Tabroom.com

Debbie Johnson MS HS Novice Tournament

2024 — Austin, TX/US

Debate Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Manal Ahmed McNeil High School 8 rounds

Ethan Andrew Westwood 8 rounds

Pranav Balakrishnan Westwood 8 rounds

Kaitlyn Bennett Anahuac High School 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon March 18, 2024 at 10:19 AM CDT

K.Bennett Judging Paradigms:

LD:

General:

Flex Prep is fine if all debaters agree

Roadmaps are preferred at the beginning of the speeches. I will not start your time until after the roadmap.

I place a high value on framing arguments.

You should do what you do best and in return I will do my best to adapt to your style and give the best decision I can at the end of the round. Remember this is your debate and you should do what you are most comfortable with.

Speed:

I prefer a slower round but if you spread do not sacrifice speed for clarity. I know spreading will happen so to ensure you get your speaker points slow down on taglines, authors, and provide summaries of your cards after you read them. If I cannot understand you, I cannot flow your argument. I will say “clear” two times before I stop flowing the argument. PLEASE SIGNPOST!!

Theory:

I prefer substance to theory unless there is clear abuse in the round

Kritiks:

In my opinion a K debate is good when it is well explained and contextualized. I catch on pretty quickly when arguments are explained well. Your arguments need to be coherent and well-reasoned. I like a K that has specific link arguments. I cannot vote on a K if I cannot understand the link arguments. Do not assume I am well versed in the literature/theory you are using.

Framework:

Framework is a great way to contextualize the round. Please explain your framework. Traditional framework cases should have a value and a value criterion/standard to weigh the value. I like cases that have a very strong link between the warrants, impacts, value and value criterion/standard. Highlight the impact and link back to the value structure and/or provide a clear weighing mechanism for the round. I prefer real clash to unwarranted ideas or ill linked impacts.

Arguments:

I am fine with most arguments as long as they are properly presented and explained, unless they are racist, sexist, heteronormative etc.

How I vote:

NR and the 2AR are the main speeches on how I decide my vote. Only give voting issues that have been extended through all speeches in the round and please be comparative. How does this outweigh the other side? Please use big picture voters. I will vote on the most weighted offense linking back to a pragmatic framework.

I am not big on technical wins. Just because your opponent drops an argument doesn’t mean you win the round.

Congress:

I like creative speeches. I rate good passionate persuasive speeches over a speech with tons of evidence. Please engage in the debate rather than reading another speech that presents points that have already been brought up by other students. I think it is good to act like a member of Congress, but not in an obnoxious way. Questions and answers are very important to me. Ask smart questions that advance the debate. Standing up to just ask a question just to participate will hurt you. I would rather you ask a few really good questions than a lot of mediocre questions. I like a P.O. who is fair and efficient. The P.O. has a very high chance of making my ballot unless they make several big mistakes and/or are unfair. The P.O. must keep a clear precedence list. If you think the P.O is not being fair, call them on it. The P.O. must have the basic knowledge of parliamentary procedures to run the chamber. If the P.O. is not qualified to run the chamber, they will not make the ballot.

Abhiram Bhupatiraju McNeil High School 8 rounds None

Mahita Bontu Westwood 8 rounds None

Eric Gong Westwood 8 rounds

Nikhil Gupta Westwood 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat May 18, 2024 at 12:57 PM CDT

Westwood '27

ngudebates@gmail.com

he/him

Top Level

People I agree with: Pranav Balakrishnan, Ethan Andrew, Ishan Sharma

Everything below this should be treated as a suggestion, not a rule, any predisposition I have can easily be overturned by good technical debating.

I have a pretty low threshold for a warrant, things like "Lack of agent specification is a voting issue---blue sky", can get my ballot as dropped. Conversely, I'll pull the trigger on small blips.

There is no argument that is too "silly" to get my ballot, Wipeout, the Death K, ASPEC, and Process CPs are all fair game.

You should abide by trigger warnings, if someone's wiki says "no death good please!", and you read death good, you get an L0.

I won't evaluate new 1AR/2NR/2AR arguments provided the following speech flags them as new. This is obviously not true for the 2AR.

