44th University of Pennsylvania Tournament
2019 — Philadelphia, PA/US
JV Lincoln Douglas Debate Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideUpdate 10/1/2020
When I first started five years ago, most local tournaments were doing paper ballots. I can’t believe speech and debate was the first activity that went entirely online since the TOC before the pandemic! It’s a different new world...
I have already encountered various tech issues in the rounds I’ve judged thus far. Please be prepared with multiple devices - a phone and a computer and perhaps even one more back up. We will work it through together!
Good luck!
Update 11/25/2018
I have judged extensively in both LD and PF in the past year, and have grown to dislike the lack of civility in some rounds. Remember - speech and debate is about having fun! If you are the only person in the room having run, then you just lost a round.
Please note the following:
1. Fair warning - If you use language that doesn't belong to the classroom, you will automatically get a 25 in Speaker Points.
2. If you ask a question in rebuttal, please allow your opponents to answer your questions. I need to hear two sides - it wouldn't be a debate otherwise.
3. LD - No spreading. Debate, in any form, is about making a point. To me, that point has to be made with common sense. Please do not try to convince me you are smarter than everybody in the room by speaking too fast. If a smarter-than-average person cannot get your point, you lost the round. Period. If I cannot understand you, I cannot judge. You will get a 25. If you have two "tech" judges and me in the elimination rounds, and if you CHOOSE to spread "strategically", you will be dropped. Again, it wouldn't be a debate if a judge cannot understand you.
Background
I am an Assistant Principal at Princeton High School. I was Head Coach of the PHS Speech and Debate Team in the past five years.
Preferences
I can follow just about all fast speech by now. However, I have a strong preference for convincing arguments over speed or other stylistic elements of debates; I prefer strength and confidence over aggression without substance. I want to clear warrant to your claim, clear impacts and clear weighing. Simply put, convince me with common sense and logical reasoning.
Don't forget - this is about you having fun!
Good luck!
I am a parent judge and this is my third invitational.
1. Speak clearly and a moderate speed. Accentuate the points with voice inflections.
2. Be respectful to each other
3.Best arguments win which are supported by evidence. Clearly tell me why you think you have won the round.
4. Framework- tell me why yours is better.
5. Voting issues- State then at the end of your last speeches
6. Value- uphold your value . I’ll measure which one applies to resolution after I hear all arguments. Which debator convinced me that he/she best supports value.
7. Criteria -will be used to measure the value
8.Style- Make significant points clear!!! Not at the same time, emphasize with voice inflections.
9. Drops- If contentions were dropped by opponent call it out to me, Accentuate it!!!
10. Have fun and Good Luck!!!!
Hi! My name is Julia Brickfield, I'm a freshman here at Penn, and did LD for Bridgewater Raritan High School in NJ for 4 years.
Since I did LD for 4 years, I'm very familiar with the structure of it and how different arguments interact generally. That being said, I was never particularly successful on the national circuit which means I'm not as comfortable with progressive arguments as other student judges might be. Feel free to run Ks or theory, but know that you still definitely have to explain why certain arguments mean I should vote for you (i.e. don't assume that you can skip through your extensions because I'll just know the argument in a really niche Deleuze K because I definitely don't, but I know the parts of a K and where you get offense from it). I'm definitely most comfortable with traditional or policy style arguments (who doesn't love a good disad), so keep that in mind if you're planning to speed through a really complex K just because you read that I'm a student judge.
In terms of speed, I ask that you start off slow in your speaking, since I haven't heard true spreading since last March. I will definitely say "clear" or "slow" if I can't understand what's going on. I will be flowing because it always upset me when judges didn't but that also means I want to understand what you're saying so I can accurately flow.
I would appreciate being included on email chains, but it isn't necessary to send documents unless you're going to be spreading.
My last ask is that you just enjoy yourselves and be a nice person to your opponent, I always hated when kids who were more well known or successful than my school (we didn't have an LD coach, it was just me and the other upperclassmen) were pretentious about disclosing and stuff like that before round so don't do it!
If you have any questions whatsoever, I am more than happy to answer them during round and will do my best to be as good of a judge as I can!
Hi my name is Holly Cleveland I am a parent judge.
Please speak clearly and I don’t like spreading. I prefer more traditional arguments!
Good luck to everyone!
Email: mccsong8@gmail.com Updated 3/9/24
About Me
I did LD and Extemp 2014-18, coached LD 18-22, judged occasionally since then.
3/9 edit: I haven’t judged in a while, so I’m not as quick with jargon and speed. I’ll attempt to update the rest but if I miss anything, please ask before round.
LD: I still think LD is supposed to be more philosophical/morals based, but I also enjoy policy, theory, and K debates. I don’t feel as though I judge performance rounds very well. I also expect good evidence, and will include the whole card and not just the highlighted parts as part of your evidence. I expect engagement on the actual merits of arguments. Debate is a game but at all ends of it are real people, so be kind.
Oh, also, if you say anything clearly racist/homophobic/sexist/etc., I will likely vote you down on the spot and give 0 speaks. That doesn't have any place in the educational space of speech and debate. Outside of being xenophobic, hateful, or spouting hate speech, say whatever you want, I guess.
