Tabroom.com

Practice Rounds No Limits 2024

2024 — Houston, TX/US

Lincoln Douglass Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Christopher Bezemek Hire

Last changed on Wed June 5, 2024 at 7:29 PM CDT

Email: Ccbezemek25@mail.strakejesuit.org

Prefs (Arguments)

Favorite - Policy or Larp and Religious arguments

Don’t likes - Dense Ks, Dense Frameworks, and Cap K

I won't vote on ad homs or unproven out of round violations

Overall, run what you want. I will evaluate what you tell me to (within reason).

Please do -

Weigh

Signpost

Speak Clearly

Extend arguments

Link arguments to framework

Explain arguments - presume I know nothing

Weighing (if you don’t give it to me it is very hard to make a decision) - (Ballot order is)

Theory, Framework (K, ROB, and ROJ go here), Case (In that order)

Magnitude (extinction) > every other argument (probability, K args, any other args besides theory) (If no weighing)

Concessions > Args in round (If you weigh your case first I will presume it first or explain why the concession doesn’t matter, but if I am left with a few concessions and a few arguments the concessions will probably influence the ballot) (Spin is still ok though)

No way to tell who wins I will vote Neg (Unless presumption and permissibility affirms)

Speed/Flowing

Send the doc - I may not look at it

I prefer to not look at doc and follow by ear

I will say clear/slow three times and stop flowing

I will flow whatever you say, but if I miss something and you bring it up later I will think it is new and won’t buy it.

I am a really slow flower (my wpm is like 60 so understand that I will miss stuff if you go too fast)

I think debate needs to be focused on how well you speak, so speed and clarity is important

Do nots -

Clip - You will either get an auto lose or terrible speaks

Say arguments that aren’t in your case that you say are/power tag (IE if you claim only 1% of all rocks can be mined, but the evidence says NASA is mining one percent then this is power tagged) (Latter if pointed out unless its egregious)

Bring up new args in late speeches - I won’t buy them, and your speaks will drop. Weighing is ok though

Don’t yell at the opponent in CX

Cuss - You get one cuss word after that I will give you a cap at 26 speaks.

Thoughts

I hate disclosure theory. I will vote on it, but I strongly dislike it.

Defense/I meets is sufficient on theory shells especially if multiple are read.

Tricks are ok, they will probably get you less speaks. I do dislike hidden indexicals or tricks in random tags though.

If someone does something that is bad, then it is their opponents job to explain why it is bad and what the judge should do.

CX is binding. If you lie in CX or dodge questions and bring it up later as a voting issue I will be very skeptical.

Overall, run what you want and I will try to judge it fairly. Presume that I know nothing about the topic or framework you are reading or I can’t evaluate it. If I can’t understand it, then I can’t vote for you.

If both sides agree to a separate activity to decide the round, then they can do that (like a chess game or something)

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

For PF - I have never judged this before. I will just judged off persuasion and argumentation. Being clear, weighing, and explaining will be important. Don’t presume I know the norms for pf like what evidence looks like, extending arguments, or theory.

Maximus Bisaga Hire None

Cruz Castillo Hire

Last changed on Wed June 12, 2024 at 4:56 AM CDT

Strake Jesuit ‘26

Feel free to ask any questions, I'll do my best to evaluate the arguments you make.

Worlds:

Do what you know how to do and do your best at it :D We're all here to grow and I hope this activity helps us. I hope you have fun and we have productive rounds.

I've never debated World Schools but I've watched a few rounds- treat me as if I have some basic understanding but am not familiar with all the norms.

I'm probably going to evaluate the round from a little more technical point of view but I'm still going to be a lot more "lay" for World Schools.

General:

Give at least 30-35 seconds before each POI.

For MS, 30 sec protected time at the start and end of each speech.

I think the reply speech is the most important speech in the round- It's what I'm going to be looking at first and foremost as my reasons to vote for you.

Postrounding is okay but I will not change my ballot- I think it's educational for you to understand my thought process and holds me accountable as a judge.

Content v Strategy:

Strategy is most likely what's going to decide the round for me, smart responses that help you win a lot cleaner on the flow are going to be my reasons to vote for you. However, I do think the presentation matters in World Schools so it's still a balance of the 2.

Content

I'll boost your speaks for filling up the speech time and keeping the round in order, it makes the round super enjoyable as a judge.

I'll give more leniency on content points in rounds where you learn the topic right before.

Good weighing can easily you the round and will boost your points for strategy and content.

Style:

+1 point if you signpost clearly

Don't yell

-1 point for every extra POI if you spam POI's(no more than 7 POI's a speech)

style points start from 27 going up or down from there depending on how you do.

Being funny will boost your style points, making the round enjoyable makes me happy.

Strategy:

This is where I'll give points based on how you're doing on the "flow" and if you're technically winning arguments- This is most likely where I’ll vote off as well combined with content.

Clever strategies like cases with spikes in them will boost this of course.

Public Forum

Tech > Truth

Send a speech doc before Case and Rebuttal.

Speed is fine, but it needs to be somewhat coherent.

