Jack Altman

jackaltman29@gmail.com

New Trier class of 2019, UChicago class of 2023 (not debating)

Updated after New Trier 2022

It's been four years since I debated and my involvement since has been limited to judging a couple of tournaments a year. If I judge you, I can commit to paying close attention, flowing to the best of my ability, and putting in a good deal of effort to make an informed decision that I can explain well and provide quality feedback to the debaters. That being said, my topic knowledge is basically zero and my skills at judging highly fast, complex, technical debates have atrophied quite a bit since I graduated high school.

I like when debaters show off the depth and breadth of knowledge they've gained from researching the topic and being curious about the world. I think the best debaters keep the debate simple and understandable on a big-picture level, crafting a coherent story for why their side should win.

I am an extremely bad judge for K affs and Ks on the neg. This is not due to a lack of interest in the literature itself, but more that I often have a hard time understanding how the K interacts with the aff and how it results in a neg ballot (basically I completely agree with the K section of Tyler Thur's paradigm).

For policy/procedural arguments I would say I'm fine for either side. I'm probably decently more likely to vote aff in a T debate than the average judge though.

Clarity is very important to me, mostly because my hearing's absolutely atrocious. I will definitely dock speaker points if a debater's unclear, so please speak clearly.

I read a lot of evidence during and after the round.

I will not vote on troll arguments like ASPEC, death good, floating PIKs, etc (you get the idea) under any circumstances.

I give speaker points on a scale of roughly 28.2-29.2.

Negative points for being rude/offensive, cheating, and math jokes.

Hi! I'm Maggie, and I debate for New Trier.

Please put me on the email chain: maggiecao.nt@gmail.com Thanks!

Run anything you'd like! Show me you know what you're talking about, make good comparative claims, and engage with the other team's arguments. If you do it well, I'll be happy to vote on it. Do what you do best!

That being said, please also show respect in the round. We're here because we love debate, so please don't be rude or put anyone down. Show respect for the people, and show respect for the activity!

I'm all about creating good habits here, so...

- if you found my paradigm, kudos to you! Show me, and I'll give you +0.1 speaker points.

- at the end of the round, if you show me a good, organized flow, that's +0.2 speaks (but make sure you're not too absorbed in flowing that you lose sight of the round... I have a funny story about that -- ask me about it!)

- shake your opponents' hands at the end of the round and you can get a high five and/or a sticker from me :)

Tips in general...

- make sure you understand your own argument. You're much better off with CP + DA strats that you can explain to me in the context of the AFF than crazy K's or T interps that YOU can't even wrap your head around. I've ran my fair share of those args, but help us all out here -- if you are solely surviving off of pre-made 2nc/1nr blocks I'll be much less inclined to vote for it than things you can explain in your own words. Obviously, if you're a pro at Ks and deep-literature arguments, go for it!

- I default to reasonability. Sorry, I'm a 2A! Unless the AFF is something egregiously untopical, why can't we just let it go and carry on with the debate? Of course, I can be persuaded otherwise... it's up to you!

- the only voters are T and condo. Run as many theory args as you want, but let's be honest, most of them are cheaty anyways. If you can beat the team on the substance of the argument, why waste your time poking at their argumentation? Even though I say condo is a voter, it's honestly not until we get into the 3 or 4+ k/cp range. Again, I can be persuaded otherwise... you tell me!

- "now what?" What does this mean for us after this round ends? We all know that me voting AFF or NEG doesn't really do anything in the real world, but the things we learn are things that follow us beyond the round. So show me what we can all learn from my decision! K-specific: Explain to me how my decision would change how we approach policy-making in the future. T-specific: Explain to me how my decision would impact future debate rounds.

- I <3 clash. No one likes a debate where the two opposing sides never contest to each other's arguments. This is commonly referred to as "two ships passing in the night." That's no bueno! How am I supposed to evaluate your arguments if YOU don't even evaluate them? Good line-by-line, evidence comparison, and impact calc help a lot!

About speaker points...

1. be nice (not just to your opponents, but your partner too!)

2. be clear and/or organized

3. *be fast* (pro tip: speaking drills are your friend!)

4. **be funny** (call me crazy but I love puns!)

These things need to happen in order. I don't care if you can go 500 wpm, if I can't understand you, that means nothing to me. Likewise, you can make jokes, but if it's at the expense of someone in the round, then don't expect anything more than a 25 :/ Do these things well, and I'll be happy to award high 29's or even a 30! :)

Yup, that's all I have to say! Do what you do best and be compassionate and respectful, and we'll have a great time!