Theory

All theory, besides conditionality, is likely a reason to reject the argument, not the team.

Teams should go for arbitrariness, not neg flex.

Most counterplan theory arguments are silly and dumb, and are better expressed through substance. Is the counterplan a cheaty process or delay counterplan? Probably means you can win a permutation! The counterplan lacks a solvency advocate? Your deficits are more credible!

No clue why people think counterplans with many planks are abusive, genuinely makes no sense to me.

I think most theory debates where the neg goes for neg flex is just a bunch of whining from both sides about how 'unfair' the other team has made the debate for them. It's hard for me to determine how undebatable something is, since that's subjective, arbitrariness isn't though, and it's more of a yes/no question.

Topicality

Default competing interps, reasonability is winnable though.

PTIAV is 100% winnable and probably true, positional competition is an extremely arbitrary standard that would collapse debate if it were the norm.

Predictability probably outweighs debateability, though I'm fine for the reverse.

Impact calculus is key, just like it is with DA debates.

Counterplan

I think functional competition alone is probably the best standard for debate, but textual + functional is 100% winnable, and a lot of teams are bad at debating competition.

No clue why certain judges detest multiplank, process, and agent counterplans. They're all good options, especially because of increasingly vague plan text writing by 2As and topics with pretty bad neg ground.

Most aff theory arguments make little sense. Every counterplan has a process and every counterplan PICs out of something, so arguments like "Process CPs bad" and "PICs bad", are of little sense to me because of how arbitrary they are. I also think competition >>>>>>>> theory in terms of a 2AR strat against these types of CPs.

Should is probably not ALWAYS immediate, but normal means for the aff is probably immediacy.

Normal means competition is a TERRIBLE model of debate. Any counterplan that competes off of anything besides the plan is horrifically illegitimate.

In competition debates (where the neg is going for functional alone is the best model and the aff is going for textual + functional is the best model), I think the neg should extend some logic impact, while the aff should go for some germaneness/ground impact.

The 2NC has to SAY judgekick in order for me to vote on it. I don't default to judgekick, but it's not hard to convince me to judgekick something. (Note: If the 2NR says judgekick, and the 2NC doesn't, it's a new 2NR argument, same thing with the 2AR saying no judgekick when the 1AR didn't)

Critical Arguments

Critical Arguments on the Aff: Not very well versed with KvK debates, and I think topicality is probably the best argument against these types of affirmative. I'm equally good for fairness and clash, I think that the best response is some sort of impact turn to framework. Lean slightly neg on the question of Topicality.

Winning SSD and TVA can be helpful, but it's not always necessary.

"The best critiques are framework arguments that moot the plan. Critiques make almost no sense when they use the language of causation or are debated like CPs. By design, they lack uniqueness and attempt to establish exclusivity through something other than traditional opportunity cost. This requires an alternate framework for evaluation" - Rafael Pierry

Not great for most pomo stuff, not saying I won't vote on it, just do a lot of work explaining

If the aff gets to weigh the plan, they will almost always win.

Disadvantages

I genuinely don't know why judges hate Politics or the Rider DA, they're both insane.

Normal means is a factual question that is up for debate.

Turns Case and Impact Calculus are both extremely important, though if the risk of case is negligible, and the risk of the DA is high, I don't think the aff winning impact calculus will necessarily turn the debate around in their favor.

Zero risk is possible IF a technical concession is made.

Case

Negative teams should be making analytical arguments based off of things like cross-ex, things they noticed while reading through the 1AC, etc, I think most teams rely wayyy too heavily on a prewritten caseneg.

Know when you access try or die. For the aff, try or die is when the neg goes for the squo, and has dropped a case impact by only answering the case with solvency takeouts, thus making the impact to the aff inevitable. Try or die for the neg is when the impact to a DA is inevitable OR, the internal net benefit on a counterplan has not been responded to. Winning try or die pretty much means I'll auto-vote for you, since logically, I would always TRY to stay alive, and never want to die.

I don't know why, but most rounds I'm in, the 2AC does things like respond to neg impact defense by extending the impact and not answering any of the claims in the card, or the 2NC will not answer any of the 2AC Line-by-Line directly, and just read an extension of their 1NC evidence, and read a new 2NC card. Both of these things are bad and you shouldn't do them.

