2020 — NSDA Campus, PA/US
Varsity Policy Debate Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I graduated from Strath Haven (PA) in 2016, and I did two years of policy debate there. I just graduated from Hamilton College, Class of 2020. I majored in Chinese and Russian Studies and did two years of APDA (parliamentary debate).
My email is email@example.com - if there's an email chain, I want to be on it! Also feel free to email me with any questions you have, pre-round or post-round.
I am okay with pretty much anything in policy debate. I'm just looking to watch and flow a good debate, so please read arguments you're comfortable with and you understand. There's nothing worse than watching someone struggle to answer questions in CX because their coach wrote their overviews and they don't understand anything they're saying in their speeches.
Spreading is cool, just understand that I'll be trying to flow and if I can't catch what you're saying then obviously I can't flow it. I was used to speed in high school, but keep in mind that I'm not doing policy in college, so my ears might need to warm up to it. I would suggest starting slower and gradually reaching your full speed.
If you don't go to the line-by-line, I'll be incredibly annoyed. I don't know much about the topic so that's where you're going to win/lose the debate. Make sure you warrant your arguments, no tag-line extensions please.
I am likely very unfamiliar with the current topic, but as long as your aff/DA/K/CP/whatever is coherently put together and I can flow it, I shouldn't have any problem understanding it.
In order for the neg to win on T, every level needs to be thoroughly explained and impacted. I don't want to hear "extend the voters for fairness and education" - that's not an extension. You need to contextualize the violation to the round and do a good job of extending your impacts, as well as answer every argument from the affirmative.
I think DAs are the most straightforward of arguments to make against an affirmative, and if you have good evidence and use it to your advantage, there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to go for the DA and win the round. Turns case args are your best friend in these debates. Aff - please make arguments in your block on every level of the DA if possible, it sets you up incredibly well out of the 2AC.
I'll be honest, I'm not the biggest fan of Ks in high school debate. If they're not too complicated, it's obviously fine, but I personally struggle to understand new theory in the span of a single debate round. If you're going to read Baudrillard or Foucault, you'd better understand what you're talking about and be able to explain it and contextualize it to the round. This doesn't mean don't read a K; I'm just saying that I want it to be explained and impacted reasonably well and in an understandable way. If Ks are your thing, read them.
I like them, just explain and contextualize them. Make sure your solvency advocate actually functions, and try to make your CP as specific to the aff as you can.
I feel pretty much the same way about K Affs as I do about Ks, I need a lot of explanation and contextualization throughout the round before I am fully willing to sign my ballot for the aff. Also, please do your best to explain any technical terms you use, especially if you repeat them more than once or twice. I have a lot of experience debating against K affs, but I've only ever really read one, so I'm not that knowledgeable on the arguments you'll be making.
Honestly, I'm indifferent. If you're going to spread it, however, make sure you emphasize what you want me to flow or it'll be annoying.
Update 12/2- I have voted on disclosure theory, but I do not enjoy it. Personally, I don't see disclosure as a voting issue. I debated before disclosure became the norm in NFA, and disclosure is impossible in NPDA. Since I've come back into the debate community in the past couple years, disclosure has become the norm and I missed that transition. My teams disclose and I'm personally in favor of disclosure, but there are solid arguments that disclosure isn't necessary for good debate. I am also highly annoyed by teams that run the same neg strat every round regardless of the aff while also running disclosure.
I do not think there is any reason for the neg to disclose, and I think expecting the neg to disclose is silly.
I am very open to RVIs on abusive or silly procedurals like "being in the same room is a voting issue," disclosure, or silly Ts.
I prefer round-specific clash. Teams that are too reliant on blocks miss key extensions or cross applications that would allow them to efficiently answer arguments. I give a ton of weight to dropped arguments--if you have a (for example) framing card in your 1AC that goes dropped, you can and should extend it to answer the neg's framing card. If I had a dollar for every time the aff doesn't extend a "aff is the necessary first step" card that answers a DA or K, I would be able to afford tournament-provided food at nationals.
Update 10/30- As the year goes on both in NFA and NSDA, I find myself viewing process arguments highly favorably. If the federal government doesn't have the power to enact the plan, or if the agent of the CP can't enact the CP, I am very open to solvency args or fiat abuse/workability procedurals. I believe part of (non-kritikal) policy debate should include a burden of proof for solvency, and part of that is workability. For example, I am very open to fiat abuse/extra T args against NSDA affs that rely on reforming local/county/state law enforcement for solvency or court cases that do not specify a test case.
Experience: Competed in NFA-LD and NPDA for Hillsdale College from 2011-2013. Competed in NCFCA policy from 2008-2009. Have coached for Hillsdale, Nebraska-Lincoln, and Marshall. Current policy and IE coach at Grace Academy of Georgetown. I judge for Grace Academy in NSDA/TFA/NCFL and Hillsdale in NFA/NPDA. This paradigm should apply to both.
