BDL Varsity Camp Tournament
2024 — Boston, US
CX Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideHello Everyone. I am a former speech kid who competed in the NSDA and NCFL circuits throughout high school. I have attended 3 national competitions and was a quarterfinalist in my final year. I have sat in on multiple debate rounds and have competed in public forum and big questions debate once each. Although I have limited direct debate experience, I am familiar with the runaround. As someone with a public speaking background, I value clarity and articulation with your speech. Your points should come across clearly with intention and filler words should be used at a minimum. This is about your ability to deliver an argument with tact and skill. Keep it classy.
Hey there!
I am affiliated with the Boston Debate league and help coach the McCormack Middle School. I debated for about 6 years and have qualified for a few national tournaments throughout my debate career. Though that is the case, I am not familiar with every case, or piece of literature that may come across openev/opencase, but am willing to vote on anything you tell me to vote on if you paint a clear story of what your aff/neg does and what it means to vote for you. I will not connect the dots for you, the flow will speak for itself... please don't make the flow so messy that I have to bridge the points together to justify my vote.
With that being said, I am familiar with K's, cps, da's and framework args but again, please paint a clear story. So, DA: give me a good link story and impact calc. FW: If you're running it, please run it through the round don't just bring it up and then drop it. CP: do it, explain how your cp works better than the aff. If i can't recognise what the cp is, I will likely not vote on it.
Why should I vote for you? How does your impact outweigh everything else happening in round? Ask yourself those questions and you might have me if answered coherently and strong enough.
I don't mind spreading but please slow down on tags and naming your authors.
Do what you want, debate how you please but I will not tolerate bigotry or bullies. I want to see a fun round!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Slide some jokes in if you're funny enough! Just please DO NOT be a bully and run like 50 offs just for a time skew, that's annoying.
In all -- HAVE FUN :DDD
For any comments, questions or concerns :
Last Updated: 08/19/2024
Updated: 08/07/2024 Rounds judge for this year: 0
I coach for the John W. McCormack middle school and coach some of the open division kids in the Boston Urban Debate League.
email: dilon.debate@gmail.com , please add me on the chain. Also email if you have any questions/concerns.
My name is Dilon (he/him/his), I debated for 6 years in the Boston Urban Debate League. Been to a couple nat tournaments.
-I was the 1A/2N if that matters to you.
if you only have 10 seconds to know how i am as a judge: Tech>Truth \\ pref me low for Policy. I'll vote on anything you read, I've done cp's and da's to performances. It really comes down to what you tell me to vote on and why(GOOD & CONCISE IMPACT CALC WILL LITERALLY GIVE YOU THE BALLOT). I will most definitely not do work on the flow for you so please keep that in mind. I'm also not super well-versed in high theory K's but can hang if contextualized well.
Keep these things in mind because I take these rules/thoughts very seriously:
1. Be cordial, I want a good debate where both teams are able to learn and have fun. Be funny! I love when a round is fun and I can converse with y'all normally!
2. I do not want to see a veteran team running high theory stuff against a team that is new to debate because you think they can't answer it; it can and may discourage new debaters to ever debate again. Also, disrespect is taken very seriously; it'll reflect on your speaks. I debated in a UDL so i know the huge gap in debate, so please be respectful to every team.
3. Weighing cards is better than giving me multiple pieces of evidence without any impact framing/calc. It'll be rewarded if you can tell me why pieces of evidence are important.
If you say that's not very demure, I might just give you a +0.5.
The Nitty-Gritty:
there's a thin line between funny and rude so remember that. Be you, do you, be respectful. :)
AFF: run whatever you like. I've ran K AFFS, Policy, and even aspec policy ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. The aff has a burden of proving something, so prove to me why I should vote for you. It's simple really, I just go on a daily explanation of why my solvency mechanism makes sense instead of giving way to many advantages and never explaining them.
K AFF: I love K debates. But, that doesn't mean you can just run anything and assume I understand. I need something to vote for and why I should vote for it. Explanations are needed just like any argument you make in life. That being said, treat it like you would treat any aff. Run it, tell me why it's important and what I as a judge can do by giving y'all the ballot. TVA's are amazing, metaphorical interps awesome, and solid contextualization of philosophies make me super happy. Please! DO NOT CHANGE YOUR STYLE FOR ME! DEBATE AS YOU PLEASE!
