Tabroom.com

Illinois Debate Coaches Association JVNovice State Championship

2024 — Glenview, IL/US

Novice Policy Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Sophia Franco Von Steuben 5 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 9, 2024 at 1:58 AM CDT

I competed for Solorio (policy) for 4 years and am back to debating for Illinois State University (LD+IPDA).

Add me to the email chain: flowerfranco444@gmail.com

Arguments and preferences-

I love k debate. Was I a K debater? No, Conor Cameron wouldn't let me be one. Live out my dreams for me.

Cap- Is probably the root cause to every issue. That doesn't mean I'm always going to vote for it. If you read this you need to have a very specfic alt. Movements and revolutions is way to vague and gets you no where in the round.

Also, I am a product of Conor so I believe that cap is sustainable. Do what you will with this information.

CPs- Love them, they should be in every 1nc. Consult and process CPs aren't the most persuasive but I'm not against them. I prefer agent CPs and advantage CPs. In terms of answering- don't read a billion perms, perm do both is fine unless you explain the other perms in detail.

T- Hate it<3. Kidding, I only hate it if you use it as a time skew. Only read T if you intend on going for it OR are literally put at a disadvantage in the round/aff is untopical. Education> fairness. Debate is an educational activity, if you're not learning, wyd?

Theory-I don't love it<3but its fine if it makes sense. I will not give you a cheap win for it.

K-I was a K debater in my past life. I like K's but explain them!!! Don't just use old blocks and random K lingo that doesn't actually say anything. If you believe in your K, chances are I will too. With that being said, be intentional with what's in your 1nc.

Performance- If you have music playing in the background, explain why it's there. The more I see performance rounds the more I love it. It is so different from traditional debate and I think it is refreshing.

DAs-Should be in every 1nc. Disad turns case>>>>>>

K affs-Not totally experienced in them, willing to listen and learn. If it makes sense to the topic- go for it! If its a K aff that is around every year, try to connect it to the topic as much as possible because I'm less likely to vote for it.

If ur rude in round, ew+u lose+ur automatically ugly.

Luis Aburto Solorio Academy High School 5 rounds

Mawuli Agbefe Jones College Prep 5 rounds

Last changed on Mon January 8, 2024 at 3:53 AM CDT

DONT RUN ENACT EXCLUDES courts in front of me. It’s wrong and absurd. What would a topic excluding the Supreme Court look like on criminal justice topic. The resolution says USFG. Supreme Court part of USFG.

put me on the Email chain. Silvermdc1@gmail.com

IN MOST ROunds I’m not reading every card on the doc because it’s a communicative activity. I’ve learned that often some peoples explanation of their evidence doesn’t line up with what the text says. In a situation where I’m on a panel where the other judges are reading the cards I too will as well.

while you’re speaking I prefer you turn your camera on. Understand if you don’t have bandwidth to support it.

I evaluate disease based/ pandemic based impacts much more seriously now due to ongoing effects of COVID 19. I still believe that debate is a game, educational one however I want to fully acknowledge the serious situation of where we are in our country with policing. I’m sure we can have debates while being tactful and understanding for some folks the issue can be personal.

I'll shake your hand if it's like your last round of high school debate and I so happen to judge it. It's weird to me when a kid tries to shake my hand after a round though. I did it when I was debating and didn't realize how odd it was. Oops.

It's likely that I'll laugh some don't take it personally I laugh all the time and I'm not making fun of you. I'm a human being and have lots of beliefs and feelings about debate but I'm persuadable. I don't flow Cross X obviously but sometimes questions and or answers end up impacting my perception of the round.

Arguments that I like hearing

I love the politics disadvantage, I like strategic counterplans. relevant case arguments, specfic d/as to plans.

Non-traditional AFFs or teams.

I'll listen to K affs or teams that don't affirm the resolution. Honestly though it's not my cup of tea. Over the years debate has been changing and I guess I've changed in some ways with it.

Other stuff

NEW Counterplans in the 2NC I'm not cool with unless the 2AC reads an add on.

SPeaker points
I evaluate how well you answered your opponents arguments, ETHOs, persuasiveness, Humor, STRATEGIC DECISIONS. There are times when one team is clearly more dominant or one student is a superior speaker. That's GREAT!! I'm not going to reward you with speaker points for walloping a weaker team. You're not going to be penalized either but it's clear when you have a challenge and when you just get an easy draw in round.

IF I HAVE NEVER MET YOU BEFORE DON'T EMAIL ME ASKING FOR EVIDENCE FROM ROUNDS I JUDGED

ARGUMENTs I'd rather not hear.
SPARK
WIPEOUT

SCHLAG

Schopenhauer

Arguments I find offensive and refuse to flow
RACISM GOOD
PATRIARCHY GOOD

If we're talking about paradigm I view debate as a game. It's an educational game but a game still. I think most rules are debateable. I think speech times are consistent and not a breakable rule, ad-hominem attacks are not acceptable.

Even if your're not friends with your debate partner treat them respect and please no bickering with them.

I'd prefer if people do an e-mail stream instead of flashing or other methods of sharing evidence.

KRITIKS

I'll listen to your criticism. Few things. I think there needs to be a coherent link story with the affirmative, words or scholarship the affirtmative said in cross-x. Your K will not be a viable strategy in front of me without a link story. It's a very tough hill to win a K in front of me without an Alternative. Debaters have done it before but it's been less than 5 times.

Explain and analyze what the alternative does.
Who does it
How does a world compare post alternative to pre-alternative?

NEgative Framework
Should interpt various words in the resolution
Have clear brightline about why your view of debate is best for education
Address proper forums for critical arguments people make
Have voting issues that explain why your vision of debate is desirable.
I prioritize role of the ballot issues.

PERFORMANCE/POEMS/ Interpretive
I'll entertain it I guess, I'm probaly not the most recceptive though. Explain how you want me to fairly evaluate these concerns. Also consider what type of ground you're leaving your opponent without making them go for reprehensible args like: Patriarchy Good or racism good.

Counterplans
Need to have a solvency advocate
A text
Literature
Can be topical in my mind
Net benefit or D/A to prefer CP to aff

Needs to be some breathing room between Counterplan and plan. PICS are fine however I don't think it's legit to jack someone elses aff and making a minute difference there isn't lit for.
Legitimate Competition

A reason the permutation can't work besides theory arguments.

Theory

DON'T JUST READ THEORY BLOCKS AGAINST Each other. Respond in a line by line fashion to opponents theory args. Dropped arguments are conceded arguments obviously. In a close debate don't assume because you have a blippy quick theory argument it's neccessarily going to win you a debate in front of me if you didn't invest much time in it.

Rebuttals
1. Engage with opponents evidence and arguments.
2. Make contextual differences.
3. Humor is fine but don't try to be funny if you're not.
4. Clarity is preferred over speed. Not telling you to go slow but if I can't coherently understand what you're saying we have a problem. Like if you're unclear or slurr a bunch of words while you're spreading.
5. HAVE FUN! Getting trophies and winning tournaments is cool but I'm more concerned what kind of person you're in the process of becoming. Winning isn't everything.

