Tabroom.com

The FREE AB Independent Entries Heaven Spring MS ONLINE Tournam

2024 — Online, MO/US

Lincoln Douglas Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Henry Akins Aubuchon Independent 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed June 26, 2024 at 6:46 PM CDT

LD & CX @ Bentonville High School '27

Top stack:
- Respect is extremely important. Racism, homophobia, transphobia, sexism, etc. will result in an immediate loss, with the lowest speaks possible.
- I'm a blank slate, or "tabula rasa" as it is called in Latin. While it is hard sometimes to put aside my opinions, I am willing to vote on practically anything.
- Line-by-line is essential for me. If I can't flow the arguments, I can't evaluate them.
- Some judges hate spreading, I don't mind it though. With this in mind, still be clear and please don't go too fast on the analytics.

Tricks:
- I am a believer of the idea that debate is a game. But at the same time, I am extremely aware of the education that debate brings, which is one of the main reasons that I love it. Tricks are kind of the antithesis of how I see debate - but I am still willing to vote on them. With that in mind, please refer to my stance on line-by-line. Flowability is extremely important, so if I can't catch the argument, then it may as well just have not been argued. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- Answer them. Simple as that.

Theory:
- For theory referring to the case level of the AC, I would say that 99% of theory in that ballpark is not a reason to reject the team.
- For things like disclosure and whatnot, that could be interpreted as a reason to reject the team.
- As long as I can flow the theory and understand it, there is a high chance that I could vote on it. Do with that information what you will.

Speaks:
- Summed up here.
- Some people will have weird systems for how they hand out speaks. For me, I will just think about things like clarity, line-by-line, etc.

Traditional:
- Read this understanding that I am a more "progressive" debater, in the sense that I don't use the Value/Value-Criterion model when debating. However, I still understand the importance that this has to traditional debate so when judging those rounds, I will weigh the case on the framework provided.
- With that said, if it is a round between a more "progressive" debater going up against a traditional debater, I will probably not base the round based off of framework, but rather on the flow of the round and who generally makes the better arguments. Basically, just who the better debater is. (which is what debate is about) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Meilyn Aubuchon Aubuchon Independent 4 rounds

Samuel Adeyemi Ayodele Hire 4 rounds

Putri Azzahra Hire 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 9, 2024 at 2:55 PM WIB

Debate Philosophy:

I approach debates with a focus on flowing arguments and evaluating them based on the flow. While I prioritize technical arguments over truth, I do expect clear and logical communication from debaters. Clarity of thought and logic is paramount, and I value well-warranted arguments over-reliance on evidence alone.

I weigh the claims by whether they are supported by two kinds of reasoning:

11. Truth: Why the claim is true.

22. Impact: Why this claim is important in the debate.

"Claims" apply to both constructive arguments and rebuttals, as I will weigh them side by side in clashes on my flow later. Providing examples or research findings doesn't necessarily mean your claim is true; you have to explain which part of the example/research can be applied to the argument, to explain why that example is important to the debate as a whole.

Weighing Arguments:

Debaters should focus on weighing their arguments and demonstrating why their impacts outweigh those of their opponents. This includes considering scope, magnitude, timeframe, probability, or employing metaweighing techniques. I appreciate clear roadmaps and signposting throughout the round to aid in organization.

Topic Relevance:

I prefer debates to stay on topic and avoid off-topic or theoretical arguments aimed at disqualifying the other team. Definitions by the government/affirmative team are allowed, but abuse of this privilege will be penalized.

Argument Evaluation:

Warranted arguments are crucial for winning my ballot. Unsubstantiated claims are difficult to vote on, especially when effectively rebutted by the opposing side. It's essential to be charitable to opponents' arguments and engage with the best version of their claims rather than strawmanning them.

Public Forum-Specific:

In Public Forum debates, I prioritize logical reasoning over reliance on evidence cards. Debaters should focus on identifying weaknesses in their opponents' link chains rather than reading from prepared blocks. Clash should be evident by the rebuttal speeches, and second rebuttals should address all offense or risk concessions.

Evidence and Email Chains:

I do not typically review evidence or participate in email chains. Debaters must convince me of their arguments without relying on my review of evidence. However, if requested, I may assess evidence for accuracy.

