Tabroom.com

The Regatta

2020 — Park Ridge, IL, IL/US

Novice Policy Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Alex Baime Glenbrook South HS 2 rounds

Charles Bauer Glenbrook North 2 rounds

Anthony Baumann New Trier High School 2 rounds None

Ana Bojinov Niles North High School 3 rounds

Vlad Bolchis Niles West High School 5 rounds None

Joseph Brower Glenbrook South HS 5 rounds None

Gavin Dickinson Glenbrook South HS 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 14, 2020 at 7:41 AM CDT

Sure, email chain titandebater8@gmail.com

Some things about myself. I have debated at Glenbrook South High School for 4 years. I look like I am a high school freshman, however, I can assure you that I am a Senior!

Top Level: In any debate round I judge I am mostly a Tech v. Truth judge. That being said, if the other team drops an important argument you must point it out AND explain why the dropped argument matters for my decision, not just that they dropped it. I prefer DAs and CPs over Kritikal arguments however, if you can clearly explain your alternative, and if the K makes sense to me you have a good chance at the ballot. I was pretty policy-oriented throughout my debate career, but that doesn't mean I will totally vote down the K.

Affirmatives: I prefer affs that defend the resolution and advocate for the USFG. You and your partner being the advocacy is not my favorite when it comes to affs. That being said Soft Left, and Hard stick right-leaning affs with big impacts are both ok. In the context of a planless aff, I am very familiar with a T debate, but you should be able to defend and explain your interpretation of the role of the ballot, as well as impact out the round as to why not engaging the USFG or the resolution is bad.

Disads: DA v. Case debates are fun when impacted out well and use of good LBL. When you just tell me your impact o/w because they do isn't a good enough reason for me to vote on them. For a Disad, you should be able to explain the link story as well as how your internal links reach your impacts.

Kritiks: I was pretty policy in my time debating at GBS. I know the basics so when it comes to Cap, Security, Militarism, I'll be fine. However, if you decide to read something fancy or tricky, a good explanation is always crucial not only for me as you judge but also for the other team. To be able to properly engage your opponent is crucial and that's what makes clash so important.

Topicality: If an aff is truly not topical, AND if you properly impact out T then you will win the round. That being said, you should be able to defend your interpretation as well as debate a c/i. Furthermore, if the aff drops T and the neg extends it and points it out with an impact, I will defer to Tech. v. Truth in the round.

Theory: If there is any abuse in round and you properly point it out with a clear explanation, I will vote on it. That being said, Tech v. Truth still applies here. Always explain your violation and why its a voter.

Technical Things: You should always be flowing, if you don't flow and or care about your round, how do you think I am going to react as I have to sit and evaluate what you present to me. Time your own speeches and prep, but I will still keep the main time. If you steal prep and I catch you I will dock speaks, so don't steal prep.

Remember, Debate is a technical game that has a winner and a loser. Please be respectful to both me and your opponents. This activity means a lot to me, so you should be respectful as to not put down or even have someone quit debate. This is without saying, but if you are disrespectful you'll see it in your speaks, and comments, no matter if you won or lost.

Hannah Foster Glenbrook North 5 rounds

Trip Griffin Von Steuben 5 rounds

Last changed on Fri August 14, 2020 at 11:50 AM EDT

Top Level:

Zero Risk is real but you need to be slaying them.

I care a lot about evidence quality and argument quality. An argument needs a claim, a warrant, and an implication. Cards should not be mistagged if they drop some trash claim that isn't supported by the evidence then they didn't drop anything they just ignored your garbage. I would prefer that teams don't ignore garbage, but appropriately call it out as garbage, and quickly explain why it is irrelevant.

Rules: This is taken from Ev No, and pretty much sums up how I feel: "No discrimination, sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc. Ask for and respect the pronouns of everyone in the room. Feel free to inform me before the round if you need accommodations. I try to keep the round a safe place. I will not hesitate to pause the round to call out/rectify an unsafe/unsavory situation and vote down or reduce speaks of the offending party, but fortunately that kind of thing is rare. I will entertain almost any argument, but if it's somehow offensive (e.g. minority needs to be kept out of the country, women are naturally inferior, etc.), I will need good reasons/framework to actually vote on it."

I ask that you:

- Be polite

- Do Line by Line

- Frame my ballot

- Engage the affirmative

- Be clear

- Signpost

- Have tags contain argument (ie not "Extinction")

Absent arguments for why I shouldn't, these are the positions I default to:

Presumption -- Neg

Judge Kick -- No

Consequentialism -- Good

Risk -- Probability x Magnitude

Unnecessary Suffering and Death -- Bad

Future Lives -- Irrelevant

Fairness -- Good and can be articulated as either an impact or an internal link

Demands of the state -- Arent affirming the state

Specific Arguments:

Kritiks: If your only link is one of omission or the state please do not read it. Reps K's are awesome. I feel pretty inclined to weigh the aff vs the alt, but K tricks do exist. Alternatives aren't required, but usually, without them, it's hard to win absent a robust push on framework. If you are nontraditional, tell me how I should evaluate your performance. I am a really good judge for specific kritiks, but if you are reading some backfile garbage I won't be happy. I am in general, more in the optimism camp then pessimism, but it's all good. I think the current meta of floating PIKS is garbage so here's what I have to say: If you flag your alternative as one in the 1NC, I won't vote on floating PIKS bad, because I think giving the 2AC the chance to answer it is fine. If you don't, I will be inclined to reject your Kritik. Not a big fan of Identity politics, but if you win it, you win it. On Debate is bad arguments, my beliefs can be summed up by this eloquent statement from Tim Freehan: "I do not like “debate is bad” arguments. I am not going to dwell too much on my reasoning, but, suffice it to say, the people who want to blow debate up certainly have no problems accepting their trophies and their TOC bids. It rings hollow to me." K affs with plan text are awesome.

DA: A well fleshed out disadvantage with comparative calculus is the cleanest way to win. DA/Case is my favorite 2NR. I get why it's necessary, but I hate the politics DA. If by the end of the block there isn't a specific link to the plan, it's probably too generic. Be comparative, and I care much more about the link and internal link than the impact. Make sure to leverage your internal link and utilize it to turn the affirmative. Thumpers are pretty neat.

CP: Consult/Condition needs a specific solvency advocate (ie Grand Bargain good, Consult NATO over Qatar just because its general arms control is bad). Otherwise, I believe that counterplans must compete at least functionally off the mandate of the plan. Textual competition can be debated. If you say your counterplan is competitive because you use the word ought I will be sad. Object Fiat is stupid. I am a fan of silly advantage counterplans. Having a card is not the same as having a solvency advocate.

T: Love it, especially vs policy affs. Good definitions and interpretations are great, but if you can beat them on T-Pearson good on you. Precision guides predictable limits and thus always comes first, unless your interp unlimits the topic. If you are an aff don't waste your time on reasonability, to some degree every judge will arbitrarily assign weight to each interp based on what they think is a reasonable vision of the topic, but I will try my best to avoid intervening. Also, remember that its the quality of affirmatives and aff ground that matters, not the quantity. Good judge for topicality.

