pls time ur own speeches and prep pls pls pls

she/they

niles north 25

ADD THIS EMAIL PLEASE:

alebur3@nilesk12.org

----

call me "alex", not "judge" pls!

tech>truth

clarity>speed

MIDDLE SCHOOL DEBATE:

• enjoy your rounds, most importantly. its all about learning, so if you have any questions at all please please ask :) im happy to help in any way i can!
• if you forget something (paper, pens, to time your speech, etc, just let me know i usually have extra stuff on me and am happy to share!)

FOR ONLINE: i would strongly prefer if cameras were on, but no worries if not

FOR HIGH SCHOOLERS....

DONT

• isms (racism/sexism/etc)
• steal prep
• take forever for the email chain (its j a pet peeve of mine pls i understand tech stuggles but pls try and be efficent when sending out stuff)

DO

• time your own speeches (i probs am not and it is the debater not judges responsibility anyway)
• FLOW.
• be respectful!
• give a roadmap/signpost ("i am going to be responding to what my opponents said" is NOT a real roadmap!)
• keep the debate intresting! debates are long, attention spans are short, have some ethos and confidence, it will go a long way! (esp for speaks...)
• impact calc. <3
• pretend im not flowing, if your opponent dropped something, tell me (but u should be flowin!)
• line by line in rebuttal speeches
• judge instruction in the 2NR/2AR goes a LONG way, it helps yall, helps me, tell me how i should write my ballot

MISC:

- i have learned i have very prominent facial reactions, if i look confused i probs am, etc

- be nice, have fun, novice year is all about learning feel free to ask questions after the round :)

- im cool with tag-teaming in CX, but please don't talk over/down to ur partner. if that happens, I will probs dock speaks. there is no reason to be rude in CX, it's obnoxious and embarrassing!

- please overexplain rather than underexplain args- assume i know nothing, overexplain everything

+ 0.1 speaks if you make me laugh or make a FUNNY joke about: anybody from Niles North, Isidore Newman, or Froylan Suarez (from the esteemed Lincoln Park High School)

+ 0.1 speaks if you show me flows after the round

LASTLYYYY: have fun! debate is all about education and getting better, so don't get too stressed, it is truly never that serious and feel free to email any questions after the round :))))

kailey --- she/they

nilesnorthcm@gmail.com

tech>truth

--------speaks--------

---be respectful to your PARTNER, OPPONENTS, ME, COACHES, and importantly: YOURSELF.

---do line by line and signpost when you're moving from argument to argument

---make funny jokes about: alex burkman, vivi webb, reagan subeck, raman mazhankou, saad khan, or will sterbenc

--------don't do these things--------

---stealing prep [preparing for speeches without running prep time]

---any of the isms: racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, yk all the phobias. that's ground for me giving you the lowest speaks i can, auto L + emailing your coach

--------the actual debate--------

T/L

---roadmaps: give them! "i am just going to respond to what my opponents said" is not a real order.

---i will vote on things that are straightup not true if they are warranted out correctly/dropped

AFF

---i am a 2a with an extremely high aff elo- MY RECORD DOESNT LOOK LIKE IT BUT I AM A GOOD JUDGE FOR THE AFF!

---k affs shouldn't be read by novices. if you read one in front of me, you better entertain me, because i will be sad

NEG

---please condense in the 2NR.....go for one thing!!!

---topicality: i love these debates...as for this topic, i thinkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk I WILL EDIT THIS WHEN CAMP IS OVER

---counterplans: judge kick if you tell me to, i <3 cheaty process cps, i normally go like 9 off in my own debates but i'm also p good for condo on the aff

---kritiks: i'm bad for these esp like less techy stuff (only go for like...the cap k in front of me)

---disads: underrated asf. econ da is cracked on this topic

---impact turns: mwah but no death good in my rounds please

nchs '27

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. i've judged ld a grand total of once.

policy:

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!!

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 also likely 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.

i want to be on the chain!!! cegorman@stu.naperville203.org! please!

