Damus Hollywood Invitational
2020 — NSDA Campus, CA/US
Novice Policy Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Damien High school 22' , 3rd-year varsity debater
put me on the chain @ - JJBartholomew22@damien-hs.edu
Respect the judge and opponents
I'm cool with spreading just don't go warp speed through blocks and always emphasize/signpost, ill shout clear if you're going too
fast. thoroughly extend warrants, shadow extending sucks. Better analysis is better than card dumping and
don't leave it up to me to do the work for you. Good speaks for comparative analysis. I'm pretty familiar with
the topic but don't assume I know the entirety of an arg.
Theory cool and ill vote on it, unless there's an obvious answer. I generally think Condos good but ill evaluate it if the
other team mishandles it. No aspec, cross-x solves. The same condo rules apply to all theory if its argued well and its
mishandled ill vote. Individual off case violations are a reason to reject the team unless told otherwise.
Love good CP's and DA's
Thoroughly explain how the CP interacts with the DA,
The permutation usually solves and every counterplan needs a specific reason why the perm can't function or is bad
Neg: I don't have a high threshold for DA's, especially on this year's topic, ill vote on it if it's not likely as long as you
frame the debate properly. Don't shadow extend if you're going CP DA, thorough explanation of how the CP
doesn't link or resolves the NB. Decision/impact calc is important, I won't do the work for you unless the aff is lacking. 2NC cp's
Aff: I'm not a fan of the solvency deficits that x actor can't do x plan because of authority unless there's a solid impact. Not all
Solvency deficits need a major one but at least a good reason. I'll side with the affirmative on judge kicking unless im
told otherwise and evaluate DA's vs the squo. Perms are your friend and you should use them, they're usually the best way out of a
I'm a big fan of T on this year's topic
Neg: I'll vote if explained well, author quals and intent to define/exclude is important. Competing interpretations is usually
good, must be explained or ill default to reasonability. Good explanation of how each component interacts with one
another. Thoroughly extend the interpretation and compete off of it. I generally don't like T but its definitely viable given the topic.
Aff: Don't just read a generic block, genuinely answer it. I usually don't like reasonability unless it's expanded upon
but not just if I think the aff is T. I'm not a huge fan of the SCOTUS aff's so watch out for T.
Neg: not my favorite, don't assume I know all of the literature but I'm pretty familiar,
no votes for no explanations, let me know if I need a new flow for the overview, good link works win, decision calc for
filtering my decision, read a plan
Aff: must be effective on the case, don't undercover it to answer the K, ill vote on perf con if its a major contradiction. Perms
usually arent your friends here. Perf con justifies severing reps. I'll usually let the aff weigh case.
Aff: be efficient in case, don't spend the whole 2ac on it. Explain the aff well.
Neg: don't card dump and expect to win, DA turns case arg's are good, good impact on both sides of the debate is important. Im
willing to vote on presumption if there are major concessions and I'm effectively told so
Hey-o, I'm Den!
email for chain - email@example.com
Conflict(s): Kelly (KCP), Chattahoochee
11/12 Update: we love NATO propaganda (or do we?)
9/23 Update: first tournament of the year‼️
I did four years of policy debate in high school (2015-2019) and regularly competed in the Chicago Debate League (UDL) circuit. Additionally, I participated in Nat circuit tournaments so I'm familiar with both Lay/Circuit styles of debate. Nevertheless, I default towards a tech over truth style of judging unless said so otherwise in-round.
As for what I prefer judging (K or Policy), I have no preference. However, I'm very experienced in judging critical rounds since 1) I used to go for the kritik (security, cap and biopower) in high school 2) The Chicago circuit is very k-oriented 3) K teams pref me for some reason. Nonetheless, I volunteer for a team that is very policy-centered and judge a lot of policy v policy rounds regularly.
Overall, I'll do my best to judge rounds fairly and apologize in advance if I miss certain things due to my faulty ears.
Disadvantages: Specific links to affirmatives recommended but generics are fine as long as it's still applicable.
Kritiks: Always have specific links to the affirmative. Links predicated off the topic itself doesn't lead to any meaningful educational debate specific to the case being ran. However, that doesn't mean I won't vote for Links of Omission if the opposing team fails to answer them.
Counterplans: CP debate is pretty awesome. Multiplank Counterplans are good. Planks that are supported by 1AC authors are even better.
Topicality: Highly recommend to impact/flesh out the standards debate. Seen too many rounds where the negative team extends defense rather than actual offense that comes from that specific section of the debate. Additionally, explain thoroughly why your model of debate is better than the opposing team's model and you're good.
T-USFG / Framework: I highly believe they're two totally different arguments but y'all have to make that distinction. To illustrate, negative team runs T-USFG while the affirmative team in the 2ac reads a block titled FW answers. The negative team can't simply just state "this is t-usfg not fw disregard their block". Foremost, the 2AC FW block still includes answers to standards/things that might be in your T-USFG shell. Especially, limits, ground and clash. Also, probably includes turns that can be applicable to the model of debate you're endorsing that requires the use of the USFG. Anyways, I prefer the debate to be framed similar to topicality (better model of debate). However, teams going just for the impact turn(s) are welcome to do so. Note, negative teams providing TVA(s) under their MoD are cool.
Things I Will Not Tolerate:
Blatant racism, xenophobia, sexism, ableism ---> Loss / Low speaker Points
Please be accountable for your actions if either the opponents or myself call you out.
Hi, my name is Axel Garcia Dont use PRONOUNS
I'm currently attending GCU Majoring in Forensic Psychology. I debated in high school for 3 1/2 years as a debater/competitor. I am a debate coach/helper for Damien high school if they need help I debated public forums and policy debates in high school. I mostly Judge Policy. My Email is firstname.lastname@example.org Thank you
I am 100% honest, really don't know a lot about the topic this year, focused on school. What you can do is this, Explain... ---> https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/71257ee5-18d7-461e-b39b-3277361953dc
- I allow tag team CX
-I like any type of argument you run! Just make sure there are links between your arguments and you clearly explain. Do
- Spreading is okay as long as you articulate and are clear.
