avoiding a DA or a straight turned advantage.

PICs are good.
If you go for some super contrived process CP, at least give me some idea of how you solve the net benefit........
"They dropped Federal Reserve independence solves extinction pandemics terror" is not an explanation. I have a higher bar for process CP INBs then most people, and think they can be devastated in 1NC CX.
I default to judgekick - aff debate against should start in the 1AR at latest.

DAs
PTX DAs - PC DAs are mid. Horsetrading DAs make me happy. Riders make me sad. Floor time makes my eyes sparkle with joy.
Please have turns case in the 1NR. If the 1AR drops turns case, I will protect the 2NR.
5+ 1AR cards usually make a good debate

K Affs - i'll vote for them if they win the flow. I'd like but don't need both teams to have a vision for debate, how arguments evolve and get evaluated over the season, etc.
TVA + SSD + Truth Testing = W
Presumption exists, especially with no ballot key warrant.
2AC K aff w/m means the 2NC can and should read states and politics
I'd prefer clash as with "debate solves the aff better" as a straight turn, but if you want to go for fairness I'm chill with that. Sometimes this is called "Michigan's FW 2.0", for an example see DML's 2023 UMich FW lecture.
revive jurisdiction!!!!
Dogma / advocacy skills / fairness is why their impacts are bad = yay
Fairness double bind = yay?
Fairness is good. What's a warrant? = not yay.

insert rehighligtings--x-----------read them
condo good---x-----------condo bad
cap k -x----------Bataille
clarity + pen time-x---------------------------speed
presumption = less change---x------------presumption goes auto-aff when there's a neg advocacy
read all the cards---x---------------------slow down on the cards
evidence comparison---x----more cards
silly args-----x--win with style

Agree with everything in David's paradigm after -- Can I go for the K/K AFF? --

People who've influenced my thoughts on debate:
Nick Lepp, Tim Freehan, Rockwell Shapiro, Margaret Jones, David Weston, Aaron Vinson, Jeff Buntin, Rafael Pierry, Tim Ellis, Gabe Jankovsky, Arvind Shankar.

"if the 1ac has a song in the back i kinda like that like that's so good. i wish people just did this for fun honestly." - dani roytburg. This includes policy affs. Put on rock or whatever for your hard right aff.

Policy Voting Record:
Econ:
5-6 Policy v Policy
0-1 Policy v K (it was cap)

-----------------------------
LD - I consider this pretty close to one person policy, with perhaps some slightly sillier arguments. Rest of paradigm still applies.

Public Lands
Policy vs Policy --- 0-1
Tricks aff vs Trad --- 1-0
Trad vs Trad --- 0-1
Policy vs Policy + K --- 1-0

I don't know or care that much about LD norms.
Send ev in a document. Before the speech.
Please do LBL.
Probably more open to affs that defend a plan that's resolutional topical.
Performances affs are also fine, T against them is often true.
make the roadmap off-time
spreading good
yes I do flow cross
disclosure is good. lack of it may even be worth a ballot based on the flow. this is good LD disclosure.
silly args--x--win with style
silly args mean phil and paradoxes, not "vote after the 1NC" or "formal clothes theory". Clash is good.
more okay with a tad bit of perfcon than most
PICs---7/10
phil - proud util hack but tech over truth. Util > Rawls > Hobbes > Skep > Virtue > Kant > Rand > dead French guys who use "the Other" that you cannot explain. Only thing LD does better than policy.
I read trixs vs Ks and more people should. Clash-y ones though, not "reject the team"

PF - I come from policy. I'm chill with whatever, including prog stuff / Ks / spreading.
0 PRO - 1 CON Trad on the HSR topic.

To Do: Update K affs section.

Misc things:

Any use of AI or other services to generate random text and use the text as "evidence" is deemed a fabrication of evidence and is a reason for an ethics challenge.
If you think the judge decision in Digital Debate Series #2 Round 3 LASA vs Wichita East was correct or even acceptable, you should strike me.

richard jo New Trier High School 4 rounds

Saad Khan Niles North High School 2 rounds

Won Lee Glenbrook South High School 1 rounds

Santiago Leyva Solorio Academy High School 4 rounds

Hailey Lorence Maine East High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed February 14, 2024 at 5:22 AM CDT

Hailey Lorence, she/her

Maine East '24

Add me to the email chain: hlorence78@gmail.com

CX is a speech please stand up and face the judge :)

Calling me judge or Hailey is fine

I won't take time out of your prep if a team asks for a marked version of the doc, u should give it to them. however, if u need to ask the other team clarification questions after the cross, you do need to take prep for that. If a debater needs to use the restroom that is completely fine, but unless there is a timer running there is absolutely no prepping. I try my best to time speeches, cx, and prep but I am human and do make mistakes, so you are still responsible for timing your own speeches, do not expect me to do so or rely on that.

