46th University of Pennsylvania Tournament
2021 — Philadelphia / Online, PA/US
Policy Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
UPDATED 2/21/20: I do not judge as often as I may once have. At most local events, I find myself on the operations side of a tournament.
That should not terrify you – I am a career public servant, who happens to coach debate because I appreciate everything that it taught me as a student. You should assume that I approach debate rounds this way: what is the best decision I can make given the information presented to me?
It may sound old-fashioned, but I do not wish to be on any email chains. I have sadly witnessed teams answering entire disadvantages not read by their opponents simply because they were included in said distribution. Not to be outdone, I have read ballots where judges voted on evidence that nobody read. I pledge to keep the best flow I can. If I need to see a piece of evidence, and the particular league or tournament's rules allow for that, I will call for it.
If you are short on time reading this, my paradigm can be expressed in six (6) words: do your thing and be nice. If you are really short on time, we can go with four (4): old guy, still flows.
1. Speed is fine, but clarity is necessary. I cannot vote on what I do not have typed/written down. I try hard to listen to the text of the evidence presented;
2. Open cross-examination is acceptable, but if it is clear than one member of the team is not able to participate at the same level, speaker points will suffer;
3. My preference is tabula rasa; in the absence of any alternative framework, I look first to any potential violation(s) of stock issues and then default to a policymaking perspective.
1. I do not mind an LD round that gets on down the flow;
2. My preference is tabula rasa; in the absence of any alternative framework, I will default to a whole resolution lens looking first to the value/value criterion debate.
1. Nothing earth-shattering here. I am less speed tolerant in public forum and I will simply apply the ballot criteria to whatever speech event is at hand.
Regardless of event, we enter the debate knowing the resolution and some basic rules of the road (e.g., speech times, likely printed on the ballot). By tabula rasa I mean that the debaters establish the framework for evaluating debates. You should do what you do best and do it well. Arguments should have three parts – a claim, a warrant, and some sort of greater implication regardless of your style.
I still believe that good decisions should flow like water. Great rebuttals frame debates and clash wins rounds. My ballots will provide a succinct RFD, possibly pointing out either strengths or opportunities for improvement as we progress through the speeches. 3AR/3NR oral critiques nauseate me: what I say out loud (if disclosure is permitted) will almost certainly match what I am placing on your ballot. Your coach should see comments too. You did not go to the dentist; my RFD is never going to read “oral.”
Finally, be respectful of your partners, opponents, and judges. I have zero tolerance for poor behavior in debate rounds.
upenn '24, reagan '20
i debated for 4 yrs at reagan hs, qual to the toc, attended ddi and mich k lab.
1 - k debaters 2 - flex debaters 3 - "soft left" policy debaters 4 - policy throwdowns
tldr: ik everyone says this, but really u do u. i think debate is one of the best spaces to express urself in the way that u want and with the args u want to. most of my experience is with k's so i prolly wouldn't be the best for policy throwdowns but i can adjudicate pretty much all debates. what i will say abt some debate "rules": disclosure is good and should be reciprocated. don't clip cards, and don't cheat. if you clip, i'll let u know after ur speech ends to be more careful and clear, and if u continue, it's an L. spreading is cool but also if ur opponents require speed accommodation bc they're hard of hearing, u should slow down. be aware of how ur identity affects others in this space and check ur privilege. respect pronouns. i will call out microaggressions and i am comfy voting down teams that don't apologize or clearly don't respect who they're debating.
fw vs. k affs:
this was the majority of my debates and i'm pretty experienced with both sides. procedural fairness isn't an impact unless you explain why it is. for fw debaters, what can the ballot resolve and for the aff what does the aff resolve that o/w the impacts of fw?
i am sympathetic to fw when the aff team is unable to explain what their aff does or if the aff explanation changes significantly throughout the debate
i do not auto vote k affs and don't auto vote against fw. u gotta explain ur stuff w nuance.
