Tabroom.com

Columbia University Invitational 2024 ONLINE

2024 — NSDA Campus, NY/US

Novice LD Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Abrar Ahmed Hire None

Paul Aldrich Woodlands Independent

Last changed on Mon April 22, 2024 at 7:29 AM EDT

Paul Aldrich (he/him) paulLOVESdebate@gmail.com put me on the email chain pretty please.

2 Quick Notes:

1] This paradigm was written in the perspective of judging a VLD round. If you are a VLD debater, you do not have to read this note. If you're a NLD debater, feel free to read whatever you want at whatever speed you want as my preferences and limitations apply to this event much less. If you are from any other debate or speech event, I would advise reading something in front of me that you would read in front of a 2 year old or a parent/lay judge, your choice. I know how arguments work but will have very limited knowledge on argument interaction on a more technical level. If for some reason I am judging a speech event, I will do the best I can to judge it but I will have EXTREMELY limited knowledge on what a good vs bad speech looks like other than how engaged I am.

2] The speed requests (slowing down on analytics) are just that - requests. I'm very quick to yell clear and/or slow if I can't hear or understand what your saying so don't worry too too much about overspeeding.

Obligatory About Me Section -

I'm Paul, I debated for The Woodlands High School from like 2020? (I think) to 2023. Debated mostly theory and weird phil type stuff often with the intention of going for some sort of weird trigger (presumption, permissability, skep, a prioris, etc.). Since judges don't like voting on those though, I frequently altered my strategy based on what the judge would vote on so I've read a bit of everything. I think debate is almost entirely a game with little to no impact on the outside world so have fun with it. That being said I do think there are very real educational benefits to debate because it's the only place you'll get kids to read books about critical postmodern social analysis for fun. I'm also currently learning to be a pilot so if you want to talk about planes or have any cool flying stories don't hesitate to stop me and yap. tbh I'm never in my email at tourneys so if you have any questions about anything just shoot me a text +1 (832) 314-1370

My wiki from my last year debating if you're curious. Ignore the first 3 tournaments, they're locals where I was reading stuff for parent judges - https://opencaselist.com/hsld22/Woodlands/PaAl

Stock

If your A strat is dumping 50 cards on case, I would pref me lower as I am often not very familiar with the topic lit and will likely misunderstand some sort of weird geopolitical item that you under-explain because you assumed I knew it

Read this a bit my junior year and a lot during my senior year but rarely with the idea to actually go for one of the advantages so I know how to evaluate it I just think it's pretty boring which is why I rarely went for it

Please interact your arguments instead of just being debatebot#7593, the amount of times I've watched good debaters read "1AR - AT - Econ DA" against a disad that doesn't link is unfortunately high

T is probably the theory position where I'm the most neutral on, so feel free to read your spec affs if you want just be ready for a theory debate

Don't really have any other strong opinions with Util debates

If I can't explain the link chain back to you I can't vote on it

30% chance I'll fall asleep during your round if it's util v util because they're a snoozefest

Phil

Pretty decent for this like a solid 7/10

I really like phil just didn't read it in round very much. Read it a bunch out of round though so I will probably understand most types of phil.

Please relax on reading like 20 analytics in 5 seconds tho; im decent at flowing but I only judge like once per month or so and I really hate backflowing off the doc

You need to explain how I should be evaluating a meta-ethic, just saying you're winning the meta-ethic doesn't tell me if it takes out their whole framework or if I should only be evaluating parts of it

I love strategic concessions on the framework debate

Phil I've read - Kant, Hobbes, Prag, Agonism, Skep (LOL), Levinas, Plato, basically most of your LD phil

Kritiks

Worlds okay-est K Judge

Overexplaining is going to be your best friend here

Most of these debates need to have more weighing in front of me than you might expect in front of a K hack judge

ROB or ROJ should explain why judges should care about your Kritik over anything else or at the very least over your opponents framing, not just why it's good for academia

If this is your a-strat I highly recommend either reading the simplest version of your Kritik or explaining it to me like I'm stupid - I've read my fair share of K debate lit but these days I feel like every K is trying to be something new and it hurts my brain

If I can't explain it back to you I can't vote on it

I already have this under "Theory" but "X is an independent voting issue" is not a warrant

Theory

thumbs up

Read a lot of this throughout my career

please please please please do not forget to add paradigm issues into your shells. I have now had to vote down several debaters because they either didn't read paradigm issues or dropped them after the 1AC/1NC and each time has made me more sad than the last

Weighing is your best friend here - weigh impacts, weigh standards, weigh paradigm issues, weigh warrants, weigh everything

If you're going to read a fully doc'd out 1AR or 2NR on a shell please slow down a little or at least pause between standards. I judge fairly often but haven't practiced flowing in like a billion years so cut me some slack on 8,000 analytics with no breathing in between.

Pretty comfortable voting on most forms of theory as long as it's not impossible for them to meet - friv is funny but I'll have a hard time voting on it

I'll vote on almost any impact but you have to warrant why that impact means I should be voting on it. "X is an independent voting issue" is not a warrant

Tricks

I will and have voted on these and really like most forms of tricks, but they still need the good 'ol claim warrant and impact - "they conceded the 24 point on the underview" doesn't tell me why I should be voting for you

Tricks are fine but building your entire strategy around your opponent dropping a trick is kinda meh because the 1AR's where the only offense is "they conceded eval gg" are incredibly underwhelming/disappointing

Other than that tricks are a little funny and I'll vote on anything that has a warrant

Please don't read tricks in front of me just because you think I'll like them. Bad tricks debates are BAD

Speaker Points

I generally give pretty high speaks with few caveats. For kritiks I tend to find I give higher speaks to those who favor simple, over-explaination as opposed to technical jargon. For most everything else I tend to give higher speaks to technical skill.

Caveat #1:

Killing novices - I'm okay with you reading almost anything against a novice if and only if you think you can explain it well enough for a novice to generate substantive responses to it. Novice beatdowns aren't fun for anyone and I will take your speaks down in accordance with how bad it is. I'm a-okay with you sitting down early against a novice especially if you're overwhelmingly winning. I will always evaluate the win/loss based on the flow.If you are generally a nice person to them you won't get your speaks docked often even if you read something garbage.

