Tabroom.com

LAMDL You Say You Want A Resolution

2024 — Los Angeles, CA/US

CX Judges Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Jorge Aguilar Hire

Jazmin C Allen Hire

Alexander Bragarnik Hire

Bryan Chen Hire

Last changed on Sat May 25, 2024 at 2:15 AM PDT

BRAVO MEDICAL MAGNET HIGH SCHOOL 26’,

EMAIL ME THE DOC, email on the bottom

I’m a varsity debater, but I’ve judged a practice debate or two but varsity.

Make a joke, and you’ll get +0.1 speaks

For Novices/JV, I’m pretty well versed with the GND.

My experience: I’ve run a bunch of automation affs, and citizenship args, and my most recent aff is a Hawaii basic income. I run a lot of structural violence args and I’m telling you this is that as a judge yes it’s easy to vote on Extinction o/w, but like does it really? To combat extinction o/w I need some reasoning/framing why structural violence o/w and should be prioritized.

I’m not filled with wisdom but I will try to give the best feedback I can/Judge to the best

If you disagree with the ballot feel free to lmk why you think otherwise

HAVE FUN!!!

Preferences

Keep your own time.

Don’t be cheeky and prep when you’re not supposed to.

Will not evaluate new offs in 2nc

I’ll say clear if your speaking isn’t clear

EMPHASIS through speech just makes it a more enjoyable and digestible debate <3

Ballot and Speaks

Speaks start at 28

Debating is a performance after all and that means emotion/ will be rewarded with higher speaks.

Don’t justify a form of violence/ Say Death Good, will dock speaks.

Don’t be rude in CX

Know your cards and have good analytics

TECH>>>> TRUTH

I will evaluate an argument even if it’s false if it isn’t called out
You could speak amazing but it’s about what it is that you are saying

Impact Calc

I love impact calc and analysis, what’s gonna happen if the plan isn’t enacted, or what does happen??

Line by line

Callout what your opponent says, state what ur gonna say, why it matters, and why your argument is better blah blah
Makes debate actually clash instead of words phasing through each other

DROPPING ARGUMENTS

If an argument is dropped, I’m not gonna evaluate it. BUT it has to be called out for it being dropped for me to not evaluate it and tell me why it is important if it should be a voter if it’s offense.
If you want to Kick an argument, do it properly.

JUDGE INSTRUCTION

Most importantly, You are the ones debating. Tell me what to vote on or what not to vote on and why.
I cannot argue what I think you are trying to say, make it clear blah blah.

Arguments

in order of what I lean to the most T, K, DA, CP

T- I tend to lean towards arguments about fairness and education because that is what is extracted from this activity.

K- K’s are often not explained well enough, but if done correctly and with a good link then it works. To go against a K, I tend to lean towards if education and fairness. Point out any contradictions and blow up on it.

DA - I love a good DA, a clear strong link is needed, imo DAs are amazing. Explain why the DA makes the plan bad.

CP- I don’t have an opinion on CP’s. I tend to lean toward a good perm. As Aff, point out contradictions on CP or why it doesn’t work.

Thank you for reading all of my paradigms and good luck!

My email for debate is ZCbravopolicydebate@gmail.com

DEVEN E COOPER Hire

Last changed on Sat March 2, 2024 at 8:23 AM PDT

High school debate: Baltimore Urban Debate League ( Lake Clifton Eastern High School).

College debate: University of Louisville then Towson University.

Grad work: Cal State Fullerton.

Current: Director of Debate at Long Beach State (CSU Long Beach), former Director of Debate a Fresno State.

Email for chain: Devenc325@gmail.com

Speaker Point Scale

29.5-30: one of the best speakers I expect to see this year and has a high grade of Charisma, Uniqueness, Nerve, Talent, and Swag is on 100. This means expert explanation of arguments and most arguments are offensive.

29 - 29.5: very good speaker has a middle grade of Charisma, Uniqueness, Nerve, Talent, and mid-range swag. Explanation of arguments are of great quality and many of the arguments are offensive.

28.4 - 28.9: good speaker; may have some above average range/ parts of the Cha.Uni.Ner.Tal.S acronym but must work on a few of them and may have some issues to work out. Explanation of arguments are of good quality and several of the arguments are offensive.

28 - 28.3: solid speaker; needs some work; probably has average range/ parts of the Cha.Uni.Ner.Tal.S acronym but must work on a few of them and may have some issues to work out. Explanation of arguments are of okayish quality and very few of the arguments are offensive.

27.1 - 27.5: okay speaker; needs significant work on the Cha.Uni.Ner.Tal.S acronym. Not that good of explanation with no offensive arguments.

< 27: you have done something deeply problematic in this debate like clipping cards or linguistic violence, or rhetorically performed an ism without apology or remorse.

Please do not ask me to disclose points nor tell me as an argument to give you a 30. I wont. For some reason people think you are entitled to high points, I am not that person. So, you have to earn the points you get.

IF YOU ARE IN HIGHSCHOOL, SKIP DOWN TO THE "Judging Proper" section :)

Cultural Context

If you are a team that reads an argument based in someone else's identity, and you are called on it by another team with receipts of how it implicates the round you are in, its an uphill battle for you. I am a fan of performing your politics with consistency and genuine ethical relationships to the people you speak about. I am a fan of the wonderful author Linda Martin Alcoff who says " where one speaks from affects both the meaning and truth of what one says." With that said, you can win the debate but the burden of proof is higher for you....

Post Rounding

I will not entertain disrespectful or abrasive engagement because you lost the round. If you have questions, you may ask in a way that is thoughtful and seeking understanding. If your coach thinks they will do this as a defense of your students, feel free to constrain me. I will not allow my students to engage that way and the same courtesy should be extended to EVERYONE. Losing doesn't does not give you license to be out of your mind and speak with malice. Keep in mind I am not from the suburbs and I will not tolerate anyone's nasty demeanor directed at me nor my students.

"Community" Members

I do not and will not blindly think that all people in this activity are kind, trustworthy, non-cheaters, good intentioned, or will not do or say anything in the name of competition or malice towards others. Please miss me with having faith in people in an activity that often reveals people engaging in misconduct, exploitation, grooming, or other inappropriate activities that often times NEVER get reported. MANY of you have created and perpetuated a culture of toxicity and elitism, then you are surprised when the chickens come home to roost. This applies to ALL forms of college and high school debate...

Judging Proper

I am more than willing to listen to ANY arguments that are well explained and impacted and relate to how your strategy is going to produce scholarship, policy action, performance, movement, or whatever political stance or program. I will refer to an educator framework unless told otherwise...This means I will evaluate the round based on how you tell me you want it to be framed and I will offer comments on how you could make your argument better after the round. Comparison, Framing, OFFENSE is key for me. Please indict each other's framework or role of the ballot/role of the judge for evaluation and make clear offense to how that may make a bad model of debate. OR I am down with saying the debate should not be a reflection about the over all model of debate/ no model.

I DO NOT privilege certain teams or styles over others because that makes debate more unfair, un-educational, cliquey, and makes people not feel valued or wanted in this community, on that note I don't really jive to well with arguments about how certain folks should be excluded for the sake of playing the "game". NOR do I feel that there are particular kinds of debate related to ones personal identity. I think people are just making arguments attached to who they are, which is awesome, but I will not privilege a kind of debate because some asserts its a thing.

I judge debates according to the systematic connection of arguments rather than solely line by line…BUT doesn’t mean if the other team drops turns or other arguments that I won’t evaluate that first. They must be impacted and explained. PLEASE always point out reason why the opposing team is BAD and have contextualized reasons for why they have created a bad impact or make one worse. I DO vote on framework and theory arguments….I’ve been known to vote on Condo quite a bit, but make the interp, abuse story, and contradictions clear. If the debate devolves into a theory debate, I still think the AFF should extend a brief summary of the case.

Don’t try to adapt to how I used to debate if you genuinely don’t believe in doing so or just want to win a ballot. If you are doing a performance I will hold you to the level that it is practiced, you have a reason for doing so, and relates to the overall argument you are making…Don’t think “oh! I did a performance in front of Deven, I win.” You are sadly mistaken if so. It should be practiced, timed well, contain arguments, and just overall have a purpose. It should be extended with full explanation and utility.

Overall I would like to see a good debate where people are confident in their arguments and feel comfortable being themselves and arguing how they feel is best. I am not here to exclude you or make you feel worthless or that you are a "lazy" intellectual as some debaters may call others, but I do like to see you defend your side to the best of your ability.

