La Costa Canyon Winter Classic
2019 — Carlsbad, CA/US
Policy Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
· Debated for Bravo M.M. High School for about 2 years.
· LAMDL Alumni
Email chain: email@example.com
· I enjoy CP and DA debates.
· I don’t mind K debates, but I prefer case debates.
· Spreading is okay as long as your clear and you sign post. Clarity above all else
· SIGN POSTING and ROADMAPS are always important! Tell me where you want me to flow specific arguments, so I can evaluate your arguments as best as possible.
· I do keep track of time, but I prefer ya’ll keep track of it too.
· If at any point in the debate, you are uncomfortable PLEASE let me know, so we can resolve it. Debate rounds should be a safe space, where individuals can freely debate their ideas, without being judged.
· It is also important for there to be RESPECT throughout the debate, and if you are rude I will deduct speaker points. There are respectable ways to get your point across, without creating an uncomfortable debate environment.
Cross-Ex- Tag team is fine as long as no one is dominating cross-ex, because it shows a weak partnership and isn't strategic. If your partner is having trouble answering a question, there is nothing wrong with helping them out. I like when cross-ex is strategically used in the following constructive/rebuttals, this will help distinguish you from your opponent and get you higher speaks. Attack the argument not your opponent.
Prep- I keep track of prep, but you should keep track of it too. Don't steal prep from your opponent, it makes you look unprepared and petty.
Flashing- Flashing shouldn't take very long if your prepared, and if your having an issue let me know so we can figure it out and move on with the round.
· Evidence is an important part of the debate, so please extend it. If an argument is brought up once and never extended or brought up again, it is a waste of time on your part and I most likely won’t evaluate it at the end.
· If at any point the Aff case is dropped, or no solvency is presented, I will vote Neg.
· When presenting the Aff, use examples to extend impacts and solvency; because it tells me you understand what your reading, and actually want to want to make a positive change. The clearer you make your arguments on either side, the more it works in your favor.
· I have no specific preferences on T, but usually lean towards the Affirmative if no clear violations and explanations are presented.
· As far as THEORY, I will usually lean Negative, if a Framework is presented.
Overall- If the round is respectful and clear everything should fall into place. I love a good debate! If I see the passion and care you put into your arguments, I will know you prepped and took this seriously. Though there may be a lot of pressure, remember your doing this because you like it and it should be an enjoyable experience, so don’t panic! I always give feedback, whether you win or lose there is always something both sides can work on. Good luck!
P.S. You will especially lose speaks or the round, depending on the severity, if racist, ableist, sexist, classist, xenophobic, homophobic, transphobic or otherwise offensive remark is made. Again Debate should be a safe environment where individuals may feel safe in expressing their ideas, without any judgement or discrimination.
Bakersfield High School class of 2017
Cal State Fullerton Class of 2021
2x NDT Qualifier
Stockdale High School Policy Debate Coach 2019-Present
Coached by: Lee Thach, LaToya Green, Shanara Reid-Brinkley, Max Bugrov, and Anthony Joseph
If there is an email chain I would like to be on it: firstname.lastname@example.org
If you have any questions feel free to email me if you have any question
I did four years of policy debate in high school mostly debating on a regional circuit and did not compete nationally till my junior and senior year now I debate for Cal State Fullerton.
Notes on CJR Topic: Came into the year knowing that I was going to coach a team that was flex on the neg so spent researching policy arguments while also researching K things. So now the prep I do for the high school topic is cutting new disads and uq updates, recutting and cutting new counterplans, and K links - I would say I have a pretty decent grasp on the topic.
Rounds judged on the CJR topic: 53
K: Love the K, its where I spend most of my energy now in college, I think I have an understanding of generally every K, in college, I have mostly read Afro-Pessimism/Gillespie, whatever the K is I should have somewhat a basic understanding of it. I think that to sufficiently win the K, I often think that it is won and lost on the link debate.
For Critical Affirmatives: I like them, in college and in high school I have read them if you're going to read them though I need a clear understanding of the method that is the most important to me. I find that most K affs lose their method throughout the debate and most times I usually end up voting on presumption because I am not sure what the aff does.
K affs VS Framework: You have to win the counterinterpretation, to me, this is the best way to beat fw in front of me. If you go the route of impact turning fw that is fine it is a little less persuasive, but I still find it strategically valuable.
Traditional Affirmatives: Traditional affirmatives were my bread and butter in HS and for like half a year in college, so these are fun and interesting.
Framework: I think that in my later years of college now, I have become somewhat of a fw hack, I am much persuaded by ground and limits arguments, than procedural fairness arguments.
DA: Love disad debates, the more specific the better, I should not have to say this, but tell me the story of the disad, not just generic shadow extensions of the disad, I need a literal story.
CP: These are cool, you know read them if you want to.
Politics: I feel as if I have the same opinion as Parker Coon on politics: "I really need a stalemate associate to resolve this one for me. On one hand, I think the Politics DA is super valuable because it teaches us about current events and a lot about how the political system functions both theoretically and actually. On the other hand, I think a lot of Politics DAs have boiled down to "plan unpopular, makes people mad, something does/doesn't happen, vote neg" without a clear story as to what's going on. I generally detest the strategy of the neg block reading a slew of cards to answer the 2ACs arguments, but that seems to be the norm with the Politics DA. You'll do much better in front of me if you point to the nuances of what your card is saying, and develop a scenario that I can assign risk to. A lot of this can be applied to other arguments as well." By the way, I do enjoy politics debates.
1. Clash of Civs are my favorite type of debates.
2. I will vote on death good
3Counterplan should not have conditional planks -theory debates are good when people are not just reading blocks - that being said - theory cheap shots are not always persuasive to me but given they are warranted and isolate a clear violation then it means you probably win the debate
4. Who controls uniqueness - that come 1st
5. Offense/defense vs reasonability - I think a little bit of both is good - but is different in different debates - both in K v K and straight up debates
6. Clash of Civs - (K vs FW) - These are fun debates, 2ACs need the standard meta DAs to policy making and policy debate of course counter interpretations and other specific offense vs their standards. FW teams yall always have these long overviews at the top of the 2NC which I do enjoy but yall need to do more work on the line by line in some of these debates because simply cross-applying from the overview does not answer the 2ACs args.
7. No plan no perm is not an argument
8. FW teams need a TVA - this is not necessary but affs need to have some type of framing question on the TVA
9. The resolution is a means of testing different forms of literature, but also a means to have some type of governmental action
10. Speaker Points: I try to stay in the 28-29.9 range, better debate obviously better speaker points.
I debate currently at CSUF Until further notice
I debated for around 5.5 years and my background is mostly K args, but dont be afraid to run policy, I’m cool with both
Keep me on the chain por favor – email@example.com
If you have any questions for after the round or just need some help feel free to email, I’ll try to get back
- I will distribute speaker points based off the accumulated performance from y’all, I like hearing arguments more if you truly believe in what you’re saying, especially debating Kritiks, be funny tho I’ll probably laugh, try to have fun and be the chill ones, try not to be toxic and even more so do not be violent, no -isms
- I will try to keep up on the flow but do not hyper-spread through theory blocks or any block for that matter, I will most likely not catch it
- be chill with each other but you can be aggressive if thats just your style, try not to trigger anxiety though in other debaters if you’re going too far
———- some more specifics ———-
I run and prefer Kritikal arguments, I am more comfortable listening to Settler Colonialism, Afro-Pessimism and Marxist literature, but that does not mean you can just spew jargon and hope to win, explain what your theories mean and your arguments, it will go a long way for your speaker points as well
Speaking of, i will be in the range of 27.5 - 29.9 for speaker points, I will try to be objective as possible but you do you, if you can do that well the speaker awards will come too
On T/FW, please make sure that your standards are specific to the round and are clearly spoken, I am substantially less convinced if you do not argue how that specific aff loses you ground and/or justifies a bad model of debate, but I will not vote it down for no reason, argue why those skills are good to solve the aff or provide a good model that sustains KvK debate in a better way than the aff justifies. Just don’t try to read your generic 2NC blocks, it gets more obvious the longer the debate goes on, do it well.
