Tabroom.com

RCC T4

2024 — Chicago, IL/US

Novice Judges Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Ebun Adesida Northside College Preparatory 3 rounds None

Hafsa Amin Northside College Preparatory 3 rounds

Karl Barnickol Walter Payton College Prep 5 rounds

Rowan Boyle Jones College Prep 5 rounds

alex burkman Niles North High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 6, 2024 at 10:09 AM CDT

pls time ur own speeches and prep pls pls pls

she/they

niles north 25

ADD BOTH EMAILS PLEASE:

alebur3@nilesk12.org

nilesnorthnb@gmail.com

----

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

tech>truth

clarity>speed

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

DONT

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

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

MISC:

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

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

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

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

+ 0.1 speaks if you make me laugh or make a FUNNY joke about: anybody from Niles North, New Trier, Lane Tech, GBN, Maine East, or Cali Stoga

+ 0.1 speaks if you show me flows after the round

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

Simon Burstein Lane Tech College Prep H.S. 2 rounds

AJ Byrne New Trier High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed April 24, 2024 at 6:48 AM CDT

ajbyrne1018(at)gmail.com

New Trier ‘16

Northwestern '19

Hierarchy of how I want you to refer to me: "AJ">>>> "Mr. Byrne" >>>>>>>>>>"My Dude" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Judge"

Background: I debated at New Trier for four years (2x TOC qualifier) and then at Northwestern for three years. I coached for New Trier from 2016-2019. Back coaching for New Trier for fiscal redistribution topic. In the “real world” I am a pursuing my MEd in School Counseling from Loyola University Chicago.

I have judged 80+ debates on the Fiscal Redistribution Topic

Judging is one of my favorite things to do. 99 out of 100 times I would rather be judging than have a round off.

I value debaters that show enthusiasm, passion, and respect for the game. I am eager to reward preparation, good research, and debaters WHO DO NOT FLOW OFF THE SPEECH DOC. I have nothing but contempt for debaters who disrespect the game, their opponents, or (most importantly) their partners.

Debate is a communication activity. I am not flowing off the speech doc and will not reward a lack of clarity or debaters who think it is a good idea to go 100% speed through their analytic blocks. I will be very lenient for teams that are on the opposing end of such practices.

Planless is fine but you absolutely need to defend that choice. I think that my voting record is slightly neg leaning but that is because I do not think aff teams go for enough offense or they struggle to explain what debate looks like under their interpretation.

I am not voting for any argument regarding your interp being “good for small schools”

Default is no judge kick – I need specific 2NR instruction for me to do that for you. “Sufficiency framing” is not the same as judge kick.

Process CPs are fine (except Conditions I mean c’mon). Probably neg on most theory questions but also not going to let the neg get away with murder just because they are neg. The less generic and more germane to the topic the CP is, the better the neg is. If you are thinking about reading commissions or an advantage CP, I think you should probably read the advantage CP.

Zero risk of the DA is real, zero risking a DA without needing to read evidence is possible.

Plan Popular is not an argument that link turns an agenda DA.

Kritiks are rad. Kritiks that rely entirely on winning through framework tricks are miserable. If I am not skeptical of the aff's ability to solve their internal links or the alt's ability to solve them then I am unlikely to vote negative.

Other things:

Tag-team CX is fine but also sometimes very frustrating to evaluate. If I think someone is not adequately participating in CX, their points will suffer greatly.

Only Mavs and Neg teams debating new affs get to use CX as prep time. If a team wants to use CX as prep time under any other circumstances, the opposing team will be able to read additional evidence during this time.

CX begins at the first question asked, even if that question is something like “What card did you stop at?” (The only exception is “are you ready for cx?”)

Debates need to start on time, please!

More Debate Thoughts

These aren’t intended to be relevant to your pre-round prep. Just some opinions after spending 4 years away from the activity and then judging over 70 fiscal redistribution debates.

Please stop starting your speech at 100% speed. It guarantees that I am going to be unable to flow you for the first 10-15 seconds.
To go off that, why is it considered common practice to have T as the first off in the 1NC? That basically guarantees that I won’t be able to flow an entire offcase position and that doesn’t seem good.
Debaters that try to go fast as possible tend to end up being very slow. Your debate speaking voice should be your regular speaking voice, but faster.
I usually flow on paper, so I take a second to flip between flows. This usually means in every 2AC I miss roughly six perms on the CP because it has become common practice to just dump all the perms at the top of the block instead of the MUCH BETTER practice of spreading them throughout your block.
Seriously, please slow down.
I don’t care if you highlight in purple. Standard highlighting and consistent formatting are a BARE MINIMUM for a speech doc. Otherwise I will assume that you did not prep well for the tournament.
If it can be demonstrated from your wiki that you suck at disclosing I will spend a significant amount of my decision making fun of you. People who suck at disclosure are bad and should feel bad.
From the 2AC onwards, if you are speaking from a computer and not even referencing your flow, you are not debating the right way.
If the 1AC isn’t ready to start at start time, a puppy dies.
Anybody who uses the term “Speaks” to describe speaker points should have more respect for themselves.
Thinking about making it my policy that if I think you are stealing prep, I just give you a 26 without telling you.
Why does nobody read add-ons anymore?
I am pretty sick of <2 minutes of the block being spent on the case pages.
Tournament days are less grueling than they used to be but that has been in spite of debaters best efforts to be as slow as possible. Filling up the debate with dead time means less decision time which is only bad for you. As a wise man once said: “Keep ‘er movin”