GET OFF THEM BLOCKS SOME! I get it coaches like to block out args for their students, even so far as to script them out. I think this is a practice that is only focused on WINNING and not the intellectual development of debaters who will go on to coach younger debaters. A bit of advice that I give to any debater I come across is to tell them to READ, READ, READ. It is indeed fundamental and allows for the expansion of example use and fluency of your arguments.

A few issues that should be clarified:

Decorum: I DO NOT LIKE when teams think they can DISRESPECT, BULLY, talk RUDE to, or SCREAM at other teams for intimidation purposes in order to win or throw the other team off. Your points will be effected because this is very unbecoming and does not allow this space to be one of dialogue and reciprocity. If someone disrespects you, I am NOT saying turn the other cheek, but have some tact and utility of how you engage these folks. And being hyper evasive to me is a hard sell. Do not get me wrong, I do love the sassiness, sarcasm, curtness, and shade of it all but there is a way to do it with tact. I am also NOT persuaded that you should be able to be rude or do whatever you want because you are a certain race, class, gender, sex, sexuality, or any other intersection under the sun. That to me is a problematic excuse that intensifies the illegit and often rigid criticism that is unlashed upon "identity politics."

Road maps: STICK TO IT. I am a tight flower and I have a method. However, I need to know where things go so there is no dispute in the RFD that something was answered or not. If you are a one off team, please have a designed place for the PERM. I can listen well and know that there are places things should go, but I HATE to do that work for a team. PLEASE FLOW and not just follow the doc. If you answer an arg that was in the doc, but not read, I will take it as you note flowing nor paying attention to what is going on.

Framework and Theory: I love smart arguments in this area. I am not inclined to just vote on debate will be destroyed or traditional framework will lead to genocide unless explained very well and impacted based on some spill over claims. There must be a concrete connection to the impacts articulated on these and most be weighed. I am persuaded by the deliberation arguments, institutional engagement/building, limits, and topical versions of the Aff. Fairness is an interesting concept for me here. I think you must prove how their model of debate directly creates unfairness and provide links to the way their model of debate does such. I don't think just saying structural fairness comes first is the best without clarification about what that means in the context of the debate space and your model of debate.

Some of you K/Performance folks may think I am a FW hack, thas cute or whatever. Instead of looking at the judge as the reason why you weren't adequate at defending your business, you should do a redo, innovate, or invest in how to strategize. If it seems as though you aren't winning FW in front of me that means you are not focusing how offense and your model produces some level of "good." Or you could defend why the model approach is problematic or several reasons. I firmly believe if someone has a model of debate or how they want to engage the res or this space, you MUST defend it and prove why that is productive and provides some level of ground or debatability.

Winning Framework for me includes some level of case turn or reason why the aff produces something bad/ blocks something good/ there's a PIC/PIK of some kind (explained). This should be coupled with a proficient explanation of either the TVA or SSD strategy with the voter components (limits, predictability, clash, deliberation, research burden, education, fairness, ground etc.) that solidify your model of debate.

Performance: It must be linked to an argument that is able to defend the performance and be able to explain the overall impact on debate or the world/politics itself. Please don’t do a performance to just do it…you MUST have a purpose and connect it to arguments. Plus debate is a place of politics and args about debate are not absent politics sometimes they are even a pre-req to “real” politics, but I can be persuaded otherwise. You must have a role of the ballot or framework to defend yourself, or on the other side say why the role of the ballot is bad. I also think those critics who believe this style of debate is anti-intellectual or not political are oversimplifying the nuance of each team that does performance. Take your role as an educator and stop being an intellectual coward or ideology driven hack.

Do not be afraid to PIK/PIC out of a performance or give reasons why it was BAD. Often people want to get in their feelings when you do this. I am NOT sympathetic to that because you made a choice to bring it to this space and that means it can be negated, problematized, and subject to verbal criticism.

Topic/Resolution: I will vote on reasons why or why not to go by the topic...unlike some closed minded judges who are detached from the reality that the topics chosen may not allow for one to embrace their subjectivity or social location in ways that are productive. This doesn’t mean I think talking about puppies and candy should win, for those who dumb down debate in their framework args in that way. You should have a concrete and material basis why you chose not to engage the topic and linked to some affirmation against racism/sexism/homophobia/classism/elitism/white supremacy and produces politics that are progressive and debatable. There would have to be some metric of evaluation though. BUT, I can be persuaded by the plan focus and topic education model is better middle ground to what they want to discuss.

Hella High Theory K: i.e Hiediggar, Baudrillard, Zizek, D&G, Butler, Arant, and their colleagues…this MUST be explained to me in a way that can make some material sense to me as in a clear link to what the aff has done or an explanation of the resolution…I feel that a lot of times teams that do these types of arguments assume a world of abstraction that doesn’t relate fully to how to address the needs of the oppressed that isn’t a privileged one. However, I do enjoy Nietzsche args that are well explained and contextualized. Offense is key with running these args and answering them.

Disadvantages: I’m cool with them just be well explained and have a link/link wall that can paint the story…you can get away with a generic link with me if you run politics/econ/tradeoff disads. But, it would be great to provide a good story. In the 2NC/1NR retell the story of the disad with more context and OFFENSE and compartmentalize the parts. ALWAYS tell me why it turns and outweighs case. Disads on case should be impacted and have a clear link to what the aff has done to create/perpetuate the disad. If you are a K team and you kick the alt that solves for the disads…that is problematic for me. Affs need to be winning impact framing and some level of offense. No link is not enough for me.

Perms: I HATE when people have more than 3 perms. Perm theory is good here for me, do it and not just GROUP them. For a Method v Method debate, you do not get to just say you dont get a perm. Enumerate reasons why they do not get a perm. BUT, if an Aff team in this debate does make a perm, it is not just a test of competition, it is an advocacy that must be argued as solving/challenging what is the issue in the debate.
Additionally, you can kick the perms and no longer have to be burden with that solvency. BUT you must have offensive against their C/P, ALT, or advocacy.

Counterplans/Advocacies: They have to solve at least part of the case and address some of the fundamental issues dealing with the aff’s advantages especially if it’s a performance or critical aff…I’m cool with perm theory with a voter attached. I am cool with any kind of these arguments, but an internal net benefit is not enough for me in a policy counterplan setting. If you are running a counter advocacy, there must be enumerated reasons why it is competitive, net beneficial, and is the option that should be prioritized. I do love me a PIK/PIC or two, but please do it effectively with specific evidence that is a criticism of the phrase or term the aff used. But, know the difference between piking out of something and just criticizing the aff on some trivial level. I think you need to do very good analysis in order to win a PIC/PIK. I do not judge kick things...that is your job.

Affs in the case of PIK/PICs, you must have disads to the solvency (if any), perm, theory, defend the part that is questionable to the NEG.

Race/ Identity arguments: LOVE these especially from the Black/Latinx/Asian/Indigenous/Trans/Sexuality perspective (most familiar with) , but this doesn’t mean you will win just because you run them like that. I like to see the linkage between what the aff does wrong or what the aff/neg has perpetuated. I’m NOT likely to vote on a link of omission unless some structural claim has risen the burden. I am not familiar with ALL of these types of args, so do not assume that I know all you literature or that I am a true believer of your arguments about Blackness. I do not believe that Blackness based arguments are wedded to an ontology focus or that one needs to win or defeat ontology to win.

I am def what some of you folks would call a "humanist and I am okay with that. Does not mean you can't win any other versions of that debate in front of me.

Case Args: Only go for case turns and if REALLY needed for your K, case defense.…they are the best and are offensive , however case defense may work on impacts if you are going for a K. If you run a K or performance you need to have some interaction with the aff to say why it is bad. Please don't sandbag these args so late in the debate.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE --------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am of the strong belief that Congressional debate is a DEBATE event first and foremost. I do not have an I.E or speech background. However, I do teach college public speaking and argumentation. The comments I leave will talk about some speech or style components. I am not a judge that heavily favors delivery over the argumentation and evidence use.

I am a judge that enjoys RECENT evidence use, refutation, and clash with the topics you have been assigned.

STRUCTURE OF SPEECHES

I really like organization. With that said, I do prefer debaters have a introduction with a short attention getter, and a short preview statement of their arguments. In the body of the speech, I would like some level of impacting/ weighing of your arguments and their arguments ( if applicable), point out flaws in your opponents argumentation (lack of solvency, fallacies, Alternative causes), cite evidence and how it applies, and other clash based refutation. If you want to have a conclusion, make sure it has a short summary and a declarative reason to pass or fail.

