Tabroom.com

Debating the Discord Part 1

2018 — Online, US

Lincoln Douglas Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Sira Ahuja Omnia vincit Amor

Last changed on Sun April 14, 2024 at 12:17 PM PDT

Lincoln-Douglas Coach at Walt Whitman High School. Competed in both Lincoln-Douglas and Policy Debate in high school and two years of College Policy Debate at Binghamton University.

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

TOC 2024 Paradigm.

Background: I have spent considerable time judging and researching the military presence topic so I'm confident I will understand most arguments related to the topic.

I'm a good clash judge and a great judge for K v K debates. You have better judge options for everything else, but I am somebody who will evaluate almost anything.

My subjective feelings and opinions.

I'm not opposed to voting on any particular argument, as long as you don't do anything illegal.

I will REALLY appreciate a well debated T debate, especially at the TOC. I think T vs policy AFFs can be an excellent strategy and I think creative 1AR's to topicality are an amazing demonstration of work and well thought out topic research.

New AFF's are good, especially at the TOC. I do not not think you have to disclose if you are breaking new. [THIS DOES NOT MEAN YOU SHOULD DROP ARGUMENTS]

In the past, I have been WAY TOO lenient with negative teams, and I'm doing my best to correct for that. I will not be giving any negative ballots to a 2NR filled with tagline extensions (unless the AFF is worse).

I think framework debates in Policy vs K rounds are usually very badly debated. Framework refers to any set of arguments that provide instructions about how to understand other arguments. At some level, ALL weighing arguments are framework arguments.

Enthymemes in debate are a big problem.

I think the AFF gets a permutation.

I do not default judge kick. I can be easily persuaded that judge kick is bad by the 2AR.

Consult counterplans should have a solvency advocate.

Pics are sometimes some of the best research and sometimes the worst.

29.5+ = deep elim contender. 29+ = You should make it to elims.

How to get my ballot.

1. Tell me what the ballot does. IDC what the round is about, judge instruction and ballot framing is ALWAYS important. The first question I ask myself is always, what does it mean to vote aff/neg?

2. Quality > Quantity. One good argument can beat out 10 bad ones.

3. Be better - this is a competition, don't lose.

Niko Battle Omnia vincit Amor

Last changed on Mon January 11, 2021 at 8:33 AM PDT

Conflicted:

Kamiak (all teams)

quick prefs:

performance/id pol k - 1
structural k - 1
theory - 2
larp/policy - 2
(LD) phil - 3
(LD) trix - 4

background:

I debated for Kamiak HS in Mukilteo, WA and briefly debated for Wake Forest. I started debate in middle school, and throughout my career, I have earned 17 total TOC bids, qualifying in both LD (3 times) and Policy (1 time) and most recently cleared to quarterfinals of GSU in 2019 (my only college tourney). I have experience in both policy and LD debate on both the local and national circuit. I primarily read kritikal arguments, but trust and believe I can follow you and have experience in policy, phil, and theory stuff.

THIS PARADIGM IS WRITTEN FOR POLICY BUT MOST THINGS IN HERE APPLY TO LD TOO. LD SPECIFIC THINGS ARE NOTED AS SUCH.

pre round:

yes put me on the chain (emailnikob@gmail.com)

Pronouns: black/black or they/them

SPEAKS

[Voices Update] - In round robins speaks matter more, so I will give actual speaks. None of the extras apply, but the minuses certainly do.

Speaks are wack and arbitrary and I don't think they are a good tiebreaker. I wish tournaments would use opp wins as the first tiebreaker instead and I will die on that hill. With that being said, I'm a bit of a speaks fairy unless you do something blatantly offensive in which case speaks will go down down down down down faster than Jay Sean can sing it. And, if you don't get that reference then strike me ;)

+2 speaks if you bring me iced coffee w/ sugar and lots of cream because judging is wayyyy more tiring than competing

+1 speaker point for 2 well executed West Wing references throughout the debate - tell me what they were after your speech so I can keep track or in case I miss it.

+.5 speaker points if youre in LD and you say "we meet" just because I think its wack that some judges care enough to take away speaks, and as someone who did both events it really annoyed me.

-1 speaker point if you misgender your opponent and they don't call it out. Repeated violations especially if its called out will lead to larger "punishments" or whatever.

-5 speaker points for saying "I'm not racist but..." or any variation.

random musings:

tech > truth, but tech without some truth is rarely enough

(LD only) good tricks debate makes judging easy bad tricks debate makes judging hell // [post camp update] and I will not vote on shoes theory or any other theoretical violation about your opponents clothing and/or appearance (identity args exempt). Arguments like shoes theory and etc. are antithetical to the purpose of this activity and I guarantee you will not like your speaks or the decision should you try to read them in front of me.

if you're gonna larp (straight up policy) please for the love of God weigh impacts

A dropped argument is a dropped argument, but it's up to you to tell me the implications of it.

sass and shade are fun...apparently people think I'm a rude debater, but who cares. If sassy/"rude"/shade is your thing then feel free to do you when I'm in the back.

actual stuff:

tl;dr - do you. I like to think I'm pretty tab and can evaluate any type of debate. Tech and the flow are probably more important to me than others who debated like I did in HS. I'm a pretty simple judge so if you weigh your impacts and tell a story in the 2nr/2ar you'll be fine.

TOPIC KNOWLEDGE: 7.5/10 - I've judged a fair amount this season but haven't been coaching as much so don't expect me to know what solvency advocates are shit or what the gold standard definition for reform is.

*Current LD topic - 6/10 - something about drones right?

k debate:

general

we love that. If this is your thing then go for it, but if it isn't please don't make me sit through 2 hours of a bad k debate. I don't think that the negative (for most Ks) needs to win an alternative if they can prove that the aff sucks or that their structural analysis of the world is both preferable and incompatible with the 1ac. Also, chances are I understand and am familiar with your buzz words, but that doesn't mean you should rely on them to win the round. If I can't explain to the other team why their aff, performance, or implicit assumptions in the 1AC/resolution are problematic then it will almost always be an aff ballot. For the aff, I never understood why debaters don't go for the impact turn strat against certain K's. Obviously, I don't condone teams standing up and saying things like racism/sexism/etc. good, but going for cap good, fem IR bad, etc. is fine. Lastly, sometimes I feel as if 2as get so focused on answering the K that they forget to win that their aff is in some way a good departure from the status quo, which is to say please extend your offense in the 2ar.

Clash Rounds

For K aff teams, if you are losing my ballot to cap you are probably doing a lot of things wrong. I think most fwk/cap teams I've seen and most of those rounds I've been in has been underdeveloped on the cap side. The 2ac, if done correctly, should pretty much shut down the cap route. There's should be almost no way the 2n knows more about your theory and it's interactions with cap than the 2a does, which should make those debates pretty easy for you to get my ballot. Framework on the other hand...I feel like k aff teams need to do a significantly better job defending a model of debate, winning debate is bad, winning the aff is a prior question to the resolution, or etc. I tend to vote for framework in clash rounds (not because I enjoy or ideologically agree with it), but because the ^ things are often not executed well. Framework teams, please make sure the arguments the 2nr goes for are somewhere in the block and not just the same tired canned 2nr that somebody stole from Hemanth. Carded TVAs with proper extensions are pretty damning for the aff and your good research/engagement will likely be rewarded (either with speaks or the ballot). I think procedural fairness is an impact, and it will be somewhat of a hard sell to convince me otherwise absent the aff team putting in some work; this doesn't mean I won't vote on structural fairness ow or impact turns, but rather that you actually need to warrant, explain and extend those arguments. I'd much rather see a framework 2nr on limits/truth testing/procedural fairness than skills and policy education, but hey that's just me. I also think that framework teams need to engage in case significantly better than what most teams currently do. Tbh probably slightly better for policy teams in k aff v. fwk rounds and slightly better for k teams in policy aff v. k rounds.

k v. k rounds

I got u...win your theory of power, framing and relevant offense.

policy(LD - LARP):

weigh weigh weigh weigh! I think more than any other stylistic approach to debate, policy teams NEED to do more comparative weighing. You will likely be unhappy with my decision if I can't point to specific points on my flow to weigh between your competing nuke war/extinction/etc. scenarios. I love watching policy teams who have nuanced, fun and creative impact scenarios. Some personal preferences for policy rounds are below -

Judge kick/choice is just not a thing. I'm still baffled how teams win arguments on this; it always seemed like lazy debating to me, and you are probably better off investing that time on other parts of the flow. Obviously if its conceded I won't hack against it, but I can't promise it won't be reflected in your speaks. I think strategic 2nrs will know when to go for the CP and when to kick it and defend the squo, so I'm not inclined to do that work for you.

Live by the flow, die by the flow...I think I'm a pretty well-informed person when it comes to politics/IR, but I probably won't know enough to fill in the gaps of actual nuanced scenario analysis which means you need to weigh and make the arguments you want to hear in the RFD.

I'd much rather watch an engaging 3 off policy strat then sit through watching some poor 1nr try to kick 12 of the 14 off read.

T: I fucking love T. Go for it in front of me. Go for it often in front of me. Go for it well in front of me. Biggest mistakes I see teams going for T in front of me do if forget to extend internal links to their impacts and that's the tea (pun intended). If youre a "K team" and you beat a policy team on T let's just say you'll like your speaks. I think one of the reasons I find framework ideologically ridiculous is because I've seen some really non-T policy affs and I always get indignant - like the conditions aff on this topic or the Saudi aff on last years J/F LD topic.

(LD Only) Phil:

Usually pretty simple debates imho, but make sure you respond to your opponents fw justifications as well as extend your own. After judging almost nothing but phill working at NSD all summer, I feel like these rounds are nearly impossible to resolve absent actual responses/weighing. Also, I'd much rather watch a substantive framework debate between Kant and Hobbes than see someone use Hobbes to trigger linguistic skep and have to watch a six minute 2nr on it.