General paradigm: My goal is to be the most generic flow judge possible. I am slightly old-school in my burden of proof. I'm by no means a stock-issues judge, but I will vote on terminal defense, "traditional" link or impact calc weighing case against a K, etc. Generally, I am open to any argument, but I will not do work for debaters on the flow. I slightly favor policy debate over K debate, but only because I think its much easier to have a good policy round than a good K round. I mostly ran policy when I competed, so I'm more familiar with that style, but I do think a good K debate is more fun than a good policy debate. I have no stats to back this up, but I feel like Ks have about a 50% winrate in front of me.
Don't be racist, homophobic, etc in front of me. Challenging critical theory is fine, exclusion is not.
1. I will always default to policymaker unless I'm put in some alternative paradigm.
2. I always weigh biggest impacts first, with timeframe and probability as the "tiebreaker."
3. I do not evaluate probability arguments without specific warrants as to why a scenario is unlikely. I.e. saying "This won't happen" with no warrants is not an argument I flow.
4. I am comfortable voting on stock issues, so long as the burdens of the aff and neg are clearly articulated. If burdens are not clearly articulated, I will default to policymaking.
5. I am fine with kritiks, although in LD I think it is difficult to set up a clear framework within the time limits. If you do not do a good job of setting up an alternate world for the K framework, I am open to "aff impacts outweigh K" arguments. I am fine with counterplans, including conditional CPs. I am moderately familiar with K literature, but I have been out of the NFA circuit for a while so do not assume I have heard your K before.
6. I see T as jurisdictional and do not require proven abuse. I will not evaluate T/procedurals that does not specify violations or voters. I will also only evaluate the voters given in the round. For example, if you win that there is ground loss on the standard debate, but don't have a fairness voter, I won't vote on the ground loss. Similarly, if you win that T is a voter for fairness, but don't prove there has actually been abuse in-round, you don't win on T, even if you win the violation. I can't imagine a scenario in which I vote on potential abuse. All that to say: if you want to win T in front of me, proven abuse is great, but run a jurisdiction voter to be safe.
7. I think everything, including the governing league's rules, are up for debate. I mostly see procedurals such as vagueness/Aspec as a way to guarantee ground for DA links/CPs/Ks/etc; it is very rare for me to vote on them in a vacuum.
8. I am fine with speed so long as it is not exclusionary. It is unlikely any competitors will be able to spread me out so long as their organization is clear. In-round behavior can be a voter so long as it is 1) egregious and 2) made a voter by the opposing team. Absent in-round arguments, I use speaker points as a way to punish abusive behavior. Slurs are, of course, an instaloss.
9. Unless a card is called into dispute, I will always assume the reader's analysis/tag is accurate. I will only read cards if the opponent asks me to or if it is absolutely necessary for my decision. Please put me on any email chains or speechdrop.
10. Please be very clear with your organization. Tell me where specifically to put arguments. I do not do cross-application for debaters. If you don't tell me where specifically to put something on the flow, I will make my best guess and put it there. That can lead to you dropping something you didn't intend to, and at the very least will negatively affect speaker points. If both teams are unclear in organization, I'll do my best to reconstruct the round, but things can get weird. It's easier for everyone if you just take a second and say "On the Smith card..."
Lexington High School 2020/Northwestern 2024
Before the round starts, please put me on email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org(no pocket box, and flashing is ok with no wifi)
Scroll down for PF paradigm
TLDR: tech over the truth but to a degree. (no sexist, racist, other offensive arguments) You do you, and I'll try to be as objective as possible. Aff should relate to the topic and debate is a game. Just make sure in the final rebuttal speech you impact out arguments, explain to me why those arguments you are winning implicate the whole round.
2020 season: I have absolutely no topic knowledge on this year's topic so expect me to know nothing and make sure you explain the stuff in a very detailed yet not convoluted manner. Yale will be my first tournament this year, but I will probably get better as the tournament goes on. I also never debated/judged online before, so pls excuse if I have tech issues or don't know some stuff.
The long paragraphs below are my general ideas about the debate
Top Level Stuff
1. Evidence -- I believe debate is a communicative activity, thus I put more emphasis on your analytical arguments than your cards. That being said, I do love good evidence and enjoy reading them. I think one good warranted card is better than three mediocre ones. I am cool with teams reading new cards in all the rebuttal speeches. A good 1AR should read more than 3 cards and don't be afraid to read cards in the 2NR. I believe that at least one speech in the block should be pretty card heavy, otherwise it makes the 1AR a lot easier. I will read the tags during rounds for the most part and read the text usually after rounds, but I won't do the extensive analysis for you because you should have already done that in the round.