Lucia Duffy Walter Payton College Prep 5 rounds

Cyrus Esmailzadeh Univ Of Chicago Lab School 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri May 17, 2024 at 12:41 PM CDT

altsneedplantexts@gmail.com

UC Lab '24

Michigan '28

Top Level

‘If you can’t beat the argument that genocide is good or that rocks are people, or that rock genocide is good even though they’re people, then you are a bad advocate of your cause and you should lose.’ — Calum Matheson

Insert rehighlightings, as long as you explain WHY the card goes your way. ‘All their uniqueness ev goes AFF — inserted’ is a no. ‘Lillis goes AFF — says Republicans won’t agree to a discharge petition — inserted’ is a yes!

I don’t need a card doc, so don’t bother.

Fine for predictability outweighs limits or the other way around.

Good for plan text in a vacuum.

Caselists help a lot.

Frame reasonability offensively.

Ks/K-Affs

I’m much better for them than my history of argument selection would suggest. Win the flow and I’ll vote on it!

Framework is never a ‘wash,’ and arbitrarily crafting a ‘middle ground’ interpretation when neither side has advocated for one is interventionist and incoherent. I’ll look to framework first and clearly decide which interpretation I should be using to evaluate the rest of the debate before doing so.

For high theory stuff, try to explain the more niche concepts a little bit more. Read anything else (reps Ks like security or death cult, race/identity-based Ks, psychoanalysis (which I’ve always had a soft spot for), and Ks of broader power structures like statism or capitalism) exactly how you like!

No preference between fairness and clash, as well as between impact turns to T versus models. I think the former is more strategic in both instances, but you do you.

Fairness might be the only impact, an impact, an internal link, or an anti-black penal code — convince me! I despise judges who hold any of the four options above to be true regardless of who won the flow. Wait, does that imply fairness is an impact? Even if I conclude ‘yes,’ does that mean I should sideline calls for racial justice to preserve fairness alone? Are those two end goals morally compatible? And what does my ballot accomplish? Should that even be a relevant consideration? Debate it out!

Specific links are fantastic, but conceding framework to just go for the link is almost never a good idea. The link probably isn’t unique, the aff outweighs, and/or the perm likely solves.

DAs

I don't care that much about turns case, especially if uncarded. You're better off winning a higher risk of your DA.

Zero risk is a thing.

I love going all-in on the politics straight turn in the 2AR! Extra points if you do this successfully.

CPs

'Much better for process and competition-based strategies than most. I don’t share the community’s sanctimonious distaste for Process CPs and tend to think a 2AC requires more than sputtering with indignation. I won’t automatically discount a net benefit because it is ‘artificial’ or ‘not germane,’ nor do I take it for granted that process strategies are inherently less educational than their counterparts.' - Rafa

I love a good competition debate, whether it's 'perm: do the CP' or 'CPs must compete textually and functionally.' Examples of the types of CPs or permutations justified under your or the other team's model are great.

You’re better off going for conditionality in the context of models, not in-round abuse. The ills of strategy and time skew are not reasons the 2AR gets to make new arguments.

Net benefits to process counterplans are seriously terrible. If your AFF has good ‘certainty key’ or ‘say no’ deficits, don’t be afraid to go for substance against a silly process CP!

Very amenable to AFF appeals (theoretically or substantively) to vague advantage CP texts, especially ones without advocates.

Impact turns

Love them. Run wild. Russia war good, dedev, animal wipeout, etc. are all fair game.

Case Debate

2As often get away with murder. 2Ns, take advantage! Most AFFs are already awful, and near-zero after blippy and shallow 2AC line-by-line.

Lukas Flynn Jones College Prep 5 rounds

Aiman Imran Walter Payton College Prep 5 rounds

Saad Khan Niles North High School 2 rounds

Katelyn Luu Whitney M. Young Magnet High School 5 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 13, 2024 at 2:07 AM CDT

Hi, my name is Katelyn, and I am former policy debater for Skinner West and Whitney Young. I now currently judge/mentor both teams, and have been in debate for around 6-7 years. I judge both PF and policy.