If it is not extended I will not vote off of it.

Prep ends, when you finish compiling the doc.

+.5 Speaks If you’re not in a suit.

You should probably give a Content Warning if your speech is super graphic

Truth breaks clash if no one breaks it for me. ( but break if for me )

Larp

Defense isn’t sticky, 2nd Rebuttal must frontline.

New (not intuitive) implications Second Summary onwards won’t be evaluated.

Implicate what you say.

Turns w/o Uniqueness and Weighing are defense.

Flex Prep is allowed.

Open Cross isn’t.

I like Unique arguments.

I won’t hack on evidence, unless told to check and it’s egregious.

Weighing: Strength of Link isn’t real weighing, probability needs to be super well implicated

Good weighing wins rounds, make it comparative and link weigh please.

Weighing is fine all the way into the 1FF, but speech after can always respond

Weigh as early as possible, like 1st Rebuttal early. Please.

Link-In’s, Short Circuits, prereqs, etc. need timeframe weighing, or else it doesn’t matter (unless it’s like really really intuitive ig).

Speaks:

Speaks start at a 29 going up or down from there.

If you lose reading tricks it's an L25.

Progressive:

You don’t have to extend Theory, Framing, trix, or a K in rebuttal.

Discourse is NOT an impact on anything- You will have to weigh it like crazy cracked or smthn

Framing:

I default Util.

Framework should be read in constructive.

SV should actually be SV, not [x] minority isn’t prioritized often, or util but prioritize [x] minority more.

I can probably understand Phil, but err on over-explanation. Not kant tho

Cost-Benefit Analysis is not a real framework.

Pre-Fiat Frameworks are… stupid

Interesting Frameworks are really cool and underutilized, things like Anthro, Polls etc.

Theory:

I default CI’s> Reasonability, DTD, Text > Spirit, No RVI’s.

^ All of the above can be changed through paradigm issues.

Friv is fine.

I think certain norms are good, but I refuse to hack for them I won’t evaluate Theory incoherent, dumping on a procedural claim is very much so problematic.

Kritiks:

Err on over-explanation.

Understand the authors you read, Please. It’s obvious when you don’t, and I’ll probably dock your speaks for it.

Topicality is a fine response; It needs a definition though.

Kritiks must have REAL Alts- discourse doesn't do anything and I really don't think anything could convince me otherwise.

Trix:

shouldn’t be too complicated/have too many layers.

They shouldn’t be bracketed inside evidence.

They should be in the doc.

Christopher Cheng Hire

Rushil Chetty Hire

Last changed on Sat February 17, 2024 at 12:15 AM CDT

Hey, I'm Rushil (he/him).

Strake Jesuit '23

Princeton '27

Note that I haven’t been involved with debate for almost a year at this point and am unfamiliar with the topic; err towards overexplanation.

I debated Lincoln-Douglas at Strake Jesuit for four years and have a little over 10 years of experience in Speech & Debate. I have four career bids and a bid round and have qualified to TFA State (x3), TOC (x2), and NSDA Nationals(x2).

Add me to the email chain: rechetty23@mail.strakejesuit.org

Tech>Truth to a large extent, I should have little work to do at the end of the round and your final speech should write my ballot

Prefs:

LARP/Trad - 1

Theory/T - 1

Kritiks - 2

Phil - 3

Tricks - 4

LARP:

Read whatever you're comfortable with

Weighing and clash are super important on both impacts and evidence

I love a good framework debate, CPs and Politics are great too

Theory:

I default competing interpretations, no RVIs, DTD, and Fairness unless told to evaluate differently

Please don't read frivolous theory lol

Weigh well between voters and standards

Slow down if there's no doc

Please be specific and explain your arguments and weighing well

I'm not a fan of Non-T affs so my threshold for responses is not very high

Kritiks:

I've read mainly SetCol and Cap but understand a few other Ks as well

I'm okay with reps and not a huge fan of K affs

Don't use this to evaluate what you read though because I will not fill in any gaps for you or vote off anything that is not well-explained - especially if it's clear to me that your opponent does not understand your explanation as well

If you're asked to explain the K in CX and talk really fast and use a lot of jargon that your opponent clearly cannot understand, it will hurt your speaks

I prefer material alts but I'll still evaluate refusal - explain why it's good and solves case if possible

Please don't throw in a floating PIK out of nowhere, at least hint at it in the 1N

Phil:

Not a huge fan of Phil and not the best at evaluating it either, but I'll do my best to listen to your arguments

Weigh well and explain your warrants

I default to truth testing and presumption and permissibility affirm

Tricks:

Yeah please don't read any lol, this includes skep triggers and a priori

I'll still evaluate them but my threshold for responses is really low - if your opponent tells me to throw them out because they ruin debate I'll 100% listen to them because I agree lol

I'll allow responses to "Evaluate the debate after X" in all speeches because I really don't like voting on these and don't like them in general

If you do read tricks and are really dodgy about explaining or identifying them in CX, it will hurt your speaks

Miscellaneous:

Keeplocal recordings of your speeches - anything that I don't hear does not get flowed unless you can send me a recording of it

Be polite and don't swear - I find it really annoying when debaters feel the need to swear in round or try to one-up their opponents - it's not ethos-y at all and doesn't make you a better debater

Please don't read or say anything offensive or intentionally misgender your opponent - I won't drop you if you accidentally do it but if it becomes obvious I'll be more receptive to arguments they make. Obviously if you do something offensive, please take time to apologize for it WITHIN THE ROUND

I won't read off the doc, so make sure you are clear

I'll call clear twice before I stop flowing anything I can't understand

I'll flow CX

Please make the round accessible - this doesn't mean always debating trad against a novice, rather explain your arguments very well and don't spread

Arguments must be extended through every speech to be evaluated

If you concede it, it's true

No new responses in the 2NR/2AR unless you're going for meta theory or responses to 1AR shells

Lucas Chritah Hire

Graham Skylar Erickson Hire

Shayan Hasan Hire

sawyer Hatfield Hire

Ella Huang Hire None

Laura Huang Hire

matthew jumalon Hire None

Vincent Jumalon Hire None

Connor Kinahan Hire

Mary Li Hire None

Sherine Liu Hire

Meddy Ma Hire

Joshua Martinez Hire

Last changed on Sat January 6, 2024 at 2:19 PM CDT

Joshua Martinez (they/them).

Debated for Strake Jesuit for 4 years.

For email chains/questions - JEMartinez.docu@gmail.com

General

don't care what you wear or how you present in round.

speaks start out at 29.5 and move up and down by 0.1 as a scale; however, if you have an ego, I will drastically drop your speaks, passion is nice, being obnoxious isnt.

racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia have no place in debate. you get an L + 20. don’t misgender your opponents if they have pronouns disclosed

ask me questions after round, pick my brain, I encourage it. If you leave round frustrated, ask me about it. Respect me as a person who makes mistakes but stand by your convictions.

Debate is a competition but not a game, this means that how we think about the debate space matters and the knowledge produced from it is important and should be evaluated. epistemological arguments carry a lot of weight with me and I’d like to vote on them, whether they be framework/post or pre-fiat because how we think has material consequences for people. Thus–

The bastardization of evidence is antithetical to actually learning something from the debate space.

I have very little patience for bad debate evidence: if a card is obviously miscut, your opponents are lying about evidence or intentionally misconstrued it. Feel free to stake the round on an evidence challenge, I will vote for them. If you think your evidence isnt cut properly, fix it before round or dont read it.

read content warnings, if you aren’t sure if something requires a content warning, read one anyways.

Background.

I did debate all four years in high school for Strake Jesuit in Public Forum. I did okay, qualified to TOC, qualified to TFA state 3 years, and got to quarters one time.

I have an academic interest in critical theory both inside and outside of college. I loved doing K debate my senior year, and read queer/anti-capitalist/asian k ground with my partner. I am most familiar with Butler, Marx/Engels, Said and basic phil stuff alonside a limited engagement with critical race theory/anti-colonial/imperialist lit that ive picked up here and there.

My exposure to critical args was from reading first, debate second, meaning that I would appreciate more work from debaters in translating everything into the debate space, if you show an actual interest and seem knowledgeable in the lit bases you draw from, I will want to vote for you.

Substance/LARP/Topical Debate (PF/LD)

Tech over Truth.

Good substance rounds are amazing to watch.

Decent Flow Judge, not the best with speed tbh, if you think its going to be a problem then send me a doc, I would really appreciate it, but I don't really think they solve, err on the side of caution. Faster than 250wpms is fine if you slow down for important stuff.

Evidence without implication to the round/specific arguments is meaningless. Slowing down for implications and analytics is very nice.

If you care about the ballot, then please signpost, be safe than sorry. If I get lost, it will take my ~10 seconds to get back on track and I will not be flowing.

I appreciate good strategy sooooo much. I’ll outline what I consider good strategy.

Comparative Weighing is an absolute must for me, it should be smartly contextualized in round. Link level, impact level, meta-weighing, policy maker stuff, uniqueness weighing, actor analysis, SOMETHING.
Evidence comparisons are a godsend and will break clash for me on the flow. If you have good evidence, lord it over your opponents, it makes the round so much easier to vote on.
Easily differentiated warrants and implications for responding to your opponents, using evidence from constructive to frontline, nuanced case offense, and smart extensions that do more than just extend.
Overviews are nice, they just get spammed a lot in Public Forum.

I prefer arguments that have a good amount of work on them. My willingness to believe defense is predicated on the strength of the original response, if a 5-second blippy turn is met with a similar 5-second frontline, I buy the frontline. If that very same turn is to be massively blown up in the back-half, I am less likely to buy the defense/turn over the original and well-warranted case offense.

For this reason, concessions aren’t sacred. If a team can cross-ap defense from something very similar to beat-back a “conceded turn” then I am willing to consider it frontlined.

I appreciate voting on strategy and being smart, not doc botting 30 responses from the 600-page exclusive block file compiled from circuit connections.