Theory: Conditionality/Dispositionality (I don't really see how dispo is viable because against cheaty counterplans you don't have offence against its hard to win theory without also making a permutation to prove the counterplan isn't competitive) are usually the only reasons to reject the team, but I can be persuaded to stick a team with the counterplan or to drop somebody for Multiactor fiat.

Impact Turns: Yes. Read them. Seriously. Extinction is only good if its to save alien or animal life. However, if you suck at the impact turn and don't understand what you are reading and just throwing out cards, I will be sad.

Cesar Gutierrez Solorio Academy HS 5 rounds

Last changed on Wed April 7, 2021 at 4:47 PM CDT

Solorio ’21

Any pronouns are coolio.

cesargutierrez.email@gmail.com

If CPS: cgutierrez38@cps.edu

General:

Tech>Truth.

I'll usually vote on anything if well-articulated.

Impact calc is good.

Have fun.

Don't be a jerk.

Clarity over speed.

***Specifics***

Case:

Always important. I do think most teams nowadays are doing less of it. A good 2nr/2ar should always give me a story of what is happening and how I should evaluate it. Overviews are good... just don't forget the line by line. Tell me how the advantage interacts with the disad or kritik and what that means.

Disadvantages:

Love these. I always want a good thorough story of the DA [assume I don't know anything about it]. Turns case should always be there, tell me how your DA interacts with the aff [Don't just be like "Extinction turns the aff", tell me how your impact or Link specifically affects the aff. Blocks are good, just don't rely on them too much. I prefer impact analysis on top instead of an overview. Compare your cards to theirs, "Our card is more recent, qualified, etc...". Every part of the DA is important. You do have to win every part of the DA [Same for Advantages] If they drop a DA [or anything] don't just say "they dropped it", give me a reason why I should care, what does it mean that they dropped it, you get the picture. Link turns case is a really good argument.

Counterplans:

CP and DA is always a good move. Adv cp + impact turn = my fave. You do have to win the net benefit. Won’t vote on a Counterplan without it. 100 planks? Of course. Agent Counterplans are amazing, just make sure to establish competition. Love Pics, the aff does have to win the entire Plan is a good idea. Always remember to answer theory on the CP. Explain how you access the aff's internal links and do the work. Competition determines legitimacy for CPs - if a CP is a legitimate opportunity cost to the aff, aff theory arguments are a bit less persuasive to me.

Topicality:

If you do go for it make sure it's a full 5 minutes. None of this T, CP, and Disad nonsense. Impact out both your standards and theirs. Give me reasons to prefer reasonability and competing interps. Probably need examples of in-round abuse. ASPEC is pure banter. Just don't drop it 2as.

Theory:

This is always an important part of the debate. 3 condo is probably the max. Prove to me why rejecting the team is necessary. If you have to think "is this counterplan shady/cheating". It probably is.

Kritiks:

I find them interesting, explain your theory of power, philosophy, etc. Explain the alt very clear, and how it resolves the impact to the K. I am most familiar in the following, Cap/Neolib, Security, Settler Colonialism, Ableism. Links specific to the aff are amazing. [It has to be why the aff links and not the squo]. Long overviews? Sure why not but don’t just read it and be like “Line by line, done above, done above, done above”. Framework is important, don't undercover this in rebuttals. The vague alt argument isn't very convincing unless made iffy in CX. The alt needs to solve case, establish root cause claims. Not my Baudrillard < Yes, its your Baudrillard.

K Affs:

"Good luck to you" - Conor Cameron 2019.

Misc:

Roadmaps [This is copied from Argent Martinez’s paradigm who copied it from John Tao's paradigm—I agree with them both]

Please. There are four things I've been seeing that drive me absolutely insane - and apparently there's enough for me to even write about it.

1) Roadmapping the 1AC. Don't do it. It's not necessary. It's not a thing.

2) Asking if I want a roadmap. The answer is YES. The answer is always YES (with the exception of the 1AC, because, once again, don't do it).

3) 1NC roadmap - just tell me how many off, and then where you plan on going on. Don't tell me what the Off cases are, that's not necessary.

4) Roadmap by being clear and concise: "DA, K, Case in order of solvency then advantage one." Do not roadmap: "I'm going to go a little bit on solvency, and then maybe the K...and if I have time maybe the DA...."

Important:

Don't be a douchebag. If you are ableist, sexist, racist, etc. I will vote you down on the spot.

Matty Heublein Glenbrook South HS 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 7, 2020 at 9:47 AM CDT

Matthew Heublein

Debated for Glenbrook South High School for 4 years (2016-2020)

Attending Northern Illinois University -- Majoring in Political Science and Minoring in Philosophy

2N for 3 years, 2A for 1 year

Email for chains: mattyheublein@gmail.com

A friend of mine recently told me that I should change my paradigm to describe how I think within debate rounds rather than what arguments I am comfortable with so I'll do my best to describe that here:

Notes for Michigan 2020

Please be slower -- I know it isnt to your benefit but I'd rather you be clear than have me not knowing what you said because tech makes things indistinguishable

Always add me to the chain (its above)

Limited tech time at the beginning if need be -- try to be prompt

If its clear that you know your stuff by sounding confident virtually, youre probs getting higher speaks

TOP LEVEL

I will evaluate any debate with the least amount of intervention possible under the idea of "who has done the better debating" using whatever guidelines the debaters set up for me.

AFF v K

I've read into a lot of different literature bases so I most likely will be able to keep up with whatever argument you choose to defend. If I had a preference for how you should debate the K, I think that you should avoid a massive overview with the impact work and spend more time on the link debate and explaining your impacts there instead. Debating framework in front of me is a must win if you are trying to win the K, and the more in depth you get about how I should evaluate each argument, the better off you'll be. Framework "moot the aff" doesn't normally sit too well with me (I do think the AFF should have something to weigh against a competitive alternative), but if you are killing it on the tech level, I will be convinced. Explain the alt and how it would be implemented (it makes it easier on everyone so just do it). Floating PIKs are fine with me; fiat is illusory args have never sat well with me but if you win them on a technical level, Ill vote for you.

Kritikal AFFs v Topicality

If I do find myself in these debates, I can be persuaded in either direction (although I lean towards T). To be completely honest, I do think there is a lot of aspects within T arguments that are persuasive against K AFFs. Most impact level analysis arguments will be more persuasive in my mind if coupled with a reasonable way to hedge back the aff offense. Arguments about "our aff is important" can easily be won by the neg if you are winning TVA or Switch Side. Case debate must be won if you are trying to win T. Other than any of that, I will vote either way based on who debated better.

Thoughts on DA

The more specific your link is, the more likely I vote neg.

Impact out your args compared to that of the aff -- teams that do this better will most likely swing my risk assessment in their favor

Thoughts on CP

Competition is important

Permutations must be explained -- if there isn't a picture of how advocacies would interact, then I will not simply just vote on "Perm do both." That also means that you should have somewhat of that description in the 2AC.

Taken from Val McIntosh because I couldn't agree more -- I think that CPs should have to be policy actions. I think this is most fair and reciprocal with what the affirmative does. I think that fiating indefinite personal decisions or actions/non-actions by policymakers that are not enshrined in policy is an unfair abuse of fiat that I do not think the negative should get access to. For example: the CP to have Trump decide not to withdraw from NAFTA is not legitimate, while the CP to have Trump announce that a policy that he will not withdraw from NAFTA would be.