If you have any further questions, feel free to reach me atmccsong8@gmail.com
MC
I'm a parent judge who has judged JVLD locally, and VLD nationally but still consider myself new to VLD judging. Keep cases and arguments focused on the resolution. Keep your arguments and your speech clear, and debate your opponent respectfully.
Overwhelming an opponent (and judge) with reckless speed and an overabundance of arguments is unnecessary. If speed is making you unintelligible, I'll ask you to stop. Number of arguments introduced doesn't decide the winner; thoughtful engagement/clash/rebuttal and whose arguments uphold their side of the resolution best decides. I do not consider technicalities (e.g. dropped argument does not equal concession).
Please add me to your case sharing email chains. manmeetfox@gmail.com
Parent Judge.
I'm a freshman at Penn and debated LD for 4 years at duPont Manual. I mostly focused on traditional debate in high school but have competed in progressive rounds and also enjoy hearing/learning about more "progressive" args.
Please be nice! Debate is meant to be an inclusive space. On that note, I don't really care whether or not your arguments are in the proper format--I just care about the arguments themselves. You shouldn't be excluded from progressive debate because you don't have a coach or didn't go to camp. Just make warranted arguments!
I'll keep a flow of the round, and can handle most spreading. I'll call clear if you're going to fast for me and I can't understand you, and will do my best to not miss any args on my flow. (If you don't have to spread, don't. A LOT of times going a little slower and being more clear can actually save you time and me confusion.)
I'm basically good with anything, as long as it's not blatantly offensive and that you can clearly explain it to me. Especially for dense phil and/or K's, do not assume that I know what you're talking about. General rule is to be able to explain your args without just repeating the same big words in your cards. I won't vote on something if I don't understand it.
Give me some kind of framework to view the round under, warrant it, and WEIGH under it. I like overviews and voters.
I don't have much experience with theory/T and I won't be convinced by it unless it's place in the round is well warranted. Do not run theory/T or tricks frivolously.
If you have other questions, feel free to ask me before round. Good luck and have fun!
tl;dr - tech and speed good, but I'm not doing work for you. The resolution must be in the debate. Though I think like a debater, I do an "educator check" before I vote - if you advocate for something like death good, or read purely frivolous theory because you know your opponent cannot answer it and hope for an easy win, you are taking a hard L.
Email chain: havenforensics (at) gmail - but I'm not reading along. I tab more than I judge, but I'm involved in research. Last substance update: 9/18/22
Experience:
Head Coach of Strath Haven HS since 2012. We do all events.
Previously coach at Park View HS 2009-11, assistant coach at Pennsbury HS 2002-06 (and beyond)
Competitor at Pennsbury HS 1998-2002, primarily Policy
Public Forum
1st Rebuttal should be line-by-line on their case; 2nd Rebuttal should frontline at least major offense, but 2nd Summary is too late for dumps of new arguments.
With 3 minutes, the Summary is probably also line-by-line, but perhaps not on every issue. Summary needs to ditch some issues so you can add depth, not just tag lines. If it isn't in Summary, it probably isn't getting flowed in Final Focus, unless it is a direct response to a new argument in 2nd Summary.
Final Focus should continue to narrow down the debate to tell me a story about why you win. Refer to specific spots on the flow, though LBL isn't strictly necessary (you just don't have time). I'll weigh what you say makes you win vs what they say makes them win - good idea to play some defense, but see above about drops.
With a Policy background, I will listen to framework, theory, and T arguments - though I will frown at all of those because I really want a solid case debate. I also have no problem intervening and rejecting arguments that are designed to exclude your opponents from the debate. I do not believe counterplans or kritiks have a place in PF.
You win a lot of points with me calling out shady evidence, and conversely by using good evidence. You lose a lot of points by being unable to produce the evidence you read quickly. If I call for a card, I expect it to be cut.
I don't care which side you sit on or when you stand, and I find the post-round judge handshake to be silly and unnecessary.
LD
tl;dr: Look at me if you are traditional or policy. Strike me if you don't talk about the topic or only read abstract French philosophers or rely on going for blippy trash arguments that mostly work due to being undercovered.
My LD experience is mostly local or regional, though I coach circuit debaters. Thus, I'm comfortable with traditional, value-centered LD and util/policy/solvency LD. If you are going traditional, value clash obviously determines the round, but don't assume I know more than a shallow bit of philosophy.
I probably prefer policy debates, but not if you are trying to fit an entire college policy round into LD times - there just isn't time to develop 4 off in your 7 minute constructive, and I have to give the aff some leeway in rebuttals since there is no constructive to answer neg advocacies.
All things considered, I would rather you defend the whole resolution (even if you want to specify a particular method) rather than a tiny piece of it, but that's what T debates are for I guess (I like T debates). If we're doing plans, then we're also doing CPs, and I'm familiar with all your theory arguments as long as I can flow them.
If somehow you are a deep phil debater and I end up as the judge, you probably did prefs wrong, but I'll do my best to understand - know that I hate it when debaters take a philosophers work and chop it up into tiny bits that somehow mean I have to vote aff. If you are a tricks debater, um, don't. Arguments have warrants and a genuine basis in the resolution or choices made by your opponent.
