Tabroom.com

GBN Intra Squad Scrimmage

2020 — NSDA Campus, IL/US

Novice Policy Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

John Andreou Glenbrook North

Jack Barber Glenbrook North

Last changed on Mon April 11, 2022 at 11:32 AM CDT

GBN '21

UCLA '25

2017 Illinois Debate Coaches' Association Novice State Champion, NSDA Academic All-American

jbarberdebate@gmail.com

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ

TLDR:

1. I'm down for whatever. At the end of the day, I strongly believe Tech>Truth and if you win the flow, I'll vote for you. If you can't prove that death is bad or that aliens aren't real then you will lose. Much of my paradigm serves as guidelines to earn strong speaker points in front of me.

2. If I look confused, I probably am

3. In front of me: policy vs policy>policy vs k>k vs k but I'll work hard to keep up with whatever the debate centers around

4. Condo is likely the only reason to reject the team unless something else was in the 2AC for more than 5 seconds (also, why do like 50% of the 2ACs I judge not have condo in them?? 100% of 2ACs should say condo bad)

CPs: I will likely default to judge kick absent a substantive debate about it.

I understand the need to go for generic counterplans with internal net benefits, though I think everyone would rather you opt for a more substantive strategy should it be possible. Even going for a (viable) T violation seems like it may be a better option.

In debates of theory, discussions that are specific to what actually occurred in this debate and what each team's model justifies are more important than whether Process CPs in general are good or bad. This means if you're aff, articulating in-round abuse and if you're neg, reading cards defending the education garnered by learning about your counterplan.

That being said, in high school I was a big fan of counterplans that bordered on object fiat, 2NC CPs, and general negative terrorism. I think theoretical violations are an underutilized rebuttal to answer these strategies.

DAs: Politics was my favorite 2NR. A well executed 1NR on politics makes the 1AR very difficult. The 1AR should read a lot of cards, because they are nearly always justified and make the 2NR much harder.

The neg should utilize strategic concessions, such as framing the debate through uniqueness controlling the direction of the link or vice-versa, conceded impact means try-or-die, etc. Judge instruction and storytelling will always help, as leaving less up to me means it's less likely I will make what you think is the wrong decision.

Cutting and executing case-specific strategies will lead to an increase in speaker points.

Impact turns: Cards matter, read a lot of them, and so will I. Advantage counterplans to solve the rest of an aff's impacts can be a good strategy. I often went for dedev, but also enjoy well-evidenced spark, china/russia war good, heg bad, space col bad, warming good, and others.

T: I enjoy T debates. I find that often the team who does more storytelling and explanation of how their interpretation will impact debate typically wins. This may entail giving a clear caselist, explaining clear ground loss, or why precise/better evidence matters in the context of this word in the resolution.

I don't like it when teams read their blocks and not engage with the opposing team's standards/caselist/etc. This means that the 1AR should answer arguments such as the neg's justification for competing interps rather than reasonability should that be an argument they would like to extend (which you probably should).

I will likely give the 2AR a lot of discretion if the 2NC extends T for <2-3 minutes (which is not a bad strategy) but then goes for it in the 2NR with lots of new storytelling.

Make ASPEC a RVI, it'll be pretty funny.

T vs K Affs: If you're affirmative, you will likely have a comparatively tougher time winning in front of me in these debates. I find counter-interpretations to typically not solve much of either teams' offense and impact turns of fairness or education to typically have little merit. But, go ahead and prove me wrong, because if you win, you win.

I often went for fairness as a 2N in high school, though I think other more education-y impacts can also be valuable and are better for winning in-roads to affirmative offense. Utilize TVA(s) (if they make sense) and tell a clear story and compare impacts and you will likely be in a good spot.

Ks: I think Ks can be useful and valuable as a generic strategy. That being said, I am not as familiar with many Ks as most of the pool may be.

For both sides, I think clear offense on framework is useful and explaining how it interacts, outweighs, and turns the opposing team's impact is beneficial.

For the neg, utilizing lots of tricks makes the 1AR difficult, especially if the K is not the only argument in the block. Arguments like the Floating PIK, serial policy failure, you can't weigh the plan, can all win you a debate.

For the aff, I think perf con is a very good argument against Reps Ks, as it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to win that education garnered from voting negative is important if they contradicted it within this debate. Winning no subjectivity shift from debate also takes out lots of neg framework offense. Perm double bind is also underutilized, alts with material implications typically can overwhelm the links and alts without material implications typically have a hard time solving the large impacts the neg outlines.

Don't:

spread analytics like the text of a card if you want me to be able to flow them.

take a long time sending out the email chain.

say things that make you seem like a novice. ex: counting down before your speech, calling me judge (I'm 18 years old bruh), asking what cards they read, asking for a marked copy when they mark one card, asking if they're ready for cx when they already say they are, asking if tag team/open cx is ok, telling me that cx is binding, saying end speech, calling a counterplan a "cee-pee"

Be nice and have fun!

Sohan Bellam Glenbrook North

Derrik Chen Glenbrook North

Last changed on Sun March 24, 2024 at 12:19 PM CDT

Glenbrook North '21

He/him/his

Please add derrikcdebate@gmail.com to the email chain, and please give the email chain a relevant name (e.g. "Round 1 Viking Rumble: GBN XX [AFF] v. GBN YY [NEG])

Top Level:

Qualifications: Debated at Glenbrook North for four years as a 2A and mostly read extinction impacts. Champion and 4th speaker at the Cross River Classic Invitational, qualified to the TOC, etc.

Novices -- don't adapt to me. I'll adapt to you. Please be respectful, especially during cross-ex. There is no need to be overly rude, defensive, demeaning, etc. Everyone's learning.