Theory:

down for anything - weigh standards and win an abuse story. Here are some defaults (obv up for debate) See my note at the top about certain types of LD friv theory. I should clarify that my threshold in theory is slightly higher in policy than in LD and I'm not as open to friv theory in policy. I think policy is a more educational activity, and I don't want to see it go down a similar path vis-a-vis theory.

No RVIs

Text over spirit

meta theory = theory

theory = K

competing interps

drop the arg

fairness = edu; both a voter

Saied Beckford Omnia vincit Amor

Last changed on Sat March 23, 2024 at 7:45 AM EDT

About Me

I attended and debated for Rutgers University-Newark (c/o 2021). I’ve ran both policy and K affs.

Coach @ Ridge HS in Basking Ridge, NJ.

Influences In Debate

David Asafu – Adjaye (he actually got me interested in college policy, but don’t tell him this), and of course, the debate coaching staff @ RU-N: Willie Johnson, Carlos Astacio, Devane Murphy, Christopher Kozak and Elijah Smith.

The Basics

Yes, I wish to be on the email chain!

saied.beckford@rutgers.edu

COLLEGE POLICY: I skimmed through the topic paper and ADA/ Wake will be my first time judging this season. Do with this information what you wish.

GENERAL: If you are spreading and it’s not clear, I will yell clear. If I have to do that too many times in a round, it sucks to be you buddy because I will just stop flowing and evaluate the debate based on what I can remember. Zoom through your cards, but when doing analytics and line by line, take it back a bit. After all, I can only evaluate what I catch on my flow. UPDATE FOR ONLINE DEBATES: GO ABOUT 70% OF YOUR NORMAL SPEED. IF YOU ARE NOT CLEAR EVEN AT 70%, DON'T SPREAD.

In general, I like K’s (particularly those surrounding Afro-Pess and Queer Theory). However, I like to see them executed in at least a decent manner. Therefore, if you know these are not your forte, do not read them just because I am judging. One recent pet peeve of mine is people just asserting links without having them contextualized to the aff and well explained. Please don't be that person. You will see me looking at both you and my flow with a confused face trying to figure out what's happening. Additionally, do not tell me that perms cannot happen in a method v. method debate without a warrant.

I live for performance debates.

I like to be entertained, and I like to laugh. Hence, if you can do either, it will be reflected in your speaker points. However, if you can’t do this, fear not. You obviously will get the running average provided you do the work for the running average. While I am a flow centric judge, be it known that debate is just as much about delivery as it is about content.

The bare minimum for a link chain for a DA is insufficient 99% of the time for me. I need a story with a good scenario for how the link causes the impact. Describe to me how everything happens. Please extrapolate! Give your arguments depth! It would behoove you to employ some impact calculus and comparison here.

Save the friv theory, bring on those spicy framework and T debates. Please be well structured on the flow if you are going this route. Additionally, be warned, fairness is not a voter 98% of the times in my book. It is an internal link to something. Note however, though I am all for T and framework debates, I also like to see aff engagement. Obviously these are all on a case by case basis. T USFG is not spicy. I will vote on it, but it is not spicy.

For CPs, if they're abusive, they are. As long as they are competitive and have net benefits, we're good.

On theory, at a certain point in the debate, I get tired of hearing you read your coach's coach's block extensions. Could we please replace that with some impact weighing?

Do not assume I know anything when judging you. I am literally in the room to take notes and tell who I think is the winner based on who gives the better articulation as to why their option is better. Therefore, if you assume I know something, and I don’t … kinda sucks to be you buddy.

I’m all for new things! Debating is all about contesting competing ideas and strategies.

I feel as though it should be needless to say, but: do not run any bigoted arguments. However, I’m well aware that I can’t stop you. Just please be prepared to pick up a zero in your speaking points, and depending on how egregious your bigotry is, I just might drop you. Literally!

Another thing: please do not run anthropocentrism in front of me. It’s something I hated as a debater, and it is definitely something I hate as a judge. Should you choose to be risky, please be prepared for the consequences. (Update: voted on it once - purely a flow decision)

For My LD'ers

It is often times difficult to evaluate between esoteric philosophies. I often find that people don't do enough work to establish any metric of evaluation for these kinds of debates. Consequently, I am weary for pulling the trigger for one side as opposed to the other. If you think you can, then by all means, read it!

Yale Update: Tricks are for kids.You might be one, but I am not.

I'm gonna have to pass on the RVIs too. I've never seen a more annoying line of argumentation.

In general, give me judge instructions.

On average, tech > truth --- however, I throw this principle out when people start doing or saying bigoted things.

Ninth Cat Omnia vincit Amor

Lord Farquaad Omnia vincit Amor

Alan Fishman Omnia vincit Amor

Last changed on Wed May 1, 2024 at 3:57 AM PDT

I judge many different formats, see the bottom of my paradigm for more details of my specific judging preferences in different formats. I debated for five years in NPDA and three years in NFA-LD, and I've judged HS policy, parli, LD, and PF. I love good weighing/layering - tell me where to vote and why you are winning - I am less likely to vote for you if you make me do work. I enjoy technical/progressive/circuit-style debates and I'm cool with speed - I don't evaluate your delivery style. I love theory and T and I'll vote on anything.

Please include me on the email chain if there is one. a.fishman2249@gmail.com

Also, speechdrop.net is even better than email chains if you are comfortable using it, it is much faster and more efficient.

CARDED DEBATE: Please send the texts of interps, plans, counterplans, and unusually long or complicated counterinterps in the speech doc or the Zoom chat.

TL:DR for Parli: Tech over truth. I prefer policy and kritikal debate to traditional fact and value debate and don't believe in the trichotomy (though I do vote on it lol), please read a plan or other stable advocacy text if you can. Plans and CP's are just as legitimate in "value" or "fact" rounds as in "policy" rounds. I prefer theory, K's, and disads with big-stick or critically framed impacts to traditional debate, but I'll listen to whatever debate you want to have. Don't make arguments in POI's - only use them for clarification. If you are a spectator, be neutral - do not applaud, heckle, knock on desks, or glare at the other team. I will kick any disruptive spectators out and also protect the right of both teams to decline spectators.

TL:DR for High School LD: 1 - Theory, 2 - LARP, 3 - K, 4 - Tricks, 5 - Phil, 99 - Trad. I enjoy highly technical and creative argumentation. I try to evaluate the round objectively from a tech over truth perspective. I love circuit-style debate and I appreciate good weighing/uplayering. I enjoy seeing strategies that combine normal and "weird" arguments in creative and strategic ways. Tricks/aprioris/paradoxes are cool but I prefer you put them in the doc to be inclusive to your opponents

TL:DR for IPDA: I judge it just like parli. I don't believe in the IPDA rules and I refuse to evaluate your delivery. Try to win the debate on the flow, and don't treat it like a speech/IE event. I will vote on theory and K's in IPDA just as eagerly as in any other event. Also PLEASE strike the fact topics if there are any, I'm terrible at judging fact rounds. I will give high speaks to anyone who interprets a fact topic as policy. I try to avoid judging IPDA but sometimes tournaments force me into it, but when that happens, I will not roleplay as a lay judge. I will still judge based on the flow as I am incapable of judging any other way. It is like the inverse of having a speech judge in more technical formats. I'm also down to vote on "collapse of IPDA good" arguments bc I don't think the event should exist - I think college tournaments that want a less tech format should do PF instead

TL:DR for NFA-LD - I don't like the rules but I will vote on them if you give if you give me a reason why they're good. I give equal weight to rules bad arguments, and I will be happiest if you treat the event like one-person policy or HS circuit LD. I prefer T, theory, DA's, and K's to stock issues debate, and I will rarely vote on solvency defense unless the neg has some offense of their own to weigh against it. I think you should disclose but I try not to intervene in disclosure debates

CASE/DA: Be sure to signpost well and explain how the argument functions in the debate. I like strong terminalized impacts - don't just say that you help the economy, tell me why it matters. I think generic disads are great as long as you have good links to the aff - I love a well-researched tix or bizcon scenario. I believe in risk of solvency/risk of the disad and I rarely vote on terminal defense if the other team has an answer to show that there is still some risk of offense. I do not particularly like deciding the debate on solvency alone. Uniqueness controls the direction of the link.

SPEED: I can handle spreading and I like fast debates. I am uncomfortable policing the way people talk, which means that if I am to vote on speed theory, you should have a genuine accessibility need for your opponents to slow down (such as having a disability that impacts auditory processing or being entered in novice at a tournament with collapsed divisions) and you should be able to prove that engagement is not possible. Otherwise I am very likely to vote on the we meet. I think that while there are instances where speed theory is necessary, there are also times when it is weaponized and commodified to win ballots by people who could engage with speed. However, I do think you should slow down when asked, I would really prefer if I don't have to evaluate speed theory

THEORY/T: I love theory debates - I will vote on any theory position if you win the argument even if it seems frivolous or unnecessary - I do vote on the flow and try not to intervene. I'll even vote on trichot despite my own feelings about it. I default to fairness over education in non-K rounds but I have voted on critical impact turns to fairness before. Be sure to signpost your We Meet and Counter Interpretation.

I do care a lot about the specific text of interps, especially if you point out why I should. For example, I love spec shells with good brightlines but I am likely to buy a we meet if you say the plan shouldn't be vague but don't define how specific it should be. RVI's are fine as long as you can justify them. I am also happy to vote on OCI's, and I think a "you violate/you bite" argument is a voter on bidirectional interps such as "debaters must pass advocacy texts" even if you don't win RVI's are good

I default to competing interpretations with no RVI's but I'm fine with reasonability if I hear arguments for it in the round. However, I would like a definition of reasonability because if you don't define it, I think it just collapses back to competing interps. I default to drop the debater on shell theory and drop the argument on paragraph theory. I am perfectly willing to vote on potential abuse - I think competing interps implies potential abuse should be weighed in the round. I think extra-T should be drop the debater.

Rules are NOT a voter by themselves - If I am going to vote on the rules rather than on fairness and education, tell me why following rules in general or following this particular rule is good. I will enforce speaking times but any rule as to what you can actually say in the round is potentially up for debate.