In case it isn't clear from all the rest of the paradigm, I'm a hack for framework if one debater decides not to engage the resolution.
Policy
Update for TOC '19: it has been awhile since I've judged truly competitive, circuit Policy. I have let my young alumni judge an event dominated by young alumni. I will still enjoy a quality policy round, but my knowledge of contemporary tech is lacking. Note that I'm not going to backflow from your speech doc, and I'm flowing on paper, so you probably don't want to go your top speed.
1. The role of the ballot must be stable and predictable and lead to research-based clash. The aff must endorse a topical action by the government. You cannot create a role of the ballot based on the thing you want to talk about if that thing is not part of the topic; you cannot create a role of the ballot where your opponent is forced to defend that racism is good or that racism does not exist; you cannot create a role of the ballot where the winner is determined by performance, not argumentation. And, to be fair to the aff, the neg cannot create a role of the ballot where aff loses because they talked about the topic and not about something else.
2. I am a policymaker at heart. I want to evaluate the cost/benefit of plan passage vs. status quo/CP/alt. Discourse certainly matters, but a) I'm biased on a framework question to using fiat or at least weighing the 1AC as an advocacy of a policy, and b) a discursive link had better be a real significant choice of the affirmative with real implications if that's all you are going for. "Using the word exploration is imperialist" isn't going to get very far with me. Links of omission are not links.
I understand how critical arguments work and enjoy them when grounded in the topic/aff, and when the alternative would do something. Just as the plan must defend a change in the status quo, so must the alt.
3. Fairness matters. I believe that the policymaking paradigm only makes sense in a world where each side has a fair chance at winning the debate, so I will happily look to procedural/T/theory arguments before resolving the substantive debate. I will not evaluate an RVI or that some moral/kritikal impact "outweighs" the T debate. I will listen to any other aff reason not to vote on T.
I like T and theory debates. The team that muddles those flows will incur my wrath in speaker points. Don't just read a block in response to a block, do some actual debating, OK? I definitely have a lower-than-average threshold to voting on a well-explained T argument since no one seems to like it anymore.
Notes for any event
1. Clash, then resolve it. The last rebuttals should provide all interpretation for me and write my ballot, with me left simply to choose which side is more persuasive or carries the key point. I want to make fair, predictable, and non-interventionist decisions, which requires you to do all my thinking for me. I don't want to read your evidence (unless you ask me to), I don't want to think about how to apply it, I don't want to interpret your warrants - I want you to do all of those things! The debate should be over when the debate ends.
2. Warrants are good. "I have a card" is not a persuasive argument; nor is a tag-line extension. The more warrants you provide, the fewer guesses I have to make, and the fewer arguments I have to connect for you, the more predictable my decision will be. I want to know what your evidence says and why it matters in the round. You do not get a risk of a link simply by saying it is a link. Defensive arguments are good, especially when connected to impact calculus.
3. Speed. Speed for argument depth is good, speed for speed's sake is bad. My threshold is that you should slow down on tags and theory so I can write it down, and so long as I can hear English words in the body of the card, you should be fine. I will yell if I can't understand you. If you don't get clearer, the arguments I can't hear will get less weight at the end of the round, if they make it on the flow at all. I'm not reading the speech doc, I'm just flowing on paper.
4. Finally, I think debate is supposed to be both fun and educational. I am an educator and a coach; I'm happy to be at the tournament. But I also value sleep and my family, so make sure what you do in round is worth all the time we are putting into being there. Imagine that I brought some new novice debaters and my superintendent to watch the round with me. If you are bashing debate or advocating for suicide or other things I wouldn't want 9th graders new to my program to hear, you aren't going to have a happy judge.
I am more than happy to elaborate on this paradigm or answer any questions in round.
hello! I’ve been doing varsity LD for almost a year now, but I started debate as a sophomore (I’m a junior, if you couldn’t tell). I’ll try to make this short because i know from experience that reading a long paradigm is something no one really wants to do 10 minutes before round :)
I mainly do traditional debate, so i have a soft spot for those kinds of arguments; however, I know progressive debate and will vote on it if the arguments outweigh.
DON’T SPREAD. THE WHOLE POINT OF DEBATE IS TO HAVE AN EDUCATED DISCUSSION ON A TOPIC; if i can’t understand you there is no debate.
performance.... unless it actually has a link to the topic i won’t vote for it... it’s really cool though.
don’t run theory or t unless your opponent is actually abusive because i probably won’t listen to it (sorry!)
basically i will vote for whoever convinces me of their side at the end of the day. good luck!
Parent to Northern Virginia Debater.
1. Strongly prefer a debater make their significant points clearly. Rather than everything delivered at the same pace and tone.
2. High speed talking just make it more difficult for me to take notes - high speed talking should be limited to evidence (IMHO).
3. Believe debater should very clearly point out why they believe they won - rather than blasting through points in machine gun style.
4. Your framework is important - explain why yours is better.
5. If a contention was dropped and it's key to your win, tel me 5 times. Don't assume your opponents silence on the subject is enough for me to realize the contention was in fact dropped.
