Tabroom.com

New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament

2020 — NSDA Campus, NY/US

LD Debate JV Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

LYD Antonelli Perry (AZ) High School

Last changed on Sun May 23, 2021 at 9:06 AM MST

Hey

Perry HS '19

Few things with paradigms I agree a lot with most policy people like Gordon Krauss and Elmer Yang

Add me to the email chain for all rounds davidanto2222@gmail.com

TLDR- Pref me if you read Pomo or policy args

Preface: tech>truth

1- Larp, Pomo heavy ks, (Im mostly familiar with Baudy, cap, Racial Cap, Black Marxism and Empire on K lit but other stuff is cool too just explain it well) favorite policy args involve ptx

2- theory

3/4-Other phil ie deleuze Ill listen to any arg but I really dont enjoy deep phil that no one can understand except you.

Strike Trix

A few situations I will have intervene Blatantly rude, racist, homophobic arguments, etc (Just dont)

Death good is cool with me

Defaults:

"truth testing (but the moment you read a larp aff it becomes comp world), epistemic confidence, neg presumption, no RVIs, CIs > reasonability, fairness > education. that being said, my threshold for how heavily ill stick to these is incredibly low; say otherwise, and I'll follow. I also love when you explicitly say whatever how I should weigh, etc. Even if I default to truth testing, tell me in your constructive why I should use truth testing. it makes for a much clearer round, and it's great." -Master oogway or someshit

Speed:

Speed is fine, go ahead. I don't necessarily flow off the doc or by ear, I sorta flip flop.

Policy:

Policy arguments should have warrants. I enjoy a good ev v ev debate. Spec links are very cool and that will make me v happy. Having a good ballot story and round vision is important to how I should evaluate.Who ever is winning the framing debate will most likely have control of the round. However I prefer a nice policy round with very little framing if its both util. Make sure to have a good impact calc so I know where to eval the round. Solvency is a v good thing to have in front of me. Im cool with spin but make sure theres at least a little bit if substance in the 2ar and 2nr.

"I default to strength of link

I like to think I'm Tab but there are some common arguments I default to:

1. The Aff should generally get to weigh the Case against the K

2. Competing Interps outweighs Reasonability

3. Magnitude o/w Probability o/w Timeframe

4. Less than 5 Condo I lean Neg" -Elmer

Some more specific LARP stuff:

Plan affs: . Hyperspec plans are cool imo so go ahead. I will not vote for Semantics FW. Good solvency is cool and uniq ptx/story advs are something ive enjoyed more and more but any adv with a soild i/l is cool.

Disads: Explain links, and impacts. Econ Disads and politics das are something I enjoy alot. Disads should have some good uq to them.

Counterplans: I enjoy process and consult espec against phil which is underrated imo but im not a big fan of process cps against k affs but its whatever, Pics and word Piks are fine. 50 plank cps? yeah im down for that, do I enjoy things like the fourth branch cp? yes.

Theory: Not the biggest fan but go ahead. I do like condo, I enjoy most other 1ar theory so ill have a p high standard for why I should reject 1ar theory like spec status. I lean aff on 2 shells and neg on more than 2. Also if your strat against k affs are to spam fuckshit shells then you can strike me.

Have a good abuse story, and warrant pls. No RVIS unless the shell is friv. cx checks are legit. Not a fan of friv at all. Like please just have the debate not an uplayer battle this is what policy tends to be a better event then ld lol

Phil:

I think Phil cases often don't have enough offense, or explanation why the offense actually flows to your side. Please have warrants on framing.

Ks: I dont have much to say about ks but good links are very cool.

k-affs: Cool with me do what u do. I will not vote on for frame work ( t-fwk) By FW I mean the "read a plan" FW. Don't tell me it's T, you know what it is. Other procedural arguments about debate are valid.

Please have dates on the card unless they dont have one ie I know the fili card doesnt have one so fili is fine, if you run 404 links and they can find it within a minute I will let the round play out

Clipping: Ending the debate if I catch it. If you have a recording, you can stake the round. Skipping at least 3-5 words multiple times probably constitutes clipping.

Ev Ethics: If I catch a violation, speaks will plummet and the card will be ignored (though I don't go out of my way to check). You can read any violation you want as theory (drop the arg or debater). The following are sufficient to constitute a miscut card such that you can stake the round/make a challenge:

---card starts/ends in the middle of a sentence or paragraph

---text has been added to or removed from the original text of the cited article

---card has been cut/highlighted/bracketed to make a claim that the article does not make (these should be clear if you're staking)

---cite needs either the correct article/book title or a correct URL (or some other way to find it, like a DOI)

If another part of the article contradicts the argument made in the card, I'd prefer to see a recutting of the article read as an argument.

Misc

Signposting is always good.

Shorter prep time is cool

Run whatever you want on novices or trad debaters.

Aida Bathily Hire

Sonal Batra Livingston High School

Last changed on Sat September 10, 2022 at 4:26 AM EDT

I've judged over 100 debate rounds in the last 2 years at this point. I will flow the round. The biggest caveat is that you should not spread. It does not enhance argumentation and just makes the debate less engaging and less educational. I am putting this at the top of my paradigm. If you decide to spread, and as a result get dropped, that is your fault for not reading the paradigm, not a judge screw.

Pref Cheat Sheet

Traditional Debate/Lay- 1

Slow, Policy-Style debate- 4

Complex Phil- 4

Tricks- 4

Ks- Strike

Friv Theory- Strike

Spreading- Strike

I hate Ks, not because I don't understand them, but because I think they are bad for debate education. I have the same stance on spreading, I see no point in cramming as much content as possible into a debate if i can't understand you. It is anti-educational.

I would like there to be an email chain, especially for virtual debates. add me to it- sonalbatra14@gmail.com If you do not make an email chain that indicates you did not read the paradigm and will result in dropped speaks :)

I like a good, reasonable argument

Not a huge fan of theory, don't run a super frivolous shell. If your opponent is running a frivolous shell make a good argument for reasonability & you should be fine. BUT, absolutely use theory to check REAL abuse.

Spreading- Don't like it. I'll say clear twice & then stop flowing & dock your speaks. It is better to err on the side of caution. If it is a big problem you will be dropped.

Kritiks- I don't like them. I would say don't run them.

Flowing- I flow the round, but if you speak too quickly, the quality of this will significantly deteriorate.

Speaks- Speaker points tend to be "low". Being nice = higher speaks, Being mean/rude = lower speaks. I judge speaker points mostly as if you were in a speech event. If you spread, you will have VERY LOW speaks (think 26). I do believe in low point wins if the tournament allows.

Pet Peeves-

- telling me you won the debate (that is my decision)

- "we should just try" (no, if your opponent is proving active harms, we should not just try.)

- being rude to your opponent

- forcing progressive debate on traditional opponents, if your opponent asks for traditional, please do a traditional round.

Overall, you should run what you are comfortable with. It is better to run a case you know & are comfortable with than a case you don't know just to appease a judge. Just make sure everything is well warranted & linked, & we should be good!

Yukta Chidanandan Walt Whitman

Last changed on Tue March 8, 2022 at 8:09 AM PDT

SDIVSL Quals: I am expecting this to be a traditional tournament! In traditional LD, I care a LOT about framework, definitions, and creating a respectful environment. If you refute nothing else, refute your opponent's framework and definitions. I cannot begin to explain how sad it will be if you make great points in your contentions or substance, but don't tell me why I should value those points. I care a lot about clash. In my favorite rounds, debaters cross-apply their cases to respond to their opponents' points. Debaters reveal contradictions in their opponents' thought processes, or turn their opponents points to their own favor. I really value creativity and logic over flowery words and speaking style (although I will reward both in terms of speaker points). As long as everyone is clearly working hard and playing hard, we'll all have a good time. Feel free to read the rest of my paradigm - it was written for Bronx, which is a progressive tournament back home in the East. It likely won't apply here, but the gist of it is the same: be creative and have fun.

General - I debated for 4 years on national and local circuits in LD with TJHSST. I graduated in 2019. During that time, my favorite arguments were Ks, especially kritikal affs, and my least favorite arguments were blippy one-sentence underview arguments that would be poorly extended and expanded on in the last speech. That being said, I will vote on whatever you run, and I will vote off the flow rather than based on my own preferences. My favorite debates feature an emphasis on creative interactions and cross-application. Please focus on framework! I love clash, I love substantive debate, and I love it when debaters are working their hardest to win.

Include me on the email chain: iyukta@gmail.com

JV - please just do your best and make your arguments in good faith. I give good speaks for creating a fun productive atmosphere and will deduct for being mean-spirited. If your speaking style is sassy, that's fine, but just read the room. On that note, I know there's a lot of focus on perceptual dominance in JV, but I don't buy that and it will have nothing to do with your speaker points or whether I buy your arguments. I care about efficient time use, smart arguments, and good faith debate. While it is good to be cool and collected, if I see you trying and working hard, that's what I care about.

VARSITY - If I do get some varsity rounds, please keep in mind that I am rusty! I will vote off of tagline extensions only if I have to, but a warranted or explained extension or impact will always do a good job of convincing me. Slow down on tags and authors. If your argument is particularly complicated, take a few seconds to give me a brief overview. Hopefully this will make it so that we have as productive rounds as possible.

This is overkill for this tournament but, in case it becomes relevant:

K/kritikal arguments: Yes please! I love Ks, particular kritikal plan affs. I think they capture the essence of LD: values debate applied to real injustices today. Be careful though - I've seen a lot of people contradict themselves in rebuttals and extensions, which is super annoying! I want you to know your subject so you don't make silly mistakes. I think these are some of the arguments with the most room for creativity and they are the most interesting debates to me. Please be very careful about extending the ROJ/ROTB as that's the only reason for me to vote! I am always open to cross-applications of K to theory/T and vice versa so please do that.

