Tabroom.com

USC Damus Spring Trojan Championships

2019 — Los Angeles, CA/US

Novice LD Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Joshua Alpert ModernBrain 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed March 13, 2024 at 11:50 AM PDT

Last Update: January 7, 2022

I competed in various forms of debate for five years on the college level however, I primarily competed in NPDA and LD Debate. I competed for Moorpark College (more traditional debate) and Parliamentary Debate at Berkeley (Nat circuit tech debate). At the 2021 NPDA I got to Semis and NPTE I got fifth in season-long rankings and fifth at the NPTE itself. I am ecstatic to see the future generation of debaters compete as a judge with that being said let’s get onto my judging philosophy which is probably the only thing you care about and are reading this for.

TLDR: As the great, powerful, wise debater Brian Yang once said "Go Nuts!" to be a bit more specific my paradigm is heavily influenced by Trevor Greenan, Brian Yang, Tom Kadie, Jessica Jung, and Ryan Rashid so I would expect paradigm similar to them. In order of probably what I am probably best/most experienced judging Theory/Tricks/Larp/K 1, Phil 2 (just not as experienced although I did debate it a bit and learned from Phil debaters so I understand it and can judge it pretty competently) (Advice: For Parli Paradigm questions look to sections 1-4 for evidence debate gloss over section 1 real quick only a few things there matter then look to sections 2-5, for extra salt, info, and general advice include 6,7) bold/highlighted text is generally the more important stuff I would recommend looking at though the rest of it provides a lot of context and stuff so I would read everything there will in fact be a pop quiz... jkjkjkjkjk.... unless........

Table of Contents:

1. General Philosophy

2. Case Debate

3. Theory

4. Kritiks

5. Evidence Debate Specific

6. Contact Info

7. Uniqueness Rant... (no need to look to with regards to paradigm questions just tired of giving the same feedback lol)

My current views for debate, in general, are as follows:

1. General Philosophy:

A) Tech over Truth: Wtf is "Truth" honestly the fact that you vote on the flow shouldn't be an opinion you have it should be a requirement otherwise what is the point of having a judge other than to have some rando arbitrarily and most likely with prejudice decide on random claims it doesn't seem like a very fun event in that world but rather idk an event coated by some serious paternalism coded by all sorts of isms? I know I have def been screwed over before by judges that thought something was "true/untrue" when they were just wrong and describing something I did entire research papers on being like okkkk buddy...
B) Partner communication: I only flow what the recognized speaker says unless you have some sort of framework, performance, or theory justification that is won. Communicate as much or little as you want you do you.

C) Protecting the flow: I do try to protect the flow to the best of my ability. However, I would still recommend calling points of orders just in case I miss something.

D) Things that make me unhappy :( I reserve the right to drop anyone for being bigoted will cause me to drop the team given the real-world implications and harm that it creates.

E) Speaks: I have decided that speaks are probably disablist, sexist, racist, etc. particularly in debate events and as such I will give each team the highest possible speaks be it block 30s and 29.9 or descending by whatever the tournament allows. The exception is if your racist, sexist, antisemitic, disablist, transphobic, homophobic, or any of the phobics or antis or isms (come close to breaking this rule a couple of times although I haven't had to yet...). If I can’t give block scores I will give the winners higher speaks and the losers the lower ones descending.

F) Views on spreading: You do you I can flow. My partner Will White was probably one of the fastest debaters when going max speed so it's highly unlikely you can spread me out as Will could hit like 450WPM without cards and I could flow.

G) Shadow Extensions: I believe Shadow Extensions are new arguments. (A shadow extension is an argument dropped during the member speeches that magically reappears in the rebuttal speeches)

H) Extensions:

I. When extending an argument should it be untouched I am okay with a simple extend _____ there is no need to reexplain as long as your arguments related will not be new and only weighing in the rebuttal speeches. However, if you are planning to leverage it against another argument on the flow you need to explain how it applies.

II. If you are kicking something you do need to say "kick this" or "extend their we meet" or whatever "we're not going for it"

III. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD PLEASE EXTEND YOUR VOTERS ON THEORY.

I) Cross-Applications in Rebuttals: I believe that cross applications through other sheets of paper are new arguments. For example, if you make an argument on theory and then in the rebuttal speeches apply it to case or K when it is only on theory in the flow and you don't say it applies to case or K that would be a new argument.

J) Words that you say when other people are speaking for lack of a better term: Slow and speed mean to slow down, Clear means to talk clearer not necessarily to slow down, Text means to pass the text, signpost means to say where you're at on the flow.

K) Written copies) Please give me written/typed copies of your advocacies/ROJ/ROB/Interps/counterinterps in case I miss something important. What you write down is the interp is what I will follow unless contested and told to do otherwise. I may ask for clarification after the speech and before the next speech before time starts for the exact wording.

L) Weighing) Absent weighing done for me by the debaters I default to Strength of link>magnitude>probability>timeframe.

2. Case Debate:

A) Affirmative:

I. Policy:

a. Have a plan text and preferably advantages. Other than that it is pretty much up to you and your opponent. I do enjoy a good Heg, econ, and Uniqueness solves the case debate for Tix if you can't think of anything...

b. Advantages: Preferably in the formats of Uniqueness, Links, Internal Links, then Impacts or Uniqueness, Links, Impacts. Make sure your uniqueness is going in the right direction, explain your links, and terminalize your impacts. I would love it if you would give me clear links not just plan passes and war, explain how you get to war. Don’t just say death and expect me to do the work for you. If you say gut check as a wise man once told me “I will gut check everything and you may not like that.”

II. Value: Should have a criteria and contentions. You don't need a Value Criteria in addition to your regular one but if you want to provide one strategically that is up to you. Preferably for both Contentions and Countercontentions on the Negative, the structure I usually ran was H.I.S. (Harms, Impact, Solvency) with harms being the harms of the opposing value, Impacts being the impacts of that, and Solvency being the solvency for using your value but I understand there are many different structures and not every value round is capable of having that clear of a structure so how you run it is up to you.

III. Fact: You should have a criteria and contentions. Your contentions should preferably have impacts and not just be statements otherwise it is very hard to weigh the debate.

B) Negative:

I. DAs: refer to section 2.a.I.b. on advantages.

II. Counterplans: some of my favorite debates are plan CP debates having originally been coached by one of the “inventors” of the CP. I’ll vote on any type of perm textual, functional, one with net benefits, severance, intrinsic, timeline, etc. if it’s won. I default to perm is a test of competition, not an advocacy. Also going for Severance and going for your aff is not a double turn just two independent win conditions unless the opposing team makes/wins an arg that it is. If a perm hasn't been argued as either a test of competition or advocacy come the 2AR my default is locked and I will consider it a test of competition and any argument as to the contrary as new.