6. If I'm not taking notes, it's often the case that I don't find what your saying key to winning/losing the debate else I'd write it down.
tldr do what you do best; i'll only vote for complete arguments that make sense; weighing & judge instruction tip the scales in your favor; disclosure is good; i care about argument engagement and i value flexibility; stay hydrated & be a good person.
--
she/her
i coach policy debate at damien-st. lucy's
--
Recently rewritten paradigm, probably best to give it a quick skim!
My strongest belief about argumentation is that argument engagement is good - I don't have a strong preference as to what styles of arguments teams read in front of me, but I'd prefer if both teams engaged with their opponents' arguments; I don't enjoy teams who avoid clash (regardless of the style of argument they are reading). I value ideological flexibility in judges and actively try not to be someone who will exclusively vote on only "policy" or only "k" arguments.
I am good for policy teams that do topic research and primarily go for negative strategies that engage the affirmative. I am also good for k teams that do topic research and answer the aff and go for 2nr arguments that are substantive (not "role of the ballot").I am bad for ld teams that go for ld-specific things ("tricks"), but am good for ld teams that are well-researched and read policy or k arguments.
--
More LD-specific notes/thoughts at bottom of paradigm.
--
Topic Knowledge: I don't teach at camp but I do keep up with the topic. I'm involved in the Damien-St. Lucy's team research. My topic knowledge is fine, but extra explanation/handholding when breaking new prep is appreciated.
--
email chains:
damiendebate47@gmail.com and nethmindebate@gmail.com
if i am judging you in ld -- don't add the damien email please!
if you need to contact me directly about rfd questions, accessibility requests, or anything else, please email nethmindebate@gmail.com (please don't email the teamail (team email) for these types of requests)!
--
non-negotiables:
1 - speech times - constructive are 8 minutes, rebuttals are 5, each partner must give one constructive and one rebuttal, cx cannot be transferred to prep.
2 - evidence ethics is not a case neg - will not vote on it unless you can prove a reasonable/good-faith attempt to contact the other team prior to the round.
3 - clipping requires proof by the accusing team or me noticing it. i'll vote on it with no recording if i notice it.
4 - i will not evaluate out-of-round events. this means no arguments about pref sheets, personal beef, etc. i will evaluate disclosure arguments.
other than these 4 things, everything else in this paradigm is a preference/a guide for how to improve your chances of winning a debate in front of me.
--
flowing: it is good and teams should do it
stolen from alderete - if you show me a decent flow, you can get up to 1 extra speaker point. this can only help you - i won't deduct points for an atrocious flow. this is to encourage teams to actually flow:)
--
Some general notes
Accessibility & content warnings: Email me if there is an accessibility request that I can help facilitate - I always want to do my part to make debates more accessible. I prefer not to judge debates that involve theory arguments about accessibility and/or content warnings. I think it is more productive to have a pre-round discussion where both teams request any accommodation(s) necessary for them to engage in an equitable debate.
Speed/clarity – I will say clear up to two times per speech before just doing my best to flow you. Going fast is fine, being unclear is not. Going slower on analytics is a good idea. You should account for pen time/scroll time.
Online debate -- 1] please record your speeches, if there are tech issues, I'll listen to a recording of the speech, but not a re-do. 2] debate's still about communication - please watch for nonverbals, listen for people saying "clear," etc.
Disclose or lose. Previously read positions must be on opencaselist. New positions do not need to be disclosed. "I do not have to disclose" is a losing argument in front of me 100% of the time.
--
Speaker points:
Speaker points are dependent on strategy, execution, clarity, and overall engagement in the round and are scaled to adapt to the quality/difficulty/prestige of the tournament.
I try to give points as follows:
30: you're a strong contender to win the tournament & this round was genuinely impressive
29.5+: late elims, many moments of good decisionmaking & argumentative understanding, adapted well to in-round pivots
29+: you'll clear for sure, generally good strat & round vision, a few things could've been more refined
28.5+: likely to clear but not guaranteed, there are some key errors that you should fix
28+: even record, probably losing in the 3-2 round
27.5+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, key technical/strategic errors
27+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, multiple notable technical/strategic errors
26+: errors that indicated a fundamental lack of preparation for the rigor/style of this tournament
25-: you did something really bad/offensive/unsafe.
Extra points for flowing, being clear, kindness, adaptation, and good disclosure practices.
Minus points for discrimination of any sort, bad-faith disclosure practices, rudeness/unkindness, and attempts to avoid engagement/clash.
--
Opinions on Specific Positions (ctrl+f section):
--
Case:
I think that negatives that don't engage with the 1ac are putting themselves in a bad position. This is true for both K debates and policy debates.
Extensions should involve warrants, not just tagline extensions - I'm willing to give some amount of leeway for the 1ar/2ar extrapolating a warrant that wasn't the focal point of the 2ac, but I should be able to tell from your extensions what the impact is, what the internal links are, and why you solve.
2ac add-ons must be coherent in the speech they are presented. You don't get to turn a random card on a random sheet into an add-on in the 2ar.