Ishan Dubey was on my team, his rounds were enjoyable to watch, not just because he was a good tech debater, but because he was strategic, he grouped responses, weighed to beat back timeskews, he framed ballots for the judges. Be like Ishan, I like Ishan.

Additional Information.

Hidden links are stupid, hiding blips that concede arguments honestly seems ableist.
Defence is sticky in PF, but not in LD due to speech time differences.
I don’t know the topic as well as you do, abbreviations for long terms should be explained at least once.
PLEASE have speech docs prepared and evidence ready, I will doc speaks for holding up the round, not for wifi issues. I hate not being on time. Pre-flow preferably outside of round if you can.

Theory, Kritiks, and Framework Debate

“Progressive” for all the PF people

Tricks arent in the title for a reason, don’t read them

CUT GOOD EVIDENCE FOR THEORY, K’s, AND FRAMEWORK. There is an infinite amount of material to comb through, it exists, and I know it does.

Evidence ethics is incredibly important. Please actually read your evidence, if you point out incredibly lazy K evidence, it will be a place for me to sign my ballot.

Personal Bias

Queer Pess arguments are extremely poorly understood in the debate space, I have lots of personal gripes against Edelmen. Run at your own risk, ill try to make it not inform my ballot.
death-good is something I really don’t want to vote for.

Theory

My threshold for responses against theory is directly proportional to how friv I think it is.

Don't attempt to skew your opponents out of the round by reading 5 god awful interps, if you actually care about norms then there should be sufficient time to actually debate them. If this happens, make it a response and I will vote on it.

I default competing intercepts.

Will default to no RVI’s unless contested.
K v. Theory, I default to the K if the theory of power is conceded, either a. Contest the theory of power or b. Weigh the shell against the rotb/ToP and interact in the speech its introduced.
In Theory v. Theory, please metaweigh, I have a low threshold for voters, I don’t believe not disclosing will collapse the activity. Compare the actual impacts to break clash.
I wont autodown theory except for:

I won’t vote on disclosure against identity args
Content warnings bad
Any form of counter interp against misgendering/deadnaming

PF: Structure your shells like a normal pf shell: interp, violation, standard, voters, underview

LD: My evalutation of a “god awful interp” is much higher in LD because I am less familiar with the material. I am aware that theory covers more ground than in PF and won’t autodown anything, be sure to implicate and slow down on frontlines/backhalf of the round more than you normally would so I can follow along. Err on the side of caution.

Kritiks

Tldr: overexplain.

I really really want to vote on a K, but I am not a K hack. Please actually know your authors, your advocacy, and what your evidence says. If I think you just stole your k off the wiki with no clue what is says, I will down you. In cross, if you are struggling to answer softball questions like “whats your alt” or “whats capitalism”, I really don’t want to vote for you and have a much much lower threshold for responses.

If you decide to read progressive stuff and your opponents obviously have no clue what to do, DO NOT be abusive. Depending on the severity, will either drop your speaks or down you.

If you don’t know what a K is and your opponents are reading it against you: read their evidence, have them explain their evidence, ask them basic questions, and turn it into a response. I will vote on it if they can’t answer.

Nuanced links for any K is highly recommended. I’ll vote on generic K links but my threshold for responses is lower against them.

K ground questioning knowledge production/epistemology is something i have a real soft spot for if done well. Explain why current IR/militarism/policy-making is flawed with good warrants and your fine.

Please flesh out the Alt and overexplain the material, winning on the flow matter less if I am just completely clueless on what the K actually does. Implicate out to your opponent's case and take the time to explain why it turns case, limits offence, impact filter, etc.

Extend the Alt in every speech and flesh out how and why you have offense in the round. If your getting offense from something else, make that clear and tell me to disregard the alt.

Performative offense is great, ill vote on conceded performative offense if properly explained

I am a big fan of KvK debate.

K ground I know nothing about, if you decide to read, treat me like child

High Phil. Affo Pess/Futurism. Kant. Border K’s. Psychoanalysis.

PF:

Most PF k’s are god awful, read T if your opponents have a really bad K and I will probably vote for you.

You need an alt. Discourse isn’t an alt. The alt is probably the most important part of the K and it needs to be decent for me to vote for you.

Your cards should be long, with actual warranting in your evidence any card with 20 words highlighted is not K evidence.

If you are going to read fem, please please please cut very good fem evidence or just make it framework. Most of the fem k’s on the circuit I have massive problems with for simplifying critical literature and turning them into “vote fem team to center women”.

Read a queer counter k for me and I will have a very very strong preference to vote for you. I love love judith butler, I’ve annotated my copy of Gender Trouble, queer theory is my lifeblood, if you have no clue what any of that is, probably read substance instead.

LD:

Err on the side of caution when you're figuring out what I can evaluate. If you can, read the more basic version of something if you have it.

I like topical k affs. Nontopical k’s I have a harder time understanding.

Pick 2 pieces of offense at most to collapse on.

Go the extra step in extensions/frontlining.