III. Presumption: I default to presumption flows Neg unless the neg runs an advocacy/Alt/CP in which case it flips AFF absent a framework argument that is argued that it is negative. If you’re condo and kick it I default to it flips back to the neg but am open to arguments that it stays aff. Side note: I default permissibility affirms

IV: Offense V Defense: if you clearly articulate how it is terminal defense and presumption is still negative ground I will vote on it. Generally, I vote along a very heavy offense-defense paradigm unless told otherwise

V: Condo V Uncondo: Default to all plans are condo unless the status is asked and they say not condo. IDC how you run it up to you. Also like the great Amanda Miskell says “Dispo is just Condo in a suit” jkjkjkjk even though it isn't tbh most of the same standards level offense will be triggered on a theory position maybe you get some additional education offense depending on conditions but it seems minimal to me but meh whatever you do you. I don't care one way or another on condo will vote on condo bad (if won) as much as I will vote for infinite condo good (if won) fun math proof for infinite condo here ( I don't think it's fully accurate but its def fun/funny lol): https://debatedrills.com/en/blog/defense-infinite-conditionality/ .

VI: Judge Kick: I don't default to judge kicking the CP but if you win that I should judge kick that's fine. I also think that responses to judge kicking coming out of the PMR in response to new MO framing should be to drop the argument not drop the debater.

3. Theory:

A) Structure: It should preferably have an Interp, Violation, Standards, and Voters. Unless it is an IVI, RVI, paragraph theory all of which I will vote for.

I. Interpretation:

a. No preference for or against any type of Theory run whatever you and friv theory = FUN. Condo bad, no neg fiat, Ks Bad, AFC, Spec, Topicality, Trichot, tropicality, neg gets to split the block, etc. (although I will likely be heavily biased against theory that calls out someone's personal appearance and/or the way they dress... to the point I most likely will intervene and not vote for it but I haven't fully decided on that yet)

II. Violation: probably should clearly articulate the violation even if so blatantly obvious and not just they violate but it can be quick if it’s very clear like if you run F-Spec, just say “they didn’t specify the funding mechanism in the PMC” or something like that.

III. Standards:

a. Your standards should provide clear links to each voter that they work in conjunction with Fairness, Education and/or accessibility and work as reasons to prefer your theory sheet. Ideally, they should be contextualized to the round/interp rather than just general descriptions of the standard.

IV: Voters

a. To vote on theory I need clear explained voters don’t just say Apriori, fairness, and education and expect me to vote on them you need to terminalize those voters and what they mean. For example, with education you could say that education is the reason debate exists and without education, nobody would do debate and it collapses or for fairness say that if the round is unfair we cant evaluate arguments to tell if they're true. Or on fairness, we cant test their arguments/methods/ it skews eval etc.

b. For theory, I have no preference for reasonability vs. competing interpretations and will vote on how you tell me to vote. though I will say I have no idea what reasonability means until you provide some sort of bright line like winning all the Counterstandards and standards or something I dunno your argument you figure out what it will be and without a brightline, I just go back to competing interps

c. I default to drop the team, competing interps, no RVIs, Fairness>education (tho ig it would depend on the impact justifications under this model I am assuming skews eval/truth testing as your fairness impact), Text>Spirit, Pragmatics>Semantics.

d. Abuse: I default to potential abuse is sufficient as CInterps would cause me to evaluate under a risk of offense paradigm comparing the two interps not necessarily what happened in a given round. Unless a very good argument for articulated abuse is given most likely with some sort of reasonability framework being won.

e. A “we meet” that is won is a no link to a theory shell even under competing interpretations unless argued otherwise and very clearly won in the debate. While you can weigh the risk of offense on some level of the we meet if they only meet part of your interp i.e. they don't fully violate like a no link on one of the potential scenarios on a DA. To achieve terminal defense the we meet would likely have to fully meet the interp, some framing claim as to why a partial meeting is sufficient to not evaluate the sheet, and/or the we meet is generated via an interp flaw which means they can't solve their offense given they wrote they're interp bad allowing you to meet.

B) IVIs/RVIs/paragraph theory/Kritikal Turns: I will vote on them if you win them and have clear links and reasons why I should vote on them, tell me how to vote on them and framing/sequencing. I will vote on an RVI but I probably have a slight bias against them. I default to no RVIs but if you win the RVI framing I will vote on it. Also, this is something I have noticed in parli it seems what an RVI is has gotten lost in translation from Nat Circuit LD to Parli, the way I understand it is how it is understood in nat circuit LD i.e. it is a framing claim with regards question of the directionality of offense if you win that something is an RVI you win that offense is Bidirectional, not Unidirectional as under a no RVI theory on framework so saying we get an RVI is sufficient to get an RVI but not sufficient to win an RVI as to win an RVI begs the question of whether you won the theory sheet in itself (when judges vote for bidirectional offense on a K they are voting for an RVI shhhh... don't tell them), if you do and you win you get an RVI and that theory is the highest layer you would then trigger a win condition most likely. The way they've become translated for the most part in parli is just IVIs saying theory is bad not RVIs.

4. Kritiks: Run whatever you want (yes, I know that these examples don't fit cleanly into each category and can fit into several just giving examples) be it more sociological like Cap, Set Col, antiBlackness, Psychoanalysis like Lacan (sidenote: Nietzsche Stan so like the implications of that are generally not the biggest Lacan/psychoanalysis fan in general though I will vote for it just not enjoy myself), or POMO like Nietzsche, Baudrillard, DNG, "eastern" philosophy (probably my fave tbh) like Taoism or Buddhism, your Deont 1AC/NC, and ofc your nailbomb 1AC, IDC I vote on the flow. Don't assume I know your lit even though I know a pretty big lit base and so your K should be clearly explained preferably. As for literature that I am particularly familiar with I mostly ran Nietzsche, Buddhism, Disablism, Anthro, Cap/Racial Cap, Set Col, and Orientalism. However, I am heavily biased against nazi literature please don't run it like Schmitt or Heidegger because ya know... I had family subjected to the Holocaust... K-Affs are fun I def ran them a lot but I probably err slightly towards FWT maybe 55/45 should the best arguments be made although (the best args are rarely/almost never made) so I actually end up voting at about 50/50 or edging slightly in favor of K-AFFs.

II Framework:

A. ROB/ROJ: I think that both are really just thesis claims for your framework and in themselves not necessarily arguments. i.e. a role of the justification for existence absent framework arguments and no function as to what it means and should you make an argument about framework regardless of whether you say the role Role of the ballot/Judge is ___ the function of how I evaluate the round stays the same so in the end whether you say an explicit role of the ballot text or not the end result is the same, therefore it follows that a ROB/J cannot be more than a thesis claim because it doesn't change the outcome of the round by default absent some sort of internal justification but then that begs what it means via the framework arguments rendering the whole thing circular leading back to the same place that it is in fact a thesis claim.

B. Framing: Your framework should preferably offer some explanation on how impacts should be evaluated in relation to other impacts and what should type of evaluation comes first, what methods ought be prioritized etc.

C. I default to epistemic modesty over confidence on frameouts and impact defense. That means without any in-depth explanation, I'll evaluate your frameout as a reason why your impacts are more probable than your opponents, and why your opponents have a lower probability of solving their impacts. If you want me to evaluate your frameout as terminal defense, or a reason the k is sequentially a prior question to the aff, you need to do the technical extensions of why that is necessarily the case. I also default to epistemic modesty when it comes to impact defense that means absent an explicit argument as to why that defense is terminal I will only evaluate it as mitigatory. When it comes to epistemic skew claims I functionally default to confidence as I believe they create new layers within the debate. Finally, stating that X is terminal defense if the claim is uncontested will cause me with regards to that particular impact to view that as terminal defense regardless of whether it is coherent as the implication will not have been contested however, if something is not explicitly stated to be terminal defense and there is not an explicit claim saying it is such or flipping my paradigm then I will view any defense as mitigatory as described.