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.

my main events are policy and congress, so i consider myself more of a "flay" judge in ld/pf. again, tech> truth.

noahheftman@gmail.com

New Trier Class of 2027

Biases:

Condo Good

Theory is GOOD on both sides

Cap Good

I will vote on T and am probably the best judge you will get if you are running T

I’m not a big fan of identity Ks and believe K affs are untopical

Ks should weigh alts versus the AFF

I have a lower baseline for being convinced of the above opinions in round but I'll put them aside to the best of my ability

General Stuff:

Tech > Truth

Dropped = True BUT you have to tell me it’s important so I won’t evaluate a dropped argument if the team who ran it didn’t extend it

I think case turns are great and should be utilized but be sure that you are winning if you go for it and that you understand it fully

Don’t yell in cross, be nice

Have camera on if online

Judge instruction in your final speeches in the most important thing in the round, write my ballot for me

Speaks:

+0.1 Speaks if you bring me Lemon Juice (In person)

I believe that Theory and T are legitimate arguments, and if you win them your speaks will be akin to a round won on generally strong debating substance arguments if you win them

I will not give below a 27 if you do not do anything that is rude

27 is the baseline

28 is good

29 is great

30 is perfect

Judging Record:

2023-2024 Econ Inequality

Policy vs Policy 6-1 NEG

2024-2025 Intellectual Property Rights

Policy vs Policy 3-2 NEG

Past Years Topic Knowledge:

Avery Coonley Middle School State (Econ Inequality Topic):

AFF:

GND: I understand the arguments in this, I don’t need too much explanation but you need to win ALL parts. This is probably the best aff to run with me as your judge as I have ran it and understand the arguments already, however I also understand the flaws so I’ll understand the NEGs arguments on it too.

UBI: I’m much less familiar with this aff but I understand the poverty advantage much more than the gender harm advantage. I’ll require some solid explanations of the arguments in gender harm to vote on it.

Social Security: I have never debated or watched a round in which this has been read and do not know anything about it, I need heavy judge instruction.

NEG:

T:

Regressive: I have minimal experience with this argument but will vote on it if you can prove that regressive taxes are unfair. I will probably only vote on this if it’s dropped though.

Training: I am extremely familiar with this T and actually won on this argument 4 times. However, you MUST convince me that it is a voter and I don’t really want to vote on it unless it’s dropped.

Pensions: I have never seen this argument before and need an explanation, I don’t know enough to provide insight on it so I am a blank canvas to convince. I still will probably not vote on it unless it’s dropped.

DA:

Econ: I am familiar with this argument and understand it well, I don’t need too much explanation for this but you still need to win ALL parts of the argument.

IRS: I am less familiar with this argument but it is critical that you win the link on this argument and remember that it only works if the AFF taxes.

Middle East Relations: I have never seen this disadvantage before, however I have seen many other politics disadvantages and feel I have a solid understanding of politics in the Middle East so just be sure to explain all parts of the argument and again, the link is key.

CP:

States: I completely understand this argument and believe that NEG fiat SHOULD exist but if the AFF can convince me otherwise I will vote on it, remember as well that Econ is NOT a net benefit to the states CP. Be sure to respond well to the perm and how you solve the entire AFF not just a part.

Prefs short---high school debater, down for process and meh for Ks. Super tech>truth except for hypertrolly args. The less of the 1NC that could be read last year the better I am for you.

geographyandnewsnerd@gmail.com
ntpolicydebate@gmail.com for high school rounds.

June Jack (She/They/Zhe). New Trier '25
LD + PF at the bottom.
Yes put me on the chain. I would prefer an email but SpeechDrop is fine. If your docs are verbatimized word, I will probably not get a headache. The farther your email content gets from that, the greater the chance of a headache.
Please email me after the debate for clarification - I'm always happy to explain.
Anything bolded is not up for debate. Anything unbolded can be changed by better technical debating.

I view debate as a competitive research activity. I will reward strategies that involve topic and aff specific research. This can look like topic CP and Econ DA, but also politics with very specific links, a cap K with turns case and aff specific links, or a process CP with an aff-specific solvency advocate.

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

I will never vote on ableism / transphobia / homophobia / racism / sexism. I will stop the round if you do something that makes the debate space unsafe.
Ad-Homs or use of slurs / bigotry / misgendering will lead to instant loss, extremely low speaks and I'll email your coach.

Do not read Death Good/Wipeout in front of me UNLESS both teams agree to it beforehand. If the 2NR is 5 minutes of wipeout, the 2AR can spend 5 minutes talking about their favorite tea and I'll vote aff. For every speaker that extends a wipeout/death good arg without permission from their opponent, -2.5 speaks.

Berating your teammate will shred your speaks.