FW [wip]

PF: use good evidence, implicate why your opponent's links/impacts are problematic under your fw.

LD: overexplain, please. I have very little exposure to LD fw.

Betsy McDonald Hire

Aneel Mehra Hire

Arun Mehra Hire

Kelvin Meng Hire

Michael Meng Hire

Shahzeb Qurashi Hire

Samuel Rubinstein Hire

Last changed on Wed June 5, 2024 at 6:32 AM CDT

For No Limits:

You can ignore stuff below this if it doesn't all make sense. Just try your best and have these rounds to improve your abilities for the season.

Strake Jesuit ‘26

My role is to avoid intervention and evaluate the debate in front of me. Do not try and over-adapt, do what you do best. And, most importantly, have fun and be nice and respectful to each other!

SBRubinstein26@mail.strakejesuit.org - add me to the email chain. Speechdrop or file share is cool too, just agree with your opponent.

Quick Prefs -

Policy - 1

K - 2

Phil - 2

Theory/T - 2/3

Tricks - 3

Misc -

Tech>Truth, but truth/intuitiveness of an argument makes it easier to win.

Every argument needs a claim, warrant, and impact.

Won’t vote on anything that is racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

You need some sort of overview to explain the position, but it can never substitute for good line-by-line.

Judge instruction>>>> - Don’t leave me to decide how I should frame and evaluate the debate, tell me how you are winning and how I should view the debate.

Extend the aff properly - 1AR extensions have become extremely blippy which doesn’t really make sense since that’s usually where most of your offense comes from.

Please signpost.

I’m okay at flowing, so make sure to clearly differentiate between taglines and cards.

Not voting on anything that occurred outside of the round except disclosure. (No ad homs)

I’ll give the 2AR a lot of leeway given many new 2NR claims/evidence that isn’t directly responsive to the 1AR. Similarly, a 2AR that makes a 1 line, usually underwarranted, response into 2 minutes of in depth analysis probably doesn’t get these completely new extrapolations.

I reserve the right to not evaluate any argument that either a] isn’t on my flow or b] I don’t understand as per the debater’s explanation.

Split 2NRs/2ARs make the debate super messy and it’ll be much harder for me to vote for you.

I’ll read evidence if you flag it, and I need it to evaluate a key part of the round.

Haven’t really thought about evidence ethics, so I’ll directly refer to NSDA/tournament policy if the round is staked, but I really prefer you don’t.

Most things below this are opinions and can be changed through the correct arguments.

Policy -

Most importantly, weigh - whoever’s impacts come prior usually wins the round.

Assume I don’t know the acronyms and terms for each topic - even if I do, this is a good practice to follow.

Impact turns are cool.

A disad 2nr needs some sort of case defense and/or reasons why the disad turns and outweighs the case.

I default functional and textual competition.

I default to no judgekick because it probably isn’t great due to the nature of LD speech times but it's cool if you justify it.

Creative perms are underutilized against cheaty CPs.

K -

On the neg -

Framework, floating PIKs, alt solves case, etc. cannot appear out of nowhere in the 2NR, and justifies new 2AR responses if it is.

Don’t assume I know the literature base that you are reading from - just explain it.

Slow down on extensions of complicated theories - too many debaters get away with quickly spreading through their extension of their thesis claim with no time for anyone to process or understand how it interacts with the rest of the debate.

Kicking the alt is fine, just explain how I should evaluate the debate.

Love examples to support the thesis.

On the aff -

I’d prefer if you give a role for negation and why debate/the ballot/competition matters for your position, and potentially a counter-model of debate that doesn’t rely on impact turning everything.

Have some sort of identifying plan text if you don’t defend the topic. I’ve seen affs that just hint at an issue or discuss some sort of course of action/advocacy without defending it or else it’ll be really easy to justify presumption.

Phil -

Presumption and permissibility negate unless argued otherwise.

I’ll be very happy in an in-depth comparative debate between two different frameworks, conversely spamming independent justifications will make me annoyed and make the debate irresolvable.

Probably somewhat familiar with whatever you read, but that shouldn’t substitute explanation.

A lot of offense people read is pretty bad. (Take advantage of that)

Default epistemic confidence - modesty doesn’t seem to make very much sense, but please explain how I should evaluate and weigh the round if you do read it.

Theory/T -

Default competing interps, dta unless incoherent, and no RVIs.

Norm setting vs in round abuse is underrated.

Weighing is the best way to get my ballot in these debates. Weighing between different shells is extremely underutilized beyond the generic “1AR theory first because 4-6-3” such as why the abuse affects every round and the entire debate like disclosure over things like CP theory. Fairness vs education and weighing between standards is great and useful also.

No such thing as frivolous theory - the worse the shell, the more intuitive the responses should be.

Caselists are awesome to prove real abuse.

Tricks -

I can evaluate these just fine, I just won’t be very happy judging a bad tricks round with floating a prioris with little interaction or understanding of what's going on.

Be upfront about them please.

Make the round clean by the end of the debate and clearly layer arguments.

