Chuck Ballingall Memorial Invitational at Damien High School
2019 — La Verne, CA/US
Novice Policy Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideYo! Okay so I'm really not sure what I'm supposed to write here, so I'm just gonna try my best.
Debate:
Just off the bat, if you're going to be telling me that not voting for your case would lead to nuclear war, you really better provide some good links, otherwise it's an immediate drop.
I am an IPDA and NPDA debater. That being said, for Parli, my threshold for the technical stuff is pretty low, I am 100% not a fan of K's, but if you want to run a T on a case be absolutely sure that the T is necessary to provide ground for you to present your case, otherwise I'll completely dismiss it. Other than that, any kind of flow or strategy just be clear and concise in all your arguments!!! SIGNPOST clearly. For IPDA, the point of it in my opinion is persuasion not technical arguments. I accept umbrella refutations as long as you make it clear which arguments you're refuting. This is debate, HAVE FUNNNNNNN. Can't stress that enough, be professional but remember not to take it too seriously, otherwise it's going to be a long debate.
The *NUMBER 1* thing that I have with any kind of debate is courtesy and speed. I understand that sometimes there is a lot of material that you have to get through, so if you need to speak fast feel comfortable to do so, but if your opponents call clear, I expect you to slow down and articulate. Spread and you will lose my ballot immediately. The same thing goes for courtesy. In my personal opinion, debate is an arena to engage in discourse about a wide variety of issues respectfully. Any form of behavior that could be taken as rude, distracting, or insulting to your opponents will immediately lose my ballot.
*Updated 11/30/21*
My email is daw8332@sdsu.edu
I'm hired. Used to do Policy.
Good stuff to do:
- Avoid Cheerios and other sugary cereals
- Hydrate before + after every speech
- Get 8-9 hours of sleep a night
- Don't be mean to each other
The Round:
As big or small and as outlandishly or by-the-book as you want - just make it matter.
I prefer you debate like I was dragged off the street and made a judge. You're probably smarter than me anyways.
Judging:
Offense/Defense & Games. I'm TR until you say otherwise.
My RFD's are going to be as constructive and in-depth as I'm able to deliver on. If you think I'm going nowhere with whatever I'm saying during this time, please interject.
Freshman at lmu
did debate for Damien hs
email for chain -> josephblmu@gmail.com
you can read whatever you want just be clear
make me laugh and ur speaks will be nice
Pronouns: He/Him/His
Email: tjbdebate@gmail.com
I'd really appreciate a card doc at the end of the round.
About me
Debated in policy for four years at Damien High School in La Verne, CA. I placed pretty well at some national tournaments and received some speaker awards along the way. I have worked as a judge and staff member at the Cal National Debate Institute. I was a consultant/judge for College Prep, and this is my first year as an assistant coach for College Prep.
I mostly think about debate like her. If you like the way she thinks then I probably think the same way.
Top Level
**** I will try my hardest to flow without looking at my computer so I suggest debating as if I have no reference to what is being read. Clarity is much more important than unchecked speed ****
Debate is a competition, but education seems to be the most intrinsic benefit to the round taking place. I believe that debates centered around the resolution are the best, but that can mean many different things. Debate is also a communicative activity so the first thing that should be prioritized by all the substance is the ability to clearly convey an argument instead of relying on the structure and tricky nature of policy debate.
The most important thing for me as a judge is seeing line-by-line debating instead of relying upon pre-written blocks. Drops happen and that is debate, but what I most hate to see are students reading off their laptops instead of making compelling indicts of their opponents' arguments off the top of their heads. Debate requires some reaction to unexpected things but I think that it enhances critical thinking and research skills.
When it comes to content, I sincerely do not have any big leans toward any type of argument. Just come to the round with a well-researched strategy and I will be happy to hear it. My only non-starters are arguments that promote interpersonal violence, prejudice toward any group of people, or danger toward anyone in the round. If those arguments are made, the offending team will lose, receive a 0 for speaker points, and I will speak with their coach. The safety of students is the number one priority in an academic space such as debate.
Thoughts on Specific Arguments Below:
Disadvantages: Impact calculus and Turns case/Turns the DA at the top, please. These debates are won and lost with who is doing the most comparison. Don't just extend arguments and expect me to just clean it up for you. I like politics DAs, but I want more comparisons of whose evidence is better and more predictive instead of just dumping cards without any framing arguments. Go for the straight turn. I love bold decisions that are backed up by good cards.