On Counterplans, try to have a net benefit, be smart with it, try not to have a million planks, having a solvency advocate is cool too, not much here.
Disads - do your link work as usual, I will vote on who does the better impact framing, just make sure you still got that link :) p.s for affs, just dont leave it at the end of the 2AC with a 2 second “they dont link isn’t it obvious”, please explain your answers and divide up time strategically
on K’s, I love good 2NC/1NR link stories, try not to just extend some evidence and answer 2AC args, evaluate why your links implicate the aff and how their specific aff makes something problematic. I dont mind a 2NC only the K with no cards, just make sure you’re not reading prewritten blocks, please be as specific as possible
Please stick to your arguments and embody them, just tell me what to evaluate at the end of the debate, I will very much appreciate if you can tell me how that happens, be revolutionary if you want to, I would probably enjoy the debate more.
Yes, email chain firstname.lastname@example.org. Disclose as soon as possible.
I currently debate for CSU Fullerton. I debated for two years in high school for LAMDL/ Bravo in policy debate.
-Don't be rude. Don't make the round deliberately confusing or inaccessible. Take time to articulate and explain your best arguments. If I can't explain what happened during the debate because of messy/ incomplete arguments, then that's on you.
-Spreading is fine, but be loud. I won't flow if I can't hear you (make sure your audio works prior to speech).
-Extend arguments, not authors. I flow your arguments and sometimes your author's initials & year.
-A dropped argument is true, assuming you substantiated, impacted, and weighed it.
-Sending evidence isn't prep, but don't take too long.
-In the event of a technical difficulty, I will try to be as reasonable as possible.
[AFFs] I think affs should have some reasonable connection to the topic and have some action. I will reward creative arguments. Win the likelihood of solvency + framing.
[CPs] CPs are cool as long as you have good mutual exclusivity evidence; otherwise, I am likely to be persuaded by a perm + net benefit arg. PICS are also cool if you have a good answer to theory.
[DAs] I really like DAs. Opt for specific links. Do evidence comparison for me. Weigh your impacts and challenge the internal link story. Give your framing a net benefit.
Also, I am more persuaded by impacts with good internal link evidence vs a long stretch big stick impact. Numbers are particularly persuasive here.
[T/Theory] I have a high threshold for voting on minor T/Theory violations when impacts are not contextualized. I could be persuaded to vote on a rebuttal FULLY committed to T/theory and it's well impacted (!)
I am more persuaded by education and skills-based impacts as opposed to claims to fairness. It depends on how the rebuttal spins it.
[Ks/K-affs] Ks are my favorite argument to hear. That being said, I am not going to pretend I know all your authors, so you are better off doing more work to explain your theory of power and links. Framing is everything. Explain why the alt is preferable.
k on the neg: I love seeing teams go 1-off kritiks and go heavy on the substance for the link and framing arguments. I wished k debaters would generate more clash on case and develop strategic rebuttals. Please impact your links and generate offense throughout the debate.
k on the aff: I like strategic k affs that make innovative and creative solvency arguments. Make sure I don't forget about the significance of the 1ac and give me reasons to prefer your framing to evaluate your aff's impacts and solvency mechanism. The 2ar needs to be precise on why voting aff is good and overcomes any of the neg's offense.
[FW] Choose the right framework for the right aff. I am more persuaded by education & skills-based impacts. Justify the model of debate your interpretation advocates for and resolve major points of contestation. I really appreciate when teams introduce and go for the TVA. Talk about the external impacts of the model of debate your propose (impacts that happen outside of round).
**This is a new tabroom account, but I'm not a new judge - my full judging record & paradigm can be found here**
2016-2018 Los Angeles Metropolitan Debate League
2018- present CSU Fullerton
email chain- email@example.com
TLDR- do what u like, usually/hopefully ur best at what u like the most.
Frame the ballot by the 2AR/2NR and don't leave me shooting darts please.
Overviews really help me/you out unless they're longer than the debate proper-be concise.
Prep- Prep ends when doc is sent out or the equivalent of that. Let me know if there are any technical difficulties.
Spreading- speed is fine-go at it if thats ur thing. this shouldn't be exchanged for clarity/emphasis, and ultimately, persuasion. My face tends to be pretty expressive so use that to ur advantage.
Cross Ex- Tag team is fine. Humor is much appreciated so long as it doesn't offend ur opponent. Attack the argument not the debater.
techy truth: I generally err on the side of tech over truth. However, too many buzzwords are kinda annoying and don't mean anything if you dont impact/flesh them out. I won't evaluate concessions for you unless you do it first.
Policy Affs- Spent most of hs reading these- read them at will. Internal link work and framing is crucial.
Performance/K Affs- Have a clear explanation of what the advocacy does and why it should precede a traditional endorsement of the resolution (vs framework). Presumption arguments are some of my favorite arguments. Being untopical for the sake of being untopical is sooooo not the move. Even if i think that ur aff is the most interesting/entertaining thing in the world, I can resolve that with speaker points. Offense. Offense. Offense.
Framework- Go for it. Slow down just a tad. Procedural fairness is an impact you should deal with. While I'm usually more persuaded by fairness as an internal link to something else, enough impact comparison can resolve that if ur not down with the former.
Theory/Procedurals- Go for it. I'm not one to love hearing theory debates but will vote on it if you do the work. These can get really petty. Usually not in a good way. Condo is probably good, PICs probably aren't. Don't let that dissuade you from saying otherwise. I'm a 2N if that is relevant for you.
DAs- Make sure to flesh out the internal links. Winning uniqueness wins direction of link debate. I prefer hearing isolated impact scenario(s) rather than a generic nuclear war/extinction claim although u can totally claim that as ur terminal one. The more specific the link the less spinning the aff can do, the less intervention I have to do, the higher ur chances of winning are. I find it hard to believe that there can ever be 100% risk probability but if the CP solves 100% of the aff you're in a much better spot.
CPs-Resolve questions like how does this solve the case and is this theoretically legitimate if it becomes about that. If you wanna be noncompetitive, you do you but be ready to justify that.
Ks- Tbh I would much rather judge a robust debate about the intricacies/consequences of a traditionally political action vs a less-than fleshed out k debate. Links to the status quo and not the aff are awkward. Generally speaking, im probably down for ur thing. Regardless of me being familiar with ur authors or not-do the work. Framing is super important.
-a claim with no warrant is a pen with no ink
-know where u are losing but make it fashion
-dont be a jerk
Email for email chains: firstname.lastname@example.org
Debated for Peninsula 2014-2018. I was a 2A in high school and ran pretty much exclusively policy arguments.
My judging will probably be very similar to Scott Wheeler. https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=6854
1. I resolve argument probabilistically. There is no such things as "zero risk," except for theoretical questions such as whether a counterplan is conditional or whether a perm is severance.