Policy/LARP: Please make sure to justify policymaking as an approach to debate as soon as possible. This is especially true if you're facing arguments like kritiks or theory. Don't forget your framework - if you write a well-justified plan but I'm given a ROJ that excludes it, I'd like you to have some answer to this so I can evaluate your work. My ideal Plan structure is: ROJ (policymaking), Value/VC, and then all your traditional parts of a plan. I am really encouraging you to do this because I think policy rounds are very engaging and I love well-justified plans and counterplans. If you're reading a bunch of CPs/DAs I will be slightly disappointed because I really like substantive debate but, oh well, I understand the strategy! If you are doing this, please please make smart, clear extensions.

Theory/T: I want you to give me a very clear abuse story, as specific to the round as possible. If your standards are vague or seem inapplicable to the round, the threshold for responses will of course be lower. You gotta tell me if fairness or education are voters, if you prefer competing interps or reasonability, if you want me to drop the debater or the argument and why. Also, please tie these arguments back directly into my role as a judge or the role of the ballot. One thing I will say, though, is that to me competing interps generally necessitates that I have to vote for whichever shell has more offense. Caveat: If you're running the original interp and don't specify, I will accept whatever your opponent says about it. If they tell me to accept terminal defense I will.

[EDIT 3/8/22] I will not vote off disclosure theory. I find forced disclosure to be a thinly veiled attempt to remove debaters without private coaches or large team support from the activity. Disclosure is a choice; if you choose to disclose, you must accept the consequences of your own actions rather than holding your opponent responsible. If someone runs disclosure theory against you with me as your judge, feel free to drop it completely. You don't have to say anything on it. My paradigm is public access for you and your opponent, so anyone who chooses to read me disclosure theory does so at their own risk. Lovers of disclosure theory, I will give you this: if you and your opponent are both present in the room before the round starts, you may ask me if I will vote off your interp - however, you must accept my answer. If your interp tells a clear and creative abuse story, I may allow it.

Phil: I have read so many circularly justified "high phil" cases. If you're reading phil, slow down. Also make sure all your extensions are well-explained. Sorry if this cramps your style, but I really want to understand your arguments and it's going to take effort from both of us. If you don't explain it well or your cards aren't cut well, it's going to make the threshold for response lower - I can't tell if something is a good or bad response to a poorly explained argument, so I'm going to go with the person who did a better job of at least attempting to explain. These arguments were never my favorite in high school, but I promise I will do my best and evaluate them fairly.

Tricks: I will be very annoyed if I have to vote off tricks. That doesn't mean I won't do it! It will just make me unhappy. However, everyone will have a much better time if you be creative, if you weave it into your substantive arguments, or if you have really new warrants. That being said, no matter how creative and brilliant you are, I will not evaluate tricks against arguments about oppression. I will also drop your speaks if the example is particularly disrespectful. If you wish, you can ask me before the round in the presence of your opponent about whether I will evaluate your tricks. I really don't want to punish anyone for trying something a different argument, so please take advantage of this offer. I cannot intervene once the round has begun.

Andrew Chin Stuyvesant High School

Betsy Cohen Lake Highland Preparatory School

Bennett Dombcik Durham Academy

Last changed on Sun July 30, 2023 at 8:02 AM EDT

I'm Bennett Dombcik (he/him), I'm currently a senior @ the University of Michigan.

Add me to the email chain: benjaydom@gmail.com

TLDR: if you explain arguments, do impact calc and card comparison, and don't make technical drops, you should be fine. The rest of the paradigm will attempt to explain what I think “good debating” looks like for a bunch of different positions. However, they are not rules to abide by for a round in front of me, and many of the more preference-based notes can be easily overcome by in-round arguments.

Policy Positions: This is the majority of what I did in both high school LD and college policy. I am most comfortable evaluating these debates.

Topicality---negatives should read definitions that are predictable. Affirmatives should do the same. The rest of the debate should compare the limits, ground, predictability, etc. of the two interpretations and explain why one impact is more (or less) important than the other and win a larger link to that impact. Caselists make me happy, the affirmative should probably not win for being topical, and the mandate of the plan is probably the best way to determine topicality (although can create solvency problems for the aff).

DAs---Links should be as specific to the plan as possible; generic links are not persuasive and easily beatable by affirmatives who know what their AFF does. However, smart 2NR contextualization of generics can overcome my affirmative bias in these debates (I just don’t really think negatives do that very often). The DA should ideally both have external offense that outweighs the case and turn the case. Turns case arguments are underutilized and massively increase your chances of winning the round.

Zero risk---clearly a thing. If the affirmative has a good uniqueness/link press I will be unpersuaded by “vote neg for .0001% chance of extinction” (same goes for aff try or die args against a good negative case push). Note the emphasis on good---it is hard to get to zero risk even though it is possible.

CPs---Fun. Should have solvency advocates (although those can be 1ac internal link cards). CPs should solve the case (for the most part), 2NRs should make detailed arguments as to why this is the case. Competition stuff: I have very few pre-conceived notions of what counts as a “legitimate” standard for competition. That being said, I will likely have more fun in the round if the competition arguments are more than just immediacy and certainty.

CP theory---the 1AR should make args about the illegitimacy of various CPs (mostly an LD note). The 1AR is very hard and the 2NR is too easy if it doesn’t have to answer theory. On the flip side, I am very willing to hold the line on new 2AR arguments on theory, so 1AR arguments should probably be longer than a sentence.

---RVIs---probably not

---DTA---probably (unless condo)

---Reasonability---define what counts as reasonable and debate why that standard is good.

Case---1ACs tend to be bad. The 1NC tends to be bad at demonstrating why the 1AC is bad. Rounds tend to be better (and more favorable for the negative) when the case page is a larger aspect of the negative strategy.

---Impact turns---cool, no issues with any of them.

Ks: I did some of this in HS, pretty comfortable with what happens in 99% of these debates.

On the negative---do whatever, links should implicate solvency of the plan in some way. Willing to vote on debate should be about epistemological assumptions of the plan. The affirmative should invest some time in we get the case + case outweighs, and the negative should offer a predictable counter-interpretation for how the round should be evaluated. Winning ontology is very important for both teams.

On the affirmative---ontology stuff from above. Probably should be close to the topic, willing to listen to reasons why that’s not true but I think the negative’s framework arguments get a lot stronger when the affirmative doesn’t have a predictable counter-interp. Procedural fairness is probably good, so is clash. However, impact turns are definitely winnable in front of me, so do whatever.

Answering K affs---stuff from above. Negative teams tend to be pretty shoddy explaining the impact to fairness/clash/whatever else you want to go for. Defense to the aff case is important for winning framework arguments and answering impact turns. If you want to go for Ks against them K aff, explaining competition is probably the most important parts of the debate in front of me. (K vs K is probably one of the areas I’m least comfortable with given a lack of understanding on the interactions between competing theories).

Yan Gao Princeton

Kamesh Gottumukkala James Logan High School 8 rounds

Eliza Haas OES

Last changed on Sat November 6, 2021 at 12:28 AM PDT

Quick update for online: I will try to keep my camera on so you can see my reactions, but if my internet is slowing down and hurting the connection, I’ll switch to audio only. For debaters, just follow the tournament rules about camera usage, it doesn’t matter to me and I want you to be comfortable and successful. I will say clear or find another way to communicate that to you if need be. If at all possible, do an email chain or file share (and include your analytics!!) so we can see your speech doc/cards in case technology gets garbled during one of your speeches (and because email chains are good anyway). We’re all learning and adjusting to this new format together, so just communicate about any issues and we’ll figure it out. Your technology quality, clothes, or any other elements that are out of your control are equity issues, and they will never have a negative impact on my decision.

TLDR I am absolutely willing to consider and vote on any clear and convincing argument that happens in the round, I want you to weigh impacts and layer the round for me explicitly, and I like it when you're funny and interesting and when you’re having fun and are interested in the debate. I want you to have the round that you want to have—I vote exclusively based on the flow.

If you care about bio: I’m a coach from Oregon (which has a very traditional circuit) but I also have a lot of experience judging and coaching progressive debate on the national circuit, so I can judge either type of round. I’ve qualified students in multiple events to TOC, NSDA Nats, NDCA, has many State Championship winners, and I’m the former President of the National Parliamentary Debate League. See below for the long version, and if you have specific questions that I don't already cover below, feel free to ask them before the round. I love debate, and I’m happy to get to judge your round!

Yes, I want to be on the email chain: elizahaas7(at)gmail(dot)com

Pronouns: she/her/hers. Feel free to share your pronouns before the round if you’re comfortable doing so.

General:

I vote on flow. I believe strongly that judges should be as non-interventionist as possible in their RFDs, so I will only flow arguments that you actually make in your debates; I won't intervene to draw connections or links for you or fill in an argument that I know from outside the round but that you don't cover or apply adequately. That’s for you to do as the debater--and on that note, if you want me to extend or turn something, tell me why I should, etc. This can be very brief, but it needs to be clear. I prefer depth over breadth. Super blippy arguments won't weigh heavily, as I want to see you develop, extend, and impact your arguments rather than just throw a bunch of crap at your opponent and hope something sticks. I love when you know your case and the topic lit well, since that often makes the difference. If you have the most amazing constructive in the world but then are unable to defend, explicate, and/or break it down well in CX and rebuttals, it will be pretty tough for you if your opponent capitalizes on your lack of knowledge/understanding even a little bit.

Arguments:

I’m pretty standard when it comes to types of argumentation. I've voted for just about every type of case; it's about what happens in round and I don’t think it’s my right as a judge to tell you how to debate. Any of the below defaults are easy to overcome if you run what you want to run, but run it well.

However, if you decide to let me default to my personal preferences, here they are. Feel free to ask me if there's something I don't cover or you're not sure how it would apply to a particular debate form, since they’re probably most targeted to circuit LD:

Have some balance between philosophy and policy (in LD) and between empirics and quality analytics (in every debate form). I like it when your arguments clash, not just your cards, so make sure to connect your cards to your theoretical arguments or the big picture in terms of the debate. I like to see debates about the actual topic (however you decide to interpret that topic in that round, and I do give a lot of leeway here) rather than generic theory debates that have only the most tenuous connections to the topic.