Do not steal prep, if there is not a speech or prep timer running you should not be prepping, this includes going over strategies with your partner, at this point in the season y'all should already know better, but I'll only start docking points if I have to remind you more than once.

General philosophy: I tend to lean more policy in my argumentation, but that doesn't mean you can't read Ks in front of me. Please just make sure you explain it extra well because I'm likely not that familiar with the literature.

DAs:

I like them as long as they're well thought out. I tend to prefer DAs with strong links, otherwise there's no way for your impacts to happen. That being said, please make sure you tell a story with a DA and contextualize your evidence to the round.

Counterplans:

I tend to lean against perf con, do with that what you will. However, I will need a team to point it out within a round in order for me to vote on it. ALWAYS PERM A COUNTERPLAN!!! Please show me how the perm solves for the counterplan, but as neg tell me why your counterplan avoids an impact and how it solves for the aff. I lean neg on counterplan theory unless it's condo against more than 8 off.

Kritiks:

As a more policy leaning person, I need you to have quite a strong alt and I find it hard to vote for a team without an alt. Please contextualize your links to this specific aff, especially if the other team points out that it's generic. Please make sure there is an impact to your K and that you extend it, otherwise there's no reason to vote for it.

Topicality:

I'm pretty familiar with T and think it's an underused strategy, but that means that you still need to do it well in front of me. Please make sure that you're showing why your standards matter, and contextualize them into this round. Caselists and TVAs are super persuasive. Please also show why fairness or education matters and how that plays into a specific round.

Please be respectful, I will not tolerate anything homophobic, racist, sexist, etc.

—Speaker Points—

Below 26.4: you did something wrong (cheaty/offensive)

26.5-27.5: Below average

27.5-27.9: Average

28-29: Above average

29+: Very good

Raman Mazhankou Niles North High School 3 rounds

Edgar Melero Solorio Academy High School 4 rounds

Emma Mitic Maine East High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 10, 2024 at 10:13 AM EDT

Emma Mitic, she/her

Maine East '25

Add me to the email chain: emitic@s207.org

CX is a speech-- please stand up and face the judge :)

Calling me Judge or Emma is fine

General philosophy: I tend to lean more toward Policy in my argumentation, but that doesn't mean you can't read Ks in front of me just make sure to explain it extremely well and don’t drop case unless u have proper framework.

Obvious rules: Cheating or racist, homophobic, or sexist comments will result in an immediate L and low speaks.

Don't clip cards, please

I won't take time out of your prep if a team asks for a marked version of the doc, u should give it to them. however, if u need to ask the other team clarification questions after the cross, you do need to take prep for that. stealing prep will make you lose speaks. Don't prep after the doc is sent out. If a debater needs to use the bathroom during a round that is totally fine i will, however, most likely ask you to close your computers if nobody in the room is taking prep time. I will do my best to time every speech along with you and keep track of everybody's prep, but I'm human and have made mistakes before so keeping track is never a bad idea.

Generally, my RDFs are short and don't include a lot of debate tips and tricks because I understand that people want to go to their next round or to lunch or whatever, but I do like it when debaters ask me questions after the round, and im happy to answer them. If im answering another team's questions, you don't need to wait if you do not have any additional questions after the RDF.

DA's:

I really like them...as long as they're well thought out. I tend to prefer DAs with strong links, otherwise, there's no way for your impacts to happen. That being said, please make sure you tell a story with a DA and contextualize your evidence to the round.

Counterplans:

I tend to lean against perf con, do with that what you will. However, I will need a team to point it out within a round in order for me to vote on it. ALWAYS PERM A COUNTERPLAN!! Please show me how the perm solves for the counterplan, but as neg tell me why your counterplan avoids an impact and how it solves for the aff. I lean neg on counterplan theory unless it's condo against more than 3-4 off.