Cathryn Gorman Aubuchon Independent 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue July 9, 2024 at 6:13 AM CDT

nchs '27

acs '23

i apologize for the length of my paradigm, but not really.

LD:

do whatever, i'm basically the most tech heavy judge ever due to primarily being a cx debater. do with that what you will.

policy:

for email chains, just use cegorman@stu.naperville203.org.

as far as how i judge, the following can almost always be consulted :

i always will go in tabula rasa. like, fr. judge bias does not exist for me.

speed/clarity:spreading is fine and dandy- but make sure to be clear. if i can't understand you then i can't flow it.

flowing: i typically flow online and expect debaters to flow throughout the round. dropped arguments are a big deal to me- but if you don't point out a drop, there's nothing i can really do.

topicality:if you're in the mmsdl, it's really not a voter for me. otherwise, i'm a really good judge on T- i really like more "trad" arguments, or traditional ones, so i tend to weigh T a bit heavier than other judges.

i've been doing policy for way too long (started the '20-21 school year)

i expect debaters to keep their own clock and be aware of their prep time. i'll run my own timer as well, but running your own timer is good practice.

speaker points/extras:

i will remove speaker points for false claimed drops. this was a HUGE issue on the ms circuit when i was active on it, and it just makes me cringe a bit.

i'll likely add a bit of a boost to your score if you have emotion (up to 0.4ish). pathos is important!!

throw some rhetoric in- have fun!

dude, please don't call me "judge." it makes me feel geriatric.

tech>truth, always.

happy debating , and if you've read this far down pre-round, you're MILES ahead of the competition :)

specifics for the high school circuit:

k-affs: please don't read these on me. it won't go over well. you're brave, but please don't run one.

k's in general: in general, i'm not a super huge fan of kritiks purely because i learned to debate on the middle school circuit. that being said, if you can convince me, i'll vote on it. but if you're going for a k, you need to kind of fully commit to it. with heavier arguments, you can't just "sprinkle in" some lacan, for example- fully flesh out your k arguments! i feel like with k's, especially in recent years, they've been a bit of an afterthought- you need to KNOW your k's in and out, because everyone in the room can tell when you don't really know what you're reading. however, i love ethics/philosophy related k's when argued to their full potential.

k v k debates: in the wise words of kavin bendre, "i have little idea what's happening in these debates, but if you win you win."

counterplans:i've seen A LOT of low-key abusive cps. i'll be annoyed at you for running an abusive one. advantage cp's are fine on their own, but adding arduous amounts of planks and kicking them when they're no longer convenient for you is not lol.

t:i'm a big fan of T. there's not much more to say.

theory:i understand theory to an extent. i'm still not the largest fan, and would MUCH rather prefer fw.

etiquette: be civil. be nice. please. sass is fine (and lowkey encouraged), but there's 100% a line between sarcasm/snark and being a jerk.

again, please don't run everything stated in your 1nc in your 2nr. it will make me violently sob and you'll alsolikely have an equally miserable time. nobody likes to flow 300 arguments by the last rebuttals. seriously. if you're going for T in the 2nr- it better be the ONLY thing you're arguing.

go for the dumb arguments. debate is a game, and while there IS value in serious rounds, everyone has more fun if you go for a more laid-back approach. make jokes, go for a funny impact, do whatever.

congress:

in the (rare) event that i'm judging congress:

i'll usually start the po off at the minimum place to break, and mistakes/things done well help/hurt your ranks. i know that some judges start the po at a 1, because they're the only person the round can't run without. i recognize and respect that, but in my mind, there's rarely an instance in which the presiding officer should ever get a 1.

general stuff (all events):

the line between passionate and hysterical is a thin one, watch that line. (probably the greatest feedback on a ballot i've ever gotten)

loud doesn't equal right.

know your timing- have a good idea of how much time you have left in a constructive, speech, or rebuttal.

flow- no matter what event you're in, flowing is super important.

Qareebat Ibrahim Hire 4 rounds

Zarreen Johnson Hire 4 rounds

justin lin Hire 2 rounds

Last changed on Sun July 21, 2024 at 5:58 PM EDT

Please bring me good food (not the food they give you). Please give me energy drinks!! Please protein... if you do!! Raising your speaks!

I will only raise speaks if the food has high amount of protein, or if you give energy drinks

* Questions about my paradigm? Don't be scared to ask!! All questions will be answered BEFORE the round starts. If there are questions during the debate, I WON'T answer it.