C. MISC.

1. Will vote on Skep triggers if they are terminalized and explained and I think tricks belong in parli but IG that's up for debate tho.

2. I default to theory is Apriori however, I will vote on K before T if the argument is made/won. Or they are on the same level if arg is made/won.

3. I have no idea what "vote for the best/better debater" means.

4. Not as experienced with Phil tho I do enjoy it and have def learned a lot from former Phil debaters and understand a decent amount of it.

5. Role of the ballots/Judges are really just thesis claims for framework arguments imo from what I have seen though i.g. if you want it to be more binding then that you need to probably make that argument although I will probably all things being equal be more receptive to the claim that its a thesis claim.

III. Impacts:

a. Have them and terminalize them. As stated above don't just say nuclear war or poverty and expect me to do the work for you.

b. full disclosure I probably find the proximal impacts bad for debate highly persuasive. Not to say that I won't vote for proximal impacts if they're won on the flow (I def ran them occasionally when I did debate) and that you've won that they're good but due to personal experiences and the ways I have seen them utilized I have a bias against them. I also think there's a distinction between proximal impacts that occurred in the debate round i.e. someone did something violent in which case I think those proximal impacts are probably persuasive versus proximal impacts brought into the round that your advocacy or alt solves for you or other debaters in-round which is where I find my bias against proximal impacts probably comes in.

IV Alt/Advocacy:

a. Preferably have one and tell me which way I should vote unless its part of your FW, solvency, performance, or something I guess that you don't need one.

b. If it has a really complex idea and philosophy explain what the terms mean either under your alt/advocacy or in your solvency ideally.

V Solvency:

a. You should have it and clearly explain how it solves the impacts you have provided at a minimum. Don't just say we solve you should state the mechanism and way in which you solve.

VI: Perm: Refer to 2, B), II. the perm section under counter plans.

5. Evidence Debate specific:

A) Carded evidence: it is very important for Evidence debate but you must also make arguments not just cite sources. Analytics theoretically can beat cited cards if you do the better debating. Also please don’t get into your source is bad arguments unless they cite the most biased source like Breitbart (obviously evidence comparison is encouraged though) I more so mean the "wahhhh no u, debates) for the evidence chain please send to Joshua.alpert (AT) berkeley.edu

B) Power-tagging/cutting: don't... Please Don’t... I’m very probably pretty receptive to some sort of theory shell against it if it is won... please don’t lose it if you do run it or I will be sad. A drop the argument claim made by the team calling it out at the very least probably has a good chance of winning in front of me.

C) No clipping!!! this shouldn't have to be said but apparently, it does.

6. If you have any further questions feel free to ask me before or after the round or if you have questions about a round I judged feel free to email me or send me a Facebook message.

7. My Uniqueness rant.... feels like half the time I am judging HS rounds with two linear impacts pitted against each other and like some rough uniqueness so I am gonna put a RQ rant on how uniqueness works so I don't have to keep repeating myself

a. Uniqueness controls the direction of the link: I.e. if the uniqueness is headed in one direction things bad the link should be things get better or vice versa on a DA. This means that thumpers/uniqueness overwhelms the links arguments aren't particularly responsive more so mitigatory as there is still only a risk things get worse as such in order to really control the link debate its ideal you control the uniqueness debate as well. (side note: generally case turns also need uniqueness too otherwise they're pretty linear which makes it easier for the opposing team to handwave away with "try or die".

b. Uniqueness positive v negative v flux: Uniqueness in terms of directionality follows one of three types Positive v. negative v flux Positive uniqueness indicates the squo is headed in the right direction (squo good) this is the uniqueness you generally want on a DA, negative would indicate the squo is bad and is what you want on an advantage, and in flux would indicate that it could head either direction it is dependent on a "singular action" it can go in either an AD or DA and generally, requires strong control of the Link/Internal Link debate while strategic in some instances it is generally high-risk high reward.

c. Predictive v Descriptive Uniqueness: Uniqueness can either be predictive or descriptive what I mean is uniqueness can either state what is happening "right now" or in the "past" (descriptive) or it can be predictive describing what is expected to happen in the future look to an econ debate descriptive uniqueness would state that unemployment is at an all-time high with X unemployment and the investor confidence is low at ___ versus predictive would be unemployment is expected to drop ____ because of ___ and investor confidence is headed towards a free fall as X bubble bursts.

d. Uniqueness as a spot for internal links: uniqueness can be used as a spot to place internal links instead of having separate internal links sections you can embed that X type of thing is the internal link i.e. you can have a section that says soft power is the internal link to Heg or investor confidence key to Heg to save you some time from having to flesh out a whole separate internal link section.

e. Brink Scenarios: Please for the love of god have brink and/or flashpoint scenarios in your uniqueness i.e. some event or location that is heading in the wrong/right direction think if you have a war with Russia scenario isolate someplace like the Baltics, arctic, cyberspace, etc. rather than some vague place and isolate why now is key and what is going to happen if we don't do this otherwise it kind of makes your uniqueness linear and a nightmare to evaluate and of course to leverage tbh.

F: Non-Case debate

I K's: The alternative generates uniqueness in a K debate: i.e. all the framing, links, and impacts are generally nonunique until you have created a way to solve them via your advocacy/alt.

II: Theory: Your interp/counterinterp is what generates your uniqueness in a case debate in a similar fashion to how the alt does as you have established an "advocacy/rule" for an interpretation of how debate should functions in order to resolve impacts isolated in the same way that if the alt on a K has terminal defense to resolving its offense making it nonunique and thus not a reason to vote against the AFF it means that should an interp have terminal defense on it it is not a reason to vote down the opposing team as its offense can't be resolved, it also means that absent a counterinterp you don't meet or a we meet/interp flaw that even if you have offense of why the interp is bad you have no way to resolve that offense so the interp is automatically preferable (unless you've impact turned/framed it out ofc).

e. Example/outline:
Advantage Heg:
uniqueness:
1. heg is low right now because ___ (this should be related to the type of power on uniqueness 2 and the location on 3 otherwise you will thump your own offense)
2. __ type of Power is key to Heg
3. ___ Flashpoint is Key to ___ type of power and something bad is happening there rn

Kinsey Bluestein Hire 3 rounds

Vishan Chaudhary Harvard-Westlake 6 rounds None

Jason Collins Hire 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu February 28, 2019 at 5:34 PM EDT

Experience

I am a junior at USC with 2 and a half years of experience in British parliamentary debate.

Speed

I have never myself competed in an event which requires speaking fast and/or spreading and as such I have limited experience with parsing arguments delivered that quickly. I would encourage you to speak with moderate to conversational speed when I am your judge; if you must speak quickly or spread, I encourage you to send me the case you will be reading to my email (jecollin@usc.edu) if you don't want me to drop any of your points. In any circumstance make sure to signpost clearly and often.

