Hello, I am a third year policy debater with experience on both the National and Northern Colorado local circuits. This means I am prepared to everything you throw at me. I would describe myself as a Tab judge. I'm prepared to evaluate both critical theory and traditional policy impacts, and enjoy a good framework debate.

test

Weigh

I begged you

but

you didn't

and you

lost.

-Rupi Kaur

I was a former LDer and congressional debater, and now I’m the assistant coach at Loveland High school. Reading this paradigm will greatly increase the chance that I give you the win (especially if your opponent doesn’t read it). I will get upset if you ask me for my paradigm (because there’s a lot), but I’m more than happy to clarify specific stuff. I’m a lay with most speech events, so sorry in advance. I have general debate paradigms and specific event paradigms.

General debate:

1. Spreading is for cowards. If I don’t understand you, I’m not going to flow. If both teams spread, the team that spreads the least gets the most speaks (and will most likely win).

2. DO NOT SPEAK OVER TIME. I’ll start ignoring you, and think about my wonderful mother nagging me to do chores. The longer you speak over time, the more annoyed I’ll get.

3. Every time you don’t signpost, weigh or have voters a small puppy dies. In addition, if you reframe, or clip cards the dreams of hundreds of small children perish. Luckily, if you meta-weigh (probability > magnitude), a small kitten gets adopted into a loving home.

4. Tech > Truth. I have the right to choose the side that persuades me the most. In addition, debaters must meet the burden of proof, clash, and persuasion for me to give them a win.

5. Please inform everyone in the round if you have a trigger. Also, please be kind to each other. The debate community needs to be a safe place for everyone.

6. I don’t disclose after round. If you ask me the other person will get a default win. Congrats you played yourself!

7. Friv theory, no. It’s annoying when debaters complain too much. Ks need to have solvency and topicality.

8. Please time yourself; however, I am the official timekeeper. Do not argue with me on time, or I’ll whip out a case and start debating you. Jk, you’ll just get a default loss.

9. If you have an anime reference in your speech I’ll give you extra speaks, and my respect.

10. At the end of the day, the debate should be fun, educational, and respectful. You are incredibly talented and NSDA was intended for you to show off that talent to the world.

Individual event paradigms:

LD:

1. The framework is everything in LD. the framework needs to have a clear thesis and connect to all of the contentions (or I can’t weigh it). I expect strong vvc clashes throughout the round. Otherwise, you turn LD into PF for one, yuck!

2. Broad values like morality and justice remind me of hangnails. I hate hangnails, and I will hate your case, and probably give you the loss (values like these tell me nothing about your moral blueprint for the round).

3. The impact analysis should all revolve around the framework, rather than a cost-benefit analysis method like PF or CX.

4. I hate counter-plans in LD. If you want to run them, policy debate would love to have you.

5. I judge less on evidence and more on phil and theory for LD.

PF

1. PF is card-heavy, create an email chain with your opponents before the round. I have the right to ask for cards (remember, if they’re clipped the dreams of hundreds of children will perish thanks to you).

2. The rebuttal speech needs to cover the flow and have impact analysis. You have four minutes, use them!

3. 1st speakers that collapse (focus on a few arguments, and weigh) in their summary speech will steal my heart, and force me to give them very high speaks. You should also have comparative world weighing in the summary speech (crystallization speech is another good speech for that).

4. The crystallization speech needs to have clear voters and extend the summary speech. My RFD is mostly dependent on the voters alone. If you don’t have clear voters (or none at all) not only will you lose the round, but small puppies will die (refer back to general debate paradigms).

5. If GCX turns into a chaotic mess similar to four raccoons fighting over trash, I have every right to stop it. In addition, if your cx turns into a rebuttal speech, I’ll end it.

Emma Baldwin and Aiden Hurst are the best (and my favorite) Pfers in Colorado, so just do what they do and you’ll win this round and any round.

Policy

1. My first general rule applies, especially to CX. Cowards don’t deserve to win.

2. I don’t want people in public flashing me, and I don’t want teams to flash cases to each other.

3. I judge on stock issues. If neg is able to win on any stock issue they win. Unless they run a counter plan. Then the round is just a comparative analysis on ads and disads.

4. In terms of stock issues, topicality is the most important for me. If I see an off-topic set col, I’ll drag your desk outside of the room as Senor Chang did to Annie Edison in Community.

5. Be kind to your opponents in the round, or face the wrath of a default loss (this is more of an issue in policy debate than any event)!

Congress

1. My brother was the greatest congressional debater of all time, so I may be a little harsh with my scores (I have high expectations).