My ideal debate to judge is one where teams go substantially slower, engage with and collapse to truthful arguments, and make bold strategic decisions. I would much rather judge a debate where the NEG reads four developed offcase positions than one where the NEG reads eight or more scattered offcase with no clear strategic vision. However, I do understand the strategic necessity of reading large amounts of offcase, so feel free to do whatever you please.

I largely agree with this section of Anthony Miklovis's paradigm: You do you. I'll do my best to not be ideological. Below are my predispositions that I'll usually err towards when debated equally. None of these are absolute truths and can be easily reversed through technical debating. BUT, my familiarity with certain arguments might affect my ability to adjudicate claims in round, so do be mindful of that when I say "you do you."

I'd like it if debaters gave me easy outs rather than forcing me to dive deeply into contested issues

Sending analytics is good for clash

Please speak slower and clearer, and watch my facial reactions to your arguments, as I tend to be rather expressive

Please respect your opponents

Rounds judged on the water topic: 46

'21-'22 lowest speaks: 27.5

'21-'22 highest speaks: 29.6

'21-'22 average speaks: 28.7

Ks:

I encourage you to read kritiks that function as disadvantages (e.g. Neolib/Cap K)

I find that the aff should get to weigh in the plan in almost all circumstances

It will be very difficult to convince me to vote for high theory or post-modernism

I do not find most ontology claims persuasive

Perf con makes sense versus epistemology claims

Planless Affs:

Generally not the judge for you

The aff should be related to and in the direction of the topic

Fairness is an impact, but I find clash and education-based arguments to be more persuasive

Counterinterps are usually self serving, so I would rather you impact turn T

NEG teams should impact turn (cap good, heg good, etc.)

Please do not go for a K vs a planless aff unless you can explain it extremely well

Topicality:

I would rather you not go for topicality in front of me, but I understand if it's the only option you have versus an abusive affirmative

Precision > everything. I think most interpretation evidence is atrocious and aff teams should exploit that more

I have never seen an affirmative team reasonably explain reasonability, but that does not mean that it is a bad argument

Counterplans:

I'll judge kick if the 2NR makes the argument. Sufficiency framing seems to be a waste of breath because I will always evaluate if the counterplan solves enough of the case.

Process counterplans are probably illegit (oftentimes dependent on literature), but I would rather affirmatives go for a solvency deficit and net benefit takeout than a tricky permutation or theoretical objection

Intuitive analytical advantage counterplans are strategic. Advantage counterplans + impact turns seem to be underutilized strategies that are killer.

Counterplans that are probably bad: international fiat, object fiat, delay fiat, 'going through legal deficits' fiat

If you want to go for theory, make more specific theory arguments to filter NEG offense

Disads:

The preferred 2NR. When I debated, I read politics, rider, case-specific, etc. Neg ground is atrocious, so I understand and would absolutely enjoy if you decide to go for politics. I think that turns case is usually the deciding factor in disad debates. Please do multiple levels of turns case (e.g. link turns internal link, link turns impact, AND impact turns internal link, etc.)

I think no risk is possible but difficult if the NEG executes correctly

Most disad internal links make little sense, so smart analytics can always lower disad risk

The 1AR seems to get away with a lot of murder here

Theory:

I don't think neg teams explain why conditionality is good well.

I have yet to see a team go for ASPEC, but I think it's a competent strategy given all the agent abuse affs seem to do these days. Same with vagueness, I guess.

Misc.

"Troll" arguments are interesting thought experiments, but I'm unlikely to vote on them

Debaters should time themselves during the round. I'll try to keep track of time, but I'm not perfect.

I want to judge impact turn debates (dedev, please)

Scale:

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

Read a plan-x-----------------------------------Do whatever

Tech----------------x------------------------------Truth

Read no cards----------------x-------------------Read all the cards

Conditionality good-------------------x----------Conditionality bad

PIC's good---x-----------------------------------PIC's bad

States CP good-----x-----------------------------States CP bad

Go for T-----------------------------------x------Don't go for T

Politics DA is a thing-x-------------------------------Politics DA not a thing

Always VTL-x--------------------------------------Sometimes NVTL

UQ matters most--------------------x-------------Link matters most

Not our Baudrillard------------------------------x- Yes your Baudrillard

Clarity-x--------------------------------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity

Presumption------x--------------------------------Never votes on presumption

Resting grumpy face--x---------------------------Grumpy face is your fault

Longer ev--------------------x--------------------More ev

"Insert this rehighlighting"----------------------x-I only read what you read

Fiat solves circumvention-----x---------------------LOL trump messes w/ ur aff

2017 speaker points-------x------------------------2007 speaker points

CX about impacts---------------------x-----------CX about links and solvency

Fiat double bind------------------------------------------x-literally any other arg

amy cheng Glenbrook North None

Diego Duarte Glenbrook North

Last changed on Wed September 7, 2022 at 11:13 AM CDT

Name: Santiago (Diego) Duarte. Refer to me however you want, I really don't care.

Pronouns: He/him. Remember to ask your opponents.

Cancer sun, Scorpio Moon, Cancer rising

School: Glenbrook North (formerly), University of Oregon (not active debater)

Email: 224029@glenbrook225.org Please put me on the email chain without asking

If you read this paradigm, integrate the word "lasagna" into any speech once and I will give you +0.3 speaks

Experience: Debated for GBN on the Immigration topic and the Arms Sales topic. Judged debates on the Criminal Justice topic and the Water topic.

Former speaker position: 2N

Don't over-adapt to my paradigm. I'm willing to adjust to your styles. Debate how you want to debate and I'll try to keep up.