- Don't like K's, I will try my best to flow it.
- Everything else I'm good with.
- I rarely do LD debate, Spend a lot of time contextualizing your card/s if you're relying on it to win the round. Even if it was already constructive, it's a good habit to cover it thoroughly a 2nd time just in case I missed something.
- Sometimes I would do PF but not always.
- Remember to Spread as long as you articulate and are clear.
- I rebuttal speeches show me the most important issues and why they favor your side, we already had rebuttal speeches and 2 crossfires (PF).
- I appreciate puns in rounds.
- Tag team cx is allowed
Big questions once during high school don't know much about it. Except to do your best and I value one overarching argument that's successfully upheld throughout the round over winning on the flow. Big picture analysis
Random bonuses like things that would boost your points
- Using your time wisely. ( not just sit there and do nothing. Think about what you are going to do next )
- Try to act confident, even if you're not, by making eye contact with your opponent and standing up straight, which can make your argument appear more believable.
- Remain calm at all times, and never shout or get angry since it will only make your argument seem weak.
- Always have your camera on when speaking and stand up when speaking
What not to do:
- If you intentionally make any racist, sexist, or otherwise discriminatory comments, I will give you extremely low-speak and notify your coach.
- Try not to clip, if you do and other teams catch it. you lost the ballot, if you are wrong another team loses. But the debate will keep on going.
- Don't play games when you are done speaking or when your opponent is speaking
- Don't go on your phone, to call, chat, or play games, ( you can use your phone to be in call your partner and or if you are using prep time ) <--- on only zoom
- Call me to judge if you call me by my first name - 0.3 speaker points
LD: policy pls (below should still be applicable)
If you have any questions feel free to ask me before the round starts.
TL;DR Go for what you're most prepared for and can execute the best because that's what really makes debate fun and productive. I'm not very familiar with the topic.
Debate is good
Tech > Truth
Clarity above all else
Clipping is bad
I, as the judge, am a policymaker
Fiat is a good thing
A couple Great cards + explanation always beats 10 pieces of mediocre ev
There's not an excuse to avoid line by line
I don't think fairness isn't an intrinsic impact, same as education. It can be an internal link to other things but simply ending your impact calculus with "They KILLED FAIRNESS" won't do it for me. Just treat your extensions and impact work like you would any DA. (I WON'T EVALUATE T AS A DA. TOPICALITY IS A YES OR NO QUESTION. RISK ANALYSIS FOR T IS ABSURD). I also lean heavily towards competing interpretations; the quality of your ev does matter.
If your entire strategy solely centers around the K, I'm not a great judge for you. I can certainly understand your generic Cap and Security K but any high theory requires a whole lot of explanation for me. Just because I might understand what you're saying doesn't mean you can weasel your way around with generic links if it's even somewhat contested. If you're aff I'd down to see an impact turn (obvious exceptions, of course, are: racism good, sexism good, homophobia good, etc.) I really do not want to hear Death Good, please do not do that in front of me.
K-Affs (Includes Framework)
I have written my disdain for K-Affs before. I am not going to just dismiss it; even as I maintain a reluctance to vote on them, I am not one you should just breeze through your blocks and force me to do work for you. I will be the first to admit that I need a lot of explanation as noted above in "Kritiks". Given all this said, framework is an uphill battle for the aff. I am not very sympathetic to generic "fairness bad/your education bad" impact turns; I think policy education is generally a good thing.
The only theory I feel even remotely comfortable voting aff (TO REJECT THE ARGUMENT) on are utopian fiat bad, object fiat bad, riders DA bad, delay cps bad, and floating piks bad. Condo is generally a good thing and I personally think you're better off not reading that 30 second shell if the neg is running just a single conditional advocacy but I understand time skew. Also, in principle, I judge-kick. I think that as I default to Condo being a good thing, and the status quo always being a logical option, it would be illogical for me to choose a plan of action when doing nothing would be better.
Also, I doubt I'll ever vote for Word Piks. This certainly doesn't excuse excessively disrespectful behavior.
I like politics a lot and I like engagement and clash at the link level even more so. Turns case analysis (vice versa for the aff) is always a good thing and should be a must have. Straight turns are fun.
I love impact turns and my personal favorites are: Heg Good, Warming Good, Cap Good, Dedev, and CWG. It will take a lot for me to evaluate 0 risk of an impact. It can happen but your cards need to be far better.
If you make fun of the Tennessee Titans during your speech I will give you +0.3 speaker points.
About me: (she/her/hers/ella) Sonoma Academy'19 & Dickinson College '23
I debated all throughout high school on the local and national circuit level. I went to CNDI camp and was a 1A/2N. I did four years of policy and one year of parli. GGSA #1 will be the first tournament I judge this year and exposure to the topic (no camp experience) keep this in mind.
I want to be on the email chain: email@example.com
Please feel free to ask me questions before and after the round or just say hello and introduce yourself if you'd like. I want to do what I can to make you feel that the round is an assessable and comfortable space.
Zoom: This format of debate is new to us all that being said it's not an excuse to steal prep or contact others outside the round. Please adhere to the honor code of former debate rounds. Time yourselves please. I will be doing so as well so I will know if you're running over time intentionally for prep.
Speed/Speaks: I am fine with spreading but with the added variable of zoom please go 80% your normal speed. If I can't understand you I won't flow it. I won't interrupt you to say clear, if you see me staring at you or clearly not flowing, adapt. I flow the speech not the doc. Good way to get good speaks from me is to give me clear instructions in the beginning:order, placement, and extension of arguments throughout the speech not just titles and authors. Etiquette to all in the round will also reflect in your speaks. Debate is meant to be a fun and educational space not one to be ungraceful or rude.
Affirmative: You should know your aff like the back of your hand. 1AC I expect you to shine in the CX.
