Damus Hollywood Invitational
2020 — NSDA Campus, CA/US
Novice LD Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I'm fine with speed and theory. If you choose to speed spread, I would like to be included on the email chain so that I can follow along ( Kendrickralan@gmail.com ). I am inexperienced in judging K arguments.
Please weigh your significance against your opponent's.
Hi! My name is Emma and I am a sophomore at UPenn studying English. I debated for Brentwood for four years and received 3 career bids to the TOC, placed 4th at NSDAs, and 2nd at the California State Championship Tournament. I have coached for Institute for Speech and Debate, DebateDrills, and Brentwood. I am also on the UPenn parliamentary debate team.
I am comfortable with speed, although I have been out of the activity for a year, so you should probably go a bit slower than you normally would. You can generally feel free to read any kind of argument in front of me. That said, I don’t like evaluating Kant or dense framework debates, but if that’s your strong suit then I will do my best to judge it well. Also, if you read a nontopical aff in front of me there is a 99% chance I will vote on T. Ok, probably not 99%, but I don't like to judge them. I like 1AR theory and enjoy seeing theory used strategically. If you want to go lay I like to judge those types of debates as well, but you and your opponent will need to agree prior to the round.
Please start the email chain before the round. My email is firstname.lastname@example.org. I will lower your speaks by .1 if you do not do this because you should read paradigms. Also, please be kind to one another and don’t be rude while debating!
Pronounced : Suh-Mean
email@example.com-- yes add me to the email chain, much appreciated.
Green Valley c/o ‘19
Constraints: Green Valley
Update for Meadows:
This is my first tournament judging on this topic, meaning I don't know all of the topic specific acronyms/abbreviations so explain things, especially in T debates. Also, since I haven’t been in a debate round in a couple months please don’t start off at full speed (60% and then work your way up).
I debated for Green Valley in Las Vegas for four years and qualified to the TOC with a couple bids my senior year. I was a 2A for my whole career which may explain some biases that I have that I’ll cover later on (i.e probably a lower threshold for certain aff theory arguments). I was mostly a “policy debater” (with the exception of 2 aff’s I read but those also had plan texts) so I’ll feel at home in a counter plan + disad debate, but that doesn’t mean that I won’t listen to other types of arguments, just that you may need a greater depth of explanation.
People who I think about debate like/my favorite judges:
- Cade Cottrell
- Debnil Sur
- Steve Pointer
- Anthony Winchell
- Jeffrey Horn
- I believe debate is a rhetorical game and as such I feel as if debaters should be able to explain and break things down without me having to sit and read through cards. This means that I will likely only read evidence post-debate if 1) I am explicitly instructed to do so by the debaters or 2) there are time sensitive issues that may play a role in my decision (i.e u/q questions on politics da’s).
- I’ll do my best to protect the 2NR from 2AR extrapolation, but I might have a higher threshold for what is considered “new explanation”. I believe that as long as the 1AR has a decent level of warrant and impact analysis the 2AR should be allowed some level extrapolation and cross application and it’s up to the 2NR to do gatekeeping. There’s a difference between new analysis and comparative analysis and good 2A’s tread the line carefully.
- I tend to think that my ballot rewards whoever did the better substantive debating, so I’ll award speaks based on stylistic presentation (ethos, pathos, logos, clarity, etc).
Certain biases/predispositions I have:
- Tech > truth but logic > cards
- Condo is great (can be persuaded otherwise but I have a pretty high threshold on this one)
- Commissions, impact assessment, delay, and consult counterplans are cheating
- You always get to weigh the aff…? even in K debates
- CP that mostly solves the aff + 1% risk of a DA à neg ballot
- I’ll judge kick unless told otherwise
- I default competing interps, meaning at the end of the round I’ll vote for whichever team I think has the best definition for what the topic should look like (this means that ev that has a clear intent to define terms of art in the resolution will probably help you).
- I think reasonability is a great aff argument and I went for it every aff debate vs. T. If you’re going for reasonability you need to frame it like offense and go for it with something like arbitrariness. I feel like aff teams that do this can easily win that the negatives interp is arbitrary and causes substance crowd out. This means that the substance crowd out caused by the negs definition outweighs any marginal difference in interp definitions.