Kritiks:

As a more policy-leaning person, I need you to have quite a strong alt and I find it hard to vote for a team without an alt. Please contextualize your links to this specific aff, especially if the other team points out that it's generic. Please make sure there is an impact on your K and that you extend it, otherwise there's no reason to vote for it.

don't run death good k pls

Topicality:

Please make sure that you're showing why your standards matter, and contextualize!! them into this round. Extend your impact throughout. Please also show why fairness or education matters and how that plays into a specific round. Im not 100% familiar w the topic and all its terms yet so explaining terms or interps is never a bad idea. ur interp needs to make logical sense at least a little bit.

Evan Parker Niles North High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 3:20 PM EDT

T/L:

Niles North

Evan

Add both: nilesnorthsp@gmail.com (please name the email chains and documents appropriately)

I will give you +.1 or +.2 speaks for making a joke about someone from NN if it’s funny

+.1 speaks if you show me your flows

Most important thing in novice year: Ask questions. Novice year is all about learning and having fun.

Tech > Truth

Ultimately I don’t think I am a very biased judge and I will vote on literally anything if it is debated well(not as familiar with Ks so explain them a lot more).

Open cross is fine with me but don't take over your partner's cx completely.

Try your best to use all your speech time. I know debate can be stressful but just try your best to give a full speech instead of giving up.

Read Ariel Gabay or Hana Bisevac’s paradigm. I agree with almost all of the things on there and I haven’t judged enough times to have concrete opinions or a good paradigm so take a look at those for a better paradigm from great debaters.

Do these:

Time everything(your speech, other team’s speeches, prep, cx)

Flow—it’s one of the best things you can do

Line by line. It makes flowing and following the debate a lot easier for everyone.

Signpost (tell me what argument you are responding to) and give roadmaps

Put me on email chain without me having to ask and get started on time

Try and tell me what to do (judge instruction) in the last rebuttals so I can minimize judge intervention.

Don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. Will result in L and lowest speaks possible. Debate should be a positive activity so be respectful to everyone.

Don’t steal prep—some judges freak out if you do this so don’t do it. Only prep when the timer is running.

Give an impact to your arguments in the debate round (like not extinction but more like if we win this argument, they have no solvency, no link, etc.). For example: give me an impact on a solvency deficit. (Why does it matter if other countries say no or if it takes longer to do a plan)

Also do impact calc (probability, magnitude, timeframe)

You shouldn’t be reading many cards in the rebuttals. Instead, explain what the cards you read in your earlier speeches say. Look in the evidence and find the warrants of your evidence. Also try and avoid just reading blocks your coaches gave you. It won’t impact my decision or speaks but it will help you learn. Do storytelling and explain your argument in detail.

Be clear. I don’t want to have to clear you but I will have to for your own good because I need to be able to hear the arguments.

Don't read a K aff novices.

Most theory is a reason to reject the argument (except condo) but spend 5 minutes on theory in the 2ar/2nr if you are going for it and I could be swayed.

Everything else is mostly up to you. Have fun and be confident!

Cynthia Perez Solorio Academy High School 4 rounds

Finn Pluta New Trier High School 4 rounds

Marnin Rashid New Trier High School

Dev Shah Niles North High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu April 4, 2024 at 2:21 PM CDT

T/L:

Niles North

Dev—he/him

Add both: nilesnorthsp@gmail.com and nilesnorthdocs@gmail.com(please name the email chains and documents appropriately)

This paradigm is designed for novices so if you aren't a novice just read Ariel Gabay or Hana Bisevac’s paradigm. I agree with almost all of the things on there and I haven’t judged enough times to have concrete opinions or a good paradigm so take a look at those for a better paradigm from great debaters.

(Novices only) I will give you +.1 or +.2 speaks for making a joke about someone from NN if it’s funny

(Novices only) +.1 speaks if you show me your flows

Most important thing in novice year: Ask questions. Novice year is all about learning and having fun. Try your best to use all your speech time. I know debate can be stressful but just try your best to give a full speech instead of giving up.

Tech > Truth

Ultimately I don’t think I am a very biased judge and I will vote on literally anything if it is debated well(not as familiar with Ks so explain them a lot more. I am fine voting for them but don't understand them as well).