My email: kjluu@cps.edu

Here are some general rules/things I like to see:

- Time yourself please, this should be a debater's responsibility

- Spreading is always nice but give roadmaps + signpost (clarity>speed)

- Always include impact calculus in the rebuttal speeches

- I prefer overviews in speeches rather than giving me an underview with remaining time (overviews are always good to hear)

- Organized line by line in the rebuttal speeches is always good

- tag teaming is ok but don't take over CX

- please overexplain rather than underexplain to get through more arguments

- I tend to prefer substance of the debate over generalized arguments or evidence, so make sure you are not just extending cards and evidence but also providing analytics and building clash

- I tend to not take questions/arguments made in the CX into account in my ballot, you must bring whatever it was that occurred up in a speech for me to weigh it and flow it

- tech over truth

AFF:

- always always always extend your impacts- I tend to weigh presumption so please give me impact extensions through your rebuttals

- evidence/source debate is good clash in my opinion, updated evidence is always good

- I don't vote too heavy on perm- I want to see why you expand on refuting net benefits, solvency advocates, etc

- I vote on T, so please take your time to refute it - I really REALLY like well thought out and run T arguments

- I typically go for extinction rather than moral/human rights arguments

NEG:

- I vote on NEG presumption, so please expand squo solves arguments and turns- there are a lot of good case turns that can be abused that typically are not extended in debate rounds- I would love to see clash on case

- I weigh all offcase arguments, but I tend to see DAs as net benefits or loopholes rather than physical arguments on their own (please do run DAs though)

- I don't weigh K too heavily, but I do appreciate framing and theory arguments

- I really like T arguments and clash - please go all in or drop T in the rebuttals- I really hate to see poorly run Topicality

- Be clear when kicking out of offcase arguments and please don't commit a forfeit offense :)

- I am familiar with a few K args, majority of the CPs, DAs and more, but I love to hear new arguments every now and then

That's all I've got, I love to see respectful and educational debates filled with clash. Thanks for reading my paradigm, and good luck debating!

Katharine Morley Northside College Preparatory 2 rounds

Tucker Morrison Lane Tech College Prep H.S. 5 rounds

Kiana Pan Northside College Preparatory 2 rounds

Amber Paramore Whitney M. Young Magnet High School 5 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 9, 2024 at 8:13 AM CDT

Amber Paramore (she/her)

Background: policy debate going on 6 years

Add me to the email chain: aparamore@cps.edu and wydebatetm@gmail.com

tl;dr I like Ks, T, CPs, DAs (in that order), go for whatever (nothing discriminatory), frame your arguments.

Any blatant racism, sexism, etc. and I will vote you down and give the lowest speaks possible.

Kritiks

<333

I have always been a K debater (ignore freshman year). If you want to run one, go for it. Make sure you actually understand the K you're running; using philosophical jargon that you don't understand won't make it more likely for me to vote for it, but make it funny if you do. Explain the K so I can clearly see why the world of the K is better, why it's a prereq to the aff, etc. etc. If you're losing that the alt can't solve, then just sufficiently prove why any link to the aff would make the squo worse. Keep up with your framework and respond to the other team's standards.

K-affs, questioning the resolution, questioning debate itself--whatever it is, those are all super fun and incredibly necessary--go for it. K v K debates are also fun, just stay organized.

(this only applies LATER in the season--it's now later) +0.2 speaks to aff if they run a K-aff, and +0.2 speaks to neg if they go for a K.

Topicality

I generally like T, and have gone for it quite a few (too many) times, but the neg has to be able to prove aff is not topical. Spend time on T, extend your interp, violation, standards, and voters. Affs need to sufficiently prove we meet arguments--everything else is moot if affs meet the interp. Voters are pretty important for neg if you want me to, y'know, vote on it.

CPs

CPs are good, but it has to be able to compete with the aff. Explain why the CP is mutually exclusive; aff needs to sufficiently argue that it isn't for me to vote on it. CPs need a net benefit, external or internal idc but it needs to have one. I won't judge kick unless you ask me to.

Disadvantages

For neg, have clear links and explain them clearly. If you can’t explain how the aff links to the DA then idk how to weigh it or why to vote on it. Impact calc is important; tell me why your impact should be weighed over other impacts. Not the biggest fan of teams going for DAs, but that doesn't mean I won't vote on it.

Framing/FW

Always, always, always frame your arguments. Tell me what I should weigh the most and why. I’ll only weigh what the teams tell me to.

Speaks/Cross

- Signpost; say “and” or “next” between cards.

- I like speed, but not if clarity is sacrificed.

- I prefer cameras on when you’re speaking for online debate.

- Tag team is fine, just be respectful.

- You can be aggressive during cross, but there's a line between being aggressive and rude.

Miscellaneous

- I prefer interesting K debates over policy.

- Be respectful.

- Tech >>> Truth (in policy debates)

- If you make a comment about the other team yapping during a speech or cross will get you +0.1 speaks and I'll know you read my paradigm :D

Sabrina Qian Whitney M. Young Magnet High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 12, 2024 at 12:29 PM EDT

Whitney Young '26

Add me to the email chain: bqian@cps.edu

Be respectful - if you are being racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. or if you are being unncessarily mean to your opponents or your partner, your speaks drop to an auto 25.