pls don't copy paste fw blocks from old topics
clash debates are good and i enjoy them but do NOT say that k's don't belong in the debate space bc that won't end well for u lmao
t vs. policy affs:
i love t against policy affs. default to competing interps
went for T in p much every 2nr my junior year
topical and untopical caselists <3
most of my experience is with k's. i'm familiar with afropessimism, settler colonialism, baudrillard, and some others
love em and read em well
no links of omission
invest time in the fw part of these debates pls
major props to going for k's vs k affs <3
wasn't in many of these debates, but i can evaluate tech and the flow
i will auto judge kick but if the aff is like don't do that, i'll need yall to debate it out
theory has to be not wild, condo is good, i'm not that good at cp theory doe like if u go for textual v functional competition pls slow down and really explain why the cp doesn't meet ur interp
debate is a learning space for judges and debaters so post-rounding is valuable imo but just don't post up and then get wilded out after i post up back
do not graphically describe violence or suffering of any kind
be aware of ur identity when reading structural k's like afropessimism and settler colonialism if you are not black or not indigenous
do not pornotrope black suffering if u are a nonblack debater
don't speak over ur opponents and be wary of gendered interactions (i will call those out and lower speaker points)
sassy debaters r hilarious and i love u
debate is competitive but be kind to your opponents. this doesn't mean don't bring the heat, but instead do not personally attack ur opponents or insult them bc 0 for speaks ok
for online debate, pls keep ur camera on when u speak bc like i wanna see ur face and also debate is communicative ya know
have fun, kill it, byeeeeeeeeee :)
I expect all competitors to be respectful, know the rules of their format, and follow the needed order of the debate. I would categorize myself as more of a traditionalist versus progressive. I appreciate when competitors pay attention to time limits and focus on substantiated argumentation as opposed to semantics and more minor points of disagreement, and dislike when competitors speak over each other or repeatedly emphasize unsubstantiated points made throughout the debate (repeating a single, somewhat-unrelated fact that the opposing team cannot thoroughly respond to while ignoring other more relevant points made is my most specific example of this). Additionally, speaking at a fast pace is perfectly acceptable so long as everything is coherent and clear for everyone involved. I would really prefer competitors to avoid "spreading," or simply trying to read off information as fast as they possibly can.
So I will try to keep this as short and to the point as possible. I am a four-year debater and two-time state champion in policy debate. In my junior year I ran Ks like set col, afropess, and race war most rounds, and my senior year I ran almost exclusively DAs Cps and T so I am good to judge pretty much whatever you bring. I am a games player so I will almost always vote exclusively on the line by line and won't weigh any arguments that are not specifically made in the round (so I won't do any work for you in the round). If you are going to run a K please know your arguments, if I judge a team that runs a k that team needs to be able to explain and define things related to their K easily, or else you will probably receive low speaks. On Cps, DAs, and T I have no real preferences so feel free to do whatever you need to. An easy way to get low speaks is to say the phrase "they dropped" a thousand times in a round. I will vote for K affs and love a good K aff vs FW debate. Feel free to point out conceded arguments but don't get repetitive. If you have any other questions about my preferences feel free to ask before the round.
hii i'm shweta
- tabula rasa across the board
- quick notes: i debated policy for 4 yrs @lexington high school, have next to no pf/ld topic knowledge, am comfortable with speed, and am probably going to be fine with whatever you do (unless its,, ld tricks *cough* @perry). you! do! you!
- add me to the email chain- email@example.com
- stole this from andrea's paradigm but *IMPORTANT* - I expect debaters to give trigger warnings before reading material with graphic and/or sensitive content (sexual assault, graphic descriptions/images of racial violence, etc.). If you defend not giving a trigger warning, I won't hesitate to auto drop you and give zero speaks. also pls don't use racist/sexist/ableist language bc i *will* tank your speaks/will not hesitate to vote on discourse + general thing but ?? be polite to your opponents ?? being a dickhead is not the same thing as being assertive thx.
I am a new judge, prefer more traditional debate.