Open cross is fine with me but don't take over your partner's cx completely.

Do these:

Time everything(your speech, other team’s speeches, prep, cx)

Flow—it’s one of the best things you can do

Line by line. It makes flowing and following the debate a lot easier for everyone.

Signpost(tell me what argument you are responding to) and give roadmaps

Put me on email chain without me having to ask and get started on time

Try and tell me what to do(judge instruction) in the last rebuttals so I can minimize judge intervention.

Don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. Will result in L and lowest speaks possible. Debate should be a positive activity so be respectful to everyone.

Don’t steal prep—some judges freak out if you do this so don’t do it. Only prep when the timer is running.

Give an impact to your arguments in the debate round(like not extinction but more like if we win this argument, they have no solvency, no link, etc.). For example: give me an impact on a solvency deficit. Why does it matter if other countries say no or if it takes longer to do a plan)

Storytelling

Also do impact calc(probability, magnitude, timeframe)

Be clear. I don’t want to have to clear you but I will have to for your own good because I need to be able to hear the arguments.

Don't read a K aff novices.

Most theory is a reason to reject the argument(except condo) but spend 5 minutes on theory in the 2ar/2nr if you are going for it and I could be swayed.

Everything else is mostly up to you. Have fun and be confident!

Daniela Silvio Maine East High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 8, 2024 at 7:59 AM EDT

Email: danielasilvio2007@gmail.com

Please include me in the email chain, thanks. Please make sure the tournament name, round number, and both team codes are in the subject of the email chain.

General/Personal Things -

I am a policy leaning judge, I understand Ks to a certain degree, but I don't understand them in deep way. With that being said, still run whatever you want to run, but at the end of the day, keep in mind what judge is in front of you.

Along those lines, please run things that you are comfortable with, don't try to bite off more than you can chew - you will get too ahead of yourself. Run what you know best - whatever that may be.

I am fine with tag teaming, but at the end of the day, it is still one person's cross-x, so your partner shouldn't be overpowering you. Know what you are doing and show me that you know that you know what your doing, or in worst case scenario, fake it till you make it.
Please stand up during your cross-x, I don't flow cross-x, so I need to be able to hear you.

Please face the judge when you are spreading, or when you are in cross-x - just a personal thing.
A marked version of the doc, excluding a big MARK or a bunch of enters where they cut a card, is prep time.
Don't steal prep, it becomes evident.
Feel free to call me judge, or Daniela, I am fine with either.
Make sure that you are timing your own speeches, and prep time, of course I will be also timing your prep, but at the end of the day, it is still your reasonability.
I am not ok with extensive swearing. A few swear words is ok, and here and there, I don't mind. If it is becoming apparent in every speech - it will tank your speaks. A swear word should not be in every sentence.
I am not ok with sexism, racism, don't say anything transphobic or homophobic. I will end the round, I simply won't hear it, and I won't subject myself or anyone in round to hear it. If you have any questions regarding this, feel free to ask me pre-round.
Make sure that the email chain, with everyone included on it is sent out before the round.
If I say clear, make sure that you clear.

CASE -

If you are AFF, you need to be able defend your AFF in it's entirely, you need to have answers to your cross-x questions, and you need to be able to defend it, and properly extend your impacts, and your advantages across your speeches. Though, with that being said, don't overly cover case, and make sure that you are responding and talking time during your speeches to hit on off case.

CP -

Please say 'Counterplan' - not "Cee-Pee" it's kind of annoying, and it's really just a me thing. If you Perm a CP, please make sure to throughoutly explain how the perm solves better than the actual CP, make sure to flush out the impacts and the Net benefit. If you drop the net benefit, you are losing the CP. Make sure that your CP also links to the aff, if you drop the link, the CP doesn't become a reason for my decision.

If there are multiple perms, make sure that you respond to each one, and clearly state when you are responding to each one.

DA -

Prove how the DA links. If you can't prove that, you just wasted time.

I think DA and Case debates are good as long as the DA scenario makes sense and the line by line is properly executed.

Please don't go for a bad ptx scenario that has no internal link.