Disclosure is a must. This means verbal aff (unless new) and past 2NRs OR updated wikis. This also means being on time to your room for disclosure. +0.1 speaks for full, working citations, +0.3 for OpenSource that is highlighted (tell me after the debate). Exception for lay / MS debate.
CX is binding. Make sure you are asking questions in your CX. Tag-team CX is fine, as is using it for prep - you don't have to ask me for permission. I don't consider prep time cross to be binding.

PLEASE give me a roadmap
If the other team has dropped something like T and there's no theory extended, you can stop the round an tell me why. Other team can explain why there's a way out, any way out, they win. Otherwise you win. If you do this and are right, I will give you much higher speaks (29+), and can dedicate the rest of the time to helping the other team. If the other team is right, double 25s for you. If the 2NR drops condo, the 2AR can be 5 seconds of "dropped condo bad because its unfair---dispo solves---vote aff".

Assume I want a card doc unless it's like a condo debate.

--------

Love an impact turn, read lots of cards.

Topicality -
PTV is very good.
Reasonability is best framed as a substance crowd-out DA.
ground > predictability > cult of limits.
A T violation that cannot explain why that specific aff is bad for ground should lose to C/I only our aff. Unlike most judges, I think that this is a viable 2AR C/I.
An aff that says "one or more of the following" should lose to aff condo is bad.

Theory

If you can kick Adv CP planks, each plank (n) counts for 2^n advocacies. I won't make the argument for you but 2As should.....

Love process but give me pen time. Probably better for the other issues perm than PDCP.

Ks -
Impact turn / DA to the alt if you can.
The more the K turns the case, has material link and has an alt that solves or outweighs the case, the better I am for you. Similarly, the more aff-specific the better. 2NRs that kick the alt are fiiiinnnneeee but you probbaly lose if the 1AR doesn't drop a DA and defense.

Counterplans:

Adv CPs and PICs>>>>>>>

Do process ever solve their own net benefit?
I default to judgekick - aff debate against should start in the 1AR at latest.


DAs
PTX DAs - PC DAs are mid. Horsetrading DAs make me happy. Riders make me sad. Floor time makes my eyes sparkle with joy.
Please have turns case in the 1NR. If the 1AR drops turns case, I will protect the 2NR.
5+ 1AR cards usually make a good debate
Do impact calc in the 1NR

K Affs - i'll vote for them if they win the flow. I'd like but don't need both teams to have a vision for debate, how arguments evolve and get evaluated over the season, etc.
2AC K aff w/m means the 2NC can and should read states and politics
I'd prefer clash as with "debate solves the aff better" as a straight turn, but if you want to go for fairness I'm chill with that. Sometimes this is called "Michigan's FW 2.0", for an example see DML's 2024 UMich FW lecture.
revive jurisdiction!!!!
Dogma and advocacy skills turn the aff / fairness is why their impacts are bad = yay!
Fairness is good. What's a warrant? = not yay.

I am not a good judge for the aff on condo. Few things I think the aff needs to do to win condo:

1. Win side bias---the argument should startin the 1AR at latest

2. Define dispoin the 2ac

3. Say more than 3 words on each standard in the 2ac

4. Say more than "dispo solves" on the C/I in the 2ac

5. Explain why "dispo solves"each 2NC argument

6. Have a reason to reject the teamin the 1AR.

I am not the best for big explosions from the 1AR to the 2AR.

I will generally vote neg is there is a somewhat competent extension any of the following:
1. Neg flex and side bias

2. Dispo is condo because planks force perms

3. Cross apply reasonability from 2AC on T

4. No in round abuse to Strat skew + defense to research + time skew is whining

5. Hard 2ACs are good 2ACs

insert rehighligtings--x-----------read them
condo good---x------------condo bad
cap / security -x----------Bataille
clarity + pen time-x---------------------------speed
presumption = less change---x------------presumption goes auto-aff when there's a neg advocacy
read all the cards---x---------------------slow down on the cards
evidence comparison--x----more cards
silly args-----x--win with style, especially if you're heavily favoured

People who've influenced my thoughts on debate:
Nick Lepp, Tim Freehan, Rockwell Shapiro, Margaret Jones, David Weston, Aaron Vinson, Jeff Buntin, Rafael Pierry, Tim Ellis, Gabe Jankovsky, Arvind Shankar, Will Soper.