Weighing

I judge heavily on the comparative, so even if your case is excellent, if you cannot tell me how or why your side is not only good but preferable to the outcome of the opposite side, then it will be difficult for you to win.

Kritiks + Theory

In general, I strongly prefer a case that directly engages with the question at hand. As such I would prefer that debaters not run kritiks and theory with me as a judge. Running a kritik with me is not a guarantee that you will lose, but unless it offers unusually excellent or insightful analysis, I will give strong preference to debaters who choose to run cases that directly engage with the question at hand.

Speaker Points

In general I will allocate speaker points on the basis of the skill with which a case is constructed as opposed to on the basis of the skill with which it's delivered, but in a situation where both speakers are more or less equal in their ability to construct a case I will give preference in speaker points to which speech I thought was better delivered.

Scale:

25 - Your speech was not only poor but rude and hateful in some capacity (e.g. racist, sexist, homphobic, etc.)

26 - There were some errors in your case significant enough to lead to your loss

27 - A case that lacks any obvious logical errors but still does not contain distinctively strong arguments

28 - A good case that is well constructed and also has arguments that won the round

29+ - A truly excellent and insightful case that not only won the round but also taught me, the judge, something new and interesting

Ian Cook The Meadows School 6 rounds

Ari Davidson Harvard-Westlake 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue April 16, 2024 at 6:03 AM PDT

This is a severely abridged version of my paradigm. If you'd like the full version, feel free to reach out to me (college) or have a coach reach out (HS) for it.

WFU '23

Now at UT-Austin for grad school

Yes email chain — ask before the debate.

TOC UPDATE:

If you're a senior at your last TOC ever, please tell me before the debate. I'd like the opportunity to congratulate you on your career and reward your ability to be here with some great speaker points. You should be proud of yourself for the tremendous amount of work you've put in to get this far!

Paradigm:

Say what you want and defend what you say. I reward clash of all kinds and dislike cowardice more than almost anything. I will attempt to write down every argument presented in the way you present it, regardless of your argumentative or speaking “style”, to repeat it in my RFD. This means clarity, both in argument explanation and words coming out of your mouth, is imperative. Don’t over-adapt to what you (probably wrongly) think I want to hear. Debate is for the debaters, just have fun and say smart things and I’m your judge.

The only caveat to this is I have very little interest in parsing through interpersonal disputes between debaters over events that occurred outside of the debate round. I understand that sometimes we have personal disagreements with one another as a community founded on discord, and I also understand that sometimes we don't feel comfortable sharing how we feel with the people we disagree with in other interpersonal settings — and that is reasonable. But I struggle to find why the solution to this is to have that precise conversation during a debate round and for judges to insert their own interpretations over events they have little knowledge of. This applies doubly to high school debate. Given this, while I will not ignore any words you say in a debate, you will notice that my decision proper will not pertain to/include the content of personal disagreements tangential to the topics of the debate. To clarify, if you find something the other team has said or done in the debate round to be objectionable, this is obviously fair game and I am more than happy to hear reasons why it should be a voting issue. I think issues of disclosure fall into this category as well given that prep time is part of a debate round and proper disclosure is what enables proper pre-round preparation.

Also, say words if you want me to judge kick the counterplan. I’m indifferent personally, but prefer to go with what debaters say out loud in a debate.

Speaker Points:

My speaker points vary widely. This is because the quality of debates I judge vary widely. I make no apology for the points I give. I try to adjust my points to the tournament and division, so for example if you got a 29 at a regional and a 28.5 at a major it does not necessarily mean you got worse (in fact, your performance may have improved!)

Here is my approximate scale for the open division (does not apply to JV and Novice):

30: I've only given one of these in policy debate, and it was due to a combination of celebrating a senior's wonderful career at her last tournament ever along with amazingly proficient execution. Requires devastating speeches that show novel and tailored strategy, technical proficiency, and efficient and effective cross-examination periods (on both sides). A 30 is earned if it is apparent to me that not a single second, word, or breath was wasted in the debate.

29.7-29.9: Near perfect execution. If your performance was replicated consistently, you would deserve to be in the top 5 speakers at the tournament and reach deep elims. I do not give this out very often

29.4-29.6: Great execution, but not novel or exciting/parts of the debate seemed like throwaway arguments. There were a couple missed opportunities or mistakes, but overall a proficient performance. If this speaking was replicated consistently, you would be in the top 20 speakers at the tournament and reach the quarters. This is where most of my higher-end points lie.

29-29.3: Very good execution. If replicated, you might get a speaker award, you'd certainly clear, and you may win an elim. This is where most of my "winning" points lie.

28.7-28.9: Above average execution + you could clear.

28-28.6: On par with the middle of the pack. Speeches need work on technical proficiency, block writing, proper use and comparison of evidence, etc.

27.5-27.9: Speeches and CX execution need work, we're not effectively answering the opponent's arguments, speech order is messy and not cohesive, speaker is unclear and could benefit from speaking drills.

27-27.4: Lack of attention to opponent's arguments, improper division of speech/CX time and energy, dead speech time, ineffective use of prep, etc.

26-26.9: Speeches seem lost, leaving time on the clock, CX is spent asking clarification or "wouldn't you agree that..." questions, etc.

25: You have done something wrong interpersonally and I'm sure we will discuss it before points come out.

Yay debate!

Kristin Eisner Marlborough School 4 rounds None

David Escobar Immaculate Heart High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu September 19, 2019 at 8:04 AM PDT

they/them

paradigms should constantly evolve - will update as i develop further views of debate and the world.

add me to the email chain - dialupdavid@berkeley.edu

second year policy debater, currently @ uc berkeley, debated 4 years in hs.

For those who are scrambling to do prefs last minute, below is a tldr (we've all been there)

If you have time to do prefs, please read this tldr and the "long version" -

do you! I will evaluate any style willingly, i'm coming in familiar with most styles of debate and experience coaching a few events (namely policy, LD, and parli). Feel free to spread, i will be able to handle top speed, but keep in mind that speaker points are going to be affected by lack of enunciation or clarity. Many of my 2nr's are spent going for the K (that doesn't mean yours should be) but I was pretty flex early on, so debate as you would on any other day, as long as it is respectful to everyone in the room. DON’T let my preferred style of debate affect the arguments you read in front of me. I am of more use to you if the rfd is going to be centered around the k and I only include my argument preference to be clear about that. Debate should be a space to develop your agency or recognize and tackle the lack thereof, that’s my only preconception about the forwarding of any argument in a round.

Tech > Truth but if your "flow winning" arguments are rooted in bullshit then you'll have a hard time winning my ballot (i.e. "they conceded the sky is green", wouldn't inform my ballot). Tell me why a conceded argument informs and structures my decision on that specific flow. In most instances, win the flow, win the round - unless you do something that makes the debate space very explicitly worse.

i may be facially expressive - so feel free to use that to your advantage.

Long Version:

Case Debate: I feel that neg case specifics are a lost craft in debate (from what i've seen in the time that I've been involved). I love a good case debate, if you have a very specific and offense based neg case then i will enjoy the round significantly more, if a significant portion of your 1 and 2nr's are case turns, i'm all ears. Less of a fan of case generics but I understand their utility and necessity.

