Use logic and reason to advance your argument, and avoid hyperbole or exaggeration. Treat your opponent with respect. Do not spread or speak unnaturally fast. Please don't address me as judge in your speech, rather present your argument to the room.

Hi! I'm Noam. I use he/him pronouns. I debated at Park City High School (2018-2022), where I now coach LD & Policy. I'm also a student at UChicago, where I've done some APDA. In high school, I competed in traditional LD, national-circuit LD, and local-circuit policy. I did enough circuit debate that I'm well-versed in progressive debate norms (as of 2022), but my focus is more on traditional debate now so I may be a bit rusty.

Yes, I want to be on the chain. Email: nclevinsky@gmail.com

This paradigm is mostly written for national circuit LD, so I'm putting a short version at the top since I'm judging policy at this tournament.

• I'm a tech judge, I will vote on the flow over presentation or how much I think what you're saying is true.
• I'm good for any style of argument—kritiks, k-affs, policy-style arguments, theory, topicality, etc. are all good with me. Most of my debate experience focused on the kritik, but please just read whatever you're best at.
• I'm good with speed up to 300 wpm. I will yell "clear" if I can't understand you.
• In rounds where one team is more technical than the other, I will still vote on the flow, but I may dock speaks if you spread when your opponent asks you not to or read an extremely complicated kritik against novices. Just be nice.
• Speaks reflect your clarity, organization, and strategic decisionmaking.
• I will never vote on an argument that is racist, sexist, homophobic, or bigoted in any other way. If you think this applies to your opponents' argument, call them out.

If you want to read all of my random musings about debate or find my thoughts on a specific argument, feel free to take a look at the (much) longer paradigm below:

Pref shortcuts (mostly for circuit LD)

I'm very flexible, but I'll attempt to rank which arguments I'm most comfortable evaluating. This is not a ranking of how much I like certain arguments, but rather how well I understand them as a judge.

1 - Kritiks (cap, postmodernism)

2 - Phil, other kritiks

3 - Policy stuff

4 - Topicality, generic theory

5/Strike - Tricks, frivolous theory

Introduction

This paradigm is geared toward national circuit LD because that's what I've spent the most time thinking about.

Policy debaters, please read the sections that apply to you (policy arguments, k's, T, theory) and ignore the ones that don't (tricks, philosophy). Please don't feel that you need to adapt to me as an LD judge, as I am fairly proficient in policy and will not impose my LD beliefs onto policy debates. In fact, I feel that most LD norms would be bad for policy. Do what you do best. I will probably appreciate it.

Traditional (less technical) debaters: Don't worry about all the technical jargon in this paradigm if you don't understand it. I will evaluate the content of your arguments over how you present them, and I heavily value evidence/reasoning. Feel free to try out new arguments you couldn't read in front of parent judges. I appreciate a well-executed traditional debate, so just do what you do best.

PFers: I guess I judge this now. I barely did PF in high school, so I'm probably not up to date on your topics or acronyms. Be nice and explain such things to me :). I'm a tech judge, but don't feel the need to adapt to me on that account. Your best bet is to have a straight-up PF debate, just make sure to focus on the flow because that's how I vote. If you want to read stuff that's untraditional in PF (theory, critical arguments), go for it, but know that I will hold you to a high standard as someone who has experience with these arguments. Also, you don't need to read anything in the "specific arguments" section of this paradigm, as that's all LD/Policy oriented.

Important note for trad vs. tech debates: When traditional debaters encounter progressive debaters, I will still vote on the flow. Unfortunately, this means that I will more often not vote for the more technical debater. I believe that you should try to include your opponent whenever possible, but I will not automatically drop you for reading technical arguments against a lay debater. I may, however, tank your speaks if you read Baudrillard against a novice, spread 350wpm against someone from a small traditional circuit, or pull any similar tomfoolery. If you are the traditional debater in this situation, know that your passionate grandstanding will not win my ballot. Even if your opponent's arguments are unfamiliar, your best bet is to contest them head on. That being said, traditional debaters should let technical opponents know if they're uncomfortable with speed or progressive arguments. I can't force your opponent to slow down or read more accessible arguments, but I may reduce their speaker points if they refuse your requests.