REFUTATION

After the first 2 speeches of the debate, I put heavy emphasis on the idea that these speeches should have a refutation component outside of you extending a previous argument from your side, establish a new argument/evidence, or having some kind of summary. I LOVE OFFENSE based arguments that will turn the previous arguments state by the opposition. Defensive arguments are fine, but please explain why they mean the opposition cannot solve or why your criticism of their evidence or reason raises to the level of rejecting their stance. Please do not list more than 2 or 3 senators or reps that you are refuting because in some cases it looks like students are more concerned with the appearance of refutation than actually doing it. I do LOVE sassy, assertive or sarcastic moments but still be polite.

EVIDENCE USE

I think evidence use is very important to the way I view this type of debate. You should draw evidence from quality sources whether that is stats/figures/academic journals/narrative from ordinary people. Please remember to cite where you got your information and the year. I am a hack for recency of your evidence because it helps to illuminate the current issues on your topic. Old evidence is a bit interesting and should be rethought in front of me. Evidence that doesn't at some level assume the ongoing/aftermath of COVID-19 is a bit of a stretch. Evidence comparison/analysis of your opponent is great as well.

ANALYSIS

I LOVE impact calculus where you tell me why the advantages of doing or not doing a bill outweighs the costs. This can be done in several ways, but it should be clear, concise, and usually happen in the later speeches. At a basic level, doing timeframe, magnitude, probability, proximity, or any other standard for making arguments based on impact are great. I DISLIKE rehash....If you are not expanding or changing the way someone has articulated an argument or at least acknowledge it, I do not find rehash innovative nor high rank worthy. This goes back to preparation and if you have done work on both sides of a bill. You should prepare multiple arguments on a given side just in case someone does the argument before you. There is nothin worse to me than an unprepared set of debaters that must take a bunch of recesses/breaks to prepare to switch.

Desiree Delgadillo Huntington Park High School None

Wilmer Donis Hire

Nicoleta Enciu Lake Balboa College Prep

Last changed on Sat March 23, 2024 at 7:04 AM PDT

Hello! :)

I'm a ipda/parli debater in uni. I primarily do limited prep events (in speech and debate) and coach policy.

I vote based on how well you carry your arguments, if you answer/drop/kick arguments. Did you answer your opponents? Does your arguments outweigh or have stronger points? Do you argue why your side is better? Did you clash with your opponents and show your side to be a better choice for me to vote on? (BTW Creating a narrative/story with your evidence/cards in your rebuttals is also nice cause it strengthens your side. It's more visual and emotional hence more persuasive.)

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

Preferences:

- Have a road map and sign post -

clear road maps and sign posting = better understanding of what arguments are being used = clear flow = higher chance of your win

_______________________________________________________________

- Can spread, but emphasis your main points (slow down, deliberately tell me, repeat it a few time, etc.) -

by emphasizing a certain point, you give it value and in turn I give it value and know what you want to argue for. makes your point clear and understandable so I can easily write it down in my flow

_______________________________________________________________

- Tag teaming is fine -

make sure you speak eventually since cx is a part of your speaker points. I can't evaluate speaker points properly if I don't hear you in both speeches and cx. (example: if you mumble a speech and don't really participate in cx, it generates a lower score then mumbling a speech and participate in cx)

_______________________________________________________________

- Convince me as a judge, talk to judge, how do I vote, etc. -

go ahead and use logos, pathos, or ethos to try to convince me. talk to me as a judge on a one on one level, and tell me how to flow, explain important concepts, how to judge the debate, reason to prefer, or if you caught your opponents dropping something, being contradictory, or even rude. ultimately your judge has the final say on if you win or lose, so appeal to your judge

_______________________________________________________________

- Speak loud, audibly, and clearly -

this is such an important preference for me. sometimes i can't hear y'all. its either y'all are too far away, y'all speak to quiet, or there is some chatter/ac/car/general noise that is much louder than yall. i also can be hard of hearing at times and its really important that i can hear your arguments. i will also let you know in round if you need to speak up or move to a better spot

_______________________________________________________________

try not to say "is anyone not ready?" it's a very awkward phrase with bit of a negative connotation, but don't worry if you do say it, it won't really affect your speech score. it's just very weird to hear it and "is everyone ready?" is quicker

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

Hi, if you're down here, snack or candy bribes won't give you the W, but it doesn't hurt to try lol

See you in a round! (:

for email chains: nicolettaenciu@gmail.com

Georgina Garcia STEAM - Legacy High School None

Jaslene Godinez STEAM - Legacy High School None

Joseph Gomez Hire None

Isabel Gomez Hernandez Hire

Jared Gonzalez Arce California Academy of Mathematics and Science

Last changed on Thu May 30, 2024 at 4:46 PM PDT

CAMS '25

LAMDL

gonzalezcamsdebate@gmail.com

Debaters I've learned from: Job, Saul Cardenas, Bryan Chen

I might ramble a bit in this paradigm but if I'm judging you you're probably a novice. If you are then I suggest you just look over my quick pointers but ngl I didn't even know what a paradigm was as a novice

Put me on to a good song and its +0.2 speaks

Quick Tips

Judge instruction over all else. Assume I know nothing and tell me why your certain evidence/args flow your side, how you are winning framing, what that means for the debate, etc. I've encountered people who use pre-written overview blocks for their second constructive and the rebuttals. And sure overviews are good to tell the judge what's going on in the debate but these shouldn't be that long, I just want to know the main issues of the debate and for you to give analytics on that issue. Some overview blocks turn into answering every part of an arg and then they go back to that arg later in the speech which seems like a waste of time. Change your overviews and engage with the round you're in
If an arg is dropped tell me that and explain the impact of that. Objective judging = MINIMAL logical conclusions I have to draw to justify a ballot for you

Tech > truth even in instances where I think your argument is intuitively better. If you drop a framework arg and have no competing impact calc I side with the team that has competing fw and an actual impact calc I can evaluate. If both teams drop fw and have no impact calc then its a wash. At the end of the day debate is an educational activity imo and I think you can learn a lot more as a person by debating all kinds of competing advocacies and learning the pros/cons of every kind of arg even (and especially) if you don't agree with them personally
Flowing for me is sort of straight down, so I would appreciate if you could answer arguments in a list and keep them organized. PLEASE HAVE A CLEAR ROADMAP AND STICK TO IT. If you know you can't or your rebuttal is lacking and all over the place at the bare minimum be very clear when you're moving on to a new argument
Analytics over card-reading. This is for novices especially, it's kinda obvious when you're just reading off a card and don't know the substance behind it. I've definitely been guilty over this before
Speaks start at a 27 and go up and down from there. Rebuttal organization > speaking ability > strategic analytics > cross ex is the order in which I judge speaks. For cx please have both speakers be active. I will dock down some speaks for both the 1st and 2nd speaker if one of them is dominating cx. Clarity > speed but if you can do both then fire.
Don't be super annoying but also don't be a bore. Be in that sweet spot of annoyingness and run with it

Thoughts on different arguments

Disads - Make sure to defend your uniqueness and explain the link even if it seems obvious. Quoting directly from the 1AC is good for speaks. Start impact calc in the 2ac/2nc and maybeee the 1nc if time allows (but 1nc should be filled up all 8 minutes). An impact explanation in the overview works too. Impacts on da's are pretty important to me but don't expect to win on just extinction outweighs and somehow that is all your disad framing/impact

Counterplans - Please explain how it is functionally competitive. I've seen a lot of states cp's this year become a wash because the 1n can't explain or differentiate from the aff plan which makes the perm an easy buy. Competitive also doesn't mean winning on just a single net benefit and relying on that net benefit heading into the 2nr is kinda risky. A decently explained perm again makes the net benefit useless and if the cp itself is not functionally different it flows aff (probably)

K - K's are cool but framework needs to be held up. You're criticizing the very assumptions of the 1ac so if you can't defend fw then the K is useless. Going into the 2ac answer framing as well because if not it forces me to weigh the k fw throughout the debate. Also please explain the alt and why alt only happens under your fw if the 2a runs a perm. I think kritiks make for very thoughtful debates but if you're running the same generic cap k all season and your alt is very vague/idealist then at least work on concrete perm blocks. Epistemological shift alts fall prey to perms a lot if they're not properly explained or applied

this will be more fleshed out after summer/camp. if the k stuff doesn't make sense i promise (hope) it will after summer

Andrey Huang Hire

Last changed on Sun May 12, 2024 at 10:22 AM EDT

Introduction

BRAVO Varsity Debater -- 24-25 Co-Captain -- shoutout to my team ᕙ(＠°▽°＠)ᕗ!!

