Viking Rumble JVNovice Scrimmage
2020 — NSDA Campus, IL/US
NJDG Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
hana (its hah-nuh pls not hannah) -- she/her
2A/1N -- niles north -- nilesnorthgb @ gmail.com
tech >>> truth
any homophobia, racism, sexism, ableism, or any other form of ignorance is an auto L and an email to your coach
novice year is a learning experience !! -- if you ever have questions feel free to ask :)
ways to get good speaks: time your own speeches (ill time aswell but yk), add me on the email chain without me asking, sound confident, FLOW & line by line, make fun of my debate partner ariel gabay, make jokes (but not if you're unfunny)
things to not do: read solely pre-written blocks (im here to watch you debate, not your varsity/coaches), read a CP w/o nb, drop/spend little time on an arg just because you think its bad, not using all of your speech time, try to outspread teams but 90% of the off cases are things you cant even go for (i like big 1NCs but every off should be a viable option), read a K aff as a novice
impact turns -- read them
topicality -- amazing, love it. if topicality is being read in the 2NR, it should be the only thing read. i hide aspec in my 1NCs and read a courts aff on CJR (iykyk) so that should tell you something about my opinions on T -- i think PTV makes sense against a lot of violations
counterplans -- great strat -- process cps with a decently specific AFF solvency ev are top tier and makes justifying the CP 10x easier -- will vote on the intrinsic perm -- deficits need impacts
disads -- uhhh im a policy-oriented 1N so my 1NRs are almost exclusively 25+ card PTX speeches, do with that what you will -- turns case analysis >>
kritiks -- please only read one if you can actually explain it
theory -- condo is probably good and everything else is a reason to reject the arg, not the team
affs -- i've run both soft left and big stick but for soft left affs specifically: your 1ACs framing page is important and im gonna be really sad if it sucks (i.e not including cards specific to the aff...). also, being able to beat disads is crucial---you just yelling "conjunctive fallacy!1!!1" in the 2AR = L (people hate on soft left affs too much...so stop giving people more reason to LOL)
k affs -- see the last point on my "things not to do" list but alas, if you insist on running a k aff as a novice; i think fairness is an impact so do with that what you will -- ill admit i'm probably a bit biased but it doesn't mean neg teams can auto win every time -- articulate your impacts, don't conflate ILs and impacts, yadayadayada
everything else is probably fair game
p.s -- dropped aspec is a dropped ballot, sorry!
you can go to addison kane's or ariel gabay's wiki for more things i probably agree with
1---cameras on if possible pls :( debates feel so dead without them -- if my camera is off, im not ready
2---go slower at the start of your speeches so ur mic can adjust and whatnot
3---yes tag team cross ex is fine but don't talk over your partner
I debated for Niles West and Michigan State
Put me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
1. I want students to feel comfortable, learn something, and have fun. Debate is for the debaters, and I don’t want to see anyone acting malicious, rude, or offensive to one another.
2. My knowledge of the HS topic is pretty low (worked at a camp but haven't judged/researched this topic much).
3. Random predispositions: Presumption goes neg if the neg goes for the status quo, aff if going for a CP/K. I’ll kick a CP for you in the 2NR only if you explicitly tell me to. Tag-team CX is okay, tag-team speeches are not. If you can't present an accurate marked copy of a card upon request I will discount the card. Asking questions about what cards your opponent did or didn't read in their speech counts as cross-x.
4. If there's one thing that motivates my judge philosophy more than my thoughts on individual arguments, it's that I want debate arguments to be in-depth, topic-specific, and intelligently constructed. I dislike it when debates are shallow, lack line-by-line, or rely on uncontextualized generics. Please don't read more than 6 or 7 off.
5. Please stop offering or asking for marked docs unless it is absolutely necessary (I.E, there was some kind of a tech issue, 3+ cards being marked, etc.). Skipping over some cards in a doc is not a reason to request/send a marked doc. This practice disincentives flowing speeches and incentivizes flowing speech docs, which is bad for debate. I will consider docking speaker points from those who ask if I think it is unnecessary.
Not the worst, but not the best for these. I'm pretty persuaded by a lot of negative T arguments in a world where the aff lacks a clear advocacy statement/blueprint/mechanism.