Caveat #2:

I hope this isn't something I need to put in writing but anything genuinely racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. = L 25

Caveat #3:

Every speech you give that has a theory shell in it that does not have paradigm issues in it is taking your speaks down 1pt. I'm genuinely going to lose my mind if another person wins a shell but has no paradigm issues on it.

Any questions about my paradigm or if you just want to chat about debate in general feel free to email me at any time.

Good Luck! One Love <3

Jouseline Alvarez Harrison

Last changed on Sun January 28, 2024 at 1:11 PM EDT

Hello, I am Jouseline Alvarez I attend Harrison High School and I quite enjoy the formatting. I debated both my freshman and sophomore year and I am now a junior. Below are my personal opinions and how I look at the round however I will evaluate any argument that has a clear claim, warrant, and impact. Another personal belief is that debate is not a game, but an educational space for people to yes compete but also express themselves. Be respectful if anything and add me to the email chain: jouselinealvarez@gmail.com

Shortcut:

Ks/K Affs/Non-T Affs - 1

Trad - 2

LARP/T - 3/4 **READ THE BREAKDOWN**

Theory - 4 minus

White Phil - 4/5 (Your typical Kant business)

Tricks - nah, strike

Extinction impacts - boring

Ways to make the round good --> good speaks!

Clashing with your opponent
Having a clear understanding of your case and extending
Being clear
Time yourself
Making the round a little fun and silly

Kritiks: I freaking love Ks etc, I'm more than comfortable evaluating almost any K position as long as the links and alt are well explained. Performance is awesome and probably my favorite form of debate. However, do not just read this because I like it if you don't know your stuff because you might get roasted...

Trad: I prefer trad a lot of styles of debate. If this is what you feel the most comfortable with then go ahead. Although it can get quite boring it might be really fun if debaters use more creative arguments than just the same arguments everyone reads.

Interesting Phil: Complicated stuff Phil is probably something I would not be great at evaluating, and a lot of debaters really don't explain their arguments quite enough for me to feel comfortable voting on this. That being said, I am not an expert in many phil positions, so run these at your own discretion, and thoroughly explain the philosophy, especially if it's dense.

LARP/T: Big fan of the CP-DA game, PICs can be very clever as well. What I do NOT enjoy are long link chains that impact out to util extinction scenarios, especially since util is like kinda racist. BUT, I will evaluate them, just know it's not my favorite thing by far. T is interesting, if there are real warrants for a violation, of course run it and I will evaluate. I'm even somewhat tolerant of clever T shells that aren't frivolous when I'm in a silly goofy mood. But, if you're reading T against a non-T Aff, it's kinda like slapping someone who said they are being slapped. Granted, if the shell is completely dropped, I will evaluate. There's tons of great ways to respond to non-T Affs that I'd be happy to share if you chuck me an email!

Theory: You know when you're reading a shell just to waste time, and so do I, so basic theory shells like disclosure are fine, but once you start getting into frivolous theory shells (or friv th) like shoelace theory, I become less tolerant. While I understand the basics of theory and how it functions on the flow, I do NOT necessarily enjoy hearing rounds that devolve to theory... If there is a real violation then go ahead! I support it fully.

Whitey Phil: I will evaluate any argument I can understand (please pick up on the staleness of this sentence). I had experience hitting these positions, but I never ran them myself, so my understanding is limited. I'm not a fan of a priori knowledge, I don't particularly like evaluating it. I think Kant was racist (probably because he was) and hearing the words of a racist spread throughout debate rounds is not it.

Tricks: Strike me. While I understand and can appreciate how goofy some tricks are, they are uneducational and I will not tolerate them. Additionally, many tricks are ableist or racist, some (if you're lucky) are both! I'll vote for any argument made against them almost immediately, if your opponent reads one please take advantage of the easy W and roast them. If tricks "magically" manage to sneak their way into the round, I will not evaluate them. I won't tank your speaks, but you won't win from them. I say we leave tricks to magicians.

PF:

I'm pretty new to Public Forum (or PoFo, as my West Coast friends like to call it), but I have a lot of experience and success in traditional LD debate, which I've been told has some similarities. I've judged one tournament of middle schoolers, so that's my experience. I suppose to be clear, persuasive, sign post, and give a clear ballot story! Also keep in mind the only PF I have ever judged is middle schoolers.

As a brief underview:

You get good speaks by being clear and respectful while also demonstrating a clear understanding of what has happened in round
You will get low speaks and perhaps dropped if you are any type of offensive, I have a low tolerance. Obviously, mistakes are alright we all learn!
Credits to Charles for the stolen paradigm

Elizabeth Barber Phillips Exeter Academy

Amy Bourque Horace Greeley HS

Mckenna Brown Clear Springs High School

Last changed on Fri January 26, 2024 at 10:46 AM EDT

Hey guys! Just a little background on me, I was a debater all four years of high school and competed mainly in Public Forum, Worlds Schools and Extemp. I love watching speech and debate rounds, and I just want to make sure everyones having a good time while in round. It can get stressful and overwhelming, but make sure that you're enjoying it. I'm a very relaxed judge, make sure you are respectful to your opponents and everyone in the room. I just want to make sure everyone is having fun while in round, so just remember to not take anything personally and have a good time!

Debate:

I’ve spectated a few LD rounds but honestly, I don’t know too much about the debate itself, just keep it respectful and make sure you are clear with your arguments. Make sure to carry your arguments through the debate so I can weigh them at the end.

CX: I don't really know too much about CX to be completely honest, but if you have any theories or K's you wanna throw in the round I'm perfectly fine with that. Just make sure whatever you run you know you are capable of winning with it.

PF: I'm pretty experienced in this debate and I like to see more traditional PF. I'm not really the biggest fan of running K's or theory in public forum, so if you have a regular case please use that instead. I'm not going to be judging you guys too harshly, I think debate should be professional of course, but I want you guys to have fun in the round, making a joke or two in your speeches makes it interesting and enjoyable for everyone. Honestly I don't really care if you want to spread or not, just make sure I can understand you. Carry your arguments throughout the whole debate and make sure they don't get lost in the middle of the round. For rebuttals, I would like blocks to have sources and I don't mind if you want to do an on or off the clock roadmap, whichever you prefer. In final focus, I like to see crystallization and weighing impacts the most, I want you guys to tell me specifically why you should be winning this round. For CX, I know its fun to grill people but please just keep it respectful. I know debate is stressful but make sure you're also having fun!!