Topicality

Don't trivialize T. Burden is on the affirmative to prove they are topical. I'll listen to reasonablity or competing Interpretations framework. I don't believe in one more than other and can be persuaded either way. Standards by which to evaluate and voting issues are nice things to have in addition to an Interpretation.

Arguments I like on T that I find have been lost to the wayside.

Reasons to prefer source of dictionary, information about changing language norms and meaning, the usage of the word in soceity currently.

Grammar analysis pertaining to the resolution.

Framers Intent/ Resolution planning arguments

Voting issues you think someone who thinks debate is an educational game would like to hear.

Disadvantages

Link Story that is specific to AFFIRMATIVE.

Impacts that would make a worse world than aff.

Author qualifications matter to me, Sources of your evidence matter to me. How well you're able to explain your claims matter to me. Evidentiary comparison to your opponents authors are saying.

General stylistics things

Some kind of labelling for arguments like numbers or letters before the tags is preferrable. If you have questions feel free to e-mail me. silvermdc1@gmail.com

Ayesha Ahmed Northside College Preparatory 2 rounds None

Aayan Ali Glenbrook South High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu April 18, 2024 at 10:08 AM CDT

Glenbrook South '24

aayanalidebate@gmail.com

Time everything -- speeches, cross ex, prep -- I am not timing for you.

Run whatever you want. Don't care about how many off-case.

The important things here:

Lean slightly NEG in framework debates, but will probably vote aff if the neg doesn’t have good external offense like fairness.
Dropped arguments are true, even if they aren't true in real life, and I'll vote on them.
Reward strategies with deep research with great speaker points.

Theory/topicality:

These debates have an inherent ceiling in terms of how much of your skill they demonstrate. I'm generally receptive to the idea that the never-ending race to the "best for debate" theory interp causes arbitrariness and substance crowd-out.
No strong opinion on the "other issues perm," besides that it's hard to decide a winner if near-evenly debated. Because perm do the CP involves evidence, I prefer that debate.
Theory is a better route than competition for answering most "cheaty" counterplans. This is a controversial take, but if you disagree with me, I implore you to tell me your answer to "nuke China if and only if the plan." I heavily prefer interpretations like "uniform 50 state fiat is bad," or "fiating a non-policy action is bad," over "process CPs bad" or "agent CPs bad."
Default to predictability being the gold standard. It determines what an in-round unfair practice is. Reasonability is not separate from the interps debate nor does it mean T is non-viable. Instead, it’s the impact to predictability, and also reduces the threshold for aff offense on the interp debate.
Evenly debated, I'll probably judge kick, but only if the neg tells me to.
Condo? The number definitely matters. Around 5 or less will always be fine, but it’s hard to tell the aff that they need to prove the aff is a better solution than 15 planks with 30 ways of solving each advantage.

Critiques:

Better for the K on the neg than my high school argument choice may suggest. I don't think it's very hard to defend the 1AC's justifications; state/heg/cap good arguments obliterate most kritiks that boil down to "you did a government."
I'll never create a middle ground framework that the debaters didn't propose. Generally, don't think the middle ground framework makes sense -- a plan's consequences don't trade off with its logic.
Clever permutations and alt theory are underutilized against the cap K. Teams shouldn't have to rejoin "everyone becomes happy communists."
Hard to win "ontological" claims unless there are dropped warrants.

Substance:

The best debates are ones that use more evidence and less unsubstantiated spin.
Default to risk = probability x magnitude.
I care a lot about terminal impacts.
Reverse causality matters. "The IRS is key to democracy" being highlighted in a card doesn't matter if the card doesn't explain why, absent the IRS, democracy wouldn't exist.
I love studying statistics and love debates comparing studies.

Evelyn Alsop Maine East High School 3 rounds

Grant Anderson Northside College Preparatory 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 8, 2024 at 11:33 AM CDT

The most important thing:

The most important part of debate is participation, so if you're going to be a jerk to me, your partner, or your opponents, you will lose speaks. Remember that everyone comes to debate from a different starting point, just because you debated in middle school doesn't mean you are a better person than everyone else. For the other side of that coin, I'll try and be as nice as possible and just remember that one bad round in your second tournament doesn't mean that debate isn't for you or that you should quit. I've found myself there plenty of times but I've always come back to debate, it will be OK.

To all novices I am judging:

If you are reading my paradigm you are doing a good job, I'm probably going to tell you to read it anyway so nice job :).

Onto my actual paradigm:

Yes put me on the chain: goanderson@cps.edu

If you need me to type my email in I might take that as a sign that you didn't read my paradigm, but I understand that tech can be hard sometimes.

FLOW

I've run most args at one point or another. I will be fine with literally whatever, just explain it well.*

Run impact calc and explain your link chain. If you can do line by line that would be great.

Just don't drop arguments, this will literally win you most of your debates, flowing, line by line, and analytics will help you.

*this is mostly true as long as you aren't racist sexist homophobic etc.

PREP:Prep ends when you press save on your word doc or share on your google doc. If you are talking to your partner about anything debate related that isn't a tech problem you should be running prep.

One last thing:Remember to chill out, this is a debate round, you're going to be ok no matter what happens, and the other people in this room are your friends.

PS:If you bring up the 2013 cheese wiz incident at Patty's Birthday Party in North Dakota you will lose the round and I will be telling Wayne Tang about you.

Omar Ansari Niles West High School 5 rounds

Evan Blitz Glenbrook South High School 2 rounds

Rowan Boyle Jones College Prep 5 rounds

Natalee Burkat Von Steuben 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 9, 2024 at 10:41 AM CDT

Hi, I'm Natalee.

She/They pronouns

Currently a college student so if I'm remote in my dorm apologies in advance (I prefer in-person WAY more but I'm at UIUC so what can I do)

ADD ME TO YOUR EMAIL CHAINS PLEASE: nataleemburkat@gmail.com

I don't really care what you run as long as you know about what you're talking about and can debate successfully. (I have no preferences and am comfortable with most if not all policy debate arguments)

Remember confidence is key, so if you think you suck just fake it til you make it. I promise you, you will do just fine :)

BE NICE TO EACH OTHER!!- I will not hesitate to give you a 25 if you are rude to your fellow debaters and/or me. ALSO, Debate should be educational and a safe space for any and all students, so any hateful and discriminatory language will not be tolerated and will result in a 25, an automatic loss, and a report to your coach in speaker notes or in person if I know them.

I'm more of a tech judge, so when it comes to arguments, if the debate is close I will tend to rule on who dropped the least amount of arguments (for aff it'd be dropping case+off, and for neg it'd be dropping case)

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE use all your time. Especially if it's the 1/2NC and 2AC, there is always something you could be adding to your argument/addressing to fill up time.