Kritiks should disprove the desirability of voting aff. Ideally, they should say the aff is bad/worse than the status quo.
Please don't have your entire strategy revolve around praying the aff drops one of the seventeen tricks you put in the 2NCs overview - I give a lot of aff credence in these debates and it’ll make me frustrated.
I am very unlikely to vote on suffering being good. I highly doubt I'll ever vote on death being good.
I think these are good. I like it when teams go in-depth defending their points of offense much more than when teams read and extend tons of CPs and DAs in the hope their opponents will drop one.
Generally good for T, generally bad for spec arguments. Please explain any topic-relevant concepts clearly, as I know little about the topic mechanism.
Gut thoughts: Conditionality, uniform state fiat, germane PICs are all probably good. CPs that compete only on certainty and immediacy, non-germane PICs, multi-actor fiat, are all probably bad. My gut should not and will not determine the debate.
Please don't engage in conduct that leads to an ethics challenge being necessary. If you propose one, the round will be staked on it, and you must have evidence.
Have fun! If I judged you and you have any questions about the round, feel free to email me, I will respond to you as soon as possible!
UK, Niles North, Pine Crest
---debating matters way more then any opinion.
---stop being cowards, opensource will result in +.3 speaks, if practices are shady, I'll lower speaks based on my own discretion.
---I consider myself not very ideological about specific sections of debates, if you debate well, then they do not matter. To me debate is SOLELY a game, every argument made should propel you closer to winning. With that it presents a role of the judge to evaluate debates as technically as possible---this translates to 3 major predispositions when judging:
A---if an argument is stupid, you should be able to beat it with ease, if you cannot, you deserve to lose. I am not the judge that is going to hack out on ASPEC is stupid we didn't need to answer it in the 2AC. the solution to most of my issues as a judge is to flow better and stop throwing.
B---every argument you make should be premised on winning, I am not a judge who won't flow all 13 off, because I get it's strategic purpose. if you think XYZ team doesn't have a great 2AC to wipeout, let it rip
C---do not try and adapt to me, you do you. school backgrounds don't matter, I agree with Casey's take, "people are more than the name of the school that follows their name and more than what debate’s 4-year-long institutional memories pigeonhole them to be."
---the secondary concern to execution is evidence. my favorite part of the activity is research, the team with the better evidence set will usually be rewarded with inflated speaker points, and depending on the content of the round, the win. I like Jordan's take, "I read evidence to verify arguments made by debaters and it influences the margins of how I fall on a particular issue given relatively even debating. But again, this process doesn’t need to be left to my own thoughts and can be decided by debaters".
---my typical decision process revolves around starting with the biggest yes/no question for the debate (yes/no we meet, is there any deficits to the counterplan), then page by page in order of self-assigned importance, deciding what order I go in is solved by 2R judge instruction.
---a few random pet peeves that won't affect decisions but will change speaker points:
A---card aesthetics, its 2022, ie ugly cards and non-verbatim.
B---asking for analytics.
C---asking for marked docs with the cards not read deleted.
D---taking forever to send out the email chain.
---I am not the judge to hack out for certain teams or arguments, I cannot emphasize enough that i do not care who you are or what you read. one of my favorite features about debate is anyone can beat anyone.
---not much yet, general intuition is that T on this topic looks rough for the negative, and the topic feels huge.
---will come back with more thoughts as I continue to judge and coach.
---thresholds for internal links have gotten substantially worst, similarly AFFs read terrible impact cards, what's going on here.
---stickler for answering 1NC warrants, if the 1NC says 'no Russia war---interdependence' and the 2AC says 'Russia war causes extinction---amount of nukes guarantee nuke winter', then the Russia war scenario is close to zero.
---I care a lot more about solvency deficits having impacts, certainty is a nothing term to me absent clear and consistent articulation of an advantage contingent on certainty, and very good evidence saying certainty is key.
---I think you need to win theory to go for any perm/answer perms other than do both, this feels logical to me but justifications for why agent counterplans are good are also a reason why carving out space for them is good, absent 1AR answers to the 2NC warrants, competition debates for process CPs seem like a crush for the NEG.
---I love the politics DA.
---enforcement based turns case matters a lot to me.
---I care for and enjoy Ks that are just impact turns in disguise.
