The Democratize LD Invitational
2020 — Online, US
Lincoln Douglas Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Updated for Glenbrooks :)
Email chains: email@example.com
Please feel free to email me if you have any questions about this paradigm. Please at least read the tl;dr and the section about online debate.
I did LD for 4 years in high school on various circuits, and for various schools, including as an independent. I graduated in 2015. I also competed in policy at the University of North Texas. I coached a few students to TOC quals and bid tournament wins as a first and second year-out, and have judged at the TOC, NSDA Nationals, late outrounds of quite a few bid tourneys and round robins, and soooo many locals. I'm not coaching anyone this semester so I am not actively engaged with the lit. Don't assume I know your authors bc I probably don't.
Also, I judged during a time when joyoftournaments was still more popular than tabroom, so a lot of my judging history isn't listed here. If you are someone who cares to know, in general I think I've voted affirmative slightly more than negative (probably a 55-45 split), and you can totally read that against aff side bias arguments if you're negative in front of me. This is not to say I hack for the 2A, I've just seen a lot of 2N's go for wayyyy too much only to be immediately followed by a well-consolidated 2A that collapses to something winnable.
tl;dr Debate however you're comfortable. I have run, coached, and/or answered virtually every type of argument. It's not my job as the judge to tell you how I think you should go for the ballot. I will vote for any type of argument, at any speed. You must give a trigger warning if you're going to discuss a sensitive topic. If you're not sure if it needs one, err on the side of caution. In general, as the affirmative, you need to establish an evaluative mechanism for the round, and generate offense under it. Whatever that looks like to you is fine with me; from the simplest V/C structure to the wildest performance 1AC, I'm down for it. I prefer the affirmative to discuss the topic in some way, but that's not necessarily a hard requirement. The negative just needs to be winning a reason why I shouldn't vote aff (absent a theoretical reason why the neg needs to read an advocacy text/presumption args or whatever the kool kidz are doing these days). A lot of my preferences are just that: preferences. There aren't a lot of ways to get auto-downed by me, and the exceptions are outlined below. Have fun and be kind! Here's some more elaborate thoughts on debate if you care:
Good debate starts with good research. Cheesy but true. You should feel confident walking into the round that you know more than anyone else in the room about the topic. Getting caught off guard is no fun. Being able to make awesome, carded, responsive arguments on the fly because you know your stuff is super fun. And a super topic-centric, contentious round is far more fun to judge than a super generic one. Choose wisely. If I feel like you know a ton about the topic you're discussing (ie you explain it super well, don't have to constantly refer to evidence or quote it to explain warrants, etc), your speaks will be really high.
In general, I think that most contemporary structures of power are bad. I read a lot of critical arguments as a debater and coached even more of them. This is not to say I won't adopt a policymaking lens if that's where the round goes or you justify my role as a judge as such. If that's your A strat please full send, it's not going to impact my voting or your speaks. If you read util I generally prefer that you have a plantext with a policy advocate. Under any framing mechanism, I still prefer the affirmative to defend a specific advocacy text, even if it's just "do the res". I have a distaste for super broad, "do the res" style plan-affs in util debates. I don't like Nebel T and I think it's bad for debate. No I don't want to hear you shouting about "bare plurals" through two rebuttals, read better T or do better prep. I like Plan v CP debates, especially involving really strategic PIC's, and plan v. k debates a lot. Perm: do both is not a real argument absent actual justifications/net benefits, even if perms are a test of competition. If you perm a disad you lose 2 speaks. If you're reading policy args in general I expect the components to be there; I have a lot of policy experience and I will know if you're bullshitting and just dropping jargon.
I feel like this goes without saying, but arguments in bad taste or that justify bad things (racism good, genocide good), or use of rhetoric that I feel violates the safety of others (hate speech, slurs, sexism, etc), will cause me to immediately stop the round and have a serious, coach-involved discussion after I vote you down with 0 speaks. Rhetoric matters. No one has ever put me in this position; please do not be the first. I'm not talking about things like triggering skep or other strategic decisions, which can be morally questionable but also strategic if used correctly; I don't think anything in that regard de facto justifies atrocity. But if your opponent goes for that argument and wins a link (ex. your arg justifies atrocities), it will be a voting issue independent of FW. Racism, sexism, ableism, etc are intrinsically bad, and as an educator, I could not justifiably vote for a position that is determined in-round to be oppressive. I still need you to weigh and win a VERY clear link story if this is the argument you're going for. Read this article by the legendary Chris Vincent if any of this is unclear (I'm sure you've already read the Vincent 13 evidence but the whole article is really good and applicable here)
Be clear and concise. I'll say clear as many times as I have to. I don't think it's fair of me as a judge to stop trying to understand you just because I'm having to work a little harder at it. However, you're liable for anything I don't get the first time. If you're trying to extend an argument in the 1AR and I have no idea what you're talking about because the 1AC was 6 minutes of garbled tags and authors, that's on you. The speech doc will not save you in this regard; I'm only going to open it during CX to follow along and potentially after the round if I need to review evidence. I feel like I've developed a pretty fair briteline over time for how clear and expounded upon I require an argument to be in order for me to vote on it.
However, being clear and concise doesn't just apply to spreading. Word economy and time allocation are super important. One of the biggest pitfalls plaguing debaters is reiterating the same argument 10 different times, at various points during their rebuttal, simply to make sure that the judge understands how key of a voting issue it is. Please don't do this. You'll be amazed at how much more time you have in your rebuttal if you weigh and do argument interaction concisely, while telling a good ballot story. Organization is crucial; consistently good debaters are not sloppy.
Please weigh. Please. If you don't I have to do it for you, and nobody likes judge intervention. Avoid that situation entirely and do good weighing.
Please stop reading pre-written overviews in front of me. Your speaks will suffer. I have not judged a single round this year where the rebuttal overviews did any work whatsoever. If you tell a good ballot story an overview is not necessary. It literally is a waste of your time and it irritates me. A short overview at the end of your rebuttal is fine (ie explain how I'm voting and why after you've gone for substance) but why would you do it before I'm just confused tbh.
Speaker points: You'll start at a 28, and move in increments of .1. Speaks are obviously pretty subjective, and I tried not to read too far into them as a debater. Good strategic decisions, conciseness, clarity, and confidence are all important to me. Pretty much everything I discuss here will affect your speaks. I don't think I've ever given a 30 at a bid tournament, but that doesn't mean it can't happen. I have given a few out at locals for extremely impressive performances. At a bid tournament, 28.5 or above generally means I think you deserve a shot to break, above a ~29 means I think you deserve a speaker award too. If the maximum increment set by the tournament is .5, I will round up and let you know that in the RFD.