IMPORTANT NOTE: The long version of this paradigm is, as advertised, LONG. It is also quite boring to anyone who is not me, and was written more as a self-indulgent essay than a helpful guide. You won't miss much if you only read the short version, and if you need more detailed information on my views on specific topics, make use of the command+F function.

Paradigm (Short version) :

As a judge of novices, my goal is to educate and provide an enjoyable debate experience. Your first year is meant to be a learning experience, not a stress-filled environment. I am willing to make reasonable accommodations within debates to fit this - please ask before the round if there's anything that would make the debate more comfortable for you.

Don't be rude to your competitors, don't read racist arguments, if you have tech issues let me know and I probably won't take off speaker points.

Read any kind of argument that's allowed by the tournament rules, check with me and your competitors if it's potentially a triggering argument. K affs suck for novice debate but if the tournament lets you do it then I'll judge them fairly.

Be nice in cross-ex, don't speak over each other, don't dominate your partner's cx time.

I consider myself centrist on the Tech vs. Truth question, but I'm probably leaning more towards truth being important than the average judge.

I'm fine with any speed personally, but be careful over zoom. If i tell you to slow down, I expect you to actually slow down.

0% risk exists and is actually fairly common

Ask me if you have any questions, at any time.

Paradigm (long version):

With regards to digital debate: I will not take speaker points off for technical issues, with the exception of problems which you could reasonably be expected to prepare for, or egregious and unverifiable ones. I will be lenient with prep time when it comes to tech issues - as novices, you can't be expected to be able to instantly format and send files and such.

Cross examination: I am okay with open cross examination - HOWEVER - if one partner is clearly dominating another and abusing the concept of open cross-ex, I will stop that immediately and deduct speaker points. You will not earn brownie points with me by being an "aggressive cross examiner." I would prefer polite and low-volume cross-ex. Things said in cross examination are binding, however of course you and your partner can ask me to strike something you just said from my record of the debate, as long as it's within the same CX or speech.

Tech vs. Truth: I think that the inherent believability of arguments does matter in debate. While it is a game, you should be bringing arguments that make at least a modicum of sense, and not rely on overwhelming speed or speaking ability to swamp your opponent. That being said - ultimately, I am judging a competition and the better debaters should almost always win.

Speaker points: I will likely award slightly higher than average speaker points. I believe that there's no real reason to hurt new debaters by assigning a low numerical value to their speaking skill, barring extreme circumstances.

Situations in which I will stop a debate: Any accusation of cheating of any kind is the end of the debate, with the winner depending on the truth of the accusation. Any accusation of harassment or bullying will also cause me to end the debate - in any of these scenarios I will notify tournament staff and we'll go from there. Extreme rudeness to your competitors will cause me to at least pause the debate, and maybe award you a loss depending on the situation.

ARGUMENT SECTION

I am generally okay with any kind of argument, as long as it fits within basic standards of human decency. Arguments which are truly inherently racist and read with bad intent will at the very least not be counted, and may result in me automatically submitting my ballot against the offending team. I think that arguments which have a significant chance of triggering debaters should be mentioned before you read them - things like Death Good for example, I will allow if it isn't a significant trigger for the other team. (this is a general point - novices really shouldn't be reading these arguments)

Topicality:

I don't understand topicality. You, novices, definitely don't understand topicality. The people who wrote your T blocks probably do, but that doesn't make hearing them any more interesting. I will not be happy if I have to judge a novice debate that comes down to the nuances of topicality. This is even more true at the start of the year.

If this does end up being important - I find negative ground to be an unpersuasive standard, although I'll vote on it if it's argued well. Legal and contextual precision is my personal preference for evaluating T in policy rounds.

Kritikal arguments: Go ahead and read K's, I'm relatively friendly to them. If it's a convoluted and unintuitive Kritik, I do expect you to slow down for the benefit of both me and your opponents. My personal political biases lean towards a lot of kritikal arguments. I will do my best not to let this affect my judging of these arguments, but I'll probably be happy to hear them.

Performative contradictions are real and I will vote on them. The threshold is high, but if it's blatant then don't be afraid to call it out. If you're reading Cap and an Econ DA, that's pretty weird and will make a lot of philosophical arguments much less compelling.

Counterplans: Go ahead, any kind. Counterplans are probably my favorite kind of argument, don't be afraid to go all in on the CP in the 2nr.

Theory:

I like theory. I think it's the most unique part of debate, that the rules are only norms unless you prove that they should be rules in the round. I am willing to vote on theoretical questions, and open to all kinds of arguments in this area.

My counterplan theory stance is pretty neutral. I am happy to vote on good aff theory against cheating counterplans - I view theory as a totally legitimate and skill-based form of debate. If the neg abuses conditionality, go for condo and if you're better at arguing it I'll vote for you. Conditionality can be a voting issue for me, if you make it one.

Disads: Most basic kind of neg argument. Read as many as you want. Can't think of any unusual takes I have for this section. Please don't read DAs that have racist premises, I won't like you.

Go ahead and read all the politics disads you can think of - they're a lot of the neg ground on this topic. Don't bother running one in front of me unless you understand the uniqueness inside and out though - these disads are won or lost in the uniqueness section most of the time.

Kritikal affirmatives: These are almost certainly bad for novice debate. If the tournament allows them and you genuinely out-debate your competitors with one, I'll vote for you, but it's a high bar to clear in front of me. Even though I'm personally sympathetic to the ideas behind them, they're not cool for novices.