Thoughts on T

Competing Interps are good

Limits are good. That is all.

Thoughts on theory

I will pretty much evaluate anything here as long as you impact it out and refute their warrants for offense/defense on the violations

Thoughts on evidence

In the wise words of DHeidt "Evidence quality matters. A lot of evidence read by teams this year is underlined in such a way that it's out of context, and a lot of evidence is either badly mistagged or very unqualified."

If you misrepresent or clip evidence, you lose.

Other Random Thoughts

If your aff doesn't have a solvency advocate, I will have a hard time buying a deficit on an neg advocacy because I probs will have a hard time thinking you met your burden of proof against your opponents args.

Give me pen time please

Extra .5 speaks if you insert a card from a GBS FH aff at the bottom of the doc.

Meme about GBS HR SPARK debates and you're also getting boosted speaks.

Jonathan Horowitz South Shore International College Prep 5 rounds

Last changed on Tue April 9, 2024 at 10:47 AM CDT

Hi. I debated at Glenbrook North HS in Northbrook for 4 years, 1.5 in policy and 2.5 in LD. I was the LD coach at Loyola Blakefield HS in Baltimore for 3 years followed by being the debate coach for Chicagoland Jewish HS in Deerfield, IL, New Trier HS in Winnetka/Northfield, IL, Bronx Science, Beacon HS in Manhattan, the director of debate at Mamaroneck HS in Mamaroneck, NY and currently the director of debate at South Shore International College Prep in Chicago. I've also worked at multiple debate camps and have been a private coach for multiple debaters. Trust me, I've seen it all.

Last updated 4/9/24. Changed some words and added my judge kick stance.

I'm fine being on email chains but I'm not posting my email publicly. Just ask before the round.

General stuff:

I will vote on any argument, in any weighing mechanism provided. I do not discriminate, I'm find with speed (though sometimes my flowing can be bad), fine with theory, fine with kritiks, whatever you want to do. It's your round, not mine have fun with it.

-Extensions are key! Every extension needs to have the word extend/pull through the flow/or similar wording attached to it. Then it needs to have a warrant for what is being extended, finally the extension needs an impact back to the weighing calculus. If that is the value/value criterion mechanism then it needs to impact back to the VC that is being used for the round. If that is some other mechanism, it needs to be impacted to that weighing mechanism (theory means voters I guess). That weighing mechanism and the warrants for the mechanism should be extended (In a v/vc model the vc should be extended along with the argument). If these things are not done then the arguments will not be evaluated in the same depth and I might not give you credit, or as much credit, for an argument that you may have clearly won on the flow. I guess in simpler terms I have a high threshold for extensions. Also, when extending please extend along with the warrant please compare your arguments to other arguments. The best extensions are not just argument extensions but have comparative weighing along with the arguments.

-Evidence is not inherently preferable for analytics absent some argument for why I should prefer that specific piece of evidence over a generic analytic. Debaters are smart and well researched on the topic (usually) and so should be able to have a command of what is going on equal to/greater than a lot of experts. Trust yourself and talk about why you are correct instead of some rando newspaper writer who has probably done less research than what goes into the typical 1AC.

- WEIGH! One of the things I'm almost always unsure of after a round is which argument to evaluate first. Do I look to the Disad, the spike, the contention 1? Most debate rounds involve multiple arguments that could "come first" and people telling me the order in which to evaluate arguments and which arguments are more important makes my life easier. It also means you'll be more likely to win because the argument that you're saying is most important/comes first is probably also the one that you're winning the most. WEIGH! Seriously WEIGH!

On Non-T affs:

You ought pretend to be topical. Topicality means different things to different people and I think that the topic and what topicality means can change in debate and in different debates. However, the aff should claim that they are talking about the topic. What the topic means to you and how it functions might be different than the "traditional" method and that's fine! How you make that claim or whether that claim is true can be (and should be!) contested in the round.

- Other thing: It has become very clear since 10/7/23 that settler-colonialism justifies mass atrocities. I will vote against it much as I vote against people who say or uphold racist/sexist/homophobic or other harmful ideologies.

- Feel free to come up to me at any tournament and ask me questions about anything, I can't guarantee you a great answer but I can guarantee that I will try to respond.

LD Paradigm:

Things I've noticed about my preferences for debate: (This is just a list of things I like, none of these are necessary to win a round but they do affect my judging)

- I tend to prefer debaters who debated similarly to how I debated. What does this mean? I debated in an old school national circuit LD style. On the aff that meant a very broad criterion with mutually exclusive contentions that I tried to kick out of as much as possible (usually at the end of the 2AR, I had one contention and maybe framework). On the neg, it meant a short NC, no more than 2 minutes, with extensive analytical responses to the aff. While it might not help you win the round, debate has changed a lot, it will help your speaker points.

- I like a 2AR that isn't on the flow. What does this mean? The 2AR should be more of a story speech that merely references the flow. A lot of weighing/crystallizing or time on voting issues.

-I like even/if stories. They tend to make the round clearer and make my life easier.

-LD debaters need to stop saying "we" when referring to themselves. You are a singular human being and not one half of a partnership. If you say "we" while referring to yourself you will lose 0.1 speaker points. I will also interrupt your speeches to ask "who is we?" Be prepared.

-I'm a leftist politically. Property rights arguments and other capitalist arguments are not particularly persuasive to me and I don't like hearing them. That doesn't mean I won't vote on them, it just means if you have something else it's probably a good idea to run it.

-I presume coinflip. That means if I can't find any offense or way to vote I will flip a coin to decide the round. I have done this quite a few times and never want to do it again but I'm not afraid to do it and if I think your round warrants it, a coinflip will happen. (That said the only times I've done it has been in rounds where there have been on offense by either side so as long as offense exists I will not flip a coin).

-I like philosophy, I am a philosophy major. That said I'm not good at flowing it, especially when spread at the beginning of the speech. So if you do read philosophy slow down a little bit so that I can catch your arguments.

-Going off that last point, my major is in continental philosophy; which means I take classes on all those critical authors you've wanted to use in rounds. Kritiks are wonderful! If you know what are you talking about, please run them in front of me. Ks do not need an alt, though it is preferable. Make sure to understand the interactions between your position and the position of what your opponent is running.

- Please start the AC/NC with I affirm/I negate. It doesn't take away from your word economy and it gives me a second to "catch up" and get used to your spreading/debating voice so that I don't miss your first argument. You don't need to re-state the resolution though, that's unnecessary.

-Something most debaters forget is that as a judge I do not look to see what you are reading while you are reading it. I don't read the cards on the email chain until after the round. Therefore, be more specific in signposting then off the Martin card 1..2..3 etc. Don't just say Martin, say what Martin said as well, because I might not have gotten the author name Martin but I got the argument they made. Also, be clear about where Martin is on the flow. If Martin is a contention 1 card, say that she is in contention 1. Virtual/Computer debate note: I do ask to be on the email chain but I don't read the cards on the chain until after the round so this still applies.