2. Congress is all about persuasion and substantive argumentation. If you spread you are failing in every aspect.

3. PO must follow basic parli pro and must make the session a fun environment for everyone.

4. Just like any debate event, I expect arguments to be responded to. Each speech has an expectation to respond to arguments from speeches prior. Even if someone gives the greatest constructive in the world during the last speech of a bill, I’ll give them a low score (they need to respond to previous arguments).

5. To get a high ranking in the chamber you need to engage (speeches, questions influence on chamber).

I did 2 years of high school LD and 1 year of humorous interpretation.

For debate, I judge mainly off of clash and I look at evidence. If this is LD, I will for sure weigh the framework debate (although I don't believe that's the only part of LD - even in LD I look a lot at the contentions and also evidence). I also ask that debaters be respectful to each other in round (I will dock speaks if you are bullying your opponent/opponents).

In terms of speaker points, if you get a 29 or 30 from me, that is very good! I don't really give speaks that high, typically in the 23-27 zone. If I gave you a 22 or lower, this may be because 1) you were rude to your opponent in round or 2) you didn't fill your time very well and dropped big chunks of your opponent's case. I don't really believe in speaker point inflation so the speaks you receive from me may look deflated compared to what other judges give and that's ok.

PF: Framework Debate

Framework debate is necessary to convince me that the impacts of your arguments are more important than those of your opponents. Even if you disprove the majority of your opponent's contentions, you have a responsibility to explain why their remaining contention isn't as relevant as your own argument. You can't just explain the costs and benefits of the resolution—you have to explain why the costs are more impactful than the benefits (or vice versa).

LD: Value Clash

Value clash determines how I view the round. If you successfully argue that your value is more important, that forces me to look at the round in terms of your value and only your value. Assuming that your contentions directly uphold your value, this is the best route to convince me that you've won the round.

Maddie, she/her

2016-2020: Fairview High School, mainly PF but some LD/Policy/Extemp/OO/Duo

2020-2021: Fairview High School, PF coaching

2021-current: Yale, Parli

2021-current: Palo Alto High School, Exemp and Parli coaching

General Debate Stuff:

• Truth > tech unless you give me a strong reason otherwise

Please DO

• warrant, i love a good warrant
• be kind and respectful; make sure everyone can access debate
• collapse - you’re never winning everything
• weigh!!

Please DO NOT

• run progressive stuff against novs without explaining it - in every event except policy, I will not vote for progressive arguments (theory/kritiks) that are run on novices who clearly don’t know what you’re talking about UNLESS you distill it down to an understandable level. I understand the value of progressive debate, but I’m not a fan of exclusionary practices.
• misrepresent/powertag/lie about evidence - I will disregard the argument entirely if I feel that you’re not being honest about your evidence.

PF:

• Prefer traditional PF, will judge progressive
• I don’t flow cross; if something important happens, bring it up in a speech.
• I try to not intervene on arguments, but this does not extend to claims that would be obviously false to anyone (i.e. China does not exist).

Parli:

• I love a good topical gov and a straight opp, but if you run CPs/Theory/Ks, I will judge them. Please impact well and explain the roll of the ballot!

LD:

• I often think value/criterion debate is not super important to the round, particularly when you’re winning under both. Don’t spend tons of time on V/VC clash if it’s not relevant.
• Even though it’s ethics/phil debate, you still need clearly explained impacts.

Policy:

• My email is maddie.nagle@yale.edu. Please add me to an email chain, but I will not pull up the doc to follow in round.
• To be honest, I probably can’t keep up with full spreading unless you’re extremely clear. You probably don’t want me judging your round if you talk fast and quiet/unclear :)
• I don't tend to find nuclear war impacts with tenuous link chains particularly compelling (read above: truth > tech)

Kyle - He/Him/His

Updated for Last Chance, if I'm judging you in CO it's obviously less strict but I still have preferences :)

My email is kyle.quinlan6045@gmail.com. Please add me to an email chain. Flashing seems to be especially important with online debate. Use a descriptive subject line to help me keep track of rounds. Note I will not pull up the doc to follow in round, but want your evidence to read if needed.

I did CX and PF in high school.

PF (CX is going to be similar vibe):

I'm a flow judge. In general I prefer traditional PF, but I'll listen to a progressive round. I don't have any super strong preconceptions of what your round should look like. Don't lie about evidence (paraphrasing is fine). I use an offense-defense paradigm to help me evaluate who won. Make sure you at least win some offense. Defense alone never wins rounds (unless you fully unironically have terminal defense on everything and make a case for why I vote your side on presumption). I will flow everything but cross, but I'll still pay attention and jot down notes if something important happens. Also my preference for case format is a doc with a paraphrased version that you read and then all cut cards included below it, but that's just a preference so do whatever you want.