Also, don't hesitate to ask me any questions-- I am always happy to help at any time >:)

By the way, I will always time you, BUT I would massively prefer if you also timed yourselves as I am terrible at giving 5,3,1 warnings, and then you can pace yourself accordingly: so it's a win-win for both of us :)

DEAR JV/VARSITY: PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE STOP SAYING "# OFF" TELL ME WHICH OFF (K,T,ETC)

If you really feel like knowing my personal thoughts on specific argument types you can take a look here, but don't let my opinions stop you from running what you like running:

(take this with a huge "old-person" grain of salt because I was a 2017-2019 debater and that cemented my opinions significantly)

K affs- Back in my day (you will hear this a lot), K affs were a joke and you'd run them strictly for funsies. K affs of today's age deal with more important topics, so I always enjoy listening to them. HOWEVER, I will not vote on a K aff if you stray far from your base argument. K affs are about committing to the bit--- if you don't bring up the point of your K aff in every speech, you're not going to win. Also, my opinion on K affs is they don't really mesh well in the Policy format, so to be voter they must be done with the utmost strategy to not get bombarded by T for 2 hours and lose. Also, you will not be getting phenomenal feedback on K aff structure because I was strictly policy back in my day and I feel like my opinions on structure are probably outdated and unhelpful unless you have a policy aff.

Ts- A good T or two are fun to run as a neg, however, if you drop everything and go strictly T in the end (disregard if you're neg against a K aff), I will not vote for you. Ts are the weakest neg argument in my opinion because it's just an "Ummm actually" arg and there isn't much depth to it to be a significant voter.

Counterplans (CPs)- I love a good counterplan. It is arguably my favorite neg argument type. If you have a good counterplan you are golden in my eyes, as I feel like logically this makes the most sense to do as a neg. In recent years, CPs have kind of fallen off and people are using Ks as a replacement--- don't use a K like a CP, get a good CP and run it and I'll be overjoyed and you'll probably win, assuming the rest of your argument is sound.

Every other argument I have no strong negative or positive thoughts on.

Issues I constantly see in JV and Varsity:

Aff:

Remember you are the aff, don't let the neg's arguments run the debate, and make sure you are always putting the aff at number one importance and impact calc that with whatever neg throws at you.
Don't drop your own arguments and make sure to pay attention to EVERYTHING the neg says and address it. This sounds like common sense, but it is not.
Something that annoys me: make sure your Solvency has a dedicated Solvency section. I'm an oldie and this new structure throws me off every time I judge and you'll hear me complain about it in feedback every time. Make my life easier and just get a dedicated section so I know for sure you solve.
Make sure to utilize your 2AC well--- the 1NC is probably going to pull whatever they can pull, if something doesn't make sense in regards to your aff, read some answers if you have time, but if not just be like "This doesn't apply" and explain why and I'll give it to you. Valid neg args should always be the main focus of your off section.

Neg:

Treat neg like a stock portfolio--- diversify your arguments, the more the merrier. Overwhelming the aff is the best strategy as neg, because the more time you waste for them the less time they have for their arguments and will probably drop more, which results in a win for you.
Controversial opinion: debate (specifically Policy debate) is a game. As a neg, I encourage you to have as many arguments as possible even if they don't make sense in the 1NC to overwhelm the aff. As long as you have some sound arguments, throw in whatever you want.
Never concede an argument until the end. Keep aff on their toes, even if that won't be your end argument. I recommend keeping your discard argument in smaller and smaller doses so you can get the important stuff read and then concede it in the 2NR to waste the optimal amount of aff time.
Impact calc is your bestie--- if the aff is more harmful than helpful and you have valid arguments to back that up, as long as you push this argument, you will win.

Both sides:

Pay attention to clash. If you are only focused on your argument and not the other teams, it'll be a bad debate and no one will be happy. You always want to directly counter and extend the previous 2 speeches as a rule of thumb. (For example: I'm the 2NC so I'm going to pull my arguments against the 2AC with respect to our extensions of the 1NC and make sure everything is addressed from both flows.)
Stay on track--- the amount of times when a minor argument gets turned in the whole debate appalls me. If you are making arguments, that are not strategic, that don't make sense to link to the aff, don't make them. The 1AC sets the precedent, if the rest of the debate strays, it is not an effective or good debate.
The most important one: quality > quantity. When we get to rebuttals, I often get bombarded with hundreds of random statements about the debate at hand. If those are stand-alone statements, I won't consider them voter. You need to say them, and then apply them to the debate, because arguments are useless without depth. Think about the ICE paragraph structure and apply it to every rebuttal you make.
If you are switching between analytics and cards, announce it. It's much more helpful because it signals to everyone when they need to intently listen, as there's no doc to help with comprehension. That being said, if you do read anything that is not sent in a written and readable format, make sure it is clear and concise, especially the important parts. If I don't hear it, it didn't happen--- so make sure the important parts are extremely clear and distinct.

alex burkman Niles North High School 5 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 6, 2024 at 10:09 AM CDT

pls time ur own speeches and prep pls pls pls

she/they

niles north 25

ADD BOTH EMAILS PLEASE:

alebur3@nilesk12.org

nilesnorthnb@gmail.com

----

call me "alex", not "judge" pls!

tech>truth

clarity>speed

FOR ONLINE: i would strongly prefer if cameras were on, but no worries if not

DONT

isms (racism/sexism/etc)
steal prep
take forever for the email chain (its j a pet peeve of mine pls i understand tech stuggles but pls try and be efficent when sending out stuff)

time your own speeches (i probs am not and it is the debater not judges responsibility anyway)
FLOW.
be respectful!
give a roadmap/signpost ("i am going to be responding to what my opponents said" is NOT a real roadmap!)
keep the debate intresting! debates are long, attention spans are short, have some ethos and confidence, it will go a long way! (esp for speaks...)
impact calc. <3
pretend im not flowing, if your opponent dropped something, tell me (but u should be flowin!)
line by line in rebuttal speeches
judge instruction in the 2NR/2AR goes a LONG way, it helps yall, helps me, tell me how i should write my ballot

MISC:

- i have learned i have very prominent facial reactions, if i look confused i probs am, etc

- be nice, have fun, novice year is all about learning feel free to ask questions after the round :)

- im cool with tag-teaming in CX, but please don't talk over/down to ur partner. if that happens, I will probs dock speaks. there is no reason to be rude in CX, it's obnoxious and embarrassing!

- please overexplain rather than underexplain args- assume i know nothing, overexplain everything

+ 0.1 speaks if you make me laugh or make a FUNNY joke about: anybody from Niles North, New Trier, Lane Tech, GBN, Maine East, or Cali Stoga

+ 0.1 speaks if you show me flows after the round

LASTLYYYY: have fun! debate is all about education and getting better, so don't get too stressed, it is truly never that serious and feel free to email any questions after the round :))))

Kailey Cabrera Niles North High School 5 rounds

Eunji Carpenter Glenbrook North 5 rounds

Winston Chu Glenbrook South High School 4 rounds

Shrutik De Northside College Preparatory 3 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).