For theory or T debates, they should be clear, warranted, and hopefully interesting, otherwise I'm not a huge fan, although I get their strategic value. In my perfect world, theory debates would happen only when there is real abuse and/or when you can make interesting/unique theory arguments. Not at all a fan of bad, frivolous theory. No set position on RVIs; it depends on the round, but I do think they can be a good check on bad theory. All that being said, I have voted for theory... a lot, so don't be scared if it's your thing. It's just not usually my favorite thing.

Framework debates: I usually find framework debates really interesting (whether they’re couched as role of the ballot arguments, standards, V/C debates, burdens, etc.), especially if they’re called for in that specific round. Obviously, if you spend a lot of time in a round on framework, be sure to tie it back to FW when you impact out important points in rebuttals. I dislike long strings of shaky link chains that end up in nuclear war, especially if those are your only impacts. If the only impact to your argument is extinction with some super sketchy links/impact cards, I have a hard time buying that link chain over a well-articulated and nicely put together link chain that ends in a smaller, but more believable and realistically significant impact.

Parli (and PF) specific framework note: unless teams argue for a different weighing mechanism, I will default to net bens/CBA as the weighing mechanism in Parli and PF, since that’s usually how debaters are weighing the round. Tie your impacts back to your framework.

Ks can be awesome or terrible depending on how they're run. I'm very open to critical affs and ks on neg, as a general rule, but there is a gulf between good and bad critical positions. I tend to absolutely love (love, love) ones that are well-explained and not super broad--if there isn't a clear link to the resolution and/or a specific position your opponent takes, I’ll have a harder time buying it. Run your Ks if you know them well and if they really apply to the round (interact with your opponent's case/the res), not just if you think they'll confuse your opponent or because your teammate gave you a k to read that you don’t really understand. Please don't run your uber-generic Cap Ks with crappy or generic links/cards just because you can't think of something else to run. That makes me sad because it's a wasted opportunity for an awesome critical discussion. Alts should be clear; they matter. Of course for me, alts can be theoretical/discourse-based rather than policy-based or whatnot; they just need to be clear and compelling. When Ks are good, they're probably my favorite type of argument; when their links and/or alts are sketchy or nonexistant, I don't love them. Same basic comments apply for critical affs.

For funkier performance Ks/affs, narratives and the like, go for them if that's what you want to run. Just make sure 1) to tell me how they should work and be weighed in the round and 2) that your opponent has some way(s) to access your ROB. Ideally the 2nd part should be clear in the constructive, but you at least need to make it clear when they CX you about it. If not, I think that's a pretty obvious opportunity for your opponent to run theory on you.

I'm also totally good with judging a traditional LD/Parli/Policy/PF round if that's what you're good at--I do a lot of that at my local tournaments. If so, I'll look at internal consistency of argumentation more than I would in a progressive debate (esp. on the Neg side).

Style/Speed:

I'm fine with speed; it's poor enunciation or very quiet spreading that is tough. I'll ask you to clear if I need to. If I say "clear," "loud," or “slow” more than twice, it won't affect my decision, but it will affect your speaks. Just be really, really clear; I've never actually had to say "slow," but "clear" and "loud" have reared their ugly heads more than once. If you’re going very quickly on something that’s easy for me to understand, just make sure you have strong articulation. If you can, slow down on tags, card tags, tricky philosophy, and important analytics--at the very least, hammer them hard with vocal emphasis. My perfect speed would probably be an 8 or 9 out of 10 if you’re very clear. That being said, it can only help you to slow down for something you really need me to understand--please slow or repeat plan/CP text, role of the ballot, theory interp, or anything else that is just crazy important to make sure I get your exact wording, especially if I don't have your case in front of me.

Don’t spread another debater out of the round. Please. If your opponent is new to the circuit, please try to make a round they can engage in.

I love humor, fire, and a pretty high level of sassiness in a debate, but don’t go out of your way to be an absolutely ridiculous ass. If you make me chuckle, you'll get at least an extra half speaker point because I think it’s a real skill to be able to inject humor into serious situations and passionate disagreements.

I love CX (in LD and Policy)/CF (in PF) and good POIs (in Parli), so it bugs me when debaters use long-winded questions or answers as a tactic to waste time during CX or when they completely refuse to engage with questions or let their opponent answer any questions. On that note, I'm good with flex prep; keep CXing to your heart's desire--I'll start your prep time once the official CX period is over if you choose to keep it going. CX is binding, but you have to actually extend arguments or capitalize on errors/concessions from CX in later speeches for them to matter much.

If I'm judging you in Parli and you refuse to take any POIs, I'll probably suspect that it means you can't defend your case against questions. Everyone has "a lot to get through," so you should probably take some POIs.

Weird quirk: I usually flow card tags rather than author names the first time I hear them, so try to give me the tag instead of or in addition to the cite (especially the first few times the card comes up in CX/rebuttal speeches or when it's early in the resolution and I might not have heard that author much). It's just a quirk with the way I listen in rounds--I tend to only write the author's name after a few times hearing it but flow the card tag the first time since the argument often matters more in my flow as a judge than the name itself does. (So it's easiest for me to follow if, when you bring it up in later speeches or CX, you say "the Blahblah 16 card about yadda yadda yadda" rather than just "the Blahblah 16 card.") I'll still be able to follow you, but I find it on my flow quicker if I get the basic card tag/contents.

Final Approach to RFD:

I try to judge the round as the debaters want me to judge it. In terms of layering, unless you tell me to layer the debate in another way, I'll go with standard defaults: theory and T come first (no set preference on which, so tell me how I should layer them), then Ks, then other offs, then case--but case does matter! Like anything else for me, layering defaults can be easily overcome if you argue for another order in-round. Weigh impacts and the round for me, ideally explicitly tied to the winning or agreed-upon framework--don't leave it up to me or your opponent to weigh it for you. I never, ever want to intervene, so make sure to weigh so that I don't have to. Give me some voters if you have time, but don’t give me twelve of them. See above for details or ask questions before the round if you have something specific that I haven't covered. Have fun and go hard!

Weigh impacts.

Additional note if I'm judging you in PF or Parli:

- PF: Please don't spend half of crossfire asking "Do you have a card for x?" Uggh. This is a super bad trend/habit I've noticed. That question won't gain you any offense; try a more targeted form of questioning specific warrants. I vote on flow, so try to do the work to cover both sides of the flow in your speeches, even though the PF times make that rough.

- Parli: Whether it’s Oregon- or California-style, you still need warrants for your claims; they'll just look a little different and less card-centric than they would in a prepared debate form. I'm not 100% tabula rasa in the sense that I won't weigh obviously untrue claims/warrants that you've pulled out of your butts if the other team responds to them at all. I think most judges are like that and not truly tab, but I think it's worth saying anyways. I'll try to remember to knock for protected time where that’s the rule, but you're ultimately in charge of timing that if it's open level. Bonus points if you run a good K that's not a cap K.

Jackson Haber Isidore Newman School

Last changed on Wed November 30, 2022 at 3:59 PM CDT

Background: Auburn '24/Mechanical Engineering/President of AEPi Theta/President of Hillel/NROTC. I debated at Isidore Newman School in policy debate and LD debate for four years, both on the local and national circuits. I never became what one would deem "good" or "competitive" at the activity until I made the switch to LD late junior year. Broke at a couple bid tourneys, a round robin, and NSDA Nationals my senior year. Interpret that as you wish. My paradigm will be overwhelmingly LD related, but most, if not all, of my paradigm can be applied to policy.

Email Chain: bengalfrog14 at gmail dot com

The Basics:

1. Progressive or Traditional? I’m good with either. Did well in both.

2. Truth testing or competing worlds? This is an interesting question. Personally, I feel as though national circuit LD largely consists "competing worlds" arguments. However, I feel as though truth testing arguments can still win many rounds on the national circuit. I ran both "truth testing" and "competing worlds" arguments during my time in LD, and am fine with judging both.

3. Tech or Truth? “TRUTH AND TECH MATTER EQUALLY. IMO judges who say TECH>TRUTH are dumb and failing their duties as educators. Arguments which are deliberately false, inconsistent with the literature, etc. will face a bias against them.” – Anthony Berryhill.

4. Speed? I don’t care. Go fast or go conversational. However, I fundamentally believe that debaters far too often go faster than they think they can go. Your speaker points will suffer if you do this throughout the round repetitively. I will only yell clear twice, after that I will not flow.

Specific Arguments (For the affirmative and negative):

1. Disadvantages: Love them. As I transitioned into LD from policy, I was already used to running disadvantages, even though at the time I still wasn’t particularly good at running them. The biggest thing about the DA is that they need to be a) well warranted, b) have strong links and c) have an impact that competes with the affirmative’s impacts. If you have all of these three things, guess what? You have a good disadvantage. If you lack one of these things, you’re walking the line. If you lack any more, you should probably kick the disadvantage. My personal pet peeve are links that go along the lines of “X might lead to this.” Your cards need to be “confident.” Also, have good sources. AND SHOW AUTHOR QUALS!! For the affirmative, respond to the individual warrants of the disadvantage. Disprove the validity of the link chain and/or impact and weigh against the impact, or impacts, of the disadvantage.

2. Counterplans: I also love them. Again, I was pretty used to the concept of the counterplan as I made my way into the world of LD. I also believe that counterplans are not used enough in traditional debate, which frustrates me. If run correctly i.e. not saying the actual phrase “counterplan” and adapting to the judge, a counterplan can be run in front of half of all traditional judges. But let’s go into specifics. The counterplan has to have some sort of net benefit in order to compete with the affirmative. This can take the form of a disadvantage, case turn, etc. But if such net benefit fails to be well warranted, have strong links, or a notable impact, the counterplan begins to fall apart, as it does nothing better than the affirmative. What should you take from this? Simple. If you are going to run a counterplan, have a GOOD NET BENEFIT. For the counterplan proper, there needs to be a plan text or some sort of advocacy I can vote off of. I’m fine with planks, but don’t make them excessive. And the counterplan follows the same three rules as disadvantages for me (with the net benefit’s impact serving as the “impact” for the CP). For the aff, I have one word. PERM. Ok, maybe that’s not all I have to say. But, perming was something I as a debater struggled with. I lost an out round just because I didn’t make a perm. Unfortunately, I see others make the same mistakes. Perming is essential. Since it’s usually run as a test of competition against the affirmative, my personal view of the perm is to disprove the net benefit from being legitimate. In other words, if the net benefit has no offense, then the permutation works as a test of competition. If you use the permutation as an actual advocacy, beware that you are beginning to sever out of the affirmative’s advocacy in the 1AC. I will not consider this in my voting UNLESS the negative calls the affirmative out on this.