--
Planless affs:
I tend to believe that affirmatives need to defend the topic. I think most planless affs can/should be reconfigured as soft left affs. I have voted for affs that don't defend the topic, but it requires superior technical debating from the aff team.
You need to be able to explain what your aff does/why it's good.
I dislike planless affs where the strategy is to make the aff seem like a word salad until after 2ac cx and then give the aff a bunch of new (and not super well-warranted) implications in the 1ar. I tend to be better for planless aff teams when they have some kind of relationship to the topic, they are straight-up about what they do/don't defend, they use their aff strategically, engage with neg arguments, and make smart 1ar & 2ar decisions with good ballot analysis.
--
T/framework vs planless affs:
In a 100% evenly debated round, I am better for the neg.However, most of these debates are not evenly debated. Either team/side can win my ballot by doing the better technical debating. This past season, I often voted for a K team that I thought was smart and technical. Specific thoughts on framework below:
The best way for aff teams to win my ballot is to be more technical than the neg team. Seems obvious, but what I'm trying to convey here is that I'm less persuaded by personal/emotional pleas for the ballot and more persuaded by a rigorous and technical defense of why your model of debate is good.
I don't have a preference on whether your chosen 2nr is skills or fairness. I think that both options have strategic value based on the round you're in. Framework teams almost always get better points in front of me when they are able to contextualize their arguments to their opponent's strategy.
I also don't have a preference between the aff going for impact turns or going for a counterinterp. The strategic value of this is dependent on how topical/non-topical your aff is, in my opinion.
--
Theory:
Theory arguments other than conditionality are likely not a reason to reject the team. It will be difficult to change my mind on this.
Theory arguments must have warrants in the speech in which they are presented. Most 2ac theory arguments I've seen don't meet this standard.
Conditionality is an uphill battle in front of me.If the 2ac contained warrants + the block dropped the argument entirely, I would vote aff on conditionality, but in any other scenario, the aff team should likely not go for conditionality.
Please weigh!Many theory debates feel irresolvable without intervention because each team only extends their offense but does not interact with the other team's offense.
--
Topicality (not framework):
I like T debates that have robust and contextualized definitions of the relevant words/phrases/entities in the resolution. Have a clear explanation of what your interpretation is/isn't; examples/caselists are very helpful.
Grammar-based topicality arguments: I don't find most of the grammar arguments being made these days to be very intuitive. You should explain/warrant them more than you would in front of a judge who loves those arguments.
"Plans bad" is pretty close to a nonstarter in front of me (this is more of a thing in LD I think).
--
Kritiks (neg):
I am best for K teams that engage with the affirmative, do line-by,line, and read links that prove that the aff is a bad idea.
I am absolutely terrible for K teams that don't debate the case. Block soup = bad.
I vote for K teams often when they are technical and make smart big-picture arguments and demonstrate topic knowledge. I vote against K teams when they do ... not that!
In general, clash-avoidant K strategies are bad, K strategies that involve case debating are good.
--
Disads:
Zero risk probably doesn't exist, but very-close-to-zero risk probably does. Teams that answer their opponents' warrants instead of reading generic defense tend to fare better in close rounds. Good evidence tends to matter more in these debates - I'd rather judge a round with 2 great cards + debaters explaining their cards than a round with 10 horrible cards + debaters asking me to interpret their dumpster-quality cards for them.
--
Counterplans:
I don't have strong ideological biases about counterplan theory other than that condo is probably good. More egregious abuse = easier to persuade me on theory; the issue I usually see in theory debates is a lack of warranting for why the neg's model was uniquely abusive - specific analysis > generic args + no explanation.
No judge kick. Make a choice!
Competition debates have largely become debates where teams read a ton of evidence and explain none of it. Please explain your competition evidence and I will be fine! I'll read cards after the debate, but would prefer that you instruct me on what to do with those cards.
--
LD-specific section:
-you might think of cx judges in ld as people who despise judging ld and despise you for doing ld. i try to not let this be true about me. all of my issues with ld can be grouped into two general categories: 1) speech times/structure (not your fault, won't penalize you for it), and 2) the tendency to read unwarranted nonsense, such as "tricks," shoes theory, etc (you can avoid reading these args very easily and make me very happy)
-i am a horrid judge for tricks and frivolous theory. please just go for another argument!
-i do not judge philosophy-based arguments often, since i primarily judge policy. i am not ideologically opposed to these arguments but will need a lot of handholding-explanation. i am happy to judge these debates, i just need more explanation. as a note -- phil positions that contain tricks are not a winning strategy.
