Tabroom.com

Spartan Classic at MSU

2017 — East Lansing, MI/US

Novice Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Eliana Bender Niles West High School 5 rounds

Elizabeth Bennett Niles West High School 5 rounds

Dustyn Beutelspacher Niles West High School 5 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 12:59 PM EDT

Put me on the email chain: dustyn.beutelspacher@gmail.com

Affiliations: Debated at Niles West in high school, UTD in college. Now coach for UTD and Greenhill school

LD exception - If an argument can be described as a 'trick', please dont read it in front of me. Likewise, if your theory argument is based on something you opponent didn't do, it is probably unpersuasive to me.

TL;DR:

Go for what you want to go for, if you got a K aff, make sure you can beat framework, if you go for a process cp, make sure you can beat theory, etc, etc, I will try my hardest to adapt and judge the round as objectively as possible.

I love line-by-line. The more you engage with your opponent's arguments, the more likely you are to win and the higher your speaks will be.

I won't vote on things that happened out of round or in other debates.

You can insert rehighlightings of the other team's evidence, text of a card only needs to be read once for it to be evaluated.

No racism/sexism/etc, be nice. Don't do that thing where you delete tags or read new affs on paper or stuff like that to make your speech harder to read.

Longer:

I've become more willing to comb through evidence over the years, but it's mostly out of curiosity since debaters seem to be getting better at spinning ev, obviously I have my limits, but the debate includes the debate over the evidence.

I think conditionality is good, it seems to be necessary in this day and age when topics are very broad. I've become more neg biased recently but maybe it's just my disillusion with one unwarranted sentence of condo bad somehow becoming an entire 2ar. Condo in general seems to have gotten significantly more shallow. There probably is some point at which condo becomes bad, but I can't truthfully see myself voting for condo bad absent some egregious neg strategy or technical error.

Since it has come up more than once, my stance on judge kick is that I will presume judge kick if nothing has been said on theory, if the aff wants to win no judge kick, then you must at least make the arg in the 1ar.

You get infinite condo against new or undisclosed affs.

I personally don't particularly like process cps, this is a sliding scale, as consult ICJ or a commission cp seems less competitive than something like a states cp on face, but it seems like people are either unwilling or unable to actually invest time in theory in the 1ar anyways, so it often doesn't matter. I think fiating multiple actors (think both USFG and the states, not the states cp, or fiating compliance with another actor whom you fiat) is probably cheating, but I can be convinced otherwise. I tend to lean neg on theory questions despite all that

I like Ks the more specific the link analysis is. I tend to think of Ks as one or multiple thesis statements that, if won, should theoretically disprove the aff. This means the more you pull warrants from cards, explain the aff in the terms of your K, etc, the more likely it is that you beat the perm since that explanation makes links a lot more salient. That's a lot more persuasive than big aff/neg framework pushes to me

FW/T vs K affs. Since this is the only portion of a paradigm that matters for most pref sheets, yes I will vote on framework, yes I will vote against it. These debates seem to come down to impact comparison, as usually it seems hard to win either topical affs are necessary to prevent the entire collapse of this activity, versus framework is genocide, which makes winning as much of your impact quite important. Fairness impact seem to make intrinsic sense to me if debate is a game, but im not sure why that is a catch-all win if the aff wins debate rounds have impacts.

On a side note, I hate long overviews. Overviews should be for args that either: a. Are significantly more important and necessary for your argument to work, or b. Don't make sense when on the line-by-line (eg, meta-framing for how I should evaluate a debate). If you can do it on the flow, do it on the flow.

Breana Brill Hire 5 rounds

Alex Brown Hire 5 rounds

Amy Bushey H.H. Dow High School 1 rounds

Olivia Crissinger Traverse City Central 3 rounds

Amelia D'Agaro Glenbrook North 4 rounds

Katrail Davis West Bloomfield High School 3 rounds

Quintin Grabowski Traverse City Central 5 rounds

Tyler Hitchcock H.H. Dow High School 4 rounds

Samantha Jacobs Glenbrook North 5 rounds

Logan Jancek Detroit Country Day School 5 rounds

Last changed on Sat December 12, 2020 at 10:01 AM EDT

Pronouns: Any (They/He/She/Them/Him/Her)

E-mail: loganedward77@gmail.com - put me on the email chain

Updated in October, 2020.