3. The K: Oh boy. Generally speaking, I have never been a big fan of the K. Although many Ks address issues that occur in our society regardless of what resolution is presented, I find too often that the same Ks are used for YEARS without any updates to what is currently happening. Given this, you should contextualize whatever K you plan to run in front of me with the topic in addition to making sure the literature is still acceptable, both from an academic and social standpoint. Moving on, I never really ran Ks in my time as a debater. That was probably because I was so used to policy arguments as I morphed into LD, but for me, a good policy argument with turns, take-outs, and net benefits just seemed cooler than a K. In the end, run whatever K you think you can win off of. Just make sure the K has strong links and has a good alternative. I will not vote for Ks that have no alternative. For K affs, I will not vote for ANY unless they have some sort of advocacy, text, or simply a restatement of the resolution. Call me old school. I don’t care. For the affirmative, make permutations. Additionally, I big flaw I find with affirmative counter-arguments to Ks is that they attempt to disprove the actual arguments of the K. This can be troubling in front of a lot of Ks. A much better method generally speaking is to disprove the method of the K. Basically, don’t tell me racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, xenophobia, etc. don’t exist. Tell me why the K's approach to such issues is flawed.

4. Theory and Topicality: I find that my stance on topicality and theory arguments tend to be quite similar. Although some enjoy these debates, I personally am not a big fan. I never really ran these arguments unless there was actual abuse (in which case I won those rounds), but I, for whatever reason, see too many debaters who run these arguments just to run the arguments. Don’t do that in front of me unless you want your speaker points to suffer and risk losing the round off a well warranted RVI from the other side. If there is actual abuse, whether it be in the form of no disclosure, a plan text that truly is not topical, or no plan text at all, I am more comfortable voting off these arguments. But be careful. I can usually tell when one’s faking with these arguments. In other words, don’t run four disadvantages and in your topicality shell then tell me that you are limited in your arguments. For the aff, calling out these fake arguments is key, in addition to running the typical standards arguments, counter-interpretations, etc. that you would usually find in these rounds.

5. Case Debate: One of the biggest problems that I see is that case debate is becoming non-existent. I see this in traditional debate and progressive debate. And when there is case debate, it’s usually just cross-applications of off-case positions. That is a poor strategy. If you want my ballot, you need to address most, if not all, of the warrants on the case and turn every one individually. Struggling to do that? Then run a disadvantage in the form of a turn on the case. You need to take out the case with multiple arguments that turn the affirmative’s warrants. Cross applications don’t do that. For affirmatives, don’t drop these case turns. If no turns are made on the case, call the negative out on it and use it to your advantage. Not making case turns is a drop in my book. And it’s almost a drop in my book with cross applications. Negatives, beware of this. Affirmatives, be attentive of this.

6. Tricks: I will either not flow, sleep, or walk out of the room if you run tricks. Don’t test me.

7. Framework: I like saving the best for last. Why is framework the best kind of argument in my opinion? Because it shapes the way one views the round. If you lose the framework debate and don’t do any weighing between values, value criterions, or whatever metric the round is being measured with, your chances of winning the round are slim. With that being said, the best framework debates are ones in which a) you explain why your framework (or more specifically value and value criterion) is better and why b) even if you lose the framework debate, you still win under your opponent’s framework i.e. weighing. This should be textbook debate, but I still see debaters who never weigh in the framework debate. It makes me very sad.

Conclusion: There’s a quote I’d like to share. Football coach Dutch Meyer once said, “Fight ‘em until hell freezes over. Then fight ‘em on the ice!”. If you debate with passion, energy, and the drive to win, I will reward that, whether it be in the form of speaker points, a win, or both. Debate is not just a game. It’s a competition. So compete.

Gagandeep Kang McDowell HS

Last changed on Sun February 19, 2023 at 1:22 AM EDT

UPDATE Harvard Policy (02/23):

Debated policy in high school a few years ago so it's been quite some time. Please explain your jargon and topic specific terms. Generally tech over truth. Run the arguments that you want to run, my judge pref shouldn't change that; HOWEVER, as long as your arguments aren't blatantly racist, homophobic, etc. Fine with speed, as long as both sides are cool with it. It's a learning experience so please be nice and try to have fun, I know it's stressful, I'm an easy-going judge so if any tech issue or anything else arises in the midst of the debate just let me know and we will sort it out.

please include me on the email chain: gkang2022@gmail.com

Read the rest of my paradigm if going for any critical args. tl;dr: I'm cool with Ks!

Policy paradigm

I debated in high school and am now attending university. I doubt much of that matters to you but please include me on the email chain: gkang2022@gmail.com

General

Feel free to debate with arguments that you feel are the best; however, it would be silly to assume this doesn't come with certain caveats. I have minimal experience judging on this new topic so I urge you to explain your jargon.

Tech over truth, but with limitations. Technical concessions matter a lot. However, your arguments have to be developed enough in earlier speeches that a reasonably smart opponent & judge can see it becoming a round-changer in a later speech.

Speed is fine, but I will say clear when it becomes incomprehensible. Debaters often tend to spew through their analytics within their rebuttal speeches but be cognizant of the fact that I will flow on paper so anything that doesn't make it on to my flow will not be considered within my RFD.

The quality of your evidence matters, but won’t win or lose you a round unless somebody in the round makes this happen. You certainly don’t need evidence to make every single argument. I want to be on the email chain so I can read evidence after the round if need-be

In the new world of debate, thorough impact analysis often gets left behind but is crucial to evaluating debates.

If you're going for the K, don't neglect talking about the case.

Yes, feel free to run critical affirmatives, as I did so my senior season. Regardless, I can be persuaded by good technical framework debating from the negative.

Organization and strategic argumentation are crucial to your speaker points

I'm lenient on paperless rules - as long as you don't take forever and I don't catch you stealing prep you'll be fine, if your computer crashes mid speech just let me know

Ethical Considerations

Any form of misrepresenting evidence is considered card clipping and will severely affect your speaker points and could cost you the round. Audibly marking the card is acceptable.

Don't be mean. Debate is a learning experience and a grind, so there's no place for rude behavior or ad hominem arguments

Kathryn Kao Harrison

Last changed on Tue December 17, 2019 at 7:39 AM EDT

I debated LD for Lexington (MA) back in the late '90s/early '00s, and I’ve coached and judged off and on since. My paradigm as a judge is very much shaped by the style of northeast/circuit traditional LD debate, even when I’m judging PF (I’ve been a PF instructor at SNFI for a few years).

I'm looking for the same things when I'm judging LD and PF:

a clear standard/weighing mechanism, and clear impacts back to that
an explanation/interpretation of evidence
clear line-by-line in early rebuttals
world-building/crystallization in final speeches (summary speech in PF; final 2 minutes of the NR in LD)

I can handle speed, but I really don't like to see spreading in LD or PF. I prefer rounds where everyone is speaking clearly and actually sounds like they care about what they're arguing, and using inflection and other rhetorical speaking skills to reflect that. When in doubt, go slow.

I like interesting arguments, and I strongly prefer arguments that are more philosophy rooted. However, I strongly believe in using the wording of the resolution to determine aff/neg ground and issues of fairness. I have zero tolerance for cute definitions/frameworks that are designed to make upholding the other side extremely difficult/impossible. For me, debate is about skill and education; it's not a place where you try to trick your opponent into losing. Along those lines, I really, really want the round to be about the topic.

I'm a very expressive judge. Please look at me during your speeches/cx, and adjust depending on the signals I'm giving you. If I'm not flowing, or if I'm rolling my eyes or looking exasperated, figure out what you're doing wrong and fix it. I would much rather you stop in mid-sentence and move on then stick to something I'm making faces to you about. I'm expressive so I can help steer you away from doing things I don't want to see.

Please be polite and respectful in and outside of rounds. I don’t drop for rudeness, but I want to vote for nice people, and behavior factors into speaker points for me.

Relatedly, don't argue with me as I'm giving you feedback. Asking me specific questions is great, so long as you’re not trying to change my decision or argue with me about it. I give a lot of feedback because I want you to learn and do better the next time I see you.

Definitely ask if you have specific questions, or if you're not sure how to adapt to me. If you're able to watch any Harrison debaters (at tournaments or on youtube), that's the style and approach that's totally in line with what I want to see in rounds (their coach was my coach, and I coached them for a few years). Just trying to adapt to me goes a long way.

Ajay Kristipati William G. Enloe HS 8 rounds

Zach Lewis McDowell HS

Caroline Li Lexington HS

Last changed on Mon January 17, 2022 at 8:01 AM EDT

TL;DR

Add me to the email chain: caroline.li.debate@gmail.com

Policy

I'm a current sophomore at Penn, she/her. I did policy debate for 4 years at Lexington High School, was a 2N. I ran mostly policy arguments on the neg, but my partner ran identity K and policy affs.

Top 4 things you need to do to win in front of me:

1. Do impact calc.

2. Have numbered warrants.

3. Prioritize what you want me to vote on in your last speeches.

4. Be civil to your opponents!

K-------------------------x--------------Policy

Advice

High level how I decide rounds. 1. I look for any major tech mistakes (dropping a perm, condo, flow, straight turn, etc) that mean I can auto vote for one side, no guilt necessary. If this happened in your round, stand up, make 2 arguments, and sit down. 2. I break the debate into blocks, (ie for a K, framework, link, alt, impact) decide who won each block. 3. I decide what winning a block means for a team, and how the blocks implicate each other. If you made even if statements, bonus points in this step. If you did impact calc, bonus points in this step. 4. I return a decision.