Case: Case debates are my favorite kinds of debates. Offcase are fun, but the core of debate is meant to be around the plan. Negative teams: don't be afraid to spend huge amounts of time attacking the case. If their affirmative doesn't make sense, go all in on that. I'm perfectly happy to vote on presumption if their case doesn't exist by the final rebuttals. If their affirmative is really strong and does make sense, then trying to frame the debate towards focusing on offcase is a good idea. Affirmative teams: don't let them do that last part. Keep the debate focused on whether your aff is good or bad. Convince me that that's all that matters. You get a huge advantage in picking the focus of the debate, use it wisely.

HOT TAKES: I mentioned earlier that I'm happy to vote on presumption - this is a sort of complicated issue for me. On a debate mechanics level, I think the presumption argument is cool and not used enough by negative teams. On a personal/political level, I've never agreed with the fundamental idea that "if the aff doesn't prove that they're good, then assume change is bad because it's risky." I think this is a reactionary and conservative way to view argumentation and debate. I am open to affirmatives making this argument if they feel that presumption is a likely strategy. Despite all that, if the affirmative doesn't make this argument in the 1AR, I will go with the debate community standard and say presumption goes neg.

Again, don't over-adapt to what is written above. I am happy to do what you tell me to do on this issue unless the other team contests it.

My second hot take is with regards to permutations: I absolutely hate the way permutations are usually done. If you stand up for the 2AC against 3 or less conditional alternatives and say "perm do the cp perm do both" a few times, I will flow them, but these are not real arguments and if the negative says so I will agree with them. Explain your permutations. What do they mean, what does doing both look like? Do not force whichever neg debater is taking the counterplan to respond to all the possible variations of a 3 word permutation because you couldn't be bothered to make a real argument. I will however be more sympathetic to rapid-fire permutations against 4+ conditional worlds - the 2AC is already a time-intensive speech and I will extend some understanding because of that.

My third and final hot take is that the 1AR will get a ton of leeway in front of me when it comes to making new arguments. I think that the block usually overdevelops one-offs from the 1NC to the point of making effectively new arguments, and when that happens I'm totally cool with letting the 1AR shoot a half dozen new offensive arguments in their faces in return.

Jargon: I am not an active debater on this topic. I have a passable knowledge of the main arguments and ideas underlying them, but some jargon might be outside of my understanding. Please don't abbreviate words that you think there's a good chance I wouldn't know the shortened version of. Use your best judgment.

If there's anything you want to know that's not on this paradigm, just ask before the round. Have fun!

Hannah Foster Glenbrook North

Dennis Guno Glenbrook North

Joanna Gusis Glenbrook North

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 4:02 AM CDT

gbn '22

msu '26

1n/2a for all 5 years

she/her

last updated: 12.5.2022

please put me on the chain:

gusisfiles@gmail.com

most importantly (in order):

1. be nice to each other, flow, have fun

2. don't be rude, sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. - i'll vote you down and deck your speaks

3. tech > truth (but truth makes it easier to win tech)

4. these are my predispositions -- they can all be changed with good debating (see the line right above this)

5. arguments need a claim, warrant, and impact -- if you do not have all 3, i don't care if it's dropped

6. impact calc and framing really matter -- top of your 2nr/2ar should tell me what i'm voting on and why. my life is easier and happier if you write my ballot for me

7. tag team cx is fine but don't speak over your partner

8. you don't need a card to make an argument (see #5), but card probably beats no card

9. prep time ends when you say it does. if you prep after the timer ends, prep time ends when I say it has.
---things that can happen after prep ends: sending a speech, standing up, giving an order, setting a timer.
---things that cannot happen after prep ends: editing a doc (includes copy-pasting things), saving a doc, talking to your partner

9. i am NOT familiar with the current highschool topic (judged ~10 debates as of 12/3), but am familiar with AI / biotech / cybersecurity things given i debated these ideas for the last 3 years. you should interpret this to mean that i know what synthetic biology or machine learning are, but not what NATO has to do with these things.

10. marked doc is not removing the cards you skipped (this is flowing), its only adding "mark" for cards that you did not finish. if a team asks for a new card doc with the cards the other team skipped, you should take prep for them to put that together.

*aff*

-if middle school or novice, they should definitely have a plan

-impact turns are fun but probably a high threshold if you're just reading cards (will not tolerate anything ethically or morally terrible like racism good or death good)

-i will evaluate framing first so debate with that in mind -- extinction probably outweighs but only if you win it does

*topicality*

-i read questionably topical affs all 4 years of high school so do your worst but do it well

-precision > predictability > limits > ground

specifically: grammatical precision > legal precision > contextual precision > overlimiting > neg ground > under-limiting > aff ground > topic education

-competing interps > reasonability

-loooooove me some plan text in a vacuum, but affs tend to not debate it thoroughly enough

*framework / t-usfg*

-i love a good fairness debate but am not a die-hard fairness hack. probably think clash / testing and fairness are more convincing than something like movement lawyering, but it's debatable

-i think tvas and switch-side debate are pretty good ways to cut down the aff's offense

-i mostly tend to think affs should have a counter-interp because i need models of debate to compare. if your strategy is to impact-turn framework as a whole, i will assume that means your c/i is 'affs get to do what they want, how they want'

*disads*

-specific links are important, but not as important as a good story

-a thumper isn't a thumper until you tie it back to the link. for example, saying 'there are other bills on the agenda' is not a thumper until you win that those other bills will cost pc

-0 risk is a thing (maybe not aaaactually a thing, but probability can get so low that i should treat it as zero risk)

*counterplans & theory*

-anything is fair game as long as you can defend it BUT if the counterplan is cheating, the aff should be able to beat it on theory or a perm more easily

-i wont judge kick unless you tell me to (saying "the status quo is always an option" does count as telling me to)

-just saying "sufficiency framing" <<<<<<<<< explain why the counterplan solves / how i should evaluate it