COUNTERPLANS: I am willing to vote for cheater CP's (like delay or object fiat) unless theory is read against them. PIC's are fine as long as you can win that they are theoretically legitimate, at least in this particular instance. I believe that whether a PIC is abusive depends on how much of the plan it severs out of, whether there is only one topical aff, and whether that part of the plan is ethically defensible ground for the aff. If you're going to be dispo, please define during your speech what dispo means. I will not judge kick unless you ask me to. Perms are tests of competition, not advocacies, and they are also good at making your hair look curly.

PERFORMANCE: I have voted on these arguments before and I find them interesting and powerful, but if you are going to read them in front of me, it is important to be aware that the way that my brain works can only evaluate the debate on the flow. A dropped argument is still a true argument, and if you give me a way of framing the debate that is not based on the flow, I will try to evaluate that way if you win that I should, but I am not sure if I will be able to.

IMPACT CALCULUS: I default to magnitude because it is the least interventionist way to compare impacts, but I'm very open to arguments about why probability is more important, particularly if you argue that favoring magnitude perpetuates oppression. I like direct and explicit comparison between impacts - when doing impact calc, it's good to assume that your no link isn't as good as you think and your opponent still gets access to their impact. In debates over pre fiat or a priori issues, I prefer preclusive weighing (what comes first) to comparative weighing (magnitude/probability).

KRITIKS: I'm down for K's of any type on either the AFF or the NEG. The K's I'm most familiar with include security, ableism, Baudrillard, rhetoric K's, and cap/neolib. I am fine with letting arguments that you win on the K dictate how I should view the round. I think that the framework of the K informs which impacts are allowed in the debate, and "no link" or "no solvency" arguments are generally not very effective for answering the K - the aff needs some sort of offense. Whether K or T comes first is up to the debaters to decide, but if you want me to care more about your theory shell than about the oppression the K is trying to solve I want to hear something better than the lack of fairness collapsing debate, such as arguments about why fairness skews evaluation. If you want to read theory successfully against a K regardless of what side of the debate you are on, I need reasons why it comes first or matters more than the impacts of the K.

REBUTTALS: Give me reasons to vote for you. Be sure to explain how the different arguments in the debate relate to one another and show that the arguments you are winning are more important. I would rather hear about why you win than why the other team doesn't win. In parli, I do not protect the flow except in online debate (and even then, I appreciate POO's when possible). I also like to see a good collapse in both the NEG block and the PMR. I think it is important that the LOR and the MOC agree on what arguments to go for.

PRESUMPTION: I rarely vote on presumption if it is not deliberately triggered because I think terminal defense is rare. If I do vote on presumption, I will always presume neg unless the aff gives me a reason to flip presumption. I am definitely willing to vote on the argument that reading a counterplan or a K alt flips presumption, but the aff has to make that argument in order for me to consider it. Also, I enjoy presumption triggers and paradoxes and I am happy to vote for them if you win them.

SPEAKER POINTS: I give speaker points based on technical skill not delivery, and will reduce speaks if someone uses language that is discriminatory towards a marginalized group

If you have any questions about my judging philosophy that are not covered here, feel free to ask me before the round.

RECORDINGS/LIVESTREAMS/SPECTATORS: I think they are a great education tool if and only if every party gives free and enthusiastic consent - even if jurisdictions where it is not legally required. I had a terrible experience with being livestreamed once so for the sake of making debate more accessible, I will always defend all students' right to say no to recordings, spectators, or livestreams for any reason. I don't see debate as a spectator sport and the benefit and safety of the competitors always comes first. If you are uncomfortable with spectators/recordings/livestreams and prefer to express that privately you can email me before the round and I will advocate for you without saying which debater said no. Also, while I am not comfortable with audio recordings of my RFD's being published, I am always happy to answer questions about rounds I judged that were recorded if you contact me by email or Facebook messenger. Also, if you are spectating a round, please do not applaud, knock on tables, say "hear, hear", or show support for either side in any way, regardless of your event or circuit's norms. If you do I will kick you out.

PARLI ONLY:

If there is no flex time you should take one POI per constructive speech - I don't think multiple POI's are necessary and if you use POI's to make arguments I will not only refuse to flow the argument it may impact your speaks. If there is flex, don't ask POI's except to ask the status of an advocacy, ask where they are on the flow, or ask the other team to slow down.

I believe trichotomy should just be a T shell. I don't think there are clear cut boundaries between "fact", "value", and "policy" rounds, but I think most of the arguments we think of as trichot work fine as a T or extra-T shell.

PUBLIC FORUM ONLY:

I judge PF on the flow. I do acknowledge that the second constructive doesn't have to refute the first constructive directly though. Dropped arguments are still true arguments. I care as much about delivery in PF as I do in parli (which means I don't care at all). I DO allow technical parli/policy style arguments like plans, counterplans, theory, and kritiks. I am very open to claims that those arguments should not be in PF but you have to make them yourself - I won't intervene against them if the other team raises no objection, but I personally don't believe PF is the right place to read arguments like plans, theory, and K's

Speed is totally fine with me in PF, unless you are using it to exclude the other team. However, if you do choose to go fast (especially in an online round) please send a speech doc to me and your opponents if you are reading evidence, for the sake of accessibility

POLICY ONLY:

I think policy is an excellent format of debate but I am more familiar with parli and LD and I rarely judge policy, so I am not aware of all policy norms. Therefore, when evaluating theory arguments I do not take into account what is generally considered theoretically legitimate in policy. I am okay with any level of speed, but I do appreciate speech docs. Please be sure to remind me of norms that are specific to what is or isn't allowed in a particular speech

NFA-LD ONLY:

I am not fond of the rules or stock issues and it would make me happiest if you pretend they don’t know exist and act like you are in one-person policy or high school circuit LD. However, I will adjudicate arguments based on the rules and I won’t intervene against them if you win that following the rules is good. However, "it's a rule" is not an impact I can vote on unless you say why following the rules is an internal link to some other impact like fairness and education. Also, if you threaten to report me to tab for not enforcing the rules, I will automatically vote you down, whether or not I think the rules were broken.

I think the wording of the speed rule is very problematic and is not about accessibility but about forcing people to talk a certain way, so while I will vote on speed theory if you win it, I'd prefer you not use the rules as a justification for it. Do not threaten to report to tab for allowing speed, I'll vote you down instantly if you do. I also don't like the rule that is often interpreted as prohibiting K's, I think it's arbitrary and I think there are much better ways to argue that K's are bad.

I am very open to theory arguments that go beyond the rules, and while I do like spec arguments, I do not like the vague vagueness shell a lot of people read - any vagueness/spec shell should have a brightline for how much the aff should specify.

Also, while solvency presses are great in combination with offense, I will rarely vote on solvency alone because if the aff has a risk of solvency and there's no DA to the aff, then they are net beneficial. Even if you do win that I should operate in a stock issues paradigm, I am really not sure how much solvency the aff needs to meet that stock issue, so I default to "greater than zero risk of solvency".

IPDA ONLY:

I personally don't think IPDA should exist and if I have to judge it I will not vote on your delivery even if the rules say I should, and I will ignore all IPDA rules except for speech times. Please debate like it is LD without cards or one-person parli. I am happy to vote on theory and K's and I think most IPDA topics are so bad that we get more education from K's and theory anyway. I'll even let debaters debate a topic not on the IPDA topic list if they both agree.

David Griffith Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sun April 21, 2024 at 8:00 AM EDT

David Griffith

Coach at New Trier

Debated at Oak Park River Forest and the University of Kentucky

Add griffithd2002@gmail.com and jordandi505@gmail.com to the chain.

If you are interested in debating in college and want to know more about Kentucky, please feel free to ask me via email or at tournaments. I also (most likely) have Kentucky Debate stickers on me at any given tournament, so if you want one, let me know.

The following is the only information that you must know. The rest of this paradigm is just organized ramblings that may or may not be helpful.

Conditionality is good---I will vote neg if the 2AR is only condo. This is neither a prediction nor a challenge. It is a threat. Every other theory argument is fair game (including yes/no judge kick), but I will never punish the neg for advocacies that the 2NR does not extend.

Organization is more important than style or substance---if you are unclear, refuse to number, do not signpost, make arguments in long, intricately worded paragraphs, or fly through analytics at a million miles an hour, I will miss arguments. I will never use the speech doc to fill in holes because debate is communication activity. If I miss an argument, that is on you because debate is a speech activity, not a reading contest. I always try to make it obvious that I am not able to follow you through both verbal and non-verbal cues.

I have very few argumentative preferences---other than my hatred of theory, I hold very few predispositions when it comes to arguments informed by evidence of any kind, whether that be cards, personal experience, or something else. The only thing I must know by the end of the debate is why you should win. Put another way, I value execution more than substance. I do not read very many cards. I do not assign arbitrary importance to single lines not impacted out in final rebuttals.

How do you get the decision you want from me?

Tell me what to do in every place possible---robust judge instruction is the only way to avoid catastrophic judge intervention. Rather than force the judge to find the win for them, the best debaters tell the judge both why they win and the other team loses. This is aided by a clear, cohesive, and consistent narrative through the debate. Final rebuttals should clearly explain the implication of winning your most important arguments, particularly relative to the other team's arguments. Doing so will result in a faster, clearer decision and better speaker points. I only read cards when it is absolutely required because of a dispute over evidence quality, qualifications, etc. I do not read cards to fill in gaps on my flow.

Explain the implication of technically concessions---the bar I use for this is that I have to be able to explain to the other team what the implication was of them dropping a certain argument. Often teams will assert that things like "turns case" are dropped but won't say what this means or what the argument even is. If you truly believe something is conceded and important enough to jump up and down about, you are leaving me to my own devices to figure out the extent to which that argument matters. The most often reason that I sit on elim panels is because I, right or wrong, often have a different understanding of technically conceded arguments than the other judges. The way to avoid this is by arguing concessions as if the other team will win full risk of every other argument and explaining why I still vote for you (this means arguing conceded links as if the other team wins link defense to the other links, theory as if the CP is better than the plan, or rollback as if the aff wins solvency). Otherwise, relative risk could come back to bite you.