Speed/Clarity: I was good with speed in high school, but I am a bit rusty given that APDA and trad LD max out around 200 wpm. I haven't judged much this season, but I should still be good up to 300. I highly prefer it when you slow down a bit on tags and cites. This helps me keep track of which card you're on. I will say "clear" if I can't understand you. I won't drop you for spreading against a team that is much slower than you, but I may dock your speaker points if I feel like you're leveraging your speed in a way that is rude/unfair. Your best bet is to ask your opponents if they're ok with spreading before the debate. Spreading is always ok in outrounds.

Decision Philosophy (important stuff is in bold)

I believe that debate should encourage academic growth and exploration. The debates I love are ones in which students advocate for their beliefs and don't shy away from conversations with real-world implications. I also believe that debate is a game in which students convince a judge to vote for them. Therefore, I consider myself an ideologically flexible judge. While some arguments resonate with me more than others, I feel that my job as a judge is to vote for whoever is winning on the flow. While I don't think it's possible for any judge to evaluate debates objectively, voting for whoever wins on my flow is the closest I can get to unbiased. Read whatever you are best at. With very few exceptions, I'll be willing to vote on it.

I often find myself voting for whoever wins a framing mechanism then proves they meet it. Once I have some sort of metric through which I can evaluate the round (a value-criterion, standard, ROB, competing interpretations, etc.), I'll probably vote for the debater who wins the most important argument under that metric. I have noticed a lack of layering and weighing in almost every debate this season. Please be the exception to this pattern.

Arguments need to have a claim, warrant, and impact for me to evaluate them. That means you should make a statement, provide a rigorous reason it is true, and explain its implication in the round. I am unlikely to vote on arguments that aren't completely presented in the first speech. Warrants don't necessarily need carded evidence, but cards will improve the argument's credibility.

I appreciate debates with a lot of clash. I've noticed that many debaters rely on arguments being conceded or undercovered in order to win. I find this trend of running from debates very disturbing, and I think we could all learn from more head-on debates. I think that good strategies contest opposing arguments instead of avoiding them. I will obviously still vote for conceded arguments, and you should go for them if you think it's a good strategic move. However, I like it when debaters actually debate.

I like it when debaters are innovative. You will probably get high speaks if you read an argument that is unknown to debate. Just clearly explain to me what you're doing and defend your norm.

I will not vote on any arguments that are racist, homophobic, transphobic, sexist, or bigoted in any way. If your opponent does this and I don't catch it, call them out so I can drop them. Depending on the severity of the issue, I will either let the debate continue or stop the round immediately. If you feel really uncomfortable and you'd like me to stop the round, please ask. This doesn't mean you should spam independent voters, it means you should take note when there is a serious problem. There are limits to this intervention. I will drop any debater who reads arguments like racism good, but I won't automatically vote for you off an argument about util being racist.

Specific Arguments

Policy Arguments:

Back in high school, I went to plenty of west coast LD tournaments and won some policy tournaments in Utah. I certainly don't specialize in this, but I like to think I understand it.

Policy arguments should have uniqueness, a link, maybe internal links, and an impact. You need to win all of these and weigh them to win a policy debate. Weighing is huge for me in policy debates. Weigh strength of link, use multiple metrics for impact calculus, and weigh between those metrics. It will make my job easier.

I like policy-style arguments that talk about structural violence as opposed to nuclear war. I do, however, understand that extinction outweighs is a great argument, so I get it if you read big stick arguments.

I'm a sucker for a good case push. Turns are amazing arguments and I love it when people collapse to them. I'm fine with impact turns as long as they're not repugnant (china war good is fine, sexism good is not fine. I don't love death good, spark is ok though).

Policy debaters still need to engage in the framework debate, ideally with an actual framework instead of 8 independent reasons that extinction comes first. Policy cases that lack a good framework page will likely lose to the kritik or phil.

Plan/counterplan texts should be understandable and you should always read a well-warranted solvency advocate.

Tell me when you're kicking something, and get rid of any turns before you kick it. I will vote for turns on kicked arguments.