Soft left affs are cool.

Misc

Feel free to ask questions after the round! Keep it civil though.

Inserting rehighlightings is fine, but if the thing you are inserting wasn't in the original card, you have to read it. Inserting perm texts is also fine, besides that, read everything.

Clipping = L25 if I catch you. Ethics challenges = L25 to the accuser if false, and L25 to the cheater if true.

Randomly ad-homing authors by saying things like "their author is a racist!" when the card is about why nuclear war causes extinction makes no sense because it is not a content-specific indict. I'll vote on it begrudgingly if dropped.

Ask if I need a card-doc, obviously each debate is different and some debates need card docs and some debates don't, but ask to make sure.

No interest in evaluating arguments about how someone is out of round, I don't think I should have a technical debate about whether someone my age is a moral person or not.

Landon Iley Westwood 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu April 4, 2024 at 4:48 AM CDT

PF Paradigm:

SHORT

Current Westwood High School Junior and Novice Coordinator for PF Debate

Tech>Truth

At a minimum, share cases before round and add me to email chain, or send me a link to your Speech drop ect. at: westwoodpfdocs@gmail.com

I'll evaluate your arguments, so long as they are extended through all needed speeches.

I won't evaluate/flow the argument if it is over time or a new response to their case past the rebuttal (weighing and new theory violations are an exception for the new past rebuttal part)

I'll try to take time and am the final arbiter on it, but I also can forget to press the button, so please take time yourself as well.

Contentions should be complete in the constructive. For instance, if you read a contention and the impact is economic decline, you can't add that economic decline leads to poverty in the rebuttals/summary (unless you use it to link into an opponent's case)

Speed is fine, but anything not shared must be followable

Ask me questions before round and postround me if we have time

Framework, Theory, K's and such are welcome.

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

Long

Extensions

No new responses to case after the 2nd rebuttal

No sticky defense

Must extend in summary AND final focus

Must extend warrants

If you want to go for a turn on a case your opponent isn't extending, you have to extend enough of it for the turn to be an arg on its own (ie. Your opponent reads an econ advantage and you prove it will actually hurt the econ, you may need to extend econ decline=war/poverty)

Weighing

Please choose a clear weighing mechanism- Magnitude, Probability, and Timeframe etc.

Make sure weighing is COMPARATIVE, too many times I see people saying they outweigh on magnitude because they affect millions, where their opponent is reading extinction.

Weighing your mechanism against other is invited (ie. Magnitude > Prob)

You NEED real warrants for why you outweigh, no just claiming your opponent is less probable just because they read extinction

I count dropped args as 100% probability, so new prob weighing in the summary speeches is often not going to be strategic. Probability weighing is at its best when it's a well-thought-out implication of non-terminal defense (stuff like bright-line issues)

Evidence

Debaters may ask for evidence anytime not during a speech, won't penalize time but please be fast.

Last Name and Date verbally or I'm striking it off the flow. If the evidence called for and it doesn't doesn't have a link to the source I'm striking it off the flow as well.

If the EV ethics is bad, point it out but make sure to implicate what that means for their case/my ballot

Theory

I evaluate and have run theory, please make it clear and extend the full shell. Unless extended in every relevant speech otherwise, I will presume No RVIs, Counterinterps>Reasonability, and Text of the Interp. Offensive Counterinterps (ie. CIs that the team reading theory violates) are always offense and RVIs don't apply. If you need to check if a Counterinterp is offensive, ask yourself "Could this CI be run as a theory shell on its own?"

K's

I've read over K's and will evaluate them, but have not run them before, so please make the framework and alternative clear.

Cross

I don't flow cross so bring up concessions in the speech

If your opponent asks you the probability of your case "100%" is absolutely the correct answer.

Yelling matches will make me sad. Cross should be used strategically for clarification and gaining strategic admissions, arguing about an argument that you think would take out their case not only reveals your hand for later speeches, but also misses the point of a questioning period.

