The most important thing:

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

To all novices I am judging:

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

Onto my actual paradigm:

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

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

FLOW

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GBN '24

Dartmouth '28

2A/1N, she/her.

ekcarpen.debate@gmail.com

No death good, don't be a bigot, etc.

Everyone should aim to make the round an enjoyable and educational opportunity. I'll do my best to facilitate that as well.

Flowing and arguments that have a claim, warrant, and impact are the two most important things in debate. Flowing especially. You do you in terms of argument type/style/performance and I'll make my decision based on the line by line at the end of the debate and try to be as least interventionist as possible.

Have fun and good luck!

Pronouns - him/he\they
Email(s) - abraham.corrigan@gmail.com, acorrigan1@glenbrook225.org, catspathat@gmail.com

Hello!

Thank you for considering me for your debate adjudication needs! Judging is one of my favorite things & I aspire to be the judge I wanted when I debated, namely one who was flexible and would judge the debate based on arguments made by debaters. To do that, I seek to be familiar with all debate arguments and literature bases such that my own ignorance will not be a barrier to judging the arguments you want to go for. This is an ongoing process and aspiration for me rather than an end point, but in general I would say you should probably pref me.

I'm fun!

Sometimes I even have snacks.

<*Judging Quirks*>

- I have absolutely zero poker face and will make a lot of non verbals. Please do not interpret these as concrete/100% definitive opinions of mine but rather as an expression of my initial attempts to place your argument within the particular context of the other arguments advanced in a debate.

- All arguments are evaluated within their particular context - Especially on the negative, as a debater in high school and college I went for and won a lot of debates on arguments which would be described, in a vacuum, as 'bad.' Sometimes, all you have to say is a turd and your rebuttal speeches will largely be what some of my judges described as 'turd-shinning.' This means (unless something extreme is happening which is unethical or triggering my mandatory reporter status as a public school employee) I generally prefer to let the arguments advanced in the debate dictate my view of what is and what isn't a 'good' argument.

- I am not a 'k' or 'policy' judge. I just like debate.

<*My Debate History*>

I am a 2a. This means, if left to my own devices and not instructed not to look for this, the thing that I will implicitly try to do is identify a way to leave stuff better than we found it.

High School

- I debated at H-F HS, in Illinois, for my first two years of debate where I was coached by creeps.

- My junior & senior year in HS I transfered to Glenbrook South where I was coached most by Tara Tate (now retired from debate), Calum Matheson (now at Pitt), & Ravi Shankar (former NU debater).

My partner and I largely went for agenda politics da & process cps or impact turns. We were a bit k curious, but mostly read what would be described as 'policy' arguments.

College

- I debated in college for 4 years at Gonzaga where I was coached by Glen Frappier (still DoF at GU), Steve Pointer (now [mostly] retired from debate), Jeff Buntin (current DoD at NU), Iz-ak Dunn (currently at ASU), & Charles Olney (now [mostly] retired from debate).

My partner and I largely went for what is now be described as 'soft left' arguments on the affirmative and impact turns and unusual counterplans when we were negative.

Coaching

- After graduating, I coached at Northwestern University for a year. My assignments were largely 2ac answers & stuff related to translating high theory arguments made by other teams into things our less k debaters could understand.

- I then moved to Lexington, Kentucky and coached at the University of Kentucky for two years. My assignments were largely aff & all things 2a & answering k stuff on the negative.

- I then coached/did comm graduate work at Wake Forest for two years.

- I then took a break from debate and worked as a paralegal at a law firm which was focused on civil lawsuits against police, prisons, whistleblower protections as well as doing FOIA requests for Buzzfeed.

- I then came back to debate, did some logistics for UK, then Mrs. Corrigan got the GBS job & the rest is history!

42fryguy@gmail.com

I debated at KU and Blue Valley Southwest, I am currently coaching at Glenbrook North

FW

I am heavily persuaded by arguments about why the affirmative should read a topical plan. One of the main reasons for this is that I am persuaded by a lot of framing arguments which nullify aff offense. The best way to deal with these things is to more directly impact turn common impacts like procedural fairness. Counter interpretations can be useful, but the goal of establishing a new model sometimes exacerbates core neg offense (limits).

K

I'm not great for the K. In most instances this is because I believe the alternative solves the links to the aff or can't solve it's own impacts. This can be resolved by narrowing the scope of the K or strengthening the link explanation (too often negative teams do not explain the links in the context of the permutation). The simpler solution to this is a robust framework press.

T

I really enjoy good T debates. Fairness is the best (and maybe the only) impact. Education is very easily turned by fairness. Evidence quality is important, but only in so far as it improves the predictability/reduces the arbitrariness of the interpretation.

CP

CPs are fun. I generally think that the negative doing non-plan action with the USfg is justified. Everything else is up for debate, but well developed aff arguments are dangerous on other questions.

I generally think conditionality is good. I think the best example of my hesitation with conditionality is multi-plank counter plans which combine later in the debate to become something else entirely.