-condo is probably bad (i know, hot take) but that won't matter if both sides just spread blocks at each other. you should NOT read this as 'she wants to only hear condo speeches'

-condo is probably the only theory violation worthy of rejecting the team unless there is an argument otherwise starting in the 2ac (but its a pretty high threshold)

-theory is (almost) always a question of models and (almost) never a question of in-round abuse

*kritiks*

-i am quite familiar with a lot of literature (security, neolib, antiblackness, set col, high theory, psychoanalysis, etc) but that doesn't mean i want to hear baudrillard blocks spread directly into your computer at 400 wpm (nobody does)

-i tend to think ks need an alternative that solves the links and impacts, but high-quality framework debating can arguably substitute for this (i really do prefer k's that are more than 'you link, you lose')

-it's pretty hard to convince me that we should never do anything to meliorate a problem a team has isolated

-in a perfect world, links are causal, specific, and unique. this world is far from perfect

-i'm better for the k than you think (filter this through the fact that it came from me...obviously there's some bias there)

---

if you have any specific questions about my preferences, feel free to ask before and after the round :) im happy to help

good luck, have fun !!

Jacob Kalinovskiy Glenbrook North

Last changed on Sat April 10, 2021 at 2:12 PM CDT

Jake Kalinovskiy

Current debater at GBN

GBN 2022

jakdebate@gmail.com

-- add me don't ask

-- tag team cx is good

-- if I don't say anything/am quiet assume I'm good. I'll lyk if I'm not ready

Be interesting/funny = speaks + more likely to do work for you, I prefer to give higher speaks, don't give me a reason to doc yours.

I reward argumentative creativity, I've debated revisionism 50 times -- what makes you special?

- analytics are real arguments -- a smart analytic > unexplained card

- if you try to out-card them and just don't analyze it I really don't care how many cards you read.

- if you read answers to arguements that were in the doc but they didn't get to I will be disappointed.

- I like debate/K tricks if you understand them.

- a dropped argument is true if warranted/impacted out in the rebuttals

Debates about debate are my favorite, go slow: - this is my bread and butter, just please please please tell me why to prefer your model

T, Theory(all of it, condo especially), Framework = much love - the framework page goes aff or neg, that frames every other flow.

Case debate:

I'm probably going to start evaluating the debate here, probably a good idea to win case.

neg, if you don't have cards use analytics PLEASE

Framing: - also frames the rest of the debate (unless you tell me why it doesn't)

if its not case specific I care very little

debate changes value framing

if the disad is bad you don't need ThEiR lInK cHaIN is lOnG (this means connetta and all of the cards like it, just take it out of your 1ac, I will comment after the round how much of a waste of breath this is and no one needs to hear that lecture)

i LOVE the framing contention, but if you read one it needs to be a massive part of the debate. This has to be the hill you die on or its a waste of 1ac space

love it

fairness is probably an internal link but so is nuclear war

Da:

- is your politics link unique? is it really? okay then go for it

- real disads: I'm down, have fun. Connetta is wrong

- 0 risk is a thing

Cp:

Pcp is a good answer to garbage

- Pcp is a T debate -- what does your model of debate look like?

I love garbage if it can beat Pcp

don't bother with solvency advocate theory

-- if you can finagle their aff away I respect it. they have to defend every aspect of the aff. (if it passes the Perm test its a viable option)

condo/judge kick:

I'm down for the condo debate -- I won't make up excuses to vote neg - I love debates about debate, if you create a spicy condo speech you will be rewarded handily in speaks

judge kick is the most abusive thing this side of the Atlantic, but if you don't answer it I have no choice.

impact turns:

- thebomb.com

- big stick affs don't get 'but killing people is bad' as an answer

neg:

don't read it if you can't explain it in English -- K goop in the final rebuttals that hasn't been clearly defined in by the rebuttals will be ignored

if you're reading a framework K -- don't be weasly, the 2nr should be very clear about what you want me to vote on.

-- the neg has to have reps if you're reading a reps K.

if you fiat the alt -- I can be convinced that the pic is okay

have an alt

if you wanna read security abt an impact that isn't terrorism, I'm not your guy.

aff:

most Ks are incoherent and I'll vote on it without a second thought

neg link uniqueness and alt solvency are usually jokes

Kaff:

you're a novice. please don't

if you decide not to read my paradigm, it probably has pedagogical value but the neg ballot on T is looking delicious right about now.

Speaks:

- FLOW -- if you send a picture of your flow in the doc and I like it I'll boost your speaks

- I want to give you higher speaks

Peter Karteczka Glenbrook North

Last changed on Mon November 7, 2022 at 6:41 AM CDT

Peter Karteczka (call me Peter, not judge)

UIUC '25

GBN '21

peterkarteczka@gmail.com (yes I want to be added)

Top Level -

- I debated at Glenbrook North HS for 4 years (3 years in person, 1 year virtually).

- The ballot goes to the team that did the better debating. That being said I am not well versed in kritikal literature and have little experience going for the kritik so if that is your thing I should not be your ordinal 1.

- Tech > Truth. I am comfortable voting for any argument (process CPs, ASPEC, floating PIKs, plan flaws, etc) as long as it is executed correctly.

- I'll only adjudicate claims about things that occur in-round.

- Quality of evidence is extremely important.

- "Marked copy" does not mean "remove the cards you read." You do not have to do that, and you should not ask your opponents to do that.

- Clipping is an auto-loss and accusations should have evidence.

Online debate -

- For online debate, you need to slow down and prioritize clarity.

- Get verbal confirmation from everyone before speaking and debate with your camera on.

- Please minimize unnecessary tech time, I understand things happen but taking a while to send out emails annoys me.