Speech/interp:

Honestly I don't have too many paradigms for speech or interp events other than extemp. I love watching these events and just want you guys to have fun! Don't worry too much about time, of course, try to get your speech to the time that's recommended but I would rather watch someone give a really good performance that's a couple minutes under than watch one that feels like it's dragged on to meet the time limit.

Extemp: Make sure you have a good amount of sources in your speech. I'm not too strict on this event either, honestly just have fun with it, the more interesting you make it the more we'll both enjoy it. My advice is to have a good hook and use this to tie it all together at the end.

Sebastian Cho NYCUDL Dream Team

Jamaly Collado NYCUDL Dream Team

Raunak Dua NYCUDL Dream Team

Last changed on Thu April 18, 2024 at 9:32 AM EDT

Archbishop Mitty ‘21

Wake Forest University '25

Been both a 2N/2A

Done both Policy and LD ( 4 years policy, 1 year LD )

Yes Email Chain: archbishopmittydr[at]gmail.com -- please format the subject As “Tournament Name -- Round # -- Aff School [team code] vs Neg School [team code]. Example: “Berkeley -- Dubs -- AFF Archbishop Mitty DR vs NEG Interlake GQ”

* Updated for Military Presence Topic * -- Arguments in support of zionism or that argue for the ongoing occupation of Palestine will warrant an automatic L and 25 speaks

"Coach for Break Debate: Conflict List---Barrington AC, Carnegie Vanguard LH, Durham SA, Flower Mound AM, Garland LA, L C Anderson LS, L C Anderson NW, Lexington MS, Lynbrook BZ, Lynbrook OM, Monta Vista EY, Oak Ridge AA, Sage Oak Charter AK, Scripps Ranch AS, Southlake Carroll AS, St Agnes EH, Seven Lakes VS."

I find paradigms to be largely useless because no one is ever transparent and 99% of times debaters and judges put way too much value into these things. I could care less about argumentative preferences -- I have coached, judged, and participated in debates where teams have gone for everything from Politics DA, Process CP’s, K’s, Trix, Phil NC’s to T. TLDR: Stick to your guns and you do you.

At the end of the rebuttals -- I start by looking at what the teams have flagged as the most important pieces of offense. 2NRs and 2ARs rarely do enough judge instruction. The best type of RFD is where I don't have to do too much work and I can parrot back to you what the rebuttals said.

I guess I’ll do the thing about argument Preferences (although it would behoove you to stick to what you are good at). In the words of Debnil Sur “Above all, tech substantially outweighs truth. The below are preferences, not rules, and will easily be overturned by good debating. But, since nobody's a blank slate, treat the below as heuristics I use in thinking about debate. Incorporating some can explain my decision and help render one in your favor”.

Speed: Fine -- just make sure you are clear (especially true in the context of e-debate). Yes I will have the doc open, but no I will not be flowing off it -- only what you say will be on my flow.

Insert or Read: All portions of evidence that has already been introduced into the debate get to be inserted. This is a way to provide an incentive for in depth evidence comparison while also creating a strategic incentive to read good quality cards. Any portions of evidence that hasn’t already been introduced into debate should be read.

Paradigm Issues: I will almost always default to an offense defense paradigm -- if you argue about stock issues, I will most likely get bored.

Tech vs Truth: Seems like one of the most asinine things on everyone's paradigm. Obviously if you drop an argument or something on the flow it is considered true, but in a world where another team clashes with you Truth (argument/ev quality) becomes an important tie breaker.

Policy Affs: Do your thing. 1AC’s with 3 minute advantage and framing page is fine, but please do not just make it a bunch of probability indicts have some offensive framing in either an alternative understanding of ethics or a kritik of the way that impact calculuses are framed. Affs with as many impact scenarios stuffed together as possible probably have terrible ev that should be re-highlighted and pointed out.

K Affs: Not dogmatic about whether or not you follow the resolution. Make sure you have offense on framework that isn’t just you exclude our aff. I’m fine for impact turn or counter interp strategies -- just do impact calculus. The easiest way to lose reading a K aff in front of me is just saying buzzwords in the overview without unpacking what the aff does -- I am not scared to say I vote neg on presumption because I don’t know what the aff does. Neg teams debating K affs do whatever you think is best -- just remember impact calculus wins debates. Going for framework is fine, fairness can be an impact, but oftentimes it's a better impact filter, and having something external to fairness will be more persuasive. I've thought about this a little bit more now that I finished my first year of college debate and the 3 most convincing AFF turns to FW are 1] K v K debates good + offense about the model of clash they produce 2] An Indict of the performance of the Negative team that i should evaluate prior to the debate and proof of how violence gets naturalized in debate and 3] A critique of FW that articulates its relationship towards the history of debate and why the negative team shouldn't get to kick out of such baggage.

K v K debates are dope -- make sure you have offense on why the perm doesn’t shield the link.

Topicality: While freshman and sophomore year being my least favourite argument that I dismissed as negative teams whining, it has honestly become one of my favourite arguments in the activity. My senior year I was undefeated going for T-Substantial. I think a lot of teams do not put enough practice into debating teams making it one of the most strategic arguments for neg teams. I probably lean towards competing interps -- reasonability is a defensive argument for filtering how I evaluate interps. 2NR’s and 2AR’s shouldn’t go for every argument on the T page but collapse to one impact and do thorough weighing. I am a huge sucker for a precision 2NR/2AR.

Counterplans: Love em -- go for em. Cheaty Counterplans are cheaty only if you lose the theory debate. Having a solvency advocate or core of topic cards will go a long way to helping you win that debate. No strong predispositions on counterplan theory -- its up to the debaters.

Disads: Yes -- Do them. Not sure what's a good topic DA on this year’s policy topic. I have a soft spot for politics DA with a thick link wall -- just do impact calc. Teams don’t do enough of link turns case analysis that if conceded is just gg.