Good luck and let's have some fun!!

Updated as of The 2022 IDCA Tournament

Email: rolandhkim@gmail.com

Summary:

Hi! I debated for New Trier, where I went to the TOC thrice and received many speaker awards/bids.

I am majoring in Political Science and minoring in Economics and Asian American Studies. This is meant to illustrate that I am down for any argument - from Politics to an Identity K - but greater explanation may be needed for more nuanced and/or topic-specific positions.

Tech>Truth, with an emphasis on implicit argument interaction (i.e., even if a team doesn't explicitly say it, knowing X is true means Y has to also be true). It is your job, in order to minimize "judge intervention," to make these implicit interactions EXPLICITLY stated.

I typically won't read evidence unless you a) tell me and b) give a sufficient explanation of it. However, murkier/closer debates will lead me to do more decision-making based on evidence quality/implicit argument interaction.

Explanation > Outspreading.

I am in no way a perfect adjudicator. Feel free to post-round!

Well-formatted speech docs will steal my heart.

Specific-Issues/HoT TaKeS:

The rest of the paradigm is my opinion on various debate issues. Technical debating, however, can always persuade me in the opposite direction.

Theory --

Presumption = least amount of change.

Yes judge kick.

Vagueness/"_"SPEC are legit arguments if abuse.

Definitions for topicality/perm competition is about what an interpretation ought to be, for competitive debate purposes, rather than a debate about what it literally means. This means that for PDCP, conceding "XYZ counterplan is good" will really hurt your chances of winning. If, for instance, process counterplans are good for neg ground, I'm going to have a tough time justifying why I should vote for an aff interp of "should" that would eliminate such ground. This doesn't mean that predictability/precision arguments aren't valuable, but rather that you need to impact them in a way that is not just "because this definition is true, vote for us" (anyways, this is pretty rare in T/Competition debates).

Impact your standards (e.g. clash and education matter b/c ____).

Compare (e.g. limits > ground, err neg > aff, etc.).

If you're AFF and debating T, please extend reasonability!

If you're NEG, don't be shy to read a ton of planks/fiat through deficits!

Counterplans --

Sufficiency arguments need to be contextualized to the aff's solvency mechanism/arguments.

I am not one of those judges that thinks it is a sin to read Process/"Cheating" counterplans.

Advantage counterplans are low-key OP.

Disadvantage --

Link turns case > internal link turns case > impact turns case

Specific link cards are great. But, having specific link explanation that uses the warrants of a generic link to apply it is also perfectly acceptable.

Kritiks --

Reps K's = <3, ditto for "you link back to your reps so you shouldn't win on FW."

Capitalize on soft-left teams making arguments like "Consequentialism Bad" and "We're a step in the right direction."

I'm more persuaded by FW arguments specific to debate (e.g. debate's justifications for extinction is dehumanizing). This is also true for K AFF v. FW debates, whether it be procedural fairness, debate-based identity arguments, or something else.

Miscellaneous --

Zero-risk is usually tough barring concessions.

More teams should frame their offense as linear if they're worried about losing on "zero-risk".

Smart analytics can destroy most pieces of evidence .

RECUT EVIDENCE!

Extreme impact framing (e.g. "X" FIRST) is sad, but it only matters if you point out why. It would benefit aff/neg teams to defend more "reasonable" framing arguments (e.g., magnitude x probability, contextualized securitization bad) in front of me.

Fourth year debater at New Trier. Feel free to refer to me as judge, Maggie, whatever.

My email is margklindebate@gmail.com. Please add me to the email chain.

Feel free to ask me any questions before round or in email form about this paradigm and I will try to respond to you as quickly as possible. If you have a question about a technicality (i.e., what is judge-kick?)— you may also ask me those questions before round or through email.

bold = tl;dr most important things

General Things:

Before anything else, run what you like. I would like to see good debating. If you’re reading some K your varsity gave you that you have no idea what you’re doing with because you think it fits my paradigm, stop.

This is a very long and specific paradigm. That is for the sake of debaters who want to supplement/tailor arguments to the round. These are NOT standards by which I toss or pick winning arguments, they’re insubstantial biases that come into play when I thought both sides debated too equally to otherwise decide.

If you are offensive in any way to any person w/i or outside the debate, I will dock your speaker points massively.