---framework being a wash is illogical, it's the most important part of the debate, winning and/or losing it should have vast implications.
---please pull quotes for links, otherwise I feel as if I am very good for the AFF saying they dropped our internal links which justifies our reps.
---debate is a game, this dictates how I view debates, AFF offense should impact turn the process of topical debates to be in a good position in front of me.
---I am terrible for you if you decide to punt line by line to try and convince me to vote for an alternative metric of evaluating debates.
---I care about the role of the negative, this feels like a truism, but absent a clarification from the AFF to what the NEG is supposed to say, and the NEG winning some risk of offense, I err strongly NEG.
---favorite debates, genuinely, do it well, and your speaks will be very high.
---most 2NRs are awful at answering conditionality, but if your competent at defending it, i don't care how many counterplans you read.
---funny jokes about anyone on Niles North (specifically Hana Bisevac) or Kentucky Debate will result in an addition in speaker points.
I coached policy debate at Niles West High School for three years. Prior to that, I competed in Policy debate for four years at Niles West and have also competed in NPDA-Parliamentary and NFA-Lincoln/Douglass debate for four years at the University of Illinois Urbana/Champaign. I served as the Debate Captain for UIUC during my junior year, teaching and coaching new members and running our team's practices. My background is in political science and public policy as well as studying some critical theory so I like to think I am generally well versed in issues usually being discussed during competitive debates.
I highly encourage flowing, clarity, in depth analysis, and argument comparison. (like impact calculus).
I'm very flexible as I have debated very policy as well as critical positions throughout my debate career. I am a flow judge above all else, so if the right arguments are made and extended, I will vote on that. While I have some minor argument preferences, I will generally remove my biases from the round and judge each debater's arguments on its merits.
If you still have questions, ask me before the round or email me.
You can contact me at: Walter.email@example.com
maine east '21. emory '25.
put me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
- refer to nicole sobski's paradigm.
- time yourself. i will forget. i'm not perfect.
- send analytics. if you're good, you don't have to win because they drop things.
- online debate is hard, but please try to be timely and efficient. i'd appreciate if you have your camera on, but i understand that's not possible for everyone. make sure you're clear.
- if you open source and tell me after the round, i'll increase your speaks by +0.2.
- making fun of dani roytburg will boost your speaks.
- also stolen from dani: "this is the only belief i hold that i allow to determine my ballot: i exclusively evaluate evaluate the arguments in a debate and on my flow. the only time where i might see myself making decisions about things debaters don't say occurs with either abysmally little clash or near-perfect debating on both sides."
- i won't hesitate to stop the round if anything racist/homophobic/sexist/etc happens. please please please be nice and don't be arrogant or problematic. there's a difference between standing your ground and laughing at the other team's arguments.
- i don't like reading through cards docs, but will if i have to or am told to. spin matters.
- stolen from margaret hecht: "i am admittedly not the best judge for critical arguments. my issue isn't ideological, rather a lack of experience and research. i have no preferences for what you read, relation to the topic, etc., and will do my best to judge these debates, but please don't assume that i know the implication of historical examples and/or have a deep understanding of the literature base." run what you want and if you win the flow, i'll vote for you. that being said, pretend i don't know anything about it. explain it without buzzwords. stay away from long overviews. clash.
- you probably need an alt absent winning framework or strong case turns. make sure the alt solves your links.
- weighing the plan is probably good, but i'll try to be objective about it. i find i vote aff most often when the neg doesn't articulate clearly what the world of their interpretation looks like or have sufficient defense against the aff's impact.
- on the aff: going for impact turns/heg good/cap good/etc and extinction outweighs has a special place in my heart. or go for the perm, also a fan, just stick to a strat. you're not going to win no link against cap when you have an economy advantage.
- never been in a k v k debate [other than going for the cap k so that barely counts]. not sure if i'm confident making the correct decision [expect for cap or the other policy basics]. do what you want with this information.
- go for a da! even if it's heg!
- fairness is an impact and probably the best one, but the neg needs to explain it in a way that makes it one. also a fan of clash style impacts. tvas and ssd are not always necessary but usually are helpful. explain how it solves the aff's offense, don't just repeat it accesses their literature. case lists are very helpful, but make sure they're contextualized to the aff's interpretation.
