Thaddeus Cross- 4th year debater at Woodward Academy

I want to be on the email chain: thadcross25@gmail.com

Feel free to ask any questions before the round!

Top 3 things about debate:

1. Be nice to people! - you can be persuasive and nice, there is no reason to be rude

2. Speak clearly! - if I can't flow what you're saying, there is no point in saying it

3. Clash! - if your arguments don't interact with the other team's and apply to the debate, they're bad arguments

My thoughts on arguments and performance:

Cross-Ex: do your own cross-ex, you should know what you are saying, tag teaming is fine, but lowers speaks

Disadvantages: I like good turns case arguments and timeframe comparison for impact calculus.

Counterplans: I like well thought out counterplans with solvency advocates, I dislike bad process CPs that don't have a topic area specific solvency advocate.

Conditionality: in a vacuum I think conditionality is good... my real gripe is with counterplans and kritiks that are not specific to the affirmative and do not have topic specific evidence... that being said, conditionality is a vehicle for the affirmative side to punish the negative for reading the poor quality arguments mentioned above, so my threshold for voting on conditionality is lower when the negative reads poor quality conditional advocacies (I am also very willing to vote on theory to reject CPs without topic specific evidence)... in the event that the negative reads high quality conditional advocacies, I am neutral on voting on conditionality, and good debating is necessary to sway me (in all honesty, I probably lean negative in this scenario, but good debating from both sides is still necessary to persuade me)

Impact Turns: I will not vote for non-unique impact turns, there needs to be a compelling argument why the affirmative is worse than the status quo. I think negative teams win too often on impact turns that are not unique.

Kritiks on the negative: prove to me why the aff is worse than the status quo and how the alternative resolves the links of the kritik. I lean aff on framework (weighing the aff is definitely best for education and clash), but that can be changed with good debating.

Kritiks on the affirmative: Nobody in the first year division should be reading a critical affirmative. You are not good enough to read one as a first year. It is not educational as first years are still learning the fundamentals of debate (learn the rules before you break them). Sadly, I believe in clash and cannot vote down first years immediately for reading a critical affirmative, but the threshold to vote negative on Topicality is very low. Please be topical so that everyone in the round can learn and become better debaters in order to generate the skills necessary to effectively debate a critical affirmative.

Pet Peeves (if you want good speaks, this is the "don't do it list"):

- "tag team" CX: it makes it feel like you don't know what you are doing

- taking forever to send out/start speeches: teams that move the round along efficiently will be rewarded with good speaks

-stealing prep: everything done in a debate should be on the clock, anyone at any age can understand this

- not understanding your arguments: I think anyone at any level can and should put in the time to learn about the arguments they are making to the point where they can effectively explain the argument in CX without reading directly from your cards

-avoiding clash: examples include... reading multiple bad arguments to skew your opponents; reading bad theory arguments; reading bad process counterplans; avoiding disclosure; avoiding commitments in CX; trying to confuse your opponents; reading bad evidence

-teams not flowing: poor flowing is obvious, and will result in lower speaks

John Masterson — Fourth-Year Debater for Woodward

25jmasterson@woodward.edu

IPR Topic Knowledge: Attended 7 week Mich Camp

Maggie Berthiaume and Bill Batterman are my greatest influences in debate, I will probably agree with most things they agree on, here are their paradigms
https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=maggie&search_last=berthiaume

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=&search_last=batterman

General

Clarity, Clash with Opponents, and Respecting the Opponent should be essential

Tech > Truth. This reaches an extent but will vote on dropped arguments if I'm given a reason why to. Truthful arguments are easier to prove.

Don't clip cards

Trick debating < Clash (However depending on the arg I will vote for it but may be more lenient towards the other team) well researched args are best

I respect good research and high-quality cards. My favorite debates to judge are well-prepped and explained specific strategies to an aff or a team that can line by line and number their arguments (Take this opinion with a grain of salt)

I’d say I’m more neg leaning on theory in general and think most theory is resolved by rejecting the argument (except Condo) but I could be convinced otherwise. I’m pretty persuaded by comparing to past topics (I would prob get references to water and NATO best but references to prior topics may require simplicity or more explanation) or justifications under interps. I think under the Fiscal Redistribution topic there are probably better arguments to go for besides generic process cps.

Feel free to ask any questions pre-round

Alizah Mudaliar (pronounced Aleeza)

Woodward Academy '24 --- this is my fourth year in high school debate

Please add me to the email chain: 24amudaliar@woodward.edu

I attended Michigan 7-week this past summer so I have general topic knowledge

My greatest influences in debate are Maggie Berthiaume and Bill Batterman.