Jacob De Rosas Northside College Preparatory 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu March 7, 2024 at 11:49 AM CDT

UPDATED FOR Illinois Nov/JV States:

Stuff:

Hi, I'm Jacob De Rosas. He/him. Call me whatever you'd like.

NCP Class of '25

add me to the chain pls: jderosas@cps.edu

Currently debating policy for Northside College Prep

Policy:

Top Level:

Fine with either Policy or K
I like K's on the neg more than on the aff, but i'm not "bad" for the K on the aff
Tech > Truth

I don't have any huge problems with any argument. I won't get mad at any shenanigans unless they're pointless.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

General:

tech > truth

Policy vs Policy

2. Policy vs K

3. K vs Policy (FW)

4. K vs K ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Policy 1ACs

Make sure the plan is or at least seems topical

Soft Left 1ACs

You must win framing, cuz i can't NOT vote on extinction unless it is won that something else outweighs.

Strongest part is probability in impact calc.

K-Affs

Make sure the 1AC has all of the stock issues.

K v K debates are fun to watch I guess

K v FW debates sometimes get messy -> one team can't just win by reading a billion DAs to the other person's FW -> have defense

Case answers

ANSWER CASE

omg so many rounds i've been in-- case has been left behind and it just lets the aff be like "they totally conceded the ____ impact so yeah" but it could have been easily avoided by reading cards on case.

Also cross apply on case ev with off case positions, and cross apply off case cards on case if necesary.

Concede arguments strategically. - Like conceding a case answer that warming is not an impact - then taking out the other team's warming impact.

Topicality

the aff is probably reasonably topical, so you gotta tell me why they are BAD for debate under your interp- not just whether or not they are topical.

Disads

Most DAs this year are non-unique. If you win an impact outweighs story, i am inclined to vote for ya.

Counterplans

You must win solvency, competition, and a net ben. If not, the cp fails and you've gotta go for something else.

By the way, for the aff, "perms" usually are not literally doing the cp or doing both. They are a test of competition. If I don't have to choose between the cp or the plan -> then the CP is not competitive and I have to vote on the perm. If the CP cannot be done with the plan, and is textually and functionally different than the plan, then you have beaten the perm. Or you can run it as an advocacy and do that but usually you shouldn't have to.

Kritiks

Explain it well, but not TOO well, if you know what I mean. Ks are either super strong, or super weak. Super strong Ks should be fully developed and explained completely throughout the entire debate - like security, to an extent. Weaker high theory Ks, should be sort of fogged up until the 2NR, and be explained throughly in the 2NR.

Ask questions for a purpose.

Make sure to ask clarifying questions. You should be flowing, but missing an argument can be fatal to your chances of winning, especially theory args (reasons to reject the team).

You should never end CX early, even for prep. Your partner should be the one prepping the most right now, since they have the next speech, and you can def ask more questions.

You should try to establish a uq/link/impact/etc in the cx if you can.

I feel like teams severely underutilize cx. Remember, CX IS binding.

Also, don't lie in the CX (unless it's a crazy strategic plan that you've cooked up at 12am). This will come back to bite you if the other team says that your answer was binding.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Speech Tips

1AC - Speak clearly - clarity is not necessarily as important in this speech since all of your cards will be sent anyway - just go fast

1NC - Remember, you don't have to demolish the 2AC with 15 off, you could just read a few, (or even a single K), and you could still win the debate while dodging a pretty clear condo link

2AC - Case should be 2-3 minutes most of the time. ANSWER EVERY SINGLE OFF-CASE ARGUMENT. please

Block (2NC/1NR) - Be strategic - spent most of your time on the 2NR strats. Don't be afraid to kick out of arguments here.

1AR - If your opponent was slow - answer ALL of their args. In most cases, they are super fast. The best way to give a 1AR is to think about it as a pre-2AR. Remember, the 2AR can only use arguments extended in the 1AR. Don't worry if you don't answer EVERY single arg, just extend the best args, and predict what the neg is going for in the 2NR. Also I love seeing people strategically undercovering a terrible argument and getting the neg to fall for the trap. Remember - you can read cards, but no new offensive arguments.

2NR - Tell me why I should vote for you AND why I should not vote for the aff. Literally tell me what I should say after the round, e.g. You vote neg because of conceded _______, which means ________, or _________ outweighs ________ because _________. Also, its pretty important to predict the 2AR. Pretend to be the aff, and see what they are winning on. Cover that argument, and your life will be a lot easier. Also, don't read cards (if the 1AR read cards, extend ur old ones; 1ar cards are usually bleh).

2AR - I mean i really dislike it when 2ARs lie, but I mean its part of the business i guess. Don't lie too much though or else i'll be super suspicious of you. The best arguments are ones where you don't need to lie on - but lie if you must.

For 2nd rebuttals, say "Judge, we win for _____ reasons" then explain.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

For novices or inexperienced debaters (and I guess for better debaters too lol):

i will keep my camera off during the debate, then turn it on during the rfd

low chance i'll say "clear" bc you should already be clear -> if i can't understand what you said, i won't flow it. you should be explaining the important args as best you can through all of your speeches.

i can vote on presumption if I feel like it

if you say anything that is CLEARLY inherently discriminatory, you will get low speaks

clipping is low speaks, auto-loss if the other team points it out.

if you verbally concede, the judge stops their flow so DON'T CONCEDE SOMETHING THEN EXTEND IT

don't be a prick - don't be hyper aggressive and rude - don't be super condescending in cx - don't be a serious grump

be relaxed, but not TOO relaxed - have fun in your rounds - don't be too passive - do whatever you must to win

please come back next year the debate community needs/wants/cares for/[insert persuasive verb here]/etc. you.

All in all, enjoy the activity - if its not for you, i totally get it, but to be completely honest, the first year is pretty boring and you only get to do the fun stuff like travel in your 2nd year - so thats an incentive to stay i guess lol

don't focus on speed your first year (even though it will get super important eventually), focus on 1. Thinking of good arguments on your feet 2. Time management and being able to answer everything in 1 speech 3. Flowing and making sure that you answer everything AND call out dropped (or unanswered) arguments and finally 4. Bonding /w your team - this is also important.

any questions: jderosas@cps.edu

Theory in the 2-R-------------X--------------------------------*groan*

Policy------------X---------------------------------K

Tech-----------------------X-----------------------Truth

Read no cards---------X--------------------------Read all the cards

Conditionality good--X----------------------------Conditionality bad

States CP good-------X---------------------------States CP bad

Politics DA is a thing----------X-------------------Politics DA not a thing

UQ matters most----------------------------X----Link matters most

Limits---------------------------------------X-------Aff ground

Presumption-------------X-------------------------Never votes on presumption

Longer ev--------------X---------------------------More ev

CX about impacts----------------------------X----CX about links and solvency

Aff on process competition-----X----------------------Neg on process competition

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Speaker points:

be funni, clear, and structure your speeches

Kaylan Faraj Northside College Preparatory 2 rounds

Lukas Flynn Kenwood Academy 5 rounds

Tanmay Garg Northside College Preparatory 5 rounds

Rimona Ghosh Walter Payton College Prep 2 rounds

Leah Goldberg Glenbrook North 1 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 2, 2024 at 4:57 PM CDT

GBN '24

leah.debate@gmail.com

I don't think this paradigm will provide you with any relevant insights. Within reason, just debate what you want to debate.