For the aff, I find that a lot of high school debaters don’t extend their impacts, please do.

I am willing to vote neg on presumption, if the aff doesn't do anything, then convince me of that.

Style: I was a K debater who mainly stayed in the realm of "identity" based arguments and dabbled in post modernism - while there is a good chance that i have dived into a lot of the lit you're going to read in front of me, overviews and explanations should assume a more basic explanation (i will understand the complexities of your buzz words, but we all know that is not the most effective way to debate). The only reason I mention my preferred style of debate is so you know who you're preffing, that doesn't mean it should affect the arguments you read in front of me.

If you're more traditional policy, that's great too, I am not entirely politically incompetent (I hope) and will understand the scenarios in your ptx disads, etc.

Debate as you will. Unorthodox, traditional, while doing a handstand, it doesn't matter to me, i'll evaluate it. I won't lie and say im "tabula rasa", but my internal biases almost definitely won't be the reason you lose a round.

Please contextualize args, I beg of you, speaks will probably be affected by generic blocks but that doesn't mean that they cant win you the debate.

Reliance on cards is a common practice that i've noticed. My biggest suggestion is if you're caught between taking the time to articulate an argument well and reading a blippy card, don't read the card.

Evidence is not the end all be all of debate (or "true" claims) and some arguments do not require evidence to be valid.

Theory/Procedurals:

I like creative procedurals - generic procedurals may be less well received by me but I understand their utility and necessity, you're probably going to have to win that the other team truly made the debate unfair and there's a high threshold for that in most situations for me. The reason why there is a high threshold stems from the lack of impact work I see on t/fw flows. I get it, your standards affect the way the debate plays out, but why does that matter? Impact it. If the impact work is weak, then i lean aff against t/fw.

A TVA never hurt anybody and is the best way to win my ballot on the T flow, but there is usually a high burden to "prove" that the tva solves the aff.

I will happily vote on condo, agent cp's bad, and arguments of the sort if argued convincingly. You can do this by isolating ways the other team made the debate unnecessarily difficult. Ex) reading condo and telling me "they say *this* on one off case and *this* on another, these two arguments vehemently disagree with each other". I am particularly more sympathetic than your common judge if work like this is done.

You are best off reading the most inclusive interp on t/fw that still excludes the instance of the 1ac. This makes your job a lot easier and garners you the most offense/minimizes the offense read against your interp.

I like non-traditional theory arguments.

K debate (on the aff and neg):

This is what I spend most of my time involved with. That doesn't mean read a K in front of me and you'll be rewarded, I hold a high threshold for K debate so butchering args may hurt speaks. Vice versa, a good k debate will boost speaks. These are probably my favorite debates to judge and where my RFD can serve you the best - I prefer very case centered link work and an application of the meta level descriptions in the world of the aff, contextualization is premium. Thinking of links as case disads or turns may help you frame the links in a way that is compelling to me.

Let me know when the overview is going to be long, I usually put them on another flow.

I will gladly vote for a k aff, if articulated well. I like k affs that are in the direction of the topic, but feel free to not relate to the topic at all (just know that this may come with additional challenges).

If you are a critique of the resolution - be ready to explain why discussions of the topic are bad and why the education you forward is valuable. Please give me a reason that you reject political intervention, the burden for this isn't too high from me, i know ptx and political hope aren't accessible to everyone.

You don't need to claim to solve the structure with your k aff, in fact, I am more compelled by affs that resolve individualized impacts or mend unique instances in debate.

Non Trad or "performance" Debate:

I am receptive of these arguments.

If you read a poem, rap, dance, perform a ritual, use a prop, play music or sing, etc. please employ this as offense! Don't do it to flower your speaks, extend these arguments in a way that informs my ballot and is direct offense to the presentations or responses you receive. Tell me why your performance is a representation of your affirmation or alt, do the solvency work.

I reward creativity, only if the above is done. Innovative arguments are always going to be my favorite to judge.

DA's + CP's:

I find most impact scenarios with ptx and assorted da's hard to buy, largely because internal link work is lacking, and if we're being honest with ourselves they're not probable. This doesn't mean i'm not going to vote for them if they're won.

Don't kid yourself and try and convincingly yell about how the probability is 100%, that doesn't do you any favors. Do decent internal link extension and employ case specific links (that are in the context of the aff's policy) and you'll be in good shape.

If the link is not in the context of the aff, at least do a decent job articulating how the policy warranted in the link evidence is similar to the aff.

Feel free to read any type of CP, I don't have any dislike towards a specific type, but I can be compelled by aff theory vs counterplans that are almost entirely the aff. This also includes theory vs PIC's, so be aware.

Make your cp's competitive and make sure they resolve at least a snippet of the aff's impacts, this should be a given.

I like creative and non-traditional cp's as a format.

Framing + Organization:

This is a highly important component of debates that I adjudicate, if you are winning the framing level of the debate then your impacts are most likely going to be prioritized. I usually like the framing to come at the top of a speech (feel free to put it elsewhere so long as you maintain an able-to-be-followed organization). This applies to most framing - from util to "ethics" or subject form based framing.

Organized and coherent structure to speeches will mean more generous speaks, this means sticking to your road map and suggesting where to put something that isn't so obvious on the flow.

If your overview is going to be longer than 2 minutes (it probably shouldn't be, but it happens) then let me know.

If you have any other questions that aren't covered here, or questions about the paradigm, feel free to ask in person.

Speaks:

solid humor may be rewarded with an additional .1 or .2 speaks, it keeps the debate interesting, don't make a joke out of something that is objectively not to be joked about. don't speak over your partner or “puppeteer”/“parrot” them, both speaks may be docked.

30 - you literally did nothing wrong, best speeches i've ever heard and you actively engaged with your partner.

29.5-29.9 - you deserve to be top speaker and have very few mistakes, or you did something really cool and original that i've never seen before and is good for debate (whatever that may mean).

29 -29.4 - you should be a top 10 speaker at the least, there was something important that needed to be worked on but other than that you were entirely solid.

28.5-28.9 - you will probably make it to elims at the tournament and/or you were putting in an effort and that effort is truly paying off, good speaker.

28-28.4 - there are some significant improvements to be made, but you were a decent speaker and may be a lower seed in elims.

27.5 - 27.9 - there were clarity/comprehension issues, argument matching may not have been the strongest, stride for improvement.

27 - 27.4 - ehhhh, speeches were disorganized and can use major improvement.

26.9 and below - you did something that vastly made the debate space worse.