Top-level:

- clarity > speed (especially true in online debates)

- please clash! --- it provides the most educational debates

- I like to see people so please keep your cameras on if possible. If that's not an option then I understand. Along the same lines, don't get stressed over tech issues, they always happen

- don't clip

- no sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. comments. This behavior is completely unacceptable and will be an automatic loss with 0 speaks

- be organized during the debate (roadmaps, clear line-by-line, etc) --- this means you need to be direct when answering opponents as well as giving answers that make sense and don't require to much implying (I am open to vote on presumption)

- please give answers in order (clear line-by-line), it makes it easier for me to flow and understand arguments

- be respectful

- (most important) have fun :)

CX:

- it's important so please don't waste it

Case:

- must prove that you solve for even the smallest risk of the impacts occurring

- I am open to almost all arguments as long as they are explained well and impacted out

- make sure to be clear with answering all arguments especially turns case/squo solves/alt causes/etc...

CPs:

- CP must be competitive

- will only vote on it if there is a solvency advocate in the 1NC

- needs to be run with a net benefit (external or internal)

- I LOVE advantage CPs

DAs:

- will only vote on a DA if there is a complete shell in the 1NC (UQ, L, Int-L, Impact) -- aff needs to point this out if there is not a complete shell

- how does the aff link? If there is no well-explained reason, I won't buy that the aff links and can't solve the impacts

Ks:

- most familiar with Abolition, Settler Colonialism, Capitalism, and Security --- I am not very familiar with high theory so I'm probably not the best judge for this

- you should be able to explain the world of the alternative well

- have a good, competitive framework

- the best way that I have found to debate a kritik is by providing several specific links to the aff you are debating. Make these links diverse so you can extend any of them in the block depending on the way the debate is playing out

T:

- not a huge fan --- love it if the aff is very untopical

- needs specific warrants as to why your interp is better

- don't drop this in the 1AR if extended in the block - you will regret it

Theory:

- PLEASE do not drop theory

- not a huge fan of going for it in the 2AR unless it is the only viable option

Extra:

- don't hide aspec :)

- love judge connections! --- eye contact, talking directly to me, why I should vote for you (+0.2)

- please feel free to be funny and incorporate jokes - I like to laugh :) (+0.1 speaks)

- have fun!

she/her/hers

add me to the chain: 24amurthy@woodward.edu

Woodward '24

UMich '28

General:

- Be respectful to your opponents throughout the entire round

- Racism/homophobia/sexism/etc intolerable. Auto-loss

- Clarity>Speed online.

- slow down on analytics

Case:

- IMPACT ANALYSIS in last speeches!! Why should I weigh the aff first?

- remember to answer all turns/squo-solves on case

- open to voting on presumption so defend the case well

DAs:

- must have a complete shell read in order for me to weigh

- not super keen on reading new DAs in the block

- explain how the aff specifically links

- impact calc is always good

Ks:

- SPECIFIC LINKS

- be able to explain the thesis of the K in simple terms

• be able to explain in cx

T:

- if you are going for T - evidence comparison is a must.

- Impact out the violation

Theory:

If you're going for theory it needs to be almost the entire 2NR/2AR with nuanced impacts/etc

Extra:

• be funny and I'll give you high speaks

- be patient with tech issues - they're inevitable

- most importantly have fun

2nd year debater at Woodward

I want to be on the email chain: 25lpaladugu@woodward.edu

If your a rookie reading this ignore everything below just try to clash with your opponents and do impact calc (I promise you'll get super high speaks if you do both!)

tech >>> truth

If an arg is dropped, the opposing team still has to extend it with warrants

clash >>> tricks

I get it tricks r a part of debate, but even if you win cause of a trick, your speaks will be alright at best

clarity >> speed

If I can't understand you; I can't flow

I'll only shout "clear" if I cannot understand you for a long period of time

No hiding ASPEC (like you'll at least get -3 speaks)

Overviews should have a point so don't re-explain things that don't need to be explained (confusing Ks NEED overviews tho)

I'm a WA debater so I am heavily influenced by Ms. B and Coach B

There paradigms are below:

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=maggie&search_last=berthiaume

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=&search_last=batterman

Last edited on 5/27/23 to rewrite the sections on experience, Statement on Racism, and K Affirmatives.