- If I suspect you are stealing prep I will deduct it from your prep time or speech time.

Novice + Camp debates-

- Don't adapt to me. I'll adapt to you. Please be respectful, especially during cross-ex. There is no need to be overly rude, defensive, demeaning, etc. These debates in my mind are solely for learning experiences, however, keep in mind, that you will get better feedback by going for arguments that I have more experience with.

My predispositions -

- These are my general predispositions, they can all be reversed through technical debating.

- I’d like to stress that you should do you. As a debater, it always annoyed me when judges were ideological or made decisions that I thought were arbitrary, so I try to minimize my own biases while judging as much as possible. However, I'd also like to emphasize that not understanding your argument is not the same as being ideologically opposed to it. My familiarity with certain arguments could affect my ability to adjudicate, if I do not understand your argument I will not vote on it.

- As a 2n, I primarily went for policy strategies (da + case, adv cp + da, process cp) against topical plans and for framework against kritikal affs.

- I like it when debaters gave me easy outs rather than forcing me to dive deeply into contested issues.

CPs -

- As a debater, I went for process counterplans relatively often. However, that does not mean I default negative on theoretical questions regarding legitimacy and competitiveness (having a solvency advocate goes a long way when debating legitimacy).

- I understand the need to go for generic counterplans with internal net benefits, though I think everyone would rather you opt for a more substantive strategy should it be possible.

- I find that affs that have advantages structured around the mechanism to be extremely strategic and persuasive against process cps.

- I will likely default to judge kick (if the counterplan is conditional) absent a substantive debate about it.

- Arguments I don't like: object fiat, delay fiat, 'going through legal deficits' fiat, counter planning out of a double turn.

- Perms should have warrants and perm texts.

DAs -

- I find theory arguments against politics DAs to be unpersuasive.

- Make turns case arguments, and make sure to answer turns case arguments. Having multiple levels to turns case arguments (e.g. link turns internal link, link turns impact, AND impact turns internal link, etc), is extremely persuasive.

- Specific link evidence and carded turns case evidence goes a long way as well.

- "Framing pages" where you say "DAs are bad" are bad.

- It has become apparent that strategic plan vagueness and plan text in a vacuum are becoming increasingly common. If I don't know whether the disad links until the 2ar we have a problem.

- For politics, uniqueness usually determines the direction the of the link. For generic/case-specific da's the link probably controls the direction of the uniqueness debate.

T -

- I appreciate strategic plan vagueness and plan text in a vacuum, but teams are going too far. At a minimum, it should be possible to line up your plan with your solvency evidence and it should be relatively straightforward about what the plan does.

- Don't assume that I know topic dynamics (side-bias/functional limits/link uniqueness/other resolutional words, etc).

- It is your job to paint a vivid vision of what debate looks like under your topic and why their interpretation of the topic is worst than yours.

- As a debater, I found that precision offense encompasses most predictability and ground offense. However, precision claims have to be followed with quality evidence.

- Plan text in a vacuum is silly and should not be your main form of offense.

Ks -

- Kritiks were never really my thing but I will try my best (the closer the K is to a DA the better).

- The strength of epistemological arguments are severely diminished with performative contradictions.

- Util is probably good. I find that approaches where the neg attempts to access aff impact framing through link turns case/alt/other things more persuading than further kritiking the affs framing.

- Long overviews can be incorporated in line by line, there should never be a time where I need a separate flow for the overview.

- It will be very difficult to convince me to vote for high theory or post-modernism.

Plan-less affs -

- If you tend to read these affs, I am probably not the judge for you, I tend to find that it is hard to fully grasp offensive arguments made on framework when I am not versed in the literature.

- Fairness is an impact, but I find clash and education-based arguments to be more persuasive especially when there are case turns involved.

- I find that impact turns are more persuasive as aff offense than most defensive counter-interpretation strategies.

- NEG teams should impact turn (cap good, heg good, etc.)

- Please do not go for a K vs a planless aff in front of me.

How to get good speaker points (28.5+) -

- Have a developed negative strategy with minimized abuse.

- Keep track of prep and speech times.

- Be efficient with prep time and time allocation.

- Have a well-formatted card and speech docs (this can go a long way).

- Sending analytics (As a debater, I was not allowed to send analytics, however, I find that sending them offers more substantive clash).

- In an effort to promote disclosure at the high school level, any team that practices near-universal "open source" will be awarded .3 extra per debater if you bring that to my attention prior to the RFD.

Things that will make me severely dislike: (you should probably strike me if this would apply to you)

- Not flowing, being mean to your partner or opponent, reading more than 7 off (unless new disclosed aff), not following speech times, not disclosing properly (this can be quite obvious), reading offensive arguments, giving up, going to the bathroom multiple times (if absolutely needed, go before opposing teams speech).

Carmine Miklovis Glenbrook North

Last changed on Sun September 18, 2022 at 10:12 AM EDT

Carmine Miklovis (he/him)

American University '26

cmiklovisdebate@gmail.com

Who Are You?

I did policy debate for Glenbrook North for 3 years, and stopped debating at the start of my senior year. I had a little success, but am probably unsuited to judge in the late elimination rounds of the larger tournaments of the year.

Top Level (Non-Negotiables)

Any behavior that is actively violent or otherwise harmful to anyone in the debate will not be tolerated. Default to gender-neutral pronouns (they/them) if you don't know your opponent's specific pronouns.

My ballot will not (and cannot) be a referendum on out-of-round behavior.

Debate is a game.

Tech > Truth, but the original argument has to be complete and not incoherent.

Cross-applications are never new.

Evidence should be highlighted to make actual arguments and shouldn't look like haikus. Teams should call out other teams for extending warrants that weren't originally highlighted in their cards.