What can you do change about your debating to maximize your chances of winning?

Complain about new arguments more than usual---the bar is on the floor. I think new 1AR arguments have gotten out of hand. If the block informs me of its deliberate choice not to make certain arguments because of 2AC errors/concessions/to avoid new 1AR arguments, I am very likely to obey 2NR judge instruction to ignore whatever new 1AR nonsense occurs. For example, if the 2AC says "perm do both" but does not explain why it solves the net benefit, the negative does not have to answer it. Further, if the 1AR then explains why it shields, the 2NR can just say the explanation was new. For the aff side, I willing to entertain the idea that the 1NR does not get new impacts to the DA (or even give the 1AR add-ons in response). Just call these things out when you see them, and the debate will become much simpler.

Don't pander---as much as being pandered to boosts my ego, I would much rather see people do what they're comfortable with. Debating with personality and confidence is infinitely more likely to boost your chances of winning than your argument selection. Debate is a persuasive activity, and I would be lying if I said it was possible to sever presentation from technical debating. If you debate your best, everything in this paradigm, including my stylistic preferences, go away.

Make complete arguments, and refuse to answer incomplete ones---it is not the 12-off 1NC that makes me angry, it is the 2AC that treats each off-case equally. If the 1NC doesn't even try to read a link, the 2AC does not have to say no link because fully conceding every other component of the DA doesn't matter unless if the link is zero. If the 1NC reads a link to a different aff, you should only say "no link" in the 2AC. If the 1NC doesn't say the CP solves the case, the 2AC does not have to say it doesn't unless you are afraid that once explained, the 1AR will have to overcompensate. I consistently see 2ACs that will accurately assess that a 1NC position was incomplete and then spend an inordinate amount of time outcarding the 1NC. This will make me second-guess whether the 1NC applied because it tells me that you take the argument seriously. Stop doing that.

How should I approach debates involving planless affirmatives?

Shallow debating will favor the neg---I find that teams will often repeat lines of argumentation that they assume to be true without explaining them. For neg teams, this is oftentimes asserting that fairness is an impact without any of the explanation required to prove such a claim, and for aff teams, this usually looks like asserting some structural problem with debate and/or the topic without explaining why that problem exists/why the aff solves it. This is where my bias comes in: because I am more familiar with the neg side of things, when underdeveloped, I am more likely to intervene for the negative simply by virtue of the fact that I have only been aff in these debates like 4 times roughly 6 years ago, and I do not have as much of an intuitive grasp on how the aff arguments apply to the neg ones as I do of the inverse.

You don't need to adapt---I'm agnostic towards both the "best impact" to framework and the "best" way to answer it. I don't view framework debates as distinct from anything else and try my best to maintain the same conventions of judging that I do in every other debate.

Focus on internal links---what I mean by this is that teams seldom disagree with one another about whether debate has some value. The question that each team should try to answer in front of me is how we can maximize debate's value wherever it exists. A good portion of the final rebuttal needs to be dedicated to explaining why the model that you have forwarded does that better than the other team's can. This may just boil down to "do impact comparison," but I find that framework debates are more engaging to watch and easier to evaluate when teams explicitly focus on comparison as opposed to making large, structural claims and trying to get me to connect the dots for them.

What should you know in debates where the neg goes for the K against a policy aff?

Vagueness will favor the aff---I'm a terrible judge for teams that rely on dropped tricks in order to win, especially if those tricks are vague assertions of "serial policy failure" or "ontology" or "root cause" without tailored application to the aff. I'm a great judge for nuanced link debating, competing ethical frameworks, and alternatives oriented towards changing the world in some capacity rather than simply explaining it.

Very good for the link turn and perm---I would much prefer to judge link turn/perm debates than whatever you'd call buzzword-laden 2ARs about utilitarianism. I often find myself questioning why alternatives solve link arguments. If you read a 1AC full of pre-empts, I strongly prefer you go for those rather than gesturing at the world being complex and saying the case is true as an abstraction.

Here is a list of thoughts related to counterplans.

Judge kick is my default, I guess?---does this even matter in the year of our lord 2024, where no one goes for "links to the net benefit" and very few teams have full-throated defenses of permutations against anything but the slimiest of process junk? If no one tells me to kick the counterplan, I guess I'll kick it, but I'm a very easy sell on the argument that I shouldn't.

I need to understand CP solvency---I do not presume that a CP solves the case in the same way that I do not presume the 1AC reading a plan text automatically means it solves its advantages. The 2AC cannot drop CP solvency if CP solvency is not argued by the 1NC. The same is true for the 1AR if the 2NC does not explain the CP. The neg burden here is not unreasonable, but I have seen enough decisions hinging on this issue recently that I feel the need to say this explicitly.

Not great in complex competition debates---these tend to be the debates that go over my head the most. I find myself voting neg a lot just because of technical concessions and a lack of 2AR judge instruction inviting intervention based on my general neg bias. Moreover, I am not intimately familiar with the inner workings of functionally and textually non-severance partially-but-sometimes-fully intrinsic permutations, and I require extra hand-holding in the 2NR/2AR on that particular issue.

Impacts matter---solvency deficits need connections to them. "Delay" and "certainty" only matter if the aff has a short-term impact that requires certainty. If I can't explain what impact that is, the deficit doesn't matter.

Theory ideally justifies a perm, not a ballot---I can see myself voting on most theory arguments. I don't love these debates most of the time, but I get it, cutting cards about CPs is hard work. I prefer that theoretical objections to CPs are phrased as justifications for competition, as those debates seem much less arbitrary than the latest flavor of "X CP is bad because it solves the case." That being said, this really only applies to process CPs, so I understand the utility of a theory 2AR in every other situation.

Will I vote on T against a policy aff!

Absolutely---some of the best debates I've watched, judged, and have participated in involved T. Good T speeches earn very high speaker points. I don't really care what the T argument is as long as you explain it compellingly.

What is plan in a vacuum?---seriously, someone tell me. How do you interpret the plan in a vacuum? The 1AC read evidence that informs what the plan means. This is why the aff can go for solvency deficits against CPs and nuanced no link arguments against DAs. To me, it seems untenable to suggest that the evidence the 1AC used to define plan function should be ignored when deciding topicality. This is not to say that plan in a vacuum is completely unwinnable in front me. Rather, I am not a fan of writing vague plan texts that lack a clear mandate, reading a 1AC that defends potentially untopical action, and then going for plan in a vacuum as if the 1AC deliberately read an advantage/solvency cards about something the plan didn't do.

Predictability matters vastly more than anything else---I think that the more precise or predictable an interpretation is, the less it matters how good its limits are on the topic in a vacuum. If a "bad" definition is more precise or predictable, limits are solely a reason we should've written the resolution better. This also means that I believe that precision is possible. Certain people in debate have convinced themselves that one definition cannot be more "precise" than another. Tell that to a lexicographer, and they will laugh in your face. This is what T debates should be all about. While I agree that "random court definition" is not a desirable model, there is always a debate to be had over the applicability over those "random court definitions," and the case facts, context of the definition, and outcome of the opinion certainly are relevant when reading the resolution. In past debates with insufficient impact calculus in the 2NR/2AR, I have intervened in favor of the team that more convincingly articulates predictability as an internal link because of this view.

The aff should go for reasonability---this is the ultimate conclusion to my disdain for limits. Most neg impacts to T can be taken out easily enough that offense about substance crowd-out can outweigh them.

What if I have the misfortune of needing to go for the status quo?

This is where I am the most neg biased---I am better than average for believing the world is better now than it is post-plan. I'm generally bad for structural uniqueness arguments if there's adequate link debating by the neg, and I am such a sucker for case defense that even weak DAs end up doing enough for me to win.

Evidence quality matters---this is in the DAs section of the paradigm because it is where it matters most. Far too often, teams read lots of bad cards that gesture at vague economic concepts for a few rebuttals, tell me to read the cards, and then don't look alarmed when I conclude that the cards sucked. Debates over bad evidence result in more intervention, particularly when that evidence is under-explained by the 2NR/2AR. This means that if you're going for the status quo with a DA that doesn't have the best evidence, you cannot afford to let your cards do the debating for you.

Thumpers are boring and cowardly---mostly applies to politics on this topic. "There are other bills in Congress" is not a link nor a uniqueness answer to the politics DA. You have to explain why your thumper implicates the DA or is not priced in by the neg reading a uniqueness card.

Be smart---I am not a particularly smart person but know one when I see one. Smart arguments as an alternative to getting lost in the cards will not only increase your chances of winning, but it will also boost your speaker points. Knowing stuff about the world is really cool.

How can I get better speaker points?

Be yourself---the worst form of overadapting is when serious people try to be funny or funny people try to be serious. I love debaters with personality and reward them with speaker points much more than I do anything else. Show me you want to be there, and you'll be fine.

Any thoughts on impact turns?

Impact framing matters more than impact defense---I am more than willing to pull the trigger on impact framing even with unmitigated impacts from the other side. I am not averse to stomaching a nuclear war if animals come first or risking the heat death of the universe if future generations don't matter. I think people care too much about impact defense in this debates when it rarely matters. Invest more time in explaining how I should decide the debate than assuming I can follow the implication of every technical drop exactly how you envision I shoudl.

I have no thoughts on the substance of impact turns---everything is fair game. It is virtually impossible to get me to toss an impact turn without substantive refutation. If you can't explain why spark or wipeout or warming good is incorrect, you deserve to lose because the majority of impact turns are academically ridiculous and/or philosophically inconsistent.

Why is your paradigm so long?

I like reading long paradigms when I am bored. I put a lot of care into judging and like to learn about how people think, so I try to make my paradigm reflect both of these values. Plus, I judge enough debates to be guaranteed an audience, so I might as well take advantage of it.

I also think paradigms are mostly unhelpful (this extends to my own). The best way to learn how a judge thinks is to have them judge you and to ask questions after the debate. Most judges, myself included, don't really know how they judge debates until they're in them. The length of this paradigm reflects a series of observations that, if adhered to, would make it easier to predict how I would vote.