Condo/Theory/T -

I am just going to put this all together. They don't all need to be run together - I don't expect them too, but I am going to write about them together. I know that they are all separate arguments. (My paradigm didn't save the first time, and I really don't feel like writing this in full detail all over again. If you are deathly concerned about my thoughts on this deeply, and this goes for any of my stances on any argument, I don't mind to take a minute before the round to answer the questions.)

Don't run condo good/bad unless the neg team exceeds more than 3 CONDITIONAL off case. That is my line of discretion. If you drop one of these three things, whatever that may be in round, it becomes ammo for the other team to point out and use against you.

If you hit T - make sure you have a C/I, preferably with a card. I'm not too picky. No C/I by the time of the 2AC - assume that you probably lost on it if the Neg team goes for it. To win on T you have to prove that the Aff is not topical andexplain why being topical matters.Don't only say "Fairness and Education" those are just words, you need to explain what that means andwhy it's importantto debate.

T is a voter for me!

In the end what really matters is how you extend and frame the theory debate. I will most likely vote for the team that better contextualizes their theory arg.

I'll vote on a dropped theory arg as long as it'sproperly extended.

Ks/K AFFs -

Like I said before, I understand Ks to a certain degree, but at the end of the day, more unique Ks are not my strong suite. I have run and judged and looked into CAP, and Security. I have hit a bunch of K affs while debating, so yes, I am not stupid when it comes to this topic, don't assume that I am. Everyone has a strong suit, and this is not mine.

Make sure that there is FW, a link and an alt. Make sure that this is all defended and not dropped by either team.

will sterbenc Niles North High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue May 7, 2024 at 2:10 PM CDT

niles north '25

he/him

call me whatever

turingtestfanclub@gmail.com

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

Above all else, debate in whatever way you're best at, I'll adapt

Non-Negotiables:

Racism, Sexism, and any other ism in round will be an auto L and an immediate email to your coach, be a decent human being

Make an email chain before the round

Time urself, don't ask me for 63.124186 seconds of prep just say 'start prep' and then say 'stop prep' when ur done. im not that responsible dawg, i will forget and you will use 75.1928 seconds and be mad at me and no one wants that

Clipping = Auto L

Incomprehensible spreading = 27

My Personal Takes:

Anything goes

Tech>>>Truth - if an argument is 'trolly' or 'bad' then disprove it, if you fail to do so, is it really 'trolly' ? I will evaluate all arguments no matter what unless tabroom tells me not to. If your 'A strat' is bad, trolly arguments, I expect you to have a thorough, deep understanding of the arguments. If you get up and start incomprehensibly rambling about stuff your varsity clearly gave to you as a joke, I will assume you are a bad debater who deserves no higher than a 28

I am very flexible with arguments, I have read both a K aff and a policy aff, I go for cheaty process counterplans, K's that no one (including myself) understands, topicality, a disad once in a blue moon, etc, but I’m probably most knowledgeable in K rounds. if you want to try out reading K’s, I can give you really good advice on what to improve

Please flow, I like barely flowed novice year and suffered every round. If u noticeably go off the flow ur speaks r gonna skyrocket

Refer to Addison DiChiera-Kane, Ariel Gabay, Joshua Harrington, Kailey Cabrera or Hana Bisevac's paradigms for things that influenced this paradigm and more in-depth things, they're very smart people who I agree with normally

If you read a k aff novice year your speaks are capped at 26.5. Don’t play w me

Be funny/nice = good speaks

Be good at debate = good speaks

Average speaks from me should be around 28.8 idk how well I'll adhere to this doe

I could care less if you send analytics, u probably should novice year but idc, send your cards obviously

Ask questions! Not asking me questions will make me feel sad and lonely, also, learning something from your round always seems fun

extremely familiar with condo, pretty familiar with competition, not very familiar with T. If your main strategy are any of these things, you need to go slow and do judge instruction!