General Things:

Time your own speeches and prep. I'll do my best to time everything, but I don't want to be asked to time for you.

Give a roadmap of your arguments for every speech except the 1AC. If you give a roadmap, FOLLOW IT. Don't try to surprise the other team by going out of order -- it doesn't help and only makes my job harder.

Signpost before every tag or distinguish the way you say your tags -- makes your roadmap easier to follow.

You can tag team but try not to take over.

FLOW, FLOW, FLOW! Please don't make me judge another round where there is absolutely no clash on anything.

If you have extra time in your 1AC, don't give an underview if you are running a basic policy aff.

Note on blocks: Blocks are great and prepping blocks for your rebuttals are great, but if you read some blocks that have hardly any application in round and don't respond to your opponents, they don't help you. Try to do line-by-line instead in that case.

Write my ballot for me. Judges are lazy -- tell me exactly what I should be voting on in your 2AR/2NR.

Arguments:

I mostly don't have a preference on arguments -- I'm willing to listen to anything.

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

Clarity -----X----------------------Speed

Presumption: I don't really vote on it. Please don't make me vote on it....

DAs: If you aren't running a K, you should definitely be running a DA for policy affs. Those case turns 90% of the time are not enough. Tell the full story of your DA and explain why it outweighs.

CP: Do not forget your net benefit and impact it out. (cue Vishal and Tanmay) Explain your solvency advocate. I'm mostly okay with condo, but respond to any CP turns.

Topicality: Go ahead. In fact, I'm still waiting for that 5 minutes (or 3.5 min) of T in the 2NR. (For middle school, yea.. I get why aff teams say they're predictable since core files, but aff, that can't be your only argument. If neg extends all parts of T well, I'm willing to vote on it even for MS.)

Kritiks: I love hearing Ks, and I will definitely vote on them if you explain it well. If you happen to be running some high theory argument, give an overview and explain it to some degree. I'm willing to learn about your K, but allow me to process what you're saying.

If you ever just want to read A through Z spec, I'll be pretty amused ngl. 99% won't vote on it, but you know, will make me a bit entertained.

K-Affs: I am willing to vote on K-Affs, but explain your framework well. I don't mind listening to framework debates, but I would enjoy judging a K v K debate.

Theory: Perf con, condo, "bla blah" CP bad args are kinda mid, but I'll vote on it if you do them well. Same goes with "bla blah" fiat bad. This, however, does not mean that I won't vote for them if you drop them.

Maura Schumacher Whitney M. Young Magnet High School 5 rounds

Mahi Shah Univ Of Chicago Lab School 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue May 14, 2024 at 9:54 AM EDT

Mahi Shah - (she/her) - mahishahdebate@gmail.com

Uclab ES and Uclab '24

UPenn '28

top level:

tech > truth - I will evaluate every argument that is made in the round, regardless of how much I like or dislike it. I loved going for process cps + concon + the cybernetics K, and it bothered me when I couldn't go for them in big rounds because of judges personal biases.TLDR: go for what you're good at (warming good, spark, etc.)

exception: won't vote on death good or suicide good.

I think turns case is extremely underutilized and can win you so many debates.

I probably care about card quality less than most judges - it's important, but you have to do the work in pointing out your opponent's cards are bad. Example: If one team reads bad ev but executes/spins it really well (so that they're technically ahead) and you don't tell me that all of their analysis is spin/their ev is bad, I'm not going to do the work for you and read all the cards to conclude their ev is bad and yours is better.

im fine with inserting rehighlightings.

will not tolerate racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. be a good human being.

T (policy):

was never my bread and butter, but i like T debates.

internal link work matters a lot---what does your interp include and exclude and why is that good for limits (neg) or predictability/aff ground (aff)

competing interps > reasonability

not the best for PTIV, just because I haven't thought about it enough--- obv will vote on it, but do a lot of explanation if you're going for it.

K-affs vs Framework:

i had the most fun in these debates. yes i was always the one going for T, but I've thought a lot about both sides.

for the neg: fairness and clash are both impacts- i went for fairness because i thought it was easier to articulate, but im fine with either.

if going for fairness: contextualize no subject formation args---don't just say "family, friends, school, etc"--- i think doubling down/reading contradictory arguments are better args to prove no s/f.

SSD > TVA imo

for the aff: impact turns to fw >>> counterinterps---most of the time you're going to be losing the limits debate.

familiar with the most common K's: cap, set col, afropess, cybernetics, death, security- but obviously didn't go for all of these, so would appreciate more explanation.

not familiar with high theory at all, so if you're going for it, put a lot of depth into explaining your links.

fine with framework K's or K's that rely on link turns case + the alt.

CPs:

i like them: process cps, advantage cps, agent cps, etc

probably better for cps only having to be functionally competitive than most.

solvency deficits should have an impact

fine for the both the intrinsic perm and PDCP

condo is probably good, but i can be convinced otherwise. i don't think its cowardice to go for condo- if you know you're getting smoked in the debate, take the chance.

lean neg on all other theory, unless dropped/badly answered.