Postround me.


Policy Voting Record:
IP:
Round 1 Case vs DA.
Round 2 Case vs DA.

Econ:
5-6 Policy v Policy
0-1 Policy v K (it was cap)

-----------------------------
LD - I consider this pretty close to one person policy, with perhaps some slightly sillier arguments. Rest of paradigm still applies.

Public Lands
Policy vs Policy --- 0-1
Tricks aff vs Trad --- 1-0
Trad vs Trad --- 0-1
Policy vs Policy + K --- 1-0

I don't know or care that much about LD norms.
Send ev in a document. Before the speech.
Please do LBL.
Probably more open to affs that defend a plan.
Performances affs are also fine, T against them is often true.
make the roadmap off-time
spreading good
yes I do flow cross
disclosure is good. lack of it may even be worth a ballot based on the flow.
silly args--x--win with style
silly args mean phil and paradoxes, not "vote after the 1NC" or "formal clothes theory". Clash is good. I have a higher bar for things like a warrant that y'all probably expect.
PICs---7/10
phil - proud util hack but tech over truth. Util > Rawls > Hobbes > Skep > Virtue > Kant > Rand > dead French guys who use "the Other" that you cannot explain. Only thing LD does better than policy.


PF - I come from policy. I'm chill with whatever, including prog stuff / Ks / spreading.
0 PRO - 1 CON Trad on the HSR topic.

Misc things:

Any use of AI to generate prompted text and use the text as "evidence" is deemed a fabrication of evidence and is a reason for an ethics challenge.
If the 1AC clips, I won't stop the round unless the 1NC points it out. I will however, vote against the clipping team. I just want y'all to get an educational debate and I will give a full substance RFD.
If an argument says extinction is good because the alternative is worse, it is wipeout.

Tabula rasa

My Paradigm is extremely simple.

Firstly, I need to be able to understand the things that you say. The best debater isn't ALWAYS the fastest.

Secondly, I want to see strong clash and line-by-line refutation. The better you are at listening and flowing, the better you'll do at speaking. Especially for rebuttals.

As a middle school debate coach and judge, I rarely vote on Topicality in a case file league, but I'm willing to if its played properly.

Will Sterbenc (pronounced like 'disturbance' but without the di)

sterbencdebate@gmail.com

he/him

Niles North '25

"tech>truth" -Kailey Cabrera

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

I don't have any biases that override my ability to judge your debate fairly, but there are some things you should do if you want to win when I'm judging you.

1---BE CONFIDENT---This is your first year of debates, and there is no pressure on you to do well. Being flagrantly wrong but sounding like you're correct is the essence of what makes debate fun. I don't care if you have zero highlighted cards on your computer and don't know what a 'topicality' is, if you respond to every argument your opponents give in a way other than 'nuh uh', you'll see your wins and speaker points increase.

2---BE NICE---Berating or insulting your opponents is a no-no, and if you do it I will insult you multiple times throughout the rest of the round and probably find a way to make you lose. Obviously this includes bigotry and I'll snitch on you to your coach if you do an 'ism.'

3---BE SMART---Instead of reading your varsity's terrible pre-written blocks, think about the arguments your opponents are making and how they apply to whatever you did. 99% of the time, there is a smart way to beat them without wasting time on nonresponsive arguments.

4---BE EDUCATIONAL---Novice year is about learning the basics, and for that reason, I will never vote for a kritikal affirmative, wipeout, stupid procedurals, or any other argument that relies on your opponents being inexperienced to win on. If you do decide to read these things, your speaks are capped at a 27.

Froylan He/Him

Email: froylans271@gmail.com

Current Lincoln Park HS Varsity Debater

You can call me Judge/Froylan/Froy/idc

Tech>Truth(sometimes like don't make outrageous lies)

general things lol

please give roadmaps

stand up when giving a speech it helps with your airflow

time yourself

have an organized doc so I dont have to jump through flows

Affs:

I don't have a preference for affs run whatever you feel like and make good arguments for it, extend cards, etc

please put case on top for the 2ac

If its a new aff i might be unfamiliar with it just try to explain it a little more.