Do not be mean to less skilled debaters. If there is a clear skill gap in the round, and you're a total dick, spread them out of the room, intentionally make super complex args that they cannot engage with (basically doing anything to exclude them from even participating in the round in any way), you'll get the win but I will bomb your speaks. Debate should be inclusive, fun, and educational for everyone. Nothing is more demoralizing than getting dunked on while you have no idea what's happening. The flip side of this is that being kind, educational, helpful, mature, and still decisively winning a round against a significantly less skilled debater/novice will be a quick W30 from me, even at a bid tournament. We have to prioritize fostering an atmosphere in this community that will make people want to stay and get better, not quit. Relatedly, if your opponent asks you not to spread, and you do it anyway, I'm not going to vote for you. I don't care what their reason is. If you ask your opponent not to spread and then get up and spread the 1NC (why would you even try this lmao), I'm going to down you too. It's mean and probably cheating.
Theory Specific Stuff: I default to competing interps, no RVI's, drop the arg. I ran a lot of theory in high school. Although my views on the subject have changed significantly since then, I understand that theory is an important part of debate strategy, and I will vote for pretty much any theory arg. I will not vote for "wifi bad", "shoe theory" (what the fuck is this), or really any shell that isn't about something that happened in-round. I generally think shells should be structured Interp-->Violation-->Standards-->Voters-->Implications (drop the arg v. debater). Justify why you should get an RVI if you're going for one. My threshold is pretty low on CI/I meet's for the 1A and 2A; the negative needs to do a lot more work to prove why the aff shouldn't get an RVI than the aff needs to prove why they should. I feel like this offsets the time burden placed on the aff should the neg choose to go theory-heavy in the 1N and 2N, but again, you've still gotta win why the RVI is a voting issue in both the 1A and 2A. I despise messy theory debates so pls don't be that person. I am okay with theory preempt-heavy 1AC's, however:
Tricks: I ran a few egregious tricks AC's in my day. Not my cup of tea anymore, but I understand that they can be fun to run from time to time, especially if both debaters can throw down. I also believe that being able to answer them makes you a much better debater. If you're going to read stuff like this, don't be shady. I expect you to number, or signpost in some way, every single spike in the 1AC. I will bomb your speaks if your strategy involves your opponent missing a tiny blip that you blazed through in the first speech, and if they missed it, it's probable that I did too. That is not good tricks debate.
Do not clip cards. It's easy to do it by accident, but I will hold you accountable regardless. If you're not 100% sure what I mean, https://the3nr.com/2014/08/20/how-to-never-clip-cards-a-guide-for-debaters/
If you follow those guidelines, you should not have any issues with clipping.
CX is binding. I don't usually flow or take general notes during CX but I pay close attention. Flex prep is fine, but you may not use CX time as prep time. Any questions asked and answered doing prep will also be binding. You must answer any question asked in CX, and if you and your opponent agree that flex prep is cool, any that they ask you during prep as well. If you are not okay with flex prep, please make that clear before the round begins.
The case that you send in the email chain must be formatted identically to the one you're ready out loud. Same font size, highlights, stylization, everything. Don't be that person that sends their case in all caps or with the cards uncut or all highlighted or whatever. That's not cool and if you need to do that to get a leg up you're probably not very good at debate.
I think disclosure is a good norm. I obviously can't require you to do this, but I am pretty persuaded by disclosure theory as a result.
Time yourself and your opponent. This is something I shouldn't have to say, but apparently it's becoming more of an issue. I'm not going to have a timer. Time prep and tell me how much you have left, and write it down yourself too. If you ask me "how much prep do I have left?", I'm going to take a speaker point away.
You must flow. Again, something I shouldn't have to say. Reading off the speech doc doesn't count. If you don't flow, I'm going to assume you're bad at debate, and I'm probably not going to be very impressed with what you have to say, unless you're a literal human computer who can remember everything and generate perfect responses. Which you're not. So flow please.
You should compile your speech doc during prep. I don't count flashing/emailing as prep but please do not abuse this; if it takes you longer than 20-30 seconds to get it done, I'm going to assume you're stealing prep and I'm going to remove the excess from your remaining prep time, or dock your speaks if you have no prep left.
Online debate-specific stuff:
a.) You MUST make local recordings of your speeches as you give them in the round. If you or I or your opponent drops off the call, please complete the speech without stopping, and immediately email the copy in the email chain. Failure to do this will result in any missed arguments not being considered. After reviewing community discussions on this issue, this seems like the best norm going forward.
b.) Pls don't steal prep, I don't think this has been an issue so far this year so please don't be the first.
c.) DO NOT GO FULL SPEED YOU WILL PROBABLY LOSE!!!! Go 70% of your top speed max. Spreading is HARD to follow online. I'm tired of flowing off speech docs, if I miss an argument completely I literally will not even flow the extension and that's on you. Also, I often mishear/misspell the author names, and sometimes I'm wayyyy off, so it would behoove you to say "extend [warrant]" as opposed to "extend [author name]." This is a good habit to get into regardless, some judges don't even flow author names and it's usually more convincing if you don't need to tell me the name of the card for me to know what you're talking about.
d.) Email chains are required, if you're flight B please set it up before the round. Yes I would like to be added, my email address is at the top.
e.) Try to find a way to see both me and your opponent during speeches. Body language is important, and I'm pretty expressive as a judge, so you'll probably want to see me while you're reading to keep your finger on the pulse relative to my receptiveness to your args.
f.) I will allow debaters to tell each other "clear" or "slow" (please do not abuse this) during speeches. Other than that please make sure your mic is muted while your opponent is giving a speech.
If you have any questions for me before the round, please don't be shy. I try to be as approachable as possible at tournaments, so if you have any questions about the decision or things you could've done better, please ask as many questions as necessary after the round or in the downtime between rounds. This is a weird time in life for everyone, and we're all having to adjust in our own way. If you're ever feeling down, struggling, or need to talk, please don't hesitate to reach out to me or at least some responsible adult at the tournament. Debate can be stressful, and life is stressful enough right now as is. You should always feel safe and cared for in the debate community, and if you don't, please speak up; there are always people listening. Good luck, and most importantly, have fun!
I started judging my two kids' speech and debate tournaments in high school. I judge IE's, LD, and Policy. And have continued judging these tournaments after my kids moved on to college.
I prefer that you speak loud and clearly. However I do not have a preference on speed. You may flow as fast or slow as you see fit.
Simply, debate is a very fun game that I used to play and enjoy watching. Do what you do best. I will vote for you if I think you win. And please be nice to your opponents.
As far as preconceived notions of debate go, here are a few of mine:
(1) I think the topic should be debated.
(2) I enjoy case debates and plan specific counterplans.
(3) I usually don't have speech docs open during the debate so your clarity is important to me.
Conflicts: San Marino (not coaching)
Experience: HS/Circuit- LD 2 years, PF 3 years, CX 1 year
PUT ME ON THE SPEECHDOC:
discord: j4ng #0099
State quals debaters: Ignore my paradigm. I am just a lay judge. Please adapt to the other judges.
Please let me know if any accommodations can be made to make this round safer/more accessible for you.
IF YOU FEEL UNSAFE IN THE ROUND, please email/discord pm me with what I can do to help you. It's hard online, especially bc there aren't a lot of systems in place to deal with this, but I will most likely stop the round and contact tab/equity officer (if there is one). If you would prefer me not to do this, let me know what I can do to help otherwise. I do feel that I need to let somebody know why I stopped the round, so if you would rather have me contact your coach or someone else from tab lmk.