Kritiks: Despite my reputation as a K hack, I’m pretty agnostic here. My decisions tend to start from the framework debate and this guides how I evaluate the other parts of the flow. This determines the threshold needed for link UQ, whether the aff gets to be weighed, etc. That being said if you impact turn the K -- you can make f/w largely irrelevant. K teams should do more link turns case analysis -- it allows you to short circuit a lot of offense on the case page. If not make sure you make persuasive framing arguments about why the case doesn’t outweigh. If you are aff, your best bet is either to go for a big framework + Extinction outweighs push or just impact turning the K. Not the best for a team that wants to go for link turn and perm because I typically don't tend to find a net benefit to voting aff that the alt doesn't solve.

Theory/Trix: Not my favourite argument in the world, but I will vote on it. I’m pretty neg leaning on conditionality in traditional policy vs policy debates, but have heard some pretty fire kritiks of condo by some K teams. No real dispositions regarding anything else. Theory interps need to be impacted out and have a claim warrant and an impact.

Speaker Points: I’m gonna steal Debnil’s scale which makes a lot of sense to me.

“Note that this assessment is done per-tournament: for calibration, I think a 29.3-29.4 at a finals bid is roughly equivalent to a 28.8-28.9 at an octos bid.

29.5+ — the top speaker at the tournament.

29.3-29.4 — one of the five or ten best speakers at the tournament.

29.1-29.2 — one of the twenty best speakers at the tournament.

28.9-29 — a 75th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would barely clear on points.

28.7-28.8 — a 50th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would not clear on points.

28.3-28.6 — a 25th percentile speaker at the tournament.

28-28.2 — a 10th percentile speaker at the tournament.”

Ev Ethics: Clipping will receive a 25 L. The team going for ev ethics needs recording as proof and must be willing to stake the round on it.

Any other alleged ethics violation, I will ask the team going for the ethics violation whether they would like to stop the debate and stake the round on it. In this case, like Debnil, I will let both teams offer a written defense of their practice and decide based on such defenses. This is important because I feel that this will disincentivize ethical disintegrity, while also letting the accused have a chance to defend themselves (especially when ev ethics has been weaponized against small schools using open ev or otherwise widely circulated ev cut by bigger schools that has a flaw that the debaters didn’t know when receiving the ev). If teams would rather let the debate continue (which would be my preference), I will evaluate it like I would any other theory debate.

David Huang Scarsdale High School

Last changed on Tue April 23, 2024 at 4:07 PM EDT

Hi, I'm David and I debated for Scarsdale '24

I qualified to the TOC 2x, mainly reading phil, theory, and a few Ks. I am extremely bad for policy vs policy.

Put me on the email chain: polarpenguins24 [at] gmail [dot] com

Circuitdebater: https://ld.circuitdebater.org/w/index.php/Library its a super amazing resource for getting started with progressive debate!

Novice LD paradigm:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bK4ByBl9-xCtH6J50CEL2v9ufWIxro1h-XP9oywCpXw/edit?usp=sharing

TLDR - tech>>>truth BUT arguments must contain a claim, warrant, and impact for me to vote on it, even when being extended. I'll be slightly more leniant for the 1ar and 2ar otherwise affirming would not be possible. I don't like implicit clash and am skeptical of the legitimacy new cross apps.

I'll try to conform mostly to the assumptions that both debaters make about the implication of arguments (paradigm issues, X is repugnant=dtd, nuke war=extinction) because it seems the least interventionist. I will (ambivalently) default to fairness & education being voters only if it is excessively clear both debaters are making that assumption. These defaults can be changed by saying "no warrant." dont make me default.

I'm bad at flowing if you're unclear or too fast - if i say clear or slow please repeat what you said esp if it's important since i probably already missed arguments.

Quick prefs

phil: 1

Theory: 1

T: 2

policy v policy: 4-strike

policy v anything else: 2

Ks (pomo and identity/material): 2-4 depending how its read

security/IR K: strike

tricks: 2

Phil

- did this most as a debater

- wont vote on presumption/permissibility unless explicitly triggered or round is irresolvable, default presumption affirms permiss negates

- win a central claim & implicate e.g. naturalism vs nonnaturalism, internalism or constitutivism or externalism, realist or antirealist, consequentialist vs deontological vs aretaic

- hybrid phil/k is cool if debating a k

- have a defense of humanism/ideal theory if you are reading it

Policy

- dont larp v larp in front of me pls

- i do not understand cp competition

- textual competition is lowk fake

- judgekick valid under TT paradigm but not as much for CW

- cool impact turns are good, i'm open to literally any including extinction and death good.

- advantages just feel wrong i dont think we're gonna die if we do nothing but the ev is what it is ig

Kritik

- this is cool, i've thought of phil v k the most

- saying "independent voter" does not make it one

- lbl>ov

- do k fwk debate or u lose

- i dislike rejection/refusal alts unless actually grounded in the lit

- a lot of cards just don't have a warrant, good evidence goes a long way. if your opponent tells me to read your evidence and it says nothing i will have to disregard it

- dont combine a lot of theories of power and j go for one in the 2nr. either maintain your weird combination or only read one thesis claim.

- performance is fine, but i have a much higher standard for framing in these debates, explain how to engage

- link wall = ur cool

- non t is fine, but if you're impact turning tfw you need a really clear explanation, and slow down please, I will probably have no idea what the impact turn is if you blitz through your blocks. I am probably biased towards framework espeically when there's a compelling tva.

- I know about baudrillard, berardi, virilio, lacanian psychoanalysis, mollow, edelman, warren, heidegger, wilderson, setcol, weheliye, deleuze.

- don't like policy "Ks" like IR, security, empire, i do not know what that means

- i dont like ontology claims when u dont have a psychoanalysis warrant. just say you're making a structural claim

Theory

- will vote on anything

- theres a diff between funny and annoying frivolous theory - e.g. circuitdebater theory vs. must not say X word

- shells must indict practice of reading args, not the validity of args. e.g. must not read 1ar theory legit, dtd, no rvi, ci, highest layer is a shell that proves those paradigm issues are wrong, not that the act of reading those paradigm issues are wrong, meaning I should conclude to not use those paradigm issues, not to drop the debater.