DEBATE IS JUST A GAME, DON'T GET MAD - It's never that deep. Thug it out, suck it up, cry about it

General:

About me: I'm Mr. Lin, competed for 2 years, understand debate, maverick, competed at Harvard University. I have competed in MULTIPLE ADL tournaments, and I understand debate. Dont act stupid in front of me. I won multiple awards, Travelling cup for my own school (district tourney), and I had fun!

Add me to the chain: linjustin0301@gmail.com (send me all your docs, I don't care, I want them) (Crossfire, links, speeches, etc...)

Do not force me to intervene, I HATE IT

Speed: I do a fast format. I'm okay with spreading in formats where it is standard practice (Policy and prog LD). I'll yell "clear" or "slow". When I yell "clear" then i am able to follow you. But dont change ur pace and have simple grammar. When I yell "slow", it means that you must slow down a bit. If you spread, I appreciate it if you make it clear when one card ends and a new one begins (eg saying NEXT or AND between each card, going slower on tags, etc). (be aware, I WILL NOT LET YOU RESTART when I say the word "slow". you must continue)

*I'm an easy ballot to win... if your arguments are stronger than the opposing team, you basically take the W because it convinced me*

I do not tolerate racism, xenophobia, homophobia, sexism, ableism, transphobia, etc. please respect people's names, pronouns, and identities. just be respectful, it's really not that hard.

Debate should be a welcoming and accessible place. if you have concerns, please let me know and i will work with you to try to resolve them.

Feel free to email me with questions! i love talking about speech/debate/interp and am more than happy to answer questions or have conversations about it

Have a good debate! have a good performance! have a good attitude! and most importantly, have fun!!!

Speaks:

Ill start speaks around 28, but here are some things u can do for high speaks -

In cross get your opps with some sort of joke, dont be offensive tho

Dont call me judge, just say justin, convince me more!!

Send all cards for speeches

Use carded weighing

Have some cool terminal defense in case or some unique round strats

Have a lay round, I won't flow so it's true lay evaluation - just let me know beforehand

I will disclose my RFD if both teams agree, if not, it will be published

BREAKDOWN OF SPEAKER POINTS:

30:Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29:Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28:Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27:About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26:Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25:Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

Judging:

I give significant weight to how debaters handle cross, summary, and final focus (PF) or rebuttal in LD. I’m sure you all have meticulously prepared constructives / cases and rebuttals. However, I want to see what you can do when presented with your opponent’s case that isunique and entertaining.

Please make sure to weigh your arguments; but do so with thorough explanation. Please don’t tell me “aff outweighs on magnitude of impact” and leave it at that.

Also, if you've read this far, congrats! You get to hear my judging pet-peve -climate / nuclear war / extinction arguments, and bonus!!They feel like such an easy out. I'll certainly consider them, but I'm thinking we can be more original than that.

I will disclose results at the end of the round as per tournament directions on disclosure. Feedback will be on ballot, and if I have time and you'd like oral feedback (if disclosure is allowed) I will give oral FB.

Bonus Points??:

1) Say "yo whats up homie, back with another video today"... in the beginning of your speech (first line) (+0.5)

2) Do a fortnite emote for 10 seconds in the beginning of your speech, and then continue with the speech (+0.3)

3) Fire debate fit (+0.1)

Evidence:

1) Don't you dare mess around with false evidence around me, if I find out you made up random evidence, lowest speaks possible and you lose

2) HAVE EVIDENCE CARDS READY!!! Be organized. I will be asking for evidence cards at the end if I want to double check or if I want the entire card. If you are unable to show me evidence, it will be DROPPED

3) PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE state the exact date. (Month, Day, Year). And please state whoever wrote the card, an organization or just a person, i don't care. I want to hear it

Framework:

MAKE A FRAMEWORK, MAKE A FRAMEWORK, MAKE A FRAMEWORK, MAKE A FRAMEWORK, MAKE A FRAMEWORK, MAKE A FRAMEWORK, MAKE A FRAMEWORK, MAKE A FRAMEWORK, MAKE A FRAMEWORK, MAKE A FRAMEWORK, MAKE A FRAMEWORK, MAKE A FRAMEWORK, MAKE A FRAMEWORK, MAKE A FRAMEWORK, MAKE A FRAMEWORK, MAKE A FRAMEWORK, MAKE A FRAMEWORK, MAKE A FRAMEWORK, MAKE A FRAMEWORK, MAKE A FRAMEWORK, MAKE A FRAMEWORK, MAKE A FRAMEWORK, MAKE A FRAMEWORK, MAKE A FRAMEWORK, MAKE A FRAMEWORK, MAKE A FRAMEWORK, MAKE A FRAMEWORK, MAKE A FRAMEWORK, MAKE A FRAMEWORK, MAKE A FRAMEWORK, MAKE A FRAMEWORK, MAKE A FRAMEWORK, MAKE A FRAMEWORK, MAKE A FRAMEWORK, MAKE A FRAMEWORK, MAKE A FRAMEWORK, MAKE A FRAMEWORK, MAKE A FRAMEWORK, MAKE A FRAMEWORK.

** Please make a framework, it makes my life easier and I can actually evaluate the match **

Play Nice:

If cross gets ugly and rude, I will destroy your speaker points. Debate is about building a community and showing others that we don’t have to be as vile and divisive as those holding political office. Seriously, you all are the future. Make it awesome.

* Big Question *

No preference between real-world and philosophical evidence, but a combination is powerful! I like framing. I like big picture analysis. I like extended warrants. Pointed questioning and strong topic knowledge impress me a lot and should help you win a ballot in a close round.

I have pretty decent knowledge in U.S history, but I will only use what you told me, not my own thoughts

* LD Prefs *

*I don't flow cross in LD, bring it up in speeches, regardless I probably won't pay attention in crossfire*

TECH>TRUTH PLEASE

I will consider any warranted argument presented in round. Please weigh clearly and effectively and lay out the big issues in the round/voters. Tell me the clearest path to the ballot! I do not want to intervene. I find a quality framework debate/clash VERY interesting. If it's getting debate on fw is circular and/or the differentiation is minimal, go for something else.

Slow down on card tags, warrants, weighing, and voters. If the framework clash is a wash, I'll default to evaluating contention-level offense via the weighing analysis given to me at the end of the round. If I don't understand what you're talking about (speed, lack of clarity, lack of explanation, or warrants), there is NO CHANCE I'll vote off it. Thus, explain the argument/warrants not only in case, but throughout the round if you want me to vote off of it.

Spend time contextualizing your card/s if you're relying on it to win the round. Even if it was already done in your constructive, it's a good habit to cover it thoroughly a 2nd time in case I missed something.

Don't drop warrants in your extensions. I may not have gotten it in case and even if I did, I like to be reminded. Will not evaluate any argument in which the warrant is missing or unclear.

---- (please don't forget that all three are part of good debate)

Above all else, I favor clash and the resolution of clash by debaters with good overviews, weighing, and depth of topic knowledge.

In order of preference:

1.)Trad/lay2.)Plan/CPs3.)Ks4.)Theory

*PF Prefs *

TECH>TRUTH PLEASE

Overview:I think running Ks, theory, and spreading should not be the norm in Public Forum. I think topical arguments with really good warrants and evidence are the best path for PF debaters. I think the round should be educational and accessible for teams, judges, and any observer who wishes to spectate the round. The notion that the only "good" debate is nat circuit-oriented is not only arrogant, but also wrong. I've witnessed dozens of debate rounds and seen poor argumentation all over the place.

I favor a lot of clash, well-developed links analysis, and an aggressive style of debate. Indicting evidence with quality arguments on why it matters in the context of the round impresses me. I enjoy pointed crossfire and will flow concessions and hold teams to them. Warrant everything. DO NOT DROP WARRANTS in your extensions. In PF, remind me of the big picture from summary onward.

Keep a consistent link story on your offense. If you have a particular lens (framework, observation, etc.) in which I should view the resolution, make sure it is well-warranted and extend throughout the round. I like clear framing mechanisms. I prefer a smaller # of voters (1 - 3) to many poorly-explained voters in FF. Weigh or risk judge intervention (I don't want to do it). You can't win on the flow if you don't tell me why the arguments matter by the end of the round.