Counter plans: I am all about good counterplan strategies that have great solvency evidence and finesse. I have grown tired of all the nonsense process, agent, and consult counter plans, and while I will vote for them, I prefer to hear one that is well-researched and actually has a solvency advocate for the aff. Regarding theory, most violations are reasons to justify a permutation or to lower thresholds for solvency deficits, not voters. Consult CPs are however the most sketchy for me, and I can be convinced to vote against them given good debating.
Topicality: Love these debates, but sometimes people get bogged down by the minutiae of the flow that they forget to extend an impact. Treating T like a disad is the best way to describe how I like teams to go for it. Please give a case list and/or examples of ground loss. Comparison of interpretations is important. I think that the intent to exclude is more important than the intent to define, but this is only marginal.
Kritiks: Over time I have become more understanding of critical arguments and I enjoy these debates a lot. The alternative is the hardest thing to wrap my head around, but I have voted for undercovered alternatives many times. I think that the more specific link should always be extended over something generic. Extending links is not enough in high-level rounds, you have to impact out the link in the context of the aff and why each piece of link offense outweighs the risk of the aff internal link. I prefer that the negative answer the aff in these rounds, but I do not think it is impossible to win without case defense. The only thing that matters is winning the right framework offense.
Planless Affs: Performance 1ACs are great but there has to be an offensive reason for the performance. I won't vote on a dropped performance if there is no reason why it mattered in the first place. I prefer that these affs are in the direction of the topic, but if there is a reason why only being responsive to the resolution matters, then I am fine with it not being so. Framework is a good strategy, but I don't like voting on fairness, because I don't believe that it is a terminal impact. I believe that having a fair division of labor is important, but not because debate is a game. Debate has intrinsic educational value and both teams should be debating over how they access a better model of the activity. For the negative, I like it when teams just answer the aff method and clash over the effectiveness of the 1AC.
Conditionality: I think that up to 3 advocacies are fine for me. Anything more and I am more sympathetic to the aff. Don't get it twisted, if the neg screws up debating condo, I will vote aff.
Feel free to ask me anything before the round. Most importantly compete, respect each other, and have fun.
Add me on the email chain: redsilverstorm15@gmail.com
Hi! My Name is Lizeth Chimal.
When judging, I want a clear reason on why I should be voting for you. (Make it easy for me) I should not have to fill in the holes. Logic in arguments is very important. The more you break down an argument the more enticed I will be to vote for you. Have fun! No spreading.
For IE: Entertain me :) I want to believe what you're saying and that you care about your topic!
Put me on the email chain - sarahelisedavidson@gmail.com
Online debate:
-I'd prefer if you have your camera on, but having it off is fine
-If my camera isn't on, I'm not ready
-Ask for confirmation that I'm ready before giving your speech
General things:
-time your own speech and prep
-tech > truth
-fairness > education
-I tend to place a lot of weight on evidence quality. I'll still vote on spin of course, but, if the debate is close, I usually look to the quality of both sides' evidence.
-I care a lot about judge instruction in rebuttals. It's really helpful and will get you good speaks
-I love impact turns, advantage cps, and well-debated disadvantages
-I don't like judging topicality or theory debates, but you should still go for it if you know it's the right strategy.
-I was a 2A, but my views are probably more in line with that of a 2N.
T:
-Topical versions of the aff and case lists are good.
-A smaller topic is probably better than aff innovation.
-Competing interpretations > reasonability
Soft left affs:
- I'm predisposed towards extinction-level impacts, and I tend to think utilitarianism is the best framework for evaluating choices between policies. You're far better off spending more time attacking the link and internal link level of a DA than wasting a bunch of time on framing, which is usually a wash anyway. I think that a securitization-type framing argument is way better than some arbitrary "probability first" or "util bad" claim, BUT winning this requires meaningfully reducing the risk of the DA.
DA:
- My favorite debates are DA/case debates.
- I love politics DAs, but aff specific and topic DAs are even better. But feel free to read whatever contrived DA scenario you want. I'll vote on it if you win it.
- Pls do impact calculus - it makes my decision 1000x times easier
- Turns case is also super persuasive to me
- If you're going for a non-unique + link turn, actually explain why the aff resolves the link
CPs:
- Impact out your solvency deficits or explain why the perm shields the net benefit
- I'm not a good judge for process CPs. Complicated competition debates are confusing to me
- I won't kick the CP for you unless you tell me to
Theory:
- I will vote on theory, but you need to give examples specific to abuse within the debate and impact out theory in the 2AR
- cheaty fiat cps (ie Tsai should resign or Saudi should stop the war in Yemen) are definitely bad
- Agent CPs, 2NC cps, 50 state fiat, consult Cps, con cons, etc are probably good
- condo = good (but, again, I can be persuaded otherwise)
- perf con is a reason you get to sever your reps
Ks on the neg:
- i feel like my views on the k have changed a lot over the past few months. i like it more than i used to.