I struggle to get rid of parts of my paradigm. I update it whenever I'm bored because that is what spending a long time on debate will do to your brain. As a debater, I hate paradigms that don't provide helpful information about why a judge thinks the way that they do. I figure that having a long paradigm is the best way to avoid being unhelpful, because the more information I include, the clearer my thinking should be to the people I am judging. It also forces me to adhere to the procedures I explain, theoretically resulting in more consistent decisions over time.

For LD.

Strike me if you go for tricks and/or theory. Do not take me high if you don't read and defend a plan. I have read some philosophy and have a decent understanding of much of what is read in LD, but I do not intuitively understand how some of it applies to debate, so I may need more explanation than the normal LD judge would for some of the more complex stuff (think: the more premises in your logic equation, the more explanation I need to understand why your argument is sound).

Wyatt Hatfield Omnia vincit Amor

FinalsAt Inactivity Omnia vincit Amor 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 27, 2024 at 10:08 AM CDT

0. tl;dr - read this before rounds

"takes his job seriously, but not himself." i judge an extremely large volume of debates every year. these days, it's mostly an even mix of very dense disad, case, and counterplan debates and the more technical side of K debates, but in years past i would likely have best been described as a professional clash judge. i get substantially fewer performance debates and LD "phil" rounds, so i lack comparative experience in those areas, but i am still probably better for them than an average judge, and i enjoy them when executed well. i read policy strategies in high school and the K in college, so i enjoy judging both and am loyal to voting for neither. i evaluate debates as offense/defense, but risk calculus still matters a lot to me and i am (semi-)willing to pull the trigger on zero risk. i try to be very flow-centric and value "technical" execution and direct refutation above "truth", but i don't think that means bad arguments aren't still bad. i don't flow off the doc, so you can go as fast as you want but i will be unforgiving of low clarity. while i did most of our aff writing in college, i am, at my core, a die-hard 2N. that probably tells you more useful info about my debate views than anything else in this paradigm, but you can scroll down to the specifics section regarding arguments in the round you're expecting to have - most of the meat of this paradigm is here for doing prefs. i'm very expressive, but probably overall a bit grumpy for reasons unrelated to you. Wheaton's law is axiomatic, so please be kind, and show me you're having fun. please don't call me "judge", "Mr.", or "sir" - patrick, pat, fox, or p.fox are fine. "act like you've been here."

I. operating procedure + non-negotiables

1. he/him/his - you should not misgender people.

2. pleaselearntoflow@gmail.com -

a. I strongly prefer email chains. Please have the doc sent before start time. If the round starts at 2:00, I expect the 1AC email at 1:58 so we can start at start time. Every minute the chain is late after start time is -0.1 speaks for the 1A – things are getting ridiculous. You should avoid any risk of any of this by just setting up the email chain when you do disclosure at the pairing. Format subject lines for email chains as "Tournament Round - Aff Entry vs Neg Entry" (e.g: "NDT 2019 Octos - Wake EF vs Bing AY").

b. Prep ends when the doc is sent. It is 2023, you should know how to compile and send a speech document efficiently, stop stealing prep. If you are having difficulty, I suggest Verbatim drills. No, that is not a joke.

3. I flow on my laptop. I have hearing damage in my left ear, so ideally I am positioned to the right of whoever is speaking. I sometimes get sensory overload issues, so I may close my eyes/put my head down/stare off into the distance during speeches - I promise I'm not sleeping or zoned out, and even if not looking at my screen, I will definitely still be flowing.

4. i will make minimal eye contact during any given debate, and will likely have a resting grumpy face, so don’t worry much about those specific things. That said, I'm comically expressive. It's not on purpose, and I've tried to stop it with no luck - I just have a truly terrible poker face. I shake my head and scowl at nonsense, I grin and nod when I think you're doing the right thing, I shrug when I am lukewarm on an argument, I cock my head and raise my eyebrows if I am confused, and I chuckle if you make reference to any of these reactions in the speech (which I am fine with).

5. the safety of students is my utmost concern above the content of any debate. crossing this line is the only way you can legitimately piss me off. Avoid it. Racism, transphobia, misogyny, etc. will not be tolerated under any circumstances, and I am more willing to act on this on my own accord than most judges you have had (i.e: I have submitted a ballot mid-1AR before due to egregious misconduct). You should not attempt to toe this line.

6. entirely uninterested in adjudicating the character of minors i don't know. there are channels for these issues and mechanisms to resolve them, but debates and ballots are not among them. if you have genuine concerns about safety regarding the person you are debating, i am happy to be an advocate for you and get you in touch with the appropriate tournament tab staff to resolve the issue. if you genuinely feel this way, please take me up on this offer - just let me know discreetly via email, messenger, etc. keep in mind, as an employee of a state institution, i am a mandatory reporter.

- people seem to think they're smart in saying that this means "you can't vote on disclosure" - this is false for two reasons: a. i can vote on anything i want, and b. round starts at the pairing, not just the 1AC.

II. core principles

1. debate is a competitive activity centered around research and persuasion, one winner and loser, no outside participation, nothing worse than PG13, the usual.

2. debated for Kealing, Jack C Hays, and University of Houston. if i were to describe my career with a word, it would be "unremarkable". if i get five words, i'd add "irrelevant to this paradigm". i coach HS policy at Dulles, HSLD at a few different places, and help out Houston. former coaches include J.D. Sanford, Richard Garner, Rob Glass, James Allan, and Michael Wimsatt. favorite judges included Alex McVey, DML, Devane Murphy, Scott Harris, Kris Wright, and David Kilpatrick. colleagues (and former students) i likely align with include Eric Schwerdtfeger, David Bernstein, Ali Abdulla, Sean Wallace, Luna Schultz, Avery Wilson. of all these people, i align particularly closely with Garner, Bernstein, Abdulla, and Avery.

3. i think the ethos of judging is best distilled by Yao Yao: "I believe judging debates is a privilege, not a paycheck". That means I will not be half-flowing speeches while texting friends, I will not be checking Twitter or spacing out during CX, I will not "rep out", and I will not rush my decision to get back to my own team faster. The most important factor in my own growth as a debater and the most helpful info as a coach has always been well-thought judge feedback, and I think – especially during and post-eDebate – the attention span and work ethic of the average judge has massively declined. I refuse to contribute to what I find to be an alarming trend in many people shirking their responsibility to the community to adjudicate even "boring" or "low-level" debates to the best of their ability. I fundamentally believe no debate is any less or more important than any other, so expect me to judge NCX R1 as if it was TOC finals. i judge a lot - in for ~100 debates a season - for three reasons: a. I think judging is a skill, and requires practice to maintain, b. judging makes me better at coaching and strategically benefits my students, and c. I love debate. some judges seem to have lost the zeal by now, but i still get excited about novel critical affs, interesting disads and turn case arguments, and dense competition debates. I am at a tournament almost every weekend, so I am reasonably aware of community norms and have decent experience with the techne of judging. Just focus on executing, and don't be afraid to take risks.

4. i get my core ideology for judging from Richard Garner: "I try to evaluate the round via the concepts the debaters in the round deploy (immanent construction) and I try to check my personal beliefs at the door (impersonality). These principles structure all other positions herein." "non-interventionist" is silly, because intervention is inevitable. everyone has a different threshold on "too new", "unpredictable cross-applications", "good evidence", because we all resolve implicit questions differently due to prior knowledge and personal affinities. if debaters instruct us to resolve those questions explicitly, it saves me the effort of doing my own evaluations, which means less work for me, which is indicative of better debating by you. I care much less about ideological alignment than a consistent threshold of quality at the level of form (clear claim, sufficient warrant, complete implication). overall, i try to be a good judge for any research-heavy strategy, and I think the best rounds are small, vertically dense debates over a stable controversy. i have voted on "killing all white people good", heg good, "Kant's humanist ethics solves all of racism", death good, the Tetlock counterplan, and condo bad (twice, wholly dropped). each of these arguments is worse than the last, but i voted on all of them. take this as you will.

5. even with the above, probably not a true blank slate – I would consider myself a worse judge than average for theory arguments as reasons to drop the debater, "tricks", counterplans that fiat actors not used by the 1AC or lack germane net benefits, "clash" impacts, the "ballot PIK", the politics disad, condo bad, "RVIs", and “1% risk of extinction”, and much better for skills impacts and fairness, critical affirmatives that counterdefine words, “uniqueness controls the link”, counterplanning in/out of offense and general “negative terrorism”, presumption against critical affs, framework arguments that “delete the plan”, and extra-topical plans. I tend to have a high threshold for a warrant, a low threshold to punish bad-faith practices, and I value quality evidence highly. This is not exhaustive, and may indicate my inclinations to reward or penalize with speaker points. However, if any of these views kick in during my decision, the debating at play was either very lacking or absolutely perfect. Short of a few very baseline things (offense/defense, flowing, decision times, Toulmin model, etc), any of these predispositions can be reversed. if i were coaching someone to win in front of me, my principal advice would be to be as explicit about how I should piece the debate together as humanly possible, so as to minimize the risk of any of my predispositions coming into play.

III. topic thoughts

this section is under construction - you can check back after policy camp!