Prefs cheat sheet:
If I were a competitor, I would pref myself as at best a mid-tier judge.
Here are my prefs (not adjusted for experience):
S - larp, generics, stock
A - non-pomo k
B - phil, theory, t framework, k-affs
C - pomo K
D - tricks, disclosure
Please provide trigger warnings before the round begins.
(Skip to arg specs section if needed)
Assume I have no knowledge about the topic.
My internet is terrible-I get around 20ms with spikes of 500ms; I ask you to please send your speech docs. no matter how amazing I or anyone else in the room may be at flowing, I can guarantee you whether it's audio problems or bad headphones, or any other issues I and many other judges will be missing a lot of the stuff on the flow, so if you want detailed decisions and comments and speaks send everything you read.
Debate how you want, there's no need to follow my paradigm verbatim. I am most comfortable with policy-style args, but I do enjoy watching K rounds if that's your preference. Keep tricks to a minimum.
I will only cast my ballot in the context of the debate and nothing else (tabula rasa). However, if you run something problematic, I'll hand you zero speaks and contact your coach.
In the subject line, please add info on the competitors, round, and tournament. (i.e. ____ Invitational, R3, __HS AB v __HS XY)
lay debaters - send your docs too in case I have to do evidence comparisons
Speaks are very subjective, so I usually give speaks from 28-29.5.
Debaters that have influenced me:
*notes for non-CA competitors*
I've only debated on the West Coast, so please let me know the rules/norms of debate in your region.
Speed is fine, but if you are unclear I will yell "clear". If you don't clear up or slow down, I'll stop flowing.
CX is not binding. If you want CX on the flow, extend that in your speeches.
BM is ok, but zero tolerance on ad home. Please be nice :)
Clear explanations of your arguments is a clear path to my ballot. Refer to the top; use arguments you are most comfortable with. As a judge, a smooth and confident course of argumentation will make my job easier.
I know some judges will disagree with me on this, but I believe debates can end before the 2AR/NFF if you collapse the flow in the 1AR/2NR/summary and lblow out any remaining ground for the opponent. These instances are extremely rare though, so stick to the end if you want to win. I've heard 2ARs/2NRs that have changed my mind.
For the vast majority of rounds, later rebuttals are crucial to winning the round. The best 2NRs and 2ARs (final focus for PFers) frame the round as a story connecting and comparing of the world(s) of the AC and the world(s) of the NC. These speeches should instruct the judge on where and why I should vote for a side. If you can do this, there is a clear indication of clash in the round and makes the flow easier to interpret at the closing of the round.
I follow Edmond Wen's words: "My basic threshold for voting on an argument: 'Can I explain it in my RFD sufficiently to both sides?' Otherwise, I will probably have to intervene in some form which will end up lowering speaks and lead to a lower quality rfd."
Please don't extemp offcases. If you DO plan on extemping offcase arguments, please be SLOW and CLEAR, or else it's off the flow (I'll let you know, dw).
(skip to "misc" for lay dbt info)
You must point out the abuse in the round, or else I won't vote on it. Potential abuse doesn't matter, it is your own burden to prove that your opponent is abusive. If you choose to run theory, make sure you have clear evidence of substantial abuse and explain the paradigm issues.
I am not a K debater. That being said, I will still evaluate Ks as long as you give a proper explanation of the jargon.
Establish and contextualize your links (refer to your own cards AND to the AC), control clash through cx and the overview, explain your theory of power (in the context of the AC!). Your analysis on the k debate should be flexible and adapt to the AC. If you aren't going for an alt, note that in your speech.
The winning condition for a k is good analysis in the line by line, cross applying when needed, winning the link debate, and explaining the alt clearly.
To preface this-I ran k-affs for only 2 tournaments in my entire career, so I'm not very experienced in this area. However, if you have a case ready, go for it! Go for performance if you want-I think it's beneficial when the meta gets stale with stock issues. Don't recycle old FW answers, makes the debate boring. Framing issues will come up a lot, so sort that out as much as possible. In k vs k situations, I'll vote for whoever better accesses the offense that matters, just like how normal plan v k debates go.
DAs with good evidence can swing rounds pretty well. Impact calc and evidence comparison is super important! Guide me through the evidence presented by both sides.
Solvency advocates are good, but I don't see a case for how it is required. Condo is valid, but it is also very debatable. DON'T read off generic theory blocks, please. If there's clear abuse, I'm more likely to vote on condo 2ARs.
Weighing is going to be your priority in generating offense. t debates can get really frivolous, so extend your arguments all the way to the 2nr/2ar. Standards tend to be extended as impacts, even though they're actually internal links.
I will evaluate these debates but I have little experience in this area. If you choose to run phil, please explain the arguments thoroughly.
I will evaluate the debate solely on argumentation. Tech>truth. That being said, please also remember to be inclusive of other judges on the panel. Judge adaptation is an excellent practice if you want to win rounds.
I don't care about CA debate "rules". If your only/best response to a counterplan is "it's against the rules", then you should be running a different aff.
That being said, this is NOT an invitation to read tricks or Ks in PF. If you run an argument that you clearly don't understand, you'll probably lose anyway.
Please remember to signpost and give a roadmap before each speech.
1. A lot of PF rounds tend to have unproductive GCXs. If nobody has anything to contribute to CX, I'm willing to end the timer and move to the next speech.
2. I prefer tag-team cross; it is more productive. Please utilize this to your full extent.
Lay LD-value/value criterion debates tend to collapse to util, so please don't try to explain util v CBA when they mean the same thing in the context of the round. If you go for the value debate, make sure your case upholds your value more than your opponent.
I love anime. Will give my MAL if requested.
If you or a friend are looking to hire a judge, please don't hesitate to send me a message!
chazkinz [at] gmail [dot] com
350+ VLD rounds since 2018
I study IR and English at the University of Florida.
Conflicts: Interlake, Sarasota, Oak Hall, Cypress Bay, Altamont, Valley, Newsome DB, Eagan AI, Brophy SA, Durham AA, Durham BT. Currently with Valley.
This is a consolidated paradigm updated in April 2021.
2020-21 season notes:
a] Speaks are capped at 27 if you include something in the doc that you assume will be inputted into the round without you reading it. You cannot "insert" something into the debate scot free. Examples include charts, spec details, and solvency details. This is a terrible norm and you are literally asking me to evaluate a card/analytics that you didn't read. If you think "it only matters if they ask in CX," then why did you include it in the doc?
b] I strongly encourage you to record local copies of your speeches, but this is not something that I can expect/mandate out of all debaters.
c] Online debate is alienating. I am now more than ever impressed by high school debaters that continue to engage in this rigorous activity as we live through a mass death event. Take care of yourself and let me know if there is something I can do to better accommodate you in this virtual terrain.
Debate is what you make it, whether that is a game or an educational activity. Ultimately, it is a space for students to grow intellectually and politically. It is a very important form of education.
K debate: Love it. I’m familiar with most authors. I want to hear about the alt.