Also, I'm mostly flowing by listening. Clarity~

Framework Debates

At the end of this debate, I will write down the impacts each side goes for, assign some probability of solvency depending on how well you're doing on the internal links for that impact, and then figure out if they implicate/outweigh one another. As such, feel free to expand the debate in the 2AC through 1AR, but in the last speeches buckle down on 1-3 key pieces of offense, weigh it against your opponents' best offense, and then apply it to all the other arguments that show up on these massive T flows. Also, procedural fairness can be a terminal impact if you can convince me it is. Doing good case debate and then applying it offensively to the T flow is always an excellent idea.

Policy aff v Ks

On the aff, having specific, well-thought-out perms and explaining why they mitigate the risk of links is an excellent idea, as is using your impacts to outweigh. On the neg, winning strong impacts to each link helps a lot, as does pointing out specific parts of the aff speeches that link. These debates also tend to become massive, so collapsing in your last speeches and not getting caught up in the line by line will help.

DAs

I do think it's possible for there to be 0% risk of a DA. I find it way more persuasive if you have like 5 reasons why one internal link of the DA won't happen than if you put one reason on five different internal links. Aff-specific DAs which are well-prepared will be entertaining, as will simply having specific links to the aff.

CPs

Don't like process CPs. Do like advantage CPs, or any CP that you made up on the fly but it obviously solves the entire aff. CPs are tests of how necessary the aff is to solve its impacts. On the aff, creative permutations are entertaining.

Make clear internal link and impact scenarios, do impact comparison, internal link turns, and you'll be good to go. If they clarify how the aff works late in the debate, and it's egregiously untopical, I don't mind if you introduce a new T violation in the neg block.

Final thoughts

Make my job easy please

Speaks Scale

28.0 needs some improvement

28.5 good

29.0 impressive

Kelvin Mai Northview High School

Last changed on Tue June 22, 2021 at 7:42 PM EDT

kelvinmaiohmai@gmail.com

I will disclose my decision and give RFD. Will also disclose speaks on request. For every minute you post-round me, I take away one speaker point (asking for legitimate feedback is ok). Please be sure to read my paradigm in its entirety (yes it's long but too much information is always better than too little). I don't mind giving a summary before rounds, but if you neglect to read my paradigm and do something I don't like and then you lose because of it, that's on you. If you're looking for policy, you can skip to the bottom but reading through might help you. If you're looking for PF, skip to the bottom.

Cheating is an auto-drop. I don't care how hard you may be winning everything else, if you are caught cheating you will automatically be dropped.

Prefs:

1: Case, LARPing with an LD framework, philosophy

2: K

2.5 (don't dislike but don't actually like either): Theory (only if actually abusive), LARPing without an LD framework

4 (strike me please): Friv theory, tricks, RVI, etc

Background:
Debated for 3 years in varsity LD at Northview High School from 2012-2015. Have been judging on and off for the past 6 years. Currently working as a quant risk analyst in the banking/financial services industry after finishing my masters in quant risk analysis.

Speed:
I'm ok with speed for the most part. Spreading is generally ok if you are clear, but if you aren't, I will clear you twice before I stop flowing. Don't sacrifice clarity for speed, you'll lose speaks. Make sure you look up once in a while to make sure I'm flowing and understanding your arguments (not an issue with email chains). Slow down a bit for taglines. Not an issue if you do email chains, but make sure you're letting me know which cards you're cutting. If you do email chains, don't forget your clarity still matters for speaks. For online tournaments, there might be difficulties and so I would prefer a generally slower pace in case issues arise.

Prep:
I'm ok with flex prep. Flashing doesn't count towards prep. Don't steal prep. I'm a really lenient and reasonable judge so I'll let you finish your sentence.

CX:

I don't flow cross, so if you want to make a point, make it in a speech.

Roadmap/signpost:

Please do this. It makes it easier to flow the debate and will make it easier for me to give an RFD.

Voters:
Please do this. I want you to write the ballot for me. Tell me EXACTLY why you win, and why I should uphold your framework over your opponent's. I shouldn't be doing the work for you.

ARGUMENTS:

"Tech over truth."

Tabula rasa

***I am a more traditional LD judge who accepts progressive arguments as long as they have a clear LD framework. I believe that the framework in LD is the fundamental difference between LD and policy, and so if you don't have this framework I will default to voting against you. If you only want to run policy framework, you might as well just switch to policy. I'm not asking for a super philosophical debate (although I do know a lot of philosophy and enjoy it), but I am asking for some sort of LD framework. Framework is like 70% of my RFD. Clash is good.

Adjust to your opponent. If you run something like K or theory against a novice, that won't reflect well in your speaks.

Theory and RVIs (3/7/2020 post-GA varsity state update):
I find theory and RVIs incredibly boring to judge, and I honestly don't even get what RVIs are since they weren't really a thing when I debated. Don't read theory shells if your opponent isn't actually being abusive, I'll probably vote you down. If both debaters choose to read theory/RVIs when neither are actually being abusive, I reserve the right to stop flowing and just flip a coin to decide winner. Both speakers will then receive a 27.5 in speaks. Friv theory is an autodrop. Don't waste my time or your opponent's time. Not a fan of tricks either. Don't waste my time with blippy one-liners. Reading the same theory/RVIs for every tournament is incredibly boring for me to listen to.

DAs:
Sure, make sure well-warranted and links to resolution.

K:
I love listening to k. That's not to say I'll always vote for them, but I will understand them and will vote on them if done correctly.

CPs:
Yes. I love CPs as well so I'm ok with them as long as they link and are unique. I will vote on a perm if your CP is non-unique. Kicking a permed CP is going to negatively impact you.

Impact calc:

Impact calc is good. I weigh impacts in the RFD if needed.

Dropped arguments:

Don't just say "extend _____ b/c opponent dropped it." Explain how the dropped argument impacts the debate itself

Above all else, have fun! I believe that if you don't enjoy what you're doing, it's not worth doing, so please have fun and relax. Good luck!

Other prefs based off judging rounds:

If you're going to read arguments on analytics/data science/economics/finance/financial theory/markets, please make sure you at least research the topic. I'm a quant in the banking industry and it can be frustrating to hear people butcher these things so hard. You don't need to have a PhD level of understanding, but please at least do some reading on it.

I've also taken some actuarial theory/insurance mathematics, so if you want to run super technical args about actuarially fair priced insurance/optimal insurance and stuff like that I'll understand.

Don't read identity k arguments while not being a member of that identity AND read a link that your opponent is speaking for others in their advocacy. It comes off as incredibly short-sighted, and if your opponent calls you out and says you link I'll vote you down.

Please no RVIs, this has been in my paradigm for a long time and I still have people try to read them in front of me. I've literally been in a situation of judging a break round where all 3 judges (myself included) did not understand what the heck was going on.

Please stop reading generic theory shells. What's the point of getting excited for new topics if your strat is to find one or two arguments and then stuff theory shells and spikes into your case? Where is the educational value in that (yes, generally I agree that fairness>education but that doesn't mean that education isn't important). If I can clearly tell that what you're reading is 80% the same as what you were reading last topic, you'll probably lose speaks. Only use theory shells if your opponent is actually being abusive.

For the random policy debates I judge here and there:

I'm pretty ok with spreading and args, so it should be fine. If I HAD to pick a paradigm, it would probably be something like case/impacts/DA/CP>K>Topicality>>>>>>>Theory/RVI. This is not set in stone however.

For the random PF debates I judge here and there:

PF is PF, and at its core it should be lay debate. When I judge PF, I will approach the round as if I were a lay judge. If you're going to LARP, you'll probably lose speaks and the debate as well. If you spread, you will lose speaks.

Rachel Mauchline Cabot High School

Last changed on Tue July 18, 2023 at 10:13 AM CDT

Rachel Mauchline

Durham Academy, Assistant Director of Speech and Debate

Previously the Director of Forensics and Debate for Cabot

she/her pronouns

TL;DR

Put me on the email chain @ rachelmauchline@gmail.com

speed is fine (but online lag is a thing)

tech over truth

Policy

I typically get preferred for more policy-oriented debate. I gravitated to more plan focused affirmatives and t/cp/da debate. I would consider myself overall to be a more technically driven and line by line organized debater. My ideal round would be a policy affirmative with a plan text and three-seven off. Take that as you wish though.

Lincoln Douglas

I've judged a variety of traditional and progressive debates. I prefer more progressive debate. But you do you... I am happy to judge anything as long as you defend the position well. Refer to my specific preferences below about progressive arguments. In regards to traditional debates, it's important to clearly articulate framework.

Public Forum

weighing.... weighing.... weighing.

I like rebuttals to have clear line by line with numbered responses. 2nd rebuttal should frontline responses in rebuttal. Summary should extend terminal defense and offense OR really anything that you want in final focus. Final focus should have substantial weighing and a clear way for me to write my ballot. It's important to have legitimate evidence... don't completely skew the evidence.

Here are my specific preferences on specific arguments if you have more than 5 mins to read this paradigm...

Topicality

I enjoy a well-articulated t debate. In fact, a good t debate is my favorite type of debate to judge. Both sides need to have a clear interpretation. Make sure it’s clearly impacted out. Be clear to how you want me to evaluate and consider arguments like the tva, switch side debate, procedural fairness, limits, etc.

Disadvantages/Counterplans

This was my fav strat in high school. I’m a big fan of case-specific disadvantages but also absolutely love judging politics debates- be sure to have up to date uniqueness evidence in these debates though. It’s critical that the disad have some form of weighing by either the affirmative or negative in the context of the affirmative. Counterplans need to be functionally or textually competitive and also should have a net benefit. Slow down for CP texts and permutations- y’all be racing thru six technical perms in 10 seconds. Affirmative teams need to utilize the permutation more in order to test the competition of the counterplan. I don’t have any bias against any specific type of counterplans like consult or delay, but also I’m just waiting for that theory debate to happen.