Pronouns: she/they

Experience: I have spent my entire life in the debate community one way or another. That said, I spent five years debating middle school/high school, took a break from debating in undergrad, then came back to judge and coach for a variety of schools.

Statement on Racism (& other Prejudices) in Debate

Debate should encourage students to see themselves as agents capable of acting to create a better world. We will not achieve this vision for our activity so long as we pretend it is in a realm separate from reality. Judges have an ethical obligation to oppose prejudice in round including but by no means limited to: racism, queerphobia, antisemitism, sexism, Islamophobia, ableism, and classism, among others. Debate, as an activity, has its fair share of structural inequities. We, as coaches and judges, need to address these and be congnizant of them in our decisions.

General Philosophy

I see the role of the judge as that of an educator concerned primarily with what teams learn from the experience. Therefore, the most important aspect of being a judge, to me, is to provide good constructive criticism to teams about their arguments and performance, and to promote the educational qualities of debate. When teams are using prep time, I am usually writing speech by speech feedback for my ballots––which I very much hope teams and their judges will read. As a judge, I want you to come out of the round, win or lose, feeling like you learned something worthwhile.

As an educator concerned with what can be learned from the round, I think the quality of arguments are much more important than their quantity, and whenever possible prefer to reward well researched and articulated arguments more than arguments will few warrants that might be read in the hopes of their being dropped. I prefer to decide rounds based upon the meaning of the arguments presented and their clash rather than by concession.

I flow the round based on what I hear, preferring not to use speech documents. For this reason, clarity is more important than speed. For an argument to exist in the round, it needs to be spoken intelligibly. Rounds that are slower typically offer better quality arguments and fewer mistakes.

Argument Specific preferences:

Plan-less critical affirmatives: I am happy to judge and vote on them. K affs are a useful tool for contesting the norms of debate, including those which are the most problematic in the activity. Over time, I have changed my threshold on their topicality. These days, my position is that so long as they are clearly related to the topic, I am happy to consider them topical. When aff teams argue critical affirmatives, I strongly prefer there be a specific solvency mechanism for their interpretation of the role of the ballot. For negative teams arguing against K affs, I have a strong preference for specific case answers. Given that K affs are a fixture of debate and are generally available to find on open evidence and the caselist wiki, prepping to specifically answer them should be possible. While I am unlikely to vote in favor of arguments that would outright eliminate K affs in debate, counter kritiks are a strategy I am amenable to.

Kritiks: At its most fundamental level, a kritik is a critical argument that examines the consequences of the assumptions made in another argument. I love well run kritiks, but for me to decide in favor of a kritik it needs a specific link to the assumptions in the 1AC and a clearly articulated alternative that involves a specific action (as opposed to a vague alt). Experience informs me that K's with generic links and vague alternatives make for bad debate.

Framework: Lately this term seems to have become a synonym for a kind of impact calculus that instead of focusing on magnitude, risk, and time-frame attempts to convince me to discard all impacts but those of the team running this argument. Framework, as I understand it, is a synonym to theory and is about what the rules of debate should be. Why should it be a rule of debate that we should only consider one type of impact? It seems all impacts in debate have already boiled themselves down to extinction.

Topicality: Please slow down so that I can hear all your arguments and flow all their warrants. The quality of your T arguments is much more important to me––especially if you argue about the precedent the round sets––than how many stock voters you can read. I may prefer teams that offer a clear argument on topicality to those that rely on spreading, however tactically advantages the quickly read arguments may be.

Counter plans: The burden of demonstrating solvency is on the negative, especially with PICs. PICs are probably bad for debate. Most of the time they are just a proposal to do the plan but in a more ridiculous way that would likely never happen. So if you are going to run a PIC, make sure to argue that changing whatever aspect of the plan your PIC hinges on is realistically feasible and reasonably advantageous. Otherwise, I will do everything I can to avoid deciding the round on them.

Conditionality: I have no problem with the negative making a couple conditional arguments. That said, I think relying on a large number of conditional arguments to skew the aff typically backfires with the neg being unable to devote enough time to create a strong argument. So, I typically decide conditionality debates with a large number of conditional arguments in favor of the aff, not because they make debate too hard for the aff, but because they make debating well hard for everyone in the round.

For rookie/novice debaters:

If you're reading this, then you're already a step ahead and thinking about the skills you will need to be building for JV and varsity debate. What I want to see most in rookie/novice debates is that teams are flowing and clearly responding to each other.