Policy debate: Love it. I’m not a fan of the judge kick. I like good analytics more than cards, especially when those cards are from authors like “Bush ’03, writing for the Henry Kissinger School of Genocide Studies.” Inserted graphs/charts need to explained and should not be arguments in and of themselves. Taglines should be descriptive of the warrants in the card. 2 or 3 condo is acceptable.
T Debate: I’ve heard too much of it. If there is a topic-specific interp that you’re a fan of and execute well, go for it. I am so tired of judging Nebel T debates that come down to PICs every other round. For framework, I think that out of round impacts (advocacy skills, movement building) are more convincing than in round impacts (procedural fairness, etc.), especially when answering micropolitical affs.
Theory Debate: Increasingly okay with it. Disclosure is good but frivolous disclosure theory is annoying.
If you find yourself debating with me as the judge on a panel with a parent/lay/traditional judge (or judges), please just engage in a traditional round and don't try to get my tech ballot. It is incredibly rude to disregard a parent's ballot and spread in front of them if they are apprehensive about it.
- Tricks can be fun but also abusive and uneducational. I think that I am a bigger fan of philosophy-inspired tricks than theory-inspired tricks.
- please use verbatim to unihighlight your docs into yellow
- be brief with sending docs
- have the email chain ready at the round's start time
- defaults: ROJ > ROB; ROJ ≠ ROB; ROTB > theory; presume aff; comparative worlds; reps/pre-fiat impacts > everything else; no RVI; DTD; yes condo; I will never evaluate the round earlier than the end of the 2AR
- I’m a huge fan of well-formatted Verbatim docs
- I do not disclose speaker points
- All analytics should be included in speech docs
- trigger warnings are good
- humor is appreciated!
I’ve bolded what you need to skim preround. There’s a preffing cheat sheet somewhere in here as well as a tldr of how I generally evaluate rounds. This paradigm applies to all events, but I judge circuit LD the most. There are specific notes for PF and congress at the end. I hope this paradigm as a whole is helpful for preffing/education.
If you really don't want to read the paradigm:
1. record your speeches, no speech redos, send recording if tech difficulties
2. yes email chain firstname.lastname@example.org, i dont flow off the doc
3. will say slow/clear twice before becoming sad
4. no tricks, everything else is good!
5. be nice be nice be nice be nice be nice
hi! i'm nethmin! i use she/her/hers pronouns!
The Hill School ’20, Pitzer College ’24.
I coached and judged in high school quite a bit, so your round will not be my first time with a ballot in front of me. That being said, I am a first year out and am not perfect.
I competed in LD on the local and national circuits and was fairly successful in both. Reached 5 bid rounds, championed a round robin, got a handful of round robin invites, championed local tournaments in the philadelphia region, qualified to ncfls and states, probably some other stuff. I'm now actively coaching both natcirc and traditional students.
During my debate career, I read a little bit of everything. During my junior year, I read more larp oriented positions. All of my 2nrs that year were on a CP/DA, topicality, a common K (security, cap, orientalism), or T. My affirmative positions were larp or phil oriented. During my senior year, my 2nrs were a pretty even mix of standard larp positions, common Ks, and fem/performance. On the affirmative, I read everything from the indopak aff to creatively topical affs to a wholeres setcol aff. I would consider myself to be competent at evaluating whatever debate you want to have. My debate history should not dictate what you read in your round. I think people should stop treating debate as their immortality project and let the students in the activity do what they want.
judging history -- here is a link to a spreadsheet that has info about every round i've judged. it's a work in progress but i figured i'd publish it because i always found these sheets helpful. as a note -- i'm not including discord tournaments/student-run tournaments. some of the slots in the rfd column aren't filled out yet because i either haven't gotten time to look through old flows and figure out what the rfd was or i simply do not remember. but rfds starting with apple valley should be updated and accurate.
Preffing cheat sheet!
1 – Good/inventive Ks, performance, good/unique policy (cool new disads, fun CPs, NOT racist), generic Ks (security, cap, etc.)
2 – if you read the above arguments but don't want me as a 1, i'm fine here as well
3 – Good trad debate (traditional format but does line-by-line, is not violent, engages in actual clash/argumentation). Theory (that's not frivolous) is also around here in terms of whether or not you want me as a judge. Phil is also around here if you're willing to explain/warrant args and not assume that I know Every Single Thing you're saying.
4 – Theory/procedurals (if your only strat is theory), Phil (if you're not willing to explain/warrant). Theory/procedurals are so low on the list mainly because I see people misuse these or use them to deny that oppression exists. I am far more receptive to “condo bad” against 3+ conditional CPs than I am to 4 theory shells against a whole res aff just because you felt like ROBspec was what we needed to experience at that moment in time. I'm a much better judge for you if you read good theory and theory isn't your primary strat. I don’t have any strong phil opinions other than that I’m not the most experienced in it, so explanation will go a long way.
5/strike – tricks.
actual paradigm/explanations of my thoughts and feelings about debate:
I have certain ideological preferences and experiences within the circuit that will make me more receptive to certain arguments and less experienced with others. Most of this becomes irrelevant if you do the better debating, which is to say, win the line-by-line, do good sequencing, and respond to your opponent’s main points of offense. I am a technical judge.
Email chains are good. Put me on the email chain – email@example.com . I think that everyone in the round (judge(s)/opponent(s)) should have equal access to the evidence being read. None of this “I’ll send the judge a doc and give my opponent a paper speech doc.” ** I don’t hate paper docs, I did this a lot in HS, just don’t be sketchy about it.
I will give +0.2 speaker points if you add a significant portion of your analytics to the speech doc and organize them such that they are easy to follow. I think this makes debate more accessible, and also just makes everyone more happy during online debate. On a related note, if someone asks for analytics and you say something rude or condescending along the lines of “it’s your job to flow,” your speaks just dropped by 0.3.
I think that warrants are hard to come by in many debate rounds these days, even ones with “good” debaters. Err on the side of a little too much explanation, because if your arg is warrantless, you will be ballotless. If your opponent concedes something, that means you get access to uncontested warrants/I consider those warrants to be true. It does not mean I will vote on an argument with no warranting. It also does not mean your extension can be sans-warrants. I understand that the LD 1AR is awful and very short, but you need to reference the warrants in some way when you extend conceded stuff.
I value technical debate. However, I also think that truth matters. I do not default to dropping a team that reads untrue arguments (either for strategic value or out of lack of knowledge), however, I am receptive to this being argued as a “reject the team” issue by the opponent. Use your judgment on this – a novice with a bad politics disad is probably not the same level of egregious as someone who read 8 untrue disads because disproving an untrue DA takes longer than reading one.
Similarly, I think that independent voters need warrants and an articulation of why they sequence before everything else. Debaters have been getting away with murder in terms of labeling random pieces of evidence or analytics as independent voters. You need to tell me why impact defense is somehow an “independent reason to negate.” Spoiler: it probably isn’t. This isn’t to say I won’t listen to args about reps or other independent voters. I made these args. Reps matter and I value these debates. I also value warrants, sequencing, and ballot analysis in these debates. Independent voters are arguments and they need a claim, warrant, and impact, along with a justification for how they sequence (just like any other argument). Calling something an independent voter doesn’t mean I vote for you if you extend it.