If you care, these are the most important things to keep in mind:

1. Be a good human

2. Flow

3. Tech > truth, but the burden for a full argument is a claim + warrant

4. Debate is a persuasive and communicative activity. At the very least, pretend like you care

5. Do impact comparison

6. I would rather you reason out why their argument is wrong than read blocks you don't understand

Specific thoughts if you're still reading:

DAs:

- This topic has great core disads with expansive lit bases and links to every aff - you can impress me by knowing more about the aff than they do

CPs:

- The existence of actual disads means I have a slightly higher bar for a legitimate CP, but I'm fine with anything you can justify on the flow

- I am getting increasingly frustrated by internal net benefits with ridiculous spillover claims not about the CP - you can likely beat these with analytical pushes

- Paint a picture of your vision of the topic.

- Absent an argument explaining otherwise, I think predictability is the most important internal link because a topic with arbitrary limits is functionally unlimited.

- Might be a hot take but I actually find the T taxes controversy pretty interesting. That being said, I think teams are getting away with making broad, exaggerated claims on both sides of the debate. Just saying "states CP" or "econ DA" isn't an argument.

Ks:

- Without other instruction, I will weigh the world of the aff against the world of the alt by comparing the consequences of each scenario

- If you read anything more complex than cap/security/generic topic ks, you need to be particularly explicit in judge instruction, but that should be true regardless

- In debates with more material alts, the "perm double bind" is often compelling. The less that argument makes sense, the more likely I am to wonder about the value of the neg's framework interp

Theory:

- Everything except condo and maybe 2nc CPs are reasons to reject the argument

- Condo is probably good, but it becomes more questionable when the neg can kick planks or combine separate cps

Michael Greenstein Glenbrook North 5 rounds

Kirk Halverson Walter Payton College Prep 1 rounds None

Isa Harrison New Trier High School 5 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.

Emaan Khan Von Steuben 5 rounds

Saad Khan Niles North High School 3 rounds

Sarah Kwon Glenbrook South High School 2 rounds

Audrey Lam Glenbrook North 5 rounds

Santiago Leyva Solorio Academy High School 5 rounds

Zucie Lopez Von Steuben 5 rounds

Alexandra Lorence Maine East High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed February 14, 2024 at 4:46 AM CDT

Alexandra Lorence, She/her

Maine East '24

add me to the email chain: alorence16@gmail.com

DAs:

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 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 sorta 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. Please also show why fairness or education matters and how that plays into a specific round.

Theory:

I think theory is underrated and can be a really good argument if done well.

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

I will vote on any argument, so long as it is persuasive, respectful, and solves better.

clarity>speed!! especially with analytics!

time your prep and speeches. I will try my best to time them, but at the end of the day, it is your responsibility.

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

Devon McSager Kenwood Academy 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed March 20, 2024 at 12:46 PM CDT

Debate Experience
I've never debated

Coaching Experience
Kenwood Academy- Chicago, IL 2014-present
*My main focus is coaching and supporting the novices (and ordering the bus). If you're planning to run a strategy far outside something that a generic novice would be able to understand I likely won't either... (okay, maybe that is cutting myself a little short- but truthfully ...)

drmcbride@cps.edu

I try to enter the debate as neutral and open as possible. I want to hear clash and a good demonstration of understanding from the AFF and NEG (if you're reading a card you should understand and be able to explain it - especially in R speeches. basically "why is this argument or evidence important". I find I give slightly more leniency to the negative in terms of understanding especially for novice debaters, but, Affs you chose the case so you should know and understand your own cards and plan.

Good signposting is so important to me and really helps me to flow arguments and not waste time trying to figure out which flow you've moved on to.

I'm always looking for good impact calc and a good solid explanation of why your team wins over the other. "they dropped x-y&z" often isn't good enough for me- why were those arguments essential for them to win and without them they have now in your interpretation lost the round.

I'm okay with spreading as long as I can understand what you're saying. don't just assume because you sent out the cards that you can blur all of your words together. If I can't confidently flow it then I wont and it wont be part of my decision. For novice debaters it is often helpful to slow down for the tags. sign posting and a clear roadmap are also essential to a well organized debate. (it might not be normal but I love when debaters give the name of their offs in the 1NC- just helps me stay organized).

K- I enjoy K debates as long as the NEG really understands their advocacy and their alt. If you can't explain it you likely can't defend it well.

DA- cool.

CP- also cool. nothing big to note here. (I'm a little boring and I like a CP to be paired with a clear DA)

please run your own timer

Racism, bigotry, homo/transphobia, antisemitism, Islamophobia, or hatred towards a group is never acceptable and I will give the win to the other team almost automatically.

Be respectful and assume best intent from your opponents.

Sahithi Medikondla Glenbrook North 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri June 21, 2024 at 8:29 AM CDT

general notes:
phonetically: sa-hee-thee
she/her
put me on the email chain: sahithimdebate@gmail.com
gbn 25’, current junior
topics: water, nato
former 1a/2n — do not go for every argument in the 2nr, if you do I will give low speaks.
I no longer am a policy debater, and for those reasons I will not understand topic lit as well as judges currently debating this topic, judges who are coaching this topic, or judges with more experience than me.

top-level/pet peeves:

- please flow, that is the only way to learn in debate
- do NOT refer to me as “judge” or my name (do not attempt it, most people pronounce it wrong & it’s odd), simply say vote aff or neg
- do NOT be sexist/racist/xenophobic/queerphobic etc. you will get the lowest speaks possible.
- do NOT refer to anyone in the debate with “you guys”. not only is this disrespectful and harmful, it will link to “you guys theory” and that is not a debate I would like to judge.
- I hate judge intervention, tech > truth. I will reach a decision on the words said, which means warrants should be stated if I am meant to prioritize certain cards/arguments. If that's not enough to make a clear rfd, I will add the minimum work necessary to come to a decision. the more work I have to do the lower speaks will go.
- I LOVE clash and impact calculus, have it and I will appreciate it. a way to do this is by interacting with ev. and conceded arguments (please give warrants as to why should I prioritize your ev.) —- side note: refer to cards with the author and the year with a concise two words on either the technical element or the actual contents of the card because it helps with my flow (ex: extend Ord 20 no impact…)
- framing: I need rebuttal framing at the end of the debate. if not done it will require intervention and a clean win could turn into a close loss.
- if you’re running 7+ off please give me clear indications like “next” or “ ___ da”, always give a road map regardless of how many off.
- I ran a lot of cp/da neg strategies. however, I enjoy topicality and understand k literature if properly extended, k-affs are ok. I do not enjoy theory and will only vote on it if a lot of work is done —- side note: I believe that the best debaters are able to be flex debaters, but I appreciate well-built arguments so please do not change your strategy necessarily if you think I would be able to understand nuances in your k lit. if you think I can’t then mark me down on your pref sheet.