Shanzeh Faheem Hire 2 rounds

Gabbi Green Hire 6 rounds None

Ali Heera Marlborough School 6 rounds

Joanna Im Harvard-Westlake 4 rounds

Rachel Jenkins Marlborough School 4 rounds None

Divya Jeyasingh Independent 6 rounds

Kelley Kim Hire 6 rounds

Andrew Little The Meadows School 6 rounds

Samantha McLoughlin Harvard-Westlake 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue April 16, 2024 at 10:33 PM PDT

**Conflicts for TOC 24: Harvard Westlake, Scarsdale, Westridge TW, Memorial DX, Notre Dame San Jose AG, San Mateo YR, Monta Vista KR, Los Altos AK, Amador Valley EM, Brophy TJ, Stanford OHS AY, Horace Greeley SG, Bellevue WL, Concord Carlisle FZ, St Agnes EH

**TOC Specific: if you're a senior and would not like to hear the RFD, just let me know!

Hi! I'm Sam. Harvard Westlake '21, Vanderbilt '25. Email chain please: samanthamcloughlin13@gmail.com. LD TOC qual 4x (octos soph year, skipped etoc junior year, quarters senior year), 20 bids, won some tournaments (Valley, Yale, Stanford, etc). I mostly read policy args, some basic T/theory, and some Ks/topical K affs (settler colonialism, fem IR, etc). I also coached for the past two years/am coaching this year, so I have some topic familiarity.

Everything in this paradigm (minus the hard and fast rules) is just a preference - my strongest belief about debate is that it should be a forum for ideological flexibility, creative thinking, and argumentative experimentation. I realized this paradigm was way too long so I tried to bold stuff for pre-round skimming.

Hard and Fast Rules--

If you are going too fast for me to tell if you are reading all the words in your cards, I will assume you're not. I will call clear and slow, please listen or we will all be sad.

Won't vote on any arg that makes debate unsafe. This includes any arg that denies the badness of racism/sexism/etc, or says death good (args like spark/wipeout = ok, cuz it doesn't deny the value of life, it's just fancy util maths that says extinction better preserves the value of life). If your opponent wins your argument is repugnant (absent any larger framing or judge instruction), I'll drop the argument, unless you presented your argument with the agreement that it was repugnant (ie, if you admit your position is racist, but attempt to say that doesn't matter), in which case I will consider your repugnance purposeful and drop you.

Ev ethics - stake the round on it (ie W30 to the person who is right and an L with the lowest possible speaks to the other) if evidence is misrepresented (an omitted section contradicts or meaningfully alters the meaning of the card). I think a good litmus test for misrepresentation is: does the article agree with the claims presented in the card? If it's missing a sentence or two at the beginning/end of a paragraph but it doesn't change the meaning of the card, you're better off reading it as theory. To make everyone's life easier, just cut ev well (this means full citations, full paragraphs, in alignment with the author's intent).

Clipping = an L with the lowest speaks I can give.

Speaks are my choice, not yours (put away 30 speaks theory).

For online debate, I expect that you record all your speeches in case you, your opponent, or I drops out.

Argument TLDRs--

Defaults: reasonability on theory, competing interps on t, drop the debater on t/theory, no RVIs, T>theory>everything else, comparative worlds, fairness + education are voters, policy presumption, epistemic confidence

^All those can be easily changed with a sentence.

K debate - Line by line >> long overviews. Winning overarching claims about the world is helpful, but you need to apply those claims to the specifics of your opponents arguments or else I will not do those interactions for you. Framework is important (honestly most of the times in K v policy debates, the person who wins fw wins the round). Links to the plan are preferred, but not necessary - the less specific your links, the more fw matters, and the more persuasive the permutation is. I also tend to think debate should be about arguments, not people, which means I'll likely be unpersuaded by personal attacks or "vote for me" arguments. I'm more persuaded by skills impacts on T Framework than fairness, and more persuaded by non topical affs that impact turn things than try to find a middle ground.

Policy - Yay! Zero risk not a thing but arguments still must be complete to be evaluated. Underdeveloping off in the 1nc = they get less weight in the 2nr. Rebuttal ev explanation > initial ev quality, but if your opponent's ev sucks and you point that out, that falls under the first category. Read your best evidence in the 1NC - I'll be persuaded by arguments that the 2NR doesn't get new evidence unless it's directly responsive to the 1AR. Big fan of creative counterplans <3(consult __ is usually not creative).

Theory - PICs and condo are probably good. Other CPs (international fiat, agent, process etc) are a bit more suspicious. All of this is up for debate. Descriptions of side bias are not standards. The more frivolous the shell = the truer reasonability and DTA are, and the lower the bar for answers. On that note, reasonability and DTA are under-utilized.

Philosophy - Not the area i'm the most comfortable in, but I'll try my best. I'd love to see a well explained phil debate, but I will not enjoy a blippy phil round that borders closer to tricks debate. I'd rather you leverage your syllogism to exclude consequences rather than relying on calc indicts. Debaters should take advantage of nonsensical contention args.

Tricks - I don't think a model of debate predicated on the avoidance of clash (ie relying on concessions) is an educational model. My test for whether an argument falls under this model of debate is: ask yourself if you would be willing to go for an argument if it was responded to competently. The same idea also extends to the formatting of your argument (ie you should delineate + thoroughly explain all your arguments with clear implications). I won't purposefully insert my personal beliefs about the value of tricks debates into the round, but it does mean that I'll probably be more receptive to arguments that indict tricks debate as a model. Some arguments are truer than others, and it's easier to win true arguments in front of me than false ones. I also default comparative worlds, and have given more than one RFD that boils down to "X trick was won but there's no truth testing ROB under which it matters." Up-layering tricky affs with Ks or strategic theory is smart, and when leveraged correctly make claims of new 2NR responses more persuasive.

Lay - I have respect for good lay debaters since I know I could never be one. That said, I will definitely evaluate the debate on a technical level regardless of the style. Good lay debaters can beat circuit debaters by strategically isolating key arguments. Circuit debaters vs lay debaters don't need to modify their style of debate, but should do everything they can to be accessible (explain stuff in CX, send docs, etc) (same applies to debates where there is a large skill gap).

Misc - My threshold for independent voters is high. Emphasizing this after a couple rounds where it's been relevant.

Rant Section--

Tech > truth, but separating the two is silly. The more counter-intuitive an argument, the higher the bar for winning it, and the lower the threshold for responses. Saying "nuclear war bad" probably requires less warranting than "nuclear war good" cuz the second one has the burden of proof to overcome the intuitive logical barrier to its truth value.

I'll deal with irresolvability using the "needs test" - the burden of proof falls on the side that "needs" to win the argument (ie the burden of proof is on the neg in the perm debate because the neg needs to beat the perm, but the aff doesn't need to win the perm).

I won't vote on arguments telling me to "evaluate the entire debate after X speech" that are introduced in X speech - it generates a contradiction. Also, the 2AR is after all the speeches before it - interpret this as you choose.