I am a versatile judge as long as the argument is well articulated. I have no real preference for arguments but it is a requirement to run the argument as it was intended to be ran. I need a clean cut story as to why you win, meaning there should be some type of summary in your last few speeches somewhere I do prefer global over views instead of overviews on each argument but I will still flow the overviews as to where you put them regardless. I do no work for either team meaning if its not there, it will not be evaluated so if you are going for an argument and haven't put in the work for it, depending on what the other team does, you will be voted down. Other than that I don't judge upon ethos but keep it cordial during the debate, have a great time and good luck to you.
Debated 2 years of policy at Strath Haven HS
Currently in my 3rd year of policy at the University of Rochester
Was the main policy coach for Strath Haven last year (2018-19), but i don't coach as much this year
Yes, add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Top level stuff:
As a debater and a coach, I live pretty exclusively on the policy side of things. This reflects my research interests and my competence in judging more than deeply-held beliefs about debate.
I evaluate the round probabilistically -- comparing the risk that each team accesses their impacts, regardless of whether it is a DA, K or T debate. Good defense is often as important as offense in my decisions, but there is very infrequently "zero risk".
Condo/most forms of neg flex are good -- please run wild with CPs. Affs -- you can still win this debate, you'll just need to devote a lot more time to get me to vote on condo than for other judges.
I find I have an increasingly low tolerance for non-substantive arguments in policy rounds---things like ASPEC, frivolous T arguments, plan flaws, or even very generic impact turns (e.g. spark) etc. My threshold for affs answering these is incredibly low. I think there are almost no situations where negatives would be better served by going for these instead of a DA/CP strategy in front of me.
Evidence quality is very important to me. I'm trying to read more evidence after debates not because I like to needlessly intervene but because I think that it makes my decisions more informed. It is very much to your advantage to influence how I look at evidence after the round by pointing out where your own evidence is great and your opponents' is trash during the debate. This also means I am hesitant to vote on, for example, disad stories that are contrived and supported mainly by "spin" rather than quality evidence.
Some specific stuff:
T-USFG/Framework: I tend to err negative in these debates. I very rarely hear a compelling answer to arguments such as "topical version of the aff" or "read it on the neg" when they are well-executed. Also -- the fact that I view debate as a game has substantial bearing on how I judge these debates. Even if the role of debate is debateable, it's still an uphill battle to win that the ballot affects subjectivity or the world outside of debate, and likewise tough to convince me that we should ignore things like procedural fairness.
Topicality: I have a strong preference for substance over T. Ground is generally more important than limits -- if you can prove you lost your core topic arguments this debate will be easier for you, but that also cuts the other way against larger affs -- if you can't convince me of that I'll probably never vote on T no matter how good your ev is. Reasonability is way overrated -- just win your vision of the topic is better.
Kritiks: they must indict the ability of the case to solve its impacts, otherwise i'll probably vote affirmative.
Disads: I love these. I value specificity and recency of research over anything resembling a generic DA block -- args like "past immigration policy thumps" will not get you very far. I'm also a great judge for politics (I think there's almost always a risk) and an even better judge for spotting the neg links to politics. Unless your plan text explicitly identifies an actor that isn't congress, you probably link to politics and need to actually answer the DA.
Counterplans: Lean decently neg on CP legitimacy, aff on competition -- which just means I want to see more people go for "perm do the CP". International CPs are probably the one area I lean aff on -- I don't really think they disprove the aff or resolution. I'm happy to judge kick in the 2NR, but you need to tell me. All theory that is not condo is a reason to reject the argument and not the team.
I'm a real hack for voting negative on the combination of poor impacting of solvency deficits in the 2AR and the undercovering of turns case arguments by the 1AR and 2AR. Affs: make sure you quantify the impact of a solvency deficit in the 2AR, and i probably have a higher threshold on this than most other judges.
Impact framing debates -- don't find them very persuasive. They're tough to judge and I fall back on my predispositions. Answer the DAs and CPs substantively instead of relying on framing -- your aff probably doesn't link to them anyway!