If I'm unable to draw a line between an argument made in a final rebuttal and an earlier speech, I won't evaluate it.

Pen time is important. Don't expect me to flow 4 perms in a row. If you're spreading analytics at full speed, don't be mad if I miss the 11th 10-word subpoint you made about why weighing the aff is bad.

Clarity > Speed (you should spread, so long as you're clear)

Clipping is an auto-loss. Accusations of it must stake the debate on it and would benefit from audio proof.

If your primary strategy relies on attempting to win the debate by confusing your opponents, you should strike me. I'll probably end up being confused too.

The age of your blocks is inversely proportional to your chances of winning.

The more judge instruction you do, the less I will have to intervene.

What follows is a list of predispositions that I have about certain arguments. All of the following can be overcome by good debating, but are important to note when preffing me or debating in front of me. Given equal, or unclear, debating, the following predispositions will guide how I resolve the debate.

Topicality

--T v Policy Affs

I have no predispositions about which standards are good, and which ones are bad, or whether to prefer competing interps or reasonability. Don't assume I know the "community consensus" about which affs are and aren't topical, or about what "egregiously untopical" aff MBA reads.

I dislike plan text in a vacuum, but will still vote on it.

--T v K AFFs

I'm not the best for K affs, but if you have me in the back, there are a few things to note.

Your 2ar should have a lot of judge instruction. Given that I ran almost exclusively policy arguments, in the absence of robust judge-instruction from the aff team, I might resolve the debate in a way that favors the team whose arguments make more sense to me.

Aff teams should impact turn the neg's standards on T (and definitely shouldn't read a counter-interp that links just as much to their own offense).

Don't expect me to vote on buzzwords unless you actually explain them.

Additionally, I think any K aff that is not explicitly critiquing debate should always lose to a combination of switch-side debate and a topical version of the aff. K affs that aren't explicitly critiquing debate tend to instead have a reason why defending the USFG is bad, in conjunction with a reason why advocating for their scholarship is key. However, the reasons why the USFG is bad can easily be read on the neg, as a K, and the "advocacy key" warrant is not an "affirmation key" warrant, so the neg only needs to win a small risk of any of their offense on T in order for me to vote neg. That being said, this predisposition can be easily overcome by good debating, and will not substitute for insufficient negative topicality debating.

Kritiks

I'm not terrible for these, but I'm not amazing. You should err on the side of over-explaining your arguments, especially if they're more complicated. I'm good for certain Ks, such as cap, security, settler colonialism, and kritiks of IR, and you shouldn't substantially alter your level of explanation or strategy if you have me in the back for those, but anything else will require a lot of judge instruction.

A simple way to know whether or not you've met the threshold for explanation that will allow me to vote for your argument is to not only explain the concept, but explain the implication of it for the debate, and try to do so using as few buzzwords as possible. For example, "Dropping that antiblackness is ontological zeros all of their state good offense because it proves the state will never actually change, which means engagement is futile and means any risk of a link is sufficient to vote neg."

If you really think an argument is so important that winning it means you should win the debate, it should be more than a one-liner. Otherwise, don't expect me to vote on it, and don't post-round.

Links should be more specific than "any action by the United States federal government is bad."

If you have a new style of K, with completely never-before-seen elements, that you think will revolutionize debate, I'm probably not the best judge for it.

Perm: double bind should just be a way of explaining perm: do both, not a separate argument.

Counterplans

Counterplans that compete off of words that are always in the resolution (resolved, "United States federal government," "should," "substantial" or "substantially," et cetera) are unpersuasive to me, and should lose to theory or the intrinsic perm.

Counterplans that compete off of normal means (also known as "process counterplans") shouldn't be prolific on the NATO/emerging tech topic. Instead, I think plan-inclusive counterplans and advantage counterplans should fill that deficit in the negative's strategic arsenal.

Intuitive solvency claims don't need advocates, but you should have an advocate for why, for example, building a space elevator would prevent the collapse of U.S. hegemony.

Disads

Not much to say, they're great, especially specific disads. While I would prefer specific links, I'm fine with generic links if you can contextualize the link story to the aff.

Aff teams should take advantage of dropped straight turns, and neg teams should stop dropping straight turns (usually in the 1nr).

Evidence should tell a coherent story. If the uniqueness evidence says the bill passes because of bipartisanship, the link shouldn't be about political capital.

Theory

Like most other theory arguments, whether conditionality is good or not is a debate to be had.

"No neg fiat" is a joke.

Most theory arguments against kritiks are nothing more than a time skew for the 2nc, as opposed to a viable 2ar option.

Case

Impact defense is fine. I'm persuaded by the aff explaining why the specificity of their internal links means the impact defense isn't responsive.

Aff internal link chains and solvency mechanisms are suspicious, and should be poked at in cross-ex and in neg speeches.

Comparative impact calculus goes a long way in helping me resolve the debate, and, in conjunction with turns case arguments, can make close debates significantly easier to resolve.

Turns case arguments would benefit from (but don't necessarily need) cards. The level of explanation of your turns case argument is proportional to the likelihood I will vote on it if it is dropped and properly extended.

Closing Thoughts

Email me if you have any questions/would like additional feedback. I will listen to any redos you send me and give you feedback.

Otherwise, good luck and have fun.

Tony Miklovis Glenbrook North

Last changed on Sat March 23, 2024 at 5:45 AM CDT

Tony Miklovis

Feel free to talk to me in person or email me if you are interested in debating for MSU!!

About me:

Glenbrook North '21

Michigan State '25 (Go Green!)

I debated for 4 years in high school and am debating in college. 2N/1A for 90% of that time. Very involved in college, not as familiar with high school.