- cap, security, fem ir, and settler colonialism are the literature bases I'm most familiar with -- if you want me to vote on other things, i need lots of explanation
- i prefer specific links to the plan - the more specific, the better
- actually engage with the 1ac and spend time on case in the 2nr - i like when neg teams take lines out of the 1ac and/or recut 1ac ev
- floating PIKs are bad
- the alt should resolve your impacts and links
- i hate long overviews - your overviews should be short & contextualized to the aff
K affs:
- I prefer that you read a plan & im probably not the best judge for you if you read an untopical aff, but I'll still vote for a k aff and I have several times in the past
- at least have some sort of relation to the topic
- just asserting that the USFG is bad is not enough to get my ballot
- k affs probably don't get perms - if the aff doesn't have to be topical, then Cps / K's don't have to be competitive, but this needs to be explained in the debate
Neg v. k affs:
- framework - fairness is an impact (but you have to explain why it is), TVAs are great, tell me what debate looks like in the world of the aff & neg and why your model is better
- presumption - go for it. a lot of k affs just don't do anything
- k's vs k affs - not great for this. if you're going to go for a k, pls do thorough explanations and impact out each of your links
Speaks
- I'll dock your speaks if you're mean or rude to me or others in the round
-All claims should have a clear link to evidence or precedent. If you’re going to tell me that UBI leads to nuclear war, you need to have some incredibly strong evidence.
-Don’t be rude to your opponent. We debate because we enjoy it, don’t ruin that for someone.
-I do not like spreading. I believe it makes debate incredibly inaccessible for many people who are not neurotypical. I understand that some forms of debate require it, so if you spread, make sure you are still saying words. If I have your case and can not even track your arguments while reading them, that is too fast. I will say clear if that is the case.
Paradigm Proper
Put me in the email chain: keoseyla562@gmail.com
Experience:
*Debated 3 years in high school
*Currently debating as a freshman at Fullerton College
General shit:
*I'm not great at giving RFDs however you can email me about my decision at a later date and I'll try my best to explain it.
*truth > tech
*if you're going to spread be clear and don't go mach speed on analytics or super important arguments, I won't flow/evaluate what I don't get.
*off-hand petty comments are mad annoying, I understand that debates can get tense but petty comments are just going to result in me docking your speaks
*I'm pretty expressive
*try to be funny I'm probably gonna laugh
Arguments:
I'm pretty chill with y'all running whatever you like. I'm personally a K debater but I do have some background in running traditional policy.
T/FW: I usually lean aff on T/FW however I'm more than happy to vote neg if you're able sufficiently explain it impact it out i.e. prove in-round abuses.
CPs: CPs are cool just try to have a net benefit and a clear explanation on why the CP solves better than the aff. If you're PIC'ing out of something have a thorough explanation of why their language is bad.
DAs: DAs are pretty cool just make sure you win the uniqueness debate and explain the link story/impacts sufficiently and a clear explanation of net benefit to the CP if you choose to run one.
Theory: Generally, theory arguments tend to be really blippy and underdeveloped and just there for time skew so I'm not really that convinced by them however the exception to this is Condo, I tend to lean aff on condo however if you can prove why your off cases don't link to each other I probably won't vote on it. I'll vote on disclosure theory if the team has multiple affs on their wiki and they actively didn't tell you the aff they were running for the round.
Kritiks: Love kritiks, have a good link story, explain why your impacts outweigh, extend your alt and don't drop the perm and I'll more than likely vote for it. Don't be afraid to run weird shit like death good I think they're fun arguments to go for and make for interesting rounds. Don't just expect me to vote because you used a bunch of jargon, explain it.
Kritikal Affs: Go for it. If you decide to run a performance you need to explain why your performance matters, I'm super unconvinced by performative K affs that sever from the performance aspect of the aff. There needs to be a clear explanation of the link to the topic or why you chose to be anti-topical be clever with your we-meets and such otherwise I'm more than likely going to vote neg on T/FW
Notre Dame High School
Hi! Please put me on the email chain - seamuskim09@g.ucla.edu
Read whatever - tech>truth
I was not very good at policy arguments; however, my partner, Brian Snitman, was. I try to emulate how he views and judges policy debate - please refer to his paradigm.
I do not have any strong thoughts about any particular argument (except for what's below) - just make sure you're not being racist/sexist/homophobic/etc.