With the email chain, please try to avoid putting cards you are reading in the body of the email. I'd much prefer if they were in a separate doc (even if it's just 1 or 2 cards).
Disclosure is very important to me and I'm not sure why disclosure practices are so poor in high school debate: I strongly believe open source format is beneficial to the debate community. I'm hesitant to see this debate played out in the round (i.e. disclosure theory), but would love to use some carrots to encourage good disclosure practices. Let me know your wiki page is dope (read: fully open source) before I submit my decision and I'll bump your speaks .3. Is that a little too much? maybe, but it's 2019 now and drastic actions are necessary.
Similarly, in the interest of disclosure, if you would like the docs from a round that i judged, feel free to email me.
Former HS policy debater and coach. I can handle pretty much every type of argument as long as you make sense. I like K debates and ethics args. I weigh the impacts of CPs and DAs and the Aff’s ability to solve. T is a moot argument unless there is significant violations.
The Neg block and 1AR are crucial in my decision.
Spreading is fine as long as it’s clear. Any sort of aggressive cross ex will dock speaks e.g. blatant just yelling
It is the responsibility of the debater to look at the paradigm before the start of each round and ask any clarifying questions. I will evaluate the round under the assumption it has been read regardless if you did or not. I will not check to see if you read my paradigm, nor will I give warnings of any kind on anything related to my paradigm. If you don't abide by it you will reap what you sow I am tired of debaters ignoring it and me in round my patience has officially run out.
1. I hate spreading slow down if you want me to flow your arguments if it is not on my flow it is not a part of the round. It doesn't matter how well it explained or extended. At best depending on speech it will be a new argument or analytical argument and will be evaluated from then forth as such. I do want to be part of the email chain, my email is email@example.com, note that just because I am part of the email chain that does not mean I flow everything I read, I only flow what I hear so make sure I can hear your arguments. Beware I will be following along to make sure no one is cutting cards and I will call out teams for cutting cards so be sure to do things correctly. I will drop cards before the team and continued cutting will result in me stopping the round and contacting tab.
2. I hate theory and have only voted on it once. In particular, I do not like disclosure theory and think it's a bogus argument, as I come from a time when there was no debate wiki as a result I am highly biased against this argument and don't advise running it in my round. Also, I don't like arguments on Race don't run them as I feel while an important issue to discuss it distracts us from the topic and hurts educations because some teams run it every single year on both sides of the debate. The chance I will not vote on them is very high, you have been warned. Every Other argument is fine and long as they are well articulated and explained(See 3). In order to vote on an argument, there needs to be an impact on it and I need to know how we arrive at the impact. But I want to know more than A + B = C, I need to know the story of how we arrive at your impact and why they matter. I will not simply vote on a dropped argument unless there is no other way to vote and I need to make a decision, I consider this Judge intervention and I hate doing this. You as a debater should be telling me how to vote I will have to deduct speaker points if I have to do any work for you.
3. At the beginning of each round, I am a blank slate, think of me like a 6 or 7-year-old. Explain arguments to me as such. I only evaluate things said in a round, my own personal knowledge and opinion will not affect me. For example, if someone in a round says the sky is purple reads evidence the sky is purple and it goes uncontested then the sky is purple. I believe this is important because I consider anything else judges intervention which I am highly opposed to and again will result in a speaker point deduction. That being said I default to a standard policy-making framework at the beginning of each round unless I am told otherwise.
4. Be aware I do keep track of Speech times, and Prep, and go solely by my timer. My timer counts down and will only stop when you say stop prep. Once you say "Stop prep" I expect you to be ready to send the file, I do not want to hear I need to copy arguments to a file to send as a part of an email chain. I will run prep for that. It should not take long to send a prepared file through the email change and I will wait until all participants receive the file before allowing the next speech to start but do not think you can abuse this I will restart prep if it takes an abnormal amount of time. Also extremely important to note I will not stop my timer for any reason once speech has started for any reason outside of extreme circumstances and technical difficulties do not count. If you choose to stop your timer to resolve your issue before resuming know that my time has not stopped and your speech time is being consumed. Also, aside from using your phone as a timer, I expect all debaters to not be on their phones during the round (this includes in between speeches and during prep) I think it is disrespectful to debate as an activity and to your opponent(s) and will deduct speaker points for it. Keeping that in mind note I will not evaluate any argument read off a phone, especially if you have a laptop in the round.