Here’s how I generally evaluate debates (absent someone telling me otherwise – my views on sequencing can be changed):
1 – See if there are arguments (independent voters, for example) that debaters HAVE ARTICULATED as coming before any framing mechanism
2 – Find the winning weighing/framing mechanism, whether that’s a standard, value criterion, role of the ballot, or role of the judge. If you think your weighing mechanism sequences before your opponent’s, it is valuable to point that out.
3 – Locate warranted offense that is impacted back to the winning framing mechanism, and take into account any argument that might change who gets offense from it/nullify the arg (turns, terminal defense). You have to do some level of work to weigh under the winning framing mechanism – I’m willing to do some work for you here but I can’t create arguments that didn’t exist.
4 – Weighing between competing offense. This is usually done based on how debaters choose to weigh things. If you don’t weigh, I will just be left to “weigh” as I see fit. This is a good situation for nobody.
Some general notes
Sequencing saves ballots!! Tell me which layer comes first and why. I will buy things like “case comes first because it has a value criterion and those are good for debate.” That is literally an argument I read and won. Just tell me why your offense comes first, give me a warrant, and tell me why your offense sequences before that of your opponent. If not … it’s up to me lol and that’s no good.
Framing is important. If your opponent concedes your ROB but reads theory, use the ROB to exclude their offense. Don’t concede framing.
No new 2ar arguments. Even in trad rounds. I just won’t evaluate them. If you postround me about this, I will point to the gap in my flow where that stuff was NOT in the 1ar, and then I will become sad. ** exceptions obviously for stuff like “the 2nr said womxn shouldn’t be allowed in debate”. But if it’s that egregious, I’ve probably given them the L20 and am just sitting there.
Defense matters. No risk of offense is a thing. However, having some offense certainly helps you win the debate. I’m a big fan of impact defense.
Trad debater vs circuit debater -- I don’t think it’s anyone’s burden to shift their style of debate to accommodate anyone else. I do think it is the burden of both debaters to respect all styles of debate and not be rude or condescending. You should each debate how you debate best and I will evaluate the round you give me. If you are the circuit debater in this scenario, do not assume that you will win. Trad debaters can win these rounds by doing good analysis, comparing evidence/warrants, and utilizing framing to their advantage. NOBODY in this round (spectators, opponent, etc) should be patronizing or elitist. If you are elitist, I will be more than happy to give you awful speaks. We need to acknowledge that the circuit is elitist and doesn’t treat trad debaters well. Please don’t become a part of that problem.
Speed/clarity – I will say CLEAR two times before I just stop flowing. I will not yell clear if you are too fast (I will say SLOW) or if you are too quiet (I will say LOUDER). I think that opponents being able to slow/clear the other debater is key to accessibility, please be accommodating. I can handle a decent amount of speed, especially with cards. I am much worse at handling speed with blippy analytics (as most people are). Going slower on analytics is a good idea.
Opinions on Specific Positions (ctrl+f section):
I am absolutely willing to vote neg on case turns. This is something not enough judges are willing to do.
If you read something on case that functions at a higher layer, note that when the argument is read and provide a warrant for it. Multiple layers of responsive engagement with the aff can devastate the 1ar.
You read a 1AC, please use it in the 1AR.
I did this a lot. I like this a lot. Do whatever, just give me a warrant.
Use the 1AC in the tfwk debate. I tend to think you can weigh case, but give me some warrants as to why you do so that the 2nr doesn’t ruin you.
Tell me why what you did for 6 minutes is good and valuable. Use it to sequence before things like disads.
If there is prefiat offense, I don’t think you have to flag it as such in the 1AC. I think you do have to in the 1AR. I need an explanation of why something is prefiat, and what that means in the context of the round. Does prefiat mean case>T and disads? Does it mean T>case>disads? You get to choose! But warrant it out pls.
T-fwk vs K affs/NonT affs:
My experience is as a K debater, but I have read framework before and I will definitely vote on framework if executed properly. Make sure you are respectful of the debaters and experiences contained within the 1AC – if your reading of framework ends with “queer debaters should never be allowed to advocate for themselves in debate,” that’s a massive oof, and probably a pretty hot L. To that end, I think that TVAs are very important – you need to find me/your opponent a model of debate that includes their aff and also meets your interp. Without a TVA, I’m much more inclined to vote on any number of aff arguments, from impact turns to “aff good.”
Make sure you answer counterinterps, impact turns, RVIs, and cross-applications. Make sure you answer any sequencing arguments and telling me why your offense comes first.
I don’t enjoy frivolous theory. I also tend to think CX checks. You can change my mind on this, but you can also substantively engage with your opponent’s args. Choose your own adventure.
Theory defaults: competing interps, yes rvi, drop the debater. These can definitely be changed, just warrant your args and you're good!
Topicality (not framework):
Same defaults as theory.
I find T to be a compelling strat against tiny larp affs, but I also am persuaded by affirmative answers to T -- no strong feelings either way in these debates. Don’t make T your only strat (this is probably just general debate advice, and isn’t specific to only me as a judge).
One note about grammar-based topicality arguments: I don't find most of the grammar arguments being made these days to be very intuitive. This isn't to say that you shouldn't go for these args in front of me (I actually find myself voting for them a lot) but rather, that you should explain/warrant them more than you would in front of a judge who loves those arguments more than anything.
Don’t. Do. It.
Like, I won’t vote for these.
I don’t know K literature as well as some K debaters do, but that doesn’t mean I won’t evaluate it. I value the explanation that you do in the round and the actual parts of the evidence you read, and I will not give you credit for the other musings/opinions/theories that I’m sure your author has.
Sequencing is important and you should do it.
Links of omission <<<<<<<< other links. But, I’ll vote on them. Give me warrants that I can explain back to your opponent if I vote against them.
Specific links >>>>generic links with explanation>>>>>>>more links.
Overviews are nice! Overviews that take up 4 minutes of the 2nr and make the debate messy are not nice!
Weighing is important!
I don't really have any spicy opinions on disads -- just weigh and warrant your args and you'll be fine.
You should probably have a text in the speech doc.
I think word pics can be interesting if executed well, but they need to be well-warranted and have good ballot analysis.
Pics are fun. Pics bad theory is probably going to be a thing. Be prepared to answer it.
Please have warrants, a speech doc, and clash.
I think that the value-criterion is a criminally underrated weapon when a trad debater is up against 7 off. Use the 1ac that you read to your advantage and make smart arguments.
I think that traditional debaters should be allowed to collapse to one contention. I know this isn’t the most common on all local circuits, but feel free to do this in front of me.
It is advantageous to weigh under your opponent’s framing mechanism in addition to telling me why yours is better.
I think that a short NC and then lots of case turns is the way to go in trad debate, but that’s just me.
