USchool Scrimmage 1
2019 — Davie, FL/US
Policy Debate Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show Hide//shree
I am a social studies & math teacher who is no longer involved in full-time argument coaching. I am judging this tournament because my wife, a mentor, or a former student asked me to.
I previously served as a DOD at the high school level and as a hired gun for college debate programs. During this time, I had the privilege of working with Baker Award recipients, TOC champions in CX, a NFA champion in LD, and multiple NDT First-Round teams; I was very much ‘in the cards.’ Debate used to be everything to me, and I fancied myself as a ‘lifer.’ I held the naïve view that this activity was the pinnacle of critical thinking and unequivocally produced the best and brightest scholars compared to any other curricular or extracurricular pursuit.
My perspective has shifted since I’ve reduced my competitive involvement with the community. Debate has provided me with some incredible mentors, colleagues, and friends that I would trade for nothing. However, several of the practices prevalent in modern debate risk making the activity an academically unserious echo chamber. Many in the community have traded in flowing for rehearsing scripts, critical thinking for virtue signaling, adjudication for idol worship, and research for empty posturing. I can’t pretend that I wasn’t guilty of adopting or teaching some of the trendy practices that are rapidly devolving the activity, but I am no longer willing to keep up the charade that what we do here is pedagogically sound.
This ‘get off my lawn’ ethos colors some of my idiosyncrasies if you have me in the back of the room. Here are guidelines to maximize your speaker points and win percentage:
1 – Flow. Number arguments. Answer arguments in the order that they were presented. Minimize overviews.
2 – Actually research. Most of you don’t, and it shows. Know what you are talking about and be able to use the vocabulary of your opponents. Weave theory with examples. Read a book. Being confidently clueless or dodgy in CX is annoying, not compelling.
3 – Please try. Read cards from this year when possible; be on the cutting edge. Say new and interesting things, even if they’re about old or core concepts. Adapt your arguments to make them more ‘you.’ Reading cards from before 2020 or regurgitating my old blocks will bore me.
4 – Emphasize clarity. This applies to both your thoughts and speaking. When I return, my topic knowledge will be superficial, and I will be out of practice with listening to the fastest speakers. Easy-to-transcribe soundbytes, emphasis in sentences, and pen time is a must. I cannot transcribe bots who shotgun 3-word arguments at 400wpm nor wannabe philosopher-activists who speak in delirious, winding paragraphs.
5 – Beautify your speech docs. Inconsistent, poor formatting is an eyesore. So is word salad highlighting without the semblance of sentence structure.
6 – No dumpster fires. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy. I find unnecessarily escalating CX, heckling opponents, zoom insults, authenticity tests, and screenshot insertions uncompelling. I neither have the resources nor interest in launching an investigation about outside behavior, coach indiscretions, or pref sheets.
7 – Don’t proliferate trivial voting issues. I will evaluate a well-evidenced topicality violation; conditionality can be a VI; in-round harassment and slurs are not trivial. However, I have a higher threshold than most with regards to voting issues surrounding an author’s twitter beef, poorly warranted specification arguments, trigger warnings, and abominations I classify as ‘LD tricks.’ If you are on the fence about whether your procedural or gateway issue is trivial, it probably is; unless it’s been dropped in multiple speeches, my preferred remedy is to reject the argument, not the team. Depending on how deranged it is, I may just ignore it completely. I strongly prefer substantive debates.
8 – Be well rounded. The divide between ‘policy,’ ‘critical,’ and ‘performance’ debate is artificial. Pick options that are strategic and specific to the arguments your opponents are reading.
9 – Not everything is a ‘DA.’ Topicality standards are not ‘DAs.’ Critique links are not ‘DAs’ and the alternative is not a ‘CP.’ A disadvantage requires, at a minimum, uniqueness, a link, and an impact. Describing your arguments as ‘DAs’ when they are not will do you a disservice, both in terms of your strategy and your speaker points.
10 – I’m old. I won’t know who you are, and frankly, I don’t care. Good debaters can give bad speeches, and the reverse can also be true. Rep has no correlation to the speaker points you will receive. 28.5 is average. 29 is solid. 29.5 is exceptional. 30 means you’ve restored my belief in the pedagogical value of policy debate.
NoBro 2020
Harvard 2024
Important Update: Since leaving the activity, I have come to the conclusion that spreading is detrimental to skills learned. I also haven't flowed spreading in over a year, so I would prefer debate at a conversational pace.
Please add me on the email chain: anna.farronay@gmail.com
I have a great appreciation for the preparation and effort that goes into each debate round. I understand debate has different meanings for each person but I do believe that competition is the center of the activity - we care about what we do because of a desire to win. I will do my best to understand your arguments even if they are not arguments I would normally be familiar with.
HS Topic Knowledge: none.