5. In JV and VCX Cross-X is closed, period. NCX I will only allow it if you ask. If you don't it is closed. If you decided to have open CX anyway I will deduct speaker points.
5. Last but not least be respectful to me and to each other, and I would appreciate a good show of sportsmanship at the beginning and end of each round. Any disrespect of any kind will result in a speaker point deduction on a per-incident basis. Continued disrespect will result in notifying tournament staff and lower than average speaker points. Although I do not expect it will go that far.
A. Cameras must be on at all times, I will not flow teams with cameras off. Do not be surprised if you lose because I did not flow it you have been warned. I will not be lenient with this as I have in the past.
B. Prep time will be run until speeches are received in the email chain. DO NOT assume you control the time as mentioned above I am keeping time and will go by my timer. I WILL start the speech timer if you end prep AND THEN send the speech. I have zero tolerance for this as teams consistently abuse this to steal prep. You should know how to send an email it should not take long to send one. If you are having genuine technical issues let me know if the tournament has Tech Time I can run that timer instead, otherwise I will run speech time. DO NOT make light of this I am tired of being ignored as if I am not a part of a debate round.
C. Make sure I'm ready this should be common sense but for some reason, I have to mention it. If you start a speech before I am ready, I will miss some arguments on my flow and I will be highly annoyed. Your speaker points will reflect this and you may lose the round as a result if it was a key argument I did not flow.
D. Also spreading on camera is a really bad idea and I highly advise against it from a technical perspective and my general disdain with spreading. E-Debates are tricky enough with varying devices, internet speeds and audio equipment affecting the quality of the stream, spreading in my experience is extremely disadvantageous, do so at your own risk.
E. REMINDER, I Control speech and prep timers, and speeches DO NOT stop because you are reading the wrong speech or cant find where your are at on a document, once the timer has started it stays running until speech time is over.
Put me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Affiliations: NYU and Bronx Science
Argumentation: K (all of them)
Influences: Taylor Brough, Anthony Joseph, Jorman Antigua, and others but not as much
Pronouns: he/him/his or they/them/theirs (idrc)
Smol Policy Paradigm, All you need to know (Updated Jan 8, 2021)
I like the K. Stupid Ks get stupid speaks. Debates taking a long time to judge are rare in high school so don’t cry about the 4 second decision time after the debate.
fairness is not an impact
other random things
- 1 off >>> 9 off
- Card dump is poo poo.
- K condo is not poo poo.
- If I’m on a panel with Daniel Iskhakov there is a literal 100% chance that we will vote the same way.
I study political science and finance at Case Western Reserve University.
I did policy at Bronx Science.
If you want something to be more important, then emphasize it (slow down, be clear).
Also add me on the email chain @email@example.com.
I DO NOT look at evidence during the debate. If you are unclear and force me to look at speech docs, I will be frustrated and will probably take off speaks.
I hate dead time-- be efficient please.
Emory '23 | Strath Haven '19 | 2A/1N
tech > truth
please put me on the email chain: lynnea(dot)zhang@gmail(dot)com
i go by the flow which presupposes any ideological preferences i have; if you win the flow, i will vote for you. i despise in-round dead time/meandering. if i look grouchy, you're doing something wrong. rehighlight cards. do ev comparison, don't just spit warrants back and forth.
i will be very very sad if i have to flow your 24 point at: perm do the counterplan block
remind me to judge kick, otherwise i might not remember to
if you're running one, your burden is still to disprove the aff. please debate the case. i am probably not familiar with your theory, but have no ideological preferences when it comes to what your scholarship is as long as it is well explained.
i find k debates good and fascinating when they are debated well and will reward points accordingly. i will probably be very very annoyed if they are debated poorly.
how does the alt solve the links? this level of explanation matters most for me but is almost always the least explained in round.
i really really do not care that fiat isn't real, i'm going to weigh the aff
huge fan of extinction outweighs/heg good affs vs the k
do your thing. i really enjoy well-developed case debate, k aff or otherwise. the best k affs capably explain their method to resolve a problem. impact turns vs k affs are great.