2. Smart analytics can beat bad cards. Good cards make for great arguments.
3. I'm more lenient about new spin and explanations of arguments in the later rebuttals, though you should at least hint at it before.
4. I prefer 1ACs and 1NCs with less impacts and more in-depth, supported arguments.
5. Conditionality is good. Ideologically contradictory positions are not.
6. Extinction is a great impact but a smart team can beat it with a much smaller impact and some decent weighing. If you do have structural impacts, you don't need to read a ton of cards as part of a big framing advantage. Just make the arguments.
I feel like I'd be aff leaning in most CP theory debates. Both aff and neg teams should think about their theory standards' larger implication for debate, why the CP (or voting against the CP) would make debate worse and/or unfair.
I don't think I evaluate DAs very differently from others.
Dropping DA turns the case does not result in an auto neg ballot. If your turns case is just a series of one liners against each aff impact, I probably won't consider it very much.
I'm decently acquainted with the more mainstream Ks. My favorite debates often end up being very specific, well-prepped k debates.
Please try to stay organized and refrain from going full stream-of-consciousness.
Ks need to have a well explained, specific link to the aff. State bad is probably not going to be enough. I won't be very technical on the perm debate (i.e. perm is severance). Usually, the perm debate is just the link/link turn debate.
Unless the neg goes all in on FW, it usually doesn't end up mattering much. The aff can weigh their plan against the K.
K alts suck and I think aff teams should spend more time exposing them.
T (against topical affs) -
I don't think reasonability matters much in these debates. What it does mean is that the aff is more likely to win in cases where they have really good defense against the neg standards but don't have great offense.
Non-topical affirmatives -
I pretty strongly believe that affirmatives should be topical.
I think fairness is an impact.
I don't think negative teams need a TVA to win. And, if the negative does have one, I don't think the TVA needs to solve the aff -- this isn't a plan vs. CP debate.
against Ks (if you're reading a non-t aff), I think that aff teams do usually get the perm.
I'm a sophomore at USC, debated for SPASH for 3 years in high school.
Add me to the chain: email@example.com
TLDR: You can read anything you want in front of me. I've had policy experience and k experience.
- Quality > Quantity
- Tech over truth, but I want to see some level of truth or substance in your argument.
- Spreading is fine, but be clear
- Don't clip cards, if there is evidence of clipping I will end the round and give a win to the other team
- Flashing/emailing isn't prep but please don't take forever
- If you're reading theory slow down a bit, and tell me if you want it on a new sheet
- Dropped arguments are true arguments, but they still have to be impacted out
- I'll weigh a performance the same as evidence, I will flow it too
- Debate is whatever you tell me it is (If the negative reads framework and claims debate is a game..and the aff has no response..then it's a game)
-Don't be racist. Don't be sexist.
junior 2a for southern california; head coach of ld for peninsula high school; firstname.lastname@example.org
the best debaters establish a win condition and explain why they've met it. i hate to judge pre-written blocks vs. pre-written blocks and i give generally low points, mostly when that occurs. if your strategy involves reading straight down a document or sending a document to read top speed through a page of analytics, consider leaving me off the sheet.
i almost never vote for theory, i am unqualified to judge phil debates, and i will not flow tricks or an rvi. i mostly judge policy v. policy debates, but would like to put it on the record that i know zero things about competition, so process counterplans are harder to win in front of me than others. impact comparison usually matters the most for ld.
i read k affs in college, but hardly vote for them when judging t debates because there is rarely an explainable external impact to the impact turn. affs that have this are in a good spot, especially if they defend the link to topic da's. i prefer fairness over other impacts to framework and generally believe clash is the most susceptible to the impact turn. ballot pik for fairness reasons and/or ballot k for cruel optimism reasons defeat most ld k affs.
i vote for the k on neg when the neg wins turns case, alt solves the case, and/or some unsustainability/extinction inevitable argument. i vote for the plan aff when the aff wins weigh the case for fairness and extinction first, assuming the above are answered as well. assuming equal debating, soft left affs cannot beat critiques in my opinion.
UCSD Class of ‘23.
Speaks: I'm not an jerk, 28 is pretty much my minimum. I have judged north of 10 rounds on this topic, so I know my way around the lit. I've voted a lot for the neg this year, this is true. I blame it on the AFF losing (1) significant amounts of case and (2) risks of a disadvantage paired with case turns. Well prepped teams tend to convince me to vote AFF.
I used to have to do prefs myself, and here's what I would have wanted to read. I was fast and tech-based in high school, did 4 years of policy, and will listen and judge the round. I don't have a ton of argument preferences, but I'm generally Tech > Truth, Pro-Spreading, pretty center leaning in terms of arguments (Last year I read policy and kritikal affs, and read both 8 and 1 off strats), I believe debate is a game that might have real world implications (if you win that it does).
I WILL: Read your evidence, Judge the round without bias, Give feedback both on the round and how to improve arguments in the future.
I WON'T: Use prior feelings about arguments when judging arguments, Make leaps in logic because some dead french guy said I should, let my beliefs about an argument influence how I judge it.
Things that will help you: Smart analytics, well-researched strategies, passion for whatever argument you're reading (I used to love the Econ DA and it reflected in my rounds).
Things that will hurt you: Nonsensical arguments, poorly executed arguments, conflicting arguments (I.E. Neolib and Econ, Death Good and any DA, etc).
I have probably read the DA/CP/K/T/Theory you are reading at some point in high school. If you have any questions specifically, either email me or ask me pre-round.
Yes, I want to be in the email chain: email@example.com
I am a speaker point fairy. 28.5 is decent. 29 is good. 29.5 is excellent (homophobic, racist, sexist lang excluded of course. if this happens, you get 24.). I will drop you instantly and stop the round if you are racist, sexist, homophobic, ect.
I delineate between "g-lang" and more purposeful sexism. G-lang can be debated as whether or not to drop the team. Flat out racism or sexism cannot be.
I enjoy creative arguments. I am not averse to voting on a troll. I trolled Fieldman at Berkeley two years in a row because he didn't update the topic since 2016.
Make me laugh 3 times (either side I.E. 2 neg and 1 aff or vice versa. if all three are from one team, that team alone gets the point boost.) and I will give you +1 speaks. This means 30 is attainable if you are good and you make me laugh
The most important thing to get out of this paradigm is for you to do you. During my HS years, I ran mostly policy stuff. I ran a wider variety of arguments junior and Sr year, with my 1nc mainly consisting of a ten off strat with several T's, one CP, a K and the rest DA's. I will evaluate any argument based on an offense-defense paradigm unless told otherwise, and can handle any speed. Slow down a bit on the analytics because, while I can follow what you will be saying, I am still human and can flow only so fast. I will only evaluate who won the debate based on what is on my flow and the arguments made in the 2NR/2AR. I will say clear if needed.
On to more specifics:
k - While it is true that I have run pretty much everything, do not assume that I am a scholar in your k's knowledge base nor that I will do your work for you. I do love K's as much as the next person, but don't think that I will vote on you simply because you ran a K. The most important thing for me when evaluating kritiks is the link scenario: if you don't have a strong link, then you could win the impacts, framing and alt and I would still not vote neg. The more contextual the links, the better. The more specific and contextualized your links, the stronger I believe that the permutation isn't possible. One last thing on this, IF YOU RUN BAUDRILLARD, don't be vague and mess with your opponent until the rebuttals. If you want to defend postmodern args, you should be well versed enough to answer the opponent's questions clearly. also, if you are debating postmodern args and the team is messing with you in cx, call that out and I will give you better speaks.