Conditional advocacies are fine, but prepare for the theory debate. Conditionality does not get you out of reps. If your conditional counterplan links to one of your disads, kicking the disad does not get you out of that (conceding no link or impact defense would work).

Kritiks:

I love the kritik. I mainly went for the kritik throughout high school and it's my favorite argument to coach. I really enjoy these debates. I am most familiar with literature about capitalism, semiocapitalism, some postmodernism, cybernetics, and environmental studies. This is not an exhaustive list of kritiks I can evaluate, but rather the ones I understand best. If you read one of these kritiks, I might subconsciously hold you to a higher standard because I'm more familiar with them. Please don't read a specific k just because I like it, read what you're good at. I'd prefer a well-executed identity k over a poorly-executed cap k any day of the week.

I am willing to evaluate any k literature, but please explain thoroughly if it's a niche theory I'm unfamiliar with. You should also explain kritiks that I understand. I won't fill in gaps with my prior knowledge.

I like it when k debaters engage in the line by line and I'm not a fan of massive overviews that are just cross-applied throughout the speech. That being said, k debates shouldn't be blip storms. Please explain your arguments thoughtfully while also showing how you're winning the flow. I think that quality>quantity in these debates. K debates also demand a lot of analysis beyond the line by line and explanation of how arguments interact. Do these things. Explicitly tell me how and where to vote.

I am perfectly willing to evaluate kritiks with a model of debate that doesn't rely on the flow (performance, for example), but you need to win a warrant for such a model and explain to me how I can decide the round.

Some random notes on the kritik

- Extending a theory of power is very important, you should do this to outweigh whatever your opponent is saying. I view a theory of power as an important framing mechanism that establishes uniqueness and goes along with the ROB.

- K affs are cool when they're topical, cool when they're not topical, and very cool when they're somewhere in between the two. Please explain to me why your topicality counterinterp is a better model for debate, ideally by reading more than impact turns.

- I view k v. k debates as comparisons of theories of power and methods. For me, these debates break down to which k can explain a relevant form of oppression, and which k can solve that form of oppression.

- Please be able to clearly explain your alts and what they actually do. I am not here to hear people read vacuous alt cards then extend a bunch of buzzwords.

- Specific links are amazing, generics are also fine

- I'm unfamiliar with k tricks but I'll vote for them if well-articulated. I should be able to tell that it's a floating PIK by reading the 1NC.

- I will not immediately drop you for reading ontological claims about an identity group you don't belong to, but I will very likely drop you if your opponent calls you out for it (and warrants why what you're doing is bad).

Theory and Topicality:

I get it. I did national circuit LD so I have dealt with a lot of theory, much of it frivolous. I'll vote for almost any shell if you win it.

Things I wont vote for (don't read them): arguments about your opponent's appearance (shoes theory), ridiculous spec shells (spec favorite movie or some other silliness)

I'm good for anything else, although the bar for responses is lower against frivolous shells.

I default drop the debater, competing interps, no RVIs, although all of these can be easily changed.

Please weigh your standards. These debates can get irresolvable very quickly if you don't.

I'm also good with topicality. T framework, nebel, and more specific shells are all fine.

When reading t against k affs, feel free to go hard for fairness first, but I do prefer impacts contextualized to the k. I was almost always on the k side of these debates, but I think t framework is a great shell and I'm happy to vote for it. These debates are about models, so please win why yours is better.

I'm probably not that well-read on your topic, so super-specific t debates might be hard for me to follow. I'll evaluate them, just explain your acronyms and definitions to me like I know nothing.

Generic policy shells like t-substantial are fine. I don't love them, but go for it if it's your best strategy.

Philosophy:

I did a lot of this in high school. Read whatever framework you'd like, I will evaluate it fairly. If the framework is niche, please explain it.

The best frameworks have robust syllogisms. Deep explanation will make me happier than a 12 point prefer additionally section. I will vote on either though. I prefer phil cases that are actually about philosophy, as opposed to vehicles for tricks or 1AR theory. The bottom line is that I like thinking about philosophy, but I will vote on more tricky phil strategies as well.