Have fun in-round!! I hate it when people think the activity is life or death especially when there's no stakes in the novice division

If you go to maine east, new trier, gbn, gbs, niles west, or whitney young, make fun of the upperclassmen on your team for me after the round

Reagan Subeck New Trier High School 4 rounds

Skye Warner New Trier High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Sun June 30, 2024 at 1:48 PM CDT

20250944@student.nths.net - New Trier ‘25 - they/she/he

tldr:

Be kind, above all.
Tech > truth, except in certain circumstances below
Explain your violation and impacts under theory
you should probably strike me in a K aff debate
My tech > truth ideology peaks in T
explain your Ks
CPs + DAs are chill
I won't vote on death good
constructives are for constructing, rebuttals are for rebutting
relax. have fun.

people who have significantly impacted my thoughts on debate, in no particular order, include Aaron Vinson, Tim Freehan, Dave Weston, Margaret Jones, Rocky Shapiro, Nick Wilson, CPSW lab leaders, and CFMP lab leaders. do with that what you will

First and foremost:

I will never tolerate racism, sexism, classism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, or general xenophobia. I will email your coach, auto-L, and give you the lowest speaks possible. Debate should be a safe space for people to have fun, not to be attacked. I will stop the round if you do anything that makes the debate space unsafe.

Death good = auto-L, lowest speaks possible, email to your coach. 2Ns, don’t look at this and think ‘but could it be a throwaway?’ Don’t force debaters to deal with that, you have no clue what people are going through and making the debate space violent and unsafe is the antithesis of why I do debate in the first place.

Theory:

In this instance, you really need to explain to me why what they did screwed you over and probably the farthest I get from tech>truth. Why did a neg generic PIC make it so unfair that you should win the round because they ran it? Is 1 condo advocacy that bad? Should your one-sentence hidden aspec be given enough weight to earn a whole ballot? You can win this, but know that the more teams that have won against it, the more the odds are stacked against you. In-round abuse will change this, though. If the neg ran 15+ condo, weaponized perfcon, or ran ten new 2NC CPs with no justification other than ‘condo!’, something like that, run theory and you have a decent shot.

If you're doing a condo 2AR when the neg didn't drop condo, I probably already mentally voted neg.

Case:

I went to camp for 7 weeks and my mom is a prosecutor, so I'd say I know my way around this topic. As a result, you can get away with less explanation of your aff, and I'll err on the side of Googling it if I don't know the terms you're using in return :)

I'm a 2N, but I also see no way around this if I'm team 1% risk---if the 1AR stands up and tagline extends case, there is now a risk of case. A small risk that a DA should be able to outweigh, but a risk nonetheless. I know a good block case strat when I see one, and if you pull it off I will be extremely impressed, but you need offense, not just defense.

Also, exception to team 1% risk, I will vote on presumption if case is a crush and I can't give the aff more than 5% risk, or if the DA is a crush and I can't give the neg more than 5% risk.

K affs:

I should know what your aff does coming out of the 2AC at maximum, and preferably out of 1AC cx. Especially here, I won't penalize speaks for 2Ns saying 'what is this' and you should respond with something that would be understandable to someone who hasn't read your lit(e.g. don't say 'we advocate for a method of corporeal care', say 'we advocate for creating a space for caring about the condition of humans')

Topicality is capital T true, maybe one of the most true arguments in debate, and both teams know it. Please, act like it. I don’t care whether you go for clash or fairness, as long as you have an impact. Most of the time I go for clash, so if you choose that route, I’m better versed there. I’ll still vote on the flow, so aff teams, you can win.

If you say that your survival hinges on an aff ballot, I will be uncomfortable for the rest of the debate.

But honestly, if you read a k aff, you should probably strike me. I don’t believe that these arguments should be ran in novice debate.

In general, I don’t like these debates, and reading dictionary definitions after a round isn’t that fun. But if an aff is genuinely untopical and you're sure that their strategy against all of your offense will be 'no link', go for it!

Ks:

I default to the judge is a policymaker, the aff can weigh the plan, and the neg gets whatever fiat they want, but can be convinced otherwise with good debating and warrants. I'm more familiar with cap and security, so other Ks need more explanation. Side note, if you use words that wouldn't be recognizable to anyone who hasn't read your literature(like simulacra in Baudrillard) then please explain them in the block, not the 2NR, otherwise the aff's job is much harder.

read me if you’re actually considering running a K: I come from a hyper-policy school. While I don’t think that this biases me against K arguments, I cannot stress enough how much I will not vote on an argument that I don’t understand. I will appreciate it and spend extra time to try to understand it during decision time if you’re clearly trying your best to explain a K to me. but at the end of the day, you should strike me if you’re running high theory K arguments.

pronounce kritik like critic or cricket and I'll boost your speaks +0.2, and ask Len Livshits or Lindsay Ye why.