Other Debate Paradigm:

Ask me questions before round for specifics

Tech>Truth, most other things are answered in PF Paradigm

Karthik Jayakumar McNeil High School 5 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 9, 2024 at 3:37 AM CDT

Hi, I'm Karthik - TAMU '28 - McNeil '24 - 4 years of LD on TFA and national circuit

speechdrop is chill, email is chill too: karthik.jay531@gmail.com

General

i flow by ear. don't spread anything you want me to understand/flow. if i miss something, i might feel bad for you but i won't vote on it

only time I'll check the doc is for ev ethics, but I'd rather you read it as a shell

only rules are speech times, rest is up for debate

tech>truth for the ballot (only exception is safety/ -isms), speaks are up to me (read: no speaks spikes)

defaults: theory > rob/framework > offense , presumption and permissibility negate

Novice

weighing is everything

pls don't read theory or K's, everything else is chill

don't worry too much about wins and losses, focus on getting better so you can move up to varsity

Pref sheet

Phil - 1/2 depending on the phil

This is what I find the most interesting in debate, I read some Rawls, Kant, Hobbes, etc. but don't assume ik your philosopher

skep, determinism, and logic tricks like paradoxes are also fine, but make sure to explain why they justify voting for you

K - 3

did a little of this (cap, setcol, security), but don't assume I know your K

not afraid to vote on presumption v a K aff if I don't know what it does

if you can't explain your thesis to a 5 year old within cross ex, then don't read the K in front of me

dislike doc botted 2nrs full of buzzwords

Theory - 1

Did a lot of this as a debater, I'll vote on friv shells if you're winning the flow

I dislike theory spikes without good warranting, but if they have warrants I'll vote on it i guess

judge instruction is key when collapsing to theory, esp when you have to up layer over ROB

defaults: ci>reasonability, drop the debater, no RVI

LARP - 3/4 depending on complexity

I did very little of this, but it seems straightforward enough

assume I don't know anything about current events

I like overviews in 2nr/2ar explaining what the collapse/win condition will be esp in complex debates (multiple condo cp's, impact turns, etc)

other info

speaks

speaks are somewhat arbitrary but influenced by being nice and good judge instruction

shout outs

influenced by: Henderson, Anshul Gulati, Yara Mustafa, Ben Duong, Vishnu Nataraja

shout outs: Rohan Sthanu, Manu Yenikapati, Aditya Patwardhan, Nithya Challa

"live laugh love lose"

Raghav Laxminarasimhan Westwood 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri May 10, 2024 at 4:49 PM CDT

Westwood '27

Put me on the chain: raghav.laxminarasimhan@gmail.com

People I agree with:

Pranav Balakrishnan

Rafael Pierry

Het Desai

Arnav Kashyap

Archan Sen

tech >>>> truth

Many decisions that I have seen have been atrocious---the arguments were a technical crush but judges don't vote on them because they don't buy them or ideologically agree with one side. I will try my best not to do this. I evaluate the debate solely off what is on the flow. Debate is a game. Go for Spark, Hidden ASPEC, Condo, don't send analytics, do everything in your power to get the ballot. Making unstrategic decisions for the point of "clash", is just stupid. Your goal should be to do anything that increases the chance of you getting the ballot.I will try my best to not intervene unless it is necessary for the debate to continue on.

MSPF read below:

Above all else, have fun! This will be (probably) the first debate you have in a long illustrious debate career, don't worry about wins/losses too much. Your success as a novice/middle schooler definitely isn't indicative of your long term career, so if you don't end up with a great result, don't sweat it too much.

I value the technical execution of your arguments above the sole truth of your arguments alone. What this means is, even if an argument is untrue or absurd on face, I will evaluate it and give it full weight if not responded to. Example is, Team A says something causes warming, and Team B says Warming is good, and Team A fails to properly respond to "Warming is good", I'll vote for team B. There is no argument that is too silly or dumb for me to vote on.

Extend your ARGUMENTS every speech and utilize your flow! Remember, falling to respond to arguments means they're true, which means that responding to arguments is key to mitigate the risk of them! The same goes for extending arguments, if the argument is not extended throughout every speech than I don't have it written down meaning you can't collapse on it.

WEIGH YOUR IMPACTS! Make sure to tell me why your impact is more opponent than the other team's impacts, using magnitude, probability, and timeframe.