K Affs vs T
i think debate is a game and the only impact that my ballot can really resolve is procedural fairness. however, if you can prove why that that's a bad or violent model, you've leveled the playing field.
counter define words in the resolution.
procedural fairness >>> truth-testing/refinement > topic education > deliberation > any other impact
condo is probably pretty good and the only violation i'd be willing to vote on
i have a high threshold for voting issues. my team routinely runs very abusive counterplans, so there's no alarm that really goes off in my head; sorry fellow 2As.
i like t debates. please explain the violation clearly and compare counter-interps.
untopical affs should go for reasonability and literature checks limits/potential abuse. i find the arg that ground shapes limits on certain resolutions very persuasive in determining an impact to something like ground loss or limits explosion.
i don't think there is much delineation between my philosophy for LD and Policy. i will give more weight to theory because i recognize that it is apart of LD norms, except for rvis. rvis are silly.
- being open source. disclosure always makes for better debates, let me know if you're open source before the round and i will bump your points!! = +0.1
- useful rehighlighting of cards = +0.2
- its t-usfg, not framework
Debated at Lexington for 3 years from 2015-2017 in policy. Currently not debating, judging sparingly.
You should not change your strategy too drastically based on what you think I would like but instead do what you do best and do it well.
I am not too familiar with this year/season's high school topic (for policy or PF) so what you may assume to be common knowledge may be something I don't know. So if there's an abbreviation make sure to say what it stands for, etc.
If you have any questions that I may not have addressed feel free to ask before the round.
Add me to the email chain --> firstname.lastname@example.org
I will be keeping track of the speech times and prep time just for fairness sake, and dock speaker points if I find that something is off.
I will pretty much evaluate any argument that is legitimately warranted and clearly explained.
An argument needs to be in summary to be in final focus. The exception to this rule is if your speaking first and your opponent brings up some new arguments in their summary, in this case, it's fine for you to make a new response in final focus.
I won't flow cross-fires, so you must bring it into a speech for it to apply to the debate.
Please weigh and engage with your opponent’s arguments. I don't want to have to do this myself. Tell me why your winning on certain points (why your evidence or logic is better) and do impact calculus on the flow.
Because of my lack of topic knowledge, please explain clearly what the topic would look like under your interpretation, and emphasis on impact calculus.
I am not as familiar with this year's high school topic so if you are planning on going for T or you are answering T make sure that you clearly explain how debates under you interp differs from that of your opponent. (ie case lists, ect,...)
Impact calculus - a convincing turns case argument is always good, and can strengthen a DA which has a weak impact.
Evidence matters. That means the arguments within a card, the recency of the evidence (when it comes to politics DAs), the relevance of links to the aff, as well as the qualifications of the authors. If you intend to re-highlight evidence, please explain why it matters.
I will default to kicking the counterplan.
CPs without evidence can be used to expose affs with weaknesses. Please don't read a CP that clearly won't be extended (weak, or non-existent net benefits). Obviously this is a difficult task for me to judge (as I have no topic knowledge), so just be reasonable.
Condo - neg leaning
Process CP/PICs/arbitrary CPs that are similar or identical to the aff - aff leaning
Other CPs - neg leaning
Make sure that the framework is clear on what I should be voting on (that goes for both teams).
As goes for all other arguments, line-by-line should be practiced by both teams in these debates.
Fairness is an impact, but there needs to be an explanation as to why undermining fairness is not a good thing.
I am willing to listen to any strategy.