Experience: 2 years high school debate at Mona Shores High School, 2.5 years college debate at Wayne State University, 1 year coaching at Mona Shores High School, 2 years coaching at Detroit Country Day School, and a long judging history over that time to present, for both high school and college-level debate.

I'll give a short version: I'll listen to just about anything, minus overtly problematic arguments (racism good, sexism/gender discrimination good, fascism good, etc.), which will at best lead to tanked speaker points, at worst an automatic loss (and I lean that way).

I have a fair amount of experience debating both traditional policy and K frameworks but find myself being more entertained in K v K rounds. It's a T/Framework thing, it's boring and I don't trust the government to do anything right. Read more below, I definitely still do like a policy v. policy round, I just hate voting on T.

I expect everyone to be timing themselves. Please don't call me "judge," I don't like most of them IRL. "Logan" is fine.

Virtual Debate: I don't care whether or not your camera is on, regardless of what the tournament rules are saying. If your virtual workspace is anything like mine, it's improvised and ugly. Also, it feels like I'm invading your privacy on some weird level when you're debating from your bedroom. 2020 is weird enough without trying to force you to show me your house. Also, if you're experiencing connection issues, turning the video streaming off can really help. On another topic, CX is kind of tough right now due to talking over one another by accident. I don't really have a solution for it other than trying to stick to the model of whoever's not speaking next asks, the person who just spoke answers. That being said, if you can tag-team effectively virtually then go for it. When the questioner tells you to stop answering, stop answering.

Dropped arguments are usually true arguments (save for the above), you must make the argument early enough in the debate for me to vote on it (outside of theory/common-sense or evidence-based analysis). That being said, I vote on arguments I understand. If I don't understand, that's on you, this is a speech activity.

More probabilistic impacts outweigh bigger magnitude ones for me, on almost every level. Establishing probability is most important to me and I think the overemphasis on existential impacts is making policy debate stale (as well as literally untrue, I have not yet died in a nuclear war).

A lot of the longer version below doesn't really apply in high school debate outside of Open division.

The long version (ask specific questions before the round if anything is unclear):

T/Framework - T needs standards and voters on the neg and counter-standards and -voters on the aff or you probably won't win it. Framework is also fine, but you should do it right (when I didn't go for Cap, I went for framework). You need to have impacts to Framework that you can weigh against the aff (or another off-case argument you can weigh). "Fairness" is not an impact I'm going to vote for. Framework can be defensive if you want to go for the other off, and this is usually the best way to use it in front of me. I don't find skills arguments very convincing at all and I find them very easily turned as the only skills I learned in debate either A. weren't transferable or B. were skills that help the government murder people more effectively (this is definitely more for college and I'll definitely vote on skills args at the high school level). I have a high threshold for this line of argumentation and I'm not ashamed to hold you to that, but I will vote on them if they're mishandled or you've found one of the few I believe (here's a hint: research probably isn't inherently bad). Explain the impacts to the generally accepted ones like fairness (research burden, ground loss, etc.) Probabilistic impacts matter more here too: Does the aff you're running framework against stand a chance of modifying debate culture? What specific fairness/skills loss was there? The most probabilistic impacts happen in-round, in front of my face, and this is how I weigh T. I default to competing interpretations, as do most, but my threshold on reasonability is comparatively low, because for me to vote on competing T interpretations, you're going to have to convince me beyond a doubt that the way they violated the topic was uniquely bad for you debating in this round. That means if you're reading a CP or DA that clearly links, you probably shouldn't run T as I will probably buy the "but their DA links" arg.

The Aff, in general: I was a 2N and when I was double 2s I hated being aff, so I don't have much advice here. Most teams who are aff lose in the 1AR, but the 2AC is close behind. Time allocation is much more important on the aff (which is why I hated being a 2A, I'm slow), so identify which arguments are the biggest threat early on and adjust accordingly. The biggest mistake newer debaters make is forgetting about all that evidence you read in the 1AC, which should have embedded answers to your weak spots.

Policy Affs: Cool. You should probably kick some of it by the end of the debate at the college level, free up some time for that 1AR and 2AR. Left-policy affs are usually weaker than both their policy and K options (standard policy follows the rules better, helping you out in a framework debate, and the K probably solves better), so try not to read them unless you have really good ideas for how to use it.