cx rules (very aligned with that of gershom chan’s):
- look at me during cx, not your opponent even if I don’t make eye contact with you
- I pay attention to cx, do what you will with that information
- I like tag-team cx but do not dominate — there is no justification for oppressing your own partner if they’re trying to speak, don’t do it.
- If you fail to ask the status of the off, I will be less inclined to vote for condo
- "every da is a net benefit to every cp" should preferably not be said in the 1nc, the 1ar gets a lot of leeway to explain a 2ac "links to the net benefit argument" on any cp that relates to the da– I generally think the debate becomes a lot messier so don’t do this.

rfd:

I will make it clear what arguments I had to intervene on and which each side was clearly winning. this includes looking at card docs and at my flow, I will be thorough (my former debate partner says I have a tendency to write too much, this paradigm proves that point and that’s because I like judging) — I will take a bit to make a rfd. ask me questions in round and feel free to send me questions post-round as well, the best way to get better is to understand what you can do better.

//I will not give a two-sentence rfd unless deemed absolutely necessary.

speaker points:

I start at 28.4 (pretty average)

- to go lower you are either (a) sexist/racist/homophobic etc., (b) use derogatory ways of referring to anyone in the room or any group/school someone is affiliated with (c) are completely unable to create any clash during the round (if you read blocks throughout the debate that do not relate to what is happening in round I will notice), (d) give no direction in your rebuttal speeches and require heavy judge intervention (e) provide no roadmap and make the debate incredibly hard to follow (f) clip cards
- to go higher you are (a) a clear speaker (firm believer of clarity over speed), (b) strategic, generate clash effectively, and properly extend arguments throughout the debate (c) limit dead time and mark cards (d) flow! if I notice you are flowing I will give higher speaks

—-prep-time: I might have a timer, regardless do not steal prep—-
—stop here if your round starts in 15 minutes—

t:
- if you have fairness as an impact please do not say “the neg has no 3nr”, it’s ineffective and I don’t need to hear it
- I need a counter-interp for any textual definitions
- I like limits arguments a lot but I need external impacts to aff/neg ground etc with proper interpretations [I believe this to be really important this year]
- overall, I’m not the best judge for high-level topicality debates as much as I find it interesting and may default to evaluating counter-interps to determine who wins – I do understand buzzwords conceptually but need a lot of work if you’re going to go for it.

//on this topic I believe t to be a great strategy, and therefore will try to be knowledgeable before the season starts

da:
- I ran ptx my entire novice year, so I love a good da. however, if you’re just going for the da turns case argument I will need a good 2nr. just assuming that the da will outweigh simply because the aff “didn’t cover it enough” is usually not enough of a compelling reason to vote on it.

include:
- framing the debate (da outweighs…)
- impact overviews, the story of the internal link, and impact calculus
- turns case either (preferably in more than one way): impact, internal link, solvency
- do line-by-line on the flow to answer any relevant uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact that the aff has as offense on the da **you must still have a compelling reason, just saying that “the affs argument isn’t specific enough to the da” is not enough**
- at least a minute on case, usually case is integrated with the turns arguments but generate offense on the case page as well

//if you’re doing the da as a net-benefit to the cp go for it, although I will need more on the case page, especially solvency

cp:
- I love a good counterplan that’s functionally and textually competitive, if you don’t paste the cp text specific to the aff I will be a bit peeved especially if you’re going to go for it
- aff on perms: please explain what the scenario looks like when there’s perm do both or perm do the alt. etc, that’s the only way I would be able to generate offense on the cp and it will hold ground to the negs arguments on why the perm doesn’t hold true, neg: effectively explain either the negative impact of the perm (the biggest being link to the net benefit but I need more than that) or explain how the function of the perm moots aff solvency —- because perms are often thrown in the 2ac for precautionary measures I believe it to be a well thought out strategy if developed well in the 1ar

include:
- link walls, both on how the cp avoids the impact and how the aff causes the impact
- impacts (preferably short-term and long-term)
- why cp avoiding a nb is important vs. the aff specifically
- if there’s no da, I need a lot on the outweighs argument and a lot on the case page — and if there’s a da I’ll give leeway to the neg

I ran: imperialism, cap, security
I understand: afropess, fem k, baudrillard, ableism are all fine if you explain what’s happening. side note: I read nonfiction and dense philosophical/scientific/political papers on a daily basis “for fun”, and therefore k debates are fine.

- I need a link wall and specific links to the aff to vote on a K confidently, broad sweeping claims that can be applied to any aff on the topic will not receive much leeway in the 2nr and 2ar. debating about a theoretical idea in itself is not what debate is, it’s about how an ideological construct should dictate the policies we are arguing. valerie mcintosh says it the best: “your K should ideally be a reason why the aff is bad, not just why the status quo is bad”. therefore, there needs to be more than “you link you lose”.
- I love a good alt. although I find that both sides most of the time do not interact enough with it.
- neg teams should include links in reference to the perms set forth in debate – treat it like answering perms on a cp and explain how it moots the k framework etc.
- evaluating the K will be determined by a lot of things but good 1ar coverage is necessary. do not undercover and expect me to cross-apply arguments for you — if you can turn multiple links in the 1ar with the same card/argument tell me in the 1ar preferably or even in the 2ar and I will do so. the 2ar cannot be going off of no substance but if there are relative claims that I can connect from the 1ar it should be fine.

framework:
- I don’t love fairness when it’s used as an impact and as if it’s interchangeable with education, I prefer more argumentation on interpretation. in general flow well and you can convince me. do not make claims without warrants [the same way cards are warrants, you need to give me line-by-line & not just buzzwords]
- I find myself leaning aff on framework, just something I’ve noticed so if you’re neg do more work for me explaining why framework under your terms is better.

affs:
- have a solvency advocate
- vague plan texts that aren’t actually established through cx or in the first four speeches immediately undermine and manipulate debate towards the aff in a way that effectively discourages clash and actual argumentation. your aff cannot defend nothing and advocate for nothing. if you reiterate a vague plan text as a mechanism for what your aff does I will effectively not know what political change I am meant to be weighing against neg research. furthermore, it undermines the educational component of debate so specificity is necessary.
- you’re not arguing that the status quo is bad & the neg is going to make it worse, you’re arguing what you’re going to do to change the status quo that outweighs what the neg argues will harm it.
- affs can be cheaty, but so can neg arguments so I will give both the least amount of personal bias I have when it comes to evaluation.