IV. specifics

1. disads + case

a. evidence: this applies to everything, but putting it in this section since it's first and i'm grumpy about it. generally agree with Dallas Perkins: “if you can’t find a single sentence from your author that states the thesis of your argument, you may have difficulty selling it to me.” how i conclude on the quality of evidence relates to its production (authors, methodologies), its context (specificity, recency), and it's presentation (spin, highlighting/cutting). lots of old heads are signaling concerns about the third lately, which i enthusiastically co-sign - i am unsure why debater getting faster than ever correlates to cards being highlighted to say less, not more, but i would like it to stop. also agree very much with David Bernstein: “Intuitive and well reasoned analytics are frequently better uses of your time than reading a low quality card. I would prefer to reward debaters that demonstrate full understanding of their positions and think through the logical implications of arguments rather than rewarding the team that happens to have a card on some random issue.” generally think that lots of advantages, disads, and counterplans lose to 10 seconds internal link and solvency takeouts, but teams are too scared to make arguments without cards. i think this is due to the assumption that all cards are of sufficient quality to meet the standard of "evidence" - i think many (possibly most, these days) do not. I try to restrain my natural ev hack tendencies, but will take any opportunity given to exercise them - this means that while i will reward good and punish bad evidence, the onus is on the debaters to tell me what lens i should read cards through to make that happen.

b. most of what i judge these days and read in high school lives here. “turns case/disad” usually path to victory. dense engagement with internal links and close readings of evidence usually path to “turns case/disad”. ideally, these args are carded, but maybe not necessary if straightforward. good debating is comparative here, i.e: impact calc isn't "yes/no impact" but "higher/lower risk bc..." - anything else is fundamentally inconsistent with the basis of offense/defense.

c. uq probably controls link, but care less about this in the abstract and more when debated relative to specific scenarios – large enough link might overwhelm small uq (econ disad), but maybe uq/link are just yes no (agenda politics).

d. straight turning the case likely all-time favorite thing to judge. uniqueness good, might not be necessary with sufficiently comparative evidence.

e. politics disad legitimacy negatively correlates to stupidness of arg. agenda or court capital kinda dumb but probably allowed, but rider disad = total non-starter. can conceivably vote aff on intrinsicness/theory vs agenda politics, but unsure theory is worth effort vs just beating them, they're bad args. teams should include args in 2ACs to elections about the fact that American voters are often dumber than rocks.

f. inserting rehighlighting fine for “concludes neg”, “concedes thumpers”, etc, but offensive/new arguments should probably be read aloud. debaters likely need to put ink on this for me to disregard insertions of the latter kind, but particularly egregious instances may warrant intervention on my part. i think a lot of old heads' gripes with this practice is that debaters tend to not actually debate rehighlightings as evidence and explain what they mean, they just use them as a "gotcha" and never implicate it, which encourages laziness. don't do this.

2. counterplans

a. comfortable. i think about these debates for fun the most. state of counterplan (and plan) texts + solvency advocates is an atrocity. this should implicate more debates than it does. my favorite debates to judge are likely old-school advantage counterplan debates, but i am not a priori bad for process/competition strategies.

b. most modern process counterplans have large disconnects between solvency and impact evidence for the net benefit and, if thought about for all of three seconds, are patently insane ideas that would likely collapse basic principles of government and be perceived as such by anyone watching (this is a subtweet of uncooperative federalism - all 50 states immediately ending all cooperation with the fed over a super niche issue would set the economy, our alliances, legal precedent, and basically everything else on fire). both of these issues should be the primary basis of 2AC deficits and defense.

c. competition is fully yes/no, because it's a procedural question. other than that, offense/defense - 2N/ARs should frame my ballot in terms of the impact to the risk of a deficit vs the risk of a net benefit. i care a lot about arguments like sufficiency framing, uniqueness, and try-or-die here.

d. more 2ARs should go for perm shields link/counterplan links to net benefit. most counterplans are kind of stupid and fiat more sweeping things than solvency advocates actually assume (i.e: states, concon). teams seem to be scared of having these debates absent evidence, but shouldn't be.

e. “do both” and “do counterplan” are not arguments, they are taglines. if said with no further analysis, they will be evaluated as such. permutations other than "do both" or "do counterplan" require precise texts (inserting it in the doc is fine, but function should be explained fully during the speech).

f. functional competition is good, important in real-world decisions, and i am comfortable with these debates. textual competition bad, largely irrelevant, and has never made sense to me. positional competition induces feelings in me too dark and evil to name here. "normal means" is just the most likely process by which the mandate of the plan brings about its effects. quality of evidence for both definitions and normal means determines ability to win counterplan competition/legitimacy.

g. unsure why debaters seem to think "certainty" or "immediacy" are key to neg ground/legitimate basis for competition, when zero neg literature ever assumes either because that's not how real world policy works. also unsure why the mandate of the plan being immediate/certain means the effects must also be. more aff teams should point both these things out in competition debates.

h. default no judge kick. can be compelled to do so, but have yet to judge a single debate in my many years where me kicking the counterplan has helped the negative. probably more worth it to just actually pick a 2NR and either go all in on the counterplan or case.

3. kritik

a. familiar (understatement). most of what i coach and read in college lives here. best advice for neg debaters is for the love of god, delete your overview. just start on the line by line, your speeches will be so much better. best advice for aff debaters is use the aff more, and probably read fewer cards. i care substantially less about a2 afropessimism card #9 compared to evidence or explanations about how 1AC internal links interact with/disprove the K. while i personally agree with the K's politics more of the time, in my heart and soul i think about debate like a policy 2N - in my mind, the best versions of these debates play out as aggressive, detailed disagreements about the value of the aff backed by lots of cards. as such, i tend to vote neg when the K team precludes the 2AR on "case o/w" through some combination of framework, turning the case, detailed alternative debating, and having a real impact, and i vote aff when the policy team has robustly defended their aff and internal links as both a counterexample to and offense against the K through some combination of framework, impact or link turns, serious objections to the alternative, and impact comparison. the less that one side does this (i.e: the fiat K, brute forcing heg with the card dump and nothing else, etc) the more i start thinking about voting the other way.

b. framework debating often frustratingly shallow. often unsure what win conditions are under neg models of debate or how winning it actually changes how i evaluate the round. often unsure what terminal to aff offense is and how it interacts with neg args about scholarship. refuse to do the “middle ground” thing if nobody tells me to, though, and generally think you’re better off just saying “delete the plan” or “plan focus” anyways. compromise is cowardly in these debates.

c. K 2NRs tend to be too wide and not deep. extend fewer arguments, do more analysis and answer more aff args. link/impact turns case is good, but framework or alt solves case might make it unnecessary, so why do all three?

d. aff teams link turn and impact turn in the 2AC and pretend it’s coherent. Neg teams should punish this more. aff teams should defend what their aff is equipped to defend and not pretend it can or will do anything else. permutations are overrated. Case outweighs + deficit + framework usually easier and better. most perms are just do both wearing different silly hats and glasses. perm double bind stupid argument.

e. “extinction first” can be a great asset, but it’s not the end all be all, and most teams forget that even if extinction isn’t automatically first, their impact is still probably bad. similarly, care less about “extinction focus bad” than “the way the aff deploys extinction in their scenario is bad bc”. “alt can’t solve case” is usually true, but not relevant if they win turns case/K o/w. “alt can’t solve links/impacts” is much more interesting and persuasive. Root cause args are often stupid.

4. critical affirmatives/framework

ADDENDUM - February '24: i find myself voting affirmative in framework debates more often than i used to. i am not worse for framework - i still think debates are likely on-balance better when the aff is constrained by a plan (despite my reputation for thinking otherwise), so i suspect this is due to two reasons: a. neg teams are getting sloppier at actually line-by-lining or responding to aff arguments (bad), while aff teams are getting more technical and comparative (good), and b. neg teams are not answering case or extending an external impact, they're just rambling about "clash" and have no offense beyond a vague turns case arg without uniqueness. I suspect this is caused by teams being so terrified by the word "subjectivity" that they are unwilling to actually say "yes, debate changes you, and we think the way our model changes you is good and outweighs the aff's offense". this is both unstrategic and cowardly, and the 2AC is going to say that stuff anyways, even if you try to dodge the link.

So, I think there are two solutions to this problem:

Make neg teams read real impacts again. Big skills impacts with cards are valuable because they are always external to the case and usually much larger, and give you access to the same genre of turns case arguments as "clash", but also let you have something that outweighs the aff.
Debate case more. Neg teams need to directly answer 1AC thesis arguments about things like affect/desire/ontology/scholarship/etc to preclude the 2AR from (smartly) weaponizing conceded thesis args as uniqueness/solvency for their offense.

if you extended the econ disad against the econ aff, but forgot to extend a uniqueness argument or answer aff internal links, you would not be surprised when you lost. Unsure why people are surprised in this context when it's the exact same issue.tl;dr - "clash" is stupid, read a real skills impact, preferably with cards. rant end.

a. good for both sides of clash debates, but i have judged (too) many, so lots of things about them annoy me. on balance, i am inclined to think debate is a game, and like any game it's benefits and incentives are inevitably structured to reward playing for keeps, but it should probably be worth playing for more than it's own sake, and can be played in more than one way. i am not a priori bad for planless affs, but i think a model of debate that doesn't force some constraints on aff creativity and some degree of side-switching seems to lack both competitive viability and intellectual interest.full disclosure: i am likely to give lower speaks in framework debates than other debates of similar quality, due to constant déjà vu robbing any joy from the content. speaks go back up when debaters stay organized and do deep engagement instead of just dueling with blocks.

b. neg teams historically win my ballot in framework debates more because they tend to do more judge instruction and stay organized.aff pet peeves are 1ACs that say and do nothing, very amenable to presumption. aff teams also tend to grandstand too much in rebuttals and not give organized speeches - don't do that. neg pet peeves are taking begged questions as self-evident, usually makes link to aff offense better. neg teams tend to not contextualize arguments to 1AC theories and also forget to explain an impact - do that stuff. i think both 2N/ARs would be better served doing more work with the language of impact calculus, i.e: "turns case/turns framework", "outweighs", "uniqueness controls direction of offense", etc - teams are generally okay at warranting their impact but bad at implicating it.

c. debates are cleaner the earlier the neg picks one single impact and sits on it. "clash" is kind of fake and never amounts to more than a case turn, skills arguments are criminally underrated, and nobody seems to explain fairness particularly well. ssd and tva are often overprioritized over smarter defense to aff args, but also underutilized as offensive arguments in their own right - i actually think the most interesting part of debate is the way being aff or neg on a given topic force you to apply research and theories to the specifics of a topical advocacy or a link argument, and tend to think models that don't make debaters do these things end up robbing debate of most of it's intellectual rigor.