- reasonability, dta, and round abuse are underused

- weigh early

- default to assumptions of both debaters. if i can't tell, like if its a low level or a lay debater then it's dta, no rvi, reasonability. these are changed with a single warrant.

- must still have warrants for paradigm issues

- weigh

- i think semantics is persuasive since i think TT is true

- reading T as TT is chill too

- persuaded by “must not defend implementation” on resolutions that are value statements. An example is "Resolved: Justice requires open borders for human migration" which does not imply the hypothetical implementation of a policy action. Check my JF23 wiki for the T shell and i'll give you high speaks if you give a good 2nr on the shell.

Tricks

- i'm nowhere near a hack. i am happy to not vote on tricks with no warrant at all like tacit ballot conditional.

- I like tricks with warrants like indexicals (read with warrants), skepticism, permissibility triggers, etc.

- tricks must have an implication in the speech where they're introduced

- pretty sus of extemped tricks (im bad at flowing) and hidden tricks

Speaks

- i'll prob average around a 29

- i reward being funny, nice, mean but in a funny and nice enough way, good spreading, not reading off the doc for your entire speech, round vision, efficiency, and demonstrated knowledge w case

Henry Huang Stuyvesant High School

Hans Hubsch Cypress Bay High School None

Lakshika Kamalaganesh Acton-Boxborough Regional High School

Neel Kanamangala Vanguard Debate

Last changed on Sun February 18, 2024 at 9:02 AM CDT

Please use content warnings for content related to SA or self-harm.

Hi! I'm Neel (they/them). I debated at Plano East (TX), starting out in circuit PF and debating circuit LD during my senior year. I now attend Michigan (I don't debate for the school) and would say that I'm somewhat removed from debate.

Yes, put me on the chain - gimmeurcards@gmail.com

Be mindful of how rusty I may be - go slower, explain topic jargon, and all that jazz - it'll be tremendously helpful for how confident I am in my decision and your speaks.

Tech > truth, but a combination is ideal. Don't be rude, because I can also decide that not being mean > tech.

I primarily find/found myself in debates that center around policy or kritikal positions both as a debater and a judge. I'm not very confident in my ability to adjudicate very fast and blippy theory/T, phil, or tricks debates. I'd say I'm a 1 for policy, a 1/2 for the kritik (aff or neg), a 3 for theory/T, and a 4/strike for phil or tricks.

For policy -

Impact turns are fine, but I refuse to listen to death good.

Evidence quality is your best friend in front of me.

I'm probably more open to letting CP theory debates unfold than other judges.

Read more than 1 argument on case please.

For the kritik -

I have a soft spot for cool K-affs, but I'm neutral on framework and all of the iterations you can go for.

Your overviews should have a purpose - apply stuff you say to the LBL and contextualize the things you are saying.

I've been in more debates about identity and the "stock" kritiks than pomo stuff - do with that what you will.

Cool case args are my jam (even presumption is cool).

For T/theory -

CIs, no RVIs, DTA for theory. DTD for T.

Huge fan of disclosure but I feel uncomfortable evaluating other violations sourced outside of round.

I'm very mid for frivolous shells.

Be organized and clear please.

For tricks and phil -

Not a great idea - I probably would barely be able to follow along a Philosophy 101 course.

If you want to read these, SLOW DOWN and number stuff.

Evil demons don't force me to vote aff and I only evaluate debates after the 2AR.

I honestly am just uninterested in 95% of this literature base - sorry.

For PF -

Good for all the progressive stuff and PF speed. I will hold you to a higher standard than most progressive PF judges.

Sticky defense is silly. Extend your arguments.

Turns case arguments are the truth. Probability weighing is fake.

Underutilized arguments and strategies are fun - if you can win the presumption debate or the impact turn, go for it.

Tommy Koh Hire

Dylan McEntyre Clark Independent

Last changed on Fri July 5, 2024 at 6:20 AM EDT

Hi, I’m Dylan (he/any). I competed in PF at James River(‘22) mainly on the VHSL circuit and a few online natcirc tournaments. I was a mediocre debater but I love this activity and my coach (Castelo) is awesome. My email is mcentyredylan89@gmail.com. Reach out if you have any questions or if there’s anything I can do to make the round more accessible.

General

- I evaluate rounds from an offense-defense paradigm and you only need one piece of offense to win. Rounds come down to either A) one piece of offense and who has the best link in or B) two pieces of offense and which outweighs. The difference between these rounds is that round A comes down to link weighing and round B comes down to impact weighing. Either way, all rounds come down to weighing. Saying “we outweigh on magnitude” is not real weighing. Please do the comparative analysis and tell me why your world is preferable over your opponents.

- Judge instruction is the best way to ensure a decent decision. I’ve made bad decisions before and don’t want to again. I will think my decision through and do my best not to intervene because y’all deserve it and I don’t want to think about this round for months.

- All arguments need to be warranted and implicated. A response may be good but it won't matter if you don't tell me what it means for the round and my decision.

Specifics

- Extensions don't need to be super in depth, but you should be extending each part of the argument you collapse on even if it’s functionally conceded.

- There shouldn’t be any brand new analysis in the final speeches.

- If you want an argument to be evaluated then you should say it in each speech with the obvious exception of restating case arguments in rebuttal

Speed?

- I flow by ear and you should not trust me to flow well off a doc. I can keep up with ~275 wpm but not with real spreading

Speaker points

- I give speaker points based on strategy and clarity and tend to be somewhat generous. I start around 28.5 and go up or down from there.

Kritiks

- If you read a K, I need to know who does the alt, what doing the alt actually entails in literal terms, and how the alternative solves the harms outlined in the K.

- Now, my opinion on whether or not Ks work well in PF does not matter at all but I’ll add this..if the rules of the event do not let you specify who does the alt and what doing the alt entails then I don’t think the K is the best strat. Speech times also make it difficult. I think framing and kritikal-esque arguments can work but the specifics of K debate become strange in PF. I think this is probably because the format was designed to not let K debate happen. Are kritikal arguments important? Yes, definitely, but I think they work better in LD and policy.