Case

I believe that case debate is under-covered in many debates by both teams. I love watching a case debate with turns and defense instead of the aff being untouched for the entire debate until last ditch move by the 2AR. The affirmative needs to continue to weigh the aff against the negative strat. Don't assume the 1AC will be carried across for you throughout the round. You need to be doing that work on the o/v and the line by line. It confuses me when the negative strat is a CP and then there are no arguments on the case; that guarantees aff 100% chance of solvency which makes the negative take the path of most resistance to prove the CP solves best.

Kritiks

I’ll vote for the k. From my observations, I think teams end up just reading their prewritten blocks instead of directly engaging with the k specific to the affirmative. Be sure you understand what you are reading and not just read a backfile or an argument that you don’t understand. The negative needs to be sure to explain what the alt actually is and more importantly how the alt engages with the affirmative. I judge more K rounds than I expect to, but if you are reading a specific author that isn’t super well known in the community, but sure to do a little more work on the analysis

Theory

I’ll vote for whatever theory; I don’t usually intervene much in theory debates but I do think it’s important to flesh out clear impacts instead of reading short blips in order to get a ballot. Saying “pics bad” and then moving on without any articulation of in round/post fiat impacts isn’t going to give you much leverage on the impact level. You can c/a a lot of the analysis above on T to this section. It’s important that you have a clear interp/counter interp- that you meet- on a theory debate.

David McGinnis West Des Moines Valley High School

Jona Nicklin James Logan High School

Megan Nubel Harrison

Last changed on Mon January 11, 2021 at 1:35 PM CDT

Update December 2020: I am removing from a mild head injury, I would probably advise against spreading especially with the online format.

Update January 2021: 60-75% speed is OK.

I am a special education teacher and coach debate for New Trier Township High School (IL). I debated Lincoln Douglas and some PF at Valley High School 2008-2013.

Online Debate: Please start the email chain before the round starts. YES, I would like to be included. megan.nubel@gmail.com. PLEASE slow down. If tournaments have guidelines/protocols for what to do if someone drops off the call, I will follow those. If not, please:

-Record your speeches on your own end in case someone drops off the call. If you do NOT do this, I'm sorry but I have to consider that your problem. If you are unable to for some reason please let me know before the round. You may want to record the speeches individually because some platforms/iPhone have length limits for recordings. Audio recording only is fine.

-If YOU drop off the call in the middle of the speech: finish the speech via recording and then send immediately via the email chain. We will time-check to verify your speech was within the time limit, etc. Your opponent will be provided with the time necessary to flow the recording.

-If YOUR OPPONENT drops off the call in the middle of the speech: finish your speech (again, you should be recording) and then immediately send via the email chain. I will provide up to the length of the missed speech for your opponent to flow before they must take prep/begin their speech.

-If YOUR JUDGE (me) drops off the call, finish your speech and send the recording at the end. I may rejoin prior to the end of the speech, but still send the recording so I can fill in the gaps. I will attempt to do so during prep time but may need additional time.

Overall: Debate the way you know how in the best way you can. Clearly explain your arguments, impacts, and interactions in the round. Articulate what my reason for the decision should be. Here's how I evaluate the round once it ends: (1) Look at the 2ar, decide whether there's anything the aff can win on, (2) if yes, consider neg interaction with that/those argument(s) and consider comparable neg offense then decide what wins, (3) if no, look at the NR and decide if there's anything that the neg can win on, (4) if still no, ???

General/neither here nor there:

-Sit wherever makes sense. I don't care which side sits in which place in the room, and feel free to sit or stand at any point in the debate.

-Flash before your speech but you don't need to use prep time to do so. Please flash analytics.

-I think brackets are fine in evidence if they are used *properly.* Please line down cards honestly and include full citations.

-The value is not particularly important to me; the value-criterion is how I evaluate the framework if it’s relevant in the round.

-I judge on the national circuit a few times tournaments year, so please don't expect me to know the general happenings or stock arguments.

-I don't flow off of speech docs but I will look at cards after the round (sometimes prompted, sometimes unprompted)

-Please disclose. There are some exceptions to this that are more lenient (local debater and you're not sure what that means, wiki down, etc) but if your opponent asks what the aff is, don’t leave them on read. You probably don’t have to disclose >30 min before the round but I’m open to hearing otherwise.

Arguments:

-I don't default to anything on theory or T, I just sit there very confused when things aren't explicit and justified. If you justify the argument once and it's dropped, then it becomes my default.

-I'm familiar with most types of arguments (traditional, disads, advantages, plans, theory, topicality, critical, types of counter-plans, types of perms). I have heard of and judged most frameworks used in debate but I'm not deeply knowledgeable about any.

-Sometimes I’ll get questions like “are you ok with...” or “will you listen to...” and the answer is yes. There are no arguments I feel so strongly about that I’ll reject them outright. I don’t even really have arguments I prefer. It’s my job to judge the debate so I do. That being said, I will react negatively if your argument feels abhorrent.

-Complete extensions are a must. Claim, warrant, and impact. Please do your impact analysis for me and address all aspects of the debate in your crystallization. If I don't clearly understand your side and ballot story, you might not get my vote because of confusion or misinterpretation on my end. Pre-correct for my potential judging errors in your speeches.

Delivery:

-I have high-frequency hearing loss so my ears ring. If you anticipate your speech will include very loud noises or high-frequency pitches from music, etc, please let me know.

-I'm not going to flow what I don't hear or understand. Sometimes I say clear or slow or louder if necessary. I don't always look at my keyboard or computer when I'm typing, so if I'm looking at you it doesn't necessarily mean I'm not flowing. I can type very fast so sometimes I’ll just flow extensions verbatim to sort them out later.

-If I'm flowing on paper you probably need to go about 60% of your top speed. If I am flowing on a computer it’s all good, just work up to your top speed and slow down on tags, transitions between offs, etc. If I miss the author name I just write “CARD/“ on my flow.

Please feel free to ask me about anything not mentioned here that might be pertinent to your debate. I can't say I have many strong opinions in any direction way when it comes to debate styles, arguments, etc.

Veena Patil Lake Highland Preparatory School

Lisa Pearo Acton-Boxborough Regional High School

Katie Raphaelson Brentwood School

Last changed on Sun October 1, 2023 at 4:42 AM PDT

for jack howe- pls i beg u not to read assault impacts! Also if the debate is taking place in one of the ballrooms with multiple tables please speak up! I have audio processing issues and the multiple rounds at once in a room is just not....great for me.

Important: DO NOT READ CASES ABOUT SEXUAL VIOLENCE IN FRONT OF ME. Non-negotiable.

for sept/oct: see above

Brentwood ’19

Smith College ’23

my pronouns are they/them

pls add me to the email chain- katieraphaelson@gmail.com

i don't know how speechdrop works but if u explain it to me feel free to use it!

BQ, Policy and PF at the end

MY EXPERIENCE:

I did LD debate for 4 years for Brentwood HS in Los Angeles, reaching two bid rounds and clearing at almost every tournament I attended my senior year, and at least 1/2 of all tournaments attended my junior year. I also was a quarterfinalist at CHSSA 2019 and 10th at NSDA Nationals 2019.

As a coach, I've worked with multiple students who have gone to the TOC and far rounds at NSDA Nats. I currently coach and judge at Brentwood. I have also been judging for around four years, and have experience judging policy, pf, and bq rounds!

If you speak slowly I will be very happy <3 totally fine to spread, but I can't promise I will get everything esp like one line analytics that aren't on the speech doc.

Online debate

When it comes to having cameras on, do whatever feels comfortable. Don't feel like you have to keep your camera on, especially if you are having tech issues. I will have my camera on!

Things to know about me/what I like to see

I'm queer, non binary, and neurodivergent-ive also been having some auditory processing issues as of late so make sure to speak up so that I catch everything!
I primarily read Ks and non T affs about these aspects of my identity.
I work for the international campaign to ban landmines so I know a lot about the russia/ukraine conflict and anything landmine related. I also know a lot about international humanitarian law and have worked at the UN.
i like taylor swift and boygenius, do with that what you will
please dont refer to me in round. saying judge is fine but saying "katie vote for this" in a speech makes me very uncomfy.
debate the way you debate best.
time yourselves! You are responsible for knowing how much prep time you have.
please give a tw/cw for arguments about sexual assault/violence, rape, homophobia, transphobia, and suicide.
I have a soft spot for poststructuralism, esp Foucault and D&G.
reasonability is valid
Condo isn’t always bad
I'm always down to see a lay debate (THIS IS SO TRUE THESE DAYS)
BE NICE TO EACH OTHER (unless someone does something that 100% does NOT warrant being nice). I love sass, but I do NOT want to watch two teenagers scream at each other. It will make me very uncomfortable
if your opponent tells you that they won't be spreading, you shouldn't either.
feel free to ask questions after the round to a reasonable degree. I have a limited amount of time to give an rfd so you can also email me questions!
please do not yell at me:)

path of the least resistance

the best way to win my ballot is to use the path to least resistance. This means going for the argument that is the easiest to win.

For circuit LD, I think it looks like this- If you read a K and a DA and your opp reads 9 perms but drops the DA, go for the dropped argument. This isn't to say that you should collapse to a one-sentence blip, but rather just go for what you think you can win the easiest. I really just want to be able to quote your 2nr and 2ar word for word, and that's much harder to do if there are 90 layers to the round and I have to sift through arguments with minimal clash. I know it seems cool to go for that K you cut with your friends, but sometimes you have to go for the dropped DA that you originally read to waste the aff's time.

truth vs. tech

I used to be strictly tech>truth, but these days I am starting to feel like I need arguments to be fully fleshed out and I won't just vote on a single dropped arg alone, esp if its a quick extension that hasn't been warranted well- this would mainly have to do with tricks and extending some type of contention/DA that didn't really provide warrants, just a few lines that all go back to they didn't respond.

POLICY SPECIFIC STUFF

Most of the LD stuff applies but I'm am much more sympathetic to Ks when it comes to Policy bc there is more time to get into the lit. However, you still gotta know what the K says.