- Policy style arguments have started to come more and more into LD and people like running them in front of me. That's fine, I really like them. However, if you are running them you also take on policy-style burdens. For example, if you read a plan then you have to fulfill the 4 criteria of the HITS (if you don't know what that is, you shouldn't be running a plan. Also, considering the last person to lose on significance was Tom Durkin in the 1978 NDT, significance doesn't matter anymore). Most importantly, is that policy has a status quo whereas LD does not. That means that you need to orally give me the dates of evidence! If you're running a DA I need to know that the uniqueness is actually unique, if it's a plan that the inherency is actually inherent etc. Evidence without dates on it means that I won't give you credit for uniqueness or inherency claims that you need in the debate round. If your opponent points out that you didn't read those dates then I will give zero credit for any uniqueness/inherency claim and assume that your evidence is from 1784 and take away any offense that is based off of that plan/DA (I will also give said opponent at least a 29). So make sure to tell me those dates!

- I've recently read A LOT of social movement theory and have also been actively been involved in crafting strategy for a social movement. This has made me significantly more wary of most kritik alternatives. Kritik alts either make no sense, are not realistic, would never be adopted by wide ranging social movements, or are actively harmful to spreading social movements. It won't change how I vote, if the alt is won, but it does mean that common sense arguments against K alts will be considered more important. But if you look at my earlier stuff from Ks you'll see that I don't even think an alt needs to be read, so, you know, think about that risk.

- A priori/pre-standards arguments/other tricky-esque nibs. If you are losing everything else on the flow I need a reason to uniquely prefer your 3 sentences over the rest of the flow. If that does not happen I will find it very hard to vote for you over somebody else who is winning the rest of the round. Not that I won't evaluate the argument at all it will just be weighed against the rest of the round and if someone else is winning the rest of the round I will vote for the person winning the majority of the round. In simpler words if you go for an a priori, go for it hard. I'm not going to buy it simply because it is dropped.

- Metaethics. Basically, meta-ethics cannot be used as a "magic wand" to get out of framework debate. You still need to provide an ethic to meet your meta-ethic. Just saying my meta-ethical util comes before your ethical deont haha! is not enough. Language might be indeterminate but that doesn't mean we default to util (or deont) unless it's justified.

Since everybody asks me about how I evaluate theory here it is:

I don't mind theory, I will vote on it and I will vote on it in cases where I think no actual abuse has occurred or even times where the argument itself is patently non-abusive. But before you rush to pull out your three theory shells, I really don't like voting on it. Moreover, of all the decisions where people have argued with me after the round, 2/3 of them are because of theory. My paradigm seems to be different than other judges so I would say run theory at your risk. Now of course you're asking why is my paradigm different? Simple because I don't default to a monolithic competing interpretations framework, you don't need a counter-interp/RVI/etc. to win theory (though it is helpful and in a case of offense vs. no offense I'm going to default to offense). I'm not as technical on theory as other judges, simply saying my argument is not abusive, drop the argument not the debater, or even talking about reasonability will probably be enough to convince me to not vote on theory. In other words, I default to reasonability, though will be persuaded otherwise. Also, in a round between two equal theory debaters or even a round where both debaters have competent theory blocks, theory turns into a crapshoot (which, by the way, is most theory rounds) so while I will do my best to sort through it that doesn't mean my decision won't be somewhat random.

Also, I guess most LD judges don't evaluate theory this way so I should point this out. If you only go for theory in the NR/2NR or 2AR then the affirmative/negative does not need a RVI to win the theory debate because the only offense at the end of the round is on theory which means that I am merely evaluating who did the better theory debating and not worrying about substance at all. The RVI only comes into play if there is a contestation of substance AND theory at the end of the debate.

Policy Paradigm:

I will vote on any argument, in any weighing mechanism provided. My main philosophy is it's your round not mine so do what you want. I think a lot of how I judge policy is probably transferred from LD so look there for good stuff. One caveat to that, if there is something that seems very specific to LD (like saying "we" for example) do not bring that into a policy context.

Obviously I have some caveats for that:

First and foremost is that LD is most of what I've debated and coached. Though policy kids have this outdated version of what LD is, there is now every argument in policy in LD also with extra stuff too! I am fine with speed etc. Don't worry about that but I'm still a LDer at heart so be prepared. I've been mostly coaching policy since 2018 or so meaning that I've caught on to a lot more of the nuances of policy debate. At this point I coach more policy than LD so this is changing.

The other important take away is that social conventions of what you can and cannot do in LD and policy are slightly different. For example, RVIs in LD are not joke arguments but made in almost any theory round (though I don't like RVIs in policy). LD does not have the concept of overviews in the same way as policy and what is considered "line by line" is very different. I've been able to figure out most of these biases but occasionally I'll mess up. Just be aware.

I default to reasonability on T and theory issues.

I don't know why this has become a thing but apparently people don't say AND or NEXT after finishing cards in the 1AC or 1NC. You still need to do that so that I know when to flow.

I just learned what this term means but apparently I judge kick if that matters to you (and I think I'm understanding the term correctly)

Utilitarianism is moral philosophy that evaluates the morality of actions based on the consequences. This means that small scale/structural violence impacts are utilitarian because we care about the consequence of structural violence. Stop saying these arguments are not utilitarian or answering them as if they are not utilitarian. They are.

Griffin Jacobs Glenbrook South HS 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat December 17, 2022 at 1:44 AM CDT

minnesota 25

yes email chain - one.griffin.jacobs@gmail.com

top line//tldr

i will always vote for the team that does the better debating, you do not need to tell me to vote for the team that does the better debating. both teams can argue about what "the better debating" means but i will always vote for the team that does the better debating

i will try to evaluate the debate in the way that the debaters have prioritized arguments - i will look for the easiest way out of deciding a debate and go from there - this makes impact framing and judge instruction very important for me

depth > breath - this is the most important thing on my paradigm. i think that any given team needs a maximum of 3 pieces of offense to win any given round and should explain why they're winning that/those argument(s) and why it means they win the round extensively. more than 6 offcase will make me grumpy, although i will still listen to all of them

tech > truth - having truth on your side is obviously good and will win the round when the flow is close but debate is about your ability to debate, not about your ability to read objectively true arguments

evidence quality > quantity - most arguments don't need cards - if you are reading evidence, make sure it is specific and warranted - if you cannot explain the warrants in your cards, i will give them far less weight - author qualifications mean a lot less to me than warrants

i have a debate level understanding of whatever kind of literature you're planning on reading unless you're being truly innovative

STOP MISUSING ONTOLOGY CLAIMS - ontology is important, but almost zero actual qualified authors will say that ontology means that nothing good can ever happen - aff teams vs the k need to make this point more.