2. Cross X is incredibly important to me and I flow them---I find it extremely frustrating when the 2N gets somewhere in 1ac cx, and then the 1N doesn't bring it up in the 1NC. Winning CX changes entire debate both from a perceptual level and substance level. Use the 3 minutes wisely, and don't ask too many clarification questions. You can do that during prep.
3. Be nice -- Obviously be assertive and control the narrative of the debate round, but there's no reason to make the other team hate the activity or you in the process. I am cool with open cross x but you should try to let your partner answer the questions unless they are going to mess up.
4. Tech over truth, but to a degree- If an argument is truly bad, then beat it. Otherwise, I have to intervene a ton, and I prefer to leave the debating to the debaters. However, I'm extremely lenient when one team reads a ton of blippy, unwarranted, and unclear args( quality over quantity). The only real intervention is when I draw the line on new args, but you should still make them and somehow convince they aren't new.
5. Pay attention to how I react in-round --I will make my opinion of an argument obvious
6. Make 1AR as difficult as possible. I know a lot of 2Ns want to win the round by the end of the block. However, that doesn't mean you should just extend a bunch offs terribly. In response, the 1AR should make the 2NR difficult- reading cards and turning arguments.
7. Please please have debates on case. I understand neg teams like to get invested in the offs, but case debate is precious. A lot of the aff i have seen are terribly put together, especially at the Internal Link level. Even if you don't have evidences, making some analytical arguments on why the plan doesn't solve goes a long way for you. I vote on zero probability of aff's ability to solve so even when you go for a CP, you should still go to case so I would have to vote you all down twice to vote aff.
8. Impact/Link Turns-- love them; i don't care how stupid the impact is(wipeout, malthus, bees etc), as long as you read ev and the other side doesn't argue it well, I will vote for you. As for link turn, I don't really need a carded ev for that, just nuanced analytic is sufficient for me to buy them.
9. Be funny-debate is stressful and try to light up the mood. Love a few jokes here and there, but since I am someone not invested in pop culture too much, some of the references I probably wouldn't get. If you do it well, your speaker point will reflect it.
10. Speaks- I am very lenient on speaks. I just ask you to slow down on the tags and author name and any analytical args but feel free to spread through the text of the card. I love any patho moments in the final rebuttal speeches on both sides. Here are how I give speaks
29.7-30: A debate worth getting recorded and be shared with my novices.
29.3-29.6: You are an excellent debater and executed everything right
28.7-29.2: You are giving pretty good speeches and smart analytics
28.5-28.6: You are an average debater and going through the process. I begin the round with that number and either go up or down.
28.0-28.4: You are making a few of the fundamental mistakes in your speeches or speaking unclearly.
27.0-27.9: You are making a lot of fundamental mistakes and you are speaking very unclearly
<27.0: You are rude ie being mean to your partner, opponents, or me (hope not).
Clipping card results in automatic 0 speaks and a loss, but I won't intervene the round for you, you have to call out your opponents yourself. If one team accuses the other team for clipping, I will stop the round and ask the team if they are willing to stake the round on that. If the team says yes I will walk out with the recording provided by that team and decide if the cheating has happened or not. A false accusation results in an automatic loss of the team that got it wrong. Spakes will be given accordingly.
Now on arguments
Yes, love them(Idk if there is anyone who doesn't like a good DA debate) -- go through their ev in the rebuttals; this is where i would like a team to read A LOT of evidence on the important stuff. You can blow off their dumb args, especially the links.
Zero Risk is very much a thing and I will vote on it.
If the 1ar or 2ar does a bad job answering turns case and the 2nr is great on it, it makes the DA way more persuasive -- and a good case debate would greatly benefit you as well.
Politics is OK -- fiat solves link, da non-intrinsic are arguments that I will evaluate only if the other team doesn't respond to them at all. However, I do want to see good ev on why the plan trades off with the DA.
I think it's best to have a CP and DAs together because there are just a lot more options at that point. If you really wanna just go for the DA, you need to have a heavy case debate up to that point for me to really evaluate the status quo since most of the aff are built to mitigate the status quo.
CPs and theory
I dislike process CPs-- I really don't like these debates -- I've been a 2n as well as a 2a, but I will side with the aff - this goes for domestic process like commissions as well as intermediary and conditional that lurk in your team's backfile. However, I have a soft spot for consult CP (my first neg argument). Just make sure you do a great job on the DA.
States, international, multi-plank, multi-actor, pics, CPs without solvency advocates are all good -- i'll be tech over my predispositions, but if left to my own devices, I would probably side with aff also
Condo -- all depends on the debating -- I think there could be as many condo as possible. but I also believe zero condo could be won. Still, my general opinion is that conditionality is good and aff teams should only go for them as a last resort.
I will read the solvency evidence on both sides. Solvency deficits should be well explained, why the solvency deficit impact outweighs the DA.