IMPORTANT NOTE re: online debate & misgendering:
if your opponent misgenders you or deadnames you or does something that makes you uncomfortable but you can't say it because you're at home/with people who are hostile toward your identity/you aren't out to them, feel free to email me and let me know the situation. i'll correct your opponent and if they don't adapt in their next speech/cx, I'll default to dropping their speaks for one instance, dropping the debater after that. I will default to this if you don't tell me what you want me to do (so if you say "just correct them, but don't drop them on it" i'll do that). also, please EMAIL me, do NOT FACEBOOK MESSAGE me because i try to keep FB closed during rounds. sorry, the Buzzfeed Tasty videos are really distracting and I'm very enticed by their "learn how to make easy pasta" videos.
NOTES FOR ONLINE DEBATE:
1. debate is still a communicative activity. this doesn't mean i think you should lay debate in front of me, but it does mean i think you should do things like check the zoom video so you can see nonverbal reactions, thumbs up/nods when you ask if we're ready, etc. this also means you should be doing things like signposting! and weighing! don't just read prewritten analytics at full speed and not engage with your opponent.
2. RECORD YOUR SPEECHES. i will not be allowing speech redoes. this is final. if i'm on a panel and another judge wants a speech redo, i will not flow the new version of the speech. this is the most fair way i can think of to resolve tech issues -- this isn't to say i think all debaters are malicious and trying to steal prep, but rather, a speech is almost always better (clearer, more efficient, more organized, has better weighing) when it's done the second time -- even if you don't intend for there to be any changes.
Public Forum notes:
I think that my paradigm is applicable to all debate events, but this section aims to clarify some things that PF debaters do in front of me. These opinions are not specific to Public Forum, I just find that debaters in LD and CX generally tend to do these things without much prompting.
-make an email chain. this isn't negotiable. you can either make an email chain or run prep while you "call for cards" (we all know you're just stealing prep). pf rounds should not be as long as cx rounds purely because you "can't find a card." if you choose not to make an email chain, you lose one speaker point for every 10 seconds past your prep it takes to share evidence.
-advocacies should have a delineated text in the constructive
-please answer independent voters before you kick a contention. just because you kick contention 1, that doesn’t mean the independent voter you flowed next to contention 1 goes away
-tell me the order before you start the speech. also, try not to jump around between sheets too much. or if you are going to, PLEASE tell me the order.
-make sure the card you read has a warrant. I know paraphrasing is a PF norm, but I don’t find it compelling when you say “this person who got published in some magazine somewhere tells you that you should affirm.” don’t strip the ev of its warrants when you paraphrase it.
-I give speaks based on strategy. if you sounded ReAAALLLyY persuasive while you conceded 4 link turns, you still aren’t getting a 30.
-my debate tech views are pretty applicable across events. the only pf-specific thing I would suggest to you is to use your 3 minute summary wisely, and don’t use it to extend random pieces of defensive argumentation that don’t serve any purpose other than making my flow messier.
-I don't have a ton of experience with congress, but I figured I should add this section to my paradigm since I appear to get tossed into enough congress rounds that I've developed some thoughts.
-I usually judge LD, sometimes I'll judge CX when tournaments need me, I also judge PF occasionally. I won't enforce the norms of these events in your rounds, but it's worth noting that I care about things like warrants and clash.
-please refute arguments. I've seen too many congress rounds where somehow we end up at the 5AC and we've got no rebuttals or argument engagement.
Arguments I will NEVER vote for (this list might get longer as time goes on)
-ableist/racist/sexist/transphobic/classist/violent arguments. To clarify, if I am judging a round where it comes down to a racist argument and a sexist argument, I will vote on presumption, not one of the two arguments.
-shoes theory/formal clothes theory/any other argument that attempts to police what a debater wears or how they present. If you are in front of me, these arguments should not be in the strat at all. Not even as a throwaway argument.
TL;DR: Anything's cool. Err on the side of over explanation. Pretty low threshold for clarity, especially at onlines.
* You should note that I just wrote a long paradigm cause I was bored, not because I know a lot about debate or because I'm super experienced
*btw, spreading IS a real world skill lol - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TWXQnxqhPs
Hi, I am currently a rising senior entering my fourth year of debate (LD) for Bridgewater-Raritan High School in New Jersey. I don't have a preference for specific styles or types of argumentation. As a debater, I went for some larp and theory/T my sophomore year and transitioned to reading more kritikal args my junior year. Coming from a pretty traditional circuit, I've also engaged in quite a few traditional debates.
That being said, I will, to the best of my ability, try to evaluate whichever kind of debate you would like to have. I care more about how you debate over what you debate. I'd probably be better at evaluating a well executed kritik/theory debate than a larp or tricks debate. However, I'd much rather see a clean larp or tricks debate than a poorly done k debate or an irresolvable and excessively convoluted theory/t debate. Weigh, go for framing issues,give good overviews, and collapse in the 2n/2ar
I will vote on any argument as long as it has a claim,warrant impact and is decently extended throughout the debate. Extensions need claim warrant impacts as well. If an argument is straight conceded, you obviously don't need a ton of explanation in your extension, but I at least need some articulation of what the arg is and why it matters. Definitely err on the side of over explanation (especially for tricks and dense ks) because I will not fill in the gaps/do the work for you even if I am familiar with the literature base or warrant for the argument.Goes without saying, but I will not vote on arguments that are ableist, racist, antiqueer, or any others that make the debate unsafe.
I think I'm fine with flowing speed and will call "clear" if needed. Please slow down on tags, author names and on any other place that you think is important. In addition, if you are reading a bunch of tricks with blippy warrants or a lengthy theory underview, please slow down so that I can flow all the warrants. Also, please actually format your underviews and don't send me a doc with one huge block of text because I literally will not be able to flow and comprehend it to the extent that you probably want me to.
-Weighing is arguably the most important thing in theory debates. Weigh between standards,voters, and strength of internal link between standards and voters. If there are multiple shells, weigh between different interps and abuse stories. You should also weigh between the structure of different shells. For example, 1ar theory> 1n theory etc.
-I don't really care if your interp is frivolous or not, I'll vote on it if you win it. The only caveat is that I won't vote on unverifiable interps or ones that personally attack your opponent's identity, clothing, argument style, school etc.
-The 2n/2ar should clearly explain what their model of debate looks like and why it's good. Please collapse in the 2n/2a; I really don't want to have to evaluate all 7 shells at the end of your round.
-Disclosure is good, and I'm thoroughly persuaded by most disclosure and "new affs bad interps." This is not to say I'll hack for disclosure. I'll evaluate disclosure interps just like I would any other debate. Please don't read args about why u don't need to disclose because you are a small school debater, or belong to a specific identity group- these args usually don't make any sense.
-Ill vote on reasonability, but u need to establish a clear brightline. I don't know how to "gut check" things, so please don't make me do it. By default, I don't tend to think that reasonability or I-meets trigger RVIs, but I'm open to evaluating such arguments
-On topicality, the aff should either read a counter interp, counter definition, defend the violation, or cross apply case (especially) if it's a kritikal aff.
This is what I usually go for in most rounds. I have at least a base level understanding of most kritikal literature bases read in the context of debate, so feel free to read whichever literature you would like. However, you should always err on the side of over explanation because I wont fill in the gaps for you based on my understanding of the literature.