CP's - As of recently, I do not see many counterplan debates being had effectively (myself included), and often times find myself feeling frustrated when the net benefit/CP solves the aff isn't articulated effectively. On these debates, I find myself giving the Neg a little more leeway on the whole CP solves the entirety of the aff/most of the aff, but that assumes that the neg handles it right and they answer 2AC add-ons. If the aff has a great solvency takeout and/or permutation and the neg mishandles it, it will likely be an affirmative ballot. The only special case where this is not true is when the DA turns the aff.
DA's - Go for these in front of me if you like judges who prioritize magnitude over probability. I probably don't give the aff enough credit on the whole "probability is a prerequisite to impacts because they never access them in a world where they rely on the 1% doctrine." I believe that the whole "prioritize probability" argument is defense at best and you need to have offense on the flow in order to win. At the end of the debate, if you have a probable structural violence impact but a risk of a link to a DA that outweighs with only defense on the flow, you will find that I vote neg here.
T - LCC UPDATE::::
I do not enjoy T as much as I did before. Don't get me wrong, if the aff is not T, don't be afraid to run it. However, if their aff is reasonable and core of the topic, and they win that debate, reasonability will be enough for me to not vote on T.
Also *Reverse voters aren't a thing. Some think they are. I am not one of those people*
Theory: I lean neg on most theory unless it is either legitimate or dropped. In the case of the former, a good example of neg abuse is if you ran 2 CP's and 3 K's that all were performative contradictions. In this case, condo would look pretty nice from where I am sitting, or perf con. Another example is if the neg ran a K that became a floating PIK in the block, very abusive and not very beneficial. (*small note* I will still vote on floating piks if no theory is read or theory is not run well.) Other than that, I default to reject arg over team unless given specific reason why I shouldn't. Disclosure is a thing and influences how I evaluate condo/dispo/perf con.
That's about it, if you have any specific questions, don't be afraid to contact me at my email or ask before the round.
Experience: Policy Debate (2 Years, But I still made it all the way to Urban Nationals Gurllllll)
Francisco Bravo Medical Magnet High School: 2016-18
Cal State Long Beach: 2018-19
Contact Info: firstname.lastname@example.org
In a nutshell: I'm a pretty open debater and I love hearing all types of arguments. Policy Arguments... love them, Critical Arguments... love them, just make sure to articulate your arguments because even something as simple as a Cap K are run differently from round to round. Uniqueness questions are good, Links need to be there, Impacts are vital (You don't know how many people forget to impact out their stuff... make sure you do because I NEED TO KNOW WHAT IM VOTING FOR, I will not feel bad voting you down if you have a great link story but no impacts) and I appreciate intellectual debate jargon. All in all I will vote on anything, it just has to make sense and convince me why I should vote for you and not the opposing team (Cross-Analysis). I love debate; I believe its a form of academic expression and just remember to have fun and pour your little hearts out on the battlefield. I'm not a point fairy but passion, effort and craft are highly rewarded as I highly value (as we all should) seeing students actively pushing themselves for both an academic and interpersonal growth!
K's: Know the literature, it'll make your clap-backs that much stronger and makes it easier to contextualize. Throughly explain the alt, I noticed that the alternative debate is always the least covered and if I don't throughly understand what I'm voting for... then the permutation becomes an easy option for me as long as I believe it is possible. LINK ANALYSIS WILL GO A LONG WAY... Just saying. I ran Queer, Ableism, Witchcraft and several CRT K's but I understand the post-modern ones as well (please don’t run baudrillard, I’ve already had to vote it up once).
K' Affs: I ran Critical affirmatives the majority of my debate career so I might already understand or be lenient towards some of the reasons why non-traditional affirmation might be good. HOWEVER!!! This doesn't mean that if you run a K Aff I'll automatically vote for you, I find myself voting on presumption arguments or framework a lot because sometimes the literature of the affirmative is so dense and either: A) I feel like there is an articulation issue (and thus disorder on the flow) because of the density of the material or B) The internal link chain which leads me to believe that the affirmative is a good idea might be fundamentally under developed.
Da's: Uniqueness... Link.... Internal Links.... Impacts. I like disads, make sure to be strategic, make them net-benefits to the Cp otherwise I do believe that the Squo is always a viable option.
Cp's: Remember that not all Cp's are plan-inclusive and to me at least all you have to prove is that your method solves better than the aff. Have Net-benefits and show me solvency deficits (It'll make your life easier trust). No I wont kick the CP for you unless you tell me why, i feel like it gives judge intervention way to much power (but then again what do I know).
T: Topicality is more than "aff is not topical". Tell me why that is bad? What do you lose access to? Prove to me why the aff's model of debate is bad or abusive. If I can make those connections and you persuade me to prefer your model of debate, then its looking good for you and Im very inclined to vote on it.
Framework: A lot of T applies here too, make sure to win why we need procedural fairness, why is the aff's model of debate bad for the debate community in general, Internal and External impacts are convincing, and also make sure to make those common FW arguments that prove you don't limit the aff. Framework to me also doesn't necessarily mean that "USFG means the 3 Branches of Government", even though its common and I don't mind seeing it, I feel like you can tailor so many framework arguments to work around the rhetorical offense affirmatives get with that interpretation.
Aff's: PROVE TO ME WHY WE NEED THE AFF! I need to know that there is a reason why you have to affirm what you are affirming and thats why you're doing it in an nontraditional way. Also prove to me why your model of debate is preferable to the neg's arguments. Just persuade me (Make me feel it GURLLLL). In addition, anything performative should always be used... and offensively too. Don't waste precious 1AC time without utilizing it to the best of your advantage.
Case: I LOVE CASE DEBATE <3!!! I appreciate a good neg team that directly challenges the aff's warrants and their claims. So that being said... good case debate is appreciated and will be rewarded with higher speaks. Flush out them case turns (I always gasp if its good)
Advise for the aff: Don't forget your 1AC, YOU SPEND 8/9 Minutes on it, please utilize it and utilize it as offensively as you can!
HAVE FUN! I love debate and I'm always happy and excited to watch y'alls debates!
Please add me to your chain my email is email@example.com
policy at Cal State Fullerton. debated all of HS in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Debate League (:
how to get a W from me
1. I live for when the presentation aspect of debate matches the quality of argumentation. don't be afraid to spice up the round with attitude, personality, humor, etc. just make it make sense with the context of the round and don't force anything. I'd truly be amiss if I didn't reward a player for speaking well in a game about speaking well. that being said don't rely too much on blocks, have ethos moments, dig into evidence, give your offense/DAs snappy names, etc.
2. I don't really have preferences for certain types of arguments over others and I'm not particularly committed to debating CPs, DAs, Ks, etc. in a particular way. I try sticking to what is on my flow as much as possible because I don't want to do more work than I have to. That being said don't rely too much on speed/quantity of arguments. when I decide I tend to start with what I was told to prioritize. so typically it ends up being things like framing, impacts, solvency, major offense, etc that is heavily being leveraged across the flows and line by line. it doesn't matter what you read, you need to tell me what my priorities should be when making a decision. I am very receptive to a clear and well impacted decision making calculus that I am told to use, and more than likely it will be a big part of my decision. if you are really winning that top level stuff I will rarely feel the need to dig deeply into the line by line because by the last rebuttals a direction for the ballot will have probably been established. if you are more inclined to tech though I really enjoy tracing arguments across a flow so you can get me that way too just make sure you're organized, consistent, and strategic. that means making sure you have clash, comparisons, and warrants that make sense with the overall direction you want me to vote in.