Please do not attempt to get an advantage in any questionable ways, including: being a suck-up to the judge, deliberately making speech docs confusing, etc. It’s not cute

Also, new thought: if you are a male-female partnership and you decide to constantly speak over your female partner even when she's doing okay explaining things I will tell you to screw off in the middle of round, give you a 25, and will not be inclined to vote in your favor in the case of close debating. K thx

Good luck!

General Argumentation:

• I won't cross-apply/judge-kick, etc for you unless you tell me to. If you make an argument on the DA that’s an obvious reason why the perm can’t happen, you’re still going to have to go to the perm and say “cross apply — from the DA.”
• If your cards don’t say what you say they say, I generally disregard your argument.
• My facial expressions are fairly readable. If I look like I’m confused, I probably am. More explanation please.
• Open CX is fine. But please try to keep it to a minimum.
• If you happen to be crazy fast for a novice, slow down on the analytics/space them out.
• If any novice actually says in the 2NR that they’ll tell me what my ballot will look like and proceeds to ACTUALLY CLEARLY TELL ME WHY THEY WON MY BALLOT, automatic 30 points.

T:

• I’m not a huge fan of T but will absolutely vote on it.
• My usual problem with T lies within really cheaty and unreasonable interpretations; if you read the interpretation that arms sales is only Ukraine, I’m going to be really skeptical and you’re going to have to do some pretty good “prefer it” work to get me to vote on it.
• Please give me a stasis point. Otherwise I probably default that you’re shifting the goalposts. If you give me a caselist I will give you speaker points.
• Given equal debating, I tend aff on T.

Theory:

• I’m pretty good for framework against a planless aff (because apparently novices are reading those?); the aff should not just win that their k is NOT abusive, but also that there’s some offensive reason why it is good. Aff’s likelihood to win T also increases if they are tied to the topic of the year instead of just some generic Baudrillard crap.
• I tend to buy that debate is a game. But I believe that argument can be counteracted by well-explained and reasonable in-round impacts, i.e. the ballot is a tool to get us to more debates to spread our education.
• No one has good blocks for ASPEC, OSPEC, ZSPEC, etc. If I ever see a good debate on random-letter-SPEC, I… don’t know what to say. I don’t think I’m qualified to judge that kind of debater.
• I think condo is a little unnecessary if the Neg is reading like three off but will vote on it.
• Given equal debating, I tend neutral on theory.

K:

• If it’s top ten hits of policy oriented teams trying to garner kritikal offense (Security! Setcol!) I probably know what it is. If not, please explain it.
• Explain your alt to me and why it solves!! If I don’t know what we’re doing to solve capitalism, I’m much less likely to vote neg. I also tend to go aff on the likelihood that just pedagogy doesn’t work. With me, you’re probably better off reading a “grassroots movements” alt than “we create a pedagogy against capitalism.” Pedagogy is fine too if well-argued.
• LINK WORK. If you do not prove to me that the aff will lead to some perpetuation of what you critique, I tend to think the perm probably solves. If not properly addressed by the aff, I will vote on omission/our-epistemology-is-an-independent-voter links but I think a good K should always have a better link than “you didn’t talk about capitalism lol.”
• Aff-wise I, again, love good perm debates! I think if the aff team addresses the links well and also extends their perm then they're already pretty set to win.
• If you lose framework, I don’t think it’s the end of the world. Yes I will weigh the aff, but I will also weigh the K. UNLESS the aff wins role of the judge, ballot, etc— I default to who tells me clearly how to place my ballot.
• Given equal debating, I tend neutral on the K.

DA:

• Almost as good as counterplan debates.
• Obviously the more specific the link is, the better— having a good specific link is a great way to also get ahead on uniqueness from the very beginning of the debate (i.e., no thumpers)
• I like “turns the aff” debates where the aff turns the DA back— these are particularly interesting and convincing to me if either team does some real work!!
• Given equal debating, I tend neg on DAs.

CP:

• I LOVE a good CP. However, super generic, copy-and-paste the plan text CPs bore me. I’ll vote on them, but I much prefer a counterplan that references a specific alternate process through which the aff can be enacted without much solvency deficit/even better.
• I think if the aff wins on the net benefit they usually automatically win, but I also think if the neg wins on the net benefit they can generally outweigh a little solvency deficit.
• I tend aff on PIC or other “cheaty” CP theory unless the actor you’re consulting/process you’re adding is well contextualized and specific to the aff.
• Aff-wise, I’m most impressed by specific, well-explained, and card-supported perms.
• Given equal debating, I tend neg on CPs.