- Impact and internal link analysis and explanation are very important in these debates i.e aff teams might have to explain why predictable limits, inculcated by their interp, is the key internal link to ground or whatever else the neg is going for
- The best way to think about T is like a cp/da debate: the interp is the CP and the impacts are DA’s to the other teams interp
- I think aff flex is great (more inclusive definition of what’s topical)—probably explains why most of the affs I read were borderline T/extra-T
- I will frame this section with the fact that I read policy aff’s my whole career with the exception of two faux policy affs that still had a plan text (until the 2AC haha) but I’m still down to listen to these types of debates.
- It will be easier for me to vote aff if the aff as some kind of inherent/unique relationship with the topic—I don’t get what this “we’re in the direction of the topic” stuff is
- I don’t necessarily presume that the aff gets perms in method debates so be sure to resolve this in the round
- For the neg: in these kinds of T debates I often find things like switch side, TVA’s, and skills impacts more persuasive than procedural fairness, but I can also be persuaded that procedural fairness is an impact in and of itself. If you’re going for switch side/skills, you need to win some form of defense to the aff.
Soft Left Aff’s:
- The following is taken word for word from Anthony Winchell, just because I agree with them so much in this case:
- “Honestly, they bore me. That doesn’t mean you won’t win if you read one, but I’m a strong believer that extinction outweighs any structural condition that has the potential to be improved upon in the future. Framing arguments in these debates typically just turn into “X structure is bad v util”, and if it turns out this way, I’m most likely defaulting to util.”
- Nuanced framing debates are just a thing that never really happens—feel free to prove me wrong, you’ll be rewarded with speaks
- I love ‘em. I went for politics 99% of my 1NR’s in high school so I’m very comfortable in these types of debates. With that being said there are still good ptx disads (midterms!) and bad ones (base).
- Turns case analysis is always nice, but I’d prefer a more link centric debate to an impact centric one
- Teams should always make impact turns case arguments along with risk of a link turns case args
- Specific links are good but generic links are fine if the team can control the direction of spin
- Link probably controls the direction of uniqueness, but I can be persuaded otherwise
- I feel as if aff teams should actively call out bad ev or generic ev (instead of relying on me to read it later and come to my own conclusion) and should either explicitly read lines in cross-ex or insert rehighlightings (if you insert a rehighlighting please read it unless you’ve read the lines in CX).
- Teams should do a lot of impact calc analysis and turns case analysis in the 2NR if judge kick is still a thing in the debate
- Explanation, not jargon, is very important in these debates. I won’t vote on anything I did not understand in the debate prior to reading evidence
- Please do line by line: I hate when teams read a 5 min overview and get to the line by line and just say “that was answered above”
- Specific links > generic links
- The aff team gets to weigh the aff
- You probably need an alternative—this is the weakest part of the K and I feel as if aff teams don’t push back against it enough. Most K alts seem like this to me: the magical wand of fiat is waved and all the problems in the land are solved…
- Don’t forget to use your aff…duh
- Love impact turns, my senior year we just impact turned most K’s—obviously there are some K’s you cannot impact turn
- Love me some CP’s, even generics if debated well (i.e non-enforcement on the immigration topic—super artificial CP but it gave ya a politics net benefit so whatever)
- Most CP’s are fine, but some are sketchy like process, consult, commissions, and delay (non-action CP’s are probably fine but I’m slightly aff leaning on this question)
- All CP’s don’t need solvency advocates, at least in the 1NC. Smart adv CP’s definitely don’t need advocates. If you have a 9 plank CP that claims to solve every bit of the aff you probably need an advocate (I’m partial to solvency advocate theory in particularly egregious cases).
- I love when neg teams use aff ev as an advocate
- I found it strategic to read adv CP’s on case, teams just seemed to mishandle them and would even forget to make perms
- SQUO is always a logical option, so I’ll judge kick the CP unless explicitly told otherwise—2AR’s that just blippily say “no judge kick” doesn’t fly with me—preempt this from the 2AC/1AR
- Generally, neg leaning on most theory args unless mentioned above
- I love when 2A’s terrorize the neg with theory but that does mean that I’ll give the neg leeway on certain arguments, meaning you don’t have to spend a whole minute answering a 15 second multi-plank CP’s bad argument from the 2AC. I was characterized by my former partner Anthony Winchell as a “terrorist with theory”.