-you don't get 1ar add-ons -- there is no 2ac in ld
--
Arguments that are simply too bad to be evaluated:
-a team should get the ballot simply for proving that they are not unfair or uneducational
-the ballot should be a referendum on a debater's character, personal life, pref sheet, etc
-the affirmative's theory argument comes before the negative's topicality argument
-some random piece of offense becomes an "independent voter" simply because it is labeled as such
-debates would be better if they were unfair, uneducational, lacked a stasis point, lacked clash, etc
-a debater's moral character is determined by whether they read policy or k arguments
-"tricks"
-teams should not be required to disclose on opencaselist
-the debate should be evaluated after any speech that is not the 2ar
-the "role of the ballot" means topicality doesn't matter
-new affs bad
--
Arguments that I am personally skeptical of, but will try to evaluate fairly:
-it would be better for debate if affirmatives did not have a meaningful relationship to the topic
-debate would be better if the negative team was not allowed to read any conditional advocacies
-reading topicality causes violence or discrimination within debate
-"role of the ballot"
-the outcome of a particular debate will change someone's mind or will change the state of debate
-the 5-second aspec argument that was hidden in the 1nc can become a winning 2nr
-the affirmative may not read a plan because of "bare plurals"
--
if there's anything i didn't mention or you have any questions, feel free to email me! i really love debate and i coach because i want to make debate/the community a better place; please don't hesitate to reach out if there's anything you need.
yes please put me on the chain, use this email: arieldoesld@gmail.com
They/Them pronouns
I did HS LD for 4 years at Fort Lauderdale High graduated in 2016 then did college policy for a couple years after.
I think debate matters a lot, and when people see it like a place to collect trophies to justify being rude as hell or problematic, it’s disappointing to me and your speaker points (I don’t care why you debate, just respect why other people come here too). This also means pay attention to people social location and don’t fill the round with microaggressions.
Most debate I did was focused on K debate. That’s just honestly going to be the round where I am the best judge for you in terms of education. judge adaptation is usually BS, and you’re most likely to win when YOU do whatever you do best. I’ve been judging for long enough that I’m able to competently judge a traditional Policy or LD round.
My paradigm used to have a bunch of debate opinions I held, a lot of them I still do, but if you make a good argument, or an argument I think is bad but well warranted, that’s going to matter a lot more than some random opinion I have. If you want to know any specific argument preferences I have, feel free to ask me any time until the round starts, and I’ll clarify whatever you need.
I evaluate rounds based off the flows, I consistently vote on warrants that are cleanly extened through rounds being more sufficient than repeating the tag from the 1ac to the 2ar without explaining how you should win from that. The more you explain why your arguments are true AND why that means you should win, the more likely you are to get my ballot.
I'm pretty much always going to give an RFD for debaters but if you don't pay attention or seem like my input doesn't matter, your RFD will be very short. I love making sure debaters understand how they lost my ballot instead of walking away and telling their teams that they don't know how they lost on something that wasn't even in my RFD.
I didn't think this was something that had to be made explicit BUT:
** If your answer to arguments about oppression include minimizing violence that is very clearly established (antiblackness, colonialism, anti-queer violence, there's a lot more im missing, but if you have to question it, it probably falls into this group) you will not win anything you think your defense gets you, and your speaks will be directly related to how uncomfortable those arguments make me.
I judged PF and Congress last year and am doing LD judging this year. As a parent judge, I really enjoy and value the professionalism and courtesy displayed by the debaters at such a young age. For me, a lot of arguments are not necessarily a clincher. I would rather have lesser arguments, but argued clearly, passionately and with authority. Needless to say, keeping civility through the debate is a must.
Hey, if you are reading this then I'm Judging you. So ill give you a rundown on what I like and dislike in debate
Like
- For proper argument to be made in your case. Give me arguments in your case not just counterpoints
- Proper clash, If you are here to debate then actually debate, don't just keep defending your case but go on the offense too.
- I like slow well thought out arguments I want to be able to understand the arguments you are making.
-traditonal debate, please don't bring in a million different theories to debate
Dislikes
-disads, don't care for these for the most part it has to be argued effectively for me to vote for you
- Counterpoint based cases, if you are doing this I won't vote in your favor if your whole case is just counterpoints
- Spreading, if you going to spread chances are I'm not going to understand you and I will probably be missing a lot of your points in the process.
- Lack of clash, if there is no clash then it makes it hard for me to vote.
-Outlandish links to Nuclear War: Just stop doing this, seriously if your link chain is more than 2 deep i'm not counting that as an argument
-Tricks: This will literally get you dropped I don't care, we debate in debate nothing more nothing less
- If your case is off topic then I probably will just not care.
- Any arguments that attack groups of individuals based on RACE, GENDER, SEXUALITY, ABILITY OR DISABILITIES, or have any stigmatized arguments I will drop you and once I hear it I will be giving you a loss. I have no patience for this and will ignore any other argument you make.
Debated in LD and PFD for Braddock high school in Miami Fl (c/o2007) and was an NDF fellow in 2007 and have been judging almost every year since. Have my ba and master in Psychology and Philosophy. I'm pretty removed from the debate community and judge maybe once or twice a year after having been pretty active for a year or two. So I'm not always up to date on the new trends.
2020 Update: Speaking of new trends i guess here's my email stephramones AT Gmail.com to send speeches and such. Outlines that i can copy and paste on a flow are my faves.
I Judge mostly PFD and LD. I've been getting away from LD as I've noticed that it's even worse than when I left it in terms of turning into 1 man policy. (Updated 2020, yup def 1 man policy).
I value clarity above all else. Just keep in mind speed kills but is mostly fine as long as it's clear. I shouldn't have to have a copy of your speech in front of me to follow it.