Speaks -

I’ll try to average around a high 28 to a 29.

Speaks are based on strategy, technical ability, and clarity.

If I have to clear you more than twice within a minute, slow down so I at least catch something.

Please be nice to novices or someone who you are clearly better than i.e., no more than 3 offs, make the round educational, etc. I’ll reward with better speaks.

Benjamin Shi Hire None

James Stuckert Hire

Last changed on Mon June 3, 2024 at 9:10 AM CDT

I debated LD for three years for Strake Jesuit (after a brief period in PF). I qualified for TFA State and TOC in LD, and I have instructed at TDC and NSD. I am conflicted with Strake Jesuit. Contact me/add me to docs at jpstuckert@gmail.com

You can call me "JP." "James," "Mr. Stuckert" or "judge" are fine but weird to me.

For online rounds:

1. Keeping local recordings of speeches is good. You should do it.
2. If I or another judge call “clear” video chat systems often cut your audio for a second. This means (a) you should prioritize clarity to avoid this and (b) even repeat yourself when “clear” is called if it’s a particularly important argument.
3. I don’t like to read off docs, but if there's an audio problem in an online round, I will glance to make sure I at least know where you are. I would really prefer not to be asked to backflow from a doc if there's a tech issue, hence local recordings above.
4. You should probably be at like 70% of your normal speed while online.

· I aim to be a neutral party minimizing intervention while evaluating arguments made within the speech times/structure set by the tournament or activity to pick one winner and loser for myself. Some implications:

o The speech structure of LD includes CX. Don't take it as prep and don't go back on something you commit to in CX (unless it's a quick correction when you misspeak, or is something ambiguous). I generally flow cx and factor it into speaker points, but arguments must still be made in other speeches.

o The speech structure also precludes overt newness. Arguments which are new in later speeches should be implications, refutations, weighing or extensions of already existing arguments. Whether 2N or 2AR weighing is allowable is up for debate and probably contextual. Reversing a stance you have already taken is newness -- e.g. you can't kick out of weighing you made if your opponent didn't answer it. (Obviously you can kick condo advocacies unless you lose theory.)

o I won't listen to double-win or double-loss arguments or anything of the sort. You also can't argue that you should be allowed to go over your speech time.

o Being a neutral party means my decision shouldn't involve anything about you or your opponent that would render me a conflict. If I were involved in your prefs, I would consider myself to essentially be a coach, so I won't listen to pref/strike Ks. If other types of out-of-round conduct impact the round, I will evaluate it (e.g. disclosure).

o Judge instruction and standards of justification on the flow are very important, and if they are not explicit, I look to see if they are implicit before bringing to bear my out-of-round inclinations. If two debaters implicitly agree on some framing issue, I treat it as a given.

o Evidence ethics: I will allow a debater to ask to stake the round on an evidence ethics issue if it involves: (1) brackets/cutting that changes the meaning of a card; (2) outright miss-attribution including lying about an author's name, qualifications, or their actual position; (3) alterations to the text being quoted including ellipses, mid-paragraph cutting, and changing words without brackets. Besides these issues, you can challenge evidence with theory or to make a point on the line-by-line. For me, you should resolve the following on the flow: (1) brackets that don't change meaning; (2) taking an author's argument as a premise for a larger position they might not totally endorse; (3) cases where block quotes or odd formatting makes it unclear if something is a mid-paragraph cut; (4) not being able to produce a digital copy of a source in-round. If another judge on a panel has a broader view on what the round can be staked on, I'll just default to agreeing it is a round-staking issue.

· Despite my intention to avoid intervention, I am probably biased in the following ways:

o On things like T framework and disclosure I think there is an under-discussed gap between "voting on theory can set norms" to "your vote will promote no more and no less than the text of my interp in this activity."

o I will be strongly biased against overtly offensive things (arguments which directly contravene the basic humanity of a marginalized group). I don’t think it’s prima facie offensive to read moral philosophy that denies some acts are intrinsically evil (like skep or strict ends-based ethical theories) or which denies that consequences are morally relevant (like skep or strict means-based theories). I also don't think generic impact turns against big stick impacts are innately offensive. But I will certainly listen to Ks or independent voters indicting any of those things.

· Other:

o Speaks: each speech counts, including CX. Strategy and well-warranted arguments are the two biggest factors. My range typically doesn't go outside 28 to 29.5. I adjust based on how competitive the tournament is. I don't disclose them.

o Be polite to novices, even if you can win a round in 20 seconds it’s not always kind to do so. Just be aware of how your actions might make them feel.

o I am usually unpersuaded by rhetorical appeals that take it for granted that some debate styles (K, LARP, phil, theory, tricks) are worse than others, but you can and should make warranted arguments comparing models of debate.

Michael Stuckert Hire

Last changed on Sat January 13, 2024 at 6:15 PM CDT

I'm a first year out, I debated LD for 4 years at Strake Jesuit. I qualified and broke at TFA State 3 times, and qualified to TOC Junior year with 4 career bids. Contact me/add me to docs at michaelastuckert4@gmail.com

You can call me "Michael" -- "judge" is fine but weird to me.