Non-Negotiables:
(1) I will only evaluate complete arguments: that means that every argument should have a claim and warrant. Incomplete arguments like a 10-second condo block will not be flowed and when you extend it I will allow the other team new answers.
(2) Be clear and give me pen time. If you are not, you will be dissatisfied with the decision and your speaker points.
(3) Every team consists of 2 speakers who will split their speech time equally. I will only allow one person to give every speech.
(4) The line-by-line is key. Answer arguments in the order that they are presented.
(5) I will not evaluate arguments that hinge on something that did not occur in the debate round I am adjudicating.
I believe it would be unfair to obscure any predispositions I have since a neutral judge rarely exists. That being said I have been persuaded to abandon my opinions in the past by speakers who use humor, charm, and smart, specific arguments. I also have a very expressive face so use that to your advantage. At some point, I had very different ideas about debate and I can be reminded of that.
Preferences:
(1) I believe that policy debate does encourage in-depth research practices. However, I will admit that I am a K debater who is definitely more proficient at judging k v. policy debates than a policy throwdown. This being said I do not want to judge silly positions like China Doesn't Exist so please be conscious what you run.
(2) Theory - I will do my best to understand your theory argument but I have never understood the debates (even something as simple as condo). If you choose to engage in these debates, have some caution and lean on the side of over-explanation.
(3) Framework (K v. Policy) - The aff gets to weigh their advantages (fiat) and the neg gets their K. The neg can't win fiat is an illusion but they can win it's a waste of time/bad idea to engage the state OR they can say we reject the representations of the 1AC/2AC.
(4) K affs - I will be the first to admit that former K debaters often dislike K Affs after they graduate/quit. I don't love them - I do believe there is less in-depth preparation, especially with new K affs, and I do have a high bar for how these debates end up. If you go for fairness, you'll likely win. But if you do insist on reading a K Aff, the easiest way to my ballot is going for the impact turn and cross-applying it to every standard from the negative team. I want to emphasize that I did love the K at one point but in recent years policy debaters have excelled at FW that has made it very difficult to vote for the K.
North Broward '23
2A/1N
Policy--------X-------------------------------------K
Tech--------X--------------------------------------Truth
Read no cards-----------------------------X------Read all the cards
Conditionality good--X----------------------------Conditionality bad
States CP good-------X---------------------------States CP bad
Politics DA is a thing-----X------------------------Politics DA not a thing
Always VTL-------X--------------------------------Sometimes NVTL
UQ matters most----------------------X----------Link matters most
Fairness is a thing ----X---------------------------Delgado 92
Tonneson votes aff-----------------------------X-Tonneson clearly neg
Try or die--------------x---------------------------What's the opposite of try or die
Clarity-X--------------------------------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity
Limits-----------X-----------------------------------Aff ground
Presumption---------X-----------------------------Never votes on presumption
Resting grumpy face-------------------X----------Grumpy face is your fault
Longer ev---------------------X--------------------More ev
"Insert this rehighlighting"-----------X------------I only read what you read
2030 speaker points-------X----------------------1991 speaker points
***ALL cards read during ANY speech need to be sent in the email chain PRIOR to the speech. If you are not comfortable adapting to this standard, please strike me
North Broward '20 Wake Forest '24
Quartered @ TOC and have minimal college policy experience
Head Public Forum Coach @ Quarry Lane
Email: katzto20@wfu.edu
tech>truth
I would prefer both teams talk about the topic. I have given up on judging bad PF theory / K debates.
debate is a game and the team that plays the best will win.
Cypress Bay '21 | UCF '25 (not debating)
Add me to the chain plz: zachlevdebate@gmail.com
Prefs
I know you are really only here to do your prefs, I'll try to make it as easy as possible. TLDR, I really couldn't care less what you do, just do you.
In HS I cut our AFFs (90% said extinction), Process CPs, and Ptx DAs so do with this what you wish.
If you are reading an AFF with a "non-extinction" impact, you need to beat the DA, framing doesn't take out the DA it just changes how I weigh one impact v. another.
If you are reading an AFF without a plan, I'm probably not the most experienced judge for you. I never read a K AFF and only ever went for T or the Cap K against them.
If you like to read Ks on the NEG, I will probably have a higher bar/need more explanation for certain kritiks (Baudrillard, Psychoanalysis, Bataille, etc.) but for the more basic kritiks (IR Ks, Cap, Settler Colonialism, etc) I will probably know what you are saying (doesn't mean you don't have to/shouldn't explain your theory/how the alt works/not give examples).
Specifics:
Theory
Condo is generally good, but a poor 2NC/2NR to "dispo solves" or "pre round condo" can be exploited.
All theory args except condo are reasons to reject the arg, not the team.
Process CPs are good with a rez-specific advocate, PICs are good, 50 State Uniform Fiat is good, Limited Con Cons are good, and so are most other args.