Preferences/Standards

I'm fine with almost everything, I'm happy aslong as proper debate structures are withheld all round. I ask you to keep your own time and run prep time properly. Please give a roadmap and signpost properly -- because I hate judge intervention,if I didn't catch something you said then I will NOT evaluate it. If something is dropped within a speech, it will make it harder for me to evaluate it -- most likely I will not weigh a dropped argument. Please do not bring up a new off (besides theory or something similar) in the 13-minute neg block (2nc/1nr), I will not evaluate it at all -- Aff feel free to call neg out because I will lean with you. For novices and JV please stay to your packets.

Be confident! Try your best to make sense of and understand what you're actually reading! Have fun, at the end of the day you're all here to learn!

Ballot/Speaks

Speaks start at 28. I think I'm pretty generous so aslong as you show me your trying your best I will reward you!

Tech>Truth. Of course, being persuasive is a big factor but to avoid judge intervention/bias, I will have to evaluate any arguments that were dropped or conceded. This doesn't mean I will automatically vote on you if you didn't drop anything.

Include enough clash/line-by-lines, should try to refer/support your claims with a warrant/card, try explaining how your impact is triggered through the other team model/plan and how you solve it.

If your rude or try to justify a form of violence your speaks will be terrible.

Threshold to win on something (Tailored more to the GND):

For both sides please give me judge instructions, later on the speech please make it clear what I would be voting on. It makes it had on me when you read a whole both of arguments to me and leave me to organize and prioritize everything. To avoid judge intervention as well, please be direct in the rebutall what you are winning on and what I'm gonna vote on.

Aff: Maintain all stock issues, prove aff desirable even along with neg offense. Tell me why your plan outweighs or should be prioritized whatever point neg has made. I value extinction args, if I don't see a proper impact calc or case outweigh I will be disappointed and it will make it very hard to vote for you. This doesn't mean teams can just say extinction outweighs, I need warrants and a proper explanation of how extinction will occur. 2ac-1ar-2ar must hold consistent answer, I will less likely evaluate an argument that sounds very new in the rebuttal -- please put it in the 2ac and extend from there.

Neg: Please properly make an argument (claim, warrant, impact). I find that a lot of teams can prove something true over aff but fail to give me an impact, so what if you're correct? What does that mean? Do it turn case and mean aff links back into their own impact or is it they can't solve? Aff dropping an argument is NOT an auto-lose, it will make them weak but it's up to you to impact the fact they dropped it and what it means.

Neg case -- If you read a lot of cards, please extend on it later on why the argument you made should be a voter. If this isn't carried throughout speeches consistently I won't evaluate it.

Neg CP -- I must see a clear counterplan text, a clear solvency method, and a clear net benefit and why aff can't access that. You must also win how your cp in competitive and must have a well-put perm answer. If your net benefit is a DA, you must defend that DA or the CP is also a wash.

Neg DA -- Must maintain a consistent and clear structure throughout the round -- Uniquness, link, internal link, and impact. Must be a good impact calc done or the DA is a wash. Tell me what it means to be winning on a DA and how it turns aff, I don't wanna make this connection for you so please do it.

Other

If you wanna send me cards or add me to an email chain feel free to ask me. After a round, feel free to also message or ask further questions!

-- ahuang0018@mymail.lausd.net

Emily Huang Hire

Alliana Bejo Huerto Hire

Last changed on Fri May 24, 2024 at 3:05 AM PDT

Experience: 3 years of policy debate in high school. 2 year in varsity, 1 in JV/Novice.

VHTPA: 2021-Present

Contact: ahuerto0001@mymail.lausd.net

DO NOT:

Bring up arguments in support of any of the "-isms" like sexism, racism, or any of the "-phobias" like homophobia and such.
Do not extend time for cross x or prep time. The point of time limits is to practice the optimization of communicating certain topics in a concise manner. You are not helping yourself or the other team by doing this.
Do not cheat in the round by looking up details you are unsure of in google or text teammates. If I catch you it's an auto lose. Again, this does not help you or the team you are debating. You will only be cheating yourself by doing this.

During the Round I will..

Pretend I know nothing about the topic. If you tell me something and make a good enough claim as to why this happens I will believe you unless contested.

Debate Preferences:

I'm fine with tag-teaming, but I'd prefer dividing up cross ex traditionally.
I prefer clarity over speed, if I don't catch what you are saying (especially if an argument you just read is really good) I will not flow it, so be careful as it might cost you the round.
Be civil during cross-ex. I notice that in debate rounds some teams shout and interrupt one another; I appreciate passion, but not interruption.
Be passionate when speaking. Emphasize the most important arguments.
Clash is important. If you hear an argument being brought up like "Inflation DA" look for Inflation DA answers, this helps the debate round become more well-developed.
Cite authors when you are referring to a warrant made in one of your cards.

(ignore this number tabroom won't let me delete it for some reason)

Case:

I love impact calc and solvency deficits. Lots of debates are super technical, but the urgency of all your plan is down to whether something bad happens if we don't enact it, so make sure not to drop any impact arguments.

Disad + CP:

Do lots of work on the net benefit and don't forget to emphasize the terminal impacts. Give me clarity on how specifically the aff causes the disad, why it is bad, and how the counterplan is uniquely good to solve these impacts. As aff, point out possible contradictions in their arguments and tell me why the counterplan doesn't work opposed to the affs plan through impact calc. Also, tell me why the disad isn't true.

Other Lightly Debate Related Issues:

I know its very easy to get caught up with the competitiveness of debate and its also very easy to feel anxious during tournaments, but just know that in the end this is all an educational sport. Don't be afraid to try out new arguments and don't feel pressured to learn stuff you are not comfortable with arguing. You do you and I will judge to the best of my extent giving feedback and some motivational advice during the RFDs. To everyone who made it this far in the paradigm good luck to your round whether I'm judging it or not.

Stephanie Denise Job Hire

Last changed on Mon April 29, 2024 at 2:10 AM PDT

No clue why it still has my deadname on my judge paradigm, but please refer to me as Andres or just my last name (pronounced Jobe).

Email: jobbravodebate@gmail.com (they/he)
Affiliation: Bravo Medical Magnet '24 / UC Irvine '28
I am happy to answer any questions you have before and after the round.

____________________

TLDR; Run whatever you want as long as you follow the structure of the argument and do not be a menace to people. Please give me judge instruction, tell me why everything you're saying is important. Speak clear and loud and ask me if I'm ready to hear your speech. I only vote based on what I have on my flow paper, which means you MUST let me know what you're saying. Don't cheat and bring in new arguments in later speeches, I will take off speaker points. PLEASE KNOW THAT I AM A JUDGE WHO IS VERY VERY VERY VERY KEEN ON FAIRNESS AND FOLLOWING THE RULES. Your speaker points start at 28.0 and go up or down based on your performance throughout the round. Have fun!!

_____________________

Long Paradigm:

Although I enjoy watching specific types of debates, I will still evaluate any arguments that you run; feel free to run CPs, DAs, T, K's, K-Affs, soft left, big stick, etc. However, I will not vote for you if you are racist/ sexist/ homophobic/ transphobic/ ableist, derogatory, or rude. If any of you degrade others or me at any point of the debate(before, during, or after the debate started), I will give you an auto-L, lowest speaker points available, an extremely long lecture, and will contact your coach. I trust you to be good people.

_____________________

Speaker Points:

The baseline for speaks is 28.0. It will go up depending on your ability to perfect the Holy Trinity: Format, Performance, and Technicality.

1. Format: follow the format of the arguments I gave you above. Follow the time structure of debate. This should be the easiest points to win and would give you a decent.
2. Performance: have clarity, have a good tempo and speed, BE PASSIONATE WHEN SPEAKING. This also means that when you're speaking you must be confident, and not pause a lot in the middle of your speech because you're not sure what else to say. This also means you MUST use all of your speech time or else it shows unpreparedness. KEEP TRACK OF YOUR TIME.
3. Technicality: The hardest thing in the world for debaters apparently. This means: NOT DROPPING ARGUMENTS, ANSWERING ARGUMENTS EFFECTIVELY, CALLING OUT DROPPED ARUGMENTS, DOING IMPACT CALC, JUDGE INSTRUCTIONS, OVERVIEWS, EFFECTIVE LINE BY LINE, ETC.). I weigh this above the other 2 standards, which means if you do poorly at this you will probably expect your speaker points to NOT be higher than a 28.1 and be around the 27.2-27.8 range.