On Speed: Moderate, occasional, and strategic use of speed in PF is OK if the other team + all the judges can follow you. Never sacrifice clarity for speed. Don't bully your opponent with speed. That is not why PF was created. The vast majority of your speech should be understood by an ordinary person with no background in debate if you're doing it right. I much rather teams win 1 significant argument over a bunch of smaller, less-developed arguments on the flow. I dislike spreading in any debate event, but most especially in PF.

Evidence comparison is critical and a good way to impress. Please make warranted arguments why I should prefer your card over your opponent's card. There are many ways to accomplish this, I'll consider any of them so long as they make sense. FYI: One relevant, high-quality card is often better than 2 - 3 generic cards that are not contextualized. Extend card tags on every speech. Knowing your evidence really well and explaining it really well in round all but guarantees high speaks.

On theory: I've heard my share of theory arguments and find the majority of those rounds dull and the arguments thin. I much rather you win on something else, but will listen if this is your thing. : (

You can go line-by-line or be more analytical. Anything that is unclear will not get extended or weighed on the flow. Never forget that debate is foremost a PERSUASIVE activity. If you cannot persuade the average person with your case, you aren’t debating effectively. Ways to impress me as a judge: 1. Depth of Analysis, 2. Topic Knowledge, 3. Effective Advocacy, and 4. Clear Narrative. I value meaningful cross much more than most judges.

A pet peeve of mine in PF is summary treated as a 2nd rebuttal speech. That is not the point of summary! Show me the most important issues and why they favor your side, we already had 2 rebuttal speeches and summary is more than a shortened rebuttal.

---- (please don't forget that all 3are part of effective argumentation)

Weigh effectively!!!

* Congress Prefs *

I despise 1-sided debate. If there's no one left on the other side, call the previous question, table the bill, or deliver an impromptu/extemp speech on the other side. If I hear the same exact points made without specific references to the arguments presented by the other side, points will be low.

I love clash in congress. I like pointed, direct questioning. I'm impressed by tactical use of parliamentary procedure. I value the role of the P.O. more than most. Don't be shy about running for P.O. If you're good at it, do it and I'll rank you fairly!

Critical evidence comparison & strong topic knowledge impress me a lot. Creative and/or funny intros make me happy.

* Pet Peeves *

1. Taking too long to set up for debate. (Be prepared, be punctual, be professional)

2. Taking too long to pull a called card from case (after 1 min. if the card doesn’t exist, drop the arg.)

3. Doc bots (NO AI)

4. Boring me. Some have forgotten that there is a performance aspect to ALL debate events and that if you seem apathetic, I will care less about your argument if you don't appear to care about it. If you want me to vote for your argument, make the attempt to seem like you care about whatever you're running. You chose to run that. It's your baby.

5. Saying "please start the timer on my first word'. No really?? I thought I start the timer when you finish your first argument. will take off points

I WILL BE LOWERING SPEAKS IF YOU DON'T LISTEN TO MY PEEVES. Strike me, I dare you

I wish the best to all of you guys! Have fun!! Good luck!!

Preston Mallett Aubuchon Independent 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue May 28, 2024 at 9:47 AM CDT

Hello, If you have questions about my paradigm feel free to ask in person/ email me!

Pronouns: They/Them

I want to be on the doc, I'm down for speech drop or email whichever works best for you. My email is Prestondmallett@gmail.com

TLDR

I am more policy oriented in my experience, I am up for K's or phil debates and will evaluate the debate via the framework presented. I am reluctant to call myself tabula rosa but I will vote for the best debater over most things. I will not accept bigoted arguments eg. homophobia/racism/sexism good. I evaluate tech > truth. If no alternative framework is presented I default to weighing impacts. I don't care for certain arguments over others; rather, I care more about debaters doing what they're good at and maximizing their talents. With that said I might not be the most experienced on your specific argument and I might need some extra explaining. I want good evidence, it might determine the debate, I default to reading highlight only, I should be able to get what the card is saying from it and justify what I'm seeing in the tag, If I change it I change it for both teams. I am a tired human being, I do not get the adrenaline rush, judges are grumpy sometimes and that's that. View my paradigm as a suggestion on arguments I'll evaluate the round as presented