Reading a framework isn't an excuse for bad offense. You should read cards and explain why they're relevant under your framework. That being said, I think turns are some of the best responses to phil strategies.

I don't like the trend of oversimplifying complex frameworks. Extinction is probably still worse than lying, even if you win Kant. Your standards should be nuanced and you should use impact calculus under every framework.

Tricks:

I don't like them, I will still vote on them. The bar is very low for responses, and gets lower as tricks become less nuanced and more recycled.

You need to win a framework that allows me to evaluate tricks (truth testing, most likely). Otherwise, I probably won't vote on them.

Every argument needs a claim, comprehensible warrant, and clear impact in the first speech. "I am the greatest conceivable being because grapes are purple" does not count as a warrant and does not need to be responded to.

I honestly like some of the more philosophical tricks, especially when they're original or funny. Please just explain them well and weigh them against your opponent's arguments.

Theory spikes are fine. Just like any other argument, they need claims, warrants, and impacts.

I am very willing to vote on arguments that criticize tricks debate, like theory or kritiks. This might be one of your best angles against tricks if you don't think you can line by line them.

Other Musings

Speaks are based on clarity, organization, strategic choices, argumentative creativity, technical execution, and rhetorical appeal. I try to average about 28-28.5 points on the national circuit, probably lower in Utah since the point scale is less inflated at local tournaments.

Weighing and layering are the quickest paths to my ballot. If you do one or both of them well, you will very likely win.

I like being told what to do. Please explain to me how arguments interact, which arguments matter, and where I should vote. Write my RFD for me in your final speech.

Overall, just do what you do best. Be passionate. Read arguments you love. Be innovative. Show me that you care. Disagree with your opponent. Have fun!

My name is Andrew Liew, and I'm just some random college freshman who used to do pf debate (badly).

General Paradigm:

• I am a flow judge
• I probably don't have much knowledge on the topic, so try to avoid unexplained acronyms or jargon.
• If an illogical/unsupported argument is not refuted, it will be treated as true. I generally try to vote like I know nothing about anything before the round starts.
• I'm bad at flowing, please clearly state which of your opponent's contentions you are addressing
• I don't flow cross-Ex. If something important comes up, bring it up in a speech.
• Address theory with theory: real world > imaginary world, so you can't beat theory with normal impacts. I will vote on abusive uses of theory if it goes unaddressed.
• Give me voters and framework ("If (aff/neg) proves _________, then you should vote (aff/neg), because x, y, z. This is how we prove ___________")

For LD:

Make sure your value/criteria is reasonable for both sides and connect it to the resolution. Explain why yours is best. I prefer more moral debates in LD, but I'll use the best supported value/framework to judge (no matter what it is).

For Policy:

I've seen some policy debates. If you can provide an explanation of why your theory should earn you the win, that would help (why theory > issues). I won't mark you down for spewing, but I can't vote on arguments I can't understand.

For PF:

If you have a framework, please explain why it is better than your opponents. If you don't have a framework, be prepared to use your opponent's.

CBA is not a framework.

For Speech:

I really shouldn't be here. Sorry in advance :(

Hey! My name is Rian (he/him) and I am a 1st-year at the University of Utah (no longer debating, unfortunately). I mainly did PF through high school, but I have dabbled in both Policy and LD.

PF: I like debaters to center their arguments around stock issues (significance, solvency, inherency, etc) and weighing (ie. impact calc). Presenting a framework (preferably not just CBA) is a great way to let me know exactly how I should vote, if you don't have a framework be prepared to use your opponents. Make sure I know how each argument ties back to the prevailing framework of the round!

A few more things:

• I don't flow Cross-Ex, so be sure to bring up anything that happens during questioning in your speeches.
• Bring up specific voters in your Final Focus! Even if your opponents drop a contention, I won't count it unless you point it out.
• Try not to get bogged down in arguments regarding sources. I understand it is sometimes important to contextualize arguments but don't let it get in the way of your contentions/rebuttals.

IF YOU ARE NOT DOING PF AND ARE STUCK WITH ME AS A JUDGE I AM SORRY AND I WILL TRY MY BEST.