Some extra stuff

1. Front Lining is necessary. If you're speaking second, you need to defend your own case in rebuttal. If you leave your side of the flow empty going into summary, you just dropped all your opponents attacks on your case. I used to disagree with this, but second speaker is a huge advantage otherwise and I think this makes for better debates. Feel free to drop a contention so you can do more attacks, but you have to front line or you'll almost certainly lose the round.

2. Please collapse. We both know you aren't winning everything, and you don't need to win everything to win the round. Just tell me what you are winning and why that should win you the round.

3. Analytics. You don't need a card to make an argument. Strong, specific card > strong, specific analytic > weak card. Just make good arguments

4. Speed is fine, but if your opponents ask you before or during the round to slow down try to honor that. Debate should be accessible.

5. Tech > Truth. I will try my hardest not to step in and do any work for either side. The bar is much much lower for you to respond to a bad argument, but you still need to respond.

6. Theory in PF is kinda lame, but there is a place for it and I'll give you the ballot if you actually win it. Bar is lower to respond in PF w/ shorter speeches but again, you still need to respond.

7. Evidence calls shouldn't take too long (like 2 minutes tops). If you can't find the card I'm just dropping that argument. Be able to show your opponents the quote you use and a little context around it. That being said, if you're paraphrasing in case and you heavily misrepresent or outright lie about evidence, I will most likely just give you the L. Let me know at the end if you think your opponent did this and I'll read a card or two and make a decision.

If you have any more questions, just ask me before the round. If you want more feedback after a round just email me and I'll probably tell you more. Be nice and have fun :)

Random stuff I'll keep adding as I watch rounds:

1. Time yourself, I'll forget.

2. If I'm timing I'll just stop listening after ~5 seconds over time. If I forgot to start a timer just stop your opponent when they're like 10 seconds over.

3. Cross is usually zzz. I'm listening but I'm not flowing so if something important happens say it again when I am flowing :))

Used to do policy. I don't like spreading but you can do it if you want and if your opponent(s) is ok with it. I listen to arguments more than cards. While evidence is important, how you use that evidence is usually much more important. I will accept arguments I know are flawed/false until the opponent disproves them. I don't like nuke war arguments being shoehorned everywhere. Feel free to make them if you feel like they fit well, but I don't find them very convinving most of the time. It's certainly not an "automatic win" like a lot of people believe.

I am not afraid to tank your speaks if you are being a bully or really rude. I'll even vote you down if it's egregious enough. Be nice.

ryqu7867@colorado.edu for email chains or questions after the round

National competitor in World Schools, Extemp (IX), Policy, PF, and Duo. State level competitor in Congress

For debate: I will write really all of what I'm given as arguments, no matter what they are. That does not mean, however, that I'm willing to weigh random contentions, advantages, DAs, impacts, etc. the same as well-made and cited arguments. It just means that it's the burden of the responding team to point that out to me with or without cards. I will write down cross-ex, but it won't be on the flow unless a speaker brings it up in a speech as part of their argument. If you want to make my decision more predictable or precise, make sure that you bring up how your points fitframeworks in a round. If there's no framework debate, I will have to decide on my own how a round is weighed, which - try as I might - may not be on points or arguments you were thinking.

For speech: I tend to focus a lot on physical movement and tone when watching speech events. I love hearing that passion and confidence in a speech and seeing it in a competitor's movements as well. Of course if someone has a speech or movement limitation I will take that into account as I go about judging. I do understand the difficulty of limited prep events though and won't judge too harshly with that in mind. However, I expect points to be made with cited evidence where possible and, if a conclusion is made by yourself, lay out that logical chain as though I was a lay person. With prepped events, show off! Have some fun with it and show me that you've got this. I believe in you, and so should you. (For events in which it can be used, I speak Spanish, French, and some Maasri Arabic). Creative and stand-out uses of props, movement, or tone are great ways to show that you know your speech even down to the details.

For interp: Confidence. Is. Key. It comes with time and practice, I know, but of all the people in the room you know your piece best inside and out. Forget a line? That's fine, I've been there, too. Don't get too tripped up on the technical details so much that you forget that interp is a performance. You can always improve for the next tournament if something goes wrong or you forget lines, but there's no going back on the current round. Pops and voices should be sharp and distinguished unless there's a reason to have them otherwise.

Most of all, enjoy yourselves. Debate is educational, professional, and fun for everyone there, so keep up the good work y'all!

Winning on clash will win the round. More words does not equal more wins, but if your case is built for speed go fast. Cards alone don't win rounds explain your linkage. VOTERS