d. people forget K affs are affs. this means normal arguments about functional competition probably apply to silly PICs ("frame subtraction"), and also means solvency and impact debates are fair game. if evenly debated, i think turning the case is likely always harder to answer and more interesting to judge than framework, given that the aff has way more practice. seems weird we all agree topicality against every policy aff would be an insane neg prep regimen, even if it's occasionally strategic, but we do this for K affs. the 2N in me truly thinks there's always a best answer to every aff, and while sometimes that answer is indeed topicality, it's not nearly the answer as often as round reports would lead you to believe.

e. idk why the neg gets counterplans if the aff doesn’t read a plan. if the basis of neg fiat is that counterplans present an opportunity cost, the only non-arbitrary actor the negative gets to fiat is the aff one, which means if the aff doesn’t fiat government policy, seems weird we think the neg gets to just because. makes more sense to read “policy engagement good, k2 check populism/’cede the political’/etc” as a disad or alternative argument vs these affs.

f. i would very much like to judge more critical affs with plans. i think most neg teams are much worse at justifying utilitarianism and liberal policy-making than they should be, and would consider myself to be extremely good for teams that contest extinction first, consequentialism, and the like. a team that executed this well in front of me would get speaker points bordering on stupidly high.

g. K v K debates live and die by the quality of negative link args and net benefits for the permutation. i always went for the cap K in these debates in college because i found most 2ACs to it to be sloppy and easily answered by a robust knowledge of marxism and history, and think this also applies to most other Ks you can read in these debates, but lots of these debates suck because 2Ns explain links and alternatives badly, which lets the 2AR get away with murder. lots of these rounds collapse into who can shout "root cause" louder, but i usually care much more about impact calculus and the direction of turns case and solvency (and these args are usually much truer anyways). 2A/NC framework arguments are usually missing and missed in these debates. i definitely live on the more technical side of K debate, but i'm not anti-performance-y stuff at all, and enjoy those debates a lot when i get them.

5. topicality

a. better than average for it, most likely. evidence matters a lot – i would say inasmuch as i am an "ev hack", it's most likely to matter in these debates. in the absence of good evidence on either side (most debates these days), i will likely lean affirmative, but few things are of such beauty as sniping an aff on a well-carded T violation that has clearly been thought through. predictability and topic controversies matter much more to me than limits as an intrinsic good, which makes me worse but gettable for args about "its", "in", etc, and probably bad for args solely about grammar.

b. lots of negative evidence is abhorrent in terms of actually establishing a violation (i.e: intent to exclude), lots of aff evidence is trash at actually defining things how the aff claims (i.e: intent to include). reubttals should make this matter more, either to make we-meets/violations more compelling or magnify links to precision/limits.

c. PTIV is possibly not the greatest model, but alternatives are usually badly explained in ways that devolve into positional competition which is godless.

d. violations are yes/no, and so we meets do not require external offense or defense. other than that, offense/defense means i value impact calculus and comparative analysis (caselists, etc) highly. reasonability is a question of the aff interpretation, and not just the specific 1AC. it can be extremely powerful and very viable, but has to be framed offensively beyond just "you get politics, we promise".

6. theory

a. generally, very neg leaning, but neg teams need to answer warranted arguments. very good for “negative terrorism”. condo good most likely my strongest personal conviction, followed by RVIs being nonsense. fine for counterplanning out of straight turns, fine for lots of kickable planks, don’t care about “performative contradictions”, anything is a "PIC" or can "result in the aff", etc. “infinite prep time + only neg burden is rejoinder + arbitrary” is mostly unbeatable vs these flavor of objections.

b. counterpoint is that i'm also great for affirmative counter-terror. big fan of intrinsic perms and theory against suspect counterplans, etc. reasonability is powerful when framed offensively. if evenly debated, i will likely never conclude the states counterplan (or any counterplan that fiats a different actor) is legitimate (but also likely not a reason to reject the team). neg theory args usually amount to pure laziness and are solved by “make 2Ns work for it”.

c. restating for emphasis: condo good, RVIs bad. unless truly and wholly conceded when properly warranted at first introduction, consider these arguments unworkable with me. Most 2ACs are blips that lack warrants, which often makes it moot when conceded anyways.

d. would be very interested to see theory arguments impacted out beyond drop the arg/debater. if states counterplan fiats uniformity, might be reasonable to say aff should get to fiat out of circumvention args about sub-federal actors. if aff fiats through an enforcement question, neg might get to fiat out of related deficits, etc. nobody's done this yet, but seems very worth exploring.

7. LD things

a. better than you'd think for phil, but likely not your best pref. hand-holding is likely required for anything more complicated than kant, but i vote for these positions more often than you’d expect and am familiar with them in a non-debate context. the blippier and less cohesive the framework, the more likely you are to lose me. i am barely old enough to remember when phil and tricks debate weren't synonymous, and miss it. i actually think phil affs are insanely strategic against lots of Ks, so these interactions interest me the most.

b. lots of policy judges tend to cop out and use modesty or other things by default to avoid having to actually judge phil debates - i promise to not do this, as i think it encourages debaters to just be bad at answering phil. that being said, i'm bad for truth testing - it's never made sense to me, offense/defense is kind of just fundamental to how i was taught debate and these arguments contradict a few fundamental assumptions i have about how debate works. it is likely difficult to get me to vote solely on skep, permissibility, etc. as these just kind of seem like purely defensive arguments.

c. bad pref for tricks. consider this both a plea and a warning.

V. misc

- If I want a card doc, I'll ask, usually for the relevant cards by name. Otherwise, assume I'm good.

- COVID things: I am vaccinated and boosted, and I take COVID tests before traveling to any given tournament. Put on masks if asked. I will have extra. not negotiable conduct.

- CX is a speech, my favorite part of the debate when done well, and a lost art. i flow it (albeit not as closely), its probably binding, and it impacts evaluation of the debate and speaker points. one debater from each team should be the primary speaker in each CX - some interjections, elaborations, or clarifications are obviously fine, but while excessive tag teaming will not be disallowed, it may impact speaks and perception negatively.

- flowing is good, and "flow clarification" is not a timeslot in the debate - questions such as "did you read X card/arg in the doc" are for CX. If you ask this and you haven't started a timer for it yet, i will start one for you. if you ask "can you send a doc without all the cards you didn't read", the other team does not have to do that, because that is not what a marked doc is. if you answer arguments that were not read, but were in the doc, you are getting a 27.5.

- Ethics challenges/cheating – this one is longer because people seem to care more about this these days. I have a high bar for voting on it. I do not think power-tagging evidence, cutting an article that concludes the other way later on, etc. are voting issues - you should simply say "this card is bad/concludes neg" as an argument. If you are making the accusation that your opponent has fabricated, miscut, or improperly cited evidence, I will evaluate it with the presumption of good-faith error by the accused. I do not think skipping portions of tags or analytics counts as clipping. Those things are not evidence, so I do not know why they require being held to the standard of evidence ethics. If you are accusing the other team of clipping the highlighted text of evidence, you need a recording to prove it - I will never notice this myself because I will not have docs open during speeches, and I think that if the debate comes down to this debaters have a right to some proof. I will also apply the same standard of good-faith error. This means barring something particularly egregious as to reasonably suggest the criminal negligence if not malicious intent, I will probably err towards not punishing debaters, as I think anything else incentivizes cheap shot wins on dead links in citations, leaving out the last word of a paragraph that was OCR'd badly, or skipping two words in a card on accident. If you read any of these things as a theory argument, I will not flow it, and I will ask after the speech if you are staking the debate on it - if not, I will happily inform your opponent they do not need to answer it. I am open to being asked if I consider certain accusations to meet the threshold of ending the debate on it - my answers will not be negotiable, but they will be honest. I am also willing (I would actually encourage it) to entertain debaters negotiating proportional responses to violations outside of me ending the debate, as I think my role as educator ideally precedes my role as a referee - I'd much rather we all agree to scratch a card that can't be accessed online anymore or that was accidentally clipped than just not have a debate. Otherwise, the party found to be at fault (either the guilty or an incorrect accuser) will receive a loss and the lowest speaks allowed. The other party will get a win and a 28.5/6. All of this goes out the window if the tabroom tells me to do a different thing than what I've outlined above, as their authority obviously supersedes mine.

- speaks are largely arbitrary, but I try to start at 28.4 for a team I'd expect to go 3-3, and i try and keep it relative to the tournament pool. below 28 and I think you are in the wrong division, below 27.5 and you have likely done something bad in a moral sense. I tend to reward quality evidence and good argument choice, well-organized speeches, smart strategic choices, and debating with character. I tend to penalize unnecessary meanness, bad arguments and cowardice, and sloppy debating. i am, at my core, white trash, so i tend to enjoy some friendly trash talk more than the average judge - i stop enjoying it when it strays from the topic of debate and/or becomes overly mean spirited. Not a big believer in low-point wins - if the 2NR makes a dumb decision, but the 2AR doesn't capitalize on it, the 2AR is probably dumber for fumbling a bag. I will not "disclose speaks".

- i tend to give long RFDs because i think most decisions have a tendency to hand-wave details and i'd rather be thorough. that said, there's a point of diminishing returns and i usually overshoot it. will not be offended if you just pack up and dip while i'm yapping. i welcome post-round questions

Good luck, thanks for letting me judge, and see you in round!