K affs - Fine by me, be prepared for the framework debate, win the impact turns to framework and I'll vote for you. That being said, I still have to understand. These weird "every theorist ever" affs are kind of getting out of hand (at least at the high school level), but if you can explain it, run it. No plan text or advocacy statement required if the mechanism is clear. If you're going to run a left-policy aff, you'd might as well just run the K version in front of me, I'm good for it. I prefer K v K debates in these rounds because I hate listening to framework/T (it's just boring), use it as leverage and time-skew instead. I also think they're more useful and educational because waxing poetic about how a team broke the rules for 4 speeches is not only extremely boring, it's self-fulfilling and frankly only useful for institutionalized debate (which isn't a real thing IRL). They should probably still be tangential to the topic, but I can be convinced the topic should be ignored in favor of something better.

The Neg, in general: The more specific the strategy to the aff, the better chance you have of winning. General topic links are usually not enough and need some analysis to make them compelling. That's not to say I won't vote on more general links/uniqueness evidence, but that the aff is probably winning your DA/K/CP coming out of the 2AC and you'll need to develop the arguments a lot more in the block.

DAs - fine, run them, explain them, win them. Winning a link (and the internal links) is more important than totally winning the impact. I'll vote on risk, depending on how things are going on the case flow.

Theory - I've become a bit more open to theory but the only theory I find automatically compelling is conditionality bad (and that's if the neg runs too many condo off-case args, "too many" being determined by the skill level). If theory is dropped and is a reason to reject the team, that is super bad for the team that dropped it, keep track of the line-by-line. Best case, I reject the argument, worst case I reject the team (if they've dropped it but you haven't explained it well, I'll probably just reject the arg, be prepared to lose if your 2AR is 5/6 on theory). Theory about generally accepted and common args is probably useless (50 states fiat, neg fiat, limits on aff fiat, etc.), but I'll vote on it if it's explained well and is mishandled by the other team, or you can convince me an actual offense was committed (a long shot). Your theory should have warranted impacts, just like any argument ("They did a bad thing that's bad because...").

CPs - See above for how I feel about conditional advocacies. I can be convinced of most counterplan theory (again, see above). The best PIC/Ks are when no one knows that's what they are until the 2NR, usually that's an immediate neg ballot. PIC theory is usually a wash after you read your blocks at each other. I love a good advantage CP and I hate a bad one.

Ks - I went for the Cap K in almost every 2NR of my college/late high school career. Ks should usually engage something specific about the aff. Specific links are good. However, I don't think you necessarily need them, your general ones probably do the job well enough, paired with explanation. Ks should prove the aff is a uniquely bad idea/influenced by bad ideas and prove the alt can solve the impact. They should prove the perm doesn't work (preferably just being able to cross-apply case offense and prove it still links) and that the impacts outweigh the aff. This means you have to win the framework debate too, unless the K has existential impacts). I'll vote on risk of alt solvency if there's enough defense/risk on the case flow, probably at a lower threshold than most, given the framework debate basically has to be won (unless you kick the alt and go for structural impacts, which means you're probably having a bad time anyway). Fiat is illusory. It just is. Good policy-prone teams know this better than the K team.

More specific thoughts, as I did debate the K:

Cap: Honestly, I have a slightly higher threshold because I went for it so much when I debated. I'm an anti-capitalist in "real life" and familiar with most theoretical arguments contained within and if I think it's a dumb argument (not even in the round, just generally) I might have some bias, but I promise I'll try not to. I love great Cap rounds, though, so, if you're confident in your strategy (and maybe more importantly, theoretical basis), go for it!

Queerness: Read this for maybe a year as well, but wasn't as heavily invested or well-researched. That being said, I am passingly familiar with the field and like the line of argumentation, but it must be explained well, both for my sake and your opponents', as Edelman can be basically incomprehensible at times.