Grace Marshall McNeil High School 8 rounds None

Ayan Nagulapally Westwood 8 rounds

Arjun Nair Westwood 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri May 10, 2024 at 12:53 PM PDT

westwood '25, 1/2 of westwood NY

2x toc gold qualled, late out rounds at TFA, etc. etc.

Preflow n flip n everything before round

If you are flight 2 make sure everything is ready before flt 1 ends, i dont like wasting time

If the round ends within 40 mins after the scheduled start time then I will give block 30s

Do something fun

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

If you have any questions about my paradigm, please feel free to ask me before the round! My paradigm has become egregiously long over the years sojust skim through the underlined text if you want the TL;DR.

General:

Tech >>> Truth. You can argue anything you want in front of me. I’ve read everything from politics DAs, tricks, round reports theory, riders, ivis —do what you’re comfortable with.I enjoy voting on creative, fun argumentsI haven't heard before.

Go as fast as you want as long as you're clear. I won’t flow directly off a doc but will take one in case I miss something/want to check for new arguments/implications. That said, please don’t confuse words per minute with arguments per minute – clear spreading is orders of magnitude easier to flow than a slightly less speedy blip-storm of arguments. If I miss something in summary or final focus because you're going too fast and I drop you it's your fault; slow down, don't go for everything, and be efficient.

I tend to be very facially expressivewhen judging—it can help you know which args to collapse on and which to kick. If I'm vibing with something you're saying, I'll nod along with it during your speech.Argument selection is critical to my ballot—identify the best possible collapse strategy, go for the right argument, and do solid comparison on it.

Please label email chains adequately. Ex. “TOC R1 – Westwood NY (Aff 1st) vs. Southlake Carroll RY (Neg 2nd)”

If you disagree with any part of my paradigm, just make a warrant why I should evaluate the round differently. I'm open to almost everything.

Substance:

If parts of your argument are uncontested,you do not have to extend warrants for conceded internal linksin summary and final focus. Definitely extend uniqueness, links, and impacts though. This also applies to impact turns—if your opponents' link is conceded by both sides, you don't have to extend it.

Stolen from Nathaniel Yoon’s paradigm:I will disregard and penalize "no warrant/context" responses on their own. Pair this with any positive content (your own reasoning, weighing, example, connection to another point, etc), and you're fine, just don't point out the lack of something and move on. This also applies to responses such as "they don't prove xyz" or "they don't explain who what when where why"—make actual arguments instead.

Well-warranted analytics are great, blippy analytics are a headache.

In almost all circumstances, link weighing is preferable to impact weighing. Don’t just say extinction outweighs and move on—do comparative analysis on why your link is better(larger, faster, more probable, etc).On a similar note,make sure to resolve clashing link-ins/prereqs—otherwise, I will be very confused and probably have to intervene. This also means that 1FF can read new link weighing mechanisms to resolve clashing prerequisite arguments, as long as they weren’t conceded in first summary.

Defense isn't sticky. That said, I am very lenient towards blippy defense extensions in first summary if second rebuttal doesn't frontline something at all, just make sure it's there.

Theory:

I'll tolerate theory. I'm chill with any shell as long as it's warranted. I also won’t be biased when judging theory, so feel free to respond in any way you wish—meta-theory, interp flaws, impact turns, etc, are all fine with me.Friv is fine, just make it funny(dinosaur/shoe/no evidence theory is interesting, disclose rebuttal evidence is boring).

I default tospirit > text,CI > R,No RVIs,Yes OCIs*,DTA.

If you do choose to disclose, do it right. Genuinely think disclosure bad is a more persuasive argument than full texting > OS.

*OCIs good is the one thing in my paradigm that you cannot alter with warrants. If you win that your shell is better under a model of competing interpretations, or win turns to your opponents’ interp, you win. The definition of what constitutes an "RVI" is irrelevant.

I will evaluate topical kritiks. I'm relatively comfortable with Baudrillard, biopolitics, cap, imperialism, and security—anything else is a stretch so please slow down and warrant things out.

No paraphrased Ks—this is non-negotiable.

If you are reading substance + pre-fiat framing (or a topical link to a kritik in any way)you must still win your topical links to access the pre-fiat layer. I am never going to vote for a “we started the discourse” link or arguments about how your opponents cannot link in.