Likes/Dislikes--

Likes: plans bad 2NR on semantics if you understand the grammar behind it and are not reading someone else's blocks, creative and non-offensive policy impact turns, creative process CPs (no this is not the ICJ CP or consult the WTO), plan affs (yes I realize this contradicts with my first like), multiple shells bad, Ks with links to the plan, presumption/case presses vs non T affs, topical K affs, reasonability/DTA on frivolous theory, collapsing, flashing analytics

Dislikes: the grammar DA, RVIs, plans bad 2NR on semantics when you don't understand the grammar behind it, plans bad 2NR that's just reading off someone else's doc with no topic specific analysis, standard spec, buffet 2NRs, hidden args, non T affs that are an FYI not an advocacy, combo shells that don't solve their offense, "strat skew", "this argument is bad" [then doesn't explain why the argument is bad], "that's an independent voting issue" [doesn't explain why it's a voting issue past just the label] (this also applies to 1AR arguments not labelled as voting issues that magically become voting issues in the 2AR), "what's a floating PIK" "what's an a priori", being rude or interrupting your opponent (especially if you're more experienced or in a position of power) (at best it adds nothing at worse it's unkind)

Mike Murray Nova 42 Academy 6 rounds

Carly Pearlman ModernBrain 2 rounds

Naomi Raal ModernBrain 6 rounds

Josh Raphaelson Crescenta Valley HS 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu February 28, 2019 at 3:30 PM PDT

"I appreciate arguments that come from outside the mainstream"- Josh Raphaelson at 9:18PM on Thursday, Feb. 27th.

Hi! I am Katie Raphaelson's dad (she wrote this paradigm). I have been around debate for the past few years, but all I really know is what Katie tells me on the way home from the tournaments or what she rants about on long drives to and from softball practice. So, my knowledge is pretty skewed towards what she runs (critical stuff). however, I am BY NO MEANS AN EXPERT ON CRITICAL THEORY!!!

USC will be my first and last experience judging HSLD debate. (he made it 5 years without being roped into judging can you believe???) Please make the rounds fun and interesting.

I will not tolerate racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc. end of story.

Ks- I do not know postmodernism in a debate sense. If you decide to run a kritik, please make it in a way that will be understood by literally anyone. I would love to hear critical debates, but please, no jargon

if you use jargon, I just won't know what you're saying.

speed- I have watched Katie debate a few times and she spreads, but it can be hard for me to keep up. please go slower. If I look confused, I'm confused.

case- I find politics very interesting- I have a good knowledge of domestic and foreign affairs, and I keep up with current events. So, I know a good amount of what the LD topic talks about.

theory- If you read theory or topicality, structure it in a way that is easier for a novice debater to understand. I will vote on these arguments, but I need to understand what they say first.

planless affs- My daughter reads non-topical affirmatives, and I find them very cool. I will probably vote on topicality, but you need to show real abuse. Also, same rules apply with theory here. again, I like args from outside the norm, so that may show an indication. HOWEVER, I will do like all good judges do, and leave my bias at the door.

I will not vote on arguments I don't understand.

I will try my best to make a fair decision, and decide on what arguments were made in the round, not what you should be making. Speaker points will reflect this as well. (however I don't know how speaker points work yet so expect a 28)

After all of this, I am just a parent with a very talkative daughter, so do with that as you will

bonus from katie- he likes puns and is a big fan of the Philadelphia Eagles.

Shira Silver Beckman High School 2 rounds

Ken Smith Beckman High School 6 rounds

Julia Steinberg Marlborough School 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue August 8, 2023 at 5:24 AM PDT

Add me to the email chain -- 2121julia@gmail.com

Extend warrants.

Hey everyone. I debated for Marlborough from 2016-2020. I went to the TOC my senior year. I'm now a junior at Stanford, where I don't debate. I'm the most experienced w LARP/util debate as well as theory/T, although I do love a well executed Cap K. When evaluating rounds, I start on the impact level and work backwards.

Full disclosure: I've been out of the activity for a while, but I'm super excited to judge. Please slow down and clearly define topic lingo.

I think that debate should be devoted to the rigorous testing of ideas/hypothesis testing: while there definitely is a strategic aspect to the activity, I will be mad at you if you try and corrupt an educational opportunity by reading shoes theory or something else along those lines and sacrificing education to win in a ~hyper-strategic~ way.

Overview

Truth——————————X———Tech

1. Be nice to your opponent and the judge. If you are rude or mean to your opponent I will lower your speaks. I have a very low tolerance for this, especially if you're using it for some weird strategic leverage.

2. I have vivid facial expressions. Use this to your advantage.

3. You don't have to take prep to send the doc but don't be sketchy about it. I'm good at noticing when you engage in sketchiness and I will a) call you out for it and b) lower your speaks.

4. I'm fine with spreading but slow down for tags, authors, analytics, interps, etc. Don't go your full speed or I will likely miss something. I have minor hearing issues so you will probably like the result the round a lot less if you blaze through analytics (and don't send them in the email chain).

5. A lot of evidence in LD is really bad. Please have good evidence and call your opponents out for having bad evidence. I am unlikely to vote for evidence that is miscut or doesn't have warrants. I love evidence comparison and I will reward you for knowing the warrants in your ev.

6. Go ahead and read your nuclear war impacts -- I evaluate impacts by magnitude*probability unless instructed otherwise. BUT there are really great affs/disads that don't use nuke war impacts. I will be impressed by a unique AC or DA that is well-written, has great ev, and that is well-researched. On that note, please weigh and compare impacts and tell me what weighing mechanisms are the most important (e.g. should I default to probability or magnitude first?)

7. Extend warrants. If you don't, I'll have a hard time voting for you. The more rounds I watch, the more I get frustrated about the lack of warranted arguments in the 1ar/nr/2ar.

8. The NR/2AR should collapse.

9. A good CX will reward you with high speaks, especially if you know the warrants in your evidence (see the general theme here?)

10. I lean neg on non-T affs; I will vote for T-FW or the aff based on the debate that happens. I am most persuaded by predictability/argument testing args on framework.

11. I will drop you for reading arguments that are a form of moral blackmail (e.g. vote for me to get more women debaters into out rounds, vote for me or else I will be sad, vote for this person because he said xyz on Twitter, etc). If anything bad is happening in the debate, then I would feel more comfortable voting a person down, but I will not adjudicate a "person x said sexist things on facebook messenger 8 months ago" debate.

12. Speech times are set. Prep can be used for CX, but CX cannot be used for prep. Prep ends when you are done compiling the doc.

13. I flow CX. CX is binding.

14. Have extensions for your cases, but no need to extend individual cards unless they are very important. By an extension, I mean something <30 seconds for the AC, maybe up to a minute for off case negative positions.

15. I'm only interventionist on args that are obviously silly (e.g. must spec location of debater, must wear a hat, must only wear red) as well as tricks. If you're debating a trick, just say "tricks are for kids" and do a thumbs down, that is a sufficient enough response.

16. I will stop flowing when the timer goes off, not when you decide to stop 5-20 seconds after. I'll let you finish your sentence, but it has to be a quick conclusion, not a sentence with infinite semicolons.

17. People I agree with/have been coached by are Adam Torson, Hailey Robertson, Ben Rosenthal, Dan Miyamoto, and Michael O'Krent.

By arg:

FW: I am highly skeptical of Kant and other impact-exclusionary frameworks. However, I believe that under a consequentialist framework, zero percent risk is a thing. Also, truth testing is silly in my opinion — I definitely default to comparative worlds. I feel comfortable evaluating Hobbes, libertarianism, and variants of util. I can evaluate Kant, but I will be sad. I default to epistemic modesty, but can be convinced the other way if you win that arg. I am unlikely to vote on theistic frameworks, e.g. GCB. I also think that AFC args make no sense — this is a debate!