K: Don't read lit that is about racism, sexism, ableism good, etc; I will not let the round go on. Also, high theory like nietzsche, Lacan, Agamben, psychoanalysis etc. i'm not to familiar with but if you just explain it like a good story, tell me why the AFF links to the kritik, how it triggers the impacts, and as long as there's good contextualization then I'm all for it. Also, please please please give me a reason to vote on the alt/advocacy, I want to hear what I am doing as the judge by giving you the ballot, not some BS "don't vote aff cool thanks!" kind of alt.
FW/T: give me a voter, why do I say this? No one ever extends voters in the 2A/NR which then cost them the round. TBH, why does your interp matter? How does it allow the opponent then to be apart of it? Why is it something that must be addressed within the round? these questions matter and must be answered.
DA: give me a good link story and impact calc. don't make me do work on the impact calc. I need to hear a real clear reason on why they trigger imp. if it's not explained then i probably won't evaluate it.
CP: sure, go for it. Give me a reason on why the CP is a feasible solution to either solve the aff and the "disad(s)".
Speaks: speed, idc but i need to hear a tag and author. I'm super lenient w/ speaks because everyone has their own style.
Misc: people who have influenced me through my debate career are , Daryl Burch, Moselle Burke, and Roger Nix. take it however you want to.
Brandon Ren--brandondebate25@gmail.com (add me to the chain duh <3)
he/him/his
BUDL/BDL/BLA'24
UMass Amherst'28
***if you say "bawk bawk bitch", I will give you a 0.5 speaker point boost*** (Crazy Rich Asian Reference)
***Pref me higher for nontraditional/K teams (I'm fine with policy too)***
My background (if u even care lol)
I've debated for 6 years in the Boston Urban Debate League. So, to all my Urban debaters, YALL R A TROOPER!! Graduated and debated for Boston Latin Academy 2020-2024 locally and nationally in the Varsity CX circuit. I have ran Policy for 2 years and Ks/Kaffs for 4 years. Entering University of Massachusetts--Amherst as a freshman majoring in Legal Studies and a minor in Asian/Asian American Studies.
Thank you to Moselle Burke, Liv Birnstad, Roger Nix, Tyler Kirk, and many others that have guided me to become the debater/person I am today <3 Love yall from the bottom of my BIG, YELLOW, ASIAN HEART
Short version
1) Experienced in judging traditional policy, Kritiks, and Kaffs
2)Not really a theory person and def not high theory, but if u run basic theory (like condo) I'm willing to evaluate especially if teams run 6+ offs (really need you to COOK IT THOROUGHLY)
3) Don't care about speed (just make sure it ain't sounding like an un-discovered language) or else I will yell clear two times before docking speaks (0.2), just let me silently cook on my paper
4) Pretty familiar with most K lit (Racial/Regular cap, Afropess, Model Minority, Techno-orientalism, Set col, Academy, Queer theory, etc.), but don't act like I know what it is bc I need y'all to be on your game. Don't let me catch u slacking 4k
5) Tech > Truth (if both teams are ahead in the tech debate, then truth will act as a tiebreaker) + Quality > Quantity
6) Make my job easy to do, don't force me to physically and mentally go through my messy asf flows
7) Any sort of evidence violation (Card-clipping, improper citation, and evidence misrepresentation) or NSDA Guideline violation WILL result in an automatic judge intervention
Long version (I'll try my best to not yap, but I can't promise anything)
1) Generally, I love clear instruction in the rebuttals about where you want me to focus my attention and how you want me to filter offense. For policy teams I think this is more about link and impact framing, and for more critical teams I think this is about considering the judge’s relationships to your theory/performance and being specific about their role in the debate.