I primarily went for the K, so I probably have some idea of what your K is talking about. If your K revolves around some ontological, structural, or psychoanalytic thesis, then it is your responsibility to prove it. By the end of the debate, I should know through what means I should be able to come to that conclusion. If I don't think that it can be falsified, then I won't take it seriously.
If you are aff and debating against the K, you will be in a better spot if you have a substantive defense of liberalism, capitalism, realism, etc. instead of just retreating to the perm (unless your aff is really meant to win the perm). It will be very hard to convince me that the plan is the only thing that matters, but it will be very easy to convince me that all links should be filtered through the consequences of the plan.
Email/chain contact: brianna1lozano1@gmail.com
Experience: I am a past policy debater from Alliance Marc and Eva Stern Math and Science School HS. I have been coaching the novice policy division for my old high school for two years and counting; and I have been judging for LAMDL since the beginning of 2018. I have been judging invitationals since the 2019 (Policy: 2019-present, LD: 2019-present).
Format: I am an easy going judge, I judge based on how the argument is given and which side gives me more of a reason to vote for them and how many arguments are not being dropped, also I judge based on the realism/logical side. I'm good with spreading just as long as you give me a roadmap, signpost, and still understandable. I do keep the official time in the debate, but y'all are allowed to keep your own time. Always face me, y'all are trying to convince me, not your opponents. Assume I don't know much about your topics, that's how y'all should be debating. I flow based on the main points I hear during the round, now, it's the debater's job to tell the main points in their arguments, be clear.
Notes: Other than what I mentioned above, the speeches are yours, just as long as it's not offensive to anybody. I do want y'all to have a fun time debating so include whatever makes you happy in your speech, whether it's jokes, etc. just as long as y'all don't stray from the actual debate. Always be respectful, no matter what.
I look forward to watching y'all debate!
- Add me to your email chain, saramoghadamn@gmail.com.
- Please time yourselves.
- Partner communication is absolutely welcome but I only flow whatever the speaker says.
- (Pertaining to parli) I’m not a big fan of speed though I can follow along fairly well. I would much rather hear a few very well-thought-out arguments as opposed to a bunch of flimsier ones.
- Be aware of your opponent's speed preferences and adjust accordingly when they call clear/speed. If you don't, I will take off speaker points.
- Make sure to provide a framework as that is what I will follow.
- I try to make my decision solely based on my flow and what is said within round. I won’t make any assumptions or link/impact out arguments for you.
- I will vote on T or tricot as long as it makes sense.
- I enjoy T arguments very much, but make sure to provide an interp, standards, and voters.
- K’s should only be run when the other side believes it’s more important than whatever is currently being debated and directly connects to the resolution. There should be clear links, impacts, and solvency/alternatives. The alt should solve at least some of the aff. Please don’t assume I am familiar with the foundational literature.
- I absolutely love counterplans, but make sure you explain why it’s both competitive and net beneficial. Make sure to still provide DAs.
- I really really like to see clash within a debate.
- Extend arguments!
- Impacts and impact analysis are important! Make sure to impact everything out, I don’t want to do the work for you. Tell me what I should consider most important and why. Also explain how competing arguments should be evaluated.
- I like clear links, impacts, and warrants. Warrants strengthen arguments and are something I definitely look for.
- Make sure to summarize in the rebuttal why I should be voting for the aff/neg. Voters and impact calculus are your (and my!) best friends.
Senior at Peninsula
Pronouns: they/any
put me on the email chain thanks: derric.parker@gmail.com
Usually I decide rounds by
1) evaluating questions of the theoretical justifications for having the debate round/debates in general
2) within the lens of 1, evaluating questions of how I see debate generally/contribute towards a good model for debate in general
3) within the lens of 1 and 2, weighing the substantive/theoretical pieces of offense which each team has made and deciding who accesses the most/most important offense.
-Tech > truth
-Condo good
-Fiat is immediate
-Fairness is an I/L to truth testing, truth is tautologically a good thing to pursue
-Winning abuse means i reject the argument
General Stuff
- I read policy and french stuff, less well-versed in identity/cap stuff
- Affs should have a solvency advocate – I'll vote on death good or anti-debate, you just have to explain what voting aff implicates and why that’s preferable to what voting neg does
- (obviously) the less generic the disad link the better
- I see T as a disad vs. policy affs and a counterplan vs. K affs
-“Rebuttal speeches should be closing doors not opening more” -Dylan Barsoumian
For your speaker points
Auditory ethos is infinitely more important than visual ethos (I wrote this before online debate but its more true now), so please be clear, don’t hum-spread, and emphasize when saying important stuff
you don’t need to call me judge
Policy Debater at CSU Fullerton 2 years (2009-11)
High Debate Coach for 3 years (2010-2013)
Debate Judge for 10 years (2010-present)
High School Math and Physics Teacher ( 2018- present)
Email chain: 1680super@gmail.com
Short version: I want to see and hear what you are good at doing. You pick your style and convince me that you know what they are talking about.