Things that will drop your speaker points (that don't fall under Holy Trinity):

Typing when it's NOT prep time (sending docs, bathroom break, etc.)
Still talking after speech time is over (I will tell you when I permit cross ex after time is over)
Card clipping (plz highlight your cards)
Reading new cards in rebuttals (with the exclusion of 1nr)
New arguments in the neg block and beyond

_____________________

Preferences For Rounds (1-10 scale)

Soft-Left Policy vs. K: 3/10 Eh not the best debates I've judged

Soft-Left Policy vs. Policy: 7/10 love it, wish I saw more of these

Big Stick Policy vs. K: 6/10 More interesting clash and the impact debate is most interesting

Big Stick Policy vs. Policy: 7/10 policy v. policy is cool

K-Aff vs. K: 5/10 hit or miss with this ... pls pls pls only run Ks if you know how to run them

K-Aff vs. Policy: 10/10 I love creative debates, they offer refreshment in my judging career

Counterplans:
NEG: I will not vote on or evaluate CPs with no CP text. that being said, feel free to run a CP, BUT you must have a CLAIM and a WARRANT as to why it's better than the aff. You want to prove to me that you have a net benefit the aff can't access and show that you solve better. Often times, debaters either get lost in the permutation debate and ultimately doesn't give the judge a clear story on how the CP works and how it interacts with the aff plan. If the affirmative calls you out on dropping permutations, I will weigh it against you and it will make it very hard for me to vote for you on the CP.
A lot of neg debaters I've come across are confused on the CP structure, so I'll give it here. I will NOT give you good speaker points if you can't abide by basic debate structure.

AFF: I want to see a permutation at the top of my CP flow in the 2ac. Extend it until the end. I enjoy it when an aff team runs multiple permutations and only go for 1 perm in the 1ar. If you drop the permutation and don't have any good defense against the CP and the neg team calls you out for it, I will most likely vote neg (given that they've explained what it means to drop the perm)

_____________________

Disads:
For the sake of my sanity PLEASE have IMPACT CALC. This goes for both aff and neg.

NEG: Follow the structure of a DA: uniqueness, link, internal link, impact. If I don't see this structure on my flow, it will be hard to want to vote for you. If you're using the DA as a net benefit to the CP, I want to hear the distinction or I will not put it on my flow. If the affirmative calls you out on not including all the components of the DA/drop your arguments, I will ultimately believe that the affirmative does not trigger the impacts of the DA.

AFF: please respond to all components of the DA and do impact calc. PLEASE HAVE OFFENSE AGAINST THE DA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

_____________________

Theory/Topcality:
I love theory and topicality, IF done right. If you're running T when the other side clearly doesn't violate, I will not appreciate it. Even if you're using T as a time skew make it somewhat relevant and interesting. I don't vote on Disclosure Theory unless I see valid proof / the tournament rules say so.

NEG: If you're going to go for theory please extend all your points and belabor the reason why it's a voter for education and fairness. I need a card provided to support your interpretation for whichever word you're defining.

AFF: Counter-interpretation need a card. RVI get out of here

_____________________

Kritiks/K-Affs:
NGL getting kind of boring here, I'm very tired of debaters running Ks without knowing the literature and the structure of the K. I would prefer if the neg team sticks to policy negs if you're certain you can't make a K interesting to me in this debate round.

NEG:

I don't like Cap K but I'll still vote on it!
As a native/indigenous debater who ran a bunch of set col performance k's and k-affs... pls try not to read set col unless one of yall identify as indigenous, especially if the alternative is to embrace some sort of indigenous praxis.... I get really uncomfortable hearing people read over experiences of indigenous folk for the sake of having an argument
I don't like Postmodernism...........
Every other K is good as long as you have proper framework and have specific links, I don't think the alternative has to be valid for the neg to win on K-- just need to prove aff links and make squo uniquely worse

AFF:K-Affs w/ no plan text or advocacy statement pls no...... must have some form of advocacy or clear goal thank youuu. What I said for the neg applies here!

Lloana Joj Hire

Marterria Marnae Winter King Port of Los Angeles High School

Qi Bin Lei Hire

Erika Linares Hire

Jenelle Llagas Hire

Last changed on Wed May 29, 2024 at 3:42 AM PDT

Hi! I’m Jenelle (jenelledebate@gmail.com) Lake Balboa ‘26. Email for any questions/email chains

when it comes to my preferences: i allow tag teaming (unless a maverick is present), have roadmaps (and stick to them!) or clearly signpost, say “next” after each card is read, and slow down on tags + authors

other general thoughts:

Make overviews: o/vs should be at the top of each flow and should explain that flow – as aff it should explain your stock issues and as neg your o/v should give a brief explanation on your uq, link ,internal link, and impact. It saves you sm time and gives me a better understanding of the flow youre on.
provide proper warrants: you shouldnt just give me a claim – give me the evidence and explain the significance it. I wont buy arguments unles you are able to properly explain them to me accordingly
judge instruction: by the 2a/2nr’s you should be or have been spelling out the reason why you win the debate. “Judge you vote aff” with no proper reasoning why i should does not count as proper judge instruction, you should be telling me the specific reasons why i should vote for you or which flow i should vote on
i’m tech > truth
Call out dropped arguments: call the dropped argument out and explain the significance of it. I wont buy empty claims like “they dropped this so we win.” explain to me why you win on that argument or how that leads to u receiving the ballot – flesh out and call out dropped arguments
have good line by lines: the whole 1ar should be entirely of “they say __ we say __” it makes it easier to answer each argument in the least amount of time and makes it easier for me to flow u. But in general you should have good line by lines
Make impact calcs: by the end of the debate you should be explaining what your impacts are, how they occur, when itll occur, who they are affecting, and how much it will affect our population (timeframe, magnitude, and probability). Do this especially when running DAs!! Comparing impacts is the most important part of debate, whoever explains their impacts more will likely receive the ballot.
extend arguments throughout the debate and explain them thoroughly: dont forget to explain your arguments consistently in all of your speeches. Do not drop any arguments, especially during the neg block, but be sure to explain what your arguments are and the significance of them
Allocate your time accordingly: the 1ac should be backflowing the 2ac to make sure nothing goes unanswered, the 2ac should backflow the 1ar to do the same. As aff, case should be at the top of your roadmap, do not leave case to be at the bottom of it. If youre not able to get through all of your cards, dehighlight them – and when your partner is spending too much time on one flow, let them know! If you dont have proper time allocation, you wont get to key arguments and likely lose on something that couldve been solved by having proper time allocation.
Be sure to flow well: Your judges notice when you dont flow at all or dont flow well, lots of arguments are dropped during the 2ac/neg block/rebuttals, you need to flow good in order to call out these arguments. When key arguments are dropped and are not called out, it shows me that you didnt flow good, so plsss flowwww.
Act like i know nothing about the topic: you should be explaining to me what organizations you use/what acronyms you use/or what niche parts of your arguments are and the importance of them, dont assume i know what youre talking about. I wont vote on an argument surrounding something that i dont understand. you are the one debating, you should be telling me these things
Be organized: if you dont know your roadmap signpost clearly. If you dont tell me what flow youre on im going to miss key parts of your arguments, if youre moving onto case – tell me, If youre moving onto a DA – tell me. Answering arguments should be organized, too -- preferably through a line by line

Argument specifics

For CPs — explain to me the net benefit, prove the mutual exclusivity of both plans, explain ur solvency mechanism, how u solve for the aff’s impacts, and how you solve better than the aff. as aff, explain to me the world of the perm and how both plans are not mutually exclusive.
for Disads — pls explain the internal link (HOW will your impact occur), explain the impact, give me a clear link, and plsss make an impact calc. as aff, i expect no link or link turns, and to explain why your impacts outweigh their DA

speaks — they start at 28 and go up and down depending on how u do. but if you’re confident, loud, persuasive, and passionate, u’ll get high speaks.