Theory

- Disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad but I really don’t care if you do either as long as you have cut cards and aren’t a douche.

- If the problem could’ve been solved by contacting tab or your opponents then it’s probably not worth our time. If you contact them and they still violate the interp then go for it but you should have screenshots. You should also be able to clearly explain the in-round implications of the violation.

~~~~~~~~~~~

I’ll disclose my decision and can disclose speaks if you ask. Postround respectfully if you want. I'm here to learn and improve just as much as y'all are.

Anita Natzkova-Zvetkova MAST@FIU

Ashley Nguyen The Chapin School

Fei-Lu Qian Stuyvesant High School

Prachi Sharma Horace Greeley HS

Ravi Sitwala Stuyvesant High School

Nikita Tanguturi NYCUDL Dream Team

Last changed on Tue January 9, 2024 at 11:19 AM EDT

note for toc 23: if you are in the recruiting process for or committed to attending wake forest university or have any affiliation with the current wake debate program, please conflict me.

american heritage palm beach ('21), wake forest university ('24)

put me on the email chain: nikkidebate@gmail.com

tldr: i was very flex & will be fine with whatever you do. debate how you debate best and take this with a grain of salt. i don't think true 'tab' judges exist so i won't say that i am one; debate well and you'll win. if your opponent debates better, they'll win. speaker points are awarded solely for good debating.

important things:

[1] i don't flow off the doc (mostly, sometimes it's early and i am sleepy)

[2] i simply do not care about postrounding - do it if you want but but know i couldn't care less and nothing will change!

[3] taken from sai karavadi: "i will not vote on anything that polices what clothing other debaters are wearing — this is not negotiable and yes, that means i will not vote on shoes theory or formal clothing theory — you can @ me if you want"

[4] don’t be morally repugnant. don't misgender people. no -isms.

[5] "evaluate [part of the debate] after the 1ac" is not a real argument

[6] taken from nigel ward:"have the email chain setup. there is no reason you should be fumbling with an email chain 10 minutes past start time. it makes me seem late and leads to tab (understandably) sending runners to annoy me...and that annoys me. put differently: even if i’m late, have the email chain set up and ready to send upon my arrival."

[7] please say the number along w the speech name (ex: it's 1ac not ac, or 1nc not nc). i switch between ld & policy, so it just helps.

the kritik

if this is your cup of tea, go for it. if it isn’t, please do not subject me to 45 minutes of warren when you don’t know what humanism is.

i'm pretty good with adjudicating these debates and am pretty well read- just read what you want and explain it well. not a big fan of setcol debates where debaters aren't indigenous.

tldr: extend offense, use overviews to your advantage (i flow them) and answer perms well. "k tricks", whatever your interpretation of the term may be, are cool. please clash. have a theory of power and know it well.

win your theory of power, whatever that may be. every kritik is an orientation to the world through a certain lens, and absent winning that orientation, it becomes extremely difficult for me to adjudicate these debates. you should have a clear explanation of this theory of power, not just buzzwords. examples are your friend. the most effective 2nrs on going for the k should collapse.

the link should be specifically implicated to the affirmative and should not rely on loose generics. this does not mean you need to cut a link card to every part of the aff, but rather be clear in your contextualization of the link, and in explaining why that link matters in context of your theory of power. the impacts debate is where i start to filter out offense and would like to see early comparative weighing.

alternative: tell me a) what the alt does, b) how it resolves the links, c) how it solves, d) what the world of the alt looks like. the alt needs to be explicitly extended and explained.

permutations: permutations must be appropriately handled- do not misgroup perms that shouldn't be grouped. dropped perms are easy aff ballots. carded perms (esp from 1nc authors) = i'll bump speaks. explain what the world of the perm looks like - perms should have net benefits- saying "perm do the aff" isn't enough work to win.

performance/non-t affs

you do you. win why the ballot matters, why debate is good/bad, what the aff does, etc. a lot of judges are anti overviews, i do not care so please use overviews. i love these debates, but you will need to do the work to persuade me on why i should vote aff/neg and why your model is good. k affs tell stories, and absent hearing what the story of the aff is, it's going to be really hard for me to actually vote on it.

fwk v non-t affs

it can be smart and strategic- operative word here is "can”. be efficient, answer the aff, compare methods (fwk v k is a methods v methods debate), do work on standards and the counterinterp. good 2nrs on framework make me very happy. i have no bias to either side of these debates; i've been on both sides.

k v k

taken from dylan burke: "these debates often get very messy because they are incredibly shallow. the only thing i have to say in this section is that you should be articulating your theory of power in a very comprehensive way as to a) why it better explains structures that the other team b) why the alternative solves those structures c) why the links make the action that the other team is advocating for bad."

the impact debate to me is just an extension of the methods debate that is inevitable (or at least should be) in any clash of civ round - in these debate, that work should be done early (not just in the 2nr/2ar).

tricks

read them if you want idc, i just have a lower standard for answering things like silly aprioris than you may want me to have. i don’t consider truth testing + an nc like monism to be tricks, i mean blippy, unwarranted, 1 line arguments. "what's an apriori" was cool in 2018, it isn't anymore.

truth testing + nc combo: underrated and i miss it. bring it back.

t/theory

i’m fine with it- do what you would normally do. i have personal opinions on good v bad theory but if it's warranted and extended i’ll evaluate it (except theory arguments that implicate a debater's physical appearance). sending interp/counterinterp texts is probably good and limits the chance i get it down wrong. i default to no rvis, competing interps, drop the arg, and text over spirit. if none of these are arguments, however, i will probably be very unamused.

phil

i was not a phil debater in high school; i am a philosophy major at wake. i’m probably not the world's best judge for evaluating these debates, but as long as you extend offense, impacts, and explain niche terms, i’ll be fine. syllogisms are like stories, so i will hold you to the same level of explanation as any good kritikal aff.

larp/policy

i do policy debate. obviously you can read these arguments i just will be bored lol so do it but do it well. please do not pref me for dense larp v larp rounds if you are incapable of collapsing – most of the times, i will not be able to adjudicate these debates as well as you want me to. weighing is your friend; collapsing is your significant other. i love good recuttings.