I have a short attention span, so do something fun and ill be happy bc policy rounds are long

PF SPECIFIC STUFF

look at Nina Potichman's article abt theory in PF. I consider myself a pretty good theory judge in LD, but I just don't want to have to judge a pf theory round. unless its a genuine problem like somebody going over the speech time, reading a triggering arg without a warning, or something like that, its fine, but if you pull out a shell akin to 2015 LD i will be very sad!

SPEAKS

- The main ways to get good speaks are to make strategic moves and to explain your arguments well. I love when I can quote the rebuttal speeches as my RFD. Thats a quick way to get at least a 29!

- do your debate and do it well. I give speaks based on how you debate.

- If you're debating someone who is obviously less experienced than you and you go 9 off, you will 1. just look like a bad person and 2. show that you are not confident enough in your debate abilities to just read an NC or slow down on a DA, which is not a good look. Both of these things are a recipe for bad speaks! Also if your opp doesn't spread you shouldn't either- feel free to go fast but if you're blitzing through you will get bad speaks. however, if you are nice, you will be rewarded with really high speaks!!!

THINGS YOU CAN DO TO GET REALLY BAD SPEAKS even though I don't think any of these things even need to be said:

Be racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, etc

Read a triggering arg without a trigger warning

Make your opponent cry for no reason

Do something that makes the other debater feel unsafe

MISC.

IF YOU FEEL UNSAFE IN THE ROUND, please email 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, contact the equity officer (if there is one) and give you a W30 unless I'm instructed otherwise. 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.

River G Reynolds The Bolles School 8 rounds

Eric Schwerdtfeger Westside HS 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu September 7, 2023 at 8:48 AM CDT

Director of Debate: Dulles High School (2022 - Present)

Formerly: Westside High School (2017 - 2022), Magnolia High School (2016 - 2017)

Every round I judge: esdebate93 [at] the google mail service

If I am judging you in Policy: dulles.policy.db8 [at] the google mail service

If I am judging you in LD: dulles.ld.db8 [at] the google mail service

I am a full time classroom teacher who oversees a large team and judges a lot. As a result, I can be a bit of a grumpy gus, but I promise that I care. I'm glad that you're choosing to be here and hope that you continue to make that choice. If you require accommodation or are uncomfortable with something that is happening and I'm not picking up on it, please let me know either verbally or by email. If you have any questions, just ask.

Non-Negotiables - The lightest consequence for a violation of these is me tanking your speaks. The harshest is stopping the round, reporting you to the tabroom, and contacting your coach. Anything between these two is on the table.

Safety, inclusivity, and accessibility are preconditions for us having an activity worth doing. Don’t be a bully, make threats, advocate/threaten self-harm, or engage in harassment. Don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or ableist. Respect people’s pronoun preferences, provide accommodation upon request, and be kind to novices. Wheaton's law is always in effect.
Content/trigger warnings should be given if you have reasonable suspicion that the material you are discussing could be triggering. The onus is on you to ask the room to read the position and give observers time to leave. Read something else if any of the people who have to be there (competitors or judges) objects.
Debate tournaments are long, difficult, and overstimulating for everyone involved, often due to factors beyond your control. That said, debaters regularly behave in ways contribute to delays and stress. Do your best not to do that. To elaborate: Get to round on time, have the email chain ready to go, clean up after yourself, and don't be obnoxiously loud and in the way of others.
Do not clip cards (cutting them in such a way that omits/distorts the author's original meaning, such as omitting sentences where the author contradicts your tag; complete cards are comprised of whole paragraphs; bracketing out offensive language does not constitute clipping) or steal prep (preparing materials or strategizing with your partner outside of prep, speech, or CX time). If you decide to stake the round on ev ethics you will win if you are right and lose if you are wrong.
Two teams are the only entities taking part in the debate. I will decide the debate based on arguments made within tournament set speech times and will submit a decision with one winner and one loser. I will not be making decisions about behaviors that occurred outside of the round or prior disclosure period.

Decision Making

I try to be a good judge for research driven, content heavy strategies and find the best debates to be focused on central controversies rather than edge cases. I will privilege technical execution in most instances; however, in close debates, truth is usually the deciding factor. My threshold for answering nonsense is low. Judge instruction on central questions you want the ballot to consider is super important. I want you to explicitly tell me what is important and why it is more important than other issues, but you should also show me that it’s important via choice, sequencing, and time allocation.

Evidence quality matters a lot, but you need to be the one doing the comparison in your speeches. If the spin is good and you don't challenge it, I'm not going to be checking for you. Liberal use of rehilights are encouraged since they help to adjudicate between competing interpretations of what a piece of evidence says.

I am attentive to cross x but will not flow it. It is your job to incorporate cross x moments into your speeches if you want me to flow it.

Speaker points start at 28.5 and move up or down from there based on a subjective, holistic evaluation of your performance. Will not disclose speaks.

Important Preferences

This is a research and communication activity, so you should be doing research and trying to communicate effectively. Too many debaters do neither, and I'm not a fan. Being well read, having a personality beyond doc botting debate bro, and trying to be persuasive will go a long way.
The documents you send during the debate are a reflection of how seriously you take your pre-tournament/round preparation. They should look good. Your cards should include author quals within the citation and you should highlight in comprehensible sentences.
I enjoy fast debates, but clarity, efficiency, and smart argument choices are way more important to me than speed. Please leave pen time when spreading, even if I am flowing on my laptop. If I can't understand or flow it, it won't factor into my decision.
Make complete arguments, meaning claim + warrant + implication. I would also suggest labeling, numbering, or otherwise compartmentalizing your arguments. Blippy and/or disorganized arguments are bad and I will not waste time or mental energy trying to parse them for you.
Have a strategy and execute it well. I love creative and innovative approaches, so don't be afraid to experiment; however, if your strategy is to bamboozle your opponent, you run the risk of bamboozling me too.
Gish-Galloping is bad. I will privilege quality and specificity of argument over quantity.
Clash is good. I am deeply unsympathetic to strategies that try to avoid engagement.
Line by line is preferable to long overviews. 30-45 seconds is the max overview l think has any sort of utility, provided that the focus is judge instruction or impact comparison. There has never been an instance where a separate sheet for an overview has been necessary or helpful.
Please, I am begging you, learn to flow. If you have to waste cx flow checking, speaks will drop.
Beyond these preferences, don’t overadapt. Debate is for debaters, so do your thing, do it well, and have fun.

Affs

You should have a clearly articulated relationship to the current topic, identify a significant harm or set of harms that is inherent to the status quo, and propose a method that solves or starts to solve the problem(s) you’ve identified. I am open to various approaches to satisfying these burdens but if I vote for you I should be able to explain my ballot in those terms.

Regardless of style, consistent and compelling narratives are key if you want to win while affirming.

Neg Case Debating

More case 2NRs, please. Your case pushes should include more than just impact turns/defense and cross applications from other pages. You should read cards/analytics that contest theoretical assumptions, claims of solvency, and causal claims. If the negative answers to the case are only cross applications from other sheets (I'm looking at you K debaters), I will be annoyed.

Framework

Both sides should have a clear model of debate (interpretation/counter interpretation) that they think is desirable. Creative approaches are welcome, but whatever you choose to do, you need to be prepared to defend your performance. Your model should account for the role of both the affirmative and the negative. Thinking about this through case lists that would be allowed for both sides under your model is a good practice.

I find the Limits + SSD + TVA = better clash/education/skills model of FW the most persuasive. Negative teams who make their explanation of this reasoning contextual to the outcomes the aff desires (better radicals, less gender/racial bias, etc.) will have an easier time than teams that go for fairness oriented models in most instances; however, I'm happy to vote for those as well. Again, do your thing and do it well.

Aff teams should be aware that I generally think that discussions about the object of the resolution are probably important. I do not think that USFG policy on that object is necessarily the best starting point. As such, you will have an easier time winning if you contextualize debates about the resolution within your theory of power and identify the better starting point prescribed by that theory. If I don't know how your model of debate solves/mitigates the impact turn to theirs, I'm probably not going to vote for it.

Kritiks

I am most excited to be in the back of debates featuring kritiks that are specific to the topic/aff you are challenging. I would prefer fewer offs so you have time to explain the K, as these arguments are often counterintuitive. Know the literature base well, explain it simply rather than using jargon as a crutch. Show me that you understand what you are talking about. If you're not winning your thesis, it is unlikely I will think that you are winning anything else on the K page absent really good arguments to the contrary.

Thesis arguments contextualize the link and link arguments support the thesis. They’re mutually reinforcing. When developing links, you should name them, theorize, link your theorization to the aff with a quote from the aff, and impact that out. Lazy link debating loses debates. If a link functions independently of your thesis, you should make that explicit. Don’t rely on me to implicitly follow your reasoning.

Examples are important at every level of these debates. Don’t just name check people, movements, and events. Explain their relationship to the argument. The earlier they show up the better.

Methods/Alternatives should do something that solves or starts to solve the impacts from the link debate. You should tell me what that something is and how it solves. I do not think this must necessarily be material change, a new paradigm or mode of relation is fine; however, it should make sense with regard to solvency claims.

The pre/post fiat distinction people try to draw is silly. Talk about your scholarship/research practices, their impacts, and weigh.

Topicality

I default to competing interpretations because affirmative teams should have to justify their choices. Reasonability is an argument for the counter interpretation, not your aff. Your interpretations and counter interpretations should be topic specific rather than generic. They should intend to define and include/exclude a given aff or set of affs. T is fundamentally a question of limits; all other standards are secondary.

Disadvantages and Counterplans

Policy throwdowns are the kinds of debates where I am most likely to call for cards, as these quickly turn into card wars, and I am far from a topic expert. Please be ready to send a card doc including all evidence referenced in the 2NR/2AR. Know what you are talking about and explain your arguments simply.

Disads, ideally, are intrinsic to the action of the plan. Please have a cogent link story and do impact comparison. Uniqueness generally controls the direction of the link.