Overall have fun! please don’t be rude to any of your opponents. any acts of racism, homophobia, etc, will not be tolerable and result in an auto lose

Stephanie Lopez Hire None

Daniel E Mangandi-Escobar Hire

Last changed on Thu January 25, 2024 at 5:11 AM PDT

Affiliations:

Downtown Magnets High School: 2018 to 2021

University of Northern Colorado: 2021 - Present

Things to know:

Be nice.

Have four years of policy debate (CX) experience, so I understand the concept of debate and everything that it entails. If you have any questions or concerns, email me as fast as possible (danielmangandi1029@gmail.com). To flash please send it to mang2626@bears.unco.edu.

Some background about me is that I am a gay/hispanic person (he/him/they pronouns), I am very fond of queer theory and have run it before. I am a psychology and philosophy major at the University of Northern Colorado, with a specialty in studying metaphysics and epistemology. I also have some experience in logic and identity theory (mostly feminist and queer theory).

Some things to take note of:

1. Interrupting your partners during cross-ex. Trust your partner's response or at least make them finish their thoughts before you add on. DON'T INTERRUPT them during their sentence.

2. Being homophobic, sexist, racist, etc. I will automatically stop the round and call it out. You will be punished with your speaks (0) and an automatic L. Debate is a safe space and those types of rhetoric/actions are not acceptable. Micro-aggressions committed would be called out during the round with a warning, if it continues I would stop the round. To add on, I will talk to your coach/team about what happened during the round.

3. Speed. If you are going too fast that it starts to become unclear I would warn you at most twice. If it still continues I would just stop flowing. In the top of your speech start off slow and build up your speed; so that it becomes easier to flow your speech.

4. Please have clash! Respond to your opponent's arguments and extend your own.

5. I will vote on the easiest argument happening in the round. If you drop the Disad I'm voting for it (if impacted out). If you drop the violation on T in the 2Ar I would vote for T for the Neg (if impacted out). Don't make me do the work for you. If I do an excessive amount of work to vote on you, you'll probably get low speaks. --Note-- Just because something was dropped doesn't mean I'm always gonna vote on it. Don't just say "they dropped [blank], vote for us" it needs to be explained as to why dropping the argument is something worth talking about (dropping a link defense is not the same as dropping a turn).

7. If you want to read a Kaff, please make it accessible for everyone (have a transcript to send it to everyone in the round. If you don't... I might not catch it, and if your opponents drop it then I'm not voting for it because you didn't make it accessible.). Also, make sure that you explain what your theory of power is and what are you doing about it. NOTE OF WARNING: Have your Kaff be in the direction of the topic, not gonna vote on something outside of the topic because I would be lost once the moment you send the 1ac (my brain can't handle your big brain energy).

8. For T, make sure that you have your interp, standards, and violation extended. One of my favorite off-cases so I am very nitpicky on how you run it and how arguments are impacted out. I think that fairness and education impacts are very persuasive but not fully impacted or articulated then I am prone to go with aff reasonability.

9. For Da's, articulate your link story, if its vague I won't buy it. Have an impact story and say why the impact outweighs.

10. Make your Cp's textually competitive. Also biased towards condo args (6 off-cases are fine but any more makes it iffy for me and tend to go aff leaning).

11. For K's make sure your links are contextualized as well as your alternatives. I have knowledge on cap, security, fem/queer, bio-politics/bio-power, topic generics (i.e the K everyone runs during the topic like for the cjr topic it was the abolition k), and settler colonialism. If you want to test your luck on very complex K's, I would recommend explaining it very well (don't use too much jargon... imagine you are explaining your k to a 5-year-old).

12. Good Luck! Remember that debate is a place for learning, safety, and fun.

Jasmin Magaly Martinez Hire None

Lilit Nargizyan Hire None

Claudia Ogarrio Hernandez STEAM - Legacy High School

Riley Ornelas Port of Los Angeles High School

Curtis Ortega Hire

Last changed on Tue June 11, 2024 at 3:22 AM PDT

cmeowdebate@gmail.com

CSULB OF

HArts OP

0] NSDA Update: Congrats on making it this far! My biggest preference for this particular tournament is to make rounds go smoothly soon as possible. That means please be to your rounds on time, prevent downtime in between speeches, and prevent any technical delays if possible. If all goes well, speaks will be rewarded and I will be in a vastly better mood as opposed to the opposite.

1] General:

Thoughts: Debate is game. I vote for the team that did the better debating based on an offense/defense paradigm. Technical concessions outweigh and come first before any evaluation of truth claims. Flow, make good arguments, respect your opponents (with a hint of petty), and have fun. I'm sure I will be known as primarily a "K-Debater" which is proven by the amount of clash- debates I judge. Regardless, do not change your style for me, and do what is most comfortable to you. Start the round on time, add me to the chain as soon as disclosure is sent, and prevent as much downtime as possible before speeches. Asking questions about what was read is prep.

2] Misc:

Debate Shoutouts: Deven Cooper, Dayvon Love, Diego "Jay-Z" Flores, Erika Linares, Rickelle Basillo, Geo Liriano, Jaysyn Green, Destiny Popoca, Lauren Willard, Cameron Ward, Gabriela Gonzalez, Isai Ortega, Andres Marquez, Elvis Pineda, J-Beatz, J-Burke, Von, Cameron Ward, Toya, Jorge Aguilar, Ryan Upston, Y'Mahnie Harvey, Max Wiessner, Sofia Gurrola, Jean and Gavie, Clare Bradley, and all of #LAMDLGANG.

"IR topics are cool bc we learn abt the world and stuff" - E.C. Powers, Wyoming Debate 5/22/23.

Song Challenge: I usually start speaks at 28.5 and move up/down depending on performance. On a softer note, I usually will listen to music while I write my RFD. Most times, I already have decided a winner after the 2AR has ended, but I always go over my flow/notes one last time before I write or submit my ballot. I love listening to new music, and I listen to every genre imaginable. That being said, I love to hear the tunes y'all have been jamming to recently. To encourage such behavior, debaters have an opportunity to garner extra speaks based on their music suggestions. Each team is allowed to give me one song to listen to while I write my RFD. It cannot be a song I've heard before. If I like the song, you will receive a +.1 to your speaker points. If I don't like it, you won't receive any extra, but I also won't redact any from your original score.

Here are teams I love debating against:

Wake RL/RT

Kentucky DG

Wyoming LP

Wayne State RM

My list of favorite white people in debate is coming soon.

Arthur Papazyan Hire

Ofelia Papazyan Hire

Justin Parco Lake Balboa College Prep

Sophia Perez STEAM - Legacy High School None

Max Phillips George Washington Preparatory High School None

Elvis Pineda Hire

Last changed on Mon January 8, 2024 at 4:09 AM PDT

Experience: Policy Debate (2 Years, But I still made it all the way to Urban Nationals Gurl)

Francisco Bravo Medical Magnet High School: 2016-18

Cal State Long Beach: 2018-19

Contact Info: elvispinedaten@gmail.com

In a nutshell: I'm a pretty open debater and I love hearing all types of arguments. Policy Arguments... love them, Critical Arguments... love them, just make sure to articulate your arguments because even something as simple as a Cap K are run differently from round to round. Uniqueness questions are good, Links need to be there, Impacts are vital (You don't know how many people forget to impact out their stuff... make sure you do because I NEED TO KNOW WHAT IM VOTING FOR, I will not feel bad voting you down if you have a great link story but no impacts) and I appreciate intellectual debate jargon. All in all I will vote on anything, it just has to make sense and you have to convince me why I should vote for you and not the opposing team (Cross-Analysis). I love debate; I believe its a form of academic expression and just remember to have fun and pour your hearts out on the battlefield. I'm not a point fairy but passion, effort and craft are highly rewarded as I highly value (as we all should) seeing students actively pushing themselves for both an academic and interpersonal growth!

K's: Know the literature, it'll make your clap-backs that much stronger and makes it easier to contextualize. Throughly explain the alt, I noticed that the alternative debate is always the least covered and if I don't throughly understand what I'm voting for... then the permutation becomes an easy option for me as long as I believe it is possible. LINK ANALYSIS WILL GO A LONG WAY... Just saying. I ran Queer, Ableism, Witchcraft and several CRT K's but I understand the post-modern ones as well (please don’t run baudrillard, I’ve already had to vote it up once --> Update: Twice).