CX: One of my favorite parts of debate itself. I think it is sadly underutilized but it's a key place for speaks to me. I want to see you shine in CX. I'm impartial to tag team just get consent from the other team. Be respectful and try to not talk over one other (no one enjoys seeing a repeat of the 2020 Presidential debate) I believe CX is binding, so be specific and careful.
Case: Case debate is very important. I love seeing it well played out.
Kritiks: I am fine with Ks and K affs. In high school, I leaned towards policy debate. However, I've studied critical theory and am familiar with some lit but again not everything so be very clear. I believe in round solvency and that a key point in the round should be the roll of the ballot and the a well explained alt. I would rather have a mediocre policy round than a bad K debate. Please only read Ks that you are comfortable and knowledgeable in.
CP: I love effective and specific CP/DA combos. Please do an effective block split each should have one speaker dedicated to either or one speaker to both. The first thing I should hear about DAs in any speech is that they outweigh and turn the case. Generic CP/DA combos are fine but you need to really focus on the link to the aff.
I've debated for five years for Liberal Arts Sciences Academy. This means I probably agree with most norms of debate. I will take the easiest way out when making a decision. I do not want to read a ton of cards and I will default to whatever evidence comparison/ spin was said in the debate regardless of if it was true if it is not challenged. I do not want to hear in depth debates on whether or not fairness is an impact on framework because I don't think it matters. I also am not super familiar with a lot of K literature and I will not give you the benefit of the doubt if you under explain it.
My name is Veena Kittusamy and I am a junior at The Meadows School and I have debated policy since my freshman year.
I don't have a problem with spreading as long as you are clear and concise, I will interrupt if I can't understand what you're saying.
I have never voted for a K aff and am not the biggest fan of them.
Please be considerate to your opponents and don't be rude.
I will give extra speaker points if you're funny and keep me entertained, please do not make this a boring debate because it will not be enjoyable for any of us.
My advice is to try to be persuasive and present your argument in an understandable/organized manner.
Please put me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
You need to time your own speeches, cross x, and prep. Stay organized and most importantly, have fun and do your best!
2011-2014: Policy Debater at Notre Dame High School
2014-2015: Policy Debater at the University of Michigan
2015-2018: Executive Director of Detroit Urban Debate Education (which included judging and coaching for Detroit Urban Debate League schools in Policy)
I currently work at the University of Chicago Crime and Education Lab — an urban social science research organization — evaluating youth-based violence prevention and academic programs. I also studied criminology intensively as a Sociology student on a Law, Justice, and Social Change sub-track at the University of Michigan. This experience often involved going into local correctional facilities firsthand to discuss incarceration, state violence, and policing with individuals who were incarcerated. Based on what I learned there and my current work at the Crime Lab, you can assume I have a baseline understanding of the major policy issues and social theory in the criminal justice field. Still, while I have probably judged over a hundred debate rounds, I am not currently active in the debate community. Do not assume I am caught up on all topic-specific arguments. Please be clear.
Please use Speech Drop instead of emailing me speeches.
A note on virtual Debate:
Virtual debate, as is the case for all remote activities during the COVID-19 pandemic, is inherently biased towards certain people. Access to and knowledge of technology is a privilege. Unfortunately, even for those who have the technology, having a safe space to join Zoom rounds is also a privilege. I hope to recognize technological disparities and the collective trauma caused by the pandemic in my judging by being reasonable, empathetic, and flexible. If there is anything that I can do to make the virtual round more accessible to you please do not hesitate to let me know.
Generally, I will incorporate these norms during virtual debates:
- If possible, I would appreciate it if you had your video on, but I know this is not possible for everyone. My RFD and speaker point assignment will not change based on your video being off.
- Unless otherwise mandated by the tournament, I will incorporate 10 minutes of "tech time" for troubleshooting issues. Please do not abuse this time. It is NOT the same as prep time.
- Please try and show up to your round as early as possible. In the virtual world, it is harder to ensure everyone is accounted for and that the 1AC starts on time, so this is one way to help.
- If there is a tech issue that occurs during your speech for longer than 3-5 seconds, I will interrupt and try to troubleshoot with you in the moment. This time will not be taken out of your speech.
- Everyone should be on mute at all times except for the people currently speaking.
I try as much as possible to evaluate based on the arguments in the round. While I obviously hold implicit biases for or against certain arguments, I try as hard as possible to not let that impact my decisions. I have experience debating, coaching, and judging critical- and policy-oriented rounds. I wouldn't call myself swayed toward one side or the other.
That being said a couple of notes:
- Bad arguments are bad. If your argument is illogical — for example, reading a disadvantage without a link in the 1NC or your evidence not making the warrants needed to uphold your argument — then I will likely not want to vote for it. It will not be hard for the other team to convince me otherwise. While I do not want to vote for a bad argument, that does not mean the opposing team can just ignore it.
- I am willing to vote against my own beliefs and the burden to persuade me is on both teams. However, I don't tolerate obvious hateful/rude arguments or behavior. Everyone deserves to feel safe in this activity.
- I tend to end up using a cost-benefit analysis to help me make decisions: Quantifying the risk of all impacts, seeing if the logic or warrants behind the impact uphold or minimize that risk, incorporating how much the other team's defense minimizes that risk (or thumps the impact all-together), and comparing this analysis for each impact. It is not uncommon for me to literally graph out how probable I find each impact to be (plus or minus the defense from each team) before an RFD as a decision making tool. I can't begin to tell you how many debates I have judged where one team won simply because the other team forgot to extend defense. All of this being said, I will incorporate any role of the ballot arguments accordingly, even if it means not using this decision making framework. This is simply my norm, but certainly not the overarching rule.
For novice debaters, the following acts will result in an increase of speaker points: flowing every speech, communicating with your partner, not talking over your partner, not talking into your computer, using up all of your time in cross-ex asking questions, giving the evidence you read to the other team efficiently, and keeping track of your own time (I will keep track too, but it's a good behavior to start).