Clearly explain and win your theory of power/violence. Links should be specific to the aff, not just a bunch of generics. Clear line by line analysis is definitely more impressive than generic card dumps and pre-written analytics that don't answer the nuances of the K. I'll also be very annoyed if the entire 2n is read from a speech doc- like prove that you can actually think critically on your own.
Aff's permutations should be fleshed out. I'll generally be very hesitant to vote on a blippy permutation in the 1ar that's blown up in the 2ar
-I definitely do enjoy these. I don't really care if your aff is entirely non-topical, but I think creative pseudo topical affs that marginally interact with the rez are much more nuanced and interesting than a generic debate bad aff.
-Clearly establish what your advocacy is and why your model of debate is necessarily a good thing.
-Neg strategies against kritkal affs that are more than just generic t-fwk + cap k are very impressive and make for better debates and higher speaks.
My experience with tricks is limited to the few rounds that I have debated against these positions. I'm probably not your best judge for a nuanced tricks debate, but I'll try my best to evaluate properly. Flesh out and over explain all of your paradoxes and truth testing warrants. Please don't conduct a blip storm and give me a headache.
Kant, Hobbes, and generic util stuff is what I'm most comfortable with in the realm of ethical frameworks. However, I'm open to evaluating anything else just as long as you clearly explain justifications and what counts as offence under the standard. TJF's are also strategic on these debates. By default, theoretical justifications > normative justifications.
I would really rather not have to judge pure LARP debates cause they're usually pretty boring. However, if this is what you do best, then go for it. I won't judge kick unless you explicitly tell me to. Unique impact scenarios are better than generic extinction and nuke war stuff.
Defaults ( these only apply if neither side makes arguments on these issues) :
-tech > truth ( this one prob wont change)
- epistemic confidence
-comparative worlds > truth testing
-theory is drop the arg and topicality is drop the debater. Both are no RVIS, competing interps
-presumption flows aff and permissibility flows neg
- not really a default, but trigger/content warnings are good and necessary
-perms ( without net benefits) are defense
I'll try to average around a 28.5. Ill give speaks depending on your strategy and ability to collapse in the 2n/2ar. i'll disclose them if you ask
If I judge you at a local in NJ, and you read a non util fw that isn't impact justified and have a good framework/phil debate, I'll prob give you 30 speaks. If you read Kant or any other non consequentialist framework, and then decide to read util offence under it, Ill cap you at a 28.
Add me to your email chains, and feel free to reach out with any questions you may have before or after the round!
Update for PF tournaments (plz read): The entirety of this paradigm also applies to PF. Ill still be tech > truth and your ethos wont impact my rfd. I primarily did LD in high school and did a little bit of PF my junior year so I have a decent understanding for the structure etc. I think the evidence standards in PF are pretty trash so I want to be on the email chain even if you aren't spreading. L20 for evidence ethics violations. I will treat paraphrased evidence as an analytic. Disclosure is good, so do it. Pure weighing means almost nothing absent some sort of strength of length into an overarching framing mechanism or impact filter.
Fiat is illusory which means arguments that critically interrogate our relationship to the debate space and question norms/modes of knowledge production are more valuable than theorizing about economic collapse. This means that "progressive" arguments probably constitute a good model of debate and I'll be more than happy to evaluate them. Just make sure you actually know what you are doing because I don't want to sit through a cringey K debate or a half baked theory debate.The only rules in debate are speech times, one W/one L, and that you cant be violent ( neither physically nor discursively). This means that "PF rules" isn't a response to progressive arguments unless you are going for jurisdiction impacts or pragmatic/semantic standards in the context of theory/T.
I don't know why this needs to be explicitly stated, but please have proper citations in the doc.
Have fun and don't be toxic/elitist :)
Top level// TLDR
Preferred pronouns: they/them
I debated policy for three years at aubrey high school. I currently coach there and do some other policy oriented work. I am a first year out - I have judged about 50 rounds. My sole focus is pretty much policy debate - I debate NFA- LD at UNT but it is nothing like policy or high school LD, beyond the titles of the arguments.
if You are going for T and theory- or spreading through some other paragraph sized bullet points- you need to do a couple things for me- give me space between arguments and make it really clear that you are making a new argument and what it is supposed to answer i.e "they said 'x' I have three answers 1. 'answer' 2.'answer' 3. 'answer.'" If you don't do this for me and I miss something- or I think i missed something- I will err towards the side that cleaned up the debate for me.
Yao Yao Chen said something a lot of people quote for good reason - “If you have little time before a debate, here’s all you need to know: do what you do best… I would rather listen to you debating your strongest argument than you adapting to my preferences.”
Unlike Yao Yao tho- I prefer one off K debates. And I won’t say go as fast as you want- you probably should give me more pen time then you usually would for other folks on taglines, CP texts, theory, perm texts etc. although I do not really care how fast you go through the evidence itself.
I really appreciate judge direction- it is probably the best thing you can do for yourself in front of me- I often find myself at the end of debates where both sides have won certain arguments- but have failed to explain what the implications of those arguments are for how I should resolve the other sub debates.
I’m not sure if I have developed a routine for evaluating rounds- it is very important that both teams tell me what they won, why they won, and what that means for the round/ for what my ballot should look like. I’ll try to defer to what is on my flow to the best of my abilities.
I enjoy answering questions after the round. I don’t enjoy rude people, if we all treat each other kindly then I will answer questions till I am blue in the face. And everyone should feel free to email me at any point with any questions.
My email (which you should put on the chain) is: firstname.lastname@example.org
Online debate stuff:
I like email chains over other kinds of sharing methods- it lets us get in contact with ppl in case of technical difficulties.
I think Jackie Poapst said this first, but I absolutely hate “is any one not ready” because if someone is having a tech problem then they may not be able to indicate they are not ready. It is the equivalent of “if you aren’t here raise your hand.”
There have been several times when debaters have asked “is everybody ready” and then proceeded to give their speech without a response from me- I missed several seconds of those debaters’ speeches. Please wait for me to respond I’ll usually say that “i’m good” verbally. If I see that the debater about to give a speech can see their camera- i may just give a thumbs up. If I have not done either of those things- I AM NOT READY.
This is my least favorite kind of debate- but mostly because I have never gone for T. I am slowly growing to appreciate T debates.
I think that fairness is probably an internal link to an impact- but not an impact in it’s own right, but I can definitely be convinced otherwise.
I think that reasonablity is an argument that begs the question of whether or not the counter interpretation is reasonable- not whether the aff is reasonably topical.
I think impact calculus is really important for me here- you should err on the side of overexplanation of your impact and weighing for me.
I usually vote for the team that does the better weighing- if an aff wins that there is some sort of external disad to framework but then doesn’t do the work to weigh that impact versus the impacts the neg goes for then It becomes very difficult to vote aff.
Similarly when the negative wins risk of offense but then doesn’t sufficiently weigh that offense against that of the affirmative it is very hard to vote negative.