T/Theory: I think both education and fairness are voters, but one can be more important (prolly education>fairness), and one can be the internal link to the other. Impact out your standards and make sure I know why your standards outweigh their and how they link harder to voters. On this note, I dislike Nebel T and RVIs — make real args/plans are good. I lean pragmatics > semantics but if you win the inverse, then I'll vote for it. If you're about to give the 2ar and the NR went for T/theory, no need to extend case. If you're giving the NR and are kicking T, no need to go on this page if there's no RVI (which there won't be if I'm the judge, I hope).

The K: I'm pretty well versed in cap, fem, orientalism/anti-colonialism, and queer theory, as well as IR. However, you must have an explanation for these arguments to win them and you must explicitly spell out their implications to win those, too. I am fairly sure need to win your theory of power (whether that's based on ontology, superstructure, language, etc) to win the debate. Your alt/method also needs to solve — I have no idea what "breaking the structures of semiotic capitalistic linguistic indeterminacy through an embrace of the Real" means unless you explain what it looks like, who does it, examples of it, etc. I think that critical theory at times can be incredibly esoteric and that is bad praxis (comes from my view that debate should be a breeding ground for irl activism and policymaking) — if you can explain your alt/method at a 10th grade reading level I will be happy. I have some internal bias against pessimism, as I think any progress that materially helps oppressed people is good; however, you can win pess in front of me.

K Affs: Go ahead, but same stuff with explaining above applies. Make sure that you have a solution to a problem that has solvency. Disclaimer: I anticipate that in front of me, non-T affs are an uphill battle, but I will vote for T-FW or the aff based on the debate that happens. I am most persuaded by predictability/argument testing args on framework.

Util/Policy/LARP: This is what I love, this is what I did best. I get frustrated by untrue DAs, but I will vote on them. I love well explained, probably true DAs. Say disad and counterplan, a few more syllables to sound better won't hurt. I'm good for hard right stuff to soft left stuff — I've read both — just be prepared to leverage your ideology against Ks/NCs if needed. Also, I would prefer a bunch of clever, well thought out analytics to a dump of backfiles that say No China War from 2012. Don't have your disad link into your counter-plan. Do read perms that are smart and contextual to the specific advocacy.

CP: I'm fine with multi-plank counterplans, PICs, condo (1-2 is fine, 3 or >3 is pushing it) — however, I will vote on theory against these args. I will judge kick if instructed, this can be contested.

DA: To kick this, extend link defense. In the NC, please do not have a bunch of silly link args that are smashed together. If you're reading PTX, keep your uniqueness updated.

Preferences

Util/DA/CP/LARP - 1

Identity Ks, Cap, and Orientalism/Imperialism- 1

Topicality - 1

Basic theory (condo, PICs, etc) - 1 (note -- if you read friv theory or other arguments that are silly, I probably won't vote for them)

Funky theory - 2

Basic phil (e.g. Rawls, libertarianism, Hobbes) - 3

PoMo Ks and other Ks - 3

Funky phil - 4

Tricks/skep/etc - no, strike me please. I will not vote for tricks.

Speaks

These are always going to be subjective but I'll try my best to average at a 28.5. I will reward highly for good strategy, good quality evidence, pathos (to an extent), and compliance with everything outlined above. Also, clarity. I cap speaks at a 28 for asking for high speaks.

I will tank your speaks if you are trying to spread out/be hyper esoteric against a novice/trad debater — be nice and make the activity accessible.

If you're funny, be funny. If not, know I have a bad sense of humor.

Other

Be nice to each other and read arguments you enjoy.

I'll disclose who won and give a RFD.

Eshaan Verma The Meadows School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 2, 2019 at 12:13 AM PDT

Eshaan Verma

High School Policy Debate - The Meadows School - 4 years

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD PLEASE COLLAPSE ON SOMETHING IN THE 2NR, DONT KEEP ARGUING YOUR 5 OFF AND CASE, THIS MAKES ME A VERY UNHAPPY CAMPER.

- I would like to be on the email chain (eshaanverma2@gmail.com) but I will still be flowing by hand most likely and I don't mind spreading as long as I can hear you and the other team can hear you. If I don't hear or understand an argument, it won't go down on my flow which means it won't be considered in my decision. I don't expect teams to answer arguments that I couldn't even flow. So speed and spreading are ok as long as you are clear and concise. Also how much you flow and whether or not you do it doesn't matter to me as long as you are producing good arguments and responding to the arguments of the other team. I will not dock you speaker points if you're not flowing.

Timing

Keep track of your own and other team's speech/prep times. You are not babies, I will not treat you like such so all the timing should be done by you guys.

K's

DO NOT RUN A K IF YOU COULDN'T EXPLAIN IT TO A 10 YEAR OLD. I personally don't prefer K's especially in novice debate. I think they are sometimes too complicated for the teams to explain well enough for me to vote on them. However, if they are formulated and explained well enough, I will vote on them but a good understanding of the K should be expressed by both debaters.

Topicality

I think affs should most definitely be topical so it encourages a fair debate where both teams can prepare. I do think topicality is very important and is a voter issue of great magnitude. I will look at topicality arguments very closely and put them at the top of my considerations when evaluating rounds. However, this doesn't mean if the neg brings up a topicality argument, they automatically win. The neg still has to explain topicality very well to convince me the aff isn't topical and can't just add it on top of a list of 5 other off cases just to bury the aff. The neg also needs to do a good job of proving to me that in the round, the aff not being topical is abusive and why, I will not just assume T is abusive. All aff's are topical to me until the neg proves to me beyond a doubt that they are not topical.

Disads

I will vote on disads if there is a reasonable probability of them happening. I am not part of the 1% club who will vote on a disad if theres a 1% chance of it occuring, I believe in being realistic and not that if little Jimmy doesn't get his education, it can cause nuclear war. Also, negs need to prove a plausible link to the actual case. I don't appreciate it when debaters try to link random generic disads with weak links to the case and this will be reflected in your speaker points. However, this is not me saying that you shouldn't do generic disads, I am okay with them as long as they do have a reasonable link.

Counterplans

I like counterplans as long as they are competitive and mutually exclusive. All too often the neg will bring up a counterplan that can be permuated without severance and that argument just dissolves and wastes everyone's time. So, as far as counterplans go, really really explain to me why your counterplan is better than the actual plan and why I should prefer it.

Case Debate

I think case debate is very important and integral. I don't like it when negs stray away from the case debate because they know they are losing on it. The case debate is the main point of the entire debate and should be argued till at least the 1NR. EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS. This is huge in my evaluations. If the other team drops arguments, extend them so I can draw a big line across my flow.

I think CX is very important and should be treated as its own speech. This is where good arguments are set up and important points are clarified. I don't mind feisty CX's as long as they don't stray away from the point and turn into irrelevant arguments. This is my personal favorite part of debate because it shows how good debaters really are at thinking on their feet. I don't mind tag team but the cx's shouldn't be dominated by one debater because this doesn't help the other debater get better. Speaker points are pretty heavily weighted in this area.

Wei Xiong Carmel Valley Independent 6 rounds

Login to Tabroom

USC Damus Spring Trojan Championships

2019 — Los Angeles, CA/US

Novice LD Paradigm List

Judges