- on the aff, i usually find impact turns most convincing. i tend to view limits/predictability/ground/etc as linear impacts, so going for defense isn't the best strat in front of me, but if it's done well you can totally win.
- i haven't judged in a while, so explain what your interpretation is to me like i'm a child. that being said, I've been thrown into a couple of t debates already and found that the only real times this hinders me is in predictability debates when both teams insist their cards have topic experts without doing any comparisons or when each team spews case lists without explaining what those affirmatives are. i don't know what "new triers aff" is. explain.
- limits are very compelling, but predictability is probably the best impact. aff ground can totally win you the debate, but you have to do the work to make sure it outweighs whatever the neg's impact is. aff ground is most compelling when there's a structural reason the neg's interpretation makes it impossible to be aff [for example, no solvency deficits to agent cps existing]. just saying you lose core of the topic affs means nothing.
- i default to competing interpretations, but mainly because people don't go for reasonability right. if you can do it, do it. contextualize your offense to the neg's interpretation.
- don't spread through your blocks, clash!
- absent being dropped, the only reason to reject the team is probably condo. make sure to have clear offense, impact comparisons, and inroads to the other teams offense no matter which side of this debate you're on!
- process cps that compete off of certainty or immediacy make me sad, but i understand they're necessary and have went for plenty myself.
- perm texts!!! write them!!!
- sufficiency framing means practically nothing. spend your time explaining why there's no impact to the solvency deficit instead.
- slow down in competition debates. i've been on both sides of these debates, but still get confused.
- win turns case is nice but it's not always necessary [i also don't know why some people give it so much weight].
- don't forget about impact calc. i used to blow it off, but judging has made me realize that it's a lifesaver in close debates.
- not much else to say. das are cool.
Maine East '21
TLDR: refer to very short version of charlie monical's paradigm
Tech > truth
I am most comfortable with policy arguments, but will do my best to adjudicate the round based on the arguments presented in the speeches. Out debate the other team on your k and I will have no problem voting for you.
I judged at camps during the summer, but UMich will be the first tourney I judge during the season. This means I have a general idea of what the topic looks like, but no clue how it has changed. Make sure to include any explanations of things specific to your aff or about really niche parts of the topic. I think this is most important for T debates as I have no idea what topic consensus looks like, what affs are being run, how big the topic is, etc. Broad claims about how the topic is bad for one side or how some types of affs on the topic are trash will not be persuasive without detailed, warranted analysis. Be descriptive.
Please turn on your cameras if you can, especially when you are speaking.
Don't like theory debates that much. Condo is the only reason to reject the team, but condo is probably good. However, solvency advocate theory, international fiat bad and object fiat bad are pretty persuasive reasons to reject the counterplan. Perms are probably your best bet against process counterplans.
Fairness is an impact on T-USfg (probably the best one), but is very difficult to explain well. Invest time in it. Utilize TVAs. I think the most persuasive strategy for K Affs against T-USfg is to impact turn the neg team's model. I usually don't find middle-of-the-road approaches with counterinterpretations very persuasive.
If your aff against the K, I find FW and util very convincing. Utilize your aff and impact turn the alt. If your neg and running the K, I think winning FW or that the links turn the aff is important. I think most alts are silly and don't do much (unless the aff team drops it or you win you can fiat away everything).
Politics DAs are bad, but are necessary. They were a majority of my 2NRs in high school. Go for a clever ptx DA and read good evidence and I'll probably be happy and boost your speaks.
Make fun of Nicole Sobski, Bella Piekut, Parth Shah, Kyujin Derradji, Ava Leipzig, Aida Ruan, Danny Roytburg, Kaitlyn Bowles or Emily Feng and I'll boost your speaks!
Solorio Debater 22'
- Write the ballot for me
- Will dock points if you speak over others/ your partner in cx repeatedly
- Explain why it matters that they dropped stuff, don't just say " They dropped it, we win. Moving on"
- Slow down on/ be clear on Analytics, Tags, and Authors.
DA: Most DA's blend in together, just explain your link and impacts well and you'll be fine
K: I have a lot of experience running a variety of critiques like Nitzche, Anthro, Security, Cap, etc. Although I do get lost at times during high theory k rounds. Just contextualize your link to the aff and explain your alt.