i will assume util is trutil until told otherwise

i really really really really really strongly dislike arguments that require me to make a judgment call on whether or not one team or debater is a good person/good people - if something is so egregious that a team should be disqualified from a round or tournament either i will directly intervene before the round ends or you should take it up with the tournament and the other team's coaches

the case debate

i know it is cliché - but this is very important! - do not assume i know what your aff is/does, this makes the 2ac/2ar overview crucial

i am probably a better judge for presumption than most - most aff teams need to make massive stretches in order to solve the impacts they specify in the 1AC - this is why i generally prefer affs with specific and solvable impacts

i'm super down for impact turns - everything from co2 ag to china war good to wipeout is cool with me as long as it's explained well

disadvantages

disads don't always need uniqueness - if the impact is framed as a sliding scale, the link can definitely overcome uniqueness problems

impact framing matters a lot - most teams in a DA debate will agree to magnitude x probability - if both teams agree to this framing timeframe is the tiebreaker

i love internal link defense - a lot of teams surprisingly don't do this that much - most DA internal link scenarios are ridiculous and some well warranted defenses to them are quite persuasive to me

politics da's - i will usually default to thinking that durable fiat doesn't solve them because you only fiat enough congress members to pass the plan - i am however persuaded by non-normative interpretations of fiat that allow aff teams to avoid politics da's (like should =/= immediate) - i am fine for political capital links as long as you have specific evidence

counterplans

functional > textual competition - i think there are ways to explain textual competition as functional competition (especially with courts counterplans with specific evidence), however i generally find textual competition unpersuasive

sufficiency framing unless the aff team makes arguments that contradict this - i will generally assume that if a risk of the net benefit outweighs the risk of the solvency deficit, i will vote negative on the cp

theory (except for condo) is probably a reason to reject the argument, not the team

topicality/procedurals

precision is generally the gold standard unless community consensus heavily contradicts it and makes debate near impossible

i like it when t blocks are specific to the topic - case lists of what you allow/what they justify and listing off ground lost is good

effects and extra t arguments are under utilized and pretty important - especially because they're the only real way of snuffing out questionably topical affs that destroy debatability and limits

non resolutional procedurals are cringe but obviously if this is your thing still go for it, especially if it's dropped

kritiks

specific links to the mechanism of the aff are always best but if you only have generic cards, application and explanation specific to the aff will be enough to win a pretty big risk of the link

the alt really needs to solve the links - otherwise i will view the k as a mostly non-unique linear da - this is still winnable but makes it unnecessarily harder for the neg

framework is obviously important - i see the framework debate on a k from the neg more similarly to a framework debate against a k aff more than most, it's a debate about models of debate - this is why i'm generally less receptive to "you link, you lose" framework arguments, especially when the neg is making a sweeping ontology claim, it really leaves no role for the aff

2nr framing and link storytelling is crucial

the alt can result in or solve the aff without losing to the perm - but it requires a more nuanced link and alt explanation - usually about sequencing/framing or solving the internal links of the aff, but not resulting in its mechanism

kritik affirmatives

these are by far the worst and best debates

i am a fine judge for framework/t-usfg - however i will say that i would prefer you do literally anything else besides going for a procedural fairness impact - obviously, if you win it, i'll vote for you, but i will be incredibly grumpy about it - clash and education are far better impacts and allow you to have turns case warrants

if you do choose to go for framework/t-usfg - you really need to be going to the case page in the 2nr - otherwise you're just kind of gifting the aff full solvency and their impact turns which makes it infinitely easier for the aff

for aff teams - i think there are really only 2 strategic ways to debate framework - either impact turn everything and ignore the topic or just be a hard left topical aff - i am increasingly confused by k teams that do this "we're half topical" nonsense because it makes it much harder for you to solve your impact turns while still linking you to all of their framework offense

"the state is an assemblage" is not a real argument

1ac cross-x is crucial - i think every 2n should be asking "what is the role of the negative?" and "what is the relationship between the aff and solving 1ac impacts?" and every 1a should have a well prepared answer to these

i think that a lot of kritical affs have inherency issues and that these very often justify a presumption ballot

pics are often very strategic against critical affirmatives - especially ones that affirm something incredibly sweeping and broad

i love kvk debates - links need specificity though - links along the lines of "you didn't mention/analyze *x*" are incredibly unpersuasive to me - i love the cap k but if your link is "you didn't use the state" i will be quite annoyed

"no perms in a method/tactics debate" is a pretty sound argument to me, especially because it's one of the only ways to garner competition against k affs - competition should be established in cx tho

Noah Jacobs Glenbrook North 5 rounds None

Sam Kahan-Harth Oak Park and River Forest 5 rounds

Last changed on Mon September 6, 2021 at 11:25 AM CDT

He/Him/His, call me Sam

OPRF 2021, Iowa 2025

Put me on the email chain - oprfsk@gmail.com

I debated at OPRF for four years running mostly policy arguments. I no longer debate, having decided to try out a novel concept called "free time". Weird, I know. That being said, debate did a lot for me as a person and I'm incredibly glad that I did it, and I think that judging is a great way to stay involved with an awesome community and make sure that new generations also get to have that life changing experience!

Do whatever's the most fun for you. Don't be a dick. Don't be a bigot. Don't clip cards. Tech over truth.

Make smart arguments. Read good cards. Compare evidence. Do line-by-line. Speed is all good.

If an argument isn't on my flow it wasn't made. That means probably send analytics and definitely slow down when you read them. If you're extrapolating a new argument from an old argument, make that clear in the round, I won't do the work for you.

If I think a piece of evidence is relevant to the debate, I will probably read it. If you tell me that a piece of evidence is relevant and that I should read it, I will definitely read it. That being said, the only parts of your card that are relevant are the parts you read. Yes, this means you have to read rehighlightings. I will treat insertions as analytics.

I know nothing about the topic. I did not go to camp or judge for a camp. I might google the resolution at some point but don't count on it.

From the paradigm of the one and only Sam Shafiro:

"I put substantial effort into evaluating every debate I judge to the best of my ability. That being said, the following is a ranking from most to least of my average confidence in evaluating each type of debate: DA/CP/Case Turn v Policy Aff, T v Policy Aff, K v Policy Aff, T/FW/DA v K Aff, K v K Aff."

Be funny. I like it when people are funny, it makes debates less boring.

K Affs:

-Is fairness an impact? Let me know! Debate!

-The safest was to go about explaining the theory of your K to me is by assuming that I have no familiarity with your lit base, even if you're pretty sure that I must have some.

-I'm sympathetic to a lot of T/FW arguments but I'll vote for whoever wins the flow. My job is to evaluate the arguments that are made and I try to do just that, but I think it's important to acknowledge my opinions because they exist whether I like it or not.

-I think DAs vs K affs are dope. Once again, my ballot is still dependent upon you winning said DA.

-I will flow your long overviews, but I won't like it. Put it on the line-by-line.

-I think T debates can be a lot of fun to have (even if they're almost never fun to judge). The way it was always explained to me is to debate T like a disad, where the violation is your link, the definition is your uniqueness, and the impacts are your standards.

-Yes I made a joke about not knowing what the resolution is, but if it comes down to a T debate I promise to make sure that I'm informed on the relevant background information that you would assume a competent judge to have in such a scenario. Translated, this means I'll pull up the resolution of google.

-Do lots of impact work. Make it very clear to me why your vision of the topic is better for debate than you opponents. Make me see that world. Too often teams get stuck in the specifics and fail to describe the bigger picture. Trust me, I lost more than one round because of it.

DA:

-Love me a good politics DA. That being said, politics DAs are stupid as hell. You need to tell me why yours isn't. Run your ridiculous politics scenarios, but only if you can make them make sense to me (and have the evidence to back it up).

-Do impact calc. It's important.

- On the aff, use your case against the DA. You have 8 minutes of 1AC cards on why your case is a good idea, extend them. If you read a framing contention, this does not mean you can drop their DAs impacts. Apply the cards you read on framing specifically to their scenario with more specific impact d. Is that more trouble than its worth? Probably, but you're the one who decided to read a soft left aff.