I don’t think that the TVA has to resolve the entirety of the aff- but I do think that it is important that it captures some of the affirmative offense.
I have voted negative on framework one time- and there wasn’t a TVA- but I will still say that I think the TVA makes the neg’s life a lot easier.
I think that negative teams should make more arguments about how a good stasis point is necessary to resolving the impacts of the aff.
I think that too many teams get stuck into defending their model - instead of comparing models- good affs are able to make arguments that they generate better education or have better access to procedural fairness- good negative teams are able to explain why the aff interp bites the link and what their model does better and why I should prefer it.
Just like every other judge- I think that specificity is key- the more specific your link evidence is to the aff the more I will be persuaded by the kritik
however - I think that contextualization can be just as good as specificity- all I am looking for is language that emphasizes what the aff does to trigger an impact- and why the aff is a really bad iteration of that.
A lot of teams contextualization devolves into descriptions of the status quo- which, while these descriptions are often frightening, and enlightening, they fail to explain what the affs specific relation to their kritik is.
I don’t think debate should happen in the overview- you should do as much work as possible to describe your kritik on the line by line- it makes it so much easier for me to flow.
I am a sucker for link turns case arguments- I just ask that they be thoroughly explained if you want to go for them.
I don’t think that you necessarily need to win an alternative to win the debate- but you do have to win a reason why the link/impact debate necessitates my ballot absent one.
It is not hard to convince me that affs shouldn’t get a perm in method debates- but it is also not hard to convince me they should get perms.
Kevin Hirn said a couple things I really agree with:
“Role of the ballot/judge claims are obviously somewhat self-serving, but in debates in which they're well-explained (or repeatedly dropped), they can be useful guidelines for crafting a reasonable decision (especially when the ballot theorizes a reasonable way for both teams to win if they successfully defend core thesis positions)”.
“Most permutation/framework debates are really asking the question: "Is the part of the aff that the neg disagreed with important enough to decide an entire debate about?" (this is true in CP competition debates too, for what it's worth). Much of the substantive debating elsewhere subsequently determines the outcome of these sub-debates far more than debaters seem to assume.”
I think that PICS are probably good
I think that process debates are interesting.
I judged a prelim at stanford this year where a kid may have won the debate in an overview- and then got mad that I didn’t evaluate their blippy cross extension onto the CP solvency flow- so this is my warning- I am not a good judge for super fast overviews explaining counterplan solvency- I would much rather you do that on the lbl- i.e explain CP solvency while answering solvency deficits to the CP.
I usually give the neg a risk of the disad- but i can be convinced there is zero risk.
I think you have a better shot of convincing me that there is 0 risk of a link than you do convincing me that there is zero risk of an impact.
Comparative impact calculus is key for my ballot- you have to tell me why your thing happens- why its worse etc,
You should definitely be doing the work to tell me how to evaluate impacts at some point- i,e probability first and why etc.
Tricks : (this section was written with LD in mind)
I am not a good judge for one line arguments that aren’t explained thoroughly- and I am an even worse judge for teams whose apparent goal is for the aff to concede “3a. Determinism means util auto negates”
I guess I am down to have debates where the neg strategy is 4 minutes on one line from the nc but I have a couple stipulations.
I think the argument should be complete when it is introduced- if it isnt then the aff should be able to get away with saying- that’s not an argument and moving on.
I have to have that argument on my flow before the final speech- i,e if i missed it in the first speech because you didnt give me the pen time or because you sent paragraph form theory blocks instead of numbering each separate arg- then I will not vote it
If you open-source and do round reports with the details of the 1AC, 1NC, and 2NR, tell me right when the round ends and I'll increase your speaks by .2.
If you say anything about "evidence theft" I'm going to actually scream- it's not offense, and if y'all go to a big school (larger than 100 graduating class) you need to check ur privilege, paywalls are a thing, and not everyone has hours to spend getting around them.
Trigger warnings are super important- descriptions of violence should probably have a trigger warning, you never know who has experienced the problems you're talking about first hand. No highlighting around descriptions of violence does change that, Idk about y'all but sometimes I just be reading the other teams cards so I can cut CP's or what have you.
Experienced teams need to be nicer to novices, I get that y'all are stressed about breaking so you can get your TOC/TFA qual, but like.... U shud know when ur winning a round. Don't make debate an exclusive activity.
Extra speaker points if you make good jokes.
I will love you if your overview does more than just "lemme describe my case to you again... Just in case you forgot"
If you misgender ppl consistently, I'll probably vote you down.
Absolutely no racist, sexist, or anti Queer rhetoric- I’ll probably slash your speaks and may drop you depending on how egregious i find the offense.
If you clip in front of me- I will destroy your speaks.
Hello! I am Michelle and I primarily competed in policy and Lincoln Douglas in high school in both progressive and traditional styles for both events.
- please do not spend your entire time arguing which author has more phds.
- it is fine to point out how one author is a reporter compared with a professor; however, you still need to address the inherent logic.
- even if you have evidence supporting an argument, make sure you can also provide analytics and demonstrate you understand your evidence.
- if you don't have evidence, make sure you have solid analysis
- I don't do flex prep, cx is an important time to demonstrate your knowledge and understanding of your case and topic.
- be civil during cx
Speed & Clarity
- Although, I am fine with speed, arguments and warrants need to be carefully enunciated and explained. If I can't understand you, I will say clear. After the third clear, I will simply stop flowing until I can understand you.
- Please signpost and have clear explicit extensions of arguments/cards. However don't just say extend weller 17, explain the significance.
- Please time yourselves and your opponents if you would like. You can finish your sentence quickly once time is up.
- Use ALL of your prep time. You can always make your speech better. I will dock points if there is time left.
- I like "even if " arguments. Don't just have only one response.
Lincoln Douglas Specific
- If you are in Lincoln Douglas, there needs to be a framework (value and vc) (regardless if you are traditional or progressive).
- If you run morality as a value, please do not just say "ought indicates a moral obligation hence the value for today's round is morality." If you run morality as a v, have someone back it up and have actual standards because if it is only morality, morality is subjective.
- I especially like it when you tie actual philosophy into the framework and throughout the case instead of only an impact calc. If you run phil, make sure you understand it and can explain it simply.
- DO NOT drop framework after the 1AC or the 1NC.
I would prefer a traditional debate but I will vote on most things if well explained.
- No tricks or performance
- if you are running a cp, make sure its case specific and the aff can't just perm it.
- if you are running a k, make sure you understand and defend the epistemology and ontology. Also even if you are an expert on post or pre-fiat Ks, explain it simply to me and your opponent.
- if you are running theory, make sure it actually makes sense and isn't super generic. You need to weigh standards, voters, and justifications for paradigm issues. If you do run theory, do not ONLY run theory. Don't run shoe theory or stuff along those lines.
-the theory that im fine with running is if your opponents run the “If [assumption], then [remaining propositional content of resolution].”
- Make sure you have kvis in your last speech and do some weighing of both the practical and moral implications.
** brownine points if you run something involving Nietzsche
My email is email@example.com .
Feel free to email me after the tournament if you have any additional questions regarding my decisions or comments.