Negs:

I don't mind DA's and CP's but please don't read 6 off and then be unclear pls lemme flow

Most likely if argued well I will vote for the CP with the DA as the net benefit

be smart and choose your off wisely as I like to see a good strategy for the neg

K's:

My experience with K's is recent and my understanding of is decent at best. I know my traditional k's though (cap, set col, afropes)

The same goes for K Aff's but as long as your arguments are on point and I know why I am voting for it I will most likely vote on it. Explain your alt, ROB, Impacts, ROJ etc try to be as clear with your K

Speakers:

29-30: excellent, one of the best speakers

28-28.9: Great

27.5-27.9 Above average

27-27.5: Average or below average

26-Lower: Being abusive in round

+0.2 speaks if you mention Alex Burkman

Remember to have fun, don't be rude in debate and be smart

New Trier Class of 2025

She/Her/Hers

reagancsubeck@gmail.com

Top Level:

• Be respectful of me, your opponents, and your teammates
• Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic

You're all novices - be nice and supportive because this is a year to learn, not to crush (and because being nice is generally good). I am here to support you and help you improve but also to make debate fun so if you feel unsafe or you're being hurt by someone else, I will help you resolve it.

I have 0 opinions on what arguments you run other than the caveats above so just do your thing!

If you need help with technical stuff, feel free to ask! On more debating stuff, try your best and ask me after the round. I'll be glad to help you with anything then!!!

Have fun and good luck!!!!

20250944@student.nths.net - New Trier ‘25 - they/she/he - Skye, not judge, I’m not that old

First and foremost:

I will not vote on sexist, racist, homophobic, or death good arguments, and reading them will lead to an L + 25 + e-mail to your coach. Y’all are novs or high schoolers- please don’t make the debate space unsafe before you’ve even learned how to debate.

Theory

In round abuse always helps, and I’m the least tech>truth here. Don’t make me listen to whining about facing a team that’s better than you for 5 minutes.

If you're doing a condo 2AR when the neg didn't drop condo, I probably already mentally voted neg.

Case

I'm a 2N, but I also see no way around this if I'm team 1% risk---if the 1AR stands up and tagline extends case, there is now a risk of case. A small risk that a DA should be able to outweigh, but a risk nonetheless. I know a good block case strat when I see one, and if you pull it off I will be extremely impressed, but you need offense, not just defense.

Is presumption ever a viable ballot in 2024?

K aff

Strike me.

T

i’ll vote on the flow. not much here.

PTV is, imo, a silly argument. The aff is so much more than its text.

K

I default to the judge is a policymaker, the aff can weigh the plan, and the neg gets whatever fiat they want, but can be convinced otherwise with good debating and warrants. I'm more familiar with cap and security, so other Ks need more explanation. Side note, if you use words that wouldn't be recognizable to anyone who hasn't read your literature(like simulacra in Baudrillard) then please explain them in the block, not the 2NR, otherwise the aff's job is much harder.

read me if you’re actually considering running a K: I come from a hyper-policy school. While I don’t think that this biases me against K arguments, I cannot stress enough how much I will not vote on an argument that I don’t understand. I will appreciate it and spend extra time to try to understand it during decision time if you’re clearly trying your best to explain a K to me. but at the end of the day, you should strike me if you’re running high theory K arguments.

CP + DA + ! turns:

For process CPs(what is a process CP anyway?), I’m aff-leaning on perms, and neg-leaning on theory. For all other CPs, I’m neg-leaning on theory and perms, and aff-leaning on solvency or offense. You need to tell me to judgekick and use sufficiency framing. It’s two sentences and is probably already in your 2NC O/V. If you think that the competition debate is messy, just go to why your standards outweigh theirs(ie- neg bias) and what your standards are.

100% or 0% risk only exists if the argument was dropped or kicked.

I flow impact turns on a separate page, and will reward with higher speaks if you tell me 'hey, you'll need an extra sheet for adv 2' or something. otherwise i probably won't catch your overview or first argument because i'm fishing paper out of my backpack.

but like...who dislikes the prizes CP + innovation DA?

Speaks:

Arguing with your partner will shred your speaks- especially if they're giving the final speech. I don't care if they dropped condo, took 1NR/1AC/1NC(especially 1NC prep can be quite useful, if used well) prep, or went for the thing you think will lose you the debate. You're not helping them nor yourself.

It is very, very, very easy to make me laugh, and this is under the speaks header. Do with that what you will.