k-affs:
- It’s not my strongest or most favorite part of debate. I understand it on the conceptual level but technically I don’t get how to evaluate the general technical components and nuances of T-USFG, complexity k, cap k that are the norm against k-affs — that said I’m not entirely against it, I would just advise against reading it to me.

theory (it’s really just condo):
- I don’t like theory, I think it’s really hard to have a valuable theory debate. will I vote on it? unfortunately, yes. do I prefer it? absolutely not. that said condo needs to be developed more than “they dropped it, so we win”. theory also should have warrants.
- my note for all theory (fiat, pics, types of cps, aspec, etc.): don’t use it as a cheaty method to trick the other team.

other:

a list (in no particular order) of some of the people in debate I deeply respect, admire, and have high regard for (I draw a lot of the way I judge from their paradigms): rithika tudmilla, yao yao chen, david griffith, jake lee, allie chase, sid kuchimanchi, gershom chan, ariel gabay, kj reese, wayne tang, valerie mcintosh, chris fry.

a note: I strongly discourage drinking copious amounts of caffeine-induced liquids/solids of any kind before or during a tournament in order to compensate for sleep deprivation — just breathe, and trust that it will be ok.

Edgar Melero Solorio Academy High School 5 rounds

Morgan Montoya Walter Payton College Prep 3 rounds

Natalie Nguyen Von Steuben 5 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 25, 2024 at 10:34 AM CDT

i'm natalie nguyen ^_^ (von steuben msc '24 yayyyyy)

she/ her pronouns

hard of hearing (please speak up during speeches and cx)

email for email chains & reaching out: ntnguyen4@cps.edu

current varsity debater & head captain at von steuben, was a stand-in coach during '22-'23 season

current treasurer & ambassador of the debater leader council (dlc) for blue/ silver

debating policy for ~ 3-4 years, judging for ~4 years mostly middle school (all divs) & high school (rookie & novice)

feel free to say hi or just chat with me! i'll have stickers if you do so :^)

talk to me about debating at von!

my baseline rules/ things i do:

> any type of bigotry (absolutely not acceptable; auto-loss, no speaker points, will be reporting you)

> being rude to either judge(s) or the opposing team (speaker points docked off)

> i'll ask if you need to be timed (i'll still time on my end anyway lol). i'm pretty punctual on speech times, so i will cut you off if time is up.

> i give feedback to both sides (general feedback + team specific feedback).

argument preferences :

aff/ case: extend advs! i like hearing more about them. in the case of k-affs, i love them! please make sure to be clear about the rob and advocacy/ solution.

da: i like da's, but usually they're indifferent to me if not properly extended.

cp: i'd only really vote for cp's if properly explained. they are not my favorite offcase and i tend to not vote for it. please explain them clearly if you are running it. for process cps, i hate them (especially concon don't run that).

t: not the biggest t fan. run it if need be, but i probably will not vote on it unless it has weight in the round.

k: big fan of, yes! i am familiar with common k's (cap k, identity k's), but outside of that, please make sure to really push it.

framework: honestly not really the best at fw! please explain it thoroughly.

specifics off the top of my head:

> i genuinely cannot control my face so if i make a weird face please ignore me

> never say "my roadmap is 3 off & case". just tell me what the off is.

> if you're running multiple off with different worlds & such, please be clear about them!

> love good loophole cx questions! please utilize them to your best extent!

> also love good/ bad for education args.

> aff, if you guys didn't read a plan text & the neg called you out in a speech, then it's an auto-win for the neg. the neg does need to be really in my face about it though for me to count it as a voter. if the dropped plan text isn't mentioned at all, then i will not vote on it.

> piggybacking off of the last point, dropped ADVs or dropped arguments of any sort need to be mentioned in the following speech. be in my face about it. if it's not mentioned at all, i will not consider it as a voter.

Santiago Padilla Solorio Academy High School 5 rounds None

Kiana Pan Northside College Preparatory 2 rounds

Cynthia Perez Solorio Academy High School 5 rounds

Stephen Pipkin Glenbrook North 3 rounds

Finn Pluta New Trier High School 5 rounds

Eric Recendiz Avila Thomas Kelly College Prep 5 rounds

Maura Schumacher Whitney M. Young Magnet High School 2 rounds

Dev Shah Niles North High School 2 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 5 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.

Jensen Stanzi Glenbrook South High School 5 rounds None

will sterbenc Niles North High School 5 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 5 rounds

Kylie Sutton Glenbrook South High School 4 rounds

Kevin Trant Whitney M. Young Magnet High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 9, 2024 at 5:02 AM CDT

When it comes to K versus policy, I prefer K debates. I went to graduate school for philosophy and have coached debate in CPS for 8 years, but was never a debater. As a result I am probably considerably less technical than other judges and just want to see good argumentation. I personally think this happens when we have a clear understanding of our epistemology.

I would much prefer to judge a round where there is a lot of clash on the flow and indicts on the other team's evidence than a round in which a team overwhelms the other team with lots of advantages or CPs. K debates can be equally bad for education when they involve half-understood ideas of So, if you're running a K or K Aff, please avoid relying solely on philosophical jargon. I think the best debaters are the ones who combine their technical of knowledge of debate with common sense and some semblance of rhetorical skill.

Counterplans are fine. If you run them be sure you can clearly articulate how the plan links to the net benefit.

I'm ok with speed, but I prefer debaters who slow down on analytics and theory arguments. Getting your arguments out in the 1AC/1NC should sound different from explaining why the perm fails or explaining why topicality should be a voter.

I think storytelling is important. I want you to be able to explain to me why you are winning the debate. I have two reasons for believing this: 1. I think this is an essential thinking and communication skill, 2. If you throw spaghetti at the wall and ask me to interpret it, I'm afraid that I won't interpret it correctly. Don't leave the round up to my interpretation; write my ballot for me.

I like a nice, tight DA with a carefully explained link story. Sometimes Ptix DAs get a little wild, but as long as you can sell the story, I'm willing to go along with it as a convention of debate, but would probably be sympathetic to an aff team that highlights the probability of the link chain or the quality of the evidence.

At heart I'm just an English teacher, so I will give an extra .1 spear poi if you cite some poetry in your rebuttal speech (in context) .2 if I really like the poem.

Tag team is fine; however, I think the speaker should be the one primarily responsible for answering. I don't want to see one partner dominating.

Kjtrant@cps.edu

Jairo Villalobos-Hernandez Von Steuben 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 24, 2024 at 1:34 PM CDT

I prefer Jairo (pronounced hi-roe) over judge, but im fine with either

He/They

jairovillalobos94@gmail.com

2A/1N for Solorio 19-23

Not debating at Northwestern 23-27

Assistant Coach at Von Steuben 24-Present

Background+Top level stuff

I debated both in nat circ and udl (Chicago Debate League) tournaments during high school. Went to camp during my freshie and soph (virtual) years, so if any questions then I am more than willing to answer.