3. all tea no shade to make both our lives easier have moments where you break down the debate and explain to me what is happening in the round and straight up tell me why you win. for example, you can tell me what you are winning and what your opponent is losing, etc.. im not saying write the ballot for me but thats also exactly what I'm saying. either way at the end of the round, if you plan on winning you should be able to justify it so preempt your post rounding lol. I am very receptive to these moves especially in the late rebuttals.
About Me: I am a former Open Debater at Cal State Fullerton. I had 3 years ~ debating in college and a year experience as a coach at CSUF. I have vast judging and coaching experience at the High School level. I spent a lot of my Career running mostly critiques including Settler Colonial K's, Antiblackness K's, Baudrillard K's, performance K's, as well as experience running Framework.
Aside from that my cases usually involved futurisms and storytelling.
Coaches: Toya Green, Romin Rajan, Lee Thach.
Me as a judge real talk: I can understand spreading, and I'm as good as anyone at getting this down. But Imma be honest, it is hard for me to stay organized. I joined debate in college, no high school experience.
In other words, framing is super important for me. Clarity is important to me, because I want to understand how you think we/you/ I should think, view and participate in the community, in this round, at this tournament, etc. Is debate a game? is the game good? why or why not? I'd like these question answered either implicitly or explicitly. I don't inherently work with the perception that debate is (just) a "game", but if given a good argument as to why I should take on that perspective (in this round, all the time, etc) I'll take on that perspective. I prefer not to feel like a worker in the debate factory who needs to take notes and produce a ballot, but idk maybe I should function in that way-just tell me why that's true.
Impact: Proximity and likelihood> magnitude and time frame
Clipping Cards is an auto DQ.
I really don't care what you do as far as tag teaming, changing format, playing music, using stands, seating placement, etc. Do you, just don't make the debate go longer than it needs to. Also feel free to talk to me before, after and during prep in rounds. I generally enjoy talking about debate and like helping young peeps. Just chit chat and such.
Policy- I think that a straight up policy plan is dope. MY biggest concern is the debaters ability to explain numbers to me. ITs hard for me to do the calculations and understand why specific stats are important and win you the debate. I am pretty line by line when it comes to a policy debate. Id say with me, focus on some impact calc because thats usually where my attention is mostly at. Liklihood and proximity are more important than severity, magnitude. Time-Frame is iffy but doable.
FW- Honestly, framework is pretty cool. I think its become kind of a meme at this point about my annoyance with whiney FW debaters, so make sure you are being real with your critique. Framework says that there is a structure which needs to be followed for this activity to run efficiently. This assumes that the game of debate is good, so explain why the game is good, or why your specific version of the game is good. When you run framework you are saying that the other team is debating in a way that lessens/nullifies the benefits of debate. That is a big claim, so treat it as such. If you are just using it strategically- more power to you buuuuuuut, it makes you hella less persuasive if thats how you are coming off. Also, Fairness is not inherently a terminal impact, lol. At least mention debate is a game and tell me why the games good.
K- I love k's, but they get hella sloppy. With k's, i need to know that you are solving your impacts. seems basic but im shocked at how often debaters dont explain how their "self abolishment" solves antiblackness. Acknowledging that there is a problem isn't a solution, or plan or anything. It's just a diagnosis. I need a prescription. HAving said that, Im pretty open minded when it comes to different strats. The more weird the more fun for me.
I'm way more truth than tech.
Ive been a debater for 4 years now. I did PF for 3 years, and I am currently doing policy at Cal State Fullerton. When it comes to Public Forum I don't want you to just read evidence at me, stop trying to make PF policy! Explain your evidence and warrants, give good analysis. Also I really enjoy Framework debates, if you're going to read framework carry it through the entire round. Care about FW arguments because thats how i'm going to end up voting if i'm not given an alternative FW. Make sure there is actual clash, dont just tell me why your positions are important.
Since im fairly new to CX I dont have a ton of preferences, just dont expect me to understand super high theory off the bat, and if you do run it, make sure to explain it really well. Other than that just do your thing
Monta Vista '18, UC Berkeley '22. firstname.lastname@example.org -- put me on the chain.
This philosophy reflects my ideological leanings; it is not a set of rules I abide by in every decision. All of them can be easily reversed by out-debating the other team, and I firmly believe tech > truth.
The most important thing for me is argument resolution. In close debates, I generally resolve in favor of rebuttals that have judge instruction, explain the interaction between your arguments and theirs, and efficiently frame the debate in a way that adds up to a ballot. If you don't give me a way to reconcile two competing claims, I'll likely just read evidence to make my own judgment. Some effective examples of this are "even if they win x, we still win because y" and short overviews for individual parts of the line by line (like framing issues for comparing the strength of a link to a link turn).
K Affs and Framework:
K Affs: Develop one or two pieces of central offense that impact turn whatever standard(s) the neg is going for. I tend to vote more frequently for the direct impact turn than the 'CI + link turn neg standards' strategy.
Framework: I don't have a preference for hearing a skills or fairness argument, but I think the latter requires you to win a higher level of defense to aff arguments.
I am well versed in security, cap, and a few other similar K's. Links are best when they prove the plan shouldn't be implemented. I'm skeptical of sweeping claims about the structure of society (provided reasonable pushback by the aff). If equally debated, I am likely to conclude that the affirmative gets to weigh the plan. I tend to vote aff when the aff wins they get to weigh the plan and their impact outweighs the neg's, and I tend to vote neg when the neg wins a framework argument.
Infinite conditionality, agent CPs, PICs, conditional planks, 2NC CPs are all good. CPs that rely on certainty or immediacy or the like for competition are illegitimate. I would strongly prefer if you resolve debates substantively than resort to theory.
CPs/DAs/Impact Turns/Case Debate/T:
Smart, analytical case defense or CPs are fine if completely intuitive or factual, but they hold significantly more weight if tied to a piece of evidence.
As far as T goes, I highly value precision when compared to limits and ground. Winning that your interp makes debates slightly more winnable for the neg is unlikely to defeat a precise interpretation that reflects the literature consensus.
When reading evidence, I will only evaluate warrants that are highlighted.
Dropped arguments don't need to be fully explained until the final rebuttals. However, you must point out that they are dropped and give a quick explanatory sentence.
Hi I'm Chris! Nice to meet you
online debate - If the internet lags momentarily and I'm unable to catch an argument, nothing I can really do about it. I'll try and let you know where in the speech the wifi cut out (but hopefully this isn't a problem in the first place). Also, please slow down. If you are wondering whether you're going too fast, you probably are, so take it down a notch. Thanks!
- email chain: email@example.com
- Tech > Truth
- run and go for the arguments that you are good at
- arguments must have a claim and warrant (and evidence if applicable)
- spreading is a-ok BUT do NOT sacrifice clarity please
- will default to util/consequentialism as a framework for making decisions if no one tells me otherwise
- blocks are fine but contextualized arguments are better
- good things: debate, condo, line by line
- bad things: death, sexism, racism
There are probabilities in the game of debate, so no argument really has a 0% or 100% risk. Rather, some arguments, through warranted analysis and evidence can build a more robust case for a more probable scenario. If an argument is conceded it's not necessarily game over, but the risk that that warrants of the said argument are true increases significantly.