- Most theory args are a reason to reject the argument, except condo
- Going for theory when its not necessary will result in lower speaks
- Theory debates are judged purely on in round technical concessions
- If the aff misses a one-line aspec arg I’ll likely give the 1AR leeway to answer it there
- To get higher speaks make fun of Anthony Winchell or Cade Cottrell
- Enunciation/inflection is very important
- I’ll yell clear 2-3x but after that it’s on you—just be aware that if I say clear once and you clear up I still may have missed certain things before I said clear—read my facial cues
- I love sassy CX’s but there’s a difference between being rude and being sassy
- I don’t care whether you sit or stand for CX—it perceptually has no difference to me
- If you want me to remember something from CX bring it up in a speech or during CX explicitly tell me to “write this down”
- Eye contact is important—don’t just read into your computer you zombie
- I won’t submit my ballot till I’m done with the rfd—that doesn’t mean that my decision will change, just that speaks might depending on how you decide to handle yourself in the post-round
- Don’t speak over your partner (I get that sometimes this has to happen though)—especially if it’s in like the last 30 seconds of the 2AR—it just perceptually makes you look behind and makes your partner look incompetent (when they probably aren’t).
I'm Andrew Kim and I'm a varsity debater at the Meadows School.
I will basically listen to every argument no matter how stupid it is.
I probably won't vote for bad theory because bad theory is bad but if you can convince me it's good theory, go ahead and run it.
Other than that the usuals. Have a clean fair debate. Be respectful of your opponent. I will listen to almost any argument as long as you have adequate evidence and explanation.
Also please try to keep me interested in the debate, I find humor to be very important as well.
Background: I debated for Hopkins in Minnesota for four years then coached at Annie Wright in Tacoma for three. I've judged plenty of every kind of LD round, locally and nationally.
Here's answers to the most common questions:
- You can talk fast. I'm rusty at flowing. Signpost well, please.
- You can use a computer and flash drives and all that.
- I don't care about how your case is structured.
- Theory is fine, but unnecessary theory is unimpressive.
- Good arguments are better than bad arguments. Hidden arguments are unimpressive.
Yo, I'm Oliver Song. I'm a varsity debater at The Meadows School. I'm not super picky but there are things I WON'T VOTE FOR.
I probably won't vote for bad theory because bad theory is bad but if you can convince me it's good theory, go ahead and run it.
I will never NEVER, vote on RVIs. Never again. If you say the words "RVI" I will sit and stare at you with a disappointed face and write down nothing on my flow.
Other than that the usuals. Have a clean fair debate. Keep in mind humor can sway me. Be respectful of your opponent. I will listen to almost any argument as long as you have adequate evidence and explanation.
Last updated: 12/4/2020
If you just got the pairing and don’t have much time (we’ve all been there) here’s the big picture: do what you do best. I reward smart debaters who debate to their strengths, have strategic vision, and have become experts in the literature base that interests them. Whether that is traditionally “policy” or “critical” arguments is up to you; I’ll listen to it all.
I am a freshman at Harvard, currently debating with Rohan Shah in the policy division. I competed on the policy national circuit for the Liberal Arts and Science Academy (LASA EU and LASA CU). All of my growth in this activity is directly due to the coaching of Yao Yao Chen and Mason Marriott-Voss, so I would imagine many of my predispositions and takes on debate are largely inspired by them. I am most familiar with policy v. policy debates, but I read planless affs for large portions of my competitive career.
If there is an email chain, please put me on it: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Tech over truth. I evaluate a dropped argument as true. This has a few exceptions and workarounds. I will not vote on arguments that I find morally reprehensible (for obvious reasons) and shot-gunning short theory arguments hoping that the other teams drop them will not be rewarded with my ballot.
Do line-by-line, but take a look at the big picture. The best debates that I have seen or participated in include very persuasive, ethos-y parts of the final rebuttals. Robotic, “they said X, but Y” is a useful tool for beginners, but I believe higher-level debates should be largely embedded clash over a few core thesis claims that distinguish the two teams.