-Rider disads are probably illegitimate but I can be convinced otherwise.

CP:

-Solvency advocates are important, the more specific the better. This means that planks are awesome only so long as you have solvency advocates to defend them.

-Should I judge kick? Let me know! Debate!

-Be consistent with your perm explanations

-See T for what I think about theory

-See DAs for "use your 1AC cards"

-No neg fiat and other such inane theory arguments are pretty much only ever something I will vote on if they're dropped

-I used to be a big hater of the process counterplan but I've come to appreciate them, so long as they have (you guessed it) a solvency advocate. To be specific, that means a solvency advocate that is at least either in the context of the topic or the aff (looking at you concon).

-I'll probably end up evaluating both the aff and the K unless the framework flow is overwhelmingly in one direction

-See K affs for some thoughts, particularly regarding lit bases and long overviews

-A specific link to the plan will help you immensely here, the more specific the better.

Run what you want, have fun.

jude kintner Niles West High School 5 rounds

Maggie Lin New Trier High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Mon October 14, 2019 at 10:22 AM CDT

Fourth year debater at New Trier. Feel free to refer to me as judge, Maggie, whatever.

My email is margklindebate@gmail.com. Please add me to the email chain.

Feel free to ask me any questions before round or in email form about this paradigm and I will try to respond to you as quickly as possible. If you have a question about a technicality (i.e., what is judge-kick?)— you may also ask me those questions before round or through email.

bold = tl;dr most important things

General Things:

Before anything else, run what you like. I would like to see good debating. If you’re reading some K your varsity gave you that you have no idea what you’re doing with because you think it fits my paradigm, stop.

This is a very long and specific paradigm. That is for the sake of debaters who want to supplement/tailor arguments to the round. These are NOT standards by which I toss or pick winning arguments, they’re insubstantial biases that come into play when I thought both sides debated too equally to otherwise decide.

If you are offensive in any way to any person w/i or outside the debate, I will dock your speaker points massively.

Please do not attempt to get an advantage in any questionable ways, including: being a suck-up to the judge, deliberately making speech docs confusing, etc. It’s not cute

Also, new thought: if you are a male-female partnership and you decide to constantly speak over your female partner even when she's doing okay explaining things I will tell you to screw off in the middle of round, give you a 25, and will not be inclined to vote in your favor in the case of close debating. K thx

Good luck!

General Argumentation:

I won't cross-apply/judge-kick, etc for you unless you tell me to. If you make an argument on the DA that’s an obvious reason why the perm can’t happen, you’re still going to have to go to the perm and say “cross apply — from the DA.”
If your cards don’t say what you say they say, I generally disregard your argument.
My facial expressions are fairly readable. If I look like I’m confused, I probably am. More explanation please.
Open CX is fine. But please try to keep it to a minimum.
If you happen to be crazy fast for a novice, slow down on the analytics/space them out.
If any novice actually says in the 2NR that they’ll tell me what my ballot will look like and proceeds to ACTUALLY CLEARLY TELL ME WHY THEY WON MY BALLOT, automatic 30 points.

I’m not a huge fan of T but will absolutely vote on it.
My usual problem with T lies within really cheaty and unreasonable interpretations; if you read the interpretation that arms sales is only Ukraine, I’m going to be really skeptical and you’re going to have to do some pretty good “prefer it” work to get me to vote on it.
Please give me a stasis point. Otherwise I probably default that you’re shifting the goalposts. If you give me a caselist I will give you speaker points.
Given equal debating, I tend aff on T.

Theory:

I’m pretty good for framework against a planless aff (because apparently novices are reading those?); the aff should not just win that their k is NOT abusive, but also that there’s some offensive reason why it is good. Aff’s likelihood to win T also increases if they are tied to the topic of the year instead of just some generic Baudrillard crap.
I tend to buy that debate is a game. But I believe that argument can be counteracted by well-explained and reasonable in-round impacts, i.e. the ballot is a tool to get us to more debates to spread our education.
No one has good blocks for ASPEC, OSPEC, ZSPEC, etc. If I ever see a good debate on random-letter-SPEC, I… don’t know what to say. I don’t think I’m qualified to judge that kind of debater.
I think condo is a little unnecessary if the Neg is reading like three off but will vote on it.
Given equal debating, I tend neutral on theory.

If it’s top ten hits of policy oriented teams trying to garner kritikal offense (Security! Setcol!) I probably know what it is. If not, please explain it.
Explain your alt to me and why it solves!! If I don’t know what we’re doing to solve capitalism, I’m much less likely to vote neg. I also tend to go aff on the likelihood that just pedagogy doesn’t work. With me, you’re probably better off reading a “grassroots movements” alt than “we create a pedagogy against capitalism.” Pedagogy is fine too if well-argued.
LINK WORK. If you do not prove to me that the aff will lead to some perpetuation of what you critique, I tend to think the perm probably solves. If not properly addressed by the aff, I will vote on omission/our-epistemology-is-an-independent-voter links but I think a good K should always have a better link than “you didn’t talk about capitalism lol.”
Aff-wise I, again, love good perm debates! I think if the aff team addresses the links well and also extends their perm then they're already pretty set to win.
If you lose framework, I don’t think it’s the end of the world. Yes I will weigh the aff, but I will also weigh the K. UNLESS the aff wins role of the judge, ballot, etc— I default to who tells me clearly how to place my ballot.
Given equal debating, I tend neutral on the K.

DA:

Almost as good as counterplan debates.
Obviously the more specific the link is, the better— having a good specific link is a great way to also get ahead on uniqueness from the very beginning of the debate (i.e., no thumpers)
I like “turns the aff” debates where the aff turns the DA back— these are particularly interesting and convincing to me if either team does some real work!!
Given equal debating, I tend neg on DAs.

CP:

I LOVE a good CP. However, super generic, copy-and-paste the plan text CPs bore me. I’ll vote on them, but I much prefer a counterplan that references a specific alternate process through which the aff can be enacted without much solvency deficit/even better.
I think if the aff wins on the net benefit they usually automatically win, but I also think if the neg wins on the net benefit they can generally outweigh a little solvency deficit.
I tend aff on PIC or other “cheaty” CP theory unless the actor you’re consulting/process you’re adding is well contextualized and specific to the aff.
Aff-wise, I’m most impressed by specific, well-explained, and card-supported perms.
Given equal debating, I tend neg on CPs.

Case:

The aff should know their case inside and out and properly contextualize it in every debate. Case on top ALWAYS. I want to hear about why I should vote for the one advocacy that this whole round should revolve around.
The less the neg answers case, the less likely I am to vote for them. If you don't have a case neg, please contextualize your offcase to the aff.
Given equal debating, I tend aff on case.

Speaker Points Disclaimer:

28-30 unless you're blatantly problematic (you don't care and your partner writes all your speeches, you're racist/homophobic/sexist, you treat the other team like crap and laugh or something during their speeches, etc.)

If you read this far and you’re a novice, I’m impressed. Some stuff for speaker points:

Show me your GOOD flow and I will give you +0.2.
If you make a FUNNY joke about a debater or coach from New Trier/that I know, I will add +0.1 to your speaker points.

Daniel Melero Solorio Academy HS 5 rounds

Charlie Monical Hire 4 rounds

Frank Murdock Hire

Last changed on Sun January 17, 2021 at 10:18 AM CDT

This Applies to Both Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum.