Your opponents conceding the text of your ROTB is not a TKO. You still need to win the clash on your argument. Similarly,rejection alts/ROTBs are sus, read an actual one.

CPs:

I will begrudgingly evaluate a plan/counterplan debate. This obviously differs based on the resolution (“on balance” phrasing is weird), but for fiated topics i.e., “Japan should revise Article 9 of its constitution,” they’re probably fair game.

Totally open to theory against thesethough – just make the arguments.

FW:

Read whatever you want here, I won't be biased one way or another. Extinction reps, Kant,anything goes.

Util is most likely truetil, but I can be convinced otherwise.

Tricks:

These are fun, but never voting for unwarranted blips like ROTO or “eval after the 1ac.” Paradoxes, skep, etc are ok.

Presumption:

Absent warrants otherwise,I always default to the first speaking team.

Speaks:

I award speaks based onfluency and in-round strategy. Humor also helps.

Most importantly,have fun! Let me know before/after the round if you have any questions or want extra feedback.

—AN

Dhruv Patil Westwood 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat May 11, 2024 at 7:41 AM CDT

Westwood '26 he/him

Current Sophomore at Westwood High School, add me to email chains & speech drops - dhruvpatil8807@gmail.com

tech>truth

General Debate Things

Run whatever you want

If you have an Ethics challenge then stop the debate

If one side says ___ bad and one side says ___ good tell me why I prefer your side

No prep stealing

I will decide the debate based on the flow and nothing else

If any argument is blatantly false, it should be easy to disprove

Absent a presumption warrant, I presume the losers of the flip

If a team doesn't extend CALL THEM OUT in your speech

My threshold for warrants isn't that high
CALL YOUR OPPS OUT in your speech if they don't have any

I'll call clear three times, after that if I can't understand you I won't flow you

Send all cards read in round before your speech where you read them so that no time is wasted for random 1 piece EV exchanges (This probably only needs to be mentioned for PF as other debate events are usually great w/ EV)

No new arguments past Rebuttal other than frontlining in First Summary
(If a team has new arguments too late in the round CALL THEM OUT in your speech and I will cross the args off my flow)
Frontline in Second Rebuttal
Defense is not Sticky
Weighing must happen in summary at the latest, only new weighing allowed in 1st FF is responsive/comparative weighing against your opps weighing from 2nd Summary (If a team doesn't weigh in summary or has new 1st FF weighing CALL THEM OUT in your speech and I will cross it off my flow)
(If a team has new 2nd FF weighing I will cross it off my flow)

Prog

Theory Defaults (These don't matter unless they aren't touched on in the debate)

No RVIs
Competing Interpretations > Reasonability
Spirit of the interpretation > Text of the interpretation
DTD

Evaluating Defaults(These don't matter unless they aren't touched on in the debate)

Theory > K > Substance

Speaks

Depends on the tournament and division (for 28-29.9) but I've put my normal national circuit varsity division standards for speaks

0-25
L on Ethics challenge (If the Ethics challenge doesn't give me speaks to give to the losers of the Ethics challenge I intervene and give at max a 25 depending on how egregious I think the ethics violation was)
You ran any ___ism good or egregiously offensive arguments

25.1-27.9
Very poor technically -> A little bit below average

28-28.7
Average -> Decent

28.8-29.3
Good, you will probably break

29.4-29.7
I wouldn't be surprised to see you get very far in or even win the tournament

29.8-29.9
A favorite of mine to win the tournament and just an incredible technical debater

30
Perfection

Akhilesh Pissay Westwood 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 11:08 AM EDT

Back when the OGs and I were watching the Good Ol' debates between the democratic Stephen A. Douglas and my main man Abraham Lincoln from the republican party, I learned a couple of things about debate.

Short Cut Prefs:

1 - Policy/T/Theory

2 - Phil (Kant, Hobbes, Util), K (Cap, Pess, Set Col, Psychoanalysis)

3 - Tricks

4 - Dense Phil, K (anything I didn't list), K Affs

Big Things:

I go to Westwood High School and I am a junior.

email: akhileshpissay@gmail.com

An ideal debate probably has an affirmative that defends a meaningful change from the status quo and a negative that proves an opportunity cost to that change.