Policy: Please make stock issues very clear to me. Feel free to run stuff like t-shells, disads, critiques (or any other theory), etc., I will try my best to follow.

LD: Novice debaters, please do not throw around the rhetoric of “achieving the criterion” without any substantial explanation. Similarly, the "burden of the Aff" needs to be substantially justified within the context of the round.

For all debaters: I like to judge off my flow, so make sure you make everything clear and easy for me to flow. Even if something seems obvious (like a dropped contention), make sure to bring it up!

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask before the round starts :)

My paradigm is this: persuade me.

Here are some things that will help:

-I need to hear you clearly to understand you

-I need to believe you when you reference evidence

-I need to see a thread connecting your evidence to your claims

-logical arguments are more persuasive to me than the volume of evidence. I will respect evidence, but I will not count cards.

In CX, I don't want to hear hyperbolic assumptions. I will try to flow, but I tend towards big picture...just being honest here.

In LD, I want to hear a justification for your philosophical framework and to see how that framework is guiding your position. That will be more compelling to me than speed, cards, or rhetoric.

In PF, just make me believe you are right. 

Oex competition I will take into consideration the following.

Sharing references to your points

A good use of time

Directness to landing your Opinion

John Shackelford

Policy Coach: Park City, UT

***ONLINE DEBATE***

I keep my camera on as often as I can. I still try to look at faces during CX and rebuttals. Extra decimals if you try to put analytics in doc.

I end prep once the doc has been sent.

GO SLOWER

****TLDR IN BOLD****

Please include me in email chains during the debate (johnshackelf[at]gmail). I do not follow along with the speech doc during a speech, but sometimes I will follow along to check clipping and cross-ex questions about specific pieces of evidence.

Here is what an ideal debate looks like. (Heads up! I can be a silly goose, so the more you do this, the better I can judge you)

- Line by Line (Do it in order)

- Extending > reading a new card (Your better cards are in your first speech anyway. Tell me how the card is and how it frames the debate in your future analysis)

- More content >Less Jargon (avoid talking about the judge, another team, flows, yourselves. Focus on the substance. Avoid saying: special metaphors, Turns back, check back, the link check, Pulling or extending across, Voting up or down. They don’t exist.)

- Great Cross-examination (I am okay with tag team, I just find it unstrategic)

- Compare > description (Compare more, describe less)

- Overviews/Impact Calc (Focus on the core controversy of the debate. Offense wins)

- Engage > Exclude

- Clarity > Speed

- Making generics specific to the round

- Researched T Shells (Do work before reading T. I love T, but I have a standard on what is a good T debate)

- Arguments you can only read on this topic!!

Popular Q&A

- K/FW: More sympathetic to Ks that are unique to the topic. But I dig the 1 off FW strat or 9 off vs a K.

- Theory: Perfcon theory is a thing, condo theory is not a thing. I like cheating strats. I like it when people read theory against cheating strats too.

- Prep time: I stop prep time when you eject your jump drive or when you hit send for the email. I am probably the most annoying judge about this, but I am tired of teams stealing prep and I want to keep this round moving

- I flow on my computer

Want extra decimals?

Do what I say above, and have fun with it. I reward self-awareness, clash, sound research, humor, and bold decisions. It is all about how you play the game.

Cite like Michigan State and open source like Kentucky

Speaker Points-Scale - I'll do my best to adhere to the following unless otherwise instructed by a tournament's invite:

30-99%perfect

29.5-This is the best speech I will hear at this tournament, and probably at the following one as well.

29-I expect you to get a speaker award.

28.5-You're clearly in the top third of the speakers at the tournament.

28-You're around the upper middle (ish area)

27.5-You need some work, but generally, you're doing pretty well

27-You need some work

26.5-You don't know what you're doing at all

26 and lower-you've done something ethically wrong or obscenely offensive that is explained on the ballot.

All in all, debate in front of me if your panel was Mike Bausch, Mike Shackelford, Hannah Shoell, Catherine Shackelford, and Ian Beier

If you have any questions, then I would be more than happy to answer them