If in cross x you say the status quo is always an option I will kick the counter plan if no further argumentation is made (you can also obviously just say conditional and clarify that judge kick is an option). If you say conditional and then tell me to kick in the 2NR and there is a 2AR press on the question I will be very uncomfortable and try to resolve the debate some other way. To resolve this, the 2AC should make an argument about judge kick.

GBN '24

leah.debate@gmail.com

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

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

1. Be a good human

2. Flow

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

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

5. Do impact comparison

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

Specific thoughts if you're still reading:

DAs:

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

CPs:

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

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

T:

- Paint a picture of your vision of the topic.

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

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

Ks:

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

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

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

Theory:

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

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

If I am judging you at a tournament with preferences, then you should strike me if you do not agree with all of the following:

-I am an educator first. If anything happens in the debate that I deem would not be okay in a high school classroom, I will stop the debate and vote against the team that engaged in the inappropriate behavior.

-The affirmative should defend a topical plan and defend the implementation of the plan.

-Affirmative plans these days are too vague. You only get to fiat what your plan says, not what it could mean or what you want it to mean. If you clarify your plan in cross-x, the negative can use that clarification to setup counterplan competition.

-The negative should prove why the plan causes something bad to happen, not why it justifies something bad. In other words - most of your Kritks are probably just FYIs.

-I evaluate debate in large part based on the line-by-line. If you cannot flow, I am not a good judge for you. If you cannot specifically answer the other team's arguments and apply your arguments to them and instead just read pre-scripted blocks, I am not a good judge for you.

-Debate is a communicative activity. I don't follow a card document. I listen to what you say. I will only read evidence if I cannot resolve something in the debate based on how it was debated.

-For something to count as an argument it must be complete and explained. I also must be able to understand what you are saying.

-My lifetime speaker point average range is probably lower than what you are used to.

-If you are visibly sick during the debate, I reserve the right to forfeit you and leave.

Isa Harrison (she/her), New Trier HS

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

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

Tech>truth

To get high speaks:

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

2. Organize your speech by argument

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

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

Ask me any questions about the round after!

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

CPs:

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

(Process cps)

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

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

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

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

(pics)

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

(adv cps)

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

T:

Precision determines the predictability, predictable limits > fair limits

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

T comes before theory

Ks:

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

K affs:

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

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

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

Magnus Lee - new trier '24 - (he/him) - 2a/1n

Email: magnuslee.debate@gmail.com

to quote Avi Shah,

“please title the email chain something relevant -- "tournament name, round #, aff team vesus neg team"

top level

don't do or say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, or problematic, if you do I will give you an auto-loss and the lowest speaks possible at the tournament

tech > truth

please don't call me judge, avi[magnus] is fine

topicality

i like t debates - reading cards is important especially if you are going for predictability

i am intuitively persuaded by competing interpretations because I think T debates are valuable but will evaluate the debate based on reasonability if it is proven that that's a better metric to evaluate the debate

neg teams, make sure to have a counter interpretation about how to evaluate T debates if the aff has said plan in a vacuum

counterplans

i will listen to but be bored by the same process counterplan debates over and over again

conditionality is good, i can be persuaded otherwise

try not to go for conditionality in novice debates

disadvantages

turns case is important

the higher up on the link chain turns case is, the better

make your link story specific - generic in the 1nc is fine and even if you don't have specific evidence try to contextualize the da to the aff in the block

kritiks

I am familiar with most generic kritiks and am more than willing to vote on them if explained well enough so that I can explain it back to you in my rfd

contextualize the link to the aff

speaks

I will give very high speaks. that being said, there are a couple of things to do to increase your speaks

1. show me your flows after the round. if they are good I will give you even higher speaks

2. be funny, not overly serious. debate can get boring, a joke here or there can be helpful

3. be ready. when prep is over, the doc should be ready to be sent, and the speech should start shortly after.”

Hailey Lorence, she/her

Maine East '24

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

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

Calling me judge or Hailey is fine

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

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

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

  DAs:

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

  Counterplans:

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

  Kritiks:

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

  Topicality:

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

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

—Speaker Points—

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

26.5-27.5: Below average

27.5-27.9: Average

28-29: Above average

29+: Very good

Top shelf:

Pronouns are she/her

Just call me Alyssa or ALB - do not call me judge and dear debate Lord do not call me ma'am.

Email chains: SonomaCardsCardsCards@gmail.com

Questions (during camp) Lucasbol@umich.edu. Please copy a second adult (lab leader or coach) if emailing me questions.

I deleted most of my paradigm

For camp, I am adopting Shunta's rule of no more than five off. I'll evaluate at the end of camp whether or not I will continue that rule.

...Because I have run into way way way too many situations where people wildly misinterpret my paradigm and it leads to a rather miserable situation (mostly for myself.)

Debate well and we'll figure it out.

I'd prefer you talk about the topic and that your affirmative be in the direction of the topic. I could not possibly care less if that is via policy debate or K debate. False divide yada yada. Both policy teams and K teams are guilty of not actually talking about the topic and I am judging ALL of you.

Speed is fine but I need clear distinction between arguments and I need you to build up your speed for the first 10 seconds.