Debate is a game. Treat your opponents with respect and have fun! Please don't make racist, sexist, etc. arguments or personal attacks, they really skirt the educational value of debate.
How to increase speaker points: puns or give me food or something
Topicality - Go for it, especially if the Aff justifies a limitless topic. This necessitates that you have some form of caselist. Limits usually outweighs. Have pretty much no technical knowledge of the CJR topic, please explain acronyms and other terms of art on this topic that the average human doesn't know
Theory - have some kind of interpretation, slow down, do line by line, thanks
Disadvantages - Politics is great. Impact calculus/comparison is a must. Using words like "magnitude" and "time frame" are fine but should be contextualized to the impact that the Aff has. Smart turns case arguments are excellent. Uniqueness frames the direction of the link, but the specificity of the link is likely to be more valuable than the uniqueness itself. Aff teams should not forget about their case - case outweighs is far too underused/underrated. Coupled with some smart defensive arguments on the disad, case outweighs is usually enough.
Counterplans - Counterplans that are contextualized to the Aff will probably be substantively better than counterplans that work through a process. However, process/cheaty/uniform fiat cps are still totally fine and I'll lean neg on the theory debate (with the exception of object fiat). Of course, I can be swayed to adopt the opposite viewpoint of this theory debate. Advantage counterplans, smart PICs, and topic counterplans are fantastic. Won't judge kick unless you tell me to
Kritiks - I'll have a higher threshold for link specificity to the Affirmative, but if you can show a clear story, go for it. Familiar with biopower (agamben/foucault), cap, security, all the super basic stuff. Please explain buzzwords. I'm not a huge fan of long overviews, just put it on the line by line. If your main strat is to rant about how the 1ar dropped fiat is illusory or some other random trick, I'm not the judge for you. I need a clear explanation of what the alternative IS and what the world of the alternative looks like to feel remotely comfortable voting negative.
Non Traditional Affirmatives - I think the aff should defend hypothetical/instrumental/fiated action performed by the USfg. But! I'd be legitimately happy to hear your K Aff as long as you articulate clear pieces of offense, have a solid explanation of what the aff actually does, and maintain clean line by line. If argued well, fairness can certainly be an intrinsic impact, though it's probably better to have impacts that interact with the truth claims of the 1AC. Fairness as an internal link intuitively makes sense to me, I often went for impacts like deliberation/research/competition as a 2N
Case Debate - Is significantly underrated. Extra speaker points for those who can thoroughly and efficiently dismantle the case through smart case defense and flushed out case turns.
Point Loma Nazarene University '23
I really want to see a disad/counterplan debate or disad/case debate. I won't vote you down if this isn't your thing but I have yet to see one on this topic, so I will give an extra speaker point to any negative debater that attempts this strategy.
Top level things:
-As a caveat, everything in my paradigm is just my opinion and can be reversed through good debating.
-Nothing is at 0 or 100% risk. I evaluate debate as to which arguments have a higher risk and which ones are quantifiably bigger or implicate the debate on a deeper level.
-Debate determines risk until I'm told why it isn't.
-I don't have a problem voting for "lies" but I'd rather vote for true arguments.
-Some people whose opinions about the debate I admire are Chris Tai, Scott Wheeler, Raam Tambe, and Danish Khan.
-In my opinion, the negative does not read enough off-case positions most of the time.
-Judge instruction is underutilized but the team that uses it more will make the debate easier to decide.
Email chains are a big vibe: firstname.lastname@example.org
Rounds on the CJR Topic: 18
My Decision Process:
I will do my best to actively assess who is ahead during the debate however, this does not mean an instant decision. I will try to give a timely well thought out decision as fast as I can because I believe it's the debaters job to debate their best, and the judges to be an active listener and decisionmaker which means to think critically through the debate as it goes on. The way I use this process is by assigning risk based on explanation and/or comparison of arguments. Usually, I base the way I assign risk of on dropped arguments, explanations, and comparisons between which arguments should be considered to be the nexus question of the debate and which should not. Just to be clear when I mention explanation, I don't mean explain your argument about what is but how it fits throughout the overall strategic context of the round. This means quantifying why your evidence proves that argument has a broader scope than your opponents. Absent reading evidence, I usually vote for the team that has best articulated why their argument's risk is higher or can be quantiified as much bigger. Good ev/argument comparison, framing arguments, and evidence that can be well explained in a strategic context can shift this process in your favor. The reason for my decisionmaking process is that I believe in tech over truth and I don't try to do alot of work people. Explanation is important but only in the context of me evaluating the debate in a purely technical way because I do not want to evaluate the relative truth claims of arguments as much as I can. That is not so say I am truth over tech, the process I just listed probably only applies if the debate is close. If an argument is dropped, it's dropped and I have SUPER LOW threshold for dropped arguments which I will vote on. The more you use the process above to direct my decision, the less my predispositions factor into the decision.
I believe that the evidence determines the scope of the argument. I.E if you powertag your extinction card but it only says small scenario for war, I'll probably not against a powertagged card if the other team points it out but I'll vote for lies in any other instance.
Online Specific Stuff:
-Go 85-90% of how fast you would go in an in-person round.
-I do not require you to turn your camera if you do not feel comfortable doing so.
-If you are reading blocks that are mostly analytics, slow down a bit because not all of us have the best internet connections.
I am an okay judge for the Kritik. My Kritik experience revolves around common Kritiks like Cap and Security and Kritiks about theories that engage in structural analysis of antiblackness, settler colonialism, liberalism, etc. but anything else will require more explanation. I think that thesis claims and links are the most important part of the Kritik. Thesis level claims should forward a description of the world that filters how I evaluate the other parts of the Kritik. For example, if you read antiblackness or Psychoanalysis, you would want to win arguments such as Blackness is ontological, Psychoanalysis is true, or the state is irredeemable. Links should be about the plan, not just rant about why a certain ideology is bad. I'm somewhat agnostic on the alternative level, but it should solve the aff in some way. Aff teams should leverage their aff against the K way more imho. I understand Kritik's are multifaceted and have many ways to win on them, so both sides should explain why the parts of the Kritik debate they are winning matter if you decide to divert from my preferences.
T vs Policy Aff:
Plans should be topical. Painting a scary version of the topic that creates an unreasonable research burden for the negative is always a good strategy. Depicting a litany of affs that the 2N cannot prepare for is fine. If you make a ground argument, explain why the specific Affs, Disads, or Counterplans are necessary for your side to have a fair chance at winning rather than just saying we lose "x" ground without explanation as to why that ground is necessary in the first place.
T vs K aff:
I prefer that the affirmative read a topical plan but that is not a deal-breaker. I recognize that some Kritikal affirmatives have a great deal of value and are some of the best arguments in debate read by the best debaters but a lot of K affs are part of a phase that some debaters have where they want to be a "K debater" because it's fun, new, or more interesting. Rants aside, my preferences are just that; my preferences, I will ultimately vote for the team that does the better debating in the most technical way possible in every debate I judge no matter what argument the debaters read.