Spreading

If you are not clear I will "clear "you, if you are talking way too fast I will "speed" you, the vast majority of the time it's not actually the speed but the clarity makes it incomprehensible. I think debaters should slow down on typed analytics, if I cannot understand what you are saying w/o the dock ima just clear you. If you ignore my clear/speed signals I'm going to miss your arguments and subsequently you will get a bad RFD with low speaks. Spreading is normally good, I will vote on spreading bad if it is one, especially in the context of a kvk debate that is challenging the methodology of a kritikal affirmative via a k/pik, a theory argument I'm less inclined to vote for. Generally, in a non k debate, if you want a no spreading round you must ask your opponent beforehand, if not, I will be very hesitant on voting for your spreading K/theory.

speaks

The thigs that get your speaks dropped

Requesting more speaks
Doing something I didn't have on the list that I still absolutely hate (you are not cheeky)
Getting cleared a ton and not slowing down
Being rude
Arguing with me
yeah I'm not writing a whole list this gives you an idea.
Not respecting peoples pronouns/racism/ homophobia sexism/ableism/ just being a bigot.

novices/middle schoolers

Everyone needs to start somewhere, and this is the perfect place and time to grow and develop skills. Above everything else in my paradigm, you need to be nice and respectful, to both me and your opponent (s). I will generally become more lenient on a strict tech paradigm and fill in the gaps more than I would otherwise. The most important thing y'all need to do is give me a clear direction and write my ballot for me. I need clash and substance to have something to evaluate, but I need you all to think about how, and what, I'm going to write on my ballot. Why do I care about your impacts, what is uniquely bad under them. You should utilize a combination of (defense, arguments why you don't lose) and offense (reasons why you win) to write my ballot. At the end of the debate I should have a clear reason to vote for you and not to vote for your opponent. The more opportunities you give me to vote for you, aka even if we lose this we still win is how you are going to get my ballot. This does not mean go for everything in the 2nr/2ar, I still need you to collapse down on arguments. What it does mean is that I have multiple reasons to vote for you on the argument you are going for.

More in depth version of how I evaluate

LD, PF, and Policy, this will apply to all of you

I'll vote for T, I default to competing interps, i will vote for reasonability if it's one. I view T as an interp for hypothetical engagement with the topic, as such I don't think the neg necessarily has to "prove the abuse". I will avalutae it in terms of the arguments presented eg. ground, education, clash. If you are going to run a t shell I need a clear interp and violation or else I will get confused and default aff, alongside this there needs to be a standard of evaluation to filter the impacts.

Spec

Spec is another theory argument about hypothetical engagement, I'm normally pretty aff leaning, still default competing interps, ill evaluate it like T

Theory

Default to competing interps, I'll hear out your theory arguments, condo is probably good, I have gone for, and voted on condo bad, just win it. Pics process Cps are good, just win the competition arguments. Ima group competition with this, competition debates are often messy from what I've seen, just clear up the flow and give me good impacts.

Tricks :( / :)

If it goes totally conceded, woopty doo you picked up urself a ballot, but even if its kind of cold conceded as long as they read a counter interp somewhere and justify it, it did not indeed go conceded. Now this doesn't mean there isn't a way I will vote for your trick, if there is an impact that you can impact out that doesn't get taken out and outweighed from the impact analysis on another flow I'll vote for you. I'll accept RVI's on tricks, they are probably a bad practice, if you read it as a time skew get ready to defend why I don't reject you. If you can't tell already, I don't like tricks all that much in a vacuum, but all considering I'll vote for it and sometimes it can be fun.

RVI's

I default to accepting RVI's, I think they are more persuasive in the context of combo shells. If you are running an RVI you need to uniquely show the impact and outweighs everything else. Responding to an RVI can challenge the validity of RVI's I'll evaluate it and flow it just do the work and win the arg!

Impact turns

Impact turns are valid, some are worse than other, but I will vote for them. If you have a process impact turn I need some analysis and defense of that process. On impact turns specifically I need lots of very good evidence weighing and analysis.

UQ: I view uniqueness as a risk filter for the impact, I think linear da's are valid and have utility in certain contexts. If a team totally concedes extinction outweighs even if the uniqueness is .0001% chance I'm flowing neg. The Aff must outweigh the da and uniqueness, can be a valuable tool in doing so, but most of the time don't expect to win a DA purely off of UQ and no impact analysis/ comparison.
Link/IL: Your link and internal link evidence must be good, and the explanation needs to be there. I think link turns generate substantive offense for the aff so if you want to kick a DA you need to answer them.

