Moriah Windus Paradigm

Last changed 2/4 12:38A EDT

[I like to be included in the email chain, my email: moriahwindus1@gmail.com]

I'm currently a policy debater at Samford University and started debating as a novice my first year in college (2016). I qualified to the NDT for the 2017-2018 debate year.

I haven't judged on the high school topic too much this year, so please don't assume that I know all of the technical topic-specific terms.

I'm very much a "you do you" type of judge and want the debate to be what the debaters want it to be about, that said I do have some preferences:

For the Neg:

1. Disads

As a former 2N, I love disads, but I'm going to be skeptical of your ability to win the disad if your uniqueness and link work isn't done well throughout the entire debate. Impact calc is your best friend, in the 2nr I want you to write my ballot for me and tell me why your link chain is much more probable than your opponents and why your impact turns the case debate.

2. CPs

I'm not particularly persuaded by Aff claims that the CP should be textually competitive, and err on the side of functionally competitive. If the CP has multiple planks I want a clear explanation of how each one functions (or how they function together) at some point in the debate, so many debaters don't synthesis their CP planks to work together which ultimately ends up hurting them in the debate. As far as 50 states goes, the Aff is 100 % right! 50 state fiat isn't the most real world model of education, however, as a 2N I can definitely be persuaded by the arg that it's important to test federal vs. state action---just make sure that these arguments are well drawn out if the debate comes down to 50 states fiat.

3. K debate

All too often the alt isn't clearly explained. While I would definitely vote on "we prove the aff is bad even without the alt," you'd really have to be winning case turns arguments which ultimately makes more work for you. It's best to work with an alt that you are familiar with and can clearly explain with well-articulated links to the case. I try to interfere with the debate as little as possible, so even if I understand the literature base you're working with, I'm not going to do the work for you if you don't fully explain your arguments or develop them.

4. Topicality

It's really important that you win your interpretation though explaining why it is comparatively better than the Aff's CI. It's a good practice to include a list of topical versions of the affirmative that the aff could easily have adopted. Also, I want to see good impact work done in the 2NR (what ground you lost, how they over or under limit etc & why those things matter).

5. FW

Win the TVA debate and I'm 89% convinced you'll win my ballot. If there is a TVA that solves all your offense and gives the Aff the ability to debate the things that they want to debate, that's an easy neg ballot. BUT you need to do the work for me and do impact work in the 2NR that explains what ground you lost (and it needs to be more than "I couldn't run my econ da").

6. Final Tips

A) Clarity over speed

B) When the debate is too big in the 2NR, the neg will always lose

C) If the Aff reads add-ons in the 2AC, impact turn them and make the debate fun :)

D) 1NRs should be offensive not defensive, it's a strategic time to read lots of cards because the aff usually focuses more on the 2NC.

For the Aff:

1. For Policy Affs

A) Be topical, or be really good at debating topicality--I'm going to err neg in a debate that you're not winning the topicality debate. Persuasive counter interpretations are a good thing to have in your toolbox and explaining why your interpretation is comparatively better (for debate, for this round etc.) is a must.

B) Impact calc---write my ballot in the 2AR

2. For K Affs

I think that it is helpful for K aff's to be germane to the resolution, it makes it harder for the neg to win aspects of the FW debate (if it is a K vs policy debate) and increases the nuance level of the debate.

A few final things

1. Pronouns are very important, please be respectful and ask the other team their preferred pronouns before the debate starts and adhere to those throughout the debate.

2. Microaggression and rudeness will result in your speaker points being docked, please keep the debate civil and respectful.