taken from ben waldman: "i'm pro-spin but anti-lying, know the difference."

cx (the event)

i go to wake forest and believe in the big tent method. what that means is that i have no ideological preferences as to how you should debate, i just want you to debate in a way that you are comfortable with. i’m a 2a so i love seeing interesting affirmative strategy. basically, do whatever. all the ld kritik and larp stuff above applies but i should be chilling in the back for you to debate how you debate best!

cross-ex

some people can be rude in cx. if that's your thing, i don't care. the exception being if you are a circuit debater debating a novice/someone with vastly less experience than you. in that instance, be nice - it'll hurt your speaks otherwise.

speaks

i currently average a 28.7534 (29 rounds)

28.5 is average; they go up and down from there. "material" speaks boosters are capitalistic and exclusionary in nature, hence my discomfort in offering them.

i'll disclose numerical speaks if asked, but if it's the first question after a decision i will probably roll my eyes.

Asya Taylor NYCUDL Dream Team

Last changed on Fri January 26, 2024 at 9:00 AM CDT

wake 24 | law magnet 20

call me asya, like asia.

pls add me to the chain - asyadebates@gmail.com

be fun/funny/interesting, unless you’re not, then don’t be.

i’d rather watch debates i’m normally in (clash, k debates). i’d also rather be doing things that aren’t judging debates so don’t feel like it’s adapt or die if you wanna do plan things, just know i need more handholding on argument interaction.

defend what you say, hold people responsible for what they say. i’m not here to resolve your personal beef with someone, but i do find myself responsible for making sure this space is maximally safe.

“with high risk comes high reward, etc, etc” -- you win more the more you’re willing to try things you wouldn’t go for, and you can persuade me of most things (not ethnic genocide good, never ethnic genocide good).

i flow, but sometimes not very fast or well. if i’m judging you, assume that i’m in the camp of people who are literally writing down what you’re saying and not always the argument you’re making. i don’t suck at debate, i just have short term memory loss and don’t want to literally miss arguments you’re making.

i can’t flow when people are atrociously unclear, which is like saying “i can’t flow when the debaters are completely silent” because you are effectively saying nothing. i get being nervous though so i try as much as possible to not punish debaters for stuttering or anything else that people traditionally suggest makes someone a "bad speaker"

i’m unclear on why people try to resolve debates in their paradigm - if i could resolve a debate on my own, then i would ask you to send speech docs for the 1ac/1nc and get back to you in thirty.

argument specifics:

-convincing me fairness matters as anything more than an internal link will be difficult.

-if debated equally, i tend to err aff on framework.

-default offense-defense, technical concessions matter - unless someone says they don’t or another frame of evaluation

-won’t judge kick unless told to

-unless the negative is crushing framework, at best i default to weighing the non-idealized version of the plan in most aff v k debates (i.e. i’m unlikely to ‘moot’ the aff)

-don’t really follow docs to be honest, if i’m sus about clipping i certainly will (will dock speaks, won’t drop team unless the other team suggests it)

ask me questions about my paradigm, wake debate/the rks, or my rfd. disagreeing with me is fine, insulting me is not.

LD STUFF:

I evaluate debate like a policy debater that reads k's and read 'larp' or more traditional arguments in high school. I value really good thought out strategies over obfuscating the debate. Debate should be about substantive issues so it's easier to get me to reject the argument and not the team for theory.

please don't ask me for your speaks (uncomfortable), please set up an email chain (not fileshare)

if you need help preffing me, nate kruger gave me this guide:

k - 1

larp - 1

theory (topicality) - 1

phil - 4

tricks/theory - 5

Caitlin Walrath NYCUDL Dream Team

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 10:49 AM EDT

Debate History:

Juan Diego Catholic: 2011-2014 (1N/2A and 1A/2N)

Rowland Hall-St. Marks: 2014-2015 (1A/2N)

University of Michigan: 2015-2019 (1A/2N)

University of Kentucky: 2019-2020 (Assistant Coach)

Wake Forest University: Present (Assistant Coach)

*Please put me on the email chain: caitlinp96@gmail.com - NO POCKETBOXES OR WHATEVER PLEASE AND THANK YOU*

TL;DR: You do you, and I'll flow and judge accordingly. Make smart arguments, be yourself, and have fun. Ask questions if you have them post-round / time permits. I would rather you yell at me (with some degree of respect) and give me the chance to explain why you lost so that you can internalize it rather than you walk away pissed/upset without resolution. An argument = claim + warrant. You may not insert rehighlighted evidence into the record - you have to read it, debate is a communicative activity.

General thoughts: I enjoy debate immensely and I hope to foster that same enjoyment in every debate I judge. With that being said, you should debate how you like to debate and I’ll judge fairly. I will immediately drop a team and give zero speaks if you make this space hostile by making offensive remarks or arguments that make it unsafe for others in the round (to be judged at my discretion). Clipping accusations must have audio or some form of proof. Debaters do not necessarily have to stake the round on an ethics violation. I also believe that debaters need to start listening to each other's arguments more, not just flowing mindlessly - so many debates lose potential nuance and clash because debaters just talk past each other with vague references to the other team's arguments. I can't/won't vote on an argument about something that happened outside the debate. I have no way of falsifying any of this and it's not my role as a judge. This doesn't apply to new affs bad if both teams agree that the aff is new, but if it's a question of misdisclosure, I really wouldn't know what to do (stolen from DML and Goldschlag). *NOTE - if you use sexually explicit language or engage in sexually explicit performances in high school debates, you should strike me. If you think that what you're saying in the debate would not be acceptable to an administrator at a school to hear was said by a high school student to an adult, you should strike me. (stolen from Val)

General K thoughts:

- AT: Do you judge these debates/know what is happening? Yes, its basically all I judge anymore (mostly clash of civs)

- AT: Since you are familiar with our args, do we not have to do any explanation specific to the aff/neg args? No, you obviously need to explain things

- AT: Is it cool if I just read Michigan KM speeches I flowed off youtube? If you are reading typed out copies of someone else's speech, I'm going to want to vote against you and will probably be very grumpy. Debate is a chance for you to show off your skill and talent, not just copy someone's speech you once saw on youtube.