Make the round clear and easy for me and that starts with the constructives. I hate rounds with messy flows where I'm stuck doing work for you.
Fairly traditional. I'm "flow-centric" in both PF and LD in an effort to minimize intervening. I tend to flow big picture of contentions. Framework debate is key for me and I'll look there first unless you tell me otherwise and give me good reason (IMPACT AND WEIGHING PLEASE). I'll take a priori arguments, just as long as they make sense.
I like theory, if it's good and serves a purpose. Feel free to talk about the fairness of debate strategies. Define things for me, pretty much talk to me like I'm off the street and consider me a blank slate or at least very self-aware about my personal biases (See below).
Please ask before the round any specific questions or if I have any bias on the current topic. Things that generally may color my views are: I am social justice and left-oriented, I am originally from Venezuela and have Cuban heritage and grew up in a strong immigrant community in Miami. (SUPER RELEVANT FOR JANFEB 2023 VLD)
If you have clever ideas I'm a fan, keep debate interesting (however, this whole nuclear war K is bs I will vote it down on face...Don't get me started on the current state of LD rant). You will have to work hard to sell me on topicality.
Use philosophy well (I was a philosophy major) use research and statistics well (I was a psychology researcher at penn).
Again, Seriously, Please don't highlight the fact that debate in high school is pretty much intellectual masturbation by making outlandish arguments. Don't test me I will vote down irrelevant nuclear war and the like k's on face and principle alone. .
I've done it before in break rounds and I have no problem with being the squirrel. With that being said, if you're able to come up with creative arguments that are either topical or about the state of debate, I will reward and praise you.
What I think is obvious reasons I'll drop you on principle for
- Racist, misogynistic, Islamophobic, homophobic or xenophobic arguments (anything that was once said by trump and co. falls in this arena, particularly for the jan/feb 2023 VLD topic)
- Fake sources (this includes briefs and breitbart)
- Ad hominem arguments against your opponent
I believe in treating debate as preparation for the real world by which means don't be a jerk and flaunt your privilege and running ridiculous arguments to make you sound smarter than everyone in the room. I will call you out on that. Use debate to learn and demonstrate how to get your point across or at least begin a discourse on important issues, so as everyone can learn and I will like you and give you high speaks. I'm a kind and open-minded person and will do my best to give you RFDs for what you do well and could do better, both as a communicator and strategic debater. My goal with my critiques and RFDs is to help you win future rounds and overall be a better debater, scholar, and person.
High speaker points are given to confident clear speakers who manage to look up off their case with good logic and creative ideas and generally if you're a nice person (sorry I believe encouraging civility and niceness in debate). Don't be afraid to entertain me by being clever or funny at no one's expense except maybe your own. I particularly enjoy chill debaters who make the goal a conversation that moves forward.
Gonna say this one more time, If you're overly unclear, offensive, rude, or aggressive, depending on severity it will either cost you speaker points or completely cost you the round. Please don't yell at me, it hurts my head (spoken as a recovering debate yeller). #DontBeAJerk
Overall I'm pretty chill and will let you do mostly anything as long as it's clear and you tell me why you're doing it, also I'm fairly expressive in round watch my face you can usually tell how i feel about things. Have Fun, learn stuff, be nice.
TLDR: Just do you and do it well. Tabula rasa motherfuckers (to an extent).
Let's get right to it. I have debated policy, public forum, and LD before, so I am familiar with elements like kritiks, dis-ads, and counter plans, but this paradigm is written specifically for LD, which I will be judging. If you want to include me in email chains, my email is crdec123@gmail.com. Make the subject line your name and position (Aff or Neg). Know before going into the round that I do not disclose, so do not expect that from me.t
Character
Be respectful to your opponent. Do not talk down to them, do not patronize them, take their arguments seriously and assume that they're at your intelligence level. Because they are. I do not like arrogance and condescension, and you will lose speaker points if I see that in the round. Also, be respectful to the judges. This should come without saying, but don't be a bigot. If it sounds subjective, then it's meant to be.
Speed
Don't spread/spew. I'm generally very good at flowing speed, so you can go fast, but when it comes to the point where it is incomprehensible, I'll abbreviate your arguments and not be as detailed with your case. In other words, don't sacrifice articulation for speed. If you can do both, great.
Framework
I love a good framework debate, so if you want to make me happy then prove why your framework is better. Also, tie this in throughout the round whether you're attacking, defending, or doing voters, the framework isn't something that should be ignored so please pay attention to it.
Argumentation
My ideal structure for your arguments is pretty simple and straightforward: have a claim, mention the card that supports that claim, and then go over the impact of your argument. Simple structure, should be easy to follow. You don't need to quote your cards if you don't want to, for me citing the source, author, and the year is fine. I'll also allow you to paraphrase if you want, but directly quoting your source goes for me a lot further than just paraphrasing it. Be respectful and also be smart with your arguments: saying something like "My opponent effectively supports genocide" or "My opponent would like to see the global economy collapse" really bothers me. Also, I may ask to look at your evidence if something seems off to me.