CP + DA + ! turns:

For process CPs, I’m aff-leaning on perms, and neg-leaning on theory. For all other CPs, I’m neg-leaning on theory and perms, and aff-leaning on solvency or offense. You need to tell me to judgekick and use sufficiency framing. It’s two sentences and is probably already in your 2NC O/V. If you think that the competition debate is messy, just go to why your standards outweigh theirs(ie- neg bias) and what your standards are.

If your adv CP doesn’t have a solvency advocate, you are the solvency advocate, and I treat the CP’s solvency as such. fyi ;)

100% or 0% risk only exists if the argument was dropped or kicked.

but like...who dislikes adv CP + innovation DA?

2Rs:

Be nice, don't lie, framing my ballot at the beginning of the speech is always a good idea- don't let your opponents decide what the round is about.

Arguments need a claim and warrant in earlier speeches for you to win extending them. eg. ‘CP can’t solve i-law, moving on’ in the 1AR without ‘it’s not a clear signal’ means that I won’t give the 2AR ‘it’s not a clear signal’. I’ll auto-strike new arguments off my flow for the 2AR, so 2Ns, don’t worry. This also goes for the 2NR- you’re not allowed to make up new net benefits or add a fw DA.

This is technically the 1AR, but honestly idk where else to put this- my bar for a warrant in the 1AR is significantly different from the 2AR. For example, states CP(this wouldn't work on the IP topic, if you say this word for word I will be extremely annoyed). If the 1A says the words ‘extend perm do both - looks like federal follow-on so it shields the nb, done by federal funding and state implementation’ and then answers the neg’s reasons why pdb fails, that is all the explanation I need and the 2AR is clear to extend pdb. I’m a 1A, I get it, 1ARs are hard.

If your 2R is less than five sentences and you win, you’re getting a very high 29. If you lose, medium to very low 28. If the 2NR is less than five sentences and is about to win, but the 2AR somehow pulls off something amazing, both speakers are getting high 29s :)

Speaks:

Arguing with your partner will shred your speaks- especially if they're giving the final speech. I don't care if they dropped condo, took 1NR/1AC/1NC(especially 1NC prep can be quite useful, if used well) prep, or went for the thing you think will lose you the debate. You're not helping them nor yourself.

It is very, very, very easy to make me laugh, and this is under the speaks header. Do with that what you will.

I’m a very expressive judge, to the point where if you look at me during the other team’s speech, I’ll probably look back and signal if I buy the argument they’re making or not. Also, I LOVE eye contact during your speeches bc it makes me feel like we’re friends, pls do that and your speaks will look like you’re my friend :)

But I will give high speaks. My baseline is 29, and if you ask post-round I’ll tell you what you got

CX:

Speaking over and then proceeding to repeat exactly what your partner would have said in cx will hurt speaks and almost always what the 1A speaking during 2AC cx or 1N during 2NC cx is like.

Yes open cx, don’t abuse that. The 2N shouldn’t answer all of the questions in 1NC cx.

I will never dock your speaks for asking 'what is this' questions in cross, but it will hurt your ethos if you ask the 1N to explain a core neg generic.

CX is binding, UNLESS the team goes back on what they said immediately and unanimously. Otherwise, you're tied.

I can tell when your varsity just gave you a list of cx questions and told you to ask them, and it’ll hurt your speaks if you do that. Yes, cx is hard, but you need to start out by struggling through it, and ultimately you’ll get way better!

Other:

I’m cool with sending cards in the body of the email.

The more prep time you steal, the less time I have to make my decision, and that favors the team that didn’t steal prep. you’re not just cheating, you’re hurting yourself.

Uncarded arguments are still arguments, but they will probably lose to carded ones. You're a high schooler, 'i’m the solvency advocate' arguments require a LOT of ethos.

Please please please, if you have a blippy 1AC/1NC/2AC, come back from it. This is why I love debate- things can change so quickly and I love being in rounds where people do. your speaks will reflect this, too.