I don't like big multi-plank CPs, but run it as you like and kicking planks is fine
Judge kick unless the 2AR tells me otherwise.
I have some decent knowledge with a lot of the high theory Ks, but I am probably most well versed in psychoanalysis. That being said, I do want you to explain to me the story of the k and how it the contextualizes with the aff well in the block. Don't just spill out jargons and assume i will do the work for you. A good flow is important. What happens with alot of K debates is that at some point the negative team just give up on with ordering and it's harder for me to know where to put things. Any overview longer than 3 minutes is probably not a good idea but if that's your style, go for it, just make sure you organize them in an easy to flow manner. I probably will do the work for you when u said you have answered the args somewhere up top, but i would prefer the line by line and your speaker point will reflect how well you did on that.
FW should be a big investment of time and I think it's strategic to do so. That being said, you have to clearly explain why the aff's pedagogy is problematic and the impacts of that.
I am meh with generic links, just make sure you articulate them well. That being said, most of these links probably get shielded by the permutation.
Alt debate is not that important to me. I don't believe a K has to have an alt by the 2nr. I go for linear DA a lot, but make sure you do impact calc in the 2nr that explains why the K impact outweighs the aff. For the alt, I would like the aff to read more than just their cede the political block, make better-nuanced args.
I am probably not the best judge for these kinds of aff but I will evaluate them as objectively as possible
The aff should defend the hypothetical implementation of a topical plan. At the very least, the aff has to have some relationship to the topic. I want the offense to be articulated well because many times I get confused by the offenses of these affs. I think fairness is absolutely an impact as well as an I/L. I default to debate is a game and it's gonna be hard to convince me otherwise.
I think the ballot ultimately just decides a win and a loss, but I can be convinced that there are extra significances and values to it. That being said, I have seen a lot of k aff with impacts that the ballot clearly can not address.
Not a big fan of these debates and never have been good at it.
From Seth Gannon's paradigm:
"Ironically, many of the arguments that promise a simpler route to victory — theory, T — pay lip service to “specific, substantive clash” and ask me to disqualify the other team for avoiding it. Yet when you go for theory or T, you have cancelled this opportunity for an interesting substantive debate and are asking me to validate your decision. That carries a burden of proof unlike debating the merits. As Justice Jackson might put it, this is when my authority to intervene against you is at its maximum."
On this topic specifically, I dislike effect Ts
These debates are boring to me and I will side with the aff if they are anyway close to being Topical
Reasonability = yes
I am a flow judge. Any speed is fine in the PF world, but don't try to spread when you never have spreaded before. I have come to realize that PFers power-tagged cards to an extreme, which means I will most likely ask for cards at the end of the round. Please provide me with the portion of the card you have read and the entire article. That being said, I don't believe every argument needs a card to absolutely support it-smart analytics and logics will earn you speaker points. Also, I abs love for you to try new unique arguments. I think public forum is way too restrictive, and if you are daring enough to run arguments from other forms of debate or just unorthodox arguments, I WILL ABSOLUTELY VOTE FOR YOU. Argument innovation is ALWAYS welcome.
Also, you don't have to ask me to do anything. You just do you, and I will let you all do whatever you want as long as it's not rude/offensive(and even then which I won't interfere, but it will impact ur speaker point). How I assign speaks are above.
Debated for Bronx Science for 4 years (2015-2019) and been judging for three years in college; polsci and public policy major at Hunter College
DISCLAIMER: I am completely new to the water topic (haven't researched, coached it, etc.), keep this in mind while debating in terms of technical terms and knowledge of topic Ks, CPs, etc
Feel free to run any argument in front of me. I want you to tell me how to vote and how I should view the round. Besides that, I'm down for anything.
Quarantine edition edit: My connection isn't the best so please send the analytics and/or spread like 5% slower so I can flow it, if the argument isn't on my flow I can't evaluate it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
Feel free to add me to the email chain: email@example.com
tl;dr: run what you want
I decide rounds pretty quickly so I usually disclose right after the 2AR.
This is more for policy rounds but don't just card-dump, I hate it when teams just spew a bunch of cards at each other and expect me to do all the work.
If I’m on a panel with Eugene Toth there is a literal 100% chance that we will vote the same way.
My paradigm has been greatly influenced by my god-tier debate partner in high school so if you want to give it a look: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=46818
TKO: If you think you 100% won the round at any point in the debate (i.e. other has no path to a ballot bc of conceded off case, etc.) then you can call a TKO and the round will stop. If I buy that the opponents have no path to the ballot, I will give you the win and 30s. If you are wrong, you will get an L and 25s.
DA should at least have a aff-specific link and not just "Protecting water resources means Biden loses political capital". Make sure impact calc is tight, and good evidence comparison will notch up your speaker points. I want you to tell me a story of how the aff actually triggers the impacts.