Feel free to ask me questions before/after the round.
North Broward '19
Do what you do best, and I will try my best to evaluate the debate at hand. Focus on technical execution and you should be good. Please please please number your speeches! I tend to take more time than most to make decisions. I try to be incredibly thorough, and I am a very slow reader.
Please Read for NDCA: While I have not updated my paradigm in a while, my argumentative and stylistic preferences remain the same. I am, however, instituting a change to how I judge debates: I WILL NOT have your speech doc open while I am flowing. If you are unclear, I will no longer be using your speech doc to fill in the gaps. So...please be clear and slow down!
My thoughts on various argument genres:
Sure. Critiques of the content of CJR are terminally unpersuasive. You are much better off critiquing the idea of telling people what to do or impact turning their standards (fairness, limits, deliberation, etc.). Too many teams rely on the 1AR rattling off 10 DAs to FW that either don't say anything at all or all say the same thing. Instead, you should focus on one or two offensive arguments, while also explaining your vision of debate and how it preserves limits.
Yes. I am most persuaded by limits and fairness arguments. However, if a given debate (either because of the panel or the team you are debating) makes it more strategic to go for a skills or education based impact, that's ok too!
Please spend time doing the CI debate like you would in a normal T debate. Tell me why their CI is so limitless and why debates under their model are bad.
I find myself voting aff in T debates when the neg fails to acknowledge an impact turn to topicality or drops the case.
When answering aff offense ask yourself the following questions: Is this intrinsic to T, not some other aspect of debate? Does their CI solve this argument? Does voting aff remedy the harm they have identified?
As a debater, process CPs are the bane of my existence. For this reason, I am more sympathetic to aff arguments about fairness and the unpredictable nature of mechanisms and internal net benefits. However, I can see myself quickly voting negative for any CP given sound technical execution by the negative.
Aside from the Cap K (maybe), I find it nearly impossible for the neg to win a K debate when they have not won a FW argument. Absent a reason for why the Aff can't weigh the case, I struggle to see a reason why the advantages do not outweigh non unique link arguments that will never be solved by the alt's (epistemic shift/movement/etc.)
For this reason, I think that the FW portion of debates is more important than most.
Politics DAs are great. Unsure what the CJR "Topic DA" is, but I will reward teams that take a generic DA and add spin to contextualize it to the 1AC they are debating.
Random Theory Things
Conditionality is probably good, but I can certainly be persuaded otherwise.
2NC CPs need a justification in the 2NC. 2NC CP with caution, I think 2NC CPs basically justify the 1AR doing whatever they want.
I have yet to hear a persuasive justification for a Floating PIK other than... "The 1AR dropped the PIK"
My name is Nishelle Phansalkar. I am a senior at the Meadows School and have been debating policy since my freshman year.
I've never voted for a K aff.
I don’t mind speed just make sure you are clear and coherent in your arguments. I will say clear if I cannot understand you.
Please be considerate of your opponents.
If you make me laugh, I will give you extra speaker points, so don't make the debate boring because that won't be fun for any of us.
Please copy me on the email chain and make sure to time your cross x and your speeches for yourself!! My email is email@example.com.
Make sure to flow all the speeches and stay organized. Good luck and have fun :)
Lowell '20 l UCLA '24
Yes, email chain: zoerosenberg [at] gmail [dot] com AND firstname.lastname@example.org,please format the subject as: "Tournament Name -- Round # -- Aff School AF vs Neg School NG"
Background: I was a 2N for four years at Lowell, I qualified to the TOC my senior year and was in late elims of NSDA. I don't debate in college due to a lack of policy infrastructure. I now help out at Damien and am involved in the team's strategy so I have a good sense of arguments being read on the circuit.
GGSA/State Qualifier: I will still judge rounds technically, as one does for circuit style. However, I believe adaptation is one of the most important skills one can get out of debate so I encourage you to speak slowly, especially with parents on the panel.
Tech before truth. It's human nature to have preferences toward certain arguments but I try my best to listen and judge objectively. All of the below can be changed by out-debating the other team through judge instruction and ballot writing. Unresolved debates are bad debates.
Speed is great, but clarity is even better. If I'm judging you online please go slightly slower, especially if you don't have a good mic. I find it increasingly hard to hear analytics in the online format.
Be smart. I rather hear great analytical arguments than terrible cards. I generally think in-round explanation is more important than evidence quality.
I'm very expressive, look at me if you want to know if I'm digging your argument!
Call me by my name, not "judge".
Debnil Sur taught me everything I know about debate so check: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=debnil&search_last= for a better explanation of anything I have to say here.
What arguments does she prefer? I go for mostly policy arguments and feel more in my comfort zone judging these debates. That being said, I moved more to the left as my years in high school came to a close and am down to judge a well-defended kritikal affirmative. I think debate is a game but it's a game that can certainly can influence subjectivity development. Note: I would still prefer to judge a bad policy debate, over a bad kritikal debate.
Online Debate Adaptions
Here are some things you can do to make the terribleness of online tournaments a little less terrible.
1 - I really would like your camera to be on, wifi permitting. Debate is a communicative activity and your persuasion increases by tenfold if you are communicating with me face to face.
2 - Please use some form of microphone or slow down by 20%. It is really hard to catch analytics with poor audio quality.
3 - The benefits of sending analytics vastly outweigh the cons of someone having your blocks to a random argument.
4 - If it takes you more than a minute to send out an email chain I will start running prep. I genuinely don't understand how it can take up to five minutes to attach a document to an email chain lmao
K Affs: I read a kritikal affirmative all of senior year but on the negative went for framework against most K affs. I don't have a definite bias toward either side. However, kritikal affirmatives that defend a direction of the topic and allow the negative to access core topic generics jive with me much more than simply impact turning fairness and skirting the resolution.