K' Affs: I ran Critical affirmatives the majority of my debate career so I might already understand or be lenient towards some of the reasons why non-traditional affirmation might be good. HOWEVER!!! This doesn't mean that if you run a K Aff I'll automatically vote for you, I find myself voting on presumption arguments or framework a lot because sometimes the literature of the affirmative is so dense and either: A) I feel like there is an articulation issue (and thus disorder on the flow) because of the density of the material or B) The internal link chain which leads me to believe that the affirmative is a good idea might be fundamentally under developed.

Da's: Uniqueness... Link.... Internal Links.... Impacts. I like disads, make sure to be strategic, make them net-benefits to the Cp otherwise I do believe that the Squo is always a viable option.

Cp's: Remember that not all Cp's are plan-inclusive and to me at least all you have to prove is that your method solves better than the aff. Have Net-benefits and show me solvency deficits (It'll make your life easier trust). No I won't judge kick the CP for you unless you explicitly tell me, i feel like it gives judge intervention way to much power.

T: Topicality is more than "aff is not topical". Tell me why that is bad? What do you lose access to? Prove to me why the aff's interpretation of debate is bad or abusive. If I can make those connections and you persuade me to prefer your model of debate, then its looking good for you and I'm very inclined to vote on it.

Framework: A lot of T applies here too, make sure to win why we need procedural fairness, why is the aff's model of debate bad for the debate community in general, Internal and External impacts are convincing, and also make sure to make those common FW arguments that prove you don't limit the aff. Framework to me also doesn't necessarily mean that "USFG means the 3 Branches of Government", even though its common and I don't mind seeing it, I feel like you can tailor so many framework arguments to work around the rhetorical offense affirmatives get with that interpretation.

Aff's: PROVE TO ME WHY WE NEED THE AFF! I need to know that there is a reason why you have to affirm what you are affirming and thats why you're doing it in a nontraditional way. Also prove to me why your model of debate is preferable to the neg's arguments. Just persuade me (Make me feel like I HAVE TO DO IT). In addition, anything performative should always be used... and offensively too. Don't waste precious 1AC time without utilizing it to the best of your advantage.

Case: I LOVE CASE DEBATE <3!!! I appreciate a good neg team that directly challenges the aff's warrants and their claims. So that being said... good case debate is appreciated and will be rewarded with higher speaks. Flush out them case turns (I'll gasp if its good)

Advise for the aff: Don't forget your 1AC, YOU SPEND 8/9 Minutes on it, please utilize it and utilize it as offensively as you can!

HAVE FUN! I love debate and I'm always happy and excited to watch y'alls debates!

GOOD LUCK!

Hannah Quiroz Hire

Valeria Reyes Hire None

Daniel Robles Port of Los Angeles High School

Last changed on Sat May 25, 2024 at 2:20 AM PDT

About me (Feel free to skip)

I am a LAMDAL varsity debater from Port of Los Angeles High School (POLAHS). I am Jun Kwons and Delmy Lopez's #2 Fan. I have done three years of debate and two year of varsity debate. I have attendedsome invitationals but I am not a debate God or even extremely competent by any means (Trust me). Don't expect anything from me in the form of wisdom or something like that but I will judge the round to the best of my ability.Thank you for reading this you say "macroni and cheese are delicious" you'll get +0.2 speaker point.

About Debate

I will listen to nearly anything. If you can make a good arguement I'll listen even if it is somewhat con . But if your are outright sexist, racist or any of the phobics your not gonna win, and if you do on tech it will still be a very low point win or double loss.

Rounds Judged

Rookie - 0

Novice - 2

JV - 1

Speaker Point (For me, I start at a 28. This is rather generous, but I WILL give out low speaks if I deem it)

29.5-30: Amazing speaking capabilities, going to win a speaker award, college bound, very entertaining, swag on 100, kino and very based my friend. (:

29.5 to 29.2: Great speaking, maybe not amazing but definitely pretty good. probably will get a speaker award, good speech execution, etc.

28.1-29.4: Good speaking, might get a speaker award, you did good.

28: Average, this is better then 50% of the population.

27.5 - 27.9 : You were in the room and spoke.

27 - 27.4 : You probably did something really weird, were lowkey problematic, or just like did not contribute/worsened your team's chance to win, you teammate probably hated you in this debate.

Anything below: You practically either didn't debate/exist or you did something crazy like "Sexism Good" so I called down a A-10 Warthog on your speaker points and probably gave you a 1 and said some rightfully mean things to you. Shameful displey.

Likes

-Jun Kwon, Michela Short, and Delmy Lopez.

-Articulation. If you can explain something very well whether it be in a simplistic or more complex way I will see that and commend that. It can get your very far in a round if your articulate. Your side will look more desirable to listen to.

-I am a K Debater so I like them. But if you don't run them correctly or poorly expect a more harsh reprisal then most other off cases. Same goes for T.

Dislikes

-I expect you to be respectful. If you act like a tool during the round and are rude don't expect high speaker points. If your particularly horrid even if you won on tech don't bet on taking the W.

-This falls in with the last one as well but I expect you to not be cocky. Cockiness will be determined at my own discretion.

-Judge intervention. If I have to jump through like twenty feet to have your point make sense, even if it is a very good point I'll still have alot of trouble taking that into account.

-Boring debates. This may seem self spoken but if the debate is boring I will zone out, I will paint my miniatures mid round, and I will play a game on my laptop. Im going to be completely honest, if I see the 1NC as all theory blocks for eight minutes expect me to be half paying attention the rest of the round. It is not that hard to make a debate interesting, if it isn't that means one side has probably already messed up big time and not even in a funny more then likely.

Thank you to Curtis Ortega. I ~~stole~~ borrowed a majority of this from him.

Debate Email: polahsdebatedr@gmail.com

Personal Email: drobles9585@polahs.net

Phone Number: +1 (310) 738-0853

jobs not done

Jose Rodriguez Estrada Huntington Park High School None

Alejandro Romero Hire None

Angel Sanchez Hire

Michela Short Hire

Last changed on Sat May 25, 2024 at 8:08 AM EDT

polahs & lamdl '22

liberty '25

i debated for 4 years in an urban debate league (yes we know how to debate)

micheladebate@gmail.com

top level:

TURN YOUR CAMERA ON I am not listening to a debate podcast

give roadmap, signpost, have clash, make me laugh

S L O W D O W N on analytics my hand is slow

if you run more than 5 off I will dock your speaks

I cannot hear that well so if youre mumbling im not flowing that arg

dont spread blocks at me I need round contextualization

I vote on theory I think it's important

I make lots of facial expressions... they're a good indicator of how well you're doing

I need judge instruction tbh im lazy (you should do this for every judge anyways)

if you make someone uncomfortable im docking your speaks and giving that person higher speaks (being in a round where that has happened to be several times I am very sympathetic)

please make cx funny

don't steal prep bruh it's not that serious

ngl I can barely keep up with my own time in round so im def not gonna keep it as the judge. but if you seem sus with the time imma call you out

policy (cx):

~ depth over breadth so if you run a bunch of offs please explain them thoroughly bc I get annoyed having to flow a bunch of offs that get kicked in the block as a "strategy" but it really just makes the debate messy and no one knows what they're talking about

~ long overviews are a waste of time

~ saying kritiks are bad for debate will never be a good "arg" in front of me. get with the times. your model of debate is bad.

~ case debate is fun tbh

~ I like case turns

~ dont tell me to judge kick- you're the one debating

~ ballot pik/k/turn: if youre gonna sit here and tell the other team that asking for the ballot from a non white person is bad - u need to check urself this is the one arg im definitely not tabula rasa on... everybody wants the ballot - just debate that's how u get the ballot youre wasting ur time debating about the ballot cuz im gonna give it to someone whether they specifically ask for it or not it's an inevitable portion of debate

~ I dont have any hs hierarchical awareness so dont think imma vote for u bc ur that school or that team stop being pretentious this is a niche activity worry abt school more

2023-24 szn

~ tbh work K is so good like ugh ik that's not the most popular take but still

~ im not an economist so don’t assume ik what youre saying

policy v policy

~ do not pref me plz (im not incompetent or whatever but ur style of debate is just very bland)

~ i.e. "our ___ card is really good on this" LOL what does the card say???

policy v k

~ I love a good soft left aff v a critique

~ impact weighing is good but it ultimately comes down to a util debate anyways

~ I will vote on cap or fw btw so don’t be scared to run that

~ K teams don’t just be like fwk is racist u have to justify it use YOUR impacts

k v k

~ these are my fav debates to be in esp method debates

~ reject the alt – bruh u gotta tell me what mechanisms youre rejecting

~ I feel like yall be scared of each other – be confident!!!

other formats:

I don't know a thing about ld, speech, congress,pf, or parli so please explain things to me very simply

im still learning pf slowly but surely

be interesting

tech vs truth is not real

reading cap ≠ k debater

being a k hack is not a thing

being a policy hack is a thing

good luck

Daniel Smiley Hire

Matthew Stroud Hire

Eric Michael Tobias Hire

Last changed on Tue January 30, 2024 at 4:48 AM PDT

Experience: 3 years of policy debate in high school. 2 years in varsity, 1 in JV/Novice.