AntiBlackness: I find this and Cap most compelling when talking about debate writ large, which AntiBlackness debaters frequently do (not so much on the Cap side, but you should, debate is classist). I have found the best AntiBlackness rounds I've spectated or watched (or, rarely, was a part of) directly tied their impacts to the round or the topic (governance writ large isn't as good of a link/internal link, but use it anyway). However, I also think that many AntiBlackness debaters have a hard time encountering a Black policy debater, when they really shouldn't. The strategy should NOT be to attack or cast doubt on this debater's Blackness, but the structure of policy debate that incentivizes skewed topics, interpersonal violence, resource skewing, and bad rhetoric. I'm fairly read on the subject of AntiBlackness but, as a white person, I'm always listening closely in these rounds (not to imply I don't otherwise). Also, as a white person, I CANNOT be trusted fully to adjudicate these rounds, which AntiBlackness debaters would do well to keep in mind for all of their white judges. I find alternate root cause arguments fairly unconvincing on most Ks, but this one even more so (although there are TYPES of arguments I can find convincing in this realm, such as the totalizing description of oppression that some AntiBlackness teams make; It's complicated). I (and if "we" were being honest, most white judges and debaters) am usually pretty uncomfortable adjudicating these rounds as I feel whiteness is inherently moderating in these cases. That being said, I think white debaters should be very careful with these arguments (to the point of maybe considering not reading them), ESPECIALLY in reading prewritten tags. Don't call yourself Black or imply that you are a part of the "Black Body" if you are not.

Anthro: I can be convinced, but it's been a running joke to me (and pretty much anyone who isn't a die-hard) for years. I'm a vegetarian for ethical reasons, so I'm probably more persuadable than most people on this one. Animal death matters and anthropocentrism definitely defines our relationship to the environment, but I'm gonna find it really annoying if you equate animal death to human death, as I feel like this has some... implications. The better impacts here are rooted in environmental destruction, but there are easier ways to that impact.

Ableism: I am very easily convinced that the root cause of ableism is capitalism. Other alt causes could probably convince me too. Always open to hearing your way around that, though.

Beaudrillard/Symbolic Exchange/"The Real": I gotta be honest, this usually isn't helpful without being combined with theory that evaluates an axis of oppression under this theoretical framework. Another point of honesty: Tough to understand, especially being read at Mach 5 in a debate round. Explain yourself well, impact it out, and explain how the alt resolves the impact. The link debate is less important with this type of K (at least to me), but it should still be there.

Rhetoric more generally: Should probably contain a justification for the self-link here, but other than that I can be pretty easily convinced that debate is bad and the rhetoric we use sucks too, read further on for details.

Speaker points - I generally try to think as little as possible about them, as speaker points are subjective and largely useless except for tie-breaking. I am a chronic stutterer, empathize with speaking difficulties, and they obviously won't affect speaks. Doing things like using problematic language, misgendering, stealing prep, being generally rude, etc. will at worst get you dropped (malicious or ignorant use of problematic language or misgendering will get you dropped 100% of the time), and at worst will get you docked speaks. However, I understand mistakes happen, especially in the case of misgendering, and as long as it doesn't become a reoccurring/malicious issue, I won't be very heavy-handed with the docking. Get to know your competitors and asking for pronouns never hurts. The way you earn the most amount of speaker points is good STRATEGIC decision-making. I don't really care about your style, but the way you manage the round. Also, if you're not using all of your prep/speech time, it better be perfect or you'll probably lose speaks for that too.

One caveat, definitely more for college-level - My debate experience has been complex and frankly, frequently negative in university. The community is toxic and often overworks students to the point of serious mental health issues. I am thankful for what I learned and what resources debate gave me, but some of the behavior in this community is inexcusable and leads to the sort of institutional abuse (verbal, emotional, and sexual) that plagues politics, which makes debate a good microcosm for government (which, if it's not clear, I hate). I take extreme issue with anyone that uses institutional power in debate to give themselves or their team an edge and will make that clear if I think you or your team is doing so. Of course, this is an unsolvable problem, as more wealthy schools have inherently better access to resources and, thus, better win rates. I encourage every debater to remember that debate does not happen in a vacuum and to respect your fellow debaters no matter their skill level, style, or status because at the end of the day, your skill level, style, and status are all dependent on luck and environment. I also especially encourage coaches to take this into consideration and help your students understand this, as you are ultimately responsible for not just their careers and health, but everyone else's in this community (especially because it is usually coach ego causing these issues). All of this being said makes me sound like I have a heavy bias against policy debate (versus the K), which I'd like to think I don't, but I may have one. I suppose what this all means for your rounds, besides the obvious decorum I expect, is that I likely have a higher threshold for arguments that assume policy debates, and to some extent government and statehood, are inherently good. I believe some of the skills arguments, but any argument about upward mobility (gross), political understanding good (which "political understanding?"), or literature knowledge (again, what "literature knowledge?") I may chuckle to myself over, but begrudgingly vote for if the other team drops the ball. I think it's pretty proven that most former debaters either become bureaucrats or other government (gross) or debate coaches (due to lack of time to pursue literally anything else in college), which makes me basically not believe most policy debate education arguments. All of that being said, K affs focusing on debate bad still have to win. I know these perspectives in debate are rare, with many viewing policy debate education as being worth power, time, and energy trade-offs, but I've only seen these issues exacerbated in recent years. Policy snobs (myself included) need to either modify the activity to help with these issues or embrace other forms of debate. That likely makes me more malleable to arguments that break "the rules," such as form or content differences, because anything else is debate fascism.