Have fun. You have spent your summers, weekends, and free time on this activity for a reason. I will actively try to create an atmosphere that is conducive to what makes debate so great in the first place, and I expect you to do the same.
I find myself voting affirmative when any of the following things happen. (1) The 2AR has a large DA to the negative’s interpretation, impact calculus, and a counter-interpretation that mitigates the negative’s strongest internal links and impacts. (2) The affirmative is winning an impact turn to the negative’s best standards that is contextualized in the context of their literature base/theory of power. If your 2AR strategy generally centers around a counter-interpretation, you should read one and only one in the 2AC. All of the other ones are generally nonsensical and waste my ink.
2AC “tricks” almost never work in your favor. If you choose not to send analytics, you forfeit the ability in my book to spam short DAs and counter-interpretations, hoping that one of them is conceded. A 1AR that introduces new articulation of the DA (internal link work, impact comparison, etc.) justifies new 2NR answers.
My default state is that fairness is not an impact, but I can be persuaded otherwise. 2Ns that don’t have a persuasive moment in any of their speeches explaining why it’s an impact would be better served with an education-based standard.
I would much prefer if you: cut the 2NC overview, had aff-specific standard contextualization, and actually flagged and answer the aff’s DAs.
K v. K:
I believe the affirmative should get a permutation, but an affirmative team that is unable to articulate why they get one deserves to lose.
If the 2AC against the K seems to be a substantial departure from the 1AC, I will be much less swayed by link turn and permutation arguments. A 2AR that sums up to “We were the K the whole time!” better be right.
I read large, core-of-the-topic affs for most of high school, which means I have been in very few close T debates. I understand the strategic value of small, tricky affs, but that comes with a responsibility to have a well-rehearsed, consistent angle against T.
Winning K blocks and 2NRs, in my opinion: have a substantial time investment in contesting affirmative solvency and truth claims, have link explanation highly contextualized to the case (even better if it’s off the flow), have clean line-by-line, and capitalize on moments in affirmative speeches and cross-examinations.
I think an alternative should be extended unless the Framework debate is very one-sided in your favor.
From Yao Yao: “Framework debates on kritiks rarely factor into my decisions. Frequently, I conclude that there’s not a decisive win for either side here, or that it’s irrelevant because the neg is already allowing the aff to weigh their impacts. Usually, I find myself somewhere in the middle: the neg always has the right to read kritiks, but the aff should have the right to access their advantages. Kritiks that moot the entire 1AC are a tough sell.”
Floating PIKs must be clearly identifiable as a Floating PIK in the 2NC.
They are oftentimes very successful in setting up a “CP sufficiently solves case, small risk of net benefit outweighs” ballot, but be honest with yourself about whether or not it actually solves their impacts. Nothing is more frustrating than a 2AR that capitalizes on a 2NR that extended an unhelpful CP instead of going to case.
I would much prefer to judge a well-researched, updated topic DA than a new questionable politics or agent DA.
Against soft-left affs, negative teams with a robust defense of the DA’s representations and an evidenced turns case argument makes voting negative much easier.
If the theory debate is extremely close and well-executed by both teams, I generally default to the view that CPs that compete off of uncertainty or immediacy are illegitimate. With that being said, I will willingly (but begrudgingly) vote for these CPs if the negative is ahead on theory, but my bar may just be slightly above other judges on this issue.
I am a better judge than most for conditionality bad. This means a few things. (1) Negative teams should be very cautious about reading more conditional positions than necessary, saying that they can kick planks, or going overboard with the fiat. (2) Conditionality is a way to offset some of the negative’s intrinsic advantages, particularly for slower, smaller teams. I am a firm believer that every 1AR should spend ~:45 seconds extending conditionality. A 2NR that drastically undercovers conditionality, doesn’t extend offense, or doesn’t extend a counter-interpretation is generally a great opportunity to go for it. (3) The 2AR must have a “why I am going for condo” moment, i.e. in-round abuse, a 2NR mistake, etc. In these situations, it is essential that the 2AR be very careful in borrowing 1AR language and not appearing new. Give me no reason to be sympathetic to the 2NR. Only go for condo, though, if it's truly the best 2AR option.