K Aff's: Quoting my glorious leader
" Good luck to you " - Conor Cameron
T: Im not the biggest fan of T debates, however its not like I wont vote for it. If you explain your impacts and topicality violations well and win then I will vote for you. I am not persuaded by reasonability though which is something to keep in mind.
CP: I give a lot of leeway to the aff when it comes to cp theory since I think a lot of cp's being used now-a-days is just cheaty, I also dont do judge kick unless you tell me to. Otherwise im fine with CP's.
Theory: I used to be very into theory, but not that much anymore. Just like topicality just explain your violation and impacts and you'll be good. However a lot of theory is just not viable, so unless its blatantly conceded or under-covered I wont base my ballot of it. Just stick to the basics like Condo and you'll be fine.
she/her, maine east '22, 2a/1n
add me to the chain: email@example.com
- don't be mean/rude to the other team or your partner. there's a difference between being assertive and being aggressive in cross ex.
- novice debates usually come down to clarity, flowing, line-by-line, and impact calc (learning to efficiently send docs and begin speeches is a plus too)! practice these concepts and you should be fine :-]
- you need to explain why a dropped argument matters in my decision-- just saying it went dropped and nothing else doesn't mean a lot to me.
- not the best for Ks and K affs but I think those arguments can be compelling-- just clearly explain your link and the alt
My name is Cameron (he/him), I'm a fourth-year debater at Niles North High School. I started on the immigration topic.
Time your own speeches/prep, I will also be timing for my own purposes but if you're not timing that's gonna hurt your speaks.
Don't be mean. I get it, debaters are grouchy, like to yell and be aggressive CX that's fine you do you, but if you are consistently being condescending and rude to the other team or your partner that is gonna damage your speaks and make me less likely to vote for you. Just be respectful of other people.
Tech > Truth... Yes even if its a really absurd argument (excluding racism, sexism, homophobia etc). It's up to the debaters to tell me that the argument is stupid.
Really read whatever you want... I prefer more policy-oriented rounds but I don't really mind. If its not a common knowledge acronym don't use the acronym form or clarify what it means.
Yup that's it (I only judge novis), have a fun round.
Iowa State University '25
From CJR not updated for Water topic
Also please make jokes, debate gets boring really fast
Just call me Eva, not judge
line by line is important
I don't care what speed you read but just be clear
Most of the time I don't make faces but if I do, be wary (this matters if we go back in person)
Impact calc key for affs to do if y'all want an aff ballot. All of my debate career I have only read soft left affs, but I do understand the literature from all aff types. If you have an aff and it has a structural violence impact with some framing, and another impact of war, disease, Econ collapse, etc. Go for one, not both if the 2ar extends their genocide and war impacts, a big no-no. (this happens a lot too)
I like these affs, breath of fresh air from the basic policy affs from the topic resolution. I would prefer teams to read a plan text and defend some action. (doesn't have to be USFG as an actor) I have judged and voted on identity affs a good amount during the arms sales topic and cjr topic.
have a clear internal link and link story, how does point A lead to point B. Don't use generic evidence for the link, there has to be a clear point that the AFF. I lean slightly aff on this so the neg needs to do some work to prove the DA. If you run a da PLEASE RUN A CP, with it cause yeah there is a risk but I don't have another way to solve that's on my flow. If you are running a relations da, Econ da, or other one make sure you have recent evidence so the impact is concrete.
t has been very over-limiting on a lot of topics I have debate on, majority of T arguments only make certain big affs topical. breath>depth. I'm pretty neutral on judging this, it comes down to the extensions in the 2nr and the response in the 2ar on how I should write my ballot. ASPEC I'm not a big fan of, if you go for it the 2nr should be just aspec and explain the voter in the round and why fairness and ed are key. CJR specific I have voted on t on this topic and I have voted against it.
Love a good perm/theory debate. Both sides need to do work to prove whether if the cp is competitive/noncompetitive and that it does/doesn't solve the aff w/o linking to the net benefit. impact calc of the nb is key for my ballot.