I’m a very expressive judge, to the point where if you look at me during the other team’s speech, I’ll probably look back and signal if I buy the argument they’re making or not. Also, I LOVE eye contact during your speeches bc it makes me feel like we’re friends, pls do that and your speaks will look like you’re my friend :)

But I will give high speaks. My baseline is 29, and if you ask post-round I’ll tell you what you got

CX:

Yes open cx, don’t abuse that. The 2N shouldn’t answer all of the questions in 1NC cx.

I will never dock your speaks for asking 'what is this' questions in cross, but it will hurt your ethos if you ask the 1N to explain a core neg generic.

Other:

I’m cool with sending cards in the body of the email, don’t steal prep, don’t clip.

glhf :)

current bias(IP topic):

Policy v policy: 3-2 aff

current bias(econ topic):

Policy v policy: 11-9 neg

Policy v K: 1-1

K v policy:

K v K: 1-0 neg

Use tabroomshare or speechdrop: zekesdocs@gmail.com

Background

Ezekiel Wilson-Porter (He/They)(2N/1A), don't call me judge i'm a Junior.

Niles North '26 (Vikings:])

Debated at:

Niles North High School (2024-present)

Maine East High School (2023-2024)

Niles North High School (2022-2023)

I'm a D1 School-Hopper (I move a lot)

TLDR

Debate should be a safe space for everyone and I will do my best to ensure that is true, please don't do any of the isms (sexism, racism, homophobia). If you ever feel unsafe in round please tell me. I will do my best to give an impartial ballot at the end of the round.

Non-argument Things

Speaks:

Everyone starts at 28 it goes up depending on your behavior during the round:

• Good clear speaking
• **Bring me food before the round +.2 speaks
• *Make a joke that I laugh out loud at +.1 speaks
• Make a joke about your varsity or someone else's varsity in the greater Chicago Area +.1 speaks

Ethics:

Clipping and other ethics violations (per tournament rules) are an auto L

Argument Things

T/L:

Policy debaters lie and K debaters cheat.

Please give a roadmap, "off the flow is not a roadmap."

Please do impact calculus. if I have two impacts at the end of the debate I need a framework of how I should evaluate them. This determines rounds.

Don't just read blocks your varsity gave you if you don't understand them.

Tech > Truth. Truth is subjective so the only objective way to objectively adjudicate a round is tech. If something isn't "truth" then just disprove it.

Time your speeches and prep.

2AR and 2NR judge instruction is super important, tell me how to write my ballot.

Affirmative:

A strong team will have a strong 1AC and extend and defend the content of the 1AC throughout the debate without shifting.

Kritikal Affirmative:

Im good for K AFFs. However, I do slightly lean towards framework. Don't run a KAFF if you are a novice.

T/Topicality:

Explain why your interpretation is better for the debate space and/or this debate, give a case-list for affs that meet and don't meet.

Counterplans/CPs(Not Cee-Pee)

Judge kick if you tell me too. Extend the perm debate, it's always fun. Cardless Counterplans are fine. Kritikal Counterplans are also always fun.

K/Kritiks:

This is what iv'e done for the majority of my time debating, if your a K team or wanting to do some kritikal argument i'm good for it. Don't assume that I will know [X K Argument].

Card Links > Advantage Links > Plan Links > Topic Area Links > Topic Links

DA/Disadvantage:

It's a DA there's not much to say, they're cool. Big fan of a good politics DA especially with the election coming up.

Theory:

I love theory, go wild. Hiding Aspec and other theory arguments is not good practice if you plan on going for it, but I will still vote on it.

Quick Reference:

Policy---------------------------------X------------K

Tech-------X---------------------------------------Truth

Read no cards-------X----------------------------Read all the cards

Conditionality good----------------X--------------Conditionality bad

States CP good--------------------------X--------States CP bad

Politics DA is a thing-----X------------------------Politics DA not a thing

UQ matters most----------------------X----------Link matters most

Limits------------------X----------------------------Aff ground

Presumption--------X------------------------------Never votes on presumption

Longer ev--------X---------------------------------More ev

CX about impacts---------X-----------------------CX about links and solvency

They not like us

New Trier '27 - 20271063@student.nths.net - she/her - 1A/2N

T/L

Flow

Please be respectful to your partner, your opponents, and your judge.

Clarity > speed, if I don't hear your arguments I can't evaluate them.

Clash with your opponent's arguments and use speeches/cx strategically. I'm good to vote on anything, but my own experience is mostly policy. Please explain your arguments clearly.