Haven't gone for that many CPs, not really my favorite argument. Please slow down for the CP text, especially if it's one of those really long ones. Whatever you run, make sure that you have a clear net-benefit.
Unless its not even in the direction of the topic, I won't automatically vote down an aff because it violates your interpretation of framework and the resolution. If there is no significant impact and there is sufficient response from aff, I will weigh education over fairness.
I like to hear cleverly thought out T arguments against K affs that aren't just USFG, but an explanation, again, is necessary.
I run Ks very often and love a good K debate but I also hate it when the links for the Ks are not explained well or are just generic. Most of the K debate is rooted in the link debate and you have to be able to do this well in order for me to understand how the kritik functions in terms of the affirmative.
A side note: I am not a judge who thinks you need to win the alternative debate in order to win the round. As long as you can prove that each link is a non unique disad to the aff, and those disads outweigh, I will gladly vote neg. However, winning the alternative debate definitely makes your job a LOT easier. If you do go for the alt, I need to know what the alt is supposed to do, how it is supposed to do it, and why what it does matters. You have to be able to explain the alt well, a lot of debaters do not read the literature behind their kritik and this means they cannot explain their alternatives well or just summarize the tags of the cards when explaining the alt.
Love creative K args, topic-specific Ks are really cool too and I've been finding myself voting for more eccentric and high theory Ks so take that as you will
Ks I've ran: Cap (almost every variant of it: logistics, Dean, historical materialism, etc.), academia (Moten and Harney, Tuck and Yang, etc.), ID stuff (set col, queer theory), psychoanalysis.
I have read K affs the majority of my debate career. Love them, they great. But if it is a nontraditional aff, an EXPLANATION is necessary. If I don't understand what the aff is, what it does, or why it's good, then I will absolutely default neg
Have judged a fair amount of theory debates at this point and have voted for condo and ASPEC, so I'm down w it just make sure you have interpretation, violation, and standards esp in the last speech
Been there done that, just don't be reading random files you found in the backfiles or online without knowing what they mean
Cathedral Prep: 2013-2017
Naval Academy: 2017-present
Email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
I’m a big fan of this activity we have here in policy debate. Do what you do best, forget the rest.
Disadvantages: Link will always be evaluated first before uniqueness. Solid link evidence and analysis can break the tie in sketchy uniqueness situations like we have with politics currently. That being said, internal link chains still matter, and a causal explanation of how exactly x leads to y would be cool. Link turns are underutilized as are impact turns.
-I get it, Aff’s won't have answers to every nuanced politics, or small and jank REM DA. Smart arguments sometimes go further than evidence. Be aware. The grimy Rocky Balboa over the robotic Ivan Drago any day.
Counterplans: I lean negative on questions of conditionality. Specificity of negative solvency evidence should be an important place of contention. Keep calm and carry on. Not going to judge kick until authorized.
Critiques: Let the dog off the chain. My background might point you otherwise, but these are enjoyable debates to partake in and watch. Links will be evaluated first, followed by the impact. Links of omission are weak, but I still think well-researched k links can be found against almost any affirmative implementing a plan. Winning the alternative debate isn’t a deal breaker, though the negative must prove we are better off by not doing the plan. Perms need to be more fleshed-out than just “do both.” The political may have been ceded. K’s of representations aren’t great. After the link, which the negative probably will get, this debate comes down to framing, (consequentialism vs. deontology/epistemology). In Cap and Security debates impact turns can and should be used by the affirmative, but in identity debates it really comes down to the question of ontology and the permutation.
Topicality: Clash is the ultimate impact to limits. It’s just like debating a disadvantage. Win the link, win the impact.
Clash debates: Aff's don't need a plan, but being tangential to the topic is preferable for all involved. When going against a critical affirmative the negative should have something more than T/FW in the 1NC. Diversify strategy, research the literature. There are links to every aff. Guilty as charged for going for T a bit, but debates are much more rewarding and educational when teams meet each other head on.
With that being said, the negative should use the TVA like a counter plan, with fairness/education as the net benefit followed by substantive answers on case that also act as a net benefit to the TVA.
Cross-ex should be a civilized cage-match.
Add me to the email chain: email@example.com
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 some identity K affs so I have an idea of the topic. High theory, probably not. New to the water topic, be gentle with me.
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!
High level how I decide rounds. 1. I look for any major tech mistakes (dropping a perm, condo, flow, etc) that mean I can auto vote for one side, no guilt necessary. If this happened in your round, stand up, make like 2 arguments, and sit back 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 implicated 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.
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 little nitty gritty 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 the mitigate 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 me.
I dislike DAs that don't make any sense. You know what I'm talking about. 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 are super entertaining, but so is having well-researched, specific links to the aff.