Disads:

i like them; don't have a ton of thoughts.

make sure your links to the aff are good.

aff teams: sometimes disads so bad and can be beaten on analytics + rehighlights

for fun:

+0.1 speaks for open sourcing after the round and telling me

+0.1 speaks for making fun of Aaron or Cyrus (my old debate partners)

Tarun Shah Lane Tech College Prep H.S. 3 rounds

will sterbenc Niles North High School 5 rounds

Last changed on Tue May 7, 2024 at 2:10 PM CDT

niles north '25

he/him

call me whatever

turingtestfanclub@gmail.com

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

Above all else, debate in whatever way you're best at, I'll adapt

Non-Negotiables:

Racism, Sexism, and any other ism in round will be an auto L and an immediate email to your coach, be a decent human being

Make an email chain before the round

Time urself, don't ask me for 63.124186 seconds of prep just say 'start prep' and then say 'stop prep' when ur done. im not that responsible dawg, i will forget and you will use 75.1928 seconds and be mad at me and no one wants that

Clipping = Auto L

Incomprehensible spreading = 27

My Personal Takes:

Anything goes

Tech>>>Truth - if an argument is 'trolly' or 'bad' then disprove it, if you fail to do so, is it really 'trolly' ? I will evaluate all arguments no matter what unless tabroom tells me not to. If your 'A strat' is bad, trolly arguments, I expect you to have a thorough, deep understanding of the arguments. If you get up and start incomprehensibly rambling about stuff your varsity clearly gave to you as a joke, I will assume you are a bad debater who deserves no higher than a 28

I am very flexible with arguments, I have read both a K aff and a policy aff, I go for cheaty process counterplans, K's that no one (including myself) understands, topicality, a disad once in a blue moon, etc, but I’m probably most knowledgeable in K rounds. if you want to try out reading K’s, I can give you really good advice on what to improve

Please flow, I like barely flowed novice year and suffered every round. If u noticeably go off the flow ur speaks r gonna skyrocket

Refer to Addison DiChiera-Kane, Ariel Gabay, Joshua Harrington, Kailey Cabrera or Hana Bisevac's paradigms for things that influenced this paradigm and more in-depth things, they're very smart people who I agree with normally

If you read a k aff novice year your speaks are capped at 26.5. Don’t play w me

Be funny/nice = good speaks

Be good at debate = good speaks

Average speaks from me should be around 28.8 idk how well I'll adhere to this doe

I could care less if you send analytics, u probably should novice year but idc, send your cards obviously

Ask questions! Not asking me questions will make me feel sad and lonely, also, learning something from your round always seems fun

extremely familiar with condo, pretty familiar with competition, not very familiar with T. If your main strategy are any of these things, you need to go slow and do judge instruction!

Have fun in-round!! I hate it when people think the activity is life or death especially when there's no stakes in the novice division

If you go to maine east, new trier, gbn, gbs, niles west, or whitney young, make fun of the upperclassmen on your team for me after the round

Skye Warner Hire 5 rounds

Last changed on Sun May 5, 2024 at 3:13 PM CDT

20250944@student.nths.net - New Trier ‘25 - they/she/he

tldr:

Be kind, above all.
Tech > truth, except in certain circumstances below
Explain your violation and impacts under theory
you should probably strike me in a K aff debate
My tech > truth ideology peaks in T
explain your Ks
CPs + DAs are chill
I won't vote on death good
constructives are for constructing, rebuttals are for rebutting
relax. have fun.

people who have significantly impacted my thoughts on debate, in no particular order, include Aaron Vinson, Tim Freehan, Dave Weston, Margaret Jones, Rocky Shapiro, Nick Wilson, Josh Clark, Scott Phillips, Becca Steiner, and Whit Whitmore. do with that what you will

First and foremost:

I will never tolerate racism, sexism, classism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, or general xenophobia. I will email your coach, auto-L, and give you the lowest speaks possible. Debate should be a safe space for people to have fun, not to be attacked. I will stop the round if you do anything that makes the debate space unsafe.

Death good = auto-L, lowest speaks possible, email to your coach. In light of the whole LASA vs wichita east debacle, anything, where if i look at it and think that my 2AC against death good could apply, counts as death good. 2Ns, don’t look at this and think ‘but could it be a throwaway?’ Don’t force debaters to deal with that, you have no clue what people are going through and making the debate space violent and unsafe is the antithesis of why I do debate in the first place. If the 1N reads death good, but i hear the 2N refusing to extend it, 29.5+ speaks to the 2N, or vice versa.(you’ll still lose, though).

Novice version:

Honestly, novice year is the hardest year, and I do not want to make that worse, so please don't adapt your strategy to anything here and if you show up, I think you're doing fantastic. You've got this, good luck, and above all, have fun!!