Tag team is fine but I'd prefer that the designated partner handle most of the cross ex - only intervene if it is absolutely necessary. I am an educator and would prefer to see each student develop their skill set.

You must read your re-highlightings out loud.

I will not judge kick unless the neg explicitly makes an argument in favor of it. If they do and the aff does not respond, I will judge kick. If the aff responds, I will evaluate that debate like any other argument. It is not a given that I will do this for you.

Stop stealing prep.

Please make as many T Swift references as possible.

Heavy stuff:

*No touching. Handshakes after the debate = fine but that is it.

*I am not the right judge for call outs of specific debate community members

*I am a mandatory reporter. Keep that in mind if you are reading any type of personal narrative etc in a debate. A mandatory reporter just means that if you tell me something about experiencing violence etc that I have to tell the authorities.

*I care about you and your debate but I am not your debate mommy. I am going to give you direct feedback after the debate. I won't be cruel but I'm also not a sugar coater. It takes some people off guard because they may be expecting me to coddle them. It's just not my personality - I deeply care about your debate career and want you to do your best. I also am just very passionate about arguments. If you're feeling like I'm being a little intense just Shake It Off (Lauren Ivey.)

*Clipping = zero points and a hot L. Clarity to the point of non-comprehension that causes a clipping challenge constitutes clipping.

*I am more than fine with you post rounding as long as you keep it respectful. I would genuinely prefer you understand my decision than walk out frustrated because that doesn't help you win the next time. Bring it on (within reason). I'm back in the ring baby.

Let's have a throwdown!!! If you're reading this before a round I am excited to see what you have to offer.

avi shah -- new trier ls -- '24 -- he/him -- 2n

add me to the chain -- avishahdebate@gmail.com

please title the email chain something relevant -- "tournament name, round #, aff team vesus neg team"

top level

don't do or say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, or problematic, if you do I will give you an auto-loss and the lowest speaks possible at the tournament

tech > truth

please don't call me judge, avi is fine

topicality

i like t debates - reading cards is important especially if you are going for predictability

i am intuitively persuaded by competing interpretations because I think T debates are valuable but will evaluate the debate based on reasonability if it is proven that that's a better metric to evaluate the debate

neg teams, make sure to have a counter interpretation about how to evaluate T debates if the aff has said plan in a vacuum

counterplans

i will listen to but be bored by the same process counterplan debates over and over again

conditionality is good, i can be persuaded otherwise

try not to go for conditionality in novice debates

absent instruction not to, i will judgekick at my discretion

disadvantages

turns case is important

the higher up on the link chain turns case is, the better

make your link story specific - generic in the 1nc is fine and even if you don't have specific evidence try to contextualize the da to the aff in the block

kritiks

I am familiar with most generic kritiks and am more than willing to vote on them if explained well enough so that I can explain it back to you in my rfd

contextualize the link to the aff

speaks

I will give very high speaks. that being said, there are a couple of things to do to increase your speaks

1. be funny, not overly serious. debate can get boring, a joke here or there can be helpful

2. be ready. when prep is over, the doc should be ready to be sent, and the speech should start shortly after.

Email: danielasilvio2007@gmail.com

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

General/Personal Things -

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

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

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

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

CASE -

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

CP -

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

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

DA -

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

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

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

Condo/Theory/T -

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

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

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

T is a voter for me!

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

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

Ks/K AFFs -

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

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

New Trier Class of 2025

She/Her/Hers

reagancsubeck@gmail.com

Top Level:

• Be respectful of me, your opponents, and your teammates
• Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic

You're all novices - be nice and supportive because this is a year to learn, not to crush (and because being nice is generally good). I am here to support you and help you improve but also to make debate fun so if you feel unsafe or you're being hurt by someone else, I will help you resolve it.

I have 0 opinions on what arguments you run other than the caveats above so just do your thing!

If you need help with technical stuff, feel free to ask! On more debating stuff, try your best and ask me after the round. I'll be glad to help you with anything then!!!

Have fun and good luck!!!!

Annie (she/her)

Please add me to the email chain: atong3@cps.edu

tech > truth

I'll vote for anything

Impact calc is good

Write me a ballot at the top of your final rebuttal

Don't be a jerk

please time yourself

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

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

she/her

gbs 2025

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

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

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

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

debate thoughts

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

if you want good speaks and/or the W:

- be kind and respectful to me and your opponents.

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

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

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

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

- use all your speech time.

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

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

good luck :)

She/ her

Nt ‘24

Add me to the chain: sarazareadebate@gmail.com

Toplevel

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

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

Flow! showing me flows after rounds = extra speaks

Try to make my flow as clean and organized as possible

Give a roadmap before your speech and signpost clearly

Time your own prep, Cx, and speeches

I <3 turns on both sides

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

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

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

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

Case:

I <3 case debating when it’s done well

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

DAs:

Do clear line by line

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

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

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

Counterplans:

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

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

Topicality:

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

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

Kritiks:

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

framework makes the game work

CX:

Tag team is fine

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

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

—

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