Framework: Fairness is an impact. By the 2NR please don't go for more than two impacts. Having a superior explanation why the TVA resolves their offense and doing impact comparison will put you in a good spot. Switch-side debate is a silly argument, but feel free to convince me otherwise.
Neg: I know the lit behind security, neolib, psychoanalysis, and necropolitics. Make of that which you will. I'm not going to be happy listening to your 7 minute overview. Explain the thesis of the kritik and contextualize the link debate to the aff and I will be quite happy. Winning framework means you probably win the ballot. And as Debnil puts it, "I believe I'm more of an educator than policymaker, which means representational critiques or critiques of debate's educational incentive structure will land better for me than most judges."
Competing interps or reasonability? Competing interps. Asserting a standard like limits needs to be warranted out, explain why your impacts matters. Have a clear vision of the topic under your interp, things like case-lists and a solid understanding of arguments being read on the circuit are important. T before theory. Also a good topicality debate is my favorite thing ever.
Is condo good? Yes, most of the time. Things like amending stuff in the block, kicking planks, fiating out of straight turns are sketchy. But in most debates, unless it's dropped or severely mishandled I lean neg. To win condo the affirmative must have a superior explanation why multiple advocacies made that debate unrecoverable. Going for condo only because you're losing on substance is not the move. Hard debate is good debate. Other theory preferences (I-Fiat, Process CPs, etc.) are likely determined by the topic. However, they're almost always reasons to reject the argument not the team.
Policy stuff? I like it. Link centered debate matters the most, so focus on uniqueness and link framing. Do comparative analysis of the warrants in your evidence. I really dislike bad turns case analysis, link turns case arguments will sit better with me. I think most types of counterplans are legitimate if the neg wins they are competitive. I'll judge kick if you tell me to do it.
Make a funny joke about anyone on the Lowell squad, Lisa Kopelnik, Brendan Tremblay, or Debnil Sur and I'll boost you +.1 speaks
Last edited 1/30/2021.
2020 Important Notice:
I graduated from Notre Dame High School in 2017 and have been 3 years entirely removed from debate. During my senior year at ND my partner Mikaela Appleby and I qualified to the TOC with 7 bids. Therefore, I while I know about debate structure and what constitutes a fully formed argument, I know little about this year's topic. So with that being said, make sure to extra-explain concepts or acronyms that are specific to this year's topic.
I've judged roughly about 25 rounds on this topic so far in the year.
My virtual debating policies:
You do not need to turn on your webcam! It is entirely up to you and I understand why some people my refrain for various reasons.
Technology never works when we need it to, I understand that. That being said, you should be taking active steps to ensure the speed and reliability of your computer when debating. That means:
-Completely shutting down and restarting your computer every now and then. If it's been a week since you last did this, that's why it's really slow.
-Having a lot of tabs open is a HUGE drain on your computer's speed. ESPECIALLY, if you're running google chrome. Close out of as many tabs as you can. If you have an older computer, I would recommend switching to a different browser like firefox (not sure if it's NSDA Campus compatible, you should check) as it is less demanding on the hardware of your computer.
-If you have a little extra money, invest in an ethernet cord if your computer has the ability to take one. A wired connection is infinitely more reliable than a wireless one.
IMPORTANT - due to the nature of virtual debate including lag spikes, or moments of being unable to hear the person speaking, I am far far less likely to vote on quick 5 second theory arguments that go completely dropped. I'm willing to blame the drop on poor video/audio quality. If you'd still like to run arguments like aspec or fiat bad yada yada, devote at least 10 seconds into it and have the analytics in the speech doc.
If you are a first year debater:
If you are a first year debater, read the arguments you are most comfortable with, regardless of what anything else in this paradigm says.
Above all else I want you to talk about what you know the most! I want to see good, clear arguments.
An argument is a claim, followed by an explanation of the claim, followed by some data to back it up.
You should try your best to stay organized, responding to your opponents' arguments in a "line-by-line" fashion.
Have fun! And if you have any questions before the round please don't be afraid to ask me.
I love the activity and if you're in it I think you're doing something valuable with your time. Which, means that you should do your best to include everybody in the community and be a good person overall. If you start being a jerk during the debate, and it gets excessive, I will step in and I will drop your speaks. Be polite y'all, it isn't too difficult!
I will not vote on "death good", I urge you to consider the effects of the argument in a high school environment where you are blissfully unaware of the mental health of other students in the activity.
You do you as long as you can explain it.
Tech > Truth
When it comes to topic areas I know the most about, those would be heg, climate, the security k, and Agamben. I have no idea how relevant those are this year, but if you're able to go for any of these arguments those are my favorite debates to judge!
I am sympathetic to framework generally speaking and believe that debate at it's core is a game with little out-of-round "real world" impact, but:
At the least aff's should defend some form of the resolution, and have an advocacy statement (not necessarily the usfg). Affs that make broad statements about bad stuff happening without a mechanism or explanation for resolving the bad stuff are generally bland debates and leave the neg with no non-offensive ground.
That being said don't be scared of reading your usual k aff, I will happily vote on it as long as you explain it to me. The most work you will need to do is explaining to me why my ballot actually means something.
Non-usfg k affs don't usually get to perm the k unless they explain to me why they do.
Love it. It's underused unfortunately, so if you do a great job at getting into the "nitty-gritty" details of what the aff actually does and how it does or does not solve, I will reward you with speaker points accordingly.
It is possible to win a zero risk of the aff and I will vote on presumption if the case debate is good enough.
Meh....I'm not a fan of it, I just don't find theoretical debates very interesting. I do however, understand the value of them. This means that if you have the ability to win on substance, you should probably just go for substance.
Slow down for the love of all that is holy when reading your theory blocks, because like most people, my hand can only write so fast.
Condo is good in moderation - the neg should probably get 1 k and one 1 cp, anything more than that leaves me open to condo bad being an acceptable argument...But it doesn't mean I'll vote on it unless the "abuse" seems clear.