For the current high school topic, assume I know very little---the only experience I have with it is from the other times i've judged/helped coach teams at tourneys

Tech>Truth---Doesnt mean you dont have to contextualize/explain what them dropping something means for the round, you still have to explain and make clear what the argument is for me to evaluate it in your favor

Better for policy---didn't do K debate, but don't let that stop you from running what you want///i'll vote for anything if you are winning it

No specific way to assign speaks, just be nice, speak pretty, explain things well, and youll do alright

I feel like I can be a pretty visual person with my face, so if I approve or disapprove of something then you will be able to tell(nodding head for good, scrunching my face for not so good, you get the gist)

Anything that promotes violence, discrimination, or hate is an immediate L, lowest speaks possible, and a report to tab

Specifics

In case you are wondering about in depth thoughts on arguments:

DAs

I really like disads and I think they are a staple of what neg args should be in debate. For every disad, paint me a story of how the disad actually happens if the plan were to pass, from the UQ up to the moment of the impact(big red button is pressed, oceans rise and we get 2012 IRL, the environment collapses, etc.)

For the neg---should always be in a 1nc. For later speeches, if running DA by itself, tell me why it turns the case and do impact calc. If running as a net benefit, tell me exactly how the cp avoids the DA. Avoid generic links as much as possible; if generic link is called out then I am much much less to weigh the DA as highly as the aff
For the aff---the best strat to go for is straight turn imo. If done well , then you have forced the neg into an awkard position and you are fully in control of that flow. Honestly if the neg fumbles the straight turn answers too then I am all for a pure straight turn 2ar. If not possible, then the main canon of arguments work, just prove why case outweighs

CTs

I LOVE case turns. These debates can get messy tho, so for both sides make sure to 1. keep the story clean and concise 2. try to organize LBL as much as possible

Neg---If you wanna go for a CT, then you have to make sure to tell me all throughout the debate how the aff links and how the impact outweighs. Personally, I dont mind it if you sandbag in the block, so go crazy with impacts if you have them, just make sure to answer all the aff args they present cus even once concession can take out the whole ct for me
Aff---For most of the CTs run, theres a high likelihood you link. It might just be me, but if its clear the aff links, then I just want to see you bite the bullet and tell me why that linking is good(i.e, if you increase growth then do growth good, if heg then heg good, so on, and give me specifics as to why its good). Obviously, this doesn't mean you can just disregard their impacts, so make sure to also answer or group the impacts they had. If they sandbag in the block, then crossapplying is your friend

CPs

CPs are really interesting because theyre either really good or really mid. In general, Agent/Process cps are legit, I find consult cps boring, and if your cp has more than like 5 planks then don't even run it(even you know its abusive). Also, sufficiency framing is iffy---if your cp doesnt solve the impact of the aff, then why even run it

Neg---THE CP HAS TO BE A REASON TO REJECT THE AFF, PLEASEEEEEEE. That means even if the cp is plan plus, I still wont vote for it. You need to prove to me in the 2nr 2 things: First, you are able to access the plan and solve for the impacts through your cp, and second, doing the plan alone is bad/doing the cp would solve for discrepancies with the plan alone. That being said, you ALWAYS need a net benefit, whether it be internal or external, and explain how the CP avoids that
Aff---Personally, I like seeing shifty perms being run and exploited like crazy if conceded. By shifty, I dont mean different wordings of the cp text so dont do that, but shifty as in like "do plan and have agency do x instead". In general, POSTAL works great with cps so just stick to that and youll be good

T has sucked these past few topics cus everything is so untopical but borderline topical. That being said, don't just run T as a strat skew cus that just wastes flow and could be used for more substantive off. However, still good to always have T on both sides in case of anything

Neg---I feel like T is really underappreciated against smaller affs. If you are able to call out a team effectively on how theyre untopical, then keep it going all throughout the round and call out if their counterinterps are generic, if they severely underlimit, and so on. T can get very messy though, so unless you have a really good feeling about T, dont run it because I know we dont wanna argue over definitions for 2 hours
Aff---If you know you're borderline topical, you better have a damn good counterinterp. Apart from that, main canon of arguments work in front of me

Ks are really interesting but far from my specialty(I had to debate under a hard right policy coach for 4 years, dont blame me). With that tho, I am really only interested/know more of the main canon of neg ks, so stuff like cap, security, afropess, queer. fem, etc. If your k is high theory, then dont pref me(I dont wanna hear about baudrillard for 2 hours)

Neg---In front of me, you link you lose is valid ONLY IF you win framework(run it as like a da in a way). I really dont buy many alts of the ks as realistic, so if you know your alt isnt that amazing and the aff is calling you out on it, just drop it and resort to talking about how they make matters worse and why I need to evaluate the K more than I do the aff. However, if you run some generic links against the aff, then I am much much less likely to weigh it that highly if they call out the generality
Aff---Ima be straight and to the point in what I like to see v ks- first strat, call out why the alt fails and why its probably unrealistic/doesnt solve. Second, if they kick the alt, go for case outweighs and specifically why case outweighs, so if you need util then run it in the 2ac, or impact d then also run it in the 2ac, and hell you can even do case turns k to take out the impacts. For all of that to work though, you NEED to win and stay on top of framework, so keep framework on top of the k flow in every speech. Perms are pretty weak v ks, so still read them but dont depend on them for the 2ar

K affs

In all honesty, I am not in tune with k affs like that, so I am not the best judge to run these in front of. However, if it is your main strategy, then you should run what you are most comfortable with

Neg---Unless you would also run Cap against them, you should just run FW. I buy FW the most against k affs, just stay on top of their answers to your arguments and you should be alright
Aff---For a k aff to stick in front of me, I need a clear explanation why running the k aff solves for your impacts and why this round is specifically necessary. I need a role of the ballot from the get go(2ac fs, 1ac preempt maybe even) and for this to be explained in depth in the later parts of the round. In a similar fashion, I need an explanation of why running on the neg cant solve, and you need to explain to me how the alt looks like in action

Theory

Most theory is really a wash for me. The only one I will vote for is condo, but that also depends on the round and how many conditional off are run

Misc. Stuff

I like jokes---if you make me laugh then i'll give you +.1-.2 speaks---specifically, joke about Conor Cameron or Victoria Yonter(and if it flies), i'll give +.3

Samantha Walsh Northside College Preparatory 2 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

Amanti Washington Kenwood Academy 2 rounds

Vivi Webb Glenbrook South High School 5 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 5 rounds

Sara Zarea New Trier High School 5 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

Illinois Debate Coaches Association JVNovice State Championship

2024 — Glenview, IL/US

Novice Policy Paradigm List

Judges