VHTPA 2021-Present

Contact: erictobias1729@outlook.com

Feel free to ask me any questions you have about my paradigm if there’s something you need more information on. Also, I should only be judging Novice/JV rounds, so this paradigm is largely targeted at them.

General Preferences

Judging Style: I try to be tech over truth to the best of my ability. If you drop something and your opponent extends it, I'll consider it true, and I value judge instruction a lot. Generally, you should spend a decent amount of time on impact calculus and contextualizing your links to the other team if you want to make it easy for me to vote for you.

Speaking & Organization: Overall, I'm fine with spreading as long as you're relatively clear, but please slow down while reading the tag and author of your cards. On the same subject, please signpost; if you're not aware, that means clearly stating when you're moving between off-cases or cards. Tag teaming is alright as long as you don't talk over your partner, I'll have to dock your speaks if you do. For CX more generally, being assertive is ideal, but don't be excessively rude or cut your opponent off in the middle of a sentence. I also like seeing specific points from CX get brought up in your speeches, and outside of general ethos, that's its main application as far as I'm concerned. PLEASE KEEP YOUR OWN TIME. I'll be keeping track as well, but it can be tiring doing so, and you should be able to take care of it on your own. Finally, though this should be obvious, saying anything racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. is the quickest route to getting a 0 and an L.

Argument-Specific Preferences

Case: I think case debate can be interesting, and I love when it gets cross-applied to other arguments, but I think it often gets a little overused. I've seen teams just read down a list of case cards for 4 minutes, and I'd much rather see fewer, more strategic case arguments that use the best-warranted cards to target weaker points of the Aff. For the Aff, responding to case should be one of your top priorities, but make sure not to get overwhelmed by it and not put enough time toward the off-cases. Additionally, you should always be trying to get the most offensive use out of your case wherever you can, usually to outweigh a DA or K or point out a solvency deficit in a CP.

DAs: DAs are probably the simplest off-case, but that doesn't mean they can't be effective. I think they work best as the net benefit to a CP, and when extending the DA, you should focus on telling a cohesive story of how the Aff causes your impacts and why those impacts outweigh the case; historical examples can definitely help you here.

CPs: Make sure to explain how your CP solves the Aff's case, and, crucially, explain why it can't coexist with the Aff. The single strongest argument against a CP is almost always the perm, so both teams need to spend a decent amount of time on that. For the Aff in particular, you need to explain specifically what your perm looks like. For JV, I tend to err Neg on CP theory, but I think it can lead to some very interesting debates, and if the Neg mishandles it, it can easily win a round on its own.

Ks: Even more so than DAs, the K needs to be very thoroughly explained (the alt in particular can be quite vague), and there's such an abundance of historical instances of what you critique that you'd be remiss not to point to one as an example of your impacts. Framework is also very helpful in arguing that your impacts outweigh, so be sure to make good use of it. For the Aff, it is possible to win the link debate against the K, especially if the other team doesn't do the best job explaining it. Overall, though, I think the best arguments attack the alt, either by arguing that it can't solve or that it can be done alongside the Aff. The same advice about perms on CPs applies here as well: explain clearly what any perm you run would actually entail.

Ts: Topicality was my favorite off-case in JV and Novice, and I love to see debates on it. The most important thing in a T debate is the two competing interpretations of the topic, and why each is the best option. This means that when you're extending T on either side, you should focus on why your definition is the best for debate. This isn't limited just to being correct, but also the question of which interpretation leads to the best rounds. I tend to err Aff on T because of the closed evidence set, but if the Neg can make their violation specific to something the Aff said or did in this particular round and/or provide a sensible TVA, they have a very good shot at winning. Also, I see T get dropped by the Aff a lot, and because it's a voting issue, doing so basically loses the round. If you drop T and the Neg extends it in the next speech, I pretty much start writing my ballot then and there.

Ryan Upston Hire

Talia Walters Magnolia Science Academy 2

Last changed on Sat February 10, 2024 at 2:05 AM PDT

LD:

The most important thing to me is framework in LD rounds. Unless I have a foundation that allows me to vote for you, I simply cannot justify it. The most frustrating rounds to me are the ones that have two very different, very interesting V/VCs and someone just drops theirs. That doesn't mean that 1) you can't win without winning your framework, you just have to make the other person's framework fit your case or 2) that if you two have the same framework to keep arguing because you agree. There's no reason for it.

After I determine who wins framework, I weigh the KVIs off of that framework. Again, it would take a lot for me to vote for you if you don't have any KVIs in your last speech. Those are the main points you're trying to share, and they're an easy way to narrow down the debate in your favor. If I haven't determined a winner from just framework and the KVI points, then I'll go through and look at every argument throughout the debate and determine who wins each one. From there, I usually have a winner.

I was an LD debater in high school for four years, so I'm fine with a lot of the terminology. As for the philosophies you might be running, I'm aware of a lot of possibilities, but I'm only really well versed in a few, so please take time to explain exactly what you mean (especially if it's a lesser used philosopher or a lesser known theory). I did four years of policy at USC, and am now a policy coach, so don't feel like you need to slow down for me, but I do not think LD is a place for spreading. I understand being a naturally faster speaker (I lost my own fair share of rounds because I didn't realize I was speaking too fast), but you shouldn't try to win solely on outspeaking your opponent.

Otherwise, just ask me any questions before the round that you may have.

Policy:

Hey, so I'm much different than I was in the past for Policy. I competed at the college level in Policy for USC for four years, and I am now coaching my own team, and it's been a learning experience. Here are my thoughts on things generally:

Framework/Topicality - I'm a sucker for a good T debate. It has to be good, and it has to be true, because if I'm not buying that the Aff isn't topical then you aren't going to win. But I think that FW and T args have a solid and underappreciated place in policy debate, so if you can do it well then go for it.

KAffs - I will never come into a round with a pre-conceived notion of what you should do with your debate round; however, considering how I feel about Topicality, if you're hitting a good T/FW team, then it's probably going to be somewhat of an uphill battle. I will obviously be as neutral as I can be, but we're all human and we all have biases.

K - I'm much more lenient in my feelings on the K on Neg than on Aff just because of how I believe ground works in debate. One of my partners only went for the K, so I got pretty used to how those worked. If you're running some high-theory K, then you're going to have to really explain it to me. I didn't do policy in high school, so all of those highly-circulated backfiles never got to me. Otherwise, if done well, I can be convinced of most arguments.

CPs - I almost never run these, I don't think they're the most effective argument, but I won't never vote on them. To be honest, I think they make the Neg's job significantly harder, but also, like I said before, this is your debate round. If you do a lot more work, and you end up being really good at it, then obviously you get the win.

DAs - This is usually the first half to my policy strat, so I do have somewhat of a preference for it. Make sure the link story is there and make sure you explain your impacts. I want to know that you know what you're saying.

Case Negs - This is usually the second half to my policy strat, so I also do have somewhat of a preference for this. Same as above, make sure you explain exactly why something won't solve, isn't inherent, isn't significant, etc. I think Case Negs are also under-utilized and underappreciated by debaters.

I believe that's it. Honestly, if you run anything else, that means I have no idea what you're talking about, so like explain it to me.

I'm really big into impact calc too. Extra points to whoever to fully explain to me the impact scenarios of the round and who is winning and why. It makes my job easier if I can just write down your impacts and vote from there, and that usually means it's your ballot.

Yes, I do want to be on the email chain. This email is different than before: taliamariewalters@gmail.com

Otherwise, if you have any questions, feel free to ask me in person. I'm really not that intimidating, and I LOVE talking about myself, so questions are welcome!

Login to Tabroom

LAMDL You Say You Want A Resolution

2024 — Los Angeles, CA/US

CX Judges Paradigm List

Judges