I'm tech > truth and I'll vote on anything.

tldr - run what you're good at, I'll try to act as a neutral party minimizing my intervention as much as possible, but keep in mind that I haven't judged that much and this paradigm probably makes me sound better than I actually am so please give me judge instruction/crystallization and collapse in the 2ar and 2nr - if you go for everything I'm not going to know how to vote. Whoever can present me the simplest and most coherent ballot story will probably win.

Also if you disagree with my decision please feel free to post-round me - I won't take offense to it - that said do it at least somewhat respectfully and realize I might have a second flight.

Pref Sheet:

Phil - 1

Theory/T - 2

K's - 2

LARP - 3

Tricks - 4

Traditional - 5

Miscellaneous:

- Spreading is fine

- I WON'T read off the doc, but I'll have it open and glance at it to make sure I know where you are

- I'll call "clear" if I can't understand you as many times as needed - I WON'T doc speaks or anything if I have to call clear I'll just miss some arguments if you're not clear.

- I'll disclose speaks just ask

- Be polite to novices, even if you can win a round in 20 seconds it’s not always kind to do so. Just be aware of how your actions might make them feel.

- I will be strongly biased against overtly offensive things (arguments which directly contravene the basic humanity of a marginalized group). I don’t think it’s prima facie offensive to read moral philosophy that denies some acts are intrinsically evil (like skep or strict ends-based ethical theories) or which denies that consequences are morally relevant (like skep or strict means-based theories). I also don't think generic impact turns against big stick impacts are innately offensive. But I will certainly listen to Ks or independent voters indicting any of those things.

- Normal speech times please time yourself

- An argument must be extended through every speech to be evaluated

- Conceded arguments are seen as true

- I won't allow new arguments in the 2nr/2ar (unless it's like a 1ar shell the 2nr goes for reasonability and the 2ar makes arguments against reasonability // or unless you win on the flow that you get new arguments) but I'll allow extensions and expanding on an argument. If I can point to somewhere in the 1ar that can warrant an argument made in the 2ar then I'll evaluate it.

Larp:

I never really was a larper in high school so try to be especially clear in these debates

Do whatever you want just do a lot of weighing both on the impact level and evidence comparison and I'll be happy.

I'll judge kick the CP (if it's condo) if you tell me to but if you don't make the argument I won't.

I love impact turns

Politics is cool

I probably won't read cards unless you specifically tell me to

Theory:

Defaults: No RVI, Competing interps, DTD, Fairness > Education but don't make me default

I'll evaluate any shell no matter how frivolous but the less frivolous the happier I'll be

Make sure there's high quality weighing between voters and standards

Theory hedges are fine

Please slow down on the interps and short analytical arguments

Err on the side of overexplaining with clear arguments and comparative weighing in a semantics 2nr I don't know how grammar works lol

I'd prefer more specific arguments in the 2nr/2ar rather than reading off of a doc

I'm familiar with cap, security, Baudrillard, Deleuze, Afropessimism, Set col, Edelman, and Adorno

Don't just read one of these because I'm familiar with it - if you can't explain what you're talking about, I won't be happy. I'm only familiar with most of these because I've debated against them and I wouldn't be able to explain them to you in depth so you run the risk of confusing me unless you have some explanation. If you're good at going for high theory and pomo great! I like this type of debate, but if you don't understand what you're reading then don't read it.

Even if you're reading something I understand I won't use prior knowledge to fill in the gaps so please have warrants and explain buzzwords

Overexplain your alt especially if it's refual alts, why is it a good thing?, if I don't understand it I won't vote on it

Floating PIKs are fine but please at least hint at them in the 1N

Alt solves case arguments that are specific to the aff are great and I'm persuaded by them

K Affs:

Non-T Affs are fine

Negs that engage on the case page and go for permissibility pushes against these will make me very happy

Reps Ks:

I won't enjoy friv violations but I'll vote on them if they go conceded

I prefer straight up Ks instead of word PIKs but I'll vote on a word PIK if it goes conceded

Phil:

I was mainly a Kant debater

I know Kant, Libertarianism, Rawls, Contractarianism, Hobbes, Rousseau, Levinas, Aristotle, GCB, Util, Particuarlism, and pragmatism

Please weigh between warrants

I like syllogistic frameworks over a ton of blippy reasons to prefer

TJFs are alright but I'd be happier without them

I'll default to TT > CW, Permissibility and Presumption affirm, Epistemic Confidence > Epistemic Modesty but don't make me default

Tricks:

I don't like hiding tricks in big blocks of text

I'll be persuaded by spikes Ks

Please weigh, I won't be happy if there's a bunch of random a prioris to evaluate at the end of the debate with no weighing between them

Skep triggers are all right

I'll buy evaluate the debate after the X, but I'll have a very low threshold for answers and I'll allow new 2nr/2ar arguments against them (unless you specifically win no new 2nr/2ar arguments)

Trad:

I'm fine with it, would prefer if you go faster

I'll vote on the flow even in traditional debates

If you are debating a trad debater make the round educational for them, as a former debater I understand the struggle of trying to be educational and also trying to win, so you can still run your a strat just try to be nice. Just please don't try to blatantly out-spread them (some speed is fine but full speed against someone who's not spreading is excessive) or read a bunch of tricks or frivolous shells. If you win on the flow against a trad debate I'll vote for you, but if you were mean about it, you'll get low speaks.