K (Negative) – enjoyable if done well. Make sure the links are specific to the case and cause an impact. Make sure that the alt does something to resolve those impacts and links as well as some aff offense OR have a framework that phases out aff offense and resolves yours. Assume I know nothing about your literature base. Try not to have longer than a 2-minute overview

K (Affirmative) / Framework – probably should have some relation to the resolution otherwise it's easy to be persuaded that by the interp that you need to talk about the resolution. Probably should take some sort of action to resolve whatever the aff is criticizing. I think FW debates are important to have because they force you to question why this space has value and/or what needs to change in said space. Negative teams should prove why the aff destroys fairness and why that is bad. Affirmative teams should have a robust reason why their aff is necessary to resolve certain impacts and why framework is bad. Both teams need a vision of what debate looks like if I sign my ballot aff or neg and why that vision is better than the other side’s. Fairness is an impact and is easily the one I'm most persuaded by, particularly if couched in terms of it being the only impact any individual ballot can solve AND being a question of simply who's model is most debatable (think competing interps).

T is distinct from Framework in these debates in so far as I believe that:

- T is a question of form, not content -- it is fundamentally content neutral because there can be any number of justifications beyond simply just the material consequences of hypothetical enactment for any number of topical affs

- Framework is more a question of why this particular resolution is educationally important to talk about and why the USfg is the essential actor for taking action over these questions

Case – Please, please, please debate the case. I don’t care if you are a K team or a policy team, the case is so important to debate. Most affs are terribly written and you could probably make most advantages have almost zero risk if you spent 15 minutes before round going through aff evidence. Zero risk exists.

CPs – Sure. Negative teams need to prove competition and why they are net beneficial to the aff. Affirmative needs to impact out solvency deficits and/or explain why the perm avoids the net benefit. Affs also must win some form of offense to outweigh a DA (solvency deficits, theory, impact turn to an internal nb/plank of the cp) otherwise I could be persuaded that the risk of neg offense outweighs a risk a da links to the cp, the perm solvency, etc.

DAs – Also love them. Negative teams should tell me the story of the DA through the block and the 2nr. Affirmative teams need to point out logical flaws in the DA and why the aff is a better option. Zero risk exists.

Politics – probably silly, but I’ll vote on it. I could vote on intrinsicness as terminal defense if debated well.

Topicality – You need a counter-interp to win reasonabilty on the aff. I default to competing interpretations if there is no other metric for evaluation.

Theory – the neg has been getting away with murder recently and its incredibly frustrating. Brief thoughts on specific args below:

- cps with a bunch of planks to fiat out of every possible solvency deficit with no solvency advocate = super bad

- 3+ condo with a bunch of conditional planks = bad

- cps that fiat things such as: "Pence and Trump resign peacefully after [x] date to avoid the link to the politics da", "Trump deletes all social media and never says anything bad about the action of the plan ever", "Trump/executive office/other actor decides never to backlash against the plan or attempt to circumvent it" = vomit emoji

- commissions cps = still cheating, but less bad than all the things above

- delay cps = boo

- consult cps = boo (idk if these exist on the immigration topic, but w/e)

- going for theory when you read a new aff = nah fam (with some exceptions)

- 2nr cps (yes this happened recently) = boo

- going for condo when they read 2 or less without conditional planks = boo

- perf con is a reason you get to sever your reps for any perm

- theory probably does not outweigh T unless impacted very early, clearly, and in-depth

Bonus – Speaker Point Outline – I’ll try to follow this very closely (TOC is probably the exception because y'all should be speaking in the 28.5+ category):

(Note: I think this scale reflects general thoughts that are described in more detail in this: http://collegedebateratings.weebly.com/points-scale.html - Thanks Regnier)

29.3 < (greater than 29.3) - Did almost everything I could ask for

29-29.3 – Very, very good

28.8 – 29 – Very good, still makes minor mistakes

28.5 – 28.7 – Pretty good speaker, very clear, probably needs some argument execution changes

28.3 – 28.5 – Good speaker, has some easily identifiable problems

28 – 28.3 – Average varsity policy debater

27-27.9 – Below average

27 > (less than 27) - You did something that was offensive / You didn’t make arguments.

Joe Weideman NYCUDL Dream Team

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 2:52 AM CDT

Iowa City High school 2012-2016

Northwestern University 2016-2020

Northwestern University Coach 2020-???

I want on the email chain: josephweideman01@gmail.com

--I generally know more about policy arguments, but I'm happy to vote for the K/think it is very strategic and usually answered badly.

--In K debates, both sides need to do a much better job of: 1) using examples/contextualizing their offense; 2) debating the other team's argument instead of a caricature of their argument; 3) evidence based debating

--I care a lot about evidence quality. I'll usually read a good chunk of the cards during the debate.

--I think a lot of debates are determined by which team has the better strategic vision/ability to weave the different pieces of a debate together into a win. I do not like having to piece together a debate without instruction from debaters on how to do so.

--I will be very quick to ignore evidence composed of sentence fragments that make no grammatical sense when put together.

--Inserting re-highlighting of the other team's ev is fine, but you must explain what you're inserting/why you think it helps you.

--T-USFG/FW: I think the vitriol with which this argument is approached by many people on both sides of this issue is bordering on the absurd. FW has argumentative merit. So do the answers to FW. Clash is good (If you want to convince me otherwise you'll need to explain what debate is without clash). I care less about fairness gripes. Stop saying things are intrinsic goods and instead use descriptive language to explain why they matter. Aff teams' impact usually outweighs but I consistently vote neg when the aff shotguns offense and fails to answer the neg's defense/tricks and/or because clash turns aff offense.

--I am uninterested in adjudicating personal attacks/arguments about things that happened outside of the debate.

--Conditionality = Good

--T vs Plans: Least favorite type of debate to judge (other than theory debates...maybe). I think evidence quality/predictability matters a lot and its usually silly to put limits above everything else.

--Make choices please.

Alexa Weinmaster Hire

Gilbert Yang Hire

Helen Zhang Cary Academy

Login to Tabroom

Columbia University Invitational 2024 ONLINE

2024 — NSDA Campus, NY/US

Novice LD Paradigm List

Judges