If you develop 1-3 pieces of good offense, I will be more inclined to vote aff. In general, the whole "we're a discussion of the resolution" argument is a decent counter-interpretation but the more aff takes the side of the discussion that affirms the action of the resolution, the more likely I'll vote aff. Redefining the words of resolution can be good too. I think that affirmatives that don't have the grammar of a plan but still affirm the action of the resolution like the "No is illegal" aff from the immigration topic are up for debate because it still gave some ground (but not enough) to the negative. Anything that goes in the direction of carte blanche rejection of the topic will be a harder sell.
If you are against a kritikal affirmative, I think that procedural fairness is the most tangible impact that my ballot has an effect over. I prefer if you read standards that engage or turn the aff's offense or demonstrate that their description of the world and debate is inaccurate or problematic. DO NOT argue racism, sexism, homophobia good, etc. but challenge the operationalization of the aff's theory in the debate by reading standards that challenge the scope of the claim that the 1AC forwards.
General Policy Stuff:
- Framing is a supplement, not a substitute for answering disads.
- Read arguments that justify the educational model of how we talk about impacts. Things "Learning about extinction is valuable" or "Extinction prediction education is bad"
-If you are reading a soft left, read arguments about extinction prediction models fail rather than some ethical orientation about immediate violence comes first.
-Debate in meta-level characterizations that tell the story of the debate. COMPARE arguments. Say things like link speaks to a broader event that the aff causes or the link evidence only describes a small event that the aff outweighs. OR "the aff's advantage is minuscule but the disad is huge because they conceded "x", "y", and "z" argument.
Read them. There's not much to say here. Read a counterplan. Make sure it solves a sufficient part of the aff. Define what is a sufficient amount of the aff is solved by the counterplan and vice versa for the aff. Ideally point to lines in the evidence that identify these thresholds for solvency. Quantify counterplan solvency/solvency deficits by telling how big or a small counterplan solvency or the solvency deficit is. Solvency advocates for counterplans are helpful but not having one isn't a deal breaker.
I evaluate them probabilistically and usually don't vote on arguments that are direct yes/no questions. Make arguments about the Aff/Disad having higher risk is the way to go for me. I care more about the impact debate than I used to but the link is still most important. Politics Disads are good and they teach valuable political forecasting skills that are extremely useful in the field of political science like making predictions about the political ramifications of political action in a probabilistic manner.
The debate determines whether a counterplan is legitimate or not as well as any other theoretical question. All things equal, I default negative on condo, states, international counterplans, PICs, and process counterplans. If you are to go for theory, make arguments about why the negative promotes a model of debate that creates worse education or lower quality arguments rather than some claim about why it makes debate too hard for you. Counterplan theory aside, I'm agnostic. You don't have to have an interpretation but it would better if you did. Don't blaze through blocks. Do line by line.
- All of the policy stuff applies.
- I have little to no comprehension of "phil" or techy strategies germane to LD and I will evaluate "phil" like a Kritik. The closer you are to policy debate, the happier everyone will be with my decision.
- I think condo is good but I find condo bad to be more debatable in LD than in policy.
I start at a 28 and work up or down from there.
27 - Still learning
28 - Alright
28.5 to 29 - You probably can break
29.5 and above - Semis/Finals
1. Offense-defense, but can be persuaded by reasonability in theory debates. I don't believe in "zero risk" or "terminal defense" and don't vote on presumption.
2. Substantive questions are resolved probabilistically--only theoretical questions (e.g. is the perm severance, does the aff meet the interp) are resolved "yes/no," and will be done so with some unease, forced upon me by the logic of debate.
3. Dropped arguments are "true," but this just means the warrants for them are true. Their implication can still be contested. The exception to this is when an argument and its implication are explicitly conceded by the other team for strategic reasons (like when kicking out of a disad). Then both are "true."
1. Conditionality bad is an uphill battle. I think it's good, and will be more convinced by the negative's arguments. I also don't think the number of advocacies really matters. Unless it was completely dropped, the winning 2AR on condo in front of me is one that explains why the way the negative's arguments were run together limited the ability of the aff to have offense on any sheet of paper.
2. I think of myself as aff-leaning in a lot of counterplan theory debates, but usually find myself giving the neg the counterplan anyway, generally because the aff fails to make the true arguments of why it was bad.
1. I don't think I evaluate these differently than anyone else, really. Perhaps the one exception is that I don't believe that the affirmative needs to "win" uniqueness for a link turn to be offense. If uniqueness really shielded a link turn that much, it would also overwhelm the link. In general, I probably give more weight to the link and less weight to uniqueness.
2. On politics, I will probably ignore "intrinsicness" or "fiat solves the link" arguments, unless badly mishandled (like dropped through two speeches). Note: this doesn't apply to riders or horsetrading or other disads that assume voting aff means voting for something beyond the aff plan. Then it's winnable.
1. I like kritiks, provided two things are true: 1--there is a link. 2--the thesis of the K indicts the truth of the aff. If the K relies on framework to make the aff irrelevant, I start to like it a lot less (role of the ballot = roll of the eyes). I'm similarly annoyed by aff framework arguments against the K. The K itself answers any argument for why policymaking is all that matters (provided there's a link). I feel negative teams should explain why the affirmative advantages rest upon the assumptions they critique, and that the aff should defend those assumptions.
2. I think I'm less technical than some judges in evaluating K debates. Something another judge might care about, like dropping "fiat is illusory," probably matters less to me (fiat is illusory specifically matters 0%). I also won't be as technical in evaluating theory on the perm as I would be in a counterplan debate (e.g. perm do both isn't severance just because the alt said "rejection" somewhere--the perm still includes the aff). The perm debate for me is really just the link turn debate. Generally, unless the aff impact turns the K, the link debate is everything.
3. If it's a critique of "fiat" and not the aff, read something else. If it's not clear from #1, I'm looking at the link first. Please--link work not framework. K debating is case debating.
1. I'm *slightly* better for the aff now that aff teams are generally impact-turning the neg's model of debate. I almost always voted neg when they instead went for talking about their aff is important and thought their counter-interp somehow solved anything. Of course, there's now only like 3-4 schools that take me and don't read a plan. So I'm spared the debates where it's done particularly poorly.
2. A lot of things can be impacts to T, but fairness is probably best.
3. It would be nice if people read K affs with plans more, but I guess there's always LD. Honestly debating politics and util isn't that hard--bad disads are easier to criticize than fairness and truth.
Versus the K:
1. If it's a team's generic K against K teams, the aff is in pretty great shape here unless they forget to perm. I've yet to see a K aff that wasn't also a critique of cap, etc. If it's an on-point critique of the aff, then that's a beautiful thing only made beautiful because it's so rare. If the neg concedes everything the aff says and argues their methodology is better and no perms, they can probably predict how that's going to go. If the aff doesn't get a perm, there's no reason the neg would have to have a link.
Topicality versus plan affs:
1. I used to enjoy these debates. It seems like I'm voting on T less often than I used to, but I also feel like I'm seeing T debated well less often. I enjoy it when the 2NC takes T and it's well-developed and it feels like a solid option out of the block. What I enjoy less is when it isn't but the 2NR goes for it as a hail mary and the whole debate occurs in the last two speeches.
2. Teams overestimate the importance of "reasonability." Winning reasonability shifts the burden to the negative--it doesn't mean that any risk of defense on means the T sheet of paper is thrown away. It generally only changes who wins in a debate where the aff's counter-interp solves for most of the neg offense but doesn't have good offense against the neg's interp. The reasonability debate does seem slightly more important on CJR given that the neg's interp often doesn't solve for much. But the aff is still better off developing offense in the 1AR.