Fine with speed as long as you are clear, will clear you/say slow

Policy:

affs must defend change from squo
adv cps are underrated, read them more
favorite 2nr is cp + da
^that is tied with the ! turn 2nr
make more offensive arguements rather than defensive ones

Theory/T:

T debates are cool, I just wish people explained to me the violation a little better
nebel/leslie needs good explanation in 2nr to be voted on
Condo 2ars are underrated, i find a lot of 2nrs to be making terrible arguments for condo good
disclosure is good, losing to disclosure makes people disclose better imo but ill be lenient with like rr theory and such
defaults: dtd, ci, no rvis, education/fairness voters

Debate i dabbled into the least, but i still have a good understanding for a couple of lit bases (psychoanalysis, set col, afropess, cap, asian mel)
Topic specific links > generics
i think that the aff should always be able to weigh case, i think excluding the aff is stupid bc it moots the 1ac, if aff, my favorite 2ar is framework + case o/ws
Topical k affs are cool but i think that extinction o/ws is a true argument
T-FW stuff: Err neg on framework debates but still think that the aff must win why their model is better, pls dont j ! turn fw, answer it w why ur model is good

Phil:

I know what kant, levinas, hobbes, and util say. If you want to read something else ie agonism, pettit, butler, exc, feel free to read it but if u want the ballot i need to understand it in the round
Explain me the philosophy as if i was a two year old - goo goo ga ga
cps/das dont negate is funny but i have low threshold for this argument
tricks are troll but make sure to have claim, warrant, impact to them
Pls ask for new 2nr/2ar answers to tricks, they are usually read as a claim and warrant but no impact till the 2nr/2ar.

Speaks:

29.8-30: should win the tournament/did a v v good job
29.3-29.7: you are good, will def clear, maybe late elims
28.9-29.3: probably clear, def bubble round
Probably wont give anything below 28 if u try and debate, unless you say something racist, sexist, exc.

Neha Reddy Westwood 8 rounds None

Atharva Srivastava McNeil High School 5 rounds

Ian Xu Westwood 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat May 11, 2024 at 4:12 AM CDT

Hello!

I'm Ian Xu from Westwood High School 26'

ianxu2018@gmail.com -- reach out if you have questions both about the round or in general for debate I'd love to help!

the most important things for you reading this is

i love fairness first arguments and find myself voting on those and theoretical arguments in general frequently
i am not super super fast with flowing so i will backflow for you but i would appreciate being as clear as possible but you can still go full speed
weigh a lot because i might not be familiar with your specific argument so weighing and explanation will go a long way.

pref sheet:

larp - 1 - Yay! I love CPs, especially process counterplans.

phil - 4 - I am a bit so so I dont really understand most phil arguments so explain it really really well.

k - 3 - Explain it well and we should be fine.

T - 1 - Yes for sure.

tricks - 2 - entertaining; turning them is strategic some

theory - 1! - by far my favorite thing to hear - critical thinking is most needed in theory debates which is why i think its the best - explain the standards well and explain the abuse story well - paradigm issues warrants dont need to be repeated if theyre conceded but plz tell me that they were conceded and which ones to use so i dont forget lol explain abuse story tho if standard is conceded repeating the standard text word for word is sufficient - no such thing as friv - will not evaluate theory abt the persons appearance like shoes

other info:

evidence ethics -- sure stake the round for any small violation as long as you can be sure the tournament rules supports you, w30 L29.7

extensions on conceded args -- these can be like repeating the arg again w the same words ngl

defaults:

Default to util

Truth Testing > Comparative Worlds

competing interps > reasonability

rvis > no rvis

dtd > dta

Norming > In-round abuse

text > spirit

Presumption negates

Permissibility negates

fairness and edu and norming are voters

fairness > anything else

Jeremy Yang Westwood 8 rounds

Manu Siddharth Yenikapati McNeil High School 8 rounds

Eric Zhu Westwood 8 rounds

Login to Tabroom

Debbie Johnson MS HS Novice Tournament

2024 — Austin, TX/US

Debate Paradigm List

Judges