- pat

Matt Moorehead Champs independent

Last changed on Tue January 9, 2024 at 3:54 PM CDT

he/him, appleton east ‘19, wisconsin ‘23

matthewrmoorhead@gmail.com

wsdt update -

i am excited to judge your debates, please just do the following:

a. read my paradigm and please ask me questions if you have any - i would much rather be transparent than leave you with concerns over your strategy

b. share the evidence you will be reading to your opponent and myself before your speech starts - evidence quality matters and your opponents have a right to analyze the evidence you read

c. do impact calculus - rounds without good argument interaction require me to intervene which is always bad, the more work you do to write my decision for me = the better your decision will be

d. be nice, enjoy yourself, treat everyone with respect, and focus on improving every round instead - ballots aren't everything and you should take every round as a new opportunity to learn something new, take notes afterwards and ask questions about my decision if anything is unclear

paradigm proper -

1. tl;dr - not formally involved in debate anymore but judging is a privilege and i am plenty qualified to judge your round, i care about good debating and really nothing else, don't worry too much about tailoring towards my ideology from when i was a debater/coach

2. background - did ld and dabbled in policy at appleton east in wisconsin, i broke at the toc in 2019, led 3 summer labs, and have coached state champions and toc qualifiers - my main experience is with policy-style debate and kritiks, but i have extensive experience coaching, debating, and judging every style of debate at national and local levels

3. hard and fast rules - strike me if you don't disclose/flash your evidence or i will rigorously tank speaks, an arguments' risk starts at 0% and goes up based on the quality of it's warrant, evidence quality matters so i will read cards you reference in the 2nr/2ar, yes judge kicks but tell me to, won't vote for stuff i can't explain back to you which means winning arguments require a ballot implication, arguments that demonstrate your work put into debate are always better than cheap shots you grabbed from backfiles or had your coach explain to you pre-round

4. for high speaks - my avg range is 28.2-29.4, biggest boosts for ending the debate early/speeding things up and being casual/personable - have fun, make jokes, be technical, and write my rfd

Aniruth Narayanan Omnia vincit Amor

Last changed on Tue February 13, 2024 at 10:07 AM EDT

updated for cal '24

email chain: nsaniruth@gmail.com

Aniruth Narayanan (He/Him/His), Berkeley M.E.T. '24, C. Leon King High School '20. Picked up a bid in LD, quartered at states, blue key, sunvite, and elims a couple places my junior year, took senior year off. Although it has been some time since I've debated, I have been judging varsity LD - Cal every year, Glenbrooks, Blue Key, Valley, etc - so I consider myself able to judge most debates. In the past few years it's been primarily LARP debates.

If you make good arguments with good strategy, you win. Go for whatever you're best at.

Prefs Shortcut

Phil/Theory/T - 1

LARP - 1/2 (used to be a 2, but all the debate I've judged in the past 2 years has been LARP so am more familiar with it)

K – 3 (explain warrants and taglines)

NonT/Performance - 4

General Stuff

I will listen to any argument except those that are exclusionary - if you find yourself asking "is this exclusionary?" it probably is. Explain complicated ideas well.

All defaults are super loose; the round is yours. I'm about as close to tabula rasa as you can get. I don't default to a side, do default to comparative worlds, layers can be weighed against each other unless you tell me why not, layers aren't a wash.

Strategy is important. Pick the right arguments to read and collapse well.

Tech > Truth if there is some semblance of truth to an argument (is that actually truth > tech? No idea. I never understood this anyway). No, this doesn't mean you can't read bad arguments, but they still have to be arguments. The worse the argument, the lower the threshold for response and the more work you have to do to justify it.

I will say "clear" and "slow" as many times as need be - but it might get annoying after a while. If you don't clear/slow when I say it, your speaks will reflect that. If it's earlier in the day, ramp up your speed. I flow by ear and I will not flow off the doc (though I will have it open).

CX is not prep, but prep can be CX. I don't flow it, but I do pay attention.

You can read a lot of evidence if you want, but I would prefer that you do comparative analysis with warrants in evidence.

Whatever you want to grill me on, I honestly don't really mind, but I'd prefer it (and I think you would too) if you just clarified the arguments in your last speech how you would after the round is over. The more you grill me, the more brazen I'll be.

When time stops, you stop.

Theory

No shell is "frivolous" to me. Some shells are just bad, others are very strategic because there's no offense to the counter-interp. Read the latter kind.

If a debater justifies competing interps, and the other debater concedes it but fails to provide a competing interp, I will assume (on their behalf) that they defend the violation.

I will vote on disclosure theory. I like creatively planked disclosure shells that make it really hard to justify that particular combination of actions - especially when someone violates their own disclosure interp.

Phrasing things as "voting issues" such as when reading condo bad need to be clear theory arguments for me to evaluate them as theory for uplayering - with a voter.

If paradigm issues (drop the debater, no rvi, competing interps, fairness/education - although you can add more by mention/warrant) are conceded, they don't need to be extended (I'll consider it implicit agreement).

Topicality

Variations of T are welcomed - like extra-topicality. Just make sure you explain as needed.

Spikes/Tricks

Creative tricks are good; bad tricks are bad. If someone catches you being sketchy, be upfront and honest about it. If someone asks you where tricks are i.e a prioris, and you respond with the nc you read and not the a priori you put in the truth testing section above where it says "now negate", I think your answer in cx is binding in the sense it makes me hesitant to vote on the a priori because of the way that it's framed in cx. Just be upfront. Winning arguments is cool. Being shady is not.

If you read a trick that implicitly relies on truth testing but then you don't justify truth testing, I won't justify it for you.

Clearly number spikes, space them, do whatever you need to.

Any argument asking me to grant new responses or evaluate the debate after that speech must be made at least in a speech prior to it (i.e. new 2n responses should be justified in the 1n, not the 2n). I default to evaluating the whole round (I can't believe this is a real sentence I'm writing).

Philosophy

This was my go to as a debater. I don't think as much about authors any more, so I've forgotten the nuances. Include how offense is filtered under a given framework (i.e. is it consequentialist? if not, what matters and why does it matter? when your opponent tries to implicate their offense under your framework, is that legit? why? etc.).

Fine with voting on skep triggers, also good with them being used as framework justifications. I like seeing metaframeworks, framework conditions, takeouts, hijacks, etc.

Kritiks

If you use big words in the tagline that the average high school teacher would not understand, I probably won't either. Give me clear overviews and go through the 2NR in a systematic and strategic manner for high speaks. The 2NR shouldn't be just an overview or a 6 minute blip storm; do a mix of both that responds to the arguments efficiently and in an organized manner. Extensions through ink make me sad, particularly when they're accompanied by a pre-written generic overview.

LARP

If there's a lot of cards in the round like the 1ar reads new cards and the 2nr reads a new card or two, make the weighing as clear as you possibly can. Ex. If you say author qual, make sure you tell me what that qualification is or if you tell me your evidence is more recent, something that changed that explains why the recency matters.

Do more than just strength of link weighing. Please. Include the warrants of why claims authors make are true.

I'm fine with analytics against empirics. This means I won't intervene and say, this person has a card and you don't so you must be wrong; it's just that I'll evaluate it. In my opinion, it normally is easier to win if you have a card since empirics probably do need empirical warrants, but sometimes causal analysis to beat back a card analytically if it misunderstands something is fine in my book as long as you warrant it.

If you say things like "this thumps the disad" include like one sentence of what it is you're meaning by that in plain english. I remember some things, but debate has changed since when I was debating.

NonT Affs

I'm good with these. Articulate a clear ballot story of why you should win the round. I list myself as a 4 however as I haven't judged these rounds and didn't read these myself but I'm not biased against these.

If something is an independent voter, do some work explaining why it is an independent voter and weigh it in the context of the round. Just (read: only) saying a phrase like "perfcon - it's an independent voter. It's pre-meditated murder" is the opposite of this.

Flashing/Emailing/Stealing Prep

Prep ends when the flash drive leaves the computer or when the email has been sent. Putting the document together is prep. Stealing prep is wack.

Speaks

I'll disclose speaks - ask me if I forget.

Strategy is the main factor. Creative positions will also get boosts. I still think debate is about making persuasive arguments, so the more persuasive you are, the higher speaks I'll give you. Using CX well will also boost speaks.

If you had a bunch of ways to win the round, and you pick a bad option (i.e. none of them) and give your opponent more outs than they should've gotten, I will still give you the win, but your speaks will reflect the missed opportunities.

Scale depends on the tournament, in general I'll (try) average a 28.5 but I'm very sympathetic to the screw as it's happened to me.

Alex Pluto Champs independent

Julonni Washington Omnia vincit Amor

Carolyn Zou Omnia vincit Amor

Last changed on Mon June 13, 2022 at 9:21 AM EDT

Hello! I'm Carolyn and I debated at Pennsbury HS 2017-2019, currently at Northwestern (not debating). I'm also Carro on the debate Discord :)

I qualified to the LD TOC in '18 and '19 and did half a year of college policy. I'm now studying communications and cognitive science.

I know that online debate is rife with microphone/internet problems, and so I ask that you slow down and also be responsive if I ask you to slow down. Please also record your speeches if there's any chance of connection issues, I will not allow you to regive them if you cut out.

As a competitor, I read soft left policy stuff as a junior and went for debate bad/Baudrillard/Virilio nearly every round as a senior. I'm ideologically neutral on the debate good/bad stuff despite what I read in high school.

tl;dr: familiar with and down to vote for good arguments of any kind, very adamant about not voting for unwarranted/untrue/offensive args.

Some things I like:

- Tell me what to do - I don't like to intervene so giving me impact framing or telling me how to evaluate a debate will get you far. My ideal RFD would be "I voted aff/neg in this debate because *2 to 3 lines from the 2nr/2ar*"

- Inserting re-highlights of cards is good. If you think you have an indict you can do so, and give me an explanation of what the re-highlight means. If the explanation does not make an argument it does not get flowed. If any part of the article is different, read the new version out loud.

- In the same vein, I don't like being asked to read evidence because I feel like it's on you to do that work and explain it, not just say "this card is fire, please read it" -- it just feels super interventionist to me especially when I am more familiar with certain lit.

Some things I don't like:

-I don't vote on evidence cut from private, unverifiable sources (emailing authors, cutting lectures from camp, etc). I'm fine with ev from things like podcasts, but every piece of evidence needs to be published in some form, by qualified authors.

- Not a super big fan of debate coach evidence but it is what it is. You should not read evidence from a current or former coach of yours.

- I am not the best judge for tricks/theory stuff. If you have me in the back anyways, I'm not necessarily averse to voting for this stuff but will hold it to the same standard of -- you need to win some argument about why it precludes/outweighs their offense.

Login to Tabroom

Debating the Discord Part 1

2018 — Online, US

Lincoln Douglas Paradigm List

Judges