Case:

• The aff should know their case inside and out and properly contextualize it in every debate. Case on top ALWAYS. I want to hear about why I should vote for the one advocacy that this whole round should revolve around.
• The less the neg answers case, the less likely I am to vote for them. If you don't have a case neg, please contextualize your offcase to the aff.
• Given equal debating, I tend aff on case.

Speaker Points Disclaimer:

28-30 unless you're blatantly problematic (you don't care and your partner writes all your speeches, you're racist/homophobic/sexist, you treat the other team like crap and laugh or something during their speeches, etc.)

If you read this far and you’re a novice, I’m impressed. Some stuff for speaker points:

• Show me your GOOD flow and I will give you +0.2.
• If you make a FUNNY joke about a debater or coach from New Trier/that I know, I will add +0.1 to your speaker points.

[Names of schools, years of graduation]

I debated for [number] years and made it to [a hotel ballroom nobody cares about].

Have fun always, try your best always. Like really I put it at the top for a reason. Don't insult your opponents. Don't be mean to your partner. The more you think you're better than them the more I'm gonna want you to be wrong.

Put me on the email chain please: jacksonemdebate@gmail.com

I wanted to try and come up with a good song for you to listen to as you read my paradigm like I do with every topic. It's kinda hard to hit all three areas of the topic at once, maybe try like this (although it's definitely not long enough). I feel like this might be the closest I can get since it involves like resurrection which I guess is like biotechnology.

General

(Disclaimer: I like to think I judged decently actively on arms sales and cjr (a combined 75 rounds if I'm counting correctly), but the only judging I did on water was a single season opener. On top of that, I've gotten a lot further into my computer science education since the last time I judged - I'm now officially an incoming software engineer - which I'm sure has radically altered the way I think about things, and probably mostly in ways I'm yet to realize. I wrote this paradigm like 3 years ago and it hasn't changed at all (beyond me removing cynical comments about the debate community that I'm no longer qualified to make 3 yrs out of debate), whereas I myself probably have changed somewhat.)

I know jack-squat about [topic], both in terms of the actual issue as well as how people have been debating it this year. So, I can’t wait for you to teach me! What I can assure you of though is that I’ll never go on facebook or anything during either speeches or cross-ex, and frankly that’s more than some judges can say.

Short version: Tech over truth. Long version: Remember that I am mortal. I would say evaluate my argument preferences under the assumption that those arguments have not been dropped/critically under-covered. Everybody says and understands that the judge votes for whoever best persuaded them, and that's true. But, I think what people often miss is that the judge isn't being persuaded in terms of which team they think is "right," but rather which team they think won the round.

Debaters have been telling me that the K has become more popular as judges and debaters have become more familiar with it. I have like, not judged enough at a high enough level to be part of that shift.

[Statements that amount to "Make good arguments"]

Getting the sense defense has become severely underrated.

I get annoyed when judge paradigms tell you to "act like you care," because I think what they're really saying is "act like you care about winning." In reality, all you should be caring about is just debate itself - and that's distinct. So, I'll tell you to care about debate. I'd maintain that policy debate is a very, uh...heuristic environment, and I stuck with it (kinda?) and am better off for it. But if you still don't care, just stop going to debate tournaments if you can. There's nothing wrong with not liking debate or not caring about it, and you don't owe it to anybody to participate if you really just don't wanna. But on a intra-tournament, round-to-round basis, not putting in full effort is probably bad.

Don'ts

Don't read suicide good. Don't read extinction good. Don't read warming good. Don't read racism good. Don't read sexism good. etc.

Boo to the Schlaang super seat and AntoniNO. I'm gonna suggest you don't read Baudrillard (I hope I spelled that incorrectly), both in front of me and in front of all your other judges.

Don't say "no neg fiat." If you read troll arguments like consult asgard or like time triangular pyramid I'll dock the 2N's speaks.

S e n d a n a l y t i c s.

K Affs

I'm not calling them "planless affs" or "performance affs" or wutevr so that might already give you some indication.

The point of debate is to gain critical thinking skills by repeatedly practicing the comparative analysis of theoretical worlds (counting the squo as one) by framing facts and deductions as uniqueness, links, impacts, etc as a means of trying to understand the implication of those facts upon the imagined theoretical worlds. Critical thinking skills =/= the skill of criticizing things - that's just a coincidence in their spelling. Though, it also isn't at all as though those two concepts are just completely decoupled.

You can win without reading a plan, but you're going to have a rough time unless you have some reason why reading your aff and receiving a ballot improves the status quo. There are many ways to accomplish this and I really want you do at least one of them.