Spencer Johnson Glenbrook North 5 rounds None

Evan Jones Hire 5 rounds

Last changed on Thu March 4, 2021 at 7:38 AM CDT

Tulsa-Union '17

Michigan State '21

*updated for West OK districts '21*

The Big Picture: I did policy for about 10 years through high school and college, I've been out of the game for about a year to focus on my journalism/history degree and operating MSU's independent student media organization. Topic jargon may need a little more explanation for me.

I have the most experience with policy arguments but don't let that deter you from reading your best strategy.

One big update: My preference/bias/ideological sway toward policy arguments & T-USFG/Framework has become considerably weaker in the year I've been out.

For T/FW: Show me the impacts and why your interpretation solves them.

The bottom line: Specificity, context and explanation are crucial. Don't just prove your argument true but show how it interacts with the flow at large.

*updated for '17 Glenbrooks*

Top level

My preferences exist, but I’ll attempt to be as objective as possible.

I'm best for a CP+DA strategy but would prefer you do what you do best.

Warranted evidence comparison is the most important thing regardless of strategy.

Debate is a game, don't make the game a harmful place for someone else.

T-USFG & Planless

My ideological sway is toward T-USFG but I will do my best to not let that get in the way.

Topical versions of the aff are persuasive and helpful.

Sometimes these debates mistake the forest for the individual trees. Having the best impact comparison is the key.

Topicality w/ plan

I love a good T debate.

My default is competing interps and how the evidence interacts. Reasonability is not a question of the aff being reasonable it's if the counter interp is reasonable.

To win T there needs to be a clear distinction between the kind of topic each interpretation creates.

In round abuse is more persuasive than potential abuse, but if impacted out that changes

Disadvantages

The more specific the better

A lot of DA scenarios are preposterous but we discuss them normally. Smart arguments that poke holes in the internal link chains can reduce DA risk quite a bit

Zero risk is hard, not impossible, super small risk of DA can be written off indistinguishable from zero

Turns case arguments are persuasive when well explained (preferably carded), they typically depend on the link being accessed

The link is generally more important than uniqueness can be persuaded the other way on this question

Bring back line by line

Counterplans

Same as DA, the more specific the better

Not going to judge kick for you

If it basically does the aff CP theory becomes a bit more persuasive (plan plus, consult, processes)

If there is textual and functional competitiveness then CP theory is not as persuasive, but am not ideologically positioned against it

Kritiks

I’m down – high theory stuff needs a bit more explanation because I don’t usually know what’s going on.

Please no conceptual 3 minute overview

Please no excessive buzzwords in place of explanation

9 times out of 10 it IS your Baudrillard.

If I don’t know what the alternative is doing the chances of it winning the round are very low.

Roll of the Ballot arguments tend to be self-serving or just a sentence that identifies the controversy of the round. I don’t think they get either side anywhere.

I could vote on an impacted out perf con argument.

Daniel Leizerman St. John's Jesuit High School 3 rounds

Alyssa Nekritz Glenbrook North 4 rounds

Kathryn Polus Traverse City Central 5 rounds

Last changed on Fri October 7, 2022 at 5:17 AM EDT

Current coach for Traverse City Central High School.

Paradigm: I want you to frame the round and tell me where to vote and why. A well developed framework on which I can vote is key. I will not create your arguments for you, so explain them well. As a teacher, it is most important to me that you understand your arguments and learn from the process, so if you can create a framework that convinces me I should vote on it and is well argued I will vote on any argument.