Call me Tony, not judge. Add me to the chain: tonymikl11@gmail.com

Please minimize unnecessary tech time and don't steal prep (it's really obvious, esp. in person)

You do you. I'll try to minimize my own biases and adjudicate the round at hand impartially and thoroughly. Willing to vote on ASPEC, floating PIKs, plan flaws, whatever (not death good, see below). Execution trumps pre-dispositions. Make complete arguments and answer them in the order presented.

Please make email subjects for rounds something like "Tournament Round x - (Aff team) Aff v (Neg team) Neg"

Feel free to post-round or ask lots of questions (be mindful of the other team!)

If I don't respond to an email, that is my own fault and has nothing to do with you

For online debate: don't start unless my camera is on

Non-negotiables:

Ballot goes to the team who did the better debating. The ballot is yours to earn, speaker points are mine to give.

I'll only adjudicate claims about things that occurred in-round.

Follow speech times. I'm going to stop flowing after the timer goes off and let my timer beep until you stop because of decision times. (I can't believe I'm saying this)

Clipping is an auto-loss---accusations should have evidence and should stake the debate on it.

Don't make offensive arguments (racism good, sexism good, etc.)

Specifics:

My general predispositions can be reversed through technical debating. Except for death good. (Death good =/= war good) I will listen, but your speaks and chances of winning will suffer. The bar is on the floor for the Affirmative to respond to this, I find this argument morally abhorrent.

Not everything requires a card, however, I love the research component of debate and very much appreciate well-formatted and high-quality evidence. I also appreciate evidence comparison, rehighlightings, and the likes.

Counterplans:

Love them. Big fan of advantage CPs or topic-specific CPs. Don't really care for your uncooperative federalism backfile but you can read it, I guess.

Competition is generally a good determinant of theoretical legitimacy. If you're defining words in the rez to generate competition and it's not something that obviously competes (e.g. advantage CPs), consider starting the standards debate in the block.Tend to think substance is your best path to victory when answering them.

Bad for theory (except conditionality) unless particularly egregious (e.g. fiating the fed + states, or fed + international actors). If you have a topic-specific advocate, I’m heavily persuaded by predictability arguments.

Topicality:

I'm down for pedantic T interpretations if supported by quality evidence---make sure to do lots of evidence comparison if that is the case.

Don't assume that I know topic dynamics (explain things like side-bias, functional limits, the core Neg strategies, etc.)

Predictable limits > limits, though I can be persuaded that predictability should be viewed as a floor and not necessarily a ceiling. Much more in the debatability > precision camp than I was in high school.

Ks:

Explain, give examples, contextualize links - I don't read critiques often as a strategy but I'll vote on it if you win the flow

Try not to performatively contradict yourself

Planless:

Novices should probably read plans

Fairness or clash are both fine, less good for movement lawyering-esque offense unless the Aff doesn't make internal link defense.

Neg impact turns (heg good, cap good, etc.) are oftentimes more strategic than framework if you win the link.

Impact turns are more persuasive as AFF offense than most defensive counter-interpretation strategies.

DAs:

FYI: 20/31 of my 2NRs on the antitrust topic included the politics DA (agenda + courts). Take that as you will.

Hats off to you if you go for DA + Case

Make and answer turns case argument

Didn’t feel like making a new category for this but impact turns are great, just be careful not to double turn yourself

Catherine Peng Glenbrook North

Shayna Seiler Glenbrook North None

Julia Smith Glenbrook North

Last changed on Tue February 7, 2023 at 3:54 PM EDT

debated policy for glenbrook north high school

put me on the email chain: julia.s.debate@gmail.com

pronouns are she/her - for online debate, please change your name to include your school and preferred pronouns.

(last updated for the CJR topic)

tech > truth

I don't tolerate rudeness/racism/sexist/homophobia/transphobia etc.

don't read death good

clipping/false accusations of clipping will result in a loss

specific arguments:

theory: I will vote on most theory arguments - if impacted out well enough. However I will not vote on aspec or rvi's even if they're dropped. As a 2a, I love 2ars on theory, but I really encourage for them to be given off the flow for the most part. Prewritten blocks aren't always responsive to their arguments, and it's kind of weird to get up and give a big speech about education and argument development when you haven't thought out what your saying well enough to extrapolate it without reading a script.

counterplans/disads: I think that counterplans should compete off of non-artificial net benefits - but i'll still vote on them if you can win that they are theoretically legit (I tend to lean aff on this question, but that doesn't mean I'll kick the cp the second they read their 2ac theory block - articulate why your counterplan specifically is good for debate). Normally not a fan of agent cps, but given the only disads on cjr being politics I am sympathetic to them. disad debates are great, please do impact calc. I won't judge kick unless explicitely instructed to.

impact turns: for the most part i'm fine with them - although I will not vote for trump good, or impact turns to soft left impacts (racism, etc).

ks: k's on the neg are fine - I have some experience running ones like security, set col, cap/neolib, etc. i don't have a great understanding of higher theory ks, but if you can articulate them well enough to me then that's fine. Long overviews at the top are a no for me, please just have a quick explanation and then detailed line by line.

k-affs: novices should read a plan, and it should defend hypothetical government action. otherwise it’s fine.

other:
- fairness is an impact.
- if you are going to k the disad/cp do not put some egregious tag like "doesn't solve" and then get up in your rebuttal and saying "they dropped the k of the disad/cp..." that is ridiculous

Eli Stern Glenbrook North

Sofia Thompson Glenbrook North

Login to Tabroom

GBN Intra Squad Scrimmage

2020 — NSDA Campus, IL/US

Novice Policy Paradigm List

Judges