Full Judging Record

Tournament Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
Deep South District Tournament 2/3/2019 LD R6 110 163 Aff Aff on a 3-0
Deep South District Tournament 2/3/2019 LD R4 168 144 Neg Neg on a 2-1
Deep South District Tournament 2/3/2019 BQ R4 239 236 Aff Aff on a 2-1
Deep South District Tournament 2/3/2019 BQ R3 237 238 Aff Aff on a 2-1
Deep South District Tournament 2/3/2019 LD R1 154 183 Aff
The Betty Gunn Invitational at Mountain Brook High School 2/1/2019 VPF F Vestavia Hills CS Altamont CL Neg Aff on a 2-1
The Betty Gunn Invitational at Mountain Brook High School 2/1/2019 VLD Semis Montgomery CD Vestavia Hills SN Neg Neg on a 2-1
The Betty Gunn Invitational at Mountain Brook High School 2/1/2019 NLD Q Hoover AC Auburn HS Neg Neg on a 2-1
The Betty Gunn Invitational at Mountain Brook High School 2/1/2019 VLD R5 Mountain Brook DJ Hoover PS Aff
The Betty Gunn Invitational at Mountain Brook High School 2/1/2019 VLD R4 Mountain Brook CG Montgomery CD Neg
The Betty Gunn Invitational at Mountain Brook High School 2/1/2019 VLD R4 Mountain Brook EJ Auburn MF Neg
The Betty Gunn Invitational at Mountain Brook High School 2/1/2019 NLD R2 Altamont HC Hoover HS Neg
The Betty Gunn Invitational at Mountain Brook High School 2/1/2019 NLD R2 Westminster Christian KG Montgomery CJ Aff
The Betty Gunn Invitational at Mountain Brook High School 2/1/2019 NLD R1 Vestavia Hills AZ Hoover BF Neg
The Betty Gunn Invitational at Mountain Brook High School 2/1/2019 NLD R1 Hoover KY Vestavia Hills AN Aff
Samford University Bishop Guild Debate Tournament 1/12/2019 LD Semis Altamont IM Auburn MF Neg Neg on a 3-0
Samford University Bishop Guild Debate Tournament 1/12/2019 LD Quarte Auburn MF Vestavia Hills DS Aff Aff on a 2-1
Samford University Bishop Guild Debate Tournament 1/12/2019 LD R6 Vestavia Hills MV Hoover AS Neg
National Speech and Debate Tournament 6/17/2018 CX R11 X263 X228 Neg Neg on a 3-0
National Speech and Debate Tournament 6/17/2018 CX R9 X170 X200 Aff Aff on a 3-0
National Speech and Debate Tournament 6/17/2018 CX R8 X123 X180 Aff Aff on a 2-1
National Speech and Debate Tournament 6/17/2018 CX R6 X278 X194 Aff
National Speech and Debate Tournament 6/17/2018 CX R5 X247 X195 Neg Neg on a 2-0
National Speech and Debate Tournament 6/17/2018 CX R4 X188 X236 Neg
National Speech and Debate Tournament 6/17/2018 CX R2 X252 X244 Neg Neg on a 2-0
National Speech and Debate Tournament 6/17/2018 CX R1 X276 X282 Neg
Samford University Bishop Guild Debate Tournament 1/12/2018 NCX R5 Montgomery Bell HJ Woodward GK Aff
Samford University Bishop Guild Debate Tournament 1/12/2018 VCX R4 Westminster KM Riverwood JP Aff
Michigan Summer Institutes 8/1/2017 POL Double FFRSV JT ValDMLWhit KM Aff Aff on a 2-1
Michigan Summer Institutes 8/1/2017 POL R6 Munday/Tallungan ST CFJ MO Aff
Michigan Summer Institutes 8/1/2017 POL R5 McCaffrey/Zuckerman JK Oddo/Walrath HL Aff
Michigan Summer Institutes 8/1/2017 POL R3 Oddo/Walrath FM FFRSV KR Neg
Michigan Summer Institutes 8/1/2017 POL R2 FFRSV LZ BFHHR KT Aff
Michigan Summer Institutes 8/1/2017 POL R1 FFRSV DH BCPPR MN Neg
Samford Summer Institute 7/6/2017 R6 NOV SB ADV PE Neg
Samford Summer Institute 7/6/2017 R5 ADV DK ADV NW Neg
Samford Summer Institute 7/6/2017 R2 NOV GP NOV AK Neg
Samford University Bishop Guild 1/13/2017 NCX R1 University School MM Johns Creek YS Aff