Impact: The DA needs to outweigh, can be done via impact + cp or just impact if you're winning that debate, be prepared to debate an impact turn because I will vote for them.

"I think CP's can be a good test of solvency mechanisms of the aff I wont vote on a cp unless it has a net benefit. I think the CP is a reason why 1% risk of the DA means I should probably vote neg if the CP solves, even if case outweighs. I don't think the CP alone is a reason to vote neg, just because there is another way to solve the aff doesn't mean I shouldn't give it a try. Internal net benefits are real and I'll vote on a CP with one." - Lapee

Im straight up rippin this explanation because it just sums up my thoughts perfectly

The K

K's are chill, if you can't explain the alt ima be sad. I need clear judge instruction via ROB/ROJ arguments. What is my purpose in the debate, why am i watching it, how do i evaluate your arguments, do i weigh the aff v the k or not? I need answers to all of these questions. Framework is very important, and alternatives need to be able to have a solid defense on theory then besides just the k uplayers.

Links function the same way as disadvantages, I need a clear link and impact to the link. Vauge links makes me sad and undermine the DA in my mind. Links can probably be generated off of performance

If I don't understand your arguments on the k and why I vote for the K I'm not going to vote for it. I don't need to fully understand every minutia of your theory, but I need to be able to explain my thought process in the 2nr.

K aff

Case: Explain your link to the topic, don't make everything super generic. I want tome explanation in the 1ac of how I should think about and evaluate the k. The alternative should be explained.

TUSFG: Impact v impact, do I weigh the k, what impacts do I care about, who accesses the impacts better. T is not violent its a limit on content and a debate about restrictions. I don't necessarily believe debate has much potential for radical change, it can be a space for education but ultimately is a game, just an educational one. I need to know how I should view the TVA and what it provides. I view fairness more as an internal link not really an impact of itself in the context of this discussion, if you are going to run fairness I need a lot of justification of a reason to vote on it solely.

KVK: I need a lot of explanation of both worlds and evaluation. I'm inevitably going to get confused so I need you to write my ballot for me.

General thoughts on neg responses: I'm fine with whatever you want to run, even if its just cap k, presumption, TUSFG, debate what you want to debate I'll evaluate it.

Godslove Matthew Hire 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 20, 2024 at 11:15 AM WAT

Starting out 2024 as a notable unbiased judge

Email: blessingnkojo@gmail.com

You can catch me sparing at ALDD (speechforces) when am not Coaching at RSUDS

Crucial points about my philosophy on debate:

- Equity:

I believe that the fairest debates are those where there is no discrimination or use of derogatory language towards opponents or their arguments. Every argument should be respected and considered.

Things to avoid:

1. Do not classify any argument as nonsensical or stupid.

2. Do not make generalizations based on identity, race, or gender, as this can be stereotypical and provoke retaliation.

Things to do:

1. Be specific when analyzing people or places to avoid generalizations.

2. Approach every argument with a critical lens, refer to it, engage with it, rebut it, and respectfully counter propose. Now that this is clear,

please read before speaking if I am judging you…

Typically, I start evaluating during the second speech in any debate round. Therefore, I am more impressed by students who demonstrate topic knowledge, line-by-line organization skills (supported by careful note-taking), and intelligent cross-examinations, rather than those who rely on speaking quickly, using confusing language, jargon, or recycling arguments.

I have become more open to philosophy-style arguments in the past year. However, I have not extensively studied any specific literature bases. Philosophy arguments that are solely used to trick opponents will not win my vote. However, I am open to well-developed philosophy strategies. Since I am an ordinary intelligent voter, you need to ensure that your explanations are clear and robust in explaining how to evaluate your arguments.

Counter Proposals: Especially in policy debates, but not limited to them, counter proposals that aim to change the focus of the prompt (resolve) will be disregarded as they do not meet the necessary criteria. Use a counter proposal only if it is absolutely necessary or if it aligns with the spirit of the debate. My evaluation of a good counter proposal is just as important as my evaluation of the original prompt.

Goodluck..............

Alexander Tivlumun Hire 4 rounds

Login to Tabroom

The FREE AB Independent Entries Heaven Spring MS ONLINE Tournam

2024 — Online, MO/US

Lincoln Douglas Paradigm List

Judges