If you are reading a k I'm a good judge to have in the back of the room. In my JV/varsity year, I did mainly one-off Agamben K and on arms sales topic Orientalism K was my main 2nr. A good amount of 1st-year rounds I judged were more critical. I'm in the loop on K literature, so you really don't have to explain terms just the world of the alt looks like and why I should pick the neg's fw over the affirmative. these rounds are either really good or really bad. Known to be very messy Only run it if you really understand it.No no generic link cards, have to be specific to the aff. By the 2nr the neg should have a clear story of what the world of the alt is, and why the k matters in this round.
Name : Lauren Velazquez
Affiliated School: Niles North
I debated competitively in high school in the 1990s for Maine East. I participated on the national circuit where counterplans and theory were common.
Director of Debate at Niles North
I competed in the 90s, helped around for a few years, took a bit of a break, have been back for about 7 years. My teams compete on the national circuit, I help heavily with my teams’ strategies, and am a lab leader at a University of Michigan. In recent years I have helped coach teams that cleared at the TOC, won state titles and consistently debated in late elim rounds at national tournaments. TL/DR--I am familiar with national circuit debate.
What this means for you---I lean tech over truth when it comes to execution, but truth controls the direction of tech, and some debate meta-arguments matter a lot less to me.
I am not ideological towards most arguments, I believe debate structurally is a game, but there are benefits to debate outside of it being just a game, give it your best shot and I will try my best to adapt to you.
The only caveat is do not read any arguments that you think would be inappropriate for me to teach in my classroom, if you are worried it might be inappropriate, you should stop yourself right there.
DISADS AND ADVANTAGES
When deciding to vote on disadvantages and affirmative advantages, I look for a combination of good story telling and evidence analysis. Strong teams are teams that frame impact calculations for me in their rebuttals (e.g. how do I decide between preventing a war or promoting human rights?). I should hear from teams how their internal links work and how their evidence and analysis refute indictments from their opponents. Affirmatives should have offense against disads (and Negs have offense against case). It is rare, in my mind, for a solvency argument or "non unique" argument to do enough damage to make the case/disad go away completely, at best, relying only on defensive arguments will diminish impacts and risks, but t is up to the teams to conduct a risk analysis telling me how to weigh risk of one scenario versus another.
I will vote on topicality if it is given time (more than 15 seconds in the 2NR) in the debate and the negative team is able to articulate the value of topicality as a debate “rule” and demonstrate that the affirmative has violated a clear and reasonable framework set by the negative. If the affirmative offers a counter interpretation, I will need someone to explain to me why their standards and definitions are best. Providing cases that meet your framework is always a good idea. I find the limits debate to be the crux generally of why I would vote for or against T so if you are neg you 100% should be articulating the limits implications of your interpretation.
Over the years, I have heard and voted on Kritiks, but I do offer a few honest caveats:
I read newspapers daily so I feel confident in my knowledge around global events. I do not regularly read philosopy or theory papers, there is a chance that I am unfamiliar with your argument or the underlying paradigms. I do believe that Kritik evidence is inherently dense and should be read a tad slower and have accompanying argument overviews in negative block. Impact analysis is vital. What is the role of the ballot? How do I evaluate things like discourse against policy implications (DAs etc)
Also, I’m going to need you to go a tad slower if you are busting out a new kritik, as it does take time to process philosophical writings.
If you are doing something that kritiks the overall debate round framework (like being an Aff who doesnt have a plan text), make sure you explain to me the purpose of your framework and why it is competitively fair and educationally valuable.
I am generally a fan of CPs as a neg strategy. I will vote for counterplans but I am open to theory arguments from the affirmative (PICs bad etc). Counterplans are most persuasive to me when the negative is able to clearly explain the net benifts and how (if at all) the counterplan captures affirmative solvency. For permutations to be convincing offense against CPs, Affs should explain how permutation works and what voting for perm means (does the DA go away, do I automatically vote against neg etc?)
Tag team is fine as long as you don’t start taking over cross-ex and dominating. You are part of a 2 person team for a reason.
Speed is ok as long as you are clear. If you have a ton of analytics in a row or are explaining a new/dense theory, you may want to slow down a little since processing time for flowing analytics or kritkits is a little slower than me just flowing the text of your evidence.
I listen to cross ex. I think teams come up with a lot of good arguments during this time. If you come up with an argument in cross ex-add it to the flow in your speech.