Make sure your case is clear!

While I may have some knowledge about the topic, I am not allowed to use any of that knowledge in a debate. Therefore, I need you to assume that I know nothing. Explain your argument to me as if you were explaining it to someone who is hearing about it for the first time.

Also give me a road map and sign posts. Let me know where you are going so that I can follow your argument as accurately as possible.

While I can typically keep up with fast speaking, I prefer professional and well-paced speaking that makes your point clear and concise. Quality is far more important than quantity. Hit your main points and emphasize the important points that you want me to reflect on when I am deciding whom to vote for.

Do not think that there is a "worse side of the argument." I do not vote based on preference on which side I agree with. The ballot goes to the side that presented their arguments the best, organized the best case, and addressed voting issues as well as all key arguments the best. My own beliefs and education are not used in my decision as to who will take the ballot.

Do not just spit facts, data, and research at me. Tell me why your argument is important. Why is your point more important than your opponents? What are the facts you are presenting supposed to mean to me?

You do not have to be "best-friends" with your opponents, but I expect an approach of professionalism and respect to your opponents. It is okay to be firm and aggressive, but not to the extent where you are being blatantly disrespectful.

I will not weigh points brought up in cross unless you bring it up again in one of your arguments. Cross-Examination is not your time to get information, you should be prepared and knowledgeable of the topic. Cross-Examination is your time to draw out the flaws in your opponent's case and get them to admit the flaws in their own argument. As a result, try to use close-ended questions rather than open-ended questions.

Pal Patel Niles West High School 5 rounds

David Peng New Trier High School 2 rounds

Lara Pick Glenbrook North 5 rounds

Bella Piekut Hire 5 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 1:30 PM CDT

maine east '21. emory '25.

put me on the chain: bellapiekutdebate@gmail.com

tldr:

- little to no topic knowledge.

- time yourself. i will forget. i'm not perfect.

- send analytics. if you're good, you don't have to win because they drop things.

- online debate is hard, but please try to be timely and efficient. i'd appreciate if you have your camera on, but i understand that's not possible for everyone. make sure you're clear. if my camera is off, make sure i'm there and ready for the speech.

- i don't like reading through card docs, but will if i have to or am told to. spin matters. i often find that my decision tends to differ from other judges because of this. evidence quality matters, but if neither team tells me what is wrong with the other team's evidence or why their evidence is good, I will not make that determination myself. there is a debate to be had about the quality of evidence, and I view it as interventionist to decide that myself.

- stolen from dani roytburg: "this is the only belief i hold that i allow to determine my ballot: i exclusively evaluate the arguments in a debate and on my flow. the only time where i might see myself making decisions about things debaters don't say occurs with either abysmally little clash or near-perfect debating on both sides."

- nothing pissed me off more as a debater than seeing paradigms that say "specific strategies = speaks boosted." yes, in-depth, specific strategies are valuable and will probably make the debate easier for the neg, but are impossible to prep against every aff for many teams, especially with the proliferation of new affs at end of the year tournaments. what matters most is your ability to contextualize whatever you're going for to the affirmative. that's something that not many teams do well, and should also be rewarded!

- i won't hesitate to stop the round if anything racist/homophobic/sexist/etc happens. please please please be nice and don't be arrogant or problematic. there's a difference between standing your ground and laughing at the other team's arguments.

ks:

- stolen from margaret hecht: "i am admittedly not the best judge for critical arguments. my issue isn't ideological, rather a lack of experience and research. i have no preferences for what you read, relation to the topic, etc., and will do my best to judge these debates, but please don't assume that i know the implication of historical examples and/or have a deep understanding of the literature base." run what you want and if you win the flow, i'll vote for you. that being said, pretend i don't know anything about it. explain it without buzzwords. stay away from long overviews. clash.

- you probably need an alt absent winning framework or strong case turns arguments. make sure the alt solves the links.

- weighing the plan is probably good, but i'll try to be objective about it. i find i vote aff most often when the neg doesn't articulate clearly what the world of their interpretation looks like or have sufficient defense against the aff's impacts.

- on the aff: going for impact turns/heg good/cap good/etc and extinction outweighs has a special place in my heart. or go for the perm, also a fan, just stick to a strat. you're not going to win no link against cap when you have an economy advantage.

k affs:

- never been in a k v k debate [other than going for the cap k which barely counts]. not sure if i'm confident making the correct decision [expect for cap or the other policy basics]. do what you want with this information.

- go for a da! even if it's heg! just clearly articulate the link. i'm more inclined to lean neg on the link debate if the aff clearly doesn't do anything.

- fairness is an impact and probably the best one, but the neg needs to explain it in a way that makes it one. also a fan of clash style impacts. other impacts will probably be not strategic and unpersuasive in front of me. tvas and ssd are not always necessary but usually are helpful. explain how it solves the aff's offense, don't just repeat it accesses their literature. case lists are very helpful, but make sure they're contextualized to the aff's interpretation.

- on the aff, i usually find impact turns most convincing. i tend to view limits/predictability/ground/etc as linear impacts, so going for defense isn't the best strat in front of me, but if it's done well you can totally win. I tend to vote neg when ssd or the tva is mishandled and there's not enough defense extended to the negative's impact or IL.

- i have little topic knowledge, so explain what your interpretation is to me like i'm a child. that being said, I've been thrown into a couple of t debates with little topic knowledge and found that the only real times this hinders me is in predictability debates when both teams insist their cards have topic experts without doing any comparisons or when each team spews case lists without explaining what those affirmatives are. i don't know what "new triers aff" is. explain.

- limits are very compelling, but predictability is probably the best impact. aff ground can totally win you the debate, but you have to do the work to make sure it outweighs whatever the neg's impact is. aff ground is most compelling when there's a structural reason the neg's interpretation makes it impossible to be aff [for example, no solvency deficits to agent cps or infinite pics existing] and when the aff is able to quantify and compare the magnitude of the ground lost to the magnitude of affs included under their interpretation. just saying you lose core of the topic affs means nothing and will ensure a negative ballot.

- like practically every judge, i default to competing interpretations, but mainly because people don't go for reasonability right. if you can do it, do it. contextualize your offense to the neg's interpretation. extend enough defense so that your interpretation is reasonable.

theory:

- don't spread through your blocks, clash!

- absent being dropped, the only reason to reject the team is probably condo. make sure to have clear offense, impact comparisons, and inroads to the other team's offense no matter which side of this debate you're on!

cps:

- cps that compete off of certainty or immediacy make me sad, but i understand they're necessary and have went for plenty myself.

- perm texts!!! write them!!! still, slow down in competition debates. i've been on both sides of these debates, but still get confused.

- sufficiency framing means practically nothing. spend your time explaining why there's no impact to the solvency deficit instead.

das:

- winning turns case is nice, but it's not always necessary [i also don't know why some people give it so much weight]. i would invest time on it if you're behind on case and need to mitigate it.

- don't forget about impact calc. i used to blow it off, but judging has made me realize that it's a lifesaver in close debates.

- i love a good politics debate, but storytelling and evidence quality will make or break it. for the aff, often times, I've found the weakest part of the DA and the part teams aren't prepared to defend is the internal link. although i understand the impulse to go for non-unique or thumpers, which are often strategic, don't be afraid to diversify your 2ar options.