Theory:

In this instance, you really need to explain to me why what they did screwed you over and probably the farthest I get from tech>truth. Why did a neg generic PIC make it so unfair that you should win the round because they ran it? Is 1 condo advocacy that bad? Should your one-sentence hidden aspec be given enough weight to earn a whole ballot? You can win this, but know that the more teams that have won against it, the more the odds are stacked against you. In-round abuse will change this, though. If the neg ran 15+ condo, weaponized perfcon, or ran ten new 2NC CPs with no justification other than ‘condo!’, something like that, run theory and you have a decent shot.

If you're doing a condo 2AR when the neg didn't drop condo, I probably already mentally voted neg, and ifthe aff takes over 20 seconds of prep for the 2AC, I won’t like it if you try to argue infinite prep time.

Case:

read a good aff, please.

K affs:

I should know what your aff does coming out of the 2AC at maximum, and preferably out of 1AC cx. Especially here, I won't penalize speaks for 2Ns saying 'what is this' and you should respond with something that would be understandable to someone who hasn't read your lit(e.g. don't say 'we advocate for a method of corporeal care', say 'we advocate for creating a space for caring about the condition of humans')

Topicality is capital T true, maybe one of the most true arguments in debate, and both teams know it. Please, act like it. I don’t care whether you go for clash or fairness, as long as you have an impact. Most of the time I go for clash, so if you choose that route, I’m better versed there. I’ll still vote on the flow, so aff teams, you can win.

If you say that your survival hinges on an aff ballot, I will be uncomfortable for the rest of the debate.

But honestly, if you read a k aff, you should probably strike me. I don’t believe that these arguments should be ran in novice debate.

In general, I don’t like these debates, and reading dictionary definitions after a round isn’t that fun. But if an aff is genuinely untopical and you're sure that their strategy against all of your offense will be 'no link', go for it!

Ks:

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

pronounce kritik like critic or cricket and I'll boost your speaks +0.2, and ask Len Livshits or Lindsay Ye why.

CP + DA + ! turns:

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

If your adv CP doesn’t have a solvency advocate, you are the solvency advocate, and I treat the CP’s solvency as such. fyi ;)

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

but like...who dislikes adv CPs + econ DA?

2Rs:

Be nice, don't lie, framing my ballot at the beginning of the speech is always a good idea- don't let your opponents decide what the round is about.

Arguments need a claim and warrant in earlier speeches for you to win extending them. eg. ‘CP can’t solve i-law, moving on’ in the 1AR without ‘it’s not a clear signal’ means that I won’t give the 2AR ‘it’s not a clear signal’. I’ll auto-strike new arguments off my flow for the 2AR, so 2Ns, don’t worry. This also goes for the 2NR- you’re not allowed to make up new net benefits or add a fw DA.

This is technically the 1AR, but honestly idk where else to put this- my bar for a warrant in the 1AR is significantly different from the 2AR. For example, states CP. If the 1A says the words ‘extend perm do both - looks like federal follow-on so it shields the nb, done by federal funding and state implementation’ and then answers the neg’s reasons why pdb fails, that is all the explanation I need and the 2AR is clear to extend pdb. I’m a 1A, I get it, 1ARs are hard.

If your 2R is less than five sentences and you win, you’re getting a very high 29. If you lose, medium to very low 28. If the 2NR is less than five sentences and is about to win, but the 2AR somehow pulls off something amazing, everyone’s getting 29.7+ :)

Speaks:

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

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

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

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

CX:

Speaking over and then proceeding to repeat exactly what your partner would have said in cx will hurt speaks and almost always what the 1A speaking during 2AC cx or 1N during 2NC cx is like.

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

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

CX is binding, UNLESS the team goes back on what they said immediately and unanimously. Otherwise, you're tied.

I can tell when your varsity just gave you a list of cx questions and told you to ask them, and it’ll hurt your speaks if you do that. Yes, cx is hard, but you need to start out by struggling through it, and ultimately you’ll get way better!

Other:

I’m cool with sending cards in the body of the email.

The more prep time you steal, the less time I have to make my decision, and that favors the team that didn’t steal prep. you’re not just cheating, you’re hurting yourself.

Uncarded arguments are still arguments, but they will probably lose to carded ones. You're a high schooler, 'i’m the solvency advocate' arguments require a LOT of ethos.

Please please please, if you have a blippy 1AC/1NC/2AC, come back from it. This is why I love debate- things can change so quickly and I love being in rounds where people do. Especially this year, it’s kind of a running joke at NT that me and my partner get the worst pairings(at our first 2 tournaments, we faced 8 teams on the coaches’ poll). We didn’t give up until the final speech. You can too.

Run what you're cool with, kick what you're not, and make your 2R the best it can be!

glhf :)

current bias:

Policy v policy: 11-9 neg

Policy v K: 1-1

K v policy:

K v K: 1-0 neg

Triniti West Whitney M. Young Magnet High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Mon March 4, 2024 at 3:34 PM CDT

TL;DR - don't care, read the whole thing.