Speed: I come from Policy Debate, so I can handle speed, but please enunciate. Be sure to be clear on your tags and subpoints. Do not use speed as a tool to confuse. I would rather hear quality arguments and clash than spreading just for the sake of confusing your opponent.

Arguments: I generally want the arguments you make to be in the round, not just in cross fire, and I want you to extend them throughout the entire round. If you don't mention them in the last speeches, I will consider them "dropped".

Procedure: Be polite! This is an educational process and should be respected by all competitors. Regardless of your experience level in this community, we are all still learning.

I strongly prefer that you do your own Crossfires. Each team member should be able to articulate the arguments and should not rely on the other(again learning is the key). I will let you know if your tag-team gets out of hand.

Politeness and respect in the round is a TOP priority. I do not find any flashy behavior appropriate, and will take speaker points for rude interruptions during constructives or rebuttals, cursing or inappropriate language, racist/sexist/classist/xenophobic/homophobic comments to other people in-round, arrogant or insulting comments even if you believe you are winning the round.

Other:

-Line by line! I am super type-A, and if you are not organized my flow is not in your favor.

-Having a card on something doesn't always beat good analytical arguments

-I will not assume dropped arguments are true if you haven’t done the work to extend it.

-Good analysis needs to make it all the way through to the final speeches.

-I need to be able to understand and find your arguments to vote on them, be organized!

I'm always working on learning as a judge and updating my paradigm. I think all types of debate are interesting and enjoyable as long as you do it well. Ask me questions, make good arguments, and help me understand why it is important to vote for you on any argument. Have fun.

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

Tamara Porter Hire 2 rounds None

Nasim Salehitezangi Niles West High School 5 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 2, 2018 at 1:52 PM CDT

I literally copied and pasted Nathan Glancy's paradigm. However, some things have changed because I'm a biased 2A.

Niles West HS (2014-18)

Last Updated: Feb 2, 2018

put me on the chain: salehitezanginasim@gmail.com

Top level:

I'm a policy-leaning debater who will evaluate arguments equivalent to the analysis presented in the debate. To me, the best debates are respectful, fun, and intense at the same time. I promise that if you show effort in your debate, I'll reflect that in my decision's depth.

You can go for any argument in front of me. However, you need to explain and extend warrants. That being said, I'm down to wreak havoc.

flowing/tech/truth:

I really think that a solid flow is the key to winning debates. Given that, I err on the side of tech. But what is tech? I think that this is arbitrary, but I hold tech to a coherent warrant that I can remember on my flow. This means that failing to make a full argument, whether it is from your speaking or your blocks, will get you nowhere.

specific arguments:

neg theory:

I'm a 2A, so this isn't a thing.

aff theory:

Yeah, it's generally true.

T vs policy:

Meh. Sure.

T vs K aff

most neg teams seriously fail to nswer 2ac offense. However, that offense needs clear articulation that I can understand (see tech vs truth) in order to consider it "not responded to". I'm no K genius, but I can comprehend most arguments.

aff teams will most likely win in front of me by providing strong defense to the neg's impact claims, because honestly most aff teams just extend a ton of offense but no defense.

K vs T aff

I will reward a 2nr that eliminates buzzwords and just uses a K to describe a demonstrable argument. I am pretty down for the neg weighing the K, but I have little mercy for voting on links that cannot be differentiated from the status quo.

K vs K aff

If at some point this debate ends up with me in the back, I encourage chaos. I have no idea how to judge a debate like that so please entertain me.

ev> spin > bad ev. that is, until the ev becomes necessary to compare spin from each team and one ev is just... true. I will maintain a reasonable threshold for this

I won't kick it unless you tell me to. If the 2ar says nah, then nah.

impact turns

No, but I guess it's fine.

want more speaks? do these!

- make jokes! I literally laugh at almost everything but don't try too hard.

- puns, especially bad puns

- make jokes about Nathan Glancy

- take risks (and not lose)

Also, don't:

- say/do reprehensible things

- expect a card to win you a round if you read two sentences of it

- attack the identity of someone else

Ricky Schofield Hire 5 rounds

Jack Scullion Hire 5 rounds None

Susheela Sreedhar Okemos High School 4 rounds

Ryan Sutton Grand Rapids City 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 19, 2018 at 10:27 AM EDT

---------Policy Debate Guidelines---------

{General Items}

Here's where I'm going to outline some basic principles I have during the debate round that apply to both teams and practically at any point in the debate.