- not much else to say. das are cool.

Nicole Piekut Hire 5 rounds

Last changed on Sun September 25, 2022 at 7:19 AM CDT

Maine East '21

Yale '25

medebatepiekut@gmail.com

Tech > truth

I am most comfortable with policy arguments, but will do my best to adjudicate the round based on the arguments presented in the speeches. Out debate the other team on your k and I will have no problem voting for you.

I am not familiar with the current topic and Yale will be the first tournament I judge this year. Make sure to include any explanations of things specific to your aff or about really niche parts of the topic. I think this is most important for T debates as I have no idea what topic consensus looks like, what affs are being run, how big the topic is, etc. Broad claims about how the topic is bad for one side or how some types of affs on the topic are trash will not be persuasive without detailed, warranted analysis. Be descriptive.

Don't like theory debates that much. Condo is the only reason to reject the team, but condo is probably good. However, solvency advocate theory, international fiat bad and object fiat bad are pretty persuasive reasons to reject the counterplan. Perms are probably your best bet against process counterplans.

Fairness is an impact on T-USfg (probably the best one), but is very difficult to explain well. Invest time in it. Utilize TVAs. I think the most persuasive strategy for K Affs against T-USfg is to impact turn the neg team's model. I usually don't find middle-of-the-road approaches with counterinterpretations very persuasive.

If your aff against the K, I find FW and util very convincing. Utilize your aff and impact turn the alt. If your neg and running the K, I think winning FW or that the links turn the aff is important. I think most alts are silly and don't do much (unless the aff team drops it or you win you can fiat away everything).

Politics DAs are inherently bad, but are necessary. They were a majority of my 2NRs in high school. Go for a clever ptx DA and read good evidence and I'll probably be happy and boost your speaks.

Sophie Rogoff Glenbrook North 5 rounds

Parth Shah Hire 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 6, 2024 at 7:57 AM EDT

pasdebate@gmail.com

Subject the email chain - Tournament Name Round # - Aff Team AFF vs Neg Team NEG

Debated at Maine East (2016-2020, TOC Circuit) and the University of Pittsburgh (2020-2023, NDT Qual)

I will boost speaker points if you follow @careerparth on tiktok, bring (vegetarian) food/snacks, and end the debate as fast as possible.

I took most of this paradigm from Reed Van Schenck:

Career wise, my arguments of preference were more critical (Afropessimism, Settler Colonialism, Capitalism, and the likes). I enjoy judging clash debates, policy vs critical. Traditional policy debaters should take note of my lack of experience in policy v policy debates and rank me very low on their judging preferences.

The one thing you should know if you want my ballot is this: If you say something, defend it. I mean this in the fullest sense: Do not disavow arguments that you or your partner make in binding speeches and cross-examination periods, but rather defend them passionately and holistically. If you endorse any strategy, you should not just acknowledge but maintain its implications in all relevant realms of the debate. The quickest way to lose in front of me is to be apprehensive about your own claims.

When in doubt, referring to the judging philosophies of the following folks will do you well: Micah Weese, Reed Van Schenck, Calum Matheson, Alex Holguin, & Alex Reznik

Everything below this line is a proclivity of mine that can be negotiated through debate:

I think that debate is a game with pedagogical and political implications. As such, I see my role as a judge as primarily to determine who won the debate but also to facilitate the debaters' learning. Everything can be an impact if you find a way to weigh it against other impacts, this includes procedural fairness. When my ballot is decided on the impact debate, I tend to vote for whoever better explains the material consequence of their impact. Use examples. Examples can help to elucidate (the lack of) solvency, establish link stories, make comparative arguments, and so many more useful things. They are also helpful for establishing your expertise on the topic. All thing said, at the end of the day, I will adapt to your argument style.

I dislike judges who exclude debaters because of what they decide to read in a debate round, I will NOT do that as long as you don't say anything racist, sexist, etc.

Speaker points are arbitrary. I tend to give higher speaker points to debaters who show a thorough understanding of the arguments they present. I am especially impressed by debaters who efficiently collapse in the final rebuttals. I will boost speaker points if rebuttals are given successfully with prep time remaining and/or off the flow!

Public Forum Debate

The faster you end the debate, the higher your speaks.

I am a flow-centric judge on the condition your arguments are backed with evidence and are logical. My background is in policy debate, but regardless of style, and especially important in PF, I think it's necessary to craft a broad story that connects what the issue is, what your solution is, and why you think you should win the debate.

I like evidence qualification comparisons and "if this, then that" statements when tied together with logical assumptions that can be made. Demonstrating ethos, confidence, and good command of your and your opponent's arguments is also very important in getting my ballot.

I will like listening to you more if you read smart, innovative arguments. Don't be rude, cocky, and/or overly aggressive especially if your debating and arguments can't back up that "talk." Not a good look.

Give an order before your speech

Nicole Sobski Hire 4 rounds

Lauren Sonnier Niles North High School 3 rounds None

Kyle Subade Glenbrook South HS 5 rounds

Markus Tam New Trier High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed December 18, 2019 at 6:21 AM CDT

Hi, I’m Markus Tam, and if you’re reading this, I’m probably judging your debate. Debate is what you make of it, and there are no invalid perspectives – it’s always important to respect your fellow debaters before anything else, even if you don’t agree with them (which will inevitably happen – this is debate, and we can touch on a lot of sensitive topics).

That being said, debate should not be about out-jargoning or out-crazying your opponent. You can still run Deleuze or Bataille or what have you, but none of it means anything unless you can explain it in your own, common-sense terms.

Understand the arguments you’re running above all else – even if there’s some t-interp, CP mechanism, or kritik you’ve heard is good or you think sounds smart, you’re going to have a hard time winning if you can’t explain it.

Evidence comparison is a good, yet underutilized skill in debate – a lot of people cut ev from sources which may exaggerate or misinterpret events because they are biased or not fully qualified – it’s always good to point that out.

Clash is important – explaining how your arguments interact with theirs shows you understand their arguments and can articulate specifically how yours affect/link to/turn theirs, which is how debate ideally should be. Or else it's just four people screaming "CASE OUTWEIGHS" and "BIOPOLITICS" at each other.

Truth over tech – any judge or coach who values technical skill over argumentative ability is doing their job wrong. Blippy taglines mean nothing unless you explain the warrants supporting them, and powertagged, offensive, or false evidence, once pointed out, no longer holds value.

Don't be an asshole – debate should be a constructive space of mutual kindness and respect. Usage of slurs towards and/or personal attacks on your opponents will result in the lowest possible speaker points and a conversation with your coach. Just being snotty or unnecessarily rude won't cost you the ballot, but it should cause you to look inwards and think about the kind of person you want to be. Do your actions reflect the arguments you preach in debate about rhetoric, inclusivity, real-world impacts, the greatest good, structural biases, etc?

Nico Tobon New Trier High School 2 rounds

Joel Uribe Solorio Academy HS 3 rounds

irene xu New Trier High School 2 rounds

ethan yoon Glenbrook South HS 5 rounds None

Login to Tabroom

The Regatta

2020 — Park Ridge, IL, IL/US

Novice Policy Paradigm List

Judges