The quality of process/consult/conditions cp's is determined by how good the ev is. If anything I lean more neg than aff on these due to being a 2n.
I lean neg on this question.
Explain to me what abuse has occurred, and why it has become impossible or unfair to be neg.
The argument should not be focused on the "content" of the 1ac, but rather that the way in which that their mechanism for doing so isn't T, and thats what makes it impossible to debate them.
Fairness is an impact.
Debate is probably a game.
I love me some evidence comparison. The less reading of your evidence I have to do after the round, the better. Tell me what your ev says and why it's better than what their ev says.
These are great, I love them.
Solvency advocates are important, if the aff sufficiently points out that the neg doesn't really have one, the cp goes away easily.
Kritiks I like are: Security, Agamben, Foucault, legalism, cap, consumption, and university. Which, isn't a very extensive or diverse list really. I have my niche of k's that I like, if you read one of those you can assume I have a bit of knowledge about it and can change how you argue about it accordingly. If its not on this list, I may have heard it, and if I have, my understanding of it will be on a very shallow level. So please be sure to give good explanations particularly in cx as to what the k actually means.
Links should be specific. You should explain why what the aff has done is uniquely bad and causes X impact to occur. I have a high threshold for the link debate.
The alt should mean something. Its the weakest part of the debate which I know from experience, so invest time into telling me what it means to vote neg, what the world of the alternative looks like, and how it resolves the impact to the 1ac and the k.
Good Luck and have fun!
(If you're stressing out: http://i.imgur.com/KZf5kWZ.gifv)
Note - this was probably a terrible paradigm and you might still have a question about the way I view debate. Please feel free to ask me before the round starts. Alternatively, if after the debate you have further questions give them to your coach and have your coach reach out to me.
Competed: University of Minnesota
Coach (Present): Emporia State University; College Prep
Coached (Past): Augsburg College; Highland Park Senior High (MN)
Although my primary background is in policy, I am familiar with the procedures of public forum and spent a season of my high school career competing in the format. Below are my answers to the suggested PF philosophy questions provided by the TOC.
Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round: Speed of Delivery: Speed is fine so long as clarify doesn't suffer.
Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?):Both effective line by line and big picture storytelling are important to my ballot.
Role of the Final Focus: Providing a rubric/judge instruction for my ballot
Topicality: Generally these debates are done poorly, it's important to have a comparative metric for evaluating interpretations and a robust discussion of the various impacts to the violation. I do not view topicality in a purely "jurisdictional" way - offense/defense is important.
Plans: Not needed but not automatically disallowed.
Kritiks: Sure although just like any argument, it must be explained, applied, and impacted thoroughly.
Flowing/note-taking: I will flow the entirety of the debate.
Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? Quality and depth of argument is the primary thing I will evaluate, but style is not unimportant by any means.
If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Yes.
"I view my role in the debate not as arbiter of truth, but critic of argument, as such I attempt to divorce myself from relative "truth" values of arguments." - Chris Loghry
I like to see debaters deploying arguments that motivate and interest them.
I don’t call for many cards. This does not mean evidence quality does not matter, or that I don’t call cards often. What it does mean is: the debaters make the arguments, not the cards. I will not view them as placeholders for warranted explanation. Not every argument requires a card to answer.
Framing matters: provide me a macro-level filter through which to view the micro-components of the debate. The debates I find myself most frustrated with are the ones in which the 2NR and the 2AR have respectively delivered me 2NC #2 and 2AC #2 and left me to sort through the pieces. Rebuttalists that present a clear story while closing the right doors will be rewarded.
The more explicit you are with me in terms of my ballot, the better. This mostly goes for presumption and judge conditionality, but also for competing Frameworks/Role of the Ballots. If debaters are not explicit, there becomes no objective standard for me to use as a reference for when and where I infer these arguments.
Have a plan for Cross-X.
Things I like to see in cross-x: Asking precise, critical questions. Giving succinct, impactful answers. Writing down all concessions for utilization in the next speech.
Things I hate to see in cross-x: Ad-homs. Open-ended softballs. Questions that blatantly indicate a lack of flowing. Refusal to answer reasonable questions. Repetition of questions to avoid giving answers. Poorly-timed invocations of false ethos. 4-person shouting matches.
If you are reading critical literature, whether on the Affirmative or Negative, please explain and utilize your method. Make the links turn the case. Have a robust explanation of the alternative. Strive for internal, philosophical consistency. Your authors have particular theories of subjectivity, violence, etc., and I want to thear them; just remember that they all can and SHOULD be ACTIVELY applied broadly to frame many portions of the technical debate.
A speech doc is not a flow substitute.
Debate matters just as much to your opponents as it does to you, even if for different reasons. Be mindful of this and respect your competitors.
No spreading. Speak at a normal pace. I won't listen to you if you are spreading.
Give me a roadmap before you start.
Sign post clearly and often in the speech.
Refer to your partner and their work in your speeches.
Prioritize what arguments on the flow you want me as the judge to vote on. How do you want your arguments to be judged? What reasons do you give me to vote your way?
Spread at 50% on tag lines and analytics. I do not particularly like spreading in general, but if you must spread, spread only on your read evidence.
Args and Evidence
I don’t know K very well, so please do a thorough job of explaining the K to me, if you want me to vote on it. Otherwise, I probably won’t vote for you.
All args are ok, UNLESS you don’t explain them well, provide warrants, or impacts.
Don’t make hasty generalizations.
Use the evidence! And KNOW the evidence.
Good clash = better speaker points
About me: She/Her, I debated for Sonoma Academy 4 years in policy, 1 in parli. I was a 2A/1N for most of my debate career. GGSA 1 is my first tournament judging this topic, and I didn't work at a camp, so keep that in mind during the round (I won't know your acronyms or topic specific jargon)
please let me know if there is anything I can do to make the debate more accessible for you.
ask me as many questions before/after the round as you want.