Dropping/Dropped Arguments

If you do not answer the other team's statements on an argument, you drop that argument. If the other team brings up that you were silent about the issue, they can say that you conceded their statements are true. If the other team doesn't bring it up, that argument is dropped on both sides and cannot be effectively brought up later in the debate.

Racism/Sexism/Bigotry/Offensiveness/Etc.

Don't.

Impact Calculus

Whenever a debate has competing impacts, be they good or bad, impact calculus is necessary for explaining why I should prefer one impact over the other. While the name implies it's a simple weighing of the impacts either side is presenting, there is an actual structure to impact calculus. Both teams need to explain how their impacts outweigh in terms of Probability, Timeframe, and/or Magnitude. That is, the team needs to explain why their impacts are more likely to happen, their impacts will happen sooner, and/or their impacts will have a greater effect. Evidence or some level of simple logic should accompany this explanation.

Now, if both teams claim their impacts outweigh in the same way (i.e. both teams claim their impacts are most likely to occur), then there will be clash and whoever wins that argument will prove their point. If one team outweighs in one way, but the other team outweighs in the other two ways, I'm going to give the impact calculus win to the other team. If both teams have one, different way their impacts outweigh and the third possibility is just left floating, it'll be up to the teams to tell me why one is more important than the other. That is to say, if one team claims Probability, and the other team claims Magnitude, the teams will have to explain how Probability is more important than Magnitude or vice versa.

There are other "elements" to impact calculus, but I only go into detail on these three because this is how I was taught. If you'd like to bring up Impact Inclusivity, X Creates Y, Internal Link Shortcircuiting, Reversibility, or others, feel free. The format still remains the same regardless of which element you choose to argue with during impact calculus.

{Negative Argument Types}

Below is a list of my "opinion" of certain argument types, but if you want a general rule, it's this: For an argument to be effective (AKA an argument I will vote on), it needs to be comprised of all of its parts. That being said, this general rule isn't my only opinion of arguments, and it would be wise to look at the specific arguments you might run when I am judging your round.

Disadvantages (DAs)

A DA must have a Uniqueness, a Link, and an Impact. I will allow the Link to be a matter of logic if it's fairly obvious (such as saying that their plan increases funding, thus we will form a larger deficit nationally), but that usually means you will have to have an Internal Link with a card to further link the Affirmative plan to the Impact(s) of the DA. I do require the Uniqueness and the Impact to have associated cards - you can't claim extinction will result without some citations!

As a recommendation, impact calculus is an important factor when evaluating DAs. The Impact(s) of the DA must be weighed alongside the items the Affirmative plan solves for. Ultimately, you need to tell me why the Impact(s) of your DA outweigh the Affirmative plan's Advantages and Harms.

Kritiks/Critiques (Ks)

I have a love-hate relationship with Ks. On one hand, I find that a number of the philosophical arguments Ks typically raise do little to contribute to the debate as a whole and actually simply derails or sucks time from the Affirmative team. However, on the other hand, I have run into a select number of Ks which manage to both impress and intrigue me, and the focus on the K in the debate ends up being the most interesting part. Those that fall into the latter category have a vital feature the former-categorical elements don't: alternatives based on real-world policy. Alternatives that suggest we simply "reject the Affirmative plan" or "embrace the world of _____" are not going to carry as much weight (or personal likability) as those that offer a real-world alternative. Ultimately, Ks are a risky move when I am judging.

And of course, the K must include an Overview, a Link, an Impact, and an Alternative. If you don't have all parts, the argument will not be considered effective and I may very well drop that flow entirely. I recommend also elaborating on why this K doesn't meet any DAs you run alongside it.

CounterPlans (CPs)

I wouldn't say I'm partial to CPs, but I have a great deal of experience with them. A CP, like a DA, contrasts two worlds painted by each side of the debate, and it creates clash, which is vital. For a CP to be considered effective, it must include a plan text and Solvency. However, if you want a competitive CP (and why wouldn't you), you'll need to include Net Benefits, through which you can perform impact calculus against the Affirmative team's plan. And you will likely want to specify why this CP avoids and DAs you run alongside it, of course.