Triniti; WY '25

I currently debate at Whitney Young, but I've been debating for four (five?) years

Add me to the email chain I like to read ev in round; my email: twest8@cps.edu

General stuff:

I am far from a traditional judge and try to make that very clear. I think i'm fair but I also like to be entertained <3. I have zero poker face and severe RBF so don't take any of my expressions to heart unless I yell at you.

I have a tendency to say "I don't believe you but..." during my feedback. All it means is that i'm not evaluating it as a truth but it carried enough technical weight for me to vote on it.

No hate speech, try to time your own speeches and prep (but let me know when you're starting)

don't steal prep, its annoying. if you do, try to be original about how you do it.

I appreciate a firm cross-ex, but don't be a jerk about it.

Keep the debate interesting!! Debate doesn't have to be lame guys. I like plenty of lame stuff but please try to keep me awake.

I can typically tell if you're reading your varsities blocks. I probably won't call you on it and it wont impact my decision but it will impact your speaks unless I feel like you genuinely knew what you were saying.

Judge Prefs:

Pronouns: she/her

If you plan to address me directly, you can call me Judge (it feeds my superiority complex)

spreading is fine, but make sure I can understand you

make your arguments as clear as possible, pretend I know nothing about the case

I appreciate morality args, but do not rely on them; extinction inherently carries a heavier weight unless argued otherwise (or in an identity K round).

Truth -------x-------------Tech (I'm pretty hard truth unless you drop a procedural or like T)

pretend I'm not flowing, so if your opponent dropped something, tell me.

but please flow yourself.

i've voted neg on presumption before and i'll do it again.

Das - they're wtv, make sure they don't contradict each other (I'm not a fan of the Fed Da but if you can prove it links ig im down)

Straight Policy Topicality - I hate T and probably won’t want to vote on it unless its dropped and I have to.

Theory - PLEASE explain your theory args, I don't want to waste time decoding them. If I don't understand them I wont vote on them. I hate condo but i'll vote on it if i have to.

Ks - love. understand the super basic theory please. no shrek k (looking at you maura).

KvK - please let me judge a KvK round!!

Framework - ik its important but god I hate it. I've learned to err neg if the aff doesn't handle it well (but i'm bad at fw too so i'll cut you a little slack. Just a little.)

CP - I despise process CPs. I'll listen to them but I won't like them. They're boring.

PICS - despise. I'll flow them but...I won't enjoy it. If its entertaining I might give you higher speaks (but for the love of god do not run the barefoot PIC)

K affs - also love. I debate Ks, just make sure its run properly. I also probably won't notice that you don't understand the lit until the 1AR so figure your case out before then please. I'm a...less traditional K debater, meaning I don't focus on a lot of big, specific debate terms I just like to vibe it out. I'm ethos-y, sue me.

Dropped args - let me know!! I have the memory of a goldfish and I hate flowing.

Sportsmanship - be nice. Im the only one allowed to be mean.

Speaks - im pretty fair imo (don't listen to samar) but i’m not above giving out a lower score <3. If you do smth really out of pocket (A-ZSPEC)...high speaks are unlikely.

25-26: you really messed up...

26.6-27.5: pretty much encompasses my past averages (unlikely you'll be closer to 26.6)

27.6-28.4: (general) average scores, If you end up somewhere in here I think you're pretty solid overall.

28.5-29.2: I like you a lot. Good ethos, good clash, technical enough (we alr know i’m not big on tech).

29.3-29.5: One of my favs in the tournament.

29.6-29.9: Gods gift to debate. Reserved for one person and he knows who he is.

Extra: pick one and ONLY one.

if you say "i'm just a teenage girl" (no matter your gender) +0.2 speaks

if you manage to compliment Rowan Boyle, Maddie Callaghan or Matthew Zhao +0.3 speaks

if you know about "the list" and can prove it +0.2 speaks

Final Notes: im just a teenage girl yall I promise i'm nice. If you have genuine questions please ask post-round. +if you want to post round me, do it! i'll meet you with the energy you bring and the ultimate goal is to be helpful.

David Weston New Trier High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Mon January 8, 2024 at 3:19 AM CDT

I'm currently a head coach at New Trier Township High School outside of Chicago, IL. I've been at New Trier since 2012. Prior to that I was the director of debate at Cathedral Preparatory School in Erie, PA. I debated at the University of Pittsburgh ('07) and at Cathedral Prep ('03).

Here are some defaults into the way I evaluate arguments. Obviously these are contingent upon the way that arguments are deployed in round. If you win that one of these notions should not be the standard for the debate, I will evaluate it in terms of your argumentation.

*I evaluate the round based on the flow. Technical line by line debating should be prioritized. That's not to say that I'm always a "tech over truth" judge. I'm willing to listen to reasonable extrapolations, smart debating, and bringing in some context. However, I don't think I can interpret exactly how an argument in one place should be applied to another portion of the flow/debate unless the debater does that for me. To me, that injects my understanding of how I would spin one argument to answer another and I don't want to do that.