Not a fan of process CPs because I don't want to be sitting there digging through definitions. Am a fan of 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 solving its impacts. On the aff, creative permutations are entertaining.
Just have 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 non-topical, I don't mind if you introduce a new T violation in the neg block.
Make my job easy please
I believe in common sense
28.0 needs some improvement
** Updated in 2021**
I’ve been in the debate world for over a decade now. I was trained in policy debate but have also judged both policy and LD since 2016.
TLDR: I want you to debate what you’re best at unless it’s offensive or exclusionary. I try to have very limited intervention and rely on framing and weighing in the round. Telling me how to vote and keeping my flow clean is the fastest way to my ballot. Please have fun and be kind to one another.
ONLINE DEBATE UPDATES
In an online world, you should reduce your speed to about 75%-80%. It’s difficult for me to say clear in a way that doesn’t totally disrupt your speech, so focusing on clarity and efficiency are especially important. I will try to resolve tech issues in the round to the best of my ability.
I use two monitors, with my flow on the second monitor, so when I’m looking to the side, I’m looking at the flow or my ballot.
If your argument isn’t on my flow, I can’t evaluate it. Because of this, keeping my flow clean, repeating important points, and being clear can decide the round. I flow by ear and have your speech doc primarily for author names, so make sure your tags/arguments/analytics are clear. I default to tech over truth and debate being a competitive and educational activity. That being said, how I evaluate a debate is up for debate. The threshold for answering arguments without warrants is low, and I don’t find blippy arguments to be particularly persuasive.
In general: I take my flow seriously but am really not a fan of blippy arguments. I’m fine with speed and theoretical debates but am not the best judge for affs with tricks. I don’t like when theory is spread through and need it to be well-articulated and impacted. I have a decent philosophy background, but please assume that I do not know and err on over-explaining your lit.
On Framework: In LD, I default to framework as a lens to evaluate impacts in the round. However, I am willing to (and will) evaluate framework as the only impact to the round. Framework debates tend to get really messy, so I ask that you try to go top-down when possible. Please try to collapse arguments when you can and get as much clash on the flow as possible.
A note on fairness as a voter: I am willing to vote on fairness, but I tend to think of fairness as more of an internal link to an impact.
On T: I default to competing interpretations. If you’re going for T, please make sure that you’re weighing your standards against your opponent’s. In evaluating debates, I default to T before theory.
On Theory: I lean towards granting 1AR theory for abusive strats. However, I am not a fan of frivolous theory and would prefer clash on substantive areas of the debate.
On RVIs: I think RVIs have morphed into a way of saying "I'm fair but having to prove that I'm being fair means that I should win", which I don't particularly enjoy. If you’re going for an RVI, make sure it’s convincing and reasonable. Further, please make sure that if you’re going for an RVI that you spend sufficient time on it.
In general: I rely on my flow to decide the round. Keeping my flow clean is the best path to my ballot, so please make sure that your speeches are organized and weigh your arguments against your opponents. Please take care to not misrepresent your evidence. Along those lines, I would also prefer that you do not paraphrase evidence.
On LD/Policy Arguments: While I will evaluate the round based on my flow, I want PF to be PF. Please do not feel that you need to adapt to my LD/Policy background when I’m in the back of the room.
On Framework: ROBs and ROJs should be extended and explained within the context of the round. Interpretations and framing how I need to evaluate the round are the easiest path to my ballot. Please weigh your standards against your opponent’s and tell me why your model of debate works best. While I will vote on fairness as a voter, I tend to default to it as an internal link to another impact, i.e. education.
One off FW: These rounds tend to get messy. Please slow down for the analytics. The best path to my ballot is creating fewer, well-articulated arguments that directly clash with your opponent’s.
On Theory and T: Make sure you make it a priority if you want me to vote on it. If you’re going for T, it should be the majority of your 2NR. Please have clearly articulated standards and voters. I typically default to competing interpretations, so make sure you clearly articulate why your interpretation is best for debate.
On DA/CP: Explain why your evidence outweighs their evidence and please use impact calc.
On K-Affs: Make sure you’re weighing the impacts of your aff against tech stuff the neg articulates. Coming from the 1AC, I need a clear articulation of your solvency mechanism and the role of ballot / judge.
Hitting K-Affs on neg: PLEASE give me clash on the aff flow
On Ks: Make sure that you’re winning framing for these arguments. I really enjoy well-articulated link walls and think that they can take you far. I’m maybe not the best judge for high theory debates, but I have some experience with most authors you will read in most cases and should be able to hold my own if it’s well articulated. I need to understand the world of the alt, how it outweighs case impacts, and what the ballot resolves.
One off Ks: These rounds tend to get very nuanced, especially if it’s a K v K debate. Please have me put framework on another flow and go line by line.