T v. Plans
Limits > ground
Reasonability needs to be coupled with a C/I (apparently ppl think reasonability means being "reasonably topical" and goes with a W/M arg. it doesnt <3
T v. Planless AFFs
Fairness is an impact.
2AR should ideally be a C/I with some form of offense (impact turn or some unique offense).
I am a huge fan of the planless effects-topical AFF that defends some sort of action and links to DAs.
Ks
AFF gets to be weighed most of the time (unless something goes really wrong in the 1AR/2AR).
Please no overviews over like 15 seconds or "I'll do the X debate here!".
The more specific the link/more lines picked out of ev the more compelling your arg is/the higher the burden for the AFF to answer said arg is.
CPs
CPs need to be functionally AND textually competitive (but like...still haven't heard a reason for why LIMITED intrinsic perms are bad in the 2NR).
Word PICs out of words NOT in the plan are NOT competitive.
I'll judge kick the CP by default but if the 2NR doesn't say judge kick and the 2AR says don't judge kick, I wont.
DAs
Should almost always turn the case.
Weird/out of the ordinary/reverse politics disads are pretty cool and will def be rewarded with high speaks.
Misc.
Plz don't call me judge.
Presumption flips NEG by default but AFF when a CP is in the 2NR.
If both teams MUTUALLY agree to debate on a previous topic because this one sucks, that's fine with me.
I debated for three years on the national circuit for North Broward Prep in South Florida. I am now a student at UNC-Chapel Hill.
-Put me on the email chain: karinas@unc.edu
-PREFLOW BEFORE THE ROUND AND DON'T BE LATE
TL;DR:
-Tech>Truth
-I will probably give you a 30 if you disclose open-source on the wiki (tell me before the round starts) and send speech docs with cut cards before constructive speeches (case and rebuttal)
-No progressive arguments unless you are disclosed open-source on the wiki
More Specific:
Case: I do not care what substance arguments you read as long as they are not exclusionary. I will also evaluate disclosure and paraphrasing theory if your cases are disclosed open-source on the wiki (full text disclosure/ highlights is NOT the same thing). I am probably not the best judge to read K's and other progressive arguments (with the exception of standard theory shells) in front of, but if you send speech docs and explain your arguments throughly and accessibly I will try my best. I will be fine with any speed you choose to read your case at so long as you are sending speech docs with cut cards BEFORE your speech. I will NOT be happy if you decide to spread a paraphrased case and refuse to send speech docs. This doesn't mean that I require teams to send speech docs with cut cards before speeches--just make sure that if you plan on spreading/speaking at above 300 wpm, you do so. I am not a fan of "ghost"/"hidden" links in case and my threshold for responses to these arguments will be lower in rebuttal.
Rebuttal: Again, feel free to go as fast as you want/dump as many responses as you'd like as long as you are sending speech docs with cut cards before rebuttal. I will be extremely unhappy if you dump turns and blow up the one your opponent didn't respond to in the back half if you did not send an organized speech doc before your speech. My threshold for frontlines will be VERY low if this is your strategy. I require that all offense AND defense on the contention you are collapsing on be frontlined in second rebuttal and will consider responses you don't frontline dropped. Turns must be implicated and warranted well the first time they are read if you plan on going for them. Please do line-by-line and don't read huge prewritten OVs and DAs to time skew your opponents--I understand that this is becoming a more common strategy in PF but specific responses are always best.
Summary: PLEASE extend defense in first summary. Nothing is sticky. Extend all parts of the argument that you are going for (this includes uniqueness, link, and impact) with clear warrants. Weighing must start in summary at the latest. Be efficient--you should not need to spread in back half speeches if you are collapsing strategically.
Final Focus: I will not vote for any arguments that are not explicitly explained in the final focus speeches. I will not flow any new responses and will not evaluate new weighing that isn't a response to previous weighing. You must also FULLY extend your arguments in final focus to win it.
Misc:
-Please read trigger warnings on arguments that warrant one and include an anonymous opt-out form for all judges and participants. While I am a strong proponent of trigger warnings, they are not at all required for non-graphic descriptions of common debate impacts. I will certainly not look favorably upon those who use trigger warning theory to avoid discussing important issues.
-I always default to util and will presume for the first speaking team if there is no offense left in the debate
-Do not misconstrue evidence. If your opponents call you out on an egregious ethics violation, I will drop you and give you the lowest speaks possible. Do not take more than 2 minutes to pull up evidence; I will start running your prep. You MUST have cut cards ready to show your opponents if they are called for. I will not accept a 300 page pdf as your evidence and will tank your speaks if this is the case.
-Feel free to ask any questions about my paradigm before the round starts if anything is confusing
-I will disclose my decision after every debate. Postround as much as you want and feel free to ask questions about my decision. I would be happy to give speech-by-speech feedback and offer tips for improvement as well.
-Have fun and be respectful; I will not tolerate rudeness or discrimination of any kind