I'm sure certain judges don't like Conditional CPs, Plan-Inclusive CPs, and _____ CPs, but frankly, I think limiting you to CPs that are uniquely-defined, Unconditional, and don't do ______ limits the ability of the debate. So by all means, argue with those CPs, but know that I also will hear Theory arguments against them. The debate can center around Theory, and I'm okay by that.

Topicality (T)

Yes, I know T is often used as a time-suck, but yes, I know that it's also vital when the plan truly is untopical. And yes, I know that distinction can be purely subjective at times and this means I should allow all T arguments. So I will. Simply include a Definition, a Violation, a Standard, and a Voter, and the argument is effective.

Case Attacks

As a formerly-frequent 2N, case attacks strike a particular chord for me. Arguing the feasibility of the Affirmative plan is a good way to center the debate around impact calculus. As long as there is good evidence in the attack, I am absolutely fine with case attacks being centered around Harms/Advantages, Inherency, and/or Solvency. Though there are no official "parts" to a case attack, I highly recommend logically explaining why your evidence proves how their case cannot work.

Isabel Varghese Forest Hills Central 5 rounds

Last changed on Sat December 2, 2017 at 6:49 AM EDT

BOTH

I am okay with team tagging if it is not excessive, and does not turn into a group discussion. RACISM, SEXISM, HOMOPHOBIA OR ANY KIND OF DEROGATORY OR OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE IS A NO-NO. It will significantly affect your speaker points if you do so. Furthermore, no gender assuming, please. Prompting by interrupting speech is not allowed, but you can show notes or so on if need be. Be nice to each other as well as to your own teammates. NO NEW ARGUMENTS IN THE REBUTTALS. You can bring it in, but I will NOT flow it or even consider it for voting.

Tell me why I should vote for you. I appreciate a good line-by-line analysis and good clash. At the very least tell me why I should vote for you and why what you're saying is significant. Otherwise, what happens is I have to figure out what I care about for more on my own, and there will be significant human bias because of it.

For both teams, I want all parts of the argument for whatever you are running. If there isn't a voter or a certain part, I will carry less weight on the argument, especially if the other team brings it up.

At the end of the day, I will vote for the team that shows me a logical line of thinking as to why it would be better for me, as the judge, to vote for them while adhering to all standards mentioned above.

Make sure you have evidence for what you say, and no card clipping!

It's completely okay to use your logic! Tell me in your own words and be confident. You all are amazing for coming out to debate, and that itself is an impressive feat!

Affirmative

Aff, you have the burden of proof. So dropping anything (barring exigent circumstances which I will explain after the round if such an issue arises), will mean that the negative will win the ballot. Make sure that you have at the very least an inherency/contingency, plan text, harms and solvency. Advantages are optional for me. Furthermore, all these must be read in the 1 AC. Extending is okay during the 2 AC, but not bringing in new harms or new advantages etc.

For AFF K's look down at the K argument (Bottomline: I need you to do something and have some kind of solvency or policy to vote on).

Saying that T is "not a voting issue" as your only non-voter, isn't significant to me because Topicality is valid (at least to me).

Let me know if there is an in-and-out.

Negative

Kritiks

I am very picky about K's. Run it if you know how to, but be careful. The links should be specific enough. The Alternate CANNOT be 'Reject Aff plan' or something along those lines. I will consider the K a wash if this occurs. Furthermore, if you have an alternate, try explaining what it is and how it is better and what it does. I understand that time is limited, but if I don't understand the Alternate, I don't think I can vote on it.

I need all parts to a DA. Without it, I won't vote for DA, barring exigent circumstances. Furthermore for you to win, it has to link and the impacts have to outweigh. (It goes without saying that the Uniqueness is important.

CP's are cool. Just makes sure that it somehow outweighs the AFF for there to be any consideration. If it doesn't outweigh, does it even matter? And this goes back to voters. Tell me why I should vote for you. You also need solvency.

I like T's, and I will vote on it as long as you have all the parts, and argue it well.

Theory

I am not fond of Theory arguments as they often cause the round to lose focus on the case and changes the focus to what is fair and what is not, which makes it difficult as a judge because at that point it comes down to who is more persuasive (assuming you have all parts).

Oncase

I like oncase arguments. Just make sure you don't contradict yourself if you run a CP. Tell me why it is important, as aforementioned.

Feel free to ask me if you have any questions!

Login to Tabroom

Spartan Classic at MSU

2017 — East Lansing, MI/US

Novice Paradigm List

Judges