Case specific counterplans are better than generics. I lean aff on multi-actor fiat, consult, and condition. I lean neg on PICs. There is strategic utility to not including a solvency advocate, but literature should probably inform the ground for both sides.

Condo is good. You'll have to do a lot of work to get me to believe otherwise. Aff gets "unlimited" prep, permutations, and intrinsicness tests to balance against neg flex.

Counterplans v K affs don't make sense given my understanding of how counterplan competition works.

LD Specific Stuff

Everything above applies to LD. You should attempt to actually resolve arguments for me. Slow down on analytics, please.

Substantive phil debates are fun and I'd like to judge more of them. Syllogisms should be clear with an explicit relationship to how I weigh impacts.

I can't believe that I am giving this note to people outside a Debate 1 class, but plan texts must have actors.

Debates are evaluated at the conclusion of the 2AR or when I conclude that a winning NR/2AR is no longer possible.

Everything is open to contestation. I will not be evaluating AFC. If you want to include theoretical justifications for your framework, those are not good arguments, but they are acceptable since they don't insist that there exists an obligation to concede things. I think the distinction matters.

I will not evaluate theory of the frivolous variety. You will lose if you make theory arguments pertaining to your opponent’s appearance or mode of dress.

I’m agnostic on 1AR theory and RVIs.

IVIs are K links that function independently of the thesis being true because they also have procedural implications (ie use of exclusionary language). Anything else is just a lazy theory shell.

If you must read tricks, I am okay for substantive tricks with a developed ballot story; however, I would prefer not to judge these debates.

Eric Tang Lexington HS

Hugh Thompson Hawken

Last changed on Fri May 26, 2023 at 4:16 PM EDT

I coached Public Forum starting from its beginning in 2002 until I retired from teaching in 2011. I have continued on as an active judge: judging at the local, state, and national levels. Nearly all of my judging in recent years has been Policy but with Lincoln Douglas and some Public Forum in the mix.

PF:

In the traditional spirit of Public Forum, the debate is best presented in a clear, understandable manner.

PF is a relatively short, quick-paced form of debate. Complexity is fine but be judicious. Stay focused and relatively succinct. Communicate well. I judge Policy, but spreading has no place in PF - at least for me. If I can’t follow what you are saying, well…

Base your contentions on reliable evidence. Draw conclusions using sound reasoning. Clash (of ideas) is great. Obnoxious, aggressive behavior, if it gets ugly, may cost a round.

Limited tag-teaming during crossfire is OK.

A strong final focus can often win a close round.

LD:

Questions worth considering are: What is good (or at least the greater good), and what form should it take in the real world? Philosophers have had a lot to say about this. But so does common sense. Consider me the man on the street who sometimes digs philosophers when they also have their feet on the ground. Using a good strategy can be a winner. Getting beyond philosophy and reason, within limits, emotional appeals can be persuasive.

Moral, ethical and philosophical considerations should be a foundation for your case.

Policy:

I characterize myself as a "Policy Maker Judge." I can handle a modest amount of spreading but don't overdo it. It's more effective to rely on the quality of arguments and evidence than on quantity. Substance counts and so does style. Limited tag-teaming is OK. It is a real art to be confrontational while also being genuinely respectful of your opponent.

While Kritiks are a worthy part of Policy debate, I have never found them to be a decisive, or sometimes even a relevant, factor in my decisions. For some judges they are significant so when there is a panel, feel free to use them. Just be sure to present a strong arguments that support or negate the Affirmative case.

Learn from your experience.

Do what you do best.

Enjoy the competition!

Sameer Tivare James Logan High School 8 rounds

Aly Torres Perry (AZ) High School 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 29, 2021 at 5:57 AM MST

Hi, I'm Aly this is my first year of judging. I competed at Perry HS and I'm now a student at the UA.

She/Her

perrytabroomaly@gmail.com

PF:

please please please do the hard stuff for me by giving me a framework and key voters to weigh off of. I'm a "lazy judge" and if you fill out my ballot for me by showing me why your arguments are stronger than your opponents, you'll get my ballot and you'll get high speaks.

tag your cards CLEARLY, especially if you're a fast talker; if i don't hear it, it won't make my flow. if it doesn't make my flow, it won't get weighed. If I call your card at the end of the round it's probably bc I don't remember hearing it when you first introduced it and I'm trying to find it on my flow.

I love me a good sign-post! tell the room (briefly) what you'll be talking about before your rebuttal, summary, final focus. makes everyone's lives a lot easier.

Do the impact calc for me. In an ideal round, you're telling me what to think and why I need to be thinking that way.

LD: though i have watched many an LD round in my time, my experience with this event is much more limited and relies heavily on the information I have learned thru my former teammates ,so if you're a high key prog debater, strike me now lol

I am OK with speed (INCLUDE ME IN THE EMAIL CHAIN) as long as you separate args with an "AND" or something.. If it gets to the point where I just cannot make out words from what you're saying, I'll clear you. I'm prob comfortable with 70% of your top speed.

I prefer traditional value debate THE MOST, this is what you should run on me. I am really not familiar with much else. So unless you feel comfortable with explaining your arguments to a lay judge, run your lay cases.

To win my ballot,

I need a strong framework, and I need clear implications of how your arguments link to the framework.

For framework debate, I pref frameworks that promote less harmful overall

I don't weigh arguments made in the rebuttals (except the 1NC) or afterwards.

General:

I tend to be tech over truth and I don't flow through ink.

No, I do not care if you're dressed up or if you "sit or stand for x".

I don't flow cross. I'm easily distracted, so if you want me to flow it, please bring it up in a later speech.

I do expect you to time yourself and your opponents during cross and prep.

Be respectful of yourselves, me, and especially your opponents! Everyone is here to learn, first and foremost. That cannot happen if the round is not a safe space. If I see or hear abusive behavior of any kind, I will drop you and report you to tab.

side note: if there is anything i can do to make the round space more welcoming or comfortable for you, please let me know either by email, in person, whatever works!

This is going to sound cliché, but above all have fun and walk out of the round a better competitor than when you entered it :)

ps: Please add Cute puppy or Penguin pictures at the top of the doc and I will be very happy :D

Aleksandar Trivanovic Charlotte Latin School

Last changed on Wed June 16, 2021 at 6:16 AM EDT

EDIT: Added WS stuff for NSDA at the bottom.

Hey, everyone! I'm Aleks (he/him).

For email chain if needed or if you want to ask questions after the round I'd be happy to answer (not aggressively post-rounding): triv@live.unc.edu

I did three years of Public Forum (with small soirees into the worlds of Congress and World Schools) at Ardrey Kell High School in Charlotte, NC. I've competed locally and nationally, qualifying to NSDA Nats, CFLs, and TOCs, so I can follow and appreciate various styles of debate. However, I'm extremely rusty and haven't judged since watching scrimmages my senior year, so bear with me. I'll consider myself a "flow"/tech>truth judge, but I'm not perfect and shouldn't have to do work for you. I'm not going to lie, at this point, I will be much more likely to make what you think is the "correct" decision if it's a lay round, but I have experience with Theory, Ks, etc... however, those rounds tend to get messy more often in my experience. Take with that what you will. Additionally, I much prefer topical Ks (esp Cap Ks, which are good for discourse if applicable to the topic) to non-topical Ks or theory.

I am currently a rising senior Political Science/European Studies Major @ UNC-Chapel Hill.

My judging style is pretty simple: just make my job to fill out the ballot in your favor as easy as possible. This means signpost, weigh, give warrants, weigh again, and provide voters. Also, please collapse! I don't want to hear a 400 WPM 2AR or Final Focus going over every single thing that happened in the debate. I know what happened in the debate already because I saw it and I flowed it. Part of being a good debater is being able to identify which 1 or 2 arguments you're clearly winning, which 1 or 2 pieces terminal defense to extend, and persuasion. There's a reason why the final speech is always the shortest.

I'm going to try my best not to intervene or do any work for a team on the flow. The odds of me doing so will be a lot less if you warrant your arguments/weigh well.

Also, I'll trust you to time yourselves.

Yes, I'm fine with spreading as long as I have your speech doc. If it's too fast, I'll say "clear" until it gets clearer. I prefer you didn't spread in later speeches, though. Constructive/case is 100% fine though.

If you're racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, misgender someone, ...etc you're going to get dropped instantly with low low speaks. Please also issue content warnings at the beginning of your speech if you are going to discuss something that could be triggering.

For PF: Everything in final focus needs to have been in summary. Please extend or it's not going on my flow.

World Schools: I did World Schools at NSDA Nationals and broke 2x while in high school, so I'm familiar with the event and love it. It doesn't bring me the immense anger that other forms of debate often do. To sum up my preferences...

1. World Schools is all about logical argumentation x performance. You don't need to "cite cards"; just make sure you're telling the truth. I will google to fact-check if something sounds fishy, especially in an impromptu round. Don't speak fast or spread like you might be tempted to do based on other events you may have done. This is a very "dinner table debate to convince your boomer grandparents" event.

2. No new evidence after the second speech for opp/only new info after 2nd speeches is if the prop has to respond to the Opp 2 MAYBE

3. Offer multiple POIs pls (and take like 2-3 if possible)

4. Just be logical and warrant pls. Also, I typically gave the reply nearly every round I competed in, so I'm going to inherently value a really strong reply speech lol

5. I'll start with everybody getting like 70 speaks (35 for the reply) and then go up or down based on how well you did in round. I can't foresee myself giving like 77-80 to anyone unless you like clearly should win WSDC (or below a 64 unless you really do something egregious), but I'm not going to be a stickler with the points otherwise.

6. DO NOT give off time roadmaps in world schools. Weave signposting into your speech.

Let me know if you have questions before the round.

Lastly, please have fun!

Ravi Upadhya Montville

Geoff VanDeusen West Des Moines Valley High School

Jessica Zhong Cary Academy 8 rounds

Login to Tabroom:

New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament

2020 — NSDA Campus, NY/US

LD Debate JV Paradigm List

Judges