Hello. My name is Akil Patel. I am a beginner parent lay judge. Please slow down when you are speaking. My understanding of debate jargon is limited. My winning decision will be based on presenting the more convincing argument in an organized effective manner. Constantly using judge direction will not help your cause. Just stick to presenting your case. Good luck!
Add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Debated at Whitney M. Young Magnet High School from 2015-2019
Lasted updated: Glenbrooks 2019
I'm not familiar with the arms control topic, but don't let that change the way you debate in front of me. Really, all this means for you is that you should be a bit more explanatory in T debates and not leave me to my own devices, as I don't have a good grasp on what the ideal way to read the res is.
I'm comfortable with almost any type of argumentation. I've read big stick heg good affs and soft-left domestic violence affs, as well as k affs including Derrida, Spanos, Anarchy, and Buddhism!
I prefer depth over breadth; my speaks will reflect that.
Regarding Tech v. Truth... This is a silly dichotomy to me, mainly because what's 'true' is almost never a given. To me, this question seems to be one that, at its core, is about how judges evaluate dropped arguments. There is no universal metric I employ to determine the answer to this question. Obviously, dropped arguments are assumed to be true. But what constitutes an argument? An argument requires a claim and a warrant (i'm sure you haven't heard that one before), but it is a debate to be had as to what constitutes those. If the block says "severance perms are a voter" (assuming this is all they say on the matter) and the 1AR drops it, it should be easy to persuade me that there wasn't sufficient explanation as to constitute a warrant. For the argument to be complete (especially if it's something you want me to vote on), it requires me understanding why a claim is true; otherwise it's almost meaningless.
Thoughts On Argument Types:
FW: There are two different ways to go about reading framework. The critical difference between the two is whether or not you make the claim the arguments we read in debate shape our beliefs. If you make that argument, you need to defend the educational merits deriving from the substance of debates centered around the state, not just the form. It's unconvincing to me to claim that debate shapes subjectivity while simultaneously making the claim that the form of debate the affirmative endorses somehow doesn't result in anything beneficial you can take from the round. Even if you're making the claim that clash is necessary to make us better arguers, the affirmative is still typically making claims about the benefits of holding the beliefs they endorse alone, which I see as somewhat isolated from the skills derived from deliberation alone. Thus, this way to read framework requires you to win that the type of pedagogy they endorse is bad, or at least not as beneficial as the pedagogy associated with policy-centered analysis. The other way of reading framework, which is to say that the arguments we read in debate have no effect on our political beliefs, doesn't require you defending the state on the level of substance. Instead, using clash as the key internal link, you can claim that all debate does is teach us a better argumentative form. The fact that teams read several different contradictory arguments helps support the narrative that the only way debate truly influences our beliefs is at the margins, ie over the hundred debates you have, you end up debating (for and against) arguments that are on the side of truth more often than arguments that are not. Without clash, there's no good means to determine what args (besides extremes) are truer than others. If the ideology you endorse isn't subjected to rigorous and meaningful criticism, how are you supposed to determine whether or not it's right? It might come off like I'm good for the negative in these debates, but all I mean to do is point out what I think to be to irreconcilable ways of thinking about framework. I love seeing new and innovative strategies and ways of thinking about framework and debate by the aff.
Counterplans: The phrase "all we need is a risk of offense" still requires you - obviously - winning a risk of offense. To me, there isn't always one. If a team read a DA that was cut from this judging philosophy and tagged it as something else, even if they had a counterplan that I felt confident solved the entirety of the case - I clearly wouldn't give the DA any weight. Of course, this example is a bit extreme, but this becomes more important the worse evidence quality gets.
Topicality: The most important thing to do in T debates is impact calculus contextualized to the interpretations endorsed. You should treat this impact debate like you would any other. It's not enough to say overlimiting the topic is bad, but why is the fashion in which the affs interpretation overlimits the topic worse than their accusation of your interpretation being somewhat arbitrary?
Reasonability is not and should not be read as an argument merely about unpredictability. I see many teams read reasonability as "their interp is arbitrary and thus you should prefer ours" without anymore analysis. I think judges still understand the argument teams are trying to make, but if that's the extent of your explanation it won't be sufficient for me. Reasonability is about the burden of the affirmative. All the aff should have to do (according to the arg) is provide a reasonable reading of the resolution. It shouldn't be the aff's burden to read the resolution in the way that's best for the negative. If teams are voted against for reading a res that's reasonably within the parameters of the res, the negative is given the incentive to find a more and more limiting interp.
Various Thoughts About Debate:
Clash is the most valuable aspect of debate. The ability for two sides to forward arguments, to which the other side will say "no" to is something that only debate allows. What makes debate great, however, is that a debaters burden falls not just on a reassertion of "yes", but saying "no" to the other teams objections.