- Also if you're in elims against a trad debater you can try your hardest full speed and all, just obviously still treat your opponent with respect and be nice to them.

I've judged a couple trad debates and sometimes I'm left with no idea how to vote, so if you're a trad debater please

1- Collapse and crystallize give me the cleanest most coherent ballet story and I'll probably vote for you, but if you go for everything in the 2nr/2ar I won't know where I should vote for you. By this I don't just mean giving voters at the end or flagging things as voting issues throughout the round I'll be extremely happy if in the 2nr/2ar you look at your flow and decide what your strongest contention is which one can you win the easiest? Then go for that and make it by far the biggest issue in the round with a lot of impact weighing and answering your opponents case. Winning one huge issue is a lot better than winning a ton of small issues.

2- Extend offense

3- Weigh. Trust me it'll make me a lot happier. (Meta-weighing makes me even happier, and reading turns and going for them is great)

Please don't extend through defense, answer your opponents arguments, the more clash the better

Cheating and Evidence ethics:

If you stake the round loser gets an L25 (or lowest speaks I can give), the winner gets a W30.

You don't have to stake the round I'll evaluate it in a shell format.

For staked rounds, I'll follow tournament rules.

Think this requires more information and specifics so here's some scenarios I can think of (if there's a tournament rule contradicting any of these points I'll prioritize tournament rules over all else):

- If a card is cut in the middle of a paragraph, stake the round, I'll vote for whoever stakes

- if there's block quotes or weird formatting that makes it unclear if it's cut in the middle of a paragraph play it safe and read a shell

- If a card is straw manning without acknowledging it, NSDA rules say that I should "vote against the debater who uses a straw argument and award zero speaker points" but if a debater indicates (NSDA says verbally acknowledge, but also for me if it's in the doc like in the citation then I think that's good enough to indicate) that they're reading a strawman argument then it's fine and not stakeable (but winning a theory shell is still fine ofc)

- If a debater distorts evidence (adding or removing words without brackets) and it significantly alters the original meaning I'll vote for whoever stakes the round

- If a debater uses ellipses to leave out large sections of the card, stake the round, I'll vote for the debater who stakes the round.

- If a debater brackets evidence with indication please just read a shell, DON'T stake

If you clip more than 20 words and I catch it you'll lose - your opponent doesn't even need to stake please don't clip you never know sometimes I might be following along in the speech doc making sure

- Obviously saying cut the card here or cut this or something like that isn't clipping, if you make it clear that you didn't read something you're fine, but if you pretend that you read something that you didn't then that's clipping.

Jet Sun Hire

Sebastian Valladolid Hire

Tyvan Vo Hire

Last changed on Thu June 13, 2024 at 10:58 AM CDT

Ty Vo (ttvo27@mail.strakejesuit.org)

Hello, I am a rising sophomore at Strake, and have done LD debate for 1 year.

Speaker points

Free 30 speaker points for giving me any type of food (completely optional, will not affect bias towards deciding winner.)

Generally the average for speaker points would be 28, if you end up stuttering, it would be lower, and if you sound like you could sell me a rock you found on the ground, I would give you higher speaker points.

Clarity

I enjoy clarity when explaining your case, and a strong understanding of it. Act as if I don’t know anything about the topic, and don’t expect me to make reasons on why you should win for you. If it goes completely over my head, or I didn’t catch it on the flow, then this should be an issue of clarity.

Cross Examination

I do not flow cross examination, so if you get something out of your opponent that you want to use as an argument, you will have to state what happened during a speech

Anything other than traditional

I assume that everyone at this tournament will be reading traditional cases, but if you end up running some more complicated case, then please explain it well. I will vote on anything, but again, act as if I do not know anything about the case nor topic and explain it well.

Results

I will be disclosing who the winner is if I’m supposed to, along with why they won and any suggestions for improvement. If any big things happen during the round, I will try to suggest advice for improvement.

Ultimately, the goal of these rounds are to get better and have fun, so if I vote something that you think was undeserved or wrong, then try to grow from it. In the end something must've swayed my vote to whoever I voted for, so try to fix that rather than blaming some external factor.

Don't just nod your head and say you understand the feedback, you should actively listen to feed back and use it to improve for your next rounds, I hope that both of you succeed in this debate, not mainly through winning, but succeeding by growing and improving through practice.

Aaron Wang Hire

Justin Wen Hire

Cathryn Wu Hire

Oliver Zhang Hire

Sophie Zhou Hire

Harvey Zhu Hire

Login to Tabroom

Practice Rounds No Limits 2024

2024 — Houston, TX/US

Lincoln Douglass Paradigm List

Judges