*Offense/Defense - I'm not sure if I'm getting older or if the quality of evidence is getting worse, but I find myself less persuaded by the idea that there's "always a risk" of any argument. Just because a debater says something does not mean it is true. It is up to the other team to prove that. However, if an argument is claimed to be supported by evidence and the cards do not say what the tags claim or the evidence is terrible, I'm willing to vote on no risk to that argument. Evidence needs to have warrants that support tags/claims.

*I prefer tags that are complete sentences. The proliferation of one word tags makes with massive card text (often without underlining) reduces the academic integrity of the activity.

*Evidence should be highlighted to include warrants for claims. I am more likely to vote on a few cards that have high quality warrants and explained well than I am to vote on several cards that have been highlighted down to the point that an argument cannot be discerned in the evidence.

* Teams are getting away with some real scholarly shenanigans on evidence. I've seen cards that run 6-7 pages long and they are highlighted down to a few sentences. I think it is up to the debaters to exploit this, but I'm less and less impressed by the overall scholarship in the activity.

*Arguments require claims and warrants. A claim without warrant is unlikely to be persuasive.

* A note on plan texts: start defending things. I find that most plans are extraordinarily vague and meaningless. They are "resolutional phrase by X." There's no plan text basis for the fiat claims AFF teams are making. All of the sudden, that becomes some wild extrapolation on how the plan is implemented, what a Court decision would look like, that it is done through some random memo, etc. all in an effort to avoid offense. I've just grown a little tired of it. I'm not saying change your plan because of me, you need to do what you need to do to win the round, but the overall acceptance of plans that do not say anything of substance is trend a frown upon.

*Performance/Non-traditional Affirmative -

I can still be persuaded to vote for an AFF that doesn't defend the topic, but it's become much harder for me. I find myself being increasingly on the side of defending the resolution.

My old paradigm read as follows: I would prefer that the debate is connected to the resolution. My ultimate preference would be for the Affirmative to defend a topical plan action that attempts to resolve a problem with the status quo. I think that this provides an opportunity for students to create harms that are tied to traditional internal link chains or critical argumentation. Teams should feel free to read critical advantages, but I would prefer that they access them through a topical plan action. For example, reading an Affirmative that finds a specific example of where structural violence (based on racism, sexism, heteronormativity, classism, etc.) is being perpetuated and seeks to remedy that can easily win my ballot. Debaters could then argue that the way that we make decisions about what should or should not be done should prioritize their impacts over the negative's. This can facilitate kritiks of DA impacts, decision calculus arguments, obligations to reject certain forms of violence, etc.

Teams who choose not to defend a topical plan action should be very clear in explaining what their advocacy is. The negative should be able to isolate a stasis point in the 1AC so that clash can occur in the debate. This advocacy should be germane to the resolution.

I am not wedded traditional forms of evidence. I feel that teams can use non-traditional forms of evidence as warrants explaining why a particular action should be taken. An Affirmative that prefers to use personal narratives, music, etc. to explain a harm occurring in the status quo and then uses that evidence to justify a remedy would be more than welcome. I tend to have a problem with Affirmative's that stop short of answering the question, "what should we do?" How a team plans to access that is entirely up to them.

*Kritik debates - I like kritik debates provided they are relevant to the Affirmative. Kritiks that are divorced from the 1AC have a harder time winning my ballot. While I do not want to box in the negative's kritik options, examples of kritiks that I would feel no qualms voting for might include criticisms of international relations, economics, state action, harms representations, or power relations. I am less persuaded by criticisms that operate on the margins of the Affirmative's advocacy. I would prefer links based off of the Affirmative plan. Kritiks that I find myself voting against most often include Deleuze, Baudrillard, Bataille, etc.

*Theory - Generally theory is a reason to reject the argument not the team. The exception is conditionality. I find myself less persuaded by conditionality bad debates if there are 2 or less advocacies in the round. That is not to say I haven't voted for the AFF in those debates. I am willing to vote on theory if it is well explained and impacted, but that does not happen often, so I end up defaulting negative. Avoid blips and theory blocks read at an incomprehensible rate.

*CP's CP's that result in the plan (consult, recommendations, etc.) bore me. I would much rather hear an agent CP, PIC, Advantage CP, etc. than a CP that competes off of "certainty" or "immediacy."

*Case - I'd like to see more of it. This goes for negative teams debating against nontraditional Affirmatives as well. You should engage the case as much as possible.

Other things
*If your strategy is extinction good or death good, genocide good, racism good, patriarchy good, etc. please do all of us as favor and strike me. These arguments strike me as being inappropriate for student environments. Imagine a world where a debater's relative recently passed away and that student is confronted with "death good" for 8 minutes of the 1AC. Imagine a family who fled slaughter in another part of the world and came to the United States, only to listen to genocide good. These are things I wouldn't allow in my classroom and I would not permit them in a debate round either. Since I can't actually prevent people from reading them, my only recourse is to use my ballot.

Login to Tabroom

RCC T4

2024 — Chicago, IL/US

Novice Judges Paradigm List

Judges