I want to be on the email chain: email@example.com
At the end of the day I think debate has tremendous value and is not just a game (however you choose to interpret that value is debatable.) I want you to read what you like to read and have fun in the round. Don't waste time adapting to me as a judge if it means sacrificing your performance in the round or fun.
This format is whacky! Be patient with me and I'll be patient with you. Because all of this is over zoom, if you decide to spread, please go 80% your regular speed. Getting good speaks is also about being adaptive!
Etiquette: Please be nice to the other team. I know debate is a competitive activity but that doesn’t mean you can be a jerk. Don’t clip. Don’t steal prep. If flashing takes more than 2 mins it will start coming out of prep. Tag team is okay.
Speaks: I base your speaks on attitude, CX, clarity, how well you know your arguments, and rebuttals. I think that ethos is super important and I like voting for teams that really CONVINCE me they won the round. I would prefer a nuanced explanation in your own words over a bad piece of evidence.
I’m fine with speed but only if it’s clear. BE WARNED! Do NOT attempt to spread if you are unable to do so with clarity! If you see that I’m not flowing and staring blankly at you, you need to be clearer. Any arguments I miss are on you. Especially over zoom, there is a high risk that I will miss some of what you say if you are going max speed.
Tech > truth but truth is easier to win. Even if the argument is morally repugnant I think the other team should answer it. That being said I hold the answers to those arguments to an EXTREMELY low threshold so if you make a sexist/homophobic/racist/transphobic/etc. argument there is a 99.9% chance you are losing the round.
CX: I think CX is underrated and it’s one of the best places to earn speaks. Please don’t speak over each other in CX excessively. If someone is being rude in CX my face will show it. I think CX is binding.
Affirmatives: Please know your affirmative. You should shine in CX of the 1AC. If you don’t know your aff, your speaks will reflect it. I’m down for performance affs/K affs. Do what you do best!
Case: Case! Debate! Matters! I get super excited about a good case debate.
Kritiks: I'm studying literary theory in college, so I will most likely be familiar with your lit, but if you're misinterpreting the lit you will make me sad. During my debate career I was fairly policy oriented so keep that in mind if you decide to read your high theory debate-specific K in front of me though. I believe that debate is a unique space that allows for broader discussion of social issues and justice and I believe that in round/community solvency exists. The perm debate is very important, and you should treat it as such. Grouping all of the perms puts you in a vulnerable spot if the other team calls you on it. You need to be able to articulate what the alt does in order for me to vote for it. The role of the ballot should be one of the most important aspects of the round in these debates. Only read kritiks that you know. Bad K debate is worse than bad policy debate.
CP: I’m a fan of specific DA/CP combos and I will reward you for specific links. I know this is league and it tends to be full of generics and it’s fine if you read those, but I’d rather not have every 2nr be a generic DA/CP combo. I err aff slightly on CP theory. I think that CPs that result in the whole aff incentivize bad debate so if the aff makes the argument you’re going to have to do some work on the theory front (but if you have actually have a solvency advocate for your consult/delay/agent CP this doesn't apply nearly as much). I have an intense appreciation for a good specific politics DA and an intense hatred for bad ones.
Topicality: Debate it well. I think too often T is used as a time suck but I also think these debates are fun to judge when done well so do with that what you will. If the team is genuinely untopical I will definitely lean towards you. Good T debaters don’t rely on blocks and can contextualize the standards/violation to the specific aff/round. That said, I don't really think that fairness is an impact but that shouldn't preclude you from trying to persuade me that it is. Otherwise I am pretty neutral on topicality and will evaluate it based on however the debaters present it.
Framework: pretty much the same as T but I think this is less of a time suck. Really sell me on the standards and why your interpretation of debate is better for the activity and you will win. Coming from a small school I recognize that a lot of the time straight up policy affs are more accessible to teams with limited resources and I think it’s a legit argument against kritikal teams. At the end of the day make sure you're still being respectful though, it gets dicey when read against AFFs focused on identity and in round/community solvency.
Theory: I have a high threshold for theory and will most likely default to reject the argument not the team
add me to the email chain - firstname.lastname@example.org
Notre Dame High School - 2018
more school - 2022
debate is an intellectual free for all, outside of speech time's/prep/ballots nothing is "illegal."
I am not a stone tablet, i have my preconceptions on how the world works and arguments that surround the nature of our reality. Those are based on the subject formation i have experienced in debate/school and the agency i developed outside of institutions.
I think this is question of competing visions/models of debate and how to operate within intellectual spaces/what types of scholarship is produced. Procedural fairness is an internal link that needs to be impacted - on its own saying "but procedural fairness" is not responsive.
I have read, I think the best arguments and debates happen when all parties are familiar with the ideas being discussed, that creates a depth based environment which is both more interesting to judge and more stimulating for debaters. Metabolization of information takes time and energy. I think debates in which debaters have not read/understood the context in which their cards have been written, create much worse speeches and cross ex's than they realize.
If your opponents don't know why they are losing the round you aren't debating well, if you're well read on the lit base you are debating you should be able to explain it to them during your speech while still making convincing arguments that i could vote on. I would rather hear less arguments when they are explained, contextualized and debated in the round, than more bullet points on an overview that i am probably not going to be flowing.
impact turns, evidence call outs, author quals, re-highlights, authors calling out other authors, all good things I don't see enough.
quality arguments good
condo sometimes good, condo sometimes bad
multi plank counter plans are as many conditional worlds as there are planks unless you group them all together and say no plank kicking. Judge kick stuff is annoying.
anyone with a chess.com account gets .1 higher speaker points (you have to bring it up)
Lowell '20 || UC Berkeley '24 || Assistant Coach @ College Prep
Add me to the email chain - email@example.com
I am a policy judge and I've only judged a handful of PF rounds in my life. The closer you are to policy, the better I am for you. My problem with a lot of the PF rounds I've judged is the lack of clash + impacting out implications arguments. I would love some comparative explanation of what my ballot endorses. I'm going to default to evaluating consequences, unless I am told otherwise.