I would prefer it if you didn't drop any arguments. Make sure no contention goes unattacked or undefended, I judge the round based off of the flow and an unanswered attack or an unattacked point will stick out. Other than that, I don't have any preferences on how you choose to argue your points as long as you do them well. Also, don't forget your V and VC: you're in LD, so definitely pay attention to how that plays in the round. I think it is a very important part of the debate, do not neglect it. Impact calc goes a long way for me too. Pretty much just do you, but be good and confident about it.
Cross-examination
If both you and your opponent are near-equal when it comes to winning the flow, your performance in cross-examination can be the deciding factor in whether or not you win or lose the round, and this happens both when you ask the questions and when you're answering them. When asking, be very strategic with your questions and make sure you have a plan. It should be clear that you have put plenty of thought into your questions, and that you know exactly what to ask to get your opponent to admit to something, or to agree with something, that is not in their interest. If I see where you are going with your line of questioning, I'll likely be impressed. If you get the result that you want and you mention it in your second speech, I'll be even more impressed, so use CX very well. Also, be smart when you answer the questions: it should be clear to me that you've thought about what your opponent will ask you, and that you have anticipated what they would want you to admit or agree to. This won't win you the round alone, but when the victor isn't obvious, I'll make my decision based off of CX performance.
Speaker Points
You start at 27 points and you gain if you do well, which includes managing articulation and speed impressively and mastering emotion and conviction. You start to lose points for being inarticulate, too slow, or simply being unconvincing to the point where it is distracting.
EDIT
A really good quip, I have just realized, goes really far.
EDIT 2
If your opponent is being too fast or inarticulate, I'll allow you to shout "Clear!" and force them to slow down and enunciate.
EDIT 3
If you don't need time signals, I won't tell you when you go over, but I'll still judge you heavily for it if you do (over 15 and I'll drop you). If you have your own timer then you have no reason to not stay within the time allotted for the speech.
EDIT 4
You won't lose speaker-points for cussing (as long as what you're saying isn't grotesque, obscene, or bigoted). So if you want to say "My impacts are some really scary shit" I won't care.
Welcome Debaters!
My name is Nachiyappan Solaiyappan and I am a sophomore at the Kelley School of Business at Indiana University.
I debated 3 years of varsity Lincon Douglas Debate in High School and mostly judged my Senior year. I have never judged PF debate before, so if you have me as a judge, I will be mostly weighing on the clash of arguments. I also like to see strong links between arguments.
I don't like to hear "meme" arguments because although that may win you the debate round with other judges, in my mind, it is not the best embodiment of a real-world situation.
*I do not like it when people aggressively yell in rounds. Yelling is not equal to convincing*
Best of Luck!
NLD/JVLD Paradigm
I am one of the novice directors for Hunter College High School, and have debated LD for three years and attended NSD. This is my first year judging.
General tips:
- Have a clearly defined framework (Value and value criterion), and clearly labeled contentions. Please don’t spread, or read positions you don’t understand--the round is much more fun if you know what you’re talking about
- For the purposes of most rounds, I consider morality and justice as values to be interchangeable. If you don’t have an irrefutable reason why they’re different, don’t get sucked into a values debate.
- Clearly label all turns
- Weigh!!
- Please signpost! If I miss an argument, it will be as if you never made it, and both of us will be very sad
- I will give high speaks if you
- Speak eloquently and make strategic arguments
- Are respectful during CX and round (doesn’t mean you can’t be aggressive at all, just don’t be racist/sexist/ableist/homophobic/otherwise oppressive or offensive. If you are, you will immediately receive an L20 regardless of how well you are doing in the round otherwise)
- OPTIONAL (but nice and will get you bonus points for speaks): Bring me twizzlers or introduce me to your favorite snack food :)
- I don’t shake hands, but feel free to introduce yourself otherwise
- I consider a great round where all parties leave happy, so don’t forget to have fun!! <3
I debated at Katy Taylor HS in Houston from 2014-2018 and went to TOC senior year. I taught at NSD and TDC during the summer. My debate style was primarily util, Ks, and theory. For the email chain, my email is amb3rwang@gmail.com
I'm most comfortable with judging
LARP>Theory>K>>>FW>Tricks
But do whatever you like doing- I'll do my best to be tab and vote on whatever is warranted and won.
Additional:
-Fine with K affs, also fine with T answering K affs
-I'm unfamiliar with a lot of phil lit and tricks bc I rarely went for these as a debater so give good explanations of it and how they interact with other layers if you go this route
-I have no biases towards any positions just be clear with explanations, interactions, and weighing
If you have any questions you can message me on Facebook or email me!
tl;dr read whatever just explain it well, don't be a dick
Debated policy for a year for interlake, LD for 3 for newport. im a student at Penn now.
have been out of the debate loop but will do my best to kno smt abt the topic.
Don't be a dick b/c I'll prob tank yr speaks, if you're racist/transphobic/homophobic/sexist etc, I'll give u a 0 and most likely hand u an L.
i don't rly care what you read just make sure if its something rly dense/complex u explain it rly well otherwise i prob will not vote for it b/c i won't do the work for you.
(ask me specific qs in round)