Brief recap of what general debater think of me;
A lot of people have pegged me as a certain kind of judge—crazy, in other words. While I may be crazy in the head, I don’t think that I judge rounds in a particularly different way than other judges. I, like other judges, VOTE for which team did the better DEBATING. How I come to this conclusion is much the same as other critics: I allow myself to be PERSUADED by the rhetorical force of one or another team’s ARGUMENT. You need to win an argument and a reason why that argument means that I should vote for you. Feel free to choose whatever type of argument you prefer. Virtually everything in the round is up for debate in front of me. But I will also be hesitant to vote on arguments that fly in the face of reality.
Some fine details;
(1) Kritik: Don’t assume that I have read and/or understood your author. If the argument isn’t in the text of the card, then you need to make sure that it is comprehensible in your analysis or explanation of the card. Also, remember that the evidence is not the argument by itself.
(2)How I flow: I believe in the debate. That is, I flow it, and I believe it occurs. However, I don’t even try to line everything up in the debate—I just flow from the top down on each sheet of paper (Excel spreadsheet). Know your argument and give detail on it, your analysis, spin, and articulation are all important and I follow that as much.
(3)Policy debate is like chess. Debate at a reasonable pace for yourself so that you don’t forget or drop arguments. Clash with the other team, debate is not in a vacuum. Debate with a lack of clash makes it harder to judge because I feel like have to intervention and connect the dot myself. Lastly, like in chess, you can’t win with all your pieces. You will have to lose some pieces, know what you are losing and wining in a sophisticated way.
(4) Value and meaning isn’t implied. You need to frame “Framework” how I view arguments and what I value. Tell me how you want me to see the round and why that is important over the way your opponent views.
Frequently Asked Question (FAQ):
Question: Can I read an aff without a plan?
Answer: Sure but do you really want to have a framework debate over policy implementation?
Question: I hear you’re a K guy and like K, I normally run DisAd and CP so do I need to pull out my K?
Answer. PLEASE DON’T. The worst thing you can do is run an argument that doesn’t fit your style and strengths. If you are a straight up, line by line, politic disad kind of debater then go for it. I don’t vote for the K anymore than I do the DisAd. A good argument with articulation and explanation will do you more than running something that you can’t explain.
Question: Is it true that you never vote on Theory or Topically?
Answer: I did the math, I have voted for theory or topically maybe 2.5% of the time since I started judging, that is like 4 out of 170 rounds. While it’s a hard sell because I lend toward looking at real in round abuse.
glhf
Background: Spent several years competing in Parli in high school and then went on to compete in both Policy and British Parli in the collegiate circuit. Have since been coaching and judging in SoCal.
Policy:
I am not terribly against K's in the format and think they play a crucial role in the circuit, however should you choose to run a K and have no true understanding of it nature or function I believe that's a strategic error.
Framework arguments are a solid answer in a lot of rounds but should be more organic than scripted if you value speaker points in the round.
It pertains less to Policy but it is worth mentioning that I don't believe in the separation of the trichotomy in debate, all policy has value and fact in it, so don't excluded certain conversations from being had.
I don't count time spent emailing the chain as prep unless i suspect that to be abused.
I believe it is bad practice to cut cards verbally as you speak, if it happens it happens but at the point where you have to verbally cut multiple cards in a speech you should have taken more prep time.
If you are going to tag team in your speech make sure the speaker echos their partners words, I only flow what is said by the speaker.
LD:
Lincoln Douglass in my view is one of the most interactive forms of debate purely based on the way the format is set up. Moreover, that means that the round needs to have some level of cooperative disagreement between the two debaters. If you cannot be at some level cordial to your opponent I think that this event gets much much worse.
As stated above I don't believe in the separation of the trichotomy in debate, though this may be a value debate, do not excluded questions of fact or application in policy as that narrows the scope of the argument and hurts the supposed "value" argument.
A debate more focused on reoccurring central questions of value is likely to shine when I look at my flow and decide speaker points.
i don't know much about the topic
do whatever you'd like as long as your arguments have warrants
im expressive during debates so pay attention
I have more than three years worth of experience in forensics, and speech and debate. I have either participated in or judged almost every type of debate there is, and my Paradigm is pretty simple. I judge on the arguments presented and whether or not the arguments are presented with good structure and backed up and supported by evidence.