Please format the chain subject like this: Tournament Name - Round # - Aff Team Code [Aff] vs Neg Team Code
I think about debate in the same way as this guy. (He's probably the person I talk to the most when it comes to strategies and execution, it would be fair to say that if you like the way that he judge then I am also a good judge for you).
I debated for four years at Lowell High School. I’ve been a 2A for most of my years (2Ned as a side gig my junior year). Qualified to the TOC & placed 7th at NSDA reading arguments on both sides of the spectrum.
I learned everything I know about debate from Debnil Sur - his paradigm is 1000x more nuanced and thought-out than mine will be.
Please don't start until you see my camera on!
If you're not wearing headphones with a microphone attached, it is REALLY hard to hear you when you turn away from your laptop. Please refrain from doing this.
I would also love if you slowed down a tiny tiny tiny tiny bit on your analytics. I will clear you at most 3 times, but I can't help it if I miss what you're saying on my flow ;(.
I'd rather adapt to your strategies than have you adapt to what you think my preferences are - I personally dislike judges injecting their personal views into decisions. The below are simply guidelines & ways to improve speaks via tech-y things I like seeing rather than ideological stances on arguments. No judge has a clean slate but I’ll try my best to decide the debate based solely on what I hear in round.
Tech >>>>>>>>> truth
I think evidence quality is important, but I value good spin more because it incentivizes smart analysis/contextualization - I personally believe that a model of debate where rounds are adjudicated solely based on evidence quality favors truth more than technical debate skills. With that being said, I’ll probably default to reading evidence if there’s a lack of evidence indicts or resolving done by teams in round.
Fine with speed, but I do flow on paper & don't look at speech docs during the round so be clear
Looooove judge instruction - I’m lazy, please write my ballot for me.
My biggest frustration when judging rounds is inaccurately flagging arguments the other team spent a substantial amount time answering as “dropped" - your speaks will reflect this frustration. Second to that is repeating “they dropped x” instead of explaining what the technical concession means for you.
Topic Knowledge + Background
I'm a student at UC Berkeley studying Computer Science and only coach College Prep on the side. I mainly help out with researching policy strategies when I have the time, so it's been a while since I've was really immersed in K literature. I worked at CNDI this past summer so I judged a few rounds on the topic, but St. Marks will be my first tournament of the season. I'd say my comfort in judging rounds on this topic would be Policy vs. Policy > Policy vs. K > K vs. K.
I refused to read a plan for most of my debate career but I enjoy framework debates and don’t have a heavy lean towards one side.
Generally, I don’t think people do enough work comparing/explaining their competing models of debate and its benefits other than “they exclude critical discussions!!!!”
For the aff: Having advocacy in the direction of the topic >>>>>>>> saying anything in the 1AC. I’ll probably be a lot more sympathetic to the neg if I just have no clue what the method/praxis of the 1AC is in relation to the topic. I think the value of planless affs come from having a defensible method that can be contested, which is why I’m not a huge fan of “refusal” affs or advocacies not tied to the topic. Not sure why people don’t think perms in a method debate are not valid - with that being said, I can obviously be convinced otherwise. I prefer nuanced perm explanations rather than just “it’s not mutually exclusive”.
For the neg: I don’t really buy procedural fairness - I think to win this standard you would have to win pretty substantial defense to the aff’s standards & disprove the possibility of debate having an effect on subjectivity. I usually like to go 6-8 off against planless affs - one off framework debates are boring for me. If the aff says you can read topic disads - hold them to that and read a bunch in the 1NC. If not, there’s your abuse for framework.
Not much to say here - think these debates are pretty straight forward. Smart, nuanced link analysis/internal link explanation >>>> “our impact outweighs on [x] because [unwarranted assertion]!!11!!”. Detailed, subpointed link modules and link turns case analysis will make me and your speaks very happy
Default to judge kick unless the 2ar is really convincing on why I should not/wins the thesis of condo.
I can't remember the last time I heard a really good counterplan. Process/agent/consult CPs are kind of cheating but in the words of the wise Tristan Bato, "most violations are reasons to justify a permutation or call solvency into question and not as a voter."
Smart solvency deficits >>>>
I think I tend to err neg on questions of conditionality & perf con but probably aff on counterplans that garner competition off of the word “should”. Obviously this is a debate to be had but also I’m also sympathetic to a well constructed net benefit with solid evidence.
Framework is sosososo important in these debates. I don’t think I really lean either side on this question but I don’t think the neg needs to win the alt if they win framework + links based on the representational strategy of the 1AC.
Nuanced link walls based on the plan/reps + pulling evidence from their ev >>>> links based on FIATed state action and generic cards about your theory.
To quote Debnil “I'm a hard sell on sweeping ontological or metaphysical claims about society; I'll likely let the aff weigh the plan; I don't think the alt can fiat structures out of existence; and I think the alt needs to generate some solid uniqueness for the criticism.“
I default to competing interps. Explanations of your models/differences between your interps + caselists >>>>> “they explode limits” in 10 different places. Please please please please do impact comparison, I don’t want to hear “they’re a tiny aff and that’s unfair” a bunch.
Questions of norms ≠ ethics violations about clear evidence distortion(deliberately modifying evidence to alter its meaning)/clipping. If one team is accused of an ethics violation, I’ll take it seriously and ask if the accusing team would like to stop a round, then let tab take it from there.
Be nice & have fun.
My name is Lauren Zimmerman. I am a senior at the Meadows School and have been debating policy since my freshman year.
I don’t mind spreading, just make sure you are clear and coherent in your arguments. I will say clear if I cannot understand you.
Please be considerate of your opponents.
Please copy me on the email chain before the debate starts. My email is firstname.lastname@example.org.
Make sure to stay organized, flow all the speeches, and time yourselves because I won't do it for you. Also, If you are funny and make me laugh, I will give you extra speaker points. Good luck and make sure to have fun :)