Run what you're cool with, kick what you're not, and make your 2R the best it can be!

glhf :)

current bias:

Policy v policy: 11-9 neg

Policy v K: 1-1

K v policy:

K v K: 1-0 neg

Vivi Webb Glenbrook South High School 1 rounds

Last changed on Tue March 5, 2024 at 3:39 AM CDT

IF YOU ARE READING THIS BEFORE THE ROUND, SET UP THE EMAIL CHAIN NOW AND MAKE SURE THE 1AC IS SENT BEFORE START TIME :)

vivi webb (pronounced vee-vee, not vih-vee). don't call me judge :)

she/her

gbs 2025

add me to the chain - vwdebate@gmail.com , gbsdebatelovesdocs@gmail.com

don't stress, try to relax, and have fun! i know how difficult this activity is and how easy it is to get caught up in worrying about it. at the end of the day, this is a game we're all here to play (and win!) so do your best to enjoy it.

no homophobia, racism, sexism, etc. blatant offenses = stopping the round, giving you 0 speaks and an L. if you make a genuine mistake, apologize and you will most likely be fine (but please hold yourself accountable).

if you have questions about this paradigm or anything debate related before or after the round, please don't hesitate to ask. novice year is all about questions so please please please feel free to approach me with anything (but be respectful, obviously). even the amazing varsity debaters and tournament winners were novices once, so don't be afraid of judgement.

debate thoughts

tech > truth. the exception to this is arguments about death, suicide, or extinction being good. if those arguments are your primary strategy, reconsider. please avoid graphic descriptions of violence/bodily harm/etc. or give trigger warnings.

if you want good speaks and/or the W:

- be kind and respectful to me and your opponents.

- do line-by-line. try not to drop arguments. DON'T BE AFRAID OF CLASH!! IT WILL HELP YOU GET BETTER!!

- flow!!!!!!!! make the effort even if you don't see the point - i promise it is super super beneficial in the long run

- be clear!! make sure i can hear/understand the words you are saying. i will be able to keep up with you in terms of speed but please do not sacrifice clarity for the sake of going fast.if i say "clear", slow down and focus on enunciation/clarity.

- make funny jokes. (specifically, funny jokes about illinois debaters/coaches that you know will get +0.2 speaks.) this is not the same as making fun of your opponents.

- use all your speech time.

- use more than just your blocks, especially in final rebuttals.

- utilize + explain your evidence. also, understand the arguments you are running/making.

good luck :)

Junior Yong Glenbrook South High School 2 rounds

Sara Zarea New Trier High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 8, 2024 at 12:34 PM CDT

She/ her

Nt ‘24

Add me to the chain: sarazareadebate@gmail.com

Toplevel

If you are reading this and do not know how to send out an email chain, now would be a great time to learn

If you say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. Auto L + lowest possible speaks + contacting your coach

Flow! showing me flows after rounds = extra speaks

Try to make my flow as clean and organized as possible

Give a roadmap before your speech and signpost clearly

Time your own prep, Cx, and speeches

I <3 turns on both sides

Talk during all of your speech time, this is a great way to learn

coming up with your own arguments>>>reading your varsity's blocks

I <3 it when you frame my ballot for me and give overviews at the top of rebuttals

Pronouncing “hegemony” and/ or “democracy” correctly = +0.3 pts

Case:

I <3 case debating when it’s done well

I like it when you extrapolate warrants from your cards, compare them with the opponents’, and compare evidence

DAs:

Do clear line by line

I like impact calculus when it’s under 1 minute and impact turns. Tell me clearly why your impact outweighs and why you turn their impact

If you do ev comparison, tell me why UQ does or does not matter in the context of the round

If you’re neg and go for this, give me a clear internal link story in the rebuttals

Counterplans:

Explain why you're textually and functionally competitive, and why you solve all of case

If you're aff, impact the difference between the plan and the counterplan

Topicality:

Do standards debating comparatively, tell me why your standards outweigh the other teams'

Impact out why the aff specifically is bad or good for debate

Kritiks:

Make your link specific to the aff. reference author names and if you can, rehighlight cards

framework makes the game work

CX:

Tag team is fine

Don’t dominate your partner’s Cx and don’t be rude in general, otherwise I will actively deduct your speaker pts

I like it when you ask card-specific Qs and reference authors

—

Pls ask me if you have any questions or are confused about anything after I give my rfd! Debate is a game, so don't get too stressed; the most important thing is that you have fun and learn. policy debate is an activity to be proud of, win or lose :)

Login to Tabroom

Viking Rumble

2023 — Skokie, IL/US

NJDG Paradigm List

Judges