1. I've been judging LD less, but I still have LD students, so my familarity with the topic will be greater than what is reflected in my judging history.
2. Everything in the policy section applies. This includes the part about substantive arguments being resolved probablistically, my dislike of relying on framework to preclude arguments, and not voting on defense or presumption. If this radically affects your ability to read the arguments you like to read, you know what to do.
3. If I haven't judged you or your debaters in a while, I think I vote on theory less often than I did say three years ago (and I might have already been on that side of the spectrum by LD standards, but I'm not sure). I've still never voted on an RVI so that hasn't changed.
4. The 1AR can skip the part of the speech where they "extend offense" and just start with the actual 1AR.
Debated at Downtown Magnets High School for 4 years
Currently debating for Cal State Fullerton
Add me to the email chain: email@example.com
TLDR: You can read anything you want in front of me. In terms of experience I ran more kritikal arguments, but that doesn't mean I dislike a policy v. policy debate. Extinction is a fun impact. Performance is fine. Framework is also fine, but try to engage with the case more if you're running it against a kritikal affirmative.
- Quality > Quantity
- Spreading is fine, but be clear
- Don't clip cards, if there is evidence of clipping I will end the round and give a win to the other team
- Flashing/emailing isn't prep but please don't take forever
- If you're reading theory slow down a bit, and tell me if you want it on a new sheet
- Dropped arguments are true arguments, but they still have to be impacted out
- I'll weigh a performance the same as evidence, I will flow it too
- Debate is whatever you tell me it is (If the negative reads framework and claims debate is a game..and the aff has no response..then it's a game)
- I have read arguments like death good, I think these are legitimate arguments. Don't shy away from running weird things in front of me. As long as you aren't racist/sexist/homophobic you're fine.
Traditional Affs: I like comprehensive, well thought out advantages compared to 7 advantages that all end in nuke war or something. Make sure you give me some type of framing in the 1AC so that I know how I should weigh the aff vs the negs off case, and always use your framing against their off case (please).
Kritikal Affs: I won't vote on it just because you read it. The most important thing for me is an explanation of how the affirmative relates to the topic and how the particular survival strategy/method/epistemology/etc is important for debate. If there is no connection to the topic, I will not shy away from pulling the trigger on T. Kritikal affs that connect to your identity are cool too, but don't make it seem like you're using the oppression of x group for a ballot. If I don't know what the aff does, I'm not voting for it. An advocacy statement of some sort is probably good here.
Performance: The most important thing about performances is that they should be used as arguments. If the 1AC has a performance of some sort, the 2AC should use that performance offensively. If the performance gets lost, I'll probably be skeptical of the 2AR bringing it back up. For the negative, you should press them on the performance in some way. Arguments about performances being bad for debate are legit, but make sure they have an actual argument behind them. For example, "this isn't theatre, this is debate" is not a good answer to a performance.
Kritikal Affs vs the K: The aff should always perm the kritik. There's a good chance that your theories aren't 100% mutually exclusive. I don't buy the "this is a method debate so no perms" argument, but if it goes conceded coming out of a 1AR/2AR then I will evaluate it. The aff should also explain why the perm is necessary and why the negative's theory alone fails. For the negative, you should be winning a strong link to the affirmative and a reason why the alternative is mutually exclusive to the advocacy.
Framework vs the K aff: I'm not biased towards the affirmative in these debates (despite my history of running kritikal arguments). I do think framework is valuable, and seeing people debate the way they believe debate should be is always fun. If there is no TVA I'm more sympathetic to voting aff, but if there's no answer to the TVA I'm definitely voting neg. Fairness is an okay standard but I prefer arguments along the lines of truth testing, stasis args, and deliberation. Tailoring your framework to have benefits like grassroots activism and legalism good arguments are also persuasive. Framework is a definitely a viable strategy in front of me against a kritikal affirmative, but make sure there are also arguments that engage the case. For the aff, "They are excluding us" isn't really an answer to framework (please don't make this argument), but proving why their frameowork is sexist/racist/homophobic/etc. is good offense against the framework. I prefer affirmatives to defend their model of debate. Why should we be able to talk about things only tangentially related to the topic? Why is posing a hypothetical policy implementation bad for debate? These are questions I'll probably be thinking of as the 2AC answers the framework flow. Disads to their model are good leverage, but make sure to answer every standard on the flow. Also, counter interps are nice.
Kritiks: For Kritiks please have multiple clear links to the affirmative. A generic link that you have can always be contextualized to the aff, so try to contextualize each link to the affirmative. A specific link should also be contextualized against the affirmative. Please explain what your alternative is and have a framing that doesn't contradict the alternative. I find that the key arguments to a criticism are usuallly framing/framework, link, impact, alternative, permutation. If a team concedes a framing, I'm most likely voting for the other team. For example, if the Aff reads framing about how specific scenario analysis is good for policy making and broad structural criticisms are bad, I would say they are ahead of the K debate (given that the negative concedes their framing). I'm also okay with teams kicking the alternative and going for the links as case turns, but you must tell me to kick it. I won't kick it for you. Also, "fiat is illusory" isn't really a winning argument. Also, please explain the K. Even if I heard your criticism before, a shallow explanation of the K won't help you win the flow.
Disadvantages: For DAs, I prefer specific links. Internal links are appreciated, but not necessary. Recent DAs are probably better than older ones, make sure the uniqueness and answers to uniqueness are recent for these debates. I think the uniqueness can overwhelm the link in some cases, and I am open to impact turning if you persuade me (nuke war good? Sure why not). Disadvantages should have impact calculus and turn the case in some way. The affirmative should explain why the disadvantage uniqueness overwhelms the link, why there's no link, no impact, etc. Make sure to spend time to make arguments on the disadvantage because if it's undercovered then I'll probably vote for it. Impact framing/calculus is really important, especially when the disadvantage has an impact of higher magnitude (like war, extinction) compared to the affirmative. Explain why your impact is more significant than the Affirmative's impact.
Counter plans/Advocacy: Make sure the counter plan has a net benefit, and tell me what the net benefit is. Advantage CPs are also cool. Consult CPs are legit. If there is a link to the DA and the CP clearly avoids that link, I'll probably vote neg on the counterplan. For Kritikal affs I enjoy counter advocacy debates, still explain the net benefit though. I'm not particularly fond of counterplan theory, but I will vote for it if I feel it's a winning argument.
Topicality: I think T is a good strategy, especially if the aff is blatantly not topical. If the aff seems topical, I will probably err aff on reasonability. Both sides should explain and compare interpretations and standards. Standards should be impacted out, basically explain why it's important that they aren't topical. The Aff needs a counter interpretation, without one I vote neg on T (unless it's kicked).
Theory: I will vote for it. Just make sure you slow down a lot cause I want to catch what you're saying in the standards. 1AR/2AR with only Condo is viable, but if you're just repeating your standards then I'd say don't. I don't really lean aff or neg when it comes to condo/dispo debates, but I will say that for these debates both teams need to have a clear interpretation that makes sense. The aff should probably say 1 or 2 condo worlds, while the neg should probably argue their specific number of conditional worlds that they read as a counter interpretation. I lean neg on CP theory, I generally think the negative gets anything outside of the affirmative. It's up for debate if a PIC/PIK constitutes being outside of the aff.
Speaker Points: Speaker awards make this activity a little less shitty so I will try to give high speaks.