2) I've obviously debated for quite a while (scarred for the rest of my life), so I've debated and judged both tradition and non-traditional styles of debate. However, I do have to say is that I get way too bored at traditional policy affs because it's so "typical". Everytime whenever an aff team say that its a policy aff it's like my mind automatically maps out the general idea of what's going to happen.I'm willing to entertain your hypothetical, government, policymaker scheme tho don't get me wrong. IMO, impact calc is the best part when it comes to policy aff bc that's the only time where you're actually "alive" rather than just spreading through a bunch of cards like a machine. Impact calc allows me to better evaluate the aff and let you guys deliver your rebuttal in a organized fashion to answer the ultimate question: "why should I vote for your policy"? For DAs, give me a good and BOMBASS link story and impact calc.Paint me THE MURAL OF CATASTROPHE of all the shitshow that would happen if the AFF is passed or even considered and why that OUTWEIGHS EVERYTHING. For CPs, explain how your cp works better than the aff. If i can't recognize what the cp is or how its better than the aff, I will likely not vote on it.(Although I haven't personally ran things like Process CP, Advantage CP, or anything along the lines of those BUT I'm willing to vote on it as long as u EXPLAIN <3)
There's not much I can say on my preference when it comes to a traditional policy bc I really don't have much preference about it :p If you do have questions you want to ask me, please do so <3
On the other hand, I WILL EAT UP YOUR Ks and Kaffs. Like I am ✨OBSESSED✨with everything that goes in it. For the majority of my debate career, I've always been a K debater (and will always be) because the educational value you get out of this is truly unquantifiable and also the amount of creative autonomy you get creating these is what makes it all a beautiful process. I'm familiar with rage politics, disruption politics, utopian/dystopian world, poetry, performance, etc. However, during these debates I need y'all to have really flushed out arguments particularly the link debate and the alt/solvency debate. Being able to have more than 1 link gives you more room to manuever around, but having clear and flush out link stories on reasons why the aff or neg is problematic will make your life so much more easier especially when doing the perm debate.Within any Ks/Kaffs, the adv/alt is the essence of it all because that is where I get to imagine your world. SO TELL ME ABOUT IT. What does it look like? How does it operate? How does it resolve the link? WHY is this better than the aff? Explain your methodology. Tell me what my role in this space is and why that should be preferred. (I really love having fun if you couldn't tell)
3) I don't care if you're spreading or not just make sure it's not some other worldly language. I will shout clear twice before I start docking speaks (0.5). I'm fine with however many offs you want to run, (depending on how much you're running) but if I'm not looking at you here and there while you talk don't take it personal because I'm just trying to cook on my paper. I'm human, let's get over that fact that I don't have sonic speed handwriting. However, if your opponent (before the round) request for you to not spread, please don't spread on them. It is violent and I will dock 0.5 speaks for it. If the opponents makes it a voting issue, I am gladly to vote on it. Debate needs to be more accessible to EVERYONE, so don't be a dickhead <3
4) 2NR and 2AR should prioritize persuasiveness and condensing down your argument as much as you can. I (won't hold this against you, but I'll be annoyed) hate when the negative tries to juggle with more than 2 arguments as they approach the end. Strategically, it's overwhelming for your opponents, but obviously you would risk trading off your persuasive articulation on those few condensed arguments that you're actually winning on.
Case
1) I love myself some good case debate bc that's when your directly clashing and interacting with each others literature. Negative team should have a variety of arguments on every important case page there is. Simply saying states good isn't a "good enough" answer to a Kaff.
2) Please elaborate and extend the substance of your argument. "Dropped X means nuke war and case outweighs on magnitude" don't mean anything if you just say it like that. Like don't be dry and boring bc the juice is infront of you, just TELL ME WHYYYY(?)
3) Overview should only be present to help you accomplish something. Don't get me wrong, overviews are great. However, if they don't really serve a purpose, it rather serves as a time waster when you could be getting to more important things. If there's any long overview throughout the flows, please alert me (like I begggggg)
Framework
1) I think both sides should also clearly understand their relationship to the ballot and what the debate is supposed to resolve. At the end of the debate, I should be able to explain the model I voted for and why I thought it was better for debate. Any self-deemed prior questions should be framed as such. All of that is to say there is nothing you can do in this debate that I haven't probably seen so do whatever you think will win you the debate.
Performance + K Affirmatives
1) Love myself a good performance/Kaff. If the performance aspects is included as the aff's methodology, I will gladly evalute as if its like any other types of methodology. So please emphasize on it during or later on in the speech and make sure that I understand the importance of this methodology. At the end of the debate, I shouldn't be left feeling that the performative aspects were disconnected from debate and your chosen lit base
Kritik
Like I have said, I am a K debater deep down from the bottom of my BIG YELLOW ASIAN HEART, which means for K teams
1) I am well versed in many of the k literature used in debate. Even if I might not know your specific k literature, I will know what you're talking about when you explain and use the details of your theory.
2) Don't ever assume I'll do the work for you. At the end of the debate, there should be a clear link to the AFF, and an explanation of how your alternative solves the links
3) Please don't kick your alt (unless you really have to then ig I can't stop you :/). Links to the AFF’s performance, subject formation, and scholarship are fair games. SO this really has to be a life or death for you your mind even come across kicking the alt
**************************************************************
If you have any question, please feel free to reach out! Otherwise, good luck and have fun pookie(s)!!!!