Evidence quality is important. In good [close] debates, which contain many moving pieces, and in which both sides are technically proficient and make logical arguments, evidence quality often does (and should) put a team ahead. Quality alone can only do so much. If a team severely misrepresents the evidence they're reading, it's the other teams burden to point it out. It's also important to realize what constitutes 'good evidence'. There's a reason why evidence quality is valued so highly. Peer reviewed journals (assuming their highly relevant to a question in a debate), for example, offer claims backed by a high depth of warrants and analysis that makes it difficult (but not impossible) to rely on logic or rhetoric alone to diminish them. Reciprocity is paramount but does not mean "if they have a card, you should have card." More likely than not, if a [competent] team doesn't have evidence to answer a DA, it's probably contrived and not a controversy within literature. In fact, I think that the card:analytic ratio against most arguments (specifically the contrived politics disads of the Trump era) is far too tilted towards reading evidence. Logic surrenders to nobody.
I feel like it's important to protect the 2NR against new 2AR arguments, particularly in topicality and theory debates.
Theory is underutilized in debate today. Any good 1AR has at the very least one theory arg extended.
If you can't defend that bad things are bad, you deserve to lose. This ideology extends as far as comprehension allows. It shouldn't be too hard to convince me extremely unethical positions are wrong/bad. It's not like I want to vote for them.
I am familiar with most primary critical theorists and read philosophy for fun.
I am an economics major and thus enjoy debates centering around economics.
Arguments that hold a special place in my heart:
- Integral Fast Reactors
- Capitalism K (against critical affirmatives)
Put me on the email chain, please: email@example.com
TL;DR - Read kritiks, k affs, and/or framework. Don't go too fast please, I'm old now ☺️
My name is Kat, I use she/her pronouns, I did K debate for Bronx Science for four years and I went to TOC my senior year. I don't do debate anymore. I like high theory, cap, and framework. Win the flow to win, be based for good speaks. I'm a young boomer so I generally(?) give good(?) speaks.
Put me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Affiliations: NYU (debater) and Bronx Science (assistant coach)
Argumentation: K (all of them)
Influences: Will Baker, Alex Sherman, Taylor Brough, Anthony Joseph, Jorman Antigua, and others but not as much
Pronouns: he/him/his or they/them/theirs (idrc)
Experience: 4 yrs of HS debate (qualified to TOC in senior year), 1 yr college debate @ NYU (qualified to NDT and quarterfinalist @ CEDA) if that matters to you
Actual Paradigm Things
1. Just because I read Ks does not mean I don't vote for policy args, I will just do less work for you than someone who read framework for 8 years. This also doesn't mean that I vote for the K more often in policy v. K rounds because K debaters need to do actual link analysis and alt explanation.
2. Debate is not a game and if you think it is then you're clowning yourself--we're a year into this online format and y'all will spend almost every weekend in front of your computer yelling about water policy or antitrust law and 99% of you don't know how to have a conversation about things that aren't debate.
3. Given that is true, *This is the part where I talk about K affs and probably why you're reading this paradigm* in order to win that fairness or education is an impact, you need to prove the efficacy and importance of some model of "debate" that is relevant to your impact. I will not vote on debatability or fairness as a terminal impact unless you prove that debate is necessary for something that fairness is a key prerequisite to achieving.
**The distinction between "K" and "policy" arguments is false but for the purpose of conciseness I will use these phrases as a generalizing term to create some level of demarcation between the trend of argumentation that cites John Locke and that which cites Franz Fanon.**
5. Tech is infinitely more relevant to truth in deciding debates except during "KvK debates". Unless you convince me otherwise, during KvK debates both teams are often making structural claims about peoples' position in relation to power and one another meaning I will not ignore my own position as a judge and otherwise when deciding the debate. That means that you need to explain why the ballot matters not only for your solvency but also in terms of the embodied interactions we have assumed by reading our respective arguments. This also does not mean that you can concede arguments and win. This just means that, despite trying to detach my decision-making from my own personal opinions about arguments, the standard of "tabula rasa" is and will always be a myth.
6. Drawing on point 5, I am a very big fan of people reading kritikal condo and perf con against shotgun K strats--they almost always detract from substantive discussion about the theory of power and nuances of what is being read and make the round extremely unpleasant to judge. This applies much less to "policy v. policy" debates, where y'all are often not making claims or defenses of power (at least on surface level)
7. The death K--idk why so many people have a problem with this argument since there are different types of death Ks with varying warrants about the value of life and such. Reading Lynice Pinkard, Georges Bataille, and Thomas Ligotti constitutes three different death Ks and grouping them together is a. antiblack and b. woefully ignorant. But if the sentence "if death is bad why don't you k--- y-------" is spoken I will drop you and give you the lowest speaks possible.
8. If I am on a panel with Daniel Iskhakov there is a literal 100% chance that we will vote the same way and for the same reason.