I'd say I find many of the framework arguments both neg and aff teams make to be pretty unconvincing and unoriginal. Neg teams, I'd love for you to think about why k affs would be hard to debate against even if they were predictable. Aff teams, I'd love to hear about why an inability to engage institutions irl means it's bad to debate [topic] in theory/as an educational exercise to practice critical thinking. I could write a million of those requests.

This is gonna sound silly, but I honestly don't find fairness or predictability to be that convincing, at least not in the way I often saw them deployed. Like personally, never once have I heard of a high school debater or coach putting in the time to cut a case neg to an aff unless they already knew for a fact that that aff was being read by a team they were particularly afraid of. Yet at the same time, I do not at all think "predictability" is pointless to talk about. For fairness, I guess I'll just say "fairness is an internal link". I encourage you to really think about what people can get out of debate and what things like fairness and predictability really look like and what their implications are.

*Run framework*. Otherwise, I will be sad and not like the round very much so like just please do. If you think running framework is unethical or wutevr please strike me. Lol I had to have at least one of those in here.

Get creative with your 1NCs. Think about what new opportunities unconventional affs might afford you, both in terms of positions and args within flows. If a center-left layperson wouldn't think it's "unethical" to read, I probably won't either.

I feel like a lot of times when aff teams say "debate isn't a game," they still treat it like it is one.

Neg Kritiks

I'll definitely vote for some Ks, but if your link is only "you use the state" or "you use the [topic]” you're gonna have a tough time getting me to vote for the K.

I didn't even actually debate the [topic] topic I'm sorry I was just trying to look edgy.

But seriously, links are the most important part of K debates and DA debates alike because they, and they alone, are the root for any comparative analysis you can do. They are the only direct way for *you* to illustrate a distinction between the world you're advocating for and the world your opponents are advocating. All of your internal links and impacts are just arguments for why that discrepancy matters. (Okay yeah if they're running a CP differences between worlds are more obvious.)

Number one tip I would say - both to the aff and the neg - is just impact out your args. Never assume I know why you auto-win if you "win the ontology debate." Similarly, you need to explain, impact and probably persuade me of things like "fiat isn't real" and "social death." It is likely that your "tricks" are - in my eyes - actually just bad arguments. Don't get me wrong: a dropped arg is a dropped arg, but a prerequisite to something being a dropped arg is it *being an arg*.

****

Also just like generally about "dropped arguments" - an argument being dropped means that it is substantially easier to extend, not that you no longer have to extend it. If you wanna go for a "dropped argument" in front of me then you should make sure to mention that argument's claim and warrant (and, in rebuttals, its implications for how the round should be decided) in every speech from when you first read it until the debate ends.

****

I default to assuming that the K has to have an alt that solves impacts and is mutually exclusive with the aff. If the impacts the k solves aren't as important as the one the aff solves, I'll vote aff.

"Extinction already 'happens, happened, or will have had happened' for x ppl bc social death" is a hard sell for me, especially if you're trying to argue that it means nuclear war isn't bad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iPH-br_eJQ

Go to case. Like with *defense*.

Go to case. Seriously.

CPs

Have as many planks as you want. You can read new planks. You can probably amend existing planks, too.

Having a good solvency advocate (so like one from a source actually written in the context of [topic]) usually makes me think a counter-plan is more theoretically legit.

Love an intelligent counter-plan. I don't like process CPs but they definitely are a thing people read.

Theory and T

Honestly, refer to K aff section.

Probably won't win on T unless the aff really isn't T and there's some concrete, specific abuse. The abuse is less of an internal link to a fairness based-RoB and more just really strong evidence for why their model of debate is bad.

I'm much more likely to vote on theory and T when I'm convinced there was in-round abuse. I lean neg on condo but definitely do not think infinite condo is okay.

Everything Else

[Irrelevant opinions] (I mean to be fair that's like most of this paradigm but)

[Relevant opinions immediately made irrelevant by a barrage of qualifiers]

Other

[Encouraging you to make jokes even though in reality that always plays out really awkwardly in round]

New Trier ‘20

Georgetown

I’ve read mostly policy style arguments in my career, but I'm gonna try to be as tab as possible.

Put me on the doc tom.serrino@gmail.com

You gotta be clear

I don't care what you do as long as I understand what you're doing and why.

I don't want to have to use a dictionary for each word in your 4 sentence tag.

Q: “Can I kick it?”

A: “Yes you can!”

Write my ballot for me in your last speech

Have some fun, be sarcastic, joke around.