Tech > truth

I stop flowing after the timer goes off.

AFF

Your aff is your best offense. I love case debates & lean aff on aff-specific solvency deficits/ turns case v. clash-avoidant off.

NEG

I'd prefer every off in the 1nc to be a viable 2nr over trying to out-spread the 2ac.

Disadvantages- explanations should be warranted, and the strat shouldn't be card dumping

Counterplans- tell me why to prefer the counterplan over the aff- sufficiency framing, risk the perm l2nb, etc.

Speaks

I generally give high 27- low 29. Some things for speaker boosts- impact framing, lbl, and confidence in cx

Bring me food or boba for even higher speaks.

Lindsay Ye

20270051@student.nths.net — Add me to the email chain :D

Tech > Truth

"Don't be a donkey" -- Matt Peng

Dropped args are true args

For opinions on args, check Sofia Yang's paradigm

Hi everyone who is reading my paradigm,

My email is eyoungquist@averycoonley.org for the email chains.

I’ve been coaching policy debate for seven years at the Avery Coonley School in Downers Grove, IL (it's a middle school). I’ve also judged a few rounds of high school Public Forum and am starting to judge Congressional this year. I kind of fell into the job as a debate coach- I didn’t have any debate experience in high school or college. I've taught Literacy for 16 years, and social studies for the last four.

That being said, please treat the debate room like a classroom in terms of behavior and decorum. If the way you are acting would not fly at your school, don't do it in front of me. Debate can get heated, the cross-ex can get pointed, but outright rudeness, swearing, etc. will come with penalties.

In terns of judging-I always view debate through the lens of a solid analytical argument, just like I would in my classroom. I need a cohesive argument, solid support, analytics, and a breakdown of why your argument is superior to your opponents’ argument. An “A” debate should look like an “A” paper.

Congressional:

Outside of the sponsor speech, you are not getting a 5 or 6 unless your speech is DIRECTLY RESPONSIVE to the arguments already raised. I want to hear you call them out and directly compare your points against theirs. If you are the fifth speaker on a point and don't even mention the arguments raised before you, you are going to get a 3. And no, just mentioning their names doesn't count as being responsive...This is debate, not speech. I should hear some actual debate being done.

I'd also like to see some passion in the speeches- please work on being expressive (and loud enough I can hear you in the back of the room). Use the hands, the facial expressions, etc. Eye contact is good too.

Public Forum:

Please make sure you lay out your contentions clearly, add some emphasis on your claims, and make sure you are doing the work to analyze your sources. Much like my policy statement below, I'm evaluating you on your ability to clash with your opponents. Make sure you are matching them argument for argument in your rebuttals. I'm going to be convinced by your weighing of the evidence, not just reading the evidence to me (or just repeating your points... I took notes, I know what you said in the first speech...)

Policy

Two things I don’t like to hear are extremely fast talking and cards that don’t support their tags. It’s great that you got through a lot of evidence and tried to put a lot of things on the flow sheet, but if you are only reading a sentence or two from each card and it doesn’t add up, it’s not a real argument. I need depth. I need CLASH.

I am really against fast reading. If you words are jumbling together and I can't make it out, it's not going on my flow. If I can't make out what you are saying, I am going to give you a "clear." If it continues, I'll give you a second one. Beyond that, I will disregard it if I can't make it out.

The round is going to go to the group that clearly lays out their argument (love signposting) and advances their ideas clearly while pointing out the flaws in their opponents’ presentation. If you are running a "K," I want an overview of the theory before you launch into it. This is especially true if I haven't seen it before. I'm not going to get what I need from your light speed reading without some background.

I’ll take T’s and K attacks that are on topic and make a valid point, but don't try to shoehorn something in just because it's what you always do. If their case is barely hanging on to being topical, go for it. Can you make a legit critique with some SOLID links? Go for it. Just don't get too esoteric on me, and MAKE SURE THE LINK IS SOLID (yes, I said it again)!!! Blocks of jargon with no real tie to the case will not work.

Please don't run a cheaty "K" Aff on me. I'm not big on the "K" Affs to begin with, so this had better be solid. If I feel like you are running a K so that you can not engage with the topic and deliver the same same thing every round (or possibly every year you have debated), I'm not going to be inclined to vote for you. You better prove that you did more than switch out a link card before the start of the match.